His rationale is ridiculous, but my comment is meant to question why wifi is even necessary to do homework, not about the dangers of censorship. Of course the censorship is outrageous.
First, you said “I completely agree with him”. If you do not understand how that might mean we think that means you agree with his rationale then writing your assignments by hand clearly didn’t help you that much.
But anyway:
Because sometimes you need to research things for homework? Because the kids with reliable internet will still be able to use it, will use it, and will have an unfair advantage over the kids who don’t have the same level of access(usually because their parents aren’t as well off, perpetuating the cycle of poverty). Even if we decided that every single piece of homework was to be 100% handwritten that wouldn’t make the internet go away and these problems would still persist.
It’s so much more nuanced than some weak take that doesn’t do much but expose your lack of understanding of the issue. Yes, there are some clear advantages to maybe scaling things back a little but this not the way to do it, not even a little bit.
No, I said I completely agree with this, this being that the state should not be providing wifi hotspots to school children. I was surprised that I actually agreed with Cruz on this because I pretty much never agree with him and consider him, in the words of John Boehner, Lucifer in the flesh. And I’m sorry if some of you thought I meant that I completely agreed with him on what he startes as his justification (morality police, censorship, etc.) which isn’t the case.
But instead all you trigger-ready comment warriors are ready to burn me at the stake for what’s really a pretty sensible position.
Wifi hotspots aren’t going to eliminate inequality. Students eith reliable Internet may have an unfair advantage, but teachers and administrators could minimize that by giving assignments that don’t really require Internet access to complete.
Should all assignments be hand written, of course not. But do they need to be completed in a web browser? Nope. Good old word processor and spreadsheets work great.
I don’t want my children even using devices at all for any purpose
So the comment you’re replying to wasn’t taking some giant leap in logic.
Where are you going to draw the line on what kids should be allowed to use on homework? A slide rule for math? A four function calculator? Matlab? How about research papers? Is Wikipedia allowed or should their family be required to have a printed encyclopedia?
You said earlier that you had to go to the library or the computer lab when you were a kid. You know what they’re going to do at the library? Sit in front of a computer and pull up Google. How is that any better/different than just giving them an access point to use from home other than now they don’t need to find a ride to the library?
In this context I am drawing the line with wifi and personally issued Internet connected devices, particularly where the student isn’t really getting instruction from a live person.
His rationale is ridiculous, but my comment is meant to question why wifi is even necessary to do homework, not about the dangers of censorship. Of course the censorship is outrageous.
First, you said “I completely agree with him”. If you do not understand how that might mean we think that means you agree with his rationale then writing your assignments by hand clearly didn’t help you that much.
But anyway:
Because sometimes you need to research things for homework? Because the kids with reliable internet will still be able to use it, will use it, and will have an unfair advantage over the kids who don’t have the same level of access(usually because their parents aren’t as well off, perpetuating the cycle of poverty). Even if we decided that every single piece of homework was to be 100% handwritten that wouldn’t make the internet go away and these problems would still persist.
It’s so much more nuanced than some weak take that doesn’t do much but expose your lack of understanding of the issue. Yes, there are some clear advantages to maybe scaling things back a little but this not the way to do it, not even a little bit.
No, I said I completely agree with this, this being that the state should not be providing wifi hotspots to school children. I was surprised that I actually agreed with Cruz on this because I pretty much never agree with him and consider him, in the words of John Boehner, Lucifer in the flesh. And I’m sorry if some of you thought I meant that I completely agreed with him on what he startes as his justification (morality police, censorship, etc.) which isn’t the case.
But instead all you trigger-ready comment warriors are ready to burn me at the stake for what’s really a pretty sensible position.
Wifi hotspots aren’t going to eliminate inequality. Students eith reliable Internet may have an unfair advantage, but teachers and administrators could minimize that by giving assignments that don’t really require Internet access to complete.
Should all assignments be hand written, of course not. But do they need to be completed in a web browser? Nope. Good old word processor and spreadsheets work great.
Holy moly, everybody is on edge. Understandable…
Then you followed it up with:
So the comment you’re replying to wasn’t taking some giant leap in logic.
Where are you going to draw the line on what kids should be allowed to use on homework? A slide rule for math? A four function calculator? Matlab? How about research papers? Is Wikipedia allowed or should their family be required to have a printed encyclopedia?
You said earlier that you had to go to the library or the computer lab when you were a kid. You know what they’re going to do at the library? Sit in front of a computer and pull up Google. How is that any better/different than just giving them an access point to use from home other than now they don’t need to find a ride to the library?
In this context I am drawing the line with wifi and personally issued Internet connected devices, particularly where the student isn’t really getting instruction from a live person.