Saturday, April 7, 2012

College Board silent: US wars, NDAA, ‘non-academic, unsuitable,’ AP Govt topics?

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win. -- unsourced and attributed to Gandhi

Anthony Freda Art -- Buy Here
Carl Herman, Contributor
Activist Post

This is the first update for those interested in the education of our brightest high school students about US government. The first article I wrote has >50,000 search results; I appreciate the reposts to create public understanding of what is censored from education of US government.

Perhaps what resonates:
  • College Board censorship of the topics at the end of this article destroys actual education about US government, and not as the College Board asserts as topics that are “non-academic,” “personal,” and “unsuitable.” 
  • Dr. King’s message that such censorship/silence is betrayal, especially when none, zip, zero of the 2,000+ Advanced Placement (AP) teachers could refute or provide links to any refutation
  • Agreement that among the most important topics to teach in a course on US Government are its policies that kill millions, harm billions, and cost trillions of dollars.
Here’s the one-paragraph summary of what’s happened from April 2 through April 6:

Listserve moderator, Professor Joe Stewart of Clemson University, did not respond to the following three e-mails requesting contact information for College Board administrator Bill Tinkler, and to invite Joe to take a professional stand to speak against obvious US War Crimes and legislated removal of Constitutional civil rights.


The College Board at first stated Bill Tinkler was not in their database, then also has not responded when I provided further information.

I thought that sharing excerpts from my three e-mails to Joe would help public understanding of the “leadership” provided by the College Board when silence is their chosen response.

Some useful history: Joe just began his moderator work, and allowed all factual content relevant to understanding US government for three months. I invite him to once more embrace professional standards to allow facts to speak for themselves. When documented factual claims such as I provide at the end of this article cannot be refuted, they stand as our best understanding.

1st e-mail:
... The role I spoke for you is here and now, Joe. What you choose to do is up to you. I promise I will do my professional best to only write the facts of what happens. As a colleague, here's how I see your choices:

1. If you stay silent or neutral, when the future reveals that US wars are unlawful and started on obvious lies, the US tortured, and the US began destruction of basic rights in the Constitution, you'll have to explain why you did not act. This will be highlighted from my personal invitation for you to act.

2. If you oppose professional communication of facts concerning war law and what US agencies report in their official reports (as I document and shared to the listserve for colleagues' consideration), issues central to the US Constitution such as presidential assassination orders of American citizens and seizing Americans upon dictate of the Executive Branch, you'll have that to explain.

3. If you choose a role of support of the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (do you have that Oath, btw?), then I'm happy to be a partner for you to formulate your best self-expression.

I invite and prefer you to stand for what our nation is by law, Joe. I invite and prefer that you oppose US criminal wars that are obvious when war law is understood by everyone who ever read and wrote about it: the use of a nation's military in armed attack is a criminal War of Aggression unless in response to another nation's government's armed attack. I invite and prefer that you see your whole life's professionalism focused in this opportunity to stand for American values, ideals and law.

You'll be known, one way or another, Joe. You chose to be moderator of professional communication in this subject field. You received "orders" to censor a voice pointing to facts that determine whether millions will live or die, billions be helped or hurt, and what we do with trillions of our dollars.

I will fight for those human lives, Joe. I will fight for professional standards to communicate facts in good faith effort for those lives. I will uphold my Oath to the US Constitution in defense of unalienable rights.

What will you do?

Time is an issue. I am motivated, and I will write.

Feel free to call me if that's easier. I want to help you choose a path that matches the person you've always wanted to be.

Carl

2nd e-mail:
College Board says they do not have a Bill Tinkler on their database. Who is this person and how do I contact him, Joe?

Thank you,
Carl

3rd e-mail:
Joe: I read your bio and sense you genuinely are a nice person. You want us to all get along, as you write. As an expert in government, you should have something to say about unlawful Wars of Aggression being the Orwellian opposite of getting along.

But this is what you're doing in your area of responsibility as moderator of what to discuss as AP Government teachers:
  • You've gone silent on me and my request to discuss with whoever Bill Tinkler is a unilateral and insult-ridden dictate to censor my voice.
  • The list below are the topics of facts that I document and make accessible to colleagues' consideration for teaching. These have not been refuted either here or anywhere in politics or academia that I'm aware of. Are you aware of any refutation, Joe?
  • If the facts of War Crimes, torture, presidential assassination of Americans, wars all based on lies cannot be refuted, in academics we go with this prima facie evidence as our best understanding of the facts.
  • If this is our best understanding of facts in central areas of government, Constitutional underpinnings, Civil Rights, and current events to show real-world application, then it's helpful for someone to provide concise factual documentation for colleagues' consideration. I'm happy to take the lead for this if nobody else is active in these areas.
  • You took orders, Joe, to silence this voice on FACTUAL topics central to our concerns. War law and wars determine life or death for millions, help or harm to billions, and use trillions of our dollars. War law to prevent exactly the wars of the US today is the legal victory of all our families through two world wars. The first unalienable right to life is also the first civil right to not be killed by government.
  • As listserve moderator it is your responsibility to facilitate discussion of the most important facts of a college-level government course.
  • If it's your choice to take orders, be silent, refuse to allow me to engage with Bill Tinkler by providing me any access for conversation, hey: that's your call.
I'll write about whatever you choose to do.
... What do you want to be known for? I've given you a week to consider this. Time to take a stand, bro. You have a position of responsibility and leadership. Again, if you choose to reach out to me, I'll help you understand the facts. You can check them with experts.

... Here's the list of central facts I've written about to the listserve. Again, you're choosing censorship of these topics and silence to me, the messenger. Are you in agreement with Mr. Tinkler that the following are "non-academic," "personal in nature," and "unsuitable" for our brightest high school minds in a college-level course on US Government?
Carl
Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

I promise further updates. 


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

2 comments:

Britt121 said...

I am new to the teaching field and teach AP Government and AP economics. I lean to the libertarian end of the spectrum and often discuss these abuses against the Constitution with my students in both classes. Having a class keep up with current events and analyzing the Constitutionality of such events makes the class relevant, fun, and sets the student up to continue learning about modern events.

AP Economics, while more dry than government, also lends itself to fun debates about the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. I am proud to say that my students know a lot about multiple sides of these debates and I leave it to them to make the final moral judgment.

I really hope we have more government/econ teachers who are talking about these things, even though it can be uncomfortable. The more I see our country descend into a police state, the more I realize how fortunate I am to make a difference.

Carl Herman said...

Well said, Britt121. If you join the AP listserves, you can contribute what you see. The AP Gov Course Description explicitly empowers you to do so, despite my ejection and reminder of this passage:

"The AP Program unequivocally supports the principle that each individual school must develop its own curriculum for courses labeled “AP .” Rather than mandating any one curriculum for AP courses, the AP Course Audit instead provides each AP teacher with a set of expectations that college and secondary school faculty nationwide have established for college-level courses . AP teachers are encouraged to develop or maintain their own curriculum that either includes or exceeds each of these expectations; such courses will be authorized to use the “AP” designation . Credit for the success of AP courses belongs to the individual schools and teachers that create powerful, locally designed AP curricula."

Post a Comment