On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:37:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> In article <4a84b31f@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:29:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>
>>> I myself wouldn't really, in this context, distinguish private from
>>> public, though.
>>
>> The private/public distinction is an important one.  In a private
>> Catholic school, such behaviour might be encouraged, and people
>> bringing in fliers promoting Judaism would probably be a bad idea - not
>> from an educational standpoint, but from a religious standpoint.  As a
>> religious institution, a Catholic school should have the right to
>> dictate (within certain limits, perhaps) what is and isn't appropriate.
> 
> You're talking about policy. I shifted to education.

If you're going to shift, you should use an indicator (ie, turn 
signal). ;-)

> Surely, Catholic schools people are humans too. The distinction here is
> important in this context. I see no problem with them having a class
> about Jesus' values in between mathematics and physics. It's their
> lives.

Sure, but again, as a private institution, they can make their own rules, 
as long as they don't violate the law or basic human rights.

> Now, surely they can veto a Jew flier or whatever. It would be silly of
> me to oppose such a formal rule, because in fact they don't need a
> formal rule to veto that.

You might be surprised (as might I, I don't have any data on this 
hypothetical).

>> Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to
>> get into the middle of.  If parents are "oppressing" (do you really
>> know what oppression is?  Because while many teenagers *think* they're
>> oppressed, they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them,
>> then it's time for the family court to get involved, not for nosy
>> neighbors to get involved.
> 
> That's a good question. What's oppression? I don't think I can give you
> a formula in the world, even because the world has no easy grammar, if
> any. I look at oppresion as a pattern of actions that deny one's
> humanity[*], in any age.

Dictionary definition time:

"the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust 
manner."

That's a matter of judgment, of course, because "unjust" is in the eye of 
the beholder, but I'd wager that the truly oppressed in the world are 
those like the Tamil Tigers, not my stepsons buddy who lives on the other 
side of town whose parents won't let him stay out after 10 PM.

> Some people seem to be raised to be a soldier, or a religious leader, or
> follower. I think that's clear oppression. These are pretty easy, I
> think. There are difficult ones. Some people are raised to be thinkers,
> others to be stupid, others to be drunk, et cetera. I consider all of
> these cases of oppression as well. Of course, now it is times for me to
> present the facts on that. This wouldn't be easy on a newsgroup. The
> material I have seen are condensed in hundreds-of-pages books, and even
> then they fail the rigor of physics, chemistry, and even medicine ---
> not to mention mathematics.

You're not using any traditional definition of "oppression", then.

> But anyway, there are these weaker forms of oppression which tend to be
> so overlooked; specially in schools. What's that song by Rush?
> Subdivisions.
> 
> In the high school halls
> In the shopping malls
> Conform or be cast out
> 
> In the basement bars
> In the backs of cars
> Be cool or be cast out

I don't disagree that weaker forms of oppression tend to be overlooked, 
but it's important as well to not overstate something.  ZT (ie, Zero 
Tolerance) policies are oppressive because they require those in 
authority to stop thinking and apply rules blindly, regardless of whether 
it makes sense to do so or not.  "Sense" isn't part of that equation.

> [*] I don't think anybody knows what are the fundamental properties of
> ``human nature.''

All of them?  Probably not.  Some of them, you betcha there are some who 
do.  There are people who study this for a lifetime.

>> Sure, but that's not "oppression" - that's abuse.  And there are
>> specific laws in the US that cover what must be done when abuse is
>> suspected, especially by teachers and people in a position of
>> authority.
> 
> I think my definition up there would cover abuse.

Then don't sugarcoat it as "oppression", which is a pretty flimsy word in 
this instance.  Call it what it is.  If a kid is being physically beaten 
by their parents, it's not "oppression", it's *abuse*.

Call the cops and report it as oppression and they may not take it as 
seriously as they should.  Call it "abuse", though, and that triggers a 
very specific set of rules they need to follow.  Law is like that - very 
precise.

I had a conversation with our local community liason from the Salt Lake 
City Police Department a couple months ago about a problem with a house 
in the neighborhood having loud parties at random times during the week/
month, and he advised me that when I call in, I should specify (assuming 
that I've seen it) that there are more than 3 people, that there is 
alcohol, and that there is loud noise.  Why?  Because that triggers a 
specific police response:  They send out their summer "party car" which 
in SLC can cause (a) the owner to be arrested if circumstances are right 
(ie the cops get called out more than 'x' times in 'y' period of time - I 
forget the exact specifics), and (b) the property owner can be billed for 
the police officer's time as "event crowd control" or somesuch.  If those 
three elements aren't specified, then the cops might drive by and tell 
the partygoers to keep the noise down, but that's about it, and the 
result is the party might break up for a little bit (people tend to 
disperse when the cops show up), and then 30 minutes after the cops 
leave, the party comes back, the music gets turned up, and things haven't 
changed.

But slap a bill on it for the police department's time and potentially a 
night's stay in a holding cell, people will change their behaviour if 
they're smart.

>>>>> Now I want to question the framework of the discussion. Why is a
>>>>> (six year old?) kid interested in Jesus? Suppose you find an answer
>>>>> here by talking to his family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why
>>>>> I don't allow adults doing propaganda in my school. Home is just
>>>>> another school; only more important.
>>>>
>>>> Where he got his interest is irrelevant.  We all learn from our
>>>> families and our friends.  So what?  The reason the kid is exercising
>>>> his free speech is not important.  He should be allowed to do so, as
>>>> long as he's not disruptive or inciting people to harm others.
>>> 
>>> The paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with free speech, actually. I
>>> changed the subject. ``Now I want to question the framework...'' This
>>> sometimes falls outside the scope.
>>
>> Perhaps, but as I said, the reason for his interest isn't really
>> relevant.  It's an interest of his, for whatever reason.  You tied it
>> back to free speech by at least implying that the right to exercise
>> free speech shouldn't be allowed if it's done by proxy.  I don't think
>> that matters.
> 
> I don't think I implied that. But if my words did, I would fix them. I
> can't think of any speech, regardless of context, that should be
> prohibited.

I inferred it from "Suppose you find an answer here by talking to his 
family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why I don't allow adults doing 
propaganda in my school." - I don't see how that isn't saying something 
about the kid being a proxy for the adult....

> By not allowing adults doing propaganda in my school, it's not that I
> forbid the adult's speech. I think he can do that on the streets, in the
> public buses where the kids go to go school, et cetera. In fact, if
> there are people doing that, I'd say great: here's a real world case to
> be discussed. But I'm not sure kids would be interested. They might just
> wish to play.

Very likely, but a school is public property, and as such, first 
amendment rights should (IMHO) be protected there, regardless of whether 
we agree with the ideas of people engaging in free speech or not.  As 
long as they don't incite or disrupt, there should be no problem.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> 	"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
> mutually exclusive.

Indeed this is what most good lawyers are paid to do - present the facts 
and persuade a judge or jury that the defendant is innocent or guilty.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:18:16 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> or is swearing in a school free speech? If not, why not?

It depends on the venue.  On the playground, probably not.  Swearing at a 
teacher, though, might be disruptive to the class, so would be 
disallowed.  Schools are one venue where kids should be taught the 
community standards and norms of social interaction, and while swearing 
now is more common than when I was a kid, it's still not considered very 
socially acceptable (one just has to look at most business' rules of 
conduct to see that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:56:22 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 14-8-2009 2:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>> Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?
>> 
>> There really is no reason to bring your private life into the
>> classroom, and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer
>> dollars, than it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen
>> in the US.
> 
> Eeek. This feels like an roundabout way of saying yes.

Perhaps, but my teachers' private life (regardless of if it's sexual 
orientation or where they went to dinner the previous night) are not part 
of the lesson plan or the reason why the students are there.

For the same reason, it's not appropriate to ask coworkers in a workplace 
about deeply personal medical matters (for example) or to disclose 
details of medical procedures you've undergone to coworkers - most 
workplaces that I've worked at in the US have rules about this sort of 
thing.

I have a coworker whom I've gotten to know quite well over the past few 
years (after the death of her grandson in a car accident a few years 
ago), and we leave those conversations for when we go out to have lunch 
together, about twice a month.  That way we don't risk causing problems 
for others we work with who perhaps don't want to know (or might be 
distracted by) the details of our personal lives.  Details like that can 
cause people to not work well together, just as in a classroom where a 
teacher disclosing their sexual orientation may distract students from 
the activity of learning.  Then the students go home and say "my teacher 
is gay!", causing the parents to further disrupt the activity of teaching.

>> It's like deciding to take a job at a place that serves pork ribs and
>> then refusing to work because the kitchen doesn't meet Halal standards.
>> You can't take a job where you are likely to run into a conflict like
>> that and then claim that the job discriminates because you're "forced"
>> to cook pork.
> 
> I don't think this is a relevant comparison. Unless there is a don't ask
> don't tell rule in public schools. Which I would find shocking.

There isn't generally a "don't ask/don't tell" rule that I'm aware of, 
but it is a generally accepted code of conduct that personal stuff 
doesn't really belong in a business setting (unless it's relevant to the 
business, and in school, it'd be hard to make a case for what a teacher 
gets up to outside the classroom being related to class, unless it's a 
personal experience that ties directly into the lesson).  Taking that as 
a generally accepted practice, the comparison is valid, I think, because 
going against a generally accepted practice that's for the benefit of 
keeping students focused on the material in the class is an important 
part of the learning process.

I guess to put it more simply:  Learning is about the *student*, not 
about the *teacher*.  So if the teacher is focusing attention on 
themselves rather than on the students' education, then the teacher isn't 
doing their job, which is to *teach* about the subject or subjects they 
were hired to teach.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:14:52 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in
> school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every
> year, and we liked it!
> 
> But it was a mostly secular view of the holiday season, elves, Santa
> Claus, trees and bells and such. All of the typical symbols of the
> season.
> 
> It was all very harmless, or so it seemed.

I concur.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 18:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> 	"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
>> mutually exclusive.
>
> Indeed this is what most good lawyers are paid to do - present the facts

	Good lawyer? Surely you blaspheme.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:38:20 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/14/09 18:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:01:57 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> 	"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
>>> mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Indeed this is what most good lawyers are paid to do - present the
>> facts
> 
> 	Good lawyer? Surely you blaspheme.

LOL, yeah, I know it's a common belief that that's an oxymoron, but I 
know a few who actually know what they're doing and do a good job.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15-8-2009 1:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:56:22 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 14-8-2009 2:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>> Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?
>>> There really is no reason to bring your private life into the
>>> classroom, and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer
>>> dollars, than it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen
>>> in the US.
>> Eeek. This feels like an roundabout way of saying yes.
> 
> Perhaps, but my teachers' private life (regardless of if it's sexual 
> orientation or where they went to dinner the previous night) are not part 
> of the lesson plan or the reason why the students are there.
> 
> For the same reason, it's not appropriate to ask coworkers in a workplace 
> about deeply personal medical matters (for example) or to disclose 
> details of medical procedures you've undergone to coworkers - most 
> workplaces that I've worked at in the US have rules about this sort of 
> thing.

I understand your point. I was actually thinking more about how to act 
if a student asks. At a certain age (4-8?) they will bluntly do so and I 
can imagine that later on they may too. I can also imagine that it comes 
  by in passing.
Starting middle of September I'll be teaching digital technology in the 
first year of the University of Applied Science in Amsterdam. I'll be 
watching myself on this point. That course incidentally is for a part 
about the 7400 series, the course our mascot didn't take ;)

I do know what kind of relation most of my coworkers have, I know many 
of the spouses and we do have a fine selection of gays. For some I know 
a bit of their medical history and in one case I was even present during 
an ECG test of a coworker (her boyfriend couldn't come and she wanted 
someone to go with her. I was a likely victim because we had a good 
relation and I know a bit about ECGs). Perhaps things are a little 
different in the Netherlands/science (choose your own most important 
factor).

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:38:29 +0200, andrel wrote:

> I understand your point. I was actually thinking more about how to act
> if a student asks. 

Go from something specific (about the teacher) to something generic 
(about people), or, depending on the age group, tell them that that's 
something they should talk to their parents about.

> At a certain age (4-8?) they will bluntly do so and I
> can imagine that later on they may too. I can also imagine that it comes
>   by in passing.

Sure, but the mark of a good teacher is that they know when it's 
appropriate to express an opinion about something and when it's not.  
Schools are there for two reasons:  To teach kids how to think, and to 
transfer factual information to them.  Well, and a third would be to 
foster social development, too, by giving them an environment to interact 
in.

> Starting middle of September I'll be teaching digital technology in the
> first year of the University of Applied Science in Amsterdam. I'll be
> watching myself on this point. That course incidentally is for a part
> about the 7400 series, the course our mascot didn't take ;)
> 
> I do know what kind of relation most of my coworkers have, I know many
> of the spouses and we do have a fine selection of gays. For some I know
> a bit of their medical history and in one case I was even present during
> an ECG test of a coworker (her boyfriend couldn't come and she wanted
> someone to go with her. I was a likely victim because we had a good
> relation and I know a bit about ECGs). Perhaps things are a little
> different in the Netherlands/science (choose your own most important
> factor).

It is perhaps different both in the Netherlands and in that field; there 
is a huge cultural aspect as well, so what applies in the US may not 
apply (and probably doesn't) in the Netherlands.  From a vocation 
standpoint, people in a scientific vocation I think tend to be more 
socially liberal, so within the confines of that field, sure, it might be 
more "open" because there's generally a greater level of acceptance.  But 
when talking about school-age children, we're talking about an entirely 
different set of circumstances.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I agree *as long as* this applies to all religions, and not just one 
> "special" group of religions.

I've always thought a good test would be to replace "god" with "satan". Are 
people still going to say it's not about religion if people start putting 
"In Satan We Trust" on government buildings? Handing out "Praise Satan" 
flyers in class?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message