tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8787999482934202364.post4580901727082073099..comments2023-05-28T07:46:13.657-04:00Comments on social issues: A conspiracy theorist in the classroom...Leonard Wakshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10948820385522641682noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8787999482934202364.post-53317280610752053272009-01-29T13:44:00.000-05:002009-01-29T13:44:00.000-05:00I have been intrigued by the Keegstra case and how...I have been intrigued by the Keegstra case and how issues it raises are also raised in the "Intelligent Design" cases cropping up all over the US. <BR/><BR/>In particular, your third question is an interesting one: <BR/><BR/>2. The court maintained that teachers do, in fact, have a right to free speech that can be exercised in the classroom. Obviously, in the case of hate speech, that right is limited by Section 1. But can other kinds of teacher speech be limited? What, exactly, is the scope of this right?<BR/><BR/>I think Stanley Fish hits the nail on the head in his new book "Save the World on Your Own Tim." Free speech rights and academic freedom rights are different. Teachers are employees of their school district and should be teaching from its curricula; while they may speak in class over and beyond the curricula, this speech is not protected as any sort of academic freedom. Just as free speech rights can be limited (not diminished) via employer-employee contracts (one may be justly sent home if one wears political protest attire against an employer's will), teachers' can only say things above and beyond the curricula at their own peril. (Everyone has a right to say as they please, but not to a job).Kevin Currie-Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401531417243089948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8787999482934202364.post-47059078394017876342009-01-13T16:03:00.000-05:002009-01-13T16:03:00.000-05:00Very interesting case. I was just reading an arti...Very interesting case. I was just reading an article in today's NY Times about a pediatrician contesting another set of conspiracy theories: the idea that vaccinations cause autism. This, of course, is a more widely accepted conspiracy theory than "the Jews are controlling the world" -- more widely accepted, at least, among educated young people interested in teaching and children.<BR/><BR/>It would be interesting to discuss these theories in tandem. To me, both the idea that Jews are out to control the universe and that vaccinations cause autism are dangerous, pernicious, and thoroughly lacking evidence. To some of our students, there might be a difference. Last semester, some of my students agreed that it was reasonable to believe that human beings have been abducted by space aliens. What makes a theory a conspiracy theory? At what point is an idea too outlandish for the classroom? <BR/><BR/>Thought-provoking case indeed.Amy Shuffeltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10225473946644348204noreply@blogger.com