when one puts something up for public display, one’s intent is only a small part of what should be considered; how it will be perceived by others is the primary concern, especially considering that it is a public display.

so, having read the article as well, let’s take into consideration 3 facts pretty clearly laid out: the teacher’s claims about the intent: the imagery was not intended to be racist… it was, in fact, referencing suicide (presumably as a response to returning to school). yikes. so, this isn’t a great starting point, but let’s deconstruct this:

1. The teacher claims that she genuinely intended this as, “ugh, returning to school sucks! let’s hang ourselves with a noose! haha!” this is obviously highly problematic and offensive for its own reasons that, strangely, the article - nor anyone else - seems to have comment much upon.

2. Many others interpreted this for the much more culturally-prevalent and relevant (in the US) link to the lynchings of black people which took place here for hundreds of years. this image and symbol has been used for centuries as a hate-symbol and to spread hate and fear.

3. The teacher refuses to apologize for any offense caused by her intended and/or unintended meanings, whatever they may be, and considers all of the consequences of her actions to be a form of victimhood. Additionally,

oh, and another important couple of things to consider: she’s a teacher, and this happened in a public school.

so, here, we have someone who did (or, at least participated) in creating and displaying a highly-offensive piece of art in a public school, initially lied about her role in creating/contributing to it, refused to apologize for the offense cause (regardless of whether it was intentional), and is claiming victimhood for the consequences she’s facing. so, let’s break the consequences down into 2 groups:

1. official consequences

She was suspended after she deflected, lied, and obfuscated during the initial investigation into the offending display, only to be reinstated after an administrative hearing-- however only into restricted duty. for those not familiar with NYCDOT procedure, this is fairly typical when they can’t outright fire a teacher, but don’t have quite enough solid ground to suspend them indefinitely, which they also can’t do. but they can keep them on administrative/restricted duty forever, hoping they quit. from this we can infer that, after the hearing, NYC DOT doesn’t want to publicly admit that what she did was fucked up for they myriad political reasons it would ignite, but doesn’t want to reinstate her as a teacher, so they’re doing the “safe” thing by dropping her into a black hole.

problem here is that she she believes that this is somehow unfair, so she’s suing.

2. unofficial consequences

obviously, and quite expectedly, the public and her colleagues, are outraged. they’re outraged it happened, at how it was handled, and at the teacher’s lack of remorse and consideration for others-- and, oh, boy, are they letting her know as often, as loudly, and in every way they can get that message to her. she is, undoubtedly, living through a hellstorm of online and in-person from these people. whether she deserves this or not is for each person to decide, and i’m not going to comment on this in this comment. however, it’s hardly unexpected, and these people have legitimate grievances.

this teacher should have been fired outright for the offensive collage - either for its suicide reference, its racist imagery, or both - and she should have apologized for offending others, even if it was unintentional. instead, she lied, deflected, and obfuscated, and claims that facing the consequences of her actions is a state of victimhood, further angering everyone.

does she deserve this? some of it? all of it? none of it?

all things considered, i really have trouble feeling sorry for all of that harassment, and i certainly think she got off way too light by not getting fired on the spot.