freedom of speech?

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:40 pm

Colo. teacher defends lecture on BushAssociated PressDENVER - A high school social studies teacher who was put on leave after comparing President Bush's State of the Union address to speeches made by Adolf Hitler defended his lecture on Tuesday, saying he was trying to encourage students to think.
"My job as a teacher is to challenge students to think critically about issues that are affecting our world and our society," Jay Bennish said on NBC's "Today Show."
Bennish is on paid leave from Overland High School in suburban Aurora while Cherry Creek School District investigates whether his Feb. 1 lecture violated a policy requiring that balancing viewpoints be presented in classes.
A student recorded at least part of the lecture in Bennish's world geography class and took it to a Denver radio station, which played parts of it on a talk show.
Bennish told "Today" the excerpts broadcast weren't representative of the full lecture.
"This is 20 minutes out of a 50-minute class. The rest of the class provides the balance," he said.
On the recording, Bennish told the students that some of Bush's speech "sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say. We're the only ones who are right, everyone else is backwards and our job is to conquer the world and make sure that they all live just like we want them to."
Later in the recording, Bennish said he was not claiming Bush and Hitler were the same, "but there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use."
Bennish said no parents - including the family of the student who recorded the lecture - have complained to him. He said all the students' parents had seen his syllabus and that school officials had approved it.
"My job as a social studies teacher is to argue alternative perspectives and viewpoints so that students are aware of those point of views. They do not necessarily reflect my own views. They are simply thrown out there to encourage critical thought," he told "Today."
email thisprint thisreprint or license this

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:20 pm

Why do people even say Hitler unless they are talking about Hitler?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:41 pm

I guess I missed the part of the State of Union where Bush said, "our job is to conquer the world and make sure that they all live just like we want them to."

I'm all for critical thinking and questioning your gubmint. But, saying things in that manner is not good teaching in my opinion.

Rather, maybe the students should read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Mein Kampf, and then they can discuss if there are any similarities in the world today. To me, that would inspire the students to think for themselves.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:49 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:I guess I missed the part of the State of Union where Bush said, "our job is to conquer the world and make sure that they all live just like we want them to.

Hmm...ok playing devils advocate here, not saying I think the teacher is in line with his references but what about Bush saying that we're trying to have Democracy spread to every country in the world. Wouldn't that be part of forcing many countries to at least form a government like ours? And we're doing that with Iraq now, and possibly Iran and Syria in the not to far off future, right?

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:54 pm

tagging on...(I'm building up here)

Many countries do not have the same social structure as ours, yet we try to push our agenda on them. Islam / Arab countries for the most part do not respect women in general as the USA does, yet in Iraq and Afghanistan our culture and ideology is placed on these women. For a traidtional Muslim man to see this happening would probably be viewed as Western Culture imposing its will on his country or his people.

Is it right? No, but it happens. Of course Griz fans are accused all the time on this board for seeing things through maroon glasses, are we as a nation possibly looking at ourselfs and the rest of the world with red white and blue glasses?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:37 pm

To me, "conquer" means that one country actually assumes control of the land within the recognized boundary and makes involuntary subjects out of the population. The land and the people on it, are subject to the conquering country's will regardless. Romans conquered, and Germany conquered, and Soviet Russia conquered. More recently, China conquered Tibet.

Helping a nation form a democratic society is not conquering.......to me.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:47 am

Right now I see Iraq as an attempted conquering. The attack was supposed to be "surgical" and cost no more than $70 Billion. We'd be in and out, no prob. Weather or not those were the real intentions we're still there, and having to force our military will and might to keep the peace, of what little we can actually control.

I really don't believe we're there as conquerors, but its starting to kind of look like it. And the new dirty word around Republicans is "exit strategy" I think they're going to pass a law to make is obscene so it's bleeped every time it's mentioned on TV.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:45 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:Right now I see Iraq as an attempted conquering. The attack was supposed to be "surgical" and cost no more than $70 Billion. We'd be in and out, no prob. Weather or not those were the real intentions we're still there, and having to force our military will and might to keep the peace, of what little we can actually control.

I really don't believe we're there as conquerors, but its starting to kind of look like it. And the new dirty word around Republicans is "exit strategy" I think they're going to pass a law to make is obscene so it's bleeped every time it's mentioned on TV.

That's a bit too cyncial Re-Max. Iraq is a quagmire of competing interests to be sure. Ex Saddam Loyalists, Al Q terrorists, Syria, and surrounding fomenters working to upset everything, Al Sadr and bandits, tribal infighting and US troops running the "law and order" side of it all. What a mess. However you feel about what the war has done, there is no way you go into Iraq, take out Sadaam and leave "letting the chips fall where they may". At this point, the country has experienced it's first free set of elections. The verdict is out as to what this country will become, but we will NOT rule it. Quite unlike Hitler who publicized his interests of arianism and world domination.

On a side note:we already rule the world. Check out the influence of McDonalds, ( drum roll ) and there you have it.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:27 am

Re/Max Griz wrote:Right now I see Iraq as an attempted conquering. The attack was supposed to be "surgical" and cost no more than $70 Billion. We'd be in and out, no prob. Weather or not those were the real intentions we're still there, and having to force our military will and might to keep the peace, of what little we can actually control.

I really don't believe we're there as conquerors, but its starting to kind of look like it. And the new dirty word around Republicans is "exit strategy" I think they're going to pass a law to make is obscene so it's bleeped every time it's mentioned on TV.

"Exit Strategy" is a new term created by opponents of the war to critisize Bush and claim the war is a quagmire and a failure. I believe Bush has put forth our "exit strategy" and it is "when we win". It might be next year but probably will be 10 to 15 years from now. In fact, I remember Bush saying it will be a long hard war that will last for years. (I'm paraphrasing here as I don't have the qoute).

I don't consider the phrase a dirty word, I consider it silly and uninformed.

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:01 pm

So where are the concentration camps that we are using to rid the earth of the Iraqies?