NJ: School officials investigate teacher who allegedly made anti-gay remarks on Facebook

[JackBeck]

UNION TOWNSHIP — School officials in Union Township are investigating allegations that a teacher at Union High School posted comments on her Facebook site criticizing a school display recognizing Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History Month and calling homosexuality "perverted."

On Saturday, a local attorney wrote to the district calling for the teacher’s dismissal.

The lawyer, John Paragano, a former township councilman, provided the district with what he said was a copy of the Facebook thread that included the offending remarks.

A copy was also provided to The Star-Ledger, in which the teacher, Viki Knox, allegedly referred to homosexuality as, "a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation," and a "sin" that "breeds like cancer."

"Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated," wrote Paragano, also a former Union Township Municipal Court judge. "She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it."

More at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/union_township_school_official.html

Here's a copy of the Facebook thread: http://www.gardenstateequality.org/knox.pdf

[adigal]

1. As long as this teacher doesn't show bias in the classroom,

I don't think they can or should fire her.

What if a teacher in a very conservative district says on Facebook that gay marriage should be the law of the land and that it is immoral to not allow it? Can the locals fire her, even if she never discusses that in the classroom.

Teachers do have opinions, and many have stupid ones. I just don't think they should be fired for them.

Now I am ducking!!

[JackBeck]

2. We have a new anti-bullying law that began at the beginning of this school year.

Any rational person would agree that this teacher will have issues with properly implementing the new law, especially if you read her tirade at the pdf link.

[bullwinkle428]

3. No bias? I would imagine gay kids in her class would feel

awfully intimidated by comments like that.

[mactime]

4. Teachers do have opinions

Yep, would be dangerous to fire teachers for having an opinion that some body else does not agree with. Especially if this opinion is expressed outside the classroom

[JackBeck]

7. Don't worry.

Those of us who are concerned about the safety and well-being of the LGBT students being bullied by this teacher will take it from here.

[vi5]

10. Fine.

Prove she encouraged or allowed bullying, or that she created an environment where that type of behavior was allowed or occurred. Find even one student who says that and I'll be right there with you. I didn't see that anywhere in the article, and until someone comes forward to say that she did nothing she could get fired for. If being a jerk were a firable offense we'd have a hell of a lot more than 10% unemployment.

[JackBeck]

11. NJ's Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights:

18A:37-14 Definitions relative to adoption of harassment and bullying prevention policies

2.As used in this act:

"Electronic communication" means a communication transmitted by means of an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular phone, computer, or pager;

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students and that:

a.a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student or damaging the student's property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to his person or damage to his property;

b.has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students; or

c.creates a hostile educational environment for the student by interfering with a student's education or by severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to the student.

L.2002, c.83, s.2; amended 2007, c.129, s.1; 2010, c.122, s.11.

[vi5]

13. From what you just posted...

"that takes place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students and that:"

Did she type this on a school computer? If so, then it qualifies. Fire her.

If not, then by the exact rules of what you just posted, it does not apply.

[JackBeck]

16. Section 16 specifically addresses bullying that occurs OFF school grounds.

16. (New section) The policy adopted by each school district
pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2002, c.83 (C.18A:37-15) shall include
provisions for appropriate responses to harassment, intimidation, or
bullying, as defined in section 2 of P.L.2002, c.83 (C.18A:37-
14), that occurs off school grounds, in cases in which a school
employee is made aware of such actions. The responses to harassment,
intimidation, or bullying that occurs off school grounds shall be
consistent with the board of education’s code of student conduct
and other provisions of the board’s policy on harassment,
intimidation, or bullying.

When Garden State Equality wrote this legislation, it was, in part, to address the cyber-bullying that now occurs once students return home after school. Nowhere does it state that the bullying must occur on a computer owned by the school. If a student (or faculty member, as in this case) uses their own personal computer to bully a student, they will be held accountable for their actions.

In fact, it was only the right-wing individuals who testified and the NJEA (not the most vocal LGBT supporters in NJ, unfortunately) who raised concerns that our legislation was going too far by including incidences that happen once students and faculty leave school grounds.

[vi5]

20. Simple question

Would you feel the same way if someone wanted a teacher fired because the expressing of their liberal views was intimidating or making their child feel uncomfortable being taught by someone who thought that way?

Would you feel the same way if someone expressed an atheistic viewpoint on facebook and was being called to be fired because their Christian students felt uncomfortable?

Because honestly unless you'd be willing and able to support those firings you cannot without being a total hypocrite support a firing in this case.

Especially since there was absolutely no indication it was directed at a specific student or that it was intended to intimidate them.

I'm from NJ and I'm all for the anti-bullying law. But I'm also a civil libertarian and a supporter of many, many causes that someone could turn around and say that if a public school teacher supported those same causes, they should be fired. I'm not willing to enable that kind of approach.

[JackBeck]

25. It should be dealt with on a case-by-base basis, since every situation has nuance

You're throwing around a lot of 'what ifs', while not addressing the fact that she took a picture of a display case at her school, posted it on Facebook, and compared the LGBT community to cancer, pedophiles, sex workers, and many other things, which is a direct violation of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights.

Last week was the "Week of Respect" which was also mandated by the new law. I find her timing to be suspect, as well.

I also believe, that as adults, we always teach and model for our children that we must live with the consequences when we make poor choices.

If you read through the entire thread posted in the OP, she doesn't seem to be the biggest proponent of free speech. Right at the start she's complaining about how a lesbian (co-worker? friend? random person on the street?) referred to her partner in front of her as her 'wife.' Seems to me right at the start she's about limiting anyone's speech but her own.

'Raise the roof when the superintendents call children of color thugs and niggas.' Direct quote from Viki's Facebook thread. It appears to me she is perfectly fine with reporting incidents when language is used that she finds insulting.

[vi5]

26. A case by case basis....

Yeah, that sounds like a pure recipe for success. So.....what? Cases in which a teacher disagrees with your viewpoint get fired, but teachers who agree with your viewpoint get to stay? Who decides? Do we liberals get to decide in all cases, or just ones where we are in the majority in that district? What about in districts which are more conservative? Do they get to fire teachers who espouse pro-LGBT rhetoric because they view it as perverted?

Plain and simple there are rules. If someone is breaking those rules in a clear cut way and it can be proven that their actions had an impact on their ability to do their job and/or the ability of children to learn in an intimidation free environment then they should be fired.

Other than that, a case by case basis is the biggest load of bull imagineable for handling a situation like this and nothing but a recipe for total chaos in our educational system.

Like I said....one kid comes forward and says that they were intimidated by this teacher or intimidated because she allowed a situation to exist or persist then I'm the first one calling for her firing. But in the absence of that it's mob rule and it's casting a freeze over free speech and that doesn't have my support. If it does for you, then that's something you have to contend with when the reverse situation occurs and a gay teacher or a pro-gay teacher is being fired.

[JackBeck]

31. I've shown you where she violated the new law.

But you keep moving the goal posts. I've even show you this woman's hypocrisy, in which she wants to limit the speech of other people.

Any time a teacher is suspected of violating policies and/or procedures, it is always handled on a case by case basis, which is why, like in this case, there is currently an investigation by school officials.

She is certainly within her right to spew whatever vile homophobia she wants, and I support her right to do so. I also support anyone who is offended by her hate language to voice their disagreement and call for action to be taken.

I find it absolutely disheartening that there is very little compassion expressed here for any of the students who are intimidated into silence or contemplate suicide because of the bullying from adults.

When I testified in support of this legislation last year, we heard from students who had been bullied to the point that they tried to take their own lives.

We also heard testimony from parents who had no idea that their child was the victim of bullying until they found them dead in their bedroom with a belt tied around their neck.

An 'ex-gay' also testified. When a young, gay teen confronted him after his testimony against the legislation, telling him that he was the reason he tried to kill himself, his only response was, "You, too, can change."

This woman needs to be held responsible for her actions before we lose another teen to suicide because of bullying.

[vi5]

35. No, you didn't show where she violated the law.

You didn't show one single example of a student who was impacted by this woman's behavior or who reported an intimidating atmosphere or an environment conducive to bully or who even saw this post without it being shown to them. You didn't show that this was on school time or via a school computer or anything of the sort. You showed absolutely nothing other than that there is a homophobic bigot teaching at a public school. I got news for you there are plenty of them and I'm sure plenty of them have said shitty, stupid things on the internet. Good luck on your crusade to find them all and get them fired.

My goal post has been the same since the first post on this, period. If you showed me or gave an example of one student who was intimidated into suicide or bullying because of this woman then you'd have a case and a point. You haven't and you don't.

And your horseshit tactics in discussing this subject by accusing anyone who doesn't think that we should prohibit teacher's speech on their own time via their own forums and via their own computers is homophobic or doesn't care about homophobia is just as reprehensible and just as bullying.

I'm in NJ and I'm in favor of the legislation. At no point did I say I wasn't. But I'm not in favor of this legislation being used to stifle teacher's speech (even speech I disagree with or find abhorrent) and I'm definitely not in favor of it being used to stifle liberal speech or pro-LGBT speech which by your loose standards of enforcement they could be.

[JackBeck]

44. "If you showed me or gave an example of one student who was intimidated into suicide..."

This is the burden of proof you need in order to fire this woman? Letting another bullied student die at the hands of an irresponsible adult? Besides, why isn't the fact that a concerned parent in the school district was the first to raise the issue about what was being posted proof enough that something needed to be done? Thankfully, the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights not only holds students responsible, but also adults who want to turn a blind eye.

Once again, the legislation covers cyber-bullying that occurs off campus, and does not have to happen via a computer owned by the public school.

[vi5]

47. You keep referring to this woman

as having led to someone's suicide. In fact you just did it again in this post by saying "Letting another bullied student die at the hands of and irresponsible adult".

You have no proof. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a shred of proof that this woman brought her personal beliefs into the classroom. You have not one shred of proof that she treated any gay student or any student she perceived to be gay any differently than she did anyone else.

Again. Any proof at all that this woman allowed her personal beliefs to enter into the classroom.

I hate this woman and her ideas. But I don't want someone hating me or my ideas as all they need to prosecute, charge, or fire me. And last I checked that's how our laws worked.

[JackBeck]

66. I believe in prevention, which is why I helped craft, lobby, and testify in support of this law.

And this process began almost a year before Tyler Clementi's suicide. We also engaged bullying specialists and professionals from many different fields of expertise to construct what the NY Times and other MSM sources refer to as one the most comprehensive pieces of anti-bullying legislation that every state should use as a model.

Her personal beliefs entered the classroom the moment a parent from this school district read and reported her comments. In fact, the teacher has even stated in her Facebook rant that she teaches what she preaches.

[vi5]

85. Well then I'm sure you'll be happy...

when the law you worked so hard on and that I also supported is overturned because the parameters and definitions were stretched so far as to prohibit teacher's speech outside of school and with no evidence that any student was impacted by it. Because that's exactly what's going to happen if we go down this road with it. Get ready for this law then to be little more than the basis for a rash of dueling law suits. So that all the bodies of enforcement that were put into place to enforce this and protect kids will be spending their time fighting cases in court of "This teacher hates Christians" or "This teacher is making people of conservative beliefs uncomfortable and intimidated because of their support for gay people" and on and on and on rather than actually finding and protecting kids who are actually being bullied or are in danger of being bullied.

I'm from NJ and I spent my child hood being bullied, beaten up, called "fag" and "queer" and "homo" and on and on and on and I feel that firing this woman will stretch this law and make it's ultimate goal more difficult to achieve.

You have a gay teacher who works with and mentors gay students who also thinks this is a stretch and will set a horrible precedent.

So please don't think for a minute that you represent a consensus view on this subject among those who would be impacted or protected by this. I applaud your work on this law and think it's a great law. Which is why I want to see it stay in place and I want to see it serve it's purpose and not wind up in little more than a morass of law suits and accusations without solid foundation that the law has been broken and that a teacher's personal views impacted students in her class.

[msanthrope]

39. A case by case basis is exactly how the law works. Those who don't like nuance to their law should

not complain about fiat.

[adigal]

24. Who did she intimidate by this statement?

Sounds like she said it to like-minded friends.

I teach in a very conservative district. I have had discussions with my students when we study rhetoric in which they said that Obama was Kenyan and not a citizen. I corrected them. Ten minutes after class, I was down in my very conservative principal's office, being told that I intimidated students who didn't agree with me. I was astounded. I could get a letter in my file for correcting an incorrect statement?? Yes, but my union backed me, and the principal backed down.

So...is this how we should discipline teachers now?? If you are in a liberal district, fire teachers who say something that we find offensive and vice versa. I had better be looking for another job!!

[msanthrope]

40. when the Klu Klux Klan burns a cross on public land, who are they intimidating?

You could argue that because the land belongs to the government, and not to a private citizen, they aren't intimidating anyone specific.

You could. But we all know what's going on.

In this case, the teacher apparently did not restrict her Facebook postings to a more private setting. She also opted to include a picture of the school display.

Given her hateful, public comments, and her use of a picture of school property, who do you think she was trying to intimidate?

[6000eliot]

55. Exactly the kind of cover homophobes count on.

[vi5]

61. What cover? Free speech?

Yeah, that whole thing has become such a hassle hasn't it?

Without free speech we wouldn't be able to speak out and get such a good law as the NJ bullying law passed in the first place.

[adigal]

23. You just made a bullying statement

And you assume I don't care about gay and lesbian students, which is very untrue. I am an educator and I defend kids from bullies every day. My point is that this is something said outside of the classroom. If she said it on Facebook and it wasn't safeguarded, that was stupid, but maybe she had strict privacy settings and someone broke into her Facebook account. To just say that she should be fired, without any knowledge of whether she is going to follow the law, is against the idea that we are all free to express our opinions, no matter how bigoted or idiotic.

[JackBeck]

83. Advocating for kids who are bullied now makes the advocates bullies?

(EOM)

[vi5]

5. I agree....

It's a troubling line to have to walk. But unless there's evidence that she exhibited this bias in the classroom then I don't think she should be fired. Such an approach of firing teachers for things said outside the classroom, even on a semi-public forum could really backfire on more liberal teachers.

[JackBeck]

6. She is a public school teacher talking about a display at her school.

This is more than just some random teacher expressing their personal beliefs on their Facebook page.

And if you read the entire pdf link, you'd see how much of a hypocrite she is from her very first comment.

[vi5]

9. I'm not saying she's not a jerk or a bigot...

But unless there's evidence that it is getting in the way of her teaching or that she is not enforcing rules across the board, that's not a reason to fire her.

I'm sure there are plenty of public school teachers who once they leave the school have plenty of opinions that are not great and that we'd all find offensive. And I'm sure there are plenty of public school teachers who once they leave the school say plenty of liberal things that large groups of conservative republican parents at the school would find offensive.

If there's evidence that she treated kids differently, if there's eveidence that she didn't enforce anti-bullying rules or did anything to encourage a bullying or hateful environment in her classroom then I'm all for firing her. But saying stupid things on a personal facebook page is just not a fireable offense and if we make it such then get ready to spend a lot more time on dueling lawsuits over everything that any teacher says about anything on their own time.

I have a cousin who is a bit of a goon and has plenty of opinions that I don't agree with and he's a teacher. But you know what? He's a great teacher and I know for a fact that he treats all his kids equally and gives each and every one of them the best education they deserver. But I'm also on his facebook feed and he says a lot of dumb things, some of which are not exactly poltiically correct. It would be ridiculous and it would be a disservice to his students for him to fired for any of it.

I have friends who are teachers who express a lot of right-on,super liberal, anti-right wing christian sentiments on their facebook pages. It'd be just as easy for someone to see that and raise the same bit of ire and claim that these people are going to discriminate against the kid from a conservative or conservative christian family, even though knowing these people they would absolutely in a million years never do that.

The woman in question is very much an idiot. But unless it's provable that her idiocy is making her a bad teacher or creating a bad environment for her students it's just not cause for termination.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hosnon]

27. Make it about race and not sexuality. Does that change your opinion? nt.

[Yo_Mama]

41. I agree

In fact, I think it's unconstitutional.

Your hypothetical exists and is important - by suppressing opinions we don't like we end up suppressing the forces for change that have created the climate we desire.

Now, if she does something or says something inside the school, then she can be fired. Also if she is ever involved in any personal threats or anything else against a gay person, then she can be fired. But simply for speaking? Or for signing an anti-gay marriage petition or something like that? No.

Firing ANY public employee for voting the wrong way or speaking the wrong way outside the job setting is off-limits to me.

[JVS]

81. This is why teachers need unions.

Without a union to stand up for their rights teachers are not free to have any opinions without having to worry about offending someone who will come after their job. Only a union can ensure due process and enforce a division between the work life and other aspects of life.

[callous taoboy]

8. Another Talibornagain goes down. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. That doesn't look anything like FaceBook

I wonder what it was, really. The local FR site?

[DirkGently]

14. I can see parents insisting their children not be taught by this person. Demanding a firing misses

the point a bit. Demanding a teacher to be fired for having an offensive opinion opens a pretty ugly can of worms.

My take on people putting their personal lives and personal views on social networking sites is that those views become fodder for public *discussion.* Not punishment. If you publicize something about yourself, other people can react to it. Decide you're an idiot. Decide they don't want to hire you in the first place. The dreaded "unfriending" I keep hearing about.

But demanding a firing? A lot of people have a lot of stupid, offensive opinions. I'd prefer that in addition to bigots, no one who touts their Republican or enthusiastically "Christian" ideals be in a classroom teaching, either. But I don't want to live in the country where someone can be fired for their personal idiocies, where they don't actually inflict them on anyone.

I do think it would be reasonable for a concerned parent to ask their child be pulled from the classroom, if they perceive some kind of threat from the idiocy.

[vi5]

15. Bingo

I'd like to see how adamant these same people calling for her firing are when some conservative yahoo sees a liberal teachers facebook post supporting Occupy Wall Street and calling for their firing because they are promoting communism. Or someone from a more conservative district or area of the country being fired because they make a facebook post SUPPORTING LGBT rights.

Like you said, it's an ugly can of worms some are calling for opening. I just hope they like the taste because they'd have to live wtih those consequences.

[DirkGently]

17. This is my concern. Fire the atheist. Fire the hippie. Fire the Bush critic.

Unless I missed something, this particular idiocy was expressed as a religious thought and didn't come with, for example, a veiled threat.

Still extremely poor taste to attack something positive the school was trying to do, as well as an extremely poor opinion.

[Hosnon]

28. My position on this sort of thing isn't clear even to myself.

Were she to join a protest at city hall advocating against gay marriage, I wouldn't have a problem with it (at first glance).

But what about if she were at a protest at city hall advocating segregation or racism? Protected speech of course but is it appropriate for a teacher?

Just as racism isn't a mere policy dispute like, say, taxation levels, homophobia shouldn't be either.

[DirkGently]

33. Right. Do teachers give up their right to have opinions, even horrible ones?

(edit: I hear you saying this is a tricky area & agree. Not arguing "at" you. Trying to clarify my own thoughts as well) :)

As you say, will we fire a teacher for joining a protest? Having a political bumper sticker? What if the politician is a homophobe or racist? Most "family values" Republicans fall into one or both of those categories at this point.

I think we can draw a bright line for views that cross the line into advocating violence or criminality, and we do.

But if she could march for gay rights, couldn't she march to oppose them?

There's also a religious implication here. The Bible actually does say that slavery is okay and homosexuality isn't. What if she'd just quoted one of those passages?

[snooper2]

21. Another case where I think I'll side with the ACLU

[msanthrope]

42. Indeed, the ACLU clearly stated just how to fire this asshole--

From the OP--

"Barocas added, "The school has the right to investigate whether she is performing her job in accordance with school policies and the state's Law Against Discrimination."

In other words, the ACLU recognizes that she has the right to free speech. She does not have the right to free of the consequences of it. Her position as a schoolteacher--a position freely chosen--makes her subject to rules of conduct others are not subject to.

[petronius]

79. I don't interpret the ACLU statement that way at all - it sounds as though they're saying

the speech itself is protected, and consequences deriving from it would be improper. But if the school finds that she is in fact not properly performing her job - the speech in question not being evidence of that - then disciplinary action would be appropriate...

[itsallhappening]

22. This is what the ACLU is good for (among other things).

[dsc]

29. I am a gay teacher who advises a gay straight alliance

and I don't think she should be fired. The simple fact is that she has a right to her opinions on her own time and on her own dime. Just as I do. Provided that she treats all students equally she shouldn't be fired.

[JackBeck]

32. She violated the NJ Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, which I explained upthread. n/t

[DirkGently]

34. Besides stretching that statute, you understand the First Amendment trumps it, correct?

The woman's an idiot. But she didn't go much further, if at all, than reiterating the nonsense the Bible says about homosexuality.

[msanthrope]

43. No, it doesn't. Let me explain.

Her position as a school teacher is freely chosen. When she chose to be a school teacher, she chose to abide by certain rules of conduct that other people are not subject to.

Why does the law allow certain people to be subject to rules that other people are not subject to?

Vulnerability. If you work with vulnerable populations, you will be subject to certain rules of behavior that are meant to protect those populations. Kids, older people, the disabled, etc, are vulnerable populations. Employers of people who service these populations can, and do, prescribe certain forms of behavior that the average worker is not subject to. A state government can set rules of conduct for teachers simply because children are involved, and the law recognizes that the student is a distinctly vulnerable person.

So, while she definitely has a 1st Amendment right to do what she wishes, this is tempered by the demands that have been put upon her occupation by the legislature.

It is a balancing test. And here, I suspect this asswipe is going to be fired because she cannot provide a safe and mentoring environment to all of her students, regardless of their sexual orientation.

[vi5]

45. Again, what proof do you have of this?

"she cannot provide a safe and mentoring environment to all of her students, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Any proof? Any students that have come forward? Any reported incidents from the school or classroom? Did I miss the portion of the facebook page where she called for violence against gays? If so, then I apologize.

And again, I ask: If this were a liberal teacher who had posted something about conservatives would you be just as adamant about her or him getting fired? What if it were a teacher who posted a picture of 2 gay people kissing on his or her own private facebook and a group of parents or people claimed it was meant to intimidate or discriminate against christians whose religion decries that behavior? Would you be adamant about that teacher being fired because they could not provide a safe and mentoring environment to all of her students?

Because honestly, if not then that's the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

[msanthrope]

50. A 'liberal' teacher would post this nonsense about a protected class? You've made a poor showing of

equivalency.

Kindly show me the liberal teacher who posts such nonsense about a protected class. Because until then, you've merely got a 'what-if' against an actual case.

That you equate being gay with being conservative speaks to your ignorance of what is a choice, and what is not.

[Yo_Mama]

58. "Religion" is a protected class

Suppose a gay teacher was involved in protests against the Catholic church. No, wait. Suppose a gay teacher posted a rant on his/her FB page about the Pope, the Catholic church, male-only priesthood, RC teachings on sex, etc. Suppose the teacher closed out that rant with a statement that "The only people that can be Catholic are dumb or hypocritical."

Would that mean that this poster would then be unfitted to teach RC students? Would that mean that this teacher would be hostile to them? Should RC students or their families contact the school board and demand an investigation?

I think some of the commenters here are being very hypocritical! I don't like the idea that a teacher can't vote or speak in public debate without being in danger of losing his or her job. Whatever else the Constitution may allow, it can't allow that.

Now, bringing disapproval of any particular group into the classroom and directing that against a student - that's anathema. But that's a whole different thing, surely?

[msanthrope]

62. Do you have proof of any gay teacher posting a public anti-Catholic rant like that?

Any proof? Or is this just a hypo?

The thing is, the teacher in question is perfectly free to say what they want. But they aren't free to escape the consequences.

If they publicly post something that is hostile to a protected class, then they cannot be surprised when there are consequences.

[Yo_Mama]

87. Are you seriously claiming that if a teacher publicly ranted against the RCs

that teacher should be fired for it?

I think that's a horrible and unconstitutional position to take. Nonetheless, if you subscribe to that theory than you are consistent - but you clearly do not think the First Amendment is a good idea. I disagree. I think it's a great idea - one of the greatest ideas men have ever had, and even an idea so great that it is worth dying for.

Yes, I have absolutely known teachers who had strong views on various subjects/religion. And have not been afraid to express them. Now none of those teachers would express them in school to a student - IMO they were all good teachers struggling to keep a neutral but open learning atmosphere.

I went hunting for examples - here's a lawsuit against a teacher for what he DID say in the classroom:
http://articles.ocregister.com/2008-03-11/cities/24717303_1_lawsuit-history-teacher-captive-audience

This is the complaint (I haven't read it):
http://images.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2007/12/capistranovalleysuitcomplaint.pdf
This is the ruling (I haven't read it either):
http://images.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf

Yeah, this sort of thing is going to happen. Whether the teacher in that complaint was in any way harassing Christians for what he did say in the classroom I don't know, but it's obvious to me that anyone with opinions is going to offend SOMEONE. My point is that expressing opinions outside the school is a legitimate civil right - a right that teachers don't give up by taking government employment.

[vi5]

60. Reading comprehension can be your friend you know...

I never equated being conservative to being gay.

I said in multiple posts that using this law in such a way opens the door to other groups of people being able to abuse it by trying to get other teachers fired for speech we may be in favor of but they may regard and offensive or discriminatory.

Just because I don't think being gay and being conservative are similar or being Christian and being gay are similar, has nothing to do with what type of precedent firing this woman would set. Using this law recklessly and without proof that she actually did anything in class to harrass or intimidate students opens the door to any group at any point to police and get fired all teachers private, personal activity and opinions, and to claim that something they posted on their own time, on their own accounts on their own computers equates to harassment.

Again, simple answer to a simple question: If there was a case of a liberal teacher getting fired for posting on her own time, on her own computer, and on her own facebook account that evangelical christians were bigoted scum who go against the teachings of jesus and that her approach was that she teaches and preaches that people who believe that are wrong would you be applauding her being fired for creating an environment that discriminates against Christian students?

Are there not enough actual cases, with actual proof of kids actively being bullied and actively being harassed that we need to focus on what teachers do on their own time on their own forums and on their own computers? Stretching the law this wide is going to do more to open the door to getting it repealed on free speech grounds and more to turn people against it, and then in the end to more damage to this cause than anything else.

[msanthrope]

64. Yes. You did equate being gay with being conservative, and you continue to do so.

if you cannot figure out why being gay is different from being conservative, then let me spell it out for you.

In the former case, being gay is not a choice. It is a protected class. In the latter, being conservative is a choice. Not a protected class. Why do you keep comparing the two in your hypothetical?

If you are a teacher, you are constrained in your speech toward protected classes, and the vulnerable. You choose your profession, and that is trade-off for your choice. If you don't like it, then you can quit being a teacher, and say what you want.

This teacher chose a public format to spew her hatred. She took pictures of school displays to illustrate her point. She can have all the free speech she wants, but she's unfit to be around children.

[vi5]

84. No, again...I don't.

But if you open this Pandora's box, people will.

And religion is a protected class. So all it's going to take is some conservative nutjob calling for the head of an atheist teacher or a pro-LGBT because they say she's intimidating Christian students for their beliefs and the same legal precedent will apply because religion is a protected class as well.

It's clear that nuance and depth of thought and even a small trace of foresight is not your strong suit. If you can't see where this could easily be turned around to groups we approve of, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY pro LGBT teachers then you clearly have issues in understanding anything resembling a big picture here.

This law does not specifically state that it only applies to LGBT kids. It applies to all protected classes INCLUDING religion. So if right out of the gate with this thing we start stretching it well past it's intended meaning and definition without providing ample proof that any child in her class or in her care was treated differently or intimidated because of what she posted on her own time on her own computer and in her own forum then this law is going to be overturned entirely in no time. Will you be happier then? Will that protect more gay kids from bullying?

You asked above if I someone who took a similar position as mine would feel the same way if it was a racist post and you're goddamned right I would. Just as I would if it was a liberal post or a pro-LGBT post, or a pro-socialism post or a pro whatever post. Unless you can show and prove that she treated any kid in her class differently or allowed for bullying or intimidation to take place then you have no case and no grounds for firing. In any of those cases.

[msanthrope]

51. DUPE.

[JackBeck]

56. "(God) created you not to practice homosexuality...THATS WHAT I TEACH AND PREACH"

Again, if you read the entire pdf link she implicates herself. Even at the beginning of the Facebook thread she talks about how she is "pitching a fit" that the display is still there.

[DirkGently]

46. You might be able to make that case if her comments had been in the classroom. Internet post? No.

Edit: To be clear, I share your outrage. I just don't think we can or should draw that line that way in this case.

[msanthrope]

53. A teacher's 'private' conduct has bearing on their employment.

Facebook isn't private.

Apparently, her students had access to the page. She doesn't have a First Amendment right to harass and intimidate through the proxy of Facebook.

[DirkGently]

54. I'm disturbed by your willingness to control teachers' private conduct, and by your generous

definitions of "harass and intimidate."

Is she allowed to say she doesn't like Scientology? Republicanism?

There is no class of people we can decree aren't allowed to disagree with us.

[msanthrope]

65. The legislature decrees what private conduct of teachers is unacceptable for employment.

In this case, she made remarks about a protected class. She has every right to say what she wants. She has no right to escape the consequences.

Here's an easy exercise for you. Replace 'gay' with 'black.' If she's had the same rant about Blacks, would you want her near Black students?

[DirkGently]

70. It's the consequences you misunderstand. She can be shamed, not fired.

And your racial analogy is misplaced. The quotes I saw disparaged homosexuality, not gay people. Horrible either way, but you simply can't fire people from government jobs because you don't like their opinions. Teachers don't have fewer rights to express themselves, and no group of Americans has a greater right to punish those whose opinions offend them.

The First Amendment permits people to make "remarks" about whatever they wish. There is no exception based on whom the remarks offend, nor should there be.

The idea that the legislature can "decree" what opinions people are permitted to express is contrary to our best principles, and again, disturbing. If lawmakers can "decree" what opinion a teacher can express on Facebook, it can also decree what opinions you can express here on DU as well.

Why would that ever be okay?

[dsc]

57. No she didn't

I can't think of any principled difference between NJ deciding that this teacher can be fired for her facebook and a district firing an atheist teacher who posted anti religious posts, or for that me if I posted a pro gay marriage post for fear that I couldn't be fair to Christian students.

[JackBeck]

67. I find it odd that you were a vocal supporter of the NJ legislation when it passed

But now that it is being implemented, all of a sudden you're using the slippery slope argument to voice your concern.

[dsc]

68. I think there is a huge difference between targetting an individual

student which is what that legislation is intended to address and having the opinion that group x is inferior to group y. Certainly a teacher, or a student, who posted nasty facebook messages against a particular student should be disciplined up to and including firing for the teacher or expulsion for the student. That isn't what this woman did. She merely posted that she feels gays are less deserving of rights than non gays. Provided she doesn't treat her students unfairly I don't see that as a firing offense. Anymore than my opposing the issue on the ballot banning relationship status for gays should get me fired. Now if I start turning my geometry classes into lets defeat that issue classes, then I should be fired. Just like if she starts turning her classes into lets start hating on the gay dude class.

[JackBeck]

69. Part b of the off campus cyber bullying clause clearly states:

"b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students"

She violated this statute with her behavior. Did you read the entire pdf file linked in the OP?

[vi5]

36. Yes, but clearly you don't understand....

You should really just listen to people who understand a situation about gay kids and teachers in public school better than you do as an......er.....gay teacher advising gay kids in a public school.


:sarcasm:

[JackBeck]

82. How would you advise your GSA students to react if a teacher in your own district

expressed similar comments about a installation celebrating LGBT History Month?

[dsc]

86. at school I would tell them to complain since the teacher has no business using class time

on such activities. If it is the teachers Facebook, then I would advise them to document anytime the teacher was anti gay AT SCHOOL. Frankly, I think this would end up like the teacher in Florida who hadn't confined his views to Facebook. I think people who can be totally fair to those who they hold such low opinions of are pretty rare, but they do exist. If the teacher is indeed one of those, she shouldn't be fired for what is her opinion.

[Politicalboi]

30. This is a civil rights issue

Not about religion (which is a choice) or OWS (Which is a choice) This about a teacher who mocked their school display. She should be fired over this. If she wanted her free speech, she should have gone under an alias. This only insights possibly more hatred against gays if she gets fired. It's the "special treatment" shit.

[vi5]

37. "If she wanted her free speech she should have used an alias"

God, I sincerely hope that was sarcasm or satire. I really do.

[LanternWaste]

48. I imagine the poaster meant "speech with zero coinsequences".

I imagine the poaster meant "any and all speech with zero consequences". That sacred cow/pipe dream of youth, libertarians and the terminally naive
.

[DirkGently]

73. Punishment is not a consequence the First Amendment permits for political speech.

The Supreme Court got this one right. The solution for bad speech is more speech, not less. Free speech is like the rest of civil rights in that it only works when it protects the unpopular. If it doesn't protect the speech we hate, it doesn't protect anyone. Someone always considers what someone else is saying unacceptable.

Right-wingers are fond of claiming that criminals don't have civil rights like the right to trial or counsel. On the contrary, people we think are criminals are the ONLY ones those rights are for. It's the same with speech.

[NMMNG]

38. She deserves what she gets

Her FB page clearly states her position as a teacher at the school. People would be inclined to see whatever she posts as a reflection on the school. She posted virulently anti-gay comments that could be seen by students at the school. How could they feel comfortable going back to class knowing what she'd said about them? She created an environment that was downright hostile for them with her tirade.


This woman's first duty is to her students. She has a right to hold whatever opinions she wants, but she crossed the line when she went on a bigoted tirade against them while in her capacity as a teacher. The fact that she was on the Internet instead of in the school doesn't change things. Her students are still impacted, and what's more, the message is out there forever for many more people to see.

[LanternWaste]

49. She minimized (at best) and directly insulted (at worst) a group of those over whom she has authorit

Odd this. She minimized (at best) and directly insulted (at worst) a group of those over whom she has direct authority and acts as parents in absentia for, did it on a website with public access and under her name, and expected no consequences?

Regardless of whether begin fired was justified or not, it amazes me that she apparently believed she could publically insult a portion of her students withou zero consequences.

[MadHound]

52. If you are a teacher, it behooves you not to express any opinion you hold

At anytime, anywhere. No matter whether you express an opinion that is conservative or liberal, somebody, somewhere is going to be offended by it and come after your job. One of the few professions in which this is the case.

[Yo_Mama]

59. That's true

Heck, in some school systems I know of, speaking on a local issue in front of the municipal council would piss off a few families enough that they'd want the teacher's job. But does that mean the teacher should lose his/her job? IMO no. Also I think have teachers who are engaged on issues makes for better teaching. I don't believe that classrooms taught by gray, neutralized public robotic personalities makes for good education.

I do think teachers that discriminate against any students based on non-school behaviors or characteristics should be tossed, but that's a far cry from expressing some opinions. The mere idea that teachers lose the right to take positions - even controversial positions - in public means that we are requiring non-speech of them. I believe that's unconstitutional.

I ALSO believe that it makes for very bad school systems - systems that will be dominated by majorities or perhaps a few powerful individuals. This very issue is one of the reasons that I am strongly in favor of the tenure system.

[adigal]

63. This is the reason tenure exists

So that teachers could be involved in the political process and not lose their jobs. And here we have Democrats asking that someone who expressed her opinion, as horrible as it is, lose her job. I don't get it.

[DirkGently]

71. And if we let that prevail, all the teachers we have left will be mindless drones.

I guess that's what some people's notion of their own entitlement to silence those they disagree with requires.

[MadHound]

74. Don't be so sure of that

Teachers have been a relatively silent bunch for a number of decades, but I know that a lot of the teachers I had, and a lot of the teachers I work with are not mindless drones.

We just walk that thin, high wire, now with more juggling.

[DirkGently]

76. Not what I said. Forbidding teachers to have or express opinions would require drones.

Most teachers aren't. They're people. They have opinions. They're not politicians or entertainers, and we can't subject them to the constant review of popular opinion.

[JackBeck]

72. The NJEA responds:

The NJEA sent News 12 New Jersey its guidelines on Twitter and Facebook. Among the guidelines was, "Never post about your job or student and don't post anything you wouldn't want read aloud in a school board meeting."

Case closed.

http://www.news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=295040&position=1&news_type=news®ion_name=NJ®ionId=2

[DirkGently]

75. That link doesn't say that. Wouldn't change the 1st Amendment if it did.

Civil rights are the supreme law of the land. No exceptions based on who anyone is or what the community would like to decree.

[JackBeck]

77. The link clearly states what I quoted and so does the video. n/t

[DirkGently]

78. The page requests you to enter your cable subscription account number

Are you a cable subscriber who receives News 12?
If you have purchased a monthly or yearly subscription: Click Cablevision
Yes, I am a subscriber to:
Cablevision
Comcast
Time Warner
Service Electric

No, I am not a subscriber
Click here to purchase a subscription for only $4.95 a month or $48 a year.
Only $4.95 a month or $48 yearly.

[JackBeck]

80. Copied and pasted:

Union Twp. teacher gets heat for Facebook comments

(10/13/11) UNION TOWNSHIP - A teacher from Union Township High School is under fire for expressing her beliefs on Facebook.

The teacher, Viki Knox, was apparently very unhappy about a display in the school that observed gay history month and expressed her anger on Facebook. Now, many are questioning if as a teacher, she should have posted her anti-gay comments on the social networking site.

Attorney John Paragano says he brought the social networking page to the attention of district administrators. In a letter, he calls her comments vengeful - and demands an investigation.

The ACLU defends Knox's rights to post her opinions, but it also encourages an investigation into her conduct at school for whether she is in accordance with school policies and the state's law against discrimination.

The NJEA sent News 12 New Jersey its guidelines on Twitter and Facebook. Among the guidelines was, "Never post about your job or student and don't post anything you wouldn't want read aloud in a school board meeting."