Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits. For our final segment this week,
Speaker 1: we're looking at a subject that is near and dear
Speaker 1: to my heart, and that is public education. Jimmy Junior
Speaker 1: tell us, what's the latest from the front lines.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, Christian nationalism suggests that being American also means
Speaker 2: being Christian, and many supporters of this idea argue that
Speaker 2: the founders excuse me, the founders of this country believe
Speaker 2: the same thing, but that is inherent inherently false. They
Speaker 2: made no such claims, and they actively avoided the implementation
Speaker 2: of any religious sect whatsoever. They had intricate discussions that
Speaker 2: resulted in unanimous agreement that determine the United States would
Speaker 2: be a country based solely on representative democracy, where people
Speaker 2: would have the right to self determination in their private lives,
Speaker 2: and that gave us the right to practice or not
Speaker 2: practice whatever creed we wish, along with the expectation that
Speaker 2: the government was going to uphold this social contract. So
Speaker 2: what is happening in Louisiana and Oklahoma. We have lawmakers
Speaker 2: there in place who either don't know their history, or
Speaker 2: don't care to know it, or both, and they are
Speaker 2: using their position to assault the minds of children in
Speaker 2: order to secure a long term dependency on a population
Speaker 2: that is deprived of the education that they deserved. This
Speaker 2: article was in US News and written by Leah Qui
Speaker 2: and Joseph Axe from Reuters on August seventh.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jimmy, and I would like for you to
Speaker 1: expand At the end there you said what's happening in
Speaker 1: Louisiana and Oklahoma. I was wondering if you could expand
Speaker 1: a little bit on some specifics there, what's going on
Speaker 1: down there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So in Louisiana recently, some legislation was passed that
Speaker 2: schools or I don't know that it was quite legislation,
Speaker 2: but it was a school it's a school policy now
Speaker 2: that all schools will have to have the Ten Commandments
Speaker 2: displayed or all classes, all grade levels on at least
Speaker 2: an eleven x fourteen poster size paper in every classroom. Right,
Speaker 2: and so that in theory violates the establishment clause of
Speaker 2: the United States Constitution. In Oklahoma, similar measures of being taken,
Speaker 2: although it's just that the Bible is being required to
Speaker 2: be taught to all grade levels, and so teachers are
Speaker 2: being expected to relate their lessons to something in the Bible. Somehow.
Speaker 2: You know, these are being argued against as violations of
Speaker 2: the Establishment Clause, which guarantees that no one religion will
Speaker 2: be supported or kind of propagated by the government. Right,
Speaker 2: but that's not what's happening. And these are in public schools,
Speaker 2: so the government can't do that. But that's what's happening.
Speaker 2: And yeah, we're seeing challenges to these laws, but they
Speaker 2: are scheduled to take effect anyway.
Speaker 1: You know, I would get fired so fast if that
Speaker 1: happened in my state. There's just no way, there's I'm
Speaker 1: not going to put that on my classroom. But anyway,
Speaker 1: so Eli, let's turn the camera back on humanity and
Speaker 1: let's take a journey into that deep dark of the
Speaker 1: human mind. I want you to help us to understand
Speaker 1: what does all of this tell us about us as
Speaker 1: humans and our nature and our psychology.
Speaker 3: So it's this week has been a lot about like
Speaker 3: resistance to inclusion, and that seems to be with sort
Speaker 3: of fueling these pieces of legislation, especially in education. Conservatives
Speaker 3: really oppose like the woke or like the liberal idea
Speaker 3: in curricula that focuses on things like including all people
Speaker 3: regardless of like what they look like or how they
Speaker 3: are like the people are people. And I think that
Speaker 3: I know it may not be the case, it seems
Speaker 3: this way to me that because there's a Republican majority
Speaker 3: in the Supreme Court right now, that some of these
Speaker 3: bad actors feel emboldened that they know what they're doing
Speaker 3: isn't right, but they feel like there's a chance they
Speaker 3: could get away with it. And it's like either they
Speaker 3: will or they won't. Like either they'll get away with it,
Speaker 3: or they'll be like, no, you can't do that anymore.
Speaker 3: And they'll be like, well, I tried, but I think
Speaker 3: that it to.
Speaker 1: Lose where they exactly they're not going to go backwards
Speaker 1: and you know, start going against that exactly.
Speaker 3: And and I don't think the policymakers believe this, but
Speaker 3: I think and but I think that they think and
Speaker 3: they are right that enough people believe that the First
Speaker 3: Amendment was intended to protect the church from the government
Speaker 3: rather than vice versa, that all they have to do
Speaker 3: to like radicalize their followers is be like, oh, the
Speaker 3: government is overreaching by telling us we're not allowed to
Speaker 3: do this because they're not supposed to interfere with the church.
Speaker 3: They're supposed to let us do whatever we want, and
Speaker 3: they're not letting us do that, so now they're overreaching,
Speaker 3: and it just sort of really highlights this like tribalist
Speaker 3: nature of humans that like's if it's if their other,
Speaker 3: whatever other is, and in this case, if they're not Christian,
Speaker 3: they're wrong and.
Speaker 1: They just.
Speaker 3: Because of that, they feel like the same rules don't apply.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's definitely dark. Aaron. You just want to
Speaker 1: put a little Jesus into the country. What's wrong with that?
Speaker 4: A lot's wrong with that in my opinion, because the
Speaker 4: reason why religion and government need to be kept separate
Speaker 4: is because religion makes thoughts and beliefs a crime. And
Speaker 4: when you start to bring your religion into your government,
Speaker 4: it means your government is going to start to make
Speaker 4: thoughts and beliefs a crime. And the First Amendment very
Speaker 4: explicitly prevents the government from doing that. You know, the
Speaker 4: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Speaker 4: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Not only does it
Speaker 4: say you can't establish a religion, you can't stop people
Speaker 4: from exercising their religion. Right of bridging the freedom of
Speaker 4: speech or of the press. Those are all things that
Speaker 4: can be kind of summed up that says that summed
Speaker 4: up as Congress shall not make thoughts and beliefs a crime, right,
Speaker 4: And so that's why we need to avoid mixing religion
Speaker 4: and government, so we can avoid making thoughts and beliefs
Speaker 4: of crime. And one thing I really wish the United
Speaker 4: States motto is currently in God we Trust, and I
Speaker 4: really wish that wasn't our motto. I really wish we
Speaker 4: could we could for a law. For most of our history,
Speaker 4: the unofficial model was e plurubus unum right from from
Speaker 4: many one, and I really think we need to go
Speaker 4: back to that. But that's really the purpose of the
Speaker 4: Constitution and the government is to bring people together, and
Speaker 4: out of all these different people, different perspectives, different viewpoints,
Speaker 4: make one. But when you mix, when you mix religion
Speaker 4: and government, it's not concerned with making from many one,
Speaker 4: it's concerned with making everybody the same right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Okay, let's jump over to ELI for a second. Here.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that these changes will have a major impact
Speaker 1: on how teachers there teach. Is this going to derail
Speaker 1: our progress towards our goal of having well rounded learners?
Speaker 1: Or is that am I off track on that.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think absolutely. This is something that I've talked
Speaker 3: about the last like three or four times I've been
Speaker 3: on the nonprofits and it's it's I have the same
Speaker 3: side every time. Taking time away from teaching like real
Speaker 3: true things that are like evidence based and like an
Speaker 3: education curricula that have been approved by professional, knowledgeable, experienced educators,
Speaker 3: taking time away from that to teach like here's what
Speaker 3: the Bible says, and not backing any of those things
Speaker 3: up with like they're not It's just it's gonna there.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, my words are getting all mixed up here.
Speaker 3: They're not separating between what there is a good reason
Speaker 3: to believe and what we just think is true because
Speaker 3: we like it because it's in the Bible and that's
Speaker 3: what we were told when we were younger, and it's
Speaker 3: just not going to do anything to improve the education standings.
Speaker 3: Like Oklahoma we've already talked about several times on the show,
Speaker 3: is already near the bottom of the list in education
Speaker 3: and they're one of the states that are taking more
Speaker 3: time away from that education to do it. And Jeff
Speaker 3: Landry even said, which is I believe the governor of Louisiana.
Speaker 3: Jeff Landry said that if the parents of non or
Speaker 3: non religious parents, if they don't want their children to
Speaker 3: look at ten to learn the Ten Commandments, then they
Speaker 3: can tell their children not to look at Ten Commandments posters.
Speaker 3: And I think that he's still just completely missing the
Speaker 3: point because hiding information from children isn't the way to
Speaker 3: teach them like what is true and what's not. You
Speaker 3: teach them how to determine what's true and what's not.
Speaker 3: And he's still just missing that point. It's not, no,
Speaker 3: don't learn that that's wrong. Only learn what I show you.
Speaker 3: It's like, here's kind of like how we learn what's
Speaker 3: true or not. And when I see educators are people
Speaker 3: that are making decisions about education that are supposed to
Speaker 3: be like that are in positions that educators are supposed
Speaker 3: to be in making such bad choices, it really my
Speaker 3: blood starts to boil.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And there was a nice way that you put it.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of that saying. You know, if you
Speaker 1: if you give someone a fish, you feed them for
Speaker 1: a day, but if you teach them how to fish,
Speaker 1: then you feed them for life. And it's kind of
Speaker 1: the same thing here. If we're undermining the way if
Speaker 1: we're undermining our approach to teaching children how to think, how,
Speaker 1: like you said, how to determine what's real and what's true,
Speaker 1: as opposed to giving them a list of things that
Speaker 1: are true, and you know, here's what you believe, here's
Speaker 1: what you don't believe, and then when you run across
Speaker 1: something new, then it might be difficult to figure out.
Speaker 1: And if you're told so, if you're if something is
Speaker 1: put on the wrong list, you have no way of
Speaker 1: determining that as well. And so basically we're we're hamstringing
Speaker 1: ourselves right out of the gate. And it seems like
Speaker 1: a like the ultimate form of self destruction. And it's
Speaker 1: very frustrating. And I know I have a biased opinion
Speaker 1: because I'm a teacher as well, but I'm also a parent,
Speaker 1: and I'm also a learner, and and uh you know,
Speaker 1: I want I want to live in a country where
Speaker 1: people know things and know how to do things and
Speaker 1: know how to solve problems and know how to and
Speaker 1: know how to take reality into consideration rather than just following,
Speaker 1: you know, the prescribed recipes, prescribed list, and so uh
Speaker 1: so thank you for that sharing that information.
Speaker 3: And so I go ahead, ad real quick, sorry, I
Speaker 3: just want to get meant to add it was like
Speaker 3: you said, if you're like what comparison I made is
Speaker 3: if you have a scuba diver under the dock, hooking
Speaker 3: a fish onto your kid's line, making your kid think
Speaker 3: that he caught the fish, he's not learning how to fish,
Speaker 3: and then he's going to go back there when he's
Speaker 3: an adult and no, he's helping him under there, and
Speaker 3: he's not going to catch anything, and he's gonna ask
Speaker 3: no luck.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Jimmy, let's jump over to you here. So
Speaker 1: the headline was how US public schools became a new
Speaker 1: religious battleground. So don't keep us waiting what's the answer.
Speaker 2: This is not new. This is not new at all.
Speaker 2: Using children, attacking children and infecting them, taking advantage of
Speaker 2: their naivete if you will, to indoctrinate them is not
Speaker 2: new at all. The US public school system in certain
Speaker 2: states just happens to be the latest medium. But this
Speaker 2: is not anything that we have not seen before. Children
Speaker 2: remain the target of religious indoctrination and dogmatic thinking as
Speaker 2: they have throughout history. I mean that is how this
Speaker 2: These religions are self perpetuating, if you will. I want
Speaker 2: to talk though, and I hope I've answered your question
Speaker 2: and forgive me for moving on, but I have to.
Speaker 2: I have to address the fact that these people are
Speaker 2: not only unprofessional in the way that and inconsistent really
Speaker 2: in the way that they treat the parents of these students.
Speaker 2: For example, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry says, well, just tell
Speaker 2: their children not to look at them. That's for parents
Speaker 2: that don't agree. I mean, what a snarky, unprofessional and
Speaker 2: dismissive comment for the governor to make. Number one. But
Speaker 2: these people have no idea what they're talking about when
Speaker 2: it comes to history. The Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz
Speaker 2: Murrell says the Bible biblical teachings need to help correct
Speaker 2: the lack of order and discipline in schools and need
Speaker 2: to teach students what Moses stood for. Okay, let's talk
Speaker 2: about what Moses stood for. Numbers thirty one eighteen. Moses
Speaker 2: commanded the Israelites to kill the boys and women who
Speaker 2: had sex with men and spare the virgin girls for themselves.
Speaker 2: The spoils of war were divided between Eliza and Levitical priesthood. Okay,
Speaker 2: so that's what Moses stood for. And now we have
Speaker 2: to put elementary age children in a classroom with a
Speaker 2: poster that tells them not to covet thy neighbor's wife
Speaker 2: and not to commit adultery. I mean, this is good
Speaker 2: for a student who wants to study history. Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: There is no historical basis in the Bible for the
Speaker 2: American Constitution or the United States Constitution, in the American government,
Speaker 2: which they say doing this is important for children to
Speaker 2: understand the sources of the American government. As we've talked
Speaker 2: about already, the American government, the United States Constitution was
Speaker 2: actually formed in a way to where they rejected the
Speaker 2: power of the Church. We came from hundreds of years,
Speaker 2: if not a thousand years of medieval structure where the
Speaker 2: Catholic Church was pervasive, they were destructive, and they were
Speaker 2: downright genocidal. And then we saw the same thing happening,
Speaker 2: maybe not to the same extent in the Anglican Church.
Speaker 2: And when people broke off and they formed the colonies,
Speaker 2: they said, you know what, we don't want that religious pressure.
Speaker 2: And that's how we have our constitution on government. So
Speaker 2: let's get things straight. When it comes to teaching children
Speaker 2: the origins of the American government and the constitution. Who
Speaker 2: thank you.
Speaker 1: No, No, I think that was a great point, and
Speaker 1: I'm glad you said it. It's because it's it's like
Speaker 1: it's like the word, you know, humanity wants to grow
Speaker 1: and develop and progress and become better and become smarter
Speaker 1: and become kinder and become more productive and safer in
Speaker 1: all of these things. And there's just these efforts to
Speaker 1: just stop that right there. They're saying, no, no, we
Speaker 1: don't we don't want you know, we don't want to change.
Speaker 1: We want to go back to the way things used
Speaker 1: to be, which there's very few things from the past
Speaker 1: that are that are better than they are now. Absolutely, Aaron,
Speaker 1: let's jump over to you. What is really at stake here?
Speaker 1: What are we risking when we when we engage in
Speaker 1: this kind of decision making here really.
Speaker 4: The future of our country, the future of liberty, the
Speaker 4: future of freedom. Because religion is dying. All the polls
Speaker 4: show it, all the study show people are becoming less religious.
Speaker 4: And the people in religions they know it, they can
Speaker 4: feel it, they can see it. I think at the heart,
Speaker 4: you know how a lot of religious people will say,
Speaker 4: oh you you you you secretly believe you just are
Speaker 4: angry at God, right, you secretly believe that God exists?
Speaker 1: Ah, that's so annoying.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm going to tell you something. I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 4: gonna pull the reverse trick. I'm gonna say, I think
Speaker 4: secretly religious people know it's full of shit, right, I think?
Speaker 4: And there and because you can go on YouTube and
Speaker 4: watch accurate.
Speaker 2: Than they are, that's more accurate than they are.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because you can go on YouTube and watch me
Speaker 4: these videos and suddenly you realize, oh wait, I'm an atheist,
Speaker 4: which is what happened to me. The YouTube algorithm recommended
Speaker 4: an ACA show to me, and I watched it, and
Speaker 4: like a month later of continue watching listening to the ACA,
Speaker 4: I was like, Oh, you know what, I have no
Speaker 4: good reason to believe what I believe. And I think
Speaker 4: at the heart of people they are religious. I think
Speaker 4: they're just trying to cover up the fact that deep
Speaker 4: now they know there's no good reason to believe what
Speaker 4: they're believing, and so they're trying to force religion onto
Speaker 4: kids because because when you teach kids, you're indoctrinating kids,
Speaker 4: and so you have to be really careful what you
Speaker 4: teach them and how you teach them. And if you
Speaker 4: can slap the Ten Commandments up in school, you can
Speaker 4: teach them to believe in an authoritarian God who says
Speaker 4: believe me or else you will go to hell. You
Speaker 4: will be punished, you will suffer, your family will suffer.
Speaker 4: Be what I want you to be. And so that's
Speaker 4: at the root of this battle is it's a battle
Speaker 4: for people say this the soul of our country, but
Speaker 4: really it is the future and perhaps the soul of
Speaker 4: our country. And even if you, even if we didn't
Speaker 4: have this problem with religion in filtrating schools like this
Speaker 4: in our country, our education system here needs a lot
Speaker 4: of help. We do not have the best education system
Speaker 4: in this country, and honestly we should. This country should
Speaker 4: have the best education. I should have the best elementary,
Speaker 4: middle high schools, the best colleges in the world.
Speaker 1: We certainly we don't have any excuses right than ourselves.
Speaker 4: Not to have the best primary education in the world
Speaker 4: that we don't demonstrably objectively we do not. So even
Speaker 4: before this religion stuff came in, we needed help. The
Speaker 4: schools in the country need help. So we have a
Speaker 4: really big battle and to fight in this country.
Speaker 1: Well said, Well said, why the panelists are hot tonight?
Speaker 1: Hot tonight? Okay, So I have a question for all
Speaker 1: of you. We've so Scotis recently, I guess it's not
Speaker 1: so recent now, but they tossed out the Lemon test right.
Speaker 1: They and that's from the nineteen seventy one Lemon v.
Speaker 1: Kurtzman decision, which basically it just aids in the maintenance
Speaker 1: of the separation of church and government. It is becoming
Speaker 1: more and more obvious though, that they intend to reshape,
Speaker 1: or in fact are reshaping the interpretation of the American
Speaker 1: Constitution to incorporate this well Christianity. Let's be frank about
Speaker 1: it here. Does that make the issue of court reform
Speaker 1: all the more critical in the coming months and years
Speaker 1: or is there a less radical solution? And I'd like
Speaker 1: to hear from Eli first.
Speaker 3: I think no, I think you're right. I think definitely
Speaker 3: core reform is probably where it's going to be. I
Speaker 3: don't know if there is another. So it's like again
Speaker 3: like I'm not a policymaker, but if you look at that,
Speaker 3: like in twenty twenty three, I think it was the
Speaker 3: Americans United for the Separation of Church and State tracked
Speaker 3: ninety one cases across twenty nine states of laws similar
Speaker 3: to the Ten Commandments mandate in Louisiana, and I think
Speaker 3: forty some odd cases this year, forty nine bills no
Speaker 3: I apologize ninety one so far this year in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four across twenty nited states, and forty nine bills
Speaker 3: last year similar to the Ten Commandments mandate. And it is,
Speaker 3: like I said, because they feel like they're going to
Speaker 3: be able to get away with this in Scotus, and
Speaker 3: I think that you're I think you hit it on
Speaker 3: the money.
Speaker 1: Having that it's kind of an opportunity, right, an opportunity
Speaker 1: that might not be there tomorrow. Jimmy, what are your things?
Speaker 1: Do you think is? Does this put the crosshairs onto
Speaker 1: court reform? Do we need? Is that something that is
Speaker 1: important now or more important than it was?
Speaker 2: Yeah? The Supreme Court is the single greatest failure of
Speaker 2: the constitution in our nation's history. The Supreme Court was
Speaker 2: formed before the formation of political parties, so I don't
Speaker 2: think that our founders really had an idea of how
Speaker 2: perverse it would become.
Speaker 1: These people were.
Speaker 2: Given lifetime appointments so that they would not succumb to
Speaker 2: political motivations, and instead we are seeing exactly the opposite.
Speaker 2: They had no idea that they were going to be
Speaker 2: influenced by two major political parties that are tearing the
Speaker 2: country apart. And that's to be frank, that's what's happening.
Speaker 2: I mean, we have a division. We have a division
Speaker 2: that's based on bipartisan politics. Now, I'm going to remain
Speaker 2: objective by not saying whose fault one way or the
Speaker 2: other it is. I'm just saying that party politics was
Speaker 2: not supposed to drive the ambitions of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: and it absolutely is. Therefore, it's the biggest failure of
Speaker 2: our constitution period. In my opinion, reform is definitely necessary.
Speaker 2: In fact, how effective is a constitution that's two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty years old that was written by white land
Speaker 2: owning men that thought people who were not white land
Speaker 2: owning men didn't have the same rights as them. What
Speaker 2: kind of things are in there that we really haven't uncovered,
Speaker 2: like we're uncovering now with the gross breakdown of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. I just wonder if it's time for a review.
Speaker 2: The scary thing is who the hell is going to
Speaker 2: review it nowadays, I would almost stay with the devil.
Speaker 2: I know them with the devil.
Speaker 1: I don't know, right, Yeah, good point there. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm going to Aaron. I want to get your opinion
Speaker 1: on that question on the Scotis issue as well. But
Speaker 1: before we do that, I want to throw out I
Speaker 1: have one last question that I want to ask everyone,
Speaker 1: and it can just be a one or two answer.
Speaker 1: I'll just to give you a minute to think about
Speaker 1: it while Aaron's talking about the Supreme Court, But what
Speaker 1: advice would you give to a new teacher that's worried
Speaker 1: that the American education system is going to be gutted?
Speaker 2: Here?
Speaker 1: So think about that, And Aaron, could you chime in
Speaker 1: your thoughts about court reform? Is that a critical thing
Speaker 1: now or do we or is there other ways that
Speaker 1: we should be addressing this.
Speaker 4: I think it's absolutely critical. You know, what Jimmy Junior
Speaker 4: said is totally right. There's a reason that the far
Speaker 4: right targeted the court, and they targeted the court, you know,
Speaker 4: starting fifty years ago, thirty forty, fifty years ago because
Speaker 4: it is the weakest and most susceptible to corruption. And
Speaker 4: they've succeeded. Right, there's no The Supreme Court has no
Speaker 4: enforceable code of ethics, right.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: Pro public has published article after articles demonstrating how corrupt
Speaker 4: Clarence Thomas is and it's it's it's ridiculous. We had
Speaker 4: one party refused to appoint a nominated justice or even
Speaker 4: have hearings about a nominated justice in the last year
Speaker 4: of Obama's presidency, which was an absolute disgrace and a
Speaker 4: stain on the rule of law in this country. So yeah,
Speaker 4: I think the Court needs some serious reform. I'm not
Speaker 4: a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV, so
Speaker 4: I don't even begin I can't begin to say what
Speaker 4: the correct reforms are. But I've heard people talk about
Speaker 4: term limits. I've heard people talk about every president gets
Speaker 4: to nominate two justices. I've heard about enforceable code of
Speaker 4: ethics and things like that. But there there needs to
Speaker 4: be a serious, serious effort to reform and improve and
Speaker 4: make the Supreme Court less corruptible. Because today we're in
Speaker 4: the midst of a corrupt Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You would think that at the very least an enforceable
Speaker 1: code of ethics would be would be warranted for the
Speaker 1: highest court in the land, basically the final say yeah
Speaker 1: in this nation, and members don't have an enforceable quote
Speaker 1: of ethics. That seems like negligent on our part. Right there.
Speaker 4: We have members of the Court that freaquent, that our
Speaker 4: buddy buddy with people who bring cases before the Court,
Speaker 4: who receive lavish gifts from from wealthy donors, and there's
Speaker 4: nothing we can there's what can we do about it.
Speaker 4: They're they're not not voted in, they're not voted out,
Speaker 4: they're not held accountable. Nobody's holding them to account. It's
Speaker 4: it's just it's a it's a travesty. It needs need
Speaker 4: some serious looking after.
Speaker 1: I think we're all on the same page there. So
Speaker 1: we're so we had that last question that I want
Speaker 1: to ask, what advice would you give to a new
Speaker 1: teacher that's worried that the American education system is about
Speaker 1: to crash and burn? And we'll just go down the line.
Speaker 1: We'll go Eli and then Jimmy and then Aaron.
Speaker 3: I don't know that I qualify to give advice to
Speaker 3: teachers about the education system, but I think that if
Speaker 3: it does get gutted, I would still like I don't
Speaker 3: think it would blame anybody who's like, I'm teaching this
Speaker 3: because I have to, and I will lose my income
Speaker 3: in my livelihood if I don't. I just hope it
Speaker 3: doesn't go that way, all.
Speaker 2: Right, Jimmy, Yeah, I would say until that change comes,
Speaker 2: keep doing what you're doing. And I'm going to answer
Speaker 2: the rest of that, uh with the understanding that that
Speaker 2: teacher probably loves their job and loves these kids. When
Speaker 2: that change does come, test your boundaries smartly and see
Speaker 2: what you can do to still help these kids while
Speaker 2: having to teach them something that you're really not on board.
Speaker 1: With, right, Okay, and Aaron, I guess you'll get the
Speaker 1: last word here.
Speaker 4: I would just say, thank you, thank you for your service.
Speaker 4: We should be treating you better and paying you better.
Speaker 4: Keep up the good work. Keep teaching kids not necessarily
Speaker 4: what to think, but how to think, to think critically,
Speaker 4: and to think skeptically, because if you give up, then
Speaker 4: we're even in worse shape. So please keep doing what
Speaker 4: you're doing.
Speaker 1: All right, Well said, and that wraps up a really
Speaker 1: strong week. I think I really enjoyed all the discussions
Speaker 1: we had this week. So I want to thank all
Speaker 1: three of the panelists for joining me tonight