I presume many great people have weighed in on this one, but the issue has new currency for me today. Another teacher in the building brought in as a speaker (ostensibly about the geography of South America) a member of the special forces team that trains Columbian police in techniques of drug interdiction, including, to use his words, assassinations. The teacher who made the arrangements still appears to see nothing wrong with it, and a colleague who viewed the presentation was appalled, but said nothing, in deference to a number of attendant issues. But the teacher who originated the presentation claims to be apolitical. I wonder if it is not amoral to allow such a biased - and ugly - point of view into the schools. Is it immoral to be apolitical?
I don’t get it. So this guy trains people in how to kill other people for a living. Did he talk about geography, or did he teach the kiddies how to use a baretta? Even so, schools are supposed to teach things…
(When am I ever going to use a grenade launcher when I grow up, anyway? Is this gonna be on the test?)
I think that being upset by the persons occupation is certainly be understandable, but whether or not it was appropriate for him to be a speaker really depends on the contents of his speech. If he gave a speech that was approriate to the intended subject of geography, and maybe some cultural background of the place, why should his occupation be a factor?
-Doug
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. 1992, Houghton Mifflin Company.)
Do you find it amoral or immoral?
As dublos said, what was the subject matter of the presentation? Did the guy talk to the kids about assassinations? Or about geography?
Very, very few people are apolitical (non-political), though some claim to be. But whether or not your colleague has behaved immorally is irrelevant to his political views or lack therof.
I would say that politics and morals are strictly linked…politics, meaning legality and its various actions/requirements, is just a group morality. What, you think we punish murderers just because there’s a law on the books?
Now, if we’re talking politics as in inner-office politics, or party politics, or some other such thing I still say there’s a ton of morality implied.
However, being apolitical might not mean amoral…it might mean that one is apolitical because his/her morality is not something he/she feels is enforcable or appropriate to impose on others. Ever meet hippy existentialists? Man, it ain’t right man, everyone should be left alone.
But, I find morality in economics too, so maybe I’m not the right one to be commenting 
Sorry. What I meant was that the teacher is likely not apolitical, his own assertions notwithstanding, but that apolitical != immoral.
Read my previous sentence as:
noted and agreed