News

Secondly (more controversially), is a picture of a noose racist? I mean, it certainly has racist connotations and I personally wouldn’t have used it, but (bear with me) I’m not sure racist is the concrete conclusion. Lots of people have been hung throughout history, if you’re not viewing it through a racial lens then are you a racist or just very insensitive.

In the US it automatically has racist connotations because of our history of lynching. That means outside of educational settings where the context can be explained, it is most likely going to be something racist.

Showing it as a back to school necklace is most likely racist, but even if it wasn't intended to be racist then it is a joke about teen suicide. Both are fucking terrible.

Secondly (more controversially), is a picture of a noose racist? I mean, it certainly has racist connotations and I personally wouldn’t have used it, but (bear with me) I’m not sure racist is the concrete conclusion. Lots of people have been hung throughout history, if you’re not viewing it through a racial lens then are you a racist or just very insensitive.

I see what you're saying... but it seems like a technicality that's not worth exploring here.

If instead it was a guillotine with a caption of "this year's detention activity"... it's really not any better. Like it's no longer racist but... now it's just purely about killing kids in a more equitable homicidal format. It's very dark humor in a very public place.

It's a lot of time and effort and argument to debate "yeah this was terrible but it might not have been racist". Does a definitive answer of "at least it wasn't racist" make this appreciably any better? Does it make them any more likely to get a teaching job after this?

It also doesn't change the core argument the teacher is making in the story. "You lumped me in with a bunch of racists because I was white. I took down the image because it was offensive. Obviously. Why would I leave it up if it was offensive?"

when one puts something up for public display, one's intent is only a small part of what should be considered; how it will be perceived by others is the primary concern, especially considering that it is a public display.

so, having read the article as well, let's take into consideration 3 facts pretty clearly laid out: the teacher's claims about the intent: the imagery was not intended to be racist... it was, in fact, referencing suicide (presumably as a response to returning to school). yikes. so, this isn't a great starting point, but let's deconstruct this:

1. The teacher claims that she genuinely intended this as, "ugh, returning to school sucks! let's hang ourselves with a noose! haha!" this is obviously highly problematic and offensive for its own reasons that, strangely, the article - nor anyone else - seems to have comment much upon.

2. Many others interpreted this for the much more culturally-prevalent and relevant (in the US) link to the lynchings of black people which took place here for hundreds of years. this image and symbol has been used for centuries as a hate-symbol and to spread hate and fear.

3. The teacher refuses to apologize for any offense caused by her intended and/or unintended meanings, whatever they may be, and considers all of the consequences of her actions to be a form of victimhood. Additionally,

oh, and another important couple of things to consider: she's a teacher, and this happened in a public school.

so, here, we have someone who did (or, at least participated) in creating and displaying a highly-offensive piece of art in a public school, initially lied about her role in creating/contributing to it, refused to apologize for the offense cause (regardless of whether it was intentional), and is claiming victimhood for the consequences she's facing. so, let's break the consequences down into 2 groups:

1. official consequences

She was suspended after she deflected, lied, and obfuscated during the initial investigation into the offending display, only to be reinstated after an administrative hearing-- however only into restricted duty. for those not familiar with NYCDOT procedure, this is fairly typical when they can't outright fire a teacher, but don't have quite enough solid ground to suspend them indefinitely, which they also can't do. but they can keep them on administrative/restricted duty forever, hoping they quit. from this we can infer that, after the hearing, NYC DOT doesn't want to publicly admit that what she did was fucked up for they myriad political reasons it would ignite, but doesn't want to reinstate her as a teacher, so they're doing the "safe" thing by dropping her into a black hole.

problem here is that she she believes that this is somehow unfair, so she's suing.

2. unofficial consequences

obviously, and quite expectedly, the public and her colleagues, are outraged. they're outraged it happened, at how it was handled, and at the teacher's lack of remorse and consideration for others-- and, oh, boy, are they letting her know as often, as loudly, and in every way they can get that message to her. she is, undoubtedly, living through a hellstorm of online and in-person from these people. whether she deserves this or not is for each person to decide, and i'm not going to comment on this in this comment. however, it's hardly unexpected, and these people have legitimate grievances.

this teacher should have been fired outright for the offensive collage - either for its suicide reference, its racist imagery, or both - and she should have apologized for offending others, even if it was unintentional. instead, she lied, deflected, and obfuscated, and claims that facing the consequences of her actions is a state of victimhood, further angering everyone.

does she deserve this? some of it? all of it? none of it?

all things considered, i really have trouble feeling sorry for all of that harassment, and i certainly think she got off way too light by not getting fired on the spot.

e; I feel the need to preface this one - she's claiming she had no responsibility here, but

a) we haven't gotten the school's side of it or any other independent confirmation,

b) the hearing board exoneration could just be a case of the school district not keeping good records and minding details of their teacher's contracts and doesn't really establish that this teacher didn't exercise poor judgment and show poor character during this,

c) it seems really weird that this teacher had nothing to do with this collage, but also felt compelled to take it down herself when she saw it (instead of reporting it to the administration and letting them do what they will with it), and then just happened to be the person asked by the other teacher to serve as a union rep in the meeting that led to her suspension.

I could believe that the administration ignored a bad situation until it started to blow up and then went looking for a scapegoat and this teacher just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but with all these weird little details it does start to feel like more of a stretch.

Either way, my main point in making this comment was just to say the discussion about whether these nooses were racist or not is beside the point because everyone agrees they were dumb, the only dispute here is whether this teacher was or wasn't responsible for them.

Anyway, my original comment starts on the next line -

Her claim is she didn't do it -

Ms Jones Doering claimed in the lawsuit that she never created, displayed or assisted anyone in putting up “any racist collage.”

...

The lawsuit states that on 6 February 2019, the Roosevelt Union Free School District was informed of the “offensive and racially infused” collage on display, but when administrators from the district visited and inspected the collage they “failed to remove it or instruct that teacher from removing it.”

Ms Jones Doering said in the lawsuit that the classroom where the collage was displayed was not hers, referring to it being in an “other teacher’s classroom.”

The suit claims that a day after, Ms Jones Doering entered the classroom to leave lesson plans there she “noticed the offensive nature of its content, and removed it from the classroom so that students and staff members are not exposed to it.”

She then allegedly placed the images in a locked cabinet in her classroom.

The next day, Ms Jones Doering was asked by the other teacher who allegedly had the collage in her classroom, to accompany her to a Human Resources meeting to represent her as her “union representative.”

However, following the meeting, they were both given letters of suspension and claimed the defendants “refused to provide any information regarding” this decision.

She claimed that the school district “falsely accused her of displaying the collage in her classroom, which is completely false and fabricated accusations,” the lawsuit said.

Ms Jones Doering also purports that she was accused of “interfering” with an alleged investigation into the collage by removing the offensive imagery and bringing “negative attention” to the school - which she claims was caused by tips to the media.

I thought it's a lynching reference.

2024? I'm quite sure it was 2023 just a moment ago.