Teacher reprimanded for telling class she wished GWB had been a victim of 911.

October 2, 2001 7:42 PM

Teacher reprimanded for telling class she wished GWB had been a victim of 911. In other news a man was arrested for burning a U.S. flag in IN. Personally, America isn't a free country where you can't express yourself.
posted by HoldenCaulfield (49 comments total)

well, i agree you should be able to express yourself, like flag burning, or telling your friends you wish someone died. but you shouldn't tell your elementary students that. you shouldn't expect to have free speech when you're representing a larger entity (school)
posted by rhyax at 7:47 PM on October 2, 2001

This woman is real lucky the Secret Service didn't consider that a threat.
posted by kindall at 7:52 PM on October 2, 2001

Why not rhyax? Why can't the teacher express what she feels? Even in class. The children would probably go home and tell their parents what the teacher said but would not be negatively influenced. My grade 11 English teacher is very provocative in regards to 911; he says that America had it coming and he still has his job. Everything is based on opinion, and getting rid of a teacher because she expressed herself differently and not to our liking is not freedom. End of story.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 7:56 PM on October 2, 2001

We "had it coming"?

Right. Your grade 11 English teacher is a self-righteous jerk.

No one has mass-murder "coming." No one involved in perpetrating the 9.11 tragedy is justified, in ANY way.
posted by tomorama at 8:01 PM on October 2, 2001

tomorama - the content of what he said is besides the point, what is important is to be able to say it.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 8:03 PM on October 2, 2001

Holden, a teacher shouldn't be telling his class he wishes a person died a horrible, firey death. That's not exactly the kind of example they should be setting for the children.
posted by Doug at 8:03 PM on October 2, 2001

It'd be neat if she had a blog. I'd like to hear her side of it.

12 August, 2001

Kids at lunch. Spent the whole time trying to get a damn window shut. Only to have it continually pop up. I'm never clicking on a link from that brat Johnnie again. He's getting a checkmark by his name after recess.

--And what's with the *filtering* software around here? Must get with Superintendent Gaetz about that.

Sounds like it's been a witchunt for some time. Obviously, there's more that meets the eye with this story.
posted by crasspastor at 8:05 PM on October 2, 2001

Any teacher that would make a statement wishing death on anyone in front of children has no place being a teacher. Now, before you say "but what about teaching all of the wars the US has been in, in the past". I'm saying that expressing a personal desire for someone else to die, in front of impressionable children, is not proper behavior for a teacher.

Holden, there is a world of difference in what a teacher can say in front of 11th graders, and elementary school children, as is the case here.
posted by jbelshaw at 8:05 PM on October 2, 2001

Holden:

A) You're in high school. This lady teaches elementary school. Parents have the right to shield younger children from negative influences, because they are not yet capable of sorting truth from bs on their own. Teachers are supposed to be authority figures, after all; parents shouldn't have to be constantly undermining them by correcting what they've said.

B) Even in high school, where you admittedly have a much higher (though still quite possibly incomplete) ability to sort truth from bs, a teacher is not being paid to use her students as a captive audience for her bully pulpit. If she's a history teacher, using the provocative questions for learning; then great. But there's a line that needs to be drawn there.

C) She can say anything she wants when she's not standing in front of her class.

D) This woman in particular was also using school computers to repeatedly view porno sites over a period of "months and months". It's about more than just what she said to her students.
posted by gd779 at 8:05 PM on October 2, 2001

Doug - I agree, but we do not know what were the circumstances during the incident. Was the comment sarcastic, was it morbid, was it bitter etc. From what I have read, in this case, the teacher is thus far the victim.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 8:08 PM on October 2, 2001

Um- let's not forget that, at least as this article suggests, there isn't solid evidence she ever said any such thing. Notice also how the school board pulled in the old "surfing porn" trick- a typical sign that the school board has little to no case, so has to all but make up shit to pin on her. As crasspastor notes (on the refresh) it sounds like they've been targeting her for while.
posted by hincandenza at 8:10 PM on October 2, 2001

I remember one of my favourite teachers at primary school, at a time when the unions were organising strike action, and a girl asked him what he felt about the strike. And he said, "that's something that I can't talk about." And he was right. If you're a teacher, especially with younger children, don't take personal politics into the classroom. Imagine the alternative, especially in places like Northern Ireland with its highly-segregated school system: it just perpetuates partisanship.

As for the facts of this particular case, who knows? Until the hearing, we're just getting one side of the story.
posted by holgate at 8:12 PM on October 2, 2001

There is more here than meets the eye, as stated above. Point to ponder: if a student said the same thing in an oral presentation in front of the class, with complete seriousness, would he be expelled? Doubt it.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 8:14 PM on October 2, 2001

And like crasspastor said, visiting six or seven porn sites in less than a minute indicates that she was obviously the victim of popups. Maybe she accidentally typed "www.whitehouse.com" into her web browser, huh?
posted by tweebiscuit at 8:39 PM on October 2, 2001

"...that she visited pornographic sites with a school computer."

This sounds like character assassination here. What parent is going to stand behind a teacher who is into porn? This is a sick way to sway public opinion to the school's side of things. She has been found guilty already, just ask Paula Poundstone.

"Mom, Bart's swearing!"
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 8:43 PM on October 2, 2001

in this case, the teacher is thus far the victim.

But rightly so, if it's true. All this talk about victims sometimes blinds us to the fact that some people deserve to be punished for what they do. You could say the children were the victims, if you stretched it. Or GWB.

But I agree with others there's a lot missing - and too curiously evident - to the story.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:03 PM on October 2, 2001

America isn't a free country where you can't express yourself.

My brain is still trying to wrap itself around that one. Or is my brain not trying to not wrap itself arount that one, or not?
posted by Trampas at 9:17 PM on October 2, 2001

Trampas just made my nose bleed.
posted by dong_resin at 9:24 PM on October 2, 2001

I'm so tired of hearing everyone use the term "free speech" so loosely whenever anyone gets into trouble for something that was said. "Free Speech" implies that you will not be arrested, censored or detained by law enforcement for stating a belief. It doesn't mean you won't lose advertisers for your show ( like Bill Maher), or possibly lose your job as in this circumstance. After all, the advertisers have a right to advertise with whomever they wish, as well. In this case, the parents, school, etc have a say in who shapes the minds of their students/children.

The comment was clearly inappropriate in this case. With bill Maher's it was just a misunderstanding. Having said that, the producers, advertisers have every right to cancel a show which they are paying for and sponsoring if they feel his statements are inappropriate.
posted by rabbit at 9:28 PM on October 2, 2001

rotten.com isn't a porno site. Check it out. I don't know if I'd check it out at work, but I'd hate to think I could be fired for it.
posted by electro at 9:28 PM on October 2, 2001

in response, what is valid discussion in 11th grade is not in elementary school. i assume you were discussing it in your 11th grade class, i don't assume 2nd graders or whatever grade were discussing anything, they would have been listening. also your comment that if a student said it it would be ok, as if that is relevant, i think is missing the point. the student of course should be able to say it if he/she wants, they are an individual, the teacher represents the school.
posted by rhyax at 9:36 PM on October 2, 2001

Why can't the teacher express what she feels? Even in class.

As a parent of a child in elementary school, I expect his teacher to exercise good judgment in what she says to my son. On Sept. 11, the school turned off every TV and instructed teachers not to say anything about the attacks so parents would have a chance to break the news.

If this story is true, which seems doubtful, I would be complaining like hell if a teacher wished aloud to students that the president had been killed by terrorists. It's indefensible.
posted by rcade at 9:42 PM on October 2, 2001

Just a little note historical/psychological note: No society at any point in history has ever had 'free speech' as you want to define it. Americans consistently support the right to free speech in the 90-95% range (higher than any other nation in the world); ask if they support the right of Communists to speak at their city hall and the number drops to less than 50% (still quite high in comparison to other countries, though not the highest). This was true before the disaster and will be true long after this is forgotten. That's disappointing, I guess, but the sad truth.
The flip side of this is that that reaction is human nature. We're hypocrites; it's bred into us. The US is not substantially worse than any other industrialized nation on this count (statistically speaking) and is in many ways provably a more open and accepting nation. So to go casting stones at the US or any other large group of people for behavior like this is silly: out-group excoriation in times of stress and threat are perfectly natural, a trait our entire species demonstrates (not just Americans) , and not something a hell of a lot can be done about. Yes, it sucks- but it isn't something to be surprised by and it isn't confined to the US.
posted by louie at 9:43 PM on October 2, 2001

I agree with rabbit; this isn't a case of free speech, but a case of a teacher allegedly making inappropriate remarks in a high school classroom. I don't feel her remarks alone, though--if she even said them--are sufficient reason for her to be fired, and I'm not convinced that she actually said them. The "surfing porno sites" bit sounds really shady. They only list one site, rotten.com (which is gross but I wouldn't call it pornographic), and she was only there for a second. The whole setup is shady.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:50 PM on October 2, 2001

You know, I have a gut (conspiracy theory!!) feeling that this is a setup: We don`t know what she said, only something to the effect of "Bush should die." But we don`t know what she actually said. A student may have reported this to parents and seen mom`s reaction ("FIRE THE TEACHER!!!"). Kid goes to school and says "hey, we can get rid of mean Ms. Mulhearn. Go tell your parents that..."

I`m really disturbed by the Superintendent`s comments about expecting the union to fall in line and just accept that the teacher is evil.

My guess as to what she said, if anything -- "I would like to have seen how the government would have handled this if...."
posted by chiheisen at 9:51 PM on October 2, 2001

(by Holden) - Point to ponder: if a student said the same thing in an oral presentation in front of the class, with complete seriousness, would he be expelled? Doubt it.

You're kidding, right? If a kid said (during class) that he wished GWB was killed in the 911 attacks, I guarantee that the kid would be suspended and possibly expelled. Ever since Columbine, it seems that schools are quickly tossing kids out of school (or suspending them) for making threatening remarks or wishing people dead.
posted by Grum at 10:09 PM on October 2, 2001

Man, I was a little confused why someone wished that the George Washington Bridge was targeted in the attacks. (Best I could think of would be someone in Washington Heights who hates all the traffic.)

Gotta watch out, us New Yorkers are a little extra freaked out these days.

(I'm in favor of leaving both the George Washington Bridge and George W. Bush intact these days.)
posted by QrysDonnell at 10:12 PM on October 2, 2001

Why can't the teacher express what she feels? Even in class.

Holden, I am darn close to a First Amendment absolutist. Let's just say I support a very broad interpretation - flag burning, campaign finance, "Fuck the Draft" t-shirts and all.

But I also understand the difference between a teacher's right to self-expression and the proper limits of conduct expected of someone on the job.

All teachers, in my opinion, have an absolute right to embrace whatever opinions they choose, and vigorously advocate those opinions on their own time. But inside the classroom, a teacher's job is to teach the subject matter at hand, and part of that job requires reigning in one's self-expression until work is done.

I support a teacher's First Amendment right to utter the word "fuck," but I don't want it happening in front of my (hypothetical) first-grade child. I support the teacher's right to dance naked as a form of self-expression, but I don't want it happening while my child is supposed to be learning long division.

Even the lowliest level government employees can - and should - face discipline for off-topic communications that undermine the ability to do their jobs. What if a civil servant, after taking your sister's driver's license picture, remakred on how much she looked like a pig? You bet there would be some discipline coming down the pipe, and rightfully so.

Assuming the news report is accurate (I know, I know...) this teacher is lucky to get off with a reprimand. Interestingly, the story doesn't say she DENIES the remark, just that she objects that she hasn't been told who ratted her out.
posted by mikewas at 10:12 PM on October 2, 2001

this isn't about free speech or about the "appropriateness" (or lack thereof) of what she said. The teacher was at work, representing her employer. She is not there to present her own personal, political views. The school didn't hire her just to give her a political forum in which to preach to children.

Granted a teacher must have some leeway, and good ones know how to use their own (and others') personal views as revealing examples of various points they might wish to make. But this clearly wasn't a case of a teacher trying to teach anything -- this was the teacher going out on her own with her own agenda/views in mind, not the kids' education.

Imagine if a singer hired to sing the anthem at the World Series instead decided to give a lecture on women's lib or the AIDS crisis in Africa. He might be dead right on important issues people should be more aware of, but he'd still be wrong to abuse the forum he'd been given, just to advance his own political stance.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:35 PM on October 2, 2001

I think something quite different is happening here. I think this is a case of VERY BAD REPORTING (not uncommon since 9/11; not uncommon *before* 9/11). This story does not tell us what we need to know, so we argue about what we *think* it says. Let's stop arguing & let's hold the reporters' feet to the fire until they tell us what really happened.
posted by realjanetkagan at 11:01 PM on October 2, 2001

She didn't do anything unless someone proves she did something.

And this Gaetz guy?

"The complaints are not anonymous," said Okaloosa County Superintendent of Schools Don Gaetz. "We have not released the names of students, but these are real people with real complaints. I am disappointed with the union's decision to defend the highly questionable behavior of this employee. This should be an opportunity for the union and School Board to work together to improve the teaching profession."

Gaetz, a rich Republican businessman with local political aspirations, says that the teacher's union is bad because, he says, the union is defending a member whom he hears (from unnamed sources) may be anti-Bush.

Anti-unionism and cheap political shots are not surprising from rich businessmen trying to work their way up from the bottom rung (school board) to higher political offices.
posted by pracowity at 12:30 AM on October 3, 2001

Whew. These days patriotic images are pretty hard to come by, what with the demand for flags and all.

Hope I don't get arrested...

Oh. I almost forgot. A U.S. flag isn't really a U.S. flag without advertising:

We here at "Bin Laden Dead-Or-Alive Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge" support America in its hour of need. Get Zero Percent APR financing through the end of the War and Cash back on a new SUV. See store for details. Some restrictions apply.

And God Ble$$ America.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:34 AM on October 3, 2001

billman: Even at that age (I think it was 9th grade), I knew what some of the teachers were doing was wrong.

9th grade I think I would have been clear headed enough to realize that what the teacher was expressing was merely one side of the story and that as someone with a personal stake in the outcome, the opposing argument would obviously not be represented.

How is this manipulative as opposed to merely expressing an opinion to an audience that understands that it _is_ just an opinion? Taking class time to do it may have been questionable, but worked into the context of a discussion on labor/union issues in general (I do remember covering that in social studies and roughly in 9th grade to boot) I'm not so sure there's anything inherently 'wrong' there...
posted by juv3nal at 1:44 AM on October 3, 2001

[...ask if they support the right of Communists to speak at their city hall and the number drops to less than 50%]

It's difficult for people to rationalize extending rights of free speech when the ideology being expressed would result in those rights denial.
posted by revbrian at 2:18 AM on October 3, 2001

This documentation was derived from Mulhearn's laptop computer, which was provided through the district's "Computers for Teachers" program.

That is to say (I suspect) that this was a computer that she was using at home rather than school, and in her own time, and may have come to treat as her own (although obviously it does belong to the school). That they have gone to such lengths to garner material to use against her suggests to me too that they are simply fitting her up, and that her offence against the authorities is not of a kind that justifies such action in itself. It would be interesting to know what kind of a remark is being worked up into the Death Threat Against the President.

It should give pause for thought to teachers who are impressed by the apparant generosity of those who are prepared to provide laptops for them.

And another thought on your Free Speech thing: The School authorities are free to smear this woman from Florida to to moon, but if she can only respond by implication (reading between the lines of what her lawyer and union are saying) and in retrospect (when she is fired, she will be able to talk about the reasons for it, unless, as is likely, her severance pay is dependant on a gagging order, in which case we'll never hear about it). Any attempt to make public her case or her opinions on the matter would be likely to prejudice any judicial inquiry in a way that this obvious negative spin does not.

Since most of my understanding of Florida comes from Carl Hiaasen novels and last year's Presidential Election, I can't say I'm surprised.
posted by Grangousier at 2:22 AM on October 3, 2001

[Classrooms are for teaching, not preaching. It doesn't matter whether you preach about God or your personal agenda.]

First, I'm unsure why this is directed at me. Second, I agree. Perhaps our children wouldn't be graduating from high school without an adequate understanding of history, and the ability to read and write if more time was spent teaching and less on the teachers personal agenda.
posted by revbrian at 5:09 AM on October 3, 2001

It's surprising how many people don't know that Americans do not possess their full civil rights at their place of employment.

While it may be perfectly legal to burn a flag in your garage or use a loudspeaker to shout political opinions at a peaceful demonstration, your employer has the right to fire you for those sorts of things in most cases.

In fact, Americans often trade their civil rights in exchange for things like paychecks and air travel. From what I understand, the reason airport security hasn't been federalized before is that no government agency is allowed to perform search and seizure without a warrant. But someone paid 7 bucks an hour can do it, because that is part of the service you are paying for.
posted by xyzzy at 5:39 AM on October 3, 2001

My only problem with this article is that (if true), she should be fired, not reprimanded. To call this person a "victim" for wishing that the President of the United States had been killed is the height of lunacy. And get this -- I'm an ACLU-supporting, pro-1st Amendment kind of guy. But I happen to know just a little bit about what the 1st Amendment does and does not protect. Like it or not, there are limits, and you can't simply say whatever you want when you are employed to do a particular job.

Hypothetical: third grade teacher reads erotic stories to her class. You might try to draw a distinction, but the 1st Amendment is content-neutral. If the 1st Amendment protects one, it would have to protect both.
posted by pardonyou? at 5:44 AM on October 3, 2001

btw, I see that xyzzy made a similar point to mine. The only difference I might point out is that the 1st Amendment applies to actions of governmental bodies (including public school boards), but not to private employers.
posted by pardonyou? at 5:47 AM on October 3, 2001

My teacher mate says teaching is not so much about subject matter as it is about "learning how to learn" , in other words, training students to think critically. As such it is quite appropriate to stray from the subject matter of the particular class in order to stimulate open and critical analysis. Good old liberal arts education. I love it!

Fold_and_mutilate, You're my hero! I just love your posts!
posted by nofundy at 6:44 AM on October 3, 2001

Gaetz, a rich Republican businessman with local political aspirations, says that the teacher's union is bad because, he says, the union is defending a member whom he hears (from unnamed sources) may be anti-Bush.

This isn't about being anti-Bush, this is about a teacher stating aloud to small children that she wished that someone had been killed by the terrorists in the 8/11 attack. It wouldn't have mattered if she had said Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Madonna or Oprah Winfrey - you cannot stand in front of 6 and 7 year old kids who are barely capable of processing this incident and talk about wishing people dead -- no, not just dead, murdered in acts of atrocity. I cannot fathom how anyone could fail to grasp why that is inappropriate and indefensible, regardless of who was being deathwished.

As to the "unnamed sources" I think that if you were a parent who was horrified at an outrageous comment made by your child's teacher and you were in the middle of a heated battle over it, you'd be appreciative of the school board's efforts to insulate you from retribution by not broadcasting your name to the media before such time as hearings into the incident made your identity a matter of public record.
posted by Dreama at 7:15 AM on October 3, 2001

> this is about a teacher ...

This is about a fifth-grade teacher (where did "6 and 7 year old kids" come from?) being accused by unnamed kids of saying something to that effect. No one has shown that anything like that happened.

> As to the "unnamed sources" I think that if you were a parent ...

And if you were the accused -- the teacher's name has of course been made a matter of public record -- I think you would hope for some decency from the school board and hope to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.
posted by pracowity at 7:55 AM on October 3, 2001

You do have free speech... and I have the right to not listen. When you are in an authoritative position and speaking to a "captive audience" who cannot just leave, then you don't have the right to say what you want.

If that was the case, some classes would be teaching both evolution and creation theories in science classes.

If a student in that class said to the teacher, "Well I wish that you died in the attack." What do you think would hppen to the student?
posted by darian at 8:40 AM on October 3, 2001

This is about a fifth-grade teacher (where did "6 and 7 year old kids" come from?) being accused by unnamed kids of saying something to that effect. No one has shown that anything like that happened.

I thought I read second grade, not fifth. My apologies. In context, however, if the comment was made, it is irrelevant whether it was made to 6-7 year olds or 9-10 year olds. As to whether or not it has been "shown" that too, is irrelevant. It's being investigated. The only "proof" is going to be a preponderence of the evidence, meaning that the majority of the kids are going to have to have the same story. Time will tell.

And if you were the accused -- the teacher's name has of course been made a matter of public record -- I think you would hope for some decency from the school board and hope to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.

I don't see that they're being indecent. There is a very serious allegation that she committed a greivous offense. What should the school board have done differently?
posted by Dreama at 10:51 AM on October 3, 2001

It's surprising how many people don't know that Americans do not possess their full civil rights at their place of employment.

That's not the point (as I see it) -- no one's prosecuting here for committing a crime. Legally, yes, her speech is protected, she cannot be punished for it by the government.

Her employer, however, has some say in whether or not she was abusing the priviledges of her job and how to reprimand her for her activities while at work.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:01 AM on October 3, 2001

> There is a very serious allegation that she committed a
> greivous [sic] offense. What should the school board
> have done differently?

They should have kept her name out of it until they knew whether the allegations contained any truth, and they should have supported her instead of assuming she was guilty.

Instead, without yet knowing the truth, they have already punished her severely through public humiliation. No matter what the results of the investigation are, many children and parents in the area will go on believing that she's that anti-American woman who browses pornography at school.
posted by pracowity at 11:02 PM on October 3, 2001

Did anyone else notice that the article about the guy arrested for burning the flag has disappeared from that site, and strangely doesn't show up on a search of recent articles, although a slew of pro-America articles does on a search for the word 'flag'... Or is my paranoia just having a good day?
posted by holycola at 11:17 AM on October 5, 2001