Response To John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Throughout Mill’s argument within On Liberty, he asserts that society has too much power over an individual’s actions due to social forces and laws. In response to this, the main takeaway is that every person has their individual right to their liberty. Everyone should be able to act freely and to their heart’s contents, but to a certain extent, with that extent being that one cannot harm another person as they embark on their path to happiness. While harm can most obviously mean physical or verbal harm, Mill extends the definition to the abstract. When someone is prohibiting someone from their interests, that is also considered harm. If a certain environment prohibits one from pursuing their interests, that is also harm. These notions can

Given that the speech code is an extension of the norms set within society already, this speech code would give clearer guidelines to how people could exert their individual liberties without harming another person, especially a person who is marginalized. The current climate at the University of Michigan indicates that it is unclear what harm could be, besides physical or verbal; the speech code would illuminate everyone about the more subtle ways stigmatized people are harmed. Stigmatized people can be harmed through a lack of privilege, where their interests are more difficult to be fulfilled, and where the environment itself is not conducive for marginalized students to achieve their liberties, which is also harmful. Mill believes that everyone has the right to express their own individual liberties, so the current atmosphere and attitudes present at the University of Michigan needs to be changed because it is not favorable for marginalized students. The school has to be academically and socially fair in order to effectively allow people to exert their individual liberties, but because the school is plagued by stigmas and stereotypes, the speech code is needed in order to make the school

These boxes would be limiting towards the happiness of each and every student. Mill would be in full support of the Asian student’s involvement because an Asian student in a hip-pop club does not negatively harm the other students in the club. While someone could argue that the Asian student would make the other members of the club feel uncomfortable and thus harm the club’s atmosphere, the environment isn’t “intimidating, hostile, or demeaning” because an Asian student has joined. If anything, without the speech code, the environment would be intimidating, hostile, and demeaning for the Asian student. Therefore, if the club suddenly feels uncomfortable, that only reveals how the environment has been racialized, and how the environment is intimidating for an Asian student. There is discomfort because of lingering stereotypes, but Mill would argue that this reinforces the dangers of conformity among the larger group. The other students have conformed to the norm that hip-pop cannot be associated with Asian students, which is problematic because that harms the Asian student’s ability to pursue their own interests. Mill would argue that diversity, dissimilarities, and individuality are all essential to reach our full potentials. A society that has strict norms and stereotypes ultimately