I am sorely tempted to nominate Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer for the irony of the week award. In criticizing the president's national address to schools, he managed to go from accusing Obama of indoctrinating students in socialism to lamenting that, "Public schools can't teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage" in the gap between paragraphs.

I hope that by now, two days after Obama has given his speech, any controversy generated by the speech will be finished and forgotten — i.e., everything that the tabloid love-affair with Palin or Blagojevich is not.

Initially, the controversy had as much to do with what Obama would say as with what the Department of Education had done to hype it up: The department sent out letters to schools suggesting the speech be shown to students, as it is, after all, addressed to students, and included some worksheets with recommended discussion topics and questions.

The natural and immediate consequence was flaming condemnation from the opposite end of the political spectrum, fanned by overly supportive language of the president within the worksheets themselves. And people began to shout that something needed to be done for the sake of the children to save them from the corrupting influence of activist teachers and presidents.

They say they are appalled by it all, and you know what, I am too.

I am appalled by the belief that teachers, by incompetence or lack of ethics, will teach only what they believe and ignore all opposing viewpoints.

I am appalled by the belief that children are so gullible and witless that they will accept every thing their teacher tells them without question.

I am appalled by the belief that parents cannot pass their own beliefs on to their children unless everyone else is pushing those same beliefs.

And I am absolutely, completely and entirely appalled that so many think the solution is to take the child out of class.

And yet, if I put myself in the shoes of a frustrated parent, I also understand why so many feel this way. I too would want to drag my younger sister out of school if ever her teachers tried to tell her that mathematical proof was unimportant — not that I think she'd complain much.

But like so many actions done "for the children," it shows an alarming lack of faith in the kids themselves, about on the order of making a child walk everywhere with kneepads on because one time they tripped and got a boo-boo. Children have, can and will see through one-sided spiels and lectures; they don't like being condescended to anymore than anyone else.

So once the initial gut-check fear and protective urge have passed, I realize that a different opinion isn't a danger but an opportunity, yes — I will say through gritted teeth — even when it's a teacher saying that not all math should be done with proof.

How can we say that something is bad unless we've taken the time to learn about and understand it? How can we say what we believe is better if we don't know the alternatives?

Knowledge is never a bad thing to have, although it could certainly be given in a bad way (Here, Timmy, have a nuke; let me know when you understand atomic physics). So regardless of what Obama said on Tuesday, listening to him will not turn anyone into hug-a-tree communists anymore than not listening will turn them into red-white-and-blue jingoists.

And despite the Orwellian overtones detractors gave the worksheets, having read them myself, I'm thinking not so much Orwell as I am SAT: yes, even the aspiring 1800er's dreaded "What would you title this article?" is a recommended question.

All those children staying home on Tuesday gained was a little bit of ignorance and maybe one more day of not having to decide what a speech's thesis is.

Joseph is a graduate student in mathematics.