
SEND EMAIL

Think of this site like shareware. If you
like it, donate. If you don't, don't.
To see all
the links and
previous
stories, return to the Home Page

|
Wrongmont.Com

Freedom of Speech,
Unless You Teach
4/1/07 - Attached is an image of the Bill Of Rights. I
know, some of you have to turn your heads or cover your ears and yell "la la
la la", but here, in part, is the First Amendment: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
How might this apply to the recent story of a Longmont teacher under fire?
(Daily Times-Call 3/23/07 "
Global warming
on trial") The newspaper was exercising their "freedom of the press",
also part of the First Amendment, in reporting the story. The students were
expressing their freedom of speech, in a lively debate and mock trial on
this issue. The teacher and CSU student aide were expressing their freedom
of speech and agreed that they presented both sides equally. The teacher
even explained his neutrality in the classroom on the subject to a parent.
So far so good.
The teachers freedom of speech, apparently, has
its limits. Even though he threw in the disclaimer " What I think is
not the issue. It's what the students dig up and how they present the case",
it was the following statement that got all of the attention: " I
don't believe in Darwinism..." First thoughts that came to my mind
were the lines from a song:" I don't believe in Bible / Jesus /
Kings / Elvis / Kennedy." To many, these words are inspired,
enlightened phrases, and artists should be protected enough to utter such
things freely. Others may find these words, dare I say, religious or
spiritual, equally worthy of encouragement and protection. The above citizen
was exercising the full range of his First Amendment
rights. But this was British subject, non US Citizen (at that time), John
Lennon. A true genius, but not a PhD, and definitely not a grade school
teacher. Double standard? But I digress.
With that one comment, this teachers detractors
pounced and threw out the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub, and the
bathroom. The vitriol is beyond belief as it's escalated way past civil
disagreement. Are these detractors First Amendment rights covered when it
drifts into libel and slander? I won't repeat some of the
vile namecalling and attacks on this teacher and his family, you'll just
have to trust me or look it up yourself. Oddly, these are the same people
that usually scream the loudest for their right of freedom of speech, but
you better not disagree with them. I'll also point out that much of
this started before the second article ran (Daily Times-Call 3/27/07 "
Debunking Darwin"),
where the teacher probably sent these people right over the edge.
The attack then switched to a book (and its
cover art) the teacher wrote totally outside and separate from his school
work. "District standards" (an oxymoron worthy of another discussion) being
what they are, make it pretty clear what can and cannot be taught in our
government schools. Has there been any evidence that this teacher has
brought his outside opinions into the classroom? Appears that he's gone
pretty far not to bring his beliefs into the teaching environment.
Which brings us back to the First Amendment. Above and
beyond these so-called district standards, after covering the material
required, are teachers barred from exercising any First Amendment
rights? Namely speech and religion? Don't give me the "wall of
separation" nonsense, unless you can find that in the Declaration of
Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights (you can't, it's not there).
The question is which example do we want taught
to our children: Keep your mouth shut and follow the rules no matter if
they're fair or just? That only certain free speech is acceptable (not
including yelling "fire" in a theater of course)? Or that you should get
multiple sides to the story, question and debate, and draw your own
conclusions? The last example is pretty close to what was reported in the
6th grade debate. It is ironic that this whole episode sprouted from the
topic of global warming, only in that many call it the "new
religion". Or is that debate also closed for discussion?
Personally, I see a possible First Amendment battle in the
making. If not here by this teacher, perhaps somewhere else with another
one. First, harm has to be shown to get that ball rolling. Since this
teacher is soon retiring, his firing is unlikely. Keep your eye on this
subject, it's far from over.
Copyright ©2002-2008 Wrongmont.Com. All rights reserved.
|
DISCLAIMER: The opinions in this site are of the authors, anonymous sources, and random thoughts or rumors from our visitors. The information and stories have been gathered as accurately as possible, but all details can not be verified or guaranteed. What is important is the BIG picture and what's wrong with it.... Read the following at your own risk. By reading this disclaimer you agree to not hold liable the authors/webmaster in any way. We present the following for informational gathering purposes only. Make up your own mind. Draw your own conclusions. Make your opinions known. No unauthorized reproduction of any materials on this site is allowed without the written consent of the authors/webmaster. |