Finally Mr. Lukianoff established his credentials as an expert in the field of the violation of rights at schools. Mr. Lukianoff cites several examples of students’ rights being violated at colleges across the country including time when students were forbidden from putting up their political views in the form of a poster on their door and a free-speech zone which included a whole 0.1 percent of the University of Cincinnati. Mr. Lukianoff also mentions counterarguments such as pointing out that the speech codes are, “intended to enforce civility” but Mr. Lukianoff undercuts this argument by telling of how the speech codes “often backfire, suppressing free expression”. Mr. Lukianoff also calls upon the expertice of another person, namely Harry R. Lewis, a former dean of Harvard College who said on the subject of Harvard College’s oath that incoming freshmen were pressured to sign, that is was “unwise, and sets a terrible precedent”. Mr. Lukianoff’s argument clearly has a sufficient plethora of logos.
This can cause public stigmas that can be hard to get rid of or ignore. For example, a lot of people read the newspaper, so the majority of her neighbors and parents in the school will be aware of the injustice she committed. This can not only be harmful to her reputation, but it can be detrimental to the social life of the children. Parents will not want that kind of negative influence around their children. Also, children can be cruel and may ridicule those children because the parent made a stupid mistake.
Contraversial Speakers Allowed on College Campuses Many controversial speakers are wrongfully perceived as hazards to many communities, when in fact, they should be highly respected for going against the grain and daring to be different by challenging the current knowledge. College campuses around the nation are banning multiple speakers in fear that a riot might break out or someone might get offended. Currently, controversial speakers are glared at as mere trouble makers, but they should be appreciated because of how passionately they bring new ideas to the table, and they, most definitely, should be allowed to speak at college campuses. One of the major reasons why controversial speakers should be allowed to speak at college campuses is college students need these speakers to listen to and develop their own opinions. They could do this by going to a debate between two controversial speakers, listen to both points, then think about what was said and form their own point of view.
Readers could argue that Twain’s main point of the novel was to be offensive. But either way, he did just that. Times have changed and that word has no longer become an acceptable word for people to use. Most African American students grew up being taught that it was a horribly offensive word, and to never use it. So with that being said, many students could feel uncomfortable hearing it at school.
Although many students were moved by the war, it also caused great changes to politics in the United States. It was an extremely trying time for student during the Vietnam War. Although you were able to avoid the war as a student once you graduated you were at risk for the draft. However, the war escalated and a Selective Service System operated on a lottery system was enacted forcing some students to join the war. These lottery systems lead way to college students using their campuses for large protests to stop the war in fear that if it continued they would be drafted (History and Records, 2009).
The outcome by the NCAA has sent a message to other universities and colleges to prove that punishments are far worse than could ever be expected. The outcome to the students of Penn State is that they are shamed and embarrassed for what happened at their beautiful campus, but if the NCAA would have thought about the students beforehand they would have seen what all this was causing. Students are afraid to wear their college logo in public because of being harassed or even worse hurt (Cmor,
Mainly, people who have suffered the loss of a loved one in those events are asking that there be school safety and the gun control law passed. For the reasons that they don’t want those events to take place again and have the reminder and thought of another family losing someone. Then there are the others who think that it is too much money spent and schools can’t afford the hiring of student resource officers along with them opposing the gun control law being passed. By which they oppose the gun control law because they spend their spare time out hunting or in a range. All of this has been a controversy in our nation and will continue because we all have different perspective on this topic.
Legal residents of Arizona are granted the option to sue if they feel a local agency’s policies interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it a criminal offense if an individual picking up a day laborer interferes with the normal flow of traffic. The law does not allow an undocumented immigrant to search for work in any public place. These are merely a select handful of issues within SB 1070. Once this law was announced, there was an enormous public outcry of opposition.
This article discusses speech codes on college campuses. I personally did not realize these existed. The codes reduce the rights of the First Amendment for faculty and students. I understand that words can be hurtful and offensive, but wouldn’t this be covered under the rules of bullying? As college students we are all adults.
Many argued that the pair’s isolation from the rest of their classmates caused feelings of helplessness, insecurity and depression, as well as a strong desire for attention. Also the stigma of being left outside social cliques and the availability of firearms caused these events to culminate. Many music groups were also blamed in the aftermath; Marilyn Manson, the German group KMFDM and the Detroit-based rap group Insane Clown Posse. In response to the concerns over the causes of Columbine and other school massacres, many schools instituted new anti-bully policies as well as so-called “zero tolerance” approaches to weapons and threatening behavior. Also after the shooting new security measures were put into place such as see-through backpacks, metal detectors and security guards.