Eight Values

 Promote Tolerance

The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech by Lee C. Bollinger

Being a college student, there are a lot of topics that I feel I cannot talk about with people, because of controversy and the fear they will disagree with my opinions. Whether the topic is politics, religion, or something small but problematic, it's easier to keep it to yourself to avoid confrontation or a debate. This is why the free expression value "Promote Tolerance", discussed by Lee Bollinger in "The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech", stood out the most to me.

Bollinger's main idea is how protecting speech, even controversial speech, will make people more tolerant over time when discussing touchy subjects. It would be a violation of freedom of expression to ban hate speech. Even though it's upsetting and can definitely cross lines from okay to not okay, this will build up society's self-restraint towards ideas some may not agree with. The goal of promoting tolerance isn't to eventually agree with ideas you don't, it is to be open to other topics and not find fear in offending people as well with your own opinion. Bollinger argues that hearing offensive speech teaches us as a society how to evaluate and reject or accept ideas rather than suppressing them right away. 

Social media plays a big part in relation to the idea of promoting tolerance. While there are negative ways people share their views on controversial topics online, there is also a positive side to this.

Positives

• Social media places people in contact with political opinions they may not talk about in daily life. According to Pew Research, political content is common on social media platforms, making social media important places for free expression and public debate. [pewresearch.org]
• Some research supports Bollinger's theory directly. A 2025 study found that social media use was associated with increased tolerance among adolescents, suggesting that exposure to different perspectives can encourage understanding and tolerance. [frontiersin.org]

Negatives

• Not everyone would agree that social media promotes tolerance. Some research suggests that social media can increase political polarization when users only interact with people who share their beliefs. [academic.oup.com]
• Another criticism of social media is that it can make public discussions more hostile. Because people can easily post comments without seeing others face-to-face, disagreements can become personal attacks rather than respectful conversations, making tolerance more difficult. [academic.oup.com]

While I am part of the people who would rather not talk about something than debate it, I think it is important to discuss this controversial topics in order to grow past the immaturity of being sensitive to argumentative conversations. As a freshman, I'm meeting people with different views as well as different personalities, so I come across confrontational people quite often. However, its important that since I agree on Lee Bollinger's theory of promoting tolerance, I will try to stop refraining from conversations that intimidate me, because in the end I can either learn more, or stay confident in my opinions. 

Overall, the value of promoting tolerance resonates with me because it encourages people to engage with difficult ideas rather than avoid them. While freedom of speech can sometimes be uncomfortable, I think it plays an important role in helping individuals and society become more open-minded. In a world heavily influenced by social media and constant communication, learning how to tolerate disagreement may be more important than ever.

AI DISCLOSURE - I used Microsoft Copilot as a brainstorming and research assistance tool while developing this blog post. Copilot helped me identify sources and organize my ideas. I reviewed the information provided, selected the sources used, and wrote and revised the final post myself. The opinions, reflections, and conclusions expressed in this assignment are my own.

Harriet Tubman

Harriet Tubman in 1868 or 1869 

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Harriet Tubman. I was born into slavery in Maryland around the year 1822. Today, people remember me as a leader of the Underground Railroad, but my life began under very different circumstances.

As a child, I experienced the harsh realities of slavery. I worked long hours and faced constant hardship. I even suffered a serious head injury after being struck while trying to protect another enslaved person. That injury affected me for the rest of my life, but it did not take away my determination.

As I grew older, I came to believe that slavery was more than unfair. It was a system that denied human beings their freedom, dignity, and rights. I knew I could not accept that life forever.

In 1849, I made the courageous decision to escape. The journey was dangerous. If I had been caught, I could have been severely punished or sold farther away from my family.

When I finally reached freedom, I later said, "When I found I had crossed that line, I looked at my hands to see if I was the same person."

For the first time in my life, I was free.

But freedom for myself was not enough.

I knew that my parents, brothers, sisters, and many friends were still enslaved. Leaving them behind weighed heavily on my heart. I wanted my family to experience the same freedom that I had found.

Harriet Tubman with her extended family

So instead of staying safely in the North, I returned to the South again and again. One of my first rescue missions was to help members of my own family escape. Later, I helped my elderly parents reach freedom as well. Each journey was dangerous, but I knew I could not abandon the people I loved.

I also married a free Black man named John Tubman before I escaped. However, when I returned after gaining my freedom, I learned that he had chosen to remain in Maryland and had remarried. Although this was painful, I continued my work because I believed the fight against slavery was bigger than my own personal struggles.

As my family grew larger through the people I helped rescue, I came to see many of them as brothers and sisters in a shared search for freedom.

Every trip was dangerous. Slave catchers searched for us, and rewards were offered for my capture. Yet I continued because I believed every person deserved the chance to live free.

Looking back on those journeys, I proudly said, "I never ran my train off the track, and I never lost a passenger."

My commitment to freedom came from a simple belief. Every person has the right to liberty.

That is why I once said, "I had reasoned this out in my mind; there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other."

When the Civil War began, I continued fighting for freedom. I served the Union Army as a nurse, scout, and spy. In 1863, I helped lead the Combahee River Raid, an operation that helped free hundreds of enslaved people.

Helping others gain their freedom was one of the greatest honors of my life.

After the war, I continued working for justice. I supported education, cared for people in need, and advocated for women's voting rights.

When people remember me, I hope they do not think of me as someone without fear. I was often afraid.

The difference is that I did not let fear stop me.

My life teaches us that one person can make a difference when they stand up for what is right. Freedom is precious, and every human being deserves it.

I am Harriet Tubman.

Thank you.

AI DISCLOSURE - For this assignment, I used Microsoft Copilot as a research and writing support tool. Copilot helped me gather background information about Harriet Tubman, locate historical sources, and organize information into a role play script. I reviewed the generated content, verified key facts and quotations using reliable historical sources, and edited the script to fit the requirements of the assignment. The final submission reflects my own understanding and presentation of the topic, with AI used as a tool to assist the research and drafting process.

Bible Challenge

Slavery in the Bible

A lithograph, circa 1880, of a group of men, women, and children being taken to a slave market

Throughout history, Christianity has been used both to support slavery and to be against it. People on both sides of the debate looked to the Bible for guidance and used different passages to justify their beliefs. As a result, the same religious text was interpreted and translated in very different ways over time.

Many Christians reached the opposing conclusion and argued that the Bible's overall message was against slavery. One of the strongest arguments came from Galatians 3:28, which teaches that there is neither slavery or  freedom because all people are one in Jesus Christ. Abolitionists believed this verse demonstrated the equality of all human beings before God and challenged the idea that one person could possibly own another.

People that agreed with slavery also emphasized the Bible's teachings on freedom. Galatians 5:1 declares that Christ has set people free, and many Christians believed that owning another person contradicted this statement. They argued that the message of Christianity promotes liberty, dignity, and respect for every individual.

Another important argument came from Exodus 21:16, which agrees with kidnapping and selling people into slavery. Since the slave trade involved  forcing humans to be transported, abolitionists believed it violated biblical law. They also pointed to Luke 4:18, where Jesus speaks of bringing freedom to the oppressed. Together, these passages led many Christians to conclude that slavery was inconsistent with the values of justice, compassion, and human equality taught throughout the Bible. 

However, some Christians used the Bible to argue that slavery was acceptable. They pointed out that the Old Testament contains laws that support slavery rather than completely banning it. One of the most commonly cited passages was Leviticus 25:44-46, which states that the Israelites could get male and female slaves from surrounding nations and pass them on as inherited property. Supporters believed that because these instructions were included in God's law, slavery was permitted under certain circumstances.

(Selling Joseph into slavery)

Christians who believed in slavery also referred to verses in the New Testament. Ephesians 6:5 tells slaves to obey their, “earthly masters with respect and sincerity”, while 1 Peter 2:18 tells servants to, “submit to their masters, even when those masters are harsh”. These passages are evidence that slavery was accepted in the early Christian world.

Another argument was that Jesus never directly called for the abolition of slavery. Because the New Testament focuses on spiritual salvation rather than ending social institutions, some Christians concluded that slavery itself was not sinful. As a result, supporters believed that as long as masters treated their slaves fairly, slavery could exist in a Christian society.

Does the Bible Support Slavery?

In conclusion, the Bible has been used throughout history to support both sides of the slavery debate. Some Christians focused on passages that regulated slavery and taught obedience, while others emphasized freedom and equality. These different interpretations demonstrate how religious beliefs can influence social issues and why understanding historical context is important when studying religion and slavery.

AI DISCLOSURE : AI was used in a limited way in this assignment. I used AI to find facts about Gerrit Smith. I personalized those notes. I then used Copilot to help me clean up the text for grammar, spelling, and punctuation I also asked the tool to help me shape it into the form of a blog post, I then edited the text, added links and added images and captions. 

The Great Meeting of Seneca Falls

The Time 300 People Crammed Into a Chapel and Basically Kickstarted Women's Rights in America

Picture this: it's July 1848, it's hot, and about 300 people are packed into a little Wesleyan chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. Nobody in that room had any idea they were about to make history. But that's exactly what happened.

Fredrick Douglass

So what actually was this thing?

The Seneca Falls Convention was a two-day meeting (July 19–20, 1848) organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. These two women had actually met eight years earlier at an anti-slavery convention in London, where — plot twist — they weren't even allowed to participate because they were women. They got shoved into a curtained-off section and had to just listen. That injustice stuck with them, and it eventually turned into Seneca Falls.

The whole thing came together fast. They basically announced it in a tiny newspaper ad just days before it happened. And yet 300 people showed up, including men — Frederick Douglass, the famous abolitionist, was there and ended up playing a huge role.

The main event: the Declaration of Sentiments

The heart of the convention was a document called the Declaration of Sentiments, written mostly by Stanton. She literally modeled it after the Declaration of Independence, which is such a bold move if you think about it. Instead of "all men are created equal," she wrote "all men and women are created equal." That one word swap says everything about what this meeting was about.

The document laid out a whole list of ways women were getting a raw deal — no right to vote, no property rights once married, barely any access to real education or decent jobs, and basically zero say in the laws that governed them.

Alongside it were twelve resolutions, basically demands for equal treatment. Eleven passed without much fuss. But resolution nine — the one demanding women get the right to vote — was a different story. Even some of the women there thought it was too radical and worried it would make the whole movement look ridiculous. It only passed because Frederick Douglass stood up and argued that voting was the foundation everything else depended on. In the end, 100 people (68 women, 32 men) signed the Declaration.

THE GREAT MEETING OF SENECA FALLS EXPLAINED

June 11, 1859

Okay, but why does this actually matter?

Here's the thing — Seneca Falls didn't invent the idea of women's rights out of nowhere. People had been pushing for change before this. But this was the first time it got organized, written down, and turned into an actual public demand with a real strategy behind it.

And that ninth resolution? The one people thought was too extreme? It ended up being the thread that connected straight through to the 19th Amendment in 1920 — seventy-two years later — when women finally won the right to vote nationwide. A lot of the women who fought for that final victory weren't even born yet in 1848.

So yeah, a couple hundred people meeting in a small-town chapel for two days doesn't sound like a big deal on paper. But it set the entire agenda for the women's rights movement for the next century. That's a pretty wild return on investment for one weekend meeting.

AI DISCLOSURE - AI was used in a limited way in this assignment.