The Podium
Disgruntled is not the word I'd use
UTAH? They voted unanimously to uphold the teaching of evolution in Utah.
I for one must applaud this, but I must say I am surprised the Mormons were able to get something right. It's not that I don't support other theories on the creation of the universe, but although there is not absolute proof of evolution, it's the only theory supportable by scientific fact.
Anyway, it's not Kentucky, but one would think the religious right would operate out of Utah as well, one must think they'd side with Kentucky. Granted, there are those that still support the "intelligent design" theory, but I thought this was an interesting twist to an old debate.
It was an extra credit assignment.
It was voluntary.
Should he have done it? Probably not, but I really wouldn't consider what was happening with reference to this a direct classroom experience. If he's not talking about it in class, what's the big deal? The whole point here is it's VOLUNTARY.
He got "caught," he apologized, and has now said he regrets having done it.
Believe him or not, this article doesn't say whether or not he believes Creationism (though my guess is he does), but I'd say he's sincere with his regret. If he's a good teacher, which the article says he is, then let it go.
I like the fact that it's a great example of asking for forgiveness over permission, but I'm not sure why it's news.
See more articles in this group.
Wow, that takes balls. Probably nothing is going to come of it, nor I not sure anything should, but I know someone would want to chime in for women's rights.
But it's a private school. They have the right to stipulate whatever they want. She still graduates, she just wasn't supposed to walk in the ceremony. The only problem I see with her not walking is the fact that the guy who got her pregnant in the first place DID get to walk (see the end of the article).
That, to me, is the school ASKING for someone to sue. If you're going to set moral standards for your students to follow, they need to be applied equally to everyone.
Actually, this is about preventing kids from getting fat in Connecticut (read the article).
What a waste of taxpwyer dollars, I'd vote each of of those morons out of office. The quote at the end sums it up the best, "Banning a particular food isn't going to teach a child a proper form of nutrition."
Right, let's get rid of sodas, and everything else while we're at it. Kids should only be eating apples. What a pile of crap. What they should be doing instead of legislating what kids can eat at school is running the state of Connecticut. Let the schools decide. Schools get money from those sales. Sure, that opens another issue altogether, but that's not the point. Governments are not created to legislate nutrition (insert more or less any word in there really).
The fact is that while Congress is working on a requirement for mandatory 20 minutes of exercise for kids K-5, I heard that some places are trying to legislate removing recess. Granted, if the federal government says they have to do it, this would be a moot point, but 20 minutes? That's hardly enough. How about mandating 60 minutes, in 20 minute intervals, throughout the day, in addition to PE. Let the kids go out there, run around, some may get into fights, break those up, no harm done, that's what kids do. It just seems parents need to control everything. Make sure the school is safe from perverts, and let the kids run wild. They'll lose weight on their own.
It reminds me, somewhat, of this story from April 14 (2005).
The principal is in the same type of dillemma in both stories, what to do, because something MAY happen, in which case someone will then ask why nothing was done. Yes, I'm aware, I'll now get the "you can get hit by a car, and yet you still walk across the street," argument. I understand that. School districts have a paramount need to keep their names out of the paper for negative publicity. The publicity generated here is not negative from the standpoint of the community it's in. If the community is pissed off at the school/district, they'll start sending their kids to private schools, which in turn leads to less money for the district because the students are no longer there.
I understand the problem, but I think that the risk MAY be worth it in this case. Let me qualify the "MAY."
This article doesn't identify what the school's article was about specifically, it just says, "articles on homosexuality." What does that mean? Is it talking about them trying to get along at school? In the community? And what's the content. If it simply mentions the problems at school, then the pricnipal is out of line, problems in the community, then it starts to sound like the school doesn't like or support the community, which is the death of public schools. It's all about the content of these articles.
I'd need to see them before I could agree or disagree with the decision to censor them. Mookee sort of talked about it here.
The big difference between this situation and the Newsweek one is the school, the district, the "children." Parents can be very ugly at times, especially with reference to their children, even if those children are 18. Districts will generally take the path of appeasement, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. It has to do with publicity, it has to do with money. Fund schools differently, don't make them completely accountable based on attendance or performance (otherwise no one teaches in the inner city), and then these types of things are more likely (though they still probably won't) to go away.
That's the problem.
There are huge problems with this article. No, students shouldn't be drinking at all, everyone knows that, and the fact that the parents claim,
"...their parents said their comments had been misconstrued. They said they had been talking about other students, or about students in general..."
Right, so the parents think everyone is a moron. It's amazing that parents think that the people that deal with their children are as stupid as they are when it comes to kids. The only reason administrations give in on most issues is because being in the news is almost always a bad thing, they'll do whatever they can to stay out of it.
These kids are morons. The paper is screwed up for printing the kids' names but, because they're both 18, they probably knew exactly what they were doing. Now this paper is getting some national coverage for printing a couple of kids' names, and there's no liability at all for them, as they did nothing wrong.
The fact that the students were barred from prom because they planned on getting drunk is one thing. Administrators should have the latitude to control extra-curricular activities as they see fit, and within reason. Planning something is rarely a problem. The real problem here is,
"...I know it's 21 and I'm only 18, but as long as it's OK with my mom, they shouldn't worry about it, she said...."
In some circles yes. If you stayed at home, did something at home, and your parents didn't care, great. Go to a hotel, hang out with mom and dad, do something illegal, they don't care? Fine, no one is trying to control that.
This is a school function, and as a result, you have to abide by a set of rules set down by a group of people that apply to a large number of students. They are going to be more restrictive, they HAVE to be more restrictive. Such is the nature of community.
If these "post-prom parties" that were taking place would be taking place at students homes, then I might side with the students, even though they're still morons and should be banned for that reason. But most prom parties take place in hotels. If something goes wrong after prom, in a hotel, and the school had prior knowledge that it would happen and did nothing, the school would be liable.
That's the problem.
This article demonstrates the absolute stupidity of the Title IX requirements for equity.
I'll reiterate that I'm not advocating no women's sports, but this article specifically says,
"...if only two dozen women who answer a survey say they want to play volleyball, then a school would have an absolute obligation to go further. That might include organizational meetings and tryouts that could lead to adding a team..."
The only reason this has any merit is the fact that it starts with saying "organizational meetings." I have no problems with that, but who's going to conduct them? Who's going to pay for the 'coach,' or organizer, and assuming they do have these things covered, and do have the meeting, and only 12 people show up. 12 is enough for a team, is the assumption then that there will still be a team? Most of the schools in this situation will probably be relatively small, but assume the school has only 2000 students, that's .6%. Not even a full percentage of the students and the school will need to allocate resources for them. That's absolutely ridiculous. I realize that sometimes a smaller percentage of people need to be accomodated, but .6%? That's asking too much.
To top it off, the article goes one step further with respect to the men's sports,
"...Schools that find no interest from women but do find interest from men could add men's teams if they choose, though they would have no obligation to do so..."
No obligation to do so? So it's legally required to change the standard for women, but if the same circumstances arise for men, the standard doesn't change at all unless they choose to change it?
Right, that sure is equal.
