Principal fired for defending the cop in the McKinney incident.
Given that this was a government action, I suspect he’ll win a court case. I’m actually appalled that this course of action would even be considered.
We seem to be moving from a “Don’t say anything hateful about any group.” to “Do not ever disagree with a particular group when they feel strongly about something and are insulted and offended by your incorrect political stance.” I wouldn’t be surprised if being for voter ID or against abortion or in favor of strict immigration laws becomes a firing offense soon.
FWIW, I read that story earlier today, and I was pretty irritated by it. I do not believe it was appropriate to fire the principal for that FB post, as appalling as it was. Of course, I also think the principal was an idiot for posting it (he says he meant to post it anonymously), given his job.
But again, you’re making the ridiculous claim that people are primarily getting fired for speaking against leftist political stances. First, this guy is adopting a very fringe position in his defense of a cop whose own boss says he was a dick. Second, I’ve offered several examples of folks getting serious blowback for adopting leftist positions. Your suggestion that this is all a problem of overreaching leftists is bullshit.
I never said that explicitly, although I understand why you would have gotten that impression. Yes, I do realize that stating extreme leftist viewpoints can get you fired. Heck, expressing fairly mainstream liberal opinions can get you in a shitstorm if your offended parties are hard leftists or conservatives. See: Dixie Chicks.
But taking a position on a news story, even a minority position, is simply taking a political stance, and political stances should not get you fired, especially by the government. And really not in the private sector either. If we can protect religion and creed, we can protect political views.
One reason I predicted a backlash in the OP, aside from the already existing small backlash, is that the definition of fireable offenses is acting like a slippery slope. It went from saying bad things specifically about minorities, women, religions, etc., to simply expressing the “incorrect” view on a political issue or news story that certain groups felt strongly about. I don’t see how that kind of thing can be allowed to go on for long. How long before we impeach Presidents for things like Obama’s “Special Olympics” comment and it seems like the proper thing to do?
And the problem doesn’t even seem to be the view he expressed, so much as that he was the principal of a school that was 99% minority. The fact that they took offense was the issue, it appears. That too, is unsustainable. Society will go mad if that goes much further.
Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. How long before comments like the “Special Olympics” one lead to impeachment? I’ll be my life savings that it’s longer than our nation exists, and I’ll bet my estate it’s longer than the heat death of the universe.
Keep in mind, though, a couple of factors:
This is one local case.
It’s Florida, Jake.
The case is less than 48 hours old (I think). It may develop over the next few days/weeks.
Finally, “fired” usually means “released from employment.” This guy wasn’t released from employment; he was assigned different job duties. I say this to maintain accuracy about what’s happening, not to defend the district’s actions.
I agree, but I have to wonder if that’s due to the President’s position, rather than the consequences of the comment itself. I imagine there are some places where you would get fired for saying that if the wrong person heard(such as the mother of a kid in special olympics).
These stories are pretty common. And it’s true that the story could develop. There could be a backlash.
No, these stories are not pretty common, if by “these stories” you mean “people losing their non-political public-sector jobs by making conservative political comments.” I believe, in fact, this is the only example of such a story in this thread, despite all the claims.
If they’re “pretty common,” I’d expect at least half a dozen such stories in a thread like this, all from the last five years.
Is it your position that we will, or should, get “past that period” where (to cite an earlier example) someone hired as a public spokesman for the Coca-Cola company can get fired for publicly stating that Coke tastes like beaver piss?
If not, the above is an inane bit of processed linguistic product containing no detectable quantity of actual meaningful content.
Coke should fire people who don’t represent Coke in their capacity as a spokesperson for Coke. They should not fire Coke employees for facebook and twitter posts.
Seriously? If someone is a spokesperson for Coke, and they fill their personal FB feed with screeds about how nasty Coke is, you think Coke is morally obligated to keep that person employed?
I think much of the debate here is about what constitutes ‘political correctness’ and why it is mainly associated with the Far Left. The answer is because political correctness is an obnoxious behavior trait associated with the Left by definition but the Right (especially the Religious Right) has an equivalent term - Judgmentalism. The irony is that both groups are basically one and the same when it comes to suppression of basic freedoms and the controlling personality styles are the same even though their dogma came from different prophets.
The Religious Right will tell you that you will suffer if you don’t believe the same things they adhere to. The same is true for the Politically Correct Left. Both have adopted a ‘religion’ in which outside ideas are rejected and non-followers are considered heretics and threats to their world-view. I hate them both equally.
After reading a story about the Texas teenager-tackling tweaker, in which he himself said he was out of control and apologized for his actions, I’m wondering whether the Floridian Fool who defended him might legitimately be fired, for much the same reasons as a Coke spokesschlub who calls it beaver piss might be fired.
A software engineer who defended the TTTT in this way should not faced professional consequences, I agree. However, a software engineer is not in a position of authority over hundreds of teenagers–some of whom undoubtedly are sometimes rowdy, sometimes histrionic, sometimes really goddamned rude. The principal is. When the principal says that the TTTT acted appropriately, he is apparently saying that when a teenager is mouthy to you, it’s appropriate to tackle the teenager; and when a bunch of teenagers are shouting at you, it’s appropriate to draw down on them.
That goes to the heart of a principal’s professional duties. There’s an excellent case that it shows his judgment in carrying out those professional duties is so at odds with the judgment of his superiors that he presents a danger to his students.
Now, I’m not saying I’d fire him in this case. I’m more interested in actions: has this principal been a positive force in his school, has he encountered conflict with students and de-escalated in an appropriate way? If so, I’d keep him at his job but inject him with the fungal spores from Neuromancer that kept Case from accessing cyberspace. If his record shows that he tends toward escalation and throwing his weight around, again, that would speak louder than his words, to me.
But I do think that this is fundamentally different from a case in which someone expresses a political opinion on a subject that does not relate to his job. It is within the realm of reason to remove someone from a job when they express incredibly poor judgment related to their job duties.
That gets to the key point – attempts to use the term “political correctness” as a rhetorical device to whip up poutrage every time some bigoted jackass gets publicly called out for expressions of bigoted jackassery are simply too stupid to get any traction (which is saying something, given the types of abject stupidity that do get traction).
Well, let’s see…If PC is stupid, then, no, we haven’t even seen the tip of the iceberg. People, being what they are, will demand stupid. The people want to crush all thoughts of freedom of thought and expression, while demanding that *their *rights be sacrosanct.
The majority of people are stupid, so, if PC is stupid, the majority will be PC.
Except for…the RR will say that you are going to hell; the PCL say that you are offending God and Man, and that you should be suppressed and sent to prison for using words that do not conform.
