"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
all the fun stuff is going down and the dumb stuff is going up?I-)
Actually, it appears that marijuana use is up slightly over 1991 levels. So there is that...
I am surprised that no comments have yet been posted for this. I recently retired from more than 30 years teaching public school and I saw very little in the way of meaningful protest from students. Much different than when I was in school in the late 60s and early 70s.My flame retardant suit is at the dry cleaners, so I will comment and then get out of the way.1. A contract is supposed to mean something. Saying, "I did not think they would actually enforce the contract I signed," is a weak defense. The fact that it is not universally enforced is not much better.2. During my last year of teaching, a colleague resigned from her public school teaching position to take a job at a local Catholic school, mostly due to the constant stress and disrespect many teachers face daily. The position she took came open because a teacher at the Catholic school had "resigned" on the day her divorce became final. Her resignation was voluntary, of course. Some, if not many, Catholic schools do enforce the contract.3. Did these students face any consequences for their admirable protest? I have tried to find that information, but could not. Have any parents promised to withdraw their children from the school if these teachers are not reinstated, or at least if contracts are not changed so this does not occur in the future? If not, it seems to be an empty protest.4. Lastly, I think it is wonderful that these children stand up for the rights of others. No one should have to lose a job because of who he/she loves. I hope these children are as adamant about exercising rights in the future when their college invites a speaker whom they might disagree with. OK, give me a minute to get out of the area, and flame away.
No flames, just a suggestion that your conclusions are, to my mind, false. Working backwards -- standing up for the rights of LGBTQ teachers (who have hurt no one by their actions or their existence) is admirable. It does not follow that these students should similarly stand up for the "rights" of white supremacists who visit their campus in order to spread lies, hatred, and tacitly encourage violence against people because of skin color, religious beliefs, country of origin, etc. There is no parallel here.The fact that parents didn't remove kids from school or contracts are not changed immediately does NOT make their actions an empty protest. MOST protests throughout history had no immediate impact. That doesn't make them empty.And your comments about contracts being enforced is irrelevant. The teachers were not protesting -- the students who love and respect them were. Are you saying students had no right to protest a contract they see as being morally wrong and even against the interest of the students themselves is pointless because, hey, it's legal? I imagine people said the same thing about people protesting slavery. Hey, it's legal.
Interesting that you choose to cite white supremacists, rightfully the most vilified group in America, as an example of people whom students should not defend the rights of. (By rights here, I refer to the right to express an opinion) While I could argue that point, except for the part about inciting violence or spreading hatred, I was thinking of people such as John Brennan, Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, Jason Riley, Richard Dawkins, and Milo Yiannopoulos. You would be hard pressed to label any of these people as white supremacists, but all have been prevented from speaking at various colleges over the past few years, some having been met with violence, riots, and threats. On a college campus. And here I do not mean to imply that students should not protest against the views of a speaker. That is their right and it should be exercised freely, frequently , and peacefully.I may not have been clear on the issue of the protest itself. The students protested without any apparent fear of consequences. The has apparently suffered no consequences other than a few days of negative publicity. Perhaps the parents could have set an example by pulling their children (and their money) out of this school unless changes were made, or at least promised at some point in the near future.I am not sure what you refer to when you say the the contract is irrelevant because the teachers were not protesting. My point was that the contract makes it clear that teachers may be dismissed if they fail to uphold the values and teachings of the Catholic Church. We may disagree with the values and teachings, but employees should not be surprised when they are expected to abide by a contract.Students and parents are certainly free, and should be encouraged to peacefully protest the tenants of this contract. No one should lose a job because of who he/she loves. The church is also free, as far as I know, to enforce a contract that both parties freely entered into. Your comparison of slavery, which in no way involved freedom in any manner, to the dismissal of someone from their job leaves me speechless. If only the worst thing a slave had to experience was losing a job...Have a great day, and let's both endeavor to protect the rights of all people, especially those with whom we disagree.