I am from Jackson Ms, where I grew up in a family of faith. We have been going to the same Baptist church even before I was born. This is how I was raised. I went to the same school from 4 year old kindergarden to 12th grade. The school I attended was an Academy school in south Jackson. The title was Hillcrest Christian School. As you can see, I am a Christian and have been taught nothing else. Since my early high school years, I really started to see what my school was all about. We had an entire class that was taught about the readings of the Bible. Every week, we as a school met in the basketball gym and had what we called Chapel. This was a time where our entire school which consisted of the 6th graders and up, joining in on a ministry that our administrators set up. This involved everything from Preachers coming to do a sermon, to Christian bands coming to do performances for us. This was a major part of my life and was somthing that I took so much pride in.
As far as my schooling was concerned, I knew nothing about the different "theories" that we are taught here at Ole Miss. For some however, these "theories" are truth to many individuals. This was something that I had to become aware of. From my first class of Geology 101, the things that were being taught made little sense to me as I was taught strictly from the Bible. I had to have the opinion of the material from the Geology class as being something was wasn't necessarily true but was a theory. I can see that many individuals were brought up in the teachings of the material that I was exposed to. However, for me this was not the case. I began doing some research to how a professor should go about teaching material that can be either accepted or denied.
I found this article that talks about the challenges that students face on secular campuses such as Ole Miss. By the way, I am amazing surprised of the amount of Christianity that I see in the college. From church goers to extra curricular organizations involving Christian Ministry, there is a widespread among this town. So, back to my discussion. How should teachers and professors go about conducting a class with the material being very opinionated. Well, from this article I found 2 ways. The 2 approaches would be Banishment and Confrontation. When looking back on my classes of Liberal Arts, the teachings would be better suited for me if it were in the approach of Banishment. "The banishment approach is, of course, the more venerable and the less aggressive of the two. A science professor will state at the beginning of the semester: "Science involves the gathering and analysis of data as the basis for forming hypotheses regarding the nature of reality. It must, therefore, exclude any reference to the supernatural as out of bounds for scientific inquiry. Whether or not God exists, or angels, fairies, pixies, goblins, or the Boogie Man is irrelevant to scientific investigation. Hold to your religious or superstitious beliefs if you want to, but don't bring them up in this classroom. It is off the subject; we don't have time for theological debates here."
This approach would be suited when the teaching would be of something that could be true but should leave the student involved in their own beliefs.
The 2nd approach is the confrontation approach where the professor will actually challenge everything that an individual believes in currently. It could be Christianity or any other belief but will teach under the assumption that the material is the truth. "A more recent and increasingly popular approach in the university classroom is to take the creationist bull by the horns and attack belief in the God of the Bible by any possible means. This is the strategy of journals such as Creation/Evolution and The Skeptical Inquirer. Professors claim the mechanistic/materialistic explanation for origins removes all need for God. Naturalists in the classroom are not above using illogical arguments to win over their students."
So the argument of why students are becoming Atheists comes about. For me, I didn't have a hard time because I chose to learn about and not believe in the different theories that are being taught. I can obviously see how students are guided in different directions that come from a different background as me. Honestly, I have witnessed it in a few cases. So this subject is very opinionated and will be studied for years to come.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Getting What They Wanted (kind of)
I have been doing a little research on the system of the University of California and how they are raising tuition costs as a response to their recent budget cuts from the state. Common sense would tell you that students and parents of students would get a little angry that their school of their choice is raising the price for the education that the students wish to recieve. Not only does this increase effect the incoming freshman as well as transfers, but the current students that are actively enrolled in the system. This is happening in the entire system of the University of California. And, you know how many regional sites they have. 23 to be exact. This situation is also effecting the faculty and staff of the system. As student enrollment numbers dropped recently over 40,000, faculty members as well as staff have been forced to take furloughs in the school year. A furlough is a mandatory work day without pay. This sounds a little rediculous as a student but I cannot imagine how an employee of the University would feel in this situation. With all of this said and done, students of the University feel that they are in need to do something about the situation.
As far as student protests go, individuals are granted free speech and would fall under this title when protesting an event. These events are happening across the sites of the University system.
"Student sit-ins and poetry readings. It seems like the 1960s, but these are common scenes today on California campuses as students continue to protest large fee increases across the state's university system." These scenes are obviously being compared to the 1960's protests about political speech across America and rightly so. The question would be is to how far these students are willing to go to make what they feel is right a certain thing. This would be the situation of the rising tuition costs. The article that I have found was in the Ebsco Host section of the J.D. Williams Library.
"Over at the University of California, Berkeley, students have amassed in Wheeler Hall in what they are calling an "open occupation." They're sleeping in the building and holding forums and workshops, though they have yet to completely take it over as they did in November, right after university regents agreed to a 32 percent fee hike." "On Thursday morning police arrested 33 protestors at San Francisco State University after students had barricaded themselves inside a campus building. That school is part of the California State University system, which is raising undergraduate fees by about $1,000 a year, cutting enrollment by 40,000 students, and forcing employees to take furlough days across its 23 campuses."
Were they in the right? What were their goals?
In my opinion, I believe that acutally protesting the situation would be the right thing to do. Now, I don't know if I would have gone down the road of actually barracading myself into a building to attract the attention of the administrators of the University. The article goes on to say that the adminstrators were going to regret drawing attention to this incident but what something that needed to be done. As we talked in class, a protest will be successful when the superiors recognize the actions and actually take actions of their own. Well, they did in this case. Their actions were the calling of the police to get the students out of the building. The police came and obviously arrested the students for taking over the building. These students did what they felt was right and payed probably the ultimate price of getting arrested over the incident. I can't say that I would not have protested but would have thought enough about my actions to not get arrested and caused more stress to my parents and myself.
As far as student protests go, individuals are granted free speech and would fall under this title when protesting an event. These events are happening across the sites of the University system.
"Student sit-ins and poetry readings. It seems like the 1960s, but these are common scenes today on California campuses as students continue to protest large fee increases across the state's university system." These scenes are obviously being compared to the 1960's protests about political speech across America and rightly so. The question would be is to how far these students are willing to go to make what they feel is right a certain thing. This would be the situation of the rising tuition costs. The article that I have found was in the Ebsco Host section of the J.D. Williams Library.
"Over at the University of California, Berkeley, students have amassed in Wheeler Hall in what they are calling an "open occupation." They're sleeping in the building and holding forums and workshops, though they have yet to completely take it over as they did in November, right after university regents agreed to a 32 percent fee hike." "On Thursday morning police arrested 33 protestors at San Francisco State University after students had barricaded themselves inside a campus building. That school is part of the California State University system, which is raising undergraduate fees by about $1,000 a year, cutting enrollment by 40,000 students, and forcing employees to take furlough days across its 23 campuses."
Were they in the right? What were their goals?
In my opinion, I believe that acutally protesting the situation would be the right thing to do. Now, I don't know if I would have gone down the road of actually barracading myself into a building to attract the attention of the administrators of the University. The article goes on to say that the adminstrators were going to regret drawing attention to this incident but what something that needed to be done. As we talked in class, a protest will be successful when the superiors recognize the actions and actually take actions of their own. Well, they did in this case. Their actions were the calling of the police to get the students out of the building. The police came and obviously arrested the students for taking over the building. These students did what they felt was right and payed probably the ultimate price of getting arrested over the incident. I can't say that I would not have protested but would have thought enough about my actions to not get arrested and caused more stress to my parents and myself.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
What's Fair
Restorative justice is defined as:
… a broad term which encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all"
When reading the topic, I had very little knowlege of the subject in question. Restorative Justice is obviously meaningful actions that help eliminate the harm that has already been caused. One example of this subject would be community service. This was also the first thing that popped into my head. It could be as simple as a direct apology from the wrong doer to the victim of the crime. Now in Higher Education, a University will have obvious limitations to how one should be punished. Some situations will be more severe than others. For incriminating crimes such as assault, violence, and in some cases murder, the obvious choice of expelling that person from the University and even the community will take place. It is hard to say however how one University should deal with the wrong doings of the lesser violations such as plagarism, vandalism, and normal petty crimes.
I wanted to look at this topic from an athletic viewpoint. I feel that all the cliche's and sayings that people should be given a second chance holds true. However, once a University starts to compete at the highest level of Division One athletics, their players should be accountable for their actions in the highest degree. In 2007, two freshman baseball players were expelled from the team immediately following their actions of stealing different items around their lockerroom and dormatory. There was no apology, community service, or any other type of meaningful dialogue with their victims. The simple fact was that if you committed an act that could hurt the physical and emotional status of the team, you were gone. I believe in this as I have been apart of athletics for a long time. There is nothing worse than a team member being lead astray by hurtful actions to the community around the team. For example, we see all the time how professional athletes commit crimes as well as harmful decisions in today's world. Can you imagine the emotional state of that team? Would you think a simple apology, or a meaningful dialogue will bring this team back together? I have found that once an individual chooses to do wrong, it is in the best interest for everyone if that individual is removed so that the other people can move on. In the interest of Universities, students who are in wrong doings probably should be punished in a way lets them satisfy their victims as they let them know that they are guilty of what they did. I wanted to make the argument that this is not the case when a small group or team are trying to achieve a goal where it is vital that the individuals on that team should be together.
Of course, incriminating instances should bar the individual from ever being apart of the team again. But the instances that are chosen by the individuals such as alcohol related situations and drugs should be grounds for dismissal. An example would be a DUI case. This person chose not only to danger his or her life, but the people around them. A simple apology wouldn't suffice. Little things can hurt teams and athletes in today's culture of athletics.
… a broad term which encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights. These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission to innovations within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, schools, social services and communities. Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities. Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all"
When reading the topic, I had very little knowlege of the subject in question. Restorative Justice is obviously meaningful actions that help eliminate the harm that has already been caused. One example of this subject would be community service. This was also the first thing that popped into my head. It could be as simple as a direct apology from the wrong doer to the victim of the crime. Now in Higher Education, a University will have obvious limitations to how one should be punished. Some situations will be more severe than others. For incriminating crimes such as assault, violence, and in some cases murder, the obvious choice of expelling that person from the University and even the community will take place. It is hard to say however how one University should deal with the wrong doings of the lesser violations such as plagarism, vandalism, and normal petty crimes.
I wanted to look at this topic from an athletic viewpoint. I feel that all the cliche's and sayings that people should be given a second chance holds true. However, once a University starts to compete at the highest level of Division One athletics, their players should be accountable for their actions in the highest degree. In 2007, two freshman baseball players were expelled from the team immediately following their actions of stealing different items around their lockerroom and dormatory. There was no apology, community service, or any other type of meaningful dialogue with their victims. The simple fact was that if you committed an act that could hurt the physical and emotional status of the team, you were gone. I believe in this as I have been apart of athletics for a long time. There is nothing worse than a team member being lead astray by hurtful actions to the community around the team. For example, we see all the time how professional athletes commit crimes as well as harmful decisions in today's world. Can you imagine the emotional state of that team? Would you think a simple apology, or a meaningful dialogue will bring this team back together? I have found that once an individual chooses to do wrong, it is in the best interest for everyone if that individual is removed so that the other people can move on. In the interest of Universities, students who are in wrong doings probably should be punished in a way lets them satisfy their victims as they let them know that they are guilty of what they did. I wanted to make the argument that this is not the case when a small group or team are trying to achieve a goal where it is vital that the individuals on that team should be together.
Of course, incriminating instances should bar the individual from ever being apart of the team again. But the instances that are chosen by the individuals such as alcohol related situations and drugs should be grounds for dismissal. An example would be a DUI case. This person chose not only to danger his or her life, but the people around them. A simple apology wouldn't suffice. Little things can hurt teams and athletes in today's culture of athletics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)