Sunday, April 29, 2012

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.
  

Thursday, April 19, 2012

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.    

Thursday, April 12, 2012

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.