Teacher Disciplined for Saying "Privilege" Training Involved "White-Bashing BS" Can Go Forward with First Amendment Claim

"[T]he only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable."

An excerpt from the long opinion in Grande v. Hartford Bd. of Ed., decided Tuesday by Judge Sarah Russell (D. Conn.):

This case centers around the Hartford Board of Education's investigation and reprimand of Grande for comments he made during a Zoom training held on October 28, 2020…. Grande began working as a physical education teacher for the District in 1989 and continued in that role until he retired on October 1, 2024.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hartford Public Schools stopped in-person instruction for a period of time beginning on March 17, 2020. In fall 2020, Grande was teaching remote physical education to his students…. Avicolli [Director of Arts and Wellness] sent a survey to teachers within her department regarding the level of student engagement during remote classes. Grande answered the survey reporting that not many students were showing up to his remote classes. This lower attendance reflected a national problem of student engagement during the pandemic. After Avicolli conducted the survey, she scheduled a professional development training for teachers in her department. …

The PowerPoint [used at the training] identifies as the "learning target" of the session the following goal: "I can explore my own identity and privilege to better understand how I relate to my students in order to increase engagement and collaboration." The agenda for the meeting shows that the session would include an "Identity and Privilege Activity" and "Break-Out Group Reflection Time" as well as "Closure in Whole Group." The PowerPoint explains that participants will "explore our privilege as related to various social identities" and says "[w]e believe it is critical for everyone to reflect on privilege in this way in order to use our individual and collective privilege(s) for equity and social justice."

The PowerPoint includes an "Identity Wheel" with pie slices that are labelled with categories including race, gender/sex, sexuality, nationality/citizenship, other, religion, class, and ability. Each pie slice is divided into eight sections. The instructions explain that slides for each social identity will be displayed with eight statements that describe examples of "privilege related to that category's system of oppression and privilege." Participants are instructed to shade a section of the wheel if their answer is "basically yes" to the statement….

After doing the activity, teachers participating in the training moved into smaller breakout groups with fellow teachers. The PowerPoint instructions for the breakout group discussion ask, "How did it feel to engage in this activity?" The "Norms in Breakout Groups" are listed as: "Assume positive intentions"; "You don't have to share if you don't feel comfortable doing so"; "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!"; and "Agree to disagree respectfully." The discussion prompts listed are: "Why is it important for us to aware of privilege as an aspect of our identities/experience?"; "How did completing this activity affect my understanding of myself?"; "How did completing this activity affect my understanding of my students?"; and "How does my identity impact my relationship with my students?" Avicolli acknowledged that the breakout groups could be uncomfortable and she expected participants to be uncomfortable. She said no one was required to speak in the breakout groups.

According to Grande, he started out the discussion in his breakout group by saying to the other teachers: "I was just man-bashed and white-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this white-bashing BS." Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement contains slightly different phrasing of Grande's statements: "I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS." Grande asserts that his comments sparked no reaction or disruption during the breakout group meeting itself.

Grande says he made his comments to address what he viewed as discriminatory content of the presentation because he did not "think teachers should have to go through this and have their race and gender and their sexual preference, you know, targeted or pointed at." Grande viewed the presentation as an attempt to indoctrinate teachers and ultimately students, which he found objectionable. Based on the prompts, Grande believed that the presentation targeted a certain class of people, including him, and was an exercise in "critical race theory," rather than one aimed at improving the education of students.

In response to a written survey asking teachers about the presentation, Grande questioned how the training related to "art, music, or PE/health" and stated he believed the training was "part of the Superintendent's agenda to advance her career." According to Avicolli, Grande was the only person who spoke out to say the presentation was objectionable….

Following a complaint (more on the details below), Grande was investigated and disciplined (formally reprimanded, told that "future misconduct could lead to disciplinary action, including termination of employment," and required "to take a 'Sensitivity Awareness' training"). He then sued, and the court allowed his First Amendment retaliation claim to go forward.

Generally speaking, the government may not discipline an employee based on the employee's speech if

1. the speech is not said by the employee as part of the employee's job duties, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), and
2. the speech is on a matter of public concern, Connick v. Myers (1983), and
3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agency's operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public, Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. (1968).

Here is how the court analyzed these elements:

[1.] The parties dispute whether Grande was required to attend the training but it is undisputed that Grande was not required by his employer to speak during the breakout session. Although Grande spoke at a professional development training session purportedly related to student engagement, Grande's comments were not directed at how to engage students in his class. Rather, Grande voiced his opinion that an exercise at the training targeted teachers in a discriminatory manner based on their race and gender. Grande's criticism of a social identity exercise as discriminatory is not "'part-and-parcel of his concerns' about his ability to 'properly execute his duties'" as a teacher ….

[2.] Defendants assert that when Grande spoke in the breakout session he was airing personal grievances to other teachers rather than speaking on a matter of public concern. Grande asserts that his comments that the training exercise was "white bashing BS" and he felt "man bashed and white shamed" were directed at what he perceived as gender and race-based discrimination in the workplace and therefore matters of public concern.

"Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to matters of political, social, or general interest to the community or value and concern to the public." To identify matters of public concern, courts consider "the motive of the speaker, cognizant that speech on a purely private matter does not pertain to a matter of public concern and, conversely, that an individual motivated by a personal grievance can simultaneously speak on a matter affecting the public at large." "Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record. Connick.

In Connick, the Supreme Court referred to the "right to protest racial discrimination" as "a matter inherently of public concern" regardless of whether the protest is communicated in a public or private forum. The Second Circuit has noted that it has "held repeatedly that when a public employee's speech regards the existence of discrimination in the workplace, such speech is a matter of public concern." …

[3.] Other than pointing to a single teacher's complaint, Defendants provide no argument for how Grande's speech was disruptive or potentially disruptive…. The complaining teacher said that Grande's comment made her "very uncomfortable," and was "very disturbing," "deeply affects the community" served by the Hartford Public Schools, against her "moral beliefs," and "disrespectful to the work that we are trying to start in our department." There is no question that the complaining teacher disagreed with Grande's viewpoint and was upset when she heard his comments. But "[i]n order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."

Defendants rely on Grillo v. New York City Transit Authority (2d Cir. 2002), where the Second Circuit held that an employee had not engaged in protected speech when he said at a training that certain management techniques were "women's stuff," and "women who dress like that [like the women in the building where the class was being held] should expect to be grabbed and pulled on." The Second Circuit reasoned that "even if this comment raised matters of public concern, Grillo's employer was justified in restricting his speech given the mildness of the sanction (a rebuke), the comment's tenuous connection to matters of public concern, and its significant potential for disruption." The court reasoned that "[i]n addition to its obvious provocativeness, we note that this statement advocated to future NYCTA supervisors behavior that could have subjected them and their employer to liability for violating various laws." Here, in contrast, Defendants have posited no such concerns about liability regarding Grande's comments.

Grande shared his comments in a breakout room that specifically encouraged teachers to share their thoughts and agree to disagree. The exercise appears to have been designed with the expectation that participants might feel uncomfortable, as the instructions informed participants: "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!" Indeed, the teacher who complained about Grande appears to have anticipated discomfort about the topic of the training as she thanked Avicolli for holding the session and said she was looking forward to growing in "the uncomfortable" and seeing change in the department as a result. Accordingly, the only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable.

Grande's comments were not made to students or parents at the school. Instead, Grande spoke via Zoom to a small group of teachers who worked at different schools. ECF No. 43-1, at 115-20. Grande had never had previous contact with the teacher who complained about him. Grande Dep., ECF No. 45-2, at 33. Defendants have not provided evidence that it was anticipated that Grande would work with anyone in the breakout room in the future. Accordingly, Defendants have not established based on undisputed facts that Grande's comments could be expected to disrupt his relationships with coworkers at his school or the operation of the District. Drawing all inferences and resolving all factual disputes in Grande's favor, as is required at this stage of the case, these circumstances raise questions about the reasonableness of assessing Grande's comments as disruptive to school operations.

Moreover, there is a disputed issue of fact regarding whether Grande was reprimanded based on a determination that his comments were disruptive or based on his speech itself…. The record suggests a range of possible reasons for Grande's discipline. It appears that Avicolli may have taken issue with the comments at least in part based on the viewpoint Grande expressed. At her deposition, Avicolli said she found Grande's comments "inappropriate" and "unprofessional" because they showed "resistance in having a growth mindset or an open perspective."

After learning of the teacher's complaint, Avicolli wrote to other teachers who had participated in the breakout room that Grande had made "inappropriate and aggressive comments" that were "unacceptable," "saddened" her, and created an "unsafe and hostile environment." Defendants say that Wilson "made the decision to discipline Plaintiff because of what he said and 'how he communicated out in the breakout room, which impacted the training session.'"

At his deposition, Wilson said that he concluded Grande used "vulgarity" in the breakout room. The reprimand letter signed by Wilson said that Grande had violated a provision of the Hartford Public School Employe Handbook by making "inappropriate and unprofessional comments." The Handbook provision referenced provides that "[e]mployee behavior that does not reflect positive social values will have a negative influence on students and fellow employees and is unacceptable." The letter stated that the misconduct finding was not based on Grande's "opinions or feelings regarding the training" but solely on the way Grande "expressed these sentiments which was inappropriate, unprofessional, and made several staff members uncomfortable."

Notably, the complaining teacher did not express discomfort over Grande saying "BS" or "bullshit." Rather, the discomfort appeared to be at least in part related to the opinion that Grande expressed. ECF No. 43-1, at 117 ("That statement deeply affects the community I serve. I cannot stand for a statement that is against my moral beliefs."). {Although Defendants point to the complaint of only one teacher as showing disruption, another teacher expressed feeling upset after the meeting. This teacher also appeared to be upset at least in part based on the viewpoint Grande expressed. ECF No. 43-1, at 118 ("He was dismissing what I was saying. I was upset after the meeting. These are important developments to further understand the discrepancy amongst us to be better educators. I felt like [ ] my opinion was shut down.").} Accordingly, there are disputed factual questions as to whether Grande was reprimanded for using "vulgarity," speaking "aggressively," or expressing an opinion that others disagreed with.

In sum, there are genuine disputes of material fact bearing on whether the assessment of the disruption caused by Grande's speech was reasonable and whether Grande was reprimanded because of a disagreement with the opinion Grande expressed rather than the disruption. See Rankin v. McPherson (1987) ("Vigilance is necessary to ensure that public employers do not use authority over employees to silence discourse … simply because superiors disagree with the content of employees' speech").

Plaintiff is represented by Logan M. Hetherington and Nathan J. McGrath (The Fairness Center) and Craig C. Fishbein (Fishbein Law Firm, LLC).

[UPDATE 9/11/25 2:41 pm: I originally erroneously said "Avicolli was investigated and disciplined," but of course that was mistaken; I've corrected it to make clear that it was Grande who was investigated and disciplined. Thanks to commenter Lee Moore and to Jordan Brown for the correction.]

Comments

[John F. Carr]

"it is undisputed that Grande was not required by his employer to speak during the breakout session."

If he had been required to give his reaction to the session, would his words be unprotected as job-related?

[Rossami]

Only if his job required him to speak a particular way. In other words, a biology teacher can be required to teach about evolution and words against that in the classroom could be unprotected as job-related. But this? No.

[JasonT20]

It is always a job requirement that teachers act "professionally" and respectfully toward each other and toward supervisors. Which I would expect to be true in virtually all workplaces. How can what he said be considered "professional"?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose in much the same way the training could be?

[Sarcastr0]

A training you think is bad and wrong isn't unprofessional without more specific information on it's tone, language, etc.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A training that said that the natural condition of African-Americans was in permanent bondage to Caucasian-Americans wouldn't necessarily be unprofessional, it would depend on the tone and language?

[Don Nico]

More accurately, in what way were they unprofessional.

[JasonT20]

"I was just man-bashed and white-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this white-bashing BS."

That's a rant, not a discussion or a debate or expressing an opinion according to the norms clearly stated before the breakout session started. Ranting is not professional.

[Kazinski]

If a Black man had to sit in training he thought was demeaning and scapegoating Black men for societal problems do you think he should be disciplined for saying:

"I was just man-bashed and Black-shamed. I'm gonna sit here quietly." He said he added: "I'm not buying into this Black-bashing BS."

I sincerely doubt it, and so do you if you are being honest.

[JasonT20]

... do you think he should be disciplined...

A serious answer to your loaded hypothetical is to point out that it is loaded. Your scenario is assuming that the Black, male teacher is correct that the training was demeaning toward him, as a Black man, and that it scapegoats Black people generally for societal problems. You are assuming that any reasonable person would agree with that characterization, therefore any reasonable person would think that he was justified to call the training "BS", among the other things he said, and therefore shouldn't be punished for it.

I see this actual situation very differently from that.

Start with the learning goal of the training:

"I can explore my own identity and privilege to better understand how I relate to my students in order to increase engagement and collaboration."

I see something missing in there that would make me, as a white man, just like Grande is, feel like this message was targeting me to the exclusion of others. I don't see anything in that learning goal that would only apply to white men. It is not addressed to white men. Grande, and I assume you, read that learning goal as if it said, "Okay, for white men, here is your learning goal, those of you in marginalized identity groups can skip that."

The decision also references something else they were presented:

The PowerPoint explains that participants will "explore our privilege as related to various social identities" and says "[w]e believe it is critical for everyone to reflect on privilege in this way in order to use our individual and collective privilege(s) for equity and social justice."

Again, that is not addressing just the white men in the training. It addresses "participants" and that "everyone" should reflect on privilege in order to use that privilege (individual and collective) for "equity and social justice."

You and Grande are responding to "privilege" and "equity and social justice" as trigger words that make you feel targeted. I can understand that. It isn't entirely irrational to feel that way. But getting past those feelings is the point of the whole exercise.

It isn't only white men that have privilege. Anyone with a college degree has privilege compared to those that don't have one [edit: or access to some other post-secondary education or training]. Anyone that grew up with both parents in the household has privilege compared to those that didn't. Anyone that grew up in a decent house instead of a roach-infested shithole has privilege compared those that did grow up in that roach-infested shithole.

Every teacher, simply by virtue of their college degree and full time job with benefits, is going to have some privilege compared to students they will have that are poor, live with one parent or a different relative or foster care, have a learning disability, or a physical disability. None of that depends on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Statistically, some groups have higher rates of poverty, etc., but they can occur for anyone.

The "social identity" that the training talks about will mean race, sex, ethnicity, etc. But it cam also mean economic class. It can also mean single or two parent household. It can mean a lot of things.

Seeing those words used in those training materials makes you jump to conclusions that the whole training will end up "white shaming" and "man bashing", but maybe not. You don't know, because you weren't in that training. That Grande felt like he was being white shamed and man bashed could be fair. Or it could be that he just didn't want to admit that being a white male made him statistically more likely to be in a home, when he was in school, that was financially, socially, and physically safe and stable compared to many of his students. And that is a fact, not "BS".

[Brett Bellmore]

You're tacitly assuming that 'demeaning towards whites' isn't a thing, so that if he felt demeaned he must have been mistaken. That's because you assign status on the basis of race, so that individual circumstances cease to matter.

I object to the concept of "privilege", as it is used here. I have, as a white man, no privileges as I understand the term:

"A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste."

I have no special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to me or enjoyed by me as a white. Such rights as I do have are the entitlement of ALL Americans, without regard to group membership.

What you're describing are not privileges, as I understand them. Certainly, growing up in an intact family was advantageous. It's not barred by law or custom to blacks.

Graduating from HS with excellent grades and a high SAT was the product of lucky genetics and having parents who demanded that I finish my homework on getting home before I could do anything else. Blacks are not particularly genetically disadvantaged, and there are plenty of them out there who are natively smarter than me. And if one settles down to do his math homework before playing, the academic sloth police won't show up to arrest him.

And on and on. Nothing I have was a matter of privilege, it was available to anybody.

Or if it wasn't, if locally in a time and place it was denied to somebody, that was a violation of their rights, not a special privilege granted to me, who got nothing everybody isn't entitled to.

So, when I check my "privilege"? I come up empty.

[Krayt]

They went out of their way to point out how it was an exercise in things that might make you uncomfortable, and to discuss it.

Horrors, he did so.

I also find it telling the instructor then went on to describe how horrible what he said made her feel, as if it justified the retaliation, or a defense against it.

"I feel so attacked, I curl up like a ball and sic government on you" for me, but not for thee.

[JasonT20]

They went out of their way to point out how it was an exercise in things that might make you uncomfortable, and to discuss it.

They went out of their way to point out that discussing it was expected to be done while assuming positive intentions and agreeing to disagree respectfully. Why do you all keep skipping that part?

[MickeyFitz]

Would there even be a question that a Black teacher would have the right to express concern about what were perceived as racist anti-Black statements?

[Ken Arromdee]

>Accordingly, the only evidence of disruption pointed to by Defendants is the fact that a teacher felt uncomfortable at a session designed with the expectation that participants would feel uncomfortable.

Obviously, the session was designed to make participants feel uncomfortable when they were accused of racism against blacks, not to make them uncomfortable when they were accused of racism in favor of blacks.

Also obviously, the defendants are not going to admit this.

[ReaderY]

Could the teacher have sued the school district for fraud here, separately from any First Amendment claim and from any question about whether r not his comments were job-related?

The school districted created a workshop in which teachers were explicitly asked to express their opinion and promised that causing discomfort was OK. Then, when the teacher relied on these representations, the school district then used the information it obtained about his opinions to fire him, allegedly for causing others discomfort.

Why isn’t that fraud plain and simple?

[JasonT20]

Why isn’t that fraud plain and simple?

Read my comment below. The expectations for how they should have expressed any of their experiences and views were clearly stated. He did not meet those expectations. He blew right through the boundaries they clearly put up. There is nothing fraudulent or bait-and-switch about this. Definitely not anything "plain and simple."

[Don Nico]

"He blew right through the boundaries they clearly put up. "
Wow, you see things that are not there. The Plaintiff was the one who was offended; the snowflake whiner, not so much.
There is no claim that the Plaintiff spoke further so as to disrupt the so-called training.

[JasonT20]

Wow, you see things that are not there. The Plaintiff was the one who was offended; the snowflake whiner, not so much.

You are not seeing or are ignoring the things that are. I have no idea what you think I saw that wasn't there. I show exactly where the statement from me that you quoted comes from in my other comment. You're just making things up that sound good to you.

[Lee Moore]

and promised that causing discomfort was OK

No, the participants were told that feeling discomfort was OK. The discomfort-causing sword was to be wielded by the management, the employees were allowed to feel the pain.

There was no indication that employees were permitted to dish out any discomfort themselves.

However, I should think that the instruction that it's OK to feel discomfort could be used - by the plaintiff - to show that the management did not think that causing discomfort was a serious matter. They intended and expected to cause some of it themselves. Thus if the employee caused discomfort himself, the school is in a weak position to argue that this is a big deal, deserving of disciplinary action.

[Krayt]

"Permitted to feel", that's a weak rack on which to hang your hat, especially when they were split up into discussion groups.

Anyway, off to a jury it goes to decide this stuff.

[not guilty]

While I have not read the District Court opinion, the excerpt quoted by Professor Volokh shows the existence of disputed material facts, such that summary judgment was properly denied.

It also shows this plaintiff to be a whiny hothouse flower who can't stand to have his worldview questioned.

[ReaderY]

But doesn’t this case also show the School District folks to be at least equally whiny hothouse flowers who at least equally couldn’t stand to have their worldview questioned?

After all, the teacher, after complaining, was nonetheless willing to continue to work with these folks. But the School District wsn’t; it fired him. Which one was the least accepting of others’ viewpoints?

[kenwanobi]

The District didn't fire him, they reprimanded him and threatened to discipline him if he re-offended. He stayed at the school until he retired in 2024.

[Gwegan]

I'm not sure you understand what is happening here. The school district's motion was denied and now the matter will go to trial. That is a major win for the Plaintiff. The school district will now almost certainly settle. Your statement sounds like it is describing the school administrator not the plaintiff.

[not guilty]

Of course the denial of a defendant's motion for summary judgement is a major win for the plaintiff. The school board here will likely offer a cost of defense settlement, but I suspect that this plaintiff will not be a compelling witness for himself if the case does go to trial.

As Lyndon Johnson told his successor as President, "[sometimes] like being a jackass caught in a hail storm[,] you've got to just stand there and take it."

[Lee Moore]

not guilty : It also shows this plaintiff to be a whiny hothouse flower who can't stand to have his worldview questioned.

I beg to differ. He was expressly invited to express his feelings :

The PowerPoint instructions for the breakout group discussion ask, "How did it feel to engage in this activity?"

He expressed them.

Nor did his expressed feelings indicate an unwillingness to have his worldview questioned. They indicated an unwillingness to have somebody else's worldview rammed down his throat. The world is full of worldviews, not just two. If the particular one being rammed down your throat strikes you as absurd and insulting, that doesn't imply that you are unwilling to discuss a hundred other worldviews in a civilised manner.

I agree with Reader Y except when he says "equally." If you require your employees to sit through and participate in the presentation of your worldview, that human society is secretly governed by alien lizards with enormous powers, that is an attempt to exclude ALL other worldviews from discussion.

But a participant, declining to play that game and who dismisses it as absurd, does not thereby demonstrate that his mind is closed to any and all worldviews except his own. He is merely rejecting one alternative worldview - the lizard theory.

[JasonT20]

Nor did his expressed feelings indicate an unwillingness to have his worldview questioned. They indicated an unwillingness to have somebody else's worldview rammed down his throat.

To use Grande's choice of words, that's BS. He expressed absolute certainty in his views and he said, "but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

That is stating plainly his intention to not engage in any further discussion, and he plainly indicated that he wasn't going to change his mind. Your distinction between only rejecting one worldview from being "rammed down" his throat vs having his worldview questioned at all does not hold up either. For one thing, his comment was so short, that trying to infer whether he was willing to consider other viewpoints, just not the "white bashing" one from the training, is impossible. I can't even tell what his worldview is from what he said. From what he said, we can only tell that his worldview rejects whatever he thought was the worldview of those that designed the training.

If the particular one being rammed down your throat strikes you as absurd and insulting, that doesn't imply that you are unwilling to discuss a hundred other worldviews in a civilised manner.

Why doesn't it imply exactly that? Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't as closed-minded about some other worldview as he is about that one?

He is merely rejecting one alternative worldview - the lizard theory.

Nice straw man you got there.

[Don Nico]

Jason,
The man was invited to say his piece. He did and then shut up.
You don't like his opinion. You would have preferred that he accept brainwashing.

[JasonT20]

The man was invited to say his piece.

He was not invited to call anyone else's views BS.

You don't like his opinion.

Whether I "like" his opinion or not is irrelevant. I don't agree with it, but had I been there, I would have shown him more respect than he did others. I certainly would not have said that his opinion was "BS" to everyone in the room, including him.

You would have preferred that he accept brainwashing.

I would have preferred that he act like a professional educator at a training, instead of acting like he was making a TikTok.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the training had said that the natural condition of the African-American was in permeant servitude to the Caucasian-American, would you think it unprofessional for a black person to call it BS?

Would you avoid referring to such a viewpoint as BS out of fear of being unprofessional?

[KenveeB]

You go to much different trainings than I do, if a comment by a participant in a breakout session that something is BS makes you have vapors. I wouldn't expect the speaker to phrase things that way, but breakout sessions are much more casual among the participants because the goal is to have them actually participate. It's not like he went on a lengthy, expletive-ridden tirade. Calling something BS is pretty standard in a lot of commentary.

[LexAquilia]

I don't think I've ever been to a conference where I didn't say at one point in time, "that's BS".

[JasonT20]

...if a comment by a participant in a breakout session that something is BS makes you have vapors.

As I've said in other comments, I have 21 years of teaching professional development workshops, including plenty of "breakout sessions". Yes, they get more informal there. But no, I've never had anyone say that the whole thing was BS as if the rest of us were part of that, and then preemptively declare that that was all they were going to say about it, deliberately shutting down any way to respond without escalating an argument.

[Lee Moore]

He expressed absolute certainty in his views and he said, "but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

Eh ? Have you got some extra source of info ? Taking the District's account he said no more than :

"I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

This doesn't express absolute certainty in his own views - it doesn't even mention any - it merely rejects the lizard view.

That is stating plainly his intention to not engage in any further discussion,. ..... of the lizard view.

and he plainly indicated that he wasn't going to change his mind ..... about the lizard view.

For one thing, his comment was so short, that trying to infer whether he was willing to consider other viewpoints, just not the "white bashing" one from the training, is impossible.

Bingo ! You can't tell, nor can I, nor can not guilty, from his very brief remarks whether or not he was willing to consider any or all of the non-lizard theories. Consequently not guilty's (and your) accusation that he wasn't open to any challenge of his worldview is unfounded.

I can't even tell what his worldview is from what he said. From what he said, we can only tell that his worldview rejects whatever he thought was the worldview of those that designed the training.

Double Bingo ! We can deduce that he's not a lizard guy. But otherwise, we can't deduce what he thinks. Maybe he's a Great Turtle guy, maybe he's a Copernican willing to entertain, for the purposes of discussion, both the multiple universes theory and the Great Turtle theory. We don't know.

moi : If the particular one being rammed down your throat strikes you as absurd and insulting, that doesn't imply that you are unwilling to discuss a hundred other worldviews in a civilised manner.

toi : Why doesn't it imply exactly that?

Shirley, this is not difficult ? You are required to attend a discussion on the evolution of mammals. There are no doubt many aspects of this which are unknown, speculative, open to discussion, theories abound. But it turns out you're going to get the creationist theory. If you immediately say to yourself 'Oh good grief, not this crap again !" it doesn't imply that your mind is closed to all the other fascinating possibilities, that are not obvious crap, that you would be very happy to discuss.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me. The evidence is sufficient to paint him as being of the opinion that the Supervisor's oeuvre du jour - the privilege and identity pentangle - was crap. As it is. It certainly isn't sufficient to conclude that he was any more closed minded than you when you sighed "oh good grief, not this creationist crap again ?"

[LexAquilia]

You are missing one of their assumptions.

If he WAS open minded, he wouldn't reject their worldview. They're like a wife who insists that if her husband really was listening to her, he'd agree with her.

[JasonT20]

Taking the District's account he said no more than :

"I just got man bashed and white shamed, but I'm going to sit there quietly" and "I'm not buying into that white bashing BS."

Why did you say, "Taking the District's account..." when the place you copied that from clearly says that Grande's own words are only slightly different? Were you trying to cast doubt on the accuracy of the District claims he said?

This doesn't express absolute certainty in his own views - it doesn't even mention any - it merely rejects the lizard view.

He said he got man bashed and white shamed. He called the training white bashing BS. That's clearly showing certainty that the training and its premises are those things. His larger worldview beyond that? You're right, he wasn't expressing certainty in his whole worldview.

..... of the lizard view.

Keep using the appeal to ridicule by calling the training and its premises "the lizard view". I'm sure that will prove your argument.

Consequently not guilty's (and your) accusation that he wasn't open to any challenge of his worldview is unfounded.

I'm not basing my belief that he was not open to challenge on whether I know what his worldview is. I was basing it on how he totally shuts down any possible discussion about what he said. The opinion says that Grande's version of events is that no one responded to his statement. Duh, of course not. Any response would have escalated an argument once he said that he was just going to sit there quietly. He said that, consciously or not, so as to make anyone that replied the bad guy for pushing him when he was just going to hold his tongue. After he gave his opinion as the last word, of course.

I'm out of time for now. I may or may not be back.

[Rossami]

re: "Why should we give him the benefit of the doubt "

Because it's motion-to-dismiss phase and all assumptions and benefits of doubt are granted to the non-moving party. Maybe during discovery, you'd be able to find some evidence that he's entirely closed-minded. But so far, you're just speculating and inventing your own reasons to try to reject his opinions while being remarkably closed-minded about the culpability of the school district in their reaction.

[Rossami]

I'd say rather that it's the school district administrator who's not only a whiny hothouse flower but an utter incompetent. The fix to 'students are skipping our zoom classes during the covid lockdown' could be several things but it's very obviously not 'let's double-down on identify politics'.

[Lee Moore]

Following a complaint (more on the details below), Avicolli was investigated and disciplined..

Eh ? Wasn't it Grande being investigated and disciplined ?

[JasonT20]

I saw that also and assumed it to be an error.

[JonFrum]

Black women. Can't live with 'em, can't live with 'em.

[gormadoc]

Remote PE must be an easy class.

[JasonT20]

The "Norms in Breakout Groups" are listed as: "Assume positive intentions"; "You don't have to share if you don't feel comfortable doing so"; "It's OK to feel discomfort. This isn't easy!"; and "Agree to disagree respectfully."

Grande's comments broke those norms. He was not assuming positive intentions by those that designed and delivered the training. Nor did he agree to disagree respectfully when he referred to the goals and premises of the training as "white bashing BS."

Expectations for professional behavior were clearly stated, and he did not even try to meet those expectations.

I'm not sure about the legal questions surrounding this case. Maybe his suit has merit, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

But I was a public school teacher for 21 years. If I had said something like that at a training, where we had been reminded how to treat each other as professionals because the administration and trainers knew it would be contentious, I would fully expect to have been disciplined for it.

I've been in many, many PD trainings and workshops that I thought were stupid, bad pedagogy, and even some based on social views I thought were bullshit. For all of those, my views on it were mild compared to those of some of my colleagues. In none of them, did I ever see any of us blurt out our disdain that bluntly, crudely, and with contempt for those running the training.

After the training, in plan rooms or our own classrooms after school or during lunch, we would let out everything we were thinking without holding back. But that is different, because in those settings, we are around colleagues with whom we've already established our own separate expectations and boundaries, and we have discussed so many similar things before, that we weren't going to be surprising anyone with what we said. On top of that, we were choosing to be around each other during our own time.

The law may demand something different as the outcome of the case, but I am certain that Grande acted unprofessionally.

[Lee Moore]

I've been in many, many PD trainings and workshops that I thought were stupid, bad pedagogy, and even some based on social views I thought were bullshit. For all of those, my views on it were mild compared to those of some of my colleagues. In none of them, did I ever see any of us blurt out our disdain that bluntly, crudely, and with contempt for those running the training.

When, long ago, I was a middle level corporate exec there were forums from time to time when the Big Chief would expound his "vision", objectives, philosophy, whatev and plans for the following year. Participants were invited to share their views freely - don't hold back. And obviously there was a lot of BS on offer. Also we all noted that there was precious little by way of a reprise on last year's BS.

But everybody knew - obviously - that "share your views - don't hold back" was not intended to be taken seriously. However there was one old guy who was famously blunt, so if I had an uncomfortable question for the Big Chief, I'd just mutter it to the old guy and he'd say "yes, that's right, that makes no sense at all" and he'd get up on his hind legs and ask the uncomfortable question. To the obvious annoyance of the Big Chief.

In the end they fired him, but he was OK with that. He got a decent pay off.

[JasonT20]

I'm not seeing how that is relevant. In those forums, you were told to "share your views - don't hold back" in a way you knew, implicitly, was not going to be upheld, so how is that in any way similar to what happened in that district's workshop or in my experience that I described?

[Lee Moore]

They are identical. In both forums the invitation to express your thoughts / feelings was insincere - some things were OK, if they toed the management line, some things were not.

And, gloriously, in each forum there was a single fool who was brave enough, or foolish enough, to express himself incautiously.

[ReaderY]

He was invited to express his feelings. He expressed his feelings.

He was not asked to express his professional opinion or anything like that. He was asked to express his feelings.

Just as people’s feelings aren’t always rational, they aren’t always professional, or respectful, either.

When employers put things in writing, before assuming that “everybody” understands that they don’t actually mean it and it’s just boilerplate puffery, if they want to avoid getting sued and losing they will need to think about how judges and juries are likely to understand it.

[JasonT20]

When employers put things in writing, before assuming that “everybody” understands that they don’t actually mean it and it’s just boilerplate puffery, if they want to avoid getting sued and losing they will need to think about how judges and juries are likely to understand it.

If he didn't read the instructions given in the training prior to the breakout sessions, didn't take it seriously, and/or assumed it was just "boilerplate puffery", that's on him. Or, he can try and prove at trial that it was the regular pattern of such workshops for them to be given instructions that behavior norms would be to express themselves without calling the point of view of others, especially the presenters, "BS", but it was just "puffery" that wasn't ever enforced.

Do judges and juries really rely on how they subjectively interpret the words of contracts, employee manuals, written instructions to employees, and other such documents? Or do they tend to start with the plain meaning of the text? And then put it on a party to prove that the plain meaning wasn't how things were done in practice, so they should be held to the practice instead of the written rules?

[Don Nico]

""white bashing BS.""
Are you such a snowflake that you find that phrase by itself disrespectful?
Your may be certain about what is unprofessional. But you are just being an ideological tyrant.

[Rossami]

Your standards of "professionalism" may be laudable but they are not the accepted standard in the vast majority of workplaces in the US. Far stronger language (including outright profanity) is quite often the norm. To say that the euphemism "BS" crosses the line assumes more about the standards and norms of this particular workplace than we have evidence for. Certainly far more than can be assumed at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Moreover, you'd have to contend with Avicolli's testimony that Grande's comments were "unprofessional" not for the words they used but because they showed "resistance in having a growth mindset or an open perspective." In other words, opposition to the content of his comment, not to the manner of opposition.

Finally, you'd have to show that his word choices were materially different from the words used in the very presentation he was objecting to. We don't know for sure from the snippets above but the word choices of "man-bashed" and "white-shamed" sound like direct parallels to words and phrases popular identity-politics demagogues.

If this case were as simple as "his word choices were unprofessional", the school district would have argued that and almost certainly would have won the motion-to-dismiss. They didn't and they didn't, suggesting that the case is not as simple as you're trying to make it.

[wvattorney13]

They invited the discussion. Under the 1A they cannot limit the discussion to only the viewpoints that they agree with.

In the private business mentioned above, the boss can fire you for questioning him or company policy.

But this speech, a brief two liner, did not disrupt the "training session" nor did it show an unwillingness or inability to do his job. Well, I guess it did put a damper on silencing conservative voices in the district.

[Sarcastr0]

What I'm getting from all this is that a lot of folks here think anything they have to hear that makes them feel uncomfortable as white people gives them license to disrupt and swear and sue.

And the will assume what they need to from recent events to feel like the heroes, even as everyone else sees the cringe.

It's like an entitlement to white fragility.

MAGA is catering to this. I predict yet higher petty, cringey nonsense to come over the next 3 years.

[wvattorney13]

"anything they have to hear that makes them feel uncomfortable as white people gives them license to disrupt and swear and sue."

1) He didn't disrupt. He commented during the period of time set aside for discussion.

2) Oh he swore? Who's the fragile one now? In fact, he said "BS." He didn't swear but if he did, I didn't know that training sessions were subject to 1850s Victorian morality.

3) You imply that he sued because he had to hear something that made him uncomfortable. That is not true. He sued because the government took punitive action against him for exercising his right to free speech.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not talking about this guy, I'm talking about you lot here who are white knighting him and eagerly explaining how he's entitled to act like a jackass at work because white feelings.

Cringe.