Replies

Well summer, this is a nice sentiment, but teachers with independent minds are not going to blindly follow the NEA when it comes to subjects that are not related to education. If they criticize the war, most likely they are doing it out of their own moral convictions.

Dear dwbh,

Thank you so much for taking the time to post and respond.

And, I agree with you, in that: teachers with independent minds are NOT going to blindly follow the NEA -- yes, dwbh, many of those teachers already left the union. That's why I'm addressing my post to those still in the union. Still blindly voting for whatever candidate appears on the NEA endorsement mailings, even when the candidate has not done anything to help teachers ever.

But, here is what you said that I strongly DISAGREE with: "subjects that are not related to education." What do you mean by this? Are you saying that "current events," "American History," and other such subjects have no place in the classroom? Really?

Finally, if teachers are criticizing this war -- this war that we are fighting as a result of having been attacked -- then, in my opinion, such teachers have NO "moral convictions" -- and, consequently, should not be teaching in the first place.

dwbh, you know I enjoy chatting with you, even when we disagree. If you care to elaborate on your response, I would be interested in hearing what else you have to say, as you have not swayed me one bit.

Sincerely,

An independent-minded, FL certified teacher

And, I agree with you, in that: teachers with independent minds are NOT going to blindly follow the NEA -- yes, dwbh, many of those teachers already left the union. That's why I'm addressing my post to those still in the union. Still blindly voting for whatever candidate appears on the NEA endorsement mailings, even when the candidate has not done anything to help teachers ever.

You can't make the assumption that everyone that supports the NEA platform is doing so "blindly". Agreement is not the same as willful ignorance.

But, here is what you said that I strongly DISAGREE with: "subjects that are not related to education." What do you mean by this? Are you saying that "current events," "American History," and other such subjects have no place in the classroom? Really?

Of course not. There is a separation between how a teacher feels about current events and how the teacher teaches those current events. It's not impossible to teach a subject objectively while feeling very strongly one way or the other about it. In fact, I would say that ability would be what separates those who teach from those who proselytize.

Finally, if teachers are criticizing this war -- this war that we are fighting as a result of having been attacked -- then, in my opinion, such teachers have NO "moral convictions" -- and, consequently, should not be teaching in the first place.

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.