Code Of Conduct Amendment

I am studying a course called “A Nation’s Argument”, and this is my second Action Project. In this part of the course I studied about how the argument of a Nation can contradict itself. I studied different Supreme Court cases such as the “Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford” and the “Roe v. Wade” cases. These cases are considered some of the most controversial decisions the Supreme court has ever made, and they have marked important milestones in the history of the U.S. that can still be felt to this day.  I also studied about the Continental Congress, Shay’s Rebellion, the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights and the Sedition Act. All of these topics helped me understand the reason behind the Constitution’s Amendments.

In this Action Project I was asked to  read my school’s Code of Conduct, choose one Article that I believe is unjust or poorly crafted, and “amend” it. This was a very interesting process, through which I learned to defend my argument formally.

The Article I chose to amend from my school’s Code of Conduct is called “Damaging, Destroying, or Stealing School or Private Property”. It goes like this:

Damaging, Destroying, or Stealing School or Private Property: ​For the safety of all and the integrity of the school environment, willful damage or theft of physical materials, either public or private, will not be tolerated. A student or parent/guardian will be held financially responsible, as allowed by Illinois law, for willful or malicious destruction of school property. GCE will assume no responsibility in any circumstance for the loss/destruction/damage or theft of Portable Communication Devices or for any communication associated with the authorized or unauthorized use of Portable Communication Devices. Students will be responsible for locating such lost/stolen items.

The deconstructed syllogism of this article looks like this:

Premise 1: GCE provides safety for all students and integrity in the school’s environment.

Premise 2: Attending GCE requires that there be mutual respect among students.

Premise 3: Students, when using materials that belong to GCE or other students, are responsible for the care and safety of these materials.

Conclusion: Damaging Destroying, or Stealing School or Private Property is strictly forbidden at CCE. If this Article of the Code of Conduct is not respected by a student, GCE shall take the appropriate action stated in the Article.

I think that the problem with this Article is that it is written in a negative way, which doesn’t encourage students but rather imposes the law and its consequences only. When you tell someone what not to do only, they will feel inclined to do exactly the opposite in many cases. It is like telling someone not to think about a monkey doing a handstand. It is exactly what they will think about. Another problem with writing rules this way is that even though they usually do generate obedience, they don’t help the students understand the rule. When rules are stated positively and are properly explained, students understand why this rule has been imposed, and feel trusted with the responsibility of complying with it. I believe that this second outcome is much better. Another thing that I have seen is that most of the time that students get punished for damaging/destroying school property, they are only trying to decorate it. By this I mean that I think that this Article should not be applied when students are trying to decorate the school.

I think that this Article would be much more effective if, instead of imposing a law and its consequences only, it included a paragraph where it stated that the school understands and accepts that most of the time students are being punished for damaging school property, students are really only trying to decorate it. It would also be a lot better if the school offered an interactive workshop, where students can learn briefly about decoration, and the way it influences us. This workshop would be optional and be held in a single weekend. The students that take this course would have the opportunity to submit decoration ideas and sketches to the Disciplinary Council, and if the Council considers it appropriate, students could decorate the school with those ideas!

If I were to re-write the Article, along with its syllogism, it would look like this:

Damaging, Destroying, or Stealing School or Private Property: We acknowledge that most of the time we give verbal warnings to students or call their Parents/Guardians for damaging School Property, when students are actually trying to decorate their place of work (even though many times it is in inappropriate ways). We believe that decoration is something important, so we have decided to encourage students to decorate their classrooms and the school by offering an, optional, interactive workshop, in which students can learn about the importance of decoration and the influence it creates in ourselves. Students who have taken this course can submit sketches of decorating ideas for the school, which will be revised by the Disciplinary Counsel, and if it considers it appropriate, it will be applied by the students in the school.
 However, ​for the safety of all and the integrity of the school environment, willful damage or theft of physical materials, either public or private, will not be tolerated. A student or parent/guardian will be held financially responsible, as allowed by Illinois law, for willful or malicious destruction of school property. GCE will assume no responsibility in any circumstance for the loss/destruction/damage or theft of Portable Communication Devices or for any communication associated with the authorized or unauthorized use of Portable Communication Devices. Students will be responsible for locating such lost/stolen items.

The deconstructed syllogism for my amendment is the following:

Premise 1: GCE provides safety for all students and integrity in the school’s environment.

Premise 2: GCE acknowledges the importance of decoration, and encourages students to decorate their school.

Premise 3: GCE wants to encourage creative decoration of all of the school, and wants to make sure that it is appropriate.

Conclusion: GCE has decided to allow students to appropriately decorate their school. However,  Damaging Destroying, or Stealing School or Private Property is strictly forbidden at CCE. If this Article of the Code of Conduct is not respected by a student, GCE shall take the appropriate action stated in the Article.

This amendment of the Code of Conduct will make life at school change. Students will start decorating the school and thus start taking better care of the School Property. Fewer “damaging and destroying School Property” violations will take place. The Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that comes to my mind when thinking about my amendment is the 1st Amendment, where it states that all citizens have the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, which is what I am asking for. I also believe that my amendment demonstrates true citizenship, because now each student will think twice before damaging or destroying something their peers or themselves have worked so hard on decorating.

Here is some evidence which strengthens my argument:

• I have seen many students being grounded unfairly for damaging School property from only trying to decorate it.
• I have shared my amendment idea with members of my family and friends and they have all felt identified with the injustice of being punished unfairly. They have also said that no one likes to be told what not to do. We like to be trusted and feel that we can be creative.

I fully explained the reasons behind my amendment to my father, and he has accepted to be a co-signer to my amendment.

This is a comic that symbolizes my argument by showing the difference between negative and positive phrasing. Even though in both situations the flight attendant wanted to deliver the same message to the passenger, when she used negative words such as “won’t” it instantly gave a negative influence on the passenger.