Why the Romney T-shirt teacher doesn't need to apologize*
Why the Romney T-shirt teacher doesn't need to apologize*
“The President has stripped his events of anyone who might disagree with him, which is completely un-American. It is dangerous for a President to be the bubble boy of American politics. But it might explain why the President can’t admit the problems of people without jobs, without health care, without prescription drugs, or trying to put their kids through college. He doesn’t know about them because he refuses to even see them."
I couldn't agree with that comment more...today, or when it was uttered, about then-President George W. Bush and his campaign, by then-DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe. The incident that inspired that comment happened in Medford, Ore., eight years ago this month, when three women were barred from a Bush rally for wearing T-shirts that read "Protect Our Civil Liberties." And that was not an isolated event. Even after Bush was re-elected, in early 2005, the White House barred certain folksfrom a rally in Fargo, N.D., because they had the audacity to belong to a local chapter of (heh) Democracy for America. (The link is from Fox News, so it must be true.)
I remember this era well because it was in 2004 that I started blogging and in February 2005 -- the same month as the fiasco in Fargo -- that I launched Attytood. And frankly, these kind of clampdowns on free speech are exactly the thing that radicalized me after two decades of struggling, and often succeeding, to be a journalist with the opinion side of his brain castrated (is that a mixed metaphor?). I started feeling differently not long after 9/11 -- starting with Ari Fleischer telling me I had to watch what I said and with Congress passing the Patriot Act to find out what was in it, and amped up by a magnitude of 100 when the Iraq War lies started flowing. There were things happening in this country that "he said, she said" journalism was powerless to stop. And these restrictions on the ability of Americans to speak their mind freely sickened me more than just about anything.
The other day, I got that sickening feeling (no relation to this) all over again. This time, it was from reading news accounts right here in Philadelphia that a 17-year-old high school student had been mocked and riduculed by her geometry teacher for wearing a Romney-Ryan T-shirt, who told her to remove the shirt and who likened the GOP ticket to the KKK.
My first thought that this was every bit as bad as the Bush-era campaign rally incidents that I had written about seven or eight years ago. But then I realized that in some ways this is worse. Those earlier abuses happened at political events, where, unfortunately, we've learned to expect tomfoolery. This was coming from a teacher at a school -- where kids are supposed to learn how to formulate their own opinions on the world...and then express them. Where young people should learn (despite what they say deep in the heart of Texas) critical thinking. And where they also find out that the First Amendment can indeed make America exceptional...if we can keep it.
My initial reaction over the weekend also was that not only should the teacher -- who's tried very badly to explain this as a joke gone awry -- apologize but that Mayor Nutter should add this as a stop on what feels like a non-stop, city-wide apology tour. Those things happened more or less, but they did not send a strong enough message about free speech and public education. I headlined this blog post "Why the Romney T-shirt teacher doesn't need to apologize"...followed by an asterisk.
The asterisk stand for...because Lynette Gaymon should be fired, for turning a public classroom into a no-free-speech zone. End of story.
I was reminded of the incident 10 days ago at Philadelphia's Puerto Rican Day Parade where a cop who'd been squirted by water slapped and knocked down a woman who, to make matters even worse, seemed to have nothing to do with the incident. The police commissioner looked at the video, thought about it for a day or two...and moved to fire the offending lieutenant. Well, Lynette Gaymon slapped the First Amendment and knocked it to the ground. Short of physical violence or sexual abuse, it's hard to imagine worse behavior from a teacher.
Which is why an apology should be too little and too late to save her job.
Comments (143)
Forget about the free speech aspect for a minute. The fact that an African American teacher associated a white student wearing a shirt with the KKK in a classroom setting in front of other students is all that matters. The teacher needs to go.— Wiseman6- "Principal forbids 5th grader to wear Obama shirt to school"
Good find, MSL. Kind of blows all those right wing arguments out of the water, doesn't it? I bet there weren't any middle-aged arm chair patriots protesting at that school.— Hamlet - "Ummm, government can supress speech" . . . Yes, this is government suppressing speech: http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=9718857
— montani semper liberi - "so glad to see that you are so wildly confused"
No I'm not. There's no proof the teacher did anything but make a joking comment, which you and others, including Will, are saying was an attempt to suppress Pawlucy's free speech rights. A teacher controlling her own classroom includes her controlling the conversation.— Hamlet - So if Samantha wants to give a speech about a certain color of nail polish during geometry class Gaylor (according to you, RG, the sole representative of the government in that classroom) would be violating the constitution if she told the girl to be quiet and read chapter 5 of her text book?— Hamlet
- Hmlet, so glad to see that you are so wildly confused about the difference between freedom of expression and codes of conduct. The student did not violate the latter. She wore a shirt that offended the poor teachers sensibilities.— RG
- Ummm, government can supress speech. The consititution limits it from doing so.— RG
- From my reading of what he said, Will doesn't just want the classroom to be a free speech zone, but one where the students control the conversation. In Will's world, woe be it to the teacher who tries to control her own classroom. Any teacher comment that a student deems an affront to the student's opinions or beliefs would be cause for the teacher's dismissal.
I've never been in a classroom like that, but I'd be willing to bet money that the teacher would find it impossible to teach in such an environment.— Hamlet - "By a teacher, who incidentally, is an employee of the government?" . . . . I don't see any exception for government employees under the first amendment. Either the classroom is a "free speech zone" for everyone (as Will apparently thinks it should be) including the teacher, or it shouldn't be for anyone. The student can't have it both ways, i.e., expecting to be treated as an adult with the right of free expression, while at the same time expecting to be treated as a child needing protection from free expression by her teacher.— montani semper liberi
- "Say "effective tax rates" first."
I bet that line kills when you do your standup at the Watermark.— Hamlet - "RG, say "Oh my!" in the voice of a female 1930's movie extra..."
Say "effective tax rates" first.— bp*philly - "Sort of like your hysterics over Romney's tax returns?"
(Non sequitur, but okay) Huh? I've never said a word about Sir Mitt's tax returns.
But now that I look at them....Oh my!!— Hamlet 
I think that Lynette Gaymon was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt when these two had their tilt. Happens all the time; girls fussing over each other's attire...— m13sully- No, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club (one of their concert tees has a hammer and sickle on it). — Hamlet
- "Ok David Duke"
Ok Rev. Wright"...LOL!!!— sarah89 - "be prepared to be ridiculed"
By a teacher, who incidentally, is an employee of the government?— RG - I'm already on record as saying the teacher should be disciplined if what the kid said is true. — chasing history
- "instead ofof holding the parents to their "parental responsibility" in raising their kids"
Its the parents responsibility to tell their kids they can't wear a t shirt supporting a candidate to school? WTF?— RG - Yes and also informing them that if they wear it, be prepared to be ridiculed. But instead of taking some responsibility for the poor decision, they chose to hire a lawyer. Real sincere people. — chasing history
- RG, say "Oh my!" in the voice of a female 1930's movie extra...I want to complete the image.— Hamlet
- Sort of like your hysterics over Romney's tax returns? — RG
"No, we get it. There are no options but drone strikes..."
We? Got a frog in your pocket, RG? I've asked you numerous times now - what are the other options??— wokmaster- "No, we get it."
Wow, the royal "we", even!— Hamlet - "He is so "concerned" about so many things these days"e a speech
But, but, but that bad man Romney gave a speech!— RG - No, we get it. There are no options but drone strikes, Romney's stump speech is worse that the admins cover up and misinformation campaign in regards to the Libya attack, and its the student's fault for wearing a shirt supporting a non-lefty politician.
You've all made yourself abundantly clear.
— RG - Yes, TPS, I do believe all this talk is giving RG the vapors.— Hamlet
- Hammy - you do have to admit that RG has perfected his pearl-clutching from his fainting couch technique. He is so "concerned" about so many things these days, his mad "concern" skillz certainly come in handy.— Talking point sleuth
- Lmao! — wokmaster
- "I'm shocked to see the lefties line up to attack a 16 year old because she wore a Romney shirt." . . . . Attacked? She should feel lucky she wasn't wearing a hoodie in Sanford FL.— montani semper liberi
- And I'm shocked (actually, I'm not) that you would deliberately misinterpret what someone says so that you can make them out to be vile and evil.— Hamlet
- I'm shocked to see the lefties line up to attack a 16 year old because she wore a Romney shirt.— RG
- And I'm shocked the righties line up in defense of a 16 yr olds " freedom of expression" instead ofof holding the parents to their "parental responsibility" in raising their kids. RG feels the Ned to coddle any juvenile in their lame attempts to express themselves. Parent of the Year! — chasing history
- It doesnt matter if it is lame or not. They have a right to express thmselves. Freedom of speech isn't determined by age, and shouldn't be suppressed by a government employee.
You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate when it comes to speech.— RG - My grandmother is a high school English teacher who is loved by her students, as is reported Gaymon is loved by hers. I have first-hand knowledge of what these ladies are like and I can tell you right now there is no way this thing went down the way the Pawlucy girl said. No way.— Hamlet
- "Either be prepared to defend your choice of apparel against ridicule, or keep your politics at home."
Nooo, MSL, teachers NEVER challenged my beliefs when I was in public school (Will would have had them fired for that, wouldn't you, Will?). In fact, if I ever disagreed with a teacher I had the right to humiliate her in front of the whole school, demand a public apology, and then have her fired. Forcing a student to defend her beliefs is censorship! It's the same as Bush's Free Speech Zones and people hauled off to jail for disagreeing with a politician. According to Will, it's WORSE. Sheesh!— Hamlet - ===]]] And of course the same day her parents 1) called the media and 2) hired an attorney and it has been reported that they are already booking speaking engagements. [[[===
I had to laugh when the girl's mom went on TV to complain about all the media attention.
Just more work of the "outrage" machine. It's getting to the point where public dialog is dominated almost completely by non-troversies.— Talking point sleuth - "Will, I am not defending Gaymon, but don't you think she has due process rights in her contact and should not be fired until a proper investigation has been conducted? "
Not according to Will. This thing didn't make sense to me from the begining. The way the Pawlucy girl described events sounded made up and I wondered if there was more to this BEFORE the alleged incident. She said all her friends turned against her because she went to the principal about it. Really? That's all it took for all her fiends to turn against her. And of course the same day her parents 1) called the media and 2) hired an attorney and it has been reported that they are already booking speaking engagements.
We don't really know what happened, or if, for instance, Gaymon made the KKK comment she is accused of making.
But Will says none of this should be looked into, we should fire the teacher sight unseen. This is not a "Tempest over a Tee Shirt". This si a fundamental first amendment issue and we should fire the teacher and ask questions later.
Congratulations, Will, you are now qualified to join the ranks of the Tea Party. I hope you like your new friends.
— Hamlet - "She was b*tchslapped for expressing her thoughts." . . . . Yeah, like that doesn't happen daily, at any school in the world. Either be prepared to defend your choice of apparel against ridicule, or keep your politics at home. That's how the First Amendment works in the real world.— montani semper liberi
- ===]]] In short, drones save American lives. [[[===
They save American lives (relative to other forms of engagement) if we take military action as a given. I think that there is a lot of expert evidence that suggests that they are largely ineffective or even counterproductive in terms of mitigating the large-scale problem. But I don't think that the evidence is conclusive, and there is a problem in that there is no clearly preferable option. Certainly, leaving a vacuum there will be a problem; IMO, not so much in terms of our own security, but mostly w/r/t the plight of women and girls left behind in that vacuum.— Talking point sleuth - "LOL. More fear mongering. If we don't do something, they'll attack us here."
You mean like on 9/11, the US Cole, Tanzania, Dar Salaam, etc?— wokmaster - ===]]] Doing nothing is absolutely not an option. [[[===I don't agree that it isn't an option. You consider it to be an unacceptable option, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an option.What is facile is to argue that there are other options without dealing in good faith with the relative costs and benefits of those other options.But if someone's mentality is stuck in binary-mode, then they are incapable of such good-faith engagement.Anyway - I will ask you, have you not read analyses that say that the drone strikes are, in balance, a net negative? On what basis do you dismiss those analyses? (HTML deleted)— Talking point sleuth
- I don't dismiss them. My philosophy with militant Islam is "a good offense is the best defense". There are very few nations that would risk harboring jihadists. The best place for these cretins to formulate massive terrorist attacks are in the tribal region of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Drones save our men from having to go into these territories and they are relatively inexpensive. In short, drones save American lives. — wokmaster
- ===]]] Doing nothing is absolutely not an option. [[[===
I don't agree that it isn't an option. You consider it to be an unacceptable option, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an option.
What is facile is to argue that there are other options without dealing in good faith with the relative costs and benefits of those other options.
But if someone's mentality is stuck in binary-mode, then they are incapable of such good-faith engagement.
Anyway - I will ask you, have you not read analyses that say that the drone strikes are, in balance, a net negative? On what basis do you dismiss those analyses?— Talking point sleuth - Of course, thats all you can do is dedicate links instead of debate the topic.
The admin scapegoated a video for Stevens death despite clar evidence there was no protest in Libya. They continued the lie for weeks, while news orgs and the Libyan gov't gave differing accounts. And now they are denying they ever blamed it on a video, despite overwhelming evidence. All to cover up that the security head asked the State Dept multiple times for additional security.— RG - RG - I dedicate the following link to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tUf0672xAOU— Talking point sleuth - "Doing nothing is absolutely not an option."
LOL. More fear mongering. If we don't do something, they'll attack us here. So funny to watch Obama cultists act like neo cons to defend their guy.— RG - This lying to the American people over Benghazi shows you the utter contempt Obama has for the country. And they kept it up for weeks. Totally shameless. Lets see more off those awesome ads American Crossroads. Hit this Empty Chair hard.— teardownthisfishwrap
- "Or claiming to care about civilians but voting for a president who kills them via drones."
I've read the report "Living Under Drones". There is much to lament with the program. Nonetheless, I have asked you what the alternative is, and you have nothing. Doing nothing is absolutely not an option.— wokmaster - "If he stopped being disingenuous, what would he have left? "
Whats more disingenuous than screaming for accountability for blog posters, but ignoring a complete lack of accountability for the president and his admin?
Or claiming to care about civilians but voting for a president who kills them via drones?— RG - ===]]] Stop being disingenuous, RG. [[[===
Seriously? If he stopped being disingenuous, what would he have left?— Talking point sleuth - Hey sloth, have you found a car company that will deliver on it's promise to make you a sexier, more American, He-man yet? Clown. — bp*philly
- "narrative of an "incompetent president"."
Keep ignoring my point about to cover up, or simple ignorance of the actual facts and details of the attack.— RG - "Dredging up an event from almost 30 years ago in a sad attmept to deflect from the administration's dishonesty and or incompetence."
Not at all. We need to compare apples with apples. These things happen. Doesn't take away the responsibility of the Administration at all. But let's stop pretending like this is the first time there's been a terrorist attack overseas. It plays into the narrative of an "incompetent president". Stop being disingenuous, RG.— wokmaster - What a shock to find out that the moderator of tomorrow night's debate has close personal ties to Barry. Really, really shocking.— bil,l atkins
- Charge the teacher with Civil Rights Violations:
18 U.S.C. § 241 : US Code - Section 241: Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.— John Jay - "Heck, you already launched a criticism at me before bothering to watch the video. That speaks volumes on your priorities. Deflect and defend at all costs."
And there lies the biggest difference between us - I admit when I make a mistake. I have yet to ever see you do that on this thread. You'll argue for hours, back and forth, over a small detail before admitting that you were wrong. Or maybe you've never made a mistake??— wokmaster - "I have become a defender of Obama because of the nonstop BS coming from the right wing from DAY ONE. "
I'm not right wing, and I am citing news agencies that are not right wing. But toady up and question my agenda while ignoring the story itself. Heck, you already launched a criticism at me before bothering to watch the video. That speaks volumes on your priorities. Deflect and defend at all costs.— RG - "If you truly believe she picked the shirt with no influence by her parents political beliefs, you are truly clueless."
You have zero proof behind your assertion. The only thing you have shown is your disdain for freedom of expression.— RG - You you have zero proof that that I am wrong either. Add in the fact the parents brought in an attorney and that's all I need to know. They hit the lotto and are going to cash in at the taxpayers expense.
I have two teenage girls. When they turn 18 they are free to express themselves in whatever way they choose. Until then, I am the parent and am responsible for them and that includes what they wear to school.
As I have posted many times, if the school was holding a mock debate or election, then bring in signs and t- shirts is fine. Otherwise, it's a distraction just like the kid who wore the Bush t-shirt to school many years back.
— chasing history - "But why should anyone take anything you have to say about this administration seriously."
Clearly, we should take you, TPS, and Murray's toadyism seriously. You guys are fair, balanced, and have no agenda. I almost typed that with a straight face.
BTW, its not just th fact that the attack happened, its the apparent cover up.— RG - And no RG, I don't think we should ignore what happens. But why should anyone take anything you have to say about this administration seriously. You clearly have an agenda. It might actually mean something when you level criticism of the President if you appeared to be the least bit balanced in your commentary.
It looks as if more could have been done to prevent this from happening. This is a stain on the President's foreign policy cred. But it doesn't remotely fit the narrative of atkins, who called it "amateur hour". I'll take Obama's record any day over that of his predecessor.— wokmaster - "I'll be interested to see, if Romney lies his way into office, if the same criticism is leveled at him"
Look at my criticisms of Bush. My record speaks for itself. Its amazing you say Romney could lie his way into office, but don't bother to talk about the lies Obama told during his campaign in 2008.— RG - "like when the marine barracks was bombed in 1983 under Saint Reagan."
Whose playing partisan politics now? Dredging up an event from almost 30 years ago in a sad attmept to deflect from the administration's dishonesty and or incompetence. Its NEVER the administration's fault to you.— RG - It IS the administration's fault. Happy? I criticize this admin when I deem it appropriate, but like Murray once said, I have become a defender of Obama because of the nonstop BS coming from the right wing from DAY ONE. — wokmaster
- Goof for you will...even a stopped clock is right twice a day.— bannedrepublican
- TPS - I'm still waiting to hear RG commend anything - ANYTHING - this president has done. The RGs and willy atkins of the world just live for anything unfortunate to happen under President Obama's watch. I'll be interested to see, if Romney lies his way into office, if the same criticism is leveled at him. But Atkins is clearly the worst. He was jumping for joy and high fiving RG that night on this blog. But of course, atkins was just concerned about the Ambassador. Sure... You'd almost think that previous administrations never had a terrorist attack happen overseas - like when the marine barracks was bombed in 1983 under Saint Reagan.— wokmaster
- Will Bunch, for once, we're in agreement. Thanks.— michael_b
- In TPS' world we should completely ignore what is happening and has happened under the current admin and instead fear monger about what might happen under the other guy.
Obama said it best:
“If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”
“Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.”
— RG - Imagine my surprise that TPS continues to ignore the record of the sitting president in a desperate attempt to gin up fear about the other candidate.— RG
- Good job, Bunch. I like it, a fellow Dem showing some cajones. Actually, you went further than I, I would have suspended her without pay until next school year.— tudorcity
- Imagine my shock that RG doubles-down on his "concern" about Libya while ducking Romney's interventionism (that goes along with his association with advisors and a Party that launched two wars, initiated drone policies, etc.).
What a surprise!— Talking point sleuth - As a reminder, Obama is the sitting president. When he and his adminsitration either lie to the public, or are simply shown to be incompetent when getting the details of an attack on our consulate, yeah its a big deal.— RG
- Imagine my shoch over TPS' outrage over a stump speech instead of the actual words and actions conveying either dishonesty or incompetence from the admin in regards to the death of American diplomats.
Zero principles. Zero.— RG - Imagine my shock. I figured I'd open up this Attytood thread to find RG, being that he's a man of "principle," absolutely beside himself that Romney gave his "major speech" advocating a far more interventionist foreign policy than that of the current administration. In fact, Romney stated that the major distinction of his administration would be that it would be more interventionist.
And instead of being "concerned" about Romney's interventionism, I find RG seeking to exploit the attack on the Libyan embassy for the purpose of venting his animus towards Obama. Imagine my surprise.
Too funny.— Talking point sleuth - "Fan of common sense which her parents apparently lack."
Yes, her parents let her dress herself, which means they lack common sense. What a sick, twisted mentality in which the victim is blamed.— RG - If you truly believe she picked the shirt with no influence by her parents political beliefs, you are truly clueless. — chasing history
- And you know for certain, right chasinghistail? Why do you hate young people making up their own minds on issues, tail? Is it your inner fascist that can't handle people daring to hold a point of view different from your own? — bil,l atkins
- She picked the shirt because she wanted to be the "edgy" kid in her class and have everyone look at her. She has no clue what Romney or Obama's positions are on any issue. Again, the parents fail the common sense test much like you. — chasing history
- chasinghistory - you're an idiot. do you know her or her parents personally? doubt it, just on here making assumptions about an innocent, teenage victim. how do you know she doesnt know anything about romney or obama's positions? i said above, you must be 1 of those parents that walk your kids on a leash, an obama '12 leash — jay36
- "If Slavery Were So Godawful, Why Didn’t Jesus Condemn It?" - Arkansas GOP Representative Loy Mauch. I'm sorry, was someone saying something about the racist GOP?— CiceroSpuriousDeodatusTheSecond
- Ms Gaymon took the day off yesterday to avoid giving a necessary apology. She may need to take today off for the same reason. By this logic, her only way to save face is to resign. People unable to act wih basic propriety have no business teaching young people.— DonQ
- She's still apparently trying to insist this was just a 'joke' gone wrong. It's ok though, since Jerry Jordan supports the abuse of a young woman as long as it keeps the union dues flowing and he can maintain his lifestyle. — bil,l atkins
- I'd encourage you to. All the details aren't out, but it doesn't look good. First, there were numerous requests to increase security at the consulate that were denied. Then, the administration was either clueless or lying about the details of the attack for weeks, while the Libyian gov't and news orgs reported the truth.
Listen to this mealy mouthed spin:
"The State Department officials downplayed earlier assertions that the anti-Muslim film was a trigger for the violence. "That is the question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion, that's not saying we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened," one official said."
What a crock, Susan Rice certainly went on the Sunday shows and blamed it on the film. The president and Hilary both isued statements connecting the attack with the film.
— RG - I didn't look at the link you posted, RG. My fault.— wokmaster
- Um, Barry, that bus that just ran you over was being driven by one Hillary Clinton. The arrogance and ineptitude of this administration that got Amb. Stevens and three others killed is now being exposed, as are the ridiculous lies that followed. It appears Hillary has had enough of Barry's amateur hour.— bil,l atkins
- "at the very least a ruse to form a mob near the Embassy"
Except the video I posted states that there were no protests outside the Libyian consulate. The first time they heard noise from the outside of the compound was when the attacks began.— RG - "Ambassador Stevens put out a statement condemning the "Innocence of Muslims" video right before the attack."
I believe you are talking about the Egyptian embassy, not Stevens. And confusion doesn't last for weeks. CBS news and the Libyian government both called it a coordinated attack 2 days after the fact. The admin went weeks calling it a protest turned violent. Incompetent of lying. You make the call.— RG - Politics are not allowed in classrooms. I believe the Teacher and the Student are both wrong here. I do not care what your political affiliations is and schools are not Political arenas. Two wrongs will never make this one right.— A. Martinez
- "Yet for weeks the administration tried to claim this was a spontaneous attack caused by a youtube video."
Ambassador Stevens put out a statement condemning the "Innocence of Muslims" video right before the attack. Think that had anything to do with the confusion? I still believe the third rate movie had something to do with the attack, at the very least a ruse to form a mob near the Embassy. There were protests all along the Arab World that night and the next day. Remember?— wokmaster - Oh and if you missed it, there was never evena protest outside the Libyian embassy. The adminsitration flat out lied for weeks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hJf6Q_jPrJk— RG - "The State Department's top security official in Libya asked for extra security for the consulate in Benghazi in the months before the diplomatic post was overrun in a deadly attack but received no response from superiors, according to documents obtained by CNN."
Yet for weeks the administration tried to claim this was a spontaneous attack caused by a youtube video.— RG - I believe Gaymon is still employed because the school and the district are sympathetic to her opinions.— jmc
- "No kids should wear any political shirts regardless of political affiliation dummy."
Fan of free speech, I see.— RG - Fan of common sense which her parents apparently lack. Now the parents have hired an attorney, anyone with a brain sees where this is headed. But keep ginning up the faux outrage, it becomes you. — chasing history
- 'high water' nailed it - if it weren't for the KKK comments, I'd say she could remain - after a suspension without pay. BTW - When does the President issue an apology to America for his lies about Benghazi?— teardownthisfishwrap
- Funny that all of a sudden references to the KKK are considered light banter or just a bad joke.— Wiseman6
I'll choose to buy whatever apparel I desire and don't need your help. You can tell me what to do when you sign over your government entitlement checks over to me. Thank you very much.— SocialReject- This beast Gamons is encouraged by her coworkers, superiors and political affiliations. The union will protect her rights. It's the children who are not being protected by these animals. Perhaps she should work at a charter school segregated with her kind. iMHO, Gamons is a racist pig.— SocialReject
- While I agree with your view, I wonder why you felt the need to preface your criticism of this teacher with a slap at George Bush from 8 years ago, and leading with a quote criticizing him from the head of the DNC from that period. Isn't it possible to judge this event on its own merits without trying to couch your conclusion in that "but the Republicans do it too" language? It's the kind of approach the mainstream media takes all the time when it's forced to criticize the conduct of their friends on the left. Obama rarely has to explain away or rationalize something that he says or does because the newscasters go from a short recitation of the facts to a "but we must point out . . ." explanation of why it's not really newsworthy or why we shouldn't place any importance on it at all. I wish all the media outlets would just give us the facts and let us decide what they mean to us, neither the view from the left or the right is fair and balanced and everything is spun. I'm no fan of Bush but he's been out of office long enough that using old stories about him to ease the sting of criticism of today's actors is getting old.— Maine.fan
- After a week, Will is the first and only so-called journalist at either newspaper to simply have the guts and integrity to do the right thing in this instance and go against the party line who put politics above doing what's right. I dont know why it's even a close call. And I give him credit for it despite him being somehow compelled to mention another incident to take the sting out of it.— tr88
- Philly schools are the land of the absurd. Gaymon is a disgrace. Her union is a disgrace. The school administrators are a disgrace.— joedog
- Ok, gotta read the whole article. Saw the lead-in with the anti-Bush blather and extrapolated based upon your past articles. (By the way, every hear of inverted triangle writing? I think you're supposed to put the big stuff, like conclusions, at the top of the article). Anyway, Bunch, we agree on action (fire the teacher), but not on the rationale. Schools are not free speech zones. Fifteen year old students should not be allowed to debate whether the fundamental law of calculus is true. Nor if the Bill of Rights came into effect in 1791. And a teacher does not have the right to politick for one party or another, or one candidate. Nor should a teacher give an assigment "Interview your parents, and if they aren't voting FOR the school bond, ask them why they hate education". A teacher actually did something like that, and was fired. Because all taxpayers support public schools, public schools only work if students, teachers, and administration exercise self-restraint.
There are three reasons why the teacher should be fired. First, she used racist, or at least race-baiting criticism on a student who, at 16, would be expected to be profoundly sensitive to criticism by authority. She should be fired because she bullied the student, and encouraged other staff and students to belittle and bully the student (isn't anti-bullying the cause du jour these days? with zero tolerance?). Last, she should be fired because she actively politicked while on the payroll.
And, as I stated earlier, she should be viewed as a negative role model anyway: giving in to comfortable corruption and racial intolerance, where "it's ok, because now everyone is a little bit racist".
The woman still hasn't accepted any responsibility for her actions. No character. I wouldn't want her teaching my kid. Apparently Sam's parents agree.— WizardofBoz - The oppressed have become the oppressors.— cgraham
- The oppressed have become the oppressors.— cgraham
- Mr. Bunch, if this was the 1950s and it was a white teacher telling a black kid
"You can't be that color in this school, this is a white school",
you'd be supporting that teacher, saying she didn't need to apologize. Today, it's a black teacher telling a white kid
"You can't wear that T-shirt in this school, this is a Democrat school".
The teacher not only used race as a divisive force (that is, she was racist) by race-baiting the student (likening the 16 year old girl's behaviour to the KKK), she bullied the student so badly the kid wouldn't even go back into the class, but she broke the law on politicking while on the state payroll. Your right, she shouldn't have to apologize, she should be fired. Apologizing would show her class, but not apologizing shows her class, too.
And as for you and many of the folks on this blog, don't you feel any pangs of conscience for blaming the girl,or her parents. Maybe your right. Sam Pawlucy, and those black kids in the 1950s were the problem, not the teachers. The kids caused this by being "uppity", right?
The disappointing thing about this is that Martin Luther King wanted racism against blacks to be defeated by everyone showing high moral character. What upsets me so much is that apparently folks think that racism can be defeated by everyone being racist.
Your attempt to draw the focus away from what the teacher did to a student, and what her friends the teacher's union and the Democrats are doing today by conjuring up inane irrelevant stories of political rallies eight years ago is pathetic, but pretty much what I expect from you. Keep blaming those uppity students, pal.— WizardofBoz - Yes, the teacher was wrong. Yes, the "joke" was inappropriate. However, there is a large difference between a reprimand offense and a firing offense. Having sex with a student warrants immediate firing. Making sexually or racially insensitive statements to students warrants immediate firing. Physically attacking a student warrants immediate firing. Telling a poor political joke is simply NOT of the same caliber. Do we really want to start firing good teachers for displaying a bad sense of humor on one occasion? Geometry teachers do not grow on trees and I don't see how anybody wins... including the offended student... if a substandard (or worse) teacher takes over that class. Remember, given the dearth of qualified teachers available these days especially in math and science, they will almost certainly get a less qualified replacement. The important point here is that we are talking about one offense at this time. If it becomes a pattern (or if this instance was part of an ongoing pattern), that is a different matter, but one error... an error that was not of a sexual or racial or other truly verboten nature... should not merit ruining peoples' lives over... and, by that, I am referring to both the teacher AND her students.— kobrakai7474
- I'm so stunned that Bunch didn't side with Gaymon because she's a left winger that I don't even know what to say about whether or not she should be fired.— drbob1
- I agreed with will bunch. I better call my doctor.
But seriously, credit to you for being consistent at least.— Northeaster - The Democrats are scared about this one. Mayor Urkel is desperate to find a way to make this one just go away. This is now embarrassing Our Supreme Overlord Barry.— bil,l atkins
Comment removed.- chasing history: You can't be serious. Why can't a person wear a shirt? Stop with this nonsense. Unless she was a devoted right winger in school, no one would know why she wore the shirt. For all anyone knows, she wore the shirt because it was pink and she likes the color pink.— Phillies2008WSChamps
- Rufus, i have to disagree. Most HS seniors are old enough to vote so politics should have a place. However, teachers shouldn't pro/con any politician. They should have open discussion and not take sides.— palmyra21
- Bunch, you are one of the reasons I refuse to buy your paper anymore.— dmn
- Comment removed.
- Will, high school is hardly the place to showcase your political affiliation, whether you are a student or a teacher. Students aren't fully baked yet and teachers are supposed to adhere to their primary principal of education, not indoctrination. I'd say fire the Bi#$h!, she doesn't know the difference..........— RufusG
- About time the State stops subsidizing Philadelphia Schools.— DrBID
- "But I really question this kids need to wear the shirt in the first place." Of course you do. Just like I'm sure you questioned all the Barry gear worn by kids four years ago. I'm sorry, what? You never questioned that? Shocking. Never mind.— bil,l atkins
- No kids should wear any political shirts regardless of political affiliation dummy. Stop being stupid. — chasing history
- We were all teens in high school at one point.
I cant imagine having a teacher ridicule you for a t-shirt, liken your support to one of the most hateful groups on the planet (KKK), and manage to turn other students against you in one fell swoop. If what is reported really did happen (the teacher does not deny saying any of this). For all of the talk of bullying (and the tragic subsequent suicides in some cases) in schools nowadays, it is unconscionable that a teacher would end up being the bully. A teacher has a responsibility to oversee the children and she instead ENCOURAGES other students to mock this poor girl.
Add in the fact that this teacher has refused to apologize (there are reports the teacher became defensive in a meeting with the girls parents) to the girl face to face and ENOURAGES students to rally for her, and this becomes a disgusting mess.
Fire her. Remove her from a classroom in that district for good. I dont care, just get her away from kids immediately.— astroqueen0 
Will, I am not defending Gaymon, but don't you think she has due process rights in her contact and should not be fired until a proper investigation has been conducted?- Didn't Lt Josey have the right to due process as well?? — bravehearted
- It's amazing when it comes down to common sense and we take politics out of this issue that most of us would agree that the teacher should apologize or be fired. All the kid did was wear a shirt. The teacher was out of line.— Phillies2008WSChamps
- Well done, Will. I'm generally not in agreement with your views, but you (impressively) took a non-partisan, American view of this travesty and spoke the truth. I hope your regular readers appreciate this as much as a I did.— matthew_maher
- sophistry, that was a political rally where they can exclude people based on what they wear. I'm pretty sure the Big O would do the same if 3 guys dressed in Romney gear crashed the party. Where in this case, it's a school where there should be a free flow of ideas.— palmyra21
- she piled on with the KKK comments, she needs to go.— high water
- This comment has been deleted. — Greatguy
- Temple. — tr88
- Both sides restrict t-shirts, signs, etc at their rallies. They are political and they have every right to do so-either side. The teacher should be fired, but I am sure the AFT will start a scholarship in her name.SEIU may even name a building after her. The union thug went right for the race card.It's the only thing the left knows how to do.— georgel
- If the teacher was serious in what she said and not some lame teasing, then she was absolutely wrong and should be suspended. But I really question this kids need to wear the shirt in the first place. If the school was holding a mock draft or election, fine. But just to wear it to solicit a reaction was poor judgement. I blame the parents.— chasing history
- While I disagree with what Gaymon said, and find it unprofessional, I'm not ready to call for her job. People say stupid things, Will, like when you called for Penn State to be broken up into satellite campuses after the Sandusky story broke.
"Gaymon won't be fired. She is now a hero to the extreme radical left."
So Bunch isn't part of the "extreme radical left"?— wokmaster - She SHOULD be fired, and here's why - a friend of mine used to be a teacher in a Phila. school. A black kid accused him, a white man, of saying the "n" word, which he hadn't. (I've never heard him say it, either.) He was fired simply based on the accusation. This teacher made a KKK reference, which is certainly bad enough for dismissal. It would be if the races were reversed here. (Apologies for spelling errors...I can't see the right side of my post.) — uncle meat
- I don't think Gaymon saw what was wrong with what she did.
Probably thought she was an Eagles fan in South Philly encountering a Giants fan walking down the street.— Mr. Smith - Comment removed.
- I suspect I'll be cussin' you out a lot between now and 11/6/12 Bunchie, but I couldn't agree with you more here. Teachers should be educators, not indoctrinators, especially if the public is paying them.— Frank S.
- What Bush did was much worse, and strangely, he didn't get either called out for it (he jailed people walking to work when the RNC was setting up. Jailed them for days just as a "pre-emptive" thing) or fired. Shame on you, Bunch, for jumping on the bandwagon and exaggerating a simple misunderstanding into a hate crime. Should you be fired the next time you accidentally irritate someone? Oh wait.— sophistry
- "Shame on you, Bunch, for jumping on the bandwagon and exaggerating a simple misunderstanding into a hate crime." What planet are you from?? i can't even imagine the comments you would be posting if that was a white teacher saying that to a black girl for wearing an pbama shirt.. you can't possibly be that naieve. clearly this was not an "accident" you blind moron, slipping and falling is an accident. but for a teacher to ridicule a student under any circumstances is wrong. — jay36
- //The asterisk stand for...because Lynette Gaymon should be fired, for turning a public classroom into a no-free-speech zone. End of story.///
Agreed, 100%. But we all know that will never happen.— General Turgidson - No need to call for the woman's job. Settle down Beavis.— MD20202020
- Gaymon won't be fired. She is now a hero to the extreme radical left.— bil,l atkins
- Comment removed.
- Mr. Bunch, we are talking about children here. The girl made up her mind based upon her research, right or wrong. She was b*tchslapped for expressing her thoughts. I always thought that places of education were for developing ideas and not for being places where one is ridiculed for expressing their ideas. I personally don't think that Ms. Gaymon should be fired, but she should practice her beliefs and be tolerant. She needs to be re-programmed so that she follows her words.— FletcherT
- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts