Jump to content

KHS Teacher Controversy


Guest Unknown

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have been following this story in the news and now on this board, and I have to say it seems this boy (or from what I'm reading on here, his father) has taken an issue that he was clearly in the right to be disturbed about, and then in his actions has alienated himself and actually looks like the bad guy.

As a lawyer, I would think you would want to advise your client that the court of public opinion is a very important one, and because of his cowardness, and really yours, the teacher no longer looks like the bad guy, your son does.

Did you go to the teacher or principal Mr. LeClair?  Not Matt, but you.  I am a father, and if my son was having problems with a class, my course of action wouldn't have been to tell my child “tape him and we'll nail his ass" (maybe I'm paraphrasing, I unfortunately didn't get to tape your conversations with your son), it would instead have been to set up an appointment myself, and try to remedy any problems.  You seem to be very quick to come to his defense now, I'm just wondering why you didn't feel you should get involved in his classes and problems right away. Puzzling.

Additionally, what result were you looking for?  News stations covered the story, Papers printed it.  The school stated it has taken action.  What that action is, is really not up to you.  I'm not involved in the school, but I would imagine they have the right to deal with problems as they see fit.  Whatever action they took, really needs to be accepted and move on.  Or have you decided to start responding in these forums now because you know the real problem is over, and you can't help but try to continue throwing fuel on the fire?

Again, as I stated, I believe the teacher was in the wrong originally, but it seems that you've made your point and the school says it's been corrected.  I would imagine the only thing to do now is wait to see if he continues with the inappropriate discussions.  If he does, by all means call Al Roker again.  If he doesn't, be quiet.

To you he and I may look like the bad guys. Others take a very different view. Google "you belong in hell," and survey the blogs all over the world where this has been discussed. The vast majority support Matthew, and have also been quite complimentary to his parents. If he can take all this heat, I suppose I can take some, too. Read the commentary on these blogs, and then look again. You may see a very different picture.

As for the court of public opinion, the fact that this teacher has been getting away with this for years, and would have gotten away with it in this class with not one student raising protest except Matthew tells me volumes. I appreciate the importance of public opinion, but when remarks like this are given a pass by an entire community, a principled person has to ask himself whether it is worth standing up to his own community.

To answer your questions, we were and are looking for three things:

1. Correction of the unscientific and false statements this teacher made in open class. They undermine the school's science curriculum. In one case he mis-stated the purposes of public education, which have been addressed by the US Supreme Court.

2. A statement about the line between church and state in a public school.

3. Quality control procedures to ensure this does not happen again.

As an attorney, you should recognize that as custodial parent I have legal standing on these matters. Why were you so quick to take the school's word that the matter has been corrected? It has not.

To answer your next question, I made it very clear to Matthew that I was prepared to discuss this with the principal. He insisted on handling it himself, another excellent example of courage on his part. Neither of us saw any point in taking this to the teacher, who was obviously on an evangelical mission and completely out of control. All he would have done was stop in Matthew's class and continue in every other. Why is that our concern? Because we value the Constitution and the quality of education.

To answer your final question, I decided to respond here (1) to take the heat off my son, you put it on me if you want to, and (2) to answer people's questions in the hope of calming the situation and explaining our position to those who are interested. If this is over and it's time to move on, why did you post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following this story in the news and now on this board, and I have to say it seems this boy (or from what I'm reading on here, his father) has taken an issue that he was clearly in the right to be disturbed about, and then in his actions has alienated himself and actually looks like the bad guy.

As a lawyer, I would think you would want to advise your client that the court of public opinion is a very important one, and because of his cowardness, and really yours, the teacher no longer looks like the bad guy, your son does.

Did you go to the teacher or principal Mr. LeClair?  Not Matt, but you.  I am a father, and if my son was having problems with a class, my course of action wouldn't have been to tell my child “tape him and we'll nail his ass" (maybe I'm paraphrasing, I unfortunately didn't get to tape your conversations with your son), it would instead have been to set up an appointment myself, and try to remedy any problems.  You seem to be very quick to come to his defense now, I'm just wondering why you didn't feel you should get involved in his classes and problems right away. Puzzling.

Additionally, what result were you looking for?  News stations covered the story, Papers printed it.  The school stated it has taken action.  What that action is, is really not up to you.  I'm not involved in the school, but I would imagine they have the right to deal with problems as they see fit.  Whatever action they took, really needs to be accepted and move on.  Or have you decided to start responding in these forums now because you know the real problem is over, and you can't help but try to continue throwing fuel on the fire?

Again, as I stated, I believe the teacher was in the wrong originally, but it seems that you've made your point and the school says it's been corrected.  I would imagine the only thing to do now is wait to see if he continues with the inappropriate discussions.  If he does, by all means call Al Roker again.  If he doesn't, be quiet.

Clarification: At my request, Matthew did request a meeting with the principal, the teacher and us. The principal indicated that the parents would not be permitted at such a meeting, or at least that is how Matthew understood him. Therefore, Matthew chose to attend the meeting without us. So Matt did not insist on handling this entirely on his own, but when our request was turned down, he handled it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Concerned Citizen
Sneak.  The BOE should put an end to this.  The Teacher, the preacher and all, would have lied but for the tape.  Now he should be suspended.  Only in Hudson County would this be tolerated.  Enough is enough Kearny is the laughing stock of the country.  The internet has leveled the playing field, the BOE will have to address this flagrant misuse of the classroom.  He should be teaching History not have discussions on whose going to hell and why. 

Kearny BOE members do your job before this becomes a bigger issue than it already is.

All of you anti-religion zealots need to chill out. The teacher should be told to stop talking about religion in the classroom, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarification: At my request, Matthew did request a meeting with the principal, the teacher and us. The principal indicated that the parents would not be permitted at such a meeting, or at least that is how Matthew understood him. Therefore, Matthew chose to attend the meeting without us. So Matt did not insist on handling this entirely on his own, but when our request was turned down, he handled it.

I think Somma would call you a liar on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarification: At my request, Matthew did request a meeting with the principal, the teacher and us. The principal indicated that the parents would not be permitted at such a meeting, or at least that is how Matthew understood him. Therefore, Matthew chose to attend the meeting without us. So Matt did not insist on handling this entirely on his own, but when our request was turned down, he handled it.

A meeting like adults would have been too easy and wouldn't have served the Paul and Matt's purpose. This is what lawyers do under the banner of the Constitution. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul I know you and Matt are pretty busy setting up this teacher, but do you think you could take some time and stop the Nutcracker performance at Kearny High. After all, this is a ballet that is traditionally performed during a religious season. This could be a case of blurring the lines between church and state.

And while you're at it, can you also see if you can stop Santos from putting up any religious diplays in front of the town hall.

My nuts thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're so silly.  You'd rather have a robot teaching the kids than a person who is willing to give his or her opinion and lead an open discussion, even an off topic one.

Stop acting like this teacher was baptizing kids against their will in his classroom.  LaClair had plenty of options, especially since his father is a lawyer.  Instead he chose to tape this teacher, without the teacher knowing it, which is probably in violation of the teacher's rights and his contract. 

You're talking about dignity?!?! LaClair needs to learn a few lessons about dignity.

Typical straw man. You're challenged to address content, then you don't.

No one is suggesting a robot teach our kids. We are suggesting responsible teachers who understand what they may and may not do in a classroom under our Constitution; and who know when they are outside their area of training. Paszkiewicz did not merely wander innocently off topic. He systematically proselytized, directing the discussion from one area to another to promote his agenda. That is not teaching. It is proselytizing, and it is a violation of his duty. Then, when the student was not buying his proselytizing, he said "you belong in hell." As someone else said on this list, "pathetic." The defenses of this teacher's conduct --- not as a man or as a crew coach, but in this classroom and in the principal's office --- are pathetic. You may believe as you choose, but under the law this conduct will not stand.

You can complain all you like about the student's conduct, but he has no duty to you, and unlike the teacher he violated no law or regulation. The teacher has a duty to the public and his students, and violated it. You can like it or not like it, but that is the law, and it is good law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul I know you and Matt are pretty busy setting up this teacher, but do you think you could take some time and stop the Nutcracker performance at Kearny High. After all, this is a ballet that is traditionally performed during a religious season. This could be a case of blurring the lines between church and state.

Interesting. I better go see this ballet. I hadn't planned on it but now I will. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay folks, here's my take on this mess. The reason why the separation of church and state seems like a problem now is because most of the residents of Kearny belong to a Christian based religion. Accordingly, Mr. P's discussion of Christian theology does not offend our belief system - so the attention turns to the poor behavior of the student and his dad (I can't believe someone could be so offended over scientific integrity, but whatever, that's for a different blog). However, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. At some point, perhaps many, many, many years in the future, Islam may be the largest religion in the United States. If Mr. P had been preaching fundamentalist Islamic notions to our Christian children, perhaps Christians (now in the minority) would feel differently about the need to ensure that religion stays out of the classroom.

That being said - it seems that the student requested corrective actions and an apology from the teacher. It seems that the teacher stopped talking about religion at that point, but no apology was offered. If the ends were accomplished in this matter - was it really necessary to engage the papers, the media and the over-burdened legal system in continued pursuit of an apology? Man - what a waste of time and energy.

Lastly, let us assume that everything the student and his father have stated are 100% correct. I believe that a teacher with a solid reputation and 15 years of service should receive a warning and be allowed to continue to teach until he proves himself unable to avoid future discussions of religion. I also imagine that with the strength of the union behind him, and the support of students and fellow teachers and administraiton members around him, that the only penalty the teacher WOULD receive is a warning.

At least the dad seems to be of average intelligence. With his years of experience in law - assuming he's worth his salt - he would have to know that there would be not much more punitive action to be taken against the teacher. If it is about ensuring that the teacher and administration do not penalize the student (directly or indirectly) for taking the steps that he did - okay, I can understand that. But as far as how other students, residents and others view the father and the son - well, the First Amendment guarantees us freedom of expression. As far as I know it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what we speak. I'm sorry, but it just seems like more of an attention grab (or vendetta against the teacher) than just a simple effort to get the teacher to stop discussing religion in the classroom.

Maybe it's just me ... I've been known to have a skewed opinion on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay folks, here's my take on this mess.  The reason why the separation of church and state seems like a problem now is because most of the residents of Kearny belong to a Christian based religion.  Accordingly, Mr. P's discussion of Christian theology does not offend our belief system - so the attention turns to the poor behavior of the student and his dad (I can't believe someone could be so offended over scientific integrity, but whatever, that's for a different blog).  However, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.  At some point, perhaps many, many, many years in the future, Islam may be the largest religion in the United States.  If Mr. P had been preaching fundamentalist Islamic notions to our Christian children, perhaps Christians (now in the minority) would feel differently about the need to ensure that religion stays out of the classroom.

That being said - it seems that the student requested corrective actions and an apology from the teacher.  It seems that the teacher stopped talking about religion at that point, but no apology was offered.  If the ends were accomplished in this matter - was it really necessary to engage the papers, the media and the over-burdened legal system in continued pursuit of an apology?  Man - what a waste of time and energy.

Lastly, let us assume that everything the student and his father have stated are 100% correct.  I believe that a teacher with a solid reputation and 15 years of service should receive a warning and be allowed to continue to teach until he proves himself unable to avoid future discussions of religion.  I also imagine that with the strength of the union behind him, and the support of students and fellow teachers and administraiton members around him, that the only penalty the teacher WOULD receive is a warning. 

At least the dad seems to be of average intelligence.  With his years of experience in law - assuming he's worth his salt - he would have to know that there would be not much more punitive action to be taken against the teacher.  If it is about ensuring that the teacher and administration do not penalize the student (directly or indirectly) for taking the steps that he did - okay, I can understand that.  But as far as how other students, residents and others view the father and the son - well, the First Amendment guarantees us freedom of expression.  As far as I know it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what we speak.  I'm sorry, but it just seems like more of an attention grab (or vendetta against the teacher) than just a simple effort to get the teacher to stop discussing religion in the classroom.

Maybe it's just me ... I've been known to have a skewed opinion on things.

The teacher may have a track record of bringing religion into his classroom discussions. At the same time, LaClair is not just a kid bringing up an issue that he was confronted with. He has a history of looking for these situations and is a zealot in his own right.

This is a situation that should have been handled internally with the Principal, parents, and teacher. But of course, being a lawyer, this was not good enough for the LaClairs. The statement that Paul LaClair made in a previous post; that the Principal would not have a meeting with the parents and teacher is probably a long way from the facts if not a complete lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you're not forcing us, STOP SHOUTING. There's very little difference, not to mention the fact that more than one teacher tried to force him physically to stand. Before you criticize those who take unpopular positions, try walking a mile in our shoes.

Paul, you need help. I will not use "!" no more for you might think I'm "SHOUTING" at you. I think I know your problem-- Too Sensitive, possibly a complex. :wacko:

Now, for some reason you say I am forcing you? Forcing you to do what?

I f some teacher, or as you say, "more than one", "physically" tried to "force" your son to stand why did you not start your crusade then? Especially if there was "physical FORCE"?

I am not "criticizing" your unpopular position, merely expressing my FREEDOM of speech.

You know, you're out here combating every post that someone writes, don't you understand that you are not the only one that freedom of speech is for? They are exercising their opinion as you are yours, so stop trying to "FORCE" everyone to accept your way is the right way, especially if we have to wear YOUR SHOES. :o:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A. Scalia

I have to say, this was a fair response. Thank you. Although, I must reiterate that I plainly stated that the teacher was in error and therefore, I am not showing any sort of pro-Christian bias. I see the majority making concessions to appease the minority everyday in this country -- especially in Kearny. To imagine this from a Muslim perspective is not such an earth-shattering twist. I would criticize a Muslim teacher just as I criticized this Christian one. Likewise, I would criticize a student for subjugating the Muslim teacher's authority if he took identical actions against the teacher.

In regards to the flag salute, we have opposing viewpoints. I do not see the flag salute as a way to send a message about the current president's administration. I see that medium as Election Day. I remember reading a letter that Matthew wrote on the topic in which he made reference to Nazi Germany. The way I see it, we do not say the pledge to act like Nazis, we say it to honor the men and women who died stopping them.

With respect to gleaning an outside opinion on the topic one merely has to Google the incident to find plenty of opinions. However, rather than seeing a fresh perspective on the matter I see the opinions split on the same old party lines. Many of those who support your son seem to be attached to liberal blog sites. Many of those in opposition are obviously conservatives. Those in support are making statements that the teacher is a "bad teacher," or somehow mentally deficient, or are attacking his character without having met him. In short, they make arguments as biased and unsupported as many of the people who attack you.

In closing, I have ask why legal action will follow? This has become a national story and brought incredible hardship upon the teacher, his family, the school, and the other students - not to mention your own son. If not already reprimanded, surely the teacher will be. Furthermore, all other teachers have learned an unforgettable lesson from this event. It appears to me that it would make more of a statement to your opposition to let the matter rest at that. Certainly, legal action will only enforce the beliefs that many already held about your motives from the outset, whether they be true or not.

Matt had more than enough courage to tell the teacher "no." It would have been far easier than this. When you phrase it that way, you make your own biases obvious. He chose to do it this way. It was his choice, though I fully supported it. He has taken on far more than I would have at his age, and I have no hesitation to admit that he is more courageous than I am. But you are quite right that he is my son, so you blame it on me if you want to. He has taken more than enough heat for doing the right thing.

You also reveal your biases when you call his other actions disrespectful. They are no such thing. Sitting quietly and peacably while others participate in a ritual is entirely respectful. Forcing and abusing those who march to a different drummer is not. Matthew is making a statement about freedom, a very important one considering the direction the country is heading. Again, I never had the courage to sit out the pledge. He has it. I admire him for it. You are free to disagree, but at least call it what it is.

Why are you defending the teacher's conduct? I ask again: If this was a Muslim teacher telling your mostly Christian children that they will go to hell if they do not accept Allah and the Koran, would you say the same thing? Why are you not upset at the disrespect this teacher showed every non-Christian in this town? Does it have anything to do with who is in the majority? If so, what does that say about what kind of "freedom" we really believe in?

It is painfully obvious listening to the recordings that as good as Mr. P. is when he actually teaches history, he was deliberately proselytizing, knowing it to be a Constitutional violation. Had Matthew merely confronted him, he would have stopped in that class and continued to do it everywhere else. Are you aware he denied making most of these statements in the meeting in the principal's office? Are you aware that he would have gotten away with it if Matthew had not recorded him? Are you aware that we practically begged the administration to resolve this with us privately, but they refused? Had either they or Mr. P acted honorably, this would have been resolved without all the media exposure. So how about pointing the finger at the guilty parties, and meanwhile look what people outside Kearny are saying. This was no small infraction. It was an outrage, and all the world knows it except those here who happen to like Mr. P. He may be everything you say he is, but he has no one to blame for this but himself, and the administration has nothing to blame for any legal action that may follow but its own intransigence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay folks, here's my take on this mess.  The reason why the separation of church and state seems like a problem now is because most of the residents of Kearny belong to a Christian based religion.  Accordingly, Mr. P's discussion of Christian theology does not offend our belief system - so the attention turns to the poor behavior of the student and his dad (I can't believe someone could be so offended over scientific integrity, but whatever, that's for a different blog).  However, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.  At some point, perhaps many, many, many years in the future, Islam may be the largest religion in the United States.  If Mr. P had been preaching fundamentalist Islamic notions to our Christian children, perhaps Christians (now in the minority) would feel differently about the need to ensure that religion stays out of the classroom.

That being said - it seems that the student requested corrective actions and an apology from the teacher.  It seems that the teacher stopped talking about religion at that point, but no apology was offered.  If the ends were accomplished in this matter - was it really necessary to engage the papers, the media and the over-burdened legal system in continued pursuit of an apology?  Man - what a waste of time and energy.

Lastly, let us assume that everything the student and his father have stated are 100% correct.  I believe that a teacher with a solid reputation and 15 years of service should receive a warning and be allowed to continue to teach until he proves himself unable to avoid future discussions of religion.  I also imagine that with the strength of the union behind him, and the support of students and fellow teachers and administraiton members around him, that the only penalty the teacher WOULD receive is a warning. 

At least the dad seems to be of average intelligence.  With his years of experience in law - assuming he's worth his salt - he would have to know that there would be not much more punitive action to be taken against the teacher.  If it is about ensuring that the teacher and administration do not penalize the student (directly or indirectly) for taking the steps that he did - okay, I can understand that.  But as far as how other students, residents and others view the father and the son - well, the First Amendment guarantees us freedom of expression.  As far as I know it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what we speak.  I'm sorry, but it just seems like more of an attention grab (or vendetta against the teacher) than just a simple effort to get the teacher to stop discussing religion in the classroom.

Maybe it's just me ... I've been known to have a skewed opinion on things.

:wacko: i do not know who you are "BUT" in this case i can't agree with you more! you make your point very well! now as for paul i would say to him "go west young man" cal is the place you want to be! gloria allred needs help! you and her could chase the news makers together! heck ya mite even get in a few tv shows like her! heck thats what you want right???? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand, and very much appreciate the civility of your comments. Of course standing for the flag and reciting the pledge are signs of respect and honor. However, so is taking a principled position to sit quietly to make the point that we're taking these rituals far too seriously. I truly believe that there is too little love of country these day. We are in a war, but what sacrifices are we civilians making? Practically none. As Bill Maher puts it, our soldiers are at war, we're shopping.

So Matthew chose to make the point that patriotism isn't about rituals. It's about the real work of citizenship. Can you see the validity of his point?

So what sacrifices has Matthew made for the soldiers? Does "the real work of citizenship" end when the limelight fades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its a history class, why did Matt LaClair ASK him about Religion? It was a trap, plain and simple. Matt asked the teacher a question about religion--and before the teacher answered he asked the class if they minded  he'' went in this direction'' to which there was a chorus of "no's"so he continued.

My child,who is a 16yr old at KHS, says this kid- besides refusing to stand for the "Pledge of Allegience" also complains that our money states " In God we trust"...I'll betcha anything he doesn't mind spending it though!

That is false. The teacher started talking about religion. Not just any religion, but his personal theology. Matthew and others asked questions in response. That is hardly being set up

Even if it was true, the proper response is to tell the students that he is not allowed to express his personal religious beliefs in a public school. That is the law, and the teacher was obligated to abide by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what will happen if Matt runs into a self serving crusader who tries to destroy his career in the future? Will Matt think that person courageous?

If he lies himself into a mess after doing things he should not do, he will have only himself to blame. The same is true for any of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay folks, here's my take on this mess.  The reason why the separation of church and state seems like a problem now is because most of the residents of Kearny belong to a Christian based religion.  Accordingly, Mr. P's discussion of Christian theology does not offend our belief system - so the attention turns to the poor behavior of the student and his dad (I can't believe someone could be so offended over scientific integrity, but whatever, that's for a different blog).  However, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.  At some point, perhaps many, many, many years in the future, Islam may be the largest religion in the United States.  If Mr. P had been preaching fundamentalist Islamic notions to our Christian children, perhaps Christians (now in the minority) would feel differently about the need to ensure that religion stays out of the classroom.

That being said - it seems that the student requested corrective actions and an apology from the teacher.  It seems that the teacher stopped talking about religion at that point, but no apology was offered.  If the ends were accomplished in this matter - was it really necessary to engage the papers, the media and the over-burdened legal system in continued pursuit of an apology?  Man - what a waste of time and energy.

Lastly, let us assume that everything the student and his father have stated are 100% correct.  I believe that a teacher with a solid reputation and 15 years of service should receive a warning and be allowed to continue to teach until he proves himself unable to avoid future discussions of religion.  I also imagine that with the strength of the union behind him, and the support of students and fellow teachers and administraiton members around him, that the only penalty the teacher WOULD receive is a warning. 

At least the dad seems to be of average intelligence.  With his years of experience in law - assuming he's worth his salt - he would have to know that there would be not much more punitive action to be taken against the teacher.  If it is about ensuring that the teacher and administration do not penalize the student (directly or indirectly) for taking the steps that he did - okay, I can understand that.  But as far as how other students, residents and others view the father and the son - well, the First Amendment guarantees us freedom of expression.  As far as I know it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what we speak.  I'm sorry, but it just seems like more of an attention grab (or vendetta against the teacher) than just a simple effort to get the teacher to stop discussing religion in the classroom.

Maybe it's just me ... I've been known to have a skewed opinion on things.

To us, these issues are very important. There is a concerted push today by many groups to destroy church-state separation. One movement is known as Dominionism. The name comes from their wish to make their religion dominant not only culturally, but legally, in other words to have dominion over all who do not share their beliefs. This would be a departure from the principles of religious freedom on which our country was founded, notwithstanding dissenting opinions even then. It starts with little things, like teachers proselytizing in public schools and getting away with it. So while it may not be important to you, it is to us. I cannot understand how you can be so aware of what might happen in the future if some other religion besides Christianity comes to dominate our culture, and yet ignore the importance of this situation.

I've never known anyone whose opinion wasn't skewed in one way or another, but these issues matter to us. It is very troubling, for example, that notwithstanding the many applications of evolutionary theory in medicine and other areas, the popular impression still is that evolution is not proved. It is proved, and is accepted by scientists all over the world. For a history teacher to step outside his area of training and disseminate misinformation is wrong. He is not paid to misinform. He is paid to teach history. Others have the right, of course, to have different values than ours, but there is no call for second-guessing our motives when you know them not. You are free to dislike us on the basis of biases, prejudices and bits of information; or perhaps if you knew us better you still wouldn't like us. That does not change the wrongs done within the school system. That is your proper concern. Whether we are jerks is not.

The administration's inaction raises a different set of issues, and resulted in this being taken to the press. When school administrators act like that, it is properly the public's concern, as many have observed. Some will stand by the administration and by the teacher. However, if you look at the content and even the tone of what is being said on both sides, it is obvious whose position has the greater merit. But then, of course, that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly every observer from outside Kearny has taken Matthew's side. He has been called a hero, and cited for his courage in Australia. Maybe there's another way of looking at it.

Hey Paul,

Who cares what people outside Kearny is saying. It happened in Kearny, not in Australia. Your son wanted to be a hero, but he is not and with this attitude he will never become one. He showed himself to be a coward. If he had a problem with the teacher, he should have talked to him about it, not record the class. Why didn't Matthew tell Mr. Paszkiewicz that he didn't want him to continue with that conversation? Why did he keep asking questions? Because he wanted Mr. P to say as much as he could so he could record everything. I feel bad for your son, he's not respected anyomore, the students are ignoring him, they are hating him...because he is a coward and so are you!!!! Stop talking about other places in the world, talk about Kearny, your own town. Ask the opinion of the students who were present in the class. Not people who are in Australia. Go teach your son to be a man, not a child. Or maybe just take him to Australia...he will probably be happier there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand, and very much appreciate the civility of your comments. Of course standing for the flag and reciting the pledge are signs of respect and honor. However, so is taking a principled position to sit quietly to make the point that we're taking these rituals far too seriously. I truly believe that there is too little love of country these day. We are in a war, but what sacrifices are we civilians making? Practically none. As Bill Maher puts it, our soldiers are at war, we're shopping.

So Matthew chose to make the point that patriotism isn't about rituals. It's about the real work of citizenship. Can you see the validity of his point?

I can, and apprieciate your answering my question. Good luck to you and your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarification: At my request, Matthew did request a meeting with the principal, the teacher and us. The principal indicated that the parents would not be permitted at such a meeting, or at least that is how Matthew understood him. Therefore, Matthew chose to attend the meeting without us. So Matt did not insist on handling this entirely on his own, but when our request was turned down, he handled it.

The principal indicated? or at least that is how Matthew understood him? Peharps your son has problem understanding. I don't think a principal would not allow the parents of a 16 years old to be present at such a meeting. But I have to agree with one of the people who made a comment earlier...you were not looking for an adult conversation in order to solve the problem between your family and the teacher. You guys wanted attention and Matthew got the attention he wanted, however, I don't think he expected that almost the entire school would be against him. Paszkiewicz is a wonderful man and an excellent teacher. The best one I ever had and his class was the only class that I actually learned history. I feel really bad for you son and for you because people who try hurt other people for no reason will eventually end up hurt, maybe not now, but in the future. I am praying for you and for your family Paul!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...