If it’s her, and it certainly appears to be her, one has to wonder how it could be that nobody at Crystal River Middle School saw a problem.
Dayanna Volitich, a 25-year-old social studies teacher at Crystal River Middle School in Florida, has been secretly hosting the white nationalist podcast “Unapologetic” under the pseudonym “Tiana Dalichov” and bragging about teaching her views in a public school, HuffPost has discovered.
A HuffPo investigation determined that Volitich was Dlichov, resulting in the school district removing her from her classroom.
HuffPost found a website promoting the writing of “Tiana Dalichov” that had a bio section listing the author’s home as Crystal City, Florida. Volitich is listed in public records as residing in Crystal City. She is also listed as being 25 years old. This year, when a fan tweeted at “Tiana Dalichov” asking how old she is, she responded that she was 25.
On an episode of her podcast, she mentioned that last school year was her first year in the district where she works. Citrus County School District confirmed to HuffPost that Volitich started teaching in the district in August 2016.
Volitich’s photo on the Crystal River Middle School website and social media profile photos of “Tiana Dalichov” appear to feature the same person. The photos show Volitich and “Dalichov” wearing the same set of earrings (seen at the top of this piece).
Lastly, the names “Tiana Dalichov” and “Dayanna Volitich” share all but two of the same letters and the same number of syllables.
The same number of syllables? Well, the pics seem to make a more persuasive case, and Dalichov failed to respond to queries. The school in which she teaches social studies is mostly white, it’s also kinda poor.
The school where Volitich works is overwhelmingly white. In the 2015-2016 school year, nearly 90 percent of the school’s students identified as white, per the National Center for Education Statistics. Only about 4 percent of students identify as black, and 3 percent identify as Hispanic. Most of the school’s students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.
This may provide some explanation for why nobody picked up her views. Then again, it could also be that she taught social studies from the book and her white nationalist beliefs remained sufficiently out of the classroom that no one knew.
But given some of the things she twitted, it’s hard to imagine her teaching, and her treatment of students, wasn’t influenced by her beliefs.
But there remains an issue: even if Dalichov held reprehensible views, she has a First Amendment right to do so. That she was a public employee doesn’t mean she loses her private right to believe any crap she wants to believe, provided her views stay out of her classroom and don’t impact the performance of her job.
“She does not speak on behalf of the Citrus County School District,” Hebert said. “The views she’s listed [online] are really not in line with how our district operates.”
And no one suggests otherwise. So the nagging question is how Dalichov led this double life without anyone at the school, any teacher, any student, any administrator, any parent, having any inkling that she was busy spreading her gospel on social media in her spare time.
Now that she’s been doxxed, a conundrum exists. Her right to believe as she wants outside of the performance of her job may well be clear, but can she return to the classroom untainted by her views? Can parents be confident that she will treat their children fairly. Can they be sure her views won’t infiltrate her social studies lessons?
And what can the district do, knowing that their teacher lived a secret life as a white nationalist who believes minority students are intellectually inferior? How can they possibly allow her to teach students under these circumstances? What do they tell parents who march on the administration building with pitchforks and torches when they know the parents’ fears are well-founded. These are their children, and what parent wants to put their kids’ education at risk for the sake of a teacher’s right to be a racist?
No matter how respectable she was before, how good a teacher she may have been, how can they ignore the taint of these revelations?
I saw this and for once in my life I had to question whether she is an actual white nationalist? The term is thrown around very loosely in these times. I don’t know if I can trust the HuffPo like I used to.
My GF is an early childhood education major. You should read the stuff that counts as educational theory.
I also questioned whether she was as bad as the woke of HuffPo painted her. And after a little review, I had to agree with them.
I wonder how beloved the teacher’s union will be after it fights for her to keep her job…
Perhaps the union won’t pursue a greivance on her behalf, and then she’ll had to sue the union and they can be heroes by taking her money and failing to defend her.
So, what do you do with folks like her, or the “gonna run every car with a Trump bumper sticker off the road” professor, or the “some white people might have to die” professor at Texas A&M? Or other teachers like them?
On the one hand, yeah, they’ve got 1A rights like the rest of us. On the other, their statements provide reasonable concern that they can be fair to every student. How is there a way to balance that contradiction?
Do you think there’s a reason these are called “comments,” not “questions”? What do you think?
Is a question that’s intended to be a rhetorical question really a question? Don’t answer that.
I don’t have a great answer, but since you asked, gun to my head I’d be inclined to not let them teach because that’s the safest choice. It would be hard for them to convince me that they could be fair.
But I’m also a hard core supporter of all of the Bill of Rights, so I’ve just taken away their right to free speech. Look what you’ve made me do…..
Now come up with a principled rationale to explain how these irreconcilable positions can happen.
Thinking about Diana Dalichov is hard.
There may be wiggle room in Pickering v Board of Education for statements which could be shown or presumed to interfere with the teacher’s job performance or the school’s general operation. Probably yet another patriarchal test requiring a reasonable man.
Yeah, that couldn’t be abused much.
“I’m a strong supporter of X amendment, BUT…..”
Never heard that one before.
Gosh, it’s as if you totally missed the “balancing” part and the “gun to my head part”. I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps I’m just too empathetic – if I were a black kid I wouldn’t want to have somebody in a position of power over me that was an avowed white supremacist. And vice versa.
What’s your solution?
Can’t we all just get along?
She gave the district a gift by claiming that she taught her views to her class and then lied to administrators about it when parents complained. The discipline proceedings will be able to bypass those messy First Amendment issues and concentrate just on the dishonesty and departing from the curriculum. Another version of posting video of your crime on social media. You have a right to do it, but it can still be used against you.
But did she?
Whether or not it poses first amendment problems, public employees are amply on notice that if they post politically incorrect comments, even under a fake name, they are subject to being hunted down by SJWs in the media and elsewhere, who will then attempt to cause their termination. This has happened to policemen, firemen, teachers, nonprofit officials working with local governments, judges, public defenders and prosecutors. I have not heard of any successful first amendment challenges in any of the reported cases (although that could simply be a reflection of the fired employees being too destitute to afford counsel).
There have been some cop cases.
Did the fact that a confession was false ever stop a prosecutor from using it to get a conviction?
(Sorry, I know I said I was done but I couldn’t resist when I saw this.)
ok, I”m not sure how long she’s been a teacher.. but at the age of 25, i’d guess not that long.. & while it wasn’t a smart thing to do to post her views online under a pseudonym , it doesn’t make it an offense under the law. The only offense is against the “feelings” of those who don’t like her views.
so what’s she being accused of ?? what if she said she supported the 2nd amendment for all people ?? would that school support that ??
“The views she’s listed [online] are really not in line with how our district operates.” … & that means what ??, they can shut down any person not “in line” with what they think ?? students have been disciplined by the school system for posting things online while at home that they (the school system) didn’t think was appropriate, & now it’s spreading to the teachers as well.. are parents next ??
this tells me they want foot soldiers to carry their message, & anyone not “in line” with the school administration’s goal is a threat, & will be dealt with in the harshest means possible.
why? because they can & there is no one to hold them to account. sure you can sue, but at your expense against a tax payer funded bureaucracy with almost limitless resources to battle you in court … forever.
not a great argument, but the best I could come up with after a few beers..
You took a wrong turn at “students.” Different issue/problem than employees.
that last beer… dammit!! .. yeah I strayed off topic .. stay focused on the issue..
Was it Jack Nicholson that said, “You make me want to be a better man..” ??
Love ya & Hate ya.. but not at the same time..
Get all the young you can,
And get em while they’re young.
Sounds like a plan to me,
As long as you’re not hi-strung.
What are those Amendments anyway?
Except a way to play,
Catch as catch can!
(Holden Caulfield is holding his breath.
And Yossarian is *catching* his 22nd,…)
Where you at, WrongWay? We want to join
you! Losing Trader anywhere around?
It’d be possible to cross-check student grades and see if there’s a bias in grading or reports given on student behavior, but then that leaves aside unrecorded personal interactions that compose most of what I assume to be the standard teacher’s day. Then there’s the unfortunate fact that she’s an unapologetic white nationalist teaching social studies, which is going to be a sticky issue. That seems a conflict of interest; I don’t know that I’d trust an avowed Creationist to teach a science class, on the basis that his personal beliefs tangibly interfere with his ability to teach the classroom material.
It’s reminiscent of the James Damore memo, though the devil’s in the details: he signed his name on it and thus there’s no question of authenticity, and he works for a private company subject to California’s labor laws. When one works in an at-will employment state, you rock the boat at your own peril.
I’d like the presumption of innocence to stand first in this situation, as there’s no given proof that her beliefs have affected her ability to teach, but as a matter of ethic I think there’s a point where one should recuse themselves in the conflict between personal belief and professional directive. Her tweet you posted certainly indicates a level of dissonance that troubles her. Mandating that removal is uncomfortable, and I don’t know how to resolve that. If I had any authority on the case I’d investigate the grades and classroom reports for corroborating evidence before taking action, in any case – it’d make things much easier if there was, and it seems likely.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a question about what’s easy, is it.
Or it’s not anything like the Damore memo whatsoever.