Hello and welcome to my portfolio! I am a junior at Global Citizenship Experience lab school. In this curriculum, we have a class called “A Nations Argument”. In this class, we have learned about the process of making sound and solid arguments. We looked at other arguments and learned to deconstruct them. We studied the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and studied logical fallacies, to be able to find flaws and contradictions in arguments. We went on a field experience to FDLA (First Defence Legal Aid), where they taught us about our rights and how to handle situations with police. We also met with Anthony Holmes, a survivor of unjust police brutality, and we learned more about how people's rights have been overruled by the police. For this action project, we read over the Social Contract of our school and amended one of the rules that to us seemed unjust or fallacious. I chose to focus on how students’ off-campus privileges are taken away.
My peer from the senior class of 2023 has strong feelings about this issue as well.
“As someone who’s particularly vulnerable to the conditions that delay my arrival at school, I believe this new amendment is just to the student's circumstances and situations.” - AAG from the class of 2023.
She also happened to do her project on the unfairness of taking away off-campus privileges. Here is a link to her post. Here are also other co-signers to my argument: CD, who also did his project on off-campus lunches, & LAH..jpg)
To quote the Social Contract, “The School may revoke open campus privileges for any individual for any reason.” According to GCE’s social contract, students’ off-campus privileges can be taken away for any reason. Students are not allowed to go off-campus for lunch if they arrive at school anytime after 9 am in the morning. This is an unjust rule because students getting to school a few minutes late in the morning doesn’t always relate to their willingness and want to get to school and class on time. Students' off-campus privileges should only be taken away if they do something that proves they should not be trusted with getting back from lunch on time. It is fair for students to be penalized for being late to class, but it is fallacious for students to be penalized for arriving at school a few minutes late. This is because being late to school in the morning does not always relate to someone's willingness and want to get to school on time. This is saying two things are related when they are not. It is punishing someone for something that was not intentional, which is unjust.
Syllogism:
P1: Students are given off-campus lunch privileges.
P2: Students require incentives to be on time for school.
P3: Students require incentives to get back from lunch on time.
P4: Some students are late to school, disregarding the importance of school.
P5: Timelines to school allow for more disciplined students.
Conclusion: Students are not permitted to go off-campus for lunch when they arrive at school any time after 9 am in the morning.
Students are not allowed to go off-campus for lunch if they came back late from lunch the day before, or if they arrive at school 5 or more minutes after 9 am without a valid excuse.
For Example, if someone arrives at school at 9:01 am because the train they were on was held up for a few minutes by a passenger, it is fallacious to take away their off-campus lunch privileges for that day. The student wanted and tried to get to school on time, and them being a minute late to school does not relate to their responsibility when getting to class on time or getting back from lunch on time. If students arrive at school more than 5 minutes after 9 am without a valid excuse, it can be assumed that they don’t care as much about getting to school on time.
Syllogism for my amendment:
P1: Most students at GCE get to school by CTA.
P2: Many students have to travel far to get to school.
P3: CTA can be unreliable and gets delayed often.
P4: Many students don’t bring lunch from home.
P5: Students can be unintentionally late.
P6: Punishing unintentional actions doesn’t change their likelihood of happening again.
P7: If a student doesn’t get back from lunch on time they have shown that they may not care about getting to school on time.
P8: If a student arrives at school more than 5 minutes after 9 am, it may mean they do not care about getting to school on time.
Conclusion: Therefore, students should not be trusted to go off-campus for lunch if they came back late from lunch the day before, or if they arrive at school 5 or more minutes after 9 am without a valid excuse. If a student doesn’t get back from lunch on time they can assume they don’t have the privilege of off-campus lunch the next day.
Imagine a friend invites you to their birthday party, and you were supposed to bring a gift, but because you live far the gift gets damaged on the way there. Then, that friend lets you into the party but makes fun of you saying you couldn’t keep the gift in good shape, and only gives cake to the friend that successfully brought their present from across the street. This is what the school is doing by taking off-campus lunch privileges away from all students that arrive a minute or later to school. This is clearly unfair, it is an obvious example of the strawman fallacy, a logical fallacy that people often use in arguments. This is when someone claims that the other person is saying or thinking one thing when that is not the case. This is when they do not hear the other person out, or hears them but choose to ignore what they are saying. This is clearly violating amendment 8: Cruel and unfair punishment, from the U.S. Constitution.
With this amendment, students will be able to arrive at school without worrying about them being late affecting their privileges to get lunch off-campus. There would be much fewer people asking their friends to get lunch for them off-campus, and also there will no longer be students sneaking off-campus for lunch when they are not supposed to. It would create more trust in the space and community, and create a more fair and trusting environment in the school.
Students going off-campus for lunch somewhere in the downtown area is an important part of the global citizenship experience that we value in this school. Students should be able to not only go on field experiences to learn through the real world but also experience and learn to do things themselves like going off-campus to order lunch for themselves in downtown Chicago. That is true citizenship. The “Portrait of a Graduate” that GCE presents holds 6 main claims. Students will graduate from GCE having been real-world educated, professionally prepared, culturally competent, independently motivated, consciously innovated, and global citizens. My question is, how can students be punished for their “behavior” if their “behavior” was unintentional?
Syllogism:
P1: Students are given off-campus lunch privileges.
P2: Students require incentives to be on time for school.
P3: Students require incentives to get back from lunch on time.
P4: Some students are late to school, disregarding the importance of school.
P5: Timelines to school allow for more disciplined students.
Conclusion: Students are not permitted to go off-campus for lunch when they arrive at school any time after 9 am in the morning.
Students are not allowed to go off-campus for lunch if they came back late from lunch the day before, or if they arrive at school 5 or more minutes after 9 am without a valid excuse.
For Example, if someone arrives at school at 9:01 am because the train they were on was held up for a few minutes by a passenger, it is fallacious to take away their off-campus lunch privileges for that day. The student wanted and tried to get to school on time, and them being a minute late to school does not relate to their responsibility when getting to class on time or getting back from lunch on time. If students arrive at school more than 5 minutes after 9 am without a valid excuse, it can be assumed that they don’t care as much about getting to school on time.
Syllogism for my amendment:
P1: Most students at GCE get to school by CTA.
P2: Many students have to travel far to get to school.
P3: CTA can be unreliable and gets delayed often.
P4: Many students don’t bring lunch from home.
P5: Students can be unintentionally late.
P6: Punishing unintentional actions doesn’t change their likelihood of happening again.
P7: If a student doesn’t get back from lunch on time they have shown that they may not care about getting to school on time.
P8: If a student arrives at school more than 5 minutes after 9 am, it may mean they do not care about getting to school on time.
Conclusion: Therefore, students should not be trusted to go off-campus for lunch if they came back late from lunch the day before, or if they arrive at school 5 or more minutes after 9 am without a valid excuse. If a student doesn’t get back from lunch on time they can assume they don’t have the privilege of off-campus lunch the next day.
Imagine a friend invites you to their birthday party, and you were supposed to bring a gift, but because you live far the gift gets damaged on the way there. Then, that friend lets you into the party but makes fun of you saying you couldn’t keep the gift in good shape, and only gives cake to the friend that successfully brought their present from across the street. This is what the school is doing by taking off-campus lunch privileges away from all students that arrive a minute or later to school. This is clearly unfair, it is an obvious example of the strawman fallacy, a logical fallacy that people often use in arguments. This is when someone claims that the other person is saying or thinking one thing when that is not the case. This is when they do not hear the other person out, or hears them but choose to ignore what they are saying. This is clearly violating amendment 8: Cruel and unfair punishment, from the U.S. Constitution.
With this amendment, students will be able to arrive at school without worrying about them being late affecting their privileges to get lunch off-campus. There would be much fewer people asking their friends to get lunch for them off-campus, and also there will no longer be students sneaking off-campus for lunch when they are not supposed to. It would create more trust in the space and community, and create a more fair and trusting environment in the school.
.png) |
| Portrait of a Graduate, GCE's Social Contract, 2023 |
Students going off-campus for lunch somewhere in the downtown area is an important part of the global citizenship experience that we value in this school. Students should be able to not only go on field experiences to learn through the real world but also experience and learn to do things themselves like going off-campus to order lunch for themselves in downtown Chicago. That is true citizenship. The “Portrait of a Graduate” that GCE presents holds 6 main claims. Students will graduate from GCE having been real-world educated, professionally prepared, culturally competent, independently motivated, consciously innovated, and global citizens. My question is, how can students be punished for their “behavior” if their “behavior” was unintentional?
My peer from the senior class of 2023 has strong feelings about this issue as well.
“As someone who’s particularly vulnerable to the conditions that delay my arrival at school, I believe this new amendment is just to the student's circumstances and situations.” - AAG from the class of 2023.
She also happened to do her project on the unfairness of taking away off-campus privileges. Here is a link to her post. Here are also other co-signers to my argument: CD, who also did his project on off-campus lunches, & LAH.
.jpg)
Thank you for visiting my portfolio and reading through this post, I appreciate it a lot. I am proud of my work and happy to have many supporters of this amendment. Thank you!
Comments
Post a Comment