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.
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.
Not to mention, the notion of from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea would imply no possibility for a two state solution. Again, it’s about wiping out Jews and Israel. There’s no two ways about it.
To be clear, that’s not endorsing what the Israeli government is doing to Gaza right now. But simply calling for the elimination of the Jewish state is antisemetic.
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.
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.
Ha ha sorry no, it doesn’t work that way. In an era where the NAACP with a straight face accuses references to cotton to be racist, you can’t explain away the antisemitic interpretation of “from the river to the sea” as a slogan. And this is the very reason public employees are not supposed to use their emails for political sloganeering - because you cannot control or explain away the impact of your statements as “oh you just misinterpreted!” when there is an established understood contrary meaning.
The “established understood contrary meaning” that you refer to is created entirely by Israel. Ask anyone who uses it what it means. And look at how it came into being decades ago. This is like Trump redefining language.
All you’re doing is further proving it’s a highly disruptive statement that is entirely inappropriate in a government employee’s email.
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.
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?
Look if you know nothing about govt employee speech I’m not gonna spoonfeed you. Maybe bow out?
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?
Look if you know nothing about govt employee speech I’m not gonna spoonfeed you. Maybe bow out?
I asked a question. If you're only interested in hurling back-and-forth debate without anybody trying to understand or learn something, maybe I should bow out.
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.
Exactly. And more broadly, you can’t defend yourself from discipline by saying “Sally didn’t get in trouble!” Unless there’s a pattern of identical incidents being treated differently, it’s not a viable argument. Here the complaint actually does allow some inferences because the only similar speech she cites is much less hostile & disruptive.
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.
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.
Exactly. And more broadly, you can’t defend yourself from discipline by saying “Sally didn’t get in trouble!” Unless there’s a pattern of identical incidents being treated differently, it’s not a viable argument. Here the complaint actually does allow some inferences because the only similar speech she cites is much less hostile & disruptive.
Worth noting that, at least according to the complaint, MCPS has not provided any reason for the discipline whatsoever. It is required and a violation of the rules not to provide that.
In their response to the complaint, it will be interesting to see if MCPS references the policy ot the content, and how they articulate a distintion between this content and others.
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 do realize that because of Israel, these people are eating grass for nutrition now? If the Jewish people cared, they would be for a cease fire. Yet I continue to see Jewish men and women flying the flags of Israel on Montrose Road every day. Sickening.
Why don’t you call on Hamas to release the hostages, which would get the pause you seek? Even if you don’t care for Israel or its supporters, this would provide immediate relief for Gazans.
Why not advocate for BOTH the release fo the hostages AND humanitarian treatment for the people in Gaza?
I am hereby advocating for both the release of the hostages and humanitarian treatment for the civilians people in Gaza, in particular food for children. It is absolutely easy for me to support both of those things. Your turn.
Anonymous wrote:There is also a TPMS teacher on forced administrative leave for re-tweeting some political cartoons that were deemed “anti-Semitic” (many people and parents disagree and believe they are simply rightly criticizing the Israeli govt actions). She did this on her personal account only. And she’s non Arab, non Muslim, white FWIW. So it seems MCPS targeting the free speech of teachers crosses racial and ethnic lines.
This gets at something important, which is the difference between individual bias and institutionalized bias.
In general, in MCPS, antisemitism tends to be both individual and heavily penalized. So, a teen carves a swastika in a bathroom door, gets caught, gets disciplined, and the whole school has a meeting about bias.
On the other hand, Islamophobia in MCPS is institutionalized. It's top-down, perpetuated by those with more power against those with less.
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 do realize that because of Israel, these people are eating grass for nutrition now? If the Jewish people cared, they would be for a cease fire. Yet I continue to see Jewish men and women flying the flags of Israel on Montrose Road every day. Sickening.
Why don’t you call on Hamas to release the hostages, which would get the pause you seek? Even if you don’t care for Israel or its supporters, this would provide immediate relief for Gazans.
Why not advocate for BOTH the release fo the hostages AND humanitarian treatment for the people in Gaza?
I am hereby advocating for both the release of the hostages and humanitarian treatment for the civilians people in Gaza, in particular food for children. It is absolutely easy for me to support both of those things. Your turn.
PP here. Great, thanks. I fully agree. What makes you think I wouldn't?
Anonymous wrote:There is also a TPMS teacher on forced administrative leave for re-tweeting some political cartoons that were deemed “anti-Semitic” (many people and parents disagree and believe they are simply rightly criticizing the Israeli govt actions). She did this on her personal account only. And she’s non Arab, non Muslim, white FWIW. So it seems MCPS targeting the free speech of teachers crosses racial and ethnic lines.
This gets at something important, which is the difference between individual bias and institutionalized bias.
In general, in MCPS, antisemitism tends to be both individual and heavily penalized. So, a teen carves a swastika in a bathroom door, gets caught, gets disciplined, and the whole school has a meeting about bias.
On the other hand, Islamophobia in MCPS is institutionalized. It's top-down, perpetuated by those with more power against those with less.
Thanks for flagging the TPMS incident. I think it is relevant for another reason entirely.
MCPS has, as far as I can tell, given no rationale whatsoever for the suspension in the complaint. Most of us have been assuming it is because of the policy violation of adding to the signature line. That puts it squarely in the "were similarly situated people treated differently" category.
But given this incident in TPMS, and another I found regarding Tilden MS, it may have nothing to do with that policy at all, and just taking action against any speech anywhere taking this stance- personal accounts, email signatures, talking about it in class, mentioning in the break room. That is another legal analysis entirely, and one I am less familiar with and interested to learn about.
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.
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}