Students/faculty making brash decisions to disinvite speakers because of one thing from the speaker’s past is mental filtering. For a person to be allowed to speak on campus, they must be considered pure by the students and staff, or at least from their background
Trigger Warnings on College Campuses Rhetorical Analysis Writers Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, in their article “The Coddling of the American Mind”, detail the effects that safe spaces and trigger warnings are having on college campuses. They claim that “in the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like” and add they will explain “why that’s disastrous for education and mental health”. Through the use of the word “increasingly”, the writers recognize that not all students are following the damaging trend, but instead it is becoming progressively prevalent and as a result needs to be addressed. Throughout the article, explanations are given for the stance against shielding students from opinions they find oppressive, as well as ways to combat and fix the problem. Through this, the writers hope to promote a college experience where students can feel safe and
Dr. Bennet Omalu said, “I wish I never met Mike Webster. CTE has driven me into the politics of science, the politics of the NFL. You can’t go against the NFL. They will squash you.” Dr. Bennet is saying the NFL is to powerful and they’re not helping protect their players.
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
Instead of giving in to these students’ demands, universities should abandon restrictive speech codes and officially discourage trigger warnings. Universities should also prepare students for how to live in a world with potential offenses, an example of this is teaching them practices of cognitive behavioral therapy. A suggestion that I have for a future study is to teach students throughout high school the practices of cognitive behavioral therapy to help cope with emotionally discomforting subjects, as well as inform them that the real world will have no “trigger warnings” to help you through life. By doing this, it exposes people to the fact that reality doesn’t accommodate trigger warnings and cop outs due to emotional health reasons, and it gives them methods to combat these anxiety-inducing subjects to help them live their lives. These findings teach us that in life we will have to deal with discomforting people and opinions, but by knowing how to live
The First Amendment aims to protect the right of freedom of religion and the right of freedom of expression of all United States citizens. However, Lawrence states “The Supreme Court has held that words that ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or intend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ are not constitutionally protected.” (Lawrence, pg 175) The First Amendment does not protect speech that maintains a sole purpose to inflict harm on other people. “Racial insults are undeserving for First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim” (Lawrence, pg 175)
Most students seeking a secondary education after high school and choosing what they are going to do, it is a challenging phase to go through, especially being eighteen years old. In high school, people are barely given the freedom to go to school and come back without guidance. At times, people seeking secondary education are strung along by "counselors" who make it seem like the next four years of our lives will be "the greatest years of our lives. " This isn't an argumentative essay about how students are deprived and stripped of their independence. Nor is it a persuasive essay about the challenges adolescents face going through this transition of "finding themselves.
Tring to understand the events that happened, do to a religion stand point can become complex and extremely confusing. Dr. James Hutson, a Historian and chief in the Manuscript Division at the library of congress, discusses what rights are and what “a right” means. Dr. Hutson work and findings lead him to believe that giving ‘a right’ a definition was not logical but rather ‘a right’ was divided in to different categories. Dr. Hutson also talks about the founding father of the United States, which he says, had their actions greatly influenced by their believes and faiths. The right of being educated, or rather even having the right of education didn’t mean that the education was not influenced by the church.
Hi Kelly, I truly enjoyed your informative presentation. It is obvious that the APA provides effective standards for evaluator to adopt and initiate on their professional life when working on organization program and socially acquainting with individuals interested with the program. The evaluation must be done well with no notions involving negative thought, tricking, or manipulating with intent to override the investigation or miscommunicate with others. Consecutive communicative interaction with stakeholders informing them of the evaluation progress would enhance their motivation and contribution to a long life program. It is true that the evaluator has the duty to salvage participants’ safety and protect them from any harms, and protecting
Entering adulthood it is important to learn how to express one’s views effectively. The First Amendment protects our right to express our beliefs, however, our right to speak should not inhibit others right to their own voices. Lucia Valdivia, a professor at Reed College, believes the key is to be open to others opinions, not necessarily having to respect them or agree with them. At colleges such as Emory University, hate speech codes are being enacted to outline prohibited behavior. Banned behavior includes conduct directed at any person or, group of people because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran 's status and that has the purpose of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment (Uelmen).
A liberal arts institution is designed to open the minds of students to new ideologies and philosophies, regardless of how uncomfortable those outlooks are. However, by notifying students in advance about potentially sensitive topics, it makes it extremely feasible for students to reject opposing viewpoints or information that may conflict with their current beliefs. The inclusion of trigger warnings could allow for students to disregard topics that they are simply bitter about or disagree with. In actuality, it is very likely that the amount of
(Mannheimer 1) Fighting words can not only cause injury and hurt people, but also break the peaceful conversation and atmosphere. Although both kinds put the emotion into are the same anger, hate and frustration, hate speech considers as is a form of self-expression but side effects of hate speech many times include violence too. So even though hate speech is not intended to start a fight, a little bit of common sense must be employed to realize it is just as dangerous as fighting words, especially on campus. When racist speech takes the form of face-to-face insults, catcalls, aimed at an individual or small group of persons on campus, it falls directly within the fighting words, which is exception to first amendment protection.
The main argument Kevin Kelly estates is how the development of technology, robots to be precise, has the possibility to expand many possibilities in human's lifestyle. This doesn't necessarily means robots take control over everything, since new jobs and ideas are the results of this progress over time. Kelly view robots as an effective process that would make the human race not only achieve their everyday life goals in a simpler way, but also throughout the years new activities and goals could be perceive caused by machines. In today's culture, we are familiarize with machines, our tasks have been easy to achieve and we have much more time to do other things thanks to this. Baxter, a revolutionary workbot designed by Rodney Brooks, is an example for what could be the future alongside humans.
Daniel Goleman used anecdotes in order to convince the reader that technology captures our attention and disrupts our connections. Goleman writes, “The little girl’s head came up only to her mother’s waist as they rode a ferry to a vacation island. The mother, though, didn’t respond to her, or even seem to notice; she was absorbed in her iPad all the while” (1). This explains how a young girl went to hug her mother, but her mother did not notice because all her attention was focused on her iPad (technology). This quote is an anecdote because it is a short, personal story.