TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Lol thanks for your opinion. It means a lot.
You're showing a lot of potential.
Upvote
0
Lol thanks for your opinion. It means a lot.
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
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.
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.
what exactly did he present in class. Quotes please
their issue being that the very sight of a rainbow flag turns children into homosexuals.
and the school bowed to this hate based complaint showing they were being anything but neutral.
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.
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?
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.
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.
how many showed up? i am curious to know just how many had a problem with LGBTQ students.
so they pushed thier own.
as noted there was no curriculum of this sort being presented. It was just a lie of the school.
the curriculum he was presenting had nothing to do with the rainbow flag or anyone's orientation.
and he followed the school district.
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.
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.
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."
True, as you continue to demonstrateRight, anyone can be victimized.
The rainbow flag turning their children into homosexuals was the original parental complaint. Maybe you should have red the OP.Well since no one actually said anything about a flag turning someone gay, I had to choose something equally ridiculous.
Are you sure they aren't just fragile, whiny and in need of psychiatric help?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.
True, as you continue to demonstrate
[ 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.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.
you mean the fragile whiny children that should be sent to a psychiatrist?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.
The rainbow flag turning their children into homosexuals was the original parental complaint.
Maybe you should have red the OP.
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.
[ 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.
you mean the fragile whiny children that should be sent to a psychiatrist?
the school didn'tWhich all of us in this thread see as ridiculous.
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.Incorrect, they advised against the sign before the complaint ever occurred.
what a horrible agenda, i can see why you are offended by it.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
The irony is that you if you flip through the school's facebook page can see a cross being displayed in the classroom.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.