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.
Originally posted by kosmicjack
Most employers are "at will", the Catholic School likely is too, public schools, not so much. I'd say a leave of absence is reasonable with a "one and done" policy after that. Any more incidents and you are out. Which seems like what they did.
Originally posted by captaintyinknotsevery conversation into a gun debate.
its is an interesting paradigm, isnt it?
Originally posted by kosmicjack
Originally posted by captaintyinknotsevery conversation into a gun debate.
It's not a gun debate...right?
Right? Or is it? I hope not.
Why does keeping children safe mean guns in the class room? Why is having a gun in the class reasonable to some people but removing the person who is tangentially putting the kids in danger is not?edit on 6/14/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kosmicjack
Why does keeping children safe mean guns in the class room? Why is having a gun in the class reasonable to some people but removing the person who is tangentially putting the kids in danger is not?edit on 6/14/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)
Its not that simple, and I find it to be a bit dishonest that you try to make it so. You are still claiming there is no difference between student and teacher.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by captaintyinknots
You have explained it?
X has a threat coming from Y that endangers Z. To protect Z we subtract X. In theory Y follows X. Z is safe.
If X=teacher this works for you but if X=student this wouldnt work?
Makes no sense to me.
If the statement is true it doesnt matter what X happens to be as long as Y is an external threat and Z needs to be protected.
Teacher, janitor, administrator, yes. As they all have a job requirement that centers first and foremost of the safety of large numbers of children that they interact with daily.
There are a lot of differences. I dont see how those differences matter here. And yes, it is that simple.
She was fired because an outside threat posed a danger to the students.
The same reasoning should stand if it's a student, a teacher, a janitor, an administrator or the class goldfish.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Let me ask, what is the purpose of school?
Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
But if she has a threat to her own personal safety, then those in her immediate vicinity are also unsafe, in this case, children, who have been entrusted to her care and who look to her to protect them. How can she reasonably do that if she is also afraid enough to alert the school administrators to the possibility of him showing up and also file a restraining order against him?
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is really tough. As a school, the number one concern has got to be the safety of ALL of the children in their charge. This means, if someone is (even unintentionally) causing an unsafe environment for the kids, they have to be removed.
If this were a public school, there would be a lot of ways around this, i.e., a temporary office job. But being a private school, it is likely that there isnt another position to move her too.
I feel bad for the lady, its not her fault, and I hope the guy gets locked up. But I lean towards being behind the school on this decision...
On the other hand, if we treated abusive partners as they should be treated, legally, this would never have been an issue, so theres that....edit on 13-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by WeRpeons
I see a lawsuit brewing. Her termination wasn't work related, the school had no right to fire her.
With all of those things, there is one constant: the student. The point of school is the student. Period.
Depends. Some say education. Others say babysitting. Others still say indoctrinating/training.
The purpose and even the place is irrelevant if the statement remains true.
Not parallel in any way. The entire job description of a teacher starts and ends with the students.
Could be a carnival, supermarket or library. If X is threatened by Y and it puts Z at risk then X must be removed, no?
No, its not. The job description of a teacher flat out requires that the children be their utmost priority. Thats why breaking it down into such simplistic terms doesnt work.
Saying "unless X is a child" is ludicrous. The structure of the statement doesnt care what X is.
And if the statement isnt true then why was the teacher fired? As far as a job requirement goes it absolutely is not. Most people will instinctively risk all to protect a child but it is no way a requirement to do so.
Its possible. Or if, god forbid, the guy DID do something violent because she stayed.
That is interesting. I cant help but wonder if unions would be feeling the heat if it got out that a targeted individual was allowed to remain in her position.
In my experience (and Id like to point out that these types of things are really not all that rare in schools), they would have moved her to a central office job of some sort, for the time being, out of the school population.
Though the union most likely would have tried to save face with everyone and put her on some administrative leave or something,
I dont doubt that she'll win, and I hope, if the school has any type of decency, they will reinstate her as soon as the thread subsides. That would be the RIGHT thing to do.
Also, her lawyer does plan to sue, according to an interview she did, so time will tell what ultimately comes of this for her.