Check this out.
The Left has no respect for freedom of speech that it disagrees with. This is well-known.
I wonder. Would anti-war posters depicting the US military as mindless, genocidal buffoons have been censored? Or is on-campus censorship only applicable to those with right-of-center political views?
As we wage a global war on terror, we have battles to fight on the homefront as well. Battles that will decide just how free we are, if at all.
This young man paints a disturbing picture of comtemporary America's intolerance for "politically incorrect" viewpoints. Let's hope this was an exception, and not the rule.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bhw
That kid is amazing. The posters were pointed and hilarious. It sounds like he's only a freshman, too. He's right; he should have been able to post his signs. And the teacher was completely wrong and made a fool of herself. As a person of "authority," she should not be allowed to get on her soapbox and then tear down someone else's rebuttals.
In fairness, only some on the Left would agree with her tactics. And there are some on the Right who also try to squelch the expression of ideas they don't like [heaven forbid we discuss birth control in health class].
Some of the worst lessons you can teach kids in school is that their opinions don't matter, that they're too young to really have formed an opinion of their own, or that their opinions are so offensive that they need to be silenced.
This kid is so politically engaged at a young age -- I wonder what dinner table conversations are like at his house.
2 - bhw
Just a suggestion, RJ: it would have helped if you had summarized the story in a short paragraph in your blog entry. I actually clicked the "this is well-known" link first, but the "check this out" link was really the point and was FAR more interesting.
3 - boomcrashbaby
Well, the kid did learn one thing about the Right early on, that is for sure. Spreading his viewpoint through a quite over-exaggerated slam on the opposing side, rather than with sound information...the Right has taught him well.
4 - bhw
Yeah, but the details don't matter. The important point is that he had the right to express his opinions.
Plus, he was reacting to the teacher's talking about Chomsky. She shouldn't be teaching her political opinions in class. She can teach Chomsky's, but she shouldn't teach hers.
5 - bhw
BTW, last week I wrote a piece where I defended a teacher who gave her political opinion in school. That's because she objected to the mandatory moment of silence for Ronald Reagan that the principal announced over the loudspeaker. I defended her because the moment of silence is itself a political statement, and the teacher was being "investigated" by the school board for her political speech while the principal wasn't being investigated for his.
If a teacher isn't allowed talk about his or her political opinion, then s/he shouldn't be compelled to silently support anyone else's.
And the same goes for students. If the teacher can speak, so should they be able to speak.
6 - boomcrashbaby
I agree he had the right to express his opinion. Just offering my opinion on how he chooses to express his.
7 - bhw
Okie doke.
So are you saying that the Right talks like a 14-year-old boy, or vice versa?
8 - boomcrashbaby
How far can one go in expressing opinion in a public school, bhw?
If a teacher advocates a religion, then a student should be able to counter, right? Same with politics?
But then what about orientation? If a teacher said something about me, does a student get equal time to quote the bible? Can a student use his freedom of speech to condemn me as a person in public? What if I were a student sitting next to him?
Now instead, replace the word orientation with the word liberal. He's putting up posters insinuating that liberals are against saving children. Sounds to me like he's slandering their character rather than promoting his pro-war viewpoint with information. If he is to be the rallying cry of the Right for 'liberal censorship', well, then I'm not surprised.
9 - bhw
I don't agree with his opinions, but public school teachers aren't supposed to teach their political [or religious] opinions. That's indoctrination.
His teacher, according to him, went on about how right Chomsky is. She opened the door to political opinion, and then when someone who didn't agree with her tried to rebutt, she tore down the signs. She wants her political opinion to be the only one discussed, and that's wrong.
Why should he have to sit there and listen to her politics and not have a chance to rebutt?
I also didn't see those posters as being slanderous. The one about pushing the Jews off the planet [or however it went] crossed the line, but it seems like he otherwise tried to push buttons without getting personal or slanderous.
Students shouldn't be able to create a so-called hostile or threatening environment for others in public school, but they do it all the time -- it just usually has nothing to do with national or global politics. Instead, it's about who's not cool or some stupid thing. They're kids, they're mean, and someone's always on the least favored list.
It seems to me like the hostility in this case came from the people who didn't like what the kid said or how he said it. And in typical public school fashion, the discussion was squelched and an actual opportunity for the kids to learn something meaningful -- like how to think, analyze, and debate controversial ideas -- was squandered.
10 - bhw
"But then what about orientation? If a teacher said something about me, does a student get equal time to quote the bible? Can a student use his freedom of speech to condemn me as a person in public? What if I were a student sitting next to him?"
If the teacher decides to make a statement about someone's sexual orientation, either outing them, praising them, or condemning them -- which s/he should not be doing in a classroom -- then YES, the other students should have the opportunity to chime in. Why shouldn't they, even if they have something to say you don't like? Why shouldn't you have a chance to speak, too?
11 - boomcrashbaby
I agree with your overall premise but it seems to be all encompassing.
A student can counter if a teacher talks about:
faith/belief system
political affiliation/preference
orientation/identification
evolution (counter with creationism?)
Does a med school teacher, educating about stem cells have to allow a med student to speak out on the behalf of Right to Life group?
Doesn't sound like a school where people learn, sounds like a debate where people go to present what they already know.
Just an aside because it's kind of related:
I am a human being. I do believe in Free Speech. However that doesn't mean I'm required to respect what one says. As an example, if a teacher tells the sociology class about experiences I go through because of my orientation - for educational purposes, and then the school allows the student next to me to stand up and tell the class that I am an abomination before God, and that we all must 'respect' that person's right to his belief, I would sue that teacher, that principal, that school, the system, the PTA, all the parents who just drop their kids off, the custodian and the old lunch lady.
12 - bhw
A student can counter if a teacher talks about:
faith/belief system
political affiliation/preference
orientation/identification
evolution (counter with creationism?)
Yes, especially if the teacher decides to dictate that his or her opinion is correct, as opposed to just teaching the subject matter at hand.
In this case, we're not talking about a teacher just "talking about" something. We're talking about an English teacher saying that one writer's political opinion is correct. That's wrong.
She can teach a writer's politics without teacher her own. Even so, if you want to teach Chomsky, you kind of have to expect that people will disagree with him. He's not exactly middle of the road. And a good teacher WOULD include writers that disagreed with Chomsky. That's one way of getting the debate going without the teacher spouting off her opinion.
In a science class, teachers should teach evolution because that's the accepted theory *in science* about how we got here. And they should make sure the students know it's still only a theory. But if some kid counters with Creationism, he should be told to be quiet? No, I think the teacher should address the situation briefly and then send the kid to his/her parents or religious leader to talk about why his/her religion disagrees with science [and not the other way around].
Ideally, science [and all subjects] wouldn't be taught in a vacuum. It would be taught in the context of the world in which we live, so that students could discuss ethics, competing theories, etc. But we're so friggin' focused on multiple-choice test scores that we forget that learning should happen in context and that students are trying to fit all the pieces of the world around them together.
Re: your aside: A teacher should NEVER single a student out as an example like that. Who wants to be the poster child for homophobia or whatever the subject is? If s/he does, of course some kids will disagree. If the teacher wants to teach about sexual orientation and societal mistreatment, then s/he should use non-students in any examples.
In general, though, if you're teaching controversial subject matter -- and homosexuality is quite the polarizing subject, as you know -- then you kind of have to allow debate. The best questions you can ask kids are "what do you think?" and "why?" even if you don't like what they say in response. It's worse to stifle ideas you don't like than it is to hear them, in my opinion.
13 - bhw
"Does a med school teacher, educating about stem cells have to allow a med student to speak out on the behalf of Right to Life group?"
Well, we're talking about public schools, not medical schools, so everything is different once you take public schools and kids 18 and younger out of the picture. Also, you're talking about teaching science/medicine, which is not the same as teaching the political opinion of the teacher.
That said, the medical school doesn't have to allow anything it doesn't want. But shouldn't medical schools address ethics and societal issues, too? Or should their courses just teach scientific study and research? I think I want my doctors to have participated in those types of debates so that they know why they do what they do and how it fits into their sense of ethics vs. the ethics in their community at large of their patients.
Maybe the right to life vs. stem cell discussion doesn't belong in the lab itself, but I don't see why it doesn't belong at med school at all.
14 - bhw
"the ethics in their community at large of their patients."
Should be "...AND of their patients."
15 - boomcrashbaby
well, I never was singled out like that of course, but this is very similiar to a discussion I had on a surrogacy board. Even if the topic isn't about me personally, but if a teacher allows a student to condemn other human beings (gay people) as an abomination, as a 'viewpoint' to be considered, well sorry, but I think that's wrong. I'm going to be a bit biased about that though. I see the posters spreading lies about liberals here in the same vein. I'm all for free speech, but I don't think that intolerance, misinformation and hateful slander should be allowed as a 'point-counterpoint' option for consideration as a valid viewpoint.
"the ethics in their community at large of their patients."
So if we were in the stereotypical rural southern white school, then the advocation of racism in the school would be okay because it happens to be the ethics of the majority of parents? Hmmm. If I'm in the minority opinion here, it looks like yet another reason why I should homeschool my daughter.
On the surrogacy board, I presented this topic to the women like this:
Imagine you are sitting in a restaurant with your husband and your kids. A woman walks up to your table and sits in your husband's lap, slides her tongue down his throat and just basically starts making out. Why? Because she doesn't acknowledge your relationship with him, she doesn't believe in it. What do YOU do then? Now imagine that everybody else in the restaurant turns to you, places a restraining hand on your arm and says 'now, she is entitled to her opinion. We should respect it'. How does that make you feel as a person?
16 - boomcrashbaby
This is what I'm trying to get at:
If a teacher advocates a position, then a student should be able to counter that position with an opposing viewpoint, rather than countering with a concept that those who hold that teacher's position are baby-killers. See what I mean?
I think one of the things wrong with this country is that there is a large contingent of conservatives (i.e. Foxnews, Coulter, etc.) who do not offer substantative pro-conservative viewpoints as much as they offer anti-liberal viewpoints. I think when this mentality becomes accepted by the country as a valid counterpoint, it leads to more polarization, more division, more animosity, and makes the world a more miserable place to be.
I guess if the student wanted to put up posters advocating conservatism and a pro-war stance with information on the posters, I would agree with you more and be more on his side, but as it stands now, I'm becoming more convinced that there are really just two viewpoints anymore. Liberal and anti-liberal. When was the last time Tucker Carlson or Robert Novak was able to offer facts to substantiate their opinion rather than just attack the other side? I can't even remember. It's just detrimental to us all when that type of mentality is accepted as a valid counterpoint.
17 - Ms. Tek
SHUT UP PINKO!!!
18 - Mark Saleski
AMERICA-HATER!!!
;-)
19 - Mark Saleski
hoo boy! this is fun!!
20 - bhw
Boom, you're starting to fade away on me.
"I see the posters spreading lies about liberals here in the same vein. I'm all for free speech, but I don't think that intolerance, misinformation and hateful slander should be allowed as a 'point-counterpoint' option for consideration as a valid viewpoint."
Well, who gets to decide what a valid viewpoint is? And which ones get silenced and which ones don't? Lots of people think Chomsky doesn't have a valid viewpoint. Should his writing not be taught in school?
"So if we were in the stereotypical rural southern white school, then the advocation of racism in the school would be okay because it happens to be the ethics of the majority of parents?"
I was specifically talking about the issue of medical students and medical school, which I stated was different from public schools and public school students. I responded to your question about stem cell research.
And I also said in an earlier comment that a hostile environment should not be allowed to be created in public schools.
And your surrogacy analogy has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of whether or not a public school student should be able to disagree with his teacher's political opinions and put posters up with his own.
And how anybody feels as a person should have little to no bearing on whether or not another person has a right to put posters up, provided that there is no threat to safety, etc. Hurt feelings? Unfortunate, but that's real life.
You keep forgetting that the teacher didn't just teach Chomsky's views: she presented them as being correct. I still haven't heard you say she was wrong for doing that or that she opened the door for the students to speak up.
"If a teacher advocates a position, then a student should be able to counter that position with an opposing viewpoint, rather than countering with a concept that those who hold that teacher's position are baby-killers. See what I mean?"
No, because the kid didn't do any of that. His posters were political speech and attacked anti-war sentiment. He made no personal attacks on anyone. He merely mocked the opposing point of view by exaggerating their claims. I thought his posters were pretty effective, and I don't even agree with the kid.
Again, who gets to decide whether or not someone's counterpoint is valid? How do you propose to teach students to think about what they believe and say if you won't let them say it?
Censorship is usually a bad idea. Nobody learns anything when only one point of view is permitted or is given complete freedom while others are silenced or restricted.
21 - boomcrashbaby
Well, who gets to decide what a valid viewpoint is? And which ones get silenced and which ones don't? Lots of people think Chomsky doesn't have a valid viewpoint. Should his writing not be taught in school?
Truthfully, I am unfamiliar with Chomsky's work so I don't know if he should be taught as valid or not. I can't comment on that aspect.
And your surrogacy analogy has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of whether or not a public school student should be able to disagree with his teacher's political opinions and put posters up with his own.
It was an example to try and illustrate the difference between putting up posters or speaking in favor of a topic, versus attacking the character/person who holds an opposing view. Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being.
Hurt feelings? Unfortunate, but that's real life.
Not so much hurt feelings, but rather disseminating misinformation. I just don't think misinformation should be considered a valid viewpoint.
You keep forgetting that the teacher didn't just teach Chomsky's views: she presented them as being correct. I still haven't heard you say she was wrong for doing that or that she opened the door for the students to speak up.
Actually, I didn't comment on that because 1) I am unfamiliar with Chomsky, and 2) all I could see in the guys blog was that the teacher said Chomsky was articulate. I didn't really see that as promoting Chomsky's viewpoint, for all I know she could have been commenting on his grammar.
No, because the kid didn't do any of that. His posters were political speech and attacked anti-war sentiment. He made no personal attacks on anyone. He merely mocked the opposing point of view by exaggerating their claims.
Well this made me laugh. Sorry, bhw. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, there were no personal attacks. He didn't say the teacher was a baby killer, he didn't say I was a baby killer, etc. he said liberals were. Generically speaking. I'm talking about the harm of attacking an opposing viewpoint with exaggeration and misinformation. You confirmed that is what he did. I don't see that as productive. It might fall under free speech, but I don't see it as beneficial to promoting his viewpoint.
Censorship is usually a bad idea. Nobody learns anything when only one point of view is permitted or is given complete freedom while others are silenced or restricted.
Actually in comment 6, I agreed that he shouldn't have been censored. I just don't see it as an effective counterpoint. Did the teacher refer to all students who don't like Chomsky as bible-thumping, venom-spewing fanatic fundamentalists? Probably not.
I know there are liberals who do exactly what I'm talking about. Michael Moore comes to mind, and people would probably put Al Franken on the list, but I can't say as I've never heard Franken's show. However, when you look at the media in general, and how people rant against it's liberal bias, I see in the media, people like Brokaw or whatever promoting liberalism. Not attacking conservatism. By and large, it's not the same in reverse.
While it's free speech and it's the way the world is, I'm just saying I think it's largely responsible for many of the fucked up problems we face in this world.
22 - Dwaine AKA Scooter AKA D.J.
We will never be free. Although we're in the "most free" country in the world, free speech is just an illusion.
Sure you can say whatever you want, but you would have to worry about the government watching your back. Just look at history. Remember the communist scare of the Cold War? I Know for a fact that there are many other stories of the government crushing those who use free speech against against the government threateningly. But those stories have not been released. Oh well. Who cares? As long as we're all happy with sexual pleasures and television. Yay!!!
23 - Evil Twin Ms Tek
SHUT UP YOU PINKO COMMIE!! I BET YOUR MAMA SUCKED OFF GOOKS IN 'NAM!! THAT IS WHY YOU ARE A PINKO! YOUR MAMA'S TASTE FOR ROOT WAS INHERITED!
You ought to be happy that we don't just dive up to your house, drag your gay ass out, and have an old fashion lynching preceded by you being sodomized with various farming implements! Now you want "free speech"? Just cause we ain't chasing you anymore doesn't mean you're one of us, butt bandit. There is US and then there is YOU and YOU ain't one of US.
Now, why don't you do something that you are good at... like fix someone's hair or decorate someone's house, or put on a dress and pretend that you are a woman.
Pinko!
SHUT UP!
24 - Dwaine AKA Scooter AKA D.J.
Hey, I'm not Communist. It's just that everything is flawed. There's no such thing as a true democracy, and if there is (or was), it's highly unsucessful. Why? Because WE are flawed as humans. That's also why Communism bombed so bad.
25 - Dwaine AKA Scooter AKA D.J.
P.S. You weren't talkin' to me by the way, right, "Evil Twin Ms. Tek"?