Democracies and Mutual Respect

okie, who's morality would we teach? I think it's quite moral for a man to love another man. I think it's moral for them to marry. Do you? Just between the two of us we probably have different morals. Public morals -- what's taught in schools -- need to be boiled down to basics like, 'be kind': share stuff, help, be polite....

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Responsible parents do not want their child's classroom time taken up in lectures on religion, morality, ethics, politics, or ideology

I don't think this is true at all. How do you teach History or Literature without lectures on these topics? I understand what you are trying to say, and I will agree that a teacher must teach these subjects with sensitivity and fairness.

But I think your statement is overly simplistic. How can you teach American history without teaching about Abolition, or the Woman's sufferage movement or the Vietnam war. How do you teach these things without taking an opinion.

I don't think there is a simple answer other than thoughtful teachers. Banning controversial subjects is not what I call education.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Responsible parents do not want their child's classroom time taken up in lectures on religion, morality, ethics, politics, or ideology

I don't think this is true at all. How do you teach History or Literature without lectures on these topics? I understand what you are trying to say, and I will agree that a teacher must teach these subjects with sensitivity and fairness.

But I think your statement is overly simplistic. How can you teach American history without teaching about Abolition, or the Woman's sufferage movement or the Vietnam war. How do you teach these things without taking an opinion.

I don't think there is a simple answer other than thoughtful teachers. Banning controversial subjects is not what I call education.

Of course you teach the history of abolition and women's suffrage and every other social phenomenon that has influenced our history and culture and our modern laws. Taught with sensitivity and fairness, the kids would learn what happened, who was involved, the effects and results, and why new policy, if any, was adopted. When the lesson was over, properly instructed students should know the material. But no kid would be able to say what the teacher's personal feelings/opinions about it were other than in a very general sense.

From Dr. Walter Williams recent essay: "Youth Indoctination Update":

Quote:

"I've taught economics for 37 years. I encourage students to record my lectures. Moreover, I tell them that the class deals with positive economics and if they hear me make a statement appearing to be an opinion, without saying so, they are to raise their hands and say, "Professor Williams, we didn't take this class to be indoctrinated with your personal opinions passed off as economic theory; that's academic dishonesty." I also tell them that if I ever preface a comment with, "In my opinion," they can stop taking notes because my opinion is irrelevant to economic theory."
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/youth.html

I teach the development of Christian thought and comparative religions. Students who have taken the courses for credit have expressed observations that they cannot tell whether or not I am a practicing Christian (I am) and those who have asked are unable to determine what denomination I belong to. Many have been frustrated that I wouldn't tell which of the more influencial theologians through the millenia I agree with and which ones I disagree with. If I did not maintain this kind of objectivity it would be far too easy to slip into teaching dogma instead of theory, concepts, and history. That would be disrespectful to my class.

If all K through 12 teachers took the same stance on this, we might actually be graduating more literate and educated people from our highschools. And the students and their parents would be respected and, in my opinion, we wouldn't have half the social problems that we have.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

okie, who's morality would we teach? I think it's quite moral for a man to love another man. I think it's moral for them to marry. Do you? Just between the two of us we probably have different morals. Public morals -- what's taught in schools -- need to be boiled down to basics like, 'be kind': share stuff, help, be polite....

I agree, we should teach honesty, courtesy, don't cheat on your school work, teach hard work, respect for the law, etc. I think teaching sexuality, homosexuality, and other controversial subjects that really tie into ones personal religious and moral beliefs really have no business in the classroom beyond giving the physical facts as part of human biology. Getting too personal with that kind of subject matter is simply not showing respect for the students and their parents.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Responsible parents do not want their child's classroom time taken up in lectures on religion, morality, ethics, politics, or ideology

I don't think this is true at all. How do you teach History or Literature without lectures on these topics? I understand what you are trying to say, and I will agree that a teacher must teach these subjects with sensitivity and fairness.

But I think your statement is overly simplistic. How can you teach American history without teaching about Abolition, or the Woman's sufferage movement or the Vietnam war. How do you teach these things without taking an opinion.

I don't think there is a simple answer other than thoughtful teachers. Banning controversial subjects is not what I call education.

How do you teach history without taking an opinion? I think you can do it by primarily presenting the facts of what happened, in context with history. For example, slavery and womens rights are issues that can be taught by presenting the historical context of these issues. It could be pointed out that slavery still exists in some parts of the world, and that womens rights are still slim to none in some countries today. In other words, there is no need to demonize this country for not changing these social conditions prior to when it did. Credit can be given where credit is due.

Some issues may be so lopsided that virtually everyone views a historical event a certain way, but many events have two sides, and in those cases, a teacher can simply teach what happened, and if the pros and cons need to be presented, it can be done without arguing ones own personal viewpoint to the hilt. Another example would be Vietnam. Present the facts about why we went there, why some people thought it was a good idea, and why some didn't. And don't forget to teach how many suffered and died as a result of us leaving. I am not saying I was for the war, but obviously communism has its bad side as well. You can teach what public opinion was before, during, and after the war, hopefully accurately, and you don't need to interject your own opinion necessarily. After all, kids may have grandparents or relatives that died there or whatever. There is no need for the teacher to launch into a tirade or speech about why Vietnam was a really terrible policy.

To summarize, a teacher should be a teacher, not an idealogue, or someone that wishes to indoctrinate the students toward their philosophy. In my opinion, the teacher at Overland High School in Colorado should have been fired on the spot for his teaching style. He is not only offensive, but incompetent. He was everything a teacher shouldn't be according to the title of this thread.

0 Replies

Yup, give 'em half a chance, and the rightwingnuts will dive on the specious claim that children are being indoctrinated in school by the evil left-wingers. Morality being taught in school was OK when it was God Bless the Flag and Our President, when it was kill them dirty commies--all the 50s hooplah and hypocricy. But then the Vietnam War came along, and all them little chilrens who got taught that not only was it their right to protest wrong actions by the government, but their civic duty, actually went out and protested the war--and the rightwingers have been having a coniption fit ever since.

Left wing indcotrination, Liberals taking over *gasp* institutions which teach the Liberal Arts . . . THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING . . .

Way to go, way to destroy in interesting topic with yet another romp with a favorite stalking horse . . .

0 Replies

Some obviously don't quite grasp the concept of mutual respect, but I don't think it is the rightwingers here who have that problem.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Some obviously don't quite grasp the concept of mutual respect, but I don't think it is the rightwingers here who have that problem.

Your point has been amply demonstrated.

0 Replies

It is evidence of your wonderful respect, of course, that you consider the hijacking of this thread appropriate based upon your obsessive delusions about the educational system.

I don't find that there is any evidence that there has ever been "mutual respect" evident either in republics or in democracies. As i've already pointed out, the evidence, going back at least to Thucydides and, inferentially, further still in Attica, is that there has been no such "mutual respect." I consider not only that the evidence is conclusive as well from the experiences of the American and the Roman republics, but i futher see the evidence in the histories of Rome and the United States that there is no place for "mutual respect."

I have no respect for people who peddle fairy tales and idiocies and demand that they be given serious consideration. A good exemple would be someone who takes a willfully false, cobbled-together thesis about the alleged political domination of university campuses and presents a cut-and-paste job, and then starts a thread claiming that colleges and universities are hot beds of "liberal" injustice. The example i have in mind was based upon no sound research basis, and ignored conservative religious colleges and universities, which is very convenient as taking away the necessary evidence of conservative bias which certainly would have queered the pitch. People who trot out biased drivel, willfully designed to create a false impression, for reasons of partisanship, deserve no respect. The defense that the author of such a thread knew not that the data was manipulatd, or failed to comprehend the flawed nature of the alleged "research" underpinning a blatantly prejudicial thessis, equally deserves no respect, as being too ill-equipped to have seriously billed oneself as "well-educated" and "well-informed."

I certainly see no reason to offer respect two a pair of fine fools who cannot respect the topic of a thread, and will insist on attempting to drag it off to ride one of the favorite hobby horses--now dead, which, failing to provide the hoped-for transportation, because the target of endless, brainless flogging.

So, to expand upon the observation i made long ago that there does not seem to me to be any evidence that "mutual respect" has ever formed a part of any democracy or republic for which history affords and example--i see no reason for there to be such an alleged "mutual respect." The more so when the upshot is that one is expected to have respect for what is mere blithering idiocy.

0 Replies

None of which is, by the way, a prolem for me. Too, too bad if it's problem for those who peddle drivel, and then whine about being told that they peddle drivel. But, it is someone else's problem, not mine.

0 Replies

Are we talking about respect in the schools? Are you shitting me? Has there ever been a place full of more holier than thou agree with me and my point of view or you're **** people from top to bottom as there are in the K-12 educational system? No one respects anyone.

0 Replies

Actually, Bear, no, the point was not to discuss mutual respect in the schools. But the rightwingnuts want that to be the topic of the thread, and have resolutely been derailing the thread in that direction, because of a pet conspiracy theory.

I did enjoy your characterization, however, of the hierarchy of sneering contempt which is the classic school system.

0 Replies

well friend set it was heart felt....

0 Replies

It would seem to be to be a more respectful attitude to suggest a different topic one would like discussed rather than to insult, whine about, and otherwise disrespect those who have offered topics as illustrations of the thesis. Some of us have at least tried to deal with it rather than spend a lot of verbage insulting other members.

0 Replies

Yet you resort to the verb "whine." I've not whined, i've just pointed out how frequently you go off topic if you think you can once again grasp the whip to being flogging the dead horse of a specioius contention about "liberal" control of educational instiutions--a contention for which you have never offered any serious proof.

That was not the topic of the thread, and i've consistently addressed the topic of the thread, which was Miss Mieirs contention that "mutual respect is the bedrock condition of a healthy democracy." I don't see historical evidence upon which to base such a contention. If one insists upon it, then i would observe that there never was, by that criterion, a healthy democracy. As for insulting other members, you really protest too much when you complain about having idiotic theses characterized as idiotic. Do you come here expecting everyone to tell you how brilliant and well-informed you are? I reacll how many times you claimed when you first came here, how well-informed you are--but i've never seen any evidence which would lead me to conclude as much. I don't call you an idiot, i just say your thesis is idiotic. Too bad if you can't deal with that.

0 Replies

Okie wrote: Global warming is now taught as 100% sure by some of being man caused, but another example of just theory, and the subject is not well understood at all.

Okie -- When I was in college, the most prominent of the right wingers had a catch phrase: You've been duped by the Communists!

Well, you've been duped by the Capitolists! The bush administration wants you to believe that global warming isn't real.

BTW, what sort of science education do you have?

0 Replies

A little red flag goes up and I am going to be on the lookout for a cute little program to indoctrinate our kids with socialistic ideas or something. I don't know, it may not be that at all, but I have a healthy skepticism and suspicion of the educational establishment these days.

Socialistic ideas?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Socialistic ideas?

Like global warming and evolution, yaknow?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Okie wrote: Global warming is now taught as 100% sure by some of being man caused, but another example of just theory, and the subject is not well understood at all.

Okie -- When I was in college, the most prominent of the right wingers had a catch phrase: You've been duped by the Communists!

Well, you've been duped by the Capitolists! The bush administration wants you to believe that global warming isn't real.

BTW, what sort of science education do you have?

Did I say that global warming is definitely not real? Temperature trends appear to be warming slightly for some regions. It is unclear what the causes are, whether mankind is partially the cause, or if whatever the trends are that they are simply part of a cycle. Geological evidence clearly shows cyclical change throughout the history of the earth. Many scientists do not agree about this subject, and they all purport to utilize scientific evidence to support their views. Unfortunately, this subject is politically charged, and seldom is science accurately judged when politics enters the picture. Therefore, I think teaching little kids that we know for 100% sure that mankind is drastically warming the earth because of fossil fuels is not accurately teaching what we know. The different theories about what is going on should be presented as theories, not fact. I am in favor of accuracy, not politically skewed indoctrination.

The degree was geology.

0 Replies

I think there is something that everyone on this thread -- and in Congress and in the White House -- overlooks.

That is, there have always been miscreants in schools.

One of the younger teachers came into the teachers' lounge emotionally, physically and intellectually exhausted. She has some of the lowest ability mainstream students in the school. These kids are the ones that were called hoodlums in the 1950s.

But, their fathers were the same sort of disruptors in the late 1920s and early 1930s. My father's own stories of his school days are of older boys, who were held back until they could shave, who disrupted the classroom.

Sorry, but there have always been brats.

Because the lowest achieving kids are in their own track, the kids with low IQs -- the ones who fail the standardized tests year after year and never improve no matter how hard they try -- are also in that track, along with the immigrant kids -- some of whom are intelligent while others are not; some of whom behave well while others do not.

BTW -- Asian kids do not as a group behave better nor do they make the honor roll more than Caucasian or African-American kids.

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know