Turn on thread page Beta

Should teachers with racist views be sacked? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    My point is that you cant allow a party like the BNP to stand and campaign legally and then sack someone for supporting them. If you do that then you are enacting the same kind of prejudices that you are sacking them for.
    For my point of view, see my previous post. What you're saying is that because they're a legal political party therefore by definition whatever views they hold one must tolerate in the teaching profession, I don't see where this line of reasoning comes from. I then tried to show you how if this logic were applied to the NF, then it would lead to the scenario I then described - which I for one would not be in favour of.

    As said before people are multi faceted.
    Yes they are, but I discussed this too, regarding association.

    Yes I agree the BNP policy on schooling is a little disturbing but he would not be able to enact that policy unless he got in at election and if he did get in he would have been elected by the people - thats democracy.
    That's not the fear that he would somehow enact the BNP's political agenda through his classroom teaching.

    At school he would be wearing a different hat to his political one.
    Well that cannot just be assumed, I cannot tell whether he has an excess suppy of hats. Again, I didn't actually state that he be thrown out, I discussed this in greater detail on that longerpost, regarding association etc.

    If he could manage to pull off this dual role then fine he shouldnt be punished but if he couldnt then he would be failing in his duty as a teacher and should be disciplined but we have no evidence that he couldnt perform that dual role.
    Same again. I simply stated that there's a higher correlation, and therefore the matter be treated with greater caution. This happens in many other cases throughout the employment world.

    The fact that the school didnt sack him until they found he was standing for the BNP indicates that they didnt know his pollitical allegences and therefore it was not adversely affecting his teaching duties.
    That makes the assumption that the school is perfectly well aware of his every movement. I am not going to assume he was not competent, nor am I going to assume that the school would have necessarily have been aware had he been a racist - I know of many teachers who've gotten away with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BettyOblivious)
    The BNP are fascistic,
    Lie
    (Original post by BettyOblivious)
    racist
    Lie
    (Original post by BettyOblivious)
    and work to encourage fear,
    Lie
    (Original post by BettyOblivious)
    hatred
    Lie
    (Original post by BettyOblivious)
    and ignorance
    Lie
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Lie

    Lie

    Lie

    Lie

    Lie
    Do you care to qualify that with some coherent reasoning??
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    Being a paedophile is illegal whether having a criminal conviction or not. Being a political representative of the BNP is legal (or was when I last checked).
    Could you explain what you mean by the former sentence, the criminal conviction or not bit...just what happens if a convicted paedophile appeals succesfully? Is this what you mean or it just doesn't matter if you've been convicted or not?

    Well I guess technically speaking from case-law I have learnt you could stretch to suggest that by being a member of the BNP (not voting but joining) you provide them with money. This financial help, then aids and abetts their desire to incite racial hatred, so you will become an accessory. What if the Ku Klux Klan formed a political party in the USA?

    Either way I think the BNP are wasting their time.......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Lie

    Lie

    Lie

    Lie

    Lie
    After the clear and coherent way in which u presented your thoughts i am definetly convinced.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Could you explain what you mean by the former sentence, the criminal conviction or not bit...just what happens if a convicted paedophile appeals succesfully? Is this what you mean or it just doesn't matter if you've been convicted or not?

    Well I guess technically speaking from case-law I have learnt you could stretch to suggest that by being a member of the BNP (not voting but joining) you provide them with money. This financial help, then aids and abetts their desire to incite racial hatred, so you will become an accessory. What if the Ku Klux Klan formed a political party in the USA?

    Either way I think the BNP are wasting their time.......

    If a convicted paedophile appeals successfully then they werent a paedophile they were wrongly accused. If you are a paedophile that hasnt been convicted then you are still guilty of being a paedophile you just havent been caught by the law. If you are convicted of being a paedophile and that conviction is wrong and you are innocent then you are not a paedophile you are a person who has been wrongly convicted.
    It is illegal to be a paedophile, if you havent been caught you are still breaking the law you just havent been punished yet, but its not illegal to be a member of the BNP. Being a member of the BNP and standing for election is completely legal in the UK.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What the problem appears to be here, is that you are trying to make an analogy between say... a catholic teaching children, and a racist teaching children - basically they both could enforce views, but don't etc etc.

    The problem with this analogy is that a catholic teacher, even if they did push there particular views on there children, although I agree this would be damaging is completely different to a racist. Infact, it is perfectly and likely that Catholic views of the teacher would not enter the classroom at all.

    Now, taking the case of the racist, the problem comes when he has a ethic minorities in his classroom. His personal views would HAVE to affect his actual teaching because he is automatically thinking those who are 'black' are inferior to those who are 'white' - and this obviously is very damaging. I don't believe that a person with serious racist views could actually 'remove' them just for the job, as he would be around multiple races all day long.

    Therefore, I don't believe we can draw any analogy with a racist teacher.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    What the problem appears to be here, is that you are trying to make an analogy between say... a catholic teaching children, and a racist teaching children - basically they both could enforce views, but don't etc etc.

    The problem with this analogy is that a catholic teacher, even if they did push there particular views on there children, although I agree this would be damaging is completely different to a racist. Infact, it is perfectly and likely that Catholic views of the teacher would not enter the classroom at all.

    Now, taking the case of the racist, the problem comes when he has a ethic minorities in his classroom. His personal views would HAVE to affect his actual teaching because he is automatically thinking those who are 'black' are inferior to those who are 'white' - and this obviously is very damaging. I don't believe that a person with serious racist views could actually 'remove' them just for the job, as he would be around multiple races all day long.

    Therefore, I don't believe we can draw any analogy with a racist teacher.

    You dont know that the teacher was in any way racist. Yes he is a member of the BNP which has strong views but you dont know whether he portrayed these views in any way in his teaching life.
    It is legal to be a member of the BNP the guy didnt do anything illegal therefore unless he did something pretty wrong in his working life there is no justification to sack him. If he was racist but not a member of the BNP would he still have been sacked?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    Do you care to qualify that with some coherent reasoning??
    The onus to provide evidence lies with the person who stated the lies. But from previous debates I realise that the chances of the usual anti-BNP lies being backed up with evidence is very slim. So, if you insist:

    Fascistic:
    (Original post by BNP)
    We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.
    Racist:
    (Original post by BNP)
    Q: The politicians and the media call the BNP "racist"? Is this true?

    A: No. "Racism" is when you ‘hate’ another ethnic group. We don't 'hate' black people, we don't 'hate' Asians, we don't oppose any ethnic group for what God made them, they have a right to their own identity as much as we do, all we want to do is to preserve the ethnic and cultural identity of the British people. We want the same human rights as everyone else, a right to a homeland, security, identity, democracy and freedom. We are not against immigrants as individuals. We are against a system which imports cheap labour regardless of the wishes of the host population. The British people were never asked if they wanted a multi-cultural society, immigration was forced on us undemocratically and against the clear wishes of the majority.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    You dont know that the teacher was in any way racist. Yes he is a member of the BNP which has strong views but you dont know whether he portrayed these views in any way in his teaching life.
    It is legal to be a member of the BNP the guy didnt do anything illegal therefore unless he did something pretty wrong in his working life there is no justification to sack him. If he was racist but not a member of the BNP would he still have been sacked?
    (Original post by thread start)
    The man I'm referring to was sacked only when he revealed his political intentions, and apparently the sacking was due to the racist views he expressed on his website
    He was sacked for exppressing a personal racist viewpoint. So, yes we did know he was a racist, and as I have explained - it would not be possible to 'not show' these views in his teaching.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    I realise there are plenty of threads about the BNP, but do you think that a teacher who stands as a BNP election candidate should continue to teach?

    The man I'm referring to was sacked only when he revealed his political intentions, and apparently the sacking was due to the racist views he expressed on his website. If he had not previously displayed his views in front of students, is it right that he should lose his job at this stage?
    We had an economic teatcher who said all kinds of racist things in our School (We are an international school btw, so about half the class has a non-western background). In my opinion, when a teacher uses a phrase like "those negros in Africa" then I would think you have all reason to criticise a principle for not sacking him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Now, taking the case of the racist, the problem comes when he has a ethic minorities in his classroom. His personal views would HAVE to affect his actual teaching because he is automatically thinking those who are 'black' are inferior to those who are 'white'
    Wow, you can read minds? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    He was sacked for exppressing a personal racist viewpoint. So, yes we did know he was a racist, and as I have explained - it would not be possible to 'not show' these views in his teaching.

    No he was sacked for being a member of the BNP a legal political party, something in no way connected to his job and in no way illegal.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    If a convicted paedophile appeals successfully then they werent a paedophile they were wrongly accused. If you are a paedophile that hasnt been convicted then you are still guilty of being a paedophile you just havent been caught by the law. If you are convicted of being a paedophile and that conviction is wrong and you are innocent then you are not a paedophile you are a person who has been wrongly convicted.
    It is illegal to be a paedophile, if you havent been caught you are still breaking the law you just havent been punished yet, but its not illegal to be a member of the BNP. Being a member of the BNP and standing for election is completely legal in the UK.
    Yup but discrimination in reguards to colour in a class room is which is why a teacher who is a position of authority should be allowed to teach but should be monitered if it is known that they hold racist views to make sure that he is not treating people differently in the class room. He also shouldn't be allowed to express these views to students just as all teachers are meant to keep their political oppions to themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    He was sacked for exppressing a personal racist viewpoint. So, yes we did know he was a racist, and as I have explained - it would not be possible to 'not show' these views in his teaching.
    He was sacked for membership of a political party. Being sacked for political association is not the sort of thing we do in Britain is it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    No he was sacked for being a member of the BNP a legal political party, something in no way connected to his job and in no way illegal.
    Excuse me, the orginal thread posts indicates differently. I advise you re-read it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Excuse me, the orginal thread posts indicates differently. I advise you re-read it.
    Well, he WASN'T sacked for discriminating in the classroom. He was therefore IMO wrongly sacked. I hope he sues. I would.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    The onus to provide evidence lies with the person who stated the lies. But from previous debates I realise that the chances of the usual anti-BNP lies being backed up with evidence is very slim. So, if you insist:

    Fascistic:


    Racist:
    And of course if they say they arent racist they are obviously telling the truth :rolleyes:

    Well this in my opinion this is pretty much on the racist border line.
    "In Holland, Islam has achieved that critical mass of 10%--and a 10% minority full of passionate intensity & burning with fervor to spread the word can always achieve mastery over the apathetic 90% who have lost faith in their institutions and traditions; aided and abetted by Islam's useful idiots, the European intelligentsia (what a hateful Russian word) who in their relentless culture war against the West are doing invaluable service to ensure Islam's victory even at a risk of seeing their sons & daughters exhibited in the slave-marts of Araby. (Treason of the intellectuals?)"
    "If this writer and the BNP agree on no other subject, we both are puzzled by the point-blank refusal of Western Intellectuals to state the obvious fact that the West is immeasurably superior to Islam."
    http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/islam_menace.htm

    "The teeming masses of immigrants and their progeny who now huddle in our inner cities are largely irreducible. They could never be assimilated even if we, or they, wanted it. Their numbers increase prodigiously. The religion of many of them, Islam, which has the meaning of submission, is better fitted to unthinking obedience to religious authority than to the mindset of a freeborn man or woman, perhaps particularly a woman. We now know that some of them, perhaps few at the moment, encompass the destruction of all we hold dear. And we know that they are prepared to countenance the most extreme acts of random terrorism to get what they want. What we do not know, as yet, is the level of support, tacit and active, that they can expect in their “communities”.

    Will we just sit back then and throw away the unique achievement and sacrifice of many centuries, supinely casting ourselves into a new Dark Age, through folly and self-delusion? Or will we be worthy of our history and ancestry and rise to this new, deadly challenge? Remember the writings of Gildas – the past has much to teach and it casts a long shadow."


    http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/ruin_conquest.htm
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, he WASN'T sacked for discriminating in the classroom. He was therefore IMO wrongly sacked. I hope he sues. I would.
    Are we seriously to believe that if he had a person of a race other than white in his classroom that he truely regarded and treated them as equals in the classroom? I don't think we can seperate a racist view from the classroom - it would always be previlent in his teaching etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Are we seriously to believe that if he had a person of a race other than white in his classroom that he truely regarded and treated them as equals in the classroom? I don't think we can seperate a racist view from the classroom - it would always be previlent in his teaching etc.
    How can you know and prove that definitely is the case. he should have at least been given the opportunity to prove the validity of his teaching in a supervised environment.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.