Teachers show beheading

[jd11365]

3 teachers are on suspension...one in CA, one in TX, and now one in FL. I know more about the one here in FL because it is my local news. Baaaaad judgement IMO don't ya think? The one in FL BTW was not in a social studies class in case you are saying, "Well it's current events." It was the last day of school, and the teacher (a wrestling coach) allowed the kids to play on the net and go to the link... The school had a block on the original website, but the kids went to a news website knowing news websites are clear of protective software. As a teacher, we are not allowed...by law to show something R rated without permission from both parents AND the school board, so I would say this was at least something that would be R rated! I'd be a bit upset if it were my kid. They might have thought it was "cool" when they thought to go to the site, but are too young to realize that viewing something like that can be more than they really may be able to handle. Plus, the peer pressure to view felt by surrounding kids... Now they will have that visual forever...

***disclaimer*** This post is about a teacher making a bad judgement, not about anything political.

Jamie
Mommy to Kayla
5-1-03

[JLiebCamm]

That's really terrible. DH is a teacher and is well aware of how much policing must be done any time the kids are on the internet. I only saw a tiny snippet of it on the evening news and can't get it out of my mind.

[momathome]

That is horrible. This is not something that I want to see, let alone my child. Where my SIL teaches, they need permission to show anything that is not G-rated - what kind of rating does a be-heading get?
-Lauren

[Rachels]

OMG. That's horrible. I saw the video, and I think it could cause some real psychological trauma for a child. I'd be outraged if my child had been shown that without my knowlegde andd consent. How horrifying.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[Sarah1]

HORRIBLE judgment, definitely. What are some of these teachers thinking? They can't come up with some creative lessons on their own, so they have to show a video--a violent one at that.

[flagger]

In the case of Texas, it was to 15-16 year olds and they were told what they were going to witness and given permission to leave if they so chose. I support the teacher's actions 100%. Our children NEED to see how brutal our enemies are.

As far as Florida, it is next to impossible to monitor that many kids going onto the net at once. The kids hold responsibility as well as according to your post they figured out how to get around the block on the original website.

[MelissaTC]

DEFINITELY WRONG!

[cuca_]

Oh Flagger, I disagree, 15-16 is much too young to make that decision, especially in school, where a lot of the kids I am sure were influenced by peer pressure. I can see that a parent might think that their child needs to see how brutal the war is (although I wouldn't), but that is for the parent to decide and not the teacher.

As for Florida, if a school is going to give access to the internet to its students, I would certainly expect it to monitor closely what they access. Although, I somewhat agree that the kids are partially responsible for what they access, I certainly disagree with excusing the school by saying that it is next to impossible to monitor that many kids going into the net at once. If that is the case, then they should restrict the number of students that can use the internet at a given time.

I can't begin to imagine the effects that such a horrible clip will have on young children.

Carmen

[llcoddington]

I saw it and thought I was going to be sick. I still can't get that horrible image out of my head. I would think that AT THE LEAST parents should be notified and then have a say in whether or not their children watch something this horrific. And, I would think that a lot of parents would say, "No way!"

I think there are other ways to show our kids what goes on in war time.

Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[amp]

I heard about this and find it utterly appalling! DH and I have chosen not to see or hear any of this execution for fear it will live with us for the rest of our lives. I still "see" accidents in my head that I witnessed in my life. I don't need this tape running in my brain forever, and I would be furious if my child saw it, especially without permission.

[bluej]

On some levels I agree with Flagger on this. 15 and 16 year olds are too young to see this, IMO. But 17 and 18 year olds, young men and women who are considering entering the military either by enlisting after HS or commissioning (I think that's the term I'm looking for) after college, are certaily old enough to see this. Does not mean that all of them have to or want to view it, and they should be given the option of leaving. If they are old enough to make a decision concerning their future that may involve going off to war, then I think we should consider them old enough to view the things that go on during war.

As for peer pressure...I will not allow my own children to use that as an excuse or reason to do something that is out and out wrong (meaning unlawful) or to do something that breaks our household rules. I expect my children to be stronger than that. And I'm not saying my kids won't break any rules, as I'm sure they will, but they will have to take responsibility for those actions and not blame it on peer pressure.

[flagger]

> I can see that a
>parent might think that their child needs to see how brutal
>the war is (although I wouldn't), but that is for the parent
>to decide and not the teacher.

I will trust my teachers to make decisions on lessons, and not have to go over what is taught each and every day.

[flagger]

>On some levels I agree with Flagger on this. 15 and 16 year
>olds are too young to see this, IMO. But 17 and 18 year olds,
>young men and women who are considering entering the military
>either by enlisting after HS or commissioning (I think that's
>the term I'm looking for) after college, are certaily old
>enough to see this.

It is interesting that this also happened in San Diego.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20040521-9999-7m21berg.html

I happen to agree with the parent quoted in the above story: ""If they can show Hitler and the Holocaust, why can't they show this?" said Roy Dunkin, who attended the meeting with his son, Dustin.

Where do you draw the line and allow teachers to teach? War is brutal, evil is evil. Are you going to not permit teachers to show examples of mass genocide in Rwanda? How about mass suicide in French Guyana?

The two teachers in Ft Worth have been allowed to keep their jobs.

[cuca_]

Again, I differ. You are misinterpreting my point. Of course I am not going to expect teachers to go over what they teach every day with me, but I am certainly going to question any lesson that I believe is improper. While I have great respect for teachers and what they do (my sister is one), I think trusting every teacher blindly is a big mistake.

Jen, I was not supporting or excusing peer pressure, but while it is not a good thing, it is a reality at schools, and I do think a lot of young kids could have ended up seeing the clip as a result of it.

Carmen

[stillplayswithbarbies]

I'd like to put this out here for discussion . . .

some of these kids see this same sort of thing on the video games they play, in a very realistic image. In fact they may be the one doing the virtual beheadings in some of the games.

I daresay that it may not affect some of these kids at all because they see similar things everynight on their computer or their Playstation or whatever.

I have to wonder also if this is what allowed those young men and women in Abu Ghraib prison to be able to torture other human beings. Could it be that they were so desensitized to violence that it simply did not affect them to do those things.

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[flagger]

>I have to wonder also if this is what allowed those young men
>and women in Abu Ghraib prison to be able to torture other
>human beings. Could it be that they were so desensitized to
>violence that it simply did not affect them to do those
>things.

What the Japanese did to the men and women taken prisoner was far worse and on a much larger scale than what happened in Abu Ghraib prison. What the Germans did to the Jews as part of their "final soluction" was also far worse. So I will repsectfully disagree that video games had anything to do with the evil upon which men inflict on one another.

[flagger]

>I have to wonder also if this is what allowed those young men
>and women in Abu Ghraib prison to be able to torture other
>human beings. Could it be that they were so desensitized to
>violence that it simply did not affect them to do those
>things.

What the Japanese did to the men and women taken prisoner was far worse and on a much larger scale than what happened in Abu Ghraib prison. What the Germans did to the Jews as part of their "final soluction" was also far worse. So I will repsectfully disagree that video games had anything to do with the evil upon which men inflict on one another.

[bluej]

My statement on peer pressure was just my opinion (or how we deal with it in this household), not directed at anyone or any particular statement concerning peer pressure. Without a doubt peer pressure is a reality, but in the end each student chooses to do something or not do it (this is my belief). My hope for my own children is that they be leaders and I guess have their own version of peer pressure (and I don't really mean peer pressure in this instance, but more peer acceptance) to NOT take part in things they don't agree with .

[stillplayswithbarbies]

I should have included more than just video games. We are bombarded with images of violence and sexuality in today's society that is far different from previous generations.

When I was a kid, even if such torture was mentioned on the nightly news, there were no pictures, no place to go to see the pictures. Today, the pics are shown on the news for everyone to see.

It's just a different environment than the one previous generations grew up in, that's all I meant.

...Karen
Jacob Nathaniel Feb 91
Logan Elizabeth Mar 03

[flagger]

And I was just responding that violent images are not what caused the above examples of torture and evil as you say were not readily available. I just think evil is evil and will be present with or without exposure to violent images on television or in video games. And we can agree to disagree. I can say that the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele were far worse, far more demeaning and far more painful than what has been happening in Iraq. (Do not take this that I am in anyway condoning the actions of a few either) I am just trying to put things in a little perspective.

My mom can remember seeing some pretty violent newsreels at the saturday matinee when she was a child.

[deborah_r]

Flagger, I was totally disagreeing with you here until I realized that I have most certainly seen video footage of prisoners being shot to death. I was thinking that, regarding Hitler, I had never actually seen any graphic deaths, but being shot to death certainly is a graphic death. I am not certain that I viewed these things in school however, but times are changing - they didn't have the History Channel when I was in school either, and I know I've seen this on the History Channel (or the Hitler Channel as we refer to it in my house, as that is all they ever seem to show is Hitler programming).

Somehow a beheading just seems different to me, because it is so horrific. I have not viewed the video and I do not intend to. I also feel it is disrespectful to Nick Berg and his family for people to be scurrying around to see this video, but I guess there has always been a fascination with death. I saw something on TV last night saying that, with porn being so readily available, this kind of footage of brutal, torturous death was attracting people who want to see what is forbidden. Very sad, IMO.

I do not share your great trust of all teachers, however. There are teachers who have sex with their students - should I trust their judgment as well? (A rhetorical question) Teachers are just as prone to using bad judgment as any other person.

[missym]

Here's a link to a very interesting study which was done at Stanford in 1971 regarding prison mentality. It was meant to study the psychological impact on the "prisoners," but the results were far more dramatic with regards to the changes that took place among the "guards."

http://www.prisonexp.org/

1971 was certainly pre-video games and before our media displayed violence on such a regular basis. I'm not saying there's no impact to these things, but it does make you wonder what we're all capable of given the right (or wrong) circumstances.

Missy, mom to Gwen 03/03

[JulieL]

I agree with Karen that we are living in a world where kids are not sensitive to things that a generation or so back were. I find even myself not that sensitive to violent pictures on the news and such cause you see them all the time. Although I completely agree with Flagger that video games and such isn't the center of evil. Although I think that in youth they get so caught up in those type of games where parents have to drag there kids away (I know that was true with my boy cousins) for a breathe of air, that is not good. I think that type of violence may be more evident in school social interaction than adults in adult situations. By the way I graduated high school in 1998 and saw a ton of WW2 footage in my American History class in 1997. We had to have a signed form from our parents to see it. I think in the case of WW2 it is a little easier to watch it since it is in black in white. DH just watched war footage on a PPS special for the 10 year anniversary of Rowanda's massacre and was so choked up by it. He said it was the worst war footage he had ever seen. So I think there should be a cap on what kids are able to see. And for sure I think it's the parents call. Only the parent knows how the child would react to this. What if the kid has seen violence in his own life. It could create flashbacks and emotional breakdown. My brother saw a classmate shot in middle school. I'm not so sure he could handle that kind of footage when he was in high school. Anyway just a thought.

[stella]

I haven't read the study yet, but I intend to. So I don't know what its findings are. Your statements just reminded me of somthing that troubles me any time I stop to think about it.

A lot of the work I do is in a state "penitentiary" (for lack of a better word for adolescent males. They call them state schools or juvenile justice centers or resocialization programs, but they are the equivalent to the adult penitentiary system in Texas. The one I work in is locked with razor wire all around and the kids wear orange and sleep in cells.

I am a lawyer and I represent these "kids" (anywhere from 10 to 21) in administrative hearings. They almost all involve the inmates' assaults on staff. And there's usually video footage, so I can usually tell whether the incident is true as alleged. And the kids are generally guilty to the extent that they did assault staff or start a riot.

But inevitably when I talk to my kids, there are personal issues behind the assaults. The kids (and remember what kind of people they are - many lie to me on a regular basis), but one thing keeps coming up over and over and I can't igmore it - and that is that these "guards" are harassing their inmates pretty regularly. They harass the kids about everything from their physical appearance to their girlfriends to their ethnicity. In other words, the guards don't seem to be acting much like mature adults in the way that they relate to the kids they are supervising. It is verbal as far as I can tell, because they're always on surveillance video.

Obviously this is not universally true and there are some staff whom I respect immensely who really do have these kids' rehabilitation in mind. But they are usually supervisors and the common guard in the "dorms" with the kids are not universally nice people.

Now, they are not paid terribly much, no college degree is required, no prior correctional experience is necessary, and they are ALWAYS looking for new staff as attrition is high.

But my point is that it is a tough world in the prison setting and that applies to the guards just as much as it applies to the inmates in my experience. And I don't know if prison work attracts a certain kind of individual or if they become bullies by spending so much time in such a setting, but there are a lot of bullies employed in that capacity.

I think it's unacceptable, but it is a fact of prison culture and I think it explains a lot of what happens in places like Abu Ghraib. It has to do (in my opinion) with a position of authority and a closed society and a mob mentality.

This has nothing to do with video games or violence or even the beheading video (for the record, I think it should ABSOLUTELY NOT be shown in schools), it's just my musings on prison violence in response to a study I haven't even read - so take it with a grain of salt.

[jk3]

That is so sad I don't even know what to say...I would hope kids can differentiate between what is real + what is not but I assume you are right that they experience reality differently because of all of the violence they are exposed to. Horrifying.

Jenn
DS 6/3/03

[tinkerbell1217]

OMG I cannot believe that!!!! I happened to stumble across the video as did the original poster of the Nick Berg thread. I don't watch the news much or read papers hardly at all so I had no idea what I was looking at til it actually happened. I know, I am so out of the loop with this stuff. News and current events drive me crazy so I prefer not to see much of it. But, if some teacher showed that video to my kid I would be outraged!!!! Geez, I am an adult and I almost threw up when I saw it! I can't imagine my DD seeing that!!! SHAME on those teachers!


Kelly

[jd11365]

>""If they can show Hitler and the Holocaust, why can't they
>show this?"
>

Well, they absolutely need to discuss Hussein and the war in Iraq too, but they don't need to show the beheading. Just as they need to discuss Hitler and The Holocaust, but they certainly don't show actual footage of Jews being gassed.

...and remember, while you may personally wish for your child to view it if she chooses, that is absolutely fine...it's your choice. But remember, no matter what, in the PUBLIC schools, we (teachers/administrators) must follow public laws...and one of them is not to show R rated material without the permission of a parent. Even Shindler's List is not to be shown without permission to go back to your original quote. So while I completely support your right to make a decision as a parent, it does not outweigh the laws teachers must follow. Whether you support your teacher showing it still does not take away the fact that he broke a law to do so. That is one reason why we have public and private schools. :)

Jamie
Mommy to Kayla
5-1-03

[flagger]

Please advise me law was broken? A news event is NOT R-rated. You should not require permission. Again, I bring up how many times the Challenger explosion was shown televisions in my schools. I also have news clippings from 9/12/01 and there are several pictures of the WTC footage being watched in the classroom.

[flagger]

>I do not share your great trust of all teachers, however.
>There are teachers who have sex with their students - should I
>trust their judgment as well?

Teachers having sex with their students is not the same as teaching about world and current events.

[flagger]

The images of executions are not just a part of this war. There is a long history of broadcast of these images.

1943

http://www.gbkgraphics.com/digger/execution1.jpg

1968

http://www.edelmangallery.com/killer1s.jpg

[deborah_r]

I'm using that as an example of *some* of the lack of judgment demonstrated by *some* teachers. If a teacher does not know it is wrong to have sex or an inappropriate relationship with a student, it is also possible that they or other teachers might demonstrate bad jusgment in the area of what they should and should not say to or teach their students.

[deborah_r]

If you can't see a difference between those things, I don't think any of us can convince you that there is one. Which is fine, it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

[flagger]

There is no difference between the latter. The news showed countless people making the decision to jump to their deaths. If you read the report about Challenger you know that some if not all of the astronauts were alive after the initial explosion and were killed after the impact with the water several minutes later.

[tinkerbell1217]

Good point, I agree, but the video was far more graphic IMO, just my view. I just know I wouldn't want my DD to see it, especially not in school. She can learn all she wants about war and the casualties and I am sure will learn in the future. I do not think that graphic a video should be allowed in school. If the teachers didn't realize what the students were watching at first it's understandable making the mistake. But, if it was done intentionally, I think it's wrong.

Kelly

[starrynight]

I think it was a horrible judgement call on the teacher's behalf and I would have flipped if my kid saw that in school. And my dh wonders why I want to homeschool the kids??

I read somewhere the teachers were suspended on paid leave, doesn't that defeat the purpose? Give them a few days off with pay, geeze that's punishment. Maybe if they took their pay when they screwed up they wouldn't do it again.

[flagger]

And we can agree to disagree. Some children learn just fine by reading, some learn by hearing, and others learn by viewing video such as this. I can think of nothing having a greater impact than this video. I think you can really understand evil if you view it in its unaltered rawest form. But that is JMHO.

[ddmarsh]

>The news showed countless people making the decision to jump to their >deaths. If you read the report about Challenger you know that some if >not all of the astronauts were alive after the initial explosion and >were killed after the impact with the water several minutes later

Yes and my children have seen none of that, nor the beheading, nor any of the 9/11 footage either at home or school.

It's fine if you have no problem with any of these for *your* child(ren). That does not negate the fact that these are matters that most parents wish to retain control over; whether or not they ultimately choose to allow their children to view them.

[flagger]

Do you go over each and every day's lesson plan with your children's teachers? I personally think if we do not remember and study the past we are condemned to repeat it over and over and over and the same applies to my children.

As with the ORIGINAL story, at least in Texas and CA the children were given the option of leaving the classroom if they so chose to leave.

[deborah_r]

***To me*** there is a huge difference between a video of a beheading and footage of those 2 events you spoke of. I do not know how to articulate it. Well, the Challenger one is easy for me actually - there was no ill intent - those people were not killed intentionally by another person or persons. Children viewing the beheading video will actually see a person or persons directly and intentionally inflincting brutal harm on a man with the intent of killing him. I think there is potential for that to be much more traumatic of a thing to see than the space shuttle exploding.

As far as the WTC, I think kids may have had to look pretty hard to find a lot of footage of people jumping to their deaths. I watched a lot of footage at the time and saw a few quick glimpses, and they weren't in great detail. Not that there isn't footage that is more graphic out there, but you wouldn't just stumble across it. And I don't think kids should have watched a lot of that footage either - I wish I hadn't watched as much of it as I did, because it was the same footage over and over and it made me obsess about death and terrorism and I don't think kids need to do that. Sure, they should be aware a terrible thing happened, but I don't think seeing a lot of graphic footage of the attack is going to benefit them in any way.

[murpheyblue]

I think the conduct of these teachers is appalling and, given their lack of judgment, I question their fitness to remain in the classroom. No one should have to see that video. Even if children were given the ability to opt of viewing, there are undoubtedly those who stayed due to peer pressure and who are now forced to live with the memory of that image as a result. Reading news accounts about what is on that video is grissly enough and shoudl be more than adequate to convey what happened. Simply put, there is zero educational value in watching that video. High school aged kids are more than capable of having an intelligent discussion regarding the war, whether we should be there, the anger of extremists, etc. without watching the video.

[murpheyblue]

While I agree that a picture is worth a thousand words, what exactly would children learn from the Berg video? How much some people hate us? After 9/11 is there anyone whose not clear on that?

That's not meant to be argumentative or belligerent, I'm just having trouble seeing the educational value of the video as distinguished from the newsworthiness.

[momathome]

While it is true what you said about the astronauts in the Challenger, when you watch the video tape of the shuttle exploding, you do not actually see those poor people blown up, you only see the space shuttle falling apart. There is a world of difference between that and what happened to Nick Berg. If you feel this is something that your child should see, more power to you. However, I would not want a teacher deciding for me what sort of graphic violence my child should be viewing - I would expect to at least be asked for permission. As I said before, the Nick Berg video is not something that I want to see, let alone my children. JMO!
-Lauren

[westchicagomom]

I have taught high school science for six years and this is my take on what has been said already:

1. There are a lot of teachers out there making bad judgments. I am on maternity leave at this point, but I guarantee there is probably one social studies teacher at my school who probably showed it because he thought it was cool and that his kids would think he was a hip dude if he let them see it.

2. There are a lot of very good teachers out there too who may try different and potentially controversial things from time to time. These teachers may have shown it for its "educational value" and for the discussion it would inspire. It is extremely hard to get and hold the attention of a teenager who has spent his/her life fixated on tv and video games. This is a potentially powerful visual attention getter and the right teacher could have made it into an extremely teachable moment for those kids.

3. As PP's have said, many kids are sensitized to this sort of thing. I guarantee that some of the high school kids who saw it thought it was cool and wanted to see it again. Then there are some that would turn away and say "ooh gross" and go back to putting on their make-up or passing a note to a friend. Some who slept through it. Some who thought why are you wasting my time w/ this. And then there were probably a few who would have the same reaction that the OP of the Nick Berg thread had.

I am not in any way condoning what these teachers did (because I wouldn't have shown it), but am saying that today's typical teenager is kind of scary in that they probably would not be affected by this as much as one might think.

One interesting thing that we were told in a teacher workshop given by local police illustrates this scariness. Some of you may remember the middle school shooting in Kentucky. Well the child w/ the gun apparently lined everyone up and started shooting. A teacher (I believe) was in the room or next to be shot (I can't remember) and all of a sudden yelled something along the lines of "Stop" and the shooter did in fact stop. It is theorized that this child, who in fact played a lot of video games, thought he was really just playing a game. When the adult yelled at him, it was like his mother telling him to stop playing the game, so he did.

I was in the classroom w/ the tv on when the second tower was hit on 9/11. There was a marked reaction (silence and shocked facial expressions) on that day. But a month or two later (for most kids) it was a non-issue. If it doesn't affect their day to day life, then for the typical teenager it is a non-issue. Nick Berg was just some guy who got beheaded. They have to worry about who will be their date for prom, whether they can get their parents to buy them a new car, how to pass their math test w/o studying and how to get some pot for the next party. Now there are a good many teenagers who are not this way - but unfortunately the majority are very self-centered at that stage of life. Having gotten into teaching in my late 20's, I was truly shocked how different teens were from when I was in school. And it's not necessarily their fault. Society is a tough place for today's teen.

And it REALLY scares me what things will be like when DD is that age.

[deborah_r]

I also do not see any educational value in children viewing that video. I cannot imagine that there is any eductional value in anyone viewing the video, unless it is to learn how to decapitate.

[momathome]

Thanks for your perspective, Pam! I know the reality is that teens today are mostly desensitized to violence of this nature and in all honesty, I am not sure if I had a 16 year-old whose teacher wanted permission before showing such a video what my reaction would be. I think it is important for parents to be notified when something of this magnitude is going to be shown so that we have the opportunity to discuss it with our kids before hand and get their feelings on the situation. And believe me, I am defintely fearing the day my girls become teenagers - I cringe to think what the world might be like then and what will be considered "normal" to them!
-Lauren

[tinkerbell1217]

I think that was my point, if I didn't make it clearly. There is no educational value from a child seeing something like that. I think kids know how much hate and evil there is in this world just by attending school nowadays without seeing something like that. Especially once kids get into junior high and high school! Geez, my own DD was sexually harassed by another student when she started 9th grade this year. Should that just be "part of the curriculum" too?? It exists in the world, right? So, why don't we just show all the kids sexual harassment while we are at it!

We definitely can agree to disagree.

Kelly

[tinkerbell1217]

But you didn't see them die! You did not see them burn alive or torn apart during re-entry (Columbia) or the same with the Challenger. You knew they were inside and that was all and it was horrible and sad. But, you did not see them actually die like Nick Berg.

Someone said something about showing R rated movies and such. There is a reason they are R rated. Violence, graphic violence, horror and blood, or sex and nudity. After seeing the Berg video I think it would definitely deserve an R rating. No question. I have the right to take my kid to see an R rated movie if I want to. I choose not to. Public school gives me the right to say what my child will see and learn. They have to send a permission form home for the kids to learn sex eduacation from Kindergarten and up. They have to get my permission to be able to photograph my child for newspapers related to the school also. They should have gotten parent's permission before showing that video whether or not they gave the student the option of viewing it or not. It still should have been in the parent's hands. Not the teacher.


Kelly

[flagger]

<sarcasm>And we better not let them read Chaucer, or Defoe, or Joyce or any of the books on this list http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html because there cannot be possibly any educational value from a child reading something like those either.</sarcasm>

I do not want my child to be a mindless drone of me. I want her challenged and to challenge me as well. I feel her exposure to all things, even those subjects with which I don't agree (yes at the high school level and earlier) is the best way to make her well-rounded. I trust she will make the decision that is best for HER even if it means her cancelling out my vote at the election booth.

[deborah_r]

So those of us who would not want our child to see a man beheaded *do* want our children to be "mindless drones"? I hardly see how not allowing a child to view a video of a beheading makes them a mindless drone. By all means, they can hear about it, read about it but why do they have to see the actual act? The clips on the news make it pretty obvious to me what happened - I do not need to see it in gory detail.

[tinkerbell1217]

Of course we want our children to be challenged. In all things they do. But, if my kid doesn't see that video I don't think it will make her a less well rounded individual. I still think reading about something and actually seeing it are two diff things.

[tinkerbell1217]

Glad you said it cuz I was thinking it, I just didn't know how to put it!

[murpheyblue]

I hope DD exercises her mind at every opportunity, questions authority, reads banned books, knocks down doors and shatters the glass ceiling. I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm simply at a loss to understand how watching gruesome videos of extremist violence helps facilitate that goal.

I'd be estatic if my high school aged child came home to tell me they were spending a semester in their English class reading banned books and discussing the societal mores and cultural forces that lead to such bans. Now that's eduational!

[doubleL]

By the time I was 15... I had tried cigarettes and gotten intoxicated. Best friend and I had taken her parent's car out for a spin while they were out of town. I had snuck into R-rated movies in the theatres and saw others at friends' houses where some parents were none the wiser and others knew what we were watching. I had written some lengthy term papers on world events. I had watched some families get torn apart in nasty divorces and we had some family problems of our own.

Given the opportunity to watch a beheading... I have absolutely NO DOUBT I would have taken the opt-out route... probably to 7-11 for a big gulp. I hope that when my kids are that age they won't do half the stupid stuff that I did, but that they will also not need my "permission" to watch such grotesque violence. I hope given the opportunity they too would head out to 7-11 for that would certainly be at least as educational as watching a beheading.

Lou
~David 5.01
~Elisabeth 6.03

[cuca_]

I fail to see how such a video clip "challenges". On the contrary, I believe many kids would be haunted by the images shown. I think you misunderstand other posters. It is not about keeping children from exposure to certain subjects, it is about how those subjects are handled in schools. Personally, I don't think that I would want my child to see such a clip. But I think the main point that people are trying to get accross is that parental consent should be obtained prior to such a showing. Obviously if parental consent were to be required you would readily allow your daughter to view the film, and that is your prerrogative.

By the way, I never saw a film clip of someone being assasinated or tortured while in school, this of course did not limit my expossure to a variety of challenging subjects.

[Sarah1]

Having taught high school and middle school, I can tell you that showing videos (of ANY nature) in a classroom is generally a sign of unthoughtful teaching. It doesn't take a lot of creativity or work to turn on a TV. Any idiot can do it, and unfortunately, there are a lot of bad teachers out there who are incapable of coming up with original lessons that don't involve videos and/or worksheets.

A good teacher should help his or her students construct meaning, not be passive receptors. I've taught teenagers, and I can say that this video, truly, would not be an effective teaching tool. Let's not talk wrong or right--let's talk about good teaching. This is not good teaching.

Also, I think it's inappropriate to suggest to a child that they can leave if they feel uncomfortable. The relationship between the teacher and any child who chose to leave would be compromised, and the classroom needs to be a safe place. It needs to be a place where kids can feel challenged and take risks, but they need to feel safe doing so.

[hcsl]

Children are not adults in little bodies. They do not have the capacity to understand the full ramifications of certain actions they may take. It is up to us as parents, teachers and community members to help them safely find their ways to adulthood. As adults we (hopefully) are able to make choices based on our years of experience, and because of our experiences we can better predict the consequences of actions. Leaving the decision to view a graphic beheading up to a 16 year old CHILD is not appropriate, and it is certainly inappropriate for such material to even be presented in a school. I want my child to make his way into adulthood slowly and untraumatically. Viewing something of this nature would at worst scar a child for life and at best cause nightnmares for a long time to come.

The image of a beheading is not a burden someone so young should carry.

[flagger]

The class in Texas was a social studies/current events class. In the type of class in Texas, this certainly was a current event. I think it is quite demonstrative to play this video as an example of the evil we face in the world. I applaud these teachers.

I do not need to consent for everything my child is ever taught.

[Rachels]

It doesn't actually surprise you guys that Flagger would be just fine with his child watching a video of someone's head being slowly sawed off, does it? We've had this kind of discussion before...

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/sulkoff.gif

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[Calmegja2]

No, Rachel, it doesn't. IIRC, he was fine with showing a bootlegged copy of "The Passion of the Christ" in a classroom without parental consent, to 12 year olds, on the standing that it was an excellent example of a Roman crucifixion.

If someone wants their child to see such images, then someone can take the steps necessary to make sure their child sees those images. If he wishes for Cocoa, when she's older, to see such images, then he can sit down with her, be ready to answer all her questions, and watch the video with her.

But I don't see how it's appropriate for every child, or how it would possibly be an appropriate video for the classroom.

And when Ali said this, I couldn't agree more:

I hope DD exercises her mind at every opportunity, questions authority, reads banned books, knocks down doors and shatters the glass ceiling. I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm simply at a loss to understand how watching gruesome videos of extremist violence helps facilitate that goal.

I'd be estatic if my high school aged child came home to tell me they were spending a semester in their English class reading banned books and discussing the societal mores and cultural forces that lead to such bans. Now that's eduational!


**********

[ivparker]

Pam I am also a teacher and I totally agree with what you said about teenagers today. I think that is why the teachers may have chosen to show it. They really didn't think it was a big deal. When you are dealing with even 3rd graders talking about detailed sex acts and 5th graders who have seen someone get shot before, the teacher probably didn't think it would be that big of a deal. Also, it is good to note that as a teacher I have never been told or learned in any of my classes that it is illegal or wrong to show rated R movies or to read a cuss word from a book, etc. I just knew that it probably was wrong. I think that this should be made clear to some teachers as they might just not know. I think with all the violence in this world people, even teachers, are getting desensitized by it. But for what it's worth, I would have never shown the video to my class.

[flagger]

>I hope DD exercises her mind at every opportunity, questions
>authority, reads banned books, knocks down doors and shatters
>the glass ceiling. I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm
>simply at a loss to understand how watching gruesome videos of
>extremist violence helps facilitate that goal.

Do you accept the possibility of it leading to a discussion of evil in the world. Of an explanation or discussion of why these people hate us, Jews, The Great Satan so much? To some people, you cannot really understand it just from reading about it, just from having a teacher tell you about it. When you are actually shown something such as this, it is possible a high school age child gets it.

>I'd be estatic if my high school aged child came home to tell
>me they were spending a semester in their English class
>reading banned books and discussing the societal mores and
>cultural forces that lead to such bans. Now that's
>eduational!

The point of the banned books was to illustrate that throughout history there will always be something parents do not want their children taught. If you had lived at a time or in a place where those books where banned, you might feel differently. How about your child being taught a concept with which you disagree? How about the Bible being studied in public school? How about Creationism along with Evolution? How about writings from the leaders behind Operation Rescue (even from the extremists)?

How would those opposed to gay marriage feel if in a current events class a video from a recent wedding in Mass showing two men being married and then kissing was shown?

[tinkerbell1217]

The bottom line is that not all parents are comfortable with those things being shown or taught to their children, regardless of the age of the child. The parents have the right to say yes or no. You may say yes, I may say no. That is your choice for your child. Like many have said before, there is a HUGE difference between seeing the Challenger or Cloumbia accidents or reading a banned book in high school compared to watching a man get his head sawed off by terrorists.

My best friend's son was 4 when he happened to see parts of the 9-11 tragedy on the news while his mom was in the kitchen. He was flipping through channels on the TV looking for cartoons and saw it. He had nightmares for weeks. I felt so very bad for him. Things happen, kids will see things we don't want them to, sure! BUT, in a school, a public school classroom, there is no place for showing a video like that for educational purposes. If the kids "found it" on the internet and were curious about it, there is not much a teacher could have done. But, as soon as the teacher realized what they were watching he should have turned it off. If a teacher showed it and gave students the option of watching or not, okay, but they should have gotten parents permission first.

As for the gay marriage issue, well, I am not exactly for or against, I have mixed feelings. If video was shown to my child in high school and they were kissing I wouldn't be that comfortable with it. I still do not let my 15 yr old DD see R rated movies. There is a reason "Queer As Folk" is shown on cable at 10PM. So kids can't get the chance to see it. There is a reason cable companies and satellite companies have parental controls available. Because it is a parents right to choose what their child sees. The same is true and reasonable to expect with our public schools. After all, don't our taxes pay for the education of our children?

[Calmegja2]

>How would those opposed to gay marriage feel if in a current
>events class a video from a recent wedding in Mass showing two
>men being married and then kissing was shown?

I'm sorry, I'm missing the point here.

Are you saying that gay marriage is tantamount to the trauma of watching a beheading?

I'm for gay marriage, and my children will know what it is. I don't find it to be as upsetting an emotionally traumatic experience. It'sa celebration of two adults making a commitment.

Heck, when their "Uncle" Ben (close, family friend) got married in San Francisco, we told them about it. Why shouldn't we? I tell them when other friends and family members get married.

It's hardly on the level of a beheading or a crucifixion.

[murpheyblue2]

Flagger, you and I are likely not that far apart on our views a lot of educational issues. Despite my position on this subject I am pretty liberal (living in the SF-area, home of the too-short-lived gay marriages!). As a college history major, I hope DD's education includes intelligent discussions of the ignorance and other issues that led to the Holocaust, civil wars, the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, etc. I don't mind her reading the rantings of an extremist in the classroom in the context an intelligent debate. Truth is realized through debate and for an effective debate you need strong positions on both sides. The issue of why we are so hated in the Arab world is incredibly complex and interesting and there are valid points on both sides (not condoning terrorism). I think that's a great topic of discussion for a high school class. Our only disagreement is that you actually need to see the beheading to achieve that end.


Peace my friend.

Ali
Mom to Megan 9-28-03

[flagger]

>Are you saying that gay marriage is tantamount to the trauma
>of watching a beheading?

>It's hardly on the level of a beheading or a crucifixion.

To some people who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage, yes it is. To some people, it is very disturbing, "R-rated" even. To some people, they do not want their child "traumatized" by viewing two men kissing. To some people, watching video of a black man and a white woman kissing would be "traumatic".

I live and have lived in the deep south, there are people around in certain parts of the country who would let their child suffer than have them treated by a black doctor (even in 2004). So yes, to them certain things would be just as traumatic.

[Calmegja2]

Okay. So the only way to come back to your post, Flagger, is for me to come clean.

I am a beheading bigot. I admit it. I am completely prejudiced against showing graphic images of another human being's head being sawn off of his neck to children.

Because that's the only parallel that can be drawn to the examples you listed. If someone is prejudiced against another person's skin color or sexual orientation, then that is an issue of civil rights, and being prejudiced against that other citizen's civil rights (as hopefully homosexuality will soon be a protected class).

I think that's clearly different than objecting to showing a gruesome beheading in class, but I'm already admitted to holding a prejudice against beheading.

I am all for the dissemination of information. I am not saying that the discussion cannot be held about the beheading in a high school classroom, much in the context that Murpheyblue described. I just fail to see how showing the graphic image without parental permission is necessary for the lesson to be learned.

[candybomiller]

Jamie,

In response to your original disclaimer, don't you know that everything on this board is potentially political? :)

FWIW, I totally agree that it was very poor judgement on the teachers' part. In fact, if my child were involved, I hate to say it, but I think we'd be talking lawsuit. There's absolutely no reason to show this sort of footage in the classroom. It has no educational purpose. I have not seen this footage, nor do I want to. I think it would give me nightmares.

Was this footage shown on the news on tv or did they just talk about it? I don't remember seeing it anywhere, but I try to avoid the news (too depressing, LOL). I don't need to hear about people beheading a duck with a golf club. I do think it's important that we are well informed and well educated, but I don't think that this video serves that purpose. It's gratitous (how on earth do you spell that word??) violence, plain and simple.

To show this video, without parental consent, is in my opinion flat out wrong. As a former teacher, I certainly would have never done it, and I can't imagine any of my colleagues doing it either. But, we did read banned books, we discussed the topic of gay marriage, and we had several discussions about discrimintation and prejudiced beliefs. No topic was taboo to discuss because I think it's important to expose young people to beliefs other than their own and discuss why people believe what they do, but there's just no way I could justify showing the video.

Sorry to ramble on. I tend to do that sometimes. LOL.

[Rachels]

>>Are you saying that gay marriage is tantamount to the
>trauma
>>of watching a beheading?
>
>>It's hardly on the level of a beheading or a crucifixion.
>
>To some people who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage,
>yes it is. To some people, it is very disturbing, "R-rated"
>even. To some people, they do not want their child
>"traumatized" by viewing two men kissing. To some people,
>watching video of a black man and a white woman kissing would
>be "traumatic".
>

What a sad take on the world when you're able to equate people in love with a terrorist assassin sawing through the neck of a bound victim, and when you use bigotry as the basis for an argument for why it's okay to expose kids to a video of murder.


>I live and have lived in the deep south, there are people
>around in certain parts of the country who would let their
>child suffer than have them treated by a black doctor (even in
>2004). So yes, to them certain things would be just as
>traumatic.

Well, see, that's not trauma, that's racism.


-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[JulieL]

Flaggers's responce:
>
To some people who are vehemently opposed to gay marriage, yes it is. To some people, it is very disturbing, "R-rated" even. To some people, they do not want their child "traumatized" by viewing two men kissing.

Your responce:

>I am a beheading bigot. .
>
>Because that's the only parallel that can be drawn to the
>examples you listed. If someone is prejudiced against another
>person's skin color or sexual orientation, then that is an
>issue of civil rights, and being prejudiced against that other
>citizen's civil rights (as hopefully homosexuality will soon
>be a protected class).
>
Rachel the MODERATORS responce:

What a sad take on the world when you're able to equate people in love with a terrorist assassin sawing through the neck of a bound victim, and when you use BIGOTRY as the basis for an argument for why it's okay to expose kids to a video of murder.

Please stop this line of talk now please. To some homeosexuality is a morality issue, like it or not. So you basically called Flagger a bigot because said to some people this is disturbing. You need to calm down and take your oppinions to head else where.
>

[stella]

That is racism, and in my opinion, it's wrong. But I have to agree with him that there are people in the world (and sadly, the only way I know this is from my experience in the deep south) who would object strenuously to most of the things he mentions.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be TRAUMATIC to those people's children in the way that a beheading is (hopefully) traumatic to anybody's child, but if Flaggger's point is that there are parents who will object to almost anything that can be shown on a video, well, yes, then, I agree.

I knew people in LAW SCHOOL who believed that evolution was just a theory and that it should not be taught in schools - and if it were, it should be disclaimed as a theory. I was a little taken aback at that notion.

For the record, I would be beyond incensed if some adult showed that video to my children - even when they are in their teens.

[Calmegja2]

JulieL-

I called myself a beheading bigot. I did not call Flagger a bigot.

I understand your request, however, we see it very differently, and I ask that you read my post again.

Personal morality is different than a person's civil rights, so I see it as a fair parallel to draw. A person's individual sense of morality is not what guides our present legal system (although some of the basics overlap, as they do in most civilized societies), and while I understand that to some, their personal morality may tell them that homosexuality is wrong. However, they cannot impose their personal convictions on other people, however they are based. If it's a religious conviction that draws that morality, they cannot impose what their religion defines as wrong on someone else.

Remember what Alan and Denise said in the dancing threads. If you cannot, or do not want to read threads that discuss hot button issues without taking personal offense to statements, then it's best to self moderate, and skip them.

Peace to you.

[candybomiller]

I really have to agree with Jessica here. I do think this thread has the potential to turn ugly, but I think it's ridiculous to compare a beheading with two people in love getting married. WTF?!?

JMO, though.

[flagger]

>Our only disagreement is that you actually need to see the beheading to achieve that end.

Of course it is fine that we can agree to disagree.

What I am applauding most of all is the fact that a teacher possibly reached a student and in effect their parents. It was not an example of a teacher making the news by having sex with a student. There are a great deal of bad teachers and there are a great deal of apathetic parents.

IMHO, there are going to be kids who will have a greater understanding of just how evil these people are by having seen the video. It will have a far great impact that just hearing about it or reading about it. I want my children to be challenged, provoked and taught by her teachers. Those are the types of teachers I remember to this day.

It is not meant as an attack, but I find it an interesting phenomenon that some of the people with the most liberal political views have extremely conservative views when it comes to the education of their children.

[flagger]

>It doesn't actually surprise you guys that Flagger would be
>just fine with his child watching a video of someone's head
>being slowly sawed off, does it? We've had this kind of
>discussion before...

Does it actually surprise anyone here that Rachels would be against it? The above type of comment is a thinly veiled attack IMHO and one would think better of a moderator for engaging in such.

[Sarah1]

Look, this is not personal, and I have often agreed with you on a number of parenting issues.

But the fact is, your position on this is consistent with the positions you've so vehemently asserted in the past (i.e. showing a bootlegged Passion of the Christ in a classroom). Rachel didn't say anything you haven't said yourself. And now you want to play the victim? Please!

And the part about "expecting better of a moderator"? How does that even have any relevance? Are you being taken advantage of somehow? Is Rachel not entitled to say whatever she wants as much as you are?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you're a drama queen. For better or for worse, it's TRUE!

[flagger]

>The fact is, your position on this is consistent with the
>positions you've so vehemently asserted in the past (i.e.
>showing a bootlegged Passion of the Christ in a classroom).
>Rachel didn't say anything you haven't said yourself. And now
>you want to play the victim? Please.

So why bring it up in the first place? Do people need to be reminded about my personal position? Is it not clear? Yes I see it as an attack to remind people of the past.

>What exactly was the intent behind this thread? Honestly.

I didn't start the thread. Ask the OP.

>I really don't see much evidence of you making an
>attempt to learn from other people's thoughts on the issue (to
>be fair, I don't necessarily think others are trying to learn
>from your thoughts on this, either).

Just because I will argue my point until I am blue in the face does not mean I am not learning anything from other people thoughts. It is quite a stretch to ASSume I am not.

[flagger]

>What a sad take on the world when you're able to equate
>people in love with a terrorist assassin sawing through the
>neck of a bound victim, and when you use bigotry as the basis
>for an argument for why it's okay to expose kids to a video of
>murder.

Because people who would be offended (I am not one of the BTW) would not see it as two people in love but as something so offensive to their personal belief and dogma. I am not equating the two per se, I am merely making the point that there would be people just as offended.

Here is another example. How about the showing of a graphic video of a partial birth abortion? That has been in the news lately as well. Don't you think there would be quite as many offended if that was shown in class?

[Sarah1]

Wow, did you respond fast! After I posted, I realized you didn't start the thread--I quickly edited it to reflect that--so that was my mistake. I also edited the part about you not making an attempt to learn from others, because after I thought about it, I realized that wasn't the case. So that was my mistake, too, and I apologize.

The rest of what I said, I mean--and I suggest you go back and look at my last message and read it again.

I'm not exactly sure what the "ASSume" is supposed to imply about me or anyone else, or if it was intentional, or what...but that's OK...I can handle it.

[flagger]

It was intentional along the lines of the old saying what happens when one assumes something... It was not directed personally towards you.

"Expecting of a moderator" means that she can certainly have an opinion, but to call out someone personally as if to say "Here he goes again" is not an attack of a position but of a person, IMHO. No I do not think someone with editing powers should not have an opinion, but I do think someone with such powers needs to be just as aware when it becomes personal and to not let it happen.

Again if you noticed I didn't start this thread. Call me a drama queen (I prefer king myself since I have not been a "queen" since my college days ;) ) all you want. I was merely responding to the OP POV that this was wrong of the teacher and giving examples how executions have been shown from past wars. This is NOT something new.

I think what was done to Nick Berg was an evil act. The laws of nature do not apply to the people who have committed this horrible terrible thing.

[Calmegja2]

.
>
>Here is another example. How about the showing of a graphic
>video of a partial birth abortion? That has been in the news
>lately as well. Don't you think there would be quite as many
>offended if that was shown in class?

Honestly, Flagger?

I think you're drawing in other things right now to up the emotional ante on this thread. First you bring in interracial marriage, then gay marriage, and now abortion?

There are only so many topics we can get swirling at once. What's your goal here?

People have explained that they don't for the most part, see the point in showing the graphic video without parental permission first. No one saying you have to quash discussion about it, only that a strong educational point can be made, concerning the subject, without the graphic video.

You clearly feel it's okay for children to see it. Many people on here have agreed to disagree with you on it. I suspect, as your own child gets older, and you lose a tighter control over what she encounters in the world, you may see this differently than the hypothetical situation it is for you right now for you. Maybe not. Nobody knows for sure.

I know, as the parent of a child (ren) who is considerably older than yours, than some of my parenting ideas have evolved and grown along with my child(ren).

If you'd like to draw back in gay marriage, D/X procedures, and interracial marriages, and discuss those, that's fine, but they're reading like a smokescreen at this point to deflect from the original issue.

That's okay, but they aren't all similiar interests, so you can't paint them all with the same wide stroke.

[Rachels]

Flagger, honestly, it wasn't intended as an attack in the slightest. I would fully imagine that everyone would know that I would be strongly opposed, and I don't view it as an attack in any way that you said so. I was simply reflecting on the fact that we've had these kinds of discussions before and that you've stated very similar views before. Everybody seemed to be arguing your points and expressing surprise at them, and I was pointing out that they were consistent with what you've said before. I disagree with your views, but there's no attack implied in pointing out that they have consistency, KWIM?

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[Rachels]

I replied below, but I'll address this one too. Flagger, if I'm posting birth data and people are seeming a little taken aback by that, you're welcome to say, "There she goes again," and I'll take it as fact, not attack. :)

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[flagger]

And I apologise for misreading it as anything but.

[Rachels]

Truce. :) Seriously, it was tongue-in-cheek (hence the tiptoeing smilie), and meant just as a reflection on the last thread like this. I'm sorry if it came off as anything other.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/knit.gif

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[momathome]

is the fact that the people who made the video are the very people who murdered Nick Berg and that they released the video as propaganda to rally the rebels to continue attacks against US soldiers and citizens. I also feel that it would be extremely disrespectful to Nick Berg's family to view the video - this is their son, I can't even imagine how painful it must be for them to know that such a video exists and is being viewed around the world to incite people into violence. It breaks my heart and I still do not think that something so incredibly violent and personal should be used as teaching tool in the classroom.
-Lauren

[flagger]

>FWIW, I totally agree that it was very poor judgement on the
>teachers' part. In fact, if my child were involved, I hate to
>say it, but I think we'd be talking lawsuit.

I am not trying to attack you at all, but could you explain what would be the basis for your lawsuit? What would the "damages" be? What would you seek? In civil terms, what would be the charge?

[pritchettzoo]

I think a lawsuit would be frivolous in this particular situation given the age of the students; however, if one were to sue, the claim would likely be negligent infliction of emotional distress. Here's a blurb from somewhere (I closed out that window but can find it again if someone wants the link) with a brief explanation:

Possible causes of emotional distress are of two types. One is negligent infliction of emotional distress which generally requires that there be physical symptoms of emotional distress. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, while harder to prove, does not require physical manifestations of the distress. If a teacher or other adult does something that fits all four requirements of legal negligence, and the action (or inaction) “shocks the conscience of the court,” a finding of gross negligence can be made. Such a finding generally results in punitive or exemplary damages which are intended to punish the institution and hold it up as an example to others of what not to do.

Back to the original topic, I'm curious as to WHY the teachers showed the beheading. What educational purpose did it serve? What relation did it have to the subject being taught? As far as the age of the students, our society has such strange notions about adolescence. On one hand, we don't let people drink until they're 21 because before then, they aren't able to make a reasoned decision. Yet at 18 we let them vote and go off to die in war. And most states let them drive at 16. And if a 13 year old commits a crime, in some states they can be incarcerated for the rest of his life. There is no rhyme or reason to our legal system's age requirements. It's both fascinating and frustrating. I researched adolescent decisionmaking and the law for a joint paper for my law degree and masters and was about to tear my hair out by the end of that semester. If Gracie were 16 and made the choice for herself to watch that video, I'd be worried about the after-effects. But if she were that curious, there would be nothing to stop her from downloading it (even accidentally as did Rachel) on the internet. I suppose if the choice were between her seeing it alone and her seeing it in a group setting and being able to discuss what they just saw with a trusted adult, I'd have to go with the group setting.

Anna
Mama to Gracie (9/16/03)

[flagger]

OK Jessica,

I will put it in terms you might be able to draw a connection to. Are you going to have issues if your children are ever shown the Zapruder film in history class? Frames 313 and 314 are VERY graphic.

[tippy]

BUT IT WAS SHOWN TO 15 and 16 year olds....

[tippy]

Would you want your 15 or 16 year old to see graphic footage of one of Dr. Mengele's experiments??? I wouldn't. Maybe later on...college perhaps...but not at that age. JMO

[flagger]

>BUT IT WAS SHOWN TO 15 and 16 year olds....

By the time I was between 15 and 16 years old, I had seen in class the Zapruder film as well as tape of the live broadcast of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald several times. Were my teachers wrong to have screened that in my classroom? Where do you draw the line? Certain images from the Zapruder film are VERY GRAPHIC in nature.

If you do further research into the story you will probably notice in several of the locations and schools around the country that the children themselves either brought the video in on a CD or went to the websites themselves without any assistance from their teacher.

I recognize that others want to know everything their child is taught and want to approve of it beforehand. I just happen to disagree with that line of thinking and give some faith in the teachers who challenge their students.

[Calmegja2]

"I will put it in terms you might be able to draw a connection to."

***********

Oh, thanks. ;-) My complaint before was that you were drawing in different ideas, and trying to put them under the same umbrella (interracial marriage, etc.), and that you cannot make oranges be apples, no matter how hard you may try. ;-)



I was shown the complete Zapruder film in a history course my freshman year in college, Flagger, when I was 18 years old, and no longer a minor. I will have no issue with my college student watching the film in its entirety.

Up until that point, in high school, we watched a documentary that excluded the most graphic parts of the Zapruder, but I remember Jackie's pink suit, Connolly's wave, and Kennedy's grainy grin, and the cutaway to the chaos afterward.

I don't know that a graphic film of that nature is ever completely appropriate to show without parental approvement in a classroom setting with minors. You can still quite clearly learn the lesson without the gory, voyeuristic details.

What, exactly, is the educational value of it? Clearly, in the Kennedy assassination, when discussing it, the end result is known (a death occurred). Same with Berg. A picture could have been shown of both men, and then a discussion of their deaths could follow. What's the gain from showing Kennedy's blown apart head, or the sawing motion of the Berg video?

And you keep glossing over a major objection, namely, that parental permission was not obtained before seeing it.

Where's the educational value in seeing the gore of it? Watching the exact circumstances of the death, graphically, doesn't change that the death occurred. You can learn about it without seeing the graphic nature of it.

And, as a personal favor, could you please stop capitalizing in your posts the way you are? It's internet code for shouting, and not only does it make your posts hard to read, it lends them an aggressive tone even on subjects I'm sure you're not trying to be aggressive about. Thank you.

[flagger]

>I was shown the complete Zapruder film in a history course my
>freshman year in college, Flagger, when I was 18 years old,
>and no longer a minor. I will have no issue with my college
>student watching the film in its entirety.

I saw it in 9th grade. Of course I went to a private school and graduated with 27 people. I was also taking several college level classes as early as 8th grade. BTW, Ms. Flagger went to public school and graduated with over 200 and she has no problem with it either as the students in Texas were given the opportunity to leave.

>What, exactly, is the educational value of it? Clearly, in
>the Kennedy assassination, when discussing it, the end result
>is known (a death occurred). Same with Berg. A picture could
>have been shown of both men, and then a discussion of their
>deaths could follow. What's the gain from showing Kennedy's
>blown apart head, or the sawing motion of the Berg video?

For Kennedy, you show history as it happens. I know those conspiracy theorists can have a field day discussing the motion of the head and the "shooter on the grassy knoll". I have made my feelings known on what can be gained by viewing the video of Berg as far as showing just how evil these people are.

>And you keep glossing over a major objection, namely, that
>parental permission was not obtained before seeing it.

I have not. I will state again it is not possible nor practical for a teacher to obtain parental permission for everything that is taught in class. Especially if it is a current events class like the one in Texas. The video is what is the current event in this situation. It will have a greater impact to not only discuss the video but to show it as well. I would also applaud a discussion what the conspiracy theorists are saying about the video:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_7655.shtml

There is no way having four children that you are going to be able to go over each day's lesson plan every day from here until they are 18. Maybe you can, but I certainly would not and expect that of Cocoa's teachers. There time and resources are extremely limited as is.

I will admit I probably had one of the most conservative education possible. I also went to a school that until quite recently employed corporal punishment (all the parents who sent their children there knew this was one of their methods of punishment and to my knowledge, back in the day, no parent objected). Obviously times have changed, but I will admit my perspective might be quite different than yours. However it is both of the adults in this household (with entirely different educational backgrounds) who support the teacher in Texas at least.

[Rachels]

I'd like to be done with this thread, but there are some accusations that need to be addressed.

Nobody called Flagger a bigot-- for one thing, he doesn't seem to actually believe what he's saying there; he's using it as a point-counterpoint to this discussion.

As for bigotry, here are my thoughts. I don't think there's any doubt that one of his examples (which again was a hypothetical and not his own belief) was an example of racism, right? And this, although not his own feeling, was an example of bigotry. Here's the definition of the word "bigot" from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1996, 1998):

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals...

So saying that sexuality is a morality issue doesn't remove it from the realm of bigotry. In Flagger's first example, the people who would view interracial marriage as trauma (although it doesn't at all meet the psychological definition of that) would presumably find it to be a morality issue as well, but that wouldn't make it not a racist basis for judgement, KWIM? So when the argunent here included one example based on hypothetical racism and one based on hypothetical bigotry, my reaction was that both were sad. I think they are.

My knowledge of the definition of the word bigotry and my use of it in this conversation have nothing to do with being a moderator, by the way. There seems to be a feeling among some that if I'm going to moderate, I shouldn't freely post. But that has been addressed by the Fields publicly twice now. Part of why we have two moderators is to remove the possibility that one of us will have our own views cloud our ability to recognize when a thread has become uncivil. It's a protection for us and for the board as a whole. If I were calling names here, Beth would correct me and she would be right. But I'm not. I'm reflecting on the examples Flagger gave of how someone might conceivably feel.

But my use of the dictionary definitions of words is not in conflict with my job as a mod. Nobody said, "Hey, you shouldn't have said that interracial marriage thing was racist! You're a moderator!" That's because we all know what racism means-- and Flagger's pointwas that it was a racist example. Not so with bigotry, because it hits closer to home. None of us make openly racist remarks here, because our filters are set higher than that. But some DO make bigoted remarks, because the nature of the subject matter feels more personally justifiable. But I didn't write the definition of the word. It means what it means. So I think this is a bit less about me than about discomfort with what the definition of the word "bigot" really is.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/knit.gif

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[Calmegja2]

>>There is no way having four children that you are going to be
>able to go over each day's lesson plan every day from here
>until they are 18. Maybe you can, but I certainly would not
>and expect that of Cocoa's teachers. There time and resources
>are extremely limited as is.

************

No, but as has already been my experience with schools for my children, and as was my experience in K-12 many moons ago, I trust that the teachers will have the common sense, in the face of a *controversial subject*, to at least notify the parents if they have plans to air a controversial subject, or a graphic subject.

I'm not talking about a teacher sharing daily lesson plans (although, in my district, we can request outlines for the week's lessons in advance, if we'd like to support it at home or be on the lookout for something we think our child might need help with).

You cannot portray, for even one second, that a teacher would not think that showing a live beheading of another human being might be considered controversial, and that it might warrant at least asking a parent's consent, and demonstrating what educational benefit might result from it.

I think the fact that the teachers were disciplined for their actions shows that their schools, too, held the reasonable expectation that more was required for showing such a subject, and that a teacher could reasonably discern the need for clarification and permission on such a subject.

[flagger]

In a social studies or current events class, to me it would be understood that any of the events of the day could be considered controversial. It is the reason I brought up banned books, or showing video of a gay marriage. Yes they are apples and oranges, but we can just agree to disagree whether the subject matter was appropriate or not. I absolutely know people who would be up in arms if video from a gay marriage was shown in class. They would be asking what purpose did showing such a video serve? Others would be saying as in this thread, "What is wrong with showing two people in love getting married?" There are people who have different ideas for what a teacher should be disciplined. In some circles, the outrage would be just as loud over the gay marriage video as it is over this video.

I did not at all portray that a teacher would not think that showing a live beheading was controversial. I maintain that my kudos goes to a teacher who made waves, made a child take notice, reached a child. Talking about the video without showing it is not going to have the same amount of impact.

[flagger]

Yes they were hypothetical examples of very real feelings in this country. Feelings, BTW that I do not share. I do think it would be ignorant and racist to refuse treatment of their child by a black doctor, but sadly there are people like that in this country.

[tippy]

"There is no way having four children that you are going to be able to go over each day's lesson plan every day from here until they are 18. Maybe you can, but I certainly would not and expect that of Cocoa's teachers. There time and resources are extremely limited as is."

You sound as though every day there are hundreds of video clips of live beheadings to show....This was a very extreme situation not an everyday occurance. Therefore, I don't believe that obtaining parental consent in this circumstance is anything but logical. I can just imagine the poor kid who was afraid of the ribbing he or she would take for being a "sissy" if they did decide to leave the classroom in lew of viewing the video. This was not a decision these kids should have been faced with in a classroom environment at such an age. Perhaps if they were college students in a current affairs class or political science class....

[cuca_]

Tippy, I think Flagger just does not want to understand that it is not about going over each day's lesson plan. He's either misreading or mischaracterizing other people's points. This keeps the thread going. I personally want my consent required for controversial film showings, field trips, etc... Certainly not for each day's lessons, but for specific unusual events. In my experience that is the common mo in many schools. I understand, however, that in the case of his child, Flagger feels differently.

Carmen

[flagger]

No I am perfectly understanding each person's point. Think of the context. The one class in Texas was a "Current Events" class. This has zero to do with field trips.

It could be that our idea of what needs consent and what does not may be a little different and that is ok too.

[tippy]

Flagger,

I don't intend for this to be sarcastic...but I truly am curious to know what WOULD be something that you consider warrents parental consent in the classroom ??? Anything ? Nothing ? If you don't mind me asking I really am curious to know. My mind keeps drifting to a scene from I believe it was Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life, when John Clease (sp) plays a teacher in an all boys prep school who has his wife come into the class and have sex with him to instruct the boys on human sexuality....LOL

[tippy]

Carmen,

I know Flagger feels differently! That is quite obvious from his posts. I guess the point I should be emphasising is that although Flagger is entightled to his opinion (as we all are) it shouldn't really matter what his opinion is in this circumstance. (especially if this took place in a public school). If a notice had been sent home alerting him that the teacher was planning on showing this footage he certainly could have chosen to leave his daughter in class. At the same time, I would have chosen to take my son out of class that day. That is why in this case parental consent was necessary. (IMHO)! By the way, this is a complete change of topic but I am in NY also. Southern Westchester. You?

Teva

[JulieL]

> "bigot" from
>Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1996, 1998):
>
>A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
>religion as unquestionably right,

AND ANY belief or opinion
>OPPOSED to or DIFFERING from them as UNREASONABLE or wicked.
>In an extended sense, a person who is INTOLERANT of opinions
>which CONFLICT with his own, as in POLITICS or morals...
>
So if you Rachel say I am being unreasonable and you are intolerant of my opinion which conflicts with your own on politics or morals do you accept this definition as you being a bigot? two way street if you want to use this definition. We are talking definitions right?

[Calmegja2]

Well, the way I see it, if you are basing those opinions on something non-empirical, like religion (an issue of faith) which doesn't apply to everyone, then that's an example of bigotry. Bigotry is rooted strongly in the irrational belief in something, contrary to the evidence.

Rachel's use of the word wasn't saying that everyone who thinks differently is wrong because of a standard that applies to only her own personal beliefs. She was using general, accepted knowledge (regarding racism).

Can you be bigoted in politics? Sure. The conservative party's plank against homosexual unions is a bigoted stance, because of what that plank is rooted in. If that belief causes you to vote a certain way in politics, then it's bigotry, because that belief is, logically speaking, non empirical and irrational (the term being used in a logical sense).

If you (general you) think that homosexual or interracial unions are wrong because your belief system tells you it is a sin, if you seek to impose that on someone else, then that is an action based in bigotry, not empiricism (which means it would be knowledge available/applicable to everyone) . I think of bigotry as rooted in irrational (and I mean irrational in terms of logical processes, nothing more) thought.

My contention is that based on law (which is different than morality), it is an infraction of a person's civil rights under the law to deny them the opportunity to marry is not an example of bigotry, because it's based on something tangible (like civil rights, and the "all mean are created equal" part of our constitution).

Here's what I mean, from Brainydictionary.com, the full definition, which you left off in your prior post:

Bigot
(a.) Bigoted.
(n.) A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite.
(n.) A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

*****

The key is blindly and obstinately. It's expressing a belief in something without consideration of the whole picture, and that those beliefs are beyond questioning. It's different when your view is supported by science or law, rather than emotion or faith.

[JulieL]

I sorry was I debating my thoughts on the issue in the post? No. You don't know the full consensus of my thoughts on the matter thank you very much. And I am sure you wouldn't like them so I keep the to myself. So how does this apply to me? And who decides what is rational and irrational for that matter? And who for that matter isn't (by the way who is to decid that one person is blindly following anything, are you for instance blindly following your belief? ~ I know I never said that!) following their own belief or opinion. You certainly are, and for that matter so am I. I never wanted to get into the debate I could see where it was going, and the past showed it can go ugly, so I spoke up. Who is calling who superstitious? Are you obstinate? I am not sure where you are going when you bring this up? The way I see it is that this can go for you and for me? Why was this brought up who are you throwing stones at? I see this as attacking the poster, boy by your responces you seem to make that more evident. Yes the key is blindly and obstinatley ~ which are you since you are saying I am this. By the way the definition says nothing about science or law, that is your addition.

[Rachels]

Huh? Julie, do you now think you've been called a bigot? You haven't been, Flagger hasn't been. No stones have been thrown, and this thread was until now mercifully close to drifting off the page. Good grief. We were speaking generally and answering to your accusation. Nothing more.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/knit.gif

"We have a secret in our culture...it's not that birth is painful, it's that women are strong!!" - Laura Stavoe Harm

[Calmegja2]

Exactly what Rachel said. I'm sorry you feel so upset about it (and I'm sorry my logic terminology upsets you), but this was not a personal attack. I was very, very careful not to attack personally, and even disclaimed the word "you" in my previous postings.

Peace to you.