Even at the most prestigious American Universities, a war currently wages. Around Halloween each year, there is often a debate on college campuses across the United States as to whether students should be allowed to wear costumes that could be deemed stereotypical or offensive. Just this past month a prestigious Yale lecturer, Erika Christakis, found herself at the center of a campuswide upheaval after she sent an email urging a dialogue on the controversy. Instead of inspiring that dialogue, Christakis found herself the target of an endless barrage of protests and backlash that eventually ended in her resignation from the college. The following is an excerpt from the email Christakis sent to the students of Yale’s Silliman: “I wonder, and …show more content…
Although there are some limits, the citizens of this country can write whatever they please without fear of persecution by the government. This is an integral part of the society that we live in today, however this does not mean they are not subject to attack and scrutiny from the voices of others. Take for example the controversy surrounding Ward Churchill and his work On the Justice Roosting of Chickens. In the book, Churchill likened those who died in the attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 to little Eichmanns, technocrats of an empire (Ward). His work was widely published and was in no way censored, yet this did not save him from an endless barrage of scrutiny from all ends of the political and social spectrum. He was invited onto Fox News’ The Kelly File where they debated the implications of his writing and gave him a chance to defend himself. This is the very spirit of dialogue that we must strive to inspire. Freedom of speech cannot be used only to protect the opinions and ideals of only the ‘just’. Absolute freedom of speech must be extended to all ideological minorities regardless of moral standing. Instead of silencing those we disagree with, we must seek change their ideas so that society can move forward
In the short essay “In Defense of Dangerous Ideas”, the author, Steven Pinker, argues that we must be free to express “dangerous ideas.” These ideas can be anything remotely controversial; making a variety of people uncomfortable or offended. According to Pinker, there is a certain way that society should function. He often refers to the ones in charge, the ones asking the questions, as “intellectually responsible.” As for the rest of society, they are simply the ones offended by these questions. In essence, Steven Pinker uses academic disciplines to argue that important ideas need to be aired and discussed, no matter the discomfort. Although I cannot agree with him completely, I do not believe that it is morally
Although some like Conor Friedersdorf, of the Atlantic, categorized students as “intolerant bullies, (34)” meaning that the reasons for protests were not really reasons at all. Chang argues that the issues students are expressing need to be improved upon as if not, we will continue to go round and round in this vicious cycle. The addition of the apartheid in South Africa backs up Chang’s argument as there is a consensus of it being a serious issue. This explains why he included this piece of history and how it relates to college campuses. Encouraging critics to listen to students, just as Meyer did to those of color, is the only way to prevent today's youth from bring up the same issues in future years. Just as Chang predicted, the next school year brought protesters to hundreds of colleges and universities. What happened at Mizzou was just the beginning of a country wide movement for racial justice on campuses that hasn’t stopped
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
The common reading of the First Amendment is that commitment to free speech is not the acceptance of only non-controversial expressions that enjoy general approval. To accept a commitment to the First Amendment means, in the words of Justice Holmes, “freedom for what we hate.” As quoted in Students’ Right to Read (NCTE, 1982), “Censorship leaves students with an inadequate and distorted picture of the ideals, values, and problems of their culture. Writers may often be the spokesmen of their culture, or they may stand to the side, attempting to describe and evaluate that culture. Yet, partly because of censorship or the fear of censorship, many writers are ignored or inadequately represented in the public schools, and many are represented in anthologies not by their best work but by their safest or least offensive work.” What are the issues involved in censorship?
The censorship of ideas is seen, not only on American soil, but in other countries, both now and in history. In a world where governments are to be respected, to think in a contradictory manner is anything but safe. All throughout history, ideological governmen...
The people who question censorship and the use of censorship are known as the people who are against or anti-censorship. People who are anti-censorship believes that nothing should be hidden, and that everything should be open to the public. Gavin Mcinnes is a 45-year-old (2016) who is a writer, an actor, and comedian. Gavin Mcinnes had written an article which was taken down because it “has been reported by the community as hateful or abusive content” (Brown 1). The people who read Mcinnes article didn’t have to read or continue reading it when they became displeased with Mcinnes’s view. Those people did not have to read it if they did not like it. “The publication can choose what to publish… no matter how much outrage that content provokes”
The article ¨Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” delineates when Salman Rushdie published his novel that consisted of many unfair statements about Muslims, there were many violent protests around the world as an outcome (1). Rushdie, the author of the very controversial novel, pleaded that the First Amendment protected his writings, but this is invalid. His writings caused riots that turned to be extremely violent where many people got hurt; furthermore, since his words caused this chaos, he is no longer protected. The Constitution does not provide any statements that prove that these people who start riots are to be protected under their rights. The American people must wake up and realize that their ignorant actions are not protected; moreover, their actions are their responsibility. They chose to speak their mind, so they must have to own up to the repercussions that follow. If a person is responsible for causing a riot that ends in many injuries, or even death, they should not be able to claim that the First Amendment protects their violations. The article continues with if a person were to stand up in front of a large or small crowd and purposely speak of topics that would begin a riot, they would not be protected under the First Amendment (1). Many individuals are unaware that as soon as they begin speaking of controversial topics, and purposely
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
middle of paper ... ... Retrieved 11 20, 2010, from First Amendment Center: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=pledge. Jr., D. L. (2010, 11 19). Student Expression. Retrieved 11 23, 2010, from First Amendment Center: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms.
"What is at stake here it the right to read and be exposed to controversial, thoughts and language. The most effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy is ready access to a broad sweep of ideas and philosophies. There is no danger in such exposure. The danger is mind control especially when that control is exercised by a few over the majority" (qtd. in Hunt
In America, “The World’s Melting Pot”, we are all unique and should be seen as individuals. Wearing a uniform does not allow for students to demonstrate their individuality; they have to dress conforming to the school’s uniform policy. According to Akerlof and Kranton, “...with attempting to establish a sense of community might be the loss of student’s sense of identification with the school, which could in turn yield lowered outcomes in effort and skills”. These policies leave the students questioning themselves and wondering, “Who am I?”. A survey, of 100 random students, conducted at Zapata High School showed that 72% of students reviewed felt that wearing a uniform suppresses their ability to express themselves as individuals. Forcing students to wear a uniform is also going against the first amendment, which clearly prohibits Congress from making laws that violate freedom of speech; it includes freed...
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...