Blog

Discussion for Unit 12

What was your major takeaway from this unit?

4 thoughts on “Discussion for Unit 12”

  1. Carlos Wil says:

    As we move to a more just society, we should have more checks and balances in place so that people requiring services are not linguistically/racially profiled. As society evolves promoting more inclusive behaviors, some of the phrases referred to in the reading will dissipate with time and education. One example is the inclusive communications reformed for LGBTQ+ community.

    Apart from education, there will always be people with accents and those that speak in different dialects. As professor Baugh states, linguistic/racial profiling will always exist but it’s good to know that we have people fighting to change societal views to make the world a better place.

    NPR podcast was interesting. It’s true that those reporting the news have a responsibility to report non-biased view of the news and let the listeners draw their own conclusions. That said, those who are in positions of power have a responsibility to lead by example, but we don’t live in a utopia so people are going to do what they believe is right but there should be checks and balances in place to prevent certain discourses.

  2. Chayanne Vasquez says:

    One of the more major takeaways that I had within the unit is that the passage in the unit brings to light a multifaceted and ethically charged debate surrounding linguistic profiling, particularly the contentious practice of identifying an individual’s race or nationality based on speech…In a recent discussion with a friend, we delved into a debate concerning his claim that he can discern someone’s race merely through a phone conversation, even without visual cues. Personally, I am skeptical about the validity of such a claim. The examples from the O. J. Simpson trial and the Kentucky Supreme Court case show the tension between those who advocate for the accuracy of such identifications and those who raise concerns about the potential for discrimination.

    One critical question that emerges is the ethical underpinning of linguistic profiling. Is it justifiable to draw conclusions about a person’s racial or national identity solely from their speech patterns? The passage highlights the risk of perpetuating stereotypes and contributing to discriminatory practices, challenging us to consider the broader societal implications of such identifications. Additionally, the ethical dilemma extends to the legal system, as the U.S. Supreme Court’s lack of a definitive ruling on linguistic profiling suggests an ongoing struggle to establish a clear ethical and legal framework.

    The legal ambiguity surrounding linguistic profiling opens the door to questions about the fairness and accuracy of such practices within the justice system. How can the legal system balance the potential benefits of linguistic profiling, such as aiding in accurate identification, with the risk of introducing biases and perpetuating discrimination? The passage prompts us to reflect on the role of personal familiarity in shaping perceptions – can individuals truly and reliably identify race or nationality based on speech patterns, or does this practice risk being subjective and prone to error?

    On a broader scale, the passage challenges us to confront the inherent biases that may exist in linguistic profiling. As the author suggests, our keen auditory skills as a species may perpetuate linguistic profiling as long as human language exists. This raises the fundamental question of how we, as a society, can navigate linguistic differences with wisdom and patience, ensuring that preferential linguistic profiling does not veer into the realm of discriminatory practices. In essence, the passage prompts a deeper exploration of the ethical, legal, and societal dimensions inherent in the practice of linguistic profiling.

Leave a Reply