Question
This is a Contemporary Philosophy of Education
The outline has all ideas. Try to write a paper with seven pages with it.
The paper should have an introduction; each body should the main sentence and conclusion sentence also in the conclusion paragraph you should restate the thesis or the argument. Make sure that the argument is clear. in the introduction write ” in this paper i will… ”
APA style with the page number in the citation.
Be clear and make the argument and solid thesis and great support for it.
1. Purpose and Focus: What does the writer seem to want readers to understand? What has the paper helped you think about more deeply or differently? If this is a Manifesto, what does the writer want readers to do in light of their new understanding?
2. Explaining Key Concepts: Are the paper’s key concepts defined and explained with care – and with reference to the shared literature of the course? Point out any concepts that need additional unpacking or explanation.
3. Supporting the argument: Is the paper’s overall argument clear? Has the writer adequately supported their argument with examples or explanations? Has the writer taken the argument far enough? Point out places information/ explanations can be added to make their argument more persuasive or more pointed or more careful and considered (depending on what you think is needed). What have they neglected to consider/ take into account? If this is a manifesto, the arguments need to be succinct. Help the writer pare things down if needed.
4. Engagement with course texts: do the texts chosen make sense in light of the writer’s topic and purpose? Has the writer drawn from the most apt sections and arguments of their chosen texts? Has the writer left out crucial aspects of any of these texts that would help strengthen their overall argument? If so, remind the reader of these and suggest where else they might look in our shared literature for ideas, analysis and arguments that will help bolster their argument.
5. Voice: Think of this paper as a conversation with our course texts. Has the writer given enough space for our core authors to “speak”? On the other hand, have they given too much space to these authors, forgetting to add their voice to the conversation? What is needed to restore the balance between the many voices in the paper? Tip: The overarching voice should be the writer’s. Even if the writer completely agrees with the text, they should be able to bring something to the conversation. If they disagree with aspects of the text, they should seek to be generous and fair to the author by accurately depicting the author’s arguments and perspective (before going on to pinpoint shortcomings and problems).
6. Significance: What has the writer added to the “conversation” that is new to you, or that you hadn’t thought about in quite this way before? i.e. why does this paper matter? What has it helped you to understand or think about or appreciate a little differently or a little more than you did prior to reading it. Answer this question honestly. If nothing has been added, help the writer make the paper more significant. If this is a Manifesto, what will taking action on this matter involve? What will it accomplish?
Reading for Style:
7. Coherence: Make sure that there is alignment between what the paper promises to be about and what the paper is actually about. This might require tweaking or revising of the introduction, but it might require a reigning in of the argument in the body of the paper, if the argument seems to have veered off track. Discuss any inconsistency with the writer. What is it that they really want to say, and which part of the paper best expresses their point of view?
8. Focus, revisited: Make sure that the paper stays on point as much as possible. Be weary of digressions that veer too far from the issue at hand or that needlessly complicate the issue. Do what you can to help the writer stay focused and on course.
9. Style and grammar: In a writing workshop, this is a second order concern, after the more important “global” issues listed in 1-8, but if the writer is far enough along in the paper, note any places where their syntax is hard to follow, correct any grammatical errors and catch any typos.
this is the main refrence
Ben-Porath, Sigal R. Free Speech on Campus. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.
10. Citations: Has the writer been careful to reference page numbers for quotations as well as paraphrases of the text? Are they using their chosen citation style accurately and consistently? Has the writer remembered to include a bibliography/ works cited list?
Answer
Free Speech and Harm Speech in Campus
Undoubtedly, identity and speech are critical aspects of education. Identity refers to the manner in which individuals become distinguished in their various social relations with other people (Jenkins, 1996). Identity, as such, is a fundamental element in any educational institution. According to Masschelein & Simons (2013), any school that tries to reinforce its institutional identity attempts to establish a monopoly. In doing so, it influences the personal identity development process of learners. Identity is particularly vital in speech as it determines how individuals can articulate problems and interact effectively with the surrounding. Assuredly, free speech is critical to universities as it enhances democratic values and permits the learners to fearlessly pursue and extend their knowledge while maintaining positive social and intellectual interactions. Ben-Porath (2017) holds that universities and colleges are institutions where knowledge is established and disseminated; and therefore, for the learners and scholars to adequately perform their job, they need the freedom to explore and question, as well as probe existing views without fear of silencing or retribution. According to her, free speech protections are crucial to ensuring the freedom of exploring, expressing and considering controversial perspectives, which is paramount to teaching, learning, and research. No doubt that campus is a diverse community comprising of people from different backgrounds, races, and religion, who have distinct views, ideas, and approach to crucial matters. As such, protecting free speech to ensure that the interests, views, and needs of the diverse campus students or population are safeguarded is fundamental. In this paper, I will evaluate the identity dichotomy that exists when free speech ideas and harm speech in institutions of higher learning come into contact with personal values of the students. The study will mainly concentrate on the Muslim identity, especially among women. Importantly, the paper argues that there is the need for putting up free speech protections in a campus setting while acknowledging the need for including all university members in a dialogue that promotes safety and an atmosphere open to conflicting and dissenting views.
Freedom of speech incorporates a right of expressing oneself and also a right of accessing information (Oltmann, 2016). Free speech allows individuals to speak their mind and express their views and ideas. However, free speech may fail to be mindful of other people’s attitudes and perspectives, thus bringing about harm speech that can affect vulnerable groups. Harm speech usually promotes adverse feelings and anger among the affected group and can contribute to the marginalization of individuals based on gender, race and sexual orientation. In a campus setting, harmful speech dissents from creating a meaningful opportunity for interaction and learning, and instead fosters hate and anger. Free speech, on the other hand, stimulates free expression, enabling students to discover interests and acquire skills as well as expand their knowledge that helps them to organize and advocate ideas that can promote advancement in the society (Ben-Porath, 2017). However, in the case of increasing diversity amongst the American colleges, it is impossible to entirely facilitate an environment of free speech without causing harm to the people that feel marginalized in the college settings. It is, therefore, important to implement a framework that recognizes the importance of free and open exchange while at the same time providing guidelines that will provide a platform for all the diverse groups to participate uninhibited.In such an environment of openness, creativity abounds, creating a framework for innovativeness.
Today, the campus community diversity is not only caused by the changing demographics but in fact, portrays an extension of the social mission of the university. Notably, while the university still maintains its commitment to inquiry and research, it has transformed from an institution responsible for serving a limited population segment to one that operates as an engine for equal opportunity and social mobility. Therefore, given the large diversity of the campus population and the need for inclusion and incorporation of all the members of the university, the approach to free speech and expression in a campus setting needs to be revisited. To ensure that free speech does not degenerate to harm speech, rethinking the manner in which diverse perspectives and views are welcomed, put forward and responded to is essential in a campus setting. Noteworthy, while the university acts as a respite for the students, it still has a mission of challenging students to help them think and prepare them for their specific civic roles. To execute this mission, the campus must expose the learners to some of the disagreements and tensions that they may face outside the university, to present them with an opportunity of growing and expanding their perspectives. To address the issues of expression and speech and mitigate the prevalence of harm speech within the campus, the university must protect free speech for the entire campus community in manners that foster the establishment of an inclusive environment (Ben-Porath, 2017). Such a setting will not only minimize conflict, but also foster individual boldness.
Promotion of inclusive freedom ensures that all the diverse groups have an opportunity to participate in the critical dialogue in campus without having the feeling of being discriminated. One of the ways of implementing increased inclusive freedom in colleges is by employing the college staff from diverse backgrounds to be consistent with the diversity of the college students. Ben-Porath (2017) notes that the makeup of the students’ campus body as well as the staff needs to inform the commitment of the administration to the process of protecting and encouraging free speech. Therefore, one of the critical changes in the colleges should include diversifying the staff. Diversity of the staff both at the teaching and support level is important because it ensures that the opinions of all the communities in the campus are represented during the decision-making processes. All the communities in the campus will be able to engage in open and free exchange because of the inclusive culture that is created out of diversifying the staff members. For example, Muslim communities have been underrepresented in the campus staff for a long time, especially women. While these has been mainly due to the Muslim cultural practices that are more conservative compared to other communities, having a campus staff with Muslim representation will facilitate free dialogue and open-mindedness in discussing Muslim matters thus encouraging inclusivity. It will help to facilitate free speech without harm. Conversations guided by inclusive freedom help to create a deeper understanding of the diverse opinions held by different communities within the campuses. The students thus develop with an open-mindedness that facilitates open discussions that are not hurtful to other diverse communities. The process of inclusive freedom doe not entail the limiting of speech but provision of guidelines to promote open and free discussion among students and staff members. By promoting inclusive freedom within their institutions, campuses will not need to curtail free speech to combat controversy; rather they will be in a position to encourage expressive speech among the students (Ben-Porath, 2017). Therefore, inclusive freedom framework through recruitment of a diverse staff will facilitate an environment where all voices are heard and the opinions of all members are respected regardless of religion or race.
As much as learning institutions appear to separate rules and regulations from religion, one cannot deny the importance of creed to identity formation. According to Guttmann (2009), religious identity provides a legitimate claim to the recognition of the public in a democracy. She notes that religious associations provide fundamental support systems, particularly in democracies that have less significant welfare states (Guttmann, 2009). According to him, religious hate speech or arguments are not welcomed in politics but rather tolerated (Guttmann, 2009). The lack of welcoming religious speech, as per the author, suggests that all religious arguments are hurtful, which is a notion that can directly threaten people’s lives. Guttmann holds that democratic politics should not only tolerate but also welcome arguments that are religion-based when they encourage reciprocity among the citizens. Usually, reciprocity does not necessitate the citizens to come to an agreement on similar religious and secular terms. Rather, they can agree that there are some human truths that are constant across all creeds. For example, the concepts of empathy and kindness are emphasized in all religions. The criticality of political arguments that tend to strive for reciprocity is not dependent on whether people agree with them but whether their moral force can be appreciated. In regards to Muslims, religious identity is one of critical aspect that Muslims identify with, in their life. Inclusive freedom paired with free speech can enable Muslims not to only be tolerating of other religions but also be welcoming of religion-based arguments.
In the United Kingdom, Muslims are a minority group. However, Islam comprises a rich culture in which youthful women often learn from their parents and build characteristics that enhance their identity as Muslims. Through communication, performance, interpretation, and negotiation their traditions and culture get passed from one generation to another. Young women are currently part of societies that are involved in their identities reconstruction in response to the things that are occurring around them. By de-contextualizing their parents’ Islam and re-contextualizing theirs, the young women have turned out to be more confident to be perceived as Muslim (Haw, 2011). The shift has enabled them to pursue interests that their religion was against, with the significant increase in Muslim women in academia, serving as an example.
Similarly to Britain, in America Muslims constitute a small group of the population. More so, in American universities, Muslim students are less compared to other groups. Notably, in America, non-Muslim students are largely tolerant of their Muslim counterparts, and they refrain from engaging in speech that can make the Muslim learners uneasy or uncomfortable. Such is the case when emotive topics such as the Israel-Palestine conflict are brought up. Demonstrating religion tolerance, non-Muslim students avoid touching on topics that mainly focus on Islam. Free speech in American universities is thus regulated and students hardly get the opportunity to explore and challenge some of the established views. Students are expected to be tolerant of other learners’ beliefs but are not allowed to question them as this may raise controversy among students.
The campus administrations should participate in furthering inclusion and diversity in the colleges. It is important for the administrations in campuses to participate in the framing and recognition of free and open campuses (Ben-Porath, 2017). Inclusive freedom in campuses should include the administration curtailing the expressions of opinions that are hurtful to some communities in the colleges and encouraging free expression that is inclusive of all the people. For a long time, the Muslim communities have been shut out of most discussions within campuses due to reference to their culture in negative ways by other communities. The differences in religion and cultural practices between Muslims and other communities have often resulted in explosive forums when free speech is given a chance. Inclusive freedom can entail the administration promoting a lot of debates aimed at discussing the contentious areas in a more civilized way that does not harm any community. The open discussions provide platforms for understanding the diversity in the campuses and thus creating an environment of positive free speech. Besides, the administration can organize for a lot of cultural events aimed at creating knowledge and encouraging inclusivity of other people’s opinions and remarks. The lecturers can also encourage more talk among students on various issues regarding culture to facilitate open-mindedness.
Conclusion
As Ben-Porath (2017) notes, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the university is a diverse community that consists of people from different backgrounds, religions, and race, which makes protection of free speech paramount to ensuring that every member is protected. Protecting free speech, however, does not mean regulating speech to avoid controversy, rather, it entails ensuring that students do not participate in harm speech but at the same time providing them with an opportunity to question, explore, challenge views and accept contradictory opinions. As noted, inclusive freedom ensures that the learners can participate in a dialogue and challenge each other intellectually without engaging in hurtful speech. Conclusively, American campuses should implement inclusive freedom to enable the Muslim and non-Muslim students to freely express themselves, question existing opinions, challenge each other intellectually and accept their differences.
References
Ben-Porath, S. R. (2017). Free speech on campus. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gutmann, A. (2009). Identity in democracy. Princeton University Press.
Haw, K. (2011). The ‘changing same’ of an ‘in-between’generation: Negotiating identities through space, place and time. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 565-579.
Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defense of the school: A public issue. TStorme.
Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Intellectual freedom and freedom of speech: Three theoretical perspectives. The Library Quarterly, 86(2), 153-171.
