I would love it if my son would debate some of you on this site. He is certainly not a retiring person and is always one to stand up for his rights, and the rights of others--I've mentioned it but he just seems to see the site as useless bickering at this point anyway.
I, of course, like a mom, try to keep the door open to future discussions, not only because I do not see it as useless bickering (at least not just that), but because it would be very amusing to see him interact with certain players in this forum. Time will tell.
Now, as long as I am here, I do not see how you can say that I "skirt around" issues like coercion and abusiveness.
Abusiveness is easy, I'm against it, and the issue is only what is to be defined as abusive. Some of the things described here sound abusive to me, others, well, it's a matter of opinion.
Coercion is a bit more complex: I don't see how a parent can raise a child without some coercion and even with a teenager, some degree of coercion is expected. By "coerce" I mean, a la dictionnaire, to persuade an unwilling person to do something by "force".
By "force" in this context, I don't mean physical attack, "force" after all means also mental or moral strength or power (although with a young child, I suppose we do use physical "force" in the sense of physically taking him or her out of dangerous situations often unwillingingly, even when we do not spank or punish physically). I guess you can say "persuade", but with the power differential between children and adults at all levles, I think "coerce" is more honest.
Coercion, considered this way, in the context of the schools and raps likely has to play some part of the program (I like the idea of minimizing it as much as possible, because it can backfire with certain groups of children). Much of what you describe in your complaints against the school sounds abusive rather than coercive, if you are an accurate correspondent.
After all, though, there is really no need to bring Nazi Germany into it, can't we do without that kind of hyperbole?
Maybe it is as simple as the type of person who is involved in the experience--some people take things a lot harder than others--I think it is Jerome Kagan's work that indicates that temperament is inborn and very unlikely to change over time. It is clear that something is making a difference in how different students have experienced these schools.
It's easy for you if you can just write off the ones who were OK with the experience as "identification-with-the-aggressor" automatons. I know a good number of these "automatons" and how can it be that in every current facet of life they are sensitive, justice-seeking, forward-looking, and good people, if their positive experience of the schools, raps and all, is indicative of some sort of character discrepancy?
