Science Fair Exhibits: Fair Game For Censorship 498
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 ..."
Re:Isn't it ironic? (Score:2)
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?
--
Huge success (Score:3)
Re:Apparently your teachers failed YOU as well... (Score:3)
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.
--
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
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.
Re:That's a more sophisticated ... (Score:2)
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.
Re:How many blacks in your engineering classes? (Score:2)
Re:Perspectives (Score:2)
The girl's website (Score:2)
http://www.thielen.com/users/brianna/ [thielen.com]
or simply http://www.thielen.com [thielen.com] for her faimily's page.
Re:Children are NOT miniature adults! (Score:2)
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.
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
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.
The REAL Lesson (Score:3)
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'.
Re:Same old crap. (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Children are NOT miniature adults! (Score:5)
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.
Re:Perspectives (Score:3)
School Board Website (Score:5)
Based on this, The Boulder Valley school district web page is here [k12.co.us]. 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.
Re:[Offtopic but..] Not an accurate experiment any (Score:2)
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?
Re:This is real science (Score:2)
Science does not prove anything, it comes up with a hypothosis and then looks for ways to show it is wrong.
Right.... (Score:3)
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 is real science (Score:3)
It is my understanding that most Science fair experiments are rather dull and pointless.
She should get an "A".
Questionable science in questionable environement (Score:2)
Still, who can blame her when she is surrounded by spineless, politically correct drones intent on denying that the world is not perfect?
Re:Isn't it ironic? (Score:2)
Re:My science fair project... (Score:2)
Re:This is real science (Score:2)
This is an elementary school science fair project, not a federally funded research project with a paper to be published in Science. The fact that she tried to test a hypothesis at all--and that she had a control, even if it wasn't an ideal one--puts her far ahead of most science fair projects of her age group.
The writer also doesn't say what her conclusions WERE, yet flatly asserts that she wasn't having a discussion on race, just presenting findings. Frankly, I'd hold off on that distinction until i could see the actual project.
Why start now? The fact that you haven't seen the project didn't stop you from making several other judgements about it.
Anyway, the experiement didn't test her stated hypothesis, used a flat and boring experimental method and most likely drew unwarrented conclusions. B+ if her printing was neat.
She had a hypothesis, she had an experimental method, and she had conclusions. Again, this puts her far ahead of most science fair projects done by children her age.
Other coverage, and the Supreme Court (Score:2)
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.
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
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.
These data are significant (Score:5)
Actually, you can acheive statistical significance with such a small sample. Using the limited data available from This AP wire version [salon.com] 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.Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
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
Re:Think Independently? (Score:2)
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...
Re:Questionable science in questionable environeme (Score:2)
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*]
Re:Same old crap. (Score:2)
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.
Re:8 Years Old (Score:2)
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.
Re:Expression isn't Free without unpopular ideas (Score:2)
With the definition of "racist" left, I'm sure, to be set by the Ministry of Friendship, or whatever that translates to.
Re:Questionable science in questionable environeme (Score:2)
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 [openschedule.org] are belong to us.
Re:Children are NOT miniature adults! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Good for them. (Score:2)
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?
---
Re:Bzzt. Try again. Re:The comfort of children (Score:2)
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.
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Working at the McDo (Score:2)
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.
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:2)
>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.
Science vs. The Scientific Community (Score:2)
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.
Wow (Score:2)
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
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?
--
Re:Then what is the proper forum? (Score:3)
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.
Re:8 Years Old (Score:3)
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.
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:2)
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
Re:The comfort of children (Score:2)
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.
Re:Think Independently? (Score:2)
Wasn't that the government's excuse for the Chicago 7 trial?
Re:School Board Website (Score:2)
It has recently come to my attention that a young student's science fair experiment has been pulled, ostensibly due to concerns of racial insensitivity. I would submit that the teachers and administrators should be admonished, for their actions have achieved nothing positive.
The reasons for the removal of the report on the experiment, gleaned from press reports, was that the report on the experiment was that it was inappropriate and out of context.
No. It was not. It seems that the experiment was well documented, with proper controls and so forth. While not of super high level interest, it seems that the young girl has, at the very least, learned something of the scientific method. By charting and properly carrying out her experiments, she has provided context. The next logical step, from a scientific viewpoint, would be larger samples, different modes of dress (how would the results for the adults have been skewed had the dolls been wearing dashikis for example).
From an educational and societal standpoint, there are even greater grounds for expansion. Why not use this as an opening salvo in a class or school discussion? "What do these results mean?" In an era where education is supposed to be multi-disciplinary, this simple experiment opens up possible lessons in: science, math, social studies, and history.
Educators have chosen to blame the science and the measurement, rather than what was measured. It should be understandable, by a learned panel such as yourselves, that platitudes and grand discussions are without merit unless backed by proof of efficacy. The current model of discussing feelings and ideas about race and race relations seems not to have taken hold. Rather than confront the problem, you have chosen to shoot the messenger.
Burying our collective heads and avoiding issues is one of the great wrongs in the United States today. The main goals of discourse should be the realization of common ground and common goals. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom is that it is more important to avoid offending someone, or even the possibility of offending someone.
When that is the goal, you offend all of those with free will, and those who have fought and lived to support the right to excercise it.
This is not a question of merit based testing, school performance, racial insensitivity, or any of the plethora of problems facing educators today. This is the result of being shown that society is not colorblind, we are collectively afraid of it, and can think of nothing to do but hide our flaws.
Have the girl's project examined on its scientific merits. Laud her (or chastise, as the case may be) for them. And use the results, flawed or not, to spark an open, honest discussion. If you fail to do this, I am afraid that the open, honest discussion will center around whether or not the school system is working in the best interests of the intellectual growth of the children, or the furtherance of the careers of the board members, teachers, and administrators.
George Howell
Re:School Board Website (Score:2)
jpa@pfymed.com
FYI.
Re:Brownshirts, Censorship and Tyndale (Score:2)
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.
Re:Children are NOT miniature adults! (Score:2)
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.
Now she has plenty to think about (Score:2)
you: What are these?
me: Smartning pills, $5 each
you: They taste like rabbit pellets!
me: You're getting smarter already.
Re:The comfort of children (Score:5)
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.
Re:Children are NOT miniature adults! (Score:2)
Never mind that the "food pyramid" itself is built on bad science. But it sounds so nice and simple!
Re:[Offtopic but..] Not an accurate experiment any (Score:2)
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
bunnies! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Expression isn't Free without unpopular ideas (Score:2)
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.
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:2)
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/
Re:The comfort of children (Score:2)
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...
Re:Bzzt. Try again. Re:The comfort of children (Score:2)
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?
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:2)
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
Re:The comfort of children (Score:2)
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.
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:2)
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...
--
That's a more sophisticated ... (Score:4)
---
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
This doesn't do very well for Development, but neither are they nations of criminals.
oh, bullshit (Score:3)
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.
8080? Bah :) (Score:2)
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
Then what is the proper forum? (Score:5)
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...
---
Re:[Offtopic but..] Not an accurate experiment any (Score:2)
"...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.
This reminds me of a statement I heard (Score:2)
I find that striking people that disagree with me is an effective way to prove my point. It's much easier than yelling.
Re:Isn't it ironic? (Score:2)
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.
Re:your first mistake... (Score:2)
> "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.
your first mistake... (Score:3)
...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.
Re:Then what is the proper forum? (Score:5)
I'm not agreeing with the director, but I think the official answer would be "the proper forum is in Social Studies, during our unit on Race Relations."
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, suppose the girl had surveyed only children, and presented the results she found: "only six of 30 children picked the black Barbie, regardless of dress." That's just a scientific "fact", right?
How does she then interpret this fact? In the article, it says her hypothesis was "that white people would prefer white Barbies because they were used to seeing white Barbies", and the results from the children confirm that. But she could have instead had a hypothesis that white people think white Barbies are prettier than black Barbies, and the evidence would have supported that conclusion, too. So the girl could publish that in big letters on her posterboard, a scientific fact that all the black kids in school could see and feel terrible about.
Could a peer come up with another study that contradicted or better explained her evidence? Possibly. But the science fair is already over for this year. And furthermore, maybe her elementary school chums really do think white people are prettier than black people. If the class had several weeks to investigate people's attitudes and personal histories in more depth, it could be a terrific Social Studies project. But just this one study popping up on science fair day and then disappearing, that is not the give and take of an ongoing scientific community. To the black students in the school, who are only young kids after all, it can feel no different than someone driving by and shouting "you people are ugly!" The car drives on, the children are left hurt and confused. While young Ms. Thielen probably had no axe to grind, would you all be as supportive if you knew that the study was done by a third-grade neo-nazi, whose father was in the KKK? Same experiment, let's say.
Now, 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* they have preferences. There are social taboos limiting the study of racial differences. Think Shockley, "The Bell Curve", etc. One of the reasons is that studies often aren't well thought out. Another reason is that people with racial preferences often latch on to the results of one study that support their preferences, no matter how limited, flawed, or contradicted by future studies it is. If adults have trouble with that, might not third graders have a little more?
That's my Devil's Advocacy on this. Feel free to attack the arguments.
Re:your first mistake... (Score:3)
This is a ridiculous post. How did this get +5? Are all of you that anti-establishment? Think, dammit. Don't lash out because it's the easy thing to do.
Yes, schools teach kids these things. But consider the alternative. What kind of society would we have if kids were taught that they didn't have to do anything on a schedule, that they didn't have to be on time and organized, that they didn't have a place in a power structure, that they didn't have to respect authority?
What the hell is wrong with teaching kids to NOT be little shits? Or would you rather raise a generation of criminals because it's not cool to follow the rules? Juvenile crime is bad enough already, why promote it?
The fact is that rules make a society livable, and you have to teach people the rules at an early age. If you don't, you get a lot of punks who use violence to solve their problems.
If the poster has a kid, I encourage him to adopt a hands-off method of raising him and see what happens. I'll see his ass on COPS someday soon.
Re:This is real science (Score:3)
no, not really. She came up with a hypothesis about people's motivations "people would prefer the white barbies because they're used to them" and then tested only preference. She threw in a "control" variable that completely overwhellemed the adult choice (what was the other doll wearing, a burlap sack?) and (if the incredibly biased and ranting writer can be trusted to get this right) wrote up her results as if her hypothesis (which she did not test) had been proven on children.
And how bloody inovative is showing kids two barbie dolls and asking which they like?
The writer also doesn't say what her conclusions WERE, yet flatly asserts that she wasn't having a discussion on race, just presenting findings. Frankly, I'd hold off on that distinction until i could see the actual project. Students of that age rarely know the difference between the conclusion and the discussion.
Anyway, the experiement didn't test her stated hypothesis, used a flat and boring experimental method and most likely drew unwarrented conclusions. B+ if her printing was neat.
(evil on) Oh, and she is learning a lot more about doing real research and getting it funded than she would be if no one cared about her subject matter, doncha think? (evil off)
Kahuna Burger
Re:Right.... (Score:3)
They support free expression and free inquiry right? So how much do you want to bet that they use censorware, send students to the office for as little as the word "damn," ban books from the library, etc.? (My old HS did all of these).
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
Who approved the project? (Score:5)
Apparently your teachers failed YOU as well... (Score:5)
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."
--
Happens quite a bit. (Score:5)
Re:your first mistake... (Score:4)
I think this statement applies more accurately to your post...
What kind of society would we have if kids were taught that they didn't have to do anything on a schedule, that they didn't have to be on time and organized...
Schools don't teach kids how to create and implement schedules to help them achieve their goals. Instead, kids are taught to conform to an arbitrary and micromanaging schedule imposed by an 'authority' figure. In this light, traditional school schedules are devoid of content, since they lack any purpose except obedience and conformity training.
They have their place as voting citizens. In essence, they ARE the authority, and as such should be taught how to make responsible decisions. That takes practice. Children who learn to blindly obey authority figures get another kind of practice. I think this develops and encourages BAD HABITS. Schools today model an authoritarian system, not a democratic one. This is bad for democracy itself!
What the hell is wrong with teaching kids to NOT be little shits? Or would you rather raise a generation of criminals because it's not cool to follow the rules? Juvenile crime is bad enough already, why promote it? The fact is that rules make a society livable, and you have to teach people the rules at an early age. If you don't, you get a lot of punks who use violence to solve their problems.
This stems from the base assumption that we are all inherintly evil, and the evil side of us must be suppressed from an early age by means of punishments, rewards, and indoctrination into a top down authoritarian heirarchy. Otherwise we'd run wild! We'd all be criminals...
Personally, I think that if a kid is taught only how to conform to rules, they are more likely to become criminals because they've only gained a shallow understanding of the law in school. They never learn that the law is a tool that they, as a future voter, will help shape, depending on what they want to accomplish in society. Thus they never gain any respect, since rules always appear as something preventing them from doing what they want, not as something that helps them accomplish their goals. Combine this with the arbitrary nature of many rules in classrooms, and you are teaching a child to obey indiscriminately. Again, good for authoritarian, bad for democratic.
If the poster has a kid, I encourage him to adopt a hands-off method of raising him and see what happens.
Why is it you instantly assume that the alternative is a hands off apporach? Is it possible to be more hands ON, without using punishments, rewards, and authority sturctures? To me, people who have been trained NOT to think for themselves have trouble imagining more than one alternative to any particular problem.
Oh, and by the way, what can be more hands off than blindly sending your child to a government institution for a standardizing 'education'?
I suggest to you that the research I've done for the last 5 years backs up what I'm saying. Maybe you should stop apologizing for a system that clearly doesn't work, and start looking into alternative methods of education, methods that actually take the learning process into account.
"Together we will bring order to the universe!" D. Vader.
Perspectives (Score:4)
Strawman alert (Score:3)
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
Race of her audience? (Score:3)
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:3)
Funny how this element of our leaders gets passed down the line to parents, teachers, majors, etc.
It's sad to say that such things happen all the time. Pursuasive rhetoric is only valuable in our society if it is mainstream... otherwise you get moderated down.
We train people to talk themselves into belief instead of actually learning the history and premise of belief.
Pan
Sci Fair Jodge (sort of) (Score:5)
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
Re:That's a more sophisticated ... (Score:3)
I wonder if they reacted properly when talking to their daughter afterwards. If I was the father, I'd say:
"Sweetie, don't be sad. There are a lot of ignorant people in the world, and sadly many of them find themselves in a position of authority, or worse yet, in charge of the education of children. Yep, I'm talking about the bozos who pulled your exhibit. Dumbasses, all of them. Ah, I have a surprise for you. I took a newspaper article about your project and framed it. Here take a look. Yep, you made it into the news! Oh and by the way, I'll check your future grades making corrections for the 'A' you should have gotten. Which, for all that matters, you have. Bye darling. I'm very proud of you."
Not questionable. Naive perhaps. . . (Score:3)
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". . .
What about food experiments? (Score:3)
Expression isn't Free without unpopular ideas (Score:5)
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.
Re:Right.... (Score:5)
IN other words, the school district only suppors students constitutional freedoms when they conform to the political agenda of the administrators.
Which defies the purpose of the 1st Amendment. Thhe whole purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Popular speech (ie that which doesn't offend the establishment powers) never did need protection. Why, even in China, your freedom to loudly praise Mao is unquestioned.
The 1st Amendment exists to protect the rights of those with unpopular beliefs and opinions to express them without POLITICAL (ie governmental) reprisals. Since this is a GOVERNMENT school, that this student is REQUIRED to attend by law, the administration is clearly as bound as the city/county/state government to subordinate itself to the Constitution.
Re:Happens quite a bit. (Score:3)
Caused quite a stir - some parents instructed their kids not to attend classes by those two, TV news crews came out to cover the affair, and the two techers were fired and the best headmaster the school (St. Mark's School of Texas - Go Lions!) has had before or since was let go as well.
Sure taught me that symbols are powerful...
This was in '69, during the Vietnam Unpleasantness.
Re:your first mistake... (Score:3)
What kind of society would we have if kids were taught that they didn't have to do anything on a schedule, that they didn't have to be on time and organized, that they didn't have a place in a power structure, that they didn't have to respect authority?
Pah. Bait n switch. The guy DID NOT SAY THAT THAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE.
OK, now thats out the way - it has nothing to do with teaching kids discipline. What he is talking about is teaching people to think for themselves, or more generally, to actually think and question things. "Question" doesn't mean "rebel" as you state it does - "question" implies questioning things in a reasonable, disciplined scientific manner. When I was in school we had all sorts of rules that even today I still cannot figure out the logic behind them - and yet we were FORCED to carry out those rules, we were NOT allowed to question them, and back then we were literally caned (this is no longer legal in the country I live in. for some additional background, we still have mandatory school uniforms (there is a "winter uniform" and a "summer uniform", and even if its a scorching hot day near the end of winter, if its still a certain date, you have to wear the winter uniform), also there are stupid rules like "boys cannot grow their hair long" etc) if we did not blindly follow them. I sunburn easily, and South Africa is a pretty hot country - I remember many times being forced to sit or stand for hours burning myself to a cinder in the sun for completely meaningless things like mock military parades. And for gods sake, idiot teachers, you CANNOT make people become interested in watching athletics by forcing them to sit in the sun on one spot all day - sheesh, and then they wonder why there is no "school spirit" at the athletics.
Society has to have rules, yes. But they must actually make some sense. Although according to what I learnt in psychology, most people do not progress past moral thinking level phase 4 (which is basically what you're spouting, "we must all follow society's rules".)
The comfort of children (Score:5)
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".
I wouldn't bet much.. (Score:3)
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."
Re:8 Years Old (Score:3)
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!
Re:How many blacks in your engineering classes? (Score:4)
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.
Re:Children are NOT miniature adults! (Score:4)
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.
--
Salon has the AP story (Score:5)