Should colleges be able to use race-based preferences in deciding which applicants to admit?
- Is “locking down” certain areas of society due to COVID-19 an effective governmental policy?
As you answer this, make sure to take into consideration the following:
How many lives are saved by “locking down” aspects of society?
Make sure you specify just what areas you think should be locked down
How long is appropriate for locking down aspects of society?
What other impacts do lockdowns have on society?
Make sure you research the economic impact of lockdowns
Make sure you research the social and emotion impact of lockdowns
Are there other alternatives to lockdowns? If so, what might that be?
Make sure to tie this topic back to our main text: The Coddling of the American Mind. Please only examine one or two aspects of the book. Here are some ways to do that:
Analyze Lukianoff and Haidt’s sections on the untruths of “emotional reasoning” and “fragility.” Also, you may want to look at the following “explanatory threads”: anxiety and depression, paranoid parenting, and the bureaucracy of safetyism.
- Should colleges be able to use race-based preferences in deciding which applicants to admit?
As you answer this, make sure to take into consideration the following:
Why might colleges desire to use race-based preferences when admitting students? What benefits might result from such a practice?
Why might some people resist college’s using race-based preferences to admit students? What might be some unintended consequences of this practice?
Here are some cases, you should look at when approaching this topic:
Research the lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice and Yale University, where the Department of Justice accuses the university of race-based preferences when admitting students. Research a similar case where Harvard University was accused of a similar practice in 2014.
You may also want to research proposition 16, here in California.
Make sure to tie this topic back to our main text: The Coddling of the American Mind. Please only examine one or two aspects of the book. Here are some ways to do that:
Analyze Lukianoff and Haidt’s untruths of “emotional reasoning” and “us versus them.” Also, you may want to explore the following “explanatory threads”: paranoid parenting, the bureaucracy of safetyism, and the quest for justice.
- Should certain speech be restricted on Twitter?
As you answer this, make sure to take into consideration the following:
What are the benefits of an unregulated internet? What might be the unintended consequences of restricting speech on these platforms?
What are the drawbacks of allowing people to say and post whatever they want on platforms such as Twitter? If you discuss “hate speech,” be sure to define it specifically and explain how/why that speech is an exception to free speech.
If there are restrictions on what people say, who should enforce those restrictions, the government or the company itself? What are the drawbacks for either type of enforcement?
In what ways are platforms such as Twitter similar to utility companies? If they are similar, how should that impact how they are run? If they aren’t similar, why not?
Does the government have the right to regulate the amount of time a person spends on a specific platform? Or perhaps tax that behavior like it does other actions it tries to discourage (like consuming alcohol or tobacco)?
Make sure to tie this topic back to our main text: The Coddling of the American Mind. Please only examine one or two aspects of the book. Here are some ways to do that:
Analyze Lukianoff and Haidt’s untruths of “fragility,” “emotional reasoning,” and “us versus them.” Also, you may want to explore the following “explanatory threads”: the polarization cycle, anxiety and depression, the decline of play, paranoid parenting, the bureaucracy of safetyism, and the quest for justice.
- Is the NBA hypocritical for focusing on social justice issues and ignoring human rights violations in China?
As you answer this, make sure to take into consideration the following:
Explain the NBA’s position on social justice and Black Lives Matter movements and how their position impacts American culture and politics.
Explain the NBA’s business relationship with China.
In doing this, you may want to include Daryl Morey’s Tweet regarding China’s relationship with Hong Kong and the NBA’s response to it.
Does a business, like the NBA, who stands up for one cause domestically have to also stand-up for other causes, even if they are occurring in another country?
Can you think of another business that might do this?
In what ways is the NBA hurt or helped by their stance on social justice?
In what ways is the NBA hurt or helped by their stance (or lack of stance) on China?
Make sure to tie this topic back to our main text: The Coddling of the American Mind. Please only examine one or two aspects of the book. Here are some ways to do that:
Analyze Lukianoff and Haidt’s untruths of “emotional reasoning” and “us versus them.” Also, you may want to explore the following “explanatory threads”: the polarization cycle and the quest for justice.
