Can't know how to directly address the last comment you muttered.
The Montesano man who lost his life on a dark and damp night does not deserve the disdain you postulated. Read all of the story.
Quick to judge, long to actually understand the circumstance.
BMC

Allen Hunt said in the OP...A handful agree with me that the teachers should be fired. Most do not - of course, they are wrong :)

In other words, you believe that a convicted federal felon who likes to torture dogs for fun and profit deserves a second chance to make millions while schoolteachers who chose controversial people for BHM don't deserve a second chance to make 50k a year? Does not compute!

And I'll give you that OJ is undoubtedly a very poor choice, but what's so wrong about RuPaul or Dennis Rodman? I'd certainly rather have either one of them than Michael "Puppy Killer" Vick!

Even more think that Black History Month should be eliminated altogether. A point of view that actually thinks that the average white American knows a lot (or at least enough) about the contributions of black Americans, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries to America's development. I could not disagree more.

No it does not. Nobody is arguing that contributions of black Americans to American history should not be covered in history class, just that it is inappropriate and anachronistic to lump say Sojourner Truth, Barack Obama and George Washtington Carver in the same month just because of the color of their skin.
Admit it - you like to harp on against political correctness and "being offended" but you can be just as bad as the next guy when a raw nerve is touched. Now I know you are particularly sensitive here because you are a Southerner (and a Catholic and we all know Catholicism is good at cultivating irrational guilt feelings) but George Wallace's body is moldering in the grave and his soul is definitely not marching on!
Not to say that there aren't still major racial problems to be overcome but insisting on separating certain people form the mainstream "for their own good" smacks of paternalism and its own brand of racism. Besides, we are talking about elementary school kids here - they do not even remember a time when Barack Obama wasn't a national figure. Hell, even their parents were, by and large, born after the civil rights era. And while it is important for them to learn American history - all of it, good, bad and ugly, they are not going to consider say a black president or an interracial couple unusual.
BHM is a very bad idea for another reason: it makes no sense historically. There is really no such thing as "black history" - American history is intertwined in such a way that it cannot be meaningfully separated. For example,. you cannot talk about MLK and give the man his due by merely focusing on civil rights movement and ignoring his work on poverty and anti-war activism, which directly affected Americans regardless of race.

Louis said in an email...3. Another man who is often included but should be excluded from African-American month is Malcom X. He was a racist, and should not be included with the likes of Rev. Martin Luther King.

I could not disagree more! Not that I am some sort of apologist for Malcolm X (aka Malcolm Little aka El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz) but he was a significant figure of his day. Who says only the "good guys" should be included in the study of history? You'd end up teaching 20th century world history without mentioning either Hitler or Stalin!
And yes, MX should be included with Martin Luther King, especially to contrast their very different approaches to black liberation.

Butch said in comment # 1...The Montesano man who lost his life on a dark and damp night does not deserve the disdain you postulated. Read all of the story.

You are talking about the power line peer, right? Pray tell, what is the rest of the story?