Teach history, not lies.

[Fiddelysquat]

In high school, I had this phenomenal 20th Century History teacher. He was so amazing that NOBODY skipped his class. People would come in from lunch and study hall to listen to his lectures. He was funny, engaging, and really taught his students history. His class was so amazing that kids lined up outside the guidance office to sign up for it.

Anyway, he showed some disturbing images. You know, Holocaust images, pictures of the atomic bomb blast, etc. At the beginning of the semester he sent permission slips home to parents telling them this. Each time he was about to show a disturbing image he told students they could shut their eyes or step outside without penalty.

Anyway, a few weeks back, he showed images from the Charles Manson murders. Students were, of course, given the option to leave or look away. Apparently some girl got all offended told her mommy and daddy about it. Mommy and daddy responded very logically. They filed an "anonymous" lawsuit against the school district, took a bunch of things out of context, and are trying to make my old history teacher seem like some evil pervert who is corrupting the students. They obviously didn't care much about anonymity, though. They made all these pamphlets about how "evil" he is and distributed them at their church and went door to door. Big surprise that people figured out it was them.

Last weekend, around 75 current and former students and some parents had a rally supporting him right outside the school. There's been a huge outcry from all his students and their parents, who maintain that he's a phenomenal teacher and that the case is idiotic.

You know, it really enrages me how sue-happy and PC our society has become. Horrible things happened in history. What, is he supposed to sugar coat it? That girl KNEW what that class was all about and she signed up for it. She never even talked to him about her problems or transferred out, instead having her nutty parents sue the school district, because apparently, people like them deserve my tax dollars.

I'm just so aggravated over this. What is WRONG with people?!

[Uncle Xyzzy]

Ya know, people that stupid shouldn't be allowed to breed.

And at that intelligence level, that's the most appropriate terminology.

[Kugetsu]

Eh, they probably just wanted money and attention. If you can't handle disturbing images, then LEAVE THE ROOM WHEN YOU'RE GIVEN THE OPTION. And if you DO see something that is disturbing to you, deal with it, you don't cry home to mommy and daddy (especially in HIGH SCHOOL).

I get a bit annoyed when people sue for stupid things like this. History doesn't deserve to be cleaned up. Since when has any war been rainbows and butterflies?

[Dragonfire]

Yeah, they probably just wanted money. And this kinda reminds me of something that happened here, although the circumstances surrounding it were completely different.

It's amazing how censored society has become sometimes.

[Nessa]

Utterly rediculous. Simply by giving students the option to leave / close their eyes, hes covered his bum.

[Demulesca]

Lawsuits are lame and a dull choice in general.

However, why is it even necessary to show pictures of the murder? I remember my high school being picture free and I've had phenomenal teachers. I don't understand how pictures of a murder could possibly help you teach about what happened. I'm pretty sure "murder" is self-explanatory.

It wasn't even like the way of killing in that particular case was distinct. It was a bunch of stabbings and gunshots, thus, I see no reason to provide a picture of it. I have a book of serial killers somewhere near me and it didn't take a picture of the murders for me to understand the Manson case. The holocaust is different because of the way they were tortured and it might be a bit hard to imagine a pile of corpses on top of each other.

Gunshot wounds and stabbings? I don't think so.

[Asthaloth]

And Japan completely denies their involvement in WW2.

So what? It's not like this is new, most of England has denied what we did for so long that almost no one knows about it.

[Igg]

Lawsuits are lame and a dull choice in general.

However, why is it even necessary to show pictures of the murder? I remember my high school being picture free and I've had phenomenal teachers. I don't understand how pictures of a murder could possibly help you teach about what happened. I'm pretty sure "murder" is self-explanatory.

It wasn't even like the way of killing in that particular case was distinct. It was a bunch of stabbings and gunshots, thus, I see no reason to provide a picture of it. I have a book of serial killers somewhere near me and it didn't take a picture of the murders for me to understand the Manson case. The holocaust is different because of the way they were tortured and it might be a bit hard to imagine a pile of corpses on top of each other.

Gunshot wounds and stabbings? I don't think so.

Well each to their own, but I think pictures help people to be a bit less detached from what they're being told.

For the record, when we studied Jack the Ripper we got pictures of mutilated victims (Mary Jane Kelly and Catherine Eddowes' pictures were fairly graphic) and not only did nobody complain, but there was no 'warning' about having to see images like that.

God bless rural England. I may not be able to get Digital telly but I can see photographs of murder victims in school and nobody gets sued.

[Wind]

If the teacher warned about it beforehand, I see nothing wrong with it. But maybe the photos are not an issue, and those parents dislike the teacher's views on history?

[Igg]

and those parents dislike the teacher's views on history?

Well then they can suck it up or get their kid in a different class. You can't teach History without having a viewpoint. Most teachers don't mind if you disagree with their views if you have a reason.

[Fiddelysquat]

Lawsuits are lame and a dull choice in general.

However, why is it even necessary to show pictures of the murder? I remember my high school being picture free and I've had phenomenal teachers. I don't understand how pictures of a murder could possibly help you teach about what happened. I'm pretty sure "murder" is self-explanatory.

It wasn't even like the way of killing in that particular case was distinct. It was a bunch of stabbings and gunshots, thus, I see no reason to provide a picture of it. I have a book of serial killers somewhere near me and it didn't take a picture of the murders for me to understand the Manson case. The holocaust is different because of the way they were tortured and it might be a bit hard to imagine a pile of corpses on top of each other.

Gunshot wounds and stabbings? I don't think so.

The Manson murders weren't all just gunshot wounds and stabbings. You do know what they did to Sharon Tate, right? Anyway, his reasoning was that there are people who still idolize Manson. He gets loads of fanmail in prison and there were even a couple kids in my school who wore shirts with his picture on it. He thoroughly explained the rise of the Manson Family cult and showed us the impact the murders had on American society.

[Demulesca]

Lawsuits are lame and a dull choice in general.

However, why is it even necessary to show pictures of the murder? I remember my high school being picture free and I've had phenomenal teachers. I don't understand how pictures of a murder could possibly help you teach about what happened. I'm pretty sure "murder" is self-explanatory.

It wasn't even like the way of killing in that particular case was distinct. It was a bunch of stabbings and gunshots, thus, I see no reason to provide a picture of it. I have a book of serial killers somewhere near me and it didn't take a picture of the murders for me to understand the Manson case. The holocaust is different because of the way they were tortured and it might be a bit hard to imagine a pile of corpses on top of each other.

Gunshot wounds and stabbings? I don't think so.

The Manson murders weren't all just gunshot wounds and stabbings. You do know what they did to Sharon Tate, right? Anyway, his reasoning was that there are people who still idolize Manson. He gets loads of fanmail in prison and there were even a couple kids in my school who wore shirts with his picture on it. He thoroughly explained the rise of the Manson Family cult and showed us the impact the murders had on American society.

Yes I'm aware that the murders weren't all gunshot wounds and stabbings but the mass of them were. How does looking at a picture of death reason that people still idolize Manson? That makes no sense. Yes, he has people "following" him and it impacted on American society but showing a picture of the murder doesn't directly corelate to the education of the murders.

But maybe the photos are not an issue, and those parents dislike the teacher's views on history?

I don't think stating fact is a view.

I've never studied serial killers in class but I can read about them and it doesn't take pictures for me to learn about killings. If the pictures were of how he did it and the method he used, or where he did it, or something actually important to the case then yes, they should be used but it's still not necessary to show pictures of the victims unless it's hard to explain how they were mutilated or killed.

They were wrong in suing him because they were given a choice to not look at it, although, I'd have to question the teacher's method of teaching if he depends on pictures to prove his point.

[Igg]

It makes it more real, really.

[Demulesca]

Eh whatever, I stated my point.

This reminds me of the lawsuits brought on by Jack Thompson, but that's another story.

[Morningstar]

It makes it more real, really.

I was reading through this thread and, I swear to God, those words came right out of my mouth a half second before I read yours Igg. Great minds think alike???? Pictures get the point across much more deeply than any words. And I say that, having been a lit major in college. Think about it. Imagine reading about 9/11 without ever seeing any pictures of the buildings. Doesn't have quite the same impact as that the 5 second clip of video showing the second plane going into the building.

These are high school students, for criminy's sake. Kids that age are able to see much, much worse on the primetime TV news or on just about any public access website. In fact, I remember being shown a horrific video when I was in driver's ed class when I was in high school. Of what happens to kids when they drink and drive. It was graphic. It was scary. But it sure as heck got the point across to each of us new drivers about exactly what happens in a really bad car crash.

The parents here are being total pains in the butt. And most likely doing it to get their names in the paper and maybe to get their faces on the national news shows. In my opinion, PC is getting a little out of hand.