School principle Thomas Murray of Danvers High School has made the Boston Globe by a recent move. He has banned the word 'meep' from his school. For those who have never heard of the word meep, it was coined by Beaker, one of Jim Henson's muppets and a character on sesame street. The word isn't even in the dictionary, which all adds up to a very confusing and hilarious puzzle. Why did Principle Murray feel that he had the right/need to ban this word from his school?
According to Murray the students were using the word in a disruptive way. The word was apparently given context similar to that of an obscenity. To be fair to Murray it is easy to see how certain students could have been using the word as an obscenity, but all in all this seems rather ridiculous.
The very fact that Murray had to ban a word represents a failure on his part as an administrator. What is to stop students from appropriating commonly used words like food or class? To a large extent the ban simply serves to help the students being disruptive - the word is now truly taboo, not simply a humorous utterance.
In the end, is it just to ban a word? It seems obvious that obscenities may deserve censorship. If a word is said only to provoke or express hatred or a threat then it can be filed under hate speech. However, hate speech is not illegal in the US. So why did the principle have the right to restrict the speech at his school? It seems that words are only as strong as their contexts, and hate speech is only as strong as its reception. If one does not care what another says, then that hate speech has lost its strength. Any action taken against hate speech often serves to strengthen it, and this is what have seen at Danvers School.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/13/meep/
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Presidential Respect
Recently there was a large controversy over whether President Barack Obama should be allowed to address the nation's school-children. This represents a vast a scary swing in political thought. Historically many presidents have issued speeches to schools including conservatives Reagan and HW Bush. Why then was the uproar so great when Obama took to the podium? The answer is that unfortunately politicians on both sides of the isle have started using many more scare tactics and extreme statements to further their agendas.
It used to be the case that the president would have a much greater role in interacting with the schools, and educators would trust the president to impart morally commendable and just messages to the students. This was seen through initiatives such as the presidential fitness test under Reagan and the presidential scholars program under LBJ. Both of these programs were much more invasive and comprehensive than a single speech, so why were they given the mandate? Again, the swing in political strategies has caused the opposition president to be regarded with less and less respect.
Nowadays instead of a highly qualified and successful individual, the president from the opposition party is represented as a foolish or even evil person. This was true for George W. Bush. Many people labeled him as a bumbling idiot incapable of even basic tasks. Now Obama is being portrayed as an extremist who wants to introduce evil socialist policies. The truth of the matter is that both men attended prestigious schools, ran successful careers, demonstrated capacity far beyond the average individual, and without a doubt hold a deep and true respect for American values.
In conclusion, this represents a false dichotomy of American politics. You're either the right candidate or you're evil or incompetent. Instead of treating the opposition with such disrespect both parties should engage in mutually respectful debates. This is after all the point of a two party system, so that both can balance and improve the other.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
It used to be the case that the president would have a much greater role in interacting with the schools, and educators would trust the president to impart morally commendable and just messages to the students. This was seen through initiatives such as the presidential fitness test under Reagan and the presidential scholars program under LBJ. Both of these programs were much more invasive and comprehensive than a single speech, so why were they given the mandate? Again, the swing in political strategies has caused the opposition president to be regarded with less and less respect.
Nowadays instead of a highly qualified and successful individual, the president from the opposition party is represented as a foolish or even evil person. This was true for George W. Bush. Many people labeled him as a bumbling idiot incapable of even basic tasks. Now Obama is being portrayed as an extremist who wants to introduce evil socialist policies. The truth of the matter is that both men attended prestigious schools, ran successful careers, demonstrated capacity far beyond the average individual, and without a doubt hold a deep and true respect for American values.
In conclusion, this represents a false dichotomy of American politics. You're either the right candidate or you're evil or incompetent. Instead of treating the opposition with such disrespect both parties should engage in mutually respectful debates. This is after all the point of a two party system, so that both can balance and improve the other.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Mandatory Seatbelt Usage
All states have laws requiring proper restraint of children in cars, and many states (Alabama, California, Hawaii etc...) have laws that require adults to wear seat belts. In the case of the children these laws are easily justifiable. A child is not considered to have the life experience nor judgment required to take care of themselves or others. Consequently some outside influence must help them by enforcing certain safe behaviors. Most of the time a parent is the one who is entrusted with this task. However, just as there are laws preventing bad parenting and child abuse, laws enforce child seat belt usage. Considering that we have laws prohibiting the beating of children in most states, it makes sense that we should also prevent parents from allowing their children to ride without seat belts.
It's with adults that the problem becomes less clear. It's not the case that we usually prevent adults from participating in self-destructive activities. Most laws are enacted to prevent people from harming others via reckless or irresponsible acts. This is the case with most traffic laws. People cannot drive drunk because they pose too much of a danger to others on the road or sidewalk. People cannot drive in unsafe cars because they might lose control of the vehicle. The line becomes fuzzy with safety devices.
It makes sense that cars should all come with safety devices such as airbags and seat belts; individuals need to be given the option to use them. The laws become less clear when they enforce mandatory usage of these devices. As discussed above, children often need guidance in decision making. But since we consider adults to be independent individuals capable of making their own decisions, how do we justify these laws? There is no way that wearing a seat belt makes a collision safer for other drivers on the road. It is entirely for the benefit of the individual wearing the belt. Are we then saying: "You're too stupid to make your own decision about wearing the belt, so we'll make it for you."? This seems to violate our basic tenant of individual liberties.
In conclusion, it does seem stupid to not wear a seat belt. The statistics showing how much safer one is when wearing them speak for themselves. So is there any sense in judging individuals who choose not to use the belt indeed too stupid to make that decision? In fact, via Rawls' reasoning, these people would not be considered rational individuals capable of entering the OP. This is an interesting issue, as seat belt laws represent a fairly unique type of law, namely one that forces us to act in our own interest, rather than trusting us to do it ourselves.
http://www.ok.gov/ohso/documents/NOPUS%202008%20SB%20Use.pdf
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html
It's with adults that the problem becomes less clear. It's not the case that we usually prevent adults from participating in self-destructive activities. Most laws are enacted to prevent people from harming others via reckless or irresponsible acts. This is the case with most traffic laws. People cannot drive drunk because they pose too much of a danger to others on the road or sidewalk. People cannot drive in unsafe cars because they might lose control of the vehicle. The line becomes fuzzy with safety devices.
It makes sense that cars should all come with safety devices such as airbags and seat belts; individuals need to be given the option to use them. The laws become less clear when they enforce mandatory usage of these devices. As discussed above, children often need guidance in decision making. But since we consider adults to be independent individuals capable of making their own decisions, how do we justify these laws? There is no way that wearing a seat belt makes a collision safer for other drivers on the road. It is entirely for the benefit of the individual wearing the belt. Are we then saying: "You're too stupid to make your own decision about wearing the belt, so we'll make it for you."? This seems to violate our basic tenant of individual liberties.
In conclusion, it does seem stupid to not wear a seat belt. The statistics showing how much safer one is when wearing them speak for themselves. So is there any sense in judging individuals who choose not to use the belt indeed too stupid to make that decision? In fact, via Rawls' reasoning, these people would not be considered rational individuals capable of entering the OP. This is an interesting issue, as seat belt laws represent a fairly unique type of law, namely one that forces us to act in our own interest, rather than trusting us to do it ourselves.
http://www.ok.gov/ohso/documents/NOPUS%202008%20SB%20Use.pdf
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)