Mailbag - Jan. 22, 2002

OCC teachers must continue classroom debate

Regarding Orange Coast College instructor Ken Hearlson’s

discriminatory remarks against his Muslim students in class Sept. 18,

Joseph Bell (The Bell Curve -- “A lost chance to debate academic

freedom,” Dec. 27) gets close to the main issue when he says that for a

college instructor, “the line between provocation and bullying is

amorphous.”

However, Bell falls short when he says it is “the ultimate

responsibility of the teacher to decide if he is crossing that line.” The

responsibility to say something also belongs to other colleagues,

administrators and students. Many of Hearlson’s colleagues believe, based

on transcripts of the investigation, that Hearlson bullied students with

his unrelenting, insensitive, poorly timed criticisms of Muslims. Many of

his incendiary comments were so generalized that confused students (when

allowed to speak) kept asking Hearlson to qualify his remarks as to

whether he was calling his Muslim students terrorists -- the ones he was

pointing and gesturing at in his class -- or those who murder in the name

of Allah.

While Hearlson’s comments against Muslims and his insistence in

teaching from a fundamental Christian perspective may be protected by

academic freedom, he cannot be shielded from the criticism of his peers

who have read the investigation and regard his classroom management as

contributing to a hostile environment not conducive to learning.

Bell does not realize that the “academic freedom” idea was started by

a few of our colleagues who do not want the public to be “sympathetic to

the administration.” They are also the ones generating rumors that the

administration’s action had a “chilling effect” on teaching at Orange

Coast College.

If the union and academic senate presidents insist that the

administration’s actions have spooked some colleagues who have “decided

to curtail classroom debate,” we would like to know who these weaklings

are and give them some support; a growing number of faculty, obviously

not represented by our faculty presidents, are doing exactly what Bell

suggests, “pushing the edges” and continuing to teach in a provocative

fashion.

GLYNIS HOFFMAN

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: GLYNIS HOFFMAN is a professor of English at OCC

School board needs individuals, not a team

In response to school board President Judy Franco’s remarks about

building consensus and teamwork: We have been there before (“Franco named

new board president,” Dec. 12). We had a team and consensus when we were

bilked out of $4 million. Remember that embezzlement? Yea, way to go,

team.

Franco also mentions a shift from phonics-based to non-phonics-based

education. If we didn’t have all team members, maybe there would have

been a Wendy Leece on the board who would have sounded the alarm to not

throw out phonics. Maybe he or she would have sounded the alarm when

spelling and spelling books were thrown out the window by the “team.”

I taught combination grades first-second and fifth-sixth from 1963 to

1973. I left teaching to raise a family. Way back then, our children

could read at the end of first grade with varying degrees of success, due

to phonics. I only regret that I gave away all my phonics-based material

and charts. They would be worth their weight in gold today.

I don’t think we need a “team.”

We need individuals who are interested in educating our children and

not in every new fad to come down the pike. Whole word, fuzzy math,

spelling by sound and not rules, junk science, revised history are all

products of a “team effort.”

Let’s not build consensus. Anyone who has ever received a grade on a

school project using consensus knows what happens. Why do we want one

voice telling us what our children need?

In order to make sound judgments, we have to hear several viewpoints.

Maybe then we won’t have all these horrible experiments on our children.

SANDY NICHOLS

Corona del Mar

School band meant no harm with Confederate flag

As a very proud parent of a Newport Harbor High School band member and

a member of the graduating class of 1976, I am surprised and perplexed by

the controversy surrounding the sets for this year’s field show (“Newport

Harbor High apologies for halftime show,” Nov 15).

I may be naive, but I never realized that African Americans considered

the Confederate flag a symbol of slavery. I had been taught about the

Confederacy’s fall and this turbulent time in American history, but it is

just that, American history. We cannot deny it happened, and we as a

nation moved forward and became the great indivisible country we are

today. We are the United States, and no time in my life has that been as

apparent as it has in the last few months.

The field show was written well before Sept. 11, and I have watched it

several times with a feeling of great pride, both for my daughter and

because of what this country has overcome, past and present. This show is

purely entertainment and tells a Civil War story, nothing more, nothing

less. I think it’s sad the Westchester principal made such an issue of

this and that use of these props prompted an apology. They did nothing

wrong and do not owe anyone an apology. I am certain that the directors,

the band members and the parents of this great group of kids meant no

harm to anyone.

DEBBY WATSON

Costa Mesa