Jerry Buell Doesn’t Deserve to Be Suspended

You’re right, but you’re about to get a lot of nasty comments …

Erm no, it’s NOT a free speech issue. He has every right to say what he want, no one is taking that away from him. But he also has to bear the consequences of that speech and he has no right to keep his job when he violates the terms of his job (the school has a social media policy).
The guidelines include things like this:
‘The guidelines warn teachers if they “feel angry or passionate about a subject, it may not be the time to share your thoughts in a post” and to “delay posting until you are calm and clearheaded.”‘
Also, free speech, as in the First Amendment, is only when it comes to the federal government prohibiting it and prosecuting him, which hasn’t happened.
Buell also posted a second comment on his Facebook page:”If one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion, based on Biblical principals and God’s law, then go ahead and un-friend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994.”

And, when he has current students on his Facebook page it’s an entirely different matter, then it calls into question of whether e.g. gay students will feel comfortable around him.
Hemant, you say that you’re open about your atheism. That’s fine, you’re not spouting the same garbage that Buell did (cesspool!?!), thus no one would feel uncomfortable around you.
Teachers are, and should, be held to higher standards than a lot of other people, they are to act as role-models and someone kids should be able to trust. This flies in the face of that.
Oh yeah, this isn’t the first time Mr. Buell has uttered such things, even in class:
‘Former student Bryan Blaise, 26, said Buell’s anti-gay ideas did in fact make their way into the school campus.
Blaise, who had Buell as an instructor for two years, remembers the teacher once remarked that gays should be allowed to serve on the front lines of the military with no support.“You’re sitting here saying you think people should be murdered for who they are,” he said, remembering the comment.Blaise said Buell was a capable teacher but often pushed personal opinions and beliefs into lessons. His Facebook comment was disrespectful and harmful, he added.“I think his phrasing does not create respect for an individual,” he said. “It doesn’t validate simple humanity of another human being who happens to be different from him, and overall it does not create an environment of safety and love that is essential for intellectual growth.”’http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2011/08/new-groups-back-suspended-mount-dora-teacher.html

I expect the best solution would be some sort of reprimand for having students on his Facebook page, but to reinstate him. He’s a bigot, but as long as he’s not preaching his bigotry in the classroom, that should not impact his job.

Well, he has apparently preached his bigotry in class before, so…

Or, you know, well thought out comments that disagrees with his view. Especially since new information keeps coming up that shows this isn’t the firste time Mr. Buell has made similar remarks. In public.

How does degrading the pupil not effect the pedagogical effectiveness of the teacher?

“there’s no evidence he acted on these beliefs in the classroom.”Yet. But who has looked for such evidence?He’s an arrogant, self-righteous prick who said he teaches in such a way that the district would think “they had hired Jesus Christ himself.” I find it almost impossible to imagine his bigotry never showed up in class. I’ve taught with homophobes for 30 years and believe me, no one is collecting evidence. A lot of kids agree with homophobic remarks, and damn few would want to be whistleblowers and bring the focus of homophobia on themselves.  I had one  busted teacher (one of the incredibly few) tell me very frankly that he made homophobic comments in class because it made the jocks like him.  He, too, was a very popular teacher. A little gay-bashing makes more fans than it alienates among a teenage audience. Comedians know it, filmmakers know it and so do the Christers. Buell made no effort to restrain himself when talking to student “friends” on Facebook. I doubt he was the picture of discretion in class.  He’s exactly where he belongs — out of the classroom and under investigation. If the investigation is appropriately thorough rather than a cover-up, I would bet on some nasty in-class behavior from Mr. Just Like Christ Himself.

Marriage is an unneeded archaic ritual anyway. I disagree with him on the fact that anyone should be excluded from something everyone has a right to. But yeah, until it can be proven his personal beliefs have gotten in the way of his teaching every student in the same manner no matter their orientation, he’s got my go ahead to say whatever he wishes on the internet.

There is a lot of dangerous thoughts in your post.

“thus no one would feel uncomfortable around you” Who are you to claim that? Are you the final arbiter of what people can find uncomfortable, and if so how did you get the job? My point here is we do not get to decide what others find comfortable or not, we can not define feelings for other people. Some christians may be “uncomfortable” just being around an atheist (silly, and stupid, but it is true), thus Hemant may be fired for expressing his views on this blog if the standard of “uncomfortable” is used. Also the schools social media policy may be unconstitutional, and I would hope so. If things like this stand, then there is no limit to who can be punished for holding any particular view. Companies could fire employees for putting out an election sign in their yard for a democratic candidate for instance. 

Also the idea that teachers should “be held to higher standards than a lot of other people” is completely arbitrary. Teachers are the same as any other citizen and should have the same rights, and privileges as anyone else.

I don’t think it’s clear that he is *not* being punished for the fact that he said it on Facebook while many “friends” who would see it are students; that may indeed be the pivotal point. The complaint that led to the school’s decision came from a graduate who also was one reporting that current students are among the instructor’s Facebook friends. Unless there is a statement by the school specifically pointing out that the decision was made regardless of whether online friends were students, I see no reason to assume otherwise. It would be my assumption that the complaint specified that students were directly exposed to this in a relationship which clearly started in the classroom, and would therefore naturally play into the school’s reaction.

Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

See the edited links I put in my first post. A former student of his tells of one such encounter.

When he respects my right to marry my husband, I will begin to respect his free speech rights.  As long as he considers my relationship illegitimate, I will consider his wife to just be a woman that he fucks.

Would someone more articulate than I please respond to the (at present) single, ignorant comment at the Orlando Sentinel site?  (It’s the second link at the beginning of Hemant’s post.)

I’m going to assume for the purpose of this comment that what this guy did was within both the letter and the spirit of the law. Given the comment above about the school social media policy, and the fact that current students were “friends” on Facebook, this isn’t a given, but we’ll assume it’s so for the sake of argument.

You are not the government, and therefore you don’t have to respect his free speech rights if you don’t want to. But his free speech rights are also your free speech rights.

The very notion of free speech presupposes the existence of speech that you find loathsome and detestable.

Well, I’ve had a few glasses of wine tonight, so maybe I should just keep my fingers off the keyboard. But I’m not gonna… so here goes.

Fuck him. Fuck him and his closed-minded pathetic disgusting rant. I’m a straight woman, married and very much in love with my husband and my greatest hope is that EVERYONE – gay and straight alike – can find the person in this world that gives them comfort, that loves them every day for who they are, that makes them able to wake up every day and face this fucked up world with a hand to hold and a sense of strength. If everyone could be as lucky as me, the world would be a happier, friendly place… and if this douche bag feels it’s his place to condemn other people who are looking for this simple happiness, then fuck him.

You wrote: “Also, free speech, as in the First Amendment, is only when it comes to the federal government prohibiting it and prosecuting him, which hasn’t happened.”

Don’t know where you got that idea, but it’s flat wrong.  Since the XIV amendment, the prohibitions of the bill of rights the previously applied only to federal action have applied to the states as well, and all agents of the states, which includes public schools. 

Yup.  Exactly. 

His anti-gay rants to current student “friends” is sufficient cause to remove him from the classroom pending investigation.  If the investigation reveals  an in-class pattern of such bigotry — as has already been attested to by former students — he should be permanently removed. The  supposed free-speech rights of a teacher to voice his despicable bigotry is not more important than a student’s right to attend a non-hostile classroom.

If the school social media policy does not prohibit faculty “friending” current students, and he’s not expressing his bigotry in class, he should not be removed.   Students have to ask to be friended; they are at his site voluntarily. If the school does not prohibit faculty accepting such friend requests, I don’t see how his removal is justified.

Again, if it can be credibly established that he’s bringing that venom into the classroom, he’s toast and should be.  Sorry, but uncorroborated allegations a decade old from a  former students isn’t enough.  If there’s credible evidence from current students that he’s doing it, he’s gone and should be. I’ve seen none produced yet. 

His ideas I find despicable. But he’s as free as you or I are to express them on his own Facebook page to whoever chooses to read that page [again, provided that the schools policy does not prohibit staff from friending students].

My wording might be slightly off, but how is it flat wrong?

And again, his First Amendment rights aren’t being infringed, the First Amendmendt doesn’t give him any rights to keep his job if he violates the school’s policy (not to mention his contract, which I’m sure forbids him to discriminate against people because of their religion, sexual orientation etc.). If he had been thrown in jail over this or the school had tried to shut down his FB page, I would agree with you, but that hasn’t happened.Also, if he hadn’t shared it with any students, then this wouldn’t have been an issue (worrisome, yes, but technically not anything he’d be suspended for, since no one at his school would know).He’s free to keep his free speech, he just can’t do it as a teacher at the school, that’s the consequence of his free speech in this case.

One of the problems with corroborating witnesses in this case is that those people who have to come forward most likely have to have felt angered by or disagreed with his remarks at the time he made them or at least felt that they were out of place. Unfortunately, gay-bashing (even the verbal kind) is kind of “cool” and not out of the ordinary in a lot of schools, so most people probably just let it slide, were afraid to speak up or agreed with him.
But we’ll see if more turns up.

Once again, Hemant throws gay kids under the bus for the sake of atheist PR. Put a bigot in the classroom where he belongs? Did you really just write that?

I think suspsension pending an investigation is valid.  If he made such comments knowingly in full view of his students here, it not impossible, in fact probably likely, he would make them in front of his students in other contexts as well, such as the classroom.  Therefore, keeping him away from students until it can be determined whether this is an extension of his in-class behavior seems to me to be a valid approach.  They don’t have proof that he has been doing this in-class, but I think they have probably cause to suspect it is and therefore it is their duty to properly investigate it.

If credible evidence can be found that this was occuring in classrooms, then he should be fired.  If not, then he should be re-instated — under close watch with the warning that if he ever says anything like this in class he will be fired immediately.

I don’t think it should be restricted to current students, though.  Current students have to worry about reprisal from their peers who agree with the teacher’s views.  I would say any student who has graduated within at least the last 5 years should be fair game.  If he made statements to students within the last 5 years in-class, and made statements like this to students out-of-class, I think the administration has proper cause to think this is an ongoing pattern of behavior.

I really like the tone of your post and of your opinion!

But let me introduce myself – I’m a “Christian” (I hate that label though) who happens to be gay.

But let me also say that I’m not here to stir, but rather broaden my horizons. 🙂

I’ve also been hurt and disillusioned by the church and the so called christians.

I’ve stumbled across this site and started reading. I’ve been pleasantly surprised! It’s indeed a
friendly place, and no chips on shoulders here!

But I think the thing that struck me most was the amount of respect that is shown to others, like this teacher! The post comes across as being balanced and not just a knee jerk, emotional reaction!

This world would be so much better if we could all learn to respect each other’s opinions instead of bashing people with our beliefs!

I look forward to an exciting adventure here!

I think that someone with so much contempt for gay students, while maybe not articulating that hatred, will not be a good teacher for such students.  And for such a student, if you became aware of the contempt in which you were held, having to be in that class would be intolerable.

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner, when the story about New York okaying black unions came on and I almost threw up.
And now they showed blacks kissing after their announcement. If they
want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s
marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool as black people union whatever! God
will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable???”….“….I
will never accept it and refuse to condone it or shut my eyes to it. It
is an insult to the marriage between my wife and I. We are married,
don’t know what the heck those people call it but it ain’t a marriage…
Would this grate any more by changing it to blacks instead of gays.  Should the outcome of his hearing be any different?
In my eyes it is the same thing.  If you don’t you, need you conciseness raised.
A teacher is a public figure in charge of children & posting his views on Facebook is fair game for scrutiny.  Again just raise the game if you doubt this.If he posted he sympathies with Nazi’s on a Facebook post, would you defend it saying…. It’s ok as long as he doesn’t bring it into the classroom & treat the Jew’s any differently.I read posts like this and it is really such a cluster fuck when everything just circles around the sodding 1st amendment like its a sacred as a biblical text.  Common sense can really just go out the window and then wanky battle lines are drawn on both sides.A teacher in charge of children should not publicly express those kind of bigoted views….. End Of

“If he posted he sympathies with Nazi’s on a Facebook post, would you
defend it saying…. It’s ok as long as he doesn’t bring it into the
classroom & treat the Jew’s any differently”

Yes. That’s exactly what I’d say. That’s what it means to defend free speech. You have to defend the speech even when it’s abhorrent.

Lake County Schools issues statement on teacher investigation

Lake County Schools began an investigation this week into a possible code of ethics violation by one of its teachers at Mount Dora High School.Contrary to some media reports and public comments received by the District, no disciplinarian action has been taken in this case; however, while the investigation continues this teacher has been temporarily reassigned to a non-student contact position. Temporarily reassigning staff until an investigation for a code of ethics violation is completed is a common practice by Lake County Schools.The School District is reviewing a number of facts during the investigation. All facts in the investigation are confidential by law until it is complete. Disciplinarian action, if any, will come as result of the facts as they apply to the Code of Ethics presented in the completed investigation.Lake County Schools respects everyone’s opinion on this subject. Please direct comments regarding this investigation to (352) 253-6515 or comments@lake.k12.fl.us. Having comments about this case grouped in one location will help aide District officials in its investigation.Classes begin for the 2011-2012 school year on Monday, Aug. 22. The number one priority for Lake County Schools is the safety and well-being of students and staff attending school. School District officials kindly ask everyone to respect the educational setting as students, parents and staff begin arriving at school campuses Monday morning.

http://lake.k12.fl.us/lakeschools/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=498263

The introduction to the school district’s Code of Ethics:

An effective educational program requires the services of men and women of integrity, high ideals, and human understanding. Members of the Board, Instructional Personnel and School Administrators, as defined by F.S. 1012.01, and all other employees of the District, regardless of their position, collective bargaining status or role, because of their dual roles as public servants and educators, are bound by this policy.  All employees acknowledge receipt of this policy, which is designed to create a culture of honesty and integrity that will help the District meet the goal of providing a safe environment and high quality education to all of the Districts’ students.

These two parts are especially important, IMO, concerning this case:

(3) All Administrative, instructional, and non-instructional personnel shall familiarize themselves with the  Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees  as set forth in F.S. 112.311, et seq. All employees shall abide by the Code at all times, 
and shall be held to the standards of the Code in all matters related to their employment with the Lake County School Board.
(4)  No District employee shall engage in conduct unbecoming of an employee of the School Board that brings the District into disrepute or that disrupts the orderly processes of the District.

http://lake.k12.fl.us/16511031094951697/lib/16511031094951697/Policy.6.301_72811.pdf
If Mr. Buell had been any other employee at e.g. a private company, then there might not have been an issue (barring any similar contractual ethics code by the company). But he’s a school teacher and as such has a higher ethical code to follow.
When he decided to accept the requests of current students, he shared his private life in a public setting and invited extra scrutiny pertaining to his interactions with current students.
HE made that choice, he didn’t have to accept any friend invitations from students and should have followed Hemant’s suggestion of never doing so.

Thanks for posting the statement. I’d say all looks proper…. except [at this point] removing him from the classroom. That’s seems an excessive precautionary reaction since what’s alleged does not involve [so far as we know] immediate danger to a child in the school [e.g. he’s not been accused of violence or sexual molestation etc.] I wonder if the school would react the same way [including removal from class and contact with students] if it was alleged he was sharing his belief that Jesus is Lord with students in class? Or teaching Creationism. Both would require inquiries by the school, but I doubt such allegations if made by one or two students would end up in a precautionary removal while the investigation proceeded.

Thanks again for posting the press release. Hadn’t seen it elsewhere.

“Also, free speech, as in the First Amendment, is only when it comes to
the federal government prohibiting it and prosecuting him, which hasn’t
happened.”

That’s just not true.  No government branch, be it federal, state or local can let him go due to his use of free speech.  It isn’t just limited to the Federal government. 

However,
“he has no right to keep his job when he violates the terms of his job (the school has a social media policy).”

This is an extremely important point.  If he has violated school rules, then ousting him is just.  Many schools don’t even allow teachers to have Facebook pages.  When you post something that his hate speech or shows yourself to be a bigot, then there is a problem for any job where you will be in authority positions over children of that minority.  Like others had said, if he had racist rants no one would blink twice about removing him from the classroom.

Teaching is supposed to be a profession, and there are rules of ethical conduct more strict than our laws. 

One would hope similar actions would be taken, since that would also constitute a breach of conduct (especially the teaching of Creationism). Otherwise I agree that it would be unfair and bordering on hypocrisy.
I think it’s sound policy to remove anyone under investigation from their position and either suspend them temporarily, pending the outcome of the investigation, or, as the school has done, put him on administrative duty.
One could even argue that it’s also in Mr. Buell’s best interest, since he could be accused of “tampering” with the investigation if he had complained about the situation to his current students (accusations of bullying students into silence etc. could be possible). Since current students might be heard in this matter, it could be seen as him having an undue influence on them if he had continued his work (although the school year officially doesn’t start until tomorrow (Monday) it seems).

I disagree. Giving carte blanche to bigots and “turning the other cheek” (if you’ll excuse me for borrowing that expression) just teaches them and those they influence that they are free to act as they please and say what they will, with no repercussions.
I’d rather teach them that it’s the right thing to do, to stand up to bigotry, hatred, backward thinking, intolerance and so on.

I am not saying to ‘turn the other cheek’ (something I have never seen a Christian do) but to take the highroad. Lead by example. Show everyone that all we want is for the rules to apply to all equally. This bigot does have the right to freedom of speech.

It seems that everyday we lose more freedoms and the reason quite often seems to be security or the employer has the right to fire you if they disagree. I am starting a new job on Monday. The owner of the company is a Christian (his views are known and made public on his weekly blog). I will avoid expressing my views where he may see them and connect them to me because he may fire me for being an atheist. If he wants to express his views on his blog that is his freedom of speech. Same if I do, but I don’t dare.

If we continue to let others know that his behavior is wrong then maybe one day I can come out and let the world know my views without hiding behind a pseudonym. But we will never change the behavior of these bigots.

Very few people outside of the South realize that the south is NOT full of bigots. Everyone from up north seems to assume that suddenly after the civil rights marches the majority of people became clear thinkers. This is not true. there were a lot of people in the South that saw the injustices and helped to change the way other thought about it. But those few that wanted to  keep the white supremacy dream alive were then and always will be bigots. We never were able to change their minds. Those people that were open-minded enough to allow free thought in did change their minds and that is happening today with the LGBT and atheist communities. Eventually the young people will get into power and they will come around. But only if we take the highroad and show the way.

Easy, the same way we teach that it’s okay to be a person of color, disabled, or non-Christian.

Bob, you need to shop elsewhere for a martyr. This guy is not it. He has not been fired. He is guaranteed a job with the school district and he has one. He hasn’t lost any pay. The district can place a teacher in any position they feel is best for “district needs.” He has no “right” to a particular classroom job. He has not been punished in any material way, there has been no punitive action against him, so he’s got nothing to complain about and neither do you.

Hemant, PLEASE correct your totally misleading headline. From what I’ve read, Buell has NOT been suspended.

Strange, I have read the constitution several times and cannot find any references to it not applying to teachers. 

Sorry, but just about everyone I know who is a professional is in a field that believes it’s members are of a “higher standard”. Yet none of them have to give up their rights to speech when they get off work.

so, its ok to teach that its “ok to be black” in our schools and in our lives but its NOT ok to teach that its NOT ok to be black in our schools and in our lives? Hows that work?so, its ok to teach that its “ok to be a woman” in our schools and in our lives but its NOT ok to teach that its NOT ok to be a woman in our schools and in our lives? Hows that work?so, its ok to teach that its “ok to be jewish” in our schools and in our lives but its NOT ok to teach that its NOT ok to be jewish in our schools and in our lives? Hows that work?

Erm, that’s not a libertarian idea.  At all.

First, Florida is an “At-Will-Employment” state, so yes, companies can indeed fire you for pretty much anything (excepting the big ones, sex, religion etc.). So no, don’t worry, it’s not a country you are in danger of living in (if you live in the US – as it happens, I don’t live in the US).
But other than the big issues, companies can indeed fire you for either breach of contract or if you act in ways that can harm the image of the company you work for. Examples have been Coca Cola employees drinking Pepsi in public and similar stuff.
Not sure where you get the idea that that’s a libertarian idea and why you think I’m a proponent of it.

Second, the issue isn’t that Mr. Buell expressed his religious views, but that he expressed discrimination against people who might be among his students in clear breach of the code of ethics he’s supposed to uphold (he signed a contract where he was presented with this code).

As for hateful remarks… are you saying that calling something a “cesspool,” remarking that it’s vomit inducing and that it’s an insult to his marriage (even though it doesn’t affect his marriage in any way at all) aren’t hateful remarks?
I don’t know why you’re harping on as if I have declared myself as the great arbiter of morality, I’m just following common sense and what courts of law seem to classify as hateful and discriminatory (disparaging remarks about minorities in society).

If Hemant posted directly discriminatory remarks against protected classes, then you are right, he could be fired if that’s against any social media or ethics codes he might have signed. But again, it would be because he violated those rules, not because he posted atheist articles.

Much of it is common sense, I think we’d both agree. And it suggests that personal actions “may” affect professional careers. That too is common sense and unobjectionable.

You will get no argument from me  on that however, the first amendment does not give people the absolute freedom to say anything that they want without consequences.

A case that illustrates the consequences of the right to freedom of speech recently ocurred in the state I live in. It is summarized here.

Given that it was never shown that he made any of the posts while on duty would you agree or disagree that the had the first amendment right to participate on that particular forum without consequence to his career? 

This guy saying and thinking what he does about gays is in no way comparable to views expressed on this friendly atheist website by it’s host.

This teacher in question hates people who are gay because they are gay pure and simple. It is no different to racism and it does not = disagreeing with someones point of view or beliefs, like you infer.

Ah, one of the police/KKK cases. And an interesting one, out of Nebraska. Much of it turned on arbitration procedures under Nebraska law, but the court finally did address the “free speech” issue and concluded reappointing a policeman who’d joined [then resigned from] a KKK group violated public policy in Nebraska, and no contractual arrangement that violated public policy could, under Nebraska law, be enforced. Not a clean first amendment ruling, but a tangential one,.

The dissenting judge recognized the potential problem involved in the majority decision: “Finally, I am concerned that the majority understates the significance of the arbitrator’s finding that Henderson’s  discharge violated his First Amendment rights.   Again, while we may disagree strongly with this finding, we are bound by it in the procedural posture of this case.   That being so, the result reached by the majority necessarily implies that it is willing to ignore the State’s violation of Henderson’s constitutional rights because if he were reinstated, the public may perceive that he may violate someone else’s rights in the future, despite the arbitrator’s specific findings that he has never done so in the past.   In my view, this apparent subordination of individual constitutional rights to the “greater good” poses a far greater risk of harm to the public policy of this state than reinstating one misguided trooper….”

I think he may have a point. Be interesting to see what would happen if the officer brought a case in federal court on pure first amendment grounds.
Interesting to me, and the dissenting justice, that the police made no
claim that the officer, before he joined the KKK, had engaged in racial
discrimination in the conduct of his duties. Nor did it offer any evidence
to show that his having joined [and then resigned] would impede his ability
to do his job, work with non-white colleagues, etc. I think the dissenting
judge is right: when the issue is curtailing a constitutionally protected
individual liberty, the burden is and must be on the state agency seeking to
curtail that liberty to show on the evidence [not simply to assert or
assume] that leaving the liberty in place would [to use this incident as an
example] create disruption at work, render the officer incapable of doing
his job, lead to discriminatory actions by him, etc.

In any case, there are several things that make this case I think a poor
parallel for what happened to the teacher we’re discussing. Here’s the most
important one: the court’s decision rested substantially on historic
evidence that regardless of KKK claims to be law abiding, it was not. No
one has alleged the teacher associated himself on his facebook page with a
group that has historically even to the present been an encourager of
terrorist acts including arson, murder, etc. or in fact an encourager of
any illegal actions.

There are religious people who consider TFA’s posts “hate” speech and discriminatory.  I think they’re wrong about that, but establishing as a standard for suspension posting anything some people may find offensive is way too loose a standard. 

“Please know that students of Jerry Buell are now coming forward and talking about how does in fact preach his religion in the classroom, including religious language in his syllabus. In the classroom, he joked about if gays ”
If  this is so, he’s toast and should be. 

Swing and a miss……

There are right and wrong answers to these questions, and just because some bone head calls something ‘hate speech’ doesn’t make it hate speech and discriminatory even if they perceive it to be so.

You really devalue people who are the victim of genuine hate speech by categorizing it all together as you do.

Lets try and find your standard of ‘common sense’

You are interviewing a teacher who meets the requirements for the job, however confesses to you during the interview that they:

Are a:

Racist, black hating, jew hating, disabled hating, homophobe,

Is it too ‘loose a standard’ to use this information in regard to judging the applicants suitability for the job even though the rest of the criteria for the position is met?

These are specifically not hate views on beliefs or ideas. Specifically views based purely hating the person because they were born that way and nothing else.

It may be that they may not be arrested for saying that, because of being protected by free speech, but this is not the same thing.  This person is looking for a job being responsible for children.

If Jerry Buell was the interviewer, should he be legally protected by free speech be open about his views and deny someone a job specifically because they are black, gay etc.

A bit of followup. I’ve been reading into a few
Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment rights of teachers,
and this one is of particular note:Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968): in the absence of proof of the teacher
knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right
to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from
his or her position.Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006):
The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because Garcetti’s statements
were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a
private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection. The
corollary, of course, is that if a person who is a public employee makes
remarks as a private person, those remarks are subject to First
Amendment protection.

Sorry, no comparison. The case was about a letter to the editor about school policies. Mr. Buell made derogatory remarks about a protected minority. Huge difference.

Pickering case:

In February 1961 the Township Board of Education asked the voters of Township High School District 205 to approve a bond issue to raise $4,875,000 to erect two new schools, which was defeated. In December 1961, the Board again submitted a bond proposal to the voters for $5,500,000 to build two new schools, which passed and the two schools were built with the money. In May 1964, the Board proposed and submitted to the voters an increase in the tax rate for educational purposes, which was defeated. On September 19, 1964, a second proposal to increase the tax rate was submitted by the Board, and was similarly defeated.
…
After the proposal failed, Marvin L. Pickering, appellant and a teacher in the District, wrote a letter to the editor in response to the material from the Teachers’ Organization and the superintendent. The letter was an attack on the Board’s handling of the 1961 bond proposals and its subsequent allocation of financial resources between the schools’ educational and athletic programs. It also charged the superintendent of schools with trying to prevent teachers from speaking out against the proposed bond issue. Pickering was dismissed by the Board for writing and publishing the letter.

People devalue themselves and basic civil rights by claiming to be victims of speech.

The point is, where I live [Utah] there are a great many people, many of them on school boards, who would consider a confession of atheism on a webpage a far more serious indication of bad character than a statement that homosexuals violate god’s law. These people sit on school boards, etc. If the standard we set up is “if you say anything people may find offensive you can be suspended ” then TFA can be suspended for his atheism as you want to suspend this guy for his believing and saying gays violate god’s law.
Permitting people to be suspended by a school or school district for statements off the job that some people find offensive sets a risky precedent, seems to me. Once again, if he’s doing it on the job, in the classroom, he’s toast and should be.

The first amendment of the constitution guarantees that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one’s freedom of speech. It says nothing about EMPLOYERS’ policies on speech by employees. If an employee has violated an ethics policy set by his employer (which is the case here), the employer has the right to investigate him.

Didn’t miss the point. The teacher works for a public school, i.e. a government school. He is employed by government.

Just because the school board isn’t releasing evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. They’re keeping it private until the investigation is closed. 

He is employed by the government. He teaches at a public [i.e. government] school.  

“Just because the school board isn’t releasing evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. ”  This may be true.  My comments, and others, have been based on what we know to be so so far.  

“They’re keeping it private until the investigation is closed.”    Do you know this to be so, and if so how?  Or are you simply assuming it to be so?   

Once again: if it turns out he’s been peddling either his faith or his views about gays in the classroom, and that can be credibly established, he’s a goner and should be. 

You keep repeating it like its the same thing, but it’s not and I have already outlined why so will not bother again. In my opinion your failure to see the distinction makes a mockery of free speech.    There are already limits on free speech with regard to employment law & this is what is applicable in this case. It’s telling in your last post, you defend the Christian Bigotry on the bases that if you don’t defend it, the Christian’s can persecute the atheists even more. Atheist = choice. Black, Gay not choice.  One is attacking a belief/idea, one is attacking a person because of the way they are born.  Do you not think it is possible to make the distinction between the two?

It may partly be a free speech issue, but because he is friends with current students (which should be against district policy and I hope the school board addresses it soon) it then became a bullying and harrassment issue. If this were a teacher I looked up to, befriended and later found out he thought this way about me and others like me, I would not want to set foot in his classroom again. Facebook may be “private”, and he may have done this on his personal time from his personal computer, but by opening his profile up to former and current students (and anyone else for that matter) then he opened it up to be a public forum, and his comments were public indeed. He may (under the 1st amendment) have to right to say them, but others will be offended and I believe others rightly see his comments for what they are: hateful and hurtful. He may have the right to say this garbage, but I feel bullied, as I’m sure many others did. And THAT IS NOT OK.

The employment of individual teachers is controlled at district levels, not at state levels. If the district (or the county) sets a policy and a teacher violates that policy, the district has a right to investigate the teacher based on violation of that policy. “The right to free speech” does not undermine policies set by employers for employees, regardless of whether or not the employer is funded by the government.

I sincerely apologize for not providing the resource to my claim. The Lake County Schools issued an official statement themselves. Read it here:

http://lake.k12.fl.us/lakeschools/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=498263

“All facts in the investigation are confidential by law until it is complete.”

The quotes Hemant provides in the article are poised to do far more damage to gay teens than anything this teacher ever said. Gay teens are used to oppression from the religious right- they are steeled against it and hold to the hope that “it gets better”. But when a prominent spokesperson for “reason” speaks in favor of bigoted teachers, what hope is there?

In his race to be the new atheist Uncle Tom, he gives the impression that there is no evidence that the teacher applied his religious principles in the classroom, when a day’s worth of comments reveal that it’s clearly there (as common sense would have suggested) and he simply didn’t look for it. He saw the opportunity to take a position contrarian to his community’s, well-calculated to land precisely the kind of interview that is in the linked article, and set up the lightning rod. 

He is so desperate for page views and headlines that he offers up the First Amendment as a sacred cow, without any of the legal context surrounding public education and draws a legal conclusion that serves everyone’s interests except for gay youths’. But as long as atheists get to look reasonable and conciliatory, it’s worth it, right?

 I’d be disappointed if Hemant didn’t recently hold a donation drive to support a gay conversion ministry for more atheist PR. But he did that, so I suppose I’m naive for coming here and not expecting more of the same.

Any school district, county, municipality, etc. is created by state law, and is then subject to the same limits on its authority as a government unit that applies  to the state.  

And therefore, any state policy [or policy of any agency of the state, which includes counties and school districts] that violates the Bill of Rights cannot be enforced. The question is whether the policies of this particular school regarding private postings after work not on school equipment violates the free speech rights of employees. I think it does. 

“I would fire a biology teacher for not understanding the basics tenants of biology.”
Absolutely right. But I’ve seen nothing posted to suggest that this particular teacher was ill informed about the subject he was teaching, so that seems a poor parallel for what seems to have happened [so far as we know so far] in this case. 

Once again, he is free to keep his free speech rights. No one is claiming otherwise.
But he has entered into a contract where these policies are in effect and if he wants to exercise his free speech with disregard to those policies he’s free to do so, but then he must also bear the consequences of breaking the contract.Nothing in the first amendment says that you’re guaranteed a job!He voluntarily entered into an agreement that spells out that there might be disciplinary consequences to using his free speech in ways that might harm his professional position. He can’t claim otherwise or claim that his free speech is curtailed, since he voluntarily agreed to not break the policy.

If you haven’t set your privacy options right (it’s set to open by default), then your Facebook page is open for all to read. I’d call that pretty public.

If you haven’t set your privacy options right (it’s set to open by default), then your Facebook page is open for all to read. I’d call that pretty public.

“Hateful remarks” is SUBJECTIVE! There is no one definition of “hateful”. What is hate for to you or me, may not be to others, and visa versa. It’s just like defining what is “offensive”, you can’t do it since everyone has their own internal definition. My mere existence as an atheist is “offensive” to many religious people, does that mean they have a right to punish me for being “offensive”. Many religious people think saying there is not god is hateful, do they get to punish me then for saying that? No, of course not, just like you do not get to punish them for saying things you do not like. 

We can only act upon a persons actions in relations to others. If this man did nothing within his class to make it a hostile environment for a student then that is all we can go on. If he did, then that is a different matter, but only his actions in class should be judged. Not his opinions outside of class which by your SUBJECTIVE opinion you find offensive. (which by the way, I also find offensive, but I am not arrogant enough to force others to live and do by my personal preferences).Also one thing I have learned over the years is that “common sense” is neither common, or sensible, that is just an empty phrase used to justify forcing others to follow ones own definition on subjective matters.

You are m.istaken. i havent defended him or his views. what im defending is his right to express his rel beliefs off the job on his own time and expense w/o being punished be govt employer for it. its an imp principle i think that protcts not only him but TFA and me from the same potential 4 retaliatory acts. U did not find a word from me defending his rel driven loony homophobia.

So basically, this guy is manipulating students to get back at the teacher who replaced his incompetent ass?  Yeah, she needs to speak up, because that is not acceptable in any way.  And it’s in the children’s best interest that they not learn to emulate his behavior.

Are you for bloody real?  Gay kids are killing themselves after enduring years of misery in school, and your heart’s breaking for the poor poor people who caused their suicides, because they’re called a word that is neither a slur nor offensive?  Shall we stop calling the KKK racists because we might hurt their widdle feelings?

Crawl back under your rock, I’ve no time for such stupidity.

I do not sympathize with Bull, he’s supposed to be an educator not a bigot!! I just hope he’s not able to teach for the rest of him life.

A personal attack on me. How… Christian of you.
Would you like to explain why you hope I don’t have children either? Why I am worse than Mr. Buell?
Besides, your god doesn’t seem to be willing to help all the children who die of starvation around the world today, so I’m pretty sure he’ll do nothing to help me. But then again, we still haven’t seen any evidence of his existence.

Did you see where Hemant changed his mind about Buell?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/27/jerry-buell-i-rebuke-thee/

I wrote an update in which I talk about these things

P.S.  He looks like Walter from the show “Maude”.  I’m sure Bill Macy (who once appeared in the raunchy polysexual play Oh, Calcutta!)  is not happy about that!