I have a suggestion about the teacher who was ratted by the Hitler Youth.

Let's send him money. Or gifts. Something valuable. Or maybe only a postcard with nice words to cheer him up.

I wonder if he has a Paypal account, or a PO box. Anyone living near Aurora, CO able to check it out?

I think the last would go a long way. Money and gifts would feel a little weird, but it would make me feel good to know that there were people out there that supported me and who aren't batshitcrazyinsane.

He is suspended with pay, correct. I can't believe the union there would be so weak as to allow this to be a suspension without pay.

I think gifts would be over the top but postcards is a great idea.

*edit* what about postcards depicting our cities? then he could see how wide-ranging his support is. you know, like tourist postcards. Maybe we could send them c/o his union local.

12400 E Jewell Ave, Aurora, 80012 - (720) 747-3700

sned the administrators a little message of support for free speech.

Don't forget to be very very nice!

$$ aND gifts on the other hand from a bunch of lib/progressive blogs or other sites, will just make this poor guy more fodder for the RW radio and tv talking head shows-something he clearly does NOT need.

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

and i know he'll appreciate it from someone local (and lives about 5 miles from Overland)

The teacher at that e-mail (Joe Kyle) is the one who is conducting an exercise with his AP students about Bush and international law. AFAIK, he is not suspended. I e-mailed him and got a nice response.

I think this thread is about the teacher who compared Bush to Hitler and was taped by a student. I think he did get suspended. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

--IMM

I got that email from someone on another thread about the teacher who was taped by the little Nazi and was on InSANNITY's show. I thought that was Mr. Kyle? Isn't he the one who held the "Mock War Crimes Trial?" If not, I missed a MAJOR story about someone else. :( Are there 2 student stories floating around here about Nazi students? If so, I missed the other one. Sorry.:(

One is about a teacher named Jay Bennish. Mr Bennish gave an overly left-wing political speech in a World Geography lecture, and was taped by a student who has since been branded a Nazi on DU (I haven't seen anyone suggesting that he actually is a Nazi sympathiser, I get the impression it's just being used as a term of abuse, although I may be wrong). Mr Bennish has since been suspended, rightly, in my view.

You can find a transcript of Mr Bennish's lecture at http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004689.htm
although I'm not sure it's a terribly savoury site, so you may want to treat the transcript with a slight pinch of salt.

I think the other is about a teacher named Joe Kyle who got his students to hold a mock war-crimes trial. I think this one got considerably less publicity; I haven't been able to find anything on it on a cursory google; as such, I don't have a view on it beyond "I'd be interested to find out more".

It was excedingly inconsiderate on the parts of Messrs Kyle and Bennish not to allow a decent period of time to pass between their respective exploits to make distinguising them easier, but, alas, we must take the news as we find it...

Let's hope he gets officially reprimanded, sees the error of his ways and stops trying to use public education for political indoctrination.

Failing that, let's hope his superiors realise just how wrong what he's doing is and dismiss him.

Have you read the transcript of his lecture? Do you really think teenagers go about, zombie-like, and believe everything they hear without consideration? I'm stunned to hear this ridiculous argument here on DU.

You should have no trouble putting forwards a rebuttal: explain either
a) why political propaganda in public schools is not unacceptable,

or

b) why Bennish's lecture was not political propaganda, with reference to lines like "there are some eerie similaritlies" and "Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity" and "We want to keep the world divided".

And if you go for the latter, ask yourself if you really think it's credible that when Bennish said "I just want to make you think", with the implication that his lecture wasn't intended to lead to that thought reaching specific conclusions, that he was telling the truth. I don't, so if your argument relies on that you'll have to explain specifically why it is.

If you can do either of those to my satisfaction, I'll happily retract; if not, I maintain that what Bennish did was unacceptable. I fully agree with nearly all of what he said; I think his saying it to a an audience of schoolchildren was a gross abuse of position.

They're not zombies; neither are they completely immune to being influenced by their teachers, and even if they were that wouldn't justify trying to do so.

You need to read the transcript of his entire lecture before making this judgement. He did nothing wrong.

I thought I was on a website frequented by intelligent, objective people who believed in applying the same standards of conduct to themselves as to their opponents. I'm seriously beginning to doubt it, at least in some cases.

And I *have* read the transcript, and found it even more shocking than the "highlights" I've seen in places in the media.

I agree with most of what Bennish said. I will happily defend his right to say it in his capacity as a private citizen. I will not, however, condone his saying it in a lecture in a public school to a captive audience.

ALL education is indoctrination. Period. When students enter elementary school and learn history, indoctrination occurs because the educational system enforces a singular perspective (usually Western) that not only has a focus on very specific aspects of the "American Story ".

The very pattern of public education is built for indoctrination: regulation in schedule, demands for conformity, guidelines for assignments and the enforcement of academic roles are all very simple ways to indoctrinate students into a life and philosophy suitable for the life in Corporate America.

EVERY TEACHER HAS A PERSPECTIVE AND OPINION. The lie occurs in education the same way it occurs in the media -- with the claim of "fairness and balance". NO ONE IS UNBIASED AND PRETENDING TO BE SO IS A LIE. The REAL balance comes when ALL perspectives and opinions are placed on the table and discussed in a fashion that promotes democratic dialogue. This teacher didn't test his students on his opinion; he never said "say Bush is a nazi or you get an "F"....but there are many teachers, especially in the realm of economics and government, who WILL fail students who do not conform to their value system. The difference is vital.

Your attitude toward teenagers is very degoratory -- do you really believe they are zombies who left this guy's class hypnotized, ready to become card-carrying members of the ACLU? What a low opinion of our schoolchildren.

If this teacher had told his students "Bush is doing a great job and the shole world loves us", would you be screaming in the same fashion? Somehow, I seriously doubt it.

Firstly: schoolchildren are not zombies; nothingh I said implied that they are. Nor are they immune to being influenced by their teachers, which is what you are implying.

Secondly: you can bet your little cotton socks that if the teacher had spent a lecture telling his students how great Bush was I'd disapprove just as strongly. I would probably only post once on the subject on DU though, rather than repeatedly, because I doubt I'd need to convince anyone to agree with me.

What made you think I wouldn't? Would you be defending them just as staunchly from the inevitable tirades DU would generate as you are at present?

Thirdly: while I agree that almost no-one is impartial when it comes to politics, I don't agree that there's no such thing as impartial teaching (it involves being very, very circumspect), and there's *certainly* such a thing as *trying* to teach impartially, which all teachers have a moral duty to do, and Mr Bennish clearly wasn't.

"The REAL balance comes when ALL perspectives and opinions are placed on the table and discussed in a fashion that promotes democratic dialog."

I couldn't agree more with the above. That is exactly why the teacher in question was out of line. If one listens to the recording one will see that he did absolutely NOTHING to engender any sort of dialog. On the rare occasion when someone actually asked a question he failed to give it a serious answer or encourage further thought along the line of thought the questioner posed.

He should not be suspended because of his political views or even for expressing them in class. However; by failing to actually promote critical thinking he cheats his students. If the recording is representative of the norm in his class he is a pitiful teacher.

I also agree with the teacher's ideas. I decry his methods of getting those ideas across. He was clumsy and abused his position. Contrast those with Joe Kyle's students, who are engaged in a process of discovery and will present a trial where the concepts are introduced by the students.

He should have arranged some sort of dialogue, perhaps with hypothetical examples, and let the students reach the conclusions themselves. There are more subtle and acceptable methods of getting these ideas across.

But this is DU. So I'm going to :hide:

--IMM

He didn't do anything worth getting suspended for, much less fired. He gave a history lecture where he told the truth. This 16 year old religious bigot decided to tape his lecture and then he didn't turn the tape in to the principal or the school board or for that matter, he didn't even tell the teacher he was upset enough to tape him. No, he went straight to the media with his tape.

Now you say the teacher deserves to be fired? For telling the truth?

No, the kid needs to have his ass kicked out of school. That is the best suggestion.

The teacher abused his position to try and exert political influence on his students. Whether that influence was in a good or a bad direction is neither here nor there, at least not for me - I believe in applying the same standards of conduct to people I agree with as to ones I don't.

Yes. The teacher deserves to be suspended for saying something which you and I believe to be the true, because he used a privelidged position, part of the implicit contract for which is that he will not use it for political proselytising, to do so. It's not about leading the young in a bad direction (which clearly he didn't do, except in terms of setting a bad example of professional ethics), it's about abuse of position.

I have no quarrel at all with what he said; only with where he said it.

The pupil's decision to go to the media rather than the school was arguably not the best one, but it was certainly a perfectly legitimate one: the teacher was doing something seriously wrong, and exposing him was fully justifiable. The teacher was fully the author of his own misfortune; advocating shooting the messenger as many DUers are doing is disgraceful.

Are you a teacher? I guess not. Well I am and I understand completely what this teacher was saying. The only mistake he made, IMO, is he should have asked more leading questions and let the kids research and discover on their own some of what he told them. He wouldn't be sitting at home on suspension if he had done that.

But he didn't lie and he didn't exert any political influence on his kids. That is far fetched to say the least. He repeatedly said throughout his lecture "Some people think . . ." and "There are those who believe. . .". And those are completely acceptable ways to discuss controversial beliefs.

When I was in high school, a holocaust survivor was brought in to talk to us about WWII. His opinion was of course biased but hearing a first hand account was one of the neatest educational experiences I ever had. We also studied the Nazis and explored their motives for the holocaust. And I emerged from that with a damn good understanding of WWII. If our teachers had only told us what the Nazis did and never explained why then our education would have been lacking.

In college, it was the height of the fighting between the British and Northern Ireland. So my college brought in some soldiers from the IRA for a series of lectures. To this day, I probably understand that conflict far better than anyone who never had a chance to hear those soldiers. The media did a great job of telling all of us the British side of that conflict and leaving out the details the IRA soldiers shared with us. I was indeed fortunate to have that experience.

History is controversial. You must accept that to be a student of it. That is the message this teacher shared with his indeed fortunate students. But this one little jerk is apparently too close minded to accept a different viewpoint, one that disagrees with the one his koolaid drinking 'let's tape the teacher and go to the media' family has given him.

The claim that "he didn't exert any political influence on his kids" is simply not true.

"Some people think..." and "There are those who believe..." are pathetic cop-outs; they're things to make those who aren't paying attention think that he's not advocating a specific political position, and to cover his ass, but they don't actually mean anything.

The only acceptable way for a teacher to discuss controversial beliefs is to put both sides of the case equally, and to do their best to ensure that their pupils can't tell which side they're on. Not only did Bennish not do that, he didn't even make any attempt to do that.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "IRA soliders": membership in the IRA is illegal in the UK, and we have an extradition treaty with the US, so I'm really quite worried by that claim.

And surely you can see the difference between a school inviting someone with an overt agenda/POV in to give a talk which promotes a political postion, and an ostensibly-neutral teacher doing so in a lecture on world geography? The former hasn't taken a job part of the implicit contract for which is that they will not use it for political indoctrination, the latter has.

The message Bennish shared with his pupils wasn't "history is controversial", it was "The right wing is wrong and the left wing is right".

And dismissing the pupil as "close-minded" is silly. Even if we accept Bennish's (patently absurd) claim that his objective was simply to make pupils consider the issues he raised, as opposed to leading them to a specific conclusion on those issues, then there's nothing wrong with reaching the opposite conclusion.

But that's missing the point: the reason that what Bennish did was wrong was "using his teaching post for political proselytising", not "using his teaching post for liberal poilitical proselytising", and as such the pupil's politics have nothing to do with the case.