<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Close the Education Gap with Advertising?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/new_microsoft_p.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/new_microsoft_p.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/new_microsoft_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-55347</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/close-the-education-gap-with-advertising.html#comment-55347</guid>
		<description>I think this may have happened with TV systems for schools in the early 1990&#039;s--have the students watch a minute a day or so, and get the TV&#039;s and common wiring system installed.

It&#039;s a tough call, but I can&#039;t see opposing the computer program if there are persistent budget shortfalls.  Computing skills are a necessity, not a luxury.  NotALawyer makes some very good points, but I just can&#039;t see losing the computers in order to avoid the ads.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this may have happened with TV systems for schools in the early 1990&#8242;s&#8211;have the students watch a minute a day or so, and get the TV&#8217;s and common wiring system installed.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a tough call, but I can&#8217;t see opposing the computer program if there are persistent budget shortfalls.  Computing skills are a necessity, not a luxury.  NotALawyer makes some very good points, but I just can&#8217;t see losing the computers in order to avoid the ads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not a Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/new_microsoft_p.html/comment-page-1#comment-55346</link>
		<dc:creator>Not a Lawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/02/close-the-education-gap-with-advertising.html#comment-55346</guid>
		<description>Corporate sponsorship of educational initiatives, and the advertising that accompanies it, is already quite prevalant in schools today. I find it hard to accept that the poorest schools would have to subsidize their students&#039; educations at the risk of compulsory marketing that further serves to naturalize excessive consumerism. It&#039;s rather twisted: richer schools might be able to bypass such measures while poorer districts&#039; students will be exposed to ads meant to develop consumer desires that are perhaps, for that population, frustratingly unattainable.

The data about Generation Y is already out there: their personal and professional goals are deeply intertwined with material success. If you come to my classroom I will show you a group of young people who are not unsavvy about advertising, but who think that because it is so pervasive, that they can be immune to its effects.

There is a pertinent article about this in the Mar/Apr 07 issue of Adbusters by a media literacy educator in Colorado. Not on their website yet but

here&#039;s a quote:

&quot;...perhaps the most frustrating argument students make about consumerism is that it shouldn&#039;t be a societal concern because &quot;it&#039;s the parents&#039; responsibility.&quot;... this disturbs me because it lets corporations off the hook for the effects they have on society. It doesn&#039;t matter how or to whom a company markets their products; it only matters how parents raise their children. Once again, consumerism becomes the business of individual families, not society.&quot;

-Naomi Rockler-Gladen

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Corporate sponsorship of educational initiatives, and the advertising that accompanies it, is already quite prevalant in schools today. I find it hard to accept that the poorest schools would have to subsidize their students&#8217; educations at the risk of compulsory marketing that further serves to naturalize excessive consumerism. It&#8217;s rather twisted: richer schools might be able to bypass such measures while poorer districts&#8217; students will be exposed to ads meant to develop consumer desires that are perhaps, for that population, frustratingly unattainable.</p>
<p>The data about Generation Y is already out there: their personal and professional goals are deeply intertwined with material success. If you come to my classroom I will show you a group of young people who are not unsavvy about advertising, but who think that because it is so pervasive, that they can be immune to its effects.</p>
<p>There is a pertinent article about this in the Mar/Apr 07 issue of Adbusters by a media literacy educator in Colorado. Not on their website yet but</p>
<p>here&#8217;s a quote:</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;perhaps the most frustrating argument students make about consumerism is that it shouldn&#8217;t be a societal concern because &#8220;it&#8217;s the parents&#8217; responsibility.&#8221;&#8230; this disturbs me because it lets corporations off the hook for the effects they have on society. It doesn&#8217;t matter how or to whom a company markets their products; it only matters how parents raise their children. Once again, consumerism becomes the business of individual families, not society.&#8221;</p>
<p>-Naomi Rockler-Gladen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

