Basically, students, particularly those with little opportunity to participate in journalistic experiences, think that freedom of speech isn't that big a deal.
While I disagree strongly with the federal government mandating something be taught about on a particular day, as is done with the day the Constitution was signed (apparently), efforts along that line by school corporations should be a higher priority.
However, even topic based education is not as valuable as experiential education; unfortunately, having a student press/media (even a very limited one) is expensive. Those programs arre commonly early on the block when funding is low, and rarely reinstated/reenlarged unless funding picks up considerably.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And amusedly enough, I saw this on CNN before I saw it on Slashdot, despite generally checking Slashdot more frequently.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
I'd like to see the questions to know if I need to be very scared or very, very, very scared.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Just scared, that type of attitue doesn't normally drive a person to the voting booth...
The actual question and response statistics for the question I believe they're referring to:
quote:45. Newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story. 24% Strongly agree 27 Mildly agree 22 Mildly disagree 14 Strongly disagree 13 Don’t know
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Another possibly disturbing statistic:
quote:41. Overall, do you think the press in America has too much freedom to do what it wants, too little freedom to do what it wants, or is the amount of freedom the press has about right?
32% Too much freedom
10 Too little freedom
37 About right
21 Don’t know
There are quite a few more, such as that 74% mildly to strongly (by far mostly strongly) feel people shouldn't be allowed to burn the flag as a political statement.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Looks like the first amendment is going the way of the second and tenth. And section 1 of the fourteenth for that matter.
Why can't we respect all aspects of our constitution.
Free Speech, Guns, No federal programs except those specifically listed in the constitution and equal protection under the law - even for homosexuals.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Keep in mind these are high school students. What do you expect after 13 years of socialistic indoctrination? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I got my 3 R's, but I think acquiring the 3 R's has to come before learning to question authority, or the 3 R's never get learned.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
"Socialistic indoctrination?" Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Sitting in a class with 30 kids obeying the adult up front.
I missed the thread Narnia just had about education, so I apologize if I've failed to make the evolution with the rest of hatrack on this. But my idea of the public education system is that it is designed to produce good employees/workers.
P.P.S. Think of the ironically dystopian sight of a classroom with a copy of "The night Thoreau spent in Jail" on every desk.
[ January 31, 2005, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I resent your implications, Trisha. Look, there's no question the average elementary thru high school classroom is somewhat socialistic. I tell my students that my class is a benevolent dictatorship -- and when they act up, not so benevolent.
But that doesn't mean I'm indoctrinating them to unquestioningly obey authority. High school students ARE generally bright enough to understand that context matters. Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Schools indoctrinate children to obey authority. Both left and right wingers like this idea, they just disagree on who the authority is. Socialism is no more authoritarian than is (neo)conservatism than is authoritarianism^W communitarianism.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would need to double check, but in response to that question, I think those stats have basically been about the same for the last 20 years.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's nothing inherently socialistic about a public education system; its one of the most commonly cited examples of an area where a free market approach undermines other free markets.
There's no particular reason the schools have to be places to train better workers; that's if anything a more socialistic stance than schools being about preparing people to think and participate more, resulting on the whole in a better country.
Also, what you're citing is an authoritarian situation, skrika, which isn't socialist at all. Socialism is an economic system. At best it might be communistic, but its not even that, really, as communism isn't really a phenomenon at that level.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Actually, I've had very few teachers who don't absentmindedly indoctrinate to follow authority: the textbook.
I did, however, have one history teacher who gave extra credit for each factual error we found in the textbook. And if we wrote an essay on why a stupid generalization was, he gave us points on that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
See, now that's a problem. [addit: indoctrinating students to see the textbook as the only/final authority]
I do my best to make it clear to students that if there is a conflict between what I say (or something they already know) and the textbook, that they should let me know. Usually starts a good discussion (or at the very least a comment from me that the book has oversimplified a point, or made a statement I disagree with), and I try to bring in other sources.
Textbooks are tools, and far from perfect ones.
[ January 31, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Rivka: Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
When I was in high school, I took a Constitutional Law class that was taught by two AU law students. It was great. I learned so much about the Constitution, how it's interpreted, and even basic critical thinking skills. It was through the Marshall-Brennan Program, which tries to promote "constitutional literacy". That class convinced me that learning about the Constitution should be just as basic a subject as geography, history, or any other of the social studies are now.
[ January 31, 2005, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Miro ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Arg! What a horrible result to the survey. Talk about decay of America, here it is. Someone needs to slap these kids upside the head.
quote:Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on September 17, the date it was signed in 1787.
This is a GREAT idea.
quote:The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
If the schools won't do it then it's up to the freaking parents to teach it! Grrrr... I learned more from my folks then I did from school for about 16 years. It's dangerous for parents to just assume that the school will take care of everything. But, of course, schools tell parents they WILL take care of everything so not surprising most parents are fooled into thinking that.
quote:About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.
What the...?? Money has NOTHING to do with this. I went to a poor Catholic school with computers from the 70's in 1995 and taught on typewriters...and we were taught quite alot about the vital importance of the Constituion/Bill of Rights and all that stuff without "media offerings". What do they mean "media offerings"? All you need for journalism skills is a piece of paper and a pencil. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:And amusedly enough, I saw this on CNN before I saw it on Slashdot, despite generally checking Slashdot more frequently.
Hehe, I can't say the same, but that's because I've been at my computer for most of the day with Thunderbird fetching the Slashdot RSS feed every ten minutes.
This article is really quite depressing though. I was lucky to have a series of really Constitutionally knowledgable teachers in middle and high school.
Does this level of knowledge about the Constitution equate to a similar lack of care if those rights are abridged among many people. That would be incredibly worrying to me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The only thing I remember being taught about the constitution is my seventh grade civics class and the fact that the teacher forced us to memorize the preamble.
Me, I forgot the assignment (ADD rearing it's ugly head, I guess!) and didn't work on memorizing it. So the day of, I just sat there listening to everyone who went before me and picked enough of it up to pass with flying colors.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
I had to memorize the Preamble, too. But we also studied the rest of the Constitution, though I remember being confused by parts of it. I do NOT have a brain for politics, which is why I mostly ignore it.
Thought I am feeling a sudden gratitude for my high school U.S. history teacher who made us do weekly "freedom reports". We had to go through the newspaper and clip articles that showed examples of the Bill of Rights in action. I HATED that assignment, but I guess it stuck with me a bit, because I think the Bill of Rights is really important. I don't always agree with or like the way the media reports things (or what they choose to report) but they have the right to do it. And I have the right to ignore most of it and read only those articles that interest me. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
That's why if grade school kids can't pay attention the real meat of the Constitution/Bill of Rights should be forced on students in High School. You'd think teachers/government/parents would remember it was called HIGH school for a reason once. The basics should have been taught in elementry school...and the rest refined in high school. High school's main job is to prepare you for college. How are you supposed to survive college without knowing the basic foundation of our culture? Take civics 088? How are power-hungry people and politicians going to take this when they realize the population is now dumb and turned into cattle? More Rights stripped away till we really are an evil empire....and then the slow death like Byzantium.
Sorry if I'm a little dramatic...but it's a big deal to me.
[ February 01, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My generation knew the preamble to music, because of SchoolHouse Rock.
We had a history teacher get mad at us in 7th grade, and made us all get up and recite the preamble from memory. At least half the song did it in a sing-song voice reminiscent of the cartoon. Me included.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
We were just talking about this in my government class today. Initially everyone was shocked. Then we watched a movie about how free speech was slowly being held as less and less important by the american public. When we hit the bit about burning flags there was an outcry. Apparently half my class is all for the flag burning ban amendment. A girl behind me said, I quote
"Anyone one who burns a flag has no morals what so ever."
Umm... EXCUSE ME?!?!?!
Someone else said of protesters:
"If they don't like the way we do things in this country, then they should just leave."
What? Do you not know what your country is founded on? I responded by saying "Ok how bout we make it illegal to be a christian. If you're cristian you can just leave." Got a flurry of indignant responses but I didn't really have a chance to get the point across before we continued the video. Still I thought students in my school were smarter than that. Guess they aren't unique in their stupidity. I'm scared for my generation... and I thought we were a generally inteligent and active generation Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Some of us, Alcon. Like most generations, though, a good portion of us decide they believe the party line and stick to it through thick and thin, no matter what. I knew many, many people in high school who said the same sort of things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm very comfortable saying that anyone who burns the flag as a form of protest is a jerk, at least in the particular instance.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Fellow students and I once convinced a room full of college students to vote for an absolutism tempered by assassination style of government over a republic style of government. I'm not surprised by the the survey.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Would you say that of those burning the flag to protest, say, Vietnam, Dag?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep. Like I said, in the instance, so maybe it's better phrased as "acting like a jerk." But yes.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
About the flag... *sigh* It's not just an icon for the American People and Constitution...it's also a symbol for the current American GOVERNMENT. So if the Government does something horrible, burning the flag is a GREAT idea...because the flag is held sacred...and burning it wakes people up to the idea that not only are the flag-burners protesting the Government, but that the ideals of America are burning because of the betrayal they are protesting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To be even more clear, I'd say it about pro-life protesters burning the flag to protest SCOTUS.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well, remember, folks, that Rehnquist, the man now sitting as Chief Justice of SCOTUS, wrote the dissent for Texas vs. Johnson (he was fine with flag burning being illegal) when he was just a lowly associate justice. Also, the Republican platform last year still includes a clause supporting a const. amendment to ban it, so if the sanctity of the flag is more important to you than the free expression that it represents, you should be happy with the way things are going...
*sigh*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interesting; while there are certainly plenty of jerks that burn the flag, during Vietnam there were definitely some people (thinking pretty much of vets here) who did it in full consciousness of the magnitude of the symbolism. I'm pretty certain some of them weren't jerks, but people making one of the most passionate pleas they knew how.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope. Don't buy it, Telp. It pisses people off, and not at the government but at the people doing the burning. It's counterproductive at minimum and insulting to most. It alienates people of good will who might otherwise listen to you.
Dagonee
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well, actually burning the flag is a good way to piss people off and make them hate you and not listen to your ideas at all. Outlawing it, however, is not a good idea. That amendment is there for a reason.
Edit: Dag. Jinx, you owe me a pop.
[ February 01, 2005, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: IdemosthenesI ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*hands IdemosthenesI a bottle of pop*
*hides the bottle opener* Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Nope. Don't buy it, Telp. It pisses people off, and not at the government but at the people doing the burning. It's counterproductive at minimum and insulting to most. It alienates people of good will who might otherwise listen to you.
Dagonee
Absolutely. To me, flag burning is equivalent to cross burning. It makes me angry and sick to see KKK members burning a cross, a symbol of something that means a lot to me. I feel just as angry and sick when I see someone burning an American flag.
I don't care who they are, they just lost my attention to their cause. Like Dag said, I'd say the same even if it were a cause I agreed with.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm pretty certain some of them weren't jerks, but people making one of the most passionate pleas they knew how. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destroying something in an act of violence is never a good way to get people to listen to you, and if that's the only way they knew to make a passionate plea they need lessons.
Look, I never think it's a good idea to use any form of destruction or defacement - I don't think burning people in effigy or scrawling graffiti across national monuments is a good idea either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even if the flag is theirs - and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that - it's still a violent act.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I would burn an American flag if it became illegal to do so.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
That is the danger of making strong protests...driving people away. I myself would probably never do it, since the flag is also a symbol for my own personal patriotic feelings, but I will defend those who want to...and also understand why American citizens would burn it. What I cannot stand is seeing foreigners burning the flag because most of the time they have no idea what the USA is all about...and because their hatred of America is fueled by the lies of demagogues.
[ February 01, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I don't care about foreigners doing it, especially in their own country, mainly because they don't know what it's all about.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:I would burn an American flag if it became illegal to do so.
Me too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not me, although I would wear a headscarve if they got banned.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Plus I'd look faaaaabulous!
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Here's the question, though, Dag. We agree that burning the flag is destructive, ineffective, and generally a bad way to make your point. Should it be illegal?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here's the question, though, Dag. We agree that burning the flag is destructive, ineffective, and generally a bad way to make your point. Should it be illegal?
Absolutely not.
Edit: Neutral fire codes are OK, though, as long as their not smokescreens.
[ February 01, 2005, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
No... because what makes America great is the power of argument and debate. As the saying goes, I might not agree with you, but I will die to protect your right to say it.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
This is what I wish people would understand. Just because it's really really bad doesn't make the Bill of Rights any less applicable. Nor does it justify altering the Constitution. Apparently, though, that isn't getting through to the younger generation (or rather, the younger members of mine.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hell, I argued in class today that that white supremicist from Illinois shouldn't have been barred from getting his law license.
Dagonee All I could think when I read the case is, "I hate Illinois Nazis."
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I do not see myself burning the flag as long as it is legal to do so, but I feel that if flag-burning was illegal, the flag would be a mockery of the supposed values of the nation.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well, every new generation is another wave of barbarians at the gates... we need to properly indoctinate each new generation. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, etc...
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Dagonee, could you summarize that case, or provide a link if you have one? (Just curious)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:White supremacist Matt Hale says he will take his bid to practice law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after Illinois' highest court Friday rejected his efforts to practice in that state.
Hale, 28, leads the World Church of the Creator, based in East Peoria, Illinois. He graduated from Southern Illinois University law school in 1998 and passed the bar exam, but the Illinois Bar Association and has refused to grant him a license to practice law.
He sued, and asked the Supreme Court in July to review the case. Friday's ruling "has sent a message that if you are politically incorrect or have views that might seem extreme, you may not get your day in court," Hale said.
In addition to announcing plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hale said he is considering filing federal lawsuits against the IBA and the state of Illinois for allegedly violating his civil rights.
"I'm going to pursue this to the hilt," Hale vowed.
Order issued without comment
The single-paragraph court order, issued without comment, lets stand the decision by the state Supreme Court's Committee on Character and Fitness, which denied Hale his law license because of questions about his "moral character."
Last summer, the committee originally turned Hale down for a law license. Members argued that Hale's racist views would prevent him from fulfilling a lawyer's duty not to discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses or others for reasons of race, religion or national origin.
Shortly after that decision, Benjamin Smith -- a former member of Hale's church -- went on a shooting spree in Indiana and Illinois that targeted minorities. Smith killed two men and wounded nine other people before he committed suicide.
After Hale asked the Illinois Supreme Court to review the committee's decision denying him a license, the committee argued that Hale's response to the shooting spree demonstrated he should not be a lawyer.
"The record evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Hale is not fit to practice law. The evidence also demonstrates that Hale lacks the moral character necessary to satisfy even minimal bar admission standards," the fitness committee said in court papers.
quote:In November 2002, the WCOTC lost a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against it by the Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation, which had successfully trademarked the name "Church of the Creator" years ago. A federal judge ordered the WCOTC to stop using its name, to give up its Web addresses, and to turn over all printed material bearing its name. Hale refused to comply with the order and in January 2003 had arrived for a contempt of court hearing when he was arrested for soliciting the judge's murder. Hale remains in jail awaiting trial as members of WCOTC and other white supremacist groups rally behind him.
Note, the ADL spoke out against the original decision denying him a license.
Dagonee
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well that's fairly simple. Give him his license, and the very first time he allows his white supremacist beliefs to interfere with his faithfully carrying out the duties of an officer of the court, revoke it and slap him with contempt. Frankly, it disturbs me that a "Committee on Character and Fitness" even exists.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Thanks.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I agree. Give him a license, give him a chance, and when he screws up, disbar him. And if he doesn't screw up, well, that just shows he doesn't let his disgusting beliefs get in the way of his career.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm late, but:
quote:Here's the question, though, Dag. We agree that burning the flag is destructive, ineffective, and generally a bad way to make your point. Should it be illegal?
No it shouldn't. People should have the freedom to do stupid things. But the very fact that this country allows them to burn the flag should, in my mind, be reason not to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree. Give him a license, give him a chance, and when he screws up, disbar him. And if he doesn't screw up, well, that just shows he doesn't let his disgusting beliefs get in the way of his career.
Exactly. I even argued for increased supervision, since his published works gave reason to suspect he would not live up to those values.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)