In other words we also could say that because of fight inside of byzantine empire they wasn't able to survive from other attacks.In response to this argument I would like to argue back still it is worth because there isn't any history source we can’t learn. Which means that we could at least learn that we shouldn't fight inside because normally country falls because of split from inside. In conclusion, Byzantine empire should be studied by Schools because it is worth to study. And in 21 st century we should investigate and study more about the reason why Byzantines empire has fallen . As a result schools should study Byzantine empire to improve students
Gatto also speaks about how boredom comes from oneself, and how we should always find something that interests us. First, Gatto states “Do we really need school?” This is where he starts explaining his opinion and describing his own experience about how schooling is not important. Then he goes on to talk about how school is only teaching us to become good citizens but not to truly educate ourselves and learn more. I personally both agree and disagree with Gatto. However, in many ways I disagree.
Something I find interesting is that the topic of prayer in school can be “unfair”. Everyone can be so against and “offended” about prayer in school, but the second a shooter comes in and their life is on the line everyone is crying out and praying to God. School and prisons, are both government institutions- right? Then why is it in schools the government has prohibited the reading of the Bible and formal prayer, but in prisons the Bible and prayer are encouraged? If adolescents were encouraged to pray in schools and have a Biblical foundation then many of them wouldn't end up in prison in the first
It is, in my opinion, completely ignorant to believe that students don’t see these types of banners elsewhere or that they have never been exposed to such announcements. It is absurd to think that with the displaying of the banner students would be influenced to immediately use drugs. I believe it was a violation of the first amendment, which states the freedom of speech. The incident occurred on a public sidewalk and was not disrupting the school system in any possible way. Unfortunately with a very shady response, the judge answered to the court case by stating that the, “compelling interest in prohibiting/punishing student speech that reasonably could be viewed as promoting illegal drug use” (United States Courts) was enough to “enforce the school board 's written policies at that time aimed at keeping illegal substances out of the school environment,” as said by Mr. Morse.
Introduction Dr. Gress’s view that the results of a genetic test should be withheld from patients if they are positive is paternalistic, immoral, and does not consider the autonomy of the individual. He holds the position that notifying patients of their genetic status is too harmful and that it is a doctor’s duty to withhold information that could be devastating; however, in doing so, he violates many ethical principles that doctors should exercise. This paper will give an overview on the topic of genetic testing and the ethical and moral problems associated with it, an analysis rejecting Dr. Gress’s view, and a response to an objection to the thesis of which this paper is based on. Presentation of Topic Medical professionals have been
Superintendent Elliott made some errors in this situation. A couple of the errors were responding to the parent complaint without referring him to the proper level and failing to listen to the principal. The complaint that was made by the parent is something that should have been handled by the building principal. Instead of trying to take care of the situation himself the superintendent he should have led the parent to the correct building level channel first to come to allow them the chance to come to a solution. The building principal should have been able to build a stronger school community relation with this parent by being honest and handling his mistake.
In the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) the Supreme Court determined that “government violates the Establishment Clause if: it does not have a secular purpose; its primary or principal effect advances or inhibits religion, meaning that regardless of its purpose, the action cannot symbolically endorse or disapprove of religion; or it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion.” As school administrator, I would first clarify what the teacher felt the value of including verses in the instruction were. I would tell the teacher I would want to hear her/his side of the story before reporting to the parent. I would ask the following questions: Does the activity or lesson have a secular (non-religious) purpose?
According to the article “The First Amendment: Censorship,” speech is routinely censored due to bias, or personal issues with the content (First Amendment, 3). Also, in the article “Censorship Goes to School,” Nancy Day discusses how advocates for removing “hurtful and dangerous” books believe that they are protecting children, and that is more important than access to free speech (Day, 4). Because integrity in education is important, teachers should stay within the bounds and follow the requirements of education (First Amendment, 2). Author Zibby O’Neal said “We try to teach young people the first amendment rights, but then deny them a book” about repeated efforts to ban The Chocolate War (Day, 3). You would think the people who educate would be open minded, they are actually the most critical (Censorship, 2).
The Cardigans want to advertise commercials on clothes that are too revealing The Cardigans want to have their commercials on WBLAH television station but WBLAH does not to air the commercial. WBLAH have children watching their station they feel that have commercials with clothes too revealing would not be good for the children to watch. The Cardigans feel that WBLAH is violated their freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment. WBLAH disagree they do not commercials not suitable for children. The Cardigans believe that WBLAH is going by the old law that does not allow commercial are not suitable for children.
He believes that they are fake and they do all these phonies things. He couldn't believe that the mother wasn't going to take her child to the restroom. He thought that, that act was insensible and downright phony. The thing that Holden doesn't understand is that is a part of growing up.Growing up means you have to change and some people don’t want to accept the fact that it’s part of life. Adults say certain things to kids because they have a reason behind it.