Joe, I agree with all of your posts, and especially the recent one about "we should watch what we're saying". I agree that we're lowering ourselves to these teachers level by using rude language in our e-mails, but keep in mind we military people are hurt for some of our kids to be insulted like that, we military people have been disrespected for to long, but when it comes to our kids that is way over the top that does not give us the right to write inflammatory words, but at the same time these are adults we are addressing our e-mails too again, I'm NOT condoning rude language, but had these teachers kept their mouth shut to begin with this would have never happened. NONE OF THESE TEACHERS HAVE YET COME OUT TO APOLOGIZE, and it DID HAPPEN, on one of the teachers.net website http://teachers.net/chatboard/topic/86382/3.01.03.04.44.19html you can read where a teacher admitted to it and said "yep, I would do it again". These teachers made these remarks FIRST to our children yet cannot take the e-mails "adult to adult", but expect OUR CHILDREN TO TAKE THE RUDE COMMENTS ABOUT THEIR PARENT/PARENTS FIGHTING FOR THEM AND US. Give me a break.

B.G... link doesn't work. I'd be very, very interested in this URL if you can fix it.

As for the emails, the questions are: what responsibility do we owe these children? and what responsibility do we owwe those fighting besude us?

I would say our first responsibility to the children is to be as effective as possible on their behalf, because they can't fight for themselves. I'd also say the first responsibility to those fighting beside you is to help the effort as a whole.

We can definitely chew people out in these letters, but without stooping to profanity, abuse of all teachers (some of whom have gone on record to say that if this is true, some of their collegues ought to be fired), etc. It's like... somebody's kid breaks your window, so you go over to their house and start screaming and swearing at their parents. It's not effective, just tags you as a nut. In this case, it also tags the rest of us who are working on this as nuts by association.

Joe, I found this on www.google.com at the google search type in "maine teachers" then click on the "Maine Teachers.net The Maine Teachers Website" look at the posting on the very top called "No Real Surprise" by Karen.

My father and I were talking about this the other night. He said that if he had realized what was going on at the time, he would have marched down to the school and cordially asked the man if he cared to pick on someone his own size.

BTW, it happened in 1981-82.

Did you read the posting at teachers.net?
The teacher did not tell the students that she thought war with Iraq was unethical. She had them read articles supporting the war and then articles opposing the war. Then she asked them to say if they thought the war was unethical (unjustified) or justified and to base their answers on facts, not just feelings or emotion.This is what she would do again. This does not sound offensive or disrespectful to me.

OK, I've found the post. *It's here*:

"Posted by Maine teacher on 3/01/03

Yep, I sure did. Everyday we discuss current events in the classroom. First we read "news" articles supporting the war against Iraq. Then we read "news" articles against the war. Students were then required to take a stand on this question: Did they agree the war was unethical or did they think the action was justifiable. They needed to back up their reason with facts from the articles provided or other factual sources. They couldn't discuss their FEELINGS in their paper but they had to base it on facts.

We did a follow up discussion and it did enter into the realm of "so what if you were asked to fight". Students wrestled with this in writing and orally in class.

Do you think we hurt anyone's feelings? No. It was a reasonable discussion. Do you think kids went home and talked about it with their parents? I sure as heck hope so. Do you think some kids distorted the information? Yep. Would I do it again? Yep."

Selection of the articles could be biasing, but as an overall framework this strikes me as a very ethical and responsible way to do it.

In contrast, *read James Lileks*!

Joe, did you also read a respond from "Friend of History" (he sounded like a teacher) to "I Did Use The UNETHICAL in class regarding Iraq". On the bottom of his letter "Friend of History" suggested to that teacher that this should NOT be discussed with students younger than High School students.

FYI,

*B.G.'s "Friend of History" post can be found here*.

I am disappointed that this website led the charge on this story, without skepticism.

I read the initial posts and immediately thought: no names, no specific quotes. This is going to turn out to be either false or greatly exaggerated. And so it has been.

This story is frightening, not because of the initial allegations, but because so many became so agitated over so little evidence of "abuse." The mob.

The other issue is whether by discrediting anti-war activists, you make the war rationales credible.

The problem is that too many people in this country feel that they are entitled never to hear anything which makes them uncomfortable.

A few months ago, my son's fourth grade teacher took out the latest copy of Scholastic magazine or Time For Kids. There was a picture of Saddam on the cover and a story about the war.
Before the class can discuss Saddam or the war, the teacher has go through this preface: Is everyone comfortable about talking about this, does it upset anyone, etc. My son, even at age ten, could only laugh at these solicitudes.

The emphasis given the story by the right-wing media was another attempt to stifle not only dissent, but discussion about the war.

And I say that as one who wore the uniform, and was called "baby killer" wearing it (DFW airport, May '75) and who has a son in the army ordered to the gulf in this latest announced deployment.

Klaatu,

Look up a couple postings. Follow the link to James Lileks' site. Read it. Then we can talk about what's happening in education, and the validity of the criticisms I've levelled. If you think this is about stifling dissent and discussion - again, read Lileks, then think harder. The problem is real.

re: Maine. Repeated claims by National Guard commanders and spokespeople, and reports by local TV stations and newspapers, are news. Treating them as a valid story worthy of comment was and is reasonable - certainly as reasonable as the commentary we run on many, many other news sources.

There are very valid reasons, *reasons I've discussed,* why specifics wouldn't necessarily be available immediately. Would we be seeing them at all now if this story hadn't grown big? Of course we wouldn't.

Your conclusion that this is nothing is premature at best. There have been reports over the last couple days that begin to shine a brighter on the situation, and more may be coming. I comment on the basis of what's available to me, and I'm prepared to stick with the story until we have clarity at last.

Let's see.

Joe, please go back to www.google.com and to that teachers website. The first posting send in by "Former NYC'r" saying "try to defend this" he printed 3 different incidents where soldiers and kids were insulted by teachers in Bangor, ME It was suppose to be printed in the Portland (ME) Free Press Herald, but for some reason I cannot log on to this address.

Klaatu,
This issue has nothing, NOTHING to do with "right" or "left", more right and wrong. If it were found that hawkish teachers were berating children of peace activists, I would be just as outraged. Joe has been very careful and fair here - nobody wants to jump to conclusions and crucify the entire teaching profession. Most of us would like nothing more than to see a fair investigation and to make sure that things like this do not continue, at least not without consequences.

THIS IS FOR EMILY'S REQUEST: Dear Emily, I'm very sorry that his has happened to you when you were in 4th grade. You posted the school years when this happened, and I can see that you are younger than our kids, but just the same prejudice against our military+military kids have and are happening. That is why we always lived in post housing, adults and kids where all in the same boat. Thank god it never happened to our kids. When we were stationed at Ft. Gordon, GA an off post church sent busses on post on Sunday mornings to pick up the military kids. One sunday school teacher made a negative remark about the military, and the post commander gave this church "off limits" immediately. We were stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC when our kids went to high school and were bussed to Fayetteville, NC. Colin Powell was the post General at that time, and I'm sure he would not have allowed teachers insulting military kids. If you read newspapers from different bases throughout the U.S. you will see that periodically establishments will be posted "off limits" because the soldiers and their families were being mistreated. Right before my husband retired we were house hunting a little way outside from the base, and we were told "don't let your neighbors know that you're retired military for they will not like this". Needless to say we reported it, and did not buy a house in that area. Why do people think so many retired military people settle right outside their bases? Sure part of the reasons is so they can be close to the hospital and commissary, but this is not the only reason. People there feel like they're all in the same boat, we all "have been there", and get less prejudice from the community because their businesses are striving because of the retired military.

Well, Joe, Emily, I did go back and read or re-read the stuff. James Lileks, too. And still no specifics, no quotes, no attribution. The fact that there are good reasons why there might be no specifics and no attribution doesn't make the allegations true, or anywhere near as bad as they've been pictured.

In fact, "Maj. Gen. Joseph Tinkham said national media figures, including conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and television commentator Bill O'Reilly, exaggerated the extent and nature of the problem." - from the AP story.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Fox News, Hannity, Wash. Times, and last but not least World Net Daily!

Naah, we're not talking about any right wing media, here.

I'll acknowledge I could be wrong, probably a few "inappropriate" phrases slipped from a teacher's lips. Just based on the "where there's smoke . . " rule. But it could be a "I hate my mean teacher" thing, too. Or more particularly, it could be: my daddy's gone to war, and don't you dare say anything that isn't rah-rah, by jingo!!

I guess my problem is that I'm a lawyer, have done some First Amendment stuff, have seen how people get arrested over someone's taking offense or feeling "threatened" or "intimidated" where no offense, threat or intimidation was intended or possibly perceived by the mythic but legally authoritative "reasonable person."

As far as the Minnesota peace teaching website linked from Lileks, I had a good laugh over that.

First, because it was part of the same namby-pamby-can't-offend-or-disturb-anyone syndrome that might be driving this controversy.

Second, because until the latest crisis, the UN was our playground, part of that "New World Order," remember? Kofi being our guy. I was recalled to active duty as a reservist in 1999 in Albania, doing logistics, transportation, and you know what? We were working hand in glove with the World Food Program, shared offices with them, liased with UNHCR, etc. Now the UN won't dance to our tune, so they're evil.

Third, because some of the other stuff about the US being too militarized could have been lifted from Eisenhower's "Cross of Iron" speech and could actually be true, or at least worthy of discussion.

Klaatu: So you're a lawyer. Waiting in the wings to represent these teachers?? Better chance to win the case then if you were representing the military kids?? You're not fooling me.

Well, I'm not in Maine, but, yeah, I'd be proud to represent a teacher who is the target of some lynch mob because, for example, they happened to ask a class "Do you think we should be going to war?" And then dares to mention some argument against the war.

Free speech. Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting for?

On the other hand, if some teacher started on in class, "Johnny, your National Guard daddy is going to be bayonetting babies in Baghdad, unless he dies a horrible convulsing death from VX himself first," I'd be happy to represent little Johnny on a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Klaatu,

Of course "we" got along fine with the UN in 1999. Clinton was president! There has never been a bigger UN butt kisser than Clinton. Please do not equate the Clinton administration with the current one or with every American. I have had serious problems with the UN for as long as I have thought for myself. Many other Americans have as well. The issue now is not that the UN will not dance to our tune; it is that we won't dance to theirs. And that is the heart of the definition of American Arrogance.

As for the Maine teachers:
How can it be ethical for a child's teacher to make the morality of a job tasked to one of her student's parents a question for classroom debate? It seems to me that this demonstrates appalling insensitivity in a teacher. This remains true whether or not the discussion was fair. It is the responsibility of teachers to understand the emotional and rational immaturity of the children in their charge and to lesson plan accordingly. The failure to exercise such judgment has to call into question the competence if not the ethical fitness of a teacher.

PLEASE READ:
Subject: Proof?Portland(ME) Free Press Herald 3/4/03
Poster: Former NYC'r: please try to defend this
Date:3/04/03
URL: http://teachers.net/states/me/topic109/3.04.03.11.25.56.html

Web page text:

A soldier at the Bangor meeting said that when he took his children from school early to say goodbye, he was told it would be an unexcused absence.

Another soldier reported that when he asked a school guidance counselor to watch for changes in his child's demeanor or behavior, the counselor said, "You are in the Army, aren't you? Your child should be able to deal with it."

Another parent said that when he told the school principal that her child had been teased by other children who said her father could be killed in the war, she was told there was nothing school officials could do because the other children were right and what the child's father was doing was wrong.
Klaatu: DO YOU CALL THAT FREE SPEECH?? WHEN OUR CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED?????????

Klaatu: FIGHTING FOR FREE SPEECH WHEN IT COMES TO CHILDREN GETTING HURT EMOTIONALLY??????? I don't think so counselor.

Oh, so THAT'S the evidence. An internet post by "Former NYC'er." No names. Hang 'em high!!

Klaatu: Dear Counselor, if you read above the NYC'r you can see that he got it from the Portland Free Press. You need to direct your attention to this Free Press to see if they made this story up. If they made it up I say here is your chance counselor to sue them, but I bet you wont succeed because it very well maybe truel.

As far as what michael h says, there is a kernel of an insidious idea in the assertion that you can't have any debate about the war in any classroom where military children might be.

First, classroom discussion about current events are a part of good teaching.

Second, questions of war and peace are collective responsibilities in a democracy and subject to discussion by all.

Third, does this mean we can't talk about police brutality or the Rodney King case in a class with police officers' children, or corporate greed a'la Enron or excessive litigation in any classes with business executives' or lawyers' kids in the class?

Fourth, I'd like to hope that my ten-year old son could reply to or at least bear any discussion of war in his class, his nineteen year old brother's possible participation in that war notwithstanding.

I read the Portland Press story. Still no names, "he told me that the other guy said." What we call "totem-pole hearsay." I am suspicious because there is a growing tendency for Americans, of all types, to try to pose themselves as victims of some sort.

Klaatu, but these are 3 different incidents. There are all kinds of people I agree in all walks of life and professions to pull something like that just look at 9/11 where people took names off the list of the dead, and tried to get insurance money something in that fashion. That is why these accusations about the military kids need to be investigated ASAP, what I dont't understand is why haven't these teachers come out yet and apologized?? Don't tell me because there is nothing to apologize for. 7 year old kids don't make this up to get back at their teachers, something happened, 7 year olds don't make that up, and I don't think a parent made that up, that is why we need to get to the bottom of this. I believe a child over an adult. This did NOT come out of thin air.

Sad to say that no letters, neither civil nor nasty, will affect teachers, principals, or school boards.

It's the Teachers Union uber alles, they are left left left and they do whatever they want with impunity, including failure to teach.

The problem in education is this horrid union and their political allies. Until we go to war against them this stuff will continue.

Howard Veit: WELL SAID!

"something happened, 7 year olds don't make that up"

Tell that to Gerald Amirault.

We do have to be careful. That's why I'm so frustrated by the lack of specifics. Given some other teacher behaviors that have been documented (e.g. the ANSWER member HS teacher in Florida who took his kids to antiwar demonstrations as a class activity) it's all too plausible that its all true, but given the hysteria that can form around any cause that's "for the children" it's also plausible that this is being way overblown.

I want some real information already! Aaaarghh!

Ralph Phelan: An all the other people who have their daubts, some people accusing O'Reilly+other folks of the media for blowing it out of proportion etc. etc. then why did a NG colonel go on the O'Reilly show to begin with?? I watched it. Nobody was "forcing" this colonel to go on there, he chose to do so. If this issue is very minor, and people/media are making a big deal out of it then why did the colonel agree to expose this story on a station that 2.7 million viewers watch every night?? He (the colonel) is an intelligent man he knows it would spread like wild fire. Something IS TRUE about this whole situation. Surely this NG colonel didn't make this up?

This is for the teachers of Maine, Teachers Union, and the National Guard:

For the teachers who claim that this was all exaggerated, and there is nothing to it, and for the NG who now starts to kiss up to these teachers by blaming the media for blowing this up I say please ask the NG colonel why did he go on the most watched nightly show "The O'Reilly Factor"??????????? Surely he is intelligent enough to realize that by going on a show who is watched nightly by 2.7 million viewers that this will spread like wild fire all over the world. He should've stuck with his local newspaper or maybe local TV stations. We military, retired military as well as civilian people were outraged, we felt for these military kids, and we supported them and their parents. The NG colonel got that ball rolling by going on the O'Reilly show. Direct your anger at him for exposing this serious issue on The O'Reilly Factor. HE got in touch with The Factor nobody FORCED him to go there. National Guard people: Don'tblame the "awful" media ask your colonel why he went on the O'Reilly show of all shows if there is nothing to it. P.S. This is all I've got to say about this its time now for these parents of these children to take some action. If you feel its really not that big of a deal then I suggest in the future DON'T MAKE A FEDERAL ISSUE OUT OF IT by going on National TV on a show who is watched by almost 3 million people, you got the sympathy of many people we felt for your kids and we were outraged, and to now brush it off by blaming the media and us for so called "exaggrating" this is uncalled for. Not to mention if this will ever happen again people might wont take it seriously.

Klaatu,

That was an interesting extrapolation. No where in my comment did I say that you could not "have ANY debate about the war in ANY school where military children MIGHT be." I said a child's teacher necessarily must take the emotional needs of their students into account.

There is a clear and inarguable difference between the emotional maturity of children over the K-12 span. Had these incidents happened in a college or high school setting this would not be such a serious issue. Even had it happened in a junior high setting it might have been defendable, though the same educational establishment that is defending these teachers are the ones who are always harping about the fragile emotions of children and teens. But some of these children weren't out of elementary school yet.

And a fact that is not in dispute, is that the NG sent letters to the children's schools to alert them. There was no "might be present" involved here.

This issue is about holding a discusion about a specific action in which the child's parents are involved. A teacher might well be able to set up a lesson about war or police conduct or corporate fraud in general. but if one of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating had a 10 year old son and his teacher had the class discuss LA police deptartment misconduct, or if Kenneth Lay had a 8 year old daughter and her teacher discussed Enron's corporate misconduct, it would constitute egregious misconduct on the part of the teachers.