Teacher Resigns After Parent Complains Pride Flag Is "Personal Agenda"

[tall73]

the flag was put up as an indication of the class being a place safe from harassment. It's sad you turned that into something sexual.

He already had a sign "Everyone is Welcome" that let people know everyone was welcome.

My noting that the pride flag has historical connotations related to sexual orientation is not turning that into something sexual.

Indicating the district apparently wanted to remain neutral in regards to sexual orientation is not making that into something sexual.

I provided the example of a heterosexual pride flag and an objectum sexual pride flag as parallels because they also have connotations (though less well known by far) relating to sexual orientation. And I wanted to see how the poster would treat those examples.

 

[RDKirk]

Not that long ago this same sort of 'logic' was employed to keep black teachers out of white schools.

You're going to have to explain that to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it? Did they have a vote or something?

Yeah. 80 million or so.

Look, this is the group that supports tearing down flags and labeling those who don't racists. They make no complaint of people wearing masks assaulting people at right wing rallies. They just got a statue of Robert E Lee taken down last week...I don't recall a single discussion of the legitimacy of such actions.

If you personally argued against this sort of thing in the past or even just openly doubted the wisdom of removing Confederate flags....just link the post and I'll admit that my statement doesn't apply to you.

Since you can't, let's not pretend your position on this is somehow ambiguous.

 

[Ana the Ist]

and as noted Missouri state law does make it the job of the school to address any student concern about safety not just from physical violence but from bullying and harassment.

I already answered this. "Address" doesn't sound like a promise to protect feelings. If you want to quote the law....feel free.

And you then said that the student who does not feel safe in school is "whiny" and should be sent to a therapist.

Pretty sure I was talking about students upset over the lack of a flag. I stand by that assessment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would you think this if it was your child being bullied?

In some situations yes. I'm not alone on this either. There's a growing belief amongst psychologists that parents who are overly concerned with protecting their children are creating an extremely fragile, self absorbed, and pathetic generation of people who are unable to cope with reality.

The Fragile Generation

At some point, everyone has to deal with conflict and people who don't like them. It doesn't seem like 20 years old is the first time that should happen.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey measures such things. the most recent data shows that 85% of LGBT high school students have experienced verbal attacks, harassment, cyber bullying, death threats, damage done to personal property and been physically assaulted in the school. 24% report that such attacks have come from educators.

Well I don't think teachers should be assaulting, threatening, or bullying students. That applies to all students though...not just the gay ones.

They are being harassed and attacked simply because of who they are.

How do you know that?

 

[seeking.IAM]

In some situations yes. I'm not alone on this either. There's a growing belief amongst psychologists that parents who are overly concerned with protecting their children are creating an extremely fragile, self absorbed, and pathetic generation of people who are unable to cope with reality.

The Fragile Generation

At some point, everyone has to deal with conflict and people who don't like them. It doesn't seem like 20 years old is the first time that should happen.

I agree with this. Entitlement is expecting the world is going to change to satisfy you. In reality, children need to learn to adapt to the world, as ugly as it may be. It's okay to work on changing the world to make it a better place, but in the meantime we need to have the resilience to cope with what is.

 

[tall73]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/education/article254077203.html

I'd object on relevance with a straight pride, because it is diminishing the experiences of gay people while showing a thoroughly egotistical and false sense of persecution because other people are getting representation.

But then that is inconsistent. Here is a quote from the teacher from the KC Star article you posted:

“The problem I have with it, obviously, is that it’s specific to me, and as an openly gay man that seems a bit discriminatory because if you’re a straight teacher, you can talk about your spouse, your kids, you can have a picture of your family in the classroom, but I have a flag and then all of a sudden there’s a problem. You know, it didn’t make any sense,” Wallis said.

I argued that a personal memento photo is not equivalent to a flag in communicating messages. You argued they are the same. He appears to argue they are the same.

But if his flag is equivalent to them showing a photo of the family, then a straight pride flag in the room of a straight teacher would also be equivalent to someone showing a family photo.

So if the straight teacher posted a sign saying "Everyone Is Welcome", and put up a straight pride flag, how would it be different?

And if an objectum sexual put up a sign that said "Everyone Is Welcome" and an objectum sexual pride flag instead of a portrait why would that be different?

If the family portrait and the flag are equivalent then how can you disapprove of any of them?

And if part of the rationale for the flag is that it is like a family photo, allowing him to speak of an aspect of his person, then how is a straight flag or objective sexual flag not allowing that person then to speak of an aspect of their person, in the same way a family photo would?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree with this. Entitlement is expecting the world is going to change to satisfy you. In reality, children need to learn to adapt to the world, as ugly as it may be. It's okay to work on changing the world to make it a better place, but in the meantime we need to have the resilience to cope with what is.

I feel like I shouldn't have explain there's nuance to this (not to you, but other posters). Physical violence, threats of physical violence, constant or repeated verbal abuse can certainly be damaging for children both long and short term and I think schools are obligated to make serious efforts to stop these things from happening.

The idea that children need to be protected from even the mere possibility of being offended or insulted or getting their feelings hurt is pretty absurd. I don't think it's good for children in the long run, even if it seems like a good idea in the short run.

Everyone faces conflict, people who dislike you for shallow or superficial reasons, and jerks in general. I don't think there's any way to change that. I think adults who have learned to deal with such people and conflicts at an early age are better off than those who didn't.

I read an article months ago about a woman who works for Google (or worked for Google) who got fired (or quit) over her repeated disparaging remarks about the company and management. During the MeToo debacle, she repeatedly claimed to be offended that the company hadn't put out a company-wide statement affirming that they "believed women". She made these claims of how it was causing her undue stress and emotional damage because the company had expressed support for other causes in the past....but refused to simply believe women. Instead of putting out a statement agreeing with her....she was offered counseling, therapy, paid leave, and frankly an ample amount of resources to help her cope with whatever her issue was. She refused all this.

Google obviously can't just make a blanket affirmation of believing women without risking a "hostile work environment" lawsuit from the male employees.

The problem IMO is that she genuinely believed that her identity as a woman was automatically a victim status and somehow entitled to unique privileges (I don't know how else to describe having one's claims believed simply for being a woman). The idea that one is harmed by the existence of opposing beliefs or opinions is ridiculous, as is thinking you're entitled to dictate your employer's position on matters of sexual harassment.

Obviously, that's a pretty extreme example of the effects of this kind of thinking that celebrates victimhood (Jussie Smollett is another) as an aspect of one's identity. Every time it happens though, I wonder how much damage this outlook is going to cause. The concern is that this younger generation has been so sheltered that they won't be able to handle difficult conflicts in the real world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But then that is inconsistent. Here is a quote from the teacher from the KC Star article you posted:

“The problem I have with it, obviously, is that it’s specific to me, and as an openly gay man that seems a bit discriminatory because if you’re a straight teacher, you can talk about your spouse, your kids, you can have a picture of your family in the classroom, but I have a flag and then all of a sudden there’s a problem. You know, it didn’t make any sense,” Wallis said.

I argued that a personal memento photo is not equivalent to a flag in communicating messages. You argued they are the same. He appears to argue they are the same.

But if his flag is equivalent to them showing a photo of the family, then a straight pride flag in the room of a straight teacher would also be equivalent to someone showing a family photo.

So if the straight teacher posted a sign saying "Everyone Is Welcome", and put up a straight pride flag, how would it be different?

And if an objectum sexual put up a sign that said "Everyone Is Welcome" and an objectum sexual pride flag instead of a portrait why would that be different?

If the family portrait and the flag are equivalent then how can you disapprove of any of them?

And if part of the rationale for the flag is that it is like a family photo, allowing him to speak of an aspect of his person, then how is a straight flag or objective sexual flag not allowing that person then to speak of an aspect of their person, in the same way a family photo would?

I'm reminded of the "it's ok to be white" flyers that were posted around some campuses one year and the outrage it caused because various non-white students claimed that it was somehow hostile towards them.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I feel like I shouldn't have explain there's nuance to this (not to you, but other posters). Physical violence, threats of physical violence, constant or repeated verbal abuse can certainly be damaging for children both long and short term and I think schools are obligated to make serious efforts to stop these things from happening.

The idea that children need to be protected from even the mere possibility of being offended or insulted or getting their feelings hurt is pretty absurd. I don't think it's good for children in the long run, even if it seems like a good idea in the short run.
...

Yes, there is a difference between protecting folks from real harm and protecting them from getting their feather's ruffled. I'm all for the first, not so much for the latter.

I've had folks say to me, "I'm going to quit my job because I can't stand this idiot I work with" or "I'm failing this class because I don't like the teacher." As gently as I can, I try to remind them that every workplace has its idiot and every school has its mediocre teachers. Their task is to figure out how to get along with them - but good luck trying to avoid them.

As applied to the present subject, the objecting parents aren't going to be able to prevent their children from running into a rainbow flag - if they haven't already - or have a conversation with a real live gay person - if they haven't already. As a dad, I preferred my kids to encounter the world and come home to talk to me about what they saw and what they thought about it. It made for some interesting conversations that I am glad I had.

 

[muichimotsu]

There is no need for LGBT propaganda in classrooms. What the teacher does in he own time is he business, but what he does in front of children becomes the parents' business. I would have raised cane as well. Teach, don't indoctrinate.

edit: His twitter page says it all

Except Twitter is not necessarily a representative aspect of the educator under the auspices of the school. And unless there's a specific clause in their contract, what they post their is not the school's business

How is it indoctrination to tell LGBTQ students they are welcome and can talk to him if they need to? That'd be like telling students they can come to them if they have other mental health struggles that LGBTQ students often have due to bullying is also "indoctrination".

Spoken by someone who's clearly very privileged in society and can appeal to a support system when that's not how it is for LGBTQ students, especially in conservative areas like this

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm reminded of the "it's ok to be white" flyers that were posted around some campuses one year and the outrage it caused because various non-white students claimed that it was somehow hostile towards them.

Because it's a microaggression, something you seem to dismiss as overreacting because you've never had this problem where your struggles are downplayed based on a demonstrable trend in American history with how black people were treated and still are to a degree

 

[muichimotsu]

Again, if you're using the term "allies" in the way I think you are....I disagree, and I think it's a dishonest and degrading term. For example...

'Being an ally is a daily labor': How to be an ally to all marginalized communities


"An ally is someone who chooses every day to take on the struggle and the problems that other groups are facing. It's not an identity. It's a daily labor," said Kim. "Self-educating is definitely the first step. You don't want to rush in and not know the issue or work already being done in that community. Figuring out places where you can usefully take action helps too. Maybe that's volunteering or maybe that's calling your political representative. It could even be showing up for a vigil or protest."

There's a similar set of characteristics to "allyship" that are almost universal when used by the left. First off, we aren't talking about minorities....we're talking about white people, particularly white straight people. Everyone else tends to be called an advocate or activist. Regardless, the traits are generally as follows....

1. Self education (because allies are dumb).
2. Listen, don't talk (because your opinions and views don't matter).
3. Advocacy/activism...for the interests of others (never for you or your interests)

In my mind, an ally is an actor in a unique sort of relationship of mutual respect and pursuit of mutual interests. If you're automatically considered uneducated and your opinion isn't valued and you're only ever going to pursue the interests of one actor in the relationship....then you aren't an ally, you're at best a servant, or more appropriately, a stooge.

STOOGE English Definition and Meaning | Lexico.com

A person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work.

You realize this isn't a universal, right? White people are not the majority everywhere, but in terms of American politics, they have had the dominant power for centuries and still arguably do

Also, definitely sensing some white fragility here, as if you have to be the victim because someone's calling you out on your privilege and you only find the instances where you can feel like someone's demeaning you, which can arguably just be your own misperceptions in the first place and not malicious intent even if it can be interpreted as such reasonably.

And as I've said before, you don't have the struggles black people have had for generations, you don't get to act like this is some equal situation because you can cherry pick data or point to other minorities and tell black people they're ungrateful, lazy, etc.

 

[98cwitr]

Except Twitter is not necessarily a representative aspect of the educator under the auspices of the school. And unless there's a specific clause in their contract, what they post their is not the school's business

And yet we find in the OP of the opposite.

How is it indoctrination to tell LGBTQ students they are welcome and can talk to him if they need to? That'd be like telling students they can come to them if they have other mental health struggles that LGBTQ students often have due to bullying is also "indoctrination".

The school has protocol for bullying. This is promotion. A child's sexuality need not be a factor in education. Sexuality isn't applicable to learning math or reading. Sure, it's a topic that can come up in biology, but at least in the animal kingdom the predominate topic there is reproduction, not minute anomalies. Do they deserve a mention? Sure, but once they take primary focus, it becomes propaganda and no longer education.

Spoken by someone who's clearly very privileged in society and can appeal to a support system when that's not how it is for LGBTQ students, especially in conservative areas like this

Oh no, I grew up dirt poor. I share in no "privileges" you speak of, and am willing to acknowledge that as a heterosexual I am able to avoid homosexual hardships, but the reciprocal is true as well, homosexuals don't have to deal with the issues that come naturally to heterosexuals either. Everyone has their own story to tell.

 

[muichimotsu]

I quoted your assertion that the flag sent a message. That is not quibbling, that is showing both of us indicate it was sending a message.

He already had a sign that stated "Everyone Is Welcome." That conveys the message that everyone is welcome.

Now if you indicate the pride flag refers to specific marginalized groups, then that message is more specific than "Everyone is Welcome".

In the same way a flag for objectum sexual pride would also indicate a marginalized group, beyond the notion of everyone being welcome.

If the school wishes to remain neutral on the question of sexual orientation, yet welcome everyone, they can dictate that message, as they dictate speech in the class room.




I think this is a valid critique. It may indeed have multiple meanings.

However, it differs from a photo of a couple in that there are more readily associated historical connotations to a flag that was meant to communicate a message to the community in general, than there are to a personal memento of a couples relationship.

Except the flag is meant to reflect the LGBTQ community as a whole, which includes the group you keep harping on as if they're the only minority within the LGBTQ community (they're not). And also is meant to reflect diversity and not to exclude straight people like some mistakenly conclude. Is the rainbow not meant to be that in its essence with the idea of diverse things coming from one point (white as all colors chromatically and then varying by frequency)? And it isn't necessarily sexual orientation as people have brought up: LGBTQ can represent romantic attraction and gender identity as well, each of those distinct and interconnected in being part of a human experience, same as racial, religious, ethnic, etc identities

But if the gay teacher had a picture of them and their spouse that was the same sex, would an objection to that be based in fact or prejudices that a minority is "brainwashing" the children?

The problem is selective observation in the general sense, but also whether a symbol is remotely divisive or problematic in a rational manner versus people's deep seated bigotry against a group that they still want to treat like they're demanding special rights (like a right to marriage for gay people is "special" somehow?)

 

[muichimotsu]

No...I'm simply pointing out that you don't determine what a valid social construct is.

Super Straight is a sexual orientation that was created just last month. If you think that the person who created it should have consulted with you first....then you don't understand what socially constructed means.

If however, you think the evidence points to these characteristics being innate....then they aren't socially constructed, but biological realities. That's a whole other can of worms, but at least then we can discuss which orientations are valid.

Wow, you just go with a subculture creating something and assume it's valid because that's what you think social construction necessarily means.

It's not either/or: there can be biological aspects that have been there since humanity came about and our description of them will shift in how the terminology works, because language is not a fixed thing. You're conflating a biological reality with how we describe it, the latter of which is where the social constructed aspect emerges

I just pointed out one that was invented.

In a reactionary sense that is hardly valid because it's little different than invoking straight pride, because neither of those are valid in the idea of pride as self dignity against a society that represses and diminishes their value.

Are you saying that sexual orientations and genders are a biological reality or social construct?

Gender as gender identity is socially constructed and the understanding we have of sexual orientation is a descriptive sense, not the sexual attraction itself, which is a biological reality. You're muddying the waters here with loaded and leading questions

If it includes every gender and orientation then why is there an acronym at all? Why is there a flag? What's the point?

Because that's how things started in getting the ball rolling on civil rights. If you want an absolute answer to everything, you're going to be sorely disappointed, because that's not how the world works and the answer is going to potentially vary because of historical considerations, but also that this is a group you seem to know little about in their struggles and are detached from having any sense of empathy for, just treating them like they need to just "work harder" and "stop complaining"





If you're using the term allies the way I think you are....I disagree. That's a degrading term.

They're the only orientation it's socially acceptable to be bigoted against.

Saying that they have privilege and need to recognize that is not bigoted, you're strawmanning again

That's the only race that it's socially acceptable to be racist against.

Again, not racism in calling out societal privileges that give benefits that the majority group seems to not realize and instead gaslights and behaves in a toxic abusive manner to the minorities, like they should be "grateful to whites" and "stop being victims"

Remarkable how you think you get to decide the emotional needs of so many.

REmarkable that you think entitled privileged white people are being rational in their claim of "emotional needs" as you disingenously characterize it.

I'd go with....

: a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people

Now, since white people are the only race that it's now socially acceptable to be racist against, and straight people (to a lesser extent than whites) are the only orientation it's acceptable to be bigoted against....

Why don't you think they should be able to express their respective pride? Is it because of you don't respect them?

No, it's because they already have respect and they demand MORE because of their majority status and privilege they don't want to be challenged. This isn't as complex as you're making it and you're not a victim because you're white and straight in a society where being straight is the norm and a culture, American, where being white is historically the norm.

Maybe learn what bigotry actually is instead of manufacturing what you think it is in the context of being called out on your privilege, then we can start to talk about this idea that somehow the majority group has to be pitied because they're not getting the spotlight like they did for CENTURIES.

Forgive me if I don't have sympathy or empathy for narcissists that want the status quo to stay the same so they don't have to be altruistic or show any compassion for others in a genuine sense versus it being "socially acceptable" like how people mostly realize that throwing out the n word against black people is unacceptable, especially in the attempted revisionism that the word originally meant ignorant person (it really never did, Websters seems to have confirmed as much historically)

 

[muichimotsu]

The school has protocol for bullying. This is promotion. A child's sexuality need not be a factor in education. Sexuality isn't applicable to learning math or reading. Sure, it's a topic that can come up in biology, but at least in the animal kingdom the predominate topic there is reproduction, not minute anomalies. Do they deserve a mention? Sure, but once they take primary focus, it becomes propaganda and no longer education.

This isn't strictly sexuality, you're well poisoning now. Romantic attraction is not identical with sexual attraction, so maybe nuance that before you start this pearl clutching conservative nonsense.

Education is showing critical thought and confronting controversial things. The presence of a rainbow flag is not telling straight students they don't matter, you're deflecting now in this idea of the straight students being "victims" somehow because LGBTQ students are being given support they have not had for decades

Oh no, I grew up dirt poor. I share in no "privileges" you speak of, and am willing to acknowledge that as a heterosexual I am able to avoid homosexual hardships, but the reciprocal is true as well, homosexuals don't have to deal with the issues that come naturally to heterosexuals either. Everyone has their own story to tell.

You clearly don't know what the word privilege means in regards to being white and straight, because it is never a guarantee of financial success.

The hardships you insinuate are not a problem of any sexual orientation, but sexual behavior that is irresponsible, which can and is done by straight people and gay people, probably MORESO by straight people even per capita.

Oh please enlighten me on how a straight person is treated like garbage in today's society in a way that isn't bringing up how a straight person is treated as the norm and shouldn't expect to be regarded as such by necessity[/QUOTE]

 

[muichimotsu]

Now was this just to baffle because you couldn't respond quickly?

Why do you have to respond quickly? You can look up information.

I introduced it not as a distraction but because you dismissed every parallel situation as not related. Yet this is a group who claims to have a sexual orientation that is very much numerically in the minority, the small population of which you acknowledge, and they do report negative interactions from people based on their self-reported orientation. It seemed something that is parallel.

Except the situation specifically is about a flag that is not divisive like it would be for that group, LGBTQ pride flag with the 6-8 colors is about diversity and celebrating that. How is such a thing to be construed in a negative way except by people who have prejudices against minorities that they feel threatened by them in some way?

 

[tall73]

Except the flag is meant to reflect the LGBTQ community as a whole, which includes the group you keep harping on as if they're the only minority within the LGBTQ community (they're not). And also is meant to reflect diversity and not to exclude straight people like some mistakenly conclude.

If it includes everyone, how does it differ from the "Everyone Is Welcome sign"?

And if it includes everyone, then how does this statement from the article make sense?

as an openly gay man that seems a bit discriminatory because if you’re a straight teacher, you can talk about your spouse, your kids, you can have a picture of your family in the classroom, but I have a flag and then all of a sudden there’s a problem.

If the flag is equivalent in his view to a family photo, then that means it is saying something about him, not just a "Everyone is Welcome" message.

That is verified in another quote:

‘If you have a problem with the flag representing me, or students who identify as LGBTQ+, then you can probably find a different class,’” Wallis said.

So again, if the flag is equivalent to a family photo, why can't the straight teacher put a sign that says "Everyone is Welcome" and then put a straight pride flag as well?

Is the rainbow not meant to be that in its essence with the idea of diverse things coming from one point (white as all colors chromatically and then varying by frequency)? And it isn't necessarily sexual orientation as people have brought up: LGBTQ can represent romantic attraction and gender identity as well, each of those distinct and interconnected in being part of a human experience, same as racial, religious, ethnic, etc identities

Well that rather depends. The article didn't designate which pride flag was displayed. There are of course variants now.

But if the gay teacher had a picture of them and their spouse that was the same sex, would an objection to that be based in fact or prejudices that a minority is "brainwashing" the children?

It is a counterfactual. We can't know. But I would doubt anything would be said. But that is because I don't see a pride flag and a memento photo to be equivalent, but you do.

The problem is selective observation in the general sense, but also whether a symbol is remotely divisive or problematic in a rational manner versus people's deep seated bigotry against a group that they still want to treat like they're demanding special rights (like a right to marriage for gay people is "special" somehow?)

In this case it appears to be an issue of the school wanting to be neutral in regards to sexual orientation.