Is this freedom of speech or an example of someone not fit to be a teacher?
I would say his freedom of speech was abused. If I understand correctly, this man didn’t physically punish any students without permission – he simply discussed the concept in a paper he wrote <i>as a student</i>. As long as he’s simply stating a viewpoint and not actually doing anything to the students, I don’t see the problem.
Why couldn’t the school simply tell him that they shared dissimilar viewpoints and that he would not be allowed to use corporal punishment there? Then, if he still tried to do it, they would have grounds to dismiss him.
All just IMHO, of course.
It’s both.
His freedom of speech is not being abridged. No one is stopping him from saying whatever he wants. That doesn’t mean he has a right to say that stuff and be a teacher. Anyone who expresses a desire to physically abuse children and even goes so far as to advocate it as a legal option is someone I don’t want anywhere near my own kids.
I think it’s appalling that he was kicked out of school. I find the idea of capital punishment revolting, but he had a perfectly valid point, and there’s nothing here that suggests he’s incapable of respecting a rule he disagrees with.
I find the guy’s opinions twisted and not really based in reality, but his school was 100% in the wrong. He had a valid opinion, and did not break any laws. I’d have no problems with a teacher who advocated corporal punishment being in the schools, as long as he didn’t administer it.
I completely agree. We should only hire teachers who never, ever question laws and traditions. Blind faith is all anyone needs. To even contemplate the possibility that other viewpoints may be valid is dangerous and corruptive to the youth. We should teach kids, while they are still young, that free speech is really just a tool used to goad idiots into the open so we can punish them and protect society from their sick fantasies.
You done yet? 
I agree that the answer is “both.” The man does not have a right to a job as a teacher and I’d be uncomfortable with him working in that capacity, just like I wouldn’t want to work at a company where the CEO says he thinks he should be able to hit his subordinates (whatever position I would be at relative to him). I also don’t like the school removing him for his views. But I don’t think we’re dealing in hypotheticals here. It’d be one thing if he expressed an unpopular opinion entirely unrelated to teaching and was removed for that. That would be entirely wrong. This is an issue that relates to his teaching and his future students. This issue aside, I think the man sounds like he’d be an awful teacher.
There’s some CYA going on here, but if the school gets in trouble for producing bad teachers and was concerned he’d be one, that’s what’s going to happen.
Anyhow, the way McConnell is bringing religion and other political issues into it is very cynical and manipulative.
This guy is going to run for elected office.
He was advocating capital punishment?!?! :eek: What happened to detention?
Corporal punishment on the other hand, that’s not as much of a big deal. Certainly not something to be kicked out of school for talking about. He never hit any kids. Didn’t sound like he threatened any kids. I don’t even think he glowered menacingly at them.
I’m really failing to see what the big deal here is. He didn’t do anything.
Seems like the school doesn’t want to be responsible for it if he does end up hitting some kids.
Right, but he only wrote a paper. He didn’t threaten anyone. From the sounds of it, he was more than respectful of school rules and policy. The paper wasn’t titled “Why I should be allowed to smack kids around.”
Unless somebody saw him out back grabbin hisself a hickory switch for to hit the youth, there is no reason to kick him out of school or think he would be a bad/abusive teacher.
I’m not comfortable with the idea of corporal punishment either, but I don’t think a dismissal is justified when the man merely talked about the idea. Whatever happened to open debate?
Do you also agree that anybody who’s not in your political party should not be allowed to teach because they hold different beliefs?
But we are dealing with hypotheticals. Did he layeth the massive pwnage upon some unsuspecting little kid? No. Did he threaten to do so? No, not as far as I know. He was just discussing the hypothetical situation of its future use in schools. I know your stance isn’t so fragile that it can’t withstand any examination or discussion. So why not let the teacher have his say, try to convince him that he’s wrong, and finally, just agree to disagree? THEN, if he still proceeds to smack a student, his removal would be justified (because he’s agreed to abide by policy, even if he doesn’t like all the policies).
What? Who’s in a better position to talk about teaching than teachers? What else should he express his opinions on? The legality of Japanese whaling practices? That’s utterly pointless. The man is not an awful teacher for thinking there may be better ways of educating children. In fact, if nothing else, that shows that at least he seems to care about the kids’ future well-being. Would you prefer somebody who doesn’t give a damn about your kids, who simply saw teaching as a day job, who goes into the classroom every day to repeat empty speeches and never wonders if there’s a better way to teach?
Even if you disagree with corporal punishment (and I do as well), he should at least be allowed to express his views without losing his job.
I’m not going to answer it on the grounds that it’s a dumb question.
He argued in favor of it, not ‘discussed’ it.
You missed the point completely. I said it would have been wrong for the school to dismiss him for having an opinion they didn’t like on some subject unrelated to teaching. But since the school has to pledge that its graduates will be effective and law-abiding teachers, I can see why this raised eyebrows. They’ve read his paper and I haven’t; and while I’m not comfortable with what they did I at least understand why it happened.
Can you skip the rhetorical questions please? Look: caring about a job does not make you qualified to do it, nor does it mean you’d be good at it. Yes, I want teachers to care. How they express their caring about their job, however, is an issue.
He didn’t lose his job, he lost his conditional admittance to the graduate program at Le Moyne.
Dumb or not, it relates exactly to what you seem to be saying. That it’s ok to punish people for holding beliefs, even if they do not act on those beliefs.
And that is different from discussion, how?
No, I understood your point. Dismissing somebody for an unrelated opinion would be wrong, yes. My point is that it’d also be wrong to dismiss them for a relevant opinion.
This is the issue I was trying to point out. He has not shown that he would be an ineffective or law-breaking teacher. There’s a difference between holding a belief and being unable to control your actions. Unless the school has good reason to believe that the teacher will allow his belief to overrule the school’s policies, I don’t see the justification.
Of course, like you said, we didn’t see the paper and we don’t know the teacher very well. If there’s evidence to suggest that the teacher really is about to break the policy, then ok, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
OK, no more rhetorical questions if you don’t like them. You’re right; caring does not necessarily qualify you or make you good. Likewise, holding an opinion does not necessarily make you bad at the job and should not disqualify you unless you’ve shown that your opinion interferes with your job and your ability to operate within the rules.
Fair enough. My mistake. But nonetheless, he should not have been disqualified unless one of the conditions is “Our policies are not up for debate.”
Of course LeMoyne can use whatever criteria they want to admit prospective graduate students, but the OP asks if this man should be allowed in the classroom.
Some say they wouldn’t want a person who advocates corporal punishment around their kids. The I suggest you keep your kids mighty close to you throughout their young lives, because these people are everywhere!
Corporal punishment in schools hasn’t been abolished long enough for you to make such statements unless you’re willing to call for the firing of some veteran teachers. Make sure none of the retirees are doing any volunteer work at your school too. I have fond memories of Dear Sweet Mrs. Riley, one of the most effective teachers I ever encountered, who punished foul mouths and put-downs with a lick from the bar of soap she kept on her desk. Of course, this is grounds for dismissal now and I’m not going to argue that it shouldn’t be. But a few short decades ago it was considered pretty tame and you would have had a hard time finding parents, teachers or administrators to blink an eye.
I think LeMoyne was well within their bounds. Students and non-tenured teachers know that there certain things one just doesn’t talk about without getting a knee-jerk reaction. If nothing else, his paper shows a profound lack of judgment, and that alone might be enough to keep him out of a profession in which he acts in locos parentis. I would, however, be outraged if this was a witch hunt of an existing teacher with an opinion. That’s why we have tenure. So teachers can hold and express unpopular opinions.
Funny. I actually went to LeMoyne for one year (my first) of college.
Putting aside the “Christian” stuff, though, what’s so terrible about what he said? When I was in Catholic grammar school, cursing at a teacher (usually nuns then) would certainly earn a student a swat with a ruler or something. And it doesn’t seem to have done me or any of my classmates any harm in the long run.
There’s a difference between beating a child, and a swat on the backside (the hand was also a popular target). Children really do need to learn that some forms of behavior are intolerable.
I’ve also gotta say that I find LeMoyne’s behavior just silly and ridiculous in the extreme. I thought better of them.
Well, maybe, but when I was a child (in the same state as the dismissed student, I might add) the paddlings we got were not a swat. We got five swats at the very least and often more, and the swats were given with a paddle that was swung with as much force as the swatter, a fairly well-built man, could muster. This was not just uncomfortable, but extremely painful. If you walked by the office and someone was in there getting paddled, you knew it because they’d invariably be screaming in pain. And, if the teacher were so inclined, this punishment could be given for something as minor as not turning in homework on time. So, no, there really isn’t a whole lot of difference between beating a child and “swatting” him or her. Some, but not a lot.
Yes, they certainly do. And there are all sorts of different ways to teach them this that don’t involve physical pain.
I think we need to look at these points.
(underlining mine)
And then
It sounds to me like the Jesuits are not into smacking kids in Christ’s name.
Yeah. I’m inclined to say that, even should the guy reign in his childbeating impulses, it strikes me as unlikely that he’d be able to be a decent educator. I tend to think that the desire to hit kids who act up is incompatible with being the sort of authority figure children actually need. If the paper were merely an examination of the issue, perhaps coming to the conclusion that research doesn’t validate modern opposition to corporal punishment (though it does, as far as I’ve ever heard) it would be an interesting sort of devil’s advocate position to take. But if he actually maintains that beating kids is a good idea and teachers should be able to, then he’s not fit to run a classroom.
Not necessarily on topic, but i thought you’d all like to know as an aside that corporeal punishment is still the norm in every District in Arkansas, with the possible exceptions of Little Rock’s districts. that’s more due to the legal danger of violating the de-seg guidelines than any enlightened response. So this guy is not ‘way out there’ though I think that if his teaching philosophy is not in line with the school’s, they have no moral duty to keep him on staff.
The article says:
The article is not entirely clear, but if the assignment was to explain how to manage a classroom, and part of he guy’s plan included corporal punishment, which is against the law, then I think the school had every right to terminate him from the program. It’s common knowledge that corporal punishment is against the law.
On the other hand, if this were a psychology paper on whether there theoretically might be any benefit to corporal punishment, then the school was wrong. But I don’t think this was the scenario.
Plus in my personal opinion the guy sounds like a psycho.