Tuesday, September 15, 2009
More Controversy on Obama's Adress to Students
I discovered another very intruiging cartoon today, which is actually quite funny. The kids in the cartoon are stating the positive message that was present in Obama's speech, and the parent, like many parents, including my own, who are oppossed to Obama 'telling students what to do', are telling their kids the opposite. While the reaction in this cartoon may be an exageration, it isn't far from the truth. Parents don't want their kids to listen to any message where the president is directly telling them something, whether it is positive or not. This article I found in the East Valley Tribune is one example of parents' outrage, and going to great lengths to censor what their kids see. What do you think about this issue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally doubt there are many parents that are like the mom in the cartoon, telling their children not to do well in school. Not wanting the President to speak directly to their children is very different from opposing the content and message of his speech (not many parents oppose the content).
ReplyDeleteThe primary reason parents have to be opposed to his speech, I believe, is the fact that this is perceived (and is, I believe) a huge step towards even more government control, and this one doesn't have a lot of advanteages that the average american parent can see.
My own belief is that parents should, under most cercumstances, have primary control of what their children can see and hear.
[long-winded rant]
ReplyDeleteShirley, in what way does a televised speech broadcast to schools resemble a government takeover in any realistic way? Perhaps a government body is doing something that is happening on a national level, but that resemblance lacks any force, power, threat, or takeover attempt.
As for the president not being able to speak directly to kids-- what's dubious about that, exactly? He's the president. What matters isn't the moral principle of talking directly to kids, what matters is the principle of talking directly to kids coupled with the --content-- of what he's saying. How is a president talking directly to them any different from a person in an advertisement, educational movie, or assembly? The difference is the political views objecting parents have, because the speech itself isn’t political. Nevermind the good that could come from a successful man talking about staying in school.
Why should parents have primary say over what’s learned?
I can understand a parent having some control, but primary control? Each parent has different views of what they want their kid to learn due to their personal beliefs. Sometimes those beliefs are crazy/disconnected. You say no parents want their children to do worse in school and would never --tell-- them to do so. Isn't there a way you can be negatively affecting how your kids learn, even if that's not what you say or believe you are doing? If each individual parent gets the ability to choose what their kids learn in a public school system, where's the structure and consistency, and why should a parent’s wishes affect an entire class?
We already heard about what unnecessary bureaucracy can do with Mr. Bolos' example—all media clips approved by a board each time. Is there any sort of system that could be created where there’s middle ground when it comes to judging content? Not really, because once there’s a window for free exploration, anything can happen.
While that may sound dangerous, isn’t taking risks with your thinking the most important part of education? If everything’s controlled so we don't get hurt, where's the actual learning? New things have to be tried and new resources need to be used when available. Once you add a layer of ineptitude to the simple truth of that, the process of education falls behind because there is a wait and no trust.
School is based on personal responsibility. We all show up each day and most people try to get something out of it for themselves.
If we're all taking the responsibility to work together and learn, how can we also not have the responsibility to analyze things we're presented with and explore new media? For example, although my parents own the computer I'm typing on now, I have the privilege of being its administrator because I know more about how a computer works than they do, as do most kids. I have responsibility not to download software that will harm it, and I’m responsible for not doing illegal things with it, but I can make my own judgments about what I want to use and see.
But this wasn’t until recently. Before, I couldn’t install new software on my computer—not even tiny applications or updates-- without a bubble coming up asking for my parents' password. This bubble didn’t care about the circumstances I was working under and didn’t have flexibility. It couldn’t talk to me because it’s not designed to—it’s a set of rules, not a person, put in place by people who don’t know what they’re doing. As a result, when I’d work late on a multimedia project like a video and I’d need new software in order to enhance it, I wouldn't be able to. I could come up with an alternate solution, but it would simply take longer and be inferior.
In sum, you can't make up for the generational gap between kids and parents all the time. We're growing up in totally different environments, with totally different tools at our disposal. While parental control is necessary at times, even big disagreements a school has with parents may be based on an opinion that’s out of touch.
[/long-winded rant]
I think opinions on this issue can be strongly supported on either side. They can also be easily perceived as absurd from the other side. I agree with you Shirley, parents (for the most part) aren't against the message President Obama is conveying, they are angry that he is directing towards their children.However, Like Michelle I disagree with your idea that the speech is viewed as huge step towards even more government control. I very much disagreed (for lack of a better word) with you Michelle when you said, "As for the president not being able to speak directly to kids-- what's dubious about that, exactly? He's the president. What matters isn't the moral principle of talking directly to kids, what matters is the principle of talking directly to kids coupled with the --content-- of what he's saying. How is a president talking directly to them any different from a person in an advertisement, educational movie, or assembly? The difference is the political views objecting parents have, because the speech itself isn’t political. Nevermind the good that could come from a successful man talking about staying in school" President Obama speaking directly to children is very different from everything you mentioned. He is the leader of the nation and will have a much stronger influence on a child than any form of media. Also, when you said, "As for the president not being able to speak directly to kids-- what's dubious about that, exactly? He's the president", your words sparkled bias. Do you think that because he is the PRESIDENT his words could not possibly have negative effects. Look of this from the view of someone who believes Obama is a socialist maniac. Would you want him speaking directly to your kids? Maybe you should try to be a little less rude in your future comments.
ReplyDelete