alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/17/84)
> My personal opinion is that the majority of parents in an area should > have the right to remove a teacher for any reason, because no.1 that > teacher has a profound effect upon their children and no.2 I believe > in majority rule (or democracy if you prefer). The founding fathers didn't believe in majority rule, at least not in its purest sense. They put many restrictions on our democracy, in order to avoid a "tyranny of the majority." After all, how can a right be "inalienable" if it's subject to majority opinion? George, are you saying you don't believe in inalienable rights, or are you simply unclear about the principles this country is founded on? -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ La Belle) (07/19/84)
To Alan D. and the 9 out of 10 others who think that the right of a
gay teacher to maintain his job takes precedence over the rights of the
many parents to see that the person representing them in the classroom
is acceptable to them-
What are "inalienable rights"? Who defines them? Can they change? Are
there exceptions to the rule?
What about the "inalienable rights" of the parents to raise their children
according to their own standards? One could send his or her own child to a
private school of his own choosing to insure a certain "quality", but I
don't think this should be neccessary. I pay for my school, I should have some
say in who teaches there! (I'm speaking strictly of grammar school here! High
School or college is irrelevant) What should be taught in grammar is the
3 R's not morals, religion, OR GAY LIFE! Kids at this age are extremely impres-
sionable and the teacher at this level should as neutral as possible as to
chosen life styles which will come later in life.
I think the matter of the removal of an undesirable teacher in this
particular case is an exception to the general rule. There was a court
case in the late 60's here in the S.F. area with regards to a "hippie"
who grew long hair and held a job in which he worked behind a counter
and and was fired. He lost the case on the grounds that the person who
employed him had a right to demand a certain dress code in this particular
line of work- over His right to wear long hair. The analogy is similar.
Also, as I tried to say, I wasn't refering only to gay or "minority"
teachers. If a teacher is impressing upon the class something undesireable
(as determined by a majority of the parents) outside the 3 R's, they
should have a right to remove them.
GEORGE
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/20/84)
[?]
An alternative question: does exposure to atheists/agnostics/Jews/
Baptists/Methodists/Communists/unmarried non-virgins/McGovernites/
/Moral Majoritorians/..... make it more likely that children will
follow that model? If not, how is homosexuality different? If so, is
any teacher representing any idealogy/religion/philosophy differing
with the local norm fair game for dismissal so as to "protect"
children?
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/21/84)
> What about the "inalienable rights" of the parents to raise their children > according to their own standards? They are worth squat. They are not rights at all. What right does a parent have to "expect" to raise children to mold them as *they* see fit? Children are not pieces of property; they are human beings who are growing up to be independent (hopefully) thinking (hopefully) adults (hopefully). Parents don't *own* them; they are charged with the responsibility of bringing them up to be independent thinking adults, and there are NO rights associated with that responsibility. Parents who expect their children to live up to *their* expectations (being a doctor/lawyer/athlete/hotshot) so that *they* can gloat and take pride in what their children have done, or parents who engage in any similar form of psychological manipulation of their children, are as guilty of child abuse as the ones who beat and molest their kids. Emotional abuse can leave deeper scars than physical abuse. [OBVIOUSLY MR. ROSEN DOESN'T HAVE VERY STRONG OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE. -ED.] -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/21/84)
(I added motss to the groups. I think it's time for a comment from over there on this matter.) It's sort of feeling like flame-time: > What about the "inalienable rights" of the parents to raise their children > according to their own standards? Where on earth did that one come from? If you want to teach them to be thieves, that's ok??? I suppose you also think that you have the right to punish them according to your own standards? Look, they're your children, not your property! > I pay for my school, I should have some say in who teaches there! Sure, but that's not the same as running the school, either yourself or by a mob of parents. For one, you're probably not qualified; for another, that's not your job and it is someone else's. (Hey, since I don't have any kids, can I get out of paying for schools???) > What should be taught in grammar is the > 3 R's not morals, religion, OR GAY LIFE! If you've got a teacher teaching sexual mores to gradeschool kids, then yes, work to get rid of the teacher. Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with it. That seems to be the point you've missed, both in the original and in your followup. The issue is not related to the private life of the teacher. That isn't any of your damn business. If the teacher is teaching (or otherwise promoting in the classroom) sensitive topics not relevant to what is supposed to be taught, the teacher is wrong. PLEASE NOTE that I did not say "sensitive viewpoints" - I said "sensitive topics" and I mean "regardless of what view is expressed on those topics..." >Kids at this age are extremely impres- >sionable and the teacher at this level should as neutral as possible as to > chosen life styles which will come later in life. This statement is a good one - the "neutrality" is the main point. It's the same as the point I was tryin to make in the preceding paragraph. Again - if you've got a teacher who is teaching sexual attitudes in a gradeschool, you've got a valid complaint - but homosexuality is a red herring. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
mahler@mss.UUCP (mahler) (07/21/84)
While I didn't see the article that started this discussion, the one
quote that I saw from it, and the flavor of a couple of the responses has
me concerned.
I teach at a high school, and the idea that public pressure should be
just cause for the removal of a teacher is questionalble at best (or at
least I feel it is questionalble). For one thing, we need to recognize that
the majority (of parents, of teachers, of the public, etc.) has a remarkable
tendency to exhibit sheep herd qualities. This is to say that they can be
easily whipped up into a frenzy without actually examining what they're get-
ting worked up about. All of Germany got worked up during the 30's and 40's,
but would you say that they were right to remove Jewish teachers from the
schools? The public in Tennessee called for the removal of a teacher who
taugh Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Were they right to do this?
I'm not saying that either the state of Tennessee or the Germans didn't have
the legal right to do what they wanted to with their teachers, but I do
question whether they were RIGHT to exercise that right.
Another point that I would raise, is the question of a parent's
qualifications. I would not suggest that all teachers know what is best for
their students, nor would I say that teachers necessarily know more about
education than parents. I would, however, suggest that an experienced
teacher might have a better idea of what he/she is up to in the classroom,
than a parent who objects to the subject matter, or the methodology of a
class. The reason I raise this point at all, is because I believe that
opening a teachers lifestyle to public scrutiny and approval will lead to
opening their opinions, beliefs, and methods of teaching to the same sort
of scrutiny, and the same sort of threat of removal for holding to ways
not approved of by the majority.
Lastly (I realize I'm running on a bit here), I think that the question
about the teacher's sexual preference is irrelevant. So long as a teacher
does not flaunt, or try to coerce students into, his/her sexual orientation,
that orientation is nobody's damned business. It is as wrong to glorify
and flaunt hetrosexuality in the classroom as it is to do the same with
homosexuality.
Okay. I've said enough. Sorry if this was too long winded.
Barry A. Long
mss!mahlerdmcanzi@watmath.UUCP (David Canzi) (07/24/84)
> >Kids at this age are extremely impres- > >sionable and the teacher at this level should as neutral as possible as to > > chosen life styles which will come later in life. > This statement is a good one - the "neutrality" is the main point. It's > the same as the point I was tryin to make in the preceding paragraph. Bullfeathers! I doubt that the word "neutrality" means the same thing to the original poster that it does to me. It's probably perfectly okay for a [male] teacher to mention to the kiddies that he has a wife, maybe even a mistress, but let him mention that he has a male lover and sh*t will fly. This is not neutrality. I think I smell a hypocrite.