A White teacher taught White students about White privilege. It cost him his job.

[ZiprHead]

Amid a growing furor over critical race theory, Matthew Hawn told his high school students in rural Kingsport, Tenn., that White privilege is ‘a fact’

A lifelong resident of Kingsport, Hawn was well aware his liberal views made him an outlier in his overwhelmingly White, mostly conservative community. But that had never mattered before. He had taught in the Sullivan County school system for 16 years without any trouble. And he had taught the class that got him fired, “Contemporary Issues,” for nearly a decade without a single parent complaint.

Then at the start of last school year, he made a pronouncement during a discussion about police shootings that would derail his career. White privilege, he told his nearly all-White class, is “a fact.”

Hawn apologized after at least one parent objected. But a few months later, he assigned the Ta-Nehisi Coates essay “The First White President,” spurring more parent complaints. This time school officials issued a letter of reprimand to Hawn for one-sided teaching.

After that, Hawn promised to stay away from the topic. But in late April, a student mentioned White privilege during a class discussion about the trial of Derek Chauvin — the White Minneapolis police officer who murdered George Floyd by kneeling on the Black man’s neck — and Hawn could not help himself. He navigated to YouTube and pulled up “White Privilege,” a scathing and profane four-minute poetry performance by Kyla Jenée Lacey.

“Oh, am I making you uncomfortable?” the Black writer demands at one point. “Try a cramped slave ship.”

“I will probably get fired for showing this,” Hawn joked before hitting play. Less than a month later, he was.

WaPo link.

 

[TomC]

Mr Hawn deliberately ignored clear directives from the administration. I don't know how "scathing and profane" his choice of material was. But he obviously knew that bringing it into the classroom would probably cost him his position.

It did. <shrug> He picked it.

I can't help but assume that he didn't want that particular job any more.

To put some perspective in this, suppose Mr Hawn were ignoring administration directives concerning religious teachings. Would you still have a problem with the administration?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Who said I had a problem with it?

 

[laughing dog]

Mr Hawn deliberately ignored clear directives from the administration. I don't know how "scathing and profane" his choice of material was. But he obviously knew that bringing it into the classroom would probably cost him his position.

It did. <shrug> He picked it.

I can't help but assume that he didn't want that particular job any more.

To put some perspective in this, suppose Mr Hawn were ignoring administration directives concerning religious teachings. Would you still have a problem with the administration?
Tom

To put some perspective on this, why do you assume the school officials acted after investigation and thought before issuing the initial reprimand?

 

[TomC]

Who said I had a problem with it?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Your OP title has some implications. Like, Hawn was fired for mentioning white privilege.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Mr Hawn deliberately ignored clear directives from the administration. I don't know how "scathing and profane" his choice of material was. But he obviously knew that bringing it into the classroom would probably cost him his position.

It did. <shrug> He picked it.

I can't help but assume that he didn't want that particular job any more.

To put some perspective in this, suppose Mr Hawn were ignoring administration directives concerning religious teachings. Would you still have a problem with the administration?
Tom

To put some perspective on this, why do you assume the school officials acted after investigation and thought before issuing the initial reprimand?

Well, one reason is that Hawn apologized and kept his job.
I'm not claiming to know any more than is posted in the OP.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Mr Hawn deliberately ignored clear directives from the administration. I don't know how "scathing and profane" his choice of material was. But he obviously knew that bringing it into the classroom would probably cost him his position.

It did. <shrug> He picked it.

I can't help but assume that he didn't want that particular job any more.

To put some perspective in this, suppose Mr Hawn were ignoring administration directives concerning religious teachings. Would you still have a problem with the administration?
Tom

To put some perspective on this, why do you assume the school officials acted after investigation and thought before issuing the initial reprimand?

Well, one reason is that Hawn apologized and kept his job.
I'm not claiming to know any more than is posted in the OP.
Tom

Why would you think that has anything to do with school officials doing a good and appropriate job?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mr Hawn deliberately ignored clear directives from the administration. I don't know how "scathing and profane" his choice of material was.

Did you bother to check? Are you bothering to care? Or is your opinion rooted firmly on that the Administration is infallible?

 

[TomC]

Mr Hawn deliberately ignored clear directives from the administration. I don't know how "scathing and profane" his choice of material was.

Did you bother to check? Are you bothering to care? Or is your opinion rooted firmly on that the Administration is infallible?

It's based on what the OP posted.
That's it.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

“The record establishes that Mr. Hawn failed to follow the Teacher Code of Ethics and in doing so acted unprofessionally,” Conder wrote. “Furthermore, Mr. Hawn was insubordinate in that he failed to follow the reprimand that prohibited him from using materials with inappropriate language. And failing to present varying viewpoints, despite knowing he was to do so, was insubordinate conduct.”

Hawn appeal going before Sullivan school board

Parents don’t want activist teachers. What a shock.

 

[ZiprHead]

Who said I had a problem with it?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Your OP title has some implications. Like, Hawn was fired for mentioning white privilege.
Tom

My OP title is the headline from the article.

 

[TomC]

Who said I had a problem with it?

Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Your OP title has some implications. Like, Hawn was fired for mentioning white privilege.
Tom

My OP title is the headline from the article.

So, yes I misunderstood you.
Sorry. It's an easy mistake to make when a poster posts something.
Tom

 

[TomC]

“The record establishes that Mr. Hawn failed to follow the Teacher Code of Ethics and in doing so acted unprofessionally,” Conder wrote. “Furthermore, Mr. Hawn was insubordinate in that he failed to follow the reprimand that prohibited him from using materials with inappropriate language. And failing to present varying viewpoints, despite knowing he was to do so, was insubordinate conduct.”

Hawn appeal going before Sullivan school board

Parents don’t want activist teachers. What a shock.

Imagine what would happen if Mr Hawn were telling his students that vaccines were dangerous. And after being reprimanded, showed them a "scathing and profane" YouTube on the subject.

Yeah, right.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“The record establishes that Mr. Hawn failed to follow the Teacher Code of Ethics and in doing so acted unprofessionally,” Conder wrote. “Furthermore, Mr. Hawn was insubordinate in that he failed to follow the reprimand that prohibited him from using materials with inappropriate language. And failing to present varying viewpoints, despite knowing he was to do so, was insubordinate conduct.”

Hawn appeal going before Sullivan school board

Parents don’t want activist teachers. What a shock.

Imagine what would happen if Mr Hawn were telling his students that vaccines were dangerous. And after being reprimanded, showed them a "scathing and profane" YouTube on the subject.

Yeah, right.
Tom

A bunch of posts by you, yet no outward interest from you on what he actually showed the students.

 

[Trausti]

“The record establishes that Mr. Hawn failed to follow the Teacher Code of Ethics and in doing so acted unprofessionally,” Conder wrote. “Furthermore, Mr. Hawn was insubordinate in that he failed to follow the reprimand that prohibited him from using materials with inappropriate language. And failing to present varying viewpoints, despite knowing he was to do so, was insubordinate conduct.”

Hawn appeal going before Sullivan school board

Parents don’t want activist teachers. What a shock.

Imagine what would happen if Mr Hawn were telling his students that vaccines were dangerous. And after being reprimanded, showed them a "scathing and profane" YouTube on the subject.

Yeah, right.
Tom

A bunch of posts by you, yet no outward interest from you on what he actually showed the students.

The link to the YouTube video is in the OP.

 

[TomC]

“The record establishes that Mr. Hawn failed to follow the Teacher Code of Ethics and in doing so acted unprofessionally,” Conder wrote. “Furthermore, Mr. Hawn was insubordinate in that he failed to follow the reprimand that prohibited him from using materials with inappropriate language. And failing to present varying viewpoints, despite knowing he was to do so, was insubordinate conduct.”

Hawn appeal going before Sullivan school board

Parents don’t want activist teachers. What a shock.

Imagine what would happen if Mr Hawn were telling his students that vaccines were dangerous. And after being reprimanded, showed them a "scathing and profane" YouTube on the subject.

Yeah, right.
Tom

A bunch of posts by you, yet no outward interest from you on what he actually showed the students.

Correct.
I've no real interest in some employee somewhere losing their job because they blew off the administration. Happens all the time.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

To put some perspective in this, suppose Mr Hawn were ignoring administration directives concerning religious teachings.

What do you mean, "suppose"? If the OP is correct, Mr Hawn was ignoring administration directives concerning religious teachings.

 

[laughing dog]

“The record establishes that Mr. Hawn failed to follow the Teacher Code of Ethics and in doing so acted unprofessionally,” Conder wrote. “Furthermore, Mr. Hawn was insubordinate in that he failed to follow the reprimand that prohibited him from using materials with inappropriate language. And failing to present varying viewpoints, despite knowing he was to do so, was insubordinate conduct.”

Hawn appeal going before Sullivan school board

Parents don’t want activist teachers. What a shock.

Imagine what would happen if Mr Hawn were telling his students that vaccines were dangerous. And after being reprimanded, showed them a "scathing and profane" YouTube on the subject.

Yeah, right.
Tom

A bunch of posts by you, yet no outward interest from you on what he actually showed the students.

Correct.
I've no real interest in some employee somewhere losing their job because they blew off the administration. Happens all the time.
Tom

And you think that because something happens "all the time" that makes it necessarily right?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

High school students are mature enough to be able to dialogue with other about socially controversial issues, and have debates in the class. Rather than be preached at and indoctrinated by the teacher.

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

 

[ZiprHead]

High school students are mature enough to be able to dialogue with other about socially controversial issues, and have debates in the class. Rather than be preached at and indoctrinated by the teacher.

Any teacher who doesn't understand this and thinks it's his/her role to impose his/her theories and prejudices onto the students, rather than encourage debate and questioning, deserves to be terminated.

Sounds to me like they were having a debate. The teacher used a source to support his side that used naughty words. It got him fired.