 |
| Source: Pixabay/ |
With the upcoming election I was recently reminded of something that happened during a previous Presidential Election.
During the Presidential Election campaign in 2008, one of my
students asked me to explain the difference in the way the Democratic and
Republican Parties think. The question was sparked by a story on our daily
in-class news program. The story repeatedly mentioned there were differences
between the two parties governing philosophies without really explaining those
philosophical differences. I wanted to keep my explanation in simple terms.
This is how I explained it:
Democrats believe that all the money someone earns belongs to
the government and the government has the power to decide how much of the money
a person earns they should get to keep, confiscating the rest through taxation
to pay for running the government, the military, and as many social welfare
programs as possible to relieve as many citizens as possible from being
personally responsible for their own lives.
Republicans believe that all the money someone earns belongs to
the person earning it and the government should only confiscate the minimum
amount necessary to pay for essential government services and the military,
while limiting spending on social programs that relieve citizens from being
personally responsible for their own lives to the smallest amount possible
while still providing a safety net for those who are truly in need.
This is an oversimplified explanation and I realize that.
However, I was explaining two very different and complex philosophical concepts
to a group of seventh graders who didn’t have the context to understand those
nuances. They could understand the difference between a political party with a
tax-and-spend philosophy and one that prefers to let people keep more of their
own money.
What I had not anticipated was the reaction of a parent with a
far-left-wing liberal mindset taking me to task for even discussing politics in
class. He threatened to complain to the School Board if I did not immediately
cease and desist. This parent also informed me that he and his family had
always been Democrats and that he didn’t like the fact I’d educated my class
about his party’s philosophy.
Notice he did not say I was wrong in how I’d described the
Democratic Party philosophy. He simply objected to me explaining the philosophy
to my students. What bothered me the most about the email this parent sent is
that his wife was a colleague who worked in the same grade on the same hall
teaching the same subject I did. I never found out if she was aware of the
email.
In the interest of smooth teacher-parent relations I endeavored
to answer no more questions about the campaign or the two parties for the rest
of the time until the election. When a student would ask, I would answer that I
had been asked by a parent not to discuss the election in class so the truth
about the parties and the candidates could remain a mystery to my students. On
the plus side, I received no more emails.
Was this parent practicing censorship? Were my descriptions of
the two parties inappropriate or too on point? Should teachers give honest
answers to students’ questions about political parties and candidates for
office, or should teachers obfuscate and avoid giving honest answers?
I always tell my students that the opinions I share with them
are my own and they are free to agree or disagree as they choose. I encourage
them to discuss the question, and my answers, with their parents. And I allow
them to come back to class and rebut what I’ve told them, if they have a well
prepared rebuttal. “My dad says you’re an idiot,” is not a well prepared
rebuttal.
When did schools and classrooms become discussion free zones? It
seems to me schools and classrooms should be the one place where students and
teachers could engage in such discussions. But then, I ignore most of the memos
on how to be Politically Correct.
As always, I remain,
The Exhausted Educator
No comments:
Post a Comment