|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| In January, gathered at the Bangor Tavern Bar and Grill in Michigan, several teachers and a secretary employed by the Bangor public school system decided to play a game. The game has been played in many bars many times before, normally in the context of celebrities or popular television characters. But the faculty chose to substitute their co-workers for Chris Pratt and Khal Drogo, discussing which of their colleagues they would kill, marry or sleep with (although they used a cruder verb than that). They also made fun of their pupils in ways that one parent would later describe as “heartbreaking.” Unknown to the staff members and teachers, a nearby patron was recording the game. A six-minute video found its way to YouTube, and spread to the computer screens of Bangor parents and beyond. An attorney for the school district, Robert Huber, told Michigan Live that the teachers did not discuss having sex with students, contrary to some reports. “The false impression that was created is that teachers were talking about whether they would marry, ‘f’ or kill students,” Huber said. “There’s no truth to that at all.” Rather, the video showed three school employees naming co-workers to kill or sleep with, Huber said. The administration had known about the video for several weeks, he said; the footage showed seven Bangor employees at the bar, including four other teachers who were present but did not participate. The administrative secretary was the only participant who mentioned students, according to Huber. On Feb. 13, during a school board meeting, outrage over the contents came to a head. Parents expressed concern that the school had known about the video and asked board members to explain what they knew. “It’s disturbing to know that these are our educators,” said Jennifer Prentice, a parent in the school district, to western Michigan’s Fox 17. “They are in charge of protecting our children, keeping our children safe, and the fact that they just blew that out of the water shows their character and shows that maybe they’re not right for this job.” “It was heartbreaking,” Amanda Reprogal, who said her 15-year-old son was mentioned in the video, also told Fox 17. “My heart sank, and I was disgusted.” The only thing that wound up killed, in the end, were jobs. A few of the school employees — as of Tuesday, two teachers — have handed in resignation papers. The school secretary also resigned Monday. One school staffer, who felt the video contained threats, filed a complaint with Bangor police. Bangor’s police chief, Tommy Simpson, reviewed the footage, according to WZZM 13. The police chief did not follow up with charges but noted the school was conducting an internal assessment. Fox 17 reported that the four teachers said to have witnessed the game were given verbal reprimands. |
Quote:
Do you think the school attorney has a vested interest in making that statement?
He surely does. But since the video is on Youtube any false claim should be easily discovered. And if it did I doubt it would be go well for the school or the attorney.
Exactly. The attorney for the school is not going to come out and call something blatantly false without merit, because the public has seen the video and could easily call them out on it if they were lying.
Quote:
Quote:
An attorney for the school district, Robert Huber, told Michigan Live that the teachers did not discuss having sex with students, contrary to some reports. “The false impression that was created is that teachers were talking about whether they would marry, ‘f’ or kill students,” Huber said. “There’s no truth to that at all.”
and secondly:
Quote:
The administrative secretary was the only participant who mentioned students, according to Huber.
In summary:
The teachers were talking about co-workers, not students in regards to the game.
The SECRETARY was the only employee to mention any students. The teachers did not discuss the students.
Yeah, that's an important part of this case.
As is the fact that nobody was fired either.
But even though the attorney for the school district clearly stated that no sexual comments were made about students, it was clear that at least one student was discussed. Were reprimands not in order?
Two teachers, and the secretary that mentioned students, were fired.
Unless you think they willingly "resigned".
"(child's name) is cool. I would totally marry her. Plus she loves the Tigers. And she didn't even bring it up when I was wasted on the bus trip. She's cool." (nice, a teacher wasted on a bus trip)
Another teacher says, "I would totally fuck (child's name)."
Another says, "I would kill (child's name)."
Now throughout the video "(child's name)" is substituted in the captions for the a real name, presumably to protect the kid's real name - but who knows?
The person who recorded the video would have had to lie about who was being mentioned in the video in order for us to believe that they were talking about co-workers. Why would they do that? Makes no sense.
Did she say "so and so is dumb, or fat, or whatever...." Poor choice? Yes.
Or did she say "so and so is so dumb, have you seen their IEP? That dipshit has so many learning disabilities it's not even funny, and the meds they're shoving down his throat didn't help either." Fire-able offense, and probably more in line with what you mentioned in your previous posts. But even then, only the person making those comments should have been reprimanded.
Three people were fired.... so far.
The person who recorded the video would have had to lie about who was being mentioned in the video in order for us to believe that they were talking about co-workers. Why would they do that? Makes no sense.
Why would they do that? The same reason they were secretly filming and then posted the video to begin with. To get somebody in trouble/fired.
Quote:
The person who recorded the video would have had to lie about who was being mentioned in the video in order for us to believe that they were talking about co-workers. Why would they do that? Makes no sense.
Why would they do that? The same reason they were secretly filming and then posted the video to begin with. To get somebody in trouble/fired.
I just don't understand that mentality - sitting there and recording, then altering the video to the point where it changes the entire context of the conversation.
I assume the authorities saw the unaltered version of the video? Where is the statement on that?
Quote:
In comment 13363226 B in ALB said:
Quote:
The person who recorded the video would have had to lie about who was being mentioned in the video in order for us to believe that they were talking about co-workers. Why would they do that? Makes no sense.
Why would they do that? The same reason they were secretly filming and then posted the video to begin with. To get somebody in trouble/fired.
I just don't understand that mentality - sitting there and recording, then altering the video to the point where it changes the entire context of the conversation.
I assume the authorities saw the unaltered version of the video? Where is the statement on that?
I guess to understand that mentality, you'd have to understand the mentality that would drive somebody to tape a conversation and post it on youtube to begin with.
Where is that mentioned?
And is it mentioned anywhere that the attorney has in fact seen the unedited video? Or is that just a guess at this point?
I'm anti-pussification of america too - but this is substandard behavior from educators/adults, imo.
Holy shit. I can't read this thread any more.
They weren't fucking talking about children, for fuck's sake!!! They were talking about co-workers!!!
One person - a secretary, mentioned a 15-year-old student. That's all. Not the teachers.
Jesus Christ. READ, people. READ!
But someone said, if you want to do this, do it in your own home.
What if you were filmed there by an onlooker......
The privacy thing is an interesting question.
Where is that mentioned?
And is it mentioned anywhere that the attorney has in fact seen the unedited video? Or is that just a guess at this point?
That's a strong statement, from an attorney, for a guess.
Quote:
would you feel comfortable talking about kids this way?
I'm anti-pussification of america too - but this is substandard behavior from educators/adults, imo.
Holy shit. I can't read this thread any more.
They weren't fucking talking about children, for fuck's sake!!! They were talking about co-workers!!!
One person - a secretary, mentioned a 15-year-old student. That's all. Not the teachers.
Jesus Christ. READ, people. READ!
You need to read the thread and relax. Have a drink or something.
Quote:
Whoever subbed in (child's name) be on the hook for misleading authorities?
Where is that mentioned?
And is it mentioned anywhere that the attorney has in fact seen the unedited video? Or is that just a guess at this point?
Quote:
“The false impression that was created is that teachers were talking about whether they would marry, ‘f’ or kill students,” Huber said. “There’s no truth to that at all.”
That's a strong statement, from an attorney, for a guess.
Plus a woman said her 15 year old was mentioned in the video. If all names were removed how could she know?
And there is some question about the current superintendent using the school credit card to make 12 purchases of $500 at a gas station for a total of $6,000. Parents want to know what all the money was spent on. Nice school district they're running over there.
Quote:
In comment 13362978 B in ALB said:
Quote:
would you feel comfortable talking about kids this way?
I'm anti-pussification of america too - but this is substandard behavior from educators/adults, imo.
Holy shit. I can't read this thread any more.
They weren't fucking talking about children, for fuck's sake!!! They were talking about co-workers!!!
One person - a secretary, mentioned a 15-year-old student. That's all. Not the teachers.
Jesus Christ. READ, people. READ!
You need to read the thread and relax. Have a drink or something.
Like what??? COFFEE!!! lol
"Play stupid gamess. Win stupid prizes."
[/thread] [/over]
A shit sandwich, if B is ordering
Two teachers, and the secretary that mentioned students, were fired.
Unless you think they willingly "resigned".
That's not what the attorney said or the papers reported. At least not the article linked or other articles I read about.
Why would they resign? Perhaps they couldn't stand the thought of going back to work with people they had spoken so openly about. Maybe they didn't really like working there anyway. I don't know. I know a lot of people I work with are on the edge of quitting anyway, and something like this could easily push them over it.
On the other hand, we have the people who have read the EXACT SAME source with a very clear statement that three people have resigned. Those people interpreted this fact as false, as the only logical solution is that they were fired.
Same set of facts, different biases, different interpretation of facts. No wonder we can't all agree on anything.
There are alternatives, you know.
Quote:
of what actually constitutes a fact.
There are alternatives, you know.
Oh yeah. Forgot about those.
Deangelo Russel?
Other than that, I think this is ridiculous and I think the person who secretly recorded their conversation at the bar and then put it on Youtube is a terrible person, worse than any of the teachers. To ruin these teachers' careers and lives because of a harmless game they played at a bar about coworkers that has likely been played by over a million people is just reprehensible.
On the other hand, we have the people who have read the EXACT SAME source with a very clear statement that three people have resigned. Those people interpreted this fact as false, as the only logical solution is that they were fired.
Same set of facts, different biases, different interpretation of facts. No wonder we can't all agree on anything.
But if you think about 99% of teachers and administrators haven't had private conversations along the lines of "Johnny is an asshole" or "Jane needs to get her shit together", you're pretty naive.
And to be honest without knowing any of the people being discussed, which you can barely even hear anyway, the video is 100% meaningless.
and to Matt M, that is absolutely ridiculous to say the people present, but not participating in the conversation are responsible for not putting a stop to it.
WTF? who are you, the moral police? You think you can judge someone as a responsible participant for not stopping other grown adults from having a vulgar conversation?
I'd hate to be that self righteous. Such a high standard for yourself.
And to be honest without knowing any of the people being discussed, which you can barely even hear anyway, the video is 100% meaningless.
and to Matt M, that is absolutely ridiculous to say the people present, but not participating in the conversation are responsible for not putting a stop to it.
WTF? who are you, the moral police? You think you can judge someone as a responsible participant for not stopping other grown adults from having a vulgar conversation?
I'd hate to be that self righteous. Such a high standard for yourself.
Exactly. You can barely even make out the conversation.
A travesty of justice that this cost teachers their jobs.
The social media mob at it again.
I'm not a teacher, but yeah, that's simply common sense. My wife teaches fitness classes to kids, and she tells me horror stories about the bad kids all the time.
But if you think about 99% of teachers and administrators haven't had private conversations along the lines of "Johnny is an asshole" or "Jane needs to get her shit together", you're pretty naive.
Problem is people have to learn that an open group discussion in a bar isn't a private conversation. Of course teachers have private conversations, just like everyone else. The bar isn't the forum for these conversations, and we're constantly being warned about this stuff.
Especially since Facebook - teachers at first were posting their private thoughts about students online and that resulted in real trouble - so districts have been warning educators everywhere about the need to protect the privacy of students.
Haven't you had that discussion already in Michigan?
And to be honest without knowing any of the people being discussed, which you can barely even hear anyway, the video is 100% meaningless.
and to Matt M, that is absolutely ridiculous to say the people present, but not participating in the conversation are responsible for not putting a stop to it.
WTF? who are you, the moral police? You think you can judge someone as a responsible participant for not stopping other grown adults from having a vulgar conversation?
I'd hate to be that self righteous. Such a high standard for yourself.
As for the bystanders, I don't think they were responsible to putting a stop to anything.
Quote:
on youtube if anyone cares to see it before commenting like they know it.
And to be honest without knowing any of the people being discussed, which you can barely even hear anyway, the video is 100% meaningless.
and to Matt M, that is absolutely ridiculous to say the people present, but not participating in the conversation are responsible for not putting a stop to it.
WTF? who are you, the moral police? You think you can judge someone as a responsible participant for not stopping other grown adults from having a vulgar conversation?
I'd hate to be that self righteous. Such a high standard for yourself.
pjcas - The people present who worked with them have some responsibility. If they were on work property and time, that would be more true. It becomes difficult and unpopular to enforce fully, but employees witnessing harassment, discrimination, etc. are considered responsible to report it at the least in most institutions. The marry, F, kill game would fall under sexual harassment. Given this was in public on their own time, it becomes less of a requirement, but more of a moral obligation.
As for the bystanders, I don't think they were responsible to putting a stop to anything.
disagree completely. You (and I) are not authorities to say anyone has a moral obligation to do anything. That's called being judgmental and no one has a moral obligation to do anything.
That's what morals are, they're decided by the person, not you telling them what is right and wrong.
lastly, is it possible to sexually harass someone who isn't present?
if so, there's a lot of apologizing you should be doing to Hollywood, news "personalities" and others for commentary from others on this site. since it's your moral obligation to stop it.
Quote:
In comment 13364108 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
disagree completely. You (and I) are not authorities to say anyone has a moral obligation to do anything. That's called being judgmental and no one has a moral obligation to do anything.
That's what morals are, they're decided by the person, not you telling them what is right and wrong.
lastly, is it possible to sexually harass someone who isn't present?
if so, there's a lot of apologizing you should be doing to Hollywood, news "personalities" and others for commentary from others on this site. since it's your moral obligation to stop it.
I disagree. Morals are not part of your DNA. They are overtly taught by parents, relatives, school and clergy. They are also learned by experience and observation. So in affect society is the authority on morals.
You statement that
In the case with the teachers there was some moral obligation based on their relationship. They were co-workers and possibly friends. They felt comfortable enough with each other to share work gossip and join in a very insensitive game that they knew would not be taken lightly by their superiors. In doing so they trusted each other not to say anything to expose their game to their superiors. In affect they assumed there was a moral obligation not to snitch on each other. The moral obligation not to snitch could be be extended to include they should warn the group that the game may be over heard by strangers that then would report it.
Again, this is all predicated on the assumption that they knew they were engaged in behavior detrimental to their employment. Though I find that hard to believe.
Not because you or society tell me I have a moral obligation to stop colleagues from having a vulgar conversation. It is beyond ludicrous to find an abstaining but present party responsible in any way for not stopping this conversation based on what you think is morally right to do.
You do not get to tell me what I have a moral obligation to do or not do, and neither does society. That's between me and my maker.
and I won't get any deeper than that because the thread will get deleted.
Not because you or society tell me I have a moral obligation to stop colleagues from having a vulgar conversation. It is beyond ludicrous to find an abstaining but present party responsible in any way for not stopping this conversation based on what you think is morally right to do.
You do not get to tell me what I have a moral obligation to do or not do, and neither does society. That's between me and my maker.
and I won't get any deeper than that because the thread will get deleted.
If you want to continue the thread in a manner that is against the BBI code of conduct so it is deleted that is on you. You can always walk away, but I don't think any poster should have the right to have threads deleted simply because they don't agree.
This is not directed at you. I don't know you and I don't doubt that people who do would say you are a good man.
But whether we like it or not, if anyone does something outside the social norm people will have opinions about it. If it is far outside of the norms people will judge that person's morals. This is how society works. Positive actions get rewards, negative actions get punishment.
The person who recorded this and posted it is a dick.
The person who recorded this and posted it is a dick.
Agreed. If they were truly concerned only for the kids they would have turned the recording over to the school district. Going straight to Youtube was a just a dick move.
It's sad. One stupid mistake and it may follow them forever.
Obviously in a public space you have no presumption of privacy, but how pathetic.
When the person who posted this is inevitably outed, they deserve the massive shaming they will get.
Quote:
In comment 13364108 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
on youtube if anyone cares to see it before commenting like they know it.
And to be honest without knowing any of the people being discussed, which you can barely even hear anyway, the video is 100% meaningless.
and to Matt M, that is absolutely ridiculous to say the people present, but not participating in the conversation are responsible for not putting a stop to it.
WTF? who are you, the moral police? You think you can judge someone as a responsible participant for not stopping other grown adults from having a vulgar conversation?
I'd hate to be that self righteous. Such a high standard for yourself.
pjcas - The people present who worked with them have some responsibility. If they were on work property and time, that would be more true. It becomes difficult and unpopular to enforce fully, but employees witnessing harassment, discrimination, etc. are considered responsible to report it at the least in most institutions. The marry, F, kill game would fall under sexual harassment. Given this was in public on their own time, it becomes less of a requirement, but more of a moral obligation.
As for the bystanders, I don't think they were responsible to putting a stop to anything.
disagree completely. You (and I) are not authorities to say anyone has a moral obligation to do anything. That's called being judgmental and no one has a moral obligation to do anything.
That's what morals are, they're decided by the person, not you telling them what is right and wrong.
lastly, is it possible to sexually harass someone who isn't present?
if so, there's a lot of apologizing you should be doing to Hollywood, news "personalities" and others for commentary from others on this site. since it's your moral obligation to stop it.
Quote:
In comment 13364410 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 13364108 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
on youtube if anyone cares to see it before commenting like they know it.
And to be honest without knowing any of the people being discussed, which you can barely even hear anyway, the video is 100% meaningless.
and to Matt M, that is absolutely ridiculous to say the people present, but not participating in the conversation are responsible for not putting a stop to it.
WTF? who are you, the moral police? You think you can judge someone as a responsible participant for not stopping other grown adults from having a vulgar conversation?
I'd hate to be that self righteous. Such a high standard for yourself.
pjcas - The people present who worked with them have some responsibility. If they were on work property and time, that would be more true. It becomes difficult and unpopular to enforce fully, but employees witnessing harassment, discrimination, etc. are considered responsible to report it at the least in most institutions. The marry, F, kill game would fall under sexual harassment. Given this was in public on their own time, it becomes less of a requirement, but more of a moral obligation.
As for the bystanders, I don't think they were responsible to putting a stop to anything.
disagree completely. You (and I) are not authorities to say anyone has a moral obligation to do anything. That's called being judgmental and no one has a moral obligation to do anything.
That's what morals are, they're decided by the person, not you telling them what is right and wrong.
lastly, is it possible to sexually harass someone who isn't present?
if so, there's a lot of apologizing you should be doing to Hollywood, news "personalities" and others for commentary from others on this site. since it's your moral obligation to stop it.
pjcas - It is sexual harassment to make sexually charge comments to co-workers. They don't have to be about the person spoken to in order to be considered harassment.