Jay Bennish vs. David Paszkiewicz

Read this first:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html?_r=2&ei=5094&en=fa807250c191d8c8&hp=&ex=1166418000&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Remember Jay Bennish? He was the Colorado teacher taped by one of his students comparing Hitler and President Bush (by way of his state of the union address.)

How is this any different from what the kid did to the other teacher who was going all fundie-nut on him?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that teachers shouldn't be saying any of this crap in a classroom, or in front of their students, when in their teaching capacity. They are in a position of authority, they are charged with teaching children about the world, they shouldn't be preaching their own personal beliefs.

That's probably not going to be popular, but I'm going to say anyway.

Here info about Bennish:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187507,00.html

Here are some threads from the Bennish flap:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=628243

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=612719

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=603031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=608242

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=604470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=594860

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=594260

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=589067

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=563705

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=559670

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=557244


That sure is a hell of a lot threads. :-) I tell you one thing we don't lack, the gift of gab. :P

Now I hope I'm not the only one who sees a pattern here, we think it's okay to talk about politics in class, while the freepers think it's okay to talk about religion. When political matters are discussed, the freepers throw a fit, and when religion is discussed we throw a fit.

And I think rightfully so, Bush is authoritarian, but he's not acting like a full on dictator yet, we still had elections. And in the case of this teacher, there really is a lot of evidence to show dinosaurs existed, and that they probably couldn't fit on the arc described in the Bible.

So in other words, kids shouldn't be hearing this shit, no matter how liberal or conservative. People ought to be given the unbiased facts and decide for themselves. There surely is a lot of evidence to prove the freepers wrong, so I am confident any sane person given the straight dope will choose our side.

Alright?

Teachers should teach how to use one's critical thinking abilities & allow students to form their own opinions based upon the facts.

:woohoo:

Government (and therefore public education) is separate from religion. Government (Bush) is not separate from government (public education). If he was doing a legitimate intellectual comparison of Bush and Hitler, it might have some value if done well. (I doubt you could do that very well, but the teacher could surprise me.) If it was French class, the guy should keep his trap shut about politics.

If there's any class where the study of Hitler and possible parallels with our government are appropriate, it's social studies. If it was an item by item comparison (Here's what Hitler said/Here's what Bush said) it very likely was a good thing. If the guy was just ranting, it stinks.

I'm of the firm belief that our current problems are the result of a lack of education in junior high social studies. That's where I learned about our system of government, bill of rights, etc.

did the guy in Colorado say that Bush supporters would go to hell unless they repented? Did he single out individual students because of their political stance and make sure the class knew that they were "going to hell"?

I say this because though what the CO teacher did may have been ill-advised (better to stay neutral in the classroom I think), the comments made by the fundy towards the Muslim girl could have created an atmosphere where others would see it as being ok to harrass or even assault her. That's what I see as the big difference.

Politics can be argued with facts and logic. Religion cannot...

People ought to be given the unbiased facts and decide for themselves.
So where are the "unbiased facts" in religion?

if we tell only the facts, that isn't bias, but the facts say that Noah didn't have any pet dinosaurs.

Truthfully, a teacher's job goes WAY beyond simply reciting factoids-- it has more to do with teaching students how to think critically. A good teacher sets an intellectual example, and restricting oneself to socially safe topics is not a particularly good example of intellectualism.

Instead, good teaching should challenge preconceptions and provide examples of rigorous debate-- and I think that can be done appropriately at all levels of education. In that respect I think I disagree with you-- kids SHOULD be "hearing this shit," just in a different context.

but students should be debating each other on their various opinions. Teachers should act as moderators, but not as an active participant in the debate.

It's perfectly OK for teachers to express their opinions-- all knowledge is ultimately someone's opinion, supported to varying degrees. It's the process of forming opinions and examining them that teachers are meant to set an example of-- how to do this responsibly and with rigor and honesty.

Teachers should not DISRESPECT their students' opinions when they differ from theirs, but my god, if I couldn't express my opinions I couldn't teach.

...out of bounds, IMO. That's what academic freedom is all about. I mean, I teach biological science courses, so my primary topics are generally technical, but it is ALWAYS necessary to veer into discussions of ethical issues, politics, religion, etc at times, and that's in a science course. In courses that address social issues directly I would think it would be impossible to teach at all without discussing topics like politics and religion. Even topics like ancient history have little relevance as simple bullet points of "facts" unless they are considered in the context of modern life.

I think the point is that a good teacher draws students into discussions of these issues, and provides direction, but not judgement for anything other than sloppy thinking. It's one thing to pontificate and quite another to challenge students to think for themselves. Developing a personal philosophy and intellectualism is a process of criticism-- good teachers must set examples of that process, and we can't do that if we can't talk about difficult or controversial subjects.

Play devil's advocate, because in truth, the liberal students in your class will be unchallenged if you don't do it; thusly your goal of engaging student through challenging them will fail.

It really doesn't have to be your perspective, just an opposing perspective. I don't doubt it will be hard, but in a way it will challenge you academically to do it. If you can learn all about the conservatives and what they think, enough to the point where you can imitate one, you might reflect on your own philosophy from a different perspective.

eom

As a teacher/scientist, I recognize much of what we know is subject to needing improvement.
Consequently it is always necessary for me to make judgments about things along the changing edge of what we know. What is a judgment if not an opinion?


What concepts have gained worthiness to be mentioned in a course? What is ready to be discarded?

If your answer is "what is in the textbook" you must know that choosing a textbook is a matter of opinion. And relying on the text only moves content decisions away from the classroom and onto the desk of a textbook author who is making exactly the same decisions. It also builds into teaching a delay between when something becomes consensus understanding and when it gets presented to a classroom. Developments happen and get published outside of textbooks. Should they be left out? I think not. But, you would be absolutely correct to say that such content choices boil down to personal opinion. And they may sometimes be wrong (not in my discipline, but I remember a physics colleague discussing the implications of the cold fusion "break-thru" at Texas A&M with his students). But it is these opinions we fully expect professors to make (it is my experience that most faculty in my field are quite judicious about this sort of thing, and when we get out on the edge we state that uncertainties exist and make note that we are presenting our interpretations).

In my professional opinion, students of science need to understand that what they hold as scientific consensus at any give time is subject to change--sometimes a little bit and sometimes a lot. Ultimately the end products of science education--practicing scientists--must be able critically evaluate these sorts of expected change and assume an opinion that will become part of a future consensus of the discipline in which they labor. To leave students with the notion that controversy and opinion don't exist in science, don't influence the progress of science, and won't be a part of their professional life is a real disservice to science students and to the progress of science. I can't imagine it being much different in other disciplines.


Nonetheless I feel that it is also reasonable for students and my supervisors to have every expectation that I will limit my classroom discussion to things that are relevant and appropriate to their developmental level, and to the area I am assigned to teach and not to introduce issues outside of that.

Kids in classrooms are a captive audience; they can't choose to get up and leave when the subject becomes disagreeable. And should they disagree, what will happen to their grade? Politics and religion should only be mentioned globally, if at all.

eom

Benish wasn't sending his students to hell if they didn't buy the whole comparison.

A comparison of a Stupid speech with a Hitler speech is a valid classroom exercise.

Preaching religion and condemning students who don't share it is not.