In reply to:
Eyal Yakoby
@EYakoby
·
121d
Shaun Maguire
@shaunmmaguire
·
121d
The statement is part of a conversation that appears to critique the cost and perceived ideological influence of higher education, particularly in Ivy League institutions. It engages with public issues related to education costs and ideological biases, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not directly cause harm, but the initial conversation it replies to could be seen as dismissive of certain educational perspectives.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but the initial conversation could be interpreted as dismissive of certain ideologies.Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is part of a sarcastic exchange. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it is part of a sarcastic exchange rather than a reasoned debate. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement uses free speech but does not demonstrate responsible use of the platform to foster constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.