[PASSED] Repeal "Access to Science in Schools"

[Geilinor]

"The resolution that is being repealed states that only schools which receive government aid must include peer reviewed science. Theological education that is not affiliated with or funded by the government would not be required to include science."

[Auralia]

"What general definition?" inquired Lord Raekevik. "The Alqanian delegation has been unable to find any WA definition of the term 'school'."

There is no such definition. Accordingly, it is appropriate to use a general (dictionary) definition so long as context does not indicate otherwise. If anything, the distinction between "public schools" (generally used to refer to elementary and high schools) and "schools that receive governmental aid" indicates that the latter includes all educational institutions, including institutes of higher education.

"That clause there is what causes the problem with the target resolution. Effectively, this repeal proposal creates a problem with the target resolution and then demands its repeal based on that problem. Without this repeal, the problem does not exist. It ought to be illegal for attempting to amend the target resolution within its repeal, or, if the proposal rules have failed to disallow that, then it ought to be self-evident that it is a bloody stupid thing to do."

Your argument makes no sense. The standard English definition of "school" cannot be changed by this repeal. Certainly, if we could define "school" as used in the resolution to mean whatever we want it to mean, that there wouldn't be a problem. But then we wouldn't really be interpreting the resolution correctly and in good faith, would we?

"And in any case, all other things notwithstanding, the Queendom is at a loss to understand why the perverse offspring of dogmatic orthodoxy and populist democracy that illegitimately and offensively deigns to call itself the Auralian government, in light of its ridiculous claims to be openly non-compliant with several resolutions passed by this esteemed assembly, has decided to repeal a resolution with which it does not agree, rather than simply adding it to the list of resolutions it claims not to adhere to. Or to put it more concisely: why does Auralia need to repeal anything if it claims to be non-compliant?"

As always, your name-calling is insulting and unproductive. I do not see our two nations resuming diplomatic relations in the near future.

In reply to your question, non-compliance constitutes defiance of the will of the international community; it has serious consequences which are not to be taken lightly. Unfortunately, when faced with the Sophie's choice of non-compliance or, for instance, state-sanctioned murder (GAR #128), I'm afraid that non-compliance wins out. Hence, it is preferable to repeal than to refuse to comply when possible.

"And in case it was not already abundantly clear, the Queendom feels obligated to lodge a complaint in the strongest terms possible against the regime deigning to call itself the Auralian government, against it being allowed to retain its membership in this assembly, and against it making comments on the interpretation of and compliance with resolutions. Any member that claims to be openly non-compliant ought to be ashamed and shunned from this assembly, and its words carry less weight than a fly's droppings."

Thankfully, many member nations do not share your views on non-compliance, believing as I do that an unjust law is no law.

As Lord Raekevik finished, one of the Alqanians seated next to him whispered something. The Ambassador's response was clearly audible by the chamber: "They're not a member anymore? Then why do they bother at all about what any resolution does?"

((OOC: I haven't gotten around to re-applying to the World Assembly yet, but you can consider this nation a member for the purposes of RP.))

snip

To be honest, your entire line of argumentation makes no sense to me. You argue that the term "science" as used in the resolution can mean anything. (If it can mean theology, then it can mean anything.) So why not repeal the resolution if it allegedly does nothing?

"The resolution that is being repealed states that only schools which receive government aid must include peer reviewed science. Theological education that is not affiliated with or funded by the government would not be required to include science."

This resolution applies equally to institutions of higher learning that have nothing to do with religion, but that do not teach peer-reviewed science because it has nothing to do with the material being taught. A plumbing or hairstyling school, for instance, should not be required to teach peer-reviewed science.

Furthermore, Catholic theodemocracies like Auralia do fund theological colleges and seminaries. These schools are institutions of higher learning, and should therefore not be required to teach peer-reviewed science.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"The resolution that is being repealed states that only schools which receive government aid must include peer reviewed science. Theological education that is not affiliated with or funded by the government would not be required to include science."

This is actually one of the discriminatory effects of Access to Science in Schools and the only reason why Glen-Rhodes does not comply with the resolution. When governments provide financial aid for students, they cannot exclude students who attend private religious institutions. That would be a violation of the Charter of Civil Rights. However, if a student does receive governmental aid and chooses to attend a private religious institution, that institution would be receiving government funds and thus falls under the science mandate. The government would either be discriminating against students on the basis of their religious beliefs, or the government would be violating the expressive freedoms of private religious institutions.

The only way to continue to provide governmental aid to students, while not forcing private religious institutions to teach subjects that are either unrelated to their purpose or in violation of religious doctrine, is to exclude all private educational institutions from governmental aid programs. That is not a favorable policy outcome to Glen-Rhodes, but it is the only option given short of full non-compliance with the resolution. Thus, we chose to invoke our sovereign right to exclude Access to Science in Schools from the body of international law we consider binding on our country. As the Auralian delegate noted, this is an extraordinary measure that we would rather not have to take. It would be preferable to repeal the resolution than remain in violation of it.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Ius]

I don't see where your going with this. Science is a very important subject, in fact it is the most important. The fact that your nation wants to repeal is grossly negligent.
The Nation of Ius stand Opposed to the underlining proposal.

[Auralia]

I don't see where your going with this. Science is a very important subject, in fact it is the most important. The fact that your nation wants to repeal is grossly negligent.
The Nation of Ius stand Opposed to the underlining proposal.

Would you mind actually reading the proposal before declaring your opposition to it?

[Ius]

I don't see where your going with this. Science is a very important subject, in fact it is the most important. The fact that your nation wants to repeal is grossly negligent.
The Nation of Ius stand Opposed to the underlining proposal.

Would you mind actually reading the proposal before declaring your opposition to it?

Please do not doubt my inelegance. I have read your proposal and my position still stands.

[Auralia]

Would you mind actually reading the proposal before declaring your opposition to it?

Please do not doubt my inelegance. I have read your proposal and my position still stands.

Then could you please explain why the fact that "science is a very important subject" is justification for opposition to this repeal?

[Dellin]

I just wanted to counter the idea that if "Access to Science in Schools" applies to /all/ sciences, it wouldn't make any difference. That is not true at all. Again, the important term is "peer-reviewed" science.

If this resolution didn't exist, anyone could forward anything they want in schools as "science." Which is why this resolution is so important; you want to essentially just dismantle "science" as a subject because of some quips.

[Auralia]

I just wanted to counter the idea that if "Access to Science in Schools" applies to /all/ sciences, it wouldn't make any difference. That is not true at all. Again, the important term is "peer-reviewed" science.

If this resolution didn't exist, anyone could forward anything they want in schools as "science." Which is why this resolution is so important; you want to essentially just dismantle "science" as a subject because of some quips.

Catholic theology, at the very least, is peer-reviewed.

[Dellin]

I just wanted to counter the idea that if "Access to Science in Schools" applies to /all/ sciences, it wouldn't make any difference. That is not true at all. Again, the important term is "peer-reviewed" science.

If this resolution didn't exist, anyone could forward anything they want in schools as "science." Which is why this resolution is so important; you want to essentially just dismantle "science" as a subject because of some quips.

Catholic theology, at the very least, is peer-reviewed.

Was I saying it wasn't? No. I was saying, "peer reviewed sciences" being required is important because, if not, schools could just be fill of crackpot assertions by individuals with agendas. Peer reviewed science as a standard in all schools is important; you want to get rid of that.

[Auralia]

Peer reviewed science as a standard in all schools is important; you want to get rid of that.

No, peer-reviewed science as a standard in all schools is inappropriate. Many vocational schools do not and need not teach anything that can be described as "science".

[Araraukar]

Then could you please explain why the fact that "science is a very important subject" is justification for opposition to this repeal?

If you explain why the inverse is justification for repealing it.

Catholic theology, at the very least, is peer-reviewed.

Exactly what I've been saying.

Many vocational schools do not and need not teach anything that can be described as "science".

I'm honestly baffled now. Could you give me some examples of these vocations in question?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I just wanted to counter the idea that if "Access to Science in Schools" applies to /all/ sciences, it wouldn't make any difference. That is not true at all. Again, the important term is "peer-reviewed" science.

If this resolution didn't exist, anyone could forward anything they want in schools as "science." Which is why this resolution is so important; you want to essentially just dismantle "science" as a subject because of some quips.

Repealing this resolution won't dismantle science curricula. Science education existed before and it will exist after this resolution.

[Auralia]

I'm honestly baffled now. Could you give me some examples of these vocations in question?

Three example trades are listed in the repeal: plumbing, baking and hair-styling. They were picked at random from this Wikipedia article.

You could also throw in any school that exclusively teaches dance or the visual, dramatic and musical arts.

[Araraukar]

Three example trades are listed in the repeal: plumbing, baking and hair-styling.

Plumbers and hair-stylers certainly need to know about chemicals, and last I checked, chemistry was definitely deemed as a science. The chem classes are (talking of the only school system I know reasonably well) modified for the needs of each, but plumbers also require math and physics. Baking requires some understanding of biology/chemistry (again, modified to suit the specifics of the trade), and I doubt they're able to escape math either.

You could also throw in any school that exclusively teaches dance or the visual, dramatic and musical arts.

Annnnd this will throw us back into "what counts as science?" And possibly also "what counts as school?" since I can't off the top of my head think of a school that would teach nothing else but the specific art. Those would be projects and courses, not a whole school (even if someone wanted to define the "school" as the physical building inside which the projects and courses take place).

[Auralia]

Plumbers and hair-stylers certainly need to know about chemicals, and last I checked, chemistry was definitely deemed as a science. The chem classes are (talking of the only school system I know reasonably well) modified for the needs of each, but plumbers also require math and physics. Baking requires some understanding of biology/chemistry (again, modified to suit the specifics of the trade), and I doubt they're able to escape math either.

First of all, math is not a science.

Second, the examples of science you provided are contrived. It's important to distinguish between the study of a particular scientific field as an end in and of itself, and the application of a few scientific principles to a particular trade. If the latter is all that is necessary to fulfill the resolution's requirements, then I have to ask exactly what you think the resolution accomplishes, in light of its intended purpose. Because if we accept your interpretation, the resolution effectively does nothing.

Annnnd this will throw us back into "what counts as science?" And possibly also "what counts as school?" since I can't off the top of my head think of a school that would teach nothing else but the specific art. Those would be projects and courses, not a whole school (even if someone wanted to define the "school" as the physical building inside which the projects and courses take place).

I would recommend that you do a Google search for "arts academy". You will see that there are several schools devoted exclusively to the visual or performing arts.

[Ius]

Please do not doubt my inelegance. I have read your proposal and my position still stands.

Then could you please explain why the fact that "science is a very important subject" is justification for opposition to this repeal?

The resolution that was passed, was a great resolution. By repealing it you will strike it out and make it null and void. You must then come up with a replacement.
Science must be taught there is no other way around it. Frankly, you don't have a very well thought out proposal.

[Dellin]

Second, the examples of science you provided are contrived. It's important to distinguish between the study of a particular scientific field as an end in and of itself, and the application of a few scientific principles to a particular trade. If the latter is all that is necessary to fulfill the resolution's requirements, then I have to ask exactly what you think the resolution accomplishes, in light of its intended purpose. Because if we accept your interpretation, the resolution effectively does nothing.

/Ambassador Judea sighs and leans forward/: "First, what Ambassador Leveret said was not that there were just scientific "principles", but that such trade schools often require science in forms that apply directly to that profession. But I will let her speak for herself on that.

Secondly, as I have said, the resolution accomplishes something very important: it doesn't just give access to science, it gives access to peer-reviewed science. So that electricians aren't learning the Theory of the Magical Floating Electrode, and other such nonsense. Yes, that is an absurd example, but is that level of absurdity that this resolution is protecting against. You are focusing on one part of this resolution on which to base its merits (the fact that it mentions "science", and then call us narrow."

[Araraukar]

First of all, math is not a science.

Okay, I think this is where I think of the "T-word" and back away from talking with you on this topic at all. Because if you're going to cherry-pick what you do and don't consider a science to that degree, I think I'm done talking to you.

[Auralia]

The resolution that was passed, was a great resolution. By repealing it you will strike it out and make it null and void. You must then come up with a replacement.
Science must be taught there is no other way around it. Frankly, you don't have a very well thought out proposal.

If someone wants to write a replacement, they can. Personally, I think nations can figure out on their own that science education is beneficial to their populations.

/Ambassador Judea sighs and leans forward/: "First, what Ambassador Leveret said was not that there were just scientific "principles", but that such trade schools often require science in forms that apply directly to that profession. But I will let her speak for herself on that.

Trade schools do not offer classes in physics, chemistry or any other natural science. People attending trade schools already have an basic understanding of the natural sciences from high school anyways. Rather, trade schools use knowledge derived from the natural sciences to accomplish a particular task. But this rudimentary form of applied science is not what the resolution refers to when it uses the term "science".

Secondly, as I have said, the resolution accomplishes something very important: it doesn't just give access to science, it gives access to peer-reviewed science. So that electricians aren't learning the Theory of the Magical Floating Electrode, and other such nonsense. Yes, that is an absurd example, but is that level of absurdity that this resolution is protecting against. You are focusing on one part of this resolution on which to base its merits (the fact that it mentions "science", and then call us narrow."

Again, there are many vocations where instruction in peer-reviewed science is completely. Granted, electricians are not one of them, but I've never actually used that as an example. Instead, I've brought up bakers, piano tuners, lock smiths, artists, actors, musicians and the like.

[Auralia]

I will be submitting this within a few days.

[Dellin]

Trade schools do not offer classes in physics, chemistry or any other natural science. People attending trade schools already have an basic understanding of the natural sciences from high school anyways. Rather, trade schools use knowledge derived from the natural sciences to accomplish a particular task. But this rudimentary form of applied science is not what the resolution refers to when it uses the term "science".

Again, you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes "science." And as others have pointed out, the target resolution does not require classes, it requires science be in the curricula. If you don't think that trades use science, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, "People attending trade schools already have an basic understanding of the natural sciences from high school anyways" is your opinion and certainly won't be true in some, or perhaps a lot, of cases. That's really just your own assumption. Also, they don't necessarily have a good understanding of how science applies to their particular trade. And again, that's your opinion of what the target resolution says.

Again, there are many vocations where instruction in peer-reviewed science is completely. Granted, electricians are not one of them, but I've never actually used that as an example. Instead, I've brought up bakers, piano tuners, lock smiths, artists, actors, musicians and the like.

It's going to get exhausting if we have to find science in everything. I think you are getting absurd, though. First off, most of those professions don't have exclusive schools. Some of them don't even have schools to begin with. A lot of them often won't have government funded schools. Those that do will more often than not have some form of science associated with them.

(Earlier you mentioned dance schools. Though it varies by nations, those are often privately funded.)

[Auralia]

I'm no longer interested in continuing to debate this point since I will only be repeating myself, but I'll make one final comment:

It's going to get exhausting if we have to find science in everything. I think you are getting absurd, though. First off, most of those professions don't have exclusive schools. Some of them don't even have schools to begin with. A lot of them often won't have government funded schools. Those that do will more often than not have some form of science associated with them.

(Earlier you mentioned dance schools. Though it varies by nations, those are often privately funded.)

You've essentially conceded that this is a poorly-written resolution, as it arbitrarily prevents nations from opening and funding a school dedicated to certain vocations, such as dance.

[Dellin]

I'm no longer interested in continuing to debate this point, but I'll make one final comment:

It's going to get exhausting if we have to find science in everything. I think you are getting absurd, though. First off, most of those professions don't have exclusive schools. Some of them don't even have schools to begin with. A lot of them often won't have government funded schools. Those that do will more often than not have some form of science associated with them.

(Earlier you mentioned dance schools. Though it varies by nations, those are often privately funded.)

You've essentially conceded that this is a poorly-written resolution, as it arbitrarily prevents nations from opening and funding a school dedicated to certain vocations, such as dance.

Uh....No. It requires, if the government does open such a school, that there be science. Which isn't too terribly difficult.

[Auralia]

I'm no longer interested in continuing to debate this point, but I'll make one final comment:



You've essentially conceded that this is a poorly-written resolution, as it arbitrarily prevents nations from opening and funding a school dedicated to certain vocations, such as dance.

Uh....No. It requires, if the government does open such a school, that there be science. Which isn't too terribly difficult.

Publicly-funded dance schools should not be required to teach peer-reviewed science. The stupidity of such a requirement should be self-evident.