As much as I hate repeating myself, I'm going to have to do it. My biggest issue with Donald Trump is that he takes what I hate about the Democrats and brings it to the Republican party. Republicans are crossing lines regarding freedom of speech that has Democrats suddenly supporting the idea. Keep in mind that Democrats have openly supported criminalizing speech that makes them uncomfortable.
In all fairness to Republicans, I don't think they have reached the level of Democrats on this issue. There are at least some Republicans willing to speak out against these changes. I also haven't seen them go as far as the Democrats in opposing free speech.
I don't view freedom of speech strictly in terms of the Constitution. The Constitution provides protection from the government. Legally, businesses can take actions against speech they don't like. Ethically, businesses should not take actions against the speech of their employees unless they are inappropriately speaking on a company's behalf, such as when they are on the clock, or cross a serious line that clearly tarnishes the reputation of the business.
If an employee publicly posts to a personal social media account opinions that differ from the employer, that employee should keep his or her job. If an employee is sharing that opinion while he or she is supposed to be working, I'm perfectly fine with termination of employment. If someone publicly calls for the murder of his boss, even if using a personal account, I am perfectly fine with that employee being fired.
Recently, a number of teachers have been fired for statements made against Charlie Kirk. Some conservatives have pushed too hard on this issue. As much as I dislike the teaching profession, I don't believe that teaching is sufficient to prohibit an individual from having a voice in this world.
Teachers have far too much influence over future generations. In fact, teachers themselves boast that they are molding minds. There should be at least some expectations for the character of people in that position. There need to be limits. In some cases, teachers have openly supported the murder of Charlie Kirk. Should supporters of murder be in a position to mold the minds of innocent children?
In response to recent firings, Randi Weingarten recently put out a press release through the AFT. She included the obligatory mention of how political violence is wrong. She didn't discuss any extremes. She refused to acknowledge that there should be a limit regarding what teachers can get away with saying. Instead, she provided a blanket statement that seemed to defend even the most vile statements coming from the teaching profession.
If you are a liberal, imagine for a moment that this wasn't about Charlie Kirk. What if Barack Obama or Kamala Harris had been murdered? What if there were teachers celebrating that murder? Would you still want them in a position of influence over impressionable minds?
What if Randi Weingarten got her way on this issue? Would you want your children's minds to be molded by people who think that it's acceptable to murder someone who thinks differently?
There are jokes about how Randi Weingarten has done more to advocate for school choice than anybody. Her press release could contribute to that reputation. Having advocates for murder can chase families away from the government-controlled model.
How are people who remove their children likely to vote if vouchers are on the ballot? This could be viewed as a choice. They could vote to defund their children's educations, or they could vote to defund vile government-controlled institutions that chased them away. I believe in individuality, so I'm confident that there would be some variability. I strongly suspect that most parents under those circumstances would vote on behalf of their own children.
Randi Weingarten is one of the reasons we desperately need options for children. Even without that press release, I reject the authoritarian mindset that children should not be allowed to learn free from government constraints. With that press release, she inadvertently showed us why we need options.
The AFT should have read the press release before they posted it. They should have thought about the implications of what Randi Weingarten was saying. They should have realized that the press release would make them look bad. They never should have posted it.
How did Randi Weingarten get her job? Why does the AFT keep selecting Weingarten to represent them? Don't they realize how bad she makes them look? What are we going to get from this woman next? Is she going to slander supporters of choice by making the absurd claim that it's fascist to create pathways for citizens to learn outside of government control?
Let me get to the bottom line. Should parents be forced to hand their children over to government workers who celebrate murder? Personally, I think what we are currently seeing from teachers is proof that we desperately need options. Children deserve so much better than what the government has to offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment