To start off, I respect Prager’s emphasis on trying to make the school a better place. However, for the most part, I do not agree with the ways in which he feels the school should be improved. I feel that Prager’s idea of basically eliminating the focus on different ethnic groups, races, languages, religions, etc would never work and furthermore is very wrong, and maybe even unlawful. I feel ending such celebrations and clubs will just put an end to the school-sponsored activities he does not believe in, rather than his argument of making the school only care about the national identity of American. It is impossible for the administration of a school to prohibit gatherings based on race, religion, language, sexual orientation, etc. These aspects of someone will never be changed, or taken away, and therefore I believe they shouldn't be taken out of schools. If anything, I feel that more of these clubs and celebrations should be embraced. We can only grow, as Americans, if we are open to the other Americans around us. I do agree with Prager’s second proposal of teaching all students to read and write in English. Without doing so, as Prager argued, one will not be ready for the work force in America, as English is used as the primary language here. Even though I personally do not like the idea of a dress code, I can understand Prager’s point of view for that proposal. I also agree with Prager as he says “no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere.” Not only is such language unnecessary, it is insulting and could potentially cause many altercations in the school that could be avoided by implementing this rule. Similarly to the way in which I agree on the importance of one’s character, scholarship and humanity in schools, I also feel self-esteem programs are important as well. If they are eliminated, I feel some of these qualities may not be achieved by many students, and these programs can help a student get onto the right track, and eventually allow them to attain it themselves. Lastly, I do not agree with Prager’s outlook on the use of classes and warning against on topics such as smoking, caffeine, sexual harassment, global warming, safe sex, etc. For some students at the school, these classes and lessons about such topics are the only time the people are made aware of the problems. Therefore, if we eliminate these classes and lessons, I can only see the problems getting worse. Overall, I feel Prager wants to make schools focus more on education and making them a better learning environment, but the ways in which he proposes to do so in his letter seem completely wrong to me.
God, Taylor, I think you and I are so alike it's scary! My initial reaction to this was very negative, but after careful review I found some of his ideals valid, even if a bit quixotic.
ReplyDeleteI think it is unethical and detrimental to eliminate clubs and extracurriculars based on the things that bring young people together; for some of you, I think it's very difficult to make connections with people outside of the things you blatantly have in common...especially if that group is a minority that potentially faces discrimination on a daily basis. In my high school, we had a GLBF (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Friends) club that met once a month to discuss their feelings and issues in a school of 99% upper-middle class, Christian, conservative straight people. I can imagine that this club was a refuge for some students who felt ostracized by their difference, especially in the 90s where people weren't half as tolerant of homosexuality as they are now. Did this club prevent suicide? Did this club help young people feel less like everyone in the world was against them? I think it did.