Pressure, Silence and Precedence
While the reinstatement last March of Overland High School geography teacher Jay Bennish might appear like a temporary stay of execution for free speech in public school classrooms, for those teaching in Cherry Creek Schools the execution has already been carried out. Immediately upon KHOW Radio’s release of Sean Allen’s recording, the district sent an internal memo to all teachers, stating in part that
We will use this event as an opportunity to reinforce district expectations to all teachers, and to ensure that district curriculum guidelines are followed in every classroom. Controversial issues are to be addressed as they pertain to the attainment of specific course objectives (Cherry Creek Schools Official Statement, 3/3/2006).
While this directive might appear standard and impartial, for teachers familiar with the autocratic culture of the Cherry Creek Schools it means that discussing topics that might upset someone just isn’t worth the trouble, and so it is best to say nothing. This memo holds two implications, a warning and a threat. In the case of the former it is, keep your mouth shut and keep your job, while in the case of the latter, as Bennish’s ordeal so well illustrates, it is, open your mouth and we’ll throw you to the wolves; and the wolves are formidable. As soon as the Bennish recording hit the media angry parent calls began streaming into this writer’s Cherry Creek school, all demanding investigations of teachers with whom they had complaints. It seems that Allen’s move to publicize his complaint sparked a small, and thankfully brief witch hunt. A Cherry Creek teacher’s safety thus lies in presenting the three Rs straight, no chaser.
The internal memo’s implicit intimidation was publicly reinforced when district spokeswoman Tustin Amole, employing a curious doublespeak, stated to the press on March 2nd that, “These allegations of what may have occurred, what appeared to have occurred, are highly inappropriate" (DenverChannel.com, 3/3/2006). Cherry Creek Schools Official Statement on March 3rd likewise states, “it seems evident that a breach of district policy occurred regarding the balanced presentation of sensitive material” (Cherry Creek Schools Official Statement, 3/3/2006). Quick to place Bennish on paid administrative leave before any investigation had been conducted, Cherry Creek tried to placate the community’s reactionary elements before those elements could launch another salvo. Rather than treating the matter as an internal employee issue, which it was, the district chose to go public, making themselves no less reprehensible than the Allens’ in commencing their media circus. Prestigious, conservative Cherry Creek was not about to be shown up by a rogue geography teacher. The bad press had to be stopped and so pressure was exerted downward onto teachers to keep them in line.
Most distressing of all during the controversy was the resounding silence of teachers. The Colorado Education Association (CEA), the state’s NEA affiliate wanted nothing to do with the matter. On the same day that Amole pronounced the district’s pre-investigation verdict of guilty until proven innocent, the CEA promptly announced that they “would not represent Bennish because he is not a member” (Associated Press, 3/3/2006). Teachers on the floor said even less, but when they did speak they did so privately in bewildered, anxious tones. More than once this writer heard comments from his colleagues concerning Bennish that ranged from the disparaging to the incredulous. One comment of the latter type, overheard by this writer in the teacher work room, was, “I don’t know why any teacher would even want to discuss controversial topics in class”. While such statements were not widespread, they belie a general lack of consciousness regarding the injustice being leveled upon teachers and their profession. Throughout the controversy everyone kept quiet, only relieving pressure from time to time by tossing out a sarcastic reminder to one another to not discuss anything “controversial” in class. Yet never once did this writer hear one word of support or even sympathy for Mr. Bennish in his beleaguered circumstances. Staff members were either private in their feelings, indifferent, or nominally supportive of the administration’s position. Thus, while kids were out on the street with symbolic duct tape over their mouths demanding Bennish’s exoneration, adults inside the building were keeping far more real, albeit invisible, duct tape over their own mouths.
While a popular debate was born regarding the place of free speech in public classrooms, what was ultimately stillborn was a broader debate on the role of interest group politics in public education. Who is angry and why? How widely are their sentiments shared? And who must be appeased in order to preserve the district’s reputation as a non-controversial organization “dedicated to excellence”? Answering these questions reveals the old and deep-seated conflict between those who call for a critical, creative, student-centered model of education and those who demand a simple transmission of factual knowledge and skills free of opining on the part of educators. Cherry Creek’s stance toward Bennish and their ongoing efforts to promote a skills-based curriculum that can drive scores reveals that they support the latter view.
In a teaching environment as hostile to free debate as Cherry Creek it is difficult to near impossible for thoughtful educators to be heard, but this hostility does not originate with the district so much as with a vocal minority to whom Cherry Creek nervously caters. Caught in the vise grip between these two forces, Bennish was in for a fight and it was one he fought as well as could be fought. In the aftermath of this event small, bizarre outrages continued. The State Board of Education cancelled its regular March meeting after an internal dispute over whether or not to formally chastise Bennish (only one of thousands of educators in Colorado). The debate led to an impasse and the meeting was adjourned until the following month (Hudak, 3/9/2006). Then conservative governor Bill Owens met with Allen and his father to “thank Sean Allen for standing up and voicing his concern over a teacher who was using his classroom as a political soapbox” (Denver Daily.com, 3/11/2006). On the positive side, Bennish responded loudly and unflinchingly and as a result he has maintained his footing despite his overall losses. His resolve, therefore, establishes a precedent for all teachers, showing clearly that if one holds fast rather than submitting to the forces of intolerance then triumph becomes a real possibility rather than a forfeited opportunity.
Isolation and Interest
Anyone concerned about education and possessing a germ of critical thought knows that it is a subjective endeavor. It is subjective on the part of students who each bring themselves to the process in unique and problematic ways. It is equally subjective on the part of teachers who likewise have strengths, weaknesses and identities. In the human exchange unfolding and developing between teacher and students a meeting of minds occurs that is as spiritual as it is intellectual and cannot be easily controlled, quantified or measured. This view of education was first propounded by Rousseau and later put into practice by such towering figures as Pestalozzi, Fröbel and, more recently, Dewey (Bowen, 1981). In the era spanning the infamous A Nation at Risk report (1983) through the enactment of No Child Left Behind (2002) what existed of a student-centered, socially oriented education paradigm has been carefully deconstructed and replaced by a consumerist paradigm ostensibly focused on “basic skills”.
Since much has already been written regarding the co-opting of education by the neoliberal/neoconservative camp (see Gabbard, 2003; Giroux, 2004; Gabbard 2006; Gabbard & Atkinson, 2007), this writer will forgo such a discussion in this paper. Considering the indirect intimidation tactics used against Mr. Bennish by Cherry Creek Schools, however, it is useful to revisit Dewey’s words concerning the role of education in a democratic society:
Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education…. The extension in space of the number of individuals who participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others…is equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of class, race and national territory which kept men from perceiving the full import of their activity (Democracy and Education, 1916, p. 87).
In other words, because democracy can only function through an engaged, contributive citizenry, it is vital for citizens to be educated such that they can make critically considered decisions, ones as beneficial to the greater society as to their own circle. “The essential point is that isolation makes for rigidity and…for static selfish ideals within the group” (Dewey, p. 86). In this sense the neoliberal/neoconservatives can be seen as both a closed group and as promulgators of a hegemonic power structure that maintains and expands itself by fragmenting society into smaller and smaller closed groups, or target markets.
While this debate over what kinds of teacher speech are appropriate in the classroom may look like the latest battle in the age-old war between the liberal and utilitarian conceptions of education, it is not. Nor is it really a controversy as to whether or not Bennish is trying to indoctrinate his students. It is essentially an issue of freedom of conscience in a democracy and whether or not those holding antiestablishment, that is anti-market views will be able to express themselves safely. The neoliberal/neoconservative view dominates at every level of our society today, conceiving America as the world founder and protector of democracy and freedom. Our military actions are ever in service to these ideals, while American style capitalism and economic globalization are touted as the salvation of the world. Whenever teachers, or anyone for that matter, express this line of thought there is little or no outcry. Yet many millions of the world’s people see America differently. Many millions agree with Bennish to some extent or another. Therefore, because of America’s present blindness to world opinion, and for the simple sake of balance, dissenting viewpoints most certainly do serve students’ “interest” in Dewey’s sense of the word.
Distortion and Hyperbole
In fairly criticizing Jay Bennish, one must look at his words from three perspectives, accuracy and logic, pedagogical value and adherence to district policy. Concerning the first, in his impassioned diatribe he makes a number of unqualified statements and emotive assertions that can be challenged. For example, his unqualified statement that U.S. troops have been fighting in Colombia for over thirty years, gives the impression that full scale military involvement is underway in that country, which is not the case despite U.S. meddling through the “War on Drugs”. As well his failure to elaborate on the U.S. relationship with Cuba between 1960 and 1962 presents some distortion. He claims that during this two-year period “the United States through the CIA conducted 7,000 terrorist, sabotage attacks”. In reality, the vast majority of these “attacks” were small, futile incursions on Cuban territory by individuals and groups within the Cuban exile community in the U.S. Were these anti-Castro forces supported either directly or indirectly by the U.S. government? Certainly, but the image Bennish conjures up is that of a rapacious U.S.-backed insurgency when if fact it was usually a few guys caught sneaking onto a beach a night.
Most contentious of all Bennish’s statements, of course, is his comparison of Bush to Hitler. Recently Hugo Chavez went a step further comparing Bush to the devil. While Bennish and Chavez may share the same penchant for hyperbole, what do these comments say about Bush? This is the critical question that is never asked in the corporate-manipulated, equally hyperbolic media. In his indignant passion, Bennish chooses too general of an analogy for Bush. Strictly speaking, the president cannot be equated with a classic fascist dictator, but he is a thieving imperialist, akin to Carlos Salinas de Gortari or Alberto Fujimori, although with decidedly far greater reach and more devastating effect than either of those disgraced leaders. The only thing Bennish should really be criticized for here is sloppy analysis, and in retrospect Bennish corrected himself acknowledging that he’d picked the wrong dictator: “I think next time I would have said Mussolini. Maybe it wouldn't have gotten me in so much trouble” (Denver Daily.com, 3/11/2006).
As to the pedagogical value of Mr. Bennish’s lecture, he may also be criticized for speaking at length without inviting enough student engagement on the topic. Perhaps he did so later in the class, but with only twenty minutes of recording, we cannot be sure. In any case, a twenty-minute monologue is a bit much for a high school class to endure. Were the students engaged in the lecture? Who can say without visual information, but there is a conspicuous lack of background noise or interruptions from students during his talk. Is this because the students have been suppressed into silence by his left-wing intimidation tactics, or have they simply fallen asleep or begun doodling? Again, who can say without more information? It might even be that his students are engaged by both the topic and his presentation. Does he fail to seek student input? For most of the recording, yes. On the other hand, it is clear that he is giving definitions to terms that students are to transcribe. He is not specifically conducting a discussion. Do his students remain silent? Not by any means. In fact one voice, presumably Allen’s, calls into question many of Bennish’s conclusions, working him into a few decently argued corners. Does Bennish dismiss him or shut him out? Again, no. Bennish responds once saying “I think that’s a good point”, and a second time he admits, “I don’t have an answer for that”. He is humble and respectful of his student critic, and while he veers into the realm of ranting, this by no means renders his words invaluable, or detrimental to his students’ learning.
Finally, as to Cherry Creek policy concerning “controversial/sensitive issues”, Bennish has by no means violated it. To begin with the policy’s language is vague, more of a speculative essay with leeway for interpretation. It is hardly a clear guideline for teacher conduct. Case in point, it makes the perplexing assertion that “academic freedom is not designed to protect the individual, but rather to protect a process of seeking and revealing the truth.” How such a “process” can exist independent of people is not addressed. Perhaps if Mr. Bennish’s words were conveyed by a robot they would be less controversial and more compliant with district expectations. The policy further makes the distinction between “constructive” vs. “destructive criticism”. It defines the former in part as “to show the relationships to other ideas, institutions or conditions”. Bennish does not include the perspective of the business-right in his lecture, but neither does he dissuade dissent from his opinion. In today’s media and popular discourse the view of the business-right predominates, and it is against this backdrop that Bennish presents an opposing view, if not a minority view, something that is supposedly protected in a democracy.
Again, rather than exhorting his students to accept his view he concludes by saying “You have to figure this stuff out for yourselves. … I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. ... What I'm trying to get you to do is think about these issues more in depth and not just to take things from the surface" (Denver Post, 3/4/2006). The district policy’s description of destructive criticism is that it “uses the techniques of propaganda and faulty logic” and “seeks not to improve but to abolish a particular idea…which the critic holds as a personal opinion to be detrimental to American culture”. While Bennish may be guilty of some faulty logic, such as equating coca cultivation with tobacco farming, he is not guilty of trying to “abolish a particular idea”. His appeal to students to “figure this stuff out for yourselves” clears him of this charge.
The Best and Final Authority
Stripping away all the rhetoric about biased instruction and indoctrination by leftist teachers, what the Allens’ and their supporters represent is a thirty year social trend towards favoring individual and group interests over community and pluralistic national interests, the very “isolation” that Dewey warned against. Referring again to the Cherry Creek policy, it states that, “only the school is able…to encourage development of a relatively homogeneous society which can be called distinctively American”. Like many statements in the policy, the verbiage is vague. How “homogeneous” is meant here is not clear. Are we all to find unity as a people within the many contexts of our diverse lives, or are we to all to look, act and think alike? Again Dewey warns us that, “A society which rests upon the supremacy of some factor over another irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads thought astray” (p. 89). Considering this admonition, it is ironic that critics of Bennish show as much divergence in their “thought” as they accuse Bennish of displaying in his.
We live in frightening times. Voices of criticism and dissent are being silenced one by one by this lion’s roar of neoliberal/neoconservative rhetoric. In the face of its blast Bennish dares to question the motives behind our illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. He points out the heartlessness of global market capitalism and challenges us to see the authoritarian nature of the Bush administration. Considering the business-right’s dominance over public debate in the U.S. today, Bennish’s class presents a rare opportunity to hear a dissenting view. Unfortunately, Cherry Creek is quietly playing into the hands of a divisive “anti-social spirit” (Dewey, p. 85).
Teachers in Cherry Creek are living in the shadow of this spirit, self-censoring their words, ceasing to ask their students questions that are not directly content related. They are expected to be automatons, embracing a standards-based tunnel vision, or, barring that, to practice doublethink as they teach. Furthermore, their submission to this dangerous status quo traps them in the same pitfall in which so many Americans are presently trapped: disillusionment, embitterment and cynicism. If educators are not the ones to stand up and speak out, then who? If not educators, then who best can lead society? In the end it must be educators’ voices that are heard above all, for only educators stand astride the boundary between the public and the political, between people and their leaders, and the engineers of their economies. They perform this vital social role as bearers of knowledge and skills that allow people, especially the disadvantaged, to place themselves on an equal footing to their leaders and to those with greater social power. At least this is the role that teachers should perform. Too many teachers are little more than petty civil servants who unquestioningly follow the dictates of their superiors and education outsiders. Considering the entanglements that Jay Bennish unwittingly found himself in, rather than ducking aside, teachers should be shouting loudly with indignation, and, wherever necessary, boldly confronting their administrations, boards of education, community groups, union leadership and state and national representatives in an effort to assert their rightful place as the best and final authority in education matters.
References
Bowen, J. (1981). A History of Western Education: The Modern West. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cherry Creek Schools Official Statement (3/3/2006). Retrieved on 10/29/2006 from http://www.ccsd.k12.co.us/dist_info/dist_news/bennish.html
Cherry Creek Schools. (n.d.). Teaching about controversial/sensitive issues. Retrieved on 10/29/2006 from http://pdfserver.ccsd.k12.co.us/vol1policiespdf/IMB.pdf
Denver 7 News. (3/4/2006). Suspended teacher backs off federal lawsuit [Electronic version]. Retrieved on 10/29/2006 from http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/7643269/detail.html.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
Gabbard, D. (2003, October). A Nation at Risk—reloaded: part I. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 1, 2. Retrieved on 10/1/2006 from http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=15
Gabbard, D. (2004, March). A Nation at Risk—reloaded: part II. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2, 1. Retrieved on 10/1/2006 from http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=19
Gabbard, D. and Atkinson, T. (2007). Stossel in America: A case study of the neoliberal/neoconservative assault on public schools & teachers. in Teacher Education Quarterly, 34 (2), pp. 85=109.
Giroux, H. (2004). The Terror of Neoliberalism. Boulder: Paradigm.
Associated Press (3/3/2006). Colorado teacher suspended for Bush comments. Retrieved on 10/29/2006 from /http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16582
Hudak, E. (3/9/2006). Evie’s Board Notes—March 2006. Retrieved on 10/29/2006 from http://hudak.org/BoardNotes/2006/BN-MAR.htm
Rouse, K. (3/4/2006). Teacher backs away from lawsuit threat. Denver Post [Electronic
Slevin, C. (3/11/2006). Controversial teacher reinstated. Colorado Daily.com. Retrieved on 10/29/2006 from http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2006/03/11/news/beyond_boulder/news1.txt
