NJ Teacher Posts Anti-LGBT Rant on Facebook

[Zaune]

Should it be applied to other things though. For example my history professor (at a public university run by the city of New York) is a global warming denier who believes that vaccines cause autism and that corporations put flouride in the water and human growth hormones in our food to sterilize the population while making us watch Alex Jones documentaries. I would under no circumstances call the man a moderate though, should he be allowed to keep his job?

That's not a particularly good analogy, unfortunately, because the beliefs you cite are questions of science. There are no grey areas, no ambiguities; you devise experiments to test your theories, collect the data and find out beyond all shadow of a doubt what is true and what is not true.

If you can think of a way to apply the scientific method to questions of morality, I'd give a hell of a lot to hear it.

(And just for the record, no I most certainly do not think he should be allowed to keep his job. He's almost certainly barking mad.)

[Samuel]

If you can think of a way to apply the scientific method to questions of morality, I'd give a hell of a lot to hear it.

That is actually easy. You can see if certain actions are linked to increased life expectancy, a higher standard of living, etc.

[Alphawolf55]

Put simply, it should be the schools/governments job to protect young people from discrimination as much as possible. Putting a person who discriminates against them into a position of authority over these young people is obviously utterly contradictory to that goal.

Oh I agree if one discriminates against their students they should be fired. I think the difference is, I feel they should have to actively discriminate first before they get fired, you feel (as I understand) that they should be fired before they get a chance because the harm that comes from discrimination is too high, does that sound accurate?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Standards with public school teachers should be stricter because people can choose not to attend a university. You are forced to attend public school by law, so even the slightest hint of bias in relations with students should be automatic grounds for firing. The woman has a right to freedom of speech, and the students also have a right to have freedom from her speech. Since they cannot reasonably avoid it since they are required by law to go to school, she must be fired.

[Serafina]

Her statement was a declaration of intent to discriminate against LGBT-students. What would you say if a teacher states "i really like raping young boys" - would you argue that he should not be fired until he has actually done so?

[Block]

Her statement was a declaration of intent to discriminate against LGBT-students. What would you say if a teacher states "i really like raping young boys" - would you argue that he should not be fired until he has actually done so?

Not even close to the same thing. I mean, really?

[Serafina]

Yes, really. If we can act based on intent to harm children in one instance, why should we not do the same thing based on an intent to harm children in a different way in another instance?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Why is Block even defending the bigoted cunt in the first place? I always thought that when one issues declarations of intent to preferentially harm or allow someone to come to harm, the issuer of the threat gets at least put on a watch list. Why the fucking free pass, Block? If it has anything to do with the fact the threat's targets aren't rich white straight males with desk jobs, we have no fucking use for you here!

[Alphawolf55]

Her statement was a declaration of intent to discriminate against LGBT-students. What would you say if a teacher states "i really like raping young boys" - would you argue that he should not be fired until he has actually done so?

Oh come on you can't compare those two statements. While her comments are horrible and unless there are more quotes then the ones in the article itself, she annouced no actual conspiracy to harm children. Yes she say she doesn't HAVE to tolerate anyone, but she didn't say "I'M GOING TO MAKE GAY STUDENTS HATE THEMSELVES!" or "I'M GOING TO GIVE GAY STUDENTS BAD GRADES"

Again if you feel that one with bigotry and perceived hostile bias invalidates one's right to teach fine but don't change her comments, they were already nasty enough to begin with, we don't need to add to them.

[Akhlut]

"I'm not going to tolerate black students!"

Now, if she said that, there's no question she would be let go. Is there anyway a student would get a fair shake in her class? Especially since bigoted students would probably get away with being bigots in class against other potentially LGBT students in her class.

She's free to hold any opinion she chooses, but she's also free to live with the consequences of holding those actions.

[Alyeska]

I happen to agree with Hemant Mehta, the "Friendly Atheist". So long as a teacher can separate their religious views from their teaching, they should not be punished.

Hemant Mehta is a very outspoken atheist. He is also a teacher. He is horrified at the idea that a teacher might be punished purely for something they do outside of school. So long as the teacher can completely divorce their opinion from their teaching, they should be able to voice any opinion they want. However, if the teacher lets these personal opinions into the class room or the opinions influence their teaching, that is a whole different case.

Hemant has this opinion partly because he would never want to see an Atheist fired from a southern school just for being an atheist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Alyeska, she didn't declare an opinion. She made a declaration of intent to discriminate. She didn't say, "I think those homos are all going to rot in the lowest circle of hell", she said "I am sick of having to see their behaviour in public". The first opinion is one a teacher must be protected in having; the second is not. To be a teacher she must be able to respect the existence and expression of her students, and that means having an explicit understanding that she HAS to tolerate seeing their "behaviour" in public. Her beliefs may lead her to hate it, but she must tolerate its presence in public. Her statement was all about declaring that she would not do so, so it's firing time.

I/WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT ANYTHING, ANYONE. ANY BEHAVIOR OR ANY CHOICES! I DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE ANYTHING OTHERS WISH TO DO.”

Her statement is proof of why she should be fired, nothing more is needed. If she stopped before she wrote that sentence, everything else in her post, however awful, would have been simply protected speech. But these three sentences show she cannot uphold her duties and must be terminated.

[Block]

Why is Block even defending the bigoted cunt in the first place? I always thought that when one issues declarations of intent to preferentially harm or allow someone to come to harm, the issuer of the threat gets at least put on a watch list. Why the fucking free pass, Block? If it has anything to do with the fact the threat's targets aren't rich white straight males with desk jobs, we have no fucking use for you here!

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just saying Rape, possibly the most damaging psychological trauma a person can suffer as far as a single event goes, is much much much worse than "I'm going to give someone a bad grade." Additionally, I'm pretty sure you don't get to determine who gets to post, but thanks for misreading my post completely and over-reacting as usual.

[Serafina]

You do realize that homosexual students kill themselves due to being bullied quite regularly, do you?
Also "X is worse than Y, so your analogy is not true" is simply false.

[Block]

You do realize that homosexual students kill themselves due to being bullied quite regularly, do you?
Also "X is worse than Y, so your analogy is not true" is simply false.

Turns out teenagers in general kill themselves quite regularly, being bullied for being homosexual is just the newest one, and it's unfortunate, but fact is most kids are exposed to various social pressures from all angles every day and no single action of those is equal to being raped. Tthis teacher has obviously had this opinion for quite some time, has she ever traumatized a kid to that point? Has she created an openly hostile atmosphere in her class going as far as to single out children? Or has she even given a bad grade to a homosexual child? Why would one reveal their sexuality to their teacher anyways?

[Alyeska]

Her statement is proof of why she should be fired, nothing more is needed. If she stopped before she wrote that sentence, everything else in her post, however awful, would have been simply protected speech. But these three sentences show she cannot uphold her duties and must be terminated.

I would rather punish people for their actions, not their beliefs. If she hasn't acted on those statements, she could believe in moon nazis for all I care. If she makes statements which do not break the law outside of school, I cannot agree on punishing her when there is absolutely no proof she has acted on these statements.

[Serafina]

You do realize that homosexual students kill themselves due to being bullied quite regularly, do you?
Also "X is worse than Y, so your analogy is not true" is simply false.

Turns out teenagers in general kill themselves quite regularly, being bullied for being homosexual is just the newest one, and it's unfortunate, but fact is most kids are exposed to various social pressures from all angles every day

Nice marginalization of a massive problem here.
30-40% of homosexuals teenagers have attempted suicide. That's about four times more - a 300% increase - when compared to heterosexual teenagers. And that's including areas of low discrimination - and discrimination is clearly shown to be the cause of that discrepancy.

and no single action of those is equal to being raped.

Obviously you fail to understand the concept of an analogy. Nowhere have i stated that being bullied is equal to being raped. So yes, nice strawman.

Tthis teacher has obviously had this opinion for quite some time, has she ever traumatized a kid to that point? Has she created an openly hostile atmosphere in her class going as far as to single out children? Or has she even given a bad grade to a homosexual child? Why would one reveal their sexuality to their teacher anyways?

Yet again you show that you did not understand my analogy.
If a person states that she is planning to (or actively doing it, as in this case) harm a person or group, you apparently think that it is wrong to take any action until that person has actually done so. As the Duchess pointed out, this teacher openly admitted that she does NOT tolerate LGBT-people. Which means that she is intolerant towards them, which makes her a danger to LGBT-students in her position as a teacher.

[Serafina]

I would rather punish people for their actions, not their beliefs. If she hasn't acted on those statements, she could believe in moon nazis for all I care. If she makes statements which do not break the law outside of school, I cannot agree on punishing her when there is absolutely no proof she has acted on these statements.

Alyeska, she is not being punished for some vague belief here. She's not being punished because she is a self-admitted fundamental christian (or such), she is being punished for a clear statement on intent that could be harmful to her students and is actively endangering school policy.

Look at my analogy with the rapist again. Would you employ a self-admitted pedophile who has so far never touched a child at a school? He would be a clear risk-factor to the students - sure, he might have sufficient self-control, but do you really want to bet on that?
I certainly would not want to bet on that teacher having the self-control to fulfill her duty towards any LGBT-students she might have (for all we know she never had contact to one that was out so far).

[Block]

Obviously you fail to understand the concept of an analogy. Nowhere have i stated that being bullied is equal to being raped. So yes, nice strawman.

No, I understand an analogy. You take two items, and try to show a similarity. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy I think you're the one not understanding what one is. Or maybe you're not getting that when you use an analogy, you're trying to show that they're basically the same.

[Alyeska]

Alyeska, she is not being punished for some vague belief here. She's not being punished because she is a self-admitted fundamental christian (or such), she is being punished for a clear statement on intent that could be harmful to her students and is actively endangering school policy.

And I strongly disagree with this. Using your exact same argument school boards could readily fire anyone they want. Hemant Mehta could be fired for being a vocal atheist if he were employed in a southern state.

I read the same thing. I saw no clear statement she was going to start causing trouble over homosexuality at school. I saw a generalized statement. Until she acts on it she should not be punished.

Look at my analogy with the rapist again. Would you employ a self-admitted pedophile who has so far never touched a child at a school? He would be a clear risk-factor to the students - sure, he might have sufficient self-control, but do you really want to bet on that?
I certainly would not want to bet on that teacher having the self-control to fulfill her duty towards any LGBT-students she might have (for all we know she never had contact to one that was out so far).

Bad analogy and you know it. Pedophilia is illegal. Being homophobic is not. Being religious is not.

[Simon_Jester]

Does railing against homosexuality inside the school, to classes that by obvious statistics include some gay students, count as action, Alyeska?

[Mr. Coffee]

Does railing against homosexuality inside the school, to classes that by obvious statistics include some gay students, count as action, Alyeska?

Did she actually do that?

[Keevan_Colton]

Bad analogy and you know it. Pedophilia is illegal. Being homophobic is not. Being religious is not.

Paedophilia is not in fact by itself illegal, acting on it is. Similarly, homophobia isn't illegal, but acting on it against students would be. Just because an analogy isn't 100% identical doesnt mean you can simply dismiss it. In both cases there is a socially abhorrent self confessed view, and a potential threat if that view is acted on in a position of trust and authority over children.

Aly, please try thinking through things a little better. Think twice, post once.

[Broomstick]

You do realize that homosexual students kill themselves due to being bullied quite regularly, do you?
Also "X is worse than Y, so your analogy is not true" is simply false.

Turns out teenagers in general kill themselves quite regularly, being bullied for being homosexual is just the newest one

No, actually it's a really old reason for a kid offing him/herself.

but fact is most kids are exposed to various social pressures from all angles every day and no single action of those is equal to being raped.

Yeah? You do understand that, as horrible as rape is, it actually isn't a "fate worse than death"? It's not as bad as being subjected to such mental and verbal abuse on a daily basis that death seems preferable than enduring such a life one more day.

Tthis teacher has obviously had this opinion for quite some time, has she ever traumatized a kid to that point? Has she created an openly hostile atmosphere in her class going as far as to single out children? Or has she even given a bad grade to a homosexual child?

That would need to be investigated, wouldn't it? And given the vitriol demonstrated in her post it SHOULD be investigated.

Why would one reveal their sexuality to their teacher anyways?

I don't have to hide the fact I'm heterosexual, why should someone need to hide their homosexuality or transsexuality?

[Block]

You do realize that homosexual students kill themselves due to being bullied quite regularly, do you?
Also "X is worse than Y, so your analogy is not true" is simply false.

Turns out teenagers in general kill themselves quite regularly, being bullied for being homosexual is just the newest one

No, actually it's a really old reason for a kid offing him/herself.

If you say so. It's pretty new as far as being recognized as the reason why, as opposed to general bullying or depression.

Yeah? You do understand that, as horrible as rape is, it actually isn't a "fate worse than death"? It's not as bad as being subjected to such mental and verbal abuse on a daily basis that death seems preferable than enduring such a life one more day.

Really? Cause I was subjected to abuse like that for being weird and a nerd, pretty much every day from 6th grade on, and it got physical about once a year when they forgot that I could kick the shit out of them and pushed it too far. Never once did I consider suicide. Two of my exes were raped, one before I met her, one after we'd been broken up for a couple years, both tried to kill themselves afterwards. Do you understand that a single traumatic event is usually more damaging than being bullied? Note I am not claiming that bullying isn't damaging, but admitting online to a felony, raping small boys, isn't the same.

That would need to be investigated, wouldn't it? And given the vitriol demonstrated in her post it SHOULD be investigated.

and who said it shouldn't be? I just think that investigation should happen before she's instantly terminated.

I don't have to hide the fact I'm heterosexual, why should someone need to hide their homosexuality or transsexuality?

Ok so you'd openly talk about being heterosexual to your high school teacher if you're a high school student? That's a really weird relationship to have with a teacher, sorry. I'm not talking about hiding, I'm talking about simply not talking about it, just like I wouldn't talk about being straight, it's no one's business but mine, unless I'm asking them out on a date.