Kim Keegestra's Case And Bertham Cates Inherit The Wind

Kim Keegestra’s case and Bertham Cates’ case in Inherit the Wind are similar as both Keegestra and Cates taught in a small town and broke the law, yet Keegestra and Cates are different as to how they taught/interpreted their lessons.

One way in which Jim Kessestra and Bertham Cates’ case are similar is through them both breaking the law. Firstly, Keesgestra promotes hatred against an identifiable group (Jews) that violates the law. Though it was his opinion and we know in Canada that every Canadian has the rights of freedom of speech though what Keegestra did was different since he was expressing his own opinion about his hatred for Jewish people into his classroom. During his first trial, “he was charged with unlawfully promoting hatred against

One difference is the way they taught their lessons. One reason Keegestra’s case is different than cCates’ case is his way of teaching his lessons to his students. Unlike Cates, Keegestra taught what he believed in. In the book it states that, “he began to introduce his anti-Jewish views into the classroom” (Devid Bercuso and Douglas Wertheimer xvi). Different from Keegestra, Cates taught something he does not entirely believe in but taught it anyway since it was from a factual book that was approved by many professional scientists. Cates believed that he had done nothing wrong and told Rachel, “you know why I did it. I had the book in my hand, Hunter’s Civic Biology. I opened it up, and read my sophomore science class chapter 17, Darwin’s Origin of species.” (Lawrence and Lee 8). Jim Keegestra and Bertham Cates’ idea of spreading their lessons are different because KEegestra manipulated his students into thinking what he believed in was right though Cates believed that teaching students from a factual book was not only right but also not something he personally believed in. Therefore, Keegestra and Cates’ way of teaching is one reason why their cases are