Quote:
|
No, I find it scary that a man can potentially loose his job because of his political views.
|
No he potentially lost his job not because of the way he voted, but by doing something other than what he is paid to do.
Quote:
And all because one man tried to get his class to "think about these issues more in-depth."
Isn't that what education is?
Or perhaps we should rename the American Education System to the American Indoctrination System?
|
Thinking about issues more in depth is one thing. There are MANY topics in the geopolitical world in which would be a better solution to talk about.
Talking about how the WTC was a legitimate military target and implying that everyone in the class who supports Bush are brown shirt nazi's is NOT a good way to begin conversations. That is what he was doing when he was so "innocently" making kids think in depth.
Look you can argue what you want to believe. The fact of the matter is starting a political conversation does not begin with attacks on the other person. The fact is in a geography AP class (I took them just a couple years ago) there are MANY more legitimate and useful discussions one can use.
I.E. talk about the geo-political split in the country between conservative and liberal. Discuss stronghold regions and why they are so. Arguing that the WTC deserved to be bombed does. Now... one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. Can you guess which?
Reminds me of when we had a teacher move down from Mass. and started out a discussion about slavery by first pointing to all the white kids in class and saying "your great grandparents did this, your wealth only exists off the backs of these poor slaves". And people wonder why the south tends to be hostile to Yanks.