The University of Southern California’s tradition known as the “burning of the Bruin” was being reconsidered recently. The long running tradition consists of a huge stuffed bear being thrown into a bonfire the night before the football game against the school’s rival, UCLA. The Black Student Union and other student organizations attacked the event for being insensitive. Their concern was that the event called lynchings of African Americans in the American South during the 19th and 20th centuries to mind. This accusation raises the question of whether it is appropriate and acceptable to censor ideas that are not created in an attempt to offend certain groups. The definition of political correctness is the idea that people should be careful to …show more content…
Strip a university of its traditions and all you have is a school. It seems that the concept that one cannot please everyone all the time still needs to be learned. Another lesson that needs to be learned is to face offensive language head on instead of hiding from it. This cannot happen, however, if colleges are sheltering their students. In a speech covered by Vanity Fair of September 15th 2015, President Obama said “I don’t agree that … students at colleges have to be coddled and protected from different points of views.” It is the duty of a university to teach it’s students how to live in the real world. How can they do this if they continue to coddle …show more content…
This is only a teddy bear in question. It is ridiculous to compare the personification of a toy animal to past atrocities. In the defense of PC, the argument that the offensive language is distracting does have value. However, this argument is weak because there are a great many things in life that are distracting. The best way for someone to deal with this is to learn how to not be offended by the hurtful speech and offensive actions that inevitably exist in our world. It may be distracting, but if students do not learn how to deal with hurtful speech, they will remain coddled, which will harm them more. In his book “1984”, George Orwell wrote of a nation that eliminated all unnecessary words and actions. This government even went as far as to try to control thought. I fear that if left alone, the PC movement could lead to this. PC has already overstepped its original boundaries and attacked a tradition only remotely related to the offensive actions that the movement was designed to fight. If the PC movement desires to salvage its mission, it should collectively step back and choose its battles wisely. We cannot have EVERYTHING personally tailored so it doesn’t offend
In a generation focused on social justice and the elimination of prejudice from our society, there is still a use of offensive language and terminology in the area of professional sports. In “The Indian Wars” by S. L. Price, Price attempts to make the reader aware of sports teams that use derogatory terms as their team name and their mascot. He does this by highlighting football, and trying to determine whether Native-Americans are offended by team names in sports, or more specifically, the Redskins. Price’s essay is ineffective because although he raises good points, he doesn’t help the reader to form an opinion by adding historical context to the derogatory names used. He also uses inaccurate poll results to make assumptions about the feelings
In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind” the authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt express that college campuses in America are dealing with emotional discomfort every day. They point out whether we are too emotional on certain topics in our lives or we need to change something on college campuses to have students feel more comfortable. College student have experienced a lot in life so I think that campuses should help college students through traumatic experiences in their past instead of not acknowledging certain topics and banning them to discuss in class like rape and domestic violence which happens in our everyday life. Colleges need to step up and talk about these things so students can feel more comfortable.
Tim Wise’s video, “Beyond Diversity: The Hidden Curriculum of Privilege - Part 5” resonated with me. In the video, he gave examples of institutionalized racism in institutions of higher education. He gave the example of the University of Texas ghetto party. The University of Texas is my alma mater. I graduated from the university of Texas a little over a year ago, and I have tremendous respect for the educational institution. It is a wonderful university and in a lot of ways it champions diversity. However, during orientation, before I had even started class at the University, I encountered more racial discrimination and sexism than I had at in my life. My college orientation began as I witnessed bleach bombs dropped on students of color and ended with a sexist party that depicted women in the office or workplace as sexual objects for men thereby championing sexual discrimination in the workplace (the name of the party is not appropriate to post in an academic forum). Throughout my college experience, I began to reflect on why I had never noticed racial
He appeals to the concerns of the audience by addressing the First Amendment mentioning the fact that “Speech protected under the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil (4).” The opinion of Bok conveys the difference between what is displayed as insensitive of ones beliefs and causes others to be uncomfortable in their environment of higher learning. He argues that the students who displayed the Confederate flag had to have known that their actions would be upsetting and offensive to some students. As a result feelings are involved and could very well affect the community of which the students reside. By pointing this out Bok hopes to persuade universities to come up with a better way to exercise the First Amendment and avoid racial tension amongst the student
So, what is college hate speech? According to Griffin, Sullivan, and Robertson (2010), hate speech is
In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians, and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980's. Outrage, indignation and demands for change are the responses to these incidents - understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses. Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or olicies prhibiting speech that offends any group based on race gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
In the article, Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus by Derek Bok published in 1991, expresses how the university of Harvard struggles with the freedom of speech and racial slurs. Bok talks about how two students hung a confederate flag in public on Harvard’s campus. Bok explains that the students were upset that the Confederate flags were in plain eyesight. Bok talks about how the flag represents slavery, and a third student tried to protest the flag with displaying a Swastika. However, a great number of students think that it is a symbol of hatred; and others seem to think that it is a symbol of freedom of speech, which is the first Amendment of the United States of America.
Studies from universities such as UCLA, show, “ emotional harm is the equal intensity to that experienced by the body, and even long-lasting and traumatic.” ( Rosenbaum, 173) a university like to claim their reasoning to limit free speech on campus is to protect students them physically and emotionally by essentially limited their first amendment rights. That is not from of protection limiting students rights is not a long term solution. It is true that freedom of speech unconditionally is taking for granted when slander is direct to aggressively attacking someone which might lead to physical harm. It is a good thing that campuses and employers take action to prevent such events from happing. But at the cost of limiting the first amendment right is not the way to go. Most employees working in the private sector generally have no right to free speech, for those who break company policy can deal with disciplinary consequences and lost their job which is why most do not choose to fight against not have their first amendment right exercised. In 2010 a student by the name of Amanda Tatro poses a very controversial blog on social media facebook when the school found out about it. They took immediate action, amends “ criminal investigation concluded that Tatro had no intent to harm anyone, but the university imposed disciplinary charges anyway, including a failing grade and mandatory psychiatric exam.” ( LoMonte) even though Amanda was not on campus physically nor did she target any special person emotionally or physically, the campus power over limiting her right to free speech resulted in bad consequences for her actions which led to no harm. This is not right, an American citizen got in trouble for expression their first ardent right setting right at home causing no harm to no one. It is true slander
In three of the six articles I have read the author was for regulating hate speech. Those three are Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence III, author of ?If he Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus (155),? and also Richard Delgado and David H. Yun, authors of ?Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation? (162). Matsuda believes that hate speech is assualtive against race and sexism (150). I also believe that hate speech is assualtive, especially when it is a racial or sexual comment. Lawrence believes that ?minority-group students need this support of protection? (155). This I also agree with. Students should be able to walk throughout their campus without having to worry about what will be said to them that day. Delgado and Yun believe that the parenthetical ...
A story commonly spread through word of mouth, Charles Perrault wrote an early rendition of Little Red Riding Hood in 1697. Between the late 17th century and today, there have been a few changes in societal norms, customs, and understandings of social values. To summarize, laws based on religion have given way to laws based on science…in turn, scientists have taken their newfound social power and discovered ways to destroy all life on Earth…following that, humans have practiced leaving the planet, preparing for the inevitable day when our self-created nuclear holocaust gives us no other choice…and lastly, various oppressed social groups, recognizing that they would also like a seat on their starship to salvation, have fought for their civil rights and equality through various social reform movements. A side effect, political correctness, is the attempt to rid the English language of any terms, phrases, or expressions that would encourage our society to remain rooted in its biased theories of the past. Thus, we are now at an age where a maxim is placed upon the empowerment of the individual, no matter who you are or what formerly oppressed group you may represent, with an equally strong maxim placed upon breaking any barriers that block the empowerment of the individual.
It is even more difficult to regulate this in the classroom. If students are sheltered while in college they lack the valuable exposure to different ideas that will help them later in life to work with people they do not necessarily agree with. When teachers are forced to use trigger warning and discouraged from using material that may trigger students the academic integrity of the system is threatened. If students are never forced to face their fears or read about discrimination, learning about controversial issues is nearly impossible. In the adult world, you cannot avoid topics that make you uncomfortable, and by learning to confront this in college, students would be better prepared for the real world. Speech codes at colleges need to be reevaluated and loosed to allow teachers and fellow students the challenge beliefs and debate tough issues. While allowing more freedom, colleges also have the moral obligation to prevent hate speech and discrimination, just not in a way that focuses microaggressions and forces students to watch everything they
In order to create a space that is safe for all people, a university community should instead commit to endorse in speech and action those values it agrees with. Allowing acts of hate speech does not mean granting them an equal platform, nor does it mean shielding them from criticism. In fact, it is probably more effective for opponents of hate speech to openly debate hateful ideas than to ban them. Minds are not changed by repression. Mill knew that, and the very purpose of a university is based upon that
Some colleges and learning institutions in America are not much in favor of diversity, but East Tennessee University has created a niche by its love for diversity. Each year, students from various countries are granted admission, making diversity a much discussed topic. But the event that occurred during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest will not be quickly forgotten. A peaceful protest by some black students which was termed, “Black lives matters” was met with a horrific twist as a white student was seen with a gorilla mask dangling banana on a string in the faces of the black protesters. The image of the student carrying a sack with the Confederate flag intimidating the black students was all over social media. The incident outraged many
On American college campuses nowadays, many people talk about microaggressions and political correctness. For example, there is an Asian guy studying in the library, and a white guy comes up to him and asks for help with his math homework. Some people say this act is offensive because the white guy assumes that the Asian guy is good at mathematics because he is Asian. There are many stereotypes about Asians in the U.S, and being good at math is one of them. Stereotypes are usually bad, but in this case, the Asian guy should not be offended by the act of being asked to help with mathematics even if he is not good at math. It is true that it depends on the acts, they can be offensive sometimes, but people are focusing so much about not offending others’ feelings and try to avoid microaggressions and be politically correct nowadays. Additionally, many universities promote the political correctness to students and professors. Therefore, this recent
The most debatable and controversial form of censorship today is the banning of books in school libraries. Banning books that educate students is wrong and selfish. Censorship of books in school libraries is neither uncommon nor an issue of the past. Books with artistic and cultural worth are still challenged constantly by those who want to control what others read. The roots of bigotry and illiteracy that fuel efforts to censor books and free expression are unacceptable and unconditional. Censoring school books in libraries can often lead to censorship of our basic freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. In some cases, a minority ends up dictating the majority in censorship cases. To be told what is permissible reading material and what is not is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.