Teachers with a conservative political orientation are not the answer to what is going on in the classroom today.

What is called for, especially in light of what has happened with Jay Bennish, is the removal of political posturing, and unsubstantiated villification of the US from schools which are beneficiaries of public tax money.

In this case, Bennish is teaching Georgraphy, not critical thinking, and not political theory. Insofar as his charge as an instructor in this field goes, he's failed, even with the rhetoric which he is airing to his students. If his argument, "America is the most violent country in the world" had any validity at all, why did he, as a scholar, and specialist in this field, not bother to cite references in regard to this claim? Is America the most violent per capita? By square mile? Statistically when considering volume of violence related deaths during a specifc period of time? How is this claim qualified?

After listening to the recording, and reviewing the transcripts of the recording, there is no qualification at all. Bennish made an unsubstantiated, clearly provovative and incendiary claim (just as he did with US production, sale and export of tobacco - China is exponentially more prolific in that regard).

Despite his claim to engage students in critical, independent thought, Bennish's tirade was nothing more than a thinly veiled expression of his own political leanings. There is little room to argue that he has championed a value system, one which, apparently, is of more importance than the subject which he has been hired to teach.

Conservative and liberal values, if taught dispassionately as they relate to the social, political and cultural structures of a region for purposes of current or historical significance are not the problem. When the presentation of those values clearly suggests the moral superiority of one over the other, the discussion in a classroom setting such as this, needs to cease.

It is not the job of public education to lead students to make judgement calls based on value systems which are being spoon-fed to them by people like Bennish. Educating children in value systems in the purview of parents. (If someone wants their kids to be taught from a certain political or philosophical perspective, there are plenty of private schools that will do just that.)

What this amounts to, irregard to the claims of any instructor that the material is innocuous, is state-sanctioned indoctrination. Teachers who earn their keep on the taxpayer dime have no business even suggesting that one current political mindset (or personality) is morally superior to another.

At the end of the day, kpivnik, it's no more desirable to have a right-wing apologist installed in a classroom to balance out the equation than it is for Jay Bennish to be their selling his ideological wares.

If Bennish (and other instructors who are similarly predisposed) would actually do the job for which he was hired, perhaps there wouldn't be such an embarrassing number of American students who don't know, for instance, the difference between a country and a continent.

And really, if that's a distinction that a kid can't make after a geography class, then he's really got no business holding strong opinions about a location which he can't even point to on a map.

Mr. Bennish's supporters have opened Pandora's Box.

If, as you've all said, that the New Geography extends beyond map reading and country naming and foraged ahead into areas including "the cultural and political institutions that shape the region, etc," then you must, in addition to Bennish's left-wing ranting, also open the door to the study of religion, as it's actually taught and practiced.

The same key that opens the door for Jay Bennish to opine politically also unlocks the door for whichever religious bent feels that it ought to be included in a curriculum such as this. Let's be fair, religion is a cultural institution that shapes many a region around the world.

So, when you're patting Jay on the back, realize that you're greenlighting in-class dialogue regarding religion.

Welcome to unfettered free speech in the American High School Classroom.

I have to believe that the Joe-Friday-just-the-facts-ma'am philosophy of basic educational theory would yield less shame when it comes America's standing in the ranks of academic achievement.

Leave the political and religious sniping out of it altogether.

(Oh, and by the way ~Sarah Carol~ [the tildas are just adorable in your name] when you're scolding someone for their apparant lack of scholastic skill, it's usually wise to word your reprimand using proper English, thus giving the appearance that you aren't an idiot. The fact that you, apparently, don't know the difference between 'accept' and 'except' suggests to me that maybe your teachers should spend less time hyperbolizing about politics, and more time teaching the basics, not only in Geography, but English as well.)

I'd say let your president know, that he is on the wrong way with his politics of violence. Elect a better president next time, that really represents your fears and problems and helps them solve. And then one day people around the world are going to proud to have American friends. I never stopped being hopeful about the good in the American soul. But for some while I could not find a lot of it in real, which makes me very sad. I know Americans for more than twenty years now - and I am very glad to be their friend. But I also could get a view to their hopeless emotions, to the loneliness they felt. And it broke my heard knowing, they would not need to accept their destiny, they could fight it and win back a better world.

Well - I still hope.

Maybe some of Mr. Bennish's ideas would be more appropriate for a college level course, however, it is hard to take one small portion of one small session from an entire year of classroom ideas and know exactly what a teacher is teaching. Is that really fair? Do we know that at another date he wasn't praising Pres. Bush for his stance on other issues? From this small portion of his class we would assume that's not the case, however we honestly don't know..... innocent until proven guilty. Personally, I would not like for someone to take twenty minutes of what I was discussing, out of the thousands of hours of discussions that I have during any given year, and decide it must be how I absolutely imperatively think about one particular subject. What if at that time I was playing devil's advocate, reciting something I heard on the media, etc.? We can all reasonably discern that doing this could possibly cause us to be misrepresented on that subject.

I think that if a teacher is doing a good job of presenting both sides of an issue, he is doing his job properly - and is doing what I would expect from a teacher in America. After all, it is only brainwashing if one side of an issue is all that is being presented. If we, as a nation, are raising intelligent young people, it will not hurt them to be presented with all of the ideas and let them figure out what they think as individuals. Isn't that the job of our schools in the first place? I sure hope it isn't to tell one side of the story and expect them to take it as it's told. I'd be worried about what our country stands for if that should be the case. I'm sure most intelligent people would agree that when they are presented with both sides of an issue, and they take some time to evaluate and ponder what has been presented, they generally end up being stronger in their convictions. Alternately, truly intelligent people will realize that they aren't always right, and may find that some preconceived notions need to be re-evaluated.

As far as losing his job goes, if, after deep investigation of his entire year of teaching, it is discovered that he hasn't been presenting both sides of the issue fairly, it would be correct for some action to be taken. Being fired before even being warned and advised? I wouldn't like that to happen to me. I say, give him a warning and advise explicitly of the expectations. Then, watch him closely, and let him either shoot himself in the foot or become a better teacher.

BTW - We live in a very conservative environment, academically and socially, so I don't want anyone spouting off that I am being too liberal. But, who ever said that being conservative means you stop thinking about, and deeply contemplating, the issues?

It's just sad when I, as a student, am more intelligent, logical, informed, and intellectually ingenuous than the teacher. His college must've had high standards to graduate him!

"My strong guess is that, even in a relatively liberal community, the principal or the school board would have dealt with this one appropriately."

I'm not sure what you think is the appropriate response here. Given what we've heard I think the teacher should be fired. Normally when people get hired to do a specific job and they decide they want to do something else, it is reasonable for the employer to fire the worker.

If I start a job at McDonalds and I decide I want to read a book, or preach religion, McDonalds would be justified in firing me. I broke the agreement under which I was hired.

In contrast, we find that in recent years teachers who do horrible things often suffer little to no consequences. Why? Because the laws and unions favor the teachers, not the students. Already this teacher is suing to get his job back. And he'll probably win. And in a year he'll probably be saying many of the same things again