School Uniforms

The idea of school uniforms is commonplace in the United Kingdom today.  Most, if not all secondary modern schools in Britain have a uniform policy. It could be as simple as a certain colored jumper or as formal as a blazer and tie. But there are some people who think that school uniform policies should be abolished. They say that it does not give the children freedom to express themselves in the way they look. I disagree with this and I believe there are several clear advantages of wearing uniforms for society, for the school, and for the student.  These advantages show the benefits of wearing uniforms over wearing casual, everyday clothing.  For one thing, a uniform gives the students a link to the school when they are travelling to and from the school location.  Wearing uniforms also removes the distraction from children to look “cool.”  Additionally, the school can use “non-uniform days” to raise monetary funds or to reward the students for good behavior.

Imagine the chaos school children could cause in town centers across the country if students did not wear uniforms.  When students are wearing their uniforms, they are identified with their school. School children can cause much trouble on their journeys to and from school, but having a uniform restricts them in causing this trouble because they are identifiable by the public.  If a member of the public has a problem with school children, then he/she can contact the school so that the school may take appropriate action.  Also, the student feels easily identifiable, thus limiting his/her confidence about not getting caught doing something he/she should not be doing.

Another good reason in support of school uniforms is that all students look the same.  People against school uniforms may say this is precisely why we should abolish school uniforms; that “school uniforms take away a student’s right to make a statement about him/herself, and that this, in turn, takes away identity.”  I say to these people, that there are many benefits to school uniforms.  There is one primary reason to be at school: to learn.  If a student has any other reason for being at school, it is simply a distraction.  School should be as little about looking “cool,” or looking any other way; school is for learning as much as possible.

In addition to these pro-uniform points, a situation that was used successfully at my own secondary school was “non-uniform day.”  We all looked forward to such days; the days usually marked a special fundraising day, or were a reward to all the students if we had been successful and behaved well.  The ability to wear casual clothing does not sound like a lot, but, at the time, it made these days feel more special.  Therefore, everyone was in a better mood and the general morale was raised.  Also, everyone paid a pound to wear their own clothes, which raised funds for charity or for the school.  If we were to abolish school uniforms, how could we mark these days at school?

I believe that there is a lot of argument for students wearing school uniforms, and little valid reason to wear casual clothing.  For instance, “pop” fashion provides too much distraction from the task of learning.  Therefore, school uniforms should be here to stay.

  

The Falklands War

This month saw the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war. Whilst talking to a friend of mine, I got a glimpse of an American viewpoint on this pivotal conflict. I got the impression that he thought that it was a colonial war and anti-colonialism on the part of the Argentinians; as opposed to an illegitimate attack on a foreign power. I would argue that it was the latter of these, although many people, including British people, would disagree with me. I could argue this point, although I don't think it's all that important thirty years on. What I do think is important is the real possibility that this war contributed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Obviously, no war is favorable. But from a British perspective the Falklands war could be thought of as the perfect war. Firstly, there was a clear enemy who were the initial agitators. The Argentines, unprovoked, invaded a British overseas territory. Secondly,  the task force sent to the islands had a very clear mandate: to get them back. And lastly, the task force achieved it's mandate quickly and fully, that is the Argentines surrendered and everyone could go home. These things: a clear enemy, a "noble" and clear goal, and a quick and favorable outcome, gave the impression that war could be good. By all accounts, national pride at home in Britain swelled. And, in the 1983 general election just after the war, one up and coming politician competing for a seat in parliament, saw the popularity of the Thatcher government soar from a historic low, all because of a war. That politician was called Tony Blair and he would become the bulldog at President Bush's side, egging him on to a war in Iraq.    

The Constitution Protects Citizens Rights?

This is interesting to think about. The way I see it is that any law needs updating to move with the times; society changes and the law needs to change with it. The constitution was written so long ago it's hard to see what relevance parts like "the right to bear arms" still retain. Sections like "the right to bear arms" are very specific to the age in which the law was written. Compare this with "The right to free speech" and "the right to due process" which will never need changing as they are fundamental to democracy and to human rights (although if they are covered by human rights then do they need to be covered by the constitution as well?). The constitution was only written by men, it is not surprising that it might need "amending" from time to time and it certainly does not mean that rights have to be eroded in the process. You could argue that "the right to bear arms" amendment actually hurts citizens more than it helps them. If this is true then the constitution can be a force for bad in society and may need to be taken down off it's pedestal and amended some more. A thought that rises from this is why should a text which is over two hundred years old be able to trump modern thought. 

I was in Washington D.C. over the weekend and I whilst I was there I went to George Washington's house. He had his slave quarters which were a step up from stables. Whilst looking at the squalid conditions I couldn't help thinking of the hypocrisy of America's foundations. I learnt that George Washington was a very clever man who obviously had great insight in to the rights of citizens. But how can he have been so aware of these rights and still owned slaves? Even though "all men are created equal," Americans as revered as Washington, who participated in writing the constitution, still participated in the slave trade. From it's formation the constitution did not protect fundamental human rights, so other than defining the system of governance, how can it still have relevance today?

I feel a little disillusioned by American ideas of "freedom" at the moment. The Travon Martin case is highlighting serious flaws in the capabilities of American justice. I don't understand how something like this can happen in a country that proclaims to have a free and fair society. Another thing is people getting arrested here in New York for trespassing in their own building. The victims in these cases haven't got ID with them and thus they cannot prove they live in the building which they are accused of trespassing in. They then have to spend several hours in a cell. Tales like this make America feel more like a policed state than "the land of the free." I feel far more "free" in England (the only other country I've lived in) than I do here, the two complaints above would not happen there. There, if the police know who killed someone, that person will always end up arrested and in court and the police would not arrest someone for not carrying ID. I have had a number of (innocent) encounters with the police in England and I can say they are very restricted to what they can and can't do. I simply couldn't be arrested based solely on the fact I can't prove where I live. The burden of proof is on the police who, in a situation like this, must prove I am trespassing, not me disprove it. 

For me, these two points (the shooting and the arrests) are immeasurably serious. They do not paint a picture of a free and fair society; qualities Americans are led to believe America leads the world in. I think there has been a degree of brainwashing of American citizens which benefits those in power here. In being constantly told that America is the most fair, the most moral and the most free, American citizens are complacent of serious errors in society. People assume that if such things can happen here in America, it's fine because they must happen worse abroad.  "Brainwashing" might seem a bit strong, but i don't think so. I was amazed to find out that children are made to recite the pledge of allegiance at elementary school. This is blatantly trying to manipulate their young minds. How can a child be expected to understand the implications of a pledge like this? It goes a little way in showing what I see as an outsider: I think Americans are taught to be patriotic and to love their country rather than doing so because they truly understand what makes a great country. This perhaps stifles the ability of society to evolve to meet modern pressures and demands and maintain the ideals set out by the constitution: freedom, liberty and the like. 

For these reasons, I don't think the constitution does help America, although it might help support the facade of freedom and fairness. If an unarmed boy can be shot by a man who pursued him, and that man does not face charges of murder or manslaughter, then what is the constitution doing? If innocent people can be arrested with no more evidence than an absence of identification, then what is the constitution doing? 

The point I'm failing to make is that the world is constantly changing and law needs to change with it. Having certain laws enshrined and untouchable isn't working. Such laws make indecision the fall back, even when indecision is a worse decision. 

How Can Lies be so Blatant?

On monday Paul Krugman published an op-ed article in the times entitled "Hurray for Health Reform." In addition to being the author of an economics text book I study, Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a centenary professor at the London School of Economics, to name a few of his accolades. This, I believe, makes him an authority which can be trusted.

In his article he defends "The Affordable Healthcare Act" which was, after many concessions from both sides of the house, signed in to law two years ago. He says, in no uncertain terms, that it is essential for the health and well being of the American people and highlights the problems with current systems, as well as telling us that, under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts enacted very similar healthcare reforms to great success.

He goes on to say, that in order to oppose the reforms, opponents have to resort to "make(ing) stuff up." What is hard to understand is how, in what Americans would claim is the preeminent democracy in the world, this is possible. How can a properly functioning democracy allow voters to be mislead in such a way. To vote for someone based on their lies rather than their policies will be good for no one but the politician who is allowed to feed misinformation to the public.

Why is it the sole responsibility of op-ed columnists to point out such lies? Why can such information not be considered within the scope of news? If it is true (and as I pointed out above, it comes from a very trustworthy source), is not a matter of political view point or a matter of opinion, it is a matter of national importance. Politicians apparently know they can lie without fearing significant retribution.

One such untruth is that the act would lead to the creation of "death panels" that would decide wether it was economical for a patient to be administered certain treatment. This is not how such a system would work. We have in England an organization called "The National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence" or NICE. This is not a "death panel," rather NICE is tasked with evaluating new treatments. That is how effective it is with a regard to how much it costs. A particular drug, for instance, that is only marginally effective in just a few cases should not be a burden on a healthcare system when the money could be better spent elsewhere. NICE works on the assumption that doctors should be left to treat patients and not be troubled with evaluating economic viability and effectiveness of treatment. A doctor can look up the NICE guidelines for a treatment and make an informed decision as to the likelihood that it will improve a patients standard of living with regards to the cost of the treatment to the healthcare system.

It may be hard to accept, but no healthcare system has unlimited resources. Organizations similar to NICE are essential in preventing the use of treatments that have little benefit and that could cost the healthcare system dearly. The aim of any healthcare developed health care system is to provide high standards of care to all patients. Evaluating new treatments to see if they will be beneficial is integral to achieving this aim.

Politicians are not properly serving the electorate if they lie to gain power. Especially if those lies have an adverse effect on the nation's health. Newspapers and other news outlets are also not serving the public if they do not hold politicians to account for their lies. We can (almost) not blame politicians for lying if they know they can get away with it.

Krugman's article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?_r=1&sq=krugman&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=4&adxnnlx=1332424925-oxxT8E6oS1VmCV86RB4FNg#

A Small Argument Against the US' Sentencing of Children to Life Without Parole

According to a paper published in 2008 at the University of San Francisco School of Law by Constance De la Vega and Michelle T. Leighton, the US is alone in the world in handing out Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences to juveniles. The paper also argues "the LWOP sentence condemns a child to die in prison (and) is cruel and ineffective as a punishment." The United States is one of only two countries, the other country being Somalia, that has not ratified The United Nations "Convention of Human Rights of a Child" which states in article 37a:

 “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”

The case against the US continuing this practice is strong. There is the fact that, through the medium of the UN, almost all countries have agreed that children have a fundamental right not to be treated in this way. In of it’s self, this lends a huge amount of credibility to the argument. The US holds democracy in very high regard; it represents the very foundation of the nation. It may be because if this strong belief in the democratic process that the US holds it’s self as a moral leader of the world projecting an image of the freest and the fairest society. How is it then that every other developed democracy, not to mention governments that are not held in such high regard, have recognized that this practice is not in keeping with current human rights values. It is very hard to argue that the US is right and that the rest of the world is wrong.

            The legal mechanism that allows a child to be condemned to die in prison is that for a severe enough crime a child may be tried as an adult, thus exposing the child to adult punishments. This highlights a double standard in the US justice system. It follows that because a juvenile justice system exists in the US, it is recognized that juveniles need different treatment than do adults. We can assume that the motivations of the juvenile system are that children are easily influenced, prone to not thinking things through and not making as rational judgments as adults do. Thus they are not wholly responsible for their actions. It does not follow that because a child is accused of a particularly severe crime that they have somehow gained the thinking skills that we expect an adult to have.

            So, whilst the rest of the world has decided locking up children and throwing away the key is wrong, the US continues to carry out this adult punishment. Despite recognizing that children should be dealt with in a different way to adults, the US justice system seems to be of the belief that a child is thinking like an adult when he/she commits a certain crime. That then enables the child to be sentenced to what is arguably the worst punishment imaginable.  

A Slight Misrepresentation in the NYT Yesterday

Britain is, like much of the world, in a bit of an economic slump. The governments generous welfare system has had to be quite dramatically cut, and, as a result, lots of people who had been living comfortably with the help of the state have had to cut back on their standard of living. There is a lot of sympathy for the people who want to work but can't. There is little sympathy for those who have made it their careers to get money from the government handouts that are now in short supply. This, I'm sure, is a familiar feeling in many developed economies with such welfare systems, I know I have heard similar sentiment here in the US.

Landon Thomas Jr.'s article, titled "For London Youth, Down and Out is a Way of Life" makes real and valid points about the hardship that young people in Britain face in getting on the career ladder. He highlights the need for greater investment in apprenticeship programs and explains (but offers no solutions) that some young people have had to leave university because they could not afford to stay. This is fine and good journalism. People need to know these things so governments can be pressured to put things right.

The praise for the article stops there. In trying to reinforce his message he seems to try and use the hardships of the youth of Britain as justification for a spell of riots that occurred last summer. This completely misses the point of the riots. We're talking about good for nothing, lazy layabouts with no respect or consideration for anyone other than themselves. These are people who burnt out their neighbors cars and burned down their local shops. These are people who assaulted local shopkeepers so they could loot goods and threw petrol bombs at police. This might seem a little strong, a little one sided; and it is. But this is a reflection of the view taken by those not participating in the riots. This was the view taken by the press, the government and the courts. People generally think that however bad it is, behavior like the behavior that happened in these riots simply cannot be justified. I know people think this because I was there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/business/global/for-london-youth-down-and-out-is-way-of-life.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=london%20youth&st=cse

Professor Wiseman asked me to post my journal 1 assignment for others to see:

Journal 1

1.      Consider the following cases.  What do you think about each?  What are the indicators that each person does not believe what he has reasoned out?  What are the barriers to thinking critically in each case?

¡  Michael reasons out the issue of capital punishment as a deterrent.  He gathers information and concludes that it does not significantly deter murder or other violent crimes.  But after his investigation, he feels angry.  He says, “Maybe that’s true, but I’m still in favor of capital punishment because you have to do something to stop criminals.”

Michael seems to have commendable research skills. He has managed to avoid confirmation bias by concluding from his research an opposing view to his own opinion. He falls victim to doublethink when, despite his research providing evidence to the contrary, he continues to favor capital punishment.  Although he shows curiosity through researching this topic, he seems to lack the openness inherent to a “beginner’s mind” which is crucial in order to think critically.

¡  Maria, taking a course in gender studies, reasons her way through the argument that there is no nonsexist reason why a woman should adopt her husband’s name at marriage.  Like Michael, Maria discovers that the more she follows the argument the angrier she gets.

Maria is stuck in stage one of Dr. Perry’s cognitive development: Dualism. She is so firmly stuck in her belief that she sees all other alternatives as wrong.  Maria lacks open-minded skepticism, as she seems to be struggling with overcoming personal prejudices and biases. In my experience, it is possible for a woman to want to take her husband’s name simply because it is shorter. Maria seems to be encountering people with opposing opinions and rather than using critical thinking skills in response, she is getting angry (a form of resistance).

¡  Pete believes that all cultures and all cultural practices are equally valid.  He believes people do not have a right to say that a particular culture’s practices are wrong.  But he also believes that it’s part of our Western culture to impose our ideas on others, and that it’s wrong for us to do that.  (Most of us believe that everyone should be treated equally, but that does not prevent us from thinking we deserve special breaks.)

Pete is engaging in doublethink. Whilst he believes we should not critique a particular culture and its practices, he is happy to say that western culture is wrong in imposing ideas on others. What Pete might be trying to get at is that the west is engaging in ethnocentrism, the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others (and thus needs imposing on others), and suspicion of other cultures.

¡  Some people think that eating dogs, cats, or seagulls is revolting, but that eating cows or chickens is quite reasonable. They believe this despite the fact that all their reasoning shows the cases are identical.  They find themselves trying to make up reasons that they know don’t work (such as “Dogs and cats are pets!  That’s why it is wrong to eat them.”)

In other cultures, it is reasonable to eat cats, dogs (or even humans). As a culture, we tend to personify our pets and we keep dogs and cats as pets. Thus, one of our culture’s rationalizations against eating cats and dogs could be that they are a little too close to us, analogous to us finding the idea of cannibalism revolting. I don’t think it is unreasonable for us to be revolted by the idea of eating cats and dogs ourselves. What could be seen as unreasonable is the belief that another culture is “wrong” for eating cats and dogs. As for seagulls, I’ve never met anyone who finds the idea of eating seagulls revolting. I think that they just probably don’t taste very nice.

My wife just pointed out that before coming to England she would never have considered eating pigeon. Thus, as a Brit, I think I’m missing the point about seagulls. 

2.  Consider the following situation.  Explain why the last step is difficult?

The teacher lowered my course grade because I missed too many classes.  I feel unfairly treated.  So I raise the question:  “Was my teacher being fair in giving me this grade?” 

• Collect information: 
• Check the syllabus about missed classes
• Ask the teacher
• Consider the teacher's point of view on the issue and purpose in lowering grades due to absences
• Conclusion:  the teacher was fair
• Therefore, I believe the results of my reasoning that my teacher’s actions in lowering my grade were fair.
• Why is this last step difficult?

The last step is difficult because it goes against one’s own personal belief (interpretation of the experience); accepting this belief is contrary to this person’s initial feelings. In accepting this belief, this person must change his/her feelings. He/she must overcome resistance in order to accept this new analysis of the experience