Context
I'm still reading What Would Google Do? In the section on Google U, Jarvis posits that most useful education is self-motivated and self-directing, so the current educational model of coming to a specific classroom and learning what the teacher tells you is hopelessly outdated. He allows that our schools may have a socialization function as well as an educational one, but he thinks there are plenty of other communities and experiences that could fulfill the same role.
Commentary
OK, now Jarvis has wandered into my field, so I'm bound to get touchy. Actually, I don't want to talk about education per se; I want to dive into that "socialization" thing. It seems to me that when Jarvis looks at it, he thinks of socialization as the process of helping a student find a community, literally giving them a social life in some respect.
However, that's not entirely what we expect out of schooling, especially public schooling, in this country. We don't just want students to find some community to belong to, we want them to specifically belong to the American community. The most obvious example of our attempts to create Americans is the civics class, but there are others. Take science labs. Performing experiments in school tells our kids that they shouldn't just take someone's word for something. Or gym class, where 8-year-olds learn some of the same lessons about discipline and teamwork they would if they attended military boot camp.
In fact, the biggest battles we fight over education in this country are about what "America" is. Are we a Christian people who should be taught about God in the classroom? Are we an egalitarian people who believe everyone should learn together, regardless of skills or background? Is free speech or good discipline a more important characteristic of Americans? General school board meetings are fun, but if you really want to get a lesson in civics, find a way to get yourself on a curriculum or textbook choosing committee. Then you'll really learn what this country is all about, at least in your neighbors' eyes.
Does it make you uncomfortable when I talk about school as indoctrination? That is, in and of itself, an American thing. We pride ourselves on being free, independent, self-deterministic types. And, to be fair, the fact that we debate the issues mentioned above on a regular basis, rather than being dictated to by a small group of people or a time-honored tradition, speaks to how free we are. And also to why debate techniques are frequently taught in American schools.
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
4/08/2011
10/23/2009
I saw an article about football fans
Context
The Washington Redskins are not having a good season. They're in no danger of breaking the Detroit Lions' futility record, but as I read in this article today, their fans are unhappy. The article refers to a fan briefly holding up a sign saying "Black Sunday," which refers to this Bruce Dern movie, until security personnel took it away.
Commentary
Ah yes, time for another football post! Eight previous ones right here, so enjoy! In this case, though, I don't want to talk about sports. I want to talk about the right to be offensive. My husband read the part of the Redskins article to me about the Black Sunday poster and we both agreed that it's pretty darn tacky to invoke a terrorist attack just because your team's 2-4. On the other hand, we both enjoy some forms of offensive humor (we often think South Park is a stitch and a half, for example), and as comic book readers we often know that what we consider highly creative is considered irredeemable trash by others.
So is it just a matter of taste, or do some people have more of a right to be offensive than others? I don't mean a legal right, but rather an ethical entitlement, someone I'm less likely to accuse of crossing a line of decency, even if I disagree with her/him. In discussing this over dinner, my husband and I came up with three factors that contribute to our acceptance of outrageous speech or behavior:
1) Artistic license. Although this occasionally drives conservatives up the wall, art is expected to be "out there." It's hard to consider a work creative if it follows convention, and unconventional can sometimes shade over into offensive. "Black Sunday" gets some points for creatively expressing just how bad she thought her team was.
2) Putting your name on it. Anonymity when being offensive makes it seem less like you're making a cogent social statement and more like you're surreptitiously tossing spitballs from the back of the classroom. Our Redskins fan falls about in the middle on this one. She didn't put a bag on her head at the stadium, but neither did she hold up a sign that said "I'm Mary Smith and this is what I believe." A Robert Mapplethorpe photograph says "Robert Mapplethorpe" right on it, so you know who to complain to. Or about, since he died 20 years ago.
3) The social contract. If I go to a Lenny Bruce concert and get offended by the cuss words, I'm not really keeping up my end of the bargain. After all, Bruce himself said he wasn't there to get laughs. This is where the lady at the Redskins' game's justification falls completely apart. NFL football is, as they say, "sports entertainment." Invoking terrorism in a place where people generally go to forget the troubles of the real world is not only offensive, it's also kind of mean.
What did you see today?
The Washington Redskins are not having a good season. They're in no danger of breaking the Detroit Lions' futility record, but as I read in this article today, their fans are unhappy. The article refers to a fan briefly holding up a sign saying "Black Sunday," which refers to this Bruce Dern movie, until security personnel took it away.
Commentary
Ah yes, time for another football post! Eight previous ones right here, so enjoy! In this case, though, I don't want to talk about sports. I want to talk about the right to be offensive. My husband read the part of the Redskins article to me about the Black Sunday poster and we both agreed that it's pretty darn tacky to invoke a terrorist attack just because your team's 2-4. On the other hand, we both enjoy some forms of offensive humor (we often think South Park is a stitch and a half, for example), and as comic book readers we often know that what we consider highly creative is considered irredeemable trash by others.
So is it just a matter of taste, or do some people have more of a right to be offensive than others? I don't mean a legal right, but rather an ethical entitlement, someone I'm less likely to accuse of crossing a line of decency, even if I disagree with her/him. In discussing this over dinner, my husband and I came up with three factors that contribute to our acceptance of outrageous speech or behavior:
1) Artistic license. Although this occasionally drives conservatives up the wall, art is expected to be "out there." It's hard to consider a work creative if it follows convention, and unconventional can sometimes shade over into offensive. "Black Sunday" gets some points for creatively expressing just how bad she thought her team was.
2) Putting your name on it. Anonymity when being offensive makes it seem less like you're making a cogent social statement and more like you're surreptitiously tossing spitballs from the back of the classroom. Our Redskins fan falls about in the middle on this one. She didn't put a bag on her head at the stadium, but neither did she hold up a sign that said "I'm Mary Smith and this is what I believe." A Robert Mapplethorpe photograph says "Robert Mapplethorpe" right on it, so you know who to complain to. Or about, since he died 20 years ago.
3) The social contract. If I go to a Lenny Bruce concert and get offended by the cuss words, I'm not really keeping up my end of the bargain. After all, Bruce himself said he wasn't there to get laughs. This is where the lady at the Redskins' game's justification falls completely apart. NFL football is, as they say, "sports entertainment." Invoking terrorism in a place where people generally go to forget the troubles of the real world is not only offensive, it's also kind of mean.
What did you see today?
5/10/2006
I saw a book about political correctness
Context
Michael Smerconish, a talk-radio host in the Philadelphia area, has written a book titled Muzzled. Shreve Memorial Library owns this book, but it hasn’t been cataloged yet. I read the inside cover and some of the introduction and it appears to be about how “political correctness” is keeping us from expressing important truths. I plan to take a look at the rest of the book when it’s available for check out. I won’t commit to actually reading it, because I’m very picky about what I read.
Commentary
I understand some anti-political correctness sentiment. For example, I don’t think “we might get sued” is a good basis for decision-making. “We might get sued and lose, because what we’re contemplating is illegal” is fine, but frankly, anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s like deciding to not do something because “someone might get angry.” OK, but would they be justified in getting angry? There’s no percentage in indulging crybabies; they can get mad no matter what you do.
Also, I tend to favor equality of opportunity, not equality. I think some people do things better than others. Dolly Parton once said something to the effect of, “I couldn’t jump around like a ballerina. I’d black both my eyes!” There’s nothing wrong with keeping Dolly Parton out of the Metropolitan Ballet. She has other gifts.
On the other hand, I’m often leery of the term “political correctness.” Practices that are labeled as such are often those I was taught to call “niceness,” “sensitivity,” and “convincing the neighbors you were not reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia.” No offense intended to those of you who *were* reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia ;-). The First Amendment says, “you can express yourself, worship, and assemble any way you want.” Good breeding says you shouldn’t even want to insult, belittle or exclude people unnecessarily. So if you’re saying, “I don’t want to have be politically correct,” but you really mean, “I want free license to be rude,” I have no sympathy for you.
For this reason, I’m curious about the use of the title “Muzzled” for this book, rather than “Gagged” or “Silenced.” When my dog is at her vet’s office, she only gets muzzled after she’s raised her lip a time or two and proved she’s not fit for polite company. Is our society being muzzled for the same reason? Have we decided to legislate good manners because no one can practice self-control? If so, I’m pretty sure it’s not working. Have you ever listened to talk radio?
What did you see today?
Michael Smerconish, a talk-radio host in the Philadelphia area, has written a book titled Muzzled. Shreve Memorial Library owns this book, but it hasn’t been cataloged yet. I read the inside cover and some of the introduction and it appears to be about how “political correctness” is keeping us from expressing important truths. I plan to take a look at the rest of the book when it’s available for check out. I won’t commit to actually reading it, because I’m very picky about what I read.
Commentary
I understand some anti-political correctness sentiment. For example, I don’t think “we might get sued” is a good basis for decision-making. “We might get sued and lose, because what we’re contemplating is illegal” is fine, but frankly, anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s like deciding to not do something because “someone might get angry.” OK, but would they be justified in getting angry? There’s no percentage in indulging crybabies; they can get mad no matter what you do.
Also, I tend to favor equality of opportunity, not equality. I think some people do things better than others. Dolly Parton once said something to the effect of, “I couldn’t jump around like a ballerina. I’d black both my eyes!” There’s nothing wrong with keeping Dolly Parton out of the Metropolitan Ballet. She has other gifts.
On the other hand, I’m often leery of the term “political correctness.” Practices that are labeled as such are often those I was taught to call “niceness,” “sensitivity,” and “convincing the neighbors you were not reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia.” No offense intended to those of you who *were* reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia ;-). The First Amendment says, “you can express yourself, worship, and assemble any way you want.” Good breeding says you shouldn’t even want to insult, belittle or exclude people unnecessarily. So if you’re saying, “I don’t want to have be politically correct,” but you really mean, “I want free license to be rude,” I have no sympathy for you.
For this reason, I’m curious about the use of the title “Muzzled” for this book, rather than “Gagged” or “Silenced.” When my dog is at her vet’s office, she only gets muzzled after she’s raised her lip a time or two and proved she’s not fit for polite company. Is our society being muzzled for the same reason? Have we decided to legislate good manners because no one can practice self-control? If so, I’m pretty sure it’s not working. Have you ever listened to talk radio?
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)