Friday, September 30, 2011
Defending the Fine Arts
Last week's student newspaper contained an opinion article written by a student (who shall remain nameless) about where spending cuts for the school ought to occur. "To me," said the student, "the choice is obvious. The fine arts and physical education departments of high schools in America. . ." The fine arts department desperatley needs funding to provide music, instruments, art materials and other benefits for students engaged in art, choir, band, orchestra, and theater. The student went on to say "listening to works of Mozart and understanding how they work isn't an essential lifeskill. . ." Well, neither is learning how to write a newspaper editorial, and yet the school newspaper hasn't come under fire. Classes like the fine arts enrich student's lives and provide a broader base to their education, just as the school newspaper, engineering program, and other non-"core academic" classes do. No subject is "better" than the other, but all help to enrich student's lives. Imagine a world in which you never learned to appreciate good music (not the autotuned drivel on the radio), or learned to express your creativity through paint or drawing or clay. A world where Shakespeare was never understood and enjoyed as a performance, where Shostakovich's symphony no. 5 fell on deaf ears in favor of Ke$ha. Think of how much our nation would suffer if students did not learn the fundamentals of the arts. There is not, and has never been a civilization that did not have music and art of some kind. It is an integral part of humanity's development. To cut it from our schools would be to cut a part of our culture, history, and numerous opportunities for growth and learning.Many students find their calling in the fine arts program and go on to become music teachers or performers, actors and actresses, crew/lighting/set designers, and other kinds of artists, contributing to their respecitve disciplines. If fine arts was not offered in schools, students may not realize these options are available to them. In the author's own words, "as spending cuts become more and more necessary, people have to start considering what's truly important." The fine arts fit the bill.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
To Ban Or Not To Ban: A Brief Look At Speech Codes
Today in class we looked at an article (Jim Crow on Fraternity Row) and a series of pictures from fraternity parities at Auburn University. To quote the article, the party included fraternity members "dressed in KKK costumes. . .black face, and even went so far as to simulate the lynching of a member in blackface. The question is, should THIS kind of speech (racist, descriminatory, highly threatening and disgusting speech) be prohibited on campus? While I believe yes, I cannot deny that the First Amendment protects student speech, including symbolic speech, no matter what the subject. There is just one exception: fighting words. Fighting words are those which incite an immediate violent response, according to an article by David L. Hudson Jr. Universities have a responsibilty, much like elementary and secondary schools, to make their environment a safe place for students. One university policy mentioned in Hudson Jr.'s article was that of the University of Michigan which prohibited "behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed . . .that . . Creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment". While this policy effectively prohibits the kind of activities that occurred at Auburn it also prevents a significant amount of protected speech and remains vague and overbroad. At what point does a comment, a psychology class study, etc. become forbidden by policy? There is no real way to know. Speech codes have the potential for abuse and unneccesary censorship, as is stated on the FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) website. For instance Davidson College's policy which bans "innuendoes," "teasing," "jokes," and "comments or inquiries about dating" seems excessive. "Inquiries about dating" would mean asking out a fellow classmate is banned. And the ban on jokes would kill off any campus improv troupe, comedy group, or visiting show. There is a huge difference between this kind of censorship and that which needs to occur at Auburn.
Taking a look at the speech restrictions present at one of my prospective schools, Syracuse University, I saw policies that were clearly restrictive, yet fair and others that seemed vague. For instance, the school's policy on harassment was very clear: "Harassment, whether physical or verbal, oral or written, which is beyond the bounds of protected free speech, directed at a specific individual(s), easily construed as "fighting words," and likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace." Speech that provokes an immediate violent response is banned, and that is fine by me. However, another policy that struck me less specific and well-outlined was that on bias. Some examples given were "telling jokes, name calling, stereotyping, offensive graffiti, avoiding or excluding others." What the prospective student is left asking is what, in fact, is offensive graffiti? Is it art that offends someone? Overall, I think Syracuse has a fine policy and no reasonable student looking to learn and thrive in their environment should feel overly censored. However, there are examples (such as the graffiti) of places where student's speech is more limited than what is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. I feel that, had the Auburn parties taken place at Syracuse, there would have been significant fallout, as they were a complete breach of university policies on bias and harassment. As a prospective student, I have no issue with this. I would not want to attend a school that allowed such hideous conduct to go unchecked, without punishment and education to prevent further incidents.
While I agree with FIRE's definitions and share some of the organization's passion for freedom of expression, I also value the safety and comfort of students at universities (especially since I will be joining them shortly) which I feel they often ignore. At some schools the codes seem too broad to be of real service to students and instead simply inhibit expression. At others, codes appear reasonable and a yellow or red light (as depicted on the FIRE website) was not a negative to me. Those red and yellow lights, those codes, are what prevents incidents like the party at Auburn, incidents that would make me feel threatened and uncomfortable at school. Speech codes need not be a terrible thing, so long as they are clear, concise, and serve to educate and make the school a better environment for all. However, when they become too restrictive and larger than the issue itself, they infringe on student's rights, and demand revision.
Taking a look at the speech restrictions present at one of my prospective schools, Syracuse University, I saw policies that were clearly restrictive, yet fair and others that seemed vague. For instance, the school's policy on harassment was very clear: "Harassment, whether physical or verbal, oral or written, which is beyond the bounds of protected free speech, directed at a specific individual(s), easily construed as "fighting words," and likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace." Speech that provokes an immediate violent response is banned, and that is fine by me. However, another policy that struck me less specific and well-outlined was that on bias. Some examples given were "telling jokes, name calling, stereotyping, offensive graffiti, avoiding or excluding others." What the prospective student is left asking is what, in fact, is offensive graffiti? Is it art that offends someone? Overall, I think Syracuse has a fine policy and no reasonable student looking to learn and thrive in their environment should feel overly censored. However, there are examples (such as the graffiti) of places where student's speech is more limited than what is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. I feel that, had the Auburn parties taken place at Syracuse, there would have been significant fallout, as they were a complete breach of university policies on bias and harassment. As a prospective student, I have no issue with this. I would not want to attend a school that allowed such hideous conduct to go unchecked, without punishment and education to prevent further incidents.
While I agree with FIRE's definitions and share some of the organization's passion for freedom of expression, I also value the safety and comfort of students at universities (especially since I will be joining them shortly) which I feel they often ignore. At some schools the codes seem too broad to be of real service to students and instead simply inhibit expression. At others, codes appear reasonable and a yellow or red light (as depicted on the FIRE website) was not a negative to me. Those red and yellow lights, those codes, are what prevents incidents like the party at Auburn, incidents that would make me feel threatened and uncomfortable at school. Speech codes need not be a terrible thing, so long as they are clear, concise, and serve to educate and make the school a better environment for all. However, when they become too restrictive and larger than the issue itself, they infringe on student's rights, and demand revision.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
The Grocery Conspiracy
This past week I read an interesting article by Martin Lindstrom entitled "Fear And Ice Chips Selling Illusions of Cleanliness". The article was about how advertisers use different tactics to convince consumers that their food is "freshest" or "cleanest" or "best" in one way or another. Psychology and sociology fascinate me, and the truths brought to light in this article were both interesting from a marketing and psychology standpoint and disturbing from the consumer's perspective. I found the tactics used by Whole Foods (which has a large store close to home) especially interesting. For instance, Lindstrom points out the chalk boards that display the prices of extremely perishable goods (flowers), as though they've been written out by the farmer himself. He writes "It's as if the farmer or grower had unloaded his produce (chalk and slate board in hand), then hopped back in his flatbed truck and motored back to the country." These subtle signs immediately conjure romantic images of farms and sunshine and a personal touch. However, Lindstrom brings the consumer back to reality when he says "while some of the flowers are purchased locally, many are bought centrally, and in-house Whole Foods artists produce the chalk boards." Another illusion that shocked me was the vegetable sprinkler system used by many groceries. You've no doubt seen the rows of bright veggies being showered with mist every half-hour or so. Lindstrom tells us that "those drops serve as a symbol, albeit a bogus one, of freshness and purity" He goes on to say that "that same dewy mist makes the vegetables rot more quickly." In this case, the company's efforts to entice us to buy their "fresh" produce are actually leading us to buy goods that are spoiling! The author's last anecdote is much like his first with the farmer's "personal touch". He tells the story of a friend who worked on a modern fishing boat that would get the day's catch, then transfer the fish to an old, outdated but charming boat, and bring that in to the harbor so customers would see the catch coming from a more picturesque source. He adds "it was all staged, but the customers ate it up. . .we want to buy the illusions that the marketing world sells to us. . ." So which is better, eating up the illusions of marketing companies and living in a consumer fantasy or actually knowing what we're getting and where it comes from? What Lindstrom fails to tell us is how we can avoid these ploys to get to the honest truth about what we buy and eat. Why? Because they're unavoidable. Everything from bananas to shampoo has been chemically altered, colored, "freshened" to convince us to spend. It appears that the only source one can trust, is one's own garden.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Remembering September 11th
10 years ago, 3,652 days ago, a tragedy changed the face of our nation forever. On this tenth anniversary of the World Trade center and Pentagon attacks, it is vital that we reflect and take stock in what has changed, both as a nation and individually.
In Issues class, we spent three days watching a documentary taped by two French brothers who were filming a movie about firefighters in New York. They followed their ladder to ground zero and got footage from within and outside the World Trade Center towers as they were hit and as they fell. The footage is like nothing I have ever seen. A scene from hell itself, with fire and dust and bodies everywhere. And yet, it was also a documentation of extreme heroism, bravery, and love for our nation and its people. As I watched, I felt a shadow of their fear, their anxiety, their confusion in the blasts. Then, I felt their desperation and desolation as they excavated the Pile, looking for survivors and bodies to return to families. And finally, as they climbed the steps of a nearby building to raise the American flag, I felt their pride and patriotism. It is one thing to hear about 9/11 from articles, from parents and teachers, but it is another thing entirely to see it on film, from the lobby of Tower One itself. That was the closest I had ever been to the tragedy and it was an eye-opening documentary. It only reinforced the meaning of this 10th anniversary for me, and the sacrifice thousands made, and the grief we share as a nation, and will continue to share in the next 10 years and beyond.
This weekend I read an article from The New York Times online by James Barron entitled "A Day That Stands Alone". The article described the scene at the 9/11 memorial opening and reflected on that day, and what it has meant, and will mean, for the United States. Part of the article was reserved for grief, for acknowledgement of the tragedy itself. As Barron states "There were also long moments of silence, first at 8:46 a.m., the time American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north tower, and again at 9:03 a.m., when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the other tower. Another silence - at ground zero and at the Pentagon- came at 9:37 a.m.. . . when flight 77 slammed into [the Pentagon]. . . another moment of silence, at 10:03, marked the crash of . . . Flight 93. . . on which passengers tried to fight back. . ." These moments of silence, pauses for reflection, communicate the sheer enormity of the attacks, and the impact they had all across the nation. There was also a section on how Sept. 11th has redefined our nation. It has "redefined bridges and tunnels in a way that generations of commuters had never imagined, as potential targets." This particular sentences stuck with me. What were once daily commute areas, neutral, boring places to pass on the way to work or school, are now places of anxiety and fear for many Americans, let alone flying and airports, whose security measures have increased 100 fold post 9/11. It was one of those events that "divided things into "Before" and "after" (Barron). Travel is simply one of the things that will never be the same. Just as, with the new memorial, ground zero itself will forever be a place of remembrance and reflection. Hopefully, it will not be a place to recall fear, but one to bring to mind great heroism, national unity, and hope for the future.
Though it is not an article per-say, another item that struck me was the comics section of the Chicago Tribune. Baby Blues is a long favorite of mine and the image for today was a simple, poignant one. Wanda and her husband have left the trash, and laundry basket behind them, Hammie has left his basketball, Zoe, her book, and all are staring at the baby, who has built two towers out of blocks, their hands to their hearts. This image calls to mind the effect on families this event had, and how it affects our generation, having been just children when the planes hit and everything changed. Another favorite comic of mine is Mutts, cute stories from the perspective of a dog and cat. In this one, the dog's owner is walking him past the foggy outline of NYC, and the leash is stretched to full capacity. The dog's voice bubble says, simply, "Heal." Another eloquent reference to the nation's need for closure, and also its need to remember.
Today, I played the flute and piccolo in a small group of kids from the marching band at a ceremony at the village hall to remember 9/11 and to thank our firefighters and police officers for the sacrifices they make for our safety and well-being. We played several patriotic tunes and a few hymn-like melodies in honor of the anniversary. During this time, and afterwords, I reflected on what 9/11 has meant to me. Having been only 7 years old, I can barely remember where I was, or what I was doing. However, I do remember feelings, the fear, the confusion, the outrage. I remember sitting on the couch with my teddy bear, watching the news play, but now I can't even remember the shapes on the flickering screen. Regardless of my ability to recall the actual event, the atrocities that occurred on September 11th have shaped parts of my life and continue to do so. 9/11 turned travel into a nightmare, and turned my perception of monuments and other areas from their status as relics to that of potential targets. It has become the defining moment of our generation, and has sparked the war that we will inherit: the war on terror. But not today. Today, we inherit the grief for the lost, the gratitude for those who gave everything in service to their country, and the importance of this event in history, and we know now that it is our duty to remember it.
In Issues class, we spent three days watching a documentary taped by two French brothers who were filming a movie about firefighters in New York. They followed their ladder to ground zero and got footage from within and outside the World Trade Center towers as they were hit and as they fell. The footage is like nothing I have ever seen. A scene from hell itself, with fire and dust and bodies everywhere. And yet, it was also a documentation of extreme heroism, bravery, and love for our nation and its people. As I watched, I felt a shadow of their fear, their anxiety, their confusion in the blasts. Then, I felt their desperation and desolation as they excavated the Pile, looking for survivors and bodies to return to families. And finally, as they climbed the steps of a nearby building to raise the American flag, I felt their pride and patriotism. It is one thing to hear about 9/11 from articles, from parents and teachers, but it is another thing entirely to see it on film, from the lobby of Tower One itself. That was the closest I had ever been to the tragedy and it was an eye-opening documentary. It only reinforced the meaning of this 10th anniversary for me, and the sacrifice thousands made, and the grief we share as a nation, and will continue to share in the next 10 years and beyond.
This weekend I read an article from The New York Times online by James Barron entitled "A Day That Stands Alone". The article described the scene at the 9/11 memorial opening and reflected on that day, and what it has meant, and will mean, for the United States. Part of the article was reserved for grief, for acknowledgement of the tragedy itself. As Barron states "There were also long moments of silence, first at 8:46 a.m., the time American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north tower, and again at 9:03 a.m., when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the other tower. Another silence - at ground zero and at the Pentagon- came at 9:37 a.m.. . . when flight 77 slammed into [the Pentagon]. . . another moment of silence, at 10:03, marked the crash of . . . Flight 93. . . on which passengers tried to fight back. . ." These moments of silence, pauses for reflection, communicate the sheer enormity of the attacks, and the impact they had all across the nation. There was also a section on how Sept. 11th has redefined our nation. It has "redefined bridges and tunnels in a way that generations of commuters had never imagined, as potential targets." This particular sentences stuck with me. What were once daily commute areas, neutral, boring places to pass on the way to work or school, are now places of anxiety and fear for many Americans, let alone flying and airports, whose security measures have increased 100 fold post 9/11. It was one of those events that "divided things into "Before" and "after" (Barron). Travel is simply one of the things that will never be the same. Just as, with the new memorial, ground zero itself will forever be a place of remembrance and reflection. Hopefully, it will not be a place to recall fear, but one to bring to mind great heroism, national unity, and hope for the future.
Though it is not an article per-say, another item that struck me was the comics section of the Chicago Tribune. Baby Blues is a long favorite of mine and the image for today was a simple, poignant one. Wanda and her husband have left the trash, and laundry basket behind them, Hammie has left his basketball, Zoe, her book, and all are staring at the baby, who has built two towers out of blocks, their hands to their hearts. This image calls to mind the effect on families this event had, and how it affects our generation, having been just children when the planes hit and everything changed. Another favorite comic of mine is Mutts, cute stories from the perspective of a dog and cat. In this one, the dog's owner is walking him past the foggy outline of NYC, and the leash is stretched to full capacity. The dog's voice bubble says, simply, "Heal." Another eloquent reference to the nation's need for closure, and also its need to remember.
Today, I played the flute and piccolo in a small group of kids from the marching band at a ceremony at the village hall to remember 9/11 and to thank our firefighters and police officers for the sacrifices they make for our safety and well-being. We played several patriotic tunes and a few hymn-like melodies in honor of the anniversary. During this time, and afterwords, I reflected on what 9/11 has meant to me. Having been only 7 years old, I can barely remember where I was, or what I was doing. However, I do remember feelings, the fear, the confusion, the outrage. I remember sitting on the couch with my teddy bear, watching the news play, but now I can't even remember the shapes on the flickering screen. Regardless of my ability to recall the actual event, the atrocities that occurred on September 11th have shaped parts of my life and continue to do so. 9/11 turned travel into a nightmare, and turned my perception of monuments and other areas from their status as relics to that of potential targets. It has become the defining moment of our generation, and has sparked the war that we will inherit: the war on terror. But not today. Today, we inherit the grief for the lost, the gratitude for those who gave everything in service to their country, and the importance of this event in history, and we know now that it is our duty to remember it.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .
. . . Unless, of course, you're a student. This week in class we have been looking at several court cases relevant to student's rights in school. We have also been discussing what consitutes "speech" as it is defined by the Supreme court and the Consitution. The first case we looked at was Tinker v. Des Moines, in which students were suspended for wearing arm bands that protested the Vietnam war. This case set up several perameters for other cases of student rights that followed. One of these was that neither "students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the dissenting opinion issued yet another statement that would influence cases to come. Justice Black's dissent remarks that " It is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases, where he pleases, and when he pleases." In other words, if a comment, article of clothing, or other method of free speech causes a "material and substantial disruption" it should not be allowed.
So what does this all mean for the everyday student? For most, it means going about business as usual, following the school rules, using appropriate dress, language, and so on. Our generation seems to be less interested in speaking out about big issues in school than its past counterparts. Or, so it would seem. Nevertheless, examples can be found of areas where students who supported causes such as legalization of marijuana (for medicinal use or otherwise) were forced to take off emblems relating to the leaf or 4:20. While wearing clothing related to drugs and/or alcohol is prohibited at school, what if someone is wearing the symbols because they disagree with the law? Are schools, to paraphrase the aforementioned cases, cutting off basic rights from America's future citizens and leaders as they attempt to educate them about becoming citizens and leaders? Something's not quite right here.
While I agree that students should not be able to spew vulgarity or intentionally make other students uncomfortable in school, I believe that, by high school, we are not only capable of forming opinions on issues and making rational arguments to support them, but are also capable of acting maturely when faced with those who disagree with our opinions. If we cannot discuss or passively display our opinions on issues in school, perhaps it is time for the designated school "soap box" in the lunch room, or the mandatory debate class.
School should not just be where students learn their rights. It should be the place they learn how to use them.
So what does this all mean for the everyday student? For most, it means going about business as usual, following the school rules, using appropriate dress, language, and so on. Our generation seems to be less interested in speaking out about big issues in school than its past counterparts. Or, so it would seem. Nevertheless, examples can be found of areas where students who supported causes such as legalization of marijuana (for medicinal use or otherwise) were forced to take off emblems relating to the leaf or 4:20. While wearing clothing related to drugs and/or alcohol is prohibited at school, what if someone is wearing the symbols because they disagree with the law? Are schools, to paraphrase the aforementioned cases, cutting off basic rights from America's future citizens and leaders as they attempt to educate them about becoming citizens and leaders? Something's not quite right here.
While I agree that students should not be able to spew vulgarity or intentionally make other students uncomfortable in school, I believe that, by high school, we are not only capable of forming opinions on issues and making rational arguments to support them, but are also capable of acting maturely when faced with those who disagree with our opinions. If we cannot discuss or passively display our opinions on issues in school, perhaps it is time for the designated school "soap box" in the lunch room, or the mandatory debate class.
School should not just be where students learn their rights. It should be the place they learn how to use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)