Mentioning the president and putting his picture up is in absolutely no sense of the word "pushing a political party" in an illegitimate sense. The president has awards given in his name at schools all over the country every year. No court on earth is going to rule that illegal.

This protest is like protesting the raising of the american flag in a classroom; it is utterly retarded. George Bush is the president of the united states, and as such every teacher has a right and in some cases even a duty to teach about him an elementary school. If she were to say "George bush is better than John Kerry" or "George Bush will help you all if he gets elected", that would be a different story.

I think everyone should take Ben Affleck's lead on this one: He opposes Bush, but he still respects the fact that he is President and considered it an honor to meet the president. That's the right attitude for politics, IMO.

 

Who said they were a threat? She broke simple rules and then ran to the media and portrayed it as something it is not. I would think the same if she was in that class railing about how JFKerry should be the next president. She was misusing her classtime to talk politics when she should have been talking language. Is it really that hard for you to understand?

 

Like hell it would have.

Once again, why are these children a threat?

 

The problem here is that she didn't just mention Bush and put his picture up. She was talking politics to her students. She got asked to stop and she didn't so they confronted her about it. At this point she ASSUMED that she was getting fired and walked out of the school and ran and told the news that she was fired for putting a picture of the president up. (false) Then when asked if she ever heard someone say she was fired she admitted that she did not. She screwed up and is now trying to cover her tracks. Common sense.

 

What's hard for me to understand is why all of you are taking the more conservative approach of this argument. When I mention media blackout in Iraq I hear "OMG!!!1111one111 free speech, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of the presses!!111one!" from most of you.

But it's okay to play big brother against a teacher talking about politics to an audience that can't make a difference in the first place? This logic makes baby Jesus cry, SilverScoober02.

It's because you'll promote whatever makes Bush look bad.

 

You can't just spew propaganda and rhetoric at these children and then say it's okay becasue they can't vote and therefore are not a "threat." Children are highly impressionable, epecially when concerning teachers. Teach these kids just one viewpoint at a young age and they are very likely to adopt those same view points or at least have a bias towards them. If you are going to try and agrue that they are still young and none of this matters, than you are basically arguing that all elementary education is equally fruitless.

-Chris

 

Read the article. Where does it say she was talking politics to her students? Is there some other evidence of this? All I've seen so far is her having a picture of Bush up there, and having parents complain and want a picture of John Kerry (ie, the guy who isn't president) up there too.

What did this woman say that was politically inflammatory?

Also: Professors at public universities can speak out on politics. What is it that prohibits any other teacher from doing the same?

 

I don't take any approach I just call it like I see it. If you read the report from the superintendent then you see what action they took to remedy this. And she was never fired. It just makes sense to me. I can't imagine a school taking action like this without having legal footing. I can imagine that a teacher who was disciplined for this would run to the media and cry because it is an election year and it makes a great story. Just like the lady who got fired in ALA or whatever for having the Kerry bumper sticker. What is making baby's cry Salty is your lack of logic in this debate. She broke a rule and got punished.(from what I understand from the teachers I know it is a well known rule) What is hard to figure out?

 

Read the press release from the school district about the matter and you will understand. And why do you think the school district is firmly behind its administrators on this? Could it be that the teacher is wrong and everyone knows it. You are only getting the media story that was told to them by the teacher. Figure it out.

 

I don't see where the problem is. If you cannot pull your own weight then you are left out to die.

I am tired of the lazy and the unwilling to live off of the backs of those that want to better their way of life.

 

yeah, the school district would not lie to cover its own *** now would it ?

 

once again, you are taking the superintendent word as fact, and that there is no spin at all on what was in the press release

 

just goes to show how much some parents hate bush, i think it is stupid if you ask me.

But funny that parents would throw such a **** fit about it hahaha

 

You know, this thread is a classic example of why I think there should be less federal control and more local control. To my knowledge, nobody witnessed this situation first or second hand (as parents or school administrators), yet we are all more than ready to jump on a point of view and pass judgement.

Too bad NEITHER political party is willing to give up federal power in favor of local power.

 

Your kidding right? Clinton had a affair and he got into a **** load of crap for it. If you think a republican parent wouldn't be up in arms if something like this had with Clinton involved then I can't help you there. And when did anyone say the children where a threat? I stated that the teacher was NOT ALLOWED to do what she did. So she has to now face the circumstances.