NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b8298706-0abe-421a-0116-75e16c449518&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

A student records the audio for taking notes, and only gets greeted by his geography teacher talking about how bush loves cocaine instead of actually teaching.

It seems to be that being a teacher is great job to rant your political BS, whereis in every other job from warehouse to corporate executive, NOT doing your job gets you fired from the spot.

What is with teachers and trying to brainwash kids anyways? If you want to bitch, make a blog.

Oh boo-fricking-hoo. If none of my teachers had been allowed to go on their assorted rants, school would've bored me to tears. I loved it when they just went off on something. Sometimes I agreed, other times I didn't...but brainwashing? Have a little faith in teenagers...they are the last ones to just accept everything that is told to them.

Oh, and by the way, a blog is more likely to get you fired than the off-chance of some student recording your rant.

Is there a transcript? My computer at work doesn't have speakers.

What do you mean boo-fucking-hoo? People are paying these people to EDUCATE and do their jobs, not to give some political bias soapbox.

How would you like it if you paid someone to cook food for you, but instead started drinking beer and getting drunk and hitting on your wife/husband? Same thing, they are not doing their job.

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?

Canada City']What do you mean boo-fucking-hoo? People are paying these people to EDUCATE and do their jobs, not to give some political bias soapbox.
I guran-fucking-tee you everyone in that class was happy she was ranting about Bush instead of teaching geography.

How would you like it if you paid someone to cook food for you, but instead started drinking beer and getting drunk and hitting on your wife/husband? Same thing, they are not doing their job.
No it isn't. Well, unless you really like going to school it isn't. I do enjoy eating but school bores me to tears, literally.

Because they are not doing their job.

You want to rant or give an opinion? Do it after work.

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?
Because teachers are getting paid to brainwash children, and never offer their own viewpoints. Not doing this is a breach of contract:rolleyes:

I guran-fucking-tee you everyone in that class was happy she was ranting about Bush instead of teaching geography.

No, I wouldn't. There was never a post about it here, and if there was, I missed it.

Canada City']No, I wouldn't. There was never a post about it here, and if there was, I missed it.
Yeah, you say that sitting at a forum complaining about this inane bullshit instead of doing something your supposed to be doing.

You may not agree with the sentiment, but you wouldn't give a fuck as long as you wern't having to do schoolwork.

Canada City']What do you mean boo-fucking-hoo? People are paying these people to EDUCATE and do their jobs, not to give some political bias soapbox.

How would you like it if you paid someone to cook food for you, but instead started drinking beer and getting drunk and hitting on your wife/husband? Same thing, they are not doing their job.

The teacher might not be doing his job, but he wasn't assaulting the students either. Is being funny such a crime in schools?

Canada City']Because they are not doing their job.
You mean getting their students to think for themselves. Well, yeah. In that case the suspension is valid.

Canada City']What do you mean boo-fucking-hoo? People are paying these people to EDUCATE and do their jobs, not to give some political bias soapbox. Define EDUCATE. Because most teachers will tell you it means learning how to think critically. Not just regurgitating what your textbook says. Learning how to think means you need to be exposed to different points of view. This teacher was not making sexist or racist comments. Move on.

Canada City']How would you like it if you paid someone to cook food for you, but instead started drinking beer and getting drunk and hitting on your wife/husband? Same thing, they are not doing their job.
You are making the assumption that this tangent prevented the teacher from teaching. This is an erroneous assumption based on speculation. Therefore you example is null.

The biggest asshat here is the self-righteous little punk. He sits around calling it a "left-wing rant" but I'd bet the farm on the fact he knows shit about politics that isn't right-wing punditry.

Considering that I have no work today...yeah, I feel I can post on these forums.

Hell, I can masterbate too while I type a reply to your retarded logic. I'm pretty good at typing.

The biggest asshat here is the self-righteous little punk. He sits around calling it a "left-wing rant" but I'd bet the farm on the fact he knows shit about politics that isn't right-wing punditry.
Agreed.

The kid needs to grow up. He should knoe enough to be able to critically analyize what his teacher is talking about and come to a reasonable conclusion.

If the teacher's rant was anything like the ones I sat through in High School then they probably took maybe 10 minutes out of class. As for the brainwashing issue? If you want to see that in action go down to your local church/synogogue/mosque and watch what little kids go through. That's brainwashing.

Define EDUCATE. Because most teachers will tell you it means learning how to think critically. Not just regurgitating what your textbook says. Learning how to think means you need to be exposed to different points of view. This teacher was not making sexist or racist comments. Move on.


If the teacher wanted to teach about politics, he shouldn't have picked geography. There is stuff like political science for shit like that.

Or he could be a college professor.

If students want an opinion from him, they will ask for it.

If the teacher's rant was anything like the ones I sat through in High School then they probably took maybe 10 minutes out of class. As for the brainwashing issue? If you want to see that in action go down to your local church/synogogue/mosque and watch what little kids go through. That's brainwashing.

No argument here. I agree, religion is nothing more then a messed up cult.

EDIT: I've been through anti-liberal and anti-conservative rants in my high school. One teacher I recalled refused to teach because we didn't "protest" against Mike Harris' cuts in education. It was her first year at the high school and she got her ass kicked out in a week.

Canada City']If the teacher wanted to teach about politics, he shouldn't have picked geography. There is stuff like political science for shit like that.
Me thinks Canada City was homeschooled, never went to school, went to a school where every teacher held the same beliefs as he did so he ignored all the idiotic rants, or is just so old he no longer lives in the real world and forgets what school is like.

Canada City']If the teacher wanted to teach about politics, he shouldn't have picked geography. There is stuff like political science for shit like that. Yeah, and you'd still bitch that the teacher should keep his or her opinions to his or herself.

Canada City']Or he could be a college professor. Who people constantly complain about, saying that they shouldn't voice their opinions either.

Canada City']If students want an opinion from him, they will ask for it.And if they ask, and the teacher goes off on a tangent? THEN is it okay? Because when we knew something would set a teacher off, we'd make a point of asking about it, and enjoying the break while he or she ran with it. You don't know the context of this anyway, and I don't believe for a second that had a student raised their hand and said, "hey, geography teacher, what do you think about Bush" that you wouldn't be here bitching about it anyway.

Me thinks Canada City was homeschooled, never went to school, went to a school where every teacher held the same beliefs as he did so he ignored all the idiotic rants, or is just so old he no longer lives in the real world and forgets what school is like.

Three different schools actually, reasons for leaving were 'violent' ;)

That being said, teacher is supposed to teach about subjects, not get into off-topics rants. Heck, if the geography teacher was talking about how Pepsi owns Coke, I would still be annoyed because they are not doing their job.

If I pulled stunts to a customer/manager saying "OMG HARPER IS GOD I LOVE HIM AND LIBERALS R COMMIES", you think I would still get my cheque? No.

Seriously,The teacher can rant on all he/she wants about their beliefs,but.I don't have to listen to it though.I just find it funny how the left wing or right wing go on and on and on.They just bitch! And,I for one just like to punch the teacher though.:mp5:

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?

What does the President have to do with Geography?

I guran-fucking-tee you everyone in that class was happy she was ranting about Bush instead of teaching geography.

I'll take this Gurantee and ask you to prove it.

The teacher might not be doing his job, but he wasn't assaulting the students either. Is being funny such a crime in schools?

:rolleyes:

Teachers should be fired for not doing their jobs. Apparently, this teacher wasn't so he got suspended.

EDUCATE instead of ranting.

The biggest asshat here is the self-righteous little punk. He sits around calling it a "left-wing rant" but I'd bet the farm on the fact he knows shit about politics that isn't right-wing punditry.

Are you always this angry with those that do not believe in what you believe in?

Canada City']What do you mean boo-fucking-hoo? People are paying these people to EDUCATE and do their jobs, not to give some political bias soapbox.
*snip*


EDUCATION is not something that comes standard, in a box, without variation or digression. Students are EDUCATED when they discover that their teachers are ACTUAL HUMAN-fucking-BEINGS with opinions of their own which are shaped by the world around them and the things they read, hear and see. EDUCATORS are not, and should never be, ROBOTS. I had my share of right-wing historical revisionists as social studies teachers when I went to high school, so please don't try to tell me that the "bias" doesn't lean both ways.

As a teacher myself, I occasionally (let me repeat that, OCCASIONALLY) bring up a topic that is on the minds of my students even if, *gasp*, it isn't within the subject matter of the class I'm teaching. Given that I'm a music teacher, a current event not within my subject is a fairly common thing. Rarely do I spend more than five to ten minutes on it unless it's something that is so much on the minds of my musicians that they're distracted. THIS IS A GOOD THING. Why? Because it allows students to speak their minds and gets some things off their chests before focusing on the task I'm going to assign them. Not only that, it offers them a chance to hear any number of other points of view, mine included but also of their peers, besides that of their history/contemporary issues teachers. I think expression and debate are just as important as anything else we teach, if not slightly more important. Digression from the subject matter is something adults face every damn day, and to not expose students to the occasional topical debate is disingenuous at best and stupid at worst.

I will add, however, that pejorative statements about prominent people (such as the President) should be explained, defended and allowed rebuttal by any who so desire. Why the hell NOT have discussions about things like this with those who are going to inherit the system we're supposed to be crafting for them? Consider it part of the "values" and "character education" we teachers are suppsed to heap on to our already full schedules.

Again, none of you have proof that this teacher was not doing his job. All you know is that he went into a rant. That doesn't mean that the geography lesson wasn't given as well.

From what I can understand, it sounds like he is teaching them Geography. Geography is the study of where places are and all that. He names countries like Peru, Bolivia, Collumbia, Iraq and many other nations. He is throwing some teaching into his god given right to complain about how the Administration is doing their job. The word "Instruction" is defined as "The act, practice, or profession of instructing". He is "Instructing" them to think for themselves while he is teaching them Geographies.



Open your mind my young padawan and you might see something more than the right-wing, conservative point of view of the word and how you "should" do stuff.

And by the way, Sinuhue, you are the goddess of my idolatry. Bless you.

Yeah, and you'd still bitch that the teacher should keep his or her opinions to his or herself.

Which is good advice. A teacher should do his utmost to keep his opinions out of a class room.

What does the President have to do with Geography?

Well, his ignorance of it, for one thing....

Ever hear of the map that shows national boundaries? Known what it's called? Yeah -- a "political" map. Geography and politics are intrinsically connected...especially when my country invades another one.

Quick question for those who disagree with me.

Did you actually LISTEN to the audio tape?

Which is good advice. A teacher should do his utmost to keep his opinions out of a class room.
Absolutely not. Nor will most teacher associations agree with your stance. We are human beings. Most curriculum, regardless of the subject, includes a ‘current events’ them. Yes, in math, geography, and even physical education, this component is common. Current events are about viewpoints, and opinions of events. A teacher should never punish a student for holding an opposing opinion, but a teacher should be free to voice their own as long as it is done in a respectful manner.

Which is good advice. A teacher should do his utmost to keep his opinions out of a class room.

Really? Why? I mean, how is a student over going to learn to form their own opinion without learning how others form theirs, or even what they are? Critical thinking is crucial to any decent quasi-democracy.

he shouldn't be making that rant because it creates a hostile learning environment for any conservative students. the education system in america is becoming increasingly left-wing, with many liberals actually starting to see it as a problem as well as conservatives. allen dershowitz (sp.) recently made the comment that he is in the left 20% of the country, but would be in the conservative 10% of the educational system. i am currently in college, and two of my teachers have made their liberal politics known. my history teacher has talked about being on the westley campaign and the fact that he's a die-hard liberal, but he makes sure that his classroom isn't hostile to anybody's beliefs. i have no problem with him. my anthropology teacher, on the other hand, spends half of each class attacking the right. i wouldn't be on the right in most of the country, but i certainly am in california. i hope my political beliefs don't come out in that class, because i feel it could adversely affect my grade.

Well, his ignorance of it, for one thing....

Ever hear of the map that shows national boundaries? Known what it's called? Yeah -- a "political" map. Geography and politics are intrinsically connected...especially when my country invades another one.

Talking about cocaine or exploiting farmers has nothing to do with geography.

Do yourself a favor, listen to the damn tape first.

Well, his ignorance of it, for one thing....

Ever hear of the map that shows national boundaries? Known what it's called? Yeah -- a "political" map. Geography and politics are intrinsically connected...especially when my country invades another one.

The President has nothing to do with a Geography Class.

What does the President have to do with Geography?

Well once we conque....I mean liberate the 51st through 76th states we're gonna need to change some maps.

Absolutely not. Nor will most teacher associations agree with your stance.

There I believe you are wrong. A teacher should leave his opinions out of it because his opinions mean nothing. Teachers know their opinions mean nothing. They are paid to teach and not give out their opinions.

We are human beings. Most curriculum, regardless of the subject, includes a ‘current events’ them. Yes, in math, geography, and even physical education, this component is common. Current events are about viewpoints, and opinions of events. A teacher should never punish a student for holding an opposing opinion, but a teacher should be free to voice their own as long as it is done in a respectful manner.

No a teacher should never give their opinion while educating us students. We are their to learn facts and not opinions.

Really? Why? I mean, how is a student over going to learn to form their own opinion without learning how others form theirs, or even what they are? Critical thinking is crucial to any decent quasi-democracy.

I can think for myself and I do not need other opinions to help form my opinions. That is why there are such things such as facts to help you form opinions. That is what education is about. Giving us the tools so we can form our own opinions without undue influences from others.

Apparently, that is lacking around here.

Well once we conque....I mean liberate the 51st through 76th states we're gonna need to change some maps.

:rolleyes:

There I believe you are wrong. A teacher should leave his opinions out of it because his opinions mean nothing. Teachers know their opinions mean nothing. They are paid to teach and not give out their opinions. Show me a single Code of Professional Conduct laid out by a Teacher's Assocation that says teachers should not give their opinions.



No a teacher should never give their opinion while educating us students. We are their to learn facts and not opinions.
You clearly have no concept of what is fact and what is opinion. Facts a passingly rare. Opinions drive education. Consider the myriad interpreations of Hamlet and then tell me about 'facts'.

:rolleyes:

What I mean when we eventually take over Luxembourg for being so damn small we at least want to have it be a part of our countries maps.

Show me a single Code of Professional Conduct laid out by a Teacher's Assocation that says teachers should not give their opinions.

This has nothing to do with it. It is called decency that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

You clearly have no concept of what is fact and what is opinion. Facts a passingly rare. Opinions drive education.

1) First correct thing you said all day apparently

2) No it doesn't. I have educated myself with more facts than a teacher has taught me through opinion.

Consider the myriad interpreations of Hamlet and then tell me about 'facts'.

Why don't we just agree to disagree before my hormones kick into 3rd gear and I go off on a tangent?

It sounds like some of you would be better off purchasing a distance education course, and never having to interact with a teacher who might 'soil' you with his or her opinion. That way, you can just learn 'the facts'.:rolleyes:

Canada City']Quick question for those who disagree with me.

Did you actually LISTEN to the audio tape?

Did you post a transcript like I asked?

This has nothing to do with it. It is called decency that you should keep your opinions to yourself.

If there is no rule against it in their contract/code and it's relevant to the class why should they not be allowed to voice an opinion?

Canada City']Talking about cocaine or exploiting farmers has nothing to do with geography.

Do yourself a favor, listen to the damn tape first.

Actually, his point on fumigating coca plantations and destroying the lives of farmers in South America has a hell of a lot to do with geography.

Having now heard the tape, I will freely admit that the teacher in question is overstepping the bounds of what I would consider to be a debate or discussion about the issues he was presenting. This wasn't a lesson or even a decent digression, this was a bombastic screed which was one-sided and didn't allow for opposing viewpoints. In that this teacher was POUNDING his own opinions into the class' heads, he wasn't educating, he was indoctrinating, and I have a problem with that. EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH HIM on many of his points. If you want students to think about contentious issues, yelling at them isn't going to get them to do it. I suppose his delivery was designed to keep a TV-soaked generation's attention, but when coupled with how he was saying what he said, it comes off less as a discussion and more like a stump speech.

I agree. Listen to the damn tape.

Did you post a transcript like I asked?

No because there is no transcript. It would be VERY hard to transcript due to the nature of the rant.

The biggest asshat here is the self-righteous little punk. He sits around calling it a "left-wing rant" but I'd bet the farm on the fact he knows shit about politics that isn't right-wing punditry.
No, the biggest asshat here is you, for spouting off on something you don't know about.
The little punk as you call him just made the tapes for purposes of having notes on the class.
His father who overheard the tapes is the one who complained to the school.
His father is a republican.
His mother is a democrat.

As they say, 'tis better to be silent and thought a fool, rather than to speak and remove all doubt.

This has nothing to do with it. It is called decency that you should keep your opinions to yourself. It actually has everything to do with it. A Code of Professional Conduct outlines what is permissible, and what is not permissible in the execution of one's duties. In your search for 'facts' you might want to look up the legal requirements laid out in such Codes, and in teaching contracts. You opinions as to what constitutes 'decency' do not come into play.



1) First correct thing you said all day apparently

2) No it doesn't. I have educated myself with more facts than a teacher has taught me through opinion.
You have made the mistaken assumption that I am referring about the opinions of teachers. What I refer to are the viewpoints that determine how certain things are viewed. For example, a historical battle. You can have some few facts, like place, date, and who was involved and what happened...but the motivation for that battle will vary depending on which viewpoint you examine. Opinions. How you interpret a novel will be based not on facts, but on opinions. In geography, you learn about how opinions shaped our view of the layout of the globe...from the flat-earth theories, to the 'center of the world' opinions of the Chinese, and so on. Opinions. Viewpoints. You are surrounded by them in every textbook, in every lesson. If you so object to opinions, then deny yourself education.



Why don't we just agree to disagree before my hormones kick into 3rd gear and I go off on a tangent?
I could care less about your hormones. Answer the question. What is the 'factual' interpretation of Hamlet?

Canada City']No because there is no transcript. It would be VERY hard to transcript due to the nature of the rant.
I can't get it to play for some reason:(

Canada City']No because there is no transcript. It would be VERY hard to transcript due to the nature of the rant.

Then I haven't listened to it, but I still disagree with the suspension of the teacher. How does it matter?

I can think for myself and I do not need other opinions to help form my opinions. That is why there are such things such as facts to help you form opinions. That is what education is about. Giving us the tools so we can form our own opinions without undue influences from others.

Apparently, that is lacking around here.

Everyone can "think for themselves", but undue influence comes in many forms. In this audio tape's case, the teacher is doing nothing different than talk radio. Where I agree with you is that if he wanted to air his point of view on the subjects he touched, he needed NOT to do it in the manner of a ranting screed artists and more in a questioning manner which would allow his students to formulate their own opinions.

I don't care who's doing the yelling or what point their making -- blasting a class is never a good way to engender debate.

he should be suspended. He's there to teach geography. If he wants to go off on his polutical rants he should go back to college, get better credentials and teach poli sci at teh college level. These are middle school kids. Just show them where North America is and leave it at that. Its no wonder that when I was in college I sat next to a girl who didn't knwo where North America is.

Then I haven't listened to it, but I still disagree with the suspension of the teacher. How does it matter?

I agree with much of what the teacher says, but his method of delivery is deplorable. As a teacher, I can say that I've had discussions about current events, but I've never hauled off and Howard-Deaned a class about something, no matter how strongly I felt.

Actually, his point on fumigating coca plantations and destroying the lives of farmers in South America has a hell of a lot to do with geography.

Having now heard the tape, I will freely admit that the teacher in question is overstepping the bounds of what I would consider to be a debate or discussion about the issues he was presenting. This wasn't a lesson or even a decent digression, this was a bombastic screed which was one-sided and didn't allow for opposing viewpoints. In that this teacher was POUNDING his own opinions into the class' heads, he wasn't educating, he was indoctrinating, and I have a problem with that. EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH HIM on many of his points. If you want students to think about contentious issues, yelling at them isn't going to get them to do it. I suppose his delivery was designed to keep a TV-soaked generation's attention, but when coupled with how he was saying what he said, it comes off less as a discussion and more like a stump speech.

I agree. Listen to the damn tape.
I'd like to hear it...

People here are going to an extreme and saying that teachers should never voice their own opinions. But if those opinions are voiced respectfully, and students are allowed to question those opinions, and not punished for it, then it creates dialogue. I had a social teacher who used to voice very contentious opinions with the intent of sparking debate. She often played the devil's advocate. Some people might misconstrue that as 'indoctrination' if taken out of context. What I worry about is that teachers are going to become more and more constrained when it comes to how they teach their classes, that what you're going to end up having is a bunch of automatons simply reciting lessons by rote. Part of making personal connections with students is allowing that you have an opinion, and so do they. Accepting that neither opinion is necessarily the TRUE one is important. Pretending that you don't have an opinion is ridiculous.

If in this particular case, the teacher was yelling at the students, and allowing no rebuttals to his opinions, then he should be held accountable. But that doesn't mean we need to start banning 'opinions' from school.

Canada City']Quick question for those who disagree with me.

Did you actually LISTEN to the audio tape?


Yes i actually "LISTENED" to the audio tape. I had it going even before i posted my first post. He talks about different countries and hints at wanting the students to tell him where they are. I noticed more than a dozen country names listed off of the tape. That includes when he talked about Isreal in ancent times and about the US Invasion of the western US with the "killing, raping and pillaging" of the Native American lands. In my eyes, the eyes of a 22 year old college student, he is teaching them geography in a more complex tone than what the students are used to and this one student was just pissed because the teacher wasn't reading out of a textbook and was teaching them in a "Progressive" fashion.




No a teacher should never give their opinion while educating us students. We are their to learn facts and not opinions.

Erm. That would be "THERE". "THEIR" is a possessive word. Such as "That is theirs".

Canada City']No because there is no transcript. It would be VERY hard to transcript due to the nature of the rant.
That's not true. The nature of the tape in no way makes it hard to transcribe. If it weren't so long, I'd do it. He makes valid points, but he makes them in such a bellicose and browbeating manner that there's no way a typical student would feel comfortable asking for explanations or disagreeing.

I'd like to hear it...

People here are going to an extreme and saying that teachers should never voice their own opinions. But if those opinions are voiced respectfully, and students are allowed to question those opinions, and not punished for it, then it creates dialogue. I had a social teacher who used to voice very contentious opinions with the intent of sparking debate. She often played the devil's advocate. Some people might misconstrue that as 'indoctrination' if taken out of context. What I worry about is that teachers are going to become more and more constrained when it comes to how they teach their classes, that what you're going to end up having is a bunch of automatons simply reciting lessons by rote. Part of making personal connections with students is allowing that you have an opinion, and so do they. Accepting that neither opinion is necessarily the TRUE one is important. Pretending that you don't have an opinion is ridiculous.

If in this particular case, the teacher was yelling at the students, and allowing no rebuttals to his opinions, then he should be held accountable. But that doesn't mean we need to start banning 'opinions' from school.

Agreed, completely.

I urge you to try and find a way to hear this tape. As aforesaid, I agree with most of his points, but his delivery was almost brutally one-sided and unnecessarily bellicose. I'm a lifelong devil's advocate player and would never use the bludgeoning oratorical style I heard on that tape.

Agreed, completely.

I urge you to try and find a way to hear this tape. As aforesaid, I agree with most of his points, but his delivery was almost brutally one-sided and unnecessarily bellicose. I'm a lifelong devil's advocate player and would never use the bludgeoning oratorical style I heard on that tape.
Every time I click on it, it fails to load, and when I tried to open it up in a different window, it still won't load. I'm not sure why. Can anyone dowload it and repost it on a free hosting service?

he should be suspended. He's there to teach geography. If he wants to go off on his polutical rants he should go back to college, get better credentials and teach poli sci at teh college level. These are middle school kids. Just show them where North America is and leave it at that. Its no wonder that when I was in college I sat next to a girl who didn't knwo where North America is.
You weren't with that girl in typing class by any chance, were you?

(Sorry, too damn easy.)

Every time I click on it, it fails to load, and when I tried to open it up in a different window, it still won't load. I'm not sure why.
Well, perhaps a different computer at another location. I don't want to harp on this, but hearing it made a difference in my opinion.

I dont no what you are on about but if teachers didnt rant then life would not be worth living for. i mean ok they can go on but why spend the whole lesson doing work when you can sit and listen to them rant stories out at you!!

Well, perhaps a different computer at another location. I don't want to harp on this, but hearing it made a difference in my opinion.
About the appropriateness of his delivery...but the underlying issue is whether or not teachers should be allowed to voice their opinions in school.

i find that some of the things and rants my teachers go off on are alot more important and relevent to my life then what they are teachine me. 5 minutes out of my class to discuss a polition or getting in to medical school help develop my views and give me a chance to express my own thoughs and develop my intrests. Worth it for 5 minutes out of learning about the mass spectrometer or the electrical impulses that work the heart.

I dont no what you are on about but if teachers didnt rant then life would not be worth living for. i mean ok they can go on but why spend the whole lesson doing work when you can sit and listen to them rant stories out at you!!

I would rather learn a subject insted of listening to a rant by a teacher.

About the appropriateness of his delivery...but the underlying issue is whether or not teachers should be allowed to voice their opinions in school.
True. Exactly.

As a side note, however, I'd not be opposed to having a letter placed in this guy's building file strongly urging him to back off the tone. Of course teachers should have and express opinions, but never to the extent of sounding like a Left-skewed Rush Limbaugh. I know how pissed I'd be if a teacher played Rush or Hannity in a social studies class for any reason other than to demonstrate bad logic, party cronyism and willful ignorance.

The fact remains, he is NOT suppose to give his personal opinions in a PUBLIC school. PERIOD!

The fact remains he did not give opposing sides of the issue, PERIOD.

The fact remains, he is suppose to be teaching geography, NOT policital science to a bunch of high school kids.

And the fact remains is the teacher(which is a he) blantly said opinions that had NOTHING to do with the topic.

And i believe a poster said on here he was not ranting and he mentioned other topics like native americans and such? Bullshit.

I would rather learn a subject insted of listening to a rant by a teacher.

You're full of crap. No student didn't enjoy the occasional time-consuming tangents that all teachers would go on from time to time.

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?
Surely even YOU can tell the difference between practicing your freedom of speech on your own time as opposed to preaching your prejudices to children while being paid by their parents' tax dollars?

Then again, maybe you can't.

It sounds like some of you would be better off purchasing a distance education course, and never having to interact with a teacher who might 'soil' you with his or her opinion. That way, you can just learn 'the facts'.:rolleyes:

the fact remains that he didnt present any facts, eh? ;) :D

think about it logically - he was only voicing his opinion and it just happened to be in school. what is wrong with that? does that mean that nobody is allowed to voice thier opinions in the place that they work??

Surely even YOU can tell the difference between practicing your freedom of speech on your own time as opposed to preaching your prejudices to children while being paid by their parents' tax dollars?

Then again, maybe you can't.

He would have been much better off spending his time egging soldiers and calling them babykillers.

You're full of crap. No student didn't enjoy the occasional time-consuming tangents that all teachers would go on from time to time.

Actually i think your full of bull. I think your just ttying to look cool in that you are against the way it should be. The fact remains that this teacher DID NOT teach anything, he ranted on what he thought.

think about it logically - he was only voicing his opinion and it just happened to be in school. what is wrong with that? does that mean that nobody is allowed to voice thier opinions in the place that they work??

Not when it is in front of childern that dont understand ALL the facts of the topic.

You're full of crap. No student didn't enjoy the occasional time-consuming tangents that all teachers would go on from time to time.

I am not full of crap hun. I am a student who is there to learn a subject not to listen to a teacher go on and on about something that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Geography is about people places and things?

I think the teacher was certainly covering those points in his discussion.

In regards to secretly taping a conversation, I do believe that it is a violation of Canada's federal laws?

He would have been much better off spending his time egging soldiers and calling them babykillers.
Yup. Then I could have killed his sorry ass and no one would have to worry on either count! :D

Actually i think your full of bull. I think your just ttying to look cool in that you are against the way it should be. The fact remains that this teacher DID NOT teach anything, he ranted on what he thought.

The fact remains that no normal middle school student would preferred the teacher teach the material over his little rant.

think about it logically - he was only voicing his opinion and it just happened to be in school. what is wrong with that? does that mean that nobody is allowed to voice thier opinions in the place that they work??

correct.

I am not full of crap hun. I am a student who is there to learn a subject not to listen to a teacher go on and on about something that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

I love it when you call me hun.

You're that kid, eh? The one that reminds the teacher to collect the homework or that there was a quiz scheduled that day?

there has to be something said about the teacher here - i mean he will get more respect from allowing his students to talk to him rather than being stuck up and mean and only teaching the kids about geogers!

Yup. Then I could have killed his sorry ass and no one would have to worry on either count! :D

Well, you'd have to worry about the integrity of your anus once you got thrown in prison.

Geography is about people places and things?

I think the teacher was certainly covering those points in his discussion.

In regards to secretly taping a conversation, I do believe that it is a violation of Canada's federal laws?

Uh CanuckHeaven,

My understanding is that this took plaec at a school.

Well, you'd have to worry about the integrity of your anus once you got thrown in prison.
LOL! Ya think? Nahh. I'd never make it to prison.

I love it when you call me hun.

You're that kid, eh? The one that reminds the teacher to collect the homework or that there was a quiz scheduled that day?

:)

LOL! Ya think? Nahh. I'd never make it to prison.

Murder-suicide?

I'm a lawyer and a college professor who teachs law and as such sensitive issues come up all the time in my classes and they get debated. I listened to the tape and in my opinion this teacher went beyond the bounds of reasoned debate and the encouragement of critical thinking in his students. What he did was make a speech to the students and tell them what his personal, political viewpoints were and disparaged anyone who might possibly disagree with him. My faculty handbook says, in part,

[Teachers] should at all times be accurate, fairly present all sides of an issue, show respect for the opinions of others . . . As a citizen you have the right to engage in political activity. You should, and are encouraged to exercise those rights by participating in the political process. However, you must do so on your own time, outside of wrok hours.
This rant by this teacher violates these principals completely. Obviously, he is not bound by my handbook at my school, but since my handbook is relatively typical I'd be willing to bet this teacher is governed by similar language in his handbook. He shouldn't be fired, but he should be disciplined. His remarks were innapropriate and his viewpoint improperly delivered. I don't have a problem with him discussing politics in geography class, there is some relationship there. But it needs to be discussed and various viewpoints debated and acknowledged. He didn't do that. He made it clear only one view was tolerated by him.

Murder-suicide?


i think thats a good idea!

Also Canuckheaven, this happened in a USA school, which the kids do have the right to bring recording devices to record lectures in their classes if they have issues keeping up, plenty of kids do this in high school and college. So this is irrelevent.

And school rooms i must say again is for educational purposes and NOT rants by a teacher who has issues with the politcal spectrum(current one) or even a teacher who has issues with religious issues too(to give a equal side of the arguement).

I'm a lawyer and a college professor who teachs law and as such sensitive issues come up all the time in my classes and they get debated. I listened to the tape and in my opinion this teacher went beyond the bounds of reasoned debate and the encouragement of critical thinking in his students. What he did was make a speech to the students and tell them what his personal, political viewpoints were and disparaged anyone who might possibly disagree with him. My faculty handbook says, in part,

This rant by this teacher violates these principals completely. Obviously, he is not bound by my handbook at my school, but since my handbook is relatively typical I'd be willing to bet this teacher is governed by similar language in his handbook. He shouldn't be fired, but he should be disciplined. His remarks were innapropriate and his viewpoint improperly delivered. I don't have a problem with him discussing politics in geography class, there is some relationship there. But it needs to be discussed and various viewpoints debated and acknowledged. He didn't do that. He made it clear only one view was tolerated by him.

Thank you Norleans. This is what i have been saying the whole time.:)

to be completly honest if i was to rant at my students then i dont think that they would complain as they would get involved in the rant that i was having!

well let's face it all you americans go on about free seppech and so isn't it just free speach and it is and brain washing teenagers??? iisn't that what schools do anyway not just in the classroom they brain wash you to have the same hairstyles, the same stuff and of course the same veiws. especaly in america where religion is banned we don't learn about religion a such we just get this is what this religion belives etc.

HELLO!!


No one has even attempted to pick apart my TWO statements.



Am i unwanted here......*gets teary eyed*

HELLO!!

No one has even attempted to pick apart my TWO statements.

Am i unwanted here......*gets teary eyed*
You're not alone so don't feel badly. I get ignored on here on a regular basis. Some have developed it into an artform. :D

You're not alone so don't feel badly. I get ignored on here on a regular basis. Some have developed it into an artform. :D

Well. I just hate when people say "did you even listen to the audio recording" then when you say "YES I DID" they don't even reply to you. It's annoying to say the least.

It amuses me to think that if the guy had made a pro-Bush, Muslims-are-evil rant and gotten suspended, the same people in this thread would be arguing but neatly switching their views.

Anyway.

The Cherry Creek School District is conducting a thorough investigation of the complaint from the Overland High School parent and student concerning comments.

The school district says at first glance it does appear the teacher acted inappropriately at the very least.

A spokesperson for the Cherry Creek School District said they have placed Bennish on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. This is not a disciplinary action; the school district wants to remove him while they sort through the rest of the investigation.

The Cherry Creek School District expects to finish the investigation by the end of the week.

The teacher wasn't arrested, wasn't fired, the school district hasn't even made a decision as to whether it was "inappropriate" yet; so quit with the worrying about the US being a fascist police state already.

The people rising to this teacher's defense are completely wrong. This teacher is put in a position where he has an explicit authority. These kids go into this classroom with with a general understanding that they are to accept what the teacher says (whether they do it or not is irrelevant). For the same reason you cannot have a World Geography teacher giving sermons to their students, you cannot have him spouting political rhetoric.

That alone ignores the fact that he is using a government funded position to spread his own politics, all the while not performing the function of his job. He should be publically reprimanded.

Oh boo-fricking-hoo.

I would not expect you, of all people, to say that.

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?

Because you must balance free speech with freedom to ignore. There is an authoritarian relationship between the teacher and his students. You cannot allow someone to use this benefit to grind a political axe.

The biggest asshat here is the self-righteous little punk. He sits around calling it a "left-wing rant" but I'd bet the farm on the fact he knows shit about politics that isn't right-wing punditry.

Just like the self-righteous asshats who complain about school prayers?

You are getting deep into hypocritical waters. You too, Sinuhue.

We were talking about this tape in my 9th grade honors geography class. My teacher said it was completely assurd and such. I am totally against this tape. If my teacher tried something like this she would get a mouthfull from me.

People here are going to an extreme and saying that teachers should never voice their own opinions.

A good teacher is like a good journalist, he/she does not use the expectation of truthful information to create biases. If this teacher wants to voice his opinion, he does so only when he also presents rival opinions.

Okay... People are hardly influenced politically through education, so what's the big deal? And since when did talking about Bush using cocaine (which wasn't even stated in the article) become Anti-American?

Okay... People are hardly influenced politically through education, so what's the big deal? And since when did talking about Bush using cocaine (which wasn't even stated in the article) become Anti-American?

Then you are going to give the go ahead for school prayer too, right?

A good teacher is like a good journalist, he/she does not use the expectation of truthful information to create biases. If this teacher wants to voice his opinion, he does so only when he also presents rival opinions.
Sometimes there are relevancies between topics in government and history to the current administration. And because this is the first administration most students are politically aware about, it is a solid reference. It's just that a lot of the references can come off as liberally biased, especially when dealing with this administration in the mere nature of what is happening. Take for instance the Abramoff scandal, which Bush is a part of. How can you talk about that (which deals with lobbying) without "insulting" Republicans or Bush?

Then you are going to give the go ahead for school prayer too, right?
politically, not religiously.

You weren't with that girl in typing class by any chance, were you?

(Sorry, too damn easy.)
Actually, no. I was in a typing class where the teacher just kept going off ona ll these political ranst all teh time so i never learned how to because that s all he did.

Sometimes there are relevancies between topics in government and history to the current administration. And because this is the first administration most students are politically aware about, it is a solid reference. It's just that a lot of the references can come off as liberally biased, especially when dealing with this administration in the mere nature of what is happening. Take for instance the Abramoff scandal, which Bush is a part of. How can you talk about that (which deals with lobbying) without "insulting" Republicans or Bush?

I assume you listened to the tape, so you are on tenuous grounds. I would consider quite obvious that he is not simply making references to current political topics.

As for your last question, he should do it just like respectable journalists do. Were he to be a journalist, he would be considered a political hack and laughed out of every respectable newsmedia establishment.

politically, not religiously.

You are going to have to explain the relevant distinction between the two here.

I think teachers should usually try to avoid voicing their own personal opinions in lessons as it's often unnecessary and doesn't help the students any. But sometimes I think it can be a good thing, particularly in certain subjects where discussion and debate is necessary. If a teacher expresses their opinion in lesson and encourages students to discuss then that can only be a good thing for the lesson. This teacher crossed the line, he used the classroom as his own political soap box, ranting about things that had norelevance to the lesson. He deserves to get in trouble.

the fact remains that he didnt present any facts, eh? ;) :D
Actually, yes he did.

Look -- I completely agree his method was way over the line and a suspension is warranted. But we DO have troops in Columbia, we DO consume the cocaine they grow, and so on and so forth. His logic is simplistic and the issues are far more complex that he made them seem. He's a Lefty shill -- and just like any other shill, he shouldn't browbeat a class of students. He's young, just out of college and needs to learn this lesson. But don't go around saying he was lying to them. That's disingenuous at best and lying iteslf at worst.

I'm a lawyer and a college professor who teachs law and as such sensitive issues come up all the time in my classes and they get debated. I listened to the tape and in my opinion this teacher went beyond the bounds of reasoned debate and the encouragement of critical thinking in his students. What he did was make a speech to the students and tell them what his personal, political viewpoints were and disparaged anyone who might possibly disagree with him. My faculty handbook says, in part,

This rant by this teacher violates these principals completely. Obviously, he is not bound by my handbook at my school, but since my handbook is relatively typical I'd be willing to bet this teacher is governed by similar language in his handbook. He shouldn't be fired, but he should be disciplined. His remarks were innapropriate and his viewpoint improperly delivered. I don't have a problem with him discussing politics in geography class, there is some relationship there. But it needs to be discussed and various viewpoints debated and acknowledged. He didn't do that. He made it clear only one view was tolerated by him.

Hear hear, and spot on. Well said.

Canada City'][QUOTE]-snip-

Im sure no one would have cared if the teacher would have said "clinton was immoral for getting a bj in office" Or "carter was terrible" or "JFK deserved to die" or any of that other bull shit. Anytime anything critical of the right wing is brought up it is automatically seen as brainwashing by the leftists. Well :upyours: that.....Bunch of Cry babies...

Thank you Norleans. This is what i have been saying the whole time.:)
Well, that's just a filthy lie. Don't try to pass yourself off as having the same viewpoint as Norleans. You have said at least twice that teachers shouldn't have personal opinions at all in a class AND you said this teacher in question was lying.

Canada City']http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b8298706-0abe-421a-0116-75e16c449518&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

A student records the audio for taking notes, and only gets greeted by his geography teacher talking about how bush loves cocaine instead of actually teaching.

It seems to be that being a teacher is great job to rant your political BS, whereis in every other job from warehouse to corporate executive, NOT doing your job gets you fired from the spot.

What is with teachers and trying to brainwash kids anyways? If you want to bitch, make a blog.


WWWAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! He said mean things about shrubby!!!!! BOOHHOOOHOOOOOHHOO WAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I bet you would be offended if he had said nasty things about Clinton or the demos right? :rolleyes:

Sorry but if a teacher was only supposed to robot the lectures, americans would know even less as the classes would get even more boring.

Hmmm time for the liberal conspiracy theories to fly!

I must assume that most have not actually listened to the tape, otherwise I would lose respect for a lot of good posters.

[QUOTE='[NS]Canada City']

Im sure no one would have cared if the teacher would have said "clinton was immoral for getting a bj in office" Or "carter was terrible" or "JFK deserved to die" or any of that other bull shit. Anytime anything critical of the right wing is brought up it is automatically seen as brainwashing by the leftists. Well :upyours: that.....Bunch of Cry babies...

My position on a super conservative right wing rant would be the same as it was on this ultra left wing one. The point of a teacher is to encourage critical thinking in students by presenting them a fair, truthful, fact-based and balanced view of all sides of an issue and having them debate the issue on the merits themselves and form their own opinions. Telling them what their opinion should be is not the right way to do it, either for the left or right.

WWWAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! He said mean things about shrubby!!!!! BOOHHOOOHOOOOOHHOO WAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I bet you would be offended if he had said nasty things about Clinton or the demos right? :rolleyes:

Sorry but if a teacher was only supposed to robot the lectures, americans would know even less as the classes would get even more boring.

Hmmm time for the liberal conspiracy theories to fly!
I can't stand this administration and I think this guy shoudl be suspended. He didnt' just bring politics into the class. When you listen to the tape its clear he turned his geography class into his own personal soapbox.

WWWAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! He said mean things about shrubby!!!!! BOOHHOOOHOOOOOHHOO WAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I bet you would be offended if he had said nasty things about Clinton or the demos right? :rolleyes:

Sorry but if a teacher was only supposed to robot the lectures, americans would know even less as the classes would get even more boring.

Hmmm time for the liberal conspiracy theories to fly!
Obviously, you haven't heard the tape.

I'll say it one more time and bow out of this thread, as I've made my point of view clear. Even though I agree with much of what the teacher said, the way he presented it and the fact that he presented as part of a class makes it an actionable offense and that action should be a short-term suspension.

Without presenting the opposing viewpoint with just as much vitriol and amped-up volume as he did his own viewpoint, he's no better than Rush, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity or William Kristol. Only this guy did it in a public school. I don't care if I agree with you completely, school is not the place for captive-audience demagoguery and he should have known better. Likely he's a newly-minted graduate of a teacher-ed program and was hopped up on the feeling of influence that teaching can give you. I've felt that, but have tried to never present my views, when they were given, as the only way to see anything.

Unless I see another post in need of reply, I'll say good night to you all. Thanks for the debate.

Hear hear, and spot on. Well said.

Thanks. :)

[QUOTE=Zilam]

My position on a super conservative right wing rant would be the same as it was on this ultra left wing one. The point of a teacher is to encourage critical thinking in students by presenting them a fair, truthful, fact-based and balanced view of all sides of an issue and having them debate the issue on the merits themselves and form their own opinions. Telling them what their opinion should be is not the right way to do it, either for the left or right.
More to the point, the job of this particular teacher was to teach geography to middle school students.

More to the point, the job of this particular teacher was to teach geography to middle school students.
For the love of all that's holy, did you even READ the article attached to the link? These are TENTH GRADERS! Sophomores in HIGH SCHOOL. Please stop saying they're in middle school. It makes you sound really dumb.

The people rising to this teacher's defense are completely wrong. This teacher is put in a position where he has an explicit authority. These kids go into this classroom with with a general understanding that they are to accept what the teacher says (whether they do it or not is irrelevant). For the same reason you cannot have a World Geography teacher giving sermons to their students, you cannot have him spouting political rhetoric.


:D OK that is amusing. You would be correct if these were primary schoolers where they can be impressionable. Teenagers already have their opinions if they are even interested.

The fact the kid in question was talking about his "liberal" teacher say he already has his own viewpoints.

Nothing wrong with a political sound bite especially after the President speaks.


That alone ignores the fact that he is using a government funded position to spread his own politics, all the while not performing the function of his job. He should be publically reprimanded.


Why? As long as he doesn't punish oposing views (ie grades) then there is nothing wrong.

School is more then going through the robot motions of a course.


Because you must balance free speech with freedom to ignore. There is an authoritarian relationship between the teacher and his students. You cannot allow someone to use this benefit to grind a political axe.

:D Again these are teenagers. They are not sitting in clockwork orange chairs. Teenagers have the amazing ability to tune out teachers when they want to.


Just like the self-righteous asshats who complain about school prayers?

Damn those people for following the Constitution! Then again are you suggesting politics are a religion?

You are getting deep into hypocritical waters. You too, Sinuhue.

Oh. Please explain that one.

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?

Because, he has the right to freedom of speech, but when someone hires you to do a job, you better do it or you should get fired. He was wasting "company time" by not teaching and therefore this is more than justified. As to why he wasnt fired, probably because of a teacher's union. It probably doesnt let them fire him somewhere in thier contract.

:D OK that is amusing. You would be correct if these were primary schoolers where they can be impressionable. Teenagers already have their opinions if they are even interested.

Doesn't matter. We don't pay for teachers to teach their political views in geography class.


School is more then going through the robot motions of a course.


And it's more than a soapbox for teachers political views as well.

Maybe I could get a job teaching so I could spread National Socialism to math students? Just as a "soundbyte" ya know. I mean hey, the kids can always just tune out, right?

Obviously, you haven't heard the tape.

I do have to say whoops. Firefox ad blocker had the tape links out. Thought the poster was wrong.

Ok the rant went on for a bit I will have to admit.

However, as to the claims of "indoctrination" I really doubt that is a problem from the comments of the teens that are heard. Teacher has his and the kid with the tape has his.

Considering what is frequently said about teens these days; I am impressed by some of their comments. ;)

One thing for the teacher (keeping in mind this is a tape) it doesn't sound like he is abusing the student that is opposing him.

Suspending the teacher? Just for this one instance? Nahh. He deserves a "you need to tone it down" lecture.

If he has done it many time? Then yes a suspension is deserved especially if he has been informed to knock it off.

Does this impede the expected curriculum? One day doesn't break a course of lecture.

For the love of all that's holy, did you even READ the article attached to the link? These are TENTH GRADERS! Sophomores in HIGH SCHOOL. Please stop saying they're in middle school. It makes you sound really dumb.
Actually, no I didn't READ the article. I didn't NEED to because I LIVE in CA and it was all they talked about on RADIO on way into WORK. They said MIDDLE school on the RADIO so you'll have to EXCUSE me. Still doesn't change my POINT though.

Doesn't matter. We don't pay for teachers to teach their political views in geography class.

And it's more than a soapbox for teachers political views as well.

Maybe I could get a job teaching so I could spread National Socialism to math students? Just as a "soundbyte" ya know. I mean hey, the kids can always just tune out, right?

It depends on how often he does it. Now having listened to the tape; I have to admit it was long.

One days rant hardly counts as "preaching" political views to attempt indoctrination. The teacher sounded like he was being "proper" as I didn't hear abuse in his responses.

For me, he should be told to tone it down and leave it at that.

Unless of course the schools have policies saying political talk a "nono"

:D OK that is amusing. You would be correct if these were primary schoolers where they can be impressionable. Teenagers already have their opinions if they are even interested.

Forty year old adults have their opinions formed by this same political rhetoric on major news channels. You can't tell me that hearing a teacher say it would not have an influence.

The fact the kid in question was talking about his "liberal" teacher say he already has his own viewpoints.

It is irrelevant whether he has his own viewpoints or not.

Nothing wrong with a political sound bite especially after the President speaks.

Yes a 20 minute diatribe of a sound bite.

Why? As long as he doesn't punish oposing views (ie grades) then there is nothing wrong.

School is more then going through the robot motions of a course.

So teaching doesn't require any objectivity. A science teacher can openly state that evolution is an baseless, worthless science and not present any evidence to counter that?

:D Again these are teenagers. They are not sitting in clockwork orange chairs. Teenagers have the amazing ability to tune out teachers when they want to.

So teachers do not have any authority within a classroom.

Damn those people for following the Constitution! Then again are you suggesting politics are a religion?

I am stating that the distinction is irrelevant in this situation. You complain about religion, stating a teacher in an a position of authority should not be allowed to present religion as fact.

It depends on how often he does it. Now having listened to the tape; I have to admit it was long.

One days rant hardly counts as "preaching" political views to attempt indoctrination. The teacher sounded like he was being "proper" as I didn't hear abuse in his responses.

For me, he should be told to tone it down and leave it at that.

Unless of course the schools have policies saying political talk a "nono"

I think it's like slapping a girl on the ass. If she complains, then it's wrong and you can get prosecuted. (Especially if it's caught on video.) But if she doesn't, then it's OK.

Whether political discussions (sic) are acceptable in a particular class depends on who objects. In this case, a kid with a tape recording and the school board seem to object. Tough but you have to accept that. It's a risk, just like slapping girls on the ass is.

Strictly speaking though, it doesn't matter if it's abusive, or explicitly indoctrination, going off on tangents like that is generally frowned upon. That's why teachers are a lot more on-subject, when some official from the school district or principle's office is in the class. Same as when you're a worker and you work more studiously when your boss is in the room. Because it's not appropriate to slack off at work, or to digress to your political points when teaching a geography class. If you can get away with it and no one minds, thats one thing - anyone minds, and thats something else entirely.

Canada City']How would you like it if you paid someone to cook food for you, but instead started drinking beer and getting drunk and hitting on your wife/husband? Same thing, they are not doing their job.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people slip into consumerite "service" mode - how somebody, everybody, owes you 'cause you personally footed the bill. Waugh, waugh, waugh. I can see it's all one big round of fun and laughter in your worldview. All fun and laughter.

Well. The kid that complained was a ugly fuck anyway. So that immediately discounts anything he says or has recorded:D

Forty year old adults have their opinions formed by this same political rhetoric on major news channels. You can't tell me that hearing a teacher say it would not have an influence.

Not in the numbers you suggest. He might have had a couple converts but from the comments I heard of the students(those that spoke) sounded like they already had their viewpoints.


It is irrelevant whether he has his own viewpoints or not.

Sure it does. You suggested they are simply tape recorders and will take in and believe what he says.

He is an authority figure. No doubt. As long as he doesn't do this all the time and as long as he doesn't abuse his position but punishing opposing views then what has he done wrong?


Yes a 20 minute diatribe of a sound bite.

Granted as to other post, the tape links were adblocked by firefox on me.


So teaching doesn't require any objectivity. A science teacher can openly state that evolution is an baseless, worthless science and not present any evidence to counter that?

So a teacher can never have a viewpoint? He must always be objective?

That is the same logic used to force creationism into the classroom. After all they aren't being objective by excluding it.


So teachers do not have any authority within a classroom.

Are the students being indoctrinated by one long rant? Are they being punished opposing his comments?


I am stating that the distinction is irrelevant in this situation. You complain about religion, stating a teacher in an a position of authority should not be allowed to present religion as fact.

When it involves primary grades and the fact the Constitution says "nono" yes that is different from this.

Now if the school has a policy about political talk? Then yes there is a problem. If the teacher goes on these bents all the time, then yes there is a problem. If the teacher punishes opposing viewpoints, then yes there is a problem.

I think it's like slapping a girl on the ass. If she complains, then it's wrong and you can get prosecuted. (Especially if it's caught on video.) But if she doesn't, then it's OK.

Whether political discussions (sic) are acceptable in a particular class depends on who objects. In this case, a kid with a tape recording and the school board seem to object. Tough but you have to accept that. It's a risk, just like slapping girls on the ass is.

Strictly speaking though, it doesn't matter if it's abusive, or explicitly indoctrination, going off on tangents like that is generally frowned upon. That's why teachers are a lot more on-subject, when some official from the school district or principle's office is in the class. Same as when you're a worker and you work more studiously when your boss is in the room. Because it's not appropriate to slack off at work, or to digress to your political points when teaching a geography class. If you can get away with it and no one minds, thats one thing - anyone minds, and thats something else entirely.

I see what you are saying.

For me a break in the routine every once in awhile is not an issue.

Nothing worst then a teacher who goes through the motion and robots his lectures. That is death.

I guran-fucking-tee you everyone in that class was happy she was ranting about Bush instead of teaching geography.


No it isn't. Well, unless you really like going to school it isn't. I do enjoy eating but school bores me to tears, literally.



I love geography :upyours:

Canada City']

Im sure no one would have cared if the teacher would have said "clinton was immoral for getting a bj in office" Or "carter was terrible" or "JFK deserved to die" or any of that other bull shit. Anytime anything critical of the right wing is brought up it is automatically seen as brainwashing by the leftists. Well :upyours: that.....Bunch of Cry babies...

Such childish sentiment.

I would be saying the samething I'm saying now in regards to this example.

how is ranting on bushes idiocy "anti-american" ?

Such childish sentiment.

I would be saying the samething I'm saying now in regards to this example.


I'm the leftist 'brainwasher' in our history class. I'm the one who goes on the political rants :P

My position on a super conservative right wing rant would be the same as it was on this ultra left wing one. The point of a teacher is to encourage critical thinking in students by presenting them a fair, truthful, fact-based and balanced view of all sides of an issue and having them debate the issue on the merits themselves and form their own opinions. Telling them what their opinion should be is not the right way to do it, either for the left or right.

Here here. Well said Norleans :)

*gives Norleans a kiss*

how is ranting on bushes idiocy "anti-american" ?



I'm surprised that he had enough time to cover all of his idiocy in one class period. :eek:

Not in the numbers you suggest. He might have had a couple converts but from the comments I heard of the students(those that spoke) sounded like they already had their viewpoints.

He may have not convinced anyone, but that still doesn't make it right.

Sure it does. You suggested they are simply tape recorders and will take in and believe what he says.

I suggested that the relationship between the teacher and the student is one of intellectual authority. Because of that the teacher must have some objectivity.

He is an authority figure. No doubt. As long as he doesn't do this all the time and as long as he doesn't abuse his position but punishing opposing views then what has he done wrong?

This rant is definitely out of bounds, no matter how often it happens. It seems to me that he used a position entrusted to him to grind a political axe, and that constitutes abusing the position. After hearing it you must know that it goes beyond a simple discussion of relevant political issues, combine that with the teacher's stating that the students were taking notes, and you have a problem.

I stated that he should be publically repremanded. The school lets everyone know that they disapproved, and everyone moves on.

So a teacher can never have a viewpoint? He must always be objective?

That is the same logic used to force creationism into the classroom. After all they aren't being objective by excluding it.

Creationism is not taught in science class because it has no scientific merit. An objective teacher could not possibly teach creationism in class.

But I compared a teacher to a journalist, as there is a similar expectation for each. The better a journalist is, the more objective he is. We expect true information, and that usually requires the elimination of bias. The same goes for a teacher.

Just like a good journalist provides the information and leaves the reader to the conclusion, a good teacher provides the information and leaves the student to the conclusion.

Are the students being indoctrinated by one long rant? Are they being punished opposing his comments?

I guess you admit that the teacher has some intellectual authority.

I don't know how much the students were influenced by that rant, I would hope none. The teacher also didn't engage in any actual open discussion so who knows what would have happened if there was an opposing comment. Judging by the fervor of the rant, the teacher may have shouted down any opposition Bill O'Reilly style.

When it involves primary grades and the fact the Constitution says "nono" yes that is different from this.

Just because the framers of the constitution could not foresee the level of political rhetoric we have today, they didn't necessarily condone it.

The basis is the same though, the protection from authoritative personal opinions.

Now if the school has a policy about political talk? Then yes there is a problem. If the teacher goes on these bents all the time, then yes there is a problem. If the teacher punishes opposing viewpoints, then yes there is a problem.

It seems obvious that this was at the best, very poor teaching, so there is a problem regardless.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people slip into consumerite "service" mode - how somebody, everybody, owes you 'cause you personally footed the bill. Waugh, waugh, waugh. I can see it's all one big round of fun and laughter in your worldview. All fun and laughter.

Anything constructive to add?

I'm the leftist 'brainwasher' in our history class. I'm the one who goes on the political rants :P

Are you a teacher?

Are you a teacher?

My teacher is inept. I answer all of his questions WHILST reading xD

My teacher is inept. I answer all of his questions WHILST reading xD

:rolleyes:

Somehow, I can somewhat find this easy to believe but then this is the internet.

:rolleyes:

Somehow, I can somewhat find this easy to believe but then this is the internet.


I'm just looking forward towards AP Government...

... then I'll pay attention. :P

I'm just looking forward towards AP Government...

... then I'll pay attention. :P

You should pay attention anyway.

You should pay attention anyway.


Well, I ace all of the tests (I'm in Asian history) and I get homework done. Plus, the teacher is an arsehole. He's a bit, uhh, Tory.

Well, I ace all of the tests (I'm in Asian history) and I get homework done. Plus, the teacher is an arsehole. He's a bit, uhh, Tory.

:confused:

Tory?

:confused:

Tory?


Conservative, insane in the membrane, right-wing.

:confused:

Tory?
Probably his term for conservative. Tories were the conservatives in England and the term is still used.

Edit: yeah, I was a bit late but who cares? I was bored anyway and wanted a pointless post.

Conservative, insane in the membrane, right-wing.

I really do hate labels as well as saying someone is insane when they do not agree with your viewpoints.

Thank The Lord on High that I am a political.

Still wondering what a tory is.

Still wondering what a tory is.
Tory is the name of the old British conservative party. The term is still used to address the modern conservative party which is technically not named "tory"

Tory is the name of the old British conservative party. The term is still used to address the modern conservative party which is technically not named "tory"

Thank you for the explaination :)

Thank you for the explaination :)
No problem, just used Wikipedia. Hope it is correct, it sounds correct-like-ish at the very least. I think it is correct at the very least.

Canada City']What do you mean boo-fucking-hoo? People are paying these people to EDUCATE and do their jobs, not to give some political bias soapbox.


Some subjects that were taught at my school (Geography and History) had a political bias specified by the course syllabus. Part of the subject material covered the 'economic success' of various parts of the world (The German Ruhr valley, California's Bay Area, The Industrial Revolution etc...).

From these examples, you would conclude that companies should be free to set up whereever they want, but there should be tight environmental controls etc...

Here here. Well said Norleans :)

*gives Norleans a kiss*

Wow! Two "here here's" in a day and now a kiss! I'm on a roll :)

Thanks

Canada City']http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b8298706-0abe-421a-0116-75e16c449518&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

A student records the audio for taking notes, and only gets greeted by his geography teacher talking about how bush loves cocaine instead of actually teaching.
Rat...

So ranting about Bush is "Anti-American"? Wow, what happened to Freedom of Speech? I didn't know Bush is America, pardon me. All Hail Dear Leader!

:rolleyes:

You know, Orwell wrote 1984 as satire and warning, but when current events and attitude start reflecting parts of it the comedy turns to horror.

Wow! Two "here here's" in a day and now a kiss! I'm on a roll :)

Thanks

You are quite welcome :)

So ranting about Bush is "Anti-American"? Wow, what happened to Freedom of Speech? I didn't know Bush is America, pardon me. All Hail Dear Leader!

:rolleyes:

You know, Orwell wrote 1984 as satire and warning, but when current events and attitude start reflecting parts of it the comedy turns to horror.

You don't seem to get it.

He's on the job, he shouldn't have been turning his geography class into a soapbox. NO other job would allow you bitch.

The only time I actually see politics working in the classroom is either media studies and political science. Media studies is awesome because you get to see how the government or certain organizations can really turn a small thing into a big one.

But this is geography, where you supposed to be told about what country is what and capitals.

This kid was also recording for notes, and instead got a rant. His old man finds the tape and turns it in.

Simply put, teacher wasn't doing his job.

Rat...

Yeah but if he was ranting about a democrat, he would've been a 'whistleblower', wouldn't he?

Fucking BC asshole. Go back to smoking pot.

The kid needs to grow up. He should knoe enough to be able to critically analyize what his teacher is talking about and come to a reasonable conclusion.

If the teacher's rant was anything like the ones I sat through in High School then they probably took maybe 10 minutes out of class. As for the brainwashing issue? If you want to see that in action go down to your local church/synogogue/mosque and watch what little kids go through. That's brainwashing.

No, it is a disgrace.

What next, parents bringing political thought into the home? Imagine if national TV stations had political bias!

It does not bear thinking about, does it?

The teacher overstepped his remit. The head teacher should have a word with him.

The End.

Canada City']http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b8298706-0abe-421a-0116-75e16c449518&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

A student records the audio for taking notes, and only gets greeted by his geography teacher talking about how bush loves cocaine instead of actually teaching.

It seems to be that being a teacher is great job to rant your political BS, whereis in every other job from warehouse to corporate executive, NOT doing your job gets you fired from the spot.

What is with teachers and trying to brainwash kids anyways? If you want to bitch, make a blog.

I listen to the whole thing, it was not anti-USA, but anti-Bush.

Would you not agree?

Canada City']You don't seem to get it.

He's on the job, he shouldn't have been turning his geography class into a soapbox. NO other job would allow you bitch.

The only time I actually see politics working in the classroom is either media studies and political science. Media studies is awesome because you get to see how the government or certain organizations can really turn a small thing into a big one.

But this is geography, where you supposed to be told about what country is what and capitals.

This kid was also recording for notes, and instead got a rant. His old man finds the tape and turns it in.

Simply put, teacher wasn't doing his job.


Yes, he was neglecting the main part of his job. The diatribe, no matter how well thought out, was an extra.

Again, you seem to consider anit-Bush to be anti-American.









You see?

So ranting about Bush is "Anti-American"? Wow, what happened to Freedom of Speech? I didn't know Bush is America, pardon me. All Hail Dear Leader!

:rolleyes:

You know, Orwell wrote 1984 as satire and warning, but when current events and attitude start reflecting parts of it the comedy turns to horror.

Can you please tell us where your getting this please? I'm seeing nothing anti-american about it. Just a teacher who decided to go off on an anti-Bush rant.

Canada City']Yeah but if he was ranting about a democrat, he would've been a 'whistleblower', wouldn't he?

Fucking BC asshole. Go back to smoking pot.

Can you please calm down?

No, it is a disgrace.

What next, parents bringing political thought into the home? Imagine if national TV stations had political bias!

It does not bear thinking about, does it?

DOn't they already? :confused:

Canada City']http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b8298706-0abe-421a-0116-75e16c449518&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

A student records the audio for taking notes, and only gets greeted by his geography teacher talking about how bush loves cocaine instead of actually teaching.

It seems to be that being a teacher is great job to rant your political BS, whereis in every other job from warehouse to corporate executive, NOT doing your job gets you fired from the spot.

What is with teachers and trying to brainwash kids anyways? If you want to bitch, make a blog.

"Brainwash," like "activist judge" and "cult" is one of those words that has come to mean something entierly different based on who uses it. Just like any judge is an activist if he disagrees with you, any religion is a cult if you don't like it, any education is brainwashing if you don't like it.

If this guy was a math teacher or a cooking teacher then I'd say "yes, complaining about the president is a bit out of bounds," but he's a social studies teacher. Virtually anyone who makes a study of history and politics is going to come away from it with a sense that Bush is a bad president, and anyone who is familiar with Bush's history on education policy will come away from it with a sense that he is definatly anti-education.

"Brainwash," like "activist judge" and "cult" is one of those words that has come to mean something entierly different based on who uses it. Just like any judge is an activist if he disagrees with you, any religion is a cult if you don't like it, any education is brainwashing if you don't like it.

If this guy was a math teacher or a cooking teacher then I'd say "yes, complaining about the president is a bit out of bounds," but he's a social studies teacher. Virtually anyone who makes a study of history and politics is going to come away from it with a sense that Bush is a bad president, and anyone who is familiar with Bush's history on education policy will come away from it with a sense that he is definatly anti-education.

It has no place in the classroom. He is there to teach and not to rant in a geography class. This was in bad taste and I am glad he is suspended. I don't think firing is necessary in this case but the suspension is warrented.

The biggest asshat here is the self-righteous little punk. He sits around calling it a "left-wing rant" but I'd bet the farm on the fact he knows shit about politics that isn't right-wing punditry.
Fully agreed! The teacher just tries to talk some sense into the heads of the students, but is foiled by this braindead runt :upyours:
It wouldn't surprise me if he was paid by the government to record the speech, following a plan to record the speeches of all teachers deemed "dangerous" so they can filter out those who are against Bush :rolleyes:

Fully agreed! The teacher just tries to talk some sense into the heads of the students, but is foiled by this braindead runt :upyours:

:rolleyes:

It wouldn't surprise me if he was paid by the government to record the speech, following a plan to record the speeches of all teachers deemed "dangerous" so they can filter out those who are against Bush :rolleyes:

Talk about conspiracy. Why don't you actually come up with a better reasoned arguement on why this teacher shouldn't be suspended?

about 100 students did a walk out to protest the disciplinary action. That is comendable.

about 100 students did a walk out to protest the disciplinary action. That is comendable.

Out of how many in the school?

asshat

World's. Best. Insult.

If this guy was a math teacher or a cooking teacher then I'd say "yes, complaining about the president is a bit out of bounds," but he's a social studies teacher.

But he's a geography teacher. I don't see how anti-Bush rants (however tempting to do) has any relevance on that subject. My teachers then professors would sometimes say a few comments at the start of class then go on to teaching. Which is what they should be doing. Much as the kids no doubt like avoiding learning (I certainly would!) I bet he wouldn't change anything on any tests he gives where he fails to give out the information needed because he was busy ranting.

Though I do feel that a suspension is going to far, a warning should be enough for a first offense.

Actually, no I didn't READ the article. I didn't NEED to because I LIVE in CA and it was all they talked about on RADIO on way into WORK. They said MIDDLE school on the RADIO so you'll have to EXCUSE me. Still doesn't change my POINT though.
Yes it does. Your California radio station either deliberately blew the ages of the students in order to generate more outrage, or was so incredibly stupid as to not look at the site with the link themselves. The fact that you parroted what a radio station said without looking into the subject yourself and making up your own mind says quite a lot about you. And it wasn't in California, it was in Colorado (CO, not CA).

Tenth graders are generally in high school history or geography classes (my high school had geography and state history in 10th grade, with US history in 11th). As such, they are indeed ready to begin learning about how complex political issues can be with regard to geographical issues: borders, access to water, ports, mineral and energy rights and so forth. Your point is dust.

Canada City']Yeah but if he was ranting about a democrat, he would've been a 'whistleblower', wouldn't he?

Fucking BC asshole. Go back to smoking pot.
That's a flame. Please desist.

Canada City']You don't seem to get it.

He's on the job, he shouldn't have been turning his geography class into a soapbox. NO other job would allow you bitch.

The only time I actually see politics working in the classroom is either media studies and political science. Media studies is awesome because you get to see how the government or certain organizations can really turn a small thing into a big one.

But this is geography, where you supposed to be told about what country is what and capitals.

This kid was also recording for notes, and instead got a rant. His old man finds the tape and turns it in.

Simply put, teacher wasn't doing his job.

You honestly think geography has nothing to do with politics? What if a student asks why boundaries are drawn the way they are? What if a student asks about the countries that have oil beneath them and how they were formed? A discussion about the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War One by the British would hardly be out of place. That could easily lead to the rights of sovereignty of nations when a globally critical resource is located beneath their soil. How about what the farmers grow in Colombia? Surely a statistic like GDP or farming capacity of a nation fits into geography. And what if that crop is exported as an illegal drug to the USA?

Subjects NEVER fit neatly into little boxes. Even seemingly cut-and-dried scientific or mathematical courses have their "splash radii". To believe otherwise is to constrain the entire process of education, as though you could teach to a single-line curriculum or a test...like..No Child Left Behind suggests. See? I went from a curricular argument to a political one in two paragraphs.

If the teachers engenders thought or consideration of more than just the bare facts, they are indeed doing their job. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I'll keep on digressing and tying in related points in my class lectures and demonstrations.

One more time (not being pedantic, I'm just tired of repeating myself): the teacher went on too long and was too bellicose and bombastic. If it's a one-off, he needs a talking-to from the AP in charge of faculty. If it's a pattern and he's been warned before, he needs a short suspension. Good, enthusiastic teachers are difficult to come by and even harder to retain because the pay blows.

You honestly think geography has nothing to do with politics? What if a student asks why boundaries are drawn the way they are? What if a student asks about the countries that have oil beneath them and how they were formed? A discussion about the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War One by the British would hardly be out of place. That could easily lead to the rights of sovereignty of nations when a globally critical resource is located beneath their soil. How about what the farmers grow in Colombia? Surely a statistic like GDP or farming capacity of a nation fits into geography. And what if that crop is exported as an illegal drug to the USA?

These here actually have to do with Geography. However, the rant by the teacher does not.

If the teachers engenders thought or consideration of more than just the bare facts, they are indeed doing their job.

Facts belong in education. Not opinions.

about 100 students did a walk out to protest the disciplinary action. That is comendable. Out of how many in the school?

How does that matter? Okay, say there was 1000 in the school. 10% impresses me. Besides, a walkout as a result of one class's action means that only the students who've had the teacher in question for a class would walk out. Seeing as this teacher is brand-new, 100 kids likely represents the vast majority of the students he teaches. That is beyond commendable, that's an effective and important teacher -- and effective, important and enthusiastic teachers, especially young ones, can step over the line sometimes. Why? Because of the very enthusiasm that drives them. This guy needs a veteran teacher as a mentor to hone his energy to stay within the boundaries that separate education and discussion from demagoguery.

Western PA, I completely respect your take on education. It has a long and storied history and there is much to be said in favor of it. However, I simply cannot agree with you zeroing out anything that goes beyond it, even if it goes too far beyond once in a while.

These here actually have to do with Geography. However, the rant by the teacher does not.



Facts belong in education. Not opinions.

I see. So, students who take an English course and are told to defend their opinion about what the literature they're reading was about are only correct if they defend the "facts" about the story's intent? Hogwash. Opinions are everywhere and they drive a nation's culture, especially their politics. Opinions based on facts are indeed the strongest and most viable.

Are you seriously telling me there were no facts in that rant? Does the US have troops in Colombia dedicated to eradicating coca plantations? Yes. Do we spray defoliants on those plants? Yes we do. Are the farmers adversely affected when the crop they grow to feed their families is destroyed because of the US war on drugs? Yes they are. Those, and many more things he presented, are facts. His statement, naive as it was, about comparing the spraying of coca to the hypothetical foreign destruction of North Carolina tobacco for the same basic reason, THAT was an opinion. But I cannot allow you to tell this forum that the rant had no facts in it, because that's simply not true.

Well what if what the teacher is saying is true?
He is a Geography teacher, he has a reasonable amount knowledge on the subject which he probably has some form of degree in.
I personally like to see a good teacher opening the eyes of narrow minded pupils and inspiring some of the more intelligent ones.

How does that matter?

It matters quite alot actually.

Okay, say there was 1000 in the school. 10% impresses me. Besides, a walkout as a result of one class's action means that only the students who've had the teacher in question for a class would walk out.

Not necessarily accurate.

Seeing as this teacher is brand-new, 100 kids likely represents the vast majority of the students he teaches. That is beyond commendable, that's an effective and important teacher -- and effective, important and enthusiastic teachers, especially young ones, can step over the line sometimes. Why? Because of the very enthusiasm that drives them.

You are making assumptions here.

This guy needs a veteran teacher as a mentor to hone his energy to stay within the boundaries that separate education and discussion from demagoguery.

I'll agree with you here.

Western PA, I completely respect your take on education. It has a long and storied history and there is much to be said in favor of it. However, I simply cannot agree with you zeroing out anything that goes beyond it, even if it goes too far beyond once in a while.

I'm sorry but I believe in sticking to the rules. I believe that a teacher should stick to the subject at hand and not go off on a tangent. I am glad that you respect my take on education. However, as a student in the educational school system, I know for a fact that things need to change. Teachers who express opinions instead of facts need to go. Teachers need to be better trained and disipline needs to return to the classroom. In all of my classes at school, there is very little student disipline and the teachers do nothing to get it back under control.

I see. So, students who take an English course and are told to defend their opinion about what the literature they're reading was about are only correct if they defend the "facts" about the story's intent? Hogwash. Opinions are everywhere and they drive a nation's culture, especially their politics. Opinions based on facts are indeed the strongest and most viable.

Your going in circils here. Defending literature is vastly different than hearing an anti-Bush rant in a geography class.

Is there anybody who agrees with the decision to fire the teacher but also agrees with his politics? I'm making a fairly large assumption here but i dont think there is.

During my time at school teachers and lecturers wold fairly often go off on tagents that they felt stongly about, especially if it was to do with the subject. If it was interesting I'd listen, if it wasnt I'd do some more work, nevermind if I agreed with it or not. The fact is these thinggs happen, very often. To use it as a basis to fire someone is stupid because it pass the message that some things are not to be talked about, which is stupid in a classroom. The grades that the students get is all that matters, if an average number pass, then he's fine.

*agree to disagree and snip*
Teachers need to be better trained and disipline needs to return to the classroom. In all of my classes at school, there is very little student disipline and the teachers do nothing to get it back under control.

Teachers "do nothing" to get it back under control because, quite simply, we can't. There is very little a teacher can use as a disciplinary measure that means anything to a student who is intent on being a problem. More often than not, the only final word we have is to send a student to a VP or whoever is the problem child monitor. All that does is get the kid out of the class (somewhere he's likely to want to be anyway), and many districts and schools don't allow teachers to even do that (Fairfax County, VA for one).

While I'm no great fan of violence, one problem is the removal of corporal punishment and shaming as legitimate consequences for student misbehavior by school boards who are largely reacting to parental demands via lawsuits or insurance/liability issues. In short, parents demand discipline and then disarm teacher who would like nothing better.

As a consumer of public education, I have a very hard time believing you'd prefer an educational robot, but that's your prerogative.

Is there anybody who agrees with the decision to fire the teacher but also agrees with his politics? I'm making a fairly large assumption here but i dont think there is.

During my time at school teachers and lecturers wold fairly often go off on tagents that they felt stongly about, especially if it was to do with the subject. If it was interesting I'd listen, if it wasnt I'd do some more work, nevermind if I agreed with it or not. The fact is these thinggs happen, very often. To use it as a basis to fire someone is stupid because it pass the message that some things are not to be talked about, which is stupid in a classroom. The grades that the students get is all that matters, if an average number pass, then he's fine.
I would agree with suspension, not termination, and I agree strongly with many of the ranter's points.

Your going in circils here. Defending literature is vastly different than hearing an anti-Bush rant in a geography class.
But they both involve the cultivation of opinions, which you have expressly deemed as no good in a classroom. You can't have it both ways.

By the way, what are "circils"? Did you mean "circles" by any chance? Check out the plank in your own eye prior to yelling about the mote in someone else's.

1) It matters quite alot actually.



2) Not necessarily accurate.



3) You are making assumptions here.




1) Why?

2) But not necessarily inaccurate, either. Try again.

3) I am? The teacher is, in fact, new. 100 students walking out for a new teacher means he won "hearts and minds" or at the very least, respect, within his first year. I don't care if the student population is 2000 -- 100 kids in support for a freshman teacher is definitely commendable.

Personally I think this can all be chalked up to pornography. See, the Supreme Court defines pornography as, well, actually it doesn't. It holds that pornography is defined by community standards. "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it." Much like this case, I suppose. Should teachers be allowed to express political beliefs? Sure, but there's a line that they shouldn't cross in preaching them. "I don't know how to define that line, but I know when someone's crossed it." When you hear this guy going off I think most reasonable people, despite their lack of ability to clearly define where that line should be, will agree that this guy crossed it.

Personally I think this can all be chalked up to pornography. See, the Supreme Court defines pornography as, well, actually it doesn't. It holds that pornography is defined by community standards. "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it." Much like this case, I suppose. Should teachers be allowed to express political beliefs? Sure, but there's a line that they shouldn't cross in preaching them. "I don't know how to define that line, but I know when someone's crossed it." When you hear this guy going off I think most reasonable people, despite their lack of ability to clearly define where that line should be, will agree that this guy crossed it.
Say what?

Wow. You're so far off base, you're not even in the stadium.

Say what?

Wow. You're so far off base, you're not even in the stadium.
Am not. I think I am absolutely right and the comparison works perfectly. You guys are arguing about trying to absolutely quantify a line that is highly subjective and then trying to decide wether this guy crossed it according to your own subjective standards. That's stupid and futile. The guy went off on a loud, angry rant to his students that I'm sure had nothing to do with any lesson plan he was given at the beginning of the year and while politics may have a place in geography I think its clear he went way beyond being able to justify his rant that way. Even Bush haters like myself after listening to some of the things he said tend to agree thet the guy went too far. No one's giving him the chair. He's getting a suspension, with pay, and hopefully when he starts teaching again in the very near future he'll learn to turn it down a few notches and stick closer to the subject he's been hired to teach.

Am not. I think I am absolutely right and the comparison works perfectly. You guys are arguing about trying to absolutely quantify a line that is highly subjective and then trying to decide wether this guy crossed it according to your own subjective standards. That's stupid and futile. The guy went off on a loud, angry rant to his students that I'm sure had nothing to do with any lesson plan he was given at the beginning of the year and while politics may have a place in geography I think its clear he went way beyond being able to justify his rant that way. Even Bush haters like myself after listening to some of the things he said tend to agree thet the guy went too far. No one's giving him the chair. He's getting a suspension, with pay, and hopefully when he starts teaching again in the very near future he'll learn to turn it down a few notches and stick closer to the subject he's been hired to teach.
See, now why didn't you just say that instead of bringing pornography into it? The comparison is lousy, but your last post is spot on. Well said.

See, now why didn't you just say that instead of bringing pornography into it? The comparison is lousy, but your last post is spot on. Well said.
I like comparisons. Both pornography and teh line this teacher did or did not cross are highly subjective lines that are defined not by quantifiable standards but by "I know it when I see it."

I can't help but wonder what various people's opinions on this issue would be if the instructor's rant had been one of religious opinions, rather than political ones. Or not even ranting, just saying something like "It's my opinion that the Episcopalian Church really messed up when they sanctioned homosexuality."

I rather suspect that would get those saying that teachers are human and should be allowed to express their opinion up in arms about the separation of Church and State, and those complaining about the teacher not doing his job would be quiet about this breach of contract.

And yet, there would be essentially no difference. Just as the Government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it shall also make no law respecting the establishment of opinion.

I like comparisons. Both pornography and teh line this teacher did or did not cross are highly subjective lines that are defined not by quantifiable standards but by "I know it when I see it."
No, sorry. A one-sided rant is easily identifiable. The main trait is that it leaves no room for dissent. The debate on pornography is subjective to cultural and moral standards of whatever community you're in. Strike two.

I can't help but wonder what various people's opinions on this issue would be if the instructor's rant had been one of religious opinions, rather than political ones. Or not even ranting, just saying something like "It's my opinion that the Episcopalian Church really messed up when they sanctioned homosexuality."

I rather suspect that would get those saying that teachers are human and should be allowed to express their opinion up in arms about the separation of Church and State, and those complaining about the teacher not doing his job would be quiet about this breach of contract.

And yet, there would be essentially no difference. Just as the Government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it shall also make no law respecting the establishment of opinion.
Actually I tthink everybody would have the same problem they do now. This argument has been far and away the most common argument in this thread. Wht if he had been raningabout Clinton? What if he had been ranting about Saddam Hussein? What if he had been ranting about pubic hair? I think everyone has agreed its the length of time, the extremity of the opnions, the anger with which they were expressed and the departure from the subject matter of the class that is important here.

Personally I think this can all be chalked up to pornography. See, the Supreme Court defines pornography as, well, actually it doesn't. It holds that pornography is defined by community standards. "I don't know the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it." Much like this case, I suppose. Should teachers be allowed to express political beliefs? Sure, but there's a line that they shouldn't cross in preaching them. "I don't know how to define that line, but I know when someone's crossed it." When you hear this guy going off I think most reasonable people, despite their lack of ability to clearly define where that line should be, will agree that this guy crossed it.

I think you're right.

Were you inspired in any way by my ass-slapping analogy earlier in the thread, perchance? I mean, I know I was.

I think you're right.

Were you inspired in any way by my ass-slapping analogy earlier in the thread, perchance? I mean, I know I was.
I was too, but likely not in the way you intended...:eek:

No, sorry. A one-sided rant is easily identifiable. The main trait is that it leaves no room for dissent. The debate on pornography is subjective to cultural and moral standards of whatever community you're in. Strike two.
That's not the point. Thought I was clear but I'll try again. The comparison was related to the fact that in both cases you are dealing with a highly subjective line. What is pornography and what is not defies a quantifiable definition. In this case what is acceptable opinionated expression from a teacher in a classroom and what is not also defies a quantifiable definition. In both cases, however, it is quite easy to see when something has blown past that line. In the case of pornography if I see a picture of a woman shoving a beer can up her snatch and I can see the moisture on her vulva I feel pretty confidant that I am looking at pornography. In this case listening to what the teacher said I feel pretty confidant that he violated the line between acceptable political commentary in a geography class and a political rant more suited to posting on this board than to screeching out to students. The comparison, and after going back and reading my post I believe was abundantly clear, was simply one between two subjects with hard to quanify definitions.


Touchdown, Steelers! :D

I'm listening to this teacher on soundbytes. He sounds crazy.

I think you're right.

Were you inspired in any way by my ass-slapping analogy earlier in the thread, perchance? I mean, I know I was.
Yeah, I rubbed one out. That's why I used pornography as a comparison. :cool:

Canada City']Fucking BC asshole.Heehee, I made Canada City Bill O'Reilly mad. :D
Go back to smoking potI rather sell than smoke it. Good for BC economy. :D

Yup. Then I could have killed his sorry ass and no one would have to worry on either count! :D

Works if you drop your bitchfest about Islamic extremists using violence as censorship.

Fucking hypocrite.

:rolleyes:

Can you please tell us where your getting this please? I'm seeing nothing anti-american about it. Just a teacher who decided to go off on an anti-Bush rant.

The title of the whole thread eluded you somehow?

Canada City']You don't seem to get it.

He's on the job, he shouldn't have been turning his geography class into a soapbox. NO other job would allow you bitch.

The only time I actually see politics working in the classroom is either media studies and political science. Media studies is awesome because you get to see how the government or certain organizations can really turn a small thing into a big one.

But this is geography, where you supposed to be told about what country is what and capitals.

This kid was also recording for notes, and instead got a rant. His old man finds the tape and turns it in.

Simply put, teacher wasn't doing his job.

Would you say the exact same thing if it had been a Chinese student turning in his teacher for ranting about democracy? Frankly I think your perspectives are colored solely on partisanship.

Would you say the exact same thing if it had been a Chinese student turning in his teacher for ranting about democracy? Frankly I think your perspectives are colored solely on partisanship.
I think yours are. :)

Actually I tthink everybody would have the same problem they do now. This argument has been far and away the most common argument in this thread. Wht if he had been ranting about Clinton? What if he had been ranting about Saddam Hussein? What if he had been ranting about pubic hair? I think everyone has agreed its the length of time, the extremity of the opnions, the anger with which they were expressed and the departure from the subject matter of the class that is important here.

Canada City']http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b8298706-0abe-421a-0116-75e16c449518&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

A student records the audio for taking notes, and only gets greeted by his geography teacher talking about how bush loves cocaine instead of actually teaching.

It seems to be that being a teacher is great job to rant your political BS, whereis in every other job from warehouse to corporate executive, NOT doing your job gets you fired from the spot.

What is with teachers and trying to brainwash kids anyways? If you want to bitch, make a blog.


First, the title of this thread is completely misleading.

The teacher did not bash America, he bashed politician--GOOD.

I want the Academics that have been chosen to instruct my children to teach a desire to question authority. I am a conservative...or classical liberal....or wacko....whatever.

I am an American.

Intellectuals have a responsibility to share their opinion, it is up to us to quantify how it should affect ours.

If this child has been so "brain washed" by outside sources that he fears conflicting opinions he should be sent to a deprogramming class--or placed in special education.

Learning about Communism didnt make me a communist, learning about racism didnt make me a racist.

Hearing about not liking Bush should not force him to not like Bush.

No mention was made if it was a open discussion?
Would he be punished for offering a differing veiw?

Trite garbage----bullshit.

This kid is an ego manic twit---who simply disagreed with the teacher but used underhanded means to lodge a grievence rather then act like a man.

Pathetic.


Anyone who is stupid enough to believe teachers should be robotic lecture machines deserve the kind of world that would produce.

And if you call yourself a Conservative and feel that way, then me Edmund Burke would like to kick you in the nuts.

First, the title of this thread is completely misleading.

The teacher did not bash America, he bashed politician--GOOD.

I want the Academics that have been chosen to instruct my children to teach a desire to question authority. I am a conservative...or classical liberal....or wacko....whatever.

I am an American.

Intellectuals have a responsibility to share their opinion, it is up to us to quantify how it should affect ours.

If this child has been so "brain washed" by outside sources that he fears conflicting opinions he should be sent to a deprogramming class--or placed in special education.

Learning about Communism didnt make me a communist, learning about racism didnt make me a racist.

Hearing about not liking Bush should not force him to not like Bush.

No mention was made if it was a open discussion?
Would he be punished for offering a differing veiw?

Trite garbage----bullshit.

This kid is an ego manic twit---who simply disagreed with the teacher but used underhanded means to lodge a grienvence rather then act like a man.

Pathetic.


Anyone who stupid enough to believe teachers should robotic lecture machines deserve the kindof world that would produce.

And if you call yourself a Conservative and feel that way then me Edmund Burke would like to kick you in the nuts.
I can't stand this administration. I thinks its the worst one in history. I think teachers not only should be allowed to talk about politics and express their opinions, but should encourage their students to as well. I think this guy should be suspended. The reason why I feel taht way is I listened to the tape. He was WAY over the line.

The administration, meh--means nothing.

I read the transcript.

While I believe the teacher to be a biased left-winged zealot, he afforded the chance for discussion, and accepted it very openly and in a very unthreatening manner.

He wasnt ranting or lecturing, he was talking.

Allen, was able to debate his teacher--who merely debated back.

Perhaps you believe the Socrates Method is too advanced for American students, I however do not.

The teacher needed to stay more on track but if pay attention he kept all topics related to geography until he began answering to student comments--namely Allen's.

I had science who could be easily diverted into discussing her dog and Michigan State football----should she be suspended?

I dont find this guy over the top--do I disagree with him....well...yeah, he seems a little nutty.

But, he presented a number of things we all know are facts....facts we may not be comfortable with---but facts none the less.

I stand by my opinion.

The administration, meh--means nothing.

I read the transcript.

While I believe the teacher to be a biased left-winged zealot, he afforded the chance for discussion, and accepted it very openly and in a very unthreatening manner.

He wasnt ranting or lecturing, he was talking.

Allen, was able to debate his teacher--who merely debated back.

Perhaps you believe the Socrates Method is too advanced for American students, I however do not.

The teacher needed to stay more on track but if pay attention he kept all topics related to geography until he began answering to student comments--namely Allen's.

I had science who could be easily diverted into discussing her dog and Michigan State football----should she be suspended?

I dont find this guy over the top--do I disagree with him....well...yeah, he seems a little nutty.

But, he presented a number of things we all know are facts....facts we may not be comfortable with---but facts none the less.

I stand by my opinion.
no, he was RANTING and there's no way you could know that without listening to the tape. The guy was YELLING. Loud! You have to hear it. You can't read the volume of his voice.

Thing is the only punishment the guy got was suspension - with pay. I think that's an appropriate punishment. He'll be teaching again in a couple weeks. If you listen to the tape you'll understand why. As far as comparing this guy with a science teacher you had, imagine your science teacher getting up in front of the class and yelling:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
YYYYYYYYEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
HHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MICHINGAN STATE PIGSKIN BABY!!!!!!!!!!! AIN'T NOBODY FUCK WITH US 'CAUSE WE'RE BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BRING IT HERE, BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MY DOG WILL FUCK YOUR QUARTERBACK UP THE AAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For twenty minutes before returning to the lesson. Also, imagine its your child's science class and not some college class after Michigan State won the BCS championship.

First, fix your post--that is obnoxious.

Second--you didnt listen to the tape.

If did you have heard plenty from Allen, the two debated several issues.

So stop ranting--you, and link the file.

Either way stop pissing your pants and stomping your feet it isnt impressive.

Because the transcript provided by a very Bush biased source shows Allen as an active participant in a conversation.

So show me I am wrong.

And it was MY 9th grade science class.
And I have four kids---so please I already deal with teachers on a regular basis.

First, fix your post--that is obnoxious.

Second--you didnt listen to the tape.

If did you have heard plenty from Allen, the two debated several issues.

So stop ranting--you, and link the file.

Either way stop pissing your pants and stomping your feet it isnt impressive.

Because the transcript provided by a very Bush biased source shows Allen as an active participant in a conversation.

So show me I am wrong.

And it was MY 9th grade science class.
And I have four kids---so please I already deal with teachers on a regular basis.
I'm not stamping my feet at all. I listened to the tape and, as a matter in fact, have heard nothing but the tape on the radio for a few days now. I happen to live just a few miles from where it happened so its local news to me. I thought it was way over the top and most people, left and right, agree. He was way off topic for the class. He was shouting and ranting and it was highly inappropriate according to the school and teh community that it happened in. I will not fix my post because the caps make my point and I like it that way. :D I don't begrudge this guy either his opinion or his right to express it. I think in a classroom setting it is appropriate for him to tone it down. Its not some major offense so I don't think he should be fired or barred from teaching, but I think a slap on the hand is in order. That's what he got. A slap on the hand.

I will not fix my post because the caps make my point and I like it that way.
You dork. We mean edit your post so it doesn't make the window all wide.

You dork. We mean edit your post so it doesn't make the window all wide.
Wasn't wide on my comp. Easy enough to say, "your post is making the window wide." He didn't.

But they both involve the cultivation of opinions, which you have expressly deemed as no good in a classroom. You can't have it both ways.

A teacher asks what you thought of literature is vastly different than a teacher going off on a tangent giving his opinion of something that really does not belong in a geography class. There is a distinct difference and I am utterly surprised that you can't see the difference. No hug or kiss for you from this chick.

By the way, what are "circils"? Did you mean "circles" by any chance? Check out the plank in your own eye prior to yelling about the mote in someone else's.

:rolleyes: At least I know the difference between a teacher asking a student what they thought and a teacher going off without a question being asked of what the teacher thought.

1) Why?

Your the smart one. Figure it out.

2) But not necessarily inaccurate, either. Try again.

did I say it was inaccurate? No. I said it is NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATE!!

3) I am? The teacher is, in fact, new. 100 students walking out for a new teacher means he won "hearts and minds" or at the very least, respect, within his first year. I don't care if the student population is 2000 -- 100 kids in support for a freshman teacher is definitely commendable.

Ever thought that it occur to you that 100 students maybe nothing in comparison to the rest of the student body?

Say what?

Wow. You're so far off base, you're not even in the stadium.

I have to agree with you there. It was off base.

Am not. I think I am absolutely right and the comparison works perfectly. You guys are arguing about trying to absolutely quantify a line that is highly subjective and then trying to decide wether this guy crossed it according to your own subjective standards. That's stupid and futile. The guy went off on a loud, angry rant to his students that I'm sure had nothing to do with any lesson plan he was given at the beginning of the year and while politics may have a place in geography I think its clear he went way beyond being able to justify his rant that way. Even Bush haters like myself after listening to some of the things he said tend to agree thet the guy went too far. No one's giving him the chair. He's getting a suspension, with pay, and hopefully when he starts teaching again in the very near future he'll learn to turn it down a few notches and stick closer to the subject he's been hired to teach.

Well said.

*gives PsychoticDan a peck on the cheek*

The title of the whole thread eluded you somehow?

I figured that out after the fact. Thanks though.

Canada City']If the teacher wanted to teach about politics, he shouldn't have picked geography. There is stuff like political science for shit like that.

Or he could be a college professor.

If students want an opinion from him, they will ask for it.

I take AP Human Geography, and believe me, politics are most definitely an important part of the class. Geography (human or physical) is a study of the world and current events, and thus, politics, play a part in it.

In AP Human Geography right now we're discussing colonialism and imperialism. We've also covered international debt, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, environmentalism, and agriculture and world hunger. All of these subjects were a part of the curriculum and had readings in the textbook.

Actually, yes he did.

Look -- I completely agree his method was way over the line and a suspension is warranted. But we DO have troops in Columbia, we DO consume the cocaine they grow, and so on and so forth. His logic is simplistic and the issues are far more complex that he made them seem. He's a Lefty shill -- and just like any other shill, he shouldn't browbeat a class of students. He's young, just out of college and needs to learn this lesson. But don't go around saying he was lying to them. That's disingenuous at best and lying iteslf at worst.

Well he gave tid bits of info with his opinions or feelings of the president in a conscending way. So how would you think the kids would take that, in a essence, he was twisting the truth. I should of said it that way, but i got ahead of myself because the left-wingers in here were saying crap, sorry.

Well, that's just a filthy lie. Don't try to pass yourself off as having the same viewpoint as Norleans. You have said at least twice that teachers shouldn't have personal opinions at all in a class AND you said this teacher in question was lying.

Actually i do have the same view point, i was just annoyed by the left-wingers, read post above. And its true that teachers SHOULDNT present opinions in FRONT of the kids, never said they couldnt have opinions outside the classroom. Dont twist my words please.

For the love of all that's holy, did you even READ the article attached to the link? These are TENTH GRADERS! Sophomores in HIGH SCHOOL. Please stop saying they're in middle school. It makes you sound really dumb.

Who cares if they are in high school or middle school, this teacher presented arguements that would be dished out in COLLEGE. Liek you said he is a newly graduated college student most likely and he needs to know to KEEP it in the college setting.

There's a geography teacher in the US? Amazing! I see the light!

The fact remains, he is a geology teacher.

Ok, to put more personal experience in this i will use me. I am a college student that is a History major. I have had experience with talking with both professors and educators that are training new teachers for the future. That politcal science and geography are two different things. Geography is the study of the earth/land/water. Now i am not sure if this class is human geography or not. While political science means to study politcal science..basically parties, ideologies and what not.

The most important thing is to include the students in on topics, problem comes is when teachers go on a rant and not take the time to discuss with the students. This guy clearly didnt let the students in this one instance include the students. And the fact that we dont know if he did this continuely for the last month or year either...

He should be punished, not fired, unless he continues what he did this time caught on tape.

Ok, to put more personal experience in this i will use me.
Who were you planning on using for that? :confused:

Who were you planning on using for that? :confused:

Good point good point, i will take that line back. Was just trying to show we do have those on here that do study the subjects of those we are talking about. ;)

Well, that student should be in trouble for violation of copyright. Unless the teacher specifically stated that recording devices were okay.

I scared the shit out of one of my students who had the nerve to record one of my classes to "prove" that I was "picking on" certain students. I pointed out to him the penalties for recording a person without their knowledge. He was terrified.
Score 1 for teachers :D !

There's a geography teacher in the US? Amazing! I see the light!
YES!!!!!!!! Now people won't have to call me a geography nerd. I'll just be an overall nerd.

The fact remains, he is a geology teacher.

Ok, to put more personal experience in this i will use me. I am a college student that is a History major. I have had experience with talking with both professors and educators that are training new teachers for the future. That politcal science and geography are two different things. Geography is the study of the earth/land/water. Now i am not sure if this class is human geography or not. While political science means to study politcal science..basically parties, ideologies and what not.

The most important thing is to include the students in on topics, problem comes is when teachers go on a rant and not take the time to discuss with the students. This guy clearly didnt let the students in this one instance include the students. And the fact that we dont know if he did this continuely for the last month or year either...

He should be punished, not fired, unless he continues what he did this time caught on tape.
or not...

Well, that student should be in trouble for violation of copyright. Unless the teacher specifically stated that recording devices were okay.

I scared the shit out of one of my students who had the nerve to record one of my classes to "prove" that I was "picking on" certain students. I pointed out to him the penalties for recording a person without their knowledge. He was terrified.
Score 1 for teachers :D !
Yeah, that doesn't violate a copyright unless you have takes the time to actually copyright it and since this is a public school I'm pretty sure you can't. He's being paid to lecture with public dollars which means his lectures are public domain. Besides, I'm sure he was fully aware he was being recorded. A lot of teachers allow that because it helps with studying. Also, the teacher's voice is the loudest which suggests it was probably on his desk.

Also, the teacher's voice is the loudest which suggests it was probably on his desk.
No it's not. Maybe it seems that way because he was shouting on occasion. But the student's voice was clipping. Meaning it was so loud that it was becoming distorted.

Yeah, that doesn't violate a copyright unless you have takes the time to actually copyright it and since this is a public school I'm pretty sure you can't. He's being paid to lecture with public dollars which means his lectures are public domain. Besides, I'm sure he was fully aware he was being recorded. A lot of teachers allow that because it helps with studying. Also, the teacher's voice is the loudest which suggests it was probably on his desk.

So how come I was told at my PUBLIC university, that I was not allowed to record lectures without permission and that doing so would violate intellectual property rights and copyright law?

Well, that student should be in trouble for violation of copyright. Unless the teacher specifically stated that recording devices were okay.

I scared the shit out of one of my students who had the nerve to record one of my classes to "prove" that I was "picking on" certain students. I pointed out to him the penalties for recording a person without their knowledge. He was terrified.
Score 1 for teachers :D !

I take it then you don't permit students to tape your classes, or was it just the fact he was doing it to try and catch you doing something improper that got under your skin?

Also, in most states there is no prohibition against taping someone without their knowledge as long as you are a part of the conversation. In a class room the student is a part of the conversation and there is nothing illegal about him taping the lecture. As a teacher I may have the power to prohibit taping, but unless I exercise that power then the student can do it and it is not illegal in most places (You don't say where you are though so I can't say what the law is where you live).

I actually encourage my students to tape my classes and don't worry about whether a student wants to catch me doing something improper since I make a serious effort to ensure that I'm only providing information and it is the students who are being asked to debate it and form opinions. It is a rare day when I let the students know what my personal opinion is on anything. Often telling them, even when asked directly what it is, that my opinion doesn't matter, it's how to intelligently and reasonably debate an issue and reach an opinion that I'm trying to teach so they can form their own opinions and explain how they arrived at that opinion in a rational and reasoned manner.

The fact remains, he is NOT suppose to give his personal opinions in a PUBLIC school. PERIOD!

And this is a rule where?

The fact remains he did not give opposing sides of the issue, PERIOD.

Umm....why different people see each other as enemy....nah, that's not opposing sides??????

And i believe a poster said on here he was not ranting and he mentioned other topics like native americans and such? Bullshit.

Perhaps you should listen to the recording again WITHOUT your obvious conservative bias. I distinctly recall at least eight different ethnicities mentioned. Are you really the kid that made the tape or the Bush loving mother of the child.

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?

Yes, he can exercise this right, but not when he is supposed to be doing a job he is getting paid for. Leave the tirades until after school and off campus

Who cares if they are in high school or middle school, this teacher presented arguements that would be dished out in COLLEGE. Liek you said he is a newly graduated college student most likely and he needs to know to KEEP it in the college setting.

And algebra, science, and language arts aren't taught in COLLEGE? My Algebra 101 classs at college level was pretty much the same as my algebra class in high school. If you hadn't noticed, much of schooling is repetitive work which often varies little from year to year.

Snip

Actually, I have been told many times that it is in fact illegal in Australia for students to tape a teacher without the knowledge and/or consent of said teacher. And no, I wouldn't permit them in any case, unless they have a disability because they should be doing their work in class. And since much of that work does not involve me lecturing (as I have mainly kinaesthetic and visual learners in my classes, rather than auditory learners), I see no reason for them to record what should be the sound of pens to paper, or scissors and glue, or movement around the classroom. Furthermore, the conversations between other students in my class should not be recorded as they can be quite personal and no student should be recording conversations between other students in the class.

As to the issue of him recording me to "catch me out" I don't have a problem my students raising issues with my teaching or behaviour management. I honestly don't care if students come to me after class and say to me "Look, I think what you did in class today was really wrong, or I don't think you're a good teacher because..." I do have a problem with students telling me to my face that there is no problem and then going to a deputy with a recording of me disciplining them for inappropriate behaviour to try and get me fired.

Well, that student should be in trouble for violation of copyright. Unless the teacher specifically stated that recording devices were okay.

Uh?

I scared the shit out of one of my students who had the nerve to record one of my classes to "prove" that I was "picking on" certain students. I pointed out to him the penalties for recording a person without their knowledge. He was terrified.
Score 1 for teachers :D !

Are you sure that was his reason?

So how come I was told at my PUBLIC university, that I was not allowed to record lectures without permission and that doing so would violate intellectual property rights and copyright law?

They cannot prevent you from recording classes.

Uh?



Are you sure that was his reason?

Well, no I could be wrong, I could have misinterpreted his words "I recorded this lesson Miss, so I can prove that you are picking on people." Because telling students to be quiet and not disrupt the learning of others when they are shouting across a classroom is picking on people. Apparently.

Actually, I have been told many times that it is in fact illegal in Australia for students to tape a teacher without the knowledge and/or consent of said teacher. And no, I wouldn't permit them in any case, unless they have a disability because they should be doing their work in class. And since much of that work does not involve me lecturing (as I have mainly kinaesthetic and visual learners in my classes, rather than auditory learners), I see no reason for them to record what should be the sound of pens to paper, or scissors and glue, or movement around the classroom. Furthermore, the conversations between other students in my class should not be recorded as they can be quite personal and no student should be recording conversations between other students in the class.

As to the issue of him recording me to "catch me out" I don't have a problem my students raising issues with my teaching or behaviour management. I honestly don't care if students come to me after class and say to me "Look, I think what you did in class today was really wrong, or I don't think you're a good teacher because..." I do have a problem with students telling me to my face that there is no problem and then going to a deputy with a recording of me disciplining them for inappropriate behaviour to try and get me fired.

Ah, you are in Australia - well it might be illegal and/or a violation of copyright there to record a teacher without permission, I don't know. Certainly if it against the law to do so, you are well within your rights to be upset about a student who tried to do so in a clandestine manner.

Based on your description of who and how you teach and how useless in general a recording would be anyway, I'm curious as to the subject you are teaching (I teach law at the college level and lecture and discussion are a major part of my subject matter). As for recording other student conversations, they shouldn't be intentionally trying to record those anyway and why are the students having a personal converation and not doing their work in class to begin with? :confused:

As for students trying to "catch you out" after lying and saying everything is OK, I'd be pissed off too (and have been in a similar situation).

I teach in a high school. Year 9 English is the class that this occurred in. The reason that students often have conversations in class is because when they are doing their work, I don't mind them talking quietly.

The idea behind his recording apparently, was because he has a persecution complex that I pick on him and other students in the class. The fact that he, and others are often the ones causing problems to other students, or talking out of turn (i.e. while I am explaining assessment tasks, or the work for the day) apparently escapes his notice.

I teach in a high school. Year 9 English is the class that this occurred in. The reason that students often have conversations in class is because when they are doing their work, I don't mind them talking quietly.

The idea behind his recording apparently, was because he has a persecution complex that I pick on him and other students in the class. The fact that he, and others are often the ones causing problems to other students, or talking out of turn (i.e. while I am explaining assessment tasks, or the work for the day) apparently escapes his notice.

Thanks for the explanation. :)

Don't Americans always rant about freedom of speach? So how can this teacher be suspended when excersising this right?

You do not have freedoms in a school. I know first hand about this. Even when students are done for the day, you still lack the freedom of speech inside a school.