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

[TomC]

Your example involves a teacher teaching something that is factually wrong. That ought to bother any parent. My children all had instances with teachers teaching something that was factually incorrect. In each instance, one of their parents taught them the correct facts or information, and then suggested to the child to ask their teacher about it. If that did not work, one of us went to the inevitable teacher-student conference to chat about it. Sometimes, the child simply misinterpreted the teacher's remarks.

Any parent who takes a child's view of what happened in the classroom as gospel is naive.

There's a huge difference between the way things should be and the way things are.
Hawn is being replaced. He will have no further impact on the kids he was teaching. He'll be replaced by someone the school administrators prefer. Not necessarily because the new teacher matches their ideological world view, but because they're trying to run a school.

Hawn was making that difficult. Parents were complaining, and probably threatening. Politicians were telling voters, "We don't need people like that teaching our kids. Vote for me!"

I doubt that Hawn was too uneducated to see this happening. That's why I think he decided to drop the job and go out with a bang.
And filed a lawsuit.

What a Wo..st.r.

The kids are going to be taught by the least offensive teacher the school administrators can find.

Was that in the best interests of the kids?
Tom

 

[zorq]

Teachers need to understand that they aren't in charge of students education, the parents are.

But are they? If they are, should they be?

My impression growing up is that if parents want to be in charge of their child's education, they MAY choose to homeschool their children. But if they CHOOSE to send the kids to public school, they get what the state thinks is an appropriate education.

This is the recent Virginia State Governor's debate between McAuliffe and Youngkin.

Also... This class sounds like an elective. As in completely optional. If parents or students didn't want to be exposed to current events they needn't have been.

 

[ZiprHead]

I doubt that Hawn was too uneducated to see this happening. That's why I think he decided to drop the job and go out with a bang.
And filed a lawsuit.

What a Wo..st.r.

Teaching a class called Current Events kinda' requires the teacher to be aware of current events, or a wokester, in your words.

The kids are going to be taught by the least offensive teacher the school administrators can find.

Was that in the best interests of the kids?

My guess is the school will drop the course because no other teacher would be stupid enough to teach that class under these new conditions.

 

[Politesse]

Yeah, why even pretend to have the subject, if teacher is allowed to teach on none of the topics that one would usually discuss in Current Events for fear of offending a small group of parents that can get you fired?

 

[TomC]

My guess is the school will drop the course because no other teacher would be stupid enough to teach that class under these new conditions.

Not a bad guess.

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

Hawn clearly picked it. Did he make the best choice for the kids?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

My guess is the school will drop the course because no other teacher would be stupid enough to teach that class under these new conditions.

Not a bad guess.

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

Hawn clearly picked it. Did he make the best choice for the kids?
Tom

Yes. If the educational system is allowed to simply drift unchecked towards uselessness, that is exactly what it will do. Has done. It's good to have at least occasional acts of public dissent, which reflect back very badly on the institutions that instigate them. Otherwise, admins can shrug and say "I haven't heard any complaints about the policy" in response to critique. What you're saying is that Hawn shouldn't have even tried to do his job. While he may have known that he was endangering said job, it's not his call or his responsibility to decide whether to actually fire him over what should not be a firing offense (minimally exposing his students to one half of a debate that is within the natural purview of the course he was hired to teach). His job was to teach current events, and he did it to the best of his ability. We cannot, and should not, ask any less of him.

Betcha the other parents - the non Trumpy parents - are none too happy about this, and will make their opinions known.

 

[Jarhyn]

Making a single comment during a debate, then backing it up with a source, is "indoctrination" much in the same way that chopping up some firewood in my backyard is "deforestation".

It wasn't a single comment. It says so right in the OP.
He'd been warned at least a couple of times previously about parental complaints. This was just the final straw, one he described as "will probably get me fired", according to the story.

I don't think he wanted the job any more.

Being so far out from the parents made it uncomfortable. But the parents are ultimately in charge of their children, for better or worse. It doesn't matter if he closely aligns with your world views, you aren't in charge. Neither is the school administration, they had to choose between keeping their jobs and Hawn keeping his, probably.

Let me ask, who do you think will teach that class better? Hawn, who "can't help himself"(according to the report), or his replacement? A replacement who will probably be chosen for their ability to avoid any controversy that might further annoy parents who are already angry.

Did Hawn do those kids a favor by showing them the YouTube he chose? I don't think so.
Tom

Is this a joke? Of course, Hawn is probably the better teacher than whoever is likely to replace him. It takes guts to care about education enough to sacrifice your own career for it.

Nevertheless, Hawn isn't their teacher any more.

Sorry to inflict reality on you, but Hawn will be replaced. And probably by someone who won't teach the kids what Hawn was teaching.

Do you think Hawn did the kids a favor?
Tom

Oh yeah. They're going to remember this incident for much longer than their replacement instructor could possibly teach them. There's hearing about censorship/ white privilege as an abstract theory, and then there's actually witnessing with your own eyes a teacher getting fired for watching a video of a poem that dares to acknowledge that the US has freaking race issues.

You have a lot more Faith than I do.

I'm confident that in a couple of months, much less a new semester, the kids won't care. From their parents to the administration to their new teacher, they'll be too busy learning what they're being taught now. And will be taught, for years, now that the administration knows better than to hire a teacher like Hawn.

Some kids might remember, but mostly not. Kids are like that.
Tom

That's just ignorance right there, rank and stinking.

Every time a teacher who would express humanity, conviction, and principle, I remember.

Every time a teacher took the mask off and expressed things with clarity and no reservation, I would remember.

Every bullshitty thing that happened in every class I had directed from a teacher, I remember...

From the time wherein I drew a "diamond" as in a cushion cut carbon allotrope rather than a rhombus of equal side lengths, to the interactions I had with a teacher concerning curiosity over how she voted (and how she was disdainful about it to a child trying to understand, an experience which led me towards conservatism more strongly through those years of ignorance), to the ice cream vomit incidents and the time where the teacher tried to shame me into walking in a way my body is injured by attempting... There are maybe 30 or 40 such incidents that I remember fairly clearly and touch lightly so as to prevent corruption of them through access. The biggest one, by far, was the deposing of my role model of faith.

Deposing a teacher who teaches hard things honestly would have a huge impact on me. It would make me question everything about the intentions of those who removed him, especially if I could find no or little error in his teachings.

I don't care if the basic bitches don't give a shit. They're basic bitches damned to an uninteresting life. Fuck them. The ones this impacts are EXACTLY the ones who we should care about.

 

[Gospel]

I think this is the piece he got in trouble for? If so, I understand why some parents were offended.



I love it btw if that's not obvious however I don't believe it was appropriate for the classroom environment.

Edit: I meant Highschool classroom environment. College? Sure

 

[Gospel]

Disclaimer. I'm actively trying to find a way to donate towards this gentleman's endeavors as I type.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^ She seems feisty.

 

[ZiprHead]

"We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

 

[Gospel]

"We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

For those that may knee jerk into thinking this only applies to specific leanings, you're wrong. Anyone that understands and respects that social, political, economical & any-cal is not black & white can understand this. If you only see one side then be offended BIOTCH.

 

[TomC]

"We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

For those that may knee jerk into thinking this only applies to specific leanings, you're wrong. Anyone that understands and respects that social, political, economical & any-cal is not black & white can understand this. If you only see one side then be offended BIOTCH.

That's exactly what I've been trying to get across throughout this thread.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

"We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

For those that may knee jerk into thinking this only applies to specific leanings, you're wrong. Anyone that understands and respects that social, political, economical & any-cal is not black & white can understand this. If you only see one side then be offended BIOTCH.

That's exactly what I've been trying to get across throughout this thread.
Tom

Tom. I say this with love. Nobody will ever understand you, man. I love you and I don't know what TF you talkin bout most of the time.

 

[laughing dog]

Your example involves a teacher teaching something that is factually wrong. That ought to bother any parent. My children all had instances with teachers teaching something that was factually incorrect. In each instance, one of their parents taught them the correct facts or information, and then suggested to the child to ask their teacher about it. If that did not work, one of us went to the inevitable teacher-student conference to chat about it. Sometimes, the child simply misinterpreted the teacher's remarks.

Any parent who takes a child's view of what happened in the classroom as gospel is naive.

There's a huge difference between the way things should be and the way things are.
Hawn is being replaced. He will have no further impact on the kids he was teaching. He'll be replaced by someone the school administrators prefer. Not necessarily because the new teacher matches their ideological world view, but because they're trying to run a school.

Hawn was making that difficult. Parents were complaining, and probably threatening. Politicians were telling voters, "We don't need people like that teaching our kids. Vote for me!"

I doubt that Hawn was too uneducated to see this happening. That's why I think he decided to drop the job and go out with a bang.
And filed a lawsuit.

What a Wo..st.r.

The kids are going to be taught by the least offensive teacher the school administrators can find.

Was that in the best interests of the kids?
Tom

It ought to be obvious that the answer to your question is NO. Duh

 

[Politesse]

"We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

For those that may knee jerk into thinking this only applies to specific leanings, you're wrong. Anyone that understands and respects that social, political, economical & any-cal is not black & white can understand this. If you only see one side then be offended BIOTCH.

That's exactly what I've been trying to get across throughout this thread.
Tom

Somehow this did not come across, in your posts asking whether a current events teacher voluntarily accepting a muzzle might have been in his students' best interest.

 

[laughing dog]

My guess is the school will drop the course because no other teacher would be stupid enough to teach that class under these new conditions.

Not a bad guess.

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

No, it clearly was not.

Hawn clearly picked it. Did he make the best choice for the kids?
Tom

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.