Thank you for posting that. It seems, however, the more I read about this the less defensible the teacher’s position is. It wasn’t just a once-off discussion but a steady, consistent rant by someone in authority to high school students in a geography class. It seems woefully out of place and rather unintellectual.
Have you listened to the recording? You do not seem to be describing the event to which I listened, at all.
The teacher was making remarks and asking student perceptions about the State of the Union that had, apparently, been broadcast the previous evening. His observations were the direct reaction to either points he was making regarding the SotU or to remarks made by the students. He accepted questions (and interruptions) from the kids and his further comments were explanations or responses to their remarks and questions. Even the ill-advised Bush/Hitler comparison was a specific comment on a particular world view arising from a comment by Secretary of State Rice that was repeated or echoed by President Bush. He got a bit passionate about some points and I would not grade his mastery of the information higher than a C+, but his comments were not simply a 20 minute tirade against the administration. They were a presentation of a separate (particularly foreign) world view–he even made a point that President Bush was addressing many of his comments to the foreign audience and several of his (Bennish’s) comments were in the context of looking at the U.S. from the outside.
(There was also a fair amount of background chatter that seemed to indicate that he was extemporizing on general subjects as a way to keep some of the class’s attention while others in the class completed a written assignment, so he may (or may not) have made specific statements that he would have re-worded if it was a planned presentation.)
I was not overly impressed with either his grasp of facts or his presentation. However, nothing in the 20 minute recording justifies claims that he was simply knocking the U.S. for no reason and nothing he said in context justifies disciplinary action.
What is your basis for this statement? I am one of the six Republican teachers in the state of California and for the last 10 years I have heard teachers in their classrooms and their vitriolic attacks on anything conservative. Gov. Grey Davis (D) basically siphons funds from the public funds during a financial crisis and hands it over to Oracle and nary a word is heard but you should have listened to the anti-Schwarzenegger ® rhetoric being foisted upon the students during the recall election. According to the teachers, Clinton could do no wrong and Bush can do no right.
Now, if this constant indoctination into the liberal way of thinking does not affect the students, then neither will reciting the (optional) Pledge of Allegience - but the liberals on this board were talking about how students were ridiculed, felt compelled to join the Pledge against their conscience, freedoms of expressions were violated, etc. Ahhhh . . . but that is because the teachers were conservative so it’s wrong and damages little ones’ psyche. The liberal equivalent is a completely different case.
So a 20 minute hate-filled liberal rant won’t affect the students but a 30 second pledge with the words “under God” will. Interesting.
As for this being a possible “Socratic method” . . . Ummmmmm , no it isn’t. The Socratic method is instruction based on asking a series of leading questions not making contraversial statements to garner a debate. But terminology aside, would it be appropriate in high school to start a discussion about pre-Civil War US history saying, “Niggers are OK. Everyone should own one.” (an actual statement made by one of my ex-girlfriend’s teachers) to start a discussion of why it is wrong to own people as property?
You know, this whole side issue could be dispensed with if **Bricker **just agreed that he poisoned the well in his OP and the he’d like us to refocus on the issue. Instead, for some unfathomable reason, he insists on sticking to his guns despite the fact that the well was poisoned. There can be no doubt about that by anyone who read the OP. What’s up with that?
-
Are you saying that this “mysterious poster” is foolish to suggest that we should be mindful of those who govern us and of how much power they claim for themselves?
-
Should any of us be intimidated by Godwin’s Law?
I believe that I am the one who posted those words. I don’t know what else I posted at the time, but so far, I stand behind what I said. From what you have quoted, I made no direct comparison between the Bush Administration and Hitler.
I will say that Bush is even more deceitful and brazen than I had thought, but he certainly doesn’t plan ahead as HItler did.
No, I wouldn’t cheer this teacher for his “cogent analysis.” Apparently such an analysis didn’t exist. Next time do your homework, young man.
BTW, do you object to the unbalanced promotion of capitalism in the classroom?
I don’t see anything wrong with the capitalism comment, it is basically accurate.
And before you label me a communist let me tell you what I believe in:
Capitalism
Free markets
small govt
competition
Capitalism by itself has no moral checks and balances, only market based checks and balances. Our justice system, combined with capitalism, attempts to strike that happy balance where competition can thrive and we can assume some basic human rights.
So Bricker, what exactly is wrong with the capitalism comment?
But proselytizing for a political view is OK?
Geography is not civics related, it is a social studies class. The topics the teacher discussed were not related to geography and there are econ and government classes where these topics may be appropriate.
[QUOTE=SaintCad
Geography is not civics related, it is a social studies class. The topics the teacher discussed were not related to geography and there are econ and government classes where these topics may be appropriate.[/QUOTE]
First of all, for those who seem to have skimmed the thread and with thanks to Left Hand of Dorkness I’d like to repeat a snippet of Post #93 regarding the contents of the civics class
I’m not going to repost it here but there’s a link back at #93.
Second, no one seems to have responded to ** tomndebb**'s assertation that he’s heard the tape in question and in that tape the teacher allowed for student disagreement, pointed out that he was not the dispenser of “the truth,” and complimented students who had well crafted counter-arguments.
Heaven forbid the OP get address at the cost of a lovely hijak about godwinizing threads.
Incidently, do you have a link to the tape or a transcript** tomndebb**?
should read, contents of a geography class
The link is in the OP, and here too!
And just to godwinize the thread a little more,
“Anybody who makes a comment about this teacher and what he said to his class without actually listening to the tape, is no better than Hitler” 
CMC
The quote above is not my actual opinion, but pretty damn close.
Thanks. It’s nice to see karma work itself out so quickly.
Somehow I’ve developed the assumption that the first link in any debate is usually crap [when the OP is displaying outrage over the contents of the link] and so I tend to wait for the later, more detailed links. Here we have proof positive that I need to revise that policy.
Proselytizing for a religion (as a teacher–an agent of the government) runs afoul of the Establishment Clause. That seems to be a problem.
Since Bennish did not proselytize for any particular political movement, that point is moot.
Had you read the previous posts, you would be aware that in Colorado, civics, economy, and government are topics addressed under the broader scope of the Geography class. Had you listened to the recording, you would know that his remarks were not clearly out of line with either that prescribed goal of the curriculum or the the general topic of Geography (since his comments were made regarding the State of the Union as it applied to its foreign audience).
Good grief.
Fine. You’re right. The comments at the beginning DID constitute poisoning the well. I concede the point.
Will it now go away?
Except the specifics of that problem come about because of the coercive nature of the high school experience. In case after case, the courts have weighed Establishment Clause violations more heaviliy when there is no option with respect to attendance, and when the audience is younger and their presence is compelled.
Now you come along glibly and say that this teacher’s twenty-miunte rant to his class falls under some safe harbor in the otherwise coercive experience. SaintCad said it very well: “So a 20 minute hate-filled liberal rant won’t affect the students but a 30 second pledge with the words under God will. Interesting.”
Be honest, at least. Are you not applying a completely different set of measurements here?
Show me what amendment specifically excludes hate-filled liberal rants from public institutions.
All the crap I hear daily in which right wing stuff passes unnoticed and unexamined in the media and in personal life.
The First Amendment. The government cannot force you to listen to a particular political viewpoint.
Of course, I admit it’s not SPECIFIC. But then, the First Amendment does not SPECIFICALLY exclude prayer in school, since mere prayer does not “establish” religion. So I certainly hope you’re not going to demand the exact text from me, while not insisting on it for your purposes. That would be dishonest.
Yes it does. So I’m not dishonest.
I’m not sure what you are asking.
If you are asking whether I peceive a person in authority proselytizing their religion as an utterly different situation than a civics teacher making provocative statements in a civics class, then, yes, of course I am using different sets of measurements. The two cases are not remotely similar except to various offenderati.
Go back and listen to the recording, again. I would have been the first to shred his presentation if he showed up in GD, but he was not proselytizing. He advanced several different positions in quite specific contexts. Not one of them (regardless how clumsy) specifically advocated that the students accept a particular view of the world. He entertained questions and challenges to his position from the students and responded with information, not with suppression. He did not put forth a thesis that could be regarded as “Democrat” or “Socialist” or “Christian” or even specifically “anti-American.”
You have taken a couple of clumsy statements and are attempting to make a case for some sort of evil indoctrination. The evidence of the recording does not support your claim. He never dismissed any question or challenge. He complimented the students who did challenge him. He acknowledged that he did not possess the “Truth” on the issues and made clear that he was presenting information to lead the students to think about the issues from a different perspective.