http://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=smulr

This scholarly article is overall against strict regulation on political correctness. The introduction does a really good job of giving multiple examples of universities that have, in one way or another, regulated their student’s word choices. As far as our introduction to this option of penalizing students, these would provide good examples for how you could do that.

This article also does a good job at pointing out all of the disadvantages involved with this type of regulation. For example, it dives into the first amendment. It thoroughly evaluates whether or not theses rules are infringing on those rights. It discussing a lot of historical court cases that were about similar things as well.

The sources cited by the paper could also prove to be helpful if I was struggling to find other sources. This is an academic paper that is heavily cited, and the paper is also very long. The paper in and of itself seems reliable because of how much research was done to complete it.

From what I can tell, the papers weakest point is the lack of counterclaim. It does very little to acknowledge the other side of things which is the side that I’m ultimately trying to argue. For that reason, it won’t be super helpful in presenting this topic in the best light.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426071/ku-student-senate-votes-ban-hisher-governing-document-because-theyre-microaggressions

This article goes deeply into one particular instance where political correctness was regulated on a college campus. This one discusses Kansas University which banned the use of gender specific pronouns in their handbooks and regulations. It’s considered a microaggression to be so exclusive.

I could use this one because it does a good job of outlying the issue generally. It hits on a lot of things, such as microaggressions, which are an important thing to touch upon. These universities tend to regulate things that fall under the blanket term of “microaggression”.

The biggest flaw with this article and probably the reason I won’t use it is because it’s not a reliable source. It’s a very unprofessional and short write up on a very broad issue.

The reason why I mention this article is because it’s the least biased one I could find. Each article I read tended to lean heavily toward bashing political correctness and wouldn’t be very helpful. This article is a little bit sarcastic, but not as bad as the others.

https://www.bachelorsdegreecenter.org/political-correctness-campus/

This is another article against PC, but the beginning has a lot of general information on PC and what it is. It also talks about “old PC” versus “new PC”. The article in general encourages a shift back toward old PC. Because this is a possible solution, the information in this presentation could be useful in thinking about how to guide the deliberation.

The weakest part of this one appears to be that it is simply a presentation. It doesn’t look like much thought was put into it. Although it has sources, they may not be totally reliable. This might be another one that I wouldn’t end up citing in the end.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/02/magazine/superbugs.html

This first article I found does a good job at summarizing the overall issue that the world faces with superbugs. It begins by telling the story of a man with kidney failure undergoing dialysis. One morning, he felt particularly sick and his renal doctor was alarmed by his condition. He the minimum necessary amount of dialysis and was brought to the ER in an ambulance. Just 12 hours later, this man died.

His blood work went to a lab where a microbiologist tested it for disease causing microbes. She found what was described to be one the worst fears for someone in her profession. A VISA strain of Staphylococcus aureas was found in the blood of this man. Staph is a very common bacteria found in an estimated 10-15% of healthy American’s noses alone. However, it can also live on the surface of the skin. It will only become a problem once an open wound allows the microbe to enter the body and cause disease. Untreated, Staph on its own can kill someone.

What makes VISA strains of Staph special is there resistance to vancomycin. This antibiotic is used only ever as a last resort because it is has proven extremely effective in the treatment of bacterial infections. However, over prescribing this super drug would increase the rate at which resistant strains become prevalent and spread. For this reason, doctors save it for last, and they don’t have any safe options after that.

That leads to some alarm because, if bacteria resistant to this drug spread, we will have no defense. We would essentially return to the ages before the discovery of penicillin, the first drug that was selectively toxic. Any open wound would be life threatening. Hospitals would not be able to treat you.

So that leads us to this question: why is the public not more concerned about this looming death threat? This is a problem that no one in the world has been able to solve. Microbiologists are working every day to create or discover new antibiotics, but everything is very crude at this point. Despite all these issues, these superbugs are rarely reported. Hospitals and labs don’t want to frighten the general public so they try to keep this issue on the down low.

Think back to the spread of Ebola which causes panic everywhere. American’s felt somewhat safe because this killer bacteria popped up in what they consider to be a far away country. However, the truth is, far more superbugs pop up in countries like our very own which are notorious for prescribing antibiotics for the sniffles. Our media sources just don’t cover it often, and we have, until this point, been able to stop most of what has popped up. We are quickly approaching an end to this state of “safety”. It won’t be long until something comes out that shows the public just how unprepared for these microbes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390951/prepare-biological-weapons-matt-mayer

This article does a good job at evaluating the superbug problem through another lens: biological warfare. America would be wholesomely unprepared if we were to be successfully attacked in this way. Other nations have very different diseases which in and of themselves pose a threat to Americans just through travel. If a nation was to isolate a disease causing microbe our microbiologists have never seen before and spread it to Americans across the country, it would likely spread like wildfire. Ebola, which was relatively difficult to pass on and which wasn’t being used as a weapon, made its way here. How could we feasibly assume we have the regulations in place to stop a direct and purposefully orchestrated attack?

The article also points out all of the weaknesses the American government has shown when presented with these issues before. They lack centralized action and are often slow moving on their decision making. When it comes to superbugs, slow moving is not an option. Infected people need to be isolated and treated as soon as they are identified to prevent the widespread infection of the nation. The government is often hesitant to raises alarm so they allow infected people to travel and continue on with their lives all the while spreading these microbes.

The attention given to this issue is minimal at best. The article makes a good point that, up until this point, we have been lucky. However, we cannot count on this luck to last forever.

*I picked these two articles because one is from a left leaning publication and the other is right leaning. I think this highlights that this issue is not one isolated by party lines. This is an issue for everyone to be worried about.