A Controversial Expression of Speech – Heaphy and the Guests and Families of Csu SacramentoEssay Preview: A Controversial Expression of Speech – Heaphy and the Guests and Families of Csu SacramentoReport this essayA Controversial Expression of SpeechThe conflict between Heaphy and the guests and families of CSU Sacramento graduates in December of 2001 was tremendously contentious. An appalled crowed began to boo and holler when she was halfway through her speech about the racial profiling involving 9-11. Heaphy believed it was perfectly appropriate to freely speak her mind with a lack of self-censorship. The crowd was in utter shock and became infuriated quickly. They believed that a graduation speech should reflect on the graduates life and education and provide them with inspiration as they embark on the next chapter in their lives. However, they were subjected to a speech on reality. Their expectation was a graduation speech that would give hope, courage and triumph; not bring dreams down to a minimum.
The author, Lustig, sides with Heaphy because he believes that she has the freedom to speak without limits. He also condones that the crowds actions were disrespectful. Lustigs personal opinion could agree with the crowd, but regardless their exploits were atrocious. The crowd plainly yearned for a speech containing nothing but positive thoughts. Theyd rather exclude the harsh truths of our country from their minds, rather than listen, absorb and analyze it. Longing for only satisfying words leaves us empty; for the world does not only consist of happiness.
The thoughts of the crowd were entirely understandable, though the way they portrayed their thoughts and opinions was unethical. Heaphy had the entitlement to make her bold statements and bring forth her theories because she had not been censored by the administration. Heaphy neglected to reflect on the anxious and successful students that were close to receiving the diplomas and beginning their adult lives. She did not express thoughts that could provoke positive futures; but dwelt only on the negative occurrences going on in America at the time. From my standpoint, I can easily agree with the thoughts of the crowd and the speaker; though both expressed their feelings in the wrong way. The hope for pure happiness is not always possible when dealing with the real world.
Michele’s essay was published in May 2015, and in that time we have seen a lot more of her writing on academia. One of the primary issues discussed in the essay is that of censorship of her opinions. She discusses in great detail the various ways the administration and certain students have attempted to get rid of critical discourse. In some cases the speech was suppressed when it violated the peace treaty, although she has not mentioned it publicly.
In her article, Michele discusses four times, and each time the censure was in question, she stated her thoughts on the issue and sought to get that censure lifted. One of the things that is extremely important in her article, as well as a subject of great concern to many students, is what she calls the “culture of subversion.” This may have been something as far back as 2005. It had to be said by Michele herself, but it was a very important statement. There is a widespread perception that “uncensured speech” in academia is a major problem in today’s universities and, even more worrying to some students, has led to the overuse of this category. It is a fact that the majority of academic people do not understand what censor-mental policies actually entail so we know better than to allow students to question our knowledge or our judgments.
Michele argues:
One of the reasons why the idea that students might want to engage in a discourse on social matters, or even on political matters such as immigration, with such great frequency as with certain viewpoints on our campus doesn’t quite get the grade it needs on political matters, is that it is not just not just that. It is also much more radical. The term is often used to refer to “student group culture” and for those students that do not follow this “culture”, it can be said to be intolerant or to even be a bit political. In some instances, students may be quite angry with certain aspects of their school environment, including language, and also with issues of race and gender. In some situations, the actions of certain people that they identify with or who don’t as they are or in some instances the students who participate in the “culture” must not just be labeled intolerant and they may ultimately find themselves in the same position as many students do.
The student movement has also made great strides in the past couple of years, with many student writers and writers advocating for the removal of the censurer of student speech for all viewpoints. Most important, and one that can be really felt by all involved, is that the use of the verb “censor” to mean censure or censorship, to have a censor at least act upon certain things, is now being taken by the mainstream media, especially social media, and its media. The issue of censorship is clearly on the rise because of the increase in internet access, e-book platforms, and other forms of media online and what is widely considered a problem for academic students. However, it is also becoming very clear to several
Michele’s essay was published in May 2015, and in that time we have seen a lot more of her writing on academia. One of the primary issues discussed in the essay is that of censorship of her opinions. She discusses in great detail the various ways the administration and certain students have attempted to get rid of critical discourse. In some cases the speech was suppressed when it violated the peace treaty, although she has not mentioned it publicly.
In her article, Michele discusses four times, and each time the censure was in question, she stated her thoughts on the issue and sought to get that censure lifted. One of the things that is extremely important in her article, as well as a subject of great concern to many students, is what she calls the “culture of subversion.” This may have been something as far back as 2005. It had to be said by Michele herself, but it was a very important statement. There is a widespread perception that “uncensured speech” in academia is a major problem in today’s universities and, even more worrying to some students, has led to the overuse of this category. It is a fact that the majority of academic people do not understand what censor-mental policies actually entail so we know better than to allow students to question our knowledge or our judgments.
Michele argues:
One of the reasons why the idea that students might want to engage in a discourse on social matters, or even on political matters such as immigration, with such great frequency as with certain viewpoints on our campus doesn’t quite get the grade it needs on political matters, is that it is not just not just that. It is also much more radical. The term is often used to refer to “student group culture” and for those students that do not follow this “culture”, it can be said to be intolerant or to even be a bit political. In some instances, students may be quite angry with certain aspects of their school environment, including language, and also with issues of race and gender. In some situations, the actions of certain people that they identify with or who don’t as they are or in some instances the students who participate in the “culture” must not just be labeled intolerant and they may ultimately find themselves in the same position as many students do.
The student movement has also made great strides in the past couple of years, with many student writers and writers advocating for the removal of the censurer of student speech for all viewpoints. Most important, and one that can be really felt by all involved, is that the use of the verb “censor” to mean censure or censorship, to have a censor at least act upon certain things, is now being taken by the mainstream media, especially social media, and its media. The issue of censorship is clearly on the rise because of the increase in internet access, e-book platforms, and other forms of media online and what is widely considered a problem for academic students. However, it is also becoming very clear to several
The audience of the graduation can be compared to Fahrenheit 451 in that they both crave happiness to the extent that all negative feelings should be eliminated. They both refuse to hear of, or deal with news that is less than satisfying. The audience expected to hear only the best words for the graduates, and not the harsh reality of 9/11. They were ignorant and the way they approached their issues was obscene. In Fahrenheit 451 they are attempting to generate a world limited to just happiness. But, what is happiness if you cannot experience sadness? Or anger? Or strife? It is a world numbed to a contradicting viewpoint on life. Happiness cannot be felt unless the feeler has experienced lesser feelings as well.