So let's talk about freedom of speech for public employees

[adumbrodeus]

meant to add this to the previous post...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Lmao, I just love that guy's youtube channel.

 

[rvkevin]

Also I'm a bit confused, according to this stereotype thing, are anti gays hindered by gay or pro gay teachers, or animal rights activists hindered by teachers who aren't?

Basically, is a student hindered by any teacher with a conflicting philosophy to them?

No, simply eating meat or disagreeing with someone does not stereotype them. Simply eating meat does not tell you how that person views people who are animal activists. However, if they did go on to say similar things about animal activists on par with the comments regarding homosexuality, then I would also question their pedagogical fitness. Do you understand what a negative stereotype is?

At the same time, a person whose slightly less fit to be a teacher on the basis that her opinions MIGHT be found out by the students

Let’s stop right here, I’m not entertaining this line of argument. Her students know about her comments. When a school makes national news, the news quickly travels. Also, only someone with their head in the sand would not inquire as to what the hundreds of people who went to the school in protest. Not only that, but I have cited testimony showing that the students at the school are aware of the situation. I didn't even think this point would even be contested so I stated it as an assumption thinking that it could be a non-issue, but apparently some people don't understand how the grape-vine works.

The content of the stereotype has to be made manifest in some way before it actually affects the person.

Secondly, "homosexuality is immoral" isn't a stereotype, it's an opinion about something discrete. It doesn't necessarily bridge into a stereotype of behavior beyond that within the group (though there are stereotypes of homosexuals, this feeds into the prior point).

Thirdly, the data on this only actually deals with academic performance, as well as the results of academic performance. It does NOT dealing with the effects of non-academic stereotypes in any area.

First, the content of the stereotype was made public by her, which has since been transmitted to her students. Unless you mean that the content of the stereotype was such that it was too vague to constitute any mode of behavior. I don’t think this point has merit. When we describe an action or character as immoral, we have put it into a class of behaviors or characters which offers comparisons. This narrows down the content of the stereotype considerably. Your second point makes no sense to me. Being discrete or being an opinion has nothing to do whether something is or is not a stereotype. If someone says that “Mexicans are lazy,” they have expressed an opinion concerning a discrete class of individuals, but it is also a stereotype. As to your third point, this is just false. Stereotype threat has been shown in non-academic areas such as athletics, entrepreneurship, and chess.

 

[Dre89]

Hold on, how is saying 'homosexuality is immoral' a stereotype then? That's a moral proposition, you're not saying 'homosexuals are less intelligent' or anything like that.

Saying 'homosexuality is immoral' doesn't stereotype anyone, it just suggests they think people who have practiced homosexuality have done immoral things.

A pro homosexual teacher thinks anti homosexual students are bigots.


An animal rights activist teacher thinks meat eaters have been immoral.

An anti- aborton teacher thinks any girl who had had an abortion is immoral.


A Christian teacher thinks anyone who had sex outside of marriage is immoral.

An atheist teacher thinks religious people have no epistemic justification for their beliefs.

So should all of these teachers get fired?

 

[rvkevin]

You’re not phrasing the analogies correctly. It is not merely holding the belief that is being questioned here. It is the act of publicly degrading a certain demographic. This is very different from voicing a difference of opinion or challenging someone’s beliefs on the facts. Having your beliefs challenged is to be expected in the learning experience. What is not expected is to have your character stereotyped. It doesn’t matter whether it is about skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.; it is counterproductive to the learning experience and is not professional conduct for a teacher.

An animal rights activist teacher thinks meat eaters have been immoral.

I think there are correct ways and wrong ways to go about this. I would even go as far as to say that such statements could even be implied in a constructive manner in the classroom. An ethics professor could easily broach this subject by saying that they used to eat meat because it was standard practice in society and they didn’t give it much thought, but as we should do in higher education, we should analyze our practices, despite how trivial they might be. They can then go on to explain their own reasons for why they no longer eat meat, that they think it is a waste of farmland, hazardous to the environment, harmful to the animals themselves, etc. They can then delve into a discussion, that doesn’t pass judgment on any particular person, evaluating the pros and cons and the reasons the students themselves do or do not eat meat. The result of this discussion may be that meat-eaters will find themselves lacking reasons and therefore determine that it can’t be justified on ethical grounds (i.e. immoral), which is why many feel (meat eaters included) that it is the next source for moral progress. It doesn’t matter what the teacher thinks as long as they approach the subject in a constructive manner (which may or may not require them to omit some of their opinions). A skillful teacher can approach controversial subjects without alienating certain demographics, and therefore maintain an open learning environment. Needless to say, labeling those with whom you disagree with as immoral sinners is not productive.

I’m not going to labor the point by going through every example you gave, unless you think there is something to be gained by that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Let’s stop right here, I’m not entertaining this line of argument. Her students know about her comments. When a school makes national news, the news quickly travels. Also, only someone with their head in the sand would not inquire as to what the hundreds of people who went to the school in protest. Not only that, but I have cited testimony showing that the students at the school are aware of the situation. I didn't even think this point would even be contested so I stated it as an assumption thinking that it could be a non-issue, but apparently some people don't understand how the grape-vine works.

The fact that it made national news NOW doesn't change whether the action was inherently punishable. The action was just as much of an issue or non-issue when she typed it on facebook as it is today.

How could she have expected that it would've reached national news? So we're left with the same basic question, how could she be less fit to be a teacher on the basis that her opinions MIGHT be found out by her students?

First, the content of the stereotype was made public by her, which has since been transmitted to her students. Unless you mean that the content of the stereotype was such that it was too vague to constitute any mode of behavior. I don’t think this point has merit. When we describe an action or character as immoral, we have put it into a class of behaviors or characters which offers comparisons. This narrows down the content of the stereotype considerably. Your second point makes no sense to me. Being discrete or being an opinion has nothing to do whether something is or is not a stereotype. If someone says that “Mexicans are lazy,” they have expressed an opinion concerning a discrete class of individuals, but it is also a stereotype. As to your third point, this is just false. Stereotype threat has been shown in non-academic areas such as athletics, entrepreneurship, and chess.

1. You misunderstand, a simply being in the presence of a person who you know doesn't like your class of people is not a trigger for the stereotype effect as far as we know. A person stating the stereotype is, things like illustrating things that feed into the stereotype (showing math conferences with no women for example) is. I could see being in the presence of people who believe a particular stereotype as possible, but people who generally simply dislike you? No.

2. Heh? What's the difference between "I hate Mexicans" and "Mexicans are lazy"?

3. That was written in haste, you're correct that it affects other areas, but the factor linking them is that it's stereotypes about performance. Self-esteem and other side effects can occur because of issues related in performance, but evidence that the stereotype effect directly effects non-performance related areas is not forth-coming. Things like personal morality and self-esteem are not neurologically similar enough to assume and no causality has been linked.



You have furthermore ignored my main point.

Even assuming you are absolutely correct that she has a negative effect on her students, is this sufficient justification for the essential death of freedom of speech that occurs when the government is allowed to "hold you responsible" for the content of your speech?

 

[Dre89]

You’re not phrasing the analogies correctly. It is not merely holding the belief that is being questioned here. It is the act of publicly degrading a certain demographic. This is very different from voicing a difference of opinion or challenging someone’s beliefs on the facts. Having your beliefs challenged is to be expected in the learning experience. What is not expected is to have your character stereotyped. It doesn’t matter whether it is about skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.; it is counterproductive to the learning experience and is not professional conduct for a teacher.
I think there are correct ways and wrong ways to go about this. I would even go as far as to say that such statements could even be implied in a constructive manner in the classroom. An ethics professor could easily broach this subject by saying that they used to eat meat because it was standard practice in society and they didn’t give it much thought, but as we should do in higher education, we should analyze our practices, despite how trivial they might be. They can then go on to explain their own reasons for why they no longer eat meat, that they think it is a waste of farmland, hazardous to the environment, harmful to the animals themselves, etc. They can then delve into a discussion, that doesn’t pass judgment on any particular person, evaluating the pros and cons and the reasons the students themselves do or do not eat meat. The result of this discussion may be that meat-eaters will find themselves lacking reasons and therefore determine that it can’t be justified on ethical grounds (i.e. immoral), which is why many feel (meat eaters included) that it is the next source for moral progress. It doesn’t matter what the teacher thinks as long as they approach the subject in a constructive manner (which may or may not require them to omit some of their opinions). A skillful teacher can approach controversial subjects without alienating certain demographics, and therefore maintain an open learning environment. Needless to say, labeling those with whom you disagree with as immoral sinners is not productive.

I’m not going to labor the point by going through every example you gave, unless you think there is something to be gained by that.

But I don't understand how criticising homosexuality is creating a negative stereotype.

Secondly, most teachers aren't ethics professors, or supposed to discuss those issues, so your example doesn't stand. Plus, even if it did, couldn't a rational, anti homosexual teacher approach homosexuality the exact same way demonstrated above?

 

[Sucumbio]

Mind-boggling amounts of no. We shouldn't pull over black people because they might have drugs, and for the same reasons, we shouldn't fire teachers because they might betray homophobic tendencies.

This comparison is actually a straw-man, which is why I didn't take it seriously... see below and you should understand why teachers must be held accountable for being bigots, and how it's nothing like cops pulling over blacks more than whites.

Like I said before- find me some evidence that she's doing her job improperly, and I'll say "fire her." Until then, go **** yourself, because the government shouldn't fire people for holding political views.

From the New Jersey Professional Standards for Teachers and School Leaders

3.1 How a person’s world view is profoundly shaped by his or her life experiences, as mediated by factors such as social class, gender, race, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, age and special needs;

3.5 Respect for individual and cultural differences, and appreciation of the basic worth of each individual and cultural group;

3.7 Create a learning community in which individual differences are respected;

3.8 Learn about the diverse students they teach, and the students’ families and communities;

A bigot, which she is, by definition is incapable of adhering to these standards, and has no business teaching.

So basically her actions are in clear violation of her employment agreement. In any job, government or otherwise, this is grounds for termination.

Freedom of speech means that there ARE NO CONSEQUENCES FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR SPEAKING YOUR MIND. That is the ENTIRE POINT of the first amendment.

I'll say it again a third time. Freedom of Speech only protects you from criminal charges. Anything else goes.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Whether or not you get fired for saying something public that your employer doesn't feel is appropriate is no where in there. That counts for all employers including public and private schools.

Sure, OK, she has to say that she won't be in any way biased against gay students or parents. That's a given. She still shouldn't be fired if she gives no indication of bias in the workplace.

Well it really will depend on how the principal decides to proceed. There is of course all kinds of pressure now (not that there wouldn't have been ample pressure already). I do feel as if she won't get a fair shake, because it'll be impossible for her to paint this differently. Words are bad that way, especially online. Once you've said them, you can't take them back. But I'm of the humble opinion she doesn't deserve a second chance, or the right to explain herself, or anything like that. She's been outed as a bigot. Game over. The 1st amendment was never meant to allow for bigots to become teachers. It -did- in the past, sure. But we've supposedly grown beyond that, thanks to the sacrifice of so many dating back to the 60's and onward. In the year 2011 going on 2012, there is NO room for bigotry -anywhere- and especially in civil service positions/government work. That is what should be a given.

Freedom of Speech is not a pretense. No one's feelings are more important than the constitution of the United States of America.

Unless it falls under United States Defamation Law (e.g. Libel and Slander).

Besides this is a case of civil rights. A student has the right to attend a public school free of harassment from staff. Even if she said nothing in the classroom, her views are now very public, and therefore it has made its way into the classroom regardless.

But what about the implications for our legal system if it was possible to sack her? What about the implications for freedom of speech?

I hate to say it, but it's .... not that complex. This isn't going to turn out to be a precedent-setting case. All it will do if anything is point a spotlight onto New Jersey's Teacher/Staff professional standards (which though many people may not know of, all government/civil service positions have a set of these). The violations will be pointed out, punishment doled, and life will go on. If she IS fired, that's totally on the school district that hears the case. These are serious violations, it's not like she forgot to bring pencils for the kids to use in class, or something... she bashed gays on a public forum, in a school with gay kids, gay parents, and in a school that is part of the New Jersey public school system! It's open and shut, really... she gets what she deserves.

As for implications for so-called Free Speech, think of it this way.

Fred Phelps whom I happened to live about 5 minutes walk from his compound back in 01, held demonstrations all over Topeka. He had his kids holding "Die *** Die" flags on the street corner by Walgreen's. Sick! Horrible! Perfectly Legal. His 1st amendment rights allowed it, and Topeka's demonstration statutes allowed it.

During one of these demonstrations, a citizen decided to take the corner in his pick-up a little on the sharp side, running his vehicle THROUGH the demonstrators. No one was injured, they all jumped out of the way in time. Had a police officer been present, he'd have been given an appropriate citation for reckless endangerment. There wasn't one. Point of this diatribe is that having the Freedom and the Right to demonstrate made no difference in the decision for that one citizen to try and run them over. That was a consequence, you see, of their demonstrating... an irate citizen.

If she's fired, it's simply a consequence of her actions. Nothing more.

Also there seems to be some confusion over whether or not a person's individual views are or are not important to having a civil service job. The answer is (again) it depends on the job. A city trash collector can be a member of the KKK. A TEACHER cannot. Why? Because trash men don't matter as much. Teachers are our kid's second parents. They do the parent's job when the parents aren't there... they arguably spend MORE time with your kids than you do... therefore these people need to be of the utmost character. Not bigots, racists, homophobes, or anything else negative you can think of.

And just in case it's unclear to a person when they apply for a job as a teacher, they get to read and sign a packet including Professional Standards, which clearly state the obvious. "If you're a bigot, this job's not for you." She should have read more carefully.

But I don't understand how criticising homosexuality is creating a negative stereotype.

Secondly, most teachers aren't ethics professors, or supposed to discuss those issues, so your example doesn't stand. Plus, even if it did, couldn't a rational, anti homosexual teacher approach homosexuality the exact same way demonstrated above?

Dre. what are you on about? lol. No really though, you've kinda gone down an impossible path. You're basically saying "so if a teacher is nice about bashing gays, then it's okay." A bigot is a bigot. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions. Regardless of how it's veiled, anti-homosexual sentiment is bigotry, and a teacher can't be a known bigot and expect to keep their job.

 

[Dre89]

Suc-It was in response to Rv's post.

He was basically saying that by simply having anti gay sentiment, you are somehow invoking a negative stereotype.

I asked him how this was different to a teacher being religious, anti religious, gay, vegetarian etc. and having students of conflicting views, to which he responded that the teacher can discuss these issues with the students in a civil manner.

Now apart from the fact that in most cases that's not a teacher's job, and in fact would technically be more of a violation than simply having an opinion that's not expressed in the classroom, I don't see how anti homosexuality sentiment is any different.

 

[Sucumbio]

hm.... hm.

I recall my English teacher once warning the girls in the classroom to not get involved with black people because all black guys want to do is get as many girls pregnant as possible.

We all kinda just... looked baffled at the obvious racism and though no one reported it (it was a mostly-white school, the black kids were bussed in from the inner city totaling maybe 10, and none were in our class) it was definitely an example of what a teacher should never say out loud even if they're thinking it.

Dang, I've forgotten how this anecdote applies to your point. OH, right... teachers can discuss being vegetarian, or religious, or atheist. They can discuss being gay. They can even discuss what it is to be anti-gay. But what they can't do, is come out of the closet as a gay basher. That crosses a line, violating civil rights because students will feel intimidated.

 

[Dre89]

And this teacher didn't come out to the classroom. The fact she has that sentiment, and didn't express it in the classroom suggests she was trying to keep it away from them because she knew it was wrong.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I hate to say it, but it's .... not that complex. This isn't going to turn out to be a precedent-setting case. All it will do if anything is point a spotlight onto New Jersey's Teacher/Staff professional standards (which though many people may not know of, all government/civil service positions have a set of these). The violations will be pointed out, punishment doled, and life will go on. If she IS fired, that's totally on the school district that hears the case. These are serious violations, it's not like she forgot to bring pencils for the kids to use in class, or something... she bashed gays on a public forum, in a school with gay kids, gay parents, and in a school that is part of the New Jersey public school system! It's open and shut, really... she gets what she deserves.

As for implications for so-called Free Speech, think of it this way.

Fred Phelps whom I happened to live about 5 minutes walk from his compound back in 01, held demonstrations all over Topeka. He had his kids holding "Die *** Die" flags on the street corner by Walgreen's. Sick! Horrible! Perfectly Legal. His 1st amendment rights allowed it, and Topeka's demonstration statutes allowed it.

During one of these demonstrations, a citizen decided to take the corner in his pick-up a little on the sharp side, running his vehicle THROUGH the demonstrators. No one was injured, they all jumped out of the way in time. Had a police officer been present, he'd have been given an appropriate citation for reckless endangerment. There wasn't one. Point of this diatribe is that having the Freedom and the Right to demonstrate made no difference in the decision for that one citizen to try and run them over. That was a consequence, you see, of their demonstrating... an irate citizen.

If she's fired, it's simply a consequence of her actions. Nothing more.

Also there seems to be some confusion over whether or not a person's individual views are or are not important to having a civil service job. The answer is (again) it depends on the job. A city trash collector can be a member of the KKK. A TEACHER cannot. Why? Because trash men don't matter as much. Teachers are our kid's second parents. They do the parent's job when the parents aren't there... they arguably spend MORE time with your kids than you do... therefore these people need to be of the utmost character. Not bigots, racists, homophobes, or anything else negative you can think of.

And just in case it's unclear to a person when they apply for a job as a teacher, they get to read and sign a packet including Professional Standards, which clearly state the obvious. "If you're a bigot, this job's not for you." She should have read more carefully.

Let me be more specific, what are the consequences of legally saying that in general, the government can hold you responsible for the content of your speech?

Because that is the precedent this would set.

 

[Sucumbio]

And this teacher didn't come out to the classroom. The fact she has that sentiment, and didn't express it in the classroom suggests she was trying to keep it away from them because she knew it was wrong.

Correct, she didn't admit it to her classroom, instead she did it on facebook which is even worse. If she'd done it in the classroom like my teacher did about blacks, she may have gotten away with it, though she'd have developed a reputation. Instead she said it on facebook, somehow assuming no one would find out? People are nosy. Kids are even more nosy. You really think students aren't all over facebook looking up their teachers, friends parents, etc etc etc. If she'd wanted it to be a secret as you're suggesting out of some guilt/shame she'd have kept her facebook private, but she didn't. Unless she's really technically inept, this was her way of putting it out there. It backfired, and now she may be fired.

Let me be more specific, what are the consequences of legally saying that in general, the government can hold you responsible for the content of your speech?

Because that is the precedent this would set.

I strongly believe all this will do is reconfirm what people should already know. Having a civil service job is not that different than working for a private corporation. There's no reasonable expectation to assume that just because you work for the government that you won't be held to similar work-based rules like that of a private corp.

Take Wal-mart, there have been a few examples of people bad-mouthing the company on facebook who later got terminated because they're expected to represent the company in a positive light while in public, even if off the clock.

I do understand the potential for a conflict of interest. But a local school district firing someone because they didn't read their employee handbook is a far cry from Congress passing a law that restricts free speech. I would even estimate that a supreme court ruling on this matter would uphold the school district's right to fire her, and I would estimate they would rule that the 1st amendment does not protect someone's job - especially given her circumstances.

So in essence, this isn't even about free speech anymore. It's about how she violated her student's civil rights, and how she got caught. The parent that reported her, was only looking out for the kids. Would you do any less as a parent? If you knew one of your kids' teachers was a hate-monger would you feel comfortable about that? I don't think any parent would.

However, if we do want to examine the impact to Free Speech, we need only look at things like Intelligence Community jobs. Being told not to divulge information publicly due to a threat to national security is not a violation of that employee's 1st amendment rights. Similarly, becoming a teacher and therefore being expected to not publicly violate her student's civil rights is not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. The 1st amendment is not meant to limit individual sectors from holding their employees responsible for their conduct, and this includes all sectors, public and private, and all forms of conduct, including public bigotry.

 

[rvkevin]

The fact that it made national news NOW doesn't change whether the action was inherently punishable. The action was just as much of an issue or non-issue when she typed it on facebook as it is today.

How could she have expected that it would've reached national news? So we're left with the same basic question, how could she be less fit to be a teacher on the basis that her opinions MIGHT be found out by her students?

I don’t see how this is relevant. A situation occurred and we are discussing as to what is the best course of action given the facts at hand. The fact of the matter is that her students are aware of the comments.

1. You misunderstand, a simply being in the presence of a person who you know doesn't like your class of people is not a trigger for the stereotype effect as far as we know. A person stating the stereotype is, things like illustrating things that feed into the stereotype (showing math conferences with no women for example) is. I could see being in the presence of people who believe a particular stereotype as possible, but people who generally simply dislike you? No.

This is incorrect. The stereotype does not need to be stated in chronological proximity to the event for it to affect performance. For example, one of the studies had women playing chess. When they would play a male opponent, their performance was lower than expected given their rating. It is not that they introduced the stereotype at that moment, but it is that the participant knows about the stereotype and the situation triggers it.

2. Heh? What's the difference between "I hate Mexicans" and "Mexicans are lazy"?

On the effect of negatively effecting the learning environment, I would say they are nearly indistinguishable. Both comments would alienate Mexicans. It seems like you are trying to frame her comments as a general hateful emotion without any content, but I don’t see how that helps your case. I originally brought up stereotype threat as a defeater for those saying the inside-outside distinction was final. However, if you decide that she was just expressing hate towards a certain group and this negatively affects those students in her class, then that would also put her in violation of New Jersey’s anti-bullying law. Either way you frame it, it is not acceptable conduct of a teacher.

3. That was written in haste, you're correct that it affects other areas, but the factor linking them is that it's stereotypes about performance. Self-esteem and other side effects can occur because of issues related in performance, but evidence that the stereotype effect directly effects non-performance related areas is not forth-coming. Things like personal morality and self-esteem are not neurologically similar enough to assume and no causality has been linked.

We have evidence for the general mechanism. It doesn’t matter if that mechanism has not been tested in the area of consideration as long as the mechanism has been established and the theory applies to the situation. If the mechanism theoretically applies to this type of situation, then it offers us reasonable predictions, which gives us actionable information.

You have furthermore ignored my main point.

Even assuming you are absolutely correct that she has a negative effect on her students, is this sufficient justification for the essential death of freedom of speech that occurs when the government is allowed to "hold you responsible" for the content of your speech?

If you think that the government holding someone accountable for the content of their speech is the death of free speech, then by your definition free speech is already dead. Some government positions give their employees access to sensitive information and in return, the employees promise not to speak about the information. If the employee distributes the content via speech, they can be held legally responsible. Then there are the examples of yelling fire in a crowded theatre (reckless endangerment), yelling something prejudicial during jury selection (contempt of court), and verbal threats of violence (assault). In all of the examples above, you can receive jail time as punishment; losing one’s job is tame in comparison. Your comment is merely empty hyperbole.

Also, let’s say that she negatively affected her students, that she created a hostile educational environment for her students, then she has broken the law as it pertains to harassment, intimidation, or bullying. The law is clear on this, you don’t have unlimited control of what you can say without consequence.

But I don't understand how criticising homosexuality is creating a negative stereotype.

Secondly, most teachers aren't ethics professors, or supposed to discuss those issues, so your example doesn't stand. Plus, even if it did, couldn't a rational, anti homosexual teacher approach homosexuality the exact same way demonstrated above?

She was objecting to a display that displayed homosexuals, not people engaging in homosexual acts. Does this clear it up for you? Second, it would be easy to object that a math teacher shouldn’t be able to devote class time to irrelevant subjects so I put it in the context of an ethics class to make the scenario acceptable. I think this puts your position in a more positive light because it avoids the criticism that the teacher is using their position as an authority in the classroom in order to teach views in areas which they are not qualified in.

Let me be more specific, what are the consequences of legally saying that in general, the government can hold you responsible for the content of your speech?

Because that is the precedent this would set.

This wouldn’t establish any new precedent. There already laws in places that limit free speech and place restrictions concerning the speech of government employees.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- But still how is that stereotypin? Stereotying is linking something with trait X to something it does not necessarily have by definition.

Saying "gays are immoral" is not stereotyping, if you believe homosexuality is immoral, because it is homosexuality that makes the gay immoral.

However, saying "gays are dumb" is stereotyping, because you're linking them with something they are not by definition.

So I don't see how stereotyping has occurred.

Secondly, as for the maths teacher, that's my point. He can't have ethics discussions, so by your logic he's stereotyping, by holding opinions that conflict with certain students, and not being able to discuss them.

 

[Sucumbio]

Saying "gays are immoral" is not stereotyping [...] However, saying "gays are dumb" is stereotyping, because you're linking them with something they are not by definition.

Both statements are equally biased statements that have no basis in reality or by their own definitions. "Gay" does not mean dumb and it does not mean "immoral." Similarly one can believe that being gay is immoral, and that being gay is dumb. This person would be what we call, an idiot bigot.

 

[rvkevin]

But still how is that stereotypin? Stereotying is linking something with trait X to something it does not necessarily have by definition.

Homosexuality is by definition only concerned with the sexual orientation of a person, so any mention of it being immoral would, by your definition, make it a stereotype.

Saying "gays are immoral" is not stereotyping, if you believe homosexuality is immoral, because it is homosexuality that makes the gay immoral.

See above. By the way, how is this any different from saying the following? Saying "African-Americans are dumb" is not stereotyping, if you believe African-Americans are dumb, because it is their African ancestry that makes the African-American dumb. Are you going to defend this as not a stereotype? I only needed to substitute words, the form has not changed. The only difference is the content so either this is not a stereotype or your argument is invalid. However, I doubt anyone would not consider that to be a stereotype.

 

[Dre89]

Because being black is a state of existence not an act, so it does not hold any moral connotation.

Yes being gay is technically a SoE, but common sense suggests that people in the state will act on it. So being gay is commonly thought of being in the state were you commit gay acts, same as how a baker is in the state of committing the act of baking.

Acts can be morally judged, so if someone is in the state of committing a certain act, they are by definition linked to the morality of the act.

 

[Sucumbio]

IF we follow your logic to a fault then being black isn't just a state of existence, because one can "act" black (if you're not sure what I'm referring to just watch Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood.

Basically you are only separating gays from blacks because in your mind, gays commit gay acts, which additionally in your mind are immoral acts so gay = immoral. But there's no difference between saying that and saying blacks are immoral because blacks commit immoral acts. Both are biased, ridiculous statements with no basis in reality, only subjective personal opinion (yours, specifically, though you aren't alone, obviously).

Not to mention this way off topic.

 

[rvkevin]

Yes being gay is technically a SoE, but common sense suggests that people in the state will act on it. So being gay is commonly thought of being in the state were you commit gay acts, same as how a baker is in the state of committing the act of baking.

If you want to revise your definition of a stereotype, that’s fine by me. It’s easy to change the analogy to fit this new definition that allows “common sense” to make projections on biological characteristics, or states of existence as you call.

Same content as before, with the word “dumb” substituted with the word “violent”:

By the way, how is this any different from saying the following? Saying "African-Americans are violent" is not stereotyping, if you believe African-Americans are violent, because it is their African ancestry that makes the African-American violent. Are you going to defend this as not a stereotype? I only needed to substitute words, the form has not changed. The only difference is the content so either this is not a stereotype or your argument is invalid. However, I doubt anyone would not consider that to be a stereotype.

Yes being gay is technically a SoE, but common sense suggests that people in the state will act on it. So being gay is commonly thought of being in the state were you commit gay acts, same as how a baker is in the state of committing the act of baking.

Yes, having African ancestry is technically a SoE, but common sense suggests that people in the state will act on it. So being African-American is commonly thought of being in the state were you commit violent acts, same as how a baker is in the state of committing the act of baking.

Now, I doubt this would fly in modern times, since we have learned how much in common we have with African-Americans, and how we all have African ancestry, but I don’t doubt that this would be found persuasive by a very small percentage of people living today and the majority of the population that lived a few hundred years ago. This is mostly because, now, as a whole, we think the stereotype is false, which is the operating distinction, not the content of the statements themselves.