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

[muichimotsu]

When I said earlier that it is characteristic of a bully to be a coward at heart, I forgot to mention that as a part of this, when confronted on this (which strips of them their power and brings their cowardice to the forefront), they almost hide behind victimhood as their excuse...

...of course, I'm talking about hypothetical bullies; I'm not referring to anyone specific.

But of course the person in question has to make it about some personal attack with little to no basis and grasping at straws. And they call everyone else a victim here or a bigot...the irony is palpable, if not just reflecting serious projection

 

[tall73]

Problem is neutrality doesn't always reflect compassion, it sends the message that the students don't matter in terms of struggles and that teachers aren't remotely meant to offer any sense of support and just indoctrinate children like some would characterize public education

They have people at the school they have tasked with counseling. And while Ana expressed his doubts about the ones at his school, I know the counselor my kids had at school was trained, and has now actually gone into practice outside of the school.

While the teacher in question can certainly relate to the situation of LGBT students, that doesn't mean the school wants to take on the liability for him giving counseling when that is outside the scope of his job duties. He was hired to teach.

 

[muichimotsu]

I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that resulted from you not having a special flag to keep you safe lol.

Pretty sure no one in this thread has ever claimed that the students needed that flag, but that it's a benefit in terms of the symbol not being this divisive thing that you and others want to claim and then behave like the American flag is perfectly innocent.

In fact, I'm relatively confident this still would have happened if the flag wasn't there and the teacher merely said that LGBTQ students could speak to them if they had concerns when they were outside of the class, as a counsel of sorts.

Some kid would've told their parent and that parent would've accused the teacher of being a pederast trying to turn kids gay and the situation would've just resulted in the same idiocy that a teacher offering support to students means they must be trying to change their sexuality and they'd have quit.

 

[muichimotsu]

They have people at the school they have tasked with counseling. And while Ana expressed his doubts about the ones at his school, I know the counselor my kids had at school was trained, and has now actually gone into practice outside of the school.

While the teacher in question can certainly relate to the situation of LGBT students, that doesn't mean the school wants to take on the liability for him giving counseling when that is outside the scope of his job duties. He was hired to teach.

Do they, though? Not every school could afford that anyway and a teacher saying that they can be there for a student to talk to is just that, it's not saying the other students don't matter, but that the support is not just about school issues directly

What if the students just had questions in relation to it? He's not claiming to be a counselor and certainly not trying to tell students about their sexual orientation in any direct manner

 

[muichimotsu]

he was talking about marginalized kids. You changed it to kids who are upset at the removal of a flag so you could belittle them.

A strawman? No way, that couldn't be the go to tactic to deflect from responsibility and confronting systemic problems. They're totally rational, no bias.

 

[tall73]

Except one experience is merely anecdotal, you assume that somehow that applies everywhere and I don't paint with a broad brush in terms of this, because the problem is systemic, not purely individual faults in character or such

So I just can't speak on this because I don't have direct conversations with black and Asian and Hispanic people? One word comes to mind here: gatekeeping!

I am saying that your criticizing how someone who lived through those times saw others who were there with him is a bit silly.

I think we can say many aspects of RDKirk's experience were rather universal at that time, compared to dynamics today, because the laws imposed the experience for blacks in that situation.

Now as to gatekeeping, I didn't say you can't speak.

I am guessing by your statement that you are white, and don't know many non-whites, that you don't have any experience of attending a segregated school for black students during Jim Crow, and the dynamics of that situation.

Now if you want to present some statistics that would somehow challenge his admiration of his teachers, go ahead. But I don't think that is likely to work.

He has a right to admire those who transcended the evil treatment they received, and I seriously doubt he looks down on those who could not, because he felt what they went through.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am not the court. They decided it. You can go read the case if you like. They stated the school controls the speech of the teacher. That is directly applicable to this case.

Even case law admits variability, it's not a one size fits all necessarily.

 

[tall73]

Not sure why you think even the country and state flag are necessary. Are you going to claim kids need that now or is that skirting too close to nationalism in your subconscious and you realize that a symbol in itself is not necessarily neutral merely because it purports to be unifying versus one that is virtually without controversy (a rainbow flag!)

No, it is not universally unifying. And it is not neutral. However, it is, like the curriculum, the government speaking.

And unlike teachers who are paid for speech in line with the government school's set curriculum students have a bit broader protection of speech in the classroom. They don't have to stand, salute, or respect the flag.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am saying that your criticizing how someone who lived through those times saw others who were there with him is a bit silly.

I think we can say many aspects of RDKirk's experience were rather universal at that time, compared to dynamics today, because the laws imposed the experience for blacks in that situation.

Now as to gatekeeping, I didn't say you can't speak.

I am guessing by your statement that you are white, and don't know many non-whites, that you don't have any experience of attending a segregated school for black students during Jim Crow, and the dynamics of that situation.

Now if you want to present some statistics that would somehow challenge his admiration of his teachers, go ahead. But I don't think that is likely to work.

He has a right to admire those who transcended the evil treatment they received, and I seriously doubt he looks down on those who could not, because he felt what they went through.

Pretty sure I've outright stated I'm white, but sure, for the record, very white and privileged ,living in a majority white area PLUS being in the South where the idea of slavery as bad is an afterthought in public education because we don't want to "trigger" Confederacy apologists

Admiring the teachers is not the problem, it's acting like their success is comparable to today or that the successes are the rule rather than the exception. They worked within a gamed system, many black people didn't have the capacity to do so and that problem still exists in its own way.

But then people, often white but sometimes even black, try to say, "Look at these successful black people, these other black people aren't working hard enough, it's not systemic," but then will claim there's bias against conservatives in the media and file a class action lawsuit. The cognitive dissonance is astounding

 

[muichimotsu]

No, it is not universally unifying. And it is not neutral. However, it is, like the curriculum, the government speaking.

And unlike teachers who are paid for speech in line with the government school's set curriculum students have a bit broader protection of speech in the classroom. They don't have to stand, salute, or respect the flag.

So logically we cannot have people requiring that the American flag is something that should be displayed at every school in every classroom, right?

Otherwise I call special pleading on the part of nationalists who hide behind a mask of "patriotism" that acts like if you criticize the country, you should leave.

 

[tall73]

You think most people aren't going to interpret the rainbow flag as an inclusive message

He already had an inclusive message of "Everyone is Welcome." The flag went beyond that by intent. It has been quoted multiple times, his intent was to represent him and His LGBQ students, and when they sought him out he said it worked as intended.

So if the message is inclusive--everyone is welcome--the flag was unneeded. If the messag was everyone is welcome AND I am representing LGBTQ folks, and stop on by if you want to talk--then the flag was needed. And he tells us that was the intent.

So someone's interpretation trumps any intent of the original person?

But you are the one interpreting that that it was just representative of everyone. And no it doesn't trump his stated purpose, which was to represent, and initiate conversations with LGBT students.

 

[tall73]

Can you not detect even a shred of sarcasm? That was the intent, it's sad I have to point this out

Oh yes, I got the sarcasm. I also got that you think an agenda is fine if you like it.

And I said that is irrelevant.

Teacher can do both actually, just not in class time, that's where the extracurricular aspects would come in.

Then he will need to signal them somewhere other than the classroom where his speech is paid for and controlled.

The school acts like this teacher was being malicious and conniving, to secretly influence students

You supplied those words. They just noted a personal agenda. And it was a personal agenda, even if well intended. It was not what he was hired to teach in that classroom.

even if all they had was the All are Welcome sign, minus the rainbow flag and then brought up LGBTQ students and supporting them and then moved into class proper without any further ado.

I don't see an issue with the Everyone is Welcome sign. It is a neutral statement.

His bringing up supporting particular students is still pursuing a personal agenda unrelated to the class.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You didn't choose well.

Came across this post of @muichimotsu comparing the Confederate flag and Pride flag.

Which one is insinuating that states' rights should always be valued even when they continue a dehumanizing practice? Not the rainbow one, because it's not advocating such a myopic policy even by allusion.

It's as if he thinks one is pro-slavery.

 

[bekkilyn]

Not sure why you think even the country and state flag are necessary. Are you going to claim kids need that now or is that skirting too close to nationalism in your subconscious and you realize that a symbol in itself is not necessarily neutral merely because it purports to be unifying versus one that is virtually without controversy (a rainbow flag!)

Did I even remotely state that the country and state flags are necessary?

No I did not. You read that into what I wrote.

However in a public school financed by the taxpayers of the state inside the country known as the U.S., I don't see an issue with those flags as opposed to whatever political or religious ideology some individual teacher might be pushing onto the students, but I suppose that certain political factions would have no issue ripping down the state and U.S. flags and stomping on them or whatever it is that they do to protest how much they despise living in this country.

And it's very obvious that a rainbow flag is controversial, even within the community it proposes to represent because not everyone in that community agrees with the changes that it has incorporated over the years.

In any case, a rainbow flag, or any other political or religious flag, should not be representing a public state school. Private schools of course may put up whatever flags they please.

 

[tall73]

Do they, though?

Yes, the school web page says they do have counselors. However, they took down the staff page listing specific counselors. It could be they are trying to maintain a low profile for staff following this issue.

and a teacher saying that they can be there for a student to talk to is just that

A teacher signalling to talk about a personal agenda apart from the curriculum is not just that. Teachers have told me they got in trouble for that, and one lost his job.

Now if they state nothing about a particular agenda, group, etc, but then the student just wants to talk outside of class time, my understanding is that this is OK.

So for instance, had someone seen the "Everyone is Welcome" sign and talked to him without him sending a group specific signal, I don't know that anyone could complain. Because then it doesn't involve any speech on his part during the class that relates to his personal agenda.

What if the students just had questions in relation to it? He's not claiming to be a counselor and certainly not trying to tell students about their sexual orientation in any direct manner

Yeah, my understanding is that if they just approach him on their own with no prompting, that is not a problem.

 

[tall73]

Even case law admits variability, it's not a one size fits all necessarily.

Yes, and precedent can be overturned, depending on the court. He filed a suit if I understand correctly, so if this is the exception we will eventually find out.

But I doubt it. He signaled a personal agenda, said that was his intent and that it was working, and then stated the flag represented him and LGBTQ students.

On the other hand if it goes to discovery and the school was gunning for him from the outset, that could be a different story.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Pretty sure no one in this thread has ever claimed that the students needed that flag,

You did...

So the school wants to just be "neutral" about acknowledging and supporting LGBTQ students? The problem therein is where students don't feel protected, accepted, or safe and the school is supposed to be concerned about their welfare.

The child is more distraught by the bigotry they experience as someone that is struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity, the lack of a flag is showing potentially that people don't really care.

Here you are almost 20 pages later acting like no one would be ridiculous enough to suggest that students are in need of a special flag.

Yet almost 20 pages ago you were claiming that their identity automatically makes them victims...and the flag showed them that they are special snowflakes that the world loves (paraphrasing).

behave like the American flag is perfectly innocent.

Take it up with whoever said that. I didn't.

In fact, I'm relatively confident this still would have happened if the flag wasn't there and the teacher merely said that LGBTQ students

I doubt it....but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

he was talking about marginalized kids.

You mean victims?

 

[tall73]

So logically we cannot have people requiring that the American flag is something that should be displayed at every school in every classroom, right?

The government school.....displays a government flag. You do get that it is the government determining speech in government schools, right?

Otherwise I call special pleading on the part of nationalists who hide behind a mask of "patriotism" that acts like if you criticize the country, you should leave.

Students have the right to be unpatriotic at school. That is about the best you can do about the government speaking on behalf of the government at a government school.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is it though? That's like someone trying to say the American flag isn't political by making an exception rooted in nationalism that plays favorites due to tradition and not considering that unity is not achieved by petty squabbles rooted in exclusion based on how one might not necessarily appreciate the American flag's implicit message in terms of the nation being founded on slave labor, that blacks were 3/5 of a person, etc

A rainbow flag is not excluding anyone, even the American flag is saying that your ethnic heritage otherwise might as well not matter versus the idea that we keep hearing about a melting pot (though not as much anymore except in the assimilation tactic)

Unfortunately, even the notion that "nobody should be excluded" has become political when one of the political philosophies in this nation includes the notion of excluding the very people represented in the flag.