School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[ruby sparks]

Huh? How are you getting that? It implies that boycotting is discrimination -- which it obviously is, that being the entire point of boycotts. There's not even a suggestion that criticism or protest in general is discrimination.

by which I mean effectively unfair discrimination.

Not seeing how you're getting that either. It implies that boycotting is effectively illegal discrimination, for companies with state contracts. Legislatures aren't in the business of determining what's fair or unfair. That, we must all decide for ourselves.

Which it isn't of course. There are imo completely valid criticisms of and protests against Israel which are being effectively censored by this law.

If you mean criticisms and protests other than supporting a boycott, can you give examples? I can't see how anything in this law censors any business from, say, putting up a sign reading "Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal and it would withdraw if it weren't ruled by scoundrels." This law censors businesses from putting up signs saying "Don't buy Israeli."

If you mean a boycott is a completely valid protest, and "Shame on Acme Corp. for not boycotting Israel." is a completely valid criticism, that's a matter of personal judgment, the Texas legislature disagrees with you, and I won't pretend to be any more qualified to rule on that question than either of you are.

The point, though, is that governments censor companies all the time, and the folks shrieking that free speech is under attack over this incident are, lo and behold, solidly in favor of government censorship of companies. Who among the leftists here supports the Citizens United ruling? Leftist or non-leftist, do any of us at all object to forced speech in the case of requiring Philip Morris to write the Surgeon General's warning on its cancer sticks? If this law censors a speech pathology company from writing "Don't buy Israeli." on the material it gives the people it's serving, on pain of job loss, well, there's another law that censors a bakery from writing "Don't sodomize your boyfriend" on the material it gives the people it's serving, on pain of job loss. Do you feel our courts should be in the business of deciding that one of those acts of business censorship is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, and the other is a perfectly legitimate exercise of state regulation of business, based on the courts deciding that one of those protests is completely valid and the other protest is completely invalid?

It's discrimination in the broadest sense, yes, obviously, just as me choosing one thing over another involves discriminating, but what is the justification for outlawing it, that's what I'm asking. The cigarette pack warning can be justified in terms of public health, for example. The bakery cannot discriminate against gays because gays are a protected minority group and there are reasons for that.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's an assertion. I made an argument. Do you have a counterargument?

Here's another argument. A for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exists to make a profit, by definition, exists to make a profit. So her company exists to make a profit. Ms. Amawi does not exist to make a profit.

Leibniz's Law says "If x is identical to y, then for any property x has, y has and for any property y has, x has." Since Ms. Amawi and her company do not have all the same properties, she is not the company.

It's not invoking an identity to say she is the company, any more than it would be invoking an identity to say Mo farah is the runner in a race.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sorry, proprietorships do not exist independent of their proprietor, so she is the company. Since she appears to be the only person involved, she is the company.

Ooh, that's a fun game! Can I play too? Let's see...

Dreams do not exist independently of their dreamers, and you appear to be the only person involved in dreaming yours, so you are your dreams.

Appendixes do not exist independently of mammals, and you are the only mammal your appendix appears in, so you are your appendix.

The opinion that your arguments have merit does not exist independently of you, and you are the only person who appears to hold that opinion, so you are your opinion that your arguments have merit.​

Apparently, that school board's legal counsel did not consult you before making this demand on this woman. I wonder why.

Because I'm not a lawyer and because they don't know me from Adam; but what's your point? You appear to be insinuating that they made a demand that is somehow inconsistent with my statements about what the law requires. What demand? What alleged inconsistency?

Of course, I can guess. It sounds like you're taking for granted Glenn Greenwald's claim that they made the following demand:

She was prepared to sign her contract renewal until she noticed one new, and extremely significant, addition: a certification she was required to sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory.”

Is that the demand you have in mind? It is certainly true that if the school board demanded the above, then they did so without taking legal advice from anyone explaining the law to them as I would have. So assuming that's the "before making this demand on this woman" that you have in mind, what evidence do you have that they demanded anything of the sort from her, apart from the bald assertion of Glenn Greenwald? It should be painfully obvious that Glenn Greenwald is an imbecile.

 

[untermensche]

...a certification she was required to sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory....

Where does this nonsense comes from?

I know a lot of Christians believe the artificial state of Israel created by terrorist force and intrusion and ethnic cleansing, and only still exists because of massive US gifts and support, is some fulfillment of "end times" prophesy.

This may be some end result of the pollution of insane Christianity into public life.

 

[laughing dog]

Ooh, that's a fun game! Can I play too? Let's see...

Doubling down with stupid straw men is not a convincing strategy.

Because I'm not a lawyer and because they don't know me from Adam; but what's your point?

That now I know who not to get legal advice from.

You appear to be insinuating that they made a demand that is somehow inconsistent with my statements about what the law requires.

I am insinuating there is no reason to accept your analysis as valid.

 

[Bomb#20]

...a certification she was required to sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory....

Where does this nonsense comes from?

Why are you asking? Why did you snip out the "quote=" when you quoted it? It said where that nonsense comes from. It comes from Glenn Greenwald. See the OP and the link in post #2. The dumbass misstated what she was required to sign, then pasted in an image of the actual text, and then went right on talking as though his misstatement were correct and his alteration of it weren't right there in plain view for all his readers.

 

[untermensche]

What was the specific thing she was supposed to sign then if that is not it?

 

[Bomb#20]

Doubling down with stupid straw men is not a convincing strategy.

You have zero reason to accuse me of straw men. You made a plainly invalid argument --

"Sorry, proprietorships do not exist independent of their proprietor, so she is the company. Since she appears to be the only person involved, she is the company."​

-- that depended on an obviously stupid inference procedure. So I pointed out that the procedure was stupid by applying it to other premises to exhibit its ability to derive incorrect conclusions from correct premises. That you chose to make such a stupid argument is on you, not on me. It is not a misrepresentation to point out that you said something stupid. For you to accuse me of straw men over that is scurrilous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You appear to be insinuating that they made a demand that is somehow inconsistent with my statements about what the law requires.

I am insinuating there is no reason to accept your analysis as valid.

Ah. Since you apparently don't regard impeccable logic as a reason to accept it as valid, let's try argument from authority. What you call "my" analysis is straight out of David Bernstein's explanation that James Madison linked to in post #52. From that link: "David Bernstein is a professor at the George Mason University School of Law."

Apparently, that school board's legal counsel did not consult you before making this demand on this woman. I wonder why.

... What demand? ...

<crickets>

What demand?

 

[Bomb#20]

What was the specific thing she was supposed to sign then if that is not it?

Seriously? I just told you where you could look at the exact text -- it's pasted into the middle of Greenwald's idiotic rant. Do I have to do everything for you?

As you can easily see, what she was asked to initial says "it", not "she", or "you". Greenwald changed the "it" to "she". His claim that the school demanded that she sign a statement that "she" does not boycott Israel is absurd on its face. Greenwald stipulates right there in his rant that:

"In response, Amawi’s supervisor promised that she would investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier. But the supervisor ultimately told Amawi that there were no alternatives: Either she would have to sign the oath, or the district would be legally barred from paying her under any type of contract."​

Now why on earth would her supervisor investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier unless the school didn't give a rat's ass whether Amawi boycotts Israel? Since the school evidently was perfectly okay with Amawi boycotting Israel, why on earth would the school have changed the "it" to "she", or to "you"? The school obviously did not tell Amawi to sign a pledge that "you do not currently boycott Israel". The school just told her to sign the stupid contract as issued to her, "it" and all.

The notion that this contract binds Amawi's personal actions outside her job activity is blatantly Greenwald's own personal interpretation. It's nothing that the school insisted on.

 

[ruby sparks]

The 'it' is, effectively, her, but only while she's doing the job. That is surely the intention.

 

[ruby sparks]

The question still remains, why should she, even while carrying out her job, be disallowed from boycotting Israel (for example by refraining from using purchased educational materials or equipment made in Israel)?

 

[laughing dog]

You have zero reason to accuse me of straw men.

Wrong. Your moronic examples in your game provided ample reason.

You made a plainly invalid argument

Wrong, as has been shown by more than one poster.

Ah. Since you apparently don't regard impeccable logic as a reason to accept it as valid

LOL, that conclusion is based on the delusional permise that your argument is an example of impeccable logic.

 

[laughing dog]

The question still remains, why should she, even while carrying out her job, be disallowed from boycotting Israel (for example by refraining from using purchased educational materials or equipment made in Israel)?

And how would anyone know she was actively or intending to boycott Israel unless she admitted to it? And, what if she, as her company, made a donation to a political candidate who supported boycotting Israeli products?

It is a stupid requirement that is difficult to enforce and which infringes one the right to freedom of speech.

 

[ruby sparks]

The question still remains, why should she, even while carrying out her job, be disallowed from boycotting Israel (for example by refraining from using purchased educational materials or equipment made in Israel)?

And how would anyone know she was actively or intending to boycott Israel unless she admitted to it? And, what if she, as her company, made a donation to a political candidate who supported boycotting Israeli products?

It is a stupid requirement that is difficult to enforce and which infringes one the right to freedom of speech.

Sure, but whether a law can be justified is separate from whether it's difficult to enforce. For the sake of the argument we could say she spoke openly about it.

There is clearly a tension between freedom of speech/action and certain things being disallowed. Freedom of speech or action is never unlimited. One way to resolve the tension is to say that one issue overrides or takes precedence over the other, for some reason, or at least to offer a justification for the restriction on freedom. And I'm asking what that is in this case.

I already suggested that it was, on the face of things, an attempt to limit antisemitism, but that there may be other more covert reasons, such as business interests, money generally or geopolitics. Another candidate is lobbying, either from Jewish groups or persons (perhaps wealthy ones) or Christians.

If it is to limit antisemitism then as I said, that would seem to disallow reasonable, non-antisemitic protest against Israel.

If the other reasons, then that is realpolitiks.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's discrimination in the broadest sense, yes, obviously, just as me choosing one thing over another involves discriminating, but what is the justification for outlawing it, that's what I'm asking. The cigarette pack warning can be justified in terms of public health, for example. The bakery cannot discriminate against gays because gays are a protected minority group and there are reasons for that.

The justification for outlawing it is that Texas is a democracy and its people voted for legislators who wanted to outlaw it. The vote in the legislature was so lopsided, out of all proportion to the number of legislators who can reasonably be supposed to care much about Israel one way or the other, that the legislators have to have been calculating that the move would be popular with the voters. It would appear that Texans, by and large, sympathize with Israelis more than they sympathize with Palestinians. That's democracy for you.

As you say, gays are a protected minority group and there are reasons for that. The reasons are that (a) gays are commonly discriminated against, and (b) the voters in districts that protected them by and large sympathize with gays more than they sympathize with homophobic business owners. In Texas, Israelis are in effect a protected minority group and there are reasons for that.

If what you mean is, what is the justification for sympathizing with Israelis more than with Palestinians, you'd have to ask somebody who's arguing that the Texas law is a good idea. That's not me. Try Loren or Derec; or just read the massive derail in this thread.

It's not invoking an identity to say she is the company, any more than it would be invoking an identity to say Mo farah is the runner in a race.

Well, if you did not mean to be invoking an identity when you said "She is the company.", then what was your point? If "She is the company" doesn't invoke an identity, then her agreeing that "the company won't do X" doesn't constitute agreeing that "she won't do X". If "She is the company" is analogous to "Mo farah is the runner in a race", well, "The runner in a race may not wear shoes with spikes longer than 9 mm." is an IAAF rule Mo Farah is bound by and has undoubtedly agreed to, but it has no implications for what he can strap onto his feet when he's running practice sessions on his own time, or is out on the heath having a picnic.

 

[untermensche]

What was the specific thing she was supposed to sign then if that is not it?

Seriously? I just told you where you could look at the exact text -- it's pasted into the middle of Greenwald's idiotic rant. Do I have to do everything for you?

As you can easily see, what she was asked to initial says "it", not "she", or "you". Greenwald changed the "it" to "she". His claim that the school demanded that she sign a statement that "she" does not boycott Israel is absurd on its face. Greenwald stipulates right there in his rant that:

"In response, Amawi’s supervisor promised that she would investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier. But the supervisor ultimately told Amawi that there were no alternatives: Either she would have to sign the oath, or the district would be legally barred from paying her under any type of contract."​

Now why on earth would her supervisor investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier unless the school didn't give a rat's ass whether Amawi boycotts Israel? Since the school evidently was perfectly okay with Amawi boycotting Israel, why on earth would the school have changed the "it" to "she", or to "you"? The school obviously did not tell Amawi to sign a pledge that "you do not currently boycott Israel". The school just told her to sign the stupid contract as issued to her, "it" and all.

The notion that this contract binds Amawi's personal actions outside her job activity is blatantly Greenwald's own personal interpretation. It's nothing that the school insisted on.

Why exactly is the terrorist state of Israel protected in this unusual manner?

Why should any American give two shits about what happens to the terrorist state of Israel?

Why should any of this language exist?

 

[RavenSky]

What was the specific thing she was supposed to sign then if that is not it?

Seriously? I just told you where you could look at the exact text -- it's pasted into the middle of Greenwald's idiotic rant. Do I have to do everything for you?

As you can easily see, what she was asked to initial says "it", not "she", or "you". Greenwald changed the "it" to "she". His claim that the school demanded that she sign a statement that "she" does not boycott Israel is absurd on its face. Greenwald stipulates right there in his rant that:

"In response, Amawi’s supervisor promised that she would investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier. But the supervisor ultimately told Amawi that there were no alternatives: Either she would have to sign the oath, or the district would be legally barred from paying her under any type of contract."​

Now why on earth would her supervisor investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier unless the school didn't give a rat's ass whether Amawi boycotts Israel? Since the school evidently was perfectly okay with Amawi boycotting Israel, why on earth would the school have changed the "it" to "she", or to "you"? The school obviously did not tell Amawi to sign a pledge that "you do not currently boycott Israel". The school just told her to sign the stupid contract as issued to her, "it" and all.

The notion that this contract binds Amawi's personal actions outside her job activity is blatantly Greenwald's own personal interpretation. It's nothing that the school insisted on.

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her. SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

The Contractor, the person initialing, affirms that "it", meaning many things, will for some insane reason not work to try to end the oppression carried out by the state of Israel.

Again, I think it is some crazy Christian nonsense about "the end times" and the delusion that this phony Israel created by terrorism and theft was mentioned in prophesy a few thousand years ago.

 

[ruby sparks]

The justification for outlawing it is that Texas is a democracy and its people voted for legislators who wanted to outlaw it. The vote in the legislature was so lopsided, out of all proportion to the number of legislators who can reasonably be supposed to care much about Israel one way or the other, that the legislators have to have been calculating that the move would be popular with the voters. It would appear that Texans, by and large, sympathize with Israelis more than they sympathize with Palestinians. That's democracy for you.

As you say, gays are a protected minority group and there are reasons for that. The reasons are that (a) gays are commonly discriminated against, and (b) the voters in districts that protected them by and large sympathize with gays more than they sympathize with homophobic business owners. In Texas, Israelis are in effect a protected minority group and there are reasons for that.

If what you mean is, what is the justification for sympathizing with Israelis more than with Palestinians, you'd have to ask somebody who's arguing that the Texas law is a good idea. That's not me. Try Loren or Derec; or just read the massive derail in this thread.

Thanks. I don't think we are in much is agreement about the OP case. As for justification, I'm not sure legislators making decisions which they think will be popular (even if they are) is a great one, morally-speaking, nor is 'Israelis are effectively (ie considered) a protected minority' which really just means much the same thing (sympathies for Israel). However, sympathy for Israelis may be the reason for making an exception in their case, yes.

Sympathies for Jewish Israelis, I'm guessing? Not sympathies for the 20% of the population of Israel which are arab.

Well, if you did not mean to be invoking an identity when you said "She is the company.", then what was your point? If "She is the company" doesn't invoke an identity, then her agreeing that "the company won't do X" doesn't constitute agreeing that "she won't do X". If "She is the company" is analogous to "Mo farah is the runner in a race", well, "The runner in a race may not wear shoes with spikes longer than 9 mm." is an IAAF rule Mo Farah is bound by and has undoubtedly agreed to, but it has no implications for what he can strap onto his feet when he's running practice sessions on his own time, or is out on the heath having a picnic.

My point (and it's not particularly relevant to anything I'm try to argue for or against so I'm not intending to have a huge debate over it) is what I said, that she is the company. Nothing much hinges on this because the important difference is that the law only (it would seem) apples to her when she's doing the work under contract, and does not, it seems, affect her activity outside of that (like Mo Farah when he's running in his spare time, as you say). But it is true that she is the company. Or if you like and to be more precise, when doing the work she is the company and when signing the declaration she is the company. That is how sole proprietorships work*, legally and for tax purposes, as I understand it. It is certainly the case over here, where I am one, and I understand it's the same in the US.


* Those that are not formally something additional, such as a Limited Liability Company.

 

[Axulus]

What was the specific thing she was supposed to sign then if that is not it?

Seriously? I just told you where you could look at the exact text -- it's pasted into the middle of Greenwald's idiotic rant. Do I have to do everything for you?

As you can easily see, what she was asked to initial says "it", not "she", or "you". Greenwald changed the "it" to "she". His claim that the school demanded that she sign a statement that "she" does not boycott Israel is absurd on its face. Greenwald stipulates right there in his rant that:

"In response, Amawi’s supervisor promised that she would investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier. But the supervisor ultimately told Amawi that there were no alternatives: Either she would have to sign the oath, or the district would be legally barred from paying her under any type of contract."​

Now why on earth would her supervisor investigate whether there were any ways around this barrier unless the school didn't give a rat's ass whether Amawi boycotts Israel? Since the school evidently was perfectly okay with Amawi boycotting Israel, why on earth would the school have changed the "it" to "she", or to "you"? The school obviously did not tell Amawi to sign a pledge that "you do not currently boycott Israel". The school just told her to sign the stupid contract as issued to her, "it" and all.

The notion that this contract binds Amawi's personal actions outside her job activity is blatantly Greenwald's own personal interpretation. It's nothing that the school insisted on.

Bomb, "it" is a non-gendered reference to "Contractor" which - in this case - is her. SHE is the independent contractor being hired by the school. SHE is the contractor who will be held to all of the terms of this contract.

If your entire argument here hinged on the word "it" referring to something or someone other than her, you are 100% incorrect.

"Contractor" is clearly referring to "Company", the definition of which is given right in the statement!

As has been explained, if she, as the representative of her "Company", boycotted Israeli materials used in her profession, that would be in violation of the contract, but her refusing to buy Israeli goods for personal use outside of work and speaking about it would not violate the contract.