Adlai E. Stevenson once said, “The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.” While the United States still denounces the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 in China when more than one hundred thousand students tried to exercise their freedom of speech that every human being deserves and be stopped by authorities, America is gradually leaning towards that side. In Human Events, it reports, “Few years ago, two editors of the Harvard Business School student newspaper were reprimanded for publishing a cartoon in which they used the term “morons” to criticize the school’s computer system.” That certainly is just one of the hundreds of thousands of incidents that have occurred in universities all over the nation, as they claimed it was for the protection of the ones that might feel offended; however, to many free speech activists, they are just examples of how the right Americans used to be proud of, used to hold against other undemocratic countries, and used to make this country the greatest, is slowly fading away. Where is the end of this? Is it when free speech is taken away from each and every individual? Where is the tolerance Americans fought for? Did Americans forget the reason why the Statue of Liberty is the unchangeable symbol of all the freedoms a citizen is granted today? While political correctness has gone beyond the original purpose of prohibiting racial slangs and hate speech, it has become the devil’s grip on campuses all around the country. As devastating as it is, political correctness and established university speech codes have invaded individual’s personal freedom and raised questions among the public, the press, and the students; for instance, the right to free speech, the twisted tolerance, and the slowly extinct open discussion in college classrooms.
The First Amendment stated, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Over the years, freedom of speech has always been one of the things Americans have taken pride in, but unfortunately this right has been challenged since the time when it was granted to all of the citizens. One of the most recent and most famous incidents regarding freedom of speech is the University of Florida Taser Incident. It took place in Senator John Kerry’s Constitution Day Forum, which was organized by an agency of the student government. The heat was set off when a third-year journalist from the college newspaper, Andrew Meyer, asked if Senator Kerry supported the possible impeachment of former President George W. Bush, and whether Kerry was a member of secret society Skull and Bones or not. While Meyer was listing why President Bush should be impeached and one of the reasons was former President Bill Clinton was so as investigations led to the fact that he received oral sex from a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, his microphone was cut off. However, that did not stop Andrew Meyer from exercising his freedom of speech, as he continued asking whether Senator Kerry engaged in Skull and Bones membership. Before Kerry could answer Andrew Meyer’s questions, police officers began to seize him and tase him as he was struggling to break through the police’s force. The criticism of this incident is not about a college student could not think of a better word to replace “oral sex” in an open forum when a highly-respected political figure was standing on the stage, whether or not Andrew Meyer was too straightforward, or if he picked the wrong questions to ask. When the college journalist innocently brought up a topic that is comfortable in a slight way, he was seized by force. What if he was just asking Senator John Kerry what his goals would be if he became the President? What if he was not asking about the secret society Skull and Bones? Obviously, the situation would have been completely different, and a scene would not be made in front of a presidential candidate and the rest of the world. On the other hand, this incident raised a very considerable question at the same time – what kind of message is the university sending to their students and students all over the country? Should we all be afraid to ask controversial or hot-topic questions from now on just because it is not politically correct? It is true that there is always a bottom line in freedom of speech, such as falsely accusing a person, giving hate speech, making racial comments, and so on; however, all Americans should stop and think about this question – did Andrew Meyer stop across the line? As far as what the news reported and videos regarding this incident that have been posted on the internet, Meyer’s questions were clearly legitimate and his right to free speech was undoubtedly denied by the student government or University of Florida. Is this the future of American higher education? What are colleges actually encouraging the students to do?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Free speech in universities
(I have decided to narrow down my topic to "political correctness and free speech in univerisities in the United States.)
Have you ever heard of speech codes? Campuses all around the nation have developed their own but similar speech codes to control what comes out of their students’ mouths so that people will hear less and less politically incorrect speeches, and eventually we will achieve the so-called tolerance in a higher education setting.
However, my question is, what is the definition of political correctness? Every one of us has our own set of beliefs. Some people are more conservative, and some people are more liberal. For example, I personally do not support abortion and believe it is a murder, and I am sure some of you may not agree with my opinion. I respect your viewpoint, and do not see the need of reporting you to the administrators or the media just because what you disagree with me and what you believe is not what I believe. One of the greatest and most interesting things about universities is that students are not afraid to express their opinions on controversial issues and have discussions with the others who do not share the same belief with them, and I strongly think that is where college students learn most of their knowledge and social skills from. Then, why do we have speech codes in the places where future leaders of our country are being produced? Is it because we are too cautious about the possibility of offending others? If we are strained from speaking up and standing up for what we truly believe, then what is the point of having free speech?
Tolerance is when people with different beliefs come together and be able to respect each other when they speak their mind. Did us Americans forget about that?
Have you ever heard of speech codes? Campuses all around the nation have developed their own but similar speech codes to control what comes out of their students’ mouths so that people will hear less and less politically incorrect speeches, and eventually we will achieve the so-called tolerance in a higher education setting.
However, my question is, what is the definition of political correctness? Every one of us has our own set of beliefs. Some people are more conservative, and some people are more liberal. For example, I personally do not support abortion and believe it is a murder, and I am sure some of you may not agree with my opinion. I respect your viewpoint, and do not see the need of reporting you to the administrators or the media just because what you disagree with me and what you believe is not what I believe. One of the greatest and most interesting things about universities is that students are not afraid to express their opinions on controversial issues and have discussions with the others who do not share the same belief with them, and I strongly think that is where college students learn most of their knowledge and social skills from. Then, why do we have speech codes in the places where future leaders of our country are being produced? Is it because we are too cautious about the possibility of offending others? If we are strained from speaking up and standing up for what we truly believe, then what is the point of having free speech?
Tolerance is when people with different beliefs come together and be able to respect each other when they speak their mind. Did us Americans forget about that?
Annotated Bibliography
Gary, Patrick. “Censorship by the free-speech generation.” National Forum. 75.2 (1995):29. 22 June 2009.
This is an article that discusses free speech censorship in universities and colleges in the United States. The author stresses on the negative effects of political correctness and the fact that it is unwise for more and more colleges to set up speech codes. Gary proposes that the intolerance of free speech and the existence of extreme political correctness are definitely not the solutions to solve the prejudice in our society, because instead of being willing to discuss the issues freely and seek for a common ground, we bury the problems deep in our hearts. This source can be one of my examples for the thesis since it is anti-political-correctness, and I plan on quoting from this article when I state the reason why political correctness is harmful to higher education and has changed throughout years.
Gilroy, Marilyn. “Colleges Grappling with Incivility.” Education Digest. 74.4 (2008): 36-40. 22 June 2009.
This article talks about how political correctness and limitation of free speech started in various universities. It states the purpose is to encourage personal responsibility and to prevent hate speech or any type of politically incorrect speeches. This source is going to bring insightful materials and examples to my paper when I have to write the counter argument of my thesis and talk about why political correctness and speech code seem to be so important in our higher
education system nowadays and why advocates would consider it as an important measure to take in order to prevent harassments suits or hate crimes.
Giobbe, Dorothy. “Political Correctness.” Editor & Publisher. 127.43 (1994): 13. 22 June 2009.
This article presents the opinion of journalists in the United States about the new word, “political correctness”. It directly shows the concerns and critics of political correctness by quoting from different journalists who write for famous publications. For instance, Amity Shales, editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal defined “political correctness” as “a sense of airlessness…that is the opposite of tolerance…” Meanwhile, another journalist strikes a similar view on the term. Juan Gonzales, columnist for New York Daily News said, “Politcial correctness is a label foisted on dissident voices by those who want to maintain the mainstream views in the media and education. This source is extremely useful and important to my paper as my thesis is about how political correctness has gone too far and lost its purpose. I plan on using it to support my argument by quoting what the journalists said.
Greene, Linda. "Radical discourse, hate speech, and political correctness." National Forum. 75.2 (1995): 32. 21 June 2009.
This source is an article from a scholarly journal named National Forum. The author Linda Greene starts the topic by telling the origin of political correctness and how it was applied in the very beginning as it was aimed to control and prevent racial harassment. She always write about how anti-political-correctness advocates forget what the goal of political correctness is because they “want to privatize the question of liberty of an individual to speak freely” and “historical victims bear the costs of this privatization policy”. This source proves useful as it can be used as a counter-argument because Linda Greene’s main argument is focused on in what ways political correctness has benefited and why people should not be against it or think it is taken too far, and I plan on using this source to show one of the points the opposites will attack my thesis with.
Grey, Thomas. “Slogans, amens, and speech codes.” Academic Questions. 10.3 (1997): 18. 22 June 2009.
This source supports the need of regulation on free speech in universities. Grey proposes that this ideal because he believes it can avoid the possibility of addressing harassing statements on campuses. As long as it is legitimate and reasonable, he suggests that may put a stop on harassments of students on a discriminatory ground. However, Grey insists that it is necessary for the board to provide guidelines of what political correctness should end at and what criteria it gives to every student, so that way students’ constitutional right will not be taken away from them. Since this article is on the pro side, it surely can be used as one of the opposite argument for my paper, and I plan on using it to talk about what the other side of the table considers as benefits if such regulation of free speech exists.
Paulin, Tom. “Political Correctness Grips Nation’s Colleges.” Human Events. 59.2 (2003): 16. 22 June 2009.
This articles lists quite a number of controversial events that has taken place in different universities and campuses in the United States. The events provided will surely help my argument as I am going to discuss about the dangers of political correctness and limiting free speech is causing the higher education. While Americans are promoting tolerance and the need of political correctness on campuses for this generation of students, it is very important to take a look at the problems the ideal has caused. Since they are real and very reliable, I believe the will strengthen my thesis and help me emphasize the points that I will be making.
This is an article that discusses free speech censorship in universities and colleges in the United States. The author stresses on the negative effects of political correctness and the fact that it is unwise for more and more colleges to set up speech codes. Gary proposes that the intolerance of free speech and the existence of extreme political correctness are definitely not the solutions to solve the prejudice in our society, because instead of being willing to discuss the issues freely and seek for a common ground, we bury the problems deep in our hearts. This source can be one of my examples for the thesis since it is anti-political-correctness, and I plan on quoting from this article when I state the reason why political correctness is harmful to higher education and has changed throughout years.
Gilroy, Marilyn. “Colleges Grappling with Incivility.” Education Digest. 74.4 (2008): 36-40. 22 June 2009.
This article talks about how political correctness and limitation of free speech started in various universities. It states the purpose is to encourage personal responsibility and to prevent hate speech or any type of politically incorrect speeches. This source is going to bring insightful materials and examples to my paper when I have to write the counter argument of my thesis and talk about why political correctness and speech code seem to be so important in our higher
education system nowadays and why advocates would consider it as an important measure to take in order to prevent harassments suits or hate crimes.
Giobbe, Dorothy. “Political Correctness.” Editor & Publisher. 127.43 (1994): 13. 22 June 2009.
This article presents the opinion of journalists in the United States about the new word, “political correctness”. It directly shows the concerns and critics of political correctness by quoting from different journalists who write for famous publications. For instance, Amity Shales, editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal defined “political correctness” as “a sense of airlessness…that is the opposite of tolerance…” Meanwhile, another journalist strikes a similar view on the term. Juan Gonzales, columnist for New York Daily News said, “Politcial correctness is a label foisted on dissident voices by those who want to maintain the mainstream views in the media and education. This source is extremely useful and important to my paper as my thesis is about how political correctness has gone too far and lost its purpose. I plan on using it to support my argument by quoting what the journalists said.
Greene, Linda. "Radical discourse, hate speech, and political correctness." National Forum. 75.2 (1995): 32. 21 June 2009.
This source is an article from a scholarly journal named National Forum. The author Linda Greene starts the topic by telling the origin of political correctness and how it was applied in the very beginning as it was aimed to control and prevent racial harassment. She always write about how anti-political-correctness advocates forget what the goal of political correctness is because they “want to privatize the question of liberty of an individual to speak freely” and “historical victims bear the costs of this privatization policy”. This source proves useful as it can be used as a counter-argument because Linda Greene’s main argument is focused on in what ways political correctness has benefited and why people should not be against it or think it is taken too far, and I plan on using this source to show one of the points the opposites will attack my thesis with.
Grey, Thomas. “Slogans, amens, and speech codes.” Academic Questions. 10.3 (1997): 18. 22 June 2009.
This source supports the need of regulation on free speech in universities. Grey proposes that this ideal because he believes it can avoid the possibility of addressing harassing statements on campuses. As long as it is legitimate and reasonable, he suggests that may put a stop on harassments of students on a discriminatory ground. However, Grey insists that it is necessary for the board to provide guidelines of what political correctness should end at and what criteria it gives to every student, so that way students’ constitutional right will not be taken away from them. Since this article is on the pro side, it surely can be used as one of the opposite argument for my paper, and I plan on using it to talk about what the other side of the table considers as benefits if such regulation of free speech exists.
Paulin, Tom. “Political Correctness Grips Nation’s Colleges.” Human Events. 59.2 (2003): 16. 22 June 2009.
This articles lists quite a number of controversial events that has taken place in different universities and campuses in the United States. The events provided will surely help my argument as I am going to discuss about the dangers of political correctness and limiting free speech is causing the higher education. While Americans are promoting tolerance and the need of political correctness on campuses for this generation of students, it is very important to take a look at the problems the ideal has caused. Since they are real and very reliable, I believe the will strengthen my thesis and help me emphasize the points that I will be making.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Has political correctness gone too far?
Several years ago, I came across a famous novel written by an English writer, George Orwell. Four months ago, I studied it thoroughly in class. Same surprise, same feeling, and, same question. What if, just what if, our country is like Oceania? Oceania is a fictional country created by George Orwell in 1984; it is a place where Big Brother is in control, it is where "Newspeak" is about to replace "Oldspeak" which means everyone will have to get rid of their current language because it is too politically incorrect and Big Brother doesn't appreciate it. To eliminate the citizens’ undesirable behaviors, Big Brother formed the Thought Police to arrest people that do not follow their laws.
So what is the boundary of political correctness? Is it about tolerance? Or is it just a prevention of law suit? Over years, we have changed the words we use in order to suit others' tastes better. Well, some for good, and some, in my view, for worse. I often hear people say, “Oh you can’t say that! That will offend people!” Honestly, what is the point of saying that anyways? Words are not the main target that everyone needs to focus on when it comes to offending people, but attitudes. If my mind is set on making you mad, whatever I say will have the affect, even though they are words from the “political correctness” dictionary. Political correctness has taken too far, farther than it was supposed to be. It was meant to change the words people use to describe certain ethnicities. Well, say, I would not want you to call me Ching Chong, but Chinese-American.
Now, so what has happened to our society? Take former (unfortunately!) Miss California Carrie Prejean as an example. During 2009 Miss USA Pageant Contest, she was asked whether she believed every state in the U.S. should legalize same-sex marriage, and she said, “…I do believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Very soon, the media attacked Ms. Prejean for her honest answer because it was too politically incorrect. My question is, why in the world does she deserve to be publically criticized if that’s what she truly believes? Is political correctness trying to change people’s thoughts? Frankly, the last thing I want to see in the Land of the Free is media or even general public being Thought Police.
So what is the boundary of political correctness? Is it about tolerance? Or is it just a prevention of law suit? Over years, we have changed the words we use in order to suit others' tastes better. Well, some for good, and some, in my view, for worse. I often hear people say, “Oh you can’t say that! That will offend people!” Honestly, what is the point of saying that anyways? Words are not the main target that everyone needs to focus on when it comes to offending people, but attitudes. If my mind is set on making you mad, whatever I say will have the affect, even though they are words from the “political correctness” dictionary. Political correctness has taken too far, farther than it was supposed to be. It was meant to change the words people use to describe certain ethnicities. Well, say, I would not want you to call me Ching Chong, but Chinese-American.
Now, so what has happened to our society? Take former (unfortunately!) Miss California Carrie Prejean as an example. During 2009 Miss USA Pageant Contest, she was asked whether she believed every state in the U.S. should legalize same-sex marriage, and she said, “…I do believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Very soon, the media attacked Ms. Prejean for her honest answer because it was too politically incorrect. My question is, why in the world does she deserve to be publically criticized if that’s what she truly believes? Is political correctness trying to change people’s thoughts? Frankly, the last thing I want to see in the Land of the Free is media or even general public being Thought Police.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
I was counting down the time I had left in that class,
mandatory Civics class for all sophomores.
I couldn’t stand the morning silence anymore.
“What are the five rights? Name one! This will be on the test next week.”
I was the first one, who raised her hand high up,
I guess it’s the Mountain Dew that pumped me up.
“Freedom of Speech!”
Three years went by in a blink of an eye,
I wonder if it has turned into a lie,
when people persecute you for what you say,
I can’t help but think of Jesus in His days.
California girl, California girl,
Is your world a twirl?
Carrie Prejean,
the queen of the sunshine land,
One honest opinion’s cost you more than you ever imagined,
But to me, you’ve become a legend.
Lost two crowns,
The media wants to bring you down.
“Freedom of Speech!”
The memory is still clear,
and I know you answered without fear.
You boo at what she said,
but you’re just a fool and that is sad.
You’ve forgotten,
what is important.
Prop 8 failed,
and rainbow supporters think they can prevail,
by telling us the Freedom of Speech does not exist,
when they persist,
to marry whoever they want,
and ignore “we can say what we want”.
You don’t like Adam and Eve,
and I don’t need you to believe,
but can you stop being so naïve?
George Washington shed a tear,
because he couldn’t bear,
what he used to pride,
is going to die.
mandatory Civics class for all sophomores.
I couldn’t stand the morning silence anymore.
“What are the five rights? Name one! This will be on the test next week.”
I was the first one, who raised her hand high up,
I guess it’s the Mountain Dew that pumped me up.
“Freedom of Speech!”
Three years went by in a blink of an eye,
I wonder if it has turned into a lie,
when people persecute you for what you say,
I can’t help but think of Jesus in His days.
California girl, California girl,
Is your world a twirl?
Carrie Prejean,
the queen of the sunshine land,
One honest opinion’s cost you more than you ever imagined,
But to me, you’ve become a legend.
Lost two crowns,
The media wants to bring you down.
“Freedom of Speech!”
The memory is still clear,
and I know you answered without fear.
You boo at what she said,
but you’re just a fool and that is sad.
You’ve forgotten,
what is important.
Prop 8 failed,
and rainbow supporters think they can prevail,
by telling us the Freedom of Speech does not exist,
when they persist,
to marry whoever they want,
and ignore “we can say what we want”.
You don’t like Adam and Eve,
and I don’t need you to believe,
but can you stop being so naïve?
George Washington shed a tear,
because he couldn’t bear,
what he used to pride,
is going to die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)