Law would prevent teachers from taking political stands

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But college students and other education advocates worry it would discourage instructors from leading discussions and debates on controversial topics.

Considering I haven't seen much lately in the academic world to anything close to debate/discussions but only the classroom used as personal soapbox... the education system needs to be cleaned back up and used for learning/discussion/growth. Unfortunately our gov'ment ain't helping to ahcieve that.

I agree. It leaves it up to interpretation. For example, if a teacher had in their mug full of pens, a small Peace Sign flag, is that forbidden? Just let teachers teach and let school administrators decide what teachers can discuss in their classrooms.

That would be utopia Steven. IF this were possible, I would definately enjoy my job a hell of a lot more. As it is, I am very careful not to submit my opinion on ANYTHING anymore, even though my kids are elementary age. Some of them could still go home and say "Mom (or Dad or whoever), the teacher was telling us what she thinks about....(you fill in the blank)" If the parent doesn't like it, well...you can pretty much figure out the rest of the scenario.

I thought this was already somehow against the rules? And already difficult to enforce?

The big thing against the rule is promoting one's religious beliefs. For example, a few years ago we received a memo. It stated that the "moment of silence" that is afforded to every student in the public schools should not be used to stand before your classroom in an attitude of prayer as that could indicate you are trying to promote your religious beliefs and encourage prayers in your class or among your students. That, in turn, could lead to a lawsuit if a student objected.

As an aside here: For those uptight conservatives who constantly preach that prayer has been removed from the schools... that's not technically correct. NO student is forbidden to pray...ever. I have students who say a blessing before they eat every day. Some pray during their moment of silence. No one has ever tried to stop them. I just wish these uptight ultra conservatives would get their facts straight before trying to corrupt everyone.

Now, back to the political stance. I have kids who ask political questions. It's hard sometimes not to interject my personal thoughts on the subject. However, I do. I answer them as best I can from things we find on the internet and what is generally discussed in the news and so forth. In my personal opinion, the day is coming where teachers will be monitored to make sure they are only teaching what the state allows and one tiny infraction will result in a written reprimand and quite possibly the termination of one's contract.

Let the teachers teach....that would be a novel idea. Imagine what our children and young adults would be able to learn!

Good points, Karen. Well said!

[Caladan 19]

Part of the problem, at a college level, is that an 18-year-old kid is often in a very poor position to judge what is true biased behavior and what is simply being exposed to new ideas. In theory, I'd love to say "evil profs shouldn't be biased! rar I read headlines!" except that "bias" probably means "not teaching conservative orthodoxy" or "thought that learning the history of women was interesting when EVERYONE knows real history is about wars" or "believes in free speech" or "taught evolution while endorsing it."

In many subjects the professor does the students a disservice if she keeps her views out of it. It gives the students a false idea that learning is all about reciting the text book, rather than grasping a position and defending it. (Economics, politics, and philosophy, in particular the latter, just don't work if you present it as some-people-do-this-some-people-think-that.) You also learn a theory better from someone who believes it; my high school economics teacher was an idiot libertarian who believed everything but the military should be privatized (weird for a guy who taught in a public school) and railed against Clinton every chance he got, but I sure learned the basics of economics through arguing with him.

The professor should not intimidate anyone, and grades shouldn't be determined by whether anyone agrees with the prof's pet theory. A good prof should also play devil's advocate as much as possible, and if it's a discussion, adopt the minority view so no one gets picked on: if all the students are liberals, and one kid's a libertarian, argue the libertarian viewpoint. But that's a skill that a law is horribly equipped to teach to a prof.

Count me skeptical, though, that a bunch of clueless lawmakers is going to do anything except allow the kid who failed the evolution exam because he didn't study to claim bias because he's a Christian.

This Arizona law is very, very bad news. Endorsing candidates in the classroom is bad. No discussion of current events? Oh that's lovely. Let's just bring in the zampolit already and quit pretending we value education.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Part of the problem, at a college level, is that an 18-year-old kid is often in a very poor position to judge what is true biased behavior and what is simply being exposed to new ideas. In theory, I'd love to say "evil profs shouldn't be biased! rar I read headlines!" except that "bias" probably means "not teaching conservative orthodoxy" or "thought that learning the history of women was interesting when EVERYONE knows real history is about wars" or "believes in free speech" or "taught evolution while endorsing it."

In many subjects the professor does the students a disservice if she keeps her views out of it. It gives the students a false idea that learning is all about reciting the text book, rather than grasping a position and defending it. (Economics, politics, and philosophy, in particular the latter, just don't work if you present it as some-people-do-this-some-people-think-that.) You also learn a theory better from someone who believes it; my high school economics teacher was an idiot libertarian who believed everything but the military should be privatized (weird for a guy who taught in a public school) and railed against Clinton every chance he got, but I sure learned the basics of economics through arguing with him.

The professor should not intimidate anyone, and grades shouldn't be determined by whether anyone agrees with the prof's pet theory. A good prof should also play devil's advocate as much as possible, and if it's a discussion, adopt the minority view so no one gets picked on: if all the students are liberals, and one kid's a libertarian, argue the libertarian viewpoint. But that's a skill that a law is horribly equipped to teach to a prof.

Count me skeptical, though, that a bunch of clueless lawmakers is going to do anything except allow the kid who failed the evolution exam because he didn't study to claim bias because he's a Christian.

This Arizona law is very, very bad news. Endorsing candidates in the classroom is bad. No discussion of current events? Oh that's lovely. Let's just bring in the zampolit already and quit pretending we value education.

[Peikko 1,575]

Have to agree with that post.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Part of the problem, at a college level, is that an 18-year-old kid is often in a very poor position to judge what is true biased behavior and what is simply being exposed to new ideas. In theory, I'd love to say "evil profs shouldn't be biased! rar I read headlines!" except that "bias" probably means "not teaching conservative orthodoxy" or "thought that learning the history of women was interesting when EVERYONE knows real history is about wars" or "believes in free speech" or "taught evolution while endorsing it."

I don't have a problem with university professors teaching new ideas or infusing some of their opinion into the topic; however, they should make it widely known to the class that what they are teaching is "ideas" and "opinions," not facts. My problem with the current education system is that professors get away with touting their ideas and opinions as factual knowledge, so the 18 year-old college student (which is really something of a stereotype, since many college students are older than that -- even ones beginning as freshmen) can't very well differentiate between fact and opinion, and believes everything they are told.

The student pays his or her money in tuition to be taught factual knowledge and to come away with something; if they wanted opinionated rhetoric, they could get that online, television, radio, movies, video games, wherever. So I don't think opinions really have a place in the classroom or lecture hall. If they do make their way in there, then the instructor should make it very clear that what he or she is teaching is their own opinion, and not a factual statement.

Edited February 17, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[Caladan 19]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but at anything beyond "Memorize this set of facts", interpretation and opinion do come into it. And this is made known! Nearly every discipline require interpretation: what is a good study? what is an adequate sample size? what constitutes a good argument? what is the state of the discipline? In many disciplines at the college level, even methodology is the matter of the professor's expertise, and there are other professors who will disagree on the best method.

This isn't to say that a prof's opinions are law. But especially in higher-level discourse, the distinction between opinions (e.g., which economic regression to use) and fact aren't always clear. Opinion isn't fact, but opinion doesn't always constitute "using the classroom as a pulpit", either. What I need to do to be a successful educator is show students the right way to challenge established interpretations and opinions, through argument and their own research.

I cannot do that if I pretend I don't have any opinions; and some lawmaker trying to score points with the pearl-clutching crowd is not qualified to tell me how to run my seminar.

I get the sense that people read scandalous shocking pearl-clutching NYT articles and think that when I go to teach a class, I get up there and deliver diatribes on politics. No offense, but it's an invented problem. I teach philosophy. Philosophy of religion! At an evil liberal school! (That has a divinity school, but don't let that distract anyone. Evil! Liberal!) And I manage a fair and respectful class, even as I offer arguments! I teach them to make counterarguments within the framework of the discipline!

So call me unconvinced that this isn't an invented problem. Because I'm damned good at what I do, but I'm not an exception.

There are a handful of problem profs. Through the power of public student evaluations, they are identified. And you know what? Their enrollments drop. Word gets out. Students avoid their classes. We have a system that works well without any bureaucrats looking over our shoulders dictating that we musn't talk about current events or we'll get sued.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but at anything beyond "Memorize this set of facts", interpretation and opinion do come into it. And this is made known! Nearly every discipline require interpretation: what is a good study? what is an adequate sample size? what constitutes a good argument? what is the state of the discipline? In many disciplines at the college level, even methodology is the matter of the professor's expertise, and there are other professors who will disagree on the best method.

This isn't to say that a prof's opinions are law. But especially in higher-level discourse, the distinction between opinions (e.g., which economic regression to use) and fact aren't always clear. Opinion isn't fact, but opinion doesn't always constitute "using the classroom as a pulpit", either. What I need to do to be a successful educator is show students the right way to challenge established interpretations and opinions, through argument and their own research.

I cannot do that if I pretend I don't have any opinions; and some lawmaker trying to score points with the pearl-clutching crowd is not qualified to tell me how to run my seminar.

I get the sense that people read scandalous shocking pearl-clutching NYT articles and think that when I go to teach a class, I get up there and deliver diatribes on politics. No offense, but it's an invented problem. I teach philosophy. Philosophy of religion! At an evil liberal school! (That has a divinity school, but don't let that distract anyone. Evil! Liberal!) And I manage a fair and respectful class, even as I offer arguments! I teach them to make counterarguments within the framework of the discipline!

So call me unconvinced that this isn't an invented problem. Because I'm damned good at what I do, but I'm not an exception.

There are a handful of problem profs. Through the power of public student evaluations, they are identified. And you know what? Their enrollments drop. Word gets out. Students avoid their classes. We have a system that works well without any bureaucrats looking over our shoulders dictating that we musn't talk about current events or we'll get sued.

Outstanding!

Edited February 17, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky