quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: But for full disclosure, I feel public schools are usually envious of boot camps and want that kind of obedience from their students. I think they really were angrier that the girls disobeyed them.
I have worked in middle and high school schooling for the last twelve years, and I have never seen any sign of the attitude you describe. What I mostly do see on the part of schools as institutions is fear, and fear leading to bad decisions. Fear of bad publicity, fear of lawsuits, fear of failure. The bad decisions this lead to are more often than not erring on the side of excessive permissiveness and an inability to give bad grades. I think yours is a pretty gross mischaracterization, from my point of view.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like everyone to be comfortable enough that The Vagina Monologues could be performed for anybody. Since that isn't the case, and likely not to be, ever, I can understand a school not wanting to face parental ire.
But it saddens me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that you're offended. I think that people on Hatrack know intellectually that things are based on their assumptions, but I don't think it's always possible to see it in action within yourself, because one is not conscious of assuming the things one assumes.
quote: Consider what would happen if the Vagina Monologues were put on and some people saw it and were made uncomfortable. What would happen?
This sentence seems to me to assume that any harm that would come would be rooted in people's feelings of discomfort.
-o-
The problem is I'm sure I cannot articulate this well, because this is a feeling I don't actually share, but a lot of people, including a lot of parents and administrators, believe that frank discussion of sexuality and sexual organs is something that should only happen in very private conditions, such as with a doctor. They believe that greater openness about these things leads to increased promiscuity. They don't see sex education and such as things done to address a problem; they see them as part of the cause of the problem. So what they believe could happen that's bad from hearing an explicit exerpt from the Vagina Monologues is that their daughters and sons could talk more about sex, sex organs, and sexuality with each other, leading them to experiment sexually with each other, and quite possibly not be virgins anymore. They believe this kind of activity leads to mnore teenage pregnancy, not less. (Most parents of high schoolers believe that their children are virgins, by the way.) (Don't bother asking me to cite a statistic on that; it is purely my opinion.)
If that point of view sounds ridiculous, it is at least partly because I don't share it and can't articulate it well. However, ridiculous or not, it is out there, and it is not even a particularly small viewpoint. And they will find the line "My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country" extremely threatening. They don't see a short skirt as emblematic of any kind of liberation except liberation to be promiscuous.
You should see the grief we get every year over each and every drama production we have, even though we do much less controversial shows.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Storm, I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that you're offended. I think that people on Hatrack know intellectually that things are based on their assumptions, but I don't think it's always possible to see it in action within yourself, because one is not conscious of assuming the things one assumes.
I'm heading out the door, but I just wanted to tell you that I apologize if I responded in what seemed like an angry fashion. I know you're just trying to be helpful, and for that I thank you.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just the other day, a local teacher was fired because, on a field trip to an art museum, for which permission slips were signed, students saw nudes. Most were probably okay with this, but some parents were not.
I realize this is probably not strictly on topic, but how easy is it to get a teacher fired in America? Because had such a situation happened in Finland the parents who complained would not have had any kind of a case. At best they could have gotten the principal to give a man-to-man talk to the teacher, but to be honest I doubt even that would have happened in such a case. Is there a difference between private and public schools or something? (I suppose there would be.)
Of course, seeing nudes wouldn't be such a big thing in the Finnish culture, but now that I'm thinking of it even in cases where some sort of sanctions to the teacher would be in order there's usually very little that happens. For example, when I was in junior high school our biology teacher started speaking in tongues during her assembly speech and talking about how Jesus had resurrected her dead cat... which I'm not sure she should have been allowed to do since we weren't strictly a religious school. But then seeing as the major reaction to her by most students and even by some teachers was laughter I suppose the only minority that was threatened by that were the Christians. But there weren't any repercussions to her, and she still continues to teach at that school. To be honest, the only cases where I've heard of teacher's actions leading to them to be fired has been if they've attacked the students or been drunk to the school or something.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How easy it is to get fired depends on where in your career you are. I have worked both public and private school. In private school, you have an annual contract, and so it is pretty hard to get rid of you in the middle of it. There are specific reasons for immediate termination listed in the contract. At the end of the year, though, they can certainly refuse to renew your contract. In the public system where I work right now, during your first 90 workdays in the county you can be fired at will and with no explanation whatsoever. After that, you are on an annual contract until you have been with the county for three years. After that, we have "continuing contracts" or "professional services contracts," which are the weak descendent of tenure. We can be fired, but it's a lengthy process of documenting the existence of a problem; it's fairly hard to get rid of someone like me from one year to the next. On the other hand, any of us can be chased out pretty easily by making us want to leave. For instance, I wouldn't want to stick around if I suddenly found myself teaching remedial math five periods a day, travelling to five different classrooms to do it (spaced as far apart as possible), out of three different textbooks, with the biggest hoodlums in the school, and with no resources. There would be no recourse for me, other than leaving, if some administrator did this to me. And again there are reasons spelled out in the contract why I can still be canned pretty quickly. In addition to the obvious over-the-top crimes against students, screwing up on administering the FCAT (our state's NCLB-related standardized achievement test) can do it, and anything related to decency/appropriateness, and insubordination.
ADDED:
All this is complicated by the fact that we are in a massive teacher shortage. So I'd have to be pretty bad indeed for the school to want to get rid of me, because it would be extremely difficult to find someone qualified to do my job.
It isn't really the teachers who have the most to fear, though: it's the administrators. I'm pretty sure you don't have continuing contract if you're a principal, and you're the public face of your school. It's the principal who the parents are likely to run off with pitchforks--and I've seen this happen two or three times. So school administrations tend to be more fearful of community reactions.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like everyone to be comfortable enough that The Vagina Monologues could be performed for anybody.
I am very comfortable with the fact that I wouldn't be comfortable enough to want to sit through a performance of The Vagina Monologues.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Storm, I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that you're offended. I think that people on Hatrack know intellectually that things are based on their assumptions, but I don't think it's always possible to see it in action within yourself, because one is not conscious of assuming the things one assumes.
quote: Consider what would happen if the Vagina Monologues were put on and some people saw it and were made uncomfortable. What would happen?
This sentence seems to me to assume that any harm that would come would be rooted in people's feelings of discomfort.
-o-
The problem is I'm sure I cannot articulate this well, because this is a feeling I don't actually share, but a lot of people, including a lot of parents and administrators, believe that frank discussion of sexuality and sexual organs is something that should only happen in very private conditions, such as with a doctor. They believe that greater openness about these things leads to increased promiscuity. They don't see sex education and such as things done to address a problem; they see them as part of the cause of the problem. So what they believe could happen that's bad from hearing an explicit exerpt from the Vagina Monologues is that their daughters and sons could talk more about sex, sex organs, and sexuality with each other, leading them to experiment sexually with each other, and quite possibly not be virgins anymore. They believe this kind of activity leads to mnore teenage pregnancy, not less. (Most parents of high schoolers believe that their children are virgins, by the way.) (Don't bother asking me to cite a statistic on that; it is purely my opinion.)
If that point of view sounds ridiculous, it is at least partly because I don't share it and can't articulate it well. However, ridiculous or not, it is out there, and it is not even a particularly small viewpoint. And they will find the line "My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country" extremely threatening. They don't see a short skirt as emblematic of any kind of liberation except liberation to be promiscuous.
You should see the grief we get every year over each and every drama production we have, even though we do much less controversial shows.
I appreciate your sharing the environment that you work in. I think it supports my previous posting on the subject.
Question, though. To go back to something that I mentioned earlier, what if people were informed about what the play was about before they went in, and/or students had to have permission from their parents? Would those who demanded the play not be shown at all still have a reasonable leg to stand on?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there would still be complaints, but maybe the administrators would feel safer about it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I think there would still be complaints, but maybe the administrators would feel safer about it.
As insulting as it is to say, would you be saying the same thing if the play was about, say, growing up under Castro? What it was like to grow up Latino? (This is, by the way, I think, a kind of turn on the point you made to me. I'm not saying this to point out that I'm getting back at you, ha! ha!, how does it feel? Just pointing it out so you don't think I think any less of you and I wonder if you aren't working through your own prejudices?)
I get what you are saying, Joe, but isn't there a time to condemn the administration, or anyone else's response to speech as being wrong? As being censorship? Isn't this one of those times? Again I ask, if notification was given ahead of time, shouldn't the play have gone on?
My feeling is that it would be almost certain that if this play was about another subject, people would unequivocally not be talking about the realities, legal or otherwise, of the situation which make it so that the kids couldn't perform they play, they would be calling for change.
I know you have said that you don't share the feelings of those who think the play would do harm, but you haven't condemned the perspective of those who would keep this play being shown, and I wonder why that is?
In case it's not clear, all the above was said in the spirit of friendship. I hope it's taken that way.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph--I'm not offended, just confused. The reason I am not condemning the administrators is because I realize that it's their jobs on the line, much more than those of the teachers, and because the real origin of any censorship in schools is parents. Really, why the hell should we care? It's parents who complain after every one of our talent nights that they didn't like the songs because the lyrics were too suggestive (none of them contain actual bad words) and because the dances were too erotic. And I am not quick to condemn parents either because parenting's a tough job too, and maybe parents should have some say in how quickly or slowly their kids are exposed to certain concepts. I don't believe you can insulate your kids from every thought you think is harmful in today's world--short of homeschooling and controlling their access to popular media, but parents are often determined to try. Hell, I was determined to keep my kids away from Barbie and the Bratz; I haven't had that much success either.
Some parents won't be happy even if notification is given ahead of time because their concern is not being personally offended, it's being opposed to the play being held at all. If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all. I personally wouldn't draw the line at the word "vagina." That's probably about as much condemnation as I can muster up, though.
And we're cool, by the way. I have always enjoyed talking with you and would love to buy you a drink sometime.
quote: If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't have any problems with there being some sort of censorship in high school.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I really am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph--I'm not offended, just confused. The reason I am not condemning the administrators is because I realize that it's their jobs on the line, much more than those of the teachers, and because the real origin of any censorship in schools is parents. Really, why the hell should we care? It's parents who complain after every one of our talent nights that they didn't like the songs because the lyrics were too suggestive (none of them contain actual bad words) and because the dances were too erotic. And I am not quick to condemn parents either because parenting's a tough job too, and maybe parents should have some say in how quickly or slowly their kids are exposed to certain concepts. I don't believe you can insulate your kids from every thought you think is harmful in today's world--short of homeschooling and controlling their access to popular media, but parents are often determined to try. Hell, I was determined to keep my kids away from Barbie and the Bratz; I haven't had that much success either.
It seems I did forget to mention the parents, and put all the blame on the administrators, didn't I? Pardon.
Let me see if I can rephrase what I wrote in terms of analogy. A few months a go, we had the post about the French head scarves. *No one* defended the administration or parents of France. It wasn't even brought up, despite the fact that both, according to polls I've seen, were probably solidly behind it. Almost everyone on this board condemned the situation as being wrong, as the Muslim girls having their civil liberties abridged.
I recognize that the analogy isn't exactly one to one, by the way, but I think it works.
If that doesn't work, what about my initial question to you?
In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public forum. Is this true?
quote: Some parents won't be happy even if notification is given ahead of time because their concern is not being personally offended, it's being opposed to the play being held at all. If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all. I personally wouldn't draw the line at the word "vagine." That's probably about as much condemnation as I can muster up, though.
I don't disagree that there is a line somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to get you to discuss. Whether, in this particular instance, the line was fairly drawn, should have been drawn.
I don't understand why, if it's not about the parents, etc, we need to bring them into the conversation.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge that parents do have final say in how their children are raised en loco parentis by the school, but that doesn't mean that the parents are right in their decisions and that we can't decry their decisions as being wrong.
I'm having one of those moments where I wish I could express myself more clearly.
quote: And we're cool, by the way. I have always enjoyed talking with you and would love to buy you a drink sometime. [/qb]
Over the last few days, there's a better possibility that that can happen.
(I don't like the way that last sounds. What I mean is that over the last few days, I've felt like you're enjoyed talking to me, whereas before I didn't.)
quote: If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't have any problems with there being some sort of censorship in high school.
I think I answered your post, too, Porter, in my last post, but didn't want you to feel like I was ignoring you.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public forum. Is this true?
I suspect the heart of the disagreement is whether this is a public forum. Legally and, I suspect, in the minds of most people, it's not.
A public forum is one anyone* can use as a place/time to express oneself. A public park is the paradigm public forum. If the park closes at sunset for all people, it's a public forum during the day.
The essence of a public forum from the legal perspective is that almost no content-based restrictions on speech are allowed. Further, most non-content-based restrictions that burden speech are allowed. For example, use of megaphones in a public park may be restricted based on volume. But the volume restriction would have to apply to all content - they couldn't say "Prayers can be any volume, all others below 70db." Nor could they say "political rallies are OK, but not religious rallies." The latter is a pure content-based restriction. Obscenity and speech that creates an imminent danger ("fire!" in a crowded theater) can be banned, almost nothing else can be.
There are numerous forums that aren't public, even though they are open to members of the public. For example, if the city puts on a local band show and has auditions, then the forum is not open. Certain types of decisions based on content will not be legal (although this kind of case would be hard to prove unless the decision-makers say, "Nope, we don't want no Muslim songs on our stage"), certain types will. But the essence of an audition is both content and quality evaluation. Some people will not be allowed to perform strictly because of the content of their speech, and this decision will be subjective. I'd be surprised if many people here would object to such auditions, assuming more people wanted to perform than there was time for.
Here, there were auditions. The girls could have simply been refused participation without reason given. Instead, they were told to alter (in a way that probably violated copyright law) the play if they wanted to perform it.
One of the criteria was the effect of the piece on the audience - exactly the kind of criteria that should be used by a producer auditioning acts for any show. This was further compounded by the fact that the audience in question contains the "customers" of the entity producing the show who have lots of political influence.
In this case, it is absolutely appropriate for the producer to take audience considerations into account, even that producer thinks those considerations are misguided or any other negative adjective he wishes to apply. Legally, certain considerations may not be taken into account - such as the considerations of those who don't want to see black and white kids on the same stage. Certainly there are some decisions based on such considerations that, while legal, are misguided.
But decisions based on comfort level with sexually-oriented dialog does not belong in that category. Someone producing a show needs to take this into account. These girls took it upon themselves to usurp that role, and it wasn't theirs to usurp.
Despite some similarities with this incident, the head scarf situation had nothing equivalent to the idea of a produced show in it. The school was inserting itself into an area of truly personal expression - the school was not "producing" the clothing nor trying to express an overall entity. They simply didn't want the headscarves present. Moreover, they were making this a law - schools couldn't even adapt to their individual constituency.
*I'll limit this so that "anyone" doesn't have to be "anyone in the whole world," but a population that makes sense as belonging in the forum. For example, the "audience remarks" portion of an open meeting of the city council could be a public forum for city residents only. The forum under consideration here - a school's literary night - could be a public forum if it were limited to students only, although, for the reasons above, it's not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public forum. Is this true?
I don't believe I am taking that position. As Dag noted, I don't believe this is a public forum. More on this after the next quote.
quote:I don't disagree that there is a line somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to get you to discuss. Whether, in this particular instance, the line was fairly drawn, should have been drawn.
To answer your previous question, I think there are levels of wrongness (or rightness). There are issues on which I have opinions, but where they are not so strong as to say that nobody should have a different opinion from me. So, as I think I have stated, no, the line wasn't fairly drawn here. A vagina is a body part, nothing more, nothing less. The word is not vulgar.
However, I do not feel so strongly (arrogantly?) about it that I would condemn those parents who would be outraged by this performance. We have to accommodate a broad range of beliefs and philosophies, and it can't all be based on what sounds good to me. There are things which I feel are wrong enough that I will condemn the parents for it. I don't see this as inconsistency, but as evidence of other factors to consider.
One criteria for this is in the area of preventing us from fulfilling our mandate. Firing a teacher for teaching kids the word "niggardly." Preventing the teaching of evolution. In the case of evolution or "niggardly" morality is not an issue, and morality is one specific area where we have to tread lightly. I think we (schools and teachers) get the right of way when it comes to presenting facts, such as they are understood to be by the consensus of experts. That is the case with evolution--those who are experts in science are virtually all in agreement--and so evolution should be presented, with as much sensitivity and tolerance as possible toward other views, as being nevertheless the consensus view of scientists. "Niggardly" is a vocabulary word etymologically unrelated to "nigger"; its definition is not in dispute, and my sympathy is entirely with the teacher and the school if parents find the word objectionable because of what it sounds like. If you as a parent object to us carrying out our mandate, I believe you need to find alternative arrangements for your child's education rather than expecting us to accommodate you. "When to talk about vaginas," though, is not really a matter of fact. (In an anatomy section of a science class, though, the definition of "vagina" certainly would be.) Discussions of what should be considered a vagina's "country" are not in that domain.
I believe we have a mandate to teach facts and skills. I believe teaching morality, empowerment, or political viewpoints (as being right or wrong) lie outside of that mandate. It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there.
The idea of, say, parents objecting to a mixed race production or team is more problematic for me. I suppose I could say that legally in this country we have made integration a matter "of fact" and so that lies within our domain. I'm not sure I buy that, though. In fact, I'm fairly sure I don't. The simple answer is that I think that racism is "more wrong" than retrograde sexual morality is, but I can't justify to you why I think it is in concrete terms. (Maybe I'll come up with something if I think about this more.) However, my inability to justify that belief of mine does not mean that belief is wrong.
-o-
If you want a more specific reaction to this event from me, I cannot begin to understand the rationale behind banning the word "vagina" and not the entire performance. I think it would have been more defensible to ban the performance outright.
quote:I don't understand why, if it's not about the parents, etc, we need to bring them into the conversation.
I think it's entirely about the parents, so I'm not sure what you mean. All of my posts in this thread have been to the effect that we should not condemn the schools, because if they had done otherwise they would probably have been in deep water with the parents.
quote:On the other hand, I do acknowledge that parents do have final say in how their children are raised en loco parentis by the school, but that doesn't mean that the parents are right in their decisions and that we can't decry their decisions as being wrong.
See my previous comments in this post. You can be wrong, or you can be Wrong. I don't think every decision ought to be a tug of war. I think there needs to be some leeway where we give parents the benefit of the doubt even when we believe they are wrong. Unfortunately, this generally means specifically giving conservative parents the benefit of the doubt, because conservatives are generally the ones who want to keep the line drawn where it has "always" been drawn, and liberals are the ones who want to move the line. (When I saw "unfortunately," I don't mean that it's unfortunate because they are conservative; I mean that it's unfortunate that it seems one-sided.)
quote:
quote:And we're cool, by the way. I have always enjoyed talking with you and would love to buy you a drink sometime. [/qb]
Over the last few days, there's a better possibility that that can happen.
(I don't like the way that last sounds. What I mean is that over the last few days, I've felt like you're enjoyed talking to me, whereas before I didn't.)
I am, truly, baffled by this. I'm not aware of ever having had any unpleasantness with you, or of any change in my behavior. I don't think I've ever criticized you or gossiped about you. It seems to me that I have always invited you to get together for a beer or for jai-alai or whatever, and I wouldn't do that if I didn't like you. Seriously, I don't go in for torturing myself. All I can think you are responding to is that I don't go in for debate on Hatrack in general; I don't like how hard it seems people have to shout to be heard at all, and I don't like how those debates tend to go on and on at length. I just don't have enough free time to stay involved! But I don't remember feeling like you were rude to me, and I don't believe I have been rude to you. It is true that, when we interact, we are typically on opposite ends of whatever issue we are discussing, but I don't find you to be a mean "opponent" and it doesn't color my personal opinion of you. I have always felt like you enjoyed talking to me, and I'm sorry I failed to convey that I generally feel the same way. Apart from our interactions in debates, other interactions that stick out in my mind are when I quoted you in my .sig on sakeriver (something I would not have done if I disliked you, nor would I have been so quick to respect your wish not to be quoted if I didn't respect you) and when I was going through a rough time and you offered to help me through it. I don't remember if I replied to you; I apologize if I did not. I certainly did note and appreciate it, though.
posted
Oh, well. I started to write out a long reply, but I was unhappy with what was coming out. I think I'm going to let it sit for a while. Maybe I'll eventually get around to posting in this thread.
In any case, thanks for your response, Icarus.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect the heart of the disagreement is whether this is a public forum. Legally and, I suspect, in the minds of most people, it's not. . . . Here, there were auditions. The girls could have simply been refused participation without reason given.
Public schools are not strictly speaking a public forum, but they are also not a private forum. It is not acceptable to exclude people from participation in the public school events without just cause. If these girls had been refused participation because they were black, or jewish or democrats, we wouldn't be debating the issue. Our society has agreed that it is unjust to exclude people from participation in public school activities for any of those reasons. Clearly, not every possible reason the school could have used for excluding these girls would be acceptable because while this may not truly be a public forum, it is a public institution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly, not every possible reason the school could have used for excluding these girls would be acceptable because while this may not truly be a public forum, it is a public institution.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said, "Legally, certain considerations may not be taken into account - such as the considerations of those who don't want to see black and white kids on the same stage." It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.
I posted a pretty complex explanation that took a lot of factors into account. Nor did I call schools a private forum.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To build on what Icarus said above, about the school's role to teach facts/ skills, not morals:
I teach English, and books (and other literature, like plays) are often what get people angry, and books are what get censored. (Other stuff gets people angry, too, of course; see above. ) The way my department deals with it is to say we teach SKILLS, not BOOKS. If a student finds a book offensive, he doesn't have to read it. Period. (Obviously he has to read an alternate book...he doesn't just get out of the work.) Kids do a lot of independent reading in my class, which has the potential to create problems, since there's absolutely no way that I can preview every book my students will get credit for reading. So the way I deal with it is to say they won't get credit for it if I find out they're reading it against a parent's wishes. I wish I didn't have to worry so much about it, and I wish I didn't have to do a disclaimer before any book I recommend to a kid. I'm actually a lot more conservative than most parents, apparently, and I do the "CSI-test": I ask the kid if her parents let her watch CSI...virtually any book I recommend is not going to approach that level of graphic violence and adult themes.
All that said, of course I see part of my role as teaching morality and building character. We read because it makes us better people, and we write to share who we are with others. If I didn't think it was that vital, I wouldn't do it.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I posted a pretty complex explanation that took a lot of factors into account. Nor did I call schools a private forum.
It was pretty freakin' brilliant, not to mention exhaustive.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against
the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public
forum. Is this true?
I don't believe I am taking that position. As Dag noted, I
don't believe this is a public forum. More on this after the next quote.
quote:I don't disagree that there is a line somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to get
you to discuss. Whether, in this particular instance, the line was fairly drawn, should
have been drawn.
To answer your previous question, I think there are levels of
wrongness (or rightness). There are issues on which I have opinions, but where they are not
so strong as to say that nobody should have a different opinion from me. So, as I think I
have stated, no, the line wasn't fairly drawn here. A vagina is a body part, nothing more,
nothing less. The word is not vulgar.
However, I do not feel so strongly (arrogantly?) about it that I would condemn those
parents who would be outraged by this performance. We have to accommodate a broad range of
beliefs and philosophies, and it can't all be based on what sounds good to me. There
are things which I feel are wrong enough that I will condemn the parents for it. I don't see
this as inconsistency, but as evidence of other factors to consider.
One criteria for this is in the area of preventing us from fulfilling our mandate. Firing a
teacher for teaching kids the word "niggardly." Preventing the teaching of evolution. In the
case of evolution or "niggardly" morality is not an issue, and morality is one specific area
where we have to tread lightly. I think we (schools and teachers) get the right of way when
it comes to presenting facts, such as they are understood to be by the consensus of experts.
That is the case with evolution--those who are experts in science are virtually all in
agreement--and so evolution should be presented, with as much sensitivity and tolerance as
possible toward other views, as being nevertheless the consensus view of scientists.
"Niggardly" is a vocabulary word etymologically unrelated to "nigger"; its definition is not
in dispute, and my sympathy is entirely with the teacher and the school if parents find the
word objectionable because of what it sounds like. If you as a parent object to us carrying
out our mandate, I believe you need to find alternative arrangements for your child's
education rather than expecting us to accommodate you. "When to talk about vaginas," though,
is not really a matter of fact. (In an anatomy section of a science class, though, the
definition of "vagina" certainly would be.) Discussions of what should be considered
a vagina's "country" are not in that domain.
I believe we have a mandate to teach facts and skills. I believe teaching morality,
empowerment, or political viewpoints (as being right or wrong) lie outside of that mandate.
It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there.
The idea of, say, parents objecting to a mixed race production or team is more problematic
for me. I suppose I could say that legally in this country we have made integration a matter
"of fact" and so that lies within our domain. I'm not sure I buy that, though. In fact, I'm
fairly sure I don't. The simple answer is that I think that racism is "more wrong" than
retrograde sexual morality is, but I can't justify to you why I think it is in concrete
terms. (Maybe I'll come up with something if I think about this more.) However, my inability
to justify that belief of mine does not mean that belief is wrong.
-o-
If you want a more specific reaction to this event from me, I cannot begin to understand the
rationale behind banning the word "vagina" and not the entire performance. I think it would
have been more defensible to ban the performance outright.
quote:I don't understand why, if it's not about the parents, etc, we need to bring them
into the conversation.
I think it's entirely about the parents, so I'm not
sure what you mean. All of my posts in this thread have been to the effect that we
should not condemn the schools, because if they had done otherwise they would probably have
been in deep water with the parents.
quote:On the other hand, I do acknowledge that parents do have final say in how their
children are raised en loco parentis by the school, but that doesn't mean that the parents
are right in their decisions and that we can't decry their decisions as being
wrong.
See my previous comments in this post. You can be wrong, or you can be Wrong.
I don't think every decision ought to be a tug of war. I think there needs to be some leeway
where we give parents the benefit of the doubt even when we believe they are wrong.
Unfortunately, this generally means specifically giving conservative parents the
benefit of the doubt, because conservatives are generally the ones who want to keep the line
drawn where it has "always" been drawn, and liberals are the ones who want to move the line.
(When I saw "unfortunately," I don't mean that it's unfortunate because they are
conservative; I mean that it's unfortunate that it seems one-sided.) [/quote]
When I was speaking of a public forum, I was speaking strictly in a kind of literal sense--a forum open to the public. I have no idea what the legal definition is. I'm not suggesting that people should be able to wander in and out of the school. It's clear that while a school probably shouldn't be an open public forum, it is a forum owned by the public, or a public forum (space). Is that more clear?
While we could debate what a public forum is in general, out task here has been made easier in that we are talking about specific public space, a school. So, the question is what kind of public space should a school have in order to, as you put it, best fulfill its mandate?
To answer that question, we might also ask, given that it combines minors and adults, what is a school's mission? How much freedom does it need in order to fulfill this mission? How does this mission intersect with the rights of both the teachers and minors in the school?
These, to me, seem to be the principal questions.
I was reading your post on the function of schools and getting behind what you were saying regarding teaching only facts. It is clear that many sciences need the kind of advanced, comprehensive knowledge in those sciences that few parents can provide. So, if a community needs people to be able to do certain jobs that require these kinds of specialized facts, it is logical for a community to fund a school to teach these facts, and then leave the values stuff to the parents, which they are probably best qualified to teach.
To me, a school that just teaches facts and stays away from allowing anyone to present
their values using the school's facilities is a kind of fair that respects all parties concerned. It seems to me that, to be fair, this basically means no arts and no religion, but then we leave that up to the parents.
The problem that I see with your analysis is that you then turn around and say "It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there. " And then you kind of leave undefined what that means, or even why it's needed. So, the door is open to hosting or teaching values on campus. You acknowledge this.
I think that, even though there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with having an opinion, I think it's clear that if we strive to base our opinions on reason and not just blind prejudice, it is important to have some kind of rationale as to why we allow some values but not others.
If nothing else, because 'I said so' to the parents that want to use the school to promote their values are probably going to not be real happy with that explanation.
To answer the question of what values, it seems to me that this puts us back to answering what the madate of a school is. I think a case can be made that a school's mandate might be to produce good citizens for a country. Of course, having said this, we must acknowledge the rights of parents to raise their own children.
So, what might a good citizen ideal be like? To answer that, I think we should ask, citizen of what?
To be a citizen of America, to me, means living alongside many different peoples and ideas.
We like people to, as much as possible, make their own decisions in America, while at the same time being respectful of the rights of others. So, to be a good citizen in America seems to me means helping citizens to have good decision making skills and, in order to help them respect others, giving them the tools to live in a pluralistic society.
To me, the way that communities should teach kids, the mandate that schools should have, is how to be logical within the context of a pluralistic society like the one that kids will function in outside of school. Just like we have students learn to drive by (usually) starting them off in a parking lot with a teacher before they hit the interstate, I think schools can be used to help kids understand their own personal logic as they interact with other students, this interaction itself both reinforcing the children's rhetorical and interpersonal skills. Further, by interacting with the parents of a child and keeping them informed of what's going on in that child's life, the school can insure that the wishes of parents are respected. This is fair for everyone, since everyone's child who goes to the school has ability to use the school's facilities.
I believe your suggestion is an open door to bias and prejudice where some parents wishes will not be respected, where some parents wishes are put subordinate to the wishes of the school. Worse, if schools are muddled in what they will or won't allow, are simply going to do what they need to do to avoid offending some parents and some students, then the message is that some values in the community are better than others, some people in the community are better than others. And if that is so, why not racism, sexism, religiousism if that's what the community wants? What message does this send to the children?
I am not suggesting that the school be some free for all where anything goes. Students can learn in a chaotic, noisy environment. Teaches can't teach in one, so clearly there needs to be rules.
What I am saying is that I think that, at least in terms of the arts, schools should not pick and choose the content of those arts as doing so makes a value judgement on members of the community, which is not fair.
That said, it might not be fair for students and parents to be exposed to things that they did not wish to be exposed to. So, the compromise position should be either that when a school has mixed events like the one in the article, everyone does their thing at the same event, but they let everyone know ahead of time what's going to happen and give people who don't want to see the performance a chance to leave, or they have segregated events.
Rereading the article, it seems like the school gave the girls a chance to do their play at another time, but the girls did not want to do it at another time. At this point, I guess the criteria that can be used is majority. Since I'm getting from the article that there's was the only controversial bit, I guess they should have been the one to have their bit at a different time. Though, this does not sit well with me to say that.
In any case, I have come to the conclusion that I think the girls were in the wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
BTW, the reason I didn't name the type of forum the school literary night was is that I don't have time to figure it out. It might be a "limited public forum" (which is what the funding program our magazine got kicked out of at UVA was), but I'm pretty sure it wasn't. The other categorizations are fairly complex and the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. I gave the general sense of things that didn't depend on the exact categorization.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought viewers of this thread might find this article interesting. The SCOTUS is hearing a case involving high school free speech for the first time in 20 years. At issue is a student who hung a banner saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" from the school during a school-sponsored event in an attempt to make it onto television news. The banner was removed and the student was suspended for 10 days.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So maybe this is why all those figures in the Supreme Court friezes are wearing togas.
As Ken Starr told the nine justices yesterday why a student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner didn't qualify as free speech, the whole bunch of them sounded one toke over the line.
"So if the sign had been 'Bong Stinks for Jesus,' that would be . . . a protected right?" asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next-door neighbor, 'Bong hits for Jesus, heh, heh, heh'?" contributed Stephen Breyer.
"What if the sign said 'Bong Hits Should be Legal'?" queried John Paul Stevens.
Anthony Kennedy got really psychedelic. "Suppose the banner said 'Vote Republican'?"
The whole article is worth reading. The author is having fun, but you do get a sense of the weaknesses in both sides of the case.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dahlia Lithwick in Slate gives the oral arguments similar treatment. She, somewhat predictably, comes down on the side of the students. From her review, and the Post article, I couldn't find a single persuasive argument by anyone involved. The closest I came was with Scalia's statement that "Any school can suppress speech that advocates violation of the law."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's go back to the main subject in its simplest terms.
The administration APPROVED a performance of the Vagina Monologs, but forbid the use of the word 'Vagina'.
Doesn't anyone see a degree of irrationality in that?
What were they suppose to call it the 'hoo-hoo monolog'; the 'wee-wee monologs'? And excuse me, but isn't 'vagina' the correct medical term for that part of the body? I can think of several other words for that part of the body that certainly would have been considered inappropriate and they would certainly have had a right to ban. But 'vagina' is about as cold and clinical a term as you can possible get.
Also, this was not a general assembly, it was specifically '...an event sponsored by the literary magazine at John Jay High School'. It seems that the context of the event was clearly established.
It seems as if the administration, in my view, was engage in the arbitrary self-contradictory exercise of authority. That happens more often than you might believe in high school.
Rules only have meaning when they are rational and reasonable, when they become irrational and unreasonable, it is our duty to defy them on every front. Once we allow the irrational and unreasonable, especially by those with power, to stand unchallenged, we have given up the very heart of our freedom and liberty.
As to the teacher who was fired for taking kids to an art museum, what would you reasonably expect to see in an art museum? Once again, we have power exercised to the point of irrationality. Let's hope this particular class never travel to Europe where nude art work is displayed in public squares.
As far as I'm concerned, 'authority' loses it's authority when it exercises that authority in a manner that is irrational and unreasonable.
quote:The administration APPROVED a performance of the Vagina Monologs, but forbid the use of the word 'Vagina'.
Doesn't anyone see a degree of irrationality in that?
I'm pretty sure lots of people see that as irrational (or "stupid"). Many have commented on it here - even some who think the girls deserved to be punished.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As far as I'm concerned, 'authority' loses it's authority when it exercises that authority in a manner that is irrational and unreasonable.
There's a great story by...someone...about a doctor who needs to check a little girl's throat. The girl realizes it will hurt, and, quite rationally, defies the doctor's attempts to pull apart her jaws. Eventually the doctor manages to pry her mouth open, verify the diagnosis, and get her the necessary medication.
Not that this applies particularly to the "Vagina Monologues" discussion, but perceiving actions as irrational or unreasonable does not necessarily mean they are.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As far as I'm concerned, 'authority' loses it's authority when it exercises that authority in a manner that is irrational and unreasonable.
Not that this applies particularly to the "Vagina Monologues" discussion, but perceiving actions as irrational or unreasonable does not necessarily mean they are.
But sometimes it does.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The administration APPROVED a performance of the Vagina Monologs, but forbid the use of the word 'Vagina'.
Doesn't anyone see a degree of irrationality in that?
I'm pretty sure lots of people see that as irrational (or "stupid"). Many have commented on it here - even some who think the girls deserved to be punished.
Thank you. Yes, I think most if not all posters see the irrationality here, and have, in fact acknowledged that.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stormy Saxon: I was reading your post on the function of schools and getting behind what you were saying regarding teaching only facts. It is clear that many sciences need the kind of advanced, comprehensive knowledge in those sciences that few parents can provide. So, if a community needs people to be able to do certain jobs that require these kinds of specialized facts, it is logical for a community to fund a school to teach these facts, and then leave the values stuff to the parents, which they are probably best qualified to teach.
To me, a school that just teaches facts and stays away from allowing anyone to present
their values using the school's facilities is a kind of fair that respects all parties concerned. It seems to me that, to be fair, this basically means no arts and no religion, but then we leave that up to the parents.
The problem that I see with your analysis is that you then turn around and say "It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there. " And then you kind of leave undefined what that means, or even why it's needed. So, the door is open to hosting or teaching values on campus. You acknowledge this.
I think that, even though there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with having an opinion, I think it's clear that if we strive to base our opinions on reason and not just blind prejudice, it is important to have some kind of rationale as to why we allow some values but not others.
I am not unaware of the contradiction in my stance, and I agree with your assessment of it.
I don't know how to delineate a clear solution here, because the source of the problem isn't a lack of coherence or thought-through-ness on one ideal, it's conflicting ideals held by different people.
Parents have a right to teach their kids values. Many will argue that schools don't have such a right. Some parents do not however, teach values to their kids, or they teach values that we as a society reject nearly universally. (Some teach values that the majority rejects, but with nowhere near as much unanimity.) Most people think it's okay for schools to teach values, especially in the case of kids who do not get taught values, but most parents do not believe this description applies to them.
So what we end up doing, and I'm not arguing it's the right approach, is a kind of dance, where we do teach values, but only insofar as we seem to be able to agree on them as a society. Racism is bad. Stealing is bad. Being a "good citizen" is ideal. Prejudice is bad . . . but what's prejudice? Is disapproving of homosexuality prejudice? What about expressing that disapproval? What about believing that women are best suited to raise children and not have careers?
I think another issue is that it may be impossible to truly enact value-free education. I think all kinds of commissions and omissions will give away what our values are as a society or a system or an institution. Trying to be value-neutral is a positive statement on the value of neutrality.
quote:I believe your suggestion . . .
I am not sure which suggestion you're classifying as mine. My major point was one of sympathy for the school, that was likely to fall under fire regardless of its actions. I don't believe I have elaborated a coherent policy for avoiding this, because I don't think I can think of one.
Mostly I've just rambled. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There's a great story by...someone...about a doctor who needs to check a little girl's throat. The girl realizes it will hurt, and, quite rationally, defies the doctor's attempts to pull apart her jaws. Eventually the doctor manages to pry her mouth open, verify the diagnosis, and get her the necessary medication.
Not that this applies particularly to the "Vagina Monologues" discussion, but perceiving actions as irrational or unreasonable does not necessarily mean they are.
This is likely The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams. It ends up being more about how reason is used as a cover for force based on more hindbrain drives than any paean to rationality:
quote:But the worst of it was that I too had got beyond reason. I could have torn the child apart in my own fury and enjoyed it. It was a pleasure to attack her. My face was burning with it.
The damned little brat must be protected against her own idiocy, one says to one's self at such times. Others must be protected against her. It is a social necessity. And all these things are true. But a blind fury, a feeling of adult shame, bred of a longing for muscular release are the operatives. One goes on to the end.
quote:Originally posted by Stormy Saxon: I was reading your post on the function of schools and getting behind what you were saying regarding teaching only facts. It is clear that many sciences need the kind of advanced, comprehensive knowledge in those sciences that few parents can provide. So, if a community needs people to be able to do certain jobs that require these kinds of specialized facts, it is logical for a community to fund a school to teach these facts, and then leave the values stuff to the parents, which they are probably best qualified to teach.
To me, a school that just teaches facts and stays away from allowing anyone to present
their values using the school's facilities is a kind of fair that respects all parties concerned. It seems to me that, to be fair, this basically means no arts and no religion, but then we leave that up to the parents.
The problem that I see with your analysis is that you then turn around and say "It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there. " And then you kind of leave undefined what that means, or even why it's needed. So, the door is open to hosting or teaching values on campus. You acknowledge this.
I think that, even though there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with having an opinion, I think it's clear that if we strive to base our opinions on reason and not just blind prejudice, it is important to have some kind of rationale as to why we allow some values but not others.
I am not unaware of the contradiction in my stance, and I agree with your assessment of it.
I don't know how to delineate a clear solution here, because the source of the problem isn't a lack of coherence or thought-through-ness on one ideal, it's conflicting ideals held by different people.
Parents have a right to teach their kids values. Many will argue that schools don't have such a right. Some parents do not however, teach values to their kids, or they teach values that we as a society reject nearly universally. (Some teach values that the majority rejects, but with nowhere near as much unanimity.) Most people think it's okay for schools to teach values, especially in the case of kids who do not get taught values, but most parents do not believe this description applies to them.
So what we end up doing, and I'm not arguing it's the right approach, is a kind of dance, where we do teach values, but only insofar as we seem to be able to agree on them as a society. Racism is bad. Stealing is bad. Being a "good citizen" is ideal. Prejudice is bad . . . but what's prejudice? Is disapproving of homosexuality prejudice? What about expressing that disapproval? What about believing that women are best suited to raise children and not have careers?
I think another issue is that it may be impossible to truly enact value-free education. I think all kinds of commissions and omissions will give away what our values are as a society or a system or an institution. Trying to be value-neutral is a positive statement on the value of neutrality.
quote:I believe your suggestion . . .
I am not sure which suggestion you're classifying as mine. My major point was one of sympathy for the school, that was likely to fall under fire regardless of its actions. I don't believe I have elaborated a coherent policy for avoiding this, because I don't think I can think of one.
Mostly I've just rambled.
I understand. That bit you quoted does come off as unnecessarily harsh. I was more trying to elaborate on why I needed to elaborate than why I thought your lack of elaboration was 'wrong', if that makes any sense.
Real quick, the 'solution' that I made in this case is just one of several. It's probably not even the one I favor. I think I lean towards either A) some kind of system wherein people with similiar values are provided the opportunity to send their kids to the same school or B)some kind of community that is 'advanced' enough that the naked hippy kids can mix with the religiously conservative kids in a school and each can learn from the other. Take that as you will.
Thanks for your response, Mr. Icarus. Think we've about beat this particular horse to death?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: This is likely The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams. It ends up being more about how reason is used as a cover for force based on more hindbrain drives than any paean to rationality:
Thanks, CT. That's absolutely right. I thought about mentioning the actual moral, but felt it obscured the point I was trying to make. After reading the snippet you posted, it seems like the example of the story was even less valid (toward establishing my point) than I remembered.
I just bristle at the idea that the only laws worth following are the ones for which we understand the reason. Often there are consequences to actions that are evident to those engaged in making rules, but not evident to all those asked to follow the rules.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do I keep thinking about the conference scene in High Anxiety when I read through this thread?
How times have changed, it seems... Twenty years ago we studied Catcher in the Rye in a Jesuit high school, and even discussed the profanity in it during class (although, I must admit, the teacher did an amazing job of preventing herself from repeating the profanity out loud). These days, that teacher would be burned at the stake for doing that.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
We read because it makes us better people, and we write to share who we are with others. If I didn't think it was that vital, I wouldn't do it.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
