Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Social engineering does raise it's head in schools, whether you like it or not. Social development, like everything else, does not occur in a vacuum, and the environment in which it occurs can have profound impact on the resulting individual's beliefs.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:DarkPrince010 - We have very different ideas as to the purpose of school.

I thought it was to educate. Social engineering should not rear its ugly head there.

"Social engineering" indeed. What does that mean exactly in this context? What do you find objectionable?

darkPrince010 wrote:Social engineering does raise it's head in schools

Indeed it does...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/328460.page

As opposed to the usual social engineering which says to kids that homosexuality should be hidden and not talked about because you should be embarrassed of it? Because THAT certainly doesn't help them learn. You know, the social engineering you are suggesting we do.

Interesting. I personally would have not kicked the student for his comment, but definately for his t-shirt (Which, if their code of conduct was anything like ours, would have violated a half-dozen rules). So the teacher overall removed a source of a negative environment towards a social group, but did so for the wrong justifications. Legally, he's probably in the wrong, but morally, not so much imo.

As for the flag debate, freedom of speech is fine as long as it doesn't promote illegal activities or organizations that promote/promoted illegal activities (Sorta why people don't wear swastika belt buckles...). And to forestall your inevitable comparison to marijuana leaf t-shirts, those aren't allowed in schools either, and in any case promotes misdemeanors as opposed to war crimes.

I'm pretty sure that everything that isn't taught in math class can be found objectionable by some people. History class teaches the negative sides of our country, English class makes us read books about ideas and lifestyles that some parents don't want their kids to know about, and then in Science they teach evolution (I remember my middle school teacher was able to sneak it in by calling it "change over time").


Also, I do not believe that religion can be argued for or against in this context, as you can probably name any cause under the sun that some religion has either fought for or fought against.

But, in the Dakka OT all threads must eventually argue about religion!

Or Hitler. Or both, on a particularly hot topic.

Lol. I think Godwin's Law has already been invoked earlier in the thread. If not, I unfortunately did so in my last post

As for religion, why can't we all agree to worship the God-Emperor?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:Social engineering does raise it's head in schools

Indeed it does...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/328460.page

What kind of person wears an anti-gay t-shirt and thinks it's okay to say "I don't accept gays" in a classroom probably before smirking behind a claim of 'free speech'. What a git.

You think that is a good example to argue against this supposed evil of 'social engineering', allowing bigots to say what they like. Hell if homosexuality wasn't treated as something weird and to be hidden away maybe there would be a few less people who would believe homosexuality is wrong. People like that douchebag are the reason that education needs to be more inclusive not less.

The teacher did the right thing in asking the bigot to leave. If the person had a racist t-shirt and said "I don't accept blacks" and the teacher had shown them the door there wouldn't have been any action taken, he's have been cheered for it. Schools and teachers are supposed to make them pleasant safe places for people to come and study, you don't let people exhibit prejudice unchallenged.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:Social engineering does raise it's head in schools

Indeed it does...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/328460.page

What kind of person wears an anti-gay t-shirt and thinks it's okay to say "I don't accept gays" in a classroom probably before smirking behind a claim of 'free speech'. What a git.

You think that is a good example to argue against this supposed evil of 'social engineering', allowing bigots to say what they like. Hell if homosexuality wasn't treated as something weird and to be hidden away maybe there would be a few less people who would believe homosexuality is wrong. People like that douchebag are the reason that education needs to be more inclusive not less.

The teacher did the right thing in asking the bigot to leave. If the person had a racist t-shirt and said "I don't accept blacks" and the teacher had shown them the door there wouldn't have been any action taken, he's have been cheered for it. Schools and teachers are supposed to make them pleasant safe places for people to come and study, you don't let people exhibit prejudice unchallenged.

Who is wearing an anti-gay shirt in this story? I did not read anything like that! Try again.
In this story a student asked how wearing the stars and bars buckle, like the Gen Lee from Dukes of Hazard (no relation), is different than wearing a rainbow flag buckle.
the teacher explained that the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard represents oppression. Buckle was removed. Boy stated that he does not accept gays on religious grounds. Teacher began a debate that ended with a "put out or get out" stance from the teacher.

While I don't consider the Confederate Flag an icon of oppression, exactly, this kid sounds like he was doing a bit of irl trolling.

Wearing the Stars and Bars in Alabama is one thing; wearing it in Michigan is quite another.

Ah, my mistake. The teacher was wearing an anti-gay-bullying shirt. In that case, while objectionable and possibly crossing some rule about keeping school a friendly environment, the bigot (my own opinion) unfortunately did not cross any major rules I know of from our CoC.

However, the school board saying that he "forcefully initiated a controversial issue" b/c of the shirt he wore against bullying is completely BS. If it was a shirt simply saying "Accept gays" or something like that, maybe. However, his shirt was against anti-gay-bullying. So discriminating in a harmful manner towards someone is a "contoversial issue" if he's gay? What about wearing a "Don't bully Islamic People" shirt, or a "Don't bully Hispanic People" shirt? That was a completely innapropriate action by the board, and shows how some groups still believe that not abusing someone based on their lifestyle choices or gender is still a "controversial issue," instead of being seen as wrong as most other people see it.

Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Alright. But with only a couple of weeks to cover the entirety of WWII, how does one budget time for a tangent such as Alan Turing? His work would apply, but his person life and problems post war are not really vital to WWII history. No more than taking time out for Patton post war situation, or Montgomery's. See the problem. it does not serve to educate the student about WWII, but serves to make a statement on homosexuality.

Compound that by every period or lesson plan and you end up with a mess for the students/teachers.

History is almost always taught with interjections about individuals of note. I learned about Patton's life in a unit on WWII, and I learned about Lincoln's life in a unit on the Civil War. History curricula are not static narratives. They would be terribly ponderous, and difficult to follow if they were.

Think about reading a story in which there are too many characters to keep track of, and you get the idea. If you're going to teach about "great men" then you need to at least preface his chronological inclusion in the narrative with some kind of summation of who he is, otherwise no one will remember him when he is mentioned again.

Put differently, would you remember who General George S. Patton was if all you knew about him was that he commanded an army in a war? Of course not, you remember him because he was an infamous commander in an infamous war, and his personal characteristics were discussed in a way which made him memorable.

darkPrince010 wrote:Ah, my mistake. The teacher was wearing an anti-gay-bullying shirt. In that case, while objectionable and possibly crossing some rule about keeping school a friendly environment, the bigot (my own opinion) unfortunately did not cross any major rules I know of from our CoC.

Yes I misconstrued that, it was the teacher wearing an anti-gay-bullying t-shirt, not the kid wearing an anti-gay shirt.

But it's a bit of a worrying attitude from the school board though, apparently it's 'confrontational' to wear a t-shirt that identifies an opposition to certain types of bullying, in this case homosexuality.

My thoughts exactly. It does also reveal why the school board may have been a bit quick to put him on leave (Which undermines his credibility with his students and peers significantly, as someone above mentioned)

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Who is wearing an anti-gay shirt in this story? I did not read anything like that! Try again.
In this story a student asked how wearing the stars and bars buckle, like the Gen Lee from Dukes of Hazard (no relation), is different than wearing a rainbow flag buckle.
the teacher explained that the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard represents oppression. Buckle was removed. Boy stated that he does not accept gays on religious grounds. Teacher began a debate that ended with a "put out or get out" stance from the teacher.

That isn't social engineering so much as social interaction.

Social engineering is the deliberate attempt to condition people to believe a certain thing. If that distinction isn't made, then all social interaction is social engineering (which is an argument that can be made).

Teaching history is probably one of the better examples of social engineering because its about instilling a type of cultural identity in kids (you don't need to know history to survive except in the sense that society expects you to know it, and engage with it in a particular way). Really, as I said before, that's part and parcel with all education, though more so with some disciplines than others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
So he's the Enigma guy, as I originally said. Note him for Enigma (maybe, its just a factor not a reason for the war or effect after the war). You could even put in a footnote about his preferences, but its absolutely not relevant to his accomplishments or why he's famous. Thats the problem.

Turing is famous in large part because he was persecuted for his sexuality despite his achievement.

Melissia wrote:Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.

I think the reason the teacher was suspended here isn't that the school board had anything against gays, but because he was wearing a shirt that was informal, and mentioned a highly controversial topic that could cause arguements.
Still, it's a poor reason to suspend someone and the kid deserved everything he got.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
i am saying that high school level history classes do not study persons. They study broad eras in history.

They study individuals all the time, generally in the context of broad eras of history. You can't study broad eras of history without studying people, unless WWII is just a war between the Allied and Axis powers which was won by the Allies.

TrollPie wrote:

Melissia wrote:Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.

I think the reason the teacher was suspended here isn't that the school board had anything against gays, but because he was wearing a shirt that was informal, and mentioned a highly controversial topic that could cause arguements.
Still, it's a poor reason to suspend someone and the kid deserved everything he got.

He got everything he got because in his faith he doesn't accept homosexuality? Sure, if its in ones lack of faith to say that they don't accept the belief in God that many others share then that person should be punished as well right?

Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them. The teacher was just looking for some trouble by wearing a shirt like that and saying that a person should remove a piece of clothing that the teacher deemed offensive. Maybe the student was from the south or had southern heritage and that's why they were wearing the confederate flag, maybe he was just a Dukes of Hazzard aficionado, maybe it just looked cool. The kid said that for religious reasons he doesn't homosexuality, that squares it down to just about every single religion on Earth except in certain cases church by church/ mosque by mosque/synagogue by synagogue. The kid has the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, he doesn't have the right to beat the hell out of someone because of it though.

halonachos wrote:Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them.

He spoke out his hatred of homosexuals, which is aggression in verbal form.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them.

He spoke out his hatred of homosexuals, which is aggression in verbal form.

He said he does not accept them.

Is that "hatred"? Maybe he does hate them. Maybe he feels sorry for them. Maybe he views them as misguided souls.

But the fact that you automatically equate non-acceptance with hate says a lot about this issue.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:But the fact that you automatically equate non-acceptance with hate says a lot about this issue.

The fact that people still equate homoseuxality with pedophilia says far, FAR worse things about it.

halonachos wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

Melissia wrote:Saying you're against bullying gays is apparently immoral.

I think the reason the teacher was suspended here isn't that the school board had anything against gays, but because he was wearing a shirt that was informal, and mentioned a highly controversial topic that could cause arguements.
Still, it's a poor reason to suspend someone and the kid deserved everything he got.

He got everything he got because in his faith he doesn't accept homosexuality? Sure, if its in ones lack of faith to say that they don't accept the belief in God that many others share then that person should be punished as well right?

Just because someone has a belief against something in their religion doesn't mean they should be punished for it, when the belief becomes physical aggression or any other form of aggression then you punish them. The teacher was just looking for some trouble by wearing a shirt like that and saying that a person should remove a piece of clothing that the teacher deemed offensive. Maybe the student was from the south or had southern heritage and that's why they were wearing the confederate flag, maybe he was just a Dukes of Hazzard aficionado, maybe it just looked cool. The kid said that for religious reasons he doesn't homosexuality, that squares it down to just about every single religion on Earth except in certain cases church by church/ mosque by mosque/synagogue by synagogue. The kid has the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, he doesn't have the right to beat the hell out of someone because of it though.

I was talking about the way he tried to force his teacher in to an arguement over a controversial topic. People at my school do it all the time when they're annoyed that not everyone agrees with them, and it's pathetic. I bet people wouldn't be treating this the same way if he was talking about blacks or jews, for example.
And to be honest, if your religion teaches intolerance, why are you following it?
(Don't respond to that point. Threadlock will ensue.)

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering"

Non-acceptance wouldn't be as big of an issue if it weren't for so many examples where non-acceptance of homosexuals has not simply stopped at the nonaggressive verbal, but degenerated into name-calling and ridicule at the very least (let alone physical violence). If I could fool myself into believing that his non-acceptance was simply that, and that he would not display aggression, bullying, or abuse towards homosexuals, then I'd have no problem with his statement. However, given the current climate of non-acceptance and hate towards the LGBTQ community from many angles, I might as well ask for a pony and the Space Shuttle for [Generic Holiday Celebration] too...

You mean like the fact that lesbians at my high school were afraid of being outed because someone attempted to rape a lesbian because he thought he could turn her straight?

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:But the fact that you automatically equate non-acceptance with hate says a lot about this issue.

The fact taht you equate homosexuality with pedophilia says far, FAR worse things about you.

They both (along with many other bizarre things) are an alternate form of sexual preference to heterosexuality. That is fact.
Are they equal in their deviation? No, I really don't think so.
When I made the point you are referring to (what, like last year?) it was to state that there are many alternates (also, I;d like to state that I was incrrect in the term I was using. I was addressing Ephebophilia in that discussion, but did not have the term on hand). Why should one be sustained and the other criminalized?
If both types are "born that way baby!", who is to say that one is right and the other wrong? I was questioning who has that moral authority.

In essence you took an example from my main point (moral authority)and constructed in your mind all of my beliefs. You don't know me, so don't presume to know my mind.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:They both (along with many other bizarre things) are an alternate form of sexual preference to heterosexuality. That is fact.

Pedophilia and heterosexuality are not mutually exclusive.

TrollPie wrote:
And to be honest, if your religion teaches intolerance, why are you following it?
(Don't respond to that point. Threadlock will ensue.)

Then don't ask, Troll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:They both (along with many other bizarre things) are an alternate form of sexual preference to heterosexuality. That is fact.

Pedophilia and heterosexuality are not mutually exclusive.

yes. Same with pedophilia and homosexuality. Your point?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:yes. Same with pedophilia and homosexuality. Your point?

... that homosexuality and pedophilia are in no way equivalent. You might as well say that eating candy is equivalent to cannibalism because they're both less common than eating pizza.