Freedom of Speech with Consent of the Others “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, is an essay about the struggle of reconciling the rights of free speech, while avoiding the racial tension. The essay briefly describes the difficulties of dealing with this dilemma of keeping one’s freedom of speech without insulting others. Bok uses the example of a Confederate flag that was hung by students from Harvard University and a Swastika flag was hung as a response to this act, which were both an offensive form of expression. He suggests two solutions to this problem of racist speech. The first one is ignoring any offensive speech and the second one is making conscience about how forms of expression can be offensive to others through dialogue.
Not only does this essay help give students a new perspective on freedom of speech, but this essay also helps citizens to use freedom of speech more efficiently. The essay helps people understand that they shouldn’t be afraid to elaborate on what they personally believe
This process is done usually by institutions of giving preference to racial minorities or women when hiring, giving awards, or deciding whom to admit. Preferential treatment, instead of doing justice: violates right; the right of an applicant “to equal consideration”, the right to maximally competent to an open position, and the right of everyone to equal opportunity. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination it does the same injustice that the Jim Crow discrimination did, by violating the public equality which defines citizenship. Colleges may soon have to revamp the decades old efforts to promote racial diversity after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to reconsider the constitutionality of affirmative action in admissions. But no matter how the court acts, recent history shows that when courts or new laws restrict affirmative action, colleges try to find other ways to increase minority admission.
The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free American lifestyle cannot survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created by the Patriot Act. The words that Bush once said about protecting civil liberties have been forgotten. Undoubtedly, The Patriot Act takes away individual privacy rights and liberties from American citizens in exchange for the “greater good” of the country. The first reason of how the Patriot Act negatively affects our society is by taking away freedom of speech and the right to express and communicate ideas.
Exposure can cause a series of consequences not only for those in the group but also others that this group has great dealing with. What does the threat or exercise of criminal punishment typically have upon journalists? How might punishment conflict with First Amendment protections of freedoms of speech and press? * Zero to none because they frequently express their rights of freedom of speech and free press. So they use the constitution in many situations to protect the information they release to the public.
Today, these quotas have long since been banned, but some argue that special considerations toward minorities are still apparent and disrupt their rights for equal opportunity. On the one hand, they argue that qualifications should be based on merit rather than race or gender, and that it implements reverse discrimination. One the other hand, those who support the concept of Affirmative Action insist that equal opportunity is reached by helping those races faced with disadvantages and that it compensates for discrimination in the past. My own view is that special consideration should not be given to minorities because it is contradictory in their intent to create equal opportunity, therefore increasing racial tensions instead of promoting it. By protecting and giving preference to minorities, Affirmative Action unwarily discriminates against the majority, therefore contradicting its own intent for equal opportunity.
Both King and Thoreau discuss civil disobedience and when it is just to break unfair laws. Another topic they discussed is the merit of authority, and how they were disappointed by the action the majority takes towards certain issues. Henry Thoreau mostly emphasizes on how civil disobedience is important because he believes that governments should consider everybody's opinions. Both have the same common logic, but they express their views in a completely different manner. King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic.
AFFIRMITIVE ACTION vs. DIVERSITY There has been much said about Affirmative Action and Diversity. It is said that Affirmative Action has failed to “improve education and workplace discrimination” throughout the United States. Diversity in the workplace has its issues also, like communication, opposition to change, implementing and managing which are still issues with some organizations. I will begin by describing how Affirmative Action came about. Back in 1961 Affirmative Action was introduced by the late President John F. Kennedy as a tactic to make up for the discrimination that continued in spite of having the Civil Rights Laws along with the Constitution that guaranteed fairness and equality.
The film Freedom writers show this. In the film we see this never stopping change be brought on through the use many language and techniques such as; lighting, music, camera angles and shots. In Freedom writers the change is of introducing civil rights and the more permanent and experienced teachers did not want this to change but change can’t be stopped. Another text that shows change is the short story “sky high”. This text shows how changed can’t be stopped and through the use of language techniques such as; metaphors, personification and similes.
an individual who can compete with whites on the same level,’” (Benjamin). The negative and downbeat jab at minorities’ abilities and potentials called Affirmative Action is supposed to be a program designed to end racism; instead, it really just lowers the standards for minorities. The term affirmative action refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment typically aimed at minorities. The motivation for it is to redress the effects of past and current discrimination and to encourage public institutions to be more representative of the population. However, the faulty scheme actually lowers the bar for minorities consequently causing reverse discrimination that gives