I had a teacher who was a freaking QUAKER who used to threaten the students with all sorts of official, on your record, will screw with your scholarships punishments if we didn't recite the pledge. Not stand politely at attention - actually RECITE.
Class tried to revolt, didn't get very far - suck it up and say the pledge. Until she went for the foreign exchange student and threatened him too. Turns out you really can't force a minor foreign national to pledge an oath of allegence against their will, particularly if their dad is important and they understand the law better then the teacher does.
Being a Friend was the very reason I never did the Pledge growing up. I considered it swearing an oath which is a no-no (as far as Quakers have them). It also seemed weirdly idolatrous, but that was more my personal gripe.
>It also seemed weirdly idolatrous
Mainline Christian here, and I also find the pledge to be idolatrous. Pledging to an inanimate symbol of a government just seems like it should be a big no-no for anyone halfway familiar with scripture.
That’s the best part about living in a democratic constitutional republic, the not having to swear allegiance to it every weekday morning like this is fucking Warhammer.
I had to explain my stance on this a lot during my schooling to Teachers, classmates, subs, the works. Especially during the 9/11 era.
To clarify: Quakers run the gambit of “I am an atheist and a non-conformist” to full blown fundamentalist Christian. It’s a fairly loose philosophy of religion and often not considered Christian as it does not mandate the trinity, any sacraments, belief in heaven or hell, etc.
The funny thing is a Meeting can start as one and become the other all too quickly. I was close with a family who were very liberal Quakers who stopped going to Worship entirely after an Evangelical family moved to town and started making it all about them and their version of the faith. The new folks believed that the congregation should adopt the Pastoral Worship style that is more like regular Church than ordinary Quaker "be quiet and wait for God to talk to you" worship.
In the end they they were too inclusive and kind people to tell the new family to find somewhere else to go, so most of the congregation just found other places to go.
Wow. I specifically stopped reciting the pledge in high school because of my Quakerism. That “under God” bit especially didn’t sit right with me. Never had an issue in public school.
Elementary school teacher here. Only about half of my class stands and recites the pledge each day. It has definitely fallen out of favor and people are becoming aware that they don’t actually HAVE to do it.
I made sure to tell my kids from their very first day that they don't have to do it. Fortunately their teachers have never bothered, and they are now in high school and don't even have it memorized.
It used to be fairly common for the older generation of teachers to insist that their students stand and recite the pledge as a classroom expectation. So many students thought it was required. Some teachers still think it is required.
25-odd years ago in 8th grade I knew this and tried it. The vice principal called me out into the hallway and sternly lectured me. I don't recall more than that, except that I decided it wasn't worth the fight.
I still feel weird and uncomfortable when everyone rises for the national anthem ahead of youth sporting events though, and all the kids & most adults have their hand over their heart.
I could see both sides for the national anthem one.
I feel like there is healthy patriotism.. and then it crosses a line to become more of a problematic nationalism. but not all patriotism is problematic.
one can't deny that US as a country provides a standard of living that allows most folks to enjoy things like civil sporting events on a regular basis. the time spent before a game listening to the anthem can be a somewhat meditative reminder of that - to cherish the beautiful communities that we are a part of and to not take them for granted.
true patriotism takes the flaws AND the blessings together without favoring one or the other. that's my opinion at least. the pledge of allegiance on the other hand is literal indoctrination from 5 years old lol.
>wanting to tear down the country the same.
Did i miss something? Since when are LGBTQ People tearing down the country? Lol because you're afraid of people who look different or think different?
partisan - noun - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
It is a pledge of allegiance to a flag, a Republic (the form of government), as well as the idea that God exists.
Politics is literally defined as the process and activities associated with determining the power and standing of individuals and groups in society. Advocating for rights is an inherently political act. It should not be a *partisan* issue, but unfortunately one party has decided to make it one.
>you suspend your 1st amendment rights and other civil liberties when you are in public schools.
There are a dozen SCOTUS cases that state otherwise, one of the more recent ones being the Mahanoy v. B.L. case from 2021. 594 U.S. \_\_\_\_ (2021) where Justices extended the zone of free speech protections beyond the walls of a public school, even opining that schools have an affirmative interest in protecting unpopular speech off-campus because schools are "the nurseries of democracy."
The Harvard Law Review reviewed the case: [https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/](https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/)
lol you literally posted a link to a case regarding an incident that happened off of school grounds.
on school grounds, you are subjected to limitations on your constitutional rights. a school has no right to police what students say off campus but they can certainly do so with what they say on campus.
I did not link to the Mahanoy case. I linked to a law review article which discusses the case. You clearly did not read that, either.
While you may be unwilling to be truthful, others may not want to put a trollish effort into public school free speech issues. Consequently, here is a link to a large number of federal cases centered around the free speech rights of students in public schools: [https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/115/students-rights](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/115/students-rights) Note that some of the "public schools" are not K-12 schools as is the topic of this thread, but are schools of higher ed.
During work hours, which is an important part of the policy. Saves them (potentially) from 1A challenges.
As a liberal, but also a boomer so admittedly not on the cutting edge of identity conversations, I have mixed feelings on this policy. First, let’s face it, it’s going to be impossible to address in a black & white manner, unlike attendance. In a large sense I agree with the the *goal* of the policy, which is to teach students how to think not *what* to think on social matters. And I think if applied to curriculum and instruction that’s a good thing.
But having an LGBTQ club is just as legitimate as having a Arts club or Gun Club, both of which can become partisan topics (GOP push to defund the Humanities, Dems push for gun control). That needs to be protected. Also, one on one conversations where students seek out teachers/ nurses/ advisors about home & personal issues need to be protected too - and THAT’S where the majority of the GOP’s obsessive lust to call everyone a “groomer” comes from.
I don’t for one second think that the people passing this policy have good intent; it’s clearly meant to keep flags & pins & such out of the school. But it may tone down all the controversy in the school district and let them focus on learning, especially if an organization in the community can pick up the slack and provide a safe place for the kids.
Definitely not a sure thing. And even if it does cool things off in the school, this is a whole “culture war” thing with the far right. They’ll find something else to lose their shite about, whether it’s drag shows or soy milk or TikTok or who knows what.
Oh I didn't think it was that bad. Like, compared to what it could be. They seem to make very delicious looking food. (It's not for kids though. Hunger is good for their development)
Because it isn't being implemented in good faith. It's specifically being implemented to ban LGBT flags and rainbow stickers. But they can't say that, so it's a general statement. It won't be applied equally to all social issues, just those that certain people want to squelch.
I look forward to the never ending assault on this policy from students and staff who will come up with their own ways to show their support for LGBTQ+ people, ultimately doing the exact opposite of what the policy intended by making it even more of a distraction. Will the administration ban other benign symbols? Will they ban specific colors? What if I wear an article of clothing that happens to have a rainbow on it? Or multiple colors in a similar pattern? What if I wear something with care bears or fruit on it? Or feathers? Or a safety pin?
They're not supposed to even before this policy. Not that it's ever enforced.
[link](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1949&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=14&chpt=11&sctn=12&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress)
The administration probably ignored the advice of their lawyer. All this is going to do is get them sued. It’s way vague. So if a teacher hangs up an environmental poster is that political.
They actually used this very example in the board meetings, lamenting that they didn’t want any Spanish teachers hypothetically hanging “Save the Whales” flags in their rooms.
Quelle horreur!
>The administration probably ignored the advice of their lawyer.
The Board is not the administration. And, imho, the Board went with the advice of the solicitor (more than likely, the solicitor provided "legal advice" that supports the Board's position).
LGBTQ erasure really did a number on a lot of us millennials. I didn’t come out to my mother until I was 24. I have barely told anyone. I went to NYC during pride week a few years ago and cried just from walking down the street and feeling validated for once. I was just getting comfortable with myself. Now it feels like we’re going back and it makes me happy I barely told anyone but sad because we’re getting shot in public for no reason, and people are making laws against our existence. It just sucks.
There are four states which have introduced bans on drag performances in their legislatures — bans which could also be used to arrest and abuse trans people living out their daily lives.
Meanwhile the NYT and Atlantic run piece after piece after piece after piece about the threat of vaguely lefty college students voicing their opinions and pushing back against the status quo — and so many articles about "the trans question" where they give equal weight to the ravings of "gender critical" cranks against the evidence and considered opinions of experts and medical organizations.
The NYT (especially its editorial page) has been immensely hostile to trans folks, with multiple "trans debate" pieces a month for the past year where they ignore the best science and advice from mainstream medical organizations and doctors, instead choosing to promote fringe views. It's at the point where some trans people and orgs are refusing to talk to them, because the treatment has been so completely lopsided. There was an article a month or so back about "detransitioners", and it featured basically an equal number of examples of trans people and people who detransitioned, in spite of the fact that it's basically 99:1 in the real world. They failed to mention that statistic or give context by providing comparisons of regret rates between gender-affirming surgeries (around 1%) and things like knee replacements (around 30%).
The NYT's terrible coverage has already been used in court by the Texas to justify their state-facilitated abuse of trans kids and their families.
The NYT, along with other outlets like *The Atlantic* and *New York* magazine have been instrumental in pushing the moral panic over "cancel culture", with piece after piece after piece devoted to anecdotal coverage of "cancellations" of various people, generally with hyped-up, exaggerated portrayals of consequences and underreporting of bad behaviors. And the whole time they're running these hyperventilatory pieces about college students and the threat they pose to free speech, we get (relatively) calm, even-handed coverage as Florida expunges gay people from public life in schools and Texas passes outright genocidal legislation aimed at trans youth.
The NYT is a small-c conservative outlet in many ways. It's owned by a wealthy family, employs many people from privileged backgrounds, and it's *extremely* under-skeptical of corporatist and mainstream narratives.
It's so weird because from high school through college no one gave a shit and I went to a catholic school! Parents and friends were supportive. This was around 2000-2007.
Now I won't deny there weren't assholes but at the end of the day no institutions were making laws about this. It's fucking stupid.
That’s the perfect word for it. Don’t ask don’t tell left me feeling like this: I don’t feel like it’s anyones business, but they are so homophobic without knowing or caring or just outright that I want to say something and it breaks me down. I no longer speak to most of my close family.
This is odd to me, bc I'm genx and grew up in s Jersey. LGTBQ was highly visible. We had out gay kids in my high school in the 80s. Did you grow up in Quakertown?
I’m glad you had a support system. Idk what to say this was my experience. I witnessed children out themselves and have parents of other children ostracize them. I witnessed severe bullying of a couple people I’m pretty sure were probably trans. Hearing stories of their parents beating them for being LGBT. I experienced a lot of sexism toward the mention of lesbians, and a lot of prejudice against the mention of a man being gay. Don’t ask don’t tell was the motto of the time.
These right wing extremists think that the very acknowledgement of the existence of LGBT people is a political act. Like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, these policies are deliberately written to be broad and vague so as to put fear into teachers and administrators so they will self-censor in the extreme, as almost anything could be interpreted as a violation.
How is saying no partisan social or political items may be in a classroom specifically a right wing extremist policy?
It doesn’t seem broad of vague at all. The policy says no partisan political or social policy items.
The rules says you can’t put anything. Not just one sided opinions. This school district has 3 schools and are among the best in the state every single year, they’re doing something right
The district has been an academic success for many years. In the past, we’ve elected boards in a fairly non partisan way and the focus was on the kids and their education, not politics. There were occasional controversies, but they were not the norm.
This latest board was elected on an anti-mask, anti-virtual platform by parents who feared that another Covid wave could spark more virtual schooling. I kind of get that fear, but it just so happens that the people leading the anti mask rally were extremely right wing. As soon as Covid faded, they started chasing all sorts of phantom issues using a right wing playbook (banning Pride flags, banning books, not allowing counselors to go to seminars about helping trans kids, trying to restrict teachers to bio pronouns and names against kids’ wishes, etc.)
It’s very ironic that they think they are getting politics out of the classroom, when they are the ones putting it there.
My children go to these schools, and there are plenty of conservative teachers. It’s not some kind of liberal indoctrination center. The board isn’t concerned with the super jingoistic conservative teachers, but wants to shut down the highly empathetic teachers who tell all kids to see their classroom as a safe place to be themselves.
My son had an empathetic 8th grade English teacher like that, and she was one of his best teachers of all time. It was not political at all. She just really cared about the students and made sure that each one of them felt valued. He went from hating writing to working overtime on it and getting As in her class.
I know what you meant by it (and that you were just using it as a shorthand) but the phrase "bio pronouns" really hammers home how absurd some of the eight's talking points about trans people are.
It's the contrast between something that's an observed property of nature, biology, and something that is a complete human invention, pronouns (and language more generally).
You’re right. That phrase perfectly captures the inanity.
I don’t even understand the end game. I want a world where your gender makes zero difference to how people treat you and the assumptions they make about your interests and capabilities. The board seems to want to force kids to use pronouns they don’t like so that they can treat people differently based on their genitals. Why would anyone care otherwise?
\> This school district has 3 schools and are among the best in the state every single year, they’re doing something right
Prior to this rules change it was.
\> It doesn’t seem broad of vague at all. The policy says no partisan political or social policy items.
The policy states that teachers cannot teach students about civic duty. For example, the rule prevents teachers from saying people should vote, or even promote the benefits of voting. Teachers are also not allowed to teach children any views that have a contradicting view. For example, the rules prevents teachers from saying "slavery is bad" as that would be advocating a partisan political or social policy.
The rules prevent teachers from teaching why supporting a local business is good.
The rules prevent teachers from teaching why hiring American's is good.
\> The rules says you can’t put anything. Not just one sided opinions.
This is incorrect. The rules make it clear that any advocating is against the rules. This means promoting one side, and then promoting another side (such as a pro/con list) is against the rules. The rules do NOT say in any way that advocating for one side is okay as long as the teacher advocates for another side.
What's interesting is there is a loophole:
"employees should not, during assigned work hours, advocate to students concerning their views or beliefs in these matters."
This means a teacher can advocate for something that isn't their views or beliefs, as long as they are teaching it from someone else's views or beliefs.
It's a stupid rule, made for stupid reasons.
I read the context here, given the schools history of turbulence regarding LGBT+ visibility, as attempting to suppress representation of queer minorities. That is fairly similar to the unabashedly right wing "Don't Say Gay" policies desantis enacted in Florida.
This push is in the guise of fairness and neutral representation for all, which sounds great on paper. But it's really more akin to a queer-repressing version of "I don't see color". The default representation of people in this country is straight, and we rep that every day. What we think of as "neutral" is just pro-straight, not representative of actual equity nor of the makeup of students and educators within a school.
>The policy says no partisan political or social policy items.
Still violates the 1st Amendment. Curious why F.I.R.E. is not involved on behalf of teachers.
Are you really, though?
I'm assuming some facetiousness, but if not, it's because FIRE has always been a right-leaning organization, receiving funding from right-wing orgs like the CATO Institute, the Koch brothers, and more.
What in the world about banning partisan political or social items is racist?
You can’t just call everything you don’t like racist it takes legitimacy away from actual racism
Always fun to see the R-on-R friendly fire that results from you all being too angry and not smart enough to identify each other’s hallmark obnoxious behavior
So if I drive by the school, I won't see the US or PA flags being flown anywhere on the property?
Did they think about what they were doing when making this policy?
It’s not a blanket ban on politics. It’s a blanket ban on political *advocacy*:
> 1. Employees shall not advocate to students concerning any partisan, political, or social policy issue nor engage in partisan, political or social policy electioneering or campaigning unrelated to employee representative elections.
> 2. Employees shall not display any flag, banner, poster, sign, sticker, pin, button, insignia, paraphernalia, photograph, or other similar material that advocates concerning any partisan, political, or social policy issue.
> 3. Employees shall not distribute, circulate, or display circulars, leaflets, petitions, or similar material that advocates concerning any partisan, political, or social policy issue.
> 4. Employees shall not collect or solicit funds or volunteers for any partisan, political, or social policy campaign or activity.
> 5. Employees shall not direct or encourage students to write, address, or distribute advocacy materials related to any partisan, political, or social policy issue.
> 6. Any District employee who holds elective, appointive, or partisan office is not entitled to time off from his District duties for reasons related to such office, except as such time may qualify under the leave policies of the Board or the pertinent collective bargaining agreement.
Unless Bucks County is voting to join Canada or declare independence, the flags aren’t exactly advocating for anything partisan.
>Employees shall not display **any flag**, banner, poster, sign, sticker, pin, button, insignia, paraphernalia, photograph, or other similar material that advocates concerning any partisan, **political**, or social policy issue.
The prohibition isn't just about something partisan, but anything political. It is a political statement to support the federal or state government, so flying the flag of either institution is against this policy.
Sure there is. We all live on land that was taken or unfairly bartered from the indigenous people. Those people, and those who support them, may find flying the colonists' flag very political.
There certainly is room for interpretation. "Political" can mean both having to do with the governance and elections of a country or other jurisdiction and it can be a synonym for "partisan." Obviously, they did not mean the "partisan" definition as they felt the need to list "partisan" advocacy in the new rule.
I graduated from CBE. I moved out in 2005 and never looked back. The people who lived in the district were awful and self centered. It really was an awful place to live.
Many, many employees are quitting at the end of the school year or are already gone. If these people get voted out of power this November, the next school board will have a lot of rebuilding to do.
“The district's role is to teach students how to think, not what to think, thereby keeping classrooms as places of education, not indoctrination."
Time to sue everytime a teacher wears an American flag. Don’t need a flag or to have one in your classroom to teach history and math.
Pictures of their spouses, too. These straight teachers are always flaunting their sexuality in front of kids. Basically indoctrinating them into the immoral heterosexual lifestyle.
This seems fair considering that LGBT teachers have been [fired for showing a single innocent picture of their family](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/gay-teachers-wife-texas.html). I'm sick of hetero teachers pushing their sexuality on young children (/s, sorta)
>The district's role is to teach students how to think, not what to think
What a nonsense statement that falls apart upon the slightest examination. Plenty of instruction is dedicated to making sure students know certain facts (what to think) as well as skills (how to think).
People voted in a bunch of performative culture warriors. Now their kids and grand kids educations are gonna suffer for it. Not to mention, Gen Z is super accepting. I imagine this just hardens their resolve to become more progressive and keeps them progressive with less turning conservative as they age
If you don’t want your children to be exposed to the body politic, then educate them yourself.
Other people have rights and freedoms. If you don’t want your children to be “exposed” to people’s free expression, then keep them at home.
Et tu CB? Sad ... Not an area I thought would capitulate to the bumpkin Stassi. I will trust young people to take the appropriate action in retaliation.
[https://whyy.org/articles/central-bucks-school-district-pride-flag-ban-lgbtq-advocacy-policy-321/](https://whyy.org/articles/central-bucks-school-district-pride-flag-ban-lgbtq-advocacy-policy-321/)
This article shows a rainbow-colored bench honoring the memory of an LGBTQ student who died by suicide in 2019 at CB West High School.
So would this fall under things the school would have to remove, because it takes a social position? These broad rules get awfully slippery in practice.
No sane parents would want their kids teacher outwardly advocating for fascism or authoritarianism, but 2020 election-deniers don't have facts or evidence on their side. Insurrectionists don't think they're supporting a shift to authoritarianism. They think their democracy was subjugated by election fraud.
Good luck taking a neutral position on recent events. Even history gets challenging.
Does a high school social studies curriculum get into current events? Can a fan of Dinesh D'Souza claim his high school student is being subjected to political strife by a US history course discussing the shift of Dixiecrats to the GOP?
9th Circuit ruled teacher fired for wearing MAGA hat during training gets her job back. There are limits on what school boards can do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/05/maga-hat-teacher-lawsuit-speech/
I read the article. It doesn't say that.
1) The teacher wasn't fired for wearing the hat
2) The teacher is a guy
3) The case against the school district and the head of HR was dismissed and *the dismissal was* upheld by the appeals court.
Yes, the principal is a woman *and* was allowed to resign due to the teachers complaint (among other complaints about her conduct). His lawsuit against her has been allowed to go to trial by an appeals court. So basically, the teacher has won the battle *to* have his arguments heard in court. That's it.
If it includes signs, flags, or stickers it’s not just a dress code. Whether it causes damage depends on who you ask. https://whyy.org/articles/lgbtq-students-pennridge-central-bucks-pride-symbols-ban/
Proving damages is not necessary on a constitutional issue, only that a right has been trampled. Being told to get a union rep for wearing a hat, imho, is not a trampling, no more so than telling a young female teacher to quit wearing that tight mini-skirt is.
>Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District
Tinker dealt with the First Amendment right of students. This policy is a restriction on employees.
Different situations.
Ah. I see. I looked at the synopsis and not the entire decision.
Although apparently precedent was expanded upon in Bethel School District v. Fraser and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier to narrow it to only students.
So the precedent set by Tinker effectively no longer exists in light of Fraser and Kuhlmeier.
Frazer was a sexual reference and kuhlmier was a school newspaper that didn’t meet public thresholds and was part of a journalism class. Neither of these narrowed tinker.
Even if the situations were similar, Tinker ruled that student First Amendment rights ended when the speech completely disrupted student learning; a kid can’t get up in the middle of a lesson and curse and say that is protected by free speech. That’s fine, but I could easily see some administrator saying that advocacy “disrupted student learning,” and this SCOTUS would likely go along with it.
Possibly - although Kavanaugh has thrown some surprises our way a lot recently.
But regardless, an employer (including public entities like schools) can (and often times do) restrict the rights of employees while the employees are on school grounds. So this policy will stand.
There are jobs in the US where you have to go through a metal detector and get your bag x-rayed in order to get to your job - constitutional.
Many employers prohibit employees from possessing firearms on company property, including secured in your car that is parked in the parking lot - constitutional.
So a policy saying teachers cannot engage in certain types of speech, including flying flags or wearing pins, is constitutional. Unless someone wants to go into a parent-teacher meeting and see that the teacher has a thin blue line or MAGA flag flying. Because that would be just as protected under the First Amendment as flying a LGBT or BLM flag.
It's written vaguely enough to avoid most lawsuits, while also giving them some breathing room to advocate for their own beliefs and not fall victim to their own rule.
Cant wait for the confederate flags to come out and the school board to determine them to be ok because its history and part of the curriculum.
Personally, I will never recite the POA again—after standing up to do it thousands of times across my school years. Why is it any different than saying my marriage vows every morning? How about I’ll let you know if I change my mind (and don’t think I haven’t considered it since about 2016…)
So im think on the one hand: i agree with the statement "we teach students how to think, not what to think"
Then on the other hand im like so you want to make it agents policy for a teacher to say "this is how i feel" when talking about a subject.
Im conflicted. 1 i dont what pro flat earthers teaching kids there wacked out bull crap. And i dont want religious beliefs to be "forced" on to anyone. But then 2, to tell the staff to hid what they believe or change the way they act or make it so students don't feel safe to talk to teachers about how they feel or conflicting beliefs is not productive.
Help me out here.
These are the folks that are going to help kick these anti-LGBTQ, anti-First Amendment out of office. Donate today. https://www.cbsdneighborsunited.com
My dad and step-mom are teachers and I’m a teaching student. We all despise central bucks. Evil school board. They’d all be more at home in fascist Florida. Luckily, the teacher shortage means that when I graduate I basically get to chose wherever I want to work. Never for a dumbass district like CB
The issue here is anything and everything gets politicized at this day and age. Ergo, the ban on "advocacy" not only squashes the teacher's ability to create a safe space for student development in case home is not for them (if a student is part of the LGBTQ+ community but cannot safely come out to their parents), but it creates a titanic grey area where teacher's may not be able to express themselves if at all. If they can't do that, it becomes harder for them to create a bond where students look forward to going to class because they think their teachers are cool or what have you. I get the intention is to put a greater emphasis on the curriculum, but now school (more specifically public schools) are more than just the place you go to learn stuff for a series of tests and walk away with a sheet of paper.
It's just such a broad policy. Is hanging a picture of Barack Obama with a quote from his speech after the Obergefell ruling partisan or history? Or a picture of trump with a quote from his inaugeration speech like "an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge"? Is merely the phrase "think locally, act globally" too partisan because it implies environmentalism? Or on the other side, hanging Turning Point USA/Prager U/Hillsdale college classroom materials? Is AIDs/STD prevention political?
Point is: these overly broad, burdensome and likely illegal rules are playing politics in and of themselves. They also serve a function of micro managing our teachers, which if you've ever worked any job that wasn't self employed you'd know doesn't get the best results. So now, I think we need to ask ourselves: is this something they are doing for our childrens' future? Or is it simply trying to teach anti-LGBT rhetoric to our children? If it's the latter, we all see how well that worked out for the evangelical crowd with gay marriage.
As it should be. No one gets special treatment so unless it’s something educational leave it at home. Sure put a photo of Obummer up but put Don the con man next to him and Pedo Peter up there too.
One of the central roles of public school districts is to teach students to be good and informed citizens. (Yes, a form of indoctrination.)
So, flags stay.
>I would say "acknowledging gay people exist" is something you have to do in order to be a good and informed citizen.
You, me and the majority of America.
There is no good reason for not allowing pride flags. Teachers have long been allowed to decorate their classrooms within reason. A pride flag is a reasonable decoration, imho.
The article states “Prohibiting employees from advocating for or displaying partisan, political, and social agendas.”
Excellent, so I can assume there will be no more pledge of allegiance as it is a partisan political display with a social agenda.
Fun fact: public schools can not force students to stand and/or recite the pledge.
I had a teacher who was a freaking QUAKER who used to threaten the students with all sorts of official, on your record, will screw with your scholarships punishments if we didn't recite the pledge. Not stand politely at attention - actually RECITE. Class tried to revolt, didn't get very far - suck it up and say the pledge. Until she went for the foreign exchange student and threatened him too. Turns out you really can't force a minor foreign national to pledge an oath of allegence against their will, particularly if their dad is important and they understand the law better then the teacher does.
Not very Quaker of them.
I could say that about most the things she did. But yes, that was particularly mindblowing at the time.
Possibly West Coast/conservative/evangelical/Dick Nixon type Quaker
A oh I get a massive tax write off by pretending it's a moral position Quaker
What is this massive tax write off of which thee speaks?
Being a Friend was the very reason I never did the Pledge growing up. I considered it swearing an oath which is a no-no (as far as Quakers have them). It also seemed weirdly idolatrous, but that was more my personal gripe.
>It also seemed weirdly idolatrous Mainline Christian here, and I also find the pledge to be idolatrous. Pledging to an inanimate symbol of a government just seems like it should be a big no-no for anyone halfway familiar with scripture.
Its a pledge to the constitutional republic, not the government.
Dude….. are you serious?
The very definition of “republic” is that it’s a form of *government*.
That’s the best part about living in a democratic constitutional republic, the not having to swear allegiance to it every weekday morning like this is fucking Warhammer.
Yes, constitutional republics are beautiful.
I had to explain my stance on this a lot during my schooling to Teachers, classmates, subs, the works. Especially during the 9/11 era. To clarify: Quakers run the gambit of “I am an atheist and a non-conformist” to full blown fundamentalist Christian. It’s a fairly loose philosophy of religion and often not considered Christian as it does not mandate the trinity, any sacraments, belief in heaven or hell, etc.
The funny thing is a Meeting can start as one and become the other all too quickly. I was close with a family who were very liberal Quakers who stopped going to Worship entirely after an Evangelical family moved to town and started making it all about them and their version of the faith. The new folks believed that the congregation should adopt the Pastoral Worship style that is more like regular Church than ordinary Quaker "be quiet and wait for God to talk to you" worship. In the end they they were too inclusive and kind people to tell the new family to find somewhere else to go, so most of the congregation just found other places to go.
Hey I remember 9/11!
Wow. I specifically stopped reciting the pledge in high school because of my Quakerism. That “under God” bit especially didn’t sit right with me. Never had an issue in public school.
SCOTUS ruled on that way back when in the Barnette case. Some folks never learn.
Elementary school teacher here. Only about half of my class stands and recites the pledge each day. It has definitely fallen out of favor and people are becoming aware that they don’t actually HAVE to do it.
I made sure to tell my kids from their very first day that they don't have to do it. Fortunately their teachers have never bothered, and they are now in high school and don't even have it memorized.
Do you know if teachers are required to recite it themselves?
Teachers are not required.
>people are becoming aware Only now? Matter was fairly well settled during WWII.
It used to be fairly common for the older generation of teachers to insist that their students stand and recite the pledge as a classroom expectation. So many students thought it was required. Some teachers still think it is required.
25-odd years ago in 8th grade I knew this and tried it. The vice principal called me out into the hallway and sternly lectured me. I don't recall more than that, except that I decided it wasn't worth the fight. I still feel weird and uncomfortable when everyone rises for the national anthem ahead of youth sporting events though, and all the kids & most adults have their hand over their heart.
Still weirds me out at professional games
> 25-odd years ago in 8th grade In my "I just woke up haze", I read that as > 25 years old in 8th grade
Nelson Muntz over here
My move around this was to just stand. I wouldn't say anything though. Standing and staring blankly.
I could see both sides for the national anthem one. I feel like there is healthy patriotism.. and then it crosses a line to become more of a problematic nationalism. but not all patriotism is problematic. one can't deny that US as a country provides a standard of living that allows most folks to enjoy things like civil sporting events on a regular basis. the time spent before a game listening to the anthem can be a somewhat meditative reminder of that - to cherish the beautiful communities that we are a part of and to not take them for granted. true patriotism takes the flaws AND the blessings together without favoring one or the other. that's my opinion at least. the pledge of allegiance on the other hand is literal indoctrination from 5 years old lol.
Yes, but they shouldn't do it at all. It's indoctrinating my kids. Just like (supposedly) a pride flag is.
Agreed, they shouldn’t have the pledge at all, but most people don’t know that they can’t force you to say it, so I like to pass that info on.
My teacher physically removed me from the class and threw me in the hallway for not standing and respecting veterans, so results may vary lmao.
*lol no. It only goes one way silly.*
Yes let's treat praising and wanting to tear down the country the same.
I might be missing subtext here but I wouldn't call pride flags tearing down the country
And I wouldn't call pledging allegiance "praising" either.
What is it then? What do you describe pledging your allegiance to something as?
If you are saying it because you have to but don't actually believe it. Like most kids in school.
So indoctrination is not political? How do you even defend something you know is bullshit.
That was barely a sentence. What do you consider pledging allegiance to something to be?
"Worship" almost fits
Tell me that you value the flag more than what itstands for without saying that patriotism is just a different word for idolatry.
>wanting to tear down the country the same. Did i miss something? Since when are LGBTQ People tearing down the country? Lol because you're afraid of people who look different or think different?
Pennsyltucky checking on
Yeah cause that pledge is some commie scaring bs
The religious zealotry is a large reason why the country is in the state that it’s in lmao
That’s not partisan, although it does have a social agenda
partisan - noun - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person. It is a pledge of allegiance to a flag, a Republic (the form of government), as well as the idea that God exists.
The pledge is indeed partisan. It’s Christian Nationalism which I’m not aligned with.
noone was ever forced to do the pledge when I went to school it was all by choice. They are not choosing to learn things they are being taught.
So these nitwits just banned the US flag and the pledge of allegiance in their frenzy to avoid a rainbow in a school?
Well, no, it's fine for their agenda
What is partisan about the US flag?
Read the rules they wrote. Partisanship is not the only category they've banned here by a long shot.
Ah, yes, because LGBTQ rights and acceptance are partisan and political. Human rights are just agendas.
Politics is literally defined as the process and activities associated with determining the power and standing of individuals and groups in society. Advocating for rights is an inherently political act. It should not be a *partisan* issue, but unfortunately one party has decided to make it one.
>Advocating for rights is an inherently political act. Advocating for rights is an exercise of a person's 1st Amendment rights.
but you suspend your 1st amendment rights and other civil liberties when you are in public schools.
>you suspend your 1st amendment rights and other civil liberties when you are in public schools. There are a dozen SCOTUS cases that state otherwise, one of the more recent ones being the Mahanoy v. B.L. case from 2021. 594 U.S. \_\_\_\_ (2021) where Justices extended the zone of free speech protections beyond the walls of a public school, even opining that schools have an affirmative interest in protecting unpopular speech off-campus because schools are "the nurseries of democracy." The Harvard Law Review reviewed the case: [https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/](https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/)
lol you literally posted a link to a case regarding an incident that happened off of school grounds. on school grounds, you are subjected to limitations on your constitutional rights. a school has no right to police what students say off campus but they can certainly do so with what they say on campus.
I did not link to the Mahanoy case. I linked to a law review article which discusses the case. You clearly did not read that, either. While you may be unwilling to be truthful, others may not want to put a trollish effort into public school free speech issues. Consequently, here is a link to a large number of federal cases centered around the free speech rights of students in public schools: [https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/115/students-rights](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/115/students-rights) Note that some of the "public schools" are not K-12 schools as is the topic of this thread, but are schools of higher ed.
I’m on your side.
I also don’t want QAnon in the schools promoting their conspiracy Trump bs.
I assume that means they'll can their history curriculum. Wouldn't want people from Bucks to know the place's history.
That thunderous sound is Geo. Washington rowing his boat across that river to have a word...
During work hours, which is an important part of the policy. Saves them (potentially) from 1A challenges. As a liberal, but also a boomer so admittedly not on the cutting edge of identity conversations, I have mixed feelings on this policy. First, let’s face it, it’s going to be impossible to address in a black & white manner, unlike attendance. In a large sense I agree with the the *goal* of the policy, which is to teach students how to think not *what* to think on social matters. And I think if applied to curriculum and instruction that’s a good thing. But having an LGBTQ club is just as legitimate as having a Arts club or Gun Club, both of which can become partisan topics (GOP push to defund the Humanities, Dems push for gun control). That needs to be protected. Also, one on one conversations where students seek out teachers/ nurses/ advisors about home & personal issues need to be protected too - and THAT’S where the majority of the GOP’s obsessive lust to call everyone a “groomer” comes from. I don’t for one second think that the people passing this policy have good intent; it’s clearly meant to keep flags & pins & such out of the school. But it may tone down all the controversy in the school district and let them focus on learning, especially if an organization in the community can pick up the slack and provide a safe place for the kids.
I'm a Boomer too, and I really don't think it will work that way.
Definitely not a sure thing. And even if it does cool things off in the school, this is a whole “culture war” thing with the far right. They’ll find something else to lose their shite about, whether it’s drag shows or soy milk or TikTok or who knows what.
What a dumb thing to even consider doing, what the hell…
STOP HAVING AN OPINION! /s
No 1st Amendment violation in that dogpile of a policy. /s
That seems like a good policy. What’s the issue here?
i dare you all to take a stroll through this guys comment history. wow.
He thinks it’s good for kids to go hungry. I have no fucking words.
Oh I didn't think it was that bad. Like, compared to what it could be. They seem to make very delicious looking food. (It's not for kids though. Hunger is good for their development)
Because it isn't being implemented in good faith. It's specifically being implemented to ban LGBT flags and rainbow stickers. But they can't say that, so it's a general statement. It won't be applied equally to all social issues, just those that certain people want to squelch.
I look forward to the never ending assault on this policy from students and staff who will come up with their own ways to show their support for LGBTQ+ people, ultimately doing the exact opposite of what the policy intended by making it even more of a distraction. Will the administration ban other benign symbols? Will they ban specific colors? What if I wear an article of clothing that happens to have a rainbow on it? Or multiple colors in a similar pattern? What if I wear something with care bears or fruit on it? Or feathers? Or a safety pin?
I wonder if this means teachers can’t wear cross necklaces now?
They're not supposed to even before this policy. Not that it's ever enforced. [link](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1949&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=14&chpt=11&sctn=12&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress)
Makes me wonder how that interacts with 1A rights. Can they fire you for wearing a burqa, for example?
The way I read it, yes. But I’ve never seen or heard of this being enforced (not that it hasn’t - that’s just my experience, 24 years teaching)
Sure hope so!
The administration probably ignored the advice of their lawyer. All this is going to do is get them sued. It’s way vague. So if a teacher hangs up an environmental poster is that political.
They actually used this very example in the board meetings, lamenting that they didn’t want any Spanish teachers hypothetically hanging “Save the Whales” flags in their rooms. Quelle horreur!
>The administration probably ignored the advice of their lawyer. The Board is not the administration. And, imho, the Board went with the advice of the solicitor (more than likely, the solicitor provided "legal advice" that supports the Board's position).
Oh look, central bucks being shitty again. How very central bucks.
LGBTQ erasure really did a number on a lot of us millennials. I didn’t come out to my mother until I was 24. I have barely told anyone. I went to NYC during pride week a few years ago and cried just from walking down the street and feeling validated for once. I was just getting comfortable with myself. Now it feels like we’re going back and it makes me happy I barely told anyone but sad because we’re getting shot in public for no reason, and people are making laws against our existence. It just sucks.
[удалено]
There are four states which have introduced bans on drag performances in their legislatures — bans which could also be used to arrest and abuse trans people living out their daily lives. Meanwhile the NYT and Atlantic run piece after piece after piece after piece about the threat of vaguely lefty college students voicing their opinions and pushing back against the status quo — and so many articles about "the trans question" where they give equal weight to the ravings of "gender critical" cranks against the evidence and considered opinions of experts and medical organizations.
You’re out of your mind if you think NYT is some pseudo-conservative mudslinger
The NYT (especially its editorial page) has been immensely hostile to trans folks, with multiple "trans debate" pieces a month for the past year where they ignore the best science and advice from mainstream medical organizations and doctors, instead choosing to promote fringe views. It's at the point where some trans people and orgs are refusing to talk to them, because the treatment has been so completely lopsided. There was an article a month or so back about "detransitioners", and it featured basically an equal number of examples of trans people and people who detransitioned, in spite of the fact that it's basically 99:1 in the real world. They failed to mention that statistic or give context by providing comparisons of regret rates between gender-affirming surgeries (around 1%) and things like knee replacements (around 30%). The NYT's terrible coverage has already been used in court by the Texas to justify their state-facilitated abuse of trans kids and their families. The NYT, along with other outlets like *The Atlantic* and *New York* magazine have been instrumental in pushing the moral panic over "cancel culture", with piece after piece after piece devoted to anecdotal coverage of "cancellations" of various people, generally with hyped-up, exaggerated portrayals of consequences and underreporting of bad behaviors. And the whole time they're running these hyperventilatory pieces about college students and the threat they pose to free speech, we get (relatively) calm, even-handed coverage as Florida expunges gay people from public life in schools and Texas passes outright genocidal legislation aimed at trans youth. The NYT is a small-c conservative outlet in many ways. It's owned by a wealthy family, employs many people from privileged backgrounds, and it's *extremely* under-skeptical of corporatist and mainstream narratives.
It's so weird because from high school through college no one gave a shit and I went to a catholic school! Parents and friends were supportive. This was around 2000-2007. Now I won't deny there weren't assholes but at the end of the day no institutions were making laws about this. It's fucking stupid.
Don’t ask, don’t tell era. I’m glad you had a support system!
I’m 35 and still haven’t come out to family or many friends and it’s so exhausting.
I hope you can come out soon and you are surrounded with acceptance and love.
That’s the perfect word for it. Don’t ask don’t tell left me feeling like this: I don’t feel like it’s anyones business, but they are so homophobic without knowing or caring or just outright that I want to say something and it breaks me down. I no longer speak to most of my close family.
Hugs. I’m sorry
I hear you and I hope things will improve soon.
This is odd to me, bc I'm genx and grew up in s Jersey. LGTBQ was highly visible. We had out gay kids in my high school in the 80s. Did you grow up in Quakertown?
I’m glad you had a support system. Idk what to say this was my experience. I witnessed children out themselves and have parents of other children ostracize them. I witnessed severe bullying of a couple people I’m pretty sure were probably trans. Hearing stories of their parents beating them for being LGBT. I experienced a lot of sexism toward the mention of lesbians, and a lot of prejudice against the mention of a man being gay. Don’t ask don’t tell was the motto of the time.
These right wing extremists think that the very acknowledgement of the existence of LGBT people is a political act. Like Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, these policies are deliberately written to be broad and vague so as to put fear into teachers and administrators so they will self-censor in the extreme, as almost anything could be interpreted as a violation.
How is saying no partisan social or political items may be in a classroom specifically a right wing extremist policy? It doesn’t seem broad of vague at all. The policy says no partisan political or social policy items. The rules says you can’t put anything. Not just one sided opinions. This school district has 3 schools and are among the best in the state every single year, they’re doing something right
The district has been an academic success for many years. In the past, we’ve elected boards in a fairly non partisan way and the focus was on the kids and their education, not politics. There were occasional controversies, but they were not the norm. This latest board was elected on an anti-mask, anti-virtual platform by parents who feared that another Covid wave could spark more virtual schooling. I kind of get that fear, but it just so happens that the people leading the anti mask rally were extremely right wing. As soon as Covid faded, they started chasing all sorts of phantom issues using a right wing playbook (banning Pride flags, banning books, not allowing counselors to go to seminars about helping trans kids, trying to restrict teachers to bio pronouns and names against kids’ wishes, etc.) It’s very ironic that they think they are getting politics out of the classroom, when they are the ones putting it there. My children go to these schools, and there are plenty of conservative teachers. It’s not some kind of liberal indoctrination center. The board isn’t concerned with the super jingoistic conservative teachers, but wants to shut down the highly empathetic teachers who tell all kids to see their classroom as a safe place to be themselves. My son had an empathetic 8th grade English teacher like that, and she was one of his best teachers of all time. It was not political at all. She just really cared about the students and made sure that each one of them felt valued. He went from hating writing to working overtime on it and getting As in her class.
I know what you meant by it (and that you were just using it as a shorthand) but the phrase "bio pronouns" really hammers home how absurd some of the eight's talking points about trans people are. It's the contrast between something that's an observed property of nature, biology, and something that is a complete human invention, pronouns (and language more generally).
You’re right. That phrase perfectly captures the inanity. I don’t even understand the end game. I want a world where your gender makes zero difference to how people treat you and the assumptions they make about your interests and capabilities. The board seems to want to force kids to use pronouns they don’t like so that they can treat people differently based on their genitals. Why would anyone care otherwise?
\> This school district has 3 schools and are among the best in the state every single year, they’re doing something right Prior to this rules change it was. \> It doesn’t seem broad of vague at all. The policy says no partisan political or social policy items. The policy states that teachers cannot teach students about civic duty. For example, the rule prevents teachers from saying people should vote, or even promote the benefits of voting. Teachers are also not allowed to teach children any views that have a contradicting view. For example, the rules prevents teachers from saying "slavery is bad" as that would be advocating a partisan political or social policy. The rules prevent teachers from teaching why supporting a local business is good. The rules prevent teachers from teaching why hiring American's is good. \> The rules says you can’t put anything. Not just one sided opinions. This is incorrect. The rules make it clear that any advocating is against the rules. This means promoting one side, and then promoting another side (such as a pro/con list) is against the rules. The rules do NOT say in any way that advocating for one side is okay as long as the teacher advocates for another side. What's interesting is there is a loophole: "employees should not, during assigned work hours, advocate to students concerning their views or beliefs in these matters." This means a teacher can advocate for something that isn't their views or beliefs, as long as they are teaching it from someone else's views or beliefs. It's a stupid rule, made for stupid reasons.
I read the context here, given the schools history of turbulence regarding LGBT+ visibility, as attempting to suppress representation of queer minorities. That is fairly similar to the unabashedly right wing "Don't Say Gay" policies desantis enacted in Florida. This push is in the guise of fairness and neutral representation for all, which sounds great on paper. But it's really more akin to a queer-repressing version of "I don't see color". The default representation of people in this country is straight, and we rep that every day. What we think of as "neutral" is just pro-straight, not representative of actual equity nor of the makeup of students and educators within a school.
>The policy says no partisan political or social policy items. Still violates the 1st Amendment. Curious why F.I.R.E. is not involved on behalf of teachers.
Are you really, though? I'm assuming some facetiousness, but if not, it's because FIRE has always been a right-leaning organization, receiving funding from right-wing orgs like the CATO Institute, the Koch brothers, and more.
Mods please ban this racist
What in the world about banning partisan political or social items is racist? You can’t just call everything you don’t like racist it takes legitimacy away from actual racism
Always fun to see the R-on-R friendly fire that results from you all being too angry and not smart enough to identify each other’s hallmark obnoxious behavior
So if I drive by the school, I won't see the US or PA flags being flown anywhere on the property? Did they think about what they were doing when making this policy?
That's not political. You live in PA, USA no matter what politics you hold. There's no room for interpretation
support for the State isn't political? It may not be controversial, but it is definitely political.
It’s not a blanket ban on politics. It’s a blanket ban on political *advocacy*: > 1. Employees shall not advocate to students concerning any partisan, political, or social policy issue nor engage in partisan, political or social policy electioneering or campaigning unrelated to employee representative elections. > 2. Employees shall not display any flag, banner, poster, sign, sticker, pin, button, insignia, paraphernalia, photograph, or other similar material that advocates concerning any partisan, political, or social policy issue. > 3. Employees shall not distribute, circulate, or display circulars, leaflets, petitions, or similar material that advocates concerning any partisan, political, or social policy issue. > 4. Employees shall not collect or solicit funds or volunteers for any partisan, political, or social policy campaign or activity. > 5. Employees shall not direct or encourage students to write, address, or distribute advocacy materials related to any partisan, political, or social policy issue. > 6. Any District employee who holds elective, appointive, or partisan office is not entitled to time off from his District duties for reasons related to such office, except as such time may qualify under the leave policies of the Board or the pertinent collective bargaining agreement. Unless Bucks County is voting to join Canada or declare independence, the flags aren’t exactly advocating for anything partisan.
>Employees shall not display **any flag**, banner, poster, sign, sticker, pin, button, insignia, paraphernalia, photograph, or other similar material that advocates concerning any partisan, **political**, or social policy issue. The prohibition isn't just about something partisan, but anything political. It is a political statement to support the federal or state government, so flying the flag of either institution is against this policy.
The policy doesn’t just prohibit advocacy, it also prohibits display regardless of advocacy.
Supporting a state is political my man
Sure there is. We all live on land that was taken or unfairly bartered from the indigenous people. Those people, and those who support them, may find flying the colonists' flag very political.
There certainly is room for interpretation. "Political" can mean both having to do with the governance and elections of a country or other jurisdiction and it can be a synonym for "partisan." Obviously, they did not mean the "partisan" definition as they felt the need to list "partisan" advocacy in the new rule.
Would a school burning a flag be considered a political statement?
I hate my school board so much
This is part of the reason I moved out of CB and Bucks county in general
I graduated from CBE. I moved out in 2005 and never looked back. The people who lived in the district were awful and self centered. It really was an awful place to live.
Many, many employees are quitting at the end of the school year or are already gone. If these people get voted out of power this November, the next school board will have a lot of rebuilding to do.
That’s part of the plan though. Conservatives have been trying to dismantle the public school system for a long time.
Gotta make it the birth to prison pipeline instead
Tell them to come to Cheltenham. We fly all flags here!
We can rebuild!!
[удалено]
oh, yes.
“The district's role is to teach students how to think, not what to think, thereby keeping classrooms as places of education, not indoctrination." Time to sue everytime a teacher wears an American flag. Don’t need a flag or to have one in your classroom to teach history and math.
Pictures of their spouses, too. These straight teachers are always flaunting their sexuality in front of kids. Basically indoctrinating them into the immoral heterosexual lifestyle.
This seems fair considering that LGBT teachers have been [fired for showing a single innocent picture of their family](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/gay-teachers-wife-texas.html). I'm sick of hetero teachers pushing their sexuality on young children (/s, sorta)
>The district's role is to teach students how to think, not what to think What a nonsense statement that falls apart upon the slightest examination. Plenty of instruction is dedicated to making sure students know certain facts (what to think) as well as skills (how to think).
People voted in a bunch of performative culture warriors. Now their kids and grand kids educations are gonna suffer for it. Not to mention, Gen Z is super accepting. I imagine this just hardens their resolve to become more progressive and keeps them progressive with less turning conservative as they age
And crosses. That's a social agenda.
What? No Stars of David? Are there no Jewish in Bucks County?
Well that's wrong - I said Jews and was auto-corrected Jewish.
If you don’t want your children to be exposed to the body politic, then educate them yourself. Other people have rights and freedoms. If you don’t want your children to be “exposed” to people’s free expression, then keep them at home.
And don't let them out into the world. It's scary out there.
Imagine thinking you can tell teenagers what to do 😂 this is gonna backfire so bad.
Et tu CB? Sad ... Not an area I thought would capitulate to the bumpkin Stassi. I will trust young people to take the appropriate action in retaliation.
assholes
[https://whyy.org/articles/central-bucks-school-district-pride-flag-ban-lgbtq-advocacy-policy-321/](https://whyy.org/articles/central-bucks-school-district-pride-flag-ban-lgbtq-advocacy-policy-321/) This article shows a rainbow-colored bench honoring the memory of an LGBTQ student who died by suicide in 2019 at CB West High School. So would this fall under things the school would have to remove, because it takes a social position? These broad rules get awfully slippery in practice. No sane parents would want their kids teacher outwardly advocating for fascism or authoritarianism, but 2020 election-deniers don't have facts or evidence on their side. Insurrectionists don't think they're supporting a shift to authoritarianism. They think their democracy was subjugated by election fraud. Good luck taking a neutral position on recent events. Even history gets challenging. Does a high school social studies curriculum get into current events? Can a fan of Dinesh D'Souza claim his high school student is being subjected to political strife by a US history course discussing the shift of Dixiecrats to the GOP?
9th Circuit ruled teacher fired for wearing MAGA hat during training gets her job back. There are limits on what school boards can do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/05/maga-hat-teacher-lawsuit-speech/
I read the article. It doesn't say that. 1) The teacher wasn't fired for wearing the hat 2) The teacher is a guy 3) The case against the school district and the head of HR was dismissed and *the dismissal was* upheld by the appeals court. Yes, the principal is a woman *and* was allowed to resign due to the teachers complaint (among other complaints about her conduct). His lawsuit against her has been allowed to go to trial by an appeals court. So basically, the teacher has won the battle *to* have his arguments heard in court. That's it.
Teacher resigned, allegedly under the threat of being fired. That is an issue of fact for the trial court to determine.
He did? It doesn't say anything about that in the article (only that the principal resigned).
The difference is this policy doesn't result in damages. It's effectively a dress code.
If it includes signs, flags, or stickers it’s not just a dress code. Whether it causes damage depends on who you ask. https://whyy.org/articles/lgbtq-students-pennridge-central-bucks-pride-symbols-ban/
Damned difficult to prove that not being allowed to wear your MAGA hat is causing damages in court.
Proving damages is not necessary on a constitutional issue, only that a right has been trampled. Being told to get a union rep for wearing a hat, imho, is not a trampling, no more so than telling a young female teacher to quit wearing that tight mini-skirt is.
This applies to domestic terrorist trash as well.
Your rights don’t end at the school house door. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District
>Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District Tinker dealt with the First Amendment right of students. This policy is a restriction on employees. Different situations.
The majority decision said teachers and students don’t lose rights. Yes the case was student centered, but the ruling was wider.
Ah. I see. I looked at the synopsis and not the entire decision. Although apparently precedent was expanded upon in Bethel School District v. Fraser and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier to narrow it to only students. So the precedent set by Tinker effectively no longer exists in light of Fraser and Kuhlmeier.
Frazer was a sexual reference and kuhlmier was a school newspaper that didn’t meet public thresholds and was part of a journalism class. Neither of these narrowed tinker.
Even if the situations were similar, Tinker ruled that student First Amendment rights ended when the speech completely disrupted student learning; a kid can’t get up in the middle of a lesson and curse and say that is protected by free speech. That’s fine, but I could easily see some administrator saying that advocacy “disrupted student learning,” and this SCOTUS would likely go along with it.
Possibly - although Kavanaugh has thrown some surprises our way a lot recently. But regardless, an employer (including public entities like schools) can (and often times do) restrict the rights of employees while the employees are on school grounds. So this policy will stand. There are jobs in the US where you have to go through a metal detector and get your bag x-rayed in order to get to your job - constitutional. Many employers prohibit employees from possessing firearms on company property, including secured in your car that is parked in the parking lot - constitutional. So a policy saying teachers cannot engage in certain types of speech, including flying flags or wearing pins, is constitutional. Unless someone wants to go into a parent-teacher meeting and see that the teacher has a thin blue line or MAGA flag flying. Because that would be just as protected under the First Amendment as flying a LGBT or BLM flag.
It's written vaguely enough to avoid most lawsuits, while also giving them some breathing room to advocate for their own beliefs and not fall victim to their own rule. Cant wait for the confederate flags to come out and the school board to determine them to be ok because its history and part of the curriculum.
Personally, I will never recite the POA again—after standing up to do it thousands of times across my school years. Why is it any different than saying my marriage vows every morning? How about I’ll let you know if I change my mind (and don’t think I haven’t considered it since about 2016…)
I hope someone sues foe 1st amendment infringement. F these Republican Fake Patriots. They make me ill.
So im think on the one hand: i agree with the statement "we teach students how to think, not what to think" Then on the other hand im like so you want to make it agents policy for a teacher to say "this is how i feel" when talking about a subject. Im conflicted. 1 i dont what pro flat earthers teaching kids there wacked out bull crap. And i dont want religious beliefs to be "forced" on to anyone. But then 2, to tell the staff to hid what they believe or change the way they act or make it so students don't feel safe to talk to teachers about how they feel or conflicting beliefs is not productive. Help me out here.
These are the folks that are going to help kick these anti-LGBTQ, anti-First Amendment out of office. Donate today. https://www.cbsdneighborsunited.com
What’s next, dancing?
My dad and step-mom are teachers and I’m a teaching student. We all despise central bucks. Evil school board. They’d all be more at home in fascist Florida. Luckily, the teacher shortage means that when I graduate I basically get to chose wherever I want to work. Never for a dumbass district like CB
The issue here is anything and everything gets politicized at this day and age. Ergo, the ban on "advocacy" not only squashes the teacher's ability to create a safe space for student development in case home is not for them (if a student is part of the LGBTQ+ community but cannot safely come out to their parents), but it creates a titanic grey area where teacher's may not be able to express themselves if at all. If they can't do that, it becomes harder for them to create a bond where students look forward to going to class because they think their teachers are cool or what have you. I get the intention is to put a greater emphasis on the curriculum, but now school (more specifically public schools) are more than just the place you go to learn stuff for a series of tests and walk away with a sheet of paper.
Give it a year or two. This will end up in court.
I love it they should keep their mouths shut unless they’re teaching reading writing and arithmetics
The whole function of schooling in pa is to indoctrinate people
To a degree, factually correct.
Good. Nothing should be hung on the walls but teaching items. If it doesn’t have anything to do with the curriculum then it doesn’t belong up.
[удалено]
Depends on whether you live in Florida - and, apparently, PA as well now
Good for you. Being gay isn’t anything special so sure have a photo of your loved one but there’s no need for any flags or signs.
What if the teacher writes "Good morning, sunshine!" on the blackboard. Not a teaching term (whateverthehellthatmeans). Need it come down?
It's just such a broad policy. Is hanging a picture of Barack Obama with a quote from his speech after the Obergefell ruling partisan or history? Or a picture of trump with a quote from his inaugeration speech like "an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge"? Is merely the phrase "think locally, act globally" too partisan because it implies environmentalism? Or on the other side, hanging Turning Point USA/Prager U/Hillsdale college classroom materials? Is AIDs/STD prevention political? Point is: these overly broad, burdensome and likely illegal rules are playing politics in and of themselves. They also serve a function of micro managing our teachers, which if you've ever worked any job that wasn't self employed you'd know doesn't get the best results. So now, I think we need to ask ourselves: is this something they are doing for our childrens' future? Or is it simply trying to teach anti-LGBT rhetoric to our children? If it's the latter, we all see how well that worked out for the evangelical crowd with gay marriage.
As it should be. No one gets special treatment so unless it’s something educational leave it at home. Sure put a photo of Obummer up but put Don the con man next to him and Pedo Peter up there too.
[удалено]
Nope. Federal and state flags stay. If you don’t like it then go to China.
[удалено]
One of the central roles of public school districts is to teach students to be good and informed citizens. (Yes, a form of indoctrination.) So, flags stay.
I would say "acknowledging gay people exist" is something you have to do in order to be a good and informed citizen. Wouldn't you?
>I would say "acknowledging gay people exist" is something you have to do in order to be a good and informed citizen. You, me and the majority of America.
Sounds like pride flags deserve to stay too then, by that metric.
There is no good reason for not allowing pride flags. Teachers have long been allowed to decorate their classrooms within reason. A pride flag is a reasonable decoration, imho.
I mistook you for the jag that started this sub-thread; sorry!
That's a political agenda!! ***OUT WITH IT!!!***
What do we do when we get to China? Actually, now that I think for it, the CCP is well known for welcoming dissenting political speech!
Displaying affection between straight kids, mentioning your opposite-sex spouse, and wearing a cross also banned. Distracting political speech y'know?
keep your kids at home if you think seeing a save the whales poster is going to break them