Skip to main content

Cuyahoga Falls Middle School Fails with Their Stupid Assignment

Students at Roberts Middle School in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio were recently handed this assignment, which has drawn a great deal of controversy:

"Whom to Leave Behind

Instructions: The twelve persons listed below have been selected as passengers on a space ship for a flight to another planet because tomorrow the planet Earth is doomed for destruction. Due to changes in space limitations, it has now been determined that only eight persons may go. Any eight qualify.

Your task is to select the Eight (8) passengers who will make the trip. On your own, take approximately 5 minutes and rank order of the passengers from one to twelve based on those who you feel are most deserving to make the trip with one being most deserving and twelve being least deserving. Next, the entire group will come together and decides as a group the eight (8) passengers who will make the trip. PLEASE NOTE: when you make your decision as a group EVERYONE must agree on the final eight passengers and come to a consensus. You are NOT allowed to vote or take a 'majority rules' decision.

Original passenger list:

- an accountant with a substance abuse problem

- a militant African-American medical student

- a 33 year old female Native American manager who does not speak English

- the accountant's pregnant wife

- a famous novelist with a physical disability

- a 21-year old, female, Muslim international student

- a Hispanic clergyman who is against homosexuality

- a female move star who was recently the victim of sexual assault

- a racist armed police officer who has been accused of using excessive force

- a homosexual male, professional athlete

- an Asian, orphaned 12-year old boy

- a 60-year old Jewish university administrator"

(yes, the typos were present in the original copy)

After posting this article on my Twitter page, I received several comments pertaining to it. I'd say roughly 3/5 of the commenters reacted negatively and 2/5 reacted either positively or neutrally to the controversial assignment. Many in the former camp asked what year we were in and how this assignment could be useful in any manner. The latter camp tended to note the potential for constructive discourse amongst the group members and the class overall due to the project, with at least one individual saying, "Kids need to be challenged!"

If the assignment had listed just the professions, I may have been more understanding of it being used in a classroom as a medium for the purpose of thought-provoking discourse. If the paper's list had read something like: Teacher, lawyer, doctor, athlete, movie star, journalist, politician, police officer, fireperson, construction worker, mailperson, and pharmacist, while I might not have loved the idea of deeming certain jobs as unimportant, I also wouldn't have cringed upon seeing it. I cringed upon seeing the list on this assignment. How could this have truly "challenged" students? Challenged the prejudices of 11- to 14-year old kids? Really? Of what relevance is a person's race, religion, or sexual orientation in the hypothetical scenario presented to the class? How could debating about whether a Jew, Muslim, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, homosexual, or African-American is more deserving of being saved be of any good use to these students? Intentional or not, the assignment isn't asking students to challenge their own prejudices; it's asking them to develop and rationalize prejudices. What we should be doing is teaching our kids to love and respect all, not to pick and choose who's superior and inferior to others.

https://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2018/08/controversial_assignment_asks.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"