Subject: Re: Tax and Slash Tories (was Tax and Spend Socialists)

From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 05:34:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
	[email-masked] (MARY OLIN) writes:

>>Like it or not, to some parents, issues of ethics and morals should be
>>an integral part of a school's curriculum. The public school system
>>would do this if it could, but there is such divergence amongst the
>>population, that the lowest common denominator is to avoid issues of
>>"right and wrong" completely in the schools.

>This flies right in the face of my own experience with my kids in the
>public school system. There is definitely strong enough agreement on the
>lion's share of "issues of ethics and morals" in our society that
>teachers can and do address them plenty. Respect for others, honesty,
>hard work, etc. are "right"; physical and verbal violence, racism,
>disruptive behavior, etc. are "wrong".

Lip service, nothing more.

"Physical and verbal violence [...] are wrong?"

Teachers these days will generally look the other way regarding recess
"incidents", unless the stuff takes place right in front of them. Their
indifference to the pleas of the targets of such "incidents" lead kids to
see that bullies can indeed get away with whatever they please. This just
gives positive re-enforcement to the bullies, and negative to their victims.

Look around. Schools are getting more violent. Why? Because they're too
timid to take the severe action which is sometimes necessary, when
confronted by violence. The system does *not* teach courage.

"Respect for others?"

Teachers in most schools gladly participate in Christmas decorations,
Easter crafts, etc, knowing full well that many of the children in the
school are not Christian. I could tolerate this if equal respect was
given to the festivals and holy days of other cultures and religions.
How many Grade 6 kids are tought what Ramadan or Passover is, even in
highly multi-ethnic neighborhoods?

It's not racism, but it certainly sends a message to the kids that you
can celebrate your own culture and ignore those of others, as long as
you're in the majority. The joys of democracy in action...

"Hard work?"

Give me a break. Schools today are so scared of a competitive
environment, that they'll pass those who work hard as well as
those who don't. By the time the real world hits them, it's too
late.

The schools of today coddle kids. My kids don't have a fraction of the
homework I was given at their age.

Then let's not even get into the other issues of ethics. I've seen
parents yank kids out of schools which tought "Catcher in the Rye",
absented Grade fivers on the day the sex-ed film was being shown, and
heaven knows what some thing of condoms machines in the washrooms.

>Of course there are all sorts of
>rules that the various religions follow, but I don't know of one that
>considers those who follow different religious rules as "unethical" or
>"immoral".

Some religions would put a higher value -- a *much* higher value -- on
respect for education itself.

I myself consider the practise of passing slower learners through the
system *highly* unethical. And my kids, even at eight and 10, picked up
on the problems of this practise this long ago.

I consider it unethical for a teacher on recess duty to tell kids in
a fight to "sort it out themselves". I have encountered this at three
separate schools.

I consider it unethical when teachers devise an entire vocabulary of
euphamisms in order to avoid stating to parents clearly what their
childrens' problems are.

These are all practises condoned in public schools I have attended, that
have been absent in "religious" schools I have known.

>>One could argue, teaching ethics is the parent's direct responsibility,
>>isn't it? True, but an environment where the parents say one thing but
>>the school environment says another does not provide a solid foundation.
>>Some kids can cope with the contradictions, some can't.
>>If only it were even that simple.
>
>What contradictions?

That the school "teaches" that violence is wrong, then turns a blind eye
when it happens in the schoolyard?

That the parent wants to teach sexual abstinence, while the school gives
out instruction manuals?

That the school "teaches" that hard work is important, yet it promotes
the lazy equally with the dilligent?

These are just three of the obvious ones. I pity the parent that doesn't
have the opportunity to spend with their kids "un-learning" so much of
the crap that's being fed to our kids these days.

>Do we want a society in which attitudes like this are taught
>unchallenged because the children come from like-minded homes? Not me.

How damned arrogant!

"Like-minded homes" can be groups of parents who believe that the
present school system does not challenge our kids to think more, and who
prefer a system which would.

I don't know about your religion, but in the parocial schools I was in,
little went unchallenged. Some people even chose to leave their faith
*because* the schooling they received in that school did not adequately
answer their challenges. That's OK. But don't give me this crap that
narrowly-focused schools *by design* could not challenge their students 
(or allow students to challenge) as much as the public system.

>The important thing
>here isn't the nativity scenes, it's the failure to recognise the equal
>validity of other beliefs. Do we want to publicly fund religious schools
>so that bigotry of this sort can be promoted?

The bigotry is already being promoted, thank you, these kids are already
being fed evangelical messages at home and at church. I'd just as soon
allow them to attend their own schools, which means I have the choice to
prevent them from poisoning mine.

>>Rather than do poltical battle with this person, we'd both be happier if
>>he could send his kids to a school with more Christmas, and I could send
>>my kids to one with less (or at least a balance and tolerance of all
>>religions).

>Your school would have "tolerance of all religions" while his wouldn't.
>Seems to me that intolerance is bad for the health of our society.

Agreed. But the ultimate choice belongs with the parent, as they are the
ones ultimately charged with their children's upbringing -- not the
state.

Even so, narrowly-focused schools don't necessarily breed
intolerance. I can demonstrate right now that our broad-based "secular"
system already has intolerance, based on a tyrany of the majority.
I would prefer to choose my own school for my kids, and make up my own
mind on whether its criteria for "tolerance" matches my own.

>In earlier posts I have supported the idea of a system in which parents
>have a choice of educational (not religious) philosophy.

So you would force my children to abide by the democratically-influenced
religion of the majority, eh? Thank you very much, but I trust my own
instincts better than yours.

If you really believe that the present "secular" school system teaches
good ethics, than I *certainly* wouldn't want you determining what
religious philosophy my kids have to abide by.

Even a lack of religious philosophy is a philosophy in itself, and
one I certainly don't agree with. I don't like its premises, I don't like
its hypocricy (teach one thing, practice another) and I certainly can't
stand its results.

I'm glad you're comfortable with the confused but very real religion of
the "secular" system.  Not all of us are. I'm just being more up-front
by recognizing it as a religion, and preferring an alternative.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         [email-masked] / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
Americans have the right to bear arms. Canadians have the right to bare breasts.