Effects Of Political Correctness

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

The purpose of my research is to explore and offer analysis of the controversy over the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces on college campuses, in order to understand when, where, and most importantly, regarding what subjects their use is appropriate.

It is made clear that college students are quick to form an opinion which doesn’t expand knowledge and can show unintelligence. Many people, more specifically protesters, believe one side and won’t open up and listen to the other side. Frank Bruni, an Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times and the author of 3 New York Times best sellers in 2015, 2009, and 2002, tells us that the college protesters are wrong. His argument states that the college students need to be educated more on the whole subject because lacking education can essentially lead to being biased or sticking with the one side you believe in. The students were protesting a guest speaker, Charles Murray, who is identified as anti-gay, racist, and sexist. Although the guest speaker’s beliefs are terrible, the students should hear what he has to say. Frank Bruni’s “The Dangerous Saftey of College” presents an effective logical appeal; however, it lacks clear and concise evidence along with not presenting an emotional appeal to connect with the audience.

Charles R. Lawrence III, a law professor at Georgetown University, released an article named “On Racist Speech” against the growing frequency of racial violence, especially in University campuses in the U.S., to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1989. Lawrence begins his article by focusing on the message that hate speech “sends a destructive message to minorities that they are inferior.” The author brings up many other examples to support his message such as the court case Brown vs the Board of Education, instances of racist posters and fliers in college dormitories, and protesting against a “fighting words exemption.” Lawrence argues that although it is difficult for the government to write a law that will prevent racist speech without

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

The “Politically Correct” movement’s purpose is to bring historically condescending terms, offensive music and art, and controversial educational content to an end and replace them with more positive and less-offending references. Offensive and demoralizing efforts are wrong, but the censorship and deletion of words and phrases that do not contain the intention to demoralize are taking political correctness too far. Politically correct (or “PC”) antics have created a social decline that is growing worse with each generation, specifically regarding areas of art, education, language, and our right to freedom of speech; the degradation they have brought to the American psyche has even led to

“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

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

“A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

One article, written by Jenny Jarvie, titled “Trigger Happy: The Trigger Warning has Spread from Blogs to College Classes. Can it be Stopped?” discusses the problem with trigger warnings on college campuses. Jarvie explains that trigger warnings on the internet have been around for years as a way to prepare for potentially disturbing subjects but are now becoming more universal. Recently, a group of students at the University of California, Santa Barbara passes a resolution imploring administrators to include mandatory content warnings in potentially offensive syllabi (Jarvis, 2015). The reason for wanting the use of trigger warnings for these students is to prevent the

If you keep a close eye on the news, you have heard of situations dealing with the issue of free speech on college campuses. This topic has been a hot button issue throughout recent years. Numerous institutions have become more politically correct in an effort to make their students feel safer on campus. Many people, however, claim that “word policing”, or telling students that they are not allowed to use certain vocabulary, is a violation of their right to free speech. In the articles “The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses” by Alan Charles Kors and “’Nigger’: The Meaning of a Word” by Gloria Naylor, readers are shown just how ridiculous the practice of word policing can be. Additionally, the article “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus” by Charles R. Lawrence III challenges the common arguments in favor of word policing. Based on the evidence presented in these articles, I believe that word policing is preventing college students from having honest and educational conversations on campus.

“The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt is a short work written to inform people on an epidemic that is affecting colleges and universities around America. The article talks about certain “words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff) and how students are asking for them to not be said. Much is covered on the topic including specific examples of how people were persecuted for saying such things and various opinions on if this trend is for better or worse. I believe the article highlights a problem in the educational system and in order for improvement these topics need to be taught and discussed.

free society”, and continues to make the purpose clear: that speech codes must be exempt. Starting each paragraph in support of free speech and against these codes “How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most” “Where racist…best revenge” and “College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix”, the author makes his intention clear before going into more

They have taught their children to stand up when words or ideas bother them, but this has lead to a complete intolerance of many innocent phrases and opinions. For example, college students have begun to restrict the words that professors say because they may be offensive to other cultures or people (Lukianoff and Haidt). Granted, there are definitely some words and phrases that are completely unacceptable, but many students have brought this to a new extreme. As a result of the overprotective parenting they grew up with, the students can no longer deal with opposition of any form. Many of them believe that they are being discriminated and treated unequal, when in fact they are overdramatizing it and making it seem like a bigger issue than it really is. While this does help them grow as children in a supportive world, it shields them from what the real world is like. They have become completely intolerant and thin skinned in a world that is very harsh and ruthless. The safe environment that parents created for children allowed them to develop the sense that anything is possible, but it also shielded them from the real world and how cruel it can