Diversity in thought.

Parent Cafe
1

<p>If I had to describe myself as a political being, I guess I would say I was liberal/independent.
I would agree with the statement that in general “liberals” are more inclusive, than those who would prefer to be called “conservative”, of lifestyles/choices, that are outside the mainstream.</p>

<p>But something I have difficulty with, is that just as with conservatives- liberals think they know it all. They can be willing to allow you to voice your opinion, just as long as they think they can eventually talk you to their point of view.
I don’t agree with conservatives restricting choices of adults, but I am also concerned about adults restricting information to kids- both by liberals and conservatives.</p>

<p>For example- my younger daughters high school PTA, has spoken out loudly against the war in Iraq. They don’t want military recruiters in the schools at all.
<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0518-04.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0518-04.htm&lt;/a&gt;
I don’t like recruiters in the schools, but I do not have a problem with them having the same access to students that colleges and businesses do.
I did sign a form taking my daughters name off the military mailing list released by the district, but she is getting stuff anyway- but we just recycle it.</p>

<p>Since my oldest just turned 25, I feel I am a fairly experienced parent- and I wish that other parents remembered that when you paint a group or activity as being all bad- it can make it more enticing for kids. ( I would say Reefer Madness backfired- and we wouldn’t have the large alcohol industry we do if drinking couldn’t be fun & anyone have a parent that tried to convince them that sex was only for making babies?).</p>

<p>By the time students are of an age to be approached by recruiters, they , I hope) have learned to make good decisions. I realize they are impulsive etc. to the nth some of them, and the smarter they are, the more they think they know what they are doing. But just because we are older, doesn’t mean we can or should make their decisions for them.</p>

<p>Just because we think that we “know it all” doesn’t mean that someone with the same access to information that we do, but arrived at a different conclusion is less correct than ourselves.</p>

<p>It bothers me quite a bit- that when hearing for instance- that Ds friend- who is an decorated ( Purple Heart) Iraqi veteran, recently volunteered to return ( he volunteered the first time too), to Iraq, my mother commented, that “he must have a brain injury”.</p>

<p>Granted its not a choice I agree with, and considering other comments my mother has made, it doesn’t stick out, :rolleyes:, but why is it OK to assume that if someone makes a different choice, they aren’t all there?</p>

<p>Why do I feel I will be attacked if I even suggest that he come and speak to the students at Garfield, the way they have had other speakers, like James Yee & Barack Obama?</p>

<p>He isn’t about shooting things up- he worked for three years on an island so small they didn’ t have a telegraph, but if he feels that we are making a difference there- I want to hear about it.</p>

<p>Why isn’t diversity in thought valued the way we supposedly value skin deep diversity?</p>

2

<p>“Why isn’t diversity in thought valued the way we supposedly value skin deep diversity?”</p>

<p>I live in NYC and there is very little diversity of thought. A friend once told me that the same phenomenon occurs in places that are very “red,” as well, because the majority group has little experience with other opinons and doesn’t know how to deal. As I’ve posted before, I’ve been cursed, threatened and spat upon by open minded liberals. I happen to be a very tiny, soft-spoken person who doesn’t engage in political debate in public, so all of those incidents occurred when I refused to agree with statements or sign petitions. I completely agree with everything you posted, Emeraldkitty.</p>

3

<p>Emeraldkitty, why don’t you have a widow come and talk, or a vet with no legs, or such at the same time?</p>

4

<p>Emeraldkitty, why don’t you have a widow come and talk, or a vet with no legs, or such at the same time?
Cgm, they have had discussions like that- they had someone from a veterans against the war group come, to debate a military recruiter ( who was very young), but that was at a PTA meeting.</p>

<p>But I think what Alex has to say, would be relevant to any class( he is also an amputee as well) , to history class, not for recruiting purposes ( he quit his job as recruiter to go to Iraq), but to talk about history being made, because frankly that is what it is.</p>

<p>And I don’t think its a case of “debating”, anymore than James Yee had an “opposite side” present their opinion when he gave an assembly. </p>

<p>Im sure if he gave a presentation, that he would be asked questions and I think that should be encouraged as long as they were respectful, just as I hope that any questions students ask vistors are respectful.</p>

<p>I also think you can ask tough questions and still be polite- but I wouldn’t want him to be harrassed just as I don’t think any of our military should be harrassed just because they are in uniform.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps because this would be more political theater rather than a serious debate? How about a veteran amputee or widow come talk in support of the Iraq war? I am positive that it wouldn’t be a problem finding volunteers, if all you wanted was a photo op and not a serious exchange of differing viewpoints. I think CGM could not have missed EK’s point in a more profound way.</p>

<p>Excellent post, EK. Want to help me found the Reasonable People’s Party? Our founding platform is that any problem worth solving doesn’t have a viable easy solution and that hardly anyone is wrong all the time.</p>

6

<p>We live in an age of soundbite democracy. People with real experience are pretty much disqualified for leadership, because they have too much of a track record and may, over time, have changed their views on this or that or accepted a compromise that can’t be understood in a five-word slogan. And, unfortunately, Reasonable People’s Parties do not have a great track record of effectiveness at the polls or in government. Bill Clinton handled the first well, but not so much the second, and all anyone (except mini, who has principled objections) seems to care about is his tawdry sex life.</p>

<p>Going back to EK’s OP, I imagine that, for some at least, a ban on military recruitment stems not so much from a desire to keep young people from making their own decisions as from a desire to do something, anything, to indicate profound disagreement with this administration’s war policies in a way that feels effective. The “people” have really been disenfranchised on this, and are doing all sorts of silly things in response. The Philadelphia City Charter now has a provision expressing opposition to the war, passed overwhelmingly a few weeks ago, notwithstanding its complete inappropriateness. My 84 year-old mother-in-law, quite sick, dragged herself to the polls just to vote for that, because “someone has to do something to stop that man!”</p>

7

<p>“Emeraldkitty, why don’t you have a widow come and talk, or a vet with no legs, or such at the same time?”</p>

<p>Because the voices vehemently speaking out against US involvement in Iraq are already legion, on every nightly news report, in every major news magazine, in every newspaper column. We are all horrified by the images of soldiers coming home broken, missing limbs, or suffering from PTSD for “no justifiable reason”. I am personally mystified as to why ANYONE would want to return to this seemingly futile war, but I have heard of numerous soldiers who have expressed the willingness to go back to Iraq, and heard of them say things like, “the media isn’t giving people the whole story about what’s happening in Iraq”. </p>

<p>Well then, someone explain it to me. Tell me what the media isn’t telling us. I’m willing to sit and listen for a bit. And I don’t think it’s necessary to give “equal time” every time the unpopular viewpoint is given the opportunity to hold the floor. One legitimate criticism of the ultra liberals in academia, is that they TALK about diversity of viewpoint, but really are interested in what you have to say ONLY if you happen to agree with them. Otherwise, you’re to be shouted down and your point of view entirely discounted. Hypocrisy isn’t attractive, no matter which “side” it comes from.</p>

8

<p>

The problem is that people do not want to hear anything that conflicts with thier beleifs. It doesn’t really matter who presents an argument or how sound it is. Some people will dismiss it entirely because they disagree (usually rationalizing that this person “doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” etc.)</p>

<p>

SPOT ON!</p>

9

<p>EK, one more insightful post from you. I can’t remember when I last lived in a geographic area where I was in the political majority. Like zoosermom, I never discuss politics in public, or with anyone I’m not very comfortable with. But it’s been my experience that people are tolerant (as long as you agree with them), will think you are intelligent (unless you have a different point of view) and will take their time to get to know you (unless you lean a different way politically – then they will make all sorts of false generalizations about you.)</p>

<p>You don’t even have to look at the main stream media to see this – just read a few threads on CC.</p>

10

<p>Diversity in thought is a fine thing, and to be encouraged. As for recruiters at high schools – what I’ve seen hasn’t been about reasoned debate. Recruiters arrive with a huge red-white-and-blue tractor-trailer full of shoot-em-up toys. Video games. Hands-on weaponry. Macho posters. Rude music. The students are lured in to play battle-simulatiom video games and encouraged to sit in flashy army HumVees. Handsome young recruiters invite questions, and provide scripted answers. Unlike the college recruiters, these folks don’t set up shop in the counseling office – they park their monstrosity in the quad.
My friend the retired fighter pilot (Phantoms in Vietnam) is also invited to speak, and he supports U.S. administration position on Iraq – I disagree with him, but I’m delighted he can speak to the students.
Inviting recruiters and inviting knowledgeable speakers are two different things.</p>

11

<p>I imagine that it’s generally pretty universal that mothers don’t want their sons (and now daughters) going off to war. This was true during Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, WWI, Civil War (and every other one). Given that the PTA is generally comprised mostly of mothers, I don’t think it’s surprising that most of them want to protect their children despite the fact that those children will soon be legal adults and able to make their own decisions in this regard. </p>

<p>Although the PTA may have been outspoken against the war in Iraq I doubt this is really the reason they don’t want the recruiters. I doubt they would have welcomed them during any war no matter what the circumstances of the particular war were.</p>

<p>I personally think it’s fine for military recruiters to present on campus just as college recruiters and others do. The military is a viable option for many and I for one am very grateful for those willing to contribute to our society by joining the military.</p>

<p>These recruiters are simply presenting information - not forcing anyone to join. Despite recruiting at the HS campus my D’s attended and sending them many solictations by mail and phone, neither one joined.</p>

12

<p>More to your point - I think that many people, regardless of their political affiliation, tend to be somewhat exclusive. I haven’t found ‘liberals’ any more inclusive than ‘conservatives’. We see this on CC all the time. Just look at how people react to subjects of politics, the war, Bush/Clinton, religion, or any other similar category of type topic. I also think people are much more likely to be comfortable with people whose beliefs and thought processes are similar to their own. I think it’s human nature.</p>

13

<p>At Garfield- it wasn’t the military that came in with boom boxes blasting it was right wing radio stations that wanted to either support the military &/or give the PTA chair crap-</p>

<p>Its hard to say- if a “just” war, would have been different- a war that was viewed as 'neccesary" by more people than this one is probably not.</p>

<p>I did vote however to allow the miltary the same access that the other organizations did ( even though banning them was moot because of NCLB)
and I also think that if males have to register when they are 18, then women should to- I don’t want mine in the military, but it doesn’t make sense to have a different standard.</p>

<p>ucsd dad, its ,more so than “tolerant” or not tolerant, IMO, I agree that who we choose to spend time with , we feel we have something in common.
Most of my friends are middle aged Caucasian women, who are married or have been married and who have children or whose partner has children.
So we fall in same slot, although they are generally older, better educated, and higher income than I am- my mother in law would probably say I am too big for my britches- the way she did, when we originally mentioned that our kids were going to private schools ;)</p>

<p>But also I am speaking about open forums where the whole point is to listen to others ( as in the community/neighborhoods/schools/city), as well as to throw in your own $ .02, where I would hope to hear tolerance for other ideas, and viewpoints rather than people being attacked for not thinking like the herd.</p>

<p>( you should have heard the response I got- when after listening to parents who lived in certain very well heeled neighborhoods- where there has not been a neighborhood high school for over 30 years- attack me, when I pointed out that families who moved into those neighborhoods without noticing the lack of neighborhood schools, had more means to get access to them, than families who lived in more impoverished neighborhoods whose neighborhood schools were closing)</p>

14

<p>technically, PTA is not supposed to take a side/stand on political issues. It goes against the national charter and mission. Unless the state convention has it on it’s platform and a vote taken, PTA does not support or endorse political candidates or issues. You need to remind yours.</p>

15

<p>Emeraldkity, the thing about military recruiters is that it isn’t simply a “political” thing. I’m a liberal Democrat, but I’m okay with military recruiters talking to my kids; I’d even be okay with one of them enlisting, if that’s what they wanted to do (although I’m sure I’d have some sleepless nights.) But my wife, who’s far less overtly politically oriented than I, and in many ways far more conservative, goes into full-fledged crazed Mama Bear mode if the subject of her kids and the military ever comes up. She has literally chased recruiters from our house, torn up military-oriented mail addressed to our kids, and has announced in a manner which no one would question that if a draft was initiated she would move to Canada and take our kids with her.</p>

<p>You don’t mess with that kind of maternal instinct. And I think that, coupled with an unpopular, lengthy, unwinnable and and politically tinged war which no one remembers the reason for our being in in the first place, makes people just a little bit less than reasonable when it comes to the subject of recruiters trying to encourage little Johnnie (or Suzie) to sign up for a tour of duty. Or maybe its not so unreasonable after all. People want to protect their children .</p>

16

<p>Tolerance is not something our society values or teaches. Everyone is supposed to act a certain way, dress a certain way and think a certain way. High schools are probably the least tolerant places in the world. Outside of that, colleges that have protective legislation limiting the numbers on out of state students are fostering this small mind/similar mind mentality. Diversity of thought is a big issue of mine…we seem to have the color diversity down as our local school is 30 white/30 black/30 asian/ 10 other…but the tolerance of people who simply like different things or do different activities is totally absent. Still the jocks/cheerleaders rule the roost. Maybe in another 30 years it won’t be like that.</p>

17

<p>I think we tend to associate with people who have the same views as ourselves. My undergraduate school had no diversity of thought, which was very fustrating for me. I am very out-spoken individual and as soon as I start to provide a different view contrary to what they all believe I am avoided by the rest of the class.</p>

<p>I am currently in a grad program at a school where almost everyone is liberal and it is amazing how I don’t feel any sympathy for conservatives whenever they are shouted down.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s academic open-mindedness for you. It’s also about the same as it was when I was in college back during the Polk administration. Colleges haven’t been about open discourse or free exchange of ideas in my lifetime.</p>

19

<p>At work quite a few years ago I used to play chess with a colleague at lunch. We also used to go boogie-boarding at lunch quite a bit. Whe it came to politics we were quite opposite - he a liberal and me not. For me, and I hope for him, it actually made for a more interesting time and more interesting conversations. If we’d have both agreed on everything the conversation probably would not have lasted long as we both just nodded our heads and echoed each other. Having opposing viewpoints allowed us to have longer and more interesting conversations. Neither of us ever ‘convinced’ the other to change their viewpoints but the discussion was still interesting. One can’t do this with everyone though since too many people start to get angry and combative if your POV doesn’t happen to coincide with theirs.</p>

20

<p>Amy actually wasn’t off track with the PTA against the military
I am not that familiar with the PTA, when I was chair- it was at a school that was a “PTO” not a PTA</p>

<p>However this is the three pronged mission of the Washington state PTA</p>

<p>

</h1>

<p>Considering that Garfield is an inner city school, where youth are recruited more heavily than in neighborhoods that are more affluent- I think from that perspective- speaking out was well within the guidelines of the PTA</p>

<p>The PTA also gets involved in political issues all the time- they lobby in the capitol quite regularly, Ive done it myself.
Thats like saying the NEA isn’t political ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My daughter belongs to a student outdoor activity/education club that in years past was sponsored by the BoyScouts, however, since the BoyScouts discriminate, it now is sponsored by the Mountaineers club, even though the monetary contribution is different.</p>

<p>The military discriminates and performs illegal acts- makes sense that they don’t want minors recruited to participate</p>