Susan's Place Transgender Resources

There's a story on the internet involving a teacher who was suspended for posting anti-gay opinions on her facebook page (that wasn't associated with her job).

I'm torn about this.

As a LGBT activist, I don't like seeing anti-gay opinions.

But as a free-speech advocate, I believe that the right to express unpopular opinions must be protected (providing it's not hate speech) or democracy is threatened.

And as a teacher, I don't like the idea that our jobs should be in jeopardy based on exercising our free-speech rights outside of the workplace. If someone should stumble across some of the sexuality advice (for example) I've given on these forums to distressed members, could they claim that posting details of my sex life where my students can see them violates they trust they put on me as a teacher.

What do people think? Is it OK for a school (or other employer) to take action against an employee who posts something that the employer disapproves of, even if it's in a non-work account and not during work hours?

For reference, here are the comments in question, as posted by CentralJersey.com:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_oN5TNUIAE2_hG.jpg:large)

First, that post looks like it was written by a barely literate person that shouldn't be in charge of educating anybody. And while discriminatory remarks and (healthy?) sexual advice both are a person's right to express, I wouldn't want a known biggot as a teacher. Period. I hope they fire her. Twice. ...use some more...ellipses...idiot...

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 19, 2015, 12:51:55 PM
There's a story on the internet involving a teacher who was suspended for posting anti-gay opinions on her facebook page (that wasn't associated with her job).

Nobody stopped her expressing her opinions - that is free speech.

The consequences that followed are because her free speech exposed other things which concern people. She can repeat what she said as often as she likes, that is her choice. No one will stop her.

It is a really difficult issue. It reminds me of the debate about boycotting businesses due to the political / social opinions and activities of their owners.

It is really tempting to say "Good" and be done with it. I wouldn't be very keen that person teaching my kids. But then I remember the rules for school teachers a century or so ago. Better be single, celibate, and of good moral character or get lost... These days, most of us would probably say firing a school teacher for being seen alone with a man after dark is an unreasonable thing to do. But the prevailing mores were rather different.

The hard thing about freedom is that it's for everyone, and a lot of people hold distasteful opinions.

So ultimately, I think that as long as the activities are done on her own time, using her own resources, and not presented to imply that they are the opinions of the school, I think it's wrong for the school to take action based on them. It's reasonable to expect employees to abide by the law, so had she done something illegal, fire away... but it's not ok to demand that a teacher live his or her life by any particular code of ethics that might apply at school except when at school.

There are limitations to free speech. In the teachers case, I think since it was on her facebook where she likely has students, coworkers and such, that voicing an opinion like that could be seen as potential bullying or that she is too biased to protect any children from bullying. Voicing an opinion while just talking to someone doesn't have the permanency that putting it as your status on a social media website does either. 

For me it is very simple, all rights have limits. I think lots of speech ought to be criminalized rather than just yelling fire in a theatre or telling someone you are a police officer when you aren't. If people are being harmed in a meaningful fashion such as incitement to violence or break the law in some other method, then that ought to be criminal.

As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to expose yourself as an ignorant bigot as publically as you wish.  In fact, I'd wish they'd all come out like that so that we know damned well who they all are, where they live and where they work (for now  >:-) ). 

I would like to thank Patricia for coming out publically as a bigot so that she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to an out-and-proud LGBT person and that one day she can see what a horse's ass she really is.

She has the rights to her opinions of course, but what if her expressed hatred was for any other minority group?  If she said, "I am a proud member of the KKK." would you really want her to keep her job?

According to this news report (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/03/18/immaculata-high-school-patricia-jannuzzi-raises-money/24963905/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=), the school in question is a private, Catholic high school. As a private institution, the school can set any speech policy it wants; the first amendment applies only to the government, not to private entities.

It's not unusual for private entities of any kind to set standards for employee conduct which apply even they're on their own time. NFL teams, for example, regularly fine and/or suspend players for "conduct detrimental to the team," even when the conduct is legal. (The Riley Cooper incident (http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/story/_/id/9528117/roger-goodell-nfl-punish-riley-cooper-philadelphia-eagles-further), which also involved speech, is just one example.)

I find it refreshing and encouraging that a Catholic school would have a policy prohibiting the expression of anti-gay bigotry.

My feeling isn't too far off from anyone else's here. You have the right to air your views, but your employer has the responsibility to guarantee that your views don't negatively impact your job. For a teacher, being a known bigot in any area endangers students of that minority if it affects your actions towards them or knowledge of it makes it hard for students to approach you.

Quote from: Jill F on March 19, 2015, 03:12:34 PM
I would like to thank Patricia for coming out publically as a bigot so that she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to an out-and-proud LGBT person and that one day she can see what a horse's ass she really is.

She has the rights to her opinions of course, but what if her expressed hatred was for any other minority group?  If she said, "I am a proud member of the KKK." would you really want her to keep her job?

Very well-thought-out and sensible, but still gives me a queasy feeling. Would you feel just as comfortable with the following statement made by a hypothetical person who came across one of my posts helping MtFs on HRT enjoy their body sexually?

QuoteI would like to thank Suzi for coming out publicly as a <insert your favorite term for a woman without sexual boundaries> so she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to a person with morals and that one day she can see what a <insert another term for loose woman> she really is.

She has the rights to her opinions of course, but what if her expressed sexual interest went in another direction?  If she said, "I am a proud pedophile." would you really want her to keep her job?

My point is that punishing speech that someone finds objectionable is a dangerous precedent because different people differ on what makes speech objectionable. Whose definition of objectionable matters? She gave her opinion on what's wrong the the country. I happen to think it's wrongheaded and uninformed, but if we begin deciding what prescriptions for improvement are OK to talk about and which merit termination, are we really any better than those who tried to silence early civil rights activists by threatening their livelihood?

Quote from: femmebutt on March 19, 2015, 01:16:28 PM
First, that post looks like it was written by a barely literate person that shouldn't be in charge of educating anybody.

Are teachers required to make all their utterances error-free?

Well, I'm sure typos have crept into some of the 6000-odd posts I've made. If one of those comes to light, should my ability as a teacher be questioned?

Quote from: Tysilio on March 19, 2015, 03:24:27 PM
According to this news report (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/03/18/immaculata-high-school-patricia-jannuzzi-raises-money/24963905/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=), the school in question is a private, Catholic high school. As a private institution, the school can set any speech policy it wants; the first amendment applies only to the government, not to private entities.

It's not unusual for private entities of any kind to set standards for employee conduct which apply even they're on their own time. NFL teams, for example, regularly fine and/or suspend players for "conduct detrimental to the team," even when the conduct is legal. (The Riley Cooper incident (http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/story/_/id/9528117/roger-goodell-nfl-punish-riley-cooper-philadelphia-eagles-further), which also involved speech, is just one example.)

I find it refreshing and encouraging that a Catholic school would have a policy prohibiting the expression of anti-gay bigotry.

Yes, Tysilio, I agree it's refreshing. As far as private institutions setting a standard for speech, would you be comfortable with a policy among large industrial corporations that employees are not permitted to speak about unions (for example) in a positive light? If you're caught posting a pro-union message (or pro-regulation, or pro-environment) on social media, your employer would take action against you.

Can you see how that might be a blow to democracy?

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 19, 2015, 03:32:46 PM
I would like to thank Suzi for coming out publicly as a <insert your favorite term for a woman without sexual boundaries> so she can be properly scrutinized by the public that employs her.  I hope her job goes to a person with morals and that one day she can see what a <insert another term for loose woman> she really is.

This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind re: old schoolteacher rules. It's frustrating, but unless speech crosses into illegal territory, even despicable viewpoints can be aired. It's easy to defend freedom when you agree with the repressed speech, but that's not the test of your commitment to freedom.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 19, 2015, 03:32:46 PM

Are teachers required to make all their utterances error-free?

Ur beeng uh devyls advukit. Stop.

Or, I guess it's your free speech right! ;)

But it's not just the pitiful grammar, it's the sheer lunacy of: gay rights = death of western civilization

C'mon, that's wacko talk. People with deep biases should not be in positions of influence.

Quote from: femmebutt on March 19, 2015, 04:23:44 PM
But it's not just the pitiful grammar, it's the sheer lunacy of: gay rights = death of western civilization

C'mon, that's wacko talk. People with deep biases should not be in positions of influence.

Yes, FB. Wacko talk. I thoroughly agree.

But allowing women to vote, desegregating schools, and gay marriage, were all once considered wacko talk by the standards of the day.

My point is that punishing speech that sounds wacko to us by firing the person who speaks it is a dangerous precedent.

I've expressed an opinion, both online and IRL that preventing an LGBT child from expressing his/her sexual orientation or gender identity should be prosecuted as child abuse. It's an extreme viewpoint and the vast majority of the people who hear me say this make it clear they think it deserves some variation on the "wacko talk" label. Maybe I'm wacko. Or maybe I'm articulating a standard of conduct that will become second nature in 50 years.

Who decides?

Quote from: femmebutt on March 19, 2015, 04:23:44 PM
Ur beeng uh devyls advukit. Stop.

Or, I guess it's your free speech right! ;)

But it's not just the pitiful grammar, it's the sheer lunacy of: gay rights = death of western civilization

C'mon, that's wacko talk. People with deep biases should not be in positions of influence.

>:-) -yn approves of your spelling!

Quote from: suzifrommdYes, Tysilio, I agree it's refreshing. As far as private institutions setting a standard for speech, would you be comfortable with a policy among large industrial corporations that employees are not permitted to speak about unions (for example) in a positive light? If you're caught posting a pro-union message (or pro-regulation, or pro-environment) on social media, your employer would take action against you.

Can you see how that might be a blow to democracy?

There are very specific laws regarding speech about labor relations, so that's not a relevant counterexample; in general, employees' right to speak about organizing unions, wages, working conditions, etc. are explicitly protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Recently, a growing body of regulations by the N.L.R.B., as well as case law, has extended these rights to social media, and rightly so. However, employers in the private sector can and do regulate other forms of speech by employees. This article in the New York Times has a good review of what is and isn't permissible.

"...[T]he agency... has found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet. <snip> [They]... affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois... [who] posted on Facebook, calling his customers "rednecks" and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.

Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the "concerted activity" aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law."

Organizations may also, of course, punish employees for speech which may violate laws against discrimination, harassment, or bullying. Given that New Jersey has rather good anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws, it's not too hard to make the case that the school's action was amply justified on those grounds.

It seems to me that it's reasonable for employers to hold teachers to a higher standard than, say, employees of a software company. Teachers have a lot of power over their students, and any teacher with a Facebook page which is accessible to them isn't posting strictly as a private person, and needs to take into account the possible effects of her posts on her students.

Quote from: Tysilio on March 19, 2015, 05:20:54 PM
There are very specific laws regarding speech about labor relations, so that's not a relevant counterexample; in general, employees' right to speak about organizing unions, wages, working conditions, etc. are explicitly protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Recently, a growing body of regulations by the N.L.R.B., as well as case law, has extended these rights to social media, and rightly so. However, employers in the private sector can and do regulate other forms of speech by employees. This article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html) has a good review of what is and isn't permissible.

"...[T]he agency... has found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet. <snip> [They]... affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois... [who] posted on Facebook, calling his customers "rednecks" and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.

Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the "concerted activity" aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law."

Organizations may also, of course, punish employees for speech which may violate laws against discrimination, harassment, or bullying. Given that New Jersey has rather good anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws, it's not too hard to make the case that the school's action was amply justified on those grounds.

It seems to me that it's reasonable for employers to hold teachers to a higher standard than, say, employees of a software company. Teachers have a lot of power over their students, and any teacher with a Facebook page which is accessible to them isn't posting strictly as a private person, and needs to take into account the possible effects of her posts on her students.

You're 100% right that there's nothing illegal about what the school is doing.

I'm not disputing the legality of what has been done to the teacher. I'm asking whether it's good for society to have employers silence opinions, especially about how the country could be improved. I'm also concerned that if teachers are singled out for that sort of scrutiny, a chill may descend on other aspects of their speech, and we may be losing a valuable viewpoint on a number of topics.

I'm also nagged by a concern that our society is slowly inching toward a new sort of repression, where all our words are put under a  microscope because they achieve permanence in ways that words casually spoken never have in the past.

Quote from: suzifrommdI'm also nagged by a concern that our society is slowly inching toward a new sort of repression, where all our words are put under a  microscope because they achieve permanence in ways that words casually spoken never have in the past.

I'm with you on that one. But when it comes to Facebook, and the internet generally, I think we're already there, given the level of government surveillance and corporate data-mining that's taking place now. I'm, for example, careful with what I joke about in emails, in the same way that I'd never make a hijacking joke in an airport.

I absolutely agree that people are entitled to their opinions. However, they also have a responsibility to support them with facts and logical reasoning -- otherwise discourse degenerates to ranting. And I don't find it difficult to distinguish between an opinion, honestly held and fact-based, and hate speech; the latter has no place in a teacher's repertoire, and to say that any group is "out to destroy civilization" is surely hateful.

I think she has every right to express whatever opinion she wants to. Wanna be a bigot and put it out there for the world to see? Have at it.

But decisions have consequences. I have no doubt that if I was posting hateful comments publicly on the internet and my employer found out about it I might be looking for another job. It has do with violating a trust with my employer that I am an upstanding person and i'm not going to do something publicly that might reflect badly on my employer. Me expressing my bigotry might go against the policies of the employer; having me, a bigot, working for a company that has a non-discrimination policy looks bad for the company and I can easily see how doing that can lead me PDQ to the unemployment line.

So, even though you are off the clock you still need to monitor what you do.

Quote from: Eva Marie on March 20, 2015, 01:40:09 AM
So, even though you are off the clock you still need to monitor what you do.

See, that's the part I'm not comfortable with. My employer is buying my time while I'm on the clock, not my whole life. I can understand someone who has a PR-heavy role, meaning they have in part been hired due to their ability to present a positive image for the company, being subject to scrutiny like this. But for most employees, as long as they are following the rules when working, that should be the end of their employer's reasonable concern.

Teachers are sort of in a weird edge case, since they do have a role as a mouthpiece for the school. But still, if they're capable of keeping their personal beliefs contained while at school, I don't really see the problem.

Quote from: jeniTeachers are sort of in a weird edge case, since they do have a role as a mouthpiece for the school. But still, if they're capable of keeping their personal beliefs contained while at school, I don't really see the problem.

And when this woman's GLBT students see her comments on Facebook? What then? How do they feel, knowing that their teacher despises them?  It's not realistic to think that they'll be just fine with it because Ms. Jannuzzi doesn't actually spout this garbage in the classroom.

I agree with Eva Marie: Ms. Jannuzzi has every right to express her opinions -- and accept the consequences.

There's a somewhat parallel case in San Francisco right now, in which police officers were found to be sending each other racist and homophobic text messages. The chief of police has made it clear that he intends to fire them; and in this case, the texts came to light only because they were evidence in a court case. I'm sure there are other officers in that department with the same attitudes, but firing these individuals will send a clear message that people who hold these opinions need to change their ways.

Quote from: Tysilio on March 20, 2015, 10:23:40 AM
And when this woman's GLBT students see her comments on Facebook? What then? How do they feel, knowing that their teacher despises them?  It's not realistic to think that they'll be just fine with it because Ms. Jannuzzi doesn't actually spout this garbage in the classroom.

No, they won't be fine with it.

But do students have a right to a teacher who never expresses an opinion they disagree with?

To be fair, the teacher never says she despises any individual gay people, just the policies that apply to gay people raising kids. The opinion that families are healthier when there is a mother and father is not one I agree with, but is it hateful?

Quote from: Tysilio on March 20, 2015, 10:23:40 AM
And when this woman's GLBT students see her comments on Facebook? What then? How do they feel, knowing that their teacher despises them?  It's not realistic to think that they'll be just fine with it because Ms. Jannuzzi doesn't actually spout this garbage in the classroom.

It is a bad situation for sure. But blacklisting those who express unpopular opinions has been done a lot throughout history, with some pretty awful consequences along the way. In this particular case, to me (and many of us here), that sure seems like a reasonable thing to do in this case. That makes it hard to think about the abstract question, but IMO you have to do that.

So, e.g., should an outspoken (on personal time) atheist who lives in a heavily religous area be fired from teaching because her students are uncomfortable?

  Campuses can allow their speech codes on their students, faculty and employees. Some of these speech codes are there as not to offend anyone. That is one of the problems with such censorship. A effect of the free speech is that the communication is better, even though the speaker is a bigot. The tight speech codes on some campuses can lead to more personal bias on each of the students and faculty because of the censorship. Case in point: A student worker at Purdue was reading a book outside on a bench on campus. The title of the book was "Notre Dame vs. the Ku Klux Klan". This book was about that university's lawsuit against the Klan that they eventually won. Another student walked by and saw the cover on the book and reported it to campus security. The reader of that book was suspended not for the content of that book, but for what was on the cover. The cover had an illustration of a Klan rally. The student that reported the incident was offended by the image and the student who was reading the book was suspended.
  Judging a book by its cover.

Joelene

Quote from: JeniSo, e.g., should an outspoken (on personal time) atheist who lives in a heavily religous area be fired from teaching because her students are uncomfortable?

Only if she goes around saying that the goal of religious people is to destroy civilization, or something equally extreme.   I'm being a bit facetious, but I think there's an important distinction to be made here. I'm all for the expression of opinions that make people uncomfortable (challenging their beliefs is in this category, if it takes the form of rational argument), because discomfort can sometimes be the precursor to actual thought; but I'm opposed to expressions of bigotry which strike at people's identities when the speaker has genuine power over some of those people, and they are also vulnerable because they're young. Doing this is unprofessional, and unprofessional conduct should have consequences.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 20, 2015, 10:31:49 AM
No, they won't be fine with it.

But do students have a right to a teacher who never expresses an opinion they disagree with?

To be fair, the teacher never says she despises any individual gay people, just the policies that apply to gay people raising kids. The opinion that families are healthier when there is a mother and father is not one I agree with, but is it hateful?

No, they don't have that right. They do have a right to a teacher who doesn't wish they didn't exist or that their parents weren't together.

Thanks for the lively discussion.

Despite what it sounds like, I am not play devils advocate. I'm really trying to get a handle on where I stand on this, since I'm pulled in several directions. It helps me sometimes to reframe the problem and look at it from the other side.

There seems to be a consensus forming that it matters exactly what is in the post in question. Tysilio, you identify "expressions of bigotry which strike at people's identities" as the speech he sees as problematic and speak of "a responsibility to support them with facts and logical reasoning".

I agree with the first (more about that later), but I'm not sure about the second. I should be fired or suspended from my job if I state something that isn't supported with facts and logical reasoning? How do I know whether my post or speech has enough facts or reasoning to satisfy my management.

The post in question *is* seen as logical reasoning by millions of people. It's something you can hear in many churches and on mainstream news outlets, and is taken as truth by a large segment of our population. Yes, I think it's ignorant and misleading, but that's just my opinion.

And does the post strike at gay identity? A case could be made to the contrary. One could argue that the post doesn't denigrate gay people per se, just the way they want to reengineer civilization. If the poster legitimately believes that the direction of western civilization is wrongheaded and dangerous, doesn't she have a right to express those views?

In fact, we DO want to reengineer civilization. We'd like like to see a world where everyone is accepted for who they are. I think that makes a better world, but not everyone agrees with me. Do we fire or suspend everyone who disagrees from their jobs?

All that is almost beside the point. If we say it's OK to suspend or fire someone for an opinion expressed on an internet post, and then provide fuzzy enough criteria of what does or doesn't merit dismissal, doesn't that have the effect of chill ALL speech, because of the difficulty of determining whether any particular post violates the boundaries of the person making the decision?

Very good points, Suzi. I think the power dynamic between children and teachers is a big part of why I find the teacher's actions so heinous. I find the rallying cry of "it's for the children" to be overused but they really do need protection sometimes. A teacher's job is to mold their minds and the direction they're molded has to be carefully monitored by society at large and by their parents. The proper direction is a difficult question, but self hate, if not bigotry, is a pretty easy "no".

Sorry for the long post to follow, but actual reasoning sometimes takes a bit of patience. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fredface.gif&hash=9d047737b5f4a6e3b63a2e608fdc5db36eb1b793)

Quote from: suzifrommdTysilio, you identify "expressions of bigotry which strike at people's identities" as the speech he sees as problematic and speak of "a responsibility to support them with facts and logical reasoning".

I agree with the first (more about that later), but I'm not sure about the second. I should be fired or suspended from my job if I state something that isn't supported with facts and logical reasoning? How do I know whether my post or speech has enough facts or reasoning to satisfy my management.

The post in question *is* seen as logical reasoning by millions of people. It's something you can hear in many churches and on mainstream news outlets, and is taken as truth by a large segment of our population. Yes, I think it's ignorant and misleading, but that's just my opinion.

The reason people see such things as logical reasoning is that they don't understand elementary logic. Here's what she wrote (brackets mine):

QuoteSee this is the agenda...[1]one minute they argue that hey [sic] are born this way and it is not a choice to get 14th amendment rights equal protection....bologna......[2]which was carved for permanent characteristics..unchangeable characteristics such as race and disability... [3]but once they in the 14th amendment they will argue everyone should be able to choose being gay or lesbian lifestyle.....[4] in other words they want to reengineer western civ into a slow extinction  [5] We need healthy families with a mother and father for the sake of the children and humanity!!!!

Let's break down her argument:
[1] is demonstrably true. There's loads of evidence that GLBT people believe that we're born this way and that it's not a choice. However, it's completely irrelevant, because:

[2] is false. This is shown by the way the 14th amendment is actually applied to people with disabilities: a disability doesn't have to be permanent for someone to be protected by the 14th amendment. The ADA, which is basically the implementation of the 14th amendment with regard to disabled people, effectively defines disability as an impairment which lasts more that 6 months. It doesn't have to be permanent. (Sec. 12102, Paragraph 4(D))

[3] is her unsubstantiated opinion about something which might happen, contingent on lesbian and gay people being covered by the 14th amendment (which will be the case if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in the marriage cases it will be hearing next month). She can't have evidence for something which hasn't happened, nor does it follow logically from her previous premises. (As a matter of fact, [3] is irrelevant to her argument, given that she's wrong about "permanent characteristics" being a prerequisite for protected status under the 14th amendment.)

[4] She concludes, based on the above "premises", that JUST ANYBODY will be able to say they're gay/lesbian and marry someone of the same sex. This is trivially true: the issue before the court is whether people of the same sex can marry; there's no test for anyone to pass to prove their sexual orientation is "real."

[5] She says the only "healthy families" are those in which a mother and a father are present. There's plenty of evidence to refute this claim. The presence of a mother and a father is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee a healthy family: many single parents raise their kids just fine, and there are plenty of two-heterosexual-parent families which are hideously abusive and dysfunctional.

So, from all these invalid premises, she "concludes" that western civilization will fall and humanity itself will be imperiled if same-sex marriage is legal.

This is nothing but an emotional rant; it's not even close to a logical argument. Her statement about what we say now vs. what we'll say later is there to show that we're untrustworthy, evil people who are hiding our real agenda; it's not actually relevant to to her argument. She's flat-out wrong about the 14th amendment. There's no reason to think that legalizing same sex marriage will mean that everybody wants one. And there's nothing automatically wonderful about "mum & dad" families.

Conclusion: Western civilization won't fall. If one needs more evidence for this conclusion, consider what a large part gay people have played in forming it, and how central they are to the continued development of Western culture, in the arts, in music, in fashion... LGBT people are actually one of the main pillars of Western civ. (Oh, and... computing, because Alan Turing.)

One might even suggest that a teacher who can't reason any better than this should be fired for utter intellectual incompetence, but unfortunately, we don't live in that universe.

Here endeth the lesson.
----------------

QuoteIf we say it's OK to suspend or fire someone for an opinion expressed on an internet post, and then provide fuzzy enough criteria of what does or doesn't merit dismissal, doesn't that have the effect of chill ALL speech, because of the difficulty of determining whether any particular post violates the boundaries of the person making the decision?

It shouldn't, for at least a couple of reasons. First, many opinions are harmless: I happen to think J.S. Bach was the greatest composer who ever lived, but that's mostly a matter of taste. Even if I were a music teacher, there would be no reason to fire me if I said so: when it comes to taste, people can and do differ, thank goodness.

Second, if I express a controversial opinion but can support it in a logical fashion, then it's a fit subject for discussion, with the proviso that it might not be suitable for all audiences. I have opinions about the treatment of sex offenders,  but I don't discuss them in the presence of five-year-olds; if I were a teacher and did so, I would certainly be sanctioned.  Under some circumstances, hate speech falls into this category; this is why the ACLU has historically defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois.

What Dee wrote above is a vital condition for me: "...the power dynamic between children and teachers."  Hate speech is wrong when the speaker has as much influence as a teacher has over the minds of her students. I hope I've convinced folks that Ms. Jannuzzi's statement comes down to an unsupported statement that LGBT people want to destroy civilization, and if that's not hate speech I don't know what is.

One more thing (I hear people sighing... ) -- we've framed this debate as a question of whether Ms. Jannuzzi should be fired, which she hasn't been, as far as I know, and I don't necessarily think she should be. Punished by an unpaid suspension... for sure.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 19, 2015, 12:51:55 PM
There's a story on the internet involving a teacher who was suspended for posting anti-gay opinions on her facebook page (that wasn't associated with her job).

I'm torn about this.

As a LGBT activist, I don't like seeing anti-gay opinions.

But as a free-speech advocate, I believe that the right to express unpopular opinions must be protected (providing it's not hate speech) or democracy is threatened.

And as a teacher, I don't like the idea that our jobs should be in jeopardy based on exercising our free-speech rights outside of the workplace. If someone should stumble across some of the sexuality advice (for example) I've given on these forums to distressed members, could they claim that posting details of my sex life where my students can see them violates they trust they put on me as a teacher.

What do people think? Is it OK for a school (or other employer) to take action against an employee who posts something that the employer disapproves of, even if it's in a non-work account and not during work hours?

For reference, here are the comments in question, as posted by CentralJersey.com:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_oN5TNUIAE2_hG.jpg:large)

The right to free speech only protects the right to speech but not from the consequences of speech.  An employer can't stop you from speeking but it can fire you for it.

Free speech ends at actionable threats of violence and "yelling fire in a crowded theater, false advertising/fraud, slander and libel (only civil law applies to the last two).  The only way to deal with people like this in a truly free society is more speech, and lots of it, and it should be very loud and very rude. If she acts on her vile opinions about LGBT persons in the classroom she should be fired on the spot. I really hope she doesn't teach English though, or problems like a "hostile learning environment" might not apply because the "learning environment" piece would be missing in her classroom.

Stan Lee sums my view up well with the famous phrase "with great power comes great responsibility"

Words contain great power, the power to heal and the power to hurt so when putting your words out there for the world to view we each need to consider who our words will help and who our words will hurt.
If you have a position of responsibility, especially over minors or those who are vulnerable then you need to consider the implications your words will have to those under your care, what I type next may seem like a double standard to some but certain people have to be held to a higher standard.

Yeah.  I really don't care what I say on the internet, or who knows.  If someone is going to fire me for something that I said in all honesty, then I wouldn't want to contribute to their company in the first place.  Principles cannot be sacrificed, even for money.

When people start saying we should base our behavior on "principles", I get nervous.  I've seen too many atrocities committed or excused in the name of "principles."

My concern here is: how is a gay or lesbian kid in this teacher's class going to feel, knowing what this teacher thinks of people like him/her?  (Just based on percentages, it's almost certain she has at least one.)  As anyone who remembers their school years knows, teachers have a lot of power and have all kinds of ways of bullying children and getting away with it, and that's true even if the school actually wants to prevent bullying (as opposed to saying the do), which most don't.  It doesn't matter that the teacher hasn't actually publically said that she doesn't respect LGBT people as people, it's reasonable to infer that she does, and if you're a student, do you really want to risk finding out for sure?

The problem with saying "it's just free speech" is that her speech reveals something about her attitudes, and specifically things that one could reasonably assume would affect how she would treat the children who are in her power.

In my part of the world (Northern suburbs of NYC), we've had a couple of cases of local police officers posting racist stuff in social media or sending racist E-mails.  Given the recent incidents of blatantly racist police behavior in our part of the world, I think people are justified in fearing that the attitudes revealed by their "free speech" would be reflected in their on-the-job behavior.

Quote from: Asche on May 09, 2015, 01:19:42 PM
When people start saying we should base our behavior on "principles", I get nervous.  I've seen too many atrocities committed or excused in the name of "principles."

Everyone has principles, even you.  To have no principles is to have no standards.