今 日 考 題
2022.12.07
Your university is organizing a series of guest lectures. Some people think that speakers with controversial opinions should not be invited to speak at the university. Others believe that the university should feature a variety of speakers, regardless of their opinions. Which point of view do you agree with? Explain why. Using details and examples in your response. [重複 2020.09.15 home edition = 2017.07.22]
類 似 題 目
線下很早的時候考過，LAB Speaking 難題集中也有：
和"controvertial"相關(guan) 的題不少，比如：該不該給有爭(zheng) 議的公司高薪打工？
2021 KCT Speaking 008
Some companies are controversial and criticized for their business practices. Do you think it is acceptable for people to take jobs at such companies, even if the jobs pay well? Explain why or why not, using details and examples in your response.
2021.07.14 Task1 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is acceptable for people to work for companies that pay well but have controversial policies or business practices (such as unethical practices, terrible work environment, unfavorable customer ratings, toxic scandals, market harmful products).
Please explain why and use specific details and examples to support your answer.對於(yu) 爭(zheng) 議話題有不同意見，說服對方還是禮貌共存
2021 KCT Speaking 025
Family members and friends often disagree on controversial issues such as politics. Some people think it is important to try to convince friends and family to change their opinions. Others think that they should respect others' opinions and not try to change them. Which view do you agree with? Use details and examples to explain your opinion.
構 思 講 解
如果選擇不應該邀請，可以說： 他們(men) 有爭(zheng) 議的原因就是因為(wei) 他們(men) 的看法不太能夠被接受，也可能因為(wei) 過於(yu) 極端（比如校園裏可以允許槍支，或者所有的移民都應該要被驅逐等等），這樣的演講對於(yu) 學校學生會(hui) 有不好影響，甚至造成學生做出一些極端的行為(wei) ，比如網上針對國際生發表 hate comments，或者開始有暴力的行為(wei) ，可能就是因為(wei) 他們(men) 聽完講座以後覺得這樣是對的，自己有權利這樣做，那對其他同學和對學校來說都不好。
如果選擇應該邀請各類演講人，可以說： 學校應該是一個(ge) 學生接受教育，學會(hui) 辯證思考的地方，如果學生隻能聽到已經被大眾(zhong) 接受的看法，或者隻能聽到學校批準過的看法，那學生是很難學會(hui) 獨立思考的。
另外，有助於(yu) 營造一個(ge) 言論自由的環境，鼓勵學生多表達自己，也讓學生學會(hui) 接受與(yu) 自己不一樣的觀點。
滿 分 示 範
[示範者：Sun Sun - (2021.09.28) 托福口語30分，托福寫(xie) 作30分，托福聽力30分，托福閱讀30分。曆史共7次口語滿分。]
相 關(guan) 素 材
Controversy on Campus How should American universities handle inflammatory speakers on campus?
Two years ago, the Berkeley College Republicans invited Ann Coulter to speak. She presented her views on immigration in Berkeley’s Wheeler Hall Wednesday, November 20, 2019. Her speech, “Adioses, America, ” argued that mass immigration harms American culture. Much like her book with the same title, her lecture aligned with anti-immigrant ideas. 曾經作者的學校邀請過一個(ge) 有爭(zheng) 議的人 Ann Coulter。
It was a hostile Wednesday night with students polarized by her presence on campus. Some came out in support of Coulter, citing that she had the freedom to express her ideas, no matter the offense. Other students, however, vehemently protested the event. They believed Coulter’s views were dangerous to Berkeley’s immigrant student body. Protesters wanted to “de-platform” Coulter and remove her from campus grounds that night. 當時，學生態度兩(liang) 極化，有些人覺得Coulter應該有表達自己意願的自由；其他人則抗議覺得她的看法會(hui) 帶來不好影響，不應該提供平台表達。
As a student that year, I agreed with the protestors. Back then, I believed that pundits like Coulter should not have a platform on campus. University leaders had a responsibility to protect their students from hate-filled, exclusionary speech. In hindsight, I must admit I had a myopic attitude towards the issue. But with deep consideration, I have since changed my position. Not because I am no longer committed to justice and equity. Instead, my commitment to intellectual dialogue informs my newfound stance. Rather than relegating the solution to an either-or approach, I propose a compromise. American universities should invite controversial speakers to speak on campus. But the event must include at least one public intellectual from the opposite side. 當時的作者是站在抗議者那邊的，但現在作者更傾(qing) 向於(yu) 給 Coulter 一個(ge) 平台表達，前提是學校也應該邀請一個(ge) 和Coulter態度不同的公眾(zhong) 人物一起來演講。
Like many of my contemporaries, my main concern is for minority students. We bear the brunt of any outcome that favors these inflammatory speakers. It seems that their platforms embolden bigoted people to violent action. Inviting speakers with vile ideologies is a matter of life and death. As a Black man, I have a personal commitment to protect minorities from bigoted violence. And while the desire to protect students is admirable, it blinds me and others to nuance. The other side of the debate is not without its short-sighted vision either. Their obsession with free speech at the expense of marginalized peoples is problematic.
[自由言論者的看法] Free speech advocates say that polarizing figures deserve a platform. They claim that college students should learn to examine unpopular ideas. If colleges ban offensive speakers, then they are stifling their students’ education. They also believe that speech is not the same as action; thus, hateful language cannot harm. [社會(hui) 正義(yi) 者的看法] Social justice advocates say that inflammatory speakers should not have a platform. They claim that these extreme views subjugate and demoralize minority students. These unpopular ideas often blur the lines between hate speech and unorthodox opinions. In turn, those speakers influence people hellbent on violence towards minorities. 全段觀點都可參考
If we take an objective step back and consider each side, we see each side’s valid points. Unfortunately, the media pits both sides against one another. And the realm of American politics hijacks the conversation. The conservative “Right” posits itself as the bastions of free speech. Republicans say that protecting our First Amendment right is of the utmost importance. The liberal “Left” claims to protect the marginalized from oppressive language. Democrats say that advocating for inclusivity takes precedence over certain viewpoints.With American politics as polarized as ever, there seems to be no room for compromise. You must fall in line with either the conservative or liberal side of the issue. Any attempt to find a middle ground is akin to passivity. If I wanted to write about a different dilemma, then I would agree with such sentiments. Our world indeed presents harsh realities that require us to pick a “side.” Neutrality in the face of mass genocide, enslavement, or socio-political oppression is not admirable.But what if the answer to our current problem exists within that middle ground? What if we have embraced a false dichotomy that has done more harm than good?What framework includes both a commitment to open expression and ethnic inclusiveness?And how does said worldview help American universities move toward multifaceted dialogues?Dr. Sigal Ben-Porath offers a framework that acts as a bridge between the two ideologies. Inclusive freedom, coined by Dr. Ben-Porath, asserts that these ideas are not in opposition. Instead, the UPENN professor suggests that free expression and inclusivity can work together. “Campus Free Speech in Polarized Times” is one treatise that examines inclusive freedom. In her essay, Dr. Ben-Porath defines her framework in connection to academia’s mission.“An inclusive freedom approach reflects the commitment of the university to protect free thought, inquiry, and expression and to ensure that the dignity of all students and faculty is protected by allowing them to freely and equally contribute to this shared endeavor”.The freedom to express unpopular ideas is necessary for producing thoughtful citizens. But the makeup of said citizenry is diverse, with a history and culture that requires respect. The academy should be a place where a rigorous examination of all ideas takes place. But such discussions must ensure that minority students are not demoralized in the process.However, some might ask these questions: Should we protect hate-based ideas as much as unorthodox opinions? What does the First Amendment say about this? According to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, the First Amendment protects hate speech. In his article for Encyclopedia Britannica, Professor Volokh explains that “the government may not outlaw…speech praising violence [or] racist speech”. Yet, the amendment does not protect citizens when they commit libel or slander. The right to free speech also does not protect insults that provoke direct violence. With that in mind, attempting to appeal to the First Amendment gives way to more questions. Is it possible for protected hate speech to cross over into “slander” or “fighting words?” What if an unpopular opinion gets interpreted as such?Rather than probing even further, it might be better to think about these ideas in terms of virtue. Notice how I differentiated between hate speech and unpopular stances in the beginning. That distinction is essential to recognize when considering their value in academic discourse. Speech that denigrates minority students becomes a distraction to a healthy conversation.So then, what should one do with controversial viewpoints? What about critiques of U.S. immigration policy or Israeli occupation of Palestine? Were Marc Lamont Hill’s critiques of the Israeli occupation of Palestine valid? Is critiquing a group’s actions the same as spreading abhorrent propaganda? What about Ann Coulter’s views? Were her concerns about mass immigration and its influence on America valid? Should we examine her ideas, even if bigots co-opt them for harmful purposes? Dr. Ben-Porath believes that this struggle is part of the pursuit of truth, the mission of academia.That is why inviting speakers with controversial views to colleges is still necessary. We can do without hate-based speech as it distracts from a civil dialogue. We cannot, however, do away with public intellectuals who share an unpopular worldview. Students must wrestle with such ideas to reach their conclusions. University leadership should encourage speakers towards open expression for the pursuit of truth. But balance is crucial. These events must not be one-sided. Students should also have the opportunity to hear the opposing side in the same breath.The opposition has two functions as it pertains to inclusive freedom. Thinkers from “the other side” offer real-time challenges to each speaker’s viewpoints. Inviting another public intellectual creates an atmosphere of conversation. These conversations should give students another perspective they might not have ever considered. Also, dissenting voices hold speakers, institutions, and the conversation accountable to inclusivity. If the discussion begins to denigrate minority students, then speakers must speak out. Orators from either side must submit their manners of speech to the common good. Using slurs and other forms of denigrating speech may be their legal right. However, insults and appeals to fear or prejudice are worthless to intellectual discourse.Truth-seeking is the mission of academia and the premise of inclusive freedom. Truth-seeking is the driving force behind inviting inflammatory speakers on campus. How will students grapple with complex issues if university leaders do not expose them to various views? But without the opposing side, these events risk becoming unchallenged monologues. University leaders do their students a disservice when they neglect the counter-argument.Nevertheless, there are some notable exceptions to my proposed compromise. Time constraints on events may be an issue when inviting two speakers. Some speakers may decline an invitation. A refusal to speak might cause the function to resemble a lecture rather than a discussion. Professors in various disciplines may need to continue contentious conversations in the classroom. If so, they should be mindful of their pedagogy. University faculty should never sacrifice civility and empathy for the sake of truth. Like Professor Stone, teachers must create an atmosphere where discomfort and reassurance coexist.We must also be mindful of the inevitable push-back to inviting controversial speakers. Students and faculty might protest welcoming an Ann Coulter or a Marc Lamont Hill on campus. Their protests are valuable, and we should listen to minority students’ open dissent. The goal is to have everyone participate in the spirited exchange of ideas. But it is impossible to expect total cooperation.We are human, and we have our limitations. Listening to uncomfortable viewpoints is challenging at times. Some political pundits make it difficult to hear them out. One must do extra work to take the most threatening stances and chisel them down to a reasonable belief. Some ideas, like ones that subjugate a people group, only appeal to irrational fears. There will be some who decide to excuse themselves from discussing fear-based sentiments. Some Black and Brown students will refuse to consider Ann Coulter’s anti-immigrant views. Some Jewish students will take offense to Marc Lamont Hill’s critiques of Israel. Values such as empathy and understanding are crucial in these moments. A commitment to inclusive freedom and truth-seeking requires humility. As Dr. Cornel West explains, “…the condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak where suffering is” (25:10–25:22). Socio-political ideologies do not exist within a vacuum. Our perspectives often meet at the intersection of human experiences and impartial facts. Listening to protestors and their experiences is not counter-productive. And scrutinizing such experiences is not akin to cold indifference. Both practices are crucial for the pursuit of truth.
【競賽報名/項目谘詢+微信：mollywei007】
評論已經被關(guan) 閉。