 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition.
Actually, I think you'll find it was Saturnalia before Christmas, and Yule
before that. That said, I agree that calling it something other than
"Christmas Vacation" in the USA at least is kind of pointless.
On the other hand, I can see where calling a woman a "broad" or a "dame" or
some other such derogatory name could offend, so I can see where calling the
holiday "Christmas" even when speaking to Pagans could perhaps offend.
> Why shouldn't this work in reverse? Why should anyone have the right to
> come here and start complaining about some festivity or its naming?
Well, "here" in the USA we have lots of religions that aren't Christian. If
it offends them to imply that Christians are the only ones that celebrate
the winter solstice I can certainly avoid offense in circumstances where I
know not everyone is Christian. (If you're atheist, being offended by the
holiday being called Christmas would seem to me to be rather silly, mind.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:04:25 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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?
That does seem like a good test, at least to root out those who say it's
about "freedom of religion" but who really mean it's about "freedom of
THEIR religion".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that attempts to "convert" someone to your religion
> does not fall under protected speech, and further, it infringes on
> others rights of freedom of religion.
That's like saying I political canvassing doesn't fall under free speech.
Of course they have the right to talk to you, just as you have the right
to ignore them.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
