triangle.com | Home

The analogy to a background check is strained, at best. What Ann is promoting is prior restraint, and is illegal and constitutional under the first amendment, particularly because this prior restraint in no way promotes public or student safety the way that background checks do. I don't want my kids exposed to prosletyzing either, but I trust the teachers to use their judgment rather than for the school board--which cannot get out of its own way--to substitute its amateurism for the teachers' professionalism. As for the Enloe incident, I don't have all the facts, but it appears that there is a process to hold teachers accountable for the choices they make about inviting in speakers. And as noted in the comments, the WCPSS response is overkill, and the board's promise to "look at" the policy without any prospect of making changes to the policy simply further demonstrates its arrogance.

What sort of paternistic message does the new policy send to students? That mayors and sheriffs need to be told how to dress to visit a school? I'd like to think that our public schools teach crticial thinking and citizenship skills, and many teachers try; their efforts are undermined by the board's asking grown-ups to agree to an insulting set of conditions to talk to students.

By the way, how does the board define "accurate"? Who is going to vet all these facts? What about controversies in natural and social sciences? What if a speaker goes into the schools and presents the solid evidence that the DARE program doesn't work (as discovered by our very own RTI)? What happens when accurate--or good faith--information runs counter to school board provincialism?

Students know that this is happening, and are likely either dismayed that their teachers are considered so untrustworthy by the board, or are amused by how their elders and "betters" are unable to make legal, rational, and sensible decisions. Some example our board is setting.