Juan Williams Fired From NPR

Remove all ads!

A cop is a cop, not a role model. A teacher is a teacher, not a role model. A postman is a postman, not a role model. A soldier is a soldier, not a role model. Maybe they all should be role models, but role models are rare, so they usually aren't. It is silly to expect role model qualities as a rule.

That aside, it gets sillier:
A teacher having sex with student-aged prostitutes in a foreign country would under US law commit a crime, and iirc the US had not that long ago extradited a US citizen from Romania to try him on such charges, so that teacher would be a criminal.

Same for the cop drawing money from his ill mothers bank account; he would commit embezzlement and be a criminal as well.

That a cop must not break the law on the job, and that a teacher must not sleep with his students (much less when they are under age) or that a postman must not steal mail - and that either must not commit crimes when off the job (just like every other citizen) - that's self evident and undisputed. As I said, what you can expect is that public servants do their job, obey and faithfully execute the law and respect your rights and are polite. To ask more is to ask too much. Off duty they are just ordinary citizens, with all the rights of an ordinary citizen including their right to privacy.

As you didn't express agreement with that, I suppose that you think something else. Even after reading your post, what that may be eludes me. According to your examples you appear to think that people you you deem role models must not be criminals. Oh really. That said, that is hardly what you mean and I stand in breathless anticipation of your reply.

 

Role models are anyone whom someone else wishes to model. In this case, I'm talking about something of a 'minimum criteria' situation. I.e. characteristics they shouldn't have. Cops and postmen usually don't have prolongued enough exposure as individuals to be role models. Teachers, on the other hand, definitely do.

If the act is committed in a foreign nation? Where it's not illegal? Isn't there a jurisdiction issue? I'll take your word for it. I just assumed that, since it wasn't in US jurisdiction, the US couldn't do anything.

That, I'm pretty sure, would depend on the terms. It's not unusual for an elderly person to simply put things in their children's names. My grandmother did just that, and legally my mother had full authority over her money. My grandmother litterally gave it to her. It was just understood that it would be for my grandmother's purposes.

Of course they have the same rights as everyone else. I never said they weren't allowed to do things that others were. I simply said that, provided there's no contract stating otherwise, these are issues they could get fired over.

 

You needn't. Here's one case, even though not the one I had in mind:

 

A teacher can certainly sleep with adult students. There is nothing illegal about it and public schools cannot prosecute or punish in any way. Private schools have a bit more leeway.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding, NOG, but the term you used was "society," at least that I was responding to. The term Society has a very broad meaning, but I misunderstood that you were referring to society in the political sense, rather than society in the more general term regarding what is social, and "socially acceptable." That tends to be more subjective and varies from one place to another. I thought it was understood by everyone here, that politically we have a representative government. I thought your responses were a little odd outside that context.

You're welcome. Anytime

Ragusa - You get 1000 bonus points for this, because you get this point without having kids of your own (at least not that I'm aware of). Anyone who has kids knows that parents are the biggest role models in their lives, and beyond that, kids pick and choose their role models, even at a very young age. Kids, even young ones, tend to be very judgmental. If anyone bothers to think back, if they chose a teacher as a role model, it is because there was something extraordinary about that teacher as a teacher, not because of his/her private life. That is a private matter, even for teachers.

Now, if a teacher broadcasts in the classroom, "Hey I'm a part-time stripper at the Skin Club, come on down and see me guys!" That's something different and a whole other matter.

 

Umm, what is "society" in a political context?

And yet, if said students are of a legal age, or if it's not quite stripping (there are some close alternatives that don't require age checks), isn't it still legal?

 

Umm, what did you mean? You don't sound very certain of your own comment.

John Locke wrote an essay, "Political or Civil Society," which may or may not be helpful to your comment, depending on what it was you were trying to say.

Also:

In an entire classroom that would be unlikely that all the students would be of age. It may also violate the contract the teacher has with the district, and it may violate local law as well regarding minors. When I mentioned a stripper, I meant exactly that. If the students are of age legally than it would depend on the terms of the contract. For instance, to mention a second job to a client while in my workplace can violate the agreement I have with my company. Many compamies have policies that are similar.

 

Aldeth, here in Canada it's a bit different, or at least it is in my province. Parents frequently come in and say "I don't want my child to be in Mr. Jones' English class. Mr. Jones is an <bleep>. I know for a fact that you have another section of English being taught by Mr. Smith. Put my child in there."

Principals will discuss the matter with the parent, but if they flat out refuse, the parent then says "I am sending my child to the school down the street if you don't give me what I want" -- boundaries and such don't really exist in the sense you described. I've found that principals tend to totally send the teacher up the river on this one.

In a way it's understandable, as the formula for the school funding is based on enrolment, and so to a degree schools compete for attendance.

Ragusa, I hear what you are saying about role models, but I have to tell you that parents tend to expect role model level behaviour of the teachers. It's gotten much better with union protection and such, but I have to say that if it came to the attention of the school board that Mrs. Jenson the calculus teacher was also Mercedes the Pole Dancer, a great deal of subtle -- and not so subtle -- pressure would be brought to bear on Mrs. Jensen. She'd get really sucky timetables. Her room assignment would be switched. Her parking space would be reassigned to the other side of the school. In ANY confrontation with the student, where every other teacher would get a little support from admin, she'd get none. She'd be declared surplus and moved to another school in a district . . . you get the idea.

True story -- my grade 11 Social Studies teacher was a great woman. Another social teacher pissed off some parents and admin. Due to seniority rules, they couldn't get rid of the other person without getting rid of the two people ahead of him in line (seniority stuff, all in the collective agreement. Somehow, they managed to declare all three declared surplus -- they screwed over 2 totally innocent teachers to get to the third. It was all done by the book, with "I"s dotted and "T"s crossed, and there was nothing anyone could do.

I speak not about how the world should be, but how it is.

 

When I talked about society, I meant something like #2, 3, or 4 of this. I don't really consider any of them to be a political definition of society, though some definitions (i.e. parts of #1) may include political groupings. Societies organized according to their political structures still requires a definition of 'societies' seperate from political structures, or else you're just grouping political structures.

I guess that depends on local law and the class. But, for argument's sake, let's say she's just a part-time 'dancer', in a 'club' where costumes generally can be measured in the single digits of square inches of cloth, but aren't actually removed. Let's say it's the kind of bar that is just a legal hair from being a strip club, but still that legal hair away.

Or, for a simpler example, let's pretend that this guy were a hired official, and not an elected one. Would his comments be reasonable grounds for termination, assuming his contract is vague on the issue. Remember, I'm not asking if someone could fire him (i.e. legal restrictions). I'm asking if someone should fire him (i.e. is it morally, philosophically right).

Or, for another example, soldiers' dress codes extend to their civilian attire. They can't wear just anything off-the-clock. It doesn't impact their work ability one bit, but it can easily give the military a black eye.

 

I was only concerned with your comment regarding "society" in our topic. But feel free to explain that more closely if you feel like it.

Anything that can legally be defined as "adult entertainment" would be unacceptable in classrooms where students have not reached the "age of consent," since it may be in violation of local laws.

My company actually has a Facebook directive. I'm not allowed to mention for whom I work on any public social networking forum, which I would guess, includes this one. Some people have been fired from their jobs for posting comments on Facebook for whom they work and their feelings about their jobs. These are "public forums" and not really private.

You mean like this?

I think they should have been fired....

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/animal-house-afghanistan

 

So, one last time, do you find that reasonable? Do you think a school official who posts on facebook that all his gay students should just go hang themselves should be fired for it, even if he never expresses the sentiment at work?

Way to go completely off topic. I mean, I agree with you (well, actually, I think they should serve a stint in military prison, then be fired), but what did that have to do with the topic at all?

You really seem to be dodging the question, and at this point working hard to do so. Could it be that you don't like the answer that you would honestly give?

 

I had no problem signing my agreement regarding Facebook with my company. And I do my best to live up to all my agreements. For me it is a matter of personal integrity. I can't speak for the person in your link, since he appears to have quit, but says he may seek his job back in the future. So I'm not sure what he was "fired" for. Breaking an agreement is grounds for being fired, at least that is how I see it. So if you are asking me if the Facebook agreements are valid, then yes.

What question? You seem to be making rhetorical statements and posing them as questions that don't really require an answer. Maybe you're imagining things again.

I don't mean to be rude, and I have nothing against you personally, but I don't really give a damn if you like my answers or not. So ask any question you want.

I thought that was what you meant by giving the "army a black eye." What the hell are you taking about then?????????

 

Do you believe it is philosophically right or reasonable for them to demand it, though? I admire that you for living up to your agreements (well, that's a small moral matter, but a good one nonetheless), but you didn't answer if you thought it was a reasonable for them to ask you to sign that condition.

So, again, as I asked in my last post:
Do you think a school official who posts on facebook that all his gay students should just go hang themselves should be fired for it, even if he never expresses the sentiment at work?

Ah, but that was on-work actions. We were talking about actions outside of work.

 

First off, I don’t see the world through black and white lenses, nor do I see the issues of personal privacy and freedom of speech in terms of absolutes. Nevertheless, I am a personal privacy and freedom of speech advocate by nature.

So, let's talk about the Facebook issue in principle, because I believe it is important concerning both privacy and free speech. I'll start with my particular instance. If you saw the posts in question, the company’s reasoning appears pretty sound. In fact, it is a tribute to freedom of speech that these people still have jobs. Stuff like, “I hate my job,” “The company I work for really sucks,” “I work for a bunch of clowns,” and they have no problem naming the company by name. In some of these instances, it’s groups of employees posting back and forth about specific instances and people at work, referring to specific people by names – “You won’t believe what so-and-so did at work today…what a moron so-and-so is.” BTW, some of that can be considered cyber-bullying and that touches almost directly on the question you raised.

Privacy advocates see some problems with social networking sites like Facebook, for a multitude of reasons; school districts also see a problem that has erupted beyond the typical, run-of-the-mill, schoolyard bully, which includes new forms, such as what the media has drawn attention to regarding bullying on Facebook and other social networking sites. So, NOG, is our “government official” still a school official, saying that “cyber-bullying of gays is no problem,” even if it is directed against gays, who may be students in his district, and his comments may be specifically against the stated policies of the school district? Or have you removed those components from your hypothetical as well? That would be crucial for me to give a more detailed opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook

What is a citizen’s expectation of personal privacy on a public forum? The Supreme Court has already ruled that a citizen has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” even in a public place. When I am in a public place with my family and friends, all of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That does not mean that I have perfect, absolute privacy, nor does it mean that I have none just because I’m in a public place. But that said, that does not give me the right to hold anyone up to public ridicule in a public place. For instance, I can’t stand on a chair in a restaurant and yell to the entire place, “I hate gays and I don’t care if they hang themselves!” That could even be considered harassment of gays within a public place. I would not consider that a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor even of freedom of speech. But your question more directly was, if I am understanding you right, should a person be fired from his/her job for it?”

The plain, cut and dry answer? No. Perhaps that person should be pulled over for it, and maybe his place of work may want to have a conversation with him regarding just how far he is willing to take these comments, but just as in the case with Juan and the lady with the John Kerry sticker, I believe that no one should be fired for expressing a completely legal, personal, opinion as a private citizen outside of work. Notice that Juan’s comments were fairly tacky, and you only had to refer back to my comments regarding what happened to Williams for your answer. Note that that does not give the person in question the right to say, “If I catch a gay person, or a Muslim for that matter, I will hang him myself.” That is making a threat in public and could be illegal, besides just being simple harassment.

So as a free speech advocate I would have to say that the plain answer to your question, presented by your hypothetical, given the amount of meager details you provided, I would have to say that the person in question, as a private citizen, has the right to his opinion and to express them, even on a public forum like Facebook, regarding gays without the threat of being fired. That conculsion is based on the few details you were willing to provide in your hypothetical, not on the actual event that you based it upon, since that person was not even "fired."

 

Ok, good question. For the purposes of the hypothetical, let's assume that there are students in his district who are gay and victims of bullying, but this official has nothing to do with bullying policy, neither formation nor execution. Or, alternatively, that he's actively involved in the formation of anti-bullying policy, but executes it as an overall one (i.e. all bullying is the same, regardless of the subject).

So you believe that your (anonymous) employer's Facebook policy is invasive? Going too far? Yet an acceptable comprimise for the purposes of getting the job? I mean, obviously you didn't consider it a deal breaker. Or do you consider that expressing opinions and mentioning your employer by name are two separate concerns?

 

I will post my comments again, regarding the policy:

There is a lot of information packed in that comment for you to consider. Read carefully, and then consult your own employee handbook. Most companies give these to you in advance.

 

Ah, I thought you were talking about generalizations, not actual things that had happened at your work. My mistake.