There have been
several diaries on the issue of a Colorado teacher, Jay Bennish, suspended over political remarks, but much of the analysis so far has seemed faulty. All I want to do is, quite simply, explain what this debate is
not about--free speech--and what it
is about--teaching methods.
I will begin by saying that I have not heard and have no intention of listening to the
audiotape of the teacher's remarks. As far as my analysis goes, I consider the contents of the tape as not only irrelevant, but I further hope this discussion becomes broader than just one person or event to the point where the discussion revolves around teaching itself. I will further note, though, that this diary started as a comment in the second diary linked above.
Employer restrictions on freedom of speech
Many people have expressed outrage over the free-speech rights taken away from Mr. Bennish due to this incident. However, as an employee of the government, there are several precedents for restricting this right. Most notably is the Hatch Act which explicitly restricts the rights of federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity.
Now, Mr. Bennish is most likely a town or district employee and not an employee of the federal government, but the precedent is set. Further, this act restricts what the above employees can do in their personal time; their individual job positions likely demand additional restrictions on their speech or behavior while at work, which Mr. Bennish was. Hence, there is no question that the school district's job requirements can infringe on its employees constitutional rights while they are at work, even though I'm not familiar with Colorado law or school district policy in this area. However, I claim that the freedom argument completely misses the point.
What this is really about
Once we get over our moral outrage, this debate is really a referendum on teaching. Fundamentally, this leads us to ask ourselves what we thing this teacher was trying to accomplish--was he trying to influence students' opinions or simply trying to engage the students in a political discussion?
We're all likely aware that making an extreme statement--for example, comparing George Bush with Hitler--is likely to attract a response. If this was his goal, then his personal political beliefs are irrelevant; it would be very easy for him to argue that his intent was to shock the consciences of his students in order to force a response, thereby promoting participation in a political debate. While it's not the Socratic Method, such techniques have the potential to be successful with an audience mature enough to understand the difference.
This leads us to the two, fundamental questions:
1.) Was this teacher indoctrinating students with his political opinions or simply engaging them in debate?
2.) Are 16-year-old mature enough to understand the difference?
I cannot answer the second question nor will I try. You can replace the number 16 with anything between 6 and 60 and still be unable to answer the question universally.
With regards to the first, though, we can go a little deeper. If he was simply stating an opinion and encouraging students to accept that as fact, I find his behavior appalling. Forcing students to accept a political position is no better than forcing them to pray in school or teaching Intelligent Design as science; all involve a teacher imposing his or her personal views as fact which is the antithesis of education.
If Mr. Bennish was engaging in the latter option, engaging students in debate, then it must be that the administration disagrees with his teaching methods. Given the fine line between indoctrination and engagement, we should all hope that the administration conducts a brief yet thorough investigation. If he simply was encouraging debate, I would expect his return to the classroom promptly.
Hence, in this teacher's case anyway, there are really only two explanations:
1) There's more to this story than has been released to the public.
2) The administration will return Mr. Bennish to teaching shortly.
More generally, this requires us to ask ourselves not only what we consider acceptable teaching methods, but to whom they can be applied. Surely we'd all agree that if this were to a classroom of 10-year-olds instead of 16-year-olds, this would be a different story. Hence, I hope that--at the very least--school districts take example of this incident to review and explain their policies on acceptable teaching practices as well as open debate on these policies to their local communities.
It's difficult to establish guidelines on teaching methods because they are not only unique to individual teachers but to individual classes of students as well. If we wish to engage students in politics and keep them aware of world events, these are the types of discussions we need to have.
Edit: Updated "Hatch Act" link to reflect more accurate information.