Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
CAIR bringing case against MCPS
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It’s going to come down to two things: 1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct 2. Is there selective enforcement of that code. We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws. I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be. As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position. Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct. |
Anonymous
No, it's not. You can continue repeating lies, but nobody outside your echo chamber cares how badly you distort the meaning of the phrase. |
Anonymous
Just say I'm hearing voices and seeing things that aren't there next time. Much more on brand with your stance here. Subtext and pretext? Let's try that with your response, since thought crime accusations have become fair play. Gimme a minute. Yes, sure enough - I just saw MURDER ALL PALESTINIANS in the subtext and pretext of your response. Where do we go from here? |
Anonymous
Go ahead - tell us all about the pretext and subtext. |
Anonymous
| So if instead of "From the river to the sea" she wrote "From the river to the 1949 armistice line", would it be OK? That's more or less the current borders. |
Anonymous
There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint. It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment) The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech. CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin." To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome. |
Anonymous
I wrote the statement you quoted. That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows: Race Color Religion Sex Age National origin Marital status Gender Identity Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test Sexual orientation Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion. |
Anonymous
Does Israel have a right to exist? Now tell me how from the river to the sea isn’t a call for the destruction of Israel? |
Anonymous
why is it people what think Israel has no right to exist think it isn’t a call to destroy Israel . If you don’t think Israel has a right to exist you want it gone . |
Anonymous
We probably need to have that conversation in another section of DCUM. |
Anonymous
PP here. I get all that. But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct? |
Anonymous
Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam? |
Anonymous
OK, so Swedish atheist. No EEO claim, right? |
Anonymous
Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class |
Anonymous
You understand that there are Swedish Muslims don’t you? And Jews. And people of color. |