• Should social media activity be grounds for losing one’s job? (You should consider both the employer’s and the employees’ perspectives.
• Should students take online classes?
• Should parents deny their children and teens access to social media platforms considering cyberbullying and resulting problems stemming from it?
• Should high schools do away with tackling in football? (You could choose to write on a variation on this topic to include college or even NFL.)
• Should parents allow their children to play football or any other physically combative sport?
• Should public schools reduce the amount of homework teachers give students?
• Should public schools reduce the number of classes students are required to take each semester so that they can focus more attention on fewer classes?
• Should all parents encourage their students to attend a university? (Consider other viable education options like technical education.)
• Should students take a break between high school and college? (Another term for taking a break between high school and college is ‘gap year’; however, some people need more time to work, mature, and decide what interests and skills they have or want to obtain before going to college, so you do not have to think necessarily of a one-year break between high school and college. The break could be two to ten years.)
• Should companies collect and store information about their customers?
• Should all U.S. public schools (Kindergarten through 12th grade) require students to take consumer education classes between eighth and twelfth grades to learn about how to handle their money, including how to save money for short-term and long-term goals and for retirement, how to build money with investments, and how to avoid major credit pitfalls like purchasing new vehicles and maxing out credit cards?
• Should public schools be required to reinstate government (or civics) classes in high school so these future voters or future non-voters understand government structure and their rights and responsibilities as U.S. citizens living in a republic?
Sample Answer
When the Status Update Becomes a Termination Letter: Social Media and Employment
The boundaries between professional and private life have become irrevocably blurred by the ubiquity of social media. As platforms like X, Instagram, and TikTok serve as both public diaries and political soapboxes, employers increasingly monitor the online activities of their staff. This raises a crucial question: Should social media activity, conducted outside of work hours and off company property, be grounds for losing one's job? While employers possess a legitimate business interest in protecting their brand and maintaining a functional workplace, terminating an employee solely based on personal online speech constitutes a profound overreach that undermines expectations of privacy and freedom of expression, unless the activity directly and demonstrably inflicts quantifiable harm upon the business.
From the employer’s perspective, the primary motivation for monitoring and taking action against an employee’s online posts is brand protection. In the age of viral content, a single controversial or offensive post can quickly be attributed to the company, leading to boycotts, loss of consumer trust, and public relations crises. For high-profile industries like education, healthcare, or finance, employee posts containing insensitive remarks, discriminatory language, or unprofessional conduct may erode public confidence in the organization's integrity. Furthermore, social media can expose confidential information or trade secrets, or even be used to cyberbully colleagues, creating a hostile work environment that exposes the company to legal liability. The employer thus argues that the employee, by representing the company in some capacity—even if not officially—has a duty to uphold its values.
However, this justification often ignores the fundamental distinction between private life and professional responsibility. Employees operate under a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are off the clock and using their personal devices, even if their profiles are publicly accessible. Their personal expression, whether it concerns political opinions, controversial views, or frustrations with life, is a protected form of speech. Allowing employers to police this speech effectively transforms the employment relationship into a twenty-four-hour contract where personal identity is subjugated to corporate image.