« Survey of Blog Readers | Main | Heritage Flight »
March 02, 2006
Denver High School Teacher on a Rant
I could go on for hours as to what I find not just politically dishonest, but intellectually, philosophically, and ethically dishonest and dangerous about the pontifications of Jay Bennish, a Overland High School, 10th Grade World Geography Teacher, but it is going to take me some time to formulate a proper analysis of, not just the words, but the method of delivery.
Allow me the opportunity to present you with the raw data so you, noble reader, can formulate your own opinion of the "lecture" presented to a (arguably) captive audience of 15 year olds.
From 9 News Denver "Actual taped lecture of Jay Bennish"
My disdain is not a result of my politics in this case! I would have the same opinion of any teacher in a classroom presenting as one-sided a lecture on topics that are as subjective as philosophy, diplomacy, politics and economic theory as this one from any perspective. It is the role of the teacher to illustrate that opinions vary in this world and it is a never ending challenge to ascertain the facts of an argument and to formulate a valid opinion, belief, or value from the smorgasbord of information we are pummeled with daily in this world.
As one who has been formally trained in argumentation, persuasion, classical rhetorical theory, and debate, I find the teacher's lecture categorically reprehensible. The tone of the delivery is manipulative and coercive, utilizing a forceful authoritative delivery method, replete with loaded language, rhetorical questions, non-contextual quotes and outright non-factual statements from a perceived authority figure; whereas to challenge such ideas presented could be viewed as detrimental by the student in the form of peer humiliation and/or grades.
I would welcome the opportunity to argue either for or against this teacher's perspective in a college level political science course, philosophy course, a communication in politics course, or better yet an ethics course where an open structured debate is facilitated and governed by logical premise and supportive evidence. But to subject untrained high school sophomores to this type of diatribe represents a moral bankruptcy in today's academic training that needs to be addressed.
What concerns me is that a number of people see no wrong in this teacher's message, delivery or perspective simply because it is the point of view of the "Tolerant Left" against the "Narrow Minded" right. That is intellectually dishonest!
March 2, 2006 in Politics | Permalink
Rate this post: (data provided from NewsGator Online)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c58ed53ef00d83429078f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Denver High School Teacher on a Rant:
» Local News from Eighty-Twenty
[Read More]
Tracked on Mar 13, 2006 8:54:35 PM
» gomez article from gomes blog
it's my opinion on that theme [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 27, 2006 4:12:55 AM
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Jay's got issues. I can find nothing in his "lecture" that could be considered anything other than indoctrination. He has crossed that line that is necessary in the classroom. It is one thing to try to motivate students in independant thought, it is another to just prattle on with the latest moon-beam, swap-gas babble of the extremes("Will",get out of the light and quit inhaling). What is scarry is the hear some of the students pukeing back his muck like a bunch of lemings. Teach; do not preach.
Posted by: ken | Mar 10, 2006 2:03:05 PM
Reader HRK is correct.
Jay Bennish does indeed "Teach" in the Cherry Creek School District and it should be made clear that this is not part of Denver Public Schools.
As I responded to HRK in a private e-mail, I do live here in the "Denver Metro Area" and I do fall into the trap of referring to all of our area as Denver, including Englewood, Littleton, etc... I do it mostly because I have a national readership, and I need to sometimes find a commonly known point of geographical reference.
But for as accurate as I try to be in my blog posts, I should have clarified.
Thanks for allowing me to post your e-mail HRK.
-JC
Posted by: John Carmichael | Mar 6, 2006 11:10:04 AM
As you spend hours reviewing Jay Bennish comments you might check a little geography and realize that Overland High School is not in Denver, it is in Aurora, Colorado and part of the Cherry Creek School District which is a far cry from the Denver School District.
I listened to the rant and wondered about the many factual mistakes he makes. The one I wondered about first was his statement that the Israelis had assassinated a British Prime Minister in Palestine. I had never heard that and it turns out not to be true although a Lord Moyne was killed in 1944 and he was a minister of some sort and a friend of Churchill but hardly a British prime minister.
Go to it but it is annoying to see Bennish referred to as a Denver teacher because that is not true.
HRK
Posted by: HRK | Mar 6, 2006 11:05:02 AM
Jay Bennish's teacher ratings
http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/colorado/aurora/overland_high_school/jay__bennish
http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/colorado/aurora/overland_high_school/jay__bennish/parent_ratings
Posted by: MPH | Mar 4, 2006 12:41:03 AM
I think that it's wise to heed the remarks of Dee Rambeau above -- we've had only one side of the story. My son had two classes with Mr. Bennish and the thing that impressed him most was the teacher's plea that the students think and reason and make up their own minds. Obviously, Mr. Bennish's remarks are provocative -- I remember provocative remarks from my teachers about Nixon during Watergate. Some were pro-Nixon, some anti-Nixon and we took them for what they were: opinions. As students, we made up our own minds.
With regard to the Bush-Hitler statement: I think that I'm as weary as anyone that we have too many comparisons to Hitler. But I had an interesting conversation with an elderly woman in Los Alamos, New Mexico, just less than a year after 9/11. She grew up in Berlin in the 30s and escaped to the U.S. before it was too late. She compared the mood of the government to that of the Nazi party during the 30s. I think about that conversation now and then as our country's actions walk the line between an aggressive stance on terrorism and hubris.
The kids at Overland are old enough to make up their own minds on this issue. We should leave it to them. Without dialogue and debate, we would still be huddled in caves, fearing the night.
Posted by: Overland Parent | Mar 3, 2006 10:20:09 PM
So let me get this strait: If a high school teacher gives a religious opinion of his/her own or even wears a cross then it is called indoctrination and corruption of young minds. The ACLU sues the school and the teacher gets fired... etc.
If on the other hand a teacher compares Bush to Hitler and says nasty things about America in a GEOGRAPHY class, then is it called free speech? Aren't both religious beliefs and freedom of speech covered in the first amendment?
Personally, as long as the school is a PUBLIC school funded with tax-payers money, I want neither the religious speeches nor the one-sided political propaganda arguments to be delivered to the young kids. The reason for this is that we are forced to pay taxes for education and have no true FREEDOM in selecting our teachers. Therefore we as forced payers of education deserve a standard of education that excludes propaganda.
Although radical, the only real solution to this would be the libertarian way. This is: GETTING RID OF THE PUBLIC SYSTEM OF EDUCATION AND MAKE ALL SCHOOLS PRIVATE. This way, we let the market forces dictate what is said or not inside the class. If you don't like what is said in class and the principal of the school will not take actions, then you just find another school and PAY for it.
If all schools were private, then teachers could say whatever they please as long as the parents keep paying by choice and not by FORCE through taxes. Then the freedoms of Religion, speech and assembly in the first amendment would be granted to all teachers and students.
What about education for poor? Private donations, and scolarships will take care of most of them.
Is a total private system perfect? NO. Is it better and more fair than forcing people to PAY through taxes wheather they use the public system or not? ABSOLUTELY YES!
Bt the way, education is neither in the US constitution nor in the bill of rights.
Posted by: Freak | Mar 3, 2006 7:33:26 PM
I've heard from multiple sources, including the comments below, that Mr. Bennish did in fact give opposing viewpoints in the last, unrecorded, half of the lecture. Now, I reluctantly agree that what is presented appears to be too biased and inflammatory for high school kids. The whole point of school is to teach impressionable minds after all.
However, Americans are experts at jumping to conclusions and basing decisions on partially, and deliberately, presented evidence. It would be a shame to punish someone who may actually be a teacher who is enthusiastic about his job (we need all those we can get, trust me) without hearing the whole story.
This blog and the comments, and the media in general (as John C. so often reminds me), are not a court of law and are certainly not unbiased. Those of you who have already sentenced him should maybe re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Refresh yourself on the concept of Due Process.
Posted by: TW | Mar 3, 2006 7:23:59 PM
To Pauly,
I appreciate your support for your teacher, and I know you probably feel that all of this attention being focused on a presumably well liked teacher is uncalled for. Especially as you put it, Mr Bennish declared that the following monologue was specifically his opinion.
I recognize that you probably align yourself somewhat (maybe not entirely) with some of the premises that Jay asserts. And I fully acknowledge that yes, rants like the one captured on tape do illicit thought and commentary, whether or not you are prompted or advised to do so.
I have had a number of controversial high school teachers in my time. And I can remember a number of them that even though I did not cater to their particular political view, I still valued them and appreciated them. You may feel the same about Mr. Bennish.
What the majority of folks that are outraged about relating to this diatribe is the method of delivery. It is subtle, and thus more dangerous. A common method in persuasion is called aligning, whereas the presenter aligns or concedes an insignificant fact of the argument in an effort to appear accommodating and open to countering opinion. This method, when employed surreptitiously, as I am of the opinion Mr Bennish was intentionally exercising in delivering his opinion, to an untrained (in the art and science of rhetoric) audience is unethical.
Also, Mr. Bennish's declaration of "This is my opinion" in no way grants him neither carte blanche nor absolute freedoms of speech. If you question that, what if a teacher had gone on to say words that were derogatory against a Civil Rights Leader like Dr. King, or claimed that all brown eyed people are idiots! Neither of which are true, or able to be substantiated by factual evidence, yet they are the opinion of the teacher and that teacher can choose to state this opinion in a classroom. Should that teacher be allowed to continue to have the opportunity to distribute this drivel to a captured audience? No! But it was just his opinion! Regardless, the teacher is in a position of authority and is charged by our society to educate those placed in his or her charge on the subject matter within the syllabus. Not leverage the front of a classroom as a personal soapbox for distribution of emotionally charged propagandist statements. No matter how they are couched or prefaced.
Now if he had honestly presented the argument that "SOME... are of the opinion that..." then add all of the rest of his monologue, interlaced with a number of "However, others are of the opinion that..." and presented the countering opinions with the same respect and passion, this story could have been different.
He did not do that! His voice, delivery, vocabulary and characterizations relating to Americans, Capitalism, and the President of the United States were clearly represented as HIS opinion and unfortunately were not supported with syllogistic premise. He may have said in the end “But I could be wrong…” but to those of us who have heard and experienced first hand, manipulative speech of a motivated individual, we are left with no other recourse than to dismiss the insincere accommodation.
Posted by: Dave Longen | Mar 3, 2006 6:10:13 PM
comment for Mr.Jay Bennish
I just want to say that here you have students that support you because we know how you teach us. Another think that I want to say is that in the speech of the other daý doesn´t show all that you said, because always when you give us your opinion you tell us that is you opinion and we have the right to thing what is good or not.
In this country we have the freedom of speech? well with all of this I think we don´t have the freedom to speech because if it true all of this wouldn´t happen.
I hope you come back soon...
Posted by: Pauly | Mar 3, 2006 4:52:38 PM
All Commentors:
I welcome all of your comments! I second James' last comment in a request to all, that if you are responding to a previous comment to please provide a referece to who you are responding to. It aids all readers in following the conversation.
I also request that we all remain civil toward each other, I do not support, nor will I allow for any amount of time, derogatory personal attacks.
I welcome all points of view on my blog and will not censor responses so long as they remain respectful of one another.
This is exactly how I would have preferred to hear Mr. Bennish's class was conducted. This type of open dialog is healthy!
Thank you all again, for your continued interest in our world affairs and sharing challenging opinions.
-John Carmichael
Posted by: John Carmichael | Mar 3, 2006 3:13:46 PM
michael,
was your "shrink" comment directed at me? if so, please detail why...and try to disprove a single thing i said. do you deny what Iraqi's say in polls? do you deny the past abuses of Hussein? do you deny the turnout in the iraqi elections? do you deny that the elected Iraqi govt has not asked the American military to leave? Do you deny that the bulk of the insurgency is supported by the 20% sunni minority that dominated the country for years? Please, challenge these facts...go for it. I have studied extensively in security, terrorism and governance, have a masters from one of the top universities in the country, and have many years experience at local and fed level of govt. i understand the difference between objective information and emotive conjecture. so please, elaborate intellectually, not thru the typical name-calling that those who cannot stand a ground in a debate resort to...
by the way, i would LOVE to see a Democrat in the White House in '08...that probably discourages you. I have never voted republican in my life, but didn't vote out of disgust of both candidates in '04. I simply supported regime change in Iraq, as many folks did until the politicization of the war, though Bush made many missteps. he should not have disbanded the military, shouldn't have taken a minimalist approach...but, he is not evil and made some brave choices. i despise however 80% of his domestic policy and cutting taxes for the wealthy while raiding domestic programs and shortchanging the war effort. but you confuse me. don't tell me your another ignorant of history type that thinks the magnitude of the conflict matches the media-hype and that bombs = poplular opinion.
Posted by: james | Mar 3, 2006 3:02:18 PM
you need to see a shrink ! But this is a good move to to put a Democrat back in the Whitehouse.
Posted by: Michael | Mar 3, 2006 2:49:24 PM
Howard, call my first comment "dated" all you want, but regardless of whether he actually had WMD, he wasn't abiding by the 17 UN Resolutions and past behavior is ALWAYS a legitimate predictor of the future when you have limited information.
And, by the way, don't misquote me, I even said that in the same polls Iraqi's view us as occupiers...look again. My point is that it is CRYSTAL CLEAR, simply review the polls yourself, that each and every poll shows anywhere from 58-74% of Iraqi's saying that despite the costs they are glad we removed Hussein. This isn't my view, this is IRAQI responses to polls. And, again, not to mention the high turnout in EACH AND EVERY election that has been held. And if you want to challenge me on military history and conflict, bring it on. Just over 2K casualties in a 3 year occupation of a major country like Iraq is not a high number in historical terms. If the Shia and Kurds were also joining the insurgency in relevant amounts, there would be FAR MORE casualties. The use of suicide bombers and roadside IEDs are the main cause of our casualties, and it only takes a small number to do this. Heck a few hundred radical IRA dealt many blows to the British in N. Ireland through terror-type tactics.
Your reasoning is a perfect example of the distortions of this war, you believe that bombs exploding equates to public opinion. This flies in the face of the works of Terrorism experts who have written countless books on how a professional, small terror unit can wreak havoc, even when they do not represent popular will. By the way, while the same polls I reference above do say they don't want our occupation extending over the long-term, the large majority DO NOT want us to leave right away. Finally, what more evidence do I need than the fact that the currently elected government of Iraq, with PM Jaafari (supported by anti-US al-Sadr) and the Shia, who are not lovers of us, still know that they need us for the time being and are not asking us to leave. The insurgency is a highly organized segment of the 20% Sunni minority, plain and simple. The Shia have been emopowered and the Kurdish regions are experiencing peace and prosperity because of regime change. Yes, the insurgency is viscious, but please don't confuse it for a broad-based rebellion, otherwise you show your ignorance of history.
Posted by: | Mar 3, 2006 1:15:03 PM
In regrads to this...
Bush is like Hitler because he thinks the US is so advanced we have the right to invade other nations -- well, first of all, even if you think Bush is greedy and just out for oil, Hitler invaded countries to expand the living space of Germans. It was formal occupation with the intent to resettle. So, again, even if you think Bush has bad motives, which I disagree with, the analogy is weak, at best you could accuse him of being like the British Colonialists seeking wealth, but there is absolutely no attempt to resettle and expand the living space of Americans. Also, Bush invaded 2 of the most isolated countries in the world in the wake of 9/11, Iraq and the Taliban-led Afghanistan, Hitler invaded Czech, Poland, France, Russia, northern Africa, bombed Britain...(too many to even remember all of them) bad analogy regardless of the side you are on.
Listen closely to Mr. Bennish's words, he states that "obviously Hitler and Bush are not the same," furthermore, Bennish merely states that the sggressive sections of the S.of the U. were similar in tone to things that Hitler said. Bush is certainly threatening other members of the World community in his address.
And this...
Why invade Iraq, there are lots of other dictators out there and we aren't invading them? -- well, how many of these other dictators invaded 2 neighbors in a decade (Iran and Kuwait), used chemical weapons against 2 different populations (Kurds and Iranians), and had current standing obligations (UN resolutions, not just WMD, but social and political) tied to the cessation of a prior war (the US-led, UN-approved coalition) that hadn't been complied with in over 10 years
All valid points years ago, but in the current time frame a bit dated, not to mention ad-hoc when one considers the stated reasons for invasion; WMD's, which don't exist. Not to mention that N. Korea is a far worse offender by any standards, and far more dangerous to the U.S.
Last but not least, I need not quote your ridculous argument that we are thought of as liberators by the Iraqi's. Not even the Bush administration has continued that line as it is patently obvious that is not the case in Iraq. If we, the largest standing military in the world, were only dealing with a select few dissenters in Iraq. We most certainly would not be sustaining the level of casualties that we are.
I must concur that the missing 30 or sominutes of missing lecture is suspicious at best and dispicable at worst. Furthermore, Mr. Bennish doesn't admonish Allen for his questioning, rather he complements the student for positing a valid inquiry and states that it is precisely the sort of question that should be asked. Not likely the behavior of an idealouge.
Posted by: Howard Roark | Mar 3, 2006 12:00:20 PM
What drives me crazy is he thinks he's so smart but uses the typical, way over-generalized, bad analogy approach commonly used. Well, here's some picking apart of his simplistic logic:
--Bush is like Hitler because he thinks the US is so advanced we have the right to invade other nations -- well, first of all, even if you think Bush is greedy and just out for oil, Hitler invaded countries to expand the living space of Germans. It was formal occupation with the intent to resettle. So, again, even if you think Bush has bad motives, which I disagree with, the analogy is weak, at best you could accuse him of being like the British Colonialists seeking wealth, but there is absolutely no attempt to resettle and expand the living space of Americans. Also, Bush invaded 2 of the most isolated countries in the world in the wake of 9/11, Iraq and the Taliban-led Afghanistan, Hitler invaded Czech, Poland, France, Russia, northern Africa, bombed Britain...(too many to even remember all of them) bad analogy regardless of the side you are on.
--Why invade Iraq, there are lots of other dictators out there and we aren't invading them? -- well, how many of these other dictators invaded 2 neighbors in a decade (Iran and Kuwait), used chemical weapons against 2 different populations (Kurds and Iranians), and had current standing obligations (UN resolutions, not just WMD, but social and political) tied to the cessation of a prior war (the US-led, UN-approved coalition) that hadn't been complied with in over 10 years.
--We are imposing our will on the world -- let's not forget that 80%of the population was repressed under Saddam. Each election held thus far in Iraq has seen 70%+ turnout (how many elections did Hitler hold in countries Germany occupied??). In poll after poll of Iraqi's, whether Gallup or conducted by Iraqi organizations themselves, a vast majority said the invasion to topple Hussein was worth it despite the cost and current insurgency. Yes, they also consider the US an occupier and are suspicious, but still, to most of the 80% persecuted for decades, it was worth it. Hmmm, doesn't sound like imposing our will to me. If anyone is imposing their will it's the radical element of the 20% sunni minority, supported by foreign Islamists, that refuses to cooperate with the democratic process.
This 10th grade teacher's rant was so simplistic it is a shame he didn't provide for opportunity to comment or debate. It is very easy to pick apart his logic -- regardless of where you stand on Bush. He is unprofessional and, quite frankly, doesn't seem that bright.
Posted by: james | Mar 3, 2006 10:48:22 AM
You might want to educate yourself fully on the whole issue before you cry too many tears for poor Sean Allen.
Sean Allen recorded 20 minutes of a 55-minute class. Why didn't he bother to record the other 35 minutes of the class? Didn't the discussions that transpired during that time fit his agenda to set up his teacher?
Sean Allen and his dad sat on this recording for since February 1st. They didn't take it to the school district until yesterday. What they did instead was post edited transcripts of what he recorded on conservative blog sites, conveniently leaving out Bennish's statement on the recording that he does not expect any of the students to agree with him, that he just wants them to give issues like these greater thought. Then yesterday they went on the radio with Denver's sorry version of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Rosen, to air their complaints. Seems like if either Allen or his father were seriously concerned about addressing Bennish's classroom curriculum they would have gone straight to the district with the recording.
Lastly, I don't see any conservatives asking this. If Sean Allen was in such disagreement with what Bennish said or so offended by his comments, why wasn't his voice on that recording?
Why didn't he speak up? Maybe he did but he didn't bother to record that part of the class. Maybe he didn't have the courage to voice his opinions or state his objections until he had his daddy and a bully radio station DJ propping him up.
Oh, poor Sean Allen. Boo hoo.
The other part of this story that is missing is that the students who walked out to support Bennish have said that he told them on the very days of the class that he would probably saying things, that he may not even support himself, in order to incite dialogue and debate in the class. Apparently, Sean Allen didn't record that either.
I listened to Bennish's comments. A little over the top? Yeah. But I heard a teacher who was passionate about trying to get his students to think. Yes, he was saying some things that some people, like Allen, might not agree with, but Allen should have had the courage to respond to Bennish, in class.
Now he's getting his 15-minutes of fame and all the conservatives are trying to make him their poster boy for taking on those nasty "liberals" who challenge kids to think outside the box (cage) they live in.
Posted by: Thomas | Mar 3, 2006 9:35:15 AM
comment for jay bennish
jay bennish has apparently forgotten 9-11-2001 when 343 firefighters/emt/parmedics lost their lives during their heroic efforts in new york. not only the lives of those individuals but the lives of working americans when planes crashed into the twin towers and a PA field. his comments to his students was an act of terrorism,in my opinion. nothing is forcing jay bennish to remain in the united states and he may leave at any time he sees fit. not only was his comments insulting to them but to me and all the men and women in our armed services and to our nations leaders.
jay bennish was attempting to brain wash his students and corrupting young minds with such garbage is an act of terrorism unlike no other. a classroom is a place of positive feedback for young minds to grow and develope towards a productive life and jay bennish attempted to hinder this learning process. he needs to be removed from his position as a teacher to protect these students from harm.
sincerely a fellow emt/firefighter
Posted by: | Mar 3, 2006 12:54:57 AM
Will, you are a serious kook. You should seek counseling right away. Wait...I bet you're teaching the 8th Grade!
Posted by: Dee Rambeau | Mar 2, 2006 11:40:18 PM
Dear Blog,
Sean recorded only 20 minutes of an hour long discussion and lecture. The other 40 minutes provided the exact opposite viewpoint held by yourself and others on these same topics. Sean never recorded any class discussions in this or any other class on a regular basis and as soon as Mr. Bennish begin his presentation on the alternative view which lasted the majority of the class and presented the viewpoint that didn't back the political objectives of he and his dad Sean stopped covertly recording.
Posted by: jeffrey bennish | Mar 2, 2006 10:49:35 PM
Thank you Will, for proving that the "Right" is not the only side of the political spectrum with it's share of conspiracy fanatics!
Please! Return to your Michael Moore-athon, it is time for the adults to have a discussion.
Posted by: JC | Mar 2, 2006 2:51:41 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loos
Any true American who watches the above, free video will recognize the fact that Bush committed 9/11 the same as his grandfather's client, Adolf Hitler, (Google "Prescott Thyssen Auschwitz") committed the Reichstag Fire. Inarguably, Bush is Hitler-redux.
Schoolteacher Jay Bennish is simply putting forward thoughts that any who claim spiritual descent from the Jeffersonian Whig Founders of the United States of America should have been realizing right after they heard GHW Bush's public statement confirming his "inability" to recall his whereabouts upon hearing of President Kennedy's assassination: W's only "qualification" for office.
Death for Treason
Posted by: Will Jones | Mar 2, 2006 12:25:07 PM
