I sent my students home with permission slips for the movie The Road to Guantanamo. The film takes a critical look at American policy toward detainees at Guantanamo by focusing on the stories of the 3 British men who were held there without charge for multiple years before eventually being released with no charges against them.
On one permission slip, a parent wrote the following note to me:
"I would hope there will also be propaganda/discussion to show the other side. Anti Americanism without showing both sides is not appropriate."
This comment angers and offends me on a number of levels.
From the professional standpoint, it suggests that I would present any controversial issue without giving attention to both sides. The day prior to the video beginning, students read and discussed 9 statements about the handling of terror suspects to begin a dialogue on the issue. Next, they read a press release from the White House announcing the re authorization of the Patriot Act explaining the need for legislation to make fighting terror easier. After that, they read a press release from Amnesty International criticizing the Patriot Act and the practices at Guantanamo Bay. All of this took place with mediated discussion.
I am also offended on a personal level. The comment suggests that the movie (and subsequently my decision to use it in class) is Anti-American. So is the true lesson of a course on democracy supposed to be blind acceptance of authority? Or is the more valuable lesson one that encourages students to study an issue, gather information and then draw informed opinions? I'll take the latter, thank you very much.
In fact, we just finished 5 days of topics debates. These debates took place after students researched the issues for a number of days in class so they'd have educated opinions on things like illegal immigration and student drug testing. I work very hard to keep my personal opinions to myself in my classroom. My role is to provide opportunities for students to develop their own positions on issues. I am probably more noncommittal than I even should be to be honest.
In a week when the first person (Australian David Hicks) faced a military commission under the revised rules (revised due to the Supreme Court striking down the first attempts at Guantanamo Bay due to constitutional issues), I can think of little that would be more timely and appropriate to study in Challenges of Democracy.
If my choice of resources is a problem, consider this:
- Reviews of the movie are overwhelmingly positive. It is a docudrama, not a documentary so the movie is certainly not fact minute-for-minute, but it matches the testimony of individuals who have been released from Guantanamo, including the 3 subjects of the film.
- International opinion about American policy in Guantanamo is overwhelmingly critical. Even US allies like Britain and Australia express severe concerns with human rights violations.
- A number of major human rights organizations continue to call for oversight and review of allegations of wrongdoing at Guantanamo as some detainees are now in their fifth year in detention with no allegations against them.
Rant Over.
Thanks for listening/reading. I chose to post here rather than call the parent.