Posted on 04/18/2014 9:51:47 AM PDT by Olog-hai
An Ohio teacher has been fired after a black student who said he wanted to become president claimed the teacher told him the nation didn’t need another black commander in chief.
The Fairfield Board of Education voted 4-0 on Thursday night to fire science teacher Gil Voigt from Fairfield Freshman School, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer.
“The district felt that the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of Mr. Voigt’s employment,” Superintendent Paul Otten said in statement.
Voigt did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday but has said the student misquoted him. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Another poster is correct this is not hearsay. It is direct evidence.
Maybe people need to read the article instead of the excerpt. This teacher has a history of making remarks that can be seen as causing a problem.
I am a teacher and I have heard what some teachers say to students. I am no angel in that regard but the students respect me because I “tell it like it is.” I don’t blow smoke up their butts. The special ed kids tell me they are stupid. I respond they are not stupid just lazy.
This guy sounds like he is trying to perhaps joke with students but doesn’t understand he has to know his audience prior to any jokes.
I know my kids and I know which ones I can joke with and those I cannot. This guy seems like he can not judge when to kid and when to shut up.
Of course the teacher is wrong. Our opposition to Obama has nothing to do with his skin color; it is his Marxist, collective mindset.
I would welcome and campaign for a great conservative candidate who happened to be black.
That is hearsay evidence. Me telling you what I heard someone else say is hearsay, regardless of who I am claiming said what.
It was a poor thing to say. Regardless of our disgust at Obama and his minions, we cannot blanket rule out an entire race of people as presidential material. I can think of several blacks I would not mind as president.
If he had said the same thing about GBW, we'd probably feel he needed to keep his opinions out of the classroom (which he should). This could have been a good, non-partisan classroom discussion: "What has the president done that you like (or do not like)? What do you think the consequences of that have been?"
“The district felt that the evidence was sufficient to support the termination
Evidence of what?
The man stated a personal opinion in answer to a question.
That is now a crime?
You are missing
(I)that the school is “government in that place” and the 1st Amendment provides that “no law...prohibiting the freedom of speech” (shall be made under color of legislation; implied: “rule”).
If the teacher is culpable for his staement, that is simply a “breach of trust” but he should not be terminated under color of law for his statement.
Provided he has opportunity for “due process”, he can make his case and live with the outcome. He was certainly terminated under subjective rules regarding “hearsay evidence”.
and (II) your are projecting your racist bias (are you sure you aren’t a Dhimmicrat Troll?) when you say, “ a teacher is telling black kids that they’re unfit to be President simply because they’re black — that’s appalling.”
Since, that isn’t what the teacher (alledgedly) said.
The teacher made a Dumb comment. Alan West or Ben Carson would make very good presidents. Certainly better than Barry, and with both hands tied behind their back.
If it's true that he's had repeated warnings, and there is a paper trail over time, then the school district felt it had the legal documentation to take this step.
It was a poor thing for the student to say that a teacher said something? Certainly was.
How is that “direct evidence”? Student’s word against teacher’s. Hearsay.
Also, the opinion of the “referee” is wrong.
If that’s what he said.
“It’s the seriousness of the charge”
A state referee investigating Voigt found that explanation was not credible.Every time with similar hearsay accusations? I smell setup.
The referee also found Voigt had made other offensive comments in class over the years, including an accusation that in 2008, he trained his laser pointer at a black student and said he looked like “an African-American Rudolph.” Voigt told school officials that he was only repeating what another student had said but later acknowledged his conduct had been inappropriate.
In 2012, Voigt was accused of calling a student stupid and implying that he and some of his classmates were gay. In that incident, Voigt denied making any insulting comments to students and told school officials that a group of students in his class were colluding against him.
The state referee found Voigt’s explanation for those two incidents to also be not credible. …
Well maybe the Teacher should have slept with the student, then he would have been treated like a hero by the Left.
Hearsay means you witness something and then tell someone else about it. The person you tell then makes the claim. “So and so told me the teacher said...” That’s hearsay.
hearsay: Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
Unless I read the article wrong, the child was an actual witness of the statement. It wasn’t hearsay.
OK then: one’s word against another. Just as much of a credibility problem on the part of the one who made the accusation.
In NYC you have Lesbian teachers having naked bump and grind sex in the classrooms but that is not cause for termination.
Example: the student's parents are called to testify and state that the teacher said X. If the source of their information is their son, that is hearsay.*
Example: if the parents took their child to counseling because of what their son told them the teacher said, that might be able to come in under a hearsay exception.* However, their testimony in that regard would not be considered as to whether or not the teacher made the statement, but only to why their child went to counseling.
Example: the child was on his deathbed and told his parents that the teacher said X. Maybe that could come in.*
Example: the son was in an agitated state and burst out of the room screaming that the teacher said X. I'm not sure that's the best example of an "excited utterance," but maybe it could come in.*
* I'm not an attorney and I never went to law school.
I agree. It does come down to one word against another, but that doesn’t mean the issue is finished. What would you do, for example, if a woman claimed someone sexually assaulted her, but there were no other witnesses or physical evidence, like bruises? What if the alleged attacker had a prior history of sexual assaults, even unproven ones? You’d probably try to determine the veracity of the alleged attacker’s and the victim’s stories.
I’m not saying anything about the results of this teacher’s case, because I don’t really know all the circumstances. What I am saying is it’s entirely possible and reasonable to punish someone based on the testimony of one direct witness.
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.