Works Cited

Dead Poet's Society

"Arizona Bans" - Deb Aronson

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/censorship

www.readit.com

www.msnbc.com

Paper #3

            An intelligent society is a successful society. It is well known that educated nation states have thrived more than uneducated ones. This being proven by Japan, China, the UK, and the United States. Kids are encouraged to go to school, if they go to school and are taught censored material; they are then encouraged to be ignorant of things around them. We live in a democratic country, not an authoritarian regime. Therefore no one is fit to decide what students should not be “allowed” to learn about. History has been known to repeat itself, and when societies have hid information, they have been considered dictatorial. Curtis Acosta from the “Arizona Bans Mexican American Studies Program” article was quoted saying “[These actions show] students that lack of evidence, am ideological agenda, and political motivation supersede students’ academic growth, identity, hope, and belief in a whole world.” This is what will happen if curriculums are censored. It is understandable that some parents may not want their students learning about certain subjects, and they have the option to let their students opt out, but they should be given the opportunity to learn. Schools must not be allowed to censor content. If we hide information from our kids, we encourage ignorance, and to encourage ignorance is to damn our society into the ground.

            Ignorance is not known as a respected trait. Undoubtedly as a whole, our society does not wish to be ignorant. In history, a society who fears intelligence has not turned out well to say in the least. Intelligence cannot be feared. Even if desired, it would never work, for the few intelligent beings out there would recognize this travesty of denying a right to intelligence and overthrow those who wish to keep it down. Why would a society want their future offspring to be uninformed? If students are sheltered and censored from topics, they will be like a dear in headlights when thrown into an intense, real-world situation, and will be unable to thrive in a difficult or uncomfortable situation due to a lack of experience. A true intelligence is not what a society deems appropriate and necessary for one to learn, a true intelligence takes on questions such as: “Is there a God? Why? What else is out there? Are these people truly correct in ruling me?” Without these questions being asked, scholars are no longer scholars, they are then mindless zombies. If censorship is encouraged, these questions will not be asked; these thoughts will not be thought; and our society as a whole will condemn into a mass of unintelligent, uninformed, unaware cave people.

            Hypothetically, if a society chose to conserve ideas from people, who would decide what is fit to be taught? No one would be fit to due to the fact that society, culture, science, beliefs, religion etc., are always changing. It is a key fundamental flaw in the issue of conserving knowledge. No one is fit to choose the things that someone is allowed or not allowed to learn. In addition to this, conservation of knowledge at all is seen as morally wrong. Secrecy is not the way to educate children. How can they be expected to want to know answers when they are told that there are certain answers that they should not know, and certain questions that they should not ask simply because their teacher says so. W. Bernard Lukenbill is quoted saying:

“Censorship of school library collections has risen significantly in the last few decades, and such attacks are increasing.”

It is no coincidence that he uses the word ‘attack’. It is an attack; an attack on intelligence, and an attack on the youth. There are no subjects that are defined as “correct” and therefore there is no place to decide what should not be taught. It is contradictory against everything that the public education system stands for, and when systems begin to contradict themselves, they will eventually, inevitably collapse.

The goal of education is simple: intelligence. In Dead Poet’s Society, Mr. John Keating says to his dean, “I always thought the goal of education was to learn to think for yourself?” His dean laughed and said, “At their age?” This is a prime example of the necessity to allow students, from an early age on to study all subjects they want, whether they are considered by the general public to be undesirable or not. Letting students learn about these things at an earlier age will only increase the overall maturity of society. They will be exposed to situations outside the every-day-norm and will have more time to develop more on their thoughts about them. In the past, countries have called for book burning, and look what has happened. Over controlled education, lack of an informed public and so on. No one wants this for their children, and along with censorship, it should therefore be outlawed. Albert Einstein was once quoted saying “We’re all geniuses. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will spend it’s whole life believing that it is stupid.” Students must be allowed to study what they are interested in. If intelligence is desired, it must first be accepted.

            History is bound to repeat itself. Everyone knows this. Yet some forget to recognize it. If history repeats itself then why succumb to any tactics derived from authoritarian regimes? Mao did not want his people educated. Kim Jong Il did not allow his people to be educated, and neither is Kim Jong Un. In censoring topics, people are not allowed to be educated. Allowing censorship is taking a dictatorial role in education. What if topics like the Holocaust were ignored? They would eventually be forgotten, and if forgotten, these terrible acts are likely to be repeated from shear, preventable ignorance. Books have been banned then repealed and studied. Take out the middleman. The right to free speech and the right to the press entail print, and it is therefore unlawful for books to be burned or banned. Aside from unlawful, it is unjust. Where is it written that it is okay to hide knowledge because of fear? Fear leads to anger, and anger to hate. Couple that with the ignorance developed from censoring topics and the outcome will be a scared, angry, hateful, ignorant society, and that is what censored education leads to.

            Ignorance is discouraged, yet kids are discouraged from seeking certain answers. Decisions are made with the students in mind, yet the students are not consulted. Intelligence is encouraged, yet it is feared at the same time. It is said that history repeats itself, yet it is ignored when happening. Johnny Depp once said in an interview, “The problem is; everyone treats teenagers like they’re stupid.” Students cannot be treated this way, if they are, they will not be trusted with knowledge and therefore will not learn. If they do not learn, this attempt at education is pointless. “When truth is replaced by silence, silence is a lie.” These are the words of Yevgeny Yevtushenko. If things are forgotten, students are lied to by omission. They have the right to know, and the right to explore the topics in which they are interested. We cannot keep our children in the dark. We cannot hold them away from the fire of burning knowledge and tease them with the sparks of the truth. Censorship should not be allowed in schools. We cannot condemn our future to ignorance because of fear, spite, or any reason nonetheless.

Quotes

"No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world." - John Keating (Dead Poet's Society)

"I'll try anything once." - Meeks (Dead Poet's Society)

"I was the intellectual equivalent of a 98-pound weakling! I would go to the beach and people would kick copies of Byron in my face!" - John Keating (Dead Poet's Society)

"I always thought the idea of education was to learn to think for yourself." - John Keating (Dead Poet's Society)

"Mr. Meeks, time to inherit the earth." - John Keating (Dead Poet's Society)

"Free thinkers at 17?" - John Keating (Dead Poet's Society)

Authors and I in Agreement

            Deb Aronson agrees with me. We both feel that censorship is a terrible idea in educating our kids. If students are censored, they cannot grow. They will not be able to accept and deal with difficult situations. We cannot allow our kids to be blinded like this by the educational system. What if we didn’t teach about the Holocaust? Or 9/11? We would be controlling the fourth estate, which is what dictators do. We are not a dictatorial regime. We are a democratic union, and should treat our students as such. It is understandable to assume that some students might have emotional issues dealing with certain topics, and these topics need not be shoved down their throats, but there is no sense in hiding it from them. The sooner they are exposed to a topic, the sooner they are able to cope, deal with, and form their own thoughts about it. Thus we are allowing them time to educated themselves by allowing topics that are considered by some to be “distasteful”. There is no rightfulness in decided what is and is not accepted. A topic is a topic and kids have the right to learn about it and others if they wish.

Author's Reasons

            Jerry Large’s reasons were based mostly off of his experiences. He believes that “grit” is the most important thing because if a student has grit, they can work hard to accomplish anything. Hard work pays off, and Large sees hard work as being the number one priority.

            Barry Boyce calls for mindfulness as the most important concept for students. He argues that mindfulness not only will help someone in school, but in life as well. His ideology stresses from the believe that if one is stress free, they will be able to do well in all other aspects of life, such as school.

            Keith Gilyard believes that arts are necessary for education. Expression can lead to great ideas, and those ideas can make great thinkers. We will never know what a student is capable of if they are not able to follow their passion. Albert Einstein was quoted saying “We’re all geniuses. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Therefore, students must be able to study their interests.

            Deb Arson believes that lack of censorship is critical to schooling, and I agree with her. If knowledge is blocked, true intelligence can never be reached.

            hooks believes in critical thinking. If we are able to think critically, we are able to solve any of our problems.

High School

            High school to me is as democracy was to Plato: the best worst idea we have. It is a corrupt and often unworthy system, but so far, it is the best that we have. We are not fortunate enough to live in a society in which we can specialize everyone to improve on what they are good at. It is simply impossible. High school is our attempt as a society to deem the intelligent, from the unnecessary. It is our attempt to set a standard for kids to meet, and punish their future if they do not. We assume that by standardized test we may find the few individuals who’s minds can be useful, but we often wind up moving past intelligent people due to unfortunate grade marks. I was glad to leave high school. AP and other advanced classes can help, but everyone is still held at the same subjective standards and it’s difficult for them (students) to thrive knowing that there are expected to fail. I understand the goal behind high school: to have a relatively educated general populous, but the system does have many flaws. It is better than no education system, and there are for more important issues, but working to improve things should always be considered.

Gatto and Friere

            John Gatto and Paolo Friere agree that our school system is corrupt. Gatto calls it “crippling” and Friere refers to it as “treating people like objects.” They both feel as if our school system treats everyone as if they were the same [objects] and that neither the teachers nor the students are able to contribute real value in this system. They disagree on the reasoning behind ours schools being corrupt however. Gatto sees it as crippling students chances of really being educated, as to where Freire sees it as educating them, but in a mindless, robotic way. Gatto claims that the goals of public education are, “to make good people, to make good citizens, and to make each person his or her personal best.” Friere staes that the function of the school is run as “the teacher teaches and the students are taught; the teacher knows everything and the student knows nothing; the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; the teacher talks and the students listen – meekly; the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply; the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the teacher…” They agree that the school has decided and what should be taught and hoe it should be taught and that both of these things are corrupt, and unjust.

Gatto's Claims on High School

            Gatto’s claims on high school compared to my high school experience in the sense that when I was in high school, even enrolled in AP and other advanced math and language classes, I still often felt as if I were in a day care or a factory as opposed to a school. Teachers were often GIVEN a curriculum, not free to make their own, and because of this, they would simply teach their given lecture, give their given assignments and exams, and that would be it. Many teachers were focused only on us learning information, not on us increasing our intelligence. I believe this was not entirely their fault, for they were instructed how to teach, but I do not believe that Joe Gatto was far off in his claim that the public k-12 education program cripples our kids. I’m not sure if private education systems are much better, but we don’t encourage our kids to think outside the decided “good” information, and who knows how the intelligence of our populous would increase if we did? Dictating what students must learn is like assigning them a job based off nothing. There will be the few students who are able to rise above this, but we’re losing potentially great minds along the way. Gatto’s claim was not in-accurate, but what to do about it, I do not know. 

Mr. Escalante and Mr. Keeting

            Mr. Keeting and Mr. Escalante were much more similar, than different. They both cared a great amount about their students and used whatever methods necessary to get them to learn. They were somewhat different in their teaching methods, but with the same goal in mind. Mr. Keeting used situations to make his students think critically and be brave, as to where Mr. Escalante used real world situations to relate to his students. Both teachers inspired their students, but were in very different situations. Mr. Keeting dealt with rich kids from good families, as to wear Mr. Escalante was working with studnts in a poor down, most with shaky upbringings. Both teachers aimed to inspire growth and progress within their students. They promoted individuality and excellence. Both wanted to see their students succeed, and more than that, wanted their students to see beyond what the world, and society, and their families saw for them. These teachers both saw a need for change in part of the educational system and their respective schools, and even though they were rejected, they stuck to what they believed in, and prevailed. And it worked out mostly. Despite some set backs, they achieved what they desired in their students, and changed many young lives.

Mr. Escalante and Mr. MacFarland

            Mr. Escalante was similar to Mr. MacFarland in the sense that they were simply more than teachers to their students. They bonded with them, they befriended them, they mentored them, and in life as well as in school. Both teachers had relationships with their students outside of class and it proved very effective. The two teachers were similar in even their background to teaching. Both could have had a “better” job, but chose to work in smaller school that need good teachers. Why? Because they wanted to help. They didn’t just want to be teachers; they wanted to TEACH. They were both very interested in their students doing well after high school and both took steps into helping with the furthering of education of their students. Mr. Escalante with getting one of his student’s father to allow her to stop working in the restaurant and go to college, and Mr. MacFarland with doing all he could to get Mike Rose into Loyola. And look where he is now! Both teachers came in with their curriculum in mind and were not going to have it any other way. They didn’t care that the students weren’t into their curriculum, they kept it going and eventually their students started to like it. Both teachers took the extra step, and it paid off. 

Mr. Escalante

            Mr. Escalante was a great teacher. He willing took a beyond difficult teaching job because he wanted to help kids and wanted to teach. He consistently went out of his way to help a kid in their learning. On his first day of class, there were a lot of tough looking students, but Mr. Escalante was not intimidated. He knew that if he treated them as equals, he would earn their respect and hopefully get to them, as he did with one. Mr. Escalante came in to class happy every day, and that can always have a big impact on students. It reduces their stress, and smiles can be contagious. He knew that a lot of these students had tough lives, so he was very good about turning real life situations into lessons, and it tended to work. He TRULY believed in his students. He knew that they could learn and he held faith in them even when the other teachers doubted them. Occasionally, Mr. Escalante would good-heartedly embarrass his students into getting them to do their work, like when one girl didn’t want to take a test and he made her sit in a tiny chair in front of the class while they laughed at her. Mr. Escalante learned about his students and based his curriculum off of them. He was a fantastic teacher.

Writing Development Techniques

            I’ve used multiple strategies for development in my writing. I often start with a pre-write in outline form. Then I use my outline to decide how I want to structure my paper. My outline is usually detailed in a way that I can reference it throughout my entire essay. I quickly scribble down a very rough draft and take a short break. Then I go through and organize my thoughts in to clear, intelligent sentences. I then restructure everything. I separate my paper in to paragraphs and then add commentary. I make sure that I have all the ideas that I want to include and go from there.

            Another successful development technique that I have used is rewriting a rough draft on the same subject and taking out the best ideas of both. Development has come easy to me because I work hard on my pre-writes. Once that is taken care of I am able to just sort of spill it out. Everyone has his or her own techniques for development and I am always looking for new ones. It is the part of my writing that needs the most work and I am constantly working on improving it.