It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Writing To Congress Can Now Cost You Your Job

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Web: she blames the influx of Purto Ricans as the cause; the reality, as far as I can tell, is the increased class size that is lowering educational ability. It so happens that she has observed that many Purto Rican immigrants



HEY!! Puerto Ricans are US Citizen. Puerto Rico is part of the United States we are NOT inmigrants!! Our citizens have gone to war!! AND DIE! FOR ALL OF US CITIZEN!!! PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE MAKING THOSE COMMENT.!
We even have enginers working in Nasa! That studied in Puerto Rico! She is telling that Puerto Rican can handle a job, but she is very DUMB! and stupid!

I hope she lose the job!

Here is some info for the people that think Puerto Ricans are immigrants


Puerto Ricans have made their mark in the US military. Well over 200,000 boricuas have served in the military and numerous others have given their lives for the metropolis. Currently, there are over 30,000 boricuas in uniform. Among other things, the 65th Regiment (the Borinqueneers) fought in WWII and the Korean War. They became well respected during the Korean War by helping to push back the North Koreans and rescueing many marines. During Gulf War II, the Puerto Ricans have been praised for maintaining order in Abu Ghraib prison after the scandal created by American soldiers. Reportedly, the boricuas are the ones watching over Saddam Hussein. Go boricua!



verdeluz.blogspot.com...


At the end it says, we shouldn be in the us army and thats true because all of us die for people like this teacher and the others that think because we are latinos we are immigrants!



[edit on 19-8-2005 by rapture777]




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I agree. Purto Rico is, more than likely, going to be the 51st state. Yet, do people get fired from their jobs because they say that it is costomary in Arkansas for a brother to marry his sister? No, it's not, and living in Chicago, I hear crap like that all the time. That is part of what being part of America is about. You will be subjigated to racial or geographical slurs. Everyone in the midwest is a cracker redneck. That's a common, politically correct comment. Just look at the state by state electoral vote map to discover why that is considered an acceptable statement. Red means target for racial and geographical slurs, blue means free from geographical and racial slurs for minorities.

I understand your angst. Any kind of racial slur drives me up a wall; they really piss me off. When I'm on ATS and read one, I usually run and grab a smoke if I feel I have to respond on the thread, because I would be malicious otherwise. biggotry is ignorant, racist, stupid comments. When they're not, they're done for a political agenda. But it is every American's right to be a bigot, just as it is every American's right to call a bigot a $^@$^#$^%%$%$%^%^@$#%@%^@#$^@%^#@$^%@#$.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
The thing is that if a big war starts I might have to go, and even die for who? For that stupid teacher and millions of others that dont respect! And make comments like that! She is telling that the people who die for her can't get a job!! Now I can understand why they are terrorist bombing everywhere!!

I really hope she lose the job!


More links!

www.prsanj.ang.af.mil...

welcome.topuertorico.org...

www.buchanan.army.mil...
A Brief History of Fort Buchanan

The history of the U.S. Army in Puerto Rico dates back to the Spanish American War. Army troops invaded the island on July 25, 1898 and swiftly defeated a weak Spanish army force.

In 1903, the first Puerto Rican U.S. Army unit was established ( the Puerto Rico Regiment ) under the command of LTC James A. Buchanan.
"Camp Buchanan" was established in 1923. It was originally located on a 300 acre tract of land some six miles south of San Juan Bay.

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 19-8-2005 by rapture777]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
My friend, I tried to get into the military to defend people like Cindy Sheehan, just like her son did. That's America. We defend
anti-American'sand anti-current political agendiaists rights to speak. That is what the first ammendment is all about.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
My friend, I tried to get into the military to defend people like Cindy Sheehan, just like her son did. That's America. We defend
anti-American'sand anti-current political agendiaists rights to speak. That is what the first ammendment is all about.
Yes but its a diferent thing that after all of us (puerto ricans) have done, the people still call us immigrants. If you read history US invaded PUERTO RICO in 1898 !! U.S. made us part of them! And since then, our people have been american citizen and we have done our part. Puerto Rico is U.S. Territory and we are trying to be the 51 state.. But hey like that teacher says, we are latinos immigrants, we must be trash right? I dont even know how I learn to speak and write...I dont even know how I got this computer and the internet! I should be getting coconuts to feed my family:@@ I think thats how people like her think of us....



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
And that brings me to nikelbee. She has been a teacher for 5 years at that school. Never before was a charge of racism leveled against her. If you don't think that it's possible to feel the way she does yet teach without letting those feelings effect her, look at some parents. There are many parents out there today, Dick Cheney included, who have a problem with the homosexual community and agenda. They believe it is wrong, yet one of their children turns out to be gay. Despite their dislike for the lifestyle, they still love them to death. This woman became a teacher, I'm guessing, because she loves to teach children. Because she sees this influx of Purto Ricans increasing her class size doesn't mean she suddenly hates every student whose skin color is a little darker than others. You can still feel compassion for an individual you know is screwing things up, so I would assume you could feel compassion for an individual who is a member of a group you think is screwing things up.


You don't just wake up a racist one morning. It is an accumulation of intolerance that is built up over time. Thus 5 years would seem a good number of years to get tired of the ins and outs of the public school system. Btw - this isn't just about THIS teacher. Many educators get tired of low wages, disrespect, increased hostility by students and parents, long hours and overcrowded classrooms. Nonetheless, penning off a rant to her local congressman wasn't the best idea given the circumstances. I hope her legal advisor suggests diversity training or something along these lines so she can return to work at a later time. It would be a shame to lose a teacher (I am not sure if she is good nor am I judging her abilities as I do not know her) when the problem could be that she is just sick and tired and needs a break. This however does not justify her actions.

Dick Cheney is not teaching children is he? If he is loving and supportive (we can never know) of his own child that is his own personal matter. If Dick Cheney were preaching an anti-gay agenda to a classroom of gay students that might (note the MIGHT) be a conflict of interest. But would not automatically lead to a firing unless he does something directly to voice his anti-gay opinions of the people he is teaching. Therefore your example is not very relevant. We aren't discussing loving your own child, but teaching the children of other people. Children whom this teacher has accused of using up public funds, taking up classroom space and bringing the education level down of the whole school.



Your protest example is a public display, as opposed to this woman's private correspondence with a congress person. Do you seriously believe that that teacher you mentioned who was fired should not, and according to the law cannot, believe the war in Iraq is wrong if they're a teacher? If you become a teacher, suddenly you sacrifice all of your freedoms, public and private, and simply agree with the state, no matter its decisions?


First of all I have not stated my own personal politics nor do I feel I need to on this thread. You have NO idea how I feel about the arrest of my former teacher. If you are really that interested you can and check my other postings and then you will have some clue.

My example if you read very carefully, is about the University having rules and regulations regarding anti-war demonstrations on their property. Not about the right to protest or have different opinions. My example was to illustrate a point of conduct and of regulations not pertaining to free speech or opinions.

I would be the last person to say one must always side with the government on anything, but she is a teacher not an anarchist. If she feels so strongly perhaps she is better off in another career like running for local office and then working to stem immigration or something of that nature.

Finally - compassion for someone or something does not mean accepting their mistakes or letting them influence your children.

I feel compassionate about this woman - it seems she is overstressed and possibly overworked. But I don't condone her racist agenda. These children are not to blame for her long lists of wrong perpetuated by the 'Latinos' who are 'ruining' the school system.

She isn't much of an educator if she can't do the research to know that the US has been lagging behind many other countries in education for years! Since I was a child in fact. It easy to blame others when one feels one has no recourse. Perhaps the solution is to allow some of these teachers to vent in a safe and productive environment.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
.
If you reflexively reject an idea because it doesn't fit with preconcieved notions you begin to shut down the open arena of ideas.

Face it.
As a species we are really not all that smart.
To have people afraid to simply rationally state their interpretations because it is not politically correct and may lose them their job is IMO completely wrong.

We are not a smart enough species to even consistently recognize useful truth the first time we may see it.

This is somewhat similar to whistleblowers being fired from their jobs as revenge.

If you reject an Idea because it does not fit with your religion or philosophy, you cut yourself off from a potential truth.
Always, look at the ideas presented.
Evaluate them on what merits and falacies they may have.
Don't ever discount an honest opinion of an open mind with actual experience in a situation.
The knee jerk rejection of all her claims is a sign of ignorance.
She feels there is a problem.
She lays out what she thinks are sources of the problem.
Did it ever occur to someone to actually talk with this teacher?
Have a dialogue and air grievances and misconceptions on both sides?

For people who have not experienced a better America they may not know what is being lost. They may think America is comparatively great compared to previous conditions. What is for now all upside for them is at the very least percieved to be a down side by someone with experience living here.

Don't like kneejerk right wing Christians,
Don't like kneejerk deceptive NeoCons,
Don't like kneejerk liberals.

Don't be a kneejerk.

Try to create as amicable & even handed forum for thinking and discussion as possible.
Listen to all ideas.
Evaluate them on the best current information.
And reformulate your perspective on that basis.

Right wing PC and left wing PC is still just plain old BS to me.

edit: kant spel

[edit on 19-8-2005 by slank]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapture777
The thing is that if a big war starts I might have to go, and even die for who? For that stupid teacher and millions of others that dont respect!


No, that's not what you or I or anyone else would be going to war for; not for any one person or group of people, good bad or ugly.



And make comments like that! She is telling that the people who die for her can't get a job!!


That's what we'd be going to war for: for her right, your right, and my right to make comments like that if we chose. Or to make comments about how the war is unjust. Or to make comments about how the president would look in a pink tutu with bunny pics on it.

As far as the original topic goes, I'm kinda torn but leaning towards the position of the superintendent. It was a private letter, but it made it to a public forum. Whether it should have or not is a different story, but it did. People get fired all around the country for less every day. That doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but it's more reasonable than them letting her go because she forgot to file an attendance report once.

I understand it isn't a business in the normal sense of the word, but statements like that can make her school have an image of being hostile towards certain ethnic groups (and not just Puerto Ricans either.) It shouldn't be that way, but just as she lumped every Puerto Rican into one group, I'm sure that to some degree or other most of the parents in that district will start lumping all the teachers there in with her.

I don't think the code of ethics they have is "forcing" them to maintain certain values like you were stating eariler junglejake. All that it's saying is that they can't necessarily act on whatever values they personally have. I'll build on the example you used earlier.

I can't choose whether to hire you or not because you're a Christian; no problem. However, I can draw up a terms of employment that state you are not allowed to mention anything from the Bible in your capacity as my employee. I can also make my terms of employment to include any situation outside of the office, as long as you are presenting yourself as an employee of my company. If you go out in public and say you're General Manager for XYZ, Inc., and you're going to preach the gospel, you're fired. Simple as that. Given that she presented herself in the letter as a teacher, in my opinion they have every right to let her go now that the letter made it to the public.

Whether it should've been made public or not is an entirely different argument...



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cilandak
Is a letter to the government in the US not considered privileged? That is, the contents are private and confidential. Where I'm from the story wouldn't be the contents of the letter, ill advised as they are, but that the letter was made public.


It should be considered privlidged but thanks to the perversion of the Freedom of Information Act it isn't. Any document in the posession of a public official can be accessed. Think twice about your Medicare and Social Security documents, I don't believe that the Medical Privacy Act covers them.
This being said it wouldn't surprise me that the Congresscritter himself leaked the letter to try to drum up support for his next election campaign.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   



And don't dare protest the President while he is on vacation!


And just exactly WHAT does this have to do with the topic. Are you daft man?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
As 12 12 2012 correctly stated, we need to stay on topic.

This is a second reminder on this thread.

In case anyone forgot, here is the topic of discussion:

Writing To Congress Can Now Cost You Your Job

If anyone has a problem with staying on topic, please read this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, back to the regularly scheduled topic.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
So, nikelbee, what you're saying is we chalk up teaching as one of the professions where you must have a political stance in line with an agenda. They're allowed to view it differently, just not express that view, even through private correspondance because that letter or whatever could be leaked to the public. Just another instance of the New McCarthyism sweeping America -- silence through fear.

MCory, were I to be your general manager and said that while preaching and you fired me for it, you would be sued two ways from Tuesday, and I would win. I would do that because I am aware of what my legal rights really are according to court law and the Bill of Rights. The problem is the media has skewed people's beliefs in their rights so much to the point they are under the impression that you could fire them for, in their own personal time, preach a message about God and mention what they do for a living. My company has no right to censor me outside of the workplace.

rapture777, I can understand your angst. Most people don't realize that Peurto Rico is, pretty much, the 51st state of the US and think of y'all as a bunch of grass skirt wearing natives who you could inspire complete awe in by showing them your Bic. However, we will never know if there is any truth to what this teacher claims. Not because it's impossible to figure out, but because the research would be deemed "racist" (New McCarthyism) and shut down. If it wasn't shut down, it would only be able to come to the conclusion that the teacher was wrong; to say otherwise would just mean the researchers were racist, regardless of their evidence. So we will never be able to say that this woman's claims are true or false. Instead, we'll have these ideological conversations with absloutly no evidence backing them up and just go around in circles.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
What exactly is your position JJ? It seems like you are knocking down everything without a clear view in sight. You seem to have all the answers despite some good posts. Is it that this women is allowed to say whatever she wants whenever she and to whom she wants?

Even her potential legal advisors at the school had this to say:




David DeMond, who leads the Classroom Teachers Association, said his organization would provide legal advice for Hall if she is a member.

"Teachers have the right to express an opinion," DeMond said. "But they are aware of the code of ethics and should be able to read and understand what it means."


It is amazing how you still think this is about freedom of speech and not about inappropriate actions in the workplace. Let's try a little test. You exercise your freedom of speech at work and tell your boss that you don't like his skincolour/education/religion and sexual preference and then let us know how that worked out for you.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
hehe Well, in all honesty, I kinda have told my boss that; actually something he found more offensive than that the first time. Now it's kind of a private joke between us that makes others' mouths drop when they hear it. My boss is an Orthodox Jew, and I am, believe it or not, an Evangelical Christian. We talk about religion quite a bit, mostly him talking about the fascets, laws and beliefs of his. What I said one day was, "I'm a Jew, too, I just believe the rest of the story"


However, you would be right if she said this at work. You can have a speach code in the office, but you can't restrict someone's private life. My business cannot fire me because of posts I make here on ATS due to the content (though they could if I'm doing this instead of work I'm supposed to be doing, but I have permission to be playing here) of my posts or because they don't like my opinion. That is illegal, and there are anti-discrimination laws that protect me from such recourse.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I guess if you write a letter to your "congressperson" you had better be thinking about whether or not you would want your letter published in a local newspaper. It looks to me like the teacher obviously violated the school district's "code of ethics", so it wasn't just a matter of writing a letter to her congressperson, it was a case of writing a blatantly "racist letter" to her congressperson that violated an ethics code which she should have been aware of in the first place.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by Punchdrunk]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Punchdrunk
I guess if you write a letter to your "congressperson" you had better be thinking about whether or not you would want your letter published in a local newspaper. It looks to me like the teacher obviously violated the school district's "code of ethics", so it wasn't just a matter of writing a letter to her congressperson, it was a case of writing a blatantly "racist letter" to her congressperson that violated an ethics code which she should have been aware of in the first place.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by Punchdrunk]


Because, of course, the school gets to dictate your personal life. You cannot work to fix a problem if your school or place of business wants it to stay the same.


If that ever becomes true, and I'll be following this case to see how it develops, we will no longer be a democratic republic, we will be a corporate republic.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
MCory, were I to be your general manager and said that while preaching and you fired me for it, you would be sued two ways from Tuesday, and I would win.


Not to sound sarcastic, but really? I was under the impression that, if you and I signed a contract (ie terms of employment) then I'd be able to fire you for breaking that contract. In this instance, the contract includes terms regarding your presentation of your involvement of the company. If you're using your position and my company as part of your identity while preaching, then you've broken your end of the deal. Am I wrong in assuming this? Let's take religion out of it; make it a little more pertinent to the case (an extreme example though.)

I hire a white man to work at my business. As part of the terms of employment, he is not allowed to show any form of discrimination, racial or otherwise. On his off time, he's part of the KKK. Fine; I can't do anything about that, and he still does a great job in the shop and the other employees--even minorities--have no problems. One day I turn on the TV and see my employee giving a speech at a rally about how blacks are the downfall of America.

From that point forth, anyone who walks into my company and recognizes him will now have the impression that my company is hostile towards minorities, and it's because of him. He is now a liability to my company, even though it's because of something he did on his own time. There's a tremendous possibility that I'm going to loose a lot of business because of his actions.

Had he done a poor job, and as a result gave the company a bad name, no one would ever fault me for firing him. The end result is still the same--possibly even worse--but now I'm not allowed to fire him because it was his "own" time? I'm asking this seriously--I'm trying to start up my own business, and I'd really like to know whether I can fire someone because I feel they gave my company a bad image, or if I have to live with them.



My company has no right to censor me outside of the workplace.


Actually, they do. Have you ever had to take a drug test, both before and during employment? Regardless of your performance in the work place, they can fire you for smoking a joint or doing a line. You may be the best worker they have, but they have every right to drop you like a bad habit--if you agreed to those terms when you signed on. Part of the reason they'll do it is because it may influence your performance, but part of it is also because they want to give everyone the image that their employees are fine, upstanding citizens, and not stoners or cokeheads.

IMO, that's the main reason the super did this; not because they really care whether this teacher is racist or not, but because they want to give the impression they aren't going to tolerate it. They want the public to see that the school system is for everyone. They probably also want to give people the impression that their voice is heard, given the outcry from the community when this was published in the paper.



Because, of course, the school gets to dictate your personal life. You cannot work to fix a problem if your school or place of business wants it to stay the same.


There's other ways she could have handle this problem without making her position known--she could've written in as a "concerned citizen," and all of this would've been moot. She would have been acting as a private citizen and not as a teacher. She could have written in as an anonymous teacher, thereby giving her position for background but not connecting her to any particular school. Given some of the text of the letter that was quoted, she also could've worded it a little less harshly and still gotten her point across perfectly fine--and probably wouldn't have offended as many people.

By stating her name and her position, IMO she was no longer keeping it to her personal life. She made it a "company" issue. She affiliated the problem with the school she worked at, whether intentionally or not, and it sounds like it's not a problem they want to be associated with.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Punchdrunk
I guess if you write a letter to your "congressperson" you had better be thinking about whether or not you would want your letter published in a local newspaper. It looks to me like the teacher obviously violated the school district's "code of ethics", so it wasn't just a matter of writing a letter to her congressperson, it was a case of writing a blatantly "racist letter" to her congressperson that violated an ethics code which she should have been aware of in the first place.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by Punchdrunk]


Because, of course, the school gets to dictate your personal life. You cannot work to fix a problem if your school or place of business wants it to stay the same.


If that ever becomes true, and I'll be following this case to see how it develops, we will no longer be a democratic republic, we will be a corporate republic.



She could have easily wrote a letter to her congressperson that WASN'T blatantly racist, and tried to solve the problem without resorting to racial stereotyping. She must have been awfully naive to think that only her congressperson was going to read the letter. Those letters are opened and read by members of the congressperson's staff.

I am definitely not in favor of someone getting fired because they write a letter to their congressperson, or any other public official, but if she had wanted to try and solve a problem she could have gone about it without using racist remarks that violate an ethics code. This sounds like a case of a stupid person caught in the act of stupidity to me...



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I wonder if the letter said blacks insted of Puerto Rican how the people will think about her?
Is racist! If she send a letter to congres I just can imagine how she would treat a puerto rican student or a coworker.... If the school have rules about it, she lose the job.. What will she teach the children? That Puerto Rican are immigrants? Wow and she said that them cant get a job and she is the first ignorant uneducated fool! I read the article, it says that she have problems before. The ones that should be ban from school are ignorant racist teacher like her!



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
How in the world did a newspaper ever get ahold of a private letter to her congressman? Something doesn't sound right about all this. It doesn't really matter if the woman is a bigot or not, the issue, it seems to me anyway, is that this woman is about to be terminated for writing a private letter to her congressman--that's wrong.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Astronomer68]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join