Liberal teacher questioned for administering anti-Bush quiz

[Joe]

No wonder public school is failing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11....ap/index.html

BENNINGTON, Vermont (AP) -- A high school teacher is facing questions from administrators after giving a vocabulary quiz that included digs at President Bush and the extreme right.

Bret Chenkin, a social studies and English teacher at Mount Anthony Union High School, said he gave the quiz to his students several months ago. The quiz asked students to pick the proper words to complete sentences.

One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes." "Coherent" is the right answer.

Principal Sue Maguire said she hoped to speak to whomever complained about the quiz and any students who might be concerned. She said she also would talk with Chenkin. School Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he was taking the situation seriously.

"It's absolutely unacceptable," Knapp said. "They (teachers) don't have a license to hold forth on a particular standpoint."

Chenkin, 36, a teacher for seven years, said he isn't shy about sharing his liberal views with students as a way of prompting debate, but said the quizzes are being taken out of context.

"The kids know it's hyperbolic, so-to-speak," he said. "They know it's tongue in cheek." But he said he would change his teaching methods if some are concerned.

"I'll put in both sides," he said. "Especially if it's going to cause a lot of grief."

The school is in Bennington, a community of about 16,500 in the southwest corner of the state.

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't say this has anything to do with public schools failing. I think it is failing because it is ran by the government, not because of a quiz like that.

[kcchief19]

After reading the first part of the article, I would have said that the teacher was out of line and should be reprimanded. After reading the last few paragraphs, I was reminded of a history teacher I had in high school. He taught honors world history and was generally an extreme liberal, although he would occassional go off in the other direction on some issues. He had no problem arguing with the class and making fun of Reagan. The more liberal students tended to like him, the more conservative students tended to hate him -- at first.

Every year, he was almost regularly named as one of the favorite teachers by the graduating class because he did something that other teachers don't do -- he challenged us to think for ourselves. I ran into the kid who disliked him and argued with him the most at our reunion a few years ago. This kid was as conservative as the teacher was liberal. This guy was now teaching social studies at my high school, and told me that the teacher in question was his hero.

If public education is failing, it's because out-of-the-box and alternative teaching methods are increasingly attacked and discouraged.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If public education is failing, it's because out-of-the-box and alternative teaching methods are increasingly attacked and discouraged.

That is something I can agree with. I had a very similar teacher, as the one you described, in an AP European History class. He routinely won 'Teacher of the Year' awards and was one of the few who ever had students coming back years later to see him. Hell, everybody that was in that particular class with me came back the first time just to find out who he voted for in the post-grad election.

These days, there are all kinds of people that lean in every possible political/religious direction and wish to impose their will upon every teacher. The only way to break out of this would be to get out of public schools entirely.

[Maple Leafs]

In high school, I had a math teacher that hated cats and would give quizzes with bizarre anti-cat questions.

Things like "Jimmy's cat has died, and he wants to bury it in a box. If the box needs to be eight inches by 12 inches by 18 inches, how much will it cost him if the price of pine is... etc". Five questions later you'd get "Jimmy has decided it's not worth the expense to bury his cat, so he drops it in a muclher instead. If the remains form a cylindrical pile as they fall to ground, how high will the cylinder eventually be?"

He'd probably get fired for it today, but we thought it was pretty cool.

[Dutch]

"TEACHER ACCUSED OF GIVING 'LIBERAL' QUIZ"

So, did the accusations hold up or what?

[Solecismic]

I'm just shocked. How could a high-school English teacher screw up insuring/ensuring? He should be fired for that alone.

Honestly, I don't like to see this in the classroom any more than I like teachers who promote other forms of religion. It's really the same animal in many ways.

Everyone is entitled to think Bush has been a bad president. I do, though I wouldn't call those who voted for him simple-minded. And everyone is entitled to believe their personal brand of religion. But neither is appropriate for a public school classroom.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm just shocked. How could a high-school English teacher screw up insuring/ensuring? He should be fired for that alone.

It's more likely that a college journalism major screwed up "insuring/ensuring".

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

In high school, I had a math teacher that hated cats and would give quizzes with bizarre anti-cat questions.

Things like "Jimmy's cat has died, and he wants to bury it in a box. If the box needs to be eight inches by 12 inches by 18 inches, how much will it cost him if the price of pine is... etc". Five questions later you'd get "Jimmy has decided it's not worth the expense to bury his cat, so he drops it in a muclher instead. If the remains form a cylindrical pile as they fall to ground, how high will the cylinder eventually be?"

He'd probably get fired for it today, but we thought it was pretty cool.

Haha, I had a guy who was the exact opposite -- loved cats and asked all sorts of test questions about them.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

It's more likely that a college journalism major screwed up "insuring/ensuring".

Technically, "insuring" can be used in that manner. It's a secondary meaning and generally not considered correct. Insure refers to a specific contract for insurance. Ensure refers to a more general guarantee.

It's probably the most misused word in the entire language, by percentage of misuses/times written.

[sterlingice]

That question is what's so big and bad and "liberal"?

Oh, and ping Bucc. Remember that little thing a couple of days ago about people on the board saying not using liberal or whatnot as an insult?

SI

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

No wonder public school is failing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11....ap/index.html

how dare the liberal media report such things!!!

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't really think this should be a national issue, even in the worst case scenario.

Context is key though. Is he trying to indoctrinate people with his own view? Is this guy punishing conservatives for their beliefs? Is he using it to marginalize conservatives in a liberal area? Or is it as he says, just joking around? Does he promote debate and discussion?

Ideology, like religion and sex, doesn't need to be cleansed from school. There needs to be talk and discussion about those topics so that when kids get out into the real world they aren't complete idiots.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't really think this should be a national issue, even in the worst case scenario.

Context is key though. Is he trying to indoctrinate people with his own view? Is this guy punishing conservatives for their beliefs? Is he using it to marginalize conservatives in a liberal area? Or is it as he says, just joking around? Does he promote debate and discussion?

Ideology, like religion and sex, doesn't need to be cleansed from school. There needs to be talk and discussion about those topics so that when kids get out into the real world they aren't complete idiots.

I'm all for discussion and debate, but our schools should be a place with as little distraction as possible so they can learn. If a kid from a conservative family feels uncomfortable in an enviroment where he is made fun of, that's not cool. If these tests are designed to make jokes about conservatives, that's not cool.

Likewise if the testing material he handed out was simple jokes about baptists, atheists, or jews. Or Bill Clinton and extremist liberals or librarians or blacks. It's not his place to make jokes about a select group of people.

His job is to prepare students in the realm of social studies, not to guide them towards his ideology.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

The teacher made the one fairly harmless comment, not derisive of the president but only, and mildly, of the president's tortured English. As an English teacher, isn't it his job to defend the language? He points to a prominent figure's syntax and elocution as someting to be avoided. There's a good lesson there.

Also, I do hope no one is taking this too seriously. It's rather doubtful anyone will be scarred for life on the basis of a vocab question.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

The teacher made the one fairly harmless comment, not derisive of the president but only, and mildly, of the president's tortured English. As an English teacher, isn't it his job to defend the language? He points to a prominent figure's syntax and elocution as someting to be avoided. There's a good lesson there.

Also, I do hope no one is taking this too seriously. It's rather doubtful anyone will be scarred for life on the basis of a vocab question.

Are you suggesting the teacher will be scarred for life if he doesn't just stick to the curriculum? People didn't like it, it won't hurt him one bit to just teach the kids about English without having to make fun of our President. If he can't teach without smearing politicians he doesn't agree with, maybe he better find a private school to teach in. Just so he's not scarred.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I'm just saying, does this really matter? I'd say the same thing if the guy was makin' fun of Dean or Kerry as well. Also, is saying Bush has problems with his diction really a smear? I mean, that's like someone using me in an example and calling me a geek. Not a smear if it's true. :-)

[albionmoonlight]

Should this guy have done what he did? No, not in my opinion.

Should citizens be forced to check their Constitutional rights at the door if they happen to collect a paycheck from a governmental entity? It's a pretty complicated question that deserves a more nuanced answer than "yes" or "no."

Saying that anyone who collects a paycheck from a governmental entity does not have the right of free expression in their job sends us down a steep and slippery slope. While I will grant you that our founding fathers did not anticipate the government as a huge employer, we cannot simply ignore the Consitutional aspects of the government punishing someone for their speech--even if the person in question is an employee. The Constitution is still the Constitution, even if it is inconvenient.

And, while I am not picking on anyone in particular here, people need to make sure that their reaction to this story would be the same if the mocked President in question were Clinton.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That question is what's so big and bad and "liberal"?

Oh, and ping Bucc. Remember that little thing a couple of days ago about people on the board saying not using liberal or whatnot as an insult?

SI

I would say someone posting the phrase "extreme liberal" does not even compare to a world-wide AP news release using the phrase "extreme right". It makes journalists so stupid to be so ignorant. They don't have a clue as to what is "extremism" (on either end of the spectrum) but it is still passed off as fact.

But to answer your question, what if the role was reversed? Want to bet that the article (and posters) would call the teacher an extremist for given a quiz about the left (instead of "high school teacher...digs at the extreme left")?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would say someone posting the phrase "extreme liberal" does not even compare to a world-wide AP news release using the phrase "extreme right". It makes journalists so stupid to be so ignorant. They don't have a clue as to what is "extremism" (on either end of the spectrum) but it is still passed off as fact.

But to answer your question, what if the role was reversed? Want to bet that the article (and posters) would call the teacher an extremist for given a quiz about the left (instead of "high school teacher...digs at the extreme left")?

'Extreme' is a relative term. I don't think you have to be Hitler to be called 'extreme right'. I think it fits Buchanon just fine.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm just shocked. How could a high-school English teacher screw up insuring/ensuring? He should be fired for that alone.

I was actually figuring it was a journalist that made that mistake.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Should this guy have done what he did? No, not in my opinion.

Should citizens be forced to check their Constitutional rights at the door if they happen to collect a paycheck from a governmental entity? It's a pretty complicated question that deserves a more nuanced answer than "yes" or "no."

Saying that anyone who collects a paycheck from a governmental entity does not have the right of free expression in their job sends us down a steep and slippery slope. While I will grant you that our founding fathers did not anticipate the government as a huge employer, we cannot simply ignore the Consitutional aspects of the government punishing someone for their speech--even if the person in question is an employee. The Constitution is still the Constitution, even if it is inconvenient.

And, while I am not picking on anyone in particular here, people need to make sure that their reaction to this story would be the same if the mocked President in question were Clinton.

I generally agree with the sentiment here... but context matters. A teacher, in delivering cantral class materials for instruction, probably ought to be muzzled from presenting topics that stray toward the areas where the government, in its official capacity, ought to remain hands off. Partisan politics is probably such an area, as is religion, as pointed out above. It's not a meaningful abridgement of rights, I don't think, to demand that public servants not prosletyze in their official capacities. (And I believe I'm more sensitive than most to potential infringements of the freedom of expression)

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

The teacher made the one fairly harmless comment, not derisive of the president but only, and mildly, of the president's tortured English. As an English teacher, isn't it his job to defend the language? He points to a prominent figure's syntax and elocution as someting to be avoided. There's a good lesson there.

Also, I do hope no one is taking this too seriously. It's rather doubtful anyone will be scarred for life on the basis of a vocab question.

Let's go through the relevant segment again:

One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring [sic] him Republican votes."

Maybe the underlined segments (my emphasis added) might reveal why your argument fails on both fronts -- this is neither an isolated example that stands out from his ordinary course of business (it seems), nor is it a playful jab at the President's poor comand of the language, but rather a wholesale sideswipe at his party and its adherents... apparently one of many from this teacher.

Simply not appropriate.

[panerd]

Just sounds like an asshole teacher making it clear to his students how he feels and who's in charge. (And I am a teacher) I see this all the time with fellow teachers who kiss the ass of the jocks or try to show how tough a grader they are. (Sadly this isn't satire, you guys have to know this from your own experiences) This guy just sounds like he wants to prove he can do what he wants and they have to listen to it. I don't think he is trying to convert anyone. Should he be punished? Probably. Should this be national news? No. The NEA will come in and defend him though, even though they are a non-paritsan organization. (This coming from a primarly voting Democrat who doesn't believe his local labor union should be involved in national politics)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by panerd

The NEA will come in and defend him though, even though they are a non-paritsan organization. (This coming from a primarly voting Democrat who doesn't believe his local labor union should be involved in national politics)

Just as the NFLPA represented TO, the NEA has to represent the side of the teacher.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Just as the NFLPA represented TO, the NEA has to represent the side of the teacher.

Not exactly. I don't have a problem with the NEA representing every member's case. They are being paid to collectively represent everyone, they can't start worrying members by picking and choosing cases. This is where the strength of a good union lies. (Not to say I am not in favor of allowing only some teachers to join, but that's a whole other topic)

Where my problem lies is with the national organization endorsing Democratic canidates and taking stances on issues like abortion and capital punishment which have absolutely zero to do with teachers being given due process. Even though I generally agree with a lot of their views, there are talented teachers who don't. They shouldn't have to deal with a collective bargaining organization that is divided politically.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I generally agree with the sentiment here... but context matters. A teacher, in delivering cantral class materials for instruction, probably ought to be muzzled from presenting topics that stray toward the areas where the government, in its official capacity, ought to remain hands off. Partisan politics is probably such an area, as is religion, as pointed out above. It's not a meaningful abridgement of rights, I don't think, to demand that public servants not prosletyze in their official capacities. (And I believe I'm more sensitive than most to potential infringements of the freedom of expression)

Re-reading my quote, I realize that I came off as more pro-this guy than I meant.

The answer here is complicated, but I do think that when you balance his right to free speech with the government's right to control his actions as an employee, factoring in the nature of what he was saying and the relevance to his job--that the government has the right to keep him from doing such naked politicing in the classroom.

I do think that he has the right to express these opinions in his official capactiy, say, at a school board meeting or some such place where he is appearing as a public educator. But I am guessing that you meant "official capacity" to mean "classroom instructor" more than everything this guy may do as part of his job.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But to answer your question, what if the role was reversed? Want to bet that the article (and posters) would call the teacher an extremist for given a quiz about the left (instead of "high school teacher...digs at the extreme left")?

I would contend that it's because the term "liberal" already has a much more negative connotation in the public eye and thus has no need for a modifier. At this point, liberal = "extreme left" in the public vernacular. Similarly, conservative = "extreme right but not as much right as liberal is left" in the public eye in this day and age.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are you suggesting the teacher will be scarred for life if he doesn't just stick to the curriculum? People didn't like it, it won't hurt him one bit to just teach the kids about English without having to make fun of our President. If he can't teach without smearing politicians he doesn't agree with, maybe he better find a private school to teach in. Just so he's not scarred.

This just reminds me of the "consequences happy" society we live in. "He doesn't just stick to the curriculum". He's only "not sticking to the curriculum" because it's something you disagree with. If he had made his comment against cats as above, do the cat people have a right to be offended. That's "not sticking to the curriculum" to them.

It's such a lovely sound byte, too: "just stick to the curriculum". He can't say anything with any political connotation. But again, why stop there, do the cat people have a right to be offended. Heck, if he uses cats in a positive light, aren't the dog people offended now because they don't get equal air time.

"Just stick to the curriculum" is such a stupid cheap shot. Say what you really mean. It's like people who say "I just want a car that's safe". What they really mean is "as long as I don't get injured in it, I won't sue"- they don't care if the car about the other 99.9% of the population but as long as it doesn't affect them or something they agree with, then it's ok by them.

Yes, let's go overreact and fire every single person who at one point in their life said or wrote one dumb thing so we can have 100% unemployment at that point. You can find pretty much find a dumb thing either written or said by everyone at one point or another if you want to.

Remember that other thread about the liberal media? Maybe, just maybe, everyone's overreacting to a deliberately divisive news story.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This just reminds me of the "consequences happy" society we live in. "He doesn't just stick to the curriculum". He's only "not sticking to the curriculum" because it's something you disagree with. If he had made his comment against cats as above, do the cat people have a right to be offended. That's "not sticking to the curriculum" to them.

Do cat people have the right to be offended? Hypothetically speaking... I'm not sure. Do I have to answer that?

It's such a lovely sound byte, too: "just stick to the curriculum". He can't say anything with any political connotation. But again, why stop there, do the cat people have a right to be offended. Heck, if he uses cats in a positive light, aren't the dog people offended now because they don't get equal air time.

"Can't say anything without political connotation." Nobody is saying that.

Cats in a positive light? Dog people offended...

"Just stick to the curriculum" is such a stupid cheap shot. Say what you really mean. It's like people who say "I just want a car that's safe". What they really mean is "as long as I don't get injured in it, I won't sue"- they don't care if the car about the other 99.9% of the population but as long as it doesn't affect them or something they agree with, then it's ok by them.

What time is it?

Yes, let's go overreact and fire every single person who at one point in their life said or wrote one dumb thing so we can have 100% unemployment at that point. You can find pretty much find a dumb thing either written or said by everyone at one point or another if you want to.

[checks watch]*tap* *tap* *tap* - 12:27AM[/checks watch]

Hmmm, yes, it's late. I've had enough over-reacting for one night.

Remember that other thread about the liberal media? Maybe, just maybe, everyone's overreacting to a deliberately divisive news story.

SI

k, good night.

[Flasch186]

my opinion is:

He is an English teacher he should only teach English and strive to stay away from controversial subjects UNLESS he decides to reference a specific controversial event that involves the misuse of the English language. One fair example would be Dan Quayle's mishap.

In my views, politics should be left in the curriculum that involves a classes involving Poly-sci, etc. Religion in Relgion classes, History in History classes. etc.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

my opinion is:

He is an English teacher he should only teach English and strive to stay away from controversial subjects UNLESS he decides to reference a specific controversial event that involves the misuse of the English language. One fair example would be Dan Quayle's mishap.

In my views, politics should be left in the curriculum that involves a classes involving Poly-sci, etc. Religion in Relgion classes, History in History classes. etc.

Have to disagree with you here, Flasch. Speaking as an English teacher, a wide variety of subject matter falls under the umbrella of what can be useful for instruction. While teaching Composition, for example, my classes have discussed everything from advertising (and how those messages are constructed) to the Iraq war (and how the different sides have spun their messages). While I believe there is a greater latitude for such explorations in a college classroom like mine as opposed to high school, it is a mistake to say that teachers should narrowly focus on only the details of their own field. Interdisciplinary teaching is the most effective way of educating a complete person. You wouldn't teach someone about Shakespeare, for example, without touching on aspects of Elizabethan political and social history. You can't teach the history of the Iraq war without touching on the evolution of public discourse during its course.

It takes a more deft teacher, perhaps, to effectively integrate controversial subjects into a curriculum, but it is absolutely necessary to find ways to show students that the topics discussed in class are not merely academic exercises -- that they are engaged in the wider world, and these are some of the ways in which we approach it. As I've told my students, the classroom is absolutely the place where these kinds of conversations should take place -- they are 'safe' locations for inquiry. All sides of an issue should be given their due respect, of course. But it is necessary to teach students how to think, and that cannot be accomplished by shying away from difficult material.

That said, the teacher in this case certainly crossed the line, and I'm sure that the district is making it clear that those kinds of statements aren't acceptable.

[Warhammer]

I have to agree with Flasch. However, the teacher only has freedom of speech regarding the governmoent. However, he has an ethical obligation to teach his class in an unbiased manner. I do not see how he can give questions like this on an English test. For social studies, it is fair game, since it is a topic of discussion. It is also a poor question when the same question can be asked in a non-biased way.

The problem when you get into the realm of bias is that the teacher must not let his bias get in the way of his grading. I have had plenty of teachers that would challenge your thinking, but would not be nearly as critical of students who followed his way of thinking. That is unfair. The best teacher I had in this regard would tell students not to write about topics in which he was an expert because there was no way that they would convince him of another point of view, etc.

[Tekneek]

When I was in high school, I could count on my hands the number of kids in my 'American Government' class that even knew who the President was. That was less than 1/3 of the class. I bet most of the students did not even really know what he was talking about and they were just trying to figure out which word filled the blank best.

Way worse than this are teachers and administrators who tell students to go home and ask their parents to vote for tax increases. This happened routinely when I was in public school. Yet, I never saw a single article about it in the newspaper. I think they probably still do that, which is much worse than just about anything you would find on that vocabulary quiz.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Have to disagree with you here, Flasch. Speaking as an English teacher, a wide variety of subject matter falls under the umbrella of what can be useful for instruction. While teaching Composition, for example, my classes have discussed everything from advertising (and how those messages are constructed) to the Iraq war (and how the different sides have spun their messages). While I believe there is a greater latitude for such explorations in a college classroom like mine as opposed to high school, it is a mistake to say that teachers should narrowly focus on only the details of their own field. Interdisciplinary teaching is the most effective way of educating a complete person. You wouldn't teach someone about Shakespeare, for example, without touching on aspects of Elizabethan political and social history. You can't teach the history of the Iraq war without touching on the evolution of public discourse during its course.

It takes a more deft teacher, perhaps, to effectively integrate controversial subjects into a curriculum, but it is absolutely necessary to find ways to show students that the topics discussed in class are not merely academic exercises -- that they are engaged in the wider world, and these are some of the ways in which we approach it. As I've told my students, the classroom is absolutely the place where these kinds of conversations should take place -- they are 'safe' locations for inquiry. All sides of an issue should be given their due respect, of course. But it is necessary to teach students how to think, and that cannot be accomplished by shying away from difficult material.

That said, the teacher in this case certainly crossed the line, and I'm sure that the district is making it clear that those kinds of statements aren't acceptable.

I kind of agree with you but than would have to say, unfortunately, a LOT of teachers cannot pull of that amount of "Deft-ness" needed and should teach what they got their degree in.

[Grammaticus]

Quote:

One example: "I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes." "Coherent" is the right answer.

Chenkin, 36, a teacher for seven years, said he isn't shy about sharing his liberal views with students as a way of prompting debate, but said the quizzes are being taken out of context.

Two words, “School Vouchers”. If you don’t want to sit in a classroom and be called below average by your teacher (because you are conservative or a Republican), you can take your voucher and go to a different school.

Depending upon who leaves, the economic impact will either support or not support the teacher as a viable productive part of the teaching process.

Also, I don’t think telling someone their intelligence is below average because they are a Republican is very good way of prompting debate. At least not productive debate.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Also, I don’t think telling someone their intelligence is below average because they are a Republican is very good way of prompting debate. At least not productive debate.

Considering it was just a vocabulary quiz, it wasn't intended to "promote debate." You were supposed to pick the proper word based on context. If he had sentences in the quiz related to various conspiracy theories, would that mean he is telling the students to believe/disbelieve them? No, he is simply asking them to take a sentence and choose the word that best fits the context.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

'Extreme' is a relative term. I don't think you have to be Hitler to be called 'extreme right'. I think it fits Buchanon just fine.

Esp. when he's much to the left of the conservatives in his stance against the Iraq war and in free trade?

Originally Posted by SI

I would contend that it's because the term "liberal" already has a much more negative connotation in the public eye and thus has no need for a modifier. At this point, liberal = "extreme left" in the public vernacular. Similarly, conservative = "extreme right but not as much right as liberal is left" in the public eye in this day and age.

That is interesting. It very well could be in the public vernacular but not in the media vernacular. Are they wanting to de-emphasize liberal=extreme left by using extreme right as a counterbalance?

[cartman]

I wonder if the quiz contained "intelligent design" questions if the uproar would have been so severe?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Considering it was just a vocabulary quiz, it wasn't intended to "promote debate." You were supposed to pick the proper word based on context. If he had sentences in the quiz related to various conspiracy theories, would that mean he is telling the students to believe/disbelieve them? No, he is simply asking them to take a sentence and choose the word that best fits the context.

Hey, I'm with you on that. But, per the article, the teacher used "promote debate" as part of his defense. Maybe he figures, people will talk about the quiz in the halls/lunch room, etc. and debate is promoted? I don't know, it's the teachers answer.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Hey, I'm with you on that. But, per the article, the teacher used "promote debate" as part of his defense. Maybe he figures, people will talk about the quiz in the halls/lunch room, etc. and debate is promoted? I don't know, it's the teachers answer.

I don't think the two are related. It read to me like he said he isn't shy about sharing his views to promote debate, but that it wasn't the case with the vocabulary quiz and they were being taken out of context.

Chenkin, 36, a teacher for seven years, said he isn't shy about sharing his liberal views with students as a way of prompting debate, but said the quizzes are being taken out of context.

[Glengoyne]

The real deal is. This teacher didn't misuse his right to free speech. He misused his position of authority as a teacher in a classroom, and that is why he should be disciplined somehow. He stood up at the front of the class and declared that Republicans have below average minds. That's right Republicans are dumb. How are children who know their parents are Republicans going to react to that statement? As a teacher you can't essentially victimize a portion of your students.

[Tekneek]

He made a tongue-in-cheek quiz, relaying thoughts that are routinely expressed on the radio, TV, and in print in every week in this country. He just happened to target people who have no sense of humour in it, so he gets attacked for it.

EDIT... Despite having the Presidency, House, and Senate, Republicans seem to have some sort of complex and are on the witch hunt. You'd think having full control of the federal government would calm them, but they are still scared of a high school teacher's vocabulary quiz. Much ado about nothing.

[Buccaneer]

It's funny but I have had teachers just like that (from both political persuasions) for years - from grade school through college. It goes with the territory. My only contention was the stupid journalist writting about it.

I wonder if the quiz contained "intelligent design" questions if the uproar would have been so severe?

It shouldn't since that (a creator-driven evolution) is no different than the creator-inspired thoughts and motives in developing the Decl of Independence, Constitution and other laws and acts that are taught in history and civics. Now if it were a creationists slam, then that would get some hackles up.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The real deal is. This teacher didn't misuse his right to free speech. He misused his position of authority as a teacher in a classroom, and that is why he should be disciplined somehow. He stood up at the front of the class and declared that Republicans have below average minds. That's right Republicans are dumb. How are children who know their parents are Republicans going to react to that statement? As a teacher you can't essentially victimize a portion of your students.

Yes, won't someone please think of the poor children. This was a high school class, not poor little 5 year olds. The same people who most of the board, when being inconvenienced by them at the mall or wherever just dismiss them as "stupid teenagers".

SI

[AZSpeechCoach]

I am currently mentoring a future-teacher who is one semester away from his student teaching. On a lesson that he prepared for my classes this year, he had included a powerpoint on a Greek myth. As part of his informal assessment, he asked the students some questions via powerpoint under the heading "Ask W," He had included a picture of W with his mouth open, looking pretty bewildered. Not one of my kids even got it (these were freshman classes). I did caution him a bit about getting political, but I personally thought it was hilarious. Every so often, you have to include little inside jokes to keep it interesting for you as well. The teacher here went too far with the last part of his sentence, but I can see what he was trying to do in terms of entertaining himself. I have had assignments writing poetry to my dead fish in an effort to keep myself engaged in the curriculum.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yes, won't someone please think of the poor children. This was a high school class, not poor little 5 year olds. The same people who most of the board, when being inconvenienced by them at the mall or wherever just dismiss them as "stupid teenagers".

SI

I didn't note the age of the students, but really I put that type of activity in the same boat as forcing a child to recite the pledge or singling a child out for anything. The fact that it was highschool does mitigate matters some, but the teacher still called some of those kids parents morons. I don't think we're treading new ground here to say that that type of behavior by a teacher should be frowned on.