My daughter sent me this exchange from her email AP English teacher group and suggested I share it with you all - so here you go, a peak into the quality of some of our public high school teachers both good and bad. Spellings and such left as they were sent to me.
The following exchange comes from an email group of AP English teachers across the country. A discussion began when someone asked about using Michael Moore “documentaries” in class. I kindly and objectively pointed out a possible ethical concern. Later in the conversation I also attempted to discuss the definition of documentary and whether or not it, by that definition, required facts with at least an attempt at a balanced presentation, without excessive editorializing. I, and all others who were clearly uncomfortable with bringing Michael Moore in to the public classroom, made purely logical and factual assertions about the subject matter. And here is where it started to get a little dirty…
Intelligent person: One question: if Michael Moore's films were of identical quality, yet put forth an Ann Coulter-type viewpoint, would you teachers be showing the movies? If Bowling for Columbine were an over-the-top, one-sided, and occasionally fallacious support of the Second Amendment, would you show it to your classes? If the answer is no, then all of these arguments are simply rationalizations.
Idiot: “Intelligent person,”
If you took the time to look at the AP guide "Using Film as in Intro to Rhetoric," you would see that a clip of the film is used in the chapter about logical fallacies. His films are perfect for showing all sorts of rhetorical techniques: the 3 appeals, hyperbole, slippery slope, generalization, stereotyping, inductive and deductive reasoning, satire, paordy, manipulation of the audience, appeals to audience. Good, bad, smart, stupid, and ugly -- they are all there.
I would LOVE to use anything by Ann Coulter or Rush Lumbaugh for the same purposes, but they have only the bad and the ugly and the stupid in them.
Me: “Idiot,” did you just throw the first actual insult? lol! keep it civil now ;)
--see, look at me trying very nicely, with humor, to pull the discussion back to facts—
Smart person: “I think you just made “Intelligent person’s” point. In your view, there is no good in Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, so you don't show the films. But don't they have satire, inductive and deductive reasoning, and appeals to a certain audience as well? If I were to show an Ann Coulter film in my class (which I wouldn't), I would feel the need to be balanced and show a Michael Moore film (which I definitely wouldn't).”
Idiot I: In my view (and in the view of the editors of the handbook designed for the course we are discussing), Michael Moore's films have both bad and good examples to teach rhetoric.
Nothing by an "Ann-Coulter type" has any balance or intelligence or truth whatsoever. Are you saying differently? Ann Coulter is insane and has never done a second of real research in her life.
Me: Some *might* say the same about Michael Moore (some claim his insanity; some question every "fact" he touts), if one were going to publish any value judgments like that in such a broad forum -- and to date I haven't seen anyone else here do that. I for one, however, try my best not to throw insults out there that may offend other educated, thinking professionals of equal value and stature to my own. I try to deal in facts only. I don't believe we have seen any psychiatric reports on Ms. Coulter, and I believe an examination of any of her publishings would yield some vetted facts.
All of this points exactly to my original post about an ethical slippery slope. If a teacher's presentation shows such strong political bias, I believe it is unethical. Our students are someone else's children, and their parents have the right to decide how they are raised until a certain age, whether we agree with it or not. If Billy asks, "well, Mr. Moore addresses this issue in x manner, but Ms. Coulter stated, 'xyz.'" Would "Ann Coulter is insane and has never done one second of real research in her life," be an acceptable response? In a course that deals with a subject matter of such great power to persuade and create power and hegemony as rhetoric has, I believe we have an added responsibility to choose our materials and commentary carefully.
As a side note, I'm finding the rhetorical content of this debate quite interesting; the mix of logos and ethos, and who employs which.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
