# Teachers being politically unbiased/objective in the classroom

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 1, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565 "2015-04-01T23:59:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/41 "2015-04-02T15:24:31Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Because then they might be skeptical about things they ought not to be. Suggest that a teacher should teach kids to be skeptical about anthropogenic global warming, or gay marriage, and see how far you get.

> [@septimus](#):
>
> 😕 “Some people believe in evolution. Some don’t. We don’t have time to review the evidence for and against, so you just decide.”
> 
> “Back before the Age of Technology, a Frenchman with the Froggy name ‘Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier’ decided CO2 would heat the Earth. Half of Americans today think he was just another froggy crackpot. You decide.”
> 
> “A\*(B + C) = AB + AC ? Sounds pretty fishy. You decide.”
> 
> Teaching critical thinking? Good idea. But in today’s real world to teach that every blog-post is a special God-sent snowflake would be a step backward.

Good grief people…

Teaching people to be skeptical does NOT mean “teach the controversy”.

Nor does it mean everything comes down to your opinion regardless of evidence.

Nor does it mean no matter what the evidence remain doubtful.

It does mean question everything and check things out for yourself. Let the evidence take you where it may even if you don’t like it. Hone your bullshit meter. Sharpen your critical thinking skills.

Anthropogenic global warming? It is fine to teach that the mountain of evidence supports it and that a small but vocal group challenges it mostly for self-serving purposes.

The skeptic should ask that the evidence for either side be available to check themselves and probably should explore it at least a little. Of course AGW people are more than happy to point to their mountain of evidence and will tell you to have at it. Those opposed will ask that you ignore the elephant in the room and just read this one paper. That should peg your bullshit meter.

Reminds me of that old journalist’s maxim, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/42 "2015-04-02T15:51:59Z")

</div>

> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Anthropogenic global warming? It is fine to teach that the mountain of evidence supports it and that a small but vocal group challenges it mostly for self-serving purposes.
> 
> The skeptic should ask that the evidence for either side be available to check themselves and probably should explore it at least a little. Of course AGW people are more than happy to point to their mountain of evidence and will tell you to have at it. Those opposed will ask that you ignore the elephant in the room and just read this one paper. That should peg your bullshit meter.

Of course, you should also be aware when [one side tries to silence the other](http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7972/20140709/climate-change-skeptics-dumped-by-bbc-to-create-balance.htm). That might peg one’s bullshit meter as well. Also a determined effort to change the subject where the topic of cost-benefit analysis comes up is another indication that perhaps skepticism about agendas is warranted.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/43 "2015-04-02T16:01:36Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Of course, you should also be aware when [one side tries to silence the other](http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7972/20140709/climate-change-skeptics-dumped-by-bbc-to-create-balance.htm). That might peg one’s bullshit meter as well. Also a determined effort to change the subject where the topic of cost-benefit analysis comes up is another indication that perhaps skepticism about agendas is warranted.

It is a mistake in journalism to suppose that both sides need to be given equal time in the name of balance. It is not “balance” to give the person who says the moon is made of green cheese equal time with the scientist saying the moon is mostly made of basalt.

The cost-benefit analysis is an entirely different question and certainly one worth having. However, you need to agree that it needs doing. As long as one side claims there is nothing to see then there is no discussion to be had on cost-benefits.

1. Is AGW occuring?

If yes go to #2. If no then stop here.

1. What should we do to mitigate or stop AGW?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/44 "2015-04-02T16:03:06Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> 🙂
> 
> It is really sad how biology was turned into a political issue when it was not, and it should not be.
> 
> [http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/01/majority-republicans-now-reject-theory-evolution](http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/01/majority-republicans-now-reject-theory-evolution)
> 
> It is curious that independents subscribe to the theory of evolution at over 60% like the Democrats do, the problem is indeed on branding evolution as an agenda when it is not, but there are groups that do want to describe it like that and push the Republican party to follow their opinion.

This may be due more to moderates changing their self identified party affiliation, than it is to individual Republicans changing their views on evolution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/45 "2015-04-02T16:12:48Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Of course, you should also be aware when [one side tries to silence the other](http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7972/20140709/climate-change-skeptics-dumped-by-bbc-to-create-balance.htm). That might peg one’s bullshit meter as well. Also a determined effort to change the subject where the topic of cost-benefit analysis comes up is another indication that perhaps skepticism about agendas is warranted.
> 
> Regards,  
> Shodan

Are you for real?

> [@](#):
>
> The latest casualty is Nigel Lawson, former London chancellor and climate change skeptic, who has just recently been barred from appearing on BBC. Lord Lawson, who has written about climate change, said the corporation is silencing the debate on global warming since he discussed the topic on its Radio 4 Today program in February.
> 
> **This skeptic accuses “Stalinist” BBC of succumbing to pressure from those with renewable energy interests** , like the Green Party, in an editorial for the Daily Mail.
> 
> […]
> 
> Despite the fact that the two intellectuals had a “thoroughly civilized discussion,” BBC was “overwhelmed by a well-organized deluge of complaints” following the program. Naysayers harped on the fact that **Lawson was not a scientist and said he had no business voicing his opinion on the subject**.

Wow, that’s some censorship! They’re not putting on a non-scientist to present a viewpoint that runs completely contrary to a massive scientific consensus on a highly politicized issue! What a bunch of censoring monsters!

Look, at this point, regardless of what a few contrarians in congress seem to believe, global warming is real, most of it is caused by humans, and no reasonable cost-benefit analysis has “stay the course” as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. The BBC refusing to put people with anti-AGW views on is, at this point, akin to the BBC refusing to put people with anti-vaccine views on. It’s not “silencing the opposition”, it’s _responsible journalism_. When you run a respectable news company, part of your job is to _keep the cranks from taking over the dialogue!_ And pretending that someone like Nigel Lawson has any business debating the issue doesn’t make you a fair and balanced reporter, it makes you part of the problem. I mean, in your own article, here’s what he had to say about computer modeling:

> [@](#):
>
> In response, Lawson wrote: “However useful computer models may be, the one thing they cannot be is evidence. Computer climate models are simply conjectures.”

This is _phenomenally_ stupid and shows a lack of understanding of the issue that runs _deep_.

Not presenting unscientific, uninformed bullshit is not the same thing as censoring a debate. And if it is, guess what: _that’s a good thing_. Censor away! Make sure that only the side that actually has solid evidence and the scientific consensus behind it can get their views on the air! If we did that more often, maybe Jenny McCarthy wouldn’t be such a huge problem. :mad:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/46 "2015-04-02T16:37:56Z")

</div>

Its not a good thing to try so hard to be unbiased, I think all teachers should teach a liberal (factual) viewpoint. After all, reality has a liberal bias

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/47 "2015-04-02T16:57:55Z")

</div>

> [@andros](#):
>
> That some things are a little complex for third graders?

I think nine year olds are smart enough to understand that things aren’t quite black and white, sometimes. Wars, and fighting generally, are to be avoided, but sometimes are necessary. She painted herself into a corner with her absolute phrasing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/48 "2015-04-02T17:05:29Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> Its not a good thing to try so hard to be unbiased, I think all teachers should teach a liberal (factual) viewpoint. After all, reality has a liberal bias

Nope, reality is objective.

And your post is an example of point 3# of the thread-starting post:

> [@Velocity](#):
>
> 1. Many people like bias in education when it favors their side, but say “Let’s keep agenda out of the classroom” when it’s the other side’s opinion getting preferential bias by teachers. Or, it may be an even more overt, “My bias is for a good cause; the others side’s bias is for a bad cause. So let’s keep the bias I like and omit the bias I don’t like.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/49 "2015-04-02T17:18:36Z")

</div>

> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#):
>
> I think nine year olds are smart enough to understand that things aren’t quite black and white, sometimes. Wars, and fighting generally, are to be avoided, but sometimes are necessary. She painted herself into a corner with her absolute phrasing.

Indeed. Some of the issues I’ve discussed with third-graders this year:

-Ferguson and Eric Garner (brought up by students)  
-Russian incursion into the Ukraine  
-Same-Sex Marriage  
-Balancing increased government services against increased taxes  
-Possible and actual US involvement in the war against ISIS  
-Netanyahu’s visit to Congress

and a lot more.

Over and over I make the point to students that good, intelligent people can disagree on these issues. (I even make that point with same-sex marriage, even though I’m not convinced it’s true–that issue is a bit different, IMHO, but I err on the side of neutrality). If a student gets too absolutist–“If I was Obama, I’d BAM! Kill everyone in ISIS!”–I talk about reasons to hesitate, counterarguments.

It’s heady stuff, no doubt. But over and over I have parents thank me for talking with their kids about issues, tell me their kids are educating them or their older siblings on current events, saying that it’s the kids’ favorite part of the school day.

Yes, presenting both sides is a challenge, and I’m sure there are times I could do it better. But I think it’s better to make a flawed attempt at talking with kids about real-world issues than it is to shy away from real-world topics out of a misguided fear of subjectivity.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/50 "2015-04-02T18:39:50Z")

</div>

> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#):
>
> Wars, and fighting generally, are to be avoided, but sometimes are necessary. She painted herself into a corner with her absolute phrasing.

Actually, we don’t really know what her phrasing was. This is what you said (emphasis mine):

> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#):
>
> One of the kids asked her if war was absolutely bad, how was Lincoln supposed to free the slaves? **At least my daughter couldn’t make head or tails of her answer.** Now the teacher has a button with a picture of her dog on it. I guess she learned her lesson.

There’s nothing wrong with a button that says “War is expensive. Peace is priceless.” (There’s nothing wrong with a button that has a picture of her dog on it, either!)

So what lesson do you think the teacher learned? I think it’s that when someone who wears a slogan isn’t smart enough to defend it against a third-grader – or at least defend it coherently enough for the third-grader to understand – then maybe they shouldn’t wear it. Your first sentence about war sometimes being unavoidable is all she needed to say. It applies to WW2 as well as the civil war. The problem wasn’t with the button but maybe with the teacher, but again, we don’t really know how she replied to the question.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/51 "2015-04-02T19:02:37Z")

</div>

Sigh.

Sooner or later, in this biz, someone WILL ask you a deadly question. My favorite is “There are a whole bunch of religions. Which one is RIGHT? Or are they all WRONG?”

There is no safe way to answer this question. Including “I am not allowed to answer that question, because there is no guarantee that it won’t piss off at least ONE of your parents.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/52 "2015-04-02T19:08:15Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Of course, you should also be aware when [one side tries to silence the other](http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7972/20140709/climate-change-skeptics-dumped-by-bbc-to-create-balance.htm). That might peg one’s bullshit meter as well. Also a determined effort to change the subject where the topic of cost-benefit analysis comes up is another indication that perhaps skepticism about agendas is warranted.

What if there isn’t another “side”? What if this alleged “other side” is usually presented by someone who has to be introduced with some variant of “he’s not a scientist, but he’s a first-class opinionated idiot”? What if this comes about because the “debate” is always between science and ignorance? Just how stupid does the “other side” have to be before you finally acknowledge that it’s a waste of time?

You want a cost-benefit analysis but no one is willing to discuss it with you? I am. Here it is:

You claim AGW doesn’t exist. So the cost of fixing it is zero and the benefits are infinite. Problem solved. :rolleyes:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/53 "2015-04-02T19:16:57Z")

</div>

> [@Master\_Wang-Ka](#):
>
> Sigh.
> 
> Sooner or later, in this biz, someone WILL ask you a deadly question. My favorite is “There are a whole bunch of religions. Which one is RIGHT? Or are they all WRONG?”

“It is not in the interest of Social Studies to pass judgement on the practices of other peoples. We study other tribes to better understand the social nature of humankind as a whole.”

Or.  
“Uh, this is Shop. Ask your parents.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/54 "2015-04-02T21:05:37Z")

</div>

> [@Sitnam](#):
>
> “It is not in the interest of Social Studies to pass judgement on the practices of other peoples. We study other tribes to better understand the social nature of humankind as a whole.”
> 
> Or.  
> “Uh, this is Shop. Ask your parents.”

I think a particularly good answer to this is, “I don’t know - what do you think?” And then when they answer, ask them why. Deflect the question back onto them, and have them think through their answer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/55 "2015-04-03T01:40:43Z")

</div>

> [@Master\_Wang-Ka](#):
>
> Sigh.
> 
> Sooner or later, in this biz, someone WILL ask you a deadly question. My favorite is “There are a whole bunch of religions. Which one is RIGHT? Or are they all WRONG?”
> 
> There is no safe way to answer this question. Including “I am not allowed to answer that question, because there is no guarantee that it won’t piss off at least ONE of your parents.”

My favorite variation of this occurred at lunch one day, when the second-grader next to me, a Jewish kid, said, “Mr. Dorkness, is it really true that Jesus was the son of god?” while over his shoulder the Christian kid nodded his head frantically and mouthed, “_Say yes! Say YES!_”

I gave him my standard answer, which is IMO perfectly safe. “Kid,” I said, “this is a great question. But it’s one of a few things I won’t talk with students about. I won’t tell you my political opinions, and I won’t tell you what I believe about religions. These are great conversations to have with your parents, and you can definitely have them with your friends, as long as you can be respectful, and realize that different people have different beliefs, and that’s okay.”

Sure, I could run into a fundy parent who’s pissed off at my saying that it’s okay to have different beliefs. But at the end of the day I’m an employee of a government that’s enshrined religious pluralism in its constitution, and I figure I can recommend religious tolerance therefore without violating my employment contract.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carlb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carlb/32/5930_2.png) [@carlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carlb)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/56 "2015-04-03T13:13:23Z")

</div>

One of my favorite high school teachers taught Civics to the seniors. He was pretty open about the fact that he was quite far to the left on the political spectrum, but whenever classroom material got to a subject which was subjective or debatable, he would generally let us (the students) argue it out rather than impose his own beliefs on us. He would guide the discussion in an attempt to keep it civil, he would correct or challenge any obvious errors of fact, and he might ask someone to defend a position that they took, but it never came across as authoritarian.

I agree that in some of the “harder” disciplines (mathematics, physics, etc.) there’s really no need or (legitimate) opportunity for a teacher to inject a political or cultural bias of their own. There certainly are opportunities for that to occur in some of the liberal arts, but I think the best teachers in those arenas act more as a facilitator of debate and discussion. I think it’s possible to do that in a pretty neutral manner. Whether that’s what actually happens or not, I’m sure depends on the school and the teacher.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/57 "2015-04-03T14:11:12Z")

</div>

> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#):
>
> Then came the unit on the Civil War. Nine year olds don’t forget anything. One of the kids asked her if war was absolutely bad, how was Lincoln supposed to free the slaves?

He could have bought them. It would have cost less.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/58 "2015-04-03T15:27:17Z")

</div>

> [@Peremensoe](#):
>
> He could have bought them. It would have cost less.

Ah, the old “He could have bought them” argument.

No, he could not have. It’s preposterous. The South was not going to sell the underpinning of their economy and way of life. Slavery was not just an asset, it was a social arrangement and support or opposition to it bordered on religious fervor.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/59 "2015-04-03T15:48:50Z")

</div>

> [@RickJay](#):
>
> Ah, the old “He could have bought them” argument.
> 
> No, he could not have. It’s preposterous. The South was not going to sell the underpinning of their economy and way of life. Slavery was not just an asset, it was a social arrangement and support or opposition to it bordered on religious fervor.

This reminded me of the classroom anecdote Mr. Green from Crash Course mentioned in one of the history videos:

[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/roNmeOOJCDY/maxresdefault.jpg "The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY)

> [@](#):
>
> Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course US History, and today we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American history: What caused the Civil War?..
> 
> …Just kidding, it’s not a confusing question at all; slavery caused the civil war.
> 
> [Younger Mr. Green]“Mr. Green, Mr Green, what about, like, state’s rights, and nationalism, economics?”[/YMG]
> 
> Me from the past, in your senior year of high school, you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about a hundred eight-two years old, and you will say something to him in class about state’s rights, and Mr. Fleming will turn to you and he will say
> 
> “A state’s right to what, sir?”
> 
> And for the first time in your snotty little life you will be well and truly speechless.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565/60 "2015-04-03T16:12:28Z")

</div>

> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> You want a cost-benefit analysis but no one is willing to discuss it with you? I am. Here it is:
> 
> You claim AGW doesn’t exist. So the cost of fixing it is zero and the benefits are infinite. Problem solved. :rolleyes:

I think it is also legitimate to consider when one side responds to reasonable questions with drivel.

Regards,  
Shodan

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teachers-being-politically-unbiased-objective-in-the-classroom/716565.md?page=4)