Michigan teacher suspended over anti-gay punishment

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:Whats your point Ahtman?
-Trust no one over 30? check
-No such thing as freedom of speech? Check
-People wearing Tshirts with political slogans have no sense of humor and will hurt you if they can? check
-why no one is asking how the girl survived with wearing stars and bars in Detroit-check.

I'm not sure how you got any of that out of pointing out that school is more than teachers giving homework but, you know, whatever.

**Da Boss**

I was about to say something similar, whatwhat. Kids get suspended for slightly dodgey reasons all the time and it doesn't make the news.
And students in school shouldn't have free speech anyhow, they're fulla crap.

**Destrado**

I can't really say I agree with teacher's take on this.

If he did want to address a couple of teenagers who where either being uppity (or honest, wasn't there to see if it was to provoke the teacher), he could've waited until the end of class to talk to them privately, and on his next lesson briefly address the issue with a pertinent statement, example, etc.

Another thing that people forget is that schools aren't there just as another part in getting a job. Like a family, the school has obligations regarding the kids, namely to educate, but also to create a person, imbuing values and notions.

**daedalus**

Ahtman wrote:
And everything should be based on merit, the weather should always be nice, parents shouldn't outlive their children, and I shouldn't have to get any older but guess what? Still happening. Lots of things happen whether we think they should or not. Besides, if the first place a human spends outside thier cloistered home environment doesn't involve learning how to socialize in the outside world than where are they? Even home schooled kids have activities with other home schooled kids. You don't grow up in a bubble and I would also be willing to bet that when you were in school you didn't just listen to your teacher and do homework. You probably had friends, told jokes, and played hobby games.

Yes, maybe, sometimes, definitely.

I don't want/expect kids to grow up in a bubble and have zero socialization in schools. There are recesses, study halls, lunch time, etc. What I want them is for them to have zero socialization during classtime. I did have friends, jokes, and games in high school back in the day. I also had classes so focused that opportunities for this never would have happened. My teachers wore polos, at the very least. Several of them wore sport coats regularly. Any teacher sporting ANY slogan on their shirt would have been out of the ordinary. It was by design that they didn't dress in any sort of way relative to the kids. Students weren't peers, and teachers made sure they knew it.

**Da Boss**

I'm usually dead against kicking kids out for trivial things too, but the guy was probably having a very bad day, or something.
People need to chill out, in these situations. It's curtisgotslapped on a smaller scale.

**Emperors Faithful**

Frazzled wrote:
I don't believe in that free speech nonsense in a public school, but dude you started it.

On Oct. 20, McDowell told a student in his classroom to remove a belt buckle with the Confederate flag, the symbol of the southern confederacy that seceded from the United States over slavery, kicking off the Civil War in the 1860s.

She complied, but it prompted a question from a boy about how the flag differs from the rainbow flag, a symbol of pride for the gay community.

"I explained the difference between the flags, and he said, 'I don't accept gays,'" said McDowell, 42, who was wearing a shirt with an anti-gay bullying message.

McDowell said he told the student he couldn't say that in class.

Yep.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:I was about to say something similar, whatwhat. Kids get suspended for slightly dodgey reasons all the time and it doesn't make the news.
And students in school shouldn't have free speech anyhow, they're fulla crap.

Not in the US. We gots rights!

Actually you have to have a reason to be suspended.

**Da Boss**

You SHOULD have a reason to be suspended, but it could be anything, really. I'm not saying I agree with the teacher, I'm just amused by the indignance here. This stuff happens all the time, and now it's newsworthy cos of the gayz. Don't you see the funny side?

**Frazzled**

No I sense that we have found the real world Mr. Garrison...

**Chongara**

What the students did would probably be a mandatory suspension at my old high school. Even if they skirted that they'd be getting in-house or detention at the very least.

**Frazzled**

Chongara wrote:What the students did would probably be a mandatory suspension at my old high school. Even if they skirted that they'd be getting in-house or detention at the very least.

For...what?

**Da Boss**

H8tin' on the gayz.

I don't think he should have reacted that harshly but I also think he's allowed to disapprove of that viewpoint if the kid expresses it, but like you say- keep it to a minimum, and move on. If yer one was wearing a confederate flag, who cares anyhow unless it's against the uniform policy. (I hate enforcing uniform policy, but you still gotta do it or senior management gets annoyed)

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:H8tin' on the gayz.

"I don't like gayz."
"you can't say that in class."
"Why?"
"Cause I said so you little

er!"
Now that I think about it, I'd be ok with that... or

"I don't like gayz."
"you can't say that in class."
"Why?"
"If I had wanted your opinion I'd have beaten it out of you."

**Da Boss**

I want a water pistol. Every time a kid tries to drag me into a pointless argument I get to shoot them in the face with it. That's my ideal Tory education policy.

**A Black Ram**

I was just wondering how a 9 year old nearly committed suicide over bullying, most likely about his sexual orientation. At nine years old, you don't even know what sex is, and at that age you still worried about cooties and what not.

Nice one frazzled, beating the information out of them.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:I want a water pistol. Every time a kid tries to drag me into a pointless argument I get to shoot them in the face with it. That's my ideal Tory education policy.

Keep it near a hand warmer. Shoot them and tell them its not water. Oh the hilarity that will ensue.

**Chongara**

Frazzled wrote:
Chongara wrote:What the students did would probably be a mandatory suspension at my old high school. Even if they skirted that they'd be getting in-house or detention at the very least.

For...what?

It would fall under the category of "abusive, rude or defiant" behavior. More so Rude and/or Defiant behavior, than abusive. Objecting to a teacher's orders on the grounds of "I don't like homosexuality" just wouldn't fly. Objecting to a teacher's orders in general,was a bad idea but they'd generally let it slide unless something made it particularly offensive to them. With one exception I can think of, most of my teachers would have taken offense to that.

**Emperors Faithful**

Frazzled wrote:"If I had wanted your opinion I'd have beaten it out of you."

Words to live by!

**Melissia**

A Black Ram wrote:I was just wondering how a 9 year old nearly committed suicide over bullying, most likely about his sexual orientation. At nine years old, you don't even know what sex is, and at that age you still worried about cooties and what not.

Nice one frazzled, beating the information out of them.

Girls are getting pregnant at that age.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
daedalus wrote:I'm torn.

On one hand, there's nothing tolerant about an "anti-gay bullying message," whatever that even means. Free speech doesn't really extend to a classroom environment anymore than it does a workplace. You're not there to talk. You're there to fill your purpose.

On the other hand, however crude the little monster might be, no one has the right to punish them for not liking gays, just as no one has the right to punish me because I like a color/song/political party/religion.

On the other, other hand, ultimately, who cares? I mean, so these kids don't like gays. They don't have to. So suppose they hated people with glasses, or colorblind people. I fit both of those categories. I can't change either of those facts. To that I say, "Oh well. I don't need them to like me." I don't understand why it's not the same reaction. I mean, humanity has already survived this far with us all hating each other.

...
...

That's like saying there's nothing tolerant about an anti-rape message, or an anti armed robbery message.

"Tolerant" doesn't mean accepting anything at all. It means accepting things which are tolerable.

You're right that you can't punish people for hating gays. You can only punish them for acting on their hatred.

It is very hard for individuals to change people's minds, but society as a whole can do it. All kinds of issues from drink driving to women's rights, non-white rights and homosexuality, are treated completely differently in modern society compared to 100 years ago. It didn't happen without social pressure.

How did the student "act on his hatred?"

She expressed it in an Economics class. Clearly it should have been reserved for politics or social studies.

How does any of that relate to the actual classroom and teaching? Its an economics class, and the teacher's wearing an anti gay bullying T shirt. Some kid made a crack so the activist, er teacher, got his panties in a wad and suspended him, not for talking but disagreeing with the activist, er teacher. Really?

So if a pupil started to beat up another pupil, would only the PE teacher be allowed to stop it, as he is in charge of the boxing class?

Teachers are "in loco parentis" of the children at all times, and are required not to confine themselves to the strict lesson topic if something occurs which is relevant to other aspects of children's welfare and social development.

**Frazzled**

Chongara wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Chongara wrote:What the students did would probably be a mandatory suspension at my old high school. Even if they skirted that they'd be getting in-house or detention at the very least.

For...what?

It would fall under the category of "abusive, rude or defiant" behavior. More so Rude and/or Defiant behavior, than abusive. Objecting to a teacher's orders on the grounds of "I don't like homosexuality" just wouldn't fly. Objecting to a teacher's orders in general,was a bad idea but they'd generally let it slide unless something made it particularly offensive to them. With one exception I can think of, most of my teachers would have taken offense to that.

Then the teacher should have told him to shut up no? no reason needs to be given. But when you go ogg on your agenda you're going to potentially get a response in the age of youtube.

Moral of the story, all this coul dhave been avoided had they had ANGRYNUNINABOX. Student gets uppity for whatever reason, teacher pops a can of ANGRYNUNINABOX and the aforementioned nun leaps out, raps the offender with a ruler a few times, and maybe the bystanders, shouts "AND NOW VE BEGIN AGAIN!" and jumps back in the box. Problem solved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
A Black Ram wrote:I was just wondering how a 9 year old nearly committed suicide over bullying, most likely about his sexual orientation. At nine years old, you don't even know what sex is, and at that age you still worried about cooties and what not.

Nice one frazzled, beating the information out of them.
Girls are getting pregnant at that age.

Um...not really.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teachers are "in loco parentis" of the children at all times, and are required not to confine themselves to the strict lesson topic if something occurs which is relevant to other aspects of children's welfare and social development.

Er, no they are not.

**Kilkrazy**

I see.

So, posit the following situation. Some students and a teacher are on a field trip to study the distribution of orchids in deciduous forest peripheries.

A child is stung by a bee and goes into anaphylactic shock. Should the teacher ignore the child's Epipen because this is a botany field trip?

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Um...not really.

Youngest girl to give birth was something around five and a half years of age.

In the US, births in the age range of ten to eleven are not unheard of, though still uncommon.

**MeanGreenStompa**

This is crap.

The little puke argued back with the teacher over the notion of Liberty and Justice for All.

We certainly don't know things like tone used by the pupil, attitude, the need to restore order to the classroom etc.

Free speech indeed, the very notion that whelp was employing polite discussion and not just point scoring and acting up in the classroom is puerile.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:I see.

So, posit the following situation. Some students and a teacher are on a field trip to study the distribution of orchids in deciduous forest peripheries.

A child is stung by a bee and goes into anaphylactic shock. Should the teacher ignore the child's Epipen because this is a botany field trip?

In the US a teacher would not"pardon the pun" touch the situation due to liability. Next question.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Um...not really.
Youngest girl to give birth was something around five and a half years of age.

In the US, births in the age range of ten to eleven are not unheard of, though still uncommon.

I'd put that to scientificly rare.

**Chongara**

Frazzled wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Chongara wrote:What the students did would probably be a mandatory suspension at my old high school. Even if they skirted that they'd be getting in-house or detention at the very least.

For...what?

It would fall under the category of "abusive, rude or defiant" behavior. More so Rude and/or Defiant behavior, than abusive. Objecting to a teacher's orders on the grounds of "I don't like homosexuality" just wouldn't fly. Objecting to a teacher's orders in general,was a bad idea but they'd generally let it slide unless something made it particularly offensive to them. With one exception I can think of, most of my teachers would have taken offense to that.

Then the teacher should have told him to shut up no? no reason needs to be given. But when you go ogg on your agenda you're going to potentially get a response in the age of youtube.

Telling a student to "Shut Up" would likely be a move that gets the teacher in trouble, at least around here. Then again, what you call "ogging your agenda" is official school policy and part of the curriculum around here. So, we're probably coming from very different angles.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This is crap.

The little puke argued back with the teacher over the notion of Liberty and Justice for All.

We certainly don't know things like tone used by the pupil, attitude, the need to restore order to the classroom etc.

Free speech indeed, the very notion that whelp was employing polite discussion and not just point scoring and acting up in the classroom is puerile.

You do have a point.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I see.

So, posit the following situation. Some students and a teacher are on a field trip to study the distribution of orchids in deciduous forest peripheries.

A child is stung by a bee and goes into anaphylactic shock. Should the teacher ignore the child's Epipen because this is a botany field trip?

In the US a teacher would not"pardon the pun" touch the situation due to liability. Next question.

They would if the parents had signed a liability waiver.

Next answer.

**fire4effekt**

You guys are way too into the stars and bars. Listen, the story is about gay weiner dogs(i gather) not about wether Detroit was in the civil war(it wasn't it was in the famed motor city cannuckland fight of 1894)

**Stormrider**

Frazz, you assume that HS students in Detrot actually know what the Stars and Bars are. They probably don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Free Speech includes "insensitive speech" too.