How do you deal with kids who love causing chaos, and for whom removal from the classroom is a reward? I had a few of those as classmates; it was a fun time.
Try to figure out the thing underlying the problematic behavior.
Sometimes it's things like they don't know shit and are embarrassed, or that's the only they know of to get any kind of attention and everybody wants attention even if it's negative. Sometimes it's past trauma and that's an entirely different situation you (or more likely the social worker you refer them to if you're lucky enough to have one in the building) get to handle.
My wife basically never sends kids out for this reason, never projects anger. You're still going to get kids that act out but denying them the fuel they need to amplify being a shithead is a pretty basic step one.
It's a double edged sword argument. Some kids will do what they can to destroy the learning of the rest of the class and keeping them in the room ends up preventing the learning of others. Some you will find is just an attempt to meet mates, some it's pure boredom or a lack of understanding of what to do. It's knowing when to use the appropriate response for each and sending students out might have to be the appropriate response.
Usually a combination of a good seating plan and approaching the high tariff students once a task is set to see how they are getting on first, giving them the attention to make sure they know how to achieve, will dispel most behaviour incidents. Using systems like choice, chance ,consequence and establishing clearly what they are doing wrong but at every stage giving a pupil the opportunity to change helps dramatically.
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
The big secret among anybody getting into education: They don't teach classroom management. You learn through trial by fire, and you tend to stick with what worked for you, even if those habits tend to be bad on the long run.
I've been taught classroom management!
But I'm in a graduate-level program...
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
The big secret among anybody getting into education: They don't teach classroom management. You learn through trial by fire, and you tend to stick with what worked for you, even if those habits tend to be bad on the long run.
I've been taught classroom management!
But I'm in a graduate-level program...
Its real hit or miss and super depends on lucking out and getting a good professor.
The big secret among anybody getting into education: They don't teach classroom management. You learn through trial by fire, and you tend to stick with what worked for you, even if those habits tend to be bad on the long run.
I've been taught classroom management!
But I'm in a graduate-level program...
Its real hit or miss and super depends on lucking out and getting a good professor.
We were taught a few things. Mostly social emotional learning stuff. But it is still scary the first day in front of actual students.
In other news, to quote Namond Bryce: I love the first day. Everybody all friendly and shit.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
I think it's because the University has been sued by a bunch of men they've expelled in Title IX proceedings and they're trying to avoid that...by creating genuinely atrocious policy.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
I think it's because the University has been sued by a bunch of men they've expelled in Title IX proceedings and they're trying to avoid that...by creating genuinely atrocious policy.
Basically, they got sued over the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation, and in response to that, they're just throwing up their hands (most likely because they're betting that a sane confrontation policy requiring it done through a representative with limits (you know, like in an actual court) would get a lawsuit as well.)
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
I think it's because the University has been sued by a bunch of men they've expelled in Title IX proceedings and they're trying to avoid that...by creating genuinely atrocious policy.
Basically, they got sued over the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation, and in response to that, they're just throwing up their hands (most likely because they're betting that a sane confrontation policy requiring it done through a representative with limits (you know, like in an actual court) would get a lawsuit as well.)
Yeah, not very leaders and best of us.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
I think it's because the University has been sued by a bunch of men they've expelled in Title IX proceedings and they're trying to avoid that...by creating genuinely atrocious policy.
Basically, they got sued over the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation, and in response to that, they're just throwing up their hands (most likely because they're betting that a sane confrontation policy requiring it done through a representative with limits (you know, like in an actual court) would get a lawsuit as well.)
Huh? What actual court is that?
The accused is the one with the right to confront their accuser. Obviously if they are able to afford a lawyer to do it for them, they should let them. But the lawyer is executing their rights on their behalf, they aren't required to have a lawyer do it for them. People represent themselves all the time. Do you think when they do they aren't allowed to do cross-examination?
And as much good sense as there is in never representing yourself, not all college kids have the resources for a lawyer. "You must be this rich to get due process" is an unfortunate reality, but not something that should be codified.
Also ACLUs wording on that is very deceptive. They are required to submit to cross examination by the accuse or the accused's adviser. Michigan isn't codify that there must be an accused-accuser showdown.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
I think it's because the University has been sued by a bunch of men they've expelled in Title IX proceedings and they're trying to avoid that...by creating genuinely atrocious policy.
Basically, they got sued over the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation, and in response to that, they're just throwing up their hands (most likely because they're betting that a sane confrontation policy requiring it done through a representative with limits (you know, like in an actual court) would get a lawsuit as well.)
Huh? What actual court is that?
The accused is the one with the right to confront their accuser. Obviously if they are able to afford a lawyer to do it for them, they should let them. But the lawyer is executing their rights on their behalf, they aren't required to have a lawyer do it for them. People represent themselves all the time. Do you think when they do they aren't allowed to do cross-examination?
And as much good sense as there is in never representing yourself, not all college kids have the resources for a lawyer. "You must be this rich to get due process" is an unfortunate reality, but not something that should be codified.
Also ACLUs wording on that is very deceptive. They are required to submit to cross examination by the accuse or the accused's adviser. Michigan isn't codify that there must be an accused-accuser showdown.
The school is not a court, there is no right to confront the accuser, and given the behavior of schools in this stuff, no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. In an actual court, the accuser is the state, not the victim, and the sixth amendment only applies if the victim chooses to testify (and frankly, I'd be for requiring someone else ask the questions in a trial too - there's very obvious issues with allowing an accused rapist to question the victim)
There's also the fact that, in practice, any such disciplinary hearings - like actual legal cases any time sexual assault is involved - tend to simply put the victim on trial instead. I guarantee you any such proceedings like the ones UMich required are going to be entirely fixated on things like the victim's sexual history or dress or whatnot.
For extra fun, they always presume said victims to be guilty of perjury or whatever extralegal equivalent universities get to throw around when they're cosplaying a court of law.
Strictly speaking, wouldn't any form of pressure from the university to attend something like qualify as witness tampering basically by default? Just a thought, but I don't seem to recall charges having been filed to be necessary - just that a crime has been (or may have been, even) committed. Not that I'd expect states to threaten that, but... shouldn't they? Like, just put out a statement pointing out that pressuring someone to recant/not file police report/etc. is a crime?
It does seem like a fun grey area, no? Especially since universities' main motivation isn't going to be addressing the wrongdoing as much as it is making the PR problem go away in the most expeditious manner possible.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project sent a letter to the University of Michigan on Thursday urging its administration to change its student sexual misconduct policy.
The letter asked the university to withdraw an interim policy that requires students who file sexual misconduct complaints to undergo cross-examination conducted personally by their alleged abusers.
ACLU official Dana Chicklas said due process and fundamental fairness require cross-examination in higher education cases where serious discipline is possible, but authorizing a student accused of sexual abuse to cross-examine the complainant is deeply problematic.
As the letter explains, cross-examination should be conducted by trained representatives – not by the students themselves.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
...at this point, I'm more proud of having gone to a directional Michigan school instead of either U of M or MSU. Nothing like forcing the victim to be in close proximity to their attacker, who is of course going to be doing their fucking best to traumatize them to drop the charges and make all of this go away- which is the entire fucking premise of this goddamned dumb rule: to make cases go poof so they don't reflect poorly on U of M, regardless of what took place. They just want for their precious reputation to not get smeared in the local papers.
A Virginia public school teacher fired in December by the school district for refusing to call a transgender student, who had recently transitioned, by the student’s new, preferred pronouns filed a lawsuit Monday alleging wrongful termination “for exercising his rights to free speech and free exercise.” Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School in southern Virginia, said in the suit that he had gone to great lengths to accommodate the ninth grade student, who had transitioned from female to male over the summer, addressing the student by his male name, but stopped short of using the student’s preferred masculine pronouns he/him/his. Vlaming was threatened with disciplinary action by the school, if he refused to comply with the student’s request.
When Vlaming refused to refer to the student as asked, at one point referring to “her” in front of the class during an exercise, the student objected, waiting until after the class had finished and other students had cleared out before addressing the issue with the teacher. “Mr. Vlaming, you may have your religion,” the student said, “but you need to respect who I am.” The student then withdrew from the class.
Vlaming was suspended for insubordination and, weeks later, fired by the school board. In his suit, the 47-year-old teacher who had been at the school for seven years says that his religious beliefs prevented him from addressing a teenager the way that was asked of him. Which core religious tenet was violated? “Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie,” the lawsuit argues.
Once again, we have a bigot trying to hide behind religion. What really disgusts me is the argument that somehow his refusal to properly address the student should be seen as some great compromise on his part.
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
It's a terrible argument, and will be ripped to shreds if the state's lawyers are competent
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
I don't think it's ridiculous, considering it's roughly one of the Ten Commandments to not lie.
But the argument still relies on the unexamined belief that gender is not fluid and arbitrary, and so believes the pronouns to be strictly binary.
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
It could be used to turn anything into a religious defense. If I believe the Earth is flat, and my religion doesn't allow lying, then suddenly my religion involves teaching a flat Earth.
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
It could be used to turn anything into a religious defense. If I believe the Earth is flat, and my religion doesn't allow lying, then suddenly my religion involves teaching a flat Earth.
If we are doing this via this idiot’s version of formal logic, then all you have to do is prove that he has lied at least once to show he’s not really religious.
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
I don't think it's ridiculous, considering it's roughly one of the Ten Commandments to not lie.
But the argument still relies on the unexamined belief that gender is not fluid and arbitrary, and so believes the pronouns to be strictly binary.
This doesn't hold water as he would have had to sign state law acknowledgements upon hire which require every employee to adhere to all state laws and school policies while in the employ of the school. So either he lied upon his hire documentation, which thus invalidates his employment, or he lied about it being a religious issue.
I do think it's a stretch to apply "don't bear false witness" to this type of situation. I grew up in pretty conservative religious circles, and I was always taught that the commandment was talking about things like testimony and protecting the reputation of others (eg don't slander or lie to harm or intentionally deceive someone who has a right to truth, etc) rather than all lies are damnable. I find it hard to believe a public school teacher would be more conservative about that specific religious tenet than the home-schoolers and fundamental Baptists I grew up around. It reeks of flimsiness, is a questionable definition of "lie" to begin with, and like Enc notes, won't hold up with put against his employment agreements.
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
It could be used to turn anything into a religious defense. If I believe the Earth is flat, and my religion doesn't allow lying, then suddenly my religion involves teaching a flat Earth.
If we are doing this via this idiot’s version of formal logic, then all you have to do is prove that he has lied at least once to show he’s not really religious.
Yeah, I'm guessing this is a pretty crappy person. Also, he could have just avoided gendered pronouns altogether, but chose not to.
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
That's.... is it just me, or is the actual religious argument there ridiculous? It's one thing to say "religion," but to back it up by saying "I'm not allowed to lie and that would be lying" seems an extra step in the dumb direction.
I don't think it's ridiculous, considering it's roughly one of the Ten Commandments to not lie.
But the argument still relies on the unexamined belief that gender is not fluid and arbitrary, and so believes the pronouns to be strictly binary.
This doesn't hold water as he would have had to sign state law acknowledgements upon hire which require every employee to adhere to all state laws and school policies while in the employ of the school. So either he lied upon his hire documentation, which thus invalidates his employment, or he lied about it being a religious issue.
If he’s right about his religious freedom claim then state laws which conflicted with it would be void. I mean, the school and state could get together to require you to sign a document that said “I will comply with state law to not be Jewish” but that law and document would be meaningless; you couldn’t gotcha some Jewish employee who had signed the document by saying they lied on the form and so were never employed.
I agree that the “because it’s a lie” thing seems like an outlandish way to ground the religious freedom claim though.
That kid has some fuckin guts to stand up to a teacher like that and do it in such a way that no one can paint them as irresponsible or disruptive. I'm truly impressed.
Honest question: is "transitioned to male" a correct phrase? Since the currently preferred term is transgender, and male is a sex (and a gender transition can be as physical, or not, as a person wants).
Not trying to be an asshole; just curious/wanting to keep up.
Honest question: is "transitioned to male" a correct phrase? Since the currently preferred term is transgender, and male is a sex (and a gender transition can be as physical, or not, as a person wants).
Not trying to be an asshole; just curious/wanting to keep up.
Your body transitions, your mind was already there, is my understanding.
Honest question: is "transitioned to male" a correct phrase? Since the currently preferred term is transgender, and male is a sex (and a gender transition can be as physical, or not, as a person wants).
Not trying to be an asshole; just curious/wanting to keep up.
So it's complicated is the short answer. From what I can tell there is a bit of a generational difference in attitudes among people in the community. The older way of thinking very much was that you are transitioning to the sex. The newer push is very much this is who you always were, and you are transitioning your appearance. Which one is best to use depends on the individual. I have never encountered someone being upset by using your approach and then changing it to match the older description. I have very much seen push back when going the other way.
It is notable that I identify as always being who I am as default so this might bias my experience a bit, but what research I have found supports my approach. Citations available in PMs.
Whether or not there is a space is also important. I want to say trans (gender). The idea being, if I am remembering correctly, that it stresses the trans part as an adjective for the noun. That is the person is (gender) and the trans part is there to describe one aspect of what type of (gender) they are. Similar to (race) (gender).
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been threatened with the possibility of jail after a judge deemed she was violating a court order for continuing to collect student debts on a now-defunct school.
That ruling, handed down in June of 2018, was made by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim and prevented DeVos and her Department of Education for going after former students at the bankrupt Corinthian Colleges Inc.
However, Kim said she was "astounded" to discover that DeVos was violating the court order at a hearing in San Francisco on Monday after a filing by the Education Department earlier disclosed that more than 16,000 former students at Corinthian College "were incorrectly informed at one time or another ... that they had payments due on their federal student loans."
. . .
"There have to be consequences for violation of my order sixteen thousand times," Kim said, according to a release.
Awesome! I've heard about the health impacts for a while, glad something is finally happening!
Wondering how that will impact after-school activities. They already cut close into dinner and evenings, yeah?
I have a student who between being in the school play and cheerleading is at the school until 10 fucking PM some nights. And we start at 7 AM. It's insane.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Awesome! I've heard about the health impacts for a while, glad something is finally happening!
Wondering how that will impact after-school activities. They already cut close into dinner and evenings, yeah?
I have a student who between being in the school play and cheerleading is at the school until 10 fucking PM some nights. And we start at 7 AM. It's insane.
Yeah, that's what I was worried about and you didn't make me feel better
Awesome! I've heard about the health impacts for a while, glad something is finally happening!
Wondering how that will impact after-school activities. They already cut close into dinner and evenings, yeah?
I have a student who between being in the school play and cheerleading is at the school until 10 fucking PM some nights. And we start at 7 AM. It's insane.
Yeah, that's what I was worried about and you didn't make me feel better
The schedule for kids with lots of stuff probably won’t change. You’ll just have one of the practices before school, instead of both after.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Posts
It's a double edged sword argument. Some kids will do what they can to destroy the learning of the rest of the class and keeping them in the room ends up preventing the learning of others. Some you will find is just an attempt to meet mates, some it's pure boredom or a lack of understanding of what to do. It's knowing when to use the appropriate response for each and sending students out might have to be the appropriate response.
Usually a combination of a good seating plan and approaching the high tariff students once a task is set to see how they are getting on first, giving them the attention to make sure they know how to achieve, will dispel most behaviour incidents. Using systems like choice, chance ,consequence and establishing clearly what they are doing wrong but at every stage giving a pupil the opportunity to change helps dramatically.
I've been taught classroom management!
But I'm in a graduate-level program...
Its real hit or miss and super depends on lucking out and getting a good professor.
We were taught a few things. Mostly social emotional learning stuff. But it is still scary the first day in front of actual students.
In other news, to quote Namond Bryce: I love the first day. Everybody all friendly and shit.
(Emphasis mine for exceptionally high contents of guano.)
Who thought this was a good idea? All this will do is discourage victims from coming forward...which is most likely the point.
Fucking disgusting.
I think it's because the University has been sued by a bunch of men they've expelled in Title IX proceedings and they're trying to avoid that...by creating genuinely atrocious policy.
Basically, they got sued over the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation, and in response to that, they're just throwing up their hands (most likely because they're betting that a sane confrontation policy requiring it done through a representative with limits (you know, like in an actual court) would get a lawsuit as well.)
Yeah, not very leaders and best of us.
Huh? What actual court is that?
The accused is the one with the right to confront their accuser. Obviously if they are able to afford a lawyer to do it for them, they should let them. But the lawyer is executing their rights on their behalf, they aren't required to have a lawyer do it for them. People represent themselves all the time. Do you think when they do they aren't allowed to do cross-examination?
And as much good sense as there is in never representing yourself, not all college kids have the resources for a lawyer. "You must be this rich to get due process" is an unfortunate reality, but not something that should be codified.
Also ACLUs wording on that is very deceptive. They are required to submit to cross examination by the accuse or the accused's adviser. Michigan isn't codify that there must be an accused-accuser showdown.
The school is not a court, there is no right to confront the accuser, and given the behavior of schools in this stuff, no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. In an actual court, the accuser is the state, not the victim, and the sixth amendment only applies if the victim chooses to testify (and frankly, I'd be for requiring someone else ask the questions in a trial too - there's very obvious issues with allowing an accused rapist to question the victim)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
For extra fun, they always presume said victims to be guilty of perjury or whatever extralegal equivalent universities get to throw around when they're cosplaying a court of law.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
...at this point, I'm more proud of having gone to a directional Michigan school instead of either U of M or MSU. Nothing like forcing the victim to be in close proximity to their attacker, who is of course going to be doing their fucking best to traumatize them to drop the charges and make all of this go away- which is the entire fucking premise of this goddamned dumb rule: to make cases go poof so they don't reflect poorly on U of M, regardless of what took place. They just want for their precious reputation to not get smeared in the local papers.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Once again, we have a bigot trying to hide behind religion. What really disgusts me is the argument that somehow his refusal to properly address the student should be seen as some great compromise on his part.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's a terrible argument, and will be ripped to shreds if the state's lawyers are competent
I don't think it's ridiculous, considering it's roughly one of the Ten Commandments to not lie.
But the argument still relies on the unexamined belief that gender is not fluid and arbitrary, and so believes the pronouns to be strictly binary.
It could be used to turn anything into a religious defense. If I believe the Earth is flat, and my religion doesn't allow lying, then suddenly my religion involves teaching a flat Earth.
If we are doing this via this idiot’s version of formal logic, then all you have to do is prove that he has lied at least once to show he’s not really religious.
You also just know that someone like this bullies and abuses the children in his charge in other way.
This doesn't hold water as he would have had to sign state law acknowledgements upon hire which require every employee to adhere to all state laws and school policies while in the employ of the school. So either he lied upon his hire documentation, which thus invalidates his employment, or he lied about it being a religious issue.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Yeah, I'm guessing this is a pretty crappy person. Also, he could have just avoided gendered pronouns altogether, but chose not to.
If he’s right about his religious freedom claim then state laws which conflicted with it would be void. I mean, the school and state could get together to require you to sign a document that said “I will comply with state law to not be Jewish” but that law and document would be meaningless; you couldn’t gotcha some Jewish employee who had signed the document by saying they lied on the form and so were never employed.
I agree that the “because it’s a lie” thing seems like an outlandish way to ground the religious freedom claim though.
Apparently, he considered it a "compromise" that he was supposed to be commended for, and not, you know, basic fucking decency.
It's him trying to thread the needle on being a bigot and keeping their job and I guess it went oops all berries on them
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Not trying to be an asshole; just curious/wanting to keep up.
Your body transitions, your mind was already there, is my understanding.
So it's complicated is the short answer. From what I can tell there is a bit of a generational difference in attitudes among people in the community. The older way of thinking very much was that you are transitioning to the sex. The newer push is very much this is who you always were, and you are transitioning your appearance. Which one is best to use depends on the individual. I have never encountered someone being upset by using your approach and then changing it to match the older description. I have very much seen push back when going the other way.
It is notable that I identify as always being who I am as default so this might bias my experience a bit, but what research I have found supports my approach. Citations available in PMs.
Whether or not there is a space is also important. I want to say trans (gender). The idea being, if I am remembering correctly, that it stresses the trans part as an adjective for the noun. That is the person is (gender) and the trans part is there to describe one aspect of what type of (gender) they are. Similar to (race) (gender).
Awesome! I've heard about the health impacts for a while, glad something is finally happening!
Wondering how that will impact after-school activities. They already cut close into dinner and evenings, yeah?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I have a student who between being in the school play and cheerleading is at the school until 10 fucking PM some nights. And we start at 7 AM. It's insane.
Yeah, that's what I was worried about and you didn't make me feel better
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The schedule for kids with lots of stuff probably won’t change. You’ll just have one of the practices before school, instead of both after.