L.A. teacher loses job over anti-Semitic comments (while attending Occupy Wall Street rally)

sf gate ^ | 10/19/2011 | ap

[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.

[Owl558]

Nathan, are you sure you are not assuming facts not in evidence? If she was down there on the the school district’s dime, or assumed the authority of the school district when she spoke (which she did in my opinion), then the “private citizen in the public square” arguement does not apply. It is as if she said these things in the classroom.

I’m not saying that she was. I don’t know. The article cited simply does not give enough information on which to base a conclusion. Nor do we know the details of her contract, which might contain behavior clauses.

If she was there as a private citizen and did not cloak herself as a representative of the school district, then your point is very well taken.

[SevenofNine]

I count on it that she file lawsuit also Occupy LA people would invaded tear up LA School district HQ new one

Don’t be suprise if there is Laker fan riot in the building

[Zionist Conspirator]

Yeah, baby . . . yeah!

[nathanbedford]

Your points are well worth considering.

I suppose I am trying to get to the most basic principles.

As I said in my original reply, I do not think that the offensiveness of the speech is the test we should employ in determining what political speech is protected and what political speech we will not protect. For example, it is easy for us conservatives to condemn anti-Semitic bigotry but some fellow Freepers would be a lot less exercised upon hearing, under the same circumstances, anti-Semitic bigotry directed against Semites who happen to be Muslims.

Is there any political speech which is not in itself illegal such as pornography or inciting a clear and present danger of violence, which we should permit a bureaucrat to censor? Let us assume that the woman in question under the same circumstances had said that we ought not to permit illegal alien children to attend our schools who do not speak English because they disrupt the class and inhibit the progress of teaching. Further, she says these illegal alien children should be immediately deported. In doing so she clearly identifies herself as a substitute teacher of the district. Should she be fired?

If we censor her speech are we not losing the input of someone who has experience on the ground? Is the input of her free speech worth offending a class of foreign speaking illegal immigrants such as Mexicans? Are we to grant or withhold her the right of free speech based on whether a bureaucrat thinks her speech is worth bearing? Are we to permit ourselves to be deprived of the information by the same bureaucrat?

Do the circumstances change because she is offering an opinion beyond the realm of presumed competence? Does your right to free speech very depending on whether people are offended and if so does it matter which group is offended? Do Jews who suffer the Holocaust have a lower threshold of offense than white males? To Mexicans have the same right to be offended as Jews? Who makes this determination? A bureaucrat?

Do we want our rights of free speech to depend on whether one group or another subjectively takes offense? What will we name our sports teams?

Should the decision whether to fire her belong to an elected bureaucrat who has no judicial jurisdiction over the matter but only the position of a bureaucratic superior? Who is he to judge the value to society of public political speech? When we ask the question, "should she be fired" are we not asking the question, should we permit the state acting through a bureaucrat, in this case a school superintendent, to impose sanctions for exercising political speech in public?

We assume that anti-Semitic utterances are abhorrent and therefore many Freepers on this thread justify the firing by citing the repugnance of the utterance. But I have tried to bring to our attention a couple of hypothetical examples in which reasonable Freepers might differ. My point is that even abhorrent speech like anti-Semitism is beyond the reach of the state to punish.

Because we are not proceeding from basic principles we resort to very fine distinctions such as whether she presented herself as a teacher. Is that the real problem? What harm is it to children in the classroom if she identified herself in the public square as a teacher but harmless if she does not identify herself as a teacher?

Is her offense not potential harm to the children that that she tainted the reputation of the school district? Do we really think that free speech should be censored to protect the government's reputation?

Do we or do we not have the constitutionally protected right to be obnoxious?

[Beaten Valve]

Video from KTTV LA of teacher’s racist rant on LIVE TV:

If you didn’t see it live, the first segment of today’s show has to be seen to be believed. It showed a now ex-LAUSD teacher going on, at length, with a racist rant live from downtown. I couldn’t believe they actually let it go on as long as it did but...wow. Apparently, you can blame the Chris Christie lookalike who runs the show for that call.

It’s another one of those “what were they thinking?” moments from FOX 11. Whose brilliant idea was it to put this woman on live? I don’t know which was worse - that they let the segment run as long as they did or that the reporter doing the interviews, Susan Hirasuna, was trying to justify the comments. I’d say that this was the “shark jumping” moment for “Studio”, but no self-respecting shark would be within miles of this disaster. For added nausea, the unrelated piece at the end is just another example of how far this farce will go to find an audience. Please - someone put a fork in this excuse for whatever it’s supposed to be. Its 15 minutes were over long ago.

(Snip to video)

http://socalmediawatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/studio-11-lareally.html

[Maryhere]

Yes, it is refreshing to see it socked to the lefty teacher.

[Minus_The_Bear]

Oh, I agree with you... people have the right the express whatever opinion they please.

The problem is this individual is using force and making others pay for her speech via the Dept. of Education.

[La Enchiladita]

She made her remarks at the ‘Occupy L.A.’ protest not at the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest on the opposite coast.

[La Enchiladita]

(Quote)

District officials released a statement supporting McAllister’s freedom of speech, but saying the district would “never stand for behavior that is intolerant, disrespectful or discriminatory.”

(End quote)

Source: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-occupy-la-anti-semitic-comments,0,1949335.story

[La Enchiladita]

There are many jobs where you surrender free speech to a degree. The military would be one example, and that applies to off time as well as time on the clock.

[La Enchiladita]

At least, Liz Habib objected to letting the ignorant bigot go on and on. Hirasuna herself should look for another job; while ignoring Jeff’s throat-slitting entreaties, she actually defended the bigot, saying “She believes in what she is saying as fact.”

[tobyhill]

All the same smelly hippies and ghetto fish to me.

[eater-of-toast]

Not a surprise. It’s an irony of the Democrat coalition that it includes both the overwhelming majority of Jews and almost all blacks, since anti-Semitism is more common among blacks than any other racial/ethnic group, as indicated by the ADL’s own research.

[rogator]

Not usually.

[Owl558]

“Is there any political speech which is not in itself illegal...which we should permit a bureaucrat to censor?”

I can’t think of any. You are spot on.

However, in this specific case, this was the bureaucrat making the speech under cover of authority. Is this still permissible? If so, then don’t we have to then accept that such speech is permissable in the classroom as well?

What sinks her in my mind is that this is racist speech advocating the violent explusion of jewish bankers from this country. Incitement to violence is not permissable speech. It is illegal, and you correctly exclude it from the public square.

Your namesake General Forrest, founder of the Ku-Klux-Klan, might have some very interesting insights on this point, as you always seem to have as well.

Keep making us think, FRiend.

[gleeaikin]

I think she may have a case on constitution free speech grounds, time will tell. I’m sure some legal group will volunteer.

[manc]

I did and guess what the Jewish lady just passed it off and said the media were trying to put down the protests.

Amazing isn;t it.
The left think that the media is not on their side, that in itself shows how stupid these people are.

[justiceseeker93]

Please see the video linked to on post #45, but be prepared to puke as you watch the video of what is presumably a segment of local news on FOX11, Los Angeles. What's seen is surreal to most American viewers.

Whoever is responsible for editing there was obviously asleep at the wheel! Their field reporterette did an unusually long segment with the disgusting Patricia McAllister, a black antisemite, who had been filmed the other day in a Nazi-like rant as a participant in the Occupy LA thing. McAllister was allowed to vent her hatred for several minutes and show it off on a placard she was carrying. Then the same reporterette engaged a young looking white woman organizer of the demonstration, to discuss McAllister's activity. When the organizer tried to distance herself from the antisemitic participant, the reporterette went into an extended defense of McAllister's alleged right to spew her hatred. After the live news segment ended, the station read two Facebook posts from viewers who agreed with McAllister's bigoted remarks.

You might think you were watching TV news from the Arab world the way Mcallister was made to look like a heroine! Hopefully, some heads will roll at the station in the wake of this disgusting fiasco.

http://socalmediawatch.blogspot.com/2011/10/studio-11-lareally.html

[Sarah Barracuda]

If you think that was bad you should have seen the coverage on KCAL 9..well at least the reporter sorta confronted the lady, I tell ya what, if she had said something anti muslim or anti hispanic, they would have ripped her to shreds, but because she said something anti jew, they pretty much kissed her ass

[markman46]

you are right we have the freedom to say stupid things in the public square.If this woman had not IDed herself, I dont thing anyone would have made any comment other then “just another nut”. as an aside california is an “at will” state in other words employee/employer can leave with no reason.