Summary of “In Defense of Prejudice”
In the United States, it can be seen almost anywhere that societies are becoming more and more conscious of the words they use to describe people, in the case of accidentally offending someone. However, when some words are determined as being “hate-speech” and are deemed criminal, the notion of free speech begins to be altered. With certain words now being treated as legitimate violence against another, where does one draw the line when considering one’s constitutional right to free speech, even when that person is obviously prejudiced? In Jonathan Rauch’s essay, “In Defense of Prejudice”, he argues that instead of eradicating all forms of prejudice in the United States, that we as intellectual beings …show more content…
This ideal, defined by Rauch as Intellectual Pluralism, is the understanding that when multiple different opinions are at play on a certain topic, the goal is not to disallow alternative ideas because they are exactly that, but rather to discuss and evaluate the validity each idea in order to come to a conclusive truth. Rauch argues that with this concept, it is understood that unfavorable mindsets and beliefs will arise (racism, homophobia, etc.) but it is the duty of the people to criticize these beliefs, not make laws against them. Make them feel ridiculous for believing such things, and diminish their cause from the inside-out, for just because their views are different, doesn’t always make them illegal. Nevertheless, it is this exact process of debunking these prejudices which will push citizens towards future knowledge and understanding, rather than to bigotry and hate.
As Rauch comes to a close, he reemphasizes the point that our laws and policies are being wasted on protecting citizens from words, rather than the real dangers in our country. That we focus on the words which offended a few people over the statistics of cartels and gangs taking over cities right underneath our wandering noses. That as long as we focus on getting rid of errants, rather than fixing the error, we’re doomed to relive this reality over and over
In the United States, it can be seen almost anywhere that societies are becoming more and more conscious of the words they use to describe people, in the case of accidentally offending someone. However, when some words are determined as being “hate-speech” and are deemed criminal, the notion of free speech begins to be altered. With certain words now being treated as legitimate violence against another, where does one draw the line when considering one’s constitutional right to free speech, even when that person is obviously prejudiced? In Jonathan Rauch’s essay, “In Defense of Prejudice”, he argues that instead of eradicating all forms of prejudice in the United States, that we as intellectual beings …show more content…
This ideal, defined by Rauch as Intellectual Pluralism, is the understanding that when multiple different opinions are at play on a certain topic, the goal is not to disallow alternative ideas because they are exactly that, but rather to discuss and evaluate the validity each idea in order to come to a conclusive truth. Rauch argues that with this concept, it is understood that unfavorable mindsets and beliefs will arise (racism, homophobia, etc.) but it is the duty of the people to criticize these beliefs, not make laws against them. Make them feel ridiculous for believing such things, and diminish their cause from the inside-out, for just because their views are different, doesn’t always make them illegal. Nevertheless, it is this exact process of debunking these prejudices which will push citizens towards future knowledge and understanding, rather than to bigotry and hate.
As Rauch comes to a close, he reemphasizes the point that our laws and policies are being wasted on protecting citizens from words, rather than the real dangers in our country. That we focus on the words which offended a few people over the statistics of cartels and gangs taking over cities right underneath our wandering noses. That as long as we focus on getting rid of errants, rather than fixing the error, we’re doomed to relive this reality over and over