admin paranoid about ISR reviews

[coughingfurballs]

Does anyone have stories of having been "outed" for writing a review? How does your school address (or not address) teachers posting on ISR?

Teachers at my school just learned that a lower admin was instructed to find out who wrote some bad reviews. It is a local hire who teachers trusted and thought of as a friend and one of us. She reported her findings back to admin.

[Chinaman]

IMHO, if it is in your signed and agreed contract that you must not defame your employer and you then write lies about the school on the internet, you don't just let yourself down or compromise the future employability of your friends and colleagues BUT you also deserve to be investigated and disciplined by your employer.

[Michelle]

I think ChinaMan hit it on the head. You promised not to defame your school on the internet. But....and this is a big but...you didn't promise not to speak the truth about your school. There are some schools out there that abuse teachers no end and then expect as a "professional" you'll just take it and stay quiet. I think you have a responsibility to colleagues to share what is going on on ISR and other web sites.

US law says that you can't be sued for telling the truth. In fact there are laws to protect people who tell the truth from being sued. Now...if you make up stuff to enforce your point or position you may well be sued and frankly, you would deserve. I worked at a school where the director got an ISR membership and passed out the log in to all of us -- I'm sure ISR loves hearing that. Anyway, he invited us all to post a review and be honest. Once he had read them all we had a staff meeting and discussed the complaints. As we corrected these areas over the months ahead we were encouraged to post again. It was a good system and kept everyone anonymous but got things done.

[Mr DepTrai]

Usually schools that have a clause like dont talk bad about the school, are usually bad schools and people have complained and it has allowed others to see the schools for what they are.

[Chinaman]

Absolutely agree with you, Michelle. You give a good example of how to move forward.

There are schools that have 'nut jobs' and at all levels. But, what do we do about people telling lies out of vengeance or a sense of grievance who have actually left the school and then post under multiple user names? We have somebody doing this who was dismissed - before my time - for, amongst other sins, sending pornography to admin employees, talking about sex in class (not related to the syllabus), shouting at teachers in front of students and shouting at admin personnel. Now, what can we do about that besides ignore this person until the anger within dissipates?

There you are Michelle and ISR, what do we do with these people?

[sid]

Some schools have plain old confidentiality clauses in the contracts. It's not about good/bad, true/lies, but simply "don't tell tales out of school". I'm not saying I approve, but a confidentiality clause would prevent anyone from posting a review... in theory.
As for laws protecting people telling the truth, a) don't expect US laws to protect you from an employer in another country, and b) even in the US, a confidentiality agreement trumps truth, with very limited exceptions for reporting crimes. Look at all the confidential settlements in lawsuits, non-disclosure agreements, etc etc.
There are some differences between what a moral individual considers "Right" with a capital R, what a moral individual willingly signs up to in a contract, and what the law allows.
And don't lynch me for pointing it out. Knowing the law, and the lay of the land, is a good idea, and doesn't mean that a person necessarily agrees with it.

[booboo14]

Mr DepTrai wrote:
> Usually schools that have a clause like dont talk bad about the school, are
> usually bad schools and people have complained and it has allowed others to
> see the schools for what they are.

That is a good point. Usually NDA are very specific, related to trade secrets etc. An all encompassing one preventing one to say anything about a school would seem like a red flag not to join that school.

I think most people reading any reviews take them with a grain of salt. Some people like to complain but I think once a body of reviews have been posted one can get a general sense of the school.

[PsyGuy]

I concur with @Sids position. US laws or any western legal document/principal to freedom of speech, etc. provides no protections once you leave the borders of that country. Even within western jurisdictions an NDA or confidentiality agreement or communications policy is going to prevail over freedom of speech. The general understanding is that the government can not prohibit speech, it says nothing about free enterprise prohibiting speech if you agree to such terms. The exceptions are typically very narrow and protect speech under the auspice of a confidentiality when the expression is 1) in the public interest, 2) the speech is required by law or statute, 3) When compelled to do so by judicial direction/order. 4) When silence would itself be a violation of law. 5) In general, when reporting illegal/criminal activity (the qualification is that the behavior activity must actually be illegal/criminal, which is a finding left to a court to determine).

NDA's need not be specific they can be very general, and broad.

The entire issue of NDAs, Confidentiality agreements and communication policies is a red herring. In general ISs with such agreements are reacting to problems in the past, but the agreements themselves have little to no value. They are a management device to induce fear, often describing extreme penalties for violation. This is a means of persuading you NOT to publish negative reviews.

Contracts do not protect ITs, they are solely for the benefit of the IS. An IS can do what it wants, if there isnt a confidentiality policy or an agreement you can still be dismissed for posting a negative review, even if there is nothing written in any document or no member of leadership states you cant. ISs generally have very broad discretionary authority in personnel decisions and actions.
The legal implications of a breach of a confidentiality agreement in the case of a negative review would effectively be zero. Assuming you wrote and submitted the review outside the ISs network, they would very unlikely be unable to prove to a legal standard the validity of their complaint or damages. While the could dismiss you for believing it was you, they wouldnt be able to prevail in court, and many ITs would not be available (they would leave) to proceed with litigation.

Considering the bias of admin and admin cheerleaders, the position that all negative statements, claims, and reviews most be lies is a fallacy. Differing perspectives and experiences do not make one position/experience true and any/all others false.

[TeacherInThailand]

In some countries in Asia, even telling the truth can be considered defamation if it is told with the intent to harm the reputation of a person/company. You need to know what the laws are where you live before doing something that could put you in jeopardy.