Slashdot Mirror
Science Fair Exhibits: Fair Game For Censorship
Jake_Man writes: "A rather intelligent young lady had her science fair project regarding racial preferences amongst adults and children yanked after being on display for an hour. Not only is this building tremendous confidence and self esteem in a young lady interested in the scientific field, it's just more of the "if we don't talk about it, it'll go away" mentality to which our nation's school children are subjected everyday. What a great way to help children learn to think for themselves ..."
Shouldn't background and the past taken into account as well? Hypothetical example: person A was put down all their live, whenever they picked up a book, drunken mom said "put that down, it's for geeks". Person B had supportive parents who encouraged her couriosity and paid for her private schooling. Both apply for a job, and perform equally well on all tests administered. Who deserves the job?
--
I'd say that given the level of attention it got and the amount of discomfort it caused, her science project was a complete success. Indeed, I doubt she had imagined that it would be nearly as successful as it was.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
You are underestimating your conformity. Do you drive on the right side of the road? Why? Do you spit in people's faces? Why not? Do you wear clothes at work? At home? In the pool? Do you watch any television? If so, do you laugh at any of the same things as the laugh track? Do you speak English? When a friend experiences pain (death in the family, loss of job, etc) do you comfort him or her? When your child hangs out with kids who smoke and then decides to smoke when you tell him not to, is he thinking for himself--or conforming to a different "authority figure"?
Some of these things are innate to being human. Some are socially acquired. In any case they do not necessarily equate to "thinking for yourself". What the previous poster was saying was that, in order to function in a group, you have to be using the same protocol as the rest of the group. But as you hint (although not clearly) conformity and free-thinking are actually perpendicular. Person A may conform because that's the way they were raised. Person B may conform because they've analyzed the protocol and are just emulating it "on the outside". Real people are a combination of both.
Feel free to spout on about how non-conformist and free-thinking you are. The very fact that you want to communicate with us (and are succeeding) points out that you are less different than you think.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Ah, but isn't it possible that being subjected to arbitrary rules and discipline actually encourages critical thinking? I wonder if I'd be as independent as I am if I were raised in some ideal environment. Where are kids going to learn what tyranny and censorship really mean? From a textbook? Much better to let them learn first hand what it's like to have your freedom suppressed, and schools are very good at this.
If you read The Diamond Age, there's a rather nasty teacher who's employed mainly to teach the girls that the world is not full of nice, rational people.
My second blunder was a year or two later in late 1978, when I tried to build a computer from an 8080A chipset that Radio Shack was selling. I know it was late 1978 because around that time I got a TRS-80 for my 14th birthday. Even if I hadn't made any mistakes with the wiring, I didn't understand the concept of fan-out very well, and most of the pins on the 8080A have a TTL fan-out of one, and needed bus buffer chips. Oops. I know I got an Honorable Mention on this one.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Actually, latin people are represented quite well in baseball. I think baseball and football are the two sports that carry a good mix of the races. Basketball tends to be heavily black, hockey tends to be heavily white. But you know what? I could care less. I just wanna watch the people who are good. If blacks can play better, then put on blacks. If whites can play better, then put them on and listen to Reverend Al complain about it. But that's a different rant. :P
Thinking: "Thielen" sounds German, maybe Scandinavian. What are the odds she's Black? Whether or not she is Black, questioning a double standard in this case is still a valid point. The subtext being that race relations are not only not a topic for a seemingly well-designed (at least at that level) sociology study that did not produce a tendentious or otherwise questionable result, but that they are not a topic for Whites. Seems like a good thing to bring up that question.
I wrote parts of this stuff
I think this is her webpage:
http://www.thielen.com/users/brianna/
or simply http://www.thielen.com for her faimily's page.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
No, I must have been sick that day. What did you tell that person? I wouldn't completely dismiss that idea, by the way. Objectivism tends to feed on parental opposition. It's impossible to oppose Ayn Rand without sounding just like one of her villains.
Dude, you missed the point entirely. The other side of this coin is that these "censors" were reacting to immense pressure to never offend anybody, anywhere, ever, no matter what. Otherwise they might get sued into oblivion by the offended party and come out the other side of a lawsuit ostracized as racists. It is more than a little ironic that two of the drivers of censorship in this case are institutional authoritarian conformism and (the chilling results of) politically correct hyper-activism.
It seems to me that the important lesson here is to parents:
YOU are responsible for the process of developing your child into a free, thinking adult. Forces outside your home will do their best to whittle your progeny down to a TV hypnotized semi-concious consumer-droid. If you want your child to grow up to be a free adult, the job is yours. May you succeed.
The harm to this child will depend on the support she receives from her parents. If she has been given a strong enough a world view to resist Barbie-and-Ken America (seems like she is off to a good start) then this will become an incident that will strengthen her.
See Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
I helped found an independent underground paper in high school also. We had real writing about real issues, unlike the fluffy, asinine official school paper. After the first issue came out the administrators 'ordered' us to cease and desist. There wasn't anything terribly controversial in that issue - just an op-ed denouncing Jerry Falwell or something. I did some investigation, found out that court precedents were on our side, and we continued to publish until we got bored with it. Administration was constantly harassing us though - calling us into the office and threatening us with suspension, etc. He held our ground though, and were on the verge of bringing the ACLU into it.
I also wrote a libertarian column in the student section of the local (not school) newspaper. In two columns I spoke out against the war on drugs, saying it was immoral, a failure, and counterproductive. This was around 1984-85, when such talk was very unpopular. Anyway, my English teacher went ballistic over the columns, pulling me into a room and screaming at me, throwing papers at me, etc. He then called my dad and freaked out. Dad (also a libertarian) told him to stick it up his ass. He then called the local newspaper and said I wasn't allowed to write columns for them anymore. Thankfully, being the defenders of free speech that they are, they told him to stick it up his ass as well. They did start running a disclaimer at the end of all columns that said 'The views expressed in this column are the views of the writer, and not necessarily those of his/her school.' Duh.
So, school was a miserable, miserable experience for me. I hated that shithole.
--
IMHO, The child in question behaved quite responsibly, and with a maturity some adults could learn from. Like most of us, she sees that, whether it should or not, race does matter in today's society. Rather than trying to take sides, she conducted an experiment to quantify that phenomenon, and then presented her findings.
In response, the adults present removed a perfectly valid and useful science project from the fair.
As you state, children need discipline. That is, when a child does something irresponsible or wrong, they should be corrected. In this case, the child did something responsible and right. The exhibit was certainly controversial, but that does not make it wrong. It seems to me that they pulled the exhibit down because it was controversial. By doing so, they taught her that talking about race relations is wrong. They taught her, and all the other children there, that being controversial was wrong.
If we teach our children that being controversial is wrong, we raise stupid little sheep. And I, for one, refuse to raise mutton.
If the adults acted responsibly, they might point out the exhibit, and use it as a starting point for a discussion on race relations. This is certainly a topic worth discussing. For my money, understanding that we don't live in a colorblind society, understanding why, and understanding what we can do about it, is much more useful to an emerging adult than remembering which shape on the map represents Belgium.
Instead, they tried to further the illusion that we do live in a colorblind society. They taught the lesson "If you ignore the issue, maybe it will go away". I don't think any of us here are stupid enough to believe that.
--The basis of all love is respect
Based on this, The Boulder Valley school district web page is here. The public officials have all sorts of contact information, etc. Some even have email addresses.
Now remember that we would want intelligent discussion about this, so make sure that if you choose to communicate with them, to cite the original web page, and to use nice words. Personal attacks should be avoided, since most of these folks likely do not have a government issued flame retardant Web suit yet.
yes, the School has a web site as well, but it seems better that you send any comments to the Public officials, since it is part of their job description to occasionally be on the hot seat.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I prefer that which makes me happy... all these things could make me happy, I don't favor any of them... I might have had previous positive/negative experiences relating to them, but that does not preclude the realm of future possibility.. so I don't have a strong preference for one and against another...
sure... it strikes me odd that one could have such a strong preference for one kind of a person or another so far as to abstain from a particular kind of contact with them
when there is no sort of historical connotation I find it incredably shallow... when there is one I do think it *borders* on racism
have you ever dated/danced with/kissed a black girl? why not?
Well it is science in that she came up with an idea that was testable, then tested it. That is the core idea of science. For a 9 year old it was quite an impresive bit of work.
Science does not prove anything, it comes up with a hypothosis and then looks for ways to show it is wrong.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Officially, the school district condemns censorship. As the district decrees, students' constitutional freedoms include the right to free expression and free inquiry.
Later, the director of elementary education argued, "A science fair is not the way we choose to discuss race relations."
Freedom of expression applies only in an approved forum? I guess they amended the First Amendment...
This girl should be commended, She performed a real scientific experiment, she came up with a hypothosis and figured out an inovative way to test it. She then documented her findings.
It is my understanding that most Science fair experiments are rather dull and pointless.
She should get an "A".
Erlang Developer and podcaster
From what I understand, the girl performed her barbie test on all of 15 adults and 30 children. This hardly seems statistically enough to infer what she inferred so I wouldn't call it a complete science project. However, it is an interesting basis for further investigation.
Still, who can blame her when she is surrounded by spineless, politically correct drones intent on denying that the world is not perfect?
Thanks for the legal update. I was using a very broad definition for the word "criminal" and wasn't trying to be legally correct. My original point was that equal protection under the law also means equal enforcement of the law.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I had the same experience. For my 6th grade science fair I made a demonstration on how chemical batteries work. It did not involve me making a battery, I only drew a poster describing how they worked. I did the entire project the morning of the science fair and I got this big First Place trophy. It was no fun because it was meaningless, it was also the last science fair that I attended.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
Did anyone else notice the interesting quirk? This is very similar to the study (with Barbie dolls) done that "showed" that segregation was causing racism. I don't know if that conclusion follows from that data, although I tend to accept the conclusion anyway... but it's interesting that there was another study involving black Barbie dolls.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I was going to reply to my own post but you saved me the trouble. Well said.
And my post that touched off this thread got a FLAMEBAIT rating... my first ever! I'm so proud.
Actually, you can acheive statistical significance with such a small sample. Using the limited data available from This AP wire version of the story:
She dressed up a white Barbie and black Barbie in two different colored dresses. She asked 15 adults at her father's workplace which doll was prettier.
She then switched the dresses and asked 15 more adults. The doll wearing the lavender dress -- regardless of the doll's skin color -- was deemed prettiest by both groups.
Then, When she asked fifth-graders at Mesa Elementary, all 15 in one class picked the white doll. In the second class, after the dresses were switched, nine of the 15 students picked the white doll.
So, we know the following:
# of people (of 15) picking the White Doll
---------White+Lavender---Black+Lavender---Tot
Young...|..9 or 15......|....9 or 15.....|..24
Old.....|..8 to 15......|....1 to 7......|..??
Now, let's make some assumptions:
First, let's assume that Lavender is actually prettier, and that the 6 students that chose the black doll did so when she was wearing lavender. That means that we have:
# of people (of 15) picking the White Doll
---------White+Lavender---Black+Lavender---Tot
Young...|......15.......|.......9........|..24
This indicates a statistically significant main effect for doll color. A two sided chi-square (corrected with Fisher's exact test to accomodate cells with expected values less than 5) is significant p=.015.
Testing for a main effect for the adults and an age x doll+dress interaction would require knowing the cell values for adults, which are not reported.
What this means is something else entirely. According to the AP article, her conclusion was I discovered that most grown-ups liked the lavender dress on the black or white Barbie. On the other hand, kids mostly liked the white Barbie. Only six kids liked the black Barbie. Which is really just a statement of the results.
This could mean:
- that the kids are racist
- that adults are racist, but are able to supress racist feelings when they are in a study
- that adults really like lavender
- that black barbies are less common and therefore less preferred
- that black barbies are simply white barbies in a different color and look odd, as would a white person who's skin was dyed black.
- that she presented the dolls in a fashion that would encourage the kids to choose the white one, but would encourage adults to choose the lavender dress. (People have a tendency to choose the alternative on the right)
- Something else
Regardless, this doesn't speak to the issue of appropriateness. Personally, if I were a teacher, I'd use this as a golden opportunity to discuss prejudice and the importance of treating people as individuals.The majority of our schools are designed to produce people who:
I'm sorry, I don't see any of these as bad qualities. Punctuality, organizational skills, honesty and respect are all amiable work-skills. What is the alternative, eh? Workers who:
Can a student be turned into a Metropolis-esque factory-working automoton because they went to public school? Or is it due to the fact that they didn't succeed in said school and have to find menial jobs that suit their education level? Keeping in mind, however, that all facets of industry must be populated, from the lowest janitor to the highest CEO someone has to fill those shoes. Even if somehow, everyone could be an open-minded, super-intellegent and tolerant person, we would still need janitors and factory workers.
-----
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
crazy dynamite monkey
My parents are teachers. So are all their friends. I have been surrounded by teachers of jr. high school to high school level all my life, and I can tell you that they are people just like anyone else. There's no "government indoctrination" at the hands of these "government bureaucrats," because they are as diverse a population as mechanics, librarians, doctors or anyone else. Just because you work for the government doesn't mean you are brainwashed by them! Where's the brainwashing infrastructure, anyway? When are the meetings where teachers get Taught What To Say By The Feds? They answer to the principal, who answers to the school board, who is elected by the local voters.
Schools have plenty of problems, but this isn't one of them. Unless my parents and the dozens of other teacher friends of theirs I have met socially are part of some vast conspiracy...
First off, she's 8... now much did you know about statistical validity when you were 8? Yes, her sampling is statistically invalid -- I doubt it was even random. It's not like she's up for a Nobel prize.
Second, let's stop using the term "scientific experiment." It was clearly an experiment. However, "scientific" is open to question. I'm not her teach nor am I a judge in the science fair, so let's move on.
People seem to miss a few things with respect to her inference ("hypothesis".) She supposes people choose the white barbie because "that's what they always see." That's marketing -- ala. Behold the power of cheese. That's not race related. And then changes the clothing on each and asks a different set of people. I don't see how much that's testing an race preference.
The only problem with the whole mess is that the teacher allowed her to proceed with this as her project. The teacher did know what her project was, right? What if she had chosen to perform microwave (oven) radiation exposure experiments on 30 people? [I had to settle for some russian research on the subject *grin*]
I founded an independent newspaper in high school because the organ of the communist party - oops! the school paper - had experienced some, um, questionable editing that made the administration look better than the reporters had intended. We ran stories on all sorts of things, including race relations - occasionally the principal had us over for a chat, but because we were independent ("underground"?) and didn't use school funds, nobody could do anything to us.
I know not every school district is as pro-free speech as mine (Ann Arbor, MI) was, but still this is the right approach - if you get silenced by your publisher, become a publisher yourself.
sulli
RTFJ.
Why not? Are you assuming that this little girl is too stupid to understand the idea she is trying to test for?
Race dialog can happen at any age and the fact that she recognizes it as a problem is a sad indication of the state of race relations.
Regarding her being over her head; She had good methodology, a sound hypothesis and she gave her results. She drew a conclusion based on her results. That was what she was supposed to do, follow the scientific method. No, her results are not conclusive by any means, but her research could be expanded on to ask different questions, better thought out questions. She showed intelligence and inginuity, even if she lacked the ability to appreciate that her results might be flawed.
www.rdex.net
With the definition of "racist" left, I'm sure, to be set by the Ministry of Friendship, or whatever that translates to.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
This stands apart from most science fair projects I have heard of because she had a sample of data and she attempted to draw conclusions from it. This was a valid attempt at using what kids are taught as the "scientific method". It sounds to me like it was a pretty good elementary science experiment for an elementary school student.
I would rather see this experiment than the demonstration of a vinegar and baking soda volcano any day.
All your events are belong to us.
So at what age do you suddenly gain rights? 16? 18? 21? I've seen some extremely smart 10 year olds with a far better grasp on reality than many adults.
It's not a black and white kind of thing; That's why it's a diffucult problem that will require complex or imperfect solutions. The important thing is to note that it is also not an intellegence thing as well. Young children are not even *capable* of abstract thought so any discussion of the abstract will be lost on them. When was the last time you talked about an issue in the abstract and tried to simultaniously understand how someone who can only comprehend concrete thinking will take it. In this case it is very important to understand the audience. For Example: there is a lot of money going into teaching very young children the importance of the food pyramid and eating right. The diets of young children should actually be the responsibility of the parents to decide. WHAT!!!! those dictators! EVIL! It turns out that you can tell a child that vitamins are good for them, and oranges are good for them because they contain vitamins and then watch in horror as they scarf down hoho's at the very next meal. You have to tell them to eat oranges. You have to give them the oranges and take away the hoho's because they can't process the information yet. They can't apply what they learned to their own behaviour.
Oh yeah, we'd better not tell children about death, it might upset them. Come on, you can't hide everything. It's safer for people to know that the world isn't perfect...
No one is talking about the world being perfect. Loss, and hardship are actually very important for child development. But.... what messages are the children going to pick up from this? It may not be the same one you would hope they will.
The above poster is right (and there is plenty of scientific psycological research to back it up) about children being mentally different than adults. That tends to get overlooked on slashdot a lot. (because of the age of the audience here?)
I wish more slashdotters would RTFM when it came to childhood development and research before posting about it.
I just don't feel the solution is as simple as people think.... And i do feel very sorry for the girl who had her project pulled. She learned a very real and very harsh lesson.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
But did they censor all of the exhibits for which there was more than one interpretation of the data?
And if it's a bad/useless experiment, then shouldn't it simply not get a ribbon, or get an F grade, or whatever? Why remove the exhibit?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Dunno if I can parry that particular bit of biting reparté, but I'll try. You're simply ugly...
So it's perfectly legal for a private company to search your house? Or, to separate my example from trespassing, it's legal for a private company to access my personal information? Don't people sue companies (i.e. DoubleClick) for violating the 4th Amendment?
As for rights of guardianship, where does that come into question? The poster stated that an 8 year old has the same rights as a 30 year old. Under that stance, there are no "guardianship" rights. If that's the case, then the 8 year old has access to the 4th amendment as well as the 1st.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Thats a very interesting point! I didn't think of that. If I remember back, there were a fair number of people at school who also thought that many of the rules were stupid. It didn't seem to turn too many of them into scientists though :) But I guess it must influence their modes of thinking later in life.
Thats the second time I've seen somebody recommend 'the diamond age'. I think I'll get hold of a copy and read it.
That is a good question to ask.
Up until 1994, it was most commonly the case that the owners/managers of establishments (such as McDonalds) would be white, while the people you see (e.g. those manning the tills etc) would be black. This situation is still very common, but since 1994 it has become increasingly (and quite noticeably) more common for the owners/managers to also be black, making an establishment *entirely* black. Of course, this does not mean that the minimum wage workers are under any better conditions working for a black boss than for a white boss - whites don't hire blacks because they're racists but because blacks are generally cheap labour - I would venture to guess that conditions are extremely similar for them, i.e. they still earn extremely little. A businessman is a businessman, white or black; you'll still see the owner driving around in a really nice car while his employees earn barely enough to live on. I don't have any actual statistics on what percentage of places have become black-owned, but I would make a rough thumbsuck guess that in the area where I live (Pretoria) its probably somewhere between 20 and 40 %. That figure could be completely off though. You do also, of course, see many places where the poorly paid guys manning the tills are whites. They are *no* better off than their black counterparts - they also earn next to nothing. This is not really the norm though, but it is not uncommon. South Africa does have poor whites too :) I think not many foreigners really realise that, one always gets a somewhat simplified view from international media. I like that many black south africans are embracing capitalism and making a success of their lives, I think they deserve it after the apartheid years. But I have some doubts about the government. There are many within the ANC government that are anti-white racists, and would like to see the country rid of whites (I believe this is why they are so soft on crime, I think some of them feel that as long as the crime is still chasing away whites then they will tolerate the huge amount of harm that crime inflicts on south african blacks also.) Some of them also seem to tend towards socialist/communist policies, even though on the surface they try to make a noise about being democratic/capitalist. For example, our local telecommunications has been granted a monopoly in exchange for installing telephones in poorer areas. This smells a bit communist to me. The result is that we have VERY expensive telecomms, with really lousy service (as I write this my modem disconnected me :), it took Telkom nearly 5 months to simply install a telephone line in somebody I know's house. If you're well off financially you can afford ISDN, but the best internet option you can get below that is 56K modem. Phone calls are metered, so you pay minute you're connected. What the government don't seem to realise is that maintaining this monopoly actually *harms* south african blacks by keeping the country poor. The monopoly is supposed to run out next year, but it looks like they're only going to grant one more license, and thats to another pseudo-monopoly that they've put together by combining local electricity supply company and local (train) transport company. I don't foresee any "real" telecomms competition anytime in the near future - and I believe telecomms is quite critical to economic prosperity. Anyway, I seem to be going off on quite a tangent here .. :) This stuff is all just my opinions, of course.
Comments before this I can't really disagree with.
>Much of the violence in TPB was gratuitous, and
>I think it dampened the 'message' and the effect
>of the themes the author tried to convey.
I disagree here that the violence was gratuitous. I studied the book in college, with a Lithuanian Eastern European history prof. It should scare the crap out of you to know that the Painted Bird was a dead-on accurate portrayal of the region. Most people consider the book to be based on the real life experiences of Roman Polanski during the war.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Semmelweiss was the physican who discovered that infant mortality could be greatly reduced if doctors would wash their hands between each delivery. The good doctors of the day would have no such restriction on their freedom for a nonsensical "germ theory" and persecuted Semmelweiss with all their power. Wegner, who developed the theory of continental drift, was greeted with laughter and scorn, not applause.
Now a school girl conducts perfectly good research into atttitudes regarding race, and she is persecuted as well. Unfortunate, but not surprising, as the scientific community is not always ready for science that disagrees with their comfortable notions.
Actually, the young lady did some interesting social science research - I wonder if the difference between adults and children is that adults know that they are not supposed to give an answer that might appear racist. Of course, there is no shortage of racist adults, so maybe the children identified with their own race, while the adults gave the groupthink acceptable answer.
Most science fairs allow social science and biophysical research, and if social science doesn't discuss important issues (that are sometimes controversial or uncomfortable) then why do it? The judges that pulled the project should be ashamed of themselves.
The majority of our schools are designed to produce people who:
and I say, things haven't changed much. most work environments also force these 'values' on their employees.
freedom of thought and expression went out in the 60's. and the 60's are long gone now, aren't they?
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
if this were "Science" in the adult world, it would also be a controversial study. Not because it's wrong to ask people about preferences, but because there's not enough detail in the study to understand *why*
Those are excellent questions for someone reviewing or judging her project. Perhaps you're right that sociology experiments at an elementary school should be held to a higher standard than typical kid stuff with tadpoles or rock collections. But the decision still should be based on scientific merit. Call over the blue ribbon panel and ask them to find flaws in her reasoning.
Science should be judged on its science, not on administrative policy.
No wonder they yanked it, there's no reason to have a high-level race dialogue among second graders.
Do you have kids? My five year-old (kindergarten) asks me questions about race all the time.
"Dad, why do only black people work at McDonald's?"
"Son, that's not true. That's just because the McDonald's we go to, there's more black people that live around there." (and we drove to another area of town to show him that all types of people work in fast-food.
"Dad, why do only black people sing rap music?"
So I proceeded (with great hesitation) to show up a picture of Eminem.
I read somewhere that the average five year old asks 200 questions a day. I'm not about to stifle his inquisitive or critical thinking. For example, we've been reading the old Narnia books, and he asks me what "slaves" are. And I explained that many years ago, it was okay to actually own people, and how wrong that thinking was.
I think it's enlightening and refreshing and I'm glad I can treat him like a little person, instead of a mindless drone. (And in case anyone is wondering, his biological father is African-American, and his biological mother is white). One way I can contribute to social change is by educating the young, and wait for the old people to die off.
The Painted Bird was an excellent book, and I half agree/half disagree with you. I think there's plenty of early high schoolers who can handle the book. I think in an advanced class it is entirely appropriate. They study Huckleberry Finn after all, which depicts some pretty awful things about race in the 1800's. For a less advanced class I think it would be inappropriate, because the main themes would be overwhelmed by the tremendous violence in the book.
I would hope that most would read The Painted Bird, especially Americans. We have no real concept of nationalism here in this country. Heck, even Canadians are more familiar with nationalism because of the problems with relations between French and English speaking provinces.
Kozinski's book is probably worst-case. Nationalism gone as wrong as it can possibly go.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The words you are looking for are orthodox and doctrinaire, repressive also comes in handy but conservative spawns a misunderstanding of what is going on.
Teachers in US public schools teach a mixed up grab bag of leftist claptrap that has demonstrably failed to educate children but if you want to change to proven techniques (phonics instead of look-say, english immersion instead of bilingualism) you are labelled a philistine, a barbarian at the gate.
The conservatives in the US are horrified at the k-12 educational system.
DB
Put simply, pish tosh.
Not true, since juvenilles are not held to the same level of responsiblity as adults (most of the time). If you have a full Right, you must also bear the full Responsibility.
Regardless of what most nerds think, the world is not black and white. There are whole swathes of grey as well.
See above. If they have lesser Responsibilities, they have lesser Rights.
No, I don't miss the abortion debate. I've found that some people stand on one side, some people stand on another side, and neither group will jump ship for the other side. I'm tired of trying to convice them.
Oh, you mean I missed out on the debate? No -- I've done my duty, fought my battles, and I'm retired from the war.
Oh, and I'm not parroting the Constitution, I'm parroting the Bill of Rights. Get your historical documents straight, you nimrod.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Wasn't that the government's excuse for the Chicago 7 trial?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The comical thing is that it is often the radical religious-right wing Christians who are blamed for this stifeling of speech.
... a right wing religious nutball, Orin Hatch
... every Libertarian i know
....
Being one myself - okay, Libertarian, which is farther to the right - I'd like to remind folks who exactly it was that..
wanted (and got) warning labels on records.... a liberal Democrat (Al Gore's wife)
wants to shut down shows like MTV's Jackass... a liberal Democrat (Lieberman)
backs the RIAA in their persuit of Napster... a liberal Democratic appointed DoJ
led the charge to have the government shove its nose into Microsoft's business... a liberal Democratic appointed DoJ
gave out private information from people's FBI files because they were political enemies... the liberal Democrat White House
now.. who is it that...
is backing Napster in their fight against the RIAA
against censorship of library and school computers
while i'm not saying that the right-wing is right - and they are certainly not when it comes to things like drugs
lets not be quick to believe that its going to be the right wing religious nuts who take away your freedoms.. it is, and will always be the liberal Democrats..
They talk over you if they dont like what you're saying and say that you should not be saying things like nigger, faggot, or Jew bastard... that's just not allowed and should never be allowed...(unless you meet their criteria.. which is, you're one of them)
they are the ones who take your freedoms away from you - in the name of "The Children(tm)" - and tell you to just eat the shit sandwich because your going to eat it and if you don't you'll be called a racist, a bigot, or a child molester.
or even worse..
they'll call you a conservative Republican.. the worst name of all to be called.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
You have a good point which is obscured by the fact that you sound like a drooling reactionary or a troll.
Children are children. Absolutely. They simply do not have the same rights that adults have. Most importantly, parents have the right to tell their own children what to do. Parents usually know more than their children about everything. At least until about fifth grade, when this edge starts to degrade.
But the facts of this case are not a "do whatever" parent. This is not about a lack of discipline. It sounds like the girl's father was actively involved since the adults she used in her sample were her father's coworkers. The problem here is the fact that the school, rather than use this to properly educate people about the difference between sociology and "hard" science has decided to use censorship as a tool to suppress inquiry into a topic which makes them uncomfortable. The school has government fiat to supercede the parents' right to control their child? This is "in loco parentis" gone too far.
If there is an obvious academic issue with this science fair project, then they are being fair. Probably among a group of elementary students this project was only notable for having a hot button topic. I would guess the project requirements were vague and non-specific, and so cancelling this girl's good-faith effort to do her job as a student is not about "discipline" it's about cowardly American educators.
I do not have a signature
That bright young lady will learn a whole lot more from this project than she figured on. She's smarter already.
you: What are these?
me: Smartning pills, $5 each
you: They taste like rabbit pellets!
me: You're getting smarter already.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Well, the First Amendment doesn't neccessarily apply to an 8 year old. You don't get Rights until you can accept the Responsibilities that come attached to them.
Unfortunatly, our criminal justice system has shown that you have those 'responsibilities' from about age 10 on, with their insistance on prosecuting mere children as adults. If a 12 year old can be sentanced to spend the next 20 years of his life in prison, he better damn well get the Bill of Rights.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Never mind that the "food pyramid" itself is built on bad science. But it sounds so nice and simple!
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Why doesn't that have anything to do with racial preference?
It does have to do with racial preference, but possibly very little to do with discrimination outside of sexual partners. Unfortunantly, I don't find either blondes or black women attractive at all (with a very few exception either way where personality made a difference). That's a racial preference. I like very pale skin and either very dark (black) hair or natural flame red hair. I find tans repulsive, and very tanned women actively repulsive... living in Florida, this makes for an interesting dating life. :)
But, the key here is: what exactly was the question? If sexual preference was a factor (even "which do you find more attractive" could bring that in as a factor), then things become far more complicated than simple racial discrimination: although I don't find black women sexually attractive, I don't discriminate against them in functional ways any more than I discriminate against Dave, a friend of mine, just because he's a man, and I don't find men sexually attractive.
And despite years of Mattel saying otherwise, Barbie is made to be the mainstream model of female sexuality.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
My Bad. I shouldn't have said RTFM but perhaps RTFSC? (source code) Read the research. Read it. Don't just listen to what other people say (like your parents did?) and look for reasons that the research may be invalid. You would be surprised at how often correlated data is construed to be causial data in research; Nobody questions it either. Don't just buy a book and raise your kids. Buy all of the books (or I guess lease them hahaha! :) with as many different viewpoints as possible. Read each one thinking that it may be correct. Then decide what to do. Most people here only really understand one view.
Nowhere in my post do I advocate "shielding children from the real world" nor do I believe that these problems should be ignored. You may not believe it but sometimes a countering argument provided to you on slashdot will not be in diametric opposition (read: evil) to yours.
Hiding all truth from children is unhealthy. So is bombarding them with "reality" in an effort to make them fit to live in an ugly horrible world. "Reality" is complex and subtle and children will come up with simple explenations for complex situations. You must understand that.
There are no bunnies on my lawn, even a few rats; I am happy. I'm sorry you aren't (and I know that doesn't help you).
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
VERY commendable post.
I'd only add this point:
The very fact that certain agendas are "protected" by using PC to censor the opposition, doesn't that more or less prove that the Emperor Has No Clothes?
Think about it: If an opinion can't stand an open debate, doesn't that prove it's falsehood?
Those who advocate shutting people up with censorship, and stifling learning with political correctness are only hurting their own cause. It makes their cause ILLEGITIMATE in the minds of those who DO think for themselves.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I don't have to defend any "crap", in fact if it's crap I refuse to do so.
However, the example you cite of reducing disease and unplanned pregancies amoung teens with free condoms, and preventing parents from forcing pregnant teens to carry the fetus to full-term, is not "crap", but astoundingly simple good sense.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are separate documents. The Constitution is dated 1787, the Bill of Rights is dated 1789. I still say you are a nimrod.
If the law is black and white, there would be no need for interpretation. Again, the world is not black and white, but shades of grey. So you're not a nerd -- you're still being a literalist.
Don't shout -- you'll damage your voice.
I'll admit to being wrong when you admit to being wrong.
The Constitution is absolutely silent on the matter of pornography. There is not one mention of "pictures of nekkid ladies" in the whole damn thing. Does that mean that pornography is not protected?
The concept of Rights and associated Responsibility is not a constitutional matter, rather a philosophical one. You have the right to Free Speech. You make statements to the effect of "Bill Gates screws goats", and do it as a newspaper columnist in the New York Times. Bill Gates may sue you for libel, and you can't claim Free Speech (or Free Press) -- you have to take responsibility for your actions.
You have the right to bear arms. You do NOT have the right to shoot people indiscriminately. If you shoot somebody in a fit of pique, you must bear the Responsibility.
If you're 12 and make death threats against the President, you do NOT have to bear the full Responsibility. Your parents may bear part of it, you may spend some time in JV -- but you don't go to Federal Prison as an adult might.
BTW, thanks for serving our country.
I'm not sure what you mean here -- the abortion debate is mainly about at what point a child is considered "alive". If the child is "alive" at conception (this is what I believe, BTW), at no point after that does the woman have the legal right to murder that child. Roe v. Wade judged that during the first three months, the woman and her doctor have full control over whether to abort or not, the second three months, the State may regulate concerning health matters, and in the third, the State may disallow. There is no argument on whether the child has separate and distict rights -- the Texas law was overturned on citation of the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause.
You're wrong. But,then, most people are...
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Wow, we can use that argument? Excellent! Then:
You argument is wrong. Completely wrong, utter nonsense. You're wrong, and, might I add, smell funny.
If the parent can act on the child's behalf, against the child's wishes, then the child can (according to you) appeal to the court on the basis of Constitutional Rights, based on that child having full access to those Constitutional Rights, even as a person might sue DoubleClick for violating their 4th Amendment.
However, a child cannot appeal to the court. Thus, a child does not have full access to Constitutional Rights.
How is this argument bogus?
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
No, left and right refer to a political shorthand derived from how the french were seated in their parliament. It never was purely economics and all your moaning isn't going to change history.
As far as disease prevention using condoms, the failure rate for condoms is not exactly advertised prominently in sex-ed and it's quite defensible to prefer that your children take a safer route than safe sex. BTW: do *you* know which venereal diseases are not blocked by condom use and which are?
As for pregnancy, I have no desire to have any future daughter of mine get pressured into having an abortion because it is 'inconvenient' to the future career of some bastard. Beyond that, the link between breast cancer risk and abortion is pretty convincing in the studies that I've read and the politicized nature of abortion facilities means that they don't have the health safety supervision that other medical facilities have. In my book, that pretty much takes it out of the black and white 'astoundingly simple good sense' box that you glibly put it in.
DB
I've seen the news reports concerning this -- I have as yet not formed a rational opinion. The easy way out is "They do adult crime, they do adult time!", but that's not neccessarily justice.
Did that 12 year old push somebody out of a window, assuming they'd just bounce back like Wile E. Coyote? That's not adult thinking -- that child needs some kind of intense therapy (and their TV taken away).
On the other side, if there's a child who seems to have no moral compuction against tossing their kid sister out of a window, well now... it could be we happened to catch a John Wayne Gacy in infancy. Let's not let this kid roam the streets.
I happen to believe that we are born with the notion of right and wrong, and some people are born with a predeliction for choosing "wrong". We call those people sociopaths, and they MUST be kept outside of society.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I don't disagree that it was an excellent book, and I do think that there are many early high-schoolers that can handle it, but in an English class (not even a real Literature course), I think that it was inappropriate at that level. Just because the students in the course are more intellectually advanced than their peers, at that age, emotional developement isn't always on the same scale. I can safely say that a good 15-20% of our class was not prepared for that book, and I remember it creating quite a furor among the parents of those students (one girl in particualr ad trouble sleeping for some time after reading certain parts). There is a difference between assigning a book for study in order to educate, and doing just to scare/disturb your students (which seemed to be this teacher's aim, given a lot of the other evidence). I also think that Huckleberry Finn wasn't nearly as disturbing, but still had a strong impact on the topic of race relations. Much of the violence in TPB was gratuitous, and I think it dampened the 'message' and the effect of the themes the author tried to convey.
I think it is a book that should be read by those who can take it objectively, and handle it. The writing itself wasn't very good (IMHO), but the ideas and themes are somewhat important, but you get the sense from reading it that the author had some tremendous problems.
As for Americans' sense (or lack thereof) of nationalism... that is a another story, and shall be told at a another time...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
project than I and my classmates used to do back then. I did a volcano that didn't explode because somehow I thought that any old liquid could replace vinegar. The girl right next to me did one on the planets. Well all the planets except for Jupiter that is. "Oh crap. That's ok," she said to me, "I'll just try to cover up the place where it's supposed to be when the judges come around."
---
---
I'm just an ordinary man with nothing to lose.
From reports I've heard from friends who've travelled in the third world, places like Ghana or Nepal have a lot of non-schedule-oriented citizens.
This doesn't do very well for Development, but neither are they nations of criminals.
i think school can really be what you make of it. i had a lot of teachers who didn't go the distance to make learning come alive for their students, but i also saw that all my fellow classmates didn't care at all about learning. what are these teachers supposed to do?
i also had several teachers who, once i showed them that i wasn't just another warm body in a seat, really opened up to me and taught me far more about the world than i could've imagined at the time. even now, _many_ years later, i'm still thankful for how they helped when they did. but i _know_ for a fact that they weren't like this to everyone... because most people just didn't care.
didn't any of you people ever show any initiative in school yourselves? maybe it wouldn't have been such a robot factory kind of place for you, too. maybe you didn't know everything already.
It wasn't for a science fair, but that year I built
my own with an 1802. CMOS has infinite fanout for itself . . .
However, two big problems:
1) I got the bright idea to save a chip by putting the gates (quad bilateral switch. 4066? 4016?) bwtween power and the toggle switches, rather than between the switches and the bus. This of course shorts the bits of the data bus with "up" switches together, and htose with "down" switches together. No wonder the other guys used 8 rather than 2.
2) My wire-wrap CPU socket was defective. After rebuilding it another summer, and spending days with voltmeters and fequency counters, I came down to a couple of (critical) pins with enough conductivity betwen them to be force the cmos signal level. I confirmed this after disassumbly. (how in the devil do you get a semi-short in a wire-wrap socket?)
I never built it again; i had access to more powerful machiens to use, and there wasn't anything left to learn. But I still have the parts, and if my daughters ever show any interest . . .
hawk
The director of elementary education argued, "A science fair is not the way we choose to discuss race relations."
If a scientific forum isn't the place to discuss race relations, then what is? A riot? A lynch mob? If a young girl can't take a mature, scientific look at a major problem in our society, then how on earth is it supposed to be discussed? Please, oh please, can someone who agrees with this school director explain to me what is a more appropriate forum to discuss the issue than a (somewhat) scientific study? Sheesh...
---
"...not only because it destroys the child's self esteem..."
Clearly the family should have a lawyer letter sent to the school demanding a written apology and retraction otherwise there might be irreparable damage to their dear daughter's self esteem, implying that might be worth a princely sum. Then let's see the bureaucrats slither out of that one.
I wrote parts of this stuff
"Some questions should never be asked." The context was a discussion of that book, "The Bell Curve", and I almost laughed out loud until I realized the person saying this was serious. Then I almost hit her.
I find that striking people that disagree with me is an effective way to prove my point. It's much easier than yelling.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
>Is a speeder a criminal?
Yes.
>If I run a red light on a deserted road at 2am, am I a criminal?
Yes.
>They come from a different culture - having different morals (and experiences) is a crime?
It can be.
Leaving aside such issues as absolute morality and natural law, here is what I was trying to say:
The law is the law. If you break the law, you are defined to be a criminal. I'm not making any judgements on the merit of any law, nor whether any crime, however trivial, must be punished. You are reading more into the word "criminal" than I ever intended. My point was that we need equal opportunities, not equal results.
If you are going to take this extremely relativistic attitude towards "criminality" than you should follow it to its logical conclusion and become an anarchist, since you seem to be arguing that a person is accountable only to his or her own moral judgement. Recall that I said "criminal" not "morally wrong".
Otherwise, join the rest of us and work to reach a common ground of justice and equitability.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
>The other side of this coin is that these
> "censors" were reacting to immense
> pressure to never offend anybody, anywhere,
> ever, no matter what.
Do you think they'll learn anything about this,
now that they're getting lots of attention, all over the world, from people who they've managed to offend?
It looks like their plan has backfired, and they've offended far more people with their intolerance and ignorance than they ever would have offended with a hands-off approach.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
...is thinking that our school system wants kids to think for themselves.
The majority of our schools are designed to produce people who:
In other words, they are designed to produce factory workers. No joke.
I prefer "melatonin challenged", myself.
Best Slashdot Co
- The adults are going to know something's up when a little girl comes up to them with two barbie dolls and asks them which one they prefer, this may be the reason for the 50-50 split.
- My preference in barbie dolls doesn't necessarily reflect my racial preferences. Just because I pick a white barbie doll in a lavender dress over a black barbie doll doesn't mean that I don't like black people, it just means that I (a) like the lavender dress, (b) I find white women more attractive than black women (which has nothing to do with racial preference), or (c) I'm only 8 years old (in the case of the children) and I have no preference in women. (b+c applies mostly to guys, but the article didn't specify).
Regardless, I still don't think the project should have been yanked, not only because it destroys the child's self esteem, but also because it promotes the "if we ignore it, it will go away" mentality, which is wrong.I look at it more philosophically than literally in my original post. But taking the Bill of Rights literally, does
mean that Mom can't check under Junior's bed for dope and Playboys unless a judge okays it? I don't think so -- at least, I'm not willing to tell that to Moms across the country. YOU tell 'em that.
But, since you're in favor of 8 year olds getting full Constitutional rights, then you're okay with 8 year olds going to jail for shoplifting candy? If they can claim the rights, they must bear the responsibility as well.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
>--that 99% of what is ascribed as free
> thought in the 60's was just following people who were insane.
One of the general rules in life is that there are few groups as rigidly conformist as those that fancy themselves nonconormists: not only to you refuse to conform to society's norms, but you do it in *exactly* the right way, and hold *excactly* the right opinions.
I know a "granola" type who really is a nonconformist among the type: she's a capitalist. She gave up on her engagement to an anarchist not because of their differences, but because of the death threats (to him) by other anarchists over theologicial (?) differences . . .
hawk
The great thing about slashdot is that there's enough of us here that there's sometimes even a person close to the story.
Take this case. The school in question is in my backyard. In 25 minutes, I'm walking down there to pick up my son from the class of the teacher who runs the science fair. Small world, ain't it?
A point not mentioned by Mr. Talbott that may have some bearing on the case is that the principal of the school is an exchange principal from Australia who has been here since early January. I think that standards are different there than here, and that may have been a factor in this case.
I didn't have a chance to talk to the organizer of the science fair today, as for once I didn't have to ;-), but if anyone is interested they can drop me a line and I'll see what I can find out.
Regardless, the school doesn't look traumatized ;-).
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
I do not disagree that learning about the Holocaust is a Very Good Thing(tm) for all high school students. I disagree with the presentation of the topic, and the fact that a year of an English course ends up nearly entirely devoted to a historical subject, and that anyone even exhibiting any new/original/different thoughts on the topics would be graded down.
I do think that there was plenty of approprate subject material to teach a class from regarding the issues that she was trying to teach. For example, my paper was based on Leon Uris' _Mila 18_, which would have been a far better curriculum book than _The Painted Bird_ (Jerzey Kosinski), which is (as I said in my previous post) not a book that one should be forced to read, but one of choice. _Maus_ was at the Museum of Modern History around the time that I was in this particular class, and I agree that most books concerning the Holocaust are disturbing (especially the good ones), there are several portions of _The Painted Bird_ that I would never force anyone to read (notably the travails of Stupid Ludmilla), since there are better, more topically relevant sources for Holocaust education.
The biggest problem wiht situations like this is the presentation. It would be difficult to argue against exposing our students to the ideas, but the material used for that purpose and how the teacher presents the material and themselves.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
What a great way to help children learn to think for themselves ..."
American schools do not have any intention on helping children think for themselves. This is not due to some conspiracy or intention it is because if children think for themselves it poses problems for the administration. As with all institutions the primary goal is to protect the institution itself and threrefore it's leadership. For example schoolboards, superentendents (sp) and principals make decisions that are going to protect their jobs and their reputations first and if there is room for teachers and students after the fact great. This is not because they are bad people it is just how you survive. Therefore, unless the students are in line with the administration they are a threat to it. At a very real level students are commodities. To most schools as organizations the individuals are not important, their test scores, gpa, particpation in student orgs,etc.. are what is important because those are what are used to validate and ensure the survival of the institution. That is why we see so many policies that fly in the face of educational research such as high stakes exit testing. This kind of testing gives a medium for the schools to validate their existance even though it shows that it forces teachers to teach to the test rather than actually content.
--Nothing makes a good technical man angrier than to have some incompetent nitwit with a check book telling him how to do his job.--Robert A. Heinlein
Um, for an 8 year old kid, I think that was a good sampling to do. You think her parents would let her talk to 1000 adults and 1000 children? That's a lot of mileage on the ol' SUV.
------
James Hromadka
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
I did a conservation-of-momentum project involving a 30-06 rifle fired into a suspended log (pendulum) and measured the maximum extension swing of the log. With this experiment, I didn't have much to actually display except some tables, and of course, the 30-06 which sat in the gym all week.
In all my science fairs I was never allowed to just go off, do something, and have nobody look at it until it made it to the science fair floor. Surely some teacher must have been told "I plan to study racial bias in children" and had the option to say "Go ahead." Where is the commentary from that teacher? I refuse to believe that it got all the way to the science fair before somebody suddenly decided that it was in the best interest of the children to remove it.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
...because you aren't thinking very logically. Let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right, schools intend to produce children meeting those characteristics. Let's further assume that they succeed. How does that rule out children thinking for themselves?
For instance, I consistently show up on time and am relatively organized. I have no discipline problems in my recent history (legal, work, etc). My wife doubly so. Yet both of us routinely hold opinions differing from that of the majority. Neither of us is a factory worker.
Good discipline and free thought are not opposites. Nominal "free-thinking radicals" can be just as conformist, within their subgroup, as a military academy.
PS: Note what I did NOT say: "Good discipline causes free thought."
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
When I was in the seventh grade, my teacher asked us to do a persuasive paper on Flag-burning and the constitution. She told us that her husband had been in vietnam and that she was very passionate about the flag so if any of us wrote a paper that upheld flag burning as free expression, we would be given an F. I thought she was challenging us, so I wrote just such a paper. I recieved an F. The horrible thing was that not only was she interested in censoring flag burning, she was wished to censor those who disagreed. Censorship in schools is common. This little girl is by no means alone. What a terrible lesson to teach children.
She's only a child. I'm more impressed with her ability to come up with such a non-standard hypothesis, carry out an experiment based on it and draw conclusions from her hypothesis.
Her statiscal sampling could have been better, but seriously, this is a school science fair. I doubt she is planning to publish her findings in a peer reviewed journal or anything.
I wasn't saying that _all_ members of that generation defined themselves that way, but it certainly is a strong trend. To point out a specific counterexample is irrelevant to my point.
For that matter, the people who made the original decision might have been older or younger than the Baby Boomer generation, but my point still holds: A lot of people do not practice what they preach with respect to freedom of speech.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Censure is not the same as censor. Look them up.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
That was a required book for my "Search for Meaning in Literature," as a Jr. or Sr. in high school. And it was far from the most disturbing . . .
But anyway, the German teacher was a frustrated 60's leftover. She ran (not led) the "Foreign Language Association" whose sole activity seemed to be inserting "social justice" units in other classes [read: complain about evil right wing regimes while justifying the same beahvior from the left.] For quizzes, her students were required to right letters demanding the release of (what she deemed to be) political prisoners. Fortunately, she left the school to go on a "cross-country anti-nuclear tour" with her husband in their old volkswagen hippiemobile.
She once tried to explain to me that the only reason we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki was to see if it would go off (for the history-impaired, it was the first bomb at Hiroshima that was the untested type; the Nagasaki bomb was the same type tested in New Mexico).
Anyway, I usually found that disagreeing with the teacher's view was an easier way to an A than agreeing. One notable exception was when I argued in a major paper that *not* dropping the second bomb would have been morally indefensible. . . .
hawk
I trust the young girl has learned to fall into uncomfortable silence when she finds herself in the company of people of color.
illegitimii non ingravare
I was recently a judge at a high school science fair, and I saw very similar projects. Sure, they did more work and research, but they almost all had the same fundamental flaw: too few samples to base a solid conclusion on.
I wonder if the young Miss Thielen had been a black girl whether the teachers would have been so hasty to pull her project...?
Based on the fact that the article describes the children as students and the fact that the morning news mentioned her school population was 92% white, it would not by unreasonable to assume she used students at her own school and thus probably had few black children in her sample.
Yeah, the sample size is too small for good statistical results. But we're talking about an 8 year old here. The fact that it occurred to her at that age to have something resembling a statistical sampling is impressive. I've seen way too many science fair projects by people 10 or 12 years old who seemed to think that a single data point was adequate for each of the samples.
As far as the "teachers" go, they've probably been frightened into political correctness in everything they do. What they did was a bad thing, but they probably get punished when they don't react this way, too.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
The problem is the message that it sends to a minority, seeing this display through the eyes of the average 8-year-old child. The large banner over the display asked "Does Skin Color Matter", and it appears that the conclusion is "in terms of acceptance from your peers, yes. yes it does. don't even bother trying to fit in, because you can't."
I will say this one more time: even if the display seems perfectly valid through the lens we are currently looking at it, if it is something that school can loose a lawsuit over, the principal is right to yank it. It's not a violation of free speech, it's a decision not to provide a forum.
The kid can stand on a street corner shouting the "N" word at the top of her lungs, for all I care, but the school has the power (and the liability) over what gets displayed at an event which they sponsor.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Actually, in TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) the supreme court ruled that "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." which would suggest that the First Amendment most certainly does apply to 8-year-olds.
The original posters point was that school is designed to produce mindless drones who follow orders and never think.
:-)
IronChef pretends that the message really was that we should raise a generation of criminals, and proceeds to argue against crime, instead of the actual point of the original post.
The most amusing part is when he tells us to "Think, dammit", while arguing vehemently agains teaching kids to think for themselves
Initially, the school bureaucracy deferred to those who might have been uncomfortable. The morning after the censorship, Thielen met with the school's principal, a teacher and the director of elementary education. They told him they removed the exhibit because it might make students of color uncomfortable.
I've always felt uncomfortable with the way Americans fictionalize the story of Christopher Columbus, being a hero, doing so much for the country. HELLO. Christopher Columbus was a rapist and a murderer, yet school officials still teach such wonderful things about him.
In order to please the public people often try to hush the situation without having to address the problem. Sure it may have made someone feel uncomfortable, the story noted however the problem was with the children who may not have known how to differentiate between race, something they will not know because of people like the teachers whose fears may have misguided their actions by yanking the project. If you don't speak about it, hushing the problem will not solve it.
We have the same problem out here in New York with an art gallery titled "Yo Mama Last Supper" which depicts Jesus Christ as a naked black woman. Well the mayor says "Its foul and tax payers should not pay their tax dollars to have this shown" who the heck gave him the right to choose for me. We've had about 3 ticker tape parades for our sports teams and I surely didn't want my tax dollars wasted on that, so where was he at that time.
People only speak when its convenient at most, and until that mentality of "If you don't speak it, its not a problem" is broken we won't learn right from wrong. The parents of that little girl should sue to prove a point being her first amendment was broken.
No discrimination allowed
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
Where I went to university, if you wanted to do human research, you had to prove that not only would it not cause undue distress on the subjects but also that the experiment would directly benefit the subjects. There were, of course, ways around this but the girl in this case made no such claim that her research directly benefitted her subjects. As it stood, her experiment should not have been cleared by a university ethics board (which, of course, it wasn't, nor should she have been required to).
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
It's got me curious -- her hypothesis is on whether white people will prefer the white barbie, but the article only breaks it up as adults versus children. I'd be very interested to know if she asked both white and black children, and if so, whether black children preferred the black barbie regardless of dress. Wouldn't that demonstrate racial preference from both directions? Why must we always assume that racism equals white people not liking black people?
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
In this case, the principal saw something that looked like it could have created and unwelcoming environment, and had to make a judgement call.
If the study had been "a demonstration of the rapid oxidation of gasoline, cotton, and wood", and consisted of a burning cross, the judgement call would have been an easy one.
In this case, the line was a little more blurry. It's not helping the debate that we are only seeing one side of the debate here. We don't know what the display looked like, or what the reaction was like during the one hour that it was on display. For all we know, 8-year-old black girls were running out of the room crying, emotionally hurt by the display.
Without more actual facts (as opposed to the raving of one angry columnist), I am inclined to give the school the benifit of the doubt.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
In today's society, there are several taboo subjects that you absolutely can't broach except in the most somber of ways. Race relations are one; race in America is such a hot topic that there's an entire culture which has sprouted up around the issue, and race is the godhead of the culture. If you want to approach the godhead, you have to make a ritual out of it to put an Orthodox rabbi to shame.
What was this young lady's offense? Apparently, not following the rituals. She foolishly thought that it was acceptable to talk frankly about subjects without simultaneously holding them in reverence; that it was acceptable to think without arriving to the same conclusions which we're indoctrinated to arrive at; that it was, in short, acceptable to apply the reason God gave her to a problem which tickled her fancy.
Heavens to Betsy. She forgot to venerate the great godhead of modern social life, the bogeyman of racism. And here I thought the First Amendment meant we don't have to venerate anything we don't want to, and there's nothing the government can do to compel our worship.
I hooked a 9v battery to a bunch of different rocks that I'd picked up off the playground, to see if they would demonstrate electroluminescence. I threw it together in 3 hours or so. It got a ribbon. I then had incontrovertable proof that science fairs were complete BS.
I live in boulder and have judged other elementary science fairs there. I saw the project before it was removed (although I wasn't a judge at mesa). This was hands down the best science fair project I've seen in a long time (at that level).
hypothesis was clear and testable
methodology was clear, simple, and tested the hypothesis
data was well tabulated and presented
conclusion was valid and didn't overreach
topic was relevant and current
It could have used a larger sample size, but it blew away all the chemical volcanoes
The problem is, the proponents of some really bad ideas do not engage in rational discourse on the subject, so there is no way to show the fallacies of their position in rational debate. Take Holocaust deniers as an example. Nothing you can say can disuade them from their perverse view of history. They are committed to an *idealogical* view that has no basis in fact. Their tactics are to simply spew endlessly about their position without regard to rational argument, in the hopes that enough non-thinking, ill-educated people hear their call and latch on to their viewpoint. In such cases, and in certain venues, I can't help but to think censorship is the only real way to deal with it. If I were a teacher, I would probably prohibit any of my students from writing a paper that denies the Holocaust, becasue if I allowed something like that, I would be forced into a position of having to rip apart the paper in front of the class in an effort to demonstrate that fallacious reasoing behind the arguments. This would only lead to ridiculing the student who wrote the paper, and that wouldn't be good for anyone. Elementary and high-school classes are not the place to cloud discusion with idealogy-based diatribes and pseudoscientific claptrap. In general, kids that age are not mature or sophisticated enough to handle the subtleties of epistemology and logic such discussions usually raise
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Isn't it ironic that the previous generation definted themselves in terms of rebellion against authority, and now that they're in charge, all they do is give people reasons to want to rebel against authority. Power corrupts whether you're a fat, old white guy in a hidden smoky room or an idealistic young hippie out to change the world.
And it's amazing how fast the Bill of Rights gets thrown out the door when an ideology anywhere across the political spectrum feels threatened.
Note to people in charge of the world:
People of different races have a right to be treated equally. Regardless of genetic makeup, a person deserves the same rights as anyone else.
However, that does not mean all people _are_ equal. Nor does it mean that people of different behaviors have a right to be treated equally. If you are a criminal, you deserved to be punished. If you are not a criminal, then you deserve to be left alone.
It's amazing how hard it is for people to understand this... and I'm not talking about only racists. At least the racists are honest about it. It's amazing how often members of the "diversity" crowd are as narrow-minded and prejudiced as any sheet-wearing hick or Neo-Nazi.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Is it a significant enough statistical universe to generalize ?? Hardly. Does it show early trends ?? Certainly does. So her data could use a few thousand more points. . .if she was a collegiate-level researcher.
For an 8-year-old, this is outstanding performance. This kid shows promise, and already thinks "outside the box". . .
Any 12 year old that's old enough to rape or kill is old enough to pay an adult penalty--up to and including death. Those cases you're referring to aren't about shoplifting or joyriding a car. Is a tragedy, yes, but there should be no coddling of youthful violent criminals. These aren't kids who erred along the way--they're just plain evil to the bone for whatever reason.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
It said she polled 30 addults and children. Not a huge statistical sample to be sure, but large enough to gather some results. Ok maybe the numbers would have been different had she chosen to sample 100 adults, or a more diverse group of people but she's 9, give her a break.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
(b) I find white women more attractive than black women (which has nothing to do with racial preference)
Why doesn't that have anything to do with racial preference? Is it purely pathological (i.e. instinctively and inexplicably more attractive) or psychological (i.e. psychologically -- a race preference). If it was only pathological could you identify that trait in yourself at all?
I have a Ph.D. in economics, and I'm still not clear on the science/social science split.
When a distinction is made, it tends to be using "social science" as immunity from the scientific method.
I am a scientist. I research the choices made in human behavior, but I'll fight to the death over the scientific method: it's an either/or proposition, not something you can finesse.
So am I a scientist or a social scientist?
If any item ever deserved a mandatory warning notice, it would be "The Painted Bird".
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
In elementary school, I did a science experiment involving taste. I made 100 mini-muffins, divided into combinations of artificial flavors and colors. For example, the red muffins might be blueberry flavor and the yellow muffins might be chocolate (or whatever). I asked people to eat them and tell me what flavor they tasted. I had dozens of test subjects and they ALL guessed the wrong, "obvious" flavor (red = cherry, blue = blueberry) except my friend Michael. kids are st00pid.
cpeterso
depends on population fraction. so if she was at her local grocery store and the 60 people she sampled were out of 200 then i would say her cofidence interval is pretty small. plus lets not forget that she is a kid developing analytical skills. i know you probably had at least two classes in statistics at the age of 8 like me but not everyone is as lucky as you and i.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
I was an editor for my High School newspaper. As such, I was allowed to write a column every month.
My column in October of my senior year was about appearance. I was constantly put down and insulted because I did not wear Tommy Hilfiger, or Abercrombie, or whatever. So the jist of my column was "Get to know a person before you judge them. Don't judge based on appearances alone."
The day after the paper came out, the Administration got 150 complaints. From parents and students, saying I was, to quote, "A bitter young man, out to ruin people's lives" and "A sore loser, because I was poor".
I, and my Journalism Advisor were pulled down to the head principal's office, and berated for 2 hours. I had to put an apology in to people I offended with my column. I was told all my columns for the rest of the year would have to be reviewed be the Administration beffore they could go to print, and that if my columns didn't start being more upbeat, discussing the football team and the "normal people", I was going to be removed.
Normal people. He meant the popular people. The ones who treated me like shit, I was now TOLD to revere in a public forum. More proof that the public school system has it's head so far up it's ass it has to unzip to speak.
And don't talk to me about the Hazelwood act, I got that thrown at me too... Hell, the principal wanted to suspend me until the next issue with the apology came out.
-------------------------------------------------
Well, I haven't noticed that privately-run schools are exactly hotbeds of freethinking either, at least here in the U.S. Many of them are run by a church or synagogue, or are military-style academies, neither of which are good for encouraging free inquiry. Even home schooling is often (not always) an excuse to keep children from coming into contact with unapproved ideas.
Schooling, public or private, is often more about indoctrination than education. I don't think that's much more or less true now than it was 10, or 100, years ago. There are small fluctuations, yes, but social pressures always push for conformity.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Censorship is not an effective means of dismantling a meme. It's short sighted, and in many cases can only fan the flames. Censorship removes an idea from debate, as the author of the article has noted.
Removing debate is dangerous in a free society. In North America, our participation in any sort of public debate is minimal, and doubt is often frowned upon. Doubt in free-trade warrants the label of a protectionist. Doubting America's motives abroad (ie. Vietnam, Iraq, Chile etc.) is un-American. The very same for my own Canada as well.
My solution to racism and other bad ideas is to not censor them. The onus is on us to prove why they are bad ideas. Censorship is lazy, if we really feel strongly about an idea, then we should be prepared to discuss it, prove or disprove it.
There will always be idiots who feel like denying the holocaust, or putting blacks beneath asians on a bell curve. But let the unpopularity of their ideas shine. Let them feel free to make asses of themselves.
Furthermore, isolating a group of bad-ideas-supporters does not help to win them over. Censorship merely ignites them with more passion, convincing them that the government is against them, because of the Zionist conspiracy or some other nonsense.
So really, all censorship does is impede debate, which harms the good ideas and decent common narrative that a culture should have. It isolates instead of healing, it's a bad habit to get into (what if an unpopular idea, like democracy, or socialism, or whatever someday proves correct?)
The only real way to handle bad ideas is to challenge them with better ideas.
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
Will Lisa Simpson be the next Hitler?
Sorry to hear it, get some help.
Maybe she will learn about discression, and the way that social politics work. In the future, that could prove to be far more important than the science lesson
Hiding a problem does not fix it. As a kid I tried to push my toys under the bed when Ihad to clean my room, it only worked untel untel they started coming out the other side.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
Correction: it's not good science, but it is science. Building a model volcano that erupts or a model of the planets isn't science at all, nor are most of the other "experiments". That girl's experiment is probably far, far above the caliber of every other experiment there.
I bet no 8-year old in the country knows how to do the kind of statistical analysis and experimental design to make this experiment scientifically sound, but this one is on the right track.
If all the experiments were held to the same science standards, they'd have to disqualify everyone.
rodent...
rodent...
Tactical nuclear weapons are a viable alternative!
This child is offending and insulting noone. She did an experiment which had a set of results (whether statistically significant or otherwise). If people, white or black, continue to be over-sensitive to race issues then how will we ever as a single race be able to distinguish between real race issues such as violent racial attacks, and issues which are caused by people making no effort to understand others. We take communication for granted, but it is a skill which I believe should be taught in schools because we are all so poor at it (myself included). Stephen Covey, in his bestselling book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, even has as a fundamental principle: Seek First To Understand, Then To Be Understood. It's hard to do, but worth it. My point is: if the girl had no malicious intentions then why are people inferring them? This reaction is extraordinary and I believe does nothing but harm race relations, not protect them.
I happen to be taking a law class right now, focusing on (among other things) consitutional law. Last time I looked at the Consitution (amazing how many people invoke the Constitution of the United States in normal discourse when they haven't read it, or read it well), which was about three hours ago, there are no stipulations as to age in any of the amendments that are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights.
As an example in which it is explicitly stated that minors, and further minors as students, still have full and equal access to the BoR, see the US Supreme Court case TINKER V. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503. (the text can be read here among other places). (As a historical sidenote, my mother was friends with the kids in question, back in Des Moines in the mid 60's.)
So in short if a 1st grader wishes to say he thinks the school's administration is wrongheaded, and does so in a manner that is not inciting to riot, constitutionally he is completely free to do so. If the administration doesn't like that, tough titty.
--
"Overrated" is "overfuckingused".
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Ever wonder why schools fail to produce educated people these days? This is an example of why. This girl did a completely rational, logical project, certainly more interesting and MEANINGFUL than the usual HS science fair project. But, because the subject failed the test of "political correctness", this young woman now has to be victimized by "the system". To put it more clearly, calling PC "politically correct" is itself being politically correct. The proper and honest term is POLITICAL CENSORSHIP. The very existance of political censorship in academia stifles free speech, free thought, creativity, etc. IN other words, it stifles the WHOLE PROCESS by which we think and discover new things!!! Unless eradicated, PC will bring down our ability to compete in the world of ideas. It can stop progress, halt technological advancement, etc. Think about the problem of race relations... And it IS a problem. How are we going to ever discover a solution, unless we honestly and scientifically research the PROBLEM? The PC movement doesn't want this problem delt with in an open and honest (and effective) manner because the required solution just MAY be found to be different than what the mostly leftist-socialist agenda that PC serves! Thank GOD I went to high school in the 1980's, when the whole idea of "PC" was just a mild joke instead of a dangerous, paralyzing, runious destructive force that is melting the minds of our next generation of thinkers.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Okay, I admit it. As a bleeding heart liberal, if I had been in the teachers shoes I may have made the same decision that they made. On the otherhand, I can see the issue from the freedom of speech side too. And, I agree that censorship is seldom an answer to any problem. Tonight, my daughter came home complaining to me, the kids in her school are calling her "white girl" and other "names." I informed her she is a white girl who sometimes wears a tee-shirt that says "Swede" on it. Even though kids can pretend that being white is not a good thing, it is just a difference, like boys and girls are different and that we should be happy that there are different people. I have not raised her to treat people differently because of color or gender or anything but to give each person a fair shake and allow them to earn your respect (or lose it). The teachers did not intend to censor, they wanted to avoid bad feelings from growing and interfering with the educational process in the school. For that, I don't blame them. If one student suffers - but the entire school benefits then more power too 'em. Maybe the kid will learn a lesson more valuable than the science lesson. Maybe she will learn about discression, and the way that social politics work. In the future, that could prove to be far more important than the science lesson. Perhaps, the teachers will learn an important lesson too. That not everything is socially correct and that the fringes are the areas that need the most protection. I am not without my bias' as an adult, I have had a long time to learn them. But I also know that sometimes, my discomfort in a situation is unwarranted and that I need to shed some of my own baggage before I draw conclusions. If I did not confront these issues from time to time, I would shop differently, I would live in a different place, and I would have fewer friends. To me, self-examination has to come before I accuse others. I can not accuse the student of being racist based on what I have read, but equally, I can not accuse the teachers of unfairly censoring her. I do hope that this issue opened dialog on a deeper level though the community and I hope that it does the same thing here on Slashdot. But we need to start by looking at our own issues.
--
Garett
She did not obtain ethical approval to do this research. For this alone, she would be kicked out of university. She did not debrief the people she asked. Her experiment was certainly not double-blind. No mention is given of how she chose the people she asked, this is another source of error. No mention of the race of the people she asked when this is clearly relevant.
Her experiment was neither scientific nor unbiased. Furthermore, it was probably unethical in that it did not follow ethical guidelines on human research.
Now, before this gets modded down as flamebait, let us remember that this was a child doing this project. She was acting far more scientifically than we have any right to expect from someone of this age. Furthermore, she was not presenting her conclusions in a biased manner. In my opinion, the school had no right to remove her project.
But please. Her research method was fundamentally flawed.
--
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
From the article:
I think I see what we're aiming for, here. What we want is to develop the Whiffle Life for children so that they grow up to be Whiffle Adults who are shocked and amazed when they burn their fingers on a stove, and then sue the stove manufacturer for not affixing a warning label to the stovetop.
You know what I think makes "students of color" uncomfortable? Calling them "students of color". Jeez, what the hell's wrong with calling 'em "students"? Crikey, I'm a "person of color", that color just happens to be "extremely pale".
That this child is 8 years old is irrelavant. This is a pretty sophisticated experiment for an 8-year-old, and she should be allowed to present it. Will it make the kids ask questions? Probably -- that's a GOOD thing. Will it make them uncomfortable? Not likely -- do these administrators remember being 8? 8 year olds aren't bothered by much. Witness them causing scenes in Wal-Mart or the grocery store.
Well, the First Amendment doesn't neccessarily apply to an 8 year old. You don't get Rights until you can accept the Responsibilities that come attached to them. The issue here is "should this project be tossed out" and to me, the answer is "no".
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
As a graduate of the Boulder Valley School District system, I wouldn't bet much that they do. Granted, I don't attend Mesa Elementary right now, but from what I've seen of BVSD free expression and free inquiry ARE supported and respected. No filters on the browsers when I was there, you can cuss in papers and keep it to a minimum in class, no books are banned.
In Boulder, there are always enough people with enough power to keep in the government in check. Oftentimes, the only option available is in fact to do the morally right thing, because if the Daily Camera doesn't let you know you screwed up then *some* organization certainly will.
It's funny that this kind of thing gets reported, I think, given that it's a relatively insignificant event. However, it does involve principles worth preserving and definitely falls under the heading of what those in the Denver area would call "only in Boulder."
No, the People's Republic of Cambridge is the center of liberal thought. Boston's just that weird place on the other side of the Charles :0)
Son, that's not true. That's just because the McDonald's we go to, there's more black people that live around there." (and we drove to another area of town to show him that all types of people work in fast-food
Come visit South Africa for a bit. Only black people work at McDonalds .. :) Unemployment is high (about 30%) and blacks constitute about 80% of the country's population - so pretty much all the "crappy" jobs are filled by blacks. This has quite visibly begun to change since 1994, you see a lot more black people driving expensive cars on the road etc .. this sort of change doesn't happen overnight.
Anyways .. I am very strongly against the view that children are these precious fragile things that should be protected from learning about the real world so that they can "enjoy their childhood and innocence". What a crock, you don't need to live in a world of lies and hidden truths to enjoy your childhood. The biggest tragedy about raising kids in such a protected fashion is that they grow up to be adults who close off the real world. I believe kids are NOT as stupid and/or fragile as the majority of people think they are. Treat kids like people capable of thinking and reasoning, and they'll grow up as thinking, reasoning adults. Treat kids as stupid and they'll grow up stupid.
Yes, we should never allow people to reach beyond what they can do. No one should ever strive to improve him- or herself, nor attempt to reach beyond a comfortable boundary of experience.
We can't have that. Who knows what might happen? God forbid! Someone might suggest that Newtonian physics are wrong! Someone might suggest that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
Everyone should be muffled in a warm cocoon of simplicty.
Ignorance is bliss!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Boston has historically been one of the most racist cities in the US. Because it is a center of liberal thought, though, racism is swept under the carpet. Witness the busing debate of twenty-odd years ago.
The Boston sports teams are not immune to this. The Red Sox were the last baseball team to integrate. I believe the Bruins (hockey) had a black player before either the Red Sox or the Celtics (the Patriots weren't founded until 1960).
Probably the ultimate reason for the racism was the large Irish population in Boston. The Irish had a tendency to racism for the very simple reason that the blacks would compete with them for the same menial jobs (due to the bias of the Brahmins). When the Irish essentially took over the city in the early 20th-century they effectively did all they could to marginalize any black population.
Except this girl clearly was prepared to deal with this question, as her (apparently) well-presented project shows.
While I agree with you in principle, this is the wrong case for you to argue this point on. This is a simple matter of the school authorities being embarrassed by a child questioning their assumptions, and dealing with it in a stupid manner. Business as usual in our public schools.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Are we to expect some sort of neoBrownshirt movement that finds, among its growing constituents, intelligent young girls?
Actually, western authorities are now almost as ill-adapted to the decentralization of media as was the Roman church when Guttenberg rendered its scribes obsolete. If the "Brownshirts" do win, it may produce something more akin to the Protestant Reformation than National Socialism. IMHO I think this is the more likely historic model. An Internet-age "Tyndale Bible" (first English translation created with the assistance of Spanish Jews exiled by the Inquisition in Hamburg) could be the response to an "Inquisition" by "The Church" of JudeoChristian Civilization into the "demon possession" of its critics.
If so, this work of greater public access to mythic authority may prove the most important exercise of the information age.
The question that has me hooked, as someone who lives and breaths this revolution is, "Just what form will this 'Tyndale Bible' take and from what sources will it derive its mythic authority?"
The theme of modern quasi-theological censorship is "think only pure thoughts about genes". We may be approaching a future in which Internet publication of the Human Genome is analogous to the publication of the Guttenberg bible. If so, software evolution for the interpretation of the Human Genome may give rise to the equivalent of the Tyndale bible in the post-modern era's escape from quasi-theocratic domination of thought and inquiry. If that happens, expect to see wars break out as the new Reformation acquires religious fervor in defense of, not simply freedom, but complete independence of thought and inquiry.
Seastead this.
This reminds me of an interview I heard with a Congressman who was a former POW. Can't remember the name, but he was probably more passionate about the flag than your teacher. He told a rather touching story about getting off the plane after being repatriated, see the flag flying over the the airfield, and bursting into tears. Until then, he hadn't quite believed that he was no longer a prisoner.
Oddly enough, he was adamantly opposed to any sanctions against flag burners. He explained this position with a story from his captivity. He was repeatedly interrogated and bullied with the intent of persuading him to participate in the enemy's propoganda efforts. Once his interrogator showed him a clip of protestors in the US burning the flag. Obviously, he was told, America must be very weak if people can get away with such unpatriotic acts. No, replied the POW. Only a strong nation can afford to tolerate extreme dissent.
This made the interrogator very angry. It was, in fact, the only time the POW ever saw him lose his cool.
__________________
I would not doubt for a moment that your "real people" are the same sort of people that think anyone wearing a black t-shirt is a bad person...
You may not doubt it, but you can still be wrong. When I was in high school, I was the president of the Dungeons & Freaking Dragons Club. That's about as geeky and non-mainstream as you can get. And I wasn't shunned or punished for it. The teachers? hey were fine with it.
I am not saying that there aren't abuses within the system. I know a lot of "black T shirt kids" get the shaft today. But that's not a reason to damn all teachers, as you are. You're wrong, chum. They're not all bad, and there is no conspiracy. The bad teachers got that way by themselves, not through late-night school board meetings.
At their site.
Best Slashdot Co
I believe this project was better designed than most I have seen. So many of the projects are more "demonstrations" than "experiments". It disturbs me that kids who take a few science classes still don't understand the difference between trying to find out something for themselves and demonstrating something that someone else found out. This project was obviously designed to find new things out. I am willing to overlook a few design flaws when I see that persuit.
It sure beats the hell out of a model of the solar system made out of styrofoam balls and coat hangers.
All your events are belong to us.
It sounds like she was just trying to do some version of the classic experiments that Kenneth and Mamie Clark did with dolls, which provided central evidence in the brown v. board case. Who knows, she may have studied that in class that year; must be an awfully confusing lesson to her now.
--Bruce Fields