Buckley's 'Declaration Of Academic Freedom'

He wrote this in order to explain and seemingly demand American’s rights and what he thought they all wanted and what would be most fair to all involved. As mentioned above religion seems to be the center of most controversy, he too had his opinions and it mostly involved where church belonged and most importantly, where it did not belong. Paine spoke in a prejudice tone but proposed this to be an unbiased composition. “The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties every discussion upon established creeds and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world” (654). He felt that if the government shared their two sense that it would shake up the whole country. His argument was claiming that it was unfair to the people to have a government share in one faith. This after all, was a new world; a world full of equality and everyone should have their own right to believe. Thomas Paine was one of the only people to share his wisdom and speak for the people and made the most points in the right direction, which is fairness. He truly supported whatever the American dream was perceived as at that

The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the

The document holds historical value as a result of its context. Within the fourth paragraph he states, “it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration…stating the general principle” and follows with a list of all of his political beliefs. This is historically valuable because it presents the political opinions of Jefferson through his own words. Also, the document serves the purpose of addressing the people. This is valuable because it shows that Jefferson had to appeal to the people of the nation while giving this speech. So, it can be assumed that he kept this in mind while preparing the

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

The third reason why I agree with Buckley’s ideas about assertiveness and helplessness is shown through as Buckley states that the government is taking rights away from the people. He states, “Every year, whether the Republican or the Democratic Party is in office, more and more power drains away from the individual to feed vast reservoirs in far-off places; and we have less and less say about the shape of events which shape our future”. He also says that we accept the government’s power to hold upon us”. The government is responsible for the great number of American deaths in Korea and is now responsible for billions of tax dollars spent every year. However,

In offering alternative interpretations of the origins of the Constitution, the author accomplishes his secondary purpose, to make the reader challenge what they know about the framing of the Constitution. Holton details the rebellion of the “Unruly Americans” against the state and national governments, using Adonijah Mathews as an ultimate example of the “common man.” Mathews’ views are presented in order to contrast the views of James Madison, whom it seems the author

Madison hoped it would in time become much more than a parchment fence against repressive actions. The protection of our constitutional rights is greatly strengthened when those rights and the responsibilities that flow from them are written not just on paper, but on the minds and hearts of the citizens. What James Madison will talk about is this matter as well as Patrick Henry who will oppose it can either convince or not convince the council into accepting the ratification as law for a checks and balances.

"My contentions is that this political quartet diagnosed the systemic dysfunctions under the Articles, manipulated the political process to force a calling of the constitutional conventions, then drafted the Bill of Rights as an insurance policy to ensure state compliance with constitutional settlement" (Ellis XV). When Ellis writes this in the preface is because he feels that the four men: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison find it important to bring everyone together. He feels that it was important enough that he had put it in the book because it is what helped lead to the transformation from a confederation to a nation. He felt that the four men collaborating and deciding what needs to be done were the first step to becoming a nation. Joseph Ellis is excellent making his case because of the way he produces the important information, taking his time and effort to make it effective.

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

They had been in love with the thought of liberty and believed foreseen rights for man would be good for man’s nature. Knowingly experiencing tyranny from the grand countries, the Fathers constructed the Constitution very carefully in order to avoid tyranny and a government for the people, by the people, and of the people would be developed. The First Amendment was created to ensure that the government would not and could not interfere with American citizens basic civil rights. Being that this Amendment was so important, many states refused to approve such documents as the Constitution until there were amendments that would protect people’s rights in the future. The Founding Fathers made the constitution to where eventually even in today’s days it would protect the rights of American citizens. There is always leeway with in the amendments to where not only does it protect the people of the past, but it protects the

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

Universities that have been trying to quash free speech have encountered some court reversals of their attempts. But campus leftists have not given up. The newest university gambit to limit speech mirrors the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, (creating a hostile environment) or they attempt to base their speech code on the "fighting words" doctrine enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

After the British finally left the colonist known later as Americans, They had a lot of things to correct because finally, they were on their own. That's why Americans wrote the constitution in 1787. It has been over two hundred years since the paper was ratified. And even though there were American how really gratify, others just were afraid that the new changes didn’t work very well. So we wonder if they made a good choice by ratifying the constitution. If it was really necessary or not to do so. People like George Washington thought that there were some errors to correct. He had clear that were a lot of social crisis and that the constitution may help us to right those problems.

wanted the “Nation to rise up and live by its creed “We hold this self-evident; that all men are created equal” he was demanding the nation to follow this creed and for everyone to be equal and live a peaceful life together, that everyone is equal and deserve all the same freedom. Everyone is more alike that everyone thinks. Sure someone may inherit great money from their family, or someone has a different talent than another. That doesn’t change anything at all. Everyone lives in the same world, has the same clothes, breathes the same air. Everyone is alike in any of these ways, possibly more. No one has more amount of freedom then the next. People must demand rights to the same freedom then the rich, glorious people because they are no different from