Teacher fired for reading slur aloud in popular classroom book
Matthew Mastronardi, a Spanish teacher at West Valley High School in Spokane, was filmed reading out loud a section of the 1960 Harper Lee novel about racism and injustice in the Jim Crow-era Deep South.
The Spanish teacher said in a lengthy X post Wednesday that he only spoke the slur — which is used repeatedly in the classic work — as a 'teachable moment about context and literary honesty in reading' when he heard students saying they felt they 'must 'skip over the n-word'.'
'I was astonished and expressed disagreement, saying, 'That's silly; it undermines the book's historical context and disrespects the author's intent to use accurate language',' Mastronardi said.
'A girl asked me in front of the class, 'Would you read the word?' I replied, 'Yes, I would read every word'.'
Unaware that he was being recorded, Mastronardi — who admitted being 'nervous but committed' — said he then chose to read out the passage in front of the 30 students as a 'teachable moment.'
Within days, the teacher said he was slapped with a verbal warning from the principal before later being told he could either resign or face not having his contract renewed.
After refusing to quit, Mastronardi was served a non-renewal notice, he said.
The school repeatedly stated the decision wasn't solely down to the book saga — but officials apparently refused to provide other reasons, he claimed.
'There are no parent complaints, no documented disciplinary actions and I've passed every teaching evaluation,' he said.
Mastronardi said he now has one last chance to appeal at a school board meeting on June 25.
The iconic novel about racism and injustice in the Jim Crow-era Deep South tells the story of a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman.
The acclaimed novel, which is told through the eyes of a young white girl, uses the slur dozens of times.
The Post reached out to West Valley High School about Mastronardi's firing but didn't hear back immediately.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
'Big weapon' wielded to strengthen childcare safety
Listen to Australian and world news, and follow trending topics with SBS News Podcasts . The first two bills introduced in to the 48th Parliament both focused on education. One fulfils Labor's election promise to cut student debts by 20 per cent - the other a response to shocking allegations of child abuse in Melbourne. "I think the whole country has been sickened and shocked by the revelations that have come out of Victoria in the last few weeks. A lot of work is needed to rebuild trust in a system that parents rely on every single day." That's Education Minister Jason Clare, referring to alleged abuse by 26 year old childcare worker Joshua Dale Brown, who is accused of abusing eight children aged between five months and two years old, with thousands of children possibly exposed to infectious diseases. The government since accelerating its plan to address safety and quality issues in childcare centres. The bill would give the Commonwealth powers to cut off childcare subsidy payments to centres. "The biggest weapon that the Commonwealth has to wield here is the funding that we provide that enables childcare centers to operate. It's something like $16 billion a year, and that covers about 70% of the cost of running the average child care centre." It also expands the Education Department's ability to monitor centres, and enter without notice or a warrant. "This gives more power to our officers to be able to do spot checks without a warrant or without the AFP on board." And would allow details about breaches to be published by the department. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley says the coalition will closely examine the proposal. But Nationals Frontbencher Bridget McKenzie says more needs to be done. "Is it enough? No, will it fix the problem? No. There is much more to be done in this space, and I we've acted in a bipartisan way. We'll continue to do so, but we do believe that much more urgent action needs to be taken. The education ministers aren't getting together till October, and the Attorneys General aren't getting together till next month. This needs to be solved. Now, get on the blower. Get them up. You can have a teams meeting, but let's get the solutions on the table and enacted so that our children are." The meeting next month will consider proposals like mandating CCTV in centres, establishing a National Educator Register, and mandatory child safety training. Children's commissioner Anne Hollonds says the split responsibilities can make it a challenging issue to address. "And it's often the case with all areas of policy to do with children that the responsibilities are divided between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. And what we see is a bit of handballing of responsibility when a negative event occurs, like the really horrendous situation we're dealing with right now." The Commissioner is calling for a single person to hold the final responsibility for child safety in Australia. "There's a lot of questions being asked about, why has it taken 10 years for us to now be taking seriously a lot of these measures that we were told by the Royal Commission are required to keep children safe. And, you know, it really it has to be something about the fact that there is no minister for whom child safety and wellbeing is their number one priority. Unlike for women, we've had ministers for women for decades. There are good reasons why we have a Minister for Women. There's also a good reason why we have women's safety as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the Prime Minister and the heads of the states and territories work together on issues of national significance. And a lot of viewers would be surprised to hear that child safety and wellbeing is not listed as a priority for national cabinet. So I think both of those issues need to be looked at that we're missing some key accountability mechanisms."
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Barack Obama rejects Donald Trump's unsubstantiated accusations of treason
Barack Obama has dismissed Donald Trump's allegation he has committed treason, following the US president accusing him without evidence of leading an effort undermine his 2016 election campaign. A spokesperson for the former president took the unusual step of issuing a statement denouncing Mr Trump's claims, saying "these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction". Mr Trump's comments rehashed his longstanding grievances over investigations into alleged Russian interference in the election — claims that shadowed much of his first term. On Tuesday the president lashed out following a new report from his intelligence director that aimed to cast doubt on the Senate intelligence committee's 2020 findings that Russia worked to influence the 2016 election outcome but did not successfully manipulate any votes. "It's time to go after people," Mr Trump said from the Oval Office. While Mr Trump has frequently attacked Mr Obama by name, the Republican president has not, since returning to office in January, previously gone this far in pointing the finger at his Democratic predecessor with allegations of criminal action. During remarks in the Oval Office, Mr Trump leapt on comments from his intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, in which she threatened to refer Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for prosecution over an intelligence assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. She declassified documents and said the information she was releasing showed top officials' "treasonous conspiracy" to undermine Mr Trump in 2016, claims that Democrats called false and politically motivated. "It's there, he's guilty. This was treason," Mr Trump said on Tuesday, though he offered no proof of his claims. "They tried to steal the election, they tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever imagined, even in other countries." An assessment by the US intelligence community published in January 2017 concluded that Russia, using social media disinformation, hacking and Russian bot farms, sought to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign and bolster Mr Trump. The assessment determined that the actual impact was likely limited and showed no evidence that Moscow's efforts actually changed voting outcomes. A 2020 bipartisan report by the Senate intelligence committee found Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort, the WikiLeaks website and others to try to influence the 2016 election to help Mr Trump's campaign. "Nothing in the document issued last week [by Gabbard] undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Mr Obama, said in a statement. Mr Trump, who has a history of promoting false conspiracy theories, has frequently denounced the assessments of Russian interference attempts as a "hoax". In recent days, Mr Trump reposted on his Truth Social account a fake video showing Mr Obama being arrested in handcuffs in the Oval Office. Mr Trump has been seeking to divert attention to other issues after coming under pressure from his conservative base to release more information about Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged Mr Trump, who socialised with the disgraced financier during the 1990s and early 2000s, to release investigative files related to the case. When asked in the Oval Office about Epstein, Mr Trump quickly pivoted into an attack on Mr Obama and Ms Clinton. "The witch-hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold," Mr Trump said. Mr Trump suggested action would be taken against Obama and his former officials, calling the Russia investigation a treasonous act and the former president guilty of "trying to lead a coup". "It's time to start, after what they did to me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama has been caught directly," he said. Since returning to office, Mr Trump has castigated his political opponents, who he says weaponised the federal government against him and his allies for the 2021 attack on the US Capitol and his handling of classified materials after his first term. Mr Obama has long been a target for Mr Trump. In 2011 he accused the-president of not being born in the United States, prompting Mr Obama to release a copy of his birth certificate. In recent months, Mr Trump has rarely held back in his rhetorical broadsides against his two Democratic predecessors in a way all but unprecedented in modern times. He launched an investigation after accusing former president Joe Biden and his staff, without evidence, of a "conspiracy" to use an autopen, an automated device that replicates a person's signature, to sign sensitive documents on the president's behalf. Mr Biden has rejected the claim as false and "ridiculous". AP/Reuters
ABC News
13 hours ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
