Posted on 10/19/2011 4:46:36 AM PDT by tobyhill
Los Angeles school officials say a substitute teacher has lost her job after making anti-Semitic comments during an interview.
In a statement Tuesday, schools Superintendent John Deasy condemned remarks made by Patricia McAllister during a protest rally last week.
In an Oct. 12 interview with Reason.com at a Los Angeles rally, McAllister said "Zionist Jews and the Federal Reserve" need to be run out of this country.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Loose lips pink slips.
Well, well....glad to see someone on the left get bit in the @ss by PC for a change.
You laugh too hard, you cry.
Just because she lost her job as a teacher doesn’t mean she wasn’t hired back as an administrator.
In the long ago past, teachers as a rule recognized that they were in a very public position and expected to have excellent behavior. They were in the same league as ministers when it came to what they did or said in public and accepted that responsibility. Teachers were role models of integrity and industry and that profile was closely monitored. Any infringement on that reflection was immediately addressed. This is an aspect of the teaching profession that is lost now. Teachers are not expected to act in a different manner than others and this is why they end up in news articles constantly. A teacher should not be in public raging about anything. They should be thinking of better ways to encourage students to think for themselves. But today they are usually on the soap box for some liberal ideology which comes back to haunt them.
I’ll bet she gets her job back plus a court ordered bonus.
The democrat tent is made up of factions, many of which don’t necessarily like each other.
And a brand new set of jackboots in the bargain. Walking all over zionist Jews is hard work for this new generation of national socialists.
I pray that the judge who gets that lawsuit has a first name of "Moisha".
"Never Again" is our collective responsibility.
Are subs union members....?
Clarification: they have instituted rules which penalize you for being happy your team made a good play. Sorry I was confusing.
The subs I knew weren’t. Since there are so many school districts close to LAUSD such as Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena, she will still be able to work unless her reputation follows her.
She’ll sue to be reinstated on the grounds of racism.
Just watch.
Up until now the left media has refused to say that this person was an OWS demonstrator.
In the long ago past, teachers were people who taught. Now a teacher is someone who belongs to the union.
Through 13 posts I have not found any serious defense of free speech. Let us consider how the left has turned the world upside down. The very idea of providing a teacher with tenure is to free them from real and potential intimidation of the intellectual quest by the state. In other words, society since the Middle Ages has believed that Socrates must be protected from the hemlock or the electoral integrity of the Academy will be lost to the demagogues of the state.
Can we conceive of a situation in which this woman might be protected from making the same remarks inside the classroom by tenure and yet be denied the right to streak freely and preserve her job in the public square? Have we not turned the world upside down?
Our problem arises out of the coercive nature of public education. Although parents have a technical right in most jurisdictions to homeschool their children or to place their children in a private school or a religious school, as a practical matter these options are severely limited by finances. Put another way, a child is drafted into an institution which we call a school and held there by force of arms if necessary. There he will go unless his parents post his bail.
Since we compel children to sit in indoctrination sessions hour after hour, parents naturally want to control the indoctrination process. In a sensible society the parents would be given the option and the wherewithal by way of vouchers to send their children to a school of their choice whose curriculum comports with their values. But the left will not permit this because the teachers unions have a vested interest in the fruits of tenure. Once again the world is stood on its head because the teachers do not defend their tenure because they want to emulate Socrates but because they want to be protected by the state from the buffeting of competition. So the parents lose even more influence over the indoctrination of their own children.
Suppose this despicable teacher, who is clearly an anti-Semite, had gone to the public square and spoken the following sentence into the television camera and microphone:
"I think we should amend the Constitution so that 'Zionist Jews and the Federal Reserve" [can be] run out of this country.'"?
Her anti-Semitism would be no less despicable but would her First Amendment rights be more defensible?
It occurs to me that free speech ought to enjoy more protection in the public square from punishment by the state. I believe that a substitute teacher should have the constitutional right to say these despicable things in the public square without losing her job. I believe that if she had said them in the classroom, she should lose her job. If the woman were a teacher in a private school, the state could not fire her, but could the state compel the private school to fire her? Is there a difference in principle? It seems to me that the First Amendment does not protect despicable people from reactions in society, only from reactions by the government.
Our temptation as conservatives is to react to the substance of the speech and then decide whether it should be protected. I believe this is a very, very dangerous path. I am even reluctant for the state to control speech in the classroom but I see no other choice when we are dealing with children of tender years who are literally forced to sit and listen. The real solution is to end the incarceration system we call public education.
If you believe in free speech I think you have to support the voucher system. I do not want the superintendent of schools deciding what my children can hear and can not hear nor do I want him to decide what kind of political speech is fit for my children to hear, nor do I want him to decide whether public utterances of political speech somehow disqualify a teacher because the superintendent finds those words despicable. I want that power to be in my hands not in the hands of the state. So long as we have compulsory public education with no remedial voucher system, we will face this dilemma.
At the end of the day we have lost free speech in the public square, we have lost control over speech that our children are compelled to hear in school, we have lost control of the souls of our children.
Actually, it’s a good start to beating the leftists with the PC club with which they’ve been bearing conservatives for so long...
Something else we need to do is use one of the leftists favorite words... “CODEWORD!”
That’s right! And every time one of those OWS’ers uses the words “Wall Street” or especially “Bankers” we need to shout “CODEWORD!!! CODEWORD!!! You’re just saying ‘JEW!’”
Beat them bloody with their own tactics!
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.