Anonymous wrote:It could be argued that her signature clearly represented a terror threat, unlike many others appended to staff emails. And, with all the antisemitic attacks in the school system, someone probably overreacted. I don't think she needed to be put on leave, maybe just a warning, but maybe there's more to the story.
Having said that I have also given some side-eye to some employees clearly sharing on social media some really nasty antisemitic posts/memes and there is one particular school I will not work or volunteer at for, as one staff member did something very much along those lines. I would not feel safe in her presence if I suddenly revealed that I'm Jewish. (Or if any Jewish student did the same.)
What exactly do you think she would do to you? White women love to pull the old, "I do not feel safe" BS. I've been through a lot in life so it takes a lot for me to feel unsafe. Maybe for a snowflake like you, it takes very little but that should not qualify as the universal standard.
How is this not racist?
It isn’t racist bc the white women are the ones using this excuse as their cover to inflict racial harm on nonwhite people. The “I don’t feel safe” argument is used most often against Black and brown people by white women as a power play. Let’s not forget that the very first person killed in America post Oct 7th was a 6 year old Palestinian American boy in Illinois. But American Jews are the ones going on and on about how they don’t “feel safe” in America when the president of Harvard was canned for crossing them. So as usual, white women are winning at victimhood and non whites are actually safe. And please stop with the Jews aren’t white argument. The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazim from Europe.
Wow. You’ve created quite the discriminatory fairy tale here. When people tell me they feel unsafe, I take them at their word no matter what color their skin happens to be.
-granddaughter of Holocaust survivor, who has very likely been through much more in life than you
You just don't care if those people happen to live in Gaza or the West Bank.
Yes, Jewish people DO care but you clearly don't care about what Jewish people have gone through or go through. Politics need to stay out of schools.
You just proved the point! Politics do need to stay out of school; the problem is that it's been selectively enforced in such a way that it targets a protected class. They didn't go after teachers with other signatures; they did go after those supporting Palestinian causes, which targets racial and religious protected classes. Thus, the selective enforcement is an EEO violation.
If she didn’t violate the policy in the first place, she would not have been placed on leave. You’re protected from discrimination, not given immunity to ignore the rules and policies of employment.
What part of policies cannot be SELECTIVELY enforced do you not understand? Either the policy is enforced for everyone or no one. Anything else is discrimination.
I’m pretty sure they’d enforce the policy for everyone if a complaint was made and brought to their attention. Name a time when another employee violated the same policy, complaints were made, and the policy was not enforced. It’s not discrimination just because she got caught and others didn’t.
She has screenshots of other employees who are clearly in violation of the policy. The policy is not only valid IF someone complains about it.
You have got to be kidding me with this logic.
You have no logic at all. If someone steals a from a store add the convenience store calls the police, the law can be enforced. If someone steals from a store and it’s ignored/not reported, the the law has been violated but nothing is enforced because it isn’t brought to the attention of those who handle the consequences. Same with kids in school. If a kid has drugs at school and is reported, the code of conduct is applied. If a kid has drugs at school but nobody says anything and admin isn’t made aware, nothing happens. Has nothing to do with protected class or whatever excuses you make for her.
The ignorance here is yours. You don't understand how EEO laws work or the difference between enforcement of laws and company policies. IT IS A VIOLATE OF CIVIL EEO LAWS to selectively enforce corporate policies such that the intent OR EFFECT is the disproportionate injury to a specific protected class. There is no comparison to whether a convenience store calls the police due to theft UNLESS the theft is by employees. So, yes, it WOULD be an EEO violation for a convenience store to only act on or report (or even disproportionately act on or report )theft by, say, people of a particular national origin. You have ZERO clue how this works. Go home.
Calm t f down. First of all, we don’t have the full story of what she did. Second, PP is correct. Just because there may be someone out there who did the same thing doesn’t mean this is is targeted. Third, her email signature was uniquely divisive and political. The very reason it got reported is because it was more disruptive and inappropriate than an email signature that said “have a blessed day” or whatever.
At the end of the day she chose not only to violate MCPS policy, but to bring a highly politically charged statement into her official communications as a government employee. She 100% deserves discipline.
Not PP, but a couple things here...
1. "uniquely divisive and political" is not the stated reason for the discipline and shouldn't affect the outcome. Moreover it is incredibly subjective. The complaint contains "Black Lives Matter" examples. They seem very comparable- some may view that as an unobjectionable statement of fact, and others may view it as an explicit endorsement of a political movement.
2. Sure, we don't know all the facts and she needs to prove she was treated differently than similarly situated peers ("targeted"). But the allegations in the complaint certainly indicate that, as does your assessment here. You say there is no proof it was targeted, but then go on to explain exactly why you believe it WAS targeted (and therefore justified.)
3. Your assessment neglects the fact that there are legally binding rules around disicplinary procedures for MCPS employees, that were not followed in this case.
All you’re doing is assuming the facts are as stated in the EEOC complaint, lol. Not even worth responding to.
And also there are at least two bases for discipline here: violating the email policy AND engaging in distruptive political speech in her capacity as a government employee on the job. It’s the disruptiveness of the statement (indeed more than “BLM”) that makes more severe discipline appropriate.
It’s clear you and this teacher are part of that naive (at best) group of progressives who believes that there are established good guys and bad guys, and as long as you’re “defending the oppressed” you’re justified. Well it doesn’t actually work that way.
Well, if assuming the facts in the complaint are true is not worth responding to, so is assuming that they are NOT true.
Please don't make assumptions about me. I take no position whatsoever on the substance of the slogan. I'm interested in the legal issue.
you’re interested in the legal issue yet know nothing about the law, and confidently proclaim there is only one legal outcome based on the allegations in the complaint. Great analysis!
Please point to where in this post I confidently proclaim anything, or assume only one legal outcome? Pretty sure I acknowledged that we don't know all the facts and things need to be proven.
"Not PP, but a couple things here...
1. "uniquely divisive and political" is not the stated reason for the discipline and shouldn't affect the outcome. Moreover it is incredibly subjective. The complaint contains "Black Lives Matter" examples. They seem very comparable- some may view that as an unobjectionable statement of fact, and others may view it as an explicit endorsement of a political movement.
2. Sure, we don't know all the facts and she needs to prove she was treated differently than similarly situated peers ("targeted"). But the allegations in the complaint certainly indicate that, as does your assessment here. You say there is no proof it was targeted, but then go on to explain exactly why you believe it WAS targeted (and therefore justified.)
3. Your assessment neglects the fact that there are legally binding rules around disicplinary procedures for MCPS employees, that were not followed in this case."
You’re again just assuming all the facts ij the complaint are true and complete, which is obviously an absurd basis to claim to be doing impartial legal analysis.
And yes, more disruptive speech can be disciplined more swiftly and harshly. That’s the whole point. Some secretary’s anodyne “have a blessed day” signature violated the email policy, but did not trigger the same disruption as this teacher’s statement that is widely understood to be antisemitic by many. They are not the same and can be treated differently by MCPS.
Can you provide the legal basis for the bolded?
There is ample case law around speech at schools that create a hostile environment (see: Bong Hits for Jesus and Hazelton). That’s more focused on student speech, but still applies. Speech that creates a hostile environment is able to be regulated and disciplined.
Thanks, this is helpful. I looked up the case (Morse v. Frederick). Seems that was a case about whether an actual POLICY that limited the specific content of speech, in this case advocating illegal drug use, was a violation of the First Amendment. What I am looking for here is whether there is any policy in MCPS that restricts the content of speech that could be applied.
MCPS has extensive anti-harassment policies.
Thanks. So I gather MCPS will not rely on the policy regarding what is in email signatures as a justification, but rather a violation of a different policy.
I'm looking for those policies now. I found this one: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/jhf.pdf
I'm not sure that is on point because it is restricted to actions directed toward an individual. I'll keep looking...
The creation of a hostile environment for a specific group of students or other school community members is fundamental to harassment laws at the federal, state and local levels. It does not need to be targeted at any one individual (e.g. drawing a swastika as graffiti isn’t targeted but does create a hostile environment)
I'm not claiming the policy doesn't exist. I'm trying to find it. To discipline a government employee, particularly one in the union, there needs to be a citation to a specific policy that was violated. I'm just looking for it...
Look at Title IV and Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act, to start.
I think we may be talking past each other here. I am interested in the policies and procedures that guide whether suspension of this teacher was appropriate.
The Civil Rights Act itself will not answer those questions. They provide a cause of action to citizens when a federal entity violates the requirements. They do not directly provide a cause for a government entity to take action against a citizen. At least not to my knowledge.
If I am wrong, I sincerely would like to know.
In short, yes you are mistaken. State and federal anti-discrimination law make it illegal for the government to create a hostile environment based on race/religion/gender. The teacher is a government employee not “a citizen.”
Recognizing I am focusing on a very different thing than most people on this thread, and you don't have to go down my rabbit hole if you don't want to, but...
There is a difference between something being illegal and any action taken against the person who engaged in that action also being legal.
For example, concepts like due process and cause of action apply. And discrimination claims by the person who engaged in the action can also arise- as a defense or as an independent claim.
Seems that the justification for the action could be:
1. violation of the email signature policy
2. creation of a hostile learning environment
Defenses to that action could be:
1. selective application of the email signature policy
2. school's failure to prove that a hostile learning environment was created
3. failure to follow appropriate process
Independent claims by the teacher could be:
1. disparate treatment discrimination based on national origin
Defense to that by the school district could be:
1. proof that email signature created a hostile environment; and
2. all instances of creating a hostile environment are treated similarly.
Either way, I don't think this is an easy case for either the teacher or the school and will be interesting to follow.
The other case about the private social media accounts seems MUCH more difficult for MCPS. Very little way to prove a hostile environment and that does appear to me to be a clear violation of the collective bargaining agreement, "The Board and the Association agree that they will not take any action against any unit member because of their participation in religious, political, or teacher-organization activities conducted outside duty hours and off school property."
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.mceanea.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/01/mcea_contract_2023_2027.pdf
Anonymous wrote:It could be argued that her signature clearly represented a terror threat, unlike many others appended to staff emails. And, with all the antisemitic attacks in the school system, someone probably overreacted. I don't think she needed to be put on leave, maybe just a warning, but maybe there's more to the story.
Having said that I have also given some side-eye to some employees clearly sharing on social media some really nasty antisemitic posts/memes and there is one particular school I will not work or volunteer at for, as one staff member did something very much along those lines. I would not feel safe in her presence if I suddenly revealed that I'm Jewish. (Or if any Jewish student did the same.)
What exactly do you think she would do to you? White women love to pull the old, "I do not feel safe" BS. I've been through a lot in life so it takes a lot for me to feel unsafe. Maybe for a snowflake like you, it takes very little but that should not qualify as the universal standard.
How is this not racist?
It isn’t racist bc the white women are the ones using this excuse as their cover to inflict racial harm on nonwhite people. The “I don’t feel safe” argument is used most often against Black and brown people by white women as a power play. Let’s not forget that the very first person killed in America post Oct 7th was a 6 year old Palestinian American boy in Illinois. But American Jews are the ones going on and on about how they don’t “feel safe” in America when the president of Harvard was canned for crossing them. So as usual, white women are winning at victimhood and non whites are actually safe. And please stop with the Jews aren’t white argument. The vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazim from Europe.
Wow. You’ve created quite the discriminatory fairy tale here. When people tell me they feel unsafe, I take them at their word no matter what color their skin happens to be.
-granddaughter of Holocaust survivor, who has very likely been through much more in life than you
You just don't care if those people happen to live in Gaza or the West Bank.
Yes, Jewish people DO care but you clearly don't care about what Jewish people have gone through or go through. Politics need to stay out of schools.
You just proved the point! Politics do need to stay out of school; the problem is that it's been selectively enforced in such a way that it targets a protected class. They didn't go after teachers with other signatures; they did go after those supporting Palestinian causes, which targets racial and religious protected classes. Thus, the selective enforcement is an EEO violation.
If she didn’t violate the policy in the first place, she would not have been placed on leave. You’re protected from discrimination, not given immunity to ignore the rules and policies of employment.
What part of policies cannot be SELECTIVELY enforced do you not understand? Either the policy is enforced for everyone or no one. Anything else is discrimination.
I’m pretty sure they’d enforce the policy for everyone if a complaint was made and brought to their attention. Name a time when another employee violated the same policy, complaints were made, and the policy was not enforced. It’s not discrimination just because she got caught and others didn’t.
She has screenshots of other employees who are clearly in violation of the policy. The policy is not only valid IF someone complains about it.
You have got to be kidding me with this logic.
You have no logic at all. If someone steals a from a store add the convenience store calls the police, the law can be enforced. If someone steals from a store and it’s ignored/not reported, the the law has been violated but nothing is enforced because it isn’t brought to the attention of those who handle the consequences. Same with kids in school. If a kid has drugs at school and is reported, the code of conduct is applied. If a kid has drugs at school but nobody says anything and admin isn’t made aware, nothing happens. Has nothing to do with protected class or whatever excuses you make for her.
The ignorance here is yours. You don't understand how EEO laws work or the difference between enforcement of laws and company policies. IT IS A VIOLATE OF CIVIL EEO LAWS to selectively enforce corporate policies such that the intent OR EFFECT is the disproportionate injury to a specific protected class. There is no comparison to whether a convenience store calls the police due to theft UNLESS the theft is by employees. So, yes, it WOULD be an EEO violation for a convenience store to only act on or report (or even disproportionately act on or report )theft by, say, people of a particular national origin. You have ZERO clue how this works. Go home.
Calm t f down. First of all, we don’t have the full story of what she did. Second, PP is correct. Just because there may be someone out there who did the same thing doesn’t mean this is is targeted. Third, her email signature was uniquely divisive and political. The very reason it got reported is because it was more disruptive and inappropriate than an email signature that said “have a blessed day” or whatever.
At the end of the day she chose not only to violate MCPS policy, but to bring a highly politically charged statement into her official communications as a government employee. She 100% deserves discipline.
Not PP, but a couple things here...
1. "uniquely divisive and political" is not the stated reason for the discipline and shouldn't affect the outcome. Moreover it is incredibly subjective. The complaint contains "Black Lives Matter" examples. They seem very comparable- some may view that as an unobjectionable statement of fact, and others may view it as an explicit endorsement of a political movement.
2. Sure, we don't know all the facts and she needs to prove she was treated differently than similarly situated peers ("targeted"). But the allegations in the complaint certainly indicate that, as does your assessment here. You say there is no proof it was targeted, but then go on to explain exactly why you believe it WAS targeted (and therefore justified.)
3. Your assessment neglects the fact that there are legally binding rules around disicplinary procedures for MCPS employees, that were not followed in this case.
Anyone who actually knows the history of “from the River to the sea” and isn’t influenced by hysterical claims to the contrary (none from the actual people using the phrase), understand that it is a plea for freedom for the Palestinian people. (No, as as many times as you say it, it is not about genocide of the Jewish people - that’s what the Israeli army is attempting in Gaza). And as it is a plea for freedom from oppression, it is on the face of it directly comparable to “Black lives matter” as a slogan.
The problem with this argument is you fail to explain, what happens to the Jews and Israel if Palestine is “free”? There are plenty of Israeli Arabs living with full rights in Israel. But Hamas doesn’t want that. They want to wipe not only Israel, but all Jews, from the planet. It is indeed a call for the elimination of the Jews regardless of how you argue it.
You keep talking about what Hamas wants, we are talking about what is in the best interests of the Palestinian people. Despite your efforts to portray it differently, what Hamas wants and what the Palestinian people want are NOT the same thing. I agree that "from the River to the Sea" is perfectly appropriate.
You are being either obtuse or incredibly cynical. Everyone, everyone understands that it is a call to eliminate the state of Israel and people of Israel.
I'd say if a teacher had a signature that said, "Kill all the Palestinians" that would be equally bad.
Not everyone. Some people. Perhaps even many people. But not everyone. Keeping in mind, also, that in the context of the state of Israel, "people of Israel" includes people who are Arabs.
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}