|
Moreover, since education in subjects like history and literature is somewhat localized, it can be worthwhile to have an understanding of the religions that are locally culturally significant. You're going to have a hard time understanding 16th century European history without understanding the Protestant Reformation, for instance. You're going to miss a lot of Shakespeare, Milton, and Dante if you don't know the Bible. ***I am not arguing for religious indoctrination in schools.*** But a broad liberal arts education is incomplete unless it imparts an understanding of the way religion has affected your culture.
Because they were actually quite influential in the development (and destruction) of human civilization and cultures? It's asinine to leave out a dozen or a couple dozen large chunks of history just because of the many crumbs that fall to the bottom of the bag.
It's more important to learn why things in history happened rather than just what happened. A knowledge of the basics of Shinto would go a long way to help explain much of the nationalism in pre-WWII Japan, for instance.
I have no problem with historically relevant religious material being taught ie.-protestant reformation, etc. But only in the historically relevant post. I am saying that i also would not have any problem with a class solely about a religion (as an elective) being taught if equal time was given to each adn every religion. If this cannot be accomplished, then ONLY the historical relevant portions of a religion should be taught in public schools (and don't get me started on states trying to teach "creationism/intelligent design" as a science...we'll be here all day).
School is not a place to pray and unless schools are willing to have after hours clubs for all religions (i'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of public schools would shoot down a club for satanists-theological or otherwise) and don't discriminate against other clubs (GLBT/gay-straight alliance) then religious clubs shouldn't get sponsorship.
|
|
How the hell is that going to avoid litigation? They were being sued because they wouldn't let her attend with her girlfriend wearing the clothes of her choice. How hard would it have been for them to allow her to attend? How is cancelling the dance a way to avoid litigation? The second somebody touches that girl (since it was "her fault"), there's going to be a s*~@storm of litigation from her and her family for the school inciting a hate crime by setting her up to be the "bad guy".Or, the school district sees that course of action as the only way to avoid any litigation. Sad, but that's what you get from our lawsuit happy culture these days.Now this is a reason why i would homeschool my kids
This school district is intentionally trying to turn an entire school against one student who only wanted to go to the prom as herself.
The way I see it, I'd say the schoolboard was thinking that if they held the dance, and allowed her to attend, and something happened at the dance, then the school would be held liable.
So, rather than say "avoid litigation", I should have said they were trying to take, what in their minds may have been, the least litigious path.
As it turns out, they are getting sued anyway. The girl and the ACLU are suing to get the prom re-instated and allow the girl to attend with her date. I wouldn't mind if the suit fails, not because I have anything against this girl, or the students, but because I don't really see a prom as some kind of right the school is required to provide.
The way i read it is that they were already getting sued due to them telling her she couldn't attend. Rather than fight the lawsuit, they just dropped the prom. They are setting her up to be harrassed and anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that.
|
I have no problem with historically relevant religious material being taught ie.-protestant reformation, etc. But only in the historically relevant post. I am saying that i also would not have any problem with a class solely about a religion (as an elective) being taught if equal time was given to each adn every religion. If this cannot be accomplished, then ONLY the historical relevant portions of a religion should be taught in public schools (and don't get me started on states trying to teach "creationism/intelligent design" as a science...we'll be here all day).School is not a place to pray and unless schools are willing to have after hours clubs for all religions (i'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of public schools would shoot down a club for satanists-theological or otherwise) and don't discriminate against other clubs (GLBT/gay-straight alliance) then...
Not really wanting to debate religion in this thread (cuz like I pointed out yesterday there's already a thread for that). But I detect in your post an inherent bias to the fact that all religions are equally invalid.
That is - if you follow your own line of thought - only one viewpoint should be presented in science because you deem it inherently right. No viewpoints, in your opinion, should be presented in religion, because they are all equal in nature and therefore equally worthy of time. As you most obviously deem certain religions (naming no names) to be invalid (and dangerous) I must assume you are deeming all religions to be equally invalid. I would guess that if you examined your thinking you would have no problem with a teacher who, for example in their science class, argued against certain elements of organized religious doctrine. I would (though I'm going out on a limb here) also guess that you would have no problem with a history teacher who correctly pointed out the damage caused by certain large religions in European history.
Thus my conclusion, in following your line of thought, is that you would have no problems in schools that attack religions. This would have the desireable effect (in your view) of having less religious people.
Unfortunately, it seems to me then, that what you are actually advocating is a one sided educational viewpoint with an inherent bias against religion. Would I be wrong in this?
|
|
I have no problem with historically relevant religious material being taught ie.-protestant reformation, etc. But only in the historically relevant post. I am saying that i also would not have any problem with a class solely about a religion (as an elective) being taught if equal time was given to each adn every religion. If this cannot be accomplished, then ONLY the historical relevant portions of a religion should be taught in public schools (and don't get me started on states trying to teach "creationism/intelligent design" as a science...we'll be here all day).School is not a place to pray and unless schools are willing to have after hours clubs for all religions (i'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of public schools would shoot down a club for satanists-theological or otherwise) and don't discriminate against other clubs (GLBT/gay-straight alliance) then...
Not really wanting to debate religion in this thread (cuz like I pointed out yesterday there's already a thread for that). But I detect in your post an inherent bias to the fact that all religions are equally invalid.
That is - if you follow your own line of thought - only one viewpoint should be presented in science because you deem it inherently right. No viewpoints, in your opinion, should be presented in religion, because they are all equal in nature and therefore equally worthy of time. As you most obviously deem certain religions (naming no names) to be invalid (and dangerous) I must assume you are deeming all religions to be equally invalid. I would guess that if you examined your thinking you would have no problem with a teacher who, for example in their science class, argued against certain elements of organized religious doctrine. I would (though I'm going out on a limb here) also guess that you would have no problem with a history teacher who correctly pointed out the damage caused by certain large religions in European history.
Thus my conclusion, in following your line of thought, is...
Wicht,
Which other side would you teach? In science it's about evidence. In the Evolution/Creationism debate (which is what xpv mentioned), only one side has evidence. Thus it is taught as science. Please explain what science is if you can teach any old crap in it and call it science. Should we teach astrology and homeopathy in science classes as well? They're at least as scientifically reputable as creationism.With religion, there is no evidence, so how can you teach one religion is more important than the others without just using your own personal prejudices and beliefs as the 'one true way'.
EDIT: Removed some stuff that was unnecessarily confrontational.
|
|
Not really wanting to debate religion in this thread (cuz like I pointed out yesterday there's already a thread for that). But I detect in your post an inherent bias to the fact that all religions are equally invalid.
Yes and no. Christians (and all religions really) believe that theres is the One Right Way™. I simply discount one more religion than most people do.
But as to the religion in school thing...
That is - if you follow your own line of thought - only one viewpoint should be presented in science because you deem it inherently right.
Only one viewpoint has substantial evidence backing it up. "Theological science" should not be taught unless every relgion's (hell i'd even settle for every major organized religions) creationism is taught alongside standard science (Hinduism should be fun).
No viewpoints, in your opinion, should be presented in religion, because they are all equal in nature and therefore equally worthy of time. As you most obviously deem certain religions (naming no names) to be invalid (and dangerous) I must assume you are deeming all religions to be equally invalid.
All organized religions are dangerous. Some, by virtue of the zealotry they inspire and their ubiquity, are more dangerous than others.
I would guess that if you examined your thinking you would have no problem with a teacher who, for example in their science class, argued against certain elements of organized religious doctrine.
There should be no bias for or against.
I would (though I'm going out on a limb here) also guess that you would have no problem with a history teacher who correctly pointed out the damage caused by certain large religions in European history.
If schools are going to teach the impact that religions have had on history, they should teach the good with the bad.
Thus my conclusion, in following your line of thought, is a one sided educational viewpoint with an inherent bias against religion. Would I be wrong in this?
Yes. If all religions can't be represented (or like i said above all the major ones at least), the schools need to have a "faith-neutral" tone. As much as I would like to, I am not advocating for the abolishment of religion. That would make me a hypocrit and leave me without a leg to stand on if somebody decides to try and outlaw atheism. For some reason unknonw to me, a lot of people actually take comfort in religion...I don't get it, but whatever floats your boat--just don't force it on me or my kids...I plan on raising my kids to consider everything before making a choice...is it too much to ask that they not get exposed one way or the other at school?
|
|
Yes. If all religions can't be represented (or like i said above all the major ones at least), the schools need to have a "faith-neutral" tone.
If one could truly achieve a complete nuetrality in their presentation of religion, I would be interested in seeing what it looked like. I don't think you could do it (not you personally but a universal you here - myself included). Treating all religions as equally invalid is not actually nuetrality. To be completely neutral in the subject would require presenting a rather ambivalent curriculum.
Interestingly, I've had teachers that strove for this in certain subjects (including theology) and my personal experience is that I rarely learned anything from them except a certain disdain for wishy-washy teachers. Give me somebody with the fires of their conviction and I will learn from them regardless of whether I end up agreeing with them or not.
In my opinion (and I might be wrong though I naturally do not think I am), the truth of the matter is that most people who advocate for no religion being taught in schools are actually wanting an anti-religious indoctrination to insulate the young minds from the dangers of creationism and fundamentalism. I commend you for wanting otherwise.
|
|
The way i read it is that they were already getting sued due to them telling her she couldn't attend. Rather than fight the lawsuit, they just dropped the prom. They are setting her up to be harrassed and anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that.How the hell is that going to avoid litigation? They were being sued because they wouldn't let her attend with her girlfriend wearing the clothes of her choice. How hard would it have been for them to allow her to attend? How is cancelling the dance a way to avoid litigation? The second somebody touches that girl (since it was "her fault"), there's going to be a s*~@storm of litigation from her and her family for the school inciting a hate crime by setting her up to be the "bad guy".Or, the school district sees that course of action as the only way to avoid any litigation. Sad, but that's what you get from our lawsuit happy culture these days.Now this is a reason why i would homeschool my kids
This school district is intentionally trying to turn an entire school against one student who only wanted to go to the prom as herself.
The way I see it, I'd say the schoolboard was thinking that if they held the dance, and allowed her to attend, and something happened at the dance, then the school would be held liable.
So, rather than say "avoid litigation", I should have said they were trying to take, what in their minds may have been, the least litigious path.
As it turns out, they are getting sued anyway. The girl and the ACLU are suing to get the prom re-instated and allow the girl to attend with her date. I wouldn't mind if the suit fails, not because I have anything against this girl, or the students, but because I don't really see a prom as some kind of right the school is required to provide.
Actually, the ACLU didn't file suit until yesterday, after the school had come to it's decision. As for the school board setting the girl up to be harassed - anyone with common sense would have also realized that she was going to be harassed no matter which way things went. In that case, the school board just decided to not make that a factor in their decision, and instead focused on what they thought would bring the situation to an end with less muss and fuss. I'd say they were more naive than anything.
|
|
Yes. If all religions can't be represented (or like i said above all the major ones at least), the schools need to have a "faith-neutral" tone.If one could truly achieve a complete nuetrality in their presentation of religion, I would be interested in seeing what it looked like. I don't think you could do it (not you personally but a universal you here - myself included). Treating all religions as equally invalid is not actually nuetrality. To be completely neutral in the subject would require presenting a rather ambivalent curriculum.
Interestingly, I've had teachers that strove for this in certain subjects (including theology) and my personal experience is that I rarely learned anything from them except a certain disdain for wishy-washy teachers. Give me somebody with the fires of their conviction and I will learn from them regardless of whether I end up agreeing with them or not.
In my opinion (and I might be wrong though I naturally do not think I am), the truth of the matter is that most people who advocate for no religion being taught in schools are actually wanting an anti-religious indoctrination to insulate the young minds from the dangers of creationism and fundamentalism. I commend you for wanting otherwise.
When i envision it being presented in school , it would be more like a history lesson...this is christianity (hinduism, buddhism, etc.), this is its deity, started X, ended Y (if ended) along with high and low points. That's what i meant by a "faith-neutral" perspective.
|
|
Actually, the ACLU didn't file suit until yesterday, after the school had come to it's decision. As for the school board setting the girl up to be harassed - anyone with common sense would have also realized that she was going to be harassed no matter which way things went. In that case, the school board just decided to not make that a factor in their decision, and instead focused on what they thought would bring the situation to an end with less muss and fuss. I'd say they were more naive than anything.
Ok, I'm sure her classmates already knew she was gay; if she was being harassed for that, then why didn't they stop the harassment before it became an issue with the prom thing?
They are demonizing her, plain and simple. They have effectively said "you can't have prom because this girl is gay." Yeah, that's not going to piss them off.
|
|
When i envision it being presented in school , it would be more like a history lesson...this is christianity (hinduism, buddhism, etc.), this is its deity, started X, ended Y (if ended) along with high and low points. That's what i meant by a "faith-neutral" perspective.
That's teaching history in a rather dry and unproductive way, in my opinion. What were the ramifications of the religions on philosophy, culture, and social mores? Why have some cultures been stronger and more productive than others? Historical studies without analysis on the merits of what happened and why is rather unproductive and useless. The study of history only takes meaning when we are not neutral in our examination of the facts and we are willing to make applications to ourself.
The same holds true of the other social sciences as well - if there is no application of the subject then there is no true benefit from the knowledge. And application requires a decidedly non-nuetral set of parameters or we will be truly blown about by every new subject we are studying.
|
|
Ok, I'm sure her classmates already knew she was gay; if she was being harassed for that, then why didn't they stop the harassment before it became an issue with the prom thing?
I'm sure they'd like to, but they can only try to stop what occurs in school. Outside of that, it becomes a job for parents.
They are demonizing her, plain and simple. They have effectively said "you can't have prom because this girl is gay." Yeah, that's not going to piss them off.
But is it that "plain and simple"? The school board had a crap decision to the left of them and a bile decision to the right of them. Either way they were going to get it from someone. Once again, I think the biggest thing informing their decision is what they thought would make it go away with as little fuss or litigation as possible.
Thus my conclusion, in following your line of thought, is that you would have no problems in schools that attack religions.
That is called a slippery slope argument, and is a logical fallacy.
|
|
That is called a slippery slope argument, and is a logical fallacy.
Thus my conclusion, in following your line of thought, is that you would have no problems in schools that attack religions.
Or its an attempt to have the other person clarify their position. When a person makes a statement to the effect that religion in all its forms is harmful and detrimental to children and parents should not be allowed to expose their own children to it, I would hope I could be excused from wondering how far he feels society should go with such a position. The slippery slope fallacy is only a logical fallacy if the end result is not in fact the extreme one fears it might be. Sometimes there really are extremes that people adopt and try to implement as social norms.
|
|
That's very well and good for you. Most parents that I know simply aren't qualified to teach thier kids.My own kids, who have never set foot in public schools, all scored above average last year when we finally had them tested.
I am glad you think I am so exceptional. Humility prevents me from vociferously agreeing with you. That plus the fact that the average test scores of homeschoolers is above average.
This leads me to contemplate a couple of possibilities:
Most homeschoolers are, by their nature, exceptional people with exceptional standards, and thus should be encouraged to pursue their excellence for the good of all. Society benefits by having each person maximize their potential.
--or--
Most homeschoolers are average and the school systems are substandard institutions which stunt the intellectual growth of the average student. Good parents should thus be encouraged to remove their children from that which will harm them. To argue otherwise requires believing the system is more important than the individual student or else requires believing the benefit of peer interaction outweighs the harm of stunted intellectual development.
What are the other options?
School is not a place to pray and unless schools are willing to have after hours clubs for all religions (i'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of public schools would shoot down a club for satanists-theological or otherwise) and don't discriminate against other clubs (GLBT/gay-straight alliance) then...
Umm, who was mentioning religious indoctrination and expecting the students to follow the religions taught/discussed? I missed that somewhere... I was just talking about teaching as a part of historical/sociological/anthropological discourse.
As for the school board setting the girl up to be harassed - anyone with common sense would have also realized that she was going to be harassed no matter which way things went.
Then why make a decision that can not possibly have any other effect on the harassment besides grossly amplifying it--likely even inciting portions of the student body that otherwise would have been at least ambivalent to the student?
|
|
As for the school board setting the girl up to be harassed - anyone with common sense would have also realized that she was going to be harassed no matter which way things went.Then why make a decision that can not possibly have any other effect on the harassment besides grossly amplifying it--likely even inciting portions of the student body that otherwise would have been at least ambivalent to the student?
Because if she brought her partner to the Prom, she would have been harrassed at the Prom. As the Prom occurs under the auspices and supervision of the school, any such harassment is legally the school's fault. To avoid this, they stopped her coming to the prom with her preferred date. She then complains (accurately) of discrimination. To avoid being legally responsible for the harrassment that was going to occur, the school shut down the prom. It's a shitty solution and increases any resentment against the woman in question, but that's not, legally, the responsibility of the school.
|
|
EDIT: Deleted post for being an a~&#&@&& without just cause.You ok? Did Sebastian piss in your Cheerios? (This subject seems to have set you off more than what I would consider "normal" for you.)
Yeah. I'm fine, thanks, Moff. The ability to think then post rather than vice versa is suffering a bit for some reason, but I'm fine. Subject is touchy, but what I removed was far more of a reaction than the comments I was posting to deserved.
|
|
Because if she brought her partner to the Prom, she would have been harrassed at the Prom.
surely no more than she is harassed on a day to day basis.
As the Prom occurs under the auspices and supervision of the school, any such harassment is legally the school's fault. To avoid this, they stopped her coming to the prom with her preferred date.
No they stopped any and all student wishing to come with a same sex date from coming. The original policy was intended to be bigoted, not protect her.
She then complains (accurately) of discrimination. To avoid being legally responsible for the harrassment that was going to occur, the school shut down the prom. It's a s%%~ty solution and increases any resentment against the woman in question, but that's not, legally, the responsibility of the school.
Again, it is my personal belief on the matter that they shut down the prom and blamed it on her to "teach her a lesson" and lay the blame at her doorstep.
Again, it is my personal belief on the matter that they shut down the prom and blamed it on her to "teach her a lesson" and lay the blame at her doorstep.
Having spent a few years in schools in Mississippi... I can almost believe this is the case. Been a couple of decades, but to this day I still feel a burning hatred for most of the teachers there that I suffered through.
|
|
With religion, there is no evidence, so how can you teach one religion is more important than the others without just using your own personal prejudices and beliefs as the 'one true way'.
Hey Paul. Somehow I missed your post earlier - but it deserves a reply.
As I said, I'm not interested in debating religion (and the evidence or lack thereof) in this thread.
My point was that the assumption that all religions are equally valid (or invalid as the case may be) is itself a non-neutral position. There is, built into the idea that none should be discussed in a positive light unless they are all presented in an equally positive light (or negative light as the case may be), the assumption that none of them have more value than others.
Personally I think thats foolishness. I find the practice of sacrificing babies and children to be particularly repugnant and wouldn't hesitate to say so when teaching history. This is a bias on my part but I am willing to admit the bias upfront and allow my students to make up their own minds. Likewise, I think the meritous contributions of both Christianity and Judiasm to the world to be of more value than the contributions of the Thuggee cult.
For my part, I respect teachers who are willing to admit their biases from the beginning and who are likewise willing to tell me what they think without telling me what I should think. I think such a practice is more practical and worthwhile than trying to pursue some nebulous neutrality which is itself often a non-neutral, sometimes-thinly-veiled hostility.
Guys, when i read this thread i must say that you scare me...
I have a 3 years old son who will soon start school here in US. I know there are good teachers here and that i shouldn't believe everything i hear on the media, but still, i don't really feel confident in the american education system...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I said if it is going to be taught in schools the curricula should be inclusive of all religions and should be neutral.
I am saying that i also would not have any problem with a class solely about a religion (as an elective) being taught if equal time was given to each adn every religion.
There's a difference between being inclusive and giving equal time. When I teach an introductory course on linguistics, I don't give equal time to all languages because we would end up spending so much time discussing languages that we never would be able to discuss Language.
Is there a difference between teaching Religion and teaching religions? I'm not sure if I understand your vision of what a religion class would look like. I would teach it as a class about what Religion is and how it influences human belief systems and ethics and then, as a teacher, I would draw examples from particular religions. In this case, it isn't necessary that we learn, for example, what every religion says about the death penalty (or some other moral issue), but that we look at how people who share the same religious perspective could have widely varying views on the death penalty. Then, we would help the students to articulate their own ethical views on the subject and discuss how they come to form them.
I wouldn't want my children to go to a school in which they are taught specific religions. (I don't trust teachers with something so important.) I do want them to learn about Religion just as I want them to learn about society and politics.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
For my part, I respect teachers who are willing to admit their biases from the beginning and who are likewise willing to tell me what they think without telling me what I should think. I think such a practice is more practical and worthwhile than trying to pursue some nebulous neutrality which is itself often a non-neutral, sometimes-thinly-veiled hostility.
+1
A teacher who tells you what they think and then very clearly and honestly explains how they arrived at that conclusion enables students to articulate their own views in ways that a teacher claiming a neutral stance simply can't. Even if the teacher were truly neutral, they would not help students to learn how to articulate their beliefs. Teachers need to take and communicate stances and do so respectfully and honestly.
In the case of one school in North Carolina, they're learning that money can buy them better test scores.
Odd, the link no longer works.
Personally I think thats foolishness. I find the practice of sacrificing babies and children to be particularly repugnant and wouldn't hesitate to say so when teaching history. This is a bias on my part but I am willing to admit the bias upfront and allow my students to make up their own minds. Likewise, I think the meritous contributions of both Christianity and Judiasm to the world to be of more value than the contributions of the Thuggee cult.
It's one thing to teach (this is for example only) that the Aztecs sacrificed babies and baseball players by cutting out thier hearts and TELLING your students that this is a bad thing. But if you want your students to develop thier own moral sense instead of putting your judgement as lesson material, I feel that you'd do them more of a service to explore with them the culture, the history, and the psychology and let them come to their own conclusions. Why would a culture perform such acts? Why would an otherwise civilised people put millions of Jews and non Jews in gas chambers and tortue camps? Why did the United States export thousands of it's own citizens to concentration camps during World War 2 for nothing but the crime of Japanese ancestry? Or why did the Crusaders feel justified in locking people in thier temples in the Holy Land and burning them alive. (and it was considered a proper Christian act in revenge for the crucifixtion of Jesus)
It's easy to hand down moral pronouncements from a position of authority. The harder thing is to encourage students to develop thier own sense of self-examination.
Seconded. It always bugged me when my teacher talked about the American Revolution and completely strawmanned the British and made them out to be a bunch of tyrants.
Also, for some reason Aberzombie's avatar has changed into a Comcast ad for me. Any ideas why?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
But if you want your students to develop thier own moral sense instead of putting your judgement as lesson material, I feel that you'd do them more of a service to explore with them the culture, the history, and the psychology and let them come to their own conclusions. Why would a culture perform such acts? Why would an otherwise civilised people put millions of Jews and non Jews in gas chambers and tortue camps? Why did the United States export thousands of it's own citizens to concentration camps during World War 2 for nothing but the crime of Japanese ancestry? Or why did the Crusaders feel justified in locking people in thier temples in the Holy Land and burning them alive. (and it was considered a proper Christian act in revenge for the crucifixtion of Jesus)
It's easy to hand down moral pronouncements from a position of authority. The harder thing is to encourage students to develop thier own sense of self-examination.
Sure. But that's not demonstrating 'neutrality' which is what Wicht was calling foolishness. A teacher who claims to be neutral is doing students a disservice twice: (1) suggesting that an objective, unbiased position is possible and (2) not modelling the communicative skills needed to clearly articulate and defend a moral opinion.
A history teacher isn't there to teach the kids debate tactics. They're there to teach them history. If, after giving the kids the facts, they wish to engage in a debate or suchwhat, so be it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A history teacher isn't there to teach the kids debate tactics. They're there to teach them history. If, after giving the kids the facts, they wish to engage in a debate or suchwhat, so be it.
I imagine that would depend on what state you are in. Here in Quebec, all teachers in all classes are expected to teach students to exercise critical judgement, take and articulate stances, communicate appropriately, etc. So, yes, in this province, a history teacher should be having students debate history. It's a part of the job.
A history teacher isn't there to teach the kids debate tactics. They're there to teach them history. If, after giving the kids the facts, they wish to engage in a debate or suchwhat, so be it.I imagine that would depend on what state you are in. Here in Quebec, all teachers in all classes are expected to teach students to exercise critical judgement, take and articulate stances, communicate appropriately, etc. So, yes, in this province, a history teacher should be having students debate history. It's a part of the job.
As I said. But first, it's only fair to give the students the facts as clearly as possible. Then let them make their opinion.
Showing your opinion purposefully while providing the information will taint what the kids receive. Whatever happened to unbiased media?*Also, note that since it's a matter of opinion, encouraging teachers to openly display their opinions on historical information opens the door to teachers speaking in favor of, say, Hitler. And then you get complaints, and the teachers protest that they have the right to their opinion (and in my opinion they would be right)and it's a whole big mess.
*Scratch that question. :/
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A history teacher isn't there to teach the kids debate tactics. They're there to teach them history. If, after giving the kids the facts, they wish to engage in a debate or suchwhat, so be it.I imagine that would depend on what state you are in. Here in Quebec, all teachers in all classes are expected to teach students to exercise critical judgement, take and articulate stances, communicate appropriately, etc. So, yes, in this province, a history teacher should be having students debate history. It's a part of the job.As I said. But first, it's only fair to give the students the facts as clearly as possible. Then let them make their opinion.
Showing your opinion purposefully while providing the information will taint what the kids receive. Whatever happened to unbiased media?*
Also, note that since it's a matter of opinion, encouraging teachers to openly display their opinions on historical information opens the door to teachers speaking in favor of, say, Hitler. And then you get complaints, and the teachers protest that they have the right to their opinion (and in my opinion they would be right)and it's a whole big mess.
*Scratch that question. :/
Please report yourself to the Godwin thread.
Hitler is, of course, an extreme example. Sure, nazis seem black and white now, but what about more sensitive issues? Grenada? The Cold War? World War 1? Even Iraq? Soon the teachers start to get a pretty good case going for the discussion of Hitler.
/\Sorry, I realized that too late to stop it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I would rather see a teacher who can discuss their views of Iraq, give reasons for their views, introduce the views of others, and help students feel comfortable disagreeing with them.
In fact, looking at American news media and political culture, it seems teachers need to take on the role of demonstrating civil discourse because politicians and pundits aren't going to do it.
From where, in America today, are children going to learn that you and I can disagree and it doesn't mean that you're an a~%%*+!?
I would rather see a teacher who can discuss their views of Iraq, give reasons for their views, introduce the views of others, and help students feel comfortable disagreeing with them.
In fact, looking at American news media and political culture, it seems teachers need to take on the role of demonstrating civil discourse because politicians and pundits aren't going to do it.
From where, in America today, are children going to learn that you and I can disagree and it doesn't mean that you're an a*@#%!%?
Oh, shut up, you son of a *****.
;)And I agree. I'm just saying that they need to present the facts, and then give their opinion. Give both sides of the issue beforehand.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I would rather see a teacher who can discuss their views of Iraq, give reasons for their views, introduce the views of others, and help students feel comfortable disagreeing with them.
In fact, looking at American news media and political culture, it seems teachers need to take on the role of demonstrating civil discourse because politicians and pundits aren't going to do it.
From where, in America today, are children going to learn that you and I can disagree and it doesn't mean that you're an a*@#%!%?
Oh, shut up, you son of a *****.
;)And I agree. I'm just saying that they need to present the facts, and then give their opinion. Give both sides of the issue beforehand.
Stop being such a ****.
And, I agree. I think we are arguing the same thing from different perspectives.
Because if she brought her partner to the Prom, she would have been harrassed at the Prom. As the Prom occurs under the auspices and supervision of the school, any such harassment is legally the school's fault. To avoid this, they stopped her coming to the prom with her preferred date. She then complains (accurately) of discrimination. To avoid being legally responsible for the harrassment that was going to occur, the school shut down the prom. It's a s#*@ty solution and increases any resentment against the woman in question, but that's not, legally, the responsibility of the school.
If the school was justified because it was looking out for her safety and well being by barring her, because if she went she WOULD be harrassed, then by this logic, the school would be justified in barring her from the prom if she brought a man of a race different from the majority race of the school. Or is the state of Mississippi so enlightened that mixed-race couples are by and large accepted these days? In fact, such a motive would justify them in barring her from the prom if she chose to bring an unpopular boy as her date. It seems a poor rationalization to me, and I don't think anyone really believes it.
|
|
If the school was justified because it was looking out for her safety and well being by barring her, because if she went she WOULD be harrassed, then by this logic, the school would be justified in barring her from the prom if she brought a man of a race different from the majority race of the school. Or is the state of Mississippi so enlightened that mixed-race couples are by and large accepted these days? In fact, such a motive would justify them in barring her from the prom if she chose to bring an unpopular boy as her date. It seems a poor rationalization to me, and I don't think anyone really believes it.
Because if she brought her partner to the Prom, she would have been harrassed at the Prom. As the Prom occurs under the auspices and supervision of the school, any such harassment is legally the school's fault. To avoid this, they stopped her coming to the prom with her preferred date. She then complains (accurately) of discrimination. To avoid being legally responsible for the harrassment that was going to occur, the school shut down the prom. It's a s#*@ty solution and increases any resentment against the woman in question, but that's not, legally, the responsibility of the school.
There was a LA judge/justice of the peace that eventually resigned because of the shitstorm that followed his refusal to marry an interracial couple. Not MS, but close enough.
EDIT: LA = Lousiana, not los angeles
|
|
There was a LA judge/justice of the peace that eventually resigned because of the s~~%storm that followed his refusal to marry an interracial couple. Not MS, but close enough.
EDIT: LA = Lousiana, not los angeles
I remember that. Of course, the big difference was that the judge was a civil servant who refused to perform the duties of his office, as defined by the state constitution, due to his own prejudice. Thankfully, not everyone in Louisiana is as backasswards as him.
There was a LA judge/justice of the peace that eventually resigned because of the s#**storm that followed his refusal to marry an interracial couple. Not MS, but close enough.EDIT: LA = Lousiana, not los angeles
I recall the story, but I didn't hear that he resigned. But he was only sticking up for his morals, after all. It's best to prevent mixed race marriages, because that would prevent mixed race children, who are at such a disadvantage in this world that they face a very real risk of growing up to be President of the United States, and nobody should be saddled with that kind of stigma.
EDIT: Is irony OK here?
I have a 3 years old son who will soon start school here in US. I know there are good teachers here and that i shouldn't believe everything i hear on the media, but still, i don't really feel confident in the american education system...
Quite frankly the attitude expressed above is emblematic of what is wrong with American education.. it's all about regurgitation to pass standardised tests, what children need is exercise in THOUGHT.
Amen! To both! And I mean that in a religion-neutral tone... :D
There are good schools and excellent teachers, but apparently you must now seek them out. Regurgitating facts, teaching to the test and not probing questions to stimulate young minds to think are tragedies of a public education system that has turned from what is good to society to what is good for teachers.
To quote from the original Village of Hommlet, "Something must be done."
New social studies curriculum stresses religion over evolution
Thought this seamed kind of appropriate to the current conversation.