The article you will find here is about a case of 'speech' in schools and the discussion gets into what schools should and should not allow/promote in terms of socio/politico activism during school. This lead to a comment by Sam C. that I find very distressing. He said "While in school the student is obligated to obey the authorities in place, period."
Why do I find it distressing? Because it shows such a complete lack of understanding of what this country was founded for, what we have fought to maintain for decades and what I hope we will still defend. Namely the right and duty of each individual to act according to their own conscience. Our 'founding fathers' set the limits of governmental control as thinly as they possibly could consistent with the maintenance of viable social order. The statement that anyone is "obligated to obey the authority in place, period." should be abhorrent to any American. If our 'founding fathers' had believed such nonsense we would not exist as a country and I can assure you that should such an attitude become accepted by the majority this country will soon cease to exist as anything like the country generations of us have fought for.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Blindly holding to the power of designated 'authorities' is the path of the cowardly, weak and irresponsible person and history shows us time and again that it leads almost as surely as night follows day to the enslavement of one group or another at the hands of those 'authorities' and their followers.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
I agree that manners and civility are important. I also recognize that you can't have students in the elementary level, doing whatever they want without adherence to rules and regulations! And that is coming from a person who, as a boy, never missed the opportunity to "express my own individuality" to the chagrin of several teachers and one superintendent of schools!
I would doubt, thought I can't say for sure, that Sam C. intended the comment in the same totalitarian manner in which you have interpreted it. I believe he would recognize the importance of order in the classroom and the role of the teacher in preserving that order so that all may learn.
Without some authoritarian characteristics how would you deal with a child who publicly stated "Johnny is a Ni___r, and I don't have to set next to Ni____rs! My dad said so!" in class?
There are times when the teacher must be the highest local authority!
Clifford,
Prior to 1955 a child disagreeing with his teacher as you mentioned was, in fact, frequently punished! Right or wrong, the school board determined the criteria and policies and the teachers had a lot of latitude in carrying them out.
That is what I would do also and what should be done IMHO!
And I believe that is exactly what Sam C. was saying. Someone has to be in charge and function as the "highest authority present" in the classroom and it really should be the teacher!