I was refering to what the actual burning acomplished. If the kids are being taught the surrounding issues at another point in the class or reading about them in the textbook then that's everything important right there, no greater message is imparted by the burning. It's really just a gimick, just like lighting fireballs of methane in chem class gets oooo's and ahhh's from the class but teaches nothing they didn't already understand (methane burns, big deal), the burning of flags in history gets the kids excited in a 'you'll never guess what the teacher did today!' sort of way.
My 10th grade teacher hung a mannequin from a tree outside the classroom and had us sit by it during our lesson of what sparked the civil rights movement. Same intent, acomplished nothing in particular.

Bummer. Being the lucky student who was picked to advance the strip when the record went "ding" was a big part of growing up.

Back when there were things like records. And rotary phones.

A lot of people assume kids can't think for themselves. My father said something like "It will just make them want to do it". Makes me sad... I am nothing like him.

You really think that there isn't anything special about the flag-burning? No big deal, then? Doesn't represent anything in particular about free speech in our society, doesn't reference any sort of discussion we are having as a culture. It just so happens, coincedentally I suppose, that #1 this guy was suspended, #2 it became a big ruckus, and #3 we are actually sitting here discussing it, right now. You and me are discussing this 'no big deal' thing, this 'doesn't make any difference one way or the other' thing.

If it's good enough for us to talk about, why shouldn't our children be exposed to these ideas? Aren't they there to learn?

I find it remarkable that you had that experience... This is why: in the debate over this flag-burning business, over at Soundchain, one guy asked "what if he had had a doll of a black person on a cross and burned it? would this still be acceptable? afterall, just freedom of speech, right?" . . . I guess you answered that question! ha ha ha

How many of your other lessons that day do you remember?
That is good in and of itself. It's not enough; you can't end it there, but it is important.

Maybe instead, he should have stood up in front of the class and said, "There ain't enough soldiers in the whole f'ing army to force us to let n*ggers into this school!" (ala Strom Thurmond).

Also protected speech. Also memorable. Also an unpopular expression.

Also totally inappropriate in a classroom.

I think flag-burning is protected speech. I don't want to see a constitutional amendment banning it. I also think it is vulgar speech, expressing a deeply hateful sentiment. To trivialize it by making it a classroom stunt destroys the power of the statement in its appropraite context.

@smoothmoniker: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me, that in statements like yours, it is implied that the teacher was expressing an opinion or position on the issue, when, more accurately, he was asking the students to give their opinion on it.

The popular "racism comparison" reminds me of Godwin's Law (Reductio ad Hitlerum).

Not at all. I think it's a very apt parallel - his point was that the 1st ammendment protects even unpopular speech, and particularly unpopular political speech. Strom's epic racial tirade was a perfect example of that kind of unpopular, offensive, political, protected speech.

In the same way, flag-burning is unpopular, offensive, political, protected speech. That's not the same thing as saying that it's appropriate.

also, my understanding was that the teacher wasn't burning the flag as a statement, he was burning the flag to demonstrate the kind of speech that was protected.

I'm suggesting he use the racial slurs in the same way - not to express the opinion, but to demonstrate the kind of speech that is protected.

But he wasn't condoning it, he was demonstrating it. Not the same as Strom.

Edit: I didn't see that last post before I posted this. Citing Strom himself is an apple versus this orange.

Who ever said it was appropriate? It *wasn't presented as appropriate or not, as far as we know.

Edit1: *

Edit2: I give up. I can't read or type.

It was my impression that burning the flags was done to elicit an emotional response from the students and they were instructed to write a paper based on their response. This would be followed by classroom discussion about the constitutional protections and the law.

If I'm correct in my take on what was planned, then the teachers mistake was involving himself rather than show a video of someone burning a flag.
I can see the value of getting the students gut reaction on paper first, rather than having them rationalize what the thought they would feel seeing a flag burned. :2cents: