The New York Post is engaged in yet another series of articles on the perfidy of teachers. This series basically tells the world that teachers have too many job protections. It does this by giving examples of teachers who have jobs despite the fact that, for example, a dog the teacher owned killed someone. This teacher's boyfriend went to prison for this, but the teacher herself did not. This suggests to me the state felt her boyfriend responsible, but the Post is not persuaded. None of this innocent until proven guilty nonsense for Rupert Murdoch.
In any group, you can find examples of outrageous behavior, or at least behavior a tabloid can claim to be outrageous. You can always air accusations about individuals, even if courts and/ or arbitrators have determined them to be without merit. So why limit such stories to teachers?
We could target racial groups, and say, hey, look at this guy. We could target religious groups, and say hey, look what someone says this woman did. Of course, that would make us bigots. In fact, that's the MO of bigots pretty much everywhere.
So if Rupert Murdoch engages in despicable manipulative behavior with his propagandist rag, would it be rational or justifiable to paint all publishers with the same brush?
And when the New York Post blatantly stereotypes teachers, tarring the whole group with the actions of a small group, are they any better than racists or bigots? Why or why not?
The best reason to give a child a good school. . .is so that child will have a happy childhood, and not so that it will help IBM in competing with Sony. . . There is something ethically embarrassing about resting a national agenda on the basis of sheer greed.