Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: My DC and many of our friends act as thought they are HRC supporters just to avoid being shunned.

Maybe they really are Clinton supporters, but just pretend to be Trump supporters around their controlling parents.

Another poster here, but I can totally relate to the kids feeling the need to support Hillary at school. I was a liberal arts major in college, and I quickly learned that it was much easier to earn better grades by simply puppeting the perspectives of my (mainly) liberal professors.

Anonymous wrote: My DC and many of our friends act as thought they are HRC supporters just to avoid being shunned.

Maybe they really are Clinton supporters, but just pretend to be Trump supporters around their controlling parents.

Anonymous wrote:You mean like bumper stickers on the headmasters car? We openly accept that the teachers at our DC's school are libs, they don't hide it. Just takes a lot of extra work when it comes to history so that we can reverse any brain damage done during the day. Open discussion of politics is a laughable phrase, especially given this election. If your kid mentions Trump in a positive light it reflects in their grading and friendships. My DC and many of our friends act as thought they are HRC supporters just to avoid being shunned.

Oh FFS, what sort of history did you need to reverse?

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it is a religious school in particular, one can make an argument that, given Trump's racist/misogynist/nativist statements, it is acceptable for the school leadership to speak out against that behavior and the candidate himself.

Personally, I think it is probably better -- given that children in the school have parents voting for both candidates -- to try to discuss issues without extending to a statement of preference of candidates. However, that's tougher to do in this particular Election.

Same with Hillary and her abortion stance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are allowed to do whatever they want in their private lives, and I would expect someone who has dedicated their career to progressive education on one side, or religious education on the other (or both) might have feelings about a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, candidate.

How about one who lies repeatedly and supports a radical platform on issues like abortion?

Although I understand it is a stance with which you deeply disagree, Clinton's position on abortion is not "radical" but is shared by tens of millions and has been held to be legal for over 50 years under the framework set forth in Roe v. Wade.

I do understand that it is antithetical to the position taken by the Catholic Church but, again, that does not make it "radical." If your point is that the head of a Catholic school, for example, should steer clear of espousing Clinton because of her views on abortion, I understand that viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote:If they said that everyone needs to study harder because we need better choices on all sides in future elections I would be all for it.

+1 Nailed it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are allowed to do whatever they want in their private lives, and I would expect someone who has dedicated their career to progressive education on one side, or religious education on the other (or both) might have feelings about a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, candidate.

How about one who lies repeatedly and supports a radical platform on issues like abortion?

You mean like Donald Trump right up until the day he decided to seek the GOP nomination? If you want a pro-life candidate, you're going to have to look elsewhere. You can have Johnny-come-lately Donald Trump, who claims to be pro-life but who knows where he actually stands, and who is as anti-life in his other stances as a person could possibly be. But that's not pro-life. That's just maybe anti-abortion, until it's politically expedient to support it again.

Anonymous wrote:I think they are allowed to do whatever they want in their private lives, and I would expect someone who has dedicated their career to progressive education on one side, or religious education on the other (or both) might have feelings about a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, candidate.

How about one who lies repeatedly and supports a radical platform on issues like abortion?

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it is a religious school in particular, one can make an argument that, given Trump's racist/misogynist/nativist statements, it is acceptable for the school leadership to speak out against that behavior and the candidate himself.

Personally, I think it is probably better -- given that children in the school have parents voting for both candidates -- to try to discuss issues without extending to a statement of preference of candidates. However, that's tougher to do in this particular Election.

Actually, PP, I think the opposite. My kids are at a religious school and I would not like to see HRC stickers on the head person's car, due to her radical stance on abortion.

If they said that everyone needs to study harder because we need better choices on all sides in future elections I would be all for it.

I think they are allowed to do whatever they want in their private lives, and I would expect someone who has dedicated their career to progressive education on one side, or religious education on the other (or both) might have feelings about a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, candidate.

Well, if it is a religious school in particular, one can make an argument that, given Trump's racist/misogynist/nativist statements, it is acceptable for the school leadership to speak out against that behavior and the candidate himself.

Personally, I think it is probably better -- given that children in the school have parents voting for both candidates -- to try to discuss issues without extending to a statement of preference of candidates. However, that's tougher to do in this particular Election.

You mean like bumper stickers on the headmasters car? We openly accept that the teachers at our DC's school are libs, they don't hide it. Just takes a lot of extra work when it comes to history so that we can reverse any brain damage done during the day. Open discussion of politics is a laughable phrase, especially given this election. If your kid mentions Trump in a positive light it reflects in their grading and friendships. My DC and many of our friends act as thought they are HRC supporters just to avoid being shunned.

As abhorrent as Trump is to me, I don't think it's ever appropriate for an educator to be openly supporting any political candidate in a way where students know about it.

I'm a public school educator and I encourage the open discussion of politics in my classroom but I stay neutral.

Seriously wonder what others think. Do you think they should remain more neutral or do you think it is okay to announce politics? If you say no, is it because of Trump or would you feel that way even if it wasn't such a controversial election?