Teacher: Christian faith prohibits treating transgendered students with respect and dignity

[Shad]

You're splitting hairs. His insubordination was over how he treated a student.

Nope as no policy was reference just an order, a decline to follow it and termination.

You stated, "If the contact does not contain nor reference policy which the employer is subject to, any order outside contractual obligations is a breach of contract and illegal."

So again, where's the citation that says "if it's not specifically in a contract, the employer is powerless to do anything about it"?

Loaded question thus dismissed as such. Try again. Contracts contain what a party is obligated to fulfill legally. If it is not referenced nor stated in the contract the party has zero legal obligation to fulfill non-contractual requests. Perhaps look up what a contract is or reference a valid breach of policy

I know my contract quite well.

Not if you think someone is contractual obligated to do something not in the contract.

There's nothing in it about sending crazy emails to partners.

Are you sure about that?

So according to you, my employer is powerless to do anything about my purple monkey dragon emails.

Wrong. You could be fired for using work time for personal time which is a failure to meet part of your employment contract.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No as that is part of procedure, the job and even training. You never worked in this field, have you?

You missed the point of the argument. In case you did not realize that was a rhetorical question.

 

[Curious George]

Nope it wasn't as he, the teacher, would have been in trouble for his compromise not the mistake as per the article

Are you saying that teachers compromise was acceptable? I understand you and others may feel that wau, but the question we need to answer is whether the school board was unreasonable in finding differently.

I would assert that referring to all other children witj pronouns while singling out one child by never using pronouns calls attention to that student, makes apparent the teachers beliefs regarding that student, encourages others to treat that student differently as well, and does all of this while distracting from the actual curriculum and instruction time.

While I do understand and accept there are alternate ways to frame this, I cannot see how anyone could conclude that the board was unreasonable in anticipating the teachers offered "compromise" would not also impact instructional time.

 

[Shad]

Are you saying that teachers compromise was acceptable?

Completely acceptable in my view and acceptable by the student until the mistake occurred.

I understand you and others may feel that wau, but the question we need to answer is whether the school board was unreasonable in finding differently.

My issue is the lack of information regarding the contract. The title 9 protection are no longer valid as of 2017. I couldn't fine a city statute or state law regarding this issue. Keep in mind I have agreed to hypothetical points. However that is an if not a fact.

I would assert that referring to all other children witj pronouns while singling out one child by never using pronouns calls attention to that student, makes apparent the teachers beliefs regarding that student, encourages others to treat that student differently as well, and does all of this while distracting from the actual curriculum and instruction time.

Speculation. The article cites the teacher made a mistake. There was no harassment, no malicious intent. I would add that your own point can be flipped as a student is being treated different for being TG anyways.

Most pronouns are not used in direct communication. More so use of names is common place in everyday language.

While I do understand and accept there are alternate ways to frame this, I cannot see how anyone could conclude that the board was unreasonable in anticipating the teachers offered "compromise" would not also impact instructional time.

My point is regarding the authority to do so. No one has cited anything regarding this point only speculation. As per the above if there is a statute or contractual obligation such as being subject to and accepting changes in policy then the teacher has nothing. He would be breaching his own contract.

The compromise had zero impact as it was not the reason for the complaint. The mistake was.

 

[Shad]

You missed the point of the argument. In case you did not realize that was a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question based on ignorance of the field and what the job actually is.... Impressive. Ergo a failed point due to facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speculation, although a valid point in general. Do you have the tearcher's contract and can you point out the clause in the contract in question.

Because a teacher's contract would have to explicitly say "don't be a ********* to the students" for a teacher to know not to do this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A problem is that said policy was revoked via Trump in 2017 namely Title 9. Ergo the authority for that policy is null. More so he didn't discriminate according to the article. He was fired for insubordination not policy violation.

Selection 504 isn't applicable.

If you think that Trump made this school board's non-discrimination policy illegal, I suggest you give your head a shake.

 

[Shad]

If you think that Trump made this school board's non-discrimination policy illegal, I suggest you give your head a shake.

The policy is title 9 which is under the authority of POTUS. The definitions were created with an EO, changed with an EO (Obama), changed again with an EO (Trump). If the changes have no legal impact than Obama's changes didn't either. Ergo this whole compliant has no merit in policy. Your own point cripples the advocates position far more than anything I have said.

Like I said if there is a city or state statute involved the teacher breached the contract. Both city and state governments often augment and further expand upon Civil Rights. No one has demonstrated the if is really a fact.

 

[Curious George]

Completely acceptable in my view and acceptable by the student until the mistake occurred.

And that is fine. Sounds like the student was even understanding of the teacher until the teacher had issues living up tp the compromise.

My issue is the lack of information regarding the contract. The title 9 protection are no longer valid as of 2017. I couldn't fine a city statute or state law regarding this issue. Keep in mind I have agreed to hypothetical points. However that is an if not a fact.

I agree we do not know in fact what the contract states. However, I doubt that any contract for public education would not be held to imply that the teacher act with respect towards the children. This is a professional standard and the teacher would have no reason to assert that such expectations were not part of the contract unless he specifically contracted against those expectations. While I agree that the district wrote the contract and the contract should be read more favorably towards the teacher, a construction that went against professional standards would be unreasonable.

Thus, while I assume that the school did not create a contract that would prevent it from acting when a teacher was disregarding direction and acting in a manner that the school believed to harm a child, even if the school had neglected the express language, no reasonable understanding of a teacher contract could be read without assuming basic professional standards.

Speculation. The article cites the teacher made a mistake. There was no harassment, no malicious intent. I would add that your own point can be flipped as a student is being treated different for being TG anyways.

It is speculation, but the board is entitled to so speculate in order to make decisions. I in no way said that the teacher had malicious intent.

Most pronouns are not used in direct communication. More so use of names is common place in everyday language.

But use of pronouns is quite common in a classroom.

My point is regarding the authority to do so. No one has cited anything regarding this point only speculation. As per the above if there is a statute or contractual obligation such as being subject to and accepting changes in policy then the teacher has nothing. He would be breaching his own contract.

I doubt we are ever going to get our hands on the contract at the school im order to argue whether or not the school had just cause. However, I am stating that evem barring an express provision, that clearly entitles the finding of just cause, no teacher contract can reasonably be read to disregard basic professiomal standards and common practice unless those specific standards and common practice were specifically addressed im negotiations.

The compromise had zero impact as it was not the reason for the complaint. The mistake was.

Speculation.

 

[Curious George]

If you think that Trump made this school board's non-discrimination policy illegal, I suggest you give your head a shake.

I did not realize there was a specific school policy to boot.

 

[Curious George]

The policy is title 9 which is under the authority of POTUS. The definitions were created with an EO, changed with an EO (Obama), changed again with an EO (Trump). If the changes have no legal impact than Obama's changes didn't either. Ergo this whole compliant has no merit in policy. Your own point cripples the advocates position far more than anything I have said.

Like I said if there is a city or state statute involved the teacher breached the contract. Both city and state governments often augment and further expand upon Civil Rights. No one has demonstrated the if is really a fact.

I am not sure about the school policy (i didn't bother looki mg at the school policies). but if the school adopted a specific policy because of Obama EO, then Trumps EO would not necessarily have an effect on the policy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not realize there was a specific school policy to boot.

It explicitly says that the school board "does not discriminate on the basis of [...] gender identity." Self-proclaimed internet legal expert @Shad is trying to seize on the last bit (where it refers to how the terms are defined by law) and jumpnto some bad conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A rhetorical question based on ignorance of the field and what the job actually is.... Impressive. Ergo a failed point due to facts.

No, when it comes to this field it appears that he was not the ignorant one.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Respect, and dignity are not the problem.

 

[Shad]

It explicitly says that the school board "does not discriminate on the basis of [...] gender identity." Self-proclaimed internet legal expert @Shad is trying to seize on the last bit (where it refers to how the terms are defined by law) and jumpnto some bad conclusions.

Wrong. I questioned if the policy was legally binding. Gender-identity is not part of title 9 as law but by EO by POTUS. Try again

 

[Shad]

I did not realize there was a specific school policy to boot.

A policy based on title 9 which does not include gender identity as law. Ergo the school is interpreting a law which it has no authority to do so and one that has been revoked under Trump and Betsy.

 

[Shad]

No, when it comes to this field it appears that he was not the ignorant one.

I worked for telemarketing when I was in university. They follow a script as part of the very call and sales procedure. Companies vary in how much ad-lib they allow. Staff sit in front of a computer screen with a company guide up of varying quality with steps, references, escalation of calls up the chain, etc.

 

[Shad]

I am not sure about the school policy (i didn't bother looki mg at the school policies). but if the school adopted a specific policy because of Obama EO, then Trumps EO would not necessarily have an effect on the policy.

Wrong. Trump's EO specifically revokes Obama's EO's definition of sex, gender and identity under title 9. IE the very basis of the school's policy as a public school is under the executive branch. The buck has been passed on to states and cities.

 

[Shad]

And that is fine. Sounds like the student was even understanding of the teacher until the teacher had issues living up tp the compromise.

Seems like a common mistake to make. After all the teacher had a whole school year of using the old pronoun which becomes a habit. We often use pronouns as reflex language. We associate a sex with a name of a person so the pronoun comes naturally. Bruce Jenner vs Caitlyn Jenner. Pronoun use naturally flows from names even with neutral names like Jamie or Darcy. Toss in names which are spelt different by sound similar like Aaron and Erin.

The teacher is partial conditioned by language use and experience. However I think there is an effort on his part to keep his language consistent, as per the above, lest his language slide, as it did. So intent but not necessarily malicious.

I agree we do not know in fact what the contract states. However, I doubt that any contract for public education would not be held to imply that the teacher act with respect towards the children.

The teacher used the student's name.

This is a professional standard and the teacher would have no reason to assert that such expectations were not part of the contract unless he specifically contracted against those expectations. While I agree that the district wrote the contract and the contract should be read more favorably towards the teacher, a construction that went against professional standards would be unreasonable.

I question if expectations include compelled speech in this manner.

Thus, while I assume that the school did not create a contract that would prevent it from acting when a teacher was disregarding direction and acting in a manner that the school believed to harm a child, even if the school had neglected the express language, no reasonable understanding of a teacher contract could be read without assuming basic professional standards.

As pointed out previous the policy in question has had its very basis changed by Trump dumping the problem to the states. I disagree with the change without proposing changes to the legislative portion of title 9.

It is speculation, but the board is entitled to so speculate in order to make decisions. I in no way said that the teacher had malicious intent.

Seemed like an accident to be honest.

But use of pronouns is quite common in a classroom.

Rarely in direct speech. Considering there is only one incident it seems he was consistent.

I doubt we are ever going to get our hands on the contract at the school im order to argue whether or not the school had just cause. However, I am stating that evem barring an express provision, that clearly entitles the finding of just cause, no teacher contract can reasonably be read to disregard basic professiomal standards and common practice unless those specific standards and common practice were specifically addressed im negotiations.

He made a mistake. This is the only case of any misconduct we have.

Speculation.

Nope as the compromise was never reported only the slip up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I worked for telemarketing when I was in university. They follow a script as part of the very call and sales procedure. Companies vary in how much ad-lib they allow. Staff sit in front of a computer screen with a company guide up of varying quality with steps, references, escalation of calls up the chain, etc.

And you still missed the point.

But since you worry so much about contracts the fact that teachers have to treat their students with respect tends to be in the contracts that they sign.