Most Schools Violate Free Speech Act, New Study Shows

reply to post by sbctinfantry


The actual study talked about in the article deals with more 'social' issues, the OP is using his own spin on the article to fuel his conspiracy rhetoric by making statements such as:

Case in point, if a student happens to disagree with, or questions material being taught, what usually happens?

He / she is often looked at as being 'disruptive', and subject to disciplinary action, or marked down on the grading scale.

So the scholastic program in general is DESIGNED to keep us from expressing free speech IMHO, at ALL levels, not just on university campuses.

How many of the issues dealt with in the study were related to a scenario such as described above? The OP phrases it as we're being forcibly indoctrinated. How would you react if some "intelligent design" proponent started disrupting biology class claiming it's all a fraud? Or a flat-earther causing problems in an astronomy class? This list could go on and on, but the point is the same, there's a line between a legitimate question and just being willfully ignorant and acting like an idiot.

Of course, I have not seen you make a constructive post yet and you would much rather troll

Yes, I understand I'm not allowed to disagree on ATS in a thread about free speech, but I had to point out the OP's effort to misrepresent the article.

I know that this is not your title, but really; "Free Speech Act?

One thing I learned along with our study of the constitution and Declaration of Independence, was that with every "freedom," comes responsibility.

All too often people, and especially students, forget (or choose to ignore) the second half of that basic equation of American rights and principles. Without respect for the underlying framework of our institutions and organizations, serious debate degenerates into disruption and worse.

If you cannot abide by the underlying rules and procedures, whether they are in post-secondary institutions, or any other venue for exchange of ideas, then leave or seek change within the bounds of the law.

There is NO private Bill of Rights; it is a restriction on government. Even so, some rights can be temporarily and locally restricted depending upon the circumstances.

The current debates about Christian protests at military funerals and the "ground-zero mosque" are excellent examples of groups whose rights/actions are literally protected against government limits, but whose judgment regarding their exercise is legitimately questioned.

When it comes to educational institutions, with "participants" who may not really want to be such to begin with, even greater expectations of discipline and common courtesy are justified. Your views and opinions may be better expressed, and received, outside of formal settings.

If it is the curriculum you disagree with, you have local governing bodies to which you can appeal and in which you can participate to effect change.

As for FIRE, and the basic premise of the article, both public and private colleges and universities have basic rules and curricula that you have the freedom to reject; you can go elsewhere, or not attend at all. Without these basic rules, there would be no "institution" to whine about in the first place.

Originally posted by Whyhi
Yes, I understand I'm not allowed to disagree on ATS in a thread about free speech, but I had to point out the OP's effort to misrepresent the article.

Hardly the point I'm trying to make. I am fairly new to this community and therefore can not be judged by any stigma you have attatched to this site and it's contributors. I am confident I am fair and balanced, and to prove it, I partially agree with your statement above. To say that he is injecting his own views in the facts is a fact, it is a fact of life, and also a fact that you are doing the very same thing in your reply.

The main difference is that you do it in a disruptive way, the same way in which you devised the biology student scenario. Simple smoke, mirrors, and diversions don't work with me. I have no reservations about my own humanity, but I think very carefully about what I present to the world as a representation of myself before I judge others. You would do well to heed such advice.

Originally posted by jdub297
I know that this is not your title, but really; "Free Speech Act?

One thing I learned along with our study of the constitution and Declaration of Independence, was that with every "freedom," comes responsibility.

There are many methods to teaching, and great teachers travel multiple paths toward a common goal in order to become great. Sometimes allowing a student the freedom to fail, even if that means a small disruption in a class is a lesson well learned for the entire class. To shut down the student, marginalize or ignore only causes undue animosity in the future and when an opposing force meets a roadblock, it pushes harder. It encourages mistrust and creates more roadblocks, though these are aftificial, the consequences of which are all very detrimental. Other students may be drawn to his or her incorrect cause and the situation quickly spirals out of control.

I'm not saying that before you know it you have students at physical war, but the teach suffers in terms of student trust and appreciation, two very important aspects of his/her job success. The students suffer because they may choose to forget, or ignore vital information and viewpoints that they now believe are motivated incorrectly by a personal agenda.

My two cents.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
The very definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over expecting different results.

...you should tell alex jones that...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
If you would have me believe

...believe whatever you want...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
If you would have me believe that disruption is always to retain a negative connotation, we must differ in our world view here.

...the examples you gave were scenarios which included planned audience participation (q&a session) and that wasnt what i was referring to...

...yes, my iow-examples were repetitive... it was intentionally done to clarify exactly what type of situation i was referring to - and - to discourage those who would bring up another type of scenario and insinuate THAT was what i was referring to - because - sigh, theres always at least one who pulls that stunt...

...now, to your scenarios...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Take example with this scenario. A politician is meeting in a public forum (snipped for brevity), a question is asked in turn by a participant of the audience. The politican rejects the question unsatisfactorily by merely using a form of evasion (snipped for brevity) Are we to call it "Alex Jones Syndrome" when that person demands an answer?

...whether or not the question asker could be rightfully called an alex jones wannabee depends upon the question asker's behavior, demeanor, tone of voice... "demands an answer" suggests inappropriate behavior (iow - lack of self control)...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
No speaker taking questions knows what the person whom he calls upon will ask, though in a public forum he should be prepared to answer any question that is remotely on topic.

...perhaps but that doesnt mean he has to answer if he doesnt want to... no one is obligated to answer a question in a public forum...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Having said that, what is wrong with a constituent challenging the politician's views on 9/11, or any other similarly taboo topic.

...in private, one on one - no problem... in a scenario where people came to hear you challenge someone else's opinions - no problem... in a scenario where people came to hear someone else (and not you), theres a problem if you decide you need to be the one in the limelight...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Is it not something important to the voter?

...if you believe your opinons are so important that you need to take over a public speaking gig, you should write a book detailing your take - or - spill your guts on youtube - or - get your own online radio show...

...disrupting a gathering where people did NOT come to hear you run your mouth only teaches people that you're obnoxious and you dont respect their choice to listen to the person they came to hear speak (which is not you)...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
It would seem good business practice to give at least a clear and concise answer either way his opinion may fall.

..."good business practice" does not exist in politics...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Sir, to me it seems that

...i'm not a sir...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
you are aiding in the very unfounded marginalization that would seek to silence truthseeking, liberty and integrity in our politicians.

...like i said at the get-go - believe what you want, honey...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Finally, I would like to reiterate that I have been very respectful of you,

...hope you dont break your arm pattin yourself on the back like that...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
you apparently have not given the same people you demonize the same courtesy.

...gosh, you're an alex jones fan?... well, shoot, that explains a lot... obviously no one's ever told you that its always open season on celebrities and politicans...

... and - this thread is supposed to be about schools limiting rights, not politics... i admit i opened the door but not only did you walk in the wrong door, you went around the world to get to the next block... lets try not to derail this thread anymore than we already have...

reply to post by sbctinfantry

... a small disruption in a class is a lesson well learned for the entire class.

Any student can "fail" without being disruptive. If, by "fail," you mean refuse to adhere to basic rules and expectations applicable to all participants, I "fail" to see the value in that; especially in a formal setting that the student understands and willingly agrees to enter.

High school students, generally juveniles, are subject to teachers and administrators acting in loco parentis, and therefore, more-restrictive limits on behavior and expression.

All students are members of a narrowly-defined community to which they owe some responsibility for maintaining and abiding by "community standards." There is no need to create a "disruption in a class" to exit the community or seek to alter the standards. Here again, the freedom they covet comes with the price-tag of responsibility. Why shouldn't even "disruptive" students be expected to act responsibly?

This is one of the great failures of our society and institutions; complete lack of acceptance of responsibility, if not outright rejection of it.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

... a small disruption in a class is a lesson well learned for the entire class.

This is one of the great failures of our society and institutions; complete lack of acceptance of responsibility, if not outright rejection of it.

You know, responsibility means takin more sh*t without complaining as you get older. There are waaaay more responsibilities kids have nowadays thanks to this crazy so-called progressive advancement through overachievement and indoctrination processes. All elements of what made school fun and interesting for me have been stripped away for the kids today. I'm glad they're revolting! I'm happy to be around courageous youth that questions everything. I'll be more than happy to explain how things are in the real world and why. I'll tell them it's because we were "encouraged" to take on more "responsibility" than we knew we could handle and are now undignified because we couldn't live up to someone else's standards. I'd tell them the government wants you to be personally responsible while they get to act extremely irresponsible, then tell you it's your fault and have you bear the extra responsibility of being personally responsible. Do you not see what the kids are seeing? They know they're being BS'd to death and they're sick of it.

Originally posted by clameater
You know, responsibility means takin more sh*t without complaining as you get older.

I disagree. I think it means speaking up and acting for what you expect from your community, your neighbor AND the government. The Tea Party Movement is an excellent example of people who are fed up with the crap around them, and are DOING something about it.

There are waaaay more responsibilities kids have nowadays thanks to this crazy so-called progressive advancement through overachievement and indoctrination processes.

When I see my local and neighborhood schools giving inflated grades and passing illiterate children along, I see underachievement carried to extremes. When kids have no or little homework, no outside reading and no expectations of excellence, I see failure, not indoctrination. Ask 5 random students to spell "indoctrination" if you doubt this. I see kids every day with no work ethic; no drive to succeed, or to excel at ANYTHING.

I'm glad they're revolting! I'm happy to be around courageous youth that questions everything.

It doesn't take courage to ask intelligent or important questions. Kids who "question everything" have missed out on a lot of life and are unable to think for themselves.

I'll be more than happy to explain how things are in the real world and why. I'll tell them it's because we were "encouraged" to take on more "responsibility" than we knew we could handle and are now undignified because we couldn't live up to someone else's standards.

They'd be better off if you told them to hold themselves up to their own high standards, instead of someone else's. Where do you expect them to develop "standards" anyway? YouTube? You'd be better off leading by example.

I'd tell them the government wants you to be personally responsible while they get to act extremely irresponsible, then tell you it's your fault and have you bear the extra responsibility of being personally responsible.

This all assumes the problem is with "the government." It is much deeper and more pervasive; we have become a society of dependents and the helpless.

Unless you hold "the government" to a higher standard, you get what you deserve. "They" do not "get to act ... irresponsible" unless YOU let them. If you, and kids, act responsibly then your community (and government) will be responsible to you.

Do you not see what the kids are seeing? They know they're being BS'd to death and they're sick of it.

Kids are seeing parents who are unable to parent, to lead by example. They see an America that expects to be provided for and "special interests" to be catered to.

"The government" is the least of our problems: "We have seen the enemy, and it is us."

jw

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
The very definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over expecting different results.

...you should tell alex jones that...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
If you would have me believe

...believe whatever you want...

I suppose you should heed whatever advice you intend to give, as you intend to infer that I am an Alex Jones fan, assuming also that if it were even true, it would have a wholly negative connotation. I suppose you would also believe that all followers of MLK, Ghandi and Mother Theresa were pure hearted as well.

You go on a fairly long diatribe taking everything I said cleverly out of context in the hopes of derailing the topic, or picking a fight. I can see that the olive branch of understanding was utterly lost on you so I will not waste any more time holding a dialogue that could not be more assuredly a waste of both parties time, though I'm sure only one would admit it.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
Any student can "fail" without being disruptive. If, by "fail," you mean refuse to adhere to basic rules and expectations applicable to all participants, I "fail" to see the value in that; especially in a formal setting that the student understands and willingly agrees to enter.

High school students, generally juveniles, are subject to teachers and administrators acting in loco parentis, and therefore, more-restrictive limits on behavior and expression.

All students are members of a narrowly-defined community to which they owe some responsibility for maintaining and abiding by "community standards." There is no need to create a "disruption in a class" to exit the community or seek to alter the standards. Here again, the freedom they covet comes with the price-tag of responsibility. Why shouldn't even "disruptive" students be expected to act responsibly?

This is one of the great failures of our society and institutions; complete lack of acceptance of responsibility, if not outright rejection of it.

I don't wholly disagree with you, and never suggested it should be a frequent occurrence in the classroom. I merely said that there are benefits to the entire class paying witness to a student who acts out of line on false pretense so that the class may see how to properly deal with such a situation. When you prove the outburst to be entirely unfounded, there are two options left to the student at fault. The first is to humble himself and admit wrongdoing, which would be the rarer of the two occurrences these days, while the latter would be to fill the gap of truth with anger like radio hosts and fearmongers do (such as Alex Jones, *wink to the other poster). Both of which hold very valuable lessons that a good teacher can capilatize on, and then quickly move on to whatever the class was previously attending to. What exactly about that scenario is a failure of our society, and furthermore how does that take away from educating our young minds about accepting responsibility?

Originally posted by Clameater

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
as you intend to infer that I am an Alex Jones fan,

...i ASKED if you were a fan... there was a question mark...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
You go on a fairly long diatribe taking everything I said cleverly out of context in the hopes of derailing the topic, or picking a fight.

...you're projecting your own intentions... that you took my initial post personally and felt compelled to respond to me in an accusatory and meandering manner clearly shows that it was your intent to derail the thread and pick a fight...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
I can see that the olive branch of understanding was utterly lost on you

...i saw it for exactly what it was - a thinly veiled passive agressive attempt to control how i perceived your post... massive fail...

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
so I will not waste any more time holding a dialogue that could not be more assuredly a waste of both parties time, though I'm sure only one would admit it.

...suit yourself... no one forced you to direct your attention on me... you expected your flowery words to veil your intentions but it didnt work... learn from that...

...btw, heres a helpful hint... at the top right of each post you make there is an EDIT button... after you post, you can click that and go into your post and correct errors or delete all of your words, which is what you should do when you double post (it happens to everyone sooner or later)... you should also edit when you incorrectly attribute a quote to someone who did not make it...

...i did NOT make the comments below that you attributed to me... i'd appreciate it if you would take my name off of it... thx...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
Any student can "fail" without being disruptive. If, by "fail," you mean refuse to adhere to basic rules and expectations applicable to all participants, I "fail" to see the value in that; especially in a formal setting that the student understands and willingly agrees to enter.

High school students, generally juveniles, are subject to teachers and administrators acting in loco parentis, and therefore, more-restrictive limits on behavior and expression.

All students are members of a narrowly-defined community to which they owe some responsibility for maintaining and abiding by "community standards." There is no need to create a "disruption in a class" to exit the community or seek to alter the standards. Here again, the freedom they covet comes with the price-tag of responsibility. Why shouldn't even "disruptive" students be expected to act responsibly?

This is one of the great failures of our society and institutions; complete lack of acceptance of responsibility, if not outright rejection of it.

reply to post by clameater

You my friend are a true shill. What area of the country are you from to have such an intimate relationship with the government to slap it's hand every time they put their hand in the cookie jar?

No one should pay more than their share to the government, ever. What does this have to do with the OP?

What governmental office should I visit to express my disapproval of their dysfunction? Every government building I exit left me with less money, less time, and more anger. Lots of government buildings will also leave you with less pride and an overriding guilt that you did something wrong by the search, pat down and wand upon entrance.

Anyone who relies upon the government for their feelings of self worth deserves to be "less pride(ful)" and with "an overriding guilt."

In the state of california, education is standardized, that means 1 lucky S.O.B. publishing company got a sweet deal providing these statewide textbooks. Students are taught to take exams rather than learn thanx to standardized testing. Technical equipment such as "smartboards", laptops galore, and other goodies that cost way too much for it's benefit are NOT helping in the learning process.

And how does this affect free speech in the classroom, or even out of it? Maybe it went over your head, but the OP and base article were focused on post-secondary schools, not public high schools and grade schools.

This relates to the OP how?

What's worse is the integration of lower scoring students (immigrants) into these classrooms to get them "up to speed". So, we're to blame???

Xenophobia is dangerous. From my experience, Asian immigrant students actually RAISE the level of achievement in a classroom. Are you afraid of any certain immigrant population in particular?

Where I come from, immersion of Hispanic immigrants results in literacy increases completely lacking in native-born dullards from idiot parents who'd rather foist their responsibilities upon "the government" than act as responsible parents, role-models, adults, and community members.

We're the ones enacting these policies? Go jump in the lake.

Which policies? The "free speech" ones of the OP; or, the whines about the primary and secondary education systems (neither of which are relevant to the OP)?

Why bring up youtube in the conversation?

Because that is the primary source of information for many of today's student body, and a lot of their parents/ATS post-ers. Makes the reply somewhat relevant to what is REALLY wrong with educational and parental patterns today.

AND I QUOTE YOU>" It doesn't take courage to ask intelligent or important questions. Kids who "question everything" have missed out on a lot of life and are unable to think for themselves".]
WOW are you serious? What a load of cognitive dissonance. Kids are inquisitive and you want to shut them down?

Kids should be encouraged in their inquisitiveness; which is nowhere near the same as "question(ing) everything." If you had someone explain my statement, you would see that I approve of "intelligent and important questions," but find that some questions merely reflect laziness and an inability to think independently (as in, away from "government indoctrination").

Parents are working their asses off just make rent and put food on the table. We are living in a system designed to part the child away from parents.

And this affects the students' free speech rights by ... what? ALL parents not born to wealth "work their asses off," but some find time to read to their kids, encourage and answer intelligent questions, and support their ability to think and speak freely for themselves. Others post off-topic personal attacks on ATS.

Because we know what will happen if a parent is found to be financially strapped- homelessness, indignity, wrecked spirits, wrecked dreams, visits from a "social worker". So you bet they're going to be "responsible" by slaving away.

"Found to be ...?" As opposed to discovering for themselves after they've wasted opportunities? After realizing, or being told, they are unfit to be parents? This addresses the OP 'free speech' topic by ... (fill in the blank).

You sound like you might be educated but blind.

I sound like someone whose parents "worked their asses off," yet found time to read, answer questions, and provide a modest home for a kid who worked throughout high school and college, and learned to value education and independent thought and reason over parroting "woe is me" miserable whining.

The true rulers understand how to use physics as a concept to destroy a country. Just like an atom bomb you start with the most elementary smallest particle (the family unit), isolate it and introduce it to an unbalanced state where it festers and self destructs in a chain like sequence.

I suppose this approaches an analogy to lack of free expression, but it sounds more like blaming someone else for failure as a parent. Free speech rights do not depend on outside support, they are inherent in a U. S. citizen's birthright. An "unbalanced state" is the result of a one-sided transaction; such as where one "unit" becomes dependent upon another/others for sustenance it should have provided for itself, but couldn't. Darwinists call such self destruct[ion] "natural selection."

Dude, you're bugging me, take a looong walk off a short pier.

A grown up can explain these posts, then answer some intelligent questions.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by sbctinfantry

I merely said that there are benefits to the entire class paying witness to a student who acts out of line on false pretense so that the class may see how to properly deal with such a situation.

"A student who acts out of line on false pretense" offers NO benefits to any class; they are an example of self-absorption and nihilism, each of which can be explored, learned, and debated without disruption. Nietzsche would be a good start for a high school class.

When you prove the outburst to be entirely unfounded, there are two options left to the student at fault. The first is to humble himself and admit wrongdoing, which would be the rarer of the two occurrences these days, while the latter would be to fill the gap of truth with anger like radio hosts and fearmongers do ... .

No, there are multiple options, and none outwiegh the "benefit" of the disruption.

What if the teacher or the class are unable or unwilling to "properly deal" with the student or the disruption?
And, "properly deal" injects subjectivity into the "situation" that may not be a "proper" substitute for clear rules and principles. Who determines what is "proper," or when a "situation" must be dealt with?

Other "options" leap to mind:

A third option is for the student to be encouraged by the attention and continue, or progress, in the disruption.
A fourth option would be for the less-assertive, but like-minded students to follow suit, adding to and prolonging the disruption.
A fifth option would be for the teacher to fail to address the "unfounded" outburst, thereby reinforcing it as acceptable.
A sixth option would be for the teacher to respond in kind, thereby creating the impression that the outburst was neither disruptive nor unfounded.

Of course, this assumes an above-average teacher in a school with rules that are subject to enforcement; both of which are far from likely to exist contemporaneously in realty.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Here again, the freedom they covet comes with the price-tag of responsibility. Why shouldn't even "disruptive" students be expected to act responsibly?

This is one of the great failures of our society and institutions; complete lack of acceptance of responsibility, if not outright rejection of it.

What "freedom" do students covet? The freedom to not ask questions that a teacher is incapable of answering or the "feedom" to wait 10-15 minutes into a lecture when the teacher is assigning homework and the question is totally forgotten by then?

What "freedom" do students of secondary learning(middle school and high school level) have to learn anything valuable when the whole experience is more reminiscent of an army boot camp enviroment;must be at homeroom at 8am sharp...must have all your books, notebooks, pencils, etc with you at that time; only have 5 or 10 minutes between each class session to pick up anything you need from your locker; can't fart, sneeze, cough during class cause teacher thinks your being "disruptive".

To further criticise the system, because I have been a student for 16 years AND I FEEL LIKE CRITICISING IT, how can any student be forced to learn 8 topics per day, read 8 chapters of material and then be quizzed/tested on it within 10-15 days at most; to clarify I am not talking about midterms and finals! At the collegiate level you take 4-5 classes(each worth 3-4 credits) and most people HAVE TO WORK JUST TO PAY THE TUITION if you don't qualify for loans and/or scholarships. That means you have to split your time learning and working which is AN AWFUL LOT TO ASK of an 18-19 year old and parents tell yah..I got no money to help you but you WILL DO BOTH...otherwise your "a failure".

Then you get your stupid bachelors degree and your trying to find an entry-level job that pays 25-30 grand in order to pay-back your student loans, maybe get a mortgage for a small house, get car loan for some car, buy furniture, pay all the utility bills...which means work, work, work, work SLAVE till you reach 62 or 65. Of course if you take business administration and have a masters degree, it means you MIGHT become an upper tier manager/administrator for some company and retire at the age of 50 by stealing tax-payer money from bail-outs that should never have happened IN A CAPITALIST ENVIROMENT! Yes thats socialism, actually half-ass socialism, because in a true socialist enviroment YOUR SUPPOSED TO SHARE BOTH PROFITS AND LOSSES, but in america companies KEEP THE PROFITS for themselves and their shareholders while they are greedy enough to ask for tax-payer bailouts(share ONLY THE LOSSES with the public sector). Terribly unfair!

Please do not speak of freedom, especially in regards to the american educational system, because it DOES NOT EXIST! Only responsibility exists.......... You should travel to ANY OTHER COUNTRY and see what it means to have subsidised tuition.

reply to post by Aquarius1


I was one of those kids, too. Eventually, I got the point that I just had to learn to shut up in school and then come home and do my own research on the Net. However, I became much less cooperative from then on. I refused to answer questions from the teacher because they would not answer mine. I made it so painful on the teachers when they would call on me that they eventually got the idea and stopped.

reply to post by gnosticquasar


Its not really the teachers fault anymore than its the principles fault or board of directors fault. Its the systems fault in general, not just in the usa, but in the usa it seems more exaggerated. I have travelled to several countries and its slightly different in each case. One of the biggest issues I have with the american educational system is the outrageous rates they charge for tuition&room and board, not just the private colleges/universities but with the so-called "state" institutions; they are only subsidised between 30%-50% if your an instate allumni.

In europe its between 50% to 80% in most countries and quality of education is probably better because they tend to focus on a student's core-curiculum(major) rather than a meaningless CRAMMED "general" education.

We can change the system by bringing awareness and sooner or later the politicians will be forced to listen, less there be a full blown revolution. Generally speaking it does not pay to be a dick because some teachers will retaliate by giving you extra-homework, detention, suspensions and last but not least your grades take a plummet. Instead of an A you will get a B, instead of a B you get a C, etc.