The Zenger Society: A Forum For Free Speech (Page 338)
Angry Beaver: https://vozwire.com/paper-trail-now-links-trump-to-the-insurrectionist-march-on-the-capitol-speech-suggests-he-knew-the-whole-time/
Angry Beaver: https://vozwire.com/yes-trump-can-be-indicted-under-federal-state-and-dc-laws-for-the-role-he-played-in-jan-6-insurrection/
Angry Beaver: https://vozwire.com/multiple-pro-trump-conspiracy-theory-lawyers-now-facing-prospect-of-disbarment-and-financial-penalties/
Interesting though disturbing video. I will give you my reaction, as an educator of thirty years experience.
I assume that was a high school class in history or some other related elective class otherwise, why would any teacher depart from her lesson plan to lecture her students on this subject and in so doing, clearly attempt to impose her uninformed views on a "captive "audience? That was my initial reaction..
When you train as a teacher, one of the FIRST THINGS they tell you--and they tell you this repeatedly because it's too important to neglect---is that you NEVER give an UNSOLICITED POLITICAL OPINION unless the student clearly asks you for one. Even in that case, you have to measure your words VERY carefully because the UFT contract doesn't make allowances for teachers who attempt to "indoctrinate" their students with THEIR political views and should be qualified as such. Its WRONG although, like I said, teachers ARE allowed to express their own views provided they CLEARLY state that those are THEIR views and should NOT to be taken as the gospel truth. That's an important caveat, naturally.
I learned this first hand, as all teachers do, because at some point in your career, if you teach high school kids, this IS going to occur with controversial topics, ESPECIALLY those that relate to politics or religion---the topic of evolution comes immediately to mind just as an example. Basically, I do hold iconoclastic views and I am not reluctant to express them but as a teacher, you have to remember NOT to use your position to YOUR advantage just to win an argument. There IS such a thing as "ethical argumentation," such as in formal debates but it has an application to education as well. So you have to watch your step.
My own approach usually was to pause the lesson before digressing and high school kids are crafty because they know if they can get the teacher onto a topic that's controversial, they will purposely feign interest just to keep the digression going rather than resume a boring lesson. I don't mind because its an interesting departure from the lesson plan but that, too, is part of teaching: knowing when and for how long to digress if the digression is going to be educationally relevant. That is quite normal. Its all part of the game but it does have a very specific and set protocol which conscientious teachers should NOT ignore.
After pausing, I began by stating quite clearly that what I was about to say was ONLY MY OPINION and that if a student wanted to debate a certain related point with me, I had to remember NOT to penalize them merely because they disagreed with me. You'd probably be shocked if I told you how many teachers actually DO that but I was not one of them. Its morally and professionally wrong to do such a thing and many people would rightfully be upset because a classroom is NOT a platform for spouting views that could be otherwise misconstrued but being a human being I also have opinions and if kids want to discuss those views POLITELY and respectfully, I have no problem with that but when doing so, I have to ALWAYS be on my guard and not say the wrong thing. Kids can often misunderstand or misconstrue what you say in the strangest ways but that, too, is part of the job which I loved and to which I gave my heart and soul for thirty years.
The teacher in the video clip was wrong in so many ways: she abused her authority , and her power to influence students and she was especially WRONG to LIE about Donald Trump but then again, if she really believes those things she said about the protestors, then she may well be a follower of QANON or even worse. Who really knows? I wonder what will happen when she is "observed" by her supervisor because that is a normal part of the job and if a supervisor ever saw her do THAT, she'd be written up and NOT in a good way either. She'd most likely be disciplined and that, too, is part of the game. Supervisors DO NOT like it when they see teachers doing that and here, I can speak from what I have seen myself over the course of my career. Additionally, I was gratified to read the many disapproving comments on the video clip which came, not surprisingly, from a number of teachers.
The fact that so many teachers objected to this in their posts is an encouraging sign to me, personally.
In the end, teaching imposes this responsibility upon you: to be forthright and honest and to be factually accurate and NOT use one's authority as a teacher to impose political views upon a young, inexperienced and captive audience.
(Edited by Echolegacy)
Angry Beaver: That'll learn her!
Florida Teacher Fired for Telling Students Capitol Riot Was the Work of Antifa
You can sense the discomfort in the room ... and one student asked for permission to leave, while another said, "I don't care about your opinions." <--- Smart kids
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
Well, I have had only a little experience as an adjunct lecturer; something I did briefly for a friend who taught at the university level. Its like being a teaching assistant, sort of, which requires you to do research and teach in exchange for pursuing your own degree, ordinarily, a doctorate. Still, its qualitatively different from teaching adolescents because there is nothing to guide you other than your own sense of discretion and professional judgement.
But you're quite right about college instructors; however, with the advent of "political correctness," that, too, can pose some interesting challenges, too. In my own case, I used to have some problems with Christian fundamentalists, especially when it came to certain works of literature, specifically, "Inherit the Wind", by Jerome Lawrence & Robert Lee.
When you teach works of "controversial" literature there will always be parents, who, for one reason or another, will object to the book, usually because of explicit language and the presence of sexual activity. This is understandable when teaching adolescents; parents will often object strongly and, consequently, you might need to confront them for just that reason. Generally speaking, most did not object to that particular book and so, the objection from one set of parents called for tact, patience and professionalism. I did my best.
We had been discussing the issue of religion and the creation of the earth and I told them that while the Bible was a creation story without any foundation in scientific truth, it could not be used as an explanation of how we got to where we are as a race of sentient beings. I told them that, most likely, the Bible was a marvelous compendium of poetry, psalms, marvelous tales and much wisdom. However, I repeated my assertion that whatever else it was, it most assuredly could NOT be held us as "proof" that God exists or that we are the beneficiaries of special creation. In other words, it was NOT "scientifically" true and there was no way to verify any part of it. Moreover, all the prayers and wishful thinking in the world won’t do it: it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE ever to verify the existence of God and to claim otherwise is a blatant and obscene LIE. I was not insensitive or dogmatic about it but I told them that if they really WERE true believers in God, they would have to get used to hearing people question and, in some cases, challenge their faith. That’s history and that is human nature and I did not want to sugarcoat the facts for them because if nothing else, I owed them truth and honesty. They deserve that and so much more.
They listened patiently and I couldn't be certain about how much they understood. I explained the concept of allegory which they understood and when I suggested that the creation story might be allegorical, one student leaped up indignantly and shouted at me, "Hey man, don't mess with my Noah's ark story!" After relating the episode to his parents, they contacted the school and demanded a meeting with me.
I explained my position and told them that my own religious feelings were not the issue and when they asked me if I believed in God, I politely but firmly demurred. I was not on trial and I disliked being grilled about personal matters. I explained that our creation story was just one among many and there was nothing wrong with discussing the matter in general or comparative terms. This was a class in literature, I explained, not religion or theology because under the First Amendment, I am prohibited from bringing theological matters into the classroom, which they scoffed at. They insisted that by teaching the play I was contravening and subverting their son's religious training and when I suggested that a parochial school might be better suited to their purposes, they promptly took him out of my class and enrolled him in a parochial school which might not have solved the matter but it took it out of my jurisdiction and influence.
The situation did not have a positive outcome and I always wondered what happened to the boy and if he ever had the chance to confront books and ideas that might have challenged his belief system, which is one of the objectives of any work of good literature. Censorship, as everybody knows, is usually an outgrowth of fear, nothing more or less and it still boggles my mind after all these years to see that some people are uncomfortable with exposing teenagers to ideas and situations, some explicit and disturbing, but always intensely human. After all, it was Socrates who said, "Nothing human is alien to me" and the exposure to such books is integral to a fulfilling and productive life.
I am believe in the humanistic ideal that literature can be an ennobling and crucial experience for most intelligent people. I doubt that any sort of a fulfilling life in the modern world, in fact, is really possible without it. That might sound dogmatic but experience and common sense, I think, will bear me out.
(Edited by Echolegacy)
KeithJ: the ones who stormed the capital on the 6th tried to tare down the constitution and all this country has stood for since the declaration of 1776
KeithJ: OH how "the big cry" seems to go on ,,,wait for it ,,wait for it ,,,,"the big slam" because trump even if not gets his 2nd bowel of peaches the SDNY will serve him up.
KeithJ: Of course creationist think even this isn't true because THEY think the Earth is only 7 k years old in which puts even Noah's flood 10 k years ago out ,,,the Earth IS as old as science says it is PERIOD.
KeithJ: So I guess them sub species of Humans are fake and the devil put the bones in the ground including dinosaurs too ,,
KeithJ: you got to be kidding me that congress woman with Qannon conspiracies said in a now deleted tweet that Jewish State satellites used a laser to start the California wild fires .
murrayduan: he Earth IS as old as science says it is PERIOD."
Plus the estimate will continue to grow.
As more and more stars and Constellations appear the age will increase. If this planet is still around billions of years from now which the chances just got better by removing Trump, they will be finding Stars that are 15 or 20 Billion miles away meaning the Big Bang was 7 or more Billion years earlier then we think today.
They measure the oldest objects they can see and calculate how fast it is expanding.
But hey we could just grab that Book and conclude 6000 years plus how many years from today?