Is it ok to train kids to terrorise?

[Gob]

An assignment that asked West Australian high school students to plan a terrorist attack that would kill as many innocent people as possible was inappropriate, insensitive and disappointing, according to the education director general.

Sharyn O'Neill said people were rightly upset by the assignment, which was set by a society and environment teacher at the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Community High School last week.

The in-class task told Year 10 students to pretend they were terrorists planning a chemical or biological attack on "an unsuspecting Australian community".

''Your goal is to kill the MOST innocent civilians in order to get your message across,'' the assignment said.

The students had to explain their choice of victims and decide the best time and place for their attack.

Ms O'Neill said the teacher had been working for about three years and had set the task to get students to see conflict "through someone else's eyes".

"Now I think there are better ways to do that, I think it was an inappropriate choice and poor judgement exercise by the teacher," Ms O'Neill said.

"The teacher in question was trying to engage the students, have them think about world occurrences from a different perspective, on this occasion she got it wrong, she certainly learned that lesson."

She has requested a report from the school and said the teacher had been counselled.

"This teacher from all accounts is a well regarded teacher. She's made a mistake, who doesn't make a mistake from time to time?" she said.

"She's taken it hard, she's remorseful, her heart's in it for the kids and she wants to get on with that job."

WA Council of State Schools president Robert Fry said he was stunned by the assignment and that there was "something amiss" in the teacher's training.

"I couldn't believe that a teacher could ask a class to do that," Mr Fry said.

"Maybe this (teacher) needs to go back to university to learn a bit more. There's obviously something missed out in the training."

"There's an expectation of standards and we would expect that (the assignment) would not have made it to students."

He congratulated Year 10 student Sarah Gilbert, who brought the matter to the deputy principal's attention.

Sarah said she was horrified with the assignment and asked the teacher for an alternative but was told she had to complete it.

"She is a good teacher, she's one of the best that we have and it just really shocked me that she'd ask us to do this," the student told Radio 6PR.

Sarah's mother, Tania Gilbert, said she was also "quite shocked" and said after it was brought to the deputy principal's attention it was still not withdrawn.

"Sarah said she didn't want to do the assignment and I told her that that was fine by me," Ms Gilbert said.

"The deputy told the class that they didn't have to do the assignment and it wouldn't affect their grades, but the assignment wasn't changed."

The school's principal, Terry Martino, agreed the assignment was inappropriate, and said he had the task withdrawn as soon as he was aware of its content.|

But Sarah said some students had handed it in despite being "appalled" by the concept.

"I know people who have handed it in... I had a friend who had the same opinion as me but she did it because she needed the extra marks," she said.

Ms O'Neill said students who had completed the work in class the same day the task was set had handed it in.

Sarah's mother was quoted as saying the assignment was doubly offensive because a member of her extended family had been killed in the 2002 Bali bombings.

Mr Martino said students were reminded that the teacher was not promoting terrorism and that if they chose not to complete the assignment they wouldn't be disadvantaged.

''The teacher, who is relatively inexperienced, made a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to engage the students in an assignment on contemporary conflict and how beliefs and values influence the behaviours and motives of individuals,'' Mr Martino said.

"I have spoken to the teacher and she is very remorseful and understands that the topic was inappropriate and potentially disturbing and upsetting to students and their families."

He said the incident should be viewed as one mistake by a hard working, keen young teacher "who is highly regarded by both staff, students and the community."


http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/stude ... .html#poll

I don't see any problem with it myself.

Hatch is year ten, and I'm sure investigating this, and coming up with creative ideas around the topic, would be a good way of informing her on how terrorists work.

[Scooter]

I don't see that getting high school chidren to imagine how terrorists think and work is a bad thing. I can see how a teacher should be sensitive to the possibility that students may have been personally affected by a terrorist attack, and perhaps tailor the assignment accordingly.

In preparation for studying Wyndham's The Chrysalids in ninth grade, our teacher gave us an assignment in which we were allocated ten nuclear bombs and had to decide where to target them. I don't recall anyone being "appalled" by the experience, and this was at a time (late 70s) when the threat of nuclear war still loomed large.

[loCAtek]

Wait a sec, Columbine students acting out a terrorist attack is a bad thing; but training students how to do a terrorist attack is fine?



What's so hard to understand about terrorists anyway, that you have to study them?

Megalomania isn't hard to spot.

[Gob]

Nobody was training them "how to do a terrorist attack" Lo, they were being asked how one could be devised to cause maximum casualties.

They were being asked to think in the ways that terrorists may think in order to understand them better.

[loCAtek]

Nobody was training them "how to do a terrorist attack" Lo, they were being asked how one could be devised to cause maximum casualties.

Which is worse.

The 'why' to enact terrorism (instead of the 'how') is best explored psychologically rather than methodically.

You should know 'why' you are willing to commit 'terror' before you are instructed in methods on 'how' to do it.




...


because otherwise, you'll commit terror for any excuse!

[Gob]

Who is to say that these things hadn't been already covered in other earlier lessons.

This could be an assignment at the end of a series of classes.

[loCAtek]

Not really the point; looking at the Statement on studies of society and environment for Australian schools (what the class is supposed to be teaching), it says;

There are the three clusters of shared values: democratic process, social justice and ecological sustainability.

Social Justice is described as; "values such as concern for the welfare, rights and dignity of all people; empathy with people of different cultures and societies; fairness; and commitment to redressing disadvantage and to changing discriminatory and violent practices. These values contribute to students' understanding of what is involved in achieving a fair and just society.

What do you feel is involved in terrorism, that achieves a fair and just society, that hatch should be learning?

[Big RR]

Lo--one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighting; why couldn't positive change be achieved by freedom fighting?

[loCAtek]

In Australia? The point was; 'changing discriminatory and violent practices.'

[Big RR]

I think the focus was "all people", not just the people in Australia; to understand how sometimes social justice may be sought through violence and the how and why of that. It could be used to teach that the "terrorists' are not just a bunch of mindless fanatics, but people dedicated to a cause who carefully and methodically plan ways to achieve their goals. If nothing else, it shows that even intelligent people can be seduced by fanaticism, and why it should be watched for.

[Scooter]

So long as we're going to pretend to be experts in Australian curriculum by quoting selectively:

Technology pervades students' lives and has a profound impact on both societies and environments. Students learn about its development, application and use in different times and places and how this has been influenced by cultural context. They explore technology's impact on their own lives, on the local environment, and within a wider context. How societies make choices about technology is also investigated and the access of various groups to technology carefully examined. Students evaluate options in the development, application and use of technology. They consider what technology is available to them and why, and decide what technology will enhance their investigation, participation and communication, and if and when it is appropriate to use it.

The exercise finds justification in every sentence of this paragraph.

You have an opinion about the wisdom behind this exercise, that is fine. But don't pretend it to be anything more than that, or to be girded by any sort of authority. It isn't.

[loCAtek]

Whoa Scoot, you've outted me on the posting style I've admitted to since 9/11. Form an opinion; research the topic; then provide a link to the source of the research. I don't recall saying it or I was an authority. Modesty forbids.


BiggRR, the majority of curriculums teach the American Revolution, the Mexican Revolution or the French Revolution; and the history of 'Freedom Fighters' without going into weapons and tactics, in High School. Usually battle strategies are specialized courses in College, or degrees in Military Officer Schools. The history of the struggle is focused on the politics, rather than the logistics. You learn more about the humanity that way.

Attacking an opponent's innocent civilians is a very modern tactic to the twentieth century, meant to demoralize AKA 'terrorize' before any real fighting takes place. It's an act of desperation: before when armies used to face each other on the battlefield, now one adversary already knows they would be at a disadvantage, and so unjustly target the defenseless and uninvolved.


The greatest difference between terrorists and 'freedom fighters' is crossing that line of harming innocents. Again, that's best understood by studying the politics, not the logistics.

[Scooter]

Attacking an opponent's innocent civilians is a very modern tactic to the twentieth century

You haven't studied much history, have you?

[loCAtek]

As said: no, I'm not an authority. Your point being to;

...debate, educate or obfuscate?

[Scooter]

point out gross errors of fact

[loCAtek]

How so? ...(this why I try to back up my assertions with links) and, how is this better/worse for adolescent education?

[Scooter]

Because one could name many, many, many conflicts prior to the twentieth century where civilians were targeted for atrocities - the Hundred Years' War, the Wars of the Roses, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years' War, wars between indigenous peoples of the Americas, wars between those indigenous peoples and European settlers (and their descendants), to name a few that are confined just to medieval and modern European/American history..."rape and pillage" is not exactly a novel concept of the 20th century...if one considers also the siege of population centres and looting by armies for supplies which would knowingly cause starvation among civilian populations, the list expands to include pretty much every conflict longer than a few weeks duration, including the U.S. Revolutionary and Civil Wars...

[loCAtek]

You're talking about armies engaged in war and/or conquest; civilians got in the way as collateral damage, but they were not the intended targets. Pillaging and looting, while terrorizing to the populous, is intended to re-supply a force or army, or seize the territory for that forces use.
When the intent is to harm innocent civilians and there is no other purpose served; that is not war, that is terrorism.

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[25]

Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.

...

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[31] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians

Wiki

[Big RR]

I can't agre with your defintion of terrorism, Lo; most actions occur for more than one reason. For example, while Sherman foraged and siezed supplies for his army, he also intended to burn and terrorize the civilian population to make them realize their positions was futile (he charcterized it as "maling the south howl"). Carpet bombing of civilian (or primarily civilian areas by axis and allied troops accomplished quite the same thing. the point of terrorism is to demoralize the population and make them tire of the fight/acquiesce to the goals of the terrorists. Face it, in "raping and pillaging", rape is neother collateral damage, not a legitimate activity of soldiers because they are separated from their sex partners, it is designed to terrorize the population at home, and demoralize the fighting men to desert and go home and protect their wives and daughters. It's terrorism, pure and simple, and has been used for centuries.

[loCAtek]

Carpet bombing of civilian (or primarily civilian areas by axis and allied troops accomplished quite the same thing.

Granted, many agree that deliberate terrorist acts on civilians began during WWII, which was why I stated that it was a tactic to the twentieth century. However, again your examples are in the context of engaging a war. Today, those kinds of actions are considered 'war crimes' under the Geneva Convention. Outside of the context of a war, these kinds of actions are terrorism, and are considered crimes. Which is what we've seen happening in modern times: the harming of innocent civilians outside of any context. ...which is why I don't think it's appropriate to teach in school.