More handpicked essays just for you.
Lack of diversity in higher ed
Introduction about diversity in college
Introduction about diversity in college
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Lack of diversity in higher ed
Lukianoff and Haidt provide examples of how students are trying to eliminate speech that may be found offensive or discomforting on campus in their article for The Atlantic. Two fairly recent terms to understanding this development in student ideology are “microaggression” and “trigger warning.” A microaggression is inadvertently insulting someone or a group of people with something that was not meant to be offensive. A trigger warning is a warning often provided to students when the subject matter of a class may be found offensive or elicit a strong emotional response. These two terms represent the change in ideology towards speech on campuses.
Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article. David Bok’s reasoning for how racist speech can be solved is flawed.
In his book, The Harm in Hate Speech, Jeremy Waldron defines the concept of dignity as an individual’s “social standing, the fundamentals of basic reputation that entitle them to be treated as equals in the ordinary operations of society” (Waldron, 5). It is an essential part of maintaining the ability to be an active member of society. Hate speech is designed to get rid of it. Dignity is incredibly malleable and easily taken away through language. Without dignity, one loses what Waldron describes as assurance, or confirmation of secure social standing.
For that reason, Students should be obligated to sign a pledge that prohibits offensive language, so long as the terms outline the qualifications for punishment and what the punishment
Currently, the United State’s criterion on Speech includes, “obscenity, fraud, child pornography, harassment, incitement to illegal conduct and imminent lawless action, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising, copyright or patent rights” (Gaudefroy 3). However, speech involving discriminatory words or racial intentions are protected by the law. To avoid instances that degrade the minority group, stricter rules need to be enforced on the delicate topic. Restrictions on hate speech should include usage of “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, and conspiracy-laden language” (Gaudefroy 3). Efforts to restrict these types of beliefs would create a more safe and equal society for all individuals.
A speech code is any university policy that forbids the use of hateful or contemptuous expressions towards any social group, particularly those categorized based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc. In this essay, I will explain why such regulations are justifiable for the reasons that Charles R. Lawrence Ⅲ states in Racist Speech as the Functional Equivalent of Fighting Words. He argues that speech codes “[do] nothing more than prohibit intentional face-to-face insults”(pg 175), and that “racial insults are undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim.”(pg 175) A prime reason for many universities
The teaching tolerance website was easy to explore and once you open the website you will find different hate crime-related subjects. Some of the couple subjects were bullying, civil rights, and immigration. There are not complete articles on the website but rather abstracts of stories that were written in books. Most of these curricula only give you an abstract of what the author wrote, they give you an idea of what the story is about and if you are interested in the story you must buy the book, CD, or DVD in order to listen or write the complete story. There are a few curricula on the website that gives you a PDF of the story, in some of these stories they also provide a video highlighting the story.
I will first discuss how hate speech causes harm. Then, I shall explain how hate speech should be barred in specific spaces in order to protect the majority. Next, I will explain how college campuses should operate as safe spaces where hate speech is regulated and allowed only in cases meant to provide students with a learning opportunity. Following this, I will examine Northeastern University’s policy on hate speech and compare it to my proposition. Finally, I will present the opposing perspective that believes hate speech should be allowed and encouraged on college campuses in order to present students with new viewpoints and help them grow as intellectual
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.
Conversely, under hate crime legislation it is clear to see that the prosecution of hate crimes further divides society by reinforcing the marginalisation of minority groups. Advocates with ideologies akin to this state that all violent crimes are the result of the offender’s absolute contempt for the victim of the hate crime. In such cases like this, all crimes are hate crimes and if no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly than others for the same crime based on who the victim is, a situation arises where different offenders charged with the same offence are treated unequally under the law which inadvertently creates discrimination, prejudices and unfairness in society.
There’s going to be different charges for every case. The charges are going to be different. Punishments for hate crimes are going to depend on the case and how bad the crime is. There is going to be different charges for every case, but it’s going to depend on what the person did and what evidence they find. Steven Sandstorm and Gary Eye, of Kansas City, Missouri were sentenced multiple life sentences because of the “racially- motivated murder of William L. McCay.”
The USA government crime data document seven types of antireligious hate crimes: anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Islamic, anti-other religious group, anti-atheism ,agnosticism and etc. In our analyses, the data for anti-multi religions were omitted because of the small number of cases and the difficulty of interpretation. Due to the limitations in the data set, information about the offenders was not available. Therefore, chi-square goodness of-fit tests were used to test whether there was a difference in the incidence of hate crimes committed toward the six religious groups after adjusting the case numbers by subgroup populations. The results revealed differences of this type that varied across the 13-year period.
Following the recent election of Donald, reports of hate crimes have steadily increased. Whether it’s in the form of vandalism, threatening fliers, physical or verbal abuse, 4-6 hate crimes happen every week. With the amount of hate crimes being committed, surely the people running our country have taken the reins and found a solution, right? The unfortunate truth is only 20% of hate crimes are actually reported, and less than 4% of the perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. Hate crimes have become a serious issue, and continuing to leave them unreported can and will tear America apart.
The resolvement of these issues can lead to only positives, less mental trauma from those attacked or at the very least a sense of justice and closure. Hate speech is a slippery slope that can only lead to more crimes and punishments. Which is why we must make it a criminal offence. The clarification of hate speech can also lead to quicker and more efficient decisions in cases that present hate speech in them. I can not see a negative side coming from a reform regarding hate speech.
The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate
