Should Nazi teachers be fired?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree with Politesse, it is easy to suggest that the Nazi or the pedophile be fired because of how repugnant their thoughts are, but school boards used to fire atheists and homosexuals for the same reason.

Just to clarify my position, it is not about the pure ideology, but instead about the risk of future behavior during work to others. Where the purely thinking comes in, is part of the thought experiment that that is the only thing we can prove they have done. I work for a business, not a school. If I were hiring someone, I'd not hire a Nazi because of the nature of the job which I won't explain. However, our business has nothing to do with children and so a pedophile poses no significant risk to others in the workplace. Repugnant or not, they'd be considered for a job based on their qualifications.

I think a Nazi goes well beyond garden variety racism since their ideology is about activism, especially activism in secret. Bias, infiltration, indoctrination, while those are really only the beginning of their ideology, the point is they want these things to be kept secret and organize and communicate with others about them. Of course, there's also murder and violence in secret and support for genocide or at least segregation, which would lead to violence.

 

[dismal]

Short answer: private school teacher can be fired for speech, public school teacher can't be fired for speech outside the workplace that is regarding a matter of public concern and does not excessively interfere with the ability to perform the job.

This case alleges the speech occurred in the workplace, so yes.

 

[Politesse]

The idea of firing someone for what they might be doing in secret is even more problematic. This very argument formed the legal core of anti-Semitism under the Nazis themselves. Especially in the early years, they were "responding to likely threats against democracy", not discriminating against a racial group. On paper. In practice, this was the excuse used to justify open racial hositility, with ultimate results that are well known.

I don't mean to equivocate between Nazism and social progressivism, I do not see them as equivalent phenomena in any respect. My point is more that giving government the legal authority to decide what a person might be capable of doing and using this to make executive decisions is dangerous; a power that could just as easily be used by Nazis as against them.

My school is currently being sued by a religious group, for instance, that if not Nazi-affiliated per se certainly has strong fascist and racist leanings; after harassing and threatening several students, they were asked to the leave the campus, which they filmed and are now using to prove that their free speech rights were being violated. Free speech legislation was never intended to be used to ensure that fascists had a corner of every college campus to do with as they please. But creating legislation that superseded the rights of universities to define their public fora had the unexpected (but not unpredictable) effect of accidentally tying their hands in the prevention of hate speech, even active threats against the student body. No one is as good at manipulating legal structures as a hate group which is in a froth. So you should consider law not just in terms of what you would wish to do with it, but what it would enable others in your society to do.

I mean, suppose you had your way, and it became acceptable to fire for ideology alone based on possible threat. How long would it be before some political group managed to throw Antifa or Greenpeace or Wahhabism into the category of "people likely to present a threat to the general public"? A door, once opened, can be passed through in either direction.

 

[Elixir]

The idea of firing someone for what they might be doing in secret is even more problematic.

That is the vital point. In the fictitious land of "should", nazi teachers "should" all be fired. For that matter, anyone who voted for Trump "should" have their voting rights rescinded for being an idiot. But since none of those things can be done without eviscerating the principles upon which this country was founded, the preferred option is to uphold those principles and trust (here's where thoughts and prayers might do some good) that the overall will of the electorate will prevail to mitigate the damage caused by "nazi teachers", without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[ronburgundy]

Your argument follows from a premise that Nazism is "purely ideological." What if, just for example, your pure ideology is to grade different races differently and treat them differently and that means you cannot abide by publicly enforced laws at public schools?

Taking this a bit more generally, is Nazism a practice or a belief?

This teacher was put on leave and should be fired for directly admitting to actions in the classroom that are unacceptable and prevent her from doing her job properly. While those actions are fueled by her beliefs, her beliefs alone are not sufficient to produce such actions.

The question is whether she should be fired if she had only admitted to beliefs about racial inferiority of some groups, without ever mentioning any connection to her work. It depends. If the beliefs are about preferred actions and the teacher could easily enact those actions, such a give black students lower grades because they believe they are inherently incapable of learning, then the beliefs become probable actions. If that probable impact relates to the job they are expected to perform, then the mere "risk" of harm could be sufficient. Firing from a particular job is not a criminal punishment so the bar could be lowered to "risk" rather than proven harm without violation of free speech rights.

Also, it could be argued that her public comments were an action itself that almost certainly would cause harm to any of her minority students whom she directly implies are incapable of learning.

As to pedophiles, you aren't one until you act criminally and even looking for child porn is a crime. If we are talking about someone who merely expressed sexual interest in the idea of pedophilia, then that falls into the potential "risk" category where the risk of actual harm is the justification and not the content of the beliefs in themselves.

Regardless, any firing for "risk" rather than proven actual harm/incompetence on the job does inherently weaken the principle of tenure that was created precisely to prevent firing for reasons other than actual harm/ job performance. What is sufficient "risk" and for what consequences will always be determined by those in power who often are not reasonable. So, any such firing, however reasonable, makes it easier for unreasonable and unjustified firings to occur. This is why sensible people push for adhering to general principles, even when it seem more sensible or ethical in the short run to treat a given instance as an exception. At minimum a clear principled addendum to the general principle must be created.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As to pedophiles, you aren't one until you act criminally and even looking for child porn is a crime. If we are talking about someone who merely expressed sexual interest in the idea of pedophilia, then that falls into the potential "risk" category where the risk of actual harm is the justification and not the content of the beliefs in themselves.

Hey ronburgundy, I think you have a well thought out post, but I do not currently have loads of time to respond in full. This paragraph struck me as something to respond to first because it isn't really true. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to young children. It's more or less a disease or could be thought of that way in any case. Also, Nazis are not garden variety racists, most of these creatures seem to have some kind of mental issue in order to even attach themselves to such extreme+violent groups. Anyway, I will get back to responding in full to your post later as I think it deserves an equally well-thought out response.

 

[James Madison]

Only actions are... actionable. I think that is my position. I've been an educator too long to trust the administration to make good calls on what should or shouldn't count as a thought crime. They would not use such a power wisely.

Unfair scoring of exams is a serious problem, though I do not think firing people would help, as we know that this is an endemic problem: in all classrooms, across the country, minority students overwhelmingly score lower that white male ones, and though racial bias in grading is widely believed to be one of the reasons for this (as studies that anonymize the grading process strongly suggest) proving it is difficult and might perilously depopulate the teaching profession if sucessful.

For a school teacher, if the ideology of the employee is inconsistent with the principles, ideology, practices, and behaviors of the school and school district, then they may and should be fired. A school of course is tasked with indoctrinating its students with a particular set of beliefs and ideology. A teacher whose ideology is inconsistent with that ideology of the school should be fired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Hold on though. She didn't use her real name on the blog where she advocated eradicating Muslims. Let's suppose we have no evidence of her classroom misbehaviors.

I agree with Politesse, it is easy to suggest that the Nazi or the pedophile be fired because of how repugnant their thoughts are, but school boards used to fire atheists and homosexuals for the same reason.

Well, the pedophile isn’t a good example as they wouldn’t be employable not because of their ideology but because of the physical threat posed to the children. Schools wisely should terminate pedophiles.

Now, in regards to the issue of ideology, if the teacher’s ideology is contrary to the ideology and beliefs espoused by the school and school district, then it makes perfect sense to terminate the teacher. Employing a school teacher with an ideology contrary to that of what the school is emphasizing and/or teaching is problematic for the school and its propagation of its own ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

ronburgundy, I know I still owe you a lengthier response but this one is quick so I am responding to "James Madison," first...

Hold on though. She didn't use her real name on the blog where she advocated eradicating Muslims. Let's suppose we have no evidence of her classroom misbehaviors.

I agree with Politesse, it is easy to suggest that the Nazi or the pedophile be fired because of how repugnant their thoughts are, but school boards used to fire atheists and homosexuals for the same reason.

Well, the pedophile isn’t a good example as they wouldn’t be employable not because of their ideology but because of the physical threat posed to the children. Schools wisely should terminate pedophiles.

Pedophiles probably cause way more mental damage than physical. Such act could cause lifetime trauma. A Nazi also poses a physical threat to children, at least some of them. Did this teacher? Maybe not but many Nazi teachers would pose such physical risk. In any case, certainly there was a risk of mental trauma.

Now, in regards to the issue of ideology, if the teacher’s ideology is contrary to the ideology and beliefs espoused by the school and school district, then it makes perfect sense to terminate the teacher. Employing a school teacher with an ideology contrary to that of what the school is emphasizing and/or teaching is problematic for the school and its propagation of its own ideology.

I think I have heard school administrators say that they value diversity. Likewise, teachers probably have to sign onto some documents upon hiring about racial harassment. Could such things be relevant?

 

[James Madison]

Only actions are... actionable. I think that is my position. I've been an educator too long to trust the administration to make good calls on what should or shouldn't count as a thought crime. They would not use such a power wisely.

So to be clear...if a daycare employee was found to have a podcast where they admitted to being a pedophile (attracted to children) and advocated for politically changing the age of consent to something much lower, you would consider that a thought crime. Therefore, you would not be in favor of firing the person.

Likewise, if a social studies teacher was a Nazi (who would have to hold back urges to indoctrinate children and would see them through a racially biased lense and would be okay with the Jewish, Muslim, and Black ones being eradicated) with a podcast where they go on about Muslims being eradicated and "the Jewish question," then that is a thought crime. Wait until they do something...

I will add that the teacher didn't try to kill anyone this time. All she did was use her free speech to disagree with the curriculum to the children and teach them her slanted views. And felt entitled to lie to administrators about it because she thought her free speech rights were being violated.

So, to confirm, you are not okay with firing her. You are also not okay with firing teachers for being Nazis. And not okay with firing pedophiles from daycares or is that one different?

Uh, no. Someone who is advocating discriminatory views in the classroom is not "using their free speech", they are violating their role as an educator and can justly be fired. Someone who writes something discriminatory on a blog or podcast with their proper name, is also within the bounds of censure, as their actions reflect on the institution and could easily end up creating an uncomfortable situation for the children. Advocating for legalized pedophilia is again a public action, and well within the bounds of censure considering their role.

I am not comfortable with penalizing someone for what they think, though. I do not think the government possesses or could possess an ethical apparatus for persecuting a thought crime that is not somehow connected to a demonstrable behavior, nor would this be ideal. It's all very well to talk about issues like pedophilia and genocide where you can expect broad agreement, but such an apparatus would inevitably be used to control thoughts you do not personally want to be prosecutable. And frankly, the perception that the government desires to control freedom of thought has historically had an incendiary effect on American politics. Any legal action should be taken on the basis of demonstrable behavior, not accused thoughts.

This isn’t a persuasive argument in the context of schools. Schools are and historically have been institutions of indoctrination, including public schools. It’s probably inescapable that schools seek to indoctrinate the school children with certain ideologies. It makes sense to terminate a teacher with a contrary ideology to that of the school.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your argument follows from a premise that Nazism is "purely ideological." What if, just for example, your pure ideology is to grade different races differently and treat them differently and that means you cannot abide by publicly enforced laws at public schools?

Taking this a bit more generally, is Nazism a practice or a belief?

This teacher was put on leave and should be fired for directly admitting to actions in the classroom that are unacceptable and prevent her from doing her job properly. While those actions are fueled by her beliefs, her beliefs alone are not sufficient to produce such actions.

Some beliefs such as Nazism are about actions not just the beliefs. If a person is a garden variety racist they might confine their actions to just actions although they might be a risk of having a bias against students. An actual Nazi, though, believes in actions, even criminal actions--to include infiltration, indoctrination, genocide, segregation when they are not empowered to commit genocide, murder--when they can do these things in secret. In the case of this teacher, she believed in eradicating Muslims, the "Jewish question" and she believed in indoctrination of children in secret such as other Nazis do. The only significant variable involved in whether she would commit to such action is the people around her, i.e. she has to do it in secret in such a way she won't be found out.

The question is whether she should be fired if she had only admitted to beliefs about racial inferiority of some groups, without ever mentioning any connection to her work. It depends. If the beliefs are about preferred actions and the teacher could easily enact those actions, such a give black students lower grades because they believe they are inherently incapable of learning, then the beliefs become probable actions. If that probable impact relates to the job they are expected to perform, then the mere "risk" of harm could be sufficient. Firing from a particular job is not a criminal punishment so the bar could be lowered to "risk" rather than proven harm without violation of free speech rights.

I think you're right about this. I'd like to go back to the Nazi cook that was fired from a restaurant for a moment...back to recall his party affiliation and their manifesto or whatever it was. It said their belief is in action, provoking, even criminal action. I think we have to make some kind of distinction between what we mean by Nazi and what we mean by racist and it ought to be the things I listed earlier such as a willingness to do things in secret that are criminal or brainwashing.

However, I am not completely sure I agree with "probable actions." I'm talking generally now and not merely about the teacher.... Risk is defined as the convolution of probability and severity. So if there's a 10% probability of something very severe such as genocide, then that's an unacceptable risk. If there's a 10% probability of once being biased against one particular student on one test, then maybe that is an acceptable risk if we compare against other things we might be afraid of losing. The kinds of things under consideration for a Nazi are all severe. The probabilities are hard to gauge but they're certainly higher than for garden-variety racists and they have more to do with whether the person is being watched and the rest of society than they do about the individual. So if the rest of society are Nazis or majority racist, such Nazis would have much higher probability of committing to actions that are parts of their beliefs.

Certainly learning that a teacher is a Nazi, suddenly changes all the assessments of risks to co-workers and children under their care.

Also, it could be argued that her public comments were an action itself that almost certainly would cause harm to any of her minority students whom she directly implies are incapable of learning.

I agree. This is mental harm. And she likely would engage in mental harm of minority students at least at some point, as any racist might also. But being a Nazi seems to be more than just that. She made some comments about eradicating Muslims, for example...

As to pedophiles, you aren't one until you act criminally and even looking for child porn is a crime. If we are talking about someone who merely expressed sexual interest in the idea of pedophilia, then that falls into the potential "risk" category where the risk of actual harm is the justification and not the content of the beliefs in themselves.

Here I want to refer to what I wrote to you previously:

A pedophile is someone who is attracted to young children. It's more or less a disease or could be thought of that way in any case. Also, Nazis are not garden variety racists, most of these creatures seem to have some kind of mental issue in order to even attach themselves to such extreme+violent groups.

Regardless, any firing for "risk" rather than proven actual harm/incompetence on the job does inherently weaken the principle of tenure that was created precisely to prevent firing for reasons other than actual harm/ job performance. What is sufficient "risk" and for what consequences will always be determined by those in power who often are not reasonable. So, any such firing, however reasonable, makes it easier for unreasonable and unjustified firings to occur. This is why sensible people push for adhering to general principles, even when it seem more sensible or ethical in the short run to treat a given instance as an exception. At minimum a clear principled addendum to the general principle must be created.

I think that tenure is a good point, keeping in mind that these Nazis believe in doing things in secret and tricking the system. I am inclined to be data-driven and say re-review cases involving teacher when you find out they are a Nazi. BUT also keep in mind what I wrote about that Nazis may behave differently dependent upon others around them, how closely they watch, etc. A Nazi teacher teaching fine and without bias for 3 years suddenly has less supervision or a different supervisor who is sympathetic or whatever and the future risk of behavior is still there. So, back to pedophile...a pedophile at a daycare center with 10 workers always being watched may do nothing inappropriate for years. Suddenly you lay off 3 other workers and there is less supervision. As terrible as the event described here, keep in mind we are talking about Nazis, people who would be okay with killing. Would such Nazi teacher be okay with giving out addresses of Muslims, Jews, and Blacks to somebody else if they think Muslims, Jews, and Blacks should be eradicated? Remember we're not talking mere racists here.

 

[BH]

Back in the 60's and 70's there was a teacher who did not like blacks. He would tell race jokes and use "nigger" when he did not tink black people were around even though he was heard by them using it. When they got into fights he'd walk up and start acting like a gorilla. One day he was on the highway going through "their" side of town and had a wreck. Some of the black people were coming to help him and then someone said "Oh, that is so and so" and then they backed off. Word got around and he was known by reputation. They called the cops and an ambulance but otherwise did nothing. just goes to show.......

 

[Underseer]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba

Teacher is allegedly identarian, what Underseer would call a "free speech advocate." She lied about it and spread ideology in the classroom. Is it okay to fire her?

It's "alt right free speech advocate."

And why the fuck wouldn't it be OK to fire a Nazi teacher?

If there is anyone who should be kept as far away as possible from children, it is proponents of genocide and racial superiority.

The fact that this matter is even debatable shows how much of a complete joke America has become.