Students should be allowed to read George Orwell’s 1984 in school. Although the book displays the distrust of the government, radical communism, anti-socialism, explicit sexual content, physical and psychological torture this doesn’t take away from that the book is conveying a message, that people should have free will in the battle against a suppresser because the book conveys the will of someone that doesn’t give up till the end to try and find out the “truth”. The book however shows that people shouldn’t give up to become a drone of a suspicious government, and to seek out the truth behind the façade, and that people aren’t what they really seem to be. Rebellion, the act or process of resisting authority, control or convention. In 1984, the definition of Rebellion is spread throughout the pages.
Though there are some exceptions, the young generation at large today has been brainwashed by politically correct culture. That culture shuns complex thought, and makes any dissent from the PC mainstream punishable by shunning, yelling, and attempts to silence. It runs rampant on college campuses, and Hofstra is no exception. Trigger warnings are unfortunately a major aspect of this culture, and there is little remedy other than to save the minds of those we can still sway. As best summarized by the American Association of University Professors, “The presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at Georgetown University Law Center about freedom of speech on campuses or lack thereof. He described, from his perspective, how he felt college campuses needed more allowance of free speech, regardless of who it was coming from. The LA Times has expressed that even though his words are true, they worry the message will be misinterpreted because of who Sessions works under and his more conservative views. In Jeff Sessions’ address to Georgetown University Law Center, he claimed that freedom of thought and expression were under attack on college campuses and are beginning to turn into an “echo chamber of political correctness and homogeneous thought”. He uses the example of a group of students coming together
Even though considering race in the college admission process creates student-wide diversity, racial preferences should not exist in the admission process because Affirmative Action policies are inequitable, give an unfair advantage to students that do not deserve it, and leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action policies used in college admissions are unfair. They do not advocate for equality of all people. These policies do not evenhandedly measure one’s academic skills. Whether or not a person is accepted into a college has nothing to do with their academics.
The goal of the usage of this fact is to show readers this common term does not reflect real traits of smart people and can be treated as an insult because of that. It is one of the few examples of Fridman’s appeals to readers’ logic. The essay is based on general data; the author mentioned schools and universities promote negative attitude to smart students: “Nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized” (Fridman). But he did not use any statistical or science data to support his position. For example, Fridman could provide data about scholarships and other types of funding for sports and other activities.
Today’s college students are becoming more sensitized to the harshness of the outside world. Instead of learning to be resilient to others’ comments, they are being taught to take offense to any little word that could in some way be connected with a bad experience they might have had, and college administrators and professors are aiding this childish behavior. They are backing this movement to make adults into children. With this new movement to rid college campuses of any speech that may make anyone feel uncomfortable, students are being treated less like adults, and more like elementary children. In their essay, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathon Haidt express their concern about this movement.
However, those attending Harvard question the validity of the system and are skeptical of its effectiveness, saying, “critics – especially Harvard students – are skeptical that signing a piece of paper will suddenly cause a cheater to change his ways.” Essentially, the only thing that will determine a student’s behavior and integrity (or lack thereof) is whether they choose to conduct themselves in a proper manner, not the honor code. In addition, the article also suggests that if an “honest” student was surrounded by “cheater” students, the dishonest culture would advocate for the the student to also partake in illicit behavior due to pressure from peers. From my perspective, this wouldn’t just fail to effectively promote virtue across Windham High School’s student body, but the practice of encouraging an honors system would lead to unfortunate implications as student’s will conduct themselves in a stealthier manner as they attempt to evade authority and punishment in their efforts break rules. A decision such as this one made at Windham High School would also be subjected to this similar criticism as this culture of honesty vs integrity when discussing cheating, plagiarism, and other forms of rule breaking can also be seen here at Windham High
Which is why college is a place to get degrees not money. If they really want to earn money they should wait to make it to the professionals. Why should college athletes get paid? If they’re just college students ,not professionals….yet. College athletes should not get paid because they were the ones that signed
Hate speech includes, but is not limited to, gesture, conduct, writing, or verbal communication that might encourage discriminatory behavior to a protected individual or group of individuals. Many universities are committed to creating an atmosphere of equal opportunity that harbors talent, creativity and ingenuity. Speech codes are not only justifiable, but are also essential to campuses because they do not allow the use of hate speech. One who is for the use of speech codes on campuses may argue alongside Lawrence in saying that it is unacceptable to use hate speech in any scenario or environment because it suppresses the voices of minorities. Lawrence presents the idea that “the subordinate victims of fighting words are silenced by their relatively powerless position in society.” (pg 176) When someone is a victim of
Campus safety, potential plummet in academic success, and the numerous alternatives to handguns are all prime examples why concealed carry should not be permitted on college campuses. Keeping college campuses gun free will allow students to attend classes and walk back to their dorms without any fear for their lives. Allowing firearms on campus only destroys the entire campus lifestyle and environment. Guns are a very dangerous weapon and should be kept out of the hands of people who are not capable of handling the power. Placing an embargo on concealed carry will benefit every person in making their lives safer while at
Concealed Carry on College Campuses Concealed carry on college campuses is an ongoing controversy in today’s society. There are a lot of questions and valid points from both sides of agreement and disagreement. The following essay will answer the readers’ questions about concealed carry and persuade them to agree with the right side. According to Armed Capuses.org, “The overwhelming majority of the 4,400 colleges and universities in the United States prohibit the carrying of firearms on their campuses”. The controversy that surrounds the concealed carry on college campuses vary from negative comments to positive comments.
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 controversy over where free speech should be considered unacceptable continues on, even around the Vietnam War. In recent days, college students around the country have been adapting to the idea of having ordinary public “safe spaces.” Safe spaces are basically areas that people can go to, where their opinions won’t face challenges, ridicule, or criticism in any shape or form. This could easily compare to a more “official” way of plugging your ears to avoid someone’s opinion that you don’t find agreeable. As well as many people believing that safe spaces are childish and coddling, others add that safe spaces are also a restriction on everyone’s ability to speak freely, implying that safe spaces actually do become commonplace. But what about
In “A Better Way to Prevent Student Cheating”, David Callahan states academic cheating is rampant and needs to be viewed as an issue of justice. Callahan shows that there is no concrete reason why not to cheat, or plagiarize, amongst college students. Many students believe that the only way a person becomes successful is through the act of cheating. For instance, the students cited that politicians lie and pro-athletes cheat their way through triumph. Although they are told on numerous occasions that doing this does not help them out, it is only on the contrary- everyone does it and by doing it right, cheating only helps students advance academically.
In fact, the prospect of guns in the classroom is more likely to cause professors to keep the conversation tepid and avoid certain controversies; everyone else will watch what they say, how they say it and to whom. This would be quite the opposite of the open and transformative exchange that universities have made it their mission to offer. There is a further point. As we saw in the aftermath of the Ferguson and Staten Island police incidents, and earlier with the Occupy Wall Street movement, university campuses are places where political protest takes root. Perhaps colleges are not quite the haven for political protest that they once were -- like, say, in the 1960 's.