Logo

LAYMANíS EXPLANATION
OF U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION:

What Horwitz Case Says to the Public As It Stands,
Which Is Law Unless U.S. Supreme Court Reverses This Decision

1. The fact that a school district is picking on a teacher or causing her to fail at her job is irrelevant to the Courts even if the mistreatment is due to illegal discrimination and regardless what damages it causes her.

2. Teachers can be fired based on their reactions to mistreatment, i.e. set up, so the public must understand that given the power structure in Education, one cannot judge a teacher by what those in power are able to say about her; EducRAT$ have absolute control over teachers.

3. School boards not only can discriminate against teachers despite federal laws, they do not have a duty to protect teachers from discrimination.

4. School boards do not have a duty to protect students from being used as pawns by administrators wanting to get rid of teachers. This ruling puts children as pawns in the reach of EducRAT$ wanting to dispose of a teacher.

5. Teachers do not have the rights that other employees have in this country; the U.S. Supreme Court has guaranteed that employees cannot be damaged for reporting illegal practices, but teachers do not have those rights.

6. Teachers do not have the right to free speech or the right to determine if their speech is protected; unlike other citizens, their speech is not protected even if it is spoken to protect children from harm. Parents must understand that teachers must follow all orders, even illegal orders, or lose their jobs.

7. Courts may interpret law in ways that will maintain power in the hands of those running our schools even if it is totally different than in prior courts.

8. School boards may order teachers already deemed fit for duty and who have presented themselves as ďput togetherĒ to school psychiatrists, to undergo further medical testing or treatment with no restrictions. Teachers are not entitled to privacy rights as employees and invasive medical testing can be used to cause a teacher to resign.

9. It does not matter if teachers or the public knows any of the above, since if it did, this case would have been published so that teachers, in pursuit of rights they think they have, will stop acting in ways that harms kids, i.e. teachers will learn and accept they do not have rights. Horwitz regrets any harm she caused her students pursuing rights that the public, lawyers and teachers think teachers have and has made this public so future citizens will not step into this same trap made possible because the Courts believe it is acceptable to have the law and lawyers misinform their clients.

10. This means the Courts, who decided not to publish this case, must believe it is best that the facts of this case remain unknown even though teachers pursuing rights they donít actually have is bad for kids, since publishing this case protects citizens and leaving it unpublished, puts citizens in harmís way.

11. When our Courts rule as they have and the U.S. Supreme Court fails to serve in a supervisory position, we can only deduce that this Court believes it is necessary for our society to maintain an Education system with teachers secretly not entitled to rights rather than openly not entitled to rights despite of the collateral effects of this secret.

12. Courts are only as good as the state of the society and in the past they have condoned slavery because of the drastic financial implication for ending slavery, not to mention the social issues feared when African Americans had rights. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to not hear this case, it is a worse implication than if it heard this case and decided the lower courts were right. A denial of a review means that they believe that maintaining the present balance of power is more important than the safety of children and teachers.

13. The present balance of power will not be maintained if the U.S. Supreme Court openly agrees with the lower courts since people will stop choosing teaching once they know the truth about teachers being denied the employee rights all other citizens receive. Thus, denying a review of this case is a way to maintain schools as they are, which shows that maintaining power at the top and disempowering teachers is more important than good schools. This explains that we have the schools we are intended to have by virtue of the power structure in this country and one must know this in deciding: where to send their children; whether they want a career in a field where the pay does not compensate for the treatment; and where to donate money since money will not change a system that disempowers teachers, while allowing for abuse of power at the top.

14. The public needs to read through POLITICS at EndTeacherAbuse.org as well as read Karen Horwitzís book to be published later this year to understand the big picture. The U.S. Supreme Court will let you know if they care about our schools - teachers, children, parents, citizens Ė by the decision they make. So keep checking this site to find out what that is. Nothing less than reviewing this case and holding EducRAT$ accountable can be acceptable to anyone who cares about our schools, our kids, and our society. (This applies to private schools as well since the culture of abuse and corruption is the issue that will not be addressed if this case is not heard.) Only time will tell what is to be. Knowing this Courtís answer is a powerful tool for proactive decision making on how to cope with our presently dysfunctional schools.

Top

Back About K. Horwitz