Teacher Fired Over Putting up Bush Picture

[ethics]

<blockquote> Parents expressing outrage after a teacher is kicked out of her public school for hanging a picture of President Bush next to pictures of other presidents in her classroom.

Veteran English teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz says she was shocked when three parents confronted her. The three, insisting the teacher either add John Kerry's photo to the montage of presidents or remove the Bush photo. When Pillai-Diaz refused, she says the school's vice-principal threatened her job which is an act that has parents here fuming.</blockquote>

Where are our schools headed? (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_100304_middleschoolteacher.html)

My God, is that the President's Bush portrait next to OTHER Presidents!?!?! How DARE YOU, Ms. Diaz!!! I will have your head!

[Steve]

Why has it taken this long to get the President's picture up there with the others?

There are deeper problems at that school, methinks, not to mention with some parents who should probably surrender some body parts so they don't spawn any more offspring.

[rhobite]

I think we're clearly missing part of the story. The teacher is acting extremely unprofessional for running to the press before all the facts are in. There is no way you could fire a tenured teacher for putting a picture of Bush up with the other presidents. My guess is she talked politics with the parents. Parents are clients, and it's always a bad idea to talk politics with clients at the workplace.

[RRedline]

My God, is that the President's Bush portrait next to OTHER Presidents!?!?! How DARE YOU, Ms. Diaz!!! I will have your head!I don't buy her story for a second. There is definitely more to this story that has not been released yet.

[Andy]

I'll tell you (As the husband of a NJ unionized/tenured teacher) where our schools (at least here in NJ under the NJEA union) is headed...

Right to the polls prodding everyone to vote Democrat, period.
In their eyes, there IS no other recourse.

Her only mistake?
Daring to even show the monkey-faced devil (that the NJEA calls "Bush" minus the "President" part in all of it's political based literature I seem to find in my garbage bin next to my desk on a weekly basis,) in her classroom.

Also, how dare she not know that Kerry is afforded every right to be shown with current Presidents on a montage of Historical American figures and documents. :crazy:
This union is well known to be against any Republican candidate so much, that if Gilligan himself, dopey hat and all were running as Dem, they would back him 100%.

They scream that she is bringing politics into the classroom, while funding their own Democratic political campaign with union dues and firing or forcing out those who do not toe the line.

This is the state of education in NJ, Johnny might not be able to read, but damnit, it's not because teachers failed, it's the Republican's fault!

I weep for our future.

[Steve]

There's no indication she's the one who notified the press. It occurred during a parent-teacher night, so anyone who witnessed the incident could have called the newsies.

She most certainly had to have crossed some line, though, for her boss to demand her keys to the building and order her out of it!

[Andy]

I think we're clearly missing part of the story. The teacher is acting extremely unprofessional for running to the press before all the facts are in. There is no way you could fire a tenured teacher for putting a picture of Bush up with the other presidents.
She is not tenured, nor in the Union per her statements I saw last night on TV. (Easy pickings to get rid of without cause in NJ)

My guess is she talked politics with the parents. Parents are clients, and it's always a bad idea to talk politics with clients at the workplace.

"Her" side is the parents came in for parent's night and saw the pic and demanded it to be removed.
Even if the parents were the ones who initiated the political talk, and ran to the VP, who's side do you think he would be on?

Screaming parents who oppose Bush, or a non-tenured teacher?

If the VP had not also objected to a pic of the candidate he disliked, it would be a non-issue.

When my wife taught in a private school years ago, she had a pic of Clinton up in her room (while he was CIC) and no one had a problem with it because he fit in with the political tone of the school's agenda.

[joseftu]

I hate to be the voice of caution here (it's <b>so</b> out of character for me! ;)), but according to the article, she was not fired, and we have only her word that she was ordered out of the building or to give up her keys.

I'd rather wait for at least some confirmation of her story before swallowing it whole.

[ethics]

I hate to be the voice of caution here (it's <b>so</b> out of character for me! ;)), but according to the article, she was not fired, and we have only her word that she was ordered out of the building or to give up her keys.

I'd rather wait for at least some confirmation of her story before swallowing it whole.


Unlike the Cameron incident that araina posted yesterday. ;)

[rhobite]

She is not tenured, nor in the Union per her statements I saw last night on TV. (Easy pickings to get rid of without cause in NJ)As it should be. There are plenty of bad teachers, and they need to be cut before their tenure begins. I assumed she was tenured since it said "veteran," sorry. If she's a veteran and not tenured, it means she switched districts. Is there a reason for that?

"Her" side is the parents came in for parent's night and saw the pic and demanded it to be removed.
Even if the parents were the ones who initiated the political talk, and ran to the VP, who's side do you think he would be on?

Screaming parents who oppose Bush, or a non-tenured teacher?

If the VP had not also objected to a pic of the candidate he disliked, it would be a non-issue.

When my wife taught in a private school years ago, she had a pic of Clinton up in her room (while he was CIC) and no one had a problem with it because he fit in with the political tone of the school's agenda.There's no evidence that the VP is a Democrat, at least in the story. I didn't watch the video. The VP should come to her defense in a dispute, and it makes me think that she did something else if he demanded that she leave the building.

It really sounds like she got into some sort of confrontation with parents. Even if parents get unruly, she is a professional and she should not engage them. Even if the press asked her, she should not have commented for this story. That wasn't a smart move by her.

[ethics]

It really sounds like she got into some sort of confrontation with parents. Even if parents get unruly, she is a professional and she should not engage them. Even if the press asked her, she should not have commented for this story. That wasn't a smart move by her.

Even if there was a confrontation, is it enough to get her fired? All this precipitated from her putting a picture of the president where other Presidents tend to be. Where's the outrage of this?

[Steve]

As it should be. There are plenty of bad teachers, and they need to be cut before their tenure begins.And your basis for assessing her performance as "bad" would be?

[ethics]

And your basis for assessing her performance as "bad" would be?


She put Bush up with the rest of Presidents. :)

[joseftu]

Even if there was a confrontation, is it enough to get her fired? All this precipitated from her putting a picture of the president where other Presidents tend to be. Where's the outrage of this?She <b>did not get fired</b>. Maybe she got asked to leave the building, maybe not--even that has not been clearly established. There is zero independent confirmation of her claims--and the school has stated, in fact, very clearly, that she was <b>not</b> fired.

[IamZed]

There must be more to the story. Personally I approve any size or location the teacher chose to display the picture, simply because we hung a picture of the president in schools when I was young. His opponent has no such place.

[rhobite]

And your basis for assessing her performance as "bad" would be?I did no such thing. I merely said that immediate tenure is a bad idea because there are bad teachers.

[Steve]

Please. :rolleyes:

[cdw]

I don't have a link to the school website but I guess I could find it again. I read about the story last night and it appears there are quite different stories regarding the incident from the two sides. The school has a message about it on their website I believe. From what I've also heard, supposedly some kids were complaining about her making derrogatory remarks about political affiliations, etc.

[ethics]

AH! Then it would not be about a picture and totally be a different case altogether. I will try to find something. I need to do something first in RL but will be back.

[rhobite]

Steve, you may construe whatever you want from what I said, but all I meant is that delayed tenure is a good thing. The teacher should not be disciplined unless the administrators determine that she did something wrong.

[joseftu]

I read about the story last night and it appears there are quite different stories regarding the incident from the two sides.
Exactly! I was hoping we could wait to hear both sides before letting loose the dogs of war! :) Thanks, Cyd.
I need to do something first in RL but will be back.Tsk, tsk. Letting real life get in the way of your GA work again? That's not good!
;)

[Copzilla]

I was listening to this issue on the radio yesterday. Joe, you're right, the school district states that she was not fired. The VP originally sided with the teacher. The three parents raised bloody hell, and the VP changed his mind. The VP ordered her to take down the picture or put up John Kerry's picture. The teacher refused, stating to him that it is a montage of American history, not a montage of current events or politics, and John Kerry is not yet American history. He ordered her to take it down or get out of the building and give up her keys.

We may be playing with semantics here, but being ordered out of your place of work and required to give up your keys is having your employment terminated. After all, she's not permitted to go back to work.

All this from the party of tolerance.

[joseftu]

We still don't have the VP's side of the story, do we? The teacher <b>says</b> that the VP ordered her out and to give up her keys, but we have no confirmation of that from anywhere else, do we?

If her story is true, the VP is certainly wrong. But there's no evidence that the story is true, there's no evidence that she's not permitted to go back to work (in fact, in the article, she specifically said that she "hadn't decided" whether or not to go back to work--which would imply that even from her side of the story, she was not being prevented from returning).

And there's certainly no evidence of the VP's party affiliation!

[Frodo Lives]

And people wonder why school violence it rising. ;)



The idea of homeschooling is become more and more desirable. I am not going to play with words here because as Copz said, what else do you call it when told to leave and give up your keys?

Schools are biased and only those with blinders on can't see it. Or those that approve of it.

[joseftu]

The idea of homeschooling is become more and more desirable. I am not going to play with words here because as Copz said, what else do you call it when told to leave and give up your keys?
But Frodo...
How do you know that this happened at all?

I agree that if it happened, it's just as bad as if she were fired.

But we have <b>no independent evidence</b>, other than <b>her own claim</b>, that it even happened. And as I pointed out (and Cyd pointed out) there are some holes in her story, and a lot of information that we don't have.

Hell, maybe she was asked to leave--because she was violent and confrontational, endangering the students. Maybe she threatened the VP physically. It could be--I don't have any evidence--I don't know--I'm only speculating---and so are you!

[RRedline]

We still don't have the VP's side of the story, do we? The teacher <b>says</b> that the VP ordered her out and to give up her keys, but we have no confirmation of that from anywhere else, do we?Replace VP and teacher in this instance with police officer and pregnant woman falling to the ground, and I bet Copz would be more suspect of what really happened here. ;) [EDIT: Copz, I am not flame baiting here. I just meant to say that I think it is very possible that the VP's actions are being misrepresented to make a good story, just as the police officer's actions in the other story were probably exaggerated to get people worked up over what was probably a non-issue.]

My best guess would be that the VP caved in to loudmouthed parents (who started this whole mess, I agree). The teacher objected, and an argument ensued. The teacher was probably asked to leave because she became so upset and said things she shouldn't have said. I don't blame her. However, "Teacher Fired Over Picture of Bush" certainly sells more newspapers than, "Teacher Asked to Leave School After Argument with VP."

People are jumping to conclusions which is exactly what the news organizations want.

[Copzilla]

Replace VP and teacher in this instance with police officer and pregnant woman falling to the ground, and I bet Copz would be more suspect of what really happened here. ;)I probably would, based on my personal experiences of how many lies told against me in my police work.

But based on my experiences with the educational system, I think I'm permitted to form a different theory in the new environment, don't you think?

(No worried RRed, we're cool. I'm thick skinned anyway.)

[joseftu]

Based on my experiences in the educational system (as student, teacher, administrator and parent--I've been in every one of those roles for a long time), my theory is that it's <b>always</b> important to hear both sides of the story before coming to any conclusions.

[LissaKay]

More information, links and a pretty good analysis can be found over at The Command Post (http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/015718.html) ...

[cdw]

http://www.sbschools.org/boe/announcements.php

the school boards take on it...


Oops, see lissa's got it already. :)

[cdw]

Well. It appears it was not a bulletin board of pictures of all the presidents.
But, I still see nothing wrong with just a pictorial (?) of the current president and his life or whatever either. As a matter of fact, I think it's rediculous that someone would have a problem with the picture of the president in a classroom.

This, on the other hand, if true, is inappropriate: The conversations included Ms. Pillai-Diaz telling some students who offered opinions contrary to her statements, that she was “glad they were not old enough to vote.” Other comments to students, including such statements as, “you should be ashamed to be a Democrat” have been verified through student interviews.

[ethics]

That's according to the superintended, if you want to believe him over her.

One true fact about the whole thing is it is a mess. A large, sticky, putrid mess.

[joseftu]

Ahh...the school's official statement puts an entirely different face on things, doesn't it?

Now that we've actually <b>heard</b> both sides, I think it's possible to make a judgment (not a legal judgment, just for ourselves) as to credibility.

The superintendent's statement is more credible (in my opinion), since it doesn't have the illogical holes in it that the teacher's statement had--since it comes from someone not directly involved in the struggle, and since it fits with my experience of public school policies and procedures. It would be useful to hear from the union rep's and police officers who were present. I wonder if we will, and I wonder if (assuming that we do) anyone here would like to redirect their outrage?

[ethics]

Ahh...the school's official statement puts an entirely different face on things, doesn't it?

Now that we've actually <b>heard</b> both sides, I think it's possible to make a judgment (not a legal judgment, just for ourselves) as to credibility.

We do and we can make a judgement from that!?!?!

Why do you believe the Board of Ed over a teacher's claims?

[cdw]

ok, i've just started reading the article on command post. I've only gotten a little ways into it...
can someone please explain to me, what the hell this means?

“The way she asked was a political assault,” the teacher said.

WTF is a political assault? rofl

[joseftu]

I explained why. The statement was more reasonable in tone, it came from a person not directly involved (the superintendent was not there, but conducted an investigation), it made reference to objective observers who can be identified and checked (the police and union reps--although I do think we would need to actually hear from those objective observers first), it was consistent with actual policies and procedures (all schools already do have pictures of the president--no teacher <b>can</b> be fired in this way), and it was internally and logically consistent (the teacher saying simultaneously she "had been fired" and "she hadn't decided"--that took away from her credibility significantly--it rang my fishy bells from the start--because she was clearly lying in one of the statements--or both).

I guess "judgment" was too strong a word--but I certainly did find the superintendent's statement more credible than the teacher's, and I've explained why.

Did you find the teacher's statement more credible? Can you explain why?

[joseftu]

WTF is a political assault? rofl
Yes, that's another point--the extreme language doesn't help her credibility, either.

[ethics]

I explained why. The statement was more reasonable in tone, it came from a person not directly involved


And a person who has a lot to lose if there should be a law suit.

Did you find the teacher's statement more credible? Can you explain why?

I didn't find more credibility over one or the other. To me, it's he said/she said type of a thing and unless there's an objective party which doesn't have some form of reward or repercussion, we will never know.

[joseftu]

Well, as I said, if we hear from the police officers or the union reps, we'll be likely to have a better idea (but I don't honestly think that we will--I think that the whole story is going to go away, because the teacher has been exposed. There will be no lawsuit).

I do think that the title of the thread is clearly false--so maybe we know that much, at least.

[cmhbob]

October 3, 2004

District Statement Regarding Bulletin Board at Crossroads Middle School
In an incident that has recently been reported to several media sources, a claim has been made by South Brunswick Middle School teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz, that she was fired for not removing a picture of President George W. Bush from a classroom bulletin board. The claim is false. While I am normally reluctant to discuss personnel matters in public, Ms. Pillai-Diaz’ distortions of the facts, along with her aggressive efforts to get herself national media attention, leaves the district no choice but to set the record straight.

The facts are as follows:

Ms. Pillai-Diaz is a new Language Arts teacher in the South Brunswick Schools. Recently, the school administration began receiving complaints from students and parents that Ms. Pillai-Diaz was using her position, classroom and teaching time to engage in partisan politics. Students reported that she had made statements which denigrated one party over the other. The conversations included Ms. Pillai-Diaz telling some students who offered opinions contrary to her statements, that she was “glad they were not old enough to vote.” Other comments to students, including such statements as, “you should be ashamed to be a Democrat” have been verified through student interviews.

A classroom bulletin board, normally intended for curriculum-related matters, was set up as what she herself described as a “personal bulletin board.” On the bulletin board she placed a picture of the President, the President's dog, the Oval Office and several other Presidential artifacts. In addition, she placed a stuffed elephant on a classroom cabinet, which generated student reaction and discussion about partisan politics.

Following receipt of complaints from parents, the Assistant Principal met with Ms. Pillai-Diaz and cautioned her not to engage in partisan political discussions in her Language Arts classes. He did not initially ask her to remove the picture of the President. As the issue grew in intensity, the teacher herself chose to remove the stuffed elephant because of student comments. In the ensuing days, parents expressed increasing concern about the teacher's classroom behavior, the misuse of classroom instructional time and the personal bulletin board. The level of concern resulted in a classroom confrontation between some parents and Ms. Pillai-Diaz at the Back-to-School night program. It was at this point that the school administration decided to intervene again.

On Friday morning, October 1, Ms. Pillai-Diaz was directed by the Assistant Principal to remove bulletin board materials because they were being viewed as contributing to an ongoing disruption of the teaching-learning environment. She refused. She then met with the Principal who repeated the directive. At this point, Ms. Pillai-Diaz abruptly left the building, abandoning her post of duty and her classroom responsibilities.

At no time was she told to leave, asked to leave or given authorization to leave. School was still in session. At no time was she told she was suspended or fired. With professional responsibilities of a classroom teacher waiting, Ms. Pillai-Diaz chose, of her own volition, to walk out of the school, contact various media sources and claim she had been fired.

I had occasion to meet with Ms. Pillai-Diaz, along with a union representative and a police escort that she had requested, for approximately two hours when she returned to the building later that same afternoon. After listening to her story, I asked if any member of the administration had used the phrase "you're fired" or anything that remotely sounded like it. She admitted that no one had used any such language. When I further pursued why she reported to media sources that she had been fired, she said that she "thought" that she had been. I explained that principals cannot fire employees, that only Boards of Education can do so. With her union representative present, she said that she now understood. I asked that when she next spoke with the media, that she clarify her new understanding.
I fully support the actions of the Principal and Assistant Principal. It is never acceptable for a teacher to utilize the classroom to advocate for political purposes or advance personal beliefs. The courts have always admonished teachers for proselytizing in public school classrooms. This issue is not about a picture of the President, but rather a zealous misuse of seventh and eighth grade student instructional time.

The South Brunswick School community is enormously respectful of the Office of the President of the United States, President Bush and the democratic process for choosing our President. Anyone trying to suggest the contrary has the worst of intentions. Under other circumstances, the display of a picture of the President would have been viewed as completely appropriate and uncontroversial. It is important to note that pictures of President Bush are openly displayed in all of the South Brunswick Schools. The teacher’s own actions here, however, took it out of the realm of education and made the presentation appear partisan to many of our students and parents. Under these circumstances, our actions in directing the removal of the display were singularly appropriate.

Gary P. McCartney Ed D.
Superintendent of Schools
South Brunswick School District
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Here's another article, telling why she's hired an attorney: http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1070288,00.html . The superintendant claims she admitted to him that no one ever made any statement to the effec that she should leave, but she seems to be sticking to her claim that she heard "get your stuff and get out."

Frodo, I'd be glad to talk about homeschooling; we are HS our kids.

[joseftu]

telling why she's hired an attorney.
Looks like I was wrong about there being no lawsuit!
Sigh.

[cdw]

Just a sidenote to the whole thing and this woman's reasonability...
she felt she needed to bring the cops because she feared for her safety?
Come on already. A union rep, sure. An attorney, sure. But she goes to the police station for an escort? A weeeeeeee bit over the top.

[RRedline]

Why do you believe the Board of Ed over a teacher's claims?I believe them over the teacher due to several reasons. First, the teacher doesn't even teach government or history subjects. She is an English teacher. Why a political bulletin board? Why not have something related to her subject area instead? Also, she admitted to having a stuffed elephant in her classroom. Students even claim that she has made derogatory comments about the democratic party. Why did she calim to have been fired when she wasn't?

It really sounds to me like this teacher was abusing her position. She was met with some questions, and rather than explain her position rationally (or better yet, start teaching English instead of partisan politics), she ran to the media and cried foul.

[LissaKay]

You know ... the title of this thread looks like it belongs in the Gin Joint.


That is all.



Carry on.



:cool:

[ethics]

LMAO!

Oh man, people here are looking at me while I am cracking up. rofl

[Misu]

I think I find the school board's explanation a lot more reasonable than the teachers, and this is only because I've had teachers rattle on about their politics (I was a junior when Clinton was running against Bush Sr. for president), and I've been present as teachers held class discussions on the matter. One of my teachers questioned Clintons "didn't inhale" thing about smoking marijuana. And that particular teacher was Republican all the way and was adamant about talking about the subject and the republican party, even though this particular class was a writing course. *shrug*

If the kids are all saying the teacher did certain things, and if the Principle and VP are stating how she abandoned her post, you have to think that maybe there's something fishy in her story. It just doesn't make sense. If you take her story at face value, it's like the whole town is "out to get her". I think the teacher is probably more paranoid than anything else.

[Andy]

So what are we learning from this discussion?

It's not alright to have a picture of a sitting President in a classroom, period?

Parent's are so stupid that they equate a current President with someone seeking the office? (remember, the parents reportedly demanded a picture of Kerry be added)

Vice Principals will cave in a heartbeat when threatened with any legal action? (She was allegedly escorted out of the school after turning in her keys, yet they turn around after she went to the media and offer her to come back if SHE stops politicking, never mind the parents outrageous demands for equal time/pictures)

One other thing that bothers me with this story... She was on TV last night, and said she was not in the union.. yet today, a story reports she went back to the school with her union rep. :huh:

If she is in the union, and she was reprimanded without her union rep present... the school is in trouble with this one, per their contracts regardless of her actions.

Lastly, please, let's not kid ourselves here...

NJ's teacher's union, along with the NEA is notoriously Dem. (from my personal experience, and the phone calls I get from the union on the eve of an election reminding me and my wife to vote Dem. You should hear some of the responses this right-winged-whack-job gives back :nut: )
So much, that they are in bed with such fine groups as moveon.org. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040705-013501-7302r.htm

Even if everything this woman says is 100% true, somehow I seriously doubt they are ever going to bat for her with this one over a picture of our current President.

[cdw]

All I've learned so far is I haven't a clue what did/didn't happen. She had a picture of the pres and his dog. Big deal. Supposedly it wasn't next to other presidents pictures, big deal, but why was it originally said it was, as if it was a presidents bulletin board. Why did she need the police? Why was there any argumenting with parents at all? I dunno.

I've also learned that everytime I type bulletin (damn!) I do not spell it correctly and have to go back and do it over. :)

[Sacchiridites]

All I gotta say to this is what teacher in his/her right mind would WANT to go back? What in the world? :rolleyes:

Oh, I KNOW schools are going to hell. I've caught several officials of TWO school systems in bold-faced lies. I called them on them, too. Uh, when I got a response, after they convened and got their story straight, etc, etc. That's why my daughter is doing high school online. Yup, yup :thumbsup:

[RRedline]

So what are we learning from this discussion?

It's not alright to have a picture of a sitting President in a classroom, period?That is not true, and you know it. The woman was apparently using her position to promote the republican party and to denigrate the democratic party. Differing opinions should not be met with scorn, certainly not in a school.

To say that this school doesn't want a picture of Bush in its halls is a lie. The teacher's bulletin board was just one of several ways that she was trying to indoctrinate her students.

ALSO, SHE IS AN ENGLISH TEACHER.

[ethics]

Wow, Rred, you got all that from the thread and the articles? I can say the exact same thing in the opposite direction and be just as right.

[Misu]

Maybe politics should be added to religion as a topic not to be discussed in schools? I mean, it's already one of the two big no-no topics when in polite company :)

[RRedline]

Wow, Rred, you got all that from the thread and the articles? I can say the exact same thing in the opposite direction and be just as right.There was nothing in anything that I read to make me think that the school was in the wrong on this issue. When somebody makes an extraordinary claim such as this one, I want a little bit of proof. Everything I read seems to indicate that the teacher was acting inappropriately. There is a place for politics (and harmless bulletin board displays depicting the President) in schools, but there is no place for political indoctrination. I think the bulletin board display was not really what this was about.

Until I see more evidence supporting the teacher's claims, I have to go along with the school officials. It really seems to me that the teacher is playing the political discrimination card.

[ethics]

There was nothing in anything that I read to make me think that the school was in the wrong on this issue.

Of course not, you are a liberal. ;)

When somebody makes an extraordinary claim such as this one, I want a little bit of proof.

Proof of what someone said? Kinda hard, which is why I earlier called it a mess.

Everything I read seems to indicate that the teacher was acting inappropriately. There is a place for politics (and harmless bulletin board displays depicting the President) in schools, but there is no place for political indoctrination.

You are assuming superintended didn't lie? Funny how you take his side with no "proof" and not take the teachers for the same type of "proof". Well, actually, his was a little nicer, printed on paper and stuff. Real genuine once ink is added. ;)

ANd for the record I don't believe it's a cut and dry case but I am not siding with either side because both sides, at this time, are thin in facts.

[Domh]

The man is the President of the United States of America. Pictures of Presidents are not out of place in the classroom. Teachers who press ideology on their students ARE out of place in the classroom.

Still, this one does stink a bit of liberal-college-girls-gone-wild. She should have just put up this picture... would have been Teacher of The Year in no time.

http://home.centurytel.net/sha/images/dalai-lama-webready.jpg

[ethics]

Really? A religious figure in a classroom? Domh, you are so ignorant. :P

[Domh]

Really? A religious figure in a classroom? Domh, you are so ignorant. :P

Thats so true, but dont you mean a "philosophical figure"?

:whistle:

[ethics]

To me and you, sure, but... well, you know.

[Andy]

Schools are no place for political indoctrinantion, huh?
I didn't realize that a pic of the current President stooped to those levels.

Gee... someone should let the NJEA know that. (The union in question here....)

My wife brought home (from School where they were handed out to teachers) October's NJEA Review (the union's monthly magazine) and guess who's pics are splattered all over the cover because the NJEA is endorsing a Dem??

Yes, I agree school is no place for politics.. perhaps the union should also abide by these rules within the confines of the school's walls??

[Coriolis]

Schools are no place for political indoctrinantion, huh?
I didn't realize that a pic of the current President stooped to those levels.There's nothing wrong with hanging a picture of the current prez in a school, office, etc., etc. Honestly, I don't see a problem with that, and wouldn't think twice about it had I seen one in my kid's elementary school. That's not indoctrination, it's just acknowleding the current president.

What is wrong, though, and more to the point of this discussion, is dedicating a bulletin board to one candidate of an ongoing political campaign, and (according to the info so far), denigrating supporters of the opposite side. That IS indoctrination, and I'd be saying the exact same thing had it been Kerry she was swooning over.

[LissaKay]

PRESS RELEASE</DEFANGED-SPAN>

October 7, 2004

Statement of Shiba Pillai-Diaz In Reply to the Press Release Issued By
The South Brunswick School District

The root of this matter is the misguided and unfortunate demand by Middle School Principal, James Warfel last Friday that I leave the school building due to my refusal to remove a portrait of President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush from a bulletin board in my classroom. The portrait of our President and First Lady was a small part of the bulletin board that also displayed a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a copy of the Constitution of the United States, copies of prints from Benjamin Franklin’s printing press, and other patriotic symbols including the White House. There was no political content or intent reflected in the bulletin board.

It has been missed that the bulletin board had been up since before the start of the school year in late August. It has also been missed that the school principal, James Warfel, was present in my classroom several times since the beginning of the school term and never expressed any problems or objections to the bulletin board. Moreover, Assistant Principal Mark Daniels specifically reviewed the bulletin board last week, and told me that displaying the Presidential Portrait was not a problem and stated, “It is fine, it is a part of our culture.”

After the matter generated some press coverage over the weekend, Superintendent McCartney chose to issue a press release that accused me of “zealous misuse of seventh and eighth grade student instruction time” to “proselytize” my political beliefs. The press release issued by the Superintendent has only inflamed the situation.

I categorically deny that I ever engaged in any of the activities alleged in the Superintendent’s press release.

In fact, there is evidence that I refused to engage students in political discussions, which may have resulted in complaints from parents to school administrators that I was stifling discussion. On at least one confirmed occasion, <DEFANGED-SPAN class=caps>I REFUSED TO ENGAGE</DEFANGED-SPAN> a student who stated that the President was “killing people” in Iraq.

As a result of my policy of avoiding political discussion, I was specifically asked by Assistant Principal Daniels to allow political discussion in my classroom, to which I responded that I did not view that to be appropriate. The failure of the School District to disclose those facts in its press release speaks for itself.

The question that should be asked is why the School District chose to publicize supposed accusations by parents that should have been handled discreetly and confidentially between the School District administration and me. The School District was under an obligation to me not to disclose such matters publicly. Despite requests by my attorney to document the alleged parent and student complaints cited in the press release, the School District has steadfastly refused to provide any proof whatsoever of the allegations. Superintendent McCartney has responded that the alleged complaints were tendered in confidence and he will not provide proof of the allegations to the public or to me without a court order or legal action on my part.

Superintendent McCartney cannot have it both ways by asserting those purported complaints are confidential while making them the focus of his attack on my character and professional reputation. If he were truly concerned about not involving parents and students in the public forum, he should not have publicized the alleged statements in his press release.

Moreover, the Superintendent and the School District have been adamant in clarifying that I was not terminated on Friday, despite the alleged political “proselytizing” and purported “abandoning of her post.” The sheer fact that I was not and have not been terminated belies the strength of those allegations.

In the press release, Superintendent McCartney alleges events he was not witness to on Friday. In particular, the characterization that I voluntarily left my classroom and “abandoned [my] post” is not supported by the facts. On Friday morning, <DEFANGED-SPAN class=caps>BEFORE</DEFANGED-SPAN> my first scheduled class had even entered the classroom, I was asked by Assistant Principal Mark Daniels to come to his office. Despite his earlier review of the bulletin board and expression that there was no problem with the bulletin board and in particular the Presidential Portrait, Assistant Principal Daniels instructed me to remove the Presidential Portrait immediately. When I refused, the discussion moved to the office of Principal Warfel, which culminated in Principal Warfel demanding that I leave the building.

When I complied with the Principal’s directive to leave, <DEFANGED-SPAN class=caps>THERE WERE NO STUDENTS IN MY CLASSROOM FOR WHOM I WAS RESPONSIBLE. </DEFANGED-SPAN>It was incumbent upon Principal Warfel to cover my next assigned class before that class convened by arranging for a substitute teacher, or sitting in the classroom himself. At no time did I abandon my duties or leave children unattended as alleged.

Compounding the problem, the “facts” asserted by Superintendent McCartney have apparently been adopted in the press by, among others, Board of Education President Robert <DEFANGED-SPAN class=caps>F. </DEFANGED-SPAN>Long, who is attributed in press reports to have called McCartney’s press release a “clarity of the facts.” The rush by Mr. Long as the President of the Board of Education to take sides in the dispute without making any effort to independently investigate the truth, or even speak with me, should be a cause for further discussion. One might expect that the President of a School Board would make the effort to objectively evaluate the situation and get both sides of the matter before publicly passing judgment.

In addition to releasing his version of events to the media, Superintendent McCartney appears to have distributed his press release to teachers and staff at Crossroads South Middle School. If the press release was in fact distributed to teachers and staff, it is not clear why this was done.

It has also been reported that in the wake of the School District’s press release, at least one teacher has been soliciting parents to send emails to the Board of Education not to allow me to return. If that is occurring, it is not clear if that teacher is acting on her own, or at the direction of school officials.

It is indeed a sad day for our schools that displaying a photograph of the President and the First Lady produced this state of affairs. Whatever one may think of me or my political leanings, I do not deserve to be treated in this manner. No one does.

I have been on administrative leave at the direction of the Superintendent through today, and have been instructed to report to the Office of the Superintendent tomorrow morning at 8:30 for further direction.

Shiba Pillai-Diaz




And there is this from the Home News Tribune (http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,1071588,00.html?sec=main?=centraljersey):


Pillai-Diaz, her attorney and Superintendent Gary McCartney were in a conference until last evening. McCartney said nothing had been resolved and would not comment further.
Pillai-Diaz did not return numerous calls for comment yesterday.

Principal Jim Warfel met with Pillai-Diaz’s pupils yesterday to answer their questions about the incident, said parent Michelle Donahue, whose daughter is in Pillai-Diaz’s class.

Donahue sent a letter to the board saying she would not permit her daughter in the classroom if Pillai-Diaz continues to teach.

“These kids are old enough to know what’s going on,” Donahue said. “This is not a good environment for them to be in.”
…

Pillai-Diaz joined the district this year as a language arts teacher. She had previously taught in Brooklyn and Tenafly. She is a graduate of Cornell University and has five years teaching experience.

According to Terry Collins, director of personnel with the Tenafly district, Pillai-Diaz worked as a long-term substitute last year.

“She was hired as a substitute for a teacher that was on maternity leave, and her assignment ended in June,” Collins said. “She was fine, we never had any problems.”

[RRedline]

My wife brought home (from School where they were handed out to teachers) October's NJEA Review (the union's monthly magazine) and guess who's pics are splattered all over the cover because the NJEA is endorsing a Dem??

Yes, I agree school is no place for politics.. perhaps the union should also abide by these rules within the confines of the school's walls??I agree with you completely! However, what does the teachers union have to do with this? Is there such a thing as a union that doesn't endorse the democratic party? I'm seriously asking because I don't know of any.

I am generally against unions, and especially against them in education. I think they've done far more harm than good.

[Coriolis]

Well, so what we have is a he said (Superintendent), she said (Teacher) situation. Somewhere in between is the truth.

I stand by my statements, but whether or not they apply to the current situation is admittedly a little less clear.

[joseftu]

I have to say that I still find the administration's statement more credible--although as an outside observer, it's almost impossible to be certain.

But whatever the truth of this incident, I'm horrified that a "veteran English teacher" would release public statement so riddled with stylistic and grammatical errors.

[IamZed]

Geeze, what a hard ass.

[ethics]

I hope you meant the teacher (or the school) and not Joe, Zed?

[Domh]

But whatever the truth of this incident, I'm horrified that a "veteran English teacher" would release public statement so riddled with stylistic and grammatical errors.

Didnt you mean A public statement? Wouldnt RIFE be the better choice over RIDDLED?

;)

I jest... and agree - its rather wretched what passes these days.

[AmeritecTech]

Of course not, you are a liberal. ;)
I don't want to speak for RRedline, but I'd say he's closer to libertarianism. He generally favors a free market economy.

[Misu]

Well, whatever the story is, there is definately one thing I've learned - I shall not be wasting my time to earn a teaching license because this has convinced me that the risks far outweigh the benefits. And Florida is in a desperate hunt for teachers for the public schools.

[ethics]

I don't want to speak for RRedline, but I'd say he's closer to libertarianism. He generally favors a free market economy.


I want to legalize pot and that still doesn't make me a liberal. :)

[AmeritecTech]

I want to legalize pot and that still doesn't make me a liberal. :)
He opposes entitlement programs, favors lower taxation, opposes most economic controls, doesn't seem to be fond of socialized medicine...do I need to break out the political chart and explain the four basic classifications (liberal, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian)? A person who favors economic freedom as well as social freedoms is a libertarian, not a liberal. A person who favors economic controls and social freedom is a liberal.

[ethics]

Dude, I honestly don't care, you can HAVE him ;), and we are both taking this OT.

And for the record, you've described almost everyone in this forum but I wouldn't call them libertarians.

[joseftu]

Didnt you mean A public statement? Oops! How embarassing! I left out an article. I could claim Russian heritage ;), but it was an honest typo.

But my point (as you realize, of course) was that a public written statement should receive a much higher degree of care than a quick discussion board post.
Wouldnt RIFE be the better choice over RIDDLED?That one's a matter of opinion. I think riddled (with the inevitable connection and mental picture of bullet-ridden corpse) works better.

I jest... and agree - its rather wretched what passes these days.I know...and what really fills me with chagrin is that this is an English teacher!

[IamZed]

I hope you meant the teacher (or the school) and not Joe, Zed?No, I meant Joe. He just can’t put down that red pencil. Once a teacher, always a teacher. :)
I know. My dad taught math. Ug.
Actually, I would think her attorney is mostly to blame for the context of that release.

[joseftu]

You think I'm a hardass? You should meet my office-mate, Harry. Or in the office across the hall, Ruth (she has five different colors of marker!).
;)

[RRedline]

I know...and what really fills me with chagrin is that this is an English teacher!That this woman is an English teacher is one of the main reasons I don't quite believe her side of the story. English teachers don't generally create political/government/history bulletin board displays. I was a math teacher, and my displays were always related to...ummm...math. And why a photo of the President with his dog? It sounds rather personal to me, and not at all educational.

[RRedline]

Dude, I honestly don't care, you can HAVE him ;), and we are both taking this OT.

And for the record, you've described almost everyone in this forum but I wouldn't call them libertarians.Awww shucks, Leon. I was going to ask you to be my running mate for the 2012 election! I know you weren't born in this country, but hopefully we'll allow people born in other countries to run by 2012. We'll kick ass. Pot will be legal. We'll cut taxes. We'll have a balanced budget. When we address the public, we'll have topless women in the background instead of American flags.

And if this forum is so Libertarian, then why do we fight so much? :(

[ethics]

Awww shucks, Leon. I was going to ask you to be my running mate for the 2012 election! I know you weren't born in this country, but hopefully we'll allow people born in other countries to run by 2012. We'll kick ass. Pot will be legal. We'll cut taxes. We'll have a balanced budget. When we address the public, we'll have topless women in the background instead of American flags.

Hey, with a platform like above, I might reconsider. :P


And if this forum is so Libertarian, then why do we fight so much? :(

I'd prefer the word "disagree" than "fight". :)

As to why?

1. Perhaps many people think they are Libertarian but aren't?
2. There are so many different stances in Libertarian label that they don't know where the hell they are. ;)

[jfcjrus]

And if this forum is so Libertarian, then why do we fight so much?

I'd prefer the word "disagree" than "fight". :)

As to why?

1. Perhaps many people think they are Libertarian but aren't?
2. There are so many different stances in Libertarian label that they don't know where the hell they are. ;)

Such is the problem with 'labels', eh?
Some of us may have simply matured through decades of political horseshit and would like to be in the party of what ....'common sense'?

But, alas....we all still endure the soundbites, talking points, statements out of context, labels, and half-truths that have become prevelant in our current political culture.
It all seems to be an all in an effort to promote the 'party', where, I believe, most of us would rather see an effort to promote the 'country', of the free, rather than some 'party'.
It's all rather sad.

But, Ill say this .... I welcome the so labeled 'Libertarians' that have recently joined this forum, and look forward to reading their views.
Perhaps I'll learn something.
Or not.

For decades, I've voted for the leader that I thought could best continue this freedom loving country's best interests.
Often, I've had to choose the lesser of the evils.
(grumble...JUST WHEN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A REAL LEADER AND STATESMAN TO VOTE FOR?)
But this year is really beyond pathetic, to me.
To me, Bush deserves to be fired, but Kerry does not deserve to be hired, to lead this great country.

I say, bring back the League of Women Voters(?) running the debates.
Let us again see the alternatives to the Democrat and Republican candidates.
Because, frankly, these two guys aren't very good.


Just my opinion.
Regards,

[Andy]

But wait!! :eek: ... This time, it was Democratic Party "indoctrination"...

http://www.ktvq.com/global/story.asp?s=2432330&ClientType=Printable


This was not meant for parent's eyes. But, pro-Democrat literature accidentally went home with third-grade students from Hawthorne Elementary.

"It's a whoops, it's a mistake. We're sorry -- Missoula, we're sorry."
Ahh.. there, that makes it all better. Nothing to see here, move along America... :rolleyes:

[Arc]

Here from the local ABC TV affiliate is the latest information as of today October 18th complete with links to other sources on this story.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_100304_middleschoolteacher.html

[joseftu]

Nothing new or latest there. Just a repeat. Last updated 10/7/04. Is it the wrong link?

[Pyrion]

It's not alright to have a picture of a sitting President in a classroom, period?

If she's a History, Civics, or Economics teacher, then it'd be understandable. The decorum should fit the curriculum. Though firing her for such an "offense" is ridiculous, unless they have such a policy of requiring classroom decorations to fit the subject matter. If they don't, then they should rehire her, implement such a policy, and if she violates it, THEN fire her ass.

[Arc]

Nothing new or latest there. Just a repeat. Last updated 10/7/04. Is it the wrong link?

No. I simply posted it as a service to representative or informative as the most up to date and complete information available on the subject as most of the stuff being argued was based upon what was "known" at an earlier date.

By the way even though it may be no different than the older stuff that in itself may be a confirmation of what really happen as opposed to what previously was more of a he said she said scenario.

For the record I absolutely no opinion on what the truth is. Not even a speculative opinion. As I said I just posted the link as a service.

Actually I was somewhat surprised by the instant passion and GA posting controversy or debate this situation or event triggered.

It seemed as if people were for some reason looking at this some truly major national event rather than a local dispute between the parties. And I say that only as an observation, not as a criticism of anyone's feelings or position on this issue.

[joseftu]

Though firing her for such an "offense" is ridiculous, unless they have such a policy of requiring classroom decorations to fit the subject matter. If they don't, then they should rehire her, implement such a policy, and if she violates it, THEN fire her ass.Well, the case is still subject to some question as to the complete facts--but it's clear, at least, that she was not fired. She's working today.