week 7
ASA 002 A02
In this week's reading, “Berkeley Free Speech Movement: Paving the Way for Campus
Activism” was most attractive for me, Milo had several speeches in California by that time, but they were all declined except Berkeley, indicating that Berkeley's school supported free speech, but in the end, the student protest made the speech impossible. If it was not for the school concerned, it was because of the students' own political forms are not consistent with the speakers. Students resolutely defend the right to choose political parties freely. I do not think this incident was an anti-rhetorical incident. In 1964, students gave their voice to freedom of speech, a basic human right. students did not represent any political party and did not represent the personal interests of any individual. However, this time students opposed another kind of political thinking.No matter what political positions and opinions you stand, it must allow the right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of modern social civilization and the first basic principle for resolving differences. The use of violent means to discourage dissenting voices is itself a fascist means. Nor can it be extremely held that the opposing party's viewpoint should lose the freedom to express one's own opinion when one disagrees with one another. The Berkeley incident is not a special case, but a product of the extreme thinking that has spread over the American campus. The university should have been a place that allowed for a full exchange of ideas and should not be interrupted by the extreme thinking of oneself.
1. what should the college students do after the incident happened just like the Berkeley free speech movement?
Resources:
(1) Cohen, R. (1985, April). Berkeley Free Speech Movement: Paving the way for student activism. Organization of American Historians,
(2) (n.d.). Retrieved November 05, 2017, from https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/25071232
No comments:
Post a Comment