Students Petition Texas High School to Allow Netherlands Exchange Student to Walk at Graduation
Good grief, proof again common sense is not so common and that the "administration" gets wrapped up in their petty rules. From what I see, the kid and the host mom just want to let him walk with his classmates. If he did a senior year, then WTF? Can't anyone do sometthing simple and nice for someone?
my "reply" function is not working, so I am using "add comment" as a poor substitute.
oh, absent gods.
yes, let us attempt to "get things straight". Please do me the honor I did you, of reading your entire post. You might be surprised.
I think it's a fair question to ask why you, the poster, think this article belongs on the site. Your last sentence was so broad I couldn't even see any connection between GGO and this particular situation. and I wanted to know.
I do get riled when someone makes a statement that effectively ends discussion. {i.e. "I am confused." "This is amazing."] How about
I am a little confused because....
I didn't see your point?
I didn't jump into a conversation about why can't people be nicer?
I pointed up another person?
Not knowing what you were confused about, I answered every possible source of confusion, with criticism.
You replied by designating me as a a Gestapo. that's your idea of nice?
and in addition, you let pass a typo? error? that I see as the first example in a list of "Don't you dare..." items. Gault. my spell-checker catches it, because anyone can make a mistake, and I have made sure I won't make that one. small? yes. vital? yes.
I am NOT "rude"; I am sharp, clear, brilliant and focused, and calling me aggressive is a compliment. and I am NOT an English major, I am an educated human being.
BUT
The important point is, I WAS interested.
If I'm not interested, I do pass.
I want to know why this particular story, out of all the stories possible, piqued your interest. Obviously you see something I don't - what is it? How do you think that applies to our society? How do you think it applies to the society of the Netherlands? The culture that makes "walking" so important is not mine - what is so important about it? why does it matter? and then, what is "nice"? why do you think it's important?
All in all, we are different. [You may say DUH! with me.]
I see most philosophical discussion as a meeting of flashing blades, sharpening the users, disposing of the irrelevant to expose the true and right. yep, every single one.
How do you see it?
regards,
WW
I justified my point, and what I thought it was illustrating. I do not have a degree in Objective ism, I came here after listening to AS, and finding I thought AR illustrated all the things I have found wrong with our society in the last 30 years. I didn't find the Objectivist Test at the signup page, I came through Kickstarter support for AS3. The whole point of this was I saw an administration that rejected a womans request, and the kids, that he be allowed to walk with his classmates. Not graduate, not get a diploma, just enjoy the fellowship and friendship of the ceremony. I saw no problem with it. Denying it due to rules and regulations is abhorrent to me, it is the excuse of the powerful to point to some obscure law or rule to force people to follow "their" law.
" From what I see, the kid and the host mom just want to let him walk with his classmates. If he did a senior year, then WTF? Can't anyone do sometthing simple and nice for someone? "
why is being nice so "anti Rand"?
You say: "Your comment is WRONG in intention." How do you know my intention? I thought that was clear with "Can't anyone do sometthing simple and nice for someone? " The question could also be: Does everything have to have a rule or regulation to be permitted? Does government have the right to regulate every little bit of life down to telling a group "he can't walk with you" because he didn't meet their standards? He didn't ask for anything that required meeting anyone's standards, just to be allowed to walk with his friends. You seemed to be defending the governments right to dictate to all what gets done, by whom, when and where. The graduation ceremony belongs to the kids graduating, not the school. The school owns granting the certificates and diplomas. That was where their authority stops, in my opinion.
There are so many posts here that have nothing to do with AR/Objectiveism/AS (refer to http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2... for one, and that was posted by one of the "top" producers) that I did not see why I merited such special attention. I did not find one "This does not belong" or "Why is this posted here?" comment.
If you do not want to hear from me, then feel free to hit "ignore" apparently it will delete all traces of me from your world. I'm ok with that.
part 2
as I said, no reply function so we get clunky communication.
Oh, dear. You ARE determined to be angry, right? Did you read what I wrote? Did you happen to read my objections to the "ignore" feature?
I did, and somewhat do, want to hear from you, as I have allowed you 2 deadly insults and we are still talking. kind of.
How about you clarify for me, OK?
Back 732 years ago, when I was in High School, there was this ceremony called "Graduation". Students' names would be called, they would walk across the stage, shake the principal's hand, and receive the diploma which they had earned. Students who had not earned a diploma were present in the audience, but that was all. It was a celebration of graduation, not friendship.
Is this "walk" thing different from that? How?
extra explanation and my thoughts on how Objectivism applies to this situation:
I have been thinking that the "walk" was a graduation. The student did not graduate, nor did he earn a diploma. The story said he was missing credits. If the ceremony IS a graduation, he could & should! have had several places there: in the audience, a special mention, an introduction to those audience members who don't know him - lots of choices.
BUT.
If the ceremony is a graduation ceremony, and he did not graduate, it is not being "nice" to allow him to take part. It is an untruth. It says "you did not fulfill the requirements to participate in this ceremony, but we're going to cheapen the achievements of every student who DID and allow you to participate."
Can you see the difference I see, or are you stuck on "nice"? Sometimes, not being nice is the best thing you CAN be. I am not in support of some stupid rule made up by some stupid governmental entity. I do THINK that obtaining a diploma is an Objective standard which one reaches. The celebration is congratulatory, celebratory and, most of al, a recognition of achievement. Yes, this student achieved - just being able to speak more than one language is more than most American High School students can do. And yes, it was appropriate to recognize or value that - but not as something it was NOT.
Can you see how A does or doesn't = A in this situation?
WW
p.s. I'm going to dinner. If you reply, I'll see it before I quit for the night, but I may not reply until morning.
"All he wants is to walk with his friends," she said. "It's never been about the diploma. I just want to say, 'Look, give him a certificate of completion that he's completed a year here, and let him walk.'" I interpreted that as meaning he was not asking for a diploma, but the act of walking down the aisle with his classmates. Normally, at the graduations I have been to, they walk, stand in front, and then go up the stage from one side to another in alphabetical order, to get diploma. He would not be able to do that (of course). I did not interpret that as meaning he was looking for a diploma.
So, I do agree with you that A=A in that he was not seeking to graduate, nor should he have from the information available when we started this, er, discussion.
It seems we derailed on just what the A= criteria was, in that I believed he was seeking to just participate in the walk, you are perceiving that he was trying (or would have defacto been asking for) participation in graduation.
Is this accurate?
My point in posting still remained though that in the circumstances of "just walking with his peers" the school district is imposing itself upon something and using rules to make their case, in order to have their way, when it seemed they were asking to just participate as "guests" and to be part of, the commencement experience, which is part of their senior year.
"Nice" is the term I use for doing something that may not necessarily be the correct, absolute rule based action, in order to provide someone an otherwise unattainable experience or item. Such as walking with your classmates in the ceremony, (assuming no one did not have an objection). It may not be a Objectivist trait, to think of someone outside of the boundaries of rules and regulations, or from self centered interest.
That said, I did do some more digging to see just how this all ended up, being that we have been on 2 sides of this, and I must admit that this story:
http://www.taylorpress.net/news/article_...
indicates a slightly different angle, and that either they said the only way he could do it was to meet their standards (which he did not do) or not. Again, incomplete facts to make a good assessment: Did he know from the start what was required? Did he assume it was met by his attendance? Didn't the school require his records to enroll in the exchange program? I don't know, so I can not make a statement, since I lack the facts to make a judgement.
I am not a straight up A=A person, in cases of individual people, because in my experience, there is never a single set of reliable guidelines that cover every quirk and twist of personality. A=A in cases of clear facts (i.e. Hillary is not to be trusted, and should never be allowed to be president) I base that on observed behavior and repeated events where her credibility failed and a repeat pattern of the same type of excuses and claims. But with this kid that was not apparent. The second article seems to indicate a different situation.
I am always alarmed anytime the "authorities" go to the "rules and regulations" and use that as a justification for a position, groups like the EPA tend to do that to justify whatever they want to use, not use or just ban. I have had bitter experience with rules being applied one way in one case, and another way in another case, even if the facts are the same.
So it seems that we are somewhat divided on what the details meant. You see the graduation as a pinnacle of work done to a set standard, which I agree he did not meet. I did not see (what was described as the request) as a graduation, but an association with friends in a unique situation that could have been accommodated as a common benefit to all. Had anyone objected, that would have been a different kettle of fish. Is this accurate?
The additional information from the other article throws a bucket of water on the whole deal, as it implies he was trying to meet the diploma requirements (but maybe because they said that was the only way to be allowed to walk). So it becomes harder to absolutely say right or wrong in this.
That is an issue with any reporting today, sometimes you do not, or cannot get the full picture based on what is presented, which is why I like the oversampling method, there just were no other samples on this story. Now, there was one from Wed 5/26 that adds more information.
I am not ordinarily confrontational or rude, but I have had some people be rude for no reason other than they felt I had violated their sacred ground in these forums. In that I pay my toll to be on this road as much as anyone else, and try to stay with the categories and spirit of Atlas Shrugged, but I am by no means committed to it as the be all and end all of existence. It just seemed to fit what I see going on around me better than any other ethical set.
For instance, I do not know what the deal is with Hiraghm, nor what he has done, but it seems anywhere he appears his comments are hammered. I am just not that thrilled with that unless the person is being obnoxious just to be obnoxious, yet all their comments are hidden. I do not understand that.
It's obvious from this post that you just don't get Objectivism, that you support altruism, and moochers. That type of thinking and acting is a perfect example of why this country, even world is in such trouble. It's a perfect example of letting emotion drive you rather than rational, logical reasoning. It's apparent from this post and a few others that either you don't realize how support of such thinking is repugnant to Objectivist, or you're purposely trying to use emotional appeal to soften the commitment of Objectivist and/or confuse some of those that are new to the philosophy.
From your responses to my comment, including a threat to leave the site, and expressing dissatisfaction with not being accorded a 'fair level of open debate on something', rather than addressing the comment directly or even utilizing PM--you belittle and ridicule the purpose and efforts of many Objectivist on this site. I don't expect anyone to be a 'purist' in thought, or posting, or never challenge Objectivist thought or even principles. I have no personal animus with anyone on this site, but I will ask questions and expect others to defend their positions or ask me for clarifications or further discussions.
And I'll refer you to a few portions of the FAQ's and the CofC about the people that are attracted to this site and what you may expect from them. I'm not shy about my dedication to this philosophy and way of life, and I hope to be able to interest others that are ready to explore and understand a better (I'm convinced the best) way of dealing with the reality of this existence that we all live. I hope you think about the question I ask and the issues I raise, rather than spend your energy on misdirected feelings and we both have a chance to gain from reasoned and rational interactions.
I'm not here to 'bash' or cause 'conflict' with anyone, but I hope that you can learn to accept challenges to things you haven't made clear or don't yet see as Objectivst. Personally, I have a lot of respect for people that challenge me. They excite and exercise my mind, and I welcome your participation in that.
+1
1] You post an article that had nothing to do with the emphasis of this site. Isn't that against the Code of Conduct?
2] You write a "slap-Miss-Rand-in-the-face" comment: "Can't anyone do something simple and nice for someone?" i.e., be altruistic
3] Your comment is WRONG in intention.
He did a year at an American School. Graduation is to award a diploma certifying that you have successfully passed or completed High School, which the article states he did NOT; nor has he completed High School in his native country.
and then, instead of asking a clear, information-seeking question, say you're confused. An example of an "information-seeking question" might be:
I think this article aligns with the purposes of the site because xxxxxxxxx; do you disagree? if so, why?
I hope I've cleared up your confusion; feel free to continue this discussion here, if you like.
[edit for punctuation]
spelling is good. so is grammar. use them - you'll sound smarter.
Good Morning,
"Is this accurate?" close, but not quite. Yes, I think you're mostly accurate that we "derailed" at that point - should he walk into the auditorium with "his" class, or not.
I'd like to make one point that I haven't, because it wasn't clear that we differed on it.
I see the Graduation as an entity in itself, in that performing a certain set of actions confers a specific status on a person. It's like joining a club. You didn't see anything wrong with him performing SOME of the actions; I think he should not have performed ANY. I don't see this Dutch student was entitled to any part of the Graduation ceremony. He walks in with the senior class? Merely the fact of his being in that place at that time is acknowledging that he is part of the senior class. Even if he walked in with them and then peeled off and sat down in the audience is too much for me.
EXCEPT that the stupid administration should have made sure he was recognized or acknowledged in some way. He wasn't a graduate, but he did have a special status. Instead of saying "no", they should have taken some action. I'm sure they didn't because saying "no" is easier than thinking up something to do.
Back to not only where we divided, but why - on a philosophical line.
I think that "the rules" are "take no action which is accomplished by force or fraud". That's it.
It doesn't matter whether my view is in line with the administration's rules, or not. To the devil with their rules! It is my own internal view of what's right that produced my objection to his joining the group; there was an element of fraud in it. He appeared to be presenting himself as something he was not.
I applaud your further research, and join you in what sounds like a disgusted cynical view of the media.
Let's go on to A=A, and people.
First, I jumped on you because you were in the right place at the right time. I was wandering around, and happened to see your post. I was not going through the posts of the day, saying "this is OK, jump on this one, make a snarky comment to this person, etc." Your post happened to meet my eye, and you seemed to be emotionally supporting an action that was fraudulent. As you've thought, we both realize that we don't know the truth of the situation - and probably wouldn't, even were we there.
So....People. You say that you can't find a single set of reliable rules that covers everything. How about "take no action which is accomplished through force or fraud"? As long as your definition of "force or fraud" is valid, it holds true in all situations, for all people. Talk to me about that, if you like.
and then, what does A=A mean to you? I don't understand how you're using it in your paragraph that begins "I am not....". I think some more thinking and discussion on that would be interesting, as well.
WW
The A=A thing is a conumdrum, as I have never found a good description of what it is intended to mean, except "self evident". If it looks like a duck etc. Do you have a different take or am I on the right track here?
Where is becomes important, to go to an easy example, is when I say "taxation is theft" and my communist brother says "don't be stupid." [or some other useful reply]
I say, well, if someone comes up to me, says "I have a gun, and if you don't give me 37.5% of your money I will shoot you.", that is theft. He is trying to take, by force, what is mine. By this point, you may assume that my brother is having a temper tantrum and becomes irrelevant.
But there's always someone who says, "It's not theft because......", and anything he says after the "because" is denying that A=A. For example...."because if it's done by taking it out of your paycheck, after you fill out a form consenting to it There's no guy with a gun."
Well, yeah, there is. He's just at the end of the hall. Why waste him by using him too early? Most people fill out the form, get their paycheck, grumble a bit, but never think about how the actual TAKING of the money from them is accomplished.
This is a simplistic example [from simple minds come simple examples....] but the concept of A=A is simple because it's so obvious, so clear, so clean.....if one lets it be.
When did graduating become just "walking"? Suddenly that's the only term I hear used to reference graduation ceremony. If it was still mainly referred to, and thought of, as a graduation ceremony, I wonder if it would occur to anyone to suggest that he graduate when he is not graduating...and won't be (for whatever reason) until next year?
Not trying to be a wise acre - I am becoming curious about changes to our American English
and does it have an effect on our behaviors and/or perceptions...or are the changes in language a response to our morphing behaviors and/or perceptions? Or both?
I see no reason why the exchange student shouldn't walk. Apparently you know longer have to meet the traditional requirements for graduating: acquiring all the credits as dictated by your choice of major at your school. I have discovered that you can now graduate without graduating.
Since many of my daughter's friends are graduating college this year, I decided to investigate further. Form what she says a number of the "graduates" are a few credits shy of their requirement but are enrolled in classes that take place a semester, or even two, after the graduation ceremony. They receive a diploma but apparently, somehow, the diploma will not be valid if they do not complete the credits.
I am just gleaning this from what my daughter is telling me. I have a friend whose daughter just graduated and I vaguely remember her mentioning that the young woman had to take a course over the summer. I'm guessing she'll be able to answer my questions. :)
Since graduation no longer requires actually graduating...why not let the exchange student walk?
Still would like to know when so many things started to lose their meaning. I'm beginning to feel like Rip Van Winkle.
1. You get a blank piece of paper at the ceremony.
2. You have to verify, by a certain date prior to the ceremony, that you have signed up for all the required courses.
3. The courses must be paid in full by a certain date prior to the ceremony.
4. Verification of successful completion of all required courses must be provided within a specified time.
5. Then you get your diploma and have actually graduated.
So...all that's really happening is you are paying for a cap and gown and really just walking with your friends. Apparently you also get to throw a graduation party.
I assume high school is different...but after learning about this, it seems foolish not to let the exchange student walk.