Posted on 05/07/2003 4:13:42 AM PDT by .30Carbine
Vermont Cop Story: AP's Bias or America's?
May 6, 2003
I spent Tuesday's Hour One discussing this story about Vermont police officer John Mott. While off duty at 1:30 AM, Mott entered a high school through an open service door. He then asked a janitor to unlock a classroom so he could take pictures of displays by "passionate pacifist" teacher Tom Treece to present to an attorney.
The Associated Press headlines this story: "Vt. Cop Photographed Class Projects," pointing a finger at the cop as the villain. We had to go to a local paper, the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, to find the classroom details. But this is not a media bias story. I held off giving my opinion on these events just to see what my audience's reaction would be, as you'll see below. More:
The officer reports taking pictures of "a poster of President Bush with duct tape over his mouth and a large papier-mâché combat boot with the American flag stuffed inside stepping on a doll, along with pictures of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his co-thug reactionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. They aren't "pacifists"! Besides, the whole so-called peace movement was organized around defending and protecting Saddam Hussein! The slogan: "All hail the idiot boy king" was posted next to a picture of President Bush as, Treece claimed, "a reason to reject the high school budget."
If Mr. Treece posted pictures of me and Ronald Reagan on the wall, this cop would be a hero and the teacher would be on his way out. Apparently there were "rumors" about this teacher's curriculum, so this officer investigated. It's reported that there's a "backlash" against Officer Mott, but not that there was any sort of backlash against the class content. Why does it take a cop, taking pictures at 1:30 AM on his own time, to find out what's going on in this class? Where are the parents?
Is this not a public school? Our legal division doesn't see any constitutional issue on the officer entering the classroom in his private or public capacity; there's no expectation of privacy in a public school. We had a police officer call us up and say that Mott was off duty and out of his jurisdiction, so he shouldn't have entered the school or asked to be let into the locked classroom. You can hear such calls below along with my lengthily reporting of the details. I dedicated more than an hour to this story, and here's why:
After 70 minutes of discussion, all my e-mails and calls similarly focused on the cop - just like AP did. "So what, Rush?" So we hear education this and education that all the time in this country. Everybody claims to care about teaching "the children." But if we really cared about education, 90% of the garbage going on inside classrooms wouldn't be permitted. We would have parents involved in their children's education that know every word on the chalkboard and in the books. A police officer - who from this story doesn't seem to have any kids in the school much less in Treece's class - wouldn't have to enter through a service door and then ask a janitor to unlock the classroom for him. The parents would have expressed their outrage; instead, there wasn't a peep.
It is the MIDOL CROWD.
Yeah, and moneyrunner was trying to claim in post #9 of this thread that the critics of the cop's action were not being critical of the actions of the teacher, which is bull also. So that's TWO whoppers on this thread so far.
I saw that information, looked it up myself via Google. There also was a councilman in opposition. I think this issue will snowball, and we'll see what happens.
I take it from your comments that you believe the First Amendment gives teachers the right to say anything to their students. Apparently you don't believe that there should be adversarial consequences for an employeee if their actions run contrary to their prescribed purpose of employment. According to your view of things now that this person has secured employment as a public school teacher the 1st A. gives him free reign to say anything in the classroom. He can teach "the best ways please your gay lover" and parents can just stick it thanks to that pesky 1st Amendment.
City Councilor Paul DeCoste said he wouldn’t support the budget based on what he’s seen and heard about what happens in Treece’s classroom. He described Treece as “antagonistic and unrepentant” and vowed to vote against the budget in protest.
Barre Town resident Wayne Pelkey took a slightly more moderate stance, but said he was disappointed to learn only one board member had even visited the classroom Treece shares with another teacher.
“I’m almost ashamed of this,” he said, adding: “Don’t forget who’s supporting this school.”
Pelkey said he was happy to hear that board members were exploring the issue whether teachers’ personal opinions have any place in the school, but believed they focused on the issue too late for his taste.
That is one issue. An issue which is entirely seperate from what Tom Treece is teaching in his classroom. If that is the issue you are concerned with fine. Unlike the school issue I think the Barre Police Dept. will deal with it directly.
According to Rush's first caller yesterday, a Barre resident and conservative activist, the janitor responded to Officer Mott's request like this, to paraphrase "Oh, you want the Traitor's classroom, right this way...". Is that freely enough for you?
I understand the 1st A. well enough, however, it was your comments I was speaking of.
According to newspaper reports, the purpose of the class is to provoke independent thinking about public issues and current events.
Do you see any evidence, in what has been released, that these students are learning to think independently?
The officer reports taking pictures of "a poster of President Bush with duct tape over his mouth and a large papier-mâché combat boot with the American flag stuffed inside stepping on a doll, along with pictures of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his co-thug reactionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara.
Is this an example of independent thinking in your view?
But they can't tell him what point of view is acceptable.
Well there you have it. You believe the 1st A. gives him the right to say anything. Whatever he says, on any subject, is simply "his point of view".
If you think the First Amendment protects any opinion on any subject, I really don't think you understand the First Amendment as well as you think you do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.