Southlake school leader tells teachers to balance Holocaust books with 'opposing' views

[Mark Quayle]

LINK

Seven months after teachers at the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake went public with their concerns about an administrator’s advice to balance books on the Holocaust with titles that show “opposing” perspectives, district employees this week discovered that a new clause had been added to their annual employment contracts, listed under the heading: “Non-Disparagement.”

“You agree to not disparage, criticize, or defame the District, and its employees or officials, to the media,” it read.

Helpful tip for the clueless: This is what government censorship of free speech looks like.

I ran into another government entity, who had for a firing offense, "Embarrassment of The Department".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Should have read a little further on wiki there: The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.

Should have understood this critical phrase.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Should have understood this critical phrase.

Yes, you should have understood this critical phrase in context. Teachers disparaging their schools/employers personally or rules employment are indeed under this law.

A teacher stating a school should have better security because he/she was attacked in the parking lot is another issue entirely.

he Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5–4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.[9] The case had been reargued following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as the decision was tied without her; her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, then broke the tie.

 

[essentialsaltes]

the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.

If a teacher, on his own time, writes an opinion piece for a newspaper, that is not an expression made pursuant to his teaching duties, and is protected speech.

If a teacher, in his classroom, tells the students the superintendent is a jerk, that is a statement made pursuant to his duties and is not protected.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If a teacher, on his own time, writes an opinion piece for a newspaper, that is not an expression made pursuant to his teaching duties, and is protected speech.

If a teacher, in his classroom, tells the students the superintendent is a jerk, that is a statement made pursuant to his duties and is not protected.

Lol good luck with that.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If a teacher, on his own time, writes an opinion piece for a newspaper, that is not an expression made pursuant to his teaching duties, and is protected speech.

If a teacher, in his classroom, tells the students the superintendent is a jerk, that is a statement made pursuant to his duties and is not protected.

Of course, anyone can write a piece for a newspaper, anytime. However, if he has signed a contract with a non-disparagement clause, that piece had better not be a hit piece about his employer. Anything else is fine.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course, anyone can write a piece for a newspaper, anytime. However, if he has signed a contract with a non-disparagement clause, that piece had better not be a hit piece about his employer.

As the Pickering case showed, a teacher writing disparaging remarks about his public school employer in a newspaper is protected speech. A non-disparagement clause would be an unconstitutional restraint on this free speech. That's why most of the legal observers think this school board's attempt to create one is doomed to failure. It is a settled matter in the Supreme Court.

(Of course the Court has changed, maybe the new conservative majority will clear the way for Biden to purge anyone who's ever worn a MAGA hat in social media from government service.)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

As the Pickering case showed, a teacher writing disparaging remarks about his public school employer in a newspaper is protected speech. A non-disparagement clause would be an unconstitutional restraint on this free speech. That's why most of the legal observers think this school board's attempt to create one is doomed to failure. It is a settled matter in the Supreme Court.

Pickering was pre-Garcetti. So no, you are incorrect. (I removed the propaganda at the end but your actual post stands in entirety)

Pickering v. Board of Education held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from their position. The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.

Was the teacher pursuing his employment when he wrote an opinion piece for the paper?

Was the speech in Garcetti done on the DAs own time, or was it done pursuant to his employment, as in writing a memo to his supervisors about a legal matter?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Was the teacher pursuing his employment when he wrote an opinion piece for the paper?

Was the speech in Garcetti done on the DAs own time, or was it done pursuant to his employment, as in writing a memo to his supervisors about a legal matter?

Pursuant to employment. Not pursuing his employment.

pursuant to
In accordance with. This phrase is commonly used in legal documents and proceedings.

The ONLY reason he wrote a negative piece on his employer was because of his employment. Publicly is not the place to air it. Legally is the way one pursues complaints.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Pursuant to employment. Not pursuing his employment.

If Garcetti did not overturn Pickering, what did it do?

Is writing opeds in your spare time "in accordance with" being a teacher?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If Garcetti did not overturn Pickering, what did it do?

Is writing opeds in your spare time "in accordance with" being a teacher?

About your crappy employment situation as a teacher? Yes.

About Star Wars or cooking or whatever other random thing you want to write about? No.

 

[essentialsaltes]

About your crappy employment situation as a teacher? Yes.

I doubt that.

If Garcetti did not overturn Pickering, what did it do?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Pickering was pre-Garcetti.

Pickering v. Board of Education held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from their position. The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.

If Garcetti did not overturn Pickering, what did it do?

C'mon, you've quoted it at least twice.

Pickering was ______ by Garcetti.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If Garcetti did not overturn Pickering, what did it do?

C'mon, you've quoted it at least twice.

Pickering was ______ by Garcetti.

That's right, distinguished.

From a legal site:

To distinguish means to note a significant difference or dissimilarity (usually between cases); to make a distinction. A party usually distinguishes one case from another as part of the argument that because of a certain distinction, the court’s decision in the first case should not apply as precedent (stare decisis) to the second case, despite any factual similarities between the cases.

What was the significant difference between the forms of speech in

Pickering: a teacher wrote an opinion piece for a newspaper, and won.

and

Garcetti: an attorney wrote a memo to his supervisors, and lost.

that distinguishes the two cases?

 

[FireDragon76]

This is the sort of thing I was taught to look out for in my elementary class and up. Never thought I would see it in my lifetime. But given all that has happened in this country, the muddling of the truth was bound to happen.

Was it Sinclair Lewis who said when Fascism came to the US, it would be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Was it Sinclair Lewis who said when Fascism came to the US, it would be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross?

I'm afraid the best we can do is"anonymous":

The Sinclair Lewis Society: FAQ

 

[IceJad]

SOUTHLAKE, Texas — A top administrator with the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake advised teachers last week that if they have a book about the Holocaust in their classroom, they should also offer students access to a book from an “opposing” perspective, according to an audio recording obtained by NBC News.

What is so wrong about opposing views? We teach people to weigh facts and to support their arguments. If you only have one side to read then it's called brainwashing.

I have personally read Mein Kampf (the first few chapters - it didn't held my interest) but I'm not even remotely a fascist. I see where Hitler is coming from, I understand and to a certain degree agree with some of his views. But ultimately I think his whole ideology is flawed.

Denying students access to controversial materials are counter productive to learning. How do we know then the book you're reading is correctly presenting the point when you cannot cross examine the source? All because you fear the students will not follow your viewpoint 100%.

Echo chambers form because they censor all dissenting views.

Isn't there a saying "extraordinary claims must be backed with extraordinary evidence". Time to let evidences speak for themselves.

 

[John_Brown]

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding here and making a mountain out of a mole hill.

My reading of this would be that if you are going to present materials on the Holocaust you also present materials which challenge the usual focus on it without denying it in any way. When I went through public school the material presented about the Second World War focused on the Holocaust to the exclusion of every other atrocity. We were never taught about the Siege of Leningrad or the Rape of Nanking and thus had a very incomplete picture of the Second World War.

Most people here seem to be equating "opposing view" to denial, but there is a historical school of thought that focus on the Holocaust has marginalized the suffering of other people in the war.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding here and making a mountain out of a mole hill.

My reading of this would be that if you are going to present materials on the Holocaust you also present materials which challenge the usual focus on it without denying it in any way. When I went through public school the material presented about the Second World War focused on the Holocaust to the exclusion of every other atrocity. We were never taught about the Siege of Leningrad or the Rape of Nanking and thus had a very incomplete picture of the Second World War.

Most people here seem to be equating "opposing view" to denial, but there is a historical school of thought that focus on the Holocaust has marginalized the suffering of other people in the war.

Heck, when I went to school, we never got to WWII.