A city is considering a program for student-designed public murals. Perspective 1: Youth expression should receive broad freedom in shared spaces. Perspective 2: Government must avoid displays that divide residents or imply endorsement. Perspective 3: Transparent rotating programs can protect expression and public accountability. Write an essay that evaluates these perspectives and develops your own position.
What the evaluator is looking for
ACT readers reward a clear perspective, analysis of relationships among perspectives, relevant development, logical organization, precise language, and control of standard written English.
Planning approach
Protect youth expression while recognizing government stewardship, using transparent selection, rotating displays, and viewpoint-neutral rules.
Model response
Cities should create rotating spaces for student-designed murals under clear, viewpoint-neutral rules. Young people deserve a visible place in civic life, while public officials remain responsible for how shared property is allocated and maintained.
Broad artistic freedom can turn a blank wall into a conversation about neighborhood memory, hope, or conflict. Overprotective review would reduce the program to harmless decoration and teach students that citizenship permits expression only when no one disagrees. At the same time, a government wall is not identical to a private sketchbook. Permanent placement, hidden selection criteria, or partisan favoritism can imply official endorsement and deepen distrust.
A public call should state rules limited to safety, legality, location, and basic durability rather than favored opinions. A mixed panel of artists, students, residents, and property staff could score anonymous proposals using published criteria. Selected works would remain for a defined period, with plaques identifying the student creators and clarifying that views are their own. An appeal process should address rejected submissions. Rotation expands the number of voices over time and prevents one contested image from owning a public surface forever. Accountability can support expression when it regulates procedure rather than silencing perspective.
Structural breakdown
The response separates public art freedom from private speech. It identifies endorsement risks, then builds procedural safeguards around neutral criteria, mixed judging, attribution, appeals, and rotation.
- Explain why public walls create stewardship duties.
- Keep content rules viewpoint-neutral.
- Publish selection and appeal procedures.
- Use time-limited displays to broaden participation.
Format reference: ACT: Description of the Writing Test. This model is original and is not an official or accepted submission.