Beware! Leftists in our schools!!!

[vraiblonde]

Okay, just spoke to the Asst. Principal, who was unaware of this until she started receiving phone calls this morning. Apparently the voice mail was filled as well from parents who called last night.

I just told her that it was inappropriate for that teacher to use the children to make a political statement and that I wanted the teacher formally reprimanded. I also told her what Alex said about how the whole thing went down in the first place.

She told me that she was going to discuss this matter with the principal and they would decide on a course of action. She agreed with me that politics has no place at a school function and said she'd follow up with parents about what was going to happen to this teacher.

So we'll see what happens.

 

[Christy]

Good Job Vrai! I'm dying to hear what happens.

 

[Pete]

This is a hard one. I think that debating different views should be allowed, encouraged and moderated. In my history classes many many years ago, the teacher allowed 1 class every 2 weeks or so for us to discuss world events. He moderated the discussion, but did not impose his views on the subject. I learned alot about differing views and how other people thought. Discussion is a great thing.

However,

A public display of a political view by 13 year olds who are not capable of understanding such a complex issue is not appropriate at a school sponsored event. The school should provide a medium for discussion not a vehicle to express it.

Where this went wrong:

The teacher had a serious lapse of judgement as to if a school sponsored event is an appropriate venue for a political statement.

It sounds as though the teacher "provided" the poem for the class.

When faced with objections she had a vote, and when the vote failed to get the results she wanted she just had the 10 who wanted to recite it. This tells students that in a democracy the will on the majority doesn't really mean anything, accomodation will be made for dissenters who don't want to abide by the majority decision.

It was not reviewed or known to school administration. This causes me to assume that she knew the administration would object and tell her to remove that portion. Since she didn't want to she chose to adopt the Naval Air mantra: It's easier to beg forgiveness after the fact, than to ask permission beforehand.

As far as booing kids. At first I was a little taken aback. Then after considering it I think that it was ok. It gave a very early lesson that if you have an opinion and you chose to voice it, you are open to critisism and should be prepared to support your position or have your feelings hurt.

 

[vraiblonde]

Thank you, Pete - another person who understands my objection.

 

[Larry Gude]

Great post, dpete2q.

 

[cattitude]

I'm with Pete. Glad someone can eloquently say what I feel!!!

 

[SeaRide]

Way to go, Pete!

and ..

now, ST... lets see what you got to say. Come on!

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by dpete2q

Where this went wrong:

When faced with objections she had a vote, and when the vote failed to get the results she wanted she just had the 10 who wanted to recite it. This tells students that in a democracy the will on the majority doesn't really mean anything, accomodation will be made for dissenters who don't want to abide by the majority decision.

I agree that the teacher showed spectacular stupidity in selecting this theme for presentation (although personally I think the whole program sounded stupid--I'd rather shove rabid weasels down my trousers than listen to "a collection of little skits dealing with the pressure kids face: divorce, death of a loved one, grades, friends, etc." Gag! Gag! Gag!). It's not an appropriate forum for those sorts of political views, nor is it right for the teacher to attempt to push her views on the kids.

That being said, I must strongly disagree with what you've written above. Telling students that "accomodation will be made for dissenters who don't want to abide by the majority decision" is a GOOD thing. In fact, it's a founding principle of our government. See The Federalist Papers, particularly No. 51, where James Madison discusses the concept of what is now referred to as "tyranny of the majority." In a simplistic democracy, if 20 kids vote not to read a dopey bolshy poem and 10 kids vote to read it, the poem doesn't get read. In a better democracy (one that mirrors our government) the 10 kids that voted to read it get to, and the 20 kids that didn't want to don't have to.

Democracy--as it applies to the U.S.--does not mean that the majority gets to push its will onto the minority.

 

[Tonio]

Great response, Pete.

When I was in high school, the principal invited a former convict to speak about the evils of drugs. This guy spent 10 to 15 minutes talking about Jesus and how his faith helped him restore his life. Not a bad message, but definitely out of place in a mandatory event in a public high school.

 

[pixiegirl]

Originally posted by Doc
I agree that the teacher showed spectacular stupidity in selecting this theme for presentation (although personally I think the whole program sounded stupid--I'd rather shove rabid weasels down my trousers than listen to "a collection of little skits dealing with the pressure kids face: divorce, death of a loved one, grades, friends, etc." Gag! Gag! Gag!). It's not an appropriate forum for those sorts of political views, nor is it right for the teacher to attempt to push her views on the kids.

That being said, I must strongly disagree with what you've written above. Telling students that "accomodation will be made for dissenters who don't want to abide by the majority decision" is a GOOD thing. In fact, it's a founding principle of our government. See The Federalist Papers, particularly No. 51, where James Madison discusses the concept of what is now referred to as "tyranny of the majority." In a simplistic democracy, if 20 kids vote not to read a dopey bolshy poem and 10 kids vote to read it, the poem doesn't get read. In a better democracy (one that mirrors our government) the 10 kids that voted to read it get to, and the 20 kids that didn't want to don't have to.

Democracy--as it applies to the U.S.--does not mean that the majority gets to push its will onto the minority.

I think I should be allowed to smoke crack and kill my ex husband does your reasoning mean I should be allowed to?

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by pixiegirl
I think I should be allowed to smoke crack and kill my ex husband does your reasoning mean I should be allowed to?

I don't follow. What do the concepts of "10 out of 30 children voted to read a poem, so those 10 read it and the other 20 didn't" and "I'd like to kill my ex-husband" have to do with each other?

 

[pixiegirl]

Originally posted by Doc
I don't follow. What do the concepts of "10 out of 30 children voted to read a poem, so those 10 read it and the other 20 didn't" and "I'd like to kill my ex-husband" have to do with each other?

You said and I quote...

Democracy--as it applies to the U.S.--does not mean that the majority gets to push its will onto the minority.

The majority of the country says that illegal drug use and murder are wrong, thus we have laws about these types of behavior.

If I don't see anything wrong with smoking crack and killing someone shouldn't I be allowed to do it? If I can't it's only the majority pushing it's will onto the minority. Isn't it?

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by pixiegirl
The majority of the country says that illegal drug use and murder are wrong, thus we have laws about these types of behavior.

If I don't see anything wrong with smoking crack and killing someone shouldn't I be allowed to do it? If I can't it's only the majority pushing it's will onto the minority. Isn't it?

Well I assumed people would interpret what I said rationally. Your interpretation is irrational: no one is advocating that killing husbands be legally protected, and even if they were that would most likely be a minority attempting to push its will onto the majority (also something Madison worried about).

When it comes to issues that involve death (killing ex husbands) and injury (smoking crack, but let's not get into a "shall we legalize drugs" argument), it's not really a matter of what the majority or minority would like. Such an issue as legalizing murder of ex-husbands would never come to a vote.

What I stated applies to the more mundane topics. Example: Prayer in school. It doesn't matter if 51% of America decides that children should be forced to say christian prayers in school. It's just not going to happen--the majority would most likely be prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court. Separation of powers, baby!

A bunch of dorks reciting a dumb poem about war in a public school setting falls into the "mundane" category.

 

[pixiegirl]

I'm not trying to push my will on anyone. If I think it's right why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Doc
In a simplistic democracy, if 20 kids vote not to read a dopey bolshy poem and 10 kids vote to read it, the poem doesn't get read. In a better democracy (one that mirrors our government) the 10 kids that voted to read it get to, and the 20 kids that didn't want to don't have to.

Democracy--as it applies to the U.S.--does not mean that the majority gets to push its will onto the minority.

And that works both ways - a minority group doesn't have the right to push ITS agenda on the rest, because it feels a 'right' to be heard.

If they wanted to "read" it - privately - they could. We all seem to agree that a political statement issued by a small number of 13-year-olds to a captive school audience is inappropriate, and that circumstances showed that the teacher was determined to demonstrate an anti-war view, and shut out the majority view because it didn't gibe with her own. She effectively told those opposing her view to shut up and color while she went on with her own. THAT'S democratic?

Further - I don't see this as tyranny of the majority as much as tyranny of the "minority" - there's no right guaranteeing the rights of a minority view pushed on others. I see the same thing when it comes to teaching "creationism" as a science in school, because a fraction believe it is necessary. Just because you hold a dissident view doesn't immediately grant you the right to express it in inappropriate venues. For example, you have the right to protest the war in a park after securing the proper permits - but if you choose to hold one on my lawn, you're gonna meet my steel boot.

I'm thankful for the fact that growing up - my teachers showed mature restraint from expressing their political views.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by pixiegirl
I'm not trying to push my will on anyone. If I think it's right why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

Because that is the way to anarchy.

If everyone practices pure selfishness, society crumbles. Thus there need to be rules in place to tell us how to behave. Some would argue these rules are religious in nature (do what your god tells you to do). This isn't a particularly good way to run a society (i.e. Taliban) since gods have a bad habit of never showing up in person to tell people what they want but rather communicating their will through books and word of mouth which are easy to--and quite often--forged to push the personal agenda of unscrupulous persons.

In the US, these rules come from our government. Our government has some basic underlying principles (cf. Constitution, Bill of Rights) which are held to be most important. And so if I decide one day that people who monopolize the left-hand lane for no good reason (let's dump the ex-husband example) should be executed on the spot (traffic in Southern Maryland would become much less congested due to the sudden deaths of 90% of the drivers), and if I get 51% of America to agree with me, bad drivers have nothing to fear. Arbitrary executions are forbidden at a very basic level (right to life, liberty, etc.).

Another way to look at it is my desire to kill left-lane hogs is outweighed by their right to live. That, in a nutshell, is why "If I think it's right why shouldn't I be allowed to do it" is not an absolute principle.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by bluto
Is that what the founding whities were shooting for?

Read the Federalist Papers. They were worried about both.

 

[vraiblonde]

The plot thickens:

The Asst. Principal called me back and invited me to a meeting with the theater arts teacher to "share my feelings" with her . Apparently the offending anti-war speech is part of the play - I'm desperately trying to find the text online but the best I can find is the info from the publishing company at http://www.histage.com/default.asp?sPlayno=1008&sFSite=&sFIndex=&sDesc=family_album.

So the good news is that it wasn't just this teacher putting out a little protest on her own. The bad news is that the play is made up of a bunch of different acts that can be rearranged or eliminated without disrupting the flow. And the teacher did leave out several of the acts - just not this one. The copyright on the play is 1991. I feel that, in these politically charged times, that act should have been eliminated.

Had it been a kid talking about their confusion about the war and how insecure it makes them feel, okay - legitimate. But the act stood out like a sore thumb because:

1. It didn't fit with the rest of the acts, i.e. pressures
2. It wasn't one kid giving a monologue, which there were several of. It was one third of the class giving the peace sign while they recited.
3. It wasn't on the program and was announced just as a "poem" that some of the kids wanted to do.
4. It was inappropriate, considering current events.

And that's what Intend to tell her at our meeting on Tuesday.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Doc
Because that is the way to anarchy.

If everyone practices pure selfishness, society crumbles. Thus there need to be rules in place to tell us how to behave. Some would argue these rules are religious in nature (do what your god tells you to do). This isn't a particularly good way to run a society (i.e. Taliban) since gods have a bad habit of never showing up in person to tell people what they want but rather communicating their will through books and word of mouth which are easy to--and quite often--forged to push the personal agenda of unscrupulous persons.

In the US, these rules come from our government. Our government has some basic underlying principles (cf. Constitution, Bill of Rights) which are held to be most important. And so if I decide one day that people who monopolize the left-hand lane for no good reason (let's dump the ex-husband example) should be executed on the spot (traffic in Southern Maryland would become much less congested due to the sudden deaths of 90% of the drivers), and if I get 51% of America to agree with me, bad drivers have nothing to fear. Arbitrary executions are forbidden at a very basic level (right to life, liberty, etc.).

Another way to look at it is my desire to kill left-lane hogs is outweighed by their right to live. That, in a nutshell, is why "If I think it's right why shouldn't I be allowed to do it" is not an absolute principle.

You're not grasping the concept of democracy well, are you? If a majority want to do something stupid - they get to do it. You have to hope that your citizens have some good sense, but otherwise, too bad, that IS the way it works. *Tyrants* and fascists impose their will on others, sometimes "for the good of society". People are allowed to be selfish. God forbid anyone should deprive me of this right.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Frank
And that works both ways - a minority group doesn't have the right to push ITS agenda on the rest, because it feels a 'right' to be heard.

Agreed. What's getting lost here isn't that I'm advocating that these students have a right to read their stupid poem (I'm not). I merely objected to pete's assertion that teaching students that accomodating dissenters is an example of "going wrong."

I'd say the students learned a valuable lesson (when 10 vote to do a thing and 20 vote not to, and the 20 aren't hurt by the thing, nor are they forced to do it, then the superior democracy is the one that allows the 10 to do it), even if the actions behind the lesson, and the outcome itself, were completely wrong.

Summary: Reading stupid antiwar poem as part of school play = bad. Teaching kids that compromise is possible in a democracy = good.