What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The legalities of the persecution of Jerry Buell

Award-winning Florida teacher Jerry Buell has been pulled out of the classroom and is in danger of losing his job after he made negative comments about homosexuality and homosexual pseudo-marriage on his Facebook page.

So far, a fair bit of the discussion on this topic (e.g., in this thread at VFR and in the original news story) has centered on whether his comments on Facebook should be regarded as "public" or "private" and whether the size of his Facebook "friend" list makes a difference to this judgement.

But Buell's lawyers are apparently making a First Amendment case. Although I haven't read any legal analysis by his lawyers, I would assume from their references to the First Amendment that their argument turns on the fact that Buell is a public school teacher and hence that his employer is a state entity and may not penalize him for using his freedom of speech. If this is the argument, why would it matter whether the comments were made in public or in private? No one believes that the First Amendment applies only to private speech! Far from it.

The only way that I can think of that his making these comments on his personal Facebook page would be relevant would be in showing that he was speaking for himself only and not as a representative of the school. But that could easily be obvious even in fully public contexts. For example, a professor or teacher who writes at a personal blog can be presumed to be making statements that represent only his own views rather than those of his employers. Some take the trouble to state that expressly, but in any event, the question still does not depend on whether the statements were uttered "in private" nor on the size of the possible or intended audience.

Is there some additional layer of First Amendment protection, perhaps based on a precedent I'm unaware of, that depends crucially on a judgment that Buell's comments were "made in private"?

And what the deuce is this Miami lawyer Leto talking about in the story when he says that the teacher was "on the cusp" if his students were his Facebook friends. Really? If you're a public school teacher, the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything you say anywhere that your students might read? That's a new one. Moreover, Leto says that a teacher's comments must not be "racist, hateful, or malicious"? Why? Is it now illegal to make public comments that others deem "hateful" or "racist"? Since when do we have hate speech laws in America?

By the way, note this chilling bit from the school administrator, Chris Patton (emphasis added):

“Just because you think it’s private, other people are viewing it,” Patton said, noting that the teacher’s Facebook page also contained numerous Bible passages.

Wow, yeah: Buell's page contains numerous Bible passages. Now that's scary. It seems to me that this public comment from Patton alone should be carefully collected, especially if they can get Patton's exact words, in preparation for a religious discrimination lawsuit if Buell loses his job.

Comments (70)

So in essence the claim is that if you are a teacher you can never, in any forum, say anything that is religious. After all, if you have a discussion in a restaurant, one of your students or someone who knows a student might hear you. Or a conversation in your home might be reported to a student or someone who knows a student. And you certainly wouldn't dare speak in a city council meeting or advocate for DOMA or a state marriage definition of "one man/one woman." Because it is somehow a "state establishment of religion" if a teacher has any opinion about religion or has any actual -- oh, horror! -- religious *beliefs*. Oh, of course, that actually only applies to believing, conservative Christians, not to liberal Christians or any other faith (especially Islam).

Wow. Reason number 5,237 to appreciate teaching where I am.

The thing is, Beth, there are precedents on this. I was just reading a summary of one precedent from 1968 that upheld a public school teacher's right not to be fired for a letter to the editor. So it really seems to me that this _ought_ to be something Buell can fight. We hope.

Ironically, Beth, because you teach at a private school which is also a Christian school, one would normally think of your off-the-job speech as being _less_ protected than Buell's.

I am waiting for Al to show why Buell should be prosecuted even though the gay agenda is not about persecuting Christians...

Al, if I have that wrong, feel free to correct me.

With Al, y'never know. My prediction is that he'll come in saying that he doesn't think Buell shd. be fired. That will be his Consistent Civil Libertarian shtick. Then, if Buell is fired, and _especially_ if it's upheld by a court, Al will go to his The Law Is What the Courts Say It Is shtick and agree with the judge.

However, even that may be too charitable a prediction (because of Part I).

Okay, I want another shot: Possibly it will be "Buell was being a jerk, so his getting fired will be no big deal."

Here's something I keep wondering: if I, as a Christian student or parent of a student, objected to a teacher's posting a celebration of the NY decision on his FB page, would that teacher now be "reassigned" and not allowed to teach because heterosexual and Christian students might feel uncomfortable in his classroom?

Actually, I don't wonder about it at all. But I still wish someone would try it out. The double standard should be clearly exposed by the differing responses that would be given to the two viewpoints.

Lydia, of course, by signing a statement of faith, we are expected to live and speak by that statement. But if one signs it, one should agree with it, and therefore not find it somehow overly confining. In other words, one shouldn't be wanting to express views that are radically opposed to biblical standards. And the statement is basic enough that there is plenty of room for philosophical, theological, and policy differences of various kinds.

if I, as a Christian student or parent of a student, objected to a teacher's posting a celebration of the NY decision on his FB page, would that teacher now be "reassigned" and not allowed to teach because heterosexual and Christian students might feel uncomfortable in his classroom?

That's a good point. Especially if such a teacher added something about, e.g., victory over the "haters" who are opposed to homosexual rights.

Tonight I was reading John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration in preparation for a graduate seminar I am leading this Fall at Baylor. I was struck by how far liberalism has fallen since the 17th century. According to Locke, issues concerning personal conduct are properly the domain of the Church. Locke also notes that the state should not persecute and punish those who on theological matters cannot acquiesce to the state's understanding on a matter about which the individual believer cannot change his mind. (It is conscience which compels him to resist the state). Today's liberalism has turned it around. It has usurped the Church's authority on matters moral, and to add injury to insult seeks to persecute and punish the Church for resisting its pronouncements. What has happened today is that the new Church is the State, the Inquisitors are the politically correct thought police, and the believer is the heretic.

Perhaps politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and it was only a matter of time that liberalism would morph into what it was invented to banish.

God help us.

I was struck by how far liberalism has fallen since the 17th century.

I'm often struck by that. :-) It's one of the things that makes me more willing than some of my conservative friends to say that John Locke wasn't such a bad fellow.

A little supposing of my own:

Suppose this was a Muslim teacher and the verses were from the Koran?

Twitter, Facebook, Her Campus; what is this world coming to?

With 700 "friends" we have arguably left the "personal" (whatever that means anymore, anyway). Was he actually publishing an online newsletter? Teaching aid? Did he use his position as a teacher to entice students to become his "friends" that he might proselytize?

We need to assess his whole Facebook oeuvre in order to figure things out. And this guy spent his workday having to socialize with teenagers, so he goes home and "socializes with them online? I got a problem with that.

Since he had to know that some of his "friends" (and hence possible students) are gay, his "cesspool" reference is clearly unprofessional. "This is the place where you will receive the most respect out of any place you'll be all day. I love my kids. I take my job very seriously." Yeah, sure!

Anyway, the guy is clearly a bigot and whatever veneer he managed to use over the years is slipping. Most of us have a shelf life so with 22 years he likely can retire and perhaps needs to.

Eugene Volokh posted a reference without comment. These are from the comments:

"Obviously disciplining a teacher solely for opposing gay marriage or expressing opposition to gay marriage would be unconstitutional. Here we’re talking about a teacher who publicly (I consider a Facebook posting public) expressed visceral disgust toward gay people, and statistically, it’s wholly improbable that he doesn’t teach gay students. If a teacher said “anyone who believes in God is a complete idiot”, then some form of discipline would, it seems to me, be wholly appropriate."

"Some of his former students are claiming that when asked in a social studies class whether gays should be allowed to served openly in the military, he responded that yes, they should, and all be put on the front lines while the rest of the troops fell back."

A comment on the CNN story relates that he uses FB to communicate with his students. If he was using it as part of his teaching, he should be fired. As with many of the things Lydia presents as slam-dunks, we currently lack necessary information.

As for the snark, we don't need to agree with a court's decision in order to be bound by it. I disagree with Carhart II, you all disagree with Roe.

"It has usurped the Church's authority on matters moral,

Any religion still has moral authority over those who voluntarily submit to it for as long as they choose to so submit. You want something else? How Sharia-like of you.

"and to add injury to insult seeks to persecute and punish the Church for resisting its pronouncements."

Yeah, yeah, any disagreement or consequences for egregious and unprofessional behavior and we trot out the lions. Hummm, there is a mountain lion that lurks out back, maybe...

"Just because you think it’s private, other people are viewing it,” Patton said, noting that the teacher’s Facebook page also contained numerous Bible passages.
Clearly, Buell ought to have used Koranic verses or quoted from the Haddith.

Whether a comment on a personal Facebook page is considered public or private is relevant to the school administration's claim that it violates its code of ethical conduct. The policy may be found here:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Social-Media-Guidelines-final-0406.pdf

On the one hand, it states: "The District takes no position on an employee’s decision to participate in the use of social media networks for personal use on personal time."

On the other hand, it also states: "If you post information or comments that are not related to the District, your activities may still result in professional and/or personal repercussions. Such actions include, but are not limited to: ...Posting as a citizen about a non-job related matter of public concern(elections, environmental issues, etc.) and making comments that negatively affect the district’s effectiveness or efficiency or otherwise disrupt the workplace." The school administration will presumably argue that Buell's comment creates a hostile environment, which will undermine his teaching effectiveness.

I'm not so sure that a comment on a personal Facepage which people must seek out is very public. And as I said on Volokh, if this is the standard, there needs to be a whole bunch of teachers investigated and fired for making similarly disparaging comments about Christians, conservatives, Southerners, etc.

Suppose this was a Muslim teacher and the verses were from the Koran?

Great point. The liberals would have taken their hands off of this in an instant.

The purpose of this attack on the teacher was two-fold. One, to punish the teacher for heterodoxy, of course. The second was a pre-emptive strike on any teacher who would ever argue (and prove) in a classroom that homosexuality is a) psychologically damaging to the person and b) neither good, natural or healthy for anyone.

These things can easily be demonstrated by objective studies regarding homosexual behavior, outcomes, lifestyle, life expectancy, drug and alcohol abuse, physical effects, and so on.

Also, it is not that difficult proving that the born gay argument is a hoax. And so the best way to silence truth is to persecute it.

In fact, there are no conservative organs and media that will allow me to make any of the the arguments above (W4 excepted). I've written for American Thinker, Big Hollywood, and Ricochet, but they will never allow me to cast homosexuality in a pejorative light.

My wife is a third grade teacher in Cal and is compelled to celebrate Harvey Milk day or some such garbage about queer history.

Perseus, I see that it makes a difference whether it was "personal" but not to whether it was "private." There is a difference. A blog which the whole world can read can nonetheless be a "personal" blog. The difference seems to be related to whether the teacher is allegedly representing the school when speaking, not to whether larger numbers of people can read what he writes.

Again, the Pickering precedent protected a teacher's letter to the editor, which obviously was not private.

I've read the social media guidelines, but if the First Amendment argument means anything, those vaguely threatening statements that what you say on your personal time may still affect your career have to be pretty much toothless. In fact, the fact that a teacher is making comment on matters of public concern is specifically one of the things that is supposed to make his off-the-job speech protected! The school can't just set that aside by saying, "Oh, by the way, if we make a subjective judgement that something you've written about a matter of public concern makes you seem like a less effective teacher, we can fire you at will." That would gut _any_ protection from the punitive action of this government entity against its employees.

I certainly agree with you that there are many teachers out there who would have to be investigated if no disparaging remarks could be made off-the-job.

And as Beth pointed out, since very often statements on the other side of the very same issue involve allegations of "homophobia" against those who oppose the homosexual agenda, if all negative remarks that might apply to students were banned anywhere, no statements could be made on such subjects at all!

This is just a roundabout way of getting back to the fact that public school teachers are generally considered to have freedom of speech, especially when they are not representing the school district.

Well, lookee--So Al didn't even pretend to be a civil libertarian anymore. If the guy is a "bigot" and his "veneer is slipping," he should be fired.

And, Al--"Personal" is not the same thing as "in private where almost nobody can hear me." Just a news flash. If the First Amendment protects only private speech where very few people can hear you, then we've all been very, very confused for a couple hundred years. Again, the Pickering precedent protected a _letter to the editor_. Why, perhaps several hundred people could have read it!

Any religion still has moral authority over those who voluntarily submit to it for as long as they choose to so submit. You want something else? How Sharia-like of you.

Whereas a liberal society only has moral authority when its citizens voluntarily acquiesce to that claimed authority. It may certainly claim that its authority is the consent of the majority, but that leaves a laughably big hole in the form of trying to explain to a minority who do not consent why they must regard the will of the majority (a group defined simply by numeric superiority and commonality in momentary desire) as having binding moral authority over them. Thus the hypocrisy is that a highly transient group claims quasi-transcendental authority.

I note, too: The school district expressly acknowledges that there is such a thing as a "personal" use of social media networks, and nowhere does the policy state that this "personal" use ceases to be "personal" if your number of friends exceeds x!

The presumptive meaning of that is that we're talking about a *personal Facebook page*. The number of friends per se would not normally be taken to render a personal page non-personal. Again, "private" and "personal" are not the same thing. My personal blog is Extra Thoughts, but anyone can read it.

Don't school administrators have the power to fire and hire anyone they wish within certain anti-discrimination parameters? So if the administrator doesn't like his comments, he can fire him and doesn't have to prove some sort of work-related case. Or is that not the case?

I only ask because rightists should probably get their story straight. Do we want:

1) a society of fully free hiring/firing, where you can be hired or fired for any reason whatsoever?
2) limits on hiring and firing, either in the form of the uneasy compromise we have now or some sort of more rigorous 'only job performance' standard

It seems to me that 1 is much more like what we want, but if so then this fellow has no case and should accept his fate. The question of the Koran is a good one--it's no use to be pro-discrimination in one case and raise hell in the other. A situation in which school control was totally decentralized and local school administrators had complete authority over who worked there looks like a plain improvement to me over the current situation.

Matt, under present jurisprudence, my understanding is that _public schools_ have to abide by First Amendment precedents (at least those relevant to them) because they are governmental employers.

As usual, what we're getting is the worst of both worlds: Private employers would get hit with a religious discrimination lawsuit in a similar case against a mascot group, whereas public employers (which under present precedents are supposed to grant even more protection to employee and student speech) are supposed to get a free ride for blatantly shutting up a teacher and doing so even more fiercely because he is a Christian.

I see nothing wrong with working within the ambit of present First Amendment jurisprudence as it applies to public schools and protections for teacher speech outside of the classroom.

If public schools are abolished or the general set of precedents whereby publically funded schools are covered by the clauses of the First Amendment are entirely overturned, then we can talk about making them more like private schools and giving them power to fire at will for anything that conflicts with their chosen "flavor." But at that point, I want teaching creationism in the classroom permitted, prayers in the classroom permitted, and all the rest--the whole idea that a public school is a government entity had better be out the window tout court.

And pigs will fly first.

Meanwhile, if public schools are going to be treated as government entities and if this has already been applied to their using their power to fire teachers, then that's fair game for application in this egregious case of bullying a teacher for his non-leftist views.

Lydia, I assume you reference Pickering which is somewhat off point. Pickering's letter was directed at the school board and was unrelated to his duties as a teacher. I don't believe anyone would advocate that the teacher be dismissed for merely stating his opposition to SSM. The issue as I see it is that the intemperate manner in which he expressed his disagreement will likely effect his ability to effectively teach at least some of his students.

I assume any newspaper would edit the offending remarks out of a letter to the editor so your example doesn't fit the circumstances. We still don't know if he used the FB account as an extension of the classroom and that seems relevant.

This would be a straight forward First Amendment case had the teacher simply written that he opposed SSM for religious reasons (there are, of course, no rational, non-religious reasons - the recent Prop. 8 trial in California clearly demonstrated that). However, that isn't what we have here.

"At the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general. The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

"An examination of the statements in appellant's letter objected to by the Board 2 reveals that they, like the letter as a whole, consist essentially of criticism of the Board's allocation of school funds between educational and athletic programs, and of both the Board's and the superintendent's methods of informing, or preventing the informing of, the district's taxpayers of the real reasons why additional tax revenues were being sought for the schools. The statements are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in [391 U.S. 563, 570] contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here. Appellant's employment relationships with the Board and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with the superintendent are not the kind of close working relationships for which it can persuasively be claimed that personal loyalty and confidence are necessary to their proper functioning."

"We have already noted our disinclination to make an across-the-board equation of dismissal from public employment for remarks critical of superiors with awarding damages in a libel suit by a public official for similar criticism. However, in a case such as the present one, in which the fact of employment is only tangentially and insubstantially involved in the subject matter of the public communication made by a teacher, we conclude that it is necessary to regard the teacher as the member of the general public he seeks to be."

"In sum, we hold that, in a case such as this, absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teacher's exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment. Since no [391 U.S. 563, 575] such showing has been made in this case regarding appellant's letter..."

Were any students of Mr. Buell's -- i.e., actual current students actively taking his class in progress or about to take his class when September started, and not former students or merely students at the same school but not in his class -- actually on his Friends list? And did he use Facebook as a medium to disseminate or distribute class-related information to active students?

If he did, then an argument might be made that Buell himself has integrated his Facebook presence into his "classroom", and thus cannot claim a right to or presumption of privacy. But it's not clear from the linked article whether this is in fact the case. (Personally I'd consider it the height of unprofessionalism to use Facebook in this manner in the first place; Facebook is simply too public and informal a venue to be an appropriate platform for teacher-student correspondence. But that's a different issue.)

If he didn't, then this may simply be a First Amendment issue, but I'm not hopeful there either. The First Amendment simply means the government can't criminally punish you for your speech and opinions; I am not sure that means a government agency can't fire you for behaving like a jerk in public. (I may, of course, be wrong on this.)

So now the "fact of employment" is somehow inherently and essentially involved in a teacher's implication that homosexual acts are disgusting? There's an interesting argument. So if a teacher said that, say, obesity is an epidemic in America, I suppose this should also be grounds for investigation and possible dismissal, because he might have fat students. And if a teacher comments on his Facebook page that there are no good reasons for Christianity and that therefore Christianity is irrational, this should similarly be grounds, because he might have Christian students. And if a teacher were to refer on his Facebook page to "bigots" or "homophobes" who consider homosexual acts to be immoral this should be grounds for investigation and possible dismissal, because he might have students who consider homosexual acts to be immoral.

And on and on and on. Every negative reference to any belief that any student might hold or to any group that any student might belong to now becomes essentially connected with employment. Ridiculous.

And it really just depends on what is socially accepted whether we care or notice. If some other bizarre, self-destructive, or depraved behavior becomes socially acceptable, then calling that behavior disgusting except in a whisper to some tiny group will also render one incapable of doing one's job as a teacher, because some of one's students might be engaging in it.

Somehow, I don't think this is going to fly, Al.

And it had better not.

The First Amendment simply means the government can't criminally punish you for your speech and opinions; I am not sure that means a government agency can't fire you for behaving like a jerk in public. (I may, of course, be wrong on this.)

My strong impression is that current First Amendment jurisprudence does extend this to government entities that fire. I know it has been extended to censoring student T-shirts, for example, which is certainly not criminal punishment.

My strong impression is that current First Amendment jurisprudence does extend this to government entities that fire.

The case, then, sounds like it will probably centre on whether the manner in which Buell expressed his opinions is deemed sufficiently hostile to any gay students in his class, or any gay students likely to take his class, or any students who are the sons and daughters of gay parents, that it reaches the level of unprofessionalism necessary to outweigh the protected content of those opinions.

We want to protect those who are only proclaiming truth as we see it, but we have to allow administrators the latitude to set their own standards of professionalism and to dismiss employees who violate those standards; I confess to being pessimistic about finding an equitable middle ground.

"So if a teacher said that, say, obesity is an epidemic in America, I suppose this should also be grounds for investigation and possible dismissal, because he might have fat students."

Too easy. Of course not but if he has a FB account that he has integrated with his teaching activities and posts something like "fat students are ugly and disgusting" and that they are "defiling their bodies which are God given" then there might be some problems. Really Lydia, tone and presentation matter for a teacher, this shouldn't be that difficult.

"My strong impression is that current First Amendment jurisprudence does extend this to government entities that fire."

Correct but you need to connect Pickering, et al with the facts in this case and you haven't been able to do that so far. Intoning "First Amendment jurisprudence" isn't enough. This is not a clear-cut case and, remember, we currently lack sufficient information.

It's another manifestation of the "velvet jackboot", a phenomenon described in an illuminating manner here.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/08/growing-anger-in-europe.html

The case, then, sounds like it will probably centre on whether the manner in which Buell expressed his opinions is deemed sufficiently hostile to any gay students in his class, or any gay students likely to take his class, or any students who are the sons and daughters of gay parents, that it reaches the level of unprofessionalism necessary to outweigh the protected content of those opinions.

We want to protect those who are only proclaiming truth as we see it, but we have to allow administrators the latitude to set their own standards of professionalism and to dismiss employees who violate those standards; I confess to being pessimistic about finding an equitable middle ground.

Frankly, this seems ridiculous to me. We live in a world in which art that depicts throwing dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary or places a cross in a vat of urine is protected as "First Amendment speech." Flag burning is ostensibly "protected First Amendment speech." Again and again and again SCOTUS has argued that there is no right not to be offended and that even speech likely to offend people is protected by the First Amendment.

Now we're supposed to argue that just because someone is a teacher we can intone the word "professionalism" and he has to make all statements that his students are able to read, even if made on his own time and on a personal web page where he clearly is not representing the position of his employer, inoffensive to any identifiable cohort of his students?

No, frankly, I do _not_ want to let public school administrators use what will undoubtedly be a politically loaded leftist definition of "professionalism" in order to set up what are undoubtedly bogus "standards of professionalism" to punish someone who implies on his own time that homosexual acts are disgusting as a matter of his personal opinion expressed out of class. While meanwhile, *of course* (let's not lie; let's not pretend) other teachers are completely free to throw around the term "homophobia" on their Facebook pages and doubtless, for that matter, right in class, without anyone calling this an "unprofessional" attack on those who are opposed to the homosexual agenda.

If First Amendment protections allegedly extend to the out-of-class personal opinions of public school teachers, then by all means, let's at least protect moral traditionalists, even if their comments are deemed offensive because they have the gall to express disgust at an image of two men kissing and being called "married" on the nightly news!

If this so-called "standard of professionalism" were applied to outlawing expression that is "unprofessional," it would _undeniably_ be struck down as unconstitutional.

This whole idea that an opinion is First Amendment protected speech if you state it in a calm and measured manner but not if you use adjectives and expressions that are stronger and that indicate disgust is incredibly pernicious. Nobody thinks that it's protected speech to say, "George W. Bush was a terrible President" but that we could constitutionally outlaw saying, "George W. Bush makes me want to throw up."

We absolutely do not want precedents in place that say that suddenly the use of terms like "sewer" or "makes me want to throw up" render opinions unprotected which would otherwise be protected because they are somehow "too strongly worded." That's Step 1 towards outright hate speech laws, and if it is smuggled in here under the guise of "professionalism," we've got a problem, Houston.

Having students as FB friends is a bad idea. I've made one exception over the years, and that was only after she had completed the course and I knew she wouldn't be taking me again. She also wasn't a typical student. She was young but all grown up, with a husband and children and a conservative disposition in moral matters. High school students are out of the question.

I'd be interested in knowing whether this guy was inviting students to be his friends, or was accepting friend requests from them. Still, as long as he's not attacking individual students but only expressing his opinion on a moral issue, he ought to be able to say what he wants. If he had said (as Beth wonders) that all the heterosexual homophobes who oppose the NY law made him want to puke, would Mr. Buell's job be at stake, and, if so, would people like al support that punishment?

if he has a FB account that he has integrated with his teaching activities

And this is baloney as well. Notice the slide here: If you have your students as Facebook friends, then you have "integrated" every word you utter that your friends can read on Facebook with your "teaching activities."

Notice how this would apply to having a group of people that happened to include students (as well as non-students) over to your house. Does that mean that every word you say to the group there is now "integrated" with your teaching activities? What if you gave a speech at a local club which students were allowed to attend and which some did attend? Is that speech now automatically part of your "teaching activities" because students were present? What if students go to your church??? Wow, now if you teach that homosexual acts are perverse in a Sunday School class that includes students, maybe that's "integrated" with your teaching activities. And on and on and on. It's utterly absurd to imply that because some out-of-class activity includes students as members who are able to "hear" what you say, this out-of-class activity is now just an extension of the classroom.

I notice that Al apparently thinks it somehow intensifies the offensiveness and possible punishment-worthiness of a remark if one says that people's bodies are God-given and that this is one of the reasons why they should not defile them. That religion stuff--makes everything worse. Like a bad seasoning or something.

Personally, I think Buell should quit. The administration seems to neither understand what education or ethics is. Maybe they just don't understand ideas that start with the letter E: essential freedoms, excellence, earnestness of conscience, effects of truth, elementary logic, endēmeō (okay, that's Greek, but I thought I would throw it in), evidence, etc.

They do seem to understand half of the ideas starting with the letter H: hate, hate-speech, homophobia, harass, harangue, hell-bent ideology, hoo-ha...

They don't seem to understand the other half of the H: humility, hope, helpfulness, him, her, hero, husband, horror, homeschooling...

Would he really want to work for such a district? If their ethics are this timid about eternal realities, then, if he could afford to, he should look into changing to a private Christian School. The right one would probably take him with open arms.

Really, threatening to fire him is like turning up the heat on a three-day old carton of milk. It may make the administration feel good, but there is no way to disguise the stench.

Oh, and what do his student's learn: that history is made by the powerful, not those who speak truth. Way to go there, school district...The point is that they cannot argue why what he did is a genuine violation of ethics - they just define it to be so. History in degenerating societies has ever been such. Buell should not be surprised, merely saddened.

The Chicken

That's Step 1 towards outright hate speech laws, and if it is smuggled in here under the guise of "professionalism," we've got a problem, Houston.

Step 2 is outlawing speech that falls under the category of fighting words. Oops, too late. To be fair, the fighting words standard has a lot of restrictions and I don't think the teacher crossed that line. Although I do find it strange you can't tell the difference between saying X is wrong and should be forbidden and saying X is a cesspool. You really think Bill Donohue wouldn't blow a gasket if a public school teacher wrote that about the Vatican, even if it was somewhat private by being on his Facebook page? What if a Muslim teacher writes that infidels are disgusting trash, and it sickens him to treat them like his "good Muslim students"? Would any sane non-Muslim parent be comfortable with their child in his classroom?

And if a teacher were to refer on his Facebook page to "bigots" or "homophobes" who consider homosexual acts to be immoral this should be grounds for investigation and possible dismissal, because he might have students who consider homosexual acts to be immoral.

Of course I dispute the premise that thinking homosexual acts are immoral automatically makes one a bigot. However, using language that is far more extreme and inconsistent (i.e. giving contraceptive sex a free pass) is a fairly good sign that it involves something beyond a moral judgement. In general, I would prefer to call it a world-view defense mechanism, not a phobia. But a few people are in fact phobic, so it can occasionally be an apt description.
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/09/freuds-ghost-and-quest-for-authentic_15.html

Again, the school board is missing the chance for Buell to teach his students the delicious irony of the whole thing: the state legislature did an end-run around the democratic principle because most New Yorkers, if given a vote, would have turned down the law. So much for a good civics lesson.

The Chicken

Would he really want to work for such a district?

Presumably, because it's worked well for 22 years. Normally, Chicken, I'd agree with you. I'd be inclined to tell any Christian teacher in a K-12 public school setting that he's walking on thin ice and might as well get out while the getting is good. But when someone has made a successful life of it and believes he is doing good work, it's difficult to argue with that. What Mr. Buell is learning is that the times they are a-changin'. Let's just hope that attitude doesn't spread to purging all the conservative Christians systematically from post-secondary education as well. I suppose the tenure system helps somewhat at the college level.

You really think Bill Donohue wouldn't blow a gasket if a public school teacher wrote that about the Vatican, even if it was somewhat private by being on his Facebook page?

Whether he would or wouldn't, I have no doubt that it would automatically be considered protected speech by the teacher's employers.


What if a Muslim teacher writes that infidels are disgusting trash, and it sickens him to treat them like his "good Muslim students"?

And where did Buell make any comment about being sickened by treating students well? Oh, that's right. He didn't. In fact, he didn't say anything about students at all nor about treating them in any way at all. He said that the sexual activities of homosexual people constitute a "cesspool." I agree with that sentiment, by the way.

That young people are being systematically encouraged to get involved in that cesspool is a case for God to make a large order of millstones, not a case for punishing Buell. You want to talk about "unprofessionalism"? I'll tell you who is "unprofessional." It's the teachers and administrators who welcome "GLBT" clubs at their high schools.

To say that we cannot express disgust at terrible actions which children and young people are being encouraged in doing simply because some of them might, in fact, be doing those acts and, worse, identifying themselves with them, is utterly perverse. If young people were being taught to eat dirt and proudly to identify themselves as dirt eaters during their high school days, this would be no reason for punishing people who express disgust at the activity. To the contrary.

You really think Bill Donohue wouldn't blow a gasket if a public school teacher wrote that about the Vatican, even if it was somewhat private by being on his Facebook page?

Actually, no, because there are, at any time, at least 10 comments per minute being posted on the Internet exactly like that by atheists and rabid Fundamentalists, including, probably, some public school teachers. People have freedom of religion and religious expression, even if they are wrong. A certain conscience must be followed, even if in error. Donohue knows this. In the case of these comments, it becomes a matter of apologetics and disputation.

In Buell's case, the administration should have been called upon to explain why they thought what Buell did was morally wrong amd allowed Buell to respond so that a good, old-fashioned airing of views and a public forum debate could be had. They didn't because they know they would lose the debate and expose their flawed, psychology-saturated, modernist views to be the inconsistencies they are.

The test of hurt feelings among some students is not a valid defense in this case because error has no rights and the truth will, occasionally, sting. If one is phobic about the letter 3, should he be excused from geometry because he might hear the word, pi? Psychologists and their influence on society, not to mention the fears of lawsuits from lawyers, have done a real disservice to the exploration of truth in the public forum, in my opinion. At least no one sued Einstein for doing physics.

Either Buell is right, in which case the school administration should be exposed for being the mindless representatives of moral license that they are, or they should prove Buell wrong by arguing that his position is wrong, but that is not how modern school systems work.

Socrates would be ashamed.

I would love to be irenic in this matter, but the inconsistencies among school districts across the country in fundamental matters of truth is astounding. One school holds that Creationism is a plausible theory, while another holds that marriage is anything other than that between a man and a woman.

At least no one has tried to re-define addition and subtraction even if we can't punish students for failing to learn the concepts. Funny, we seem to be able to punish students for failing to learn just about anything that is the prevailing norm of a mixed up society - except those eternal sums and differences that apply to concrete and steel - things that will keep bridges from falling and tunnels from collapsing. Imagine no one could tell an engineer that his figures were off because it would hurt his feelings.

Modern education: go figure.

The Chicken

What Mr. Buell is learning is that the times they are a-changin'. Let's just hope that attitude doesn't spread to purging all the conservative Christians systematically from post-secondary education as well. I suppose the tenure system helps somewhat at the college level.

Yeah, they are changing and tenure is becoming a thing of the past, as well. We are not there yet, but give colleges a few more years.

I realize he has taught there for 22 years, but unless the administration gets slapped down, hard, his life will not be pleasant at that school for a long time to come. If he has the stomach for it and doesn't get fired, he can be a good witness for Christian patience and perhaps God can replace the administration with those more sympathetic to Buell - miracles have happened. It would be far better if we, as Christians, could change the country so that the Buells in education did not have to fight against the tide. That is one miracle I would like to see.

As for Buell quitting, in education, challenging an administration that has fired a person, even if one wins, is usually a death-blow to further employment. At least it often is at the college level unless one is re-instated at the school, but even then, it is almost impossible to not be remembered as being, "that teacher."

That is what happened to Scopes. He never worked as a biology teacher, again. I did find out something interesting in reading his on-line biography:

After the trial, Scopes accepted a scholarship for graduate study in geology at the University of Chicago. He then did geological field work in Venezuela for Gulf Oil of South America. There he met and married his wife, Mildred, and was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1930, he returned to the University of Chicago for a third year of graduate study. After two years without professional employment, he took a position as a geologist with the United Gas Company, for which he studied oil reserves. He worked, first in Houston, Texas and then in Shreveport, Louisiana, until he retired in 1963.

The Chicken

What really shocks me, when I come to think of it, is this: For years, public schools across the country have taught children *in school* about sexual acts that would in another age have had people arrested if they taught minors about them. They have normalized and celebrated these acts. They have had "coming out days" and "days of silence" and started clubs to celebrate these acts, right in the schools.

And now a Christian teacher expresses, on his own time and on a personal page that cannot possibly be thought of as representing the school district, understandable disgust at sexual perversion, and what do we hear? That he may be guilty of "unprofessionalism"!! And why? Because perhaps some of his students have decided to identify themselves with the sexual perversion that has been celebrated and normalized and taught to them in their schools!

It's sick. It shows that our society is morally sick, perhaps even unto death.

Al:

I'm not sure what was unprofessional about the post. Imagine, for example, that Mr. Buell were gay and he referred on his Facebook page to "homophobic bigots" protesting in the streets against gay marriage. Do you think he would lose his employ over this? Would that be "unprofessional"? Or suppose Mr. Buell were a teacher in Wisconsin and he referred to his boss, the governor, as "Hitler," which apparently some were apt to do several weeks ago. I suspect that he would receive a medal from the Chris Matthews Foundation (if there is such thing).

Here's the problem. On a matter that touches on our deepest beliefs about the end or purpose of our gifts and powers, citizens are going to hold strong opinions. What we should teach our children is not to be bullies about it, by employing the powers of government to silence what they don't want to hear. Rather, what we should do is teach them that tolerance entails, indeed requires, a certain level of intestinal fortitude, that intellectual integrity demands a certain courage to engage, with as much respect as we can muster, those with whom we disagree. It is better for a child's soul that he learn how to handle a rhetorical excess with grace than that he be indoctrinated to believe that might makes right is the heart of justice.

And where did Buell make any comment about being sickened by treating students well? Oh, that's right. He didn't. In fact, he didn't say anything about students at all nor about treating them in any way at all.


I'd add that expressions of visceral disgust ("X makes me want to puke") need not be connected to any moral view. Someone might have that reaction to homosexuality, obesity, etc. and yet not have any ethical qualms about it (or have no objection to treating others according to a rule of nondiscrimination even if one does have ethical qualms) and vice-versa. Should teachers be penalized for an expression of visceral disgust simply because someone might be offended? Perhaps all teachers need to undergo testing to screen out anyone who might exhibit any visible signs of visceral disgust or moral disgust at any student attribute or behavior.

Perhaps all teachers need to undergo testing to screen out anyone who might exhibit any visible signs of visceral disgust or moral disgust at any student attribute or behavior.

Someone actually sent me a link a few months ago to an article that says a test has been developed for negative reactions in counseling students to homosexuality. Satire is dead. Now they just have to force all K-12 teachers to take it.

"Imagine, for example, that Mr. Buell were gay and he referred on his Facebook page to 'homophobic bigots' protesting in the streets against gay marriage. ...Would that be 'unprofessional'?"

If he was in a context where his declaration amounted to a direct and personal denunciation of a student, or a parent of a student, of his, and he could reasonably assume said student or parent would be likely to hear/read it, and it was obvious from that context that that personal incivility was conscious and intentional, then yes: it would be unprofessional. (At present, of course, whether Buell's specific actions meet this strict definition is unknown.)

"Professionalism" means to treat people with whom you must professionally interact with basic, dispassionate civility, regardless of your personal opinion of or disagreement with them, especially if your disagreements are not directly relevant to or affect your professional functions with regard to each other. It also means that where there is room for doubt or misinterpretation, you err on the side of politeness as far as possible.

Would that particular example get a teacher fired? Probably not (although if he'd said "Christian homophobic bigots" he might be in more trouble). That there is a distinct double standard in when and on whose behalf this standard is enforced, I can't and don't deny, and agree that this double standard leads to hypocrisies Lydia rightfully notes are ridiculous. But I have always believed that double standards in enforcing standards aren't reason enough in itself to get rid of the standard.

Followup in the spirit of improving the Catholic combox atmosphere: If any vehemence or emphasis I used came across as angry or condescending, I apologize and will work harder to be more courteous in future.

If he was in a context where his declaration amounted to a direct and personal denunciation of a student, or a parent of a student, of his,

I'm trying to imagine some kind of context, here. Would it be sufficient that he simply knew that some of his students had expressed such opposition and would, in fact, read the status update? I really don't see that. Obviously, I hold no brief for calling people "homophobic bigots," because I think it's completely confused and delusional, out of touch with reality, and for that reason nasty. (That is to say, it wouldn't be nasty to call me a "poison-ivy-phobe," because in point of fact I _do_ have a phobia about poison ivy. It is nasty to call people "phobic" when their apprehensions are not irrational and when this is applied to legitimate differences of opinion.)

In that sense, I suppose the truth or falsehood of some response may make one think of it as nasty or not nasty. But if we _try_ to abstract that out, then, no, I don't think the mere fact that someone you have to interact with professionally is going to read something that is, in fact, a denunciation of a position he takes makes it a "personal denunciation" of that person. People need to toughen up in life.

I wouldn't employ such a person as Bill describes at a Christian school. But that's for reasons that should be obvious and that are related to the person's actual position on the issue.

Socrates would be ashamed.

Socrates was openly gay, so I doubt it.

As for the rest of the chicken scratches, I do not support discipline of any kind from his employer. What I do support is a public reaction to his comments, so that he knows he has in fact committed "rhetorical excess." Maybe you should get your story straight (pun!) before leaping to conclusions.

I'd add that expressions of visceral disgust ("X makes me want to puke") need not be connected to any moral view.

So what? It plainly does connect in this case.

Satire is dead.

The Three Stooges will resurrect him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxAk3B_zS5k

Would it be sufficient that he simply knew that some of his students had expressed such opposition and would, in fact, read the status update?

Given that in order to read someone's status updates on Facebook, you have to have deliberately friended them beforehand -- and given that once you have so friended them, receiving such updates on your own homepage is automatic -- then yes, I'd call that sufficient: you know who your audience is, you know that at least some of them are (or are reasonably likely to be) part of the group you're targeting, and you know they have no choice but to "hear" you; you therefore cannot reasonably be held to be unaware of the reach and potential impact of your statements. Especially, again, if you have integrated that channel of communication into your function as a teacher, and your students must read every update as part of their academic obligations.

Taking advantage of a captive audience to proselytize to them about something that has nothing to do with why they're there is unprofessional, especially if it involves unrequested and hostile criticism of them, and even more especially if you know they're part of what you're criticizing and they know you know. (Let us be honest: If you know I am a Catholic, and you say something that is viciously hurtful about Catholics to a group I'm part of, and you know I will hear it and I know you know, is the simple fact that you have not used my name or spoken to me individually enough to render your malice "impersonal"?)

This is one of the reasons, in fact, that I feel social media like Twitter and Facebook are highly inappropriate as educational and correspondence tools for underage students; it's simply too easy for one mistake or one ill-considered remark to spiral out of control throughout an entire community and lose all context in the process, and it does not facilitate forgiveness to have an easily-accessible and permanent record of one's worst moments available for anyone's regard -- especially interwoven with an aggregate of vitriolic response that makes context difficult to find and fairly assess.

Denying an authority the right to silence what it doesn't want to hear doesn't automatically give it the right to force you to listen to what it thinks you should hear.

I wrote:

Socrates would be ashamed.

Step2 wrote:

Socrates was openly gay, so I doubt it.

But what I said in context was:

Either Buell is right, in which case the school administration should be exposed for being the mindless representatives of moral license that they are, or they should prove Buell wrong by arguing that his position is wrong, but that is not how modern school systems work.

Socrates would be ashamed.

I would love to be irenic in this matter, but the inconsistencies among school districts across the country in fundamental matters of truth is astounding. One school holds that Creationism is a plausible theory, while another holds that marriage is anything other than that between a man and a woman.

Clearly, I was referring to Socrates's standards for teaching and seeking the truth, not anything having to do with his sexual preferences, which are quite irrelevant to the point I was making - that school administrations, which are supposed to be supporters of rational truth-seeking, are often anything but that.

Throwing in a non sequitur and a semantic equivocation is not nice. Aristotle would frown. Now, if it helps in the discussion, substitute Aristotle for Socrates in what I wrote, above.

The Chicken

Especially, again, if you have integrated that channel of communication into your function as a teacher, and your students must read every update as part of their academic obligations.

Well, I know Stephen that you've repeatedly said that we don't know this or don't know that about the scenario, but I have to ask: Why even bring this up? I mean, seriously? Why in the world would anyone think that Buell said to his students, "You have to read all my status updates or you may miss some assignment"? or "You have to read all my status updates as part of your academic obligations"? I've never even _heard_ of a teacher doing that with his personal FB page. I can't imagine why a teacher would do that. It's a totally bizarre conjecture.

Taking advantage of a captive audience to proselytize to them about something that has nothing to do with why they're there is unprofessional,

Being his FB friends equals being a captive audience? Say, what? They could either have refused to accept or send him a FB friend request. They could defriend him at any time. By the way, he expressly _invited_ people who felt offended by one of his comments to defriend him--some comment like, "If you want to unfriend me because I said that, go ahead." This is not even _remotely_ someone who is trying to "force" somebody else to listen to what he says. And there is even a "hide this person from my newsfeed" function on FB that is midway between getting all that person's updates and outright defriending! In fact, FB even started a few months ago _suppressing_ updates from "friends" one hadn't interacted with directly in a while. If one just left that default in place and didn't respond to Buell, his updates wouldn't even come up on one's feed!

See, Stephen, this is just part of this whole line of argument that I think is so crazy-misguided: We go from, "Some of a teacher's FB 'friends' were his students" to "The teacher was 'using FB to communicate with his students'" (which is already ambiguous) to "The teacher was communicating with his students as a captive audience, as if they were in his class and had to listen to him" to "Therefore, every word he says in a status update on FB is to be evaluated just like something said in class."

It's much _more_ like a scenario where you are giving a speech, where you are *in no way* representing the school, and some students choose to come to the speech. Or where you write an article on a blog that they choose to read. If they then hear or read something that is "hurtful" to a demographic they happen to belong to, they need to man up and deal with it. Nobody made them come or read the piece. I'm sorry, but, "So-and-so knows that some of his students are going to hear or read what he says" does _not_ mean that so-and-so has to be all sweetness and light about every designated victim group to which his students belong or might belong!

And frankly: I don't think that it's "viciously hurtful" to call the homosexual lifestyle a sewer and to say that watching two men kissing on television makes you want to throw up.

What one calls "vicious" is going to depend in part on what one thinks to be true. Maybe it could do some students good to encounter a _normal_ person's response, the response of a human being uncorrupted by the zeitgeist, to the perversions they have been taught to regard as normal and to celebrate.

And, yes, if you were giving a speech, you might see some of your students in the audience, so you would know that they were hearing it. Or they might be on the RSS feed of your blog and might tell you so, so they would be reading your posts as they come up. So in those cases, too, you might know who your audience was going to include. That should not mean that you cannot express yourself forcefully, even using forceful adjectives, on a matter of public concern that happens to have impact for a demographic group to which some student, who has chosen to be a member of your audience, belongs.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Step2.

It's just silly to describe Socrates as "openly gay."

Admittedly, in the *Gorgias*, he says that he is "in love...with Alcibiades" - but it is made abundantly clear in the *Symposium* that his passion for Alcibiades is not a *physical* passion - no more than Alcibiades' passion for him is a *physical* passion (Socrates was, after all, famous for his ugliness).

At our distance, it's probably impossible fully to understand what was going on with classical Greek "homosexuality" - but I think the links to present day gay culture are tenuous at best.

Yeah, I was going to ask Step2 where he got that.

At our distance, it's probably impossible fully to understand what was going on with classical Greek "homosexuality"

That sounds right, Steve. A little reading made it clear that a lot of people think they know something they don't.

@Lydia: "I don't think that it's 'viciously hurtful' to call the homosexual lifestyle a sewer and to say that watching two men kissing on television makes you want to throw up."

Quite right, Lydia. No gay man worth his salt is genuinely "hurt" by such stuff, anymore. Twenty, thirty years ago...maybe. But today? No.

Times have changed, and the balance of power has changed, with astonishing swiftness.

By the way, he expressly _invited_ people who felt offended by one of his comments to defriend him--some comment like, "If you want to unfriend me because I said that, go ahead."

From your own link to Fox News: Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”

What a really nice guy. Was there some tragic mistake when his school picked their teacher of the year? I'm just not seeing how this guy won the award.

At our distance, it's probably impossible fully to understand what was going on with classical Greek "homosexuality" - but I think the links to present day gay culture are tenuous at best.

I didn't say Socrates was gay in modern terms, but I think he was homosexually obsessed in ancient Greek terms. Warning to Lydia and others - do not read this link if you are disgusted by accounts of homosexual behavior.
http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html

Yeah, Lydia, don't read it. I had found it earlier but not worth a reference. Surely you can see how awful that article is, Step2, with such terrible distortions as

It should be added that for Plato, the only type of real love is the love between two men, and he has dedicated two of his dialogues to that subject: the Symposium and the Phaedrus. After all, homo-erotic love is related to education and gaining knowledge, and this makes it superior to other types of love.

And such flat-out lies as
This is a bolder portrayal than that of Plato (whose Socrates sometimes yielded to the temptation), but both writers [the other being Xenophon] agree that their master believed that the contacts between erastes and eromenos could not only be aimed at sexual love, but also at obtaining moral wisdom and strength. A rather remarkable educational ideal.

You might contrast it with the work of a genuine scholar, one of whom says:

This is made clear in Sir Kenneth Dover's book Greek Homosexuality; in Dover's summarising words: "Xenophon's Socrates lacks the sensibility and urbanity of the Platonic Socrates, but there is no doubt that both of them condemn homosexual copulation." It is also made clear by Gregory Vlastos in his last book, precisely on Socrates: In Socratic ero^s involving relationships of affection between men and boys or youths, intimacy is limited to mind- and eye-contact and "terminal gratification" is forbidden (and a fortiori in relationships between adult males, since virtually all Athenians regarded sex acts between adult males as intrinsically shameful)....What, then, about Plato? Well, the same Plato who in his Symposium wrote a famous celebration of romantic and spiritual man-boy erotic relationships, made very clear that all forms of sexual conduct outside heterosexual marriage are shameful, wrongful and harmful. This is particularly evident from his treatment of the matter in his last work, the Laws, but is also sufficiently clear in the Republic and the Phaedrus, and even in the Symposium itself. This is affirmed unequivocally both by Dover and by Vlastos, neither of whom favours these views of Plato.

And he sources every claim he makes. I've left out all the footnotes.

As to Mr. Buell's irascibility on his FB page, so what? Is one's livelihood to be threatened because one is not afflicted with terminal niceness?

As to Mr. Buell's irascibility on his FB page, so what? Is one's livelihood to be threatened because one is not afflicted with terminal niceness?

That's what gets me a bit about this--the inverted priorities and lack of perspective. Had Buell been teaching, in the school, the details of homosexual acts and normalizing them, nobody would have considered this a scandal. (Let that sink in for a minute. Forty years ago it certainly would have been a scandal.) He makes a few irascible comments that, inter alia, include highly negative references to homosexual practice in a _personal forum_ on his own time, and the kids are running around gleefully sending page-caps of his Facebook page to the school as if they caught him doing some horrible thing!

This is nuts.

Surely you can see how awful that article is, Step2...

The article was a compilation of many things I had read in other places, albeit one that was a lot more explicit than I would prefer. Your linked article reads like a Catholic position paper, so I'm thinking maybe the author's religious preferences colored his view rather strongly. For both Plato and Socrates, there is a cultural context that despite living in a city named after the female goddess of wisdom, most intellectual activity was engaged in by men because of gender discrimination against women in civic life. So for people interested in a life of philosophy and education, it was almost exclusively a male endeavor and erotic relationships based on that shared interest were virtually inevitable. What I've read about Plato on this subject says that he changed his mind about homo-eroticism later in life, so I don't treat his writings as being consistent. Socrates, on the other hand, was infatuated with boys until his death and his trial may have been partially caused by his extracurricular activity.

Is one's livelihood to be threatened because one is not afflicted with terminal niceness?

Of course not, I don't want him disciplined in any way by his employer for what he wrote. In the same way that Dawkins' irascibility often works against him, Buell is a walking advertisement against his own goals.

Of course not, I don't want him disciplined in any way by his employer for what he wrote.

You do realize that you're unusual in this regard among liberals in this thread, Step2? Our Al has sometimes in the past portrayed himself as something of a civil libertarian, but apparently not when it comes to those he thinks of as "bigots." That's come out here.

"As to Mr. Buell's irascibility on his FB page, so what? Is one's livelihood to be threatened because one is not afflicted with terminal niceness?"

Which totally misses the point. He is in a power relationship with folks whose core identity elicits a highly negative, possibly uncontrollable, emotional reaction from him. It is entirely reasonable for his employers to seek to discover if he is capable of doing his job in respect to those students who are gay.

I know, I know, he has awards; he also has 22 years on the job so it is possible he has burned out or is in the beginning of a burn out. People have things happen in their lives. It might be that his hyper-religiosity and homophobia are the result of some change in his life. Uncontrollable incivility is sometimes a sign of something going wrong.

All of us, including teachers, have an absolute right to be bigots in our own minds. Once we publicly express that bigotry we assume the risk that employers and clients are going to reevaluate their relationship with us in the light of their responsibilities and values.

If the investigation shows that he has treated gay students fairly and we aren't dealing with some sort of recently acquired mental defect then he shouldn't be fired (if we are dealing with some sort of breakdown we are looking at disability not firing). The school district, of course, needs to set some policy guidelines on personnel and social media (how is it that only two of us find a teacher having students as "friends" on FB problematic?).


"You do realize that you're unusual in this regard among liberals in this thread, Step2? Our Al has sometimes in the past portrayed himself as something of a civil libertarian, but apparently not when it comes to those he thinks of as "bigots." That's come out here."

Teachers have a right to be bigots. Students have a right to be treated fairly and not be bullied in the classroom. Parents and school boards have a right to expect teachers to do the job for which they are paid. Both Lydia and Dr. Beckwith seem to believe that the intensity underlying an expression (as long as it socially conservative and Christian) trumps all other considerations. That seems a child's view of "freedom" to me (the assertion that only the government can bully is an example of conservatism's continuing downward spiral).

It might be that his hyper-religiosity and homophobia are the result of some change in his life.

Careful, Al, your heterophobic prejudice is showing.

There is nothing "hyper"religious about believing that homosexual acts are revolting, as wholly inconsistent with natural law. It's just silly to say that. Even if the natural law said nothing about it, merely holding Christianity as being true doesn't make one "hyperreligious". And there is no phobia in calling revolting things revolting. One might as well say you have a phobia to ipecac.

As with the extreme left wing of liberalism, you come off sounding like you believe that religion in general is pure superstition and that anyone who holds it ought to have the common to hold it like they hold their other superstitions - cracked mirrors, walking under ladders, etc.

Students have a right to be treated fairly and not be bullied in the classroom.

He wasn't _in_ the classroom. This has to be said?

All of us, including teachers, have an absolute right to be bigots in our own minds. Once we publicly express that bigotry we assume the risk that employers and clients are going to reevaluate their relationship with us in the light of their responsibilities and values.

This is not true, as evidenced by the fact that his supporters cannot lawfully withdraw their support from his employer for clashing with their values. That is called tax evasion, among other things. Your point implicitly assumes the ability of all Free and Equal men to give and withdraw consent, but things simply do not work that way because your side won't allow for it in many social functions like public education.

Students have a right to be treated fairly and not be bullied in the classroom.

In the absence of actual hard evidence that he has mistreated anyone, the school officials should be facing severe legal sanctions. A society that wants to, you know, defend individual rights (especially for minorities) must react swiftly and brutally to officials who violate even the spirit of constitutional rights like due process of law.

"He wasn't _in_ the classroom. This has to be said?"

I don't believe anyone claimed he was. He made bigoted remarks on his Facebook account, to which some of his students had access because he friended them. Bad judgment as to boundaries along with bigoted remarks and an "in your face"attitude make further inquiries reasonable. That's all. He's back on the job now.

"There is nothing "hyper"religious about believing that homosexual acts are revolting..."

True, but there is if we have this on his school bio page,

"First and foremost, I am a man of God. I try to teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself. That doesn’t mean I give a sermon and serve communion each day…what it means is I try my very best to teach and serve and minister to my students as a teacher led by and connected to the Creator of the Universe…"

"Lake Co. Schools and Mt Dora HS tell me what to teach; God guides me in how I do that, and it is all done with a Servant’s heart, to the best of my abilities."

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2011/08/Buell1.png

then I'll stand by the description, which BTW is his right to be as long as it doesn't negatively affect his job.

"Careful, Al, your heterophobic prejudice is showing."

Nah, I'm just a bit cynical.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/in_goper_i_just_talked_about_baseball_with_the_you.php

Al, you don't seem to get what it means to be a Christian. To be Christian means to let the grace and message and love of God penetrate your every conscious act, so that every such act adheres to love ... er, to Love, since God is love. It isn't hyper-religious to live that way when you are teaching in a public school, it's merely religious. Same way when you are a clerk in a grocery store, allowing each customer receive your services as Christ would receive them, or when you are a mathematician for a company and you perform your duties out of love for your boss, your fellow employees, the customers, etc. Or when you are a ditch-digger and you treat each client with the respect that you would show Christ.

A teacher's most fundamental calling is to enable the students to perceive the truth. A Christian knows that the truth is always and everywhere intimately touching God, who identified Himself with the Truth. So a teacher wanting to emulate Jesus by teaching in such a way that his students have a better connection to truth - whether that truth be geometry, french, or economics - is a pretty basic Christian stance. That's how I taught algebra and calculus when I was an adjunct. That's all Buell was saying, so far as I can see in your quote.

A teacher's most fundamental calling is to enable the students to perceive the truth.

Actually, that enabling is done by the Holy Spirit. The teacher, if he is lucky, is merely a part of the Divine Hand's movement in that direction, but even then, at his very best, the teacher can do nothing but eliminate the obstacles to truth. The perception of truth (and Truth) must needs be done, alone, within the silence of the soul.

Let's look at Buell's claim:

"Lake Co. Schools and Mt Dora HS tell me what to teach; God guides me in how I do that, and it is all done with a Servant’s heart, to the best of my abilities."

What he is describing is the virtue of prudence, but one must ask if it really were prudence to make a half-hearted, hand-waiving description of what he believed during what should have been a moment of important apologetics? That is the problem with Facebook. It encourages superficial commentary.

If he really were being a teacher, he should have given a commentary not only on what he believes, but why he believes it. He could have touched on the moral, sociological, and natural law reasons why the New York law was a poor one. That would have been serving his students as students.

Instead, he made a diatribe. That is not unethical, I don't believe, since it is a private account and free speech (the administration is simply wrong about this not being free speech), but it is not engaging his students as a servant.

The use of social media is still too new for some to realize the types of restraint and clarity needed on the Internet when in the public forum (or semi-private forum, as in Facebook). His opinion is correct, no matter what the lily-livered administration thinks, but he has shown poor judgment in its delivery. At most, he simply needs training in the adage, "think before you post."

Was he being guided by God? Interesting question, since a truth delivered badly can be almost as damaging as a lie. In my opinion, he did not act with a servant's heart in this matter, but with a triumphalist one, perhaps. Indeed, 2Ti 2:24-26 says this very thing:

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

The Chicken


I understand Tony but a Christian who would write a bio like his would be a subset of the subset of Christians who actually try to follow that path. That justifies the "hyper" as far as I'm concerned but I'll allow that another term could serve just as well. I'll also allow that a homophobic Christian with a servant heart is likely preferable to a homophobe, Christian or not who lacks a servant sense.

"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

So a person who has visceral reaction is simply human. A person who gives in to a visceral moment has been ensnared by the devil. Then how is it not that a person who justifies rather then repents of such a surrender is continuing down a dark path?.

If he didn't, then this may simply be a First Amendment issue, but I'm not hopeful there either. The First Amendment simply means the government can't criminally punish you for your speech and opinions; I am not sure that means a government agency can't fire you for behaving like a jerk in public.

In order to evaluate whether the district has the right to fire or otherwise sanction a teacher for speech, it's important to first ask whether it is reasonable for high school teachers, due to the nature of their job, to be held to a different standard than the average citizen. For example, decades of case law indicate that Americans have a right to publish nude photographs of themselves. No court would hold that a person doesn't have a free speech right to create naked images, as long as the person in those images is a legal adult. Does it follow that all public school teachers have a right to publish naked photos of themselves--in books, or in magazines, or in calendars, or on the Internet--without consequence?

A teacher in Virginia, Stephen Murmer, was fired in 2006 for making and selling paintings, under a pseudonym, using his posterior as a "paintbrush." In 2006, in Austin, a teacher was fired after her lover posted topless photos of her on the Internet. In Florida in 2006, high school teacher Tiffany Sheperd was fired from her job at a public high school when photographs of her in a bikini were published online. A substitute teacher was fired in the Miami-Dade school district this summer because he had previously worked as a porn star.

Were any of those firings legally justified? If your answer is yes, then the question of whether a school district can fire a teacher for Constitutionally-protected speech is settled. The next question is: is it reasonable for Jerry Buell to be fired or disciplined for this particular Constitutionally-protected speech?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.