Teacher tweets against gays, is her job safe via First Amendment?

[Shrinn]

Here is a link to the story

So, this case has been poking it's head around NJ.com (the only website I can read at work) for some time now. The long and short of it is, a teacher posted anti-gay comments on her facebook where she was friends with students. She also had a tweet where she basically said that the repeal of don't ask don't tell is causing the world to end. So an investigation is taking place and obviously gay rights activists are calling for her immediate dismissal for such hateful speech, and plenty of people are upset about her first amendment rights being taken away.

Now, to me, it's not a question of whether she's allowed to say it, but how capable of a teacher can she be to these gay students who now know that she hates their soul? It sort of puts a damper on that teacher student relationship. I get that she's not supposed to receive restrictions on her speech in any way, but don't certain opinions, when voiced, make her unsuitable for that job?

[Hawkzombie]

No.

Too Short.

There really isn't more to say about it. "I don't like gay people" isn't hate speech. It's ignorant, sure, but it's not hateful, nor is it inciting any activities against gay people. If she said something like 'Breeders are making the world end' then no one would bat an eye (I had a gay 'friend' call me that several times, and not in a joking fashion. He was using it like a slur). So while I may not agree with it, she has every right to say it and NOT have her job at risk.

It's like working for a retailer. Whenever I'm at the job, or wearing the uniform, I act on my best behavior. But at home, and where I'm friends on FB with co-workers, I tend to let loose a bit more lax. I damn the job sometimes, etc. Is it right? No. But it's not the end of the world. IMO she shouldn't lose her job. Maybe a talking to, but firing her would be extreme. The only difference here is instead of no one knowing she doesn't like gay people, everyone does now. Oh well. Homosexuality makes people uncomfortable still. Go figure. If it were more racist I'd have more issue with it.

[Shrinn]

Why is it different if it's race as opposed to sexual orientation? Depending on who you ask they're equally unpreventable. Serious question.

Correct me if I'm wrong but most employment is at will. In privately owned businesses, an owner can fire you if you announce you hate gays because he doesn't want that type of person working there and there's nothing you can do about it because he can hire and fire whoever he wants (within contractual agreements and some other specific anti-discrimination laws)

But since teaching is a publicly funded job, is it government intervention and censorship to exercise that at will employment because she said that homosexuality is a breeding cancer?

And again, I think it's a different situation knowing that the teacher hates you as opposed to knowing that the guy in the cubicle next to you or working across from you in the warehouse hates you. It's a much closer relationship required.

[muddi900]

On a sidenote; does the Bible have any other mention of homosexuality besides Leviticus?

[Chris_D]

I think it's a problem because it's already tough enough for her gay students going through life without having their own teacher openly against them. I would like to think that all teachers should be supportive of their students choices as long as they are not breaking the law.

[Shieldmaiden]

The fact that she was friends with some of her students on Facebook is enough to make this pretty open and shut, in my opinion. Her First Amendment rights are absolutely irrelevant, this is purely a case of what is appropriate behaviour for a teacher. She has expressed those beliefs in an area that she has explicitly allowed students access to, which puts it on par with expressing those beliefs in a classroom.

[ShivaX]

Do a search for "Teacher fired for" and you'll see that you could easily be fired for this and a hundred other things.

[Widgetcraft]

I'd say she will almost certainly be fired. Schools like to reach well beyond the hours of 8:00am - 3:00pm in the lives of both students and faculty.

[Reverant]

Originally Posted by muddi900

On a sidenote; does the Bible have any other mention of homosexuality besides Leviticus?

Yeah, Paul brings it up a couple times in his letters.

A person has a right to make those comments, but when you're a grunt in the system, you can't go shooting your mouth off in public spaces with extremely controversial comments. Like it or not, local/state/federal employees represent the government whether they're on or off the clock.

That lady is raging on her students and their families, which is unacceptable. You can't employ a mentor that publicly denounces her charges.

[Narradisall]

I will never understand the idiots that mouth off about work related things on the internet where there is a direct link to their work.

Businesses have fired plenty of people before for doing such things, although this is less 'direct' in putting the particular school in ill-repute, but I would be surprised if the school does not have some form of contractual issue with such conduct, whether or not the first amendment applies or not.

[Kelegacy]

If people truly want to be protected, they'd use fake Twitter accounts and stuff. If I pit my name in my Twitter and then spout vile things, and I work in a sensitive job like being a teacher to children, I deserve everything I get.

It's best to err on the side of caution in such a role. You are supposed to be a role model, so if you have students following you and you spew abhorrent rhetoric you deserves to be canned.

Had she created an anonymous alias online it wouldn't have been so bad. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything without consequence. She wont go to jail, but losing a job is within those consequence bounds I think. Use some common sense online.

[Shrinn]

Originally Posted by BigJonno

She has expressed those beliefs in an area that she has explicitly allowed students access to, which puts it on par with expressing those beliefs in a classroom.

That's what I'm thinking too. It's equivalent to running into some kids in the food store and letting them know you hate gays. The internet is a public place and there's no expectation of privacy.

Originally Posted by ShivaX

Do a search for "Teacher fired for" and you'll see that you could easily be fired for this and a hundred other things.

Oh yes, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that this time has gotten a lot bigger for some reason.

Originally Posted by Narradisall

I will never understand the idiots that mouth off about work related things on the internet where there is a direct link to their work.

I guess the every-man argument is that this is all about First-Amendment-breaking thought police, since it's a public position.

[Narradisall]

People just need to learn to bitch about work in the pub with friends, like any normal person. Esp teachers, since your pupils shouldn't be in the bloody pub to shop you.... or can't admit it...

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Shrinn

But since teaching is a publicly funded job, is it government intervention and censorship to exercise that at will employment because she said that homosexuality is a breeding cancer?

First, most public school teachers are not at-will, they can only be dismissed for cause. Second, the First Amendment does regulate the government's authority to punish employees for their speech -- although the government's authority is at its zenith here, it is not unlimited. Specifically, the speech will receive protection if it:

1. Is not made pursuant to the teacher's official duties (unless the school requires her to be on Facebook, this test is met),

2. The speech is about a matter of public concern (DADT certainly qualifies),

3. Does the speech actually substantially affect the employee's ability to perform his or her job? (Possible here, but you can't just assume someone can never be a teacher if one made anti-gay comments once on her Facebook profile and subsequently deleted them).

Originally Posted by Reverant

Yeah, Paul brings it up a couple times in his letters.

Also Acts 21.

Originally Posted by Narradisall

I will never understand the idiots that mouth off about work related things on the internet where there is a direct link to their work.

*Cough, cough*

[Khrymsyn]

Originally Posted by muddi900

On a sidenote; does the Bible have any other mention of homosexuality besides Leviticus?

Depends on the translation, AND the interpretation.

Acts, Paul's letters, the book of Ruth (the relationship with Naomi), The book of Samuel (about David and Jonathan)...
In some cases, the translations take away the homosexual undertones. In some interpretations it's purely platonic and not homosexual. Lots of interpretation, as is much of the bible and the teachings gleaned from it.

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Ox

First, most public school teachers are not at-will, they can only be dismissed for cause. Second, the First Amendment does regulate the government's authority to punish employees for their speech -- although the government's authority is at its zenith here, it is not unlimited. Specifically, the speech will receive protection if it:

1. Is not made pursuant to the teacher's official duties (unless the school requires her to be on Facebook, this test is met),

2. The speech is about a matter of public concern (DADT certainly qualifies),

3. Does the speech actually substantially affect the employee's ability to perform his or her job? (Possible here, but you can't just assume someone can never be a teacher if one made anti-gay comments once on her Facebook profile and subsequently deleted them).

Also Acts 21.

*Cough, cough*

Say whatever you like, man, teachers get fired for this shit all the time. They make you sign numerous documents when you get the job that limits your behavior outside of school.

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by Khrymsyn

Depends on the translation, AND the interpretation.

Acts, Paul's letters, the book of Ruth (the relationship with Naomi), The book of Samuel (about David and Jonathan)...
In some cases, the translations take away the homosexual undertones. In some interpretations it's purely platonic and not homosexual. Lots of interpretation, as is much of the bible and the teachings gleaned from it.

Some good discussion of this here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

For some of the words in the bible, like arsenokoitai, we just plain don't know what it means. I bristle not because I expect church doctrine to be unbigoted (though I'd desire it to be) but because it's just bad history to claim otherwise.

[Hawkzombie]

For me, Racism is something far more 'evil' than homophobia.

'I don't like that you fuck men' opposed to 'I don't like the fact you're a n****r'

That's my only real distinction, honestly. They are both ignorant, and can lead towards violence and a lot of negative actions and hate. However one is directly more in line with people's comfort, whereas the other is one that almost always leads towards a line of direct hatred. Someone can be uncomfortable with homosexuality (the act) and not have an ounce of hate in them. Someone who is racist, IMO, is someone who pretty much hates for hate's sake, with no real basis. We can all agree that according to society's 'norm' homosexuality is against normal practice that we've all been used to (and yes it's happened over the years, but it is a LOT more prevalent and talked about today). Anything like that in a society like ours is going to ruffle feathers. This is STILL a society that is sexually charged, but damned if we ever discuss it in a serious fashion without trying to cover it up.

I dunno. I may be talking myself into a hole here (Even I can see it a bit) but that's the honest distinction for me.

[Narradisall]

Originally Posted by Hawkzombie

For me, Racism is something far more 'evil' than homophobia.

'I don't like that you fuck men' opposed to 'I don't like the fact you're a n****r'

Yeah, one is something they are born as and cant change and the other is....erm....

Nah, I disagree.

[Narradisall]

Originally Posted by Ox

*Cough, cough*

Well put point. Glad we cleared that up.