A White teacher taught White students about White privilege. It cost him his job.

[ZiprHead]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

 

[Trausti]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's in the article in the OP.

 

[Gospel]

No, but it is not as bad as the over-reaction of the school administration.

I don't blame the school district that much. I blame the snowflakes in the state legislature that have enacted laws where the districts can be fined huge amounts of money for teaching... incorrectly. Or in other words, not white enough.

Is that what it's about really? I dunno man. The piece in question (though I love it) doesn't fit the Highschool education platform (which is - from what I recall- exactly as you alluded, a white-friendly curriculum) and should (IMO) be expected to get ill-received. In college though? Hell no.

The state legislature answers to their constituents so I expect them to do their jobs. It's the people who put them in power that needs to be addressed first. That's how the system works.

 

[ZiprHead]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

The article doesn't say he didn't refute that. As a matter of fact, your article was very thin on his response.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only opposing viewpoints anyone may be obligated to pose against something solidly resistant to vigorous attempts at disproof is to properly use it as a clear example of flawed thinking and obsolete models.

 

[Trausti]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

The article doesn't say he didn't refute that. As a matter of fact, your article was very thin on his response.

FFS

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language.

Cox also said Hawn did not provide assignments on opposing or differing views, although Hawn has said there is no legitimate opposing viewpoint saying white privilege doesn’t exist.

 

[Gospel]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

The article doesn't say he didn't refute that. As a matter of fact, your article was very thin on his response.

FFS

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language.

Cox also said Hawn did not provide assignments on opposing or differing views, although Hawn has said there is no legitimate opposing viewpoint saying white privilege doesn’t exist.

And thus starts the derail (well not really). Is there a legitimate opposing viewpoint?

 

[Gospel]

I also question the profanity charge. Profanity in Art is another subject in and of itself.

Edit: Statues with dicks come to mind. Side note, we need more statues with coochies yo!

 

[Jarhyn]

I also question the profanity charge. Profanity in Art is another subject in and of itself.

Edit: Statues with dicks come to mind. Side note, we need more statues with coochies yo!

I've seen a number of public statues depicting in realistic and abstract coochies in various sizes from tiny to gigantic.

Far more than I have seen of penises, to be sure. Except on dog statues. People love a dog statue with balls.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't consider the school administration's decision as overreacting. It's not like this was his first run-in with them. I'd be willing to agree with you dawg (the laughing one) if it wasn't.

The first run-in should not have happened - it was the over-reaction.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language....

About this particular thing, who gives a rat's ass?

I expect junior high school students to have heard swears regularly, to know about sex, to have seen violence in movies and their favorite video games they play every day. I expect 8th graders to read The Diary of Anne Frank and to have learned about the atrocities of history, but perhaps not in completely gruesome detail. I expect high school freshman to learn even more about the Holocaust. I expect high schoolers to read The Scarlet Letter which at least in passing is about adultery. And The Crucible about torture. And I expect students to learn history of enslaved people and Native Americans throughout their studies of US history but to a more mature detailed degree in later years of study.

So what is the scale here? A Contemporary Issues course for what, high school seniors? Where they have to become informed about the massive Reich wing insurrection at The Capitol and a police officer getting beaten by conservative crazy people? And then George Floyd with a cop's knee on his neck 'til Floyd was murdered?

The scale of profanity is negligible to non-existent.

How about the impact to kids? As a parent I do not want my child to develop into someone who swears regularly and so I would not want him exposed to a teacher in his younger years, i.e. elementary and junior high who is swearing regularly or introducing material with swears regularly. I'd not want it for him as a high school student either. However, this is art and free speech, not swearing to swear. It's a single work of art. And it's high school seniors (or other mature high schoolers).

There's no pattern of the teacher teaching a value to children's that swearing regularly is a good thing.

Cancel culture much?

 

[Jarhyn]

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language....

About this particular thing, who gives a rat's ass?

I expect junior high school students to have heard swears regularly, to know about sex, to have seen violence in movies and their favorite video games they play every day. I expect 8th graders to read The Diary of Anne Frank and to have learned about the atrocities of history, but perhaps not in completely gruesome detail. I expect high school freshman to learn even more about the Holocaust. I expect high schoolers to read The Scarlet Letter which at least in passing is about adultery. And The Crucible about torture. And I expect students to learn history of enslaved people and Native Americans throughout their studies of US history but to a more mature detailed degree in later years of study.

So what is the scale here? A Contemporary Issues course for what, high school seniors? Where they have to become informed about the massive Reich wing insurrection at The Capitol and a police officer getting beaten by conservative crazy people? And then George Floyd with a cop's knee on his neck 'til Floyd was murdered?

The scale of profanity is negligible to non-existent.

How about the impact to kids? As a parent I do not want my child to develop into someone who swears regularly and so I would not want him exposed to a teacher in his younger years, i.e. elementary and junior high who is swearing regularly or introducing material with swears regularly. I'd not want it for him as a high school student either. However, this is art and free speech, not swearing to swear. It's a single work of art. And it's high school seniors (or other mature high schoolers).

There's no pattern of the teacher teaching a value to children's that swearing regularly is a good thing.

Cancel culture much?

HHD courses properly are owed a vocabulary lesson on the meanings of sexual vernacular before folks turn 12. They will never have this debt paid forward. I even imagine that were educators selected for competency, this would result in earlier identification of students in need of remedial social education.

 

[Politesse]

Cancel culture much?

No, it's only "cancel culture" if you're being canceled for offending "the Woke". If you offend the conservatives, canceling you is called "Family Values."

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, Tennessee, historic home of academic freedom and excellence in education. The OP makes me want to watch "Inherit the Wind" again.

 

[Gospel]

I also question the profanity charge. Profanity in Art is another subject in and of itself.

Edit: Statues with dicks come to mind. Side note, we need more statues with coochies yo!

I've seen a number of public statues depicting in realistic and abstract coochies in various sizes from tiny to gigantic.

Far more than I have seen of penises, to be sure. Except on dog statues. People love a dog statue with balls.

FYI- Didn't say there weren't enough, I said we need more.

Carry on.

 

[Gospel]

I don't consider the school administration's decision as overreacting. It's not like this was his first run-in with them. I'd be willing to agree with you dawg (the laughing one) if it wasn't.

The first run-in should not have happened - it was the over-reaction.

It's my understanding that if the administration was less privileged they'd have a better reaction. Despite that, their first decision was not to fire him but to broker a deal which was essentially don't do it again and you can keep your job. Guess what? Matthew Agreed (on more than one occasion).

Matthew had options anyway. For example, if students were interested in discussing topics that aren't allowed in the classroom he could tackle them in his personal time. What make's that great is It would require students who showed interest have him speak with their parents first. He'd still have his job and still, be able to speak about White Privilege to folks who wouldn't give it an ear beyond the title.

But that's just me looking from the outside in.

 

[Shadowy Man]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

The article doesn't say he didn't refute that. As a matter of fact, your article was very thin on his response.

FFS

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language.

Cox also said Hawn did not provide assignments on opposing or differing views, although Hawn has said there is no legitimate opposing viewpoint saying white privilege doesn’t exist.

And thus starts the derail (well not really). Is there a legitimate opposing viewpoint?

It would seem that many on the right want to see an opposing viewpoint presented even if it's not legitimate. For example, when MTG pointed out that schools aren't closing because of all the cancer deaths every year. Others want creationism taught in science class. Many examples are available.

 

[Trausti]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

The article doesn't say he didn't refute that. As a matter of fact, your article was very thin on his response.

FFS

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language.

Cox also said Hawn did not provide assignments on opposing or differing views, although Hawn has said there is no legitimate opposing viewpoint saying white privilege doesn’t exist.

And thus starts the derail (well not really). Is there a legitimate opposing viewpoint?

There’s plenty of critique; especially as it has no empirical basis. It is a pronouncement of the intersectional clergy. It’s a belief system. To say that opposing views are not legitimate, simply because you disagree with them, is bad faith. Which is why this person should not be teaching a course on controversial topics.

 

[ZiprHead]

My question is, "Was that in the best interests of the kids?"

Yes. Part of the reprimand / removal was his refusal to present an opposing viewpoint. The kids are better off he’s gone.

He disputes that.

When? In the article I linked above that was cited as a reason for his dismissal and he did not refute that.

The article doesn't say he didn't refute that. As a matter of fact, your article was very thin on his response.

FFS

Among other things, Cox said Hawn showed a profanity-laced video on white privilege to students and did not successfully mute out the language.

Cox also said Hawn did not provide assignments on opposing or differing views, although Hawn has said there is no legitimate opposing viewpoint saying white privilege doesn’t exist.

And thus starts the derail (well not really). Is there a legitimate opposing viewpoint?

There’s plenty of critique; especially as it has no empirical basis. It is a pronouncement of the intersectional clergy. It’s a belief system. To say that opposing views are not legitimate, simply because you disagree with them, is bad faith. Which is why this person should not be teaching a course on controversial topics.

So cite some.