This is your President

Cheveyo: Very well said.

I have a problem with people who can't think for themselves trying to rationalize why everyone else shouldn't think for themselves, either.

I guess it reminds me of that old saying... you know... the one about the blind leading the blind. In this case, it's the blind trying to gouge everyone else's eyes out, in an attempt to leave us with no choice but to be led by the blind.

All apologies to Stevie Wonder... I mean, the man is black and he's an artistic genius. What are the chances! (and I'm pretty sure he went to an integrated, coed school, too.)


An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
- Gandhi

 

I like that quote! Thanks for sharing, SnowDog.

 

As for Kimball's assertion about the Constitution and how to interpret the First Amendment... I'd like to know why I can't interpret the Bible as being a work of fiction, because it's not open to interpretation, yet you seem to know the best interpretation for all of us of the Constitution... despite the fact that numerous District and Circuit Courts, as well as the US Supreme Court have, for about 200 years, had the responsibility of interpreting the pre-eminent rights of the people... You know something tthey don't?

I have never said you couldn't interpret the Bible however you please. I also never said that I knew something that no one else did. The views I've expressed have been argued by judges and constitutional scholars over the past 200 years. (That's part of why there is still quite a bit of argument over the issue today.)

Maybe we should just abolish the courts and make the President a monarch, who will make decrees and edicts by his own interpretation. It worked for the Holy Roman Empire, right?

Why do you insist on trying to exaggerate my claims to make them seem utterly ridiculous? Just because my views do not agree with yours, or the views of the scholars you agree with, does not mean that I am opposed to the Constitution or democracy. I happen to hold a different interpretation of the Constitution, one that is also supported by many scholars over the years.

My point exactly. The key word here is sponsored. When an athlete is "sponsored", what happens? Their expenses are paid, id est, the athlete is funded. Sponsorship is synonymous with funding. That leads most people to agree that government-FUNDED programs for some religious groups violates the very premise of the first amendment.

That is not always the case. A State-sponsored religion would be one in which the religion has the full backing of the government. Look at other nations that have an official, state religion, like England (the Anglican Church) or Argentina (the Catholic Church). Those nations place certain obligations on all citizens with respect to the state-church, regardless of thier own religious beliefs.

You also need to realize that many religious charities are separate organizations from the churches that support them. The Latter-day Saint Foundation is separate from the LDS Church, although funded by them. Many other churches operate their charitable actions the same way. Are you then suggesting that if an organization receives ANY funding from a religious source it should not receive any government money? How about if it has a religious leader on its board? How about if that leader is also an elected representative in the government? Where do you draw the line?

Are you suggesting that, while it is notably unconstitutional to create or advocate laws which openly back an established religion, it is okay for the government to openly back said religion through presidential programs? I believe that's called hypocrisy.

No, I am saying that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that forbids the government from working WITH a religion in accomplishing its goals. Take the example of aid to Europe after WW2. As I mentioned, the LDS Church gathered and distributed food, clothing and other supplies to people in Europe. However, we lacked the resources to transport the goods there, so we went to the US Government for help. They provided trains to transport the goods from Utah to the East Coast, ships to transport the supplies to Europe and got European governments to help provide trucks and trains to deliver the supplies to distribution points.

Most of that transportation was provided at the expense of the US taxpayers. However, aid to Europe was on the list of things that the US wanted to do as well. Working with the LDS Church reduced the total cost to taxpayers and sped up the timetable for delivering the supplies. Their interests coincided. It was only logical to work together.

There is no religious discrimination when the government realizes its true r

 

That is not always the case. A State-sponsored religion would be one in which the religion has the full backing of the government. Look at other nations that have an official, state religion, like England (the Anglican Church) or Argentina (the Catholic Church). Those nations place certain obligations on all citizens with respect to the state-church, regardless of thier own religious beliefs.

First and foremost, we're not looking at other nations. We're concentrating on the USA, a nation who seems to pride itself on being differerent than the policies of other nations.
Secondly, It is you and those who believe as you do that make this line so ambiguous. The line is very clear. the government is not to associate itself--through sponsorship or any other means--with any particular religion. As a ruling body, it must remain neutral. Even you should be able to see the need for this. When the government begins deciding to back certain religious groups, as the Bush administration has planned to do (see Bush's 'Faith-Based Initiative'), this opens the door to 1st amendment violations, not to mention the sociological ramifications. It has been noted senators both DEM and REP that churches who obtain funding would be blatently discriminating against those in their community who do not attend church. That is, quite frankly, saying, "If you are not a follower of Christ, not only are you condemned to hell (what they preach now), but you also cannot be saved or helped through government-funded programs... unless of course you join the church whose community programs are funded by DC and the tax-payers. Well, then you can be saved!

While you may not have heard the President refer to anything other than a Christian-based charity, that does not mean that they would be the only ones supported. If you note what I have said, I support funding religious charities that follow the exact same rules as all other charities. A religious charity should not be allowed to use government money for proselyting any more than a secular charity should be allowed to use government funding for political donations.

For this, Kimball, I commend you. Not all Christians are as open to the existence of other religions. An example of these people is our current President. He has made very clear his standing on religion. "Christianity is the heart of America," he says. The initial programs (I'm still looking for the article) he proposed to open up for grant consideration were Christian-based organizations. I don't believe there were any other religions represented. That may have changed in the last year... I don't know, as the press has let it fall into the cracks.

Now... what about the topic at hand, specifically, single-sex schools?

 

It is you and those who believe as you do that make this line so ambiguous. The line is very clear. the government is not to associate itself--through sponsorship or any other means--with any particular religion. As a ruling body, it must remain neutral. Even you should be able to see the need for this.

To me, the line is not ambiguous at all. It is quite simple: as long as an organization follows the same rules as everyone else, it should have the same opportunities and rights as anyone else. Religious beliefs should not enter into the equation at all.

In a previous post, I used a non-religious example. If the KKK or a group of Neo-Nazis (to provide two examples) were to request government funding for charitable acts (like the Red Cross), then I would say yes, as long as they meet the same criteria as anyone else.

The Constitution is not a document designed to exclude different groups from participating in towards the common good (although it did in earlier times). It is an inclusive document. It does not set different rules based on a person's sex, race, religious or political beliefs. It is designed so that, quite simply, these things should not matter. If you start excluding one group based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), where do you stop? We are all promised equal protection and consideration before the law.

For this, Kimball, I commend you. Not all Christians are as open to the existence of other religions.

Thank you. I have too many friends who are good people (from almost any religion you could name) to believe otherwise.

The initial programs (I'm still looking for the article) he proposed to open up for grant consideration were Christian-based organizations. I don't believe there were any other religions represented. That may have changed in the last year... I don't know, as the press has let it fall into the cracks.

Most religious-based charities in the US are Christian charities. It is only logical to start with the largest group and work down, since they are probably (but not definitely) the best established and organized. However, I would be opposed to any system that would exclude a group simply for its beliefs. As long as there are clear, unbiased standards (as in not requiring certain beliefs and requiring all money to be carefully accounted for), I say let any organization that meets those standards have an equal chance to participate.

Now... what about the topic at hand, specifically, single-sex schools?

Well, that was not the only original topic at hand, but it seems to be the one left. I'll quickly say my piece and then go back to lurking.

First, the proposals I have seen would not create public single-sex schools, but classrooms. If it is something that is optional and has a definite potential to benefit some people, I would say go for it.

However, that would be on a limited scale within existing systems. I.e. one or two classes in a school, not an entire single-sex school. The key here is to make it optional, so that those who believe they would benefit from it can do so while those who do not wish to are not forced to. There are many similar programs used in schools across the country that are optional and separate students based on one criteria or another.

For example, in Williamsburg (where I started High School), there is a School of the Arts attached to Bruton High School. It is an optional, magnet school that uses some alternative teaching methods to teach theater, writing, art and dance. That program greatly enriches the educational opportunites of those who participate in it (my sister graduated from that program). In fact, it was found that students in that program, even those with poorer grades entering it, did significantly better in their classes after entering the program. I have no problem with a program along those lines.

As far as single-sex classes, if there is enough interest in a locality to support the idea, then I say go for it. I

 

Maveric: You're forgetting three things...

1. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution (Bill of Rights).


No, I understand the state rights amendment gives to the states those powers that are neither denied them nor are delegated to the federal government as long as a federal judge agrees. The problem is, that rarely occurs.

2. Article V of the US Constitution.
That the constitution can be amended? No, I am aware of that as well. I take it you mean that the constitution is a living document that can be changed when 2/3 of the states agree on it. If I took a gun and placed it at your temple and told you to vote yes on something you did not agree with or else I would pull the trigger would you do it? That is what the federal government did to the south after the civil war with the 13, 14 & 15 amendments. Is that democratic? Maybe by Cuban standards.
3. Democracy as a concept transcends the Republic. I refer to a republican form of government, not a Republic. The difference is that those best able to vote are allowed to do so.

Texas, if I recall correctly, ranked amongst the last three of the fifty states, under Bush's governorship, in its educational standards.
47. It was 50 prior to his adminstration. Some improvement is better than none.


Maveric suggested I do lean heavily towards the democrats ideals. So, I'm then to assume you guys are members of the Fascist and/or Nazi parties because your ideals so closely resemble theirs?

I consider myself more of a moderate, thank you. And you know what they say about making an assumption. Of course you are making a big enough one out of yourself in this thread already.


Jesus, people... start thinking for yourselves. Ask what even precipitated the idiotic chain of reasoning that led to thinking that somehow, without strong data to support it, came to the fore... out of all the millions of other education system improvements that Bush is not championing, much less even discussing (probably because he doesn't want any skeletons to come out of his Texas closets, with regard to education).

So, you are saying that in Texas he made no improvements in education? Where is your evidence?

How about the $3,000 a raise for every school teacher? That may not be much where you are but I assure you in Texas that is a hefty raise.

How about the mandatory tests that insure students are learning what they are supposed to?


I admit there has not been a lot of change but as a professor who sees an abundance of freshmen every year I can tell you first hand that the quality of students entering college are improving.


Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are idiots and apparently there are a lot of people that disagree with you on this forum.

We think for ourselves everyday, and if we like the current adminstration, that is our perogative.

 

Jesus, people... start thinking for yourselves.

BTW, Snowdog, I thought you weren't Christian? If that is the case, then I find it unusual that you chose to use Christ's name as an exclamation. Last time I checked, Christians didn't run around using "Buddha", "Baal" or "Molech" as exclamations. Please show some respect for others' beliefs.

While you may not believe that Christ is your savior, I believe that he is mine. Please do not use his name in that fashion. And yes, there are Christians who use his name in that fasion as well (I am not among them), but there are many who do get offended by its use in that way.

If you feel the need to use some exclamation, might I suggest "Bob" (In the style of the Hitchhiker's Guide)? "Bob, people..." would probably not be offensive towards anyone, although feel free to pick any other phrase you want.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Okay, it sounds like the argument has grown stale. No new information is being produced, and you are arguing the same points. Kimball, you obviously don't see that your statements are working against your argument.

-you cite the rather innovative program at Bruton High School (something I would gladly stand beside you to applaud) as an example of a program similar to this single-sex classroom idea. It is nothing like this idea, as it seems there is no segregation happening. No Civil Rights violations. This example furthers my point that the tax-payer's money can do far greater good when distributed to programs that are known to work well, rather than patheticaly reaching out for sociological scapegoats.

-re: Church/State seperation. We both agree that the line is very well defined. Yes? then why do read so much into it?! Everything you say is exactly what is NOT written in the 1st Amendment. It is cut and dry: "In this corner, we have Yehoshua of Nazareth, Buddha (who is not a god, by the way), Shiva, Nanih Waiya, Allah, Jehovah, ad infinitum...

"...And in this corner, we have the United States Ferederal Government." See? Cut and dry. Religion over there, Government over there (points in the opposite direction). there is no, "Well, as long as they play along with all the religions equally, it's okay..." Nope, nuh-uh, wrong answer. The bottom line is that government has no business in theology. Period.

-And to the remark about the KKK lending aid: That is a hypothetical statement taken to the extreme. Such organizations historically do not conduct "relief efforts" or offer aid to anybody. They perpetuate hate. Aid is not in their manifesto. If they were to decide to offer aid, it goes without saying that such assistance would come both with a price and with many discriminating provisos.

 

you cite the rather innovative program at Bruton High School (something I would gladly stand beside you to applaud) as an example of a program similar to this single-sex classroom idea. It is nothing like this idea, as it seems there is no segregation happening. No Civil Rights violations.

First of all, referring to it as "segregation" implies that it is imposed upon the students. If you note what I said, it would be a CHOICE, not a requirement. If it is optional, it no longer carries any Civil Rights violations.

Second, you could argue (as I have heard many people do) that any such magnet program is a form of "segregation" because it separates students according to some criteria. I have heard that argument many times referring to GT programs, art programs, science programs and other, similar programs. (I also think it is a load of manure.)

You seem to be very hung up on the idea that it is segregation. The problem with that is that you are forgetting that I have not advocated that they should force anyone into the program. Like I said earlier, if enough people in a single locality could benefit from such a program and they WANT the program, let them try it.

This example furthers my point that the tax-payer's money can do far greater good when distributed to programs that are known to work well, rather than patheticaly reaching out for sociological scapegoats.

When they first introduced SOA (the School of the Arts) at Bruton, many people fought against the program ("It's too expensive" "It'll never work" "There's no need for it" etc.). Some people claimed that the money could be better spent of other "more proven" programs in other schools in the York County school district. Others claimed that it was an attempt to spend more money on the "rich" school (Bruton was the newest, smallest and wealthiest school in the county), while ignoring other schools.

The problem with limiting funding to "programs that are known to work well" is that until you TRY a program, you do not know exactly how it will work. They don't have any data to make any firm conclusions at this time. What that would suggest is to allow one or two school districts to implement this program on a trial basis and study what happens among those who choose to participate.

-re: Church/State seperation. We both agree that the line is very well defined. Yes? then why do read so much into it?! Everything you say is exactly what is NOT written in the 1st Amendment.

Allow me to quote again the relevant part of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... There have been only two Supreme Court rulings respecting direct federal aid given to religious institutions (other than schools). Those are Bradfield v. Roberts (1899) and Bowen v. Kendrick (1988). In both cases, the Court upheld that it was constitutional to give aid to such institutions as long as they had a significant secular purpose and were not held to a more rigorous standard than secular institutions.

In Bradfield v. Roberts, the Court found it legal to provide a federal grant to improve a Catholic hospital, because the institution, while religiously owned, had a significant secular purpose. In Bowen v. Kendrick, the Court found that just because a human service provider has a religious affiliation or a faith-inspiration, it is not necessary to conclude that the provider is "pervasively sectarian"--i.e., part of a category of providers that is ineligible for public funding.

In fact, in Bowen, the Court specifically recognized the long-standing relationship between the state and various religious services. Essentially, the religious nature of a charity is not sufficient grounds in and of itself to deny federal aid to that c

 

As to Bush's record with education... I believe, if I'm not mistaken, he increased their ranking from 50th to 49th or 48th.

Wow, such an improvement, George. Apparently it was too much to ask for you to shoot for even a B- or, hell, maybe even a C... but saying he made improvements by moving 2 notches up from the very bottom of the ladder is like saying I'm getting better at chess because now my bird only beats me 8 games out of 10. Why tout the "strides" you haven't made when you can simply admit you didn't succeed and need to try harder? Accountability is rarely a part of a politician's vocabulary.

Considering the competition that outranked Texas in 49th and 48th places, prior to the Bush administration, his feat is as statistically significant an indicator of his efficacy as a champion of public education as it is to point out that placebos have had, in clinical trials, a success rate of 12 to 20 percent in treating bacerial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

A monkey could have been at the steering wheel to get Texas from 50th to 48th.

At any rate... the question of mine still stands... Why is it that we see no educated liberals supporting Bush? Is it because they're all reserved to being democrats? I myself am neither wholly liberal nor am I a democrat (or republican, for that matter). Or is it because his core constituency, his target market during the election, relied heavily on people incapable of questioning his sincerity, his record and his methodology/reasoning... inasmuch as Gore's campaign relied heavily on marketing to people afflicted with precisely the same apathy.

If the idea comes down to spending taxpayers dollars on single-sex "classrooms"... Well, where's the clinical proof that it actually is the most feasible solution to academic performance and learning, compared to all the other choices that deserve equal, if not more, consideration of our available funds?

Anyone care to PPOR?

As to the issue of our government... it is a Republic. A "republican" form of government whereby "those best able to vote are able to do so" is, in fact, a Republic. If there is a discrepancy between the two, please point out to me how "those best able to vote" are those other than the elected legislators who make up the lawmaking body of a republic?

As for my use of the name "Jesus"... well, there are a million things I could say that offend me for religious reasons... and I could claim pretty much anything. You'll just have to deal with it... or earn my respect. Kimball, though you say you have a great deal of respect for people of other faiths, and I am well aware that you are not one of the most radical theologians to grace these boards...

I still cannot agree with this assertion wholeheartedly for the simple fact that I always detect a note of moral superiority whenever you color your religious commentary with only the great virtues of the Church of LDS.

To me, it's only incidental that the LDS, so fiercely committed to subtler forms of cultural annihilation (i.e. "conversion") and rampant anti-religious derision otherwise known as "missions", weren't around at the right time in history to take part in the overt annihilation, assimilation and destruction of other cultures, religions, believers. If these were different times, the members of the LDS would pursue those ends perhaps even more fanatically.

I am not saying that no religion is without fault.. but that is precisely why I keep my faith and my mind open. Because religions, to me, are as transitory as politicians. One after another, their seats of power wax and wane, and men of power shift their balance of interest in religions depending on what is the people's "flavor of the month."

I guarantee you that if the majority shifted in this country towards Islam, Bush, as well as many other polticians both Democrat and Republican, would shift all their attention towards Islamic initiatives.

If you believe that is somewhat impossible, given the current state of affairs... then ask yourself how it is that a c

 

Snowdog, you are being extremely unfair towards me and others here.

If you care to actually post proof of your assertions about single-sex classrooms or schools, instead of just posting assertions as proof, then we might find a common ground somewhere... but neither will you post proof, retract your assertions, nor at least come to a compromise.

If you note what I said in one of my last posts, I said that there is currently a lack of sufficient evidence either way in the same-sex classroom debate. At that point, the logical option would be to study it further. That would involve choosing one or two school districts to run a trial program. Right now, it stands as a hypothesis. The next step is to thoroughly test the hypothesis. Isn't that the scientific method?

It seems absolutely important for you to stick to the absolutes that, coincidentally, sit exactly in line with the many other fundamentalist ideals of social "morality" emanating from the epicenter of your doctrine and the Christian conservative community--the perspective in which your thoughts have been saturated, whether intentionally or not... inasmuch as the permeation of Christian "idealism" has colored my own views of Christian fundamentalism.

That's funny, if you were to ask many "fundamentalist Christians", I'm not even Christian at all. I have had a wide exposure to many different belief systems during my life. I have chosen the one that I follow of my own free will. I have a deep respect for others' beliefs and I recognize that they all have some truth to them. I simply believe (my opinion, you are free to disagree) that I have found something that has a little more truth than the others.

If you want me to respect your perspective on the use of the word "Jesus"... put yourself in my shoes for a while. Have you once even attempted to understand where I'm coming before you filibuster the actual discussion by biting on to my deliberately placed hooks of religious digression?

And here I thought you were a more reasonable person than that. Why would you specifically want to add anything to your message that detracts from it? The way to convince others is through discussion, not argument. Your "hooks of religious digression" can only serve to offend and inflame others. Please stop that and show me the same respect towards my religious beliefs that I have shown towards yours.

As for my use of the name "Jesus"... well, there are a million things I could say that offend me for religious reasons... and I could claim pretty much anything. You'll just have to deal with it... or earn my respect. Kimball, though you say you have a great deal of respect for people of other faiths, and I am well aware that you are not one of the most radical theologians to grace these boards...

I still cannot agree with this assertion wholeheartedly for the simple fact that I always detect a note of moral superiority whenever you color your religious commentary with only the great virtues of the Church of LDS.

...Instead of belaboring the point about how great the LDS is, which only serves to further my impression of the egocentrism of religious institutions, do you ever even bother to ask why I have adopted the perspective I have?

And here I thought you wanted proof. You had some mistaken ideas about how all religious charities operate. I happened to have an example from my own experience that shows that not all religious charities act in the way you describe. I am LDS. It is what I have first-hand experience with. Would you expect me to use examples that I don't have as much knowledge and experience with when I have a much better example available?

I expect that any examples or information that you give come from your own personal perspective and experience (either through study or hands-on). I would not expect you to provide examples you know nothing about and I filter my impressions of you accordingly. That's also why I am very open about the fact that I am LDS.

 

There is no use continuing in this thread. We are presenting our opinions and ideals and you refuse to listen to them in your own narrow minded biased mindset. Your understanding of our freedoms and system of government is especially sad. For someone who is so in love with the concept of the US constitution your ignorance as to the principles contained in it know no bounds.

Can a mod rename it "Darth Snow-Dog insults everyone that doesn't agree with him and therefore must be right"?

 

We are presenting our opinions and ideals and you refuse to listen to them in your own narrow minded biased mindset.

If no one was listening to you as you present your opinions and ideals, we wouldn't be having this debate. It is that we DO listen and yet still emphatically disagree with you that angers and frustrates you.

Your understanding of our freedoms and system of government is especially sad. For someone who is so in love with the concept of the US constitution your ignorance as to the principles contained in it know no bounds.

This is really just one long insult. If you were on a college debate team, you would have been disqualified by this affront. It holds no value in the discussion, as it is as inaccurate as it is slanderous.

Can a mod rename it "Darth Snow-Dog insults everyone that doesn't agree with him and therefore must be right"?

I suggest you step off of your Pedestal of Righteousness before you fall off it. You are as guilty of mud-slinging as SnowDog. Your last post is proof enough.

---

I am disheartened to hear there are voices out there not only willing to consider this single-sex classroom, but actually find it desirous! I thought we had grown progressively as a nation. Instead, we seem hell-bent on returning to the days of old, when boys and girls were told not to interact.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sit at the back of the bus...

 

Hes not my President. I live inthe UK

 

I am disheartened to hear there are voices out there not only willing to consider this single-sex classroom, but actually find it desirous! I thought we had grown progressively as a nation. Instead, we seem hell-bent on returning to the days of old, when boys and girls were told not to interact.

Again, they are not being "told not to interact", but being given a choice. There is a big difference.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sit at the back of the bus...

If you choose to do so, there is no problem. No rights are violated. If I passed a law stating "Cheveyo must sit at the back of the bus", then your rights would be violated. You still have not explained why it is wrong to allow a voluntary separation by sex.

If it were mandated that all public schools had to be single sex (or even any percentage of them), I would agree that the program is wrong. However, if no one is being forced to participate, what is your problem with it? Neither your rights nor the rights of anyone else are infringed by providing the option.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The following is a post made by me with a killer headache. Just thought you should know.

Darth_SnowDog, I hate to dismiss your long 'statistical analysis' with one short paragraph. Really. But you're arguing grammaticaly implied statistics, not real numbers. One of the reasons same-sex classrooms aren't commonplace are because of the lack of overwhelming evidence, and there isn't any overwhelming evidence because you won't even consider testing the theory.

Cheveyo: It has been previously addressed that young adolescents placed into single-sex schools will learn tobe segregated. This will become part of their lives, whether you see that now or not.

These children will learn that it is not good to associate with members of the opposite sex. These children will be naive to the other gender's place in that world.

You've got a conclusion, but no premise. In other words, show me the math.

Darth_SnowDog: Of course it doesn't surprise me that the majority of the people in the TFN threads who have been supporting these false impressions of reality have been themselves shielded and spoonfed far too long to understand or conceive of anything else.

*sigh*
I'm going to be doing a lot of that if you keep this up.

If I were a parent, I would rather my child know the disgusting and wonderful truth... than be blinded by stupidly wishful thinking.

How do same-sex classrooms suddenly equal binding our children in ignorance?

At any rate... the question of mine still stands... Why is it that we see no educated liberals supporting Bush?

Bush is conservative. Liberals are . . . liberal.

Cheveyo: If no one was listening to you as you present your opinions and ideals, we wouldn't be having this debate. It is that we DO listen and yet still emphatically disagree with you that angers and frustrates you.

Listening is easy. Understanding--quite another thing.

Let me tell you about myself. I'm an immigrant. I'm homeschooled.
When I came to this country, I didn't speak any English. The schools where I live suck, and my mom made the decision to homeschool me and my siblings. At the time, people told her all kinds of ludicrous things. Apparently homeschooling would lead to incest, we'd end up socially stunted, we wouldn't be ready for the reality of the world, we wouldn't learn anything, we wouldn't learn how to learn anything, etc, etc, etc (a long, long list).
If I may say so, I've turned out quite well. I learn just fine, and while I'm pretty much an introvert when it comes to social interaction, it's because I hate hearing people talk for the sake of talking.
It's quite common, when I tell people that I'm homeschooled, for them to exclaim "Really? And you're not socially inept or anything!?"

That's a quote.

The opponent's of same-sex classrooms like to use these same arguments. Apparently our children will not learn right. They'll be socially inept (never mind that the average public school kid probably has more human interaction in a day than I do in half a week, and I'm not screwed up).
If you want to debate the principle of the issue, fine. But don't hide behind 'lack of statistics' when you promote standing in the way of gathering them. Don't stutter on with a 'you're screwing up the world.' It's unfounded and, frankly, alarmist behavior.

No offense or anything.

 

If you choose to do so, there is no problem. No rights are violated. If I passed a law stating "Cheveyo must sit at the back of the bus", then your rights would be violated.

Kimball, that was intended as a metaphor. Everyone knows I can sit anywhere I want. I assumed readers would identify the meaning behind that sentence, but I was wrong. Allow me to elaborate: Me taking a seat in the back of the bus was a metaphor for defying the laws of segregation as they were throughout the mid 20th century, as my pale skin color is "European" by definition.

You still have not explained why it is wrong to allow a voluntary separation by sex.

So you haven't really been reading anything I've written, have you? I'll try this time to put my philosophies in a nice, neat wrapped up little package that can be easily (and most importantly quickly) digested in this Television/Short Attention Span era. (However I fear my introduction may have been too long... I may have already lost you.)

You call it "Voluntary Seperation by Sex". Who volunteers to seperate? The children? The parents? Maybe the teachers or school board? Or is it the government, who has chosen the schools to implement these programs? I can tell you at the bottom-most rung (i.e. the children) they will not see this as voluntary.

Okay, why am I against single-sex classes?

#1) Regardless of who "volunteers" these kids into segregated (oh my gosh, I used that hateful word again! Let's call it something more PC... like "Productively Gender-Isolated") classes, I do not believe it is fair to those kids. They will learn from this that men and women must be seperated in order to be productive. That is what this program is telling us, right? So why would n't the kids learn that, too?? This will perpetuate a gender bias that does not belong in this century.

#2) The Bush Administration is wanting me to pay taxes to a program that I feel goes against all I believe in. If parents, children, or whomever, wants to voluntarily seperate school genders, they should consider enrolling in a Privately funded school where diversity guidelines can be--and often are--overlooked. You have heard of All-boys schools and all girls-schools, I gather. This is by no means a new concept.

Well, my apologies. I couldn't wrap it up in a nice neat little package. I hope I didn't lose your attention.

 

I would like to know how I am supposed to be ignorant, prone to segregation and the list of other labels that have WRONGLY been given to adolescents who learn in single sex classrooms.

I went to a single sex private school, we ARE the best school in Queensland. We got the highest number of OP 1's (Which are the top score in the OP rank, which is based on average grades, grading within schools and student's marks!) for a girl's school. None of the girls' I know are prone to segregation or ignorant or socially stunted...it just doesn't work like that!

I will go and find out the information for you, just because I'm an education student who has had this arguement a million times before and each time it has been conclusively shown that single-sex classrooms work!

Kit

 

Cheveyo,

Kimball, that was intended as a metaphor. Everyone knows I can sit anywhere I want. I assumed readers would identify the meaning behind that sentence, but I was wrong. Allow me to elaborate: Me taking a seat in the back of the bus was a metaphor for defying the laws of segregation as they were throughout the mid 20th century, as my pale skin color is "European" by definition.

I did catch the meaning you intended (sort of, not knowing your skin color). However, I should point out that there were no laws against whites sitting in the back of the bus, only laws against blcks sitting in the front.

So you haven't really been reading anything I've written, have you? I'll try this time to put my philosophies in a nice, neat wrapped up little package that can be easily (and most importantly quickly) digested in this Television/Short Attention Span era. (However I fear my introduction may have been too long... I may have already lost you.)

Despite the fact that I have ADHD, I have a very good attention span. I have read every post in this thread at least 3 times now. I highly recommend that if you wish to make a point, please do so without resorting to attempted insults.

You call it "Voluntary Seperation by Sex". Who volunteers to seperate? The children? The parents? Maybe the teachers or school board? Or is it the government, who has chosen the schools to implement these programs? I can tell you at the bottom-most rung (i.e. the children) they will not see this as voluntary.

As I stated earlier I would support each locality deciding whether to implement this option. Then, like other school-related options, it would be up to both the parents and the students (according to each district's rules) to decide whether to participate. That is the way almost any school program operates.

Any program that is implemented is seen as involuntary by many children. I remember hearing many of my friends in school complaining that school was involuntary. In Fairfax County (where I now live), the parents get final say, even when students are over 18. Different school districts have different rules.

Regardless of who "volunteers" these kids into segregated (oh my gosh, I used that hateful word again! Let's call it something more PC... like "Productively Gender-Isolated") classes, I do not believe it is fair to those kids. They will learn from this that men and women must be seperated in order to be productive. That is what this program is telling us, right? So why would n't the kids learn that, too?? This will perpetuate a gender bias that does not belong in this century.

So you are saying that you would deny the parents and students a choice because you do not agree with it. Again, I ask you what rights of yours are being violated by a VOLUNTARY program? The answer is NONE.

The Bush Administration is wanting me to pay taxes to a program that I feel goes against all I believe in. If parents, children, or whomever, wants to voluntarily seperate school genders, they should consider enrolling in a Privately funded school where diversity guidelines can be--and often are--overlooked. You have heard of All-boys schools and all girls-schools, I gather. This is by no means a new concept.

In most areas, families where the children attend private schools are still forced to pay taxes to support public schools. If you should not be forced to fund programs that you disagree with, why are you so eager to make them continue to fund programs that they disagree with? As long as they pay taxes to support public schools, they should have a say as well. If the people in one locality want such a program, who are you to deny it to them? If enough of the taxpayers choose to support such a program, they should be allowed to to have that program provided by the tax dollars they have paid.

How many government programs do you agree with? How many military expenditures do you think are wrong? Pork projects? What about Medica

 

The way I understand it is thus:

Boys perform better in single-sex English classes, and Girls perform better in single-sex Maths and Science classes.

Why?

Boys: In these classes, boys generally perform better because they have the opportunity to express themselves without the fear of ridicule by girls who are generally more expressive and have better communication skills during adolescence. In conjunction and because of the afore-mentioned fact, boys also perform better because they are MADE to talk, there are no girls in the classroom to pick up the slack and answer questions when the normally unexpressive boys can not. It focuses the attention on to them.

Girls: Girls perform better in Maths and Science classes which are single sex because they are not competing against boys. Girls feel that they no longer have to compete for attention (same goes for boys), nor compete against each other to impress the opposite sex. Their attention is therefore generally more focused and their achievement usually improves in this environment.

Kit

 

One question, related to a point Cheveyo made:

What child has voluntarily offered to participate in single-sex classrooms of his own volition, and not by the pressure of society, his faith or his peers?

StarFire, this goes to you, in particular, with respect to your assertions about segration somehow having some value that is worthy of federal funding... of my tax dollars... Post proof, please, or retract your assertion and simply concede that you have no basis upon which you can wholly conclude that segregation is consistently beneficial enough to warrant federal funding.

No one is stopping you from sending your child to a single-sex school at your own expense, should you so choose. That is precisely my point. You are saying we need to give them a choice... Well, they already have one.

Kimball: I never intended for this to be a religious discussion in particular. If you say the Mormon church has suffered the pangs of discrimination by the hand of other Christians, or anyone else, for that matter... with that I can commiserate.

However, I have not ever encountered a missionary who didn't look down upon me when he entered my door... and who didn't leave my door finding himself absolutely confused by the realization that he knows absolutely nothing about from where I come, what my faith is about, and that what he thought was beneficial to me was really another form of disrespect and derision from my point of view.

With predictable repetition, every missionary who ever entered our house left after their long discussions with myself and my father, not entirely sure of why they do what they do... because they suddenly realize they don't know everything, and this humbling experience makes them ask themselves why they foolishly assume they know what's good for everyone's soul, especially when they are shown that my ancestors have pondered those questions for thousands of years before them. They entered our doors blind to the world around them. They left humbled, learning that most important of lessons which Socrates had taught many centuries ago.

I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.
- Socrates

If your intention is to convince me that the LDS respects other cultures simply because they attempt to coerce, but don't do so forcibly... I simply disagree with your notion by virtue of a lifetime of experience with LDS missionaries. That doesn't mean I don't respect you. I don't know you well enough to respect you... or hate you, for that matter.

But please, for God's, Allah's, Brahman's sake... realize I have a right to disagree with you as much as you have a right to disagree with my viewpoints. I respect that right, even in my disagreement.

I would be a disgrace to my own faith and heritage if I did not uphold your right to your faith inasmuch as I uphold mine. In doing so, I believe in the complete separation of Church and State. I don't believe there is any reason to have the two intertwined... and just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it, doesn't mean the Constitution explicitly affirms the right of the government to do the opposite, either... and that is not an assumption, that is derived by the 10th amendment. Even if the 10th amendment isn't regularly enforced as it should be, as I believe Maveric pointed out, that doesn't justify our continuing to disrespect the people's express or implied rights.

EDIT: I owe an apology to Cheveyo, and those others in this thread who are interested in having a cogent discussion on the actual issue at hand. I perhaps have let my passions get the best of me, but I cannot pretend those passions do not exist.

I'm human, we're all human here... The discussion is too polarized, and my most critical point about polticians, religious views, etc. is simply that there is no unanimous agreement in the world that these absolutes should exist as constructs for any beneficial purpose whatsoever. Call it segregation, call it "productive isola

 

I have basis. It's not an overpoweringly persuasive basis, but your using that as an argument against studying same-sex classrooms ishn't kosher.

And please feel free to back up your claims that same-sex classrooms do half as much damage as you say they do. I still haven't heard anything other than pure conjecture.

 

StarFire, Kit...

Alright... let's assume we do have single-sex classrooms funded by federal dollars.

Where do employers place these products of segregated learning when it's clear from your commentary that they cannot perform optimally in diverse environments?

In the world market economy where a high school diploma is quickly becoming worthless and an MBA is now getting you to where a BA used to... how precisely will these candidates sell themselves to prospective employers when employers will be most likely to ask, and I have been asked these questions myself:

1. How do you perform in diverse team environments?

2. How well do you perform under pressure or distraction?

And other questions related to the individuals ability to integrate with highly competitive/productive teams that require adaptive persons?

No competitive organization wants an individual that cannot adapt, and requires everyone to adapt around them.

So, again, I ask you... when they graduate with their inability to excel in coed environments... How will they compete for jobs with those who can do everything they can do, and do it in diverse, dual-gender work environments?

This is not a hypothetical question, it's the most critical one you'll ever get asked in a job interview: If I were such an employer, and you were such a candidate... Why should I hire you?

 

I wasn't going to posting anything for bit, as I'm anxious to see everyone's answers to the practical questions raised by SnowDog. However, a couple things need to be addressed by yours truly:

Starfire: You've got a conclusion, but no premise. In other words, show me the math.

You said this in regards to my statement that students will learn to be segregated. The "math' you seek is in the minds and studies of the Psychiatric world. Ask any clinical psychologist or psychiatrist if envirnoment plays a role in the development of human behavior. Just as you say it plays a role in the educational productivity. My question to that is: "What are you giving up for a POTENTIAL higher mark. (By the way, marks do not accurately represent retention.)

Kimball: I did catch the meaning you intended (sort of, not knowing your skin color). However, I should point out that there were no laws against whites sitting in the back of the bus, only laws against blcks sitting in the front.

Well, it sounds like you in fact did not catch my meaning; at least, not entirely. Look deeper than the laws. Think about the social mentality of the era. A "white" would never go to the back of the bus, because the "blacks" (I hate using racial labels!!) WERE, by law, told to sit back there. By saying I was going to sit in the back of the bus, I was defying the laws of segregation. Whites did not sit with blacks. Get it? My apologies if I misrepresented the analogy.

I highly recommend that if you wish to make a point, please do so without resorting to attempted insults.

Please tell me where I offended or insulted you or anyone else. I've seen so much of it on this board, I didn't realize I had thrown some into the loop. Did I accidentally call someon Jesus Christ? (Sorry, my sarcasm knows no bounds.)

So you are saying that you would deny the parents and students a choice because you do not agree with it. Again, I ask you what rights of yours are being violated by a VOLUNTARY program? The answer is NONE.

Even today, right now, without these programs, parents have a choice. I do not want my child's choices taken away by a government (not a school board) that says it's a good idea to isolate her. This statement is also directed to a quote of yours: I would support each locality deciding whether to implement this option. Then, like other school-related options, it would be up to both the parents and the students (according to each district's rules) to decide whether to participate. That is the way almost any school program operates. This is not the School Board, PTA, etc, who is suggesting to institute this program. It is the Federal Government. They say parents will have a choice. I've seen that choice before: "If you do not like the policies/programs of this school, please enroll your child in another." This often comes at the expense of the parents. The children are forced to bus to new schools, meet new friends, needlessly relocate, all while their parents pay for the program they are escaping. Sound logical? Sure doesn't to me.

Ok, back to SnowDog's questions. I'm going to minimize my appearances here, as I'm likely to further insult someone if I remain for extended periods of time!!

P.S. How many insults have I shrugged off without retaliation? And, again, Whatever insult I implied, I greatfully retract.

 

Look deeper than the laws. Think about the social mentality of the era. A "white" would never go to the back of the bus, because the "blacks" (I hate using racial labels!!) WERE, by law, told to sit back there.

You forget your history, then. If the bus got crowded in front, "blacks" had to give up their seats to "whites". However, if it got crowded in back, "blacks" just had to deal with it.

Please tell me where I offended or insulted you or anyone else. I've seen so much of it on this board, I didn't realize I had thrown some into the loop. Did I accidentally call someon Jesus Christ? (Sorry, my sarcasm knows no bounds.)

You comments about attention span were unneccessary and inappropriate. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I have not read your posts or that I have a short attention span.

Even today, right now, without these programs, parents have a choice. I do not want my child's choices taken away by a government (not a school board) that says it's a good idea to isolate her.

The Federal Government cannot (except in the broadest of terms) interfere with how the individual states run their schools. Federal education programs are normally in the form of funding for state programs that meet certain criteria. The most the Feds can do is deny additional funding if a state chooses not to implement the program.

Again, you seem eager to make parents who want that type of education pay twice: once for public schools and again for private schools. Is that fair? You don't seem to want to fund programs you disagree with or don't use, why should they have to do so? School voucher programs or tax rebates have been ruled questionable (at least) because some of the money might go to religious schools (never mind that it would be a refund of money the taxpayer shouldn't have lost in the first place). How would you resolve that then?

They say parents will have a choice. I've seen that choice before: "If you do not like the policies/programs of this school, please enroll your child in another." This often comes at the expense of the parents. The children are forced to bus to new schools, meet new friends, needlessly relocate, all while their parents pay for the program they are escaping. Sound logical? Sure doesn't to me.

PPOR. Give specific examples of times when parents have been promised the right to choose on a voluntary program and then it was made mandatory instead.

Kimball Kinnison