Teacher removed from classroom over racist rhetoric claims it was satire

[matt819]

30. Here's a question

Obviously, the "just joking" defense is ludicrous.

Also, obviously, if she was asserting these vile beliefs in the classroom, she deserves to be fired.

Let's say she kept her personal views out of the classroom, and to her classroom she was just the lovely Miss Dayanna.

Outside the classroom she's a white nationalist. Or a black panther. Or a zionist. Or a communist. Or a radical catholic. Or a presbyterian. But all of that is outside the classroom. Otherwise, she's a darn good teacher. Top marks from students and their parents.

So, the questions:

If her views outside the classroom are private, i.e., not know publicly, she obviously wouldn't be fired; no one knows about them.

If her views outside the classroom are public, as they are in this case, should she be fired, as she has been? Or was this unfair? Also, apart from the vileness of her views, what are the terms under which she was fired? For example, you could be fired from some -jobs if you are found guilty of moral turpitude. (From the intertubes: Moral Turpitude. A phrase used in Criminal Law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.) With a so-called president who is a white supremacist, the issue of moral turpitude, which used to have a fairly unchanging definition, now seems to be on a sliding scale. So on what basis was she fired? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's white supremacist is another man's patriot. We are at a dangerous crossroads here.

IMHO, the school was right to fire her. If she could be forced to wear a scarlet swastika, I'd support that.