A student apparently taped part of the 50 minute lecture and sent the tape, representing about 20 minutes of the lecture, to a Denver radio station.
On the recording, Bennish told the students that some of Bush's speech "sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say. We're the only ones who are right, everyone else is backwards and our job is to conquer the world and make sure that they all live just like we want them to."
Later in the recording, Bennish said he was not claiming Bush and Hitler were the same, "but there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use."
This is a valid reason to put a teacher on leave? Because he told his class that there were similarities to the speeches? My economics teacher at Hume-Fogg used to make political cracks all the time, no one thought anything of it. Are we saying that today, in America, social studies and history teachers can't bring up criticisms or comparisons of the current administration with anything that happened in the past, without facing criticism, forced leave, and perhaps dismissal?I do think it is a valid method of teaching to draw comparisons, and allow students to think about those comparisons and whether or not they agree. This is how we form opinions, after all. Sure, the comparison was against one of the most evil men of the 20th century (second only to Montgomery Burns, I'm sure), but if the comparison fits for this teacher's purposes, so be it.
I know, I know. Plenty of people will say "but these types of things shouldn't be presented in the classroom". Why not? Are we not allowed to discuss current politics in the classroom anymore?
Are we not allowed to discuss Hitler? Can we not compare Hitler to Stalin? FDR to Lincoln? Clinton to Bart Simpson? (I am not making actual comparisons of these people, by the way, I am just throwing things out there)
As these types of cases creep their way into American life, I have to wonder if it is the beginning of something bigger, of something worse. To the final loss of privacy, freedom of speech, and all the things America holds dear - or used to hold dear. Perhaps it is simply liberal overreaction.
I pray that is the case.
UPDATE: Here is a transcript of what was on the tape. I read over it and I still don't see a discussion any different than any discussion that I had in class in high school. The teacher repeatedly states that he just wants the kids to think about these things. In the end, saying that a teacher can't say these things about American politics is like the Japanese saying they can't teach their students about the Chinese/Japanese wars and whatnot. I don't care who you are, you can't avoid some sort of bias in a teacher. And if this teacher was gloriously praising Bush and everything else, none of this would even be an issue. It would all be ok. And if a liberal minded kid taped that discussion and took it home and a parent complained, well, it would be just a bunch of liberals crying over nothing.
Also, was it a Social Studies class, or a simple World Geography class? If it was just geography, ie. locations, captials, populations, exports/imports - then perhaps the discussion was not warranted, although I don't think it should have resulted in him being forced to take leave. I do find it hard to believe, however, that a high school has a simple geography class, without delving into the historical, social, cultural, and political aspects of each country.
EDIT: Julie O. at her site They Get Letters has lots of good information about this case.
6 comments:
i guess the problem is that a teacher should be in the position of either neutral information giver/moderator,or devil's advocate. i, as a teacher in my pre-italy life, have been guilty of giving liberal opinions to my impressionable students hoping that they would "see the light." the problem with this, i have decided, is that this can inhibit them from making their OWN decisions and forming their OWN opinions, rather than assimilating those of the adults around them.
That said, are four years almost up????!!!
ZARDOZ SAYS :
SPENT MY JR AND HIGH SCHOOL DAYS
WHEN CARTER AND REAGAN WERE IN OFFICE,
AND ILL HAVE TO SAY THAT
THAT I STILL HOLD DEAR MY TEACHERS
FOR GIVING IDEAS , HAVING THEM
PARALLELED AND TRYING TO MAKE US
OBJECTIVE AS TO WHAT THE TRUTH IS
THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS
I LOVE MY AMERICA , THE ONE THAT
I GREW UP WITH,
EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN BASHED AS
ANTIAMERICAN FOR MY OPINIONS,
CAN I EVER FORGET WHAT TAUGHT ME
WHAT IS A DEMOCRACY, WHAT THE MEANING
OF FREEDOM IS ,, CERTAINLY DIDNT
LEARN THOSE FIRST STEPS IN GREECE.
UNFORTUNETALY ,,IT HURTS ,, DEEP
WHEN TEACHERS ARE TOLD TO MAKE ALL
THE STUDENTS THE SAME,
"ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL"
PINK FLOYD
IS THAT WHAT IS ASKED OF TODAYS
YOUNG PEOPLE..? IN THE U.S.?
==ZARDOZ==
The subject matter was not only apropos to the course of accelerated World Geography (check out the syllabus), the discussion was prompted by Sean Allen himself. (link to my transcript of Today Show interview).
Allen (and other students) asked Bennish about Bush's SOTU from the night before, and once Bennish started talking about it, Allen pulled out his recorder.
Hmm..that's what I suspected. Students know what the teacher's hotbutton issue is, and if they don't feel like actually doing classwork - they press it. Again and again. The kids don't even care what the subject is.
We had teachers that would go on about their yardwork, Jane Fonda, cattle, the hypocrisy of organised religion... You name it. It was better than geography, advanced math, chemistry...whatever it is we were supposed to be doing.
I wouldn't say the Larry Summers situation is entirely the same. While I would not be happy with some of the comments he made, if he had been just a Harvard professor, I would have agreed he had the right to make them. But as the president of a well-established, highly considered university, the job is to be a politician, to glad hand people and help raise money for the school. Kinda hard to do if a bunch of people, including alumni, are pissed off at you. Basically, I think he had the right to say all the things he said, and have the opinions he had, but it didn't work for him as a university president.
I don't, in any way, think it is only about "liberal" politics being supported. I think any teacher would have the right to compare Bush to Jesus and praise the war in Iraq - and give viewpoints to get students thinking. High school kids are not as stupid as some people seem to think they are - and I think they are better served ending up in college with the ability to form opinions based on the presentation of various points of view. This teacher's biggest crime is being passionate and being gullible to the "bait" of students, as I recall most teachers are.
Honestly, while I wouldn't ban them, I do find comparisons to Hitler and the like very troubling.
For most people, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Vlad Tsepish, et al, were tyrants. While not universal, enough agree with that characterization to make comparing one to another in that group "morally" acceptable.
It's true that some comparisons can be made between people accepted as being defined as evil and those with mixed or split opinions about them. But the potential problem lies under the cause and effect consideration microscope.
When we consider cause, or, more accurately, the reason behind something, in the matter of comparison, we should consider the sincerity and validity of the stated and implied reasons given by the subjects of comparisons.
Upon what were the actions predicated? What proof do we have to assess the character of our subjects? Those are important questions. While on the surface a comparison might be valid, it might be spurious below it.
Bush might be comparable to Hitler, perhaps something more time should be given to bear out or debunk, or not, he might even be worse in some or most ways, but however true that might be, the inherent problem is that, by extention something is implied: Hitler caused many innocent deaths because of his bigotry/racism, so, too, must it be true that Bush has done the same for the same reason or one that is equally or sufficiently egregious.
Of course, that would be close to projecting an opinion on the person making the comparison, one he might sincerely have not intended. Even so, it's nevertheless troubling that the comparison is made, or any one between persons of comparable moral status to each other, because a comparison to a known person inevitably implies, for many, that both subjects are also comparable in their ethical quality, they are of the same character.
Should comparisons like the one in question be accepted on academic and free speech grounds? Yes; there might be some validity to them, and we should not prejudge hypothetical ones. But I admittedly find them unfair and bordering on being unethical, depending on the admitted and ascertainable intent of the person making the comparison.
Post a Comment