Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy

[Guest Nicole Romaniak]

A prayer was not led in the classsroom.

The teacher was discussing his own beliefs, which I guess with the mutation of the church-state seperation in the constitution, you'll probably get him on.

I don't think anyone has proved that the teacher lied when confronted.

The teacher was told to stop these activities and has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was told by someone who was involved with the Board of Education in 1996 that a similar complaint was made in that year about Mr. P, only then the person complaining was a fellow teacher; I won't mention his name because I'm not sure if he wants to get involved in all of this. Mr. P was advised that he should stop. Clearly, he did not do this! He still preached in class when I had him, in '00 [or possibly '01, I don't remember exactly which history class I had him for, 11-12-21-22, none of which I failed in response to the person who guessed that I earned an F in that class]. He still told people that they were going to hell if they did not share his beliefs. And here he is, in 2006, doing the same thing he was told to stop ten years ago. What exactly makes you think he has stopped these activities now? Or, if by some chance you do have solid ground for that statement that I may have just missed, what makes you think he'll continue to keep his mouth shut on matters that have NO place in public schools? It is an outrage that nothing is being done to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future.

I'd also like to respond to the mother who insisted that any nonbelievers who were told such things would roll their eyes or laugh without taking any real offense. I'm not a Christian, but everyone I know and love whose opinion truly matters to me is. Therefore when I was told I was going to hell, I took severe offense at it-- I may not believe it is actually what is going to happen to me when I die, but it troubles me that everyone else seems to think so, and I certainly didn't need my history teacher adding to the emotional troubles I was going through in those years. It bothered me for years after the fact. Just because you personally wouldn't have been the least bit moved by it doesn't mean that nobody else would be hurt in some way.

[Guest a proud american]

We do have many differences of opinion. The news here is not that a very bad boy recorded his teacher. That wouldn't make the papers. The news is that his teacher violated the Constitution, undermined the science curriculum and engaged in horrid pedagogy. None of your questions goes to those issues.

As long as we have operated within the law and the rules, I will not answer questions about our motives, one course of action that we might have taken versus another, what actions we intend to take, our personal lives, etc. To you those may be important and germane, but just as you are not required to justify yourself to me, neither are we required to justify ourselves to you. The difference is that there were many violations of law and simple common decency, which --- believe us or not --- we are trying to address. We have the support of many, both within and without Kearny.

I composed the above response, then read your questions again to be sure I wasn't missing anything. Like it or not, I won't be answering those questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After reading the Court Decision and the transcript on the web site I believe there may be more than one violation that occurred. Contained in the posts is a statement that the teacher originally denied making the comments. When Matthew and the Principal met with him and hearing his own words, instead of asking for a Representative, which is his right why didn't he simply apologize. Either he doesn't believe he did anything wrong or his religious teachings are so intertwined that he couldn't distinguish between the two. My second point is that the transcript also reveals that he was attempting to introduce "creationism" vs evolution. Creationism is an invention of the religious right based on a flawed methodology and funded by a group of wealthy Texans. As everyone knows if you pay enough you can create anything you want. Fortunately, they have yet to produce any relevent scientific fact to back up their claims. Since I am not an attorney I don't know if any of this would make sense but there is a reason for separation of Church and State and this teacher definately was crossing the line.

[Guest Patriot]

After reading the Court Decision and the transcript on the web site I believe there may be more than one violation that  occurred. Contained in the posts is a statement that the teacher originally denied making the comments. When Matthew and the Principal met with him and hearing his own words, instead of asking for a Representative, which is his right why didn't he simply apologize. Either he doesn't believe he did anything wrong or his religious teachings are so intertwined that he couldn't distinguish between the two. My second point is that the transcript also reveals that he was attempting to introduce "creationism" vs evolution. Creationism is an invention of the religious right based on a flawed methodology and funded by a group of wealthy Texans. As everyone knows if you pay enough you can create anything you want. Fortunately, they have yet to produce any relevent scientific fact to back up their claims. Since I am not an attorney I don't know if any of this would make sense but there is a reason for separation of Church and State and this teacher definately was crossing the line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Creationism is an invention of the religious right based on a flawed methodology" ???!!! What a crock !!! You just proved to me that you are totally indoctrinated by the radical left. This is a subject that we couldn't possibly debate here and that's too bad because I would love to educate you on the subject.

[Guest Soap Box]

Paul, get off of my back your killing me...

[Guest Guest]

Please contact us! Matthew has put himself on the line. Come forward, please.

(TO KOTW: Please feel free to deliver this privately if you have the capacity to do that.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you ask people who agree with you to contact you? You sound like a desperate man trying to get support.

[Guest Guest]

We do have many differences of opinion. The news here is not that a very bad boy recorded his teacher. That wouldn't make the papers. The news is that his teacher violated the Constitution, undermined the science curriculum and engaged in horrid pedagogy. None of your questions goes to those issues.

As long as we have operated within the law and the rules, I will not answer questions about our motives, one course of action that we might have taken versus another, what actions we intend to take, our personal lives, etc. To you those may be important and germane, but just as you are not required to justify yourself to me, neither are we required to justify ourselves to you. The difference is that there were many violations of law and simple common decency, which --- believe us or not --- we are trying to address. We have the support of many, both within and without Kearny.

I composed the above response, then read your questions again to be sure I wasn't missing anything. Like it or not, I won't be answering those questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you won't be answering those questions.....you can't! You are trying to make a point here, you are trying to convience people to think like you, you are simply ignoring the questions because you know you are wrong. I am sorry, but if you are just going to answer those questions from people who agree with you, then there is no discussion in this place. It is ironic how you are blaming someone from forcing his beliefs on people, while you are here doing exactly the same thing. This shows me that you cannot have an intellectual conversation with anyone. Your son can't either. However, I understand him because he is a child, you are not!

[Guest Guest]

I was told by someone who was involved with the Board of Education in 1996 that a similar complaint was made in that year about Mr. P, only then the person complaining was a fellow teacher; I won't mention his name because I'm not sure if he wants to get involved in all of this. Mr. P was advised that he should stop. Clearly, he did not do this! He still preached in class when I had him, in '00 [or possibly '01, I don't remember exactly which history class I had him for, 11-12-21-22, none of which I failed in response to the person who guessed that I earned an F in that class]. He still told people that they were going to hell if they did not share his beliefs. And here he is, in 2006, doing the same thing he was told to stop ten years ago. What exactly makes you think he has stopped these activities now? Or, if by some chance you do have solid ground for that statement that I may have just missed, what makes you think he'll continue to keep his mouth shut on matters that have NO place in public schools? It is an outrage that nothing is being done to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future.

I'd also like to respond to the mother who insisted that any nonbelievers who were told such things would roll their eyes or laugh without taking any real offense. I'm not a Christian, but everyone I know and love whose opinion truly matters to me is. Therefore when I was told I was going to hell, I took severe offense at it-- I may not believe it is actually what is going to happen to me when I die, but it troubles me that everyone else seems to think so, and I certainly didn't need my history teacher adding to the emotional troubles I was going through in those years. It bothered me for years after the fact. Just because you personally wouldn't have been the least bit moved by it doesn't mean that nobody else would be hurt in some way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is very interesting, I had Mr. P for the entire year and he never "preached" to me. It is funny how one or two students accuss him of preaching while the rest don't. When a teacher mentions God' name that doesn't mean he is preaching...I think you need to know what preaching is before you actually talk about it. Attend a Sunday service and compare to Mr. P's class...then you make a comment. There is usaully 25 students in a classroom, if Mr. P has been "preaching" for 15 years, then how come only one or two students are complaining? I think there is something wrong with that...I think there is something wrong with you.

[Guest Paul]

It is very interesting, I had Mr. P for the entire year and he never "preached" to me. It is funny how one or two students accuss him of preaching while the rest don't. When a teacher mentions God' name that doesn't mean he is preaching...I think you need to know what preaching is before you actually talk about it. Attend a Sunday service and compare to Mr. P's class...then you make a comment. There is usaully 25 students in a classroom, if Mr. P has been "preaching" for 15 years, then how come only one or two students are complaining? I think there is something wrong with that...I think there is something wrong with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some of the students who were in the class when Paszkiewicz said these things, clearly audible on the recordings, still insist he didn't say them. Never mind the undeniable truth, they just don't want to hear it, and so they won't.

There's something wrong here, alright, and chilling to the bone. It's something we ought to be thinking seriously about, because something has gone seriously wrong with the way these kids have been trained. Is it that the schools are focused only on getting students to pass standardized tests? Is it too much conformity and too little independent thought? Is it the culture of "looking out for number one," which replaced the ethic of "ask what you can do for your country"? Those things and perhaps a few more, but I hope we in Kearny will use this as an opportunity to look at an obvious problem that the entire world sees, even if we who are responsible to do something about it choose to ignore it. If the reaction by some of these students is an indication what kind of citizens they are going to be --- as it surely is --- it does not bode well for the future of American democracy.

[Guest Paul]

It is very interesting, I had Mr. P for the entire year and he never "preached" to me. It is funny how one or two students accuss him of preaching while the rest don't. When a teacher mentions God' name that doesn't mean he is preaching...I think you need to know what preaching is before you actually talk about it. Attend a Sunday service and compare to Mr. P's class...then you make a comment. There is usaully 25 students in a classroom, if Mr. P has been "preaching" for 15 years, then how come only one or two students are complaining? I think there is something wrong with that...I think there is something wrong with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The other point is: Methinks you protest too much. I could understand your saying you never heard any of that and leaving it at that, but the tone and content of the above post suggest you're invested in this emotionally.

Taken alone, a statement like yours might have some credibility, but when it directly contradicts audio recordings, and when we consider that some people who were in the class where those recordings were made also claim not to have heard any of this, it's obvious that emotions are getting in the way. Something is going on that is affecting the ability of some people to report objectively. I know that many people like this teacher, but burying your head in the sand and pretending none of it happened will not help anyone, including David Paszkiewicz.

[Guest Paul]

Speaking of history: History is loaded with examples of nations that have torn themselves apart over religion. Catholics and Protestants in Britain and Ireland; Hindus, Muslims and their sects in India and Pakistan; the current disaster in Iraq; the list goes on and on and on throughout history.

Can anyone cite even one example of a nation that was torn apart by separating church and state? I don't think so. The principle is that the state will not establish or promote religion, but will leave all free to worship as they please on their time and in their own ways.

Given the clear and unwavering pattern throughout history, why would any sensible people want to do anything except what the Supreme Court has announced in cases like Engel v. Vitale? The only reason I can see is to push one's own views on others by the power of numbers, but that is not consistent with "liberty and justice for all." That is the principle and the issue of justice we are trying to defend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still no answer. Jake says people respond to what moves them. That's true, but sometimes it's also part of the problem. We have the power and even the legal right to say as we please for the most part. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have an ethical responsibility for what we say. If people are going to argue that we should tear down the wall separating church and state, they are ethically obligated to address history. The fact that they don't do it speaks volumes.

[Guest Guest]

Still no answer. Jake says people respond to what moves them. That's true, but sometimes it's also part of the problem. We have the power and even the legal right to say as we please for the most part. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have an ethical responsibility for what we say. If people are going to argue that we should tear down the wall separating church and state, they are ethically obligated to address history. The fact that they don't do it speaks volumes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please quote the line IN the U.S. Constitution where it mentions this "Wall" The ONLY place the "Separation of Church and State" is mentioned by THomas Jefferson is in a private correspondance, and NOT in either the Declaration of Independance, or the Constitution/BoR, in fact, "God" is Specifically MENTIONED in the Declaration you know "Bound by their CREATOR with certain Inalienable Rights".

[Guest a proud american]

"Creationism is an invention of the religious right based on a flawed methodology"  ???!!!  What a crock !!!  You just proved to me that you are totally indoctrinated by the radical left. This is a subject that we couldn't possibly debate here and that's too bad because I would love to educate you on the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Patriot let me try to explain to you what I meant. It is a well established fact that evolution is the basis for science. That man evolved over many centuries. You do not disagree so far right? And in order for this to validated, scientists throughout the world agree that these are the facts.

Within the last few years an alternative theory has emerged called Creationism.

There are those on the religious right who want this theory to be taught along with evolution. However, you first have to look at how the theory of creationism came

about. Its roots are traced back to a group of scientists who were funded by wealthy Texas religious conservatives. Their theory is that there are some things in the universe that can't be explained. Scientists have looked at their works and have dismissed it as junk science. Their facts do not add up and they have not been able to come up with any evidence to support their claims. In the school districts where the Local Boards are controlled by the religious right they have tried unsuccessfully to have creationism taught as an alternative theory. The courts have sided with the evolutionist theory and refused to allow this to occur. Now you don't have to agree with me but I would suggest that you do some research on this subject so that you can see for yourself. What is sad is we are conversing about an issue that isn't really an issue. But check it out anyway. And this has nothing to do with the left wing or any other wing.

[Guest Guest]

Paul,

Another issue for you to address.

Ride by Garfield School and read teh billboard.

[Guest Paul]

Please quote the line IN the U.S. Constitution where it mentions this "Wall"  The ONLY place the "Separation of Church and State" is mentioned by THomas Jefferson is in a private correspondance, and NOT in either the Declaration of Independance, or the Constitution/BoR, in fact, "God" is Specifically MENTIONED in the Declaration  you know "Bound by their CREATOR with certain Inalienable Rights".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of this addresses the fact that many nations have been torn apart by religious conflict, but not one has ever been harmed by respecting each person's right to worship as he or she chooses and keep government out of it. Just because you post under mine doesn't mean you addressed the issue I raised. You didn't. There's a very practical concern here, and your complete inability to address it says it all.

The issue is whether to make the majority officially dominant in matters of religion. The Framers considered a religiously-oriented Constitution, and rejected it. The mere fact that the majority of Americans have always been Christian does not address the point.

So I ask again: Why isn't respecting each person's right to worship as he or she chooses and keeping government out of it the best course of action?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Patriot let me try to explain to you what I meant. It is a well established fact that evolution is the basis for science. That man evolved over many centuries. You do not disagree so far right? And in order for this to validated, scientists throughout the world agree that these are the facts.

Within the last few years an alternative theory has emerged called Creationism.

There are those on the religious right who want this theory to be taught along with evolution. However, you first have to look at how the theory of creationism came

about. Its roots are traced back to a group of scientists who were funded by wealthy Texas religious conservatives. Their theory is that there are some things in the universe that can't be explained.  Scientists have looked at their works and have dismissed it as junk science. Their facts do not add up and they have not been able to come up with any evidence to support their claims. In the school districts where the Local Boards are controlled by the religious right they have tried unsuccessfully to have creationism taught as an alternative theory. The courts have sided with the evolutionist theory and refused to allow this to occur. Now you don't have to agree with me but I would suggest that you do some research on this subject so that you can see for yourself. What is sad is we are conversing about an issue that isn't really an issue. But check it out anyway. And this has nothing to do with the left wing or any other wing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Proud American, let me jump in here. "Intelligent Design vs Evolution" is a favorite topic of mine , I did a research paper on it in college. But I couldn't possibly tell you everything I'd like to here. If you're interested in learning about the subject, pick up Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" and read chapters 8, 9 and 10. I'd love to hear your comments after you read them. (pg. 257; "The Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt. The idea for a trial on evolution was hatched by the ACLU in New York and seized upon by civic leaders in Dayton, TN. as a way to drum up publicity for their town. Scopes was in on the prank, agreeing to be prosecuted even though he had never taught evolution and was not even a biology teacher. When the trial was over Scopes was paid for his appearance and the school renewed his contract. Yet today, the movie version "Inherit The Wind" is shown in schools as an educational tool. What a joke!! )

[Guest a proud american]

Proud American, let me jump in here.  "Intelligent Design vs  Evolution" is a favorite topic of mine , I did a research paper on it in college. But I couldn't possibly tell you everything I'd like to here.  If you're interested in learning about the subject, pick up Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" and read chapters 8, 9 and 10. I'd love to hear your comments after you read them. (pg. 257; "The Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt. The idea for a trial on evolution was hatched by the ACLU in New York and seized upon by civic leaders in Dayton, TN. as a way to drum up publicity for their town. Scopes was in on the prank, agreeing to be prosecuted even though he had never taught evolution and was not even a biology teacher. When the trial was over Scopes was paid for his appearance and the school renewed his contract.  Yet today, the movie version "Inherit The Wind" is shown in schools as an educational tool. What a joke!! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As much as I would love to, I just can't bring myself to read anything that nut job has to say. She has already been proven to be a plagerist and her books generally slant to her way of thinking. What we could do is possibly find a scientist who can better explain the two theories in scientific terms. In order to agree with her with regards to the Scopes trial you would have to disagree with evolution, which has been the basis of science as we know it. What is good though is that you have atleast heard of creationism. Before you write back and accuse me of only wanting to listen to one side, please let me explain that I make it a point to stay away from people who's own agenda is to further their own causes as is the case of Coulter. And also, we should discuss this in a different forum out of respect for Paul La Clair. He started this thread to open a dialogue of what occurred to his son and not to get into a religious debate between people who's opinions will not change each others.

[Guest Paul]

Proud American, let me jump in here.  "Intelligent Design vs  Evolution" is a favorite topic of mine , I did a research paper on it in college. But I couldn't possibly tell you everything I'd like to here.  If you're interested in learning about the subject, pick up Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" and read chapters 8, 9 and 10. I'd love to hear your comments after you read them. (pg. 257; "The Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt. The idea for a trial on evolution was hatched by the ACLU in New York and seized upon by civic leaders in Dayton, TN. as a way to drum up publicity for their town. Scopes was in on the prank, agreeing to be prosecuted even though he had never taught evolution and was not even a biology teacher. When the trial was over Scopes was paid for his appearance and the school renewed his contract.  Yet today, the movie version "Inherit The Wind" is shown in schools as an educational tool. What a joke!! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See the discussion on this subject on the Science and Religion topic.

[Guest Guest]

Proud American, let me jump in here.  "Intelligent Design vs  Evolution" is a favorite topic of mine , I did a research paper on it in college. But I couldn't possibly tell you everything I'd like to here.  If you're interested in learning about the subject, pick up Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" and read chapters 8, 9 and 10. I'd love to hear your comments after you read them. (pg. 257; "The Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt. The idea for a trial on evolution was hatched by the ACLU in New York and seized upon by civic leaders in Dayton, TN. as a way to drum up publicity for their town. Scopes was in on the prank, agreeing to be prosecuted even though he had never taught evolution and was not even a biology teacher. When the trial was over Scopes was paid for his appearance and the school renewed his contract.  Yet today, the movie version "Inherit The Wind" is shown in schools as an educational tool. What a joke!! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ann Coulter is the best you can do on this subject? You're lost.

[Guest Paul]

Proud American, let me jump in here.  "Intelligent Design vs  Evolution" is a favorite topic of mine , I did a research paper on it in college. But I couldn't possibly tell you everything I'd like to here.  If you're interested in learning about the subject, pick up Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" and read chapters 8, 9 and 10. I'd love to hear your comments after you read them. (pg. 257; "The Scopes trial was nothing but a publicity stunt. The idea for a trial on evolution was hatched by the ACLU in New York and seized upon by civic leaders in Dayton, TN. as a way to drum up publicity for their town. Scopes was in on the prank, agreeing to be prosecuted even though he had never taught evolution and was not even a biology teacher. When the trial was over Scopes was paid for his appearance and the school renewed his contract.  Yet today, the movie version "Inherit The Wind" is shown in schools as an educational tool. What a joke!! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is not an argument on the merits. It is purely ad hominem, and therefore of no value whatsoever.

It reminds me of a story the boxer George Foreman told about his fight with Ali. That was the rope-a-dope fight, where Ali let Foreman punch himself out. In one of the later rounds, before he knocked Foreman out, Ali said into Foreman's ear, "Is that all you got George?" Years later, Foreman, who had turned from a surly young man into a gregarious middle-aged man, recalled that his unspoken resonse was "Yup, that's about it!" If that's the best you can pull out of Coulter, the decision to pass on her screed is a wise one.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Paul,

Public school teachers walk a very fine line whenever they discuss politics and/or religion. (These days it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference.) Teachers are in special positions of authority and should be held to the highest of standards. However, when I first read about the controversy I thought that a teacher who enjoyed open, frank discussions with his students was being cornered. I am a college teacher who enjoys such discussions so I was sympathetic to a "colleague."

As I read on and looked at all the steps taken by your family (outside of litigation) I could not help but see your son's side of the argument. If the teacher had come clean in the first place then all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided. Instead, he lied and became vindictive, hardly actions and qualities that I would like to see in a fellow teacher, not to mention a fellow Christian.

I hope that these issues will be resolved quickly so that you and your family can get on with your lives, that is, lives without death-threats and name-calling.

[Kate]

Paul,

If the teacher is on an "evangelical mission and completely out of control" as you've stated, what are we to consider you and your son's behavior? Looks like a couple of self serving crusaders seeking attention to me.

This guys been teaching for fifteen years and we needed Matt and Paul, Kearny's very own Constitutional scholars, to save us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently we did need them, because no one's been doing a thing up until now. This town and school board should not have allowed this behavior to continue this long.

[Guest 2smart4u]

This is not an argument on the merits. It is purely ad hominem, and therefore of no value whatsoever.

It reminds me of a story the boxer George Foreman told about his fight with Ali. That was the rope-a-dope fight, where Ali let Foreman punch himself out. In one of the later rounds, before he knocked Foreman out, Ali said into Foreman's ear, "Is that all you got George?" Years later, Foreman, who had turned from a surly young man into a gregarious middle-aged man, recalled that his unspoken resonse was "Yup, that's about it!" If that's the best you can pull out of Coulter, the decision to pass on her screed is a wise one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree, it was not "ad hominem" (I haven't used that term since college). I was giving you an excerpt from Ann's book as an example of how the subject of evolution has so many misconceptions and misinformation surrounding it.

[Guest Patriot]

I am Paul LaClair, father of Matthew LaClair. I am opening this topic to invite all concerned, in whatever way they may be concerned, to ask questions and engage in a respectful and thoughtful discussion of this incident. I may post threads myself to initiate topics.

I am doing this because if people are going to discuss this, it should be discussed in a thoughtful and respectful way. There is no call for the vicious attacks that have been publicly posted against a young man whose actions were not motivated by self-interest, but by a passionate commitment to our Constitution, separation of church and state, the integrity and value of science, the quality of education and the rule of law. With all due respect to those who have presumed to know Matthew's motives --- who have not been the least bit respectful in some cases --- I am certain that I know him better than you do.

All appropriate and respectful questions will be answered. All personal attacks will be ignored.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Along time ago my father gave me some wise advice. It was to "pick my battles". In other words, know when to ignore things that don't harm you personally, know when to look the other way, and know when to fight. I think this was a situation where you choose to ignore it.

[Guest Paul]

I disagree, it was not "ad hominem" (I haven't used that term since college). I was giving you an excerpt from Ann's book as an example of how the subject of evolution has so many misconceptions and misinformation surrounding it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then perhaps you can explain how John Scopes' life decisions shed the slightest light on whether species have evolved.

[Guest Paul]

Along time ago my father gave me some wise advice. It was to "pick my battles". In other words, know when to ignore things that don't harm you personally, know when to look the other way, and know when to fight.  I think this was a situation where you choose to ignore it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My idea of a patriot is someone who stands up for what is right whether it affects him personally or not. In fact, isn't that a central message of Jesus' life as recorded in the Bible? For example: "From him who has much, much will be extected . . ."