Was HS Teacher Suspended For Telling Untruths To His Students?
 

Listen to the 20 minute recording of Teacher Bennish's remarks, here:
http://www.startcolorado.com/iac/KOA-AM/Geo-Teacher.MP3
Bennish apparently did not have knowledge that his remarks were being recorded.

Local KOA Radio Talkshow host Mike Rosen provided forum for father of student to submit recording of Bennish's remarks for broadcast:
http://2005.koaradio.com/pages/shows_rosen.html

Profile of Mike Rosen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rosen

An "indicator" that Mike Rosen was not airing Bennish's remarks as a "fair and balanced" public service:
My "take" is that Bennish does not appear to have said anything to his students that was a lie, especially if the loose standard that Bush supporters allow for remarks by members of the Bush administration, especially when their remarks are related to justification for "pre-emptive" invasion of other sovereign, nations.

Bennish qualified his remarks by telling his students that he was,<b>"not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to do is get you to think about these issues more in-depth."</b>

It seems to me that Bennish's remarks rose to a national level of attention because his student and that student's father who were politically and idealogically opposed to what Bennish was secretly recorded saying, were able to bring the recording to a talkshow host who was sympathetic and chose, for his own perceived gain in ratings and notoriety, to publicly air the remarks by Bennish, accompaied by his own feigned outrage at the ideas that Bennish conveyed.

The question of balance, especially in a predominantly "chistian", mostly white, mostly upper middle class, American heartland community, is amusing to me. Where, in a land that enjoys Foxnews version of "balance", and the "trust me" messages of the Bush-Cheney dominated corporate media, would the students be exposed to what Bennish told them, with qualifications at the end of his remarks. The "balance" is already all around these students, to offset the influence of the ideas that Bennish introduced.

Should the student and his father kept the recording "in house", submitted to the high school's administraion. Did Bennish offer an "unbalanced" set of ideas to his students, as if in a vacuum? Did Bennish mislead his students?

Boy, I don't know. I mean, I'm as anti-Bush as you get, but I don't really think teachers should be spouting off like that to students in class. Is it suspension-worthy? Tough to say. I can see arguments on both sides.

On the other hand, if a teacher talks about how great our President is, and how we should respect him, and how honorable he is, blah blah blah, there's never going to be a suspension. How come only someone criticizing the Prez will get in trouble?

But the teacher still shouldn't have spouted off like that.

i wonder if the same would have happened if the roles were reversed and a pro bush teacher spoke his mind.

peoples opinions are skewed towards one opinion or another whether we like to think so or not. to lose your job over voicing your interpretation is not reason enough to lose your teaching position.

im getting eery reminders of the SS police and gestapo in hitlers Germany.... maybe he's right after all...

Even those that consider themselves to be on the "left" are gonna go after this guy. None of us wants to admit that the system (capitalism) that keeps our bellies full and our houses warm isn't working for the great majority of the earth's population.

Sometimes I think free speech is only free until the right group of people get pissed off.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

The guy was preaching his politics in a way that he knew was against district policy.

Some one said what if he was pro bush, but that begs the "what if" question. I can pose alot of "what-if's", but it seems the only real question is a) is the policy fair and b) did he violate it.

Yes and yes.

Not all stories have 'balance', so that requirement of the teaching having balance from the spokeswoman is really unreasonable (read: ABSURD). How many times has a HS teacher taught both sides of the story on Hitler and the final solution? There are two sides, but one side is Nazi propoganda that teaches that there was no holocaust and that the Jews are evil and unworthy of life, and has no place in schools. This is the same thing. "harsh words about capitalism, U.S. foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq" are truths, and therefore the children should be exposed to them. All they get all day on the idiot media channels is the "other side" of the argument. This teacher is trying to teach, so let him teach.

Shame on a system that forces teachers to filter the truth from students. This is why Bush was elected in the first place.

I look forward to posts of articles that report on teachers losing or advancing their careers by promoting Bush, Capitalism, official U.S. Foreign or Domestic policies, the justification for the invasion of Iraq, warrantless searches, justification for a torture "exemption" for Gitmo, justification of a secret CIA network of foreign prisons, making tax cuts permanent, prayer in school, Christian centric agendas, or statements that are anti-democratic party candidates or political issues, anti-choice.....etc.

In the meantime.....a consolation is that teachers who lose their jobs because of the one-sided politically influenced policies in the "heartland", are winning some nice legal settlements:
(The anecdotes about the parents concern me more than the agenda of the dominant political forces.)

A teacher spouting personal political beliefs at the students is not acceptable. Not in a geography class. If you won't accept religious tirades in the classroom, then how can you accept this?

I haven't listened to the recording, but I would like to ask those that have whether the lecture was within the context of a geography class?

Geography =! Politics class.

It had no relevancy to what he was SUPPOSED to be teaching.

He was preaching in a manner that made no positive traction. You wont be able to have a debate with someone who says Bush = Hitler as proven here until said statement is ignored or retracted (notice it's never retracted?).

Good he's fired. If he had said Hilery = Hitler would you honestly be so against this?

Seaver, I am not following your line of thinking. Would you be so kind as to clarify your meaning?

It seems that the topic wasn't appropriate for the class, and even if it was that was a rant and not a lecture. He didn't encourage discussion, and the only questions he asked were answered by himself in a way that fit into his rant's agenda. He says that all he wanted to do was encourage them to think about the topics, but this was a poor way to do it and no matter how he qualified it he was most certainly taking a position.

I don't know that a suspension was an appropriate punishment, but he definitely should have been talked to and encouraged to make his lessons more constructive.

Amazingly, I live very near and go to work daily in Bloomington and I've never heard of the Mayer situation. Undoubtedly, there is more to the story than is being told because traditionally Bloomington and Monroe County in general are very liberal and a given to vote Democratic in every election. With a major liberal arts college [Indiana University] in town you could expect nothing less. Nevertheless, politics aren't why we send our children to school, particularly grade school. No wonder our schools are trailing the rest of the world in the core subjects, it seems our teachers are more worried about spewing political bullshit than teaching.

It was 20 minutes of how terrible we Americans are because of our capitalistic way of life and how justified they was to fly the planes into the WTC. You didn't miss a whole lot. The lecture, if you choose to call it that, would have been more suited towards a current affairs class rather than geography.

Actually, I'm not so sure the policy is fair. But he violated the policy, and that's enough for me. And I largely agree with the guy.

Now: the furor over this is absolutely ridiculous. It's a Bill O'Reilley war-on-Christmas-style manufactured right-wing news event. He didn't say Bush IS Hitler. He compared the content and tone of the two mens' speeches. He qualified his remarks He was careful not to speak as though his opinion was the absolute truth. This is getting turned into something it's not.

actually, you could make a serious analytic argument about the similarities between the discourse of the american petit bourgeois right and its fascist antecedents...if i were going to do this myself, however, i would prefer to do it in an upper-level university undergraduate seminar so i could assign some texts along side it so as to provide maximum intepretative latitude for the students.

the standard text for discourse analysis of fascism is jean-pierre faye's "le discours totalitaire"--which i think is in english, but i am not sure---it is a word count-base statistical modelling experiment geared toward outlining the constants in fascist speech.

another, shorter work that repeats the same operations, but which relies on faye to define/weight terms is pierre bourdieu's "the political ontology of martin heidegger"--which is a very interesting book that tries to argue for a correlation between the conceptual development in being and tmie and heidegger's attraction to--and recycling of---elements drawn from national socialist discourse. the argument=that rehearsing the discourse has effects that are recapitulated (unwittingly?) in heidegger's philosophical work.

i think that contemporary america nconservative discourse--the stuff you run into on right media--is a variant of fascism.
period.
this does not include all positions that would identify as conservative, nor does it mean that everyone who uses that discourse is necessarily a fascist---rather, the discourse itself--its mode of staging signifiers, its choices regarding central questions that are used to define all others, etc. is squarely within a fascist tradition. most political discourses that try to elevate the notion of nation/community/"us" to a transcendent register and then to operationalize a continuous process of reinforcing a sense of belonging by defining and excluding an enemy that is within and without, etc. would fall under that rubric. fascism is simply a variant of nationalism that elevates the notion of nation to a transcendent status. bushspeech is all about that. so it all contemporary convservative media discourse.

but this is why i find the bush=hitler thing to be simpleminded.
superficial and hyperbolic, all it does is enable the folk who really SHOULD worry about the degree to which their politics are shaped by an avatar of fascism to dismiss the entire question.

on the other hand, it is sometimes clear that what the extreme right in the states hates is the word fascism, not the fact of it.

as for the topic raised in the op--i am ambivalent on this. for the most part, i deplore the action of the population of this town. on the other hand, i think you need to be much more careful than this guy was in framing the questions he wanted to address.
the question only gets worse if you are careful about how to set it up.
and it is always better to present information to students, let them fight with it and work out interpretations for themselvs based on actual information than it is to simply tell them stuff from the lect-urn.

Eh, i don't think he lied, except for maybe being unclear as to how america is the most violent nation on the earth. I don't know if politics is outside the scope of a geography class; clearly the two subjects are inherently connected.

What dont you follow?

The fact you cant have a discussion with someone who views the WTC as a legitimate military target? That these rants would create a hostile learning environment in the same way as attempting to legitimize slavery in a music class... topics that have nothing to do with each other like his geography class.

The fact that he openly and willingly broke the school code. The fact that kids dont just record their teachers, which says this was a daily occurance.

What dont you get?

I don't get this:

If a teacher broke the rules by creating a hostile learning environment by arguing Hillery = Hitler would you be so against her being fired? He's not teaching anything to these children, he's sure as hell not teaching Geography which is what he's paid for.

Read: the effects of human activity. Capitolism, terrorism, politics...all are effects of human activity.

The most hostile learning environment of all is one of limited information and maximum control. Learing is about the whole story...about full truth and the exploration of said truth. My little brothers text book states that the war in Iraq was over weapons that WE FOUND. There must be a counter point to this absurdity. This teacher is one such counterpoint. Is it an extreme counterpoint? That depends on your perspective. I don't think so. You do. Why not let the kids decide for themselves? BTW, of course the WTC was a legitimate target for terrorists.
The fact is that the school code is dangerous. There are two sides to every story, and this teacher was covering one side. I would have killed for a teacher like this back in HS. I only had one teacher willing to level with us about political and social reality, and he was my AP physics teacher. I don't know crap about physics today, but what he taught has helped me immensly in my development.

My issue is more this: OK, he may have broke school board policy. Was this the first time?

If the board felt so strongly that he was out of line they should have addressed the issue of balance. Suspending him is the equivalent of sticking their heads in the sand. Have him reassess his lesson and make a lesson of the whole incident. Why did this reaction occur compared to that reaction? Why do some feel it was supporting the "liberal" stance vs. a "conservative" stance. What are the bias at play in any discussion. How does the media effect the public discourse. Hopefully you can see where this is going...

Instead of just trying to "hush it up" address it head on. We want classrooms full of critical thinkers. Students that can look at all the many colours of the political spectrum and appreciate it like the colour wheel (able to mix colours to make new ones) --- have I stretched this analogy too far?

Having listened to what he said, it wasn't that far off. Bush, and many other politicians have used the kind of rhetoric and PR manipulation that Hitler and his cronies used to win and hold power in Wiemar Germany.

He clearly made the point that he was not saying Hitler=Bush. That would be a facile comparison by any stretch. He also makes some valid criticisms of capitolism and democracy. Pure capitolism is heartless. Democratic nations can and are violent.

His only fault was in the assumption of the counter argument or context. Capitolism is not so heartless when tempered with laws, regulation and a good dose of democracy. Democaratic nations can also be quite peaceful.

It was a poorly taught lesson at worst. No need to suspend.

Earlier, I solicited feedback here:
I've seen nothing posted yet, but it's still possible......

<b>Sorry, Charlatan, on edit, I now see that I misread your question. Now I realize that your asking specifically about Jay Bennish's "record".</b>

We discussed David Horowitz driven legislative intended to control the
ideas that college professors discuss with students here, just over a
year ago, at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83340

After my posts related to Horowitz's "resume", no one posted any
counter arguments on that thread, in support of Horowitz.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=21
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=32

Horowitz has renewed his PR campaign for his efforts to discredit tenured professors
by portraying them as "un-American" "terrorist sympathizers".
<b>Horowitz is just one cog in a larger effort to control dissenting free speech in the entire country,
conducted as "official policy" by our highest elected and appointed federal officials, compared to the state
of official interference before Jan. 20, 2001, in the process of Americans routinely speaking their minds without government retribution.</b>
The signifigance of the following opinion piece is that it is authored by an instructor at
a conservative, private Christian University located in the POTUS "home" state. The piece is
published in the campus newspaper of that University. Is this an inappropriate communication for
the instructor to students at the university? Is the wave of anger and frustration growing too big
for "counter-measures" like those on display from Horowitz, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, to contain it?

Here are Poll resutls on the local Denver CBS TV website, as to the question of whether Jay Bennish Should be fired because of his controversial remarks "about President Bush", to his class:

http://cbs4denver.com/local/polls_poll_061105430

The results are currently 72% to 20%. I'll leave it to you to check out/vote...... the poll for yourselves.

I'm glad this question has been brought up a few times.
The truth of the matter is this was not a "geography" class.
It's a world geography class, or human geography class.
The syllabus explains this is a political-geography class. It's about how to situation our notions of place within the human context. This class is not the kind of geography class many of you seem to be thinking of when you write these comments and questions. It's not about learning the capitols of places. It's an AP (advanced placement, college credit) geography/politics class. Many other courses are becoming what are called "synthesis" courses, and hopefully people begin to understand this before they get upset about these new biology/law, chemistry/ethics, geography/politics and etc. courses.

America sounds like a scary place to live in at the moment.

Because people who break the rules are punished?

I suspect it has more to do with the response than the rule brreaking. As Charlatan mentioned before, the best response to this was not to suspend the teacher. The better response was to allow the children to think for themselves.

The kid did think for himself. He decided that his teacher was creating a hostile learning environment and did the correct thing, he reported it to the principal. That's what you do with teachers who are out of line.

For me this is a very comforting thread. When the most critical the left can get over this particular situation is a few paragraphs of neoconservative thought from a book written in french, but perhaps english, follwed by..

"i think you need to be much more careful than this guy was in framing the questions he wanted to address"

Or "Hey it's an AP class, not your typical geography class." (Sad to think your comfortable with this character having the responsibility of guiding our "advanced" students)

...the politics board here makes quite a bit of sense. The predominant view of the world on this board is clearly not reflective of this country in general. Perhaps the reason this mentality finds it's home here. What i find comfort in is the fact that the only people who will ever take yourselves seriously, are yourselves. You guys put alot of effort into it though, I'll give you that.

The predominant stance on many subjects in Tilted Politics may not acurately reflect the average stance of the US, but it does go along well enough with world view...and that fact shoudl carry at least some weight whether you're liberal, conservative, libertarian or authoritarian.

I'd really like to hear all the students thoughts on what happnened, both what the teacher said, and how the situation was dealt with.

"The predominant stance on many subjects in Tilted Politics may not acurately reflect the average stance of the US, but it does go along well enough with world view...and that fact shoudl carry at least some weight whether you're liberal, conservative, libertarian or authoritarian. "

Touche, I have some thoughts on this, but I'll defer the threadjack - and the additional 2 day vaction.

What a coincidence, matthew330, because I read something just 24 hours ago that left me with the exact opposite opinion than you posted. I know that you are wrong, because it is easy to see that the high water mark of the tide of sentiment and an ideology that tolerated no dissent of "official policy", the tide that bestowed on Bush a <a href="http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif">70 percent approval rating</a>, and was stong enough to boot off Phil Donahue and intimidate the Dixie Chicks by attempting to destroy demand for their music CD's and concert tickets because they dare to speak out against Bush....that tide is now at a low ebb, and all that is left is the stench that comes with low tide...the rotten things that are revealed, the things that Jay Bennish exposed his students to. The balance that was concealed by the deliberate intimidation of the corporatists in charge. Adjust to the shift in the tide. Hollywood producers saw that it was beginning...three years ago, and they bet money on it.

A guy that I've come to admire for the clarity of his writing much of the time, wrote about the climate in the USA around the time of the Oscar awards, <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_digbysblog_archive.html#91308807">three years ago...</a>
....and he wrote the following at Oscar awards time, this year:

No, I find it scary that a man can potentially loose his job because of his political views.

What's even scaryer is that the stuff he was saying sounds like a well rationed, non biased critique on the current situation. No rules broken at all.

And still the mob got its way.

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?

As we now know, the kid didn't take it to the principal. He took it home and his father arranged for him to take it to a talk radio station.

There never was a complaint to the school or the school board.

Also left out was the part of the lesson where the teacher turn it back on the students and asked them to refute his position.

The school board buckled under unfavourable criticism from a talk radio station.


Nothing like taking out of context comments and then fucking with a man's career. If the kid had a problem the appropriate venue for his complaint, I agree, should be the principal.

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.

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.

But that's not what he said - please go back and re-read the transcript and come back once you've comprehended it.

If you're not able to do that, I'll help. It's quite simple. I'll bold in the parts that show that he was putting over a different point of view. It's quite a subtle distinction, let's see if you're able to understand what that means...

Here's the WTC text (copied from above - my emphasis)

Does that make things a bit easier?

What if this teacher just happened to spout off how bad abortion is? How wrong it is to take a fetus while in the womb?
Or how about how violent the muslim religion is?
Would the same results occur? And if so how up in arms would the left stringers be? Would the ACLU jump right in? Think they would be fighting for this man's job?
I think not, he got what was coming to him just like if he was to spout off about any other subject that was frowned upon in school policy.

If the teacher were explaining to his class that the fundamentalist right-wing abortion bombers were killing people and threatening violence because they believed that abortion was an abomination. That would be fine. It's reporting a fact isn't it?

If the teacher were expressing an opinion that the Muslim religion was violent, that would be out of place, because it's an opinion.

If the teacher states that the WTC bombers believed that the WTC was a legitimate target - is that opinion, or fact?

If the teacher states that worldwide opinion on US foreign policy has seen better days. Is that opinion, or fact?

You don't appear to be able to tell the difference.

The difference is that in the first case (and in the case of the teacher in this thread) the teacher was expressing facts (people really do feel that way), and in the case of the Muslim bashing, it would be wrong because he is expressing an unjustified (personal) opinion.

If the teacher tried to say that George Bush was a fool, or that Americans were idiots, that would be wrong and he should go. But he wasn't doing that - as the transcripts show quite clearly.

The syllabus explains this is a political-geography class.
Seaver...did you read the OP? Did you read the articles or listen to the recording? Did you read the transcript? All you've done in this thread is strawman.

The parents who complained are obviously more whitless Bush slaves who are an enemies of free thought. "What?! Critical thinking in MY childs school? He's saying Bush isn't the son of God? Something must be done about this!!! They are threatening my values (even thought I don't have any values)!!! I will threaten the district administrators, and they will quickly and easily bow to my will!!!!"

This was an attempt by a good teacher to raise the level of discourse in his classroom, an attempt to actually follow the rule that he is now accoused of breaking. The fact that all these parents are outraged PROVES that these kids get plenty of republican propoganda at home. Let them sample liberal propoganda at school in order to regain some sense of reality.

Its an opinion.

This thread isn't about debating al-qaeda's motives, so I'll keep this brief. but I read your interpretation, nezmot, and the transcript, and the justification of the WTC as a legitimate military target doesn't fit with the rest of alqaeda's actions.

• using civilian aircraft full of passengers as missles
• madrid train bombings
• london attacks

to name 3.

So to get back on topic, no he was not stating fact, he was stating his opinion behind the 9/11 attacks.

but then to al-qaeda anything West is a legitimate target.

No! Once again, you've missed the point - this is getting *really* frustrating.

The teacher *did not* state the opinion that the WTC was a legitimate target.

He stated that the people responsible for it *thought* it was a legitimate target. Which they must have done, or they wouldn't have done it. If they were not able to justify their own actions to themselves, would they have been able to go through with it?

I think it's reasonable for us all to agree that those bombers did what they did deliberately. Perhaps they were coerced into doing it by someone else - but I didn't think that was a commonly held belief.

[edit] Sorry - cross post.

Yes, you get it now. To Al Quaida - it was a legitimate target. That's what the teacher was saying. That, I think we can all agree is probably a reasonable statement, is it not?

You know what? If the teacher was trying to introduce debate in the classroom, why not?

You seem to have missed, although I'm not surprised because it was absent from the recording, that the teacher, after saying what he did, opened the floor to debate.

So yes, with only half of the information about what was said in the classroom, I would expect that so-called "leftist" organizations would be up in arms about similar statement about abortions.


I stand by my assertion that "what he had coming to him" was not a suspension. Perhaps, given further investigation, the guy deserved a reprimand (and even that is highly questionable).

I think everyone should stop and go back to read the transcript of the lecture, just so we can avoid arguing something that has no root in reality.

Given the fact that the teacher states that globalization is an upcoming topic of study, and he makes the point that the State of the Union address is aimed at the whole world (not just the American public), it seems to me that this topic is fair game - global and alternative perpectives on American actions and American political discourse seem like valuable things to even consider.

Besides, it sounded a lot more like a dialogue than a diatribe to me... I'd be surprised if there's anyone here that never had a teacher that opened up a dialogue (at student prompting) on a parallel subject. The claims that suspension was legitimate on the grounds that "Benning wasn't doing what he is paid to do" are a little facile without some sort of evidence that the kids in his class aren't learning the material that's on the syllabus.

And to all the people who seem to be posting in this thread without having listened to the lecture we're discussing - that seems a little presumptuous and rude to me. Please have the courtesy to exert that minimal effort before posting your thoughts.

We all know alqaeda thinks anything not fundamentally muslim is a legitimate target. What I'm arguing as opinion is the rational used to paint the picture of alqaedas rational. To be more clear - that the CIA and FBI have offices in the WTC etc, etc. They don't need any of that. We're infidels, thats all they need. the rest is opinion.

I don't see why this "WTC is a legit target" is an issue here?

The teacher was arguing from one point of view and then asked the class to refute. This is the nature of debate. Regardless of the debate, it was legit as far as Al-Queda is concerned. So what?

Exactly Charlatan - so what? And yet this guy has still been suspended...

You can see from Seaver and other's complete mis-interpretation of what the teacher was saying has forced this teacher out of work. The teacher was reporting things that the students might not have previously heard. With no political bias. And yet, due to the ignorance of the boy who seemed to believe that there was bias, and the following media frenzy, we get this insane situation where someone is suspended for doing their job well.

The WTC is not a legit target. The teacher did not say it was a legit target. The teacher does not believe that the WTC is a legit target. And yet so many people seem to believe that's what he said and thinks. The reason (apparently) why the teacher is suspended is because his non-partisan reporting of facts has been twisted into this insane (and deeply ironic) mess.

The teacher was not arguing anything. He was teaching his students his class.

Here's the extract again:

The point he's making is that the people who commited these atrocious acts did them for their own reasons, reasons that *they* must have thought legitimate.

You'd think it would be obvious. Yet somehow, all these people seem to think the teacher is defending, or condoning the actions of the bombers. He's not. It's simple English comprehension. Why is he being suspended because people are unable to understand their own language?

And so what's wrong with making some tactical assumptions? If it were a history class about WWII, it might be reasonable to say that the War in North Africa was conducted by Rommel and Montgomery in order to secure oil reserves for their respective countries. Yes it might be opinion, but it's not a political one is it?

Are you saying that he should ignore the reasons why the bombers did such atrocious things? Or that we shouldn't try to figure out why they did it? Or that we should believe that they just see us as infidels? Is thinking about different motivations they might have had, displaying a politically biased opinion? Something that could get someone fired?

the problem being run into across positions here is obvious:

at issue is the definition of "terror" or "terrorism" as posited within the shallow waters of bushworld since 9/12/2001----you know the drill, i assume---everything about this "definition" was predicated on stripping away any possible political motivation for the attacks and substituting for them arbitrary, useless attributions as to motive (evil, jealousy, blah blah blah)--all in the interest of sliding this referent under the aegis of the Persecuting Other, which i am increasingly seeing as a central motivating signifier in conservative ideology.

this move was self-evidently false on 9/12/2001. i remember doing a presentation that day (or on the 13th) to a class that had a number of students who were still unsure of whether relatives and/or friends were still alive--- the function of the presentation was to show that a political choice was being made across the construction of this "explanatory" signifier and that the students should consider what they were watching unfold before them as rooted in a political choice---not a rational response to the attacks--but a political response.
and i outlined what the effects of it could be--and it turned out that it has functioned as i thought it would.

then, as now, i considered this point to be essential:

laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them.

since i have no faith in the apprehension of subtlety on the part of the far right, i'll paste it again:

laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them.

another way:
to say that the atttacks of 9/11/2001 were political is to say the obvious.

it is obvious that the processes that comprise "globalizing capitalism" played a significant role in shaping the attacks.
it is also obvious that globalization is seen elsewhere--with cause--as americanization--and that within this the trade center and pentagon acquired significant symbolic value.
that most folk on the right appear at least to operate with no understanding whatsoever of globalizing capitalism simply indicates that their politics do not enable them to function rationally in this context.

so the attacks made sense as political actions.
they do not, and have never made sense as acts of "evil" or "jealous people" etc.

this seems so obvious that i am surprised that there is even a debate about it, here or anywhere else.

in the context of a political geography class that is heading toward a unit on globalization, these matters are completely germaine.

i think the folk who raised a hue and cry about it are, quite simply, idiots.

This thread is proceededing quite well. The issues are as potentially loaded as most other issues discussed here. Reading the give-and-take offers a great model for respectfully and decently discussing hot topics. Thanks.

Having listened to the tape of this "so called educator" he sounds more like a mouth piece for Soviet Union than a teacher in the United States. In his whole 20 plus minute
diatribe on the American Government I did not hear one fact spewed from his mouth.
On the contrary everything he said was a matter of opinion.
I also noticed how said "educator" left out the fine military hardware AQ used to destroy these targets of opportunity.
Maybe just maybe he has a job waiting for him in the self-righteous, America loathing Hollyweird.

Just some facts you obviously missed:
The CIA had an office in the World Trade Center. The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge, multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex, in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

You are absoultly correct these were facts, and with that logic: then the planes were made by Boeing, who also make defense systems and military aircraft so these civilian airliners were actually products of the multinational corporations that are directly involved in supporting corrupt military dictatorships in the middle east, which means the people onboard were also supporting these said corporations, making them really military targets, or should they have been prisioners of war at the point they were captured?

Ahhh now I see these planes were in fact military hardware by this reasoning,
and AQ just commandeered theses military vessels and all military personnel onboard and used it to destroy their targets.

You were incorrect, and I was proving so.
There is a difference between a plane (an object or tool) and people or organizations. You canot hold a gun responsible for murder, but you can hold a eprson responsible for murder. The PEOPLE in the building had direct ties to the war on terror. This explains why the terrorist believed that the building was a military target.
If you're going to be sarcastic and silly, then I hope you don't expect serious responses.

I don't personally agree with the teacher in thinking that the terrorists thought the WTC was a valid 'military' target (with the argument that the CIA etc have offices there), I think they believed it was a valid tactical one. I personally believe that they felt that by striking against such an obvious and symbolic target, that they would force the US into a knee-jerk military response, that would polarise the Arab and Middle Eastern world into direct military against the west. In some respects it worked, and in some respects it failed. But my opinion isn't what's at issue here.

The point at issue here is whether the teacher, in exploring the motivations of the terrorists, beyond the grade-school "They hate us and they want to kill us all." line, was being informative, or spinning a web of communist propaganda as recconmike might have us believe.

Is it really left-wing to try and figure out why things happen outside our borders? In the confines of a geography class? Perhaps they should change the lesson to only cover topics within the US, so as not to offend anyone.

Also, does anyone know what's happened to this teacher since this story broke?

By the logic above, since Al Qaeda has minions in a great many countries, the US is justified in nuking the hell out of any middle eastern country we please.

Hey, if it's acceptable to kill thousands of civilians to get your target ...

Now if you listen to the whole 20 minute recording, this educator not only gives his opinion on why he thought AQ attacked the WTC, but also his "known facts" as to why Israel was created, his facts that America was responsible for over 7000 terrorists attacks on Cuba, the US being the most violent country on the planet,(I am assuming that this geography teacher should know of countries like, Uganda, Angola, Darfur, but maybe he does not count genocide by a government as being violence).

He also failed to mention when he said that the Iraqi invasion was illegal was that Desert Strom was never over, just a cease-fire and we just resumed firing.

No one here said it was acceptable. Take a moment. Rub your eyes and read the posts again.

The argument being made by the teacher and everyone else is that it is possible for the "Terrorists" to see the WTC as a military target. We don't have to agree with their point of view to understand it. In understanding it we don't have to embrace their point of view... quite the contrary.

Personally, I see arguing about whether or not they saw it as a military target as entirely beside the point. Civilians were going to die regardless of the target. In the end it served their purpose to blow up big American symbols (Pentagon, WTC, and potentially the White House). It was big. It was spectacular. It hit American (and by extention the west) where it hurts. In the military (pentagon), the leadership (the white house) and it's wallet (WTC). Big symbols all.

There is no need to justify it one way or the other.

Charlatan, don't worry about it. It's obvious that some people read what they want to read. To comprehend the fact that the teacher was NOT trying to justify the actions of the al Qaeda members - something that is very obvious when you listen to the lecture - is too much for some people. As I read through this thread it's painfully obvious that selective reading has ruined many peoples perceptions.

Marv, I respect you a great deal. I'm not sure how you are missing the fact that the teacher was simply explaining the mindset of the terrorists. I hope you are not a victim of your own political views.