Teacher burns cross on student's arm

[Dave Gray]

I doubt you're expecting this, but I'm not as outraged as everyone else about the original post regarding the teacher.

The only thing that bothers me about it is that (according to the article) this is from a long line of other issues from him, including some false teachings and his own religious beliefs.  So, sure -- if the parents are pissed, cut him loose.  It's probably something you should've done a while ago.

But, in terms of the fact that he "burned" something on to a student, since it wasn't really a BURN, I don't think it's a huge deal.  I wouldn't really care if someone did it to my kid, so long as it's not painful and is not permanent.  I actually think that hands on stuff like this gets kids involved.  And as far as that being a cross, I wouldn't have even known unless you told me.

It sounds to me that this incident, when coupled with his prior problems, paints a new, bigger picture.  I could overlook this one incident if it stood alone.

[run_to_win]

How moderate and boring!  Aren't we supposed to be ranting about him needing to be burned at the stake or screaming about his right to speak his mind?   

Okay, seriously, I your calm and well-reasoned outlook. 

As for "false teachings" - was that about the carbon dating?  He should not be teaching that carbon dating is inaccurate.  Some kids tune in and out all the time.  They hear bits, pieces and fragments of what teachers say, or they just flat out misunderstand what they heard.

[Dave Gray]

Maybe I didn't correctly understand the last sentence of the article, which says this:

"Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution."

It sounds that he was saying that you couldn't use carbon dating to discredit evolutionary theory.




However, I want to touch on something that you said, Run.  It sounds like you're saying that Carbon dating is inaccurate.  It's not.  If it's used correctly, it's accurate.  When it's used by people who don't understand its limits, it doesn't work.

(I haven't studied up on this in a few weeks, but I think this is how it goes...)

Carbon dating is a tool that works only after a certain age range.  If you try to use it outside of that range, there are too many naturally occurring contaminants that ruin your data.  (I can't remember what it is ....Radon or something...)  It's not that the method is inaccurate, it's just that the method is ineffective in certain date ranges, and people who use it incorrectly are the problem.

It's like saying a calendar is ineffective because you're using one from the wrong year.

[run_to_win]

Maybe I didn't correctly understand the last sentence of the article, which says this:

"Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution."

Taught vs mentioning his personal opinion?  I guess it's a matter of degree.

It sounds that he was saying that you couldn't use carbon dating to discredit evolutionary theory.

It can't be used for that, can it?

In other words, you CAN use carbon dating to discredit evolutionary theory?

I wonder if they meant this: "To argue against evolution he taught that carbon dating was inaccurate."

It sounds like you're saying that Carbon dating is inaccurate.

Nope.  If it's his opinion, and that opinion is based on something other than religion, then he should be able to mention it.

[MaineDolFan]

I wouldn't really care if someone did it to my kid, so long as it's not painful and is not permanent.  I actually think that hands on stuff like this gets kids involved.  And as far as that being a cross, I wouldn't have even known unless you told me.

Dave, all due respect, I think that you would take a vastly different stance if you had a child.  Hands on learning is fine.  Putting your hands on someone else's child isn't, whether 'burning' hurts or not isn't the point.  That child is a person and has boundaries that need to be respected.  Two situations for you:

1:  A co-worker, a PEER, says "this is cool and only stings.  Watch what I can do to your arm.  Don't worry, it'll go away."

2:  A boss calls a meeting and in front of everyone pulls you to the front.  'Pull up your sleeve, Gray.'

Two different set of circumstances.  The boss, like the the teacher, is in a position of authority.  The same authority that kids are supposed to be respecting.  You are more likely to say 'no thanks' to your friend, your peer.  You are more likely to feel like you can not say no to your boss.  

Again - this teacher has zero right to touch a child.  He overstepped in a massive way.

My father was a science teacher for over 30 years.  The one time he ever laid his hand on a student was when one came to class and flipped out (he was on PCP).  My dad restrained him until help arrived.  There is no reason for a teacher to touch anyone.

[Dave Gray]

In other words, you CAN use carbon dating to discredit evolutionary theory?

No, you can't.  That's what I'm saying.  The article is unclear on what he was actually teaching.

I wonder if they meant this: "To argue against evolution he taught that carbon dating was inaccurate."

Exactly.  From the text, I couldn't tell what they meant.

[Dave Gray]

Dave, all due respect, I think that you would take a vastly different stance if you had a child.  Hands on learning is fine.  Putting your hands on someone else's child isn't, whether 'burning' hurts or not isn't the point.  That child is a person and has boundaries that need to be respected.

Anything is possible, but I just don't see myself caring about this.  To me, it's the same as getting an X drawn on your arm with a permanent marker.  Sure, maybe he shouldn't have done it, but it's not like I'm going to go after the guy's job from it.

Just because I don't have kids, doesn't mean that there aren't kids in my life that I always want to protect.  I don't have biological children, but it doesn't mean I approve of people harming kids.

I don't really think it's fair to call this a burn.  ...it's a mark.  Not a big deal, in my opinion.

[MaineDolFan]

I'm fine backing off from the 'burn' comment and calling it a mark as well.  For me, simply put, I don't want anyone touching my child.  I don't want someone making an 'x' on her shoulder with a marker, or anything else.  A huge portion of my stance here is built upon growing up as an educator's son.  My dad taught back in the day when teachers were allowed to spank students.  Can you believe that?  He never laid a hand on one.  Not even, not once.  He also coached basketball, football and baseball.  Same deal.  He always said that he was there to teach, the student to learn and that personal space is personal space.

[Dave Gray]

I'm not advocating spanking students, or even marking students.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't care if this happened to my kid.  It doesn't bother me.  Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

The religious implications (and it's not even really clear that there were any) bother me way more than the mark itself.  If it had been a smiley face and my son/daughter came home with it, I'd say "Cool!"

[MaineDolFan]

I'm just saying that I wouldn't care if this happened to my kid.  It doesn't bother me.  Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Please don't take this as my attacking your position, I ask the following question out of curiosity only:

You have a dog, yes?  Say you're at a off leash dog park and your dog is running around, happy as can be, with a tennis ball in his / her mouth.  Someone wants that tennis ball to throw to their dog.  Rather than waiting they grab your dog's collar and wrestle the ball from your dog's mouth. 

How are you feeling / reacting to someone you don't know touching your dog in this manner?

Edited for an ugly spelling error.  I is wicked smaat.

[run_to_win]

I'm with Dave.  Teachers have to walk such a fine line as it is.  If you believe that part of the problem with schools is that our best and brightest are leaving that career behind, or not choosing it in the first place, then parents over-reacting to such situations is part of the cause.

In my experience it was usually parents and teachers on one side and the student and administrator on the other.  

If you want your children to rule the school just have them know the name of a lawyer or threaten to drop out.  In my experience either scares the hell out of administrators.

[run_to_win]

Everyone who touches your child dog is not snatching a toy from her to give to his child dog.   

[Dave Gray]

^ Not that it's the same, but I wouldn't care about that either.

I don't want anyone harming, threatening, or intimidating my children (or anyone's children).  Short of that, though, to me, there's a bit of crying wolf to freaking out over non-issues.  In this case, nobody got hurt, and assuming there was no mal-intent, it's no big deal.  I doesn't sound from the tone of this article that this was done through authority or that it was some kind of punishment.

[MaineDolFan]

If you believe that part of the problem with schools is that our best and brightest are leaving that career behind, or not choosing it in the first place, then parents over-reacting to such situations is part of the cause.

I don't believe that not wanting a teacher to touch my child is 'over-reacting' in any sense of the word.

[StL FinFan]

I would not want a teacher putting something on my kids against their will, but if they came home and said "Look at this Mommy, it's really cool!",  I would not get worked up about it.  Sometimes they do face painting or the fake tattoos.  I might have an issue if a religious symbol were used at a public school, but our school district is very strict about that kind of thing.  That being said, I make an effort to get to know my kid's teachers and I feel they are good teachers.