At the very best Kunhardt failed as a teacher to point out there are no mosques 10 miles from the North Korean border. At the very worst he somehow thought it was a good idea to harass or encourage harassing a soldier about policy decisions that soldier has absolutely no part in making.

I think what we have here is a teacher who, most desperately, wishes that he were a college professor. He's probably just bitter that Chief Churchill is getting all the publicity.

Teachers are supposed to encourage independent thinking, not to censor assignments, and we don't know what the original assignment entailed. It sounds like he encouraged all of the kids to write down their opinions and to be blunt.

True, a soldier cannot make policy like Rumsfeld. But soldiers are not unwitting actors and their behaviors/actions can be criticized. If the assignment was to write letters of support than that's one thing, but that would limit independent thought on the part of all of the children. It sounds like the principal hung the teacher out to dry.

Please.

PRGirl, that's an interesting argument, but it doesn't answer the question Ace himself asked: Why are the (relatively uneducated) statements of a 6th-grade class allowed to go uncensored? I'll go one better: If the teacher had asked the children to write letters to the children of Iraq, and the letters condoned the war or otherwise teased them, how far do you think the letters would get? Not to mention that the statements were either a) not at all correct, or b) opinion fueled by misinformation.

Assignments like this one are par for the course in 6th grade lesson plans. The intent is to let kids write whatever they want, and usually the kids seal and stamp the envelops themselves, without any feedback from the teacher.

So, a teacher doesn't even have the opportunity to review the letters before the go out. I speak as a former second grade teacher. The lessons are designed to get kids interested in world events.

Fair enough, if the recpients were not as controversial as the ones we've been discussing. If your kids want to lambast the mayor (or president) for something, that's fine, and encouraged.
I guess my whole point (and the point of a lot of conservatives) is that there is a greater good at work here than the self-expression of a group of 12 and 13-year olds. Nowhere is the freedom of expression guaranteed above all else. The same educational effect could have been gotten from letters to the president, or even soldiers stationed in the US. Soldiers abroad rely on support from home. I know if I'd received a letter from a bunch of kids calling me a murderer and a destroyer of houses of worship, not to mention telling me I'd most likely die there, I'd have taken it hard. Very hard.
I wouldn't call it sedition (not on the kids' part, at least), but can't you at least agree that soldiers deserve better treatment than this?

The soldiers can write the kids back. I should have mentioned this earlier. This is the whole point of the lesson. An exchange of letters is encouraged to broaden everyone's perspective.

I agree, I wouldn't want to recieve off-putting letters from kids, especially when they're bound to be ill-informed and emotional. But that's the point of the lesson. The soldiers will have the opportunity to respond, not that he/she would want to if it's a ridiculously hate-filled letter. But I can assure you, the soldiers will have been invited to write back.

And why should soldiers have to engage in letter-writing with students who have shown no understanding of their situation? How condescending to the soldiers--putting it on them to answer ill-informed, derogatory opinions from 6th graders. It seems to me as though the teacher missed a great opportunity to teach his/her students what letter writing is about, who their audience is (not a policy-maker, but someone committed to serving their country), and basic human decency. Not that the students should only write good things if they do not agree, but there are ways of expressing yourself that do not impugn the motives of those you are addressing. To me, obviously, the teacher had an agenda that made its way into the classroom.

I don't think anyone can be demoralized who isn't already conflicted. In other words, I believe most soldiers can ably defend and refute misplaced, hostile criticism and, in this case, educate kids at the same time. It's an opportunity to explain to kids (who see everything in black and white) that there are shades of gray- and that war has horrible, unintended consequences. This is an opportunity for them to educate the kids about their situation and why they chose to serve in the first place. I think the soldiers can respond appropriately, regardless of the teacher's motives.

PRGirl -

You miss the whole point. The kids were spoon fed adult propaganda points and told to regurgitate them in letters to soldiers so they too, would "feel" what the 6th grade boss, a Mr. Kunhardt, thinks about war in general and Iraq specifically.

He admitted as such today and apologized to the soldiers, the kids, and especially the parents of the kids.

I detest the parents depicted using their kids aged -3 to 12, as proxies in protests, waving cute signs like "I'm glad my Mom decided not to murder me" at anti-abortion rallies, "Meat-eating is evil" at a PETA rally;
"War is state-sponsored murder" at an anti-Bush rally.

I will tell you this - if as a parent I found out my kid was writing soldiers at a teacher's insistance, calling them child-killers, and I determined my kid was just being used as a tool, worse, brainwashed to the teacher's ideology....a trip to the school would follow.
There would be a long discussion with that person's supervisor and results of that communication would be relayed to the local papers and the Board of Ed. That is so much more effective than just ripping such a teacher a new asshole - my `1st reaction..

Thanks for the update. This totally changes the playing field. This is totally uncool. An apology used to mean something. He should probably be suspended.

Sean Hannity just had the father of the soldier who got the letters. A woman called in who identified herself as Monique, a mother of one of the daughters who wrote one of the critical letters. It was an absolutely fascinating discussion that I wish I had a transcript of. At any rate I will try to give highlights. Monique (who was very supportive of the teacher) said that the students wrote these letters right after the election and they were supposed to address these to a "fictitious soldier". Supposedly there was no political bias or pressure placed on the students. Hannity was skeptical because he said the letters showed a number of similar themes. Monique said that a couple of days after the letter assignment was completed the teacher said he had approval from a real soldier who they could send the letters tp. He asked for the students permission and they granted it. According to her he was going to ask the soldier to reply to the students in an attempt to "open a dialogue" (left wing ideologue indicator just started flashing). The father of the soldier commented that the cover letter actually said that his son was given to understand that these were to be holiday letters.

Monique said her father served 3 tours in Vietnam and was exposed to Agent Orange. 15 years after returning he died from cancer due to AO . Hmmm....

My social studies teacher-in-trainign wife would know better than I but I think this whole episode smack of some type of lesson plan distributed at one of those anti-war teacher network workshops.

Park Slope, as Ace I am sure can attest, is the Berkeley of Brooklyn.

NY State educators, and NYC educators in particular are to the left of Lenin. It's been my experience in dealing, working and training with them, that they are an arrogant anti-American, and especially anti-Christian lot. They are the embodiment of every liberal cliche that is out there. They're also some of the least informed and poorly educated people its been my sad experience to meet.
I'm actually surprised that this hasn't happened more often.
"Arrogance and Stupidity all in one package, how efficent of you people" -Londo Mollari

Everyone, please read the following NBC investigation on the holocaust that is happening in North Korea. Please spread the word, because it's disheartening to see so many people have absolutely no idea what is happening there.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071468/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071464/

"At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, some 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say results in the DEATH OF 20 TO 25 PERCENT of the prison population every year.

Products made by prison laborers may wind up on U.S. store shelves, having been 'washed' first through Chinese companies that serve as intermediaries.

Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.

FORCED ABORTIONS [note: via injections of salt water directly into the amniotic sac] are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be 'eradicated.'

Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to both former inmates and U.S. officials. "

Bummer Paul, but we're not the world's policeman.

We will join other nations in "tsk-tsking" the situation and issuing statements double-deploring N Korea's human rights violations and issue sharply critical annual rights reports, if that matters somewhat.

We aren't going to use our overstretched military and risk casualties that would dwarf that of Iraq , to fix it. These human rights abuses have been pointed out to China and S Korea, but they have no interest in confronting the Norks on this. We could pressure China to leash its dog, which it could do in weeks if it wanted to, but too many wealthy importers and multinationals are getting rich off the China connection, and Bush listens to well-monied folks over all others. Besides, China is now our banker.

Don't feel bad, it's not like we are going to arrive like the calvary into Darfur or Myanmar, either.

Unless it is in the US's vital interests, we will not intervene without key nations committed as allies. So shed a tear and remember totalitarianism can be awful.

Cedarford,

And you voted for Bush who is plying Europe right now with speeches that are in similar vein with his State of the Union, pleading for the ideological spread of freedom and democracy? If I understand your last post right, he's a better mand than you are.

True enough, there is a difference between idealism and realism, but what you're writing in your last post is downright callous. Have a heart.

That besides, I would worry a whole lot harder about North Korea than about Iran right now. At least in Iran we know relatively sure that the majority of the population desire regime change and could rise up. I would call North Korea a case of vital interest - for the States and the rest of the free thinking world.

Flowerbed

Uhhh, could we try to stay on topic? Paul, I'm lookin' your way. I think we were discussing letters sent to soldiers from school children. You wanna discuss N. Korea, wait for the topic to come up or start your own blog.

Sorry for playing "blog police" but does anyone else find it extemely annoying when someone does that, switches topics?

Another possibility:
This is a lazy teacher who never bothered to read over all the letters before mailing them. It happens all the time.

I know of one situation where a high school english teacher was famous for assigning grades on essays which he never read. How did everyone know? Students tested him by including occasional sentences which cursed him and recieved no reaction from the teacher. Afterwards, students included entire paragraphs of nonsense or cursing. I was shown the evidence after they were in college.

However, if evidence indicates that the teacher acted with intention there is another route to consider. If the rules for educators in that teacher's state match the regulations elsewhere, an investigation into her actions can be legally required by parents. Secondary and elementary school teachers are normally prohibited from expressing their personal political beliefs to students, or otherwise attempting to persuade students to support any sort of political viewpoint.

This prohibition is normally included in the state code of professionalism for teachers. Someone should inquire on the question. If so, it could be an automatic opening for a lawsuit or grounds for a written reprimend. At the least, contact the State Board of Education or their Department of Education.