早稲田社会科学 傾向対策解答解説 2019問題2

早稲田社会科学 傾向対策解答解説 2019問題2

早稲田社会科学 傾向対策解答解説 2019問題2

早稲田社会科学 傾向対策解答解説 2019問題2

早稲田大学社会学部の過去問2019年の解答・解説・全訳です。受験生の入試対策のためにプロ家庭教師が出題傾向を分析します。


【大学】

早稲田大学

【学部】

:社会学部

【問題】

2019年 問題

【形式】

:適語補充+文章理解

【表題】

:人種差別を認めることによってしか大学言論を守ることはできない You can only protect campus speech if you acknowledge racism

【作者】

:スーザン・ノセル Suzanne Nossel

【対策】

:説明文。文章に適切な語句を補充し、最後にまとめて内容理解が問われます。問題2から問題5は同じ形式です。文章内容は、合衆国憲法修正第一条に規定されている「表現の自由」の解釈を巡って、現代アメリカを考察しています。表現の自由を守るために、筆者がどのように考えているかを読解しましょう。

【用語】

:表現の自由 人種差別 甘やかされた若者

【目安時間】

:20分


【プロ家庭教師 社会学部対策講座】


早稲田大学社会学部への合格対策カリキュラムを、プロ家庭教師に指導依頼できます。

スポンサーさん

早稲田社会科学 2019問題2


【問題2 読解問題】



次の英文を読んで下の問いに答えよ。解答はマーク解答用紙にマークせよ。

According to a certain line of thinking, today's college students oppose the very idea of free speech. Those who hold to this premise cite plenty of examples: A Princeton professor canceled his seminar on hateful symbolism after he spoke n-word in class, triggering a student walk-out. At the University of California-Berkeley students protested vociferously when a major right-leaning commentator came to campus. An appearance by Charles Murray, a theorist associated with controversial ideas on race, provoked an  1  at Middlebury College, ending with an assault on Murray and a professor.

The truth is that most students are not, however, out to silence free speech. Since November, the organization PEN America, a nonprofit devoted to defending freedom of speech, has convened four symposia on campus speech at the sites of some of the most pitched controversies: Berkeley, Middlebury, the University of Maryland and the University of Virginia. The debates taking place at these events suggest that what might appear to be a crisis of free speech on college campuses is actually rooted in issues of race and the need for inclusion among students who have long been excluded.

Efforts to quash speech are not the  2  of the battle most of these students are waging. Although speech-suppressing tactics are deeply misguided, they don't negate the legitimacy of other demands which are really at the root of the problem. To  3  commitment to free speech among a diverse generation of students, we must focus on the essence of their grievances and explain why free speech protections are essential, rather than inimical, to those goals.

A rising population of non-white students brings new expectations about openness and equality on campus. Changing demographics --- the Pew Research Center reports that Hispanic enrollment more than tripled between 1996 and 2012, and black enrollment grew by 72 percent --- have yielded a critical mass of students more attuned to egalitarianism and insistent on being heard.

Concerns about the state of campus speech are of course valid: At times, the quest for inclusion inspires attempts to bar or punish speech perceived to impugn particular groups. A Knight Foundation survey found an increasing share of college students --- 61 percent (up from 54 percent in 2016) --- saying they don't think they can speak their minds on campus. Faced with speakers they consider abhorrent, undergrads can be quick to take matters into their own hands, using shouts, jeers and stomps to drown out offenders. Critiques of campus activism often proceed from the misguided assumption that the most vocal students are coddled products of privilege, too sheltered by their parents to be able to tolerate uncomfortable ideas.

What we actually find is that on many campuses the students at the center of heated controversies are not the helicopter-parented offspring of the upper middle class. In many instances, protests have been led by non-white students, including leaders who do not come from particularly comfortable backgrounds. Their concerns have centered on eradicating persistent manifestations of discrimination that have outlasted decades of efforts at integration: slurs, racist incidents, stereotypes, social segregation, and entrenched norms shaped by and for the privileged. They are asking their universities to reorient their classrooms and communities to serve students of all backgrounds equally more than they are asking for free speech to be curtailed or censored.

Many of today's minority college students have experienced persistent racial and school segregation that can leave them unprepared to forge diverse friendships in college. They run up against barriers to entry and promotion in a professoriate that shapes course catalogues, reading lists and mentoring opportunities. They live with a myriad ways discriminatory attitudes can unconsciously manifest in dorms, encounters with campus security and even at Starbucks. They also grapple with socio-economic disparities that can shut students out of elite campus subcultures and career on-ramps like unpaid internships.

Compounding the problem, research reveals that most college students have little background in the First Amendment and cannot accurately identify what range of speech it protects. Basic education for all about these precepts, the rationale behind them and the role they have played in historic struggles for civil rights can help bridge those gaps. Students should also be educated about the dangers of empowering governments to police speech --- and how such efforts have historically been exploited to the detriment of social justice causes.

University leaders need to play a dual role: as hosts of forums for the widest range of ideas and as speakers in their own right. It is not enough for college presidents challenged by hate-mongers to throw up their hands and cry “First Amendment!” as if, after that affirmation, the Constitution then renders them mute. Faced with a planned speech by white-supremacist provocateur Richard Spencer last fall, the University of Florida cleverly allowed him to come to campus but encouraged a loud counter-campaign centered on the hashtag #GatorsNotHaters. Spencer spoke for 90 minutes before a half empty room, his message overwhelmed by the mass of protesters outside who repudiated him. Offering a model for other schools, Florida deprived Spencer of what was presumably his main goal: the moral victory of claiming that he was wrongfully silenced. This approach allows for free speech but also makes it clear that many disagree with what is being said.

Our pitched battles over diversity, inclusion and free speech on campus — a microcosm of our polarized discourse on these issues in society — are not insoluble. The next generation is dominated by young adults determined to advance their notions of equality and justice, as previous generations have done. One of the greatest, and most often overlooked, dangers to free speech on campus is that it will come to be associated exclusively with those who aim to offend others. If that's the case, we could create a generation of Americans alienated from the principle of free speech, who believe that the protections of the First Amendment don't belong to them. By working to understand these students' life experiences, concerns and demands --- and by demonstrating how those causes are advanced by robust protections for freedom of speech --- we can help ensure that U.S. universities are open to all peoples and to all ideas.


Suzanne Nossel. You can only protect campus speech if you acknowledge racism


1. Which one of the following words best fits  1  in the passage?

a. assembly
b. appeal
c. inquisition
d. uproar
e. enthusiasm


2. Which one of the following words best fits  2  in the passage?

a. heart
b. heat
c. threshold
d. place
e. end


3. Which one of the following words best fits  3  in the passage?

a. advise
b. entertain
c. instill
d. endure
e. repeal


4. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the word inimical?

a. needless
b. obliged
c. favorable
d. unrelated
e. harmful


5. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the word coddled?

a. ignored
b. defended
c. spoiled
d. idealistic
e. underachieving


6. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the word on-ramps?

a. opportunities
b. placement
c. assurance
d. atonement
e. evolution


7. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the phrase throw up their hands?

a. leave out
b. turn out
c. panic
d. give up
e. cheer


8. According to this passage, which THREE of the following are true?

a: Only well-known colleges and universities in the U.S. are facing challenges to free speech on campus.
b. Problems with free speech on campus are difficult to solve but do not reflect the larger problem of free speech within American society.
c. Free speech on campus is an issue which is more important than equality of opportunity.
d. Problems of free speech on campus are related to issues of racial discrimination.
e. The increasing population of minority students on campus has drawn attention to the issue of free speech as a major point of division between different minority groups.
f. Free speech cannot be promoted by silencing people who have extreme ideas.
g. Protests against free speech often come from non-minority students.
h. Hispanic enrollment is now overall slightly higher than black enrolment at U.S. colleges.
i. Many enrolled in U.S. colleges are not familiar enough with the issue of free speech itself.
j. The University of Florida example shows that limiting free speech is not always a bad idea.
k. The next generation of young people on campus remains apathetic toward issues of free speech.
l. Recent studies suggest that almost half of all students feel they cannot speak their minds on campus.

早稲田社会科学 2019問題2 解答


【問題2 読解問題 解答】


1. d
2. a
3. c
4. e
5. c
6. a
7. d
8. d, f, i

早稲田社会科学 2019問題2 解説


【問題2 読解問題 解説】


説明文。文章に適切な語句を補充し、最後にまとめて内容理解が問われます。問題2から問題5は同じ形式です。文章内容は、合衆国憲法修正第一条に規定されている「表現の自由」の解釈を巡って、現代アメリカを考察しています。表現の自由を守るために、筆者がどのように考えているかを読解しましょう。


【重要表現】



ラテン語源の英単語 単数形medium 複数形media

symposiumが単数 symposiaが複数 講演会 意味解説

be out to 必死になる 意味解説例文

quash クアシ 廃止する 意味解説例文

instill インスティル 注入する 意味解説例文

grapple グラップル 向き合う 意味解説例文

jeer ジア 罵声(ばせい) 意味解説例文

amendment アメンダメント 修正条項 意味解説例文

impugn インピューン 論破する 意味解説例文

coddle コドル 甘やかす 意味解説例文

n-word: Nで始まる黒人を表す言葉。具体的にはNigger・Negroなどで、これら強い軽蔑を含む語を使用すると社会的信頼まで失いかねないため、このように表現している。

critical mass:もともとは物理学の用語で、原子核分裂の連鎖反応を維持するために必要な物質の最小質量を表す言葉である。この場合は、こうした抗議活動を引き起こす力を持ちうるほど、白人以外の学生が増加してきたことを意味している。

Knight Foundation: ナイト財団。informed and engaged communities(知識を有し参加するコミュニティー)の育成が健全な民主主義に不可欠、との理念のもと、 ジョン・ナイト、ジェイムズ・ナイト兄弟が1950年に設立した非営利団体で、ジャーナリズムやメディアの革新、社会参加、芸術などを促進する考えを支援している。

helicopter-parented : ヘリコプターペアレントとは、まるでヘリコプターがホバリングするように子供に付きまとい、子供や周囲の人間を監視するなど、常識を超えて子供と関り続けるのをやめられない親のことを言う。

the First Amendment: アメリカ合衆国憲法は修正第1条で、「信教・言論・出版・集会の自由」を補償している。

早稲田社会科学 2019問題2 完成文


【問題2 読解問題  完成文】


According to a certain line of thinking, today's college students oppose the very idea of free speech. Those who hold to this premise cite plenty of examples: A Princeton professor canceled his seminar on hateful symbolism after he spoke n-word in class, triggering a student walk-out. At the University of California-Berkeley students protested vociferously when a major right-leaning commentator came to campus. An appearance by Charles Murray, a theorist associated with controversial ideas on race, provoked an uproar at Middlebury College, ending with an assault on Murray and a professor.

The truth is that most students are not, however, out to silence free speech. Since November, the organization PEN America, a nonprofit devoted to defending freedom of speech, has convened four symposia on campus speech at the sites of some of the most pitched controversies: Berkeley, Middlebury, the University of Maryland and the University of Virginia. The debates taking place at these events suggest that what might appear to be a crisis of free speech on college campuses is actually rooted in issues of race and the need for inclusion among students who have long been excluded.

Efforts to quash speech are not the heart of the battle most of these students are waging. Although speech-suppressing tactics are deeply misguided, they don't negate the legitimacy of other demands which are really at the root of the problem. To instill commitment to free speech among a diverse generation of students, we must focus on the essence of their grievances and explain why free speech protections are essential, rather than inimical, to those goals.

A rising population of non-white students brings new expectations about openness and equality on campus. Changing demographics --- the Pew Research Center reports that Hispanic enrollment more than tripled between 1996 and 2012, and black enrollment grew by 72 percent --- have yielded a critical mass of students more attuned to egalitarianism and insistent on being heard.

Concerns about the state of campus speech are of course valid: At times, the quest for inclusion inspires attempts to bar or punish speech perceived to impugn particular groups. A Knight Foundation survey found an increasing share of college students --- 61 percent (up from 54 percent in 2016) --- saying they don't think they can speak their minds on campus. Faced with speakers they consider abhorrent, undergrads can be quick to take matters into their own hands, using shouts, jeers and stomps to drown out offenders. Critiques of campus activism often proceed from the misguided assumption that the most vocal students are coddled products of privilege, too sheltered by their parents to be able to tolerate uncomfortable ideas.

What we actually find is that on many campuses the students at the center of heated controversies are not the helicopter-parented offspring of the upper middle class. In many instances, protests have been led by non-white students, including leaders who do not come from particularly comfortable backgrounds. Their concerns have centered on eradicating persistent manifestations of discrimination that have outlasted decades of efforts at integration: slurs, racist incidents, stereotypes, social segregation, and entrenched norms shaped by and for the privileged. They are asking their universities to reorient their classrooms and communities to serve students of all backgrounds equally more than they are asking for free speech to be curtailed or censored.

Many of today's minority college students have experienced persistent racial and school segregation that can leave them unprepared to forge diverse friendships in college. They run up against barriers to entry and promotion in a professoriate that shapes course catalogues, reading lists and mentoring opportunities. They live with a myriad ways discriminatory attitudes can unconsciously manifest in dorms, encounters with campus security and even at Starbucks. They also grapple with socio-economic disparities that can shut students out of elite campus subcultures and career on-ramps like unpaid internships.

Compounding the problem, research reveals that most college students have little background in the First Amendment and cannot accurately identify what range of speech it protects. Basic education for all about these precepts, the rationale behind them and the role they have played in historic struggles for civil rights can help bridge those gaps. Students should also be educated about the dangers of empowering governments to police speech --- and how such efforts have historically been exploited to the detriment of social justice causes.

University leaders need to play a dual role: as hosts of forums for the widest range of ideas and as speakers in their own right. It is not enough for college presidents challenged by hate-mongers to throw up their hands and cry “First Amendment!” as if, after that affirmation, the Constitution then renders them mute. Faced with a planned speech by white-supremacist provocateur Richard Spencer last fall, the University of Florida cleverly allowed him to come to campus but encouraged a loud counter-campaign centered on the hashtag #GatorsNotHaters. Spencer spoke for 90 minutes before a half empty room, his message overwhelmed by the mass of protesters outside who repudiated him. Offering a model for other schools, Florida deprived Spencer of what was presumably his main goal: the moral victory of claiming that he was wrongfully silenced. This approach allows for free speech but also makes it clear that many disagree with what is being said.

Our pitched battles over diversity, inclusion and free speech on campus — a microcosm of our polarized discourse on these issues in society — are not insoluble. The next generation is dominated by young adults determined to advance their notions of equality and justice, as previous generations have done. One of the greatest, and most often overlooked, dangers to free speech on campus is that it will come to be associated exclusively with those who aim to offend others. If that's the case, we could create a generation of Americans alienated from the principle of free speech, who believe that the protections of the First Amendment don't belong to them. By working to understand these students' life experiences, concerns and demands --- and by demonstrating how those causes are advanced by robust protections for freedom of speech --- we can help ensure that U.S. universities are open to all peoples and to all ideas.


早稲田社会科学 2019問題2 全訳


【問題2 読解問題  全訳】


According to a certain line of thinking, today's college students oppose the very idea of free speech. Those who hold to this premise cite plenty of examples: A Princeton professor canceled his seminar on hateful symbolism after he spoke n-word in class, triggering a student walk-out. At the University of California-Berkeley students protested vociferously when a major right-leaning commentator came to campus. An appearance by Charles Murray, a theorist associated with controversial ideas on race, provoked an uproar at Middlebury College, ending with an assault on Murray and a professor.

ある考え方によれば、今日の大学生は言論の自由という考えそのものに反対している。この前提に固執する人たちは多くの例を挙げている。プリンストン大学の教授が、授業中にNワードを使ったことで、学生たちが次々に退室し、憎悪が象徴するものについての彼のセミナーは中止になった。カリフォルニアのバークレー校では、右寄りの著名なコメンテーターがキャンパスに来ると、学生たちが大声で抗議した。人種についての議論を巻き起こしている思想と関わりのある思想家チャールズ・マレーが現れると、ミドルベリーカレッジは大騒ぎになり、マレーと教授一人が暴行を受ける結果となった。

The truth is that most students are not, however, out to silence free speech. Since November, the organization PEN America, a nonprofit devoted to defending freedom of speech, has convened four symposia on campus speech at the sites of some of the most pitched controversies: Berkeley, Middlebury, the University of Maryland and the University of Virginia. The debates taking place at these events suggest that what might appear to be a crisis of free speech on college campuses is actually rooted in issues of race and the need for inclusion among students who have long been excluded.

けれども、本当のところ、ほとんどの学生は自由な言論をやめさせようと必死になっているわけではない。 11月以降、言論の自由を擁護する非営利団体PEN Americaが、最も議論の盛んなバークレー、ミドルベリー、メリーランド大学、バージニア大学の構内で、キャンパスの言論に関する4つのシンポジウムを開催した。これらのイベントで繰り広げられた議論で、大学キャンパスにおいて言論の自由の危機と見えているものは、実は人種の問題に根ざしていること、長い間排除されてきた学生たちを参加させる必要に根ざしていることがわかってきた。

Efforts to quash speech are not the heart of the battle most of these students are waging. Although speech-suppressing tactics are deeply misguided, they don't negate the legitimacy of other demands which are really at the root of the problem. To instill commitment to free speech among a diverse generation of students, we must focus on the essence of their grievances and explain why free speech protections are essential, rather than inimical, to those goals.

スピーチを潰そうとすることが、こうした学生がやろうとしている戦いの本質ではない。言論を抑える戦術が違った方向に大きく逸れているものの、それは実際に問題の根本にある別の要求の正当性を否定するものではない。様々な世代の学生の間に言論の自由への参画を浸透させるには、彼らの不満の本質に照準を合わせ、なぜ言論の自由を守ることがこれらの目標にとって、敵対的ではなくて、不可欠であるのかを説明する必要がある。

A rising population of non-white students brings new expectations about openness and equality on campus. Changing demographics --- the Pew Research Center reports that Hispanic enrollment more than tripled between 1996 and 2012, and black enrollment grew by 72 percent --- have yielded a critical mass of students more attuned to egalitarianism and insistent on being heard.

白人でない学生が増えると、キャンパスの開放性と平等に対する新たな期待が生まれる。1996年から2012年の間にヒスパニック系の大学入学者数が3倍以上になり、黒人入学者数は72%増加した、とピュー・リサーチ・センターは報告しているが、大学の人口動態が変化して、平等主義にもっと照準を合わせ、言い分をもっと聞き入れさせようとする学生が、爆発的に増えるところまできたのだ。

Concerns about the state of campus speech are of course valid: At times, the quest for inclusion inspires attempts to bar or punish speech perceived to impugn particular groups. A Knight Foundation survey found an increasing share of college students --- 61 percent (up from 54 percent in 2016) --- saying they don't think they can speak their minds on campus. Faced with speakers they consider abhorrent, undergrads can be quick to take matters into their own hands, using shouts, jeers and stomps to drown out offenders. Critiques of campus activism often proceed from the misguided assumption that the most vocal students are coddled products of privilege, too sheltered by their parents to be able to tolerate uncomfortable ideas.

キャンパススピーチの現状を懸念するのにはもちろん根拠がある。(非白人の学生を)仲間に加えよと迫ることが、特定のグループを攻撃していると見做されるスピーチを、時として禁止したり罰したりする試みになってしまう。ナイト財団 の調査では、キャンパスで自分の意見を述べることができないと感じている学生の割合が(2016年の51%から)61%に増えていることがわかった。学部生達は、自分が嫌悪するスピーカーに出会うと、問題を自らの手で解決しようと乗り出してきて、叫び声を上げたり、野次を飛ばしたり、足を踏み鳴らしたりして不届き者を抑え込んでしまう。キャンパス活動への批判はしばしば誤った仮定から出発することがある。つまり、声高に叫ぶ学生のほとんどが特権的な環境で甘やかされて育ち、両親に保護されすぎているため、不快なアイデアを許容できないのだ、という仮定である。

What we actually find is that on many campuses the students at the center of heated controversies are not the helicopter-parented offspring of the upper middle class. In many instances, protests have been led by non-white students, including leaders who do not come from particularly comfortable backgrounds. Their concerns have centered on eradicating persistent manifestations of discrimination that have outlasted decades of efforts at integration: slurs, racist incidents, stereotypes, social segregation, and entrenched norms shaped by and for the privileged. They are asking their universities to reorient their classrooms and communities to serve students of all backgrounds equally more than they are asking for free speech to be curtailed or censored.

実際にわかったのは、多くのキャンパスで白熱する議論の中心にいる学生は、上位中産階級のヘリコプターペアレントを持つ子供ではないということだ。多くの場合、特別に快適なバックグラウンドを持たないリーダーを含む白人以外の学生によって、抗議活動が導かれている。彼らの関心は、中傷、人種差別的事件、固定観念、社会的分離、特権を持つ者が自分たちのために形成した凝り固まった規範など、これまで何十年にもわたる人種差別廃止運動を経てもなお存在する根強い差別が現れて来るのを根絶やしすることに向けられている。彼らは言論の自由を縮小したり検閲したりする以上に、授業やコミュニティの方向を変えて、あらゆるバックグラウンドの学生に等しくサービスを提供するよう大学に求めているのである。

Many of today's minority college students have experienced persistent racial and school segregation that can leave them unprepared to forge diverse friendships in college. They run up against barriers to entry and promotion in a professoriate that shapes course catalogues, reading lists and mentoring opportunities. They live with a myriad ways discriminatory attitudes can unconsciously manifest in dorms, encounters with campus security and even at Starbucks. They also grapple with socio-economic disparities that can shut students out of elite campus subcultures and career on-ramps like unpaid internships.

今日の少数派の大学生の多くは、人種や学校の執拗な差別待遇を経験してきているため、大学で多様な友情を築く素地ができていない。彼らは、科目一覧表や文献リスト、指導教育の機会を作成する教授会に入会したり昇進したりする際に壁に突き当たる。彼らは寮でも、キャンパスの警備員と出くわす時にも、そしてスターバックスにおいてさえ無意識に現れる無数の形の差別の中で暮らしている。彼らはまた、エリートのキャンパスサブカルチャーや無給インターンシップのようなキャリアの入り口から締め出されるという社会経済的格差とも戦っている。

Compounding the problem, research reveals that most college students have little background in the First Amendment and cannot accurately identify what range of speech it protects. Basic education for all about these precepts, the rationale behind them and the role they have played in historic struggles for civil rights can help bridge those gaps. Students should also be educated about the dangers of empowering governments to police speech --- and how such efforts have historically been exploited to the detriment of social justice causes.

この問題をより複雑にしているのは、調査で明らかになったように、ほとんどの学生が憲法修正第1条を学んだ事がなく、第1条が保護する発言の範囲を正確に特定できない、ということだ。これらの教訓、背後にある理論的根拠、および公民権を求める歴史的闘争において果たしてきた役割に関して基礎教育を受けることが、このギャップを埋めるのに役立つ。学生達はまた、統治機関に警察スピーチを行う権限を与えることの危険性について、教育を受ける必要がある。そして、そのような努力が歴史的に見て、社会正義を実現しようとする運動に損失を与えるべくどう悪用されてきたのか、ということも学ばなくてはならない。

University leaders need to play a dual role: as hosts of forums for the widest range of ideas and as speakers in their own right. It is not enough for college presidents challenged by hate-mongers to throw up their hands and cry “First Amendment!” as if, after that affirmation, the Constitution then renders them mute. Faced with a planned speech by white-supremacist provocateur Richard Spencer last fall, the University of Florida cleverly allowed him to come to campus but encouraged a loud counter-campaign centered on the hashtag #GatorsNotHaters. Spencer spoke for 90 minutes before a half empty room, his message overwhelmed by the mass of protesters outside who repudiated him. Offering a model for other schools, Florida deprived Spencer of what was presumably his main goal: the moral victory of claiming that he was wrongfully silenced. This approach allows for free speech but also makes it clear that many disagree with what is being said.

大学の指導者は、幅広い思想のフォーラム主催者として、また自らの名義で講演者として、二重の役割を果たす必要がある。嫌悪に駆られた学生たちのチャレンジを受けた大学の学長は、手を挙げて「修正第1条」と叫ぶだけでは不十分である。あたかも、そう断言すれば憲法が彼らを黙らせるとでも言うように・・・フロリダ大学は、昨年秋に予定されていた白人至上主義者リチャード・スペンサーによるスピーチに際して、彼がキャンパスに来るのを賢明に許可したが、ハッシュタグ#GatorsNotHatersを中心とした大規模な反キャンペーンを奨励した。スペンサーは半分空席になった部屋で90分話をしたが、彼のメッセージは彼を拒否する外の抗議者集団に圧倒された。フロリダ大学は他の学校のためのモデルを提供した。スペンサーからおそらく彼の主な目的であったもの、つまり不当に沈黙させられたことに抗議するという道徳的勝利を奪ったのだ。このアプローチは言論の自由を許容したが、多くの人が話されている内容に同意していないことも明らかにしている。

Our pitched battles over diversity, inclusion and free speech on campus — a microcosm of our polarized discourse on these issues in society — are not insoluble. The next generation is dominated by young adults determined to advance their notions of equality and justice, as previous generations have done. One of the greatest, and most often overlooked, dangers to free speech on campus is that it will come to be associated exclusively with those who aim to offend others. If that's the case, we could create a generation of Americans alienated from the principle of free speech, who believe that the protections of the First Amendment don't belong to them. By working to understand these students' life experiences, concerns and demands --- and by demonstrating how those causes are advanced by robust protections for freedom of speech --- we can help ensure that U.S. universities are open to all peoples and to all ideas.

キャンパスでの多様性、包括性、言論の自由をめぐる私たちの闘いは、社会におけるこれらの問題に関する分極化した言説の縮図であるが、解決できない問題ではない。次の世代は、前の世代がそうであったように、平等と正義の概念を前進させようと決意した若者によって支配される。キャンパスでの言論の自由に対する最大の、そして多くの場合見過ごされがちな危険のひとつは、他者を怒らせることを目的とする人々だけが関わるようになってしまうことである。その場合、自由言論の原則と疎遠になったアメリカ人の世代を作ることになり、アメリカ人は、憲法修正第1条の保護は彼らとは関係のないものと考えるようになるだろう。これらの学生が経験してきたこと、懸念、要求を理解しようとすることで、そして、言論の自由に対する強固な保護によってこれらの原因がどのように進展するかを示すことによって、私たちは、米国の大学がすべての民族とすべての思考に対して開かれていることを保証することができるのである。

似ている記事
スポンサーさん