Mainstream media are today distancing themselves from any responsibility for the predictions of pollsters on the Alberta election. Media are now creating a narrative about the unscientific and flawed nature of the polls. Shouldn't the media have acted responsibly and checked the source and method of polls before reporting them and predicting a majority for Wild Rose?
I'm just saying...
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
What are universities for?
Stefan Collini's book by the same title is a contemporary manifesto in defense of universities. Not for their utility - will I get a job? - or to be more precise: will my child get a job? or that dratted word 'impact'. And the impact must be immediate.
Nor are universities about economic capital to be invested in by politicians only if they can see a desirable result.
Research - good research - by its nature is incremental and we should be exploring and judging the body of work of the discipline not a single article, book or presentation.
The traditional values of universities are worth upholding and supporting. To wit: the exploration of knowledge and where it might (or might not) lead is the purview of the university student and the university professor to be supported by the university administration.
Might universities also serve all of those other utilitarian purposes. But of course. Universities are famous and esteemed for their complexity (John Henry Newman) and their 'messiness (J. Pelikan - my addition).
Let many complexities exist and co-exist without loss of the anchor: the pure pursuit of knowledge.
Stefan Collini, What are universities for? A contemporary manifesto in defence of our universities (Allen Lane: 978 1 8461 4482 0)
Nor are universities about economic capital to be invested in by politicians only if they can see a desirable result.
Research - good research - by its nature is incremental and we should be exploring and judging the body of work of the discipline not a single article, book or presentation.
The traditional values of universities are worth upholding and supporting. To wit: the exploration of knowledge and where it might (or might not) lead is the purview of the university student and the university professor to be supported by the university administration.
Might universities also serve all of those other utilitarian purposes. But of course. Universities are famous and esteemed for their complexity (John Henry Newman) and their 'messiness (J. Pelikan - my addition).
Let many complexities exist and co-exist without loss of the anchor: the pure pursuit of knowledge.
Stefan Collini, What are universities for? A contemporary manifesto in defence of our universities (Allen Lane: 978 1 8461 4482 0)
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Drummond Report - Ontario
Important sections on education. Let's talk about:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/chapters/summary.html
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/chapters/summary.html
Westminister Kennel Club Dog Show 2012
Finalists for Best in Show for 2012 were:
Irish Setter
Dalmatian
Kerry Blue Terrier
Dachsund (Wirehaired)
Pekingese
Doberman
German Sheppard
And the Winner is:
The Pekingese Malachai
Irish Setter
Dalmatian
Kerry Blue Terrier
Dachsund (Wirehaired)
Pekingese
Doberman
German Sheppard
And the Winner is:
The Pekingese Malachai
Supreme Court - Religious Freedom and Schools
Many points to be considered by parents, educators and our democratic society.
The decision aside: might community matters be decided democratically, through consensus and community building.
When we refer decisions that are of importance to individuals and communities to external agencies such as the Supreme Court, we abdicate our democratic right to be engaged in the process.
And what about the decision? Any comments?
The Supreme Court of Canada.
Photograph by: Chris Mikula , The Ottawa Citizen
Catholic
parents in Quebec cannot keep their kids out of a school course that
teaches them about other religions, the country's top court has ruled.
The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday rendered its decision in a controversial case that was cast by some observers as a matter of religious freedom versus a bid by the province to increase tolerance.
Allowing children to opt out of the course would be "a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government's obligations with regard to public education," the court ruled.
The case pit a set of Catholic parents against the school board and the province of Quebec.
Quebec's Ethics and Religious Culture program became mandatory for schools in May 2008.
In the course, students learn about the Catholic and Protestant Christian traditions in Quebec culture. The program is meant to expose students— who are also taught about the contributions of Judaism, aboriginal spirituality and other religious traditions— to a variety of religions.
The couple from Drummondville, Que., at the centre of the case, who can't be identified, wrote to their children's schools asking that they be exempt from the course.
They said they didn't want their children taking the course because of "the disruption caused by forced, premature contact with a series of beliefs that were mostly incompatible with those of the family, as well as the adverse effect on the religious faith of the members of this family," court documents said.
The parents maintained that the program interfered with their ability to pass on the Catholic religion to their children, and that exposing their children to various religions was confusing for them.
The couple went to court after the Commission scolaire des Chenes refused to exempt their two children.
Quebec's Education Department had publicly announced there would no exemptions.
In 2009, a Quebec Superior Court judge rejected the parents' request for an exemption for their children, ruling their right to freedom of religion was not being violated.
Last year, the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected their bid to appeal the decision. There were eight interveners in the case, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The court's panel of judges was unanimous in its final decision, finding that the parents did not sufficiently prove that the program infringed on their right to freedom of religion.
"It is not enough for a person to say that his or her rights have been infringed," a summary of the judgment stated. "The person must prove the infringement on a balance of probabilities."
In an explanation of the ruling, Justice Marie Deschamps explained "the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society."
"Parents are free to pass their personal beliefs on to their children if they so wish," she wrote.
"The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government's obligations with regard to public education."
Due to the neutral nature of the program, Justice Louis LeBel wrote that simply exposing children to religions is not enough to be considered a violation of freedom of religion.
"The very nature of a public education system implies the creation of opportunities for students of different origins and religions to learn about the diversity of opinions and cultures existing in our society, even in religious matters," wrote LeBel. "Imparting information about different views of the world cannot be equated with a violation of freedom of religion."
tfletcher@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/ThandiFletcher
The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday rendered its decision in a controversial case that was cast by some observers as a matter of religious freedom versus a bid by the province to increase tolerance.
Allowing children to opt out of the course would be "a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government's obligations with regard to public education," the court ruled.
The case pit a set of Catholic parents against the school board and the province of Quebec.
Quebec's Ethics and Religious Culture program became mandatory for schools in May 2008.
In the course, students learn about the Catholic and Protestant Christian traditions in Quebec culture. The program is meant to expose students— who are also taught about the contributions of Judaism, aboriginal spirituality and other religious traditions— to a variety of religions.
The couple from Drummondville, Que., at the centre of the case, who can't be identified, wrote to their children's schools asking that they be exempt from the course.
They said they didn't want their children taking the course because of "the disruption caused by forced, premature contact with a series of beliefs that were mostly incompatible with those of the family, as well as the adverse effect on the religious faith of the members of this family," court documents said.
The parents maintained that the program interfered with their ability to pass on the Catholic religion to their children, and that exposing their children to various religions was confusing for them.
The couple went to court after the Commission scolaire des Chenes refused to exempt their two children.
Quebec's Education Department had publicly announced there would no exemptions.
In 2009, a Quebec Superior Court judge rejected the parents' request for an exemption for their children, ruling their right to freedom of religion was not being violated.
Last year, the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected their bid to appeal the decision. There were eight interveners in the case, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The court's panel of judges was unanimous in its final decision, finding that the parents did not sufficiently prove that the program infringed on their right to freedom of religion.
"It is not enough for a person to say that his or her rights have been infringed," a summary of the judgment stated. "The person must prove the infringement on a balance of probabilities."
In an explanation of the ruling, Justice Marie Deschamps explained "the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society."
"Parents are free to pass their personal beliefs on to their children if they so wish," she wrote.
"The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government's obligations with regard to public education."
Due to the neutral nature of the program, Justice Louis LeBel wrote that simply exposing children to religions is not enough to be considered a violation of freedom of religion.
"The very nature of a public education system implies the creation of opportunities for students of different origins and religions to learn about the diversity of opinions and cultures existing in our society, even in religious matters," wrote LeBel. "Imparting information about different views of the world cannot be equated with a violation of freedom of religion."
tfletcher@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/ThandiFletcher
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)