Learning is About Questioning Everything

Education is important. Great teachers can transform student's thinking upside down. Education creates future; and teachers create education. We need more teachers who are innovative, liberated and espouse critical thinking.

However, the New Zealand Herald tells a story of Kirsty Gillon, a history teacher at Takapuna Grammar School in Auckland, negatively. The article is titled "Teacher promoting conspiracies investigated". Unfortunately, this article is unfairly biased against Ms. Gillon in many ways.

Firstly; the photo used in the article. What a horrible photo, she's wearing black sunglasses, and looks absolutely harsh, stern and unpleasant. Readers would never get an impression from this photo that she's a kind, friendly and passionate teacher. If the Herald had shown Ms. Gillon kindly smiling, the impression of the article would have been very different. Visual image is incredibly powerful. Not knowing her personally I don't know if she is kind or stern, but this image is not necessary the correct representation of her personality.

The entire article has a tone that is supportive of views against her. It introduces several opinions of 'academics' who disagree with her teaching style, while her point of view is briefly introduced in one sentence, in a dismissive tone; "Gillon told the Herald on Sunday she was merely trying to promote "critical thinking" among her students." She deserves the full right of reply. It is unlikely that it is the only thing she told the Herald; what part of her point did the Herald cut? Why aren't there any opinions in the article that support her teaching style?

I mean, what on earth are 'conspiracy theories', and are these even bad? 'Conspiracy theory' is merely a name for a theory that goes against the majority opinion. Who is to determine that a particular theory is 'conspiracy' and thus is not worth to be subject of a serious, academic discussion? Surely we haven't forgotten the age that geocentrism and the flat world were the majority views with authority, and the Galileo's theory was dismissed as heresy and he was persecuted. When Schliemann started the excavation of Troy no one else believed the Trojan War existed in reality. Were these theories wrong?

Professor Langley talks about 'stepping over the line', but it's just his personal opinion that the fake lunar landing theory is on the other side of 'the line'. I agree that Holocaust revisionism has no place in schools, but it is because it is hate speech, not because it is a "conspiracy theory". But except hate speeches, (again, there arises a debate over where to draw a line to define hate speech, but in this case the fake lunar landing theory is clearly neither racist, nor sexist nor prejudiced against a particular group of people.) a variety of theories, regardless of its popularity, should be allowed to be expressed by teachers. Some scientists propose that the lunar landing was fake and some journalists think a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. I don't agree with these theories, but we all know what Voltaire said; 'I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.

I'd further point out that this article has a contradiction within it. In the beginning of the article, it claims that 'she told them (students) in class that The Apollo Moon landing was an elaborate hoax filmed in Area 51'. But later, it goes on to change the reality; 'Gillon told them she believed the lunar landing was filmed in Area 51.' If you can't see a vital importance between these two, think about this example; 'she told them that God exists' and 'she told them that she believed God exists.' In the former she talks her belief as a matter of fact, while in the latter she talks her belief as her belief. I don't see anything but positive in a teacher explaining her unconventional view to students as her belief and to challenge them to be critical and make up their own mind.

If you think about it carefully, it is a scary thing; a teacher is accused when s/he voices opinions different from an official/majority view. How about a teacher who says the Kennedy wasn't assassinated solely by Oswald? And a teacher who tells a student that he believes Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand? Is it just to say that he doesn't have the right to say so just because it contradicts against the US government's point of view? A teacher who passionately teaches the way how the corporate-owned commercial media and its advertisers are brainwashing us into believing that capitalism is the only viable option in our society has the power to radically challenge student's conception of the society, the most valuable gift a teacher can ever give to students. Shall she be investigated and told to shut up? If it happens it is called censorship, or suppression of academic freedom and the freedom of speech.

Probably, it is fairly reasonable to say that a mainstream theory should be the one that's mainly taught in classrooms. But usually, there isn't a single, absolute, indisputable Reality, especially in social sciences and humanities. Learning is not about memorising 'facts' which others deemed them to be truthful. Learning is about developing an ability and practice to analyse and discern what are facts and realities, among multiple of views presented. In other words, leaning is about questioning everything. And that is for what schools should exist. If you just want to learn the established, conventional view, read a textbook at home. Schools ought to be a place of enlightenment.

Finally, an overwhelming number of ratings and comments on the ratemyteachers.com website expresses support, admiration and love for Ms Gillon. The comment the Herald chose seems to be fair and balanced, but what the Herald didn't report was the absolute majority of exceptionally positive comments like 'Best teacher at TGS', 'one of the best teacher in the world', 'she inspired me to become a political leader!', 'Gets the entire class discussing the topic with people's own opinions', and 'I learned so much in her class. I'm gutted im in the other history class this year', and instead they singled out the comment referring to her 'conspiracy theories', to quote in the article. I also note that almost all comments after the Herald article was published criticise the inaccuracy of the article. She never denied the Holocaust, several commenters wrote, and asked 'What's this nonsense in the paper?? Totally false and I hope she sues!'.

Where's the truth and the reality?