Just because a person takes offense to something that someone said online and in the public, doesn’t mean the person who wrote it shouldn’t have the ability to say it. Yes, it is “mean”, but that isn’t a reason to take away a constitutional right. A pro would be the physical dangers involved and a con would be
Not only is this a horrible solution to hate speech but it is completely violating students’ right to free speech. Students must think twice before making a statement that may not even be offensive to anyone but with the speech code in effect the student may be facing punishment because of it. In the passage by Alan Charles Kors titled, “The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses”, the author gives an example of unfair punishment due to the speech code enforced at Carnegie Mellon University. Kors wrote, “At Carnegie Mellon University, a student called his female opponent in an election for the Graduate Student Organization a ‘megalomaniac’. He was charged with sexual harassment” (Kors paragraph 4).
Maybe they should have asked him to trim his facial hair instead of shaving it, and they could have compromised between the two. The man seemed very cut out for the job and the employer knows that and still processed to ask him to shave is facial hair, if he wanted the job. I also feel that right when they saw the man applying for the job they probably did not look past his facial hair and did not really get to know the person behind the beard. The school also could get a lawsuit against them, and the consequences to that would be much more substantial, then what the school kid’s family’s thought of him and his facial hair. The man could go to the court system and fight for his position on his behalf of discriminating against him for the way he looks.
“We cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves.” The statement “we cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves” is utter hogwash, really; emotional extortion in my candid opinion. Before delving further into this topic, it should be noted that, firstly; the topic is awfully dubious, as it ceases to take into account the conscienceless. Secondly, hurt is not always wicked; without hurt, humans wouldn’t be nearly as individual. And lastly, scars are what make us grow as people. Firstly, the subjective nature of the topic “we cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves” should be note.
Maybe problems occurred and the negative attention is being focused on a certain person, and then they might use a scapegoat to try and escape the the tension and blame. Most people don’t want to face what they did wrong, so they go to scapegoats to relieve their pressure. Jeffrey Sherman of the University of California, Davis, who co-wrote the study, Why We Kick Others When We’re Down, says, "This is one of the oldest accounts of why people stereotype and have prejudice: It makes us feel better about ourselves, when we feel bad about ourselves, we can denigrate other people, and that makes us feel better about ourselves." Frequently, they use scapegoats as an aggression outlet. A person could bash the scapegoat down repeatedly because they know that the scapegoat cannot fight back, resembling a bully.
However, given the fact that she is a female may be somewhat of a constraint. Females, generally speaking, are more nurturing and don’t really share that ‘tough love’ practice that males do. This may be a reason why she would not want to penalize the obese and smokers. Pressey would love to see a positive change for these people and would like to motivate them to do so. On the other hand, some people feel that this topic should not even exist as it is too intrusive into an employee’s personal life.
The ethical considerations of this case and the use of generalized expectations and interpretations of behavior are not unique to sexual harassment law or to the legal system. It really comes down to treating others the way that you would want to be treated. Although sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, or anywhere, would pose a moral or ethical dilemma for most people, they are some people who might not realize that their behavior is unethical and illegal. However, since there are current laws which clearly state that it is unlawful to treat someone in the workplace unfavorably because they are from a particular country or to harass a person because of their gender, the requests for sexual favors from the foreman were a clear case of sexual harassment. This behavior along with his verbally offensive remarks directed to Mr. Calderon made the foreman’s behavior illegal.
I learned that violence could not make things better, the violence only could made things worse. And if the party breached the contract with me, I knew I should use the rule of law to sue him or her, and I can get my compensation back. And I could help my friend to protect our rights in the
Employees will respond to change in different ways. The negative responding employee predicts the change will be bad and so confronts all attempts at change with a very pessimistic view. The employee responding as an instigator attempts to get others riled up to oppose changes or to act in ways that impede their success. The “passive-aggressive” responding employee acts as if he is cooperating, but in fact very subtly sabotages whatever is put into effect. The “go with the flow” responding employee cooperates and tends to take a wait and see position.
When the world thinks of interrogating they just go straight to torture, but when they craw away from that, there would be no enemies due because of their grudges toward countries. When using torture on suspects not only will it not work most of the time but it will mostly resolve in someone’s death. “President Obama has done the most important thing: reversing Bush's policy and declaring, as he did last week, that torture was unequivocally wrong” (Weisberg 1). Therefore using torture is just ruining the morale of countries especially the United States because we have rules. How come they can break the rules and other citizens can’t?