Jan Resseger has another excellent post up on her take of the Americans for Prosperity, aka Koch Brothers, and what’s happened in Kansas.
Jeff Glendening, the director of the Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity was quoted—framing the legislation as part of a fight between those who stand for children and those who stand for “adult” interests—by the NY Times : “We appreciate the willingness of the Legislature to place the interests of Kansas children over the welfare of the teachers’ union.” This kind of rhetoric is widely promoted by far-right groups such as StudentsFirst and Stand for Children. These groups try to imply that teachers, who have committed their lives to nurture children, are somehow a class of people working purely out of self interest.
~~~~~~~~
Incredible. The teacher’s intentions are an example of a stunning psychological twist of the truth. They claim to be concerned for the welfare of the children…but with Common Core, shoving special needs and struggling students out the door, and money being siphoned away from public education…we know differently.
As was pointed out yesterday, the teacher’s union is the same as the police and fire fighter unions….yet no one would think of saying that those unions are operating against the welfare of the people.
Related to this, Fred Klonsky has a post up on the pension raids with a statement on the theft by Karen Lewis.
“This is a sad day for our paraprofessionals, especially our retired ones, who will see their pensions reduced and devalued significantly. They will lose the value of a third of their retirement savings, so instead of the people who crashed the economic system having to pay their fair share, our elected officials brutally attack the people who are most vulnerable—many of whom have become the head of their households, caring for both children and grandchildren,” Lewis said.
~~~~~~~
Target the elderly/retired. They have worked their entire lives putting into the system. They deserve to have those pensions. Now that they are retired, they have less money to fight back with–sly ploy by cowards to attack the weaker.
As usual, the comments are insightful and compelling. They bring up the fact that it really isn’t that hard to get rid of “problem” teachers–all the administration has to do is harass them until they’ve had enough and leave. Done. Problem solved.
I’ve seen this in the state government, as well, so yeah, it’s not really that hard to get rid of someone. All you need is a bully in the midst while the administration looks the other way (or even worse–participates).
Urged on by conservative special interests such as Americans for Prosperity, Republican leaders pressed hard to eliminate due process rights for teachers.
~~~~~~~~
The handiwork of the Koch Brothers. Destroy public education so the Koch brothers don’t have to pay one more penny for unionized workers. More for me…poverty wages for you…
BUT, if a mother is poor and going to a job interview to get out of poverty, and has no one to turn to…what is she supposed to do?
She’s told to ‘get off her ass and get a job”…but how is she supposed to do that when she has no money to afford day care until she get that job?
Was she supposed to take the children into the interview? She would have been shot down for the job immediately, especially given all the competition for positions.
“Everything is focused on the mother and understandably so. It seems to be a very compelling human interest story,” County Attorney Bill Montgomery said at a recent news conference. “But I’m equally concerned and compelled about the circumstances those two children were in.”
~~~~~~~~
Really…? So, if Shanesha brought the kids to your office, being “concerned and compelled” you would personally watch them while she went to the interview…? Yeah, I didn’t think so…
With all the obstacles, how exactly are the poor supposed to get out of poverty? Not being arrested is a good start.
Dispatches from the Underclass has a post up on academic freedom and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I clicked on the link to the letter, and the part about the union’s collective bargaining agreement stood out:
“institutional discipline or restraint in their discussion of relevant matters in the classroom…” [the CBA prohibits] “explicit or implicit threat of termination or discipline for the purpose of constraining a faculty member in the exercise of his or her rights under such principles of academic freedom.”
~~~~~~~~
“Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”
This was clarified later with the following:
“The intent of the 1940 statement is not to discourage what is “controversial”. Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.”
~~~~
This is one of the reasons that teacher’s unions must be protected–they protect teachers that bring up uncomfortable subjects with passionate debate. The Vietnam War would probably still be going on if it weren’t for the passionate debates of that time. And the Afghan war would have ended long ago. The Iraq War would have never begun had there been passionate debate on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction and as I previously posted, the way that Iraq society was presented to us and the reality of their society.
As the letter continues, the use of the word “balance” is questionable (Faux News, anyone?). It’s a vague term that can be interpreted in many ways…it’s a word that anyone in power can use to silence those that present valid complaints. One student made a complaint against the professor. Then Dr. Corey had the student “spy” on the professor and report back on whether it was “balanced” or not. WTH?
I disagree, however, with the letter’s statement that “students don’t possess the training or expertise to challenge a professor”…this is not giving students enough credit. Again, I’m thinking of the 60s and the students questioning professors and all authority. They raised valid questions. It’s not that students don’t have the training or expertise, but that one single student, with biases, should not be allowed to shut down an entire class because he/she does not agree with the way the subject is presented. He/she is a student, and as such, has to take some responsibility towards his/her education, and that means not always agreeing with a professor.
If the student disagrees, then he/she has options: quit the class, or listen and perhaps examine why he/she is opposed to the professor/subject matter….and maybe, just maybe, change one’s mind after evaluating the subject. It’s known that Israel does not present the Palestinian side of things in their schools. I don’t think they speak of the Palestinians at all, but in negative terms. Where’s the balance there?
The assessment of Professor Chehade’s classroom was one of openness. He allowed differing viewpoints…which is what you want in…ahem…a balanced classroom. Other students’ assessments were one of openness.
Something else that nags at me while reading this–did this student purposely take this class in order to get it cancelled? Because a class such as this is probably an elective–one that a student has an option of taking among several in that particular subject matter–so I would question the student’s motives if that were the case. The more I read, the more it sounds like a set-up. And the spineless administration caved at the first “shove”.
Another thing that bothers me is that we don’t live in a vacuum–this is only one class in that student’s career. If the student wants to get at the truth, he/she can take more classes taught by other professors whom will offer a different perspective. The student can also take the initiative and read books on the subject to gain a broader perspective. There is also the community- other students, friends, parents, neighbors, whom also can offer their perspectives. My experience has been that the truth is somewhere in between.
It’s important to note that professors are not given free reign to do as they please in their classrooms–as the letter states–proselytizing (although I can state that some of my professors came close to this, thankfully, it was just a few of many good professionals); and teaching subjects that are not a part of that section.
And just for the record, I would love to attend Professor Chehade’s class.
I found 5 Broken Cameras on youtube:
In the next part of the report, the controversy about free speech about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict at the University of Michigan. Be sure to click on the link where Max Blumenthal writes about the smear campaign. There is a video by Dishell up that speaks volumes.
In the speech, Max is passionate. He is Jewish and yet is speaking out on what he calls apartheid by Israel. The whole idea of Israel being “pure” is so ludicrous. There is no such thing as a “pure” race. We’re all mutts, so to speak. And as Blumenthal illustrates, one couple can’t even be together because of this stupidity. Can you say Romeo and Juliet? Can we ever learn anything from history…?
And then there’s Dick Cheney and Steve Jobs…poor people such as myself donating (or selling) organs so that the privileged can live just turns my stomach.
(This post is on spirituality, so if it’s not your thing….)
Eli Glasman has a heartfelt post up on his struggles with losing faith in God.
The sense of loss he feels is apparent. It’s hard to believe in a Supreme Being when you’ve been taught a certain way and that way conflicts with how you feel inside. It must have been so hard for him to feel that he had to choose between religion and how he felt intrinsically.
As I said in my comment, I understand his sentiments. I went through a period of not believing, but that actually made my faith stronger. Our paths lead us in directions that don’t always make sense at the time, but as we move along, we see how things are connected and how struggle helps us to grow, as in the butterfly that struggles out of the cocoon.
I had to learn to stand up for myself and not let others define who I am. Not letting others define who I am also means not letting others define my connection to God. Spirituality is as personal as it gets. We are unique individuals with our own paths to follow and no one has a right to impose their beliefs upon another.
I don’t think being an atheist automatically means condemnation. If one follows “Do unto others….” –I see that as spiritual, whether the person claims it or not. I think we will be judged more on how we treat others and conduct ourselves here on Earth, rather than if we went to Church every Sunday.
Warrior Publications has this up on the Onondaga men marching against domestic violence and child abuse. A great way to publicly show support…but then the hard work comes to put it into action. Honoring women, respecting women, and treating them as equals all takes a conscious effort to go against a culture of violence and rape. It means going against other men, when men are taught to stick together no matter what. It means courage and compassion.
Diane Ravitch has a post up on the repubs and DFERs (Democrats in favor of charter schools).
She notes that in 1988, advocates were saying that charters would cost less because of less bureaucracy. Remember that, folks, when they say “less government meddling”…the actual results speak volumes…
Eagle 
You must be logged in to post a comment.