...about Ronald Reagan, don't say anything at all. If you're a public school teacher, that is.
The unidentified high school teacher in Albany, New York dared utter a negative comment about Ronald Reagan's policies during a moment of silence in his honor. The school district is "investigating whether her comments violated the district policy against staff making political endorsements at work or on school property."
The comments themselves haven't been published, but apparently the teacher also declared that she "wasn't going to participate [in the moment of silence], even if Reagan was dead."
Good for her.
The school's principal decided that the entire school would honor Reagan with a moment of silence. How is that not making a political statement on school property? But the district is revealing its free speech double standard: nobody is investigating the principal's actions.
If the principal makes a political statement, why should anyone — teacher, staff, or student — who doesn't agree with it be compelled to behave as if s/he does? Nobody should have to remain silent to honor someone just because their boss tells them to, least of all someone who works for a school.
That's why I'll never understand public schools. They should be teaching our children critical thinking skills, but instead they teach them — explicitly and implicitly — to be intellectually lazy. And this little lesson on free speech won't help change that.
The school board president thinks the teacher's comments were "extremely inappropriate." Not so the principal's actions, apparently. Those remain unchallenged. So here are some lessons the kids in that district are learning:
- People in positions of power will tell you what to think.
- When someone in a position of authority tells you to do something, just do it, even if you know it's wrong.
- Freedom of speech — and in particular, our most cherished political speech — applies to some people and not to others, so be careful what you say.
- Do not dare to have ideas of your own; if you do, keep them to yourself. We wouldn't want to challenge mob-imposed beliefs around here.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Shark
Right on, bhw, on all counts.
re: public BS ceremonies -
last time I went to a MLB baseball game, I found out that since 9/11, they've taken to playing "God Bless America" during the 7th inning stretch.
EVERYONE STOOD, removed their hats, put their hands over their hearts -- except me. I muttered to my friend, "Wait, that's not the National Anthem!"
*I spent that summer in a wheelchair.
*just kidding; that's an old woody allen line -- but I did feel like Bin Laden at a NY cop's memorial service. America -- ain't it grand? We'll kick your ass, take yer job, and lock you up to show our love for freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
2 - Duane
I think the idea is to show some respect for the office of the President, not to Reagan per se. A moment of silence is no more a "political statement" than is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the national anthem. It's not "Let's take a moment to honor Reagan, his administration, his policy record, and, while we're at it, the Republican party in general, including Bush." I'm sure that the teacher in question could not endure paying respects for Reagan, and felt compelled to show that she was an independent thinker, which misses the point entirely, and can only add to the cynicism that kids are immersed in these days. It's probably good for kids to at least go through the motions of paying respect for anything that doesn't involve sports or music or the movies, instead of scoffing at the whole business. What do you think?
On Shark's point, I would welcome the day when references to God are taken out of school (unless it's religious studies, which someday will only be a part of cultural anthropology), government, and non-religiuos public functions, such as baseball games. God, how I hate superstition.
3 - bhw
I think that the Pledge of Allegiance and national anthem are also political statements.
The moment of silence may have had something to do with respecting the office of president, but you can't separate it from the man who died and in whose honor it was made. And besides, "respecting the office of the president" is yet another political statement.
If people want to show their respect, fine; they can do it on their own. But forcing teachers and students to do it because they're a captive audience is just wrong.
4 - SFC SKi
I have to agree with Duane, I think the moment of silence is to shoe respect for the office of the President, if not for the man himself.
I guess being impolite means she is an "Edgy" non-conformist.
How do people get the idea that if they upset others, they must be doing something right?
5 - bhw
How do people get the idea that if they just do what everyone else is doing that they're doing something right?
6 - kuros
"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." "Ronald Reagan"
7 - Mark Edward Manning
bhw, you're displaying the free speech is in danger across America, and that you must watch what you say - and then you use a very rare, isolated example of a district that is very protectionist in its view of Reagan. That may be wrong, but what's your thoughts on how political correctness has done far more harm for free speech than this little pro-Reagan incident? The Left has very persuasive powers, via the courts, to stifle free speech in this country, but that's probably of little concern to you.
8 - RJ Elliott
"I think that the Pledge of Allegiance and national anthem are also political statements."
The politics of "Love Your Country"?
9 - RJ Elliott
Anytime a President dies, a certain level of respect is expected. When JFK was shot and killed, I suppose students were required to have a moment of silence, without political grandstanding by a person in authority.
I remember when the Challenger exploded. Teachers were crying (because one of their own had died). We had a moment of silence for the 7 astronauts. No one complained. No one whined about how the space program was a waste of money that could otherwise be spent on poor black kids in the inner city, or anything like that.
Payig respect for the dead is not political. It is what decent human beings do. Everyone knows that.
10 - Natalie Davis
Being forced to endure a moment of silence sounds indecent to me. And thoroughly political. The politics of "love your country"? You can't force anyone to love anything or anyone. And loving a land mass you were tossed onto by fate strikes me as a bit odd.
As for respecting the office of president, that just sounds loony. (Lord knows Slick Willie didn't respect the office. Sorry, couldn't resist.) I respect the office of plumber. Or doctor. Or street sweeper. Those jobs sound useful to me. Reagan? A government employee is what he was -- the top government employee from '81-'89. One I was opposed to hiring. Big deal. Next, you'll want a moment of silence for the head IRS auditor. You feel free to stay silent. Others have the right not to do so.
Three cheers for the teacher.
As for the double standard, what do you expect in America?
11 - SFC Ski
"Paying respect for the dead is not political. It is what decent human beings do. Everyone knows that."
well said RJ.
12 - bhw
Thanks for all the comments on the post.
Mark asked:
...but what's your thoughts on how political correctness has done far more harm for free speech than this little pro-Reagan incident? The Left has very persuasive powers, via the courts, to stifle free speech in this country, but that's probably of little concern to you.
Actually, it's a big concern to me. I'm pretty much a staunch free speech advocate. I disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on the campaign finance reform law on the basis of free speech, for example. And I also have blogged about an incident at SMU, where a Republican student bake sale was shut down by the school when some other students got upset at the point of the sale. I said it was wrong for the school to shut it down [and I could swear I posted that one here at BC, but it's not there in the archives...weird ... but it's on my site].
I don't like hate speech laws at all. The worst thing we can do is outlaw speech we don't like, no matter who is saying it or how offensive we find it.
So I might be a bit different than many of my peers on the Left who like speech codes, etc.
One area that I waffle on is the airwaves. I think that TV should not be censored at all or have restrictions put on it by the FCC. We have the technology now to block out channels and shows we don't like or don't want our kids to see. My main beef with the infamous half-time show had to do with the unexpectedness of the whole show in front of an essentially national family audience. It would have been better if there'd been an appropriate rating assigned to it. Of course, Kid Rock is a scumbag and shouldn't have been on the stage, but that's another matter.
But radio is a tougher call for me, since it's harder to police, from a parental standpoint.
RJ wrote:
Anytime a President dies, a certain level of respect is expected.
But not mandated. At least it shouldn't be, as it was in this school. Why should anyone who did not respect the man be forced by his/her boss to show some? It's perfectly acceptable for those who wanted to show respect to do so; but the same opportunity should have been available for those who didn't want to.
When JFK was shot and killed, I suppose students were required to have a moment of silence, without political grandstanding by a person in authority.
You don't know what did or didn't happen then. In fact, it's possible that schools were closed altogether that day. [Anyone out there remember?] In general, the entire mood of the country was different because a young, sitting president had had his head blown off. Not the same as a 93-year-old former president dying of natural causes.
Payig respect for the dead is not political. It is what decent human beings do. Everyone knows that.
No, RJ, someone does not earn respect by dying. He earns it by the way he LIVES. Decent human beings treat other living human beings with respect. Some people feel that Reagan didn't do that when he was president. He didn't earn their respect when he was alive, so why would he get it when he died?
Dissent is not the same as disrespect, although in this country it's treated as being anti-American, when in fact dissenting political speech is the very essence of BEING American.
And it IS political when paying respect for a political leader is forced upon you. I don't see how it can be anything other than political.
My point was that public schools have no business compelling students and teachers to comply with the school's [or principal's] political statements while shutting down or punishing those who disagree.
If one form of speech is permitted, all should be permitted.
13 - Vern Halen
bhw said:
"Dissent is not the same as disrespect, although in this country it's treated as being anti-American, when in fact dissenting political speech is the very essence of BEING American."
Absolutely. And yet so many seem to have forgotten this. Still, I think the issue is more complicated than simply that of free speech.
I'm starting to sense that the first problem here isi that this reinventing of the Reagan legacy has more to do with nostalgia than it does with respect for the dead or the nature of democracy. I'd be happy to pause for a moment to respect him, even if I don't, as long as it's understood that it doesn't condone his own ideals & beliefs or an attempt to reinstate his political agenda. After all, if a system mandates pledging allegiance to a flag, why shouldn't it mandate a moment of silence for one who was elected under it?
Duane said:
"On Shark's point, I would welcome the day when references to God are taken out of school (unless it's religious studies, which someday will only be a part of cultural anthropology), government, and non-religiuos public functions, such as baseball games. God, how I hate superstition."
The second issue here is that there are those would say that saying the Pledge is simply praying to the flag, our natural tendencies toward tribalism & paganism rolled into one. I can't remember who said it originally, but maybe the real nature of America is rooted in the fact that it was founded by those who sought freedom of religion, and yet it continues to insist that there is no place for religion in it's institutions. Whether we like it or not, Western society is founded on Christian traditions, and as long as that continues to be denied, there will always be a fundamental misunderstanding of ourselves as individuals or as a people.
14 - bhw
After all, if a system mandates pledging allegiance to a flag....
It doesn't anymore. Or at least it can't -- the Supreme Court took care of that. Students don't have to recite it if they don't want to.
15 - bhw
Oh crap, I got the italics thing going again. Sorry.
I should add that students don't have to recite the pledge, but, ironically, I think they have to remain silent while others do.
16 - Vern Halen
Sorry. Been a while since I was in school. But doesn't silence imply consent?
17 - bhw
To me it does.
18 - bhw
And I wrote a post -- maybe before I joined BC -- where I said that I can't understand why we'd want, say kindergarteners, to pledge allegiance to anything.
19 - Duane
Vern, I don't deny that part of Western Culture is founded upon religious principles. Protestantism, in particular, had a lot to do with the prevailing mindset when America was founded. That's history, and it would be ignorant to try to refute or ignore it. But my opinion on the religion point has nothing to do with the Constitution or the subtleties surrounding the separation of church and state. I'm too simple-minded to want to go into all that. I'm looking beyond that, to the day when religion and the belief in supernatural omniscience will be recognized for what they are -- baseless superstition and wishful thinking. History can teach us something there, as well. (Now I suppose that Natalie, the one without hate, will want to go pray for me. Thanks, but, no thanks.) There is no misunderstanding on my part related to our Christian underpinnings. We once burned witches, too. I believe in progress, however, and that includes coming to grips with reality. I realize this has nothing to do with school teachers and the lack of civility in public settings, but ain't that just the way?
20 - Vern Halen
Sorry, Duane, maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I'm in agreement with a lot (but not all) of what you say - the point that I was making is that the religious fervor seems to have transferred itself right into the fabric of the socio-political life of Western civilization. That teacher who didn't want to observe the minute of silence was treated like.....well, a heretic. Maybe we as a society haven't come as far as we'd like to think.
21 - bhw
I think it boils down to the fervor you mention, Duane. It doesn't matter if it's religious or political or even pop-cultural. Conformity seems to rule the day here, and if you dare to step outside and express a thought that strays from the "mainstream," then, as you say, you're treated like a heretic.
Who did that teacher think she was, questioning the moment of silence like that? Why couldn't she just keep her mouth shut and go along with everyone else?
I don't care what the subject is, as long as "everyone is doing it," you'd better do it, too.
22 - Mac Diva
Hmmm. I was going to italicize this to show I was quoting, but. . . .
"I don't care what the subject is, as long as "everyone is doing it," you'd better do it, too."
I think that sums it up. Americans love to blather about being individualists, but let anyone actually show a hint of individualism in most settings, and that person will be punished for it.
As for the oft made claim that leftists are stifling speech right and left, I have at least two problems with it:
*There are few actual leftists in the country and most of them lack the power to stifle anything.
*When one examines actual data about free speech issues in public schools, the incidents usually involve attempts by the far Right to impose their views.
The most common is Confederate flag conflicts. That is because there's a leader of the neo-Confederate movement, Kirk Lyons, who makes a practice of promoting those confrontations.
23 - Mac Diva
And, oh, the rule being cited in the effort to 'get' the teacher is not on point. She did not 'endorse' any person or party.
Duane, I disagree. The ritual is the message. It says we are all united in believing XYZ. Recall "Fahrenheit 451." To be identified by the thought police as deviant, one of the things people did was not participate in the interactive television programs. This example is like that, as are gratuitous displays of 'patriotism' at public events.
bhw, see if you can find your bake sale entry. I take the opposite position. Here is one of mine. Will try to locate an entry withl more explanation. We will compare. (Blogger has horrible archives, so a simple search did not work.)
A historical point I don't think has been mentioned yet is that most 'patriotic' rituals do not date from the founding of the country. They began during the Cold War. They were mainly about Us Against Them. The meaning has expanded to include Us Against Us. I think RJ Elliott amply demonstrates Us Against Us in the comment where he sneers at doing anything to help the minority poor while praising a ritual of silence for the Challenger astronauts. Some Us-es (Americans) are to be praised. Some are to be sneered at. Among those to be sneered at are those who dissent.
24 - Shark
Just a correction for Mac what's her name:
Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" had NOTHING to do with thought police and interactive television; it was about 'firemen' who burned all books and libraries.
(I think our most esteemed journalist/attorney/law professor/writer/neo-confederate inquisitor was talking about 1984?)
carry on.
25 - Duane
MacDiva says, "It says we are all united in believing XYZ." I don't think it's a display of believing anything beyond that we sometimes show respect for our dead. This occurs at funerals, for example, where, although Uncle Skip may have been the occasional asshole, we still stand around with somber demeanors, and no one will interrupt the eulogy and say, "Hey, Skip ditched his first wife and didn't pay child support!" If someone were to do that, it would be viewed as disrespectful to others in attendance who may not share this view of Good Ole Skip. That's because it would be disrespectful. Save it for one-on-one conversation over the punchbowl later on. When the deceased is a national figure, the "ritual" may encompass the entire country. It's just as disrespectful to pipe up during a moment of silence, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be for one to countenance a show of respect for the mourned one. In the case of the teacher, she could save it for the lunchroom.
In this case, the word "dissent" is too grand a term for what is merely basic rudeness. If teacher wants to dissent, she can submit an article to the local paper, or blog it, or whatever. I don't know if there are regulations regarding high school teachers disseminating their political views to students, but I would prefer it if they would can it, and teach the coursework. Does this curtail their right to free speech? You bet. The students do not have an across-the-board right to free speech, either. Can Melissa blab her way through English class, then respond to Ms. Beasley, "I think you're a crappy teacher, and I don't want to sit through this silly ritual of yours"? Do you defend her right to dissent, to defy tradition, or would you agree that she's merely being rude? She has the right to take her opinion to whomever she wants, but there's a time and a place for it. It's not a free speech issue. It's just good manners vs. bad. On the other hand, I think the school board should just let it go. If rules start getting written, then the whole ritual becomes that much more pointless.