If you can find the lesson in the way Kelly treated his student, then the examples above are relevant. Since you haven’t, they aren’t.
but… what?
“,but I’m about to dodge the question.”
“,but even though I have no idea what possible lesson was being taught I’ll support it.”
“,but even though it shows horrible pedagogy, I don’t have a problem with it?”
And making a student sit on the floor and be the object of classroom derision is never an acceptable teaching method. Besides, I have no idea what you think that high school girl’s quote was supposed to prove, it’s stupid. What, because discrimination isn’t fair and it’s a class about discrimination, the teacher can do outrageous things? Shall we take that to its logical conclusion? War is bloody, and many social studies teachers have topics that revolve aroudn war, so…
Was the point of the exercise to mock students who supported different sports teams?
He probably will get picked on more. That doesn’t change the fact that he’s got a legitimate grievance.
~shrugs~
None of that is relevant to the actions of the teacher.
One person is singled out and treated poorly by a group on the sole basis of an outward difference. Sounds like a lesson in discrimination.
And yet the school says it was a joke.
So which one is a lie, that it was a joke, or a lesson?
Besides, is it okay to discriminate against a student just because it’s a class on discrimination? Does that make sense to you, honestly?
One person singles out someone solely on the basis of an outward difference, leads a group in treating him poorly, then gets fired. Sounds like a lesson in discrimination.
We all get to learn something!
No, sounds like discrimination.
so…what?
“,so I’m about to give an absurd comparison, in which I’ll imply that you’d probably be OK with teachers allowing students to fire real weapons at each other and commit war crimes?”
That’s not a logical conclusion.
Having read the rest of the thread, I’d say this is the most rational and accurate thing you’ve said.
So I’m pointing out that your logic is both selective and stupid.
Somehow I’m not surprised you didn’t pick up on that.
Wrong.
I was suggesting that your logic was faulty because it would lead to a premise which most thinking people would disagree with.
Just because a class is about discrimination does not mean it’s okay to discriminate against students in it, that’s really, really, really stupid.
Wrong, again.
If your point is that it’s okay as long as the teacher’s actions serve as an object lesson for the subject of the class then that is indeed a conclusion of your flawed ‘reasoning’. Sorry.
Over the course of a class period, yes it does, actually. “OK class, since many of you may have never been a target of discrimination youself or experienced it first hand, we will discriminate against Josh because he’s…hmmm, I don’t know…wearing a Broncos jersey. Let’s observe how this discrimination makes him feel, and Monday we’ll discuss why discrimination is wrong.”
Wow.
Thank the Gods you’re not a teacher. There are many things which can be discussed without an object lesson, especially one which is emotionally abusive towards a student.
There is also the fact that you’re being obfuscatory and deceptive, as the school has already said that it was a joke and not a lesson.
To those who previously did hold discriminatory views, it’s possible it could be an “eye-opener” of sorts. But I’ve always held that stuff like this, for instance in college-based racial and gender courses, merely is discrimination for those who hold no particular discriminatory attitudes to be picked on. Revenge.
Even if you claim they hold some subconscious bias (which no one here has so far,) to go over the line into outright abuse and bullying is on the gradient with “hitting kids to show you shouldn’t hit” and “killing people to show you shouldn’t kill”.
By providing examples of discrimination it might even encourage it.
That bears repeating. The teacher didn’t humiliate the kid in order to teach a lesson, he did it because he didn’t like the kid’s shirt. Petty, vindictive, and harmful.
Because they are bully scum just like him. That’s why I said all the students who cooperated should be expelled.
Disgusting. I would have refused to cooperate in any way.
They would anyway, since the teacher encourages it. I seriously doubt this is the only form of harassment or assault he pushes. The kid is not a “baby” for complaining; what he should have done is walked out. I would ( at that age ) probably have become violent.
The lesson is “Everyone in class is evil, and your enemy. Hate them.”
And if the result is violence ? If the kid never gets over it ? In order to teach about rape, should the teacher rape one of the girls ?
Der Trihs, I have to wonder where you went to school. I’ve been teaching since 1985. That was in 8 districts and two states and doesn’t include the adult ed classes I taught. In that time, I’ve known hundreds of teachers. Some of them were better teachers than others, to be sure; yet I can’t remember a single one of them who had the inclination or time to maliciously single out and persecute an individual student. Apparently, though, it happened to you several times. This, of course, in addition to the bullying you endured from your classmates. What pit-of-sadism was it you called alma mater? I’m not saying that there has never been a sadistic teacher who bullied students. I’m not saying that students have never been bullied by their classmates. I’m just in awe that it all happened to you, several times over.
I think Martin Hyde made a valuable point with
Throwing paper at a student is not on the same level as commiting a felony upon one. We are not discussing raping a student, we are discussing wads of parer being thrown at him, which I still contend was not as bad as he’s making it out to be. We’re only really getting his side of it, pending the investigation. At that point, I’ll gladly eat as much crow as I need to if necessary. But until then, I have not come close to the quoted line of reasoning.
You looking for a link? I don’t have one. however, I spent a few minutes on the phone this morning with the police in all the cities of AFC north teams. Here’s the results.
Baltimore: The BCPD handles security at Ravens Stadium, and when The Steelers come to town they absolutely put more officers in the stadium to deal with the problems that ensue. (Source: Agent Simmons in the overtime unit of the BCPD 410-396-2140)
Cleveland and Cincinatti: Security inside the stadium is provided by private companies, but the police in both these towns( Officer Krauser in Cincy, 513-352-1222 and Cpt Casper in Cleveland 216 632-5000) did verify that they put extra men on duty outside the stadiums during Steelers games specifically to deal with rowdy fans, and both indicated that the teams themselves do beef up the security presence inside the stadium to deal with problems during the games.
For purposes of comparison, in the interests of fairness, I asked both of these officers if such beefed up security was necessary when the Ravens came to town, and they both said no. I also called the Pittsburgh Steelers and asked them the same question, their director of Heinz Field security, Jim (412-255-2725), indicated that they provided no additional security when Baltimore plays in Pittsburgh.
If you want to know the situation when Pittsburgh plays in the other 28 NFC cities, I suggest you get on the phone yourself, but I think I’ve proven my point here.
The Ravens sucked this year, and I’ll be the first to say so. What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Having trouble divorcing your fandom from the reality of most Steelers fans, are you? Casey1505 is doing a wonderful job of demonstrating how the typical Steeler fan justifys any abuse or thuggish behavior when it’s done in the name of the almighty Pittsburgh Steelers. :rolleyes:
Are you being dishonest now, or were you being dishonest a few posts up?
You have said that it is okay to discriminate against a student (which is wrong) if it’s a class on discrimination. Do you retract that statement as factually incorrect due to its logical implications?
Or will you stand by it and explain why doing certain wrong things is okay but not others? If the law is your concern, what if we had a state where the age of consent was 16, or 17, or 18, whatever, and a 20 year old teacher was in charge of a health class and told an 18 year old girl he’d give her a zero unless she had sex with him. Okay, or not okay? And if not, why not, as you don’t have the law to fall back on?
To elaborate, you clearly characterized it as discrimination:
but you’re now saying that it was nothing more than throwing some paper. So which is it? Discrimination against a student, or just some thrown paper?
But it is the same as assaulting a student, which might only be a misdemeanor in this case.