Once again, it is increasingly apparent that entrusting one’s children to the incompetent and irresponsible care likely to be provided to them by America’s public schools is itself incompetent and irresponsible.
That’s Danielle Allen above by her Twitter (‘X’) profile on her account which she operated under the pseudonym Claire Kyle. She was, despite not only proclaiming herself a “black supremacist” but constantly posting anti-white comments and rants online, a first-grade teacher at the Thompson Elementary School in the Mesquite Independent School District in Texas.
The anti-white posts started coming in July when she joined the social media network. A video picked up by The Libs of TikTok outed “Kyle”, and soon her various racist tweets were, as they say, “going viral.” It didn’t take long for web sleuths to discover the real tweeter, and apparently the school knew about her Twitter racism. Allen smugly announced that they were cool with it…
All righty then!
Among her more alarming tweets was a series following her discovery that her sister was having a relationship with a white man…
..which eventually included a screenshot of her exchanges with her own boyfriend asking him to kill her sister’s white lover, and offering her assistance in concealing the crime. Though they “laughed” and just told her to be more careful, the school’s administrators eventually realized they couldn’t cover for Allen any longer, and fired her, this week, announcing,
That “investigation” must have been a breeze, since the Libs of TikTok and other Twitter users had done all the work already. Now the real investigation needs to begin, this one of the entire school system. If Allen’s “great teacher” tweet was otherwise accurate, the school’s administrators were lying in that announcement. They knew about “Claire Kyle” before “4 pm. yesterday.” They also, according to her, shrugged off her racism and just told her to not to broadcast it. The administrators, including the African-American principal who eventually fired her, apparently accepted the premise of this tweet…
The school assisted in covering up Allen’s extra-curricular racism, first by deleting complaints about her tweets posted on the its Facebook page, then by taking down the page altogether.
All of which raises the question: how could such a proudly and vocally racist woman be hired and tolerated as a first grade teacher? It seems impossible to believe that her co-workers weren’t aware of her racism. Every individual in the school who was aware of her anti-white bias had an ethical obligation to report it. Every white student in her class was at risk of mistreatment; every non-white student in her class was at risk of being poisoned by her hate. Every parent of every child in the school had a right to know about Danielle Allen’s bias, and that the Mesquite Independent School District hiring process apparently accepted racists as appropriate instructors for young children.
Allen’s tweets—her account has been taken down, of course–also expose her as an idiot. I don’t think idiots should be teaching children.
How many school districts like this are scattered around the nation? How many principals are out there who would caution a racist teacher to “watch what she says”? How many teachers are there like Danielle Allen, and what damage are they doing to the culture, society and the nation every day?
Ethics Alarms 
“How many teachers are there like Danielle Allen, and what damage are they doing to the culture, society and the nation every day?”
For every visible rat, > 100 lurk undetected.
First, I agree that this woman should not be teaching, but my opinions on the DoE have been aired before.
This, to me, brings up a new issue, when considering Musk’s tweet (is that what these are still called?). If you are fired for what you say on X, he will help with legal bills. This is to help freedom of speech, and it is good.
I support freedom of speech from government censorship. I also support the idea that speech has consequences. Most of those consequences are logical. If you say certain things, I assume you are an idiot and treat you as such. If you say other things, I assume you are an unethical git and treat you as such. If you say things that are opposed to my brand, as a theoretical non-governmental business owner, I will not hire you, and in a right-to-work state, I will let you go. All this is fine.
The issue, to me, comes when a government employee says something that should have consequences and is fired from a government job. How does one balance freedom of speech and consequences of action? I’ll admit that opining on killing your sister’s boyfriend because of his race is miles on the wrong side of the line, where ever it is drawn, but how does one draw that line appropriately? It seems that Darrow’s too much freedom is required, but how do we protect kids from horrible teachers, while giving them the proper amount of freedom? I mean, besides homeschooling.
In this case, it’s not merely the speech itself, but the clearly communicated bias and lack of judgment that made it necessary to can her. If she wasn’t a teacher, but some back-office person that had no interaction with the public, her tweets wouldn’t have been as bad as far as the workplace was concerned. Unless her bias shows clearly in the workplace as well (which is very possible), in which case you don’t NEED her tweets to prove she’s unfit for working around anyone non-black.
Musk said he will pay the legal bills of those who were treated unfairly by their employers. I would say she was treated fairly.
But if a white teacher told the sprinkler joke to another white teacher and she just happened to overhear what was meant for other ears, both the teller of the joke and the one who laughed at it would be gone in sixty seconds.
“both the teller of the joke and the one who laughed at it would be gone in sixty seconds.”
I’d put $5 large on the under.
I’d say that’s a pretty safe bet.
Compare this woman being okay with her administration to the adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center being fired for expressing to another faculty member her distress that her black students tended to almost all perform at the bottom of her classes on tests. Bizarre.
Or the CUNY professor who attacked pro-life students armed with a machete.
Well, not quite right, she attacked students by throwing their display on the floor, THEN she attacked a reporter with a machete. It’s important to get the details right.
Clearly spoken by someone who spends too much of his working days dealing with obfuscating nitpicking by defense counsel.
Something like that, also with a boss and quite a few judges who will NOT tolerate the slightest inattention to detail. Thankfully no longer with a lower level supervisor who thinks he can do everything better than everyone else (and who has been through four or five jobs in six years).
Practicing law is hard. Retirement: the greatest drug ever invented.
If people were honest, this sort of episode could be informative and helpful. I think it’s Charles Barkeley who gets away with saying out loud, “We’re all racists.” Such a statement seems to throw people into conniptions, but I think it’s a good starting point. I’m going to assume human beings are hardwired to fear others and align with their own. Humans are tribal. Big deal. But if you admit it and are aware of it and make an effort to curb that instinct, we can find the answer to Rodney King’s asking “Why can’t we all get along?” We can’t all get along because we’re hardwired not to. Thus, we have to work at it. All of us, dare I say, not just white people. Racism is an equal opportunity predisposition. Let’s all deal with it. It’s not going to go away. We can’t stop being racist, but we can stop acting racist. To expect more is futile and counterproductive.
This lady is a poser, a fake, a phony pu$$y. She talks tough online but so what. If she were anything more than a common ignorant brainwashed blowhard with too much free time, she would join ISIS instead of just yapping online. An intervention would be helpful.
Agree Batman.
” They laughed and told me to watch what I say, and I’ll be good to go.”
We are all better off, now that she’s gone.
I recall reading this post here the other day:
With the Elon tweet:
“if you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting of liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill. No limit”
By all means, RR. She should sue with Elon’s money. She can hire Ben Crump.
Isn’t the operative word is “unfairly”. Being discharged for behavior that can harm the integrity of the employer is not unfair. By saying she does not like white people she acknowledges she discriminates based on race. The argument that simply saying you don’t like white people is different than actually denying the something tangible like a job or a raise fails to consider that the statement itself discriminates between white students and black students which is based on racial animus. The word discrimination means literally identification of differences between choices.
While I agree that this is justified. it’s ultimately a subjective call. I am sure she thought she was being perfectly reasonable. Elon’s offer, while noble, opens the door for numerous debates over what constitutes ‘unfair’ treatment. With the sheer number of individuals who could claim mistreatment, determining fairness seems like an almost impossible task.”
Well Elon can define fair as he sees fit.
I would love to see someone try to get a court to define fairness which could be then used to undermine all the calls for others paying some I’ll defined fair share.
She was hired by someone who empathizes with her good racism.
I’m really of two minds on this one, and I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth that’s necessary to make a clear decision.
On the one hand, if we’re going to have Freedom Of Speech then it needs to apply to everyone, even idiot racists like her. If she truly is able to reign in any and all objectionable behavior (especially in regards to her students) in real life, then she should be able to express whatever thoughts she wants to without consequence. If she’s to be terminated from her teaching position, then it should ONLY be for actual actions taken that causes someone demonstrable harm. (Of course, we’ll never know the truth of this.)
On the other hand, it is telling to me that she registered under an assumed name to distance these remarks from her real identity because it tells me that–at best–she wanted to keep the worlds of her inner thoughts and her real life professional position separate, or–at worst–she KNEW that what she was doing with these posts was fundamentally wrong and offensive but hoped to get away with it anyway through the false identity.
The problem for the school, however, is different. She’s put them in a position where any white student who doesn’t like the treatment he gets from her (even when the treatment is well-deserved due the student’s own actions) can make a reasonable claim that it’s because of her racism.
My suspicion is that she probably did something on the job that, when looked at through the lens of “Claire Kyle” and her messages, crossed the line of speech versus actions. But again, we’ll never know.
–Dwayne
Dwayne, when a teacher indicates by clear words that she is biased against some of her own students, and makes hateful comments that her own students will see and know they apply to them, firing her has nothing to do with free speech. If a statement undermined the employers as well as the ability of the employee to meet the responsibilities of her job, punishing that conduct is essential.
Oh I totally get that and I’m not disagreeing at all. This is, after all, a pretty good illustration of the Naked Teacher Principle (or a variation of it I suppose) and that’s what my second-to-last paragraph was addressing. She’s lost her credibility as a fair and honest person and the rebuttable presumption of racism is going to follow her now, maybe forever. I think her firing is a just and necessary result.
It’s just that in the process of thinking about this, “shoe on the other foot”, I’m wondering if the same result should occur if a teacher was posting things on an anonymous account that ran counter to current progressive cant (e.g. suggesting that schools are going too far with trans ideology) and got fired as a result. Would that also be a just and necessary result? If not, what’s the difference? Is it strictly the content of the posts?
If it is strictly the content of the posts, then that doesn’t sit right with me (assuming we sideline the NTP for the moment, arguendo, and apply this to someone in a different profession). At some point, we have to define a principle where all people can have Free Speech–including teachers and other professionals–without having to live in fear of “offending” someone and having their lives and/or livelihoods destroyed as a result.
I think that principle lands on the difference between thoughts/words and tangible, observable actions–the same as it does in criminal law. We can talk about robbing a bank all we want and can even draw up a detailed plan that is sure to work, and we’re not breaking the law until we attempt to actually go rob the bank. Similarly, I think that a teacher who professes beliefs that I find abhorrent but is able to observably treat all students fairly and equally should be left alone–or, at most, watched more carefully to ensure that the fair and equal treatment really is happening.
As I said at the end of my first post, I suspect that she DID actually do something in the classroom that crossed a line, but we’ll never know for sure.
I guess in the end I’m saying that even if this is a just and necessary result, it still does some damage to Free Speech in the same way that the firing of Gina Carano by Lucasfilm did.
–Dwayne
P.S. . . . and I’ll never understand why anyone actually uses Twitter/X in this way.
On further reflection, I can see where another reasonably valid principle could be (and arguably IS) being applied: The employer is choosing to be the arbiter of what content is acceptable and what is not, and in doing so is exercising a collective right to Freedom of Association. That’s great for the FA right but it does ultimately lead to some highly undesirable results if unchecked by the right to Free Speech.
For instance, would it be okay for a school district to announce that teachers who publicly support a particular candidate in a local school board election will be fired? Granted, a school district ultimately answers to the voters but it would take a long while to get such a policy reversed, and in the mean time a lot of damage will be done. Hell, if it’s successful it might be impossible to reverse if it gets people on the school board who support keeping it in place.
Abuse of Freedom of Association in this way absent moderation by Free Speech eventually leads to things like families not getting together for holidays because of differing political opinions. It leads to polarization the likes of which we’re already seeing and which appears to be getting worse.
So I don’t think, in the end, that this is a good principle to go with. From a Utilitarian point of view, it’s going to do more harm than good.
–Dwayne
Her employer could excuse her for only so long. Of course now she’s got a cause of action and will sue hard for a payoff. Too bad Al Sharpton isn’t a civil rights or labor lawyer; too bad Johnny Cochran is dead. Too bad Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis already have their holy missions. Horrors! She could get stuck with an honest lawyer, or a white lawyer, and then she’d be SOL.
Getting sacked is a drag -the sackee might even suffer through the stages of grief- but for this hag, no problem; there’s always another job, thousands of them for martyred racists – as long as they’re black racists. Had she been white and demonstrated such hateful and loud bias she’d be cancelled, flat out, never to be heard from again.
As for the replies invoking constitutional amendments, legal parsing, context and culture, give it a rest. Let’s stick with our instincts. That’s mighty big of you Jack to take the time to courteously -like to a curious but dense child- explain that when when one tells you she’s a racist, supremely so, and will prove it if you want, believe her.