A very VERY incnvenient truth, it seems...

[anghara]

Good GOLLY, Miss Molly.

Some money quotes:

"School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view." "

"The policy, titled "Controversial Issues, Teaching of," says in part, "It is the teacher's responsibility to present controversial issues that are free from prejudice and encourage students to form, hold and express their own opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination." "

And from the idiot parent who nixed the video:
"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

Well, sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar, and America CAN be "bad" in the sense that it's willfully oblivious to fact when it doesn't jibe with its intentions, and maybe this person's kids would be better off knowing this. Now there's an alternative view for this particular person to consider - that sometimes America might, just MIGHT, be, you know, WRONG about something.

Ye gods and little fishes.

ETA: How about THIS? WOuld the opinion one of the most eminent scientists of our time weigh more than Al Gore? Or could it possibly, just possibly, be just the MESSAGE that's unwelcome...?

Comments

[rdeck.livejournal.com]

>>"if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said.<<

If, on the other hand, a movie's approach is 'good America, good America', I suspect Ms Hardison wouldn't have any problem with it at all.

[viciousdisorder.livejournal.com]

For goodness sakes! I think most teachers can be impartial, or at least present non-biased information, without being told they must explicitly balance the two sources. Even if the students do make a decision one way or another.

credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented
We could say "shoot yourself in the foot" ... but that might be a little rude ;) But it doesn't make sense with history (considering until recently history was recorded - primarily - through the eyes of the victors not the losers), and I'm sure other subjects are the same.

And yet *shrugs* I really can't help but think that this is another way in which America is trying to stop independant (or non-regulated) thought. Like actually being able to form a (true) opinion by knowing both sides of a story. Goodness knows they probably have the "opposing view" shown to them every day at home, why not allow them to see the less pretty side of things.

Not to mention having to go through the red-tape (and personal opinion against what you want to teach by your superiors) would surely put off a lot of teachers.

[guinwhyte.livejournal.com]

I think it's the message that's unwelcome, unfortunately. A good share of the population wants to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalalalalala" and not listen to anything that might be troubling. (And for the parent quoted in the article, science means nothing anyway -- it referenced them believing the earth was only thousands of years old, after all.)

Sometimes I feel like it's not about the facts or message anymore, it's all about who has the better propaganda -- that's who people will believe, regardless of the evidence in front of them. The parent in the article assumes that their kids believe everything they see without questioning it. And maybe they do, if they're the type who buy into everything their preacher tells them. We so desperately need to teach people (of all ages) how to think critically.