recent tracks:

Lots of Stuff

I have finished my homework for tomorrow, have yet to change out of the clothes I slept in (Tatnall football shorts and a Hugh Douglas jersey) because I need to be dressed in business attire for the reception that will begin orientation later this afternoon. Summer and her mother suggested I get a "first day of law school" picture, so I might try to do that, too.

I'm going to tell you about what else I've been up to for the past day or so, then I'm going to write two more essay-type things, so prepare yourself.

Yesterday evening I had my first session of tutor training. It was ok...not supercool, nor superdreadful, but ok. I still like my supervisor, and I still think I'll be a good fit for the program, and I definitely think I'll enjoy what I'm doing, especially once I get to do subject tutoring as well as test prep. Anyways, I got to drive up to Boston while listening to oft-vitriolic conservative Jay Severin viciously attack the war in Iraq and the way it's shaping up. That was rather interesting. Then, after driving back down, I stopped at Timmy's apartment and met Delphina, who seems like she'll be good to have around should she make the trip from New York with any frequency. I also got delicious red beans with sausage and ham and such. Anyway, the conversation was good and before I knew it it was 1 in the morning and wow! it was time to get home. Then after a nice chat with Summer I did a little work on my briefs and then went to bed. Oh and I also read about the Eagles game, which bettered my expectations on some counts (the young receivers, for example, and actually all the youngsters) and failed to meet them on others (can we say SPECIAL TEAMS). Anyway, I'll be excited to see a game sometime. Too bad tickets are so expensive, or I'd try to see them in New Jersey again.

***

Ok, now for essay/rant number one. Issues: John Roberts, prayer in schools, general church-state doctrine.

"I would have no objection to such a position statement," Roberts wrote to his boss, White House Counsel Fred Fielding. "Many who do not support prayer in school support a 'moment of silence,'" he said.The "conclusion" in the 1985 ruling [Wallace v Jaffree] "that the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection --or even 'silent prayer' -- seems indefensible."

Here's the first place instance where I flat-out question the good judge's reasoning. First, Wallace v Jaffree struck down an Alabama statute "authorizing teachers to lead students in a moment of 'silent meditation or voluntary prayer." (Wallace v Jaffree). The sponsor of this bill did not mince words, stating that it was an effort to return prayer to schools, and had no secular purpose. Well, under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a statute must be overturned if it is found to have no secular purpose. The reasoning there is straightforward, and there are plenty of both religious and secular arguments as to the benefits to both church and state of maintaining such separation.

In this case specifically, the statute in question did not have the effect of "returning voluntary prayer to schools" but rather alienating nonbelievers. In fact, voluntary prayer in school has never been even remotely close to being banned; should such a situation occur you can bet the ACLU will come to the defense of people's right to religious practice. In fact, a student can pray silently whenever and wherever he or she wants, and out loud under any conditions that do not disrupt the classroom. The practice called into question was the establishment of a LAW establishing the right of teachers to lead students in silent meditation OR voluntary prayer. Thus this does not establish a mere moment of silence; in practicality, this statute is designed to let teachers lead students in prayer--remember, the sponsor of the bill said so himself.

Now put yourself in the position of a Muslim, Hindu, or atheist student in a rural Alabama school. You already feel different, undoubtedly. Here comes "voluntary" prayer time. School children can be vicious; if you don't join in the prayer, you know that people will notice. You will be mocked and possibly threatened. But if you do join in the prayer, you violate the tenets of your own faith. Children are placed in difficult situations all the time, but rarely are they placed in situations that require them to either undergo torment at the hands of their classmates or violate the basics of their own faith. If you can't commiserate, let's say you live in an atheist state that allows every teacher at your school (each of whom is very strongly atheistic) to lead his or her class in a moment of denouncing God, Jesus, and indeed every religion out loud in front of you. Not only that, but all believers are evil and will suffer for their beliefs for all eternity. If you think that's a false analogy, try reading some Alabama Baptist sermons. You'd probably find that situation rather uncomfortable, to say the least.

So the basic point is that no choice is actually being removed or even challenged; school children and teachers are welcome to pray on their own time (even on school premises), or even to ignore their lessons and pray silently. Religion is in no way harmed by the removal of "voluntary" teacher-lead school prayer. The same thing applies to Ten Commandments monuments at courthouses; removing them does not "remove religion from the public square"--the judges will still be informed by their religious beliefs, whether you or I like that or not, churches will still dot the American countryside, and you will still hear the voices of the faithful in the media--nearly every single person holding national political office, for example (President, Congress, Supreme Court). Roberts, therefore, is simply incorrect in stating that Wallace v Jaffree is "indefensible," and I now recognize my first shred of evidence that he might not be the candidate he has seemed to be 'til now.

***

Rant number two: women.

I used to meet claims of gender inequality with a questioning attitude; while I don't think I ever got to the point of this guy, I had not personally perceived such inequality in my rather liberal scholastic upbringing--no girls were told they wouldn't succeed at math or science, and pretty much the only form of feminism at Tatnall was listening to Ani DiFranco and being angry without citing any reasons. The only thing that gave me pause in high school was when our headmaster refused to allow any wrestlers on our team to wrestle girls on other teams; we had to forfeit any weight class in which an opposing team sent out a varsity female. This seemed ridiculous to me, but since I couldn't play field hockey (not that I wanted to), I figured it was pretty even.

Since then, I've heard of cases where professors have told female students not to bother with math and science classes because of their gender. I've noticed that people who were not priveleged enough to attend my elementary, middle, and high school--and that was, I recognize, a privelege--tend to split along gender lines much more than we did in high school. The proportion of women in my math classes as Carleton was much smaller, and I met many more females who claimed to be terrible at math--disproportionate doesn't even begin to describe the gender difference in that case, so few males will claim the same inability. This has led me to question my old questioning...while I would not attribute these differences to Carleton professors, I would be curious to trace each of these women's education back and see how they were treated by their math and science teachers. I am not even alleging an active discrimination in most cases, but perhaps one of those sneaky ones that simply makes teachers treat students differently based on preconceived notions rather than students' abilities.

I have been led into this line of thinking even more by seeing the success some of these students have had after the fact and despite being "terrible at math." Too often, though, I think it becomes a pervasive attitude causing young women to doubt themselves into failure. I would be curious, though, to read some actual research on this rather than relying upon my own experience and conjectures. That practice has led me from one pole to another, and I wouldn't be surprised if the actual truth is somewhere slightly off in another direction.

***

Ok, that's all. Time to shower and put on nice clothes. Peace dawgs.