Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Academic Bill of Rights
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 166 of 178 (216401)
06-12-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by CanadianSteve
06-12-2005 10:12 AM


Re: on left and liberal
quote:
A living being, no matter how early its existence, is killed.
So, since most fertilized eggs never implant but are flushed out of the body during menstruation, do you suggest that we start requiring women to search their menstrual fluid for the fertilized egg, since it would be murder to let it die due to failure to implant?
After all, it is a living being, right?
quote:
And, as you know, so often it is killed when several months old, nearly able to survive on its own in todays medically advanced wards.
That is incorrect. Someone has lied to you.
link
In 2000, 87% of abortions were performed at under 13 weeks, 17% in the 8th week, 18% in the 7th week, and 23% at less than 6 weeks.
Elective terminations during third trimester: essentially none; one source estimates 100 (0.01%); others estimate a few thousand per year in the U.S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 10:12 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 12:09 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 178 (216406)
06-12-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by CanadianSteve
06-12-2005 10:26 AM


Re: apology for unintended sarcasm
quote:
That's an American issue I am unfamilair with. I suspect that since men's sports draws ticket purchases more than women's sports, there's a market issue in play.
Last time I checked, Universities were supposed to be educational instutions, not promotors or owners of for-profit sports teams, and as such should be interested in providing ALL of it's students every educational opportunity possible.
Title 9 is one of the most successful pieces of anti-gender discrimination legislation ever written, and it does not require quotas.
Why do you think it was needed, Steve? A white male dominated society has never just willingly give up power and privilege; women and minorities have had to stand up and take it.
link
Despite challenges that continue to inhibit the achievement of that goal, Title IX has provided the impetus for great successes and significant change within the United States. Doors that were previously closed have been opened. Females who attended schools prior to 1972 experienced sex-segregated classes, denial of admissions to certain vocational education classes, lack of access to advanced mathematics and science courses, and overt discrimination in medical schools and other predominantly male institutions. The passage of Title IX and other educational equity laws removed many of these formal, systemic barriers. In addition, it prohibited schools from forcing pregnant and parenting female students to drop out. Females can no longer be barred from traditionally male classes, nor can there any longer be different course requirements for girls and boys.
A second success has been an increase in budgets and resources allocated to women’s and girls’ educational programs and activities compared with funds for similar boys’ programs. Especially in athletics, as a result of Title IX, girls in high school and colleges now have more choices and greater visibility within schools at local, state, and postsecondary levels. Third, Title IX and supporting legislation have led to the formation of a national infrastructure of organizations and individuals committed to working toward equity and change. For example, the federally funded Equity Assistance Centers and the national WEEA Equity Resource Center provide technical assistance and training and disseminate the most up-to-date resources available.
Finally, in almost three decades much progress has been made toward a more sophisticated understanding of gender discrimination and its implications, not just for education but for American society as a whole. Models for restructuring schools and training educators and administrators in gender-fair education have been developed and tested. We have a clearer understanding of the need for gender equity in education and have more resources to help us move toward that goal.
Below is a brief list of achievements in women’s education since the passage of Title IX:
* In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available) women constituted the majority (56 percent) of students in undergraduate institutions, compared with 48 percent in 1976.
* The percentage of women earning first professional degrees has also increased dramatically: In dentistry the proportion rose from less than 10 percent in 1970 to 36 percent in 1996; in medicine it increased from less than 10 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1996; and in law it rose from less than 10 percent in 1970 to 44 percent in 1996.
* The number of high school girls participating in athletics increased from 300,000 in 1971 to 2.4 million in 1996.
Does Title IX require quotas?
"Title IX is an antidiscrimination statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. . . . Both in academics and athletics, Title IX guarantees that all students, regardless of gender, have equitable opportunities to participate in the education program. This guarantee does not impose quotas based on gender, either in classrooms or in athletic programs. Indeed, the imposition of any such strict numerical requirement concerning students would be inconsistent with Title IX itself, which is designed to protect the rights of all students and to provide equitable opportunities for all students."
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-12-2005 11:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 10:26 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 12:11 PM nator has not replied
 Message 174 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 12:41 PM nator has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 168 of 178 (216408)
06-12-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by nator
06-12-2005 10:26 AM


Re: affirmative action
I'm not saying that stats should always be rejected. But I am saying two things:
1) They can be very misleading. As an example, i mentioned - and there are studies that make these points - women, far more than men, refuse to work overtime, leave for maternity, decline promotions because of the time demands they mean. All that, of course, is because women are, generally speaking, the primary caregivers of children - despite that fathers tend to be more involved these days. You can argue that that is ubnfair, that society creates this pressure on women. And, maybe, you'd be right (although i think natural predispositions are a bigger factor at this point). Regardless, it offers an explanation aside from ione of corporate bias, for why women are less likely to reach higher levels in corporations.
However, to whatever degree stats do accurately reflect a bias against women - if at all - the question becomes: How do we deal with it?
The truth is that society has already moved hugely to change that. As I mentioned earlier, more than half of university students today are women. That means that both families and society have encouraged women academically, and women are availing themselves of that opportunity. I nentioned that in Canada - and I woudl be surprised if the numbers aren't comparable in the US - more than half of Med and Law school students are female. That shows women will study whatever they have an interest in. (I don't believe for a moment that fewer women in engineering and hard sciences reflects anything other than natural disinterest relative to men.)
Women represent just over half the vote. There is no obstacle to women entering politics. (I hope Rice becomes the next president.)
If there truly is a glass ceiling, and i doubt it beyond minimally, nothing stops women from establishing their own enterprises - and more and more are.
If we use stats as reasons to regulate, then, as I also said before, we eneter a mug's game, one where we institutionalize other biases, and one where, at this point in time, men can also claim prejudice against them.
No society will ever eliminate all prejudice. That is, sadly, a part of human nature - although it probably derives from a survival factor in evolutionary times. What we can do is establish principles of equality, and legislate them only as such, like the American adn Canadian bills of rights. That means we can ensure that law does not discriminate, which, of course, was a major accomplishment of the civil rights era. To institutionalize and legalize other biases, we merely trade one injustice for another. In fact, we do worse than that, because we undermine the very basis of equality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by nator, posted 06-12-2005 10:26 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 11:58 AM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 171 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 12:06 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 169 of 178 (216409)
06-12-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by nator
06-12-2005 10:36 AM


Re: on left and liberal
The deficit is dumb.
The dept of Homeland Security is necessary, and was supported by many on the left, who would have accused Bush of doing nothing to stop islamist terror had he not established this dept.
The republicans are practising social engineering? What do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 06-12-2005 10:36 AM nator has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 178 (216411)
06-12-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by CanadianSteve
06-12-2005 11:46 AM


Re: affirmative action
In fact, we do worse than that, because we undermine the very basis of equality.
I think I agree with this--theoretically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 11:46 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 171 of 178 (216412)
06-12-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by CanadianSteve
06-12-2005 11:46 AM


The real threat of islamism
This is no longer on topic. Please do not respond or thread will have to take a rest. AN
When you suggest the Dept of Homeland Security is a waste, that, i believe, betrays you do not see terrroism as a significant threat.
The MSM has, I believe, portrayed terrorism as the work of a few rogue groups, like al Qaeda. If one accepts that view, then one will not see a major threat. But it is entirely wrong. Al Qaeda is a window on a huge, worldwide, islamist movement. This is a movement that controls nation states (Iran, Sudan, formerly Afghanistan), is a powerful 5th column throughout the Arab world especially, but elsewhere in the islamic world. In fact, it was a hair breath's away from Pakistan's nuclear bomb. This movement believes that Allah has ordered muslims to conquer and subjugate and convert all the world. If you read the koran's War Verses, you will see why (frankly, it is shocking). This movement believes democracy is evil, because it is rule of people by people, instead of by Allah, who intends Sharia Law to be the law of all people. It is a facist movement, that glorifies in death for Allah. It is a movement that was on the march. Iran and Afghanistan and Sudan were only the beginning. It was about to take over many Arab nations and spread from there, pakistan being on the brink. It even threatens Turkey's democracy, the only true islamic democracy.
It was, in effect, the early 1930's all over, when churchill's warnings thjat naziism was a looming epochal threat were ignored. Bush realized that islamism represnted, and still represents, exactly this. In some ways, they're even worse than the Nazis, because they are annihilists. A nuclear armegeddon would, in some perverse way, appeal to them.
Gievn all this, we understand why Bush felt compelled to invade Iraq. It was not only about Hussein re-acquiring nuclear power, as would happen as soon as sanctions were lifted - as was about to happen given that the french, Germans and Rudssians were undermining them (little did we know why at the time: oil for food, and secret billion dollar deals). It was not only about Hussein wanting to commit a genocide against the Iraqi Kurds, as soon as the Americans and brits were out of the way. And it is not about hussein being an islamist - he is not, although he and they were playing an enemy of my enemy alliance game.
Rather, Bush intended to inject democracy in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world, believing that it is the only ideology that can replace islamist ideology, and save us from a nuclear WW lll.
And thus, the Dept of Homeland Security is not just about protecting Americans from a few rogue terrorist organizations. It is about protecting Americans from a huge, powerful ideological islamist movement that is doing its best to infiltrate the US at every level (including US university Middle East Studies depts, government, and taking/maintaining control of American mosques and ISlamic organizations, like CAIR).
There 's so much more that can be said, but this is the gist.
This is no longer on topic. Please do not respond or thread will have to take a rest. AN
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-12-2005 12:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 11:46 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 172 of 178 (216413)
06-12-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by nator
06-12-2005 10:45 AM


Re: on left and liberal
There's no point getting into the abortion debate. All i say is that both sides have their points, and the anti-abortion movemnt assuredly has a legitimate moral position, whether one agrees or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by nator, posted 06-12-2005 10:45 AM nator has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 173 of 178 (216414)
06-12-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
06-12-2005 11:02 AM


Re: apology for unintended sarcasm
universities need money. Sports brings in revenue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 06-12-2005 11:02 AM nator has not replied

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 174 of 178 (216425)
06-12-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
06-12-2005 11:02 AM


Re: apology for unintended sarcasm
In reading your info, I do not see affirmative action legislation. Rather, i see legislation outlawing discrimination. That I support; affirmative action I do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 06-12-2005 11:02 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 06-12-2005 1:45 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 178 (216436)
06-12-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by CanadianSteve
06-12-2005 12:41 PM


You've been busy this morning
Fun reading your stuff. I can't agree with all of it, but I certainly appreciate your basic take on things, your diplomacy, and your ability to keep your cool under provocation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-12-2005 12:41 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2005 2:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 178 (216440)
06-12-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
06-12-2005 1:45 PM


Re: You've been busy this morning
He's a cool customer, you're right about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 06-12-2005 1:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
rogerw1
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 178 (262847)
11-24-2005 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
06-09-2005 1:19 PM


i believe there is a problem with the curriculuim of teaching anthropology . the scientists articles and textbooks are hipacridical of the guidelines stated by
constitution says How does a court decide if something violates the Constitution or not?
Courts apply what is called the Lemon test. More than 25 years ago, in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court decided that Pennsylvania violated the Establishment Clause by paying religious schools to teach secular subjects.
The Supreme Court set forth a 3-part test to determine whether a particular action, law, or policy violates the Establishment Clause. In order for an action, law, or policy to be deemed constitutional, the government must prove that it complies with each of these three 'prongs' of the Lemon test:
-its purpose may not be to aid religion-it must have a 'valid secular purpose'
-its effect may neither advance nor inhibit religion
-it may not foster excessive entanglement between religion and government
and
NSTA http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/app-c.html
I can tell you this more that half of the required readings reference genisis and clearly show the negative bias towards it. scientest make a big deal that science is the proof there is no need to debunk someones belief in god right ? Im netural in what I believe . Evolution has an idea of how thing happened by the study of fossils bone fragments ect. but it incomplete so thats were the bible is brought in because it is easier to believe the partial sciece what we know that in something we can only have faith is true. why cant we believe god in and evolution . dont blame the bile it was written by man in a different culture and time it the idealogy we as a race come from , what we know is right and wrong laws of the land . why does faith have to be distinguished for evolution to be true. here an idea what do you think we as a people would be like today if we never interpredted religon into our culture ? I say we would be no different than the demonic apes someone should tell the atheist if they want to reasearch there religon that were they should begin . I sorry this just kinda makes me mad .I go to school to learn all i have learned neither sides have proven a dam thing to me or any one else . here a thought lets just get rid of god now. then we get to change all the rules right . they we all base on false beliefs . science wins the all species become extinct.I dont need to talk about faith because we all know thats all it is . all this arguing does is bring the money in neither side cares about what any of you believe as long as they can get funded

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 1:19 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by nwr, posted 11-24-2005 9:41 AM rogerw1 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 178 of 178 (262879)
11-24-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by rogerw1
11-24-2005 8:44 AM


Welcome to evcforum, rogerw1.
-its purpose may not be to aid religion-it must have a 'valid secular purpose'
-its effect may neither advance nor inhibit religion
-it may not foster excessive entanglement between religion and government
I'm guessing that your anthropology class was at college, rather than at a high school. It is very unlikely that the supreme court would interfere in a college, unless it is a state institution and unless the particular class is a required class (one that every student must take).
If there is a problem with bias in a college class, it might be best to take it up within that college. I'm not sure how, because the way to do that varies from college to college. Maybe you can get information from the academic dean's office.
I can tell you this more that half of the required readings reference genisis and clearly show the negative bias towards it. scientest make a big deal that science is the proof there is no need to debunk someones belief in god right ?
Not having attended your class, I can't say much on this.
In my opinion, it would be poor teaching to denigrate God, but it is perfectly appropriate to provide evidence that parts of genesis are stories (fables) and are not historically correct.
It's a bit hard to comment further, without details of what is taught that you consider to be wrong.
dont blame the bile it was written by man in a different culture and time
I agree with that sentiment. While genesis might not be an accurate history, it is part of our cultural heritage. I'm not an anthropologist, so I don't know to what extent cultural heritage and cultural history is considered to be part of that discipline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by rogerw1, posted 11-24-2005 8:44 AM rogerw1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024