The diversity movement has raised myriad issues regarding language and the exercise of speech.Indeed, some critics of diversity efforts have accused its advocates of undermining the U.S. tradition of free speech.Yet that argument is ill-founded, for two reasons.First, because totally “free” speech does not exist in the United States.Second, because establishing selective legal limits on speech is as historically American as apple pie.
This is the fifth in a series of columns based on my research as a past fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement. In earlier columns I argued that diversity advocates should not be drawn into the position of opposing free speech, because it does not really exist.Rather they should clarify and reframe the issue.
Some refer to Generation Z – those born, roughly, from the mid-1990s onward – as ‘The Final Generation’. This is not due to some apocalyptic vision of the future, but rather as a reflection of the nature of culture in online spaces.
In previous generations, it could be reasonably assured that a monoculture would develop. Because of the nature of the distribution of media and the limited ways in which it could be communicated, entire generations of youth would grow up with roughly the same cultural experiences – watching the same shows and cartoons, consuming the same film and radio programs.
As sheer coincidence would have it, I’d just finished rereading Dr. King’s famous “Letter from A Birmingham Jail” when the following excerpts of a letter from my good friend “Shirley” popped up in my email:
Dear Pastor, I first want to say that I have benefitted from your sermons since I have been a part of your congregation. I, however, have some concerns that prompted me to write to you. I know that my political beliefs aren’t necessarily in line with a large portion of the congregation. I knew that when I first started worshipping here but I didn’t perceive it to be a concern. I believed this to be true because I try to look at people and issues and determine the best course of action based upon all that I hear, read, observe and analyze. Based on that process, I pray that I know what is the most prudent to address and decisions to make.
When they first came to America, my parents, now Asian Americans, lived in a cramped apartment, first in New York, and then in Boston. My father likes to recount stories of how he would have to make multiple treks in the middle of New England snowstorms to buy diapers because they didn’t have enough money for bus fare.
It was 25 minutes before our restaurant was scheduled to open. and I noticed three casually dressed African American young men enter the patio. One peered through the front window, saw that we weren’t yet open and joined the others on the patio. They remained there talking and laughing loudly until we opened.
America is fast becoming a retaliation nation. Look no further than the workplace, a microcosm of society.
Malicious managers are increasingly lashing out at aggrieved employees who have the courage to protest real or perceived discrimination. Retaliation against workers is an unlawful violation of their federally protected rights under anti-discrimination laws.
Nevertheless, retaliation is rampant from corporate America to small and mid-sized companies. This insidious form of discrimination is ruining company culture and hurting bottom-line productivity, among other negative repercussions for employers and employees alike.
Leelee Jackson and Geoffrey Stone are hardly household names in diversity circles. But in 2019, my interactions with Jackson, a talented young playwright, and Stone, a passionate defender of free speech, helped illuminate the challenging complexities of diversity and expression.
As a fellow of the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, I have been examining the myriad tensions created when two laudable principles collide: the defense of robust speech and the effort to create greater inclusivity. This intersection has generated considerable controversy, including among diversity advocates.
May is Mental Health Month, a nationwide effort to raise awareness and help end the stigma for people with mental health conditions.
Let’s remember that as public discourse about mental health increases, the associated stigma decreases. That’s why it’s critically important to shine a spotlight on a range of mental health issues affecting people of all ages, from depression to dementia.
“Reach out and touch someone and make this a better world if you can.” ~ Diana Ross
Wow, before the ink was dry on my, “Hug me not Joe Biden,” fundamentally a “don’t touch” (or touch selectively) advisory, in the American Diversity Report, along comes Tiffany Field who has spent decades trying to get people to do just the opposite…. touch one another more.