Winds of Change.NET: The Pain in Maine Related To Hussein

March 6, 2003

The Pain in Maine Related To Hussein

by Joe Katzman at March 6, 2003 1:09 PM

[For the complete history of our coverage and email addresses to write to, click here]

I promised updated reports. Here's my bottom line right now.

Some further developments in the Maine story have added clarity, albeit without wholly dispelling the uncertainties laid out in my last post. When you read what follows, however, I believe fair-minded people will conclude that real and reprehensible incidents have taken place.

Is it widespread? No, and it was never claimed to be. Even 30 complaints is a miniscule fraction of the classes in Maine. Are these incidents systemic, or orchestrated? I don't believe that. I do believe, however, that even one incident is too many. As such, each incident needs to be addressed with fairness, seriousness, and real consequences if it's substantiated.

Now, let's talk about the things that are in question.

Much of the confusion in this story stems from the way it unfolded right at the beginning. Thanks to an Associated Press report on March 3rd (Big Hat Tip: Andrew Ian Dodge of SashaCastel.com), that sequence of events is a lot clearer now:

[Maj. General Joseph] Tinkham said the complaints and concerns were gathered by Maj. Andrew Gibson, a Guard chaplain, during meetings at the state's five Family Assistance Centers, where relatives of deployed soldiers can get information and support.

Gibson passed along the complaints to Maj. Peter Rogers, who handles media relations for the Guard. Rogers then outlined them in an e-mail to [Maine Education Commissioner] Albanese, Tinkham said. Rogers' e-mail included information on eight incidents..."

Of those 8, one is of uncertain import and 3 stand out in my eyes as meaningful:

"...The complaints included a soldier who reported at the Bangor meeting that when he had taken his children from their middle school early so he could say "goodbye," he was told it would be an unexcused absence and the children would face ramifications."
"...At that same meeting, another soldier reported that when he went to the school guidance office to ask that the counselor watch for any changes in his child's demeanor or behavior, the counselor reportedly said, "You're in the Army aren't you? Your child should be able to deal with it."
"...Another parent at that meeting reportedly said that when she went to the school principal to discuss the fact 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 her father was doing was wrong."

Given these reports, one can see why Maj. General Tinkham and others from the Guard went back to the media and reiterated their points in the wake of Commissioner Albanese's downplaying and dismissals. Unwise crisis management there - had Albanese acknowledged the seriousness and promised real investigations, the whole incident would have come off the media radar immediately. As it is, the reiteration sparked a national story that hit a real public nerve.

Then there's this report from outside of Maine, found by Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd of DefenseWatch and published in the Washington Times:

"This kind of ANTI-AMERICAN propaganda is not just in Maine... Right here in South Carolina, my son came home from 4th grade and told me that the counselor said that it was 'evil' for us to go to war with Iraq. I went 'controlled' ballistic � I'm on the mobilization list for Army retirees and my wife is a GULF WAR I veteran..."

The article title is over the top, but the rest deserves a look. I've been unable to track down Lt. Col. Dodd's source directly - so far. Does it really surprise in light of James Lileks' Tuesday post regarding his own experiences, though? Or the past incidents with the NEA, OSSTF, and other examples noted in my last post.

So, where to from here?

CTD...

...CTD

I'm going to start by saying that at minimum, all 3 of the AP-reported incidents are highly reprehensible. There should be disciplinary proceedings in all 3 cases, which are clearly driven by hostility and in 2 cases involve active abdication of official responsibilities. The case reported by the Washington Times also deserves to be brought forward and looked into carefully.

That said, none of the Maine incidents reported involves teachers making remarks to children directly. There have been reports of one such incident elsewhere, but details are fuzzy; it may have been a role-play debate exercise. In which case saying that "the war is unethical and so is anyone who would fight in it" may be stupid under the circumstances (albeit representative of the anti-liberation side). Still, that's not child abuse.

There's also this from the Washington Times(courtesy of local Maine papers):

"...in one reported incident, a teacher told a Guard member's child in elementary school that "daddy could die because that's what happens to soldiers."

I'd want context for that. Objectively, this is true. Is it a massive lapse in judgment? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation, and the age of the child.

Were there incidents of abuse in any of the other cases? We don't know. I'm inclined to say that it's unlikely, on the grounds that otherwise the Guard would probably have included those examples in its email. Can I be certain of that assessment? No.

Initial reports of 30 incidents seem to be down to 15-16, on the basis of criteria that are not clear. The Guard's initial numbers to the media were based on complaints, however, an unambiguous measurement. Were the remainder resolved locally and dropped? Determined to be less serious? Duplicate complaints regarding the same situation? No answers in Maine's news reports.

So...

We have many good teachers in Maine, and always have. Many serve in the National Guard themselves, and have been called to duty.
We have at least some incidents that are reprehensible, and appear to stand up to scrutiny.
We still have some uncertainties and fuzzy details.
We may not have the incidents some of us imagined in our minds. That's a working belief, however, not yet a firm conclusion.
We have a State legislator, Rep. Michael Vaughan, on the case. Also local media, though the story's "lifespan" is beginning to fade for them.
We don't have names or direct interviews from accused or accusers, and we are unlikely ever to have them given the Guard's and the parents' refusal to go further in public. This is inconvenient, but hardly surprising under the circumstances. I'd also point out that refusing to name either side, is a significant improvement over the harassment and discrimination procedures of which the Left is so fond.
We do have a story that touched a national nerve, based on a combination of a few incidents and widely-observed national patterns and experiences of bias in similar contexts. One hopes that the stored reserves of distrust engendered by such manipulations are finally becoming clear to the profession and to its unions. ly, I doubt it.
Based on comments in our comment section and letters I've received, we also have a perception among a number of military families that they are looked down on as second class citizens. That's a statement I don't make casually, and an article on this subject will be forthcoming.
On the bright side, we've also seen a very strong response from the public and the media (locally, plus conservative media on a national level). It was certainly noticed in Maine, and there have been no complaints of similar incidents happening since this blew up. I'd venture a guess that there's also a lot more care being taken beyond Maine.

That's good. What needs to stop here isn't just the behaviours reported in Maine, but the classroom politicization and attitudes that are increasingly making such conduct thinkable. People like Lileks aren't wrong to be sensitive to this trend, and to want it stopped. It isn't imaginary.

Politicization of our classrooms and colleges didn't happen overnight, and it won't be cured overnight. It will require relentless and untiring adult scrutiny, backed by expansion of parental choices and incidents that get enough publicity to cause real pain for administrators and teachers when the boundaries are crossed. It will also require a sense of proportion, of civil principles applied rigorously rather than ideology applied disingenuously.

There will be a test in our future. There will, in fact, be many. Will the education system pass? Will we?

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/906

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"The Pain in Maine Related To Hussein"

Tracked: March 6, 2003 3:33 AM

And Before You Think We've Forgotten from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Excerpt: And boy would that EVER be wrong. The Empire NEVER forgets (except for birthdays, anniversaries [OUCH!], where in Hell we

Tracked: March 6, 2003 4:35 AM

Leftie teachers update from la Blogatrice

Excerpt: Winds of Change.NET: The Pain in Maine Related To Hussein is the title of WoC's latest post about the leftie

Comments

#1 from Retired Paratrooper at 1:58 am on Mar 06, 2003

Let me get this straight: NG colonel goes on the O'Reilly show to tell about the harassment of the military kids. After the world got wind of it here comes the NG wanting us to believe "the big bad wolf O'Reilly made him do it he put a gun to the NG colonels head and made him come to FOX to tell the story. Yeah right! Even if FOX called the colonel he did NOT have to come on the O'Reilly show. This is another kind of politics. Could it be the NG colonel got some heat for going nationwide?, and now its swept under the rug? This is a great diservice to these poor kids who were harassed. I don't care how many "good" teachers Maine has got it takes only ONE BAD ONE to mentally abuse a child or children. By not coming out with names etc. on "either side" doesn't impress me one bit. With attitudes like these this will happen again, and next time maybe nobody will pay attention, and wonder what really happened as people do now the way things are going. About some of the statements were not made "directly" to the kids and therefore can't be made out to be child abuse you got a point, but at the same it shows what some if not most Civilians think of the military people who DEFEND THEM so they can talk their prejudice trash. I was in the military long enough and I know all about the prejudice out there, but the buck stops when it comes to emotionally hurting the military kids.

#2 from Joe Katzman at 2:19 am on Mar 06, 2003

Yes, the buck does stop there. But the decision not to go public isn't the Guard's. It belongs to the parents, and for reasons discussed in my last post there are perfectly valid reasons why a parent would not want to do that. Starting with the media circus around their kid, who's already missing part of their support structure.

That's why demands for names from some on the Left before they'll accept the reports are disingenously mean, and a sure sign that the children's interest in nowhere on their radar screens. On the Right, it's worth considering whether demanding names at this point constitutes principles being applied or ideology blind to human practicalities and the needs of real children.

"Retired Paratrooper," the attitudes you describe are real. As I mentioned, they will be the subject of a future post so I can truly focus on that issue. If you or others have some experiences to share, drop me a line: (joe @ windsofchange ~~dot~~ net)

On this story... we can keep digging, and we will. If people wish to come forward, they will. Even if not, we now have enough information to come to some conclusions, and to press for justice.

We can also make it clear, through public action and media exposure, that treating the children of our soldiers is becoming a much more dangerous practice. We have, and we will.

Welcome to the Internet, where "Death From Above!" is taken to a whole new level...

#3 from Jacob Proffitt at 2:39 am on Mar 06, 2003

I think ya'll are missing the most important aspect of this--or at least skimming over it far too quickly. The problem, as I see it, isn't the teachers' comments themselves. A small percentage of those in education are highly politicized and are willing to corrupt their responsibilities to further their goals. That happens, has always happened and is nothing new.

The disturbing thing is the lack of response in official channels and lack of consideration of parental concerns. The thing that leads us to suspect that systemic change is needed (that it's not just a string of incidents) isn't that the incidents happened. It's that they happened without anyone being able to stand up and say "this is wrong and you will be punished to ensure this doesn't happen again." That is the worrisome part because it that is what undermines our ability to trust teachers and administrators. It means that parents must, necessarily, feel alone in their dealings with the school because they will not receive back-up from administrators and others whose responsibility it is to manage education resources dedicated to their children. They are forced into being watchdogs with no power because those with the power refuse to be the watchdogs. Teachers and administrators are the UN of education...

Jacob Proffitt

#4 from Klaatu at 3:23 am on Mar 06, 2003

I'm still not impressed, not moved to Savage-style anger. As a matter of fact, I wasn't moved to anger when I was called a baby killer in 1975.

First, all three of the interactions are between adults, not between teachers and wee students.

Second, lots of explanations other than malicious communo-pacifism for all three of the incidents, like: (1) parent might not have been clear as to the reasons for the absence, (2) counselor's statement may have been a clumsy attempt to allay the parent's fears, (3) parents/children could be reacting to stress and on some sort of hair trigger, (4) parent/child could be trying to call attention to self.

Third, as before: no names, no places, no times. Surely SOMEONE would come forward if this stuff happened.

But hey, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, and WorldNetDaily loved the story.

Lets not think about the WAR; how we're going in alone (even Blair is looking to delay) on one narrow front.

*Doctor Slack had a funny rewrite of the silly (but basically inoffensive) Minnesota peace teacher's piece* from Lileks on No War Blog, making it politically correct for the current clime.

#5 from Dave Paglia at 4:12 am on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu: Alone...with the OTHER 18 nations. With a money quote like that, I feel that the rest of your post can be dismissed out-of-hand. Welcome to trollville.

#6 from Retired Paratrooper at 4:15 am on Mar 06, 2003

Joe,

You're not exactly correct when you say its the parents who do not want to go public. The parents might be one part, the other part IS THE GUARD it was printed on different sites on the net, and ON YOUR WEBSITE "Associated Press Report March 3" when you click on there it shows the first paragraph mentioning about the Guard playing it down in so many words. In a way I can understand why the parents don't want to go public then please tell me if this is the case then why does a NG colonel go on national TV on the Factor of all shows to make that public? If they're so concerned about the kids then solve this one on one without the media. There is more to it my pal, I was born at night, but it was not last night.
P.S. I'm glad you are planning on doing a segment about the prejudice against our military, and I thank you for that.

#7 from 82nd Airborne Retired at 4:28 am on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu: My dear counselor, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc. might were eager to jump on this issue, BUT the NG colonel went on the O'Reilly show by his own will. FOX AND O'REILLY DID NOT PUT A GUN TO HIS HEAD AND FORCED HIM TO COME ON FOX. The colonel is the one who got this ball rolling. He is an educated man surely he knew that by going on a show as The Factor which is watched by 2.7 million people nightly that this would go world wide, and open up a can of worms, but why am I explaining this to you, you are the lawyer surely you can figure that one out. AT EASE!

#8 from Klaatu at 4:35 am on Mar 06, 2003

O.K. Dave, you got me. We're not alone. We got those 18 nations behind us.

Except for the Brits, far behind us.

Our 250,000+ troops and sailors.

The British First Armored at 19,000, plus some SAS

Some Aussie SAS, and an Aussie Aviation Regiment

A Czech chemical defense company at 400

A Slovak chemical defense company at 69

A German chemical defense battalion at around 1000.

A few assorted frigates cutting holes in the Persian Gulf to guard against the formidable Iraqi Navy.

#9 from Klaatu the 12 jump chump at 4:41 am on Mar 06, 2003

Airborne, yeah, that makes me wonder. Just a little. Whether this is some PSYOP.

#10 from Ian S. at 4:51 am on Mar 06, 2003

Is "the formidable Iraqi Navy" anything like "the brutal Afghan (spring/summer/fall/winter)"? Just asking.

#11 from 82nd Airborne Retired at 4:51 am on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu: CAN IT! you're making a fool out of yourself I thought lawyers had more class and brains than that.

#12 from Joe Katzman at 5:02 am on Mar 06, 2003

82nd... You thought that? Why?

Jacob... I think you've hit on an excellent point.

#13 from 82nd Airborne Retired at 5:15 am on Mar 06, 2003

Joe, I catch your drift. Its mutual!

#14 from Klaatu at 5:27 am on Mar 06, 2003

Sigh . . . maybe as a lawyer I've had to throw too many people out of my office who wanted to sue, really thought they could get a million bucks over some alleged slight, "harassment," or made-up injury.
I've seen enough people willing to lie under oath to put the hurt on someone else, often for no clear motive. There's plenty of free-floating malice and craziness out there.

And, with 11 years active and 16 years reserve service, I've seen some shammers, scammers, drunks, addicts, liars, a-holes and kooks in uniform, too.

So I'm skeptical.

#15 from 82nd Airborne Retired at 5:34 am on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu: How about 25 yrs of "active duty". Counselor are you for real? We don't have to turn on Jay Leno you are making such a fool out of yourself the whole family is laughing. Keep it coming, we are in stitches :) :) :)

#16 from Hep Cat at 5:44 am on Mar 06, 2003

Teachers at the primary level should be teaching children with mush for brains how to think, to understand basic logic, and the three Rs. Leave morality and philosphy to the parents. I have concluded therefor that useful idiots should be denied teaching certificates on grounds of national security.

#17 from Larry Talbot at 5:49 am on Mar 06, 2003

If any of these teachers has tenure, they are immune from any kind of discipline. Tenure is a special protection that allows teachers to verbally abuse students with impunity. Its required for their "academic freedom."

#18 from wheels at 6:08 am on Mar 06, 2003

*Related things are occurring in Colorado, also* Here's an incident where a teacher wearing a "He's Not My President" button in class was called on it.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_1788444,00.html

#19 from Eh-Mipto at 6:57 am on Mar 06, 2003

Some Aussie SAS?

A Special Forces Task Group of about 500 personnel
CH-47D troop-lift helicopers and personnel from 5 Avn Regt
About 350 soldiers and sailors on HMAS Kanimbla
A squadron of 14 F/A-18 Hornets with about 250 airmen and women and support crews
3 C130 Hercules transports with about 150 personnel
An Air Forward Command Element of about 70 personnel
2 frigates (HMAS Anzac and Darwin) already in the Gulf

Well, it doesn't compare with the U.S. force, but it's more than "some".

#20 from ex-98G at 7:02 am on Mar 06, 2003

Larry: Tenure? At the elementary school level? I would guess not.

Regardless, though, "academic freedom" stops where the lesson plan ends. I'm pretty sure that verbal abuse of students or parents wouldn't be covered.

Pretty sure? Well, let's just say I hope.

#21 from Armed Liberal at 7:32 am on Mar 06, 2003

I'm feeling a bit devilish at the moment - as in 'devil's advocate' - so I'll toss this question into the mix:

How many people who are indignant about the Maine issues would be equally indignant at a teacher who made similarly harsh comments to the children of a gay couple or a racial minority...

...as a thought experiment, ask yourself what your reaction would be to a teacher who made a racially-charged comment in a class, and how it would be different from your reaction (or non-reaction) to a teacher's harsh comments about military families.

...just wondering...

A.L.

#22 from Hep Cat at 9:00 am on Mar 06, 2003

A.L.

Personally I would the same. Elementary teachers don't need to involve themselves in a child's family except for suspected abuse.

Anyhoo, anyone making a derogatory racial or sexist statment would be fired immediately even on a suspicion. And there's plenty of empirical evidence for this. A teacher in North Carolina nearly lost her job, was suspended, and had to make an apology for using the word niggardly or stingy just because some illiterate thought it was racist. And I believe the illiterate is suing the school system. There is an obvious double standard at work here.

#23 from John at 9:42 am on Mar 06, 2003

I am a teacher and I would never permit students to harass one another in class about anything, and especially not about race or religion or ancestry or their parents' jobs. Nor, of course, would I ever do such a thing myself. With high school kids, I am happy to engage them in discussion--that's what school's for--but without letting my own opinion slide through (rule with high school kids: no matter what they say always play devil's advocate). I thought that was something you were supposed to learn in Curriculum and Instruction 101, just in case you didn't have enough common sense to figure it out yourself.

#24 from Joe at 10:41 am on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu, before you go slamming on our allies - and I mean our real allies, the nations that are doing their best to contribute men, materiel and money - consider this one salient fact: The United States of America is the ONLY country on Earth that currently has the capability of moving corps-sized formations around the world, with all the support necessary to keep those formations going. Even then, it's a real stretch for us; there is genuine concern that AMC's planes are going without necessary maintenance because they've been worked almost continuously the last few months. Britain is the only other nation that has anything remotely like our capability, and with this current deployment (which is not much smaller than what they sent for Round 1, and from a smaller total manpower base, today), they had to call on us for sealift and airlift support. They're concentrating on operations in southern Iraq for the very good reason that not all their troops are in place, and won't be in place by the likely start date of the war, because of the sheer logistical difficulty of the operation. As for the other nations, they're working from much smaller bases, and have very little in the way of strategic airlift or sealift (landlocked nations like the Czech Republic have no sealift capability_), nor do they have the logistical capability to sustain large formations of troops at a significant distance from the homeland. Those detachments are as much as they can, in practical reality, send.

#25 from Captain Harlock at 12:42 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Regarding Armed Liberal's appropriate thought exercise, I would like to cite a fairly recent event here in North Carolina. A teacher defined the word "niggardly" for a student while they were studying Moby Dick. The teacher nearly lost her job because the school administration was so sensitive to the 'needs' of racial minorities. Never mind the fact that the word means stingy and has an etymology completely different from the racial slur.

#26 from Retired Army Wife at 1:31 pm on Mar 06, 2003

I understand that now the parents say they don't want to get the children involved, totally understandable, so the media gets the blame for making this public instead of the NG colonel who exposed this issue on The Factor. Having said that can't you the parents, the colonel, and NG at least let us know what is going to be done about these "teachers"? After all by going on the O'Reilly show you pressed our sympathy buttons for these poor kids like Emily who experienced it herself in 4th grade. You had especially us the military and retired military who have/had military kids in school outraged. We send e-mails, wrote to Senators, Congressmen, the President, Board of Education etc. just to leave us hanging? I think we the people who got so involved emotionally in this issue deserve an explanation, we would like to know at least WHAT WILL HAPEN TO THE TEACHERS. None of them came out yet to apologize, how arrogant. None of the parents publically thanked for all the support we the people gave their kids and them. I'm asking now "what did really happen". Are you making fools out of ourselves for sending in all these e-mails with our concern and outrage? Folks before you reply to this last sentence I've seen on several sites on the web saying "the Guard is blaming the media etc., it wasn't really that big of an isssue" in so many words. Why can't they say "we will deal with this issue, but for now we want to protect our kids, we thank you for all your concern", these are teachers, board of education people, NG people, and here I'm a retired Army wife and have to suggest/tell them what they should say to us now. I think after pressing our sympathy and outrage buttons you owe us an answer about what is next, and why "this is not really such a big of an issue" after making it public on the O'Reilly show. I totally agree with Retired Paratrooper trust me there is politics involved, and I'm not talking about Bush and Iraq.

#27 from courios at 2:43 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu: If only O.J. could have had you, the "honest" lawyer, as his defense attorney he would not be walking now. :)

#28 from Jabba the Nutt at 3:00 pm on Mar 06, 2003

"As it is, the reiteration sparked a national story that hit a real public nerve."

The people critical of how this story was played, have to ask themselves 'why did this story hit a real public nerve'? The public nerve has been rubbed raw by story after story of the irresponsibility, the anti-Americanism, the child abuse, which occurs daily in public schools. This story was all too believable with what we know about public schools and teachers unions.

I'm substitute teaching now between jobs. I overheard a 6th grade teacher answering a question from a student on the war. He explained how the Gulf War ended with a ceasefire, where Saddam agreed to disarm. He hasn't disarmed and has violated the agreement. The US and allies have every right to resume hostilities to enforce the agreement.

I talked with this teacher later about what he said and more generally his philosophy. He said he keeps his own political views out of the classroom and hasn't made pro- or anti-war comments. He said had usually voted Democrat, but now leans Republican, because of the corruption of the Clinton years and that today, the Dem's are playing politics with the war. Of course, he doesn't agree with pubbie education proposals. But the Dems have been so disgusting, they've pushed this guy pretty much out. Amazing.

#29 from B.G. in Louisville at 3:28 pm on Mar 06, 2003

I suggest next time you think before you jump on the O'Reilly show whether you want to make this public, get the kids involved etc. child abuse SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC NATIONWIDE, but not with later coming out and playing it down, and pushing the blame on the media. Like kids "I didn't do it, he did it" in this case the media. Forgive me if I and many others I talked to are now wondering because of your behavior. NOT wondering if this story is true, but wondering what "higher ups" were maybe paid off so to speak to put a lid on it. Looks like both are kissing each other's a.., and forget the poor kids. They might be only 7 yrs old, but don't be fooled 7 yr olds can tell and see and wonder "why do I have to go back to this teacher's class". I was mentally abused by a teacher saying to me in front of the class "you just don't get it do you? I was 6, (I was not a military kid) but just the same I told my mom, and she took me by the hand immediately we went straight to that teacher, I don't remember the details because this happened many yrs ago, and after we paid that teacher a visit my mom and I went straight to the principals office. Needless to say this teacher NEVER made a rude remark again for knowing my mom she would've taken further steps. Had this teacher said stuff to me like these teachers in Maine "allegedly" said to the military kids I guarentee you action would have been taken by my mom. This happened 50 yrs ago, and I still remember my mom sticking up for me and us by going to that teacher. I was and still am so proud of her for that, and I learned from her "to stand up for yourself", and I did the same thing with our 2 kids when they were children, and taught our children the same. Trust me they wouldn't have taken crap like that from their children's teachers. Before you say "how do I know that these parents didn't do the same" then I say "keep us posted, we prayed for your kids, and hope these "teachers" get justice, don't play it down by saying "the media made a big deal out of it". Retired Paratrooper, I agree with you. Hooah!!

#30 from Emily at 4:31 pm on Mar 06, 2003

A.L.,
Fair question, and I've answered it before. If this story were to involve a hawkish teacher telling kids that their parents were bad because they were peace activists and it was outwardly hurting these children, I would be just as outraged, as I'm hoping everybody else here would be.

I'm also betting it would have gotten much wider coverage, but I'm cynical like that.

#31 from fjh at 4:59 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Actually, most of this MAY have been orchestrated nationally through:
o the NEA formulated lesson plans,
o through Brown University's program for social studies teachers at http://www.choices.edu/index.html and,
o through the National Council of Social Studies at http://www.socialstudies.org/resources/moments/.

Posters should be aware that this topic has been broached in a CNN report at cnn.com.education:

"ROCKVILLE, Maryland (AP) -- Why do they hate us so much? Jenn Storck put the question to her 10th-grade government students, who were 3-year-olds the last time the United States neared a war with Iraq. They tried to imagine the mind-set of people in Saddam Hussein's land.

"Their government has almost brainwashed them. They think the U.S. is horrible and does all these evil things," said Amy Fries, 15. "I think the Iraqi people really don't know what to think by now. They're just confused."

But Ross Godwin, 16, remembered the message from "Three Kings" -- the George Clooney movie set during the 1991 Gulf War. Most Iraqis have no beef with the United States, he said.

"Look at it from their perspective," Godwin said. "We've bombed them periodically throughout the last decade. We've gone to war with them. We've killed a lot of their people. In general, we've acted like a superior nation around the world."

As U.S. troops mount for battle and Americans absorb terrorism warnings, schools are preparing for war, too. Weapons of mass destruction have become a forum of class instruction, resonating so strongly with students that even some teachers are surprised.

"I hear kids saying it: Will I have to go off to war?" said Todd Wallingford, who teaches high school civics and history in a Boston suburb. "There's more genuine interest in a current event than I've seen in a long time, and that's because it's really relevant to these kids. 9-11 was sort of something that happened to us, and now this is something that could really involve them."

Balancing act
Teachers say their mission is to help students understand and analyze a crisis that seems to shift topic, country, channel and color code all the time.

Mitchell Lerner, left, and Ross Godwin, participate in a class discussion about U.S. troops preparing for battle.
But as they talk of balancing civil liberties and military might, educators have a lot to balance themselves -- weaving war into a curriculum geared toward standardized tests, preparing older students but reassuring younger ones, presenting balanced views of America's goals.

"It's a hard issue to talk about, and when you take it into the classroom, you don't want to push one point of view," said Susan Graseck of Brown University, who has overseen the creation of Iraqi-conflict lesson plans used by more than 3,000 teachers.

"That's not the point of public education. The point is to help them think more clearly about the issues and let them form their own opinions."

Storck's advanced-placement students did not need much prodding.

"I think people are being a little hard on Bush," said Claire Stein, a 15-year-old in the Thomas S. Wootton High School classroom. "He's sitting up there with this huge decision to make, and he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't."

Some students feel the same way, with school police officers nationwide warning that they are unprepared for terrorism and parents stockpiling emergency supplies.

"We don't really understand. They're making contingency plans, but what are they doing?" said Mitchell Lerner, 16. "We weren't alive during the Cold War threat, so we don't know how real it really is."

It is real enough for some students to see a human face in this conflict -- their own, or at least those of their older siblings and friends.

"A lot of us have friends who are 18," said Miriam Yavener, 15. "If the draft gets reinstated, life could change a lot."

Neutral approach
It is important for students to understand those costs of war, including death tolls on all sides, said James McGrath Morris, who teaches social studies in Springfield, Virginia.

Morris helped create a national curriculum on the September 11 attacks, from a historical perspective.

"I want them to focus on the politics and the government, on who makes decisions," Morris said. "I want them to see that the power of the presidency grows in these moments and doesn't always shrink after. It's an opportunity to help create better citizens."

Miriam Yavener, 15, said she is worried about the United States reinstating the draft.
But what message to send? This lesson is not in a textbook, and the same flexibility and innovation that lead to teaching success can also open educators to criticism.

What is critical is balance, said Charles Haynes, who works with schools as a scholar for the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia.

"I don't mean giving equal time to Saddam Hussein's point of view," Haynes said. "But I do mean where there is debate in this country, teachers must teach that controversy. ... When they veer off to the right or the left, then a teacher has violated a trust. It doesn't happen visibly very often, but when that door is closed, who knows what goes on?"

In essence, the Iraqi conflict, depicted as an extension of the war on terrorism, may reopen the same touchy debate about how teachers responded to the September 11 anniversary.

Teachers have an obligation to do more than elicit debate among students, said Chester Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, an education reform group. They must also help them understand why American values are worth defending even in war, he said.

"There's a fine line between helping kids understand and telling them what to think, and good teachers do a good job on that line," Finn said. "But on matters of profound national interest, I don't think it's a sin to slip a little over the line, to tell them this is a better country than most and democracy is better than anything most people have tried."

Conflict curriculum
What is taught may reflect as much about a region as anything else.

In the San Francisco Bay area, school boards in at least three districts passed resolutions encouraging school debate about the causes and consequences of war. (cut)"

#32 from Retired Vietnam Veteran at 5:07 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Emily: I agree with you, I too would be just as outraged, and I guarentee you this would've gotten much wider coverage. Had it been kids of "gay" parents watch out here comes Rosie O'Donald, kids of minorities watch out here comes Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the NAACP, and RIGHTFULLY so, but where is our support. Since we are on the subject Al Sharpton you want to run for president in 04 where are you on this issue? Aren't you supporting the minority?? The way the military, military kids and retired military get treated WE ARE IN THE MINORITY. Where is Jessie Jackson and the rest of the gang??? after all there are also "black military children" throughout the nation. Sharpton you want people to vote for you in 04 why are you not supporting this issue about the military kids,us and our troops? If you do make yourself heard please.

#33 from courios at 5:26 pm on Mar 06, 2003

I wonder if I am the only one thinking why is it that all these Hollywood stars who are so "against" this war have no problem playing a role as a soldier especially in combat (I'm not talking abut Bruce Willis, he tried to enlist to serve his counry, but was refused because of his age). This guy for example who played on Mash is so arrogant and outraged. You might say this was/is "fiction" I say sorry I don't buy it. If you are REALLY THAT MUCH AGAINST A WAR AND THE MILITARY" then don't play the role of a soldier especially in combat. Again, its ALL about money isn't it????????? I wish all military bases would stop showing movies with these actors in it. You never know it might will happen after all Jane Fonda was either kicked off or refused to enter Ft. Benning, GA. Later, by sitting on the enemy's tank and kissing up to the enemy didn't help her later on in life. When she was married to Turner she wanted to run for some kind of office, but the Viet Nam Vets said "sorry Hanoi Jane no can do" you will NOT get our support, then this traitor had the nerve to turn around and apologized saying "she was young and didn't know what she was doing" yeah right that dame knew exactly what she was doing.

#34 from Nick at 5:45 pm on Mar 06, 2003

I'm with Emily et al. on this one. To your experiment A>L> I'd like to think all reasonable and considerate people would be highly upset and outraged.

But it's a totally different issue about how politicians and administrators would react. Administrators are far more sensitive to the issues you present hypothetically and may take a harder stance. Also, people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh would be busy pointing out a lack of evidence and unfounded accusations instead of decrying anti-americanism.

It's a question that not only needs to be put to those of us in this chatroom but to the people we looked to for information and leadership.

#35 from Proud Retired Army at 8:17 pm on Mar 06, 2003

We just read in the Washington paper that since the story broke about the military kids "no similar incidents have since occured" we're very glad about this, but oh gee of course this does not happen again right now, but it will happen again the way this is handled or lets say the way we think its handled.

Maine also has "good" teachers no doubt, but why hasn't any ONE of these "good" teachers come out and apologized for his/her colleagues. Don't tell me they never heard of Joe's website. They could have stayed anonymous, and we are sure that Joe would've posted the e-mail/e-mails.

Why haven't any, not one of the parents send an e-mail to Joe's website thanking us for our support? Joe would've printed it. Now we're brushed off with "the parents decided not to get the kids into it" the Guard says "themedia is blowing this out of proportion". We saw the colonel on the O'Reilly show and with all due respect O'Reilly had to tell him what to do i.e. "get yourself a military lawyer" we would've been 10 steps ahead of O'Reilly before we had agreed to go on The Factor,if we had gone on The Factor for had we had all the concerns expressed now by the parents and the Guard we would'nt have touched The Factor with a 10 foot pole.

Maybe we were "active duty" for to long we guarentee you there would be a different follow up of this issue at Ft.Bragg, NC this post was totally "family oriented" when we were stationed there, and Colin Powell was the post General at the time.

We know that investigations take time, and we don't demand "immediate result", but the public is not even told whether this is/has been throughly investigated. Or "thanks for your concern we're investigating these issues at this time for our children's sake please understand that we want to stay private and not go public anymore", but not even that. We don't give a sh.. anymore. ONLY about the kids. These kids will be in our prayers, for we BELIEVE that it happened,butother than that this is the biggest B.S. follow up mess we have ever seen. It has been close to 10 days since this story broke, and now it looks like its swept under the rug.

Forgive us if we sound pi..ed, but I remember when my husband left for Viet Nam, and I, my 3 and 4 year old children accompanied him to the Army bus which then took the soldies to the Airport. On the way home our 2 children, especialy our son couldn't stop crying and asking "where is Daddy going, where is Daddy going, I want my Daddy". NOW I PICTURE my children 3 yrs later coming home from school and telling me/us the inflammatory remarks one of the teachers made after my husband served, fought and risked his life for people like that.

Forgive me if I feel like I got salt thrown in my wounds, but that hits below the belt when it comes to little innocent children.

Joe, you got a great website and we found out about it through FOX,all this e-mailing will not accomplishing anything while the Guard and the parents want to forget+swipe this under the rug. The children deserve better. Don't be surprised if this will continue in other parts of the country. They see that nothing happened to these teachers in Maine.

We'll pray for these kids, but as far as going to the chat room forget it. This is B.S. the way this is followed up. Count us and our friends and family out of it. We said all we had to say.

Retired Army wife
Retired Viet Nam Veteran
25 yrs of "active duty" and proud of it.

#36 from Klaatu at 9:19 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Joe, two points.

With regard to your post about the US being the only nation able to move corps-sized formations and that somehow excusing more allied participation - not true. My job in the reserves (for 15 years) was with one of the USTRANSCOM components - which are AMC (Air), Military Sealift Command (Ocean) and Military Traffic Managment Command (land).

While the US has by far has the largest airlift and organic sealift capacities, much of US military sealift travels by charter, often by flags of convenience. This has been done routinely for the routine deployments of units to Bosnia/Kosovo. These foreign flag (St. Vincent, etc.) RO/ROs are presumably available for charter to other countries.
If they weren't, I'm sure we would be happy to lend an LMSR or two to the Netherlands or Norway for a couple of voyages or make a few C-17 flights for them.
And anyways, wouldn't we settle for division-or even brigade sized formations? I know Italy and Spain have the organic capability to move forces in amphibious ships like the San Marco (It.). The truth is, except for the Brits and he Aussies, we are alone in this.

(Interlude in writing -the Wife (a teacher) calls me, tells me that son (a soldier) called and said he had been sick from a flu-like reaction to smallpox vaccine, but that he has recovered. He confirms news reports his unit is going to P. Gulf)

Second, about the teachers: I guess what offends me about this whole thing is that:

(1) The teachers of Maine, or at least Bangor, have been defamed by unnamed persons.

(2) The story has been used by the jingoist media to discredit any questioning about the war, slam "liberals," "educationists," etc.

Lastly, to Airborne: I'm so glad that you never met any f-ups, cry-babies or lying sacks of (s) in your 25 years of service. The 82nd must be even better than I thought.

#37 from 82nd Airborne Retired at 11:31 pm on Mar 06, 2003

Klaatu: councelor, You don't even get it why we were laughing. A lawyer throwing clients out of his office because he found out they were lying etc. hellooooooooo!!!!!!!! isn't that what lawyers are there for to defend their clients???? I don't know what type of lawyer you are, but with your total "honesty and professionalism" I wish you'd have been OJ's defense attorney for OJ would not be walking and playing golf today. Where were you when the "dream team" needed you?????????

#38 from Atticus at 1:58 am on Mar 07, 2003

Oh for the love of our country. Are we really supposed to listen to somebody who actually thinks that lawyers are obligated to sue on behalf of any lunatic who walks in the door(because they're "there for to defend their clients?????")

It's a shame that Larry Klayman insists as posting as a retired paratrooper.

#39 from courios at 2:21 am on Mar 07, 2003

Atticus: That is why O.J. walked!!!!!!!!!!!!

#40 from Retired Paratrooper at 3:21 am on Mar 07, 2003

Atticus: Somebody is "posting" as a retired paratrooper? posting? Watch out poster the real paratrooper will do a "night jump" on you. JUST KIDDING!

#41 from Joe Katzman at 5:46 am on Mar 07, 2003

Klaatu is right about this, at least: people don't always tell the truth. That's why any investigations need to be fair, and conducted with more principles than we usually see from Left-leaning administrators when their sacred cows are involved.

And no, the teachers in Maine have not been defamed. Some teachers have been accused - and truth is an absolute defense against defamation. So they were only defamed if the stories aren't true... and you certainly can't know that. Your biases are showing, "counsellor" - and your mind remains made up.

All the stuff about seeking to stifle debate etc. is just so much b.s., so foolish it's not even worth addressing. It's fairly clear nothing will convince you, and I've no inclination to bother.

Now, a legitimate question: why has this become such an issue? Mostly because of the conduct of Maine officials.

The problem here is that there's little interest in further investigation, and never has been. Albanese, in possession of the information mentioned here since day 1, has never demanded details. Instead, he promised to issue a feeble advisory and otherwise worked to minimize the incident.

Back to Jacob's excellent point - had administrators got on this in a serious way, there would be no story. They didn't. Which means the only lever for pressure is the media, and that always risks collateral damage and a media circus.

If they want a different result next time, all they have to do is handle the complaints differently. The fact that they didn't raised supicion - DESERVED suspicion.

Which is why "Retired Army" has a point here.

I'm not saying stop, give up. Yes, information on what follows with the teachers and administrators involved is important. Yes, the public deserves to know - even if it never learns their names. Yes, the education bureaucrats will refuse to give out any of that information unless placed under the most withering public spotlight, or subjected to court orders. Yes, the only way to really fix these things long term is via greater parental choice.

That's a pity. BUT... YES, the publicity and expressed outrage DID help.

For one thing, it established a clear deterrence value against this kind of conduct. That forces educators who might otherwise be inclined toward bias or lack of consideration soldiers' children, and there certainly are some, to rethink the cost/benefit ratio.

As a starting point, that ain't half bad.

#42 from Retired Army Wife at 1:14 pm on Mar 07, 2003

Joe: This was an EXCELLENT post, thanks for saying it like it is, and ALL YOUR SUPPORT.

#43 from Barbara in Louisville at 9:47 pm on Mar 07, 2003

Joe is "fair and balanced" like FOX is. Thanks FOX for posting Joe's website.

FOX rocks, and so does Joe!