Teachers' Unions Put Sex Offenders Before Students

I wonder if the leadership ever stops to think if shit like this is the real reason teacher's unions are dying when they aren't legally mandated?

I know crap like this is why my wife refused to join the union when she was teaching...

____________________________________________________________

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/24/Teachers-Unions-Put-Sex-Offenders-Before-Students

With support from teachers' unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, liberals like Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) are opposing a bill that would help protect school children from the possibility of being exposed to criminals, including sex offenders, in America's schools.

The unions are also playing the race card in fighting the legislation:

The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, racially disparate impact" — a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes.


Advocates for the law have claimed there should be a zero-tolerance policy in schools, especially when it involves sex offenders. That's difficult to argue against; however, teachers' unions appear to be more interested in their own power than the safety of America's school children.

Kyle Olson, with the Education Action Group Foundation told Megyn Kelly Wednesday night on “The Kelly File” that the unions’ objection to the bill proves “unions are out to protect the adults…they are not out for the interests of the children.”

I disagree with that law and pretty much any "zero tolerance" policy.  They are stupid and end up way too often with an innocent person getting fucked for no good reason.

A 20 year old who has sex with a 17 year old an hour before her 18th birthday can be classified a sex offender. 

angryinch -


I disagree with that law and pretty much any "zero tolerance" policy.  They are stupid and end up way too often with an innocent person getting fucked for no good reason.



A 20 year old who has sex with a 17 year old an hour before her 18th birthday can be classified a sex offender. 

Sounds like your beef isn't with this bill, but with the definition of sex offender.

Does this bill allow actual child molesters to be employed by the school? Phone Post 3.0

Jack Carter - 
angryinch -


I disagree with that law and pretty much any "zero tolerance" policy.  They are stupid and end up way too often with an innocent person getting fucked for no good reason.



A 20 year old who has sex with a 17 year old an hour before her 18th birthday can be classified a sex offender. 

Sounds like your beef isn't with this bill, but with the definition of sex offender.

Does this bill allow actual child molesters to be employed by the school? Phone Post 3.0


Until the definition of sex offender is changed, then a zero tolerance policy is absurd.



Actually, pretty much any type of zero tolerance policy is absurd and can be misused and misapplied.  They are almost always a horrible idea.



Like the case of the kid who was kicked out of school because he took a corner out of his pop tart and some retarded teacher decided his pop tart now looked like a gun so she kicked him out based on the school's zero tolerance gun policy.  



Obviously, I do not have a problem with making sure child molesters don't work anywhere near children, but blanket zero tolerance policies are rarely the solutions to things like this.