Teaching Fired for a Tweet...

[CobbVol]

Vote was 9-0. From the Milwaukee Journal:

The district's attorney, Christina Katt, said the case was "about an employee's decision to substitute her own opinion over the judgment of the district administration and the resulting consequences." Katt said Tempel disagreed with a decision her supervisor, Heyer Elementary School principal Mark Schneider, made about what song should be sung at a first-grade spring concert.

"Rather than speak with Mark Schneider directly, Ms. Tempel took to a widespread media campaign challenging the district's motives, misrepresenting the facts of her lying motivations to further her own interests rather than those of her students," Katt said in her opening statement.

Tempel's actions caused "substantial disruption and safety concerns," Katt said, which necessitated an increased security presence at Heyer Elementary and diverting district resources to respond to media inquiries. She said the school received "hundreds of emails, calls, voicemails, many of which contained vulgar, obscene and threatening language."

"This continued to build during the week of the school's spring break. Mr. Schneider will tell you he was concerned for the safety of the students and staff at the school, and he worked with Sebert and then Waukesha School District deputy superintendent Joe Koch to have an increased police presence at the school," Katt said.

Katt said Tempel's conduct required her to be fired.

"She has demonstrated a propensity to substitute her opinion over the judgment of the administration and is not willing to work within the policies adopted by the board, which resulted in substantial disruption to the district," Katt said.

 

[davethevol]

I’m pretty sure I read an article about this yesterday that had a little more depth to it. She’s in a very conservative county and continued trying to push her rainbow agenda despite being told to drop it. She was then fired because the school board said they didn’t want to continue employing someone that didn’t respect the desire of the community, or something very close to that. I doubt she’s going to get paid, because from what I read it had more to do with her being insubordinate and stirring the pot than restricting her rights to free speech.

 

[85SugarVol]

She’s an employee of the county (at least in most states I’ve worked, that’s how it works). But either way I’m not seeing what that changes.

Yes, you’re guaranteed free speech. No, you’re not guaranteed a job. What am I missing?

“State” as in the government.

I agree with your view on “guarantees” - in the Private sector. You can say what you want, and they can fire your ass.

This lady didn’t work in the Private sector. She worked for the Government.

The government doesn’t get the latitude Private business does. Do you agree?

 

[Vol8188]

“State” as in the government.

I agree with your view on “guarantees” - in the Private sector. You can say what you want, and they can fire your ass.

This lady didn’t work in the Private sector. She worked for the Government.

The government doesn’t get the latitude Private business does. Do you agree?

Why would that change anything? Airmen don’t get to talk trash about generals on social media and expect 0 consequences.

 

[McDad]

Her speech wasn’t restricted. The school didn’t force Twitter to take her post down. They simply fired her. She still has a right to speech. And the school still has a right to only employee who they wish.

What’s the issue?

I offered this take earlier. once all the bluster has died down, This forum generally concludes free speech is guaranteed but consequences for that free speech are likely.

Looks like what happened.

 

[McDad]

“State” as in the government.

I agree with your view on “guarantees” - in the Private sector. You can say what you want, and they can fire your ass.

This lady didn’t work in the Private sector. She worked for the Government.

The government doesn’t get the latitude Private business does. Do you agree?

I do not agree.

Can you walk me through your thought process?

 

[85SugarVol]

Why would that change anything? Airmen don’t get to talk trash about generals on social media and expect 0 consequences.

You’ve waded into the Military there. That’s an entirely different beast (though you are right, it is part of the gov).

There are protections against what the State can do to us.

Private entities can pick and choose based on Race. But a state sponsored school cannot.
Private entities can punish you for your speech. But the State cannot.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

“State” as in the government.

I agree with your view on “guarantees” - in the Private sector. You can say what you want, and they can fire your ass.

This lady didn’t work in the Private sector. She worked for the Government.

The government doesn’t get the latitude Private business does. Do you agree?

She's not losing her freedom, she's just losing her job....

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

You’ve waded into the Military there. That’s an entirely different beast (though you are right, it is part of the gov).

There are protections against what the State can do to us.

Private entities can pick and choose based on Race. But a state sponsored school cannot.
Private entities can punish you for your speech. But the State cannot.

Pretty sure it's an EEOC violation if private entity fires you because of race....

 

[85SugarVol]

I do not agree.

Can you walk me through your thought process?

Check out the post below your reply.

I could be off here, but I’m much more willing to give wide latitude to private business. I’m much less willing to give latitude to the State.

There’s a whole list of things the State cannot do to us.

 

[85SugarVol]

She's not losing her freedom, she's just losing her job....

I get that.

As an employee of the State, the government is punishing her for her speech. Are they not?

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I get that.

As an employee of the State, the government is punishing her for her speech. Are they not?

Or are they punishing her for being insubordinate?

 

[85SugarVol]

Pretty sure it's an EEOC violation if private entity fires you because of race....

I get that too.

But I support private business’ right to hire/fire/promote based on race based DEI programs.

 

[McDad]

You’ve waded into the Military there. That’s an entirely different beast (though you are right, it is part of the gov).

There are protections against what the State can do to us.

Private entities can pick and choose based on Race. But a state sponsored school cannot.
Private entities can punish you for your speech. But the State cannot.

Your statement hinges on your definition of "punishment". If punishment = a loss or restriction of constitutional rights, I agree. If punishment = termination of employment, I disagree.

We can blast the president, congress, Leos, the school board, et all and not lose our constitutional rights. If I blast the president, and I work as a janitor in the White House, I will be terminated.

 

[85SugarVol]

Or are they punishing her for being insubordinate?

I imagine that’s exactly what they will say.

And maybe that’s true to an extent.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I imagine that’s exactly what they will say.

And maybe that’s true to an extent.

If she is LGBT, she may have more of an argument since you are getting closer to protected class issues....

 

[85SugarVol]

Your statement hinges on your definition of "punishment". If punishment = a loss or restriction of constitutional rights, I agree. If punishment = termination of employment, I disagree.

We can blast the president, congress, Leos, the school board, et all and not lose our constitutional rights. If I blast the president, and I work as a janitor in the White House, I will be terminated.

Your employer firing you for saying something stupid is not a violation of your Freedom of Speech.

I think it gets tricky when the State is the employer. I bristle when I hear that the government has taken punitive action against a citizen (their employee here) over speech.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Say her name?

 

[Vol8188]

You’ve waded into the Military there. That’s an entirely different beast (though you are right, it is part of the gov).

There are protections against what the State can do to us.

Private entities can pick and choose based on Race. But a state sponsored school cannot.
Private entities can punish you for your speech. But the State cannot.

When saying protections against what the state can do to “us”, you mean the general public, and I agree. But employees are not the general public. They have to be viewed through both the lens of private citizen and public sector employee.

Can a public sector employee be fired for speech? Of course. If you don’t allow that, you lose institutional trust (which we greatly need).

For example the FBI director couldn’t come out today and say “of course we target conservatives, f*** them” and hide behind “free speech”. The lose of institutional trust would be too great (granted it’s pretty diminished now)

As far as your last statement, I’d say you’re wrong on both accounts. If you’re trying to claim private entities should be able to hire based on race, I would agree. But when you say they “can”, that’s false from a legal prospective.

If your point is simply that the state shouldn’t hire people in general because it opens up too many issues, for the most I would agree. But once you allow them to hire, you also have to allow them to fire.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

She’s an employee of the county (at least in most states I’ve worked, that’s how it works). But either way I’m not seeing what that changes.

Yes, you’re guaranteed free speech. No, you’re not guaranteed a job. What am I missing?

So employee disagrees with boss and takes it to the social media to tell her version and drag said employer through the mud.

Excuse me while I laugh at another one of these narcissistic f wads.

She’s an employee of the county (at least in most states I’ve worked, that’s how it works). But either way I’m not seeing what that changes.

Yes, you’re guaranteed free speech. No, you’re not guaranteed a job. What am I missing?

It’s the government restricting free speech

 

[Vol8188]

It’s the government restricting free speech

It’s not. It’s an employer firing someone for speaking ill of their employer publicly.

If an FBI agent said tomorrow “I hate n***ers” I don’t think you’d defend him keeping his job as “free speech” right?

 

[McDad]

Your employer firing you for saying something stupid is not a violation of your Freedom of Speech.

I think it gets tricky when the State is the employer. I bristle when I hear that the government has taken punitive action against a citizen (their employee here) over speech.

I understand. And, for what it i worth, I agree that there should be great care taken to protect our rights when the state is involved.

The right to work in that district, or for that school system is not a right which is protected.

 

[McDad]

It’s the government restricting free speech

It isn't.

 

[allvol123]

It’s the government restricting free speech

No, it’s the government, as an employer, firing you for not following work guidelines.

Sorry your dipshit isn’t the heroine you hoped.

 

[Majors]

Teacher fired after wanting students to sing Miley Cyrus, Dolly Parton song 'Rainbowland'

Teacher is about to get paid.

I’m sure she’ll get her last check. The teacher who has over the years posted on her Twitter account about LGB support and even received a letter from the ACLU thanking her for her donation to stop Trump. Take her personal stance in the past, as well the meaning of the Rainbow and her gay activism and you get parents/school board don’t want their kids associated with LGBTQ + rights and activism. The song meaning is of acceptance and tolerance…irony when the ACLU sends a personal letter for the nice donation against Trump.