Ethics and Institutions

the majority of adults do not develop beyone the conventional stages of moral judgment. Ah, how true is that? Just a thought really. But honestly, how is it the bank's fault that their worker harrassed, fondled and raped another co-worker. I understand that institutions have a responsibility to establish the environment as a safe one, with well written rules and procedures but, some things are just wrong and are not that difficult to realize that they are wrong. It is interesting to think of schools as a setting to develop the moral reasoning of children, in the end that is one of the primary things schools do. Through rules and tests and homework assignments, children learn what it takes to be an acting moral agent. It is our responsibility, as teachers, to make sure they learn as much as they can on their journey through education to prepare them for the decision making that awaits them in adulthood.

Morality and Power in the Classroom

I agree, there is always an eliment of power involved in teaching. This power is not always held by the teacher. Oftentimes it can shift to the student (particularly with a disruptive student) and it can be the reason for disruptiveness. When caught in a power struggle with a class, teachers must be wary of losing control over the classroom dynamic. However, teaching is not about having power over a class, but rather having power over what and how to teach that class. The teacher issues out grades (though I personally think grades are earned, not given), they mark you tardy or absent and they write up examinations. It is all part of the class process. Some level of learning and then a way to quantify that learning. I think it is an interesting perspective that exams imply the teacher doesn't trust the students. Though honestly, I know (as a student) I wouldn't always work towards learning if there weren't a test. I enjoy learning yes, but sometimes it can bog a person down and without some kind of goal (test) in the horizon it can be hard to maintain focus.

Chapters 6 & 7

Democracy, Professionalism, and Teaching with Integrity:

How do you deal, as a teacher, with the idea that what you feel and think due to your training as a teacher mean nothing if the school board decides it? This is a tough question to answer. On one hand, no one likes to have the methods questioned, particularly if they are tried and true. On the other hand, as teachers (particularly in the public schools) we are employees of the state, our salaries are paid by taxpayer's dollars. The elected officials are in control of how we teach often times. Is this right? Should teachers be able to decide for themselves what the teach or how they teach? Certainly there should be a standard set, but by whom? Possibly a national organization of educators, containing scholars of the craft, people who have researched how and what to teach. Through this I am confident that students will get the best education they can possibly get. Unfortunately, decisions come down through initiatives by people high up in the political structure (i.e. the president) and oftentimes become deteriorated and perverted into a race for the best test scores. While test scores do indeed seem the best way to determine if a student has learned the material. It must be noted that students do not always perform on the tests in a way which reflects what they know. I know plenty of people who consider themselves bad test takers. I consider myself a fairly good test taker, and more notably an excellent bullshitter (hopefully you do not take this into consideration when grading my test and or paper). I have taken courses with these so-called 'bad' test-takers. Oftentimes they know the material as well as I do, if not better. Consistently though, I will score better than them. I think this has to do with an intimidation factor. I ask them how they feel about the test prior to taking it and they are always worried, whereas I am often excited by the prospect to prove what I have learned. There is no reason to think this does not apply to younger students as well. It seems that standardized test create a need to learn just enough information to pass the test without fully comprehending the material.

OK, that was a bit of a tangent. The idea is this, when confronted with a situation in which your integrity is challenged, how do you deal with it? The book suggests four options, you can accommodate the expectation's of your employer. You can find productive ways to continue to press one's case. You can work around the policy in an imaginative way. Or you can simply resign. I agree with these, they cover pretty much every possibility of what you can do.

Conclusions and Postscript:

They suggest that consequentialist and nonconsequentialist views are imperfect or rather incomplete. Additionally they suggest that the two different types of thought need to be combined.

The postcript was witty, and at times hilarious. I definitely actually lol'd a few times. w00t!

"Folklorization"

Honestly, I had never thought about this topic. At least not that I can remember. I can understand why the folklorization of a culture could have a negative impact on that culture. As it is, I do not have much to comment on the article. Personally I do not have any particular cultural heritage that I hold onto, thus I have little ability to relate to the issue.

Chapter 5: Dealing with Diversity: Multiculturalism and Religion

It has been said, two things to never discuss are religion and politics. Of course, I often discuss both so boo to that. heh

Religion is a very, very touchy subject because people take it incredibly seriously. As the book states, people identify themselves as Christian, Muslim or Jewish. This can be problematic, especially when one religion (or ethnic group) thinks it is better than the other. Thoughts of superiority lead to oppression, which leads to the atrocities which have occured to many peoples. The discussion of religion is wraught with many issues, because simply one of the fundamental tenets of a religion is that you believe the teachings of the religion, thus in general, refute teachings of other religions. Engaging in religious discussions often can be similar to trying to knock down a brick wall with you head, it does not budge and your head hurts. I realize this is not the intention of this chapter, but that was a thought I just had. Back to topics relating more to the text, people are offended because they feel that another religion (or theory or belief... or evolution vs creationism) is out to prove them wrong. This is in general true, but I think it is more important to understand that know one is right. I personally feel this is one of very few truly universal truths, no one is right absolutely. While certainly we have sprinkles of truth dusted in what we say, no one knows or understands absolutely. The idea that anyone knows the truth to anything refutes the neccessity of dialogue (a concept J. S. Mill would certainly support).

Honestly, I think religious zealots need to come off themselves and understand that their beliefs do not hold true for everyone. While I have no problem if they want their children to be taught creationism over evolution, I cannot justify enforcing its inclusion in schools, when the majority of the scientific community disagrees with the theory. If you are teaching science, teach science. If you are teaching religious doctrine, teach religious doctrine. There is no particular reason why these two different subjects should be taught in the same classroom.

Now, conversely it can be and is argued that evolution does not hold true for everyone. Fair enough. As I stated previously though, the majority does rule in the end and while it may seem unfair that the minority must participate according the majorities rules that is generally how society has worked. Is that ethical? Maybe not, but in order to appease a few you must step on others on the way. From a consequentialist standpoint, that would not be particularly ethical. From Mill's standpoint, all ideas are valid and at least worthy to be discussed and considered.

I think this is where we run into the issue. Ethically, we have to teach the history and beliefs of every culture involved, yet we do not have the time or resources to do so. Thus, we run into the issue where the thoughts and beliefs of the many outnumber and outweigh those of the few.

Strike and Soltis Chapter 4

Equal Treatment of Students

This can be a difficult subject, oftentimes because it is difficult to decide what is fair to different groups of students. As the book points out, there are differences between students, which can warrant different treatment of them. (gifted children vs. below-average performers) I think a key point to remember is that in all situations you have to strive for what is best for that student and your students overall. In the case with the two boys fighting constantly in class, the teacher moves one boy to the lower reading group to prevent altercations. I certainly can understand her reasoning for this. Unfortunately this cause him to become bored and uninterested in reading, due to its simplicity. Is this the only remedy for this situation, probably not. I have to think that there is a way to have this child still benefit from an education appropriate to his learning abilities. Possibly having him read individually in the corner, could work. Though a possible consequence of that would be the scorn of being outcasted from any of the groups and possibly teased by other students. Once again, you enter a situation where you have to analyze all the consequences and formalities of the situation to figure out whether or not it is ethical. To further complicate the situation, one student is black and the other is white. The teacher is tentative to move the black student in fear of seeming racist, there had been recent peace between races at the school and she wanted to do whatever she could to help continue that peace. I think this is certainly something to consider, but to what extent. Judging based on race does not seem fair in any situation. If you ask anyone, black or white, if a job position or acceptance to a college should be based on race they will answer, 'no'. Yet, this is what affirmative action attempts to do. It is a concept which I fail to logically understand and yet I understand its importance in a society where people do judge other people based on the color of their skin and read into situations regarding race more deeply than perhaps the situation requires.

Strike and Soltis Chap 2,3

Chapter 2: Punishment and Due Process
Personally I think the chemistry teacher jumped the gun with slamming everyone with detention and a 30 page paper. Not only did he definitely punish some innocent people, the punishment does not particularly match the crime. Then when he gets an annonymous tip of 'who done it' he gives the kid an F. Um, grades should not be used as a disciplinary tool. That is completely unethical and not the point of grades. He could have more made Alex do a special class presentation instead of doing labs, since obviously he could not handle the responsibility of participating in labs (assuming his guilt). That would count as his lab grade. Basically he blew the whole thing. (pun intended)
Once again there is a case of a teacher jumping to conclusions and not giving a student a chance. Aren't teachers supposed to be interested in educating the child, not punishing them. (regarding the case of the english paper) I agree that letting the kid write the essay over, this time without a tutor would be completely acceptable. Even if you dock him a letter grade, because technically it would be late.

Chapter 3: Intellectual Freedom
Mr. Lane is definitely in a hard spot here. He can't let Eddie publish the paper, even though it is very well written and has plenty of good things to be said about humanity, becuase it is slightly slanerous towards another professor and a student. This being the case, I think that Mr. Lane should look for somewhere else for Eddie to publish the essay. Or maybe really make Eddie understand that he understands what he's trying to do, and explain to him why he can't do that.

The case with the books, I'll be honest, parents are stupid. It seems a lot of parents have no idea what they are doing with their children, especially if they think reading books that happen to mention drug use or sex or other inappropriate behaviors is going to lead to children participating in these behaviors. (I know these are made up cases, but this stuff still happens) Parenting starts at home, not in the classroom. Children must be informed to make descisions. That simple.

Alternative plan, school thingy. Basically the teacher got excited and jumped the gun. It's called patience.

Just Give It to Me Straight, A Case Against Filtering the Internet

Wow, what can I say. That was one well written article. Not to mention the fact that I agree with it 100%. Internet filters do not work in the way they are intended and can be used for a personal agenda, either by the software developers, the parents, the teachers, politicians, whoever. Furthermore it prohibits complete education, blocking students access to sites that could be potentially benefitial to their education. Rarely are students looking to access porn while at schools, oftentimes searching for it in the privacy of their homes (when their parents aren't looking I'm sure). I do not understand the constant desire to block unwanted sites from children, it is more important for them to understand what is out their and why you do not think it is appropriate for them or for anyone in some cases. The more a child understands about a situation the better they will be able to deal with it down the road when their parents are not able to protect them. It is the same as in preventing children from using drugs, you inform them on what potential negative effects drug usage can have and trust they make the right decision. That is the least we can expect from kids regarding surfing the internet.

Whatever Happened to Common Sense?

This article brings up a seemingly complicated issue (as stated in the article). Should the internet be filtered in pubilc libraries. The author suggests that it is simply common sense to filter the internet. I wonder though, how much restriction would be placed. Would it become impossible to gain access to important websites such as those on sexually transmitted diseases for a research paper for health class. I think this issue can be solved by librarian monitoring, and not standing over the shoulder of a student on a computer but simply filing through the area. Most students if they catch an adult milling past them, will not be thinking of finding pornography and if are afforded the opportunity to (if it is a link in a websearch) are unlikely to follow that link due to fear of being caugt. Just a thought really.

NEA Code of Ethics, Chapter 1

First off, I want to make sure it is understood that Socrates' dog is mortal.... I just thought that may be the most important thing I read in these chapters. Although they were important to understanding how ethical arguments (and logical arguments in general) tend to occur. I felt like this chapter was speaking to an audience with a severe difficiency in education. As if we were never taught that if A=B and B=C then A=C, transitive property.

The situation with Mr. Pugnacious is slightly more interesting. Simply because as an ethical situation it has no clear right or wrong answer. Involving a young boy who likes to start fights with other kids, and his abusive father, the teacher is torn between telling the truth or lying to prevent Johnnie from getting beat by his father's belt. She tells the lie, but is unsure how she feels. This gets to the heart of what ethics is all about.

Caring (#3)

Caring is an important aspect of making moral decisions, yes? You are more likely to save your girlfriend from an attacker than you are some random person on the street. I think for most people this is correct. Does this view of ethics close us off from people that we don't know? I think it possibly could. Though I do not think it intentionally does so. I think the concept of caring relationships, simply tries to describe and recognize that when you care for someone that relationship changes as do the rules that would normally apply to ethical descisions. Sometimes it is not about what is right or wrong, but what is right or wrong for that person. If you have a depressed friend, telling them straight up about their depression and how you feel they are just trying to get sympathy is a good way to help throw them off the top of a building. Sometimes you have to approach things differently depending on the person, depedning on the situation. You may even be able to argue that there is no one way to handle an two situations the same. I think the key point to the article is to explain that to be a carer, you are not just caring for someone, but always have their best intentions in mind in helping them become better people. I think one issue it fails to address, is how do you decide what is right. You can say to care you must do things that help a person, but who is to say how a care decides to help is right? It describes a mother who lets their kid eat junk, is soothing when the child is ill, fails to get him immunized, etc. and says this mother is not a carer. That is fine, I don't disagree with this point, but I want to know why. I want to challenge why things are right and wrong and how do we decide how to care for someone. In the end, I don't think this is really an alternate way of looking at ethical problems, but merely a subdivision of the previous two schools of thought. Simply a way of applying it. In the end you still need some kind of guideline to tell you what is right or wrong, and that either comes from yourself, or from a source outside yourself.

Teaching as a vocation

I agree whole heartedly that a vocation describes work that results in service to others and personal satisfaction in the rendering of that service, as the author puts it. The article talks about jobs, which are significantly different from a vocation. I have had jobs before, many, many jobs. Jobs which simply, provided me my means for survival. Nothing more and nothing particularly less. Thinking of teaching as a vocation, as something that I am called to do, excites me. That is to say, I feel that I have been called to teach music. I intend to devote myself to teaching and have me being a teacher become part of who I am. Though this begs me to wonder, do I feel it is part of who I am already? I would think logically it must be, if that is what I aspire to be. Thus I am already a teacher and am acquire the skills to better teach my students.

The Death of Ivan Illych

I'll be honest... this was a tough read... well.. it was entertaining, but longer than I had suspected. But that is ok, long does not necessarily mean bad. I mean, you have a man who dies for more or less unknown reasons, and his realization that his life amounted to nothing. Or at least, did not amount to what he now though his life should have been. Honestly, that is easy. Looking back on your life in regret takes no particular effort at all, and in the end is nothing more than an excuse to feel sorry for yourself. Hmm, but that's not really the point of the story now is it? Or perhaps it is, don't live life for material and societal position and you will not end your life feeling as if you did not live to an end sastiftying to yourself. Life must be lived to the fullest constantly, and that is a goal worth having.

The Emporer's Club

"The Emporer's Club" is an interesting movie from an ethical standpoint. The teacher Mr. Hundert commits a few different acts which could bring up a few ethical debates. When he hits the baseball through the car window and runs away, he wasn't necessarily being completely ethical. I feel the ethical thing would have been to own up to breaking the window. Of course, that is not to say that I have not broken a window and not told anyone about it. In fact, twice I have done this. Once playing baseball in the synagogue parking lot behind my house my cousin missed the ball when I threw it to her and it crashed through the window, and we ran into the house. Once at baseball practice I threw a pebble at a window and it cracked, a lot. Ok, so I understand why Mr. Hundert ran after hitting the ball threw the car window, but I don't think it was ethical to do so.
During the Mr. Julius Caesar competition Mr. Hundert recognizes that Sedgewick Bell is cheating. Now, I think it can be easily agreed that cheating is not normally ethical, in fact it is almost always unethical. Though, I can understand that Sedgewick was under a lot of pressure being the son of a senator who certain seemed to be fairly hard-nosed and no nonesense. Sedgewick's response to why he was cheating though, lessens my sympathy for him. He simply responds "why not" when asked why he cheated. In response to Sedgewick's cheating, Mr. Hundert alerts the headmaster to it. The headmaster tells Mr. Hundert to allow it due to the Senator being in attendance, and not wanting to lose the money I'm sure he has put into the school. To combat these actions Mr. Hundert then asks a question he knows Sedgewick will not know but that Deepak Mehta will know. Delibrately changing the question from what was supposed to be the next question. This entire scene poses many questions of ethics. Was Sedgewick cheating ethical? Was the headmaster telling Mr. Hundert to ignore Sedgewick's cheating ethical? Was Mr. Hundert changing the question to guarantee the honest competitor would win ethical? I personally believe that Mr. Hundert made a quick ethically sound decision to change the question to ensure Deepak winning, because Deepak was competing ethically and not cheating as Sedgewick was, which is unethical. While not necessarily ethical, life does not hinge entirely on money and power, the headmaster insisting that Mr. Hundert ignore the cheanting was understandable due to his fear of losing the money, or I'm sure his position as headmaster if Senator Bell chose to take such issue with the school.
There is also a scene with Sedgewick and the librarian. Sedgewick is trying to persue the librarian to let him take out a book which is not normally allowed to be checked out. Mr. Hundert walks in on them, and convinces the librarian to allow Sedgewick to check out the book. This gives Sedgewick an advantage over other students because they were not allowed to check the book out, and would have to take turns reading it in the library. While this is probably a mostly harmless act, it is not ethical.
To decide the competitors in the Mr. Julius Caesar competition there is a series of essays. One of such essays Mr. Hundert initially gives Sedgewick an A- for his performance. After much thinking and rereading of Sedgewick's essay he changes his grade to an A+. This grade change prevents Martin Blythe from being able to compete, the one thing he had been hoping to do, to follow in his father's footsteps (his father had been a previous Mr. Julius Casar winner). This change poses a dilema. Was it ethical? I think it can be, if after rereading the essay Mr. Hundert truly felt that Sedgewick deserved an A+. Contrastingly, if Mr. Hundert changed the grade because he desperately wanted Segewick to do well, because he knew he could, though he did not apply himself regularly, well, it is still complicated. I feel this is the hardest question to answer. Is it unethical to push a student to succeed and do his best when he normally underachieves? What if it hinders another student in not allowing him to compete when he truly deserved the honor? This one, I honestly don't know and it all hinges on whether or not Sedgewick truly deserved that A+. If he did, then there is no question. Though I wonder why he did not read Martin's essay over and over again, to make sure that he received the grade he deserved. Which makes me believe Sedgewick's essay was deserving of an A-. And while Mr. Hundert was helping a student achieve something he might have not thought he could achieve. He stomped on Martin Blythes hopes and dreams to do so.