Sunday, March 7, 2010

The Implications of Implicit Discriminations - Dan

Students, perceived as sexual beings by their peers, often galvanize their peer’s sexual thoughts during class. To reduce students’ distracting sexual thoughts during class, and practice other educational ideologies, people have created same gender schools. In same gender schools, students of the opposite sex cannot act as catalysts to their peer’s sexual thoughts in class, because they’re not there. However, because not all students are sexually attracted to the students of the opposite sex, an essential rational for creating same gender schools implicitly discriminates against homosexuals and bisexuals.
Should homosexuals and bisexuals not be permitted to attend same gender schools, because their innate sexual orientation is incompatible with the structure of same sex schooling? Should same gender schools become illegal because of their inherently discriminatory philosophical structure?
The ideological problems of non-heterosexuals attending same gender schools parallels the ideological problems other minorities face, within America’s private and public educational system. Adopted children cannot create family trees (genealogical charts that represent their ancestral origins) in elementary school, with their peers, because they often do not who the members of their biological family are. Should schools stop requiring students to make family trees? Jehovah Witness’s do not stand during the national anthem, with their peers, because it contradicts their denomination’s doctrine. Should schools require Jehovah witnesses to recite the national anthem? Some students believe in creationism, not evolution. Should schools stop teaching any possible ideologies for explaining the origin of our existence, so nobody gets offended?
I believe that when the majority or minority of a population changes in order to meet the needs of the other, societies demands and needs are not satisfied as a whole.
The only way to resolve questions about social injustices is by letting individuals make their own choices.
I believe homosexuals should have the right to choose where they are educated, because I want my gay brother to have the same educational opportunities as I do. The decisions I make about social conflicts are the product of my beliefs. Therefore, everyone else’s decisions about social conflicts should be the product of theirs.
Individuals deserve the right to carve their own paths, through the choices they make. Institutions never satisfy the needs of everyone. But, everyone can satisfy their own needs by supporting institutions compatible with their needs.


4 comments:

  1. Your blog brought up a very important issue: society vs. the individual and how there can be a balance between the two. How does this reflect something in yourself? Do you feel like you, personally, are not able to "carve your own path" or did some experience make you so passionate about this? I think your blog was interesting and provoked a lot of questions that are relatable for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This was really interesting, because I have always wondered about the topic of your blog. But along with the comment above, have you ever felt that an institution hasn't satisfied your own needs? That's what I'm most curious about after reading your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your blog was very interesting. Its cool how you took a couple seemingly diverse topics and linked them. I've heard about the issue of creationism vs. evolution in schools, but I never thought about the same-sex education issue- you unveiled discriminations that many people probably wouldn't notice or think about. That these hidden discriminations exist makes me think there must be many more. Must any institution by nature discriminate against some people? Because in the end, they must make choices about how they are going to be run- ex. they have to decide whether to teach creationism or evolution. Even if they teach both, there will be someone else who wants to learn another theory- someone's needs will always not be met. The way you resolve this conflict, by having individuals choose the institution that best fits their need, is interesting. But doesn't this promote segregation- for example all those who believed in creationism would end up going to a religious school while others would go to public school? Do you think there are solutions to making institutions less discriminatory and more fluid in their decisions, so that many diverse people can attend the same institution but still get their needs met? :) -Caroline

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice job Dan! You really wrote passionately, and I respect that. It's good to have a strong opinion that also helps cater to the minority. I think raising the issue is the first step in helping to get it solved, and it's a question that even I hadn't thought about. You really shed new light onto a topic that I think few would dare to bring up at all. You mention a lot of specific examples where people might feel like they're being discriminated against for something they choose or can't choose (awkward wording on my part there), but do you feel a personal connection to ever being discriminated against, or do you feel like your own brother is being mistreated? I was really just wondering what inspired YOU to write this??

    Bob.

    ReplyDelete