Next door in Cecil County, at an Elementary School near the large Wal*mart, a controversy is brewing this weekend…
A music teacher called out a first grader as a “stupid” faggot. Investigation shows this is not a one time occurrence. A fifth grader verified he always says that in class… Always.
A second grader offered that he hears it at least several times a day from this music teacher…
Obviously the first grader is not a faggot. He doesn’t even know what a “faggot” is…
Equally obvious, is that the teacher in question, has a vendetta against people he considers to be such. And this music teacher is using his captive audience to attempt to instill in them a hatred that should not be force-fed so young of an audience…
I’m interested in the details underlying this..
We have freedom of speech. We also have precedents where the law has prevented us from saying certain things… I’m wondering if this term fits that definition of a word that should not be said… at least to anyone under 12… at least not by a publicly funded official who receives his income from our taxes…
In my lifetime, society has decided and quite effectively banned the “n” word. It used to be far more prevalent, but as more and more humans became educated as to it’s intention, which is not to describe but to incite, society has dropped that word and refuses to even listen when it gets mentioned.
The same will probably occur of the the word in question thrown demonstratively at a first grader. It does not describe. (what? a bundle of sticks?) It is used to incite. It says more about the speaker than it does the object of that speaker’s sentence.
In a room of all heterosexual people, (7 and under) should that name be use in derogatory fashion? The speaker thinks so. He feels he can get away with saying it with impunity. His perception is about to change…
Unless he reads this blog, he has no idea what is about to hit him next Monday…
Firing him could be one answer, but Cecil County needs teachers… Therefore I would propose giving him only these two options. Either he must quit, … or be only allowed to continue in that position, if he agrees to dress up in woman’s clothing and teach for one week dressed to the hilt as a cross dresser.
It would effective nip all talk of very young children being faggots for a very long time.
Humans are flawed, but our love, forgiveness, and humor, always gets ourselves back on the right track with a little push…
This action needs a consequence. Firing would be too easy. Better to set an example that really opens people’s eyes as to the silliness of judging someone else by standards less than you judge yourself…..
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 31, 2009 at 5:55 am
Steve Newton
I don’t think freedom of speech applies in this context.
First Amendment rights deal in preventing the government from exercising prior restraint. This guy is an employee of an educational institution, to which he is accountable for what he says and does. Which means if they know about it and they don’t choose to do anything, they are equally culpable.
October 31, 2009 at 8:50 am
Mark H
Only if he looks hot in drag
October 31, 2009 at 10:31 am
kavips
The first amendment not only deals with prior restraint, but it also insures that the government cannot go back in time and prosecute for what it deems are past transgressions. As a refresher, here it is again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
“abridging the freedom of speech” is open to a very wide interpretation here.
It appears from the language above, that any type of abridgment is unconstitutional. Which means this music teacher would have no claim with which to protest his district requiring him to dress up in costume in order to make amends for his insensitivity….
November 1, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Brian Shields
I have always thought that if you are being paid to do a job, then the employer has a right to tell you how to do it and your freedom of speech does not trump that unless you are being paid to speak your opinion.
November 1, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Steve Newton
kavips
I think you fall into the constitutional fallacy of confusing Congress shall make no law with employers shall have no authority.
Government cannot exercise prior restraint over speech; the other issue you quote is separate–ex post facto laws. The Courts have never given freedom of speech that wide an interpretation.
I teach for an employer. I have considerable academic freedom as regards intellectual ideas related to my discipline, but if I slander somebody or otherwise behave in a manner inconsistent with professional conduct, as my contract stipulates, I can pretty much be sanctioned or even terminated.
Likewise there are restrictions on speech that revolve around industrial secrets and confidentiality agreements. I have a signed agreement with a consulting company that I will be liable if I reveal their trade secrets. This is not an abridgement of free speech; I am always free not to sign the contract and not to take the job.
In short: freedom of speech is a far more specific, restricted right than most people believe, and was specifically intended to protect political speech.
November 1, 2009 at 6:32 pm
kavips
It seems like all are in agreement that this teacher should not be forcing the word “faggot” upon his elementary students, especially when used in an accusatory fashion directed at that child….
November 3, 2009 at 11:47 am
pandora
I’m curious as to how long this has been going on… and why it wasn’t addressed sooner. I’m not happy over the “stupid” description, either. I like your punishment idea, Kavips. Very creative.
November 4, 2009 at 1:04 am
kavips