Persuasive Essay On Political Correctness

Erwin Chemerinsky describes the main opposing views on this issue in his book Free Speech on Campus, “One derides all efforts to protect students from the effects of offensive or disrespectful speech as “coddling” and “politically correctness.” The other side

In this article the research I collected explains the use of political correctness at a University. The purpose of political correctness is to avoid or take extreme measures to desist any action or expression that may exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. It is clear that majority of the people in this article are not satisfied by the way issues were handled at the University. The author presented relevant information to answer the question; “Is political correctness an enemy of free speech?”. Some government officials that were brought into this situation, agreed with political correctness and what it means. While doing this research I learned that political correctness in not only this, but also is a tool used to control people's speech so that no one feels offended. I believe political correctness is barricade for anyone who wants a power of choice. Moreover, this article is useful for an analysis on limitations for societies in

What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.

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

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

The controversy over the naming of sports teams after ethnic groups has been boiling since the mid-twentieth century. Sports teams in America, ranging from Pee-wee leagues, high schools, and colleges to Professional sports, have used any enumeration of nick names and mascots by which to represent their team with pride and sometimes even comedy. However, the lines of political correctness have been greatly and maybe even intentionally blurred in terms of the use of specific ethnic groups within team names and the use of the stereotypical image of those teams’ caricatures, the native-American in particular. Of the four major professional sports team franchises included in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL that do possess ethnic monikers, only two are of Caucasoid based ethnicity, whereas the other 5 are direct references to Native American ethnicity or stereotypes

Many areas of the world have been affected because they were accused of having a racist mascot or team name. In the United States many teams have respect for Native Americans. Counterpoint: Native American-Themed Sports Teams Represent the History and Traditions of the Areas They Represent, and Changing Names Does a Disservice to the

Chiefs, Redskins, and Braves. All names of popular, professional American sports teams, all are offensive terms for Native Americans. It is time for these teams to make a positive change. The names are insulting, not just to Native Americans, but to all Americans. Furthermore, the names and images of mascots encourages negative stereotypes that don’t represent our nation's history. Sports are supposed to bring us together, but the use of these names keeps us apart. It is in the best interest for all American sports team to abolish the use of ignorant names that are reminiscent of the mistreatment of Native Americans in our nation’s history.

One reading from Fivethirtyeight debates the argument to change the Native American mascot names. This is a valid argument because for example the name redskins, the name of the NFL football team located in Washington D.C, can be seen and viewed as disparaging to native americans. Naming teams and especially professional teams after native american tribes can become very controversial. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2128-native-american-mascots-people-arent-talking-about/)

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.

What exactly is seen as offensive? Different people would answer this question in many different ways. But for some Native Americans today, one of their answers would be the names of major sports teams. For these Native Americans it is unacceptable to use slurs such as “redskins” as a major sports team name. A humanities professor at the University of Houston-Victoria, Macarena Hernandez, would agree (Crowe, ). However, Dr. Philip Suarez, a Redskins fan, believes that the name is not intended to be offensive whatsoever (Crowe ). Many Redskins fans do not consider what the name means for a majority of Native Americans.

Some team names and/or mascots related to Native Americans are not appropriate. Three teams at the top of this controversial topic are the NFL’s Washington Redskins, the MLB’s Cleveland Indians, and the MLB’s Atlanta Braves. The appropriation of a team should be based on what the name itself represents or was based off of. The use of Native American logos, names, and “actions” are not acceptable. The term “redskin” is a slur, the Indians’ Chief Wahoo is flat out racist, and the Braves’ tomahawk chop is a stereotype. The following examples will show the reasoning.

A controversial topic in American sports right now is whether some names and mascots in sports should be changed because its racial and very stereotypical. In 2005, the NCAA ordered 19 colleges such as Arkansas University Indians, Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages to change there name and mascot because the team name was “hostile or abusive” to the American Indians. More than 900 teams in the U.S have N.American names including in the pros, for example some professional teams that had to change their mascots were Chicago Blackhawks and the Atlanta Braves. More recently, the Washington Redskins lost their trademark registration as a result that claimed that the name was “racial designation based on skin color is disparaging to Native Americans.”

Freedom of speech in America is defined by the right to express any opinions without any censorship or restraint. But it isn’t just defined by the words people speak aloud. It’s the actions they take part in to support the words they express. The writing of books and essays, creating artwork, giving speeches to grand crowds, voting, protesting. But do all people have the right to speak their mind? Should people be able to speak freely, to express opinions and thoughts, as promised in the United States constitution? A controversial topic, with many different opinions weighing in from around the world.