Fahrenheit 9/11 shown in classroom

[Jimmyeatworld]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2839664

BEAUMONT - A Southeast Texas businessman is upset that his son's English class watched Michael Moore's scathing documentary on President Bush and his handling of events after the terrorist attacks.

Michael Kurth, a veteran, said he was opposed to the film Fahrenheit 9/11 based on its R rating and political partisanship. His son, Matthew, 17, said that he put his head on his desk and tried to sleep through it.

"It bothered me," he said.

Moore's condemnation of Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon became the first documentary to top the $100 million mark domestically. In the film, Moore examines the Bush administration's alleged financial ties to Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family.

"It is spun to a very liberal viewpoint," Kurth said. "It is absolutely wrong for teachers to take a political position with some of these kids at legal voting age."

Michael Ryals, principal of Pathways Learning Center, said he previewed part of the film before he allowed the teacher to show it in class Friday.

"I didn't hear anything that was offensive to me," he told the Beaumont Enterprise in Saturday's editions, adding that he did not know of the R rating.

Ryals said one student told him of another movie that takes an opposing view and that he urged the student to bring it Monday to be previewed.

Pathways is an alternative school for students moved from their home campuses for disciplinary reasons. Kurth said his son is at the school for 40 days after having too many tardies.

Beaumont Independent School District spokeswoman Jolene Ortego said she assured Kurth the matter would be addressed by Monday morning. School board trustee John Williams said R-rated films should not be shown without parental consent.

Kurth, 39, said he watched the film and decided he did not want his family to see it.

Okay, so this is another to add to the list:

A picture of the President of the United States in the classroom: Teacher gets suspended.

A propoganda movie by an anti-Bush fat guy shown in the classroom: All part of the educational system.

Got it.

 

[lilcountriegal]

It's one thing to show a politically motivated film to a bunch of high school children.

It's a complete different story to allow underage children to view an R-rated movie without the consent of parents/guardians.

Someone's ass should be handed to them for this one....

 

[musicman]

Oh, well - look at the bright side:

At least they weren't praying!

 

[Bonnie]

It's one thing to show a politically motivated film to a bunch of high school children.

It's a complete different story to allow underage children to view an R-rated movie without the consent of parents/guardians.

Someone's ass should be handed to them for this one....

Actually the worst part is the fact that that a politically biased movie was shown to any children against the wishes of parent, shows exactly what the NEA thinks of parental input period.....Scary

 

[007]

I think there is nothing at all wrong with teaching "of" politics, and "about" the political process in schools. But when you force a political agenda on young, impressionable minds, WITHOUT THE PARENTS EVEN KNOWING, that's so wrong in so many ways, its an outrage.

Had I had a child in that school, they would have had at least ONE parent show up there ass kicking mad demanding the teacher that showed it show his face to me. And after I "EXPLAINED" to him how that was wrong, he wouldn't do it again... to my kid at least.

 

[phadras]

at that school should be fired for allowing it.. If I were a parent in that district I'd call for a school board meeting and off some heads...

 

[acludem]

I do think parents should have been notified that the teacher planned to show students this movie. I watched it this weekend, and frankly the "R" rating was not warranted. There is no gorey violence or nudity, and very little swearing.

I have no issue with a teacher showing this movie for discussion purposes. For example, you might show it and then ask students whether or not they agree with Moore's point of view. How would they feel about going to Iraq? Then you might show them one of the several response films that have been made, and ask them about that.

However, I agree, parents should have been notified.

acludem

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I think the kids can handle it, if they are 17 they should either be juniors or seniors that can handle this film, and of legal age.

At my high school, for each class that might show movies rated "R" we had to have a piece of paper signed by parents, but often the names of the movies were not listed on the form, it simply stated that you are allowing your child to watch whatever is being shown.

So I'm guessing that the parents did sign a permission slip, but the movie wasn't listed on it and so now it comes as a surprise. In any case, parents should have been notified since there are some very graphic and disturbing scenes(the footage of the burned bodies in fallujah being beaten and hung off a bridge come to mind) that are too much for some students.

 

[acludem]

I remember a controversy at my Junior High. My 9th grade English teacher showed the movie "Romeo and Juliet" - the one where Juliet's...well..assets are briefly displayed. Some parents got irritated, but our school (and about 95% of the students and other parents) stood by the teacher, who was not disciplined. I have to admit, though, that I do not remember whether or not parents were informed.

acludem

 

[insein]

Leaglity of notification aside, I think its irresponisble to show kids of an impressionable age any piece of political speech without offering proper context or a counter argument. If the teacher said they were going to show FahrenHYPE 9/11 or Celsius 41.11 after he showed Moore's film, then a true diversity could be shown for the opposing viewpoints of the country. If they show anyone of those films by themselves with no context, then the kids will sway their opinions based solely on the 1 they saw.

Completely irresponsible for a teacher to do that.

 

[Bonnie]

Leaglity of notification aside, I think its irresponisble to show kids of an impressionable age any piece of political speech without offering proper context or a counter argument. If the teacher said they were going to show FahrenHYPE 9/11 or Celsius 41.11 after he showed Moore's film, then a true diversity could be shown for the opposing viewpoints of the country. If they show anyone of those films by themselves with no context, then the kids will sway their opinions based solely on the 1 they saw.

Completely irresponsible for a teacher to do that.

Irresponsible maybe, to my mind more like deliberate.

 

[insein]

Irresponsible maybe, to my mind more like deliberate.

Deliberately Irresponsible.

 

[Semper Fi]

My world history has a picture of President Bush and his staff pinned up on the bulletin board in his room. If anyone complains about that I'll personally lash out on them.

As far as showing Farenheit Bullshit in the classroom, if that happened to me, I would literally get up and leave the room. I'd bring my homework to the office and sit down and do it, just to be responsible. And no doubt my parents and everyone else that cared would know about it.

I did not know it was rated R. Documentaries are not rated R. Nor are they shown for a price in the movie theatres. If you ask me, Micheal Mooreon was in desperate need for more McDonalds so he made a "documentary", not even bothering to display FACTS. Good job, when you die I'll celebrate.

 

[NightTrain]

Leaglity of notification aside, I think its irresponisble to show kids of an impressionable age any piece of political speech without offering proper context or a counter argument. If the teacher said they were going to show FahrenHYPE 9/11 or Celsius 41.11 after he showed Moore's film, then a true diversity could be shown for the opposing viewpoints of the country. If they show anyone of those films by themselves with no context, then the kids will sway their opinions based solely on the 1 they saw.

Completely irresponsible for a teacher to do that.

You're right on the money, Insein.

It's completely irresponsible to show this film to a young audience. Even liberals admit that it's skewed bigtime, that teacher needs to be fired. That teacher is exposing young adults to propaganda. Period!

Now, IF there was another film showing an extreme right version of events, that would be a different story. But to show this movie without any counter is blatantly brainwashing.

One other axe that I have to grind with mainstream media is that they keep referring to this film as a documentary even though it's NOT! It's a film that does NOT attempt to be impartial! Documentary? My aching ass!

To the contrary, every effort is made to discredit George W. Bush. Completely nauseating that those children now are watching for Black Helicopters.

There's a Conspiracy afoot, Children! Can you find it?

 

[acludem]

Documentaries are rarely impartial. Most always that are made to illustrate a point or to educate on a particular subject. Try watching a few.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Documentaries are rarely impartial. Most always that are made to illustrate a point or to educate on a particular subject. Try watching a few.

acludem

thats great but it has nothing to do with F911

 

[musicman]

Documentaries are rarely impartial. Most always that are made to illustrate a point or to educate on a particular subject. Try watching a few.

acludem

I've watched a few. And, I have to say, the very term, "documentary", conjures up images in my mind of, say, the chronicling of events, or a parade of historical facts that surround a given story. The likes of CBS and Michael Moore have done scant justice to the form. In my lifetime, I have seen CBS deliver numerous hatchet pieces masquerading as "documentaries". Their fall from grace - beginning with having to retract their lies about General Westmoreland, and ending with "memogate", which has made them the laughingstock of the journalistic community (no mean feat) - almost constitutes a documentary within a documentary.

And, what point, pray tell, was Michael Moore "illustrating" with that travesty of his? On what subject was he "educating" us? The documentary might very well be dead - put to death by arrogant, unaccountable propogandists who - finally - strained American credulity to it's breaking point.

 

[Bonnie]

I've watched a few. And, I have to say, the very term, "documentary", conjures up images in my mind of, say, the chronicling of events, or a parade of historical facts that surround a given story. The likes of CBS and Michael Moore have done scant justice to the form. In my lifetime, I have seen CBS deliver numerous hatchet pieces masquerading as "documentaries". Their fall from grace - beginning with having to retract their lies about General Westmoreland, and ending with "memogate", which has made them the laughingstock of the journalistic community (no mean feat) - almost constitutes a documentary within a documentary.

And, what point, pray tell, was Michael Moore "illustrating" with that travesty of his? On what subject was he "educating" us? The documentary might very well be dead - put to death by arrogant, unaccountable propogandists who - finally - strained American credulity to it's breaking point.

 

[acludem]

He was illustrating that fact that George W. Bush lied to get us into war, has a deep, longstanding relationship with the very people most responsible for the attacks (i.e. the Saudi Royal family, longstanding state sponsors of anti-israel terror groups) and with the bin Laden family. He illustrated the pain of families who have lost loved ones in George Bush's war.

Michael Moore never said his documentary wasn't political. He never set out to make an impartial film about 9/11. His was a political documentary. Ken Burns makes historical documentaries. NFL films makes football documentaries. Now Sinclair Broadcasting is airing a documentary film about John Kerry just days before the election. That documentary is blatantly and unabashadly anti-Kerry, just as Moore's is blatantly and unabashadly anti-Bush. Problem is, Moore's isn't being aired for free on local TV, people had to make the choice and pay the money to go and see it. Sinclair is running the equivalent to free advertising for Bush/Cheney.

acludem

acludem

 

[Gem]

actually, Moore has had to recant that his work is a "documentary" due to the massive amount of information contained in it that has been debunked...he now has stated publically that it is just, "his personal opinion."