Fairfield teacher suspension

Journal story.....

Fairfield teacher suspended for racially insensitive remarks

FAIRFIELD — A Fairfield Freshman School teacher was suspended without pay by the Fairfield City Schools Board of Education Monday for allegedly making racially insensitive remarks.
The board Monday evening suspended Gil Voigt, who has been a teacher at the Freshman School for 13 years, said Board President Dan Murray. It is the first step in the process of terminating the teacher, he said.
Superintendent Paul Otten said the incident took place earlier this month when an African-American student expressed an ambition to be president. Voigt allegedly replied, “We don’t need another black president.”
“He was talking to some students and said some things that were racially insensitive. We take diversity in our school district very seriously with tolerance of people who are different. We just felt this teacher had crossed the line,” Murray said.
Otten said Voigt had been reprimanded for racially insensitive remarks in the past. A report prepared by Assistant Superintendent Roger Martin lists four instances of discipline: A verbal warning in April 2008 for an “inappropriate racial comment,” another in November 2008 for “improper use of school technology” and a third in December 2013 for “inappropriate comments to students.” He also received a written warning last month for “failure to use adopted curriculum.”
The report also notes “All evaluations have been satisfactory.”
“Obviously we’re very disheartened to have this situation with any of our staff members,” Otten said. “It’s not something we’re proud of, and it’s something we must not tolerate.”
Voigt taught seven years in North Carolina, two years in Florida and six years at Cincinnati public before joining Fairfield in 200. He received a continuing contract in 2002, and his 2013-2014 contract stipulated a $73,566 salary. He could not be reached for comment.
Voigt has the right to appeal the decision before the school board within 10 days of notification, Otten said. Treasurer Nancy Lane and the district’s Law Director John Clemmons are drafting an official notification to the teacher.

OK, VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT HERE NOWADAYS. MOST WILL NOT TOUCH THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE WE, AS A SOCIETY, HAVE MANAGED TO BACK OURSELVES INTO A CORNER ON MAKING THIS A TABOO SUBJECT TO DISCUSS FOR FEAR OF "OFFENDING A MINORITY" AND HURTING FEELINGS.

HOWEVER, TO BE PERFECTLY NEUTRAL, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WHICH IS GIVEN TO US THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE FEAR OF "OFFENDING" OTHERS? WE COULD THINK THAT SOME MINORITIES, BY PAST HISTORY, HAVE A CHIP ON THEIR SHOULDER AND WALK THROUGH LIFE JUST ITCHIN' FOR SOMEONE TO KNOCK IT OFF, MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF WHAT THEY DEEM AS OFFENSIVE REMARKS MADE TO THEM. MOUNTAIN/ MOLEHILL THING. THEY COULD WALK ON, IGNORING THE REMARK, AND ATTRIBUTE THE TALK TO A BIGOT OR AN INTOLERANT NARROW-MINDED PERSON, MOST WOULD, BUT SOME WANT TO MAKE A STAGE SHOW OUT OF IT. (REMEMBER THE KEVIN JOHNSON STORY FROM EDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL?) THESE "CHIP ON THE SHOULDER" PEOPLE WEREN'T EVEN AROUND WHEN THE REAL OFFENSES TOOK PLACE, BUT THEY HAVE HEARD AND READ STORIES ABOUT THE PAST THAT AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY THEM AS A VICTIM THROUGH HISTORY. THEY MAY INCLUDE THEMSELVES AS VICTIMS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED DECADES/CENTURIES AGO AND HAVE ONLY STORIES TO TIE THEM TO THE CURRENT SOCIAL CLIMATE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, OR IF YOU CHOOSE TO STAY AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE IT CAN BE SO VOLATILE, BUT IT DOES EXIST IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY AND THE MAJORITY ARE SCARED TO DEATH OF THE MINORITY SEGMENTS OF OUR POPULATION AS TO HOW TO APPROACH THEM. HOW DID WE GET TO THIS PLACE WHERE THE MINORITIES ARE DICTATING TO THE MAJORITIES HOW TO ACT AND WHAT TO SAY? IT WOULD ALMOST APPEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF SOCIETY HAS SOMEHOW MANAGED TO TALK THEMSELVES INTO BEING INTIMIDATED BY THE SMALLER SEGMENTS OF OUR POPULATION. NO ONE WANTS TO STAND UP FOR THE MAJORITY ANYMORE, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS WHO GO AROUND ABUSING PEOPLE......AND THE MINORITIES ARE ENJOYING EVERY MINUTE OF IT IMO.

LIKE THE EDGEWOOD SCHOOL BOARD, THE FAIRFIELD SCHOOLS ARE MAKING A CHOICE TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF A TEACHER TO APPEASE THE REMARKS OF SOME STUDENTS WHO TOOK IT TO HEART.(AND I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE TEACHER'S UNION EITHER) WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE, THE SCHOOL STAFF OR THE STUDENTS? ISN'T THE TEACHER ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION ABOUT OBAMA? YES, HE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE HIS BELIEFS ON THE STUDENTS BUT, LIKE THOSE SAME MINORITY STUDENTS, HE IS ENTITLED TO OPEN HIS MOUTH IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THEM. TO TERMINATE AFTER 13 YEARS, EVEN WITH THIS TEACHER'S TRACK RECORD (AGAIN I CRINGE), FOR THE SAKE OF APPEASEMENT IS NOT RIGHT IMO. IF WE BELIEVE THE STORY, CAN YOU TERMINATE THIS MAN BASED ON HERESAY EVIDENCE? WERE THERE WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY THESE THINGS WERE SAID? IF NOT, NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE WITHOUT PROOF. THIS MAY BE A KNEE JERK REACTION ON THE PART OF THE FAIRFIELD SCHOOLS SO THIS DIES ON THE VINE.

AND HOW IS THIS "DIVERSITY TOLERANCE" PROGRAM WORKING? DOESN'T CATERING TO THE MINORITY THROUGH THIS SO-CALLED DIVERSITY THEME, NOW THE CATCH PHRASE IN SOCIETY, TRAMPLE ON THE MAJORITY AT TIMES? WHERE DID THE MAJORITY RIGHTS GO TO? SEEMS THE MAJORITY HAVE LOST ANY RIGHTS, SET UP BY THE NEW RULES OF CATERING TO THE LESSER NUMBERS IN OUR POPULATION. HOW DID WE GET TO THIS PLACE?

NOTE: I PURPOSELY LEFT OUT NAMING ANY SPECIFIC MINORITY FOR FEAR OF THE POST BEING TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND SOMEONE WANTING TO MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THE CONTENT. I WILL LET THE READER SELECT THE MINORITY OF THEIR CHOICE. FOR THOSE WITH THE CHIP ON THE SHOULDER.....SO TO HAVE I, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

SOMETHING TO PONDER BUT, BY ALL MEANS, DO IT CAREFULLY AND WITH DIVERSITY IN MIND. JMO

Some observations from your post:

"but first what it isn't. it's not about the racism of the remark, the anti-Obama opinion of the speaker or whether or not his constitutional right to free speech was infringed upon"

BUT, IMO, IT IS ABOUT THE RACISM OF THE REMARK BECAUSE THE ACCUSER IS AFRO-AMERICAN AND THE REMARK WAS "WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER BLACK PRESIDENT", INDICATING RACIAL OVERTONES. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS SITUATION DOES ADDRESS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH THING AND WORSE YET, THIS TEACHER IS GUILTY BEFORE A "FAIR TRIAL" AS THEY ARE READY TO FIRE HIM ON HERESAY EVIDENCE FOR APPEASEMENT SAKE. WHY SHOULD WE AUTOMATICALLY TAKE THE WORD OF THE ACCUSER? AGAIN, THE STORY DOESN'T MENTION ANY WITNESSES TO BACK UP THE ACCUSER'S STORY DOES IT? PERHAPS THE ACCUSER DOESN'T LIKE THE TEACHER AND IS USING THIS AS PUNISHMENT. DUNNO. THE "WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER BLACK PRESIDENT" COMMENT IS ANTI-OBAMA DUE TO ASSOCIATION WITH THE CURRENT OCCUPANT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. (WHILE ON THE SUBJECT, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE "OBAMA IS A BLACK PRESIDENT" THING AS HIS FATHER WAS BLACK FROM KENYA AND HIS MOTHER WAS CAUCASIAN, WHICH ACTUALLY MAKES THE MAN MIXED RACE, NOT BLACK.

AGAIN, WHEN DISCUSSING FREE SPEECH, WHERE DOES IT BEGIN AND END? WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT IS NOT? IF ONE SAYS SOMETHING THAT OFFENDS ANOTHER, DO THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY IT GIVEN THAT CONTEXT OR ARE THEY AUTOMATICALLY PERSECUTED BECAUSE THEY SAID IT TO SOMEONE WHO DIAGREES WITH THEIR COMMENT? IS THIS AFRO-AMERICAN REALLY MAD ABOUT THE COMMENT OR ARE THEY JUST REACTING LIKE JESSE JACKSON AND AL SHARPTON DO FOR PUBLICITY? NEVER HEAR FROM THOSE TWO UNTIL A HIGH PROFILE RACIAL EVENT CROPS UP AND THEN HERE THEY COME, OUT OF THE WOODWORK, JUST TO SEE THEMSELVES ON TV WITH THE MOUNTAIN/MOLEHILL THEME. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN ANYTHING WE SAY, NO MATTER THE SUBJECT, WILL RESULT IN OTHER PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE AND MAY MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT.(SOMETIMES I BELIEVE MINORITIES THRIVE ON THIS SITUATION SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT AND EXERCIZE THAT CHIP ON THEIR SHOULDER. IS IT REAL OR IS IT JUST TO GET THEIR NAME IN THE PAPER? DUNNO, BUT I HAVE MY SUSPICIONS. SOCIETY HELPS THIS PROCESS ALONG BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING SO HARD TO PLEASE THE "OPPRESSED".....AND THE "OPPRESSED" ARE LOVING IT. IS THE MAJORITY BEING PLAYED THE FOOL HERE?

"it has everything to do with an individual granted the privilege of delivering instruction at public expense and abusing it. this individual is hired to create conditions for learning but found it more important to express a political opinion at the expense of a young mind."

AND THE TEACHER IS DELIVERING INSTRUCTION AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. HE IS GIVING AN EXAMPLE ON THE SUBJECT OF FREE SPEECH AND ONES ENTITLEMENT TO THEIR OPINIONS. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON FREE SPEECH, OR SO I'VE HEARD. IT WAS SO IMPORTANT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, YET, NOW, BECAUSE SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAYS ON OCCASION, WE HAVE HURT FEELINGS AND THE REVENGE FACTOR ENTERS INTO IT AS IS THIS CASE. WHY DOES THE OFFENDED PERSON GET THEIR WAY EVERY TIME? WHAT ABOUT THE ACCUSED PERSON'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH? WHERE IS THE BALANCE IN ALL THIS?

"this individual is hired to create conditions for learning but found it more important to express a political opinion at the expense of a young mind.""

I'M NOT SO FAST ON THE TRIGGER TO DEFEND THIS "YOUNG MIND". DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THAT INNOCENT TO ME, AND FAST ON THE DRAW TO CREATE A MONUMENTAL GAME OUT OF GETTING THE MAN FIRED FOR AN OPINION RENDERED. THIS "YOUNG MIND" COULD HAVE IGNORED THE COMMENT AND JUST ATTRIBUTED IT TO THE TEACHER BEING A "NARROW-MINDED" ADULT RATHER THAN MAKING IT AN EPIC EVENT. THESE YOUNG PEOPLE CAN RUN A GAME ON AUTHORITY FIGURES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE YOUNG PERSON CAN USE THE MINORITY CARD TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. I'M NOT SO QUICK ON TAKING SIDES WITH THE "VICTIM" HERE.

"I know Dan Murray and fully support the removal of this individual who finds it "instructional" to tell a kid what he cannot do because it appeals to the tribal instincts of this so-called "Teacher.""

I DON'T KNOW DAN MURRAY AND I DON'T SUPPORT HIM ON THE FIRING BASED ON HIS DECISION TO FIRE THE TEACHER ON HERESAY EVIDENCE FROM THE ACCUSER. HIS KNEE-JERK RESPONSE TO OUST THE TEACHER SEEMS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN APPEASEMENT AND TO PUT OUT THE FIRE QUICKLY TO GET BACK TO "NORMAL". (AND I SAY THIS NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORTING TEACHERS NOR THEIR UNION) IMO, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN SOCIETY COWERING DOWN AND PASSIFYING THOSE WHO SCREAM THE LOUDEST. THAT IS BULL----. AS TIME GOES BY, THE MAJORITY IS MAKING THEMSELVES HELPLESS IN THIS SO-CALLED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE ARE ALL SUPPOSE TO BE LIVING IN AND THE MINORITY SEGMENT OF SOCIETY IS PLAYING THEM FOR FOOLS WHILE LAUGHING BEHIND THE SCENES. THE MAJORITY HAS BECOME SO DAM GULLIBLE. JMO

"such an individual does not deserve the title of Teacher nor the privilege for the attention of any young mind. good riddance."

AGAIN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WHERE IS THE PROOF...THE WITNESSES, TO CORROBORATE THE ACCUSERS ACCUSATIONS? AREN'T WE JUDGING BASED ON HERESAY EVIDENCE AND ISN'T MURRAY ACTING LIKE A HANGING JUDGE? THE TEACHER IS ALREADY ON DEATH ROW WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING. GET WITNESSES AND DO A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. THEN, IF PROVEN GUILTY, GO AHEAD AND FIRE THE TEACHER. THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, POTENTIALLY RUINING A PERSON'S CAREER. WHY IS MURRAY SO QUICK TO DO IT? WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU FIRE THE TEACHER AND FIND OUT LATER THE STORY WAS ALL FABRICATED, THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE AND THE TEACHER WILL NEVER RECOVER. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. FAIR ENOUGH?

SQUEEMY, ALL OF MY COMMENTS ABOVE REFLECT A "WITH ALL DUE RESPECT" CONTENT TO THEM. NOT TRYING TO OFFEND, JUST OFFERING A DIFFERENCE IN OPINION.

Heard yesterday that 12 out of 12 students overheard him saying the things he is accused of saying. Overwhelming evidence. If so, you are correct. He must go. In the beginning, I just wanted to see the man get his "day in court" rather than see a knee-jerk termination reaction by the Fairfield administration just for the sake of appeasement for the benefit of the accused. Don't want to see the majority cowering down every time the minority segment of our society decides to complain. Seems that the majority of society may be trending toward being fearful and intimidated by the minorities and that's just not right. Just because the numbers are fewer and the squeak on the wheel is louder, doesn't mean the right has been earned to run the store. JMO