[Rhodes22-list] That Black Man is at it again [Political]

[Herb Parsons]

Ben,

Are you then asserting that community and moral values are legitimate 
areas of concern when HIRING these educators?

In other words, would a public school be within it's rights in denying 
employment based on those criteria. And if they do, who gets to 
determine what is acceptable.

Would a teacher whose community values lead him/her to work on a 
campaign aimed at restricting gun ownership (contrary to constitutional 
guarantees) be acceptable? Would a teacher whose "community service" 
includes volunteering at her church's women's shelter?

Would the unmarried teacher that discovers she's pregnant and unmarried 
be eligible to be terminated? How about the football coach that divorces 
his 50 year old wife to move in with a 22 year old former student?
These both represent moral issues.

My answers to the above would be:
Yes, the anti-gun activists actions would be acceptable, that's his/her 
right.
Yes for the women's shelter volunteer. Same reason.
No, the pregnant teacher should not be terminated. Her being pregnant 
does not affect her teaching ability.
No, the coach should not be terminated, his private life should be his.

However; I don't want those last two teaching MY children Moral Values. 
I don't mind them teaching English or football drills, but I do not want 
them teaching moral values.



Ben Cittadino wrote:
> Ben & Ed;
>
> Mr Sowell has touched upon a much debated issue in education. Is "good
> citizenship" a legitimate educational component for public schools?  Or is
> this area one best left to parents, churches and others?
>
> There has never been much of an argument that such requirements as
> "community service" or "charitable works", ("corporal works of mercy" if you
> will), were not legitimate areas to be taught and learned in Catholic or
> other religious schools; but their place in public elementary, and secondary
> schools, and in some colleges has long been a subject of very active debate.
>
> Some folks, like Sowell seem to take the position that reading, writing, and
> 'rithmatic and other nuts and bolts areas are all that schools should
> require, and that "citizenship" etc is too subjective and susceptable to
> manipulation by "dangerous subversive liberal teachers" to be entrusted to
> them.
>
> I think Sowell is full of baloney here, because education is, in my opinion,
> more than nuts and bolts, but also community values and mores (sp?).  
>
> Teachers must be supervised and curricula approved in these areas just as in
> science courses, but teaching 1st graders to give to charity is not, in my
> opinion, a subversive act.
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
>
> benonvelvetelvis wrote:
>   
>> That's one of the dumbest opinions I've ever read.
>>
>> Of course schools -- especially universities -- have the right to decide
>> what to require in order to grant their students a degree.  That's not
>> denying the students freedom in any way.  Of course I wouldn't have used
>> my "freedom" as an electrical engineering student to stay all night in
>> computer labs or to spend my Sundays wiring a circuit board.  But that's
>> what I had to do to get my degree. 
>>
>> He asks " What in the world qualifies teachers and
>> members of college admissions committees to define what is good for
>> society
>> as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary
>> notions?"
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> What qualifies te4achers to define what is good for the students?
>>
>> So we shouldn't let our teachers judge whether our kids know a material
>> well enough to avoid additional homework or not?
>>
>> Of course not. 
>>
>> Ben S.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Tootle
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:14
>> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] That Black Man is at it again [Political]
>>
>>
>> Folks, he is at it again:
>>
>> Freedom and the Left 
>>
>> By Thomas Sowell 
>>
>> Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor
>> of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom. 
>>
>> Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you
>> do
>> not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when
>> you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are
>> free. 
>>
>> One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions
>> of
>> its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by
>> college
>> admissions committees that students do "community service." 
>>
>> There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate,
>> and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted,
>> unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community
>> service." 
>>
>>   Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and
>> Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists
>> regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click
>> here. 
>>
>> The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving
>> them
>> and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is
>> exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is
>> or
>> is not a service to the community. 
>>
>> Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"—
>> as
>> if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a
>> disservice, to the community. 
>>
>> Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the
>> streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in
>> the
>> street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play? 
>>
>> This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of
>> benefits
>> to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between
>> productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned. 
>>
>> But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole.
>> You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but
>> nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or
>> shelter,
>> both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not
>> exist. 
>>
>> What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work
>> for
>> their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of
>> people
>> on welfare are depending on you." 
>>
>> The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities
>> students are required to engage in under the title of "community service." 
>>
>> The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and
>> members of college admissions committees to define what is good for
>> society
>> as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary
>> notions? 
>>
>> What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's
>> freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush
>> in
>> where angels fear to tread? 
>>
>> What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary
>> power? 
>>
>> Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige
>> from
>> serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In
>> practice,
>> it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them
>> receptive to the left's vision of the world. 
>>
>> I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would
>> understand
>> the principle behind the objections to this if high school military
>> exercises were required. 
>>
>> Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service"
>> activities
>> are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools
>> or
>> colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a
>> contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work. 
>>
>> In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of
>> what is good for society on others— a right that they vehemently deny to
>> those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own. 
>>
>> The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand
>> for
>> yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even
>> though
>> many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom. 
>>
>> Posted for your understanding.
>> Ed K
>> Addendum:"If someone is going down the wrong road, he doesn't need
>> motivation to speed him up. What he needs is education to turn him
>> around." 
>> Jim Rohn
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/That-Black-Man-is-at-it-again--Political--tp20817269p20817269.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Herb Parsons