Heather Mallick's Article is Ageist

I might be part of the oppressive, aged minority, but I'm not sure what you are angry about.
Malick says:

quote:

---

The comments suggested violence, so Birchmount Park Collegiate Institute called the cops as they're required to do. The student who started the Facebook page, Bradley Parsons, got holy hell from the cops and his parents, and he and four other students were suspended.

Days later, students who were angry about the suspension got rowdy, throwing bottles and a skateboard at the police, and four were arrested and charged.

---

If what she said is true and they did suggest violence against the vice-principal, you can't allow teachers to be intimidated that way. As far as people who throw bottles and skate boards at the police, what you expect to happen to them?

[ 06 September 2007: Message edited by: Banjo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]Banjo - Where do you think that this violence comes from? Why is it so important that "teachers not be intimidated" by students? [/b]

---

With violence? Because no one should have to put up with violence in their workplace or anywhere else. And high school students are old enough to know better. If they don't know better, then they should probably learn.

[ 14 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

The internet has gone to the other extreme. There is wonderful writing online, but it is frequently thoughtless and foul, racist and frightening. It is so free that blogs, chat lines and talk threads are often the chosen destination for embittered, deranged people, repelling the intelligent readers who were supposed to make the internet a new haven for humanity.

---

One of Heather's main points in this article.

And to add to what Michelle said, punishing people for making threats is not stifling free speech.

The most important part of Heather Mallick's article is her discussion of online freedom of speech.

Largely because of anonymity, people feel free to indulge in their nastiest racist, sexist sides.

The truth is, that isn't democratic. Democratic discourse requires a substantial level of respect for the other discussants, so that everyone can be included.

Juergen Habermas has had a lot to say about the pre-conditions for a truly "public" sphere for debate; at the very least, attacking the physical identity of other participants can never be permitted without a sacrifice of democratic legitimacy.

The best internet spaces establish solidly-anchored procedural rights such as the right not to be personally insulted for intrinsic qualities such as race, sex and sexual orientation.

Only if "freedom of speech" is privileged as the pre-eminent right can the value of internet discourse be ruined by buffoons.

quote:

---

Web sites were set up in the names of junior high school staff members at one of the Division’s schools in Sherwood Park. Once the four sites were operating, more than 20 students from four Sherwood Park schools visited the sites and posted negative comments that were derogatory, defamatory and libel in nature.

---

[url=http://www.ei.educ.ab.ca/news/newsrelease.htm]using Nexopia to bully[/url]

Cyberbullying is becoming an issue in general in society. Students are being bullied online as well, and via text messaging on cell phones. Intimidation of anyone is wrong.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/03/20/nexopia-suspensions.h... Suspened / Expelled[/url]

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]My point is that she uncritically links highschool students - who happen to spend about 30hours a week institutionalized in a facility where they have zero rights or freedoms [/b]

---

I wasn't aware that students deposited their rights and freedoms at the school door. If anything, it is the teachers who have had their own freedoms subject to further limitations because of the particular role they carry out.

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

And you don't see the connection between the alleged behaviour of the students and the posting of nooses?

How far past catching holy hell from parents this needs to go is not obvious, but as advice, I would suggest Heather has it spot on.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jrootham:
[QB]And you don't see the connection between the alleged behaviour of the students and the posting of nooses?
[QB]

You don't you see that if we replaced the words students, youth and kids with a race that people would be up in arms?

A student made a forum for other students to express their displeasure with the vice-principle. From the articles I read it does sound like he posted anything over the top or even anything. Other students did post on the forum. Than a small group made posts that maybe illegal. And the students got in trouble. That's okay with me. At least for the ones who made the questionable posts. Assuming they are really questionable, calling someone a penguin is distasteful, not but illegal.

But then Mallick lumps these students, and with the word "kids" all young people, with what happened with the tech reporter. The crimes aren't the same, the people who did it aren't the same, I don't think the reasons behind them are the same. The only thing the same is that it happened on-line.

We aren't okay when people lump the actions of a few people together with a whole race, why is it okay with the actions of a few young people are lumped together with all young people. And in this case only of the actions was done by young people.

I see no more connection between what the students did and what happened to the tech reporter

quote:

---

You don't you see that if we replaced the words students, youth and kids with a race that people would be up in arms?

---

But that is a completely false analogy.

It is constitutionally possible in this coutry to treat young people differently than others. See, for example, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The reason for this is that it is intellectually sound to treat young people differently from adults.

Take an example: In Ontario, people under the age of 18 cannot be held to most commercial contracts which they sign; only when they become adults does their signature on a contract "count" for anything.

Now, replace the term "young people" with a race. Say, black people. So, black people could not sign a contract to buy a car, or an expensive bicycle, or a poster signed by Picasso.

Of course the latter would be outrageous. But the former isn't, because of the reality that young people are different from adults.

Treating young people as different from adults, in a newspaper article, is not objectionable.

Underage students have lots of rights. They're just not all the same rights as adults, because they're still children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]But that is a completely false analogy.

It is constitutionally possible in this coutry to treat young people differently than others. See, for example, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

{snip}

Take an example: In Ontario, people under the age of 18 cannot be held to most commercial contracts which they sign; only when they become adults does their signature on a contract "count" for anything.

Now, replace the term "young people" with a race. Say, black people. So, black people could not sign a contract to buy a car, or an expensive bicycle, or a poster signed by Picasso.

Of course the latter would be outrageous. But the former isn't, because of the reality that young people are different from adults.

Treating young people as different from adults, in a newspaper article, is not objectionable.[/b]

---

I'm sorry Jeff but I have no idea what you are trying to say. You argument makes no sense.

Just because young people are different then adults doesn't mean a newspaper article should be allowed to lump young people in with people who break the law when young people had nothing to do with it.

Y

I'm sorry, but high school is not prison. And kids can be fantastically dumb. I was. You would not believe the crap I pulled.

Heather is basically saying what I think is obvious - dumb stuff now can stay with you your whole life because it is online forever. That's real, and it's not ageist.

Besides, I need to know what your definition of ageist is before I make equations between oppression against visible minorities and teens qua teens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]I'm sorry, but high school is not prison. [/b]

---

Any place the law says you must be is by definition a prison.

In a [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2059528,00.html]Guardian column[/url] on school shootings, Lionel Shriver gave her impression of the oppressive nature of schools, and I have to say, her poignant description rang a chord with me. The institutional restrictions imposed in the school system are designed to regulate students' behavior in a totalizing way, from regimenting the school day to requiring bathroom passes. There's something degrading about that. It also teaches students that the way to succeed in such a system is to be submissive, and to follow the rules. This is the kind of learned order that kids take with them into adulthood.

quote:

---

For most of us, school and university are the seats of profound and formative emotional experiences, and the psychological power of these locales does not necessarily abate with age. Only last month I had reason to walk down the hallway of an elementary school in the US, and the lockers, lino and acrid chalk-dust smell sent my head spinning with memories, not all of which were pleasant. I felt claustrophobic, smothered, actively grateful to be spared the tyrannies of Mrs Townsend's home room, and relieved to get out. In fact, I couldn't believe I was allowed out of the door without a pass.

For a lucky few, school and college are where we first distinguish ourselves. But for the majority, they are the site of first humiliation, subjugation and injury. They are almost always our first introduction to brutal social hierarchies, as they may also sponsor our first romantic devastation. What better stage on which to act out primitive retribution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]

That's nonsense.[/b]

---

Well, you're the one who said submissive nature of school was good in your case, because of your behaviour at the time.

Not everyone in society is a criminal, just like not everyone needs, or wants, to be subjected to an institution like a contemporary school.

Perhaps then people like you are to blame for the generally repressive nature of current schooling.

Heather Mallick has openly admitted in another of her columns to being quite conservative with respect to education, so her attitude towards young people doesn't really surprise me. I am seeing a lot of adultism in this thread and some great posts by Le Tйlйspectateur, ouroboros, AndrewM and others denouncing it.

This quote in particular struck me:

quote:

---

How are schools oppressive and why on earth should young people have power?

In an ideal society, power would be conferred upon those with the best judgement. And even in an ideal society, that still wouldn't be kids.

---

If this is your ideal society you and I don't have much in common. This is a very antidemocratic and elitist sentiment. If people are equals, it makes no sense to say that some people are better leaders and should be conferred power based on merit. You want a benevolent dictatorship? You want "your betters" to rule you? I think that in an ideal society people would not have power over one another. In any relationship based on power-over, the person with power will use it self-servingly. There are no benevolent dictators.

How are schools not oppressive? Think about it. Most of us are not given the choice to attend or not, even though there are alternatives. We go to the school our parents send us to without making any decisions in the matter. Maybe we're sent to a Catholic school because our parents are Catholic, or because they think it will smarten us up. If we decide we want to leave, in reaction to the school's ugly and oppressive nature, we are told it will screw up our lives forever. Students do not direct their own learning; instead they are taught "curricula" that have no relevance to their interests. They have to eat at the breaks and not talk during class and ask to go to the washroom. They can be punished for showing up late, or even on a teacher's whim. Privacy is non-existant, bags and lockers can be searched anytime, often under the pretext of security (hmm, just like most other authoritarian structures). Teachers and faculty show noticeable favouritism - some kids are scapegoated or labelled disciplinary problems from the start and other kids can get away with anything. The whole experience is one of invalidation and subordination. By any definition a school is a totalitarian institution.

Then we can talk about the idea of grading, a thoroughly capitalist concept. It says that the learning you do can be quantified, and that if you get a bad mark it means you failed. In fact schoolwork itself has nothing to do with learning and everything to do with work. It is about learning how to work, not learning for its own sake or learning how to love learning. Schools are where many kids learn to hate learning.

quote:

---

And personally, I have found working for a living much more oppressive than school. School is at least theoretically about the betterment of the students. But once you start working, it's like welcome to being a cog in the machine for the rest of your lives.

---

"At least theoretically." As in, you don't really believe that's the purpose it serves? I don't think any of us do. Let's be honest, the purpose of any institutionalized education is to train people to serve capitalism, to become those very cogs in the machine. And to keep them somewhere for 6 hours a day. Michel Foucault wrote about how the modern school, factory, and prison all developed around the same time, and how their designers borrowed heavily from one another in designing institutions based on discipline, which Foucault called a new technology for controlling bodies. People in these institutions are "cogs in the machine" as you say, and do not direct their own activities. As socialists we are supposed to be dedicated to giving workers control over their own work - why do we not give students control over their own studies? If we support takeovers of workplaces by workers why do we not support takeovers of schools by students?

A progressive space such as this board should recognize that adultism, the oppression of youth, exists; that the idea that youth must be controlled is an expression of that oppression, based on fear of youth and the power of youth; and that fighting this oppression is as important as fighting sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.

I think its important to stress that adultism comes from internalizing the oppression that we experienced as children. Because we were treated this way as children we internalize the idea that it is acceptable to treat children this way. This naturally leads to a diminished opinion of young people, including ourselves when we were young people ("trust me, I was a fantastically stupid teenager"). Furthermore, I think this adultism exists to create "adults," people who have internalized the discipline modern society imposes and who will "go along to get along," and who will perpetuate these attitudes. It's important to remember that adolesence is a social invention which can therefore be un-invented or re-invented. I think we need to toss out the idea of "kids" and "adults." We adults have much to learn from youth, not least of which is how to play. Just as adults must reclaim that piece of themselves that they deny because society says they must "grow up," so too must kids claim the rights currently reserved for adults.

Here are some basic resources for those not familiar with the concept of adultism.

[url=http://www.freechild.org/issues.htm]http://www.freechild.org/issues.htm[...

Understanding adultism:
[url=http://freechild.org/bell.htm]http://freechild.org/bell.htm[/url]

This is a video of a talk on the subject "Do schools kill creativity?
[url=http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/66]http://www.ted.com/index.p...

Unschooling is a progressive educational philosophy based on learning without schooling.
[url=http://www.unschooling.com/]http://www.unschooling.com/[/url]

I also want to add that real progress can be made in combatting adultism. New Zealand is going to pass a law to outlaw smacking kids. I think that's huge. We've just taken it for granted for so long that parents have the right to inflict violence on their children. Hopefully this is the start of real change in the nature of the institutions of childhood and adolescence, but I think we can go further. Let's take the concept of "universal suffrage" seriously and eliminate the age requirement for voting. Is anyone seriously worried about the consequences of allowing kids to vote? If nothing else it would make politicians more responsible to youth. Now, you might say that politicians shouldn't be responsible to youth because youth don't know what's best, but that's the same argument that has been used to deny the vote to the working class, women, and aboriginals at various times in history.

As for Mallick's article, its ageism has been well-discussed, but I also thought Mallick sounded bitter about online life and online culture.

quote:

---

The online world is like that. It's solid, then it floats away. Its warm friendship pierces the heart. Then the wound turns septic.

There is wonderful writing online, but it is frequently thoughtless and foul, racist and frightening. It is so free that blogs, chat lines and talk threads are often the chosen destination for embittered, deranged people, repelling the intelligent readers who were supposed to make the internet a new haven for humanity.

---

This stuff exists, but it isn't emblematic of the internet I know. Mallick sounds like she's had a bad experience or two online. I usually enjoy her columns but this one left a bad taste in my mouth, and it made me reflect on what else she's said. I think she thinks herself better than quite a few people and definitely has a conservative streak.

Anyway. Long post. Young people are our equals.

Treating children of all ages as if they were adults is a recipe for disaster.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:
[b]I think she thinks herself better than quite a few people and definitely has a conservative streak.[/b]

---

oh, you mean like, "Why should everyone have a voice? They don't in daily life. There are some people you wouldn't sit next to on the bus."

quote:

---

If people are equals, it makes no sense to say that some people are better leaders and should be conferred power based on merit.

---

Ridiculous. The fact is, some people [i]are[/i] better leaders than others, just like some people are better at playing piano. There is a good reason why every society on earth, from the time we came down from the trees, leaves the decision making to some form of "elder". Maturity, experience, and intelligence count for far more than the mere ability to walk upright, breath, and watch muchmusic.

To take this "ageism" nonsense to its logical conclusion, we should be allowing toddlers and kindergarten kids to determine economic policy (come to think of it, that may not be very far off from what we have now anyway). Spongebob for president.

Schools are oppressive? Christ on a crutch. Have you ever put in an 18 hour workday? If you lack the maturity to understand the difference between receiving an education and busting your ass to pay the rent, then you really don't deserve any role in societal decision making. If your argument is basically "skool sux", then you won't find any sympathy among those who work their asses off to put themselves through school, or those who have no opportunity to receive an education because of very real economic oppression (not "oppression", like the teacher is like soooo mean or whaateeevvverr).

quote:

---

They have to eat at the breaks and not talk during class and ask to go to the washroom. They can be punished for showing up late, or even on a teacher's whim. Privacy is non-existant, bags and lockers can be searched anytime, often under the pretext of security (hmm, just like most other authoritarian structures).

---

Oh my, It's just like gitmo. Have you ever had to work for someone?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boze:
[b]Here is something else. If you are a high school student your stuff can be confiscated. Maybe it's something you "busted your ass" for at a $6/hour training wage, like an mp3 player or something. Does your boss have the power to take your shit away from you, or would you tell him to fuck himself? It might seem easy to trivialize the oppression of young people, but the fact is that we expect young people to put up with things that [i]no[/i] adult would put up with. And they are not simply governed "on the job" - for many children a family can be an equally totalitarian, coercive and even carceral institution, one that many are only too happy to get out of and never look back when they turn 18.[/b]

---

If you have a job and the company provides lockers, I believe those lockers are the company's property, and that the company has the right to search them. I believe courts have also ruled that schools can legally search student's lockers at any time, however they cannot frisk students without cause. As for confiscation? Does this actually happen? I've heard of teachers temporarily holding items that were creating a distraction (i.e. cell phones, toys brought to class, etc) but outright confiscation? Are there any cases of this happening?

It's interesting you mention school coercing kids. I've heard a few people in the education field complain that students can basically walk all over them without recourse.

Certainly the subject as to how to best provide our kids with an education is debatable, and I agree the system could use some changes. But I think the concept of "opression" is a little over the top.

The idea of "free schools" was tried back in the sixties and seventies and of course most kids given a "choice" of when and how they did the work necessary to gain basic English and math skills did what most kids would and slacked off, so in the end they generally failed. Children need to be clasified as "other" anyhow for their own legal protection, we just have to assuume that most parents themselves will do the right thing for their own while recognising that some few may not. If this was just a matter of looking for ways to loosen up overly controlling structures, which can take away kids natural urge to learn or socialize, then maybe other alternatives could be considered.

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

That "most" unfortunately comes into it, when were talking how were going teach millions of kids each year, without dividing them up early in life on how smart (or dumb) theyre supposed to be or leaving them entirely to their pasrents particular tutoring. That too has its dangers, what I was pointing out there. Did Foucault ever actually advocate for such things himself, and if so, did he offer any evidence himself for his own theories on child development, or any functional alternatives? (I'm not saying the warehouse style schooling kids still get in our society is the only or best way possible, only that certain political theories should be balanced by recognition of certain facts of life)

If kids do no schoolwork given the option, that tells you what they think of schoolwork. So why assume they must be wrong? Did you read the link on unschooling?

What are the dangers of kids not going to school? That we won't turn out enough human robots to keep the machinery running?

That is offensive! Of course children are responsible enough to make their own decisions about attending school! Who else could possibly know better, since it is an individual decision? We just assume there is no choice to be made, but there are many choices and alternatives. Or we may assume that the parents know best, but why would this be true? Parents are not less fallible than their children, and there is no "wrong" decision anyhow, it is simply a personal decision. Why do we need an institutionalized education in order to be halfway self-sufficient? That's just so obviously false, too, but I guess you're not gonna click the unschooling link.

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]