RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class

RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/26/2008 11:14:40 PM)
quote: Did you see my example in post #91 about the history teacher telling the class that the Holocaust was a hoax? That really happened in a school in the community I lived in about four years ago. You know what happened to him?-- absolutely nothing. Do I think that he had a right to continue teaching after saying what he said?-- absolutely not. Would I take him and the school to court and try to argue that the 1st Amendment does not apply to him just because he is a teacher?-- absolutely not. No one has said the first amendment doesn't 'apply' to him. quote: He didn't pull those factoids out of thin air. The South does have the highest per capita instances of violent crime, and it is a major stronghold of Christian fundamentalism. Does this mean that these two facts share a direct correlation? Of course not. As I said, he didn't cite any statistics. He simply made general correlations; and he used those correlations to demean a certain group. But the facts remain; the parents found no recourse in the school, and so redress in the courts is appropriate.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/27/2008 10:16:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud No one has said the first amendment doesn't 'apply' to him. Once again, you are wrong-- gengwall in post #96: "The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way." quote: As I said, he didn't cite any statistics. He didn't show data, but he did cite some general statistical facts. quote: He simply made general correlations; and he used those correlations to demean a certain group. And this is why he was wrong. quote: But the facts remain; the parents found no recourse in the school, and so redress in the courts is appropriate. No, because the charges are not appropriate. This is what I keep pointing out. The courts cannot settle this issue except to bolster the school's support of the teacher.

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/27/2008 3:18:58 PM)
quote: Once again, you are wrong-- gengwall in post #96: "The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way." Well, I think his argument (and I will let him speak for himself on this) is that the teacher is an agent of the state, and as such an agent, he is not free to say whatever he wishes; which incidentally, is correct. quote: He didn't show data, but he did cite some general statistical facts. Which is generally the way that people who wish to advocate for prejudice operate. quote: And this is why he was wrong. I am glad you agree with me. quote: No, because the charges are not appropriate. This is what I keep pointing out. The courts cannot settle this issue except to bolster the school's support of the teacher. If the 'charges' weren't appropriate the court wouldn't be hearing the case; whether the teacher is guilty of the charges is another matter, for the court to decide.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/27/2008 3:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, I think his argument (and I will let him speak for himself on this) is that the teacher is an agent of the state, and as such an agent, he is not free to say whatever he wishes; which incidentally, is correct. No one is 100% free to say whatever they wish whenever they wish; this is what I meant by "special circumstances." There are conditions under which anyone's freedom of speech may be truncated, like the old "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" adage, or not being free to allude to bombs and hijackings while at the airport. But to say what gangwell said-- that an agent of the state has no 1st Amendment freedom of speech whatsoever-- is incorrect. quote: Which is generally the way that people who wish to advocate for prejudice operate. Yes they do. In fact, it is their main tactic. quote: I am glad you agree with me. Sure I do. I haven't changed my mind about it, btw. This is what I was saying all along. quote: If the 'charges' weren't appropriate the court wouldn't be hearing the case; whether the teacher is guilty of the charges is another matter, for the court to decide. I think that they have simply opened the door to forcing the school to stand by the teacher, and to rigorously argue for the validity of his comments. The kind of justice that would be best served would be for the community to unite in an effort to pressure the school to stand accountable for the teacher's conduct, and to not take no for an answer. Letters of protest to the school board, picketing, guest editorials, local talk show appearances, etc. would probably go a whole lot farther to insure that the teacher would be dealt with properly. I sure wish the community had done this in response to the "Holocaust" history teacher. The fact that the community took no action whatsoever dismayed me even more than what the teacher said in the first place.

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/27/2008 10:01:04 PM)
quote: No one is 100% free to say whatever they wish whenever they wish; this is what I meant by "special circumstances." There are conditions under which anyone's freedom of speech may be truncated, like the old "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" adage, or not being free to allude to bombs and hijackings while at the airport. But to say what gangwell said-- that an agent of the state has no 1st Amendment freedom of speech whatsoever-- is incorrect. Well, protections don't apply to the state, they apply to citizens; which is why, when acting as an agent of the state, the teacher could not evangelize students as a matter of part of the cirriculum. Now 1st amendment certainly protect this free exercise of religion, but they aren't applied while acting as an agent of the state because such action is considered coercive. quote: Sure I do. I haven't changed my mind about it, btw. This is what I was saying all along. I didn't say you changed your mind; just glad you agree. I think that they have simply opened the door to forcing the school to stand by the teacher, and to rigorously argue for the validity of his comments. quote: The kind of justice that would be best served would be for the community to unite in an effort to pressure the school to stand accountable for the teacher's conduct, and to not take no for an answer. Letters of protest to the school board, picketing, guest editorials, local talk show appearances, etc. would probably go a whole lot farther to insure that the teacher would be dealt with properly. I sure wish the community had done this in response to the "Holocaust" history teacher. The fact that the community took no action whatsoever dismayed me even more than what the teacher said in the first place. Sadly, the community no longer exists in such a cohesive form, part of the reason the courts are so frequently appealed to. And I thought the presumed 'holocaust' teacher was a college professor?

benelchi -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/27/2008 10:02:52 PM)
quote: Now, this is a hypothetical: What if (and this has happened) a history teacher was lecturing the class on how the Holocaust was a hoax? This isn't illegal, it isn't against the Constitution, but it is contrary to truth and reason. It is also very, very offensive to the legacy of Holocaust survivors. So, what's the answer-- go to court? Even you, Jhud, probably see that true justice in this hypothetical would not be found in a court of law. If this "hypothetical" teacher had the support of the administration, and with repeated pressure from the parents and community, the school failed to remove this teacher from the classroom, then yes I believe that going to the courts to seek a remedy in this situation is warranted. Why would I want the children in this teacher's classroom to remain in subjection to this kind of false teaching. People on the school board in my district are elected to 4 year terms, and these terms are staggered; if I were to wait and only pursue issue an issue like this through the school board and/or elections, it could take 6 years to replace enough members on the board to force a change. Should students be subjected to this kind of teaching for 6 years when a school board fails to act?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 10:19:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Now 1st amendment certainly protect this free exercise of religion, but they aren't applied while acting as an agent of the state because such action is considered coercive. He wasn't using his position to evangelize nor coerce his students. quote: Sadly, the community no longer exists in such a cohesive form, part of the reason the courts are so frequently appealed to. Yes, this occured to me as well. It's sad. quote: And I thought the presumed 'holocaust' teacher was a college professor? Nope. Public high school teacher/coach. And no one did anything to him or the school. Pretty dismaying, isn't it.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 10:20:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: benelchi If this "hypothetical" teacher had the support of the administration, and with repeated pressure from the parents and community, the school failed to remove this teacher from the classroom, then yes I believe that going to the courts to seek a remedy in this situation is warranted. On what charge?

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 10:38:40 AM)
quote: He wasn't using his position to evangelize nor coerce his students. No, he was using it to disparage their religious beliefs. quote: Nope. Public high school teacher/coach. And no one did anything to him or the school. Pretty dismaying, isn't it. Do you have any documentation of this event?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 10:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud No, he was using it to disparage their religious beliefs. Or at the very least, to hold their beliefs to incorrect scrutiny. quote: Do you have any documentation of this event? No, unfortunately you will have to take my word for it. This is personal testimony.

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 11:17:39 AM)
quote: Or at the very least, to hold their beliefs to incorrect scrutiny. Why would we want a student to hold his/her belief to incorrect scrutiny? quote: No, unfortunately you will have to take my word for it. This is personal testimony. Ya know, as much as I would like to on a public forum, I don't know most posters here from Adam; if that is the basis for factual discussion, I reckon there really wouldn't be a standard at all. Especially since holocaust denial is among the most controversial issues out there; if enough people knew a teacher was saying this, there would certainly be an outcry (and for consistency sake, I would call for that teachers removal as well; via court order if neccesary).

gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 5:14:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Once again, you are wrong-- gengwall in post #96: "The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way." Well, I think his argument (and I will let him speak for himself on this) is that the teacher is an agent of the state, and as such an agent, he is not free to say whatever he wishes; which incidentally, is correct. That is what I am saying.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 9:47:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Why would we want a student to hold his/her belief to incorrect scrutiny? Of course we don't want a teacher to teach as truth that which is incorrect. But my point was that we don't really know if his intention was to "disparage their religious beliefs." quote: Ya know, as much as I would like to on a public forum, I don't know most posters here from Adam; if that is the basis for factual discussion, I reckon there really wouldn't be a standard at all. And, unfortunately, there is no article to link to, or documentation to back me up because there was no news story or court case. I found it shocking when several students revealed this and some other shameful facts about this teacher to me. My thought was, "How is this guy getting away with it?" quote: Especially since holocaust denial is among the most controversial issues out there; if enough people knew a teacher was saying this, there would certainly be an outcry (and for consistency sake, I would call for that teachers removal as well; via court order if neccesary). I guess some parents did complain to the school about this guy, and not just about the Holocaust speech, but also because he clearly targeted nonwhite students for discipline far more than the white students who would do the same things. However, the concerned parents were nonwhite, whereas the teacher and the entire schoolboard was white. Also, you would have to be familiar with this town: it is racially diverse, and interracial tensions run high. There is a tangible, very nearly white supremacist sentiment in the town's white population (about 50% white). It's bizarre.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 9:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gengwall That is what I am saying. That may be what you meant, but that is not what you said.

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 10:45:01 PM)
quote: Of course we don't want a teacher to teach as truth that which is incorrect. But my point was that we don't really know if his intention was to "disparage their religious beliefs." So now, if a teacher regularly makes comments like, 'It's a well known fact Jews run all the banks and generally control the world' we couldn't actually know whether or not such a teacher was making disparaging remarks? Aren't disparaging remarks fairly self-evident, especially when a teacher goes on and on as this one did? quote: And, unfortunately, there is no article to link to, or documentation to back me up because there was no news story or court case. I found it shocking when several students revealed this and some other shameful facts about this teacher to me. My thought was, "How is this guy getting away with it?" Why didn't you do something? quote: I guess some parents did complain to the school about this guy, and not just about the Holocaust speech, but also because he clearly targeted nonwhite students for discipline far more than the white students who would do the same things. However, the concerned parents were nonwhite, whereas the teacher and the entire schoolboard was white. Also, you would have to be familiar with this town: it is racially diverse, and interracial tensions run high. There is a tangible, very nearly white supremacist sentiment in the town's white population (about 50% white). It's bizarre. Do you think th parents of the students should have sought legal recourse?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 10:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So now, if a teacher regularly makes comments like, 'It's a well known fact Jews run all the banks and generally control the world' we couldn't actually know whether or not such a teacher was making disparaging remarks? This is not congruent with the kind of comments in question, not as far as I'm concerned, anyway. quote: Aren't disparaging remarks fairly self-evident, especially when a teacher goes on and on as this one did? Perhaps. I am only juding on the basis of what was in the article. quote: Why didn't you do something? I was a coward. quote: Do you think th parents of the students should have sought legal recourse? No, I can't think of an appropriate charge that would have applied.

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/28/2008 11:03:54 PM)
quote: No, I can't think of an appropriate charge that would have applied. Sounds at least like a charge of racial discrimination could have been mounted.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 10:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Sounds at least like a charge of racial discrimination could have been mounted. I'm not sure that anti-Semitism is considered racism. But in any event, he could counter that what he taught about the Holocaust is just a matter of fact and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, that he is a good guy with many friends in the community (which is apparently true), and that many students would testify that they were enlightened by his lesson. It would be an uphill battle.

mapachito13 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 10:34:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 I'm not sure that anti-Semitism is considered racism. It could be considered "hate speech" if he phrased it a certain way. Just turn him over to the JDL and they have a battery of lawyers that exist just to take these holocaust naysayers on in court.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 10:43:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 I'm not sure that anti-Semitism is considered racism. It could be considered "hate speech" if he phrased it a certain way. Just turn him over to the JDL and they have a battery of lawyers that exist just to take these holocaust naysayers on in court. From the folks who cried "We have no king but Ceaser..., "Crucify him, crucify him..." Talk about irony�[8D] John

benelchi -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 11:14:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 I'm not sure that anti-Semitism is considered racism. It could be considered "hate speech" if he phrased it a certain way. Just turn him over to the JDL and they have a battery of lawyers that exist just to take these holocaust naysayers on in court. From the folks who cried "We have no king but Ceaser..., "Crucify him, crucify him..." Talk about irony�[8D] John Statements like this are one of the reasons that they need "a battery of lawyers"; that this would come up in a Christian forum really saddens me because it is statements like this that continue to perpetuate racism generation after generation. As Christians we should be the light that God uses to illuminate this kind of error, not the people who propagate it.

Jhud -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 11:17:19 AM)
quote: I'm not sure that anti-Semitism is considered racism. But in any event, he could counter that what he taught about the Holocaust is just a matter of fact and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, that he is a good guy with many friends in the community (which is apparently true), and that many students would testify that they were enlightened by his lesson. It would be an uphill battle. It always is.

gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 11:54:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: gengwall That is what I am saying. That may be what you meant, but that is not what you said. It is exactly what I said, but apparently you only read what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said. Here is my quote AS YOU QUOTED IT "The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way." Your misunderstanding probably stems from your emphasis, via underlining, on the wrong clause. The correct emphasis should be on the clause "as representative of the state". It is in that context the remainder of my comment applies. Here is Jhud's explanation of what I meant "Well, I think his argument (and I will let him speak for himself on this) is that the teacher is an agent of the state, and as such an agent, he is not free to say whatever he wishes; which incidentally, is correct." Now, unless you can demonstrate how the bill of rights applies protection to the state (and its agents), there is nothing incorrect about my statement regarding the teachers lack of constitutional "rights" as an agent of the state. For context, here is my full statement in post 96 quote: You folks (except Jhud) really need to brush up on your constitution. The teacher is THE STATE, and therefore is the very entity that the 1st amendment protects the people (i.e. the student) against. The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way. The amendment only protects the student's rights against any violation FROM the teacher's actions. Your continued objection to my correct statement just proves my point that gross misunderstanding abounds in this thread about who the constitution (specifically, the bill of rights) protects and who it protects from.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 3:24:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gengwall It is exactly what I said, but apparently you only read what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said. Here is my quote AS YOU QUOTED IT Take a deep breath . . . Now, there is a world of difference between saying that a teacher cannot say whatever they want when they teach, and saying that they have no 1st Amendment right to free speech whatsoever. quote: Your misunderstanding probably stems from your emphasis, via underlining, on the wrong clause. No, the emphasis was on your mistaken notion that teachers have no 1st Amendment rights whether "agents of the state" or not. quote: Now, unless you can demonstrate how the bill of rights applies protection to the state (and its agents), there is nothing incorrect about my statement regarding the teachers lack of constitutional "rights" as an agent of the state. No, the burden is on you to prove that the 1st Amendment does not apply to teachers, especially since this is not what it says.

gengwall -> RE: Student Sues 'Anti-Christian' Teacher Over Remarks in Class (4/29/2008 3:31:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 No, the burden is on you to prove that the 1st Amendment does not apply to teachers, especially since this is not what it says. The first amendment applies to citizens and protects them from the state. A teacher is an agent of the state. He is who the first amendment protects the citizens from, not who the first amendment protects. Since a teacher, in his capacity of agent for the state, is not acting as a citizen but as the state, the first amendment does not apply to him. The first amendment addresses only two actors - citizens and the state. The teacher/student relationship is one of citizens (the students) to the state (the teacher). Therefore the first amendment applies protection to the citizens (the students) from the state (the teachers). If you like, I can rephrase it a half-dozen other ways but it still doesn't change. My statement - that "The teacher, as representative of the state, has no free speech rights - the amendment does not apply protection to him in any way" - is still correct.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI