Slashdot Mirror


Voting A Class Requirement For Some At Drew

timrichardson writes "A Quaker literature professor at Drew University tried to make voting at the US Presidential elections a requirement for her English Lit class. NY Times has the story (free registration required)."

96 comments

  1. This would be a good idea... by Pluvius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...if it was for a poli sci class, especially one focusing on America. I can't make any sense out of it being a requirement for English lit.

    Rob

    1. Re:This would be a good idea... by Nomihn0 · · Score: 1
      This is not an outrageous requirement. If the students are not citizens, it could be an issue. However, that can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

      If all teachers mandated voting as a class requirement, this country might have a better voting age distribution. The student population, a demographic overrepresented in both the radical left and right, ultimately has the lowest voter turnout rates.

      If this (hopefully tenured) English literature professor recognizes this issue, why shouldn't she be permitted to address it? There is nothing harassing, offending, or illegal about it. Those in a political science class needn't be convinced to vote. All students go through English - I think it is ingenious to require voting in a class with such high enrollment.

    2. Re:This would be a good idea... by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      The idea is that English lit teachers are supposed to teach English lit. Whether or not their students vote is really irrelevant to their job, and thus shouldn't be made relevant to their students' grades (except possibly as optional extra credit). Whether or not this should be considered an indictment of our educational system is up to you, but this is the way our system is set up right now, like it or not.

      BTW, I didn't have to take English in college due to AP scores. But I get your point.

      Rob (Why is the fact that she's a Quaker relevant, anyway?)

    3. Re:This would be a good idea... by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny
      I can't make any sense out of it being a requirement for English lit.

      Well, perhaps the elections are taking place during the unit on tragedy. Or comedy.

    4. Re:This would be a good idea... by Tritoph · · Score: 2

      If all teachers mandated voting as a class requirement, this country might have a better voting age distribution. The student population, a demographic overrepresented in both the radical left and right, ultimately has the lowest voter turnout rates.

      And you have thousands of uneducated voters who don't care who they vote for, so they'd vote for the candidate they've heard of the most or gives them tax breaks on their hot new Porsche Carrera GT. They'd vote only because they had to to pass the class, not because they want to change their country.

      I'm all for less people voting, because then my vote weighs more.

    5. Re:This would be a good idea... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Informative
      There is nothing harassing, offending, or illegal about it

      Umm requireing me to vote for a grade is harassing, offensive, and I would imagine illegal. A teacher can no more require a student to vote than an employer can..

      --
    6. Re:This would be a good idea... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is the fact that she's a Quaker relevant, anyway?)

      Because the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a LONG history of social activism and one of the cores of Quakerism is the belief that every individual counts and it is important that each person act according to his or her conscience.

      Quakers have been at the forefront of political movements to empower individuals and recognize equality since the 1600's, when George Fox started them. (For example, Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker.)

    7. Re:This would be a good idea... by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Plus, their oats are fantastic.

    8. Re:This would be a good idea... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a number of times Quakers have boycotted Quaker Oats. They may have the name, but they don't have our backing, and, as far as I know, have no connection with any Friends (as Quakers refer to themselves or other members). Maybe, at one time, they may have been run by the Friends, but that influence is gone. When your religion is one of non-violence and a company that uses the name starts giving away Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger toys in cerials, it is not amusing. That's be like a company naming itself Christian Oats, and giving away Al-Queida martyr toys in with cerial.

    9. Re:This would be a good idea... by Nomihn0 · · Score: 1, Interesting
      It is not harassing, it is your responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. The least these students could get is get a little kick in the rear to go and vote.

      If choosing your next president (or, as /.ers might comprehend, "[evil] overlord") is offensive to you, you ought to move to a fascist state in which your name is simply assigned to a predetermined vote.

      Illegal? Private universities can require whatever they please so long as it is not discriminatory (or against an explicit state or federal law). If there is any question as to the legality of an action, it's up to the student to appeal to a court.

      I challenge you to find a law that states that "In an optional educational environment, requirements of students must be germane to the topic being taught."

      If you're talking about "legality" within a campus setting, that's WHOLLY up to the university's administration.

    10. Re:This would be a good idea... by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Illegal? Private universities can require whatever they please so long as it is not discriminatory (or against an explicit state or federal law). If there is any question as to the legality of an action, it's up to the student to appeal to a court.

      They can't require you to smoke weed, they can't require you to work for less then minimum wage, they can't require you to shoot cops, and they can't require you to vote. It's illegal to force or even reward anyone for voting.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    11. Re:This would be a good idea... by RWerp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A minor correction: don't call any brainwashed coward who blows up innocent people a martyr. Martyrs are supposed to die bravely for a just cause.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    12. Re:This would be a good idea... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In their eyes, and the eyes of those doing the brainwashing, it is a just cause. I don't agree, and I don't feel their actions can, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination, be justified.

      One person's political movement is another person's holy war, and someone else's thorn in the side. It's a function of point of view.

      And yes, anyone too afraid to live their life for a cause instead of dying quickly to get it over with and kill others, is a coward.

    13. Re:This would be a good idea... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is not harassing, it is your responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. The least these students could get is get a little kick in the rear to go and vote.

      Its not this teachers job to 'kick them in the but', if the teacher makes a speech about why its important to vote, great I am all for the effort. I never miss an election but thats my right, it would also be my right to sit on my rear at home and not vote, its called freedom.

      Private universities can require whatever they please so long as it is not discriminatory (or against an explicit state or federal law). If there is any question as to the legality of an action, it's up to the student to appeal to a court.

      No they can not, a private university can not insist that studants go to s strip club no matter how legal it is.

      "In an optional educational environment, requirements of students must be germane to the topic being taught."

      If this school is ABET certified they have very tight guidelines to which they must adhere.

      --
    14. Re:This would be a good idea... by Tyndmyr · · Score: 1

      Im pretty sure those are all against explicit state and federal laws. I for one feel that requiring people to vote is both ineffective and pointless. If they didnt care enough to vote, why would they care enough to research before voting? Enter more random votes chosen via 30 sec sound bites.

      --
      Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
    15. Re:This would be a good idea... by XbainX · · Score: 1

      Everything you mentioned, with the exception of forcing members of a private organization to vote, IS illegal.

      They can't require you to smoke weed,
      Smoking marijuana violates federal law.

      they can't require you to work for less then minimum wage,
      It is illegal for an employer to pay less than minimum wage.

      they can't require you to shoot cops,
      Again, shooting someone for the hell of it is illegal, no matter who you're shooting.

      and they can't require you to vote. It's illegal to force or even reward anyone for voting.
      I've never heard of a law that prohibits this. If the student doesn't want to, then they don't have to; they have the option of receiving the professor's wrath or simply withdrawing from the class or even the school.

    16. Re:This would be a good idea... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      How is this story different from say, if a teacher required her students to say the pledge in class or fly a flag from their home? There is not law that requires any of these, and the same arguments about patriotism and citizenship could be made for either. But if we were talking about the the pledge, I'll bet more people would be upset... what is the difference?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    17. Re:This would be a good idea... by diseasesofseamen · · Score: 1

      The moral question, I suppose, is not if she should be able to force them to vote, but /should/ she force them to vote.

      Americans pride themselves on their freedom so much that being stupid has also become a freedom, in an half-assed fashion. Following this to its logical conclusion, she's wrong to deny them this right; but she's also a professor in an university, in a English department, and these usually give their instructors some leeway on teaching methods (I'm a unversity TA right now and have considerable powers that I have not even explored.) By enrolling in her class her students are subject to her methods and the policies on her syllabus. She's not asking them to kill a homeless person, do handstands, or construct WOMD. I doubt this came out of left field.

      I'll note none of the students have dropped or protested; all the noise is coming from outside sources that don't have their grades on the line.

    18. Re:This would be a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it also against your religion to call people names?

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122083&cid=1 02 71036

    19. Re:This would be a good idea... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      The pledge in school is a law in many states. Illinois for one.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  2. was he asking for trouble? by gl4ss · · Score: 0

    or is he just plain stupid?

    I mean, he should know that this is a thing he shouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole("forcing" people to go vote).

    he should've just arranged some imaginary voting setting.. or have them all research who it would be best to vote for - but not fucking mess with the elections itself(I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:was he asking for trouble? by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt

      Why? She's not telling them to vote for a specific person (I'm assuming; I'm too lazy to register and RTFA); she's just telling them to vote. I don't think that that's illegal, nor do I think it should be.

      Rob

    2. Re:was he asking for trouble? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      **Why? She's not telling them to vote for a specific person (I'm assuming; I'm too lazy to register and RTFA); she's just telling them to vote. I don't think that that's illegal, nor do I think it should be.**

      that doesn't matter, just that you're making them go to vote is meddling with the free elections already.

      you know how the not-so-free nations achieve their high voting percentage(apart from just twisting the numbers)? staying out of voting should be an option if you they all just suck too much.

      i'm not saying it's smart to not vote, just that it's too problematic for him to try to force them to vote, and he being a teacher he should've known it. then again he might be so stupid he would think it would be smart to have a receipt system so you could prove who you voted for...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:was he asking for trouble? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I can think of far more objectionable things to do, and I can think of a lot of classes where I've had to do them all. And you know, all those classes, if I'd had a legitimate problem with doing what I was asked to, I could've spoken with the prof and gotten out of it. There's not a doubt in my mind that this prof would be similarly understanding. I mean, if I can provide a reasoned, well-thought out explanation of why I decline to vote, doesn't that accomplish everything the prof hopes for here? In his place I'd be ecstatic, because I expect half the kids in the class can't tell GWB from JFK.

      Note that I didn't RTFA. Maybe he makes a liar out of me by saying he will not, under any circumstances, excuse anyone. I really wish Slashdot wouldn't run NYT stories.

    4. Re:was he asking for trouble? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      **I mean, if I can provide a reasoned, well-thought out explanation of why I decline to vote, doesn't that accomplish everything the prof hopes for here? **

      ah but just having to provide any kind of explanation at all for that, to someone else than you yourself, is messing with the total freedom of the elections. even if it's a totally bogus reason you would provide. as not showing up at the voting place is a decision too, that affects the outcome of the voting.

      he should have used other methods to make the students intrested in voting, like making them see that if they don't vote for themselfs some asses are going to vote for their candidate.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:was he asking for trouble? by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      you know how the not-so-free nations achieve their high voting percentage(apart from just twisting the numbers)?

      Yes, they force their citizens to vote for a specific party. You can choose to abstain if you don't want to vote for anyone in the Presidential race, BTW; there are many other offices and issues to vote on in this election. It's even possible to abstain on everything, even though there wouldn't be much of a point in turning in an empty ballot.

      Rob

    6. Re:was he asking for trouble? by drseuss9311 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mod ctr2sprt up!

      This is the exact point i got from RTFA.
      The students are not forced to vote, but the prof is encouraging voting by letting the students know that it will somehow affect their grade.
      TFA is short and at the end u get the idea that the prof's ulterior motive is to start a dialog on campus, not FORCE students to vote.

      I'd be more interested in the voter turnout for the campus vs last year's turnout...

      --
      ------ no thanks... I've quit
    7. Re:was he asking for trouble? by siriuskase · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not only didn't you RTFA, you didn't read the little blurb that the Tims so kindly posted for your convenience.

      She said she'd grade generously and on the honor system. She requires them to register, go to the polling place, and enter the booth. She does not tell them who to vote for, she does not require them to vote. It's sort of like a field trip where they can participate if they'd like, but if they just watch and learn something about the process, that's fine, too.

      Her goal is to provoke discussion. So far, no students have dropped the course.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    8. Re:was he asking for trouble? by dago · · Score: 1

      So, given your various comments, you think that mandatory voting can't exist in a free nation ?

      Umh, I didn't felt like that when I was still living in Belgium (btw, same for Netherlands, Australia and a few others).

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    9. Re:was he asking for trouble? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Except to satisy your English professor... But in all seriousness, turning in an empty or otherwise spoiled ballot is usefull. If you cant figgure out why, I cant explain it to you.

    10. Re:was he asking for trouble? by RWerp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt

      Actually, in some countries (like Australia) voting is compulsory and you pay a fine if you don't vote.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  3. How would the professor know? by HAKdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Honestly, how can you prove that you voted? Unless she makes everybody present one of those "I voted today" stickers they hand out at the voting centers.

    An interesting aside to this article, Fox reporters harrassed students trying to register their peers to vote in Arizona..

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    1. Re:How would the professor know? by Nomihn0 · · Score: 1

      How did your high school teacher know that your dog was incapable of consuming an entire English thesis? It's the same thing here - lies are rather transparent. You'd be surprised how many people, when asked who they voted for, would crumple.

    2. Re:How would the professor know? by Exocet · · Score: 1

      Not to point out the painfully obvious but, "RTFA". The prof notes she can NOT be sure everyone voted - it's on the honour system. So, unless you're a hideously ethical person that's also painfully stupid, you will either follow the requirement in good faith or smile and lie.

      --
      Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
    3. Re:How would the professor know? by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Interestinly enough, one time my dog did rip my homework to shreds. Of course my teacher laughed when I told her and then I whipped out the note from my mom and and the evidence incased in a ziplock bag.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    4. Re:How would the professor know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "incased" alright. She'd never have believed it otherwise.

      As strange as it may sound to you, I would have encased it - just in case .

    5. Re:How would the professor know? by timrichardson · · Score: 1

      Actually, she later changed this to a requirement that her class turn up to vote, rather than actually casting a vote. The famous "compulsory voting" in Australia is similar: it is not actually compulsory to vote, contrary to popular myth: it is only compulsory that you turn up to a polling station. No one knows what you do afterwards: vote, not vote, vote incorrectly ...

    6. Re:How would the professor know? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Troll

      Thanks for posting that link. In my mind, Fox News deserves far more condemnation for openly discouraging students from voting in this manner, than does this professor for encouraging students to vote. The stark contrast between the incidents is telling.

    7. Re:How would the professor know? by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Damn, I should have caught that.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    8. Re:How would the professor know? by 808140 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you're the one who didn't read the link.

      The issue lies with a 1979 decision that states that students (temporary residents of a state) are allowed to register to vote in that state, without being permanent residents.

      Unfortunately, this fact is not widely recognized by out-of-state students at universites, who believe that the only way they can vote is through the somewhat tedious process of absentee voting in their home state (or going back home to vote).

      In order to encourage students to vote, the 1979 decision made it legal to vote in the state in which you are studying. From the article: In fact, despite a 1979 Supreme Court ruling affirming their right to vote where they attend school, students often encounter difficulties when they try to exercise that right.

      As for the feminist attention whores thing, I'll presume you're just trolling.

      Still, with a sig that paints you as rather unsupportive of ignorance, you'd think you'd at least check your facts.

    9. Re:How would the professor know? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      You have got to be kidding. Read the link yourself, AC. Since when is it Fox's job to explain the law to people? Here they went out of their way to do so, and in fact they got the law wrong. So they lied to students, telling them that they were committing a felony, not by lying on an affadavit, but by voting in Arizona, if they didn't plan to stay there forever. In other words, they were discouraging people from voting. Got it?

    10. Re:How would the professor know? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      It wasn't Fox News (tm). It was a local station's news staff, and the station just happened to be a Fox affiliate.

  4. So what if some students CANNOT vote? by redelm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Sounds very odd for a lit class.

    Some students may be in-eligible to vote -- too young, non-US citizens, felons, ... etc.

    For other students, it might be quite a morass to figure out if they can vote away from their home presincts. Different state laws.

    Of course, silliness must [statictically] happen.

    1. Re:So what if some students CANNOT vote? by Bishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only siliness here is your post.

      Ofcourse the professor is going to use her discretion with students who can not vote. Obviously if you thought of this problem so did she.

      For other students, it might be quite a morass to figure out if they can vote

      I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you have not attended a university, or the one you did attend wasn't very good. A good university professor is always more interested in the methods used to achieve a goal then the actual goal itself. In other words: showing your work is more important then the correct answer. Now I know it is hard to find good professors. Indeed they are probably a minority. However this professor has shown that she thinks outside of her field and beyond the classroom. This is a pretty good indication that this professor is at least "decent." It is probable that if one of her students can not vote, and can explain why, then that student will recieve full marks.

      I am disapointed by the negative attitude towards this professor. She should be congradulated for encouraging others to think about voteing.

    2. Re:So what if some students CANNOT vote? by siriuskase · · Score: 1
      Very few university students are under 18. They and the others who have a legitimate reason to not participate will surely be excused or given an alternative assignment.

      Students have a choice to register and vote either at their school home or at their permanent home. It's shouldn't be hard at either place, if it is, this assignment will alert everyone to a problem in the system.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    3. Re:RE:Re:RE:So what if some students CANNOT vote? by drseuss9311 · · Score: 1
      If I only had mod points....

      Students have a choice to register and vote either at their school home or at their permanent home. It's shouldn't be hard at either place, if it is, this assignment will alert everyone to a problem in the system.
      IMO there probably isn't a problem in the system... just apathy among citizens.
      --
      ------ no thanks... I've quit
    4. Re:So what if some students CANNOT vote? by kris_lang · · Score: 1

      umm, I started university at the age of fifteen, rather too young to be eligible to vote, much less even donate blood, and I got quite a ribbing when my friends founf out I couldn not donate blood at the school's blood drive without my parents' permission, but the bonus was that I got credit for my group for showing up to donate even if I couldn't donate yet. Ah yes, the silent minority of student minors.

      On the bad goof side, I didn't realize until later that I could have joined ROTC, rec'd the money and attended classes, and still have been able to opt out of the military option at the end, being a minor and being unable to sign contracts etc. Strangely, I had bank accounts and such withOUT any parental signatures on them.

  5. Good compromise by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a requirement for a sociology course on death and grieving we were required to go to a mortuary and bring back price lists for coffins, burials, etc. For a theater course, we had to see 3 productions external to the campus. For a japanese course, we had to go to Yahoan, a japanese supermarket. A civics course required the participation in a city government town-hall meeting. A course on aging required interviewing the elderly and nursing home attendants.

    External requirements for coursework are not at all uncommon, and are generally more useful than in-classroom coursework. If you could choose between two engineers, one of which studied dilligintly in the classroom but had no experience and one of which was required to get an internship in the field, who would you pick?

    Requiring students to enter a voting booth is definitely fair, and should pass muster with basically anyone in acadamia. While it is questionable whether or not you can require your students to vote, you can definitely require them to be physically present anywhere they are legally allowed to be. I do wish the requirement were more stringent... I.E. go or have your grade reduced by point five. But the concept of making your students participate in government activities is sound, and I wish more professors (and high-school teachers) would lean this direction.

    After all, where are kids going to learn the mechanical, tedious process of signing up to vote, finding their polling station, etc? From 15 second rock-the-vote ads?

    1. Re:Good compromise by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      This was not requireing them to go to (or watch) a debate, the was requireing them (putting major pressure) for them to vote. Voting is good, I have never nissed an election, but nobody can reuire me to go into a voting booth. This excersize was the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen from a prof. Part of having the freedom to vote is having the freedom not to vote, and this teacher attempted to take that away.

      you can definitely require them to be physically present anywhere they are legally allowed to be.

      Not true, a teacher could not require you be in a bar, or a strip club regardless of your age or state laws. A teacher can within reason ask you to be somewhere, and asking the kids to watch the debates, or even to a polling place to survey would be fine. But actually requireing them to enter the booth is dead wrong.

      But the concept of making your students participate in government activities is sound, and I wish more professors (and high-school teachers) would lean this direction.

      You cant force kids to participate by throwing them in a voting booth, voting alone is not participation in government, people in Iraq got to vote for saddam or saddam. The teacher should have taped the debates and requred the kids to watch and debate themselves.

      --
    2. Re:Good compromise by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Not true, a teacher could not require you be in a bar, or a strip club regardless of your age or state laws.

      If the course were about alcohol sales or the commodification of sexuality they could definitely require students to go to either place. Relevance to the course would be key of course, but if there was a legitimate educational reason to link 19th century American literature (which I assume is ripe with democratic idealism) with the modern interpretation thereof then the requirement of students to study the interworkings of democracy by participating is legitamate.

      Remember, these aren't kids. They didn't need parental permission to sign up for the course. These are college students at a private university.

      Debates are nice, but debates are "safe" and happen every day anyway. By the time you get to college, you had better know how to debate, or it will be a skill you will pick up quickly in a sink-or-swim scenario. The actual process of voting, sadly, is more arcane than that, and can't be taught... it can only be learned.

      Nobody is forcing you to vote. Nobody is forcing you to take the American Literature course at a private school. Nobody can force you to learn a compiler either, but if you take a computer programming course and can't use a compiler no matter how much theory you know you're going to fail. Why would a course on perspectives on American government be any different?

    3. Re:Good compromise by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Did you ener RTF Blurb? It's a goddamn Lit Professor!

      When I take certian classes, I expect outside work. But for Lit? WTF?

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  6. Requirements, from the article by siriuskase · · Score: 1
    Swayed by the mounting disagreement and the prospect of legal challenges, Professor Skaggs scaled back the requirement before school began. Framing the requirement in the vocabulary of the experiential learning that the school champions, Professor Skaggs said students would be required only to enter the voting booth; if they wished, they did not have to pull the lever. Students who are not American citizens would get a pass on the requirement.

    Professor Skaggs said the penalty for failing to enter the voting booth, which would be done on the honor system, would probably be "a failure to be generous" on her part when it comes time to issue grades and "an inclination to round fractions down."

    Since school started, no students have dropped out of her classes, according to school officials.

    She's grading on the honor system, folks, but she'll round you down if you protest.
    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  7. The real question here... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quakers vote? Since when?

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:The real question here... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      I think they meant on the video game Quake where people vote to kick certain players off.

    2. Re:The real question here... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Maybe he bought into the pop slogan of "anyone but Bush", and is now convinced that voting is more important than his religious principles. A shame.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:The real question here... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      I don't see why this is funny, unless the fact that Quakers are such a small minority that most people know little about them and making comments that show their lack of knowledge on a topic is funny.

      Susan B. Anthony, for example, was a Quaker. The Religious Society of Friends has been at the forefront of many political movements. Quakers believe that each individual is important and that it is our duty, as individuals, to speak up for what we believe is right.

      It's not, "Quakers vote? Since when?" It's more like a surprise if a Quaker DOES NOT vote.

      And no, we're not the ones who use a horse-and-buggy to get around. You're thinking of the Almish. I know Quaker developers, lawyers, professors, doctors, business owners, and members of many other professions.

      I have heard people from almost any group I've been in say they don't vote, but I have NEVER heard a Quaker say that, or talked to one who ever passed up an election.

    4. Re:The real question here... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Maybe he bought into the pop slogan of "anyone but Bush", and is now convinced that voting is more important than his religious principles. A shame.

      Maybe there is a complete misunderstanding of Quakers in this forum. As I said in response to the other post, (link to other post).

      To be honest, and I'm not trying to troll, your comment shows you have almost now knowledge of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Of all the Quakers I know (and, yes, I'm one), almsot every one of them, every time, will make sure their actions are in concert with their beliefs and what they feel is the right thing to do -- at least in issues of conscience.

    5. Re:The real question here... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm thinking of my high-school buddy who was, !!, a Quaker. They live in S.C. and go to a Methodist church, but their official church is in N.C. and have remained Quakers for the 10 years that I've known them. They don't drink and they don't vote.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    6. Re:The real question here... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Interesting. That's the first I've ever heard of Quakers that didn't vote.

      You don't know anything like whether they're a programmed or unprogrammed Meeting, or if they're under Friend's General Conference or Friends United Meeting, by chance, do you? (That would tell me just how conservative their Meeting is and what branch they're in.)

    7. Re:The real question here... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I know a few Quakers, and have even attended some meetings. While it is true that every good Quaker will do his or her best to do what they believe is right, they don't all necessarily act consistantly. Just like the rest of us :-)

      Getting involved in politics is certainly not out of place. But seeking to impose a political opinion upon another is a different matter. And that's what voting is. You're voting on who will be Caesar, on who will wield the scepter of force. I just can't see my Quaker friends voting in any non-voluntary governmental system. This doesn't mean that they're anarchists, just that they have themselves rejected the use of force for offense or defense as a personal choice.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    8. Re:The real question here... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      I don't know, anarchist has been used to describe us many times. I know I, for one, am not insulted.

      But, then again, I joined the Religious Society of Friends because I was fed up with organized religion.

    9. Re:The real question here... by drseuss9311 · · Score: 1

      I grew up quaker, but haven't been to meeting in years.
      Once I understood the schizm between the programmed and unprogrammed worship (disclosure: my meeting was unprogrammed) I decided to worship alone.

      This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.

      All that's beside the point.
      My main point being that there probably are some Friends/Quakers that don't vote, but I'd agree that it's a small fraction. What's the percentage of christians/catholics that don't vote?
      Isn't the low voter turnout the real issue?
      How can america claim democracy when about half don't vote?
      am I wrong here?

      --
      ------ no thanks... I've quit
  8. RTFA: Experimental Learning by tm2b · · Score: 1
    If you read the article, you will see:
    Framing the requirement in the vocabulary of the experiential learning that the school champions, Professor Skaggs said students would be required only to enter the voting booth
    If the school has an open policy of being experimental, I think it buys them and the professors a lot of slack on stuff like this. Whether we think it's justified on its own merits or not, it's an experiment - students already signed up to be subjected to odd or unusual conditions. Let's give it a try and see what happens. Maybe it's just silly, maybe it'll have some subtle effect upon class participation. Who knows?
    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    1. Re:RTFA: Experimental Learning by magefile · · Score: 1

      Experiential, as in "hands on", not experimental.

    2. Re:RTFA: Experimental Learning by tm2b · · Score: 1

      D'oh! Color me an idiot.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  9. Weird... by kjones692 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To me, this is the weirdest part of the article:

    Professor Skaggs said the penalty for failing to enter the voting booth, which would be done on the honor system, would probably be "a failure to be generous" on her part when it comes time to issue grades and "an inclination to round fractions down."

    So, if you don't complete this external activity, she'll have a slight bias against you for the rest of the year? The problem is that it's so subjective you have really no way of knowing how fair she's being in this.

    Just weird.

    --

    Love the Third Amendment?
    1. Re:Weird... by frenchs · · Score: 1

      I have Gmail invites. Ask and ye shall receive.

      May I have one, pretty please? :)

      -Steve
      steve AT zocode DOT com

  10. I have a religious objection to voting by Fished · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have a religious objection to voting, since I believe that I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God (who happens to live in the United States.) I pay taxes, I submit to the authorities of this country, and I will help it in any way my consciences allows - but I won't pretend it is my own. This is far from an unheard of point of view - many Quakers and Mennonites have held it for centuries.

    If this were a political science class, she might have a case for this being a necessary requirement (although I would still feel strongly that students should be allowed to substitute an explanation for their decision NOT to vote for voting.) As it is, it presents a massive chilling effect on the religious freedom of withdrawal.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:I have a religious objection to voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But do you have a religious aversion to entering a polling booth. The article stated that the requirement wasn't too vote, just to enter the booth...

    2. Re:I have a religious objection to voting by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Does it say in the article that the professor would not accept an explanation of a decision not to vote as a substitute for the assignment? I know if I were the professor I would, and I think it would be entirely reasonable to require the assignment and then deal with such objections on a case by case basis. I don't see how this differs from the class on death that someone mentioned earlier that requires students to visit the morgue. Any student with an objection can certainly voice that, and the teacher can deal with the objection in the situation. Were I a school administrator, I would defer to the teacher's judgement as to whether an alternative assignment would be acceptable.

      On another note, I wonder what the reaction would be to a class assignment that required students to attend a football game.

    3. Re:I have a religious objection to voting by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      many Quakers ... have held it for centuries.

      As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide.

      Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of us, and that when a person speaks, he or she should be listened to, since it is God speaking through that person, in the unique way that person understands God and him/her-self. For this reason, I could not imagine a Quaker telling his class to vote, and not allowing an alternative assignment for someone who sincerely felt it was against his religious belief.

    4. Re:I have a religious objection to voting by Associate · · Score: 1

      Unless you are a member of a religion based on lies and deceit, such actions would be viewed as disingenuous and therefore 'not right'. Proximity to a booth would not in its self be wrong. I personally would be compeled not to answer if asked if I had voted.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    5. Re:I have a religious objection to voting by OreoCookie · · Score: 1

      I believe that I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God (who happens to live in the United States.)

      God lives in the United States? Cool!

    6. Re:I have a religious objection to voting by Fished · · Score: 1
      As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide. Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of us, and that when a person speaks, he or she should be listened to, since it is God speaking through that person, in the unique way that person understands God and him/her-self. For this reason, I could not imagine a Quaker telling his class to vote, and not allowing an alternative assignment for someone who sincerely felt it was against his religious belief.
      This was admittedly an historical quaker position which is not much subscribed to in contemporary circles. I think you would find that this position is far more common among "conservative" Friends than those of a more "liberal" inclination. Most modern Mennonites likewise have no problem with voting.
      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  11. Is this individual.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. an electoral authority of some kind?

    How is it possible that such a person thinks that it is OK to force people to do something which should be a free individual decission?

    Why are there so many idiots on this thread justifying sombeody requiring this?

    No wonder democracy is being undermined so badly, most people, even literature teachers, do not get it.

    What an amazing and outrageous state of affairs.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Is this individual.... by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      How is it possible that such a person thinks that it is OK to force people to do something which should be a free individual decission?

      Sort of like reading Moby Dick? Or The Great Gatsby? There are certain requirements you must meet in order to pass a class you voluntarily signed up for. Being "forced" to excercise your Constitutional right and, more importantly, civic duty hardly sounds like a ball breaker.

      --trb

    2. Re:Is this individual.... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Me thinks you would be more upset if said teacher required students to buy and own a gun.

    3. Re:Is this individual.... by (trb001) · · Score: 1

      I would object only because they cost too damn much for a college. I think everyone should own, and be proficient with, a hand gun. Voting is free and, like handgun ownership, a right that should be excercised.

      --trb

  12. Which part of the sentence "free elections" ... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ...escapes your intellectual capacity of judging a situation in which it looses its meaning?

    Free elecetions, no ifs, no buts.

    My goodness, no wonder people give away their freedoms and liberties for a meagre false sense of security (and bread and circus of course)

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  13. They have not dropped or complained... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... because they are stupid.

    ANd based on the responses on this thread, they are not alone.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  14. nothing to see here. move on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the votes will all be hacked so it doesnt matter if someone votes. Get your hack the vote swag

  15. "Presidential" elections? by JavaRob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...voting at the US Presidential elections

    Ok, this rant is already in my sig, but I will expand a bit here since it's on topic. There are no "US Presidential elections", where you show up at the polls, vote for the president, and go home.

    I don't know if this professor is presenting it this way to the students or not, but most U.S. citizens seem to see it this way. It's shamefully common for people to say "Eh, why vote? I'm in a swing state!"

    There are plenty of more items on every ballot -- local and state representatives, and propositions that your local/state government wants your feedback on before they change the laws.

    You are NOT just going to vote for the POTUS -- so if you don't show just because you're not in a swing state, all you're doing is saying "I don't care" to all of the local and state decisions that are going to be made until the next election... and trust me, you WILL care about some of them.

    Back to the specific topic -- some people might have their specific reasons for NOT voting (it's a pretty dumb way to protest against the system, but there could be religious reasons, etc.), so I'd argue instead for an assignment where the student does everything to vote (including ensuring they are registered, and getting a mail-in ballot if necessary), and documents what they did -- then has the personal option to actually cast a vote or not.

    Same idea (and a great assignment, I think), without the iffy aspects.

  16. correction by JavaRob · · Score: 1

    "Eh, why vote? I'm in a swing state!"
    should be
    "Eh, why vote? I'm NOT in a swing state!"

    probably obvious...

  17. Freedom in forced voting? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where's the freedom in forced voting? As Americans, is it not the right of the people not only to decide *whom* they're going to vote for, but *whether* they will vote at all?

    Granted, this is a private school, and if they are funded strictly by private funds, then they can legitimately make this a requirement (students can go to other universities if they disagree with the requirement). But if the university receives government funding in any way - for research, etc. - then they are not wholly-privately-funded, they are funded in part by the public as well, and thus should be subject to the same 1st Amendment rights that government entities are.

  18. What if you're not eligible to vote? by 200_success · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the professor waives the requirement for students who aren't eligible to vote. But to qualify for the exemption, wouldn't the student have to tell the professor that he is not an American citizen or is a convicted felon? And if the student got a bad grade later on, couldn't the student allege discrimination?

    1. Re:What if you're not eligible to vote? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      So? The student can allege whatever they want whether or not they vote.

  19. Horrible Idea by reporter · · Score: 1
    Suppose that a person is so indifferent to current events that she never votes. If someone then compelled her to vote, her vote would be an uninformed vote. Her vote would be no different than a vote that is cast by flipping a coin for the best candidate.

    How can this kind of vote possibly advance democracy?

    1. Re:Horrible Idea by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      If someone then compelled her to vote, her vote would be an uninformed vote.

      Like 90% of the other votes. All that getting more people to vote would do is get more people active in things that actually affect their future.

      Rob

  20. Pretty good idea... by PKPerson · · Score: 1

    I dont think this teacher should Force the students to vote because then you would have many people who would just pick a random canadate to vote for. However, assigning it for extra credit, which would provide an incentive for those who are just too lazy to vote, would be a good idea. I would guess if your taking a class on the U.S.A., you would already be educated enough to vote, so i see logic in doung it during English. I certainly will vote when i can (4 years)

  21. Relevance to English Literature? by mec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, like many posters, I don't like anybody with power -- a boss, a teacher, a union official, a wife or husband or parent -- abusing that power to make other people vote.

    Also, from a pedagogical point of view, how is the act of entering a voting booth related to the study of literature? Somebody can enter the booth whether they've read 0 pages or 1000 pages of campaign literature.

    Here's a tougher and more relevant requirement: get a comment moderated "4" or "5" on slashdot, not counting "funny". Even harder: do it as an anonymous coward.

    Of course that would be open to cheating. And to be sure, some topics are easy to get mod points on, just put up "RIAA is teh sux0r" in an article on music piracy and that's +4 insightful. But generally, to get mod points, a writer has to have a good thesis, and has to present it in a way that acknowledges the complexity of the subject and also the counter-arguments from the other side.

  22. More complex by redelm · · Score: 1
    I'll ignore the "ad hominem" -- I don't think you really mean to concede the argument.

    From the storm of peer objections, I'm not sure how much the professor thought.

    Students, especially undergrad, are a skittish bunch. Many do not understand that a good argument will be just as acceptable to a good professor. Perhaps because such arguments have failed on bad profs. Then again, some may not wish to discuss their voting status. Are they not entitled to privacy?

    BTW, I'm personally with the objectors. Not voting is an excellent choice, mostly because it deprives the elected of mandate and power. Probably better than "the lesser of two evils", and possibly better than 3rd party votes. What else can you do in a first-past-the-post system? The US isn't proportional representation.

  23. New York Times? by zardinuk · · Score: 0

    Is this just a trick to get people to register for the New York Times? Are they going to email me election propoganda?

    --

    "What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
    - Confucius

    1. Re:New York Times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Is this just a trick to get people to register for the New York Times? Are they going to email me election propoganda?

      Yes. The NYT is involved in a liberal plot to bring peace and prosperity to the world through objective reporting. How DARE they contradict FOX? What bastards. The next thing you know, they'll be flouridating our water supply.

  24. You all forget it is still their choice... by bornbitter · · Score: 1

    ...to vote or not. Yes they may have to deal with a slight bias against them, but how I understood it was that she would fail to be generous; maening that she would not give out any freebies. These kids are not being penalized, just denied anything extra that they could have recieved, if they had done something extra. Hmmm, sounds like extra credit to me. As for the teacher "forcing" the students to vote, whoever thinks that is full of it. The teacher is not going to follow them around and force them into the booth. Take responsibility for your own actions, stop crying. If they do 'A' work in class and decide not to vote, they will still get an 'A.' Relax. No story here.

    --
    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
  25. compulsory voting by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

    I personally believe every body should vote. I would also support forcing people by law to return their ballots. Not vote mind you, just a law saying that you must hand in your ballot paper, either in person or by post, to a polling station. A "none of the above" option could even be added.

    --
    "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks