Thomas Akiyama
December 13, 2010
FD5/ Final Exam
Don’t Hate!
“Hate” is a powerful and destructive term that affects people globally and locally. Here on the Hawaiian Islands where many groups of individuals from all over the world live and visit, the word “hate” has a deeply rooted idealism that grows everyday. This influential term can be heard and felt among the lowest income communities along with the leaders of the communities. Prevention of hate crimes is a concept used in many cities where hate crimes are more prevalent and detrimental to the local surrounding communities. [THESIS] To curb the spread and devastating effects of hate crimes, we should have television public service announcements that reflect the use of these crimes and the resulting consequence. [THESIS]
The history of hate crimes can be traced by to the introduction of cultures amongst each other. People tend to judge other person on the materials they have and their personality. Nation-wide hate crimes have taken root in areas where the number of crimes is prevalent and racial tension is high. The report from the FBI stated an, “…overall total of 7,489 hate crime incidents” (Anderson). However the report also mentioned that, “All states except for Hawaii reported at least one hate crime last year,” which I believe gives the impression that we don't have hate crimes here (Anderson). There are hate crimes in Hawaii especially due to the amount of cultures and ethnicities living and visiting here every year.
Here in Hawaii, many hate crimes are not reported and are dealt with in private due mainly to the small island idealism. The people know that the island is very small and the news about any issue can travel across the island in a relatively short time which causes concern for people who are involved with a controversial subject such as a hate crime. Many people found out recently the depth that hate crimes over-took the community due to the news about University of Hawaii Football Coach’s “hateful” remarks. University of Hawaii Football Coach, Greg McMackin was recently suspended due to his comments involving a homosexual slur which cost him a total of $160,000 in salary losses (Zahid). The amount of money he lost was substantial, however it was the message Coach McMackin carried that caused members of the community to become more aware about the effects of hateful crimes.
Hate crimes and its prevention start with the education of how such offenses affect other people in different ethnicities. Educating the youth about the lasting effects of hate crimes should be a priority in teaching the students to respect all cultures. Since many youth and adults watch television, the idea of a public service announcement will relay the message throughout the community. However this public service announcement should not be easily forgettable but rather implanted in the minds of the audience by showing them graphic images and the consequences of doing a hate crime. Watching something controversial that haunts the mind of the viewer gives an everlasting effect in which the person will talk about the subject with his or her friends and continue a link throughout society. The public service announcement by the Hawaii Meth Project tells the audience via television that real-world experience of taking the drug crystal meth and the effects it has on the user. The commercial contains highly graphic images about the users of crystal meth, which I believe is effective in placing the idea that drugs can negatively affect the user. This concept should be used with the idea of hate crimes to impose the negative effects on the youth and adults.
My personal experience with hate crimes occurred when I was going to high school here in Hawaii. In high school there are many groups of people in which there are various ethnicities however there are also groups of teens where there is only one ethnicity. I remember during lunch period there was shouting done by a group of Caucasian males toward a group of Chinese individuals. One white male said one of the Chinese males was talking about him behind his back in class about his low-test score. The Chinese male did not say anything even though the Caucasian male yelled at him calling him names. However as soon as the white male said a racial slur about the Chinese ethnicity, the other Chinese males ran toward him and started punching the white male. A fight broke out between the groups and in the end all the teens were suspended. If only they had the public service announcement educating them about the negative effects of hateful remarks then maybe the use of racial slurs would have not come about. This provided me with the knowledge that hate crimes were prevalent here and impacts my daily life.
Hate crimes cause hurtful and negative emotions in various communities around the world including in Hawaii. As the number of hate crimes increase due to the expand of all ethnicities, the implementation of educational programs such as a public service announcement will deter the use of hateful slurs and remarks. Hate crimes has affected various people in my community including myself through the experience I had in high school. In the future, the reduction in hate crimes depends on educating the public about the negative effects and learning that having respect for each other is a necessary component.
Works Cited:
Anderson, Curt. “FBI Reports More Than 7,400 Hate Crimes.” 22 November
2004. Charlotte.com Retrieved 13 December 2010. [http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10246350.htm].
Arab, Zahid. “University of Hawaii Coach Greg McMackin Suspended.” 31 July
2009. KHNL.com. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
[http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=10830037].
Monday, December 13, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
FD 4 Speak your Mind!
Thomas Akiyama
December 9, 2010
FD4
Speak Your Mind!
The First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights states a powerful and direct law to the American citizens that the freedom of speech is something that should be respected and tolerated. Ward Churchill fury to the general public in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Churchill made a critical statement remarking on how the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were “little Eichmanns,” which is a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi who played a major role in the killing of the Jews during the Second War World. [THESIS] The First Amendment right should apply to all American citizens including Ward Churchill whether their statements may be controversial. [THESIS]
The most basic component of all United States citizens’ rights is the freedom of expression and in this case the freedom of speech. The history of the First Amendment can be traced back with its creation during the development of the Bill of Rights nearly two hundred years ago. An article posted by the Cornell Law School on the First Amendment states that the right gives, “individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). In relation to the comments Churchill stated on how 9/11 victims were “little Eichmanns” this right should still be upheld. The fact is that all citizens of the United States are entitled to the freedom to express any idea through speech is a basic rule written in law. Without controversial statements that would spark an idea in the audiences’ mind, new and innovative changes would not happen. Freedom of speech gives citizens the right on which nothing is physically needed, but rather just the imagination to create such an idea.
In his Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens publication, Churchill ignites rage and support toward his remarks about how the victims of 9/11 were tied into the injustice based on the policies of the United States government. Churchill’s serious comments on how the U.S. government and its supporters need a “…dose of their own medicine” should be reflected as the need to learn from past mistakes. Many of Churchill’s assertions blame the foundation that the “freedom- loving” people of the U.S. believe their country is based upon. Within his essay, he also describes many past situations in which the U.S. government did not learn from and therefore triggered its own results from the 9/11 attacks. The comparison of how many people were killed in the 9/11 attacks to the number of people killed due to the foreign policies of the U.S. is heavily focused in Churchill’s publication. The number of people killed by the U.S. in various countries outnumbers the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, however Churchill makes it clear that the terrorist attacks were not justified to solve government policy issues.
In an article written by Beverly Creamer who interprets the ecstatic environment during a speech given by Churchill at the Art Auditorium at the University of Hawai‘i, “Churchill indicts the United States…for what he called a century of wars and humanitarian abuses around the globe” (Creamer). Churchill also stated that he does not condone the attacks as the right thing to do to change the government policies, he states, “I did not advocate the events. One doesn't advocate for a volcano. One points to it and tries to make sense of it” (Creamer). Churchill remarks in his essay and speech were controversial and adversely noted upon however his right to freedom of speech should still be upheld. In a statement made by my classmate, Kristine Asato, she describes Churchill’s right of free speech, “Churchill says he was sending a message, that we should held accountable for our actions…the only reason why people are upset is because people died in action.” I agree entirely with this statement on the belief that the public is widely affected emotionally on the topic of death for a cause. Human emotion and the quick solution of censorship play a major role in the role Churchill and his remarks about the 9/11 victims affecting the general public’s views.
The backlash on Churchill’s career due to his remarks on the 9/11 victims created a belief that saying statements which are widely held in opposition will cause your loss of respect amongst the community. An article written by Matthew Beaudin on the step down of Churchill’s position as chairman of the Department of Ethic Studies at the University of Colorado shows the price you pay for the freedom to speak freely. Although the cost at which Churchill loss his position and salary his remarks on the unjust government policies which were bought in public view from the 9/11 attacks will far outlast the monetary effects. Many opponents of Churchill also believe that the resignation from his position will lead to the termination from the University of Colorado all together, “ ‘I think our actions helped lead to his resignation, and I hope our actions help lead to his termination,’ Lechowitt [President of University of Colorado’s College Republications] said” (Beaudin). Individuals and groups that want to change it for the worst see the cost of free speech on Churchill through his position in society and the movement.
Gregory Jenkins describes his view on the limitations that Churchill should face due to his profession as a college professor. In an online Laulima discussion titled, “Attack Ward Churchill” Jenkins writes, “Churchill, when acting in his professional role, must be subjected to the necessary rules and limitations of his free speech” which recognizes that professors are under question whenever they perform their duties in their profession. The fault in this idea is that professors provide guidance and knowledge to their students on any issue or topic that comes into question and Jenkins’s impression is that there should be the censorship of education. If we censor education and the professors that pass on their knowledge, then what is the overall motivation to go to school to learn in the first place, if everything is bias? Professors including Churchill should not feel pressured to conform to how others perceive themselves but instead be able to express their visions.
During last year’s spring semester, I took a course on business strategic management. Within the course I was told to have prepared a weekly assignment called “Celebration of Learning.” During our class meetings we would get into groups and discuss any topic however during one of the discussions a group member was frustrated at the assignment and began to state his opinion. He stated he disliked the assignment and began to question why it was necessary to complete it and the professor replied it was to give his students the freedom to express any issue they chose whether it dealt with the course or not. The student stated that where he grew up in South Korea, the school district he went to strictly implements the censorship of any topic discussed in public and he felt that the freedom of speech should be the same in America too. However the professor explained that the first amendment in the United States allows individuals to freely express their statements without the feeling of censorship. This links directly to how Churchill was treated by the public who opposed his ideas and punished him by his resignation from this chairman position and censoring his controversial ideas. Although I disagree with Churchill calling the victims of 9/11, “little Eichmanns” however I will defend his right to free express his statements.
In a recent article I found while search online by Jill Lawless from the Associated Press dealt with how the freedom of speech can also play a role my daily life. The article discussed how several friends were writing messages about bombing an airport because of their bad costumer service via Twitter, an online social network . Although the friends weren’t intending to do what they said via twitter the issue of freedom of speech sparked a debate whether or not it is acceptable to said those statements. This article also discusses how we should embrace the First Amendment since, “In China, where the Internet is restricted and Twitter is blocked, a woman was recently sentenced to a year in a labor camp for "disrupting social order" (Lawless). I feel society is immediately drawn toward ideas that are viewed as controversial to focus on eliminating them.
The First Amendment plays a major role in the various rights of all American citizens including Ward Churchill to freely express their ideas and values without prosecution from the government. Churchill describes the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. His description of the 9/11 victims is controversial and caused the loss of his position at the University of Colorado however the enlightenment he bought to the first amendment played a major role in the censorship issue. Churchill and all Americans should be able to freely express their ideas and values. The need to protect the freedom of speech of all American is an important aspect to keep the freedoms of society.
Works Cited
Asato, Kristine. “Defend Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 01 December 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 30 October 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Beaudin, Matthew. “Churchill quits chairmanship: CU professor will continue tenured
teaching position.” Dailycamera.com 1 February 2005. Retrieved 02 December
2010. [http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3513453,00.html].
Creamer, Beverly. “Outspoken prof critical of U.S.” Honolulu Advertiser. 23 February
2005. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
[http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Ejamess/freespee/creamer2.htm].
“First Amendment: An Overview.” N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law
School. 5 June 2003. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
[http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment].
Jenkins, Gregory. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 22 November 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 01 December 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Lawless, Jill. “Twitter Tirades Test Limits of Freedom of Speech.” Yahoo! News.
23 November 2010. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_hi_te/eu_britain_twitter_trouble].
Log of Completed Activities
X Nov 9t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Nov 15M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Nov 22M- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
X Nov 29M- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
X Dec 3F- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Dec 6M- RD4 evaluations due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Dec 8W- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
December 9, 2010
FD4
Speak Your Mind!
The First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights states a powerful and direct law to the American citizens that the freedom of speech is something that should be respected and tolerated. Ward Churchill fury to the general public in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Churchill made a critical statement remarking on how the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were “little Eichmanns,” which is a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi who played a major role in the killing of the Jews during the Second War World. [THESIS] The First Amendment right should apply to all American citizens including Ward Churchill whether their statements may be controversial. [THESIS]
The most basic component of all United States citizens’ rights is the freedom of expression and in this case the freedom of speech. The history of the First Amendment can be traced back with its creation during the development of the Bill of Rights nearly two hundred years ago. An article posted by the Cornell Law School on the First Amendment states that the right gives, “individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). In relation to the comments Churchill stated on how 9/11 victims were “little Eichmanns” this right should still be upheld. The fact is that all citizens of the United States are entitled to the freedom to express any idea through speech is a basic rule written in law. Without controversial statements that would spark an idea in the audiences’ mind, new and innovative changes would not happen. Freedom of speech gives citizens the right on which nothing is physically needed, but rather just the imagination to create such an idea.
In his Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens publication, Churchill ignites rage and support toward his remarks about how the victims of 9/11 were tied into the injustice based on the policies of the United States government. Churchill’s serious comments on how the U.S. government and its supporters need a “…dose of their own medicine” should be reflected as the need to learn from past mistakes. Many of Churchill’s assertions blame the foundation that the “freedom- loving” people of the U.S. believe their country is based upon. Within his essay, he also describes many past situations in which the U.S. government did not learn from and therefore triggered its own results from the 9/11 attacks. The comparison of how many people were killed in the 9/11 attacks to the number of people killed due to the foreign policies of the U.S. is heavily focused in Churchill’s publication. The number of people killed by the U.S. in various countries outnumbers the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, however Churchill makes it clear that the terrorist attacks were not justified to solve government policy issues.
In an article written by Beverly Creamer who interprets the ecstatic environment during a speech given by Churchill at the Art Auditorium at the University of Hawai‘i, “Churchill indicts the United States…for what he called a century of wars and humanitarian abuses around the globe” (Creamer). Churchill also stated that he does not condone the attacks as the right thing to do to change the government policies, he states, “I did not advocate the events. One doesn't advocate for a volcano. One points to it and tries to make sense of it” (Creamer). Churchill remarks in his essay and speech were controversial and adversely noted upon however his right to freedom of speech should still be upheld. In a statement made by my classmate, Kristine Asato, she describes Churchill’s right of free speech, “Churchill says he was sending a message, that we should held accountable for our actions…the only reason why people are upset is because people died in action.” I agree entirely with this statement on the belief that the public is widely affected emotionally on the topic of death for a cause. Human emotion and the quick solution of censorship play a major role in the role Churchill and his remarks about the 9/11 victims affecting the general public’s views.
The backlash on Churchill’s career due to his remarks on the 9/11 victims created a belief that saying statements which are widely held in opposition will cause your loss of respect amongst the community. An article written by Matthew Beaudin on the step down of Churchill’s position as chairman of the Department of Ethic Studies at the University of Colorado shows the price you pay for the freedom to speak freely. Although the cost at which Churchill loss his position and salary his remarks on the unjust government policies which were bought in public view from the 9/11 attacks will far outlast the monetary effects. Many opponents of Churchill also believe that the resignation from his position will lead to the termination from the University of Colorado all together, “ ‘I think our actions helped lead to his resignation, and I hope our actions help lead to his termination,’ Lechowitt [President of University of Colorado’s College Republications] said” (Beaudin). Individuals and groups that want to change it for the worst see the cost of free speech on Churchill through his position in society and the movement.
Gregory Jenkins describes his view on the limitations that Churchill should face due to his profession as a college professor. In an online Laulima discussion titled, “Attack Ward Churchill” Jenkins writes, “Churchill, when acting in his professional role, must be subjected to the necessary rules and limitations of his free speech” which recognizes that professors are under question whenever they perform their duties in their profession. The fault in this idea is that professors provide guidance and knowledge to their students on any issue or topic that comes into question and Jenkins’s impression is that there should be the censorship of education. If we censor education and the professors that pass on their knowledge, then what is the overall motivation to go to school to learn in the first place, if everything is bias? Professors including Churchill should not feel pressured to conform to how others perceive themselves but instead be able to express their visions.
During last year’s spring semester, I took a course on business strategic management. Within the course I was told to have prepared a weekly assignment called “Celebration of Learning.” During our class meetings we would get into groups and discuss any topic however during one of the discussions a group member was frustrated at the assignment and began to state his opinion. He stated he disliked the assignment and began to question why it was necessary to complete it and the professor replied it was to give his students the freedom to express any issue they chose whether it dealt with the course or not. The student stated that where he grew up in South Korea, the school district he went to strictly implements the censorship of any topic discussed in public and he felt that the freedom of speech should be the same in America too. However the professor explained that the first amendment in the United States allows individuals to freely express their statements without the feeling of censorship. This links directly to how Churchill was treated by the public who opposed his ideas and punished him by his resignation from this chairman position and censoring his controversial ideas. Although I disagree with Churchill calling the victims of 9/11, “little Eichmanns” however I will defend his right to free express his statements.
In a recent article I found while search online by Jill Lawless from the Associated Press dealt with how the freedom of speech can also play a role my daily life. The article discussed how several friends were writing messages about bombing an airport because of their bad costumer service via Twitter, an online social network . Although the friends weren’t intending to do what they said via twitter the issue of freedom of speech sparked a debate whether or not it is acceptable to said those statements. This article also discusses how we should embrace the First Amendment since, “In China, where the Internet is restricted and Twitter is blocked, a woman was recently sentenced to a year in a labor camp for "disrupting social order" (Lawless). I feel society is immediately drawn toward ideas that are viewed as controversial to focus on eliminating them.
The First Amendment plays a major role in the various rights of all American citizens including Ward Churchill to freely express their ideas and values without prosecution from the government. Churchill describes the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. His description of the 9/11 victims is controversial and caused the loss of his position at the University of Colorado however the enlightenment he bought to the first amendment played a major role in the censorship issue. Churchill and all Americans should be able to freely express their ideas and values. The need to protect the freedom of speech of all American is an important aspect to keep the freedoms of society.
Works Cited
Asato, Kristine. “Defend Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 01 December 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 30 October 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Beaudin, Matthew. “Churchill quits chairmanship: CU professor will continue tenured
teaching position.” Dailycamera.com 1 February 2005. Retrieved 02 December
2010. [http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3513453,00.html].
Creamer, Beverly. “Outspoken prof critical of U.S.” Honolulu Advertiser. 23 February
2005. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
[http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Ejamess/freespee/creamer2.htm].
“First Amendment: An Overview.” N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law
School. 5 June 2003. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
[http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment].
Jenkins, Gregory. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 22 November 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 01 December 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Lawless, Jill. “Twitter Tirades Test Limits of Freedom of Speech.” Yahoo! News.
23 November 2010. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_hi_te/eu_britain_twitter_trouble].
Log of Completed Activities
X Nov 9t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Nov 15M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Nov 22M- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
X Nov 29M- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
X Dec 3F- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Dec 6M- RD4 evaluations due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Dec 8W- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Friday, December 3, 2010
RD4 Speak Your Mind!
Thomas Akiyama
December 3, 2010
RD4
Speak Your Mind!
The First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights states a powerful and direct law to the American citizens that the freedom of speech is something that should be respected and tolerated. Ward Churchill caused unstableness and fury to the general public in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Within this publication, Churchill made a critical statement remarking on how the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were “little Eichmanns,” which is a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi who played a major role in the killing of the Jews during the Second War World. [THESIS] This report will dissect the First Amendment right, specifically the freedom of speech that all American citizens including Ward Churchill should be entitled to whether their statements may be controversial. [THESIS]
The most basic component of all United States citizens’ rights is the freedom of expression and in this case the freedom of speech. The history of the First Amendment can be traced back with its creation during the development of the Bill of Rights nearly two hundred years ago. An article posted by the Cornell Law School on the First Amendment states that the right gives, “individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). In relation to the comments Churchill stated on how 9/11 victims were “little Eichmanns” this right should still be upheld. The fact is that all citizens of the United States are entitled to the freedom to express any idea through speech is a basic rule written in law. Without controversial statements that would spark an idea in an audience member’s mind, new and innovative changes would not happen. Freedom of speech gives citizens the right on which nothing is physically needed, but rather just the imagination to create such an idea.
In his Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens publication, Churchill ignites rage and support toward his remarks about how the victims of 9/11 were tied into the injustice based on the policies of the United States government. Churchill’s serious comments on how the U.S. government and its supporters needs a “…dose of their own medicine” should be reflected as the need to learn from past mistakes. Many of Churchill’s assertions blame the foundation that the “freedom- loving” people of the U.S. believe their country is based upon. Within his essay, he also describes many past situations in which the U.S. government did not learn from and therefore triggered its own results from the 9/11 attacks. The comparison of how many people were killed in the 9/11 attacks to the number of people killed due to the foreign policies of the U.S. is heavily focused in Churchill’s publication. The number of people killed by the U.S. in various countries outnumbers the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, however Churchill makes it clear that the terrorist attacks were not justified to solve government policy issues.
In an article written by Beverly Creamer who interprets the ecstatic environment during a speech given by Churchill at the Art Auditorium at the University of Hawai‘i, “Churchill indicts the United States…for what he called a century of wars and humanitarian abuses around the globe” (Creamer). Churchill also stated that he does not condone the attacks as the right thing to do to change the government policies, he states, “I did not advocate the events. One doesn't advocate for a volcano. One points to it and tries to make sense of it” (Creamer). Churchill remarks in his essay and speech were controversial and adversely noted upon however his right to freedom of speech should still be upheld. In a statement made by my classmate, Kristine Asato, she describes Churchill’s right of free speech, “Churchill says he was sending a message, that we should held accountable for our actions…the only reason why people are upset is because people died in action.” I agree entirely with this statement on the belief that the public is widely affected emotionally on the topic of death for a cause. Human emotion the quick solution of censorship plays a major role in the role Churchill and his remarks about the 9/11 victims affecting the general public’s views.
The backlash on Churchill’s career due to his remarks on the 9/11 victims created a belief that saying statements which are widely held in opposition will cause your loss of respect amongst the community. An article written by Matthew Beaudin on the step down of Churchill’s position as chairman of the Department of Ethic Studies at the University of Colorado shows the price you pay for the freedom to speak freely. Although the cost at which Churchill loss his position and salary his remarks on the unjust government policies which were bought in public view from the 9/11 attacks will far outlast the monetary effects. Many opponents of Churchill also believe that the resignation from his position will lead to the termination from the University of Colorado all together, “ ‘I think our actions helped lead to his resignation, and I hope our actions help lead to his termination,’ Lechowitt [President of University of Colorado’s College Republications] said” (Beaudin). Individuals and groups that want to change it for the worst see the cost of free speech on Churchill through his position in society and the movement.
Gregory Jenkins describes his view on the limitations that Churchill should face due to his profession as a college professor. In an online Laulima discussion titled, “Attack Ward Churchill” Jenkins writes, “Churchill, when acting in his professional role, must be subjected to the necessary rules and limitations of his free speech” which recognizes that professors are under question whenever they perform their duties in their profession. The fault in this idea is that professors provide guidance and knowledge to their students on any issue or topic that comes into question and Jenkins’s impression is that there should be the censorship of education. If we censor education and the professors that pass on their knowledge, then what is the overall motivation to go to school to learn in the first place, if everything is bias? Professors including Churchill should not feel pressured to conform to how others perceive themselves but instead be able to express their visions.
During last year’s spring semester, I took a course on business strategic management. Within the course I was told to have prepared a weekly assignment called “Celebration of Learning.” During our class meetings we would get into groups and discuss any topic however during one of the discussions a group member was frustrated at the assignment and began to state his opinion. He stated he disliked the assignment and began to question why it was necessary to complete it and the professor replied it was to give his students the freedom to express any issue they chose whether it dealt with the course or not. The student stated that where he grew up in South Korea, the school district he went to strictly implements the censorship of any topic discussed in public and he felt that the freedom of speech should be the same in America too. However the professor explained that the first amendment in the United States allows individuals to freely express their statements without the feeling of censorship. This links directly to how Churchill was treated by the public who opposed his ideas and punished him by his resignation from this chairman position and censoring his controversial ideas. Although I disagree with Churchill calling the victims of 9/11, “little Eichmanns” however I will defend his right to free express his statements.
In a recent article I found while search online by Jill Lawless from the Associated Press dealt with how the freedom of speech can also play a role my daily life. The article discussed how several friends were writing messages about bombing an airport because of their bad costumer service via Twitter, an online social network . Although the friends weren’t intending to do what they said via twitter the issue of freedom of speech sparked a debate whether or not it is acceptable to said those statements. This article also discusses how we should embrace the First Amendment since, “In China, where the Internet is restricted and Twitter is blocked, a woman was recently sentenced to a year in a labor camp for "disrupting social order" (Lawless). I feel society is immediately drawn toward ideas that are viewed as controversial to focus on eliminating them.
The First Amendment plays a major role in the various rights of all American citizens including Ward Churchill to freely express their ideas and values without prosecution from the government. Churchill describes the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. His description of the 9/11 victims is controversial and caused the loss of his position at the University of Colorado however the enlightenment he bought to the first amendment played a major role in the censorship issue. The need to protect the freedom of speech of all American is an important aspect to keep the freedoms of society.
Works Cited:
Asato, Kristine. “Defend Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 01 December 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 30 October 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Beaudin, Matthew. “Churchill quits chairmanship: CU professor will continue tenured
teaching position.” Dailycamera.com 1 February 2005. Retrieved 02 December
2010. [http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3513453,00.html].
Creamer, Beverly. “Outspoken prof critical of U.S.” Honolulu Advertiser. 23 February
2005. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
[http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Ejamess/freespee/creamer2.htm].
“First Amendment: An Overview.” N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law
School. 5 June 2003. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
[http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment].
Jenkins, Gregory. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 22 November 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 01 December 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Lawless, Jill. “Twitter Tirades Test Limits of Freedom of Speech.” Yahoo! News.
23 November 2010. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_hi_te/eu_britain_twitter_trouble].
December 3, 2010
RD4
Speak Your Mind!
The First Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights states a powerful and direct law to the American citizens that the freedom of speech is something that should be respected and tolerated. Ward Churchill caused unstableness and fury to the general public in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Within this publication, Churchill made a critical statement remarking on how the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were “little Eichmanns,” which is a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi who played a major role in the killing of the Jews during the Second War World. [THESIS] This report will dissect the First Amendment right, specifically the freedom of speech that all American citizens including Ward Churchill should be entitled to whether their statements may be controversial. [THESIS]
The most basic component of all United States citizens’ rights is the freedom of expression and in this case the freedom of speech. The history of the First Amendment can be traced back with its creation during the development of the Bill of Rights nearly two hundred years ago. An article posted by the Cornell Law School on the First Amendment states that the right gives, “individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government” (First). In relation to the comments Churchill stated on how 9/11 victims were “little Eichmanns” this right should still be upheld. The fact is that all citizens of the United States are entitled to the freedom to express any idea through speech is a basic rule written in law. Without controversial statements that would spark an idea in an audience member’s mind, new and innovative changes would not happen. Freedom of speech gives citizens the right on which nothing is physically needed, but rather just the imagination to create such an idea.
In his Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens publication, Churchill ignites rage and support toward his remarks about how the victims of 9/11 were tied into the injustice based on the policies of the United States government. Churchill’s serious comments on how the U.S. government and its supporters needs a “…dose of their own medicine” should be reflected as the need to learn from past mistakes. Many of Churchill’s assertions blame the foundation that the “freedom- loving” people of the U.S. believe their country is based upon. Within his essay, he also describes many past situations in which the U.S. government did not learn from and therefore triggered its own results from the 9/11 attacks. The comparison of how many people were killed in the 9/11 attacks to the number of people killed due to the foreign policies of the U.S. is heavily focused in Churchill’s publication. The number of people killed by the U.S. in various countries outnumbers the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, however Churchill makes it clear that the terrorist attacks were not justified to solve government policy issues.
In an article written by Beverly Creamer who interprets the ecstatic environment during a speech given by Churchill at the Art Auditorium at the University of Hawai‘i, “Churchill indicts the United States…for what he called a century of wars and humanitarian abuses around the globe” (Creamer). Churchill also stated that he does not condone the attacks as the right thing to do to change the government policies, he states, “I did not advocate the events. One doesn't advocate for a volcano. One points to it and tries to make sense of it” (Creamer). Churchill remarks in his essay and speech were controversial and adversely noted upon however his right to freedom of speech should still be upheld. In a statement made by my classmate, Kristine Asato, she describes Churchill’s right of free speech, “Churchill says he was sending a message, that we should held accountable for our actions…the only reason why people are upset is because people died in action.” I agree entirely with this statement on the belief that the public is widely affected emotionally on the topic of death for a cause. Human emotion the quick solution of censorship plays a major role in the role Churchill and his remarks about the 9/11 victims affecting the general public’s views.
The backlash on Churchill’s career due to his remarks on the 9/11 victims created a belief that saying statements which are widely held in opposition will cause your loss of respect amongst the community. An article written by Matthew Beaudin on the step down of Churchill’s position as chairman of the Department of Ethic Studies at the University of Colorado shows the price you pay for the freedom to speak freely. Although the cost at which Churchill loss his position and salary his remarks on the unjust government policies which were bought in public view from the 9/11 attacks will far outlast the monetary effects. Many opponents of Churchill also believe that the resignation from his position will lead to the termination from the University of Colorado all together, “ ‘I think our actions helped lead to his resignation, and I hope our actions help lead to his termination,’ Lechowitt [President of University of Colorado’s College Republications] said” (Beaudin). Individuals and groups that want to change it for the worst see the cost of free speech on Churchill through his position in society and the movement.
Gregory Jenkins describes his view on the limitations that Churchill should face due to his profession as a college professor. In an online Laulima discussion titled, “Attack Ward Churchill” Jenkins writes, “Churchill, when acting in his professional role, must be subjected to the necessary rules and limitations of his free speech” which recognizes that professors are under question whenever they perform their duties in their profession. The fault in this idea is that professors provide guidance and knowledge to their students on any issue or topic that comes into question and Jenkins’s impression is that there should be the censorship of education. If we censor education and the professors that pass on their knowledge, then what is the overall motivation to go to school to learn in the first place, if everything is bias? Professors including Churchill should not feel pressured to conform to how others perceive themselves but instead be able to express their visions.
During last year’s spring semester, I took a course on business strategic management. Within the course I was told to have prepared a weekly assignment called “Celebration of Learning.” During our class meetings we would get into groups and discuss any topic however during one of the discussions a group member was frustrated at the assignment and began to state his opinion. He stated he disliked the assignment and began to question why it was necessary to complete it and the professor replied it was to give his students the freedom to express any issue they chose whether it dealt with the course or not. The student stated that where he grew up in South Korea, the school district he went to strictly implements the censorship of any topic discussed in public and he felt that the freedom of speech should be the same in America too. However the professor explained that the first amendment in the United States allows individuals to freely express their statements without the feeling of censorship. This links directly to how Churchill was treated by the public who opposed his ideas and punished him by his resignation from this chairman position and censoring his controversial ideas. Although I disagree with Churchill calling the victims of 9/11, “little Eichmanns” however I will defend his right to free express his statements.
In a recent article I found while search online by Jill Lawless from the Associated Press dealt with how the freedom of speech can also play a role my daily life. The article discussed how several friends were writing messages about bombing an airport because of their bad costumer service via Twitter, an online social network . Although the friends weren’t intending to do what they said via twitter the issue of freedom of speech sparked a debate whether or not it is acceptable to said those statements. This article also discusses how we should embrace the First Amendment since, “In China, where the Internet is restricted and Twitter is blocked, a woman was recently sentenced to a year in a labor camp for "disrupting social order" (Lawless). I feel society is immediately drawn toward ideas that are viewed as controversial to focus on eliminating them.
The First Amendment plays a major role in the various rights of all American citizens including Ward Churchill to freely express their ideas and values without prosecution from the government. Churchill describes the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” in his publication titled Globalization, ‘Some People Push Back’ On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. His description of the 9/11 victims is controversial and caused the loss of his position at the University of Colorado however the enlightenment he bought to the first amendment played a major role in the censorship issue. The need to protect the freedom of speech of all American is an important aspect to keep the freedoms of society.
Works Cited:
Asato, Kristine. “Defend Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 01 December 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 30 October 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Beaudin, Matthew. “Churchill quits chairmanship: CU professor will continue tenured
teaching position.” Dailycamera.com 1 February 2005. Retrieved 02 December
2010. [http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3513453,00.html].
Creamer, Beverly. “Outspoken prof critical of U.S.” Honolulu Advertiser. 23 February
2005. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
[http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Ejamess/freespee/creamer2.htm].
“First Amendment: An Overview.” N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law
School. 5 June 2003. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
[http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment].
Jenkins, Gregory. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 22 November 2010. Laulima
Discussion. Retrieved 01 December 2010
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].
Lawless, Jill. “Twitter Tirades Test Limits of Freedom of Speech.” Yahoo! News.
23 November 2010. Retrieved 25 November 2010.
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_hi_te/eu_britain_twitter_trouble].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)