[Argument] Another Case Of Incompetent Higher-ups
This is the final Action Project for my term two Humanities course, A Nation’s Argument. In this unit, named Antithesis, we have been taking a deep dive into how the United States’ argument contradicts itself. We have talked about the constitution. How it was written by and for land-owning white men while disregarding every other group of people. We also discussed the crisis leading up to the civil war, how people were considered property and the act of slavery contradicts the very document that declared this nation a nation. How the nation needing to even have a debate about whether slavery is good or bad is in contradiction to what it seems to have been founded on. For this Action Project, our task is to look at our school, GCE Lab School. We have to look at the student handbook and try to find a contradiction in a portion of it called the Social Contract.
GCE Lab School is a high school with many strengths. One of these is how the community is run. When students decide to go there, there is an agreement that is made. This is referred to as a social contract, something that doesn’t have an exact definition. In general, a social contract is an agreement in a community about the rules and guidelines that members of that community should adhere to. A social contract should be followed by all members of the community. GCE’s social contract is formed around four core commitments. The contract we have signed is not representative of the school.
The commitment that the institution of GCE Lab School is not following is “Exercise Integrity”. The handbook goes on to elaborate on the school’s interpretation of Exercise Integrity: “To exercise integrity is to live into our own simultaneous autonomy and interrelatedness, to represent ourselves honestly and ethically to ourselves and to our peers. This is a commitment to speak truthfully, not to lie, misrepresent one’s work, mislead, or deceive. It is a commitment also to honor one’s relationships, to support one another and our distinctions, not to spread rumors or falsehoods, to diminish, or to injure.” The school’s intention is to make sure people are transparent and honest to be able to determine how members of the community are doing. The argument they are making goes something like this:
P1: Honesty and transparency in a community leads to a better understanding of the members.
P2: Knowing the status of a community’s members allows the community to make decisions based on the feelings of the whole.
C: Integrity should be a core value at GCE.
I believe in general the student body does a pretty good job at following this. People lie, of course, it is human nature. As a student, however, I feel that most of the student body would be honest most of the time. Until recently, it was thought that administrators followed the same rules. The institution has been pretty transparent about the plans for GCE in the past, and there was no reason to think otherwise. However, new situations have arisen. There are rumors running around the school, many of which are supported by facts. Despite multiple conversations with administrators, these rumors have not been confirmed or denied, leading to distrust among the student body. For example, the faculty (not to be confused with the administration) have seemed different. This is likely because there have already been two fired for reasons related to the changes that the administration will not tell us about. The faculty who haven’t been fired are fearing for their jobs. This shows there is more than we have been told, yet we continue to be kept in the dark. The contradiction here is that students are, to the best you could expect, following the Social Contract. In contrast, the administration, members of the community just like the students, are not following the Social Contract. This is shown by them intentionally hiding facts and being vague to disguise their actions.
I believe that there should be a change to the Social Contract. I would not propose that the Exercise Integrity value be removed, as I believe that it is important to be honest. Rather, I believe that the school’s definition of the title “Social Contract” should be explicitly stated. In the past, the Social Contract has been called something different. A “Code of Conduct”. The name was changed to make it more appealing to students, as a social contract implies that everyone in the community, the social environment, is equal. This is clearly not true as the administration does not follow the Social Contract. Therefore, my proposed amendment to this Social Contract is just one sentence at the beginning that lays out expectations for everything that follows. “The Social Contract applies only to students.” This line would make it clear the intention of the Social Contract and the fact that administrators feel it does not apply to them. With this line, the argument of the Exercise Integrity section has a new argument.
Students being honest makes it easier for their superiors to determine if they have done something wrong.
A proven infraction is easier to take action against than a suspected one
C: Exercise Integrity should be a core value at GCE
This keyword of “superiors” does not exist in the current argument of the Social Contract and that is an inherent contradiction because, despite what they want you to believe, the rules apply differently to the people that are making them. They are embodying the phrase “Do what I say, not what I do.” This can be compared to the quite famous figure of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which states, “All men are created equal…”. Additionally, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, there is a section condemning slavery. Jefferson has been praised for these words ever since they were written. Jefferson owned slaves his entire life. Clearly, he was not practicing what he was preaching, and extremely recently, he has been seen in a more negative light. He was a superior in revolutionary America and the rules applied differently. This is similar in principle to the actions of the administration.
"Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Third President 1801-1809)" by Tony Fischer Photography is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
This is an image that symbolizes the argument I am making simply because this portrait exists. Making a record of what someone looked like before photographs was a privilege for only the wealthy and elite. It would take someone lots of money to pay Rembrandt Peale to spend months of his life creating a portrait. The superiors did not follow the same rules as everyone else.
It is not just me who thinks this. I have asked a senior, M.D., what she thinks of the contradiction in the Social Contract as well as my proposed amendment. Here are her thoughts, “I think transparency in any community is very important, so I’d say that this amendment would make sense. If changes are going to be made in opaque fashions I think the least that can be done is acknowledging that unnamed changes are being made and an explanation of who is allowed a lack of upfront honesty. ”
Additionally, one of my fellow juniors, N.M. has agreed to cosign my amendment.
Signature:_page-0001.jpg)
In conclusion, administration has been contradicting one of the most important parts of the Social Contract of GCE Lab School. Administration is being hypocritical to what they are saying in the Student Handbook by not being honest.To fix this contradiction, all that has to happen is a clarification as to exactly what students are signing. They are signing an agreement that only applies to certain members of the community, not a complete social contract. By doing this, it takes away the rose-colored paint that the Social Contract has been painted with and makes sure it is known exactly what the hierarchy of GCE is.
The commitment that the institution of GCE Lab School is not following is “Exercise Integrity”. The handbook goes on to elaborate on the school’s interpretation of Exercise Integrity: “To exercise integrity is to live into our own simultaneous autonomy and interrelatedness, to represent ourselves honestly and ethically to ourselves and to our peers. This is a commitment to speak truthfully, not to lie, misrepresent one’s work, mislead, or deceive. It is a commitment also to honor one’s relationships, to support one another and our distinctions, not to spread rumors or falsehoods, to diminish, or to injure.” The school’s intention is to make sure people are transparent and honest to be able to determine how members of the community are doing. The argument they are making goes something like this:
P1: Honesty and transparency in a community leads to a better understanding of the members.
P2: Knowing the status of a community’s members allows the community to make decisions based on the feelings of the whole.
C: Integrity should be a core value at GCE.
I believe in general the student body does a pretty good job at following this. People lie, of course, it is human nature. As a student, however, I feel that most of the student body would be honest most of the time. Until recently, it was thought that administrators followed the same rules. The institution has been pretty transparent about the plans for GCE in the past, and there was no reason to think otherwise. However, new situations have arisen. There are rumors running around the school, many of which are supported by facts. Despite multiple conversations with administrators, these rumors have not been confirmed or denied, leading to distrust among the student body. For example, the faculty (not to be confused with the administration) have seemed different. This is likely because there have already been two fired for reasons related to the changes that the administration will not tell us about. The faculty who haven’t been fired are fearing for their jobs. This shows there is more than we have been told, yet we continue to be kept in the dark. The contradiction here is that students are, to the best you could expect, following the Social Contract. In contrast, the administration, members of the community just like the students, are not following the Social Contract. This is shown by them intentionally hiding facts and being vague to disguise their actions.
I believe that there should be a change to the Social Contract. I would not propose that the Exercise Integrity value be removed, as I believe that it is important to be honest. Rather, I believe that the school’s definition of the title “Social Contract” should be explicitly stated. In the past, the Social Contract has been called something different. A “Code of Conduct”. The name was changed to make it more appealing to students, as a social contract implies that everyone in the community, the social environment, is equal. This is clearly not true as the administration does not follow the Social Contract. Therefore, my proposed amendment to this Social Contract is just one sentence at the beginning that lays out expectations for everything that follows. “The Social Contract applies only to students.” This line would make it clear the intention of the Social Contract and the fact that administrators feel it does not apply to them. With this line, the argument of the Exercise Integrity section has a new argument.
Students being honest makes it easier for their superiors to determine if they have done something wrong.
A proven infraction is easier to take action against than a suspected one
C: Exercise Integrity should be a core value at GCE
This keyword of “superiors” does not exist in the current argument of the Social Contract and that is an inherent contradiction because, despite what they want you to believe, the rules apply differently to the people that are making them. They are embodying the phrase “Do what I say, not what I do.” This can be compared to the quite famous figure of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which states, “All men are created equal…”. Additionally, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, there is a section condemning slavery. Jefferson has been praised for these words ever since they were written. Jefferson owned slaves his entire life. Clearly, he was not practicing what he was preaching, and extremely recently, he has been seen in a more negative light. He was a superior in revolutionary America and the rules applied differently. This is similar in principle to the actions of the administration.
"Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Third President 1801-1809)" by Tony Fischer Photography is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
This is an image that symbolizes the argument I am making simply because this portrait exists. Making a record of what someone looked like before photographs was a privilege for only the wealthy and elite. It would take someone lots of money to pay Rembrandt Peale to spend months of his life creating a portrait. The superiors did not follow the same rules as everyone else.
It is not just me who thinks this. I have asked a senior, M.D., what she thinks of the contradiction in the Social Contract as well as my proposed amendment. Here are her thoughts, “I think transparency in any community is very important, so I’d say that this amendment would make sense. If changes are going to be made in opaque fashions I think the least that can be done is acknowledging that unnamed changes are being made and an explanation of who is allowed a lack of upfront honesty. ”
Additionally, one of my fellow juniors, N.M. has agreed to cosign my amendment.
Signature:
_page-0001.jpg)
In conclusion, administration has been contradicting one of the most important parts of the Social Contract of GCE Lab School. Administration is being hypocritical to what they are saying in the Student Handbook by not being honest.To fix this contradiction, all that has to happen is a clarification as to exactly what students are signing. They are signing an agreement that only applies to certain members of the community, not a complete social contract. By doing this, it takes away the rose-colored paint that the Social Contract has been painted with and makes sure it is known exactly what the hierarchy of GCE is.
Comments
Post a Comment