NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/or/politics/809

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 7.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!willamette.edu!jmacvean
From: [e-mail] (Jennifer MacVean)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: educational system (was: Re: new initiative)
Keywords: I'll try to make this brief
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:49:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: willamet.C1E82K.79q
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Willamette University, Salem OR
Lines: 121

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(jason downs) writes:

>i've found the intense hatred for the religious right by the liberal sector
>to be quite interesting. and how they always assume that if someone believes
>in ultra-conservative politics, that someone must be some kind of christian
>fundamentalist. and that if someone believes that homosexuality should not
>be a basis for minority status, that person must be heterosexual.
>funny how i've not seen conservatives make those kinds of assumptions.

Really?  I have.  I went to the Yes on 9 rally at the capitol that they
rather poorly planned a block from Willamette campus.  The campus was
almost solidly No on 9, which surprised me, and we swarmed out, grabbing
signs, responding with a counter-rally.  The people were mostly mothers
with young children, men who didn't speak clearly or intelligently
enough to suggest much education, and a few who sincerely believed that
Measure 9 meant that prejudice would be taken out of schools, whereas it
required teaching in schools that homosexuality is sick and wrong and
against BIBLE teaching, which of course the children should be taught.
It also required censorship of all books presenting homosexuality in
a remotely positive light.   It did other things to, but the point is
that all of the people promptly assumed that the entire Willamette
campus was gay, particularly all of us who rallied in protest.
>
>>Sigh.  As I suggested below, teaching "the facts" is not sufficient preparation
>>for survival in a community.  Quality circles in modern manufacturing jobs
>>require the ability to analyze.  Participation in our democracy requires the
>>ability to make informed decisions in the face of conflicting "facts."
>>Colleges are getting more difficult to enter and require more capable high
>>school graduates.  "Decent" paying jobs will no longer go to someone who can
>>merely read, write, and add.  It ain't the 50s any more.
>
>it's wonderful how you are able to contradict yourself with every sentence.

You as well Jason.

>first, you state that teaching "the facts" is not sufficient preparation for
>survival within society. then, you explain how lack of acedemic abilities
>prevent a person from making a living, participating in government, getting

Wrong.  They said that students must also know how to think, because
"facts" are subjective and determined by popular feeling of the time.
You can't teach "facts" because there are so few of them.  All you can
teach are "interpretations" and then teach various ways of discern-
ment, something most schools never get around to.  It seems to me
they are afraid of it because people will object to any method which
disproves their favorite beliefs.

>into college, etc. now, try to actually think logically for a second,
>rather than just following your liberal brainwashing...

A fine example of the assumptions you mentioned...

>teaching the "the facts" (i.e., actually giving the student an education)
>would obviously give that student a better chance at making a living, and,
>by actually providing said student a decent backgroud of knowledge, would
>allow them to better participate in things such as government. true, they may
>not be as able to as easily get into our liberally controlled universities,
>but then, the value of a university degree is almost nothing if you aren't
>going to become affiliated with a university when you graduate.

This is blatantly not true.  It is now more difficult than ever to get
a decent paying job without a university education.  Granted, there
are some kinds of degrees for which this is true.

>the fact is, with all bullshit aside, if our public education was actually
>reformed in such a way as to provide a solid education, rather than focusing
>on the ideals of a utopian society, and said educational system were able
>to teach kids how to compete in the world, rather than how to have sex,
>they would in the end be able to get along better within society.

Yes and no.  They need an education but they need to know about sex too.
I don't want my children learning how to HAVE sex, I'll teach them that
when I feel they're good and ready (engaged), but I sure want them
to know that sex can get them diseases, pregnant, and loss of self-
esteem, and that I don't want them risking their lives that way until
they are with someone they are sure they will spend their lives with
who will not cheat on them.  I particularly want them warned that it
won't be easy to say no, because sex is so pleasurable.  I don't really
feel comfortable having the school teach my children that, so I intend
to teach them myself, but that is what I would expect from sex education,
if the schools are going to make a mockery of offering any at all.
>
>yes, it would be something if a community could ensure that children within
>that community knew what sort of conduct is expected of them. of course,
>the way to do that is to reach the parents, not the children. the children
>will look to their parents, not society, whether society agrees with the
>view of those parents or not.

Very true.  Society influences the parents, but the biggest influence on
anybody is their parents, or lack thereof.

>>Thus it is perfectly reasonable for a community to
>>dissuade children of a parent who teaches them that all blacks are trash that
>>have subhuman intelligence and should be treated with contempt.  Communities,
>>as social institutions which regulate the activies of individuals within
>>them, have a responsibility to promulgate some rules of order.  Individuals
>>who cannot abide by such restrictions should seek communities more in line
>>with their views, or seek hermitage.
>
>oh, yes, if one can't live within the socialist utopia, they should have
>to fend for themselves.

Correct, although it's equally as true that whoever does not fit in society,
whether it is conservative or liberal or anarchic will have to learn to
adjust, even if that means leaving society altogether.  Take the Raj Nishes,
although I wouldn't.  Or, take the few Mormon families in Utah that still
quietly practise polygamous marriage.

>\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
> \           - jason downs -           /\   - [e-mail] -  /
> / zeppelin/amiga release 2/insane guy \/ led/vasudeva/lord of fear of death \
>/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\

I'm sorry this was longer than I intended, but I felt it was important.

--
{ J. Lynne Mac Vean  } { Telnet: [e-mail] }     ____
{ whyte tyger / poet } { Snailmail: 900 State St. - G254 }     \ _/__
{ Standard Disclaimer: Willamette University has no idea }      \\  /
{ what I say, nor less does it agree, or care.           }        \/