A certain event yesterday, as well as a certain post on a blog I read is the inspiration for this post.
We were basically forced to listen to a lecture on library techniques, how to construct effective search statements and the like. Naturally, given the content of the lecture, especially one going beyond the dismissal time of 1640, it was sort of expected that there would be much disappointment...
The effectiveness of having such lectures would be something I would probably question, given that I'd think that in general, the people who are actually listening and/or not being disruptive are probably those who already know most of the content. It's not the fault of the lecturer; rather, it's just that those who are (somewhat) attentive are probably those who know, and that those who are the ones who need to be taught are most probably not listening. (I know, I lack evidence for this claim. It's just a hypothesis.)
Of course, there are reasons why such lectures have and will continue to take place. Firstly, if said lectures were made voluntary, I don't think many people would go, and the message would most definitely not reach the people who need to be told. Also, from a pragmatist point of view, making such lectures compulsory is probably an easy way to occupy the students during the EE period where they are supposed to be in school (since the school is accountable for what goes on during school hours...). Furthermore, holding such lectures reflects positively on the accountability of the school in that it contributes towards the school developing students holistically. Hence, I guess I don't have much against the idea of holding such lectures; even though I don't really like them, I don't see much of a better alternative, as detailed above.
Essentially, what happened was that due to said disappointment leading to noise especially beyond 1640, the students were held back till about 1730. The choice of punishment was certainly not an easy one to make; while I would indeed agree that the students concerned including myself should have been punished in some way, and the structure of the punishment is, in my opinion, generally acceptable (probably better if it was shifted to staying back the next day, since keeping parents waiting = bad idea), the justification provided for the punishment seems to fail under logical scrutiny. This "justification" - lack of respect.
Now the problem is, you cannot (or at least, I believe people cannot) force respect out of other people. Was it the students' choice to attend the talk? You could argue yes (ponning as an alternative), but given the nature of the alternative I think a 'no' fits this question better. Hence I don't believe that expecting "respect" out of the students is reasonable, since I disagree with the notion of forcing respect, and there does not seem to be a reasonable argument that the attempted establishment of said respect was not forced - unless you wish to encourage students to skip said lectures.
In my opinion, what I find questionable about this judgment is exacerbated by the fact that no attendance was taken, further increasing the incentive to skip such talks completely in the future, in anticipation of both not spending the time of the talk in an efficient manner, as well as not spending some of the time after that in an efficient manner.
That said, I think I can understand, to some extent, the intentions of the person who meted out said punishment described above. Naturally, the choice of what punishment to issue would not have been easy. Still, I would be inclined to maintain that the justification for said punishment seems somewhat off.
More accurately, I think the appropriate reason for punishment is really failure to APPEAR respectful, since after all that's what (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you see it) others see, and I think it's also what's important. I don't know if I would personally consider myself innocent or guilty, but I was there in body, physically doing little and speaking little, but very far away in mind. For some reason, this reminds me of a certain legal case I read about, where the "contents of one's mind" can be locked away securely from others; in that situation, a subpoena for the accused to reveal his password for a drive on his computer was quashed because revealing the password was believed as equivalent to self-incrimination, which is not something one is allowed to force.
jk.
