Seminar Response 10-21

With the large debate on whether teachers should have a say about what is talked about in their classroom, I think that it is a very important thing to be addressed. Personally, I think a teacher’s role is to educate and inform children about topics. It is not their role to tell students what is right or their personal opinions. School is about the kids getting the best possible education not about what the teachers think about a certain topic. Teachers should also care enough about their job to expose their students of the different viewpoints without interjecting their own personal views. "The freedom of speech is not without limits." We need to accept the consequences of what we say. Sure we can tell a teacher to f-off and claim freedom of speech, but we have to own up to what we say and not hurt others. Teachers should not force ideas onto their students and the first amendment "Does not include students having their teacher's political, religious, or moral values thrust onto them while they are held captive in class." But teachers shouldn't be limited and restricted so that they can't even do their own job. "Free speech is an essential element in the exercise of democracy... in any public place." Teachers should encourage students to expand on their ideas and inquire about the ideas that others may have. There has to be a good balance between freedom and restrictions in order for students to obtain the correct education. It is not ok for a teacher to just plan and teach whatever they want because students wouldn't learn and be prepared for life. But on the other side, teachers should not be reading/teaching of a mandatory script that every teacher in the state/nation uses. This would severely limit what is taught in the classroom and would not be ok. After all education is about the students not the teachers.

Seminar Response 10-14

Law is the way of the land, the rules that govern it and the way its citizens are to act. In a way it is the code of conduct for its citizens. "The law appears impersonal. It is on paper, and who can trace it back to what men? And because it has the look of neutrality, its injustices are made legitimate(111)." When one does break the law, there has to be someone to administer the law to the law breaker.

When one breaks the law, justice comes into play. Justice is how the law is served to those who break it. "There is also justice, meaning the fair treatment of all human beings, the equal right of all people to freedom and prosperity(109)." This sounds very similar to what the enlightenment thinkers or more famously John Locke said and what we adopted in our deceleration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness and freedom. Justice is typically served in the courtroom (can be other places such as a traffic stop) and typically ends in a fine or a jail sentence.

Law and justice are necessary to society because they keep order. Without laws and justice, people would just act the way they want to and that would cause lots of conflict between people. In a way law and justice make life fair for all, they are the directions to a board game. "The idea behind 'accept your punishment' is that whatever your disagreement with some specific law or some particular policy, you should not spread disrespect for the law in general, because we need respect for the law to keep society intact (122)."

Over time law and justice have generally stayed the same. The basics of our laws were the same when the colonies were formed and the birth of our nation. Of course as time went on, more specific laws were developed for specific situations as we experienced them. With every new piece of technology comes more laws governing how we use them. When these new laws are developed there has to be new justice in what the punishment for breaking these laws.

Seminar Response 10/9

  I think that Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in class because it provides another side to the discussion of Evolution. If we just talked about Evolution in science class and how it is the only reason explaining how things are today, we would be leaving out another side to the discussion, ID. Just like when you are writing an argumentative paper for school, you must include the other view therefore leaving bias out of a paper. So why are we teaching kids that Evolution is the only way explaining how things are today when there is another side? It makes sense to teach both sides and let the students decide what they want to believe in. The point side makes the better argument because it states that "ID presents the hypothesis: an intelligent designer lies at the heart of the highly complex and inter-related system of natural phenomena." ID is not promoting a God or religion, it just gives a possible reason to how things were started or created. ID is different to creationism in that "Creationism is specific to the Book of Genesis in the Bible." The point side also talks about how the "'first causes' cannot be determined." Since we were not there how can we prove it scientifically. We can't make assumptions about the past because we were not there and we can't observe it. We can only observe what is happening now. ID is "an alternative approach to explaining the origins, the first cause, of a phenomenon widely accepted by poorly understood: life." So why should we not teach it?
The counterpoint has a weaker argument because it explains that if something is to be considered science it must be able to prove by "recording observations, undertaking experiments, and drawing conclusions." It also says that science is "the process of disciplined and repeatable observation." So with all of this observation being based on the past, which we can't actually observe, how can we call this evidence. We were not there, we don't know what is was like, and therefore we can only make assumptions about the past. This side also says that ID is religion in disguise but in reality it is not. ID "does not require believing that the earth and everything upon it was 'created' in six days by a deity named God." ID does not promote any God or religion so why is that a good reason not to teach it as an alternative way to how things (life) was created.