Mari Matsuda

Life,” Rebeca Mead mentions a student, victim of rape, who “had been shocked when a teacher showed a movie in class which depicted rape” without having been informed of the content. The fact that the student was shocked by the material is evidence that there are topics from which students should be informed of in advance of being presented, and even more so if such material could be emotional to some. Considering that these young students are being exposed to the world on their own, it is also important to not leave them completely alone as they transition from their parents’ arms to the reality of life. According to Mari J. Matsuda, college students are at a “vulnerable stage of psychological development” as many of them “are away from home for the first time,” and not providing them with help could result in “lifelong repercussions” (qtd. in Shulivetz). Matsuda helps prove the point that students need to be protected from sensitive topics and need to be oriented so they won’t feel isolated. To prevent such consequences, it is essential to provide students with the option of confronting troubling topics. College is about being exposed to new and different viewpoints with the goal of creating successful strong students, introducing “safe spaces” would prevent students from overcoming their traumatic experiences and therefore they should not be implemented. In essence, the creation of safe spaces would obstruct colleges from encouraging students to be creative and thoughtful.…

By not implementing affirmative action, they actually experience more harm than help. Matsuda shows the importance of affirmative action by stating, “Look for the absences. Listen to the silences. Turn the world upside down by standing in solidarity with the bottom […] Affirmative action is about who will save these lives” (29-30). The key point that Matsuda implies is that saving lives of those who are ignored and at the bottom of society because of their race is of ultimate importance. Not…

Considering The Victim’s Story” Mari J. Matsuda addresses the topic of hate speech, and the legal rights surrounding it. She argues for the implementation of legal restrictions on hate speech. She makes the theoretical arguments that hate speech can be a causative factor for legitimate harm to individuals; she justifies the need for restrictions on hate speech by citing the various harm that can be conducted by individual that possess such speech. She claims hate speech can cause: psychological…

This week’s articles readings were basically a sum up to what we have learned throughout the semester till this day. Asian Americans have faced many struggles and difficulties throughout their lives in the United States. All the Asian American communities which include Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and many more have faced problems with the American communities. The problems were discrimination, stereotyping, racism, education, and finding identity. Asian Americans have faced…

victims will feel unsafe because anyone could be a potential target. Generally, people live in communities were they share a common race, ethnicity or religion; meaning when one person is targeted, it is an attack on the whole of the community. For many violent hatred acts victims are “interchangeable” because they target a particular type of person (Perry 2001: 10). Researcher Mari Matsuda talks about how racist hate messages give victims emotional distress and physiological symptoms, which…

Words That Wound by Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, are legal scholars that draw from their own experiences with assaultive speech. With the use of critical race theory, and their own experiences with assaultive speech the authors critique the interpretation of the first amendment. The first portion of the article discusses the outbreak of assaultive speech, and the extensiveness of negative implications towards the victims. “it is…

overcome by their own fragility, that they couldn’t see that it was Ms. El Rhazoui who was in need of a safer space” (Shulevitz 24). Shulevitz also brings in conflicting views. An example is the event where Adam Shapiro refused to put up a flier that said, “I want this space to be a safer space” (Shapiro qtd. in Shulevitz 22). He opposed the idea of a safe space because he “doesn’t see how you can have a therapeutic space that’s also an intellectual space” (Shulevitz, 22). Professors have to be…