More handpicked essays just for you.
Has political correctness gone too far essay
Political correctness in communication
Is political correctness a good thing essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Has political correctness gone too far essay
All over the country, universities are setting up areas called “safe spaces” where potential harmful ideas are not allowed in order to protect students from ideas that may “trigger” or offend them. These occurrences are all apart of the “Political Correctness” movement that encourages people to avoid certain words and phrases that insult or marginalize minorities and the disadvantaged. Many schools, however, are fighting against this phenomenon. The Dean of the University of Chicago sent a letter to the incoming freshman class warning them that “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” would not be tolerated at the university (Levinovitz). He was met with hostility as students “argued that the dean willfully ignored or misunderstood these intended
In Kate Manne’s article “Why I Use Trigger Warnings”, she argues that trigger warnings are an important feature to incorporate in an educator’s curriculum, but not as a safety cushion for millennials to fall on to avoid work and serious or uncomfortable topics. Using PTSD studies along with failed tests of exposure therapy for the foundation of her points, she explains that trigger warnings can help mentally prepare a student for what they are about to read instead of blindsiding them and throwing them into a potentially anxiety-induced state where they can’t focus. Manne also brings up how people can react when reading political or religious material in comparison towards reading possibly triggering material in order to differentiate between
Charles R. Lawrence intended audience in his article “On Racist Speech” is college students and universities. His sense of tone is forthcoming. Lawerence word choice sets the tone by using the words conspicuous,dissenter, and bigot. The article gives examples of how universities do not protect minority college students. Lawrence states that universities should protect their students He also gives an example of how universities have tried to have rules to ban racist speech yet they have proven ineffective in stopping racial slurs. The regulations have not stopped the verbal brutality yet it has stopped the occurrences of physical fights. He mentions how students do not have any need to be hurt verbally.
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
They should start discussions about rape and sexist cases because it’s going on in today’s society and for people to know it’s okay to talk about it if it ever happened to them. Colleges need to prepare students for the real word so they need to have real life discussions in class for the students that are growing up and entering the workforce. College campuses are going through the mircoagression theory and professors fear to talk about trigger warnings in class when both students and professors should have freedom of speech in classrooms. “One of my biggest concerns about trigger warnings,” Roff wrote, “is that they will apply not just to those who have experienced trauma, but to all students, creating an atmosphere in which they are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.” (49). Professors try to avoid teaching material that will upset sensitive students, but instead they should start warning students about the materials they are going to teach and set boundaries so students can know what they are about to learn to prevent teachers from getting in trouble or risk getting fired from their
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
In “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff they say “when students come to expect trigger warnings for any material that makes them uncomfortable, the easiest way for faculty to stay out of trouble is to avoid material that might upset the most sensitive student in the class”. Instead of teaching, teachers are focusing on not upsetting students and getting rid of anything that might trigger someone. Haidt and Lukianoff also state that “demands for trigger warnings on reading assignments with provocative content is an example of fortune telling”. This is because a trigger warning is like predicting that something bad will happen or that things will get worse, when really there is no way to know unless you experience
Today, there are student laws regarding disruption that were brought about because of the court case (Sternburg). If what is said is not disruptive in the classroom, create chaos, or invade other 's rights, it is considered acceptable (McPherson 86). The students involved in the Tinker case were lucky since they were protected because they were not disruptive, nor was there offensive speech (“Tinker v. Des Moines: Establishing the Right”). It is important for students to avoid disruptions to prevent offensive speech that could be taken as
According to The Coddling of the American Mind, trigger warnings and microaggressions confine professors’ and well-educated adults’ unalienable right of speech; furthermore, they can impact one’s health. Protecting rights have a unison consensus; the authors unite them and the audience together to persuade the well-educated adults to protest the use of trigger warnings and microaggressions. While concluding that vindictive protectiveness is the reason for trigger warnings and microaggressions Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt state, “A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety.” (45) The word “policing” holds a negative connotation implying regulation, and no one wants their first amendment right of free speech stolen from them. Also the idea that trigger warnings and microaggressions may lead to depression and anxiety gives more logical reasoning to end trigger warnings and microaggressions in higher level education. When the authors specify the change that colleges should make, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt write their idea of the purpose of college, “Rather than
Although trigger warnings sound like a harmless idea to many, there is an extreme controversy about whether or not they should be used in college lectures. Many college professors have conflicting views about trigger warnings; some agree on using them while others are against it. This debate topic is particularly intriguing in Kate Manne’s article in the New York Times titled, “Why I Use Trigger
In an allegedly postmodern world, when looking at tolerance for ideologies other than our own is said to be the only absolute and controlling ideology. Inasmuch, as its doctrine of “sin” suggests that all humans are inherently flawed; Christianity is often viewed as judgmental and intolerant of others. Granted the approach of a certain Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas pushes the extreme that makes all Christians cringe in this area. Christians should not be embarrassed of the doctrine of sin today. Moreover, Christianity should not try to soften what it says about the human condition to be more readily acceptable to a broader world. This world needs help, guidance, and rules if we are to succeed as a human race.
The authors of “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, use ethos, logos, and pathos convey their negative stance regarding trigger warnings and the effect they on education. Lukianoff and Haidt’s use of rhetorical appeal throughout the article adds to the author’s credibility and the strength of the argument against increasing the use of trigger warnings in school material. The authors, Lukianoff and Haidt, rely heavily upon the use of logos, such as relations between conflicts surrounding trigger warnings and other historical conflicts impacting student ethics. Examples of the use of these logical appeals are the relation between the Columbine Massacre and the younger generations ideology. The author goes on to mention other societal turning points such
Some people say that political correctness should not be an issue and that it may have run amok. I understand that our First Amendment states our right to speak freely, but there are definitely certain situations where it matters what people say. My belief is that when you have any political following or any influence on a population you should be careful with the words you say. Average Americans who do not have any influence on the mass populous should not be hindered from completing their jobs. Political correctness is one of the largest problems we have in America today and we are not taking it seriously enough.
People may advocate that if there were no safe zones, students would not have a place to go where they could be protected from exposure to a hate crime. Contrary to this statement, any adept college campus should be able to effectively distinguish between students who are expressing their personal opinions and students who having a goal of undermining others. If universities are able to appropriately draw the line between discriminating and expression of opinion, then safe zones become unnecessary. Because the scale of what would be considered discriminating can be questionable and line is hard to draw, people have to take it into their own hands to be considerate of their peers. With respect and the mutual goal of personal growth, it would be possible to eliminate the idea of safe
During the 60’s and 70’s, people have thrashed out with their words and each other. This caused some awareness in schools due to the offensiveness of the matter. During the 80’s schools began on focusing on preventing this kind of speech on their campuses. Since then, students have become more and more sensitive in a negative way. The authors used an example of a kid shouting “Shut up, you water buffalo” at an Israeli born student. That incident made national news, just for calling another kid a “water buffalo.” Another example is when a university found a student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book honoring student opposition to the Ku Klux Clan. The picture on the cover of the book offended one of the student’s co-workers. Just because the student was reading a book, minding his own business, the student was punished from the university. Never said anything or hurt anyone physically, and his education was ruined by someone taking offense to a book he was reading. The authors used this extreme example to prove that accepting the fact that student are fragile and letting them be fragile is not the right way to go and the past can prove
This article explores the increasing hypersensitivity of college students. Universities are protecting students against uncomfortable ideas, which leads to vindictive protectiveness; vindictive protectiveness can encourage more hostile and violent responses to various microaggressions. Furthermore, social media has led to an increasing amount of vindictive protectiveness, since students are coming together on a global scale to campaign more easily. Combined together, these negative thoughts against different viewpoints discourages critical thing. As a result, this is weakening American democracy and the workforce because it does not prepare students to succeed in a world full of diverse viewpoints.