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

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Or, they could just keep not including it as the clearest way of getting across that it's not a viable comptetive theory.

 

[Colonel Kira's Left Tit]

Didn't we all have teachers like this in high school? I know my freshman year Civics teacher was an actual hippie, 60s style, not one of these second generation 90s style pseudo-hippies that are teaching nowadays. This was during the Iranian hostage crisis and the 1980 election, too, so he was sure to try to indoctrinate us to the fact that Reagan was gonna blow up the world if he got elected. Never happened, of course.

I don't think we have the full story on this guy or his classes, yet, as he claims that the tape only covered 20 minutes of a 50 minute class. Unless he balanced that particular lecture with another 20 minutes of rhetoric from the other side, though, it's highly questionable. As Pete said, there's not really any call for that sort of political rhetoric in a classroom with a captive audience, particularly at the high school level.

 

[The Question]

I see what you're driving at, but I disagree.

Would McDonald's really be weakened if Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell, KFC, and the vegan joint down the street didn't exist?

Well, that's not quite spot-on, is it? It would be a more accurate representation of what I'm driving at to ask whether the fast-food industry as a whole would be weakened if Burger King, Wendy's, et al didn't exist. I think the answer to that is pretty clear.

 

[TJHairball]

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.

Which any good philosophy of science course addresses.

It is a pity this topic isn't covered in high schools, but anything deemed philosophy tends to get the short end of the stick amidst trying to get everybody acquainted with literacy, history, math, and science.

Well, that or deemed too complex for ordinary high school students.

 

[The Question]

Or, they could just keep not including it as the clearest way of getting across that it's not a viable comptetive theory.

Actually, all that gets across about it is... nothing. Not discussing something usually isn't a particularly effective means of discrediting it. May be a bad analogy, but that's the same way the Wizard of Oz wanted to "disappear" the man behind the curtain.

 

[The Question]

^^I don't see it. Creation "theory" strengthens mechanistic biology and cosmology by demonstrating their logical strengths by contrast. Competitors to McDonald's (assuming for the sake of this argument that McDonald's products are the superior ones) strengthen McDonald's in the marketplace by providing a point of comparison for its products.

 

[The Question]

So they should teach UFOs and tinfoil cults in school?

That depends on what UFOs and tinfoil cults present competition to, doesn't it? I doubt anything in high school coursework moves through areas in which those would have any relevance at all, though. It's not like UFOs present a competitor to algebra, or that tinfoil cults present an alternative view of home economics.

Well... maybe. You know, those Branch Davidians did know how to throw a mean barbecue.

 

[Peter Octavian]

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.

It's not two different cards here.

Not that it's likely, knowing the politics of teacher's unions, that we will ever hear Bill Clinton compared to a serial sex offender, but it shouldn't matter. In a high school classroom, there's no room for this kind of hyperbole, not in reference to Bush, not in reference to Clinton, not in reference to any President.

It doesn't really matter what kind of defense some educator or sociologist applies to the formula, we're talking about kids who are learning. Children. No matter how much sophistication you'd like to attribute to them, the simple fact that they've got limited life experience does limit their ability to discern between "A is B" and "A shares some similarities with B" when so instructed. Further, the lecture in question was filled with spun facts, opinion and speculation, and erroneous statistics about the US, the tone apparently designed to cast a negative light. You really expect that a classroom full of kids, for whom the phrase, "whatever, dude" is a staple, who use "and shit" as though it were punctuation to be able to discern the subtle difference between someone who's challenging their assumptions, and someone who's sharing the dirty secret truths that they otherwise wouldn't be told?

And, as a parent, I can tell you that I don't care to allow teachers to have "freedom of speech" when they're teaching my kids. I want to know exactly what they're saying. If they decide to teach from any political orientation, I'm going to want them stopped. Political posturing, even the not-so-subtle, "I'm just trying to make you think for yourselves, tasking your unchallenged assumptions" variety championed by Bennish is fine at the coffee shop, or at the University, but it's got no place in public schools.

That includes disparaging comparisons which cast aspersions on the President or his Office.

 

[TJHairball]

It's not two different cards here.

Not that it's likely, knowing the politics of teacher's unions, that we will ever hear Bill Clinton compared to a serial sex offender, but it shouldn't matter. In a high school classroom, there's no room for this kind of hyperbole, not in reference to Bush, not in reference to Clinton, not in reference to any President.

"This kind of hyperbole" - comparing rhetorical techniques of two leaders of historical note.

...

Pete, you just don't like the comparison being made. And you'd be surprised about nobody criticizing Clinton.

(For that matter, the teacher in question does so on a matter of policy - not rhetoric.)

It doesn't really matter what kind of defense some educator or sociologist applies to the formula, we're talking about kids who are learning. Children. No matter how much sophistication you'd like to attribute to them, the simple fact that they've got limited life experience does limit their ability to discern between "A is B" and "A shares some similarities with B" when so instructed.

"OMG the little kids can't tell WTF is going on."

... Pete, just how old do you think the students in that class were?

Further, the lecture in question was filled with spun facts, opinion and speculation, and erroneous statistics about the US, the tone apparently designed to cast a negative light.

"Spun facts" meaning very real facts that you'd probably like to gloss over - e.g., that we sold arms to both Iran and Iraq during their bloody war?

Let's face it, Pete. Some of the facts aren't very friendly to the nationalistic geography class you want him to be teaching.

You really expect that a classroom full of kids, for whom the phrase, "whatever, dude" is a staple, who use "and shit" as though it were punctuation to be able to discern the subtle difference between someone who's challenging their assumptions, and someone who's sharing the dirty secret truths that they otherwise wouldn't be told?

If you think these sorts of "spun facts" are "dirty secret truths," or can be mistaken for somehow being unknown secrets, you're really hung up on burying past US mistakes.

And, as a parent, I can tell you that I don't care to allow teachers to have "freedom of speech" when they're teaching my kids.

Zey moost Sieg Heil for teh flag! No other view permitted!

I want to know exactly what they're saying. If they decide to teach from any political orientation, I'm going to want them stopped. Political posturing, even the not-so-subtle, "I'm just trying to make you think for yourselves, tasking your unchallenged assumptions" variety championed by Bennish is fine at the coffee shop, or at the University, but it's got no place in public schools.

So you want (a) "no" political posturing in class (remembering what I said about everything you say in the social sciences involving political posturing; it standing out is only a matter of which political stance you happen to hold dear), and (b) no "trying to make kids think for themselves." (Which is half the point of education.)

Zey moost teach zat Amerika bin great! And notting else, since it would be poooolitical indoctrination!

That includes disparaging comparisons which cast aspersions on the President or his Office.

Pete, here's where you show the truth about what bugs you.

It's not that he has political views (everybody does), or that he's expressed political views, however roundabout his fashion of doing so and however much he tries to make sure that he's not pushing his views on the students (everybody talking about the topic does so); it's that his political views aren't your political views. (And what seems to be his main tenet? "There's more than one way to look at things. Hm. Such a seditious and outrageous political view... can't allow that one.)

"President is sacred! No criticism allowed for good of State! Particularly not by employee of State!"

Seriously, Pete, you're pretty transparent here.

 

[The Question]

"This kind of hyperbole" - comparing rhetorical techniques of two leaders of historical note.

I think the comparison carries quite a lot more emotional weight to his students than that, and I think you damn well know it. The guy wasn't comparing Tony Blair and Winston Churchill, for Chrissakes.

 

[The Question]

Do you honestly believe that?

What, the particulars of it? No, because I don't think McDonald's has the best product in its industry. The principle behind it? Absolutely. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is just as vital and beneficial as competition in the marketplace of goods and services. And in either case, even the competitors of lowest relative value contribute by providing object lessons from which the rest of the competition can learn.

 

[The Question]

History. Religious studies. Sociology. Physics. To name a few.

Well, I can see those possibly being items of tangential interest or comparison in college-level coursework, but not at the high school level.

 

[Laker_Girl]

He said in an interview on the Today Show that the media wasn't playing the whole 55 minute lecture. I heard most of it on the Larry Elder radio show and it was pretty much more of the same.

 

[TJHairball]

I think the comparison carries quite a lot more emotional weight to his students than that, and I think you damn well know it. The guy wasn't comparing Tony Blair and Winston Churchill, for Chrissakes.

Oh, heaven forbid. I'm sure if he'd gone off along these lines about Blair and Churchill comparing the two, Petey and I lived in the UK, and Fox News was a UK organization that somehow acted as it does in the US, we'd be having the same discussion.

Yeesh. Sure, people try to use Hitler as a buzzword to draw extra attention, but Godwin's Law brings us around to the fact that he's overused enough not to draw much extra reaction outside of Jewish communities. This is the generation that grew up on the Internet that Godwin's Law describes, after all. These students have probably heard at least a hundred different people and organizations described as being like the Nazis and/or Hitler himself.

 

[The Question]

Maybe -- doesn't change the fact that Bennish still loses.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Zey moost teach zat Amerika bin great! And notting else, since it would be poooolitical indoctrination!Pete, here's where you show the truth about what bugs you.

It's not that he has political views (everybody does), or that he's expressed political views, however roundabout his fashion of doing so and however much he tries to make sure that he's not pushing his views on the students (everybody talking about the topic does so); it's that his political views aren't your political views. (And what seems to be his main tenet? "There's more than one way to look at things. Hm. Such a seditious and outrageous political view... can't allow that one.)

"President is sacred! No criticism allowed for good of State! Particularly not by employee of State!"

Seriously, Pete, you're pretty transparent here.

You know, I swear I'm not Charlie McCarthy, so why the fuck are you putting words into my mouth.

It's always the same with you, add whatever's missing from what I actually stated, say that it's implied, then cross your arms after you're done patting yourself on the back.

Why is your head so fucking thick?

Let me break this down for you.

Bennish, or any teacher for that matter, doesn't so much work for the school, but works for the community whose taxes pay a salary. Which means, if Bennish were in the school district in which my children attended, he would be working for ME. They're my kids, it's my tax money, so you bet your goddamned last dollar that it's my right to object to political posturing.

And, since you're putting words into my mouth about where my political bent affects my motivations in this, let me just clear something up. When my kids (and I will backstep here to qualify that they are my stepchildren) came home during the election of 2004 with unkind words about John Kerry from their father, I corrected them. I don't want them to have a unilateral view in regard to politics and the personalities involved, and I certainly don't want them to go shooting their mouths off when they really haven't lived long enough to understand much about the process. I went on to tell them that neither candidate is all good or all bad, but that each has his strengths and weaknesses, and a choice for either requires careful consideration, and neither man should be dismissed or denegrated.

They're not getting that at home, and I certainly don't approve of them getting that at school. You can justify the comparison all you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one that's transparent because it's Bennish's views are the same as yours. Apparently, you whole-heartedly support denegration of this president, and it follows any president that falls into the crosshairs of some hippy with a hardon, and have no problem with unsubstantiated villification of this country.

Truth be told, every country on the face of the planet has it's dirty little secrets, its hidden shames, but I promise you that Jay Bennish and his ilk aren't going to be teaching that. The fact that he did the little "they believe they're not doing anything wrong" dance around those who attacked and killed innocents here is proof that "fair and balanced" is no more suitable a description for him than it is for Fox News.

So, you go ahead and suggest that I'm some sort of fascist for wanting to keep Bennish's slant out of the classroom, and claim that it's because I disagree. I'm telling you right now, (and while I know it's futile because you will undoubtedly, in any reply, ignore what I've said), I'll put up a fight when any teacher starts spouting political extremism in a PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL, and it won't matter if he's praising George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or tearing either down.

Iconoclasm imploded in the early 80's when all of the Berkely Bunch went Wall Street. If you want to pursue it, follow the smell of patchouli and find a coffee house, but keep it out of publicly funded schools.

 

[TJHairball]

You know, I swear I'm not Charlie McCarthy, so why the fuck are you putting words into my mouth.

Pete, I don't need to put words in your mouth.

It's always the same with you, add whatever's missing from what I actually stated, say that it's implied, then cross your arms after you're done patting yourself on the back.

Not my fault if you can't read your own words without assistance. When I quote them directly back at you, you just look puzzled and pretend they don't mean anything.

Pete, why is your head so fucking thick?

Bennish, or any teacher for that matter, doesn't so much work for the school, but works for the community whose taxes pay a salary.

I.e., the state, mostly.

Which means, if Bennish were in the school district in which my children attended, he would be working for ME.

As much as the guy at the DMV is.

They're my kids, it's my tax money, so you bet your goddamned last dollar that it's my right to object to political posturing.

Since they aren't your kids at that school, and it's in a whole different state from you (IIRC), what are you objecting to?

I went on to tell them that neither candidate is all good or all bad, but that each has his strengths and weaknesses, and a choice for either requires careful consideration, and neither man should be dismissed or denegrated.

Which is what most good teachers do when the topic is politics, and which is what Bennish is trying to get at in his lecture here.

It's not all cut-and-dried.

They're not getting that at home, and I certainly don't approve of them getting that at school.

Say what? I thought you just said you did talk to them about how nobody here is all good or all bad. Make up your mind, Pete.

You can justify the comparison all you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one that's transparent because it's Bennish's views are the same as yours. Apparently, you whole-heartedly support denegration of this president, and it follows any president that falls into the crosshairs of some hippy with a hardon, and have no problem with unsubstantiated villification of this country.

And here you go again. I even pointed out a few things Bennish said that I firmly disagree with, and you're still making bogus claims about that. They're all dirty nasty hippies who must be wrong.

And his sin here is criticizing the president. Not talking about the CIA, not talking about Israel, not criticizing a recent but no longer sitting president, but criticizing the standing president.

Pete, I don't know what planet you live on... but here on Earth, it's a natural thing to critique the President of the United States. Whether or not you live there, or work for the state, or anything else. And if you're teaching the topic, ignoring current events is (a) dishonest by omission and (b) bad teaching techniques (pulling in familiar material to explain less familiar material is something that works damn well.)

Truth be told, every country on the face of the planet has it's dirty little secrets, its hidden shames, but I promise you that Jay Bennish and his ilk aren't going to be teaching that. The fact that he did the little "they believe they're not doing anything wrong" dance around those who attacked and killed innocents here is proof that "fair and balanced" is no more suitable a description for him than it is for Fox News.

And teachers like Bennish are happy to point out every country's dirty little secrets and hidden shames. Sure, he started off with the US and Israel, but if he's like others I've heard like him, he'll start in on the others as soon as students start to favor them.

What? Are you going to seriously claim that the men who went and trained at great length for the WTC plane-bombing thought they were doing the wrong thing?

Heck no. They thought they were doing the right thing. That's what made them so dangerous. When Bennish points this out, he's doing nothing but stating the plain ugly truth.

A truth that you don't want to hear, just as you don't want to hear criticism of Bush.

So, you go ahead and suggest that I'm some sort of fascist for wanting to keep Bennish's slant out of the classroom, and claim that it's because I disagree. I'm telling you right now, (and while I know it's futile because you will undoubtedly, in any reply, ignore what I've said), I'll put up a fight when any teacher starts spouting political extremism in a PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL, and it won't matter if he's praising George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or tearing either down.

And I'm going to point at you at say that intolerant pricks like you are exactly what apolitical academics had in mind when they came up with things like tenure and the notion of academic freedom.

Free speech is a very fragile thing, as is academic integrity; either is easily threatened by individuals willing to put their backs to the wheel in forcibly suppressing or advancing an ideology.

Iconoclasm imploded in the early 80's when all of the Berkely Bunch went Wall Street. If you want to pursue it, follow the smell of patchouli and find a coffee house, but keep it out of publicly funded schools.

If you want censorship and the hiring and firing of teachers based solely on whether or not they agree with your ideology, send your kids to a private school funded by like minded people. The First Amendment applies in full to the public ones.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Controversial Teacher Keeps Job
By DenverPost.com

A Cherry Creek social studies teacher will not lose his job, after a student went public with a tape recording of controversial comments the teacher had made in class.

Superintendent Monte C. Moses said Jay Bennish will be reinstated to his job at Overland High School, and will be teaching on Monday.

At a news conference this afternoon, Moses said Bennish doesn't deserve to be praised, nor does he deserve to be fired. "Jay Bennish has promise as a teacher, but his practice and deportment need growth and refinement," said Moses.

Bennish gave a brief speech after the district's announcement, saying he was looking forward to going back to the classroom.

“I'm very excited to continue encouraging students to think critically, to encourage democratic values in our society, to promote social justice just as I have always attempted to do,†he said. “I will continue trying to prove myself as a teacher, be the most effective teacher I can be.â€

David Lane, Bennish's attorney, said Bennish was not suspended and would not lose any pay, though neither he nor the superintendent would discuss whether Bennish was reprimanded. The superintendent did acknowledge that some discipline had occurred, but he would not be specific.

Lane said Bennish planned to be more sensitive to student and parent concerns.

“I think Jay has learned from this experience that when you're dealing with high school students, perhaps you need to be a little bit more sensitive to those kinds of concerns as well,†he said.

“I applaud the Cherry Creek School District for understanding the First Amendment implications involved in this whole issue, for understanding the concept of academic freedom and for being sensitive to those issues of constitutional magnitude,†Lane said.

Lane had threated to sue the school district if Bennish was fired.

Bennish was placed on paid administrative leave last week while officials probed allegations that he was biased after sophomore Sean Allen went public with a recording he made of a Feb. 1 geography lecture.

Bennish had cited "eerie similarities" between Bush's State of the Union address and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."

Today in Washington, President Bush was asked about the Bennish controversy.

"I think people should be allowed to criticize me all they want. And they do," Bush said.

Governor Bill Owens released a statement this afternoon about the board's decision.

“My first thought is to thank Sean Allen for standing up and voicing his concern over a teacher who was using his classroom as a political soapbox. Second, I hope that Mr. Bennish will learn something from this and actually work to balance and improve his classroom presentation,†said Owens, in the statement.

Not much to add, everyone managed to save face while keeping to their own particular political lines...