It implies to kids that they may not be welcome in other classrooms. It's idiotic and unnecessary.If "everyone is welcome" has become a "political message" in America, just burn the whole ****ing thing down, you guys are cooked.
It implies to kids that they may not be welcome in other classrooms. It's idiotic and unnecessary.If "everyone is welcome" has become a "political message" in America, just burn the whole ****ing thing down, you guys are cooked.
It's the different skin tone arms. Welcoming everyone in this context could be seen as political speech because "race doesn't matter".In trying to research the story all I could find is articles written from the position of the teacher, and also another who also resigned for the same reasons, but very little from the state. So I acknowledge we do not have all the info on this.
But, at face value I do not understand how "everyone is welcome here" as a banner in the classroom is a problem. It is not even a DEI statement in the sense of colleges and so forth looking at who gets opportunity. Just a classroom level statement on no one is excluded.
I am truly baffled as to why this is the thing for a state to go after a teacher for.
It implies to kids that they may not be welcome in other classrooms. It's idiotic and unnecessary.
We can do without teachers that need signs to remind themselves to welcome little kids into their classes, regardless of what color their skin might be. The whole idea that you think you need such a sign in an elementary school is utterly ridiculous.Bigots are bigots, they need reminders of how to behave in public
It implies to kids that they may not be welcome in other classrooms. It's idiotic and unnecessary.
Evidently this teacher who fortunately quit.If it does, those are some stupid kids wallowing in a false dichotomy. Who taught them that shit?
It's the different skin tone arms. Welcoming everyone in this context could be seen as political speech because "race doesn't matter".
![]()
We can do without teachers that need signs to remind themselves to welcome little kids into their classes, regardless of what color their skin might be. The whole idea that you think you need such a sign in an elementary school is utterly ridiculous.
The whole thing is ridiculous to me, so I'm not making the argument skin color of the arms should be an issue. My comment was more of a devil's advocate variety, since the reaction to DEI has been to target anything that discusses race in some kind of preferential way, which I guess someone viewing the poster in that context, might see it that way.Then the color of the arms shouldn't matter to those making that argument. Chrissake...they have to be some color. I wonder what colors would be acceptable enough to not provoke one side or the other to not do an impression of a Roman candle.
Then the color of the arms shouldn't matter to those making that argument. Chrissake...they have to be some color. I wonder what colors would be acceptable enough to not provoke one side or the other to not do an impression of a Roman candle.
MAGAts say "Of course not!"What's wrong with kindness and acceptance, @Girlpower ? Don't we all want our children treated as worthy?
Exactly. They have no reason whatsoever to believe that they wouldn't be welcome in a classroom. Then they see this stupid sign. It's like putting up a sign that says, "People with freckles have valid opinions, too." Suddenly all the kids with freckles become self-conscious.No it doesn't, ffs. They're kids.
Evidently this teacher who fortunately quit.
The Statue of Liberty is currently being shipped back to France...with a stamped "No DEI!" sign across her forehead.If "everyone is welcome" has become a "political message" in America, just burn the whole ****ing thing down, you guys are cooked.
(ninjah'd)FFS, we're one idiot away from a lawsuit to tear down the Statue of Liberty.
It implies to kids that they may not be welcome in other classrooms. It's idiotic and unnecessary.
They actually hate all kinds of equality. In their world there must be hierarchies of the worthy and unworthy in all thingsNo it doesn't, ffs. They're kids. You know I love ya, but pull your head out.
Lemme guess, Mr. Rogers is the devil too... and Sesame Street, and Raffi, and pretty much every children's book author. This messaging was in classrooms when I was a kid, back in the early 80s. I mean, the Bible itself teaches inclusiveness.
But this teacher is "idiotic"? And suddenly, because you have a douchebag in the Whitehouse that needs his base to mindlessly support every drip of bullshit he drops, this messaging is "unnecessary"?
Come on!
WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE WELCOME?It's not about teachers needing to remind themselves, it's about letting the kids know they are welcome...
The sign isn't for the teachers.We can do without teachers that need signs to remind themselves to welcome little kids into their classes, regardless of what color their skin might be. The whole idea that you think you need such a sign in an elementary school is utterly ridiculous.
Which hand raised in that poster is the one belonging to a child of an illegal immigrant?Because many conservatives have the opposite opinion, especially in a state like Idaho. For example, many conservatives do not welcome the children of illegal immigrants into government-run schools. Do you support allowing conservative teachers to put a sign up expressing that opinion?
No, you don't, because asking a leftist to be intellectually consistent is like asking a cat to file your taxes - both entertaining and hopeless.
From the article:
Who?That is precisely why its banned - because others may disagree that "all are welcome."
Interesting take....It implies to kids that they may not be welcome in other classrooms. It's idiotic and unnecessary.
Of course it is.The sign isn't for the teachers.
In Idaho they would be welcome.....maybe even become an administrator.Who?
If there's a teacher at a school who doesn't welcome a little kid into a classroom because they don't like their skin color, how does that person even have a job?
The whole thing is ridiculous to me, so I'm not making the argument skin color of the arms should be an issue.
My comment was more of a devil's advocate variety, since the reaction to DEI has been to target anything that discusses race in some kind of preferential way, which I guess someone viewing the poster in that context, might see it that way.