Is it alright for Barack Obama to talk to the schools?

[Ripplemagne]

You may have heard that Barack Obama is speaking to public schools and there's a bit of a stink about it. I'm interested in hearing your views on it because I had a fairly big debate with my mom and uncle on the matter.

Their basic argument was that, as parents, they wouldn't want the President indoctrinating children into partisan views and they felt that they were trying to engineer socialism into the youth. They equated this with Hugo Chavez and the spread of Communism, where it wasn't directed at older people, but the young.

Now, I understood where they were coming from and I think if Obama was attempting to pander his political views into the message, then it would be subject for concern. But the Administration brought across that Obama was just trying to encourage the students to do well in school.

My basic argument was that they were viewing the matter through a partisan lens and if it were Reagan, a President whom all three of us like, doing this, they wouldn't have a problem with it.

Ironically, the argument going on right now is that the Democrats in Congress and the Media launched a full fledged investigation in October 1991 when George H.W. Bush did the same thing. And it was brought about to a larger extent than is now. However, now, Democrats have a problem with the treatment Obama is getting on the matter.

One lady was interviewed on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" and she didn't send her daughter to school and, instead, opted to teach her daughter how government spending would leave her in debt. Of course, she couldn't find a single thing Obama said that she had a problem with, but the fact that it was Obama talking to the students was enough for her to get indignant. And of course, she fails to recognize that she's the one politically indoctrinating her child.

I think people need to stop looking at everything as Republican and Democrat and look at things as American. What do you think?

[Grey fox]

FFs, he's the president, it's what they DO.

[bennybronx]

Think it would be fantastic for some kids. He's a real role model for african americans (and black people in general) so for him to come to schools and speak to the students would be very inspiring and enlightening

[Sage]

If he's not getting into politics with his talks to students and it's just about things we can all agree on (like succeeding in school) then I don't see anything wrong with it. Whether you agree with his views or not, he did become the president, which is quite an accomplishment. Who better to talk about accomplishing things to students?

[Maverick]

One thing how I don't get is how its alright for Presidential candidates to speak at schools and campaign and spread their agenda, yet its not ok for a president to speak to his countryman in a non-partisan way?

The problem though is that people are nervous with Obama. He does bring a taste of socialism in what is supposed to be a free market. There's also the controversy about him being a Muslim (like it matters) and some nutcases think he's the anti-Christ. Also you can't forget the Reverend Jeremiah Wright situation either.

People have more of a problem with Obama rather than presidents speaking to children.

[Modus Operandi]

CNN said today that the president's speech had no political overtone whatsoever.

I didn't hear it, but I think it's fine that he did this.

[Ripplemagne]

One thing how I don't get is how its alright for Presidential candidates to speak at schools and campaign and spread their agenda, yet its not ok for a president to speak to his countryman in a non-partisan way?

The problem though is that people are nervous with Obama. He does bring a taste of socialism in what is supposed to be a free market. There's also the controversy about him being a Muslim (like it matters) and some nutcases think he's the anti-Christ. Also you can't forget the Reverend Jeremiah Wright situation either.

People have more of a problem with Obama rather than presidents speaking to children.

Indeed.

I can understand being nervous with him with people like Van Jones, Reverend Jeramiah Wright, Cass Sustein, John Holdren, Steve Rattner, ACORN, SEIU, et cetera standing shoulder to shoulder with him. And it doesn't exactly help that he has Congress, Main Stream Media and the Supreme Court behind him or that he's dismissed our watchdogs. But I think people like to demonize and polarize politics to the point where the people they don't like can do no right.

[quartermaster]

As long as the president leaves his politics at home, I see no problem with it. I can see no issue with a president giving a "pep talk" to students, but if it breaches that line, then it becomes a problem. Once the transcript of his speech was released, however, I believe it should have become a non-issue, but given the relative partisan nature of this president, the protests and outrage is to be expected. Essentially, many Americans fear this president; I believe there is cause for fear given the relative growth of the federal government and economic manipulation, similar to that of what Bush did, but most of these people are all outraged for the wrong reasons. The general outrage is simply political, as the similarities of Obama and Bush are so poignant, that such outrage cannot be down to much anything else.

[Bluearmy]

I know some kids at school are not going to go the day he does speak because their parents think he is the anti-christ.

I don't have a problem with it at all. Kids who are too young wouldn't understand. Kids who are old enough to understand should be old enough to form their own opinions.

[Ripplemagne]

As long as the president leaves his politics at home, I see no problem with it. I can see no issue with a president giving a "pep talk" to students, but if it breaches that line, then it becomes a problem. Once the transcript of his speech was released, however, I believe it should have become a non-issue, but given the relative partisan nature of this president, the protests and outrage is to be expected. Essentially, many Americans fear this president; I believe there is cause for fear given the relative growth of the federal government and economic manipulation, similar to that of what Bush did, but most of these people are all outraged for the wrong reasons. The general outrage is simply political, as the similarities of Obama and Bush are so poignant, that such outrage cannot be down to much anything else.

If I didn't already rep you, I'd rep you again.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/ripped/RipplemagneSeal.gif?t=1228166616

I don't have a problem with it at all. Kids who are too young wouldn't understand. Kids who are old enough to understand should be old enough to form their own opinions.

Lets be realistic though. Most teenagers have no idea what's going on and are quite influential. I don't know how old you are, but I'm eighteen and just finished High School. I'm very aware of just how naive the student body can be.

[Perseus]

I see no problem with him speaking to schools. My high school didn't show it(it was today, right?). I mean, it's not like he is shoving his politics down the students throat and such. I think it was a good idea of him to do this; it probally encouarges kids. The whole right-sided republicans should just chill. I'm republican, and I don't see a need for people to spaz out over it.

[JackOfClubs]

It is perfectly alright for him to talk to students about the education that they are receiving. He is our president, and whether you hate him or love him, its his job to protect us. And my school chose not to show it for two reasons 1) It interfered with lunch, even though we have many projectors that can be hooked up to cable, and TV's on carts. 2) Some parents didn't want their children to hear a speech from the President. Its a High School, parents ruin everything that could ever be good or fun.

[tripolar]

We watched it, but no one payed any attention except the teacher. All it was, was a sob story about how some little underprivileged kid rose to the top from school and some other crap. He shook some hands, there was a school band but nothing politically related.

[CrashingWaves]

I think everyone not just adults should know what the president wants to do to our country. Kids shouldn't be left out just because they are young. Anyways, you normally share politcal thoughts with your parents so why should it matter anyways. Btw I. Didn't watch it and I know that this is a bit pate but still...

[Ripplemagne]

It matters because it's political indoctrination. It wasn't the case here, but if it were, it certainly would be an issue of concern.

[INFERNO]

I think it's perfectly fine for him to talk to the students, even if he is tossing in some political issues or his political agenda. He's not the first person nor will he be the last politician to talk to schools and potentially add a spice of politics to it. I think he's smart enough to realize that discussing some political issues would probably stuff him further down the shitter than he is already with this issue. I think that part of the issue isn't simply whether or not he brings politics into his discussion, I think it's also to do with how he's perceived and the people he has with him that others don't care for too much. Personally, I think it's good when the politicians try to explain themselves to the children because it not only allows the younger crowd to understand what is going on without all the fancy lingo and novel-length debates, it can also show that the politician isn't merely a puppet and that they have at least some understanding of what they stand for. In other words, it allows them to show that they aren't the face and their advisors and whoever else are the ones pulling all the strings.

Hopefully though, the parents who are very concerned are able to see the speech transcripts and realize that their fears of the president indoctrining their children didn't come to life and that they were wrong. Although, I may be living in a fantasy world here when I wish for that to happen.

However, what I think is hysterical is that some parents think he'll indoctorine certain values into their children when they pull them from school and keep them at home. They're doctrining them also, perhaps they're instilling different things but nevertheless, they're doing the thing that they're accusing Obama of doing. It gives the image of "no, don't indoctrine my children, that's my job to indoctrine them including political indoctrining".

If Obama indeed was trying to indoctrine the students, then I could see how some parents would make more of a stink about it but I also think that if that were the case, then the school administration hopefully is smart enough to prevent that from happening. Imagine, headlines blaring Obama's doctrine at the school AND the school allowed it. Not only would Obama be stuffed in the shitter but the school would be stuffed in the shitter also, perhaps more so than Obama.

[quartermaster]

I think it's perfectly fine for him to talk to the students, even if he is tossing in some political issues or his political agenda. He's not the first person nor will he be the last politician to talk to schools and potentially add a spice of politics to it. I think he's smart enough to realize that discussing some political issues would probably stuff him further down the shitter than he is already with this issue. I think that part of the issue isn't simply whether or not he brings politics into his discussion, I think it's also to do with how he's perceived and the people he has with him that others don't care for too much. Personally, I think it's good when the politicians try to explain themselves to the children because it not only allows the younger crowd to understand what is going on without all the fancy lingo and novel-length debates, it can also show that the politician isn't merely a puppet and that they have at least some understanding of what they stand for. In other words, it allows them to show that they aren't the face and their advisors and whoever else are the ones pulling all the strings.

Hopefully though, the parents who are very concerned are able to see the speech transcripts and realize that their fears of the president indoctrining their children didn't come to life and that they were wrong. Although, I may be living in a fantasy world here when I wish for that to happen.





I would draw a particular issue with this, not because of the said politician's political views, but because of the relative effects on the children. Children are very impressionable, especially to figures of authority, and thus by a politician "explaining" themselves or their politics, a child could easily take this for a fact or take the person’s arguments into serious account, just because of the relative prestige of the said person. Naturally, to children, a politician’s arguments would work and make sense, as they (the children) may not understand the issues involved or the arguments of the opposing side; in such a situation, I would argue you would not be acting in the best interests of the children, as the relative impressionability of the children would be being exploited by the politician.

I understand anecdotal evidence is weak, but I saw first hand what authority, and especially intellectual authority, does to even the most advanced of students. Take for example in my 12th Grade AP US government class last year, where our teacher made it explicitly clear that certain views were just his opinion, but students still took his ideas as if they were fact. I saw before my very eyes, rational students (some of whom were accepted into Berkeley, Stanford, Cornell and Brown) take my teacher’s opinions on a certain political matter as their own, without a second thought, without them even doing research on the issue, because his arguments “made sense.” Of course, if an intellectual figure presents his arguments, for even the most advanced of students, such arguments would make sense and seem right, as the figure is only presenting their side of the argument (for less proactive students who may not care to do research, especially smaller children, such arguments could be construed as a logical truth, because an authority figure said it was so and constructed an acceptable argument).

It is for such reasons that I believe you would be doing harm to students by attempting to politically indoctrinate them in any form, or exerting your political arguments upon them. School is to educate, that is to be sure, but exerting political views on students (intentional or not) is not what I believe the goal of any public educational institution should be.

[Sapphire]

I personally think that a lot of people look for things to complain about and sometimes even complain about hypothetical situations. If everyone got on with the important things then the world would be a better place.

If we look at this properly, what did he actually do?
He spoke to some school kids about the importance of education and how your background doesn't dictate where you will end up in life. As far as I can gather he didn't talk about any controversial political issues or impress his policies onto them.
This seems to me like a good message for the kids he spoke to (if not a larger portion of USA's school kids), good for him and in no way an attempt to indoctrinate them.

[quartermaster]

As far as I can gather he didn't talk about any controversial political issues or impress his policies onto them.
This seems to me like a good message for the kids he spoke to (if not a larger portion of USA's school kids), good for him and in no way an attempt to indoctrinate them.

We definitely saw that his speech to the children was not political pandering (if people actually took the time to read the released speech, they would have been pacified days ago), but a speech with a good message and solid teachings. That is certainly something a family can appreciate, as far as I am concerned this entire issue was blown out of proportion from the onset. The utter pretense that Obama was going to go into the school and talk about health care reform, Iraq, or what have you, was pure political hysteria.

[Eagle1]

I don't think its right he is a politician since when have they not wanted to rule the world oh yea JFK he was the last honest president but for some reason all the honest ones end up dead hmmm lets think about this. (no I do not generally support conspiracy theory's sp)

[INFERNO]

I would draw a particular issue with this, not because of the said politician's political views, but because of the relative effects on the children. Children are very impressionable, especially to figures of authority, and thus by a politician "explaining" themselves or their politics, a child could easily take this for a fact or take the person’s arguments into serious account, just because of the relative prestige of the said person. Naturally, to children, a politician’s arguments would work and make sense, as they (the children) may not understand the issues involved or the arguments of the opposing side; in such a situation, I would argue you would not be acting in the best interests of the children, as the relative impressionability of the children would be being exploited by the politician.

I understand anecdotal evidence is weak, but I saw first hand what authority, and especially intellectual authority, does to even the most advanced of students. Take for example in my 12th Grade AP US government class last year, where our teacher made it explicitly clear that certain views were just his opinion, but students still took his ideas as if they were fact. I saw before my very eyes, rational students (some of whom were accepted into Berkeley, Stanford, Cornell and Brown) take my teacher’s opinions on a certain political matter as their own, without a second thought, without them even doing research on the issue, because his arguments “made sense.” Of course, if an intellectual figure presents his arguments, for even the most advanced of students, such arguments would make sense and seem right, as the figure is only presenting their side of the argument (for less proactive students who may not care to do research, especially smaller children, such arguments could be construed as a logical truth, because an authority figure said it was so and constructed an acceptable argument).

It is for such reasons that I believe you would be doing harm to students by attempting to politically indoctrinate them in any form, or exerting your political arguments upon them. School is to educate, that is to be sure, but exerting political views on students (intentional or not) is not what I believe the goal of any public educational institution should be.

I agree, you would be doing harm by attempting to politically indoctrinate them, however, with that said, consider the effect that parents have when they yank their kids out of school when a politician strolls along into the school. They likely are also indoctrinating their children.

As for the statement of many kids are impressionable, well, that is true, however, the same is said for adults. But not all kids and not all adults are impressionable, and although it's unfortunate that sometimes the kids or adults are too impressionable, if they're easily impressionable to the politician or some high authority figure, then they're probably impressionable to other people. In fact there have been psychological studies that showed the very same, how people can be impressionable and obey someone simply because the person is in a position of authority, such as the infamous Milgram experiment.

When a politician comes to a school, although I do agree kids are impressionable, I think only the high school students or maybe even grade 7-8 or so should be allowed to attend. Any younger and they're probably not going to understand it that much, even if it's it put in simple terms.

But as for the impressionability, assuming the audience is of more senior, mature and intelligent students, staff and whoever else, everyone is impressionable to some point or another.

[quartermaster]

I agree, you would be doing harm by attempting to politically indoctrinate them, however, with that said, consider the effect that parents have when they yank their kids out of school when a politician strolls along into the school. They likely are also indoctrinating their children.

Red herring. Though probably true, it is irrelevant to our discussion at hand.


As for the statement of many kids are impressionable, well, that is true, however, the same is said for adults. But not all kids and not all adults are impressionable, and although it's unfortunate that sometimes the kids or adults are too impressionable, if they're easily impressionable to the politician or some high authority figure, then they're probably impressionable to other people.

I agree, people from cradle to grave can be very impressionable, I never stated the contrary. However, what we are dealing with is a compulsory public system that would be exploiting, intentionally or not, the impressionability of the dependents, of students who are forced to be at the school. The fact that the scope of my argument can be expanded to adults does not change the effectiveness of my premise for children, as most adults are responsible for their beings and have the choice of education. Children, on the inverse, do not have control over their beings in school, as they are in a compulsory system of education.


But as for the impressionability, assuming the audience is of more senior, mature and intelligent students, staff and whoever else, everyone is impressionable to some point or another.

That then leaves a question: Is it acceptable for the impressionability of students to be exploited, intentionally or not, by a public institution of which students are forced to attend and parents forced to pay?

A key word in the question is public, as parents are ultimately the legal owners of the child, as such, they are allowed to indoctrinate said child as they please (barring a few cases). However, can a state operated school be afforded the ability of exploit the impressionability of dependents for political means? As, in a nutshell, that is what would be happening if a politician was able to exert his/her arguments upon a student body.

I suppose, ultimately, it would have to be up to the parents, as we can never forget where the funding for the public institution comes from.

[INFERNO]

Red herring. Though probably true, it is irrelevant to our discussion at hand.

Nope, it is relevant considering you said:

I believe you would be doing harm to students by attempting to politically indoctrinate them in any form, or exerting your political arguments upon them

I was simply building off of what you said and used that the support my justification for mentioning it. If you're going to call a Red Herring on my bringing up the effects that parents have, then you might as well say that stating that you can harm a child by politically indoctrinating them in any form to also be a Red Herring.


I agree, people from cradle to grave can be very impressionable, I never stated the contrary. However, what we are dealing with is a compulsory public system that would be exploiting, intentionally or not, the impressionability of the dependents, of students who are forced to be at the school. The fact that the scope of my argument can be expanded to adults does not change the effectiveness of my premise for children, as most adults are responsible for their beings and have the choice of education. Children, on the inverse, do not have control over their beings in school, as they are in a compulsory system of education.

You're correct that the children are required to be in the school, however, I can also bring up the argument of whether or not informing the students of the president's political views is indoctrinating them or if it's merely educating them. In a sense, they are being educated regardless if they're actually being politically indoctrinated because the job of the school (well one of them) is to educate the students. What they educate the students on doesn't matter too much as long as they're being educated, ideally with something relevant.


That then leaves a question: Is it acceptable for the impressionability of students to be exploited, intentionally or not, by a public institution of which students are forced to attend and parents forced to pay?

You exploit the impressionability of students anytime you teach them something. Teachers rely on this impressionability of the students in order to teach the students, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be acceptable. If it weren't acceptable, well, I see there being no schools, colleges, universities or any other education institution allowed to exist.

A better question would be whether or not certain topics are acceptable to be taught to the students, however, this question, regardless of what the issue is, such as political indoctrination, would have to do with the current laws, issues, etc... .


A key word in the question is public, as parents are ultimately the legal owners of the child, as such, they are allowed to indoctrinate said child as they please (barring a few cases). However, can a state operated school be afforded the ability of exploit the impressionability of dependents for political means?

Now you're asking a better question. I'd say that it depends on what the purpose of the political party is. As mentioned above, a basic teacher exploits the impressionability of students. So if the political party wanted to "brain-wash" the students into supporting the political party and recruiting others, then that I would think is not acceptable. But assuming they're not intending to turn the students into mindless robots, it depends on what their intentions are.


I suppose, ultimately, it would have to be up to the parents, as we can never forget where the funding for the public institution comes from.

True, although not entirely true. It is true in that the parent legally has control of the child, unless something such as child protective services and such comes in, in which case I'm not entirely sure about the legal issues but I'd assume that the child agency would take legal control. So barring certain circumstances, yes you're right that the parents have the ultimate say.

The part where you're wrong is that parents only get their pay either from welfare or from some owner. I guess what I'm trying to use without butchering it up is a Marxist view in that the parents can be seen as either a worker or owner but regardless of which one they are, there's always some other person(s) in a higher owner position. I thinking I'm failing on this attempt though :(

[Camazotz]

It's perfectly fine for the president to give a speech to the students of America. He was only trying to give them inspiration and motivation for the upcoming school year and their future education.

[quartermaster]

Nope, it is relevant considering you said:



I was simply building off of what you said and used that the support my justification for mentioning it. If you're going to call a Red Herring on my bringing up the effects that parents have, then you might as well say that stating that you can harm a child by politically indoctrinating them in any form to also be a Red Herring.

It is a red herring because a parent's ability to indoctrinate their children is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and thus I fail to see how it strengthens your argument. We are talking about schools, not parents, you are breaching an entirely different subject of which our discussion has no basis. We are talking about an institution's action (which the government can control), your example is talking about a parent's action in indoctrinating their children (which the government, at least the in the United Sates, has very little power over). I really can see no other way to phrase it other than your parent comment is most irrelevant, as regardless of whether you agree all indoctrination is bad or good, the scope of our argument is only encompassing schools and government educational facilities, and my comment was within that bounds, as we are talking about what a school should and should not be able to do in regards to political figures or political arguments in school.


You're correct that the children are required to be in the school, however, I can also bring up the argument of whether or not informing the students of the president's political views is indoctrinating them or if it's merely educating them. In a sense, they are being educated regardless if they're actually being politically indoctrinated because the job of the school (well one of them) is to educate the students. What they educate the students on doesn't matter too much as long as they're being educated, ideally with something relevant.

Ah, yes, but I never disagreed with that premise, as US schools talk about the politics of presidents (past and present) all the time. You were stating that you would want certain politicians to come into schools and talk to the students about their (the politician's) politics. That is what I am arguing against, as I see it as no more than putting students into an untenable situation of political indoctrination. Now, if classes teach students the various arguments of present politicians in the interest of education (just as current US Government classes do), that is perfectly fine by me, insofar as the information is presented evenly.


You exploit the impressionability of students anytime you teach them something. Teachers rely on this impressionability of the students in order to teach the students, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be acceptable. If it weren't acceptable, well, I see there being no schools, colleges, universities or any other education institution allowed to exist.

A better question would be whether or not certain topics are acceptable to be taught to the students, however, this question, regardless of what the issue is, such as political indoctrination, would have to do with the current laws, issues, etc... .

Admittedly, I forgot to add a few key words in my question, words of which I do add in what was supposed to be a restatement of this premise (seen, and addressed by you, below). In such, this question is an error as to what I was trying to convey, a mistake on my end, my apologies.


Now you're asking a better question. I'd say that it depends on what the purpose of the political party is. As mentioned above, a basic teacher exploits the impressionability of students. So if the political party wanted to "brain-wash" the students into supporting the political party and recruiting others, then that I would think is not acceptable. But assuming they're not intending to turn the students into mindless robots, it depends on what their intentions are.

Intent can always be good, in many respects even the most "vile" (vile as far as society sees them) of individuals may have done actions upon good intentions, as such, I would argue it is the result that is most important, not intent (or more importantly, stated intent). Since we cannot know results until they happen, we can only assume what the results will be; on this current topic, it would not be too much of a stretch for one to assume that if a politician comes into a school talking about his/her politics, he will be exploiting the impressionability of the students within a public, compulsory institution with his political arguments (which once again, what we are discussing, what happens outside of the institution to the student is irrelevant). If a school's goal is not to politically indoctrinate students (a premise of which both you and I seem to agree on), I would argue that one key to ensuring such does not happen is prevention, which is already used by public schools in not allowing politicians to speak at schools to students about their (the politician's) politics.

To be clear, if a politician wanted to go into a school and speak to the students, similar to what Obama did, I would have no problem with it (as we can assume the results will be of a positive nature in the goals of the school), but leave your politics at home.


True, although not entirely true. It is true in that the parent legally has control of the child, unless something such as child protective services and such comes in, in which case I'm not entirely sure about the legal issues but I'd assume that the child agency would take legal control. So barring certain circumstances, yes you're right that the parents have the ultimate say.

The part where you're wrong is that parents only get their pay either from welfare or from some owner. I guess what I'm trying to use without butchering it up is a Marxist view in that the parents can be seen as either a worker or owner but regardless of which one they are, there's always some other person(s) in a higher owner position. I thinking I'm failing on this attempt though :(

I fear you did fail at this attempt, as I do not understand what it is exactly you are trying to say. I particularly fail to see where I assumed that parents get their "pay either from welfare or from some owner." I made no assumptions in the line that you quoted, but stated a truth that parents pay taxes which goes towards several public services, one of which are public schools. If I am missing something, please do correct me, so I can defend and/or support my position appropriately.

Perhaps it is because I am not as well read on Marx as I am on Mises, Hayek and Friedman.

[INFERNO]

It is a red herring because a parent's ability to indoctrinate their children is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and thus I fail to see how it strengthens your argument. We are talking about schools, not parents, you are breaching an entirely different subject of which our discussion has no basis. We are talking about an institution's action (which the government can control), your example is talking about a parent's action in indoctrinating their children (which the government, at least the in the United Sates, has very little power over). I really can see no other way to phrase it other than your parent comment is most irrelevant, as regardless of whether you agree all indoctrination is bad or good, the scope of our argument is only encompassing schools and government educational facilities, and my comment was within that bounds, as we are talking about what a school should and should not be able to do in regards to political figures or political arguments in school.

It's not meant to strengthen my overall argument, it was merely a little debate of a point you made in yours.


Ah, yes, but I never disagreed with that premise, as US schools talk about the politics of presidents (past and present) all the time. You were stating that you would want certain politicians to come into schools and talk to the students about their (the politician's) politics. That is what I am arguing against, as I see it as no more than putting students into an untenable situation of political indoctrination. Now, if classes teach students the various arguments of present politicians in the interest of education (just as current US Government classes do), that is perfectly fine by me, insofar as the information is presented evenly.

So you don't have a problem with the politician strolling along if the schools teach a rather common course to the students? As far as I know, US government courses are taught although I'm not sure if they're required for all students to take. But perhaps the students who do take the course could get to hear the politician, whereas students who don't take the class don't get the chance to hear the politician.


Intent can always be good, in many respects even the most "vile" (vile as far as society sees them) of individuals may have done actions upon good intentions, as such, I would argue it is the result that is most important, not intent (or more importantly, stated intent). Since we cannot know results until they happen, we can only assume what the results will be; on this current topic, it would not be too much of a stretch for one to assume that if a politician comes into a school talking about his/her politics, he will be exploiting the impressionability of the students within a public, compulsory institution with his political arguments (which once again, what we are discussing, what happens outside of the institution to the student is irrelevant). If a school's goal is not to politically indoctrinate students (a premise of which both you and I seem to agree on), I would argue that one key to ensuring such does not happen is prevention, which is already used by public schools in not allowing politicians to speak at schools to students about their (the politician's) politics.

I agree with you on the point of intent and in fact with all of this part.


I fear you did fail at this attempt, as I do not understand what it is exactly you are trying to say. I particularly fail to see where I assumed that parents get their "pay either from welfare or from some owner." I made no assumptions in the line that you quoted, but stated a truth that parents pay taxes which goes towards several public services, one of which are public schools. If I am missing something, please do correct me, so I can defend and/or support my position appropriately.

True, parents do pay the taxes for schools and other public services. That I was not attempting to refute, however, what I was more concerned on and perhaps I should have made it more obvious was the part where you said "we can never forget where the funding for public institutions come from", as this was the part I was going after where I was giving my argument for why what you were saying was not true. The idea behind this was using Marx's idea in that the "owners" are the ones who pay the "workers", and so it was meant to be a neat little attempt to discuss where exactly the public funding comes from. I suppose though that this was simply me being excited after doing some first-year sociology course-work where we devoted part of the lecture to Marxism.

[quartermaster]

So you don't have a problem with the politician strolling along if the schools teach a rather common course to the students?

I do not have a problem with politicians coming to speak at public schools; I draw a particular issue with the idea of politicians being allowed to talk politics at schools, as I see it as being possibly harmful, and unnecessarily exploiting.


As far as I know, US government courses are taught although I'm not sure if they're required for all students to take. But perhaps the students who do take the course could get to hear the politician, whereas students who don't take the class don't get the chance to hear the politician.

US Government classes are required for all high school students (as far as I know); now, as far as politicians talking politics in US government classes, given the relative age and ability of the students to understand and process the information (it is usually a twelfth grade class, so they will be turning eighteen, going to college, etc., the following year), I believe that is a compromise I would be willing to make on the issue. A main condition, of course, would be that the school makes all the effort to have reciprocity in the speakers and views presented, but having politicians speak about politics and give their respective views in US government classes is something I perhaps would be willing to concede to. The valence issue behind it, however, given that it is a public institution that deals with minors, still makes such a thing as politicians being allowed to speak politics in even government classes, improbable.


True, parents do pay the taxes for schools and other public services. That I was not attempting to refute, however, what I was more concerned on and perhaps I should have made it more obvious was the part where you said "we can never forget where the funding for public institutions come from", as this was the part I was going after where I was giving my argument for why what you were saying was not true. The idea behind this was using Marx's idea in that the "owners" are the ones who pay the "workers", and so it was meant to be a neat little attempt to discuss where exactly the public funding comes from. I suppose though that this was simply me being excited after doing some first-year sociology course-work where we devoted part of the lecture to Marxism.

Of course, in any one public service, no one demographic pays for the entirety of anything, however, seeing as the parents do pay taxes that go towards the schools, and are people that utilize the said service, I believe they should have ultimate say in most issues (I also believe that the school should be insulated from the whim of public perceptions and the electorate in certain matters).

As for owners and workers, I disagree with the Marxist model in this situation because I believe taxes are different from any commodity market where profit is made. Taxes, when thought of in scope, are obtained from the work and labors of citizens by the government through coercion. Not all of the electorate agreed to pay the taxes, but if they do not give a piece of their income and wealth to the government, they are punished, thus it is ultimately down to coercion. In return (equal or not) the government provides services, however, the services are not optional in use or pay (in most circumstances), like any other commodity exchange. As such, I argue that the "owner(s)" in this case, are the people, as they pay for the service, not the government; the government does not make profit or earn money on its own merits, but simply pools the money of the people that it takes money from.

[INFERNO]

I do not have a problem with politicians coming to speak at public schools; I draw a particular issue with the idea of politicians being allowed to talk politics at schools, as I see it as being possibly harmful, and unnecessarily exploiting.

Ah OK, I agree with this also.


US Government classes are required for all high school students (as far as I know); now, as far as politicians talking politics in US government classes, given the relative age and ability of the students to understand and process the information (it is usually a twelfth grade class, so they will be turning eighteen, going to college, etc., the following year), I believe that is a compromise I would be willing to make on the issue. A main condition, of course, would be that the school makes all the effort to have reciprocity in the speakers and views presented, but having politicians speak about politics and give their respective views in US government classes is something I perhaps would be willing to concede to. The valence issue behind it, however, given that it is a public institution that deals with minors, still makes such a thing as politicians being allowed to speak politics in even government classes, improbable.



Of course, in any one public service, no one demographic pays for the entirety of anything, however, seeing as the parents do pay taxes that go towards the schools, and are people that utilize the said service, I believe they should have ultimate say in most issues (I also believe that the school should be insulated from the whim of public perceptions and the electorate in certain matters).

I agree, it is somewhat improbable for the politicians to speak about their politics to the school. I suppose you do have a good argument as to why the parents would have the ultimate say. The problem though, is that much of what the parents would argue for would usually be heavily based on emotions as opposed to more objective debating because they are going to try to give the best for their children.


As for owners and workers, I disagree with the Marxist model in this situation because I believe taxes are different from any commodity market where profit is made. Taxes, when thought of in scope, are obtained from the work and labors of citizens by the government through coercion. Not all of the electorate agreed to pay the taxes, but if they do not give a piece of their income and wealth to the government, they are punished, thus it is ultimately down to coercion. In return (equal or not) the government provides services, however, the services are not optional in use or pay (in most circumstances), like any other commodity exchange. As such, I argue that the "owner(s)" in this case, are the people, as they pay for the service, not the government; the government does not make profit or earn money on its own merits, but simply pools the money of the people that it takes money from.

I do agree that the government is the group that collects the money, however, in the same breath, the government is also the group that ultimately decides to laws, policies and such. So to me, it seems reasonable for them to collect the money and although they don't actively go and work to obtain the tax money, I suppose that their work for the country or states/provinces/territories is good enough compensation.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

so what, a president cant talk to students and give them advice?

this world is becoming to sensitive and run by the do gooders.

[Sage]

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xEjeSfHvGAU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xEjeSfHvGAU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>

[INFERNO]

so what, a president cant talk to students and give them advice?

That's not what the arguments here are about. The arguments revolve around the presidents politically indoctrinating the students, nothing about simply providing the students some advice.


this world is becoming to sensitive and run by the do gooders.

Who are the "gooders"?