CHOICE #1 “I'm Still Learning from My Mother” By Cliff Schneider
My mother, you see, was a jock
long before Title IX unleashed the explosion of modern women's athletics. She
lettered in field hockey and basketball while attending Hofstra University in
the late 1930s. This was a time when it wasn't very fashionable for women to
go running alter a ball and work up a sweat. Luckily for me, Mom never
worried about what was fashionable. She loved sports, loved being active and,
most of all, loved the competition. Mom was kind to
her kids until we played ball. Then we'd notice this gleam in her eye, the
broad grin and the familiar tongue that told us she was ready for action and
ready to have some fim. No matter what game she
played, Mom had class. She played hard, she laughed a lot and, win or lose, she was always gracious. The years have diminished Mom's
physical abilities, as they would have for anyone who is about to become an octogenarian.
Her back is a little bent, and she complains occasionally about her hip. Het
biggest concession to the aging process, however, is that she has had to
lighten up on her bowling ball. As a young mother in suburban bowling leagues
she toted a 15pound ball, carried a 160 average and had a high game of 212.
As she's grown older, her scores have declined. In recent years she's had to
start using an eight-pound ball, which she protests is too light and
"doesn't give enough pin action." For years I have had to listen to
my mother's perennial battle cry as she begins each new bowling
season-"This is the year I'm going to bowl a 200 game!" I've always
smiled and nodded in agreement, which was my way of acknowledging her
determination. During our regular Thursday-evening phone conversations (she
bowls on Thursdays), she gives me a frame-by-frame description of her games,
and gripes that she can't bowl the way she used to. She almost always slips
in the comment "I'm going to make 200 if it kills me.' I try to explain
that she should be satisfied that she is at least able to play the game.
"Try to make some concession to your age, Mom," I say. Of course,
she will have none of this talk and this year bought a 10-pound ball in
pursuit of her dream. Vince Lombardi would be proud. A week after she started bowling
with her new ball, I called to check on her progress. She no sooner said
"Hi" than I could tell something big had happened in her life. I
could feel the smile all the way from Hendersonville, N.C., to upstate New
York. I shouted, "You bowled a 200 game!"
knowing it could be the only reason for such a happy voice. She corrected me:
"Not a 200 game; I got a 220." It was her highest score ever! She
gave me a strike-by-strike description of her game, and we both celebrated
over the phone. As she signed off and said her goodbyes, I could still sense
the smile on her face. Her grin mill probably fade
in another month or two. After some reflection, I am amazed
by my mother's accomplishment. Whether it is baseball, tennis, golf or even
bowling, I have never heard of anyone's peaking at 79. Yes, there is some
degree of luck in every game, but in Mom's case she had the best same of her
life because she persevered Mom's achievement has
lifted her spirits and made her feel young again. For someone who is too
frequently reminded that she can't do what she used to, this experience could
not have come at a better time in her life. I guess I'm not surprised that I
can still learn from Mom-that you are never too old to dream and never too
old to realize those dreams. I am not surprised, either, that in our most
recent calls she talks about bowling a 250 game. Schneider,
Cliff. "Im Still Learning from My
Mother." Newsweek Mar 20 2000: 13-. ProQuest
Nursing & Allied Health Source; ProQuest
Research Library. Web. 13 Feb. 2012 . CHOICE #2 “Televising humiliation” By Adam Cohen In November 2006, a camera crew
from NBC's "Dateline" and a police SWAT team descended on the Texas
home of Louis William Conradt Jr., a 56-year-old
assistant district attorney. The series' "To Catch a Predator" team
had allegedly caught Conradt making online advances
to a decoy who pretended to be a 13-year-old boy. When the police and TV crew
stormed Conradt's home, he took out a handgun and
shot himself to death. "That'll make good TV,"
one of the police officers on the scene reportedly told an NBC producer.
Deeply cynical, perhaps, but prescient. "Dateline" aired a segment
based on the grim encounter. After telling the ghoulish tale,
it ended with Conradt's sister Patricia decrying
the "reckless actions of a self-appointed group acting as judge, jury
and executioner, that was encouraged by an
out-of-control reality show." Patricia Conradt
sued NBC for more than $100 million. Last month, Judge Denny Chin of U.S.
District Court in New York ruled that her lawsuit could go forward. Chin's
thoughtful ruling sends an important message at a time when humiliation
television is ubiquitous, and plumbing ever lower depths of depravity in search
of ratings. NBC's "To Catch a
Predator" franchise is based on an ugly premise. The show lures people
into engaging in loathsome activities. It then teams up with the police to
stage a humiliating, televised arrest, while the accused still has the presumption
of innocence. Each party to the bargain
compromises its professional standards. Rather than hold police
accountable, "Dateline" becomes their partners - and may well prod
them to more invasive and outrageous actions than they had planned. When Conradt did not show up at the "sting house" -
the usual "To Catch a Predator" format - producers allegedly asked
police as a "favor" to storm his home. Patricia Conradt
contends that the show encourages police "to give a special intensity to
any arrests, so as to enhance the camera effect." The police make their own corrupt
bargain, ceding law enforcement to TV producers.
Could Conradt have been taken alive if he had been
arrested in more conventional fashion, without SWAT agents, cameras and
television producers swarming his home? Chin said a jury could plausibly find
that it was the television circus, in which the police acted as the ringleader, that led to his suicide. "To Catch a Predator" is
part of an ever-growing lineup of shows that calculatingly appeal to their
audience's worst instincts. The common theme is indulging the audience's
voyeuristic pleasure at someone else's humiliation, and the nastiness of the
put-down has become the whole point of the shows. Humiliation TV has been around for
some time. "The Weakest Link" updated the conventional quiz show by
installing a viciously insulting host, and putting the focus on the
contestants' decision about which of their competitors is the most worthless.
"The Apprentice" purported to be about young people getting a start
in business, but the whole hour built up to a single moment: when Donald
Trump barked "You're fired." But to hold viewers' interest, the
levels of shame have inevitably kept growing. A new Fox show, "Moment of
Truth," in a coveted time slot after "American Idol,"
dispenses cash prizes for truthfully (based on a lie-detector test) answering
intensely private questions. Sample: "Since you've been
married, have you ever had sexual relations with someone other than your
husband?" If the show is as true as it says it is,
questions in two recent episodes seemed carefully designed to break up
contestants' marriages. There are First Amendment
concerns, of course, when courts consider suits over TV shows. But when the
media act more as police than as journalists, and actually push the police
into more extreme violations of rights than the police would come up with
themselves, the free speech defense begins to weaken. Patricia Conradt's
lawsuit contains several legal claims, including "intentional infliction
of emotional distress," for which the bar is very high: conduct "so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all
possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community." Reprehensible as "Moment of
Truth" is, it doubtless falls into the venerable category of verbal
grotesquery protected by the First Amendment. The producers of "To Catch
a Predator," however, appear to be on the verge - if not over it - of
becoming brown shirts with television cameras. If you are going into the
business of storming people's homes and humiliating them to the point of
suicide, you should be sure to have some good lawyers on retainer. Adam Cohen is the assistant editor
of The New York Times editorial board. Cohen,
Adam. “Televising Humiliation.” New York Times. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11iht-edacohen.1.10925712.html 13 Feb. 2012. CHOICE #3 Let’s Really
Reform Our Schools by Anita Garland American high schools are in trouble.
No, that's not strong enough. American high schools are disasters.
"Good" schools today are only a rite of passage for American kids,
where the pressure to look fashionable and act cool outweighs any concern for
learning. And "bad" schools-heaven help
us-are havens for the vicious and corrupt. There, metal detectors and
security guards wage a losing battle against the criminals that prowl the
halls. Desperate illnesses require desperate
remedies. And our public schools are desperately ill. What is needed is no
meek, fainthearted attempt at "curriculum revision" or
"student-centered learning." We need to completely restructure our
thinking about what schools are and what we expect of the students who attend
them. The first change needed to save our
schools is the most fundamental one. Not only must we stop forcing everyone
to attend school; we must stop allowing the attendance of so-called
students who are not interested in studying. Mandatory school attendance is
based upon the idea that every American has a right to basic education. But
as the old saying goes, your rights stop where the next guy's begin. A
student who sincerely wants an education, regardless of his or her mental or
physical ability, should be welcome in any school in this country. But
"students" who deliberately interfere with other students' ability
to learn, teachers' ability to teach, and administrators' ability to maintain
order should be denied a place in the classroom. They do not want an
education. And they should not be allowed to mark time within school walls,
waiting to be handed their meaningless diplomas while they make it harder for
everyone around them to either provide or receive a quality education. By requiring troublemakers to attend
school, we have made it impossible to deal with them in any effective way.
They have little to fear in terms of punishment. Suspension from school for a
few days doesn't improve their behavior. After all, they don't want to be in
school anyway. For that matter, mandatory attendance is, in many cases,
nothing but a bad joke. Many chronic troublemakers are absent so often that
it is virtually impossible for them to learn anything. And-when they are in
school, they are busy shaking down other students for their lunch money or
jewelry. If we permanently banned such punks from school, educators could
turn their attention away from the troublemakers and toward those students
who realize that school is a serious place for serious learning. You may ask, "What will become of
these young people who aren't in school?" But consider this: What is becoming of them
now? They are not being educated. They are merely names on the school
records. They are passed from grade to grade, learning nothing, making
teachers and fellow students miserable. Finally they are bumped off the
conveyor belt at the end of twelfth grade, oftentimes barely literate, and
passed into society as "high school graduates." Yes, there would be
a need for alternative solutions for these young people. Let the best
thinkers of our country come up with some ideas. But in the meanwhile, don't
allow our schools to serve as a holding tank for' people who don't want to be
there. 101 Once our schools have been returned to
the control of teachers and genuine students, we could concentrate on smaller
but equally meaningful reforms. A good place to start would be requiring
students to wear school uniforms.
There would be cries of horror from the fashion slaves, but the change
would benefit everyone. If students wore uniforms, think of the mental energy
that could be redirected into more productive channels. No longer would young
girls feel the need to spend their evenings laying out coordinated clothing,
anxiously trying to create just the right look. The daily fashion show that
currently absorbs so much of students' attentions would come to a halt. Kids
from modest backgrounds could stand out because of their personalities and
intelligence, rather than being tagged as losers because they can't wear the
season's hottest sneakers or jeans. Affluent kids might learn they have
something to offer the world other than a fashion statement. Parents would be
relieved of the pressure to deal with their offspring's constant demands for
wardrobe additions. Next, let's move to the cafeteria.
What's for lunch today? How about a Milky Way bar, a bag of Fritos, a Coke,
and just to round out the meal with a vegetable, maybe some french fries. And then back to the classroom for a few
hours of intense mental activity, fueled on fat, salt, and sugar. What a
joke! School is an institution of education, and that education should be
continued as students sit down to eat. Here's a perfect opportunity to teach
a whole generation of Americans about nutrition, and we are blowing it.
School cafeterias, of all places, should demonstrate how a healthful,
low-fat, well-balanced diet produces healthy, energetic, mentally alert
people. Instead, we allow school cafeterias to dispense the same junk food
that kids could buy in any mall. Overhaul the cafeterias! Out with the candy,
soda, chips, and fries! In with the salads, whole grains, fruits, and
vegetables! Turning our attention away from what
goes on during school hours, let's consider what
happens after the final bell rings. Some school-sponsored activities are all
to the good. Bands and choirs, foreign-language field trips, chess or skiing
or drama clubs are sensible parts of an extracurricular plan. They bring
together kids with similar interests to develop their talents and leadership
ability. But other common school activities are not the business of
education. The prime example of inappropriate school activity is in
competitive sports between schools. Intramural sports are great. Students
need an outlet for their energies, and friendly competition against one's
classmates on the basketball court or baseball diamond is fun and physically
beneficial. But the wholesome fun of sports is quickly ruined by the
competitive team system. School athletes quickly become the campus idols,
encouraged to look down on classmates with less physical ability. Schools
concentrate enormous amounts of time, money, and attention upon their teams,
driving home the point that competitive sports are the really important
part of school. Students are herded into gymnasiums for "pep
rallies" that whip up adoration of the chosen few and encourage hatred
of rival schools. Boys' teams are supplied with squads of cheerleading girls
. . . let's not even get into what the subliminal message is there. If
communities feel they must have competitive sports, let local businesses or
even professional teams organize and fund the programs. But school budgets
and time should be spent on programs that benefit more than an elite few. 102 Another school-related activity that
should get the ax is the fluff-headed, money-eating, misery-inducing event
known as the prom. How in the world did the schools of America get involved
in this showcase of excess? Proms have to be the epitome of everything that
is wrong, tasteless, misdirected, inappropriate, and just plain sad about the
way we bring up our young people. Instead of simply letting the kids put on a
dance, we've turned the prom into a bloated nightmare that ruins young
people's budgets, their self-image, and even their lives. The pressure to
show up at the prom with the best-looking date, in the most expensive
clothes, wearing the most exotic flowers, riding in the most extravagant form
of transportation, dominates the thinking of many students for months before
the prom itself. Students cling to doomed, even abusive romantic
relationships rather than risk being dateless for this night of nights. They
lose any concept of meaningful values as they implore their parents for more,
more, more money to throw into the jaws of the prom god. The adult trappings
of the prom-the slinky dresses, emphasis on romance, slow dancing, nightclub atmosphere-all encourage kids to engage in
behavior that can have tragic consequences. Who knows how many unplanned
pregnancies and alcohol-related accidents can be directly attributed to the
pressures of prom night? And yet, not going to the prom seems a fate worse
than death to many young people-because of all the hype about the
"wonder" and "romance" of it all. Schools are not in the
business of providing wonder and romance, and it's high time we remembered that.
We have lost track of the purpose of our
schools. They are not intended to be centers for fun, entertainment, and
social climbing. They are supposed to be institutions for learning and hard
work. Let's institute the changes suggested here--plus dozens more--without apology,
and get American schools back to business. 103 Practice
Citation: Garland, Anita. "Let's Really Reform Our
Schools." Reader’s Digest.
Oct. 2000: 101-103. |
