> "An amazing thing took place at Carmel High School’s graduation. One of our students Jack Higgins was presented with his diploma. Jack graduated after 8 years. He is a wonderful member of our student community. Jack has autism and with that comes sensory issues. At graduation the student body and several thousand individuals were asked to not clap or cheer so Jack could participate. What followed was nothing short of a miracle. We shot for the moon but instead reached the stars." - Principal Lou Riolo
> The policy was proposed in order to encourage the use of British Sign Language clapping during our democratic events, to make those events more accessible and inclusive for all
I would imagine deaf people can recognize clapping just as well as its sign language version...
> ‘Inclusivity is one of the Students’ Union’s founding principles.’
Don't make me laugh. To outright ban clapping to avoid triggering a minority is like banning free-speech to favour the offended minority. This move sounds totally extreme to favour a few 'triggered' participants who could just simply wear earplugs to reduce their sensory input which allows them to still participate.
You might as well ban whistling, shouting and cheering then, since that happens allot in graduation ceremonies, pubs, sport stadiums and concerts. This just isn't practical, but if it is practical to roll this 'policy' at other student unions at Oxford University, then this just creates problems rather than solves them.
I get that old, inconsiderate, a-holes clap loudly right next to other people's heads, causing hearing injury, but normal clapping... wtf? It seems a bit fascist to tell people what they can and can't do, like an ISIS encampment. Are they going to tell people they can't sneeze or nod their heads next?
Christian churches also tell people what they can and cannot do during services. Do you also think that a bit fascist?
HN moderators tell people what they can and cannot write. Also fascist?
In Germany, the academic tradition is to knock on the table, not clap. Also fascist?
I think this cast is a fundamental expression of the freedom of association, guided by democratic voting. Do you really want to deny the students the right to vote on what their internal policies might be?
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 17.8 ms ] thread> "An amazing thing took place at Carmel High School’s graduation. One of our students Jack Higgins was presented with his diploma. Jack graduated after 8 years. He is a wonderful member of our student community. Jack has autism and with that comes sensory issues. At graduation the student body and several thousand individuals were asked to not clap or cheer so Jack could participate. What followed was nothing short of a miracle. We shot for the moon but instead reached the stars." - Principal Lou Riolo
I would imagine deaf people can recognize clapping just as well as its sign language version...
Don't make me laugh. To outright ban clapping to avoid triggering a minority is like banning free-speech to favour the offended minority. This move sounds totally extreme to favour a few 'triggered' participants who could just simply wear earplugs to reduce their sensory input which allows them to still participate.
You might as well ban whistling, shouting and cheering then, since that happens allot in graduation ceremonies, pubs, sport stadiums and concerts. This just isn't practical, but if it is practical to roll this 'policy' at other student unions at Oxford University, then this just creates problems rather than solves them.
Golf tournaments ban loud clapping, whistling, shouting and cheering - are they like banning free-speech?
Christian churches also tell people what they can and cannot do during services. Do you also think that a bit fascist?
HN moderators tell people what they can and cannot write. Also fascist?
In Germany, the academic tradition is to knock on the table, not clap. Also fascist?
I think this cast is a fundamental expression of the freedom of association, guided by democratic voting. Do you really want to deny the students the right to vote on what their internal policies might be?