What is this world coming to!?!?

[Brian2by2]

Middle School Teacher In Trouble Over Presidential Photo?

By Ken Rosato
(Monmouth Junction-WABC, October 3, 2004) — You might say it is a symbol of the Great American Divide, a teacher putting up a picture of President Bush in the classroom. Some say it is partisanship while others say it is patriotism.

Rita Bianco, Parent: "Children should know their president and their first lady!"

Parents expressing outrage after a teacher is kicked out of her public school for hanging a picture of President Bush next to pictures of other presidents in her classroom.

Shiba Pillai-Diaz, Teacher: "It happened on a small bulletin board near the American flag and also with a poster of the Declaration of Independence."

This is Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. On Thursday, there was a back-to-school night for parents of students. Veteran English teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz says she was shocked when three parents confronted her. The three, insisting the teacher either add John Kerry's photo to the montage of presidents or remove the Bush photo. When Pillai-Diaz refused, she says the school's vice-principal threatened her job which is an act that has parents here fuming.

Paula Sjolund, Parent: "She didn't do anything wrong, and I think that it should have stayed up there."

Pillai-Diaz ultimately removed the entire bulletin board and says School Principal Jim Warfel told her she disrupted the school with her "inflammatory politics". She says he then ordered her out of the building. While she says she is a Bush supporter in her personal life, Pillai-Diaz says she keeps politics out of the classroom.

Shiba Pillai-Diaz, Teacher: "There was no political intent, nor was there any political content in that photograph nor on the bulletin board."

School officials would not talk on camera but insist nobody here has been fired. To that, Ms. Pillai-Diaz asks what does it mean then when your boss asks you to hand over the keys and kicks you out of the building? She also says she is not sure if she'll be returning to school tomorrow.

That is absolutely ridiculous that she loses her job because there is a picture of President Bush (with OTHER Presidents) hanging in her classroom next to the Dec. Of Ind. and the American flag!!!! That just pisses me off!!! Damn liberal parents demand a picture of John Kerry be hung too??? Why??? to influence the 8 and 9 year olds who can't vote?? Bush is our president, whether you like it or not, he will go down in history as a US President. Kerry may not.

 

[loNfastNSX]

That just FLAT OUT SUCKS!!! Im with you, that pissed me off. The school superentendant should fire the principal. The teacher should sue the sh!t out of the school district.

 

[Juice]

I can't even believe this. It just isn'y logical and the administration of this school has just invited a whirlwind of litigation upon itself. This obviously has "Court Ruling" writin all over it and I would not be suprised if the Principal and V.P. get indefinately suspended. This is so bizaar I find it hard to believe this story is true.

 

[ChopsJazz]

I'm probably next then. This is the wallpaper on my computer in my classroom:

 

[kgb_agent]

I'm probably next then. This is the wallpaper on my computer in my classroom:

So you're just trying to make a point that Bush is too stupid to read?

 

[ADNOH]

I'm probably next then. This is the wallpaper on my computer in my classroom:

lol

 

[Brian2by2]

So you're just trying to make a point that Bush is too stupid to read?

If only that were real

 

[nkb]

Hey, Brian.
So, you do know how to research things on snopes? Funny, when you were quoting allegations about Kerry, you didn't bother

There are some open questions:
1. Did the teacher post the picture for the kids (which would seem reasonable and innocent) or did she post them to specifically influence the parents on back to school night?
2. Does the teacher have a history of promoting her political views (to kids or parents)?
3. Who were the other presidents that were displayed? Was there any political bias?

And, of course, there appears to be a lot of he-said-she-said accounts. I'd like to hear more factual background.

However, if this story is true and this was just a case of a teacher displaying a picture of the current president with no ulterior motives, then I agree, the parents who complained and the principals are idiots.

Can someone please post a credible link to this story (from a major news service, or snopes, etc)?

 

[Ojas]

Can someone please post a credible link to this story (from a major news service, or snopes, etc)?

I was trying to find the same. With a unique name like "Shiba Pillai-Diaz", one would think it would be easy to find such information on the internet. There are a few articles (including recent updates) on the local TV news site, but entries on blogs and references in editorials seem to make up most of the search results.

I then searched for the school board’s site and ran across the school board’s response:

October 3, 2004
District Statement Regarding Bulletin Board at Crossroads Middle School

In an incident that has recently been reported to several media sources, a claim has been made by South Brunswick Middle School teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz, that she was fired for not removing a picture of President George W. Bush from a classroom bulletin board. The claim is false. While I am normally reluctant to discuss personnel matters in public, Ms. Pillai-Diaz’ distortions of the facts, along with her aggressive efforts to get herself national media attention, leaves the district no choice but to set the record straight.

The facts are as follows:

Ms. Pillai-Diaz is a new Language Arts teacher in the South Brunswick Schools. Recently, the school administration began receiving complaints from students and parents that Ms. Pillai-Diaz was using her position, classroom and teaching time to engage in partisan politics. Students reported that she had made statements which denigrated one party over the other. The conversations included Ms. Pillai-Diaz telling some students who offered opinions contrary to her statements, that she was “glad they were not old enough to vote.” Other comments to students, including such statements as, “you should be ashamed to be a Democrat” have been verified through student interviews.

A classroom bulletin board, normally intended for curriculum-related matters, was set up as what she herself described as a “personal bulletin board.” On the bulletin board she placed a picture of the President, the President's dog, the Oval Office and several other Presidential artifacts. In addition, she placed a stuffed elephant on a classroom cabinet, which generated student reaction and discussion about partisan politics.

Following receipt of complaints from parents, the Assistant Principal met with Ms. Pillai-Diaz and cautioned her not to engage in partisan political discussions in her Language Arts classes. He did not initially ask her to remove the picture of the President. As the issue grew in intensity, the teacher herself chose to remove the stuffed elephant because of student comments. In the ensuing days, parents expressed increasing concern about the teacher's classroom behavior, the misuse of classroom instructional time and the personal bulletin board. The level of concern resulted in a classroom confrontation between some parents and Ms. Pillai-Diaz at the Back-to-School night program. It was at this point that the school administration decided to intervene again.

On Friday morning, October 1, Ms. Pillai-Diaz was directed by the Assistant Principal to remove bulletin board materials because they were being viewed as contributing to an ongoing disruption of the teaching-learning environment. She refused. She then met with the Principal who repeated the directive. At this point, Ms. Pillai-Diaz abruptly left the building, abandoning her post of duty and her classroom responsibilities.

At no time was she told to leave, asked to leave or given authorization to leave. School was still in session. At no time was she told she was suspended or fired. With professional responsibilities of a classroom teacher waiting, Ms. Pillai-Diaz chose, of her own volition, to walk out of the school, contact various media sources and claim she had been fired.

I had occasion to meet with Ms. Pillai-Diaz, along with a union representative and a police escort that she had requested, for approximately two hours when she returned to the building later that same afternoon. After listening to her story, I asked if any member of the administration had used the phrase "you're fired" or anything that remotely sounded like it. She admitted that no one had used any such language. When I further pursued why she reported to media sources that she had been fired, she said that she "thought" that she had been. I explained that principals cannot fire employees, that only Boards of Education can do so. With her union representative present, she said that she now understood. I asked that when she next spoke with the media, that she clarify her new understanding.
I fully support the actions of the Principal and Assistant Principal. It is never acceptable for a teacher to utilize the classroom to advocate for political purposes or advance personal beliefs. The courts have always admonished teachers for proselytizing in public school classrooms. This issue is not about a picture of the President, but rather a zealous misuse of seventh and eighth grade student instructional time.

The South Brunswick School community is enormously respectful of the Office of the President of the United States, President Bush and the democratic process for choosing our President. Anyone trying to suggest the contrary has the worst of intentions. Under other circumstances, the display of a picture of the President would have been viewed as completely appropriate and uncontroversial. It is important to note that pictures of President Bush are openly displayed in all of the South Brunswick Schools. The teacher’s own actions here, however, took it out of the realm of education and made the presentation appear partisan to many of our students and parents. Under these circumstances, our actions in directing the removal of the display were singularly appropriate.

Gary P. McCartney Ed D.
Superintendent of Schools
South Brunswick School District

 

[Zuerst]

Wow that is ridiculous. Seems like the teacher's sole intent was to inform student of US Presidents. I hope the Principle and VP go down for this $(*#.

 

[nkb]

I was trying to find the same. With a unique name like "Shiba Pillai-Diaz", one would think it would be easy to find such information on the internet. There are a few articles (including recent updates) on the local TV news site, but entries on blogs and references in editorials seem to make up most of the search results.

I then searched for the school board’s site and ran across the school board’s response:

There are always two sides to each story. Thanks for finding and posting the other point of view, Ojas.

Using a general BS meter, the school's story does sound a little more plausible.

 

[SCS2k]

Yes, what is this world coming to when a person will fabricate things about one's opposition/enemy to promote a political agenda, demonize that individual/organization and lie to the media/American people to gain public support for what has become a personal vendetta? I wonder where that type of behavior could have been learned? Hmmmmm?

 

[dawggpie]

Yes, what is this world coming to when a person will fabricate things about one's opposition/enemy to promote a political agenda, demonize that individual/organization and lie to the media/American people to gain public support for what has become a personal vendetta? I wonder where that type of behavior could have been learned? Hmmmmm?

Settle down Michael Moore. No need to open up that can of worms again

 

[nsxr1]

Yes, what is this world coming to when a person will fabricate things about one's opposition/enemy to promote a political agenda, demonize that individual/organization and lie to the media/American people to gain public support for what has become a personal vendetta? I wonder where that type of behavior could have been learned? Hmmmmm?

SCS2k is obviously referring to the vitriolic lies, fabrications and outright libel/slander directed by liberal Democrats at President Bush since the day he legally and justly took office. They have made the "right-wing conspiracy" of Hillary fame look like a lovers' quarrel. And more recently - in their blind lust to recapture the White House at any cost - the Dems, led by Kerry and his power-hungry professional liar sidekick, have stooped to the worst kind of disingenuous Monday-morning quarterbacking with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Their gross gloom-and-doom mischaracterizations (to put it politely) of the current situation in Iraq serve to embolden the Islamic terrorist insurgent swine and discourage the citizens of that country as they struggle, with our help, to reach stability and Democracy. But I guess they figure it's OK since it might help get their lying asses elected in November.

 

[nkb]

SCS2k is obviously referring to the vitriolic lies, fabrications and outright libel/slander directed by liberal Democrats at President Bush since the day he legally and justly took office. They have made the "right-wing conspiracy" of Hillary fame look like a lovers' quarrel. And more recently - in their blind lust to recapture the White House at any cost - the Dems, led by Kerry and his power-hungry professional liar sidekick, have stooped to the worst kind of disingenuous Monday-morning quarterbacking with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Their gross gloom-and-doom mischaracterizations (to put it politely) of the current situation in Iraq serve to embolden the Islamic terrorist insurgent swine and discourage the citizens of that country as they struggle, with our help, to reach stability and Democracy. But I guess they figure it's OK since it might help get their lying asses elected in November.

I see that you are quite the objective one, nsxr1. Bravo, way to stand up and view the propaganda, that everyone else is swallowing whole, with a skeptical eye.

 

[nsxr1]

I see that you are quite the objective one, nsxr1. Bravo, way to stand up and view the propaganda, that everyone else is swallowing whole, with a skeptical eye.

Not sure what you are referring to. The vast majority of propaganda in this country is generated and broadcast by the major media outlets and the entertainment industry, all of which are and have been for many years extremely biased towards the left. You see it clearly in Hollywood films and television shows, and now you see it in the skewed coverage of the situation in Iraq. Talk to any soldier returning from that region and I would bet that he/she would describe an Iraqi scenario far less dire than that portrayed by commercial "news" organizations. I guess it's safe to say that you are swallowing the media propaganda whole...

 

[nkb]

Not sure what you are referring to. The vast majority of propaganda in this country is generated and broadcast by the major media outlets and the entertainment industry, all of which are and have been for many years extremely biased towards the left. You see it clearly in Hollywood films and television shows, and now you see it in the skewed coverage of the situation in Iraq. Talk to any soldier returning from that region and I would bet that he/she would describe an Iraqi scenario far less dire than that portrayed by commercial "news" organizations. I guess it's safe to say that you are swallowing the media propaganda whole...

"I know you are, but what am I"? That's an excellent comeback.

I have news for you, lies are flying from both sides. If you think that the liberals/Democrats are the only ones making things up, then you are so far gone that no amount of evidence will sway you.

As far as Iraq, do you think things are going according to plan? Then you are the only one, because even George W. Bush has admitted that they underestimated what it would take to handle insurgency after the war. L. Paul Bremer, the Bush-appointed administrator in Iraq until June 28th, has said that we did not deploy enough troops, and that we are now paying the consequences.

Are Bush and Bremer part of the news propaganda conspiracy?

 

[Cairo94507]

I for one appreciate the post by Ojas. It puncuates the pitfall of taking one side of a story as factual without hearing the other side. If the story posted by Ojas representing the School District's facts is correct, the interviews they claim to have done support their statement, then bounce that teacher out of the classroom and let her go to a private school that tolerates that kind of behaviour.

 

[nsxr1]

As far as Iraq, do you think things are going according to plan? Then you are the only one, because even George W. Bush has admitted that they underestimated what it would take to handle insurgency after the war. L. Paul Bremer, the Bush-appointed administrator in Iraq until June 28th, has said that we did not deploy enough troops, and that we are now paying the consequences.

You obviously need to study some history. Military operations NEVER go exactly according to plan. Every battle/war has it's share of oversights, under-estimations, mistakes, blunders, etc. The WWII allied invasion of Normandy (ever heard of it?) is considered one of the great military successes in modern history and THE turning point of the 20th century, yet it was rife with mistakes, miscalculations and improvisations. Then, as now with the Iraqi conflict, U.S. leaders and military commanders made the best decisions they could with the intelligence information AVAILABLE TO THEM AT THE TIME.

It is prefectly valid to critique what was done and identify the mistakes that were made, and use that process to help make better decisions in the future. However, it is ludicrous to sit on a high horse with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and accuse the decision makers of incompetence or negligence. This is what desperate Democrats and their supporters have been frantically attempting to do throughout this Presidential campaign. They do not have a shred of proof to back up those accusations, but they hope that there are enough stupid and/or naive undecided voters out there who will buy into their bullshit. It is Monday-morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. And as usual, the left-leaning media is in bed with the Democrats, doing everything they can to paint as bleak a picture as possible of the situation in Iraq and demonize the Bush administration.

 

[nkb]

You obviously need to study some history. Military operations NEVER go exactly according to plan. Every battle/war has it's share of oversights, under-estimations, mistakes, blunders, etc. The WWII allied invasion of Normandy (ever heard of it?) is considered one of the great military successes in modern history and THE turning point of the 20th century, yet it was rife with mistakes, miscalculations and improvisations. Then, as now with the Iraqi conflict, U.S. leaders and military commanders made the best decisions they could with the intelligence information AVAILABLE TO THEM AT THE TIME.

It is prefectly valid to critique what was done and identify the mistakes that were made, and use that process to help make better decisions in the future. However, it is ludicrous to sit on a high horse with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and accuse the decision makers of incompetence or negligence. This is what desperate Democrats and their supporters have been frantically attempting to do throughout this Presidential campaign. They do not have a shred of proof to back up those accusations, but they hope that there are enough stupid and/or naive undecided voters out there who will buy into their bullshit. It is Monday-morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. And as usual, the left-leaning media is in bed with the Democrats, doing everything they can to paint as bleak a picture as possible of the situation in Iraq and demonize the Bush administration.

Comparing the Normandy invasion to the war in Iraq is ridiculous on so many different levels. First and foremost, despite miscalculations and mistakes (which I agree happen in any conflict), the fact of the matter is that the overall plan was well-thought out, we committed enough troops, and we were successful. This does not appear to be the case in Iraq, liberal media bias or not. Parallels can more easily be drawn to the Vietnam War than to WW II (just curious, was the media responsible for painting a bleak picture about Vietnam also?).

So, George W. Bush's admission that we underestimated what it would take to control the insurgency, or L. Paul Bremer's statement that we did not commit enough troops, and are paying the consequences, is not enough for you? How about an article written by the president's own father, which details why Saddam Hussein's ouster was not prudent?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
The analysis uncannily mirrors exactly what is happening right now.

You condescendingly accuse people who believe negative reports about Iraq as being stupid and/or naive. I submit to you that the person who dismisses reports that are contrary to their views as lies by the opposition, is the stupid/naive one. An intelligent person evaluates each piece of information on its own merit, and strives to see both sides of the argument, before making up their mind.

Wait a minute, that applies to the original reason for this thread! We could have taken the teacher's word on events, and condemned the principals, and parents. Or, we could strive to find out the other side of the story, and then make an informed decision.

 

[nsxr1]

An intelligent person evaluates each piece of information on its own merit, and strives to see both sides of the argument, before making up their mind.

And you assume that because my opinion differs from yours, that I have not objectively evaluated all available information on the situation in Iraq before reaching my conclusions? Very intelligent. In reality, the only way one can reasonably conclude that the situation in Iraq is a "disaster" - the Bush-hater's description of choice these days - is to blindly believe that what the media choose to report tells the whole story. Unfortunately that's about all that many people can manage to do.

 

[SCS2k]

Settle down Michael Moore. No need to open up that can of worms again

I made no politcal statement at all, neither left or right wing. The point I was trying to make is that BOTH sides do nothing but lie and manipulate to achieve their political agendas.

 

[SCS2k]

SCS2k is obviously referring to the vitriolic lies, fabrications and outright libel/slander directed by liberal Democrats at President Bush since the day he legally and justly took office. They have made the "right-wing conspiracy" of Hillary fame look like a lovers' quarrel. And more recently - in their blind lust to recapture the White House at any cost - the Dems, led by Kerry and his power-hungry professional liar sidekick, have stooped to the worst kind of disingenuous Monday-morning quarterbacking with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Their gross gloom-and-doom mischaracterizations (to put it politely) of the current situation in Iraq serve to embolden the Islamic terrorist insurgent swine and discourage the citizens of that country as they struggle, with our help, to reach stability and Democracy. But I guess they figure it's OK since it might help get their lying asses elected in November.

I was actually referring to the lies and fabrications by BOTH sides. Please don't make assumptions about my motivation based on YOUR political bias.

 

[nkb]

And you assume that because my opinion differs from yours, that I have not objectively evaluated all available information on the situation in Iraq before reaching my conclusions? Very intelligent. In reality, the only way one can reasonably conclude that the situation in Iraq is a "disaster" - the Bush-hater's description of choice these days - is to blindly believe that what the media choose to report tells the whole story. Unfortunately that's about all that many people can manage to do.

So, after listening to both sides (with an open mind), you concluded that the liberals make up lies and fabrications, and the conservatives are telling the truth. Anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion as you is either stupid and/or naive. Did I sum that up pretty well?

Like I said before, you have quite a condescending attitude towards people who don't agree with your point of view. Based on that, and the fact that you see this situation as completely black-and-white (liberals lie, and the media are co-conspirators, the administration tells the truth) leads me to believe that you came up a little short on objectivity.

Is it not possible that maybe things aren't going quite as well as the administration is protraying, and maybe not quite as disastrous as the liberals are implying? Is it really as clear-cut as you make it sound?

 

[nsxr1]

So, after listening to both sides (with an open mind), you concluded that the liberals make up lies and fabrications, and the conservatives are telling the truth. Anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion as you is either stupid and/or naive. Did I sum that up pretty well?

Not at all. Conservatives are human too and tell their share of convenient lies. But here I am speaking specifically about the situation in Iraq. My opinion (which, believe it or not, I arrived at by listening to and observing all I could over the past year and a half - including first-hand accounts from returning troops - and adding my own common sense and knowledge of history) is that things are going about as well as can be expected in Iraq, especially given the great difficulty of the undertaking and the fact that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists everywhere are throwing everything they can at the country in the desperate hope of sabotaging the new democratic government before it has a chance to gain a foothold. No one in the Bush administration has ever stated nor implied that things are going perfectly in Iraq. None of them have ever claimed that no mistakes have been made. On the contrary, they have stated repeatedly that miscalculations and mistakes have been made, but that the situation is improving, surely albeit slowly. I find that much more credible than the standard Democrat line that Iraq is a "disaster". I believe that most repeat that mantra not because they actually believe it, but because they hope the undecided voters will buy it and propel their candidate into the Oval Office. It's pure politics at the expense of an extremely important effort in Iraq.

I will admit that I should have left out the part about people being stupid/naive if they buy what I consider to be the misinformation about Iraq on the part of Democrats and the majority of the media. That was me getting a bit carried away and you're perfectly justified in calling me on it.

Is it not possible that maybe things aren't going quite as well as the administration is protraying, and maybe not quite as disastrous as the liberals are implying? Is it really as clear-cut as you make it sound?

No doubt about it. But unless you believe that a Kerry administration will act more or less the same as a second Bush administration, you have to evaluate both sets of claims and make a choice, don't you? Who do you think is distorting the truth more? What does common sense tell you about the inherent difficulty of regime change in Iraq?