Public policy discussion

Controversialpolicy

Within the American education policy and equality policies, many policies are controversial. One policy that continuously generate an ethical debate is the dissection policy in scientific experiments[1]. Dissection is part of scientific experiments that gives a student hands-on experience and an opportunity to discover new things. Dissection classes offer a variety of animals for dissecting in scientific research classes. In classes below college level, the dissection choice law requires that all students get consent from their parents or guardians to participate in dissection classes. This policy applies to all classes below college level and varies from state to state. In fact, it is optional for a student or parent to opt out of dissection classes. The policy gains more controversy in that some students at a lower level in college are not allowed in dissection classes while other who are of a higher grade are freely allowed and optional for them.

Those who are against the policy argue that denying a student practical dissection classes, which gives the student a hands-on experience, subjects the students to peer inequality and a less opportunity for scientific understanding. The controversy further escalates when a section of the animal rights insists that it is not appropriate to subject animals to such pain. They consider it as cruelty and infringing on animal rights. Also, whether, having animal dissection experiments in a school setting is appropriate. Despite the controversies, most schools in the United States continue to offer class dissection experiments to scientific students. The disputes do not affect their lessons or how they handle the dissection classes. However, the schools do offer alternative participation options for students who may not be comfortable with the dissections or those who have opted out of dissection classes.

Can people who disagreebe considerd misinformed?

It is easy to dismiss people who disagree with your opinion and consider them as misinformed. However, it is not that the people who disagree or oppose a policy are misinformed, but they could be more knowledgeable on the issue[2]. In some cases, it’s the latter which is not informed in his argument or stand. In a debate, people will always argue over specific topics with both parties having a different view of the world around the issue. How a person approaches a topic for debate will depend on whether a person is well informed of the issue or not.

A person who has a different view of an opinion will make the debate more interesting and educative, that is if the person is well conversant with the issue. The debate becomes productive because there is sharing of information which either of the sides does not have or did not know. Because of the sharing and exchange of information, the debate becomes a captivating discussion and at the end of it, either side will have learnt something. It is not wise to dismiss those who are against your opinion. Besides, it is not a good debate characteristic since the person dismissed feels discriminated. For a debate to become conclusive. There must be a final agreement between the parties.

Work cited

Yudof, Mark G., Betsy Levin, Rachel F. Moran, James E. Ryan, and Kristi L. Bowman. "Educational policy and the law." MSU Legal Studies Research Paper 09-15 (2011).

Gulati, Ranjay. "Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research." Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 775-782.

---

[1] Yudof, Mark G., Betsy Levin, Rachel F. Moran, James E. Ryan, and Kristi L. Bowman. "Educational policy and the law." MSU Legal Studies Research Paper 09-15 (2011).

[2] Gulati, Ranjay. "Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research." Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 775-782.