Taking It on Faith: Thinking for Oneself in the Presence of Authority

     In class on Friday, we discussed the First Amendment, with special focus on when and where it can be limited. The limitations that caught my attention the most were those imposed on teachers. As both government employees and potential role models to their students, they are often prevented, and usually discouraged, from airing their political beliefs, religious beliefs, or generally anything controversial that isn't in the lesson plan.
     The logic behind this seems straightforward at first glance: if a teacher, the local figure of authority, says anything about anything, the student is likely to accept it as truth without further thought, similarly to how they believe what their parents say. After all, most children with religious parents grow up to follow the same religion, so it makes sense, right?
     Well, not always. Their are two key forces to consider. For starters, at a certain age kids begin to question authority. The colloquial name for this is "teenage rebellion". So while limitations on teachers' self-expression may be logical in K-8 schools, by the time high school rolls around the logic is decidedly weakened.
     The second variable is that kids are often not considered capable of thinking for themselves. Which is ridiculous! I can think for myself, and do so regularly, and I would bet that most of my classmates who read this do too. And once students are capable of taking the facts (or failing hard information, the data they're given) and drawing their own conclusions from it, censoring teachers makes zero sense. In fact, from my point of view it cuts down on how interesting and informative their classes are.
Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment please.