California bar exam feb 2008 essay predictions
The term microaggression originated in the s and referred to subtle, often unconscious racist affronts. The definition has expanded in recent years to include anything that can be perceived as discriminatory on virtually any basis. For example, in , a student group at UCLA staged a sit-in during a class taught by Val Rust, an education professor.
Although Rust was not explicitly named, the group quite clearly criticized his teaching as microaggressive. Lowercasing the capital I was an insult to the student and her ideology, the group claimed. Even joking about microaggressions can be seen as an aggression, warranting punishment. Last fall, Omar Mahmood, a student at the University of Michigan, wrote a satirical column for a conservative student publication, The Michigan Review , poking fun at what he saw as a campus tendency to perceive microaggressions in just about anything.
Mahmood was also employed at the campus newspaper, The Michigan Daily. In March, the student government at Ithaca College, in upstate New York, went so far as to propose the creation of an anonymous microaggression-reporting system. Surely people make subtle or thinly veiled racist or sexist remarks on college campuses, and it is right for students to raise questions and initiate discussions about such cases.
But the increased focus on microaggressions coupled with the endorsement of emotional reasoning is a formula for a constant state of outrage, even toward well-meaning speakers trying to engage in genuine discussion. What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop extra-thin skin in the years just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection and enter the workforce?
Would they not be better prepared to flourish if we taught them to question their own emotional reactions, and to give people the benefit of the doubt? Catastrophizing rhetoric about physical danger is employed by campus administrators more commonly than you might think—sometimes, it seems, with cynical ends in mind.
Schmidt had filed a grievance against the school about two months earlier after being passed over for a sabbatical. The quote was interpreted as a threat by a campus administrator, who received a notification after Schmidt posted the picture; it had been sent, automatically, to a whole group of contacts. According to Schmidt, a Bergen security official present at a subsequent meeting between administrators and Schmidt thought the word fire could refer to AKs.
The president interpreted the collage as a threat against his life. It should be no surprise that students are exhibiting similar sensitivity. At the University of Central Florida in , for example, Hyung-il Jung, an accounting instructor, was suspended after a student reported that Jung had made a threatening comment during a review session. All of these actions teach a common lesson: smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.
According to data compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, since , at least campaigns have been launched at U. Consider two of the most prominent disinvitation targets of former U. Rice was the first black female secretary of state; Lagarde was the first woman to become finance minister of a G8 country and the first female head of the IMF.
Both speakers could have been seen as highly successful role models for female students, and Rice for minority students as well. But the critics, in effect, discounted any possibility of something positive coming from those speeches. If students graduate believing that they can learn nothing from people they dislike or from those with whom they disagree, we will have done them a great intellectual disservice. Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward.
And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.
Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. This, of course, is the goal of cognitive behavioral therapy.
With this in mind, here are some steps that might help reverse the tide of bad thinking on campus. The biggest single step in the right direction does not involve faculty or university administrators, but rather the federal government, which should release universities from their fear of unreasonable investigation and sanctions by the Department of Education. Monroe County Board of Education. Universities themselves should try to raise consciousness about the need to balance freedom of speech with the need to make all students feel welcome.
Talking openly about such conflicting but important values is just the sort of challenging exercise that any diverse but tolerant community must learn to do. Restrictive speech codes should be abandoned. Universities should also officially and strongly discourage trigger warnings. Finally, universities should rethink the skills and values they most want to impart to their incoming students. At present, many freshman-orientation programs try to raise student sensitivity to a nearly impossible level. Teaching students to avoid giving unintentional offense is a worthy goal, especially when the students come from many different cultural backgrounds.
But students should also be taught how to live in a world full of potential offenses. Why not teach incoming students how to practice cognitive behavioral therapy? Given high and rising rates of mental illness, this simple step would be among the most humane and supportive things a university could do. The cost and time commitment could be kept low: a few group training sessions could be supplemented by Web sites or apps. But the outcome could pay dividends in many ways. For example, a shared vocabulary about reasoning, common distortions, and the appropriate use of evidence to draw conclusions would facilitate critical thinking and real debate.
A greater commitment to formal, public debate on campus—and to the assembly of a more politically diverse faculty—would further serve that goal. We believe that this is still—and will always be—the best attitude for American universities.
Faculty, administrators, students, and the federal government all have a role to play in restoring universities to their historic mission. A partial list from Robert L.
California bar exam feb essay predictions – Site printing dissertation and best coursework
Mind reading. You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts. You predict the future negatively: things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. Discounting positives. You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial.
- good hooks for lord of the flies essay;
- Main Content.
- special education cover letters teachers;
- write introduction persuasive essay.
- California bar exam essay predictions july 2013.
- Post Your IELTS Test Results?
Negative filtering. You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. I seem to fail at a lot of things. Dichotomous thinking. You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms.
You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself.
Predicting Drug–Target Interactions Using Probabilistic Matrix Factorization
What if? Emotional reasoning. You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. Inability to disconfirm. You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. There are deeper problems.
There are other factors. The college-admissions process is so fraught with hysteria, many parents attempt to cheat their kids into elite institutions. As the impeachment inquiry intensifies, some associates of the president predict that his already erratic behavior is going to get worse. The country is entering a new and precarious phase, in which the central question about President Donald Trump is not whether he is coming unstrung, but rather just how unstrung he is going to get.
The boiling mind of Trump has spawned a cottage industry for cognitive experts who have questioned whether he is, well, all there. But as the impeachment inquiry barrels ahead on Capitol Hill, several associates of the president, including former White House aides, worry that his behavior is likely to get worse. Angered by the proceedings, unencumbered by aides willing to question his judgment, and more and more isolated in the West Wing, Trump is apt to lash out more at enemies imagined and real, these people told me.
Conduct that has long been unsettling figures to deteriorate as Trump comes under mounting stress. Mick Mulvaney's job was in danger even before his disastrous press conference yesterday, and his equally disastrous attempt to walk that performance back.
Schedule of the examination
The fumble could not have been more poorly timed: According to multiple current and former White House officials, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to relay private conversations, Trump has been steadily souring on Mulvaney for weeks. Common infections such as strep throat might have a mysterious link to anorexia and bulimia.
In , Carlo Carandang, then an attending physician at a hospital in Halifax, Nova Scotia, saw a most unusual patient: an 8-year-old boy who had recently adopted some strange beliefs, all while losing 18 pounds. After his school held a lesson on healthy eating, he started to scrutinize food labels and avoid fat and carbs, according to Carandang, who now works as a data scientist.