Now, I can see how he thinks that color, race, and gender are being overly-emphasized in our current school sytem and I can also agree that that's not what makes up your identity and humanity, but calling it narcissm is way over the line, and that's not true anyways because if you're interested in your culture, then you're not preoccupied with yourself, but of other people in your culture. Oh, and by the way, RELIGION ISN'T A PHYSICAL TRAIT. It's an interest, and therefore should fall in his "criteria" of allowed extracurricular activities. People can change their religion, just like they can change their interests, activities, disposition.
Overall, Prager is trying to make a monotone school. He thinks that schools are providing too much extra help just because of physical traits, when it's the individual that really counts. Things like academic achievement should probably be left solely up to academics, but it's a bit extreme to completely swipe the school of anything pertaining to culture. In my mind's eye, I see Prager as an quixotic individual who is ultimately a hypocrite because his rules and regulations do not follow his "want" for individualism.
Lastly, trying to avoid political issues is ignorant, because some of those issues are legitimate problems that need to be addressed at a public high school. If you think about the amount of time students spend at school (more than a quarter of the whole day), and the often-seen disconnect of students and their families, sometimes the public school is the only place where education for these issues is possible.
And that's what I think.
I agree with you that he does seem like a prick, and that his views are very warped. I think he has a one-track mindset and doesn't care about how other people feel. I also believe that America is like a "tossed salad", it's very open to other cultures and views which is important. It does seem like Prager is making schools more monotone, and that would most likely make students have no interest or motivation to go. I feel like he's setting his school up for disaster, and I agree with your response.
ReplyDeleteGreat responses, both of you. I agree with many of your comments. I do, however, urge you to consider some of the words he uses deliberately to perhaps not be so...stringent?
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that he says "we will no longer 'HONOR' race or ethnicity." I don't think he's saying we will not acknowledge these things, but that we should not HONOR them...I think he's encouraging people to look beyond the hardships of any particular group that came here (as he says, on the Mayflower or slave ships) and to transcend the concept of using these circumstances as an excuse, of using adversity as a means of unification. Does this make sense?
Do you think that we harp on what makes us unequal too much? Is that why we identify with people of the same race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc? Maybe not all of the time, but I know that as much as my "teacher friends" and I talk about school, we mostly talk about the fact that students are disrespectful, our classes are too big, we haven't seen a raise in 4 years, etc...I think Prager is saying ENOUGH to having this be the only tie that binds...
IDK, Just a thought to ponder...
I agree with your response in pretty much every way and i particularly like the part in your first paragraph about how America is not a melting pot but a tossed salad and also what you said about religion is what you like in a system of beliefs a physical trait. All in all i enjoyed your response and i agreed with it for the most part.
ReplyDelete