Teaching Government in Schools

Since it's my senior year of high school, the state of California (pause for laughter) has made it manditory for me to attend a Government/Economics class.  While this wouldn't be a problem (I love to hear people bitch about the world and the people who run it, as long as they have a valid arguement), the teacher I have is EXTREMELY left.  While this also wouldn't pose a problem normally, he's always injecting his left views into any debates that occur.

The bottom line?  The only teachers that should be teaching Government should be ones that can be on both sides of the fence equally (at least most of the time).

Discuss.

>>1

ultimately, the left is correct.  Just give up and take it.

No, really. 

Well as long he doesn't let his political affinity influence his class, but apparently he does.

>>1

Here's a question... why is it that most everyone in academia is inclined to political liberalism? Is it a vast left-wing conspiracy... or is it that most conservatives aren't clever enough for the rigors of open, rational intellectual discourse and can't comprehend polysylabic words easily? Hmm...

Maybe that's too harsh. But it is exceedingly rare that I meet a conservative as well-educated and well-read as the average liberal. Maybe that's why most of the world's greatest newspapers have a liberal bent... because conservatives, so often inclined to visceral thinking, don't like to read?

I think I should've said this, I only used "left" because I had no other (possibly politically correct (irony)) term.  Also, I'm not right either, I'm moderate.

THOSE WHO CAN, DO
THOSE WHO CAN'T, TEACH
THOSE WHO CAN'T TEACH, ADMINISTER

AMIRITE FOLKS?

I read in the news somewhere about a to be teacher not being hired because he wrote an essay supporting corporal punishment (which is legal in >30 states) when he was a student

>>6

Hahaha oh wow. Caps-lock really is cruise control for cool, isn't it? Let it never be said that there is a better form of argument then a tired and indefensible cliche... you're so vip quality.

>>2
Communism.

>>4
Unfortunately, academia has largely devolved into mutual intellectual masturbation. Universities want to prove they're "tolerant" and "diverse," so kooks like Ward Churchill get tenured jobs. Its severe bent to the Left in recent times is probably just a result of self-reinforcing views in faculty. And the fact that most hardcore leftists are arrogant, lazy sacks of shit--a perfect fit for a cushy, guaranteed job where you're constantly reaffirmed in your intellectual superiority.

>>9

I really think that you're completely wrong. :P

University professors are constantly pushed to publish, regardless of their field or possession of tenure. This provides them with plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong.

Furthermore, what you see as an appeal to "tolerance" and "diversity" (which you use as if they were neologisms), any historically minded person would see as the continuation of the principles of academic freedom that Socrates died for.

As to whether or not most academics are h.c. left, and most h.c. left are a.) arrogant, b.) lazy, c.) containers for feces, I would just have to say that this is a purely emotional argument without rational basis. "Hardcore" meaning what? "Arrogant"... how so? "Lazy" in what sense? Do they indeed contain more feces than you do? Why are you so confident of this?

University professors are constantly pushed to publish, regardless of their field or possession of tenure. This provides them with plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong.

The people who are expeced to criticise him would have the same viewpoint as the one who publishes. Therefore it turns into "mutual intellectual masturbation" as >>9 puts it because they will never have an opportunity to be criticised by people who think differently.

Conservatives generally prefer to learn a trade in school and go out and have a career/family/all that crap. In their homes and workplaces, their views won't be challenged either. Their wank group's just a bit smaller.

As for >>1, just ignore him and give him what he wants. It's great training for later in your life when you'll have to get on your leftist professor/rightist boss to get a good grade/a promotion.

>>11

I can imagine how it *could* turn into "mutual intellectual masturbation", but it never works like that. Academia is one of the most competitive fields in the world. There are 88 philosophy ph.d.'s for every professor of philosophy. The odds are worse for Literature (though I can't find the stats at the moment :), I'm told. The only way to get a job in academia is to tear someone else down. It is a preternaturally vicious system.

>>1
Just because you have a right and a left doesn't mean one of them isn't wrong.
Demanding that people should be able to stay on both sides of a fence is a poor idea when one side is a deadly mine field.
Sometimes it's good to take sides. Take the evolution vs. intelligent design issue you've got going over there in the US. A lot of people portray it as two equally valid ways to look at how we got here (in the cosmic sense) and simply ignore that evolution is Good Science and intelligent design is Stupid Religion.

>>14

A fine point in the theory of descent by natural selection that people often misunderstand is that organisms were selected for suitability to the environment that their parent's succeeded in living long enough to procreate in. That is to say, that an evolutionarily perfect organism is perfectly suited for an environment that no longer exists; at the very best, it is the environment that obtained when their parents were struggling. More likely the environment for which they are ideal is even further in the past than that.

Similarly, political ideologies are adapted to the environment they originated in. For this reason, I think it is potentially suicidal to try and jettison any ideology: what may look fantastic now may be indeed excellently adapted for modern needs. But our environment *never* stops changing. You want to know what happens to organisms which jettison apparently needless adaptive mechanisms? Look at how well the flight-less birds of New Zealand and Australia survived after human habitation changed their environment. Bitches should have kept their wings. :P

>>8

NO U

>>16
Victoly.

>>4


You misspelled polysyllabic.  ;)

>>18

Yeah, I noticed right after submitting... but there is no facility to correct or delete. Regardless I think my points stand, independent of my occasional misspellings.

>>1
Is there any chance you could give us some examples of his comments in your class?
About the environment in academia, the teachers etc. might tend to be left-wing voters (so they vote democratic? haha), but all those conservatist politicians, lawyers, etc. etc. are all well educated. USA is run by a conservative goverment, despite all those people having been taught by left wing teachers? It can't be all that "bad" :D

And why would the WHOLE acadmia environment be left wing, these are the top brightest minds in society (supposedly) and i'd be surprised if they were all invovled in some big "left" conspiracy. The reason they might show "left" opinions in their teaching is probably because it's very hard not to, if you actually believe in socialism or something like that, and you live in a country like the US.

Also one of the main objects of going to school is to teach students to critisize their surroundings and what they think is wrong, so the fact that you notice this and make a point of it is not really a bad thing (this ofcourse doens't make the teacher's actions any better).

But ultimately i'd be har dto find ONLY teachers that would ALWAYS be politically correct and take the sides of both left and right. And if there was a right-wing teacher who brought in his right-wing opinions in class, would anyone complaint?
 
 

>>20
My theory, this is going to sound bad to you, but I believe that the reason why more left-wingers are teachers is because it's an easier job.  Most left-wingers might have become that way because there were times when they couldn't cope and relied on another larger force to intervene on their behalf, so they would of course see the need for big government (as is standard among leftist in the USA).

LAwyers ETC... do a very hard job, and one that pays proportionally.  So they profit more from a dog-eat-dog type scenario, where those who can't cope should just go to the back of the bus.  They've never had to rely on anyone else, and so they feel contempt for those who need it.

There's also the nurturing aspect of teaching which probably appeals to leftists.

>>21

Interesting theory, except the Harvard Law publication just put out that study in August showing that 71% of their respondents, of ~4,000 lawyers interviewed by phone throughout the US, identified as Democrats. It was really big news here in my ivory tower; you didn't hear about it?

Truth be told, there is a direct correlation between education and liberalism. The more years you spend in college, the more likely you'll vote Democrat... and lawyers and doctors spend a long time in college.

>>22
Well, true, but I fogot to factor in that lawyers make a ton of fucking money taking small cases and suing doctors and what not for millions of dollars. 

The democrats are the ones who oppose tort reform.

>>22
Well, true, but I fogot to factor in that lawyers make a ton of fucking money taking small cases and suing doctors and what not for millions of dollars. 

The democrats are the ones who oppose tort reform.

I wonder what the stats would be with doctors or other highly educated folk.

I'd be willing to bet that almost no scientists identify as liberal.

>>24

Considering how huge the Union of Concerned Scientists is, I would tend to disagree... http://www.ucsusa.org/... but I can't find any studies about the political leanings of scientists as there are for doctors and lawyers.

My personal experience as an American in the history and philosophy of science is that scientists primarily don't care about politics, they just want to get funding and be left alone, and that the ones who do are as socialist as Americans get.

Historically there are a lot of examples both ways. Frege and Fermi were pro-war anti-Semites, while Einstein and Oppenheimer were Jewish pacifists. My conclusion? Insufficient data. :P

>>21

you're right that lawyers do a very hard job, keeping up the laws of society etc. (I'm not going to get in on the best lawyers work for the people with the most money and whatever that leads to etc. etc.)

But I think you're wrong about the teachers. Teaching is, as opposed to what it sounds like (make these kids learn stuff), a pretty hard job. Maybe it's not as hard as being a lawyer, but they don't get paid as much, so that's fair.
Anyways, about it being hard to be a teacher. First of all, you need to deal with these unruly kids (unless you're a teacher on a "good" school). Second, after a day of teaching things to kids who may or may not care about you (there's nothing more frustating that rying to teach things to people, and they then completely ignore you), you have to go home and correct essays, or assignments or something similar.

As a teacher you also have several other obligations; to go on courses, to go to meetings, to take shit from kids parents, for shit the kids make.
There's an immense pressure on teachers, because if the kids complaint to their parents, the parents will complaint about you, and then it doesn't matter if the kids did something wrong, since most parents don't believe their kids would do ANYTHING wrong.  

Teachers are also what is suppose to shape the future country into whatever the ideals are. They have the responsibility for creating bright, intellegent and responsible young people, "nurturing" them, as you say. Quite a responsibility.

So i don't think the reason most teachers are supposedly left-wing voters (does anyone have any statistics about this?), is because it's an "easy" job.
As >>22 said, 71% of ~4000 lawyers voted democrats, and those are well educated. If we say the amount is about the same with the teachers who are, or atleast should be since they are teaching our kids, well educated. Maybe there is a relation. 

(no, I'm not a teacher)

>>26
I dont think so...  when youre a teacher, you get all weekends and summers off, as well as ALL holidays.  Its also a job that requires fewer qualifications, and is easier to get.  And compared to dealing with fucking bitchy ass customers who believe they deserve the world on a platter just because they have been told all their lives to believe theyre better than an wal-mart check out worker PALES in comparison to dealing with shitty kids.  Im sure the clientele of other jobs can be just as bitchy and bad.

And the truth is, its only crazy parents who believe their child can do no wrong in any situation, and those are few usually, and you dont get written up for pissing them off; its a free service of the government so theres nothing they can do. Sure, if you get a ton of complaints, youll be in trouble, but the managers dont automatically assume that you are at fault (unlike at wal-mart)

Teaching may not be the easiest job in the world, but Ill tell you, its not close to the hardest. Not even anywhere near halfway up the scale.

The reason I know so much about teaching is because I was one of those problem kids ^_^

>>27
yeah i'll have to give you that, being a wal-mat checkout worker is probably the shittiest thing on earth (except ofcourse for starvation/hunger whatever) XD

I'm not sure how it is in the US, but here (in denmark) teachers usually have to do things during their summer breaks. They need to go on courses in order to get re-qualified for random stuff.
And as for the qualifications, I agree, i'd like to see it otherwise though, haha.

It's not one of the hardest jobs, no. If you want to you can just memorise the same shit and tach it to the kids over and over again, year after year after year untill you go on retirement.

Even though it isn't the hardest of jobs, relatively easy as you say, alot of teacher still get alot of stress, if it's that easy i know really know why. Maybe it's just because they have a tendency to take critizism very badly, as in, it affects them alot on a personal level.

But my post was more of a comment to >>21 who said that the reason left-wing people became teachers were because it was such an easy job and because they had a time in their life where they couldn't cope with things, or something like that. And i don't really agree with that. That being a teacher is a job for people who fucked up and didn't become anything "good" like a lawyer, doesn't seem to be the case to me. Ofcourse it might be so in some cases, but I think most teachers actually want to be teachers. They have some sort of personal reason for becoming one.

so... people who vote right-wing and can't cope it, what do they become? XD

haha, and i was one of those problem kids too, the immense amount of shit we gave out teachers, i don't think i'd be able to stand it for so many years :P

Tech Support is WAY harder than any job. Even if you got a well paid tech support job, just the stupidity and cluelessness you encounter will explose your head.

>>29

I do tech support for ~500 computers at a mid-size university, and it's not that bad.

I was an "environment sanitation technician" (shit-mopper) at a zoo for 6 months once. That job sucked.

In fact, both of my food service jobs were worse than my tech support job too. I worked at McDonalds, and at an upscale deli, and I wouldn't recommend either. Believe me, there are a lot of things in the world worse than doing tech support.

>>30

You never worked at McDonalds. =P

    An old country farmer with serious financial problems bought a mule from another old farmer for $100, who agreed to deliver the mule the next day.
    However, the next day he drove up and said, "Sorry, but I have some bad news." "The mule died."
    "Well, then, just give me my money back."
    "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."
    "OK, then. Just unload the mule."
    "What ya gonna do with a dead mule?"
    "I'm going to raffle him off."
    "You can't raffle off a dead mule!"
    "Sure I can. I just won't tell anybody he's dead."
    A month later the two met up and the farmer who sold the mule asked, "Whatever happened with that dead mule?"

    "I raffled him off just like I said I would. I sold 500 tickets at $2 each and made a profit of $898."
    "Didn't anyone complain?"
    "Just the guy who won. So I gave him four dollars back."

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed all but 10% of his entire class. That class had insisted that capitalism worked and that only those that worked hard deserved to reap the benefits..the great equalizer.

The professor then said "Ok, let's try out an interpretation of capitalism: Those that work the hardest and clearly demonstrate it will get the highest ranks in the class." Everyone in the class agreed.

"BUT," said the professor, "we need to factor into consideration that not everyone comes into this class with an advantage, just as not many people don't come into the working world with one." The professor then took the textbook for the class away from all but four of the 40 students in his class. "This accounts for factors such as educational opportunities, experience, and mentorship."

When the other 36 students begged the four students with the book to share it with them, they demanded that the bookless students pay them ridiculous amounts for the privledge of reading the book. After all, they clearly earned the book.

Naturally, when the midterm came around, The only people did well were the people with the textbooks. Most everyone else got Fs and Ds, despite the hard amount of work the students did trying to study without the book.

As the professor then told them, capitalism fails because it doesn't provide an equal opportunity for people to succeed, and it encourages those to have to hoard it away from those who need it more.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. Letting the rich bypass giving their fair share in legistlature is on par with letting a kindergartner keep his share toy to himself.

2. The amount of work one puts into life often factors little into what they reap, considering people do not have the same opportunities.

3. The government, which gave you the opportunity to learn, be educated and live in this country on their dime, has every right to take from you to give that same opportunity to someone else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by hoarding it!

5. When the richest percentage of the people get the idea that they do not have to give back to the country and people whose work and toil gave them the very opportunity to succeed that everyone else is entitled to, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

Neither could I.

>>33
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

I was in that class, I scanned the text book and next class was selling print outs for $50 a pop.

Whether or not it provides an equal opportunity to succeed, it does not fail. 600 million people have joined the global middle class in the last 20 years because of capitalism. A lion gets a better opportunity than a microbe, which is just the nature of life. Some are born of rape, and some are born of love, so it is not even true to say that people are created equal.

Some tenured or union-protected high school or university teacher can say what he likes. But he has no clue about life in the real world. Whatever your breaks in early life, if you work and study hard, stay away from drugs and trashy people, and save money, you will get ahead.

I may sound like a bible beater yelling up a revival at a river crossing camp meeting but that don’t change the truth none, there’s right and there’s wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one and you’re living, you do the other and you may be walking around but you’re dead as a beaver hat.