BYU-I Teach let go

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm guessing you've made statements on this message board that aren't very LGBT affirming in the past.  Would you support your employer using that public evidence as cause to fire you? 

I don't think my actions are in question here.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think my actions are in question here.

Ok, take yourself out of the mix, I'm asking if you would support a company taking action against a person that is publicly taking positions against the LGBT community via social media or a message board.  Do you think that is fair game and would you be supportive of this as a good ethical practice in our society.  Should we aspire to this kind of practice for hiring and firing employees?   

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

...Do you think that is fair game and would you be supportive of this as a good ethical practice in our society.  Should we aspire to this kind of practice for hiring and firing employees?   

Think for a moment about the teacher.

Will she eventually be happier working in a place that doesn't require her to teach things she doesn't even believe? A place that doesn't require her to stifle things she otherwise would prefer to say? 

Yep.

Happier about it yesterday? Nope. Was sitill working her way out of victim mode. Been there. Got the tshirt(s).

Happier about it today? Dunno. Hopefully.

But is that separation a step that will serve her in the long term, if/when she allows herself to tear out the rearview mirror, and move on?

Yep.

There might even come a time when she looks back and realizes that grace was in action. And she might even come back to thank those who (politely) showed her the door.

When one door closes...

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[ksfisher]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Ok, take yourself out of the mix, I'm asking if you would support a company taking action against a person that is publicly taking positions against the LGBT community via social media or a message board.  Do you think that is fair game and would you be supportive of this as a good ethical practice in our society.  Should we aspire to this kind of practice for hiring and firing employees?   

I would support a company or organization taking action against an employee who publicly takes a position in opposition to the core principles of that company or organization. 

So if an employee of the NAACP were to make disparaging remarks about African-Americans online I would expect that person to be fired.

If employee of the NRA starts publicly supporting gun control I would expect the NRA to have a job opening.

If a manager at McDonald's starts blogging about how much better the food is at Burger King...

 

[juliann]

According to another professor there (feminist whose name most know) it was because she publicly criticized the church policy and said she hoped it would change. She was asked to soften her tone, later asked to take it down. So it sounds like she was given an initial fair option. Thus, she defied her employer which happens to be the Church and no one, least of all her, should be surprised at the outcome. The real problem is that she is an adjunct and they get no protection....anywhere. She made an informed choice, that is all it comes down to. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Think for a moment about the teacher.

Will she eventually be happier working in a place that doesn't require her to teach things she doesn't even believe? A place that doesn't require her to stifle things she otherwise would prefer to say? 

Yep.

Happier about it yesterday? Nope. Was sitill working her way out of victim mode.

Happier about it today? Dunno. Hopefully.

But is that separation a step that will serve her in the long term, if/when she allows herself to tear out the rearview mirror, and move on.

Yep.

There might even come a time when she looks back and realized that grace was in action. And she might even come back to thank those who showed her the door.

I disagree, she wasn't teaching anything about LGBT issues in class, that's not even relevant.  Do you support everything your company does, what about everything the US government does or the state or local government.  We have a diverse society with multiple views on a multitude of issues.  Do we have to agree 100% with the groups that we belong to?  I sure hope not.  

And nobody wants to address my question, is this kind of use of information something we want to aspire to in our modern information age.  Do you support businesses using this kind of information for hiring and firing practices?  What say you? 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would support a company or organization taking action against an employee who publicly takes a position in opposition to the core principles of that company or organization. 

So if an employee of the NAACP were to make disparaging remarks about African-Americans online I would expect that person to be fired.

If employee of the NRA starts publicly supporting gun control I would expect the NRA to have a job opening.

If a manager at McDonald's starts blogging about how much better the food is at Burger King...

 

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.  But what limits would you put on this kind of behavior?  In this case, the person has a belief about something that is contrary to the values of their employer.  

What if your employer comes out in public support of an issue, for example the transgender bathrooms issue, like a Target for example.  Should Target fire employees that have made negative statements towards the transgender community?  

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.  But what limits would you put on this kind of behavior?  In this case, the person has a belief about something that is contrary to the values of their employer.  

What if your employer comes out in public support of an issue, for example the transgender bathrooms issue, like a Target for example.  Should Target fire employees that have made negative statements towards the transgender community?  

That sounds like something for lawyers to decide, which I'm not.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, ksfisher said:

That sounds like something for lawyers to decide, which I'm not.

No, I'm not asking whether its technically legal today or not.  I want to know whether or not you believe this is an ethical practice in our information age.  Would you support this kind of practice?  How would you like our society to handle these situations, what are you in favor of?  

[MiserereNobis]

I want to add that she was an adjunct professor, which means that she teaches on a semester by semester basis with absolutely no contract beyond that. Saying that she was "fired" is incorrect, because she was allowed to finish her current semester. It would be more accurate to say that she was not hired for the next semester. Yes, they had offered her a position teaching for the next semester, but for adjunct teachers, the contract to teach doesn't kick in until the first day of classes. In other words, the school was under no contractual obligation to her, so saying she was fired is inaccurate.

Poor adjunct teachers really have no rights, are paid terribly, and do the bulk of the low-level course teaching. It is something that needs to change.

[Stargazer]

nvrmnd

Edited July 18, 2017 by Stargazer

[hagoth7]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree, she wasn't teaching anything about LGBT issues in class, that's not even relevant....

And nobody wants to address my question, is this kind of use of information something we want to aspire to in our modern information age.  Do you support businesses using this kind of information for hiring and firing practices?  What say you? 

We're talking past each other.

Let's say I worked for a chemical company. If I thought my company was dumping chemicals into the water that was harming the people I cared about most...and for some reason chose to continue working there anyway...regardless of what I said or didn't say, if I got fired from working there, would the day come when I would be relieved? To find a way to support myself in a way that didn't hurt those I cared about? 

To not have to quietly live a lie? 

Did that help? Are we now on the same page? Or at least the same chapter?

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

IAnd nobody wants to address my question, is this kind of use of information something we want to aspire to in our modern information age.  Do you support businesses using this kind of information for hiring and firing practices?  What say you? 

I think you're asking the wrong questions.

1. Was the decision reached based upon a single post or three? Likely not. Much more likely based on aa swath of other things on and offline.

2. Do the things we post offer a glimpse of what's under the hood? Typically yes. And if we ask around and do more of a 360-degree review, which many review processes do at least once each year, we can get a better bead on how accurate or inaccurate that assessment might be.

3. More importantly, was the information used *against* her? To harm her? Or was it rather used/intended in a way that *will* eventually help her...once she lets go and decides to move on and simply let bygones...which will allow her to focus on conributing/providing in a way *that is more in line* with the values she currently holds? 

In other words, *was* she happy/fulfilled working where she was?

I'm guessing that it ate away at her...even if she didn't realize it...and the parting will become a blessing, and was never i ntended as a curse.

Thoughts?

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[strappinglad]

You would think that today's young folks are sufficiently aware about social media that they would acknowledge that posting something on Facebook or twitter etc. is at least as public as standing on a main intersection with a bull horn telling all and sundry your views. She is stepping off a cliff all the while complaining about gravity.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you sure this is the same person?

She says it's her.

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I want to add that she was an adjunct professor, which means that she teaches on a semester by semester basis with absolutely no contract beyond that. Saying that she was "fired" is incorrect, because she was allowed to finish her current semester. It would be more accurate to say that she was not hired for the next semester. Yes, they had offered her a position teaching for the next semester, but for adjunct teachers, the contract to teach doesn't kick in until the first day of classes. In other words, the school was under no contractual obligation to her, so saying she was fired is inaccurate.

Poor adjunct teachers really have no rights, are paid terribly, and do the bulk of the low-level course teaching. It is something that needs to change.

Great point. The adjunct thing is terrible. Adjuncts get paid less than public school teachers, with no benefits. I'm not sure how colleges expect to have anyone to continue to teach their courses in the next generation, when more and more classes are taught by people with advanced degrees who are earning not much more than minimum wage. Why would anyone get a PhD with the idea of teaching at a university under current conditions?

 

But I digress.

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Your example does not match up with what we're talking about.  She advocates for the Church but disagrees with a particular principle. It'd be like an airline exec getting canned because he expresses on facebook that he wished the airline was better at scheduling flights. 

What if the executives viewed those flights as a path to Hell?

/Just asking.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Darren10

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

...and said she hoped it would change. She was asked to soften her tone... 

So it wasn't so much *what* she said, but the manner in which it was said. The unnecessary top spin.

Again suggests this whole thing was more a matter of addressing how to help her, rather than protecting an organization.

Being unwilling to cool the rancor...is what made it best for her to move on. She was drinking a toxin of her own making...and was best served by having that cup removed.

She'll be healthier/happier eventually...as soon as she's ready. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

She says it's her.

Thanks.  I saw some stuff that obviously confirms it

[hagoth7]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

What if the executives viewed those flights as a path yo Hell?

/Just asking.

Gotta ask:

What are the earmuffs in your pic for?

• Firing range?
• Polar expeditions (to keep the ears warm)?
• Or air traffic control tower?

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 She advocates for the Church....

Not when she's been posting as an exmormon while being employed. (She may have been cancelled by then, but since she is writing in present tense it is confusing)

One of her posts under the exmofeministq (sp) alias on Reddit (language so not linking):

"It really depends on who your professor is. Speaking as a professor for a CES school, I don't care what my students wear to class. I have kids show up in shorts and tank tops all the time, also have a few kids with longer hair than boys are allowed to have and more facial hair than is normally allowed. I keep my students out of the testing center because it's just a place for overzealous morons to enforce pharisaical rules. Know your department, that determines how strictly the honor code is enforced. Social science departments are usually the most laid back."

Edited July 18, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

We're talking past each other.

Let's say I worked for a chemical company. If I thought my company was dumping chemicals into the water that was harming the people I cared about most...and for some reason chose to continue working there anyway...regardless of what I said or didn't say, if I got fired from working there, would the day come when I would be relieved? To find a way to support myself in a way that didn't hurt those I cared about? 

To not have to quietly live a lie? 

Did that help? Are we now on the same page? Or at least the same chapter?

Sort of.  I think there are some key differences getting fired or choosing to not work there.  There are also degrees of comfort with different practices and values of a company.  What if the person being fired is a strong believer in many of the values of the company, but just disagrees with one of its practices.  I think its always more complex, and I would like the individual to stay employed and have the right to choose their relationship with the company rather than the other way around.  

11 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I think you're asking the wrong questions.

Elder Bednar would agree, "I'd like to change your question".     I'll answer your questions if you answer mine.  

13 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

1. Was the decision reached based upon a single post or three? Likely not. Much more likely based on aa swath of other things on and offline.

I don't know, and I'm not sure it matters.  

13 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

2. Do the things we post offer a glimpse of what's under the hood? Typically yes. And if we ask around and do more of a 360-degree review, which many review processes do at least once each year, we can get a better bead on how accurate or inaccurate that assessment might be.

Yes, it tells about our personality, but is there a difference between advocating a position in your personal interactions and advocating a position at the office?   Should there be a separation of personal and company?  

15 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

3. More importantly, was the information used *against* her? To harm her? Or was it rather used/intended in a way that *will* eventually help her...once she lets go and decides to move on and simply let bygones...which will allow her to focus on conributing/providing in a way *that is more in line* with the values she currently holds? 

This is irrelevant as well.  This should never come up in a hiring/firing discussion.  This is post hoc justification for business decisions, and I think very ethically problematic.  If companies are using this kind of rational to justify their employment practices then we are in a world of hurt today.  A person should be hired/fired based on company performance, and their personal lives shouldn't be mixed with business in my opinion, with some exceptions for highly visible public individuals and positions.  I don't think average people should be held at the same standard as those people.  

For example, I'm against those employers that fired employees who donated to the proposition 8 battle, after the fact.  I think the average person's donations to public policy debated issues and causes should not be fair game for terminating employment for that average person.  I think public officials, celebrities and other very public figures can be held to a different standard, but I don't like having your average citizen have to fear using their freedom of speech and expression on issues like this for fear of losing their employment.  This is up to a certain point where public advocacy becomes more pronounced and more influential, and I'm not sure there is a clear line to draw, but I'd like to have a thoughtful discussion about that as I think there is an important ethical debate about privacy in an increasingly public society where information about us is more and more publicly available, and I fear that we are losing freedom and we need to find the right balance for maintaining freedom and privacy with the public good.  

 

[Calm]

On Reddit July 3 if my math is right, she says:

"Currently an exmo living in that area... and it's rough at my age (23). Everyone close to my age is likely to be a BYUI student. Luckily I went to school here and so I've got one or two friends that still talk to me after leaving the church.. but it's really tough to make friends, and dating is basically impossible"

On July 18 15 days later, KUTV says:

"She is a life-long member of the LDS church with the needed ecclesiastical endorsement to hold a current temple recommend -- her faith's standard of being a believer in good standing....Robertson said she has “been struggling ever since -- but still remains a member of the church, and holds a temple recommend.”

While both comments about membership can be technically true if she hasn't been excommunicated or officially resigned or her temple recommend pulled, someone is not being transparent.

And she has gone beyond "struggling" if she sees herself as exmormon.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Elder Bednar would agree, "I'd like to change your question".     I'll answer your questions if you answer mine.  

That boils down to....is someone looking to change the question in order to dissemble and dodge a bullet? Or to instead reframe things in a way better intended *to be of benefit to you*? If someone were to review Elder Bednar's exchange, I'm confident it would be the latter.

Dittto with Elder Packer's statement that not everything that is true happens to be helpful.

Just as some questions aren't helpful, and can even be hurtful to the one asking.

Or less helpful (to the asker) than another proferred question might be.

Doesn't hurt if a friend suggests that one's ladder is leaning up against the wrong wall. Of course he/she could just stand there and watch you climb it...and then watch you move it around for several days/weeks/years...until you found a more productive place to climb. Or he/she could simply say "Pssst, friend. The view/perspecdtive is a bit better over here. Come taka a gander.)

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, it tells about our personality, but is there a difference between advocating a position in your personal interactions and advocating a position at the office?   Should there be a separation of personal and company?  

I think you misunderstand me 180 degrees.

You look to such things like witchhunt...as in what someone says outside their workplace is sacrosanct and shouldn't be used against me.

What if that's an unworkable paradigm? (Or at least unproductive/unprofitable...for you or most anyone else.)

If management and HR aretruly trying to find out if someone is happy/fulifilled working there, and rather than nail them to a wall with an excuse to fire them, is instead looking to see if they're happy/fulfilled. (Fx. happy doctors are considerably faster and more accurate at diagnosing illness than unhappy ones.) So it's not a matter of firing unhappy ones. And then training new ones for 15 year to fill the gap. It's instead about finding which ones *are* unhappy, *and why*, and what can be done to help resolve the source of *their* pain to where they are happy/fulfilled/successful in their work. That approach wiill not only improve them, but ripple through to more rapidly/accurately heal thousands of patients.

So were they out of line trying to assess how she was doing? Not in the least. She simply didn't want help at this stage in her life...which left them the choice of removing part of the source of her pain, the sliver in her paw...so she wouldn't have to work at a job that made her bitter.

Fair 'nuf?

 

 What if the person being fired is a strong believer in many of the values of the company, but just disagrees with one of its practices.

Few people are fired for their beliefs or for disagreeing. This was about actions, harmful to herself, that she was unwilling to modify. Apples. Orangutans.

A son once said something extremely disrespectful to his father. Repeatedly. Rather than get angry, he looked him in the eye and quietly told him that he was hurting himself by doing that. And that his mother would explain. (He wouldn't have accepted the instructdion/correction from his father that day anyway.) She nodded, and they parted ways for a learning cycle.

Precisely what that employer and that teacher needed to do. At least for a bit.

[hagoth7]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  Yes, it tells about our personality, but is there a difference between advocating a position in your personal interactions and advocating a position at the office?   Should there be a separation of personal and company?  

Depends on what type of employer you wish to be.

Do you genuinely care about the welfare of your people?

Then, if you're extroverted, you'll mingle at he company picnic and visit employees' friends or families, trying to get a figurative pulse/blood-pressure read on how people are really doing. If you're more on the introverted side of the spectrum, you'll accomplish the very same assessment/exploration, but through other means. Means which you might arbitrarily deem uncomfortable or off limits.

The kind of boss I want to work for, forever, isn't interested in whether I'm happy at work. The kinda bosses I really want to serve are interested in whether I'm happy *in life.* So there is no such thing as off limits in that pursuit. If you don't happen to appreciate that approach, you can of course seek out a company/boss that views your relationship with them as sheerly transactional, and that will simply swap a paycheck for your time, and that may not give you a moment's tnotice  the day after you resign. If *that's* the world you honestly prefer.  

There's a StarTrek episode where the essence of the plot is that to survive they needed to drop their shields. Just like facades sometimes need to fall, and like the scales (judgmentalism) needs to fall from our eyes/perspecdtive...if we can learn to be vulnerable..and tell our inner Gorbachev to tear down that wall...and simply let people in...the thing that is taking me the longest to learn...life gets considerably better. And soon.

Does that help bridge things a wee bit?

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7