Reflection #5

After reading Nadya Labi's essay, "Classrooms for Sale", my opinion on the matter has not changed. It is not a strong opinion in support or opposition of advertisement in the classroom but rather one of a sort of acceptance to the relationship of supply and demand between schools and marketing brands; marketing brands need space for advertisement and schools need money.

Instead of focusing on my opinion on the matter of classroom advertisment, here's some of Labi's stategies in presenting her argument:
I think it is so effective in setting the tone to begin an essay about schools with a problem. She starts by stating "Solve this problem:"(p.123). Point blank. Followed by multiple choice answers. It is also very effective to use a specific school in the example, making the issue discussed more malleable and real for the reader.
I also liked how she transitioned between paragraphs six and seven,"'Advertisers realize that schools are the perfect place to develop new markets. Kids can't switch the channel'[now to para.7] That's literally true in the case of ZapMe! Corp., which gives schools a free ride on the information superhighway[...]"(p.125). She then goes on to explain how this company provides the computers with the catch that the students have to use them a minimum of four hours a day; four hours in which a 2'' x 4'' billboard of rotating ads is on the screen.
The last strategy used which I enjoyed is found in the last sentence. Sarcasm-yes. Labi takes school advertisment to the assumed extreme that, in the future, schools will be so indoctrinated with advertising that the advertisers' names will become the schools'; much like Stanford University, though not with the same positive connotation. She tries to somehow invoke a fear of advertising by using two predominant (and not the healthiest) companies-McDonalds and Coke.

Though I found the strategies in this essay to be well done, I think that the essay wold have been more effective, if in it, Labi had donemore to address the supporting side of school advertising. Instead, she wrote an essay with the stipulation that all school advertising is bad.

reflection #4...wow, already

I'm kind of excited for the semester projects now. I originally thought that I might want to volunteer at the Redwood Gospel's Food Bank, because I've always wanted to, but just have never physically gotten there. Then I changed my mind. There is a program called Girl's on the Run which provides mentorship between older female runners and girls from low opportunity situations or those who just want to get out and run. I thought it would be great to build relationships with the girls in the program, through being a mentor, and learn how running has changed/influenced their lives. I know how much running has shaped my life and thought that volunteering for something that was helping others as well learning their stories would be a blessing. Then I remembered the limited time I have; fitting in several hours a week would be just a little too much. So, the final idea came up in conversation with Joe M. while the table groups were sharing ideas. We saw that there was a problem: so many people just throw away their old running shoes and they are a large contributor to landfills; especially when you think of people like me who go through a pair about every three months. There are solutions to throwing shoes away in the garbage but people just don't know about them. So, Joe M. and I were thinking about sharing the alternatives to throwing shoes away and then putting a collection drive together. Here is a link to one alternative to throwing your old althetic shoes away: http://www.soles4souls.org/about/locations.cgi?zip=94931

So, I'm sitting here trying to figure out what I want to write about for the second short essay. I quickly re-read "Why the Pledge of Allegience Should be Revised", "Protecting Freedom of Expression on Campus", and "Conspiracy Theories 101".
Still not sure of what I want to write about; nothing is clicking or setting in.
"Why the Pledge of Allegience Should be Revised" argued that the phrase "under God" should not be included in The Pledge, and that it should not be a requirement of young school children and new citizens to recite because of the "religious" reference. "Protecting Freedom of Expression on Campus" argued that ignoring those who speak freely in an offensive manner is the best method, rather than trying to regulate speech; just because you don't like another's speech, does not mean that you can limit it, according to the First Amendment. And finally, "Conspiracy Theories 101" defined academic freedom as the freedom to study anything. It is the job of the professor to responsibly use academic freedom in the form of analysis and not the proselytizing of their opinions.
Maybe I'm getting somewhere now...
Thinking back to the class discussions on these essays, I remember the issue of indoctrination coming up when discussing the recitation of The Pledge of Allegience in public elementary schools. I remember the thoughts of others who believed that it was not right that kids were "peer pressured" into saying The Pledge when its assumed that most kids have no idea what it's saying. Then others were of the opinion that it's commemorating the history of our country and introducing kids to the rights they have as citizens of the United States; as well, it is a respectful form of patriotism. Now I'm thinking about the idea of academic freedom and the responsibility of analysis that comes with it as discussed in "Conspiracy Theories 101". Can reciting The Pledge in elementary schools be seen as more indoctrinating than teaching? It makes me think of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity as we discussed in class. There always seems to be an eminent grey area between the two.
So, I think I may have a thesis: The recitation of The Pledge of Allegience in public elementary schools sparks many opinions which center around the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity.
How does that sound?

With a right comes responsibility

I really enjoyed this week of class. I thought the discussions we had were very thought provoking. I think they were also a perfect example of the very thing we discussed in class today-student code of conduct in the classroom. We are able, with this class, to create an environment in which everyone has the opportunity to express their thoughts on issues. There are so many different worldviews in a single classroom, that by regulating what is and isn't "P.C." and enforcing that is a limitation to the student who is not of the same opinion as that of the "P.C." majority. When everyone has the right to free speech, the many viewpoints which make up this world population can be understood and learned from, instead of ignorantly throwing aside. Like Jacoby says in her essay "A First Amendment Junkie", "[...] free speech is its own best antidote" (p.44). I think it is also understood that with the right to free speech, comes responsibility of what you say. Everyone understands that there are consequences to hateful speech, and the First Amendment itself is not in protection of it. We must use the right we are given to convey our worldviews with respect to the understanding that our personal worldviewe is not the only one.

First Reflection-Week 2

After the group discussions today, I was impressed by the preparation and depth of conversation within the groups, and the class as an average. I would have loved even more time for discussion as a class, in order to hear more ideas presented.
Within our group, we were able to come to a consensus of opinion on the two viewpoints presented in the essays. We felt that defining obscenity as an abrindgement would benefit society-much like the abridgement of shouting "fire!" in a crowd when there is none. It would be a benefit of limiting the exposure and access to the youth-as one group mentioned in the class discussion. We felt that much of the issue around defining free-speech results from the fact that those who interpret the law, the Supreme Court, can differ on their opinion of the Constitution as a living document or one in which the Founding Fathers had a specific idea/definition in correlation to phrases such as free-speech. Regardless of definition though, the job of the government is to protect its citizens, and it was therefore easy to understand why child pornography is outlawed. We felt that, over time, social construction influences and changes our definitions and opinions of topics such as pornography, and that today there may be a harder time defining what is and isn't pornography. There seems to be a large grey area over a definition. For example, and adult magazine section out of the way and covered up in the community market versus the magazine on the front rack with a woman whos only covering is her hand. Is one or both pornography?

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe, is that it's comprehensible" Albert Einstein

Hey everyone! I'm looking foward to the challenges and learning this semester presents with all of you.