Comments on: Tolerance simply unacceptable for teachers http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/04/28/tolerance-simply-unacceptable-for-teachers/ Thoughts by Stephen Soldz on war, peace, politics, psychoanalysis, and research methods Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:25:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Fake Diploma http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/04/28/tolerance-simply-unacceptable-for-teachers/#comment-137254 Fake Diploma Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:58:35 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/04/28/tolerance-simply-unacceptable-for-teachers/#comment-137254 The gay issue must be taken care of with diplomacy because as it has been said before: being gay is not a crime and should not be presented as one. The gay issue must be taken care of with diplomacy because as it has been said before: being gay is not a crime and should not be presented as one.

]]> By: Stuart Nachbar http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/04/28/tolerance-simply-unacceptable-for-teachers/#comment-67511 Stuart Nachbar Thu, 10 May 2007 03:36:07 +0000 http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/04/28/tolerance-simply-unacceptable-for-teachers/#comment-67511 I am reading the Amy Sorrell story from New Jersey, as someone who is about to publish a similar story, but in fiction—and my outcome was the same. A teacher-newspaper advisor targeted by unhappy parents, including school board members, for allowing students to run a controversial story, is reassigned from high school to middle school. I reassigned the teacher in my story, on the suggestion of a former superintendent of schools, because it appeared to be a credible outcome. My teacher allowed students to run a sex test in the school paper without consulting her principal, during a time when sex education was being debated statewide. The major difference is that my story takes place in 1980, not today. When I started on my story, I spoke with teachers in my hometown in New Jersey who had taught me 30 years ago. They made the same arguments as Ms. Sorrell: that a high school paper was a student forum and students were entitled to freedom of expression—as long as the writer made no comments that were disrespectful to classmates, teachers and school administrators or disruptive to school activities. My former speech and debate coach told me that it had been only recently that her principal had asked for final approval on student work in the school paper and literary magazine. Recently--as in the 21st century—even though this had not been required of an advisor during the late 1970’s. I read Megan Chase’s column. She wrote nothing that would have offended anyone, even some one who is, for whatever reason, opposed to homosexuality. She presented an argument and backed it with facts, as a responsible journalist is supposed to do. I read no challenges to her column from parents or classmates; no one proved her wrong in any forum of public opinion, in least in the various articles I read online. I read only one objection from a parent who was not connected to the school district and it was not about the content of the story, but that her teacher did not follow the rules—to get approval from the principal before the story ran. In Ms. Sorrell’s story, and mine, the principal wants the power of being publisher--but not the full responsibility. I bet that Ms. Sorrell would have been fortunate to work with a principal/publisher who would have defended Megan Chase, if any one, parent or classmate had attacked her or her column. In that role, he would have followed through on Ms. Chase’s message of tolerance. He would have done the same as a publisher in the professional media would have done. I can only guess that he was not willing or ready to do it. I am reading the Amy Sorrell story from New Jersey, as someone who is about to publish a similar story, but in fiction—and my outcome was the same.

A teacher-newspaper advisor targeted by unhappy parents, including school board members, for allowing students to run a controversial story, is reassigned from high school to middle school. I reassigned the teacher in my story, on the suggestion of a former superintendent of schools, because it appeared to be a credible outcome. My teacher allowed students to run a sex test in the school paper without consulting her principal, during a time when sex education was being debated statewide.

The major difference is that my story takes place in 1980, not today.

When I started on my story, I spoke with teachers in my hometown in New Jersey who had taught me 30 years ago. They made the same arguments as Ms. Sorrell: that a high school paper was a student forum and students were entitled to freedom of expression—as long as the writer made no comments that were disrespectful to classmates, teachers and school administrators or disruptive to school activities. My former speech and debate coach told me that it had been only recently that her principal had asked for final approval on student work in the school paper and literary magazine. Recently–as in the 21st century—even though this had not been required of an advisor during the late 1970’s.

I read Megan Chase’s column. She wrote nothing that would have offended anyone, even some one who is, for whatever reason, opposed to homosexuality. She presented an argument and backed it with facts, as a responsible journalist is supposed to do. I read no challenges to her column from parents or classmates; no one proved her wrong in any forum of public opinion, in least in the various articles I read online. I read only one objection from a parent who was not connected to the school district and it was not about the content of the story, but that her teacher did not follow the rules—to get approval from the principal before the story ran.

In Ms. Sorrell’s story, and mine, the principal wants the power of being publisher–but not the full responsibility.

I bet that Ms. Sorrell would have been fortunate to work with a principal/publisher who would have defended Megan Chase, if any one, parent or classmate had attacked her or her column. In that role, he would have followed through on Ms. Chase’s message of tolerance. He would have done the same as a publisher in the professional media would have done.

I can only guess that he was not willing or ready to do it.

]]>