As an educator I know what he was trying for, but I as general person I can see a mile away what could of happened. He apparently did not think this out thoroughly. The flaw of the instruction was that he thought just because he could do it he should, just for demonstration purposes. People defile the flag for a purpose of demonstration as is due to their 1st amendment rights but doing it in this manor did irate some students so he was reported about this. Teachers do have rules to follow and some of them are about how you treat your students, how you deliver content as to not to disturb or mock a student's own personal belief systems.

In the end he just should of played some youtube videos of the acts and explain what was going on and how the moment justified such actions.

The man should of known better.

I disagree. These school officials and that state senator are government employees. It is absolutely proscribed to them to punish free speech unless it fits a very narrow circumstance. He did not insult or harass these students. He performed no illegal activity and suggested no illegal activity, and since he was the teacher of his class room, he could have possibly been interrupting a lesson.

If the students parents wanted to get a bug up their ass, that is one thing. However, it was the faculty and government representatives that punished him. That is the issue, that should bother you even if you think the flag is some sort of sacred cow.

Ethically I agree with you 100% but you're not entirely correct in assuming that as a public sector employee the teacher is entitled to unfettered free speech. Any employee, government or otherwise- especially a teacher is bound by a code of conduct that necessarily restricts some types of speech or expression as a condition of employment. For example a teacher wouldn't normally be permitted to advocate their political views in the classroom. Personally I get what this guy did, he's probably a great teacher, but his demonstration strikes me as needlessly gratuitous, and can certainly be interpreted as a political statement, even if that wasn't his intention. He at least should have anticipated the visceral offense that some of his students would have taken. Hopefully he'll get to keep his job, but I think some sort of disciplinary action is understandable under the circumstances.

His political statement is simply a lesson on politics. He is not saying he is right to do it. He is stating he HAS the right to do it. When the students get upset, he does not state they are wrong to be mad. He in fact encourages them to be upset, and to take action.

This is not idealogical indoctrination. If we can agree on that, then I would like to see a code of conduct which somehow prohibits such activity? We do not get to make up rules that punish people after the fact. I am assuming that is why a state senator is involved in trying to punish him? Is there anything actually wrong here, other than students and adults feeling disturbed by challenging ideas?

Once again I agree with you, but the difference is the world we live in vs. the world as it should be. Personally I think its great for a teacher to provoke and challenge his students' sensibilities. But from a practical viewpoint a teacher has to measure the fallout of potentially offending students, who after all are not in school by choice. Someone else mentioned the comparison of burning a Qur'an, or a bible for that matter. Would such a demonstration be equally acceptable in a public school? I know it's dumb, but the sad truth is that for some people stepping on the flag is a nearly equal offense. But my point isn't that what he did was wrong or even crossed a line, it's that a teacher in a public school classroom is not entitled to unfettered free speech, and the limits are really up to his superiors.

"As an educator I know"..."what could of happened"..."should of played"..."should of known"

please tell me where you are educatoring

Nice job of misquoting what you want and leaving out the pertinent parts. You also get an F on argumentative writing with this use of cherry picking.

Before the 1st amendment bandwagon starts off this isn't a 1st amendment problem but a poor lesson planning problem. Were the students of this teacher that stupid they needed a physical example of desecration of a flag in class? Next week when we talk about slavery we will dress up the dark students in chains, or with the holocaust, sharpie tattoos for all.

Those who wish to froth over this thinking it is a 1st amendment problem have at it.

He's referring to your use of 'of' rather than the correct 'have'. As in, should have, could have, etc.

So give yourself an A for defensive frothing and point missing, you've earned it.

I make no apologies over this, I'm dysgraphic, I type phonetically and typing would've is phonetically the same as would of. With papers, or assignments I design everything gets a thorough proof reading, do not expect this from me on here.

I agree with your "legally could have but still shouldn't have" argument. You can substitute "burn the Koran" for "stomp on the national flag" if you want mull over a parallel case.

Either act falls outside of appropriate behavior in a high school classroom.

As an educator you should work a little on your grammar and punctuation.

edit-sorry, just read your comment about being dysgraphic. Had to look it up.
Very interesting for an educator to suffer from a learning disability, must make for a bit of a challenge.

Yeah my LD went diagnosed for most of my life and was probably the reason I dropped out of HS at the 10th grade. I couldn't get the work in on time and back then we didn't have word processors. The disability did not affect my reading and even back then my reading level was beyond my grade level. When I was blowing off my English teacher I was reading Dune in class. My strong reading skills got me through the military, then later in civil aviation and aerospace. When I went back to school for my undergrad one of my professors seen my notes and had me checked out at the school of ed. By this time using brute force I mastered my undergrad subjects because the word processor is the tool of choice to work with people with dysgraphia. It takes the work out of writing so you can concentrate on content. Graduate school just ratcheted up a notch because its was nothing but research and papers ending with a capstone thesis. Odds are if you had some difficulty in school in the past you might of had an undiagnosed SLD *specific learning disability* The most common ones are literacy related.

An example of my notes from this week from my post grad class. You will notice where I scratch out where my brain said screw you, try again sucker and some words may be missing letters. Also I'm not actually writing letters its more like drawing hence how almost no letters look the same. I am so lucky I do not have dyslexia with my dysgraphia, I would of been really screwed over and probably never had a career.

http://imgur.com/Ni3dQdG

You're fortunate to be living in an era where we can recognize a range of learning disabilities that are completely separate from intellectual/cognitive functions. Not too long ago you may have simply been categorized as 'slow', or worse.

I wish my handwriting was that easy to read! I have to hand write notes from phone calls at work, and I spend most of my time trying to interpret what I wrote. My favorite tendency is to write a full word on top of itself.

The only thing I've learned about dysgraphia was from one chapter in an education class during college. I'm curious as to how it would affect typed communication. I thought it was handwriting specific.

Typing increases writing accuracy, speed, and takes away the responsibility of putting down text in a straight, level, and readable intervals. Your brain still makes mistakes when typing like forgetting letters in words, interposing letters, not typing whole words when you think you have, or you type out typos writing phonetically in my case typing out "of" and not using the correct contraction using "have". What has made my use of contractions harder is in scholarly writing you do not use them.

Nice. Turn a serious discussion about the 1st amendment into a gab fest about someone's inability to read and write.

I have never seen anyone desecrate the flag, and I served to protect their right to do so, but I also reserve the right to interrupt their plans in any way I can.