NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a senior in high school, and a friend of mine has recently had some problems with a senior project. Required to graduate, this project is a massive persuasive research paper that can be on (almost) any topic. This is called an exhibition.

the issue is that my friend wants to do his exhibition on a different way to handle people that have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty, or life in prison. This plan would be funded by the government, and would basically use the criminals as a mandatory work force without pay.

he has unfortunately used the word "slavery" several times to describe this plan, thereby causing several staff member's heads to explode.

the decision has not quite yet fallen through, but the teachers seem to be leaning towards not letting him do it. Simply on the basis of its "moral injustices."

my friend is about to give up, for fear of having to repeat his senior year. but I am planning to pass a petition around tomorrow to let the teachers know that this is an outrage.

any thoughts? suggestions? opinions on the controversial topic itself? anyone have similar censorship issues?

I am a senior in high school, and a friend of mine has recently had some problems with a senior project. Required to graduate, this project is a massive persuasive research paper that can be on (almost) any topic. This is called an exhibition.

the issue is that my friend wants to do his exhibition on a different way to handle people that have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty, or life in prison. This plan would be funded by the government, and would basically use the criminals as a mandatory work force without pay.

he has unfortunately used the word "slavery" several times to describe this plan, thereby causing several staff member's heads to explode.

the decision has not quite yet fallen through, but the teachers seem to be leaning towards not letting him do it. Simply on the basis of its "moral injustices."

my friend is about to give up, for fear of having to repeat his senior year. but I am planning to pass a petition around tomorrow to let the teachers know that this is an outrage.

any thoughts? suggestions? opinions on the controversial topic itself? anyone have similar censorship issues?

In what context is he using slavery?

In what context is he using slavery?
I would suppose that instead of sentencing people to death, you sentence them to pick the cotton fields.

(And before anyone takes that out of context, I am opposed to slavery and the death penalty in all forms. Man should only swear total authority over themselves to God, not to another sinful man. Death penalty, I'm also against for religious reasons.)

he is basically using slavery as a means of ownership by the government, the enslaved individual working to pay for a living quarters, as well as a possibility to work off their sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.

he says slavery, and our teachers immediately assume tradtional slavery that entails poor living conditions, unjustice towards these slaves... ect...

Erm. I'd be inclined to give your friend one heck of a poor grade, if his research paper didn't involve doing even the nominal research necessary to discover that slavery is unconstitutional...

I would suppose that instead of sentencing people to death, you sentence them to pick the cotton fields.

(And before anyone takes that out of context, I am opposed to slavery and the death penalty in all forms. Man should only swear total authority over themselves to God, not to another sinful man. Death penalty, I'm also against for religious reasons.)

i can understand if you are against the proposal for religious reasons, but in fact many at my school opposed are FOR the death penalty, as well as life imprisonment. its just that red flags go off when the S-word comes up

he is basically using slavery as a means of ownership by the government, the enslaved individual working to pay for a living quarters, as well as a possibility to work off their sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.

he says slavery, and our teachers immediately assume tradtional slavery that entails poor living conditions, unjustice towards these slaves... ect...

He does realize that the state can't work a man without pay right? Slavery is illegal, right?

Erm. I'd be inclined to give your friend one heck of a poor grade, if his research paper didn't involve doing even the nominal research necessary to discover that slavery is unconstitutional...

yes, that was actually one of the first points he had to confront.
his argument is that these people give up their rights as citizens after commiting a crime like that. only citizens are protected by the constitution from salvery, and it may work if he can prove that they no longer deserve their rights.

He does realize that the state can't work a man without pay right? Slavery is illegal, right?


yes, slavery is illegal for CITIZENS. if you commit a crime, under this proposal, you lose citizenship. therefore, you can be a legal slave.... although i wish the term slave would not be used to describe this situation, it is not the traditional slavery that we all know about.

yes, slavery is illegal for CITIZENS. if you commit a crime, under this proposal, you lose citizenship. therefore, you can be a legal slave.... although i wish the term slave would not be used to describe this situation, it is not the traditional slavery that we all know about.

I think the reason he isn't able to do this isn't because he used the word Slavery, it's because to me it sounds poorly researched. As far as I know (and someone can correct me on this) Government can't forcibly take away citizenship unless they committed a treasonous act or becomes the citizen of another country.

Personally, slavery is a word just like any other that has had a stigma attached to it. However, it is a very specific stigma referring only to the "moral injustices" of blacks in the southern United States during the Civil War. From my experience, most people who flip out over this word forget the fact that slavery was not a new idea (e.g. the Romans, the Africans, the Egyptians, etc.).

As to the matter of proving whether or not these men deserve the right to citizenship, there are several classes of felonies that do, in fact, revoke the criminal's right to vote, which in this country is one of the most important qualifications to being a citizen. Thusly his argument as to their non-citizenship is proven.

HOWEVER, it is unconstitutional/illegal for the U.S. to actually disenfranchise a natural-born U.S. citizen. A native-born citizen can voluntarily give up their U.S. citizenship, but the government cannot take it away. I am not sure whether or not this applies to those who commit the afore alluded to felonies, which is something he should check up on.

the decision has not quite yet fallen through, but the teachers seem to be leaning towards not letting him do it. Simply on the basis of its "moral injustices."

That's ridiculous. Let him advocate slavery if he so chooses.

ah knee jerk reactionary ideas that have no evidence behind them, reminds me of my school days

can't he just be nice and do rehabilitation programs which are proved to work and I can give you lots of sources and argument if you need it? oh and the schools can censor what they please

You all do realise that you can already be sentenced to hard labour (penal labour/prison labour/etc.) without pay? Hard labour is pretty much just slavery and I am heavily opposed to it but I think that it's absurd for a high school to prevent anyone from producing a paper with the word slavery in it. Hell; I've written papers advocating the armed overthrow and massacre of the bourgeois ruling class and gotten away with it. (I'm not a communist btw)

Oh, and you're all wrong about the citizen qualification for slavery; the 13th ammendment specifically states that no one can be a slave: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." But it actually allows hard labour which is hillarious because your friend's proposal already exists...

You all do realise that you can already be sentenced to hard labour (penal labour/prison labour/etc.) without pay? Hard labour is pretty much just slavery and I am heavily opposed to it but I think that it's absurd for a high school to prevent anyone from producing a paper with the word slavery in it. Hell; I've written papers advocating the armed overthrow and massacre of the bourgeois ruling class and gotten away with it. (I'm not a communist btw)

Oh, and you're all wrong about the citizen qualification for slavery; the 13th ammendment specifically states that no one can be a slave: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." But it actually allows hard labour which is hillarious because your friend's proposal already exists...

Like I said, I don't think the issues is about him using the word slavery, it's about presenting a poorly researched idea.

Like I said, I don't think the issues is about him using the word slavery, it's about presenting a poorly researched idea.

I just want to see what happens when a partition is sent around school :p

Aetheronian Republics has it right. The 13th amendment goes as follows

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Why not ask your friend to show it to the teachers. If it's a moral injustice to talk about it, then obviously the 13th amendment, which supposedly ended slavery, is morally unjust.

I'd recommend doing it solely to watch their heads explode in the logic conflicts.

Why not ask your friend to show it to the teachers.

I'd be careful though teachers tend to know a thing or two about the UN and its rules about such things

Aetheronian Republics has it right. The 13th amendment goes as follows

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."



Just what I thought of as soon as I read this post. Why should I pay tax dollars so some thief, rapist, or murderer can sit on his @$$?

Wait, I've got a question. If I go to the USA, am I risking to become a slave for somebody? :eek:

Cheese it, they're on to us! :p

only citizens are protected by the constitution from salvery

Wait, I've got a question. If I go to the USA, am I risking to become a slave for somebody? :eek:

Wait, I've got a question. If I go to the USA, am I risking to become a slave for somebody? :eek:

No, as just explained above unless you committed a serious crime in which case you'd have a chance of getting forced labour.

Heh, I live in Australia and we petitioned the government to end hard labour last year. Luckily Howard's out but Rudd is also conservative to the extent of impossibility of differentation...

Jail is a cakewalk for repeat offenders. Let them pay for crimes committed and slave it up a notch! Jail ain't free and license plates dont make themselves!

Hooray for hard labor for criminals. Why shouldn't they work? They're getting free food and board for a period of time. And if they leave prematurely, they get more time for free room and board. Sure, the felons are dangerous, but many came from crime-infested areas to begin with. Make them work. Most everyone else works and they haven't done anything illegal beyond a download here and speeding there.

As for the censorship, meh. School was always censored.

he has unfortunately used the word "slavery" several times to describe this plan, thereby causing several staff member's heads to explode.

If that's the only objection, then his teachers are hypocrites. They can't tell you "do a project on whatever you want" and then prohibit him from researching a particular topic (outside of advocating something like genocide because that's just...wrong). Sounds like their ideologies are being challenged and they're reacting to that- quite foolishly I might add. Maybe it does throw caution into the wind on the topic however, since if the teachers are causing this much of a fuss about it, something tells me there's no way such a paper would ever receive a satisfactory grade.

I'd be careful though teachers tend to know a thing or two about the UN and its rules about such things

I doubt it. In my own high school experiences- and we're talking about Canada here, where high school teachers are actually paid well (to my knowledge anyway)- most teachers didn't seem able to go beyond reciting their own lesson plans. In my Grade 10 Canadian History class, my teacher kept coming back to *me* for help and explanations on topics- she clearly didn't know the subject material (well, she was a Religion teacher, after all). So something tells me that outside of what the school tells them to teach and what they've heard on the news and stuff, most teachers don't have a comprehensive knowledge of something like that.

I think this could be about something as simple as the word "Slavery."

If the Government issued a 10% Income Tax rate hike, most people would get angry, however if it issued a "Financial Refurbishment Program" then it wouldn't spark the same negative connotations at first glance. (I think that's from the Simpsons?)

Perhaps instead of using the word "Slavery" he used something to the order of "Punitive Labour." That way instead of making people think "Deformation of civil liberties" they think "Ok. They've wronged, but now they're working to pay off their debt to society."

Like Community Service but instead of picking up rubbish for 3 days, they're painting Jesus bobble-heads and laying speed bumps until they die in exchange for a roof over their head and 3 meals a day. (Even if those meals consist of stale Wheet-Bix and jam.)

And honestly, it shouldn't be graded on the subject matter, but the assignments ability to argue a topic and persuade the audience to adopt a desired position. If he did it on his theory that the world is made of small spiders (Which it obviously isn't), and it's a persuasive argument, then it should be graded no higher or lower than an equally persuasive paper on the prettiness of butterflies (Which are indeed very pretty.)

Oh, the plight of the children!

when has there ever not been censorship in high school?

it is the nature of the context that makes it inevitable.

are schools controlled by teachers and students? no. they are controlled by chambers of commerce and all the economic and political intrests of the surrounding community. that is who educational administrators answer to.

intrests that are often, dare i say more often then not, in direct opposition to an entirely open and honest education.

that's why brainwashing subjects like economcs and nationalistic history are required, more mandatorially then anything useful like real sciences, engineering, arts and shop classess.

every flaw in virtually any education system has this conflict of intrest at its very heart and root.

=^^=
.../\...

They used to censor my performance art all the time. :(

I (somewhat) agree with the idea; when someone commits a crime, and are convicted on it, they basically forfeit all rights as citizens anyways.

I don't agree with slavery because most slaves had no choice in the matter, on the other hand, criminals DO make a choice.

Ether way, you should still protest this censorship; schools are often too squeamish about such things, and ignore thinks like freedom of speech

he is basically using slavery as a means of ownership by the government, the enslaved individual working to pay for a living quarters, as well as a possibility to work off their sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.

he says slavery, and our teachers immediately assume tradtional slavery that entails poor living conditions, unjustice towards these slaves... ect...

Just being completely honest, I would suggest he simply change the wording. That way, everyone's happy, and he still gets to graduate.

Just being completely honest, I would suggest he simply change the wording. That way, everyone's happy, and he still gets to graduate.

I'd go with that. Revise the wording.

Call it

Occupational Compensation
Social Restitution
Rehabilitative Remission

ANYTHING obfuscatory that buries the Bad Word no one wants to hear, even if the reality of the program stays the same.

And, when you use longer, more serious sounding words, teachers will think you are smarter. They will accept your ideas as well thought, even if those ideas are obviously moronic when translated into plain English. After all, they are in a profession that asks "What about an alternative holistic assessment of metacognitive compentencies?" when they mean "How can we dumb down the test so the idiots pass?"

Consider it a part of your education: Now you know how the Real World works, because wherever you go, you will find people who think that way. And they are usually in charge.

he is basically using slavery as a means of ownership by the government, the enslaved individual working to pay for a living quarters, as well as a possibility to work off their sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.

he says slavery, and our teachers immediately assume tradtional slavery that entails poor living conditions, unjustice towards these slaves... ect...

He should just advocate what Virginia does in most of its correctional units... Put people out raising cattle and working fields for $0.20 to $0.45 /hr.... It's a great way to fund the prison system while making alittle extra money for the state.

He does realize that the state can't work a man without pay right? Slavery is illegal, right?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Well....crap

I echo the people who suggest just changing the name from slavery. And perhaps pointing at the 13th Amendment.

hmm.... your "friend" right?

maybe if you used a word besides slavery, one with a less icky connotation.

hmm.... your "friend" right?

maybe if you used a word besides slavery, one with a less icky connotation.

"I don't believe you have a friend, enjoy your support of slavery"?
:eek:

nobody has friends with problems

I noticed this when I was volunteering at the crisis pregnancy clinic

"my friend thinks she might be pregnant"
"oh?"
*pukes*
"she has morning sickness I think"
"I see, do you often puke for her? or does she usually do it herself?"

Oh Smunk, you is made of lulz. :)

"I don't believe you have a friend, enjoy your support of slavery"?
:eek:

nobody has friends with problems

I noticed this when I was volunteering at the crisis pregnancy clinic

"my friend thinks she might be pregnant"
"oh?"
*pukes*
"she has morning sickness I think"
"I see, do you often puke for her? or does she usually do it herself?"

In what context is he using slavery?
In the indentured servitude forever context? How many contexts are there for slavery...

In the indentured servitude forever context? How many contexts are there for slavery...

Slavery because one was rather naughty is slightly different from slavery because shut the fuck up and get back to cleaning my house *whips*.

slavery because shut the fuck up and get back to cleaning my house *whips*.

the plan is to make prisons incredibly kinky?

the greatest shocker is I would support such a thing

the plan is to make prisons incredibly kinky?

the greatest shocker is I would support such a thing

Already been done. See: Abu Ghraib.

Slavery because one was rather naughty is slightly different from slavery because shut the fuck up and get back to cleaning my house *whips*.
Slavery is slavery. That is historical and cultural context.

Already been done. See: Abu Ghraib.

and you will see the re-offending rate for Gitmo is rather low :p

In college I wrote a paper for a difficult anatomy class. The prof sent it back to me saying it was off topic. I changed the topic sentence and got an A. He should change the wording around and describe the specifics of what hed like to see done. But be soft about it these are brainwashed HS teachers after all. That said HS is a place for learning and not expression so if they dont want to see it at all then hell have to come up with some new ideas. Although I disagree with the teachers in this case, its their responsibility to regulate the content.

Your first mistake is assuming the classroom is a democracy.

I am also suspect to the claims as I think there are details missing in your story.

I can see the teachers tossing it especially if your friend doesn't present a "decent" idea on how he will defend it.

Agreed with TBF. Just using the word "slavery" or using the concept shouldn't be enough to ban any idea if the idea isn't deliberately inflammatory. I sense missing details, too.

I'd go with that. Revise the wording.

Call it

Occupational Compensation
Social Restitution
Rehabilitative Remission

ANYTHING obfuscatory that buries the Bad Word no one wants to hear, even if the reality of the program stays the same.

And, when you use longer, more serious sounding words, teachers will think you are smarter. They will accept your ideas as well thought, even if those ideas are obviously moronic when translated into plain English. After all, they are in a profession that asks "What about an alternative holistic assessment of metacognitive compentencies?" when they mean "How can we dumb down the test so the idiots pass?"

Consider it a part of your education: Now you know how the Real World works, because wherever you go, you will find people who think that way. And they are usually in charge.

I agree, that's a great suggestion, especially considering that more likely than not the teachers capable of knowing that "Correctional Occupation" (the term I like) really means "slavery" are in university and not teaching in high schools.

That said HS is a place for learning and not expression

It's a place for neither. If high school were really about learning these kids would know what the historical method is, or the scientific method, or critical analysis or problem solving or any other method where one is actually required to apply what they've learned. All the school boards are concerned about are tests, which is why all the schools are able to do is get their students to be able to recite textbooks and that's it- learning how to actually apply what they've done is only taught at the post-secondary level (even though, really, the concepts aren't at all that hard to grasp).

it sounds like your friends plan IS slavery.

therefore it would be right to use the word.

if he thinks it through and uses the concept in a mature sensitive way, he should be able to call it what it is. he needs to make sure that he has no written something offensive by accident.

your friend should make sure he is being responsible then take it to the principal or even the school board.

Your first mistake is assuming the classroom is a democracy.

I am also suspect to the claims as I think there are details missing in your story.

I can see the teachers tossing it especially if your friend doesn't present a "decent" idea on how he will defend it.


In a sense, it is. Assuming it is a public school: They should follow the first amendment like any lower governmental institution should, but they get ley-way with unjust "Student Press Laws" and laws that abridge on the freedom of speech.

I actually somewhat support that idea. I don't think that can be censored by a school.
Take it to court!

Hooray for hard labor for criminals. Why shouldn't they work? They're getting free food and board for a period of time. And if they leave prematurely, they get more time for free room and board. Sure, the felons are dangerous, but many came from crime-infested areas to begin with. Make them work. Most everyone else works and they haven't done anything illegal beyond a download here and speeding there.

They're getting free food and board because they have been stripped of their rights to earn a living wage. True, mostly their own actions brought them to this, but you can't say "I'm going to take away your ability to provide for yourself and lock you up here, and you better pay for it!"

I also don't understand your logic behind "many came from crime-infested areas to begin with." What is that supposed to mean? Prison isn't dangerous for felons because they may have grown up in dangerous areas? That makes no sense.

I (somewhat) agree with the idea; when someone commits a crime, and are convicted on it, they basically forfeit all rights as citizens anyways.

People keep making this point, and it isn't true. People who commit crimes are still citizens, and they DO NOT forfeit all rights. They forfeit SOME rights. They have the right to due process, protection from self-incrimination, protection from unreasonable fines and cruel and unusual punishment, et cetera.

In a sense, it is. Assuming it is a public school: They should follow the first amendment like any lower governmental institution should, but they get ley-way with unjust "Student Press Laws" and laws that abridge on the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

I still think we are getting part of the story.

it sounds like your friends plan IS slavery.


Is it slavery or more of a form of indentured servitude?

But be soft about it these are brainwashed HS teachers after all. That said HS is a place for learning and not expression so if they dont want to see it at all then hell have to come up with some new ideas. Although I disagree with the teachers in this case, its their responsibility to regulate the content.

At least our "brainwashing" includes a tutorial on the proper use of punctuation.

Your first mistake is assuming the classroom is a democracy.

I am also suspect to the claims as I think there are details missing in your story.

I can see the teachers tossing it especially if your friend doesn't present a "decent" idea on how he will defend it.
Your first mistake was not going into his main thread that has like 4 pages.

Your first mistake was not going into his main thread that has like 4 pages.

Your first mistake is assuming the other thread was on the first page when I saw this one.

So there!

If high school were really about learning these kids would know what the historical method is, or the scientific method, or critical analysis or problem solving or any other method where one is actually required to apply what they've learned. All the school boards are concerned about are tests, which is why all the schools are able to do is get their students to be able to recite textbooks and that's it- learning how to actually apply what they've done is only taught at the post-secondary level (even though, really, the concepts aren't at all that hard to grasp).

The ability to explain and implement the scientific method is a standard at every grade, from elementary school through high school, at least in California. Critical analysis and problem-solving enter the standards at least by second grade. While I will agree that the *government* is most concerned with test scores (see: NCLB), that is often not true of schools or individual teachers.

I also have to say that your last remark was really quite snide. For a child learning English as a second language, for a child whose primary worries are about basic nutrition and safety, for a child struggling with a learning disorder, a physical handicap, or emotional or behavioral problems, the concepts really may be "that hard" to grasp.

My friend almost got fucked over by someone who was deeply offended by her writing a report about Victoria's Secret for her senior project.

My friend almost got fucked over by someone who was deeply offended by her writing a report about Victoria's Secret for her senior project.

Eh? What was the report about?

Your first mistake is assuming the other thread was on the first page when I saw this one.

So there!
Nice try, but it is obvious that this thread was buried much deeper than the other, especially since it has 4 pages and you had the first post in this one.

That's ridiculous. Let him advocate slavery if he so chooses.

So long as his project is not clearly racist (to get back to the stigma that oges along with the word 'slavery' in American culture). Which I highly doubt it would be 'Severe criminal acts should be punished with slavery." is not at all the same thing as "Sever criminal acts should be punished with slavery so long as the perpetrator belongs to race X."

These teachers should realize that all they are doing is reinforcing the stigma, they should be concerned more with it's actual definition, and, indeed it's contectual usage.

In my World History class (in high school) the S-word was used frequently when discussing many eras in the class, why? Because my teacher had a grip on both history, and the English language.

Your friends teachers should all lose their teaching certificates on account of gross ignorance, and negligence.

Nice try, but it is obvious that this thread was buried much deeper than the other, especially since it has 4 pages and you had the first post in this one.

Actually I don't know and frankly I really don't care.

the greatest shocker is I would support such a thing

I would hands-down support such a movement... makes sense, they have traded their freedoms (for a time... perhaps even the duration of their life) for the act of committing one (or more) misdeeds of great enough magnitude.

People keep making this point, and it isn't true. People who commit crimes are still citizens, and they DO NOT forfeit all rights. They forfeit SOME rights. They have the right to due process, protection from self-incrimination, protection from unreasonable fines and cruel and unusual punishment, et cetera.

I think everyone's saying that they should in theory, not that they do in practice.

Call it wishful thinking.

He does realize that the state can't work a man without pay right? Slavery is illegal, right?

They could work a man for very little, or negligible pay; for instance $.01/hr (although I believe the rate for prison labor is currently $.17/hr).

your friend should do some research. it was done before. it was called "the Chain Gang"

They're getting free food and board because they have been stripped of their rights to earn a living wage. True, mostly their own actions brought them to this, but you can't say "I'm going to take away your ability to provide for yourself and lock you up here, and you better pay for it!"

I also don't understand your logic behind "many came from crime-infested areas to begin with." What is that supposed to mean? Prison isn't dangerous for felons because they may have grown up in dangerous areas? That makes no sense.

I didn't say it WASN'T dangerous. I just meant that it wasn't necesarily MORE dangerous than a crime-infested neighborhood where they could get gunned down for ANYTHING. Stepping on a crack. Being the wrong color. Wearing the wrong color clothes. Being on MLK with blonde hair on a Tuesday at 1:45 PM while whistling out of tune. You have nice shoes. Anything. The motf could be hate, robbery, or just untreated mental problems affecting the impulse control and aggression regions of the brain.

In prison, the main differences are the walls, bars, uniforms, guards, and free room and board. When you're poor and living in a neighborhood where you could die at any minute for any reason, you probably wouldn't mind a free meal. I mean, if you lived where many criminals lived before their new concrete-and-steel residence, you were ALWAYS in danger. You'd rob a bank if you knew it meant a slightly less-crappy life.

This is why I encourage correctional occupations. It puts the murderers and bank robbers to work. Sure, a few drug dealers might break a few rocks here and print a license plate there, but it sure beats starving to death in a bullet-riddled neighborhood.

Agreed with TBF. Just using the word "slavery" or using the concept shouldn't be enough to ban any idea if the idea isn't deliberately inflammatory. I sense missing details, too.

I don't know about that, when I was in high school a planned fundraiser was the senior slave auction (bid on a senior and get them to do things like carry your books for you). This was aparently an anual thing but was canceled because it was refered to as a "slave auction" and it might be offensive to black students.

what about this... we dont kill them or put them into slavery. we give them a gun and ship 'em off to iraq to fight for the free doms that the have taken for granted.:sniper::headbang: that way they can regret what they did and do something positive rather thatn just waste away our tax dollars and themselves?

I don't know about that, when I was in high school a planned fundraiser was the senior slave auction (bid on a senior and get them to do things like carry your books for you). This was aparently an anual thing but was canceled because it was refered to as a "slave auction" and it might be offensive to black students.

Anything is possible.

Could it be that his topic has a problem in that we used to make them work once?

Never mind the fact that I think certain crimes are not allowed to leave simply because of the flight risk possibilities. Someone with a life sentence would be more interested in trying to escape versus a guy how will be free.

Erm. I'd be inclined to give your friend one heck of a poor grade, if his research paper didn't involve doing even the nominal research necessary to discover that slavery is unconstitutional...

Actualy when it's a punishment for a crime - as the student is proposing - it isn't. The amendment specificly allows for involentary servitude as punishment for a crime.

In a sense, it is. Assuming it is a public school: They should follow the first amendment like any lower governmental institution should, but they get ley-way with unjust "Student Press Laws" and laws that abridge on the freedom of speech.

In loco parentis. End of story.

Eh? What was the report about?

How they became so successful.

At least our "brainwashing" includes a tutorial on the proper use of punctuation.



Thank you for dealing with that, because I would have been far less polite.

Erm. I'd be inclined to give your friend one heck of a poor grade, if his research paper didn't involve doing even the nominal research necessary to discover that slavery is unconstitutional...

Don't you lose rights when you commit a crime? Like the right to own a gun the right to freedom (being locked up in a jail cell, I'm sure is unconstitutional.) Also, I'm farily confident that the death pentaly wouldn't regularly be allowed under the constitution anless you have commited a crime, isn't there a similar loop-hole for hard labour?

In the indentured servitude forever context? How many contexts are there for slavery...

There is slavery that is for a certain peroid of time that is limited instead of for forever.

your friend should do some research. it was done before. it was called "the Chain Gang"

"What we got here is a failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach."

Edit: I almost forgot, first post, insert obligatory gun smilies *here* :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

Forced slavery for criminals is more morally offensive than life in prison and the death penalty?

The guy probably wouldn't have had a problem if he hadn't used the word 'slavery.' People get weird about that.

Is it slavery or more of a form of indentured servitude?

its slavery

indentured servants made the decision to indenture themselves. mandatory work is slavery.

Wasn't there a different thread about this? I remember the OP, but I posted in that thread. And it was longer.



Oh, and on topic, 13th Ammendment. What 'your friend'(I don't believe you have a friend, enjoy your support of slavery) is suggesting is already perfectly legal.

yes, that was actually one of the first points he had to confront.
his argument is that these people give up their rights as citizens after commiting a crime like that. only citizens are protected by the constitution from salvery, and it may work if he can prove that they no longer deserve their rights.

So, by that thinking, we can captivate foreigners because they are not citizens and are therefore not covered under the constitution?

Oops, I think not!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-slavery-case-convictions_N.htm

Wait, I've got a question. If I go to the USA, am I risking to become a slave for somebody? :eek:

No. See above.

I support the idea of PCing it down....
i.e. "Forced Unpaid Labour", no, that's too negative. "Alternatively Compensated Labour" is better. "Occupational Community Service", or "Occupational Rehabilitation", or "Corrective Occupation", or.... let your— rather, your friend's —imagination run wild.

Well as it appears there are two threads; I will move over here and let the other one die.

As mentioned before the friend made the mistake of thinking the classroom is a democracy and I wonder if all the information is being given.

Some might argue 1st amendment and depending on the situation they might be right. However, there is always as was pointed out:

In loco parentis. End of story.

The problem with slavery is the fact it violates the Constitution. The fact that you broke the law does not abrogate all rights.

Let's just say we now have slavery for lifers and death penalty.

How are you going to work them?

If I am facing life there is a good chance I would be planning escapes. Especially if I get to leave the prison to do my hard labor. This greatly increases the chances of injury and death for guards and other inmates.

In the matters of the death penalty, this would have to be abolished for this to even begin to have a chance to work. The community would go berserk knowing that death row inmates are out of prison regardless of them being really monitored.

How would the community accept a serial killer, a serial rapist, a child predator being out and about?

The idea is not too workable.

Now, if the paper is getting denied simply because of the use of the word slavery? Probably grounds for an argument.

If he was told slavery is outlawed by the Constitution and he is pissing about that, then I would say let him write his paper and flunk it for that reason.

I go to the same school and I find it ridiculous to censor this when you consider what other seniors have done. We have had exhibitions done on controversial topics before and I believe censoring this one would lead down a dangerous road where further topics could be censored.

Freedom of speech should not be suppressed. I can understand if they didn't like it due to blatant ridiculousness - use of curse words, otherwise inappropriate - but using the word "slavery" earning him a fail? That's... stupid. Utterly stupid. Whether it would be illegal in the US or not, the point of this paper seems to just give his opinion to persuade others. Denying him the right of that expression is ludicrous.

Let the kid write what he wants. He could call for a damn Communist America if he wanted, despite the fact that an idea like that is hands-down utterly, lobotomizingly stupid. He still has a right to write it.

The problem with slavery is the fact it violates the Constitution. The fact that you broke the law does not abrogate all rights.

You should probably re-read the 13th Amendment. Slavery is illegal, except as a criminal punishment. While the proposal sounds shit as is(i.e. breaking the law causes you to lose all rights), it could be re-done to suggest that instead of killing some inmates, we put the to work for the good of society or some such.

If the teachers are going to censor him, then perhaps he ought to be pick a name for it that is silly, just to make a point.

Some suggestions from me:

Involuntary Labour Force
Payless Career Source
State-Sanctioned Labour Vassalage

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/servitude

Other words for slavery or servitude are at this link. Now all you need is a phrase that sounds... positive while still meaning "slavery".

yes, that was actually one of the first points he had to confront.
his argument is that these people give up their rights as citizens after commiting a crime like that. only citizens are protected by the constitution from salvery, and it may work if he can prove that they no longer deserve their rights.

See "we hold these truths to be self evident...." and so on and so forth. Also please see 13th (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am13), 14th (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14)

Now the 13th Amendment says you can put someone to work as punishment for a crime, but case law has ruled on this as well. Your friend would find himself without a leg to stand on Constitutionally (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html).

So unless he could find a way to change the document this country is based on, and all the case law since its inception, then he loses and gets an F. He mostly gets an F because he was too intellectually lazy to research his argument and its logical conclusions. The slavery issue is just a buzz word to get people all worked up. It's no reason to deny a paper, but the fact that it would never work is.

just change the word slavery to "forced labour" or "indentured servitude" or something that doesn't sound as negative...

Aetheronian Republics has it right. The 13th amendment goes as follows

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Why not ask your friend to show it to the teachers. If it's a moral injustice to talk about it, then obviously the 13th amendment, which supposedly ended slavery, is morally unjust.

I'd recommend doing it solely to watch their heads explode in the logic conflicts.

USSC case law has ruled further on the 13th. I have linked it in a previous post. The 13th is well hashed out in the court system.

The ability to explain and implement the scientific method is a standard at every grade, from elementary school through high school, at least in California. Critical analysis and problem-solving enter the standards at least by second grade. While I will agree that the *government* is most concerned with test scores (see: NCLB), that is often not true of schools or individual teachers.

I also have to say that your last remark was really quite snide. For a child learning English as a second language, for a child whose primary worries are about basic nutrition and safety, for a child struggling with a learning disorder, a physical handicap, or emotional or behavioral problems, the concepts really may be "that hard" to grasp.

Interesting and impressive. You've brought a certain amount of pragmatism to the discussion of the American Education System. Perhaps if people have read state standards in many states they would realize that current educational practice if more about thinking, reasoning, and developing skills to think critically. Communities have moved away from mastery learning which is simply basic and serves little purpose. Teachers who like to have students simply regirgitate facts are either scared by state tests (or their administration/board is) or not fully capable of educating students beyond this basic level. People should actually read up on what's going on in American classrooms to be current. I am going to end here to avoid a threadjack. Slavery is still illegal and people do not give up their rights when convicted of a crime. See case law cited in a previous post on interpretations of the 13th.

In loco parentis. End of story.

wow, people here are making me happy by making my arguments for me ;)

any thoughts? suggestions? opinions on the controversial topic itself? anyone have similar censorship issues?

Well, if your friend goes to college and decides to do a thesis he will have to get the basis of his thesis approved by his academic committee. Therefore, he should learn now and pick a topic that is more acceptable to the committee, or make up his mind to repeat his senior year.

My suggestion is to pick another topic and move on. Once he graduates, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

You should probably re-read the 13th Amendment. Slavery is illegal, except as a criminal punishment. While the proposal sounds shit as is(i.e. breaking the law causes you to lose all rights), it could be re-done to suggest that instead of killing some inmates, we put the to work for the good of society or some such.

You know it always makes sense in your head when you write it! :)

I concede the slavery comment.

But to the question of punishment. The problem is the allowing the types that warranted life or death.

It's not in the best interests of society to allow them out to do the work. As I mentioned a serial killer or rapist that escapes.

Unless of course they make a factory or something near or in the prison.

Don't people that commit lessor crimes already get out to do such things.

I go to the same school and I find it ridiculous to censor this when you consider what other seniors have done. We have had exhibitions done on controversial topics before and I believe censoring this one would lead down a dangerous road where further topics could be censored.

Which school is this? I figure we need to get some identification here.

The ability to explain and implement the scientific method is a standard at every grade, from elementary school through high school, at least in California. Critical analysis and problem-solving enter the standards at least by second grade. While I will agree that the *government* is most concerned with test scores (see: NCLB), that is often not true of schools or individual teachers.

If Californian education is as good as you claim, certainly there wouldn't be a lot of people having issues with it:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/04/25/daily39.html (the actual study in full (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FHCiC6QuZVIJ:www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_406MBS.pdf+%22quality+of+education+in+California%22+%2BBerkeley&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ca))

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED216642&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED216642

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ciJoMr-mF_MJ:www.artsed411.org/involved/docs/QEA-PresentationGuidelines.pdf+quality+of+education+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=ca

http://www.dogflu.ca/01032008/07/california_receives_poor_grades_for_childrens_health_and_education

There might also be more smart people in California than in other states, but there's also more people in California than in other states (33 million in California, the size of Canada). Also, you can't tell me that you've come across many with great reasoning skills- I know I haven't, even at University.

Perhaps it is improving, but given how sensationalism is allowed to proliferate everywhere (even in California) I have reason to doubt it's improved significantly. Besides, even if directives have been given to teach analysis, how many of those teachers are actually capable of doing it? The best teachers are all at college or university- the pay is too low at high school for the best to even think about it.

I also have to say that your last remark was really quite snide. For a child learning English as a second language, for a child whose primary worries are about basic nutrition and safety, for a child struggling with a learning disorder, a physical handicap, or emotional or behavioral problems, the concepts really may be "that hard" to grasp.

Language skills have nothing to do with it- the concepts are the same regardless of whether they're taught in Arabic, German or English; and really, analysis isn't hard, even for high school students. They all know (or should understand) what a bias is, what background research is, being able to identify context, etc. I'll agree that more needs to be done regarding ESL, but "language barriers" shouldn't automatically disqualify students from being able to learn analysis from somebody (maybe their ESL teachers?).

Interesting and impressive. You've brought a certain amount of pragmatism to the discussion of the American Education System. Perhaps if people have read state standards in many states they would realize that current educational practice if more about thinking, reasoning, and developing skills to think critically. Communities have moved away from mastery learning which is simply basic and serves little purpose. Teachers who like to have students simply regirgitate facts are either scared by state tests (or their administration/board is) or not fully capable of educating students beyond this basic level. People should actually read up on what's going on in American classrooms to be current. I am going to end here to avoid a threadjack. Slavery is still illegal and people do not give up their rights when convicted of a crime. See case law cited in a previous post on interpretations of the 13th.

If it has, it's certainly not noticeable (Link 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz-5QCLlLaEC&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=%22quality+of+education+in+the+united+states%22&source=web&ots=CQ-9mO8WGO&sig=rZe1t2FQmpjuENiQBi6Q3DhK-TE), Link 2 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3620/is_200207/ai_n9135123)) and judging by how this school is reacting to this paper, it's very clear that the teachers haven't developed their own reasoning abilities. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making such a sweeping, emotional response in vehemently opposing a paper because it says the word "slavery".

If Californian education is as good as you claim, certainly there wouldn't be a lot of people having issues with it:

If your argument is "people only complain about things that are completely dysfunctional and useless," I'd say you don't know quite as much about critical analysis and reasoning as you think you do.

There might also be more smart people in California than in other states, but there's also more people in California than in other states (33 million in California, the size of Canada). Also, you can't tell me that you've come across many with great reasoning skills- I know I haven't, even at University.

What does the size of California's population have to do with anything? I have met a number of excellent, bright, enthusiastic teachers with good reasoning skills.

Perhaps it is improving, but given how sensationalism is allowed to proliferate everywhere (even in California) I have reason to doubt it's improved significantly.

So your first argument was that education in California can't be good because some people are unhappy about it... and now your argument is that it can't be good because any reports that claim it IS good (or even improving) are sensationalized? Just making sure I have this all right.

The best teachers are all at college or university- the pay is too low at high school for the best to even think about it.

Do you have evidence to support that, or is it just your assumption? What about people who aren't interested in teaching at the university level? The pay for ALL teaching positions is too low--and yet, people teach anyway. Some teach for a paycheck, true, but that's true of anything. Many teach because it's their passion.

I teach at the primary level because my joy comes from helping children learn to read and instilling in them a love of literature and creative expression. Does the simple fact that I teach in a public elementary school imply that I must be stupid?

Language skills have nothing to do with it- the concepts are the same regardless of whether they're taught in Arabic, German or English; and really, analysis isn't hard, even for high school students. They all know (or should understand) what a bias is, what background research is, being able to identify context, etc. I'll agree that more needs to be done regarding ESL, but "language barriers" shouldn't automatically disqualify students from being able to learn analysis from somebody.


Language skills have everything to do with it if the concepts are taught in a language you don't understand. Let me give you directions somewhere in Pashtu and see how easy they are to follow. I'm certainly not saying it should disqualify students from being able to learn--or that teachers should "get off the hook" for teaching. I'm saying it's a major factor, as are all of the other factors I mentioned, and I did not appreciate your trivialization of the matter. Because a concept was easy for YOU does not mean it is easy for every child. Are teachers responsible for guiding children in their development of these concepts? Absolutely. Can it also present an amazing array of challenges? Absolutely.

Interesting and impressive. You've brought a certain amount of pragmatism to the discussion of the American Education System. Perhaps if people have read state standards in many states they would realize that current educational practice if more about thinking, reasoning, and developing skills to think critically. Communities have moved away from mastery learning which is simply basic and serves little purpose. Teachers who like to have students simply regirgitate facts are either scared by state tests (or their administration/board is) or not fully capable of educating students beyond this basic level. People should actually read up on what's going on in American classrooms to be current. I am going to end here to avoid a threadjack. Slavery is still illegal and people do not give up their rights when convicted of a crime. See case law cited in a previous post on interpretations of the 13th.

Thank you. I'm a new teacher, and I get a bit impassioned in the defense of education, I admit. The state of the system is definitely not where I want it to be--far from it, I'm afraid--but I get really irked at insinuations that the bulk of the problem stems from teachers being unqualified/stupid/lazy. A lot of people look at No Child Left Behind and say, "Good, that'll show those bad teachers what happens when they don't do their jobs," and it drives me crazy, because they have no idea what NCLB really means for education. That it means MORE testing, MORE focus on concrete results instead of intellectual growth and expression, and with a FRACTION of the promised budget.

he is basically using slavery as a means of ownership by the government, the enslaved individual working to pay for a living quarters, as well as a possibility to work off their sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.


Surely that's not slavery - that's indentured work. The worker still retains some rights, and does not become the legal property of the employer.

Anyway, it's only a step away from what in the UK is called 'community punishment' (used to be called community service), where the convicted criminal is required to do unpaid work for the benefit of the community. I imagine something similar exists in the US? What you describe is basically that, plus a jail sentence.

Kryozerkia is correct - if the word 'slavery' is the only problem, get rid of it. Call them 'indentured workers' or something.

Vassalage means the same thing as slavery but it's an older word, and not in common usage, so it would likely work.

You know it always makes sense in your head when you write it! :)

I concede the slavery comment.

But to the question of punishment. The problem is the allowing the types that warranted life or death.

It's not in the best interests of society to allow them out to do the work. As I mentioned a serial killer or rapist that escapes.

Unless of course they make a factory or something near or in the prison.

Don't people that commit lessor crimes already get out to do such things.

Well I don't know if I'd ever suggest such a thing, I'm just saying that the report could be done better, from the sounds of things.

I just want to see what happens when a partition is sent around school :p


The partition will be certain to divide the school.

he is basically using slavery as a means of ownership by the government, the enslaved individual working to pay for a living quarters, as well as a possibility to work off their sentence, depending on the severity of the crime.

he says slavery, and our teachers immediately assume tradtional slavery that entails poor living conditions, unjustice towards these slaves... ect...

He could use the words "indenture" and "indentured," instead. It's less inflammatory than slavery. What it means is that someone (in this case the government) holds a contract for their labor until a debt is paid off (in this case a debt to society which lasts for a lifetime).

When the people originally came to America, many came as indentured servants - i.e. a person in the colonies paid their way and they worked for them for a stated length of time until the debt was paid off. This is how slavery actually started, except when the debt for the black servants was paid off, the people who held the indenture didn't let them go.

The partition will be certain to divide the school.

u win teh thread.

Which school is this? I figure we need to get some identification here.



If Californian education is as good as you claim, certainly there wouldn't be a lot of people having issues with it:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/04/25/daily39.html (the actual study in full (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FHCiC6QuZVIJ:www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_406MBS.pdf+%22quality+of+education+in+California%22+%2BBerkeley&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=ca))

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED216642&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED216642

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ciJoMr-mF_MJ:www.artsed411.org/involved/docs/QEA-PresentationGuidelines.pdf+quality+of+education+in+California&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=ca

http://www.dogflu.ca/01032008/07/california_receives_poor_grades_for_childrens_health_and_education

There might also be more smart people in California than in other states, but there's also more people in California than in other states (33 million in California, the size of Canada). Also, you can't tell me that you've come across many with great reasoning skills- I know I haven't, even at University.

Perhaps it is improving, but given how sensationalism is allowed to proliferate everywhere (even in California) I have reason to doubt it's improved significantly. Besides, even if directives have been given to teach analysis, how many of those teachers are actually capable of doing it? The best teachers are all at college or university- the pay is too low at high school for the best to even think about it.



Language skills have nothing to do with it- the concepts are the same regardless of whether they're taught in Arabic, German or English; and really, analysis isn't hard, even for high school students. They all know (or should understand) what a bias is, what background research is, being able to identify context, etc. I'll agree that more needs to be done regarding ESL, but "language barriers" shouldn't automatically disqualify students from being able to learn analysis from somebody (maybe their ESL teachers?).



If it has, it's certainly not noticeable (Link 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz-5QCLlLaEC&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=%22quality+of+education+in+the+united+states%22&source=web&ots=CQ-9mO8WGO&sig=rZe1t2FQmpjuENiQBi6Q3DhK-TE), Link 2 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3620/is_200207/ai_n9135123)) and judging by how this school is reacting to this paper, it's very clear that the teachers haven't developed their own reasoning abilities. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making such a sweeping, emotional response in vehemently opposing a paper because it says the word "slavery".

I do not oppose the word slavery in this case. What I oppose if the student's inability to research to find that his thesis could not be supported by the rule of law. I'd let him write the paper and then fail him for intellectual laziness. Further, people writing books about the education system does not make them any more correct on the matter.

You may want to rethink that the teachers cannot reason for themselves and use logical means. The state of the system today is the parents look for ways to "catch" the teacher and the school system. When teachers broach controversial topics they run the risk of angering a parent who will cause problems for them through a variety of different means. Parents will go to the paper, the courts, the school board, or superintendent to fight against the teacher. Schools are afraid of bad press (see the examples you cited) so they will usually bow to the pressure. Are there bad teachers out there? Sure there are, but no worse than police, bankers, secretaries.

Certain states are more progressive in their curriculum and training. NJ and NY have standards that are all about thinking, reasoning, and processes. Schools in NJ are #1 for preparing and sending students to college. Students are still required to use facts to support their thinking, but the concentration is not on the facts alone. See here (http://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/), here (http://www.njea.org/page.aspx?a=14), and here (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html)(bloom's taxonomy and hierarchy of thought) for more information on what I am talking about.

NCLB, while well intentioned does not do what it was intended to do. Instead of giving "failing schools" more support, they are instead punished financially and systemically. NCLB forces schools to put more time into preparing for standardized tests. This is time that is taken away from constructive learning by which the students explain, synthesize, and analyze information to make it practical for them. Once again, I'll try and stop now to end the threadjack. We should be discussing censorship and freedom of speech issues in school. If you would like to start another thread on the educational systems strengths and weaknesses I'd be glad to contribute.

If your argument is "people only complain about things that are completely dysfunctional and useless," I'd say you don't know quite as much about critical analysis and reasoning as you think you do.

First of all, since I've never met you (I presume, anyway), I have nothing but your word to go on for anything of what you said (that, and I don't live in California, as much as I'd like to). So I went digging for sources that talked about the quality of education in California; and I didn't read anything that said "California's education is great." If you're going to tell me "California's education is great" then provide me a source.

What does the size of California's population have to do with anything? I have met a number of excellent, bright, enthusiastic teachers with good reasoning skills.

It's called proportion. The higher the amount of people, the higher amount of, well, anything. Therefore, 33 million people are going to produce more smart people than a place with 3 million people, but the percentage each will produce will be roughly the same (or should be, anyway).

So your first argument was that education in California can't be good because some people are unhappy about it... and now your argument is that it can't be good because any reports that claim it IS good (or even improving) are sensationalized? Just making sure I have this all right.

My argument was that with all the sensationalist and emotional reactions I keep seeing in the general populace (which are *not* by-products of reason) is reason enough for me to believe that "reasoning" is *not* a well-developed skill. I know I don't see it in my day-to-day dealings with most people and I sincerely doubt you do either.

Do you have evidence to support that, or is it just your assumption? What about people who aren't interested in teaching at the university level? The pay for ALL teaching positions is too low--and yet, people teach anyway. Some teach for a paycheck, true, but that's true of anything. Many teach because it's their passion.

I teach at the primary level because my joy comes from helping children learn to read and instilling in them a love of literature and creative expression. Does the simple fact that I teach in a public elementary school imply that I must be stupid?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LR0E4F0varUJ:cpec.ca.gov/higheredupdates/update2003/up03-01.pdf+%22Average+salary%22+%2B%22post-secondary%22+%2BCalifornia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca <----California State University professors make on average $84,000.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/education/ed_19_6420_anl07.aspx <----No hard number but the graph shows an average of $100,000.

http://www.edsource.org/pdf/TeachersCompFinal.pdf <------That puts the pay anywhere between $40,000-$50,000.

I have no doubt that there probably are teachers who could be university-level professors do instead go into elementary or secondary teaching, but you can't tell me with numbers like those that the better-qualified instructors, overall, don't choose university.

Language skills have everything to do with it if the concepts are taught in a language you don't understand. Let me give you directions somewhere in Pashtu and see how easy they are to follow. I'm certainly not saying it should disqualify students from being able to learn--or that teachers should "get off the hook" for teaching. I'm saying it's a major factor, as are all of the other factors I mentioned, and I did not appreciate your trivialization of the matter. Because a concept was easy for YOU does not mean it is easy for every child. Are teachers responsible for guiding children in their development of these concepts? Absolutely. Can it also present an amazing array of challenges? Absolutely.

Like I said, if communication is a problem then fix the communication problems, whatever they may be. Maybe the concepts have to be re-taught in the child's native language (if it isn't aren't already done); but the concepts themselves are not the problem- communicating them is.

yes, slavery is illegal for CITIZENS. if you commit a crime, under this proposal, you lose citizenship. therefore, you can be a legal slave.... although i wish the term slave would not be used to describe this situation, it is not the traditional slavery that we all know about.
That is not correct. Slavery is illegal, period. You cannot enslave undocumented immigrants either: several people have been imprisoned for that.

That is not correct. Slavery is illegal, period. You cannot enslave undocumented immigrants either: several people have been imprisoned for that.

Actually, no it's not. As Ifreann corrected me; you should a look at the 13th amendment which says Slavery is illegal, except as a criminal punishment.

I do not oppose the word slavery in this case. What I oppose if the student's inability to research to find that his thesis could not be supported by the rule of law. I'd let him write the paper and then fail him for intellectual laziness. Further, people writing books about the education system does not make them any more correct on the matter.

You may want to rethink that the teachers cannot reason for themselves and use logical means. The state of the system today is the parents look for ways to "catch" the teacher and the school system. When teachers broach controversial topics they run the risk of angering a parent who will cause problems for them through a variety of different means. Parents will go to the paper, the courts, the school board, or superintendent to fight against the teacher. Schools are afraid of bad press (see the examples you cited) so they will usually bow to the pressure. Are there bad teachers out there? Sure there are, but no worse than police, bankers, secretaries.

Certain states are more progressive in their curriculum and training. NJ and NY have standards that are all about thinking, reasoning, and processes. Schools in NJ are #1 for preparing and sending students to college. Students are still required to use facts to support their thinking, but the concentration is not on the facts alone. See here (http://www.nj.gov/education/cccs/), here (http://www.njea.org/page.aspx?a=14), and here (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html)(bloom's taxonomy and hierarchy of thought) for more information on what I am talking about.

NCLB, while well intentioned does not do what it was intended to do. Instead of giving "failing schools" more support, they are instead punished financially and systemically. NCLB forces schools to put more time into preparing for standardized tests. This is time that is taken away from constructive learning by which the students explain, synthesize, and analyze information to make it practical for them. Once again, I'll try and stop now to end the threadjack. We should be discussing censorship and freedom of speech issues in school. If you would like to start another thread on the educational systems strengths and weaknesses I'd be glad to contribute.

Thank you. I'm a new teacher, and I get a bit impassioned in the defense of education, I admit. The state of the system is definitely not where I want it to be--far from it, I'm afraid--but I get really irked at insinuations that the bulk of the problem stems from teachers being unqualified/stupid/lazy. A lot of people look at No Child Left Behind and say, "Good, that'll show those bad teachers what happens when they don't do their jobs," and it drives me crazy, because they have no idea what NCLB really means for education. That it means MORE testing, MORE focus on concrete results instead of intellectual growth and expression, and with a FRACTION of the promised budget.

Okay, I'll try to get this thing back on topic as much as I can, although I too would be glad to contribute to an education-based thread since I feel strongly about it too.

Anyway, what got me started in this mess is the fact I said "most teachers don't go beyond reciting the lesson plan". I can certainly understand why this would mean "teachers are stupid" but that's not what I was trying to get at (I do admit it's poorly worded, however). What I meant is that you have teachers who are misplaced (a Geography teacher asked to teach Religion), teachers asked to teach beyond their area of expertise (like a Napoloenic historian teaching history from Medieval Times to now), school boards insisting on hiring "police teachers" and "babysitters" ('cause you know, those evil students need to be kept in line :rolleyes:) and these same boards politicizing the cirriculum. If you ask me, the system is more flawed than the teachers are.

I do think most teachers have at the very least a basic understanding of what it is they're teaching (if not actually a good one) but the ability to go beyond the subject matter...well, I'm not so sure. I'm sure a high school American history teacher would be able to tell you about the immediate causes and ramifications behind King George's War but if you asked them details about the War of the Austrian Succession (of which "King George's War" was a part of) or about how the dealings in Europe led to the American War, I doubt you'll get much more than a cursorary response (if you get one at all- remember this is an American history class here, the teacher just has to focus on American history). I have no doubt that a Geography teacher can teach music or a Chemistry teacher can teach chemistry- but ask the Geography teacher about sociology or economics (which *do* factor in, at least slightly, in geograhy as a discipline) or the Chemistry teacher about physics (which does play a small part in chemistry, as all of science is interrelated), I don't think you'll get much of a response, if any.

As far as reasoning skills are concerned, I don't think they're adequately taught- I don't care if they're included in the cirriculum, I don't believe school boards give teachers enough time to adequately address it. They're more concerned about their scores (Liuzzo, one of those links you gave me addressed just that); and that means facts- the concepts and analytical skills just seem to be "thrown in there" so school boards can tell the public they're giving their children "a well-rounded education" when they're not since teachers aren't allowed to adequately address them. I certainly wish my high school history teachers spent a week on just talking about the historical method since it's central to teaching history but they never did- I learned about it for the first time in my first year of University, and that was in a second-year course, no less (at 8:30AM!); yet the method is central to the study of history. I don't mean to say none of my history teachers didn't know the method but for some reason (probably from above) they weren't able to teach it. Why? Well, it's not going to tell you any facts and thus it's certainly not going to raise a score will it?

Getting back to *this* particular thread, my original comment was a reply to Call to power who stated that teachers probably know a thing or two about the UN and its amendments. I doubt they do, unless they've actually read them, since it's not central to any high school course. Since that comment was raised concerning the 13th Amendment and its application to this particular case, I have a feeling that unless the opposing teacher (and certainly the school itself) is actually teaching political science, they probably know nothing else other than "the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery"- what the actual wording says is a mystery. If they do know the entire Amendment then they're clearly not understanding it, since there's no reason for them to object to the paper on grounds that slavery is prohibited, since the Amendment allows for penal labour. Seems to me someone get irked by the word "slavery" and stopped using their brains.

So, in short, can we at least agree here that the school administration isn't using reason itself?

Thank you. I'm a new teacher, and I get a bit impassioned in the defense of education, I admit. The state of the system is definitely not where I want it to be--far from it, I'm afraid--but I get really irked at insinuations that the bulk of the problem stems from teachers being unqualified/stupid/lazy. A lot of people look at No Child Left Behind and say, "Good, that'll show those bad teachers what happens when they don't do their jobs," and it drives me crazy, because they have no idea what NCLB really means for education. That it means MORE testing, MORE focus on concrete results instead of intellectual growth and expression, and with a FRACTION of the promised budget.

As a student in the last year of High School I must say I know few teachers who deserve the amount of flack they must get. Sure, they have flaws; they are human. For the most part though, these are minor and as I get into the higher grades my teachers seem to be a lot better. I get good teachers far more often than bad teachers and they frequently take the fall for stupid administration. I see my parents and brother get worked up a lot over a teacher who makes a mistake. I tend to take the teachers side, either because the teacher was right in the first place or they made an honest mistake and the student responded inapproprietly and the teacher takes the blame.
And for the shitty, mean, stupid teachers. They exist, and they should be fired. But they are in the minority and for the most part I think teachers are a lot better than they are made out to be.

Actually, no it's not. As Ifreann corrected me; you should a look at the 13th amendment which says Slavery is illegal, except as a criminal punishment.

I think that someone already pointed at out earlier that it is already used as a punishment in some places. Hard labour, anyone?

Actually, no it's not. As Ifreann corrected me; you should a look at the 13th amendment which says Slavery is illegal, except as a criminal punishment.

Yes, I understand the criminal-punishment exemption. That wasn't the point I was responding to, which was this dangerous misapprehension that it only applies to CITIZENS.

Okay, I'll try to get this thing back on topic as much as I can, although I too would be glad to contribute to an education-based thread since I feel strongly about it too.

Anyway, what got me started in this mess is the fact I said "most teachers don't go beyond reciting the lesson plan". I can certainly understand why this would mean "teachers are stupid" but that's not what I was trying to get at (I do admit it's poorly worded, however). What I meant is that you have teachers who are misplaced (a Geography teacher asked to teach Religion), teachers asked to teach beyond their area of expertise (like a Napoloenic historian teaching history from Medieval Times to now), school boards insisting on hiring "police teachers" and "babysitters" ('cause you know, those evil students need to be kept in line :rolleyes:) and these same boards politicizing the cirriculum. If you ask me, the system is more flawed than the teachers are.

I do think most teachers have at the very least a basic understanding of what it is they're teaching (if not actually a good one) but the ability to go beyond the subject matter...well, I'm not so sure. I'm sure a high school American history teacher would be able to tell you about the immediate causes and ramifications behind King George's War but if you asked them details about the War of the Austrian Succession (of which "King George's War" was a part of) or about how the dealings in Europe led to the American War, I doubt you'll get much more than a cursorary response (if you get one at all- remember this is an American history class here, the teacher just has to focus on American history). I have no doubt that a Geography teacher can teach music or a Chemistry teacher can teach chemistry- but ask the Geography teacher about sociology or economics (which *do* factor in, at least slightly, in geograhy as a discipline) or the Chemistry teacher about physics (which does play a small part in chemistry, as all of science is interrelated), I don't think you'll get much of a response, if any.

As far as reasoning skills are concerned, I don't think they're adequately taught- I don't care if they're included in the cirriculum, I don't believe school boards give teachers enough time to adequately address it. They're more concerned about their scores (Liuzzo, one of those links you gave me addressed just that); and that means facts- the concepts and analytical skills just seem to be "thrown in there" so school boards can tell the public they're giving their children "a well-rounded education" when they're not since teachers aren't allowed to adequately address them. I certainly wish my high school history teachers spent a week on just talking about the historical method since it's central to teaching history but they never did- I learned about it for the first time in my first year of University, and that was in a second-year course, no less (at 8:30AM!); yet the method is central to the study of history. I don't mean to say none of my history teachers didn't know the method but for some reason (probably from above) they weren't able to teach it. Why? Well, it's not going to tell you any facts and thus it's certainly not going to raise a score will it?

Getting back to *this* particular thread, my original comment was a reply to Call to power who stated that teachers probably know a thing or two about the UN and its amendments. I doubt they do, unless they've actually read them, since it's not central to any high school course. Since that comment was raised concerning the 13th Amendment and its application to this particular case, I have a feeling that unless the opposing teacher (and certainly the school itself) is actually teaching political science, they probably know nothing else other than "the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery"- what the actual wording says is a mystery. If they do know the entire Amendment then they're clearly not understanding it, since there's no reason for them to object to the paper on grounds that slavery is prohibited, since the Amendment allows for penal labour. Seems to me someone get irked by the word "slavery" and stopped using their brains.

So, in short, can we at least agree here that the school administration isn't using reason itself?

I can agree that administration f it up, but the bigger problems are the way the NCLB system has forced schools to focus on test scores. Different states, regions of states, and even individual districts vary greatly in their philosophy of education. There are schools where "discipline is king!" There are also schools that are so far off into liberal arts they forget to teach anything the children may need in college and their careers. Since not every finger painting breeds an artist, they fall short as well. Then there are the districts who sell their philosophy to a community and they think it over and choose to accept it. These districts allow input from parents on a large number of issues, even professional development. There's good and there's bad.

More importantly in that information I sent you for NJ there were more important indicators as well. Did they flaunt their test scores at the beginning? YUP! Because that's what the public looks for. People who are uninformed of how education works look at that and either praise or crucify a district. Parents and teacher who are committed to working together is what makes a school work. It allows teachers to do more and push farther with their children. Look at that info again and work towards the bottom.

Finally, please see the findlaw USSC rulings on the 13th I have previously provided. The idea of "unpaid labor" is ruled out when the labor does not benefit the inmate in some way. Sure, you can give them .20 an hour and this is legal.

u win teh thread.

Thanks i was unusually proud of that one and i was afraid no one would catch it ;)

Finally, please see the findlaw USSC rulings on the 13th I have previously provided. The idea of "unpaid labor" is ruled out when the labor does not benefit the inmate in some way. Sure, you can give them .20 an hour and this is legal.

I don't particularly see where in that document it says "a state cannot use as a punishment the imposition of labor", unless you're referring to the section on peonage- but that just refers to debts, not prison sentences.

As a student in the last year of High School I must say I know few teachers who deserve the amount of flack they must get. Sure, they have flaws; they are human. For the most part though, these are minor and as I get into the higher grades my teachers seem to be a lot better. I get good teachers far more often than bad teachers and they frequently take the fall for stupid administration. I see my parents and brother get worked up a lot over a teacher who makes a mistake. I tend to take the teachers side, either because the teacher was right in the first place or they made an honest mistake and the student responded inapproprietly and the teacher takes the blame.
And for the shitty, mean, stupid teachers. They exist, and they should be fired. But they are in the minority and for the most part I think teachers are a lot better than they are made out to be.

This was so nice to read, thank you. I can be a bit of a maddening job and some days it feels quite unappreciated, but as long as I'm helping students learn and feel supported and capable, that's what matters. Good to know you've had some good teachers that seem to have done that. :)

That said, there are DEFINITELY shitty, mean, stupid teachers out there, I'll be the first to admit it. Half of the reason I went into education was because I had experiences with horrible teachers that really scarred me. I don't want any child to have to go through some of the things I did (being humiliated, called stupid, and then called lazy when they found out I wasn't stupid, etc.). There are people in every profession who are unqualified or just plain mean, but it's that much more unconscionable when they work with children.