Teacher behind anti-military classroom rant fired

a reply to: projectvxn

Of course. Actual points rather than insulting one’s family and clothing.

Though if we’re being totally honest about it, recruiters have on occasion not stuck to the truth themselves. But that’s why I’m okay with having a counter balance to recruiters.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: projectvxn

Of course. Actual points rather than insulting one’s family and clothing.

Though if we’re being totally honest about it, recruiters have on occasion not stuck to the truth themselves. But that’s why I’m okay with having a counter balance to recruiters.

How you keep recruiters away from your kids: teach them to think and give them a mouth to defend themselves with.

While i respect and honor soldiers and vets, im no fan of the military. Some current situations in my life are only cementing that viewpoint.

A dude i know and think quite highly of, out of nowhere while we were sitting there, tells me, "you know....i know they brainwashed me. Its why i do all these wierd things now." He is a marine who served in iraq after 9/11.

Hes struggling to keep it all together. Marriage, job, sanity. Drinks all the time. It breaks my heart. He doesnt deserve that.

Im reminded of John Prines "Sam Stone".

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think training people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do is general idea of brainwashing so that’s no great secret, I don’t think. I’m sorry to hear that he’s struggling though, regardless. It’s not for everybody but unfortunately they will latch on to just about anybody they can.

As you said, the best defense against that is to make sure one’s kids have all the relevant information possible and not just one side.

a reply to: Shamrock6


Good, he is an idiot, and his incorrect opinions shouldn’t have come out of his mouth.

I guess he’s not intelligent enough to realize that if it wasn’t for our military, he might not have the freedoms he currently does.

Good.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Complete, authoritarian gobbledygook. Unless you can show me the contract and how he broke it, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and are making excuses for censorship.

Actually, unless you can show me where the school district was wrong in firing him for what he did, then you're entire argument is baseless, because the onus is on you to prove that his freedom of speech is protected.

And no, honoring the rule of law is not synonymous with "authoritarian gobbledygook," but calling it that is about as lazy as can be.

So, in your world, an employer shouldn't be able to fire an employee for what they say that has nothing to do with their job while on the clock and representing the company (school, in this case)? In your world, an employee should be able to say whatever they want to under the guise of the 1st Amendment, even though it is obviously constitutional to limit free speech in certain situations (like, when you're an employee and on the clock)?

You can hide behind the shield of name calling if you want to, but the reality is that you're misconstruing two highly different things in order to try and make your argument appear sound.

Don't reduce yourself to name-calling...I thought that you were better than that.

And also, do some research into legal precedent on this matter--you may just find that I might know exactly what the hell I'm talking about. Plus, I have a stepmom who is a retired California teacher, and a stepsister who is currently a California teacher; I've talked to them about this stuff, and the school board has every right to fire him over this, regardless of your opinion as to whether or not I'm speaking ignorantly on the topic.

I think that El Rancho Unified School District President Aurora R. Villon says it quite succinctly:

“We’re not questioning his freedom of speech, but when we hire teachers to teach in a classroom there is a curriculum that needs to be taught,” she said. “We know that as educators our job is to develop students’ minds so that they can become critical thinkers. We cannot espouse our personal values on the students and say, ‘This is the way, this is the way that’s right.’ That is not what the classroom is about, to bully students because they have a certain ideology.”

USA Today

Stop making excuses for people abusing their position of authority by pretending his speech is protected from repercussion for his actions.

I mean, the dude ran for Congress before--he's a politician moonlighting as a teacher, and obviously his ideology gets the better of him while on the job. I'd have fired his ass, too.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: namehere

I apologize for being flippant. But getting people fired over largely innocuous comments only contributes to and incentivizes its reoccurrence, and furthermore, teaches children to see critical speech as violence, as "bullying" and "berating", which only weakens them in the long run. Threatened egotism, which we are teaching our children through acts like this, leads to more aggression than low self-esteem.

Wait--you're arguing that consequences for one's actions enables the authority tasked with administering consequences and empowers that to do it more?

Okay, fine, then you'll have to concede, using that same logic, that letting such behavior go unchecked enables the tantrum-throwing teacher and empowers them to do it more as well.

The difference, though, is that one's authority to act that way is obvious, and the other's authority is lacking and not without repercussion.

I would rather see a generation of children raised in a manner where they are shown through actions that everything has a time and place, and that professionalism is something to hold in high regard at the workplace. I think that more damage is caused by allowing behavior like what this teacher displayed to occur without consequences.

You seem like you'd be a big fan of the "unschooling" movement--not that it's a bad thing, but it's certainly not appropriate for the majority of children.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What? You mean teach kids that you don't get to do whatever you want all the time without ever having to accept repercussions for what you've chosen to do?

I can't believe you'd push such a radical position

a reply to: SlapMonkey

He was bullying no one, meaning he was let go for something he didn’t do.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think some handle it better than others.

I trained hard, went to war, endured the suck, the struggle, and the smell of death.

This whole "I got brainwashed" thing is bull#.

If you go in expecting one thing, but then you get reality, it's hard for some to adjust. No one ever told me what to think while I served. No one ever tried to hammer strange ideas into my head.

a reply to: projectvxn

It could be as simple as a learned OCD.

He's not the first time i've heard folks that come back from deployment with weird traits, like they'll stand and argue with themselves (heatedly) in the mirror.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see, so don't address what I said, just regurgitate your opinion on the matter as you have done ad nauseam thus far.

Well, that's one way to piss away a discussion, for sure.

I should have left off that last sentence of the quote--it would have still made the point, but you couldn't have suckled further at the teat of your it-wasn't-bullying claim as a way to not address anything else.

I'm guessing that you did not take time before responding to actually research when and why teachers can be fired...

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, it would seem that personal responsibility and accountability is a thing of the past for too many people. I refuse to let such qualities die, though.

Call me nuts.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I see, so don't address what I said, just regurgitate your opinion on the matter as you have done ad nauseam thus far.

Well, that's one way to piss away a discussion, for sure.

I should have left off that last sentence of the quote--it would have still made the point, but you couldn't have suckled further at the teat of your it-wasn't-bullying claim as a way to not address anything else.

I'm guessing that you did not take time before responding to actually research when and why teachers can be fired...

Sorry, but a kid surreptitiously records his teacher (illegal in California), it goes viral in the court of public opinion, everyone gets outraged calling for the man to be fired, and later the man is fired, citing some nonsense claims about bullying and curriculum. And then there is you simply joining in. Sorry for not marching lock-step behind your little lynch mob.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't care if you "lock-step" with anyone, as long as you use logic when you form your opinions.

Usually you do, but this time you are not, and you're using a false representation of the first amendment in order to back your claim. You are misrepresenting what freedom of speech entails, which does not include freedom from consequences, as you have repeatedly been told in this post and that you seem to still be ignoring.

Stop pretending that everyone who disagrees with you on this topic hates the first amendment and embraces authoritarianism--it's a logically fallacious thing to do, and for some reason you keep doubling down.

Also, you keep ignoring the point that you called me ignorant on how the laws pertain to teacher employment, yet still have not backed that claim.

In this instance, you have done nothing but argue baseless opinion and throw around ad hominems. I mean, it's neat that you are choosing to stand your ground, but that does not make you more educated on the topic than others.

Best regards--this line of discussion has run its course for me.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't care if you "lock-step" with anyone, as long as you use logic when you form your opinions.

Usually you do, but this time you are not, and you're using a false representation of the first amendment in order to back your claim. You are misrepresenting what freedom of speech entails, which does not include freedom from consequences, as you have repeatedly been told in this post and that you seem to still be ignoring.

Stop pretending that everyone who disagrees with you on this topic hates the first amendment and embraces authoritarianism--it's a logically fallacious thing to do, and for some reason you keep doubling down.

Also, you keep ignoring the point that you called me ignorant on how the laws pertain to teacher employment, yet still have not backed that claim.

In this instance, you have done nothing but argue baseless opinion and throw around ad hominems. I mean, it's neat that you are choosing to stand your ground, but that does not make you more educated on the topic than others.

Best regards--this line of discussion has run its course for me.

I never mentioned the first amendment. I said free speech. It is you who are confusing the two and misrepresenting free speech in the process. And neither did I call you ignorant of laws pertaining to teacher employment. You said he broke a contract, which you do not have to confirm.

Yes, freedom from speech is freedom from consequences. The reasons he was apparently fired was, according to you, because he broke contract, not because of his speech. The consequence of speech is literally guttural sounds and marks on paper.

So the illogical misrepresentation, the straw men, and the ad hominem, is all yours.

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
əˌTHôrəˈterēən/Submit
adjective
1.
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
"the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"
synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, despotic, tyrannical, draconian, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic; More

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I don't disagree with the decision, although I do understand where his opinion comes from.

Indoctrinating other people's children into beliefs that are off the lesson plan and critical of the parental relationship is the exact opposite of what an educator should do.

For once I agree with you


I too am not enamored of the military but kids shouldn’t be castigated or harangued if they make a career choice to join.

Take the kid to the side and express your opinion calmly is the way to do that, not what he did.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You keep talking about free(dom of) speech, but don't mean the 1st amendment. Do you mean as cut pertains to the Bill of Rights? Otherwise it's just some concept you have. You're being authoritarian yourself, expecting everyone to kneel to your standard of what free speech is, so stop.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I never mentioned the first amendment. I said free speech. It is you who are confusing the two and misrepresenting free speech in the process.

Where do you think that the right to freedom of speech is enshrined for our citizens and visitors?

( I'll give you a hint that I know that you don't need)

And neither did I call you ignorant of laws pertaining to teacher employment. You said he broke a contract, which you do not have to confirm.

Hmmm, leths examine that claim in your own words directed to me:

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Unless you can show me the contract and how he broke it, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and are making excuses for censorship.

So, yes, you called me ignorant, because knowing the laws pertaining to teacher employment in California means that you understand how and for what teachers can be fired and when they have crossed the line of their contractual obligations and become politicians instead. I will once again quote the president of the school district, who puts it perfectly:

“We’re not questioning his freedom of speech, but when we hire teachers to teach in a classroom there is a curriculum that needs to be taught,” she said. “We know that as educators our job is to develop students’ minds so that they can become critical thinkers. We cannot espouse our personal values on the students and say, ‘This is the way, this is the way that’s right.’

You can keep ignoring this truth if it continues to keep your boat afloat, that's your right protected by the first amendment (see what I did there?), but again, it doesn't make your opinion on the matter more valid just because you keep repeating it ad nauseam.

Yes, freedom from speech is freedom from consequences.

If you believe that, you don't understand this topic at all.

The reasons he was apparently fired was, according to you, because he broke contract, not because of his speech.

What I say about his firing doesn't matter, but to be fair, I have not specified any reason as to his actual firing, I have just said that I would have fired his politicized ass, too, if I had been able to vote on it. He overstepped his bounds as a teacher and jettisoned all professionalism. We don't need those people as teachers.

So the illogical misrepresentation, the straw men, and the ad hominem, is all yours.

Okie dokie.

Cute quote of a definition, too, but knowing when someone's freedom of speech ends (like, for instance, when they voluntarily take on a job as an educator while they are in class) instead of rambling on about an idealized subjective construct of free speech, which you are doing, is not tantamount to advocating authoritarianism.

Yet another example of your constant repetition not making something so.

I will now adhere to my commitment of not wasting my time on this topic with you any longer. Have fun with your last words in response, but it will be met with silence, even if you keep getting it as wrong as you have been. Your strict adherence to idealism versus reality is where you are going wrong. You are making this a debate on philosophy, not on reality, and since your premise is so far off from the actualities of our society, this debate has become deeply entrenched in the muck of silliness and pointlessness.

Best regards, and I hope that you find time to research how things are, not how things should be according to your crossed fingers and ideological dreams.

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're being authoritarian yourself, expecting everyone to kneel to your standard of what free speech is, so stop.

Yup, and he can't see the forest because of all of those pesky trees in the way...