We have yet another teacher suspended or put on leave for merely expressing her opinion of Black Lives Matter on her personal Facebook page. After Tiffany Riley wrote that she does not agree with the BLM, the Mount Ascutney School Board held an emergency meeting to declare that it is “uniformly appalled” by the exercise of free speech and Superintendent David Baker assured the public that they would be working on “mutually agreed upon severance package.” The case magnifies concerns over the free speech rights of teachers on social media or in their private lives. As a public employee, Riley could seek judicial relief rather than a severance package under the First Amendment.
As we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments. There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives. Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.
Most recently, we discussed the effort to remove one of the country’s most distinguished economists from his position because Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the Journal of Political Economy, criticized Black Lives Matter and Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson is reportedly facing demands that he be fired because he wrote a blog about the Black Lives Matter movement.
So what is the act that uniformly appalled the school board? Riley wrote:
“I do not think people should be made to feel they have to choose black race over human race. While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law enforcement? What about all others who advocate for and demand equity for all? Just because I don’t walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I am a racist (sic).”
She said that she actually does believe that black lives do matter but was motivated to write to object to “the coercive measures taken to get to this point across; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point.” One can certainly disagree with that view. Indeed, it could be the foundation for a substantive discussion on how to best protect black lives and how to deal with police abuse. However, it was declared “tone deaf” because Riley was challenging an approved or orthodox position.
Simply because she shared her view of BLM in her private life, Baker declared “They don’t see any way that she’s going to go forward as the principal of that building given those comments and that statement. It’s clear that the community has lost faith in her ability to lead.”
What about the faith and tolerance of free speech? There is not even a nod of concern over the right of people to support reforms but not necessarily the BLM movement or some of its more controversial positions.
As always, I come to these issues from a free speech perspective. I am less concerned with the merits of the position than I am in the refusal to allow one side to be stated without punitive measures. I would take (and have taken) the same position if the view on BLM were reversed. I fail to see what educators cannot express their views in favor of or against BLM in participating in one of the most important periods of debate in our history. The message to educators is that you must not criticize BLM in your private life if you want to keep your job. The board does not even entertain the possibility that Riley might not be a racist and still question BLM, which has been involved in controversies over academic freedom and free speech on campuses. We have never had any organization treated as so inviolate that it cannot be challenged by anyone in their private or personal discourse.
Teachers in Chicago can go to Venezuela to support a dictator who has arrested and murdered scores of people, including suppressing free speech and the free press. They were not punished or declared “tone deaf.” Boards like Mount Ascutney School Board engage in open content-based regulation of speech of teachers in the private lives of teachers. They will be applauded for such action against free speech as people ignore the implications of such punitive measures.
This is not about BLM. It is about free speech. Of course, the Board is not being “tone deaf.” Mount Ascutney School Board has guaranteed that there will be no sound at all, at least no dissenting voices heard among its teachers.
These people are nothing but a bunch of brown shirts. And our politicians are spineless. The ruling class are all so afraid of being called racist, they are afraid of their shadows.
Lawyers are being encouraged to squeal on each other for being racist. This is not a new rule set but there is new pressure being exerted from above.
See model RPC 8.3 duty to report alleged violations of rpc 8.4 g any form of “bias” including race sex religion “or any other socioeconomic factor” typical wording, super vague, but will supply an excuse to attack any lawyer
now trust me folks if lawyers dont have free speech than neither do you
here’s another thing. 8.3 usuall also includes a “self reporting” duty,. so you have a duty to squeal on yourself for being racist. gee, how’s that supposed to work? let’s turn back to the Red Guard era i n China and find out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
If I call myself a gringa, or a cracker, does that mean I am a racist against myself?
No, of course not. Bc words are just words, sticks and stones ppl, stick and stones.
Racist: Someone pushing you and spitting on you or refusing to hire you bc of X,Y,Z
Not Racist: Someone angry in the heat of an argument who throws a insult your way in the form of a derogatory name
********************************************************************************************************************
I will tell you what the real crisis in America is, it is all these reality shows and TV shows glamorizing narcissistic behavior. We should purge it off TV forever.
Narcissism and Self-Entitlement is the scourge of America, and a lot of people have this issue, more than you would think.
Add on technology making us lazy, the environment going to shit, the education system as a warehouse and indoctrination center for propaganda and group think.
YOU THOUGHT THEY ACTUALLY WANTED US ALL TO BE CRITICAL THINKERS, lol, dream on. Critical thinkers are not good at being manipulated by others.
Sheeple, we call them sheeple in the Truther community.
We don’t want a society where you can’t speak your truth. We are in an era where wrong is becoming right and right is becoming wrong. Now, if a minister speak out against ungodly behavior that has been socially accepted, is he/she wrong? Why ir why not? Another example, is Colin Kaepernick when he initially protested. He was once ridiculed but now is highly recognized for his bravery.
This is thuggism and bullying at it’s very worst. I understand that the big companies donating to these thug groups are paying protection money, but they will not pay it with my money. What a crazy time to talk about defunding the police. Of course, it’s all part of the scheme to leave our citizens vulnerable and unprotected so the bullies can take over with no opposition. If you think you are safe by going along, you are sadly mistaken.
We are all supposed to swear a loyalty oath to Black Lives Matter. Failure to do so, or criticism of the BLM movement in any way, can lead to public humiliation, and termination of employment.
All Lives Matter has been decreed racist. The fact that it’s patently false to claim such a thing is beside the point. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. BLM doesn’t want equality. It wants reparations. A skin tax. The dissolution of police departments across the country so the criminal element can run amok. Oh, and incarcerating African Americans for the crimes they commit is racist. They want preferential treatment, not equality. They don’t want to become part of a community. They want a valuation scale of identity politics, where your worth, and your guilt, is in your skin. He has his because of his white privilege. Which means you don’t have the same because he took what’s yours. Looting is just getting yours. If you are black, it doesn’t matter how you were raised, if your father helped support you, or if you applied yourself in school. If you’re not where you want to be in life, it’s all because of white people. You can’t ever succeed because of your black skin, because white people have this privilege that attracts all the opportunities that you’ll never have. Oh, and no one likes you except Democrats. That’s the Democrat message of hopelessness and victimhood. That’s what drives all this anger. It’s an inherently racist message, the antithesis of personal responsibility. Conservative values get you ahead in life – working hard, studying, waiting to have kids until you’re married. Statistically, you will have a better chance at prosperity. So to combat that, the Democrat Party attacks conservative values, and especially man’s value to the family. Look how that’s worked out.
These are the rotten fruits of Leftism. Want more of this? Then keep voting Blue.
Want law and order? Equal rights? To be treated the same regardless of skin color? Like the message that you can make it, regardless of what color you are? Then vote Red.
Germany in the early 1930’s.
The cancel culture and intolerant chilling of speech on educational campuses must be challenged. I applaud you for raising the issue. I do have one minor complaint. Presenting these cases in a legal or political context is the correct approach in my view. Your personal opinion, as you say, is immaterial. Yet in virtually every blog, you feel it necessary to inform the reader that you “personally don’t agree” with some portion of the subject’s letter, or speech, or email. Why is it necessary for you to make these disclaimers? My guess is that it’s a form of virtue signalling to readers who may agree with the legal or political argument you’re making, but whom you believe may be offended by some of the content of the letters, emails, etc. If it’s not virtue signally, I’m not sure why you need to tell the reader anything about your personal opinion. Isn’t just as easy to say: “I’m not going to state my opinion on the content, since my opinion is immaterial.”
“Yet in virtually every blog, you feel it necessary to inform the reader that you “personally don’t agree” with…”
That drives me nuts as well. He does it so often that it doesn’t seem genuine. It feels like a knee jerk defensive maneuver.
This sounds fair. I can speak but you can’t. If you don’t agree with me it’s hate speech. It’s my football so go home.
Since the school is a state agency, I wonder how it can simply deny her First Amendment Free Speech rights; this isn’t a “contract at will” issue..
The lady might have a Civil Rights claim here, and if so I hope she sues the Town and its School Board silly.
I’d like the board members held personally responsible.
They are almost certainly have errors and ommissions insurancr but they still would not like the experience. And maybe a deliberate tort of defamation would not be covered.
Where will it stop? Two California schools have removed Washington and Jefferson from their names because Black Lives Matter demanded it.
I think California schools are failures in any event. They should all be Stacey Abrams School of Culinary Science and Abundant Eating on Food Stamps.
Until normal people stop putting up with this it will continue.
In other news the Academy Awards will cover only movies with diversity and inclusion.
That seems like a good idea when their viewership is sinking every year and theater chains like AMC are going bankrupt. Most movies are already unwatchable. Another Ghostbuster remake with Democrat lesbians, half of whom are black, trans and crippled should get Best Picture. Won’t make any money though.
The town associated with Mt. Ascutney (a moutnain, not a municipality) is West Winsdsor, with 1,099 people.as of the 2010 Census. I’m sure that their insurance rates would jump dramatically should Tiffany Riley defend her freedom of expression in court and be awarded significant damages. Should the school board’s insurance company decline to cover its damages, an award would not have to be very large to cost every taxpayer in the town sorely.
Superintendent David Baker’s smarmy assurance of the local public that they would be working on a “mutually agreed upon severance package.” apparently stems friom the fact that they weren’t paying Ms Riley a living wage while she served them as principal. There’s nothing quite so illiberal as a trendy liberal.
The last chapter of P.J. O’Rourke’s “A Pariiament of Whores” was his account of the New Hampshire village meeting where he and his family lived. On the agenda was whether or not to approve or deny permission for the construction of an apartment complex in the area.
The prime consideration was whether or not the children living in the complex would cost more to educate than their parents or the apartment complex paid in property taxes. Adding new young families who wouldn’t be net property tax payers was a nonstarter, and the apartments were not allowed to be built.
The moral of this story is that towns like West Windsor only see the light after they feel the heat. I hope that Tiffany Riley finds aggressive legal counsel (the ACLU won’t defend her right to freedom of speech) who is inclined to see Ms Riley complensated in an object lesson to the people of West Windsor.
If you get one cent of public funds/support, any claims under violation of your rights after you signed a contract under public education is moot.
Yes, you have the right to free speech; it goes with the right to unemployment in the education system!
As a supposed educator, it should be quite clear to you that you cannot go on a public social media site and freely express anything that would be not aligned with the school/school board who signs your paychecks! If you don’t understand this, then you need to either update your continuous education credits and/or go back to school to update your education. This believes me to believe at one time you may have had the education you needed for the position but since you have failed to continuously update credentialing, you no longer qualify under today’s requirements for principal and are unsuited for the position.
I reside in an incorporated village and our school board is very tight on behavior and conduct on all employees! We have our own Police Department, Sanitation Department, EPA and Court system. Although the state/Federal Government has outlawed incorporated villages, all those in existence were permitted to operate under their then structure going forward. My viewpoint here is strictly as to my village and the difficulties faced under today’s systems and laws.
Remember: this is not personal it’s business and may prove educational for you and anyone reading this. All Board members are homeowners/members of the community. They’re not independent people who have no connection to the communities they serve.
Yes, education has become business as they are open to public litigation from everyone; in an incorporated village, homeowners are on the hook for it all. We do not favor lawsuits for our educators practicing their First Amendment Rights! We have zero tolerance as it becomes a defense in court to lower or dismiss settlements. We just cannot afford individual lawsuits or class-action suits to pay for employees’ First Amendment challenges to district policies. That’s how we see it and it’s presented. Not personal; just business.
Consider yourself lucky so far as publishing the names, addresses, phone numbers and personal information on a public site of any of our district personnel would not only land you in jail but also assessment of damages! Not personal; just business!
You would be surprised how many lawsuits can spawn from a district trying to protect your First Amendment Rights! We think money first because we want every penny of our education dollars to go into our children’s education, not for defending First Amendment’s Rights. I don’t pay your salary and benefits to rob my children’s education dollars to satisfy your personal agenda. I find it insulting when Village employees assume we can “financially afford” to cover their indiscretions and don’t have the right to fire them. My feeling: you work for me. I don’t work for you, and stay out of my pocketbook! This is where it becomes personal as you seek to undermine our best interests. The majority of us in the Village are GOP. We have Dems, independents etc., and 65% of us bus our children to private schools—mostly parochial schools—in other areas of the county. Yes more money; we also pay transportation for all of our children in the district. We are 100% in agreement as to what we want our Board of Education to do for the rest of the homeowners’ children. I’ve personally told teachers and principals in my district who oppose some things, “if you don’t like it, purchase a home here and you will have input as a homeowner.” You can give input but whether we want to incur that expense is on us.
So if you’re not a member of what is being touted as the ‘ majority ‘, you’re to be cast out of society, a pariah banished to a desert island ? Is this really Alice in Wonderland ?
More of the famous and well known leftist tolerance. Soon it won’t be enough to keep one’s head down and stay quiet because after all, “white silence is violence”, right? You will be actively forced to burn the pinch of incense to Caesar. Leon Trotsky used to say, “You might not be interested in the revolution but the revolution is interested in YOU.”
Well, f@@k ’em! I don’t support the fraud known as “black lives matter” and no one can do a d@@n thing about it.
Would take them more seriously if they condemned black on black murders which consist of over 90% of all black killings.
Have a feeling when some leftist is attacked by a BLM supporter (or other dindu) their “good white” card and virtue signaling will be of little use. Have zero sympathy for such people. Just remember you may take a beat down for social justice but at least you aren’t a racist.
antonio
And when the leftist “loyalty oaths” become a requirement to holding a professional job, it will do no good to compare such to McCarthyism because JMC was a quasi-fascist who wanted to smear others; leftist loyalty oaths are meant for good and to protect the public from unsuitable people and ideas.
Mainstream Conservatives, why are you still shocked at leftist double standards? IT ISN”T YOUR COUNTRY ANYMORE.
antonio
antonio — The loyalty oaths were always rightest.
@david b benson
Not going down that rabbit hole. Pretty soon it won’t matter whether loyalty oaths were previously rightest or not. Want to hold a job which requires a professional license? Well, while you are free to believe whatever you want, you don’t have a right to a professional license. Holding such a license is a privilege and if you want to keep teaching school, practicing law, being a CPA, etc, you will sign a pledge to support, uphold and respect diversity, multiculturalism, BLM or anything else as defined by the state. You see we have to protect the public interest.
The ABA already is on record of supporting “speech codes” for lawyers. It is considered an ethical violation in some jurisdictions to express certain unfavored opinions. And it is all done while pledging respect for the 1st amendment.
antonio
antonio, I don’t believe you.
@david b benson
Not sure what you don’t believe but the article below appeared in the Washington Post on August 10, 2016 and describes the new ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). Surprised you aren’t aware of this. All good thinking people know that leftists are so much more knowledgeable (not to mention morally superior) to deplorables like me. In jurisdictions which have adopted this ABA Model Rule, it can be an ethical violation for an attorney to say certain things.
A speech code for lawyers, banning viewpoints that express ‘bias,’ including in law-related social activities?
EUGENE VOLOKH
A committee of the American Bar Association is urging that the ABA adopt a new provision in its Model Rules of Professional Conduct—an influential document that many states have adopted as binding on lawyers in their state (emphasis added):
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:… (g) harass or discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This Rule does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16….
[Discrimination and harassment] includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others because of their membership or perceived membership in one or more of the groups listed in paragraph (g). Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct towards a person who is, or is perceived to be, a member of one of the groups. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The substantive law of antidiscrimination and anti-harassment statutes and case law may guide application of paragraph (g).
Conduct related to the practice of law includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law. Paragraph (g) does not prohibit conduct undertaken to promote diversity.
Paragraph (g) does not prohibit legitimate advocacy that is material and relevant to factual or legal issues or arguments in a representation. A lawyer does not violate paragraph (g) by limiting the scope or subject matter of the lawyer’s practice or by limiting the lawyer’s practice to members of underserved populations in accordance with these Rules and other law. A lawyer may charge and collect reasonable fees and expenses for a representation….
So say that some lawyers put on a Continuing Legal Education event that includes a debate on same-sex marriage, or on whether there should be limits on immigration from Muslim countries, or on whether people should be allowed to use the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. In the process, unsurprisingly, the debater on one side says something that is critical of gays, Muslims or transgender people. If the rule is adopted, the debater could well be disciplined by the state bar:
1. He has engaged in “verbal … conduct” that “manifests bias or prejudice” towards gays, Muslims, or transgender people.
2. Some people view such statements as “harmful”; those people may well include bar authorities.
3. This was done in an activity “in connection with the practice of law”—Continuing Legal Education events are certainly connected with the practice of law. (The event could be labeled a bar activity, if it’s organized through a local bar association, or a business activity.)
4. The statement isn’t about one person in particular (though it could be—say the debater says something critical about a specific political activist or religious figure based on that person’s sexual orientation, religion or gender identity). But “anti-harassment … case law” has read “harassment” as potentially covering statements about a group generally, even when they aren’t said to or about a particular offended person, and the rule is broad enough to cover statements about “others” as groups and not just as individuals.
Or say that you’re at a lawyer social activity, such as a local bar dinner, and say that you get into a discussion with people around the table about such matters—Islam, evangelical Christianity, black-on-black crime, illegal immigration, differences between the sexes, same-sex marriage, restrictions on the use of bathrooms, the alleged misdeeds of the 1 percent, the cultural causes of poverty in many households, and so on. One of the people is offended and files a bar complaint. Again, you’ve engaged in “verbal … conduct” that the bar may see as “manifest[ing] bias or prejudice” and thus as “harmful.” This was at a “social activit[y] in connection with the practice of law.” The state bar, if it adopts this rule, might thus discipline you for your “harassment.” And, of course, the speech restrictions are overtly viewpoint-based: If you express pro-equality viewpoints, you’re fine; if you express the contrary viewpoints, you’re risking disciplinary action.
This also goes beyond existing hostile work environment harassment law under Title VII and similar state statutes. That law itself has potential First Amendment problems, as I’ve argued and as some courts have recognized (though others have disagreed); see, for instance, the recent “Don’t Tread on Me” controversy. But in most states, it doesn’t include sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. It also generally doesn’t cover social activities at which co-workers aren’t present; but under the proposed rule, even a solo practitioner could face discipline because something that he said at a law-related function offended someone employed by some other law firm.
Hostile work environment harassment law is also often defended (though in my view that defense is inadequate) on the grounds that it’s limited to speech that is so “severe or pervasive” that it creates an “offensive work environment.” This proposed rule conspicuously omits any such limitation. Though the provision that “anti-harassment … case law may guide application of paragraph (g)” might be seen as implicitly incorporating a “severe or pervasive” requirement, that’s not at all clear: That provision only says that the anti-harassment case law “may guide” the interpretation of the rule, and in any event the language of paragraph (g) seems to cover any “harmful verbal … conduct,” including isolated statements.
I’ll have more soon on other aspects of the proposal (such as the remarkable implications of banning discrimination based on “socioeconomic status”); but here I just wanted to focus on the proposed speech code. For more on the debate about this issue, see this article by Sara Randazzo in today’s Wall Street Journal.
The comment is too long.
Benson doesn’t believe me either even though I have been talking about it on this blog for years. Yes model RPC 8.4 g which has been the pretense for suspending censuring and taking away the licenses of numerous lawyers for about a decade now.
I was in committee recenlty with some radical lawyers who were egging on the more prolific use of it now “to show solidarity” etc.
The “left” or Democrat leadership or however you want to call it is totally against “free speech” now. it’s so patentlty obvious — when you are the target rather than the beneficiary of all the subtle censorship which now pervades everywhere…..
this is tough for us in the short run. but in the long run,….. yes, it has to go away. I am coming to welcome the end of it because when the screw turns we will root out ideological viruses in human form and stop them from wrecking our country, or whatever version of our “country” succeeds the current political arrangements.
the enlightenment fantasies of a fair and neutral government protector of freedoms are dying before our eyes and it’s very much the Left & Democrat leadership and Silicon Valley leading the way…… but go ahead; when it is gone, you will have buyer’s remorse over it, and the counter-attack that will ensue once this “revolution” peters out is going to be so much more effective than when all this freedom nonsense was still clogging the brains of regular people who didn’t realize nor understand how “freedom” has been used so successfully over time quite simply to take their freedom away
go ahead. end this experiment. we can live once it’s done, and we will
My, my! All of you: You committed Genocide to make it “YOUR COUNTRY.” You went to another country and committed GENOCIDE to bring slaves here. You bred them like animals, starved them, gave them horrendous living conditions, no voice, make education illegal for them, disfigured, tortured and killed them to “send a message to them,” and held your knees to their necks to hold them down, burn down any of their thriving communities, denied them medical care.
During slavery, you taught them to beat women and girls, rape them, treat their children in disgust as you destroyed any family structure by dividing them up for sale as they were “property,” to be bought and sold, hunted down with dogs, and when found, they were maimed, tortured by captors and you, dragged around in front of other slaves in the public square to make an example and killed with their bodies left to rot in a public area for all to see. BLM isn’t doing that to you!
You have no complaint because your life always mattered. You and your ancestors created this. Own it and suck it up. Consider yourself lucky you didn’t get the short end of the stick—white privilege protects you. And now you are sticking your chest out and boohooing that this is no longer your country?
IT NEVER WAS YOUR COUNTRY. YOUR ANCESTORS COMMITTED GENOCIDE AND STOLE IT. The universe is righting itself.
THE ONLY CONSPIRACY IS ONE PERPETRATED BY YOU AND YOUR ANCESTORS. There is a God and SHE is angry!!!
What does her contract state?
That is the important question. What does her contract say?
I would also wonder if she has a defamation cause of action against the school board. They have publicly labeled her a racist and destroyed her career. Juicy potential there.
In the few cases I have seen, schools tend to cave and settle lawsuits. They hate the publicity and probably cringe at the thought of discovery. Oberlin fought the law and the law won.
Young – it is a personnel matter so the contract is private and the hearing will be in executive session. They will cave to the limit of their insurance coverage usually at the behest of the carrier who is defending the suit.
I bet you the contract is a public document. Schoolteacher salaries in New York are commonly public, for example.
Absurd– I think you are right. In any event a suit for breach of contact would be in the open.
DSS – maybe. Salaries are public, if it is a public school. However, I am not sure the contract is.
The contract could be appended to the complaint filed with the clerk. In any event, defamation is tort, not contract, and that should worry them. The damages go far beyond contractual damages.
Young – I agree when you get to the suit stage, however, right now, we are at the administrative hearing stage.
Administrative hearings can go better when they believe you are salivating at the prospect of suing them. And it is more convincing when even you don’t know whether or not you are bluffing.
In this instance there might be a requirement to arbitrate or exhaust administrative remedies, but I am not sure that would extend to tort or a to suit against individuals. All avenues could be explored.
A contract is a public document in Vermont.
It ceases to be an administrative personnel matter when the complaint is filed with the clerk of the court. I agree they will try to wriggle out of it when they get notice of intention to sue before the actual complaint is filed. Potentially a lot of money on the table here.
And a relative few defendants. The local school board runs the public schools for West Windsor, a town of 1,099 people. They may have to sharply increase their funding of their school board, and it’ll be painful.
Yes it would be painful to increase taxes for this but it would be a bittersweet pleasure to run everyone connected with the school into the next county.
So far, the people of West Windsor don’t give a damn about Tiffany Kelly’s pain and suffering – through their school board, they’ve caused Ms Kelly considerable needless pain because she dared disagree with a movement which demands the reverence due only to God.
West Windsor’s citizens are guilty of intolerance and possibly defamation. It would serve them right to have to bus their children into the next county because their own bad acts have made it fiscally impossible for them to run their own school system.
Until then, this song goes out to you, West Windsor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro
Pardon me – “Tiffany Riley”, not “Tiffany Kelly”
I’d be surprised if she doesn’t have to. exhaust admin remedies. It probably contains an arbitration clause which in Texas closes the courthouse doors. An arbitration clause might well extend to defamation since the claim arguably arose out of the contractual relationship. The contract will answer many questions. She could have a very strong case.
honestlawyer – if it a small town, they might not have a union that she is covered under, just the contract. Standard procedure is a hearing in exec session before the Board, their decision and then go from there, depending on the contract.
That was my post.
Anon — You might be right but she might get past abitration on the tort. It seems very different from any obligations imposed by the contract. I would have to study it more than I am going to before I would have confidence in my speculative opinion. It’s a pleasure to hear other’s thoughts.
There is no arbitration for this in Vermont however she is entitled by statute to a hearing with the school board.
I am a retired Vermont administrator. State law (16 V.S.A. Section 423) determines how a principal may be dismissed: “During the term of a contract, a principal may be dismissed by the board for just and sufficient cause by written notice setting forth the grounds therefor. The board may provide that its order shall take effect immediately, or following a hearing. In either case, the principal shall be given an opportunity to request in writing a hearing within the 15 days following delivery of the notice.
Dismissal of Principals in Vermont is determined according to the following statutory language (16 VSA Section 423): (d) Dismissal. During the term of a contract, a principal may be dismissed by the board for just and sufficient cause by written notice setting forth the grounds therefor. The board may provide that its order shall take effect immediately, or following a hearing. In either case, the principal shall be given an opportunity to request in writing a hearing within the 15 days following delivery of the notice.