Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

[Azrael]

deck, if the First Amendment trumps every possible consideration for what can and cannot be said in a workplace public or private, why have rules against sexual harassment?

"I'll promote you if you fork me," is just speech.

 

[Dick Whitman]

deck, if the First Amendment trumps every possible consideration for what can and cannot be said in a workplace public or private, why have rules against sexual harassment?

"I'll promote you if you fork me," is just speech.

I never said that the First Amendment was absolute. We've discussed the balancing test that is the standard ad nauseum here. But you keep talking about hate speech, which isn't actually a thing where this is concerned. And you keep talking about speech restrictions being part of the employer "code of conduct." You even said that if a private employer can limit out-of-work speech, a public employer can, as well. That's just not true.

And as far as the sexual harassment comparison goes, that's speech at work. This was speech away from work.

 

[Dick Whitman]

As I've said before on here, if the First Amendment were absolute, then you could parade behind the president during the State of the Union address with a picket sign that said, "fork Obama." You can't.

That being said, there is an established framework that you have to work within regarding speech with lesser protection. "Hate speech" doesn't have a place at that table. Neither does, standing alone, a public workplace "code of conduct" that includes speech restrictions outside of work.

 

[Azrael]

But you keep talking about hate speech, which isn't actually a thing where this is concerned. And you keep talking about speech restrictions being part of the employer "code of conduct." You even said that if a private employer can limit out-of-work speech, a public employer can, as well. That's just not true.

Apparently the school district thinks all this as well, which is probably why they suspended him until they can argue it all out. As we're doing.

 

[Dick Whitman]

But you keep talking about hate speech, which isn't actually a thing where this is concerned. And you keep talking about speech restrictions being part of the employer "code of conduct." You even said that if a private employer can limit out-of-work speech, a public employer can, as well. That's just not true.

Apparently the school district thinks all this as well, which is probably why they suspended him until they can argue it all out. As we're doing.

And a good argument it's been. About ideas, not the people expressing them.

OK, I have to go mow the law before my wife exercises her First Amendment rights in a way I don't feel like dealing with.

Will check in later.

 

[YankeeFan]

His job is in jeopardy because his comments are unpopular.

His job is in jeopardy because his comments may or may not be considered 'hate speech' by some standard. I assume his school district is having the very same argument on the matter we're having here.

Vomit. Cesspool. Etc.

This has nothing to do with whether or not those comments are popular or unpopular.

Reading this thread, for example, it would possible to construe his comments as very popular indeed.

Agreed. Some of you are painting this as a case of liberals trying to take over. But very early in the story it is says the school is investigating whether the comments are biased against homosexuals. I don't think this teacher has the same problem if he doesn't expand on his opinion in a vitriolic way.

So to defend his free speech rights, to me, is missing the point.

But, does sexually orientation come with certain protections?

I'm not advocating we hate homosexuals, but is "hating" them any different than hating smokers, or "gun nuts", or "Tea Baggers", or "Bible Thumpers", or "Pro-Life freaks"?

If a teacher posts, "I am pro-choice and reject the so-called 'pro-life' argument," nobody cares, right?

But, if he says, "'Pro-life' advocates are a bunch of knuckle dragging, Bible thumping, hypocrites, who make me want to vomit,' that might get a rise out of people.

In certain parts of the country, folks might want him fired.

So, does the degree with which the opposition to someone is voiced make a difference?

 

[J Staley]

As I understand it, the Pickering case established that teachers could speak freely on issues of public importance without being fired by their school.

The teacher did speak freely on a matter of public importance. But I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that he spoke in a matter that could have revealed a bias against a certain group of students, or at least the perception of such.

I don't know how the school administration can't investigate. And if they find through the course of the investigation that he has a pattern of discrimination toward certain students, I'd assume they could fire him for that.

The problem with this analysis -- as before with deck Whitman's -- is that the Pickering-Connick test was significantly altered by Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006. Before you do the balancing test to determine whether the teacher's speech falls into a protected speech category, you must first determine whether the teacher was speaking as a public employee or private citizen. If he's speaking as a private citizen, then you move on to Pickering-Connick. If he's speaking as a public employee, then his speech has no First Amendment protection and he can be fired.

It's fairly clear in this case that the teacher in this situation was speaking as a private citizen. It was off school hours, on his own computer, on his own social media page and had nothing to do with school policy. But, and it's a big, big but, a teacher today doing what the teacher in Pickering did -- writing a letter to the editor about school policy -- would be highly likely to be considered that he was speaking as a public employee and therefore his speech would not get any protection.

Teachers cannot speak freely on any matter of public importance without running the risk of being fired under Garcetti.

So if the teacher says something in a relatively private setting, such as Facebook, and it becomes public, does that mean that the school district can't investigate the merit of what could be anti-student bias?

The teacher's speech seems to be more of a window to a potential bias and pattern of behavior that could result in his firing, not a single act for which he could be fired.

If the school investigates and finds no evidence that the teacher has exhibited a bias against gay students, then I'd think there was no recourse for the district, and the otherwise exemplary teacher should keep his job.

But if the school finds, thanks to the window this speech opened, that he has an established pattern of discriminatory behavior against gays, then shouldn't it be able to remove him from the position?

 

[J Staley]

His job is in jeopardy because his comments are unpopular.

His job is in jeopardy because his comments may or may not be considered 'hate speech' by some standard. I assume his school district is having the very same argument on the matter we're having here.

Vomit. Cesspool. Etc.

This has nothing to do with whether or not those comments are popular or unpopular.

Reading this thread, for example, it would possible to construe his comments as very popular indeed.

Agreed. Some of you are painting this as a case of liberals trying to take over. But very early in the story it is says the school is investigating whether the comments are biased against homosexuals. I don't think this teacher has the same problem if he doesn't expand on his opinion in a vitriolic way.

So to defend his free speech rights, to me, is missing the point.

But, does sexually orientation come with certain protections?

I'm not advocating we hate homosexuals, but is "hating" them any different than hating smokers, or "gun nuts", or "Tea Baggers", or "Bible Thumpers", or "Pro-Life freaks"?

If a teacher posts, "I am pro-choice and reject the so-called 'pro-life' argument," nobody cares, right?

But, if he says, "'Pro-life' advocates are a bunch of knuckle dragging, Bible thumping, hypocrites, who make me want to vomit,' that might get a rise out of people.

In certain parts of the country, folks might want him fired.

So, does the degree with which the opposition to someone is voiced make a difference?

I think hating homosexuals is different than hating somebody for various political or religious beliefs, because beliefs aren't inborn.

If a teacher said those exact things about pro-life advocates, I'd expect him to face similar scrutiny as the anti-gay marriage teacher because of the possibility that he could be harboring a bias, or the perception of such bias could affect learning for certain kids.

 

[outofplace]

I feel just fine thinking less of pedophiles.

As well you should. Think a lot less of them. But if they don't act on it, they should get the same rights as the rest of us, including advocating for their ideas and holding employment.

Fine. But when their employment revolves around being a trusted influence on children, one has to consider the ramifications. What if a boy in this teacher's class is being
harassed by an adult male? What if he is being molested? What if the boy goes to this teacher for guidance, not knowing that this particular adult advocates what he does? These are confidential situations -- it may never come to light what direction the teacher
provides the boy.

This teacher has elected to surround himself with children. He is not a software programmer sitting at home, expressing his views. You have to use common sense in
this situation. Not only does the teacher hold questionable views regarding ILLEGAL activity, he elects to express them in a public forum. He cares so much about advocating pediophilia that he is willing to put his job on the line in order to promote it. Judgment, judgment, judgment. Scary, scary, scary.

Couldn't this same standard be applied to the teacher in this thread? Let's face it. He didn't just speak out against gay marriage. He expressed his disgust regarding homosexuality.

So what if a student is struggling with his sexuality? Students often trust their teachers, so maybe he goes to this guy seeking some guidance. He just doesn't know who to turn to. You think that's going to go well?

And yes, I get that it wouldn't happen now, not with this being so public. But a few years down the line when it blows over? Very possible.

 

[crimsonace]

But you keep talking about hate speech, which isn't actually a thing where this is concerned. And you keep talking about speech restrictions being part of the employer "code of conduct." You even said that if a private employer can limit out-of-work speech, a public employer can, as well. That's just not true.

Apparently the school district thinks all this as well, which is probably why they suspended him until they can argue it all out. As we're doing.

Actually, suspension is just part of the procedure that must take place before a firing actually happens. It allegedly protects due process rights for the teacher to protest the impending firing, but it's usually a dog and pony show. If a teacher is suspended, more often than not, he's going to get canned.

But a public employee has a lot more latitude than a private one.

I also want to see what the union is doing here. If it won't protect the teacher's due process rights and save his job because he took the "wrong" stance on a hot-button social issue, then it's not doing its job.

 

[franticscribe]

As I understand it, the Pickering case established that teachers could speak freely on issues of public importance without being fired by their school.

The teacher did speak freely on a matter of public importance. But I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that he spoke in a matter that could have revealed a bias against a certain group of students, or at least the perception of such.

I don't know how the school administration can't investigate. And if they find through the course of the investigation that he has a pattern of discrimination toward certain students, I'd assume they could fire him for that.

The problem with this analysis -- as before with deck Whitman's -- is that the Pickering-Connick test was significantly altered by Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006. Before you do the balancing test to determine whether the teacher's speech falls into a protected speech category, you must first determine whether the teacher was speaking as a public employee or private citizen. If he's speaking as a private citizen, then you move on to Pickering-Connick. If he's speaking as a public employee, then his speech has no First Amendment protection and he can be fired.

It's fairly clear in this case that the teacher in this situation was speaking as a private citizen. It was off school hours, on his own computer, on his own social media page and had nothing to do with school policy. But, and it's a big, big but, a teacher today doing what the teacher in Pickering did -- writing a letter to the editor about school policy -- would be highly likely to be considered that he was speaking as a public employee and therefore his speech would not get any protection.

Teachers cannot speak freely on any matter of public importance without running the risk of being fired under Garcetti.

So if the teacher says something in a relatively private setting, such as Facebook, and it becomes public, does that mean that the school district can't investigate the merit of what could be anti-student bias?

The teacher's speech seems to be more of a window to a potential bias and pattern of behavior that could result in his firing, not a single act for which he could be fired.

If the school investigates and finds no evidence that the teacher has exhibited a bias against gay students, then I'd think there was no recourse for the district, and the otherwise exemplary teacher should keep his job.

But if the school finds, thanks to the window this speech opened, that he has an established pattern of discriminatory behavior against gays, then shouldn't it be able to remove him from the position?

You're right that this could lead the school to take a closer look at the teacher, but in order to fire him they would need to find some action beyond the words he posted on Facebook.

We're allowed to hold biases, and plenty of teachers do. The question is whether he acted on his bias against homosexuality.

Even if he did, proving it would be difficult. It's not as though homosexual students are a readily identifiable group within the school. Sure, there are some who may be open about their sexuality, but many gay teenagers aren't yet comfortable with being public about their sexuality. And while perceptive teachers and administrators probably have a pretty good idea who is gay and who isn't, it's not like ethnicity, which is often readily apparent and for which schools must keep data sets to report up the chain.

Essentially, you would have trouble showing he marked down gay students grades (and I'm not saying he did, just hypothetically) and would probably need some instance of targeted, inappropriate behavior toward gay kids.

 

[printdust]

Just so we know what we're talking about, here are the messages.

"I'm watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up," he wrote. "And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don't insult a man and woman's marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?"

Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment:

"By the way, if one doesn't like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God's laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I'll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one."

It isn't policy opposition. It's hate, pure and simple.

BULL shirt.

It's hate, in your mind, ANY TIME someone opposes it. He raised the Bible. Damn him! He's a bigot!

And this is going to be the "freedom of expression" that goes down the crap hole because of this army.