Col. Teacher Jay Bennish: Sheesh.

Finally heard him and thought he sounded like an idiot. How hard is it to phrase things in a way that sound more even handed? He could have said something like: "Some people have made comparisons of the US under George Bush to Germany in 1933 under Hitler......" He could have followed up such a statement by asking the students what the similarities and differences are. There are much better ways to get a point across than the ones he used.

I'm not saying he should have been suspended, but frankly I think he brought this whole thing on himself.

Link?

who was suspended for making remarks to his geography class comparing bush to hitler. A student taped him.

I think it is a tragedy that we allow those that hate free speech to use the Hitler word as a poison pill to kill any conversation that has the word Hitler in the paragraph.
Why is it wrong to compare anyone to Hitler?
Either the comparison is true and accurate or it is not and so it is a self correcting thins to do.

The guy was blathering about Bush for 20 minutes in geography class. What kind of teacher is that?

And I heard a lot of the tape and it sounded to me like he was challenging them to disagree with him and think for themselves.
Now maybe that is not what you do in Geography class but better there than not at all.
Speech is ether free or it is not and I heard nothing unreasonable or untrue in what he said.

It sounded to me like he was trying to explain why so many people in other countries hate the USA. I didn't hear - as the Reich-wing professes - that HE, himself, thought these things.

I had hoped that if one good thing came out of 9/11 that it would be a better understanding by Americans about the way the rest of the world thinks: to understand that the rest of the world does NOT think with the same background as Americans. But, alas, the regressives have stunted that growth, too, preferring to lead us even further back to a time when no one understood anything outside of their little bubble.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. We don't want people teaching intelligent design in bio class, right? By your logic, that's a violation of the 1st amendment. Or, to make a more extreme example, what if this guy were telling his class about how the Jews and the blacks are conspiring against the white man, or something equally idiotic? Clearly the first amendment does not fully apply to a teacher in a classroom.

pollution to the chopping off of mountain tops I can see a lot of reasons why a geography teacher would be talking politics. Its a no brainier.
:

I had a few of those in my school days... glad I did or I might have followed my parents path... The Goldwater, Nixon path that is...

I think it's B.S.

A teacher is supposed to, along with regurgitate known thought, inspire creative thought.

Let him teach.

agree with. But, those on the "crap side" will say, "Let him teach. He's teaching them how to think".

There are excellent ways to teach critical thinking without using your personal opinions as the basis. Techniques of critical, objective thinking are general to the process, not specific to anyone's personal opinion.

authority to lecture about the Bush administration than he would have had to lecture details on sexual practices or to rant about religions that he objected to. The students are a captive audience who arrived at the class with the expectations of hearing about the subject matter, namely geography.
This is not an issue of free speech.

teaching was World Geography. It isn't out of bounds to discuss politics and world views in such a class. Also, we don't know what prompted the "rant", if that was what it was. What if the student who did the recording baited him into giving the anti-Bush side of the argument? I could easily see how that might come about. Nearly 200 students boycotted the school yesterday in support of this teacher, so we need to be a little more patient in our condemnations until we know all of the facts...

Teachers are not robots that must stick to a narrow subject. If you want that for children a computer could teach as well as anything with a program text.
Teachers have the responsibility to teach critical thinking and engage the student not teach by repetitious learning.

specialists, electricians are any other professionals. But, we expect a high level of professionalism from all of those professions. No, there is nothing wrong with an individual comparing someone to Hitler. On the other hand, a teacher has a certain amount of time to teach a certain subject to the students. Meandering through whatever topic the teacher wishes is in no way good professional teaching.

I am a liberal, former educator (40 yrs) and I'm all for free speech and even a certain degree of permissiveness. However, this particular episode is about a teacher who is pushing the envelop toward poor teaching. He's not getting the job done as well as he could if he stuck to his subject matter. Folks, just because the remarks about Bush are true doesn't mean that it's ok to teach it in a geography class. This is not where we need to take our stand. We might better focus our attention the the fraudulent Diebold voting machine problem which shows no sign of going away.

When I send my child to school, I don't want the teachers to have the right to try to sway my child's politics or religion. In the first place, if that is going to be allowed, for every teacher who is criticizing Bush and the right wing, there would be 10 wild eyed right wingers trying to indoctrinate all of the children to their views. There is supposed to be a separation in public schools between the teachers personal views and the general teaching of subject matter. That would be true even in a political science class.

I do think that if kids are going to be voting by the time they reach the end of high school, political discussions should have a place in high schools. Social studies would be the class, since they don't teach civics anymore.

And it would be ideal if kids could hear *all* sides of the issues. Yes, I'd love my liberal kid to hear and digest a full blown republican rant, and hear some greens and so on. There is a difference between teaching and indoctrination -- the difference is how you present the information and how repectfully you listen to opposing views. (I didn't see the teacher in question, so I can't comment on him.)

that teachers are expected to deliver. It's not effective or ethical to deliver whatever product the teacher might chose to deliver on any given day. Schools just don't work like that. Private schools usually have a social agenda that is adhered to. That's another matter. The funds for that come from the parents and the parents may well expect for their children to be indoctrinated in certain selected way.

clear what it is.

Not a bit of it.

That's rather the problem. There was no examination of the assumptions in *'s speech (it was clearly a response to a speech the previous night by *) or the validity of the facts, or the logic used in reaching a conclusion; the facts he alleged weren't questioned, no evidence was asserted, and the logic used in reaching the conclusion was left obscure. There was no questioning of what additional facts might falsify *'s assertions, or how valid information provided by those sources might be, or even looking at how the speech writer wrote in such a way as to guide thinking.

He presented a set of counter claims; students were allowed to accept them or not. Challenges to them weren't dealt with in a reasoned manner; usually the topic was changed, the old "So you don't think A, then how do you explain this completely unrelated thing B?" ruse. Now instead of arguing one point, you have to argue two, or cede the first one. It's a nice partisan debating technique; it's reprehensible from an instructor.

He had the opportunity to teach. Instead, he showed he was immature and lost it. In class.

And, if you stop and think about it, we can probably also infer something from the fact that the student took in a tape recorder.

He had every right to say that...

geography. But,the teacher in question was not teaching world social studies. He was largely teach "his" view of social studies. And, if that's OK to do. Then what about the teacher who thinks that the Earth has only existed for 4,000 years and that Evolution is not true and that the end of times will happen in the next 40 yrs or so? Is that going to be alright with you?

Just answer that question and if you say "Yes", than I will have to declare that you are truly a tolerant person.

How dare he be human while teaching our kids? How very Laura Ingraham of you.

was just like Jesus or that the Earth has only been in existence for 4,000 years and that the end of times was coming within 40 years. Would that be acceptable to you?

A recent air crash that killed both pilots resulted from the fact that while the pilots were making a critical approach in bad weather, they were laughing and joking about various topics and were neglecting to fly the plane. There were no other passengers. The pilots were just being human. But,in that environment, it cost them dearly.

The teacher was wasting the tax payers money. If I had been the principal, I would have advised him against doing that. If he persisted, I would have hired someone to replace him.

Do you think in his hiring interview, he revealed to the interviewer that his teaching style included significantly long rants about President Bush? If so, would he have been hired by any public school system in America?

My opinions about this have been formed as a result of 40 years as a public educator. What are your educational and/or pedagogical credentials?

Because if they tried, FOF, FRC, Cristian Coalition, and every anti abortion protester would be infront of that school this side of 10 minutes, and wouldn't leave until Bush made another speech on CNN.

Considering that he's been teaching for 6 years, I doubt he would be ranting about "President Bush" during the interview.:evilgrin:

Union membership. And in phone companies, we've gotten in very heated debates in-between the switch frames. Your phone calls still go through. We may allow the NSA to spy using our equipment, but we don't silence debate amongst ourselves.:P

You do seem to have a different view when it comes to this man's employer though. I'm not a teacher, but I've seen stories where right wing teachers say the most outlandish things and never get even a slap on the hand. Why is this guy any different? :shrug:

the job done of educating public school students. Educators and that includes teachers and administrators are faced with challenges from all sides. As you can see by these threads, everyone seems to know how teaching should be done.

If I were a school administrator I would look for teachers who know and love their subject, who have a knack for teaching and like students generally. I wouldn't mind if the teacher occasionally wasted a bit of time on a joke or maybe even something serious but unrelated. By and large, I would expect the teacher to mostly concentrate on the assigned subject matter. I would be particularly leary of any teacher who feels that it's OK to have prolonged discussions on unrelated topics.

There are certain topics, i.e. religious preferences, personal political views, personal sexual mores and things of that nature that would best be left to the discretion of the student's parents. They have the duty and right to influence their children while they are young.

The case in Colorado involved both the expenditure of time on unrelated topics and dealt with topics that seemed to be the personal opinions of the teacher. I, for instance, am an atheist. During my years as an educator I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to influence any student in that direction. There are a number of strong reasons why. Their religious positions were none of my business. I could have disillusioned some kid about that to the point of real danger for the child. Had the students asked me point blank about my religious thoughts I would have told them that it was personal. My job was to teach music, not my religious views.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself. I'm just trying to clear up a couple of main points. I do think that the Colorado case has been blown way out of the park by the administration. They should have advised him to teach his subject and if the teacher had any sense, that's what he would have done after that. Now, he's somewhat of a hero to those who felt as though he was within his professional rights to teach as he did. On balance, it wasn't a good day for education.

education that you espouse... That and raising six of my own kids to adulthood...

They are all free thinking liberals by the way.

If you had, you'd have heard a lot of geography.

Not that I was impressed with the presentation- but it had a lot of relevant information in it, and was reasonably engaging from a geography perspective.

in office by god and went on to an opinionated love fest of bush i would be down to the school. there are absolute ways to teach and engage. my kids are the few, or only that have differing views of bush and what is happening today. i expect my children to be able to challenge without repercussion if politics are taught. and i expect the adult to handle it in a responsible manner. the teachers have thus far, and i know they like their president. but i too think this man set himself up. at first i was offended just another example of no criticizing bush. but it is sounding like it was a bush bash. this teacher surely knew what he was doing and the repercussions that waited.

Two choice quotes:

"He's teached here for six years."
"I hope he gets reprimandated."

Sounds like a Shrub Jr. in the making!

mikey_the_rat

This is about the teacher, not the student. There are other ways he could have challenged his students.

Had I been the school principal, I would have instructed the teacher to cease such irrelevant lectures. And if the teacher failed to follow that order, I would have asked the school board to fire him. I would have done the same if he had used the lecture time to lecture any non-geography related topic. The teacher obviously had some deep seated political concerns, just like those of us on the DU. However, he had no right to unload it on students.

Isn't it illegal for anyone to be taped without their knowledge, especially without a warrant? I know when I did my radio interviews, I had to tell each and every guest the conversation was being recorded. If it is illegal in Colorado, that kid should face prison time.

I am a public school teacher and in my school electronic devices (cell phones, pagers, cameras, tape recorders, etc.) are not allowed to be used during school hours. Therefore, the manner in which the evidence against the teacher was collected would make it inadmissible where I work.

the brownshirted Hitler Youth ran off to the local "SS office" to turn in the teacher . . .

poster on this thread, let me pose the following question: If a teacher in the same circumstances had gone on for 20 minutes about how we should all be thankful because bush has saved us from evil Islamofascism and gone on about how the US has an obligation to invade countries on a pre-emptive basis, (I've deliberately kept religion out of it, because that's an obvious no no.) and a liberal student had taped the rant, and brought it to school administrators, would you still characterize that student as a "brown shirted Hitler Youth" turning the tape into the local "SS office"?

he would be the victim of the brown shirts . . .

that address none of the points I brought up, and is, in fact, divorced from reality. You have no way of knowing what the news coverage would have been, nor whether he/she would have been a victim of the brown shirts. Of course, that has nothing to do with the question I posed.

country. We (left/progressive/liberal) always give the benefit of the doubt. We always assume that there is a fair arena for views, ideas, and the like. But there isn't. What if this kid had gone on a diatribe about what a savior and saint Our Dear Leader is and the teacher felt obliged to give countering views (except that this is where the recording starts). I am not saying that this happened, I am just saying that vilifying this teacher before we know what actually happened is giving support to our enemies in this country. Maybe the teacher was wrong and deserves being sent to a camp, I don't know, but then no one else not directly involved does, either...

But I do assume that a teacher in a geography class should be talking about geography, not rebutting the State of the Union Address. No, he shouldn't be taken to a camp, but he should at least be told by his boss to shut up and teach geography.

Have you heard any of the tape?

And he was teaching World Geography - politics is not out of bounds in such a class...

No one is talking about sending this teacher to a camp. Nor are liberal teachers shut up. Public Schools teachers are largely liberal. My sister teaches social studies. She's definitely a liberal. Her curriculum is liberal. She's certanly never run into any trouble because of it. Here in my state, a teacher recently got reprimanded- not suspended- for giving vocab tests that included such statements as, "President Bush a) alliterated b) castigated or c) prevaricated when he said Iraq had obtained yellowcake from Niger.

MKJ

Good idea. I think that it is hysterical to be dragging this teacher over the coals when we don't know all of the facts - not even most of them. The teacher has been "gagged" by the school board, so he has not been able to give his side of the story, yet you seem quite comfortable with vilifying him based on almost no information, beyond the "yellow" press. The outrage expressed by you and others, here, seems...well... a little hysterical.

no correct answer: neither a, b, nor c.

Maybe if the teacher used 'sought' instead of 'obtained' ... even then it's still a stretch.

brownshirted hitler youth . . . and you will likely call me a hypocrite for it. And I don't believe that the kid who taped it went to the administration first . . . he went straight to the right-wing radio hosts . . . right?

HE didn't take the tape to just the administrators. He took it to the 2 local right wing hate radio stations, so they can crucify this teacher in a public forum, like they did with another Professer here in Colorado, Ward Churchill. This state has been inundated with brownshirts from David Horowitz's training camps.

This isn't about the teacher. It's about silencing dissent.

is the most violent and has the most WMD's is, guess who!

I also agree that the "context" issue hasn't been fully examined. What if a student had posed a question about the Mid East and our involvement or had made a statement extolling the wonderful virtues of killing brown people in another country?

Since we don't know what prompted the remarks, we really only have half the story. MKJ

tape. Secondly, it is appropriate to challenge students about politics in a social studies/geography class. I distinctly remember one of my best teachers in high school, DURING A GEOGRAPHY class, talk about communism (the big boogieman when I was in school) and the fact that in his opinion, maybe communism might be the best system for other countries and that we shouldn't be dictating to other countries what system of government they should have. He was specifically talking about how we were fucking over vietnam and this was during the height of the vietnam war.

That session is still burned in my memory and really got me thinking critically for the rest of my life. It changed me from being a potential zombie believing every thing the powers that be told you, to thinking very critically.

This guy is doing the same thing. And when you boil it all down, this is really what the uproar is all about isn't it? Challenging students to think critically instead of becoming zombies.
The right wing hates critical thinking. Every teacher or professor who challenges students to think outside the box is being run out on a rail these days. It's very sad.

I'm at a loss in understanding some people's gripes about him doing it in a geography class. What are you thinking? That geography is just a matter of pointing to a map and showing students where different countries are situated? That's not learning anything. When you talk about where the countries are situated, their politics and governmental systems are fair game in the discussion.

What are you thinking? That geography is just a matter of pointing to a map and showing students where different countries are situated?

Well--yeah, that's about it.

the way in which borders and inclusion in particular regions and provinces are determined are based in very large part on these issues. MKJ

American kids couldn't even find Africa on a globe. Let's not pretend they're getting in depth info on border disputes in the Congo. Maybe if their teachers weren't venting about politics, they'd even be able to locate the Congo.

You could try, but you would not be successful...

It's not clear that you know what it is, but you're adept at applying them.
The Professor

Your position is absurd. Do you think that history is irrelevant in a geography class too? You can't teach geography without history since countries change from time to time. And I'm not talking about border disputes in the Congo.

but we see stories like this all the time:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/

The society survey found that only about one in seven -- 13 percent -- of Americans between the age of 18 and 24, the prime age for military warriors, could find Iraq. The score was the same for Iran, an Iraqi neighbor.

Although the majority, 58 percent, of the young Americans surveyed knew that the Taliban and al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan, only 17 percent could find that country on a world map.

I admit I was being kind of flippant about geography just being about pointing at maps, but I don't see how bitching about Bush--a pastime I truly enjoy--really applies.

has convinced us that saying anything critical of King Bush in any place, under any circumstances, be it a funeral, school, church or what the fuck ever, is wrong and treasonous.

Fuck that. I'm tired of the fuckers whinning everytime somebody points out that he has shit in his diapers.

is entirely appropriate almost all of the time. Unless you're at work and you have a job that you can't do while you're criticizing Bush.

years back. They weren't stupid kids. Private liberal arts school in the Northeast, very high admissions standards.

They'd be given a piece of research to read and critique, and be asked to suggest, however cursorily, any improvements or alternative ways of thinking about the data. Instead, they would assume that I intended for them to trash it--sometimes the research was damned good, and quite untrashable, and then they'd raise the most irrelevant points imaginable. Few could be brought to actually say anything positive about great research; they'd all pile on the crappy articles.

By midterm my pedagogical goal for the class was to get them to understand the difference between "criticizing" and "critiquing"; it never sank into a few especially dense skulls. Even in my grad program, it was a struggle sometimes for our profs to get through to the students that 'criticism' (as in 'literary criticism') wasn't just negative.

"Criticism" in the sense of "critique" is certainly appropriate at all times in an educational setting.

on the one hand, but quite understandable, on another.
When we think of people being unable to find Iraq on a map, we probably think of a map which has an area with boundaries which has the word "Iraq" written in it. How can anybody not find that? However, on an unlabeled map and two years out of school, it is very easy to imagine that most people are not gonna know which one is Afghanistan and which one is Pakistan, and which one is Vietnam and which one Malaysia.
And really, why should they know that, unless they read an article in the last week which showed a map? How is it relevant when likely most reference books are going to show the countries labelled? Being able to use a library, reference book, or search engine is more relevant, and probably 95% of those same kids could have looked up the answer - at least the ones able to read could.

the kids in other developed nations would do a lot better. We've probably both seen stories to that effect.

and I am not sure if that would a) make them happier, or b) make them better line workers (etc.), or c) make them smarter voters (otherwise how do we explain Blair and Merkel?) I have (or had) practical knowledge in math, physics and computers, but have no job related to such knowledge. Does it matter to me if even my surgeon can find Afghanistan on a map?

The National Geographic–Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey polled more than 3,000 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden and the United States.

Sweden scored highest; Mexico, lowest. The U.S. was next to last.

<...>

About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

If you think that geography is unimportant, then I guess they shouln't bother having the class at all. But something tells me that it isn't part of the education curriculum for virtually every nation for no good reason.

the lectures is not going to have time to cover the prescribed material. I don't see why everbody is so ardent in supporting a teacher who is not doing what he was hired to do.

I've had geography classes, both in high school and college, and that's abosultely NOT a;ll the classes are about. Nor is it what this class is about. This isn't a "regular" class.

If the challenging went on for 20 minutes, he'd speak maybe for a few minutes. We'd do most of the talking, trying to bring the appropriate facts to bear, working out the reasoning.

We'd be challenged on a subject. Those that weren't responding would be encouraged to respond. The subject wouldn't change every time one of us opened our mouths to respond.

After we'd worked out our response, to our satisfaction, he'd poke holes in the logic; he'd point out facts that we forgot, or add facts that we didn't know.

It was a learning opportunity for us, and one that was valuable. He never went on for 20 minutes, changing the topic whenever he was challenged, making high level and frequently controversial claims without evidence or background, and it was always tied back in to the on-going class content. At the end of this guy's rant, he changes the subject back to what they've been doing in class. No tie in.

This guy was heatedly arguing with *, and when one student took the (non-)party line, with that one student; since the teacher has the power in the classroom, the student couldn't effectively argue back. Even making the assumption they both have a good store of facts in their arsenal. The students were expected to sit there and nod at the pearls of wisdom. And the teacher wasn't too happy that this guy was arguing. I don't believe that the pitch and tone of his voice was feigned.

At the end, when he's calmed down, he's all "you should think this through" and "of course your opinion's just as good as anybody else's", but that's certainly not the state of affairs 10 minutes into the tape. He was not challenging the students to think critically in any sense of the phrase that I find useful.

He blew a teaching moment. And he did so in a very unprofessional way.

There were other quotes said that made me notice how this country hates when it is confronted with its past.

<<snip>>
He calls the United States “probably the single most violent nation on planet earth…And we’re a democracy, quote-unquote.”

Look at Americas crime rate. Look how America stole this land from the Indians. Providing Native Americans with blankets of Smallpox. Look how America treated African Americans. Not allowing my ancestors the opportunity to vote. Taking away our heritage. Making billions of dollars off of the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of kidnapped Africans and treat them as if they were animals, yet we are suppose to condemn this man for speaking the truth.

But, these RW super sensitive asses like Hannity can only take offense to the comparison of Bush to Hitler. I believe there are alot of comparisons, even down to the hand gestures.

my OP. There are ways of bringing out negatives in a classroom. This teacher chose a way that was bound to get him in trouble. You don't have to be that bright to phrase things in a way that make the same point without appearing so one sided.

I'm just saying, in the point of view of some people, there is no way to say this without seeming to be one sided. So, I propose instead of shooting down everything said against this country or Bush. Do research! Find out why people feel this way. How about debating the one who said it.

Just mumble the Pledge of Allegiance and let the teacher read to you. Later, you can wake up for milk and Graham crackers and talk to the military recruiters.

Just love how often that happens. I said there are ways he could have said the same thing without leaving himself open to the charges that he was being one sided and injecting too much of his own opinion into the classroom. And again, how about if he'd been a wingnut blathering on about how we should all back the president, that America has always been on the side of right, that bush saved us from the evil Islamofascists, etc.? That's fine with you, right?

That worked well in the '30s in Germany.

As to RW teachers saying that America is always right. They don't need to. The textbooks are jampacked with jingoism and hyper-patriotism.

This teacher had the guts to speak out and now you chastise him for now playing it safe and not taking the risk of offending the right wing?

Self-censorship is a terrific way to stifle dissent. When I was a student we disrupted classes to get the profs to talk about the war in Vietnam instead of the usual irrelevant drivel.

Good for him. I wish there were more like him to stir dissent against the fascists who would silence him.

Not to put to fine a point on it. My son's textbooks and teachers for AP history last year definitely leaned to the left. One of the books they used was Howard Zinn. They watched Fog of War in class. I was grateful for the slant, but it was definitely won that shared my pov. My sister's 8th grade social studies class in a conservative repub town? She has no problem sharing her liberal pov and the textbook is not a right wing handbook of American history. She's also free to use outside source. You're just spouting generalities and not backing them up- even anecdotally.

That criticising the government is dangerous so they should be careful how they "frame" what they say. That, somehow, stating an opinion openly and forcefully that requires students to think is harmful.

I refer you to a book. "I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years" by Victor Klemperer

He was a distinguished professor in Germany. A German-Jew. A converted Catholic, married to an Aryan (which saved his life). What you may find interesting, and pertinent, isn't that he dare not speak out to his students, but that his "good German" colleagues were also silent for fear of losing their jobs because some student would turn them in.

and self-censorship or 'playing it safe', you're never going to get it. And you never answered my question about your response to a teacher pushing a strong right wing agenda- praising bush for pre-emptive war and advocating, say, killing all the "Islamofascists", warrentless spying, and imprisoning "fifth columinsts".

Thanks for the recommendation. I've been meaning to read Klemperer since it came out f or 5 years ago. I have one for you- same subject, and by far and away the best book I've read on it. It's entitled Diary of A Man In Despair, by a Prussian nobleman who ended up dead at the hands of the SS. Stunning prescient book by someone who died for speaking out.

I do understand what you're saying. And, I've had my share of RW teachers and profs. And, I've had my share of shouting matches with them in the classroom. But, I never sought to have them disciplined or removed for expressing their fascist crappola.

Do read Klemperer. It is, by far, the best book I've ever read about fascism/naziism/tyranny/racism. There's no concetration camp scenes, no torture, no kicking down doors, but it's the most chilling book about how fascism operates on the real people that it affects. Klemperer (cousin of Otto Klemperer the conductor) himself was an anti-zionist, politically conservative, proud German, WWI veteran. He, like many other German Jews(and, many ordinary Germans), convinced himself that Hitler was a passing phase. That the German people were too civilized, too humane, to "let it happen here". It's a diary kept by a very intellectual, but quite ordinary man, who reacted to what was happening in a very human way. The way that most people would react and try to survive. He is terrified, humiliated, hopeful, foolish, spiteful, angry, self-pitying, envious, selfish, cowardly, brave, disingenuous, and appallingly ungrateful to his Aryan wife.

And, beyond that, it's almost impossible to put down from the first page onward.

My daughter graduated from high school last year. In the run-up to the Presidential election, her teacher held a mock election in class. In the class of 38 students 4 voted for Kerry. Teacher had students stand up and explain their vote. She agreed and helped the pro-Bush students with their answers and the two Kerry students who would speak, the teacher argued with and countered their reasoning. When it was my daughter's turn she declined to speak. This was not an unusual experience, it has a lot to do with where you live. But it has colored my reactions to things like this.

I will hold off on condemning this teacher until I know more of the details...

so-called "liberal professors" in the universities. I always thought that education was SUPPOSED to be liberal. It's ridiculous.

David Horowitz and his evil brethren are trying to use this guy, but fighting for him reflexively is taking the bait. Now they can say, "look! these crazy libs love this guy!" and paint us all with a broad brush. I don't think it's a big deal this guy got reprimanded--although I haven't heard the whole tape, so I could be wrong. But any teacher's first priority is to teach the subject at hand.

And to be honest with you, I'm tired of us democrats always caring about how we look to the right wing. Where does that get us? They paint us with the broad brush anyway. I agree that the first priority is to teach the subject at hand. Where I disagree is the idea that somehow geography does not include geo-political issues.

geography that can challenge and excite students without sliding over into something that is too personal to be included within a designed curriculum in a public school system. If teachers were allowed to ad lib their way through each day, teaching whatever the wish on any given day, the students would not be learning what they signed up to learn. The school board and the states design the curriculum. Teacher follow that as they should. It may sound robotic. But, education is a crucial and expensive business. It has to follow certain guidlines.

And, by the way. How would you feel if the teacher had been ranting about what a great President Bush was and why? It would be the exact same issue, just different views.

Cali,

I have to agree with you. I think the intent to what this teacher was doing was/is admirable - trying to make his students question and understand, rather than simply recite - but he went about it in the wrong way. Sometimes the message isn't the only thing that matters. It's also about the means by which you communicate it.

If his real goal was to make his kids think, his points would be made in a form in which they could discuss and argue back to him. From what I've heard of the tapes, and perhaps they're heavily edited, it seemed mostly like he was running a bulldozer lecture in which he was presenting a litany of ideas and concepts in sequence, without any means for the kids to stop him and ask questions, rebut his claims, assert their own views, etc.

For example, he brings up the fact that there are dictators in other countries, so why not deal with them? And yet, at least in the version I heard, he never pauses to let the students answer his question or to think about it, etc. It's just part of a larger litany that he speeds through. Again, maybe this is due to editing - I'm perfectly open to that argument - but I can't make a judgement on what I don't hear, only what I do.

Essentially, he might well have been trying to get them to question assumptions, but he does it in a way that, to me, seems more likely to simply replace one set of assumptions with another.

That said, one has to wonder why the Republicans can never deal with things face-to-face and always have to involve higher authorities and whiny systematic manipulations. A real parent, and a real adult, would have gone to the teacher and discussed their concerns in a rational and forthright manner. A shameless pissant would have gone to the principal and squealed like a stuck pig.

Mostly

in one of the local Colorado papers (linked somewhere on DU Breaking News) and it'll make much more sense. The teacher was INVITING his students to question him, INVITING his students to think for themselves and not just swallow everything they hear hook, line and sinker. He actually, on the tape, can be heard thanking his students for their questions and commenting on how good the points raised were.

What this little brownshirt pissy-pants did is the kind of skeevy, spoiled, temper tantrum-like thing you'd expect from someone who thinks Bush is someone to emulate. What's going to happen to him when he gets out into the REAL world, away from the safety of a classroom, where people REALLY disagree?

Kudos to the Teacher for giving them an opportunity to question and think for themselves.

Our teachers were free to say what they wanted, and they were mostly liberal. We learned about the Vietnam War (which was going on at the time, and they opposed), we learned about the horrors of the holocaust (which schools barely mention anymore), we learned about animal experimentation for medicine (the entire debate), and NO ONE GOT FIRED FOR IT!!!

oddly enough, you'd think that America would have moved FORWARD, but we are inching closer and closer to an American taliban mentality. Crazy ass religiously insane parents didn't sue the schools every week because God or Bush wasn't treated fairly in a public school. We may have had stricter dress codes, BUT we were free to think.. and teachers were free to be themselves. The kids now don't have that historical perspective, that we were much FREER then...

...that so many people here think what this guy did was wrong. I've been teaching for 15 years—and I'm the child of parents who each taught for more than 35 years—and all I hear is a dedicated, creative teacher trying to make a subject come alive for his students. I hear someone trying to get the kids to think in different ways. I hear someone trying to make potentially boring subject matter personal for a traditionally disaffected age group.

Damn. Just...damn.


:(

snip>
Near the end, he told students, "You have to figure this stuff out for yourselves. ... I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to get you to do is think about these issues more in depth and not just to take things from the surface."

He also commended students who challenged him, saying, "I'm glad you asked all of your questions because they're all very good, legitimate questions."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3564246

The best teachers are provocative. We know that ;) (thanks!)

And look at what a wonderful opportunity this offered to the students who did benefit from the lesson:

he didn't do it your way...

I don't know what the objective of his lesson was, if he indeed prefaced the class by saying "question this" or "this isn't my personal opinion but.." then I would side with him. However, in a classroom today you are warned to avoid giving too much of your opinion, I remember hearing this only slightly less then don't get involved with your students. The wording he used was bound to be misconstrued even if he didn't mean it that way. So in that I don't feel all that sorry for him since some of the comments were lightening rods waiting to be struck, even if they are true.

in those who oppose him. Just look at how many of us are suddenly "activists"? Attending protests, writing letter, calling, volunteering for the first time.

I have said stuff about Bush loud enough, knowing republicans were an ear-shot by!

I blame Bush! He's turn this country into a divided nation, where paranoia now exists. We didn't have these problems happening everyday in America. Now they are common, because of him!

snip>
Near the end, he told students, "You have to figure this stuff out for yourselves. ... I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to get you to do is think about these issues more in depth and not just to take things from the surface."

He also commended students who challenged him, saying, "I'm glad you asked all of your questions because they're all very good, legitimate questions."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3564246

I admire him, and all teachers who are provocative while offering a supportive environment for, and even encouraging opposing viewpoints.

The "gentleman's agreement" he signed as part of his teaching contract is only to make things more "fair," but there is nothing about it that makes it constitutional. The school's suspending him because of his speech, heavy handed or not, risks constitutionality.

The school owes this man a very public apology, they need to get rid of these fair speech contracts, and permit him to keep teaching. But after this, why would he?

I talk about politics all the time in class, as it plays an extremely important role in what has shaped the world that we have today. Moreover, I also talk about religions and they way they evolve form each other, the spread of ethnic groups, the Solar-Nebula Theory of Earth creation, race (and what it means), where human originated and how we traveled, and responses to natural disasters. I don't think there is a single topic in my course that is considered "safe", yet that is what a lot of geography comes down to.

Moreover, I hate to present judgment on the teacher based on the recording provided (though I always wince when someone compares a figure to Hitler, regardless of situation. That never, ever goes well.), as there might be valid reasons from earlier classes why he brought up the topic (for instance empire-making and the effect on international politics), or it simply might be a "teachable moment" where the students have expressed interest in an educational topic and the teacher plays into it (something, by the way, many young teachers are being taught to encourage--even if the discussion is off-topic but still a valid learning point, pursue it. In my World History class last year we had a very impromptu debate on whether Atheism was a religious position during our world religions unit. It was not part of the lesson, not part of the curriculum, but it was easily one of the most engaging sessions I have ever had in 5 years of teaching.) Finally, it might have simply come up during downtime when the kids were preparing notes, or whatever else he has students due where the teacher is simple a presence in the classroom. There have been many, many times when I've filled organizational times with discussions on a wide-variety of topics. Unless this teacher makes a habit of teaching well outside his class framework, I see no real basis for accusing him of failing as a teacher.

should get you in trouble because you bring it on yourself. Maybe Bennish didn't want to be a Good German.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He could have handled that in a completely different way and still would have gotten his point across.