How far should free speech extend?

Posted on: August 25, 2011 - 3:49pm #51

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

cj wrote:Fine for you.

cj wrote:

Fine for you. Most people work in the real world. And just how would you know the cause(s) someone was fired for? Most employees don't even know they are fired. They are "laid off" because HR won't let the manager tell the employee anything. The employer in most states may fire "at will", that means for cause or no cause. If the employer puts "for cause" on the paper work sent to the unemployment department, they must explicitly state the cause. And they had better have evidence, because then they are open to a law suit filed by the ex-employee. That is why most states have been pressured to change their laws to "at will" - to reduce the number of law suits an employer is subject to. I don't know the number of times a friend has been laid off, only to see their previous position advertised as now open.

Ain't my law. But it is the reality. So, if you have two brain cells to rub together, you keep your nose super clean. Because being not so young anymore - like this guy is from his picture - means your future employment applications may get the response of "we decided to pursue other candidates."

I was fired twice in my life. Both times I knew exactly why, (once for asking my boss why he hired me if he was going to do my job anyway). I think most people know when they are going to get fired and why even if the paperwork doesn't state a reason and so do most of the other employees. Just saying if I worked for someone who used firing/threat of firing to try to control what I did off work, I would find a different job. Actually, I would probably quit on the spot, then realize I needed to find a way to make more money..... but the smart thing to do would be to find a new income before you quit.

cj wrote:

It is the world you do live in. Get over it. Children have been brainwashed by the society they live in since there have been groups of hunter-gatherers living together. You think social ostracization is easy to live with? Try being reliant on a group of people to have regular meals. Oh, wait, you already are reliant on other people for food. But now, we call it "employment", "business ownership", "investing".

Everyone watches what they say all of the time if they want to get what they need from the people around them. We constantly manipulate each other through what we say, how we act, and how we dress. You and I and everyone else in the world are not exempt from societal pressures.

[/quote=cj]

I am simply saying it isn't right for an employer to use their economic power over people to punish them for doing things they don't like away from work hours. If an employer wants to control what employees say, do, wear etc. during work hours fine. It is wrong to punish them for what happens at home just like it is wrong to fire someone because they are gay. I don't run my business like that and I have a strongly negative feeling of any business that does.

So if I encounter a business that operates that way I will use my own societal pressure by not working with, for or patronizing said business and encourage others to do the same. Societal pressure works both ways. If employees tolerate businesses getting involved with their personal lives, it will only get worse. If they don't tolerate it, businesses that attempt this type of control will have to concede. Henry Ford attempted this type of intrusion. He had a whole department set up to spy on his employees and those that met his standards got rewarded. His employees didn't tolerate it, and he eventually had to drop the program. All I'm saying is that everyone should be outraged when an employer abuses their power and fires someone for making a controversial statement on the net, even if you don't agree with the statement.

cj wrote:

I do too. Kids should be exposed to as many different attitudes, cultures and societies as possible. It is good for you to know that not everyone thinks or feels the same way you do about how to behave around people with different status than you have. Good to know your crazy uncle is only one of many.

And the school environment is hardly safe..........Not my red herring. I don't think how he grades is at all relevant. What is relevant is the public nature of his job and the ease with which his private opinions were spread all over hell's half acre. He is, at the very least, not tech savvy.

So you agree it is good to expose kids to different attitudes, beliefs etc. but you support firing a teacher because they make a controversial post on facebook? Seems like a contradiction to me. You don't expose kids to different beliefs by forcibly keeping a belief quiet.

cj wrote:

Legality is not something I feel competent to comment on except to say you are most likely correct - that the suspension, if solely for inflammatory comments on a social networking site, will most likely get the school district in trouble.

Not my point and never was. What is my point is he brought it on himself. Teachers are very visible to their students. Their web sites, social networking pages, emails, are of strong prurient interest to their students. Posting your private views somewhere easily discoverable is a sure way to have a lot of hassle for a long time. And maybe permanent unemployment. Unless one of you guys is willing to hire him. It was a dumb shit thing to do.
What is the point of having a freedom of speech if it isn't spoken publicly?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 25, 2011 - 4:08pm #52

Tapey

Posts: 1478

Joined: 2009-01-23

Offline

cj wrote:Tapey wrote:You

cj wrote:

Tapey wrote:
You miss the point. What about someone who discriminates against homophobes? Should a teacher be allowed to speak out against homophobia on facebook? Homophobia is not against the law (acting on it might be), a homophobic student might feel a teacher that speaks out against homophobia would discriminate against him or her and could feel uncomftable or whatever.

An honest question.

I repeat. My sister in law is a teacher in the public schools. Has been for years. Her face book page is all sweetness and light. I would gag - except I know her when she is at home and truly private. Facebook is not private. Not when millions can view what you have posted.
The teacher was not expressing views against homophobia, but was expressing homophobic views. Were you were trying to say the opposite so I would be trapped into saying speaking against homophobia is a bad thing? As a teacher? One should keep one's hands off the keyboard and one's mouth shut whenever. Any controversial subject. It is part of the job that as a teacher, you will offend at least half the class no matter what you say. And your job is to teach, not preach. More restrictive than most professions? Yes.
My honest answer is my opinion (and yours) doesn't matter. His employer made a decision. His employer should have - if they didn't before they took action - consulted with the school district legal counsel. (In the US, that is often the state Attorney General's office. The various governmental agencies often share expertise between departments.) If the Attorney General reviewed the evidence and said the school district had cause, then the school district did due diligence and their action was legal.
There may be additional concerns we don't know because they were not in the referenced article. Teacher of the year does not imply "white as the driven snow".
Note also, the article said he was suspended - not fired. The two actions are not the same.
Let's say the school district didn't do due diligence and consult with legal counsel - then they may be at fault and law suits will follow.

Yeah we just have very different ideas about what a teacher should be. The point was not to trap you into saying anything, but rather to see what you thought. Really I just wanted to know whether if the immorality if the homophobia was a factor in this.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 25, 2011 - 7:14pm #53

Antipatris

Posts: 205

Joined: 2011-05-20

Offline

Tapey wrote:You miss the

Tapey wrote:

You miss the point. What about someone who discriminates against homophobes? Should a teacher be allowed to speak out against homophobia on facebook? Homophobia is not against the law (acting on it might be),

It might be, yeah.

http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-teen-plotted-gay-classmates-death-202202046.html

Tapey wrote:

a homophobic student might feel a teacher that speaks out against homophobia would discriminate against him or her and could feel uncomftable or whatever.

And a student who doesn't like math could feel uncomfortable and persecuted or whatever in math class.

Tapey wrote:

An honest question.

Even though I honestly can't imagine why you'd need to ask that question, I'm still glad you did.

...meh, I probably missed your point.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 25, 2011 - 8:41pm #54

cj

Posts: 3330

Joined: 2007-01-05

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote: I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am simply saying it isn't right for an employer to use their economic power over people to punish them for doing things they don't like away from work hours. If an employer wants to control what employees say, do, wear etc. during work hours fine. It is wrong to punish them for what happens at home just like it is wrong to fire someone because they are gay. I don't run my business like that and I have a strongly negative feeling of any business that does.

So if I encounter a business that operates that way I will use my own societal pressure by not working with, for or patronizing said business and encourage others to do the same. Societal pressure works both ways. If employees tolerate businesses getting involved with their personal lives, it will only get worse. If they don't tolerate it, businesses that attempt this type of control will have to concede. Henry Ford attempted this type of intrusion. He had a whole department set up to spy on his employees and those that met his standards got rewarded. His employees didn't tolerate it, and he eventually had to drop the program. All I'm saying is that everyone should be outraged when an employer abuses their power and fires someone for making a controversial statement on the net, even if you don't agree with the statement.

It may not be right, or ethical, but it is as common as dirt. And fighting works best if the employees are organized. Yeah, unionized. So a total walkout on the jerk is possible. Problem is, nowadays, employees are brain washed into thinking unions are universally bad, so it is more difficult to get everyone together on a walk out.

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

I do too. Kids should be exposed to as many different attitudes, cultures and societies as possible. It is good for you to know that not everyone thinks or feels the same way you do about how to behave around people with different status than you have. Good to know your crazy uncle is only one of many.

And the school environment is hardly safe..........Not my red herring. I don't think how he grades is at all relevant. What is relevant is the public nature of his job and the ease with which his private opinions were spread all over hell's half acre. He is, at the very least, not tech savvy.

So you agree it is good to expose kids to different attitudes, beliefs etc. but you support firing a teacher because they make a controversial post on facebook? Seems like a contradiction to me. You don't expose kids to different beliefs by forcibly keeping a belief quiet.

I support using some sort of common sense about retaining your employment. I support teachers teaching, not preaching. I support the freedom of an employer to handle their employee code of conduct without my interference. I may not agree with same, I may not want to work for that employer, I certainly don't want to be in the kind of profession where your private life isn't private. This guy new the scoop since he looks to be very experienced - it wasn't like this was going to be news to him. Unless the id10t thought his facebook page really was private.

I confessed in an earlier thread that I did not apply for a position for which I appeared to be a perfect match. Why? It was at the local Baptist college and there was no way in hell I was going to sign the kind of employee handbook where it was okay to fire me for having a beer on my day off. This guy had choices, too.

Again, the guy was suspended, not fired. Whole different process, entirely different laws. Of which, if you are at all involved with managing personnel at your place of business, you should have an inkling.

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

Legality is not something I feel competent to comment on except to say you are most likely correct - that the suspension, if solely for inflammatory comments on a social networking site, will most likely get the school district in trouble.

Not my point and never was. What is my point is he brought it on himself. Teachers are very visible to their students. Their web sites, social networking pages, emails, are of strong prurient interest to their students. Posting your private views somewhere easily discoverable is a sure way to have a lot of hassle for a long time. And maybe permanent unemployment. Unless one of you guys is willing to hire him. It was a dumb shit thing to do.

What is the point of having a freedom of speech if it isn't spoken publicly?

Sigh. Of course we have freedom of speech. We also have responsibilities and consequences for same.

"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect." - Eleanor Roosevelt

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 25, 2011 - 10:28pm #55

Cpt_pineapple

Posts: 5492

Joined: 2007-04-12

Offline

(No subject)

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 26, 2011 - 1:07am #56

Tapey

Posts: 1478

Joined: 2009-01-23

Offline

Antipatris wrote:Tapey

Antipatris wrote:

Tapey wrote:
You miss the point. What about someone who discriminates against homophobes? Should a teacher be allowed to speak out against homophobia on facebook? Homophobia is not against the law (acting on it might be),
It might be, yeah.
http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-teen-plotted-gay-classmates-death-202202046.html

Tapey wrote:
a homophobic student might feel a teacher that speaks out against homophobia would discriminate against him or her and could feel uncomftable or whatever.
And a student who doesn't like math could feel uncomfortable and persecuted or whatever in math class.

Tapey wrote:
An honest question.
Even though I honestly can't imagine why you'd need to ask that question, I'm still glad you did.
...meh, I probably missed your point.

The homophobe would feel the same way the gay would feel in the original news story.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 26, 2011 - 1:39am #57

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

cj wrote:"Disgusting" and

cj wrote:

"Disgusting" and "'cesspool' of 'sin'" is hardly harmless speech.

'K... but I was only interested in how many gay students are (supposedly) out of the closet. And for some reason, I can't even remember why... oh yes, in response to Vastet's post. Yes, this man's reaction is harsh, yes it's a very broad issue in a society that is largely judeochristian. This thread, itself, is about free speech and employers who have no problem firing employees or blocking them from being hired as a means to censor them. Vastet brought up an issue (unintentionally?) that may invalidate the relevance of this one teacher's speech to a free speech discussion. The issue of using the workplace to censor a worker is a vital one, and one that I'm against employers doing, especially public sector employers. As for how to deal with it... another can of worms altogether.

If this man is handing out grades based on sexual orientation, it helps to know how many students received the grades, and were they falsely labelled as homosexual by the teacher, not some random schoolyard/classroom bully. Actual numbers help a great deal, especially if the number of students' grades effected by being openly homosexual in the presence of this teacher is zero. No way of knowing until anyone sees them. I happen to share EXC's concern about getting educators less focused on politics and religion (particularly indoctrination) and more focused on actual education (assuming that is his concern. It certainly appeared so.)

So, for the most part, what Beyond Saving has said, except less eloquently and wordy.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 26, 2011 - 1:46am #58

cj

Posts: 3330

Joined: 2007-01-05

Offline

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Lordy, lordy, I'm married to him!

Well, he isn't all that bad - I guess.

A five day waiting period before opening one's mouth may be a good thing in some cases.

The Onion rocks.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 26, 2011 - 11:50am #59

Cpt_pineapple

Posts: 5492

Joined: 2007-04-12

Offline

He was re-instated with "ten

He was re-instated with "ten directives" to follow. I don't know what those directives are.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/florida-teacher-re-instated-after-anti-gay-fb-remarks

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 27, 2011 - 6:35am #60

Antipatris

Posts: 205

Joined: 2011-05-20

Offline

Tapey wrote:The homophobe

Tapey wrote:

The homophobe would feel the same way the gay would feel in the original news story.

Sure, but it seems highly unlikely that would ever happen. I mean, have you ever met anyone who has an irrational fear of people who have an irrational fear ?

Doesn't seem to be a very popular phobia, if it exists at all.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 27, 2011 - 7:27am #61

Antipatris

Posts: 205

Joined: 2011-05-20

Offline

Cpt_pineapple wrote:He was

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

He was re-instated with "ten directives" to follow. I don't know what those directives are.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/florida-teacher-re-instated-after-anti-gay-fb-remarks

Ten seems a little excessive. "Please don't friend your students on facebook" would have done it.

Login to post comments

Posted on: August 27, 2011 - 2:10pm #62

Zaq

Posts: 269

Joined: 2008-12-24

Offline

I would sue the school if

I would sue the school if something like that happened to me. Same way I'd sue an employer that fired me for my blog, or a school that tried to discipline me for the one facebook photo where I'm holding a red plastic cup filled with water in front of a table of alchohol. I don't know if I'd win any of them, but I have higher confidence in the legal system (eventually) protecting my rights than any private disciplinary system.

I think we have to consider the reasoning behind why speech is limited for a teacher in order to understand what speech should be limited where. There are a couple important things at work in limiting a teacher's speech. One is that most students are a captive audience. If the teacher had said, in class, something anti-gay, then this would be a different matter because students would either have to listen or face disciplinary action for skipping. But that doesn't apply to a facebook post.

A second reason behind limiting free speech of teachers is that they are government employees. But I see nothing in the constitution that prohibits the government from taking a stand on gay rights. If the teacher included religion, then maybe you could make a 1st ammendment violation case. Still, I don't think the establishment clause ought to extend to off-hours. Being a government employee should not kill your rights. If the teacher isn't acting in the capacity of a teacher at the time, then this reason shouldn't apply.

So yeah, even if the teacher had been preaching on facebook (from home and during off-hours), I'd still be against disciplinary action.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 7, 2011 - 2:37am #63

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Vastet wrote: I think he has

Vastet wrote:

I think he has every right to say what he said, and that the school board similarly has every right to can him for it.

+1

That's just the way the world works. This clown is a big boy, and he has a bad strategy at not shooting himself in the foot.

I have a number of business interests. And opinions I've got out the wazoo. You won't find me broadcasting my opinions on a stupid public networking site that can affect my business.

Life is a game. Learn how to play it, and you can put the numbers on the board.

Vastet wrote:

Freedom comes with responsibility.

I agree with the statement, however, I don't think the onus is on him to keep his feelings about gays to himself on his Facebook page.

I think the onus is on the school to maintain the best quality teachers on staff. This guy doesn't qualify, due to his personal issues.

Teachers can definitely project, or even demonstrate their bias against certain students.

I was one of the few long haired rock 'n rollers in my high school, and some teachers certainly projected and said things about it to attempt to affect me. It wasn't an issue for me, as I've never been one to seek outward approval of anyone, even as a child, and I aced through school. But this was not the case for many others, and I saw others get affected by the behaviour of some teachers towards them pretty seriously.

Vastet wrote:

He made a public comment unwarrantedly degrading a specific and observably unique section of the population in print...
...People have been fired for less. Much less.

Actions have consequences, and he decided to gamble with his job. That's just tough nuggets for him.

Vastet wrote:

So how many gay kids got cs and ds when they earned as and bs? This really goes further than is being discussed.

I think that red flags should have immediately gone off, and an investigation done to see if that was the case.

If he abused his power over any children that way.

Fucking up a kid's grades has serious ramifications to the kid's life.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 7, 2011 - 11:50am #64

Answers in Gene...

Posts: 4214

Joined: 2008-11-11

Offline

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

redneF wrote:

Vastet wrote:
He made a public comment unwarrantedly degrading a specific and observably unique section of the population in print...

...People have been fired for less. Much less.

Actions have consequences, and he decided to gamble with his job. That's just tough nuggets for him.

Right. He is fucked for what he did.

That much being said, what did he actually do, apart from having his students as friends?

Well, he expressed his opinion in public. I don't agree with him but there are a great many people out there who don't like my opinions as an atheist or a conservative. Shall we shut down everyone we don't agree with? Somehow that really doesn't work for me.

@Vastet: I don't know what the rules are in Canukistan but come down here and we can hit the major stations in the NYC subway system. Sooner or later, we will run into the Sons of David.

They are a cult that you can only join if you are black. They believe that only blacks are really Jews. They believe that Jesus is coming to destroy all white people. They scream this shit at the top of their lungs while wearing robes that are strongly similar to what the KKK is known for. That is how America rolls.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 7, 2011 - 10:03pm #65

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
redneF wrote:

Vastet wrote:
He made a public comment unwarrantedly degrading a specific and observably unique section of the population in print...
...People have been fired for less. Much less.

Actions have consequences, and he decided to gamble with his job. That's just tough nuggets for him.

Right. He is fucked for what he did.

That much being said, what did he actually do, apart from having his students as friends?

He broadcast somethings that cost him his job.

He's free to do that.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, he expressed his opinion in public. I don't agree with him but there are a great many people out there who don't like my opinions as an atheist or a conservative. Shall we shut down everyone we don't agree with? Somehow that really doesn't work for me.

Nobody has taken away his rights to voice his opinions.

The consequences of which were that he lost his privileges of being employed at that one particular school. He's just been given the opportunity to find employment elsewhere.

There are no violations to his freedoms.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I already covered it in my previous post about me valuing my business interests more than publically broadcasting my opinions.

There are many different ways he could have chosen to voice his opinion with syntax, that might have resulted in a different 'future' for him.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 7, 2011 - 10:55pm #66

Answers in Gene...

Posts: 4214

Joined: 2008-11-11

Offline

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Actually, he was reinstated with no consequences apart from a secret list of things that he is not allowed to do.

That being said, he is back in the news. It seems that he posted on the school web site that he teaches as if the school had hired Jesus himself. That and he submitted a syllabus that had to be redacted by administration for unacceptable religious language.

So they can't not have known that this guy was a time bomb waiting to go off.

Really makes me wonder what is going on at this school in general.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 8, 2011 - 12:41am #67

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Actually, he was reinstated with no consequences apart from a secret list of things that he is not allowed to do.

That being said, he is back in the news. It seems that he posted on the school web site that he teaches as if the school had hired Jesus himself. That and he submitted a syllabus that had to be redacted by administration for unacceptable religious language.

God Bless America!

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 1:41pm #68

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

I don't give a rats ass WHAT

I don't give a rats ass WHAT group gets lambasted. It could be paedophiles and it still has no place coming from a teacher. A teacher is supposed to teach the curriculum decided upon by whatever decides the curriculum. They are NOT supposed to abuse the authority and image of authority granted them to ridicule or denounce ANYTHING that is not in the curriculum. If this guy said what he did to a couple friends in private we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he didn't. He recruited a bunch of students to his own personal blog and manipulated them with it. He's effectively no different than a cult leader, and should be banned from teaching anything, anywhere, forever.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 2:32pm #69

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

Vastet wrote:I don't give a

Vastet wrote:

I don't give a rats ass WHAT group gets lambasted. It could be paedophiles and it still has no place coming from a teacher. A teacher is supposed to teach the curriculum decided upon by whatever decides the curriculum. They are NOT supposed to abuse the authority and image of authority granted them to ridicule or denounce ANYTHING that is not in the curriculum. If this guy said what he did to a couple friends in private we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he didn't. He recruited a bunch of students to his own personal blog and manipulated them with it. He's effectively no different than a cult leader, and should be banned from teaching anything, anywhere, forever.

Do you have evidence that he "recruited" students to his facebook?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 9:44pm #70

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

That's how facebook works,

That's how facebook works, in case you were unaware. You make an account and invite people to join your friends list.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 10:11pm #71

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

Vastet wrote:That's how

Vastet wrote:

That's how facebook works, in case you were unaware. You make an account and invite people to join your friends list.

Unless you make a sock for Mafia Wars... then not so much. Of course, since Mafia Wars is good for a few days after every content patch... sometimes those socks end up in the dust bin. If you search FB right now, you'll probably find a rusty, cob-webbed profile of "Specialagent FrankLundy" somewhere there. I can't even remember 3/4s of the email addresses of the socks I used for MW.

Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 10:24pm #72

Sandycane

Posts: 970

Joined: 2010-10-16

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:Do you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you have evidence that he "recruited" students to his facebook?

The word "recruited" wasn't used, but in the original CNN article it was said that he used his FB page to communicate with his students.

It seems to me, what this guy was doing was similar to what an xtian does on an atheist forum: prosthelytizing.

Imo, he is neither a good teacher nor a good xtian. And, typical of the xtian community, he is a hypocrite for bad-mouthing people he doesn't like "in private" while pretending tolerance in public.

His comments were not, in any way, shape, or form private. If it is the policy of the public school he teaches in to be tolerant of gays, he was in violation of this policy when he informed his students on his FB page that homosexuality made him want to vomit.

He has the same dilemma, in reverse, that cj encountered when she had the opportunity to work for an xtian school, but refused. This idiot should be teaching in a private xtian school and not in a public school.

And this guy taught Social Studies??? Do you think he did it with a straight face? (no pun intended)

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 11:08pm #73

Beyond Saving

Posts: 5526

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

It makes a huge difference

It makes a huge difference to me whether he actively encouraged his students to become his facebook friends or if a handful of students sought him out and requested to be his friends. I think it is comparable to a teacher going to a political fundraiser and giving a speech. If the teacher used their position in any way to encourage or pressure students to attend, that would be wrong. If a student or two shows up on their own accord, then there is no problem even if the teacher says some things that are controversial.

I can see how having students as your personal facebook friends might be unprofessional regardless of what you post on your facebook. If he was actively encouraging students to friend him on facebook, I would agree with you. But none of the news stories I have read even mentioned the possibility that he was doing so. It appears to me he simply had a facebook page had a few students as friends and used his facebook page like virtually every other American, to spout off his inane thoughtless opinions.

And Sandy, didn't you just say that a perfectly artistic picture of a couple of lesbians in another thread was "disgusting"? Granted disgusting isn't quite as strong as vomit, but still....

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 12, 2011 - 11:40pm #74

Sandycane

Posts: 970

Joined: 2010-10-16

Offline

Beyond Saving wrote:It makes

Beyond Saving wrote:

It makes a huge difference to me whether he actively encouraged his students to become his facebook friends or if a handful of students sought him out and requested to be his friends. I think it is comparable to a teacher going to a political fundraiser and giving a speech. If the teacher used their position in any way to encourage or pressure students to attend, that would be wrong. If a student or two shows up on their own accord, then there is no problem even if the teacher says some things that are controversial.

I can see how having students as your personal facebook friends might be unprofessional regardless of what you post on your facebook. If he was actively encouraging students to friend him on facebook, I would agree with you. But none of the news stories I have read even mentioned the possibility that he was doing so. It appears to me he simply had a facebook page had a few students as friends and used his facebook page like virtually every other American, to spout off his inane thoughtless opinions.

The problem is, imo, that he is not virtually "like" any other American -- he is a teacher. I don't know about you, but when I was in school we were taught to listen to what the teacher said and what the teacher said was gospel. Of course back then there was no such thing as FB or the Internet and if the teacher had any private issues they were usually kept private. Now, there is no such thing as privacy -- especially where the Internet is concerned. If the criminal justice system can access your most private information and use it in court against you why do you expect any other agency, like the school system or an employer, to not also use your private information against you?

Employers have already adopted the policy of intentionally not hiring people who smoke -- even if they never smoke in the workplace.

I digress. The point is, there is no such thing as privacy any more. If you don't want anyone to know what you said or did, you better not say or do it in the first place. I think it was rednef who earlier said, yes you can have freedom of speech, but you better be prepared for the consequences if you use it.

Quote:

And Sandy, didn't you just say that a perfectly artistic picture of a couple of lesbians in another thread was "disgusting"? Granted disgusting isn't quite as strong as vomit, but still....

Yes, I did say that. What's your point? "Perfectly artistic" is debatable.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 13, 2011 - 8:33am #75

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

@ AIG, well those guys sound

@ AIG, well those guys sound like people I wouldn't really want to meet in a subway station. lol

BUT, they are average citizens, and I rather doubt any of them have had authority vested in them by the state, so while they concern me enough to arm myself when taking NYC transit, they are outside the context I'm using to suspend this teachers' right to free speech.

@ Sandycane, I must say that I did in fact use the word recruit.

The thing is that this teacher should not have students on his friends list at all, and for more reason than this particular scenario.

He has been granted a position of recognisable authority by the state, based on educational qualifiers, which AUTOMATICALLY means many kids will listen to and believe what he says EVEN when conflicting information comes to their attention, EVEN if it comes from a parent or other authority. If he had a troubled kid or two he was trying to help out, emails would have been the perfect tool. Facebook is way too public for such communication.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 13, 2011 - 8:45am #76

Vastet

Posts: 13254

Joined: 2006-12-25

Offline

And there isn't a single

And there isn't a single valid reason to befriend students other than trying to help out troubled or faltering students.Which can be done in so many private ways that friending on FB is literally near the bottom of the options list. Right before standing on a soapbox with a megaphone.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 13, 2011 - 8:53am #77

Sandycane

Posts: 970

Joined: 2010-10-16

Offline

Vastet wrote:@ AIG, well

Vastet wrote:

@ AIG, well those guys sound like people I wouldn't really want to meet in a subway station. lol BUT, they are average citizens, and I rather doubt any of them have had authority vested in them by the state, so while they concern me enough to arm myself when taking NYC transit, they are outside the context I'm using to suspend this teachers' right to free speech.
@ Sandycane, I must say that I did in fact use the word recruit. The thing is that this teacher should not have students on his friends list at all, and for more reason than this particular scenario. He has been granted a position of recognisable authority by the state, based on educational qualifiers, which AUTOMATICALLY means many kids will listen to and believe what he says EVEN when conflicting information comes to their attention, EVEN if it comes from a parent or other authority. If he had a troubled kid or two he was trying to help out, emails would have been the perfect tool. Facebook is way too public for such communication.

I agree. This guy was ignoring boundaries that need to be in place between a teacher and his students. He was obviously abusing his authority as a teacher.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 13, 2011 - 8:58am #78

Sandycane

Posts: 970

Joined: 2010-10-16

Offline

He should be suspended for

He should be suspended for using poor judgement which, imo, is more serious and dangerous than his opinions on homosexuals.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein

Login to post comments

Posted on: September 13, 2011 - 8:28pm #79

Wonderist

Posts: 2479

Joined: 2006-03-19

Offline

There's more to the case of

There's more to the case of this teacher than just his FB antics. See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/09/02/so-i-got-ahold-of-jerry-buells-syllabus/

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!

Login to post comments

Rational Response Squad

Navigation