Fla Teacher Fired for Views on Marriage and the State, Expressed Outside Work

[J.T]

Lake County Schools in Florida suspended Jerry Buell, a high-school teacher with a reportedly impeccable record for 22 years, for posting his opposition to New York’s new gay-marriage law, and will start termination proceedings against him.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-facebook-entry-opposing-ny-gay-marriage-law/
The offending post, according to Hot Air reads:
I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?


Since when is being a homphobic theistic bigot outside of work in posts intended to be read by friends and associates valid grounds for dismissal? I mean, sure the guy's clearly uncomfortable with his sexuality and suffers from a paranoid delusion that someone is always watching and judging him for his every thought crime against his invisible friend, but it's not like he expressed these views at work. Nor was he active in some Westboro Baptist-type public event that could reflect on the school or anything. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that these delusions and views have had any effect on his ability to do his job or the way he interacts with students or coworkers. Hell, HA reports he was Teacher of the Year just last year, so it's pretty clear his job performance has not been negatively impacted by his paranoia and bigoty.

This is a public school, right? That makes it a government institution that wants to fire a man for expressing, outside of work to those interested in reading, his delusions ('religious beliefs')- I'm pretty sure that's discrimination based on religion or creed, as well as his political views, which I don't think is allowed.

Not only should these proceedings against this man be ended, but whoever made this call ought to be fired for this clear case of discrimination. I believe a civil suit against the school board (or whatever group or person makes such decisions) is warranted to make it clear that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Now, Lauren Ritchie reports (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-jerry-buell-082120110821,0,6932805.column) that students were involved in the exchange. However, let's take that in context. Even if true, this discussion took place outside of school, via a digital medium that allowed all parties to leave the discussion at any time- it's like having a chat at the supermaket but it's okay to walk away and ignore the other person if you don't like them. The students chose to engage in this private discussion with this individual not as student and teacher, but parties engaged in a personal conversation in their own time on neutral territory. While we can question his judgment in choosing to engage these persons in discussion and while we do not have to support, agree with, or approve of his words and the positions he expressed, this man was expressing his right to free speech along with other private parties on his own time with no evidence that it had any effect at all upon his workplace or ability to perform his job until the school board decided to make it so. It is a flagrant violation of his rights for a government agency to target an employee that already recognize as being among their finest for termination because of personal views expressed in private discussion with other persons outside of work. Had he voiced these views in class, we'd have a different story and we'd have a case for the school taking actions against him. However, given the actual circumstances of what occurred (and when and where) the school had no grounds to involve itself in the matter in the first place.

[darin]

Are gay folk who are 'against' Gay Marriage 'homophobic', too? Weird.

[logroller]

JT, I couldn;t agree more. However, given your incomplete/inaccurate portrayal in the last few thread starts of yours,you'll understand why I question the article's validity; no less so when you quote "hotair.com" Perhaps you could offer some corroboration from a local news source

Or get it straight from source himself. Try PMing Prince Lemon

[J.T]

Perhaps you could offer some corroboration from a local news source.

click the second link, genius

[KartRacerBoy]

This story sucks if it is true. I think the teacher is wrong in his opinion but he didn't express it in school. Unfortunately, schools do this to students, too.

The 1st Amendment generally protects people from speech content based discrimination by the govt. On the other hand, there are exceptions, and schools have lots of exceptions. Remember the kid in Alaska suspended for expressing political speech off school grounds but on a school field trip? He sued and lost based on his 1st Amendment rights. The SCt found for the school and no 1st Amendment right in that instance.

So this guy is a teacher and an adult. That's a significant difference but the SCt does some crazy shit nowadays. I yearn for the days of Justice Hugo Black (a great lover of the 1st Amendment).

[logroller]

click the second link, genius
hey, I'm colorblind:laugh2::laugh2:

[J.T]

This story sucks if it is true. I think the teacher is wrong in his opinion but he didn't express it in school. Unfortunately, schools do this to students, too.

The 1st Amendment generally protects people from speech content based discrimination by the govt. On the other hand, there are exceptions, and schools have lots of exceptions. Remember the kid in Alaska suspended for expressing political speech off school grounds but on a school field trip? He sued and lost based on his 1st Amendment rights. The SCt found for the school and no 1st Amendment right in that instance.

So this guy is a teacher and an adult. That's a significant difference but the SCt does some crazy shit nowadays. I yearn for the days of Justice Hugo Black (a great lover of the 1st Amendment).

School trip? He's at school. Hence he's bound by the school's rules, when oft include rules about language and saying/doing things likely to offend others and cause disruption.

This man was not at at work or any work-related event. There is no comparison to be made- they are two different matters.

[logroller]

This story sucks if it is true. I think the teacher is wrong in his opinion but he didn't express it in school. Unfortunately, schools do this to students, too.

The 1st Amendment generally protects people from speech content based discrimination by the govt. On the other hand, there are exceptions, and schools have lots of exceptions. Remember the kid in Alaska suspended for expressing political speech off school grounds but on a school field trip? He sued and lost based on his 1st Amendment rights. The SCt found for the school and no 1st Amendment right in that instance.

So this guy is a teacher and an adult. That's a significant difference but the SCt does some crazy shit nowadays. I yearn for the days of Justice Hugo Black (a great lover of the 1st Amendment).

If he said, i think gay marriage is wrong, makes me sick and shouldn't be allowed~ suspension is not warranted.

[KartRacerBoy]

School trip? He's at school. Hence he's bound by the school's rules, when oft include rules about language and saying/doing things likely to offend others and cause disruption.

This man was not at at work or any work-related event. There is no comparison to be made- they are two different matters.


Sure there are comparisons to be made. It's going to be a matter of law. Precedent. I'm just saying when schools are involved, courts can be stupid. I don't know that they will in this case, but it can happen. And schools tend to be "well lawyered." That is, they don't make a move like this without talking to a lawyer or two. Now the lawyers might be stupid, or the school might ignore their advice, but don't tend to make a move like this without firsrt trying to cover their asses.

There is a case going on in South Bend, Indiana (very close to my home) where the town is buying property and donating it to a brand new Catholic school being built. All so the catholic school can have a football field. For $1.2 million. And there are a couple of high schools in South Bend that don't have a football field. To me it's not just stupid (and a suck up to the Catholic church which is big in the area due to the Univ of Notre Dame being here), it's a clear violation of the separation of church/state. But the town lawyered up and found a lawyer who said it was ok to do so they did it (methinks the lawyer knew who was paying him), even after getting threatened with a lawsuit. So now they will spend several hundred thousand on lawyers fees in federal court.

People do stupid things. And sometimes we lawyers help them do it, unfortunately.

[J.T]

Sure there are comparisons to be made. It's going to be a matter of law. Precedent.
The law is already there and clear
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

This man broke no rules and is recognized as their finest employee. He is clearly being fired for his religious and ethical beliefs, expressed outside work to other private parties in personal discussion and brought to the attention of his employer by unknown parties hostile to his religious affiliation. His employer is clearly taking these actions against him based solely on his stated religious and moral beliefs and not upon any impact upon his work they might have, but for the stated beliefs themselves.

Any court that allows this is not legitimate, as it would be upholding clearly unconstitutional acts by a government agency (a public school, which is a body and an agent of the local gov't) that clearly infringe upon the civil liberties of this teacher.


we lawyers

I knew there was something slimy about you! ;)

[Prince Lemon]

America marches toward the death of freedom.It will be the same as in queer EU and Canada where Christians are muzzled from telling the truth of God about fags.Remember jailed pastor in gay dominated Sweden.Also how many Baptists street preachers get arrested for preaching truth at gay pride parades in The UK's cities like London.Our liberties next!

[KartRacerBoy]

The law is already there and clear
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

This man broke no rules and is recognized as their finest employee. He is clearly being fired for his religious and ethical beliefs, expressed outside work to other private parties in personal discussion and brought to the attention of his employer by unknown parties hostile to his religious affiliation. His employer is clearly taking these actions against him based solely on his stated religious and moral beliefs and not upon any impact upon his work they might have, but for the stated beliefs themselves.

Any court that allows this is not legitimate, as it would be upholding clearly unconstitutional acts by a government agency (a public school, which is a body and an agent of the local gov't) that clearly infringe upon the civil liberties of this teacher.


Again, I'm not saying I disagree with you that it should be open and shut in the teacher's favor, but that's pretty damn rare in the real world of law. I hope the teacher contacts the ICLU or the FCLU to get him his job back with lots of damages piled on top.

[KartRacerBoy]

America marches toward the death of freedom.It will be the same as in queer EU and Canada where Christians are muzzled from telling the truth of God about fags.Remember jailed pastor in gay dominated Sweden.Also how many Baptists street preachers get arrested for preaching truth at gay pride parades in The UK's cities like London.Our liberties next!

You are one messed up individual. C'est la vie!

[gabosaurus]

Things are not always what they seem. Sometimes there is more to a story that what is brought out on the surface.
Here is an excellent opinion on the case from the Orlando Sentinel.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-jerry-buell-082120110821,0,6932805.column

[J.T]

Things are not always what they seem. Sometimes there is more to a story that what is brought out on the surface.
Here is an excellent opinion on the case from the Orlando Sentinel.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-jerry-buell-082120110821,0,6932805.column

^Did this idiot just copy my second link as if she were contributing something?^

[ConHog]

Sure there are comparisons to be made. It's going to be a matter of law. Precedent. I'm just saying when schools are involved, courts can be stupid. I don't know that they will in this case, but it can happen. And schools tend to be "well lawyered." That is, they don't make a move like this without talking to a lawyer or two. Now the lawyers might be stupid, or the school might ignore their advice, but don't tend to make a move like this without firsrt trying to cover their asses.

There is a case going on in South Bend, Indiana (very close to my home) where the town is buying property and donating it to a brand new Catholic school being built. All so the catholic school can have a football field. For $1.2 million. And there are a couple of high schools in South Bend that don't have a football field. To me it's not just stupid (and a suck up to the Catholic church which is big in the area due to the Univ of Notre Dame being here), it's a clear violation of the separation of church/state. But the town lawyered up and found a lawyer who said it was ok to do so they did it (methinks the lawyer knew who was paying him), even after getting threatened with a lawsuit. So now they will spend several hundred thousand on lawyers fees in federal court.

People do stupid things. And sometimes we lawyers help them do it, unfortunately.

I'm going to disagree with you here. A teacher is a person of authority over students whether they are at school or not. And they should definitely be careful about what they are saying in public. What if a teacher wrote an editorial in the newspaper about legalizing pot? Just as an example.

[fj1200]

This story sucks if it is true. I think the teacher is wrong in his opinion but he didn't express it in school. Unfortunately, schools do this to students, too.

Is there usually some sort of clause that governs contact with students outside of school?

[gabosaurus]

^Did this idiot just copy my second link as if she were contributing something?^

Do you honestly believe that anyone reads your posts? :p

[ConHog]

Is there usually some sort of clause that governs contact with students outside of school?

No of course not, but there are certain standards that of course they are expected to meet.

[Kathianne]

No of course not, but there are certain standards that of course they are expected to meet.

Of course not?

http://fenton-highridge.patch.com/articles/teachers-suing-over-missouri-social-network-law-3


Teachers Suing Over Missouri Social Network Law The Missouri State Teachers Association is suing the state over a new Missouri social network law that takes effect Aug. 28.


By Gabrielle Biondo (http://fenton-highridge.patch.com/users/gabrielle-biondo)



The Missouri Teachers Association filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri after legislators passed a law that would Courtesy Missouri Senate Communications





The Missouri State Teachers Association (http://www.msta.org/) (MSTA) is suing the state over a new Missouri social network law that prevents students and teachers from having conversations that cannot be accessed by school administrators and parents. This also means they cannot be friends on Facebook, something many teachers and students told Patch they disagree with because it's a common method of communication between the two parties these days...




There are 'professional standards' expected of teachers, much like police. However, passing laws infringing on their rights to free speech, seems a bit extreme and perhaps will be addressed in MO.

I wouldn't ask or accept friendships with students, that's a disaster in the making, IMO. There are teachers that do, obviously. My facebook is totally locked to anyone I don't invite, which is limited only to family and friends. I don't even have my 'teacher friends' on it.

Today most students have the same policy, controls set very high. Who hasn't heard that universities and employers are searching for information from these sites?

The bottom line though is what is the guys classroom behavior like? Does he treat the known gay kids differently? The obese? Those with acne or body odor? His mistake, imo was having a site where he 'spouted off' open to anyone looking for him. That the one turning him in was a 25 year old, says he made enough of an impression as a teacher, that the guy went to the bother of looking him up. Or possibly, and this could be a biggie, does his school web page link to his facebook page? I've seen sites like that, bad karma if that was the case. It would be the tie of school/home.

[logroller]

America marches toward the death of freedom.It will be the same as in queer EU and Canada where Christians are muzzled from telling the truth of God about fags.Remember jailed pastor in gay dominated Sweden.Also how many Baptists street preachers get arrested for preaching truth at gay pride parades in The UK's cities like London.Our liberties next!

If this was a teacher who was professing his undying gay love for his partner, and subsequently fired, would you feel the same way about his violated liberties?

[gabosaurus]

Kathianne's last post is spot on. Teachers and administrators are held to a higher level of accountability than others, simply because parents entrust them with the safety of their children.
In the high school district where I work, it is an "unofficial rule" that faculty and staff do not interact socially with students. It compromises your integrity and makes you liable to threats.
Teachers are at a high risk anyway. Let's say a child gets angry at the way a teacher treats him/her and decides to accuse the teacher of sexual misconduct. Without any kind of evidence being presented, the district is required to put the teacher on leave until the matter can be investigated. Even if the charge is declared to be totally without merit, the teacher's reputation is ruined, because any such charge is made public, with adverse results. No one will remember if you are acquitted, just that you are charged.

If your child's teacher goes on a public social interaction site and says "I hate gays" or "I hate blacks," it is protected speech. But a parent will usually ask themselves "who else do he/she hate? If my child is in that group, will they get a fair shake?"

The moral of the story is: Don't shit where you have to sleep. :cool:

[fj1200]

If your child's teacher goes on a public social interaction site and says "I hate gays" or "I hate blacks," it is protected speech.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't suffer the downside of your speech.

[J.T]

What if a teacher wrote an editorial in the newspaper about legalizing pot?

What about it?

[J.T]

The bottom line though is what is the guys classroom behavior like?

Well, he was Teacher of the Year last year, so I;'m guessing that's not a problem.



His mistake, imo was having a site where he 'spouted off' open to anyone looking for him.

I'll grant you it might have been unwise to engage in these discussions with students and that he shouldn't have his students on his 'friends' list due to the possible issues that could come about, but that still doesn't excuse the school's actions, which are clearly motivated by religious and political differences with the man.



In the high school district where I work, it is an "unofficial rule" that faculty and staff do not interact socially with students.
That's fine. But they aren't com paining about socializing with students. They're objecting to his religious and political beliefs. Their discrimination is so naked they didn't even feel the need to disguise it as a legitimate grievance or complaint regarding socialization.



If your child's teacher goes on a public social interaction site and says "I hate gays" or "I hate blacks," it is protected speech. But a parent will usually ask themselves "who else do he/she hate? If my child is in that group, will they get a fair shake?"

Apparently nobody ever felt they didn't get a fair shake, as I doubt he'd have been Teacher of the Year with any number of such complaints filed against him.

[KartRacerBoy]

Sure, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't suffer the downside of your speech.



That makes it UNPROTECTED speech, then, wouldn't it? "Protected" means you can't be punished due to your speech.

If this was a private school, they could do it. It's a PUBLIC school, however, and therefore subject to the federal constitution due to the incorporation doctrine (applying COTUS and Amendments to the states). The test then becomes is the teacher being fired due to the content of his speech and then is there some exception that might apply to the school.

As I said b4, schools and COTUS law is odd. This guy is a teacher, not a student, so he should have greater protections of his rights. Should. Not guaranteed, however.

[fj1200]

That makes it UNPROTECTED speech, then, wouldn't it? "Protected" means you can't be punished due to your speech.

Sure, but you're always saying that speech is protected from government suppression, or some such thing. The fact that it's a public school shouldn't matter if he did something contrary to his position.

[KartRacerBoy]

Sure, but you're always saying that speech is protected from government suppression, or some such thing. The fact that it's a public school shouldn't matter if he did something contrary to his position.

So you don't like the whole COTUS thing? The constitution applies here, whether you like it or not, becz it is a PUBLIC school. Govt run. Again, I'm not saying the teacher will win, but I think he should even if I disagree with his views.

[fj1200]

So you don't like the whole COTUS thing?

I LOVE the COTUS thing, it should be followed more closely. I also think that schools and kids are a different animal so I may agree with much of the SCOTUS rulings. I also think that government should get out of the delivery of primary education so it doesn't find itself in all of these conflicts of law.

[DragonStryk72]

This story sucks if it is true. I think the teacher is wrong in his opinion but he didn't express it in school. Unfortunately, schools do this to students, too.

The 1st Amendment generally protects people from speech content based discrimination by the govt. On the other hand, there are exceptions, and schools have lots of exceptions. Remember the kid in Alaska suspended for expressing political speech off school grounds but on a school field trip? He sued and lost based on his 1st Amendment rights. The SCt found for the school and no 1st Amendment right in that instance.

So this guy is a teacher and an adult. That's a significant difference but the SCt does some crazy shit nowadays. I yearn for the days of Justice Hugo Black (a great lover of the 1st Amendment).

The problem here is that students were involved in the discussion. This means that he's got his teacher hat on, same as the field trip scenario you are putting forward, since it was a school function.

[J.T]

The problem here is that students were involved in the discussion. This means that he's got his teacher hat on, same as the field trip scenario you are putting forward, since it was a school function.

It was not a school function. It was a private discussion between persons outside of school. Hence he didn't have his teacher hat on. He had his just-another-asshole hat on. Also, seeing as he was Teacher of the Year last year, none of these views seem to have affected his ability to do his job or the way he acts toward his students at work.

You and the school have no case.

[KartRacerBoy]

The problem here is that students were involved in the discussion. This means that he's got his teacher hat on, same as the field trip scenario you are putting forward, since it was a school function.

So a field trip is the same thing as facebook? Really? :rolleyes:

I don't think they are even close.

And aren't the folks in this thread that think the teacher should be fired the same ones that want govt off their backs. This site is sooooo full of irony.

[DragonStryk72]

It was not a school function. It was a private discussion between persons outside of school. Hence he didn't have his teacher hat on. He had his just-another-asshole hat on. Also, seeing as he was Teacher of the Year last year, none of these views seem to have affected his ability to do his job or the way he acts toward his students at work.

You and the school have no case.

Yes, that private discussion being between students and a teacher, so yes, he is a teacher at that time.

[DragonStryk72]

So a field trip is the same thing as facebook? Really? :rolleyes:

I don't think they are even close.

And aren't the folks in this thread that think the teacher should be fired the same ones that want govt off their backs. This site is sooooo full of irony.

Okay, let me break this down: A teacher talking to a student, however it is done, is a teacher talking to a student. This isn't hard, guys.

[J.T]

Yes, that private discussion being between students and a teacher, so yes, he is a teacher at that time.

I find it interesting that you can't even begin to imagine speaking to someone as an individual on your own time instead of desperately clinging to some sense of social class of power structure. Most of us could speak to the mailman, a professor, or our doctor outside of the post office, school, or hospital and speak to that person as a person without clinging to some atavistic sense of 'propriety' and social caste. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you cannot.

[J.T]

Okay, let me break this down: A teacher talking to a student, however it is done, is a teacher talking to a student. This isn't hard, guys.

Not outside of school, on neutral territory (cyberspace), on our own time, about subjects other than school. You're not my professor in this scenario, you're just some asshole. When we return to school on Monday, we will be student and teacher and we shall act and interact in accordance with appropriate propriety and professionalism. In the meantime, you're just some asshole.

[KartRacerBoy]

Okay, let me break this down: A teacher talking to a student, however it is done, is a teacher talking to a student. This isn't hard, guys.

Really? Not that hard? So where do you draw the line? The teacher's students at the time of the conversation? Former students but still in the school? Students from other schools? And what does the teacher have to say? If he says "hi" and the student deems the teacher a jerk, should the teacher be fired? Or is it only if YOU don't like the speech? Or does the speech have to be controversial to the community (however you define that)? So if a christian conservative town likes the anti-gay speech, he keeps his job but if it's pro-gay speech, he's fired? Who determines what the community thinks, btw?

Yeah, it is hard becz you're drawing an arbitrary line. My line is that if the kid ain't in school, no harm, no foul. But then I think the 1st Amendment is the most important individual right to upholding the republic.

[ConHog]

That makes it UNPROTECTED speech, then, wouldn't it? "Protected" means you can't be punished due to your speech.

If this was a private school, they could do it. It's a PUBLIC school, however, and therefore subject to the federal constitution due to the incorporation doctrine (applying COTUS and Amendments to the states). The test then becomes is the teacher being fired due to the content of his speech and then is there some exception that might apply to the school.

As I said b4, schools and COTUS law is odd. This guy is a teacher, not a student, so he should have greater protections of his rights. Should. Not guaranteed, however.



IF that were the case Kart, then teachers would be able have protected free speech whether acting as a teacher or not. The part of the story where the guy did this on his own time would be irrelevant. Schools though have as a matter of law already been exempted from the requirements of free speech though.

[KartRacerBoy]

IF that were the case Kart, then teachers would be able have protected free speech whether acting as a teacher or not. The part of the story where the guy did this on his own time would be irrelevant. Schools though have as a matter of law already been exempted from the requirements of free speech though.

That's a good point and let's say that I've long had a problem with employers (private or public) being able to dictate their employee's behavior off the job site. I dislike drug testing for example. As long as someone isn't stoned on the job or hung over so that it is affecting productivity, I think there should be legislation that prohibits employers from dictating private behavior. I think it is wise public policy.

As for teachers, clearly teachers speech is limited in their classrooms and at school under currnent 1st Amendment case law, but I draw the line at the school property boundaries. Those kids didn't have to interact with the teacher on his facebook page. They CHOSE to do so. Kinda of rich that they complain afterwards.

[fj1200]

They CHOSE to do so. Kinda of rich that they complain afterwards.

I'm inclined to agree with you if there was zero student/teacher relationship at the time. If the teacher sought out students to join and knew that they would see it, that might limit his freedoms, I guess I need to see more about that though.

[ConHog]

That's a good point and let's say that I've long had a problem with employers (private or public) being able to dictate their employee's behavior off the job site. I dislike drug testing for example. As long as someone isn't stoned on the job or hung over so that it is affecting productivity, I think there should be legislation that prohibits employers from dictating private behavior. I think it is wise public policy.

As for teachers, clearly teachers speech is limited in their classrooms and at school under currnent 1st Amendment case law, but I draw the line at the school property boundaries. Those kids didn't have to interact with the teacher on his facebook page. They CHOSE to do so. Kinda of rich that they complain afterwards.



As a matter of law , I agree with you. As a school board member. I find myself conflicted. This guy is a teacher and as such he should use more discretion in what he says in public. But on the other hand, around here many of our school teachers are also sunday school teachers and I sure wouldn't want some atheists pushing for me to fire them because they are teaching children about God when they are not at work, and you know that those types would go there if given a chance.

I don't think I'd vote to fire the guy, but he would understand that he needs to be more careful in the future about what he says in public because I wouldn't be willing to give another chance.

[Gunny]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-facebook-entry-opposing-ny-gay-marriage-law/
The offending post, according to Hot Air reads:
I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?



Since when is being a homphobic theistic bigot outside of work in posts intended to be read by friends and associates valid grounds for dismissal? I mean, sure the guy's clearly uncomfortable with his sexuality and suffers from a paranoid delusion that someone is always watching and judging him for his every thought crime against his invisible friend, but it's not like he expressed these views at work. Nor was he active in some Westboro Baptist-type public event that could reflect on the school or anything. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that these delusions and views have had any effect on his ability to do his job or the way he interacts with students or coworkers. Hell, HA reports he was Teacher of the Year just last year, so it's pretty clear his job performance has not been negatively impacted by his paranoia and bigoty.

This is a public school, right? That makes it a government institution that wants to fire a man for expressing, outside of work to those interested in reading, his delusions ('religious beliefs')- I'm pretty sure that's discrimination based on religion or creed, as well as his political views, which I don't think is allowed.

Not only should these proceedings against this man be ended, but whoever made this call ought to be fired for this clear case of discrimination. I believe a civil suit against the school board (or whatever group or person makes such decisions) is warranted to make it clear that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Now, Lauren Ritchie reports (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-jerry-buell-082120110821,0,6932805.column) that students were involved in the exchange. However, let's take that in context. Even if true, this discussion took place outside of school, via a digital medium that allowed all parties to leave the discussion at any time- it's like having a chat at the supermaket but it's okay to walk away and ignore the other person if you don't like them. The students chose to engage in this private discussion with this individual not as student and teacher, but parties engaged in a personal conversation in their own time on neutral territory. While we can question his judgment in choosing to engage these persons in discussion and while we do not have to support, agree with, or approve of his words and the positions he expressed, this man was expressing his right to free speech along with other private parties on his own time with no evidence that it had any effect at all upon his workplace or ability to perform his job until the school board decided to make it so. It is a flagrant violation of his rights for a government agency to target an employee that already recognize as being among their finest for termination because of personal views expressed in private discussion with other persons outside of work. Had he voiced these views in class, we'd have a different story and we'd have a case for the school taking actions against him. However, given the actual circumstances of what occurred (and when and where) the school had no grounds to involve itself in the matter in the first place.

How can he be paranoid delusional if what he feared in fact happened? As usual, your girly ass over-loadeth your moose mouth.

[logroller]

KRB, I understand you to be a lawyer, so I trust you understand the complexity of legal discussion. To those who don't enjoy the complexity of legal discussion-- feel free to skip this!


Really? Not that hard? So where do you draw the line? The teacher's students at the time of the conversation? Former students but still in the school? Students from other schools? And what does the teacher have to say? If he says "hi" and the student deems the teacher a jerk, should the teacher be fired? Or is it only if YOU don't like the speech? Or does the speech have to be controversial to the community (however you define that)? So if a christian conservative town likes the anti-gay speech, he keeps his job but if it's pro-gay speech, he's fired? Who determines what the community thinks, btw?

Yeah, it is hard becz you're drawing an arbitrary line. My line is that if the kid ain't in school, no harm, no foul. But then I think the 1st Amendment is the most important individual right to upholding the republic.

At the point you accept a position of authority, be it with a State or private entity, you are held to the standards of those who grant you such authority! Either you respect the authority vested in you and get to keep it, or you don't and lose it.

Your questions above speak to the undeniable complexity of bureaucracy;as a lawyer I'm sure you've had an administrative law course at some point, but here's a recap! ---There's an elected official(s), a school board in this case, who represents the community. Their duties include enacting rules and standards and appointing administrative officials to enforce them. As required by law, per the first amendment, any person has the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As this is public institution, there must be a set of rules which define how the organization is to enact and enforce those rules, as well as rules which provide a check to overzealous administrative action. (Paid leave during an investigation, amicus curiae briefings, providing a record of the findings, appeal etc)

Now, If this teacher is as great a teacher as we're led to believe-- a true asset to the community regardless of his personal views; the public could (and should) demand his reinstatement; and those officials would be compelled to do so or face losing their own position of authority. As were the community outraged by his personal behavior, demanded his termination and they didn't comply-- they could expect the same! That's freedom in all it glory!


That makes it UNPROTECTED speech, then, wouldn't it? "Protected" means you can't be punished due to your speech.

If this was a private school, they could do it. It's a PUBLIC school, however, and therefore subject to the federal constitution due to the incorporation doctrine (applying COTUS and Amendments to the states). The test then becomes is the teacher being fired due to the content of his speech and then is there some exception that might apply to the school.

As I said b4, schools and COTUS law is odd. This guy is a teacher, not a student, so he should have greater protections of his rights. Should. Not guaranteed, however.

Things are different for private and public officials, but they are both held to their respective standards. Regardless, rules aren't the same as laws. Were it not so, students couldn't be reprimanded for talking during a test. If the rules weren't clearly posted or stated, one could make a case; whereas ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Though rules often carry legal authority, most commonly in the public sector (hence they are held to the highest standards), he's only protected from legal recourse; as he faces no legal action-- no Constitutional tort exists.

What if he were instead calling for abandonment of public education? He may have just and valid reasoning for doing so. However, there exists a conflict of interest which could undermine the institutional foundation of his authority. As for proclamations on the Godless immorality of a public law, the same applies. The authority is vested by a public institution similar to his own; he can speak to the whatever moral authority he wishes, but not against an institution to which he belongs. Hence his position is conditional upon his upholding the virtue of the vested authority, and can be rescinded if he demonstrates any behavior deemed unbecoming--- including the free exercise of speech.

[KartRacerBoy]

JT is actually being rational in this thread (even if some might disagree with him) and Gunny still has to attack him.

Way to go Gunny! Way to show that vaunted intellect!

That's SARCASM, btw, in case you didn't get it.

[gabosaurus]

Once again, Gunny lashes out with his haughty aura of superiority. And comes off like a girly man.

[J.T]

How can he be paranoid delusional

He thinks a giant invisible man in the sky is always spying on him...

Last I read the DSM, those were called 'paranoid persecutory ideations' and were indicative of one delusional disorder or another.

[ConHog]

He thinks a giant invisible man in the sky is always spying on him...

Last I read the DSM, those were called 'paranoid persecutory ideations' and were indicative of one delusional disorder or another.

Can we please have just a single thread where you aren't shitting on those who believe in God?

[logroller]

As a matter of law , I agree with you. As a school board member. I find myself conflicted. This guy is a teacher and as such he should use more discretion in what he says in public. But on the other hand, around here many of our school teachers are also sunday school teachers and I sure wouldn't want some atheists pushing for me to fire them because they are teaching children about God when they are not at work, and you know that those types would go there if given a chance.

I don't think I'd vote to fire the guy, but he would understand that he needs to be more careful in the future about what he says in public because I wouldn't be willing to give another chance.

I'm guessing an athiest wouldn't have their kids in Sunday school. Besides, church isn't a public place, unlike the internet, which I believe is the most public space. If the teachers you speak of were giving lessons which were broadcast publically over the net, radio or TV, that'd be a different story. Legally, it's your call as a board member. If they don't like your decision, they're free to elect another.

[ConHog]

I'm guessing an athiest wouldn't have their kids in Sunday school. Besides, church isn't a public place, unlike the internet, which I believe is the most public space. If the teachers you speak of were giving lessons which were broadcast publically over the net, radio or TV, that'd be a different story. Legally, it's your call as a board member. If they don't like your decision, they're free to elect another.

No, not too many atheists attend church, not on a regular basis; but that is in fact how those kind of folks are (I mean the complainers, not just atheists) they don't care if it actually affected them or not, they just want to complain. So yes, they would complain and get a teacher fired if they could.

But let's use your scenario. Suppose a teacher was using their facebook to talk about God, and now say an atheist's kids seen it. Do I want schoolboards firing teachers over that? Again, it's a tough call. I personally would not vote for firing in either situation.

[logroller]

No, not too many atheists attend church, not on a regular basis; but that is in fact how those kind of folks are (I mean the complainers, not just atheists) they don't care if it actually affected them or not, they just want to complain. So yes, they would complain and get a teacher fired if they could.

But let's use your scenario. Suppose a teacher was using their facebook to talk about God, and now say an atheist's kids seen it. Do I want schoolboards firing teachers over that? Again, it's a tough call. I personally would not vote for firing in either situation.

His discussion wasn't just about God, but God and State; and so long as he's vested with authority from the State, he's bound by the code of a ethics as determined by his agency. Tough call for school districts, no doubt; but you do the best you can to serve the people who put you there.

[DragonStryk72]

I find it interesting that you can't even begin to imagine speaking to someone as an individual on your own time instead of desperately clinging to some sense of social class of power structure. Most of us could speak to the mailman, a professor, or our doctor outside of the post office, school, or hospital and speak to that person as a person without clinging to some atavistic sense of 'propriety' and social caste. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you cannot.

Yeah, except I am not in a position of authority and trust over my mailman, a professor, or my doctor. I can tell my boss, or my fellow employees to go fuck themselves, but I can also expect to get fired for such behavior. Freedom of Speech does NOT assuage responsibility for what comes out of your mouth.

It isn't about "caste", it's about having the sense not to mouth off, and especially not in the most public forum in the world to people that you are in charge of, and have a responsibility to.

[ConHog]

Yeah, except I am not in a position of authority and trust over my mailman, a professor, or my doctor. I can tell my boss, or my fellow employees to go fuck themselves, but I can also expect to get fired for such behavior. Freedom of Speech does NOT assuage responsibility for what comes out of your mouth.

It isn't about "caste", it's about having the sense not to mouth off, and especially not in the most public forum in the world to people that you are in charge of, and have a responsibility to.

Surely it's obvious to you by now that JT and sense don't go together.

[KartRacerBoy]

Can we please have just a single thread where you aren't shitting on those who believe in God?

I'll give JT a pass in this that post since he's responding to Gunny's irrational rantings. And I thought his post was funny! :laugh:

[KartRacerBoy]

His discussion wasn't just about God, but God and State; and so long as he's vested with authority from the State, he's bound by the code of a ethics as determined by his agency. Tough call for school districts, no doubt; but you do the best you can to serve the people who put you there.

No doubt the school district will be sued by this teacher. Is incurring tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars serving the best you can? This is such an obvious lawsuit waiting to happen. And wasting money on this situation in time of steep cutbacks is crazy IMO.

[logroller]

No doubt the school district will be sued by this teacher. Is incurring tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars serving the best you can? This is such an obvious lawsuit waiting to happen. And wasting money on this situation in time of steep cutbacks is crazy IMO.

I believe that's the legal system doing the best they can. Conditioned like Pavlov's dogs; when the deep pockets of state-school bells ring, lawyers' mouths salivate suits.

Serving the interests of those one represents is not crazy, nor a waste of money. Kowtowing to overzealous demands for fear of costly lawsuits is why schools are in the situation they are. So what you're really saying is, providing for the educational needs through a public institution just isn't worth the cost---no arguments there!!!.

For example, my wife works for a small school district,3 sites, ~1500 students, ~60 certified employees. When restructuring (expanded two k-3, intermediate +middle school to 3 k-6 + jrhigh) to comply with NCLB program improvement, teachers were moved between schools to mix grade-level experienced teachers among several sites. Makes sense right, you wouldn't want 3 teachers who'd never taught that grade together at the same site, you blend experience levels. Well can I tell you there was a huge lawsuit, several teachers went out on stress leave and the administration bowed to the union demands whose interests are based purely on seniority(those who had paid them the longest) DESPITE there being a clause in their contract which said the administration may change job assignments when the needs of the children were better met.

[KartRacerBoy]

Ok people, you're starting to annoy me. Much like my wife. Simply state that all I say is ultimate wisdom and I must be obeyed. I can't get her to say this, so I'd appreciate some suck up from you guys. Thanks.

[ConHog]

Ok people, you're starting to annoy me. Much like my wife. Simply state that all I say is ultimate wisdom and I must be obeyed. I can't get her to say this, so I'd appreciate some suck up from you guys. Thanks.

Tip: To get your wife to always say you're right, first find out what she thinks then sneakily present it as your own idea. Works great.

[logroller]

Ok people, you're starting to annoy me. Much like my wife. Simply state that all I say is ultimate wisdom and I must be obeyed. I can't get her to say this, so I'd appreciate some suck up from you guys. Thanks.

Sure...hold on, I'm trying...OK, here it comes...:puke:

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm pretty sure you guys aren't trying very hard. Makes me sad.

[ConHog]

I'm pretty sure you guys aren't trying very hard. Makes me sad.

Hey now, on the rather rare occasions that you have in fact been right, I've agreed with you. Stop being wrong if you want people to agree with you. It really is that simple. :2up:

[KartRacerBoy]

This is the worst sucking up EVER.

Ok back to the subject which I am 100% correct about...

[ConHog]

This is the worst sucking up EVER.

Ok back to the subject which I am 100% correct about...

I don't even remember the topic OR your stance, but I'll assume you're wrong about it.

Oh, and apparently I mistakenly used your for you're or you're for your because the resident troll (JT in case anyone wondered) sent me a link detailing the difference between the two.

Really JT resorting to being the grammar police now? That's weak, even for you .

[J.T]

UPDATE::

TAVARES — Jerry Buell, the Lake County teacher who was suspended after making anti-gay comments on Facebook (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/arts-culture/computer-networking-internet/social-media/facebook-ORCRP006023.topic), will return to the classroom Thursday after being reinstated by Lake County Schools Superintendent Susan Moxley."If I did not stand up for my rights after telling my students to stand up for their rights then I would be a hypocrite," the Mount Dora (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/us/florida/lake-county-(florida)/mount-dora-PLGEO100100405050000.topic) High social studies teacher said as he stood in front the school district offices Wednesday with his attorney and wife. "It's been a lesson. It's been a heck of a lesson."

Buell met with Moxley for about an hour before her decision was announced. A "written directive" was placed in his file, said school district spokesman Chris Patton.



Patton would not elaborate on the directive, or say if Buell had been reprimanded. That information will be available in 10 days.



The latest information, however, should raise some eyebrows:

On his class syllabus, he also offers this warning to students: "I teach God's truth, I make very few compromises. If you believe you may have a problem with that, get your schedule changed, 'cause I ain't changing!" On a separate document, he also said the classroom was his "mission field."



So now I've several new questions:
1)Why is this information only being made public now?
2)Did the school/board know this before?

While I stand by my defense of his facebook discussion, this I have a serious problem with, as allowing this is giving a nod to a man turning a classroom into a church. He can believe' 'god's truth' all he wants- but the moment you speak about teaching it in a classroom you've crossed a line that's simply not acceptable. Religious delusions and one's thoughts on them do not belong in the class room. For these actions, he should be in trouble- as should any supervisors who knew of these violations.

[KartRacerBoy]

Logroller thanked JT! :clap:

And I think the school got a better lawyer.

[ConHog]

UPDATE::

TAVARES — Jerry Buell, the Lake County teacher who was suspended after making anti-gay comments on Facebook (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/arts-culture/computer-networking-internet/social-media/facebook-ORCRP006023.topic), will return to the classroom Thursday after being reinstated by Lake County Schools Superintendent Susan Moxley."If I did not stand up for my rights after telling my students to stand up for their rights then I would be a hypocrite," the Mount Dora (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/us/florida/lake-county-(florida)/mount-dora-PLGEO100100405050000.topic) High social studies teacher said as he stood in front the school district offices Wednesday with his attorney and wife. "It's been a lesson. It's been a heck of a lesson."

Buell met with Moxley for about an hour before her decision was announced. A "written directive" was placed in his file, said school district spokesman Chris Patton.



Patton would not elaborate on the directive, or say if Buell had been reprimanded. That information will be available in 10 days.







The latest information, however, should raise some eyebrows:

On his class syllabus, he also offers this warning to students: "I teach God's truth, I make very few compromises. If you believe you may have a problem with that, get your schedule changed, 'cause I ain't changing!" On a separate document, he also said the classroom was his "mission field."



So now I've several new questions:
1)Why is this information only being made public now?
2)Did the school/board know this before?

While I stand by my defense of his facebook discussion, this I have a serious problem with, as allowing this is giving a nod to a man turning a classroom into a church. He can believe' 'god's truth' all he wants- but the moment you speak about teaching it in a classroom you've crossed a line that's simply not acceptable. Religious delusions and one's thoughts on them do not belong in the class room. For these actions, he should be in trouble- as should any supervisors who knew of these violations.


If the teacher is teaching about God in certain courses, then I have no problem with it. I'm sure you believe God has no part in a discussion about philosophy and the like, but He does. Now if this guy is teaching math or something, then no that is inappropriate.

[Gunny]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/19/florida-teacher-suspended-for-facebook-entry-opposing-ny-gay-marriage-law/
The offending post, according to Hot Air reads:
I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?



Since when is being a homphobic theistic bigot outside of work in posts intended to be read by friends and associates valid grounds for dismissal? I mean, sure the guy's clearly uncomfortable with his sexuality and suffers from a paranoid delusion that someone is always watching and judging him for his every thought crime against his invisible friend, but it's not like he expressed these views at work. Nor was he active in some Westboro Baptist-type public event that could reflect on the school or anything. Nor is there any evidence, to my knowledge, that these delusions and views have had any effect on his ability to do his job or the way he interacts with students or coworkers. Hell, HA reports he was Teacher of the Year just last year, so it's pretty clear his job performance has not been negatively impacted by his paranoia and bigoty.

This is a public school, right? That makes it a government institution that wants to fire a man for expressing, outside of work to those interested in reading, his delusions ('religious beliefs')- I'm pretty sure that's discrimination based on religion or creed, as well as his political views, which I don't think is allowed.

Not only should these proceedings against this man be ended, but whoever made this call ought to be fired for this clear case of discrimination. I believe a civil suit against the school board (or whatever group or person makes such decisions) is warranted to make it clear that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Now, Lauren Ritchie reports (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-jerry-buell-082120110821,0,6932805.column) that students were involved in the exchange. However, let's take that in context. Even if true, this discussion took place outside of school, via a digital medium that allowed all parties to leave the discussion at any time- it's like having a chat at the supermaket but it's okay to walk away and ignore the other person if you don't like them. The students chose to engage in this private discussion with this individual not as student and teacher, but parties engaged in a personal conversation in their own time on neutral territory. While we can question his judgment in choosing to engage these persons in discussion and while we do not have to support, agree with, or approve of his words and the positions he expressed, this man was expressing his right to free speech along with other private parties on his own time with no evidence that it had any effect at all upon his workplace or ability to perform his job until the school board decided to make it so. It is a flagrant violation of his rights for a government agency to target an employee that already recognize as being among their finest for termination because of personal views expressed in private discussion with other persons outside of work. Had he voiced these views in class, we'd have a different story and we'd have a case for the school taking actions against him. However, given the actual circumstances of what occurred (and when and where) the school had no grounds to involve itself in the matter in the first place.

You can't even by right for the right reasons.