Furor over US Presidential Talk in Schools

[Greg Anos]

The problem is the "Tin Ear" problem. It could have been phrased much better (and inherent less potentially partisan). Things like advanced copies of the speech, (to show the non-partisan nature) being made available well in advance. Using a recorded tape instead of a live broadcast to allow staggered showings, to help on the school room availability loads. Recognizing that parent's should have the final say in whether or not a child sees the message. Giving the parent's the ability to watch the message with their child(ren) to discuss (and maybe even re-enforce the message).

You know, these aren't conceptual showstoppers. They might even help the message. But if you're going to be a uniter, then you should realize that the populace has raw nerve ends on many subjects, and that salving those raw ends is as important as the message. You shouldn't inflame them further.

But what do I know, I'm just a dumb redneck.....

[Ann O Nimity]

I think the "controversy" is knee jerk reactionism. Some people are terrified of even *hearing* different points of view: "I don't want to talk about health care, and I don't want you to talk about it either!"

I remember presidents visiting children in the classroom all the time. No one gets up in arms when a president decides to have a Photo Op at a school (remember how GW Bush was at an elementary school during the September 11, 2001 attacks?) A televised message is no different.

[Kostas]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If Ronald Reagan asked to do the same thing in 1983, would you be saying the same thing as you are saying now?

Wasn't George Bush talking to kids in a school during 9/11 attack?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kostas

Wasn't George Bush talking to kids in a school during 9/11 attack?

Yep, he was. At one school. He wasn't trying to get every schoolkid together to watch him at one time, regardless of whatever school needs were occuring at that time....

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Kostas

Wasn't George Bush talking to kids in a school during 9/11 attack?

He wasn't giving a speech. He was reading a book to a class of young children. The difference is, reading a book aloud is something teachers actually do in the classroom. Although a motivational speech may seem helpful, with all of the demands of standardized testing, teachers have little time to spend on things other than curriculum. It wouldn't matter to me who was giving the speech, as a teacher, I would rather they leave me the time to teach the children. To be perfectly frank, the kids don't listen to that kind of thing anyway. They sit there and fade off, thinking about things that actually interest them and let their imaginations wonder.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Certainly he does. However, does he have the right to demand that a group of people (in this case children) be forced to listen? That's a much more slippery slope.

Ralph, no one in the Obama administration "demanded" that the children listen; if it was demanded, it was demanded on the local level.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As to the subterfuge claim, I'll like to ask all the following question.

If Ronald Reagan asked to do the same thing in 1983, would you be saying the same thing as you are saying now?

Obama is not the first president to directly address students. I believe it was Bush senior who did it last and I also believe (although memory may not serve me correctly) that Reagan made a similar address to students.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Obama's political policies, I find it hard to believe that any president -- including Bush junior -- is/was so callous as to do anything more than to give students a pep talk about why school and study are important. Although the political extremes (both left and right) always see some nefarious plot when someone they dislike speaks, I like to believe that no one who has attained the highest office our country has to offer is so political that he/she would try to indoctrinate 8-year-olds with a particular political philosophy.

What I find most interesting is where (geographically) the complaints are coming from. Nearly all that have been reported are from the southern states, several of which are still fighting the Civil War (e.g., Rick Perry, governor of Texas, talking of secession) and which have significant racial problems. Makes me wonder what the real impetus behind the protests are.

Even two well-known Republican conservatives -- Newt Gingrich and Lamar Alexander -- have stated that these protests are nonsense. Sadly, too few Republican conservatives and too few Democrat liberals display any respect for any opinion that doesn't wholly mesh with their own.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Certainly he does. However, does he have the right to demand that a group of people (in this case children) be forced to listen? That's a much more slippery slope.

As to the subterfuge claim, I'll like to ask all the following question.

If Ronald Reagan asked to do the same thing in 1983, would you be saying the same thing as you are saying now?

Well, as a matter of fact, I said that it was a good thing that the President was addressing children and encouraging them to engage in the proces of politics. I didn't agree with the politics he said he favored, but the speech did get kids to thinking about their place in America.