Gay Patriot Header Image

Should a teacher be fired for opposing same-sex marriage?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:46 pm - August 19, 2011.
Filed under: Free Speech,Gay Marriage,Liberalism Run Amok

Ed Morrissey doesn’t think so:

Do teachers in public-school systems have a “special ethics” code that prevents them from publicly speaking on policy issues?  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.  The case will test First Amendment rights and encroaching political correctness . . . .

The school district suspended Buell, who had been the school’s Teacher of the Year in 2010-11, because they are concerned that gay students might be “frightened or intimidated” in his class.  That’s a pretty thin rationale for punishing someone over what appears to be more or less mainstream opposition to the gay-marriage law.  Even saying the above in a classroom would be a thin rationale for disciplinary action, unless school districts will be taking action against all teachers who talk politics in the classroom, and a Facebook posting is not a classroom speech.

If this were at a private school, then the school would entirely be within its rights to dismiss the man.  But, a public school should only be able to dismiss him if it holds all its teachers to a similar standard, suspending them from publicly speaking out on political issues.

Could Christian students be intimidated if they heard a teacher speak out against the public expression of their faith?

Oh, and one more thing, my favorite political science professor is college was a Marxist who regularly denounced Ronald Reagan and his policies, yet I wasn’t frightened or intimidated in his class, despite my open support of the Gipper.  That professor may have been wrong about politics (and economics), but he could still teach in an even-handed manner — and show respect for those with whom he disagreed.

Do hope the PC police in Lake County, Florida bear that mind as they weigh the case of Mr. Buell.

Share

55 Comments

  1. Why not just tell the gays who might be “frightened or intimidated” by his comments to man up?

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 4:51 pm - August 19, 2011

  2. the left can’t and won’t argue. They just want everyone who disagrees with them to shut up.

    Comment by Real American — August 19, 2011 @ 5:57 pm - August 19, 2011

  3. The left’s tactic of “Opinions we disagree with are a form of bullying that hurts people’s feelings and causes them to commit suicide” is one of the most limp-wristed cop-outs of all time.

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 6:15 pm - August 19, 2011

  4. The American history teacher has the obligation to explain the issues which “gay marriage” bring up. That was not the case here, as I understand it.

    If what I read is correct, the teacher expressed his personal preferences off school grounds and without embroiling the school in his remarks.

    The school system has a certain commitment to making sure its employees do not bring shame and dishonor into the classroom equation. So, if the teacher were making porn movies on his own and away from his teaching environment, the system might have good grounds for dismissing him for his “character flaws.”

    “Gay marriage” is far from settled as a politically correct view of personal conduct within the public square. Therefore, the school system is acting at the vanguard of political correctness and trolling for progressive leadership acclaim.

    In the same way liberals murdered Huckleberry Finn, they are being totally predictable in going after this teacher. He should be forced to go to liberal rehabilitation camp and made to confess his sins against the state and to wear a dunce cap until retirement.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 19, 2011 @ 6:19 pm - August 19, 2011

  5. Two things I’d like to learn more about:

    1. Was the problem merely that he expressed opposition to same sex marriage, or the way in which he expressed his opposition? This may or may not be a significant issue, depending on the code of ethics mentioned in the article.

    2. Does anyone have a link to the code of ethics in place at the school district? I haven’t yet found it.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 19, 2011 @ 6:27 pm - August 19, 2011

  6. “Could Christian students be intimidated if they heard a teacher speak out against the public expression of their faith?”

    That’s an interesting question. I do wonder how a school board would react if a teacher went on Facebook and referred to Christians’ faith using this teacher’s words (“cesspool”).

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 19, 2011 @ 6:29 pm - August 19, 2011

  7. By and large, Christians aren’t pussies. It’s the victim-card left that whines that any criticism of their worldview is tantamount to the Holocaust.

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 6:32 pm - August 19, 2011

  8. I mean, I’ve never heard a Christian whine that atheists should keep their mouths lest some vulnerable Christian teen commit suicide.

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 6:36 pm - August 19, 2011

  9. I despise the left.

    Comment by Richard Bell — August 19, 2011 @ 6:38 pm - August 19, 2011

  10. Does anyone have a link to the code of ethics in place at the school district? I haven’t yet found it.

    I have worked on dozens of “codes of ethics” for institutions ranging from simple “work rules” to very complicated situations where the frontiers are being pushed.

    Many times, I am brought in to untangle a mare’s nest created by ideologues who have written more of a “code of imperatives” than anything resembling a code of ethics.

    Ethics is not complicated. That is so everyone has the chance to be “ethical” without advanced training. Nor is being ethical either remarkable or confusing.

    Therefore, having to examine the “code of ethics” in this case is indicative of a desire to litigate the edges of sanity.

    It is possible that a true homophobe could be an outstanding teacher in a classroom that is overpopulated with gay students and the students would get an outstanding education and suffer no damage. That is basic ethics. I may totally disapprove of what you are, but I will work my hardest to help improve who you are.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 19, 2011 @ 6:38 pm - August 19, 2011

  11. I see the day coming when “civil union” becomes the legal terminology and “marriage” the religious terminology. It seems a reasonable solution to the dilemna, in my opinion. Full legal rights, religious acceptance if you belong to the right church.

    Comment by Megan — August 19, 2011 @ 7:49 pm - August 19, 2011

  12. “I mean, I’ve never heard a Christian whine that atheists should keep their mouths lest some vulnerable Christian teen commit suicide.”

    V the K, I have to agree with you about the suicide part. But I have heard Christians “whine” that atheists should keep their mouths shut, period. Not in those words, mind you. But when atheists rent billboards or rent sign space on the sides of buses, it does cause an uproar and bring demands that the signs come down.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 19, 2011 @ 8:30 pm - August 19, 2011

  13. He shouldn’t be fired because of the First Amendment. case closed.

    Comment by davinci — August 19, 2011 @ 8:42 pm - August 19, 2011

  14. Oh, please, Rob. Some may complain about the signs, but Christians, unlike Atheists, do not have entire organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State whose entire raison d’etre is to obliterate every expression of Christianity from the public square.

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 9:03 pm - August 19, 2011

  15. Actually, V the K, they do. Check out the Alliance Defense Fund. Or the Liberty Counsel.

    It goes both ways.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 19, 2011 @ 9:11 pm - August 19, 2011

  16. That’s an interesting question. I do wonder how a school board would react if a teacher went on Facebook and referred to Christians’ faith using this teacher’s words (“cesspool”).

    Actually, they can say worse than that about Christians to their face and in the classroom with full school sanction.

    So you are in the position, Rob, of demanding that a teacher be fired over statements on their private Facebook page not directed at any students — and insisting that a liberal bigot can say whatever they want to students in the classroom at any time without any problem or punishment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 19, 2011 @ 9:21 pm - August 19, 2011

  17. Please link to where the Alliance Defense Fund or the Liberty Counsel is actively suing to prevent Atheists from expressing their point of view. Thanks.

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 9:23 pm - August 19, 2011

  18. #17: Thank you, V the K, for not letting that “it goes both ways” bullsh*t go unchallenged.

    Comment by Sean A — August 19, 2011 @ 9:29 pm - August 19, 2011

  19. Just for grins, I went to American Atheists and found this statement:

    Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

    Fine by me. It is a “belief” that embraces a “lack of belief.” Whatever.

    But when atheists rent billboards or rent sign space on the sides of buses, it does cause an uproar and bring demands that the signs come down.

    Not when they advertise for joining the atheist club, but when they attack the belief in a deity.

    It is passing strange when a non-believer wants to subdue a believer with the promise that we are all organic units going through a life cycle which ends in decomposition and fertilizer for weeds. That bit of elemental biology is not much of a brainstorm, nor is it a compelling invitation to join in the nothingness of atheism.

    Therefore, militant atheism is the battle for mind control over those who have religious beliefs. It would be akin to militant vegetarians, militant pacifists, and militant hermits. That is to say, who cares if you are an atheist until you demand that your wishes be obeyed? To the militant atheist, it is not a matter of the separation of church and state; it is a matter of the church being walled off and cloistered.

    I can not think of anything more foolish than an atheist on an atheist mission. But Marx and his crowd did understand the utility of turning the state into the center of worship. So, it would appear, that militant atheists are just Marxist foot soldiers battling for the state control of religion and the elimination of religion.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 19, 2011 @ 9:36 pm - August 19, 2011

  20. Here’s a question: Would the liberal victim crowd be outraged if a teacher in a Bible belt school district were fired after expressing support for same-sex marriage on a Facebook page?

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 9:44 pm - August 19, 2011

  21. Sean A — I reject the premise of moral equivalence outright. Christians fighting for their right to freely exercise religion and express their faith is not morally equivalent to atheists seeking to repress that expression and exercise.

    Asserting moral equivalence is just intellectually lazy. Even if you could show me where some Christian group somewhere had sued to get atheists to take down a billboard (which would be wrong, BTW), it can’t be compared to the 50 year jihad by the ACLU and other organizations to ban Nativity scenes, tear down crosses even on privately owned land, remove displays of the Ten Commandments from public buildings, ban public prayer in any form, remove “In God We Trust” from the currency, remove “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, ban Christmas Carols from being sung in schools at Christmas, ban Christian groups from schools and colleges, and a host of other actions.

    Comment by V the K — August 19, 2011 @ 10:06 pm - August 19, 2011

  22. Told you so. We social conservatives aren’t surprised by this at all. This is just the true endgame of gay rights showing itself. Before long, not only will it be a crime to disapprove of gay marriage, but it’ll be law for all parents to teach their children to approve of homosexuality. There’s already such a law for foster parents in the UK. Don’t be surprised when that law is expanded to biological parents and then hops across the big pond to infect the US.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — August 19, 2011 @ 10:18 pm - August 19, 2011

  23. This is appalling. I would be just as appalled if that teacher were suspended for posting his SUPPORT of same-sex marriage. More and more teachers and students are getting in trouble for exercising their First Amendment rights on their Facebook pages. It’s one thing to write blatant threats or other trash; quite another to voice support of or opposition to a public issue. thefire.org has some examples.

    Comment by Taxpayer — August 19, 2011 @ 11:16 pm - August 19, 2011

  24. a reasonably stated opposition would likely have not garnered much attention but saying that’s new york’s decision “made him puke” and then going on a rant about his religious beliefs does seem to cross the line into the potential intimidation of his students. whether he should lose his job or not is up to his superiors.

    Comment by el polacko — August 19, 2011 @ 11:27 pm - August 19, 2011

  25. Most atheists just use their atheism as a way to try to convince people that their smarter than them. They call “Christians” idiots or whatever, but they generally don’t do the same for Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans.

    Comment by Naamloos — August 20, 2011 @ 12:32 am - August 20, 2011

  26. V the K,
    “I reject the premise of moral equivalence outright.”

    Tell me, V the K, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

    Comment by Richard Bell — August 20, 2011 @ 12:39 am - August 20, 2011

  27. This guy seems to be a Christian that is offended by something that he sees as a mockery of a well-respected institution. What exactly is wrong with what he said? And if gay students are “frightened or intimidated,” big deal. That is their problem, not his.

    Comment by Naamloos — August 20, 2011 @ 12:39 am - August 20, 2011

  28. Tell me, V the K, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

    I will give you the liberals’ answer: “Shut up, that’s why!”

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2011 @ 12:42 am - August 20, 2011

  29. Buell popped off on his Facebook WALL. . .he has a right to express his opinion, but his wall went out to over 700 ‘friends’.

    The issue at hand is that Buell, recently elected as Teacher of the Year, and seems to have some standing in the community / school probably needs to consider the fact that his public and private lives will be held to different standards.

    As far as the school goes, they can deal with Buell any way they want. They reassigned and then followed up with suspension.

    Looks like School districts across the country will look at social network policies and will be setting up guidelines.

    Comment by rusty — August 20, 2011 @ 9:34 am - August 20, 2011

  30. The Facebook generation is learning a bit about the old Victorian admonition that if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.

    Clearly Buell has every right is the world to express himself publicly and to suffer the consequences for doing so.

    The issue here is whether he may be opposed to gay marriage and retain his job and standing. It may turn out that “experts” will testify that a teacher who opposes gay marriage is a threat to the mental health and stability of a fragile teen-aged society, in which case Buell will be fired or assigned to sweeping steam off the school roof on blistering hot days.

    There is an ill defined expectation that teachers not be pole strippers or KKK members or porn addicts in their personal time. Gay teachers are a bit of a problem in high school shower facilities and more than a few have been canned for being unnecessarily omnipresent when adolescents are naked.

    So, if Buell has a large Facebook fan club it is probable that he has students and former students and a tittering class of twitterers who are keeping track of his musings. If he has scrambled the eggs, it is too late to try to put them back in the shell.

    The point remains the same. Is almost “throwing up” over the “cesspool” of gay marriage so off the common civility track in the semi-public square that a public employee must be censored for the thoughts and punished?

    This inquisition stuff. It invites moral relevancy comparisons and a veritable food fight over whether TEA Party people are “terrorists” and calling them such is acceptable Facebook chatter by a high school teacher on his/her Facebook page. The door is wide open for a world of possible and even probable comparisons. (How about learning that Buell is also gay? Wouldn’t that be a major monkey wrench in this melodrama?)

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 20, 2011 @ 10:15 am - August 20, 2011

  31. That’s a good point, V the K. While I’ve certainly heard about Christians “whining” (to use your term) about public expression of atheism, I don’t yet know of any cases by the ADF or Liberty Counsel trying to actively silence them.

    That’s an important distinction. Thanks.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 20, 2011 @ 10:40 am - August 20, 2011

  32. #29: “The issue at hand is that Buell, recently elected as Teacher of the Year, and seems to have some standing in the community / school probably needs to consider the fact that his public and private lives will be held to different standards.”

    rusty,
    I’ve no doubt by now Buell has figured out that different standards apply to him, not because he is a teacher but because he is a religious conservative. Buell is being punished for the CONTENT of his beliefs and anyone who tries to pretend that it was the public location of his expression (Facebook) that led to his discipline is full of it.

    I find it unbelievable that liberals here (and on other websites) have been getting away with parroting the same idiotic “lesson” that should be taken from this situation–that CERTAIN people in CERTAIN professions have a special obligation to keep their opinions and beliefs a SECRET with regard to social networking sites. Essentially, the liberals are telling Buell: “Yes! Of course you’re free to use social networking sites and tools on the Internet (you have free speech!). Just remember that after YOU set up your Facebook profile, Twitter account & Pajamas Media blog, you could be subject to discipline by your government employer (up to and including termination) if you decide to do something stupid like express a personal opinion that liberals disagree with. Using Facebook, Twitter or a blog for talking about yourself and what you believe in? What a ridiculous idea!”

    This new “rule” the liberals are spontaneously applying to Buell (a teacher) will expand to other occupations as conservatives are caught on Facebook disagreeing with leftist ideology. For example, if a police officer posts a comment on his Facebook page similar to Buell’s, suddenly the “rule” will be applied because…um…well…police officers deal with the public….and um….they uh…might deal with gay people in the community….and uh…we just can’t have people in this PARTICULAR profession expressing something that might be perceived as homophobic. The liberals will assure us that they absolutely support the free speech rights of a particular individual but since he’s a cop, he should have used better judgment.

    The Left will NEVER stop trying to silence the people they disagree with and this is just more of the same fascist crap they’ve been pulling for centuries.

    Comment by Sean A — August 20, 2011 @ 10:48 am - August 20, 2011

  33. P.S. By the way folks, this seems like a PERFECT time to drag up a story from the memory hole that liberals had no interest in a few months ago and will probably have even less interest in discussing now. Does everybody recall how a certain University of Iowa professor responded when a student in the College Republicans sent out an announcement of an event called “Conservative Coming Out Week”? No? Here’s a refresher:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/29/university-of-iowa-republican-student-gets-taste-of-left’s-‘civility’-in-profane-professor-email/

    If any of the libs are asserting that the “rules” are applied equally to liberals and conservatives, I would be interested in hearing how the story above factors into that opinion.

    Comment by Sean A — August 20, 2011 @ 10:59 am - August 20, 2011

  34. Actually, V the K, I do have to caveat my last message to you. The ACLU does not fight to “obliterate every expression of Christianity from the public square.” They oppose government-sponsored expressions of Christianity. They have a long history, though, of defending the rights of Christians individuals to have a voice in the public square.
    http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 20, 2011 @ 11:00 am - August 20, 2011

  35. Heliotrope,
    “(How about learning that Buell is also gay? Wouldn’t that be a major monkey wrench in this melodrama?)”

    Not if he were Conservative and gay.

    Comment by Richard Bell — August 20, 2011 @ 11:05 am - August 20, 2011

  36. Rob Tisinai,
    “They have a long history, though, of defending the rights of Christians individuals to have a voice in the public square.”

    You mean the same way the founding fathers did?

    Comment by Richard Bell — August 20, 2011 @ 11:08 am - August 20, 2011

  37. Well, Richard, sort of — they use lawsuits based on the First Amendment written by our Founding Fathers to protect the rights of Christian individuals to speak freely about their religion in the public square.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 20, 2011 @ 11:13 am - August 20, 2011

  38. Sean A,

    Your comments strike at the heart of moral relativity. Liberals have morality on their side when they need it and Puritanical prudishness as their whipping boy when it collides with their libertine ways.

    It is proper for liberals to hector people who do not toe the line of political correctness with an air of disdain and a rage for punishment and reeducation. Furthermore, when they assault the conservatives it is fully deserved as an act to protect enlightenment, superiority and to fight stupidity.

    Buell is a knuckle-dragging neanderthal who denies evolution, worships a sky-god and hates science and man caused global warming in particular. I know this to be so because he is a homophobe conservative fundamentalist Christian who has been outed.

    The Lancelots of progressivism are never wrong in their battle of ends justifying the means. Ask Levi, Cas or Serenity.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 20, 2011 @ 11:13 am - August 20, 2011

  39. The ACLU cherry picks a few lawsuits supposedly defending religious liberty to give themselves cover, but these are vastly outnumbered by the numbers of suits, and threats of suits that they engage in to stamp out religious — specifically Christian — expression.

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2011 @ 11:50 am - August 20, 2011

  40. V the K, has the ACLU ever tried to “stamp out” Christian expression that was no sponsored by the government?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 20, 2011 @ 11:59 am - August 20, 2011

  41. er, that should be: not sponsored by the government?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 20, 2011 @ 12:00 pm - August 20, 2011

  42. Besides, as I pointed out above, the Obama Party, the professional left (including the faculty of UC Irvine’s law school), and the Ninth Circuit have all stated that it is perfectly acceptable to insult, attack, and belittle students’ religious beliefs in the classroom, to their face.

    Or for their political opinions.

    So maybe Rob and rusty can explain why it’s so vital to protect children from Facebook postings that weren’t even directed at them and which they were not in any way required to read while liberal Obama Party supporters and antireligious bigots are allowed to directly berate and attack them in the classroom where they are required by law to be in attendance.

    Answer: They can’t. Their moral relativism that justifies anything in the name of gay-sex liberalism won’t allow them to treat situations equally.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 20, 2011 @ 12:03 pm - August 20, 2011

  43. Sure Rob, as the cases of the Mojave cross and the Mt. Soledad cross demonstrates, even crosses on privately owned land will be opposed by the ACLU even if the land is sold to a private entity. The ACLU will still fight to destroy them even if any attachment to Government is severed.

    Not to mention the ridiculous notion that displaying a cross or a Nativity Scene on public land in any way at all can be considered Establishment of a State Religion. No rational person could take that position, only an irrational Anti-Christian would see it that way. I mean, how can you say on the one hand that a gay-positive curriculum in school won’t compel anyone who isn’t gay to be gay, but the mere sight of a cross on formerly Government-owned land is tantamount to forcibly converting someone to Christianity?

    Comment by V the K — August 20, 2011 @ 12:28 pm - August 20, 2011

  44. And don’t forget, the gay and lesbian left and its puppet the ACLU will demand you be fired if you post something on the Web opposing gay marriage, but will defend you to death if you post detailed instructions on how to rape and molest littleboys without getting caught.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 20, 2011 @ 1:10 pm - August 20, 2011

  45. if we follow their logic, then a teacher should be fired if they say anything against Christians in public or on a social network – its only fair

    Comment by Mark — August 20, 2011 @ 1:18 pm - August 20, 2011

  46. Thanks V the K. I appreciate the reference.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 20, 2011 @ 2:03 pm - August 20, 2011

  47. I’m a little bit frightened, but like I always tell my friends, this is a tyrannical nation now and if I’m going to go down, I’m going down swinging.

    Comment by A Conservative Teacher — August 20, 2011 @ 10:36 pm - August 20, 2011

  48. You have the right to remain silent, everything you have written or searched for on the internet can be used against you in a court of law.

    You have the right to internet access. If you cannot afford wireless it will be provided to you without charge.

    Comment by Geena — August 20, 2011 @ 11:00 pm - August 20, 2011

  49. Geena,

    You’ve hit on the amusing thing. We now have people saying that having a right to the net is a human right. Sharing your beliefs… isn’t.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 20, 2011 @ 11:06 pm - August 20, 2011

  50. There is one aspect, here, that bothers me. Our teacher at my school just segued out of her position as the job placement counselor back into teaching. She said that employers are asking their employees (prospective or current) to “friend” them on Facebook. My brother, who until recently, was looking for work in law enforcement. He said that law enforcement HRs have a way of bypassing your security settings and reading everything you write.

    Of course you shouldn’t have the expectation of privacy when it comes to putting stuff on the web. However, unless you’re writing about shooting up your office, or some such, I don’t know why your web activities should have anything to do with your employment.

    Another thing that bugs me is that our teachers have told us multiple times (if I had a dollar for every time, I could pay off my financial aid now) how clinics and dr’s offices are testing for nicotine now. Many won’t hire you if you test positive for nicotine and will fire you if you smoke on their property. Whether or not a person smokes should have ZERO bearing on whether or not they get or hold a job. We have the liberal Pleasure Police (as Cigar Dave calls ‘em) to thank for this.

    How can they be for “the little guy” if they continually shit on him?

    I have half a mind to start a business that discriminates against non-smokers. I can guarandamntee you that I would be sued if I did.

    Comment by TGC — August 21, 2011 @ 4:30 am - August 21, 2011

  51. That bit of elemental biology is not much of a brainstorm, nor is it a compelling invitation to join in the nothingness of atheism.

    I’m starting to think they’re emos & goths who never grew up.

    As I’ve mentioned before, there’s a crazy bitch in the Lakeland area that’s part of the local atheist group. They’ve gone ballistic because Sheriff Judd removed the basketball goals from the jail and donated them to a/some church(es). I’d like for someone to explain to me how this is evidence of the US Congress establishing a national religion.

    Comment by TGC — August 21, 2011 @ 4:33 am - August 21, 2011

  52. This story reminds me of a college professor I had at Texas A&M back in the spring of 1983. He was a huge supporter of the Christian Children’s Fund, one of the liberal groups that aided poor children in destitute countries. My prof was a foster child that was adopted if my memory serves me correctly. Anyway, he was my technical writing prof, and he went on and on about this charity during class. I was offended because this had nothing to do with tech writing; he was just blathering about this group. Frankly, I didn’t think he was that great of a prof, not really teaching a heck of a lot. The students were by and large conservative I guess since it was Texas A&M; they didn’t raise a ruckus probably because they didn’t want their grades hurt (I was that way also). Right before graduation, when the grades had been put into the system, I went to the prof and expressed my disagreement with him. He raised his voice and said, “You don’t know the f*%k what you’re talking about.” I was po’ed and responded before walking out on him. I didn’t go to any higher ups because frankly I was ready to graduate. But libs like this guy just think they are righteous and perfect; they make my blood boil.

    Comment by davinci — August 21, 2011 @ 9:06 am - August 21, 2011

  53. My experience with a liberal prof was actually similar. (Thank the Divine I went to the branch, and not main campus) I got up and walked out of her class when she was going on at length about the kids in TICO (Franklin County’s maximum security juvenile facility) didn’t need incarseration. They needed hugs and love because they were misguided. Keep in mind this wasn’t for shoplifters. This was where they housed Murderers, arsonists, rapists, etc. I told her that you don’t hug a mad dog. You Put It Down. I then went and complained to the administration. That was the last class she taught at the branch.

    Also keep in mind this was a ‘Sociology and the Family’ class. The only group she never talked about was a stable atomic family. We had a lot of talk about same sex couples (back in the early 90′s mind you), dysfunctional families, incest survivors, and the ‘prison family’ above. But not a traditional family unit.

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 22, 2011 @ 7:45 am - August 22, 2011

  54. [...] * – should a teacher be fired for opposing same-sex marriage? [...]

    Pingback by J.A.R.D. v.8.22.11 « Falcon’s Eyrie — August 22, 2011 @ 10:32 pm - August 22, 2011

  55. I doubt anyone is still reading this thread, but it the ACLU sided with the teacher against those who wanted him fired.
    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/?p=21254

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — August 24, 2011 @ 8:40 pm - August 24, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.