Oy. There's a guy on a friend's FB link arguing that teachers always teach their beliefs a bit. As an example, he uses teaching To Kill A Mockingbird by saying, "When we teach To Kill a Mockingbird, we talk about how racism is wrong." To which I replied that I thought that wasn't really a belief, racism is just wrong.

He now says I'm quibbling over terms...Dude. I seriously hope he's not really a teacher.

In a way, it doesn't matter what Palin actually intended or what Loughner's motive turns out to be. Palin has used violent imagery. Including a cross-hairs aimed at Giffords (among others). And express firearm metaphors.

Maybe it's a coincidence that Giffords was targeted, maybe it isn't. But until we get clear answers, there's a legitimate question of whether the imagery -- and specifically, the cross-hairs -- influenced Loughner. And the very legitimacy of the question means that Palin has A Problem. Because the cause-and-effect issue is out there. And it'll be a long, hard road (if it's even possible) to put that issue back in.

And what's even more frightening is that Palin isn't the worst offender in terms of audience plus extremity of violent imagery. ("Tiller the Baby Killer" comes to mind.)

And in further symbolism, I'm listening to a (recorded) radio program featuring soul hits of 1968, a tense year in U.S. history if there ever was one. Playing -- "Little Green Apples." As gentle (albeit sexist, in its way) a love song as you could want.

To which I replied that I thought that wasn't really a belief, racism is just wrong.

Not to a racist.

Oy. There's a guy on a friend's FB link arguing that teachers always teach their beliefs a bit. As an example, he uses teaching To Kill A Mockingbird by saying, "When we teach To Kill a Mockingbird, we talk about how racism is wrong." To which I replied that I thought that wasn't really a belief, racism is just wrong.

It's a bad example, but I agree with what he is saying. History is not an objective set of facts. It's a story told with facts. There is always some level interpretation, even if its what you choose to emphasize given your research and what you leave out. Same thing with teaching. You can't teach everything, you have to filter. Ideally, you try to be as objective as possible, but, especially with literature, everything is open to interpretation.

But we can all agree that one of the lessons of To Kill A Mockingbird is that racism is unjust, right? And we can all agree that that's wrong, right? That can't be teaching your beliefs.

Teaching that the ghosts in "Turn of the Screw" can't possibly be real because the supernatural doesn't exist if you're an athiest-yeah, that would be teaching your beliefs, but I've never even heard of a teacher handling them that way.

The whole thing started in reference to this [link]

An Ohio science teacher accused of burning the image of a cross on students' arms said Tuesday that he's disappointed school officials voted to fire him.

Well, that's an opener.

"All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular, although many are born upright." - E. B. White.

Thanks everyone for the engaging conversation and great links. I'm particularly struck by the comparisons to the rhetoric during the Civil Rights Movement.

WRT teaching one's beliefs: I would describe the view that racism is wrong as an ideological position. And yeah, I share it.

An Ohio science teacher accused of burning the image of a cross on students' arms said Tuesday that he's disappointed school officials voted to fire him.

He did a lot more than that - he was teaching Creationism.