Cape Coral art teacher fired for discussing LGBTQ topics - NBC2 News
She claims students wondered about her and she revealed she was pansexual.
Then she should have referred the children to talk to their PARENTS about it.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Cape Coral Middle School teacher claims she was fired because she spoke with her students about sexuality.
She says her art students then drew flag pictures expressing their own sexuality.
Mrs. Casey Scott said school leaders made her remove the drawings and throw them out.
However, the Lee County School District claims she was fired for not following the mandated curriculum.
“A discussion happened in class and because of that, now I’m fired,” Scott said.
That discussion centered on student sexuality. She pointed to flags she said were created by students, some of whom identified as non-binary, bisexual, and gay.
She claims students wondered about her and she revealed she was pansexual.
“I like anyone despite male, female, non-binary, transgender,” Scott said.
She is married to a man and she claims some students asked her if they could create art expressing their sexuality.
She hung the pictures on her classroom door and that’s when school personnel contacted her.
“They said it would be in the best interest if I got rid of them now,” she said.
She snapped pictures showing how she got rid of them by placing them in a recycle bin.
“I went over to the recycling bin. I grabbed all their flags and all the kids were staring at me. And I crumbled their flags in front of them,” she explained.
She was sent home and then received a call from school administrators who informed her that she was being released from her contract.
She showed us social media posts from students upset over her firing.
However, the Lee School District showed us complaints from parents who were concerned about the conversation and the artwork.
The district also released handwritten accounts from students which described they were allowed to draw any type of flag they chose even creating flags expressing who they are.
The students also verified that Mrs. Scott revealed she was pansexual. A term understood by some students and left others confused.
Kevin Daly is with the Teachers Union of Lee County and explained that Scott could legally be fired and he confirmed she did not belong to the teachers union.
“During that probationary period they can let you go without cause,” Daly said.
Daly believes the firing could be a wake-up for all teachers when it comes to discussing LGBTQ issues.
“There is kind of a heightened state of where is the boundary? And what are employees supposed to do? Or allowed to do, when a topic comes up in discussion,” Daly said.
Scott’s firing came days before Governor DeSantis signed a law that limits LGBTQ talk in age-appropriate settings.
Crystal Czyscon is an LGBTQ advocate and said her concern is for the mental health of the transgender nonbinary students who were in Mrs. Scott’s classes.
Czyscon believes the school district made a mistake.
“I would like to see a statement from the school board recognizing they have to have a mental health counselor come in and speak with the children impacted by their actions toward this teacher,” Czyscon concluded.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Trump and his supporters are off topic. Those who respond to themselves to avoid keyboard cooties by actually replying to the person they are quoting/mocking/refuting will have their comments removed at the moderator's discretion. Comments MUST be directed at whom you are responding Off Topic posts are subject to same.
how are you going to enforce that? You're not in a group where you're the moderator
He can still flag and as the seeder, can, due to the redbox rule, flag it as off topic and it would have to be deleted by a site mod.
A violation of our 1st Amendment rights and an example of the extreme right cancel culture! I'll sue... /s
He will be the one that has to do the flagging
Exactly
Good to see an example is being made that this kind of behavior is NOT acceptable in the classroom.
She should have been teaching readin', writen', and 'rithmatic!
This foolish twit reminds me of this local story.
That's what I taught in art class.
It's fascinating. You almost have to wonder if she just committed professional suicide just to get in the news and "make a statement".
Never let anybody tell you liberal politics is not a religion.
I don’t think it’s necessarily political to talk about your own life.
So you go into class, tell them you're "pansexual" and encourage a bunch of 11-year-olds to come out of the closet.... all within 30 days of Florida enacting laws against that very thing?
And that's not political??? Riiiiiiiight.
Maybe she had decided teaching wasn't for her and didn't want to finish the year.
Why is it ok for the students to know she’s married to a man, but not ok for them to know she’s pansexual?
Because there's a lot of controversy concerning the morality of various sexualities. She is an authority figure employed by the state, city, whatever. Therefore, she is committing the state, city or whatever to a certain contested moral viewpoint. It is the same as promoting religion in schools.
“…the morality of various sexualities.”
Please define the difference between ‘morality’ v. ‘sexualties’.
Morals are morals and should have no caveats, sexuality being the least of concerns.
Seriously? Um, okay....
Morality:
Sexuality:
I don't understand your point. In fact, I don't understand the sentence. As you say, morals are morals. They are concerned with all aspects of our actions. Why would sexuality be excluded or of least concern? And, according to who?
Are you suggesting straight people make a moral choice to be straight? Because I don’t remember putting that much thought into it. In fact, there was no choice at all, so how can it be moral?
How? All she did was talk about herself. Furthermore, there is no indication in any part of the seed that anyone thought she speaking for anyone other than herself, so this sounds like a conclusion you came to all on your own.
Again, sexual orientation is not something we choose. Religion is. Additionally, there is nothing to suggest anyone thought she was trying to encourage someone else to adopt her sexual orientation. I don’t even know how that would work. Could you be talked into being pansexual?
Can we at least just stick to known (or at least reported) facts?
Because who is in your family is an age-appropriate discussion. Who you like to have sex with is not.
You're going the wrong direction here. None of this matters. What does matter is that people have different beliefs concerning the morality of such things. Not just a few, either. This is a major point of contention in our society. That's what matters.
Please. I've known you long enough to know that you understand the issue so please don't pretend you don't. A teacher talking about her faith would just be talking about herself, yet we both know that isn't going to fly.
And, again, that's irrelevant.
Well, it works like this. You have a person with authority over a group of children with little life experience who, in spite of the fact she may be only talking about herself, is by the mere fact of talking about it, normalizing it. That would be fine for the children who's parents have no issue with the teachers life choices. Not so much for the one's that do. Again, it would be the same as if she were a religious person talking about her faith. Great for the children of parents who are like minded, not so great for those who are not.
You are speaking to someone in their 50's, not an eleven year old, so no, I could not be talked into it. Catch me when I was eleven? Who knows?
I believe I have. Where do you think I have strayed from known facts? The teacher was speaking about something she should not have. Fact. She was fired for speaking about a subject she shouldn't have been speaking about. Fact. If the students were curious about her she could have simply said that it wasn't a suitable topic for classroom discussion. Fact. Had she done so she'd still have her job. Probably fact.
By middle school, most kids have had some instruction in how babies are made. And sex ed classes notwithstanding, I think most kids at that point are not going to be surprised by this kind of thing.
And anyway, the discussion does not seem to have been the problem or they would have fired her for that right off the bat. Instead, they told her to take down the art and then they fired her.
All you have done is repeat the idea that morality is somehow important here. You haven’t explained why.
Maybe you should consider that either your objections are empty or you haven’t explained them very well. I’m not a mind reader.
Then why are you talking about morality and controversy?
Normalizing? As opposed to what? I sense bigotry, but I will give you the chance to explain yourself.
No teacher is ever going to be 100% in sync with the families of her students. Maybe she likes skydiving or (horrors!) wears pants in public. You would have her hide who she is?
Answer your own question. “Who knows?” Everybody knows. You know better than to try to pretend you could ever be talked into having a different sexual orientation. You know you know it.
You said what she was doing was like promoting a religion. There is no evidence she was trying to promote or proselytize any belief system. You also said she was committing the state to a moral viewpoint, but there is no reporting on that and no evidence that anyone thought about it like that.
That’s not a fact. It’s literally just your opinion.
Also not a fact. There is no statement from the school about why she was fired. So again, this is just your opinion.
It’s a fact that she could have said that, but I don’t know why she should have to. As for what is suitable in a middle school art class, I think that is debatable. Art is very personal and so is the subject of one’s sexuality.
I would think it obvious but perhaps not. There has been a concerted effort in the public school system to indoctrinate children into certain ways of thinking that have nothing to do with education and everything to do with social engineering. Ideas generated by what CRT produces and ideas about what is acceptable sexually being two of the most egregious. They are simply doing it without mandate from anyone. That cannot stand. Neither the state or the school board has the authority to encourage or indoctrinate children into a given moral or value system. Especially against parent's wishes.
This is why I keep comparing it to religion in schools. I know you can understand that concept so I don't quite believe you don't understand what I am talking about.
If my objections are empty then perhaps the failure is you haven't shown them to be empty. I have repeatedly illustrated my point by comparing what the teacher did to religious indoctrination. I don't believe for a second you don't understand that. I don't believe for a second that, had the teacher spoken of faith in God, you would state that such speech has no place in the classroom but is the purview and responsibility of parents. I don't believe for a second that you don't understand that my point is exactly the same concerning sexuality.
Why are you doing this? I've known you long enough that I simply can't believe you're this blind in this area. You cannot be unaware that a rather large portion of our society sees anything other than sexual relations between a man and a woman as immoral, and even then there are rules. Whether you agree with such a view isn't relevant. What is relevant is that they hold them. Even more relevant to the conversation is that the ultimate authority in raising children belongs to the parents, unless the parents demonstrate egregious inability to carry out such a responsibility. It is the parents prerogative and responsibility for the moral upbringing of their children, not the state's.
The same goes for religious beliefs or lack thereof. The state has no business getting involved with that, either, unless there is evidence of demonstratable risk of harm or actual harm being committed to children. Otherwise, it is solely the business of the parents.
So, this isn't about a particular morality. It is about who has the primary authority and responsibility for the moral upbringing of children. Beyond what is common to all, such as not stealing, lying, bullying or other non-controversial value or moral system, the state has no business in involving or indoctrinating children into the LGTBQ's views about what constitutes acceptable human sexuality.
Ah, the bigotry card. Fine, since I don't really care about that label, or any of the others that have been so twisted out of shape they are unrecognizable anymore. But, yes, normalizing. The only acceptably moral view of sex is the one depicted in the Bible. That would be what I would teach my children, had I any. It is not for the state, or its employees, to present a conflicting view that parents have to battle against in their children. Like religion, keep it out of the classroom and at home where it belongs.
Are these things significantly controversial in the manner LGTBQ sexuality is? No? Then why are you wasting our time with false comparisons?
You're very, very wrong here. You have absolutely not the slightest idea of who I was as an eleven year old boy. I absolutely thank my God that I was not born to be in the current school system because I don't know what might have happened to me. I don't know what these ideas would have done to what, in some ways, was a pretty screwed up childhood. So, no, I do not know what would have happened. Nor do you.
She's a government employee and simply speaking of it, like simply speaking about God, would be proselytizing in any court of law. It doesn't matter whether anyone thought about it like that or not.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post.
There always has been and there always will be. However, if we accept a definition of indoctrination as teaching kids to accept a point of view uncritically, I don’t think that is what mostly goes on in the schools. But no matter what you do, there will always be teachers who have a teaching approach, a personal manner, or some set of beliefs that some parents disagree with. Might as well get used to it.
I think you are proceeding from a false assumption about the state of things. (See also my paragraph above). Moral value systems are all over the place in schools and always will be. Dress codes. Rules about bullying, talking in class, diet, America, etc.
Based on the facts available, I think the worst you can say about the teacher in this story is that she encouraged kids to express themselves artistically.
That’s not how this works, sorry. It’s up to you to make your own argument. And just saying “it’s wrong” is not persuasive.
You made the claim they are similar but you have not shown how they are similar. On the contrary, I have shown how they are different . @ 5.1.7 , I wrote
A clear difference, but you have ignored it. I also said that she could not be shown to be “promoting” (your word) acceptance of a belief system, but you have ignored that, too.
That depends. If they were just having a conversation about their own religions, I would have no objection. A teacher is allowed to have a religion. She’s just not allowed to proselytize it.
But as you may know, this is a stickier area because the First Amendment to the Constitution gives us the Establishment Clause for religion. We don’t have that for anything else.
Anyway being LGBTQ is not a religion. It’s just a state of being, like left-handedness (something societies have sometimes considered evil - go figure).
You mean like where Abraham (a married man) has sex with his servant Hagar? Perhaps you mean when Lot had sex with his two daughters? Perhaps you mean Rachel being a kind of sex payment to Jacob for his services? Or maybe you mean when he slept with Leah, instead.
How about this one?
Is that about dildos??
In fact, the Bible is chock full of kinky sex acts and weird marital arrangements that would cause a modern evangelical to clutch their pearls and pass out. Were Adam and Eve even married? What was really going on with David and Jonathan?? Do you know how many wives and concubines Solomon had? How about all the times it encouraged rape?
It’s time to get over the delusion that the Bible supports extreme puritan notions of sexuality. The Bible is not some kind of sex manual.
I have already explained why it’s not like religion, but I feel compelled to point out here that sex ed has been taught in schools for decades, so that ship has long since sailed. If you still feel like we should not be teaching about sex and sexuality in the schools, I think you need to home school your kids.
Sometimes. Not long ago, it would have been extremely controversial for a woman to wear pants, and it’s actually illegal in some parts of the world in 2022. It only become legal in Paris in 2013.
To this day, there are religious conservatives in America who disapprove.
Why do you think there is any danger? How many gay people do you know who would have been straight but for their exposure to LGBTQ indoctrination in a school?
I have quite a bit of training and experience in First Amendment issues and I promise you that you are wrong about that. Any public school teacher is free to say she is a Christian so long as it doesn’t proceed into preaching.
That does not make "I'm a pansexual" an appropriate discussion in a classroom. Just like the football coach telling his 3rd period history class "I like blondes with big tits" isn't appropriate, either.
She's there to teach art. There is an art curriculum that she is contractually obligated to follow.
The discussion was the problem. The flags just made it worse.
I see. Then I hope not to see you object to any teacher that expresses her faith in class.
You are equivocating in an attempt to dismiss the point.
If you claim the argument to be empty then it's up to you to defend the claim.
No, what you did was change the argument without supporting evidence for justifying it. The argument is actually about whether or not a teacher, the school board or the state has the right to subject or expose students to a moral system their parents may not agree with. And it doesn't matter what the belief is. A teacher has no more right to stand in front of a class and talk to students about why he believes in only heterosexual relationships are justified than this teacher has to speak of her pansexuality. That is not the purpose of the school system. That is the purview of the children's parents.
And the reason they are similar and what you deny understanding, even though I'm sure you do, is for the same reason you may not want a teacher talking to your kid in school about what his religion is, why it's the right one and why he should consider accepting it. A, it has nothing to do with what the teacher is supposed to be doing and B, you may strongly disagree with the teacher's worldview and don't want your child being confused by an ideology that competes with yours.
Further, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice, talking about it to students definitely is.
I addressed it.
By the mere fact she spoke about it constitutes promoting it. Do you think she was sharing something she was ashamed of with the class or something she saw nothing wrong with? Obviously she sees nothing wrong with it. By "sharing" her sexuality with the students she is implying they should think nothing is wrong with it either.
No, it doesn't depend. Simply google whether a teacher should be able to have a Bible on their desk or not, let alone talking about a conversation about their religions.
But I was wondering if or when you'd bring up the Establishment Clause. It's a really weak argument to rely on that because it just amounts to saying, "It's the law," without any actual thought about the matter. But using that as an argument actually works against you because of why it's there in the first place. The founders recognized the danger of a state religion from hundreds of years of examples of state sanctioned religions in Europe and the problems it caused. They saw that no one should be compelled to believe according to someone else's dictates.
Today, we have people that think this means no religious expression at all is allowed in the public sphere, which is wrong, but they do get it right that it doesn't belong in the public school system for the most part, beyond something like a comparative religion class or some similar thing.
But, the same reason why children shouldn't be sexualized in schools is the same one for not having religion in schools. It isn't the school system's purview to approve or disapprove what sexuality is moral any more than who's religion is or isn't moral. It. Doesn't. Get. To. Make. Those. Decisions. It has no authority to do so. They are there to teach subjects. Period.
I'm not going to argue the Bible with you except to say you seem to think that because something appears in the Bible then it must be moral. I'm sure you're aware of how indefensible such an argument would be, on some level, at least. Recording something that happened doesn't mean it was a moral act.
And at this point I think I'm just going to stop. It's pretty clear we're both wasting time. Thanks for the conversation and have a nice day.
I already said that it depended on the facts. If you feel like wasting your life, you can probably find stories seeded here where I have said some expressions of faith in school were ok, while others weren’t. It’s all very fact specific.
That is not an argument. You could have saved some bandwidth and just “nuh uh”
I already have. You even quoted it.
And you still haven’t supported your claim.
I cannot imagine why that would bother me. I am not so insecure about my beliefs that I fear a teacher having different beliefs. If you are really this nervous, you might want to ask yourself what - if anything - you really believe.
Then if she is merely heterosexual, she should be allowed to reference her husband or kids. There better not be a picture of her family on her desk lest she be fired for promoting her morality.
It does, and I explained why. These are the facts of the law. I’m just reporting the news. It’s up to you to hear it. Just because you really badly want two things to be the same, that doesn’t mean they are.
Yeah, and she’s teaching art. There is no indication she was teaching anything else.
Don’t look at me. You’re the one who brought up the Bible.
I think she was successful. She's in the news and she made herself out as a fool.
Middle School
Art Class
Not about or depicting any sex acts
Self Expression / Freedom of Thought
Proud of this, are you? This All Stinks!
She's an Art Teacher why would she be discussing student sexuality?
If they make art about their sexuality, why shouldn’t they discuss it? If the students made art about a landscape, or a war, or a homeless person, those would be fair game for discussion, wouldn’t they? At the very least, there shouldn’t be a problem with posting the art.
Why in the world would a teacher direct kids to make are about their sexuality?
It doesn’t really say she directed them to do it. It says there was a conversation and then they did it. Sexuality is obviously very personal, and so is art. Seems appropriate enough on that level. They made flags, not porn.
Maybe she handed out olden day fig leaves to hide the 'naughty' parts.
Sounds like the majority of these kids would be confused by this since I’ve never seen a heterosexual flag
Is there such a thing?
Again, I see no indication of an assignment requiring kids to make flags reflecting their sexuality. The story says there was a discussion and then it indicates that some students chose to do this.
Yes, this:
Additionally, if you’re straight, and want to show that you are an ally to LGBTQ, you can fly this flag:
It doesn't matter she shouldn't have been discussing sexuality with middle schoolers. If a stranger did that out on the street they would be arrested.
Then why did their art have to come down?
Why not? Students know their teachers are straight because they discuss it freely. They know who is married, who is pregnant, and who has had kids. But as soon as they might be something other than straight, it’s a problem.
Interesting.
I already fly three flags of support. Old glory, Michigan and USMC. In that order on the flagpole top to bottom. They fly 24/7 .... lighted at night of course.
And the subject is nowhere in the curriculum. Only thing she SHOULD have done is told those children to talk to their parents about the subject.
11-13 year olds.
With an established curriculum.
Sexuality without sex acts.... riiiiiiight.
Children being manipulated by and adult with a personal agenda.
Proud? No, I had nothing to do with it. Happy? Hell yeah.
Anybody with judgment that poor should not be supervising kids.
Exactly, pansexuality doubles your odds that you won't be sleeping alone.
Exactly what about this teacher's assignment was inappropriate for kids in a Middle School Art Class?
WTF?
Literally everything except the drawing.
Discussing sex or sexuality with students, especially as part of a curricular setting, is not her job.
So the art class shouldn’t discuss the art they make?
Then God forbid kids draw any lewd pictures like we did in Middle School in the 1960s...
Maybe don't direct kids to make sexualized art.
Did she though?
I drew the backside of a naked kid for an art assignment
Artistic expressions of personal sexually are not depictions of sex, unless pictures of cowboys or ballerina are now "Sexualized Art"!
If you find cowboys sexualized, that's your issue.
There's a difference between being told to draw a cowboy (which some people apparently find sexual) , and flags that are explicitly sexualized.
DId you turn them into your teacher?
Did she though?
The article says she did.
So how do you 'explicitly sexualize a flag'?
Lynne Cheney sexualized cowgirls.
It does not.
That's easy, just ask Michelle Manhart ...
That's just an asinine comparison.
If your teacher had organized that, they would have been fired, and rightfully so.
They shouldn't discuss their teachers' sex lives.
And that shouldn't need explanation.
Then they shouldn’t know if teachers are married or not, nor if they have kids, or might be pregnant.
*eyeroll*
I don't believe for a minute that you fail to comprehend the difference between knowing about a teacher's family and knowing about their sexual preferences.
Doesn’t the knowledge of a teacher’s spouse already tell you something about their sexual preferences?
Not when you're 11, no.
You have no idea how old these kids were. Apparently, they are far enough along to have a sense of their own sexuality, since they made flags reflecting it. That’s from the story. Your guess on their age or other personal knowledge is not.
She taught middle school, which in Florida is grades 6-8.
We're not any closer to it being an appropriate classroom discussion.
Or....it was the first line of the story...
I don’t get it either. It’s an art class. They made art. She gets fired for it. It makes no sense.
I believe you're smarter than that.
Exactly. It's a class...with a curriculum....that does not involve discussing their teacher's sex life.
Of course it does, and you know it.
I guess if she ever gets pregnant, she’s not allowed to talk about that, either.
She's not allowed to describe how it happened, no.
OK, well there’s no suggestion here that she did that.
1. Had nothing to do with art.
2. Is not part of the curriculum.
3. Not the place of a teacher to discuss such topics ANYWHERE.
It was a middle school art class assignment for students to express their inner selves which for ninth and tenth graders naturally includes their sexuality. If you don't think middle school kids know the difference between masculinity and femininity and everything in between you must have been home schooled by fundies...
What fucking demented area are you from to think that is acceptable?
Looking at what the liberals define as masculine and feminine the problem is with the parents. Oh, there is no in between. Follow the science.
Pansexual includes heterosexual. If these discussions are about Straight versus LGBTQ then the discussion is not about sexuality; the discuss is really about created conflict between students.
In schools the discussions must be LGBTQS. Discussions must not be LGBTQ versus Straights; that type of discussion would be grounds for dismissal.
It’s kind of hard to track exactly where she lost her job.
The kids made art (it is an art class) and she got talked to when she posted their pictures (because in an art class, why wouldn’t she?), but not fired. Then she was told to take the art down, did so, and got fired for that? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Yeah, kids have a habit of expressing themselves in an art class. Just like they write whatever is on their minds in a creative writing class. Do schools imagine they have the right to police this kind of thing?
That’s true, but if they then express a reason, that reason may be subject to scrutiny. So, was this teacher fired for talking about her sexual orientation? As of the Bostok case in 2020, it’s a Title VII violation to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. If it would be ok for a teacher to talk about her heterosexuality, then it should be ok to also talk about one’s own pansexuality. If not, that would seem to violate the law.
Hmmmm...Thought Police anyone?
If the art is any good they'll do what the Gestapo did ... steal it.
I was busted in 8th grade study hall drawing lewd pictures of our buxom attendant. My Principal said they were good. He is ninety years old now and always tells me he still has them, and still looks at them occasionally...
A teacher discussing her sex life with grade schoolers.
That’s what groomers do.
But it’s ok for a straight female teacher to let the class know she is married to a man and he got her pregnant.
s ok for a straight female teacher to let the class know she is married to a man and he got her pregnant.
The teacher wasn't fired for saying she was married was she?
It's really not hard, nor has it ever been controversial, for an adult to tell kids, "My sex life is not an appropriate topic for classroom discussion"
Even if we agree she that no teacher should discuss her life (good luck with that), why can’t the kids make art based on their own lives?
hy can’t the kids make art based on their own lives?
You can't see a problem with an assigning kids a project to publicly proclaim their own sexuality? I think 11 years olds are entitled to some modicum of privacy, or not feeling pressured to declare, in public, something so private.
That is not in the story. It doesn’t say they were required to do it. It does not say it was an assignment that they do anything about their sexuality.
Going for the bare minimum on middle school age, eh? You have no idea how old these kids were, really.
Again, there is nothing in the story to indicate this was compulsory for anyone.
So you're saying this woman is a pedophile and was grooming these children?
No, but it's certainly possible.
But an adult discussing their sex life with kids is grooming behavior.
So if a female teacher lets the class know she is married to a man and also she is pregnant, that is “grooming behavior?”
"No, but it's certainly possible.
But an adult discussing their sex life with kids is grooming behavior."
Oh FFS.
Says who?
Kids that live in a trailer can hear the entire trailer park 'grooming' 7 nights a week.
Average art students would express their inner selves as either a boy or a girl. The exceptional students with real artistic talents would be more creative, honest and expressive, which is the whole point of this kind of assignments in middle school art classes...
And the Pride Prude of the Year award goes to ... Hal! Piss off Lux no soup for you!