The Union Township High School teacher who created a firestorm last year after allegedly posting anti-gay comments on her Facebook page, wants to retire on a disability pension rather than face tenure charges.
Jenye "Viki" Knox, 50, a tenured special education teacher who has taught in Union since 2000, wrote on her personal Facebook page that homosexuality is a "perverted spirit" and "unnatural immoral behavior," according to charges of unbecoming conduct brought by her district. She also criticized other teachers on Facebook for putting up a "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Transgender" bulletin board in the high school and for proposing a school gay-straight alliance, according to the charges.
The tenure charge case was to begin Tuesday before a state Administrative Law Judge, but Knox filed a motion earlier this month asking that it be delayed while she seeks a disability pension due to both a back injury and "psychological grounds." She did not elaborate. A judge Wednesday agreed to list the case as inactive for three months.
"If I can retire then there is no need for me to go through this unpleasant experience," Knox wrote in court documents.
28 Comments
I thought the gay's agenda does not affect anyone else. If they win on marriage they will control our lives.
Ms. Knox brought this on herself with her hateful FB comments. One would expect a teacher to think before posting something that is offensive. And now she is using the lame excuse of a back injury to retire early and live off the NJ taxpayer's dime. NJ Governor Chris Christie expressed concern about her comments.
Yeah right - gay marriage in new jersey caused this to happen. Except new jersey doesn't have gay marriage. Defending ms. Knox's non gay marriage related comments exposes NOM's true agenda: NOM doesn't like gay people. And apparently NOM doesn't like gay student groups in high schools either.
dn,
You got that one EXACTLY right, NOM isn't about marriage, it's about anti-gay politics!
JR expresses with precision the essentials of the New Gay Fascism:
"One would expect a teacher to think before posting something that is offensive".
Oh, how important it is to defeat Obama and roll back the pseudo-marriage movement.
Obviously Rick does not think either before posting his offensive rants.
Free speech anyone? These homosexual rants about punishing people for expressing their thoughts exemplifies their lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment, and their desire to control peoples' thoughts. Hate speech, what a joke.
This woman should not be allowed around children.
JR:
I think before posting, and I am especially delighted to offend pathetic little martinets all dressed up in their jack-boots, attempting to intimidate the exercise of my free speech rights.
Hope this helps
This is NOT a free speech issue. The first amendment protects you from the government. For example, you folk have called Obama a litany of offensive names. And the government cannot come after you. But try calling your boss and incompetent fool. Then claim that he can't fire you because of free speech. Let me know how that works out.
Ummm, ZJuice, I do not recall the teacher in question calling her bosses an incompetent fool.
She called homosexuality a grave moral flaw.
That is completely protected speech.
Don't know the laws re: facebook and what you put on there, just know you have to be careful what you say. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Depends on how she said it, I suppose. But this is the issue that legalilzed SSM will bring to the forefront. Anyone who disagrees with them, or even attempts to quote the Bible's view on homosexuality will be subject to lawsuits, censure, firing or more. More like dominance than tolerance.
Why is this filed under "Marriage," "MarriageADA," and "Same Sex Marriage"? The clip (and the full article) make no mention of marriage equality debates. Animus, much?
Notice how nobody addressed our point, garrett? Pathetic.
OvercameSSA said "Free speech anyone? These homosexual rants about punishing people for expressing their thoughts exemplifies their lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment, and their desire to control peoples' thoughts. Hate speech, what a joke"
This line of thinking always makes me very sad when I see it. Yes, we in America have the right to just about say anything we like, but there is still a fine line to walk. You complain here that it is wrong from someone to speak out against someone else's views, simply because it's is our 1st amendment right. However just because we have the right to say anything does not mean we can refuse responsibility of what we say. If you go around calling people abominations based only on YOUR beliefs then you can expect trouble. To think others wise only speaks to your ego, "the world is mine to do with as I please"
Also remember that if someone said the same about you (for example "Christians are nothing more than a bunch of baby screwers") you be all over that in a second.
No one said gay marriage caused Knox's plight in NJ, dn. But the gay agenda did. And SS"M" IS part of the gay agenda to get the government to sponsor the ideological dogma of their special interest group and demonize and oppress all others.
Brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
I have read worse comments by people about Christianity on Facebook than what Knox wrote, Hank. And yet, no one is going after their jobs. That leaves me no doubt which side is more bigoted and less tolerant.
Son of Adam, if NOM is solely about defending marriage from gays, then this article is irrelevant to their mission.
But thanks for the ad hominem. It speaks well of you.
NOM's mission is to protect marriage, PERIOD! whether they be from polygamists, gay activists, bigamists, or no fault divorce. All these issues on this blog are interconnected, all of which have to do with the redefinition of marriage and its consequences.
And NOM can do that without defending a person who attacks all gay people regardless of their marital status. Ms. Knox did not write about how bad gay marriage activists are - she wrote about how gay people - all of them - are bad.
When NOM sticks up for her then turns around and says "we think being gay is fine and gay people are free to live as they choose," it's an obvious hypocrisy.
Hank said: "If you go around calling people abominations based only on YOUR beliefs then you can expect trouble."
No, Hank, that's wrong. "Expecting trouble" is precisely what freedom of speech is designed to prevent.
What you're sad about is the fact that some speech is directed against you and/or your beliefs. You might not like it, but that's what free speech is all about. You can't stop people from expressing their views just because you don't like it.
What is "hateful" is the attempt by anyone,of any sexual orientation,to claim that persons being of the same sex does not suffice to preclude any possible justification for their engaging in sexual activity with each other.
Good point, OvercameSSA. And you cannot defend marriage without defending free speech.
Don't let the door hit you in the a**.
dn deliberately misrepresented what the story reported what the teacher had said.
She did not call people bad.
She did refer to the behavior as immoral. Can dn address the moral question regarding same-sex sexual behavior? Probably not because dn deliberate avoided that very thing in the comments.
Hank Biddle,
The behavior is immoral. Deal with that rather than the misrepresentation you fabricated.
Take your own advice and do not refuse to take responsibility for what you said. Your ego is probably in the way but you can try to do better.
Is same-sex sexual behavior moral, ever? Is immoral behavior an abomination, do you think, or just a matter of personal taste, perhaps? Please explain.
JR
State the objective criteria you use to asses whether or not words are "hateful" or are "offensive".
Do not rely on gay this or gay that. Use a neutral example to illustrate your objective criteria.
If, as I suspect, you rely on subjective criteria, then, your comments are the very problem that invites the sort of trouble that Hank Biddle excused pre-emptively.
But you might surprise. Remember, your proposed criteria will be used to assess your own remarks in comments here. That ought to be welcomed by you and others, such as Hank Biddle, who expect to be held accountable for what they say.
JR
State the objective criteria you use to asses whether or not words are "hateful" or are "offensive".
Do not rely on gay this or gay that. Use a neutral example to illustrate your objective criteria.
If, as I suspect, you rely on subjective criteria, then, your comments are the very problem that invites the sort of trouble that Hank Biddle has already excused pre-emptively.
But you might surprise. Remember, your proposed criteria will be used to assess your own remarks in comments here. That ought to be welcomed by you and others, such as Hank Biddle, who expect to be held accountable for what they say.
Especially by a government employer.