Should anti-military activist (let alone any activist) be allowed access to schools?
I say no, activist have no business in schools period. School is about education so you can later provide for yourself,not indoctrination.
TBO.com - News From AP
NORTH WILKESBORO, N.C. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a rural North Carolina school system that barred a peace activist from talking to high school students about alternatives to joining the military.
Should anti-military activist (let alone any activist) be allowed access to schools?
I say no, activist have no business in schools period. School is about education so you can later provide for yourself,not indoctrination.
TBO.com - News From AP
NORTH WILKESBORO, N.C. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a rural North Carolina school system that barred a peace activist from talking to high school students about alternatives to joining the military.
The problem is that activism as it stands currently is about indoctrination, wheras school is supposed to be a place of learning, not simply facts or ideas, but how to critically analyze and apply them. Activism uses half-information, propaganda, and sometimes misinformation based on opinion to get a point across, there is nothing intrinsically educational about that, so no, they shouldn't have access to institutions of learning. I apply the standard to all activists BTW, not just the one's I disagree with.Isn't being an activist all about "educating". Given many activists go overboard and lose sight of real education, they generally are seeking to bring a topic to the attention of the public, not indoctrinate.
Should anti-military activist (let alone any activist) be allowed access to schools?
I say no, activist have no business in schools period. School is about education so you can later provide for yourself,not indoctrination.
TBO.com - News From AP
NORTH WILKESBORO, N.C. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a rural North Carolina school system that barred a peace activist from talking to high school students about alternatives to joining the military.
The problem is that activism as it stands currently is about indoctrination, wheras school is supposed to be a place of learning, not simply facts or ideas, but how to critically analyze and apply them. Activism uses half-information, propaganda, and sometimes misinformation based on opinion to get a point across, there is nothing intrinsically educational about that, so no, they shouldn't have access to institutions of learning. I apply the standard to all activists BTW, not just the one's I disagree with.
Should anti-military activist (let alone any activist) be allowed access to schools?
this from the article:
"The lawsuit, filed Monday, says the Wilkes County school district and its superintendent violated the First Amendment by preventing Sally Ferrell from distributing pamphlets and other materials that warn students to think twice before joining the military."
this is not pro-peace corps or pro-anything, it is just anti-military.
as far as I'm concerned, this lady doesn't need to be pushing her political agenda on the kids. she's not offering them any career or educational opportunities.
If her purpose is simply to advocate peace and not alternatives to the military, her material should be allowed to be filtered and reviewed by the school.
Meh. I see no reason that the schools should cooperate in the distribution of propaganda, except for government propaganda. Only reason I support the acceptance of recruiters-- for the military as well as other organizations-- is that they provide a benefit to the students.
Meh. I see no reason that the schools should cooperate in the distribution of propaganda, except for government propaganda. Only reason I support the acceptance of recruiters-- for the military as well as other organizations-- is that they provide a benefit to the students.
Yeah, propaganda is usually not beneficial to the student. I do however support having speakers come in, especially those who become activists due to personal experience. Again, these should be subject to the school's moderation as they are ultimately responsible for educating students.
this from the article:
"The lawsuit, filed Monday, says the Wilkes County school district and its superintendent violated the First Amendment by preventing Sally Ferrell from distributing pamphlets and other materials that warn students to think twice before joining the military."
this is not pro-peace corps or pro-anything, it is just anti-military.
as far as I'm concerned, this lady doesn't need to be pushing her political agenda on the kids. she's not offering them any career or educational opportunities.
I disagree with using the term Activist in this, advocates are the ones looking to inform, activists actively do whatever it is possible to get what they want, including swaying public opinion, trying to get laws passed, outright protests, or the most extreme forms of activism, terrorist style attacks ala the ELF, some of the anti-war groups, etc. M.A.D.D. in my opinion has overstepped their bounds, they have the right to petition for DUI laws, but they use very heavy handed tactics, they have essentially seen to the end of officer discretion, in my area they will threaten elected judges with political action if they are lenient, etc. that in my opinion is not respectable. Advocates should be allowed in schools, but it should be stessed heavily that they are of an opinion, activists I feel, just don't have any credible educational value.This is a common misconception. "Activism" has a negative meaning attached to it in this day and age. I would consider MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) an activist group. They seek to bring an issue into the public eye.
Obviously there are other types of activism, which have no place in schools, but this should not restrict schools from introducing the term in a real-life way. Activism is not limited to issues of controversy, some are just to bring attention to a topic the public would otherwise be clueless to.
I disagree with using the term Activist in this, advocates are the ones looking to inform, activists actively do whatever it is possible to get what they want, including swaying public opinion, trying to get laws passed, outright protests, or the most extreme forms of activism, terrorist style attacks ala the ELF, some of the anti-war groups, etc. M.A.D.D. in my opinion has overstepped their bounds, they have the right to petition for DUI laws, but they use very heavy handed tactics, they have essentially seen to the end of officer discretion, in my area they will threaten elected judges with political action if they are lenient, etc. that in my opinion is not respectable. Advocates should be allowed in schools, but it should be stessed heavily that they are of an opinion, activists I feel, just don't have any credible educational value.
Not all activist action is extreme, but it seems to be a majority of the loudest ones.The root of the term is "action". Activists intentional perform an action to bring about change. As I said, the term recently has taken on a more extreme meaning and people associate it with protests and other more extreme actions.
I fully believe that a group can be both, but find many activists groups are loud because they are ignored, and typically, the loudest ones should be.Advocate could be a better term to describe some activists, but not all.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the rights of advocates and activists to spread their messages, however many of the groups don't use credible tactics, which is where the problem lies, they don't encourage disagreement or forward thought, while I believe that some advocation and activist groups are honest and have integrity, I don't feel that we should allow people access to young minds on our own dollars, unless, of course, there is a counterbalance such as a debate(I think that was metioned earlier). The goal should be to enrich, not shape minds.By saying activists do not have any credible educational value you assume an air of superiority. Just because many people believe something does not make it true or right. Activism is a unique opportunity in our country that should be encouraged. If you don't like something or disagree, then do something about it.
Not all activist action is extreme, but it seems to be a majority of the loudest ones.
I fully believe that a group can be both, but find many activists groups are loud because they are ignored, and typically, the loudest ones should be.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the rights of advocates and activists to spread their messages, however many of the groups don't use credible tactics, which is where the problem lies, they don't encourage disagreement or forward thought, while I believe that some advocation and activist groups are honest and have integrity, I don't feel that we should allow people access to young minds on our own dollars, unless, of course, there is a counterbalance such as a debate(I think that was metioned earlier). The goal should be to enrich, not shape minds.
You're focusing on activism in the context of a controversial issue. In this area I agree that either both sides should be honestly represented or neither.
There is also activism in the context of a non-debatable issue, such as DUI. It is bad no matter how you look at it. The sister of a DUI victim came to my high school with a moving speech as a part of M.A.D.D. This had an immense and undeniably positive impact on the students of my high school.
Agreed.You're focusing on activism in the context of a controversial issue. In this area I agree that either both sides should be honestly represented or neither.
D.U.I. is a bad thing, but there are degrees of effects on drivers, which is why I think officers should have discretion, I also wouldn't begrudge a zero tolerance officer, but think it should be their call. M.A.D.D. used to have my respect, but they take things a little too far, I'm not going to insult them though as they have a reason and commonality for joining, and that unfortunately is the loss of a child because someone had too many, I don't believe in adding insult to injury, the advocacy that M.A.D.D and S.A.D.D. groups are involved in is inarguable beneficial, and if it saves even one life it is a great thing, I only wish they would leave it at that, or otherwise leave D.U.I. trials to the victims and their families and maybe not get involved at that level.There is also activism in the context of a non-debatable issue, such as DUI. It is bad no matter how you look at it. The sister of a DUI victim came to my high school with a moving speech as a part of M.A.D.D. This had an immense and undeniably positive impact on the students of my high school.
That's pretty much where I see it, the only things I'm okay with are field trips, career type stuff like having working parents/community members share their occupations, CPR class, Heimlich manuever/other emergency management, home safety classes, etc. taught.No.
School is for education, not distraction.
Reading, math and arithmetic etc. I can teach my child about the rest. No need for social mechanic's in school, but thank you.
That's pretty much where I see it, the only things I'm okay with are field trips, career type stuff like having working parents/community members share their occupations, CPR class, Heimlich manuever/other emergency management, home safety classes, etc. taught.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?