Political Regime and Business Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Political Regime and Business - Essay Example By an examination of the political regime, one can therefore make the decision to invest or not to invest in a given country. Most countries often have political regimes that are different and diverse in their ideologies and in their practices. An example of two countries with different ideologies is the United States and China. Given the different ideologies in the two countries, the business environment in the two countries is likely to be very different. The changes in the political environment of a given country usually have an impact on the business environment of the country. A stable political regime often means that there will be less tension which will in turn create a positive business environment. The stable political regime also means that it will be easier to start up a business in this environment. The two governments (the Chinese government and the United States government) usually put in place different ideologies that have different impacts on the business environmen t as will be discussed in the paper (Collins and Block, 2007, p. 130). The term political ideology refers to the set of beliefs and ideals that seek to explain or direct how the society should work and how power should be allocated to the different sectors of the society. A political ideology is therefore a collection of ideas and thoughts on how the society and the different sectors of the society should function and on how best to achieve this ideal functioning of the society. The differences in ideologies followed therefore form the basis of the differences in political regimes. In most political regimes, the old policies that have proved to be ineffective are often replaced by newer policies in an attempt to improve the situation. The political regime of a given country usually has a direct impact on the practices that will be followed in the country which will in turn affect the business. This effect is usually felt in the types of employment contract that are in place in a giv en country which affect the way that a business hires and treats its employees. The effect is also felt in the human rights treatment which affects the environment under which the business is expected to operate. The political regime in the United States is characterised by a mixture of liberalism and a high level of individualism in their practices. There is also a high emphasis on individual rights and liberties which translates even in the business environment in the country. The country was founded on the principles of democratic republic. At present, the major political parties in the country are the Republican and the Democratic parties. The democratic situation in the United States encourages private ownership of property (Jennings 2010, p. 69). The United States also adopts a free market policy. This means that the prices and other market conditions are regulated by the laws and forces of demand and supply. The government does not interfere with the means of production, and these means are controlled by the private citizens. In this free market, the prices of commodities in this market are as a result of voluntary transactions as opposed to being subjected to government control. Such a policy opens room for competition among various entities. The liberalised government system of the United States presents prospective businesses

Noblest Roman of All Essay Example for Free

Noblest Roman of All Essay The noblest Roman of them all, according to Marc Antony, was Brutus one of the conspirators who stabbed Caesar to death. The note of regret here is ironic, to say the least, because Antony raised the army which has destroyed Brutus. Thats what brings me to say Marcus Antonius is in fact the actual Noblest Roman of them all. Brutus and his group of conspirators brutally murdered Caesar, whom Antony was very loyal to. Yet after the conspirators were killed Antony praised Brutus, not curse him as others expected him to. He believed of all the conspirators, only Brutus thought of the common good, and had honest intentions toward the general populace. The rest merely envied Caesars greatness; Brutus thought it a real threat to the Republic. He recognized Brutus as an honest man who was blinded by others with bad intentions. And in my opinion it takes a noble man to recognize another noble man. Marc Antony was not a man of many weaknesses but, if you had to pin one on him, it would have to be that his name wasnt as prestigious as some of his predecessors. Marcus Brutus was a very popular man, because, he was basically Caesars right hand man. Some would argue that No one would know Caesar better than Brutus, but that didnt stop Antony. Even though he wasnt as popular as Marcus Brutus, he somehow swayed the crowd in his favor. One of Marc Antonys greater strengths was his oratory skills. He was a great orator and he used that to his advantage. He had a penchant for superlatives. The noblest Roman of them all directly echoed The most unkindest cut of all . In effect, he paints Brutus, at different times, both as a villain and as a superlative Roman. In both cases, Antony is aware of the rhetorical necessities of the situation. Marc Antony was the noblest roman of all because he risked his life for an already dead man but he approached the beast without flinching. He put aside his fears to stand up for justice. He even paid his respect to one of the conspirators Brutus because even though he commited a heinous crime, Brutus was just confused, and Antony had enough wisdom to realize

Relationship Between Nubia and Egypt

Relationship Between Nubia and Egypt Art 327: Egyptian Art Dr. Sara Orel November 20, 2014 Throughout the history of ancient Egypt, Egypt had been in contact with numerous cultures near and far from their home. Each of those cultures provided some sort of contact and relationship; whether that was political or economic or even as an enemy. One culture in particular, Nubia (later known as the Kushites with the development of the Kingdom of Kush) had been in contact and had a relationship with Egypt since as early as the first century B.C. The term ‘Nubia’ is defined as a geographic region located in the northeast corner of Africa. It straddles the Nile River and is sometimes referred to in two parts, according to the flow of the river, Lower Nubia in the North and Upper Nubia in the South.[1] For upper Nubia, the most common term was Kush. Kush was located in what is now known as Nubia, near the third cataract in ancient times. The relationship between Egypt and Nubia as stated in the beginning was mainly trade and at times dealt with military aspects. However, as time progressed the relationship became more complex. It had changed depending on the political and economic climate of the time. To the Egyptians, the Nubians represented a trading partner, an enemy, a military asset, a conquered colony, and at times a conqueror. The beginning contact or relationship was not as complex as the end. The Nubians relied on their northern neighbor for some time. However towards the twentieth century that relationship soon changed. Egypt had control over Nubia for nearly five-hundred years. However, towards the twentieth century Egypt lost control due to the decline of the Egyptian government at the end of Ramses II. That lost control would be devastating to Egypt due to the gold deposits found in Nubia and opened up the door for Libyans to take control. However, it would give chance to Nubia to make a stance and take control themselves. The relationship between Egypt and Nubia changed drastically in the years from 750-730 BC when the Kingdom of Kush and the Nubian prince, Piankhy (also known as Piye) pushed northward to capture Egypt from Libyan control and establish their capital at Thebes. Just as a note, King Piankhy of Dynasty XXV reigned in Nubia for nearly thirty-one years (747-716 BC). We have archaeological evidence pointing to this through a large granite stela known as the ‘Victory Stela of Piy’ found in 1862 at Gebel Barkal in the Temple of Amun at Napata.[2] The stela measures 1.80 meters by 1.84 meters. It is inscribed on all four sides, with a total of 159 lines of hieroglyphs.[3] It now currently resides in the Cairo Museum. The relief at the top shows Amun enthroned on the left with Mut standing behind him and Piankhy before him. It is a narration of Piye’s conquest of all of Egypt. [4] It is much like the New Kingdom Annals of Thutmosis III in factualness but is much more vivid. It paints the portrait of a Nubian king who was â€Å"forceful, shrewd, and generous†.[5] â€Å"Hear what I did, exceeding the ancestors, I the King, image of god, Living likeness of Atum! Who left the womb marked as ruler, Feared by those greater than he! His father knew, he mother perceived: He would be ruler from the egg, The Good God, beloved of gods, The son of Re, who acts with his arms, Piye beloved-of-Amun.†[6] Piye always meant to rule Egypt but he had preferred treaties over warfare, unlike his later adversary the Assyrians. It states that he was extremely pious and especially devoted to Amun. Egyptians rather welcomed the Nubian prince, preferring him over the Libyans, scholars attest this to the cultural similarities between Egypt and Nubia and also the physical similarities as well. The Nubians ruled from Nubia to as far as the Delta, they portrayed themselves not with the Egyptian crown with one cobra uraeus but with two cobras. Nubian rule over Egypt was short lived, lasting less than a hundred years. The end came with an attack by the Assyrians, pushing them further south and relocating their capital from Thebes to Meroe. The Nubian rule was succeeded by a vigorous Egyptian dynasty coming from Sais in the XXVI dynasty. During this time the Egypt was rebuilt as a strong centralized and prosperous state.[7] The relations with Nubia at this time were at first peaceful, but in 592 BC, Psamtik II attacked Nubia and claimed a victory. However, he did not gain control. What prompted this attack is still not known, but is recorded on the ‘Victory Stela of King Psamtik II’ and is viewed by many as an act of revenge when Nubia controlled Egypt. â€Å"The troops your majesty sent to Nubia have reached the hill-country of Pnubs. It is a land lacking a battlefield, a place lacking horses. The Nubians of every hill-country rose up against him, their hearts full of rage against him. His attack took place, and it was misery for the rebels. His majesty has done a fighter’s work.† [8] The relationship between Nubia and Egypt remained strained with the Saite power in Egypt but improved in the Ptolemaic period with the Meroitic Kingdom. There were, as usual, times of trouble between the two nations during this period. There was one occasion were the Meroites invaded Egypt in the upper kingdom. However, trade between Egypt and Nubia appeared to have increased considerably. [9] The wealth and stimulation from this trade helped initiate a cultural renaissance in the Meroitic heartland with the border remaining near Maharraqa in the middle of Lower Nubia.[10] The cooperation between the two is symbolized in the temples at Dakka and Philae. As time went on, the relationship between the two continued until around 350 AD when the Axumite Kingdom attacked and completely destroyed the Meroe Kingdom. After this time Nubia became a Christian nation. From the beginning contact to the end, the relationship between Nubia and Egypt was very complex. The contact and relationship between the two always seemed to go back and forth from a peaceful relationship to one with hostility. However complex their relationship was, Egypt and Nubia both developed through political, economic, and cultural means depending on who held power at the time. It is no secret that Nubia played an important, however brief, in Egyptian history. What we know of them largely comes from the texts and inscriptions from Egyptians. However, with excavations still being pursued in Nubia there is still much to be discovered. Works Cited BBC. The Story of Africa: Nile Valley. 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section3.shtml accessed November 15, 2014. Harkless, Necia Desiree. Nubian Pharaohs and Meroitic Kings: The Kingdom of Kush. Bloomington: Author House, 2006 Lacovara, Majorie Fisher and Peter. Ancient Nubia: African Kingdom on the Nile. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2012. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Late Period. Vol. 3. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. Redford, Donald B. From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Shubert, Steven Blake. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient. Edited by Kathryn A. Bard. London: Routledge, 2005. Smith, Stuart Tyson. Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypts Nubian Empire. London: Routledge, 2003. Trigger, Bruce G. New Light on the History of Lower Nubia. Anthropologica (Canadian Anthropology Society) 10, no. 1 (1968): 81-106. Accessed 13 November 2014. url http://www.jstor.org/stable/25604760. [1] Majorie Fisher and Peter Lacovara, Ancient Nubia: African Kingdoms on the Nile, (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press) 5. [2] Donald B. Redford, From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press) 101. [3] Ibid, 101. [4] Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, v.3, (Los Angeles: University of California Press) 66. [5] Ibid, 66. [6] Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, v.3, (Los Angeles: University of California Press) 68. [7] Ibid, 66. [8] Ibid, 85. [9] Bruce G. Trigger, â€Å"New Light on the History of Lower Nubia†, Anthropologica (1968): 95, access 15 November 2014, url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25604760. [10] Ibid, 95.

West Side Story Essay -- essays research papers

West Side Story Day 4: 2-page essay   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The West Side Story portrays the lives of two different gangs living in America, as well as their beliefs and examples of living a good life. The expectations of what people consider the good life to be may vary on a person’s morals and their dreams of what life is truly about. In this movie, whether or not these characters were good people, lived a good life, or lived in a good society is a very controversial topic.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The characters of the West Side Story were not good people. The two gangs focused their lives on fighting with each other rather than attempting to get along and accept the differences between them. The gangs did not have any hopes or aspirations for their futures and cared about nothing more than being in a gang. Each gang made one mistake after another and never learned from any of them nor did they try to. Doc, an old and wise man, informed the boys with his knowledge and tried to open the eyes of both gangs to the hatred that engulfed them. Everything Doc had to say went through one ear and out the other, because the boys refused to see past their differences. The Jets, one of the gangs, accept what society believes of them and never make any effort to erase their bad history. They listen to what others tell them, agreeing to the excuses for their bad behavior. This is just one example of how the boys do not attempt to make a better life for themselves, or try t...

Applying the economic theories in the Market’s Reader to the New Economy :: Economics

Applying the economic theories in the Market’s Reader to the New Economy In this part of the question, I will describe the old and new Economy, after that I will point out the main characters of New Economy and what is different between NEW and Old Economy. later than, I will discuss the demand of knowledge, ideas, innovation, and individual creative destruction, change in market and competitive as the main resource needed to make economic prosperity. I will discuss Innovation reduce costs and improve product quality and how advances technology achieve the cost reduction and reserve the economic scale in good level. Finally I will apply the Economic theories in market reader. From around 1938 to 1974, the economy was built on a manufacturing base geared in the direction of standardized production (It was manual labor). It was organized into stable, hierarchical and generally high-handed organizations. These organizations achieved a competitive edge in the market by making standardized products faster and more economically. They focused on incremental cost reductions and a national marketplace. In addition, that how this organization success and achieved there ogles in most courtiers, for example textile and steel industry. That kind of economic start to collapse during the mid-70s and the early 90s. The crisis included both textiles and steel industry, in a period of changeover from the old economic to the new economic ,a lot of countries loss their competitive frame because others were changing the production process more faster and cheaper. The cheap labor which had brought industries to the South Asia was being very cheap. At the same time, the social demand for the individual has change, workers become looking for a higher standard of living, new cars, washing machines, clothes and bigger houses, which effect the economy. On the other hand, the new economy is rising as a demand of knowledge and idea-based economy. The new economy, which was making success and prosperity used the new technology to produces high quality, low price production, also the new ideas and innovation that apply to all sectors of the economy which enhance the whole economy. For example, 80% of the jobs in US today do not depend on making things, process things, or generate information. In 50s, 60% of the firm's in US could use unskilled labor now a day only around 15 per sent of jobs can use unskilled labor. Robert M. Howe author said ‘technology is in the hands of society at large’. the most important resource in the new economy is â€Å"human capital† – a resource that all nations possess. Development of productive capacity and its measurement is one of the challenges that Applying the economic theories in the Market’s Reader to the New Economy :: Economics Applying the economic theories in the Market’s Reader to the New Economy In this part of the question, I will describe the old and new Economy, after that I will point out the main characters of New Economy and what is different between NEW and Old Economy. later than, I will discuss the demand of knowledge, ideas, innovation, and individual creative destruction, change in market and competitive as the main resource needed to make economic prosperity. I will discuss Innovation reduce costs and improve product quality and how advances technology achieve the cost reduction and reserve the economic scale in good level. Finally I will apply the Economic theories in market reader. From around 1938 to 1974, the economy was built on a manufacturing base geared in the direction of standardized production (It was manual labor). It was organized into stable, hierarchical and generally high-handed organizations. These organizations achieved a competitive edge in the market by making standardized products faster and more economically. They focused on incremental cost reductions and a national marketplace. In addition, that how this organization success and achieved there ogles in most courtiers, for example textile and steel industry. That kind of economic start to collapse during the mid-70s and the early 90s. The crisis included both textiles and steel industry, in a period of changeover from the old economic to the new economic ,a lot of countries loss their competitive frame because others were changing the production process more faster and cheaper. The cheap labor which had brought industries to the South Asia was being very cheap. At the same time, the social demand for the individual has change, workers become looking for a higher standard of living, new cars, washing machines, clothes and bigger houses, which effect the economy. On the other hand, the new economy is rising as a demand of knowledge and idea-based economy. The new economy, which was making success and prosperity used the new technology to produces high quality, low price production, also the new ideas and innovation that apply to all sectors of the economy which enhance the whole economy. For example, 80% of the jobs in US today do not depend on making things, process things, or generate information. In 50s, 60% of the firm's in US could use unskilled labor now a day only around 15 per sent of jobs can use unskilled labor. Robert M. Howe author said ‘technology is in the hands of society at large’. the most important resource in the new economy is â€Å"human capital† – a resource that all nations possess. Development of productive capacity and its measurement is one of the challenges that

Philosophy and Multiculturalism: Searle, Rorty, and Taylor Essay

Philosophy and Multiculturalism: Searle, Rorty, and Taylor ABSTRACT: John Searle opposes multiculturalism because he views it as part of a movement to undermine the concepts of truth and objectivity in the Western tradition. Richard Rorty disagrees with Searle about the relation between philosophical theories of truth and academic practices, but he is neutral on the issue of multiculturalism. Charles Taylor approaches the issue historically, defending multiculturalism as emerging from one branch of liberal political theory. I argue that the debate over epistemological and political issues has tended to obscure the educational benefits of multiculturalism. A multicultural curriculum works very well in fulfilling the traditional goals of education in philosophy. It can assist the teacher as Socratic "midwife" and "gadfly" in delivering students from their narrow and uncritical opinions and awakening them to a world of intellectual diversity. Thus, multiculturalism is not so much a recent movement as a new name for an old method of teaching. Philosophers have been slow to join the public debate on multiculturalism in spite of the important philosophical issues at stake. Notable exceptions are John Searle and Charles Taylor, who address the philosophical implications of the controversy over the curriculum in several recent essays. (1) Taylor defends multicultural education as a moral imperative of one branch of the liberal tradition, while Searle argues that a victory for multiculturalism would mean the destruction of the Western intellectual heritage. This paper will examine some of the arguments on both sides of the issue and propose an interpretation of multiculturalism as particularly significant for teaching philosophy. ... ...Recognition," in Multiculturalism. Amy Gutmann, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 25-73. (2) "Rationality and Realism. . .," p. 69. (3) "The Storm over the University," p. 112. (4) Richard Rorty, "Does Academic Freedom Have Philosophical Presuppositions: Academic Freedom and the Future of the University," Academe (Nov.-Dec. 1994), p. 52. (5) Ibid., p. 61. (6) "Rationality and Realism . . .," p. 71. (7) Richard Rorty, "Hermeneutics, General Studies, and Teaching," Selected Papers from the Synergos Seminars, volume 2 (Fall, 1982), p. 112. (8) "The Politics of Recognition," pp. 69-72. (9) Ibid., p. 66. (10) Ibid., p. 70. (11) Ibid., p. 73. (12) For an exception see Lawrence Foster and Patricia Herzog, eds. Philosophical Perspectives on Pluralism and Multiculturalism (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994).

Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses

Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes.I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â₠¬Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606).One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want.Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request.The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen.I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the ri ght to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408).What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak.Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful.Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28).Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment.It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harm ful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation.This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law.He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory's, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university.I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along.According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day.Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them.Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain.Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be involved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech.They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore.Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems.So in conclusion, college students shoul d not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On Universit y Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes.I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â₠¬Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606).One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want.Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request.The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen.I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the ri ght to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408).What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak.Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful.Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28).Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment.It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harm ful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation.This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law.He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory's, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university.I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along.According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day.Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them.Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain.Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be involved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech.They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore.Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems.So in conclusion, college students shoul d not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On Universit y Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012.