Parents want a teacher fired over homework assignment (1 Viewer)

[NorvilleBarnes]

From the Washington Post:

The students were never asked to translate the phrase, nor were they instructed to recite it or adopt or pronounce it as a personal belief, Schools Superintendent Eric Bond wrote in a news release. He noted that students are slated to do similar calligraphy exercises in units about China.

The superintendent said that students tried on head scarves in another lesson that taught them about the modest dress many Muslims adopt. Students will continue learning about world religions as required by Virginias statewide academic standards, school officials said. But in the future, students will practice calligraphy using a different sample that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

Only insecure peool have issues with their children being exposed to other cultures.

I agree - but then, that's not what happened here, and it's not what bothered the parents.

Actually, it is what happened here.

And what bothered the parents is that it was Islam and nothing else. Can I know that 100%...no, but 99% if this was a statement of faith about Judaism, or Buddhism, there would not have been the outcry or threats of violence.

No, this isn't simply "exposure to other cultures".

I think part of the problem - in addition to context - is tense. There's a difference (and it's a bigger difference to some people than to others) between saying, in 3rd person, those people believe xyz, and saying, in 1st person, I believe xyz.

 

[matttyl]

Cool. Now apply that logic to this case and tell me how that leads you to the conclusion that something must have been wrong with the assignment, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it.

You just applied it yourself, congrats. Again, I'm not saying that I would have felt something was wrong with it had it been my child's assignment, but I can see where/how others might, and apparently do feel that way. Just like I can see how others might be offended by the name of the football team in DC, or by the Confederate battle flag. I'm not offended by either, but I can understand that others are. If things are changed, it vindicates those feelings - no matter if those feelings are justified or not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Cool. Now apply that logic to this case and tell me how that leads you to the conclusion that something must have been wrong with the assignment, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it.

You just applied it yourself, congrats. Again, I'm not saying that I would have felt something was wrong with it had it been my child's assignment, but I can see where/how others might, and apparently do feel that way. Just like I can see how others might be offended by the name of the football team in DC, or by the Confederate battle flag. I'm not offended by either, but I can understand that others are. If things are changed, it vindicates those feelings - no matter if those feelings are justified or not.

Gotcha. That's not what I thought you were saying, this makes more sense.

 

[mr roboto]

And yet that assignment gave absolutely no "appearance" to any such thing.

Reasonable people can disagree on this point.

How is stating a fact about ANY religion, in the context of teaching about that religion, an endorsement or promotion of said religion?

It's not -- I think you are correct on this point. Largely, I agree with you -- I just also believe the sensibilities of those who don't agree with you should be respected.

I guess every single passage about religion in the 7th grade text we use at my school is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Violation? No ... that's your word, not mine. My point is subtler than that. I don't want religious tenets of any kind -- Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, etc. -- introduced into a public school classroom without a level of remove (e.g. prefaced by language such as "Group X believes that ...").

I don't think the calligraphy assignment violates the Establishment Clause. What I think it that the calligraphy assignment cozies up too close to the edge of the Establishment Clause. Avoiding violation, IMHO, is not sufficient -- I prefer for public schools to keep any potential back doors doubly closed and steer far away from the direct (unprefaced) introduction of any and all religious tenets (as opposed to facts such as year founded, countries/parts of the world where prevalent, names/deeds of important figure, geopolitical affects, etc.). If the tenets of any one religion can be fairly introduced, it becomes harder to tell a, say, Pentecostal group that their teachings don't belong in the local public schools. I also would like the path to be made shorter to remove the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in science classes.

This sounds like a weird, paranoid and hypersensitive view of things. Again, how do you explain the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, 9/11, rise of science, prohibition, many of the social movements of the late 18th century/early 19th century without getting into religious topics (and therefore hitting on some doctrine that caused the actors to do such and such)?

 

[Doug B]

Again, how do you explain the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, 9/11, rise of science, prohibition, many of the social movements of the late 18th century/early 19th century without getting into religious topics (and therefore hitting on some doctrine that caused the actors to do such and such)?

All of that is fine. Going over doctrinal underpinnings of socio-political actions (e.g. "... some Prohibitionists felt that alcohol was 'the devil's drink' ...") is OK and welcome.

 

[matuski]

Again, how do you explain the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, 9/11, rise of science, prohibition, many of the social movements of the late 18th century/early 19th century without getting into religious topics (and therefore hitting on some doctrine that caused the actors to do such and such)?

All of that is fine. Going over doctrinal underpinnings of socio-political actions (e.g. "... some Prohibitionists felt that alcohol was 'the devil's drink' ...") is OK and welcome.

Since Islam forbids idolatry, mosques are decorated with calligraphy... Verses of the Koran, drawn in flowing Arabic are bordered with geometric and floral designs. Often colorful, the walls and domes of mosques are inspiring works of art in themselves.

Here is the shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, written in Arabic. In the space below, try copying it by hand. This should give you an idea of the artistic complexity of calligraphy.

 

[Doug B]

Again, how do you explain the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, 9/11, rise of science, prohibition, many of the social movements of the late 18th century/early 19th century without getting into religious topics (and therefore hitting on some doctrine that caused the actors to do such and such)?

All of that is fine. Going over doctrinal underpinnings of socio-political actions (e.g. "... some Prohibitionists felt that alcohol was 'the devil's drink' ...") is OK and welcome.

Since Islam forbids idolatry, mosques are decorated with calligraphy... Verses of the Koran, drawn in flowing Arabic are bordered with geometric and floral designs. Often colorful, the walls and domes of mosques are inspiring works of art in themselves.

Here is the shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, written in Arabic. In the space below, try copying it by hand. This should give you an idea of the artistic complexity of calligraphy.

Teaching the sentence in red, as a fact about Islam, is totally fine.

The part in blue, while not personally offensive to me, can understandably provoke offense in others. Since that offense can be readily avoided without ruining the lesson (which is to impart "the artistic complexity of [Arabic] calligraphy") by modifying the content, I think it was reasonable for the school system to yield in this particular case.

 

[timschochet]

So if this angers the parents so much, I'm trying to figure out ways to REALLY piss them off:

Here's a permission slip to take home for next week's field trip to Planned Parenthood!

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Isn't the real purpose of the lesson, way above any of the other stuff being said here, to promote tolerance and diversity? And in the name of tolerance, if the lesson instead pisses off a large number of people against another religion, which most likely are also the people you thought needed it most, isn't that counterproductive and shouldn't you re-examine what you are doing? BTW, you already lost the debate. The school is changing the lesson to use a different text. But continue on digging in. Maybe in 40 years we will find you in some remote cave on a deserted island still fighting this war.

No, because as most everyone here but you can see (and Dougie B).. that wasn't the purpose of the lesson.

You have a copy of the exercise, you have further explanation from the teacher and school, you have a dozen people here explaining it.. this isn't that hard to understand.

You put words together, but don't really make a point. Forget it, the debate is over. You lost.And Merry Christmas.

NO, YOU LOST.

Tap tap no tag-backs!

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

And yet that assignment gave absolutely no "appearance" to any such thing.

Reasonable people can disagree on this point.

How is stating a fact about ANY religion, in the context of teaching about that religion, an endorsement or promotion of said religion?

It's not -- I think you are correct on this point. Largely, I agree with you -- I just also believe the sensibilities of those who don't agree with you should be respected.

I guess every single passage about religion in the 7th grade text we use at my school is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Violation? No ... that's your word, not mine. My point is subtler than that. I don't want religious tenets of any kind -- Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, etc. -- introduced into a public school classroom without a level of remove (e.g. prefaced by language such as "Group X believes that ...").

I don't think the calligraphy assignment violates the Establishment Clause. What I think it that the calligraphy assignment cozies up too close to the edge of the Establishment Clause. Avoiding violation, IMHO, is not sufficient -- I prefer for public schools to keep any potential back doors doubly closed and steer far away from the direct (unprefaced) introduction of any and all religious tenets (as opposed to facts such as year founded, countries/parts of the world where prevalent, names/deeds of important figure, geopolitical affects, etc.). If the tenets of any one religion can be fairly introduced, it becomes harder to tell a, say, Pentecostal group that their teachings don't belong in the local public schools. I also would like the path to be made shorter to remove the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in science classes.

So we should hold back important details because of "coziness".

You're a ####ing loon.

 

[Doug B]

So we should hold back important details because of "coziness".You're a ####ing loon.

Deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote. "To cozy up to" means "to approach". Again, "coziness" is your word, not mine.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Me: And so in the next two chapters we're going to learn about the spread of Islam, the various Islamic empires, and their contributions in the areas of science, math, architecture, poetry, medicine, science, navigation,....

Kid: Wait, what's "Islam"?

Me: It's a religion.

Kid: Oh, what do they believe?

Me: I can't tell you that.

Kid: You can't?

Me: No

Kid: OK, so how did it start?

Me: Now THAT I can tell you. It was started in the 8th Century by a man named Muhammad.

Kid: Who is Muhammad?

Me: I can't tell you that.

Kid: Why not/

Me: I just can't.

Kid: I'll just look it up in the book.

Me: You can't. Those passages have been blocked out.

Kid: I'll just look it up when I get home.

Me: Great. But don't talk about it in class.

Kid: Can you at least tell us if they're like Christians or Jews and have one god or like the Greeks and Romans?

Me: I can't tell you that. And whoever taught you about those religions violated the 1st Amendment...I mean cozied up to it.

Kid: Do they have a Bible?

Me: I can't tell you that. And don't talk about the Bible unless it's like The Golfer's Bible or The Pastry Bible.

Kid: Jesus, this is weird.

Me: Did you say "Jesus"? "Jesus?!?" Report to the principal's office right now! You better pray you don't get expelled! I mean "wish", not "pray",

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

So we should hold back important details because of "coziness".You're a ####ing loon.

Deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote. "To cozy up to" means "to approach". Again, "coziness" is your word, not mine.

No it doesn't. If I "cozy up to" my boss it doesn't mean I'm approaching him. It means I'm trying to get in good with him by kissing his ###.

 

[Hooper31]

Its awful that..

1. some reporter deemed this is worthy of a story.

2. anyone would be outraged by this story.

3. anyone would take the time to argue that its worthy of being a story.

I'm ready to go full-on elitist and deem that some people should not have access to the intergoogle. I wonder about this a lot. Is it worth it? Free access to sharing your opinions on the web? Sure, we get to learn and share things we might not otherwise. Access to information. So cool, but it also means morons get to lie, share those lies over and over, and do so from a keyboard so that others can't see that they're drooling morons. Its as if when anything is typed it somehow gains validity.

####.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Again, how do you explain the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, 9/11, rise of science, prohibition, many of the social movements of the late 18th century/early 19th century without getting into religious topics (and therefore hitting on some doctrine that caused the actors to do such and such)?

All of that is fine. Going over doctrinal underpinnings of socio-political actions (e.g. "... some Prohibitionists felt that alcohol was 'the devil's drink' ...") is OK and welcome.

Since Islam forbids idolatry, mosques are decorated with calligraphy... Verses of the Koran, drawn in flowing Arabic are bordered with geometric and floral designs. Often colorful, the walls and domes of mosques are inspiring works of art in themselves.

Here is the shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, written in Arabic. In the space below, try copying it by hand. This should give you an idea of the artistic complexity of calligraphy.

Teaching the sentence in red, as a fact about Islam, is totally fine.

The part in blue, while not personally offensive to me, can understandably provoke offense in others. Since that offense can be readily avoided without ruining the lesson (which is to impart "the artistic complexity of [Arabic] calligraphy") by modifying the content, I think it was reasonable for the school system to yield in this particular case.

Completely agree.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Its awful that..

1. some reporter deemed this is worthy of a story.

2. anyone would be outraged by this story.

3. anyone would take the time to argue that its worthy of being a story.

4. Something ironic.

 

[timschochet]

What Officer Pete wrote in jest ("I can't tell you that") was true of the McCarthy era with regard to the Soviet Union. Teachers in the early 50s had to give vague answers when asked about the USSR. They couldn't discuss it's history, because any teacher who did was reported as a possible "security risk" and often terminated.

 

[jon_mx]

Its awful that..

1. some reporter deemed this is worthy of a story.

2. anyone would be outraged by this story.

3. anyone would take the time to argue that its worthy of being a story.

I'm ready to go full-on elitist and deem that some people should not have access to the intergoogle. I wonder about this a lot. Is it worth it? Free access to sharing your opinions on the web? Sure, we get to learn and share things we might not otherwise. Access to information. So cool, but it also means morons get to lie, share those lies over and over, and do so from a keyboard so that others can't see that they're drooling morons. Its as if when anything is typed it somehow gains validity.

####.

Specifically which lies about this story has made you so mad?

 

[jon_mx]

What Officer Pete wrote in jest ("I can't tell you that") was true of the McCarthy era with regard to the Soviet Union. Teachers in the early 50s had to give vague answers when asked about the USSR. They couldn't discuss it's history, because any teacher who did was reported as a possible "security risk" and often terminated.

What OPM wrote there is so far off base of what this story is about it is not even worthy of discussion.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

What Officer Pete wrote in jest ("I can't tell you that") was true of the McCarthy era with regard to the Soviet Union. Teachers in the early 50s had to give vague answers when asked about the USSR. They couldn't discuss it's history, because any teacher who did was reported as a possible "security risk" and often terminated.

What OPM wrote there is so far off base of what this story is about it is not even worthy of discussion.

You put words together, but don't really make a point. Forget it, the debate is over. You lost.

 

[jon_mx]

What Officer Pete wrote in jest ("I can't tell you that") was true of the McCarthy era with regard to the Soviet Union. Teachers in the early 50s had to give vague answers when asked about the USSR. They couldn't discuss it's history, because any teacher who did was reported as a possible "security risk" and often terminated.

What OPM wrote there is so far off base of what this story is about it is not even worthy of discussion.

I put words together, but don't really make a point. Forget it, the debate is over. I lost.

Finally you get it.

 

[3C's]

#### it. This is exponentially the best thread this week.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Again, how do you explain the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, 9/11, rise of science, prohibition, many of the social movements of the late 18th century/early 19th century without getting into religious topics (and therefore hitting on some doctrine that caused the actors to do such and such)?

All of that is fine. Going over doctrinal underpinnings of socio-political actions (e.g. "... some Prohibitionists felt that alcohol was 'the devil's drink' ...") is OK and welcome.

Since Islam forbids idolatry, mosques are decorated with calligraphy... Verses of the Koran, drawn in flowing Arabic are bordered with geometric and floral designs. Often colorful, the walls and domes of mosques are inspiring works of art in themselves.

Here is the shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, written in Arabic. In the space below, try copying it by hand. This should give you an idea of the artistic complexity of calligraphy.

Teaching the sentence in red, as a fact about Islam, is totally fine.

The part in blue, while not personally offensive to me, can understandably provoke offense in others. Since that offense can be readily avoided without ruining the lesson (which is to impart "the artistic complexity of [Arabic] calligraphy") by modifying the content, I think it was reasonable for the school system to yield in this particular case.

This is absurd. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the entire text. It is a school assignment. I think it is quite educational. In fact, I'd bet that most of the idiots who have problem with it, were unaware of the facts purported in the assignment.But to attribute any religious indoctrination is asinine. Anyone who is offended, provoked, unnerved, insecure, whatever... is an ignoramus.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think a Venn diagram of all the people who think this is offensive and who think that "One Nation, Under God" is okay to make school kids say would be helpful.

 

[3C's]

She get fired yet?