Replies

I think you and a few other folks must not have read the article, as some very important facts are being ignored.
I quote:
"Julianne Thompson, 42, told students in November that actor Mel Gibson had said in an article that embryonic stem cell research had not produced a single human cure in 23 years.

Superintendant Thomas Ramming said employees are generally told that political and religious discussions should be confined to a classroom setting where different viewpoints can be presented.

But Thompson said there is nothing in her contract that prohibits her from expressing facts or opinions. She is considering legal action, saying officials have yet to explain why her comments were inappropriate."

Now, if you'll notice, the superindendant says only political and religious discussions need be confined to the classroom. Now, this is ostensibly so "different viewpoints" can be presented. The viewpoints are irrelevant if one is stating a fact. And why only political and religious discussions? Does that mean one is free to talk about sex, or crime, or what have you? Additionally, he says employees are "generally told". What does that mean? Did they ever say 'don't talk religion or politics, or you'll be fired'?
Irrespective of whether one would want the bus driver dispensing factiods to kids, what she did what certainly not grounds for being fired IMHO. From another article:
She said she only stated facts she considered age-appropriate and didn't share her opinions

She said she only stated facts she considered age-appropriate and didn't share her opinions

Well, here's my problem: I don't think there is any way to explain the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells without getting into subjects that I don't think are "age appropriate" for children as young as second grade.

For that reason, I think the bus driver showed very poor judgement. Whether or not she violated school board policy is another question, and it's difficult to tell because the school board is prohibited from releasing all the details on their side.

I agree with the posters who say the discussion was inappropriate for children of that age group, and also if we want freedom of speech to espouse Christian viewpoints to small children, we'll have to grant that same freedom to Muslims, athiests, Wiccans, and whoever else might want to proselytize.