An 8th grade class in a Chicago Public School watched Brokeback Mountain. Read the details here.
The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.
Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.
First of all, this movie is rated R, and the kids in class are 12-13 years old, and parents were not even informed that the children would be watching the movie.
This may come as a shock to many parents and people who are not part of the government's (re)education system, but things like this are exactly what many educators want to happen.
People like Walter Feinberg (UIUC education professor) see the role of public schools as presenting young children with worldviews that their parents disagree with - to promote a better democracy, of course.
It is also common for schools to do very strange activities in which children write about death, their relationships with their parents, and other sensitive topics. Often children are told that they are not to tell their parents about what is going on in the classroom.
Parents, and all citizens, need to realize that the government-run schools that they are forced to support financially often hold contempt for traditional values and morals and are actively working to undermine efforts of parents to instill their moral beliefs in their children. And this is considered a good thing - in fact argued to be a primary benefit of government-run schools. After all, if parents just send their children to a school that shares their values, the child is deprived of all those other viewpoints.
I will be issuing my children a warning: "if any adult tells you that you shouldn't tell your mom or dad, make sure you tell me".
"Parents, and all citizens, need to realize that the government-run schools that they are forced to support financially often hold contempt for traditional values and morals and are actively working to undermine efforts of parents to instill their moral beliefs in their children."
I guess if more parents were instilling moral beliefs, this statement might be horrifying.
Instead, it's just ignorant.
I suppose it's still horrifying to those parents who are trying to instill moral beliefs. Parents who don't care.. well, they wouldn't care.
This is the most ignorant post I have ever read. You know nothing, and I mean nothing about the public schools. Your statements are completely unsupported with any information and your axe grinding only undermines your case.
You are right about one thing, though. Educators ARE working hard to undermine your values. Everytime your kids go to school and are respected by their teachers, or taught these traditional values that you say are missing, they are learning just how full of crap you are.
"It is also common for schools to do very strange activities in which children write about death, their relationships with their parents, and other sensitive topics."
First of all, what is so "very strange" about reflecting on one's relationship with one's parents? I should have thought that self-examination of these relationships was a necessary step on the road to maturity, and beneficial to all involved. And God forbid we should ever ask young adults at the appropriate age to ponder fundamental principles of life, like birth and death.
On the other hand, Brokeback Mountain is clearly not age-appropriate for 8th graders as a group under any circumstances. Furthermore, it deals with subject matters that are controversial enough that parental notification and consent would probably be indicated even for high school students. I find the fact that it was a substitute teacher to be very significant.
Having said that, several of Adam's subsequent claims are clearly not supported by any evidence that I'm aware of, and certainly none has been presented here. In particular, the use of the term "often" in two instances ("Often children are told that they are not to tell their parents about what is going on in the classroom." and "schools ... often hold contempt for traditional values and morals and are actively working to undermine efforts of parents to instill their moral beliefs in their children.") constitutes the worst sort of troubling allegations without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
In my experience, neither of these specific claims have been true. Quite the contrary, most of the time the reality of my experience has been exactly the opposite of these two claims. It may make for a good rant, but until you can back it up both qualitatively and quantitatively, that's all it is as far as I can tell.
As an educator who often has students write about their families and death, I can state emphatically that I would never in a million years tell students to not discuss such issues or assignments with their parents. How can I be a good teacher if I am not accountable to parents and students?
That being said, I'm quite sure that some of my parents would not love every assignment I give my students, but that's fine. The goal is not to appease parents. If they have a critique, they should bring it to my attention and I will gladly adjust the program to accomodate their student.
As for Brokeback Mountain, if the critique is that the kids should never have been shown an "R" movie and that goes the same for all "R" movies, I agree entirely. If the critique has to do with the natural of the sexuality, I don't believe that a parent should be allowed to become angry at a school for teaching students about love and discrimination.
I could see some Rated-R movies as being appropriate for high school kids... such as Amistad, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc for their historical merits and because for young people pure textual depictions often are lost upon them or the text books themselves are watered down to the point that the harsh reality is rarely apparent.
A love story, whether gay or straight, seems a bit odd of a choice and considering the age group, quite inappropriate. I could see this coming up in a flim class, especially at the senior or college level due to the awards and other kudos it got, but I'm at a loss for what it would have to do with any other high school curriculum. At the college level there are far more classes involving the humanities and culture where it may fit better with the curriculum and the age group.
Historically based movies are a bit easier to defend here because they typically involve topics that are being taught as fact in the curriculum. Purely fictional movies may have a place, I remember one my English classes watched "To Kill a Mockingbird" after we had finished reading it to discuss what we feel was lost, or perhaps enhanced in the transition from literature to film.
Now if my French teacher had us do an assignment where we had to write about our parents' political views or my economics teacher wanted us to write a paper on what we thought happened when we died, or my computer teacher asked if we kept guns in the house, etc... things that are extremely unlikely to be part of or relevant to the curriculum and appear motivated towards political or religious agendas of the teacher, I think one could easily see where parents might start to complain.
But it honestly depends on if the subject fits the class. A philosophy class is a totally appropriate venue for life/death beliefs and argumentation. A sociology class looking to see how parental political views were either embraced or abandoned by the student would be totally appropriate. A history teacher looking at the differences between gun ownership in historical eras or regions versus locally today may give some insight into why people back then, over there, etc may have held views that make less sense to the kids in the classroom, ie a different perspective.
Many conservatives worry about liberal teachers using their desk as a "bully pulpit" to push liberal political and philosophical ideas on to their kids. Although it seems that individual incidents of blatant absurdity like this one often get trumped up as being widespread in moral panic fashion. From my own experiences it doesn't seem to be some sort of evil insiduous indoctrination in the liberal ways as many conservatives make out. My biggest beef is that kids graduate from high school of voting age with very little understanding of how their government works or the history behind it from the beginning to present. The Constitution test seems to let them memorize some trivia with very little understanding of the hows and whys that leave them essentially clueless about political issues after they graduate and are of voting age.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I would think that a teacher should be allowed to show any movie they feel fits with the curriculum, but if there's any reason for controversy, they should run it past the administration and parents first, with some justification for why it's an important part of the learning process. I can remember a teacher doing that for my class with the movie Glory, even though it's PG. It was a useful tool to teach about the Civil War and race.
If the teacher is reluctant about getting "permission," or worried that some parents might not approve, then perhaps that movie isn't a good choice.
"I can remember a teacher doing that for my class with the movie Glory, even though it's PG."
You saw Glory in high school? Now I feel really, really old... :-)
"You saw Glory in high school? Now I feel really, really old... :-)"
Well, it came out in 1989, and I saw it on VHS, so it must have been 1990 or later.
I entered HS in 1989-90.... So, yeah - I saw it in HS, although I'll draw no conclusions about your age from that. :-)
We can draw that conclusion from your hair or lack..... :) sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Now if my French teacher had us do an assignment where we had to write about our parents' political views or my economics teacher wanted us to write a paper on what we thought happened when we died, or my computer teacher asked if we kept guns in the house, etc... things that are extremely unlikely to be part of or relevant to the curriculum and appear motivated towards political or religious agendas of the teacher, I think one could easily see where parents might start to complain.
I do teach foreign language. Everything is relevant to foreign language. Why do you think most American students emerge from high school only being able to say "This is a pen" in their target language?
In fact, I think it's pretty clear how any of your examples would fit under the learning standards in the hands of a gifted instructor.
But all of that is beside the point in this particular case--I don't understand the motivation for the instructor making such a big show of "what happens in the classroom stays in the classroom".
This is the complete antithesis of Feinberg's quote, as he obviously believes that education is a vital tool to be used beyond the classroom. To equate him with the above situation is patently ridiculous.
To call "Brokeback Mountain" a "waste of instructional time" is to miss vital connections that could be made with the movie. Brokeback Mountain is a valuable tool to teach civil rights, history, and media literacy. Brokeback Mountain could have just as well been about a mixed couple--the love would have been the same, and the mainstream reaction and violence would have been the same.
If you really don't think instruction about love relationships belongs in the classroom, I would question how you intend to solve one of the greatest challenges facing our current school system. Abstinence Education is in full effect. How's that working out?
Finally, what you recommend is completely impractical. I send home an explanation at the beginning of the year that I will show some educationally relevant clips from R rated films. I have a full lesson plan for each day with an explanation of the relevance of the clips to the current instruction.
If I had to send home a permission slip for each of my 125 students for each of the dozens of clips I show in a year, there would be no time to deal with actual instruction.
Furthermore, there would not be a single class in which every student's paper was returned, so the students would lose the opportunity to use those materials.
I'm not trying to be rude. I don't think that you have to teach to have insight into teaching. But I really don't think a lot of people understand what a teacher's day looks like or how the procedures at a school work.
"Finally, what you recommend is completely impractical. I send home an explanation at the beginning of the year that I will show some educationally relevant clips from R rated films. I have a full lesson plan for each day with an explanation of the relevance of the clips to the current instruction.
If I had to send home a permission slip for each of my 125 students for each of the dozens of clips I show in a year, there would be no time to deal with actual instruction."
True - I meant it more as a guideline - if a teacher thought that asking for permission from admin/parents for a particular film would cause problems, then maybe the teacher should assume that film isn't appropriate?
If theaters won't let a 8th grader in to see an 'R' movie, then it should not be shown in school, period.
If more of the parents had relevant thoughts, I guess it'd be important to gauge those thoughts.
Until then, though ...
xian... I think for high school and below a teacher should use common sense with most video clips they use for class as opposed to getting parental approval for each and every clip or movie. Controversial subjects or showing R-rated films in their entirety or the portions of those films that helped earn them that rating is pretty much asking for trouble. Films rated R are designated for mature audiences, 17 and older, and ignoring that will lead directly to parental complaints if a kid is troubled or bothered by what they see. Heck, it might be inviting a trouble maker in the class to cause problems for you even if he wasn't particularly bothered by it.
That said, I believe that common sense in the use of such clips or full presentations would avoid almost all of these problems. In college level courses, this isn't even a concern as teachers are given considerable leeway to teach and present the material in the ways they feel best get the information across. It is to an adult audience where parental guidance is no longer a significant issue.
While a teacher may want to ensure that their students go on to embrace or oppose a political ideology, a religious philosophy, etc. This would be a highly inappropriate abuse of power and infringement on parental rights. Allowing such behavior is an attempt at indoctrination which cannot be condoned. It is especially inappropriate when such matters do not even have any relation to the material beyond the most indirect and wildly hypothetical notions. A biology class in high school should not focus on the Iraq War. A history class absolutely should for a variety of comparative discussions. A religious discussion in a math class is hardly appropriate, but would absolutely be in a elective philosophy class. In college this could absolutely change. Advanced topics such as biological weapons or discussing the religious perspectives of famous mathematicians could certainly be relevant at an advanced level, and even if the teacher was on some tangent, it would be with an audience of adults.
Furthermore such waste of time and resources on unrelated topics is hard to support under the more basic premise that kids are not doing well on the fundamentals. What good does it do for a kid to understand that gay sheepherders can fall in love if he still can't do algebra? Understand the electoral college? Develop better reading comprehension?
One of the big complaints about No Child Left Behind beyond the funding was the idea that it took even more time out of curriculum to focus on the preparing for and taking even more standardized tests. I honestly do not see how wasting a day on political conversations in French class will help somebody in basic French who is still learning common words so he'd even be able to ask for a pen. Now a college level French class might be advanced enough where bringing in French culture and political issues becomes useful. If you're still learning to ask the waiter for some cheese, such topics are distractions from the fundamentals that you are supposed to be learning. Let alone if the political conversation had little to nothing to do with France.
I don't think anyone is arguing that a teacher cannot bring up related topics. Just that bringing up unrelated topics to push an agenda is a waste of resources and could upset parents if it is intended to meddle in what is concerned their parental jurisdiction.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think we agree for the most part. I think you'd be surprised by how smoothly the better teachers comply with the standards you are proposing AND introduce controversial topics.
One of the most basic skills that will serve students whether they end up choosing college or not is the ability to think critically. I might remind you that that is a skill necessary for every subject's standardized test benchmarks.
Furthermore, you should be informed that subjects like French do not appear on any of the NCLB tests. Therefore, many principals apply pressure for instructors of other subjects to focus on math and reading skills in "unrelated" classes. Of course everything is interrelated, isn't it?
At any rate, to push an agenda on students is to rob them of an opportunity to develop those necessary critical thinking skills. It is my duty to introduce controversial topics and allow my students to make their own decisions.
Believe it or not, I have some conservative students in my classes, and what you must be envisioning is actual the converse of what occurs. I spend much of my energy defending their opportunity to express their opinions from the majority who is eager to shout them down. I see them as a precious resource--while developing their perspectives, they also challenge the other students to develop skills of persuasion that transcend simple conversational bullying tactics.
Sexual orientation comes up often in my classes, but then again, rarely at my prompting. Students often will bring it up either as part of their own identity or in slurring someone else. What am I supposed to do, ignore a teaching moment?
I ask them questions about their positions, and then when asked directly I say, "If you really want to know my opinion, bear in mind, it's just my opinion--you must make your own choices" and then I say what I think.
I think some distinctions need to be made here. There is a difference between "showing a movie" and watching some "clips" from a movie. I teach in the 8th grade and if we want to "show a movie" that is anything above PG we have to send permission slips home, for every movie.
However showing clips from a movie is a different thing. Again, this just goes to common sense. I would allow a character in a movie to say "Damn!" in front of my 8th graders, but I would never let them say the "S" word or the "F" word. No way. No nudity. Nothing even approaching graphic sex. Violence is another matter but, as an example, I have never used "The Patriot" because of some of the violence (and because it's a bad movie with bad history in it). This is all just common sense if a teacher wants to avoid phone calls from parents or, in this case, a $500,000 lawsuit.
But I would use a clip from Brokeback Mountain in a minute. Not a sex scene, or something inappropriate, but the scenes where the characters are being persecuted for their lifestyle could hook a great unit on civil rights. If I was having excessive problems with kids using homophobic language toward each other I could see addressing the problem with a clip from this movie as well.
I guess I am just not ready to throw the Brokeback baby out with the bath water. Showing it in secret and telling the kids to not tell their parents is completely wrong. Showing the entire, unedited thing to an 8th grade class is also wrong. But using clips of men kissing to spur a debate on homophobia seems perfectly appropriate. Showing hate crimes against homosexuals to inspire a discussion on civil rights also seems appropriate.
The movie is inappropriate in the context of this Fox News case because it is rated "R", not because it's about homosexuality. Right?
A debate on homophobia? Do you use the definition of homophobia in which the most extreme level views homosexuality as a sin? Also, many civil rights leaders would strongly disagree with your link between "gay rights" and civil rights. Do you see how even talking about "homophobia" and "civil rights" you would be setting up the discussion based on your views? Even if you do what Xian does and encourage "conservative" students to speak, by the way you framed the discussion, they will be homophobes against civil rights.
My conservative students? You mean 90% of my students? The overwhelming majority of my kids are homophobic, no question about it. Most even wear it like a badge. In the context of this debate it is the liberal students who need encouragement to speak.
You honestly know so little about the schools that it is hard to even take this discussion seriously. If you are only interested in baiting some teachers so you can declare the sinfulness of the public education system then perhaps you should go elsewhere? If you are interested in a real debate about what happens in our schools then maybe you should ask some questions to find out.
Any teacher worth the paycheck runs a debate or a discussion without judgment. No doubt you would not approve, but most of us like to support all student viewpoints and let them sort it out for themselves. On occasion we come across issues that are clear cut, other times the truth is murky at best. But the point isn't to do what you are advocating and dictate what students have to believe. The point is to help them struggle with real issues and to learn how to support their opinions. It is essential for success in college and in life. I am genuinely surprised you are so opposed.
How can one discuss Margaret Thatcher's prime ministership when the most extreme view is that women should not be allowed to hold jobs?
How can one discuss economics when the Bible's view is that usury is a terrible sin?
How can one discuss history when some students' view is that the Earth is only a few thousand years old?
Sure, some people might believe that "civil" or "human rights" should only be given to certain types of people, but certainly that's something that we are allowed to address in education?
I know plenty about the schools. Just because you're a leftist who thinks everyone is conservative doesn't mean I don't know anything about the schools. I will agree with you that in general students tend to be more conservative than their teachers. Anyway, if you can't realize that the term "homophobia" is quite biased towards the view that there is nothing at all wrong with homosexual activity, then maybe you should learn critical thinking from Xian.
Xian, to discuss Thatcher, economics, or history, you don't have to make judgments about the way things should be. Students learn about all kinds of things that are considered bad, sinful or evil, but it's not a problem because their teachers aren't trying to convince them that those things are actually ok, and they are the bad ones for thinking otherwise.
Was the sub. showing it because he himself was gay and trying to prove a point, or is it he made a bad judgement call by showing a R movie to eighth graders? Does it always have to be a gay thing?
Don't you have to make judgments about the way things should be to discuss an issue? Furthermore, if you have a class in which a majority of students are proudly prejudiced against another group of students, certainly that's something that must be addressed?
if you can't realize that the term "homophobia" is quite biased towards the view that there is nothing at all wrong with homosexual activity, then maybe you should learn critical thinking from Xian.
I actually have learned some of my critical thinking from Xian and even more from his dad. Nevertheless, when students use the "F" (rhymes with "tag") or "G" (rhymes with "say") words as a form of contempt and ridicule I consider that to be homophobic behavior. Just as I would consider the use of the "N" word to be racist behavior in the same context. Again, the overwhelming majority of my kids use these words fairly freely in their home and hallway lives. The kids who actually think it is wrong to use these words are few and far between. In this case they are the ones who need encouragement to speak up and share their point-of-view.
Now you might call me a leftist, but I just consider myself to be a person who has common decency. I might believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. That doesn't give me the excuse to start calling homosexuals nasty names. Nor does it give me the excuse to interpret their rights as differently than my own. Not in this Lockeian democracy at least. The best I can do is use my brain to resolve legal matters, but treat others in the way I would like to be treated. And teach my students to do the same. There was some carpenter who said that a while back. I wish I could remember his name ...
This might actually be a more pervasive issue among boys in many cultures, machismo. Homosexuality is often stereotyped as being effeminate and young boys are renowned for their extremely competitive behavior with other boys, similar to the alpha dog behavior. Strong boys compete with other strong boys to be the top dog and weak boys invariably go through the process of submission by stronger boys. A bit of "Lord of the Flies" on every playground.
Even younger boys who probably have no clue as to what homosexuality really entails will often use the terminology interchangeably with derisive feminine terms to convey what the believe is weakness, effiminate behavior, or just plain inappropriate or uncool behavior.
As pubescent teens they are often no more aware of homosexual understanding than heterosexual understanding. They're fairly aware of what is expected of them at this point, but they are likely to be confused and emotionally vulnerable due to their lack of understanding, social pressures, and hormone induced emotional instability. The machismo issue is often amplified at this state where comfort in ones own masculinity is at its natural weak point. I wouldn't call it homophobia as much as a fear of being associated with effeminate qualities due to the personal and social pressures they are dealing with.
Showing boys a clip of two men kissing is unlikely to have any effect on any of these natural and societal factors behind the behavior. Without addressing the greater problem it could reinforce the mindset. Without the proper understanding such displays will only be considered disgusting, strange, and therefore targeted in an evironment where the instinctual predisposition against foreign "outsiders" and behavior is the least restrained socially. Even male-female kissing if often considered vulgar and strange to many younger children who grow up "seeing" it but lack the physical desire behind such behavior to "understand" it. And as such it is a frequent basis for chiding, ridicule and physical attacks in grade school. The best known childrens song is based on this very type of ridicule... "So-n-so and So-n-so, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G..."
Does that make them heterophobes? Of course not. The problem goes much deeper. And the solution may be very elusive and may require focus on boosting the societal pressure of portraying protection of the weak as a strength to combat the natural pressure to avoid appearing weak.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"So-n-so and So-n-so, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G..."
Uh, yeah. That's third grade, Glock. I teach 13 and 14 year olds. There's a difference.
I'll give you an example. I have worked in my school for nine years. In that time I have seen literally hundreds of kids date. I have had probably two dozen girls leave school early due to pregnancy. There was a couple that actually ran away to elope one year. Kids can pretty much date who they want. If a black guy wants to date a white girl or vice versa no one is going to say much of anything. It's a little more rare to see a hispanic student dating a black student, but it does happen. And again, it's really no big deal.
In all those years I have never seen one public homosexual relationship. Not one. There are probably several reasons for this fact, but I think it is just ignorant to believe that intolerance is not one of them. It no longer takes much courage for a white kid to date someone of another race (and vice versa) even though there are undoubtedly a lot of kids who are fed racist comments by their parents (ahem). But the amount of courage it would take for two homosexual boys to walk down one of our hallways holding hands is just beyond comprehension. It's not that everyone would make fun of them, or shove them, or beat them up after school. It's just that most wouldn't do anything to stop it.
So you tell me, is this homophobia or not? I appreciate the insights you have into the brains of these students I work with every day. Believe it or not I actually have a few insights in that area myself. It's my opinion that homosexuality is one of the core issues that needs to be addressed in our society and in our schools. Not so we can indoctrinate everyone into believing that homosexuality is morally correct, but so we can teach our students to respect each other regardless of their views on personal choices or orientations.
Honestly, it doesn't help much to see news stories like this one which, I think we all understand, would not be a news story on FOX if the movie in question was not about gay men.
Teacher man
We appreciate your area of expertise in children, but it is obvious you do not have any.
Teacher Man... trust me, I value your insights. It is why I address your posts and ignore ones like Anonymouse 10:52. And I don't mind that you differ in opinion or approach to the subject, but I cannot sit back and remain silent on a subject I feel strongly about either. I'd rather you oppose me in every single issue than lie to me and say you agree when you don't. If it wasn't for disagreement, there would be little to teaching. Read this, repeat this, good, now read this, repeat this, good. There's more to it than that. I hope you'll come to respect my opinion as I have come to respect yours. I don't deny that you have worthwhile insights to this particular issue. I'd hope that you'd also consider mine. And I still owe you a beer! Come out next Tuesday night!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"We appreciate your area of expertise in children, but it is obvious you do not have any."
???
Is this an insult about his level of expertise, or a statement that you don't think TM has any kids? Either way, it's unnecessary and unappreciated.
On May 14th, 2007 at 08:53 PM, IlliniPundit said:
I entered HS in 1989-90....
Wow. That explains a lot.
IP is a "twenty-something". No wonder he is a know-it-all. Put a few decades on yourself IP cuz you can't get wisdom without it.
Of course a few more decades won't guarantee wisdom but you can't have it without time to develop it.
IP is a smart guy though so maybe someday he will be able to combine smarts with wisdom but so far it's just smarts. Lots of people are smart. It's wisdom that's hard to find.
Yeah, and since either reading is clearly false, it just serve to illustrate that the poster has some serious problems of his/her own.
"Wow. That explains a lot.
IP is a "twenty-something". No wonder he is a know-it-all. Put a few decades on yourself IP cuz you can't get wisdom without it.
Of course a few more decades won't guarantee wisdom but you can't have it without time to develop it.
IP is a smart guy though so maybe someday he will be able to combine smarts with wisdom but so far it's just smarts. Lots of people are smart. It's wisdom that's hard to find."
Twenty-something?
Maybe you should check your math before posting an insult.
If a kindergartner out-argued me, and the only thing I had left to attack was his age, would that really have anything to do with the fact that his arguments were superior? Or would it really just be me admitting that a far younger person knows more than I do?
You make the call.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
If a kindergartner out-argued me, and the only thing I had left to attack was his age, would that really have anything to do with the fact that his arguments were superior? Or would it really just be me admitting that a far younger person knows more than I do?
You make the call.
This gave me a great mental image of Glock's avatar performing one of those "You make the call!" Monday Night Football segments from when I was a kid. Which should give you an idea of about how old I am... :)
I don't remember them aiming a spear at the audience when they did that... but man, that would have sure made it far more amusing. Maybe a cattle prod instead... it is supposed to be family television. "You called fumble... sorry Mrs. Jones it was pass interference" ZZZZZZZZAP!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"This gave me a great mental image of Glock's avatar performing one of those "You make the call!" Monday Night Football segments from when I was a kid. Which should give you an idea of about how old I am... :)"
Heh.
Good memories.