1. Lawyer-blogger John Hindermaker is furious and depressed over the incident, writing in part,
“So a teaching intern expressed support, not for criminals, but for law enforcement. And it got her dismissed from her position. Supporting the rule of law isn’t just optional in this district, it is prohibited…”
He then submitted this apocalyptic reaction:
“So the “values” of the school district explicitly include lawbreaking, and supporting lawbreakers. How did we get to this pass? And what is the path forward? Honestly, I think it is hard to see how those of us who support the rule of law can continue to share a country with those who do not–a group that now numbers close to half of our population. What possible basis for a common citizenship is there, between us and them? I don’t think there is one.”
2. Isn’t this a Bizarro World ethics situation? From the E.A glossary: “The term Bizarro World is used on the blog to describe cultures with unethical ethical norms, often with the lesson that in a Bizarro World culture, normal ethics often don’t work, and may be futile.” Surely the intern had to know what state she was in and the delusions as well as personal interests common in her community. If she feels strongly about enforcing laws, then she’s in the wrong state. What did she expect to happen? Her comment could be read by her students as, “I want your parents to be deported.”
3. So long ago that I don’t have the energy to look for it, when social media was just beginning its mischief, I supported a school’s decision to fire a teacher whose social media post was sent to her employers by a whistle-blowing, anonymous Facebook “friend.” She had written, as I recall dimly, that she was at her wits’ end dealing with parents and their “stupid children” and that it was hard not to hate them, or words to that effect. In the ensuing litigation, which the teacher lost, the court took the position that the school had reason to question her ability to treat all the students equally and fairly if she hated them and their parents, and that students would have just cause not to trust in the beneficence of a teacher who had expressed animus towards their families.
4. Where is FIRE in this matter?
Ethics Alarms 
#3 she never said she hated them. To contrary she demonstrated her ability to rise above the reasons to hate them.
Yes it’s unethical to fire her. But nothing can be done about it and if it could, it wouldn’t help her situation.
I imagine many people were trapped in similar situations when other times Democrat dominated areas engaged in mass secessionist and insurrectionist actions.
This is actually why the Department of Justice was formed. Their mission was to provide justice to people denied justice because the local government was dominated by Democrats.
Important history lesson.
Still barring a massive lawsuit that pays her well, there will be no local remedy. It will take too long to convince a rebel community they must collectively change their hearts and minds in order to be part of civilized society again.
The district will have a hard time justifying the firing. I imagine an attorney (if she can find one willing to take the case) would easily find political postings of the opposite political leanings from numerous teachers at the school that weren’t punished. If your school allows students to wear Planned Parenthood t-shirts, gay pride t-shirts, etc, you can’t disallow a student from wearing a “MAGA” t-shirt. The schools are supposed to be public schools and support all students, not just the ones the administration likes.
2. This seems too close to Rationalization #36: Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/ You should have seen it coming.”
3. I do think there’s a difference between supporting the enforcement of laws which may not affect how the teacher interacts with students and publicly calling some of her students stupid which most certainly affects how she interacts with them.
My vote is that it is not ethical to suspend or fire her over public support of law enforcement. Her comments do not reflect on her ability to do her job unobjectively. This is pure thoughtcrime aimed at conservatives/Republicans/noncompliant Democrats that people, such as my Trump-Deranged sister, claim has never happened and is only the practice of the current administration toward liberals/progressives.
Here’s a story that has struck me: Surprise council demands answers about ICE warehouse
DHS has acquired a warehouse in Surprise, Arizona with the intention of using it as a detention facility. The Surprise city council is all up in arms, as are Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Arizona’s two senators. What an upside-down world we live in where U.S. senators are making every effort to obstruct the federal government from enforcing U.S. law within their state. Surprise is on the (north) west side of Phoenix, which probably has the largest concentration of illegals of anywhere in the metropolitan area. It is also ground zero for massive fulfillment facilities that are nowhere near any residential areas.
Of course, during the Obama administration, Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio was enjoined by the District Court from attempting to round up illegals on the theory immigration enforcement was strictly within the purview of the federal government. Clearly, the Obama administration was simply intent on preventing immigration laws from being enforced.
Her surname is Jimenez? Is she being punished for going off the reservation?
Maybe she thought she wouldn’t receive much flack because of her surname. I believe there’s a strong population of Hispanics who very much support ICE and immigration enforcement efforts. It may even be that a majority of Hispanics in her district actually agree with her, which is why she was so ebullient on Facebook about ICE arriving. It may only be a small, outspoken minority that is anti-ICE and pressuring school officials to fire her. Don’t forget Rules for Radicals #1:
The people who are anti-ICE overall are a very small slice of the public, but the level of noise they make, and the backing they have with the all the right institutions (education, media, law) makes them seem a much larger group than they really are.
There is a big distinction between this teacher and the one fired because she called her students and their parents stupid. This teacher stated support for I.C.E. and federal enforcement of immigration laws. That position has no impact on whether she can teach her students as required by the curriculum and the school’s mandates. The latter teacher posted something that clearly puts her objectivity and fairness into question. That has a direct impact on her qualifications as a teacher and has an impact on the school. Firing the latter was justifiedl; firing the former may not be, assuming there is no contractual provision that controls the teacher’s off-campus behavior (this is not a Naked Teacher’s Assistant rule).
jvb
JVB,
Don’t try to argue for why these are different. Take a moment and see how closely you make the two cases seem similar. For example, obviously Jiminez can’t perform her job impartially because her pro-ICE stance means she already has a preexisting bias against students that she judges, correctly or not, to be here illegally. Could she be objective and fair with a student she strongly suspects is illegal, for no better reason than his surname is Jimine… wait, I mean Martinez?
The trick (for the radicals) is to craft the message in such a way that it seems that a standard is being violated. Any attempt to explain otherwise can then be dismissed as spin or being disingenuous. And if too many level heads seem to be prevailing in the rational discourse, simply abandon that tactic and move on to another tactic elsewhere. If Jiminez wins in some future lawsuit against the school, blackout any mention of the lawsuit or even the controversy that led to her firing.
I’m a big fan of this blog, but… 1. Are you saying Hinderaker is wrong? 2. Are you saying Jimenez was wrong? Are you saying that because Rosa Parks was in Alabama she shouldn’t have tried to sit in the front of the bus? “What did she expect would happen?!” 3. Are you saying that Jimenez compromised her ability to teach in the same way that a teacher who condemns crime might make children of parents in prison uncomfortable? I commend the commenters for trying to make sense of this post.
Yes, I think Hinderaker is wrong because the US has bridged serious irreconcilable disagreements many times before. This one isn’t worse that any of them. It just takes time and leadership.
2. There was no need for Jimenez to proclaim that ICE was needed in the community in a setting where it would undermine her trustworthiness to her primary stake-holders. Rosa Parks was not in an analogous position. That was civil disobedience.
3. A teacher who knew the innocent child of an imprisoned parent was in her class would have an obligation to be as sensitive as possible. I can easily imagine rhetoric that would be considered unacceptable in that situation, and so can you.
John loss me from this point on: “Honestly, I think it is hard to see how those of us who support the rule of law can continue to share a country with those who do not–a group that now numbers close to half of our population. What possible basis for a common citizenship is there, between us and them? I don’t think there is one.” There is one: our common culture is stronger tha the doomsayers realize. They don’t know their own country. Yeah, the solution is education, leadership, courage, genuine public information, and success.
Same as always.
This is a tough one. Social media’s inherent problems of context and propaganda means folks are filling in the blanks what this post means–what is “out of hand”? Is it the shell trucking companies, the unlicensed street food vendors, the hit and runs, or the influx of ghost student transfers from nearby HHS-funded “Learing” centers?
Of course the only possibility of the “things” being out of hand is her students!
Firing her means endorsing the propaganda demonizing law enforcement. Keeping her employed means retaining someone lacking discernment, but perhaps that’s balanced out by being non-conformist.
Overall, without a more clear subject of the post, I don’t think it’s fair to read it as animosity against minors that she may be directly entrusted with–but any parent that feels so ought to have full disclosure and an alternate if they feel it does represent that.
Recently we had some students hit by an illegal driver who had no driver’s license, could not speak english and had no insurance. One of the students died, all the others were messed badly in various ways.
While I was speaking with a coworker this morning, she mentioned that her car insurance company cited this short of incident as the prime reason for the lion’s share of our auto insurance premium increases. This kills my bank account and disables me financially and puts at risk my ability to provide for my family.
As much as I want to say what that teacher said, I am not stupid enough to be to the tallest blade of grass and the first to get cut.
But with regard to her ability to serve children, i have zero doubt that she could serve impartially… Even the teacher who referred to her clients as stupid in private.
I say this because working in IT has opened my eyes to the rainbow of stupid that my team supports. Our comments about our experiences usually involving the word stupid are merely venting.
There can be only one standard. Double standards are not acceptable. If the other teachers at the school have ‘Free Palestine’, ‘ICE-OUT’, Ukrainian flags, or other such political material on their Facebook pages and haven’t been fired, then she can’t either. My argument is that government schools can’t take sides on partisan issues. If they allow teachers to have political statements on their social media, then ALL political positions are allowed on social media. I will admit that she should be fired only if every other teacher at the school who put a political statement on their social media is also fired. There are probably just as many people offended by the ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘anti-ICE’ positions as those offended by the pro-ICE position, so the only justification for firing this one teacher and only this teacher is a purely partisan one.