rcdabfnpwuk npfxzcsske uodmiexfbu qpmnauux

I believe you make many excellent points. I agree that we need to have more respect for teachers and that we should allow them to introduce controversial subjects and ideas to force students to think creatively.

You end by saying “there should be respect for teachers, teachers being those who have a greater grasp on Truth and are willing to share it.” This is very true. Teachers due to the great amount of study and work have learned not only a good deal about a subject, but also the best method to teach that subject. Yet if a teacher in a lecture speaks blatant falsehoods, shouldn’t he/she be reprimanded? This is why I think this case differs from other cases where a community or administration tries to fire a teacher for teaching. In this case, the teacher used utter falsehoods to butress his points. These children are now going to accept those false facts as true and judge the world based on them. I, like you, have have no problem with a communist or fascist teaching. I think their ideologies are stupid, but whatever. I do have a problem with the communist denying the murders of Russia and China or the fascist denying the Holocaust or American lynching. Isn’t this what was wrong with Bennish’s lecture and not the subject matter.

Noah

The appeals above to the “taxpayers” and the “community” are clever dodges of this point: Should parents and kids dictate what a teacher teaches?

The overwhelming answer by all Americans is yes, almost all the time. We want gov’t off our backs, and we want full control over education.

Which, of course, means that we’re uneducable. It is impossible to think independently when all you want to learn is facts and be sheltered from opinions one doesn’t like. The point of being educated is to have informed opinions, not a monopoly on truth. To demand teachers do what we tell them to do is exactly like the Soviets putting a gun to their scientists’ heads and getting them to produce research. It is a form of violence being done here (even though this left-winger sounds like a complete idiot to me) – the tyranny of the majority – against more traditional institutions, like respecting those who know more. The greatest tradition we have been handed down is learning to know more while understanding full well we don’t know everything. The greatest tradition we have is humility before the Truth.

It should always be problematic to remove a teacher, because there should be respect for teachers, teachers being those who have a greater grasp on Truth and are willing to share it.

To give credence to the recording made by this student is to take a nosedive down the slippery slope of chilling speech and the free exchange of ideas in the American classroom. I’m willing to let my right wing law professor espouse his occasional anti-Hillary pro-Big Business-screw- the-little-guys opinions, and the right wingers out there need to learn to accept that some teachers have different views from theirs.

Finally, it not the teacher but it should be the student who should be punished for invading the classroom in such a way. To put Bennish on the hot seat is to skirt the issue, which is that Right wingers have found it upon themselves to invade the sanctity of the classroom and to record class room discussions led by liberal instructors, from colleges and now to high schools.

If I had to sit through anti-homosexual General Assembly in high school and be told that “anuses are made for things to go out, not to go in,” little thin-skull-from-Denver-Johnny-with-the-ipod can sit through a provocative discussion about current events and his teacher’s though provoking opinions.

Furthermore I don’t think we should pay any attention at all to the recording of Bennish’s mere 20 minute lecture unless we are willing to open the doors to record ALL school teachers without giving them notice that their lectures are being recorded.

Until then, let the guy teach.

I hope not. The best teacher I ever had was a libertarian who consistently portrayed the “Elite” view of politics. He consistently attacked my “statist” beliefs and really made think and confirm my beliefs. He also taught me history and in both history and politics, my teacher though strongly libertarian, presented all the facts with regards to those two subjects.

Having praised my teacher for providing even-handed presentation of the subjects he taught, I don’t think it is necessary for a teacher to present a even-handed view of their subject. The best teachers do, but unfortunately they are too few and to require even-handness is unrealistic.

Before I read this thread, I was going to say that Bennish should be fired for going off-topic and not for content of his diatribe. However, many posters reminded me that geography is not merely an accounting of the world’s nations and their boundaries, but also attempts to inform students about other countries’ outlook and culture. Thus, I do not think that the teacher went off-topic anymore. Often he would tell his class that he was trying to make them look at the subject from other people’s perspective.

The reason I still think he should be censured in some fashion is because of his consistent use of factually incorrect information. A earlier poster has already demonstrated the falsehood of the cigarette and the WMD claims made by Mr. Bennish. He also was incorrect when he said that the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Sudan before al-Qaeda stuck the U.S. We all know of the first WTC attack in 1993. Furthermore, the Afghanistan and Sudan bombing were in response to the Embassy bombings in Africa. There are a number of other “facts” he presents that are wrong and if he is going to lecture as he did to his class he should at least use material he is more familiar with to make his points than the information he used. I don’t think he should be fired, because students seem to really like him, but some type of censure is necessary.

Noah

Agreed. Unfortunately, to liberals anyone who doesn’t toe the Dean/Moore party line at all times is a member of the far right.

The best, my 6th Grade teacher, Mrs. Duff who flat out said she would not tell us her political opinions. And she was very strict, but fair. During the whole year she only had to send one young boy to the office once! Everybody respected her.

In my freshman year at college, I had a 1st Quarter Calculus Prof who was admittedly very liberal, but she did not interject that and she could flat out teach. Same with a Poli Sci Prof who was probably, never could totally figure him out, somewhat liberal, but again taught exceptionally well.

Then in Grad School in Int’l Affairs (1990-1991), I had one Prof who literally said he “…was disappointed when communism failed in Eastern Europe.” Needless to say, I was tempted to jump over the table after him, but restrained myself.

As a political consertive/libertarian I have to say I have met more sheer close-mindedness from the far left than the right. Not to say that are not idiots on both sides.

“David’s habit of constantly mining the far right sites like Drudge and LGF, or his commenters thinking the rebel flag is a proper response to anything.”

Regarding the rebel flag on the Black Moslem’s desk, the only meaningful difference between the Klan and the NOI is the albedo of the adjectives.

Drudge is a politically dead center moderate site. I don’t know how often LGF is cited approvingly by David B., but I have no reason to think DU or Daily Kos isn’t cited positively about as often as LGF.

If you can produce statistics showing otherwise, then you might have a point.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

The guy was a member of the Nation of Islam. I can see the humor. Get him in whiteface long enough, and that black man would join the Klan.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

You’re one to talk, Justin. I feel like you’re channelling Michael Moore most of the time here. The sad thing is that your ridiculous left-wing talking points are the same myths that are widely disseminated by MSM.

Furthermore, given that Bennish made a number of factually incorrect statements interposed by dubious syllogisms, he can also be accused of poor epistemologic rigor. On the tape, Bennish frequently tells his students that he wants them to probe deeper in their understanding of world affairs. Could he not at least explain Hume or Sextus Empiricus’ arguments on cause and effect – equipping his students to evaluate their sources, before proceeding with his diatribe? At least my right-wing ethics teacher was willing to teach us how to analyze arguments and evaluate the strength of causal linkages before ranting away…

If he is ultimately fired, it will because he violated a fairly explicit school district policy that prohibits precisely the type of overly politicized speech he was engaging in. Listening to his attorney tonight, it appears his defense is primarily 1st Amdt. (via the 14th), plus the state equivalent (Article II, Section 10 – I note that Article Section 30b is still officially part of the Constitution, despite Evans v. Romer). My guess though that this Freedom of Speech defense isn’t going to work, as apparently 1st Amdt. is pretty weak in employment cases.

So far as I can remember, the only “off topic rant” I ever had was when a Canadian chemistry professor spent a class going off on the sellout of the British empire. No one ever figured out what that was about, and it only happened once.

One of the main justifications for providing professors with tenure is to protect them against reprisals for saying or publishing something unpopular. Since teachers do not publish scholarly research, that justification doesn’t really apply.

As I understand it, teacher tenure came about to protect teachers from “tyrannical” administrators, who are generally more interested in having their whims indulged than in enforcing political dogma.

I don’t remember any politicization by the teachers in my California HS (Grad 67). Not even from the USMC LTC(Ret) that taught honors English, unless it was because he had us memorize classic poems and oratory (Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Gettysburg Address, Declaration of Independence, etc.) Nothing long, but always memorable. I still remember them and treasure the experience. He was a tough old SOB.

My mother and brother are (were) both screaming leftist public school teachers and I know things have changed, I think for the worse.

However, I admit to some concern on the grounds that the curriculum may be set to promote specific political or philosophical beliefs, rather than simply educating. However, people interject themselves and their beliefs whenever designing something, and accordingly I’m not sure that there is a simple solution. On the one hand, simple rants are not particularly useful. On the other hand, the rational disagreement with some statement or value expressed within the curriculum, meaningfully discussed, is almost necessary. Without disagreement and exploration, the curricula is likely to descend into mere dogma, and fail to serve any useful purpose.

FWIW – In my experience at high school, I remember one or two older teachers blatantly leaning to the right and giving lesser grades to those who expressed other opinions. I also remember quite a few younger teachers blatantly leaning to the left, to my dismay. There’s been a lot of discussion of the second on this blog, but surprisingly little reference to the first.

That aside, I can’t get excited over this. High school students don’t live in a cocoon and they don’t need protection from their teachers’ views. Students get their information, ideas and values from a huge array of sources, including parents, relatives and friends, and a teacher plays a small role in influencing them. Exposure to teachers’ views prepares them for entry into the real world, where there is likely to be an equal or even higher incidence of quirky views than among the teaching ranks.

If a teacher unfairly grades on the basis of agreement or disagreement with his views, that’s a different matter. This particular teacher did not do that. If a teacher fails to get his subject matter across, as measured by results on the standard tests students must take, get rid of him. But otherwise, I see nothing horrible about a teacher expressing his views in class, even if they are views I detest. I’ve met teachers I consider fascists who I wouldn’t have minded teaching my children because they were bright and got the subject matter across very well. My children had enough exposure to the world of ideas that they wouldn’t have been unduly influenced by a teacher. I suspect that’s the case with nearly all children.

I remember that claim. It was pretty clear that the few examples that did happen were leftist commenters doing it so that people like you could yell “racist”!

Funny that rabid racism always finds its way into these discussions. . . .

If you’re looking for rabid racism, see any leftist discussion of Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell,….

We’ve all had teachers that are extreme examples of whatever. That does not mean we are simpletons who robotically folllow along.

In my mind, a teacher is like a reporter or a judge. They should not be promoting an agenda. I see no constitutional problem with requiring teachers to be balanced and unbiased in their presentation. Children have a right to an unbiased education.

This guy was dismissing the valid arguments of his students to carry on with his own screed. It’s completely inappropriate. If I were a student, I would have fought hard for a new teacher.

Glad to see you are proud that you left a sign of slavery on a black man’s desk with whom you disagreed. (Note: we have all done dumb things when we were young, but this guy is still proud of it in his 40′s, 25 years after the fact.) Sort of reminds me of when the right-wing blogs were running a 10 worst Americans ever meme, and every few posts someone would comment “Martin Luther King Jr.” or something. Funny that rabid racism always finds its way into these discussions. . . . Again, way to go in showing that N—– that he shouldn’t be speakin’ out too much aginst Ronald Rigin.

And what using governmental money for clearly religious indoctrination purposes, see, e.g. vouchers or school prayer or . . .

If I merely claimed that my form of communism was a religion would I be protected? Could the government exclude me from faith-based moneys?

What I find most interesting in this is that the quote concerned capitalism (which to my understanding is a word not to be found in any of the documents christened by our founding fathers) and which statement itself was not even challenged for its validity.

Say what you want, but reducing worth (and by analogy, those things that are really worth protecting) to a fungible concept like capital, not only have we abandoned any hope for religous integrity (faith, grace, the good as merely an amount) but we have certainly debased concepts of freedom and equality.

And what is tragic is that this government, which was conceived as emanating from incalculable “human” rights and values has become the servant of capitalism.

The new freedom that is being protected with all the might of our military and judicial system is freedom to do business in any way possible, because eventually the Olympian values and wealth that have been “created” by the titans of our society will trickle down upon the masses. If we do not give the titans super rights and super protection, how will this miraculous manna fall to those who need it.