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

[TLK Valentine]

Lol thanks for your opinion. It means a lot.

You're showing a lot of potential.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're showing a lot of potential.

Lol

 

[RDKirk]

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

Pointing out the strength of one man does not make a disparaging remark about another man.

I find myself being forced to agree with Ana the Ist on your tendency to make that leap of logic.

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

I rather understand their struggles because I was able to still see their struggles. I had the same experiences at the same time. I was there, except at that time as a youth, which I understood more fully when I became an adult.

If you think I'm gaslighting, I'd suggest you spend some time listening to black people of the War Generation tell you their stories about life.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pointing out the strength of one man does not make a disparaging remark about another man.

I find myself being forced to agree with Ana the Ist on your tendency to make that leap of logic.

If I may say a couple of things to help your agreement with me feel a little more comfortable...

I'm certainly not say that black or homosexual people don't face discrimination.

I am saying that there's no certainty that a black (or any race) or homosexual (or any gender/orientation) person have faced or will face discrimination. There's no need to assume such things.

Of those people who do face discrimination, it does not mean they are victims. There are many people who have faced discrimination for characteristics like race or orientation and they have managed to overcome that discrimination on their own.

I can't see those people as victims. I tend to see them as people to emulate in their strength.

There is, however, a tendency to equate certain identity groups as "victims" within this larger left wing political narrative....and it's based (as far as I can tell) on nothing more than identity.

I think that's why those two posters responded the way they did. You told a story of strength and perseverance in teaching....they saw victims who were too afraid, too beaten down, too oppressed to act the way they thought they should act.

I have no problem with the idea of helping someone who has actually been victimized (a victim) by injustice. I do have a problem with assuming that the shade of someone's skin or sexuality means they must be a victim.

It appears racist to me.

 

[tall73]

If I may say a couple of things to help your agreement with me feel a little more comfortable...

I'm certainly not say that black or homosexual people don't face discrimination.

I am saying that there's no certainty that a black (or any race) or homosexual (or any gender/orientation) person have faced or will face discrimination. There's no need to assume such things.

I am guessing you mean as a general rule.

In the time period he is speaking of in that story I think there was a certainty. The fact that he was in a separate school was discrimination in itself. And discrimination was encoded in law.

However, I do think that those who overcame that injustice should be acknowledged for their strength, especially since they were exercising it for more than just themselves. They were targeted by unjust laws and actors, but persevered. So I understand not wanting to call them victims as an identity. Though by the strict definition they were harmed by others, and thus victims of wrong actions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am guessing you mean as a general rule.

Yeah.

In the time period he is speaking of in that story I think there was a certainty. The fact that he was in a separate school was discrimination in itself. And discrimination was encoded in law.

Yeah, if we're talking about a time when it was encoded into law, safe assumption.

However, I do think that those who overcame that injustice should be acknowledged for their strength, especially since they were exercising it for more than just themselves. They were targeted by unjust laws and actors, but persevered. So I understand not wanting to call them victims as an identity. Though by the strict definition they were harmed by others, and thus victims of wrong actions.

Agreed.

If I were to go into more detail...

I think the problem with labeling an identity like "black" or "woman" as automatically victims is twofold. It's a bigoted assumption about the identity that infantilized them, robs them of agency, and this alone leads to a viewpoint of them being somehow "lesser".

On the other side, identities that aren't labeled victims get minimized. It becomes an effort in futility trying to describe problems faced by other people/identities. It's almost always dismissed and often met with blatant mockery.

 

[tall73]

what exactly did he present in class. Quotes please

He presented the flag.

Speech includes displayed items such as the flag.

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. Political speech in the classroom should be limited to courses where politics and current events are part of the curriculum. In general, you should exercise caution not to appear as advocating a particular religious or political view in the classroom. “Speech” also applies to classroom decoration, posters or displays.

For instance in Johnson v. Poway Unified School District a teacher was not allowed to displayed banners with a religious message.

School districts control teachers’ classroom speech - kappanonline.org

In Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. of San Diego County, 658 F.3d 954, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held similarly. There, administrators told a math teacher to remove large banners that displayed religious beliefs from his classroom.

They had advised him not to post the flag, before any parent complaint. The flag had nothing to do with the curriculum. It did have to do with his desire to represent himself and LGBTQ+ students. And he stated this in the classroom after he was asked to take it down, and when asked about it by students.

“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. “

Therefore, the school indicated:

“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.”

His job is to present the curriculum. His job is not to present his personal agenda. But the flag was presenting his personal agenda, and had nothing to do with the curriculum.

 

[tall73]

their issue being that the very sight of a rainbow flag turns children into homosexuals.

Which all of us in this thread see as ridiculous.

and the school bowed to this hate based complaint showing they were being anything but neutral.

Incorrect, they advised against the sign before the complaint ever occurred.

What agenda? the flag was there but never brought up in class nor was anything it supposedly represents. This was just dishonesty on the part of the school again showing they were not and had never been neutral on the topic of sexual orientation.

The agenda is spelled out in the teacher's own words, that he didn't have any supportive teachers in his day and wanted to support LGBTQ+ students as an openly out teacher, and, as quoted above, that the flag represented him and the LGBTQ+ students

“I didn’t have any teachers that were openly accepting of LGBTQ+ students,” Wallis said. “And so for me, as an out educator in southwest Missouri, I know what my experience was and I didn’t want that to be the same experience for my students.”

It was important to him, he said, and he felt that was proven when students who identified as LGBTQ came to him privately.
“It showed me specifically that what my intention was with the flag was actually happening, that students could see that I am a safe person to come to,” Wallis said. “That spoke to me a lot for them to be able to come to me and say that. It meant that I was doing what I intended to do.”

If a religious teacher was advised not to put a large cross in the classroom, but did anyway and then said nothing overt about it, that wouldn't fly. The cross is a message. And if the teacher indicated that the desire behind it was to show that it was to represent that he was a Christian and to encourage Christian students to come to him so he could support them in their faith, that would be an agenda beyond what he was entrusted to teach.

As noted the teacher wasn't doing anything of the sort but the school clearly communicated its position and support anti-gay hatred. How is that in any way neutral?

Asking not to push personal agendas is not anti-gay hatred.

a quick trip to the Neosho Junior High homepage and their facebook page and a minute with google showed all sorts of signs around the school. The ROTC, book companies, the YMCA, Soda companies. Showing that the school has no problem with representational signs none of which are related to curriculum.

You didn't specify where in the school these occurred, but if you see some of these in the classroom, you can complain to them, and perhaps they will act on those as well.

But those don't relate to personal agendas of having students come to the teacher to find support.

I find it difficult to believe that if a parent called this school to complain about the presence of African American students and personal complaining that such people endanger their children citing their belief that black people carry and spread venereal diseases that the school would not educate them.

Hard to say. With such a claim they may find it unlikely that attempts to educate would be successful anyway.

But the issue the school noted was not that he had to take the flag down because it would turn children gay. They asked him to take it down because it was a personal agenda, which is in line with prior court findings.

how many showed up? i am curious to know just how many had a problem with LGBTQ students.

Wouldn't know. But they may have simply taken exception to his personal agenda of representation, and his suggestion that those who didn't like it could go to a different class.

But given the response of the one parent, there could be others who object to LGBTQ students, teachers, etc.

From the school's perspective the issue was the agenda. They stated it in print, quoted in the story.

so they pushed thier own.

No, they prevented the personal agenda being pushed. And they would have allowed him to remain teaching if he would not push the agenda.

as noted there was no curriculum of this sort being presented. It was just a lie of the school.

“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 curriculum they were asking him to teach was the school curriculum. He was teaching that.

However, the personal agenda was the flag, and follow up statements regarding the flag and representation. And they were asking him to remove that and stick to the curriculum.

the curriculum he was presenting had nothing to do with the rainbow flag or anyone's orientation.

Exactly. So the flag was not a part of the curriculum he was hired to teach, and was presenting, and was seen as a personal agenda. Which he admitted by stating he wanted the students to come to him, wanted the flag to represent him and the students, etc. That is an agenda beyond the curriculum he was hired to teach. He pursued this despite advice not to prior to any complaint.

and he followed the school district.

He did not. They advised him not to put the sign up. He did anyway.

the history of various other schools loosing lawsuits for trying to fire teachers who have such pictures or such discussion would have played some part in any objection.

A family photo is not equivalent to a pride flag. And he spelled out his intentions for the pride flag, and it was an agenda.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He presented the flag.

Speech includes displayed items such as the flag.

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. Political speech in the classroom should be limited to courses where politics and current events are part of the curriculum. In general, you should exercise caution not to appear as advocating a particular religious or political view in the classroom. “Speech” also applies to classroom decoration, posters or displays.

For instance in Johnson v. Poway Unified School District a teacher was not allowed to displayed banners with a religious message.

School districts control teachers’ classroom speech - kappanonline.org

In Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. of San Diego County, 658 F.3d 954, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held similarly. There, administrators told a math teacher to remove large banners that displayed religious beliefs from his classroom.

They had advised him not to post the flag, before any parent complaint. The flag had nothing to do with the curriculum. It did have to do with his desire to represent himself and LGBTQ+ students. And he stated this in the classroom after he was asked to take it down, and when asked about it by students.

“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. “

Therefore, the school indicated:

“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.”

His job is to present the curriculum. His job is not to present his personal agenda. But the flag was presenting his personal agenda, and had nothing to do with the curriculum.

Reading my previous reply to you, I think I could have worded it better.

If you were a black person alive during the time when we had racial discrimination in our laws...we can say you were discriminated against.

That doesn't however, make one a victim of racial discrimination.

If that doesn't make sense, consider a black person born in 1960. There were laws collectively referred to redlining which discriminated against them. Except for a few very wealthy children (of any race) it's unlikely you had the money to buy or get a mortgage until the 1980s. Therefore, they aren't a victim of racial discrimination. The laws discriminated against them...but they weren't a victim of discrimination.

Or consider the Biden administration's policy that denied loans to white farmers. I'm white, and I could potentially decide to farm, so this law discriminates against me....but I'm not a farmer and I can't apply for the loan (which would be denied because of my race) so I'm not a victim of racial discrimination.

There's an attempt to somehow pass victimhood status onto identities themselves....and it's hard for me to see it as anything other purely political. The civil rights era is over...and with the possibility of a few rights I can't think of atm...we all have the same rights. The left has made a coalition of minority groups by championing these rights, and now that they're done, it's not obvious why a minority group would continue voting Democratic. That's why I think they're trying to bake victimhood right into the identities of minority groups and I think it's pretty gross.

That's not a denial of the way history impacts people either. I'm fully aware of how history works. My father (and mother) grew up very poor. My father lived in a rural area where most men were coal miners. He and all 4 of his brothers all expected to be coal miners. When he was around 15 though, the coal mine shut down. That had a big impact on his future and his brother's future. He also got drafted into Vietnam. That too had a big impact on his future.

Of those 4 brothers 2 stayed in the area and are still rather poor. My father and another brother left and by the choices they made, managed to live comfortably middle class lives. The other brother worked very hard, took some big risks, and was a multi-millionaire by his mid 40s. He retired early, and then went back to work, and repeated this process 4 or 5 times because companies kept offering him millions of dollars to be their CEO.

So I'm also aware of how much benefit wealth provides....and guess what? Of that uncle's children (4 of my cousins) I somehow still managed to make more money than 2 of them...and I didn't have the benefits of free college or private school like they did.

Choices matter....a lot. We are not simply products of history. Everyone, regardless of identity, has agency.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which all of us in this thread see as ridiculous.



Incorrect, they advised against the sign before the complaint ever occurred.



The agenda is spelled out in the teacher's own words, that he didn't have any supportive teachers in his day and wanted to support LGBTQ+ students as an openly out teacher, and, as quoted above, that the flag represented him and the LGBTQ+ students

“I didn’t have any teachers that were openly accepting of LGBTQ+ students,” Wallis said. “And so for me, as an out educator in southwest Missouri, I know what my experience was and I didn’t want that to be the same experience for my students.”

It was important to him, he said, and he felt that was proven when students who identified as LGBTQ came to him privately.
“It showed me specifically that what my intention was with the flag was actually happening, that students could see that I am a safe person to come to,” Wallis said. “That spoke to me a lot for them to be able to come to me and say that. It meant that I was doing what I intended to do.”

If a religious teacher was advised not to put a large cross in the classroom, but did anyway and then said nothing overt about it, that wouldn't fly. The cross is a message. And if the teacher indicated that the desire behind it was to show that it was to represent that he was a Christian and to encourage Christian students to come to him so he could support them in their faith, that would be an agenda beyond what he was entrusted to teach.



Asking not to push personal agendas is not anti-gay hatred.



You didn't specify where in the school these occurred, but if you see some of these in the classroom, you can complain to them, and perhaps they will act on those as well.

But those don't relate to personal agendas of having students come to the teacher to find support.



Hard to say. With such a claim they may find it unlikely that attempts to educate would be successful anyway.

But the issue the school noted was not that he had to take the flag down because it would turn children gay. They asked him to take it down because it was a personal agenda, which is in line with prior court findings.



Wouldn't know. But they may have simply taken exception to his personal agenda of representation, and his suggestion that those who didn't like it could go to a different class.

But given the response of the one parent, there could be others who object to LGBTQ students, teachers, etc.

From the school's perspective the issue was the agenda. They stated it in print, quoted in the story.



No, they prevented the personal agenda being pushed. And they would have allowed him to remain teaching if he would not push the 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 curriculum they were asking him to teach was the school curriculum. He was teaching that.

However, the personal agenda was the flag, and follow up statements regarding the flag and representation. And they were asking him to remove that and stick to the curriculum.



Exactly. So the flag was not a part of the curriculum he was hired to teach, and was presenting, and was seen as a personal agenda. Which he admitted by stating he wanted the students to come to him, wanted the flag to represent him and the students, etc. That is an agenda beyond the curriculum he was hired to teach. He pursued this despite advice not to prior to any complaint.



He did not. They advised him not to put the sign up. He did anyway.



A family photo is not equivalent to a pride flag. And he spelled out his intentions for the pride flag, and it was an agenda.

Unless I misread something...no parent actually said "the sight of a flag will turn my child gay". That seems to be a strawman that @SilverBear is pushing.

The only thing in the articles that's even close to that was...

"A parent had complained to the school about the sign and flag. The parent allegedly said that Wallis was going to teach their child to be gay, Wallis said."

Now, I also think that's a ridiculous statement, however I understand why a parent might think that....given some of the stuff that pops up in media these days like....

San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus faces backlash for 'we're coming for your children' video

Here's a bunch of homosexual activists singing about how they're going to "convert your children". Perhaps that is just a joke or satire in bad taste...but stuff like that isn't doing the LGBT teachers any favors in the long run.

 

[tall73]

Unless I misread something...no parent actually said "the sight of a flag will turn my child gay". That seems to be a strawman that @SilverBear is pushing.

The only thing in the articles that's even close to that was...

"A parent had complained to the school about the sign and flag. The parent allegedly said that Wallis was going to teach their child to be gay, Wallis said."

Good clarification.

 

[SilverBear]

Right, anyone can be victimized.

True, as you continue to demonstrate

 

[SilverBear]

Well since no one actually said anything about a flag turning someone gay, I had to choose something equally ridiculous.

The rainbow flag turning their children into homosexuals was the original parental complaint. Maybe you should have red the OP.

 

[SilverBear]

Pointing out the strength of one man does not make a disparaging remark about another man.

I find myself being forced to agree with Ana the Ist on your tendency to make that leap of logic.



I rather understand their struggles because I was able to still see their struggles. I had the same experiences at the same time. I was there, except at that time as a youth, which I understood more fully when I became an adult.

If you think I'm gaslighting, I'd suggest you spend some time listening to black people of the War Generation tell you their stories about life.

Are you sure they aren't just fragile, whiny and in need of psychiatric help?

 

[Ana the Ist]

True, as you continue to demonstrate

Demonstrate? I haven't victimized anyone.

 

[SilverBear]

If I may say a couple of things to help your agreement with me feel a little more comfortable...

I'm certainly not say that black or homosexual people don't face discrimination.

[ yet the vast majority if not all do face it regularly either directly in harassment and bullying or secondarily as you do when you marginalize and belittle those who do.

I am saying that there's no certainty that a black (or any race) or homosexual (or any gender/orientation) person have faced or will face discrimination. There's no need to assume such things.

Of those people who do face discrimination, it does not mean they are victims. There are many people who have faced discrimination for characteristics like race or orientation and they have managed to overcome that discrimination on their own.

I can't see those people as victims. I tend to see them as people to emulate in their strength.

There is, however, a tendency to equate certain identity groups as "victims" within this larger left wing political narrative....and it's based (as far as I can tell) on nothing more than identity.

I think that's why those two posters responded the way they did. You told a story of strength and perseverance in teaching....they saw victims who were too afraid, too beaten down, too oppressed to act the way they thought they should act.

you mean the fragile whiny children that should be sent to a psychiatrist?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The rainbow flag turning their children into homosexuals was the original parental complaint.

No it isn't. The complaint was that the teacher would teach them to be gay.

From the article...

Wallis claims the Pride flag hanging in his classroom was compared to hanging a Confederate flag, and that a parent called the school to complain that Wallis was going to teach their child to be gay.

I originally thought you were accidentally mischaracterizing the complaint...but you've done it so many times now it looks deliberate. It's in both articles and the OP.

Maybe you should have red the OP.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

And it's spelled "read".

 

[SilverBear]

He presented the flag.

Speech includes displayed items such as the flag.

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. Political speech in the classroom should be limited to courses where politics and current events are part of the curriculum. In general, you should exercise caution not to appear as advocating a particular religious or political view in the classroom. “Speech” also applies to classroom decoration, posters or displays.

For instance in Johnson v. Poway Unified School District a teacher was not allowed to displayed banners with a religious message.

School districts control teachers’ classroom speech - kappanonline.org

In Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. of San Diego County, 658 F.3d 954, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held similarly. There, administrators told a math teacher to remove large banners that displayed religious beliefs from his classroom.

They had advised him not to post the flag, before any parent complaint. The flag had nothing to do with the curriculum. It did have to do with his desire to represent himself and LGBTQ+ students. And he stated this in the classroom after he was asked to take it down, and when asked about it by students.

“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. “

Therefore, the school indicated:

“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.”

His job is to present the curriculum. His job is not to present his personal agenda. But the flag was presenting his personal agenda, and had nothing to do with the curriculum.

As noted earlier the school has no problem posting things from groups like the ROTC and book companies that have nothing to do with curriculum. our might have a valid point if the school was removing all of these as well,....but they aren't

 

[Ana the Ist]

[ yet the vast majority if not all do face it regularly

It doesn't seem like they do.

either directly in harassment and bullying or secondarily as you do when you marginalize and belittle those who do.

I haven't marginalized or belittled anyone.

you mean the fragile whiny children that should be sent to a psychiatrist?

No. I wouldn't call anyone who overcomes adversity "whiny".

I think it's pretty bigoted that you call them victims.

 

[SilverBear]

Which all of us in this thread see as ridiculous.

the school didn't

Incorrect, they advised against the sign before the complaint ever occurred.

Advised but not forbid. The question was why did they advise against it in the first place. It is reasonable to assume it was not about some imagined agenda or the limits of free speech because they could have said all this from the start.

The agenda is spelled out in the teacher's own words, that he didn't have any supportive teachers in his day and wanted to support LGBTQ+ students as an openly out teacher, and, as quoted above, that the flag represented him and the LGBTQ+ students

what a horrible agenda, i can see why you are offended by it.

If a religious teacher was advised not to put a large cross in the classroom, but did anyway and then said nothing overt about it, that wouldn't fly. The cross is a message.

The irony is that you if you flip through the school's facebook page can see a cross being displayed in the classroom.