Though free and critical thought and the right to express such may seem to be withering on the vine during this chill Republican winter, there is cause for hope in New Jersey. (Yes, New Jersey.) With the full support of their teacher and principal, students in a high school government class in Parsippany are holding a mock war crimes tribunal to determine whether President George W. Bush is guilty of crimes against humanity. The Morris County Daily Record reported on this story, an excerpt of which follows:
President Bush is being tried for “crimes against civilian populations� and “inhumane treatment of prisoners� at Parsippany High School, with students arguing both sides before a five-teacher “international court of justice.� The panel’s verdict could come as soon as Friday.
Teacher Joseph Kyle said the “hearing�—he preferred that term to trial—opened on Monday in a senior advanced placement government class. The school’s principal said he signed off in advance on the subject matter.
“I knew it was a sensitive topic. Morris County is a conservative county. Parsippany is a conservative district,� Kyle, 37, a teacher at the high school since 1998, said on Wednesday evening.
Former county Sheriff John Fox of Parsippany denounced the weeklong hearing—where students debated whether Bush is a war criminal and questioned classmates playing administration officials and the Army general who oversaw Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq—as “terrible� and “disturbing.�
“Those are young, impressionable minds those people have control over. We don’t need those liberal academics doing what they’re doing. I find that offensive,� said Fox, a Republican who graduated from Parsippany High School….
Morris County Freeholder Jack Schrier, a Republican, said he was “truly outraged� by the war crimes hearing.
“It’s not un-American. We do have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. But we’re a nation at war. Not only his teacher, but so many others in the nation, have lost sight of that,� Schrier said.
With all due respect to Mr. Schrier and Mr. Fox and to any others similarly “outraged� at such a brazen display of democratic ideals, I suggest that you open the dusty vaults of your minds and insert a copy of the Bill of Rights. I would also suggest that you put aside your partisan blinders and consider how misplaced your outrage is. Are you really more “disturbed� by high school seniors engaging in a provocative but healthy debate than by an executive branch that has led the country into an unnecessary war and the economy into severe debt, that has sanctioned torture and detainment without due process, that has repeatedly lied to and spied on the citizenry of this country? Kudos to Joseph Kyle and his principal, Anthony Sciaino, for having the courage and desire to challenge young minds and challenge convention. Our democracy is enriched by their leadership.
Kmareka.com 
With all due respect David, it is you who should take off the blinders. This is a disgraceful assignment, and teachers responsible should be disciplined for it. George Bush is the President, our President. It is outrageous the a school would sanction a debate as to whether a sitting president has committed crimes against humanity, particularly when we are at war. Argue his platform, argue our country’s participation in the war, argue the extent of his achievements. But such a trial is inappropriate, and further erodes the level of respect we should be teaching our children and young adults.
I am a teacher David. And I believe strongly in the right to speak my mind. But my classroom is not always the place for me to do such. It is a teacher’s responsibility to create an environment that fosters thinking and learning, allows students to develop the skills needed to debate, evaluate, and subscribe to positions on issues. The way in which an assignment/debate is framed can be just as biased, damaging, and leading…which is counterproductive to the responsibilties named above. Imagine for a second that a teacher presented a “mock-trial” in which abortionists were put on trial for murdering babies. Or how about putting Cindy Sheehan on trial for treason for actions that aided the enemy during wartime. How about debating whether Hillary Clinton’s Marxist positions are a danger to a free America. While these debates would be more than acceptable at a Heritage Foundation roundtable, they are completely unacceptable in a public high school classroom.
I find it interesting that the teacher identified the area as conservative rather than Republican, providing evidence that he knows from where this debate originates. This teacher is also putting Andrew Jackson on trial for crimes against Native Americans, but claims he also had an impeachment trial for Bill Clinton. Why not a war crimes trial for his actions in Yugoslavia. Or for his destruction of an aspirin factory in eastern Africa.
Because these teachers are promoting your beliefs, you call them courageous. But they are guilty of the most serious of malpractice. The fact that one side of the political spectrum is outraged should alert you that this is not about debate at all. Debate is welcomed by all sides when it is presented fairly. Conservatives have long argued the public schools and universities have been in the business of indoctrinating our youth. This example plays right into that complaint.
What does play acting before an “international court of justice” have to do with a course on U.S. government? Absolutely nothing. An “international court of justice” is not in keeping with U.S.law or the Constitution. So how in the world could this stunt “connect perfectly with the AP government curriculumâ€? as the high school principal said in defense of Kyle? The school’s principal and the teacher clearly lack even a rudimentary understanding of U.S. government. Bad enough, but now they are passing their ignorance on to their students.
Social Studies teacher Joseph Kyle has been actively brainwashing Parsippany students with his radical ideology. During last year’s election cycle, Kyle had his students conduct a series of mock debates for the New Jersey Governor’s race. In the student “election” taking place after the Kyle-inspired debates, the Socialist candidate, Tino Rozzo, won on a platform of a $12-per-hour minimum wage and a “socialized healthcare system under workers’ and community control”.
Students in Kyle’s senior AP politics and government class organized the debate and poll, in addition to acting as stand-ins for the gubernatorial candidates. Of course, the candidate for one particular political party was branded an outcast, as the Daily Record (NJ) reported back in November 2005:
It’s no mystery why no one in a class of more than one hundred students living in “relatively wealthy, Republican-dominated Morris County” would voluntarily choose to represent Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Forrester. As the evidence clearly shows, they’ve been inundated with liberal propaganda from socialist relics masquerading as teachers. What I don’t understand is why parents of Parsippany High School students are apparently willing to put up with teachers spending their time indoctrinating their children with left-wing ideology rather than teaching the subject at hand.
I love it. Three commentators all denouncing what could be an incredibly intense learning experience for these students. If they are high school seniors, then they will be of voting age, possibly even for the upcoming election. How is putting the issues in front of them– from both sides– “indoctrination”? Mike, you ask how [a liberal] would feel about putting an abortion doctor on trial. I say fine. Hillary Clinton? Fine.
I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not have a problem with examining what public figures–any public figures–are doing on my behalf. A democracy demands such scrutiny. Let me repeat that: it demands this kind of scrutiny, and we have not had the level of national debate that the issues before us deserve.
The point of education is to “lead out” {Latin: e-ducere) what is inside the student. At various levels of my student years, I participated in such role-playing projects, and they were all intense learning experiences. Having to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is the best way to lead out what’s inside you, look at it, and see how it compares with the views and beliefs of others.
I suspect this is what the objection to the exercise really is. A bunch of high school seniors is not going to lead a revolution, but they might end up as more critical thinkers who aren’t willing simply to swallow what an authority figure tells them. And that is exactly the point.
I would also like to ask why “socialist relics” are not to be tolerated, while the authoritarian model of doing what you’re told is OK? Why exactly is socialism a dirty word? Is it unamerican to be concerned about something other than unfettered corporate power and unlimited corporate profit? Comments like those really show that the writer’s real objection is in forcing a kid to realize that there may be two or three or six ways to look at this. Why is that such a problem? It is because the Republican beliefs can’t stand up to a little scrutiny? Randall “Duke” Cunningham just got 8 years; Jack Abramoff has already pled guilty, and plea-bargained his way DOWN to a 10 year sentence. Perhaps a little scrutiny might have avoided those problems.
And the question about how this has anything to do with American government is breathtaking. President Bush is my representative. He works for me. I darn well have the right to know what he’s doing in my name. And the question about trying Clinton for war crimes. Go right on ahead. And why did no one want to play the Republican? Could it be because having to defend the record is too difficult? I grew up in a small, socially-conservative town that insisted on conformity. I can appreciate what the kids may be going through because I went through something similar. But I’m not convinced this is a bad thing. Brainwashing goes on from the day kids are born. Except that’s called “raising a child.” It’s only “brainwashing” when it’s values you don’t agree with.
Yes, forcing kids to learn uncomfortable truths can be unsettling. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Give them the facts and let them make up their minds. Why is that so wrong? Or so scary? If the president’s position is sound, then what better way to prove it? Why are you afraid of asking the questions? If you’re right, you’re right. If not, shouldn’t you–and the kids–find that out?
Thank you, Kiersten, for your remarks. I also thank Mike, Emlighten, and James for contributing their thoughts. I am reminded of a quote by the poet, William Butler Yeats, who said, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” Amen to that. And let’s keep in mind that the purpose of a fire is not just to generate heat but light, as well.
Dont these moronic teachers know that the terrorists playbook says to always say you were tortured.Of course they choose to believe the terrorists in stead of our bad military men.These teachers been doing this for years and still cant win an election.When these kids grow up most will realize how stupid their teachers were.
Greg: Is there a terrorist playbook? It seems you’ve read it. Maybe you can enlighten us as to some of its other suggestions.
And to the others:
James C.: You quote out of context. That article continued, stating Mr. Kyle’s praise for that student’s work. And let’s not worry about what a bunch of high schoolers thought; I’m happy, for one, to see them vote at all, in a time when it’s difficult to get more than 50 percent of the population to the polls.
“Enlighten-NewJersey”:
While it is a class on AP US Government and Politics, the College Board, which administers the AP tests, notes that the methods for teaching the course can be widely varied, and should be determined by the teacher. An examination of politics on a global scale may help students understand why charges are levied in absentia against Bush.
mike:
If this were during the Clinton administration, regardless of the politics of anyone involved, the Democrats would cry foul. Thus is the nature of politics in the real world. And for the record, Mr. Kyle did run an impeachment hearing for Clinton at his previous school; I’m sure if you were to ask him, he’d tell you that he ran into controversy there.
As a student in the class in question I’d like to clear up a few misbeliefs and some factual errors.
1) The Libertarian candidate, Jeff Pawlowski, (Me) won our election this year, the socialist was winning in a pre-election poll that was done after one event we had related to the election but after the end of campaigning and voting, the Libertarian won. That was a mistake by the paper.
2) Why would kids (only 27 not hundreds) in a Republicanly dominated county not want to be Republicans. A better question would be, why would we want to vote for the Republicans. Just becuase our parents do, doesn’t mean that we do. The Republicans are entirely out of touch with the issues of teenagers. Abortion – they’re against it. Gay marriage – they’re against it. Drugs & Alcohol – For prohbition. The Republicans have all the conservative social issues that teenagers don’t agree with, but none of the positive social programs that kids look for. Its tough to argue that lower taxes are the answer when one side of the town has million dollar homes, and the other side has kids with one parent who works 60 hours a week but still needs lunch assistance.
3) The entire trial was organized by the students, including the ICJ. We used the ICJ for convience becuase it has the simpliest procedural rules, we aren’t going to be lawyers, we’re debating politics. Why bother making it overly difficult?
4) It is AP Gov’t & Politics material. The foreign policy of our government, is a political question.
5) The teacher never said he was a war criminal, we’re asking the question. There are 4 lawyers and 10 witnesses for the defense and 4 lawyers and 9 witnesses for the prosicution.
6) Why wouldn’t a bunch of kids well versed in history (every single in the class passed the AP US History exam with a 5 or a 4, something only 13% of the kids who take the exam do, meaning we’re in the top 1 or 2% in terms of knowledge of history among high school students, and probably all of America- You can’t say hes a bad teacher), knowing all the things America has done badly in the past, have any reason to think that Bush is above making a mistake.
Let’s examine the objections to this proposal. Cards on the table: I’ve been a red-state Republican since 1978.
“Mike,” who says he’s a teacher, offers a lot of opinion (to which he is, of course, entitled) that this lesson plan is bad but nothing in the way of support for that opinion. He insists, in the absence of any supporting evidence, that Kyle has imposed his own opinions on his students (indeed, it doesn’t seem from the articles that Kyle has even *stated* his opinion). He claims, with no evidence, that the assignment not only would not foster students’ ability to evaluate claims and arrive at their own opinions, but also would actually undermine that ability.
Mike, buddy: Do not EVER apply for a teaching job here in North Carolina. Your thinking makes Mississippi look good.
“Emlighten-New Jersey” says that an “international court of justice” has nothing to do with U.S. law or the Constitution. Bzzzt. Wrong. Article VI of that very Constitution sets ratified treaties on an equal footing with the Constitution and U.S. law as the “supreme Law of the Land.” And the U.S. has ratified treaties such as the Geneva compacts, and enacted statutes in support of those treaties, that touch directly on some of the issues the students are debating in this assignment. This error renders baseless his criticism of Kyle and the principal.
James C. alleges, without any supporting evidence (sensing a pattern here?), that students are being “brainwashed,” an argument KSchultz demolishes in comment 8 with no help needed.
GregN. implies that the U.S. hasn’t actually tortured anyone, findings by the U.S. military’s own investigators notwithstanding. ’nuff said.
Finally, I would ask those on both sides of this issue to do a little research on the ‘Net, find out what constitutes a war crime, and seek out information that might help you determine whether the president has, or has not, committed war crimes. And let’s meet back here in, say, a week and review what we’ve discovered, shall we?
So, what have we learned?
Anyone? Bueller?