<p>This has been a heavily volatile issue in the Los Angeles Unified School District and I bet all across the country as well. At least in my school, ** some ** teachers are promoting their own political ideologies in the classroom and provide no alternative points of view in their instruction. They devise a political agenda and use students as puppets to effectively pursue their own motives.</p>
<p>I am not saying all teachers are guilty of this, nor am I saying it is the vast majority of teachers who participate in inflammatory politics on campus. But, my school, odd enough as it is with the racial tensions as of late, also has become a bastion of extreme left-wing activism and the overbearing presence of their activism bleeds into student learning. </p>
<p>It is one thing to state personal opinion in a government class. I can understand a teacher showing both sides of an opinion, and expressing their views supporting one side of the issue. I can understand a teacher providing their opinion and allowing for candid discussion to discuss points of merit on the opposing side.</p>
<p>It is another thing to allow a teacher’s activism and involvement in controversial political affairs to completely overtake and govern how a curriculum is taught. The students aren’t learning and acquiring the skills for free and independent thought; they are being spoon-fed propaganda to a ridiculous degree and are turned into mini-activists to rally for the cause of the extremist teachers on campus.</p>
<p>Furthermore, these teachers are protected by tenure. </p>
<p>You might say, “oh, it doesn’t get that bad,” but believe me, it does. Teachers have taken students out of class and to an unauthorized rally/protest. Teachers have taken students on irrelevant “extracurricular” activities that serve no purpose other than to supplement their own political agendas. </p>
<p>Students do not learn when they are force-fed propaganda and are only shown one side of the story. </p>
<p>You also might ask why I’m so irked about this issue. A month ago, our school hosted a career fair, and an organization on campus, opposing the war on Iraq, came about, without permission, and posted signs proposing defamatory remarks about our nation’s military. </p>
<p>Yes, students have the right to free speech. That’s understandable, but there is a time, place, and a location for protests to be held. An unscheduled, spontaneous protest during the middle of a career fair is not the proper place to protest. Demonstrators in the city of Los Angeles must file permits in order to hold their protests, so why can this one organization deviate from set protocol and be allowed to protest out of spontaneity?</p>
<p>They also allege that a member of the United States Army Recruiting Command staff threatened to hit one of their club members. Number one, this claim has gone unsubstantiated. There has been no verbal confirmation nor has there been affidavit(s) filed providing an unbiased account of the situation at hand. Number two, if said allegation is true, it has not been denied by the organization’s members that the staff member was harrassed by the students, and the response, although the actual event is unconfirmed, may have been out of justified retaliatory response. The personnel in question is not an active member of the recruiting staff in our school area, nor is he a certified recruiter.</p>
<p>However, our school site council did pass protocol stating that without invitation from the school, recruiters may not be on campus. It is assumed, however, that upon invitation, recruiters may be present without harrassment from other organizations. </p>
<p>The members of these activist organizations, fueled by activist teachers, cannot defend themselves in extemporaneous debate. They thrive on the prepared speeches written for them by the faculty members that sponsor them. I had a first-hand glimpse of this when I was challenged for debate regarding Iraq. I spoke extemporaneously, they read from a piece of paper, and were unable to answer the questions that I had brought forth regarding the matter.</p>
<p>So tell me then, if they cannot defend themselves in open debate, then what are they learning? Are they learning to conduct rote memorization of facts and opinions stated as facts? Why is it that they are almost never exposed to the other side of the story, and they are taught to disregard whatever the opposing party states? I for one, am all for candid discussion, and will admit when I am wrong. </p>
<p>I was sitting in the principal’s office today discussing the matter with the US Army Recruiters and the students that were responsible for the hostile action in question. They claimed under the First Amendment, their disruptive behavior was protected and that they did no wrong. In fact, they went so far as to demand an apology from all parties involved, including an administrator who authorized the removal of one of their * unauthorized * signs and disbanded the group when they conducted their protest in a disruptive, rowdy manner.</p>
<p>When I tried to explain to the student president of this organization that under Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), New Jersey v. T.L.O [invocation of in locus parentis], and even their primary shield against administrative action, Tinker v. Des Moines (1966) that their First Amendment rights were waived when they caused a considerable amount of commotion and disruption to the school activity, the Student President was quickly dismissive of my statement and said, “I don’t need to sit here listening to your so-called facts.”</p>
<p>At that point, I lost all respect for her and the organization she has been affiliated with. It is clear that they show no respect for other opinions, as they have been taught to do so, and will do any and everything necessary in order to promote their spoon-fed, indefensible ideologies that are superficially researched and not buttressed by reliable sources of information. If they are willing to form their own version of judicial law and ignore the previous rulings of the United States Supreme Court, what are they being taught? To ignore the precedence set by those who have the consent of the governed?</p>
<p>Their actions, however, are not their own. Even before our meeting today, the faculty advisor of the organization whispered “tips” as to points of saliency in their argument. Is this what we teach in our classrooms, nowadays? To become political pawns for a war of ideologies that students shouldn’t really be involved in the first place? To go forth in the political arena with no true knowledge of the depth of the situation? </p>
<p>Politics and varying ideologies should stay in a classroom of the social sciences, perhaps classes of literature as well. When you expose one aspect of ideology, as Paul Harvey puts it, we should go into “the rest of the story.” Equal time, equal coverage, covering all aspects of ideology. Exposing just one side and claiming it as the true ideology is ludicrous and will not result in student learning. Once again, displaying political opinions for the purpose of student merit is one thing, manipulating the curriculum and using it to achieve political agendas is another.</p>
<p>I must say I am a bit presumptuous by forming a general statement proposing ** all students ** are taught in this manner, as that is not the case. There are great professors and instructors nationwide who do not let politics get in the way, and can effectively deliver a lesson without the nuisance of political bias. </p>
<p>However, there are teachers who are problematic by allowing their political motives to overtake their curriculum of instruction, and use it solely for the purpose of propaganda. That is not student learning, that is brainwashing.</p>
<p>I am sick of students being used as political pawns to play in a game that they do not belong in. I am tired of students debating with propaganda, not facts, and I am tired of watching students debate in a closed-minded fashion, unaware of the other perspectives that are in play. I am tired of teachers interfering with student curricula to achieve their own political agendas. </p>
<p>The classroom is ** NOT ** a center for political propaganda. It is NO place to be making signs promoting an extremist ideology, with no contribution to student learning. Teachers must know that there is a fundamental difference between education and propaganda. Their ideological motives have no place in the classroom, save a few expressions of their own personal beliefs here and there.</p>