[Rhodes22-list] That Black Man is at it again [Political]

[ben]

That's one of the dumbest opinions I've ever read.

Of course schools -- especially universities -- have the right to decide what to require in order to grant their students a degree.  That's not denying the students freedom in any way.  Of course I wouldn't have used my "freedom" as an electrical engineering student to stay all night in computer labs or to spend my Sundays wiring a circuit board.  But that's what I had to do to get my degree. 

He asks " What in the world qualifies teachers and
members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society
as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary
notions?"

Seriously?

What qualifies te4achers to define what is good for the students?

So we shouldn't let our teachers judge whether our kids know a material well enough to avoid additional homework or not?

Of course not. 

Ben S.

-----Original Message-----
From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Tootle
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:14
To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] That Black Man is at it again [Political]


Folks, he is at it again:

Freedom and the Left 

By Thomas Sowell 

Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor
of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom. 

Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you do
not approve of. Nazis were free to be Nazis under Hitler. It is only when
you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free. 

One of the most innocent-sounding examples of the left's many impositions of
its vision on others is the widespread requirement by schools and by college
admissions committees that students do "community service." 

There are high schools across the country from which you cannot graduate,
and colleges where your application for admission will not be accepted,
unless you have engaged in activities arbitrarily defined as "community
service." 

  Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and
Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists
regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here. 

The arrogance of commandeering young people's time, instead of leaving them
and their parents free to decide for themselves how to use that time, is
exceeded only by the arrogance of imposing your own notions as to what is or
is not a service to the community. 

Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as "community service"— as
if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a
disservice, to the community. 

Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the
streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the
street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play? 

This is just one of the ways in which handing out various kinds of benefits
to people who have not worked for them breaks the connection between
productivity and reward, as far as they are concerned. 

But that connection remains as unbreakable as ever for society as a whole.
You can make anything an "entitlement" for individuals and groups but
nothing is an entitlement for society as a whole, not even food or shelter,
both of which have to be produced by somebody's work or they will not exist. 

What "entitlements" for some people mean is forcing other people to work for
their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: "Work harder. Millions of people
on welfare are depending on you." 

The most fundamental problem, however, is not which particular activities
students are required to engage in under the title of "community service." 

The most fundamental question is: What in the world qualifies teachers and
members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society
as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary
notions? 

What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people's
freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in
where angels fear to tread? 

What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary
power? 

Supposedly students are to get a sense of compassion or noblesse oblige from
serving others. But this all depends on who defines compassion. In practice,
it means forcing students to undergo a propaganda experience to make them
receptive to the left's vision of the world. 

I am sure those who favor "community service" requirements would understand
the principle behind the objections to this if high school military
exercises were required. 

Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory "community service" activities
are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or
colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a
contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work. 

In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of
what is good for society on others— a right that they vehemently deny to
those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own. 

The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for
yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though
many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom. 

Posted for your understanding.
Ed K
Addendum:"If someone is going down the wrong road, he doesn't need
motivation to speed him up. What he needs is education to turn him around." 
Jim Rohn



-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/That-Black-Man-is-at-it-again--Political--tp20817269p20817269.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


__________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________