Teacher behind anti-military classroom rant fired

a reply to: projectvxn


Teachers "violate" school policy every damned day and no one bats an eye.

If we're going to go by the "rules" as to what can be said and what can be taught then there'd be no issue with the public school system.

Our society looks like it is run like a Facebook page, however.

It's okay to say anything as long as you have enough "likes". Get some and it's goodbye Maisy Grey!



I (at least) try to remain consistent in life and in my opinion as to free expression. I detest many things that are said. But my opinion doesn't trump (sic) anyone else's.

The teacher was/is an asshole and a bully.


If we got rid of every asshole/bully in Hollywood and DC, there'd be 3 nuns and a guy named Carl occupying all the space.


People say things all the time.

We cannot become a society where we have to start censoring ourselves.


I dread that day.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Death threats are uncalled for in any case, no matter what.

Termination is the result of a violation of the contract with the employer. I would assume that given the prior issues, he was fired for cause as per the employee handbook (which all employees will agree to upon hire).

he probably didn't get fired for what he said but because his disruptive behavior during work hours, being opposed to something is fine but don't start ranting like an idiot and disrupting class or bothering others in nearby classes.

most americans seem to forget what "peaceable" means, it means inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile: as in don't bother other people with your protests if you're going to be an ass about it and disrupt other peoples daily lives.

that whole don't scream fire in a public building just to troll people thing is based on the exact words in the first amendment.

so many americans regularly violate the 1st without realizing it when they do things like this teacher, when will the government introduce a speech etiquette code for the first amendment to remind people about the whole peaceable part, even the media regularly violates this part without noticing and don't realize how lucky they are that it's never been used against them by the government to shut them down.

it's simple: don't disrupt other peoples lives over your personal opinion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: projectvxn


It's okay to say anything as long as you have enough "likes". Get some

and it's goodbye Maisy Grey!

Ill give you this, and tell you im stealing the idea. You'll see me repeat the comparison to our FB social governance at some point.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Death threats are uncalled for in any case, no matter what.

Termination is the result of a violation of the contract with the employer. I would assume that given the prior issues, he was fired for cause as per the employee handbook (which all employees will agree to upon hire).

Termination for criticizing the military in a rant seems above and beyond any employee handbook I've ever seen.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Shamrock6

He wasn't.

He was fired for being an asshole.

But only because he said something you do not like.

I know you like to pretend you have some insight into the inner workings of people's minds but, as usual, you're a tiny bit off base.

No, not "only because he said something I do not like."

a reply to: DBCowboy

ncac.org...

Modern Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the right to free speech and expression can sometimes be subordinated to achieve legitimate educational goals. (See discussions of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and Bethel School District v. Fraser.)

Seems no one in that setting has complete "free expression".

Local school boards generally have the authority to prescribe the curriculum, within state-approved guidelines. Two Supreme Court cases, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) and Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) grant administrators considerable discretion in deciding what is educationally suitable. For example, lower courts upheld action against one teacher for permitting violations of school policy against profanity in teaching creative writing (Lacks v. Ferguson Reorganized School District (8th Cir. 1998) and against another for staging a dramatic production with controversial content (Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education (4th Cir. 1998). However, courts defer to administrators and educators equally when their decisions promote, rather than suppress, speech — as when schools administrators elect to include controversial materials in the curriculum (Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School 9th Cir. 1998).

Seems the line is drawn at what is "educationally suitable"; but it seems the decision rests in the hands of the district.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So it's arbitrary.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Death threats are uncalled for in any case, no matter what.

Termination is the result of a violation of the contract with the employer. I would assume that given the prior issues, he was fired for cause as per the employee handbook (which all employees will agree to upon hire).

Termination for criticizing the military in a rant seems above and beyond any employee handbook I've ever seen.

If that content is in the lesson plan, he'd have been fine. I don't think a political rant, and insulting the childrens parents to them, was part of the days lesson plan. Perhaps I am incorrect.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I know you like to pretend you have some insight into the inner workings of people's minds but, as usual, you're a tiny bit off base.

No, not "only because he said something I do not like."

I wasn't speaking about you personally. Poor choice of words on my part. My mistake. But I do know enough to question your commitment to free expression given your penchant for make excuses for the school firing him.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So it's arbitrary.

Only if you define arbitrary as local school boards having the authority to prescribe the curriculum, within state-approved guidelines.

The teacher in question was a history teacher. Was his "rant" in the steam of discussion of something history related?
The board did not think so.
ktla.com...

The El Rancho Unified School District voted unanimously Tuesday evening to fire Gregory Salcido, who taught history at his alma mater El Rancho High School, said Board of Education President Aurora Villon. He has 30 days to appeal the decision.

Unanimously is pretty strong from a school board.

Villon said students should feel respected on campus, and in this case, she felt “that was not happening.” “The classroom should never be a place where students feel that they are picked at, bullied, intimidated,” she said.

Does "free expression" include intimidation and bullying by a teacher?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Does "free expression" include intimidation and bullying by a teacher?

There is no intimidation or bullying in the video.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: shooterbrody

Does "free expression" include intimidation and bullying by a teacher?

There is no intimidation or bullying in the video.

Obviously the school board unanimously thought differently than you do.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Obviously the school board unanimously thought differently than you do.

Clearly. But it isn't obvious whether they were acting on principle or buckling from the pressure of political correctness. There is no bullying in the video.

a reply to: shooterbrody

If we can start firing teachers because they don't stay within the curriculum, then be consistent.


As for "bullying"?



Have we become so fearful, so sensitive, that an opinionated, "bullying" teacher gets fired?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There is no bullying in the video.

Tell that to the child who thought there was enough so to video the incident.

As to principle, I think a unanimous vote answers that speculation.
As to political correctness, when did backing the usa military become politically correct? I missed that day.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Tell that to the child who thought there was enough so to video the incident.

As to principle, I think a unanimous vote answers that speculation.
As to political correctness, when did backing the usa military become politically correct? I missed that day.

I watched the video. The teacher was mostly joking around, trying to be cool, trying to get the kids to laugh (which they did), and not a single student was bullied.

By political correctness, I mean pretending criticism of the military is bullying in order to justify terminating someone's employment.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If we can start firing teachers because they don't stay within the curriculum, then be consistent.

As there are 50 different states with different education laws that seems impossible, unless your definition of consistent is different than websters.

Have we become so fearful, so sensitive, that an opinionated, "bullying" teacher gets fired?

Aren't we all trying to make schools safer for children?
A teacher shaming a child for what the child wears to school is not bullying these days?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I watched the video. The teacher was mostly joking around, trying to be cool, trying to get the kids to laugh (which they did), and not a single student was bullied.

You do understand the child called out for his clothing was not the child that recorded the incident.
But hey, you obviously know better than the one with first hand experience.
I suppose you also are ok with a teacher shaming a child for the clothing they wear?

a reply to: shooterbrody

You do understand the child called out for his clothing was not the child that recorded the incident.

Yes he was. You haven't even seen the video, have you?

And yes, I know what bullying is.