Letter to President Bush, from the Teacher Union President: We Support You in the War on Terrorism

Teachers' Union -- NEA -- Online ^ | Undated, but similiar letters to others dated: Oct. 5, 2001 | NEA President Bob Chase

[summer]

Letter to President Bush
from NEA President Bob Chase

Dear Mr. President:

We Americans are a diverse and often divided family, but at this time of tragedy we stand united - one nation indivisible. We are united by our shared grief, and also by our resolve to root out and punish those who have attacked our homeland.

Nearly one in one hundred Americans is a member of the National Education Association. I want you to know that, as President and Commander in Chief, you have our wholehearted support at this time of crisis. You should also know that, in recent days, teacher unions from around the world have expressed their strong solidarity with America. Those who love freedom and democracy are rallying to America's flag and to your leadership as President in the war on terrorism.

You have our strong support - and our prayers - as you make the fateful decisions necessary for America to prevail. The 2.6 million members of the National Education Association stand with you, and we stand ready to assist you in any way we can.

May God give you wisdom and strength, Mr. President, and may God bless our great nation.

Sincerely,

Bob Chase
President

-------------------------------------------------------

Letter to NEA Board of Directors
from NEA President Bob Chase
October 5, 2001

Dear NEA Board of Directors Member:

As President Bush so compellingly argued in his speech to Congress, the terrorists attacked America because they despise our values. We will defeat this enemy by arms and law, but also by holding fast to the core values that define us as Americans: our freedom, our liberties, our commitment to an open, tolerant, democratic society.

Of necessity, public schools will be a frontline institution in this new era. America's domestic security will depend on more than metal detectors and sky marshals. It also will depend on the values taught in America's public schools. In the months and years ahead, it is our challenge as educators to guide an entire generation of young Americans to understand the freedom and democratic ideals that are at stake in this struggle.

With this in mind, I am passing along this packet of source materials that I hope you will find useful - and inspiring. Included are America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. There are also backgrounders on Islam and the Arab world; resource lists on school safety and helping children cope with loss; a booklet titled "The Bible & Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide;" and much more.

When you get back home to your schools and communities, I encourage you to reproduce and disseminate items in this packet that you find especially useful. If there are other ways that we at NEA headquarters can assist you in responding to the events of September 11, don't hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

Bob Chase
NEA President

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

I say welcome to anyone who voices strong support for President Bush, for our troops, and for the war on terrorism.

It is especially good to hear this from NEA officials.

However, words are cheap.

May they follow these words of support with tangible deeds - such as helping President Bush bring as many pro-America defense minded candidates into public office as possible!

Will the NEA support strong, pro-America candidates throughout our nation in the upcoming 2002 Congressional elections? Without such elected Representatives/Senators there in Congress and in the Senate to give VOTING support to the measures that our nation is going to have to take if we are seious about this War on Terrorism. What will the NEA DO about those elections?

Anti-Americans FILL the Congress and the Senate.

Will the NEA leaders help replace them with people who can really vote SUPPORT for the War effort?

BTW - am glad you are now a "former" lifelong Democrat. I hope you will use whatever influence you have among other educators to encourage many of them to take this step that you have taken.

Finally - The Democrats (I have several in my family) I know - down in the ranks - are basically good decent people. They have simply been deceived and have not been willing to face the truth about the deception they have "bought" for so long - because to do so would wound their pride or self-image, perhaps.

Somehow the thought of fellow Americans being incinerated or plunging to their death at the hands of AMERICA-HATERS LIKE MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN - has shaken some of them up. One told me - and she is in education also - that she wants us to NUKE the .........

And this from a former hippie peacenik!

So, there is hope.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

(sorry about the incomplete sentence....)

"Without such elected Representatives/Senators there in Congress and in the Senate to give VOTING support to the measures that our nation is going to have to take if we are seious about this War on Terrorism. .......President Bush is going to face very difficult times getting passed into law the measures he needs to command our troops and our investigative agencies in the most focused, effective way possible."

There, that's better. Not good, but better.

[dwbh]

Teachers -- in the union or not -- DO exist who support GW, and: do NOT offer their support "blindly." In conclusion, whether union or non-union, teachers may be WILLFULLY agreeing with GW and NEA President Bob Chase not out of "ignorance" as you presume, but because they are: "patriotic."

Yep. There are union teachers who support the platform blindly and those who do not support the platform blindly. Likewise, there are teachers who protest the platform because of independent thought, and teachers who protest the platform blindly. So, just as you've asserted that teachers may agree with the NEA president because of independent thought, some may disagree with the NEA president out of independent thought.

[summer]

"I think being a pacifist at a time when 90% of the country strongly disagrees with you shows a huge amount of moral conviction. Regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong for feeling the way they do, at least they are standing up for the way they feel, which is the very definition of conviction."

dwbh, With respect to your above comment: I now believe, as a result of certain info I read on this forum, that there is a discernable difference between being:

a "pacifist";

and being:

a "patriotic pacifist" -- meaning: a person who can still DO SOMETHING useful and helpful in assisting one's country in winning a war which exists as the result of us having been attacked.

As a result: Some of that 10% you refer may be able to stand up for what they actually believe -- and, in doing so, join the other 90%, because: what that some people, who I believe are 'patriotic pacifists,' ALSO believe in is: patriotism and love of country. Same as the 90%.

I will find the info on this forum that convinced me of such differences between people who are claiming now to be "pacifists" -- and, post it here for your benefit only. Others may not agree with me, but I found this info quite enlightening. And, this info is what I was thinking of when I said that teachers who can not support this war -- meaning, can not do something to support this war -- really have no moral convictions, and no business teaching, IMO.

I'll be back for you, and show you this info about people I believe are "patriotic pacifists"! Maybe you will then change your mind about those other pacifists who are doing NOTHING to help their country in this time of need.

And, dwbh, I still have a smile for you, because: doesn't that number you cited -- 90% -- tell you something???? :)

[summer]

Re your post #43 -- But, the teachers will never even choose to support NEA's current platform if they never HEAR it or SEE it.

I think we can agree on that.

Therefore: I would very much like to see NEA's President on every tv news show -- PUBLICLY STATING and EXPLAINING his position to a very wide audience, including: teachers. They need to first hear his position -- so, why has the media shut him out? And, shut him up?

[dwbh]

As for your original comment above -- are you saying "subject" to mean: the teacher's "feelings"?

No. I'm talking about the different subjects of our education and our military operations in Afghanistan.

Well, like it or not, the teacher's "feelings" often impact what information is disseminated by a teacher to students, and what information is omitted or downplayed by a teacher. That's a fact, dwbh. Like it or not.

A teacher worth his/her salt will not let their feelings on a particular issue interfere with an objective presentation of the facts. If what you said were true, then why not ban anyone who ever voted Democratic from teaching history, because they're going to have a "partial" view of history? For that matter, ban the Republicans too. Nobody is going to feel completely objectively about history, but that doesn't mean they can't teach objectively. One of the goals of education is to get your students to see issues and problems from different points of view and draw their own conclusions. So how can you teach that if you're implying that teachers are unable to look at things from different points of view themselves?

[dwbh]

a "patriotic pacifist" -- meaning: a person who can still DO SOMETHING useful and helpful in assisting one's country in winning a war which exists as the result of us having been attacked.

The definition of a pacifist is someone who is opposed to war. A pacifist would not have any interest in helping us win a war if they don't believe their country should be fighting the war to begin with.

[summer]

As for your original comment above -- are you saying "subject" to mean: the teacher's "feelings"?

No. I'm talking about the different subjects of our education and our military operations in Afghanistan.

Then why did your subsequent response not relate in any way to the different sugject I had mentioned -- Current Events and American History? You seemed to veer off into feelings, since: you did not mention nor comment on the subjects I mentioned, nor did you mention any other subjects studied in schools.

[dwbh]

And, dwbh, I still have a smile for you, because: doesn't that number you cited -- 90% -- tell you something???? :)

It tells me that lots of people think we should defend ourselves when challenged. I'm one of those 90%, and I would be very worried if that number were lower.

[summer]

"Nobody is going to feel completely objectively about history, but that doesn't mean they can't teach objectively. One of the goals of education is to get your students to see issues and problems from different points of view and draw their own conclusions. So how can you teach that if you're implying that teachers are unable to look at things from different points of view themselves?

LOL...I will respond to you by showing you an entire thread on this subject, and BTW, my belief is that teachers SHOULD keep their own points of view OUT of the classroom discussion! Of course! But, that doesn't always happen!

[summer]

BTTT for your post #49 -- see, I knew we would find agreement in here somewhere!

[dwbh]

Then why did your subsequent response not relate in any way to the different sugject I had mentioned -- Current Events and American History? You seemed to veer off into feelings, since: you did not mention nor comment on the subjects I mentioned, nor did you mention any other subjects studied in schools.

I said teachers may not blindly follow the NEA on subjects that are not related to education. You asked me how I could say that current events are not related to education. I told you that there is a separation between how a teacher feels about current events and how the teacher teaches those current events. When you then asked me if I meant "feelings" instead of "subjects", I said I didn't and told you I was speaking of the different subjects of education and our military involvement. So how did my response not relate to your question?

[summer]

dwbh,

Re: My mention to you on this thread that I learned on this forum about people I now call "patriotic pacifists."

The poster who taught me about such people is dan909. (dan909 -- Again, thank you.) And, you can read his informative and polite reply to me below, which I am re-posting [with my bold added for emphasis] for educational purposes:

----------------------------------------------

To: summer

I am a Quaker and a pacifist, and I just wanted to reply to a few of the responses here to the Pacifist Dictionary article posted above.

1) The original declaration of Quaker pacifism is thus:

"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatever; this is our testimony to the whole world. The Spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we certainly know, and testify to the world, that the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world." (George Fox, 1661)

Despite claims that Quakers aren't Christian, this is a stand made out of Quakerism's Christian theology.

2) Being a pacifist does not being anti-American, or that you do not want to help your country. My Quaker grandfather and mother volunteered for WWII, and served as nurses in Europe. Some of their friends went further, and signed up for combat duty, despite their reservations. Others filed as conscientious objectors, and served in the domestic service corps. All of them did their duty as they could best reconcile it with their faith.

3) Quakers and pacifists do not wish they were in another country. Posts have wondered how we would like Cuba or middle eastern dictatorships, and the answer is that we wouldn't. If we were there, however, we would argue for the same things that we do here: freedom from persecution, freedom for faith, and peace over war, as pacifists in repressive countries have done for hundreds of years.

4) Posts have called pacifists cowards and parasites for not being willing to fight. I disagree, and I think of pacifists in the Red Cross and in the AFSC, people go into war zones to help people knowing that they might be killed. I spent a little while helping war refugees in Asia, and I met Quakers there working on land mine removal, and pacifist Catholics who had lead familes out of battle zones, and I don't think they were cowards.

Ultimately, though, I'll accept being called a coward by people who are in the military- they've made a decision to put their life on the line in a way that I won't. But _only_ from people who have served (and my friends and relatives who have served don't say this); anyone else who calls pacifists "cowards" or "parasites" without having served in the military condemns themselves.

35 posted on 10/22/01 5:44 PM Pacific by dan909
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[dwbh]

BTTT for your post #49 -- see, I knew we would find agreement in here somewhere!

Well, I never said I was anti-war, but I also think that those who are anti-war deserve to have their voice heard. Without that right, we are no better than the people we are fighting against.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I happen to think this is an encouraging and postiive step. Lets just be happy with the "Winds of change". I happen to believe this bodes well for what the Union might do. I'd rather see the glass half full on this issue, than half empty.

Also, my brother in law, , my sister and his daughter and a niece of mine are all teachers. My sister works as a Regisrar. With the exception of my niece, they all voted for President Bush. I must say our infuence had a lot to do with that. We talk!! We were loaded with FACTS,..and they finally voted for Bush on this last election.

We will continue in our endeavors, to enlight our niece!! ;o)

Things in America are improving!!

AND THANK YOU SUMMER!!!! I for one am happy to read this!!!

[summer]

dwbh, As I recall, you did not originally mention the subjects I mentioned in response. Nor did you mention any subjects. You are now talking about several posts you made. Whatever.

If what you are saying is that current events are discussed in the classroom, and so is American History, then, yes, I agree. And, that a teacher SHOULD keep his or her point of view out of it. But, the truth is -- they often don't, and their point of view often DOES impact how and what they teach. Any honest teacher would agree with me on that.

However, your first response criticized NEA President Bob Chase for bringing up "subjects having nothing to do with education" or words to that effect. I had no idea what you were talking about in that brief phrase.

[summer]

Hi JoeEveryman, LOL! Thanks for posting, and for clarifying this matter for me. :)

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I for one am happy to read this!!!

opps!!! excuse the gramatical errors.. I'm in a hurry and hit post instead of preview.. ughhhhhh!! ;o)

I would make that kind of an error in a reply to a TEACHER!! LOL

[dwbh]

What dan909 endorses is fine, but it's not the same as the generally accepted definition of pacifism. Webster's says pacifism is "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes, esp. on moral or religious grounds." This means a pacifist does not believe we should be settling our dispute with the Taliban with military force, under any circumstance. Those who believe in righteous self-defense may be justified, but they are not pacifists.