Did you understand the question? I’m not asking what unions should do if their employees are accused. I’m asking what they should do if their members are accused.
My previous question, about why you hate America, stands.
Until parents learn that they are the prime reason their kids do poorly or well in school, the schools won’t get any better.
Of the really good teachers I was honored to learn from, there was a common thread that far surpassed the subject matter of their courses. It was their infectious zeal for learning as they taught. Lateral thinking, cross examination of related subjects, off subject discussions, and the ability to delve into thought provoking detail made these beloved teachers almost entertainers. I have been late to many classes because these showboat performers stole the show and refused to relinquish their valuable hold on our minds. I had other teachers that should have worked in the government tag office as their damage to the customer served would not be the same at to a young mind yearning for knowledge. I posted two basic subjects that point out faults to our system. Some poser engineer bit at the bait and helped me demonstrate the end result of high level failure of our educations system, ignorance. He could not even keep his attention on the subject of our topic, “the education system”. Instead, defending himself from his own ignorance, attacked me. I have found this type of person is in every school locked in mind, job, and spirit. If you exemplify the characteristics I have found that makes an educator, I bow down before your greatness. You will leave your mark on the world instead of a petty bad taste in the mouth of society.
I must agree that amongst educators, he was most amazing. He one time walked to Mexico to visit some displaced Cherokees. I had 2 Cherokee great grand mothers and have read his bio. That walking to Mexico might be a myth, but not his foresight that might have saved and integrated his people if not for our KILLER government saturated with racist greedy “for sale” politicians. He invented a written language and structure for his people. Of the posters here, I think you really understand my points. Now go out there and infect the minds of our youth to greatness but do not cross the Teachers Union as they will destroy you and stifle any deviation from their controlled assault on free thinking.
Guy, I’m not in love with a system that let’s people who hurt kids get away with because they have slick lawyers and dumb jurors, both of which we need to get rid of, too.
Unions should stand aside when their members are caught doing something that beyond the pale… unless they have compelling evidence it’s a bad charge. Which clearly is NOT the case in the ones I cited.
We get it. If anyone got screwed worse than African Americans it was the American Indian. The Nazi Holocaust was mild compared to the genocide of American Indians but as some point you have to try to pull yourself forward despite the weight of history.
So you’re in favor, then, of a system which assumes guilt and in which innocence must be proven; I see.
:rolleyes:
Innocent until proven guilty is a fallacy. It’s one of those nice things we tell ourselves, but let’s be honest, once the police or prosecutors decide that you are “the guy”, they treat you like they’ve caught you until a court acquits you.
And while what Public School Teachers are doing is TRULY CRIMINAL to the kids and the country, why on earth do you want to treat them like perps.
Remember the cops who beat Rodney King? They got two trials. First one they got acquitted, then the malcontents rioted, so they gave them a second bite at the apple in Federal Court.
Well, even in the SECOND trial, two of the cops were found not guilty. Did the LAPD rehire them. Nooooooooope.
Same thing here. Doesn’t matter if these dirtbags were acquitted or not. They still don’t belong around kids, and they still shouldn’t be sucking at the teet of the taxpayer.
Except in liberal land, where apparently this sort of abuse is okay as long as the NEA and AFT keep endorsing Democrats and writing them big checks. Who cares if your kid is as dumb as a rock after 13 years with these people?
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal principle. The fact that this principle may be compromised by the police department doesn’t make the principle a fallacy.
Seriously. This is what you said.
Yeah, that’s what I really believe…
Sorry, saw way too many kids when I was a SGT in the Army who were fine products of public education, and couldnt’ read, write, do math, knew basic history, and were in no way, shape or form ready for the job market or college. (which is why many of them joined the Army. It certainly wasn’t for the food and accomedations!)
No, I think that’s society in general, not just the cops. I think we are all capable of looking at things and making up our own minds.
When they found that Casey whatshername “not guilty” yesterday, most of us in the “real world” were shocked that this woman got off. The jurors must have been on drugs or something.
At least the second one. The first one, a lot of us need to work on that.
Good point. let’s not forget, this Jury was sequestered and didn’t get to hear a lot of stuff the rest of us were hearing. So they were making up their minds on LESS information, not more.
The same with that other fine paragon of the American Justice system, the OJ trial.
Come on, the problem with out justice system is that the inmates have taken over the asylum. The same can be said of our education system, come to think of it.
Good thing that there isn’t a “European system” regarding this then. Different countries in the EU handle it different ways. There are some EU-wide directives, but ultimately employment law changes radically from country to country.
But who gets to decide who “should” be defended?
Depends on a lot of things. Location, for example. In the town I grew up in there was basically one choice. Well, either that or go private (which my family did for both their children). In the UK, where I was schooled, different schools have “catchment areas” which you have to be in to be able to send your kid there. It is increasingly common for parents to move house to be in the catchment area for a perceived good school.
So either you’re suggesting that unions rephrase their policy regarding whom to defend as “Unions should stand aside when their members are caught doing something that beyond the pale… unless they have compelling evidence it’s a bad charge,” which is a completely moronic way to phrase a policy that holds legal weight, or else you’re avoiding my question yet again.
The question isn’t trivial. Unions take hudreds of dollars a year from every teacher, and they promise, in exchange for that money, to do certain things for the teachers. Those promises are legally binding. The current situation is that they promise to advocate on behalf of teachers, full-stop, under the understanding that it’s administration that makes the final call on whether to retain or fire a teacher. That’s a totally reasonable approach, even if it leads to their advocating on behalf of some real scumbags sometimes: a scumbag who puts his best face forward with union help is still a scumbag, and a boss who’s not a lazy craven can still fire the scumbag.
Your approach is for unions to take the money from teachers and then to “stand aside when their members are caught doing something that beyond the pale… unless they have compelling evidence it’s a bad charge,” which is legally indefensible and would lead to unions being sued out of existence the first time someone was falsely but convincingly accused and saw the union, who had taken all their money, refuse to advocate on their behalf.
Now, maybe that’s your goal; maybe you want to get rid of unions in order to help out your Republican buddies. But at least be honest about it if it is.
Actually, I grew up in a union home.
But all your sophistry aside, which is all this is.
Let’s put it to the test.
Would you want YOUR child put into a room alone with this teacher. Yes or no?
If your answer is, “Yup, I’d totally leave my kid along with this teacher because I am SOOOOOO in love with the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” and “Unions should defend anyone who pays dues” that I am perfectly willing to hope for a good result.” I’d like to hear your reasoning why.
And if your answer is no, then why would you want to inflict this guy on ANYONE else’s child?
Now, if you are going to claim that unions can’t practice that kind of judgement and discretion, then I think we have an issue here and maybe it is time to get rid of unions.
No.
I don’t.
Now the question for you. If I type that “I don’t” in giant red letters, will you pay attention to it this time and stop making this idiotic straw-man that I’ve explicitly denied several times now?