• 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!

Should this teacher be fired?

Should this teacher be fired?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 44.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 42.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 13.1%

  • Total voters
    61
"Hate speech" has unfortunately become a shibboleth of the Left used to condemn any and all free expression of disapproval or criticism. In the courts, I believe, a higher threshold obtains whereby unless speech incites to imminent violence, it remains protected under the First Amendment. The teacher in this case expressed his disapproval of homosexuality and based his disapproval on a Biblical text. He was not in the classroom when he expressed his disapproval, and he was clearly speaking for himself, not the school. Moreover, the "deserve to die" phrase in the quoted text is Bible-speak for "losing eternal life in Heaven" -- he was saying nothing more there than that according to the Bible homosexuality is a grievously sinful offense against God. That is his opinion, and he has every right to his opinion. No one else need take his opinion seriously. The dignity of some students, while it may have been affected by his words, is not protected by the Constitution. Indeed, he speaks lovingly of those students at the close of his letter. And finally, the school newspaper elected to publish his personal opinion. He should not be fired. Had he been fired for the letter, I should think he'd have the ACLU on his side in the court case that would follow.
 
The school officials in this case had it right. They had no authority to discipline this teacher for doing nothing more than quoting a passage from the Bible with approval in a letter he wrote to the school newspaper. The Supreme Court has never suggested that a person renounces his freedom of speech to anything like the extent you suggest simply by becoming a government employee.

I am glad to see proponents of the homosexual agenda reveal their disdain for First Amendment freedoms so openly in discussing cases like this one. In doing so, they betray the fact they are anything but the liberals many of them no doubt consider themselves. Any true liberal--even a homosexual one--would fight for this man's right to express his religious conviction that homosexual conduct (among many other things in the laundry list in the chapter of Romans quoted) is evil and hated by God.

Let him feel free to disdain homosexuals all he likes but he shouldn't be teaching them if they feel threatened by his hatred in the classroom.
 
Let him feel free to disdain homosexuals all he likes but he shouldn't be teaching them if they feel threatened by his hatred in the classroom.

The disdain is your own--and it is for the fundamental freedom of speech. I wonder if you have an equally low opinion of the Second and Tenth Amendments.
 
Here is a fair question...what is the line on what someone is allowed to be fired for when it comes to using their first amendment right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This has been answered numerous times. The supreme court has used the Tinker test since vietnam - when the speech, whether on a private blog or the school paper or in the class, becomes disruptive, he can be fired

In addition, the constitution mandates that religion be separated from public schools
 
I believe the term shouldn't exist, as it has become over-used to the point of being abused. It no longer means anything.

Whenever I hear or read the term "hate speech" or "hate" I reflexively roll my eyes and wonder what someone is whining about this time. Now, I don't keep tabs and compile statistics, but it seems that when I then look into it the instances of legitimate inappropriate behavior is in the minority. The majority is what I suspected, just whining.

wtf does that have to do with the outrageousness of this case? This is not the Colbert incident. I made a thread because i knew it was serious, both contextually and in fact
 
The school likely could have done a great many things to that teacher over this, but there was absolutely no need to risk any of it because he was only probationary.
That's the strength of try-before-you-by for employees. You avoid all the "why did they fire them!!!" bull****. People who are loons or disruptive or dumb, etc., can sometimes make it through an interview without showing their cards. But a year probationary period gives them plenty of time to let their hair down. Good on the school.

It's entirely possible they published the paper so that the teacher's irrational beliefs and hatred would be on full display.

It doesn't matter if the source was the bible. If the bible includes hate speech, and you use it, it doesn't magically by some act of a non-existent god make it "not hate speech". We could just make up our own religion, fill it with anti-black slang, and then go "quoting our religious text" at people and claim it wasn't hate speech. But, but, I was quoting mah bible see? Whether that particular case was or was not, is irrelevant. The school didn't have to try and fight that battle, so they didn't.

Except they took a position publicly defending him and at the same time lying thru their teeth that the students don't give up free speech at the door. Imagine a student said his teacher deserved death. Yeah i'm sure the school would do nothing, liars
 
wtf does that have to do with the outrageousness of this case? This is not the Colbert incident. I made a thread because i knew it was serious, both contextually and in fact
My line relates specifically to another poster's post. Threads do that.

You can indignant all you want, but it's telling that you were willing to go along with this aspect until now.
 
The law clearly provided for the admin to make the decision on what to be published in a student newspaper.

The argument about classroom behavior is another matter.

Those of you who are conflating the two will have their arguments noted and then dismissed out of hand.

And if the article in the paper creates a conflict with what was said in Tinker, then it is possible that consequences could occur. Anyone who ignores this will have their arguments noted and dismissed out of hand.
 
And if the article in the paper creates a conflict with what was said in Tinker, then it is possible that consequences could occur. Anyone who ignores this will have their arguments noted and dismissed out of hand.
If you can show such a conflict, go for it. But saying it is not proof that it is possible.

Thank you for not twining the newspaper incident with the allegations that the teacher was proselytizing in the class room and the hall ways.
 
This has been answered numerous times. The supreme court has used the Tinker test since vietnam - when the speech, whether on a private blog or the school paper or in the class, becomes disruptive, he can be fired

In addition, the constitution mandates that religion be separated from public schools
The practice of religion is separate from the public space normally but not always.
. Religious opinion in the public place is permitted if it is not coercive or disruptive.
 
Yes, you have free speech, but when you are an employee that restricts your "free speech". You cannot just say what you want at a work place and not suffer any consequences. Telling students that homosexuals deserve to die, IMO, he should be reprimanded in some way.

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, He abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them too.


Is that actually in the bible? I don't remember anything like that, but I'm not a scholar on it either.

Not if you are working for the government.

The verse is found in Romans 1.

Paul is writing to the church in Rome.

This section of the chapter is dealing with God's Wrath but it needs to be taken in context.
Also it seems that he is talking about people in the church that have corrupted teachings to
try and justify themselves.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened
 
If you can show such a conflict, go for it. But saying it is not proof that it is possible.

That is why I used the word "if".

Thank you for not twining the newspaper incident with the allegations that the teacher was proselytizing in the class room and the hall ways.

I never made that an issue because it isn't one.
 
Targeting a group of public school students because of what they are independent of their ability to learn is unwarranted discrimination in my opinion. Such a teacher disqualifies themselves from the position. It's not necessarily a question of legality, but rather one of appropriateness.
 
Back
Top Bottom