High school teacher compares bush to hitler

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2002
10,073
111
63
42
KY
www.retrojunk.com
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4508296,00.html
Teacher on leave after comments
District cites policy requiring balanced views in classroom

March 2, 2006
An Overland High School geography teacher was put on leave Wednesday while Cherry Creek Schools investigates whether he violated district policy that requires balanced viewpoints in the classroom.
Jay Bennish, who teaches 10th grade world geography, is being investigated for making biased, anti-President Bush comments in class during a discussion of the State of the Union speech last month.

"These are serious allegations and we're very concerned about it," said Tustin Amole, spokeswoman for Cherry Creek Schools. "This does not reflect the type of teaching that we want to see in Cherry Creek school district."

Bennish could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

On Feb. 1, Bennish, who has been at Overland High School since the fall of 2000, had a discussion in his class about the State of the Union address.

Sean Allen, a student in the class, taped the discussion, in which Bennish made a number of unfavorable comments about Bush that upset Allen's father.

"He said that some people may compare (Bush) to Hitler," Amole said.

The school district did not learn about Bennish's lecture until last Wednesday, when it received an e-mail about it from an out-of-state person who had seen an online column on it written by Walter Williams on www.townhall.com, Amole said. That same day, Allen's father also called the principal of Overland High School to complain about the teacher, and the complaint was forwarded to the district, which began its investigation.

"After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate," Amole said. "There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view."

Allen's father apparently gave a copy of the taped discussion to KOA radio host Mike Rosen, who did a show on the subject Wednesday.

Since then, a number of parents have called the school about Bennish's remarks, both in support and in opposition.

Amole said that Bennish told school officials he had received threats as a result of the controversy.

Amole said that the ensuing brouhaha over Bennish's lecture has become disruptive to the school, which led to Bennish's being put on leave Wednesday.

"We felt it was better for all concerned if he was out of class," she said. "This is not a punishment at this point."

In the meantime, the district is investigating whether Bennish violated its policy on teaching about controversial and sensitive subjects, and has reminded teachers about the policy. "We do want teachers to express their opinions, but to put that in context and to provide opposing points of view," Amole said. "All discussion must be fair and balanced."

District officials have been talking to Bennish and his students as part of the investigation.

"We want to find out all the facts, what other students have to say about it, whether there have been other incidents," Amole said.

Amole said the district hopes to complete its investigation of Bennish this week.

Apparently, this is not the first time he has been in hot water over comments made in class, according to Amole.

A few years ago, another student complained about remarks Bennish made in class. In that case, Bennish met with the parent and the school principal, and the issue was resolved without district intervention.

Amole could not provide details Wednesday of the earlier incident, but said the district encourages students and parents to voice their concerns.

___________________________________________________

so....what the does one teachers biased views have to do with geography.? i thougth school was a place to teach facts not opinions.
 
http://michellemalkin.com
Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.
Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

0452

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has the intention to kill innocent people?
 
this is what id call an interesting class. Obviosuly theres a few things wrong with what he said, but who gives a shit, thats what discussions and debates are for. I, for one, wouldnt skip his class. I say: keep it up
 
yes but arent you missing the point? it is a GEOGRAPHY class. not a class on debate, not a poli sci class, but GEOGRAPHY. the teacher should not be teaching the young impressionable minds his opinions.
 
tru tru (about geo. class) Theyre 16, not 10. Im sure they can think for themselves, but whatever. This is what happens when you dont do your jb.
 
they can think for themselves but teenagers are still very easy to be manipulated and misguided on ideas, opinions, and beliefs. not all but most. look at the suburban youth that are very influenced in a bad way by gangsta rap.
 
PuffnScruff said:
yes but arent you missing the point? it is a GEOGRAPHY class. not a class on debate, not a poli sci class, but GEOGRAPHY. the teacher should not be teaching the young impressionable minds his opinions.

I firmly agree with you. Kids should research for themselves, and form thier own opinions. Kids these days, and kids of that age basically agree with what ever their parents are trying to say. I had a Chemistry teacher, that taught. Kids would try and ask her shit about her life/religion/and politics as well, and she just said, "Im not talking about this with you kids." I totally understood because, we are in Chemistry class, this isnt show and tell. Plus what difference does it make what ur teachers opinions are? They are their to do their job and that is to teach us facts, not try and brainwash into believeing exactly what they believe.

However i do agree that classes with teachers like the one in the article are more interesting, but the student gets the least out of it in the long run.

A teacher must give their students the facts, and then let the students themselves form their OWN personal opinion. So that way, ya know, they actually learn a thing or 2.
 
another student that was interviewed on the local news station had this to say
"This is like a usual thing at our school. Three quarters of the teachers are anti-Bush... very much so."

one of the parents said that the teacher was going to introduce Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" as part of the curriculum.
 
ive played that highschool in lacrosse, before...

i didnt read the article, but from the title this only makes bush look a little more like hitler...


EDIT: Respond to a Bush thread and my post count is 911....wierd...
 
jbrolax said:
ive played that highschool in lacrosse, before...

i didnt read the article, but from the title this only makes bush look a little more like hitler...


EDIT: Respond to a Bush thread and my post count is 911....wierd...

at least read the article...:rolleyes:
 
I think more people are mad cus someone knocked Mr. Bush. Cherry Creek is rich, white, and stuck up really, of course they are going to make a big deal of this.
First of all I would enjoy this a lot.Debating with a teacher, I dont know one student who didn't want to give a teacher their point of view and try to prove them wrong or vice versa. This does nothing but make the class better if you ask me. And it's not just Geography it is World History also, the class is one of your "core" classes and one semester is World Geography and the next one is World History and Government, they mix in with eachother also, this class was the time and place for a debate like this. Also since the Communist Manifesto is in the curriculum that is bad? We went over that in 9th and 10th grade also, I mean I have no idea why someone would bring that up.
It seems to me that people are getting hurt cus yet again something bad is being said against President Bush. This will probably blow over and if anything is done to the teacher like a suspension or something that is wrong.
 
Well that kid Allen was asking questions and lets say expressing his own opinions and the teacher didnt tell him to be quiet, it seems to me they debated it in a normal fashion. I dont see the big deal, I dont think its wrong to teach this kind of thing I think its dangerous when a school only teaches one side, which is why if any punishment is handed down it is that the teacher needs to study the other points of view as well and again discuss it. I would have loved this in High School, what do you read in High School? Books, those are someone's opinions. So its ok to read certain peoples opinions but its not ok for someone to express them verbally? That to me is teaching a bad habbit to the kids worse than this teacher is.
 
Someones please explain what world geoghraphy has to do with debate.

Its not about bush bashing. Only seeing it from that pow is is narrow minded. Its about pushing political ideas and personal beliefs on young impresionable minds that can be influnced very easy, doing this in a school, when you should be doing your job, which this teacher was not doing

If a teacher that teaches math believes 2+2=6 and does not agree that 2+2=4 does that give them the right to push their personal believs onto the kids when they should be giving them facts. Should a world history teacher teach that the hollocost didn't happen just because they don't believe it did?
 
^You should read my post, it will explain your little geography thing, it is a geography/ world history and government class.

Everythign went the way it should of in this situation. The teacher was pretty much saying what no one hears about. Then the kid said his side and they debated. What is the big deal. You know what the best part of this all is, the kid went home to his father and asked him about it. Not to a video game, a tv show or music, to his parents. For some reason I like that a lot.
About your math thing, 2+2=6 is wrong. Who is right or wrong in this case? It is opinion, there is nothing wrong with sharing opinion.
I think people are getting mad cus they are afraid they might lose a vote or something, like it hurts you to see this happen. This is being blown out of proportion for no reason.
 
artisticgurl said:
Well that kid Allen was asking questions and lets say expressing his own opinions and the teacher didnt tell him to be quiet, it seems to me they debated it in a normal fashion. I dont see the big deal, I dont think its wrong to teach this kind of thing I think its dangerous when a school only teaches one side, which is why if any punishment is handed down it is that the teacher needs to study the other points of view as well and again discuss it. I would have loved this in High School, what do you read in High School? Books, those are someone's opinions. So its ok to read certain peoples opinions but its not ok for someone to express them verbally? That to me is teaching a bad habbit to the kids worse than this teacher is.
Not all books are based on opinions. Lots of books are based of facts specially text books. Math, history, social studies, history, etc are based on facts. This geography class should not be taught with opinions but facts from the text books. Where does debate , specially this sort of poli sci debate have to do with geography? What does making the class read the communists manifesto have to do with geography?
 
Just on the side here:

The matter discussed in that class was very akin to geography. Geography is about more than just capitals, city states and mountain ranges. It's a very broad topic.
 
PuffnScruff said:
one of the parents said that the teacher was going to introduce Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" as part of the curriculum.
That's not necessarily a bad idea though, as long as he doesn't claim it as truth. There's no shame in reading the communist manifesto or even mein kampf in school, part of going to school should definitely be about learning about large belief systems which have changed the world, as long as you make sure you provide education about the consequences of implementing belief systems such as communism.
 
There's quite a few things I've noticed here. First, the father of the student is obviously a Bush-supporter. Second, the teacher is obviously very Anti-Bush. Third, puffnscruff doesn't care that it was geography class, his problem is that Bush was insulted. :)

The problem, overall, is that he violated school policy. The problem is not that it's geography class; every teacher is known to go off on a tangent. However, in my school, teachers are opinionated on things, but they usually use facts to prove their points and don't insult the person, but rather state a problem or whatever with their actions.
 
PuffnScruff said:
Not all books are based on opinions. Lots of books are based of facts specially text books. Math, history, social studies, history, etc are based on facts. This geography class should not be taught with opinions but facts from the text books. Where does debate , specially this sort of poli sci debate have to do with geography? What does making the class read the communists manifesto have to do with geography?

Besides maybe maths, history books are somebody's account of an event who's to say whether its right or wrong who knows? Im skeptical of it all being completely true and accurate.
I disagree that only facts should be taught ofcourse it should be a large part of it though. I went all through High School reading facts I never was taught to make my own opinions until I left and educated myself on things that interested me I always felt like if it wasnt the text book answer I'd be wrong. I think if more discussions where made in class it would have been beneficial to alot more students since I see people my age who dont form their own opinions.
Im not sure if that school has different classes that cover this subject but as others have said it does fit into geography.
I dont know about that book, from what I read a parent brought it up that a teacher was introducing it, not sure if it was neccessarily the same geography teacher.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Back in the day, we used to recieve donations sent as cash in fake birthday cards! Those were the days! I still have some of them, actually.

Now we have crypto.

Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80

Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww

Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8

Members online

No members online now.