|
ColinONealFirstEssay 3 - 01 Jun 2017 - Main.ColinONeal
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Tension Between Education and Freedom of Thought | >
> | The Right to Education | | | | |
<
< | -- By ColinONeal - 12 Mar 2017 | >
> | -- By ColinONeal - 1 June 2017 | | | | |
<
< | Why Preserving Freedom of Thought Requires More than an Absence of Restrictions | >
> | A Federal Constitutional Right to an Education and the Preservation of Freedom of Thought | | | | |
<
< | Historical Challenges to Freedom of Thought | >
> | As networked digital communications have immensely expanded access to information for most of the human race, the sheer volume of information to which most people are exposed has increased dramatically. If individuals lack an effective means of selecting from among the quantity of information available, this over-exposure can be a nearly insurmountable barrier to freedom of thought. An effective system of public education is the most promising remedy for this problem. Given the importance of education in preserving meaningful freedom of thought, the United States should adopt – either through judicial revision or an amendment – a Constitutional fundamental right to an education. | | | | |
<
< | Throughout the vast majority of human history, the greatest barrier to freedom of thought has been restrictions on access to information. | >
> | Modern Changes to the Information Landscape and Overexposure | | | | |
<
< |
No, the greatest barrier to freedom of thought has been ignorance, because illiteracy was the norm and information was expensive.
| >
> | While, historically, access to information was difficult and often defined by scarcity, it is now readily accessible with little effort and seemingly characterized by overexposure. Significant research has shown that an extremely high degree of choice substantially limits our ability to decide between options effectively. The legal tactic of responding to discovery requests not with too little information, but with too much, is an effective illustration of the principle: it uses a volume of information designed to overwhelm and render anything of value impossible or overly difficult to locate. As the amount of available information continually increases in our society, the danger is that the quality of the information we choose to consume will decline. The sheer number of required choices inherently limits the amount of time one can spend making each choice. Without an effective and efficient means for selection between competing sources of information, individuals risk having their consumption decided arbitrarily, or dictated by another interested party. | | | | |
>
> | The Importance of Education | | | | |
<
< | Dissenting opinions were silenced, and books were banned or burned. Even when there was no open hostility to non-traditional ideas, only a select few had the resources necessary to obtain books or hear others share their thoughts. Even with the advent of public libraries and open forums for spreading new forms of thinking, practical limitations prevented most from being able to take advantage of the nominally accessible avenues for encountering new thoughts. | >
> | Publicly available education systems, designed to both achieve familiarity with the wide variety of available types of information and to foster critical thinking, are the most promising means for alleviating the danger that high volumes of information will be so overwhelming that the quality of our choices suffer. As the volume of information in society increases, effective education will only become more essential. Exposing an individual to a variety of books and ideas, for example, will enable them to more quickly and effectively understand their future options for reading, and can support both knowledgeable and satisfying choices even among a broad range of options. Both public education and early involvement by parents and others, can expose children to a variety of sources and concepts, and in doing so provide a set of tools which will enable meaningful decisions between what might otherwise appear to be an incomprehensible range of options. | | | | |
<
< |
What does that mean? Universal primary education guaranteeing substantial literacy in most of the population should be mentioned....
| >
> | Given the importance of establishing familiarity with a variety of ideas to enable meaningful choice in the context of the internet, as well as the risk of excessive reliance on established preferences, education has a role of inescapable importance – both to enhance our ability to understand and select from the wide variety of options available, and to challenge established patterns of thinking and preferences through exposure to new ideas. This central role in enabling freedom of thought in a modern context – not to mention numerous other considerations of justice and fairness – push heavily for the recognition of a Constitutional right to education. | | | | |
>
> | Value of a Constitutional Guarantee | | | | |
<
< | Removing barriers to access is undeniably a crucial part of creating freedom of thought, and much human effort has been spent fighting those barriers. Many writers and thinkers have addressed the difficult question of how to effectively fight attempts to limit the freedom of individuals to read what they choose. This paper will not seek to address that challenge, but its opposite. A lack of overt restrictions alone, however, is not sufficient to guarantee free thinking. | >
> | In the now-famous 1973 case San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court declared that the United States Constitution did not include, either explicitly or implicitly, any guarantee of a right to education. Justice Powell, writing for the court, dismisses the argument that recognition of a fundamental right to an education is necessary to preserve the right to freedom of speech and the right to vote. By arguing that there is no guarantee to “the most effective” speech, however, Powell sidesteps the true issue: namely, whether an individual is entitled to a minimal level of ability to vote intelligently and express themselves clearly. The opinion is particularly difficult to reconcile with the court’s decision two months earlier in Roe v. Wade, which recognized that a right to an abortion was encompassed within the right to privacy. Roe and other substantive due process cases represent a compelling line of legal reasoning which would justify the Supreme Court finding a right to education in the Constitution. If the Court is unable or unwilling to do so, a Constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the right to education would be a crucial measure for the protection of freedom of thought. | | | | |
<
< |
Nothing can guarantee free thinking. Human beings cannot be forced to think at all, let alone "freely." What is the point of this assertion?
| >
> | While every U.S. state currently provides public education services, guaranteed either by statute or within the state’s constitution, a Federal Constitutional guarantee of a right to education is an extremely important step. Such a right would enable additional substantive legal safeguards for education, and through subsequent litigation would better explore and define the proper balance between the needs of a diverse set of students. Currently, the extent to which each state provides legal remedies for educational problems is highly variable – many states use out-of-date language, or offer little real protection. Establishing a Federal baseline educational guarantee would ensure that every child is able to get the education, and critical thinking skills, they need to effectively navigate modern society. | | | | |
<
< | Modern Difficulties
The global proliferation of access to the internet has shattered many restrictions on information. While limitations remain, one can practically access a substantial proportion of the written work of humanity. While it would be hyperbole to describe the internet as home to infinite ideas, when compared to the resources for learning available to the average person in any century but our own the magnitude of the difference defies our ability to truly grasp.
Why do we need the rhetoric, let alone the split infinitive? "Because networked digital communications immensely expand access to information for most of the human race ...." and all you need to add is the idea.
What does this mean for the future? Most people familiar with the legal system will have heard of the tactic of responding to discovery requests not with too little information, but with too much – a volume of information designed to overwhelm and render anything of value impossible or overly difficult to locate.
And?
In other contexts, research has shown that an extremely high degree of choice actually harms our ability to decide between options effectively. The 1970 Future Shock spoke of “overchoice” and “information overload,” challenging the assumption that more options or information is always better. In 2004, The Paradox of Choice – Why More is Less argued that, particularly in the consumer context, people could choose more effectively and be more satisfied with their decisions when presented with a narrower range of options.
I don't think Alvin Toffler is an authority anymore. Why is throwing some book titles around off a Google search helpful to us here? What is the point about freedom of thought that we are supposed to understand you are developing?
There are those who have noticed a decline in the attention span of those growing up alongside the internet, and attributing those changes to the ever-escalating competition for their attention across the internet does not seem implausible. Regardless, people of all ages spend a significant amount of time consuming media, news, or games that do not require critical thought or offer much of intellectual value. While humanity has always found ways to waste time and enjoy itself, it would seem that the internet has made the problem more acute.
The Challenge of Meaningful Choice
The difficulties of fostering meaningful choice, and meaningful freedom of thought, are naturally more complex than simply being that beyond a certain point the number of choices hurts our ability to choose effectively. It is possible to alleviate what otherwise might be a fairly linear decline, past a certain point, in the effectiveness of choice as the number of choices increase.
Familiarity is the primary means by which this can be done. Exposing an individual to a variety of books and ideas will enable them to more quickly and effectively understand their future options for reading, and can support choices they both understand and are satisfied with even amongst a broad range of options. Public education in our society, and early involvement by parents and others, can expose children to a variety of sources and concepts, and in doing so provide a set of tools which will enable meaningful decisions between what might otherwise appear to be an incomprehensible range of options.
Relying on established preferences is another way that individuals cope with a broad range of available options. In terms of promoting meaningful choices, this is necessary, but can also be problematic. Preferences are, of course, at the root of autonomy, and play a critical role in shaping our consumption of everything, including literature. With the prevalence of polarization throughout modern society, however, and the increasing capacity of our sources of news and knowledge to shape themselves to be what they think we want to see, blind reliance on preferences alone can be a severe impediment to freedom of thought.
Reconciling Education and Freedom
Given the importance of establishing familiarity with a variety of ideas to enable meaningful choice in the context of the internet, as well as the risk of excessive reliance on established preferences, education takes on a role of increasing importance – both as a way to enhance our ability to understand and select from the wide variety of options available, and as a means to challenge established patterns of thinking and preferences through exposure to new ideas.
This, in turn, leads to a difficult tension – that to preserve effective freedom of thought, society requires a degree of restriction on autonomy through a compulsory education system; that to have meaningful choices, there must be some limitations on choice as well, at least in specific contexts. How we approach education will become ever more important, and requires a significantly greater emphasis than is currently found in our society. Principles of democratic self-governance will be critical in addressing the challenging question of how we educate, for the selection of mandatory books and ideas is a process open to abuse, and it constant tension with the idea of removing all restrictions on freedom of choice. Given the volume of choices available, however, it is almost paradoxically necessary that some choices be guided to a degree to facilitate meaningful and satisfying freedom of thought.
The most important route to improvement is specificity. Precisely what is the idea you mean to convey in the draft? State it at the top, so the reader knows what she is being promised. Put lucidly, not with rhetoric but with factual and analytic precision, the materials out of which your idea was quarried.
If the draft's second half could be summarized, it seems to be "education is indoctrination, and is therefore hostile to freedom of thought." This is not an easy argument to carry, but if it is to be done one must at least encounter some of the many objections, including that teaching how to think critically can be done independent of any doctrine, dogma, or propositions also being taught. For the relationship between democracy and education posited in the last hazy paragraph, it is sufficient to say that the experience of reading John Dewey's Democracy and Education lies before you, and will be well worth the effort.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | >
> | Perhaps more fundamentally, the very recognition of the right would elevate its importance in political discourse, and help focus national attention on an often-overlooked area that is more essential to preserving freedom of thought than ever before. A Constitutional guarantee of a right to education would serve as an affirmation of our country’s commitment both to education and freedom of thought at a time when both concepts often appear to be under attack. The precise scope of a right to education would be a difficult question to answer. Nonetheless, it is past time to acknowledge that, at least in the modern world, freedom of thought cannot exist in the absence of effective education – and we can no longer pretend that other Constitutional guarantees have any force when freedom of thought is denied. | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
ColinONealFirstEssay 2 - 10 May 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Tension Between Education and Freedom of Thought | | | Historical Challenges to Freedom of Thought | |
<
< | Throughout the vast majority of human history, the greatest barrier to freedom of thought has been restrictions on access to information. Dissenting opinions were silenced, and books were banned or burned. Even when there was no open hostility to non-traditional ideas, only a select few had the resources necessary to obtain books or hear others share their thoughts. Even with the advent of public libraries and open forums for spreading new forms of thinking, practical limitations prevented most from being able to take advantage of the nominally accessible avenues for encountering new thoughts. | >
> | Throughout the vast majority of human history, the greatest barrier to freedom of thought has been restrictions on access to information.
No, the greatest barrier to freedom of thought has been ignorance, because illiteracy was the norm and information was expensive.
Dissenting opinions were silenced, and books were banned or burned. Even when there was no open hostility to non-traditional ideas, only a select few had the resources necessary to obtain books or hear others share their thoughts. Even with the advent of public libraries and open forums for spreading new forms of thinking, practical limitations prevented most from being able to take advantage of the nominally accessible avenues for encountering new thoughts.
What does that mean? Universal primary education guaranteeing substantial literacy in most of the population should be mentioned....
| | | Removing barriers to access is undeniably a crucial part of creating freedom of thought, and much human effort has been spent fighting those barriers. Many writers and thinkers have addressed the difficult question of how to effectively fight attempts to limit the freedom of individuals to read what they choose. This paper will not seek to address that challenge, but its opposite. A lack of overt restrictions alone, however, is not sufficient to guarantee free thinking. | |
>
> |
Nothing can guarantee free thinking. Human beings cannot be forced to think at all, let alone "freely." What is the point of this assertion?
| | | Modern Difficulties
The global proliferation of access to the internet has shattered many restrictions on information. While limitations remain, one can practically access a substantial proportion of the written work of humanity. While it would be hyperbole to describe the internet as home to infinite ideas, when compared to the resources for learning available to the average person in any century but our own the magnitude of the difference defies our ability to truly grasp. | |
>
> |
Why do we need the rhetoric, let alone the split infinitive? "Because networked digital communications immensely expand access to information for most of the human race ...." and all you need to add is the idea.
| | | What does this mean for the future? Most people familiar with the legal system will have heard of the tactic of responding to discovery requests not with too little information, but with too much – a volume of information designed to overwhelm and render anything of value impossible or overly difficult to locate. | |
>
> |
And?
| | | In other contexts, research has shown that an extremely high degree of choice actually harms our ability to decide between options effectively. The 1970 Future Shock spoke of “overchoice” and “information overload,” challenging the assumption that more options or information is always better. In 2004, The Paradox of Choice – Why More is Less argued that, particularly in the consumer context, people could choose more effectively and be more satisfied with their decisions when presented with a narrower range of options. | |
>
> |
I don't think Alvin Toffler is an authority anymore. Why is throwing some book titles around off a Google search helpful to us here? What is the point about freedom of thought that we are supposed to understand you are developing?
| | | There are those who have noticed a decline in the attention span of those growing up alongside the internet, and attributing those changes to the ever-escalating competition for their attention across the internet does not seem implausible. Regardless, people of all ages spend a significant amount of time consuming media, news, or games that do not require critical thought or offer much of intellectual value. While humanity has always found ways to waste time and enjoy itself, it would seem that the internet has made the problem more acute.
The Challenge of Meaningful Choice | | | This, in turn, leads to a difficult tension – that to preserve effective freedom of thought, society requires a degree of restriction on autonomy through a compulsory education system; that to have meaningful choices, there must be some limitations on choice as well, at least in specific contexts. How we approach education will become ever more important, and requires a significantly greater emphasis than is currently found in our society. Principles of democratic self-governance will be critical in addressing the challenging question of how we educate, for the selection of mandatory books and ideas is a process open to abuse, and it constant tension with the idea of removing all restrictions on freedom of choice. Given the volume of choices available, however, it is almost paradoxically necessary that some choices be guided to a degree to facilitate meaningful and satisfying freedom of thought. | |
>
> |
The most important route to improvement is specificity. Precisely what is the idea you mean to convey in the draft? State it at the top, so the reader knows what she is being promised. Put lucidly, not with rhetoric but with factual and analytic precision, the materials out of which your idea was quarried.
If the draft's second half could be summarized, it seems to be "education is indoctrination, and is therefore hostile to freedom of thought." This is not an easy argument to carry, but if it is to be done one must at least encounter some of the many objections, including that teaching how to think critically can be done independent of any doctrine, dogma, or propositions also being taught. For the relationship between democracy and education posited in the last hazy paragraph, it is sufficient to say that the experience of reading John Dewey's Democracy and Education lies before you, and will be well worth the effort.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
ColinONealFirstEssay 1 - 12 Mar 2017 - Main.ColinONeal
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
The Tension Between Education and Freedom of Thought
-- By ColinONeal - 12 Mar 2017
Why Preserving Freedom of Thought Requires More than an Absence of Restrictions
Historical Challenges to Freedom of Thought
Throughout the vast majority of human history, the greatest barrier to freedom of thought has been restrictions on access to information. Dissenting opinions were silenced, and books were banned or burned. Even when there was no open hostility to non-traditional ideas, only a select few had the resources necessary to obtain books or hear others share their thoughts. Even with the advent of public libraries and open forums for spreading new forms of thinking, practical limitations prevented most from being able to take advantage of the nominally accessible avenues for encountering new thoughts.
Removing barriers to access is undeniably a crucial part of creating freedom of thought, and much human effort has been spent fighting those barriers. Many writers and thinkers have addressed the difficult question of how to effectively fight attempts to limit the freedom of individuals to read what they choose. This paper will not seek to address that challenge, but its opposite. A lack of overt restrictions alone, however, is not sufficient to guarantee free thinking.
Modern Difficulties
The global proliferation of access to the internet has shattered many restrictions on information. While limitations remain, one can practically access a substantial proportion of the written work of humanity. While it would be hyperbole to describe the internet as home to infinite ideas, when compared to the resources for learning available to the average person in any century but our own the magnitude of the difference defies our ability to truly grasp.
What does this mean for the future? Most people familiar with the legal system will have heard of the tactic of responding to discovery requests not with too little information, but with too much – a volume of information designed to overwhelm and render anything of value impossible or overly difficult to locate.
In other contexts, research has shown that an extremely high degree of choice actually harms our ability to decide between options effectively. The 1970 Future Shock spoke of “overchoice” and “information overload,” challenging the assumption that more options or information is always better. In 2004, The Paradox of Choice – Why More is Less argued that, particularly in the consumer context, people could choose more effectively and be more satisfied with their decisions when presented with a narrower range of options.
There are those who have noticed a decline in the attention span of those growing up alongside the internet, and attributing those changes to the ever-escalating competition for their attention across the internet does not seem implausible. Regardless, people of all ages spend a significant amount of time consuming media, news, or games that do not require critical thought or offer much of intellectual value. While humanity has always found ways to waste time and enjoy itself, it would seem that the internet has made the problem more acute.
The Challenge of Meaningful Choice
The difficulties of fostering meaningful choice, and meaningful freedom of thought, are naturally more complex than simply being that beyond a certain point the number of choices hurts our ability to choose effectively. It is possible to alleviate what otherwise might be a fairly linear decline, past a certain point, in the effectiveness of choice as the number of choices increase.
Familiarity is the primary means by which this can be done. Exposing an individual to a variety of books and ideas will enable them to more quickly and effectively understand their future options for reading, and can support choices they both understand and are satisfied with even amongst a broad range of options. Public education in our society, and early involvement by parents and others, can expose children to a variety of sources and concepts, and in doing so provide a set of tools which will enable meaningful decisions between what might otherwise appear to be an incomprehensible range of options.
Relying on established preferences is another way that individuals cope with a broad range of available options. In terms of promoting meaningful choices, this is necessary, but can also be problematic. Preferences are, of course, at the root of autonomy, and play a critical role in shaping our consumption of everything, including literature. With the prevalence of polarization throughout modern society, however, and the increasing capacity of our sources of news and knowledge to shape themselves to be what they think we want to see, blind reliance on preferences alone can be a severe impediment to freedom of thought.
Reconciling Education and Freedom
Given the importance of establishing familiarity with a variety of ideas to enable meaningful choice in the context of the internet, as well as the risk of excessive reliance on established preferences, education takes on a role of increasing importance – both as a way to enhance our ability to understand and select from the wide variety of options available, and as a means to challenge established patterns of thinking and preferences through exposure to new ideas.
This, in turn, leads to a difficult tension – that to preserve effective freedom of thought, society requires a degree of restriction on autonomy through a compulsory education system; that to have meaningful choices, there must be some limitations on choice as well, at least in specific contexts. How we approach education will become ever more important, and requires a significantly greater emphasis than is currently found in our society. Principles of democratic self-governance will be critical in addressing the challenging question of how we educate, for the selection of mandatory books and ideas is a process open to abuse, and it constant tension with the idea of removing all restrictions on freedom of choice. Given the volume of choices available, however, it is almost paradoxically necessary that some choices be guided to a degree to facilitate meaningful and satisfying freedom of thought.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|