Plan targets anti-Western lessons

[HAL 9000 96]

The irony here is that for all those people (alleged conservatives) who complain about political correctness pervading every aspect of daily life - this is one of the biggest examples of PC thinking going.

Can you imagine the lawsuits that will spring up from this - when some fundamentalist christian or neoconservative student gets offended by the content of the curriculum.

Remember that they who control academic movement will most likely try to redefine what it means to assess a value system into American values- hence eliminating some groups that submit to these values as possible challengers to these same principles. Others would, of course, challenge in the name of all, and those would undoubtedly be policed by the redefined American values to be un-American. Strange but this is so common in many mainstream conservative circles and even liberal ones that I halt at adjudicating blame on one particular political leaning on this topic.

In this case the outcome of higher education in the US is quite obvious, and pro-left wing it is not; so by deduction the system is set up to favor points of view that are not pro-left wing, or whatever this "left-wing" educational agenda is defined to be by the status quo. Even if it means more critical thought against the status quo.

[Heracles 417]

Can you imagine the lawsuits that will spring up from this - when some fundamentalist christian or neoconservative student gets offended by the content of the curriculum.

LOL I think you are confusing them for the ACLU. The group who sues to defend child molesters "freedom of speech" etc etc. Yet claims they are for the people. Which people is probably the question one should be asking.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Constitutional values are enjoyed by all. Free speech is one of those values. You can't mandate policy on ideology alone - that's just ridiculous.

[Peikko 1,575]

What's the definition of Western values anyway? Seems to me like that might be a moving target.

[Heracles 417]

Not going to fly. Thought and choice are not mandated nor should their availability. Plus the entire issue of controlling what themes are available to students is even more Orwellian than even what the totalitarians in education are comfortable with, save a few nutjobs in favor of controlling what we are allowed to see and experience for ourselves.

Certain people in America have been using the George Orwellian propaganda for years now. Yet the fact is that most countries with a much much higher living standard than the United States have laws and rules that simply would not fly here. Laws that would be accused of being "policy of control" or "Big Brother", as George Orwellian put it.

I use Australia as an example as it is the country I have lived in and know the most about. They are now ranked 3rd in the world in terms of living standards. Compared to America's 25th or so position. The reason they have been able to accomplish so much is by using dynamic laws. When something becomes an issue, they legislate against it. Whereas nothing can ever change in the US if the constitution says xyz. Porn for example is illegal, to film, in AUS. As is racism and teaching hatred. Prior to coming here I always thought they are so strict in comparison to America, the land of the free. And hated it. Whereas after seeing the consequences of the opposite system, the anything goes American system, I would never want them to adopt a similar system or attitude.

The Australian government celebrates diversity. Celebrates religions. Be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Athiest, Jewish etc etc.. Whereas here you have people who actually defend anti-western and anti-democracy views in schools but would rather burn a building down than allow them to display a religious symbol. Not only is that not morally right but I highly doubt this is what the founding fathers intended for the United States of America.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

What's the definition of Western values anyway? Seems to me like that might be a moving target.

For a start you support democracy, freedom, social equality etc etc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's the definition of Western values anyway? Seems to me like that might be a moving target.

For a start you support democracy, freedom, social equality etc etc

Of speech?

[Heracles 417]

What's the definition of Western values anyway? Seems to me like that might be a moving target.

For a start you support democracy, freedom, social equality etc etc

Of speech?

To make choices. Freedom of political speech, the actual constitutions intent, YES..

[Peikko 1,575]

Are there commies in the Universities again? What sparked this off anyway? What is being taught in Universities that is so dangerous to Western values. It's not like there is a huge popular movement to 'socialise' the US. Unless Universal Health care is considered 'socialising'?

It seems such a vague notion - and as has been suggested, how do you teach a political science course without teaching about all the alternate ideologies? How does one distinguish between teaching about a subject and advocating the ideology of the subject?

I can't see any merit in a law of this nature.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's the definition of Western values anyway? Seems to me like that might be a moving target.

For a start you support democracy, freedom, social equality etc etc

Of speech?

To make choices. Freedom of political speech, the actual constitutions intent, YES..

In this context the distinction is meaningless.

[Heracles 417]

What's the definition of Western values anyway? Seems to me like that might be a moving target.

Another thing I found which can help answer your question is Australia's citizens test. This more-or-less indicates what the west stand for. I am sure many of those principals can be transfered here.

Australian values

Values which are important in modern Australia include:

• respect for the equal worth, dignity and freedom of the individual
• freedom of speech
• freedom of religion and secular government
• freedom of association
• support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law
• equality under the law
• equality of men and women
• equality of opportunity
• peacefulness
• tolerance, mutual respect and compassion for those in need.

These values and principles are central to Australia remaining a stable, prosperous and peaceful community. They provide the common reference points for our free and democratic society.

While shared to some extent by all liberal democracies, they have been adapted to Australia’s unique setting, moulded and modernised through waves of settlement by people from all over the world.

These values and principles reflect strong influences on Australia’s history and culture. These include Judeo-Christian ethics, a British political heritage and the spirit of the European Enlightenment.

Distinct Irish and non-conformist attitudes and sentiments have also been important.

This statement of values and principles should not be seen as a quest for conformity or a common set of beliefs. On the contrary, respect for the free-thinking individual and the right to be different are foundations of Australian democracy.

The goal here is to help new citizens understand the core values that have helped to create a society that is stable yet dynamic, cohesive yet diverse. They define and symbolise why so many people

want to become Australians.

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/test/resourc...et-full-ver.pdf

Edited April 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[HAL 9000 96]

Not going to fly. Thought and choice are not mandated nor should their availability. Plus the entire issue of controlling what themes are available to students is even more Orwellian than even what the totalitarians in education are comfortable with, save a few nutjobs in favor of controlling what we are allowed to see and experience for ourselves.

Certain people in America have been using the George Orwellian propaganda for years now. Yet the fact is that most countries with a much much higher living standard than the United States have laws and rules that simply would not fly here. Laws that would be accused of being "policy of control" or "Big Brother", as George Orwellian put it.

I use Australia as an example as it is the country I have lived in and know the most about. They are now ranked 3rd in the world in terms of living standards. Compared to America's 25th or so position. The reason they have been able to accomplish so much is by using dynamic laws. When something becomes an issue, they legislate against it. Whereas nothing can ever change in the US if the constitution says xyz. Porn for example is illegal, to film, in AUS. As is racism and teaching hatred. Prior to coming here I always thought they are so strict in comparison to America, the land of the free. And hated it. Whereas after seeing the consequences of the opposite system, the anything goes American system, I would never want them to adopt a similar system or attitude.

The Australian government celebrates diversity. Celebrates religions. Be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Athiest, Jewish etc etc.. Whereas here you have people who actually defend anti-western and anti-democracy views in schools but would rather burn a building down than allow them to display a religious symbol. Not only is that not morally right but I highly doubt this is what the founding fathers intended for the United States of America.

That is a great point, BY. Australia is what it is.

Point here, however, is that this kind of legislation is far from being dynamic and is geared at a very particular set of values to be upheld- mainly, those of one ideological sector of this country. Sugarcoating it as an abolishment of hate is going beyond the scope of what public education and the foundations of critical thinking are supposed to mean.

Getting into the Founding Fathers of the USA, one can also glean that they were pretty clear in establishing in their declaratory preamble that they were more interested in forming a Union where ideas and success were attainable for their merchant class (the era's version of upper classes) instead of a monarchical system that dictated what was morally and economically righteous. Today it is a different society where unfortunately one train of thought is dominant over others, not necessarily reflective of actual popular sentiment, and while intolerance to diversity needs to be contextualized in terms of the entire society as a whole independent of university environments being somewhat detached from most of society, it is also society's responsibility in a free thinking, democratic nation, to choose to abstain from all options before them.

It is not a system where all is permissible. You yourself mentioned codes of ethics. Universities have mechanisms of weeding out faculty members that are not consonant to the overall values and educational philosophy of a complete education, given the world we inhabit, not the world we want to impose based on a narrow view of the world.

Are there commies in the Universities again? What sparked this off anyway? What is being taught in Universities that is so dangerous to Western values. It's not like there is a huge popular movement to 'socialise' the US. Unless Universal Health care is considered 'socialising'?

It seems such a vague notion - and as has been suggested, how do you teach a political science course without teaching about all the alternate ideologies? How does one distinguish between teaching about a subject and advocating the ideology of the subject?

I can't see any merit in a law of this nature.

This is Arizona, after all...