We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Academic Freedom 2060
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Progressive Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2061
Description[?]:
| Upon passage by the Congress of National Deputies, teacher-led prayers within public schools shall be banned. Home-schooling will be permitted to give an opportunity for parents who wish to school their children in a certain style, but cannot afford private school tuition, to do so. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Education for children under adult age.
Old value:: Education is compulsory and has to happen at school.
Current: Education is compulsory and has to happen at school.
Proposed: Education is compulsory, but home schooling is permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to prayer in schools.
Old value:: The government leaves this decision up to the schools themselves.
Current: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden, except in religious schools.
Proposed: Teacher-led prayers in schools are forbidden.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:01:48, May 31, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | Once again we propose this bill in order to ensure the protection of religious minorities and people of all faiths who attend our public schools so as to prevent any cases of teacher bias. Teacher's are representatives of the PUBLIC school system, that means ALL of our citizens, therefore they must not lead prayer in the PUBLIC's classrooms during the hours of work. Doing so would be showing bias to a particular practice of a certain faith among our population which goes against the meritocratic and democratic principles PUBLIC EDUCATION is based on. This is also a case of forced indoctrination at the expense of learning time. |
| Date | 09:23:40, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Catholic Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | Do you know how many times this has been proposed and defeated? We would think by now it would lead to common sence but i guess not. We ONCE AGAIN...vote against this. |
| Date | 09:40:59, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Centre Party of Gaduridos | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | In the spirit of compromise, we might be willing to vote for this bill - IF you add on a proposal to allow home schooling, so that parents who want their children schooled in a religious atmosphere, and who can't afford private schools, can do so. |
| Date | 12:00:58, May 31, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | Good suggestion, DCP, I am willing to consider this. I will wait to see some more feedback. As to the comment by the Conservative Catholics, just because you vote something down doesn't mean we won't do our jobs and voice the opinions of those constituents that elected us. |
| Date | 12:27:45, May 31, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | I see the merit in the DCP's point, therefore I have added their suggested proposal. Please share your opinions though. |
| Date | 13:13:53, May 31, 2005 CET | From | National Democratic Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | i shall vote no for this bill...but I do agree with homeschooling |
| Date | 17:04:03, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Centre Party of Gaduridos | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | We support the bill, and are very pleased with the changes made. |
| Date | 20:33:27, May 31, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | I'll move this to vote soon. |
| Date | 21:20:22, May 31, 2005 CET | From | National Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | You have our full support, but it wont pass. |
| Date | 22:16:24, May 31, 2005 CET | From | People's Progressive Party | To | Debating the Academic Freedom 2060 |
| Message | Its not about passing it or not, its about standing on principles and voicing the ideas and views of those constituents who voted us in to do that. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 124 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 164 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 63 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings." - Franklin Thomas |