I have previously written about the increasing monitoring and discipline of teachers for conduct in their private lives. In San Diego, three high school coaches and a volunteer teacher were suspended for wearing costumes with black face at a Halloween party. They were not doing a minstrel show but were going as the Jamaican bobsled team featured in “Cool Runnings.” The party was at the San Diego State University.
The punished individuals include the varsity head football coach, an assistant coach and a teacher at Serra High School will be suspended. Notably, a volunteer will also be suspended.
People can debate whether wearing makeup to look like a Jamaican bobsled time is racist. My concern is purely one of free of expression and association for teachers. This was not a criminal act. They were not participating in a KKK cross burning. They clearly do not believe that wearing black makeup is racist or wrong. They have a right to make such decisions in their private lives. Nevertheless, both the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League supported action to be taken against the teachers and coach.
I certainly understand why many find black face to be offensive and I am surprised that people continue to use it in costumes. However, free speech and association protects different values and expressions. Citizens are not required to satisfy majoritarian views on proper humor or, as the English call it, “fancy dress.”
Superintendent Cindy Marten took the group out for a public lashing, stating that “[t]hey send their apologies to any person or group of people they have offended and want to make it clear it was not their intention to offend anyone.” She called it a “critical teachable moment” but what does it teach about free speech and privacy for public teachers?
Lei-Chala Wilson, President of the NAACP’s San Diego Branch, praised the discipline and added “We found nothing funny when we saw that picture was posted.” The concern is that public teachers should not have to satisfy others in their private lives as to whether the public finds their jokes funny or their associations acceptable. I was struck how it was simply assumed that such private conduct off-hours are naturally the subject of public discipline and accountability.
What do you think?
Randy, somebody in the administration knew they were teachers and that somebody probably had a “holy ****, how many people have seen this, how many people know these jokers teach at (whatever) school?” If you put it out on the Interwebs, on a social network site, it’s public by definition
Lotta, I said a lot of nasty things about the oil companies in public and in some cases on TV. So according to your ideas I should have been fired many times over. I made sure that I did not ID myself with ARCO, but I did have my union jacket on. So if a person knew that I worked for ARCO, they would be right in disciplining me for those statements? Sure glad you were NOT my union rep. I was actually sued by the company during our strike too. They agreed to drop the suit as part of the settlement.
Randy, I had to fix a snack for the better half and by the time I replied to you there were other posting that interveined so I’ll answer those questions:
Banning books? NO! I love books. They only look like bound paper They are time machines and rocket ships taking you to a another time you can access only second hand and places that exist far over the horizon or only in imagination. Banning books is to me like burning a church or temple is to a religious believer.
Some books, or readers actually, may need guides cleverly disguised as teachers or caring parents, but that’s the nature of exploring unknown territory. That’s exactly why ‘hard’ books or books with anachronistic speech or character behaviours are good for students.
Had I the power and were I the queen (you know, of the world and time) I’d have nuked the Nazis when they started burning books, nipped their madness in the bud as it were. You just know where that shite is going when people start burning books. You have to dig deep in some pretty fetid swampland to reach the level of book burners and banners. I don’t like ’em.
randyjet: “Lotta, I too used to be a union official, …. so I hope that you would process and fight for them in this case too”
I’d defend anyone that felt aggrieved that walked through my door and give it my all. That was my rule. I’d also check the contract, governing rules and regulations, disciplinary history for any similar behaviour in a very large ballpark, recent and historical rulings and tell the grievant just what their chance of prevailing was. Between Mike S, you and I we probably have enough ‘I had this guy come in once’ stories to kill a case of beer before the barbecue even gets done. We wouldn’t have that occasion actually because that would be a betrayal of the grievant’s privacy, we’d all just have to sit around periodically chuckling to ourselves and munching ribs… Having a job you like and can’t really talk about is a drag. 🙂
Edited my comment above.
Mike S:
“The Jamaica Ski Team idea was not just some innocent fun with no content to it. ”
Your posts give the impression that you believe that the juxtaposition of Jamaicans with a winter sport is some kind of mockery in itself.
The Jamaican _Bobsled_ Team was a real group of athletes who overcame mockery, prejudice, and lack of support to compete in the 1988 Winter Olympics. A fictionalized version of their story was made into the well-received movie “Cool Runnings”. I thought it was rather inspirational; if you have not seen it, you should.
Porkchop:
I am all for the first amendment and I would not punish these people but I would give them some reading material and explain the history of American race relations to them.
They appear to be young and probably have little understanding of the history of what they did. I am guessing they would be horrified to learn they may have insulted people.
My son had a friend in grade school who wished he was black because he wanted to play basketball. The child was maybe 12, it was a sincere compliment acknowledging superior performance.
Mike S:
“The Jamaica Ski Team idea was not just some innocent fun with no content to it. ”
Your posts give the impression that you have not and that you believe that the juxtaposition of Jamaicans with a winter sport is some kind of mockery in itself.
The Jamaican _Bobsled_ Team was a real group of athletes who overcame mockery, prejudice, and lack of support to compete in the 1988 Winter Olympics. A fictionalized version of their story was made into the well-received movie “Cool Runnings”. I thought it was rather inspirational; if you have not seen it, you should.
“The Jamaican _Bobsled_ Team was a real group of athletes who overcame mockery, prejudice, and lack of support to compete in the 1988 Winter Olympics.”
Porkchop,
Yes they were. Now go back and read exactly what I said about them something about heroic. no apologies needed.
Juliet N.:
The “fighting words” exception to the general protections of the First Amendment is a very narrow exception. It applies only when the words are likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace by the hearer — there is nothing in any of the reports that I have read that would indicate there was any kind of breach of the peace or the threat of one. Indeed, if someone had taken offense and attacked one of these men, the attacker would have been guilty of a criminal assault.
PO, very nicely said, I like this part best:
“Finally, lack of perspective is always the most salient feature in any extremism, and obviously you are not aware that the PC that you decry, that religion calls goodwill, and tradition calls politeness, and the moderns call civility, is that which allows you the freedom to spout off…”
Just that specifically is something we should all keep in mind and take to heart.
randyjet: “As long as they keep the company and their own actions separate with no association between them, they are fully within their rights and NO employer can regulate off hours activities.”
Randy, somebody in the administration knew they were teachers and that somebody probably had a “holy ****, how many people have seen this, how many people know these jokers teach at (whatever) school?” If you put it out on the Interwebs, on a social network site, it’s public by definition.
I like non-western tribal art, masks and jewelry and reliquary images and statues. I have a bunch of them, made a bunch of them, learned to do all kinds of raffia/macrame to augment them properly and enjoy displaying them. I don’t paint myself in blackface/body or redface/body and wear them outside, or even sit around in them or do rituals in my yard wearing them. (I’d probably be a more interesting person if I did!)
Once you leave the privacy of the house physically or electronically, you are in the public sphere and subject to whichever way the cultural/social/legal winds are blowing. The coaches went out in public. It’s not what they expressly disclosed, it’s what someone else knew (their identity) just by seeing the pictures.
As to the ballplayers, some people probably do object to men dressing as women for some reasons tied to homosexuality/transvestism/religion or some such. I would venture a guess that most women just think that they look silly at best and don’t take offense. America is too uptight about sex-based clothing. But then I wear jeans almost exclusively and like the way men look in kilts. Guys in full Scottish kit look pretty good IMO.
Rudi Giuliani’s last campaign for the presidential nomination veered off into strange innuendo with questions and statements regarding the fact that he sure seemed to like being in drag, he didn’t play it spoofy enough. I found that amusing because there were issues that made the Mayor more unappetizing than Rudy being in drag.
used to be that one had a duty to retreat or avoid confrontation as part of the rules of self-defense, so does one has a duty not to offend others.
Now this has to be one of the more absurd propositions I have ever seen. How freedom of speech is related to the right of self defense is beyond rational thought. So according to your thesis, any speech that offends a person to the point that they use physical violence, means that you have a duty to curtail your right to speak. I know that the KKK would agree with you since they were fighting against civil rights protestors who were violating the laws, and raising hell So the civil rights folks were to blame for all the violence that was directed at them. Incredible, and they should have stopped their speeches so as to avoid confrontation. I know of course, that you don’t agree with that since you would say that the civil rights folks were right, but the racists were wrong, and the state should decide which speech is to be allowed. This is the same position that the CPers had when asked about the lack of freedom of speech, press, etc.. in the old Soviet Union. Their reply was that you would not allow racists the right to speak, nor would you allow lies to be told in politics, nor would you want to allow false stories to be printed, and so the Soviet Union was a free country with only common sense rules about getting along. I have a bridge for you to buy cheap.
Thanks for the nice comment, Lottakatz.
And then Randy proves it again. Most of us here would have used the N word as stand in for the N word, but you, Randy, as sensitive as you are, choose to go with the full word, caring little about how uncomfortable you may make others.
Many here have made great comments, that frame the subject in a very thoughtful, civil and enlightened way, that discuss the issue simply on its merits, and thanks to them, one leaves this forum having gained something.
I’ll just leave you with the same words I always seem to use to close out our interactions: Randy, Randy Randy, oh Randy…!
Juliet N.:
“It’s an employer disciplining employees. The fact that the employer is a school isn’t really the issue.”
Yes, it really is the issue. It appears to be a _public_ high school, so it is apparently not just an “employer disciplining employees” – it appears to be a _government entity_ disciplining employees on account of the content of their expressive conduct. That appears to violate the First Amendment.
As law would have it, there’s even a nifty phrase for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Juliet, too bad you could not understand what you read. Fighting words are those specifically directed to a single person. it is one thing to say I hate all niggers, and then to call a black man that to his face. The one will not be considered fighting words, while the other will. Try reading ALL the cases cited. In fact, even burning the US flag has been ruled NOT to be fighting words or provocation to physical assault. I think that is a lot more inflammatory than wearing black coloring at a Halloween party.
OS If the cabin crew had heard him, they would not have killed him, but they would have played a good prank on him. Maybe such as putting a condom in his coffee. Southwest folks are fun to be around since I have jumpseated on them very often. We always had a great time telling jokes, telling stories, etc..
Sorry LOTA but since these guys did not wear or identify themselves as teachers at the party or display the school or school district logos, they cannot be held to a higher standard since they were on their own time and dime. Any employers DOES have the right to discipline any employee who engages in conduct that associates the company with activities that cast a negative light on the company. As long as they keep the company and their own actions separate with no association between them, they are fully within their rights and NO employer can regulate off hours activities. I am certain that all would agree that reports of employers taking action against Obama supporters is wrong and illegal. This is no different since Obama haters think Obama’s election is even more offensive than what these people did. So where do you wish to draw any line.
The FACT is that the school district has no right to take away pay for their free expression, especially in a Halloween party. Give me a break. I liked the ball game costumes, but I am certain that there are many who are offended. Especially women since many of those guys are made up like women. Think that should be banned as well since they are mocking women? Then some are made up like babies, but since babies are too young to complain, I guess that their parents will have to do it for them.
Randy,
Correct that it didn’t go to the cabin or the second in command might have had to land the plane solo because the cabin crew would have killed the pilot.
If you noticed, ATC tried to break in and alert him, but he couldn’t hear them….because his mike open.
OS About the Southwest pilot with the stuck mike, I missed that one. The fact is that the rant only went out to others on the same freq, and more than likely NOT the cabin. I have heard my fair share of pilots giving the descent landing briefing to us all over the radio. I always made damn sure to look at my audio panel and radios when I transmitted or gave a cabin announcement. What is bad is that this guy was so clueless that he did not snap to all the dead air on his radio freq, and did not look at his indicators for his radios.
I am reminded of a pilot stuck waiting for takeoff out of ORD. He came on the radio and said ” I am f#cking BORED!” The controller got on the radio and demanded to know WHO said that? The voice came back on and said, ” I said I was bored, NOT F#cking STUPID!”
Randy
It is a matter of reading, but as the law, generally and before stand your ground, used to be that one had a duty to retreat or avoid confrontation as part of the rules of self-defense, so does one has a duty not to offend others. It is a moral rule and most people, at least most juries, would let that moral more find its way in their decision. Though the law does not require one not offend others, everything about societies, civil, moral and legal, frowns on one offending others and certainly does not give one the right or the duty to offend others. That difference is commonly lost in those who see nothing wrong about offending the sensitivities of others, as you showed with your statement that “you like to offend the religious because you are an atheist.”
Why would you? You don’t believe in God? That’s your right. I believe in God, and that’s my right. I would never call you a dummy for your lack of faith, why would you call me one for my faith? The answer is simple, I believe my duty is not to offend you, while you believe that not offending me is not your duty. The gulf between those two ideas is as wide as between the right to bear arm featuring a musket, and the right to bear arm featuring an automatic weapon.
Most laws are born out of common sense rules and cultural mores, and most common sense rules and cultural mores frown heavily upon anyone’s claim to not have the duty of not offending others.
Finally, lack of perspective is always the most salient feature in any extremism, and obviously you are not aware that the PC that you decry, that religion calls goodwill, and tradition calls politeness, and the moderns call civility, is that which allows you the freedom to spout off as eagerly and as thoughtlessly as you have been for such a long time, and still remain unmolested. I am quite certain that there is something, at least thing that had I teased you about, would turn you apoplectic, not unlike the bully who always call for others to grow a tougher hide, only to go nuts when subjected to the same treatment..
Pol Pot controlled speech as do all leftist and rightist ideologues. If you said the wrong words you were taken to a sensitivity camp, or killed.
“Pol Pot controlled speech as do all leftist and rightist ideologues. If you said the wrong words you were taken to a sensitivity camp, or killed.”
And by what completely wild stretch of the imagination do you think that this relates to this discussion, except perhaps as a way of slipping in vitriol. Also as having been mentioned by another commenter about your proclaimed political neutrality, how many times have you criticized conservatives compared to liberals. Not much, but a good, disingenuous ploy none the less. Also too, some nice ass kissing being done.
Thanks Rafflaw.
Randy, FWIW, All teachers don’t work for the government and teachers are routinely held to a higher standard of behavior than other employees. While working for a union I read many decisions that said union officials could be held to harsher discipline than other employees because we had a responsibility to be like Caesar’s wife and knew the rules better. I have read that police and other public officials should and could also be held to a higher standard than citizens for similar reasons. For Annie to make the same point about teachers is hardly akin to McCarthyism.
This is more akin to McCarthysim:
“South Carolina Police Chief Threatens to Arrest Drug War Critic”
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/04/south-carolina-police-chief-threatens-to
MS I suggest you take a photo of Jolson in blackface, and these teachers, and tell us with a straight face that there is NO difference. As I recall, Jolson had the standard black face of old times with big white lips, big white eyes, and white gloves,etc all of which are caricatures of black features. These people simply had black skins with NO such things.
I used to work with a crew of seven who were all black except for myself. We were talking in the control room about something relating to race, and one mentioned that I was white. I got up, and said, I’ll show you who is white. I called over a friend who is a light colored black man, and I told Will to stick out his arm. Then I put my arm alongside his, and asked just which one was darker. Mine was by far since in the summer I tan to a pretty dark shade. Will said, Erb, you’re a brother after all! We all got a good laugh out of that.
Then MS you refuse to answer the question if they would be condemned the same if they had gotten their color by tanning or using skin darkeners. Is that forbidden too?
Mammy – Al Jolson (Jazz Singer performance)1927 film
http://youtu.be/PIaj7FNHnjQ