Outschool.com Practices Discrimination Hypocrisy

By Tim Spiess

May 13th, 2020

Being racist will not solve racism. Being wrongly discriminatory will not solve wrongful discrimination. Being exclusive will not produce inclusiveness. No individual or group gets a pass to be wrong in order to try and make things right. No individual or group gets to make logical fallacies (use falsehoods) in order to somehow produce or advance rightness. The staff at Outschool (and all who share their moral and political ideology) rejects ALL of these truths. Read on…

(See the end of the article for updates. For example, Outschool provided a response to a parent asking what happened to me, and I respond to Outschool’s claims.)

On May 12th, 2020, the people who run Outschool.com – and online learning website and platform – banned me from continuing to teach my classes. They did not talk with me beforehand, and prior to May 12, they had refused to answer my questions regarding concerns I had with their policies. They simply kicked me off their platform and withdrew all the students from MY classes – classes I was in the process of teaching.

I have spent hundreds of hours developing exceptional curriculum that can be taught over Outschool. My wife and I are small business owners and free lancers and we are being hit hard by the COVID19 pandemic. We still have two children in our household, one of which is disabled. So Outschool banishing me from their platform and thus significantly reducing our income is wrong, compassionless and absolutely discriminatory as this page will document. In fact, it is more than discriminatory, it is persecuting others, the very thing Outschool claims they stand against.

Outschool does NOT practice what they preach. They are not truly tolerant, nor are they inclusive, and they do discriminate. I am living proof of that fact and this page will supply facts that support this claim.

I had received many reviews from students and parents from my teaching on Outschool and my review average was close to 5 out of 5 stars. Here is an example of one review from a parent:

“Tim Spiess is a FANTASTIC teacher. The best. He is smart, he is articulate, he is caring and he is an amazing teacher. I cannot recommend him highly enough. If you are considering learning anything related to philosophy for your child, please consider Mr. Spiess. He will not disappoint. He went above and beyond than most teachers would do to ensure that my son’s questions were being answered well. Thank you Mr. Spiess.”

This parent also sent this review to Outschool on May 2nd, 2002. Here is how Outschool responded:

“Thanks for the feedback. I’m glad to hear things went well! Tim is a great teacher and we truly appreciate parents taking the time to write in when they feel strongly about classes…Celeste”

So, what happened? What horrible thing did I do to deserve having my income from Outschool cut off and having been rudely and abruptly disconnected from students I actually care about and enjoyed teaching?

Here is Outschools justification for throwing me off their platform:

“In viewing the classes, we noticed your use of homophobia in a discriminatory way and we also noticed that your controversial issues class was not fully objective. You did not present multiple view points on every issue as is required by our policy.”

My first question is why did they not just tell me to change or drop those two classes they specifically point out? Why force me totally off their platform? If I only allegedly broke their policy in one to two classes, it seems unjustifiably harsh to completely throw me off the platform?

I did NOT use the term homophobic in a discriminatory way. Using homophobic in a discriminatory way would mean that I would call someone homophobic! In Outschool staff’s twisted view, they say that I am being discriminatory by teaching my students that people who label or name-call others as “homophobic” (or islamaphobic or anything-phobic) are committing a fallacy of either ad hominem abusive (calling someone wrongfully fearful) or the loaded label (also known as the question-begging epithet) where someone labels another person in a way that assumes a conclusion without offering any evidence for that conclusion.

But in Outschool staff’s view, apparently gay people get a free pass to use logical fallacies against others. In other words, to counter the wrongs that have been done to some gay people, gay people now get a pass to use falsehoods against those who disagree with them. So, the reasoning is, allow this group of people to use fallacies in order to right some wrong that was done to individuals in the past. According to this philosophy, it would therefore be morally acceptable for women to speak falsehoods (do what is morally wrong) against men since women have been discriminated against in the past. This type of ideology is extremely harmful and destructive and anyone who can reason well can see where that ideology leads.

Let me say that again more simply. Outschool is saying I am breaking their discrimination policy by teaching students that people who call each other names (like “your a homophobe”) are committing logical fallacies and are communicating in an unhelpful and non-productive manner. If you seek out any good logician, they will verify that name-calling or speculative labeling is always fallacious in nature.

Regarding their second claim, that “your controversial issues class was not fully objective. You did not present multiple view points on every issue as is required by our policy”. Like I said above, why not work with me to change or drop those classes and allow me to teach my other classes like “How to Build a House” or “Intro to the Philosophy of Science” or “The Art of Arguing: Logic Matters in Everyday Life” or “Intro to the Philosophy of Ethics”?

Again, is seems like a large over reaction to respond to the complaint of one or a few parents by kicking me off the platform, over the many dozens of parents and students who gave me a close to 5 star average rating. Perhaps the real issue is that my teachings specifically in my logic and ethics classes expose the falsehoods in some of the ideologies that Outschool staff hold and they are offended by that? Perhaps the truth is that my offense is not submitting to, affirming, nor promoting their political and/or ethical ideology? Maybe their true ideology is, “my way or the highway”?

When moral relativists (probably the majority of Outschool staff) – those who don’t believe there are objective, universal moral principles but rather believe that moral reality is created by individuals or cultures – talk about “objectivity”, they are saying something very different than the actual definition of “objectivity” in the dictionaries, which definitions have not significantly changed over time. Here are those definitions of the term “objective”:

Cambridge Dictionary: “based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings”

Merriam-Webster: “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”

Oxford Dictionary: “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

So, it is quite clear that to be “objective” means to not be influenced or biased by emotions or subjective personal beliefs. An example of a subjective personal belief would be, “I think pizza is the best food” or “I think that flower is beautiful” or “I think men are stupid”.

(Regarding my personal beliefs, if I address the issue of homosexuality, I will almost always lead that brief discussion with saying how homosexual people are people just like everyone else; that many have been wrongfully and shamefully treated; and that they are due respect and dignity just like everyone else if they behave publicly in a way that warrants respect and dignity. I have made it clear that to truly discriminate (unjustifiably treat someone in an unfair way) against anyone is wrong. I have made it clear that anyone who has hatred or animosity towards others is wrong.)

When moral relativists – like the staff at Outschool who demanded I be thrown off the platform – say that I was “not fully objective”, what THEY MEAN by that is that I did not adequately present both or multiple sides of an issue. They are not claiming that I was overly influenced by my personal feelings or opinions (because that is the mindset in which relativists ‘live’ so to speak), which is what it means to lack objectivity.

So, for example, if I assert that the FACTS support that ‘the vast majority of people are either male or female’, that would be a “non-objective” statement to many relativists. The relativist insists that I must also state that ‘some people believe themselves to be genders which do not align with their sex’, and if I don’t state that, then I am not being “objective”, or worse, I am being “discriminatory”. That is an irrational position for the following reason.

Stating facts supported by good reasons is the objective way to evaluate reality. It is not “objective” to state that while men are men, some believe that some men are women. It is not “objective” because the latter half of the statement does not line up with facts supported by sound reasoning. Stating “two sides”, one supported by evidence and sound reason and one unsupported by evidence nor sound reason, is NOT being “objective”. Rather, it is at best spreading confusion and at worst, spreading falsehood. This is the nature of truth.

Relativists contradictory world view is easily demonstrated by this statement. “It is wrong to say I am wrong”. This is the relativists basic defense when they disagree with someone. But their primary defense is obviously self-defeating. The person who utters that statement is contradicting themselves, and so it is with those who hold the average relativistic moral view…they contradict themselves, just like in my case documented in this article. Outschool staff says, “You must not discriminate…you must be inclusive… And yet, they break these very principles when they exclude and discriminate against people who hold my views.

When I reviewed my “Examining Controversial Social Issues in the Light of Reason” with the Outschool staff some months ago, I had originally planned on addressing the topic of “the new sexual revolution”, but Outschool insisted there could only be one side to that issue, and if I did not solely present that side, I could not teach that subject. So, I submitted to Outschools wrongful request to not include that topic in that class. However, please note that Outschool is contradicting their own policies in their insistence that there is only one legitimate view regarding homosexuality, for example. First, by insisting I NOT present more than one side on that issue. Second, by not being inclusive of other views.

So, in short, relativists have redefined “objective” to align with their world view that there is no truth or fact, only perceptions. Therefore, if I don’t state all possibilities – including ones that don’t line up with verifiable or reason-supported facts – then I am “not objective”. Again, that is an irrational position.

Facts are facts. 1 + 1 = 2. Murder is wrong. The earth orbits around the sun. Lying for selfish purposes in morally wrong. A man is a man and a woman is a woman except in the very small number of cases where someone is born with intersex features (and no, intersex people should not be discriminated against, but should be treated like any other human being). People don’t typically handle power well. The rich typically use their wealth to further enrich themselves. People are predisposed to conflict and war. Need I go on? Facts are facts. Undeniable truths don’t go away because I refuse to acknowledge them or wish they did not exist.

Let’s get to the crux of the matter.

Outschool EXCLUDES huge numbers of people with their basic policy of “secular only”. So Outschool discriminates against and excludes a large percentage of the population of the U.S. They are free to do that, but to turn around and claim “we practice inclusion and tolerance” is gross hypocrisy. Admit it Outschool, you do not practice what you preach, at least not the rational versions of inclusion and tolerance.

The ideology that Outschool staff hold (and they are located in San Francisco CA) is one of intolerance and discrimination. True tolerance is to not hold animosity or hatred towards anyone; to treat all people fairly, and to give the benefit of the doubt to others. Outschools version of “tolerance” is ‘You must hold to OUR view (of morality or politics, etc.), or else you are a person who hates and you must be persecuted, like kicking you off of our platform so you lose your income so that you are less able to support your family, including your disabled child’. No, that is not only not truly tolerant, it is morally wrong and against the law.

I think it would be inclusive and tolerant to let people of all different kinds of beliefs have access to Outschool’s platform. To be fearful or discriminatory is to come from a position of weakness and indicates those people are insecure in their beliefs. Let the parents who use Outschool decide which teachers to choose. As long as teachers are sincere and transparent in describing their class and what view they are coming from, why would it be a problem to be truly inclusive, Outschool? Why are you exclusive instead and break one of your main tenants of inclusion in the process? The only teachers who should be excluded from Outschool are those who truly push hatred – hatred being the desire to harm or see harmed or humiliated, individuals or groups of people; or those who are poor teachers. Why do you, Outschool staff, redefine “hatred” as “disagreeing with YOUR ideology”, even when the person who disagrees with your ideology does not hate anyone???

Conclusion

Outschool is a far-leftist organization who preaches tolerance but practices just the opposite towards those who hold different moral views.  Outschool wrongly discriminates against non-leftists and moral objectivists, and as such, parents should be very careful about having their children learn from such people.