Feel the Rainbow? Texas teacher fired over rainbow stickers

I'm not minimizing anything

 

and stop being an ******* with your accusations. I've mentioned in other threads I have a trans child and a bisexual daughter who is in a lesbian relationship. I think I've got a pretty good grip on what's at stake here overall.

 

Even just getting media coverage is a win for this agenda. It is an act of intimidation first and foremost.

Case in point when the Dr. Whitfield situation was in the media, in the months that followed, in North Texas alone, something like 10 superintendents announced they’d be stepping down after the year. That’s not including the dozens of principals. Dr Whitfield was also not technically “fired.” Go ask him if he should be thanking the school board for simply putting him on “leave” instead of firing him for the sole crime of having photos of him and his white wife kissing on a beach taken 10 years prior.

 

By this standard, they’d have to allow many forms of explicit political or religious endorsement, because it may not be so easy to demonstrate how it could directly harm students or their education.

I don’t think the issue here is harm to students, exactly. We usually don’t permit overt political advocacy from school officials. Obviously, there is disagreement in this case on whether it qualifies. A rainbow sticker seems pretty innocuous to someone with a liberal mindset. But social conservatives still exist, and they may not be so comfortable with it.

I think teachers should be allowed to express personal views on some politicized subject as part of broader conversations. But posting buttons, slogans, or stickers on doors as a signal of their views on those subjects seems to cross a line to me.

 

the idea of having a blanket policy against room decorations that are not curriculum-related is to avoid entirely the risk of viewpoint discrimination. One teacher's rainbow sticker is another teacher's molon labe sticker. It is in a school district's interest to try and avoid these kinds of situations from arising in the first place.

 

You also have a track record of being a truly genuine poster here too don’t you?

The first thing you posted here about a teacher losing their job over a freaking rainbow sticker was to essentially say she didn’t really get fired. There’s an obvious implication that not getting your contact renewed is somehow so much better and there those of us voicing concern are as always woke Libs overblowing everything.

 

In December of 1951, Rosa Parks probably made "social conservatives uncomfortable" sitting in the wrong section of the bus...

 

Or the principle could have pulled the teacher aside and communicated that a parent or whomever was voicing a complaint about your sticker, explain exactly what the policy is, and if she’s not violating any policy then say that the school district will communicate to the school board and the media if needed what the policy is and have her back.

Meanwhile the principals “I’ll have your back” statement probably would lead to the teacher feeling enough loyalty to her admin to remove the sticker on her own to help them out when they go to the school board. The more the principals and the superintendent also have power here too to at least pose a threat of backing a teacher all the way, but unfortunately most Texas principals are just trying to get through the day and have so much crap thrown their way daily there’s a muscle memory impulse to simply take the easy road and also not risk losing their job too.

 

gotta double down, eh?

 

So you’re saying some political activism and slogans should be allowed from teachers in the classroom, if the cause is righteous enough? And who gets to decide whether it is righteous enough?

 

That should be the standard. Political and religious endorsement that doesn't harm students or disrupt education should just be left alone.

I'm sure it's uncomfortable to some (as an aside, students for the most part are fine, it's the parent). We can't ever make an environment 100% comfortable - there will always be something uncomfortable to someone. We can't meet that standard and I don't think we want to. The state of being uncomfortable is good, providing an opportunity to grow and to learn if the environment protects from harm.

The question is does the unease feeling lead to harm. Harm such as a student being bullied, being isolated, being excluded, being discriminated against, being forced to be something they aren't, being abused verbally or physically, being put into a mental harmful state, and so on. A message of support for LGBT - how is that harmful?

As another aside, being around Black were once so uncomfortable to White that laws were made to exclude them. There was real harm to Black. There was no harm to White, but they were uncomfortable. Obviously, that's not the case here, but being uncomfortable isn't the right criteria. Being harmful is.

 

You are saying that officials needs to allow or disallow signage according to their assessment of “harm” to students. I find that criterion problematic. People these days often describe speech they disagree with as triggering and harmful. What happens if a teacher puts up a gun rights sign? How do you decide how much “harm” such a viewpoint is inflicting on students?

I think @Os Trigonum put it well, above. A school should not be engaging in viewpoint discrimination, and what you’re describing will inevitably lead to that.

 

Yes. And that's way better than being uncomfortable - did I misread you there? I thought you were arguing that should be the criteria?

Gun symbols do trigger mental harm - being shots in school happens regularly and every school I know of practices shooting drills. Case by case basis. Again, how does the LGBT symbol harms? No one can answer it or is willing to.

Yes, that's the standard that the school boards have been using. Two areas: protect students from harm and from education disruption.

 

there was a time in our nation's history where slavery wasn't ubiquitously seen as evil. In fact one could say that there was a time when a statement like "slavery is wrong" would be seen as a political statement. So does that mean a teacher during that time telling their students "slavery is wrong" should be grounds for termination?


Advocating for inanimate objects is quite different than teaching kids to be empathetic of other humans that aren't exactly like them.

 

I haven't followed too much about this story but I'm not sure it's cut and dried. The rainbow flag isn't a partisan statement as Log Cabin Republicans and other groups have used it also. It is a statement of values and I would consider it more similar to displaying religious symbols such as the 10 Commandments.

This is one where I think it matters how it's displayed and how it's used in class. I think putting something like that on the teacher's desk or maybe just stuck right on the window by the teacher's desk might not be as big of a deal as it's the teacher's own personal effects and a teacher still has a right to her own personal beliefs. For example if a teacher were to wear a Crucifix, a Star of David, or the Dharma Wheel on their person. I think if it's displayed prominently it might be a a bigger problem if there is the impression that students need to conform to those set of values.

I find the story about a teacher fired for showing a picture of her same sex partner far more troubling as that is her own family and to say that she can't even acknowledge the existence of who here partner is is while mixed sex partners wouldn't have that problem is one of the problems with the FL and other legislation. That is more evidence that these laws truly are "Don't say Gay".

 

Today, we have statements similar to 'be civil' posted everywhere in school. There is a movement of being non-civil in politics, especially pushed by Trump that has now spread like a contagious virus. I wouldn't be too surprised if this trend continues, one day that type of sign is 'too political' for the classroom. If we look at it though, being civil is great for students and for education, however, maybe it is somewhat uncomfortable for parents who aren't that way or for their kids who have learned to be uncivil from their parents.

 

There will be a point where children in Kindergarten doing games and activities to teach the concept of "sharing" is going to be a "communist indoctrination" talking point by the right. Actually I'm sure that talking point has been expressed somewhere.

 

The sticker was placed on the glass door, such that it would be visible to passers by. She said that the intent was to signal that the room is a safe space for LGBTQ students who may need it.

 

Within the Rolling Stone article was a link detailing how the state of Texas removed one of the 4 links to suicide prevention information. It was a link to the Trevor Project. No reason was given. This is disconcerting. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth and LGBTQ youth are 4 times more likely to contemplate/attempt suicide than their peers.

What's the harm of linking to a resource?