A San Antonio town meeting turned into a verbal skirmish when an Edgewood Government teacher named Jonathan Bryant, accompanied by several students gathered in support, called George Rodriguez, local Tea Party president, a “Nazi.” This controversial accusation came up during a conversation about the DREAM Act.

In essence, the DREAM Act is a proposal that would allow students whose parents brought them into the United States illegally to gain citizenship with the stipulation that they would enroll in college or join the military, thus allowing them to contribute to the well being of the country.

Tea Party leaders, such as Rodriguez, would rather not see the act passed and would instead ask that teachers report students who are in the country illegally, so that they may be deported.

When inquired about whether or not this was, indeed, how the Tea Party members felt, Rodriguez gave an answer in the affirmative. Even before the students’ shouts of disapproval had a chance to die down, Bryant said, “You can just say what you are; a Nazi.” Triumphant cheers and applause soon followed. Now there is a question of whether Bryant’s response was appropriate or even necessary.

Obviously Bryant’s words were not meant to implicate Rodriguez as a member of the Nazi party, but rather they were meant to comment on his character.

The dictionary definition of the word “Nazi” in this usage is, “a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice.” Though Rodriguez certainly does express an interest in controlling immigration policy by circumventing the DREAM Act, the fact is that Rodriguez does not have enough power over the fate of the DREAM Act to merit the weighty connotation of power drunkenness elicited by the word “Nazi”. Undoubtedly, Bryant employed the word with the goal of stirring emotions against the Tea Party and in that sense he was fairly successful. However, the word alone does not make for a substantial argument. It would have been altogether more prudent if Bryant had applied his criticism to the Tea Parties ideologies rather than attacking Rodriguez personally.

The intrusive nature of Rodriguez’s stance on illegal immigration would be an apt place to start. If a teacher were to report the names of illegal students, that teacher would lose the trust not only of the students who are illegal immigrants but also those students’ friends. Students with other problems will be reluctant to come to those teachers for help because they have broken the confidentiality of the student-teacher relationship. This would also take away from the energies spent in actually teaching.

In addition to creating lesson plans, tests, reviews, attending workshops and staff meetings, and any other number of activities required for a teacher to be prepared, they would also have to go out of their way to sort out which students can legally learn from them. Points such as these make for a more effective argument than any amount of name calling. No matter how effective the trigger word is in stirring up a crowd, it contributes next to nothing to moving the conversation forward.