Teacher says inflammatory letter was part of lesson plan

[fgoodwin]

I think current events can and should be discussed in class. That''s not the point -- the point is teacher advocacy of one position over another.

 

The students can advocate all they want -- after all, its them whose thinking we want to stimulate. But as an authority figure in the classroom, I don''t think the teacher should show bias for (or against) either side.

[kb6jra]

Thank you Fred, that was the point I was trying to convey. I hope that clears up my opinion for you Longhaul.

 

 

[Lisabob]

At the end of the day I honestly don''t care whether my students are Democrats, Republicans, or Martians. I care a whole lot that they think through their opinions; that they understand the underlying issues, problems, and implications; that they base their analysis on some kind of evidence; and that they thoroughly understand (though not necessarily accept) the "other side."

 

What I''ve found when discussing certain controversial issues is that some people view any discussion at all as "advocacy" for whatever side they don''t agree with. Opinions without facts are sad and ugly things. For example, on occasion I''ve had students hotly deny...yes, deny....that we could ever possibly be holding any people in Guantanamo who just maybe, theoretically, could be anything other than terrorists. Further, I''ve had students categorically deny that the United States would ever use such interrogation tactics as stress positions, cold cells, and water boarding on such detainees (though usually, this is followed with "but so what, they deserve it because they''re all terrorists anyway.")

 

Now whether or not the current detention policy is a good one, or even the least-bad of a bunch of lousy options, or what potential trade-offs there are between freedom and security, or whether it is working to make us safer, etc., cannot be discussed without a certain grounding in fact. Yet when the facts themselves are ignored or met as mere "opinion" by people with entrenched viewpoints, no deeper analytical conversation is possible.

 

And yes, the United States government freely and openly admits that some of the people in Guantanamo COULD be something other than terrorists. And yes, the United States government freely and openly admits that we have used and maybe still do use the interrogation tactics I mention above. You can look all this up fairly easily. I don''t need to make this up.

 

Here are a few of the questions I ask students to consider, after a discussion of the facts. Obviously this is not in context, but I think you''ll agree these are really hard questions to answer, and require analysis of multiple perspectives to grapple with in any meaningful way.

 

1) How do we strike an appropriate balance between freedom and security, when faced with enemies who are non-traditional in nature (ie, not countries, but merely individuals or small groups, much harder to identify and much harder to retaliate against)?

2) How much power should we grant to our government to take "whatever steps are necessary" to keep us safe? Put in context of the Founders'' fears of a too-powerful government that might become abusive of its citizens, is this still a concern today or not? And why or why not?

3) What are the limits or boundaries on executive branch power? For example, can the president rightly assert that, since Congress failed to define "torture," that these rather harsh interrogation tactics, are "not torture?" Are we comfortable with letting a president, by himself, make such a determination? Why or why not?

4) What is "torture" anyway, and why do most countries (ours included) ban its use in interrogation?

5) Are there times when the "imperial presidency" is necessary? If so, what happens when the crisis passes? Can the presidency be reined in again, or once we give the president more leeway, is it unlikely that the office (not merely the man) will revert to its prior, less-powerful state? In the latter case, what are the implications for the other branches of government and the notion of "checks and balances?"

 

Now look, if we start from the premise that presenting unsettling facts is a matter of bias in the classroom, then forget it because we''ll never be able to discuss any of these (in my view) really crucial questions. And the quality of our citizenship and democracy will suffer for it.

 

I guess you can probably tell, I feel strongly about all of this.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Yeah, Lisabob, I understand. I try to do the same thing. I have to admit you have a much better field to do this with so I have to work a bit to find the right topics. But knowing beforehand what popular prejudices are running just now, I give them a set of technical details in the field and then pose one or two of those situations for comment. I mention a recent government decision, or a position statement by a candidate or an advocacy group. Then I ask, is this a good thing or a bad thing? We''re only a few weeks into the semester and they already assume a shell-shocked look when I ask that question, heh, heh.

Someone will attempt an answer and I say, "OK, that is reasonable but.." then I add some detail that switches it around. Now they start to argue back and forth and all I have to do is make sure they have the technical stuff correct.

Sometimes they turn to me and ask, "so what IS the right answer?". Sometimes there actually IS a technically correct answer but often I tell them it is up to THEM to judge. That all I wanted them to do was to understand all the opposing arguments.

I just love this stuff.

Lisa, I suspect I have a little more freedom than most faculty. I work from a position in which tenure no longer means anything. I have nearly complete freedom to pursue my courses and as long as I don''t p*** the administration off too much, they''re happy to have me. And with age I have a pretty good perspective on things so they really don''t have much to worry about. Heh, heh, but it IS so much fun to tickle the tail of the dragon once in a while.

[fgoodwin]

Lisabob, like anyone else, you have a right to your opinions.

 

For me, the issue isn''t that your opinion may be different than mine; the issue is, whether it is "good idea" for a teacher to advocate a particular position with a captive audience.

 

I would hope that you would agree that such advocacy is not a good idea. Alternatively, suppose you had a child in the care of a teacher who held an opinion different than yours -- would you want that teacher advocating their position with your child?

 

I don''t think teachers should advocate any position, regardless of their personal opinion. And of course discussions can occur without teacher advocacy -- it happens everyday in debate.

[fgoodwin]

Lisabob, one more thing.

 

Its one thing for a college professor or HS teacher to engage their students in a debate -- its quite another to expect middle school students to be able to hold a position contrary to that being taught by the authority figure in the classroom.(This message has been edited by fgoodwin)

[Lisabob]

fgoodwin, I understand what you''re saying and if a teacher is up there brainwashing kids or railing on against (or for) a particular political party and treating all other views in a denegrating fashion, then yes I would agree with you - this is abuse of power and a poor method of teaching.

 

On the other hand, I believe (and you don''t have to agree) that there are some topics that cannot be taught without involving opinion, and politics, and political history, are among those. An antiseptic version misses the point of the material and its relevance.

 

The trick there, in my view, is to present many different sides. Advocate for and critically examine ALL of them. Help students identify strengths and weaknesses in each ideological position so that they can better weigh their own choices for themselves.

 

In the case of the issue of detainees and torture, for example, I feel I''ve done a good job with that discussion when the students who started out as unequivocal supporters or opponents of our current policy, end up perhaps a little less certain, but with a better understanding of WHY they support or oppose the policy, and WHY the other side takes the view it does. I can''t do that without exposing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the argument, and injecting analytic viewpoints (some would call this opinion) and playing devil''s advocate. If you hamper me from doing that, you are keeping me from teaching the material in a serious manner.

 

And I don''t think 8th graders are incapable or too immature to handle that sort of discussion - if it is set up effectively. 14 year olds are often budding philosophers, and while they may still tend toward concrete right/wrong thinking, most are beginning to develop a more nuanced world view at that age. So, done well, not telling them "you have to believe what I believe or else!," I think discussion of controversial topics can work quite well with that age group and really help stimulate their thought process.

 

However, of course you''re welcome to disagree.

 

[Trevorum]

I would like to add that there are a number of highly controversial topics which nonetheless ARE taught in a straighforward manner because there is little to no scientific disagreement. For example, some people may squirm, but evolution and global warming are facts of life (heh, heh!) and need to be taught as such.

[funscout]

Trevorum,

 

Your example of global warming is a good one. Teachers should stick to the facts that global warming has been proven to be occuring. When they stray from the facts and insist that there is proof that HUMANS are CAUSING global warming, then that is simply their opinion. I wouldn''t want my kids to be told only one side of an argument. Unfortunately, that does happen in the schools.

 

Evolution is another one which has not really been proven. While it does appear that species do evolve, there is no proof that a species evolves into a different species entirely. So, to be fair, both evolution and creationism should be taught.

 

Thanks for clarifying that!

[Trevorum]

funscout, with respect, I understand that your religion and your politics teach you to believe certain things. That''s your right to believe any thing you want. However, religion and politics don''t belong in public schools. Science is another matter. Regardless of what your religion and politics teach, there really is no scientific disagreement on either issue.

 

[John-in-KC]

Trev,

 

With respect,

 

There IS ongoing academic debate about causality for global warming. Eagle Son wants to be a meteorologist/atmospheric scientist, he''s a HS senior now. We''ve spent some time at particular area universities, looking at programs. Three of these are State Flagship schools (as in such as the University of Nebraska).

 

He''s talked with PhD full professors on the topic. Global Warming exists, to a man/woman they say that. Human causality? One was finishing doing a juried review of a journal paper: Thesis was causality is open.

 

Lisa: I appreciate your bringing your academic skills in teaching poltical science to our Forum. My simple comment as to this particular teacher is he''s probably in the single worst County in our Nation to discussion repudiation of citizenship... his county is one of the extra-legal immigrant portals.

 

Of course, any of us can have an incredible dumb attack, and that''s what I ascribe his project to...

 

YIS

[Aquila]

There''s no such thing as teaching in an unbiased manner. Lisa''s "straightforward" questions are a good example. Even math is not untouched by a teacher''s world view. It''s why, as parents, we have the responsibility to know from what point of view those who have influence over our children are coming from. That includes teachers, Scoutmasters, pastors, and anyone else who will be shaping their minds. If some parents haven''t bothered to check beforehand, it''s a little surprising that they get upset afterward.

 

It''s yet another reason that troops should strive to have more than one merit badge counselor whenever possible. Scouts are going to get a very different perspective from me for the Citizenship badges than from another MBC, who is receiving taxpayer assistance.

[Aquila]

PS We''re a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

[Lisabob]

Aquila, you''re absolutely right that we are a "republic" and not a pure democracy in the classical sense of the word. On the other hand, commonly accepted synonyms for "republic" include "indirect democracy" and "representative democracy." We can split hairs (and I''m fairly well qualified to do that too) but at the end of the day, that''s not an exercise I find fulfilling.

 

As for that MBC who receives public funding vs. you, who presumably do not: while I think I get what you meant, of course in reality we ALL benefit from all sorts of public funding every day. You do drive on public roads, right? (Just one example)

 

But I suspect that we aren''t as far from each other''s viewpoints as it might seem, either.

[packsaddle]

funscout, Knock, knock, back to biology 101. Populations evolve, not species. As for proof...anytime I hear someone saying some idea of science has not been proven, it indicates to me that the speaker does not understand science. Needless to say, there is nothing in science that supports the contention that creationism should be given equal status to evolution, at least not in a science classroom. But that contention has been beat to pieces in another thread, not to mention absolutely trounced in a Dover, PA court decision. I suggest that you read the court decision and perhaps some of the detailed accounts for how the creationists tried to promote inclusion of creation in the biology classroom. It is very illuminating of not only the vacancy of intellectual capital for the creationists, but also of their willingness to lie to achieve their agenda, thereby violating at least one commandment. Warmer climes ahead for those guys, heh, heh.

 

John-in-KC, in a similar vein the evidence that is mounting seems to increasingly support a human influence on climate change, not the other way around. Now it is possible that some new observation will change this completely and we''ll find out that it''s all due to solar burps or something but for now, the evidence is pointing to US more and more. I''m still open to the alternative view if stronger objective evidence is found. Right now the alternative view is mostly couched as skepticism or suspicion at the evidence and ideas. This, in itself, is not bad. However, if that skeptical view is not applied equally to the opposing argument, then THAT constitutes bias, maybe worse.

 

About all teaching being biased, even math...I''m wondering how a Laplace transform can be biased. Or a Taylor expansion. Have I missed something along the way?

OK, the instructor might use examples that support some personal view but a social or political agenda does not alter, one bit, the fundamental mathematical process that is being taught. Bias might color the learning environment but I fail to see how it changes in any way, say, the commutative law. Care to clarify?