full disclosure vs what you don't know can't hurt you

Is it better to have full disclosure or is it really true that what you don't know can't hurt you? It is a little bit embarrassing to admit, but I do confess to following Gossip Girl and reality television shows such as the Hills and the City. On the show Gossip Girl, an anonymous narrator chronicles the juicy lives of privileged teens living in Manhattan. He/she is a blogger who posts gossip courtesy of sources around town. Another juicy program that pulls in its viewers with its hot gossip is the City, the MTV spinoff of the Hills. Both shows basically revolve around couples getting into tiffs triggered by a photo taken via cell phone of 1 of the 2 doing something disloyal while out at a bar. This outburst of a new genre in its own right has brought about the question of whether or not it is better to have full disclosure, or is it really true that what you don't know can't hurt you? Would you rather know everything that is going on in the lives of your friends, relatives, and significant others? I'm sure at times, everyone would rather spare themselves the agony of sitting around and wondering what their loved one is doing; it's times like these that the convenience of instant knowledge is appealing. Personally, I wish we could rewind a few years and bring back some of the mystery. We need to be able to rely on old fashioned things like trust, not technology when it comes to our relationships, all of our relationships. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

Do Professors Deserve Academic Freedom?

I recently read an article in the opinion section of the New York Times about a professor at the University of Ottawa who is potentially being fired for giving "A+" grades and  turning his physics class into a political activism course, all on the first day of class. This brings about the question of whether or not teachers deserve the right to be so vocally liberal with their views. Schools and Universities have strict policies about how teachers are and are not to conduct courses. Many schools create the syllabus for courses and give them to teachers with the intent that they instruct based on it, without veering off in the slightest. I for one, have had teachers who have been very outwardly vocal when it comes to controversial topics. Politics are what first come to mind, but this is by no means limited to political opinion. On the one hand, is it fair to give academics the right to ignore their employer's wishes and regulations in favor of personal intuition while employees in most other fields would be fired on the spot for doing so? What is so wrong about a university protecting itself by adhering to such regulations when it is their reputation on the line if a professor does/says something in conflict with what they believe is responsible? On the other hand, isn't learning in fact all about hearing all different opinions? One particular man who commented on the blog put it so well when he said, "Your first move to say that the professor was hired to perform   a job is evidence enough to prove that you don't understand education; it is not a path that leads in a certain direction." Education is not about using a particular means to a specific end; it is about opening peoples' eyes and helping them find their own way to their own opinion. In high school I had a teacher who was open about his political and even religious views, and while some people could be turned off by his seemingly pushy dialogue, he turned out to be the best teacher and mentor I have ever had because he pushed his students to think divergently. The ones who are threatened tend to be the ones who are set in their ways and fear that another with opposing thoughts will convert them. So, all in all, professors do deserve a sort of academic freedom. 

Building Them Up to Knock Them Down

As I was waiting at the check out in the grocery store today, the cover of Us Weekly caught my eye. A blown up split image of Jessica Simpson dominated the cover with the headline "Bullied For Her Weight." The cover showed a "then and now" layout of the celebrity with sub-headlines about how she is "tortured by food" and questioning her boyfriend, Tony Romo's reaction and whether or not he is in fact cheating on her. Aside from the obvious issue of why our society harps on a size 4 woman, it made me think about how, especially in America, we thrive on building people up and then pulling them down. It has been so common in the last few years for us to shine the spotlight on people and treat them as modern day Greek gods and then yank them off their pedestals and dangle them over the fire, watching with gleaming eyes. It is to the point where we now applaud a young actor who has achieved fame and managed not to get a DUI or be photographed dancing on tabletops at clubs at 3AM only to call in sick to work the next day. Take into consideration Vanity Fair's "Hollywood's New Wave" cover article from 5 years ago. Of the 10 or so aspiring young stars, 2 have since gotten DUI's, 2 have checked into rehab at least once, and one is currently dating Marilyn Manson (enough said).  It's no coincidence that half of this once promising bundle of talent went down such rocky paths after an overwhelming amount of exposure. Take for instance Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. They are two people that for the longest time you could not get away from. They were in several movies a year, dishing out hit songs, and on the cover of every magazine. Then, when they make one mistake, suddenly they go from being able to do no wrong to being able to do no right.  It is a bizarre humdinger that our society gets its kicks out of watching the mighty fall. Maybe we do this because we thrive on the power of being able to control someone's perception. Maybe we judge them because it distracts us from judging ourselves and in hopes that it distracts others from judging us.