Comfort Zones

Currently this class is early in the year and not everyone is comfortable sharing things close to them or really thinking about questions. Global is a great place to get new ideas and new views on topics that we discuss on class but if we stick to our comfort zone and only discuss ideas and topic we are comfortable with, nothing will get accomplished. I think the class as a whole should learn to leave our opinions behind when new ideas are presented, because if you take what another student says and filter it through your opinions, your gonna be left with nothing helpful and add nothing to the conversation. Instead we should try to leave our comfort zones and try to have more thought provoking statements instead of just agreeing with what everyone else says. Don't be afraid to not be in the majority of the opinion and challenge the idea being presented. If everyone left their comfort zone I think this class could have better discussions because currently I think the discussions are pretty basic and rarely is a challenging opinion being presented. Try to open your views and I think this class would be much more interesting and not like regular English classes.

Law and Society

It's interesting how much the laws can change when you're in school and how your rights are changed just because you're in school.  In some of the cases it is okay for the certain rights to be changed, but I don't agree with all of the rights the school has.  I feel like things that happen outside of school should not have an affect on us during school since it isn't happening on school grounds.  I feel like we should also be able to wear whatever we want because it's how we express ourselves and it lets us exercise our freedom of expression.  Overall, the school has too much power over us and they should let us be us.

On Discussing Sensitive Issues in Class

There's an issue of how to bring up sensitive topics in Global, such as race, sexuality, or gender identity.  We definitely can't avoid them, given the context of the class, nor do I think we should.  However, it also can't be handled haphazardly.  For example, you shouldn't really just say, "Let's have a debate on marriage equality!", because then the LGB+ students are left to sit back and uncomfortably count the number of students they shouldn't trust with even the barest hint of information about their sexuality.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a single good solution.  I was about to ask for warnings for particularly risky days, but I realized that such is, essentially, par for the course in Global, especially in the large class.  At least in this class such interactions are expected.

Law and Society Presentation

After having watched the presentations, I found it very interesting how much our rights vary when it comes to different situations. Of course, we are always entitled to the rights that our given to us in the Constitution, but after hearing the presentations, it seems as though the extent of those rights can vary depending on times, places, and events. For the cases that involved the school especially, it came off to me that the school is able to become almost the parents of the kids. They seem to have the right to do things that wouldn't be allowed to be done in many other environments. In the case of Vernonia vs. Acton for example, the school had the right to drug test kids who may not even be doing drugs on campus. Having a certain lifestyle at home or outside of school should, in my opinion, be separate from the lifestyle at school. I of course agree that kids should not be on drugs during school, during sports, or on campus. But, as an athlete, to be generalized as a drug user because other kids are drug tested positive is not fair. To put limits on our rights is not right, but I think that overall they are necessary in order to keep the US safe.

Ethics v Morals

After watching both documentaries, I think morals and ethics are connected with each other but they may go against each other at times.  For example, it is morally correct to always tell the truth, but it might not always be the best decision to tell the truth, which is why ethically it might be better for someone to lie.  If it's better for the situation as a whole, the morals are outweighed by the ethics which makes it okay for someone to do something they normally wouldn't do. Therefore, it may be better for times to be immoral if it is better for the entire situation and benefits the others around you.

Political Spectrum

On Wednesday we talked about the political spectrum to see what are views were and how all of our beliefs don't neatly fit into any one party. While we were categorized into leaning one way or the other, we were put on a spectrum. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to vote this way. We are trapped by having to give your entire vote for a single party that doesn't care what you think and sees you as an insignificant number. So we are put in between a rock and a hard place by voting for one party and not being completely satisfied, or not voting at all and being angry about it. Also, by only having two parties it creates a polarized state and works against democratic values. What solutions exist to solve our current dilemma?

Satire v. Fox News

Today in class we saw a short documentary about how fox news tried to essentially censor a satirical book for being critical of Bill O'Reilly. While fox was clearly in the wrong for trying to censor satire, what is the line between libel and satire. Legally the difference is saying something untrue and for the purpose of hurting someone is libel, but occasionally, you can create something intended as satire and end up hurting somebody. If a satirical article pops up on the internet and people don't realize it is satirical, does the creator have an obligation to tell the world it is satire?