I spent most of my day yesterday at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science as a judge for the Denver Metro Science and Engineering Fair. I thought the Denver Public School science fair was going to leave me feeling more confident, but I was wrong.
The environment was just very different. At the DPS fair we had to look at four or five projects over the course of two hours. At this fair, it was 10 projects in the same amount of time, and this time I also didn't have a partner. There were two other judges looking at the same ten projects as me, so it meant we got to chat about them a little, which helped. But I was on my own with talking to the kids, and that was a bit nerve wracking at first just because I wasn't quite sure what questions to ask. Then again, with 10 projects and only two hours, I didn't have a whole lot of time to spend with each kid; a little less than ten minutes to talk, and then a few minutes to go off in a quiet corner to write some comments on the scoring sheet.
I'm not the best at talking to people I don't know, but I think I muddled through well enough once I'd had a couple practice runs. I basically started off by asking the kid to just describe their project to me and tell me why they had wanted to do it. From there, I was normally able to find a couple of questions to ask, like, "How many trials did you run?" or "Which variables did you control?" or even, "If you had this to do over again, what would you change about your setup?" I actually got some extremely good answers for that last question, which made me happy. A big part of this sort of experimentation is running one experiment, figuring out all of the things you did wrong that make your results less than useful, and then trying again with the design flaws fixed.
This time I was also dealing with a higher grade level - the junior division, 6-8 grade - as well, so the projects were understandably more complex. I was put in the physical science category, which I felt a little out of my depth in since I'm not a chemistry or physics person. Then again, we weren't really dealing with chemistry/physics more complex than you'd get out of your first two semesters, which is still impressive in itself when you realize that it's middle school students working on these projects.
Aside: Some of the kids I spoke with were as tall as me. This should be illegal.
Overall, the quality of the projects was extremely impressive. I can't imagine being able to come up with anything as cool as some of the experiments now, let alone when I was thirteen. I'm not going to say anything about the winning or favorite projects at the moment, since I checked the schedule and the awards ceremony isn't actually until tonight. And while I doubt that any of the three or four people that read this blog have kids that participated in the science fair, if I'm putting this out on the internet I think it's best to just keep it under my hat.
Several of the kids I talked to pointed to an episode of Mythbusters as the reason they wanted to try a particular experiment to see for themselves. Warm fuzzies all over again for that. One of the projects that I saw (though it wasn't in my category) even had "Myth Busted" in its title. I was also incredibly happy to see a lot of young girls with some really fantastic projects and a lot of enthusiasm for the scientific process.
I'm still trying to mentally sort through my day. It was bigger, louder, and much more hectic than the other science fair, as one might expect. I'm considering seeing if I can volunteer for the Colorado State science fair. I think it'd be a great experience to spend a Thursday in April feeling completely stunned by how much smarter than me a bunch of teenagers are.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Big Brother is watching students (II)
BoingBoing is doing a fantastic job adding more and more to this already horrifically creepy story about school issues laptops being used to spy on students. I'm glad to know that the EFF and ACLU have gotten in on this now.
Anyway, a couple highlights, about the district policy:
Honestly, it's got to be pretty cool if your school district has so much spare money that it can afford to get laptops for its students and loan them out1. If nothing else, making sure kids are up with the technology from the start gives them a good advantage, I think. But when it tips over in to requiring that students use these laptops and punishing students that have a different laptop they want to use, that's creepy, and I really makes it sound like the intent from the start was to tightly monitor the kids. I could even maybe understand it if they were focusing on in-school use, since letting kids have laptops in class is a recipe for not getting anything done unless there are some real restrictions on what they can do with those laptops2. But that this overbearing monitoring extended so obviously outside of school makes it impossible for me to see it as anything other than intrusive and just... creepy.
And they sure were. A little more detail on the kid who was punished for something he did at home:
Way to go, Lower Merion School District. Way to go. Even if the kid were actually taking drugs, doesn't that become a law enforcement issue if it takes place off of school grounds? Oh yeah, except the police can't do that sort of thing without a warrant. Thank you Fourth Amendment.
From an article about the response of the EFF and ACLU:
Of all things, this is making me think of one of my favorite movies, Enemy of the State; toward the end, one of the shadowy bad guys, Tom Reynolds, is trying to justify how important it is for the government to spy on people:
The idea of course being that privacy (and in many ways, personal freedom) should take the back seat to the illusion of safety. If my earlier rantings didn't make it obvious enough, this is not something I agree with. And while I understand not wanting kids to use school issued laptops to surf porn during class, the entire concept of the web nanny is famously flawed. And I also tend to think (admittedly, it may be easy for me since I'm not a mom of a kid of that age) that treating a kid like he or she lives in a police state isn't going to do them any favors when they turn 18.
These are big issues that get bigger each day with the march of technology. David Brin has an interesting take on the issue of surveillance, transparency, and privacy in the Transparent Society. I don't agree with what Brin says in a lot of ways3 (I tend to agree more with Bruce Schneier) but one point he does make well is that a major problem in surveillance is that it only goes one way. The government (in this case the school) is able to spy on you without your knowledge, and there's very little that can be done to hold them accountable unless they do something phenomenally stupid, such as trying to suspend you for eating candy in your own home. The students are not allowed to monitor the school to make sure that the school is acting with the same responsibility that it is demanding of its students.
Larry King got the last word in Enemy of the State, and I think he deserves to have it here as well.
1 - Though also knowing of many a district that can't even afford to get its kids new books while others can do this kind of extravagant spending tarnishes the shiny.
2 - I've been in a lot of lecture halls and watched a lot of supposedly more mature and restrained university students use laptops. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times that said laptop usage involved actual note-taking rather than Facebook and Youtube.
3 - Another of Brin's ideas is that in a truly transparent society, everyone would be familiar with everyone else's secrets, which leads to a sort of mutually assured destruction if we don't respect each other's illusion of privacy. Interesting, but not a place I'd personally like to live in.
Anyway, a couple highlights, about the district policy:
* Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes
* Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated
* Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion
Honestly, it's got to be pretty cool if your school district has so much spare money that it can afford to get laptops for its students and loan them out1. If nothing else, making sure kids are up with the technology from the start gives them a good advantage, I think. But when it tips over in to requiring that students use these laptops and punishing students that have a different laptop they want to use, that's creepy, and I really makes it sound like the intent from the start was to tightly monitor the kids. I could even maybe understand it if they were focusing on in-school use, since letting kids have laptops in class is a recipe for not getting anything done unless there are some real restrictions on what they can do with those laptops2. But that this overbearing monitoring extended so obviously outside of school makes it impossible for me to see it as anything other than intrusive and just... creepy.
And they sure were. A little more detail on the kid who was punished for something he did at home:
However, the lawyer for the Robbins family says that their son was called into the vice-principal's office and confronted with a photo secretly snapped by his laptop's webcam while he was eating Mike & Ike's candy, and he was accused of taking drugs.
Way to go, Lower Merion School District. Way to go. Even if the kid were actually taking drugs, doesn't that become a law enforcement issue if it takes place off of school grounds? Oh yeah, except the police can't do that sort of thing without a warrant. Thank you Fourth Amendment.
From an article about the response of the EFF and ACLU:
Even if the school district had gotten students or parents to agree to the monitoring as a condition of receiving the notebooks, the spying would have still be unconstitutional, according to Bankston. He told us that private schools or employers can ask you to sign away your right to privacy, but not a government entity like a public school. “To condition one’s receipt of government benefits on your surrendering a constitutional right is itself unconstitutional,” he said.
Of all things, this is making me think of one of my favorite movies, Enemy of the State; toward the end, one of the shadowy bad guys, Tom Reynolds, is trying to justify how important it is for the government to spy on people:
We won the war. Now we're fighting the peace. It's a lot more volatile. Now we've got ten million crackpots out there with sniper scopes, sarin gas and C-4. Ten-year-olds go on the Net, downloading encryption we can barely break, not to mention instructions on how to make a low-yield nuclear device. Privacy's been dead for years because we can't risk it. The only privacy that's left is the inside of your head. Maybe that's enough. You think we're the enemy of democracy, you and I? I think we're democracy's last hope.
The idea of course being that privacy (and in many ways, personal freedom) should take the back seat to the illusion of safety. If my earlier rantings didn't make it obvious enough, this is not something I agree with. And while I understand not wanting kids to use school issued laptops to surf porn during class, the entire concept of the web nanny is famously flawed. And I also tend to think (admittedly, it may be easy for me since I'm not a mom of a kid of that age) that treating a kid like he or she lives in a police state isn't going to do them any favors when they turn 18.
These are big issues that get bigger each day with the march of technology. David Brin has an interesting take on the issue of surveillance, transparency, and privacy in the Transparent Society. I don't agree with what Brin says in a lot of ways3 (I tend to agree more with Bruce Schneier) but one point he does make well is that a major problem in surveillance is that it only goes one way. The government (in this case the school) is able to spy on you without your knowledge, and there's very little that can be done to hold them accountable unless they do something phenomenally stupid, such as trying to suspend you for eating candy in your own home. The students are not allowed to monitor the school to make sure that the school is acting with the same responsibility that it is demanding of its students.
Larry King got the last word in Enemy of the State, and I think he deserves to have it here as well.
How do we draw the line - draw the line between protection of national security, obviously the government's need to obtain intelligence data, and the protection of civil liberties, particularly the sanctity of my home? You've got no right to come into my home!
1 - Though also knowing of many a district that can't even afford to get its kids new books while others can do this kind of extravagant spending tarnishes the shiny.
2 - I've been in a lot of lecture halls and watched a lot of supposedly more mature and restrained university students use laptops. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times that said laptop usage involved actual note-taking rather than Facebook and Youtube.
3 - Another of Brin's ideas is that in a truly transparent society, everyone would be familiar with everyone else's secrets, which leads to a sort of mutually assured destruction if we don't respect each other's illusion of privacy. Interesting, but not a place I'd personally like to live in.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The canyons of Mars
Super cool post over at Phil Plait's blog in regards to an oblique view of an exposed section in the Gale Crater on Mars, courtesy of NASA. This is some exciting stuff if you're a sed/strat nerd like me. Outcrops are the bread and butter of any geologist - unless you've got the money to drill cores or shoot seismic, subsurface geology is inferred from outcrops - and this one looks quite beautiful.
I just wish NASA would tell us a little more:
Since of course I'm immediately dying to know what sorts of clays, and which sulfate minerals. I'm thinking that when they're talking about sulfates consistent with Mars drying out, it'd be sulfate evaporites like gypsum, barite, or anhydrite. Which then allows my fevered imagination to bring forth images of the Paradox Formation in eastern Utah and Colorado.
Of course, I have to stop myself from getting carried away here. The Paradox Formation is in places thousands of feet thick and covers an enormous area, which is what allows it to have such a profound tectonic effect on the landscape. Looking at that outcrop, I'm having a hard time getting a sense of just how thick the evaporites would be, but probably not that much. But what it does say, about the existence of water on the surface of Mars in the past, is pretty huge. And of course - letting my imagination run just a little wild here - opens the possibility of more evaporite deposits lurking under the surface, and bigger ones, and somewhere out there, one of the salt tectonic guys is going, "squee!"
I just wish NASA would tell us a little more:
Layers near the bottom of the mound contain clay and sulfate minerals that indicate wet conditions. Overlying rock layers contain sulfates with little or no clay, consistent with these layers forming in an environment in which water was evaporating and Mars was drying out.
Since of course I'm immediately dying to know what sorts of clays, and which sulfate minerals. I'm thinking that when they're talking about sulfates consistent with Mars drying out, it'd be sulfate evaporites like gypsum, barite, or anhydrite. Which then allows my fevered imagination to bring forth images of the Paradox Formation in eastern Utah and Colorado.
Of course, I have to stop myself from getting carried away here. The Paradox Formation is in places thousands of feet thick and covers an enormous area, which is what allows it to have such a profound tectonic effect on the landscape. Looking at that outcrop, I'm having a hard time getting a sense of just how thick the evaporites would be, but probably not that much. But what it does say, about the existence of water on the surface of Mars in the past, is pretty huge. And of course - letting my imagination run just a little wild here - opens the possibility of more evaporite deposits lurking under the surface, and bigger ones, and somewhere out there, one of the salt tectonic guys is going, "squee!"
Volcano for Monday
It's a twofer: the NASA Earth Observatory captured Klyuchevskaya and Bezymianny on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula erupting simultaneously. Pretty cool stuff. Like Sakurajima last week, both of these are composite volcanoes that live on the rim of the Pacific plate, which is a zone of active subduction. Volcanic rumblings in that area are never a surprise.
It's as if we've caught a hint of a new competitive sport played out over a geologic scale - artistic erupting! While these two volcanoes really get points for being coordinated, I've still got to give Sakurajima the lead, though. I'm a sucker for volcanic lightning.
It's as if we've caught a hint of a new competitive sport played out over a geologic scale - artistic erupting! While these two volcanoes really get points for being coordinated, I've still got to give Sakurajima the lead, though. I'm a sucker for volcanic lightning.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Big brother is watching students
School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home - via BoingBoing. This is absolutely ludicrous. A school issues laptops to its kids, then proceeds to use those laptops to spy on them while they're at home. And apparently in one instance, even disciplined a kid for something that they did at home.
This is beyond horrifying. You can argue that personal privacy is a changing landscape right now, as society adjusts to the realities of new social media and the basic fact that on the internet, nothing is ever truly dead. That's why you get messes where commentary on Facebook causes trouble or stupid use of social media gets you fired. There are arguments that can be made on either side for that kind of thing1. But using a laptop to spy on someone - anyone - in their own home is something I'd hope anyone that's not on a fascist big brother-esque power trip can agree is beyond the pale.
"We noticed you checking out some stoner sites, so we've informed your parents that you're doing pot and will be suspending you. Oh, and those were some cute panties you had on yesterday."
I'd be calling myself paranoid, except that it's actually happened. It's apparently time to take the tinfoil off of your head and put it on your laptop instead.
1 - I am solidly on the side of "it's none of your damn business what I do outside of work/school as long as I'm in no way representing the company/school."
This is beyond horrifying. You can argue that personal privacy is a changing landscape right now, as society adjusts to the realities of new social media and the basic fact that on the internet, nothing is ever truly dead. That's why you get messes where commentary on Facebook causes trouble or stupid use of social media gets you fired. There are arguments that can be made on either side for that kind of thing1. But using a laptop to spy on someone - anyone - in their own home is something I'd hope anyone that's not on a fascist big brother-esque power trip can agree is beyond the pale.
"We noticed you checking out some stoner sites, so we've informed your parents that you're doing pot and will be suspending you. Oh, and those were some cute panties you had on yesterday."
I'd be calling myself paranoid, except that it's actually happened. It's apparently time to take the tinfoil off of your head and put it on your laptop instead.
1 - I am solidly on the side of "it's none of your damn business what I do outside of work/school as long as I'm in no way representing the company/school."
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
It is done.
I took the bus up to Boulder this morning and turned in my signed acceptance letter, as well as the notarized faculty oath that I needed to take if I want to be a TA or RA. So, it's official! The paperwork avalanche has been started.
I also talked to my boss yesterday and let him know what was going on. The good news is, I can keep working as long as I want, so I'm planning to stay until the beginning of August. I can't really work past the start of school, though, not if I'm going to be working 20 hours a week for the university.
It's a little scary, since I've been working here for four years now. They took me in when I was unemployed and had nothing better than a high school diploma to my name, and there are a lot of people in this company that I have to thank for the opportunity to get my Bachelor's degree. I suppose the good news is, Mike will still be working here, so I can stop by and visit people.
More than anything, though, I'm excited. Graduate school! It's going to be an adventure.
I also talked to my boss yesterday and let him know what was going on. The good news is, I can keep working as long as I want, so I'm planning to stay until the beginning of August. I can't really work past the start of school, though, not if I'm going to be working 20 hours a week for the university.
It's a little scary, since I've been working here for four years now. They took me in when I was unemployed and had nothing better than a high school diploma to my name, and there are a lot of people in this company that I have to thank for the opportunity to get my Bachelor's degree. I suppose the good news is, Mike will still be working here, so I can stop by and visit people.
More than anything, though, I'm excited. Graduate school! It's going to be an adventure.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Lusi mud volcano: a drilling disaster
Strongest evidence to date links exploration well to Lusi mud volcano - this is quite the debacle. Obviously, there are safety concerns to be discussed regarding any sort of economic drilling. (Such as the long talk back in December about hydraulic fracturing. I think this one scores extra style points, however. There's something impressive about drilling that's gone so badly wrong that it's created a freaking mud volcano. One that's slowly covering the surrounding area in steaming, awful mud.
Just one of those errors in and of itself is bad. All five together? Ouch. Double ouch. Triple ouch.
A mud volcano may sound like a funny thing, but I don't think anyone in the area is laughing. Take a look at the extent of the mud flow, courtesy of NASA. The area basically sits on a giant, extensional basin full of highly pressurized carbonate mud and petroleum. Lots of petroleum. Drilling there requires getting to the oil and gas while avoiding mud volcano systems, which apparently failed, in this case. Badly. It's sort of like poking a hole in a water bed that someone's sitting on; no wonder Lusi has been erupting for six years already and is expected to continue to do so for another thirty. There's a lot of mud, under a lot of pressure, and a nice little path to the surface.
The group of scientists has identified five critical drilling errors as the causes of the Lusi mud volcano eruption:
• A significant open hole section with no protective casing
• Overestimation of the pressure the well could tolerate
• After a complete loss of returns, the decision to pull the drill string out of an extremely unstable hole
• Pulling the bit out of the hole while losses were occurring
• Not identifying the kick more rapidly
Just one of those errors in and of itself is bad. All five together? Ouch. Double ouch. Triple ouch.
A mud volcano may sound like a funny thing, but I don't think anyone in the area is laughing. Take a look at the extent of the mud flow, courtesy of NASA. The area basically sits on a giant, extensional basin full of highly pressurized carbonate mud and petroleum. Lots of petroleum. Drilling there requires getting to the oil and gas while avoiding mud volcano systems, which apparently failed, in this case. Badly. It's sort of like poking a hole in a water bed that someone's sitting on; no wonder Lusi has been erupting for six years already and is expected to continue to do so for another thirty. There's a lot of mud, under a lot of pressure, and a nice little path to the surface.
Late again: Monday volcano
Two weeks in a row. I'm such a failure.
This week: Sakurajima
Sakurajima (literally "cherry blossom island") is not quite an island; it's connected to the rest of Kyuushuu on one side by a bunch of lava flows that occurred in 1914. But the "island" itself is basically a volcano poking up in the middle of Kagoshima bay.
Sakurajima's lava output is mostly andesitic or dacitic in composition; it's an intermediate composite volcano, which means it tends to have the impressive explodey eruptions and pyroclastic flows.
And more volcanic lightning.
This week: Sakurajima
Sakurajima (literally "cherry blossom island") is not quite an island; it's connected to the rest of Kyuushuu on one side by a bunch of lava flows that occurred in 1914. But the "island" itself is basically a volcano poking up in the middle of Kagoshima bay.
Sakurajima's lava output is mostly andesitic or dacitic in composition; it's an intermediate composite volcano, which means it tends to have the impressive explodey eruptions and pyroclastic flows.
And more volcanic lightning.
Just a quick follow-up from yesterday
I think that this is a fine example of why I think the proposed "religious bill of rights" for students in Colorado would be a stupid, stupid idea.
Because if nothing else, a lot of the language in that so-called "bill of rights" sure makes it sound like this kind of shit would be acceptable:
Sounds like an awesome learning environment to me. More commentary at Pharyngula.
In good news, as of yesterday - I'm thinking some time after I wrote the long, bitchy post about it1 - the Judiciary Committee:
I take that to be state senate speak for "We think this is such a phenomenally stupid idea that we're just going to sit on it until everyone forgets this bill even existed." Or I can hope.
EDIT: Phil Plait pointed out to me that the judiciary committee went straight along party lines. That is completely unsurprising in this state. When I checked out the actual votes, I noticed that Evie Hudak is one of the members of the committee, and she's my state senator2. I think I shall send her a nice note, since she voted to kill the thing.
1 - I am totally not proposing a causal link between these two things (or involving the post that Phil Plait wrote that prompted me to be cranky) but wouldn't it be awesome if there was?
2 - Not only did I vote for her, I also donated $200 to her campaign when she ran; I received an attack ad from her opponent featuring a hysterical warning about how Mrs. Hudak wants pedophiles to rape your children in the bathroom because she supported a bill that lets transgendered individuals use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It made me just a little angry.
Because if nothing else, a lot of the language in that so-called "bill of rights" sure makes it sound like this kind of shit would be acceptable:
Parents said the situation escalated after a student put a postcard of Jesus on Hussain's desk that the teacher threw in the trash. Parents also said Hussain sent to the office students who, during a lesson about evolution, asked about the role of God in creation.
On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing "Jesus Loves Me." She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing class work.
But Annette Balint, whose daughter is in Hussain's class, said the students have the right to wear those shirts and sing "Jesus Loves Me," a long-time Sunday School staple. She said the students were reading the Bible during free time in class.
"She doesn't have to be a professing Christian to be in the classroom," Balint said. "But she can't go the other way and not allow God to be mentioned."
Sounds like an awesome learning environment to me. More commentary at Pharyngula.
In good news, as of yesterday - I'm thinking some time after I wrote the long, bitchy post about it1 - the Judiciary Committee:
After consideration on the merits, the Committee recommends the following:
SB10-089 be postponed indefinitely.
I take that to be state senate speak for "We think this is such a phenomenally stupid idea that we're just going to sit on it until everyone forgets this bill even existed." Or I can hope.
EDIT: Phil Plait pointed out to me that the judiciary committee went straight along party lines. That is completely unsurprising in this state. When I checked out the actual votes, I noticed that Evie Hudak is one of the members of the committee, and she's my state senator2. I think I shall send her a nice note, since she voted to kill the thing.
1 - I am totally not proposing a causal link between these two things (or involving the post that Phil Plait wrote that prompted me to be cranky) but wouldn't it be awesome if there was?
2 - Not only did I vote for her, I also donated $200 to her campaign when she ran; I received an attack ad from her opponent featuring a hysterical warning about how Mrs. Hudak wants pedophiles to rape your children in the bathroom because she supported a bill that lets transgendered individuals use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It made me just a little angry.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Like a fish needs a bicycle.
Saw on Phil Plait's blog this morning that the Colorado state Legislature is considering a "religious bill of rights" for students. Phil's got a lot of good commentary about it already, but I thought I'd take a look through it myself and see what I thought; local issues are pretty darn important.
What caught my eye first are a couple bits out of the very beginning, which are justifications for why we'd need something like this:
And:
Frankly, kids DON'T have free speech in public school1. I don't think they ever have. In some schools, there are uniforms are strict dress codes, often times out of concern regarding kids wearing gang colors to school and making the environment less safe. That's how it was when I went to school here, and in some places it's become a lot more restrictive in the time since I graduated. There are a lot of rules in place for schools in regards to speech in general that are supposed to be there to guarantee a safe learning environment. Fred Phelps may be allowed to run around in the outside world with a sign that screams "God Hates Fags" because it's his Constitutional right to be a hate-filled douchebag, but that sort of thing is not currently allowed in schools because it creates an extremely hostile environment for students who are, for example, perceived to be gay.
So that's the first question - do kids in public schools have a right to free speech as strong as that of adults outside of schools? Does that right mean they have the unfettered right to make life hell for other students? School - and upper level schools in particular - are already a flaming cesspit of kids trying to find an other to demonize. So does a kid get a right to free speech that extends to creating an extremely hostile - possibly deadly - environment for other students?
You may think I'm going a little far here, but consider that there has been some conservative Christian shrieking about how the Matthew Shepard Act is totally going to restrict their religious freedom. Because apparently, hate crimes against gays are essential to religious freedom in this country.
Which sort of leads in to this idea that people have a perception their religious freedom is being impinged upon. As mentioned above, because it's now a hate crime with a harsher sentence to beat someone else to death because they're gay. We've also seen some sneaky attempts to get mandatory prayer back in to schools, disguised as a moment of silence. Some outright believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket because mandatory prayer has been struck down; they don't seem to realize that prayer is just fine and dandy and protected as long as it's not mandated by the school. So frankly, I'm not that impressed by the "PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" because it sure smells like the ol' Christian persecution complex to me. I'm sure it's not pleasant to be in a privileged group that is slowly losing its privilege and being treated like everyone else. But this particular bill is just going to be more mental justification for the persecution complex, I think - "See? Our religion is under attack! We need a religious bill of rights!"
Scanning through the student's rights section, there are some things I really take exception to on principle:
Should there be religious songs as part of a school sponsored program to begin with? Is this the school promoting religion?
See "God hates fags," above.
See Phil Plait on this one.
And for the teachers:
Honestly, if I were a parent, I would take SERIOUS exception to this.
Again, see Phil Plait. But I would also add that this one really pisses me off, just like pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. If you disagree with something, that's fine. How about being a responsible adult and not putting yourself in a position where you'll have to do something you find morally repugnant, instead of an arrogant fuckwad that does it on purpose in order to push your personal beliefs on others?
Also:
Have fun in regular college, kid. That shit don't fly there.
Though really, I have another issue with the above. Though we all do it to some extent, it's pretty stupid to isolate yourself completely from viewpoints that disagree with your own. If nothing else, disagreement is how we learn to flex our intellectual muscles. Of course the most obvious application of this is creationism versus evolution, in allowing a kid to completely hide from any material relating to evolution. But technically, this also applies to world history that covers the ancient world, since there were civilizations that existed long before the creationist god created the world. Or if we want to get super ridiculous, the definition of pi in the Bible is actually 3, not 3.14. Oops.
Personally, I don't think public school should be a place where you get to be sheltered entirely from anything and everything that disagrees with your worldview. You're certainly not being sheltered from other kids that may disagree. I'm sure there are parents who disagree with me, though I hope they realize that their kids are in for a serious shock if they go on to higher education at anywhere that isn't Liberty University.
Honestly, I think it probably wouldn't hurt if a school wanted to cover its butt on religious grounds by having a pamphlet available about all the relevant Supreme Court rulings; that would actually be quite educational. Citizens of all ages really ought to be aware of what their Constitutional rights are and what they mean. But this thing isn't framed in relation to the Constitution of the United States. Instead, the framing of this bill feeds the ridiculous Christian persecution complex, and really pushes the bounds on several things. It's one thing to let a curious kid know that yes, their ability to go have a prayer group each morning at the flagpole before school is Constitutionally protected. It's another entirely to give a teacher tacit approval to deviate from the curriculum because they have a religious disagreement with it.
I'm really hoping this one dies of neglect in committee.
1 - Thinking back to high school, I think you could make a good argument that schools aren't even on the same PLANET as the rest of us.
What caught my eye first are a couple bits out of the very beginning, which are justifications for why we'd need something like this:
(b) MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS ARE COMING UNDER INCREASING ATTACK IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, A METHOD TO RECOGNIZE, PROMOTE, AND ENFORCE THESE RIGHTS IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND EMPLOYEES.
And:
(e) THERE IS A GROWING PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND PARENTS OR GUARDIANS WHOSE CHILDREN FEEL THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE BEING SUPPRESSED OR THREATENED ARE REMOVING THEIR CHILDREN FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THUS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PUPIL COUNT AND THEREFORE ITS REVENUE
Frankly, kids DON'T have free speech in public school1. I don't think they ever have. In some schools, there are uniforms are strict dress codes, often times out of concern regarding kids wearing gang colors to school and making the environment less safe. That's how it was when I went to school here, and in some places it's become a lot more restrictive in the time since I graduated. There are a lot of rules in place for schools in regards to speech in general that are supposed to be there to guarantee a safe learning environment. Fred Phelps may be allowed to run around in the outside world with a sign that screams "God Hates Fags" because it's his Constitutional right to be a hate-filled douchebag, but that sort of thing is not currently allowed in schools because it creates an extremely hostile environment for students who are, for example, perceived to be gay.
So that's the first question - do kids in public schools have a right to free speech as strong as that of adults outside of schools? Does that right mean they have the unfettered right to make life hell for other students? School - and upper level schools in particular - are already a flaming cesspit of kids trying to find an other to demonize. So does a kid get a right to free speech that extends to creating an extremely hostile - possibly deadly - environment for other students?
You may think I'm going a little far here, but consider that there has been some conservative Christian shrieking about how the Matthew Shepard Act is totally going to restrict their religious freedom. Because apparently, hate crimes against gays are essential to religious freedom in this country.
Which sort of leads in to this idea that people have a perception their religious freedom is being impinged upon. As mentioned above, because it's now a hate crime with a harsher sentence to beat someone else to death because they're gay. We've also seen some sneaky attempts to get mandatory prayer back in to schools, disguised as a moment of silence. Some outright believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket because mandatory prayer has been struck down; they don't seem to realize that prayer is just fine and dandy and protected as long as it's not mandated by the school. So frankly, I'm not that impressed by the "PERCEPTION AMONG CITIZENS THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOSTILE TO INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION AND EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" because it sure smells like the ol' Christian persecution complex to me. I'm sure it's not pleasant to be in a privileged group that is slowly losing its privilege and being treated like everyone else. But this particular bill is just going to be more mental justification for the persecution complex, I think - "See? Our religion is under attack! We need a religious bill of rights!"
Scanning through the student's rights section, there are some things I really take exception to on principle:
(IV) SING RELIGIOUS SONGS ALONG WITH SECULAR SONGS AS PART OF A SCHOOL-SPONSORED OR CURRICULUM-RELATED PROGRAM;
Should there be religious songs as part of a school sponsored program to begin with? Is this the school promoting religion?
(VI) WEAR RELIGIOUS GARB ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOTHING WITH A RELIGIOUS MESSAGE;
See "God hates fags," above.
(VII) EXPRESS HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR SELECT RELIGIOUS MATERIALS WHEN RESPONDING TO A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT IF HIS OR HER RESPONSE REASONABLY MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT;
See Phil Plait on this one.
And for the teachers:
(V) ANSWER A STUDENT'S QUESTION ON A RELIGIOUS TOPIC;
Honestly, if I were a parent, I would take SERIOUS exception to this.
(VI) NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;
Again, see Phil Plait. But I would also add that this one really pisses me off, just like pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. If you disagree with something, that's fine. How about being a responsible adult and not putting yourself in a position where you'll have to do something you find morally repugnant, instead of an arrogant fuckwad that does it on purpose in order to push your personal beliefs on others?
Also:
(a) A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TO OPT OUT OF ANY CLASS OR THE USE OF SPECIFIC COURSE MATERIAL THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OR
Have fun in regular college, kid. That shit don't fly there.
Though really, I have another issue with the above. Though we all do it to some extent, it's pretty stupid to isolate yourself completely from viewpoints that disagree with your own. If nothing else, disagreement is how we learn to flex our intellectual muscles. Of course the most obvious application of this is creationism versus evolution, in allowing a kid to completely hide from any material relating to evolution. But technically, this also applies to world history that covers the ancient world, since there were civilizations that existed long before the creationist god created the world. Or if we want to get super ridiculous, the definition of pi in the Bible is actually 3, not 3.14. Oops.
Personally, I don't think public school should be a place where you get to be sheltered entirely from anything and everything that disagrees with your worldview. You're certainly not being sheltered from other kids that may disagree. I'm sure there are parents who disagree with me, though I hope they realize that their kids are in for a serious shock if they go on to higher education at anywhere that isn't Liberty University.
Honestly, I think it probably wouldn't hurt if a school wanted to cover its butt on religious grounds by having a pamphlet available about all the relevant Supreme Court rulings; that would actually be quite educational. Citizens of all ages really ought to be aware of what their Constitutional rights are and what they mean. But this thing isn't framed in relation to the Constitution of the United States. Instead, the framing of this bill feeds the ridiculous Christian persecution complex, and really pushes the bounds on several things. It's one thing to let a curious kid know that yes, their ability to go have a prayer group each morning at the flagpole before school is Constitutionally protected. It's another entirely to give a teacher tacit approval to deviate from the curriculum because they have a religious disagreement with it.
I'm really hoping this one dies of neglect in committee.
1 - Thinking back to high school, I think you could make a good argument that schools aren't even on the same PLANET as the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)