Brandon Lacy Campos wrote: > I have indeed seen the movie Bully, and I would challenge you that in the movie > Bully, the "bully" was indeed a product of his environment and not some faulty > genes.
I could argue this point, but it is not Minneapolis specific. The reason I mentioned the film was not to prove my point on genetics, but to illustrate that there are some children who do not fit in the general student population. Many of the kids in the movie could have been helped by a continuation school, others may have been better off in the juvenile justice system rather than ending up in prison for life. > Further, anyone who has taken a biology class can tell you that there is little > evidence of an "evil" gene, but a lot of evidence of the effects of environment > on a young person. I never said that there is an evil gene, I said that there are some personality traits whose expression is normally distributed across the population. If you have forgotten, many people in the gay community have been arguing that sexual preference is genetically determined. And, I won't argue that there is indeed "...a lot of evidence of the effects of environment on a young person." My argument is that there is a small percentage of individuals upon whom environment will have little influence: much as you cannot MAKE some homosexuals straight. > While I do not think that a simply intervention with the parents would be the > end answer, it is a beginning. I agree; but maybe you wouldn't want to visit them at home. > Mr. Atherton's assertions sound loudly like the same assertions used in this > country some fifty years ago: put the negro children separate schools. They > have different needs than the rest. This typical liberal spin. My arguments had nothing to do with race. > Mr. Atherton's entire post is based on inherent genetic differences amongst > children. How then do we identify the "EVIL" children versus the "SOMETIMES-EVIL" > children, versus the "GOOD CHILD WHO IS JUST HAVING A BAD DAY," versus the "I > AM A GOOD CHILD ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT INSIDE I AM THE ANTI-CHRIST?" My post questions the humanist assumption that people are born in a state of grace from which they are diverted by social influences. We differentiate between good and bad on a daily basis. Children that violently attack other children or teachers are bad. It is your assumption that we cannot or should not differentiate, a position that perpetuates an environment in the schools that is not conducive to quality education. > I will never apologize for my liberal view that the entire community holds the > responsibility for supporting the education of our children, that the schools > must partner with private and public institutions to make sure that each child > has the best chance to succeed, and that each and every child has the potential > to excel in the Minneapolis Public Schools and it is the essential work of the > schools to find out the strengths of each child and build on those strengths > to address each childs areas of need. I would never ask anyone to apologize for their opinions, however I think that electing people with views such as yours to the Minneapolis School Board will not improve the quality of education in the MPS. > And, Mr. Atherton, a farm that a child cannot leave and a room that a child > can not leave are still the same thing: a prison. Prisons serve different functions: one of which is to protect the public. I think that it is irrational to insist that violent children be allowed to remain in the general student population. Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
