Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Government United States Politics

Voting A Class Requirement For Some At Drew 96

Posted by timothy from the such-a-pretty-campus-too dept.
timrichardson writes "A Quaker literature professor at Drew University tried to make voting at the US Presidential elections a requirement for her English Lit class. NY Times has the story (free registration required)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Voting A Class Requirement For Some At Drew More

Voting A Class Requirement For Some At Drew

Comments Filter:

  • This would be a good idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:13PM (#10355833) Journal
    ...if it was for a poli sci class, especially one focusing on America. I can't make any sense out of it being a requirement for English lit.

    Rob
    • This is not an outrageous requirement. If the students are not citizens, it could be an issue. However, that can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

      If all teachers mandated voting as a class requirement, this country might have a better voting age distribution. The student population, a demographic overrepresented in both the radical left and right, ultimately has the lowest voter turnout rates.

      If this (hopefully tenured) English literature professor recognizes this issue, why shouldn't she be pe

      • The idea is that English lit teachers are supposed to teach English lit. Whether or not their students vote is really irrelevant to their job, and thus shouldn't be made relevant to their students' grades (except possibly as optional extra credit). Whether or not this should be considered an indictment of our educational system is up to you, but this is the way our system is set up right now, like it or not.

        BTW, I didn't have to take English in college due to AP scores. But I get your point.

        Rob (Why is

        • Re:This would be a good idea... (Score:5, Informative)

          by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @06:10PM (#10357470)
          Why is the fact that she's a Quaker relevant, anyway?)

          Because the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a LONG history of social activism and one of the cores of Quakerism is the belief that every individual counts and it is important that each person act according to his or her conscience.

          Quakers have been at the forefront of political movements to empower individuals and recognize equality since the 1600's, when George Fox started them. (For example, Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker.)
          • Plus, their oats are fantastic.
            • Actually, there are a number of times Quakers have boycotted Quaker Oats. They may have the name, but they don't have our backing, and, as far as I know, have no connection with any Friends (as Quakers refer to themselves or other members). Maybe, at one time, they may have been run by the Friends, but that influence is gone. When your religion is one of non-violence and a company that uses the name starts giving away Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger toys in cerials, it is not amusing. That's be like a comp
              • A minor correction: don't call any brainwashed coward who blows up innocent people a martyr. Martyrs are supposed to die bravely for a just cause.
                • In their eyes, and the eyes of those doing the brainwashing, it is a just cause. I don't agree, and I don't feel their actions can, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination, be justified.

                  One person's political movement is another person's holy war, and someone else's thorn in the side. It's a function of point of view.

                  And yes, anyone too afraid to live their life for a cause instead of dying quickly to get it over with and kill others, is a coward.
      • If all teachers mandated voting as a class requirement, this country might have a better voting age distribution. The student population, a demographic overrepresented in both the radical left and right, ultimately has the lowest voter turnout rates.

        And you have thousands of uneducated voters who don't care who they vote for, so they'd vote for the candidate they've heard of the most or gives them tax breaks on their hot new Porsche Carrera GT. They'd vote only because they had to to pass the class, not
      • There is nothing harassing, offending, or illegal about it

        Umm requireing me to vote for a grade is harassing, offensive, and I would imagine illegal. A teacher can no more require a student to vote than an employer can..

        • It is not harassing, it is your responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. The least these students could get is get a little kick in the rear to go and vote.

          If choosing your next president (or, as /.ers might comprehend, "[evil] overlord") is offensive to you, you ought to move to a fascist state in which your name is simply assigned to a predetermined vote.

          Illegal? Private universities can require whatever they please so long as it is not discriminatory (or against an explicit stat

          • Illegal? Private universities can require whatever they please so long as it is not discriminatory (or against an explicit state or federal law). If there is any question as to the legality of an action, it's up to the student to appeal to a court.

            They can't require you to smoke weed, they can't require you to work for less then minimum wage, they can't require you to shoot cops, and they can't require you to vote. It's illegal to force or even reward anyone for voting.
            • Im pretty sure those are all against explicit state and federal laws. I for one feel that requiring people to vote is both ineffective and pointless. If they didnt care enough to vote, why would they care enough to research before voting? Enter more random votes chosen via 30 sec sound bites.
            • Everything you mentioned, with the exception of forcing members of a private organization to vote, IS illegal.

              They can't require you to smoke weed,
              Smoking marijuana violates federal law.

              they can't require you to work for less then minimum wage,
              It is illegal for an employer to pay less than minimum wage.

              they can't require you to shoot cops,
              Again, shooting someone for the hell of it is illegal, no matter who you're shooting.

              and they can't require you to vote. It's illegal to force or even reward an
          • It is not harassing, it is your responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. The least these students could get is get a little kick in the rear to go and vote.

            Its not this teachers job to 'kick them in the but', if the teacher makes a speech about why its important to vote, great I am all for the effort. I never miss an election but thats my right, it would also be my right to sit on my rear at home and not vote, its called freedom.

            Private universities can require whatever they please s

    • .. an electoral authority of some kind?

      How is it possible that such a person thinks that it is OK to force people to do something which should be a free individual decission?

      Why are there so many idiots on this thread justifying sombeody requiring this?

      No wonder democracy is being undermined so badly, most people, even literature teachers, do not get it.

      What an amazing and outrageous state of affairs.
      • How is it possible that such a person thinks that it is OK to force people to do something which should be a free individual decission?

        Sort of like reading Moby Dick? Or The Great Gatsby? There are certain requirements you must meet in order to pass a class you voluntarily signed up for. Being "forced" to excercise your Constitutional right and, more importantly, civic duty hardly sounds like a ball breaker.

        --trb
    • I can't make any sense out of it being a requirement for English lit.

      Well, perhaps the elections are taking place during the unit on tragedy. Or comedy.

    • Suppose that a person is so indifferent to current events that she never votes. If someone then compelled her to vote, her vote would be an uninformed vote. Her vote would be no different than a vote that is cast by flipping a coin for the best candidate.

      How can this kind of vote possibly advance democracy?

      • If someone then compelled her to vote, her vote would be an uninformed vote.

        Like 90% of the other votes. All that getting more people to vote would do is get more people active in things that actually affect their future.

        Rob
    • How is this story different from say, if a teacher required her students to say the pledge in class or fly a flag from their home? There is not law that requires any of these, and the same arguments about patriotism and citizenship could be made for either. But if we were talking about the the pledge, I'll bet more people would be upset... what is the difference?
    • The moral question, I suppose, is not if she should be able to force them to vote, but /should/ she force them to vote.

      Americans pride themselves on their freedom so much that being stupid has also become a freedom, in an half-assed fashion. Following this to its logical conclusion, she's wrong to deny them this right; but she's also a professor in an university, in a English department, and these usually give their instructors some leeway on teaching methods (I'm a unversity TA right now and have consider
  • or is he just plain stupid?

    I mean, he should know that this is a thing he shouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole("forcing" people to go vote).

    he should've just arranged some imaginary voting setting.. or have them all research who it would be best to vote for - but not fucking mess with the elections itself(I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt).
    • I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt

      Why? She's not telling them to vote for a specific person (I'm assuming; I'm too lazy to register and RTFA); she's just telling them to vote. I don't think that that's illegal, nor do I think it should be.

      Rob
      • **Why? She's not telling them to vote for a specific person (I'm assuming; I'm too lazy to register and RTFA); she's just telling them to vote. I don't think that that's illegal, nor do I think it should be.**

        that doesn't matter, just that you're making them go to vote is meddling with the free elections already.

        you know how the not-so-free nations achieve their high voting percentage(apart from just twisting the numbers)? staying out of voting should be an option if you they all just suck too much.

        i'm
        • you know how the not-so-free nations achieve their high voting percentage(apart from just twisting the numbers)?

          Yes, they force their citizens to vote for a specific party. You can choose to abstain if you don't want to vote for anyone in the Presidential race, BTW; there are many other offices and issues to vote on in this election. It's even possible to abstain on everything, even though there wouldn't be much of a point in turning in an empty ballot.

          Rob
      • ...escapes your intellectual capacity of judging a situation in which it looses its meaning?

        Free elecetions, no ifs, no buts.

        My goodness, no wonder people give away their freedoms and liberties for a meagre false sense of security (and bread and circus of course)
      • I dont think this teacher should Force the students to vote because then you would have many people who would just pick a random canadate to vote for. However, assigning it for extra credit, which would provide an incentive for those who are just too lazy to vote, would be a good idea. I would guess if your taking a class on the U.S.A., you would already be educated enough to vote, so i see logic in doung it during English. I certainly will vote when i can (4 years)

    • Re:was he asking for trouble? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:37PM (#10355984)
      I can think of far more objectionable things to do, and I can think of a lot of classes where I've had to do them all. And you know, all those classes, if I'd had a legitimate problem with doing what I was asked to, I could've spoken with the prof and gotten out of it. There's not a doubt in my mind that this prof would be similarly understanding. I mean, if I can provide a reasoned, well-thought out explanation of why I decline to vote, doesn't that accomplish everything the prof hopes for here? In his place I'd be ecstatic, because I expect half the kids in the class can't tell GWB from JFK.

      Note that I didn't RTFA. Maybe he makes a liar out of me by saying he will not, under any circumstances, excuse anyone. I really wish Slashdot wouldn't run NYT stories.

      • **I mean, if I can provide a reasoned, well-thought out explanation of why I decline to vote, doesn't that accomplish everything the prof hopes for here? **

        ah but just having to provide any kind of explanation at all for that, to someone else than you yourself, is messing with the total freedom of the elections. even if it's a totally bogus reason you would provide. as not showing up at the voting place is a decision too, that affects the outcome of the voting.

        he should have used other methods to make the
        • Not only didn't you RTFA, you didn't read the little blurb that the Tims so kindly posted for your convenience.

          She said she'd grade generously and on the honor system. She requires them to register, go to the polling place, and enter the booth. She does not tell them who to vote for, she does not require them to vote. It's sort of like a field trip where they can participate if they'd like, but if they just watch and learn something about the process, that's fine, too.

          Her goal is to provoke discussi

      • Mod ctr2sprt up!

        This is the exact point i got from RTFA.
        The students are not forced to vote, but the prof is encouraging voting by letting the students know that it will somehow affect their grade.
        TFA is short and at the end u get the idea that the prof's ulterior motive is to start a dialog on campus, not FORCE students to vote.

        I'd be more interested in the voter turnout for the campus vs last year's turnout...
    • So, given your various comments, you think that mandatory voting can't exist in a free nation ?

      Umh, I didn't felt like that when I was still living in Belgium (btw, same for Netherlands, Australia and a few others).

    • I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt

      Actually, in some countries (like Australia) voting is compulsory and you pay a fine if you don't vote.

  • How would the professor know? (Score:4, Informative)

    by HAKdragon ( 193605 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `nogardkah'> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:28PM (#10355928)
    Honestly, how can you prove that you voted? Unless she makes everybody present one of those "I voted today" stickers they hand out at the voting centers.

    An interesting aside to this article, Fox reporters harrassed students trying to register their peers to vote in Arizona. [commondreams.org].
    • How did your high school teacher know that your dog was incapable of consuming an entire English thesis? It's the same thing here - lies are rather transparent. You'd be surprised how many people, when asked who they voted for, would crumple.
    • Not to point out the painfully obvious but, "RTFA". The prof notes she can NOT be sure everyone voted - it's on the honour system. So, unless you're a hideously ethical person that's also painfully stupid, you will either follow the requirement in good faith or smile and lie.
    • Actually, she later changed this to a requirement that her class turn up to vote, rather than actually casting a vote. The famous "compulsory voting" in Australia is similar: it is not actually compulsory to vote, contrary to popular myth: it is only compulsory that you turn up to a polling station. No one knows what you do afterwards: vote, not vote, vote incorrectly ...

    • Obviously, the professor waives the requirement for students who aren't eligible to vote. But to qualify for the exemption, wouldn't the student have to tell the professor that he is not an American citizen or is a convicted felon? And if the student got a bad grade later on, couldn't the student allege discrimination?

    • Thanks for posting that link. In my mind, Fox News deserves far more condemnation for openly discouraging students from voting in this manner, than does this professor for encouraging students to vote. The stark contrast between the incidents is telling.
      • It wasn't Fox News (tm). It was a local station's news staff, and the station just happened to be a Fox affiliate.

  • So what if some students CANNOT vote? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:53PM (#10356083) Homepage
    Sounds very odd for a lit class.

    Some students may be in-eligible to vote -- too young, non-US citizens, felons, ... etc.

    For other students, it might be quite a morass to figure out if they can vote away from their home presincts. Different state laws.

    Of course, silliness must [statictically] happen.

    • The only siliness here is your post.

      Ofcourse the professor is going to use her discretion with students who can not vote. Obviously if you thought of this problem so did she.

      For other students, it might be quite a morass to figure out if they can vote

      I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you have not attended a university, or the one you did attend wasn't very good. A good university professor is always more interested in the methods used to achieve a goal then the actual goal itself. In
      • I'll ignore the "ad hominem" -- I don't think you really mean to concede the argument.

        From the storm of peer objections, I'm not sure how much the professor thought.

        Students, especially undergrad, are a skittish bunch. Many do not understand that a good argument will be just as acceptable to a good professor. Perhaps because such arguments have failed on bad profs. Then again, some may not wish to discuss their voting status. Are they not entitled to privacy?

        BTW, I'm personally with the objectors. N

    • Very few university students are under 18. They and the others who have a legitimate reason to not participate will surely be excused or given an alternative assignment.

      Students have a choice to register and vote either at their school home or at their permanent home. It's shouldn't be hard at either place, if it is, this assignment will alert everyone to a problem in the system.

      • If I only had mod points....

        Students have a choice to register and vote either at their school home or at their permanent home.
        It's shouldn't be hard at either place, if it is, this assignment will alert everyone to a problem in the system.
        IMO there probably isn't a problem in the system... just apathy among citizens.
      • umm, I started university at the age of fifteen, rather too young to be eligible to vote, much less even donate blood, and I got quite a ribbing when my friends founf out I couldn not donate blood at the school's blood drive without my parents' permission, but the bonus was that I got credit for my group for showing up to donate even if I couldn't donate yet. Ah yes, the silent minority of student minors.

        On the bad goof side, I didn't realize until later that I could have joined ROTC, rec'd the money and

  • Good compromise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:07PM (#10356176) Homepage
    As a requirement for a sociology course on death and grieving we were required to go to a mortuary and bring back price lists for coffins, burials, etc. For a theater course, we had to see 3 productions external to the campus. For a japanese course, we had to go to Yahoan, a japanese supermarket. A civics course required the participation in a city government town-hall meeting. A course on aging required interviewing the elderly and nursing home attendants.

    External requirements for coursework are not at all uncommon, and are generally more useful than in-classroom coursework. If you could choose between two engineers, one of which studied dilligintly in the classroom but had no experience and one of which was required to get an internship in the field, who would you pick?

    Requiring students to enter a voting booth is definitely fair, and should pass muster with basically anyone in acadamia. While it is questionable whether or not you can require your students to vote, you can definitely require them to be physically present anywhere they are legally allowed to be. I do wish the requirement were more stringent... I.E. go or have your grade reduced by point five. But the concept of making your students participate in government activities is sound, and I wish more professors (and high-school teachers) would lean this direction.

    After all, where are kids going to learn the mechanical, tedious process of signing up to vote, finding their polling station, etc? From 15 second rock-the-vote ads?

    • This was not requireing them to go to (or watch) a debate, the was requireing them (putting major pressure) for them to vote. Voting is good, I have never nissed an election, but nobody can reuire me to go into a voting booth. This excersize was the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen from a prof. Part of having the freedom to vote is having the freedom not to vote, and this teacher attempted to take that away.

      you can definitely require them to be physically present anywhere they are legally allowed

      • Not true, a teacher could not require you be in a bar, or a strip club regardless of your age or state laws.

        If the course were about alcohol sales or the commodification of sexuality they could definitely require students to go to either place. Relevance to the course would be key of course, but if there was a legitimate educational reason to link 19th century American literature (which I assume is ripe with democratic idealism) with the modern interpretation thereof then the requirement of students to
    • Did you ener RTF Blurb? It's a goddamn Lit Professor!

      When I take certian classes, I expect outside work. But for Lit? WTF?

  • Swayed by the mounting disagreement and the prospect of legal challenges, Professor Skaggs scaled back the requirement before school began. Framing the requirement in the vocabulary of the experiential learning that the school champions, Professor Skaggs said students would be required only to enter the voting booth; if they wished, they did not have to pull the lever. Students who are not American citizens would get a pass on the requirement.

    Professor Skaggs said the penalty for failing to enter the vo

  • Quakers vote? Since when?
    • I think they meant on the video game Quake where people vote to kick certain players off.

    • Maybe he bought into the pop slogan of "anyone but Bush", and is now convinced that voting is more important than his religious principles. A shame.
      • Maybe he bought into the pop slogan of "anyone but Bush", and is now convinced that voting is more important than his religious principles. A shame.

        Maybe there is a complete misunderstanding of Quakers in this forum. As I said in response to the other post, (link to other post [slashdot.org]).

        To be honest, and I'm not trying to troll, your comment shows you have almost now knowledge of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Of all the Quakers I know (and, yes, I'm one), almsot every one of them, every time, wil
        • I know a few Quakers, and have even attended some meetings. While it is true that every good Quaker will do his or her best to do what they believe is right, they don't all necessarily act consistantly. Just like the rest of us :-)

          Getting involved in politics is certainly not out of place. But seeking to impose a political opinion upon another is a different matter. And that's what voting is. You're voting on who will be Caesar, on who will wield the scepter of force. I just can't see my Quaker friends vot
    • I don't see why this is funny, unless the fact that Quakers are such a small minority that most people know little about them and making comments that show their lack of knowledge on a topic is funny.

      Susan B. Anthony, for example, was a Quaker. The Religious Society of Friends has been at the forefront of many political movements. Quakers believe that each individual is important and that it is our duty, as individuals, to speak up for what we believe is right.

      It's not, "Quakers vote? Since when?" It'
      • Actually, I'm thinking of my high-school buddy who was, !!, a Quaker. They live in S.C. and go to a Methodist church, but their official church is in N.C. and have remained Quakers for the 10 years that I've known them. They don't drink and they don't vote.
        • Interesting. That's the first I've ever heard of Quakers that didn't vote.

          You don't know anything like whether they're a programmed or unprogrammed Meeting, or if they're under Friend's General Conference or Friends United Meeting, by chance, do you? (That would tell me just how conservative their Meeting is and what branch they're in.)
          • I grew up quaker, but haven't been to meeting in years.
            Once I understood the schizm between the programmed and unprogrammed worship (disclosure: my meeting was unprogrammed) I decided to worship alone.

            This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.

            All that's beside the point.
            My main point being that there probably are some Friends/Quakers that don't vote, but I'd agree that it's a small fraction. What's the percentage of christians/catholics that don't vote?
            Isn't the low voter turnout the
  • If you read the article, you will see:

    Framing the requirement in the vocabulary of the experiential learning that the school champions, Professor Skaggs said students would be required only to enter the voting booth

    If the school has an open policy of being experimental, I think it buys them and the professors a lot of slack on stuff like this. Whether we think it's justified on its own merits or not, it's an experiment - students already signed up to be subjected to odd or unusual conditions. Let's

  • Weird... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kjones692 ( 805101 )
    To me, this is the weirdest part of the article:

    Professor Skaggs said the penalty for failing to enter the voting booth, which would be done on the honor system, would probably be "a failure to be generous" on her part when it comes time to issue grades and "an inclination to round fractions down."

    So, if you don't complete this external activity, she'll have a slight bias against you for the rest of the year? The problem is that it's so subjective you have really no way of knowing how fair she's being i

  • I have a religious objection to voting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) <amphigory@@@gmail...com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:55PM (#10356465)
    I have a religious objection to voting, since I believe that I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God (who happens to live in the United States.) I pay taxes, I submit to the authorities of this country, and I will help it in any way my consciences allows - but I won't pretend it is my own. This is far from an unheard of point of view - many Quakers and Mennonites have held it for centuries.

    If this were a political science class, she might have a case for this being a necessary requirement (although I would still feel strongly that students should be allowed to substitute an explanation for their decision NOT to vote for voting.) As it is, it presents a massive chilling effect on the religious freedom of withdrawal.

    • Re:I have a religious objection to voting (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But do you have a religious aversion to entering a polling booth. The article stated that the requirement wasn't too vote, just to enter the booth...
      • Unless you are a member of a religion based on lies and deceit, such actions would be viewed as disingenuous and therefore 'not right'. Proximity to a booth would not in its self be wrong. I personally would be compeled not to answer if asked if I had voted.
    • Does it say in the article that the professor would not accept an explanation of a decision not to vote as a substitute for the assignment? I know if I were the professor I would, and I think it would be entirely reasonable to require the assignment and then deal with such objections on a case by case basis. I don't see how this differs from the class on death that someone mentioned earlier that requires students to visit the morgue. Any student with an objection can certainly voice that, and the teacher
    • many Quakers ... have held it for centuries.

      As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide.

      Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of u

      • As I've said in another post, I have NEVER talked to a fellow Quaker who has passed up a chance to vote. While we believe in concensus instead of rule of the majority, at this point, democratic (techincally republic, in USA) governments are the closest we have to such a government. While some Quakers may not vote, that would be a minority in a minority that numbers less than a quarter of a million worldwide. Quakers believe firmly in "that of God" in each of us, and that when a person speaks, he or she s

    • I believe that I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God (who happens to live in the United States.)

      God lives in the United States? Cool!

  • "Presidential" elections? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JavaRob ( 28971 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @03:53PM (#10356781) Homepage Journal
    ...voting at the US Presidential elections

    Ok, this rant is already in my sig, but I will expand a bit here since it's on topic. There are no "US Presidential elections", where you show up at the polls, vote for the president, and go home.

    I don't know if this professor is presenting it this way to the students or not, but most U.S. citizens seem to see it this way. It's shamefully common for people to say "Eh, why vote? I'm in a swing state!"

    There are plenty of more items on every ballot -- local and state representatives, and propositions that your local/state government wants your feedback on before they change the laws.

    You are NOT just going to vote for the POTUS -- so if you don't show just because you're not in a swing state, all you're doing is saying "I don't care" to all of the local and state decisions that are going to be made until the next election... and trust me, you WILL care about some of them.

    Back to the specific topic -- some people might have their specific reasons for NOT voting (it's a pretty dumb way to protest against the system, but there could be religious reasons, etc.), so I'd argue instead for an assignment where the student does everything to vote (including ensuring they are registered, and getting a mail-in ballot if necessary), and documents what they did -- then has the personal option to actually cast a vote or not.

    Same idea (and a great assignment, I think), without the iffy aspects.

  • Freedom in forced voting? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Money for Nothin' ( 754763 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @04:13PM (#10356878)
    Where's the freedom in forced voting? As Americans, is it not the right of the people not only to decide *whom* they're going to vote for, but *whether* they will vote at all?

    Granted, this is a private school, and if they are funded strictly by private funds, then they can legitimately make this a requirement (students can go to other universities if they disagree with the requirement). But if the university receives government funding in any way - for research, etc. - then they are not wholly-privately-funded, they are funded in part by the public as well, and thus should be subject to the same 1st Amendment rights that government entities are.
  • First, like many posters, I don't like anybody with power -- a boss, a teacher, a union official, a wife or husband or parent -- abusing that power to make other people vote.

    Also, from a pedagogical point of view, how is the act of entering a voting booth related to the study of literature? Somebody can enter the booth whether they've read 0 pages or 1000 pages of campaign literature.

    Here's a tougher and more relevant requirement: get a comment moderated "4" or "5" on slashdot, not counting "funny". Eve
  • ...to vote or not. Yes they may have to deal with a slight bias against them, but how I understood it was that she would fail to be generous; maening that she would not give out any freebies. These kids are not being penalized, just denied anything extra that they could have recieved, if they had done something extra. Hmmm, sounds like extra credit to me. As for the teacher "forcing" the students to vote, whoever thinks that is full of it. The teacher is not going to follow them around and force them into t
  • I personally believe every body should vote. I would also support forcing people by law to return their ballots. Not vote mind you, just a law saying that you must hand in your ballot paper, either in person or by post, to a polling station. A "none of the above" option could even be added.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close