"For eight hours of my day, five days a week, I live in a world where everyone looks just like me. I consider myself to be a creative individual, but if you were to see me among my friends at school, you wouldn't 'know me from Adam.' In the morning when I wake up I don the exact same colours and fabrics and patterns I wore the day before, and I feel as though every day is exactly the same. I find myself losing interest in academic and extracurricular activities. I feel stifled and squelched."--Unfortunately, this could be the response of any student forced to wear a uniform in his public school. Although the motives behind a move for a school uniform may be sincere and good, the fact is that a school wide uniform inhibits self-expression, it teaches students that conformity is the solution for conflict, and contrary to popular belief, it does not prevent violence or the formation of cliques and gangs within the school environment.'
When asked how they felt about school uniforms, according to online idebate.org, students from all walks of life protested that they threaten self expression. According to Riverdale High School sophomore Chelsea Liverpool, "students like to express [themselves] through clothes and don't want to be viewed the same as [their] classmates." Uniforms virtually suffocate individualism, whereas many modern-day teachers in America would like to say that they recognize each student for their individual talents and assets. This is not to say that the clothes a student wears advertise all of his or her talents and assets, but if a system removes the extremely personal quality of what a youth is allowed to wear on his back, it is a traumatizing unverbalized statement all on its own. According to Alastair Endersby of Bishops Wordsworth School in Salisbury, England, "Uniform was better suited to an age of rote learning and military-style discipline than to the more exploratory and creative values of modern education--values which are increasingly important to the wider economy." Some schools in Australia are even banning "noisy jewelry" as a part of their dress code. Each student is expected to be orderly to the point of conformity and focused to the mindset of machinery.
Aside from a being a threat to valuable self-expression, school uniforms also threaten a student's social skills. Many nay-sayers of uniforms point out that school uniforms teach students at a very malleable age that conformity is the solution for conflict. The idea behind the uniform is that if everyone looks the same no one will have a problem with anyone else. In the real world, this is a logical fallacy, and a very dangerous one at that. Uniforms may have been proven in some areas to decrease behavioral problems, given. However, as soon as these robots graduate high school and head out into the real world, they will discover that the dull and colourless world they have slept in for half a decade ended when the caps and gowns came off and that the modern, right-brained world that everyone else lives in does not play by uniform rules. Why should these intelligent youths be placed at such a disadvantage? Better to learn the art of interpersonal communication while they are young than discover they have been sheltered and deceived thier whole educational careers too late.
Unfortunately, supporters of school uniforms are still very securely convinced that uniforms are worth all of the misfortune that befalls their wearers just because of the magical way they mow down gangs, cliques, and all other hateful groups at the roots. However, as a soon-to-be high school graduate, I can personally say from experience that hateful children that desire to exclude and bully others will find a way to do so no matter what everyone is wearing. It is a foolish idea that says that one can take a group of students with behavioral issues, strap new clothes to their back and to everyone else's, and through this method eliminate gang activity. True, this may be an effective way to cut down mockery of clothing, but students who have the need to mock in order to feel good about themselves will not be stopped by this minor speed bump. The only thing that will change is that these students will find something new and possibly more deep to chew on and hurt others with. Gang members can still thrive with their connotative headbands taken away and their symbolic clothing discarded. In fact, after such a blow to their ego and a suffocation of their basic rights, they may even come back with rebellious vengeance.
Students from all over the country and even the world are railing against the unsightly blemish of school uniforms in their home towns. Uniforms squelch individuality, deceive students and deprive them of their social skills, and all the while try to claim that they are virtually eliminating the bad behavior of the student not by dealing with him personally, but by dealing with the clothes on his back. I am so fortunate to have lived in a world where I could choose how I wanted to present myself every morning that I woke up, and I would not deprive anyone of that right.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
March 5th.
Duel.
For the entire first section of the film I was focused completely on the radio dialogue going on. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be. I'm still wondering if it's significant to the plot of the two vehicles in some deep mysterious way that I'm just not seeing. Surely not. Unless it would be the introduction to the theme of Alpha male roles. The radio dialogue was addressing whether or not the caller (male) was the head of the family or if his dominating wife was. At that point, the two male vehicle drivers began to have their need for speed. At the gas station the driver of the little car made a snide comment about not being "the boss" in his own household. So that could be the underlying point of the dialogue in the beginning....to introduce a reoccuring theme.
Like the radio, it's these aspects in the beginning of the film, the random and possibly irrelevant moments, that fascinate me the most. They make me look even harder than I originally was for a more complicated plot than two vehicles on the highway. At the gas station the camera seemed to make a point of a heavyset woman doing laundry. I kept waiting for her to do something important. I kept waiting on the gas station attendant to say something meaningful.
The two vibes I picked up on the most throughout were aggression and suspense. There was a strong air of mystery surrounding the driver of the tank. We didn't know who he was, we couldn't see his thought processes. This kept us interested. We as viewers were automatically on the side of the driver of the red car from the beginning, we felt his fear with him when the diesel turned homicidal. It's interesting to me that this film managed to make such a simple plot into such an attention-grabber. And -keeper.
So bizarre.
Moral of the story: Men who avoid confrontation will get chased by crazy tanker trucks until they learn how to put on their big girl panties.
For the entire first section of the film I was focused completely on the radio dialogue going on. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be. I'm still wondering if it's significant to the plot of the two vehicles in some deep mysterious way that I'm just not seeing. Surely not. Unless it would be the introduction to the theme of Alpha male roles. The radio dialogue was addressing whether or not the caller (male) was the head of the family or if his dominating wife was. At that point, the two male vehicle drivers began to have their need for speed. At the gas station the driver of the little car made a snide comment about not being "the boss" in his own household. So that could be the underlying point of the dialogue in the beginning....to introduce a reoccuring theme.
Like the radio, it's these aspects in the beginning of the film, the random and possibly irrelevant moments, that fascinate me the most. They make me look even harder than I originally was for a more complicated plot than two vehicles on the highway. At the gas station the camera seemed to make a point of a heavyset woman doing laundry. I kept waiting for her to do something important. I kept waiting on the gas station attendant to say something meaningful.
The two vibes I picked up on the most throughout were aggression and suspense. There was a strong air of mystery surrounding the driver of the tank. We didn't know who he was, we couldn't see his thought processes. This kept us interested. We as viewers were automatically on the side of the driver of the red car from the beginning, we felt his fear with him when the diesel turned homicidal. It's interesting to me that this film managed to make such a simple plot into such an attention-grabber. And -keeper.
So bizarre.
Moral of the story: Men who avoid confrontation will get chased by crazy tanker trucks until they learn how to put on their big girl panties.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Banning iPods, March 3.
Schools have taken another step in the direction of communism.
The next item on the agenda is to ban iPods from campus.
Why is this happening? Teachers and staff agree that if iPods are forbidden then it could "stave off" cheaters. Evidently iPods have become the new weapon of choice among students in the line of discreet dishonesty. Students can hide them in clothing and fool unattentive teachers, saving answers in the lyrics archive and sometimes even using recorded vocals to recite answers in their ear during exams.
Who does this affect? The honest and dishonest student alike.
Where is this occuring? It is spotting the US from California to Washington to Texas to New York. Beyond our soil, Canada and Australia have even jumped on the bandwagon.
"I think it will become a national trend," commented Shana Kemp, spokeswoman for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "We hope that each district will have a policy in place for technology. It keeps a lot of the problems down."
When will this become visible in the majority of public schools? The trend has already begun.
As my introduction may have already implied, I strongly disagree with this movement. Schools have banned hats, cell phones, even calculators in some cases, desperately hoping that cheating in their classes will dwindle until it is a forgotten, ancient practice. Admittedly, it's a noble thought. Doubtless, their intentions are good. However, the root of the cheating problem was never a hat, a cell phone, a calculator, or even an iPod. As Kelsey Nelson, a 17-year-old Mountain View High School senior stated, "...people who are going to cheat are going to cheat, with our without them."
At Duke, incidents of cheating have declined noticeably in the past ten years. This could be because students here are held to a standard of honesty. Tim Dodd, executive director for The Center of Academic Integrity at the university stated, "Trying to fight the technology without a dialogue on values expectations is a losing battle."
What teachers and school boards must understand is that technology is not the problem. Technology is a tool. And it can be every bit as useful as it is harmful, even in the case of iPods. If teachers want cheating to decline, they must address the root of the problem, the cheater. I would think that eventually it would become evident that no matter what one tries to ban and forbid, there will always be a new, creative way to cheat if a student desires to do so. If this trend continues, the students of the future will be secluded to a solitary cell with a stone tablet and a pot shard.
A teacher at Batesville High once said, "It is alarming to me that in the past one hundred years, the only thing I can see that hasn't changed at all is the structure of the basic classroom." We can no longer run from the incorporation of technology in our daily lives; we can no longer try to suffocate it in the school system. I am not sure that cheating will ever be squelched or staved. However, I am sure that banning iPods is not the way to handle this issue.
For additional support on these thoughts check out THIS ARTICLE by Mike Elgan, a fellow protester against the iPod banning movement.
The next item on the agenda is to ban iPods from campus.
Why is this happening? Teachers and staff agree that if iPods are forbidden then it could "stave off" cheaters. Evidently iPods have become the new weapon of choice among students in the line of discreet dishonesty. Students can hide them in clothing and fool unattentive teachers, saving answers in the lyrics archive and sometimes even using recorded vocals to recite answers in their ear during exams.
Who does this affect? The honest and dishonest student alike.
Where is this occuring? It is spotting the US from California to Washington to Texas to New York. Beyond our soil, Canada and Australia have even jumped on the bandwagon.
"I think it will become a national trend," commented Shana Kemp, spokeswoman for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "We hope that each district will have a policy in place for technology. It keeps a lot of the problems down."
When will this become visible in the majority of public schools? The trend has already begun.
As my introduction may have already implied, I strongly disagree with this movement. Schools have banned hats, cell phones, even calculators in some cases, desperately hoping that cheating in their classes will dwindle until it is a forgotten, ancient practice. Admittedly, it's a noble thought. Doubtless, their intentions are good. However, the root of the cheating problem was never a hat, a cell phone, a calculator, or even an iPod. As Kelsey Nelson, a 17-year-old Mountain View High School senior stated, "...people who are going to cheat are going to cheat, with our without them."
At Duke, incidents of cheating have declined noticeably in the past ten years. This could be because students here are held to a standard of honesty. Tim Dodd, executive director for The Center of Academic Integrity at the university stated, "Trying to fight the technology without a dialogue on values expectations is a losing battle."
What teachers and school boards must understand is that technology is not the problem. Technology is a tool. And it can be every bit as useful as it is harmful, even in the case of iPods. If teachers want cheating to decline, they must address the root of the problem, the cheater. I would think that eventually it would become evident that no matter what one tries to ban and forbid, there will always be a new, creative way to cheat if a student desires to do so. If this trend continues, the students of the future will be secluded to a solitary cell with a stone tablet and a pot shard.
A teacher at Batesville High once said, "It is alarming to me that in the past one hundred years, the only thing I can see that hasn't changed at all is the structure of the basic classroom." We can no longer run from the incorporation of technology in our daily lives; we can no longer try to suffocate it in the school system. I am not sure that cheating will ever be squelched or staved. However, I am sure that banning iPods is not the way to handle this issue.
For additional support on these thoughts check out THIS ARTICLE by Mike Elgan, a fellow protester against the iPod banning movement.
Monday, March 1, 2010
March 1st.
"Nothing travels faster than light, with the exception of bad news, which follows its own rules." -Douglas Adams
Today I was assigned by my Oral Communications teacher to read three news articles. The first was a horrific and detailed description of the damages done by a very recent earthquake in Chile. The article made an effort to focus on the lootings that had occured in the midst of the havoc, while including death tolls and numbers of survivors at strategic intervals. "Shocked survivors were left without power, water, or food," the page read, pulling at my empathy and pumping me with pathos.
The second was a political and pompous article on global warming. The title read, "How do you convince people of global warming in a snow storm?" as though the higher-ups really were perplexed by this question. This was confirmed when, by the end of the article, the conclusion seemed to simply say on their behalf, "Just trust us--it's happening." It gave statistics and NASA research claiming that this past decade has been the warmest yet. It also included some Al Gore dialogue, which....well. Need I say more?
The third article almost seemed quiet and resigned as it told of a very tragic, very recent storm in Europe. This storm definitely claimed less lives than say, the earthquake in Chile. It was not as government coddled as the global warming article. However, it seemed to hit closer to home than both, specifically naming situations in which lives were lost.
Other than the fact that all were depressing in their own special way, these articles had much in common. On the surface, of course they were all factual updates on recent weather issues that the public is at least in some way interested in. However, on a deeper level, each of these articles had the ability, carried a certain weight...that made me walk away from them feeling more aware and more opinionated (due to the fact that I was more informed) than I was when I arrived here. My apathy corroded, at least to a certain degree, as I was quietly and gradually removed from my little world and given a peek inside a bigger one.
I suppose the entry that caught my attention the most was the last entry I read on the European storm. The article pointed a tactful finger at the conditions of France's sea walls, which were allegedly old and weak. When confronted and criticized about the matter, France's President simply stated, "This is not the time." Although the article seemed to portray this as a cowardly dodge from the line of fire, I couldn't help but feel differently. As much as the loss of lives is tragic, and as much as I may feel differently if I was a family member of one of the deceased or missing, and even though it may be true that the death toll would have been less if the sea walls had only been thought of sooner, it concerns me that in the midst of a tragedy as volatile and uncontrollable as a natural disaster, the public is still looking for someone to point the finger at. Isn't that just like humans?
Today I was assigned by my Oral Communications teacher to read three news articles. The first was a horrific and detailed description of the damages done by a very recent earthquake in Chile. The article made an effort to focus on the lootings that had occured in the midst of the havoc, while including death tolls and numbers of survivors at strategic intervals. "Shocked survivors were left without power, water, or food," the page read, pulling at my empathy and pumping me with pathos.
The second was a political and pompous article on global warming. The title read, "How do you convince people of global warming in a snow storm?" as though the higher-ups really were perplexed by this question. This was confirmed when, by the end of the article, the conclusion seemed to simply say on their behalf, "Just trust us--it's happening." It gave statistics and NASA research claiming that this past decade has been the warmest yet. It also included some Al Gore dialogue, which....well. Need I say more?
The third article almost seemed quiet and resigned as it told of a very tragic, very recent storm in Europe. This storm definitely claimed less lives than say, the earthquake in Chile. It was not as government coddled as the global warming article. However, it seemed to hit closer to home than both, specifically naming situations in which lives were lost.
Other than the fact that all were depressing in their own special way, these articles had much in common. On the surface, of course they were all factual updates on recent weather issues that the public is at least in some way interested in. However, on a deeper level, each of these articles had the ability, carried a certain weight...that made me walk away from them feeling more aware and more opinionated (due to the fact that I was more informed) than I was when I arrived here. My apathy corroded, at least to a certain degree, as I was quietly and gradually removed from my little world and given a peek inside a bigger one.
I suppose the entry that caught my attention the most was the last entry I read on the European storm. The article pointed a tactful finger at the conditions of France's sea walls, which were allegedly old and weak. When confronted and criticized about the matter, France's President simply stated, "This is not the time." Although the article seemed to portray this as a cowardly dodge from the line of fire, I couldn't help but feel differently. As much as the loss of lives is tragic, and as much as I may feel differently if I was a family member of one of the deceased or missing, and even though it may be true that the death toll would have been less if the sea walls had only been thought of sooner, it concerns me that in the midst of a tragedy as volatile and uncontrollable as a natural disaster, the public is still looking for someone to point the finger at. Isn't that just like humans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)