Politics? in the classroom

[Davy S.]

The day the spin-sters convince the shrinking minority of Americans who hold the principles of Democracy sacred that "elected" officials breaking Constitutional, International, and Moral laws is simply political opinion is the day we lose freedom forever.

[Unregistered]

Very interesting prose. Could you post an English translation?

[Unregistered]

Even I understood the guy. He says we have a duty to stand up against the politicos who control the media and who are undermining the Constitution. I'll have to think about that, but it's pretty plain talk. Ask any English Major next time you need help with your reading.

[Unregistered]

He says we have a duty to stand up against the politicos who control the media and who are undermining the Constitution.

Okay. Write letters to the newspaper. Call your representatives. Demonstrate on the streets. Vote. You have a right to express your OPINIONS. Our society provides plenty of opportunities to do so.

Now, what does this have to do with what goes on inside the classroom? Why is this discussion even in our forum?

[Unregistered]

If you can't figure that much out at this late date, nothing said here will help.

[Unregistered]

Oh, I can figure that out, I was just being coy, you know,so I could get someone to say more clearly that they wanted to stick up for democracy in the classroom. Then I could jump in with my prepared rant (BJU trains us well) about no political opinions in the classroom. Because we all know that silencing dissent has always been a key step to squelching democracy. Besides, we have fox to feed us our truthishness and don't need it from you so called intelligentia. And then again (another key to this whole discredit educators plan) teachers are mainly incapable of doing their job and just living off the public anyway with their evil labor union (trust the corporations,they are our friend, our big brother.)

[Unregistered]

Why not take your message to the streets, rather than ranting in front of a bunch of kids? (Wait, that could mean open confrontation with adults who might be able to refute his argument. Can't have that... too much courage required.)

Because we all know that silencing dissent has always been a key step to squelching democracy.

No one's dissent is being silenced. You can call your local radio show. You can write your Congressman. You can make a **** fool out of yourself at the market square if you wish. But at least have the guts to take your message to mature adults who are not reliant upon you for a course grade.

[Unregistered]

You are the person who continually portrays teachers as corrupt incompetents who pass out grades for the sole purpose of spreading insidious political positions. Most Americans would consider the public school classroom the perfect place to discuss political differences. But then most people are not facists.

[Unregistered]

You are the person who continually portrays teachers as corrupt incompetents who pass out grades for the sole purpose of spreading insidious political positions.

Well, I portray SOME teachers as corrupt incompetents... but I don't state anything of that sort in my classrooms. (See the difference?) According to your argument, I should spend my time "informing" my students of my opinions so that I can convince them that the teaching profession was "corrupt and incompetent." But if I did so you would be the first in line trying to shut me up.

Most Americans would consider the public school classroom the perfect place to discuss political differences.

I like the way you framed the argument. After all, no one would argue against the freedom to merely discuss political differences.

[Unregistered]

Most Americans would consider the public school classroom the perfect place to discuss political differences.

BTW the whole original outcry about discussing politics in the classroom was not so much about "discussing political differences " as much as presenting your (meaning you, the teacher) side of the political agenda only

[MIldred]

Over the course of 12 years of public education, a given student will find herself in somewhere around 50 classrooms with diverse teachers of varying experiences, idealogies, and attitudes.

We should protect children against adults who would do them physical harm or who would behave in a morally reprehensible fashion.

But where in the world did you come up with the idea that we have to protect the students against a teacher sharing ideas which are important to the teacher?

There seems to be an effort here to portray teachers as brain controllers. Ridiculous! This false assumption is being spread as yet another attempt to alarm us about a non problem. What is the intent behind this effort? To silence public discourse? To discredit teachers? Get off of it!

[Unregistered]

But where in the world did you come up with the idea that we have to protect the students against a teacher sharing ideas which are important to the teacher?

Now the discussion is being cast as the mere "sharing of ideas."

You know very well what this is about: A teacher trying to instill a certain political agenda in his or her students. Not only have I seen it front of my very own eyes, I have experienced it as a student. Just about every college grad I know can tell stories about professors who preached their own brand of politics in class. And if it happens at the college level, you can bank on it happening at the high school level.

If a teacher walks up to the front of class and states, "Well, it looks like our government is once again trampling our rights...," that is not the mere sharing of an idea. That is an attempt -- conscious or subconscious -- by the teacher to persuade students towards his or her own political agenda. The students are smart enough to know that the teacher is establishing what is an acceptable view and what isn't.

And of course the teachers always express bewilderment that anyone could possibly construe their "well-meaning" attempt at political dialogue as propaganda. But anyone past the 5th grade is smart enough to know better.

The political stances that teachers introduce into their dicussions is based purely on arrogance: That the teachers' own political view is obviously so correct that anyone that disagrees needs to be educated. The teacher's own beliefs are therefore "enlightened."

Now, is it possible to discuss political views in an objective manner so that students from all walks of life can form their own opinion? Sure. But it takes a real effort to do so. If you can form the discussion and leave the kids guessing as to your political slant when it is all over, then you have done the job. As soon as you interject your own views, you no longer have a fair discussion because the authority figure in the class has tipped the scales.

If, however, you want to display your own views, then at least have the courage to bring in another informed adult that can formulate contrary arguments. But not many teachers have that kind of courage.

There seems to be an effort here to portray teachers as brain controllers. Ridiculous! This false assumption is being spread as yet another attempt to alarm us about a non problem. What is the intent behind this effort? To silence public discourse?

Public discourse? C'mon, these are KIDS!! If you want public discourse, have the guts to take your argument to another adult in a public forum. Those kids have no choice but to listen to the political rant (oh, I forgot... it is "mere discussion").

How many in here have publically debated a political topic with another individual in front of a formal audience? (Actually, I have.)

[Unregistered]

If you are a teacher, you have a responsibility to share your ideals with your students. Silence is compliance. Any educated person who does not try to share the values of human dignity that are at the core of a liberal education should be ashamed. Our goverment is breaking international and moral law with impunity. This is not about politcal views. It is about truth. The attempts by the supporters of the current corporate hijacking of the government of the people to persuade teachers to sit quietly by are shameful. If you want to be a Good German, do so. But you won't convince anyone with a soul to sit still during this crisis. Go ahead and stew, I am going to continue to influence every human being I can to put kindness ahead of profit and respect for human rights ahead of obediance to authority. Like it or lump it.

[Unregistered]

Propaganda does not come from individual expressing their ideas. It always comes from organized groups of idealogues with a fixed agenda. It is a truly Orwellian stroke for the spin masters of the far right to try to portray teachers who are morally outraged by the horrors visited on us by their political machine as propagandists. Have you no shame?

[Unregistered]

Our goverment is breaking international and moral law with impunity. This is not about politcal views. It is about truth.

In other words, your political opinions must be true; those who disagree are wrong and need "educating." This is exactly the sort of arrogance I mentioned in my previous post, an illustration that some teachers cannot be trusted to discuss politics in an objective manner.

If you really, really think that something needs to be done, then take your message to the streets, legislatures, news media. Show some guts!

It always comes from organized groups of idealogues with a fixed agenda.

You mean, like teachers' unions? Are they not organized groups of idealogues with a fixed agenda?

[Unregistered]

If you want to be a Good German, do so.

Actually, the preaching of politics to young kids smacks more of Nazi Germany than anything else in this forum. But I think it is silly to invoke the image of Nazi Germany into this discussion.

[Unregistered]

If you are a teacher, you have a responsibility to share your ideals with your students. Silence is compliance. Any educated person who does not try to share the values of human dignity that are at the core of a liberal education should be ashamed. Our goverment is breaking international and moral law with impunity. This is not about politcal views. It is about truth. The attempts by the supporters of the current corporate hijacking of the government of the people to persuade teachers to sit quietly by are shameful. If you want to be a Good German, do so. But you won't convince anyone with a soul to sit still during this crisis. Go ahead and stew, I am going to continue to influence every human being I can to put kindness ahead of profit and respect for human rights ahead of obediance to authority. Like it or lump it.

You are wrong. You know deep inside that you are less safe speaking out this year than last. Big Brother is listening in on phone calls and watching emails. People are already afraid to speak out and more and more teachers are becoming "Good Germans", loudly proclaiming the benefits of acquiesence. In a surprisingly short time you will not be so brave. We both know what I am talking about. It is no longer safe to disagree with the people in power. Democracy is not dying, my friend. You just missed the funeral.

[Unregistered]

You mean, like teachers' unions? Are they not organized groups of idealogues with a fixed agenda?

No, not like unions, like your church or your political party. I haven't been to a union meeting in years and have no idea what their platform is on waging war against nations whose only crime is an abundance of oil.

[Unregistered]

Actually, the preaching of politics to young kids smacks more of Nazi Germany than anything else in this forum. But I think it is silly to invoke the image of Nazi Germany into this discussion.

Oops, I used an expression that requires broader reading. "Good German" refers to those who, though not directly affiliated with Nazi Germany, allowed the crimes against humanity to go on simply by an attitude of obeying authority. Thus, the "Good Germans" are those who do nothing while our country invades other nations and conduct torture camps, illegal eavesdropping, and detainment without defense or trial, all in direct violation of international and moral law. Get the analogy now?

[Unregistered]

You are wrong. You know deep inside that you are less safe speaking out this year than last. Big Brother is listening in on phone calls and watching emails. People are already afraid to speak out and more and more teachers are becoming "Good Germans", loudly proclaiming the benefits of acquiesence. In a surprisingly short time you will not be so brave. We both know what I am talking about. It is no longer safe to disagree with the people in power. Democracy is not dying, my friend. You just missed the funeral.

I can't disagree. I obviously feel it is worth the risk, but I too know many who have stopped speaking out, even in the privacy of their homes. The regime has clearly achieved a chilling of dissent, and it is well orchestrated. Of course, those who speak only the party line would not even notice this, nor would they give credence to the millions of Americans who would tell them if they had ears to hear. I am an old person with too much love of freedom and too little to lose to fear hermano grande.
Many often ask, what about the Democratic Party? Why don't they stand up? The politicians who haven't been bought and paid for are mostly just as afraid as the average citizen. I agree that they, and we, have reason to be afraid. I just don't think we should bow to tyranny. Better dead than in chains, eh?

[Unregistered]

"Good German" refers to those who, though not directly affiliated with Nazi Germany, allowed the crimes against humanity to go on simply by an attitude of obeying authority.

Yes, the injection of Nazi Germany into this discussion is stupid, pointless, and silly.

The most organized group of idealogues with fixed agendas that I see around are the members of the teachers' union. But so what? I'm even a member. People should be allowed to hold opinions, form groups of like-minded individuals, and use their organization to influence social issues.

Many often ask, what about the Democratic Party? Why don't they stand up? The politicians who haven't been bought and paid for are mostly just as afraid as the average citizen. I agree that they, and we, have reason to be afraid. I just don't think we should bow to tyranny. Better dead than in chains, eh?

I cannot believe grown people can carry on like this. Boy, it sure is great that our country has such brave men and women who can face certain death (or worse, I can only imagine) by ranting their own political opinions in front of their classrooms.

So let me ask: Do you fear the knock on your door at night? Do you sleep with a loaded pistol at your side? Are you worried that they might go after your family?

[Unregistered]

You can't understand the increased level of fear Americans are feeling about voicing dissent unless you have strong objections to the activities of the people in power. I think that is what that person meant by "Good German". And we do need to constantly remind ourselves that it could happen here. What needs to happen before you become concerned? I have a hard time understanding how anyone who has a grasp of history would not be concerned when so much technological power is being concentrated in the hands of people who openly flaunt the constitution, the U.N., and international law, i.e. the Geneva Convention. There is an article in the news today about spy satellites focused on U.S. citizens and another about broadening the listening in on phone calls (we need more than 10 million?) So to answer your question, yes. I don't really feel safe about writing these things on the internet. A very conservative friend of mine curtailed our phone conversation the other night as we were discussing some of these issues, and another couple, she is a Phd in math and he is a defense engineer, stopped talking in their home, looked around nervously, and asked, "Do you think it is safe for us to be discussing these things?"
I don't know anyone who has violent ideas about achieving political objectives. I would have thought any political discussion that does not have violent or seditious overtones would be protected by our constitution. But people are clearly becoming increasingly afraid of open criticism of the government. That does worry me, quite a bit. If you are not worried, well, in a way I envy you, but I think you would at least consider the feelings of those who are feeling oppressed.

[Unregistered]

You can't understand the increased level of fear Americans are feeling about voicing dissent unless you have strong objections to the activities of the people in power.

What punishments do you fear? Are you afraid they will place you in a concentration camp? Execute you? Terrorize your family?

I will call up a friend on the phone and state some very clear objections to our current government. I will tell her that I plan to form a political group to voice objections to the government and will rally the nation to oppose it. I will then hang up the phone and see what horrible things will happen to me.

A very conservative friend of mine curtailed our phone conversation the other night as we were discussing some of these issues, and another couple, she is a Phd in math and he is a defense engineer, stopped talking in their home, looked around nervously, and asked, "Do you think it is safe for us to be discussing these things?"

We have 260 million people in this country. Anyone so blinded to the overwhelming odds that the government is going to listen in on their conversations and, based on some criticism they hear, take action against them has passed into a state of paranoia. I wonder about the intelligence of supposedly educated people worrying about the government having the time to but their house in order to listen in on their conversations.

Now, if they have had some contacts with terrorists, that would be another matter. If so, they should call the FBI and disclose what they know.

Every day highly prolific writers in our newspapers take aim at the government, but the government is going to be worried about what a mathematician says in her own home?

Maybe reading 1984 wasn't such a hot idea for some of you. At some point you need to place your feet on the ground and consider the hilarity of what you are describing. Some of you are beginning to sound like UFO-abductees.

[Unregistered]

Your post was a very long and thoughtful statement that essentially restates one of mankinds most popular themes: it can't happen here.

Responsible citizens recognize the early signs that lead to the final result and attempt to rectify the wrongs before we cross that fateful line from which there is no return. What you call paranoia, I call realistic expectations about the nature of power.

[Unregistered]

Responsible citizens recognize the early signs that lead to the final result and attempt to rectify the wrongs before we cross that fateful line from which there is no return. What you call paranoia, I call realistic expectations about the nature of power.

If you want to continue thinking there are monsters under your bed, feel free. Frankly, I think it is comical.

Sure, anytime the government oversteps its bounds it should be open to criticism, but the constant equating of the current situation with pre-Nazi Germany is a bit much. No one is going to knock on your door in the middle of the night simply because you voiced objections to the government.

By the way, responsible citizens do more than quake in their boots and stifle their talk to avoid recriminations. A responsible citizen is supposed to take his or her views to the public and demand changes. Are you doing that?

[Be Just]

I agree with the poster who says we are on shaky ground, but also can see why the comparison with Nazi Germany hits too many hot buttons to make the point, although in fairness, calling someone a good german was what made the responder move right into the whole Nazi mess. Rather a leap.

Maybe Peru would be a better analogy; more recent, and a better parallel. Shocked by terrorism, the citizens traded their democracy for security and wound up with hooded judges sending innocents to unknown fates for crimes unproven. After many years of this, the Peruvians finally realized that fear of terrorists was better than fear of one's own government gone power mad.

Laughing at another's fears is not just calloused, by the way, It is often a response to cover up issues one does not have the courage to face. There is a who generation of people who don't know how dangerous trading freedom for security can be. They have not personally lived through the horrors of war or of totalitarian governments that can take over in the blink of an eye when the public allows leaders to step over the bounds painstakingly created as safeguards of democracy.

History has shown us that democracies become dictatorships very easily, and getting the democracy back is very difficult. Nobody likes paranoia, but vigilance seems to be asleep at the wheel in this generation. It can happen here.

[Unregistered]

The NRA should recruit in this forum. Most of you are sounding just like the ones you used to make fun of before Bush came to power.

[Unregistered]

The NRA should recruit in this forum. Most of you are sounding just like the ones you used to make fun of before Bush came to power.

Interesting word choice, "came to power." I thought our Executive was suppossed to be a public servant.

[Unregistered]

I think it is generally understood that all Presidents wield enormous power.

Joined the NRA yet?

[Unregistered]

I take it you are equating citizens who are concerned with overstepping executive powers with the NRA as an attempt to marginalize both groups. How Fox ish of you. This is the same person who always decries personal attacks and admonishes other posters to address the issues. Demanding standards of those who hold a different position while totally ignoring those standards is so typical of the far right, the real nut jobs, who unfortunately for the children and teachers of the world have seized power with their bag of dirty tricks.

[Unregistered]

I take it you are equating citizens who are concerned with overstepping executive powers with the NRA as an attempt to marginalize both groups.

No, I am just pointing out the hilarity in seeing that those who chided others for believing that the government could turn tyrannical are now in the same boat.

I guess this proves the old saying, "Get to know your enemies well, because you are probably just like them."

If what everyone in here is saying about the future of our government is true, then the NRA was right all along. The government can turn tyrannical (some are saying it already has), and if so our basic freedoms are at stake. What choice do we have other than to arm ourselves for the future struggle to secure democracy?

[Unregistered]

I am a member of the NRA and am well armed. I also believe that the government is not to be trusted with power, as did our founding fathers. However, I have never once considered it an option "to arm ourselves for the future struggle to secure democracy." I cannot think of a single time in recent history that responding to a call to arms did not end badly.

On the other hand, it seems crucial to me that as many citizens as possible be alarmed at the trends toward losing democracy. This includes the opportunities to raise conciousness in the classroom.

I make it a point to avoid defending or assaulting any particular party or politician or cause in the classroom,or outside it for that matter. But I never miss a chance to encourage my students to question the status quo, especially now, when so many are so blase about the increasing danger.

In short, I truly believe we need to raise consciousness,not arms. The people do get the government they deserve. I don't see the American Public as much different than their government right now: contemptuous of learning; quick to turn to violence; quick to judge without questioning sources; slow to listen to ideas outside of the narrow range of the insulated culture.

As a teacher and an American, I carry on a daily struggle to help others see the importance of learning, open mindedness, reason as oppossed to violence, and respect for dignity of life over profit or the perception of security. That is why I visit blog sites like this one and engage in dialogue intelligent people who haven't thought things through fully yet. If I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see beyond the pap that is often published here as conventional wisdom,I wouldn't bother to respond to you as often as I do.

[Unregistered]

I cannot think of a single time in recent history that responding to a call to arms did not end badly.

I can cite numerous examples where citizens of a country did not have the means to respond to a call to arms and, as a result, ended up living in horrific conditions. The whole point of having a well-armed populace is so that you don't have to respond to a call for arms.

I don't see the American Public as much different than their government right now: contemptuous of learning; quick to turn to violence; quick to judge without questioning sources; slow to listen to ideas outside of the narrow range of the insulated culture.

In other words, too many Americans disagree with your own political opinions, so they must be contemptuous of learning and narrow-minded.

While many in here disagree with the current Government's attempts to reform education, it can hardly be considered contemptuous of learning.

[Unregistered]

I can cite numerous examples where citizens of a country did not have the means to respond to a call to arms and, as a result, ended up living in horrific conditions. The whole point of having a well-armed populace is so that you don't have to respond to a call for arms.


You are trying to disagree with me, but not successfully doing so. I did not say that having an armed populace was a bad idea. On the contrary, as an armed citizen and a member of the NRA, I strongly believe that the populace should be armed. But against its own government? To what possible end?

Your suggestion that we prepare for armed struggle against ourselves is, in my view pure insanity. I would never participate in such an action. The reason I would not participate is because armed struggle always ends up badly and no real change is made. The only real change takes place, as Jefferson (among others) observed, in the hearts and minds of the people.

You go on to misunderstand my reasoning based upon that belief. The government we currently have is a reflection of the hearts and minds of its citizens. I'm not even vaguely describing people who "disagree with (my) own political opinions." I haven't even stated my political opinions. I don't disagree with the political opinions of the populace or of the current administration. I do believe that both the populace and the government are suffering from the same, very human, weaknesses that I described earlier. Those weaknesses have absolutely nothing at all to do with which of the political parties are in power. I see very little difference between the two parties. Both parties have a history of waging ill-advised wars. Both parties are mired in petty squabbling while ignoring the major problems which are their duty to solve. Both parties are led by men who are more interested in lining their pockets and the pockets of their industrial masters than in improving the health and well being of their citizens.

In short, your attempt to turn my statement into partisan banter is a case in point of the narrow, querulous approach to communication that I am pointing to as the source of our difficulties.

[Unregistered]

You are trying to disagree with me, but not successfully doing so. I did not say that having an armed populace was a bad idea. On the contrary, as an armed citizen and a member of the NRA, I strongly believe that the populace should be armed. But against its own government? To what possible end?

It depends on whether you think the country is headed towards tyranny. If you don't, then you are essentially disagreeing with the alarmists in this forum. In that case we agree.

Those who disagree with the current government, no matter who is in power, always use the Fascist (or Communist) label to describe the government. I heard people call Clinton's government the same. Frankly, I think the "tyranny" argument is so overused as to be meaningless.

[Unregistered]

Frankly, I think the "tyranny" argument is so overused as to be meaningless.

Our system of government was developed as an attempt to safeguard the tyranny that the framers knew to be inevitable wherever great care was not taken by the citizenry. Even they knew that it was only a matter of time before their construct would fail. The tendency toward tyranny is just too powerful to be resisted without great vigilance. Ditto the tendency for those who have freedom to take it for granted and thereby lose it.

if you consider freedom to be man's greatest treasure or at the very least something worth protecting, you must be aware that left unguarded, it will be taken away.

Your statement is so typical of the false sense of security so many of our citizens have been lulled into. That blase attitude is, in itself, the best assurance that we are in danger.

It is as if you were sitting on a fortune and were repeating to yourself, "i'll be okay.' You won't be for long. Left unguarded, any thing worth taking will soon be taken.

If you have the same attitude toward your personal identity or your computer's security as you have toward your freedoms, i guarantee you that you are going to be very sorry in the next few months. The thieves have so much to gain from preying on the unwary.

I don't expect you to agree with me. One of the few satisfactions cautious persons have is the "i told you so's" that come to us all too frequently. I pray that you are right and that I am just overprotective of what i consider precious. But I always brace for the worse when I see people refusing to safeguard valuables.

[Unregistered]

Again, we heard the same arguments when Clinton was in office, except that those on the other side of the political fence were considered nuts and fruitcakes by the very same people now that are trying to raise the alarm with the current administration.

But back to the topic: These discussions are appropriate in an online forum among adults. We have the experience to understand when someone else is relying on faulty logic or incorrect facts; students don't. So what happens is that the classroom becomes a propaganda tool for whichever political affiliation is held by the teacher. Sure, if the teacher steps aside and lets the students discuss the issue among themselves. But too many teachers simply cannot sit there and allow students to voice opinions contrary to their own without trying to "correct" the record. If anything, the classroom becomes a closer example of tyranny than anything occurring in goverment.

[Unregistered]

i'm sorry, but i stlll don't get the concern about teachers brainwashing students with poltical opinions. I have friends who have strong religious convictions who share your, sorry, but here I have to say "paranoia" over children being influenced politcally by teachers. If you really want your children raised in a sanitized vacuum, I tell them, better home school them. Over the course of their public school education, they are going to meet dozens of teachers with a variety of well thought out and kookie ideas. Maybe ideas are like viruses, the more you are exposed to the hardier your resistence.

For example,as a child, I attended Catholic schools half of the time and public schools the other half. Talk about your brainwashing attempts! But it didn't take. My friends and I found the feeble attempts of the clergy to influence our thinking laughable, especially after the fifth grade or so. We were far more influenced by the music we listened to then the teachers.

I could almost wish teachers had a fraction of the influence over their charges that you are so worried about. And here's another thought, though the content of what we say goes in one ear and out the other, the experience of sharing ideas with a living, breathing, caring adult is probably an enriching experience to most children. My students come from apolitical environments. We teachers try to impart a love of learning and open discourse. Not every teacher is as expert in imparting as another, but if you are filled with fears about the evil intentions of teachers and your're the same person who has no fear about the intent of our politicians, I have to say your fears are probably badly misplaced.

[Unregistered]

i'm sorry, but i stlll don't get the concern about teachers brainwashing students with poltical opinions.

That is because most of the teachers have political opinions that tend to agree with yours. However, if most teachers were supporters of the active government and spent their time defending it in class you would change your tune.

Very few of us object to propaganda when we agree with it. In those situations, propaganda is considered mere "information." When we are strong in our political convictions, we view opposing arguments as falsehoods that need correcting. Arguments that agree with us are considered good information that needs to be taught.

What if most teachers on your campus ended the last ten minutes of class listening to a conservative talk-radio host (such as a pre-drugged Rush Limbaugh), with no attempt to provide a counterargument. You wouldn't find anything wrong with that?

Some of you need to take some science classes. Read about the extensive efforts necessary to prevent the researcher's bias from creeping into data. The same applies to any form of argumentation; bias is subtle and subconscious. In other words, we cannot know when we are biasing our own arguments -- any scientist will tell you that.

If you really want your children raised in a sanitized vacuum, I tell them, better home school them. Over the course of their public school education, they are going to meet dozens of teachers with a variety of well thought out and kookie ideas.

But you have the cart before the horse: Teachers should not try and teach their kooky ideas to the students in the first place. THAT is what this argument is about, not whether a parent should send her kid to public school.

Do you use the same argument when it comes to the teaching of religious views in public schools? That those who don't like it should home school their kids?

For example,as a child, I attended Catholic schools half of the time and public schools the other half. Talk about your brainwashing attempts! But it didn't take.

Really? As a scientist, I would ask how you could make that determination?

Suppose I told you one of my sons went to a military school and ended up joining the Army. Would that prove my point? Would it negate yours?

Anecdotes are worthless.

Besides, if a public school teacher decide to try and brainwash his students with Catholic dogman you would be the first in line to silence him. Right? If so, then these so-called brainwashing exercises must be fairly effective, otherwise no one would care about the separation of Church and State argument.

I could almost wish teachers had a fraction of the influence over their charges that you are so worried about. And here's another thought, though the content of what we say goes in one ear and out the other,

Yeah, as if you are showing great flexiblity in your own opinions.

... the experience of sharing ideas with a living, breathing, caring adult is probably an enriching experience to most children. My students come from apolitical environments. We teachers try to impart a love of learning and open discourse.

In other words, children, because they have not yet formed their own political opinions, are ripe for converting to our own political views. They are a blank slate that we can write our own ideals on.

Love of learning? Give me a break! As if the only way to impart a love of learning is to brand them with our own political agenda.

[Unregistered]

I don't have a political agenda. but clearly you do. why else would you be so fixated on this subject? Your highly emotional responses are evidence of someone who is pretty worked up about teachers sharing their ideas, the ones I guess you mostly don't agree with.

Your opening salvo suggests that I have agreement with most teachers and what is being taught. Ha! Boy if you only half knew how far wrong that is.

I consider every history book used in every school I've ever attended or taught in to be so biased as to be irrelevant. I won't accept a job teaching American History because I know that my views are so far off of the norm as to make the words from the text gag in my throat. I choose to teach literature or philosophy because that is the only place where really open discussion is possible in this silly country where people like you think they are really that different than the people you can't stand just because you disagree whether Tweedly Dee or Tweedly Dum is the man of your dreams.

I gave up on political agendas and finding little niche groups to agree with me long ago. I don't discuss politics in the classroom and I won't discuss them here. You want to talk about human foibles and the idiocy of trusting your fate, finances, ect. to any government, I'm ready. But split hairs about which crook looks better in the photo op than the other one (your idea of political agenda)? It is to laugh!

[Unregistered]

I'm so mad I could spit! The science teacher here showed all of his classes a film on global warming. He is doing a whole unit on the subject. How dare he politicize those poor innocents with his scare tactics. Doesn't he realize what a negative effect this could have on our economy? What about us Hummer owners? Are we the bad guys just because we exercise our freedom to drive a manly car?
And by the way, I don't appreciate the cracks about us PE teachers.

[Unregistered]

I don't have a political agenda. but clearly you do.

That's right; my political agenda is to rid the classroom of political agendas. So in that sense, I have a political agenda.

We all have political opinions, even agendas. Nothing wrong with that. But what matters is whether we try to align our students along our agendas. There IS something wrong with that.

[Unregistered]

He is doing a whole unit on the subject.

Fine, as long as he sticks to what is commonly accepted as fact in the scientific community. If he doesn't, then he should invite someone in that has contrary views to talk to his class.

The number of high school teachers that are experts on global warming could probably be counted on one hand. I am certainly not one of them, so I would not arrogantly assume that my views represent the truth.

Do you now see the difference between information and propaganda? The former relies on us bending over backwards to present the material fairly. The latter assumes that our own opinions must necessarily be correct. You probably have no objection to the latter as long as the views correlate to your own.

Your (sarcastic) point is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for offering it.

[Unregistered]

Keeping silent on the global warming issue on the excuse that the facts are still disputable, is a partisan position. The corporations who reap fortunes by despoiling the life of an entire planet spent millions on fake science to muddy these waters.

This is a perfect example of how the neo-cons discourage views that don't benefit the current marriage of big government and big money.

I'll bet you weren't on your apolitical classroom band wagon when your heroes were just a bunch of disgraced Nixon has beens. Now that the corporate criminals have hijacked all 3 branches and bought the media, suddenly quieting teachers and labor unions is your big passion. What a coincidence.

[Unregistered]

Human beings are political animals, no? Do you really believe you are not representing your political views? That Hummer you are so proud of is a pretty strong political statement. If you are wearing a diamond ring or fur or clothing made in a sweat shop by children in Indonesia or China, you're making a political statement. Silence in the face of political upheaveal, genocide, eco-destruction, gross economic disparity, illegal warfare is the ultimate political statement. I don't agree with preaching to kids about which clown we want to have pretending to be president next, but teachers are citizens in a democratic nation, most citizens expect us to be exemplary models of democracy. You have a serious responsbility toward the children. Politics has devolved into petty showmanship. If you are responsible enough to have strong beliefs about democracy, and again I'm not talking about which political party you think is a tad less criminal, you have a responsbility to share those beliefs students, especially when the standards you are teaching make such open, again open discussion necessary.

[Davy S.]

The last two writers are so right on! Keep the faith!

[Unregistered]

Keeping silent on the global warming issue on the excuse that the facts are still disputable, is a partisan position.

Who said anything about keeping silent on the global warming issue? I said that, if the facts are disputable, then both sides need to be presented. That is hardly keeping silent.

I am cautioning science instructors to be wary of claims made from either side. Unless you are really an expert on the issue, present both sides of the argument and let your students decide for themselves. If the facts are indisputable, then the students will only be able to come to one reasonable conclusion.

The corporations who reap fortunes by despoiling the life of an entire planet spent millions on fake science to muddy these waters.

No science instructor worth his salt would resort to such emotional language.

The rest of your post is much the same, so I'm not going to bother with it.

[Unregistered]

Human beings are political animals, no? Do you really believe you are not representing your political views?

Inside the classroom? No.

I refrain from engaging in political discourse anywhere on campus. I don't even put political bumper stickers on my car, since my car appears on campus.

That Hummer you are so proud of is a pretty strong political statement.

I don't drive a Hummer, so nice try.

If you are wearing a diamond ring or fur or clothing made in a sweat shop by children in Indonesia or China, you're making a political statement.

Sure, if I wore the fur because it was made in a sweat shop and I wanted everyone to know it. You are confusing a political statement with a political consequence. A statement implies an intent to display. There may be political consequences to wearing a fur made in China, but it isn't a statement unless I choose to wear my fur to make a point.

To think that we are making political statements with every move we make is just a cheap way to rationalize your own classroom preaching. "Since Mrs. Smith drives a Volvo, I should be able to preach politics to my class."

Silence in the face of political upheaveal, genocide, eco-destruction, gross economic disparity, illegal warfare is the ultimate political statement.

No, it is the lack of a political statement. And yes, the lack of a political statement can have serious consequences. Again, you confuse the term "statement" with "consequence." A person who remains silent is not necessarily professing his or her support for an act. A person can be absolutely horrified at what takes place and not make a statement, even if her silence supports the act.

By the way, I never said to keep silent about these issues. I urge all teachers to write their Congressman, write their newspapers, or preach in the streets. Just keep it out of the classrooms.

[Unregistered]

that last post was so artful! Do you have to go to a special school to learn how to split hairs that finely? You've managed to explain away any possible personal responsibility for any action outside of a verbal declaration. With this skill you could have fit right in with either the Pharisees or the Saducees.

[Davy S.]

I agree with the poster who says we are on shaky ground, but also can see why the comparison with Nazi Germany hits too many hot buttons to make the point, although in fairness, calling someone a good german was what made the responder move right into the whole Nazi mess. Rather a leap.

Hey Be Just, earlier today a friend pointed me to an essay at Gather.com by someone called Be Just. Is that you? If so it is the best thing i've read about Faith in a long time.

http://bejust.gather.com/

[Be Just]

Hi Davy. Yup, it's me.

About the politics in classroom. I'm sitting here with my laptop while the Sunday news is on the tube. Every add is an expensive deception, big money lying outright to confuse voters.

I voted already, by mail, after months of researching candidates and propositions. But people like me (many of them teachers) are rare. The people who see the same 4 adds over and over and over on the tube the week before the polls open are many.

So what do honest, individual citizens have in their corner against the billions spent by big money to hijack our democracy? Nothing but our own voices.

The attempts to silence your voice in the educational arena has been paid for by the same folks who pay for everything else.

[Unregistered]

The attempts to silence your voice in the educational arena has been paid for by the same folks who pay for everything else.

Now the classroom is euphemistically called the educational "arena." Nice subtle slip of the word "arena" into the discussion, as if the purpose of our classrooms is to provide a select few adults a recruiting stage.

So exactly who are these folks that are paying to silence your voice? How does this exactly work? How much are they paying?

[Unregistered]

how much are you paid? i imagine thirty pieces of silver, more or less.