MCPS Employee Files EEOC Discrimination Complaint for Being Placed on Leave for Her Palestinian Email Sig

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are wrong as a matter of law. Email signatures are not hidden and known by administration. It is not as though they were not aware. PLUS, if this was complaint driven (a complaint about a policy violation as opposed to a complaint about the content) the offer to take it down would have sufficed and/or they needed to take the same disciplinary steps regarding anyone else who had a personalized email signature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 fact of a policy violation does not make it legal for MCPS to take ANY action they want. There is a process they are required to follow, and it wasn't followed. From the complaint:

"In fact, the county’s approach is also in violation of its own regulations related to suspension and termination of professional personnel. Section GJ(III) of MCPS Policies and Regulations outlines the detailed procedures responsible administrators must take in order to suspend or terminate personnel. Notably, these procedures include developing “an anecdotal record of all observations, conferences, or incidents.” Yet, besides the mention of the email tagline to the principal, no involved party was given any detailed information about the full scope of the reason for Ms. El-Haggan’s leave. To this day, Ms. El-Haggan remains on administrative leave with no information on what is to come next."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

racist sexist and antisemitic. ok!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Look there’s no place for politics in a taxpayer funded institution. If a signature said ‘free Northern Ireland” or “keep Taiwan independent” or “check out my Etsy shop at…”it would not be allowed either. Political arguments interfere with the mission of any agency. It doesn’t matter how you or anyone feels about this cause. Free speech does not extend into the workplace. Working for mcps or any government entity is a taxpayer funded salary that must be respected and not co-opted for personal agendas or gain. Every email she sent was paid for by a taxpayer. She can’t include personal agendas in that capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Saying Black Lives Matter (which, of course they do) or having pronouns in a signature is a much different scenario than calling for violence, which is what “from the river to the sea” is indeed advocating. They are not comparable. Simply inappropriate and I agree with MCPS actions here. Had a Jewish teacher put a statement like “Israel should only be for Jews,” that would be the comparable statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps electing and showing support through polls and martyr payments for terrorists has dampened people's sympathy, even for civilians. The children, yes, but unfortunately, they are sleeping in a bed made by their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look there’s no place for politics in a taxpayer funded institution. If a signature said ‘free Northern Ireland” or “keep Taiwan independent” or “check out my Etsy shop at…”it would not be allowed either. Political arguments interfere with the mission of any agency. It doesn’t matter how you or anyone feels about this cause. Free speech does not extend into the workplace. Working for mcps or any government entity is a taxpayer funded salary that must be respected and not co-opted for personal agendas or gain. Every email she sent was paid for by a taxpayer. She can’t include personal agendas in that capacity.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look there’s no place for politics in a taxpayer funded institution. If a signature said ‘free Northern Ireland” or “keep Taiwan independent” or “check out my Etsy shop at…”it would not be allowed either. Political arguments interfere with the mission of any agency. It doesn’t matter how you or anyone feels about this cause. Free speech does not extend into the workplace. Working for mcps or any government entity is a taxpayer funded salary that must be respected and not co-opted for personal agendas or gain. Every email she sent was paid for by a taxpayer. She can’t include personal agendas in that capacity.

In that case, you surely agree that all who added signatures like this you outline should be suspended? That’s the point of the complaint. This teacher has been singled out with severe disciplinary action, even when she agreed not to do it again.