Metal Detectors Create a Hostile Learning Environment - Research Paper Example

Metal Detectors Create a Hostile Learning Environment”-Article by Mukherjee, Elora Rhetorical Analysis Pamela Antinozzi-Hastings Baker College Professor Joel Shields The issue of metal detectors and their place in the school environment has been a subject of intense debate for a number of years especially in a background of increased violent crime within school grounds. Nonetheless, to date there has been no universal consensus on the same and different people holds dissimilar opinions on the matter. Some consider metal detectors an inconvenience that turn schools into pseudo juvenile detentions centers with negative psycho-social effects on the students, while others believe they serve a greater good, in the effort to protect the learners by any means necessary from outsiders and/or themselves. Although there are no explicit statistics on the matter, it is unequivocal that the number of schools in America without metal detectors is high compared to those with them. Notably, most of these are in the metropolitan areas (National School Safety and Security Services 2008). In many cases, the security devices were put in place in schools not so much as safety precautions but as a damage control technique and a reaction to pressure from parents and the media after incidences of school gun violence. For instance, between January and April 2011 4 gun related cases were reported in Beckley high school leading to outcry by parents demanding increased level security such as metal detectors (Walter, 2011).Under pressure, few school administrators seem to ask themselves, one crucial question, is the best, and the only way to deal with the problem? Not surprisingly, these measures are at times considered knee jerk reactions by school administration and in the attempt to give parents a guarantee for their children’s safety can interfere with the latter’s freedom. This essay will attempt a rhetorical analysis of the article titled “Metal Detectors Create a Hostile Learning Environment”. With a close and critical examination of the content, arguments and the persuasive techniques, the writer employs in his endeavor to prove that metal detectors and extreme security checks are an unsuitable inclusion in the school environment. The writer begins by painting a vivid picture of a school security check conducted by police officers in Wadleigh high school and which is archetypical of what has become common practice in New York schools. They come in the morning and install metal detectors through which all students must pass before entering the school and cause about 3 hours of class time to be lost. This way he builds up argument that the security precautions are disruptive and hostile to learners. He is able to defend this through the description of the rough treatment the students receive at the hands of the police. Ideally, a school is supposed to have a culture of its own known and understood by the teachers and students (Powell, 2008). However, this is disregarded by using police and relegating the role of the teacher in security, since it distances them form the students yet they are the people best suited to deal with such concerns since the learned do not feel threatened or judged by them. In this first part, of the essay subtitled, “chaos in” the school, the writer describes how the police totally disrupt the school program and cause nearly a third of the learners to miss at least a class. They carried out this swoop without prior notice yet according to a press release by New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg; Posters should be prominently displayed to notify students and the school community of any searches scheduled in their school well in advance (Bloomberg, 2008). The writer argues that these searches expose the learners to unnecessary invasion when he states, “Officers selected some students for additional scanning with handheld metal detectors, requiring them to lean against a table or wall, spread their legs, hold their arms out, and lift each foot to be wanded” (Mukherjee, 2008). Considering this statement, there is no doubt that the searches are hostile and psychologically unhealthy for students and are likely to leave them feeling psychologically venerable and diminished. The police also arrested several students for minor violations such as position of mobile phones and confiscated all the phones they came across, and this included some from students who had exceptional circumstances for possessing the gadgets. The writer cites the unfairness of it all in Carlos story; he was arrested outside the school for having a mobile phone although he had not entered the school. The fact that he was minor notwithstanding, he was forced into a police car and incarcerated for the better of the day without notification being given to his mother or teachers leading to panic as they searched for him. Reports for different sources match with this with police offices in New York being known to have even had the audacity to handcuff children as young as five and detain them (Signore, 2009). This goes to show that the security situation as it is in New York schools leaves a lot to be desired. Then he goes on to examine the psychological effect of having students searched, and scanned excessively. This gives a school an unfriendly and uncomfortable environment making it feel more of a juvenile detention center than and educational one. To worsen matters, those checking the students have no training in dealing with them, this is embodied in the rough treatment and swearing portrayed by the police officers who are handling the children (Mukherjee, 2008). He hence asserts that the security of schools should be the concern of educators or at least security officers with the correct training for the job. He posits that these security procedures cost the school and state a lot in terms of time and money expenses he deems unnecessary. The police spend too much time in schools, which could have been used to deal with security elsewhere; this is backed by claims that there are more police in New York schools alone than there are in the streets of Las Vegas or Washington. One can only wonder whether the crime rate in New York City’s schools exceeds those of major cities (Signore, 2009). He concludes by mentioning several retrospective actions by students themselves to petition for the ceasing of these invasive searches by demonstration and demanding the audience with education officials to no avail. This way, he sums up his argument by revealing that even students who are supposed to be protected by these procedures are against them and would like them changed or removed. Since the article was written for The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), it is unambiguous that the primary audience was those concerned with the security of schools particular government bodies and the police. Stakeholders in schools especially teachers parents and students also make a suitable primary target sine the article discusses issues that directly affect them. Researchers and students dealing with the issue of the of school security would also benefit from the article hence can be considered part of the secondary audience. The writer’s credibility is evidenced initially by the fact that he is writing about civil liberties for an organization that primarily concerns itself with the same and related issues. Nonetheless, the writer’s affiliations are secondary to his presentation and therein his major credibility’s are tested. He asserts this by citing real-life examples and personal case studies such as the Wadleigh school search and Carlos case respectively. In addition, his work is evidently quite well researched as is demonstrated by his familiarity with figures and statistics on the figure he cites. The writer connects to the readers emotions and uses this to gain their sympathy and make them more receptive to his ideas. Take for instance the example of Carlo, clearly while other students were taken to prison, he chooses Carlos and spends a lot of time discussing his predicament. This instinctively evokes the sympathy of readers and is likely to alienate the reader’s sympathies from the police officers who are painted as brutal and unreasonable. The case of the girl with a pacemaker has a similar effect, in that the readers emotions are influenced by imagining the girls’ pacemaker could probably malfunction after the phone is confiscated, and she may not be able to call for help resulting in fatal consequences. While this might have worked to some extent, one must stop to consider that the writer may be leading the audience thus to make them more subjective and hence commits the fallacy of Appeal to Emotion. This is because despite the fact that he claims the police confiscated everything; including mobile phones, he does not explain why they did so and lets the reader imagine they were simply being mean. Ultimately, he does not present any of his points from their point of view and seems content to consider them villains without investigation their true motivation or orders. However, to the larger extent, the writer is fairly objective and logical and is able to present his argument as such. When he discusses the psychological effect of the security operations on the learners, one can clearly see the logic in his claim that educators are the best people to deal with student’s security issues on an internal scale. This is because running the school like a detention center overturns much of the socialization aspect of schools since they no longer feel at home there. Ultimately, this article is very persuasive, and one is easily convinced that present security policies in many of New York’s schools are hostile and nonstudent friendly. The writer makes it clear that metal detectors and the extreme security operations in these schools are detrimental to learning which the greater objective of the schools is. The writer further demonstrates that in the circumstances described these security protocols disrupt learning and that metal detectors are likely to intimidate students casing undue tension in the school. This is true to large extents since when one considers that the school community if often built on trust and mutual understanding, such security checks disrupt these important aspects of the schools stability (Powell 2008). References Mukherjee, E. (2008). Metal Detectors Create a Hostile Learning Environment. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.bakerezproxy.palnet.info/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010509213 Bloomberg, M.R. (2008). Metal Detectors Maintain School Safety. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.bakerezproxy.palnet.info/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010509212 Walter, S. (2011). Gun issue is troubling Berkeley High. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.bakerezproxy.palnet.info/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA252911970&userGroupName=lom_falconbaker&jsid=7fae703ed6b4389204de9e4a9deb1f31 Powell, M. (2012). In a Brooklyn School Built on Trust, Metal Detectors Inject Fear. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.bakerezproxy.palnet.info/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA302615789&userGroupName=lom_falconbaker&jsid=f508a074703180a525071d2cf0533d89 National School Safety and Security Services. (n.d.). School Metal Detectors. Retrieved from http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_metal_detectors.html Signore, J.D. (2009). NYCLU: Schools Are Safer Without Metal Detectors. Gothamist.com. Retrieved from http://gothamist.com/2009/07/09/nyclu_study_schools_are_safe_withou.php Read More