Term Paper on "Freedom Justice and Racism"

/>

It is important to understand that Mill's argument that society should not suppress doctrines that are commonly believed to be wrong is not based on tolerance. Instead of tolerance, Mill wants debate. He thinks that the introduction of conflict into discourse is the means of creating faster progress in all sectors of society. Mill wants to avoid social stagnation, and believes that the competition that results naturally from the unfettered spread of ideas is the best way to avoid such stagnation.

3. In most accredited universities in the United States, the Darwinian explanation of how species originated is accepted and the explanation given in the Book of Genesis is not accepted. Do you think this policy is right? Would Mill?

I actually disagree with the premise as you have stated it in your question. In most accredited universities, the Darwinian explanation of the species is accepted in science classes. However, the explanation in the Book of Genesis, or other religious texts, might be perfectly acceptable in religious studies or mythology classes. What explanation is accepted greatly depends upon the context. I think it is appropriate for a university to be able to say that they want its science graduates to leave with certain baseline knowledge about scientific facts as they are currently understood by the scientific community. I do not know if Mill would agree that this policy is correct. He would want the community to debate the issue, but having a university limit acceptance of an answer in a specific context is not the same thing as stifling speech. After all, a professor who gave students a prompt to write about Romeo and Juliet could hardly be expected to accept an answer detailing black holes. As long as there was still a venue for people to assert creationism as their scientific belief, I do not think that Mill would require universities to accept that answer; doing so would infringe upon the freedoms of the entire university, and would harm it in the academic community.

4. Do you think public burning of the American flag should be protected under the First Amendment?

I absolutely believe that public burning of the American flag should be protected under the First Amendment. What could be a more powerful example of symbolic political speech than the burning of a country's flag? Anyone who questions how potent a statement a burning flag can be need only look at how upset people get about the idea of burning the flag. It sends a very visceral… READ MORE