In the article In Defense of Prejudice which author is Jonathan Rauch, the author elaborates a viewpoint that is very different from the traditional society viewpoint about the prejudice. In the traditional American society, most of people and the government believe the prejudice is not good for the development of the society, so they always think all of the prejudice must be forbidden. However, in Jonathan’s opinion, the intellectual pluralism is the best choose for the prejudice problem. In the book, the author makes a point that we should keep the intellectual pluralism rather than destroy all the prejudice. In fact, the intellectual pluralism is people in the society permit the expression of various forms of bigotry and always will.1 It also is the author’s opinion in the essay: in the society, we do not need to eradicate all prejudices, we just need to make the prejudice become better which means people can have different thinking about some things like homosexual or racialism, but all of speech should be not offensive. From that, the author gives people a positive opinion that his viewpoint is better than the mainstream opinion. The contrast between two opinions also helps reader make a clear critical thinking and make them know which is the better opinion about the prejudice problem. In the essay, the author tries to through his contract and examples to prove a new viewpoint: the prejudice should be existence because the freedom of speech and we need the prejudice become well. In the essay, the author also gives some examples to prove his point. First, he gives a example that line between prejudice and truth is elusive, so maybe you think it is prejudice, but others not. We should know that really is a problem, however, it’s not means we should eradicate these opinions be different from us, we should try to understand them and analyze them because people have the freedom of speech.2 Second,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document