Lacking Connection

*Pictured above reads: “The society we live in where shoving knowledge about some of the most irrelevant books ever will never make sense to me. But it is what it is, only few more days.” The student wrote this to me in their Macbeth unit test.

First and foremost, I have no problem with this student voicing their opinion. It is their right. It is how they feel. In fact, it is likely how many students feel and it just so happens that they had to guts to let me know. 

In the note, I see one main concern: They want to know the relevance of the material being taught. 

It’s the same old story, really. Ask any math teacher if they’ve ever heard the question: “When will I ever need this?”

On day one of a fresh semester, I make sure students understand that my goal is not to make them LOVE literature, but rather to understand it. I don’t try to burden myself with the belief that my students will suddenly want to run to the local bookstore and grab a classic or the newest bestseller. In fact, I make it quite simple: I will equip my students with reading strategies so they can read a text and understand it. If I am also so lucky, I can get the students to a place of self-reflection.

Reading is challenging. If a student sees literature as a bunch of characters and stories that have nothing to do with them because the characters are “not real”, then yes, one will fail to understand what literature can teach them. One of the first concepts I teach is the S.T.E.A.L chart – it is an acronym that helps readers connect with a character by analyzing: Speech, Thoughts, Effects on Others, Actions, and Looks. As a practice, I have students complete one on themselves – I have them write down a list of things they’ve said, thoughts they’ve had, the impact they’ve often had on others, things they’ve done, and the way they present themselves. Then, I have them imagine that someone were to find that list… What would they say about that person? What conclusions would they draw? Are they a positive person or a negative person? It’s only a snapshot of a person, but are there any fair judgements that can be made? What assessments can be made about the quality of that person’s character? And so on. This is the same thing we, as readers, try to achieve with the characters within a text. But if we create barriers between ourselves (as the reader) and the text, then there is only a small chance that the literature will have any meaning. 

Anyway, back to the original complaint…

What can or should Macbeth teach us? Macbeth warns readers what can happen when greed consumes us and ultimately negatively impacts our decision-making and relationships. Macbeth’s ‘tragic flaw’ was overconfidence (according to the witches it is humanity’s greatest flaw) – so, what else can act as our own tragic flaw? How does the play teach us about gender stereotypes? What can it teach us about our own ambitions? The list goes on… Again, if the response to the play is, “Well, I’ll never be King so this doesn’t pertain to me” then that student is right, the literature just won’t make sense. 

I told the student that we also live in a society where many students are quick to give up and often choose to solely participate in things that are for entertainment. Can Macbeth or 1984 or Lord of the Flies or Salinger’s work or any other great work of literature compete with TikTok and other forms of social media? That’s a tough sell. It’s like trying to make literature more appealing than drugs, alcohol, or pornography. I doubt many students are going to the classics for their next dopamine hit.

I told the student that I worry about a society that lacks grit, perseverance, and a desire to challenge oneself.

But, I continue on. I’ll take a lesson from Atticus Finch (To Kill A Mockingbird) and keep fighting the good fight against all odds simply because it is the right thing to do.

The student is right though… it is what it is.

The Beauty of Innocence

*Pictured above is Jerome David Salinger – author of Catcher in the Rye*

I’ve often asked my Grade 11s what they notice as the biggest changes within themselves since childhood. As I make the list, I quickly realize it’s a bit of a bleak affair. They are working harder, some have part time jobs, they are exposed to more negativity in the world, school is more challenging, they are having less fun, and they have lost their innocence. In respect to the latter, this could mean no longer believing in Santa Claus, no longer exploring the outdoors, or no longer believing that world peace is attainable. In any case, our teenagers today have been hardened.

We remember innocence nostalgically, yet any teenager or adult who tries to maintain it, is viewed as immature. Soon enough, innocence seems to be overtaken by naivety.

My school recently suffered the loss of a grade 11 student. For many students, this may be their first brush with death. I thought about how experiences can taint our childhood – in this case, the loss of a member of our student body forces everyone to think about their own mortality.

JD Salinger is the author of a beautifully-tragic short story entitled A Perfect Day for Bananafish. It is a story that covers many themes, but at the forefront is the beauty and preservation of innocence.

The Beautiful:

The story centres around Seymour Glass who is on vacation with his absent wife, Muriel. ‘Absent’ in the sense that she pays him no mind. He has returned from war and seems to suffer with PTSD – this is highlighted by the references to and examples of his frequent outbursts of anger, as well as his disassociation with adults. However, he has found a connection with Sybil – a young girl who is vacationing with her mother, but who is often left to play by herself. Seymour befriends her and they engage in conversation on the beach. Since no one is taking Seymour’s condition (PTSD) seriously – including his own wife who would rather vacation than seek help for him – he is desperately looking for someone with whom he can share his troubles. Therefore, Seymour and Sybil venture out into the water to search for bananafish. What the reader soon finds out, is that bananafish is a metaphor for soldiers who fight in the war. Seymour tells Sybil:

[Bananafish] lead a very tragic life…they swim into a hole where there are a lot of bananas. They’re very ordinary-looking fish when they swim in. But once they get in, they behave like pigs. Why, I’ve known some bananafish to swim into a banana hole and eat as many as seventy-eight bananas…Naturally, after that they’re so fat they can’t get out of the hole again.

When Sybil asks what eventually happens to the bananafish, Seymour tells her that they unfortunately die. They become afflicted with “banana fever”. We’re not at the beautiful part yet. Seymour has managed to share his experiences of war with Sybil in a way that she’ll never fully grasp, but it allows Seymour to express what he’s feeling. So, let’s assess: The bananafish are the soldiers and they live a tragic life. They go overseas (banana hole) where they are ordinary people at first, but then are forced to kill once they are engaged in war. He has seen one soldier kill as many as 78 enemies. Then, tragically, once they have engaged in war, it’s tough to come home (get out of the hole) and reintegrate back into society. The soldiers get PTSD (banana fever) and they die. Okay, the beautiful. Soon after this explanation from Seymour, Sybil is looking in the water and excitedly claims that she saw a bananafish with some bananas in its mouth. Her innocence here is beautiful and touching. Sure she doesn’t understand the pain that Seymour is expressing, but her imagination runs free. Seymour is so overwhelmed by this beautiful moment that he grabs her dangling feet (as she sits atop a float) and kisses them. This emotional scene sums up Seymour’s desire to connect with someone and Sybil’s ache for attention.

The Tragic:

As Seymour’s story suggests, the bananafish die. Seymour has planned out his eventual death and the story of the bananafish that he has shared will culminate in his own demise, as he tells Sybil: “This is a perfect day for bananafish.” As soon as Sybil and Seymour part ways, Seymour’s demeanour changes and suddenly the diction indicates that he is quite angry having to return to his reality occupied by an apathetic wife. Seymour returns to his hotel room, which smells of nail polish remover indicating that his vain wife has been doing nothing all day but beautifying herself while he’s been suffering in loneliness (except for the moments when he’s with Sybil). Muriel is asleep on the bed and sadly Seymour takes a gun that he has packed and shoots himself in the head.

A January 3, 2018 article from faith.org.uk (Innocence in Today’s World) states that “To most of our contemporaries, innocence is something to be lost. It’s cute to see kids think and behave the way they do, but eventually they have to abandon all belief in fairy tales and deal with real life.”

Vaping in Schools

*The above picture was taken from vapingdaily.com. Look how cool he looks! That could be you!*

For all of you uncool people, vaping is the act of using a vape pen or other device to inhale and exhale aerosol. The pen or device that is being used has a few components such as: a battery, a mouthpiece, a heating device, and e-liquid. There is no tobacco present, but some e-liquids contain nicotine and THC (the main mind-altering chemical in marijuana).

The issue is that vaping is becoming more popular amongst young people and therefore, the act has made its way into the schools, specifically into washrooms and classrooms. Here are two facts taken from Ontario.ca, which highlight the specific laws revolving around vaping in Ontario:

1. You cannot vape in any public or private school nor can you vape within 20 metres of any school grounds. Consequence: You can be charged up to $5,000.
2. You must be 19+ to purchase and use a vape. Therefore, all retailers must only sell their products to people who are 19+.

Given the two laws above, this is a cause for concern for teachers who need to know what their school’s protocols are and how serious this issue should be taken.

Okay – so what’s the big deal? Students have smoked in washrooms for decades…

My initial feeling is that it’s illegal for students to vape, so that should be a good enough reason for teachers to take it seriously. But aside from the legality of it, students should not be encouraged to engage in it but rather discouraged from it through the facts – the following facts are taken from the John Hopkins medical website (hopkinsmedicine.org), so I think the information is trustworthy 🙂

1. Vaping is less harmful than traditional cigarettes. However, the website does state that you are still ingesting toxic chemicals…just not as many as a cigarette.
2. Vaping is bad for your health. “Nicotine is the primary agent…and it is highly addictive… It raises blood pressure…and the likelihood of having a heart attack.” The long term effects are still unknown.
3. Though many cigarette smokers use vaping as a way to quit smoking, a recent study showed that cigarette smokers are more likely to engage in both forms.

The issue, of course, is that vaping is cool to students which trumps any factual information.

What really sparked this post was that on AM640 this morning, briefly referenced was a high school in Ottawa (St. Joseph’s in Barrhaven) that has decided to remove some washroom doors to better detect the scent of vapour and intervene more quickly. Speaking of being aware of a school’s protocols, the Principal of St. Joseph’s (Mr. Don Murphy) has made it clear that his staff are prepared to phone bylaw to enforce fines. Too much?

If so, then what type of a consequence for this illegal act is necessary? What will actually get students to stop engaging in it? How do you make facts cooler than breathing in vapour?

Alan November

*Pictured above is Alan November*

Mr. Alan November is a former teacher and now a keynote speaker on education and online literacy. I had the pleasure of listening to him speak a few nights ago at a school in Toronto.

He began his talk by asking us if we thought we knew how to use Google. Of course, the majority of us nodded our heads – I mean, who doesn’t? It’s a search engine and it’s pretty simple…type in what you want to know. So, he challenged us. We had to find out about “Vacanti’s mouse” (the mouse with an ear seemingly growing out of its back). The BBC reported on this mouse claiming the ear was grown. Published in 2002, the BBC reported this: “The scientist who grew a human ear on the back of a mouse has suggested…”. However, if we go to good ol’ Wikipedia, they state: “…biodegradable ear shaped mould and then implanted under the skin of a mouse.” Hmm. The BBC reported it was “grown” while Wikipedia states it was “implanted.” Surely the BBC is more reliable than Wikipedia…(and don’t call me Shirley). As it turns out, if we wanted the truth (in this case), we needed to find the source document. However, very few of us knew how to find it (my wife did, but as I’ve mentioned in many of my posts, she’s much smarter than I am).

Well, Google is simply an algorithm. They aren’t interested in finding you the most accurate information, they simply try to help you find the information that best relates to what you’re searching for (more on this in a moment). So, let’s get back to Vacanti’s mouse. With Google, you need to learn how to enter in the correct code to find the most accurate information (there are many codes and it takes practice to learn them). So, by entering: ‘vacanti ear mouse site:edu harvard’, Google can find the primary source and make the results more accurate. Result? The ear was implanted…not grown. Wikipedia was right. The BBC was wrong. These site codes are crucial in finding articles that are unbiased or even helpful in showing students the CRAZY AMOUNTS of bias. For example, a news story as reported in Canada may be drastically different than how it’s reported in the United Kingdom. So, “site:uk” is a quick code that can search for news items in the United Kingdom only. Want to know what Japan thinks of our PM Justin Trudeau? Easily type in his name with ‘site:jp’. Need academic articles from the United Kingdom? You can add in the code ‘ac’.  For example, ‘breast cancer research site:ac.uk’.

Okay, so as I mentioned, Google is interested in finding results that match what you’re looking for and not necessarily what is accurate/truthful. Here’s the example Alan November used to demonstrate this: He told us to Google search whether cats are better than dogs and then to search whether dogs are better than cats. Interestingly enough, if you search whether cats are better than dogs, it will lead you to websites that intend to give their opinion that cats are better than dogs and vice versa. So, based on what you typed in, you get relatable information and not necessarily accurate information. In a world of fake news, all of the aforementioned information becomes that much more important and the tools become that much more necessary. Moreover, if you really want to know whether cats or dogs are better, you can type in: ‘dogs versus cats’ into a website called Wolfram Alpha (wolframalpha.com) and it will calculate the hard stats for you within a few seconds. Yes, calculate it for you, not simply provide you with some chart that has already been created or some scientific report that’s been released. Try it.

Anyway, the majority of the audience realized that we didn’t really know how to use Google at all. So, it seemingly became our responsibility to teach this skill to our students. So the question was asked: When do we teach this Google skill? November’s response: When do you teach kids to read?

 

Teachers and Guns

*I took the picture above from a “kveller” article written by Emily Burack*

FINALLY someone is linking my profession with gun ownership! Why teaching isn’t already synonymous with gun ownership I’ll never know. But at least it’s now a topic of debate… *rolling eye emoji*

So, for those who don’t already know, U.S President, Donald Trump, posted this statement on his Twitter account: “Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them…Shootings will not happen again…” This post, of course, came after the horrific shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (Parkland, Florida). The post from Trump seems to propose the idea of arming teachers with guns as a way to deter assailants.

Two thoughts immediately came to mind:
1) President Trump wants MORE guns to ward off possible attacks from assailants with guns.
2) President Trump is advocating for guns in the classroom.

Now, by the time I started writing this post and by the time I finally got around to finishing it and posting it, there has been one more school shooting in America (Maryland) and a teacher who shot a student by accident. What the hell is wrong with America?!? The senseless violence and a government that is doing very little to stop the senseless violence has spurned the #armmewith hashtag (where teachers advocate for anything and everything BUT guns) and the “March for our Lives” movement.

I’m not advocating for the banning of all guns in the United States. Doing so will unfairly penalize the responsible gun owners who participate for sport. I suppose I’m wondering, as a Canadian, how difficult/challenging the process is to re-visit the United States’ second amendment, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that it is an American citizen’s RIGHT to own these “arms” (the definition seems to be a bit hazy on that), and not a privilege. How could this young man (Nikolas Cruz) acquire an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle (legally or illegally) and shoot and kill 17 people while wounding over 15 more. How?

It was on Tuesday, March 13, 2018 when a teacher in California accidentally fired their gun in the classroom. The teacher shot the ceiling by accident and a gun fragment injured a student. You wanna know what’s really funny? The boy’s father said that he actually supported Trump in his claims to have guns in the classroom, but after his son was injured, he was quoted as saying: “After today, I get why people say there should be no guns in schools.” (CNN, Nicole Chavez, March 15, 2018). Umm, okay. So, let me get this straight, your son had to get accidentally shot for you to see why there shouldn’t be guns in schools? Okay, great. Father of the year, I guess.

The “March for our Lives” movement had a massive (and successful) rally on March 24 (2018) in Washington DC. They made their voices heard hoping for: 1. a ban on assault weapons, 2. stopping the sale of high-capacity magazines, and 3. requiring background checks on guns bought at gun shows and online. Where was Donald Trump? Golfing in Palm Beach, Florida.

How does former U.S Senator Rick Santorum feel about the rally? He stated: “How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter, that you can actually respond to that.” (As aired during his minutes on CNN’s State of the Union show). What an absolute idiot! Basically, his point is that since school shootings are so common, students should prepare to give a fallen classmate CPR rather than complaining about gun laws…

It’s incredible that the U.S is still standing.

 

 

Goodbye and Hello, Mr. Waterhouse

*A painting by Mr. John William Waterhouse entitled Hylas and the Nymphs (1896)*

The Manchester Art Gallery recently removed the above painting from its walls, as well as any postcard prints sitting in its gift shop. It was removed on Friday, January 26 (2018) not with the intent to censor, but with the intent to spark debate. In light of the #metoo and #timesup movements, the painting was removed to help support the idea that women are more than just a “passive decorative art form” (according to Clare Gannaway – the gallery’s curator of contemporary art). As reported by The Guardian in their January 31 (2018) issue, “The response [to the painting being removed] so far has been mixed. Some have said it sets a dangerous precedent, while others have called it ‘po-faced’ [humourless] and ‘politically correct.'” Though Gannaway believes the painting will return one day, she hopes it will return in a different context.

John Waterhouse is known as being a pre-Raphaelite artist. Under this umbrella, the paintings aim to tackle themes like societal issues, religion, love, and literature. In Waterhouse’s “controversial” painting above, Hylas (servant to Heracles in Greek mythology) is tempted by the nymphs and is never again found. To Gannaway’s point, her worry was that the painting depicted women as some sort of femme fatale (seductive woman with the intent to cause harm/distress to a man). I suppose her point is that, yes, beauty is power, but that women have other talents too. Of course they do, but the fact that beauty is power not only supports The Halo Effect, but also supports the study conducted by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster in 1972 – the results showed that more positive personality traits were linked to beauty.

Alison Smith blogged about why the pre-Raphaelites were so shocking in her August 30 (2012) post stating that “a lot of the themes they chose to depict were quite daring for the time – including problematic subjects such as poverty, emigration, prostitution, and the double standard of sexual morality in society.” She then references William Hunt’s piece entitled The Awakening Conscience (1853), which depicts a mistress and her impending salvation. Smith does also state that the pre-Raphaelites were not just shocking because of what they painted, but also how they painted it.

So, what’s the point? Well, our own Prime Minister has done away with the term “mankind” and has replaced it with the much more accurate (heavy sarcasm) “peoplekind”. So, there is a massive shift happening wherever the cultural winds are blowing. I’m not saying that movements like #metoo and #timesup aren’t important (because they certainly are), but the removal of “semi-pornographic art” and then articles popping up that read: “If You’re a Woman and Bad At Math, Blame the Patriarchy” seem to perpetuate the idea that if you’re a man, you’re the enemy, and certainly you’re part of the problem. I wonder if this removal of Waterhouse’s painting is an example of feminist moralizing and that if I don’t support Gannaway’s decision to remove it, then I must be insensitive and metaphorically turning my back to the cultural wind. So, is art free from discrimination? Which pieces of art should and should not be held up to a moral standard? Is this just another example to prove that Orwell’s 1984 is not some piece of dystopian fiction, but an imminent reality?

A colleague of mine recently informed me that Waterhouse’s painting has been put back up. Again, it was stressed that it was never removed due to censorship, but to spark debate…but then why do away with the postcards too? If anything, the quick refastening of the painting shows that the cultural winds simply weren’t gusty enough to warrant keeping the painting down and standing behind their decision to remove it in the first place… *sigh*

Apparently “peoplekind” was just a “dumb joke”, according to Trudeau. He claimed he doesn’t “necessarily have the best track record on jokes.” (The Guardian, Feb 7, 2018)

Hello again, Mr. Waterhouse.

Shhh!

A whole year since my last post… I guess I wasn’t bothered by much in the way of education. However, a recent situation has come to light. I am currently in the middle of Orwell’s 1984 and I am trying to teach my students that our culture is not THAT far off from what Winston is experiencing. It’s scary. For example, we live in a society where we are constantly surveilled what with the rise of technology and every Tom, Dick, and Harry whipping out their phones to capture the slightest odd behaviour to post or send to their friends. Now, we are experiencing a hush culture (I came up with that myself) where if the opinion you’re sharing is even slightly uncomfortable or unpopular, you are quickly silenced. Winston Smith (protagonist in 1984) would be shaking his head.

Lindsay Shepherd, a TA at Wilfrid Laurier University (my Alma Mater) recently came under fire from Administration for sharing a clip from Jordan Peterson (Psychology Professor at the University of Toronto) when he appeared on the show ‘The Agenda’. Peterson has been outspoken about his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns in reference to transgendered people. He claims that these gender-neutral terms only help to perpetuate the over-sensitivity of our culture. Shepherd showed this clip to her students to illustrate “the complexities of grammar…she was trying to demonstrate that the structure of language can impact the society in which its spoken in ways people might not anticipate. To illustrate her point, she said she mentioned that long-standing views on gender had likely been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns that are part of English’s fundamental grammatical structure.” (The Toronto Star, Nov. 21, 2017).

Shepherd was reprimanded by Nathan Rambukkana (Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Laurier) and Adria Joel (Acting Manager of Gender Violence Prevention at Laurier). Rambukkana tells Shepherd that showing the clip to her students created a “toxic climate” and an “unsafe learning environment”. Joel accuses Shepherd of violating the Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. When Shepherd asks how, Joel tells her that she has caused harm by belittling the identity of transgendered people. This meeting with Rambukkana and Joel was recorded secretly by Shepherd who immediately shared it. The President of WLU and Rambukkana have recently issued apologies to Shepherd, admitting that the sharing of the video, as well as her intent was of no harm to any peoples.

My worry is the impact of this hush culture on our young adults and future leaders. Shepherd’s situation is similar to Winston’s experience in 1984 because of his inability to speak openly without getting in serious trouble (and possibly killed). This stifling of freedom of speech (which is much different than hate speech) is an on-going trend across Universities. For example, last August (2017), the same Jordan Peterson (as well as Gad Saad and Oren Amitay – behavioural scientist and psychologist, respectively) was to appear on a panel discussion at Ryerson University and this panel was effectively cancelled. Not only was the nature of their talk a concern, but also the possible outcry from protestors. It was simply easier to cancel the event.

“University” is a term with Latin roots meaning “community of teachers and scholars”. Traditionally, a University was established for a means of unhindered academic freedom; a place to share educated ideas respectfully, be heard openly, and debate freely. Contemporarily, it seems, Universities have become factories to get students in (even by lowering their entry standards) and spit students out (by leaving them with crippling debt). The aforementioned would be fine, perhaps, if the acquisition of knowledge and great debate were still held in high regard.

Syme, in 1984, is in favour of the government turning the people into robots – citizens who only speak in prescribed statements with no original thought of their own. Perhaps we are closer to this than we think.

Being Good and Individualism

*The above photo is the name of a book I had to read when I was the Assistant Manager of the campus nightclub at University. Bob Farrell is the author of this text designed to teach employees (specifically those in the service industry) how to simply be an effective employee and a leader*

Recently, I asked my grade 11 students whether or not it’s important to be a good person. It was nice to see that none of them said it wasn’t important, and the responses (if I may say) were not at all shocking. According to my students, it is important to be a good person because it makes you feel good; it can create a positive change in the world; it makes others feel good; it can help you gain respect; it makes Christ happy (for those that have a Christian lens); and it can make it easier for you to exist as a part of society (both local and global). These responses were exactly what I was looking for and it was nice to see young minds having such a positive outlook on being a generally good person.

I should also mention that this particular group of grade 11’s are quite bright and many of them are leaders in their own way – hence why I expected their shared responses. They are a very keen group who are willing to learn, can show respect for themselves and others, and they know when to have fun, but also know when to do their work – trust me when I say that this isn’t classroom-specific, but their grade in general. So, we spoke about being “good.” I then asked them, “As a rather solid group of grade 11’s, do you have a social and academic responsibility to set an example and contribute to how the school is run? OR, are you fine with being at school as long as your own teacher, your own classes, and your own grades are just fine? Their responses were shocking. The majority of students were fine with the latter…

So, the question then becomes, how are you supposed to be a good person and care about what happens out in the world, when you can’t even care about what happens in your own school?

Bob Farrell, in his book mentioned above, makes something very clear: That sometimes what you do when no one is looking can be more powerful than when you are being watched… This powerful message makes me consider where the source of our motivation comes from in doing good works for others. For example, if a student is walking through the halls of their school and notices a leftover lunch bowl laying around, do they: 1. Walk by it? 2. Pick it up because a teacher is nearby? or 3. Pick it up whether there are people around or not?

There’s no argument, we live in a very individualistic society whereby we look after ourselves and those close to us, but seldom do we venture further past that. I am certainly to blame as well.

How do you teach active citizenship? We have a difficult time reconnecting to each other in a time where the ability to connect is more plausible than ever! How do you teach someone to care? How do we learn to love each other?

The 21st Century “Man”

*The above cartoon is from Cyanide & Happiness and meant to be funny…*

In a 2013 article, entitled Why Chivalry is Dead, writer John Picciuto clearly states that he believes chivalry (the medieval term in reference to showing honour, respect, and one’s morality) is dead.

From my grandmother to my mother, you better believe I learned my lessons, either verbally or via the wooden spoon. But why now does it seem like it’s completely impossible for men to do what I would consider the ‘normal’ thing?

Picciuto goes on to state that this new “hookup culture” (he calls it) has altered a man’s perspective of what it means to court a lady, date a lady, and ultimately respect a lady. Towards the end of the article, however, Picciuto puts the pressure on the women – he claims that they need to start acting like they “hold the cards” if they expect their man to change.

I have seen how the young men of today (teenagers) treat the opposite sex. I see this in my classroom, I see it in the halls, and I see this out in public. This is not a commentary on a specific group of boys from a specific school; this is a commentary on teenage boys in general – and not all, but many. Yes, we can blame technology for this one too because technology sure has changed how we interact with people, but certainly holding doors open, speaking respectfully, and conducting oneself appropriately are antiquated notions.

Now, I’m not the most romantic guy nor do I always say the right things to my wife (but what husband does, am I right?), but I am always respectful. This respect is transferred to all women I interact with like my colleagues, my friends, and anyone else. I mean, I’ve heard boys telling girls to ‘shut up,’ seen boys be overly aggressive with girls, and watched as these young men tell inappropriate jokes and conduct themselves unmannerly in front of their female counterparts. Have times changed that much?

I often joke that there needs to be a course in schools regarding character development, but the obvious rebuttal is that character development can happen in any course at any time. I immediately think back to my time in high school (as teachers often do) and wonder what kind of a young man I was. Was I just as off-putting as the young men of today? Were my teachers back then hoping they’d have a class to teach on character development? I shudder to think that the answer to both of those questions is ‘yes.’ Are these boys just being boys?

Perhaps the idea of a “man” has changed. A funny, informative, and oddly accurate depiction of the 21st century man was documented in a film entitled Mansome (which I have watched three times). It shows how men have become a manicured (and often pedicured) mix between attitude and leadership, but also sensitivity and vanity. No young man wants to be a tough John Wayne or even a romantic Robert Redford – in fact, the young men of today aren’t sure who they want to be.

I don’t have the answers. All I know is that respect for the opposite sex needs to be at the top of their list of manners and perhaps it begins with thinking about the kind of man they want to be. Of course, the flip side is to take our cue from men like Chris Brown and Ray Rice…Maybe this is a call not only to young men, but to adult men as well.

 

The sChOOL Uniform

I started wearing a school uniform in high school. I had no issue with it. As far as I know, my friends never had an issue with it either and if they did, I certainly was never made aware of their displeasure. I attended a Catholic high school and our school colours were maroon and grey… ‘nuff said. We had to wear dress shoes (I wore a heavy pair of Dr. Martens) and they had to be brown or black. The strictness of my school’s policy never fazed me. As far as I was concerned, if I didn’t want to wear the uniform that badly, I would have just gone to a different school. It was nice not having to choose what to wear every morning and I assume some students benefitted by this as well by, perhaps, not having the most popular brands of clothes. Though, if I remember correctly, no one really cared about that kind of thing.

The high school I teach at is also a uniform school. I have no sympathy for my students who complain about this because they are allowed to wear whatever shoes they’d like. “If you want to express your individuality,” I tell them, “then wear colourful laces.” They have no idea how lucky they are to be able to wear their own shoes. Moreover, starting in September of 2014, my school is offering a new line of school wear, which includes (but is not limited to): a hoodie, a sharp-looking cardigan, and sweatpants – these students are sooo lucky!

15-year old blogger, Chloe Spencer, claims the school uniform “may not be the ingredients for [her] favourite outfit…but if [she] were given the choice, [she] wouldn’t throw away the idea of school uniform. Wearing a uniform is a badge of pride.” In Spencer’s post last October (2013), she vehemently declares that wearing a school uniform not only “teaches students to dress smartly” but that it shows students “buying into what the organisation is all about.” I would agree. This is why the majority of businesses require a dress code of sorts whether it be a cashier at McDonald’s or a lawyer entering his/her firm.

According to Spencer’s research, roughly 160,000 students miss school everyday out of the fear of being bullied or intimidated because of their clothes. Perhaps a uniform keeps students focused, keep students equal, and keeps students from being lost on field trips.

Just get used to being told what to wear…that’s your life now.

The point of a uniform is to remain uniform – to remain the same, unchanging. Both a uniform and a dress code go hand-in-hand. Wearing both communicates something about your character within a certain environment. Think of why you would wear one thing and not another on a first date or for an interview or while working as a doctor or teacher or car salesperson. What we communicate through our dress (whether we like it or not) is received either positively or negatively by those around us. Does it mean I can’t trust a doctor who decides to wear jeans or that you can’t learn from a teacher with a stain on his or her sweater? Not exactly. But their choice of dress will dictate how those around them will act. When a student wears the uniform and wears it well, they communicate respect for themselves and their school – there’s that badge of pride Ms. Spencer was talking about.

I suppose when students dress together, they learn together, and it perpetuates the idea that learning is community, not an individual process.