• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kansas Teacher Claims Conservative Views Led to Loss of Job

TheNextEra said:
Oh I will, backing up away (looking behind) backing up away (looking behind).

Yes, that is a joke. :)

EDIT: What's funny is I had many straight guys tell me they were afraid of gay guys hitting on them. I told them, you guys can't get chicks and gay guys are more observant about males than chicks, what are you worried about? :)

If you say I'm wrong, I'll accept that, but I will continue to say it because it made them realize they were idiots.
Click to expand...

No, you are absolutely right. It's actually a big point of discussion in gay studies...how gay men are more looks driven than women are. If it wasn't for gay men, every city would have like...one gym at most.
 
jallman said:
No, you are absolutely right. It's actually a big point of discussion in gay studies...how gay men are more looks driven than women are. If it wasn't for gay men, every city would have like...one gym at most.
Click to expand...

I just laughed because when I was in the military and lived in North Carolina, these two gay guys would go out with these military friends of mine, and everything was cool, until my military friends found out these guys were gay. This was like almost 1 year since all of us went out.

My one military friend said "I can't go out with these guys anymore, they may hit on me"

My response was "They haven't hit on you once before, why are you afraid now?"

His last response before we all Laughed our asses off was "Why??, Don't they find me attractive?"

I swear we all laughed whenever that was brought up for the next 5 months. :rofl
 
TheNextEra said:
Every conservative post you comment on you are in agreement with and every liberal post you are disagreement in. Does it need to be said more?
Click to expand...

You sure about that TNE and I see you once again did your side step shuffle your getting very good at this now aren't you.

Face it you have no idea what my views are just because I've agreed on certain Cons. views in some thread you are claiming that I'm a Conser. man I wish I had your clairvoyant's.
 
Scorpion89 said:
You sure about that TNE and I see you once again did your side step shuffle your getting very good at this now aren't you.

Face it you have no idea what my views are just because I've agreed on certain Cons. views in some thread you are claiming that I'm a Conser. man I wish I had your clairvoyant's.
Click to expand...

Hey, prove me wrong.

Show me a liberal viewpoint you have agreed with?
 
TheNextEra said:
Hey, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Ask me my views on the subjects I stated first and then we can go from their but if you don't want to then you have to admit you have no friggin clue about me.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Ask me my views on the subjects I stated first and then we can go from their but if you don't want to then you have to admit you have no friggin clue about me.
Click to expand...

I asked you to prove me wrong and show me a liberal viewpoint you agreed with. Shouldn't be that hard should it?
 
TheNextEra said:
I asked you to prove me wrong and show me a liberal viewpoint you agreed with. Shouldn't be that hard should it?
Click to expand...

Alright then I will break it down for you but boy have we gone way off topic in this thread now isn't that breaking the Breaking News rules.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Alright then I will break it down for you but boy have we gone way off topic in this thread now isn't that breaking the Breaking News rules.
Click to expand...

Break it down. But get it done lol. How about some proof you aren't a nothing more than a conservative lapdog?
 
Alright, girls, you're both pretty. Now go do the Cosmo quiz together and paint each other's nails or something.
 
jallman said:
Alright, girls, you're both pretty. Now go do the Cosmo quiz together and paint each other's nails or something.
Click to expand...

I did the cosmo quiz in 2004, seriously, no I am not telling the results and no I am not taking another damn one of those quizes lol.
 
TheNextEra said:
I did the cosmo quiz in 2004, seriously, no I am not telling the results and no I am not taking another damn one of those quizes lol.
Click to expand...

No ****, my boyfriend and his little fag bangles do it every month. :doh
 
jallman said:
No ****, my boyfriend and his little fag bangles do it every month. :doh
Click to expand...

I hate those quizes. Nothing like a ****ing magazine to screw up something good.

I remember when my wife asked me "Hey, could you do me a favor and answer me a couple of questions?".

****, she may have well asked me if she was fat, at least I would have stood a better chance than those questions lol.
 
EgoffTib said:
So classwork about American history is more important than taking 15 minutes or so to watch history actually happen? :doh
Click to expand...

How many people "actually" took time out of their day to watch Barry Bonds break the home run record?

How many people took time out of their schedule to watch Michael Phelps win 8 gold medals?

I could go on and on, and we don't hear anyone criticizing the people who didn't watch these "historical" events. Maybe it's because the same people who are criticizing the people who didn't watch the inauguration, are the same people who voted for Obama because he is black just to make "history"
 
Based on my understanding of tenure and the fact that the guy already had 19 years of work under his belt (thus suggesting he has tenure), and the fact that Kansas has a tenure system, I'm highly suspect of the whole argument he gave.

You gotta do some pretty bad stuff to get fired after getting tenure. Bad mouthing the president will not get you fired if you have tenure. One of the biggest digs against tenure is that it allows teachers to get away with a significant amount of stuff. Unlike private schools who can terminate for pretty much anything, tenure protected teachers have virtual ironclad protection.

I suspect this guy did some stuff that the school nor him want anyone to know about. Like having inappropriate relationship with an 18 year old female student. Or embezzling. Or lying about his credentials. Those will get you fired even if you have tenure. Voicing your political views will not.
 
obvious Child said:
Based on my understanding of tenure and the fact that the guy already had 19 years of work under his belt (thus suggesting he has tenure), and the fact that Kansas has a tenure system, I'm highly suspect of the whole argument he gave.

You gotta do some pretty bad stuff to get fired after getting tenure. Bad mouthing the president will not get you fired if you have tenure. One of the biggest digs against tenure is that it allows teachers to get away with a significant amount of stuff. Unlike private schools who can terminate for pretty much anything, tenure protected teachers have virtual ironclad protection.

I suspect this guy did some stuff that the school nor him want anyone to know about. Like having inappropriate relationship with an 18 year old female student. Or embezzling. Or lying about his credentials. Those will get you fired even if you have tenure. Voicing your political views will not.
Click to expand...


And again...we don't know any of that to be true or not.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I'll have to see what the school's side of the story is in this before I'll take this guy's word as gospel. I honestly don't think that personal politics belong in the classroom, regardless of your political leaning, but that's just me.
Click to expand...
It is infact in the UK a sanctionable "offense" to use your own views on politics to influence students, but it is mandatory for non private schools to teach religious education, with our without teacher bias:)

Ps I would presume the teacher has recourse through the court for his "wrongful" dismissal.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
And again...we don't know any of that to be true or not.
Click to expand...

That he did one of the listed things that will get you fired independent of tenure or the issue of tenure?

True, we don't know if he did any of those examples. But 19 years without tenure is pretty unheard of, especially now that older teachers have gotten grandfathered in to exempt then from new requirements like Praxis.

Do you know just how hard it is to get rid of a teacher who tenure? My sister right now has to deal with a scumbag teacher who has tenure and has been a constant pain the the *** to her school for over a decade. You can get away with a lot once you have tenure. It's one of the arguments for getting rid of tenure.

Fired for political views does not make sense under a tenure system. There's something else here that is clearly not being said.
 
obvious Child said:
That he did one of the listed things that will get you fired independent of tenure or the issue of tenure?

True, we don't know if he did any of those examples. But 19 years without tenure is pretty unheard of, especially now that older teachers have gotten grandfathered in to exempt then from new requirements like Praxis.

Do you know just how hard it is to get rid of a teacher who tenure? My sister right now has to deal with a scumbag teacher who has tenure and has been a constant pain the the *** to her school for over a decade. You can get away with a lot once you have tenure. It's one of the arguments for getting rid of tenure.

Fired for political views does not make sense under a tenure system. There's something else here that is clearly not being said.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then I am sure it will come out. But for now, we don't know that to be the case at all. It's all so much conjecture and so little fact.
 
obvious Child said:
Based on my understanding of tenure and the fact that the guy already had 19 years of work under his belt (thus suggesting he has tenure), and the fact that Kansas has a tenure system, I'm highly suspect of the whole argument he gave.

You gotta do some pretty bad stuff to get fired after getting tenure. Bad mouthing the president will not get you fired if you have tenure. One of the biggest digs against tenure is that it allows teachers to get away with a significant amount of stuff. Unlike private schools who can terminate for pretty much anything, tenure protected teachers have virtual ironclad protection.

I suspect this guy did some stuff that the school nor him want anyone to know about. Like having inappropriate relationship with an 18 year old female student. Or embezzling. Or lying about his credentials. Those will get you fired even if you have tenure. Voicing your political views will not.
Click to expand...

But not at this school this was his first year with this school and do you have proof that he did what you said he might have done nothing like character assaination on someone you nor I have never meet but that's alright you know best.
 
I honestly don't know what more there is to debate regarding this issue. It is clear that we have no FACTS, and we only have 1 side of the story. How ignorant does someone have to be in order to think that "just because the school isn't releasing their side of the story, they must be guilty???" ????

There are privacy laws, school board policies, and a possible lawsuit pending regarding this case, so OF COURSE the school is not going to release any information.....they are NOT REQUIRED to.

All this hype is being thrown out here because he did not show the inauguration on t.v. for his class to watch.......however, one could also make the argument that by forcing his class to watch it would be violating the student's rights. So give it a break and quit trying to assume he is guilty just because of these reasons. This is AMERICA....have you ever heard of being innocent until proven guilty???

I've said it before, and I'll say it again to to make myself clear this time. The people who are jumping to the conclusion that he is a bad teacher because he did not show the "historical" inauguration on t.v. to his classroom, instead decided to print the speech and debate it with his class...or that just because the school didn't release a statement they must have fired him for his political views...you are the people who usually cause most of the media problems throughout this country by jumping to conclusions and making such a big freaking ordeal based solely on accusations and not facts.

Obama won this damn election ONLY because a RECORD 86% "if I'm remembering correctly" of blacks in this country legal to vote, "which is over DOUBLE that of any past election", came out to the polls because they wanted a black president......and this country has the nerve to say that white people are racists because they didn't show this stupid, pathetic, historically based inauguration??? COME ONE PEOPLE!!!!
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Based on my understanding of tenure and the fact that the guy already had 19 years of work under his belt (thus suggesting he has tenure), and the fact that Kansas has a tenure system, I'm highly suspect of the whole argument he gave.

You gotta do some pretty bad stuff to get fired after getting tenure. Bad mouthing the president will not get you fired if you have tenure. One of the biggest digs against tenure is that it allows teachers to get away with a significant amount of stuff. Unlike private schools who can terminate for pretty much anything, tenure protected teachers have virtual ironclad protection.

I suspect this guy did some stuff that the school nor him want anyone to know about. Like having inappropriate relationship with an 18 year old female student. Or embezzling. Or lying about his credentials. Those will get you fired even if you have tenure. Voicing your political views will not.
Click to expand...

The guy was a teacher for 19 years, but this was his first year in Kansas. Previously, he had taught in Arkansas.
 
Scorpion89 said:
But not at this school this was his first year with this school and do you have proof that he did what you said he might have done nothing like character assaination on someone you nor I have never meet but that's alright you know best.
Click to expand...

Tenure applies to the whole state in general. Tenure is not related to specific schools but generally which school you get tenure does give you some benefits such as being able to come back after a year or so of sabbatical to the same position. Teachers get tenure under the whole system allowing them to move between schools under the protection of tenure. So the fact that he changed schools is irrelevant. He'd still be under the Kansas Public School Tenure system. Now, if he changed states, that's another issue and 1st year teachers in new states have little if any protection from such firings. That's why so many teachers in America push hard to get their tenure as fast as possible. It's going from paper armor to standing behind bank vault doors.

And as pointed out to Jallman, I don't have evidence he did any of those specific examples. Just that those examples aren't protected by tenure and thus would get someone who had tenure to get fired. Voicing political views won't get you fired in most cases, and if your principle does fire you, you can file a complaint and likely have a solid foundation to sue the school and principle as it violated the tenure agreement. There's a reason why tenure teachers rarely get fired. It's hard to legally terminate them.

The whole argument the guy gives is real fishy when you throw in tenure. But this all assumes he has tenure. But after 19 years....that seems highly unlikely he doesn't have it, but there are always exceptions.

Furthermore, the school wouldn't want to admit that it hired someone who lied about their credentials. Nor will it want to admit it got embezzled from. Inappropriate relationships with legal age female students is technically against the contract, but not illegal per se under most state laws and thus doesn't have to be publicly disclosed such as the various underage incidents in the past five or so years.

Point is, there's something clearly not being said. And it's damn important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom