David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[WilliamK]

What were the means? Number one, they were completely within the law. Number two, they violated no rule, regulation or policy. There was nothing wrong with the means. Number three, they were necessary. Matthew acted in the only way he could that would be effective.

80842[/snapback]

(emphasis mine)

Bingo. That is what Guest doesn't like about the means.

[Guest Captain Obvious]

One quick point - you cannot retape a door from the inside.

80827[/snapback]

But you can tear the tape on all the other doors before you re-enter so that no one can pin you down as the culprit.

Obviously, anyone willing to actually sneak out of a hotel room, would have no problem with doing that to cover his/her tracks. On top of being disrespectful to the good kids, the tape is totally worthless in catching someone breaking the rules.

Just think for a moment, people.

[Guest Open your damned eyes]

I'm not involved in any criminal activity so it doesn't frighten me.

80759[/snapback]

Hey stupid, you don't NEED to be doing anything illegal for that information to be used against you!

Completely unregulated surveillance only sets us up for further abuse, you imbecile. Imagine you were curious, so you did some research on a specific type of cancer. Now you apply for health insurance, and the company finds out about those searches by doing a 'background check' where they basically pay to look at what you've been doing online. Now you're denied health insurance because the company feels it's too risky to insure you based on that.

Sounds outlandish? A good chunk of what would be necessary for the above to be possible HAS ALREADY HAPPENED:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Countdown_Te..._room_1107.html

What the hell is wrong with you? If you don't believe in personal privacy at ALL, why do you even live in the USA, a country that holds that to be one of its most important foundations? So much for Orwell's 1984 being accused of being far-fetched--much of the stuff in there is already underway, and what's more, people like you are being idiotic enough to just HAND OVER the liberties that GENERATIONS of Americans gave their LIVES to protect!

[Bryan]

You're wrong. You would have heard very little about the situation if David Paszkiewicz (DP) and the administration had done what we asked them to do in the beginning, before the story went public. Matthew gave DP a chance to tell the truth about what he had done, but he did not.

How? The meeting with Somma, Woods, and Paszkiewicz? Paszkiewicz told the truth; a better case can be made that Matthew lied in that meeting.

Matthew also gave him the opportunity to make it right, but he did not do that either.

When/what/where?

In fact, to this day DP seems to believe that he did nothing wrong. So that was door number one closed to Matthew's attempt  to do his job and walk away. He tried. H(is) effort was refused.

... appropriately enough.

Similarly, the administration refused to act. We gave them a month, and I wrote four letters personally asking them to address the situation.

Do you still have copies? Why not share them in order to add historical perspective?

They refused. That was the second door closed. We tried. Our efforts were refused.

The administration, as I understand it, acted by asking Paszkiewicz to take care not to permit additional reasons for complaint, and apparently he did a fairly decent job of that. Apparently the administration acted, but not in the manner specified by the LaClairs.

At that point, we had three choices: (1) file a Notice of Claim, (2) go to the press or (3) drop the whole thing. Option 3 was out of the question. The issue was too important. Obviously you don't think so, and you refuse to accept that our motives were what we say they are. You are desperate for another explanation why Matthew has been given multiple awards, and continues to be sought after. You just can't understand why anyone would want to give him an award or call him a hero. And since you don't understand what he did, naturally you make it out to be something negative. That's just your biases and your ignorance talking. "Ignorance" is a tough word, I know, but unfortunately the shoe fits, and others have already put it on you whether you accept the fact or not.

Che Guevara is a hero to some. It typically has something to do with ideology.

Not much mystery, there.

So now your claim is that Matthew should have done his job and walked away. The problem with that way of looking at it is that there was no way to do the job without making a very big public fuss. And why? Because people like you were already telling us to shut up and go away. You didn't want the situation corrected. You didn't care. So we had to make it a very public fight.

Even if we had filed a Notice of Claim, it still would have ended up in the press. So we decided to go to the press first, hoping that would shame the administration into action when the community saw this for what it was: blatant and indefensible misconduct. The community reacted, alright, but mainly to defend the indefensible. The Board refused to act, thinking they could ride it out.

Then I got the call from the New York Times. I knew your goose was cooked, but no one would listen. The Board still refused to act. On the evening after the story had just run in the New York Times, the Board issued a statement (read on air by Anderson Cooper), saying it was refusing to act so as not to "reopen" the issue. What a ridiculous thing to say. The issue was wide open. How much more wide open could it be?

The LaClairs helped snooker Anderson Cooper, eh? Thanks for the tip.

DAVID PASZIEWICZ, TEACHER: God is not only all loving. The way he describes himself in the scriptures, he is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and is saying please accept me, believe. You reject that and you belong in Hell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So he's not talking about, you know, what a religion believes. He's talking about what he believes and stating it as fact.

LACLAIR: Exactly. And you know, every time he would talk about this issue, it wouldn't even be -- it wouldn't have been OK if he had just said, "This is my opinion." It still wouldn't have been OK in that case because he's a public schoolteacher.

Pretty sure they meant "AUDIO CLIP." Note the way that they play an snippet out of context were Paszkiewicz really is talking about what a religion believes (as abundantly shown at this forum using the taped evidence). Cooper apparently assumed otherwise and announces his incorrect view on national television--and young LaClair, who should know better, rubber stamps Cooper's assessment.

I suppose it helps that the mainstream media tend to have a dim view of traditional religion. The bias is very useful to people like Paul LaClair.

Two months of highly unfavorable publicity followed, including an editorial in The New York Times entitled "A Strange Silence in Kearny," all blasting the Board for its inaction. Finally, in Febuary, we filed our Notice of Claim and held a press conference, which all the regional news channels covered. DP had just written a letter denying that he had not been forthcoming in the meeting in Mr. Somma's office in October.

What letter is that?

Since those remarks called Matthew's public statements into question, Matthew felt he should now release the recording he had made of the October meeting. He announced that fact at the February Board meeting and handed them a CD of the recording, which all the regional news channels covered. At that point, the Board finally started negotiating.

I'm sure Matthew had no idea how he could prove what was said in that meeting!

Note how LaClair lays the groundwork for the reader to commit a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Very lawyerly.

You can say what you like, but the fact is that nothing was going to be done unless we made this very public and put on the pressure. How do I know for sure? Simple. The Board said publicly they weren't going to do anything. I heard their statement as I was sitting just off camera while Anderson Cooper was interviewing Matthew.

Did they negotiate prior to the filing of the notice of claim?

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

Matthew's so wonderful ...

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

Paul hits his stride in blowhard mode.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally.

We've been over this, but LaClair always forgets.

The Constitution doesn't address this issue. LaClair began squawking because he wants activist courts to interpret the Constitution a certain way over and against its historical understanding--and he's doing it because of his ideology, which is opposed to that of the men who wrote and signed the Constitution.

[Guest Guest]

You're wrong. You would have heard very little about the situation if David Paszkiewicz (DP) and the administration had done what we asked them to do in the beginning, before the story went public. Matthew gave DP a chance to tell the truth about what he had done, but he did not. Matthew also gave him the opportunity to make it right, but he did not do that either. In fact, to this day DP seems to believe that he did nothing wrong. So that was door number one closed to Matthew's attempt  to do his job and walk away. He tried. He effort was refused.

Similarly, the administration refused to act. We gave them a month, and I wrote four letters personally asking them to address the situation. They refused. That was the second door closed. We tried. Our efforts were refused.

At that point, we had three choices: (1) file a Notice of Claim, (2) go to the press or (3) drop the whole thing. Option 3 was out of the question. The issue was too important. Obviously you don't think so, and you refuse to accept that our motives were what we say they are. You are desperate for another explanation why Matthew has been given multiple awards, and continues to be sought after. You just can't understand why anyone would want to give him an award or call him a hero. And since you don't understand what he did, naturally you make it out to be something negative. That's just your biases and your ignorance talking. "Ignorance" is a tough word, I know, but unfortunately the shoe fits, and others have already put it on you whether you accept the fact or not.

So now your claim is that Matthew should have done his job and walked away. The problem with that way of looking at it is that there was no way to do the job without making a very big public fuss. And why? Because people like you were already telling us to shut up and go away. You didn't want the situation corrected. You didn't care. So we had to make it a very public fight.

Even if we had filed a Notice of Claim, it still would have ended up in the press. So we decided to go to the press first, hoping that would shame the administration into action when the community saw this for what it was: blatant and indefensible misconduct. The community reacted, alright, but mainly to defend the indefensible. The Board refused to act, thinking they could ride it out.

Then I got the call from the New York Times. I knew your goose was cooked, but no one would listen. The Board still refused to act. On the evening after the story had just run in the New York Times, the Board issued a statement (read on air by Anderson Cooper), saying it was refusing to act so as not to "reopen" the issue. What a ridiculous thing to say. The issue was wide open. How much more wide open could it be?

Two months of highly unfavorable publicity followed, including an editorial in The New York Times entitled "A Strange Silence in Kearny," all blasting the Board for its inaction. Finally, in Febuary, we filed our Notice of Claim and held a press conference, which all the regional news channels covered. DP had just written a letter denying that he had not been forthcoming in the meeting in Mr. Somma's office in October. Since those remarks called Matthew's public statements into question, Matthew felt he should now release the recording he had made of the October meeting. He announced that fact at the February Board meeting and handed them a CD of the recording, which all the regional news channels covered. At that point, the Board finally started negotiating.

You can say what you like, but the fact is that nothing was going to be done unless we made this very public and put on the pressure. How do I know for sure? Simple. The Board said publicly they weren't going to do anything. I heard their statement as I was sitting just off camera while Anderson Cooper was interviewing Matthew.

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally. These are important principles. They are why Matthew is a hero to Americans United, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union. They are why an evangelical minister from Texas wrote Matthew personally to tell him that he was doing the right thing. That is why people all over the world read this story and wrote in or posted on their own blogs to call him a hero.

What were the means? Number one, they were completely within the law. Number two, they violated no rule, regulation or policy. There was nothing wrong with the means. Number three, they were necessary. Matthew acted in the only way he could that would be effective. He preserved an undeniable record of what was going on. Had he not done that, we wouldn't have gotten to first base, and you know it. In fact, that's what you wanted. Sorry, but we're not playing by your rules, and if he had to do it over again, he would. In a heartbeat. And I'd be right behind him, and so would a lot of other people.

You may not like it, but those are the facts. You just don't like how it turned out.

80842[/snapback]

Spin it any way you like. The means were sneaky and underhanded. He had the recordings of the classroom and the meetings but instead of producing them immediately he strung it out for effect.

If you felt so strongly about the situation in the classroom, then you should have filed your law suit and let the courts handle it. If the press picked up on it then so be it.

Personally, I couldn't care less what happens to DP. He sounds like an idiot. But being sneaky to serve some higher purpose doesn't make you look any better.

[Guest Guest]

Your spelling is 'scarey'. *lol*

The fact that you're so afraid of accepting that the LaClairs have near-universal support except for some very stubbon, Constitutionally-ignorant people in Kearny, that you will accuse an anonymous poster praising Matthew of being a family member, is shameful. Get over yourself--only the truly ignorant give Matthew flak for what he did. As he himself proved, there was no other way! If he didn't gather proof, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with the LYING he did in that meeting about not having said the things he said! *lol*

And wtf, posting Mathew LaClair in Google? Google's a search engine, nitwit. The point is that you can find tons of people calling Matthew a hero all over the Internet. But show me one single example where Matthew refers to himself as a "hero". I dare you. I double dare you.

You imbecile. *lol*

80773[/snapback]

Look D**bA**, if you want to nitpick I said he portrays himself as a hero.

He's not a hero. He's a sneak and a self serving ego maniac that has been invovled in this kind of thing for a long time.

And you'd better check your post for grammar errors before you criticize someone elses spelling.

[Bern]

He should have been fired. He was caught lying and his actions were so egregious that not just he but all of the employees had to take a course to prevent his type of behavior. As a teacher, he should also have known what he was doing was illegal.

I've seen people get fired for 1/10 of what he did.

Why was he not fired? Was it the teachers union? An incompetent Board of Ed? Or are our public school standards now so low that anything goes?

[Guest Guest]

You're wrong. You would have heard very little about the situation if David Paszkiewicz (DP) and the administration had done what we asked them to do in the beginning, before the story went public. Matthew gave DP a chance to tell the truth about what he had done, but he did not. Matthew also gave him the opportunity to make it right, but he did not do that either. In fact, to this day DP seems to believe that he did nothing wrong. So that was door number one closed to Matthew's attempt  to do his job and walk away. He tried. He effort was refused.

Similarly, the administration refused to act. We gave them a month, and I wrote four letters personally asking them to address the situation. They refused. That was the second door closed. We tried. Our efforts were refused.

At that point, we had three choices: (1) file a Notice of Claim, (2) go to the press or (3) drop the whole thing. Option 3 was out of the question. The issue was too important. Obviously you don't think so, and you refuse to accept that our motives were what we say they are. You are desperate for another explanation why Matthew has been given multiple awards, and continues to be sought after. You just can't understand why anyone would want to give him an award or call him a hero. And since you don't understand what he did, naturally you make it out to be something negative. That's just your biases and your ignorance talking. "Ignorance" is a tough word, I know, but unfortunately the shoe fits, and others have already put it on you whether you accept the fact or not.

So now your claim is that Matthew should have done his job and walked away. The problem with that way of looking at it is that there was no way to do the job without making a very big public fuss. And why? Because people like you were already telling us to shut up and go away. You didn't want the situation corrected. You didn't care. So we had to make it a very public fight.

Even if we had filed a Notice of Claim, it still would have ended up in the press. So we decided to go to the press first, hoping that would shame the administration into action when the community saw this for what it was: blatant and indefensible misconduct. The community reacted, alright, but mainly to defend the indefensible. The Board refused to act, thinking they could ride it out.

Then I got the call from the New York Times. I knew your goose was cooked, but no one would listen. The Board still refused to act. On the evening after the story had just run in the New York Times, the Board issued a statement (read on air by Anderson Cooper), saying it was refusing to act so as not to "reopen" the issue. What a ridiculous thing to say. The issue was wide open. How much more wide open could it be?

Two months of highly unfavorable publicity followed, including an editorial in The New York Times entitled "A Strange Silence in Kearny," all blasting the Board for its inaction. Finally, in Febuary, we filed our Notice of Claim and held a press conference, which all the regional news channels covered. DP had just written a letter denying that he had not been forthcoming in the meeting in Mr. Somma's office in October. Since those remarks called Matthew's public statements into question, Matthew felt he should now release the recording he had made of the October meeting. He announced that fact at the February Board meeting and handed them a CD of the recording, which all the regional news channels covered. At that point, the Board finally started negotiating.

You can say what you like, but the fact is that nothing was going to be done unless we made this very public and put on the pressure. How do I know for sure? Simple. The Board said publicly they weren't going to do anything. I heard their statement as I was sitting just off camera while Anderson Cooper was interviewing Matthew.

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally. These are important principles. They are why Matthew is a hero to Americans United, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union. They are why an evangelical minister from Texas wrote Matthew personally to tell him that he was doing the right thing. That is why people all over the world read this story and wrote in or posted on their own blogs to call him a hero.

What were the means? Number one, they were completely within the law. Number two, they violated no rule, regulation or policy. There was nothing wrong with the means. Number three, they were necessary. Matthew acted in the only way he could that would be effective. He preserved an undeniable record of what was going on. Had he not done that, we wouldn't have gotten to first base, and you know it. In fact, that's what you wanted. Sorry, but we're not playing by your rules, and if he had to do it over again, he would. In a heartbeat. And I'd be right behind him, and so would a lot of other people.

You may not like it, but those are the facts. You just don't like how it turned out.

80842[/snapback]

After reading this long-winded blabber, did anyone else hear the giant Waaaa at the end ? Nothing like daddy lawyer pulling a few strings.

[Bryan]

I realize that this issue is old, and, as a result of the legal settlement, supposedly resolved.

However, I am shocked that this man is still teaching in any public school setting.  I am stunned that the town where I grew up and the high school where I was educated would allow this to happen.

The logistics of the recording and the popularity of Mr. Paszkiewicz are irrelevant.  Divorce yourself from the personal passions inherent to the case and consider that the teacher in question:

- Abused a position of authority to advance his personal beliefs;

Baloney.

- displayed incompetence for his position as evidenced by his teaching on science and ignorance of the U.S. Constitution;

Baloney.

and

- by virtue of his personal beliefs, made his students uncomfortable in their own ethics and mortality.

Doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing ... (a student who thinks it's okay to cheat on a test should be made to feel uncomfortable in his own ethics). Can you name one of these students, Mr. O'Donnell? Or are you just using your imagination?

This is grounds for immediate dismissal of Mr. Paszkiewicz.

Perhaps you'd better read over the union contract before you say such things.

[Guest Guest]

After reading this long-winded blabber, did anyone else hear the giant Waaaa at the end ?  Nothing like daddy lawyer pulling a few strings.

81168[/snapback]

He can only pull what he has. I hear "Waaa," alright, but not from him.

[Guest Guest]

Spin it any way you like.  The means were sneaky and underhanded.  He had the recordings of the classroom and the meetings but instead of producing them immediately he strung it out for effect. 

If you felt so strongly about the situation in the classroom, then you should have filed your law suit and let the courts handle it.  If the press picked up on it then so be it.

Personally, I couldn't care less what happens to DP.  He sounds like an idiot.  But being sneaky to serve some higher purpose doesn't make you look any better.

81147[/snapback]

Sure, file the lawsuit and be criticized for putting personal gain ahead of the issues. In the end, it hardly matters because some people are being critical anyway, and would be no matter what was done. They don't like the result, so they attack the means.

You can speculate about motives all day long, but that's all you're doing, you're guessing. The fact is that everything was done to give the teacher and the school an opportunity to do the right thing. That's not spin. That's fact. It was only when each of them failed that steps were taken toward legal proceedings. That is also fact.

Truth is, if the actions were effective (and they were), there would be criticicism no matter how it was done. You don't like the result. It has nothing to do with being sneaky. You're not considering the alternatives, and that's not fair.

"Sneaky and underhanded" is the spin here. You don't like the means, but they were the only means available. Without recordings, Paszkiewicz would have done exactly what he did anyway, which was to deny it, and that would have been the end of it. No proof, no corrective action, and Mr. Evangelizer is free to preach however he likes. That's what's sneaky and underhanded - taking advantage of a situation because he thinks he can.

Matthew made that impossible by having proof. He had it if he needed it. But there would have been no need to produce the recordings if the preachin' had been corrected in the classroom where it was done. That was the original request. The assemblies were schoolwide only because the school failed to do the right thing in the first place.

If the recordings had been produced immediately, what would have changed? Nothing. How do we know? Because when they were produced, the school system did nothing. We know what they would have done with the recordings because we know what they did with the recordings. They did what they always do, try to protect the teacher even if it means hurting the student, pretend there's no problem, cover it up and wait for it to go away. Only this one didn't go away. It still hasn't gone away, apparently. And as long as you keep talking about it, it won't.

[Guest KHS alumnus]

After reading this long-winded blabber, did anyone else hear the giant Waaaa at the end ?  Nothing like daddy lawyer pulling a few strings.

81168[/snapback]

It's Pastor P's apologists who are crying that they didn't get their way.

Waaaa, we're not allowed to preach in public school, waaaaaaa, the Constitution doesn't let us take over, waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Guest LOL]

Look D**bA**, if you want to nitpick I said he portrays himself as a hero.

But he said exactly the opposite, that he doesn't consider himself a hero, "D**bA**". And he doesn't act like it either.

He's not a hero.

He SHOULDN'T be a hero. But since so few people understand the Consitution and WHY it is the way it is, Matthew's ilk stand out.

He's a sneak

Awwww, what's the matter? Sore that a preaching teacher was caught in the act? Awwwww, poor baby. I guess every establishment with a hidden surveillance camera is a "sneak" too, right? Idiot.

and a self serving ego maniac

As opposed to Paszkiewicz, who insists that all Supreme Court rulings on the separation of church and state are wrong, but he is right, and that the whole thing is a myth? LOL, what are you smoking? Have you ever listened to one of Matthew's interviews? He's very humble. But hey, why bother, right? What's another piece of ignored audio evidence that contradicts you, right?

that has been invovled in this kind of thing for a long time.

Aww, have a tissue. How dare people stand up for their rights, right? How DARE Matthew not just sit down and shut up while his teacher tells his class anyone who doesn't share his beliefs goes to hell, that estblished science is a myth, and that if his kid didn't want to go to church, that he would BEAT HIM until he stopped objecting? Man, what's WRONG with that Matthew kid, right?

Serious question: ARE YOU RETARDED?

And you'd better check your post for grammar errors before you criticize someone elses spelling.

81148[/snapback]

Hey, I know how to spell "scary". Learned it in elementary school. What's your excuse?

[Guest Guest]

How?  The meeting with Somma, Woods, and Paszkiewicz?  Paszkiewicz told the truth; a better case can be made that Matthew lied in that meeting.

When/what/where?

... appropriately enough.

Do you still have copies?  Why not share them in order to add historical perspective?

The administration, as I understand it, acted by asking Paszkiewicz to take care not to permit additional reasons for complaint, and apparently he did a fairly decent job of that.  Apparently the administration acted, but not in the manner specified by the LaClairs.

Che Guevara is a hero to some.  It typically has something to do with ideology.

Not much mystery, there.

The LaClairs helped snooker Anderson Cooper, eh?  Thanks for the tip.

DAVID PASZIEWICZ, TEACHER: God is not only all loving. The way he describes himself in the scriptures, he is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you and is saying please accept me, believe. You reject that and you belong in Hell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So he's not talking about, you know, what a religion believes. He's talking about what he believes and stating it as fact.

LACLAIR: Exactly. And you know, every time he would talk about this issue, it wouldn't even be -- it wouldn't have been OK if he had just said, "This is my opinion." It still wouldn't have been OK in that case because he's a public schoolteacher.

Pretty sure they meant "AUDIO CLIP."  Note the way that they play an snippet out of context were Paszkiewicz really is talking about what a religion believes (as abundantly shown at this forum using the taped evidence).  Cooper apparently assumed otherwise and announces his incorrect view on national television--and young LaClair, who should know better, rubber stamps Cooper's assessment.

I suppose it helps that the mainstream media tend to have a dim view of traditional religion.  The bias is very useful to people like Paul LaClair.

What letter is that?

I'm sure Matthew had no idea how he could prove what was said in that meeting! 

Note how LaClair lays the groundwork for the reader to commit a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.  Very lawyerly.

Did they negotiate prior to the filing of the notice of claim?

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

Matthew's so wonderful ...

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

Paul hits his stride in blowhard mode.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally.

We've been over this, but LaClair always forgets.

The Constitution doesn't address this issue.  LaClair began squawking because he wants activist courts to interpret the Constitution a certain way over and against its historical understanding--and he's doing it because of his ideology, which is opposed to that of the men who wrote and signed the Constitution.

81087[/snapback]

Bryan’s world.

Paszkiewicz denied saying “you belong in hell,” even though he did. But somehow Matthew’s lying.

The administration acted even though they refused to correct what the teacher said and did.

It’s OK under the Constitution for public school teachers to preach their own religion in class.

Moons made of green cheese, rocks that think and mothers that don’t. And hey, there really were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark.

Bryan’s world.

[Guest Guest]

Spin it any way you like.  The means were sneaky and underhanded.

Still haven't heard any of you jackoffs suggest an alternative way of proving Paszkiewicz's wrongdoing where it wouldn't just be Matthew's word against Paszkiewicz's. Obviously if it was just word vs. word, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with the LYING Matthew also caught him doing.

Spin THAT anyway you like, but Matthew did what he had to do, and Paszkiewicz himself PROVED that that was the way it had to be done. Maybe if your beloved preacher-teacher wasn't caught lying, you'd have a leg to stand on. But he was, and you don't.

He had the recordings of the classroom and the meetings but instead of producing them immediately he strung it out for effect.

Guess what? If Paszkiewicz wasn't a liar, there would BE no "effect". The effect is of HIS creation, and Matthew predicted his dishonesty perfectly.

Waaaaa, he put the preacher-teacher in a position where his dishonesty was exposed, waaaaa!

If you felt so strongly about the situation in the classroom, then you should have filed your law suit and let the courts handle it.  If the press picked up on it then so be it.

Paul's said from the beginning that he didn't want it to come to that. Matthew went to that meeting, explained the situation, proved his case, and then basically asked them to fix it. Paszkiewicz and the Board ignored him! Why should they get away with trying to sweep this obvious wrongdoing under the rug? They had every right to expose the story to the media after it was obvious that's what was being attempted.

Matthew tried presenting his very clear-cut case to just a few relevant individuals. That didn't work. Matthew and Paul broke the story and put media pressure on the Board and Mr. P. to stop ignoring them and act in some way. THAT didn't work. As a last resort, Paul threatened legal action to force the Constitutional breach to be addressed, and he settled despite the fact that there was no way he could have lost that lawsuit. He settled when the Board finally agreed to do what needed to be done, keeping his word that he would not take anyone to court unless absolutely necessary.

Personally, I couldn't care less what happens to DP.  He sounds like an idiot.  But being sneaky to serve some higher purpose doesn't make you look any better.

81147[/snapback]

It's not sneaky to gather evidence of (really, REALLY obvious) wrongdoing. The sneaky one is the guy trying to get away with telling non-Christians where they 'belong' in a public school classroom.

[Guest Guest]

Paul/Rex/Guest must be OCD.  Only someone afflicted with OCD would

  continuously type the same trite garbage over and over and over again.

81059[/snapback]

(Wow, every "Guest" is the same person to you?)

If people like you weren't always lying, they wouldn't have to repetitiously correct the lies.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Unknown

[Guest Kearny Conscious]

You're wrong. You would have heard very little about the situation if David Paszkiewicz (DP) and the administration had done what we asked them to do in the beginning, before the story went public. Matthew gave DP a chance to tell the truth about what he had done, but he did not. Matthew also gave him the opportunity to make it right, but he did not do that either. In fact, to this day DP seems to believe that he did nothing wrong. So that was door number one closed to Matthew's attempt to do his job and walk away. He tried. He effort was refused.

80842[/snapback]

It is curious that you would start using DP in reference to this individual. I assume that someone must have told you for the generation preceding yours that those initial signified something other than his initials. This is another attempt at your childish humor. I still find it curious that you never mention that Matthew never approached the teacher until after he had made the tapes and presented them to Mr. Somma. You keep leaving those minor facts out. You long winded posting here is just like your criticism about religion. If you say it enough times and write it down, let enough time past and then it must be the truth. You forget there were other students there well other than your son. Not everyone has the luxury of the Gucciardo Law Firm.

Similarly, the administration refused to act. We gave them a month, and I wrote four letters personally asking them to address the situation. They refused. That was the second door closed. We tried. Our efforts were refused.

80842[/snapback]

It becomes curious from this point on that it goes from Matthew to the royal “we.” This is where you personally start your media assault going to all the newspapers to make a name for yourself. Not everyone has the luxury of the Gucciardo Law Firm.

At that point, we had three choices: (1) file a Notice of Claim, (2) go to the press or (3) drop the whole thing. Option 3 was out of the question. The issue was too important. Obviously you don't think so, and you refuse to accept that our motives were what we say they are. You are desperate for another explanation why Matthew has been given multiple awards, and continues to be sought after. You just can't understand why anyone would want to give him an award or call him a hero. And since you don't understand what he did, naturally you make it out to be something negative. That's just your biases and your ignorance talking. "Ignorance" is a tough word, I know, but unfortunately the shoe fits, and others have already put it on you whether you accept the fact or not.

80842[/snapback]

Again with the “we”, this now becomes a personal assault by you instead of an issue with a teacher and a student. It becomes your soundboard for making a name for Paul LaClair. You now are using your son in the older profession for your own self gain. History does not change.

So now your claim is that Matthew should have done his job and walked away. The problem with that way of looking at it is that there was no way to do the job without making a very big public fuss. And why? Because people like you were already telling us to shut up and go away. You didn't want the situation corrected. You didn't care. So we had to make it a very public fight.

80842[/snapback]

People are still telling you and wishing you would shut up and go away. Using your lawyers experience, the way you weasel-worded the transcripts to make them what they never were in the first place. You had your niche and Matthew was your snitch.

Even if we had filed a Notice of Claim, it still would have ended up in the press. So we decided to go to the press first, hoping that would shame the administration into action when the community saw this for what it was: blatant and indefensible misconduct. The community reacted, alright, but mainly to defend the indefensible. The Board refused to act, thinking they could ride it out.

80842[/snapback]

Despite the entire community saying you were wrong you still pressed on. Much like a man on a horse chasing a windmill. But that was just a fictitious story and I do not think you know the difference.

Then I got the call from the New York Times. I knew your goose was cooked, but no one would listen. The Board still refused to act. On the evening after the story had just run in the New York Times, the Board issued a statement (read on air by Anderson Cooper), saying it was refusing to act so as not to "reopen" the issue. What a ridiculous thing to say. The issue was wide open. How much more wide open could it be?

80842[/snapback]

I especially love the tone of this paragraph. This has nothing to do with Matthew. You got a call from the New York Times. Makes the hairs on the back of your tingle to this day I am sure. Vengeance sweet vengeance was yours. You standing side by side with Anderson Cooper, this now became a media circus for you. I guess it was someone to show your new pair of suspenders too. The people of Kearny are not impressed. It wasn’t yet wide open still that you could have fit through that door.

Two months of highly unfavorable publicity followed, including an editorial in The New York Times entitled "A Strange Silence in Kearny," all blasting the Board for its inaction. Finally, in Febuary, we filed our Notice of Claim and held a press conference, which all the regional news channels covered. DP had just written a letter denying that he had not been forthcoming in the meeting in Mr. Somma's office in October. Since those remarks called Matthew's public statements into question, Matthew felt he should now release the recording he had made of the October meeting. He announced that fact at the February Board meeting and handed them a CD of the recording, which all the regional news channels covered. At that point, the Board finally started negotiating.

80842[/snapback]

Now we all know a Junior in Kearny High School has the knowledge to file a Notice of Claim. Welcome to the world of Lawyer LaClair. Matthew then giggles for the camera and says he might be interested in law. He should knowing it will pay for his college with the bribes.

You can say what you like, but the fact is that nothing was going to be done unless we made this very public and put on the pressure. How do I know for sure? Simple. The Board said publicly they weren't going to do anything. I heard their statement as I was sitting just off camera while Anderson Cooper was interviewing Matthew.

80842[/snapback]

Now comes another interesting part, Lawyer LaClair says he heard the Boards statement but doe not give names. He just tosses out facts without any substantial evidence. Sustained! That is not being a good lawyer. It’s what he protests when other people do it here.

By this point, the whole world knew about the story. Now I suppose Matthew could have refused all the offers that came his way, but why should he? He didn't ask for any of those awards, or for a documentary film to be made, or to be offered a summer internship at a major financial house because the former CEO admired what he had done. All of that came from others, freely and without our asking for any of it.

80842[/snapback]

All of that came with the help of Dad. All of that came with the Town’s expense.

And you're just dead wrong if you think that this could have been done any other way. This was the only way to make it happen. The proof is that the Board said they would not act. They said it publicly and explicitly. That's proof beyond any doubt.

So what was the end? It was to defend the US Constitution against blatant religious proselytizing in a public school, to defend science education and the integrity of education generally. These are important principles. They are why Matthew is a hero to Americans United, People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union. They are why an evangelical minister from Texas wrote Matthew personally to tell him that he was doing the right thing. That is why people all over the world read this story and wrote in or posted on their own blogs to call him a hero.

80842[/snapback]

The American people are so much better off today because of Matthew LaClair. He gave his dad all the ammunition he needed. That is the story of the boy named Matthew LaClair. The person who has to be driven to Brothers to eat his lunches alone. The isolation world set up for him by his father. That is the hero you made. Seems you forgot about the “Z” in the front of hero.

What were the means? Number one, they were completely within the law. Number two, they violated no rule, regulation or policy. There was nothing wrong with the means. Number three, they were necessary. Matthew acted in the only way he could that would be effective. He preserved an undeniable record of what was going on. Had he not done that, we wouldn't have gotten to first base, and you know it. In fact, that's what you wanted. Sorry, but we're not playing by your rules, and if he had to do it over again, he would. In a heartbeat. And I'd be right behind him, and so would a lot of other people.

80842[/snapback]

You say sorry we’re not playing by your rules. Funny but this comes from the same person who says he lives and breathes by rules defending the Constitution. Again with the we. It’s not like you were behind him. It’s more like you were leading him.

You may not like it, but those are the facts. You just don't like how it turned out.

80842[/snapback]

It turned out fine as far as I am concerned. You and your family are a sty in the eye of Kearny. You have isolated yourself from the rest of your family as well as many people in the community and it is less than 5 months until he is out of the Kearny School System and someone else’s worry. Congratulations to the father of the year of 2007.

[Guest Charlie Brown]

Why not direct this to the one who actually reopened the topic? Could it be that your actual desire is not that everyone stop talking about it, but only the side you disagree with?

81060[/snapback]

Uh, no. I would prefer that both sides put an end to this nonsense. Good grief!

[Guest Guest]

Completely unregulated surveillance only sets us up for further abuse, you imbecile. Imagine you were curious, so you did some research on a specific type of cancer. Now you apply for health insurance, and the company finds out about those searches by doing a 'background check' where they basically pay to look at what you've been doing online. Now you're denied health insurance because the company feels it's too risky to insure you based on that.

Or a future employer finds that you posted on this controversial web site. They don't like any controversy, therefore, you're not hired.

[billydee4]

One quick point - you cannot retape a door from the inside.

80827[/snapback]

I was talking about someone who opened the door and broke the original tape, then reclosed the door and put a new piece of their own tape on the outside of the door. That way no one he/she could be gone for as much as eight hours before anyone knew that someone was missing. In the morning, after the student came back and broke the second tape, the chaperones would know only that someone had gone out. But they wouldn't know who left , how long the person was out, or what the person did.

[Guest Paul]

Spin it any way you like.  The means were sneaky and underhanded.  He had the recordings of the classroom and the meetings but instead of producing them immediately he strung it out for effect. 

If you felt so strongly about the situation in the classroom, then you should have filed your law suit and let the courts handle it.  If the press picked up on it then so be it.

Personally, I couldn't care less what happens to DP.  He sounds like an idiot.  But being sneaky to serve some higher purpose doesn't make you look any better.

81147[/snapback]

I’m really trying to understand your comments, but unfortunately you’re making a couple of judgments without explaining them. Let’s look a little deeper.

“Sneaky and underhanded” is a value judgment. You’re not explaining that value judgment, and that’s ironic. Your use of the words “sneaky and underhanded” is itself sneaky and underhanded, and most definitely spin, both of which you criticize when you think someone else is doing it – but then you do them both yourself. My post is long because it contains facts. Yes, I put in my conclusions, but I explain them with the facts. You didn’t do that. All you did was spin, then accuse me of it. If you’re going to make that accusation, you should not do it yourself. At least that’s my value judgment.

So what happened? Matthew used a very mild form of deception in recording his classes. It wasn’t active deception, as in the case of lying. It consisted only in recording without the other party’s knowledge. He hid the recorder so no one would know he was recording. You’re absolutely right about that.

Deception isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are plenty of circumstances where our culture applauds it and considers it clever and laudable. People have won medals from our military for “good” deceptions, which we might define loosely as deceptions that serve an important and just cause and are therefore entirely justified.

Take for example the conduct of military leaders in a war. They use deception to fool the enemy whenever they can. In the first Gulf war, for example, our military “leaked” the intended movement of our forces to the press, which promptly broadcast it all over the world. In fact, our attack was being planned from another direction. The purpose of “leaking” the false information to the media was to deceive the enemy. It seemed to work, we annihilated the Iraqi forces in a few days, and all America applauded. That was “good” deception.

Take another example. If Eli Manning or Tom Brady fakes a handoff, then steps back to pass, the purpose of the fake handoff is to deceive the opposition. If one or two defenders goes for the running back (who doesn’t have the ball), freeing the field so that a short pass goes for a long gain or a touchdown, everyone rooting for the team on offense will cheer. That will be “good deception.” It’s an accepted and honored part of the game.

Contrast that with the situation earlier this year when New England was stealing the Giants’ signals. That deception is beyond the limits allowed in the sport. In sports, playing the game properly is about rules. New England’s conduct was considered sneaky, underhanded and wrong; to use another word, it was cheating. That was “bad” deception.

Take another example. Manning throws to his receiver Toomer, who has to fall toward the ground to make the catch. He gets the ball in his hands, but on his way down he bobbles it and it hits the ground a split second before his knee touches the turf. He knows it’s not a legal catch, but he comes up holding the ball, signifying a catch. He’s trying to deceive the officials. Is this good deception or bad deception, and why?

Vary that example a little. Same play as before, again Toomer bobbles the ball on the way down, but this time he doesn’t come up showing the officials the ball as though he had caught it. The officials call it a catch anyway. (Assume this is before review by video replay.) Is Toomer obligated to tell them that he didn’t catch the ball? Obviously not (if you know the game), but why not? Isn’t accepting the result as a completed pass dishonest and deceptive? So why isn’t he obligated to tell them he didn’t catch it? And yet if you follow football, you know that he is not expected to do that; and moreover, if he does it, he’ll be lucky if he ever plays another minute for that team. If he’s honest, that’s considered wrong behavior, he’ll be booed off the team. So what’s right?

These are all examples where dishonesty is valued more than honesty. So you can’t just say “it’s deceitful, end of story.”

To make a value judgment in a case like this, we have to consider several things:

1. What are the expectations of the people involved?

2. What is the basis for their expectations?

3. In what ways are their expectations important to them and to the community?

4. What are their motives?

5. What is the quality of their motives?

6. What are their legitimate interests?

7. What consequences will ensue if expectations are violated?

8. What is the best rule for this kind of situation?

9. Are there circumstances that call for breaking the rules?

10. What is best for the community in the long run?

No doubt there are other questions, but those come to mind now. Considering this case, we say that Matthew’s deception was “good” deception. The teacher has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the public's classroom, especially when he is violating the public trust. The teacher’s motives in this case were to advance his personal agenda, not the public’s agenda, which is to teach the material. The consequences of being found out are (1) the incident is undoubtedly in his personnel file, (2) he is under greater pressure now to do what he was supposed to do all along and (3) much needed (obviously needed) training has occurred.

My conclusion under the circumstances is that Matthew did the best thing under the circumstances. There was deception, but it wasn’t sneaky or underhanded because no one’s legitimate interests were violated in any meaningful way by the recordings being made. If he faced the situation again and asked me what he should do (he wouldn’t because he already knows), I would tell him to do exactly the same thing. This was not innocuous behavior by this teacher. Of course, people who don't care about church-state separation or evolutionary biology don't care, but the one is established law and the other is established science; the school is obligated to follow the law and teach the science. Therefore, what Matthew did was good and important.

Disagree if you like, but have the moral character and intellectual integrity to explain your position and relate it to human values. Spitting out a couple of words that are nothing but your spin on the matter, without any evidence that you’re actually thinking about what really went on, adds nothing to the discussion and does not do justice to the issues or to the people involved.

As for your remarks about Matthew's motives, I am his father and I know his motives better than you do. On that point, you are simply wrong.

If, at long last, you have the integrity and courage to have this discussion face to face, I am available.

[WilliamK]

After reading this long-winded blabber, did anyone else hear the giant Waaaa at the end

81168[/snapback]

No. Perhaps it was only audible to imbeciles.

[WilliamK]

And wtf, posting Mathew LaClair in Google? Google's a search engine, nitwit. The point is that you can find tons of people calling Matthew a hero all over the Internet. But show me one single example where Matthew refers to himself as a "hero". I dare you. I double dare you.

You imbecile. *lol*

Look D**bA**, if you want to nitpick I said he portrays himself as a hero.

81148[/snapback]

Ok then, show us an example where Matthew "portrays" himself as a hero.

[Guest Guest]

But you can tear the tape on all the other doors before you re-enter so that no one can pin you down as the culprit.

Obviously, anyone willing to actually sneak out of a hotel room, would have no problem with doing that to cover his/her tracks. On top of being disrespectful to the good kids, the tape is totally worthless in catching someone breaking the rules.

Just think for a moment, people.

81077[/snapback]

What a defeatist attitude. Remind me never to send my kids on anything you'd chaperone.

[Guest Guest]

Why was he not fired? Was it the teachers union? An incompetent Board of Ed? Or are our public school standards now so low that anything goes?

81161[/snapback]

Or perhaps a general sense of proportion that seems to escape you.