Commentary

491 posts

Westboro Wins: A Look At The Supreme Court’s Decision

As previously reported, the Supreme Court decided Wednesday in favor of dismissing the monetary judgement against the Westboro Baptist Church. This piece is light on commentary and heavy on explanation, though, so it could be considered a complete failure. My hopes in writing this is to give some more specifics about the Court’s reasoning so as to encourage a good conversation about the decision.

What Happened?

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court found that the hate speech near military funerals that lifted the Westboro Baptist Church into infamy is protected by the First Amendment. “As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” Roberts wrote in his opinion for the Court. He was joined by Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg, with Breyer writing a concurring opinion. Alito was the only dissenter.

For those not familiar with the case: U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in an accident in Iraq, and the Westboro Baptist Church picketed Matthew’s funeral with signs including the following: “America is doomed,” “You’re going to hell,” “God hates you,” “Fag troops,” “Semper fi fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” Later, WBC posted on their website that Matthew’s death was because of how he was raised by his parents (as a Catholic), and that they taught him to defy God and raised him to be “for the devil.” Matthew’s father sued Fred Phelps, the leader of WBC, two of Phelps’s daughters, and the church itself (collectively). In a jury trial, WBC was held liable for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Mr. Snyder was awarded $5 million.

The Phelps crew appealed, and the lower court verdict was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Snyder appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case came down to these issues: whether previous SCOTUS First Amendment decisions prohibiting the awarding of damages to public figures for the intentional infliction of emotional distress applies to this case (an issue that focuses on private parties/matters v. public parties/matters), and whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication. The Court decided WBC’s favor on both questions.

Matters of Public Concern and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Court was mostly concerned with the issue of “matters of public concern,” which the Court hasn’t really narrowly defined; however, the general rule is that speech is of public concern when it is of general interest, value and concern to the public, or when it’s “fairly considered” to be related to things concerning the community (including political and social matters). The fact that the speech is controversial or hurtful has no bearing on whether it is about matters of public concern. Looking at the content, context, and form of the speech, the Court determined that the speech was public, not private, in nature.

I thought this was a particularly interesting area of discussion, because the argument against this being of public concern was that some of the signs were specifically about Mr. Snyder’s son. However, Roberts wrote that just because some of the placards were related to a particular individual, the general and dominant theme of the demonstrations were about matters of concern; the placards addressed issues of public concern, and Westboro was expressing its views on these matters. None of the placards were about Matthew, specifically, even though the context of picketing near his funeral made the placards appear to be more targeted at him at the time.

There was also a reasonable time, place and manner issue at play here, because the Court recognized that even protected speech is not granted the same degree of permissibility at all places and times. Unfortunately for Snyder, there was no law in effect that prohibited funeral picketing (and any law of that nature has to be content-neutral). The WBC protesters contacted the police prior to the demonstration, complied with police guidelines regarding where they could picket, and they were not unruly while demonstrating. The demonstration was held 1,000 feet from the church, under police supervision.

Now, one might argue that even using protected speech can be used to cause the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), but the Court said that a jury cannot decided that the “outrageousness” of the picketing (‘outrageous’ being necessary for the state’s IIED law) overrides the special protections granted to speech on matters of public concern. If the picketing had disrupted the funeral, the outcome could have been different, but it was clear that the message, and not the protest itself, was the cause of the emotional distress. Furthermore, finding the WBC’s actions to be “outrageous” here is problematic. It’s clearly a subjective issue that the jury decides based on their own views, so when applying this standard to speech, there is a danger of using IIED to suppress expression that people might find abhorrent and disturbing. It comes down to a greater good principle: “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Thus, the Court dismissed the verdict for Mr. Snyder on IIED.

Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Civil Conspiracy, and Captive Audience

While the Fourth Circuit didn’t weigh the other two charges independently of IIED, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to do so. Mr. Snyder argues that even if the Phelpses were protected by the First Amendment, they were not protected from liability for intrusion upon seclusion because Mr. Snyder was a captive audience at Matthew’s funeral. The idea behind the captive audience doctrine is that, generally, the Constitution does not permit the government to decide what kinds of speech require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer–people who don’t want to see or hear things they find offensive have the burden of avoiding those things. The government can get involved if there is enough evidence that “substantial privacy interests are being invaded and in an essentially intolerable manner.” Examples of when SCOTUS has applied this doctrine include a case about a statute allowing a homeowner to restrict offensive mail from being delivered to his home, and a case involving an ordinance that prohibited picketing in front of or ‘about’ a person’s residence.

Here, the Court said found that WBC was “well away” from the funeral service. Mr. Snyder said that he could see just the tops of the placards when he was en route to the funeral, and there was no other indication that the picketing disrupted the actual service. Therefore, the captive audience doctrine does not apply, and the Court set aside the verdict on intrusion upon seclusion. Since the First Amendment protected WBC from not only IIED and intrusion upon seclusion in this matter, there is no basis for the claim of civil conspiracy, as the conspiracy relied upon the allegedly unlawful nature of WBC’s activity.

What This Means

Roberts stressed that this holding is narrow. First Amendment cases are very fact-dependent and complex, so the Court tries to tread delicately when reviewing them. Roberts agrees that WBC’s picketing is hurtful, and that it does not substantially contribute to the public discourse, but since WBC addressed matters of public import, did so on public property, carried out their protests in a peaceful manner that fully complies with the guidance of officials, and didn’t actually disrupt the funeral service, WBC’s speech in this matter is protected by the First Amendment.

The narrowness of this decision is extremely important here. I believe it is the totality of the situation that led to this outcome, which means that the decision could prove to be difficult to applied outward. Justice Breyer, in his written concurrence, pointed out that upholding the application of these tort laws in this circumstances would punish WBC for communicating its viewpoints on matters of public concern “without proportionately advancing the State’s interest in protecting its citizens against severe emotional harm.”

Problems With The Decision?

Justice Alito basically thinks the majority is nuts. He feels that WBC mixed protected speech with unprotected speech (specifically focusing on what was posted on WBC’s website that was specific to Matthew and his parents) and that the decision should have dealt with the two pieces separately, as often occurs in cases involved defamatory statements mixed with nondefamatory statements. Alito feels that WBC’s motivations–“to increase publicity for its views”–did not bring their attacks upon a public figure into contributory statements to a debate on matters of public concern.

Alito also feels that the public location argument is lacking, although I have to disagree with his reasoning on this one. “A physical assault may occur without trespassing; it is no defense that the perpetrator had “the right to be where [he was],” Alito wrote, and I think this analogy is unsuitable. The argument regarding the public location is not a standalone argument–it was combined with proximity. His analogy is inept because a physical assault requires a certain degree of proximity, whether it be to the assailant’s body or to the weapon used. It was established that Mr. Snyder was not able to see or hear anything that WBC was expressing at their location at the time of the service, so Mr. Snyder was not ‘assaulted’ by their speech; likewise, using Alito’s analogy, if person A were to angrily throw a baseball bat in person B’s general direction, and person B was significantly outside the range of impact, person A cannot be charged with the assault. Attempted assault, perhaps, but I do not believe attempted infliction of emotional distress actually exists (I could be wrong, though). The argument Alito appears to be making is that impact is impact, and verbal assaults on the conduct or character of Matthew should be treated like a physical assault when it comes to this matter. However, this circles back to the problem of finding sufficient evidence that the placards at the scene were specifically about Snyder. Since WBC uses those signs for pretty much every protest they stage, it’s a tough sell.

Alito stresses the importance of recognizing the special nature of funerals. He feels that IIED should cover this situation largely because of the significant impact and harm these actions caused, and could cause in the future, to the friends and family of the deceased. “Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate,” Alito wrote. “I would therefore hold that, in this setting,the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern.”

The rest of his dissent addresses issues that were covered by the Fourth Circuit but not discussed by the majority’s decision. His discussion on those issues, along with the rest of the decision, can be found here.

What I Think

Personally, I’m torn. I am mostly in agreement with the majority, though I think perhaps it would be wise for states to make it much more difficult for people to picket near funerals. My biggest issue concerns the website entry, which, if not considered defamation, could and should be covered by IIED, I think. Alito discusses this in the part of his dissent I didn’t detail, but essentially the Fourth Circuit relied upon a couple of prior SCOTUS decisions, and I think perhaps they were not used appropriately. Specifically, the famous Hustler Magazine v. Falwell case, which involved claims of IIED and defamation. A number of differences were at play in the Hustler case, including Falwell being a public figure and the nature of the publication (a caricature, in this situation). The Court found that IIED could not be used to protect a public figure from hurtful speech, basically, because this would have a severe impact on satirists and the like, who often use embarrassing situations, certain “unfortunate physical traits,” etc. to discuss or criticize public figures. The Court felt that the falseness of the hurtful speech could not be separated from the IIED claim for public speakers because of these reason.

The Hustler decision, however, did not extend to private figures, and that’s the rub. Should it matter whether or not the statements made by WBC regarding Matthew and his parents can be proven to be false? The statements made cannot be proven either way because they are surrounded by the shroud of mystery that accompanies religion. Am I allowed to put up posters saying “God knows Person X is a rapist”? And why should the falseness of the statements matter, in terms of IIED? If I were to expose personal secrets of Person X in a highly public manner with the intention to inflict emotional distress, should Person X not be protected by that tort law? Justice Breyer, in his concurrence, does not believe that to be the case–that is, he thinks this decision does not preclude Person X from being protected. Then why is ‘demonstrably false’ an issue, and why should hyperbole matter when dealing with private figures? Honestly, I don’t know that the Court sufficiently dealt with this issue.

Wrapping Things Up

Westboro Baptist Church survives to see another day of hateful picketing and disgusting rhetoric. They probably see this as God’s way of letting them know they working on his behalf. I do have to say, though, that Fred Phelps is no fool: the single most powerful thing these guys have going for them is that they know the law, and they utilize this knowledge accordingly. They comply with all local laws regarding picketing and assembly. They notify local law enforcement. They are peaceful and nonviolent. They walk right up to the line and they set-up camp. I don’t remember how many lawyers are in the family, but here’s an idea of how well they know the law: one of their own, Margie Phelps, her family’s case in front of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the lesson we could all learn from this is to start ignoring these people. They thrive off the attention they get. It validates them. It gives them the drive to do more. Counter-protests may work, depending on how they are done (nonsensical protests that drown them out/distract from them or protests that raise money to support the causes that WBC hates are a couple of examples that might have been effective, if I recall correctly), but the more people get angry at them for being so awful, the more they seem to appear. I knew about WBC a number of years ago, and there were never this prevalent (at least, I don’t remember them being anywhere near as well-known). I feel like not only has their coverage been increased, but also their appearances. Perhaps that’s just a perception issue, and I’m totally wrong, but since they are typically protected by the law, I think that it might be time to just try to snuff them out with silence–our silence.

I want to end this by saying that this was my takeaway from what I read of the decision. If there are any mistakes, please let me know and I will fix them. And if I’m totally off on my legal analysis in any way, please do let me know and I’ll try to either correct or clarify.

UPDATE: After this incident with Matthew’s funeral, Maryland passed a law requiring picketers to stay at least 100 feet away from a funeral or funeral precession. This law is content-neutral. However, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday, WBC plans to challenge this (and other) anti-picketing laws. I think the Phelps family might have a harder time with this case, and it’s probably more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Still, if they’d like to waste their money on it, that’s their prerogative.

Cats, Cheese Biscuits, Kittens and Bunnies

1 comment

Cats, Cheese Biscuits, Kittens and Bunnies: Which do Crasstalk commenters love more?

Cats are mysterious and independent. Did you know that in Indonesia, cats are thought to control the rain?

Cheese biscuits are yummy and delicious. They’re almost as yummy as frozen pumpkin pie bought in bulk and on sale.

There’s really nothing cuter than a kitten. Just look at that cute little face and those innocent eyes.

Bunnies are also cute, cuddly and adorable… except for the fact that they breed like rabbits, of course. And that one killer bunny from Monty Python.

So, Crasstalkers, please tell us in the comments: which do you prefer; cats, cheese biscuits, kittens, bunnies or evil hags.

Fun With Politics: Nepotism Edition

Note: This article was put together by Lady_E for your reading pleasure. Show some appreciation.

Of the many themes emerging from the uprisings sweeping the Middle East, one of the most resonant and motivating have been complaints of nepotism. Before pledging to hold elections, lift onerous security laws or stop police brutality, dictator after dictator has rushed to state TV to pledge, first and foremost, that they will not foist their worthless, generally reviled and invariably criminal son onto their beleaguered country. “No, no! I was never going to do that! I promise!” they swear in a desperate attempt to appease their outraged populations. In fact, many commentators have suggested that the final straw in Egypt was the widespread belief that Hosni Mubarak was going to install his hated son, Gamel, as President in the next elections. Not surprisingly, the very first response to the protests from Mubarak was to promise that neither he nor his son would be a candidate in the elections.

This phenomenon is completely understandable. After all, nothing gets people’s hackles up like seeing some entitled douchebag sail through life smugly collecting that Ivy League degree, high paying job or important post without any acknowledgement of how underserved each of these things are. If there is one thing that unites people it is disdain for blatant nepotism and this is true the world over, from the streets of Cairo to the halls of Princeton.

So, in recognition of this powerfully unifying topic, you are all invited to submit your most outrageous example of nepotism. The rules for submission are simple. The parent doesn’t need to be a dad (how’s the autobiography going, Bristol?), nor do they have to be a dictator. But, the child must be completely unworthy of said advantages and privileges obtained by their accident of birth. After all, not all nepotism is bad. As my boyfriend points out, when the all-knowing and all-powerful God needed a job done, he did not pull out the angel org chart or call for candidates. He sent his son.

Choosing one will be difficult, I admit. To start you all off I will make my nomination for the most outrageous, undeserved on the merits and due wholly to his daddy example of nepotism. After much review and careful consideration, I submit to you Mr. Saadi Gaddafi, son of Moamar. As recounted in this excellent New York Times article, papa Gaddafi succeeded in securing for his son, Saadi, what I think is a truly remarkable feat of nepotistic influence- a spot on one of Italy’s most successful Series A soccer teams.

From the article:

Fiat is the owner of Italy’s oldest and most successful team, and the team with the most fans — Juventus. The Qaddafi family built up considerable holdings in Juventus, obtaining, according to some reports as much as seven percent of shares in the clubs in recent years. In 2002, the Italian Supercup final was played in Tripoli, the currently embattled Libyan capital, thanks to these links.

It is perhaps for this reason that Saadi Qaddafi thought that he might be able to play in Serie A, despite not being good enough. The strategy was simple — pay teams to have him in their squad, and train with the first team. He might even get a few minutes on the field, on rare occasions.

Saadi was “signed” by Luciano Gaucci, the volcanic owner of Perugia, in the 2003 off-season. Qaddafi had been hanging around Italian soccer for years. He even trained with Paul Gascoigne at Lazio in the 1990s. Although he had trained with Juve, nobody had ever imagined that the dictator’s son was anywhere near good enough to actually turn out in Serie A, except Gaucci.

Despite Gaucci’s best efforts, Perugia Manager Serse Cosmi obstinately refused to play the 30-year-old Libyan. Gaucci issued a statement, at the time, which is interesting in retrospect: “Berlusconi called me up and encouraged me. He told me that having Qaddafi in the team is helping us build a relationship with Libya. If he plays badly, he plays badly. So be it.”

A number of excuses were invented — he was injured, it was the wrong game. Gaucci pleaded publicly with Cosmi, asking if he would play Qaddafi for just one half … even if he is not very good. Cosmi held firm. Qaddafi sat on the bench once without coming on. The case was resolved in a spectacular manner. On the Oct. 5, 2003 (after his first game as nonplaying substitute) Qaddafi’s urine sample was found to contain traces of an illegal substance — Nandrolone. He was barred for three months, without ever having played for the first team.

The Qaddafi saga was not over, however.

Having served his ban, Saadi finally saw some action, for 15 minutes, in a key relegation game against Juventus in May as Perugia won, 1-0. A week later an attack of appendicitis conveniently put him out for the rest of the season.

Can you beat that? Submit your choice in the comments!

Anatomy of a Divorce: The Beginning

It’s my oldest memory. I was three. It was 2 o’clock in the morning. The knock on the front door would not stop. It was getting louder and louder. I buried my head under my pillow, but my father’s angry voice overcame everything. Everything, until the neighbors called the police. “He is no longer welcome in this house. I changed the locks and my mind” my mother told the officers. This was Europe in 1973 and the cops attempted to reason with her, but it was no use. You see, my dad had spent 17 years pushing my mother to the breaking point and had finally, and spectacularly, succeeded. He wanted to be let in, to come home, to be forgiven. My mom had different ideas. Ideas of freedom, escape, and a new beginning that, in no way, involved “him”.

He was a Cheater. In my world, this term should always be capitalized. It changed my life, my relationships, and my view of marriage and should never be taken lightly.

My parents met in New York City, through a friend, and became inseparable. They married and moved to a beautiful loft on Washington Square in the heart of NYC. My mother played the happy homemaker and encouraged my father to indulge in his photographic talent as a career. He was a cartographer by trade, but taking pictures was his passion. He was incredible by all accounts, but NY was overrun with talent and my Dad languished while trying to build his portfolio.

His knack for commercial photography finally reached a friend, who was living a fabulous bohemian life in 1960’s Germany. He invited my Parents to make the move to Europe, set up studio space, and find a rep to help my father “sell” his talent.

From the get-go, my Mom was anything but excited about this adventure. “Germany, really? What the hell am I going to do with myself?”. But, she loved my father and was willing to do anything to make him happy. And, in the beginning, he was happy. His work was well received. He managed to garner several large commercial contracts with The European Cotton Council, MCM Leather, and Braun, among others. Most of this was, in no small part, due to his rep, who worked tirelessly to sell my Father’s talent. Unfortunately for us, she had an ulterior motive… Him.

Their affair began quietly. My mom is not sure exactly when, but it was somewhere around the time that I was conceived. The pregnancy was a long time in coming and had been taxing on their relationship, to say the least. Birth control had torn apart my mother’s reproductive organs (wrong dosage) to the extent that my imminent arrival was quite the surprise to the doctors and my parents. The timing could not have been worse, but my mom was thrilled nonetheless. She dove, head first, into motherhood. To the outside world, she had the perfect life. A successful husband, beautiful home, and a miracle baby on the way. No one knew that it was all a facade.

She knew from the very beginning. He showed all the stereotypical signs; coming home at odd hours, distant, argumentative, defensive. My father was the poster boy for cheating. Yet, my mother chose to ignore it all. To this day, she tells me “it was the 1970’s in Europe. Everyone was having affairs. It’s just something you dealt with”. But, she didn’t just deal with it. The mistress/rep was invited into our home for birthday parties and holiday dinners. Her daughter and I were playmates. She was sleeping with my father while my mother babysat. The whole charade was destined to explode and leave two innocent girls in the dust. It was just a matter of time…

My mom won’t tell me what/who cracked her perfect smile, but I am grateful for that instance. The instance she decided that this was no way to live, no way to raise a child. The instance she began to respect herself, her daughter and realize that there was more to this life than taking care of my father while he gallivanted around town like the rooster that ran the hen house. She did not drag on the misery. Her decision was quick and final, almost too practical and calculated.

The story of the actual divorce and its aftermath will need to wait for another day. But, trust me when I tell you, it included late night car chases across Europe, private detectives and a final move back to the States with everything we owned. For this, and many other things, I am proud of my mother. You see, I am a child of divorce and I am a better person for it. In no way do I believe my parents should have stayed together “for the sake of the child”. It was a struggle, almost on a daily basis but, my Mom did it. She succeeded without my father and never looked back…..

Let Us Hope the Zombie Outbreak Starts in Boston

Everyone knows that inevitably some day soon the virus that turns humans into zombies will be created through a mishap of evolution, God and modern science’s desire to constantly dick around with shit. When that day comes humanity will be faced with a choice: to act quickly to contain the virus or dither and allow it to tear through the human race like Gore-nado from hell. It will be down to the authorities at hand when patient zero is infected to effectively contain the virus. Popular culture tells us that government secrecy and bureaucratic incompetence are to be involved in any failure to contain the virus.

So we may hope that the outbreak takes place in Boston as this twitter exchange reveals that the Boston PD remains committed to be being forthcoming with information about any zombie attacks.

Via Neatorama

Scott Walker Hasn’t Forgotten About the Children; He’ll Break Them, Too

Koch brothers’ hype man Scott Walker laid bare the full of his budget proposal yesterday. In it, he called for nearly $1B in cuts to public school funding, while ensuring that local districts wouldn’t be able to spuriously find a way to close the gap he’s creating. How? By inserting a provision requiring districts to reduce their property tax authority. It’s assumed that Walker will soon legislate a bully and a pickpocket into each municipal school, in order to extract additional funds directly out of kids’ pockets.

Fear not, though, fair Wisconsin residents! Walker didn’t just take his chain saw to the expense side of the ledger. No, no, not at all. He also looked for ways to trim up the budget from the revenue side, asking for an estimated $82M in tax cuts, much of that coming from capital gains realized on investments in ‘Wisconsin based businesses’. Wait, you mean cutting more revenue will only further impact the ability of the state to shore up it’s budget issues by forcing even more spending cuts? Well done, high school accounting students! Your classes just landed on Scott Walker’s chopping block!

Further, let’s assume that power plants, the kind that Walker wants to privatize and sell off (without bids!) as part of his larger plan, would qualify as ‘Wisconsin based businesses.’ But remember, the Koch’s aren’t interested in those power plants. Nope, never. Ignore the fact that their own website, under ‘Industry Areas’ lists ‘supply energy to communities to heat and cool buildings’ in the first sentence highlighting their offerings.

Walker is also touting cuts to cities and counties in his budget, just so they don”t feel left out as Walker machetes his way through what’s left of the middle class.

In case you happened to catch yourself feeling bad for Walker, don’t worry, he’s still got folks on his side. In spite of the poll numbers indicating that support for him is waning, Americans for Prosperity is putting together a ‘Stand Against Spending. Stand With Walker’ bus tour this very weekend!.

I don’t need to tell you who the primary backers of AFP are.

In short, Scott Walker is Flava Flav, if Flava Flav ever worked for Don King.

politics

MSN Homepage Documents Our Cultural Nadir

The end of our civilization is nigh.

A look at today’s MSN Homepage reveals a varied representation of either the nadir or the zenith of our socio-political media culture, depending on which way you hold the chart. This sort of thing would normally upset me, but I am too busy looking up the location of the nearest IHOP to care.

Andy Cohen Wants To Kill Children

I love modern society. Charlie Sheen claims that he is a winner at life. The French are shocked – SHOCKED! – that there is anti-semitism within their borders. And the Oscars stunk. Not because Anne Hathaway had a bad case of dramaqueenitis. Not because James Franco spent the evening somewhere in the upper reaches of the ionosphere.

According to Andy Cohen of Bravo!, the Oscars stunk because of children. Public school children. In choruses. Wearing tee-shirts. And behaving like children.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The pearls of wisdom roll in after the 3-minute mark. “There was a thing called ‘Up With People’ in the ’70s or ’80s. Here’s what: Oscar night is not about Up With People. Like, I don’t need to see that. It was just bad. It was just awful. It was horrible.” Now this is a man I can get behind. Screw you, optimism!

And the solution: kill the children. “A public school chorus singing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” I literally — if I wasn’t going to go out to some parties I would have slit ’em right then. It was the worst. I was looking for a knife to stick in my eyes, it was so terrible.”

And the Academy Award for Best Performance By A Douchebag goes to Andy Cohen for his portrayal of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho III: I Want To Slit The Throats Of School Kids.

Personally, I can’t think of anything better than a rich white man telling a group of kids from the crappier sections of Staten Island that “You just ruined everything.” Yeah, and those public school teachers need a paycut. I’m sick and tired of them drinking Cristal at after hours clubs and being chauferred to work in Maybachs.

UPDATE: Because of a lot of “Who the heck are these kids and why did they sing at the Oscars” flying around the Net, I did a little reading (at their website). The Chorus has been written up a lot of times over the last 5 years. They hit it big when one of their YouTube performances of a Tori Amos song was sent to Perez Hilton, who loved it and posted it. It wound up getting well over a million hits.

An excerpt from a NYT article on them:

“And Mr. Breinberg [a/k/a Mr. B, the chorus’ director], in turn, seems to feel a deep affection for his singers. ‘There’s a great feeling in seeing these kids — some of whom have been abused, neglected, who have nothing to look forward to when they get home — and knowing that when they come in to my class to sing, you can just see the depth of their emotional experience come through,’ he said.”

They’re also part of the “Save The Music” type efforts to keep music and arts programs in public schools (often first on the chopping block).

It really gives perspective to whom exactly Andy Cohen was shitting on. I’ve got no problem with him having an opinion. I do tend to draw a line on publicly dumping on children. You don’t have to like the kids or the performance but taking to the national airwaves to tell a group of lower and middle class 10 year-olds “You ruined the Oscars for everyone” borders on sociopathic. Especially given the oeuvre that is The Real Housewives Of…

On the racial front, look at the 2011 Oscar lineup. The winner was The King’s Speech (about as white, rich, and privileged as it gets). Of the nominees, only Javier Bardem was a minority. It was a lily-white ceremony with lily-white presenters honoring lily-white subjects where the only “black” nominated was Black Swan.

Call me irresponsible…

Guyz!

I have completely checked out of my job emotionally, and that means that on Thursday and Friday, I just didn’t show up. This is bad. It’s not how I was raised and it’s not who I am or want to be. I have deep personal issues that need to be addressed so that this doesn’t happen for the next place. Here’s the problem. When you’re gay, and you parents are Mr. & Mrs. SuburboWASP, they usually send you the following message: you don’t have to BE perfect. You just have to look as though you are. What they don’t realize is that sending this message is incredibly destructive and can do horrible lasting damage, because it installs a very powerful button that other people can push, long into adulthood. It surely plays hell with your self-esteem.

It’s done damage to the perception of my professionalism, because the untenable and unchangeable fact is that the CFO is my de facto boss (even though that’s point blank illegal). The conflict of interest in such an arrangement is so obvious a kid could see it. If I’m responsible for enforcing the rules, and the guy in the best position to break them is capable of hiring or firing me and dictating my compensation, I’m in a bit of a bind.

I could almost deal with this if he wasn’t undermining me at every turn. So, I dropped my standards to the level of his expectations. And I blame my boss-on-paper, the CEO, for knowing about this situation and doing nothing about it. But at the end of the day I’m responsible for me. And when you quit, you should at least tell the guy who signs your paycheck.

It’s done a bit of damage to me and the Cap’n, as well, although he’s got the patience of a saint and is one of the kindest, most generous men who ever lived. (He ain’t perfect either, but being late to a dinner party shouldn’t trigger an uncharacteristic screamy rage-y meltdown in the car. And it was his fault, but still.)

Lessons For My Crasstalk Friends: It’s clearly time to make some changes, but recognizing that I require and deserve to be treated with respect is a real good start. Add to that the concept that I should tell people who don’t / can’t / won’t respect me to f-off very clearly rather than being passive aggressive.

Never – ever – give an unethical person so much power over you that he causes you to lose self-esteem, self-respect, lower your standards, or compromise what you know to be true. Certainly don’t let them drive you to do self-destructive things. It’s just wrong. I do enjoy a cocktail, but my limit is two. Friday night was a full-on Barfy Billyburg Barfly Booze Bacchanal. Unacceptable for someone my age and it ruined my Saturday, too. I even got the side-eye from Crocker Kitty Edmund – I’m told I picked him up and sang “Sweet Child O’ Mine” in his face and he hates loud noises. Then I puked in the guest room bathroom and he stepped in it. No more ‘tinis for me for a while.

So, my fellow Crasstalkers, this little Internettythingamabob that we have here has definitely been – and will continue to be – a safe spot for me to vent, brag, observe and complain, and that’s the fault of all of you. I’ve never been a part of such a diverse, fun, funny, brilliant club in all my life, and it’s making my wee crisis a lot more… wee. Thanks for that.

Interview 2 with the I-bank is on Tuesday. Wish me luck, because I think I need it.

Update – After taking the weekend to chew it over, and to rehydrate after a rollicking Saturday AM hangover, the Cap’n and I reached some conclusions. We’re going to just take this as it comes – if they can me (which would be bad for their business), Cap’n will take overtime to keep us afloat.

Notes from an angry teacher – Part II

110 comments

For those of you who read my last column, I apologize for any confusion. I don’t call my students whales and I’m not happy that they get deported. I was trying to come across bitter. Those of you who know my commenting style are aware that I have a twisted sense of humor. That sense of humor sometimes helps me get through the chaos I encounter at work. To be honest, the kid who was deported hurt because I worked with him for several weeks after our incident, trying to connect with him and had people from various culinary arts schools in the area come in and talk to him because he was interested in cooking.

I will try to write from now on with a little more of that honesty rather than the portrayal of a bitter teacher. I still pray for the future of this country based on my experiences. And I’m not a religious person. I teach high school English.

– Often teachers come across students who lie to them to get out of work. It happens frequently and usually I’m able to dismantle excuses. However, it’s hard to teach classes that include writing elements, when students can’t read cursive. I found this out last fall, when I handed out sample short answer essay examples to my students and they couldn’t read them. They were written examples of how to respond to question prompts from students who took our state accountability tests from previous years. As I was handing these out, students began to look at me in confusion, until one girl raised her hand and said, “I can’t read this. It’s in cursive. I have no clue what it says.” The cursive was very legible. My response to her and to 75% of my other students who similarly couldn’t read it: “It’s in English, try to guess, and I’ll help if you have any questions.” When students have any sort of excuse not to do work, they will do NOTHING and later complain to someone that the assignment was unfair.

I graded their assignment that day and talked to a number of other teachers who said I should’ve know better than to give those examples in cursive, because they don’t teach those skills anymore at the elementary level. I was later told by an assistant principal that all assignments and directions written on the board should be in general text and I had to remove the grades from my gradebook for the assignment. I understand that the students can’t read cursive and we’ve failed them as far as educating them in it, but to me, it’s not an excuse for not doing work or an alternative assignment. Of course, when parents complain to dickless administrators, the teachers get thrown under the bus. And the students win.

– The cursive thing shocked me, but something that has also been shocking is the number of students who can’t read or decipher clocks. We have old-fashioned clocks in our classrooms, with SECOND HANDS and everything, and a good chunk of my kids don’t understand how to tell time using them. Often, when students fill out bathroom or library passes and they have no idea what the clock is reading, so they have to ask me. It’s sad. I’d say about 1/3rd of my students have no idea how to use basic clocks.

– One of the fun things about being a teacher is professional development days, when you get to work with the other teachers and sit through workshops. It’s always fun because you get to talk with people you often don’t get to speak to. For the most part, the workshops are huge wastes of time and often there is an elephant in the room. The elephants are the administrators (superintendents, principals, assistant principals) who cannot control a room full of teachers to give their presentations and lectures. And it’s funny to the teachers, because we are always asked everyday and critiqued by these people based on how well we can control 35 teenagers for an hour.

A few weeks ago, during one of our meetings, an assistant principal started screaming at us for being too loud following her lecture. She actually stopped us and said “Okay, it looks like I won’t be giving out any more information because you guys aren’t mature enough to handle it.” It was awesome!!!!

I will try to write columns weekly as an outlet for some of the madness. I have so many student stories, some of them are very unsettling. I’m considering leaving teaching this year because of the stress and issues our state is facing with funding and the uncertainty that comes with it. Everyday I feel like I’m making a difference, but it’s a huge fight with students, parents, and administrators.