Speaking of the Constitution, Free Speech and Such

I agree with efusco. Teacher shouldn't really be limited on their opinions. A classroom debate is a debate. Whomever wants to throw in an opinion can. It isn't like a teacher can force a student to take his point of view.

 

I agree very much with efusco. Beliefs should hold up to scrutiny. I do play devil's advocate when I am trying to get discussion in many of my lectures (College courses) and I think it is entirely appropriate.

I am still trying to figure out where the line is though. I agree that slanderous words with no chance for free debate is not good. I have experienced that even with free debate, people will sometimes just believe what someone says, whether it is because of laziness, lack of expertise, little time to do the research etc.

Perhaps the best way is to have the class do the research before the discussion, so that both sides having good information, rather than one side being the expert and the other a new person to the topic.

We did something similar in my intro psychology course, where we would have debates over controversies (the one I remember was if homosexuality was genetic). The professor would randomly put us in the pro and con groups, so we didn't get a choice. Although, now that I think about it, the evidence that was presented didn't change my opinion. I did learn though that you can often find something to support your argument if you look for it.

I do not know know, just some thoughts.

 

Geez, you are your beating me to posting. I like that idea of a debating course. Everything works in theory, until you get people involved!

EDIT: I was just thinking about that this goes doubly so when you have junior high and high schoolers in class. As part of my adolescent psychology we talk about how teens are still developing their ability to judge someone's credibility. Especially in junior high, they may just take for granted that a teacher is right.

 

Teachers do not have unlimited free speech. No one does, and I am not talking about the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" thing.

Your job. If you walk around badmouthing you employer or boss, you can be fired.

If I (policeman) violate my departments rule that "talking to the press" requires approval (with some exceptions), I can be fired.

A teacher of 2nd grade should not be allowed to discuss human sexuality but a 12th grade teacher can.

Lastly, these kinds of things SHOULD be somewhat regulated by "local community values" (like pornography) so people (and news organizations) who do not live there should BUTT OUT!!!!!!!

 

I live here in the beautiful state of Colorado where this story is unfolding. The teacher in question told the students at the beginning of the school year that he would, from time to time, throw an issue into the discussion to energize discussion...I'm paraphrasing here...and he never called Bush a "lying scumbag nazi" but did compare his tactics to Hitler. I think teachers need to be able to articulate ideas and discuss controversial topics without having a threat of firing above their heads. It is a shame people are being threatened, fired, and otherwise belittled for expressing a viewpoint. Bush does create extreme feelings on both sides of the political spectrum, but why stop folks from discussing his questionable policies?

 

Denying teachers their full constitutional rights is nothing new.

A politician in California actually proposed a law in which teachers would be denied the right to vote on any ballot measure that had anything to do with education....because they would be biased.

It never went very far. But just goes to show the mindset of some people.

 

Weeellll, we have this leetle ole thing called 'precedent' in our legal system. Turns out that those of us who don't live in a given particular area DO have a VERY compelling reason to BUTT IN! It's our country, all of it, thank you very much.

 

Weeeellll, we have State courts and Federal Courts. Within each are appellate districts whose holdings do not apply to other districts. The ultimate holder of fact for us is either the Supreme Court of the US or the Supreme court of the particular state. Since PRECEDENCE has been set in that pornography is defined by local community values, I think my point is stronger than yours.

AND, since courts will decide based on law and NOT popular opinion...well, again BUTT OUT would prevent a lot of problems.

Lastly, usually people who live local know a little more about the details and don't have to assume so much.

 

Teachers don't have free speech rights in school any more than I do at my IT job.

Can I run around my company saying anything I want in the name of free speech.. such as... "You're sure getting screwed by hiring my company, we don't work that hard, and we're not that smart, and our company is lead by a guy who wears ladies under garments and is usually high on drugs".. Or.. perhaps I go around using my free speech rights to lather our clients with my personal unsolicited opinions about homosexuality, gay marriage, religion, current political administration, etc...

No way.. I'd be rightfully fired inside of a day.

Same with teachers. They work for the school district. The district sets up the curriculum and the policies. My wife is a teacher and she can't tell someone that their kid is exhibiting the signs of ADD. She can't take 10 minutes out of her class time to share her religious affiliation, and she can't be spouting hate toward the presidential administration.

Why? Because that's not her place for one thing. She's there to teach math, science, reading and spelling... Does she invent her own methods for teaching? No.. The district has curriculum and it flows from K - 5th grade at least, maybe through 12th. She needs to teach to the curriculum so that next year the kids know methods and skills for the next year.

If a teacher meets with kids at McDonalds after school, free speech is well in hand. That teacher has no business with her anti-bush thing at school.

 

How about ... HISTORY? Or should teachers simply leave their
students doomed to repeat it? When I was in school, it was called
"social studies". It was pretty watered down, though, which
probably contributed to the hordes of complacent, non-discerning
sheep emerging from our school systems. The hard issues that wound
up screwing a whole lot of people were carefully sidestepped. And
here we go again.
.
_H*

 

H:

That is why we now have several generations of Sheeple who go around "Baa" and except whatever is on the flickering box. There are times when this 'ole world tends to drag me down.

Like The Cult? She Sells Sanctuary? Think about it.

j

 

In many classrooms if you take a contrary position your grade suffers. Their oppinon is the only one that counts.
Teaching is a noble profession, but for a small percentage of them they just like to hear themselves speak. Debate has no place in many classrooms. I have experenced this firsthand as I'm sure many of you have.
For that small percentage the saying holds true "Those that can't do, teach". Its their only real power.

 

I think you meant 'precedent'.

I guess you aren't aware that judges in whichever venue typically take a close look at legal precedents in any other venue before ruling in a particular area of law. Therefore, it DOES matter what happens in, for example, Dover, MA.

So it won't be decided by popular opinion, but instead by the 'people who live local' (I think you meant to use an adverb there)?

Perhaps you could publish a map of 'community' limits so that we Americans could, at a glance, determine which moral, ethical, and legal issues we are allowed to be interested in WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Sorry, but there is no such thing as 'butting in' within my own nation. Keep flogging away on that theory of yours, though.