Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Today in class I had my juniors write an opinion essay. The catch was that I assigned them to take a certain position on an issue...and it was not necessarily one with which they actually agree. For example, we are currently discussing the women's rights movement in the US and, specifically, the right for women to vote. I decided that I would assign all the guys to write in support of women's suffrage and all the girls to write against it. There was some (actually a lot) of complaining about having to defend (or support!) a position with which they did not agree, but that would have happened no matter what the assignment was... Anyway, some of them seemed to understand why I assigned the essay this way. We'll see how they do tomorrow when we have our organized debate in class!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That is an interesting assignment for the kids. More interesting to me are the arguments you would put forth against womens right to vote. Perhaps that they were not as educated as men, or that they did not die in combat, and should therefore, not be given the right to participate. What are some other points I wonder?
Some of the other arguments included the idea that it was not a woman's place to be involved in politics. It was "untraditional" and people tend to act with discomfort when they come across a situation like that. Also, there was a sense at the time that politics was "dirty work" and that the "fairer sex" should not be involved in it. Women should be sheltered from politics' ugliness. For example, the thought of women taking bribes (as happened frequently during this time period) would probably shock them. I think that at the time the gender roles were clearly defined and it was not until the '20s when you began to see some movement there.
I have fond memories of school debates. :-) I totally would like to listen in to this debate.
I'll let you know how it turns out tomorrow... If history is any indication, though, it will likely turn ugly fast! My students are violent-ish.
Windows 3.1, the UN, the first car, the internet, womens right to vote. All these had their starting point, or inception. On some of these matters, people seem to be able to conceptualize the idea and grasp the growth potential. To contrast on the other points, people are abstracted from the general concept, and are focused on the immediate faults. For instance, the UN or Women's rights. So many people seem to suggest that the UN is worthless, but the idea of a forumn where all nations can debate, and have a say seems like a great idea. Instead of trying to make it better, I constantly hear suggestions to walk away. Equal rights for all... why is this notion so difficult for some to grasp, while the internet, the first car, windows 3.1 are clearer for others to see growth potential.
The previous poster is misinformed. The advancement of technology through science is very different than asserting a new political institution or ideal -- such as suffrage for women. We certainly don't accept this proposition in the U.S. For instance, felons, illegal immigrants, minors, residents of Washington DC, and recently moved citizens all may be legally deprived of their right to vote in some capacity. Asserting equal rights exist is hardly as scientific or intellectually valueable as inventing the computer microprocessor or proving the Poincare conjecture.
Seems to me like people are more accepting of scientific advances because science is always a yes or no answer, and break thrus are seen as good things. Good in the sense that they make things better, faster, more efficient, or more powerful. The question is, can political intitutions or ideals do the same. Can they be broken down to a simple yes/no and judged scienticially as an advancement that makes things better, faster, more efficient.
Institutional reforms are efforts by those already in power to expand or preserve their power -- the ultimate aim of reform is almost never to better the human condition. There are no natural laws of politics, but there are natural laws of nature (excuse the tautology).
Post a Comment