Dude, I've got children to indoctrina.....err....educate.

[Peter Octavian]

Geography teacher Jay Bennish gets jiggy with his curriculum.​

 

[Peter Octavian]

I don't know if you can be quite so cavalier about teachers. While I, as I'm sure all of us, have had bad teachers, I've also had great teachers who illuminated the world in engaging ways.

This guy, however, ain't one of them.

 

[Number_6]

Just proves once again the age-old adage that "those who can't do... teach.

Don't make me kick your ass.

 

[TJHairball]

Well, when I read the link, it looks like quite a load of spinning... on what's a very apt historical analogy brought up in class by a teacher who is teaching geography. I listened to the audio they replayed. Sounds like the classic "history teacher trying to get students to think" tone to me. Reminded me of a cautious comparison between FDR and Hitler I've seen drawn in past classrooms. That the students have churned out en masse supporting the teacher tells me that it's probably a case of what comes immediately to my mind:

Frustrated "young conservative" crying for attention being used as a propaganda tool by Fox News.

Geography typically involves - particularly in "general" high-school level courses - a mishmash of history and political science. Notice something?

... as much as Fox News wants to spin it, he's clearly operating within his topic. It's natural, related to his subject matter, and a perfectly reasonable point to bring up. As the website linked to notes, that falls under academic freedom. He's not on an unrelated tangent (geography, national borders, conquest - not exactly unrelated here), and he's not "venting" - notice the calm and reasonable tone, lack of screaming, etc - or dancing half naked, or otherwise failing to observe normal classroom protocols.

We may note that the site links to a poll... of which 20% of respondents polled on that there intar-net said they thought he should be fired, while 71% said to keep him on staff.

 

[Peter Octavian]

OK, great. You have no idea how glad that I am to hear that.

Now..... neither one of you will mind when teachers start spouting off right wing politics in the classroom, right?

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Sardy...c'mon. That's your high school picture, right?

 

[Colonel Kira's Left Tit]

He sort of looks like this guy, too.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

LMFAO

 

[Peter Octavian]

When did I ever say it was all right for a teacher to prosylitize anything in the classroom? All I said was that the media is guilty of spinning this particular story to the point that it's impossible to know exactly what happened in that classroom.

Not really.

There are links all over google to the entire transcript of the tape, so you know exactly what the guy said. And he was out of line. There's no doubt where this guy's politics lie. His caveats toward the end of his speech are, at best, disengenuous.

Bennish hates the current political status quo.

That's fine....except when you've got a captive audience of kids in a classroom for which taxpayers are footing the bill.

What I'm saying is that, just as there's no room in the classroom for sanctioned religion, there's no room for the personal politics of an instructor, whether it's left or right.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Well then, it shouldn't be hard for you to see why Bennish was out of line.

What a wonderful world we live in when we can all agree.

 

[TJHairball]

Not really.

There are links all over google to the entire transcript of the tape, so you know exactly what the guy said. And he was out of line. There's no doubt where this guy's politics lie. His caveats toward the end of his speech are, at best, disengenuous.

Oh, "caveats," you call them.

Alright, and so this becomes very, very muddled. And I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface. And I'm glad you asked all your questions, because they're very good, legitimate questions. And hopefully that allows other people to begin to think about some of those things, too.

Except his "caveats towards the end of the speech" are prefaced by similar caveats earlier in the lecture.

Whenever a student asks a question, he says things like "that's a good point."

Bennish hates the current political status quo.

That's fine....except when you've got a captive audience of kids in a classroom for which taxpayers are footing the bill.

And so if he didn't hate the status quo, it would be OK for his political views to come out?

What I'm saying is that, just as there's no room in the classroom for sanctioned religion, there's no room for the personal politics of an instructor, whether it's left or right.

And what I'll tell you is that if you're trying to engage your students as an instructor in political science, history, geography, or current events, your views are going to come out.

You'll notice Bennish doesn't commit to anything. He just points things out, and asks questions. "Did you know this? Did you know that? What about this?" He's taking care not to say "these people are right and these people are wrong, and you should believe this."

This sort of provocative presentation of views works in the history class. When I was a wee laddie in high school, I had a good history teacher who, throughout his lectures, maintained a staunch party-line conservative Republican viewpoint as far as his discussion in class was concerned. I didn't agree with much of what he said from that view... but he certainly made sure everybody was engaged.

And between the views he was willing to express and explain and the ones I was willing to express and explain as a loudmouthed student somewhat less moderate than I am now, everybody got quite an education (well, the array of loudmouths also included a young man whose father was a Party mover-and-shaker, a young anarchist, a norwegian exchange student, and a reactionary young anti-feminist, which gave everybody a pretty complete overview, as I was flexible enough to pretend to move to the right far enough to cover a more or less Leninist approach now and then). I can't say that really any of his students were indoctrinated as conservatives as a result of taking his class, not that I'm aware.

It seems pretty clear to me, going over the twenty minutes, that Bennish is simply trying to get students engaged. The tape covers about twenty minutes out of what's probably an hour long class. In the course of this, he says that Iraq had WMDs and that Osama attacked us as a response to what Bill Clinton did.

Party line liberal, huh? Do you even listen to what's being said?

If you read carefully, you'd realize the guy has managed to tuck in a lot of relevant historical information into twenty minutes of lecture while somehow keeping a kid who apparently videotapes his lectures in order to make sense of them engaged.

And you know what everybody said he was put on leave for? Making anti-Bush comments. Which all boil down to this in particular:

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

He's saying they use similar rhetorical/oratory techniques.

...

And for this, you think the guy should be fired. Unbelievable. At best a passing comment that's been said a few million times already by other people who've watched both speak.

 

[The Question]

^^You seem to be discounting the power of editorial bias. "Did you know that..." is interchangeable with "It's a fact that..." in the minds of the uncritical. And what if "eerie similarities" had been replaced with "wonderful similarities"?

 

[Peter Octavian]

Well...here's a for instance that won't be too hard to swallow:

If it's acceptable for Bennish to hyperbolize, in the classroom, on the state and/or federal dime that "Bush is a lot like Hitler", then you should see no problem with any teacher who might, for instance, make the comment that, "Clinton was a lot like a Serial Sex offender."

And really, if you're comparing Bush to Hitler, particularly when painting that picture in regard to his actions in Iraq, is it not just the tiniest bit hypocritical not to frame Saddam or Bin Laden the same way. If it's an easy pill to swallow that Bush is as evil as Hitler was, what does that make Hussein or Osama.......Mother Theresa?

Bennish stated clearly in his lesson that the 911 attacks were justified because the terrorists believe that everyone who died was evil.

So.....cut me some slack. This isn't a guy who's playing devil's advocate, nor is he just trying to be provocative.

He's pushing his own political agenda.

And, as you just mentioned, there's no room for that in a high school Geography class.

 

[Peter Octavian]

And so if he didn't hate the status quo, it would be OK for his political views to come out?

As usual, you include the part you want, ignoring the context, and leave out the meat of the point, which was:

That's fine....except when you've got a captive audience of kids in a classroom for which taxpayers are footing the bill.

and

What I'm saying is that, just as there's no room in the classroom for sanctioned religion, there's no room for the personal politics of an instructor, whether it's left or right.

Are you picking it up now, sparky?

 

[Peter Octavian]

o:

damned double post

 

[TJHairball]

As usual, you include the part you want, ignoring the context, and leave out the meat of the point, which was:

Pete, you put the two together as if it mattered.

Why should an anti-establishment view being funded by the establishment matter if you have freedom of speech?

Are you picking it up now, sparky?

Pete, ya got a "thing" going, but you're not understanding how the balance between speech and preach lies.

Note the article you cited, quoting the AAF's definition of academic freedom.

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

Not applicable to this case.

2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.[2] Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.[3]

Highly relevant.

Was Bennish hired to present pro-US nationalistic geography?

....No.

Was he discussing something with no relation to his subject?

....No.

Notice something here? The current standard of measure exonerates him.

He is no more indoctrinating a captive audience with his ideology than any other health, history, geography, or political science instructor in this country.

3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Accurate... check, by and large. Appropriate restraint? Check, no flaming histrionics or temper tantrums here. Showing respect for the opinions of others? Check, in spades. Indicating he's not speaking for the institution? Heck, he says he's not even sure he's speaking for himself, just trying to get his students to think about it.

What you're suggesting is that all teachers should teach in a completely politically neutral fashion, with no frame of reference... which is fundamentally impossible in the social sciences. There is no absolute social frame of reference. Every slant you take at it will be biased.

Nor is it bad for students to be aware that their teachers have religious and political convictions of their own, provided that teachers don't try to push them on them - and Bennish here clearly is trying to avoid that.

Are you suggesting that a drama teacher who tells her students to not drink and drive is overstepping the bounds of propriety? That the teacher who decides to fast forward through what he considers risque on a PG video in front of a class of 17 and 18 year olds is forcing his morals on them?

 

[TJHairball]

Well...here's a for instance that won't be too hard to swallow:

If it's acceptable for Bennish to hyperbolize, in the classroom, on the state and/or federal dime that "Bush is a lot like Hitler", then you should see no problem with any teacher who might, for instance, make the comment that, "Clinton was a lot like a Serial Sex offender."

Two different cards there... but I'm sure we'll hear a similar claim (namely, that Clinton was actually a serial sex offender of sorts) made quite a bit by history teachers once Clinton is dead and entered into history as one of our highly successful presidents. It'll become fashionable again in a backhanded fashion.

Here, we're describing two well known leaders' rhetoric. (Not even actions... just rhetoric.)

And really, if you're comparing Bush to Hitler, particularly when painting that picture in regard to his actions in Iraq, is it not just the tiniest bit hypocritical not to frame Saddam or Bin Laden the same way. If it's an easy pill to swallow that Bush is as evil as Hitler was, what does that make Hussein or Osama.......Mother Theresa?

Quite not what he's saying.

Which is quite simply that, just as Bush looks like a good guy from our point of view, there are other points of views out there. If there's anything he's painting there, it's the moral equivalence of terrorism and warfare.

Which is an argument on firm philosophical grounding.

Bennish stated clearly in his lesson that the 911 attacks were justified because the terrorists believe that everyone who died was evil.

Justified in the eyes of the terrorists. A matter of known fact.

So.....cut me some slack. This isn't a guy who's playing devil's advocate, nor is he just trying to be provocative.

Looks like he does both of those. Anything to get the class interested.

He's pushing his own political agenda.

Pushing?

Not really much of an agenda there when you look at what he's asking to accept. (CIA did this... Israelis did this... that's why the Arabs are pissed at us...)

 

[The Question]

Why should an anti-establishment view being funded by the establishment matter if you have freedom of speech?

Maybe it shouldn't. But it sure seems to when creationists want equal time in the classroom, doesn't it?

 

[TJHairball]

Maybe it shouldn't. But it sure seems to when creationists want equal time in the classroom, doesn't it?

Actually, it's funny that you should mention it...

...the ones trying to stick creationism in the classroom that get slapped down are typically the establishments (local and state gov'ts) funding the classrooms. I wouldn't refer to creationism as anti-establishment, particularly given the classical meaning of the term in political ideology, but you're welcome to develop that line of argument further.

The big problem is that it's hard to argue that creation theory is part of science, justifying it being taught in the classroom (see item 2 - "they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.") While history and politics can be considered part of the study of geography in these days, biology hasn't been expanded to include bible study.

Creation has been successfully included as part of the curriculum of courses on religion or the bible in public high schools, I believe.

 

[The Question]

Actually, it's funny that you should mention it...

...the ones trying to stick creationism in the classroom that get slapped down are typically the establishments (local and state gov'ts) funding the classrooms. I wouldn't refer to creationism as anti-establishment, particularly given the classical meaning of the term in political ideology, but you're welcome to develop that line of argument further.

The big problem is that it's hard to argue that creation theory is part of science, justifying it being taught in the classroom (see item 2 - "they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.") While history and politics can be considered part of the study of geography in these days, biology hasn't been expanded to include bible study.

Well, put it this way -- while I don't accept it as a viable theory, it's been proposed as one. It at least pretends to be a competitor, and treating it as one for the purpose of disqualifying it as such would be valuable education. Any theory is weakened by a vacuum of competing theories, and not only would comparing mechanistic biology to creation "theory" strengthen students' understanding of why mechanistic biology is a superior theory, it would also teach them how to recognize superior theories in a competitive environment.