When it comes to preaching multiculturalism and politically correct social engineering in public schools, the Left are certainly the most vocal of free speech purists. On the other hand, the same people react with horror to the mere mention of religion or Conservative views in the same schools. Are there limits to free speech in schools, or not -- and who gets to set those limits? Can teachers use public schools as soapboxes from which to preach their personal philosophy, whatever it may be? Should any religious or political views be banned from public schools -- or only Christian and Conservative perspectives? Taxpayers have little or no control over the schools they pay for -- and that's the root of the problem.

The Jay Bennish case is being fought as a free speech issue. A radical Left-wing teacher was caught on tape railing against President Bush, the liberation of Iraq, capitalism, democracy and America while supposedly teaching a geography class. Is it right for teachers to use high school classrooms to instill hatred for America? According to Bennish's defenders, he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights, and not pushing a particular point of view. Were the students learning anything about geography? The Left pompously declare that free speech may not be interfered with, especially not in the classroom. However... other teachers, who have different views, have had their free speech rights denied, as have students.

Whenever a teacher seems to espouse a right-of-center viewpoint, the Left are quick to remind us that students see teachers as the voice of authority -- although left-wing diatribes aren't seen as exerting undue influence. In 2004, a teacher put up a wall display with pictures of the American Presidents and a poster of the Declaration of Independence. She was reprimanded because the display included a picture of the current President, George W. Bush. Since there was no picture of Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, the display was seen as "endorsing" Bush as a candidate in the 2004 election. In a middle school. Where the students range in age from 10 to 14. 

A student was scolded, lectured, insulted and threatened for putting up signs supporting the liberation of Iraq in a New Jersey school. "Thought Police" squads roamed the hallways of Maine, Massachusetts and West Virginia schools, watching for evidence of racial or sexual "intolerance" like having a Bible. Teachers in a California high school were ordered to hang posters promoting "gay tolerance" -- complete with pink triangles and rainbows -- in their classrooms, even though some teachers objected due to their religious beliefs. There has been no move to hang "religious tolerance" posters. How about promoting plain "tolerance" without focusing it through a Liberal lens?

Many Americans have become worried about the anti-Christian stance of most public schools. Under cover of "separation of church and state" -- a phrase which exists nowhere in the Constitution -- public schools have, in many cases, banned all forms of Judeo-Christian religious expression. Despite the fact that (according to a 2005 Newsweek/Beliefnet poll) 85% of Americans belong to one Christian denomination or another, teachers and students are not allowed to wear Christian religious symbols, speak about their religion, or form Christian clubs.

Children have been suspended for praying in their free time, or even carrying a Bible. In one Texas middle school, teachers threw students' Bibles in the trash and removed book covers that had Christian themes. Why isn't it considered the same abuse of their authority when a teacher tells students, "This is garbage" as it would be if the teacher said, "This is good?" Would they dare do the same to a Qur'an? All across America, Christmas has been replaced with "winter holiday" and Easter with "spring break." Christmas carols have been excised or altered. What happened to the First Amendment's injunction against "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion? If the First Amendment gives some teachers complete freedom of speech in the classroom, it must do so for all. If there are limits and guidelines, they should be set by the people whose children will learn by them.

As much as Christianity offends them, however, most schools devote at least some class time to teaching students about Islam -- without, it seems, mentioning the institutionalised abuse of women under shari'a law. In Eklund v. Byron Unified School District, parents sued a California district over their teaching practices. Students were encouraged to adopt Muslim names, pray to Allah in Arabic, and wear Muslim robes for extra credit. The Ninth District court favored the schools, ruling that such activities weren't "overtly religious." Imagine the outcry if a teacher encouraged students to adopt Biblical names, pray to God in English or Hebrew, and wear Christian or Jewish symbols for extra credit. The teacher would be not only fired, but crucified -- figuratively speaking, I hope. Schools have room in the curriculum for the Five Pillars of Islam, but not the Ten Commandments.

Is it any wonder that parents are so uninvolved in the lives of their kids these days? Parents only have influence over their children until they send them off to school. After that, parents and children might only interact for an hour or so a day, if they're lucky. Faceless government entities decree what students will learn and how. Instead of teaching facts, many public schools spend most of their time on touchy-feely, gold-star-just-for-attending, there-are-no-wrong-answers Liberal methods of making kids feel good about being ignorant.

School vouchers would go a long way toward alleviating the situation. Vouchers would bring market forces to bear, increasing competition among schools while giving parents both reason and opportunity to appraise the quality of education their children receive. Parents would have the ability to choose between competing schools without having to pay the exorbitant cost of private education. Schools would have to defend their curriculum choices, and parents would generally become more involved in their children's lives.

If schools were more responsive to the wishes of parents, kids might learn geography in geography classes again. Those who preach where they should teach would face critical questions from those who pay their salaries. That's something the Left just cannot allow.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the audio and transcript of Jay Bennish's diatribe.