Students can say whatever they want and do whatever they want my class room, but every choice has consequences. If they use bigoted terms (whether it is "f*g" or "n***er"), there will be specific consequences.
Can you flesh this out a little more? That's like saying: "Students can do whatever they want, including assaulting other students. They just need to understand that there will be consequences."
Surely there are some things that will be forbidden prima facie, and that policy will be made clear at the outset, no? I'm thinking of things like hate speech. If there is a policy against this, then there isn't freedom of speech. Sure, a kid can blurt something out and suffer a corresponding punishment, but that doesn't equate to free speech.
I don't have a problem with this. We don't have free speech in our society. There are restrictions. You can't yell "fire!" in a theater. Why should the classroom be any different?
While there will be rules and restrictions, people can and do deviate from those restrictions. If they choose to do so, then there are subject to the consequences. While there may be no particular rule against homosexual slurs in the school, I have free reign in my classroom to point out bigotry and make students account for it.
And like I said earlier, you shouldn't. Unless my child is going to a private school, you don't get to influence him the way that you want to. That's not how it works. It's not illegal to say racial slurs, it's just seen as something you shouldn't say. I, as the parent, get to judge that. Not you.
Edit: And let me be clear, I think that this kind of behavior of teachers leads to them saying and doing other things to influence the children. For instance, we had a teacher at my high school in Alabama tell a gay kid he couldn't talk about his date with his boyfriend, when a kid next to him had just finished talking about his girlfriend. The truth is, some people just don't know where to draw the line, so I think that the best policy is that unless the kid is being specifically racist or defamatory to a person or about a person, you stay out of his business. If he says, this homework is gay, he doesn't get the gay-hate speech and punishment.
That being said, if I did have children, I would teach them what's obviously right in this case, but I think that you have no place in the classroom doing it.
Why are you assuming I would give a huge speech or punishment? If a kid says "That t-shirt is so gay?" in my class, I think I am well within my rights to say, "Oh, really, Mr. Smith? That sweater is homosexual? It prefers to enjoy sexual congress with other t-shirts and not sweaters?" It is about making kids aware of what they say, what it means, and being aware of the social consequences of not communicating clearly (all within the purview of an English class - just like correcting grammar). If I made it into some rant about racism, then I would be over stepping my boundaries, I completely agree. If the kid is a bigot and says something truly bigoted in my class, I will send that kid to a principle and make a call to the parents at the end of the school day. I think that is perfectly reasonable, don't you? The fact is, kids are minors and do not enjoy the same rights, nor the same burdens as adults. It is part of the social contract.
The fact is, kids are minors and do not enjoy the same rights, nor the same burdens as adults.
This is true, but we often argue that it should not be. There are many minors who I feel should enjoy all the rights and responsibilities our society has to offer. At the same time, their are many adults who should not.
Even if you don't agree with that, you must agree that it is difficult to teach against racial discrimination while simultaneously being a firm supporter of age discrimination. Which goes back to my previous point of the hypocrisy of adults in the way they treat children.
The fact is, kids are minors and do not enjoy the same rights, nor the same burdens as adults.
This is true, but we often argue that it should not be. There are many minors who I feel should enjoy all the rights and responsibilities our society has to offer. At the same time, their are many adults who should not.
Even if you don't agree with that, you must agree that it is difficult to teach against racial discrimination while simultaneously being a firm supporter of age discrimination.
Except that human beings have a very clear and specific developmental scale for thought, learning and reasoning. (Not to mention the fact that children have limited education and experience on which to base their decisions owing to their age.) While the age of majority being 18 may bit arbitrary on that scale, children are (in most cases) deficient; whereas people of different races do not have given, consistent biological developmental deficiencies. It is not discrimination, it is fact. EDIT: Children are different from adults. They are not "idiots", but they are ignorant and the brain continues to develop throughout puberty.
The fact is, kids are minors and do not enjoy the same rights, nor the same burdens as adults.
This is true, but we often argue that it should not be. There are many minors who I feel should enjoy all the rights and responsibilities our society has to offer. At the same time, their are many adults who should not.
Even if you don't agree with that, you must agree that it is difficult to teach against racial discrimination while simultaneously being a firm supporter of age discrimination.
Except that human beings have a very clear and specific developmental scale for thought, learning and reasoning. (Not to mention the fact that children have limited education and experience on which to base their decisions owing to their age.) While the age of majority being 18 may bit arbitrary on that scale, children are (in most cases) deficient; whereas people of different races do not have given, consistent biological developmental deficiencies. It is not discrimination, it is fact. EDIT: Children are different from adults. They are not "idiots", but they are ignorant and the brain continues to develop throughout puberty.
The point Scott's trying to make is that some children are many times more intelligent than some adults. There is not a very clear and developmental scale based on age, whether you claim it's there or not. There are many, many exceptions to the rule. I do agree that it is much more defined than racial differences, but I do not think that it is definite enough to discriminate upon.
You want to unilaterally deny rights to children based on the excuse of lack of mental development. That's fine. However, you are also unilaterally granting rights to adults, regardless of mental development. Again, it's more hypocrisy.
If mental development is what is needed before rights and responsibilities are granted, then let it be those that determine it. You can deny rights to children, based on the excuse of lack of mental development, but you will also have to deny rights to many others. What do you do about the 16 year olds who are smarter and more mentally developed than the vast majority of adults? They above all will notice the hypocrisy, and grow a rebellious attitude against the society that desperately needs the benefits of their cooperation.
If instead you decide that human rights are for all humans, then grant them to all humans.
If you want respectful children who respect education and respect learning, then you need to respect them. Any amount of "do as I say, don't do as I do" demolishes all of that. Again, this is addressed in Bill Gates' TED talk as well as Barry Schwartz's. At the KIPP schools, which are the best schools around, the number one thing they do is create respect for learning, and they do it by example. Once they are able to instill that respect in the students, everything else is easy.
What do you do about the 16 year olds who are smarter and more mentally developed than the vast majority of adults?
If the 16 year old in question is so gosh-darned smart and mentally developed, he or she will be mature enough to realize that waiting two years to reach the age of majority is a trivial infringement upon his or her rights.
Discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual preference is unjust because people cannot change their race, gender, or sexual preference. Discrimination based on a person's youth is not nearly so onerous because people grow out of their youth.
I find it hilarious and telling that this rage against the injustice of the ill-treatment afforded to underage supergeniuses is nearly always expressed by people who have overinflated egos; the people who must have felt that they were somehow oppressed because they were not given the reins of world power in recognition of their genius when they were 16 years old. What are these supergeniuses doing now that they have reached majority and are no longer are oppressed? Have they taken over the world yet? Are they millionaires yet? If not, why? Could it perhaps be that they're not as smart as they thought?
If the 16 year old in question is so gosh-darned smart and mentally developed, he or she will be mature enough to realize that waiting two years to reach the age of majority is a trivial infringement upon his or her rights.
Two years? Maybe it's because you're older but you must realise that two years is a long time for us younglings. Two years means I'm not living with my parents anymore. Two years means that I can drink and drive. If it weren't for the fact that i still have more to learn in school, I think I can accomplish many future actions currently. I see it as a fun and exciting future, but damn, two years?
I'm just glad that my current personal life is up to "my standards" to a point, but there are many restrictions that I see completely stupid. It wasn't until this year that I convinced my parents to allow my to play 18+ games. How could I possibly be stunted by playing games younger than the recommended age? Hell, I was prepared a while ago. I had sex ed when I was about 12, and it took three days of arguing before convincing my parents that I'm mature enough to handle such content. This was a major pet peeve of mine until just recently. It's things like that which I hate. It's this view by people that I am young, so I'm unable to handle the adult world.
A note about school, I think it's perfect the way it is right now. I feel that I am able to keep up (not slow down) in my classes. The school has given all the students tablets, with tight security (not restrictions) because of me and my hack-happy friends. Everyone has a personal folder for storing important documents which is backed up constantly. The policy about tablet usage is that teachers control tablet usage in class. They can be closed, put away, used only for note taking, or can be used freely. For the majority of the time only note taking is allowed. On the other hand, there are very few restrictions outside of class. Game are allowed if they can be installed. In fact, most programs are allowed on the tablets. It's really just a matter of common sense. Playing network games is not allowed, although me and my friends play halo in the computer lab in front of a teacher. No porn is allowed, either on the hard drive or through a browser. I'm not sure about anything else, because it's really just a matter of using common sense. I find that as long as you pay attention in class, everything is OK. There is a website blocker, which does block some questionable things, but I've set up my own proxy which they still haven't detected yet. Everything is good, and most restrictions can easily be circumvented by use technologically knowledgeable folks. I barely even notice them.
My government class had a discussion about freedom of speech about 4 weeks ago. We came to the conclusion that restricting speech in school is no different than restricting books in the school library. How can an environment that is supposed to promote learning, study and debate function if a student can't say what they mean and mean what they say?
The cutoff for free speech in schools is based on intelligence, reasoning and factual correctness. In the streets and on the internet people blather on all the time about all kinds of crap, and many just talk gibberish. Students shouldn't be able to talk gibberish. If you are promoting learning, that's fine, but to do so you should be clamping down on idiot speak like Intelligent Design and Flat Earth Theory and 911 conspiracies. Students can say it, but not in lesson time.
The cutoff for free speech in schools is based on intelligence, reasoning and factual correctness. In the streets and on the internet people blather on all the time about all kinds of crap, and many just talk gibberish. Students shouldn't be able to talk gibberish. If you are promoting learning, that's fine, but to do so you should be clamping down on idiot speak like Intelligent Design and Flat Earth Theory and 911 conspiracies. Students can say it, but not in lesson time.
QFT! Also, for practicality's sake, there needs to be an age line drawn as quantifying maturity and intelligence on an individual basis is virtually impossible. Remember that being a minor protects you! You cannot be made to work ridiculous hours, you are guaranteed an education, you don't have to pay taxes, you must be provided certain basic care, etc. Our society has recognized that a stable, nurtured childhood allows for more productive, healthier adults. If you want to eliminate the age of majority, then you leave children even more vulnerable than they are now.
Also, for practicality's sake, there needs to be an age line drawn as quantifying maturity and intelligence on an individual basis is virtually impossible. Remember that being a minor protects you! You cannot be made to work ridiculous hours, you are guaranteed an education, you don't have to pay taxes, you must be provided certain basic care, etc. Our society has recognized that a stable, nurtured childhood allows for more productive, healthier adults. If you want to eliminate the age of majority, then you leave children even more vulnerable than they are now.
But some of those protections are also limitations. What if a 13 year is willing and able to work? They can't!
How can an environment that is supposed to promote learning, study and debate function if a student can't say what they mean and mean what they say?
Youare assuming that what they say is intended to contribute to the academic process. And if it's not?...
And somebody needs to look at the tax rules. Kids can't earn income absent tax ramifications. And when was the last time that kids didn't have to pay sales tax? Just one of many examples.
I've had a major problem with this for years. Working teens under the age of majority are taxed on their earnings, which is taxation without representation. Now, in most cases they are able to file for and receive a full tax refund, but in the interim they are giving the government an interest-free loan and they are losing the opportunity cost of having their own money available.
I've had a major problem with this for years. Working teens under the age of majority are taxed on their earnings, which is taxation without representation. Now, in most cases they are able to file for and receive a full tax refund, but in the interim they are giving the government an interest-free loan and they are losing the opportunity cost of having their own money available.
We need to fix the problem of Washington DC being taxed without representation. That is even more unjust.
The cutoff for free speech in schools is based on intelligence, reasoning and factual correctness. In the streets and on the internet people blather on all the time about all kinds of crap, and many just talk gibberish. Students shouldn't be able to talk gibberish. If you are promoting learning, that's fine, but to do so you should be clamping down on idiot speak like Intelligent Design and Flat Earth Theory and 911 conspiracies. Students can say it, but not in lesson time.
QFT! Also, for practicality's sake, there needs to be an age line drawn as quantifying maturity and intelligence on an individual basis is virtually impossible. Remember that being a minor protects you! You cannot be made to work ridiculous hours, you are guaranteed an education, you don't have to pay taxes, you must be provided certain basic care, etc. Our society has recognized that a stable, nurtured childhood allows for more productive, healthier adults. If you want to eliminate the age of majority, then you leave children even more vulnerable than they are now.
But this should not be based on age! It should be based on intelligence and maturity, and while I'm not too sure of the best route to take, I'm sure we can come up with something.
I'm going to go ahead and say here, I don't quite have the answer to this problem, but my issue is that no-one is working on it! People are happy with an age based system that judges maturity and intelligence, and that shouldn't be the case.
But this should not be based on age! It should be based on intelligence and maturity, and while I'm not too sure of the best route to take, I'm sure we can come up with something.
I'm going to go ahead and say here, I don't quite have the answer to this problem, but my issue is that no-one is working on it! People are happy with an age based system that judges maturity and intelligence, and that shouldn't be the case.
But there has to be a system in place, and it has to be able to be applied to everyone. If you start allowing intelligent and emotionally mature thirteen year olds to have rights that less intelligent thirteen year olds can't have, those less intelligent thirteen year olds will start protesting that it isn't fair.
Mrs. MacRoss put it best.
Also, for practicality's sake, there needs to be an age line drawn as quantifying maturity and intelligence on an individual basis is virtually impossible.
I don't think it's fair to punish a group for the problems of a few. However, this is more of a case of punishing a few for the problems of a group. Let's face it: even smart teenagers do stupid things. They make decisions that they regret later, or they just change their minds.
So the question for those of you who are proposing a system based on intelligence: how would it work? How would you enforce it? If an intelligent child is born to less intelligent parents who nevertheless love and care for that child, should the child be taken from them until they produce one that's at their level? Who writes and administers the test? What test is used? When are children tested, for that matter? Wouldn't it have to be at a specific age? What happens before they reach that age? The reason we use age as a standard is because it's universal. Everyone, no matter their intelligence, maturity, religion (or lack thereof), economic status, sexuality, race, or anything else, will age. A system based on anything that is not truly impartial (like time) will become a caste system, and is not truly free in any sense.
One other thing. There is a place where teenagers can say anything they want, no matter how inane or wrong. That place is called 4Chan.
Edit: Something else occurred to me. If you're testing for intelligence and emotional maturity, what do you do with someone who scores high on one and low on the other. Say, a smart kid who has been subject to bullying in the schools where kids can say anything they want without consequences. If someone is technically gifted but emotionally fragile, are they less of an adult than someone who scores as unintelligent, but very emotionally secure?
I've had a major problem with this for years. Working teens under the age of majority are taxed on their earnings, which is taxation without representation. Now, in most cases they are able to file for and receive a full tax refund, but in the interim they are giving the government an interest-free loan and they are losing the opportunity cost of having their own money available.
We need to fix the problem of Washington DC being taxed without representation. That is even more unjust.
I don't think it's more unjust; I think it's equally unjust. We have the ability to address both, and we should. I also think Puerto Rican voters should have more than just the mock-representation they are currently granted, and that they should pay taxes in exchange for it.
Comments
Edit: And let me be clear, I think that this kind of behavior of teachers leads to them saying and doing other things to influence the children. For instance, we had a teacher at my high school in Alabama tell a gay kid he couldn't talk about his date with his boyfriend, when a kid next to him had just finished talking about his girlfriend. The truth is, some people just don't know where to draw the line, so I think that the best policy is that unless the kid is being specifically racist or defamatory to a person or about a person, you stay out of his business. If he says, this homework is gay, he doesn't get the gay-hate speech and punishment.
That being said, if I did have children, I would teach them what's obviously right in this case, but I think that you have no place in the classroom doing it.
It is about making kids aware of what they say, what it means, and being aware of the social consequences of not communicating clearly (all within the purview of an English class - just like correcting grammar). If I made it into some rant about racism, then I would be over stepping my boundaries, I completely agree.
If the kid is a bigot and says something truly bigoted in my class, I will send that kid to a principle and make a call to the parents at the end of the school day. I think that is perfectly reasonable, don't you? The fact is, kids are minors and do not enjoy the same rights, nor the same burdens as adults. It is part of the social contract.
Even if you don't agree with that, you must agree that it is difficult to teach against racial discrimination while simultaneously being a firm supporter of age discrimination. Which goes back to my previous point of the hypocrisy of adults in the way they treat children.
EDIT: Children are different from adults. They are not "idiots", but they are ignorant and the brain continues to develop throughout puberty.
If mental development is what is needed before rights and responsibilities are granted, then let it be those that determine it. You can deny rights to children, based on the excuse of lack of mental development, but you will also have to deny rights to many others. What do you do about the 16 year olds who are smarter and more mentally developed than the vast majority of adults? They above all will notice the hypocrisy, and grow a rebellious attitude against the society that desperately needs the benefits of their cooperation.
If instead you decide that human rights are for all humans, then grant them to all humans.
If you want respectful children who respect education and respect learning, then you need to respect them. Any amount of "do as I say, don't do as I do" demolishes all of that. Again, this is addressed in Bill Gates' TED talk as well as Barry Schwartz's. At the KIPP schools, which are the best schools around, the number one thing they do is create respect for learning, and they do it by example. Once they are able to instill that respect in the students, everything else is easy.
Discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual preference is unjust because people cannot change their race, gender, or sexual preference. Discrimination based on a person's youth is not nearly so onerous because people grow out of their youth.
I find it hilarious and telling that this rage against the injustice of the ill-treatment afforded to underage supergeniuses is nearly always expressed by people who have overinflated egos; the people who must have felt that they were somehow oppressed because they were not given the reins of world power in recognition of their genius when they were 16 years old. What are these supergeniuses doing now that they have reached majority and are no longer are oppressed? Have they taken over the world yet? Are they millionaires yet? If not, why? Could it perhaps be that they're not as smart as they thought?
I'm just glad that my current personal life is up to "my standards" to a point, but there are many restrictions that I see completely stupid. It wasn't until this year that I convinced my parents to allow my to play 18+ games. How could I possibly be stunted by playing games younger than the recommended age? Hell, I was prepared a while ago. I had sex ed when I was about 12, and it took three days of arguing before convincing my parents that I'm mature enough to handle such content. This was a major pet peeve of mine until just recently. It's things like that which I hate. It's this view by people that I am young, so I'm unable to handle the adult world.
A note about school, I think it's perfect the way it is right now. I feel that I am able to keep up (not slow down) in my classes. The school has given all the students tablets, with tight security (not restrictions) because of me and my hack-happy friends. Everyone has a personal folder for storing important documents which is backed up constantly. The policy about tablet usage is that teachers control tablet usage in class. They can be closed, put away, used only for note taking, or can be used freely. For the majority of the time only note taking is allowed. On the other hand, there are very few restrictions outside of class. Game are allowed if they can be installed. In fact, most programs are allowed on the tablets. It's really just a matter of common sense. Playing network games is not allowed, although me and my friends play halo in the computer lab in front of a teacher. No porn is allowed, either on the hard drive or through a browser. I'm not sure about anything else, because it's really just a matter of using common sense. I find that as long as you pay attention in class, everything is OK. There is a website blocker, which does block some questionable things, but I've set up my own proxy which they still haven't detected yet. Everything is good, and most restrictions can easily be circumvented by use technologically knowledgeable folks. I barely even notice them.
Also, for practicality's sake, there needs to be an age line drawn as quantifying maturity and intelligence on an individual basis is virtually impossible. Remember that being a minor protects you! You cannot be made to work ridiculous hours, you are guaranteed an education, you don't have to pay taxes, you must be provided certain basic care, etc. Our society has recognized that a stable, nurtured childhood allows for more productive, healthier adults. If you want to eliminate the age of majority, then you leave children even more vulnerable than they are now.
And somebody needs to look at the tax rules. Kids can't earn income absent tax ramifications. And when was the last time that kids didn't have to pay sales tax? Just one of many examples.
I'm going to go ahead and say here, I don't quite have the answer to this problem, but my issue is that no-one is working on it! People are happy with an age based system that judges maturity and intelligence, and that shouldn't be the case.
Mrs. MacRoss put it best. I don't think it's fair to punish a group for the problems of a few. However, this is more of a case of punishing a few for the problems of a group. Let's face it: even smart teenagers do stupid things. They make decisions that they regret later, or they just change their minds.
So the question for those of you who are proposing a system based on intelligence: how would it work? How would you enforce it? If an intelligent child is born to less intelligent parents who nevertheless love and care for that child, should the child be taken from them until they produce one that's at their level? Who writes and administers the test? What test is used? When are children tested, for that matter? Wouldn't it have to be at a specific age? What happens before they reach that age? The reason we use age as a standard is because it's universal. Everyone, no matter their intelligence, maturity, religion (or lack thereof), economic status, sexuality, race, or anything else, will age. A system based on anything that is not truly impartial (like time) will become a caste system, and is not truly free in any sense.
One other thing. There is a place where teenagers can say anything they want, no matter how inane or wrong. That place is called 4Chan.
Edit: Something else occurred to me. If you're testing for intelligence and emotional maturity, what do you do with someone who scores high on one and low on the other. Say, a smart kid who has been subject to bullying in the schools where kids can say anything they want without consequences. If someone is technically gifted but emotionally fragile, are they less of an adult than someone who scores as unintelligent, but very emotionally secure?