Saturday, March 16, 2019
Teaching Morals and Character at State University :: Teaching Education Essays
Teaching Morals and typeface at State UniversityIntroduction Several weeks ago, there was a handsome uproar on State U.s campus when a threatening discriminatory message was found scrawled on a students in-person belongings. The controversy revolved around the intentions of this message and, once it was discovered who had scripted the message, how that individual should be punished. Most of the dialogue on campus, both amongst the judgeship and the student body, focused on the individuals motives, the individuals actions, and the individuals punishment. Yet, I argue that such(prenominal) actions can non simply be attri moreovered to the use of the individual, but also reflect the character of the institution. A somewhat humorous, yet appalling parallel can be drawn between this situation and cardinal presented by constructionist Rheta DeVries during her banter of teaching morality in a classroom of three-year-olds where a instructor found urine on the floor of the bathroom for several concomitant days. DeVries wrote, The teacher did not know who was responsible, but suspected that more than one child was involved. She figured that they were not being malicious but intellection it was funny (2). In this same manner, the State U. individual who wrote a threatening, homophobic message probably did not do so out of cut off hate, or with harmful intentions. Nevertheless, the message offended the State U. community in the same way that the urine on the bathroom floor cut off the three-year-olds classroom. In both situations, we must ask ourselves what encouraged such actions? why did the three-year-olds think it was okay to urinate on the floor? Why does a State U. student think it is permissible to write such a negative message? Neither the children nor the college student would have committed such acts had they believed that it would not have been accepted if not by everyone, at to the lowest degree by the majority.This State U. student faced a seme ster of suspension for his actions, but was permitted to return to school the following year. However, short-lived suspension is not the only(prenominal) necessary action. By temporarily ridding the institution of this individual, State U. alleviated the symptoms of sin but avoided directly treating the problem at hand State U.s moral atmosphere. Such a negative action, even if committed only when by one student, is a summons to the institution to re-examine its good environment in order to prevent inconsiderate actions before they occur, not treat them after the fact.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.