Reply #13: You are wrong - simple as that.

[Karmakaze]

The only thing that teacher could do wrong is to refuse to talk about liberals and their beliefs in any kind of negative way. Do you think we would have heard about it if this same teacher had been criticsing Clinton during his term? Of course not! But do I think it happened? You're damn right I do!

The whole point of his class was to discuss modern culture. If you seriosuly believe that the policies of the Presdient of the United States do not have a major bearing on the social, political, religious and economic lives of ALL the worlds people then you probably need to take one of his classes. And if you seriously believe he wouldnt have done the same thing during the time of Clinton, then you probably need to avoid listening to right-wing propaganda.

In the current case there is a difference - firstly it wasn't a part of a class dealing with human culture, but one dealing with television production. There was no need for the subject to be such a flashpoint one. Secondly by participating in the interview, the teacher lent an air of authority - some students say gay is ok, same say it is not, but the teacher then says its not, and many students may question their own opinion based on the perceived authority of the teacher.

I wouldnt have had a major problem with this if it had purely been student opinions because the students carry the same wieght in their arguments. A teacher has some authority over students and thus should not make such personal opinions public. Will any gay students feel they will get a fair deal from that teacher from now on? I don't think so. They now know she hates them, not for what they have done but for who they are. How could they NOT think she is going to be biased against them?