# Yet another Personal Freedom Thread (was: School bans iPods)



## Quicksilver (Mar 22, 2005)

The teenagers' gadget of choice, the iPod, has been banned by a Sydney private school because they lead to "social isolation".

The principal of International Grammar School, Kerrie Murphy, said her decision to ban the palm-sized stereos, which can hold up to 10,000 songs, coincided with the international debate on how "people were not tuning into other people because they're tuned into themselves".


More about the story  -->


----------



## Go3iverson (Mar 22, 2005)

That's a mixed bag.  I agree, iPods, or anything else of that nature don't belong in classes or lecture, but on the bus, or such should be A-OK.

I don't see a need for them in classes, unless a teacher feels its something that can help a student, like in a creative course, like art or creative writing, where you might have periods of time to yourself to work on your creative pieces.  I don't think it works in sciences as that could be a potential hazard (ie chem lab).


----------



## texanpenguin (Mar 23, 2005)

You see them EVERYWHERE at Uni, and they're now infiltrating schools.

I use mine almost half the time for Uni-related pursuits - as a portable hard disk, my timetable... everything.


----------



## Tetano (Mar 23, 2005)

Go3iverson said:
			
		

> I don't think it works in sciences as that could be a potential hazard (ie chem lab).



maybe it's a hazard, but when your bench neighbour hates music and doesn't speak for all the day, an iPod could help my safety, avoiding me to literally fall into my experiments....


----------



## HomunQlus (Mar 23, 2005)

I think the same thing has been said about Sony's Walkman when it came out and spread around the masses.


----------



## fryke (Mar 23, 2005)

Yeah, exactly. And they damage your ears, too, of course. Also: You don't go to heaven if you listen to Rock n' Roll.


----------



## Go3iverson (Mar 23, 2005)

Tetano said:
			
		

> maybe it's a hazard, but when your bench neighbour hates music and doesn't speak for all the day, an iPod could help my safety, avoiding me to literally fall into my experiments....



Sure, but this is a case where not being able to actually hear a teacher/professor could be dangerous to a student(s).

Then again, when I used to work on some art pieces in college, I'd listen to my iPod while using powertools in the lab, but I was mostly alone in there.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 23, 2005)

Hehe, this reminds me of my middle school days when I would velcro my CD player to the inside of my jacket... It was a distraction for me, plus it didn't work very well.


----------



## cfleck (Mar 23, 2005)

I've seriously wondered about this myself.  I'm a grad student and every time I venture about campus there is an amazing number of people with headphones in while they walk about campus.  It seems that no one really talks to anyone.  Odd.

At the same time, I myself use headphones when I study and just want to shut out noise.  I don't however where them when I'm out and about.

I definately see the concern for "social isolation" and I definately think in a high/middle school setting that banning such devices will increase social activity.  Thoughts?


----------



## Ifrit (Mar 24, 2005)

> I definately see the concern for "social isolation" and I definately think in a high/middle school setting that banning such devices will increase social activity. Thoughts?



I don't think this banning will increase social activity. If you continue the trail of thought, then they should ban books (belletristic) too, 'cause if you are reading you usually don't interact much with other people. 

Secondly, if I am not willing to interact then I usually don't. I see no point in pointless conversations with people I barely know. If I feel there is no pleasure or if I don't gain something with [insert activity here] then I am not willing to spend my (free)time and the school breaks with it.

Besides that it might be that most interests of the students lie outside the school. Schook offers only a limited amount of material which lead to "social interaction." This doesn't mean the students aren't engaged in such a thing.

Most of the conversation takes place in breaks. But there are a lot of people who just want to relax during the break - because they spend most of time "interacting" during the classes.


----------



## adambyte (Mar 24, 2005)

Ifrit said:
			
		

> I don't think this banning will increase social activity. If you continue the trail of thought, then they should ban books (belletristic) too, 'cause if you are reading you usually don't interact much with other people.



If you're referring to banning text-books, yeah, that would be dumb. However, (and I'm not trying to discourage reading for entertainment) what about other books? Don't you remember those few kids in high school who simply buried themselves in novels, rather than talking with people? They have a name for people like that... "Book worms." And while they might have higher-IQs than the rest of us, and probably don't want to interact with the rabble, they might remain anti-social because they buried themselves in books. Not that reading is a bad thing. I'm just saying there's an appropriate time and place for everything. Maybe school is for more social stuff, and home is where you can relax with your book and/or music.


----------



## Ifrit (Mar 24, 2005)

What I am trying to say is, that I am against forced social interaction.
Everyone expresse him/herself differently and other people have different times when they are social active. 
For example: Someone is exhausted directly after the classes other when they arrive at home and there are others which are more active around the night time. Everyone has their time when they are relaxing. 

This is something the school administration doesn't understand. There must be phases where the people shut out the noise, just beeing occupied with themselfs. Some people do this by reading books, others by listening to their ipods. Different people have different times concerning "beeing social". And if this relaxing phase happens during the breaks and not during the classes - who cares. Thats what breakes are for. 

You can't force social interaction, if there isn't any - then there isn't. Its not like the ipod is anti - social magnet which sucks away any interest in conversation with other people.  If I meet my friends or someone interesting I'll put away the earbuds.



> Don't you remember those few kids in high school who simply buried themselves in novels, rather than talking with people? They have a name for people like that... "Book worms." And while they might have higher-IQs than the rest of us, and probably don't want to interact with the rabble, they might remain anti-social because they buried themselves in books.



That sounds a bit ignorant. Sorry I don't want to offend you. But maybe  there isn't a "common dominator" for these people within the school time which would lead to social interation. Maybe you got the wrong impressions of them.

If I remember back in my schooltime - I was highly "interactive" (sounds like a bad "multimedia" 1995ish video game to me   ). But that wasn't the case during the school time. I had my hobbies and friends who had (and still have) the same as me and there were lot of things we were talking about.


----------



## cfleck (Mar 24, 2005)

At my school we had 5 minute breaks between classes.  This was to get your materials for the next class, use the bathroom, and get there.  Lunch was what I'll call "social time".  I'll address these two times

If people are popping in their earbuds during those 5 minute breaks, I would argue that it isn't to simply defuse, but instead to block out the "social interaction" that occurs in the halls.  Some may view this as a good thing, but I do not.  You learn a lot about people in 5 minute informal meetings.  Consider this...

Some kid drops books on your feet.  If you have earbuds in you get a bit crabby nudge the books off and walk away in a pissy mood.  Take away the earbuds.  You hear the kid start to go "Oh shiiipppp"  as the books slip, and you reach out and help him grab them.  You then exchange a few pleasant words and you have "something" with that person.

Now I know this is far fetched and only 1 of many ways such an interaction can occur.  I'm even aware of the opposite: the earbuds keeping you from letting a bully get to you or something, but I have to believe that isolating yourself like this every day is not a good thing.

Now I have mixed feelings about the lunch period.  This is a time when I could see the person actually using music, novels, whatever, to "get away" from things.  But even still, this must be done in moderation.  If you need to relax every day by hooking up your ipod at lunch perhaps you could do well to talk to a counselor as you probably have much on your mind and I think most folk would agree that talking about your issues is much healthier than bottling it up.

Yeah.  Thats what I've got.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Mar 24, 2005)

I always listen to my iPod during some classes that i know i can get away with it in, music helps me feel more creative, espically when i am doing projects on my laptop    

but i know in sociology i can't get away with it, lol.


----------



## andyhargreaves (Mar 25, 2005)

Hi!

I'm a high school teacher, and we've banned iPods and other MP3 players completely, to stop the isolation "thing" and also to stop the students trying to listen to them in class.  If they do, they all know it will be confiscated and returned to their parents when they come in to collect it.

Quite a harsh policy, but it works for us!


Andy


----------



## pds (Mar 25, 2005)

I'm also a teacher and we don't allow portable music players during the day. It is very hard to enforce since the staff is a mix of ex-pats and Egyptians and the nationals will not stand up to the kids. 

There is an interesting twist on it in Egypt however as almost all the kids listening to music share the headphones. Wildest thing, because they don't seem to understand they only get half the music... :-\


----------



## andyhargreaves (Mar 25, 2005)

We have the same thing with shared headphones.  I could never understand it at all.  It's quite funny when they forget they're sharing, and try to move away from each other!

Andy


----------



## adambyte (Mar 25, 2005)

Ifrit said:
			
		

> You can't force social interaction, if there isn't any - then there isn't. Its not like the ipod is anti - social magnet which sucks away any interest in conversation with other people.  If I meet my friends or someone interesting I'll put away the earbuds.



Well, I think you're a human being with some sense. COngratulations. However, not all of us have that, and I'm sure there are some who it does detract from. I know _I_ have used lame excuses like iPods to isolate myself. Not everybody has such control.



			
				Ifrit said:
			
		

> That sounds a bit ignorant. Sorry I don't want to offend you. But maybe  there isn't a "common dominator" for these people within the school time which would lead to social interation. Maybe you got the wrong impressions of them.



Alright. So it may have been a bit of an exageration. But I do a few people who were bookworms, and are still not very social with other people.


----------



## Ifrit (Mar 25, 2005)

Good points cfleck. If I take these points into account it changes my view a bit. 

Maybe there is another factor. "Overuse" of technic and "status symbol". We are still talking about childrens or teens aren't we? 

It might be that some kids don't know when to put the ipod back. But this behaviour is still dependent on the kid's education ( <- I mean the "education" that he/she got from his/her parents) But kids, teenager are still more influenced by technic and often don't know when it is an inproper time to use it or simply overuse it (the "new" factor)

Its less administrative efford to simply ban the ipods instead of enforce a "only at lunchtime" only a "this and this person isn't allowed to use their ipod in school" (<- which would be somehow unfair regarding this persons)
And somehow I see the reasoning of the school administration. 

Intead of simply enforcing the rule, it would be a good idea to discuss the banning of ipods with the school administration and the students at school. This way they have material which lead to social interaction. 



> If people are popping in their earbuds during those 5 minute breaks, I would argue that it isn't to simply defuse, but instead to block out the "social interaction" that occurs in the halls. Some may view this as a good thing, but I do not. You learn a lot about people in 5 minute informal meetings. Consider this...



Extreme case:

If he/she is blocking out social interaction that much, I am sure that "taking away" the ipod by banning it doesn't help that much. There are other ways blocking out social interaction as I already argued in my former posts. Maybe the teacher who knows about it should do their job and talk about this issue with the student.



> Some kid drops books on your feet. If you have earbuds in you get a bit crabby nudge the books off and walk away in a pissy mood. Take away the earbuds. You hear the kid start to go "Oh shiiipppp" as the books slip, and you reach out and help him grab them. You then exchange a few pleasant words and you have "something" with that person.



I have to agree there, there are times if you don't get all the accustic informations then there are misunderstandings. - and those little helpfull (for the personality) "social situations" don't occur.


----------



## fryke (Mar 25, 2005)

It's actually very simple. You shouldn't "ban iPods" (or similar actions) in order to help the kids socialising. You should help them socialising. Create more spaces and occasions where it'll happen. Teachers should know that from _their_ education training... *sigh*


----------



## chevy (Mar 25, 2005)

One has to admit that different people have different behaviors. Difference is what makes life. Some spend their time "in" their iPods, others in their books, others playing football, others chatting... Differences makes a world. Freedom is full of differences. Freedom without difference is freedom without choice. Where is the freedom when there is no choice ?


----------



## pds (Mar 25, 2005)

Freedom is a subset of another value, that of responsibility, and that really defines humans more than freedom does. People start out to be totally free, babies poop wherever and whenever they want. When they learn to do it in the toilet they become nicer to have around. 

We are talking high school students here, young people learning to be more responsible. The delay of gratification is part of that process.  So is the ability to focus and pay attention, to participate in a larger community. The "wall of exclusion" that the iPod (any music player, they are all out of bounds) creates is one more hurdle for us to overcome in involving students in a meaningful examination of history and literature. Say what you will about limiting choices, I much prefer Socrates' vision of education to Pink Floyd's. Rules are part of that.

And - students always have the choice. They can obey or disobey the ruling; be responsible or be irresponsible, delay or gratify. They just have to take the consequences.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 25, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> It's actually very simple. You shouldn't "ban iPods" (or similar actions) in order to help the kids socialising. You should help them socialising. Create more spaces and occasions where it'll happen. Teachers should know that from _their_ education training... *sigh*


I think teachers should do just that *and* ban iPods from the classroom.  Or I guess what I would do is ban the use of them (i.e. I'd look for the earbuds and when they're in, you're caught).

Haha, I just thought of another thing we did in math class with those scientific calculators.  One of us smarter ones would find games that run on them and we'd all hook up and get the games from him.  When we held our calculators like gameboys, we were playing Tetris or something else, heh.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 25, 2005)

Oh, plus fryke, the "simple" solution is to ban iPods.  The _more complex_ solution is to be a better teacher promoting a more positive social environment.  And like I said, both should be done, IMO.


----------



## Quicksilver (Mar 27, 2005)

I think at the end of the day is is entirely the right of the individual to be social or not, weather at school at home or the like. However i do believe there is a use for the iPod in schools as well.

The iPod can also be use as an external hardrive, and students can save there homework at home bring it to school and print it if desired. they can also be used to interect in swaping digital information. Students could use it to transfer video files if this was a school project.  How about all those teachers photocoping all that paper? the iPod could reduce the need for so much paper and worksheet copying at school.

I see this method of banning somthing as socially programing a student into not becoming a true leader in life. If i say "you can't do somthing" then that is use of such corporate powers like a boss to its' employee/s. It instantly gives the student the idea that they have no rights for there own social behaviour in free time such as lunch, in a break period or even during reading or study.

Teachers must 'learn' how to use the technology at an advantage level. I cannot estimate how much schools still lack the use of technology in such a tecnology driven world. Learn how the iPod can be used for eductation! A while back universities were accually giving them free when you enroll into a course? is that contradiction i hear?

Anyway if my child decides to use an iPod at school it's his choice and human right! As long as he does his work and/or uses the device when only necessary or in his free time such as lunch, in a break period or even during quiet reading or study in a library.


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 27, 2005)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> I see this method of banning somthing as socially programing a student into not becoming a true leader in life. If i say "you can't do somthing" then that is use of such corporate powers like a boss to its' employee/s. It instantly gives the student the idea that they have no rights for there own social behaviour in free time such as lunch, in a break period or even during reading or study.


Most people use iPods to listen to music, and while it has other uses helpful in a school setting, _I'm sure_ the iPod is more of a distraction than an aid.  Like I said before, I think the policy should be; when the buds go in the ears during class, you lose your iPod privileges.

Plus, I think the idea of school is to prepare the student for the 'real' world, the work world.  Employers are not going to be happy about the employees' "rights" to do whatever they want.

I see this as a debate about removing distractions from the classroom, not "programming" a student to become a follower or some crazy idea like that.  I think too many things are artificially being called "rights" when they should be called "priveliges".


----------



## Qion (Mar 27, 2005)

I see a little of the creative side of our world crumble as something like this gets enforced. What I see in this is a stronger power(the school) using that power to take away something that they don't want to adapt too, the smaller powers(students) iPods. It reminds me of the 1984 Apple Superbowl commercial, only reversed. Quicksilver has got this idea figured out. It is the sole right of the individual to use their iPod in a constructive and creative manor, and it is the duty of the school system to adapt to a technology driven world. Sometimes I wonder why teachers even go through social education training(or whatever name u wanna put on it), because I rarely see a teacher who actually "gets it". It is the right of a person to express individuality, and to express themselves as they choose. As long as the person gets their job/task done, I see that they do it in a way that benefits them most. I think that allowing students to use iPods constructively has nothing to do with how they would act in the real world. This IS a technology driven world, and personally if I had a boss that couldn't adapt to one's personal rights, then I would probably quit that job. Giving students freedom isn't wrong. Teenagers need to live their own lives, and they should live their lives in the way that suits them best.


----------



## texanpenguin (Mar 28, 2005)

Many of you are treating these kids as though they're fully matured adults, with sensible opinions.

In most (not all) cases, that's entirely NOT the case. They need to be TOLD to put the iPod away if they're going to start socialising. It's not some form of grand oppression or something - they just need some rules that make it clear that school isn't a time to be insular.

iPods are great at school when you have a study break or something alone and it gets you focused on yourself and what YOU'RE doing. But in class, hell no.

I'd ban them in class, frown upon them in lunch, and permit them the rest of the time.


I'm just surprised anyone cares. I'm surprised anyone had the guts to start playing music in class instead of listening. It's rude if nothing else.


----------



## pds (Mar 28, 2005)

Tex has it right - teens need guidance and rules. I personally agree with the ban/frown/permit balance. 

I don't have a problem in my classroom, no one would zone out - the class is participation-intense (and the one who's not ready for it will skip rather than zone out). In the computer lab I use my iPod to provide background music (sometimes I let the kids pick the playlist). 

But I have seen kids zoning out listening to music in other classrooms while the instruction is being given. I have even (more often) found them talking on the cell phone with a bluetooth headset - in class. It's hard to believe the teacher allows it - but as I said the nationals can't stand up to the students.

The central point, though, is not freedom in itself. Freedom is a part of the nature of man - of all things really, though to a lesser degree. We all have freedom all the time. You can be mistreated for excercising it, but it can never be taken away, only given away. So the real question is more related to what we do with our freedom. It is related to how we fulfill our responsibilities. So I'll uphold a play-by-the-rules-and-if-you-don't-like-them-work-to-get-them-changed policy. That is what will produce true leaders, not an I-will-do-whatever-I-want-and-damn-the-rules strategy.

The very fact that someone would claim his iPod as a "human right" is a clue; there is insularity here and not just on a socialization level but on a world-level. I mean it's small thinking cloaked in big ideas. There is no section of the Declaration of Human Rights that implies a right to listen to music or the right to defy legitimate authority or even to have time to one's self. To suggest there is trivializes the real concerns of the matter. Students need to focus in school and get the facts straight.

Wake up folks - Dr Spock's method was a failure.


----------



## ktwdallas (Mar 30, 2005)

First they banned cell phones because students talked to each other too much, now they ban iPods because they don't talk enough to each other. Sheesh...

I know on my University campus, about half the people walk around with iPods and the other half talk on cell phones while walking around the buildings. Nobody's really concentrating on where they're going.


----------



## par3182 (Apr 3, 2005)

A *private school* banned iPods fearing social isolation? 

Aren't private schools doing that anyway?


----------



## Qion (Apr 3, 2005)

Tex and PDS, chill people. Let's not start bashing what people think about individuality and freedom. I am pretty sure that no one in this thread thinks that listening to iPods IN CLASS instead of doing real work is a good thing, but I also know that a lot of people think that using them in other places constructively is a good thing. Thats all that I was addressing in my post. Teenager's don't need to be told that they are being insular by listening to their music, I mean come on why is this even being addressed at this level? If a student is caught using their iPod instead of listening, or using it in place of someting constructive, then they should be told to put it away! Problem solved! A complete ban is just overboard and uneeded.


----------



## texanpenguin (Apr 3, 2005)

Qion - I highly doubt the people who made the rule are doing it based on the mild use of them in the playground.

I would think that the implication of such a rule is that somehow this has become a problem for this school, and they see banning them as a solution.

I doubt they're doing it in an attempt to be the fun police.


----------



## Quicksilver (Apr 3, 2005)

Ok guys so iPods should never be used in class, that's obvious. What if im at lunch? i do not see anything wrong with that. Banning in class, yes. Banning in the playground no! if they bann iPods. Then i say Bann books in the playgrounds.

Students do not need to be TOLD what to do with there free time. In a sence it is similar at a work environment, if i want to listen to music i do, and i can in my breaks. If i was told to do somthing in my break time at work i would tell them to get stuffed and consider it VERY RUDE! Why should this be any different in the break times at school? what difference in freedom should an employee and a student have during breaks? age?

Tex & PDS your argument seems to be based inside the classroom, i totally agree. However if in break times i consider it rude and diminishing on ones so called freedom of speach in allocated free time. would you at least agree that free time in schools is just as important as education itself? and that free time also means to do what you like meaning that you can bring a gameboy, a deck of cards or even an iPod to school?


----------



## pds (Apr 4, 2005)

Yikes!

Where's the Grammar Nazi when you need him?


----------



## andychrist (Apr 4, 2005)

pds said:
			
		

> Where's the Grammar Nazi when you need him?




You rang, sir?


----------



## Krevinek (Apr 5, 2005)

pds said:
			
		

> There is no section of the Declaration of Human Rights that implies a right to listen to music or the right to defy legitimate authority or even to have time to one's self. To suggest there is trivializes the real concerns of the matter. Students need to focus in school and get the facts straight.
> 
> Wake up folks - Dr Spock's method was a failure.



I thought the debate was rather interesting up until this point. Here is where I completely disagree, and find rather alarming in a couple ways. While I agree that students need to be able to focus in school, and that iPods being used during instruction can be problematic (heck, I tuned out teachers during lectures in /college/), but the quoted statement is a little scary.

My own personal view of freedom is that as long as you don't infringe on the rights/protections of others, then it is okay. Now, while there is no line in a document stating that you can listen to music and nobody can stop you, there is the concept of 'freedom to choose'. The freedom to choose to listen to music, if not infringing on the rights/protections of others, does not pose a threat to anything but the perception of what makes society. 

Defying legitimate authority? Anyone in a position of authority to MAKE such a document would PROHIBIT such action. Why? Because if you are in the position, you don't want others attempting to take it away from you. What is legitimate authority, what makes it legitimate, and why shouldn't we defy it? Things don't change unless we buck the norm (within reason). Just because we 'legitimately' select a president here in the US does not mean I should not defy this authority figure and attempt to get things changed if I believe what he is doing is wrong for the country as a whole. 

This particular clip is the scariest statement:



> or even to have time to one's self.



Wow... while I don't know about the UN, the US does have an amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, and intervention into private matters. Over time this has also come to mean the right to privacy, which would by extension, include time to deal with private matters in a way to keep them private. This concept requires that a person have time to one's self, otherwise privacy does not exist.

I will concede that because of today's laws (in the US) and the like, and minors having no rights beyond basic protections, your statement does hold /in this case/. However, attempt to apply that to those who get full protections under the law and it breaks down, or creates an environment which is very stagnant in the long-term (but an efficient machine!).

I think part of the core problem here is not about iPods, authority or anything else, but rather that our concepts of society need to be looked at and updated for a new world where 'Obey thy mother and thy father' is not law anymore. Education needs massive reform IMO to cope with the new challenges of today's society. iPod use during a class is a symptom, rather than a problem itself, which goes rather deep into how we view society. Can we really continue to apply a technology (the current educational institution, which /is/ a technology) which is hundreds of years old without much change to the core concepts to a society where information consumption is faster than it was by leaps and bounds? 

Ban them from classrooms if you must (the teacher is the one attempting to operate within that environment, and should have some control over it), but that should be the extent of it. 

Dr. Spock's method may or may not be a failure, but if we continue to hold old assumptions on what is successful, then we color and bias the results.


----------



## pds (Apr 6, 2005)

Krevinek said:
			
		

> My own personal view of freedom is that as long as you don't infringe on the rights/protections of others, then it is okay. Now, while there is no line in a document stating that you can listen to music and nobody can stop you, there is the concept of 'freedom to choose'. The freedom to choose to listen to music, if not infringing on the rights/protections of others, does not pose a threat to anything but the perception of what makes society.


And my own perception of freedom is that it is a subset of the larger value, responsibility. Freedom and rights are equated in your view. It is often asserted (though not specifically by you Krevinek) that man was endowed at creation (or by nature) with free will, the right to choose. I would challenge that definition, I see it as the ability to choose the right. Of course now comes in the real interesting part of the discussion, what is right. 



> Defying legitimate authority? Anyone in a position of authority to MAKE such a document would PROHIBIT such action. Why? Because if you are in the position, you don't want others attempting to take it away from you.


The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not made by a body with any particular authority. It is a consensus of what should be the rights of all people. I brought it up _not_ because of the merits of the document but to put it in proper context. The DoHR was crafted to correct real evils in a world where torture and opression are widespread. It stands as a monument to the good intentions of the member states and a testament to human decency. To use it as a justification for breaking a rule (as one poster did) or to claim that it relates directly to the issue at hand is, IMHO, to commit a gross abuse. And I see the tendency to commit that abuse more pronouncedly in those who are arguing from a self-centered position (and the young usually fall into that category).



> What is legitimate authority, what makes it legitimate, and why shouldn't we defy it? Things don't change unless we buck the norm (within reason). Just because we 'legitimately' select a president here in the US does not mean I should not defy this authority figure and attempt to get things changed if I believe what he is doing is wrong for the country as a whole.


Would you accept that parental authority is legitimate? 

Authority is connected to freedom and to rights and as such it would come into the same subset as the others, that of responsibilty. Authority exerted beyond responsibility is tyranny.

We vest authority in the government of a community though the consent of the governed. Defiance of that authority is not generally seen as a mature posture, but that may be just semantics. There are patterns and procedures in all systems to redress grievances, defiance is a final stage that thankfully patriots throughout the ages have taken up, but after serious debate and discussion. 




> This particular clip is the scariest statement:


The point goes with the above about the scope of the document. It is not clearly stated in the document that one poster used as his justification. I heartily recommend time to oneself as a necessary component of sanity.



> Wow... while I don't know about the UN, the US does have an amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, and intervention into private matters. Over time this has also come to mean the right to privacy, which would by extension, include time to deal with private matters in a way to keep them private. This concept requires that a person have time to one's self, otherwise privacy does not exist.


Until you go outside of your private space and participate in public. You certainly have the right to a beer. But in most places it is illegal to drink it on the street. If you do that, your pockets will be turned out and anything that would have been protected in your private space can and will be used against you in a court of law. 

You interpolate the protection of space to the protection of time. I don't have much trouble with that as a layman. However - just speaking about debate here - Robert Bork may have judicial objections to it, just as he would argue long and hard and with judicial soundness that there is no "RIGHT of privacy."



> I will concede that because of today's laws (in the US) and the like, and minors having no rights beyond basic protections, your statement does hold /in this case/. However, attempt to apply that to those who get full protections under the law and it breaks down, or creates an environment which is very stagnant in the long-term (but an efficient machine!).
> 
> I think part of the core problem here is not about iPods, authority or anything else, but rather that our concepts of society need to be looked at and updated for a new world where 'Obey thy mother and thy father' is not law anymore.


You may want to reassess your understanding of Old Testament "law" and it may help to quote correctly. "Honor thy father and thy mother." Honor leads to the concept of becoming all that they wanted to become but could'nt. It is an educational dictum, one not limited I think to blind obedience or to physical parents. It is the foundation principle of "It Takes A Village" thinking. I repeat, this is exactly the interesting point of the debate. 

When you say it is not the law anymore, do you mean that post-modern concepts of freedom have erased the Golden Rule? It never was "law" in the modern sense, but it is a fundamental principle for the development of a functional society. And it contains a challenge to parent and child. Honor and be honorable.


> Education needs massive reform IMO to cope with the new challenges of today's society. iPod use during a class is a symptom, rather than a problem itself, which goes rather deep into how we view society. Can we really continue to apply a technology (the current educational institution, which /is/ a technology) which is hundreds of years old without much change to the core concepts to a society where information consumption is faster than it was by leaps and bounds?


The current technology of school is flawed, but not because it is old, because it is new. It no longer deals with fundamental issues of right and wrong, but in technical facts without moral guidance. This is now two generations old. It is surely the challenge of our age, not just in education, to find the moral compass again, not in old time religion, but in serious spiritual renewal.



> Ban them from classrooms if you must (the teacher is the one attempting to operate within that environment, and should have some control over it), but that should be the extent of it.
> 
> Dr. Spock's method may or may not be a failure, but if we continue to hold old assumptions on what is successful, then we color and bias the results.


It seems to me that it is the not the old assumptions that have been shown to be deficient. It is change for it's own sake that colors and biases results.

Anarchy is a two edged sword. It can be arrived at both at the top and at the bottom of human development. That is - I can either become an anarchist by internalizing the principles of society or I can become a boor. The true anarchist is a highly moral person, most of the ones I meet are the other type.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 6, 2005)

Well stated pds!  It's that kind of articulation that I personally struggle with.


----------



## Quicksilver (Apr 6, 2005)

pds said:
			
		

> Yikes!
> 
> Where's the Grammar Nazi when you need him?






			
				andychrist said:
			
		

> You rang, sir?




LOL,  on holiday or somthing.


----------



## sinclair_tm (Apr 6, 2005)

what ever happened to kids listining to teachers?  when i whent to school , if a teacher said they didn't want to see my cd player during class, or they'd take it, i left it in my pocket or bag till class was over.  i think we need to be teaching the kids to make good decisions for them selfs, not making it for them.  the world is a sad place because we can't even dissapin our kids for fear of 'child adbuse'.  the kids have us in the palm of their hands and they know it too!  teachers can't slap them on the hand, or even take ipods away for the whole year ( both were things they could do when i was a kid, well, not the ipod because they weren't out yet, but whatever i brought that the teacher told me not to they would take).  and parents get mad at the teacher, instead of the kid.  every thing is way backwards.  i hate to see what the world will be like in 20-30 yrs when these kids are in control and find out that life is really hard and doesn't go their way, most won't be able to handle it.
well, time to end my rant and get off the soapbox


----------



## pds (Apr 7, 2005)

Just in off a link from the apple website


http://cit.duke.edu/ideas/newprofiles/ipod_faculty_articles.do


But at a university level.


----------



## Qion (Apr 7, 2005)

sinclair_tm said:
			
		

> what ever happened to kids listining to teachers?  when i whent to school , if a teacher said they didn't want to see my cd player during class, or they'd take it, i left it in my pocket or bag till class was over.



1. Basicly, all of us have already agreed that the teacher should have the right to tell the student to put their iPod away IN CLASS.

2. If the students are the ones being directly affected by authority, shouldn't the recipent of consequence have some say in what is being done? If authority punishes the student however they feel necesary, with no student feedback, how would they ever know if their method of discipline was correct? What if their method seemed to "work" for them, but it actually had no affect on the student, or a negative one?


----------



## mbveau (Apr 7, 2005)

A lot of you guys have brought up points pertaining to human freedom and rights. Please remember the context of this debate; this is a highschool, instituted in order to educate teens. Within this highschool, there is no _need_ for an iPod. Yes, you say that you can use it as a harddrive, etc. but there are ready ways around this (the typical school paper will still fit on a 3.5 floppy). Using it as a distraction from bullies (I think pds brought that up) is a great idea...except that there are bullies throughout life, and iPods will not always be available:-^ There is not even a good reason to allow iPods in the lunch hour, or outside of class. These are highschool students, remember! That, in many instances, would be absolutely impossible to enforce (I'm sure most of you can remember your highschool days).
      To those of you who have brought up the "human rights" card. This is not, and cannot be related to, the sort of political repression that is rampant in today's dictatorships. _This_ is what we must fight against! 

      (By the way, I think this is a really cool debate, and I congratulate both sides for maintaining their cool, and presenting actual arguments. That's very rare these days.)


----------



## AdmiralAK (Apr 8, 2005)

People who think that this is an attack on personal freedom: get off your high horse 

In high school - you have no freedom -
There are acceptable clothes to wear, there are acceptable things to bring in, there are acceptable actions to take. It is a FREE educational institution and you are required to abide by their rules.

Until you are 18, you basically don't have a lot of freedoms, someone will always tell you what to do, whether it is your teachers, you parents, your coatch or your drill sgt


----------



## cfleck (Apr 8, 2005)

I think AdmiralAK, might have said it perfectly.


----------

