The kid who taped his teacher and turned the tape over to Hannity

was on Hannity and Colmes last night.

The teacher was reinstated, and the kid refuses to go back to the teacher's class.

As a matter of fact, the kid is changing schools all together.

Cowardly little cretin.

Click on "back to school"

http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/

Especially an asshole. Haha!

Snitches get stitches. Thats just the way we grew up.

He and his dad are total asshats.

His father is a big george man-Colmes brought that out last week.

to the wing-nut radio shows until one of them gobbled it up.

They eat cowards alive. He won't last long.

have told me since the war started in 03 that they haven't joined the military "yet." This is in response to my request that they tell me about their military experience after they have indicated their undying support for bush. He'll fit into that category. Badass motherfucker in a group of his kind.

support the troops over there, doncha know.

The Marines want a few good men. This boy doesn't even qualify. He will most likely be just another chickenhawk who will cry and whine about how "persecuted" he is because of his beliefs. But what's sad is that he will probably make a ton of money doing that.

bars of soap in the sock time...

ooorah

somehow I doubt they would want their little golden child to actually do something really patriotic, but then again in morons* america secretly taping people is looked upon as being patriotic in repuke reality.

these people nauseate me.

like his chickenhawk heros...or, like Cheney, he'll have "other priorities".
Or maybe, like one of the young Republicans, he'll fight the war "over here".
How's that working out?
We need to check in with that brave young Republican.

Somehow, I doubt he's in a big hurry to go to Iraq.

my son is a Marine. Contrary to what this kid believes, they're not going to embrace his spoiled brat/spy on the teacher tactics. Can't wait till his drill sargeant gets him in boot camp.

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

The future young republican has been victimized. What a fucking shame. My heart is shattered by this tragedy inflicted on this little bastard in his youth. It really sucks being a "conservative" regardless of your age. Don't have to worry about that sissy joining the Army.

bush and the rest, he is a coward

If he doesn't join-up, that is.

whose kids now go to private school.

Yet here we are stuck with her ignorance.

in her local school district. At least yearly, she comes up with a list of books she wants banned by the school district. She circulates petitions, monopolizes school board meetings and gets all kind of negative attention for her school district, which for years has had a very good reputation.

Guess what? She homeschools her kids.

Some people are destined to be spoiled brats for their entire lives.

If his staying at his school rather than moving would make anyone elses life better or he had a moral duty to do so for some reason then you might have the germ of a case; as it is it's a simple case of someone blowing the whistle on something that definately needed to be exposed, and being hounded out as a result of it.

If this kid wanted to do the right thing, he would have complained to the teacher or to the school, not make a NATIONAL SIDESHOW of it. Instead, he egged the teacher into a discussion by asking politically oriented questions until he got the response he was looking for. He was put up to it by his FATHER, a RW NUTCASE who should be reprimanded for abusing his son.

I've caught more hypocrits, fools and double standards in a few hours than I normally get in a week.

Just a thought.

But I'm afraid that if a DUer claims that a teacher using his position to for left wing political proselytisation is not unacceptable then I will suspect them of hypocricy unless they produce evidence to the contrary.

Acceptable evidence would be a post on one of the not infrequent threads where someone has written in to ask for advice on what to do about their child being subjected to right wing politics in school claiming that they have no grounds for complaint. There are usually a few posts to that effect, but not very many.

Any other evidence that they would have just as little problem with Bennish's speech and just as condemnatory of his student if the bias had been the other way
will likewise be acceptable, *provided it dates to before the Bennish scandal broke, or in a completely unconnected context*.

The teacher's speech or that the child took his story direct to the media?

You may have a point, but the real issue I think here to most DUers is that the child sensationalized this instead of handling it like any other grievance he might have against any other teacher.

You must admit, it's quite opportunistic.

But opportunism isn't a crime.

I don't know whether they went straight to the media because they were idealistic and wanted to make political capital for a cause they believed in (a legitimate means, but a very bad end), or to make money for themselves (which *would* certainly be somewhat reprehensible, but not illegitimate) or because they didn't think the school authorities would do anything/enough otherwise (in which case I think they're probably right, but they should at least have tried).

None of those motivations seems inherently improbable.

I'm considerably more troubled by the teacher's speech than by his exposure; It was a blatant abuse of position.

The child's behaviour was, as you say, opportunistic, and perhaps reprehensible, depending on what his motivation was, but legitimate; the teacher's was active abuse of position and a very serious breach of professional ethics.

because, in a geopolitics class, the teacher should never discuss......geopolitics.

What color is the sky in your world?

My understanding is that the class was in "World Geography", not "Geopolitics". Politics may or may not be under the remit of that class.

However, if you'd actually bothered to read what I've been saying, you'd see that I'm all in favour of teaching politics to children, *provided it's done in an unbiased and non-partisan fashion*. My objection to Bennish's lecture is that he's using it to promote a set of opinions, not to explain them.

The sky, incidentally, is a kind of dull greyish-white. Do you feel that adding gratuitous insults to your posts achieves much?

...Let's flip the entire scenario: had the kid taped, and I emphasize this, his Geography teacher peddling right-wing horseshit in that context, the virtual rose petals and ticker tape streamers would be showering down in nearly every thread one could point a mouse at around here: he would be hailed as an "hero" and any dissenters to that meme would be branded as DLC plants just itching to piss on a noble "whistle blower." News that his family hailed from a progressive background would've been considered icing on the cake.
There would be calls for the teacher to investigated, fired, fined, and otherwise ridden out of public life on a rail. Someone would post the obligatory "jail the fascist!" reply.
The freepers, meantime, would be howling in fury at the violation of the right-wing teacher's "rights" - and slandering the kid and his family with every scuzzy accusation their limited imaginations could dredge up.
Reality intrudes, and we "flip" back to the facts as we know them: it becomes quite clear that, in some unfortunate ways, we've become mirrors of those we profess to despise.

find he can't sleep in it.

It's that simple. He really IS all alone.

The problem is that republicans and conservatives and neocons NEVER think of consequence. They think that the mob exists on the precipice of violence and all they have to do is point and gasp.

It's a pretty difficult lesson for the playground bully to discover he's not as popular in his views as he thinks.

This little tattler had options. He could have chosen to talk to his teacher; he did not. He could have chosen to talk to his principal or a counselor at school; he did not. He could have asked to be transferred to another class; he did not. His parents, who encouraged the taping, also NEVER ONCE spoke up and said 'hey, Teacher, we are concerned about your lectures and bias. It is bothering our son.' No, they chose to secretly tape the teacher. Even then, they had choices. Once again, they could have gone to the teacher, the principal or even the supt or school board with their taped evidence of what they considered bias. But they chose to go media shopping.

They obviously wanted RW media attention and they got it. And now their little tattler is paying the price. No he is NOT a whistle blower. They play by the rules and aren't publicity hounds.

I live in Denver, and this kid never went back to school to GET hounded. It was all planned in advance. He never had any intention of staying in school there.

My sympathies are entirely with the boy on this one. Bennish was blatantly and disgustingly abusing his position, and while I think it would have been better if the boy had reported him to the school authorities first, I think going to the media was nevertheless a legitimate response.

The word is "whistleblower", not "snitch". I hope I'd have the courage to do something similar in his position; and the fact that he's been driven out of his school reflects shamefully on it, not on him.

I have been generally horrified at the degree of double standards shown by DUers in trying to justify Bennish using his position for political proselytising.

or there's the outside chance you ARE aware of the details but refuse to accept them.

Bennish gave a blatantly political lecture, the transcript of which I have read and been shocked by.

One of his students recorded this, and went to the media with it.

In consequence of this the student has been driven by peer pressure to leave his school.

Mr Bennish was suspended on full pay, but has now returned to work. No *visible* disciplinary action has been taken against him; I have a feeling that I read somewhere that someone had announced that some disciplinary action has in fact been taken, but it's not going to be announced what it was, and that it didn't cost him any salary. That last bit I'm not certain about, though.

Which details do you think I've missed?

That's the Repug's M.O., and that's why we oppose them. Kind of like Iraq. It's not what he did, it's how he did it. You can't be a bull in a china shop and then blame the shopkeeper for displaying breakables!

Those persons with the BEST and CLOSEST of the events
in question have come to a very different "understanding".

You don't see the irony of telling me to shut up because Authority disagrees with me? Especially in a threat like this one?

And, out of curiosity, who are these persons, and how do you tell how GOOD and CLOSE their understanding is, relative to others?

I do see the IRONY involved in making
such an obviously fallacious implication
in response to my opinion that
your knowledge was faulty.

Yes indeed, Mr. Rankin, THAT'S irony.
And, in my opinion, it is also evidence
that little value will be derived
from continuing this line of discussion
with you.

So, I shall, instead, wish you well,
and bid you "good day".

Good day, Mr. Rankin.

I've read where the kid brags that he wants to join the marines and yet in this whole taping incident he failed one of the basic principles of the Marines: Chain of Command. If you're in the Marines and there is a problem, you don't go to the General but instead to your superior officer in command, who will then take it to his/her and so-on/so-forth.

If there was a complaint about what the teacher was teaching the students then the kid should have taken it to either the principle or school board and let them deal with it first. Taking it to Fox News is nothing more than a stunt to give you 15 minutes of fame. And that stunt backfired because the kid had to leave the school and the teacher got the job back. Perhaps if he followed the "Chain of Command", there would have been a different outcome where the teacher would have been reprimanded and the kid wouldn't have to leave the school because of harassment from other students.

I agree that it would have been better for a variety of reasons if the student had gone to the teacher's superiors and not the media, but as he is a student and not a marine it was perfectly legitimate for him not to do so, and it certainly doesn't come even close to justifying the disgusting tirades of abuse I've seen being heaped on him at DU.

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with Mr Bennish's actions. He is no more and no less wrong than he would have been if he had been exposed in a different fashion, or if he hadn't been exposed at all. Even if you think the student was wrong to do things the way he did, that doesn't justify Mr Bennish's abuse of his position at all.

and trying to be a hero to the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly for doing shit like this.

If the kid really wanted to fix the problem going on here he should have gone to the principle and/or the school board first.

All someone needs to do to get on Fox News is find a way to make liberals look bad

The kid purposely got the teacher off of his planned lesson to get him to talk about the State of the Union address, then goaded him on with leading questions to ask "what he thought" of various aspects of the speech.

You need to read the excerpts from the tape, or at least read the articles published.

The reason he wasn't disciplined is because he didn't even break board policy.

One person's "whistleblower" is another person's "snitch." I guess it depends on what side of the argument you take.

rights.

This is really quite an important misunderstanding, and I think explains why some people are supporting Bennish.

The first ammendment does *not* mean that a contract an explicit or implicit part of which is that you will refrain from saying certain things in some or all circumstances.

Part of the responsibility you accept when you become a teacher is that you will not use your position for political indoctrination. Demanding that teachers stick to that is not violating their freedom of speech, because no-one is forcing them to become teachers.

Mr Bennish had every right to say what he said, but no right at all to say it while exercising his function as a teacher, and it's the fact that he did that that means that he should have been disciplined and the boy was right to expose him for abusing his position.

...and that they should be informed and come to their own conclusions.....you are right...he was exercising his right as a teacher....getting his students to come to informed conclusions as he had come to his. here are some excerpts.....

"Now, in no way am I implying, I don’t know—you’ve got to figure this stuff out for yourself, but I want you to think about these things, you know?"

" And you know, I’m not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don’t even know if I’m necessarily taking a position. What I’m trying to get you to do is to think—right?—about these issues more in depth—you know?—and to not just take things from the surface."

"I’m glad you asked all your questions because they are all legitimate questions and hopefully that allows other people to think about some of those things too."

it is clear in the transcript he was taking all questions and opinions, openly encouraging debate and telling the students to think for themselves and don't allways take the news at surface value.

you are right again...mr bennish had every right to say what he said...he was doing his job...teaching....airing an open discussion and defending his point, while at the same time encouraging those kids to read up and form their own opinion. i can not see where your entire line in this thread is coming from. i think you did not read the whole transcript. perhaps mr. bennish's advice to his students may well apply to you....here is where i got the transcript....perhaps a review by yourself is in order.....and this is no liberal website by any stretch.....

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/SteveWalden/93256/

Mr Bennish's pathetic attempts to cover his behind make me despise him more, not less. From the transcript it's very clear indeed that he was "taking a position", that he was implying that "you should agree with me", and most importantly that he wasn't just "trying to get you to think about these issues in more depth", he was trying to lead the students to specific conclusions.

Don't mistake saying "I want to encourage you to think critically" for encouraging critical thinking.

He was clearly not "openly encouraging debate"; he was making a speech setting forward his own views. A discussion or debate implies that it's not one person doing all the talking, and that more than one point of view gets aired. The one time

He was not doing his job. I *do* fully agree that he was defending his point (although there was precious little to defend it against; "attacking with" would be a better simile); that's why I think he should have been disciplined - a teacher should not be using his position to fight for a political point.

If you can't see where my line on this thread is coming from, then imagine it had been a speech about how Howard Dean was like Stalin, and opponents of the war in Iraq were like the appeasers in 1930 - a list of RW talking points, with the occasional "but you don't have to agree with me" thrown in, and questions quickly sort-of-answered and dismissed. Or, better yet, look for some of the threads in the archives where parents have posted to ask for advice because their child is being indoctrinated with RW politics in school.

were his opinions only. i can't call this child a whistleblower...he was an opportunist along with his father. why did he go to nationally syndicated talk shows? why did they not first go to the school boards? i have yet to see you come up with a reasonable conclusion to this question in any of your threads. this kid should know a lot about the nazis the teacher was comparing the bush admin too, he used a page right out of history on the teacher. the fact that the boy and his dear old dad went to the hannities of the world first destroys any argument about the intentions of the boy and his dad.

"Don't mistake saying "I want to encourage you to think critically" for encouraging critical thinking."

so just what should i mistake this for. here's one for you...do as i say not as i do.....it makes about as much sense as your statement right? i am still not convinced you had either heard or read the whole transcript. and while i can see where the teacher was a bit long winded in his assertions, he was nevertheless encouraging debate and analysis of the conversation...he was teaching. i came across a lot of things teachers have said to me over the years i didn't necessarily agree with, but it made me want to prove them wrong that much more, and find the dirt to do it. the boy and his dad had no such intentions...they wanted their 15 minutes.

further down you posted that teachers like him piss you off because they give the Reich wing a platform to shout from about liberal bias. i take that to mean if you were the teacher in question, you would lie down and let status quo run amock...please don't anger our republican handlers, because otherwise they will take a big ol' shat upon us....thats a great message to send and an even better one to believe in. here is another word created from the hitler era...quisling...it seems to describe, IMHO anyhow, how you would want the teachers(who have been a high priority target for the right wingnuts in this country) and any other person of a differing opinion to act in the face of this administration, an administration in which hundreds of examples of both criminal and immoral behavior have steadily flown out from for the last 5 years.

i have to seriously question where your loyalties lie by the tone of you posts....

I don't have any (or rather, I do, because I'm only human, but I try not to let them cloud my judgment). I have principles, instead, and I apply them irrespective of which team the person in consideration is from. A left-winger has no more business that a right-winger abusing his position, and no "loyalty" prevents me from saying that. "Loyalties" in this context is just another word for "double standards".

I would want teachers to oppose the current administration in the same ways as anyone else: by campaigning, and by voting. If they want to start school clubs or societies running in free time to do so, I think that would also be perfectly acceptable (and a very good idea). But I *don't* want them to take advantage of their positions to do so.

The teacher was not "encouraging debate and analysis", he was making a speech. The one time one of the pupils did ask him a challenging question, about the moral difference between killing people for being terrorists and killing people for being Israelis, he sidestepped.

This speech did *nothing* to encourage critical thinking; worse, if anything it actually retarded it - it will lead some of his students to mistake "opposing the Bush administration" for "independent thought", something which Mr Bennish himself appears to have done (that's a common result of it, sure, but it's like mistaking a sausage for a meat factory). The way to encourage critical thinking would be to take a speech (preferably one with several deliberate glossing-overs like Mr Bennish's) and go through it point by point, demonstrating criticisms. Simply making such a speech does no good at all - hundreds are made in America every day; more are not needed.

This boy was used by his father and the RW hate media. The child is certainly not in any way prepared to attend college or university much less graduate high school since he has no grasp of American and world history and the historical consequences and implications of the actions (and inactions) of American presidents and politicians. The child has no critical anlysis skills and few if any human relations skills as evidenced by this fiasco.
:eyes:

He was giving a political lecture. His closing remark that "I just want you to think about this" made me want to vomit, it was so obviously untrue; the entire lecture had clearly been aimed at leading students to a specific conclusion; there was nothing it it whatsoever that might help them develope conclusion-making skills.

Also, even if there had been, that wouldn't have excused the political bias.

And your judgement on the student, unless you have massively more information about him than has been available in the media, is absurd. To say that exposing a teacher for abusing his position is evidence, let alone proof of any of the things you suggest is just silly.

If anything, it's evidence of a willingness to stnd up for his convictions in the face of hostility, and of the ability to question rather than accepting when people lecture him.

Senator Clinton, then the parents would have never taped the class.

How can one possibly understand history without discussing, comparing and contrasting today's elected (and unelected) leaders and politicians with those from the past.

a) It seems one hell of an unjustified assumption that they wouldn't have, and b) the relevant question is not whether they would have, it's whether they should have.

And while obviously those comparisons are a necessary part of understanding history, state-employed teachers have a duty to make them in a way as devoid of political bias as possible. Not only did Bennish not do that, he didn't even make more than a token pretence of attempting to do so; he was blatantly and overtly trying to politically influence his students, and teachers have a responsibility not to do that.

This assumes, incidentally, that everything Bennish said was relevant to understanding history even from a partisan standpoint; I don't think that's so. Also note that it was meant to be a lecture on "world geography".

I think it more likely than not that they wouldn't have exposed a teacher with a similar conservative bias, or that they'd have gone to his superiors rather than the media if they did, but I'm far from certain of it.

But, as I've said, that's entirely irrelevant. The question analagous to "should they have done what they did" isn't what they *would* have done had the bias been reversed, it's what they *should* have done.

were on the other foot, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

did you even bother to watch the video clip?

the kid is nothing but a brown nosing punk.

Colmes said that each and every student in the class sided with the teacher. He also said that the teacher extended a welcome to the little nazi and tried to invite him back into the classroom.

So that leaves the whiny little fuck as odd man out.

he needs to find another way to get in the good graces of the GOP.

"The teacher is good; he's teaching critical thinking."
"No, he's not."
"But if he were issuing a *republican* rant, the kid would have been silent."

You ceded the point, implicitly. You presuppose the kid was reacting to a dem rant.

I've taught undergrads; one thing they have is a firm set of opinions at a fairly high level--but critical thinking starts with examining facts, and distinguishing facts from opinion, observation from inference, and then evaluating the conclusions based on those facts, recognizing what is both good and bad. Bennish was arguing in the stratosphere, where most of my students wanted to argue, barely around there was ground somewhere "down there" and there were facts to be wielded; Bennish didn't actually take the time to critique any of his own positions, and most importantly, he didn't critique the kid's positions or even answer his questions. He criticized, repudiated, and "challenged" in a Monty-Pythonesque kind of denial. There was no critiquing. In fact, most of my students were completely unaware of the difference between pure criticism and critiquing. Ask for a critique, and start the conversation with, "So, what's the biggest positive thing you can say about this?" and you mostly get blank looks, or a smartass offers the least damning bit of criticism.

And the transcript doesn't do Bennish justice. He was royally pissed. Anger and critical thinking seldom co-occur.

The blatantly false claims his lawyer was proffering also had no place in the discussion.

When did you get your teaching certificate?

You also have obviously ignored so much of what we have learned about this kid. He is a religious bigot and his dad is a RW nutjob. They wanted some attention, they got it. And they almost ruined an excellent teacher's reputation.

...instead of Sean Hannity. Going to Hannity justifies that he and his family was not interested in
discipline, but wanted to get the teacher fired becuase they did not agree with his views, even though
he did try to challenge the students

And I've been generally horrified by your support of these McCarthy-esque tactics. The teacher and his family have been getting
death threats, so you're feeling that the student's actions were justified makes it even more chilling.

Satisfied?

I originally took out the word "McCarthy-esque" because I didn't think it would fit. Now I put it back in becuase Hannity's entire
point by bringing this to light is the sole intention of getting someone fired who doesn't support GOP party-line thinking. It's to put the
fear of losing your job in people who don't like the way you think, which is definitely one thing the GOP wants. Don't speak up. Don't speak out.

CIA whistleblower recently. There's a mechanism in the CIA for those who disagree with policy and practices to complain.

But, of course, we liked his whisleblowing. When he said he felt that he'd be either persecuted and punished for staying in-house, or that it would get him nowhere, we cheered. Apparently we didn't issue the caveat: this only applies to people we like and sympathize with. The principle is partisanship.

Does this mean a 16-year-old kid can't have the same attitude? After all, he's transiting the high school; Bennish and the administration are long-term colleagues. It's not like he's 15 or 20 years into his career; bad grades here will stop any career he may want before it even starts. Presumably he has less to lose.

The kid's also gotten threats. Does he now rise to the status of victim?

for speaking against the Vietnam war, and the Reagan Era support of the Contras in Nicaragua.
That is political persecution, in the good old USA, a "beacon" of democratic ideals.
Churches I've belonged to preach REPUBLICAN platform planks and party line loyalty, as well as allowing muli-level marketing companies, know for Republican loyalty (Shaklee & State Farm) into the church for financial profiteering.
Where's the freedom of speech there, and when tax-exempt church leader's salaries are based on partisian political activity!

what was heard on TV. The boy should've gone to the teacher first. The boy and his father wanted a side show, they wanted to be the darlings of the far right, the defenders of freedom, bada bing.

It's all or nothing, these days. Your fine sensibilities are alien to the opposition and their tactics have been winning. There's no point bringing a knife to a gun fight.

If you're saying that when judging whether or not a political action is legitimate we should take into account whether or not it was performed by a liberal or a conservative then I'm afraid I think you're utterly wrong.

Refraining from deliberate hypocricsy and double standards is not a *terribly* fine sensibility.

"Refraining from deliberate hypocricsy and double standards is not a *terribly* fine sensibility."

:shrug: perhaps not.

I haven't followed this terribly carefully, perhaps you can shed some light on the issue. Have you established that those posting in favour of the educator are in fact the *same* posters as those who previously decried similar "education" by the Opposition? Also, were such criticisms on the part of these DU posters levelled *on the grounds that it was an abuse of authority to espouse political views* or *on the grounds that the information propagated as an educated position was being misrepresented as such*?

Irrespective of these questions I note from elsewhere in the thread that this educator in fact presented "both sides", even if it were supposed that he spun it one way or the other the child only taped "one half", this is rather a selective revelation of "abuse of authority".

I don't think the symmetry necessary to identify a double standard is present.

You should change your last name to Kreskin.

that they must swear loyalty to it or something? Did I miss something here? Wasn't Bennish offering a DIFFERENT opinion to that of the government in this case, and wasn't this student perfectly free to present his opinion, without being hauled off go Guantanamo? In fact, isn't Bennish himself, and the rest of us who disagree with this administration, more likely in danger of that possibility than the student who decided to 'turn him in'?

The only sympathy I have for this kid is that someone needs to teach him to have the courage of his convictions, especially in a situation where he has nothing to fear. How on earth will he ever be able to hold up in a situation where he actually is in danger, not in the protected atmosphere of a classroom where his opinion is backed up by the current regime?

I am horrified that anyone would encourage behavior like this. Oh, and how was he driven from the school? He's perfectly free to return there. Apparently the majority disagreed with him. So what? I've been in plenty of situations where my opinion is not popular. Poor little hot-house plant. That's what drove him out?

He needs to take responsibility for his own actions and he'd be better off being honest and open in the future. People generally don't take too well to sneaks and snitches. Whistleblower? What a joke. A real whistleblower would have been reporting on something dangerous that was being hidden and covered up and he would NOT have gone to Fox news of all places.

Like all snitches, he's taking his toys (in this case his taperecorder) and he's going elsewhere, but I doubt he'll be very popular wherever he goes ~ I hope he changes his ways and learns to be open and honest. If truth is on his side, he has nothing to fear. Apparently he got himself into a mess and is unable to defend his actions, so he ran. He was not driven out, he ran.

that any DUer would think this kid is anything but a sneaky little tattle tale who chose to air his grievances on Hannity's TV show instead of solving them privately.

Even IF this teacher was wrong, this kid had so many other choices to solve this problem of his. It is just amazing to me that you can't see him as a publicity hound and an attention seeker. And calling him courageous is just mind blowing. If he was courageous, he would have confronted his teacher instead of playing sneaky games with a tape recorder behind his teacher's back. There is NOTHING courageous about that, nothing at all.

Bush and his criminal regime they would have given him a raise and a medal. This administration has subverted the constitution, broke the law, murdered thousands of innocent people including women and children, ignored international treaties, outsourced jobs, wrecked the economy, started a war on false pretenses, stole elections, hell the list goes on forever. I for one am glad to see that some people aren't content to sit on their hands and let the destruction of everything we stand for go without a fight.

As for his promise to join the marines, what's he waiting for? Aren't there programs he can sign up for right now?

This is a good sign ~ the majority of the students recognized the nastiness and sneakiness of his actions and let him know it ~ the teacher is back and the little brownshirt can't face the results of his own actions. Good riddance is probably how the school feels. Typical rightwinger ~

I'm sure his future teachers and fellow students are really anxious to have him among them, always wondering is he carrying a little tape-recorder ready to 'turn them in to Hannity' also. I hope he learned a lesson, but I doubt it. He intended to hurt his teacher and instead he only hurt himself ~ he'll be a footnote in the history of this period of time when the US almost became a fascist state.

I bet his school is breathing a sigh of relief ~

Then they have considerably more in common with between a teacher using his classroom for political indoctrination than with a student exposing him.

If I were looking for ludicrously overdramatic analogies for the student, I think a marginally less absurd one is with Sophie Scholl than with a brownshirt.

However, in general, I think comparisons with nazism are a mistake; I wouldn't bring this up if it weren't for the "brownshirt" remark.

I do not get you. This teacher was not trying to indoctrinate any of his students. He openly stated that none of the kids had to agree with him, that he might be wrong, and he just wanted the kids to think critically. The teacher went as far as to thank the kid for asking the questions that he did and told the kid that he brought up good points that needed to be raised. Explain to me how a teacher saying that he wanted his kid to critically think is indoctrination. As far as I knew indoctrination would be something like Sean Hannity going to a school and telling the kids that they should all be Republican because Democrats hate America and not allowing any debate from the Democratic leaning kids. If you do not like that example than you can say if the teacher had said that Bush was equal to Hitler and no debate could be had on the issue. I contend it is not indoctrination if the kids are allowed to debate the points the teacher is making or trying to make.

Openly stating something doesn't make it so.

A teacher teaching his kids to think critically is a good thing. A teacher saying that he wants his kids to think critically while making a lecture that does nothing to help achieve that aim (and arguably encourages them not to) as Mr Bennish did is neither a good nor a bad one. A teacher delivering a lecture of political indoctrination (as Mr Bennish did) is a bad thing.

Mr Bennish's speech was not about promoting critical thinking; it contained very little if anything that would do so. His claim at the end that "I just want you to think about these issues" was what it technically known as a "bare-faced lie"; what his speech had been intended to do was to make the students reach the conclusions on those issues that he had been promoting.

If it were the case that "it's not indoctrination if the kids are allowed to debate the points the teacher is making or trying to make" then what Mr Bennish did would just about not be, but that's not the case: it's indoctrination, or at any rate unacceptable proselytisation, if the teachers actions are intended to promote a particular political position, irrespective of whether the students are allowed to disagree. What you're defining is coercion, which is even worse.

and it does not involve getting someone fired, taking it to fox news before taking it to the schoolboard, or any of the nasty first moves played in this game, and the first thing is to explore that perception.

I disagree with you about the idea that we should not compare a series of events to the to the series of political events and manipulations used by the German Nationalist (Nazi) party to acquire power.

I don't think the teacher did it gracefully or well, but he does have valid reasons to discuss the causes and formations of geopolitical boundaries, and merely taking offense at it because "nazis" are off limits is something I'll take anyone down about.

If we can't compare and contrast to nazis, among others, then we're idolizing them and not serious students of history. I completely reject that we cannot or should not compare a political system when apt, to the nazi party, and especially this guy's manipulation of people who perceive themselves to be victims of liberalism. sorry, I nearly spit when typed that.

In no way can I condone what that evil little shit did was right or supportable, whether or not I agree with the particular's of Bennish's views.

Comparisons with the Nazis are not ipse facto "off limits", but in practice - as the attempts to compare this student to them, and Bennish's attempts to compare Bush to them demonstrate - nearly all such are nonsense in one way or another. That's nothing to do with why I disapprove of Bennish, though - I made the point in reference to someone calling the student a "brownshirt".

Some teeacher have valid reasons to discuss the causes and formations of geopolitical boundaries; I am not disputing this. What I am saying is that doing so in a politically partisan fashion is indefensible.

If you're suggesting that this student is comparable to the nazi's (in what way "comparable"? What is the comparison you wish to draw? Anything can be compared to anything else) because he exposed a teacher abusing his position then I think you will have an uphill struggle.

"Manipulating people who perceive themselves to be victims of liberalism" may be *technically* accurate - people who perceived themselves to be victims of liberalism probably did respond angrily to his actions, along with many others, but it's so misleading (biased?) as to be as good as untrue; it implies that a) his actions were intended to mislead, and b) only people who perceived themselves as victims of liberalism got angry, both of which are not true.

btw - this was bizarre; probably a misreading on your part - "If you're suggesting that this student is comparable to the nazi's (in what way "comparable"? What is the comparison you wish to draw? Anything can be compared to anything else) because he exposed a teacher abusing his position then I think you will have an uphill struggle."

Not even remotely suggesting.

The real issue for me is that if you perceive a problem, address the problem. If the problem was that the teacher was being partisan, the kid could have as easily stood up in class and said "isn't that being a little partisan Mr. Bennish?"

Instead, he did his best to try to get the guy fired and banned from teaching. In my book, whether or not anyone agrees that he was being partisan or just humanly and temporally wrong, the attempted punishment did not fit the perceived crime.

That's where my disappointment rests - if one can condone what that brat did in the name of fighting partisanship, then it should have been okay for a little preteen liberal to do the same. It's not okay - and the values that kid was portraying are borrowed whole-cloth from his parents.

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph of your post to be a comparison between this student and the nazis. What did you actually mean by it?

I agree that it would have been better for the student to go to the teachers superiors than to the media, that's the reason why I have mixed feelings about him -although he certainly didn't deserve to be hounded out of his school.

I think getting Bennish fired or banned from teaching would probably have been disproportionate, but not by much. It was about as clear-cut a case of naked political indoctrination with no attempt to educate as they come. I do hope that if he goes on in the same vein he will be fired, although not necessarily not banned permanently - he may be a perfectly competent teacher (although from the lecture he doesn't appear to be) and there are some jobs for teachers where not politically proselytising is not an expectation, and he could hold one of those perfectly well.

I don't know what would happen if a preteen liberal did the same thing, but I for one would certainly support him (although with the same slight reservation if they went to the media before their teacher's superiors). That's irrelevant to the rights and wrong of this case, thought - what's relevant is what *should* happen if it was a liberal exposing a conservative.

of people who think they are the victims of too much liberalism. That had nothing to do with nazis.

No he should not lose his job - how old are you? You're clearly arguing on behalf of the conservative view of this, if somewhat moderate.

We disagree right down the line - if he went over the top the most that should happen is counseling and a reprimand, unless he continues to be inflammatory even after having a chance to evaluate how he presented his views.

Your last paragraph is setting up straw men. You can't find a general rule from a specific incident. The difference is, a liberal kid probably wouldn't be okay with getting a teacher fired, just getting the teacher to stop.

That's the critical difference between us and them.

My view is that political bias, of whatever flavour, has no place in state-funded schools. If that's a conservative position then so be it, but I think it's a fairly liberal one. Either way, I think it's correct.

As to losing his job, I agree it should be a last resort, but if he repeatedly refuses to stop abusing his position (although as far as I'm aware there's no evidence he hasn't improved) I think taking it away from him will/would be justified.

I don't agree that the last paragraph is a straw man - I certainly had at least one teacher with a strong conservative bias, and although I didn't complain about him I thought seriously about doing so, and it was only laziness and the desire not to stick my neck out that stopped me.

I disapprove of Linda Tripp's giving her tapes of her conversations with Lewinsky to Starr (I presume those are the actions you're refering too?) because the person she was exposing wasn't doing anything immoral.

It's also the case that Clinton's affair wasn't any of Tripp's business, whereas Bennish abusing his position was his student's, but I don't think that's relevant; I think exposing Bennish would have been just as praiseworthy if it had been done by someone who wasn't one of his students.

I think it's all part of the same action, so no. If she'd taped the conversations just to try out her new tape recorder, and only later decided to go public with them, I wouldn't have disapproved until she decided to go public. I'm not sure what the relevance of that is, though?

gypsies, for The Party. Sedition and party opposition got intellectuals black listed, then jailed, then eventually KILLED.
It took time for the brownshirts to shoot & kill opponents on the street. So where's this comparison break down again???

we used to talk all the time.

She told me that she had been jailed during the war because she gave a starving Russian soldier a piece of bread. One of her neighbors saw her and turned her in.

Her uncle, and influential man, got her released.

her husband died on the Russian front. To this day she has no idea what happened to him.

As a young man, my buddy's dad was a member of the German army and was sent to fight on the Eastern Front. The guy's unit fought and did all the rest right up until Stalingrad, where they were surrounded and fought until their general surrendered. T

he guy was one of many thousands taken prisoner. Only three survived Stalin's imprisonment and were returned to Germany after the war. He emigrated to the USA and lived in my small town in Michigan.

His son was my friend in high school. We were at a basketball game and I was wearing this old black leather jacket I had found way back when.

Anyway, the thing had had an iron cross painted on the back. My buddy asked me not to wear it as his parents were sitting in the row behind us. He told me his father hated NAZI regalia and the swastika and everything the NAZIs did and all they stood for.

I knew the family and had never understood his old man's sadness. I took it off and never wore it again.

BTW: This kid looked exactly like the young Paul Newman. Exactly like him. He's why I didn't take my wife to my 20th or 30th high school reunion. If I had, I'd probably never see her again.

that this is not an isolated incident in the ongoing effort to 'get' anyone who doesn't demonstrate loyalty to the current administration. Academia has been openly targeted by the leadership of this country, along with the press.

I also would not have brought it up had the student confronted the teacher, rather than secretly taped the teacher and run to, of all things, what he no doubt sees as the authority, rightwing media who he believed, had the power to do harm to the teacher. Please explain how this behavior would not remind us of what happened in Germany in the '30s.

Your attempt to compare a teacher opening up a discussion with 'indoctrination' by Nazis fails completely on many counts. For one thing, there were no consequences to any student who chose to disagree with the opinions put forth by the teacher, were there? No one was being forced to accept anything they did not want to accept and were encouraged to disagree and present their own arguments.

But where your argument fails mostly is that the teacher did not represent the government in this case, the student did which should make it obvious that the teacher had absolutely no power to influence anyone, other than present his opinion, hopefully free from the threat of being 'turned in' which, as we saw, he was not.

You're entitled to defend teaching young people to lack the courage to defend their opinions, and when they do, to snitch on their classmates and teachers and run to the 'authorities' with the intention of harming those who disagree with them.

And I reserve the right to see disturbing similarities between that type of behavior and that of the Nazi youth in its early stages ~ and to call it cowardly and done with no good intentions ~

It's obvious to me that when Ari Fleischer said 'they better watch what they say' there were those who took him seriously ~ this student and his father apparently intend to make sure that we who oppose the policies of this administration, pay dearly for it. That is brownshirt behavior in my opinion ~

Or maybe you have a better explanation as to why a student in a free country would secretly tape a teacher who was perfectly open with his students and had no power to harm them for their opinions, and take it to a rightwint, partisan news organization without informing the teacher of his intentions? Do you think he intended to help his teacher and the other students in some way?

:thumbsup:

Is one of the reasons I'm so pissed off by Bennish. When the conservatives are howling about "liberal bias in schools", giving them such a clear-cut case of genuine liberal bias in a school is a very bad thing indeed.

In answer to your final question, I think he intended to take a stand against political bias in his school, and thus help his fellow students. If Bennish changes his style of teaching, I think that he will have done so, whether or not they thank him for it.

His behaviour should not remind you of what happened in Nazi Germany for various reasons, the most obvious ones being that the teacher was being reproached for political bias rather than lack thereof, and that the teacher is still at the school and the pupil has now left (and probably knew he was not unlikely to have to beforehand).

That the teacher had "absolutely no power to influence anyone" is simply not true; if it were there'd be no point in sending children to school.

And a teacher should absolutely not be free to "present his opinion" *in his capacity as a teacher*; he has a duty to make his teaching as free from bias as possible. If they do start proselytising, then they should be turned in and stopped.

that the administration has pioneered the tactic of using official capacity to codify and force their personal beliefs on the entire country. Are teachers exempted from free speech rights? Was this student forced to accept this man's opinion as fact? Does this student not have access to the other side of the story? Hell yes. You know as well as I that there is a flood of righty info out there compared with the trickle of the middle or left. I spent years as a Republican and I bashed all the lefties. Then I actually found out what the other side of the story really was. I had a heck of a time finding "the other side of the story" though. It just isn't presented as being as valid. I mean come on~ Half this country has a big, important, moral, problem with the Bushies, you know that. I say there should be more teachers speaking up more regularly.

No one, anywhere, should EVER be afraid to say what they think. :party:

It's nothing to do with the current American administration, it's a very general rule. Most jobs require you to act in certain ways while on duty - waiters and shop assistants are not allowed to be rude to customers, researchers and soldiers aren't allowed to give away vital information, and teachers should not proselytise party politics to their pupils.

If Mr Bennish wishes to post his views on the internet, or write to a newspaper, or to send round leaflets with them on, or start a school "Progressive society" meeting in his free time to promote them, that is fine, but he puts them forward to his pupils in class then he is abusing his position and should be stopped.

Our freedom of speech is protected in even the most inappropriate of places. Otherwise it's not freedom. I have the same problem with protesters not being able to protest where they want. The effort (which you're arguing for) to contain or suppress speech of any kind, no matter how offensive, is an abomination and an abrogation of our responsibility to protect this Republic. Of course you may disagree all you like ~ that's your right. A public school, payed for by our taxes, is exactly the place to not only exhibit our freedoms, but to celebrate them for all to see. That student had a right to verbally oppose the teacher, or if such was the case, complain that he wasn't being taught the necessary curriculum( A valid reason for the teacher's firing). What he did was set up vengeance. Not, I'm sure we can agree, a cherished value.

A public school is a place to teach facts, including teaching *about* opinions. The exercise of free speech is not it's purpose. That it's "exactly the right place to exhibit all our freedoms" is a statement so absurd I assume you must have made it in a hurry - are you seriously advocating the right to bare arms in schools?

Your understanding of freedom of speech is simply wrong. No-one has ever seriously advocated the right for everyone to say anything, anywhere, at any time - try shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre some time.

I'm not for a minute advocating the suppression of Bennish's views; I'm advocating the suppression of *all* political views from teachers acting as teachers. It's not nothing to do with politics, it's about professional ethics.

It's an important principal that a state-sponsored school be somewhere that parents of all political persuasions can send children without fear of them being politically indoctrinated. They should be taught *about* political opinions of various stripes, but there's a very clear line between teaching children *about* politics and trying to convince them to hold certain political opinions, and Bennish not merely stepped a very long way over it indeed, he did so in a way that suggests he doesn't even feel it's a line that matters.

What the pupil did wasn't vengeance, it was whistleblowing. He pointed out that a teacher was seriously abusing his position.

however: It is far easier to separate guns from people than opinions. Guns which go off by accident are a far greater harm than any words. It's foolish of you to compare the two. He wasn't causing harm, or infringing the rights of others. Opinions aren't dangerous to the rights of others, guns are. Politics are interwoven in almost everything we do and who we are. You state that our children should be free of political indoctrination and I agree. Again, Bennish was not teaching his views as a school approved doctrine. It was abundantly clear that he was stating his opinion, and encouraging critical thought. Both things which run completely counter to successful "indoctrination". I would rather have a teacher like Bennish who stated his views, and gave people the chance to think about it, and argue if they disagree. Rather than simply having the teacher's opinions be subtle forces which color and taint the curriculum, giving those taught no ability to disagree(because they may not even realize that it's opinion), let alone find out what the other viewpoint(s) may be. Bennish did a wonderful job inducing his students to think critically and for themselves. That is exactly what I want for my children. If being exposed to odious viewpoints is such a terrible thing, people can home school their kids.

The alternative is a society of fear. Something I certainly don't want. If you start firing teachers for stating their opinions you won't have any left. Not to mention all the kids with no experience in thinking for themselves...

Thanks for arguing so concisely and politely. I appreciate and enjoy it.
I apologize for some of my sentence structure. I had a late night last night.

of the rightwing that there is 'liberal bias in the schools' ~ and your way of dealing with that attempt to silence anyone with a view different to the rightwing, is to, well, remain silent??

Let me ask you another question in the context of Germany in the '30s(since you object to my comparison of this student's behavior to that of Brownshirts').

1) The Nazis indoctrinated the population of Germany to think that Jews (and others) were a threat to their society ~ they encouraged the turning in of Jewish teachers and students to 'protect innocent German children from being exposed to this, what I suppose we call 'liberalism'.

2) The Rightwing in this country is indoctrinating the population of the US to think that 'liberals' are a threat to this society ~ and (see David Horowitz et al) are encouraging the turning in of 'liberal' teachers, professors and reporters in the interests of national security (Bush is now pushing laws that would get reporters arrested for, well, reporting the news!!)

Would you have beeen horrified had a Jewish teacher in the '30s in Germany, opened up a discussion with his/her students as to whether or not the government's position back then might be compared to say, that of a totalitarian government? Or, would you have said back then 'that teacher should have remained silent, otherwise the Third Reich will be able to say that we Jews really are 'biased' against this country??

We know what actually did happen ~ teachers were too frightened, which you seem to be, to speak out at all, hoping that if they remained quiet, things would eventually improve. But that's NOT what happened, is it??

You acknowledge that there is a government sponsored (the Bush administration) program targeting Academia, and your response is that teachers should remain quiet because the rightwing will have ammunition if citizens even discuss these tactics?? But if Academia is already targeted even before anyone opened their mouth, how is remaining silent going to rectify it?

These are not ordinary times ~ your very admission that Academia is being targeted acknowledges that (do you agree with targeting Academia and the press, btw?) so therefore, I think it is the absolute duty of everyone, not just teachers, to raise these issues so that the government's indoctrination program will at least meet with some resistance. A teacher has a special duty to at least bring to his/her students an awareness of the issues.

I'm interested in your characterisization of the teacher's position as 'liberal bias' also. Is concern that Constitutional rights are being abused 'liberal bias'? Do you deny that the Constitution is being assaulted on a daily basis and that one's duty as a citizen to protect it far excedes one's job description, be it teacher, soldier, senator, or bus-driver?

Otoh, if you think everything's going just fine in this country today, and that the targeting of Academics, dissenters, the press etc. is just fine and no threat to democracy, then YOU have nothing to worry about. Your defense of this student will get you bonus points from the Bush regime. But I DO! Because like so many other Americans I am more than frightened by what's happening here right now.

Finally:

His behaviour should not remind you of what happened in Nazi Germany for various reasons, the most obvious ones being that the teacher was being reproached for political bias rather than lack thereof, and that the teacher is still at the school and the pupil has now left (and probably knew he was not unlikely to have to beforehand).

But it does remind me of what happened back then. It also makes me realize that had good people spoken up back then, (as this teacher, the rest of his students and his board have) in classrooms, in the press, on the streets of Germany, and sent the little Brownshirts packing early on, before it went too far, many, many lives would have been saved.

That the teacher had "absolutely no power to influence anyone" is simply not true; if it were there'd be no point in sending children to school.

I don't understand that statement at all. If teachers had the power you attribute to them, our literacy rate would not be what it is, 42% of the population would not be ignorant of their Constitutional rights, and everyone's spelling and grammar would be perfect!! You have far too much faith in the power of teachers, and an inordinate fear that and actually a total lack of faith in the ability of young people to make up their own minds about things, especially by the time they are 16.

And a teacher should absolutely not be free to "present his opinion" *in his capacity as a teacher*; he has a duty to make his teaching as free from bias as possible. If they do start proselytising, then they should be turned in and stopped.

'Turned in'!! Wow! Turned in to whom? Hannity?

A teacher does not check his civil rights at the door when he walks into a classroom. He absolutely can express his opinion, so long as he lets his students know, as this one did, that it IS his opinion and not necessarily fact.

If you want to provide students with the opportunity to think for themselves, there is no better way to do it than NOT to 'protect' them from different points of view. This teacher apparently succeeded in NOT indoctrinating his students. The Hannity fan and his freeper father are all the proof we need of that. Iow, he wasn't as effective as I for one, wish he could have been ~

I said one of the reasons I'm annoyed *about* Bennish is the RW's targetting of academia. And the point the RW and I disagree on is not that schoolteachers *shouldn't* be using their positions to promote liberal politics, but whether or not many of them (e.g. significantly more than are using their positions to promote conservative ones) are.

I don't, incidentally, acknowledge that the RW drive targetting academia is "government-sponsored". I don't *deny* it, either, but I've seen no evidence to that effect.

You appear only to offer me two options: that "these are not ordinary times" and that "everything's going just fine in the country today". I'm afraid I don't believe either of those - looking across the Atlantic at America, I see a country with a president of dubious personal ethics (but less corrupt than Nixon), low intelligence (but less incompetent that Quayle) and strikingly right wing (but less so than Reagan). That's neither "extraordinary times" or "going just fine".

The cry "these are extraordinary times", by the way, with the implicit "and therefor we don't need to be bound by the ordinary standards of behaviour", is one that scares me whenever I hear it. We *are* bound by the ordinary standards of behaviour, even when opposing people who aren't.

I'm not sure what power you think I'm attributing to teachers; for reference, what I believe is that teachers have the power to influence some of their studentssome of the time.

that you are 'looking across the Atlantic at America' your fear is understandably misplaced, and directed at those who are fighting off what you fear, rather than at the very people who have actually promoted what you fear and 'fixed' their policies around it.

I'll try to explain ~ you say, and I could't agree more:

The cry "these are extraordinary times", by the way, with the implicit "and therefor we don't need to be bound by the ordinary standards of behaviour", is one that scares me whenever I hear it. We *are* bound by the ordinary standards of behaviour, even when opposing people who aren't.

You must be terrified of the current administration then , because that paragraph completely describes their position since they were 'lucky' enough to have 9/11 happen (check the PNAC and Bush's own statements re 9/11 'I've hit the trifecta') and to use it to justify everything from an illegal war which they lied about, to disappearing people with no charge, no access to the judicial system, no trials (and yes, US citizens also) spying on American citizens, having their propaganda media (you do know they were caught paying pundits, don't you) in Bush's words 'catapult the propaganda'.

We have a great 'no-fly' list also ~ with US citizens, including even a US Senatro falling victim to it without any recourse, not even the ability to sue to find out why they are on it, and YOU are worried that a little punk Bush cultist might be exposed to another point of view? No need to worry about that, Bush cultists are difficult to persuade.

In Bush's America, it's okay to break the law, to violate international law, to throw out the Constitution (it's just a piece of paper anyway) to torture, to invade other countries pre-emptively, and yes even to lie to the American people (check Michael Ledeen's writings on this, he's Bush's top National Security adviser) 'for their own good, because THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES!! Do you see why I said that? THIS IS WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION claims, and I see that they MEANT it!!


I assumed you were living here, so I now understand why you just don't get it, you're not here, it's not your rights and freedom at stake. Being an observor from afar is interesting, but living in Germany in 1938 was most likely a lot different than just watching from afar, which may account for why the world did not interfere until it was too late. Lucky you ~

Maybe you should read this from a woman who now lives here in the US, (and as you can see, she sees the Nazi similarities to this administration) but who also lived through the Nazi era and was one of those lucky enough to survive it, although not lucky enough to not be affected by it. I already posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here ~

'Enabling' the Patriot Act
by Doris Colmes

At the end of the school year of June, 1938, my parents received a polite, but firm letter from Dr. Gregor Ziemer, headmaster of "The American School of Berlin," stating that Jewish children were no longer permitted to attend. It was the only school I’d ever known, from kindergarten up through fifth grade, and I loved it. My older sisters liked it, too, because – amongst other things – there were a lot of cute American boys in attendance and everybody spoke English. It wasn’t just American School, though: Jewish kids were no longer allowed into any schools whatsoever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/colmes2.html

Some nasty little Brownshirt was no doubt responsible for those little girls being 'turned in' (I really do hate those words) to the 'authorities'. Too bad there wasn't an open discussion about that government's similarity to other previous authoritarian governments, before 1938. And too bad they didn't realize that when Hitler told them the times were extraordinary, they misunderstood him ~ as the student you are so concerend about, has.

As for your characterization of Bush in comparison to Reagan, Nixon et al, experts who lived through those times and studied the crimes of those periods, totally disagree with you. Most believe that this administration is the most corrupt in history and it may take decades to unravel the entire scope of their crimes. Have you studied the neocons, btw?

And, we do live in extraordinary times here. George Bush is the one who told us so and then proved it with his outright violations of our Constitution and of International laws. And no, he's not 'dumber than Quale', he's just more ruthless and vengeful ~

Fighting off fascism (Read again, Michael Ledeen speaking for the neocons and his praise of fascism) is not a 'liberal thing' to do, it's a patriotic thing to do.

The more I think of all this, the more I hope that more teachers, cops, soldiers, cab-drivers, librarians and all US citizens speak out and expose brownshirts wherever they find them ~ and I hope they didn't wait too long ~

I did check your bio, btw, to see where you are after you said you were across the Atlantic, but I see you've disabled it. That's cool but I couldn't help wondering why?

One of the reasons I despise the current US administration is because it tries to claim special license to ignore standards of behaviour "because these are extraordinary times". However, bad administrations doing that is nothing extraordinary, or even unusual.

Compare your list of the wrongs of the current era with the violations of the rights of Civil Rights protestors, or anti Vietnam ones, or with McCarthyism, or with the atrocities of the Cold War. Right wing governments violating their citizens' rights is nothing unusual.

You're not "fighting off fascism", you're just losing perspective on just another fairly unpleasant US administration because it's so close up.

I didn't know I'd disabled my bio; I wasn't even aware I had a bio. How do I enable it? For your information, I'm from the UK.

Your claim that "experts who lived through those times disagree with you" is meaningless, I'm afraid. Experts in what? Regarded as experts by whom? All such experts? Which experts? I'm sure there are people legitimately described as experts in American politics who disagree with me; I'm equally sure that they're in a minority among such experts on the matters of corruption vs Nixon and incompetence vs Quayle; I'm less confident on the comparison with Reagan, but it's far from clearcut.

Your comment "turned in" is VERY telling, indeed.

If this student had a problem with his teacher, why take it to the media? Is that an appropriate response to a problem with a teacher?

If I had a problem with a teacher, I had many options. I could have talked to another teacher, I could have talked to a counselor, I could have talked to a principal, I could have talked to an administrator...instead, he chose to sensationalize this by going to the media.

And he loses, the teacher wins.

But "turned in" to the media? What authority do they have?

But to say "turned in and stopped"?

Wow.

"Turned in" because that was the form of words chosen by the person I was replying to.

I don't think reporting him to the media is "turning him in"; I do think that reporting him to his superiors would have been; that's what I'd think the boy should have done first (although given that Bennish is now back in the classroom and apparently unrepentant I'm not sure it would have done much good).

The fact that he didn't is the source of the only ambiguity in the issue; if he had my sympathies would be wholly with him, as opposed to only partially.

But I think that, while regretable and arguably to some extent reprehensible, going to the media directly was a legitimate decision, and certainly doesn't justify the bile directed at him.

How so? How could they correct this boy's greivances?

And putting pressure on them to do so.

I think he should have gone to them directly given them a chance to stop Mr Bennish before going to the media, but I don't think he had an absolute duty to do so.

Is that not what a mature, reasonable person would do?

Besides, why would any school give a flying feck what Sean Hannity thinks?

No, he doesn't have a duty...but wouldn't that be prudent, if he truly felt like standing up for what he believed in? He's left the school, since...just how much conviction did this boy have, in that case?

Again, I think the issue here with most DUers is that he ran straight to the media, instead of handling this like an adult and airing his greivances in a more appropriate forum. He was interested solely in sensationalizing this story, not in a satisfactory solution to his problem with the teacher.

This thread is getting difficult to post in as I'm on dial-up, so I'll try to respond to the post above that you directed to me as well as this one.

You have already been proven wrong, btw, in your opinion that going to the media was a good option for him. It was, however as it turns out, good for his fellow students all of whom state that his accusations were false, and for the teacher, who he apparently falsely accused of trying to impose his views on him.

An investigation has proven him wrong and more information is now available showing that the student IS the victim of indoctrination, but not by the teacher. Should parents and the media be free to indoctrinate children btw?

You doubted my assertion that this government sponsors media indoctrination ~ again you are wrong. This administration has paid with government tax dollars, various rightwing pundits to 'sell' their POV. They have also used government agencies to do the same ~ do some research please ~

You mentioned in another post that you have decided that this administration is no better or worse than others, citing the Reagan and Nixon administrations, and therefore we here who are concerned about it, are over-reacting.

You pointed to McCarthyism, Iran Contra, Watergate, Vietnam, and yes, all were threats to this democracy and thank god for those courageous enough during those times, not to have had YOUR attitude that when such assaults on democracy occur, we should all remain silent for propriety's sake. So thanks to people like Bennish and others, they were stopped, but they did not go away.

What you have not noticed, is that many of the same criminals, some indicted and convicted for crimes they committed in their attempt to undermine democracy, during those times, and are now currently serving in this administration.

They never gave up. And now they are back with a president and a tragedy which is facilitating them in their attempt to finish their unfinished business. Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Poindexter, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, etc. it's a long list, including even the arms dealers from Iran Contra. This time it has been easier for them because of 9/11, at least for a while.

They have hi-jacked the media more effectively this time also, with individuals like Ollie North, G.Gordon Liddy et al preaching their propaganda on a daily basis and with new 'Conservative' voices added such as Hannity eg.

Different now too is that they have control of all three branches of government, most of the mainstream media and are filling up the rest of the judiciary with rightwing idealogues as was their plan.

I remember the Reagan era and I was never threatened for expressing a pov different than that of the adminisration. This is no longer the case in the USA ~ people are threatened on a routine basis for expressing a viewpoint different to that of this administration.

You don't live here, therefore your opinion is just that, an opinion formed from a distance. No doubt such opinions of Germany abounded back in the early '30s from afar. Too bad, because it made it that much harder to stop the brownshirts and the growing threat that was very apparent to many who actually lived there ~

Your free speech laws are different to ours also, and not applicable in this situation. The teacher has been judged to have done nothing wrong. That student set him up with questions meant to 'get' him. His father, a rabid freeper type, used his kid to 'go get those subversive teachers' which is part of the rightwing agenda. The student was abused by his father and by the rightwing media, the real culprits when it comes to who was indoctrinating him.

They caused him to go act like a brownshirt, to 'turn in' his teacher to rightwing hate media and he has failed to accomplish his goal of harming the teacher and his fellow students. If the shoe fits, wear it! This country can't afford to be tolerant anymore with this kind of tactic. We are NOT Germany in the '30s, but when signs of it appear, as you can see, the American people react strongly. This is one student whose actions are unpopular across the political spectrum. His only support is coming from the radical, extreme right.

I'm sorry you support this kind of behavior, but I'm glad your opinion is still a minority opinion in this country ~ and for the record, I would equally despise any liberal parent who similarly used their child to 'get' a Conservative teacher ~ I find such tactics to be abhorrent ~ no matter who employs them ~

That school is better off without him, I doubt anyone is too disturbed that he will not be returning, so his little hissy fit really is wasted. Almost everyone I know, regardless of party politics here, were equally horrified by his behavior. Freeper types of course see him as a hero, but that's to be expected. Many of them thought McCarthy was a hero also.

Nowhere, at any point, have I been arguing that "we should all remain silent for propriety's sake". I've repeatedly stated that I *don't* think that, in fact. What I do think is that *schoolteachers* *in their professional capacity* should do something which could be caricatured as "keeping silent for proprieties sake", although is actually "making sure that when they discuss politics with their students they don't do so in a partisan fashion".

There's a difference between saying "we shouldn't be fighting this war" and "there are certain methods of fighting, like torturing civilians, that we shouldn't stoop to."

I've never said that going to the media was a good option for the student; I don't know what makes you think I think that. I think it was a *legitimate* option for him, albeit certainly unwise and arguably somewhat reprehensible.

The investigation has only "proved him wrong" if you put total faith in the judgement of the investigators (and assume that they didn't discipline Bennish, which we don't know). OTOH, if Bennish *wasn't* disciplined then it proves that his decision to go to the media rather than the school authorities was the right one.

I don't know what give you the idea that his goal was "harming his fellow students"; it's fairly self-evident that that's the exact opposite of the truth.

You're suggestion that my opinion is less valid because it's formed at a distance is silly - you, I and everyone else except the people who know the school personally are forming opinions at a distace; in this day and age the Atlantic does not make much difference to one's ability to gather information.

The only circumstances when I think trying to "get" a teacher is justified are when
that teacher is blatantly abusing his or her position. You've said a lot about how reprehensible you think the student's actions are, but less to justify Mr Bennish's.



Do you believe

a: that a teacher using his position to try and convince his class to become conservatives is acceptable.

b: that a teacher using his position to try and convince his class to all become conservatives is unacceptable but one using his position to try and convince his class to all become liberals is acceptable.

c: that Mr Bennish was not using his postion to try to convince his class to become liberals.

All of those positions strike me as absurd, and if you don't accept any of them then you have no choice but to believe that Mr Bennish's actions were unacceptable.

Let the high schoolers see the face of your typical republican. Best Democratic recruiting move I have heard.

It strikes me that if this teacher had said that Bush "glimmers with a sunny nobility" or some equally inane bullshit, and the kid (assuming he's a stalwart liberal in my hypothetical land) made a tape of that and turned it over to Hannity and (oh wait, who's that other guy on there?), that there would be no big fuss about any of this.

For Hannity, it's not about removing editorializing from the classroom. It's just about making sure that everyone lines up with his point of view. Same goes for others in the punditocracy. They're not journalists: they're hacks. This is not a new observation, of course. This is just the latest example of it.

Recording without the teacher's knowledge and consent? Isn't that what Bush is doing?

Students are allowed to tape lectures all the time.

first saw him on tv..

than anything that teacher said.

We used to debate with each other in front of our combined classes. We took opposing views on lots of subjects. Each of us said stuff that, taken out of context, would really cause a shitstorm.

Our kids knew what we were doing, so we never got one complaint even though we said things like: "Ronald Reagan should be impeached." "Lyndon Johnson is a murderer." "Gerald Ford is a moron." "Bill Clinton is the male equivalent of the school slut." "Democrats are just socialists with better PR." etc, etc, etc.

If anyone had a tape of those things, they could edit to make it pretty damning.

I'm not defending what the teacher did, because I don't know, but I do know that good teachers will do ANYTHING to get kids to think, and sometimes that gets them in trouble.

Added note: The Marines just loooooves whiners and complainers. If he joins, he may learn a lot he hadn't planned on.

Calling someone like him a "pussy" is an insult to cats.

:evilgrin:

I'm sure his parents are related to Satan in some way.

nt

You're old enough to be politically active in your own right. *Teachers*, however, certainly shouldn't be trying to influence their student's politically in their lectures.

probably will home schooled.

Snotface Hannity butt-kisser.

The Party is all. Those not loyal to the Party must be reported. :grr:

Can't **anybody** in any position of authority see the hellish direction that this country is taking????

anything the teacher said in a classroom discussion? The kid should have been expelled!

Not that I'm sayin' it's good or bad, but this kid would've had his ass kicked by a lot of other students had he gone to school in North Texas in the early 80's (totally? totally.)

I admit that I haven't followed this case as closely as most of the people here (although I was subjected to Hannity "crowing" about this case on his radio show for the brief 1 minute I let my radio dial rest there), however this case worries me primarily because it strongly resembles "McCarthy-esque" efforts currently underway by David Horowitz and his ilk to attack and defame the reputation of college teachers that they believe hold strongly liberal/anti-Bush/anti-GOP viewpoints or affiliations. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that they are actually encouraging students to engage in actions such as these (i.e. tape recording lectures) in order to help advance their agenda, which, as far as I can tell, is to ultimately "purge" acadmic institutions, especially colleges, of "dangerous" teachers who happen to hold liberal/anti-Bush/anti-GOP viewpoints or affiliations. It appears to me that this student's actions were undertaken for the express purpose of trying to get the teacher removed from the school because of his parents' viewpoints and affiliations, not because of the quality of his instruction or his abilities as a teacher. The teacher MIGHT have been a bit out of line but it sounds like a situation that could've and should've been handled internally without getting the media involved. However, it sounds like getting the media involved was what the kid or at least his parents really wanted. I'm glad to hear that the teacher was reinstated (as he should've been). I don't feel very sorry for the student but I'm sure that his parents will be able to find a fine and upstanding academic institution that will be far more favorable to their viewpoints and affiliations and will protect him from any more "dangerous" views. :sarcasm:

How can someone at 16 be sooooo corrupted???

brainwashed by his parents...

some of the remarks directed at him on this thread are really over the top.

(n/t)

I was 16 once. And, ESPECIALLY AT 16, what my parents thought about how the world should be was quite irrelevant to me. So, if he's brainwashed, he's a cowardly little twit who doesn't want to think for himself, thinks what daddy tells him to think, and started a firestorm over nothing to get his rocks off.

Not much to like about that, is there? Not much of an excuse either. He's 16, not 6.
The Professor

Can we all agree that:

1. The teacher, while i definitely loved what he said, maybe overstepped his professional boundaries a little bit...

2. If the teacher gave some screed worthy of Ann Coulter, our little bastard freep of a student (which evidently some in this thread think is a hero) would have kept his mouth shut and been silently cheering.

3. If the father/student truly had a grievance, then they obviously went the WRONG way in trying to find a proper resolution...About 12 years ago, I was in a Catholic high school, and one of the religion teachers was considered by many in the school to be 'flaming lib trash'(i.e., moderate dem)---He had such radical notions about Christianity being about peace, love, helping your fellow man, and being tolerant of other religions...More than a few sets of parents had a problem with him, but instead of trying to pimp their story to the news, they actually went to the principal, and the diocese to try to get him removed (every attempt failed, and he is still teaching)

The kid lost his battle and he can't face the consequences. I don't believe in ass-whooping a kid but if one deserves it it would have to be this little worm. He edited that tape leaving it quite one sided and that is the reason the teacher was re-instated.

My daughter has a teacher like this. She is really well liked by her students, but she felt the pressure for her way of thinking and is leaving at the end of the year to teach college level classes. There was no big uproar over it. It was the teachers decision but her students will really miss her. Actually, I feel lucky my daughter got to have her this year.

The principal of my daughters school (have to say, I think this guy is a prick) sat through one of this teachers classes last week after finding out that she gave the # of dead soldiers and the $ amount of the national debt for the day to one of the students he kicked out of school for carrying a sign that said the number of Dead soldiers, the national Debt amount, Delay, Disgrace. The principals reason for kicking this student out was that the sign was "one-sided." The kid contacted the ACLU who told him to bring the sign back and if it happened again they would get involved.

So far, the kid has not brought back the sign but I think there might be a little battle brewing over this before the end of the year.

It's so funny, my mom thought Bennish should have been dismissed for his statements but she thought this kids sign was just fine.

Teachers should not be using their schools for political purposes. Students should.