 |
| About Me |
|
![]()
Name: Val
Home: Rochester, NY, United States
About Me:
See my complete profile
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Links |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Friday, February 12, 2010 |
| Free Speech...Not for Students? |
How far does the authority of school administrators extend beyond the school building? Far enough to cyberstalk students and punish them for what they publish to the internet in their spare time?Apparently the superintendent of the Syracuse school district thinks so. Earlier this year a group of students were punished not only for creating a group that pokes fun a teacher, but all of the students who joined the group were punished as well. This situation inadvertantly brings to life an issue of how far schol authority reaches. Faculty member were assigned to moniter the facebook activity of the students. This generated a controverity over whether or not the administration overstepped their bounds.
Students will be students. They will make fun of teachers, and every single one of the has at least one teacher that they will hate. If a student dirupts the class room or make fun of said teacher on school property the administration is within every right of the administration to take action. The school has no jurisdiction on the internet, when it is being used at home. It was a violation of the student's right to free speech and moreover their privacy.
In their defense the schoolboard claims that the group ccalled the teacher "evil" and features other sorts of written defamation. This is utterly ridiculous who hasn't called a teacher evil. It was said in jest, and if we are to assume that other posts were made in the same vain than this group was uttely harmless. Even if the group was less than harmless, than steps could have been taken to get the group taken down, and the student should have gotten a warning, as opposed to detention. Especially for those who were merely members of the group and did not engae in the creation of the group or psting of malicious material. This was an overreaction of the part of the school and the district and and they went too far in their attempts to quell "disruption" among the student body. |
posted by Val @ 9:47 AM  |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, February 10, 2010 |
| Democracy is Not For Everyone |
Tom Tancredo spoke at a recent Tea Party promoting the return of literacy tests to filter who can vote in major elections. According to Tancredo "people who cannot spell the word vote, or say it in English," should not be allowed to vote and that the are responsible for "putting a committed socialist ideologue in the white house." These statements were met with applause and cheers from those in attendance. Literacy tests, the same institutions that prevented African-Americans from voting in southern states, and propagated racism, brought back? The ridiculously hard test that was given only to African-Americans or Native Americans? Everyone is guaranteed their right to vote under the umbrella of democracy, and what Mr. Tancredo suggests would strip many citizens of their basic rights. One does not need to know how to read to form opinions. Having a firm grasp of the English language, while probably an advantage, is not necessary to elect officials. If someone cares enough to perform their civic duty to vote then they, then they shouldn't have go through hoops to do it. If Tancredo, is going to suggest literacy tests, why not go all the why? Bring back the poll tax. Make people pay for their rights, and preserve the "Judeo-Christian ideals" of this country, and prevent the poor from voting as well. Maybe bring back Jim Crow laws and just put America on the backward path to racism and segregation the Tancredo is aiming for.
Democracy is for all citizens, regardless of race, gender, econmic situation, or the ability to read and speak the english language. |
| posted by Val @ 9:19 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 |
| The Desire to Conform |
Everyone deep down has the desire to conform to something. Whether it be to the norm as to better fit in and blend with the rest of society, or the desire to conform to whatever their respective idea of "different" is. There is no great dichotomy between conformity and non-conformity. They are the same in that they are generated by an individual's desire to fit into a certain societal niche.
One is not evil where the other is good. They are each integral pieces of human nature. There is nothing wrong with the desire to fit in or go with the flow, it is when this desire interrupts basic human compassion when it becomes an evil. It is easier to go with the flow than to think individually about object facts and form person opinions on a topic. However,whether or not someone would lay aside their compassion and watch something horrible, such as the holocaust and turn their head in apathy is largely dependent on the individual. Although a lot of people simply followed the herd, some were able to to break from the pack. This does not speak in general about non-conformity as a whole. It can do just as much evil as good, and free thinkers can destroy as well as lead the world.
One shouldn't worry to much about non conformity. If you like a expensive designer purse (and you have enough money) buy it. If you want to listen to the Jonas brothers, go right ahead. If you don't that's fine too. Don't shower dislike on something because your following the herd. Don't buy an indie dress because its indie. Do what you like, ignore what you don't. The point is to happy. If you like who you are and you do do what you enjoy, you'll be be happy.
For your entertainment. |
| posted by Val @ 9:49 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, February 4, 2010 |
| The R-Word? Really? |
| Words only matter if you let them. Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes people are honestly offensive. The trick is to use judgment when dealing with these situations. When Sarah Palin tried to get the White House Chief of Staff fired for using the phrase "f-cking retarded," she didn't use proper judgment. The term retarded has become part of popular vernacular. Conversely, it has faded out of use in actually describing the developmentally disabled. In the context that Rahm used the phrase he was describing his democratic compatriots. Not only did Sarah Palin not take this into account, she did not take in to account his apology, or her untimely response to the situation. Nor did she consider her own folly in her "retarded baby campaign" in which she exploited her own grandson. That is exponentially worse that than Rahms' words. His words were not used to compare something to being developmentally disabled but to the current popular use into which the word has evolved. The whole occurrences was really not a bid deal. A man said some word, he apologized, he went away. End of story. |
| posted by Val @ 10:26 AM |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
