Taking It on Faith: Thinking for Oneself in the Presence of Authority

     In class on Friday, we discussed the First Amendment, with special focus on when and where it can be limited. The limitations that caught my attention the most were those imposed on teachers. As both government employees and potential role models to their students, they are often prevented, and usually discouraged, from airing their political beliefs, religious beliefs, or generally anything controversial that isn't in the lesson plan.
     The logic behind this seems straightforward at first glance: if a teacher, the local figure of authority, says anything about anything, the student is likely to accept it as truth without further thought, similarly to how they believe what their parents say. After all, most children with religious parents grow up to follow the same religion, so it makes sense, right?
     Well, not always. Their are two key forces to consider. For starters, at a certain age kids begin to question authority. The colloquial name for this is "teenage rebellion". So while limitations on teachers' self-expression may be logical in K-8 schools, by the time high school rolls around the logic is decidedly weakened.
     The second variable is that kids are often not considered capable of thinking for themselves. Which is ridiculous! I can think for myself, and do so regularly, and I would bet that most of my classmates who read this do too. And once students are capable of taking the facts (or failing hard information, the data they're given) and drawing their own conclusions from it, censoring teachers makes zero sense. In fact, from my point of view it cuts down on how interesting and informative their classes are.
Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment please.

Divided We Vote

     I have recently noticed a number of AIS blog posts concerned with election factionalism - that is, the way people tend to pick a political party and vote for it, come hell or high water or an inferior candidate winding up in the White House. The question, usually lacking in an answer, is "Why?" Why would anyone allow others to choose their president? What could possibly be so attractive about this mindlessness, in a country that prides itself on individualism and free thought?

     I discovered one theory in Influence, by Robert Cialdini. In once chapter, titled "Commitment and Consistency", he observes that "once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter... pressures to behave consistently with that commitment" (57). In other words, when someone identifies themselves as Democrat or Republican, they are pushed towards voting Left or Right. When done to a moderate degree, this is logical: any given political party has general ideas, such as more government, less government, gun rights, minority rights, et cetera ad infinitum, that match the beliefs of those who identify with them. There is no issue with party allegiance and loyalty, in general.

     In individual cases, though, problems arise. Typically, there will be some characteristic of the party's candidate that breaks with what voters believe. I know staunch Republicans who hated the idea of Bush getting a second term; I know zealous Democrats who wouldn't vote Obama this year if you paid them. And they could be reasoning from flawed concepts -  Obamacare probably won't destroy the world on December 21st, 2012 - but if you play to the party line, and don't think out an individual choice, then you are surrendering a pillar of American values: the right to choose your government.

The American Dream and Science Fiction

     In class today we discussed values that make America unique: social mobility, rugged individualism, and the self-made man. While lived out in reality in the tales of people like Chris McCandless, these themes also appear in novels, especially science fiction. Specifically, I am reminded of Insignia, by S. J. Kincaid, a story I recently read concerning computerized warfare in the near future.

     Tom Raines begins as a "scrawny, stupid little kid" with no real talents except in video games. He attends school through virtual reality, and gets abysmal grades even there. Escape from his pathetic life seems impossible until his abilities in cyberspace get the attention of a military recruiter looking for gamers to pilot computer-controlled spaceships for the Americans and their allies. After this one boost, however, Raines has to prove himself, and he does. In this he is a perfect embodiment of both the self-made man and social mobility, since the pilots are "the smartest human beings alive", the feted elite of the entire planet - quite a step up from the loser he started out as. He exemplifies rugged individualism as well; when corporate sponsors attempt to contract him as hot new talent, Raines tells them in no uncertain terms where they can put their endorsement deals.

     Science fiction might be just that - fiction - but truly great novels must echo profound values, and when your target audience is the US, nothing runs deeper than the American Dream.