Archive for October, 2007

the Golden Rule: Foundation of Morality

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

I remember once being given a detention in middle school for acting up in class with a friend. The principal took us into his office and after a short lecture asked, “Do you girls know about the golden rule?”

We just stared at him. I thought at the time maybe it had something to do with the Disney movie Aladdin (don’t ask why), but luckily I kept my mouth shut. He seemed concerned with our blank looks and said, “well, remember this. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. In other words, treat people how you want to be treated.”

This to me seems the foundation of morality. Who would have thought that a detention in 6th grade could prove so life changing?

I think that it is this Golden Rule that provides us with a basis for a kind of universal standard of principles from which more details, conditions and ethics are made—and it is one that seems to apply to all people. Athesist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish…I really can’t think of a group of people who could possible discount this as a general good life philosophy.

Think about it. Almost ANY question you ask yourself regarding the world and people around can be answered by asking yourself, “how would I want to be treated if I were in the same situation?” Civil rights, immigration, health care, foreign policy, the list goes on. And though it is a secular philosophy, it is also very much in the foundation (if you look hard enough) of a lot of religions, even if it is not the not the most commonly preached tenet —sort of a unique thing if you think about it.

Though my religious knowledge may be a bit rusty, I will try and look at a couple of religious to make the point. Buddism is maybe the easiest: To reach a state of nirvana, you must (among other things) treat everything around you as though it has a soul. From your mom to your neighbor to the bug in your room—treat everything as though it holds a spirit as precious as your own.

In Hinduism, although the basis for belief used to be grounded in the equality of a caste system, the process of reincarnation demanded that you hold yourself accountable during this life in order to ensure a better one the next time around. So, in theory (I realize that history contradicts this a bit), treating ANYONE with anything less than respect was a dangerous undertaking—if you were mean to the lowest of the caste, who is to say you won’t be reincarnated even farther below in the future?

And in Christianity, “thou shalt not judge” seems to be a crucial if somewhat often overlooked canon of their beliefs.

The point being that the Golden Rule is not only universal in that it transcends religion, but made even more prolific in its incorporation into the foundation of many if not all of the major religions.

That said, there is a cynical side of me…and I don’t think that this “rule” is really human instinct. It sort of has to be worked at, an active way of living and addressing the world. Human’s really are somewhat naturally self-absorbed and I think it takes practice to make that next step and imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes.

Maybe that’s why we don’t naturally associate this philosophy when thinking about all the various religions, especially when it is not our own—because they have been “humanized,” contaminated as it were, and in many ways, moved away from that fundamental aspect of basic kindness and decency.

I don’t know. But I think that the basis for a universal principles of morality do lie in treating others the way you wish to be treated, a Golden Rule for both the secular and the spiritual.

Better not Longer School Days

Saturday, October 20th, 2007

People always seem to think that our problems in public education can be fixed with increases, additions, extensions…basically “more” of everything. As though the clear absence of quality in America’s primary schools can be fixed with sheer quantity:

Kids fail tests? Let’s test them more.

Teacher turnover? Sign up more and more young, transient employees just to get a new batch the next year.

Bad grades? Why not implement a 12 month school year?

Trouble with math? Get rid of art so first graders can sit in front of flashcards all day.

And now, schools that fail state implemented standards have either been forced to or are considering the switch to longer school days.

Yep, I think that making kids get up earlier, spend longer hours confined to one desk or room, have shorter lunches, get less time for any extracurricular activity, arrive home in the dark, and in general, learn to hate learning seems like a terrific idea.

At first glance, the idea of extending the school day does seem to make sense, for it is basic logic that if you are not good at something, than “practice makes perfect.” But that is part of the problem. Elena Silva, a member of non-profit Education Sector (one of the few groups researching this concept) made this point on National Public Radio earlier this year:

“If these schools are not functioning well, the notion that extending time, in and of itself, is going to improve instruction, is going to improve the opportunities of those kids is simply an error in judgment. (National Public Radio, Morning Addition, February 7, 2007.)

To make a sports metaphor: If you shoot the basketball with fundamentally bad form and therefore consistently miss shots, what you need to do is work on your form—not spend hours practicing in front of the basket with the same faulty method.

If the school already has a system down and wants to extend that success, then longer hours makes more sense, but of course, those are not usually the places that are considering this step. A recent report by that same group, Education Sector, found that unless the time students are engaged in active learning — mastering academic subjects — is increased, adding hours alone may not do much. (New York Times, March 26, 2007)

This may seem sort of like an obvious conclusion. But when you think that it is the failing schools—those schools that cannot quite grasp how to get their students to obtain even basic skills, let alone “master academic subjects” that are being forced into longer school days by the state, that bit of research seems more important.

Finally, take a look at some statistics regarding the hours spent in the classroom in the United States versus Japan as collected by the Organization for Economic Growth and Development:
.

The average number of net teaching hours, the time directly associated with teaching, varies widely across countries. Teachers at both primary and secondary education levels in the United States reported spending more time teaching than teachers in the other six countries with data present. On average, net teaching hours for primary education ranged from 635 hours in Japan to 1139 hours in the United States.

Average teaching hours for lower secondary school teachers followed a similar pattern to that of primary school teachers, ranging from 557 hours in Japan to 1127 hours in the United States.

This to me seems important, because the United States is consistently far behind Japan in the same “mastering of academic skills” mentioned above. Japanese school children out perform American students in basically every kind of academic test, so clearly what our public schools need to work on is not MORE time, but the QUALITY of that time.

Until our public schools can maintain a functioning system of learning, I do not think that extending the school hours is the right solution. We need to address the heart of the matter: the diversity in the schools (and the ensuing language and culture barriers), the quality of the teachers, the role of standardized tests, and the structure of teaching within each classroom. Only then will the school day be worth expanding, and ironically, only then will it not need to be.

An Issues Based Election

Saturday, October 13th, 2007

I think that the presidential candidates’ personal lives will not affect voters decisions. The nation, more so than other election years, seems hyper aware of key issues and the critical state of the union, and while voters cannot help but know many personal details of the different nominees, when it comes down punching the ballet, I think the current national and international issues will take precedence.

This may seem like a naïve statement. The media has given more attention to the every minute facet of the candidates’ characters than ever before, and for every report on senate record or policy, we seem to get their favorite food or most inspirational book or black-and-white picture montage of their childhood. But I think that this can be attributed to two factors:

1) The strange modern American need for human interest stories in the midst of hard news

2) The extraordinary length of the campaigning—the two year + buildup to the 2008 election has simply given us (and the media) the luxury of time. Iraq and healthcare can only fill up so many hours after all.

The first factor is simply what it is. It can be discussed verbatim about the state of the world when our news sources report the body count in Iraq next to Britney Spears custody battle, but the fact remains that people like stories that humanize and ground the news and the people in it.

So it makes sense that this phenomenon would translate to the election. People are simply interested in what happens behind the scenes of the debates or the senate floor, but regardless of this fascination, I truly think that what will stick out is not that Giuliani has had upteen wives (the latest of whom seems to call at bizarre times), but that he is hard-line when it comes to national defense.

Yes, people will youtube every romantic gesture between Hillary and Bill Clinton, but how many times have you heard the name “Monica Lewinsky” in the past year? Not much. At least I haven’t.

Which brings us to the second reason: these people have been on the campaign trail for a long time. A really really long time. And they still have a while to go. And with “Road to the White House” as one of the top stories on every news channel and magazine, there is bound to be some time to fill with private details or idiosyncrasies.

The point being that I don’t think that the amount of knowledge we have on the private lives of the candidates is indicative of where the public will place that information when it comes time to make a decision.

The personal lives of the candidates will only matter if there is a direct line drawn from the private detail to the issue at hand. What does Fred Thomson’s time on Law and Order have to do with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Not a whole lot. And I think people realize that.

This election is truly a critical one—and I think that most people get that. The big issues seem endless: Iraq; Healthcare; Education; Iran; Osama Bin Laden; the Environment; the Real Estate crash; China; Immigration; New Orleans; Inflation; and on and on.

There is simply no room for people to make their decisions based upon the superficial. There is not a single demographic in the nation that does not have a significant concern—and they will be looking for the candidate that seems to have the best solution for that problem.

whereIstand Tags

It Can’t be Black or White

Saturday, October 13th, 2007

Is racism a problem in America?

Yes. Just take the last six months: first we had Don Imus, a nationally syndicated radio host, degrade the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team; in West Virginia a few months ago, a white family beat and molested their black neighbor until she was found half alive in their shed; the Jena Six; multiple noose displays at the University of Maryland; Bill O’Reilly’s comment on how surprisingly good a black owned restaurant named Sylvia’s was in NYC; and yesterday, a noose was found outside of a professor’s room at Columbia University.

What is going on? Is it just me or does this past year seem to be more filled than usual with hate crime/comments than in years past? The events are not isolated to one section of the country, one class, or one social demographic, but go from the political (O’Reilly) to the educational (the two universities) to the rural (WV, Jena) and even the athletic forum (Imus).

Maybe, like so much, it is just a smaller trend exaggerated by media attention. But it feels like a larger social resurgance.

People are now saying that race is going to be a larger issue than thought in the 2008 election. First there was Barack Obama, who from day one was on the constant defensive about “how black” he really is from both side of the color and political spectrum, and now the candidates are held accountable for how they handle these latest hate crimes in Jena and Columbia University as seen when Jessie Jackson declared Obama and Clinton “too white to deal with black issues.”

Which makes me think—in the past years, we have seen this country become increasingly polarized in terms of politics. It is, I think, one of the biggest problems in our government today. But for the first time I wonder how that dichotomy has affected the rest of our culture and society—could the racial tension be another example of the polarization of this country? Has something happened in the past couple of years to make us regress to a time of “black and white” (both literal and metaphorically)?

I am sort of rambling. I just could not believe it when another noose was a headline of the day. It is a symbol of one of the worst times in our nation’s history and I cannot imagine why it should reemerge as a theme of our time as well.  I am not sure why the number of  racial crimes  has eclipsed years past, but I would hate for this country to be too white or black to deal with the issues that clearly effect us all.

whereIstand Tags