Obama's School Speech, Parental Rights, and American Democracy

Tuesday, 8 September 2009 00:19 by Eli Savit

The President of the United States will be giving a back-to-school speech to K-12 students across the nation today.  Per the White House's advance text, the speech is primarily motivational in nature and encourages kids to work hard during the coming school year.  Obama's speech revisits his oft-tread personal narrative, includes a story about Michael Jordan getting cut from his high school basketball team, and is decorated with pedestrian statements like "pay attention to your teachers," and "there's no excuse for dropping out."  The speech will apparently not, as one GOP official put it, use "taxpayer dollars" to "spread President Obama's socialist ideology"--unless those sneaky socialists have changed their slogan from "free the tools of production!" to "become good at things through hard work!"

The actual content of his remarks notwithstanding, a number of schools will not show President Obama's speech--while other schools will let parents "excuse" their children from Obama's address--because of a strong parental backlash last week.  Parents across the nation voiced concern about the speech "serving as a direct channel from the President of the United States to [their] child[ren]," derided the address as "Marxist propaganda," and complained that they had not consented to exposing their children to the President's message.  Such parental complaints are the height of silliness.  The notion that Obama had some secret political message hidden in his back-to-school speech is laughable, as is the notion that schools should seek parents' permission before exposing children to such controversial figures as...um, the President of the United States.  (In fairness,  Congressional Democrats were just as silly in 1991 when they objected to the use of taxpayer money to fund a similar speech by the first President Bush).  But the hysteria brought about by Obama's speech has already been covered ad nauseum across the blogosphere, and I won't revisit that well-tread ground any further here.  

The firestorm Obama's speech touched off goes to a much bigger--and far more interesting--issue than whether the President is a closet Marxist.  Many parents who choose to send their kids to public school believe that they retain some semblance of control over their children's education.  Parents expect to be consulted when schools touch upon controversial subjects like sex, drugs, or even evolution.  But there's a tension here: public schools have a right--and a responsibility--to mold children into individuals that can function as intelligent, well-adjusted, and well-informed participants in American society and American democracy.  The question is: when does the state's interest in molding good citizens trump parental rights in their children's upbringing?

When both schools and parents insist upon their respective rights, parents sometimes sue, and these questions are kicked to the judiciary.  Sometimes courts side with parents: a 1972 Supreme Court decision, for example, held the state could not require that Amish students attend secondary school against their parents' wishes. Other decisions hold that the state's interest in societal engineering trumps parental rights.  In 1987, for example, a group of Christian parents in Tennessee brought suit against their local school district, demanding that their children be excused from parts of the school curriculum that they deemed offensive.  Among other things, the parents objected to their children using a standard Holt reader that featured passages about a space mission to Mars ("futuristic supernaturalism," the plaitiffs claimed) and a story that allegedly encouraged children to use the "occult practice" of imagining things that were "beyond scriptural authority."  Citing the school district's right to teach "fundamental values essential to a democratic society," the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, in the name of pluralism, public schools could insist that children be exposed to practices and beliefs their parents found abhorrant.  

But most conflicts between parents and schools never make it into the courts.  It's far easier for schools to let parents "excuse" their children from any activities they find offensive--whether it's sex education or listening to a Presidential address.  To some degree, this makes sense: after all, schools are ultimately controlled by local government and parents are ultimately voters, so why should schools start an unnecessary or politically divisive fight?  

To my mind, though, there are some battles that school districts should fight with parents.  And while Obama's speech is probably not going to be a life-changing experience for many children, it offers lessons that are far too important to be trumped by parental control.  First, it is critical that Americans grow up with a set of shared facts and understandings about our politics, our history, and our government.  Americans are already too politically divided, and the factionalization of the news media (with conservatives tuning into FOX and liberals frequenting the Huffington Post) only exacerbates our divisions.  Public schools are one of the last places where Americans from different backgrounds and viewpoints come together and are exposed to similar content and experiences; they are one of the last institutions that ensure Americans share a "foundation of good citizenship."  Thus, schools should strive to provide their students with clean and unadulterated access to news and to the inner workings of government.  For that reason, a school's choice to expose kids to any speech by a prominent national, state, or local politician should usually fall beyond the boundaries of parental rights of objection.  

Furthermore, it's important that students learn how to actively engage in political discourse and to respect their opponents.  If a child's parent wants to hyperbolically call a politician a "Marxist dictator," or a "fascist" or whatever, fine--but public schools should also have the right to teach a child how to respectfully listen to that politician's platform and offer respectful counterpoints.  Our democracy could be seriously harmed if parents can prohibit schools from exposing students to viewpoints that differ from those they hear at home.  

It is not always easy to define the precise contours of parental rights, particularly when they clash with public schools' responsibility to help mold future citizens.  But exposing students to a speech by a sitting President seems to fall well within the purview of schools' charge of ensuring that students can fully and effectively contribute to American democracy.  

Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 1.9 by 90 people

  • Currently 1.866667/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , , , ,
Categories:   News
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (3) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

Ivan Guzman: Thoughts on Tea Partying

Sunday, 19 April 2009 08:53 by Ivan Guzman

Editor's Note: By giving donors complete creative control over gifts geared towards high-need K-12 students, The Generation Project hopes to facilitate personal connection between donors and the kids they are helping.  As part of that effort, we are letting some of the students that we hope to affect to use this blog to write about their lives, their schools, and anything else they find interesting. Our hope is that, by posting kids' own words, we can give you, the donor, some insight into the interests and passions of the students you would be affecting with your gifts. To highlight the kids' own words, their posts are uncensored and unedited and represent the views of the kids and adolescents that authored them, NOT The Generation Project. 

This post was written by Ivan Guzman, a 15-year-old from the Bronx.  Read more about Ivan here:

Hey everybody. I don't know if you've heard but there's a "Tea Party" revolution going on in America. Driven by Fox News, Republicans, and Washington lobbyists...wait a minute, I'm being told that this is a grassroots movement started by the "Average Joe" who's worried about the Governments spending and taxing.

Give me a break. This week hundreds of people took to the streets on tax day to protest the Government's attempt to stimulate the economy. They called themselves Tea-Partiers. Let me repeat that for MSNBC: they called themselves Tea PARTIERS (innuendo is not funny when it's coming from people who call themselves serious journalists, unless it's off-camera). Now, protesters on tax day came as no surprise to me. I don't like paying taxes for anything, especially when a store tells you their price is something like $9.99 and they leave out the fact that you have to pay a little extra for Uncle Sam. But let's not act like this was the start of some wider conservative movement.  Taxes are the easiest issue to go after. No one likes to give away money.

Also, the idea that this was a spontaneous grassroots movement is incredibly disingenuous. This whole thing was as spontaneous and grassroots as the new Yankee Stadium tickets are cheap ($2,625 for a front-row seat? They better win TWO championships this year!). Another thing that annoyed me about the tea parties was FOX News's insistence that they were not sponsoring or advertising the tea parties. Hey FOX: when you have commercials about it, when you are talking about it all day, and when you send four of your top "reporters" (yes, the quotations imply that the FOXies aren't serious journalists), there's a small chance you're promoting this thing. The thing that surprised me was seeing Neil Cavuto at one of the tea parties. He was one of the FOXies that in my view had some credibility, but it appears he's just like the rest of them. It was no surprise to me to see Greta Van Susteren (she, like Ann Coulter, killed the streak I mentioned in my last post), Sean Hannity (who I had heard had an interesting, rational, conservative viewpoint, but I'm not seeing it) and Glenn Beck (who appears to be lowering the level of insanity in his show, but not by much). I had only one question: where was Bill O'Reilly? Has he suddenly become too good to join his conservative comrades in battle, or did he realize how weak conservatives are (more on that later)?  One final thing about FOX in general: when are they finally going to realize that they're a part of the media they malign so much on their network and that they're doing a far worse job with their "fair and balanced" news than any other network?

Something else that angered me about the tea parties was how many of the tea partyers were possibly misinformed or just ignorant. This was shown beautifully by a blogger named Jeff at a tea party in Pensacola. Here's how it happened:

Jeff: Cheer if you make less than $250,000 a year.
Just about the entire crowd cheers.
Jeff: Your taxes are going to be CUT under the current budget, congratulations!
You would think good news like this would make the tea partyers happy. However, Jeff was booed loudly by the tea partyers.

I'm still amazed that people actually fall for Republican tricks. The amazing thing is that these parties were organized by rich, upper-class conservatives who would are actually going to pay more taxes under the Obama plan. Yet it was mostly middle class conservatives who came out to protest a tax plan that would actually benefit them. Thinking about it leaves me at a loss for words.

I have two things to say about the name of these protests: first, for the people who decided to call the protests "tea partying", the Boston Tea Party was against an imperialist British monarchy who ruled us, yet gave us no voice in their government.  But we had eight years of conservative voices in power in this country, and just look where it got us. Second, it was amusing how easy it was to make jokes about the tea partying. As immature as the MSNBC jokes were, when David Shuster is making me laugh that's when you know you picked a bad name.

These tea parties prove just how politically weak and frustrated conservatives are. We're less than four months into the Obama administration and conservatives are already mounting huge protests. I wonder where we'll be by 2010.

Finally, these tea parties allowed me to get a look at how ugly this country can be. I got a chance to see some really hateful messages from the tea partyers, and it made me think maybe to some people this isn't about taxes, or even politics. Maybe it's the fact that we have a black president that made many of these Americans protest on tax day:

 

That's it for me, I hope no one reading this gets into trouble with the I. R. S. because that would be a huge downer. Thanks for reading.

Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 2.1 by 76 people

  • Currently 2.052633/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , , , , , , ,
Categories:   New York | News | Student Bloggers
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (18) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

We've Got One Target. Ain't We Better Off With Two Darts?

Friday, 17 April 2009 00:25 by Eli Savit

Nick Kristof has written a fantastic column about some recent studies suggesting that I.Q.--long thought to be at largely a byproduct of genetics--is, in fact, quite malleable.  Some of the research Kristof highlights is already being reflected in public policy.  For example, Kristof cites research showing that childrens' IQ scores rise dramatically if they are exposed to aggresive educational interventions in early childhood.  That research largely validates a centerpiece of President Obama's educational agenda: increased funding and a renewed emphasis on early childhood education. 

More interesting is Kristof's suggestion that intelligence is malleable even through adolescence.  He notes that junior-high kids who are told that "I.Q. is expandable, and their intelligence is something they can shape" tend to work harder and get better grades than those who are allowed to believe that their intelligence is preordained by genetics.  In other words, students who believe that that hard work will make them smarter, get smarter.  Students who think that their intellectual destiny is pre-ordained, on the other hand, are more likely to wind up on the low end of the IQ scale.  Kristof thus proposes an "intellectual stimulus" program that would both bolster early childhood education and teach students of all ages that their intelligence is in their own hands. 

I would only add one thing to Kristof's proposed "intellectual stimulus": in order to get kids to believe that they control their intellectual destiny, we need to give them ample opportunities to experience intellectual success.  As the Times reports today, kids need more than positive reinforcement--they need confidence. Adults can preach malleable intelligence until we're blue in the face, but there is nothing more powerful for kids than actually seeing that their hard work is paying off.  And to give students the best chance at experiencing academic success, we're going to need to give them a wide array of academic experiences. Let's face it: some kids are going to grasp math more easily than others, while others are going to have an easier go at reading.  Still other kids are just going to be more interested in science, social studies, art, or theatre, and are going to thus be more motivated to put in the hard work in those subjects.  A diverse curriculum that appeals to diverse interests and inclinations gives students many more chances to quickly experience success. 

By way of example: when I was teaching 8th grade social studies in the Bronx, I had a student named Ricardo (not his real name) who had struggled academically throughout middle school.  Ricardo's reading scores were low, his math scores were low, and his grades were low.  In most of his classes, he'd always make a good-faith effort to work hard, but he would get frustrated and give up fairly easily.   For whatever reason, though, Ricardo loved analyzing historical documents--and he was pretty good at it.  As Ricardo realized he was able to succeed at historical analysis, he started working harder at it.  Whenever he got a B+ on a paper in my class, he'd beg to do it over again so he could get the A.  And over the course of the year, Ricardo's other teachers reported that his overall work ethic had changed.  Rather than giving up when things got tough, Ricardo was buckling down and trying his best, because he'd seen the effects of success first-hand in social studies class.

I'm not trying to fetishize social studies here, because that was just Ricardo's experience.  I also noticed a change in my other students' work habits after they saw their hard work pay off on one of Ms. Rae's science projects, or one of Ms. Batchelor's literacy essays.  The point is that our message "hard work pays off" is so much easier to convey when hard work has, in the past, actually paid off for a child.  And you never know what transformative subject or project or paper is going to give a child that first taste of success.  As an organization, that's part of what The Generation Project brings to the table: we encourage our donors to think about what co or extra-curricular experiences led to success, and design a gift that could recreate that experience for kids that might not otherwise have those opportunities.

The more opportunities we can give kids to work hard and succeed at something, the greater the chance is that they'll internalize that all-important message that intelligence is malleable.  Conveying that message may indeed be our ultimate goal, but we need to give kids as many different pathways to realizing that message as we can.  And hence, the inspiration for this blog title, courtesy of J-Live
"Ask yourself, even if you got one target, Ain't you better off with two darts?"1


1. J. Live, "How Real It Is."  Other quotes from the same song applicable to education:
●The illest weapon you can load ain't your nine, boy, load your brain;
●You can't hesitate but you gotta be patient//And use wise words in every conversation;
●A lot'a kids wanna show they got heart//So they wild out, skip class (come on man)//And trade book smarts for streets smarts (you know better than that)

Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 1.7 by 43 people

  • Currently 1.744187/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , , , , , , , ,
Categories:   New York | News
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

Dolphins Are Awesome

Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:19 by Eli Savit
The pack of dolphins that thrwarted a pirate attack on a Chinese merchant ship

This is apropos of absolutely nothing, but it is the coolest news story I've read in awhile, so I thought it warranted a blog post:

According to Chinese Radio International, some Somali pirates were gearing up to attack a convoy of Chinese merchant and navy ships in the Gulf of Aden.  But suddenly, out of nowhere, thousands of dolphins  swam between the pirate ship and the merchant vessel, foiling the pirates' attack.  According to the Chinese radio report (via the New York Times):

The suspected pirates ships stopped and then turned away. The pirates could only lament their littleness before the vast number of dolphins. The spectacular scene continued for a while.

No word on whether President Obama is considering enlisting dolphins in his renewed effort against pirates.  Also no word on whether this Simpsons episode accurately predicted the rise of militarized dolphins.


Interested in designing a dolphin-related gift through The Generation Project in honor of these dolphins' heroic achivements?  Consider:

 

Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 2.0 by 21 people

  • Currently 1.95238/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , , , , , ,
Categories:   News
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

Ivan Guzman: American Diversity, Bowing to Kings, and More Media Hypocrisy

Sunday, 12 April 2009 09:52 by Ivan Guzman

Editor's Note: By giving donors complete creative control over gifts geared towards high-need K-12 students, The Generation Project hopes to facilitate personal connection between donors and the kids they are helping.  As part of that effort, we are letting some of the students that we hope to affect to use this blog to write about their lives, their schools, and anything else they find interesting. Our hope is that, by posting kids' own words, we can give you, the donor, some insight into the interests and passions of the students you would be affecting with your gifts. To highlight the kids' own words, their posts are uncensored and unedited and represent the views of the kids and adolescents that authored them, NOT The Generation Project. 

This post was written by Ivan Guzman, a 15-year-old from the Bronx.  Read more about Ivan here:

Happy Easter.  By the way, does anybody else wonder what on earth a bunny has to do with Jesus? I'm mentioning religion because certain FOX News hosts have been criticizing President Obama for saying we are not a Christian nation. To be unlike FOX News (which is to say, to be fair), Obama also said that we are not a Jewish nation or an Islamic nation. As usual, the FOX talkies treated this like it was the end of the world as we know it. The FOXes need to realize that not everyone in this country is a self-righteous Christian with his or her nose in the air, while at the same time telling people that they're "just like you." If the FOX guys can't come to grips with America's diversity, then my already-low opinion of them is too high.

Another thing: whatever happened to the philosophy that questioning the President meant you were un-American?

That wasn't the only thing criticized about President Obama's trip. He got a lot of heat for bowing to the Saudi Arabian king. This is just me, but if I meet any king (even the Burger King, yes, even that creepy looking king you've seen in the commercials) I'm bowing, it's just courtesy. I'm sure the people who criticized Obama would have liked it better if he held hands with the king just like Bush did. The main criticism was that Obama didn't get much done at the G20 Summit in Europe. To be honest I didn't expect much except improving our image with the rest of the world, it was his first summit and the guy gives great speeches. You do the math.

What's the funniest show on television right now? You'll probably get some answers like The Office, Family Guy, or 30 Rock. I'm officially considering putting the Glenn Beck show (who actually calls his show a "Program", that'll put fannies in the seats) on the list. The guy is hilarious, and he's got commitment. He's got so much commitment that he cried on television, that's great acting. It must be because the things he says on that show are ridiculous. This is just a little add-on, but the 9-12 project has to be the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen or heard of. If you don't know what I'm talking about then check outwhat Glenn Beck had to say about the families of 9/11 victims on his "Program".

This is something that I'm kind of stealing from my favorite sports writer Mike Lupica, I'm just going to write any random thoughts that I have thought over the last couple of weeks, if you disagree, I'm open to any kind of discussion, I'm not Rush Limbaugh.

  • ● I've noticed that I'm attracted to many conservative Republican women, except Ann Coulter. She killed that streak like Soulja Boy killed Hip Hop.
  • ● How is it that Tim Kurkjian knows everything? That man is an expert, the complete opposite of Mark Schlereth. Since when does being an offensive lineman make you an expert at everything about football?
  • ● I'm a huge Lil Wayne fan, I even love his mixtapes.  There's no one-liner or anything I just felt like writing that.
  • ● I also love the song "She Loves Everybody" by Chester French. It's amazing how that band is two people strong yet they can make a song as great as "She Loves Everybody".
  • ● There's nothing like a talent show to remind you how under-funded your school is. It's funny how a talent show can make me think about politics, but just watching as the microphone failed to work over and over again reminded me of the stimulus package and how I hope my school gets enough money for a decent field trip, at least. That just shows what a nerd I am.
  • ● There is a scene in "The 40 Year Old Virgin" with Kevin Hart and Romany Malco that is so funny that anytime I'm depressed I think about that scene and instantly start laughing.
  • ● I was wondering why I still call Mr. Savit "Mister." (Editor's Note: Ivan is a former student of The Generation Project's co-founder, Eli Savit.  Read "Mr." Savit's intoduction of Ivan here).  Since I hate to leave any question unanswered, I came up with my own solution. I only know two Elis, Mr. Savit and ManningEli Manning got me  a Super Bowl memory to last me a life-time. Your move, Mr. Savit. Just kidding.
  • ● Finally, if you ever want to express your thoughts you can write poetry, write a blog, or yell your thoughts out loud to your sibling, teacher, classmates, and television screen. Fortunately for me, I can do all three.
Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 1.9 by 108 people

  • Currently 1.888888/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , , , , , , , ,
Categories:   New York | News | Student Bloggers
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (7) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed