Turns out marijuana NOT a good example ....

Here’s my take; the person who complained is close-minded and small-souled. However, she is probably in the majority in this world. I would adapt the subject slightly so that it isn’t quite as controversial, and carry on with what you’re doing. It sounds like a great thing.

I couldn’t disagree more. Students are already innundated with all sorts of outrageous claims from authority figures about pot. There are actually ads asserting that if one smokes pot, one will become a rapist. As an authority figure, one of the best things Mariachi Kitty can do is to teach kids to look things up. Using a controversial topic where the published information is often at odds with what they’re normally exposed to, e.g. The Economist for heaven’s sake, will help to more viscerally drive home the fact that received wisdom should generally be double checked.

A topic such as “rock-n-roll” isn’t going to provide such an opportunity. At least in no way that I can see.

It’s simple: It’s a controversial topic. It’s likely to stir up all sorts of trouble, even if your intentions are innocent. Use a different topic that is not at risk of causing an upset with someone.

Like serial killers.

Or nuclear disarmament.

Next time someone complains tell the students to use the word “censorship” instead. Hopefully they’ll catch the sarcasm.

A.) You’re assuming that the OP gave a pro-pot presentation. I assume she did not.

B.) Education is never controversal, or dangerous. Ignorance is dangerous. As far as I can tell, Mariachi is not using her job as a forum to tell young kids how to pack a sweet bowl, she’s just teaching them how to NOT be ignorant. Which, given that this is the Straight Dope MB, I’d think people would support.

C.) The teacher who complained teaches at a CATHOLIC school. This isn’t some hardened public school teacher who’s seen it all complaining, it’s a teacher who is probably used to sheltered kids. His/her ability to be offended is probably way lower then the norm is. So if Mariachi had used any number of topic, they STILL probably would have been offended. Topics like teenage pregancies or drinking and driving accidents. Just because you’re talking about teenage pregancies doesn’t mean you’re telling kids that they should go out and get knocked up. :rolleyes:

Go forth, Mariachi Kitty, and defeat ignorance at every turn.

PERFECT!

If school kids these days are really that impressionable, might I suggest a search on birth control for your next workshop. :wink:

Maybe you could do searches on the ‘cons of tenure’!

:smiley:

Better yet, give them a copy of More Sex is Safer Sex.

Thanks for all the replies. Y’all are a great sounding board!

drewcosten, Rug Burn and lawoot’s alternate suggestions are fantastic – thanks for helping me laugh about this!

I thought I’d clear up a few questions/assumptions:

  1. The presentation wasn’t pro-marijuana; I’d say the overwhelming majority of resources presented an anti-marijuana viewpoint, and at no point in the presentation did I personally condone illegal drug use. I’m actually rather ambivalent about it. I’ve never used it personally 'cause I’ve got asthma & can’t tolerate smoke. Without that excuse would I have tried it? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as some stuff out there, but I think there might be some risks associated with heavy usage. And, I’m for medicinal marijuana use, most definitely.

  2. AZCowboy’s comment about part of my reasoning for using that example being political is correct, and that’s what I’ve been thinking a lot about since Thursday. Is this reason enough to change the presentation? I decided not, but keep reading…

  3. Update: Another teacher from the school called on Friday and asked me to do a presentation for her students. Hence, the problems with the presentation must be those of the individual teacher, not the school.

  4. I’ve also been thinking about my assumption that upper level high school students are ready to begin to process information similarly to first year college students. Here’s what I’ve decided, tho’ I’d like to hear your opinions…

Some high school juniors and seniors are quite capable of taking an issue such as the use of marijuana and looking at it in a scholarly way, if given the opportunity to do so. Some would appreciate being treated like “grown-ups” and being shown how to do this type of research. Some high schools are creating academic atmospheres that allow this sort of intellectual exploration to begin. Some students are at an emotional point where this is possible. However, it’s possible not all students and not all schools are ready to discuss marijuana as an acadmic subject. Since I see these students once for only 60 minutes, I have no way to gauge their receptiveness/readiness, so I shouldn’t be using this example.

I will look for other examples. I’m thinking of using animal testing next time. It’s another issue we have a lot of students researching, so I assume it holds some interest. (Our biggest research topic right now is lesbian and/or homosexual parenting…obviously that would NOT be an option!)

However, the college students will continue to get all the Economist articles on the economics of the marijuana industry they want. They’re here to learn, they’re my main constituents and I have no problems fighting their ignorance.

It sounds like you’ve given it a lot of thought and made some good decisions.

I think it’s probably prudent that you withdraw the topic from highschoolers. There’s no sense tempting fate and some parents can be totally unreasonable. Better safe than sorry.

I’m also glad you will keep the topic for college level students. Maybe, with any luck, some day one of those kids will find a way to convince this country that putting people in jail for something like marijuana is ridiculous.

You sound like a very good librarian. It’s nice to see someone genuinely care about what they do.

Why not? And why “obviously” not?

Oh, and as for my opinion of your decision to drop marijuana as a topic, I think it’s ridiculous, especially as you’re willing to entertain a topic that’s as or more controversial, animal testing. It’s your responsibility to teach these students how to perform research, not to worry about their or their school’s interest in entertaining a particular topic. You’re catering to ignorance and prejudice by backing off of this topic for the reasons you’ve stated.

Otto - I think she’s wise for dropping the topic. I come from a background in administration from a major university on the East Coast. Believe me, the last thing the administrators of a university want is a lawsuit from some crazy fundamentalist parent who says their kid started smoking pot because they researched it with their librarian’s help. These are topics for which the high school curriculum is spelled out, and which must conform to the directives of their particular school district. Some parents are really nuts. She’s very smart to do this.

College kids, on the other hand, are a different entity altogether, and exploration of controversial subjects of all kinds should be encouraged.

I’m certain that the Dean of her school would be very grateful for her decision.

Gay and/or lesbian parenting would not be a great topic for high school students for the same reasons I’ve decided marijuana isn’t going to work. Personally, I’d love it if these kids from this Catholic HS would think about/reasearch homosexual parenting issues – just like I’d love it if they decided to read that Economist article on the marijuana industry. But, again, it’s not within my capability to judge their readiness to deal with controversial issues, so using it would be like using marijuana – more problemmatic than it’s worth given the learning objectives for my time with them.

And, Otto, while you might be right that animal testing is actually MORE controversial, it seems unlikely to get the same reaction from the teachers, students and parents. The big question is why? The only answer I can come up with is pretty darn stereotypical in nature: it all goes back to the idea of protecting or sheltering these students from influences the school or parents see as undesireable. Evidently, this school would be far more concerned if their students were openly gay or illegal drug users than it would be if they engaged in animal testing experiements.

Frankly, if I ever have children, I’d be fine if one or more of them is gay. And smoking marijuana…no big deal if they’re responsible about it and adults when they do it. But if one of my potential offspring does anything that required animal testing…that’s when I’d be concerned about that child’s happiness & ethics.

Ah, anyway, all this has convinced me I’d probably be miserable teaching in a denominationally-based high school. If approaching controversial subjects in a logical, academic manner is off limits, that is. I’d hate being so conservative! Maybe not all religiously-affiliated schools are like this particular one.

Thanks again, everyone.

I gotta be honest: Pot still seems like a good example. But you’re the pro.

Here’s an alternative: Many have lambasted Lomborg for his Skeptical Environmentalist, but it seems that not many have actually discredited the actual data. Without mentioning the book, you could show them how to look up the actual data that he used themselves and make their own conclusions.