A history teacher at Mountain View High School in Mountain View, California, was suspended after comparing the rise of Trump to the rise of Hitler.
“Frank Navarro, who’s taught at the school for 40 years, was asked to leave midday Thursday after a parent sent an email to the school expressing concerns about statements Navarro made in class. Mountain View/Los Altos High School District Superintendent Jeff Harding confirmed the incident Friday but declined to describe the parent’s complaints.
“Navarro, an expert on the Holocaust, said school officials declined to read him the email and also declined his request to review the lesson plan with him.
“This feels like we’re trying to squash free speech,” he said. “Everything I talk about is factually based. They can go and check it out. “It’s not propaganda or bias if it’s based on hard facts.”
“Though Navarro said school officials originally told him to return on Wednesday, Harding said he could return as early as Monday….
“Navarro, who is Mexican-American and was raised in Oakland, said he’s concerned for many of his students during this political climate.
“I’ve had Mexican kids come and say, ‘Hey, Mr. Navarro, I might be deported,’ ” he said.
“Is it better to see bigotry and say nothing? That’s what the principal was telling me (during our conversation). In my silence, I would be substantiating the bigotry.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Had Clinton been elected, and had the teacher made the same comparison, would your thoughts be any different?
LikeLike
That comment makes no sense whatsoever.
LikeLike
Why? Would you or would you not be okay with a teacher making a similar comparison of Clinton to Hitler in class? Personally, I’d rather teachers didn’t compare either Clinton or Trump to Hitler. But if you’re going to get upset about a teacher being disciplined for the Trump-Hitler comparison, you’d have to be upset if a teacher were disciplined for a Clinton-Hitler comparison. Based on what I’ve seen on this blog in the past several months, I doubt very many of you would be.
LikeLike
Dienne says on the Clinton-Hitler comparison: ” . . . you’d have to be upset if a teacher were disciplined for a Clinton-Hitler comparison. Based on what I’ve seen on this blog in the past several months, I doubt very many of you would be.”
I’d be even more upset if, in fact, there** were** good reason to compare Clinton with Hitler. But there are not; and a teacher with this man’s background (40 years of studying that particular frame of history) and his revealing historical similarities to his students today is doing what he probably has always done–taught history. He would no more think to compare Clinton to Hitler than a biologist would compare a frog with a building.
Your comment is about dealing in abstractions (again). So let’s do so. Here’s at least my answer: Yes, IF Clinton WERE like Hitler in any remarkable way (as Trump is), then I would expect history teachers throughout the land to pass that knowledge on to their students–so that they can make their own decisions and choices with that knowledge, and so much else they need to learn from history, firmly in their memory banks. It’s his duty as a history teacher, not to “persuade” as you are assuming he is doing, but to inform students’ political thought in a democracy where they will be responsible for their own political future–if democracy hasn’t disappeared by the time they grow up.
And BTW, the battle about teaching history over the last several years is about just that missing distinction: between informing and persuading students. The fascist has always wanted to distort or get rid of history all together. What better way than to get rid of history courses and firing history teachers for teaching history that happens to go against the fascist’s intentions? Remember book burning?
LikeLike
He was making a comparison of historical facts and asking his students to consider the parallels. I know you have a visceral hate of Clinton, but nothing in her record or campaign even remotely suggests racist tendencies and policies. It is a comparison of actions and intent, not one of one person to another. When I was a teacher in the 80s I presented both sides of Israel-Palestinian conflict in which some compared conditions in Gaza and Lebanon to those in Nazi Germany. I asked my students to look at the issue from both sides. One of my students’ parents claimed I was saying was that the policies of Israel were the same as those of Nazi Germany. Thankfully my headmaster, one of the earliest Reagan Republicans, supported me unconditionally. That is what teaching is and Mr. Navarro should be commended for demonstrating to his students that contemporary history is connected to our past.
Your comments are so illogically venomous, not objective.
Here’s an example of what this leads to: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/black-veteran-says-refused-free-160950540.html
LikeLike
Amen to your comment, Catherine. I’m signing out of this argument now. No need to add anything since you said it so well.
LikeLike
Thank you Greg and Catherine for your good judgment and educated comments. Agree with all you both said.
LikeLike
Dienne
OK I would like to see that comparison. You are entitled to your opinion and your are entitled to express it. So let see you go through the intellectual exercise . Show us that Clinton/ Hitler comparison.
With out spending more than a minute , Ill list two for Trump /Hitler Demagoguery and The big lie
Your turn
LikeLike
Joel,
Here is a Hitler-Trump comparison: Scapegoating minorities
A second: appealing to nationalism
A third: winking at the support of the KKK and other hate groups
LikeLike
Before anyone makes hyperbolic comparisons between Trump and Hitler, I suggest reading serious history like “The Coming of the Third Reich” by Richard J. Evans, the first of three long volumes about Nazi Germany that he authored. The roots of democracy in Weimar Germany were only inch deep compared to the much stronger, much longer held democratic beliefs in America, which Alexis de Tocqueville described around 1840 in “Democracy in America.” The democratic ethos in modern America is even stronger overall, and would never tolerate a President Trump behaving like Hitler did. In fact, these days repressive political impulses are far more common on the Left than on the Right: speech codes, shouting down speakers, ostracizing reasonable but minority views on college campuses; the belief among 40% of college students – mostly liberal – that “insensitive” expression should be banned; the desire among most liberals (not all) to restrict political expression by overturning the Citizens United decision, which arose from a documentary that criticized Hillary Clinton. Trump is definitely intemperate, and he badly needs some basic civics lessons. But he isn’t close to being a Hitler, and he couldn’t succeed in that endeavor even if he wanted to.
LikeLike
JOHN Webster,
Time will tell about Trump.
I can’t let your praise of Citizens United pass without comment.
That decision has unleashed a flood of money into elections, much of it to committees that shield the identity of the donor. The average person can’t afford to run for offfice. Citizens Uniteddoes not protect the speech of the wealthy. They have no problem speaking. It is the regular perSon whohasbeensilenced by big money.
LikeLike
FYI, the ACLU – hardly a right-wing organization – supported the Citizens United decision as upholding the right to free speech. One major party presidential candidate outspent her opponent by 2-1 and barely won the popular vote while losing in the electoral college. I detest the attack ads on TV that are mostly financed by big money donors, but this year proved that they can’t necessarily buy elections.
LikeLike
Big money doesn’t necessarily buy elections, as charter supports learned last week in MA and GA, but it sure is a big thumb on the scale. Try running for local school board when you have $10,000 and a “Committee for Great Schools Now” gives your opponent $200,000.
LikeLike
Ay ay ay. I can’t argue with blind partisan hackery. Of course you consider comparisons of Trump to Hitler to be valid – you can’t stand Trump. But other people take offense at such comparisons and see valid comparisons of Clinton to Hitler, which you take offense to. The procedure in either case should be the same. Either such comparisons should be forbidden, in which case the school was right to discipline Navarro, or teachers should be able to make the case for such comparisons and let the students decide if the comparison has merit or not. But again, had a teacher make a Clinton-Hitler comparison, I don’t think most of you here would care what his/her argument was, it would automatically be invalid on its face to you.
LikeLike
Dienne: You are comparing apples with oranges by talking about “taking offense.” Teaching history is about informing students regardless of who takes offense. Your note is written in a purely political vein–you are looking at teaching as only about taking a political stance (oranges) when it’s about informing students (apples).
Lots of history goes against liberalism (lots and lots,warts and all) but that doesn’t mean we don’t teach our students about it. Students in this country live in a democracy–for now. In order to keep it or throw it away they will need to know what it means and doesn’t mean, and that they are already standing in it and benefiting by it (as you and I are), as well as the problems that go with ALL of it because they will inherit it.
Actually, from a pedagogical point of view, the LA teacher was making vibrant what often looks like “dry” material–by bringing it into today’s experience. Who can miss it–it’s on every TV all day long.
I do like the Stalin comparison with Trump mentioned here earlier. Hitler’s history with Stalin is interesting in itself–and I do think warrants a similar comparison to Trumps here-and-there relationship with Putin. Remember Hitler signed a pact with Stalin at first, and then invaded.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Your comment reads as though you never listened to any Hillary speech. Her theme was “Stronger Together.” She never appealed to white nationalism. She never blamed immigrants or Muslims or any other group for economic problems. She never attacked the democratic process or claimed that it was rigged. She never threatened to throw her opponent into jail after the election. Trump did. Please let us know how you would go about comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler.
LikeLike
I have often disagreed with you on various issues but this time you are 100% correct. The process should be the same in both cases. Regardless of whether or not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are the ones being compared to Hitler. It’s called a different opinion and believe it or not folks those do exist outside of this blog.
LikeLike
To “The Real One” What about whether there really ARE significant similarities in one, and not in the other? The argument is not an abstraction–it’s about concrete people and about what fascism is and isn’t’ as distinct from democracy. Under a definition of both stances in regard to truth, Trump is significantly similar to Hitler and Clinton is not.
Where is your critical consciousness? Your way of viewing things as somehow fair-to-compare is, again, an abstraction. That is, it cannot be applied to real-history (ahem about your name). It’s similar to claiming that, since I say drinking hemlock is poisonous, and you say drinking orange juice is poisonous, then it’s “fair” to drink either and you won’t die.
LikeLike
One useful tidbit I learned from a professor while obtaining my California, Cultural-Linguistic Academic Development, supplemental teaching certification in the ’90s was not to imitate accents in class for fun. It seemed obvious to me not to make fun of Asian, Spanish, or African American dialects, even obvious not to do an Italian American shtick. What was memorably not so obvious was when the professor warned not to imitate Southerner, English, or German accents: white people. She said being culturally sensitive meant being sensitive to every culture. That stuck with me to this day.
I think we all need to learn to get along better. That means being sensitive to the tens of millions of people who support Trump: mostly but not exclusively white people. I don’t mean encouraging swastikas or hate speech, but when in front of a class of impressionable, young students, refraining from pointing out the negatives about our leaders and soon-to-be leaders, highlighting instead the patriotic positives. We must work with our opponents, not make them our enemies. So, in a way, I agree with Dienne. Comparing anyone to Adolf Hitler is hyperbolic and unnecessarily confrontational in a school setting.
LikeLike
Dienne: Did Hillary stir up anti immigrant passions, did Hillary pretend to not know who or what the white supremacists and KKK are? Hillary did not engage in race baiting, bias and prejudice, she did not call Mexicans criminals and rapists. Hillary did not get the endorsement of David Duke.
LikeLike
I will make it simple for you to understand since you have your Hillary blinders on and can’t seem to propose a logical argument. First and foremost comparing the President of the United States to Hitler during classroom time is irresponsible to the utmost degree regardless of whether or not that comparison was made in regards to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Secondly, opinions are like buttholes everyone has one and yours is no more valid than those of whom oppose your views; and like or not there are over sixty million people who don’t agree with your assessment of Hillary Clinton and her character. Face it, the Dem’s ran a dishonest, self serving, insider crony and they paid a price for it. Your candidate didn’t lose to “Hitler” by accident. She had a plethora of flaws and many people both Dem’s and Repub’s noted those flaws and voted accordingly. Now it is time to acknowledge the results and move forward. End of story until 2020 that is.
LikeLike
What the heck is going on? This is not about Hillary who is patently not fascist, and don’t counter with other people’s opinions are equally valid who support Trump. What opinions? The racist, mysogynistic, xenophobic opinions? BS!! The concerns that too many people have been left off the economic gravy train for far too long? Yes! The teacher was pointing out historical parallels between the rise of Hitler and the Trump’s actions and statements during this campaign. It is critical that we recognize these parallels, so we can make sure that we are vigilant in protecting this country from sliding further into patterns I sincerely doubt most people want to see repeated. Are we not allowed to warn against the dangers of some of Trump’s plans because Hillary may have done bad things too. That’s just plain silly. Hillary is not the president. Trump will be soon. We had better be darn concerned about what he is doing; it’s pretty clear that he is ill prepared. Trump is a man who happens to be the one who will fill the office of President. How he performs those duties is very much our business. I respect the office. Trump has a long way to go before he earns most people’s respect. Remember, he got about 25% of the votes of the 52% who voted. Neither candidate can claim anything close to a mandate.
LikeLike
2old2teach says: “The teacher was pointing out historical parallels between the rise of Hitler and the Trump’s actions and statements during this campaign. It is critical that we recognize these parallels, so we can make sure that we are vigilant in protecting this country from sliding further into patterns I sincerely doubt most people want to see repeated.”
Warning flags all over the place. Another one: Bannon.
LikeLike
Wondering: did you think Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski were warning signs of anything in terms of foreign policy under Hillary Clinton?
LikeLike
Who cares what I thought or didn’t think at that point in time! From my point of view, that has little relevance to the policy decisions that may be made by Donald Trump at the present time or my right to express my opinion. If he proves himself to be a different animal, then perhaps policy decisions made by the more recent past administrations will influence my thinking more. In any event what I think matters not one whit to the policy decision makers unless enough people think the same way. Geez! I am not advocating revolution rather vigilance.
LikeLike
It was a simple question. And I did not in any way, shape, or form suggest you don’t have a right to express your opinion.
“He`s got a mind like a sewer and a heart like a fridge
He stands to be insulted and he pays for the privilege” Elvis Costello – “Man Out of Time”
The second line is the relevant one. The first is provided for the rhyme, not an assessment of you.
If you choose to take offense at a simple question that contained no attack, no insult, no intimidation, no hostility, etc., then dialogue of any kind will be impossible.
Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski both praised HRC as Sec of State. The latter is one of her advisors on foreign policy. Both are highly militaristic. So I took their influence as “warning signs,” as you took the appointment of Trump’s chief of staff. My point was simple: does your radar apply to all candidates?
LikeLike
MPG: I read your response to 2old2teach. Speaking for myself, the difference has been explained and explored umpteen times on this site. If you cannot understand the difference after all that has been said here, then there is no point in responding further.
LikeLike
CBK, I asked a question about whether someone, not you, was concerned about a particular thing. That was for her to answer or not as she saw fit. I wasn’t asking for another analysis of whether to vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry if you feel that some topics are “dead,” because you say so, but then, I didn’t raise the issue of Trump’s transition team, chief of staff, etc..
That said, I grasp that some people refuse to consider the possibility that these issues have nuance. It’s so much more simple to assert that Trump and everyone associated with him and every decision, policy, etc., that they make is inherently wrong, evil, etc., from the time they implement their first one until the day he leaves office.
But since I’d prefer that that be in 2020 rather than 2024, I would like to be sure that not only do I have a more supple analysis on what is going on, but that the people I work with to get someone better into office (and better people in in 2018) are not blind ideologues who are prone to simplistic thinking (even if they’re not simple-minded). Few here are stupid, but much of the commentary strikes me as childish, unyielding, and increasingly hostile to skeptics and dissenters. What sort of intellectual atmosphere is that?
LikeLike
MPG,
Too often, you slam someone who disagrees with you. You make it personal. Is it asking too much for you to dissent all you want without attacking another commenter. You are intimidating others who write on the blog. Enough.
LikeLike
Hello Diane: I’m not intimidated because I didn’t read any of MPG’s posts. I read others’ who have responded to his.
BTW, what a beautifully written article in the New York Review of Books on autocracy. A good development too of the whole idea of false equivalence.
LikeLike
Masha Gessen wrote a book about Putin.
I thought of posting the article but decided not to be alarmist…yet.
LikeLike
Hello Diane, with you (I think?) and as the article suggests, perhaps alarms are most appropriate in this power window between Obama’s leaving and Trump’s arrival. If I may think this out a bit here, the article gave substance to my feeling that Obama’s visit to NATO countries and his “give him a chance” talk will seem to Trump and Bannon that Obama is playing the role of their dupe (ha ha, “you lost.”)
I also think, however, that the NATO powers know the workings of fascism a bit better than Obama considering their history and his. Certainly, Obama cannot go over there and openly badmouth the new president. (I doubt that’s even legal.) My own hope is that he knows he is talking to people who understand the situation en total (pun intended) and that he also knows how to thread that diplomatic needle.
I really appreciate having been directed to that article. I’ve already passed on the link to several people.
LikeLike
No offense taken. Just stating an opinion.
LikeLike
MPG: More of the same. I respectfully decline to respond.
LikeLike
Catherine, thank you.
LikeLike
Diane: You were right–going nowhere.
LikeLike
CBK, more of what, exactly? Asking uncomfortable questions? Guilty. I do it all the time, including of myself.
If I was directing those questions at you (which I’m not sure I was), your decision to decline answering, respectfully or not, is your business.
But perhaps you’d be decent enough to parse what my questions were more of.
LikeLike
This has become such an echo chamber in here that few of you can even conceive that other viewpoints might be just as valid as yours. It’s a failing of liberalism to assume that because you have such good intentions that you are therefore always and only right. I keep saying it. Open your ears and listen to other people. Stop demonizing everyone who supports Trump. I didn’t and don’t, but I understand those who do. Unless you want the Democrats to keep getting their behinds handed to them, please try to do the same.
LikeLike
Who has been demonizing everyone who supports Trump? That’s a red herring. It’s not even relevant to your original point at the top. You are an echo chamber unto yourself.
LikeLike
Joe: Dienne’s note reveals she doesn’t know the difference between teaching history and political meat-grinding, or proselytizing and persuading and living in a slime machine (there are those who do so on both sides).
That’s a common thinking-error that comes surrounded by very strong parentheses. I do wish Dienne and others could think their way out of it. This IS a blog about education–and such notes express education’s greatest failure of the 20th century. At least our LA history teacher has been doing HIS job.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I don’t think we should demonize anyone, but on the other hand, we should not be blinded to what Trump was offering: racism, sexism, white nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment.
This election was a contest between nostalgia for an Old America of white male dominance and a New America of equality for all. Old America won.
But it won’t win again unless we manage to suppress and eradicate our ideals of liberty and justice for all and respect for all.
LikeLike
No, my thoughts would not be different, Dienne. Compare Clinton to whomever you want. I will follow and accept your comparison. I know several people who voted for Clinton who have made similar comparisons. However, it doesn’t mean that I think the comparison would be a good one, nor would it help me understand Clinton or her situation (especially since she lost).
A comparison looks at what is similar. It works like a metaphor in the sense that the comparison always breaks down when the magnification is turned up or looked at from different angles. Nevertheless, the comparison is still valid on a superficial level because it informs us of “what it is like” as a starting place so we can wrap our brains around the possibility of understanding the ramifications of whatever issue is being discussed. Just try getting through one hour of the day without comparing once–you won’t make it. There is not a single teacher who is teaching right now who did not make a comparison in her class today.
However, as other posters have already shared, the comparison with Clinton and Hitler would break down a lot faster than the one with Trump and Hitler for obvious reasons.
The real issue here is not that the comparison is made but whether or not the teacher was pushing his political viewpoint or teaching using the comparison as a spring board to talk about the Holocaust or some other history lesson. It is a history class, so the guy’s got tons of wiggle room there. History has a big political footprint and it is the teacher’s job to find artifacts that explain how that footprint got to be so big. Without being in the classroom or seeing his lesson plan, we simply do not know.
LikeLike
To TheMorrigan:
This website is to cultivate, to educate and to exchange LOGICAL, humanitarian arguments regarding humanity, civility, and FACTS which are expressed by President Candidates to all voters before the general election.
Yes, we recognize the IGNORANCE in some readers who cannot distinguish the much difference between an agitated actor and the real experienced politician in reality.
If the majority is “the digger”, then please just dig or die. There is no need to explain to all diggers whose mindset aims at “wait and see the chance with BIG IF that an actor can become the real politician; or the cheater will have a decency to fulfill his empty and tricky deal or promise.
In short, please enjoy showing your support to Public Education regardless of which party controls the SUPREME COURT in justice system. Life can be a very long sufferance and just a short breath with joy in learning and teaching DEMOCRACY. Back2basic.
LikeLike
m4potw,
I just wanted to tell you that I did my best trying to unpack what you wrote, but your fragmented syntax, your framing of the line of argumentation. and your lack of cogency got in the way.
LikeLike
TheMorrigan,
m4potw does not speak English as a native language. She has learned English after escaping Vietnam. Be tolerant.
LikeLike
To Dienne:
You are really a hard headed woman according to Elvis Presley’s song, NOT from Cat Steven’s song.
Here are two links to enjoy its lyrics. May
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN6DXflD7fU
Elvis Presley — Hard Headed Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp7u66Gy9l4
Cat Stevens – Hard Headed Woman
LikeLike
Just the VERY beginning. I expect a lot more “Hitler” tactics.
Trump never scared me. That so many “Americans” approved of such a demagogue is terrifying.
The only thing that man has learned from history is that man has learned nothing from history.
People focused on PROMISES of jobs. They sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. AND a mess it is.
Both John Adams and A. Lincoln commented on that Democracy doesn’t last. It commits suicide.
If Trump does all he said he would do, God help us….
LikeLike
Gordon break down his demographic. His largest group of supporters have voted Republican since Nixon, They voted for him the way many of us voted for Hillary . His winning margin came from the ultra right /Alt . And a dissected working class Most not even blue collar.
LikeLike
disaffected working class
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
I hope this is not an omen of things to come. Few administrators are willing to risk their jobs in the face of pressure from parents with clout. Teachers and students are likely to bear the brunt of prejudice and bigotry and Ned our support.
LikeLike
“Few administrators are willing to risk their jobs in the face of pressure. . . ”
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Give that man a Kewpie doll!
LikeLike
Hi señor Swacker:
I agree with your sarcastic conclusion. Life is difficult and complex whenever leadership does not have integrity, decency and appreciation for humanity.
Solution – teaching children two examples and let them draw their own conclusions, Give them both an “A” = either “A”nti-reality or “A”bsence of reality. This will teach children their critical analysis and enhance them the spirit if DIVERGENT MINDSET in order to survive from harassment with joy, not with frustration = drone or robot cannot detect our rebellion. May
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are already under siege and Trump has not even taken office. Teachers can NOT be apolitical. Support this teacher!
LikeLike
Gingrich wants to re-institute HUAC…so most teachers will be in jeopardy. Some of us must be on their enemies list already. Who would have thought our nation could retrogress like this?
LikeLike
Do not know why WordPress did not use my name…Ellen Lubic on HUAC and the Gingrich/Trump future.
LikeLike
Ellen
Did anybody forget that the McCarthy era was immediately followed by that movement that started in your University System .As a response to loyalty oaths and policy . The Berkley free speech movement which grew into the unrest of the 60s, was so threatening that it sent shivers down the spines of the “Power Elite ” and the Oligarchy . Their response starting with Powell gave birth to the assault on that University system and the media. (BRT and Heritage ET-al )
But America is in a far different place than it was in the 1950s or even 60s . 2 million more Americans voted for Clinton
unenthusiastically .Millions more stayed home . Johnson voters are not Trump voters when it comes to civil liberties .certainly Stein voters weren’t. This is no longer the America of apple pie and Father knows best. We lost because of the choice we gave the American people . All the other candidates would have walked over Clinton,including Cruz. They were all terrible choices for America’s working class White,Black, or Hispanic. Neither was Clinton a choice. Bernie, Warren or Biden would have rolled over the Republicans.( If I hear about Fiengold one more time from NYCP . I will mail her a map of the USA . Manufacturing down in Wisconsin 10.7% 96-2016)
His inauguration should be greeted with the largest Demonstrations this Nation has seen . to remind him and the republicans they are on borrowed time. Giving credence to Democrats to stand up to anything they feel is destructive. Mass movements raise awareness and shape public opinion. 2million people in a coalition on the streets of DC and more on the West Coast should send the rats scurrying for their holes.
Speaking of Democrats time to give Joe Manchin the boot. and Harry Reed a thank you . One does not compromise with fascists demagogues who will role back what is left of the New Deal .
LikeLike
Wow, “nail me to the wall”?
I’m not arguing with you about the fact that manufacturing is down in Wisconsin 10.7%. We both agree on that.
Why would that drop cause Ron Johnson to be so popular? And Russ Feingold not to be? You seem to be saying no Democrat could have won with manufacturing down so much. Why would Bernie have done better than Russ? You never answered that. Voters split their vote in NC when they rejected a sitting Republican Governor. If Russ was offering something that the voters liked, they would have split their vote as well. What is your evidence that the same voters who rejected Russ Feingold for a right wing Republican — MORE than the number who rejected Hillary — would have voted for Bernie?
“Bernie, Warren or Biden would have rolled over the Republicans.”
I truly fear for this country when this is the level of discourse. Maybe Bernie or Warren or Biden would have won handily — I agree it was POSSIBLE. It’s also possible that their candidacy would have left the Dems without even a popular vote win to mitigate the mandate the Republicans are claiming.
But your absolutely certainty in the face of no evidence is unbecoming of a teacher. I have no idea what you teach,but no high school history teacher should accept a student’s paper that claims the certainty that if only John Edwards or Howard Dean had been the candidate instead of Kerry, the unpopular Bush/Cheney team would have lost. It’s all Kerry’s fault and we know that Edwards and Dean would have been beyond reproach and unsmearable, unlike that evil and corrupt and lying John Kerry. Or that if only Bernie had run in 1988, he would have had clear sailing, no problem.
Hindsight is not 20/20. You have no idea how your favorite candidate would have fared after being subject to the slime machine. And until we stop that Republican slime machine, it’s going to be very difficult to find out.
LikeLike
^^apologies for my non sequitur “nail me to a wall” comment.
I stand by the rest of what I wrote.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
First of all Kerry lost the popular vote .
There was no doubt from the start that the same Black vote that carried Clinton into victory in the primaries was never going to turn out in those same numbers for Clinton in the general . If only because they never before had turned out in those numbers. Especially in the states where it mattered in the general election. They until Obama had always voted in numbers that were several points lower than whites. They were not going to vote for Trump. Women were not going to vote for Trump.
Young voters who never showed up in significant numbers were set on fire by Sanders. Finally those white blue collar workers working class workers , in Wisconsin and Michigan gave those states to Bernie. In the primary . Bernie was Trump on the economic message. He was ten times Trump in those states slammed by trade . That issue was off the table. He didn’t have to convince any voter where he stood . He would have wiped the floor with him in the rust belt .
Hillary lost towns, cities , counties and states that Obama won twice through out the Rust belt. She didn’t have that drop in NY, in California.
They didn’t fall victim to the republican media machine. They did not turn into blatant racists because Trump held magical sway over them.
Finally the polls, were they so wrong ?. After going back and forth since June . They all showed Hillary up but in or near the Margin of era . Bernie’s lead over the Republicans was twice that of Hillary’s. Those were National polls that lead was built in the Rust belt.
We will send that republican slime machine packing. When we put the interests of Main Street over the interests of Wall Street. . Said with full understanding that the Republicans are Wall Street. I may lose my Pension but my less valuable 401K will do just fine.
LikeLike
I thought that Diane explicitly asked that people stop discussing who might have won. I find it always intriguing to see who makes his/own rules while yammering about those who don’t respect Diane and her blog.
I could readily retort to the content of this comment, but I won’t, nor to any other discussion of the election. I think it couldn’t have been made more clear that Diane sees that conversation as closed here.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
I dd address Russ Feingold in a previous post . She lost the State because democrats stayed home. Or they voted for Trump . He was running against the incumbent most people do not split their ticket .
She dragged several Senate races down with her.
LikeLike
Michael Paul Goldenberg
This is not about Hillary, this is about defeating the right wing agenda.
Unlike you I voted for Her hoping to shield MYSELF and the nation from that agenda. To go forward we have to choose a path, to choose that path we have to decide where we went wrong . We went wrong back in the 80s when the party started moving right in response to the Mondale defeat. They gave up the working class and concentrated on social issues. That working class hung with them till last Tuesday.
LikeLike
Apologies to Diane Ravitch for this discussion with Joel Herman about the election. I’m sorry I responded to his calling me out about Feingold in the post.
For the record, I agree with Joel Herman and Ellen Lubic on most of their insights. We very likely would support the same candidates.
I realize I sound like Cassandra warning of dangers no one else sees. I want to be proven wrong. I am terrified that we have a powerful alt right propaganda arm that is in bed with the FBI and House investigation committees and will smear whatever progressive candidate runs next time. No one will be happier than I will if I have to hear “I told you so” from 2018 – 2021 non stop. I am happy to eat crow. I want to be wrong. But I think there is a danger in thinking there is a Democratic candidate who can’t be smeared by this very powerful machine.
LikeLike
NYC Public School Parent,
Please, no more debates with MPG or Dienne. You three have monopolized too much space, and no minds are changed.
LikeLike
Manufacturing is leaving Wisconsin because of Walker. Unions were slow to see that Walker wanted them gone but some manufacturers actually appreciated their well trained union work forces. Minnesota has seen a lot of crossover. Don’t blame Feingold for things he had no control over. Kinda like all the public schools that get blamed for “failures” at the same time budgets have been slashed.
LikeLike
What an uninformed comment. I’m very familiar with the economies of both Minnesota and Wisconsin, having lived in each state for 28+ years. Whatever Scott Walker’s flaws may be, manufacturing hasn’t left WI because he is Governor. The decline in manufacturing there has resulted from moving operations to much lower wage countries and from automation. That’s happened over the last 20+ years regardless of who has led state government. There have been more employers relocating from MN to WI than the other way around – that’s not opinion, just fact.
LikeLike
You are right. I am remembering reports from early(?) in Walker’s first term. I can’t even refer you to the specific articles. I certainly was not referring to what has been going on for the past 20-30 years. Perhaps someone else can point us to the article(s) I am remembering. You cannot deny that Walker has done his best to castrate unions in Wisconsin. So far his over the top favoritism for business has not done a lot for the every day worker. Minnesota’s higher taxes are offset by higher wages and a higher quality of life for everyone.
LikeLike
Rather than writing “What an uninformed comment” I should have written “This issue is more complicated than just who the current governor of Wisconsin is.” I maintain my point, but my phrasing was discourteous. My apologies.
LikeLike
Kudos for apologizing, John.
That said, I think it would be helpful if commenters were willing to consider that Walker’s impact on unions and his impact on companies moving may not be directly linked. Clearly, he hasn’t helped the economy recover or grow, and it’s hard not to look at that as “just desserts” for union busting. But I’d tend to think that there’s a difference between companies folding leading to job loss (attributable at least in part to the folks running the state) and companies leaving for their notion of greener pastures, which one wouldn’t think is directly connected to union-busting (particularly the public service unions Walker has been busting) unless these are union-loving companies. If there are any.
LikeLike
MPG,
Companies leave to avoid union wages and hours. The pastures are greener in countries where workers are paid $5 a day and work 16 hour days
LikeLike
With all due respect, Diane, I am not stupid. Of course, that’s why many companies flee to right-to-work states and foreign countries. Which makes it rather intriguing if they’re fleeing Wisconsin, where Walker is trying to bust unions, and has succeeded, like Rick “The Nerd” Snyder in Michigan, in undermining public service and/or teacher unions regarding collective bargaining, etc. Is he still driving out jobs by doing that? Or is something else the driving force? Are we saying that companies are leaving because unions are too strong in Wisconsin, yet insisting that it’s STILL Walker’s fault because he’s attacking public service unions?
In other words, it starts to sound like wanting to have one’s cake and eat it, too. I despise Gov. Walker for many reasons, but in analyzing the outcome of the POTUS vote there, I’m not sure it makes sense to lay the blame for job loss in the state on him and then wonder why so many folks there still didn’t vote for Clinton and instead voted Trump, stayed home, or voted for other candidates.
LikeLike
MPG,
You detract from the substance of your comments by lacing them with snark. That doesn’t work well with those who are the target of your snark.
LikeLike
On the other hand, it’s fine for Dienne, me, and a few others to be the targets of insults, distortions, etc.
That said, where was the snark? That I suggested that your comments might be implying that I didn’t see my nose in front of my face? I wasn’t snarky. I said, “I’m not stupid.” That’s quite direct. If you want me to be more direct, I was feeling talked down to by you, as I often do when you respond to something I write with a short assertion of something that you almost certainly know that I know already. If I’m wrong about what you’re doing, my sincere apologies. It’s just that lately here, a few of us are being treated like red-headed step-children (apologies in advance to all red-heads and step-children) and it is onerous.
I am bending over backwards not to “go off” on some of my attackers, yet I’m on “moderated” status nonetheless. Anyone else so honored? And if so, any of them happen to be people who generally agree with you on, say, the 2016 election and/or how we should proceed politically or respond to the prospect of a Trump administration? Or are all the other naughty folks similarly prone to dissent?
LikeLike
MPG,
Several people are on moderation. I place people on moderation not to quell dissent, of which there is quite a lot, but because they insult other readers. I don’t want to let anger destroy the blog. Frankly, as I read some of the comments and the bitter back and forth, it makes it less enjoyable to have a blog. The past week has made me feel that I might use my time better by writing a book and abandoning the blog. Too much rage, bitterness, and bile. That’s not what I set out to do. I wanted to raise awareness about the privatization movement and encourage people to join together to save public schools. Instead, I have a chorus of angry readers who forget about the purpose of this blog and use it to complain about other readers whose views are different. I don’t like it.
LikeLike
I’m a longtime “on moderation” commenter here. Welcome!
LikeLike
Apologies accepted. Issues are always more complicated than who happened to be “the wo/man in charge.” That was one reason I found it hard to stomach the TV ads run by political campaigns of all persuasions that accused opponents of egregious opinions based on previous actions. Whatever the sin it was always cast in black and white terms ignoring all context. Someone did or didn’t support rapists and/or student debt relief because of some convoluted bill they voted Yea/nea on.
LikeLike
To UCLApolicywonk@aol.com
Please learn how to be positive in denial.
Yes, that how I learn in living with Communists.
No, just say no to all questions. (= no to all accusations; no to our names; no to be friend with whomever in questions; no to be human with conscience. = it is all mistakes!)
Until we cannot stand with situation, please quietly leave without declaration to all acquaintances = keep our sanity for ourselves. Back2basic
LikeLike
I think, booooo!, the interactive play is over. Here’s the thing: Both We who opposed Trump and those who followed him believed what he said–Them because it serves their fears, desires, and biases; and We because we thought the “rhetoric” to be the truth and rightly feared it–this, even though We all know him to be a recalcitrant liar, fabricator, and house-of-mirrors personality. “I won, didn’t I?” So why should we expect to believe him now?
So our real fear is presently rooted in the demons Trump’s rhetoric unleashed in the USA; as example, the horror that is coming down on that LA teacher in the article, not to mention the press itself. But we really don’t know what this HUHA stream-of-consciousness, extreme pragmatist will do once he gets in office, and IF he gets in office–and neither does anyone else. Putin may even be disappointed. Trump has already begun to both disappoint his followers and horrify those who are disgusted by him and his associates and who probably will remain so.
So for education and the commons, let’s look for light where we can find it while railing against the coming assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
LikeLike
Personally I think Stalin would be a fairer comparison – he destroyed his own people rather than invading other countries, and focused primarily on punishing dissenters, or anyone who spoke out even in the most trivial way.
LikeLike
Janet,
Stalin and Hitler were not dissimilar: Stalin not only killed his own people (millions perished in his prison camps), he also invaded other countries. When countries tried to leave the USSR, he sent in troops and tanks to stop them (Hungary, 1956). He ruled the “captive nations,” Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, without the consent of their people and moved large numbers of Russians in to capture their institutions. He starved the people of Ukraine, once the breadbasket of Europe.
Hitler invaded others and like Stalin, crushed dissent or anyone who opposed his regime.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin allowed freedom of the press or religion or speech. Any of these could get a person killed.
Ever hear of the White Rose Society in Germany?
LikeLike
Diane: And Hitler and Stalin both tried to erase or change history.
Also, when I taught ethics some years back in Virginia, I used an old film, a dramatization of the White Rose Society. I left it in the college library. There was a group that used to tour the country talking about it. I don’t know if they do that still, but they were very effective; and the film was excellent for teaching ethics and with it, political history. In case anyone is wondering, they were all found out (informed on) and decapitated.
LikeLike
Catherine, I am guessing that you are referring to the Michael Verhoeven film. Hope you have also seen Sophie Scholl: Die letzten Tage (The Last Days) starring Julia Jentsch. Be sure to have a box of Kleenex and a stiff drink handy.
LikeLike
GregB: Thanks. I’ll look for that film. Sometimes they hit the mark like nothing else can.
LikeLike
We have become Weimar Germany.
LikeLike
I don’t like to see either free speech or academic freedom impinged upon. But I’d say that proselytizing one’s political views is generally wrong in K-12. The exact same lesson could have been taught effectively by simply asking students to discuss similarities and differences between the CIRCUMSTANCES in these two situations, without tilting the playing field so that students either had to passively swallow the teacher’s beliefs or risk a bad grade, teacher disapproval/censure, etc., by objecting or disagreeing.
Anti-Trump sentiments as the CONTENT of the lesson have no more place in a K-12 classroom than do pro-Trump, pro-Hillary, or anti-Hillary propagandizing do.
An exception could be made for a teacher who consistently takes strong points of view WHICH SWITCH with frequency and are presented randomly. If students have no way of knowing what the teach actually supports and the viewpoint is randomized and diverse, no one could reasonably accuse that teacher of brainwashing or unduly trying to push kids in one direction only.
LikeLike
MPG,
I too oppose proselytizing but then we don’t know what the lesson was. The teacher may have asked the same question you raised.
LikeLike
I wish I could believe he did. This and other statements he made and the article make me highly skeptical that this was a balanced or inquiry-based lesson:
“Everything I talk about is factually based. They can go and check it out. “It’s not propaganda or bias if it’s based on hard facts.”
It IS propaganda if you set it up so that there’s only one conclusion students can arrive at.
I’m 100% with Dienne, whose comments (and those of others) I’m only now reading after sending my previous comment.
With all due respect: we have seen far too many “progressives” and “liberals” over the last decades who are 100% sure they have a hotline to the truth; that they are on the side of the angels; and hence that they are allowed and obligated to “enlighten” their students.
Sorry, but that is academically irresponsible. Pushing ONE viewpoint in a subject that isn’t math or science is propagandizing and/or egomania run amok.
I had a literature teacher for the first semester of survey of British Lit at SUNY@Stony Brook in 1971. We were looking at some Icelandic, Norse, and Old English poetry. I offered a gloss on a particular poem that I believe was consonant with the text (given my lack of fluency in Old English, I wouldn’t bet my life on it, but what I said worked with the translation and the background information we were given). She basically blew my comments off, as if what I said was OPPOSING her view, while, in fact, my intent was to offer something that I thought played off and deepened/supported her take. It appeared that only her reading was acceptable. That’s propaganda, academic bullying, and egotism run amok. I never taught literature that way later as a doctoral student, and never would. All I asked was for students to support their ideas by referring to and explaining how the text backed their notions.
There is no single truth in history, philosophy, or any of the humanities. There can’t be. That is one reason that I found Core Knowledge’s E. D. Hirsch so objectionable as a literary critic. He, too, thinks there’s one correct reading of a literary work and that the author’s take, when available, trumps all others. Silly idea.
My job as a teacher is to get students to think effectively for themselves. I’ll nurture any point of view to the extent that I want the student who has it to be able to communicate and support it effectively FOR HIM/HERSELF and to peers. If someone in my class (assuming it was relevant) stated that Hitler had a good idea in trying to exterminate all the Jews, etc., in Germany, I would not express disgust or shock or outrage; I would draw out the student’s thinking, allow peers to dispute or support the point of view, but NOT attack one another or the original speaker.
Similarly, I would not come in day after day, week after week, to “enlighten” those benighted students who dared to have opinions on any subject contrary to mine. It would be easy enough to set up a dictatorial, autocratic echo chamber classroom. Even if parents or admins supported my so doing (highly doubtful), I could never teach that way. But I could readily play devil’s advocate on varying positions from day to day.
I don’t get the sense from his statements that that is what this guy was up to. He was pushing his own point of view on everyone, including those who didn’t share it, and he justified what he was doing with the claim that everything was “factually based.”
Those who think this is fully justified because he was pushing THEIR point of view need to just flip the whole thing: an anti-Semitic teacher (there were many of them in NYC’s Public School before WW II) forces students to accept that isolationism and/or Naziism is wise and correct, and grounds his arguments in “facts.” There were many in greater NYC with this viewpoint. Central New Jersey at the time was a hotbed of German-Americans who supported Germany and opposed US entry into WW II. They were supported by national hero, Charles Lindbergh, and there massive rallies at Madison Square Garden at which he spoke. Philip Roth wrote an incredible novel, THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA, in which – in an alternative history – Lindbergh ran against and defeated FDR (in 1936 or 1940, I forget which), and being Jewish was dangerous. It’s a scenario I think could have happened (see, too, the marvelous Amazon series, THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE, and read the novel by Philip K Dick from which it is taken, about an alternative history in which the Axis powers won WW II and the US was divided between Japan to the west and Germany to the east, with some neutral territory in the mountain states).
At any rate, self-righteous liberals have no more appeal to me at this juncture than do self-righteous Christians, alt-right folks, Republicans, etc. The more we insist on the dichotomous and divisive approach to political and social conflicts, the worse things seem to get. I don’t call for tolerance of the intolerable, but if you want education to be based on pushing one side, you’re not going to like it when that one side happens to be opposite to yours.
LikeLike
Bernie Bots who hated Hillary Clinton KNEW the truth and are not self-righteous.
People who try to show parallels between the appeals that Trump made to get votes and the appeals that Hitler made are self-righteous and wrong.
Interesting perspective.
LikeLike
Correction: these writers have drawn parallels:
Adam Gopnick
Michiko Kakutani
And of course, the 1922 NY Times:
http://www.snopes.com/1922-new-york-times-hitler/
I’d like to read the writing of the alt right about Obama and Hitler parallels that you give equal weight to. Can you please link to something so I can learn a bit more?
LikeLike
Mr. Goldenberg,
A great comment. I know that you describe yourself as very left-wing, but you are also a principled liberal on this issue, of whom too few exist these days, e.g. witness most other comments in this thread.
LikeLike
John Webster: “…..of whom too few exist these days, e.g. witness most other comments in this thread.” Really? You are accusing most of the other commenters here of being unprincipled?
LikeLike
Yes. Most commenters seem to be just fine with this teacher indoctrinating his students.
LikeLike
John: Is there no room in your thinking for teachers merely informing students in your repertoire of possibilities, that is, other than indoctrinating them? Or do I misunderstand you?
If not on both counts, you raise the spectre of philosophical relativism. That is, when there is no truth or facts to teach on principle (and as difficult as they are to get at), regardless of whom they do or don’t offend. If that’s the case, then there are left only (1) the false ground of hyper-personalism; and (2) the fascist question of “who has the most brute power?” and so who has complete (totalitarian) control of everything. To be clear, the fascist thinks truth does not lay beyond them, where they can be misinformed or misguided at times, as well as correct at other times. Rather truth is what they say, merely because they say it.
Is that where you and Dienne are going with this tack? Or do you not understand the political implications of taking and promoting such a philosophical stance? Or more concretely, could the teacher, or any teacher for that matter, be informing, and not indoctrinating in the negative sense that you mean it?
LikeLike
Thank you, John Webster.
LikeLike
John: Was he indoctrinating the students? I don’t think we know that to be true at all. Does he not deserve a fair hearing before we jump to that conclusion. Doesn’t indoctrination imply doing something over a period of time not just a one time incident?
LikeLike
John Webster says far too few principled liberals exist these days.
That’s one of the least principled things I have read lately. But certainly typical of a Trump supporter who values “principle.”
LikeLike
Thank you, Mr. Webster. I appreciate your noticing and commenting to that effect. It IS what I try to do, when not letting my raised dander get the better of me.
I’m radical in a very ethical context. I don’t believe that just because the people I’m arguing with are expressing opinions that are anathema to me that I’m entitled to call them Nazis. Silly me, eh?
LikeLike
Depending on the grade we are talking about a Teacher should be able to provide his opinion on critical public issues pertaining to the subject he is teaching. As long as that opinion is not used to punish or demean the opinions of his students. It would be inappropriate for a math teacher to to voice political opinion.
The students are then free to make judgements based on their total body of knowledge which is much broader than school.. A sixth grader is not a HS Junior or Senior.
Would we have biology teachers not voice their opinion on evolution. Earth Science Teachers not voice their opinion Climate change.
Thanks to the politicization of science education It might be very appropriate for political opinion to be voice there as well .
But that is just my opinion.
LikeLike
Joel: Let’s put that as a counter-point comparing fascism with democracy. We can find the ground for that comparison in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. With fascism, truth is what the dictator says it is. And if you don’t agree, you get put in prison or die–as hyper-personalist, don’t “offend” the fascist or else. (This rings well with what Trump has shown us already).
But in a democracy, and taking the Bill of Rights and its freedom of speech as our grounding example, without that right’s implications towards finding facts and truth, freedom of speech gets us only oracular masturbation.
There’s no ground for civilized argument without an implicit regard for getting at facts. And facts, by definition, are what happens to be the case–true.
That’s the hidden danger and why Freedom of the Press is so important. Truth-seeking discourse has been assaulted in every Trump-talking head I’ve heard for over a year.
Most don’t like to talk about philosophical issues–too sticky–and I hesitate to bring it up here. But the loss of a regard for truth is at the core of the fascist enterprise, its at the core of what Trump is doing; and it’s why education is so important to the whole discussion.
To John and Dienne: offensive or not, I would think again before taking such a self-destructive position.
LikeLike
Catherine,
I don’t have the quote in front of me but George Orwell wrote an essay saying that Nazism attacked the idea of objective truth. There was Nazi science, Jewish science, “truth” depended on who said it
LikeLike
The way teachers do this, Joel, is to present both sides of the issue and then draw out of students their assessments. If a teacher presents their own opinion, IMO, they must always then ask students to present the other side. In public schools, and in higher ed, teachers do not only inculcate their own opinions, if they are good teachers. This is what the Right accuses teachers of doing, but rarely will you see this in a classroom.
In teaching adults, I am often challenged, and am delighted for the whole discussion to broaden and to investigate and present other points of view. Inductive and deductive reasoning is the general rule.
LikeLike
“If a teacher presents their own opinion, IMO, they must always then ask students to present the other side. In public schools, and in higher ed, teachers do not only inculcate their own opinions, if they are good teachers. This is what the Right accuses teachers of doing, but rarely will you see this in a classroom.”
Perhaps not in yours (good for you). But, as the saying goes, “Both sides do it.” And in this case, either it’s true, or I just have the WORST luck in observing teachers.
LikeLike
Catherine and Ellen ,
I am in agreement. I am implying that there should be a free and open discussion to which the the educators opinions should not be excluded .
LikeLike
Here is a link to an LATIMES piece on the teacher—
Link: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-teacher-trump-hitler-20161113-story.html
[start excerpts]
Navarro, who has taught at the school for 40 years, told the Mercury News that his lesson plan was based on historical fact and that Hitler’s persecution of Jews and rise to power has “remarkable parallels” to the president-elect’s statements about Latinos, Muslims and African Americans during his bid for the presidency.
He said he told school officials: “I’m not pulling these facts out of my hat. It’s based on experience and work, and if I’m wrong, show me where I’m wrong. And then there was silence,” the Mercury News reported.
Navarro is an expert on the Holocaust. He was named a Mandel Fellow for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1997 and has studied at the International Center for the Study of the Holocaust in Jerusalem.
Navarro also is Mexican American, according to the Mercury News, and has had Latino students come up to him and say they worry they will be deported because of Trump.
…
In an interview with Mountain View High School’s student newspaper, the Oracle, Navarro said he made connections between Trump and Hitler but did not equate them.
A senior in Navarro’s Civics and Economics class told the Oracle that Navarro asked students to find racist quotes from Trump and read them aloud.
“I do agree with some of [Trump’s] policies, and when I try to talk about it, [Navarro] just told me to shut up or said something super rude,” the student told the Oracle.
Navarro denied telling any students to shut up.
A change.org petition calling for Navarro’s return had more than 6,700 signatures as of Sunday morning.
[end excerpts]
Typical rheephorm smear and jeer: make the teacher look like an ignorant bully—but don’t try to confirm (with eyewitnesses) what really happened. Again note: “just told me to shut up or said something super rude.” The vagueness alone of the assertion is telling: was it “shut up” OR “super rude”?
If you have ever been in a classroom and someone (especially the teacher) said something along those lines, many others (if not everyone) would have heard and remembered it, word for word. Not hard to verify.
So without further facts—and given the swift return to the classroom—I stand on the idea of innocent until proven guilty.
That’s the way I see it…
😎
LikeLike
Like Navarro, I am also a Museum Teacher Fellow (what the Mandel fellows are called now) from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. There was a big conference at the museum this summer. And as a huge group of Holocaust educators discussed the rise of Hitler, the comparisons to Trump were uncanny.
I am not saying Trump and Hitler are identical, but the similarities are striking and terrifying. I would not teach the same class as Navarro did, as my students are younger, and I would have to see the lesson, but I think this could easily be an overreaction by the principal.
LikeLike
I’ve read thousands of pages of serious history about Nazi Germany, and there are no reasonable analogies between Hitler and Trump. The Holocaust “educators” were no doubt 100% very left-wing and anti-Trump, and used their supposed expertise to push their preferred political narratives. And this blog’s readers wonder why so many parents are unhappy with public schools.
LikeLike
John, I had a few conservative history teachers in 10th & 11th grade. They were from the “My way or the highway” school of education. I don’t think either end of the political spectrum has the market cornered on academic bullying and propagandizing. Living in Michigan, I’ve had the “pleasure” of following Betsy deVos’s long-term personal passion projecting: seeing US public schools turned into Christian schools. And as the wife of the head of Amway (and sister of the founder of Blackwater), she’s got the bucks and political muscle to make inroads in that regard. If she succeeds, THAT would be a signal to consider moving to Sweden.
LikeLike
Michael,
I agree with you, and I didn’t mean to imply that only left-wing teachers could be proselytizers. I had an economics professor in college who was very conservative, and he harangued the class every day with his political views. At the time, I agreed with some of his views, but it got tiresome to be beaten over the head with his opinions. I feel the same way about various pundits across the political spectrum – I rarely learn anything from them, their op-eds being just ideological rants. I learn more from insightful writing from an opposing viewpoint than from someone who banally confirms what I already believe.
LikeLike
Hear, hear, John.
LikeLike
John: Are you a troll?
LikeLike
John Webster,
According to the Phi Delta Kappan polls, the overwhelming majority of parents are very happy with their children’s schools. The people who are unhappy are running right wing think tanks and hoping to privatize public assets.
LikeLike
Agree to disagree, John. I have also read thousands of pages on the subject, and I find similarities that I cannot shake in my own mind.
LikeLike
And resent your calling the eminent Holocaust historians who spoke to us at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. as “educators.” You have no idea who presented to us.
LikeLike
Since when is the word ‘educators’ an insult?
LikeLike
I heard a rumor that a 1500 freestyle resentment event will be added to the 2020 Olympics.
LikeLike
I was able to use Mr. Trump’s comments about immigrants from Mexico as an example of bias in my history class.
LikeLike
This is a good example of why teachers need tenure which provides for due process, innocent until proven guilty and a fair hearing. As it is, teachers are walking on egg shells and have to be careful of every syllable, word or phrase that they utter for fear that some crazed parent or petty tyrant administrator will jump down their throats. Most teachers steer clear of these controversial topics because of what has happened to Mr. Navarro and other teachers in the past. There’s a war on public school teachers, the reformers would just love to eliminate tenure and seniority.
LikeLike
So much for teaching kids to think critically. 😦
LikeLike
Agreed to both . Exactly why tenure was instituted on the University level . If we are going to exclude that reasoning for teachers of younger students . Than we weaken the purpose?
Further education has always been political. I never had a history lesson that portrayed the Western expansion as unfair to Native Americans . Columbus and Cortes were always hero’s never murderers . Nobody ever taught me that the colonists were free loaders who didn’t want to pick up the tab for the French and Indian War. Thinking critically means that you allow discussion on both sides of an issue not that you voice no opinion
LikeLike
I wish you could take my class, Joel. All of these things are taught in my classes.
LikeLike
So true Joe re why teachers must have due process……a few years ago, as I always do, I started the term by telling my Lifelong Learning university students I do not accept reports based on singular use of Wikipedia nor Heritage Foundation nor other stipulated NGOs of either Right or Left, unless they had balance. e.g. No just quoting Heritage on elections nor Hoover Institute nor American Enterprise Inst.
A man who had been in my classes before and was outspoken as a Far Right Repub, (and VP of a well known corporation) took umbrage and was enraged at me, and stormed out of the room, and reported me. I was up on charges and had to defend what I said to the department head. Luckily other students testified and cleared me. If this had been high school, I might have ended up in teacher jail.
Teachers and professors have to be very careful in what they say as shown by this high school teacher who spoke about factual history and still got in trouble. One California teacher recently went overboard though, and had students write papers defending the Nazi regime from only that perspective…that is poor teaching. He could have had a panel debate the issues from all sides. I have set up many panels with presenters and responders even on such impassioned topics as issues of Middle East. All sides get to expand their views and let the listeners/students make up their minds after hearing the facts and also the emotional impacts and opinions.
Most educators I know use these techniques.
LikeLike
Addendum….I always also do Q & A.
LikeLike
Threatened Out West
I liked college a lot better than HS, but if you could turn the clock back to 1965. I would gladly take your class.
LikeLike
I wasn’t born in 1965. Sorry. (smiley face)
LikeLike
I have been looking over some of the resources for teaching about the elections and results. Most show concern for the students who feel at risk from specifics in the Trump campaign messages.
Few seem to be alert to the spillover effects on teachers who engage students in discussions of the content and immediate outcome of the campaign.
Meanwhile, because there has been a spike in reports of intimidation, several efforts are underway to catalog these. One website seeking these reports is The 74, likely for reasons that differ from the links in the post below and to its links to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.
“NEPC Statement on Violence and Intimidation in Schools and Communities”
http://nepc.info/node/8345
LikeLike
The essence of good teaching is getting students to think. Thinking can sometimes be very unsettling. Thinkers may become subversive. True historians are subversive in my eyes because they interpret facts and data about the past and form an opinion. No true historian is completely objective. Her job is to observe the facts closely, analyze them carefully, begin to form a claim, check out arguments that may disclaim the claim, weigh all the evidence, have the courage to make a case, be ready to use the evidence pro and con to back up that claim. If the history teacher teaches her students to become young historians using these thinking skills, then she is doing her job, especially when students formulate a claim that may go against the beliefs of the teacher. From the account of this story, it seems as though the parents were more concerned about the politics than they were about whether or not the teacher was getting his students to think as young historians. Perhaps, they should have tried persuading their child that the claim’s justification had no solid historical evidence to justify the conclusion. If they had, they would have entered the thinking debate. Instead, they chose to shut down thinking in that American classroom. And the Principal shrunk from doing his job. If he disagreed with the teacher, he should have explained why. Give a claim, show the evidence, justify your claim. The Principal ought to be the one fired.
LikeLike
Yes I think whoever took him out of the class is the problem. It was a rash decision. I don’t think this administrator should be fired but they should be reprimanded.
LikeLike
A simple, “Hey, don’t do that again” meeting would have sufficed. That’s the real issue here, not what was said, but how it was handled by an admin made understandably, in Arne Duncan-King days, unnerved.
LikeLike
“True historians are subversive. . . ”
Tell that to Zinn!!
LikeLike
Read the filing of Zinn v. the FBI on the topic of CoIntelPro.
Yes, Duane…Zinn is a prime example of why educators need due process.
LikeLike
Exactly, Jim.
LikeLike
Due process rights are essential to avoid witch hunts. Teachers should not have to teach while looking over their shoulders.
LikeLike
I will try to cover the waterfront, so to speak, and then withdraw, due to recent experiences here.
1) Dienne’s initial inquiry makes perfect sense. Unless you really do live in a bubble, you should be well aware that for the past 8 years, the right has been comparing Obama to Hitler almost non-stop. You can look it up on Google; you’ll hit so many photos of Obama with Nazi uniform and Hitler mustache, everything from crude versions to sophisticated photo-shopping, but the underlying sentiment is the same: Obama = Hitler (or Stalin, but mostly Adolf). In the last year, it’s been Hillary who is Hitler, a fascist, a dictator who “wants to take away your guns.” The NRA ran anti-Hillary ads to that effect. And some of those who oppose her but don’t support Trump have taken to referring to her as “Hitlery,” a sobriquet I find unapt and asinine.
But no more so than I find the insistence here upon branding Trump as Hilter. He isn’t. He won’t be. It’s just self-indulgence at this point to terrify children and reinforce their worst fears by insisting that the duly-elected next POTUS is a Nazi.
Yes, I’m aware of his rhetoric, his staff, and a lot of off-the-wall crap he’s said. But he’s now the president-elect, not der Fuhrer elect, and this remains the US, not Weimar Germany. There are reasons beyond the rise of Hitler that explain how the German people of the 1920s and ’30s found Nazism so attractive (try reading Wilhem Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM for a few insights that aren’t generally known or discussed about, for example, child-rearing practices in the late 1800s into the first few decade of the 20th century). And this, folks, isn’t that, no matter what some of the surface similarities might suggest. I’m not saying not to pay attention, not to be vigilant, or not to fight any and every wrong-headed, prejudiced initiative that might emerge. But we’re discussing education, children, and teaching here. Or so I thought.
At any rate, suggest that what Dienne wrote makes no sense suggests that the willful tone-deafness that seems to have infected this blog is spreading and getting worse. She wasn’t at any point suggesting that SHE thinks that Clinton is Hitleresque or that right-wing comparisons of the two are apt. She was asking the obvious question: how would you feel if a teacher was spouting that nonsense in class? Academic freedom might not seem like the central question all of a sudden. Free speech might not be your main focus. I know: I argued many times with my father about the 1st amendment, something he valued highly – when it applied to him, to anti-war protesters in the ’60s and ’70s, to civil rights leaders in the ’50s and ’60s, and in general to those on the left he agreed with. But when it came to American Nazi Party idiots marching in Skokie, Ill (with a permit), he suddenly didn’t find free speech so important, so universal a right. And frankly, I think that would be true for many contributors here: attacking Trump in a classroom is academic freedom and free speech. Attacking Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc.? That’s evil and must be countered. Attacking Trump is “enlightening kids to ‘the Truth'”; even doubting or criticizing anything regarding Sec. Clinton is “Hillary -basing, Hillary-hatred, misogyny, ad nauseam. Pardon me for suggesting that that is just hypocritical bilge water of the most obvious sort. And any honest person here knows that’s the case if s/he is willing to take every argument for why it’s fine for a teacher to claim to be “just using facts” in giving a lesson comparing Trump to Hitler and substitute Clinton for Trump. I don’t think you could say with a straight face that you’d be sanguine with the latter, but you can rationalize the hell out of the former.
If teachers are free to teach inquiry-based lessons that challenge social injustice, political injustice, economic injustice, etc., without spoon feeding the “right” answers to students, then they have academic freedom. When they insist that they should be able to “preach” to them (even though the religion is “Democratic, liberal values and assumptions”) then they are propagandizing, proselytizing, brain-washing, unduly trying to influence the political beliefs, not facts, of their non-adult charges.
As stated here more than once, I had a truly great teacher in my senior year who played nearly opposite political roles in two classes based on the vast majority’s beliefs in each course. Where they were liberal, he was conservative, and vice versa. No one was bullied or made to feel that his/her grade depended on agreeing with Mr. Crouter. And it didn’t. We were free to write papers and take tests answering opinion-focused questions as we saw fit. What determined grades was, as it always should be in history or government classrooms, our ability to make a cogent argument and support it with things we learned from the class and outside reading/research.
2) If the teacher in question structured a fair, inquiry-based, or other open lesson on Trump and Hitler, if students were not cowed and were in fact already encouraged to think for themselves, if it had been demonstrated to them that they had the right and responsibility to think for themselves, than I see no harm in asking students to look at Trump in the light of Hitler, Germany, and Nazism.
If, as I’ve sensed so far, it was more of this teacher pushing his views on the students and justifying by “being right,” and by “only stating facts,” then were I his principal, I’d have a serious conversation with him about responsible teaching of non-adults. As I would with a teacher pushing religion of any kind (including no religion) on students. Or a teacher trying to get students to sell Amway products. B.S. salesmanship of any sort is anathema to teaching. One can do critical pedagogy without “selling” which point of view is “right.” One can look at social injustice without telling students what to think or do. If he was doing that and nothing else and they went after him for it, I’m in his corner. If he was just another propagandist, I’m afraid my sympathy for him is far more muted.
But I don’t expect to win hearts and minds here. Just to not let people get away with not having to at least consider that he might not be quite the victim or hero you’d like to make out. And again, all you have to do to test your thinking is to substitute Hillary Clinton or Obama for Trump, or imagine a teacher who gave extra credit to kids who stayed late to join her little Christian Club (tough luck, Jews, atheists, muslims, Buddhists, etc.: no extra credit for YOU!)
LikeLike
This question was asked of Dienne but I didn’t see the answer:
Why is Obama like Hitler? What is it about his rhetoric during the campaign that sounded like Hitler? What did he say that was fascist during the campaign? What scapegoats did he find?
Your entire reply sounds like the Bannon propaganda we will all soon need to accept as truth. Any criticism of Trump is not allowed because after all, we complained when Trump and his supporters insisted that Obama was a Kenyan not eligible to be President. And if you thought that was wrong, then you must also accept that any criticism of Trump is also wrong.
Truth is no longer relevant. There is no longer any truth. There is only false criticism which should not be mentioned or we are hypocrites. (Except when it comes to Hillary — then have at it!)
LikeLike
And again, no reply.
I suggest you read David Remnick in the New Yorker
LikeLike
My apologies, the New Yorker article was written by Adam Gopnick.
Then there is this:
http://www.snopes.com/1922-new-york-times-hitler/
LikeLike
I am asking MPG, Dienne, and NYC public School Parent to stop exchanging angry comments about the election. Enough. You are monopolizing the blog with angry and snide remarks. Please find another forum for your battles.
LikeLike
I don’t know if I believe this but maybe in our hysterical atmosphere, I should believe anything. Free speech is quashed every day in schools, by the way, so I don’t see why this is more important than other issues?!?!?!?
LikeLike
My mother would never tell my family who she voted for in the Goldwater/Johnson election. Even after 30 years, she considered her vote so sacred that she kept it private. Was she right? Hard to say, but the only argument she ever entered into was to a defense of the person attacked. No matter the criminal, she would gently suggest that we should not judge.
Perhaps we should all back off and go after specific policies rather than making personal attacks.
LikeLike
To Roy Turrentine:
Your mother offers the wisest advice: “we should not judge.”
Hopefully, all conscientious readers will unite in mind and in action to re-build A SOLID and UNIQUE FOUNDATION IN ORDER TO SUPPORT “NPE” and Dr. Ravitch’s GOAL in supporting, maintaining, and sustaining at all cost American Public Education in a whole child concept FREE FOR ALL in K-12 levels.
Please, readers motivate and support all conscientious candidates who run for PUBLIC OFFICES at all levels in government. = money talk = pledge $1.00 monthly or $12.00 annually to NPE education fund.
We cannot reach out and help to cultivate or to motivate educators in 50 States in order to strengthen American spirit in humanity BY TALKING without monetary support for a good cause. Back2basic
LikeLike
https://web.archive.org/web/20161104023500/http://www.wbtv.com/story/15895518/deported-immigrants-face-hardships-keep-trying-to-cross
This is factual
LikeLike
Ditto!
Sent from my iPad
Tom Negri Community Facilitator
615-473-1597
>
LikeLike
Same here. I think it’s important for any history teacher to point out recurring themes, patterns, and cycles in history. No good history teacher can ignore this.
For years now, I have been gathering documents and historical memorabilia about xenophobia and anti-immigrant movements in the US – and the impact of world events on our immigration policies, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts in the John Adams administration. I’m going through my collection now “in my spare time” at nights and trying to organize them into exhibits to take to Bennett’s for framing and display. It will be an eye-opener. I hope to have this done by the time Larry comes to Nashville, but I don’t know if I’ll make it. My plan is to put them on the two “short” walls in the “copy room”. Those of you who have been to my office will recall that on one long wall I have a tribute to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. On the opposite long wall will be a display of all the famous and important immigrants who passed through Ellis Island who went on to make America the great country it is. I have pictures of about 150 famous immigrants – all of whom passed through Ellis Island – but will probably not have enough space for all of them.
It should be a nice contrast between xenophobia and the immigrants who have made us great. I get a thrill out of planning this stuff, and it’s a treasured respite for me from the rottenness we now see around us with the election of Trump.
From: Tom Negri
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:24 AM
To: Diane Ravitch’s blog
Cc: Elliott Ozment , Earl Katz , Cabot Pyle , Larry Kopald
Subject: Re: I would have done the exact same thing …
Ditto!
Sent from my iPad
Tom Negri
Community Facilitator
615-473-1597
LikeLike
A friendly suggestion, so that you’re putting history in proper context, and educating rather than indoctrinating students into your preferred opinion about immigration. Point out that that the America of 2016 is far different than the America of 1916 or 1816. The economy no longer needs – and currently has a large surplus of – lower-skilled labor. Also point out that during the earlier waves of immigration, America did not have the extensive welfare state that we now have, and that earlier immigrants sank or swam on their own or with family assistance, not public assistance. Finally, point out that unionized teachers with tenure are not replaceable with lower-wage immigrants, unlike citizens in, say, the construction trades. That last point can help teachers avoid a sense of moral superiority towards citizens who are angry about being displaced in their jobs – blue-collar and high tech – by lower wage immigrants that employers love.
LikeLike
John, I think part of such an inquiry has to include investigating why employers and private citizens who like their enormous properties to be cared for love undocumented, low-wage labor, and hence why they might fight immigration reform.
The pissed-off displaced working-class Americans who lose their jobs to undocumented laborers are completely understandable, but their rage is often tinged by racism and xenophobia, and in my view misplaced: poor migrant workers, et al, still come here for the same reasons that Irish people and many others came here in the 19th century, and they face similar hatred by “nativists” (who aren’t natives compared to aboriginal North Americans; whether the latter displaced even more “original” peoples I cannot say).
Radicals like me would say that the ruling class elite in any country in any era use one or more poor groups against even poorer groups, fanning the flames of fear and bias to keep all groups from uniting to overthrow the system and kill the rich. (Harsh, I know, but see The French Revolution, for example, for how that plays out to the disadvantage of just about everyone, sooner or later, unless your last name happens to be Napoleon. :^)
There’s no single objective reading of US history, but there sure are a lot that consciously choose to slant the set of facts that are discussable/allowable in the classroom. So to me, most if not all history instruction in K-12 and beyond suffers from bias and propagandizing, despite “best intentions.”
LikeLike
MPG,
There will be many new jobs available if Trump fulfills his promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Farm workers, non-union construction workers, non-union hotel and restaurant workers. Lots of jobs. But they don’t pay much, and have no benefits.
LikeLike
IF. Very big if given who is invested in ensuring that those workers from Mexico and Central & South America are there to fill those jobs cheaply.
Few people born in the US want those jobs any more than they want to work for McDonalds, by and large, but lots do, because at least there IS a minimum wage and benefits if you’re full-time.
Now, if all the undocumented workers are, in fact, kicked out and kept out (not so easy for many reasons; and wall or not (shades of Berlin in the Cold War), human ingenuity is endless. Some have already spoken about tunneling under such a wall, but I take that as metaphorical as well as literal), somebody is going to have to do those jobs. Crops don’t pick or plant themselves. So either the jobs have to pay more and have benefits (and then the prices of lots of things will go up), or the economy will have to become so awful that those jobs get filled by impoverished Americans desperate for work (see any movie, documentary, or book set in the Dust Bowl era).
Now, I oppose kick people out in general (though keeping out or throwing out people with criminal records in their own countries doesn’t seem crazy). I certainly don’t support laws that are grounded in nothing more than xenophobia or racism. But I know enough people who live in places like El Paso who aren’t racists (I grew up with a couple of them in North Jersey; they’re decent, liberal, and Jewish, not that that guarantees not being racist or xenophobic, but it tends to help) and are very distressed by the skyrocketing crime rates, gang-related crimes, etc., that are attributable to the undocumented community. I can’t state definitively that these people I know are absolutely right in their analysis, nor that they’re insane, foaming-at-the-mouth bigots. I’m very skeptical that the latter is the case. How does one address their concerns? They’re my age (66), retired, not worried about losing their jobs. But they’re worried about their safety. That hardly seems crazy to me.
Any way you go with this, whether you are Obama, who speaks nicely but has the presidential record for deportations, or Trump, who speaks nastily but thus far, by my count, has deported no one, this is no simple good guy, bad guy issue. There are human rights, economic, social, criminal justice, and other issues in play.
Or should we just say: if Trump supports it, it must be evil? That would certainly simply analysis, though likely not solve the situation.
LikeLike
MPG: “If Trump supports it, it must be evil?”
I suggest you read Masha Gessen’s article in The New York Review of Books: “Autocracy: Rules for Survival.”
“Rule one: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.”
LikeLike
Depends on where you teach. I was introduced to my first green card teachers in a low income community where I taught. Some of my students who got moved to a lower level class complained about the content of the program, which was heavy on phonics (not research supported at the high school level), and the fact that the teacher did not/could not pronounce the words correctly because of a heavy accent. She was a perfectly nice woman placed in an uncomfortable situation by an administration that liked to mandate how and what a teacher would teach without much thought to the pedagogical support behind their dictates. Now that I think about it, that actually happened twice in the three years I taught there.
“Also point out that during the earlier waves of immigration, America did not have the extensive welfare state that we now have, and that earlier immigrants sank or swam on their own or with family assistance, not public assistance.”
With welfare reform under Clinton, the “welfare state” is a lot smaller than you think. It is just harder to support because those who bear the heaviest burden can no longer afford it. When the 1% and the too big to fail corporations no longer are hiding profits in off shore tax havens while they continue to bank the lions share of profits, then we can talk about the burden of safety nets for the neediest in our communities, which by the way has more white faces than black or brown.
LikeLike
Except teachers can be replaced by an endless stream of less-expensive replacements. That’s what Teach for America is all about.
LikeLike
The focus of your lessons seems fine (and I doubt a host of angry parents will be bitching about your characterization of the John Adams administration. Similarly, these days you probably won’t stir up tons of controversy over dissing Andrew Jackson as a vicious racist, though as you venture into fly-over country and the deep south, you would indeed find more objections.
This raises the obvious point: presenting material to students and asking them to look for parallels and contrasts is inquiry-based and fair as long as teacher thumbs and elbows aren’t all over the scales. If the teacher’s goal is to have students come away from a lesson believing precisely what the teacher thinks, that’s trouble in my mind. If not, no problem.
I repeat: in inexact subjects like literature, history, and pretty much all the social sciences, one runs major risk of proselytizing “with all the best of intentions. Facts don’t speak for themselves: they require interpretation (“There are no truths, only interpretations,” F. Nietzsche. Same dude wrote, “Truth is a mobile army of metaphors.”)
Even in statistics, some experts on quantitative research erroneously claim that “the data speak.” They don’t. The researcher makes a host of choices – including the statistical tools and models used – that impact the likely results. All of those decisions are fraught with things that can’t be purely objective.
Only pure science and particularly mathematics itself can claim to have a degree of objectivity, and even there some skepticism is healthy.
LikeLike
To TheMorrigan:
I sincerely apologize for my ESL language, NOT divergently apologize for my incoherent thought.
1) Here is the link that I mention about the digger!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP9cfQx2OZY
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly Finale
(The diggers are many types VERSUS the conscientious people)
2) Also, here is the wisdom in Leonard Cohen that I complete agree with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds7rFWUxpvU
Leonard Cohen Interview – Part 1 of 3
3) And here is his quote that I found whoever does not have an instinct about Con Artist and his notorious camaraderie who can do:
“”Act the way you’d like to be and soon you’ll be the way you act.”
In short, all EXCELLENT mathematicians are the TRUE philosophers. All GULLIBLE political consultants, analysts, literature writer ,and poets SEEM to be cogently with their “beat around the bush”arguments, BUT their SURVIVAL instinct is far from the reality.
IMHO, the equation of 2016 Presidential election result can spell the upcoming disaster to the world peace. It is nobody fault, BUT the FRAUDULENT leadership and the GULLIBILITY in all IGNORANT (=GREED, EGO AND LUST FOR SHORT TERM GAIN) PEOPLE IN GENERAL.
Could you imagine that illiterate and malicious leadership can bring happiness, peace, and prosperity to the country? it is for you to judge my coherence. Back2basic
LikeLike
This is interesting and maybe a bit dismaying. Details are sparse on both sides, but as long as the teacher went about it in an academic way (history classes are, in theory, anyway, about recognizing antecedents, making parallels, noticing relationships, and being thoughtfully analytical, not simply memorizing facts, figures, and dates, right?) was he really doing anything wrong?
I can see how it would be very easy for his presentation to cross a line and become impassioned to the point of being overly preachy (at which point he is proselytizing, which is not okay), but absent any evidence of that kind of conduct, I think it is MORE than fair to make this historical comparison, and to point out the obvious similarities that neither side could honestly deny.
What is more troubling is the school district having taken action without allowing the teacher to confront the charges directly (he has not been allowed to see the contents of the accusatory email), his not being allowed due process (suspension has been imposed and he has not been able to respond directly to his accuser), and the school’s absolute disregard for his 40 years of service. This is true, in my observation, of both high school and college in modern times – it is far too easy for one complainant, regardless of the nature of the complaint or the credibility of the plaintiff, to upend they system because of a knee-jerk response to a moment’s discomfort. At the least, a dialogue needs to be had. This is a sad direction that public education administration has been taking for some time – maybe it’s fear of litigation, maybe it’s just wanton lust for good PR – and it is driving good people out of education.
There is certainly more detail to this story than revealed here, but on the surface anyway, I call B.S.
LikeLike
I stand with Navarro. Enough is enough.
LikeLike
To Andrew King:
Are we related to MLK, lol? I am Asian, yellow skin but I believe in humanitarian concept and in MLK’s concept in humanity. I complete agree with you that: “the school’s absolute disregard for his 40 years of service.”
In business world, service and loyalty are not important, BUT “number in dollars, and in jail sentence” are matter the most.
As we acknowledge that privatization take over education with the support of new presidency and his notorious camaraderie, your statement reflects the brutal truth on the soon UPCOMING privatized EDUCATIONAL generation.
Should we be ready for old age, retirement and sickness under the care of hyenas and its gang? Sigh! Back2basic.
LikeLike