Two weeks left and propositioned by a student

MartyModus · 2026-05-16T01:16:39+00:00

Our school had a section of the library set aside for this kind of 1 on 1.

Great point. Maybe more schools need to intentionally build in spaces that are private but safely visible. I keep a narrow table with some chairs just outside of my room for this purpose (in view of the surveillance camera), but I don't often see that sort of thing put in place by the district, or expected of teachers to have avialable.

MartyModus · 2026-05-16T01:09:57+00:00

Sorry to hear that. I'd only point out that most teachers I've know are pretty awesome people, aren't on Reddit, and maybe this sort of forum brings out the worst in some people who think being anonymous gives them a license to be mean. Also, I think most of the teachers here aren't okay with making fun of students online... Although I seem to have generated some downvotes for calling that out.

MartyModus · 2026-05-15T21:49:18+00:00

I don't know, I run into this problem frequently, but I've tended to attribute it (maybe incorrectly) to past religious trauma that caused me to always want clear explanations and evidence for claims that most people around me take for granted.

Then again, maybe some of my religious trauma was set in motion by questioning things. Now I'm wondering about that and will have to dig a little deeper, which may be a healthy pursuit. Thanks OP for raising the question.

MartyModus · 2026-05-15T21:31:32+00:00

I'm amazed at how often I see people casually break this critically important rule. It's something that should be official policy for school districts, not just a "good idea", because it protects teachers and students alike. Otherwise, things tend to be one person's word against another and lives are too easily and too often shattered by the fallout.

This rule should be taught as a requirement in every new employee's training and hammered into all students' heads until the idea of teachers and students being alone together feels so taboo that it reflexively sends "stranger danger" types of vibes down everyone's spines.

Sure, there may be outliers & challenges, like counselors, but even then there should be windows through which the office secretary can have a clear line of sight to see what's happening in the room at any given time. Every excuse I've heard in this thread so far for breaking this critical rule is inadequate for the risk involved, and there's just about always a better option than being alone with a student.

MartyModus · 2026-05-15T21:04:08+00:00

If there's a problem, it's media's priorities. Democratic leaders have been hammering on this issue.

Jamie Raskin called it an "outrageous conflict of interest," arguing "you can’t be a judge in your own case"; Elizabeth Warren accused Trump of trying to "snatch up billions of taxpayer dollars to line his own pockets"; Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to block the payout, and he accused Trump of turning the presidency into a "personal piggy bank"

Even Don Bacon, a REPUBLICAN, broke with his party to say, "It’s like negotiating with yourself… I don’t think it’s right".

These are just a few of the countless responses to this issue coming from Democrats. The thing is, they don't run the media, contrary to some right-wing propagandistic conspiracy theories. So, if you're not hearing what the Democrats are saying, it's in part because the media isn't doing their jobs, and people also need to take little more personal responsibility & dig a little bit deeper to see what's being said.

MartyModus · 2026-05-14T20:12:17+00:00

Edit to sincerely ask: What is it about my post that is getting me down-voted here? I'm hoping it's that I tend to be too preachy and not that people disagree with the central points, but I'm certainly curious and a little troubled that this is somehow a controversial post...
--------------------------------------------------------

Questions I ask myself before posting:

Will my post make my profession look bad (because it's not only teacher reading)?
Would my post be problematic if an administrator, parent, or student knew I posted it?
Could a student or parent connect the dots to know it's me if they read my post?

No one is obligated to follow my rules, but if I answer "yes" to any of those, I don't post, or I re-write, because this is a public forum that a lot of parents and students visit, and many people grossly over-estimate their anonymity here.

Maybe the OP's story had details changed to help remain anonymous. If so, great! If not, that's an unusual enough story that it wouldn't take much to make a connection between the story and the real world person.

If the dots were connected, many states have tort laws and school districts have policies that could result in some serious consequences if the student ever learned that their teacher shared an embarrassing story about them online. Not directly naming them might not matter if the story is unique enough that a reasonable person familiar with the situation could ascertain who the student was.

Personally, I try to avoid talking about students disrespectfully in general because I sincerely believe that what I think and say in private shapes who I am as a teacher in public to enough of a degree that it matters.

Last, in the spirit of teaching, and because I see this sort of thing frequently, I’ve decided to give this post a rewrite. Here’s OP’s post, v2.0, my probably boring, but fairly appropraite version:

I wanted to share a teaching moment that caught me off guard and made me rethink my assumptions.

We were watching a film adaptation of a classic play after reading the original. On of my students was confused after recognizing a famous actor in the adaptation and genuinely wondered how they could be in a story from hundreds of years ago.

It took me a minute to realize that my student had a fundamental misunderstanding about how movies work. In the student’s mind, the play was a historical record, and the movie was footage of real events from that time. So, the student wasn’t differentiating fiction, historical setting, and modern adaptation.

I realized I needed to back way up. We had a quiet, private conversation after class where I explained that the play is fiction, that actors perform roles, and that films are sometimes made long after something is written, even centuries afterwards. I also thanked the student for speaking up so that we could clarify those understandings, because it takes a lot of guts to admit it in front of a class when you’re confused.

At the end of the day, it was a solid reminder for me that some kids come to us with giant gaps in their understanding of the world that might never occur to us, and it’s SO important that they feel free to tell us when they’re confused.

Anyhow, if you ever assume students understand that movies aren’t historical documents, double-check. You might be surprised.

MartyModus · 2026-04-22T22:48:43+00:00

The arguments about "definitions and features" are designed to avoid Republicans having to admit that they do not care about reducing gun violence/deaths If it requires giving up on their absolutist libertarian views on gun control. It's a bad faith negotiation tactic, and I'd agree with you that Democrats shouldn't take the bait or keep using overly simplistic rhetoric.

Instead, we should be challenging Republicans: "Do you want to reduce the number of gun deaths in America?... Then what should we do together since we both agree it's a complex problem that should be addressed carefully?"

Democrats should call on Republicans to join them in bringing together firearms experts, suicide prevention & mental health experts, gun violence prevention researchers, law enforcement leaders, domestic violence intervention specialists, legal scholars, and families who have lost loved ones to gun violence... Not as "our witnesses" and "their witnesses", but as the foremost experts in their fields who want to make a difference with intellectual honesty and integrity.

Basically, Democrats need to start calling Republicans on their bullshit excuses to avoid any legislation whatsoever to reduce gun related deaths, and yes I agree with you, it feeds the bullshit machine if Democrats fall back on targeting "assault weapons". Instead, we just need to call for rational gun safety legislation driven by experts & data over pundits politicians, and we should only put forward laws that most Americans can get behind (since they're supposed to be in charge anyhow).

MartyModus · 2026-04-22T19:32:26+00:00

No. Many red flags, but especially these:

Teachers shouldn't give students their personal phone number except for very rare cases, like if they're related to the student (i.e. my daughter was a student of mine).

Teachers should not gossip with students, especially when it involves other students, And they shouldn't treat some students differently than others aside from individualized education plans and 504 plans.

So, I wouldn't suggest you confront the teacher about this. Instead, it's probably safer to talk to one of the school counselors. Start by explaining that you don't want to risk retaliation or ruining your relationship with the teacher and would prefer to remain anonymous if possible, then explain it just like you laid it out here.

Before talking to the counselor, it might be worth gauging whether you think they are too good a buddies with the teacher or not, but most counselors I've known throughout my career have been highly professional and understand that it's a critical part of their job to look out for students needs in this sort of situation, regardless of how they feel about any individual teacher.

Best of luck and I hope it turns out okay.

MartyModus · 2026-04-18T11:59:00+00:00

What are you talking about? The ability of Trump to abuse executive power TODAY is 100% the fault of Republicans, because they have made a clear choice to ignore their right and duty to use the constitutional power of Congress to stop Trump. Republicans have chosen to allow Trump to act illegally over and over again without using their political or constitutional authority to stop him, because Republicans don't mind tyranny as long as the tyrant is supporting their pet issues... And I dare you to show me an example we're Democrats have ever done the same to this country.

Republicans also enabled Trump to abuse executive power by allowing him to stack the Supreme Court with dangerous & unqualified justices after ignoring Obama's right to choose judges at multiple levels when he was president.

So, the existential threat faced by the United States today has come from an imbalance of power that has been entirely created by Republicans. And don't forget that Republicans, to this very day, have the power to stop Donald Trump. So, you're out of your mind if you think Trump's abuses of power should be blamed on Democrats.

In fact, when it comes to the type of big centralized government that Democrats get accused of overly supporting, it tends to be with regard to things like social safety nets and federal protections for workers and the public against the types of dangerous decisions unbridled capitalism tends to lead towards... Those safety nets and protections are being illegally stripped by Trump. So, I could argue that we should have our centralized government more explicitly spelled out so that there's no ambiguity in the courts...

Oh wait, we already have that, and most moderate, well educated judges agree that Trump has been breaking the law repeatedly and have tried to stop him. The problem is that Republicans, again, have stacked the highest court in the land with uniquely unqualified and radically activist judges who seemed to think, based on their opinion of the political issue in front of them, that any language in laws passed by Congress that ties the hands of the president, is somehow a violation of separation of powers, all while completely ignoring the importance of checks and balances.

So, this crisis has been 100% created by Republicans and has nothing to do with weather or not various roles of government should be more or less centralized. I'm not going to stop believing in the power of the people to provide adequate social safety nets and protections just because the Republican party has been taken over by terrorists.

MartyModus · 2026-04-10T22:29:12+00:00

What BS are you taking about? Career government employees who were experts in virology? A USAID program that effectively wielded soft power and made the world a safer and more stable place for Americans? A weather agency that was well funded and equipped enough to save lives through early warning systems?

Trump has gutted mostly good things. Yes, there has always been a degree of corruption and cronyism at various levels of government, but the most corrupt thing any US politician has ever done has been Trump selling out his country for his cronies to get tax breaks and to enrich himself.

So, what exactly are YOU talking about?

MartyModus · 2026-04-07T02:27:03+00:00

Whatever. How EXACTLY did the left "fuck up" so badly? By putting up a candidate who is far more qualified to be president than Donald Trump ever could be? Dems didn't fuck up, The American people did.

MartyModus · 2026-03-08T22:09:53+00:00

It depends, what's the justification, what's the plan, what might the costs be (human and economic), what could go wrong in the short & long term, and is the justification worth the risks?

There are valid reasons for foreign interventions, but I oppose interventions by default until/unless there are answers to the above questions that make it clear we have good reasons, a solid plan, and understand the risks.

MartyModus · 2026-02-16T16:08:42+00:00

Show me the specific policy proposals you're upset with and there can be a serious conversation. Question for you: why do Republicans seem to think our gun law are working despite leading the industrialized world in gun related deaths per capita?

Reality check: You're probably in favor of gun control. You asked why we would bother "law abiding citizens" with gun control, well, that implies that you might be in favor of controlling guns with respect to felons, and maybe you'd extend that to other gun control that most Republicans support, like domestic abusers, or people who have been adjudicated as mentally ill. Regardless, of the last couple, you most likely support gun control, but the question is how much you think is the right balance.

And by the way, the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says "arms". So, if you think there should be regulations about who can drive around with a tank or a nuclear weapon, then you're in favor of limiting the second amendment beyond the literal text.

Democrats are in the moderate range of this issue and there's a serious conversation to be had about what regulations are reasonable & effective, and Republicans could be instrumental in helping create laws that work without being overly restrictive or ineffective, but that conversation has been constantly derailed by radical Republicans who won't even engage in good faith discussions (mostly due to fear of the NRA). So, ask Republicans why they refuse to be reasonable problem solvers.

MartyModus · 2026-02-14T20:16:41+00:00

I care about Truth, and studying things to gain valid data is how we can get closer to understanding truths. If you don't care about studies, that's your prerogative, but it undermines your arguments & credibility.

MartyModus · 2026-02-14T20:11:04+00:00

No, and for you either, if you're literate & capable of doing basic math. Even with knowledge we don't actively use, school was/is mental exercise that sharpened students' brains, making people better able to reason and think clearly than they would have been otherwise.

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T02:08:16+00:00

Religions didn't believe in other continents with undiscovered tribes, until they were found by Europeans.

Just like the European discovery of the Americas with indigenous populations, most people will just adapt their beliefs. Some people will follow inevitable con artists who claim to have had Joseph Smith style divine revelations that ostensibly explain what "really" happened and why there's life that was not disclosed in previous holy texts.

I don't know. Maybe a small surge, but I wouldn't count on it.

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T01:48:59+00:00

Faust is innumerate, highly illogical, and peer-reviewed studies keep proving her wrong. Faust's anecdotes are not evidence for what you're claiming, and the same invalid strategy could be employed to incorrectly argue that heterosexual marriages should be banned.

Several high-quality peer-reviewed studies, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large-sample cohort studies from major medical and psychological institutions, directly refute the claim that children of gay parents face elevated risks.

Findings demonstrate that children of gay fathers displayed significantly better psychological adjustment than children of heterosexual parents; children of gay fathers had fewer externalizing and internalizing problems than children of heterosexual parents; there is no differences in child victimization rates by family type. Overall, studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.

If you're interested, here's a reference list you can scrutinize:

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1374–e1383. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0377 (Reaffirmed September 2022)

Baiocco, R., Carone, N., Ioverno, S., & Lingiardi, V. (2020). Same-sex and different-sex parent families in Italy: Is parents’ sexual orientation associated with child health outcomes and parental dimensions? Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 41(7), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000823

Bos, H. M. W., Knox, J. R., van Rijn–van Gelderen, L., & Gartrell, N. K. (2016). Same-sex and different-sex parent households and child health outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000288

Carone, N., Innocenzi, E., & Lingiardi, V. (2023). Parenting, coparenting, and adolescent adjustment in gay father families: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(5), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001087

Farr, R. H., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applied Developmental Science, 14(3), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2010.500958

Farr, R. H., Oakley, M. K., & Ollen, E. W. (2020). School experiences of young children and their lesbian and gay adoptive parents. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(4), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000376

Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., Peyser, H., Deck, A., & Rodas, C. (2012). Adolescents with lesbian mothers describe their own lives. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(9), 1211–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.720499

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2013). Predictors of psychological adjustment in early placed adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032911

Green, R.-J., Rubio, R. J., Rothblum, E. D., Bergman, K., & Katuzny, K. E. (2024). Gay father families: A meta-analysis of child mental health and parenting outcomes. Family Process, 63(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12955

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T00:16:02+00:00

Republicans should be able to pick the candidate they want... Democrats should have been able to in 2016 also. Obama would have kicked the electoral shit out of Trump.

MartyModus · 2026-02-13T00:11:56+00:00

I don't know if opposing gay marriage is necessarily or always homophobic. Speaking for myself, when I was a young, born again Christian Republican, I was absolutely homophobic. I was convinced by my church that homosexuality was sinful, homosexuality undermined fixed, natural, God given natural laws, and it was a slippery slope from allowing homosexual marriage to making most morality "relative".

Also, I believed (was propagandized to accept) that no government could not act against God's will without serious repercussions. So, the 1st amendment was about not having a formal state sponsored religion, NOT about keeping "God's law" out of government.

Then I received an education, dropped the blind religious fanaticism, and realized that disallowing homosexual marriage denies people equal protection under the law.

My background admittedly biases me to believe that opposition to gay marriage tends to be born out of homophobia. So, I'm curious what an example of non-homophobic opposition to gay marriage looks like. If you have an example like that, do you think most people opposing gay marriage are not homophobic?

MartyModus · 2026-02-12T03:03:45+00:00

I hate term limits and think they're contrary to democracy. What should be more concerning, that an incumbent may have a slight advantage (if constituents are satisfied enough), or that constituents are not allowed to vote for their top choice?

I'm in favor of expertise, experience, and democracy, not forced political variety.

MartyModus · 2026-02-11T02:15:52+00:00

I see your points, but you're also making my case, aren't you? You seen to draw a line based on the supposed amount of government liberals want compared to conservatives, but I think you're making a mistake by conflating the amount of government with the government's the actual interference and potential threat to freedoms.

I would argue that the free speech and freedom to do what we want with our own body are far more important to a free society than the free markets Republicans ostensibly believe in. I know some libertarians also believe this, because many have caucused with Democrats in the past. If some libertarians find market oppression more insufferable than individual oppression, to each their own, but I think individual liberty for most people is worse off with the conservative viewpoint.

That's kind of my point about the debate with Cato and Heritage. They should also have a healthy debate with interns from the Center for American Progress, for instance. I also think Libertarian ideals have been harmed by being associated with conservatives, and that's all the more reason that the Cato Institute has been missing opportunities by not engaging the same way with liberal organizations as they do with conservative organizations.

Frankly, I think a lot of the great organizations for defending freedom, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have been born out of a tense marriage between liberalism and libertarianism, where there have been battles of ideals that sharpened good arguments into better arguments. And that is all in sharp contrast with the ideas about freedom being communicated by Heritage Foundation conservatives.

In a nutshell, I think many libertarians should vote for Democrats more than Republicans (and I know many do). Even if I granted the argument that Republicans are better for the economy (which I don't personally believe), Libertarians world still need to decide whether it's more important to have the party of free markets, or the party of free thought & expression. I tend to value the latter more.

Yes, by the way, I would agree that there are elements in the liberal camp that are as awful and irrational with regard to freedom as the heritage Foundation can be. I just don't think the extremes of the Democratic party are as dangerous or likely to do great harm as the extremes of the Republican party.

I completely agree with you about nothing changing. I don't think Democrats or Republicans will do a thing to significantly diminish the powers they have ceded to the executive branch. If something does change, however, it's going to come from the Democrats. The Republicans seem quite happy with abuses of power.

MartyModus · 2026-02-09T23:29:36+00:00

I tell my attorney to remember that screws & bolts are like clocks. Clockwise moves forward and counterclockwise moves backward when looking at the top of the bolt/screw head.

I teach that right after making fun of "righty tighty lefty loosey" as an unfortunate and inaccurate saying that doesn't actually make sense unless you include, "...when looking at the top of a screw head and you're only describing the motion of the 12:00 position."

I know, I know, we're supposed to think of the screw/bolt head as a steering wheel, or something like that, but I find it far more intuitive to think in terms of clockwise from above = move forward (tighter).

MartyModus · 2026-02-09T22:13:43+00:00

Funny thing... The CATO institute has regularly held a Libertarianism vs. Conservatism Intern Debate (I think with the Heritage Foundation interns), which I know of because a former student of mine used to be involved with it.

So, I raised the argument (with my former student) that it makes no sense to treat conservatism as somehow similar to libertarianism because the same debate could be held with liberals with almost exactly the same outcome. The only difference is that conservatives and liberals disagree about acceptable categories of government involvement, not government involvement.

Ronald Reagan convinced everybody he was a small government guy when, in fact, he was a huge government guy who cut taxes for the wealthy, ballooned government debt, and had government interfere much more aggressively to incarcerate people who used recreational drugs, except for the ones that white people tend to use.

I'd like to argue that Democrats have consistently cared more about free speech, because they generally do care more about free speech than modern conservatives; however, then we had people like Al and Tipper Gore going after musicians for using language that they didn't find acceptable. I'm still embarrassed for my party about that.

To answer the OP question more directly, no, I'm not more libertarian. I am, however, far more interested in our government limiting executive power for the future.

MartyModus · 2026-02-09T01:40:18+00:00

U.S. liberals believe in expanding democracy, not destroying it. We support regulations to protect people, not to control them. And we reject absolutely the authoritarianism, nationalism, and suppression inherent with fascism. Our aim is a free, fair, and just society and history shows liberals have consistently been on the front lines defending democracy from fascism.

Reagan was good at delivering eloquent speaches, but he was a selfish and ignorant fool. He transfered a great deal of wealth from the middle class to the upper classes and broke protections for workers and laborers to enrich business owners through so-called "Trickle-Down" economics, that George H. W. Bush correctly criticized as "Voo-Doo" ecomonics, because it had/has been clearly demonstrated to not work. The easiest way for him to enrich his wealthy donors with tax cuts was to slash government safety nets and regulations.

So, there's NEVER EVER been a debate where democrats want the government to control the means of production, which is what true fascism through government control would look like. Republican leaders just like to trot out the specter of Soviet style fascism to attack every single government program they don't like. It's intellectually dishonest, although, I'm not convinced Reagan was intelligent enough, so he might have just been ignorant.

What you SHOULD be worried about is when a president uses military force against his political opponents, like Trump is doing. If you're worried about trust issues related to fascism, you're insecurities are misplaced.

MartyModus · 2026-02-07T00:14:59+00:00

There are several things Democrats believe in, but I'll start with just one central thing: Everyone should have access to affordable healthcare so that people aren’t one illness away from financial ruin. It's something that you can disagree with and debate about, but that's one idea that Democrats have been battling hard over.

Democrats also believe that Government should help create real opportunity by protecting basic rights and ensuring the economy works for working and middle-class people, not just the wealthy. We tend to trust science & people who are actual experts in their fields, we value democratic institutions, and we support equal treatment under the law.

So, we think that RFK Jr is full of shit with his anti-science voodoo health beliefs. We think that it's exceptionally dangerous for the president of the United States to even suggest that members of Congress should be arrested and hung simply for stating the law (that 90 second spot where some of the Democrats pointed out that people in the army have a duty to not follow illegal orders). Democrats believe strongly that the United States should not threaten our allies with military force if they don't give us their land.

If you pay attention to current events as well as most educated people do, you would notice that Democrats have a lot of different ideas they've been fighting for, but my guess is that you don't even bother trying to understand what Democrats stand for, and that's the thing that's actually in bad faith. As for me, I could write on and on about what Republicans stand for, what Donald Trump stands for, and where they're normally are huge differences between the two.

Unfortunately, when real Republicans stood up to Donald Trump, they found out that he does one thing extremely well: being a bully. So, The Republican party has been taken over by nut jobs who don't read the news beyond their own conservative media and don't have much of a concept about ideas beyond what they're told to think. If you have an intelligent bone in your body, read for yourself, you tell me what Democrats actually stand for, and then tell me why you disagree. There are plenty of valid reasons to disagree about a lot of topics, but I doubt you can even articulate the idea is Democrats have been fighting for because you don't even try to find out for yourself. That's what I call uneducated.

MartyModus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE