[PASSED] Ending School Segregation

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, we'd be grateful if you could clear some things up a bit:

Does clause 1 ban homeschooling? Also, does that clause mandate member nations have to make children from different backgrounds sit together regardless of what the children themselves want, all in the name of diversity?

In clause 3, what exactly does 'poorly treated' mean? Children tease eachother, argue, fight, taunt etc, this seems like an easy way for a troublesome parent to abuse the system to pester the school for every little play fight."

[CoraSpia]

Does this pass the 'issue meriting international consideration' issue test, or is it rightly an issue that should be left to member nations?

[Comfed]

“We are strongly opposed to clause three - by Comfedian law, those who disagree with Our Leader, Comrade BB, are to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. Including children.”

[Kenmoria]

“We are strongly opposed to clause three - by Comfedian law, those who disagree with Our Leader, Comrade BB, are to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. Including children.”

(OOC: See Protecting Free Expression.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump.

[Old Hope]

Our concerns about Clause 1 have not been addressed. We remain opposed.

[Honeydewistania]

This was submitted

[Araraukar]

"Ambassador, we'd be grateful if you could clear some things up a bit:

Does clause 1 ban homeschooling? Also, does that clause mandate member nations have to make children from different backgrounds sit together regardless of what the children themselves want, all in the name of diversity?

In clause 3, what exactly does 'poorly treated' mean? Children tease eachother, argue, fight, taunt etc, this seems like an easy way for a troublesome parent to abuse the system to pester the school for every little play fight."

"These concerns haven't been answered by the author."

[Kenmoria]

“I have a very precise issue with this proposal - the word ‘self-segregation’ in clause 1. If students are self-segregating, it doesn’t seem to be proportionate or reasonable to have the WA put a stop to this. If children want to make friendship groups based on a protected class: let them, because having international law put a stop to that would silly.”

[Old Hope]

“I have a very precise issue with this proposal - the word ‘self-segregation’ in clause 1. If students are self-segregating, it doesn’t seem to be proportionate or reasonable to have the WA put a stop to this. If children want to make friendship groups based on a protected class: let them, because having international law put a stop to that would silly.”

We already raised the issue of self-segregation and we were ignored. It is safe to say that the delegation of Imperium Anglorum does not care for freedom of association. Policing whom the students have as friends is not a good idea, and this proposal would force member nations to intrude into the personal lives of the students...

[Imperium Anglorum]

“I have a very precise issue with this proposal - the word ‘self-segregation’ in clause 1. If students are self-segregating, it doesn’t seem to be proportionate or reasonable to have the WA put a stop to this. If children want to make friendship groups based on a protected class: let them, because having international law put a stop to that would silly.”

Given the option to interpret 'self-segregation' at the school level and at the student-by-student level, only nations acting to their self-detriment would interpret 'self-segregation', which is contextualised only at the school level, to imply an obligation to spend the enormous time and resources to regulate interpersonal relationships.

[Graintfjall]

OOC: This proposal as written is an Honest Mistake violation for describing the WA as "august", when it is, in fact, "shit".

IC follows.

“While not having particularly strong views on this proposal as we don’t consider it an international issue but also don’t think it likely to be actively harmful – we do question why only those children ‘physically unfit’ are exempted. What about mental, psychological, behavioral unfitness? Similarly the hardship is assumed to be imposed on ‘the child’, but not on other children or teachers, for example by the perennially disruptive?”

-- Gregor Goðasson
Cabinet Office Liaison Attaché to the Grænfjall Observer Mission

[Imperium Anglorum]

“While not having particularly strong views on this proposal as we don’t consider it an international issue but also don’t think it likely to be actively harmful – we do question why only those children ‘physically unfit’ are exempted. What about mental, psychological, behavioral unfitness? Similarly the hardship is assumed to be imposed on ‘the child’, but not on other children or teachers, for example by the perennially disruptive?”

Elsie. We included the provisions mostly to provide exemptions for parents who constantly travel, as enrolment would be very difficult for them. The question of physical unfitness we included mostly for those cases where someone's life could be in danger, for example, by spread of germs to someone who is immunocompromised. Behaviourally, I don't see why students who are rowdy should be denied schooling. Even if a person is sufficiently rowdy to merit imprisonment or suspension, they still should be schooled. To do otherwise would be a great injustice.

---

Does clause 1 ban homeschooling? Also, does that clause mandate member nations have to make children from different backgrounds sit together regardless of what the children themselves want, all in the name of diversity?

Elsie. It does not ban home schooling if such home schooling would develop competence to interact in a pluralistic society and is not self-segregated by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes. If you believe home schooling fails to do those things, it should do better before being permitted.

In clause 3, what exactly does 'poorly treated' mean? Children tease each other, argue, fight, taunt etc, this seems like an easy way for a troublesome parent to abuse the system to pester the school for every little play fight."

Elsie. Poorly treated means what your nation interprets it to mean, subject to oversight under the Administrative Compliance Act. I would interpret it, however, to mean bullying or harassment. Regardless, if we want schools to actually be effective both at learning and at promoting tolerance, they cannot also be places where racial minorities are called racial slurs or people with disabilities are mocked to their faces. If you think children can learn effectively in such an environment, I invite you to send your children there.

Anyway, given the option to interpret 'poorly treated' at an actually-poorly-treated and at fight-thought-crime level, only nations acting to their self-detriment would interpret 'poorly treated', which is contextualised with specific goals to further education and inclusion in mind, to imply an obligation to spend the enormous time and resources to regulate interpersonal relationships directly.

[WayNeacTia]

"How exactly is school bullying an international issue, Ambassador?"

Wayne

[Imperium Anglorum]

Whereas the exclusion of minority students from education with the majority population in separate educational facilities creates an inherently unequal quality of education by neglecting the student's ability to discuss and exchange views with other students:

...

And whereas, if the Assembly is to ensure minority students' inclusion in schools, safeguards are required to prevent staff from treating those students poorly and to protect such students from being harassed:

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Madame Wellesley, could you address how you envision this resolution interacting with GA 493 and its mandates? Specifically we are concerned that under standard interpretations of our government and presumably most other reasonably enlightened ones GA493 grants what a protected class (deaf inidividuals against whom discrimination is prohibited) an explicit right to attend education that is almost certainly segregated by any rational measure.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie. The definition in GA 493 in section 1(f) is broad to the degree of including standard audial schools with sufficient provisions for the teaching of non-audial languages. We don't feel that an educational institution with the ability to give excellent non-audial instruction requires total segregation of audial and non-audial students by necessity. Nor does our proposal call for the abolition of school choice: parents are eminently permitted to choose what schools are acceptable, so long as those schools help their students 'develop competence to interact in a pluralistic society'.

[Kenmoria]

“Following clarification on the mandates of clause 1, I am happy to report that I have voted in favour of this proposal. It’s not as though homeschooling is any less proficient at giving a child a pluralistic education, assuming the parents do so properly.”

[West Phoenicia]

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts??

A very misleading title of the resolution. And a very manipulative motive to push a bill through, under a false resolution.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Shocked and appalled by the intrusive and heavy handed nature of this resolution. Despite being very much against segregation and segregationist attitudes, the end of Clause 1 will strip parents of the rights to choose a school for their own child. If the following statement was taken out, I would consider voting for. As it is, a not particularly liberal reading of this statement "they shall prohibit segregation and self-segregation of students by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes..." is a cudgel that has the power to single-handedly destroy religious schools, as well as further curtail the rights of home-schooling parents. Integration and the fostering of openness to diverse viewpoints is an admirable goal, but this resolution does more to deaden diversity and make a mockery of pluralism than actually advance the growth of a welcoming and inclusive society. If state-enforced conformity is to be prized above all else, this should be voted for. As it is, I will vote Against.

[Bruke]

Shocked and appalled by the intrusive and heavy handed nature of this resolution. Despite being very much against segregation and segregationist attitudes, the end of Clause 1 will strip parents of the rights to choose a school for their own child. If the following statement was taken out, I would consider voting for. As it is, a not particularly liberal reading of this statement "they shall prohibit segregation and self-segregation of students by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes..." is a cudgel that has the power to single-handedly destroy religious schools, as well as further curtail the rights of home-schooling parents. Integration and the fostering of openness to diverse viewpoints is an admirable goal, but this resolution does more to deaden diversity and make a mockery of pluralism than actually advance the growth of a welcoming and inclusive society. If state-enforced conformity is to be prized above all else, this should be voted for. As it is, I will vote Against.

“Our colleague perfectly expressed why this resolution should be opposed.... we are also voting against unless the author can clarify how exactly the resolution will affect religious schools.”

[Attempted Socialism]

"After the failure of the homeschooling resolution, which would have allowed parents to infantilise, indoctrinate and academically stunt their children, it is a delight to see a resolution which efficiently deals with homeschooling. This resolution, neatly, does not ban homeschooling, it merely requires it to follow certain standards. If homeschoolers can show that their teaching methods are adequate, that is, equivalent to the didactic competences of an entire school staff, they are free to pursue their wicked agenda. If not, then perhaps they should actually think of the children. Further, school segregation is an abhorrent evil, which we have sufficiently abolished at home, so abolishing it for all World Assembly nations is an easy sell."

[Velosia]

Ambassador, would you be so kind as to provide some clarification on the resolution's attitude towards religious segregation?

It clearly implies that all forms of religious segregation will not be tolerated. However, there are a number of nations afford certain religious communities the right to establish so-called 'faith schools'. These are institutions of learning, generally operating with the full support of the state, that openly favour the admittance of children who are part of the same religious community over those who are not.

It is still illegal to prohibit children of other faiths from attending but, as there is an open bias towards children of one faith over others, this is undeniably an example of religious discrimination.

While this delegation does not share this view, the nations in question would see this as a form of protection for minority religious communities and feel that it is a morally justified position to take. A form of 'positive discrimination' so to speak, though we would argue that any form of discrimination is still discrimination.

But I digress. Would such a situation still full under, what this resolution would describe as, an example of unacceptable religious discrimination?

[Kandorith]

The Empire supports this resolution whole-heartedly. Though our schools will remain segrated between male and female, we do provide the same quality of education for both parties.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador, would you be so kind as to provide some clarification on the resolution's attitude towards religious segregation?

It clearly implies that all forms of religious segregation will not be tolerated. However, there are a number of nations afford certain religious communities the right to establish so-called 'faith schools'. These are institutions of learning, generally operating with the full support of the state, that openly favour the admittance of children who are part of the same religious community over those who are not.

It is still illegal to prohibit children of other faiths from attending but, as there is an open bias towards children of one faith over others, this is undeniably an example of religious discrimination.

While this delegation does not share this view, the nations in question would see this as a form of protection for minority religious communities and feel that it is a morally justified position to take. A form of 'positive discrimination' so to speak, though we would argue that any form of discrimination is still discrimination.

But I digress. Would such a situation still full under, what this resolution would describe as, an example of unacceptable religious discrimination?

“There are a few elements of clause 1 to unpack here. Firstly, the clause states that children have the right to ‘develop competence to interact with a pluralistic society’. A reasonable reading of this clause would be that children must be at least taught about the existence of other faiths and belief systems, insofar as these are present in society. This shouldn’t be an issue. The next part of clause 1 states that member states shall prohibit segregation. Incentivisation, though still immoral, is not segregation. Therefore, clause 1 does not prohibit these faith schools on that point, either.

Clause 3 could potentially be an issue, given the possibly-inevitable religious-based hostility that would occur to a student of a minority religion in one of these faith schools. However, this is not a certainty and, therefore, there is no outright prohibition on faith schools from this standpoint. To summarise, religious schools are not prohibited by this legislation, unless those schools are having serious failings in preparing their students for life in adulthood.”