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

[SilverBear]

You mean like this?



Perhaps they were reading your posts lol.

maybe you should try reading them.

 

[RDKirk]

Probably because they would've been fired to even insinuate a problem, these days it's not the same situation, but ti doesn't mean black people cannot still be gaslit and condescended to by even their own race, let alone white people that try to act like post MLK Jr. there's no more racial problems at all in society

They may have been afraid to do so

I'm not going to lose my temper with you two because I realize you're both ignorant of the situation of the times and just don't know the kind of people you're talking about. So I'll step back from being offended.

As I said before, these were black people born in the 1930s who had the mettle and discipline to become college-educated instructors in a day where all social pressure was dedicated to keeping them in subservient roles. They themselves had endured discrimination that nobody in this current age has experienced...and still held their heads high.

They looked with hope at the then-recent Brown v Topeka Supreme Court case, they looked with hope at the swelling Civil Rights movement, and they believed my generation would be the generation of black Americans who would finally get our bite of the pie. We were the generation of promise...and they were determined that we would be ready. Their entire mission was to make us ready. They were linked arm-in-arm with our parents to make us ready.

They had no expectation that white people would ever like us or celebrate us. They didn't teach us to expect such things from white people because there weren't any white people they actually trusted beyond whatever the law required of them. They expected nothing less than a fight every step of the way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, pretending that LGBT individuals are not the victims

Claiming that gay individuals are victims is bigotry. Your identity doesn't make you a victim.

 

[Ana the Ist]

no threats and harassment and name calling are not the same as physical violence.

Yay.

Feel free to return to deliberately mischaracterizing my posts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you have repeated it many times as an apparent means of dismissing the the kids in the school as "whiny" and fragile

If you're upset about not having your special flag in the room....whiny and fragile are accurate descriptors.

 

[Ana the Ist]

the rainbow flag is now hate speech?

No.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are saying that it's somehow different when the flag being protested is the rainbow flag.

No, I'm not...I'm saying it's exactly the same.

People were offended by the Confederate flag in all sorts of public settings...and they got it removed.

A parent got offended by the Pride flag in the classroom....they got it removed.

I don't know how you completely missed my position on this. I stated it pretty clearly on my first post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Someone thought the flag would turn their kid gay.

About as dumb as thinking a Confederate flag makes you pro-slavery.

 

[tall73]

The school didn't remove it or threaten the teacher with dismissal because they wanted to remain neutral. The school bowed to a parental demand to remove the flag as they complaint that the presence of the rainbow flag was going to make his child homosexual. A complaint based at best in ignorance and at worst in bigotry.

They advised against it initially per his account. They asked him to remove it when the issue was raised by a parent. And after he suggested people who didn't like the flag representing him or LGBT students could find another class they stated that he needed to present the curriculum without his agenda or they would terminate him.

It sounds like they did not agree with the notion that he should have communication that would "represent" a particular group.

Being neutral at this point would have prompted the school to educate the parent on homosexuality

No it would not. Being neutral would mean that they knew the school had no business putting a sign that "represented" a particular group in the classroom. And we know they knew that because they advised against it before he put it up by his own admission. So when the parents complained and it was clear that this was pushing a personal viewpoint of representation they asked him to cease. Because they are not to push particular viewpoints unrelated to the curriculum, and as an agent of the state his free speech is limited in the classroom.

Nor is it the job of the district to educate parents on LGBT issues.

but they didn't do that, instead the threatened the teacher with dismissal in he would not agree in writing to never discuss his personal life with students.,..which would include displaying any picture of his spouse.

Which step was taken after they initially advised him not to put up the flag, and then advised him to take it down, and then had to deal with him suggesting those who didn't like the flag representing him and LGBTQ could find another classroom.

“But I followed it up by saying, ‘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. “That prompted more calls from parents to the superintendent, and I had to have the meeting with the superintendent the following day.”

They then warned he could not continue to push his agenda:

“If you are unable to present the curriculum in a manner that keeps your personal agenda on sexuality out of your narrative and the classroom discussions, we will ultimately terminate your employment.”


The government teacher is not to be representing groups or viewpoints, but presenting the curriculum, which was unrelated to all of this.

In the end the school was anything but neutral and engaged in bigoted actions that sent a clear message to all students that certain people are not and would not be welcome and safe in there.

Incorrect. They kept viewpoint promotion out of the school as it is not the government's job to represent a particular group. His free speech is limited as a teacher.

From the Missouri State Teachers Association:

Free Speech Update

School districts have the authority to control course content and teaching methods. You are generally considered to speak for the school district when you are in your classroom. Therefore, your speech in the classroom does not have First Amendment protection.


Would they have objected if he had a photo with a spouse, or discussed his family without the prior concerns about agenda promotion? We don't know. I doubt it. But in this case they felt it necessary to place restrictions because of his prior disregard of their warnings to not use the classroom to represent a group.

 

[Ana the Ist]

maybe you should try reading them.

Don't strain yourself from trying so hard.

 

[tall73]

Here are a few selected quotes from a professional journal article for k-12 educators on the subject of teacher speech in the classroom.

School districts control teachers’ classroom speech - kappanonline.org

In addition, they must deliver the curriculum without attempting to indoctrinate students with their own personal beliefs, particularly on religious, political, and controversial topics. 

In K-12 public schools, the local school board has the authority to set the curriculum, and teachers must adhere to it, as well as following all state and school board regulations.

Additionally, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court limited public employees’ rights to free speech within the confines of their employment. There the court held that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes; as such, the Constitution does not protect them from employer discipline

The takeaway message here is that as much as teachers should be respected for their expertise and experience in providing curriculum in the classroom, the school district has the legal right to delineate and limit that curriculum, and as employees, teachers must adhere to those policy decisions. As stated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision upholding a teacher’s dismissal for not doing so, “Only the school board has ultimate responsibility for what goes on in the classroom, legitimately giving it a say over what teachers may (or may not) teach in the classroom.”

 

[tall73]

Someone thought the flag would turn their kid gay.

It doesn't matter what crazy notion the parent had. The issue, as the school stated it, was his presenting his agenda, rather than just the curriculum.

“If you are unable to present the curriculum in a manner that keeps your personal agenda on sexuality out of your narrative and the classroom discussions, we will ultimately terminate your employment.”


The courts have ruled the school has the right to curtail his free speech and to dictate that he teach the curriculum rather than his viewpoint promotion.

He indicated the flag "represented" him and his LGBTQ+ students. The school advised him before hand not to display this flag, asked him to remove the flag, and then asked him not to push his own views.

This is in line with court rulings.

 

[muichimotsu]

Please define whiteness.

Being in the general category of what would be considered Caucasian, even merely in appearance even if ethnicity or racial categories might also categorize you otherwise. Never heard of Hispanics that can pass as white?

It's not an entirely stable thing (social construction and all), but generally would focus on those with lighter skin tones and them being seen as the norm, at least in regards to, say, American culture

 

[muichimotsu]

Claiming that gay individuals are victims is bigotry. Your identity doesn't make you a victim.

Societal disregard, marginalization and diminishing of one's voice is what makes one a victim, the identity itself is victimized, the mere status of that identity was never claimed to be the indicator of a victim, but the dynamic within any given society that has norms that are prejudicial and discriminatory.

If they happen to be in that group and suffer that, then yes, they are a victim in a technical sense, just not in the direct notion of having suffered something that would fit your narrowed definition that might as well just act like we're possessing of no prejudices, no societal norms that discourage the idea of challenging the status quo as it exists on racial discourse.

Except that's not true and you're manifesting it yourself by deflecting and evading any sense that white people might have privilege or are enabling a broken system that they don't suffer from nearly as much as non whites do.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not going to lose my temper with you two because I realize you're both ignorant of the situation of the times and just don't know the kind of people you're talking about. So I'll step back from being offended.

As I said before, these were black people born in the 1930s who had the mettle and discipline to become college-educated instructors in a day where all social pressure was dedicated to keeping them in subservient roles. They themselves had endured discrimination that nobody in this current age has experienced...and still held their heads high.

They looked with hope at the then-recent Brown v Topeka Supreme Court case, they looked with hope at the swelling Civil Rights movement, and they believed my generation would be the generation of black Americans who would finally get our bite of the pie. We were the generation of promise...and they were determined that we would be ready. Their entire mission was to make us ready. They were linked arm-in-arm with our parents to make us ready.

They had no expectation that white people would ever like us or celebrate us. They didn't teach us to expect such things from white people because there weren't any white people they actually trusted beyond whatever the law required of them. They expected nothing less than a fight every step of the way.

Nice use of cherry picking and survivorship bias: as if those black people's success means some failure of character of the other black people who ALSO work hard and yet fall through the cracks and suffer. It's little different than someone else in the thread pointing to Asian success and not so subtly insinuating that black people are just being lazy or otherwise are ungrateful and trying to make themselves victims

Don't act like you somehow understand their struggles merely because you can anecdotally reference things that confirm your preconceptions and then downplay and borderline gaslight modern black people because their experiences still suggest problems where you don't see them

 

[muichimotsu]

It doesn't matter what crazy notion the parent had. The issue, as the school stated it, was his presenting his agenda, rather than just the curriculum.

“If you are unable to present the curriculum in a manner that keeps your personal agenda on sexuality out of your narrative and the classroom discussions, we will ultimately terminate your employment.”


The courts have ruled the school has the right to curtail his free speech and to dictate that he teach the curriculum rather than his viewpoint promotion.

He indicated the flag "represented" him and his LGBTQ+ students. The school advised him before hand not to display this flag, asked him to remove the flag, and then asked him not to push his own views.

This is in line with court rulings.

So what if we instead considered that a better framing of the flag is the reflection of celebrating diversity as a virtue? Then your little "persecuted" straight kids don't feel left out and everyone is represented rather than the opposite. The situation doesn't follow in the same vein as religious establishment clause issues because of norms that aren't just going away with American regards to how religion intertwines with culture (and how many colleges were religious in nature in the beginning and many can still trace their lineage back to that)

 

[muichimotsu]

Nope.

So that's your response? Nothing substantive, just a childish retort of dismissal? Is this the tactic that is supposed to be rational?

 

[muichimotsu]

If you can find that conversation I'll gladly give it a read.

However, we've got a more concrete example that perhaps you should consider.

Remember Charlottesville? Remember when President Trump said something stupid (arguably nuetral, but stupid regardless)?

Afterwards, over the next 48 hours every single Republican Congressman and Senator unequivocally condemned white supremacists and their political violence.

I don't recall any such condemnation from the Democratic Party towards Antifa and their political violence. In fact, the opposite happened. They pretended Antifa wasn't a problem. They called tearing down flags and statues progress. They justified riots and looting and then minimized it by calling it "mostly peaceful". They rejected law and order when armed citizens took over public spaces, called it a "summer of love", and basically ignored the fact that it led to multiple murders.

You're upset that perhaps there's a silent few on the left who disagreed with all this...and I'm lumping them in with all those who approved of it?

If they're too gutless to speak up they aren't worth consideration in my eyes.

Oh, you mean like Nancy Pelosi? Is that not good enough? How many do I have to find to substantiate this claim to your satisfaction?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/nan...ters-for-comments-on-trump-administratio.html


Oh, more appeal to ignorance: just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there, or that people didn't disapprove at all, it's not that simple

And the tearing down of flags and statues was not done with the intent of destruction, but placing it in a context where it is not suggesting approval by the public government. To quote Indiana Jones, "It belongs in a museum!"

I find it hilarious that we really haven't seen much of anything even over half a year after the incident condemning the January 6 attempt at an insurrection based on faulty ideas about "election fraud" in the 2020 election from the right wing. By all means, point that out, but the fact is in Congress, most Republicans played dumb and act like it was just free speech rather than the very thing you accuse left wingers of supporting merely because they aren't directly condemning it to your satisfaction or that you can find. If I say I condemn those actions, but still support the BLM movement as a general concept, does that make me a hypocrite?

And way to wrap it up with faux machismo and posturing like you're so brave and strong and everyone should like you. But you're not fooling anyone that sees how you're lashing out at everyone else, throwing stones in a glass house.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, no. I implied that sexual biology can very easily be taught without promoting homosexuality. These ongoing red herrings of yours have nothing to do with what I said.

Acknowledging homosexuality is a natural variation is not promotion anymore than saying that trans identity is a natural variation is promotion, learn the difference instead of only hearing what makes you comfortable in the status quo where everyone's just "male or female" and "only straight, not confused like gay people,"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Societal disregard, marginalization and diminishing of one's voice is what makes one a victim, the identity itself is victimized,

Nope. I could easily say that society disregards incels, marginalizes them, and diminishes their voices...those things don't make someone a victim.

Being victimized makes someone a victim.

And there's no identity that anyone has that makes it safe to assume they've been victimized.