[PASSED] Repeal "Access to Science in Schools"

[Frisbeeteria]

Repeal "Access to Science in Schools"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #48

Affirming the purpose of GAR #48, "Access to Science in Schools", namely to ensure that all students have access to a quality education in the sciences,

Noting that the target resolution requires that all schools that receive government aid include peer-reviewed science in their curricula,

Remarking that the term "school" includes institutions of higher learning,

Recognizing that many institutions of higher learning do not include peer-reviewed science in their curricula as it is irrelevant to the material being taught, such as:

1. graduate schools teaching law and business,
2. vocational schools teaching the vast majority of trades, such as locksmithing, piano tuning or tailoring, and
3. arts schools teaching the visual or performing arts,

Emphasizing that in many nations, such institutions are attended exclusively by students who have already received substantial instruction in the sciences as part of their primary and secondary education, but who have ultimately chosen to specialize in another area,

Acknowledging that such institutions receive government funding in certain nations, placing them under the purview of the target resolution,

Concluding that the target resolution's requirements are completely impractical and inappropriate for such institutions,

Recommending that any replacement resolution simply mandate that all member nations provide students with a quality science education rather than micromanaging the affairs of particular schools,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #48, "Access to Science in Schools".

[Lillitania]

Strongly opposed.

The act does not infringe on religious rights in any way, shape, or form. The education of basic sciences should be required for every curriculum and it is necessary for a global government to enforce this. The world must be educated, and we can't stand idly by while children fail to be given a basic education.

Jerry Greyer
General Assembly Office

[Auralia]

Strongly opposed.

The act does not infringe on religious rights in any way, shape, or form. The education of basic sciences should be required for every curriculum and it is necessary for a global government to enforce this. The world must be educated, and we can't stand idly by while children fail to be given a basic education.

Jerry Greyer
General Assembly Office

Some nations provide a basic education in one school for which attendance is mandatory, and a religious education in another school for which attendance is optional. Why must both schools be required to teach science, since all students will receive a quality science education in the first school?

[Sciongrad]

I'm strongly opposed. I'm not sure I agree with fundamentalism being used as the premise for a repeal of what is a quality piece of legislation. I find the line that is concerned with science getting in the way of a religious education especially troubling. Frankly, the purposes of theological colleges and seminaries should not be to indoctrinate students - students should already be strongly connected with their faith, and if they aren't, then it's not a foreign concept for them to change their minds - it should be to educate them regarding religion; an education in science as well is not all that ridiculous. And this proposal reads as if teaching science might accidentally draw students away from their potential indoctrination, and I find that a bit perturbing. If your Excellency finds such a concept like teaching science in schools so shocking that it simply cannot continue, I advise you stop funding universities and schools that are meant to teach religion exclusively and save everyone else the trouble of having to endure some uncompelling fundamentalist silliness.

EDIT: Typo

[Lillitania]

Some nations provide a basic education in one school for which attendance is mandatory, and a religious education in another school for which attendance is optional. Why must both schools be required to teach science, since all students will receive a quality science education in the first school?

Because, for instance, if a child is taught basic mathematics it doesn't prepare them for the outside world, they must continue taking classes in mathematics to further their education.

Jerry Greyer
General Assembly Office

[Auralia]

Frankly, the purposes of theological colleges and seminaries should not be to indoctrinate students - students should already be strongly connected with their faith, and if they aren't, then it's not a foreign concept for them to change their minds - it should be to educate them regarding religion; an education in science as well is not all that ridiculous.

In Auralia, such students would have already received an education in science while attending elementary and high school. There is no need for additional courses in science to be offered at a theological college, as students attending that school have chosen to specialize in theology instead of science.

Frankly, I don't think you understand my motivation here. You seem to think I'm anti-science. I'm not. I believe all children should receive a quality science education. However, I don't believe all educational institutions should be required to teach science, when students attending that school have already received a science education and wish to study something else.

Some nations provide a basic education in one school for which attendance is mandatory, and a religious education in another school for which attendance is optional. Why must both schools be required to teach science, since all students will receive a quality science education in the first school?

Because, for instance, if a child is taught basic mathematics it doesn't prepare them for the outside world, they must continue taking classes in mathematics to further their education.

Indeed, but a child need not be taught mathematics for his or her entire educational career. At some point the child will specialize in a certain field, which may or may not be related to mathematics. In the latter case, no further courses in mathematics are necessary or appropriate. Do students studying for a law or arts degree take advanced mathematics courses?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Strongly opposed.

The act does not infringe on religious rights in any way, shape, or form. The education of basic sciences should be required for every curriculum and it is necessary for a global government to enforce this. The world must be educated, and we can't stand idly by while children fail to be given a basic education.

Jerry Greyer
General Assembly Office

Some nations provide a basic education in one school for which attendance is mandatory, and a religious education in another school for which attendance is optional. Why must both schools be required to teach science, since all students will receive a quality science education in the first school?

Ms. Harper doesn't quite get the idea of it: Science is one of the fundamental school subjects for understanding the world and the universe around us, irrespective of technological level. Even a compass is science.

[Auralia]

Some nations provide a basic education in one school for which attendance is mandatory, and a religious education in another school for which attendance is optional. Why must both schools be required to teach science, since all students will receive a quality science education in the first school?

Ms. Harper doesn't quite get the idea of it: Science is one of the fundamental school subjects for understanding the world and the universe around us, irrespective of technological level. Even a compass is science.

Yes, and so all students should be required to study science in elementary school and high school. But after graduating from high school, not all students specialize in fields related to science. Some attend law school, or business school, or vocational school. These schools should not be required to offer science courses.

[Sciongrad]

Frankly, the purposes of theological colleges and seminaries should not be to indoctrinate students - students should already be strongly connected with their faith, and if they aren't, then it's not a foreign concept for them to change their minds - it should be to educate them regarding religion; an education in science as well is not all that ridiculous.

In Auralia, such students would have already received an education in science while attending elementary and high school. There is no need for additional courses in science to be offered at a theological college, as students attending that school have chosen to specialize in theology instead of science.

Frankly, I don't think you understand my motivation here. You seem to think I'm anti-science. I'm not. I believe all children should receive a quality science education. However, I don't believe all educational institutions should be required to teach science, when students attending that school have already received a science education and wish to study something else.

If I've mistaken your intent, I apologize - the phrasing:

Concerned [...] that all schools that receive government aid include peer-reviewed science in their curricula and allocate equal amounts of teaching time for peer-reviewed science as any opposing religious view,

- reads as if the repeal regrets that science is taught in tandem with religious views that they may directly oppose. But regardless, the concept is still outlandish to me. It's certainly not unusual for institutes of higher education to require certain courses in any given curriculum, regardless of their relevance to their major. (OOC: I have several friends in real life that have gone off to Berklee (which is a world renowned music college) that are required to take several classes of English, history, public speaking, etc. Now, when will they use history as music teachers, musicians, or composers? Well in all candor, they almost certainly won't. But higher education is meant to expand upon an individual's mind while also teaching them skills relevant to their career. And frankly, I see that example as making less sense than teaching science and religion in tandem, especially if one's a student of religion). But your Excellency, again, if it is that much of an issue, rather than freeing theocracies to indoctrinate their students at whim by repealing this, I suggest you drop the matter and simply remove funding from institutions that are meant to teach religion, if it's that appalling to you.

[Sciongrad]

Ms. Harper doesn't quite get the idea of it: Science is one of the fundamental school subjects for understanding the world and the universe around us, irrespective of technological level. Even a compass is science.

Yes, and so all students should be required to study science in elementary school and high school. But after graduating from high school, not all students specialize in fields related to science. Some attend law school, or business school, or vocational school. These schools should not be required to offer science courses.

Only schools that both teach religious views that directly oppose peer reviewed science and receive government funding are relevant as per:

4. Whenever Religious views acknowledged as opposing peer-reviewed scientific theories are part of a school curriculum, the time allocated for teaching said peer-reviewed scientific theories in said schools shall be at least the same time that is allocated for said Religious views.

Therefore, the schools you mentioned are not relevant, as the science courses offered at them may be offered for the shortest possible duration. It's not even required that specific classes be allocated time towards teaching science - merely that it's included in the curriculum.

[Oneracon]

It should be noted that the target resolution only requires "inclusion of peer-reviewed science in schools’ curricula". It does not mandate scientific classes.

[Auralia]

It's certainly not unusual for institutes of higher education to require certain courses in any given curriculum, regardless of their relevance to their major.

Yes, but only for certain undergraduate programs. In any event, such schools should not be required to do so. Further, some schools only offer graduate programs.

But your Excellency, again, if it is that much of an issue, rather than freeing theocracies to indoctrinate their students at whim by repealing this, I suggest you drop the matter and simply remove funding from institutions that are meant to teach religion, if it's that appalling to you.

No. The target resolution is poorly written. Instead of requiring all students to have a comprehensive science education, it requires all schools (regardless of what they teach) to offer science courses. I will not allow this oversight to block Auralia - a Catholic theodemocracy - from funding seminaries.

Therefore, the schools you mentioned are not relevant, as the science courses offered at them may be offered for the shortest possible duration. It's not even required that specific classes be allocated time towards teaching science - merely that it's included in the curriculum.

So we have to force all graduate schools to offer token science courses to circumvent the provisions of a poorly-written resolution? And what of religious colleges that are covered by that provision? I'm sorry, but this is not a tenable situation.

It should be noted that the target resolution only requires "inclusion of peer-reviewed science in schools’ curricula". It does not mandate scientific classes.

I'm not certain I understand your point.

[Oneracon]

It's certainly not unusual for institutes of higher education to require certain courses in any given curriculum, regardless of their relevance to their major.

Yes, but only for certain undergraduate programs. In any event, such schools should not be required to do so. Further, some schools only offer graduate programs.

But your Excellency, again, if it is that much of an issue, rather than freeing theocracies to indoctrinate their students at whim by repealing this, I suggest you drop the matter and simply remove funding from institutions that are meant to teach religion, if it's that appalling to you.

No. The target resolution is poorly written. Instead of requiring all students to have a comprehensive science education, it requires all schools (regardless of what they teach) to offer science courses. I will not allow this oversight to block Auralia - a Catholic theodemocracy - from funding seminaries.

No, the target resolution only requires that peer-reviewed science be included in the curriculum. Would a seminary class focusing on miracles not at least briefly touch on peer-reviewed scientific research on spontaneous healings, etc.?

[Auralia]

No, the target resolution only requires that peer-reviewed science be included in the curriculum. Would a seminary class focusing on miracles not at least briefly touch on peer-reviewed scientific research on spontaneous healings, etc.?

I doubt such a class would spend equal time on scientific and religious views, as required by the resolution.

[Oneracon]

No, the target resolution only requires that peer-reviewed science be included in the curriculum. Would a seminary class focusing on miracles not at least briefly touch on peer-reviewed scientific research on spontaneous healings, etc.?

I doubt such a class would spend equal time on scientific and religious views, as required by the resolution.

Why not? Shouldn't today's clergy be well versed in both the divine and the "practical"?

If anything, it would help strengthen their positions when they discuss issues with those who hold other viewpoints.

[Auralia]

I doubt such a class would spend equal time on scientific and religious views, as required by the resolution.

Why not? Shouldn't today's clergy be well versed in both the divine and the "practical"?

If anything, it would help strengthen their positions when they discuss issues with those who hold other viewpoints.

With all due respect, who are you to determine what religious institutions should and should not teach?

[Oneracon]

Why not? Shouldn't today's clergy be well versed in both the divine and the "practical"?

If anything, it would help strengthen their positions when they discuss issues with those who hold other viewpoints.

With all due respect, who are you to determine what religious institutions should and should not teach?

I'm simply pointing out how the target resolution may actually be strengthening the education of future clergy.

[The Akashic Records]

Why not? Shouldn't today's clergy be well versed in both the divine and the "practical"?

If anything, it would help strengthen their positions when they discuss issues with those who hold other viewpoints.

With all due respect, who are you to determine what religious institutions should and should not teach?

Pardon me ambassador, but education is a vital part in the overall development of the citizens. As the ambassador of Oneracon pointed out, religious institutions should include some manner of scientific learning, so as to equip them with the knowledge of what thought those holding opposing views hold. If your idea of religious institutions include the spread of ignorance, then we are more than happy to oppose this repeal.

[Auralia]

With all due respect, who are you to determine what religious institutions should and should not teach?

I'm simply pointing out how the target resolution may actually be strengthening the education of future clergy.

That is irrelevant. It is not the WA's role to micromanage the affairs of seminaries and religious colleges.

With all due respect, who are you to determine what religious institutions should and should not teach?

Pardon me ambassador, but education is a vital part in the overall development of the citizens. As the ambassador of Oneracon pointed out, religious institutions should include some manner of scientific learning, so as to equip them with the knowledge of what thought those holding opposing views hold. If your idea of religious institutions include the spread of ignorance, then we are more than happy to oppose this repeal.

Students attending such institutions have already received instruction in the sciences as part of their primary and secondary education.

[The Akashic Records]

Students attending such institutions have already received instruction in the sciences as part of their primary and secondary education.

So, they shouldn't have the option to further their theological studies alongside science?

[Auralia]

Students attending such institutions have already received instruction in the sciences as part of their primary and secondary education.

So, they shouldn't have the option to further their theological studies alongside science?

Of course they should have the option. A student can take theology classes at one school, and science classes at another.

Do you now see the issue with the target resolution? It micromanages specific schools, rather than simply requiring that students have access to a quality science education.

[Alqania]

"Seeing as how the target resolution neither defines 'science' or 'schools', some member states sure seem to be implementing it with a distinct lack of creativity", observed Lord Raekevik. "Alqanian law considers schools and higher education institutions to be legally separate and distinct categories of institutions and we only implement the target resolution on schools."

[Republic of Greater America]

Opposed. Everyone must be able to have at least basic knowledge of natural, physical, and chemical science (Biology, Chemistry, and the last me is obvious), along with Physics, because in order to succeed in today's world, a good foundation in science is required.

[Abacathea]

Apologies dear Auralia, but in this instance we simply do not share the stance you have adopted and as a result cannot support this legislation.

We wish you the best in the process nonetheless

[Saveyou Island]

Strongly opposed. Science is a fundamental school subject, and it is a subject that will be applied in the real world, therefore students should be able to understand it:and religion should not be used as a reason to oppose such a fine piece of legislation.