|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
          |
Schedule taught in fun wayEditor, I read with interest The Post's editorial regarding kindergarten schedules. I'm not sure who at The Post has had much experience in a kindergarten classroom, but let me assure you that the editorial was somewhat misguided. I've volunteered in various kindergarten classrooms over the past several years. Having students write in a journal is beneficial to their learning. They learn how to form proper sentences and improve their language skills. The students also have a chance to practice their printing. Many of the students enjoy this, and many teachers use this tool to teach basic language skills. Math and statistics often are taught in a simple and FUN way. Things like graphing the weather or color of M&Ms in a package teach math to students. Patterning in a calendar also teaches kindergarteners basic math skills. Science can be taught by blowing bubbles or doing simple experiments. That schedule may look daunting to The Post's readers, but it misses the point. There always is room for creativity and constructive playtime. Students learn economics from playing store or reinforce their creativity by making an art project. However, The Post's editorial misrepresented a basic kindergarten schedule into something it is not. How many times did you realize you were learning something in kindergarten? Kristen Flanagan Editor, I am writing in response to an incident that occurred at a recent Baker Nights event. I was there on a double date, and the four of us, after waiting in line for a bowling lane, were getting ready for an enjoyable evening. But we immediately noticed the music that was being played, which contained numerous explicit sexual references and derogatory remarks about African Americans. Offended, I decided to speak up. However, as I approached the student working there and requested a music change, she said, "This is college, and you will have to get used to that sort of thing. These are my CDs, and I'm offended at your remarks." In effect, she was accusing me of narrow-mindedness and intolerance. Back up. Doesn't tolerance refer to everyone's right to hold his or her own beliefs? To his or her right to decide what is right for him or her? There seems to be a fundamental problem with the notion of "tolerance" if someone is criticized for voicing a concern over offensive material being flouted in a public setting. Let me explain. "Tolerance" is all well and good until the conservative position comes up. We can all tolerate each other until someone comes along voicing the conservative position. People who preach tolerance should practice it. If you really want people to be tolerant of your lifestyle, how about showing some respect for someone who is a bit more reserved? It is totally possible to object to the result of belief (in this case, the behavior of playing offensive music) without attacking the identity of the one professing the belief. I objected to the music, not to the woman behind the counter, but she apparently took it the other way. And just a hint: Christianity is not about narrow-minded absolutism. It is about loving people where they are at and accepting them for who they are. Christians who associate behavior with identity are not putting their faith into practice. They are not putting their money where their mouths are. They are being hypocritical. But the same statements are true of anyone who preaches tolerance but rigidly condemns the conservative voice as fanatical, bigoted or intolerant. Mark Rankin |