Hypocrisy Of Milo

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.

Colleges and universities are places of higher education and learning. Part of this learning comes from listening and understanding opposite views from your own. Positively, these zones have allowed students to avoid any ideas they may not want to hear; however, avoidance is not the way around life. Another positive outcome of free speech on campuses is that students are able to bind together

[A student] may express his [or her] opinions, even on controversial subjects…if he [or she] does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional

Being Americans, there are a few things the can get us steaming in no time, that can make our moods switch up in the blink of an eye. Nine times out of ten, one of these topics falls under a general conversation that goes to deep into religion or politics. In Juan Williams’s

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.

“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.

On January 13th, 2017, Chancellor Ralph Hexter of UC Davis emailed students in response to Martin Shkreli and Milo Yiannopoulos not being allowed speak at a campus event due to heated protests. The controversial Yiannopoulos is a open critic of many social justice movements, like feminism and Black Lives Matter. He’s specifically said during his events at his tour that muslims are rapists, publically yelled at a muslim for wearing a hijab, and promotes Blue Lives Matter. ('I Just Want to Burn It down') Additionally, Shkreli is a businessman who is now a convicted felon. So in response, many students were outraged and deeply upset by this organized event. In the email the Chancellor quoted the ACLU, explaining that we “can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.” However this will cause violence and make many feel patronized by the words spurred out by public speakers, like Yiannopoulos and Shrekli. Even though inviting people of different views seems like unifying people from all backgrounds, when people are content with their hatred and speak them out openly, it causes more complication. The opposite side wants to cover their ears and find the nearest exit. To be realistic, any young student won’t be welcoming with open arms to close minded speakers, especially if it seems as the main thing they desire is to get a rise out of you. The most efficient way to unify people is being respectful

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

In the beginning of this article, Rosenbaum relies on the appeal of emotion, pathos, to persuade his audience to agree with his claim. He tries to achieve this by telling a story of a church group picketing the funeral of a gay marine. He states, “The Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read ‘God Hates Fags’ ” (Rosenbaum). This event caused an uproar and disrupted the peace of a marines’ funeral. Many people began to question the limits of free speech because of this. How can people use hateful speech such as

Yiannopoulos is an entertainer taking the opportunity to make money out of the right-wing. Nathan Damigo is a white nationalist and founder of the Identity Evropa group that support white supremacist by traveling to different colleges, campuses to campuses distributing fliers, posters and stickers supporting their ‘alt-right” movements. Identity Evropa stand next to Yiannopoulos and violently defend their right-wing points of view. The left-wing, Antifa groups also known as black block protesters stand against Evropa demanding their silence. This event started, when a group of students assisting UC Berkeley invited Yiannopoulos to give one of his speeches in their campus. Accepting the invitation, Yiannopoulos arrive at the University on March

We, as a society, will be able to grow as a person and as a country if we can practice civility instead of going on television and screaming to people that they are worthless or beneath someone. Coming into college, I knew that professors would not be as restricted as high school teachers were when it comes to asking questions that spark discussion. For me, college is about discussions. I try to have conversations with people who have a different ideology then I do. I approach these conversations with an open mind hopefully to understand that person’s point of view.

In his editorial, “The Year of the Imaginary College Student,” Hua Hsu asserts that “alarm about offense-seeking college students say[s] more about critics than the actual state of affairs.” Hsu begins his article by discussing James O’Keefe’s attempt at Vassar College to depict that college students are as politically sensitive as they appear. He goes on to demonstrate that college students are getting increasingly more “hypersensitive.” Hsu then questions the “surge of interest in campus life,” wondering why people who are not in college are questioning the behavior of those in college. Next, Hsu states that this panic about “offense-seeking college students” says more about the people criticizing rather than the system. Elucidating, he

Walter E William’s starts his column talking about the eighteen to thirty year old “snowflakes”. He then goes on to compare professors and college students to military officers and Navy Seals. I do not see the correlation. In the next paragraph, he talks about what kind of future the “snowflakes” will make. Although I believe we should still keep the classic works and teach about those who laid the foundation for our education, I think it will bode well for our country to be progressive. We must move on from the past, change is good in the long run. Next, he begins talking about the safe spaces colleges are beginning to incorporate. What is wrong with wanting to feel safe? Everyone wants to feel safe. In his summary

The election of Donald Trump changed attitudes showcased in schools across America. The southern poverty law center researched and discusses the effect of the election through a survey conducted by Teaching Tolerance and the information obtained from this surveys on teachers and students behaviors and concerns.

After simply typing a message and pressing “post,” these online activists can sit back and watch hundreds of reactions stream in almost immediately. No longer does the University have to follow in the footsteps of its Ivy League siblings in being plagued by misrepresentative monologues in the media. Tap. Tap. Tap. Such is the soundtrack of free speech in the twenty-first century—and POCC is the campus