Persuasion Paper Outline

Intro:  

The United States has made enormous steps forward regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual (LGBTQA) rights.  In addition to a diminishing stigma, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in 2015 that effectively allowed same-sex marriage in the United States.  Steps like these give hope to the LGBTQA community that better days are coming, and that an era of discrimination is coming to an end. Being gay, bi, queer, or anybody else is no longer a crime; today’s youth are becoming emboldened to claim their sexuality in a public forum that is more accepting of them than ever before.

However, the fight is not yet finished.  Many American institutions are inherently homophobic; they continue to promote a heteronormative narrative that teaches people that homosexuality is different, deviant, and unhealthy.  The United States’s public school system is one of these institutions. Despite teaching students of every gender, sexuality, and orientation, public schools by and large are using curricula that assume a heterosexual norm.  According to the experts, these heteronormative curricula not only exclude LGBTQA students, but actively create a hostile, homophobic environment.

 

The Problem:

 

The Solution:

Deliberation Nation: Hate Speech vs Free Speech

Deliberation Nation was, for me, a mix of fascination, anxiety, and desperately trying to find time to attend a second discussion.

 

As it happened, the only deliberation I was able to attend was Friday’s Hate Speech vs. Free Speech discussion.  Although it was the only meeting that fit into my schedule that week, I’m really glad that it was the one I was able to go to – I found the conversation engaging and thought provoking, and I’ve come back to think about the deliberation  several times.

 

There were about 12 of us seated at cafe tables in Frasier Commons, and after five minutes of introductions and donut-munching, we split into two groups.  The approach teams then spoke to the smaller groups, giving us a more intimate setting for conversation and discussion.  I thought this method was really effective at engaging every attendee, as the small groups forced a certain level of participation.  I enjoyed discussing all three approaches, but I found our discussion of legal censorship particularly fascinating.  I was sitting next to a girl who had a very different idea of free speech than I do, and it was really cool to discuss how far our government can really go to prevent hateful speech.

 

All things considered, the Hate Speech vs Free Speech deliberation was a really cool experience.  I got to see what it was like to sit on the other side of a deliberation (without the anxiety of “Oh god I hope we can get them to talk for the whole 20 minutes”), and I was able to meet other Freshmen that care about this issue.  I thought the deliberation was a fantastic opportunity to challenge my perceptions of free speech and hate speech, and to practice civic engagement with other Penn State students.