Should teachers be aloud to promote their personal political beliefs in the classroom?

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by golfgal

True, however the supreme court justices still have to be approved by congress and without that approval the President's nomination is worthless.

So you are suggesting that being pro life supercedes all other issues? What if you don't agree with the candidate on any other issue but being pro life/pro-choice, do you still vote that way?

I was not suggesting my personal view on anything, only that some people have that view. I know people that do look at abortion as the one and only issue they vote on. Not saying that is right or wrong, just saying this does happen, and people have the right to vote that way if they want to. You seem to be quick to dismiss that based on your own personal opinion as irreleveant or insignificant. This is related to the original thread topic because it really is possible for the classroom to be biased to one view or the other because people don't fully understand that they are in fact biased.

Care to examine the recent supreme court nominations that were approved by congress? Opinion - they don't lean left. Congress can engage in obstruction, but eventually they do have to approve somebody. Bank on it that the choice will always be of similar political view as the sitting president. Congress can reject a nominee, but the president goes back and picks again. eg john roberts. You have to know that some people that oppose abortion voted for Bush becasue he is prolife, and feel that was the correct choice based on changes that happened to the court. The court, as it sits today, is more conservative and thus in theory more likely to overturn roe v wade. As I said earlier, I don' think that is likely to happen, but I do understand why they voted for Bush.

On a personal level, abortion is not on the top of my issues list. I just know that for some people it is.

[roneb]

Originally Posted by MNNative

I have trouble seeing these people's viewpoints, but there are tons of people who do believe just that, Golfgal. I'm unapologetically against abortions, but I realize that it's not the only issue that plagues our nation nor the world. Last election (2004) I brought up this issue (to vote for someone who will do no good for the country simply because of his pro-life stance) and without missing a beat, got responses that said, unequivocally yes. Because to vote Catholic is to vote against murder.

A president could propose sending all jobs to Antarctica, a ban on healthcare and insist we outlaw soap but be pro-life and still get a HUGE amount of followers/votes.

I agree with much of what you've said. But "to vote Catholic is to vote against murder"... It depends on your brand of Catholic. I must say that when I married into a Catholic family I discovered that the Catholic Church is really quite diverse and a great many Catholics realize that the Catholic mandate of service to mankind/the less fortunate pretty much requires that you consider more than just the abortion issue and vote against the policies of the current administration. I attend a Catholic parish here in Portland that is pretty thrilled with the results of our election (including the priest)!

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by roneb

I agree with much of what you've said. But "to vote Catholic is to vote against murder"... It depends on your brand of Catholic. I must say that when I married into a Catholic family I discovered that the Catholic Church is really quite diverse and a great many Catholics realize that the Catholic mandate of service to mankind/the less fortunate pretty much requires that you consider more than just the abortion issue and vote against the policies of the current administration. I attend a Catholic parish here in Portland that is pretty thrilled with the results of our election!

I really should have placed quotes around that..."Because to vote Catholic is to vote against murder"...they were not my words but what I was told by those who chose to use abortion as the basis for their vote. I know TONS of people, Catholic and of other Christian faiths who don't pay attention to any of the issues or political debates, etc because they know based on that sole issue just who they're voting for and as long as the candidate's stance doesn't change, their vote won't either.

Having said that, I do know that not all Catholics or Christians vote just on that issue. Many many do, though. There are also tons of other people who feel strongly about a woman's ability to choose and there are probably many, many who vote solely for those who share their belief. It works both ways, I'm sure.

I shake my head at people who don't take the time to do their own research and really get into elections simply because I think about how many people weren't allowed to vote and fought so hard to gain this right...to just throw away all their blood/sweat/tears and vote lightly or not even vote...it's crazy to me.

[Luke55113]

Originally Posted by crazyme4878

I think you need to look for some good, hard, independent studies of whether or not "most teachers...are liberal". This has long been a talking point of conservatives, but it is seldom followed by actual proof.

High school students can and do make their own independant choices. I think it is fine for a teacher to state how they are voting, but that it is not okay to preach about it. I believe it is good for students to learn the different reasons people vote the way they do, to do see multiple authority figures/respected adults disagree on political views, but get along and agree on other things. But, before high school, I say no. And try to keep in in Social Studies/Political Science/History, although at election time the subject seems to overflow on its own.

The study done by David Horowitz and Eli Lehrer entitled, “Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities”, which reviewed colleges including MIT, U of Cal Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, UCLA and more. It found that faculty registered as Democrats outnumbered Republicans at more then 10 to 1.

Or read this article in the NY sun, [/SIZE][SIZE=3]http://www.nysun.com/new-york/universities-growing-liberal-bias-is-documented/66418/ , “ ‘In departments such as sociology and anthropology, "progressive" and "liberal" professors outnumber "conservative" and "libertarian" faculty members by a margin of at least 20 to 1, according to a new study by a husband and wife research team from George Mason University and the Swedish Institute for Social Research. The findings are based on dozens of national surveys about faculty voter behavior, policy views, and voter registration.’ ”
Or read the Johns Hopkins newsletter, http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2006/11/09/News/Study.Claims.That.Liberal.Bias.Hurts.Colleges-2453662.shtml “[A] report, [ entitled "A Profile of American College Faculty,"] published by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, has found that an overwhelming majority of American college and university faculty hold liberal biases in political and social ideology which frequently influence their teaching. The report, entitled "A Profile of American College Faculty,"

Or read the LA times:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-shermer-lukianoff14apr14,1,6849385.story
“A 2005 study by George Mason University economist Daniel Klein found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the faculty by a staggering ratio of nearly 10 to 1 at UC Berkeley and 7.6 to 1 at Stanford. Measuring political attitudes through voter registration among faculty in 20 different departments, in the humanities and social sciences the ratio was 16 to 1 at both campuses (30 to 1 among assistant and associate professors), and in some departments, such as anthropology and journalism, there wasn't a single Republican to be found.

Another 2005 study by Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte discovered that only 15% of those teaching at American colleges and universities describe themselves as conservative, while 72% said they were liberal. That figure climbed to 80% in departments such as English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, with only 5% labeling themselves as conservative.[/SIZE]

The bias exists even in law schools. In a 2005 article in the Georgetown Law Journal, Northwestern University law Professor John McGinnis reviewed the faculties of the top 21 law schools rated by the 2002 U.S. News & World Report graduate school rankings. He found that politically active professors at these top law schools overwhelmingly tend to be Democrats -- 81% contributed "wholly or predominantly" to Democratic campaigns while just 15% did the same for Republicans.”

The debate about whether or not a liberal biased exists in most Colleges and Universities is over. It is obvious a Liberal biased exists on most campuses. Why it exists and should it exist is what I am trying to find out from people. Let me remind you I am not promoting either political philosophy, but simply acknowledging that one has this advantage over the other. You could simply ignore all this research, or brush it off with an ignorant statement like, “Well that’s because Liberals are more intellectual”, but that would lead to another off topic debate. [/SIZE]

Whether or not a political biased is conservative or liberal, promotes organized religion or denounces it is not what the issue is. I am not interested in people who are ok with biased when it coincides with their own beliefs or philosophy because that viewpoint is ignorant. Of course the Klu Klux Klan member of society would be ok with a teacher who shared his or her KKK propaganda with his or her class that is not the issue. Unless you are alright with a teacher sharing views that are completely opposite of your personal views, do not even bother responding to this post because I am not interested in what a partisan, non-objective, non-critical thinker has to say. I mean not to insult you directly or label you, only to apply that to all who read this.
Again, the question was should teachers be aloud to promote their personal political beliefs in the classroom? I figured it was obvious but let me specify the question with, even if that belief is the opposite of yours. Should the communist teacher, the fascist teacher, the white supremacist, the black supremacist, the conservative or liberal or any other political view point you can possibly imagine be aloud to share that view in the classroom?

[Rosinante]

Originally Posted by golfgal

It is all in how it is done, the audience, etc. There are too many variables to say one way or another with the limited information. I don't see anything wrong with a teacher talking to a high school social studies class saying "I support xxx candidate and here are the reasons why" in order to show them HOW to make good political choices. I know in our kids' old school, Catholic school, the previous Presidential election they were very vocal about letting the kids know that Bush was the only candidate because he was antiabortion. I had issues with that because first, the President has about zero chance of changing that and second, there are more important issues to look into for an election.

I agree, they should be allowed to do the same with religion too, saying, I support xxx religion and the reasons are obvious. NOT

Sex ed should be alright too. How to wear a condom should be taught in the second grade, along with an in-depth discussion of birth control pillls. NOT

[Luke55113]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

Hold on a moment Luke. In your first post you asked two completely different questions, not one. You used the words promote and share as if they were interchangeable.

There is a vast difference between promoting an opinion and sharing an opinion. The former attempts to persuade the student what to think, the latter opens the discussion about how to think, and I think we can agree that it is the preferred approach. Great teachers throughout history are great because they engage the student in debate and discussion. And airing opinions - reasoned and thoughtful - is among the best ways to engage the mind of another. Without that method you might as well have the student memorize countless, objective facts. And that does not lead to any wisdom. Good teachers do not promote, but they provoke and engage.

Either way, it sounds like you think it is ok if the teacher is simply sharing views, and not promoting, you yourself said a "good teacher..provoke(s) and engages" When it comes to a matter of opinion in the classroom, politically, religiously or otherwise, I do not want teachers "provoking" students. Would you find it acceptable if a KKK member was teaching a class and tried to provoke students and engage them to thinking about joining a white supremisist group? Or how about a Christian teacher "provoking" and "engaging" students on topics such as the bible? If you disagree with either senerio then you disagree with your own argument.

[Luke55113]

Its funny how fast we went from school and political opinions to abortion and how the government works. This is winding up to sound more like one of the presidential debates.