Don't Corral Campus Speech

After reading the article "Don't Corral Campus Speech," I agree with Shaw and the court's position in Shaw v. College and Los Angeles Community College District. This is due to the fact that freedom of expression is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Amendment I of the Bill of Rights prohibited any party from violating the free practice of free speech, among other things. The amendment, which took place on September 25, 1789, was one of twelve presented by the pioneer US congress. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was in conformity with the first amendment.  The court held that irrespective of the curbing orders imposed against student's freedom of expression (be they political of personal views) by the college, the law was clear on the application of this amendment. Therefore, the squeezing of expression of political views into a tight corner or a free speech zone was a violation of free exchange of ideas in college.
After reading the article on "Protect Privacy at the Border", I side with the border security agents and the US administration on the unwarranted searches at borders. The first argument to support my take is based on the 4th Amendment where as much as the constitution protects the privacy of citizens against unreasonable searches, the First Congress had foreseen that security challenges were to arise in the future. In response to this, the congress tried to amend the bill further to include exceptions to the regions where unwarranted searches would get permitted. Secondly, articles fourth, fifth and sixth of the Constitution mandate the state to provide security to its citizens (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration n.p). Therefore, the efforts to intensify border searches by the Obama and Trump administrations as described in the article were/are in support of what the articles obligate the government to do. Third, the Senate has in the recent days proposed amendments to the bill of rights guided by the increasing threats by terrorists on the US. These amendments are meant to safeguard the Americans from external aggression by the enemies of the US. I, therefore, side with the Trump administration's efforts of increasing the cases of border security searches from 24,000 in 2016 to 60,000 in 2017.
The article on "Gay Rights in the Workplace" is an insight into Title VII of the Constitution enacted by the Congress in 1964. After reading the article, I side with the federal court's ruling on the matter. The court argued that the act of denying Professor Kimberly a full time job by the college was against the provisions of Title VII. First, the article prohibited discrimination based on sex as the principal evil. But discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation was a reasonably comparable evil that the law also prohibits. Also, the efforts made by the 7th Circuit to show that gays or lesbians should not get discriminated in places of work have seen the light of day in the US Senate and the Congress through the enactment of the Employment Non-discrimination Act of 2009. Additionally, Amendment IX states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In this right, the action of denying Professor Kimberly the full time job at college would get regarded as the construing of her right to employment without being discriminated based on her sexual orientation. Thus, I find the arguments presented by the court in its ruling accurate.

Works Cited
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. Web. February, 2016. (accessed May 16, 2017)
Articles
"Don't Corral Campus Speech"
"Gay Rights in the Workplace"
"Protect Privacy at the Border"