We have a settlement

[Guest Guest]

After many months, we were finally able to reach agreement with the Board of Education to resolve the matter that arose last autumn when a history teacher made inappropriate comments in the classroom. The Anti-Defamation League will provide training for teachers and students on church-state separation and evolution. A statement issued by the Board includes a re-affirmation of its commitment to evolution and the big bang as part of the science curriculum.

This accomplishes what we set out to do. The Board has also issued a strong statement commending Matthew, and we have issued a statement commending the Board for the actions it is now taking. A complaint policy will also be implemented to provide a mechanism for students to report misconduct in the classroom, and addressing our concerns about recording classes when misconduct is occurring.

The Board has agreed to reimburse our expenses in connection with this matter, but we are not taking a penny in damages. Our expenses do not include any attorneys' fees , as our attorneys were working pro bono. They believed in the rightness of this cause as much as we did.

The link to today's New York Times article is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/nyregion...r=1&oref=slogin

The Board's statement reads as follows: “The Board wishes to publicly express their appreciation to Matthew LaClair for his efforts in bringing to the School Board’s attention a serious situation in the Kearny schools regarding the Constitutional mandate of Separation of Church and State. Because of Matthew’s exemplary actions in standing up for his Constitutional rights and the integrity of education, often at the cost of his own popularity in the community and the school, the Board was able to take action to correct this situation and improve the educational environment for all students. The Board commends Matthew LaClair for his courage and integrity in taking the responsibilities of citizenship seriously and acting accordingly. We thank him for calling attention to this important issue. The Board reaffirms our commitment to the core academic curriculum standards relating to the Big Bang and evolutionary theory.”

Our statement reads: “We applaud the Board's actions today in moving forward on its commitment to providing Kearny’s young people a first-class education on a broad range of subjects, including science and the law.  We appreciate the Board’s willingness to meet with us to resolve this matter.  This has been a difficult situation for everyone involved and we commend the Board for committing to conduct student and teacher training on constitutional principles and affirming its commitment to the separation of Church and State and the teaching of science in the classroom.  We further appreciate the Board’s efforts in abating objectionable religious content in the classroom.  We are also pleased that the Board has committed to adopting a Complaint Policy which will allow students to address their concerns. We recognize that the Board must be mindful of the interests and well being of all members of its school community, and we understand and acknowledge that the Board’s Policy on Recording Devices seeks to address the privacy concerns of students.  Life is a learning process, and we welcome the opportunity to move forward together for the good of all concerned.”

Our thanks go to KOTW and to our supporters. It is disappointing that there should be any battle at all over these issues in a public school in New Jersey in 2007, but we are pleased that the Board has acted to address this matter in an appropriate way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul - has there been any discussion (formally or informally) about protective measures for Matthew (or has the abuse started to diminish over time)? To me, that was the most egregious part of this matter - failing to protect a kid who was being abused for exercising his Constitutional rights.

Best of luck in all else.

[Guest Paul]

Paul - has there been any discussion (formally or informally) about protective measures for Matthew (or has the abuse started to diminish over time)?  To me, that was the most egregious part of this matter - failing to protect a kid who was being abused for exercising his Constitutional rights.

Best of luck in all else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. The school district is now attempting to address the situation. I truly believe that some Board members and the Board's attorney have learned something from this. In Matthew's eyes and mine, that makes it worth the effort.

Unfortunately, the time to address the harassment was last fall. Once school officials send the wrong message, it is hard to undo, as we have seen.

[Strife767]

I disagree. There were no other effective ways of handling it.

1. If the teacher had admitted he was wrong, apologized and promised never to do it again, would anyone have been embarrassed?

a. Wouldn’t this have been the best solution of all? If not, why not?

b. Since he refuses to apologize and insists that he did nothing wrong, why shouldn’t he be fired?

2. If you don’t care about the Constitution or the quality of education, why not?

3. If you know that someone in a position of authority is doing something wrong, and will get away with it if you don’t sneak under the radar to expose it, is it right or wrong to do it?

4. If you take your concerns to supposedly responsible officials and they try to sweep your concerns under the rug, why should you imagine that they would act any more responsibly if you didn’t pressure them and have evidence to back you up?

5. If public officials are using the power of their positions to cover up improper conduct by their employees, is it right or wrong to fight power with power and beat them at their own game?

6. If public opinion is so strongly against the LaClairs, then how did media exposure force the Board to act? If public opinion was against the LaClairs, wouldn’t media exposure have been the last thing they wanted?

7. How far would the LaClairs have gotten with a lawsuit without hard evidence to back up Matthew’s claims about what happened?

8. If you thought it was important to stop teachers from using their public school classrooms to preach their religions, and if you thought it was important to defend science education from attacks by teachers who are scientifically ignorant, would your conclusions be different? How do you know what you would do if you thought these issues were important, since you don't think they are important and therefore do not understand the importance of what Matthew did?

9. If you don’t understand why these things are important, why should anyone listen to you?

It’s over. The kid and his family did what they thought was right. Many people agree with them. The Board acknowledged the importance of his actions. A teacher made inappropriate comments and got caught. He and his supporters lost this battle. Accept the result, let it go and let it be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Well said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL.

[Bryan]

I disagree. There were no other effective ways of handling it.

1. If the teacher had admitted he was wrong, apologized and promised never to do it again, would anyone have been embarrassed?

Is the goal to embarrass people?

a. Wouldn’t this have been the best solution of all? If not, why not?

Potentially the same outcome, less acrimony.

If you like acrimony, then no doubt the the chosen method was better.

b. Since he refuses to apologize and insists that he did nothing wrong, why shouldn’t he be fired?

You like to keep the burden of proof at arm's length, I see.

What is the goal? To protect Matthew's rights? Is either an apology or an insistence of no wrongdoing important to that goal?

Is the goal to make sure that the rights of those who don't object to Paszkiewicz's words are not abridged? That's a bit weird, IMO, but again an apology and admission of wrongdoing do little--if anything--to achieve that goal.

So what's the goal?

2. If you don’t care about the Constitution or the quality of education, why not?

How long have you been visiting KOTW that you don't yet realize it's not really about the Constitution as such? There's nothing in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, that prohibits Paszkiewicz from actiing as he did. On the contrary, the Framers of the Constitution almost certainly did not have in mind anything remotely like restricting the speech of classroom teachers in any fashion.

This issue was about intimidating government employees into default agreement with Paul LaClair's religion, and Paul feels justified in the pursuit because of court decisions where unelected officials interpreted the Constitution in a manner that makes LaClair's approach legally plausible (not that it isn't contradictory--and the elder LaClair has granted that the law tends to contradict itself at various points).

3. If you know that someone in a position of authority is doing something wrong, and will get away with it if you don’t sneak under the radar to expose it, is it right or wrong to do it?

That rather depends on the situation itself. If the person in authority is planning to blow up a nuclear bomb and kill millions of people, then sneaking under the radar to expose it would be justifiable. If, on the other hand, the teacher was wearing white shoes during the winter (a traditional fashion faux pas, as I understand it), then it would not be justifiable. This situation is closer to the latter than to the former.

Your approach seems to hint that the goal (or at least one of the primary goals) is to punish Paszkiewicz for his speech. What punishment did you have in mind?

4. If you take your concerns to supposedly responsible officials and they try to sweep your concerns under the rug, why should you imagine that they would act any more responsibly if you didn’t pressure them and have evidence to back you up?

If your concern is about punishing Paszkiewicz, then yes you might be concerned about their actions.

If, on the other hand, your goal was to preserve your right not to be confronted with religious ideas contrary to your own as presented by a public school teacher (color that picture to your taste), then you might achieve that goal very easily by talking to the teacher.

5. If public officials are using the power of their positions to cover up improper conduct by their employees, is it right or wrong to fight power with power and beat them at their own game?

Did public officials attempt to cover up improper conduct? Minus some evidence of such, you seem to be dragging a red herring about.

6. If public opinion is so strongly against the LaClairs, then how did media exposure force the Board to act? If public opinion was against the LaClairs, wouldn’t

media exposure have been the last thing they wanted?

The local public was apparently opposed to the LaClairs. By going to the media, which tend to be sympathetic to LaClair's side of church/state separation, they were successful in painting a distorted picture of Paszkiewicz that influenced public opinion nationally and beyond. That helped place the local government on the defensive (this last was probably in mind as a goal, but the LaClairs probably had no inkling how the press would distort the story and may not have even noticed the distortions favorable to their cause).

7. How far would the LaClairs have gotten with a lawsuit without hard evidence to back up Matthew’s claims about what happened?

That depends on the goal. They could almost surely have kept Matthew from hearing even constitutionally protected speech about religion simply by complaining directly to Paszkiewicz.

Their concern seemed broader than that, stretching to the point of wanting to see their own religion unchallenged in the public classroom (I refer to Paszkiewicz's discussion of the faith element in historical science, to which the LaClairs objected while completely misunderstanding the point of Paszkiewicz's teaching).

8. If you thought it was important to stop teachers from using their public school classrooms to preach their religions, and if you thought it was important to defend science education from attacks by teachers who are scientifically ignorant, would your conclusions be different? How do you know what you would do if you thought these issues were important, since you don't think they are important and therefore do not understand the importance of what Matthew did?

Paszkiewicz didn't preach his religion (he's been taken out of context so routinely that the contrary belief is widespread). Free speech is important to me, and I'd want to see ideas freely exchanged in the classroom, especially where students have begun to mature to the point of engaging the material actively.

Only if I were particularly interested in seeing my religion go unchallenged as the default belief system reinforced in public schools (which I read as the LaClairs' motivation) would I act in a manner parallel to theirs--but I'd still have gone to (or recommended going to) the teacher in person as the first step of the process.

That's one of the clearest clues, BTW, that the concern was not primarily about Matthew's rights. The LaClairs want the epistemology of metaphysical naturalism taught as the only reliable epistemology in public schools. It's about ensuring their own religion's place of prominence in public schools.

9. If you don’t understand why these things are important, why should anyone listen to you?

To make sure they don't misunderstand.

It’s over. The kid and his family did what they thought was right. Many people agree with them. The Board acknowledged the importance of his actions. A teacher made inappropriate comments and got caught. He and his supporters lost this battle. Accept the result, let it go and let it be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surrender after losing a minor skirmish? Is that what you would do?

[Guest Guest]

I disagree. There were no other effective ways of handling it.

1. If the teacher had admitted he was wrong, apologized and promised never to do it again, would anyone have been embarrassed?

a. Wouldn’t this have been the best solution of all? If not, why not?

b. Since he refuses to apologize and insists that he did nothing wrong, why shouldn’t he be fired?

2. If you don’t care about the Constitution or the quality of education, why not?

3. If you know that someone in a position of authority is doing something wrong, and will get away with it if you don’t sneak under the radar to expose it, is it right or wrong to do it?

4. If you take your concerns to supposedly responsible officials and they try to sweep your concerns under the rug, why should you imagine that they would act any more responsibly if you didn’t pressure them and have evidence to back you up?

5. If public officials are using the power of their positions to cover up improper conduct by their employees, is it right or wrong to fight power with power and beat them at their own game?

6. If public opinion is so strongly against the LaClairs, then how did media exposure force the Board to act? If public opinion was against the LaClairs, wouldn’t media exposure have been the last thing they wanted?

7. How far would the LaClairs have gotten with a lawsuit without hard evidence to back up Matthew’s claims about what happened?

8. If you thought it was important to stop teachers from using their public school classrooms to preach their religions, and if you thought it was important to defend science education from attacks by teachers who are scientifically ignorant, would your conclusions be different? How do you know what you would do if you thought these issues were important, since you don't think they are important and therefore do not understand the importance of what Matthew did?

9. If you don’t understand why these things are important, why should anyone listen to you?

It’s over. The kid and his family did what they thought was right. Many people agree with them. The Board acknowledged the importance of his actions. A teacher made inappropriate comments and got caught. He and his supporters lost this battle. Accept the result, let it go and let it be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's over? Did I miss something? Who are the LaClairs and what teacher did what to whom?

Gees, you just can't get adequate coverage of anything that goes on in this town here.

If anyone has the time could you post a little info here?

Thanks, it's greatly appreciated!

[Strife767]

What's over? Did I miss something? Who are the LaClairs and what teacher did what to whom? 

Gees, you just can't get adequate coverage of anything that goes on in this town here.

If anyone has the time could you post a little info here?

Thanks, it's greatly appreciated!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, this has got to be satire...but just in case:

There's a decent summary of the events in this article which details the 'ending:'

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/...s/NJkearny.html

[Guest Guest]

He may not like that you're lying.

Tell me, if the LaClairs truly wanted to employ "any means necessary":

Why didn't Matthew take his recordings to the media in September when he made them, instead of writing a letter to Principal Somma, and meeting with him and Paszkiewicz to make his requests?

Why did they give the Board several months to act before they took further action?

Why did they wait so long to start the process of potential litigation against the Board?

Why did they not even attempt to get any monetary damages for the gross mishandling of the situation that resulted in a lot of undue suffering for Matthew when they easily could have done so?

-----

Despite all of the accusations of generally 'underhanded' tactics by the LaClairs, there are so many things they could have done (and quite likely gotten away with) that they didn't. They didn't even try to get Paszkiewicz fired. How can you fault them? They've cut Paszkiewicz and the Board a LOT of slack--in the end, all they've really asked for is for the mistakes to be corrected, like not charging a shoplifter who brings back what he/she stole, and simply being satisfied that the item has been returned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But does that make up for all the underhanded things that they did do collectively as a family?

What about the mental suffering that this Family imposed on the rest of the school

system or the people of this town?

The day that secret recording do not come under underhanded then you can speak. The boy never even approached his teacher on this. Talk about underhanded.

[Guest Guest]

Yes. The school district is now attempting to address the situation. I truly believe that some Board members and the Board's attorney have learned something from this. In Matthew's eyes and mine, that makes it worth the effort.

Unfortunately, the time to address the harassment was last fall. Once school officials send the wrong message, it is hard to undo, as we have seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have all learned something from this. There is a professional way and a mature way to do things and if you are uncomfortable then approached the person and have a discussion. Or you can take the other approach and discuss it with that individual and secretly tape them and broadcast it in the name of persecution knowing that your father will back you with 1000 lawyers. Unfortunately this individual chose the cowardly way. You can try to sugarcoat it all your want to. But do not expect the people to think otherwise.

[Guest Guest]

Yea he boasted that his lawyer worked pro bono and then said he needed the money to pay his lawyers.  Nice scam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The LaClairs scammed the Board of Education into funding their childs future. And now they have the paycheck to prove it.

[Guest Guest]

I haven't gotten any cash, or money in any other form for this, and I won't. Our lawyers haven't billed us. All reimbursement will go directly to them. They spent a lot of time on it. Had we not been reimbursed for expenses, they would have come out of my pocket.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher is a major international law firm. Look them up on line. They have offices overseas as well as in the United States. Willkie was Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential nominee in 1940. He was a partner there.

Rich Mancino, who is a partner there now, came to us through the National Center for Science Education. He is an extremely busy lawyer who travels almost weekly to places like Switzerland working on securities cases. I don't know what he charges by the hour, but you can bet it's more than a lot of folks make in a week. He thought this cause important enough to take on for free.

There are plenty of snotty noses commenting on this case. They write in a way that makes them easy to spot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am a curious Kearny taxpayer and in my interpretation in your opening comment on this blog was that your lawyers worked for free. I think a lot of people got the same interpretation as well.

I thought that was a pretty good deal, but you then said you needed money to pay the lawyers and it sounded sneaky? Why did you say that they worked for free and then go to someone who would charge you unless you were after the money?

[Guest Guest]

Um, don't you think it's a little naive to think that such a lawsuit wouldn't itself project the issue into the media? What newspaper that covers events in Kearny WOULDN'T be reporting on that? Do you think anyone could "quietly" file such a lawsuit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Capital letters and italics automatically make it correct, right ?

Also, Paul's said from the beginning that he doesn't want to sue. He just wanted to see the wrongs righted. Litigation was his last resort--I'm glad it didn't have to come to that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He got the next best thing which he wanted all along anyway, the money. Although it was just the threat of the lawsuit, he still got the money in a settlement. Either way, he got (1) the recognition, and (2) the money.

You are blaming the victim. Matthew didn't do anything wrong--why do you seem to suggest that he should be trying to hide his intentions and/or 'keep a low profile?' He is and should be proud! And the ones at fault for the 'ridicule' (that certainly is downplaying it a bit, don't you think? Death threat, remember?) are those 'doing' it, not the one being 'ridiculed!'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can argue that all along but the truth is that the student had a problem with this teacher going in and had prior knowledge of this. Taped it secretly and never approached the teacher on it on until after he went to the media. He did do plenty wrong. The death threat was never proven to be serious and there are alot of unstable individuals out there who do irrational things. This was never proven to be one of them. Just and angry student who did not know how to react to a teacher that was under attack.

[Guest Guest]

Is the goal to embarrass people?

Potentially the same outcome, less acrimony.

If you like acrimony, then no doubt the the chosen method was better.

You like to keep the burden of proof at arm's length, I see.

What is the goal?  To protect Matthew's rights?  Is either an apology or an insistence of no wrongdoing important to that goal?

Is the goal to make sure that the rights of those who don't object to Paszkiewicz's words are not abridged?  That's a bit weird, IMO, but again an apology and admission of wrongdoing do little--if anything--to achieve that goal.

So what's the goal?

How long have you been visiting KOTW that you don't yet realize it's not really about the Constitution as such?  There's nothing in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, that prohibits Paszkiewicz from actiing as he did.  On the contrary, the Framers of the Constitution almost certainly did not have in mind anything remotely like restricting the speech of classroom teachers in any fashion.

This issue was about intimidating government employees into default agreement with Paul LaClair's religion, and Paul feels justified in the pursuit because of court decisions where unelected officials interpreted the Constitution in a manner that makes LaClair's approach legally plausible (not that it isn't contradictory--and the elder LaClair has granted that the law tends to contradict itself at various points).

That rather depends on the situation itself.  If the person in authority is planning to blow up a nuclear bomb and kill millions of people, then sneaking under the radar to expose it would be justifiable.  If, on the other hand, the teacher was wearing white shoes during the winter (a traditional fashion faux pas, as I understand it), then it would not be justifiable.  This situation is closer to the latter than to the former.

Your approach seems to hint that the goal (or at least one of the primary goals) is to punish Paszkiewicz for his speech.  What punishment did you have in mind?

If your concern is about punishing Paszkiewicz, then yes you might be concerned about their actions.

If, on the other hand, your goal was to preserve your right not to be confronted with religious ideas contrary to your own as presented by a public school teacher (color that picture to your taste), then you might achieve that goal very easily by talking to the teacher.

Did public officials attempt to cover up improper conduct?  Minus some evidence of such, you seem to be dragging a red herring about.

The local public was apparently opposed to the LaClairs.  By going to the media, which tend to be sympathetic to LaClair's side of church/state separation, they were successful in painting a distorted picture of Paszkiewicz that influenced public opinion nationally and beyond.  That helped place the local government on the defensive (this last was probably in mind as a goal, but the LaClairs probably had no inkling how the press would distort the story and may not have even noticed the distortions favorable to their cause).

7. How far would the LaClairs have gotten with a lawsuit without hard evidence to back up Matthew’s claims about what happened?

That depends on the goal.  They could almost surely have kept Matthew from hearing even constitutionally protected speech about religion simply by complaining directly to Paszkiewicz. 

Their concern seemed broader than that, stretching to the point of wanting to see their own religion unchallenged in the public classroom (I refer to Paszkiewicz's discussion of the faith element in historical science, to which the LaClairs objected while completely misunderstanding the point of Paszkiewicz's teaching).

8. If you thought it was important to stop teachers from using their public school classrooms to preach their religions, and if you thought it was important to defend science education from attacks by teachers who are scientifically ignorant, would your conclusions be different? How do you know what you would do if you thought these issues were important, since you don't think they are important and therefore do not understand the importance of what Matthew did?

Paszkiewicz didn't preach his religion (he's been taken out of context so routinely that the contrary belief is widespread).  Free speech is important to me, and I'd want to see ideas freely exchanged in the classroom, especially where students have begun to mature to the point of engaging the material actively.

Only if I were particularly interested in seeing my religion go unchallenged as the default belief system reinforced in public schools (which I read as the LaClairs' motivation) would I act in a manner parallel to theirs--but I'd still have gone to (or recommended going to) the teacher in person as the first step of the process.

That's one of the clearest clues, BTW, that the concern was not primarily about Matthew's rights.  The LaClairs want the epistemology of metaphysical naturalism taught as the only reliable epistemology in public schools.  It's about ensuring their own religion's place of prominence in public schools.

9. If you don’t understand why these things are important, why should anyone listen to you?

To make sure they don't misunderstand. 

It’s over. The kid and his family did what they thought was right. Many people agree with them. The Board acknowledged the importance of his actions. A teacher made inappropriate comments and got caught. He and his supporters lost this battle. Accept the result, let it go and let it be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surrender after losing a minor skirmish?  Is that what you would do? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another of Bryan's obtuse, obfuscating responses.

The family did not choose that Paszkiewicz not apologize. Their goal was correction of improper remarks and quality control, which is what they achieved. The Constitution prohibits what Paszkiewicz did whether he and Bryan accept it or not; our courts say so, and it is the law. Misleading and proselytizing a captive audience of students is a serious matter: not as serious as killing millions of people with a nuclear bomb, but more serious than wearing white shoes in winter. If the LaClairs had been interested in punishing Paszkiewicz, they could have sued him and pressed for his firing. Paszkiewicz conduct of the class sessions the world has now heard was not open discussion; it was brow-beating students with his supposedly definitive answers. No competent educator would defend that.

Doesn't Bryan ever get tired of making ridiculous arguments? Apparently as long as he's saying something, he is satisfied that he must be right --- even if it's ridiculous, as it generally is.

[Guest Paul]

I am a curious Kearny taxpayer and in my interpretation in your opening comment on this blog was that your lawyers worked for free. I think a lot of people got the same interpretation as well.

I thought that was a pretty good deal, but you then said you needed money to pay the lawyers and it sounded sneaky?  Why did you say that they worked for free and then go to someone who would charge you unless you were after the money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand your question. The lawyers did work for free. They don't make any money getting their expenses back, and neither do we. This isn't really hard to understand, is it?

Assuming you're not the same guest posting the other comments today, it is obvious that some people just don't want to understand what happened.

[Strife767]

But does that make up for all the underhanded things that they did do collectively as a family?

Example?

What about the mental suffering that this Family imposed on the rest of the school

system or the people of this town?

Example?

The day that secret recording do not come under underhanded then you can speak.

So if you secretly videotape a drug deal going down and submit it to the police, they should ignore the tape and admonish you for being underhanded? Maybe that's how it works in your bizarro world, but not in this reality.

The boy never even approached his teacher on this.  Talk about underhanded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paszkiewicz could have easily stopped in his class and continued in all the others if he did that. You're just sore that his unethical and unconstitutional behavior were exposed for all the world to hear.

[Strife767]

The LaClairs scammed the Board of Education into funding their childs future. And now they have the paycheck to prove it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so let's see that proof. Put up or shut up.

[Bryan]

Another of Bryan's obtuse, obfuscating responses.

Another attack on my argumentation that skips the evidence phase entirely.

The family did not choose that Paszkiewicz not apologize. Their goal was correction of improper remarks and quality control, which is what they achieved.

They achieved neither of those things.

The school affirmed two teachings that Paszkiewicz did not contradict. The LaClairs have been consistent in misrepresenting Paszkiewicz's treatment of science, mostly stemming, it seems, from their own misperceptions concerning science. That's not correcting an improper remark, since the remark didn't happen and cannot therefore be corrected. The LaClairs got a mental Band-Aid on that one.

The inservice program is not a quality control program. It's possible that the ADL will teach an overly restrictive version of church/state separation (public schools commonly err on the side on caution), but the ADL was signatory to a church state philosophy that I posted weeks ago--one to which some of the LaClair side apparently objected, since they were quick to downplay it as not having the force of law (as I recall it).

The Constitution prohibits what Paszkiewicz did whether he and Bryan accept it or not; our courts say so, and it is the law.

If you trust the courts, then they could reverse themselves tomorrow (see Plessy v. Ferguson as a reminder). The law is in flux depending on the current opinion of the Justices. You can't be sure of what the law is today because they may change their minds if you go to court.

Some liberals have a solution to the problem. They want stare decisis to put judges' decisions beyond judicial review (precedent higher than the Constitution). Sound good to you?

Misleading and proselytizing a captive audience of students is a serious matter: not as serious as killing millions of people with a nuclear bomb, but more serious than wearing white shoes in winter.

So you agree with me that it's closer to the latter but you needed plenty of words to get around to agreeing with me.

If the LaClairs had been interested in punishing Paszkiewicz, they could have sued him and pressed for his firing.

That costs money--LaClair money unless they get legal assistance from somebody like the ACLU. Once the ACLU is involved, the direction of the legal proceeding probably gets its primary direction from the ACLU. They have an idea of what outcome contributes to their vision of civil liberties--and it doesn't necessarily involve punishing Paszkiewicz.

The LaClairs would be playing dice, and they could have lost.

Paszkiewicz conduct of the class sessions the world has now heard was not open discussion; it was brow-beating students with his supposedly definitive answers. No competent educator would defend that.

You heard what you wanted to hear. Paszkiewicz commended young LaClair for his challenging questions (one on the LaClair side even found that worthy of ridicule), and he very clearly stated that it was up to Matthew how he considered the free will answer to the problem of evil.

If you can make that browbeating, then pretty much anything can be browbeating.

Doesn't Bryan ever get tired of making ridiculous arguments?

I suppose you never tire of saying my arguments are ridiculous without any reasoning to back up your claim (fallacy of appeal to ridicule).

http://www.ironyparty.org/fallaciesemotive.htm#ridicule

Why is your side so deeply reliant on fallacious reasoning, IYO?

Apparently as long as he's saying something, he is satisfied that he must be right --- even if it's ridiculous, as it generally is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm delighted to refute real arguments from your side whenever they might occur (which is rarely).

There's not much challenge in pointing out elementary fallacies of distraction such as "Guest" has used here.

[Guest Guest]

But does that make up for all the underhanded things that they did do collectively as a family? 

What about the mental suffering that this Family imposed on the rest of the school

system or the people of this town?

The day that secret recording do not come under underhanded then you can speak.  The boy never even approached his teacher on this.  Talk about underhanded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(Guest 2): "We have all learned something from this. There is a professional way and a mature way to do things and if you are uncomfortable then approached the person and have a discussion. Or you can take the other approach and discuss it with that individual and secretly tape them and broadcast it in the name of persecution knowing that your father will back you with 1000 lawyers. Unfortunately this individual chose the cowardly way. You can try to sugarcoat it all your want to. But do not expect the people to think otherwise."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yah, shame on you, Matthew. You were supposed to give Mr. Lying Proselytizing Fundie Hypocrite a way out (let’s call him Mr. FH for short), so he could continue lying for Jesus to all his other students, and deny what he was doing if you ever complained about it. Mr. FH was supposed to have all the power in that classroom, and you took it away from him. Him teacher, you student. Don't you get it? Shame on you.

You were supposed to warn Mr. FH that you were going to record him. Because if he had known that, he wouldn’t have said all those things. . . . No, wait a minute . . . OK, we’ll talk about that part later --- ah, maybe, if I can just think this through . . . OK, so gimmie time.

And shame on you for giving Mr. FH and his complicit school board a royal public ass-kicking. Lighten up, kid, Mr. FH was only pitching his religion there for fourteen years. It takes time for people to figure these things out.

Oh wait, I forgot. Mr. FH wasn’t preaching. So what has he stopped doing? . . .

And besides, he said he was sorry . . . well, OK, not exactly.

Never mind all that. This isn’t about a lying, proselytizing fundie hypocrite telling kids there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark. It’s about you. We’re going to talk about you. So there. And don't try to sugarcoat it. Everyone thinks you're a coward. After all, they just said so . . . Well, OK, that wasn't everyone, but you know what I mean. I think. So, yeah! Shame on you for forcing the school board, the New York Times, the Bergen Record, the American Ethical Union and I forget who else to call you a hero. And shame on you for forcing all those hundreds of people to write to KOTW last December in your support. . . Ah, how did you force them to do that exactly?

And shame on your unprofessional lawyers from Willkie Farr & Gallagher (you know, the international law firm with offices all over the world) for not giving you a good smack and telling you "don't bother us." Why, everyone knows that a good law firm would never take your case. . . . Oh, well, wait a minute . . . Never mind, dammit! In Kearny, we know real professionals when we see them. Just look at our . . . ah . . . OK, never mind that either. But we're not changing our minds no matter what. So nyah!

And shame on you for making everyone in Kearny endure all that mental suffering and stuff. Ah, just who has been suffering? . . .

OK, forget that. Shame on you, you coward, for standing up to your teacher, your peers, the school’s administration, the school board and the local bigot brigades. What a coward. Shame on you for making them call you all these names. What’s the big deal? Angry, irrational mobs never hurt anyone.

Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Another of Bryan's obtuse, obfuscating responses.

The family did not choose that Paszkiewicz not apologize. Their goal was correction of improper remarks and quality control, which is what they achieved. The Constitution prohibits what Paszkiewicz did whether he and Bryan accept it or not; our courts say so, and it is the law. Misleading and proselytizing a captive audience of students is a serious matter: not as serious as killing millions of people with a nuclear bomb, but more serious than wearing white shoes in winter. If the LaClairs had been interested in punishing Paszkiewicz, they could have sued him and pressed for his firing. Paszkiewicz conduct of the class sessions the world has now heard was not open discussion; it was brow-beating students with his supposedly definitive answers. No competent educator would defend that.

Doesn't Bryan ever get tired of making ridiculous arguments? Apparently as long as he's saying something, he is satisfied that he must be right --- even if it's ridiculous, as it generally is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is anyone else as tired as me of Paul posting as "Guest" and then posting these glowing comments on himself and junior ??

[Guest RozHerkommer]

I am a curious Kearny taxpayer and in my interpretation in your opening comment on this blog was that your lawyers worked for free. I think a lot of people got the same interpretation as well.

I thought that was a pretty good deal, but you then said you needed money to pay the lawyers and it sounded sneaky?  Why did you say that they worked for free and then go to someone who would charge you unless you were after the money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The big question is, What did this lesson in futility cost the Town tax payers?

[Bryan]

Example?

Example?

So if you secretly videotape a drug deal going down and submit it to the police, they should ignore the tape and admonish you for being underhanded?

If the drug deal did not take place in public (like on a street corner), then you may well have broken the law. And it is doubtful that the police could make use of the tape under current law. The taped evidence would probably be inadmissible.

The police could use the evidence as probable cause to seek a warrant to collect their own evidence, however.

You could be potentially become an object of prosecution for invasion of privacy.

Maybe that's how it works in your bizarro world, but not in this reality.

Do tell.

Paszkiewicz could have easily stopped in his class and continued in all the others if he did that.

He could do that right now, too.

You're just sore that his unethical and unconstitutional behavior were exposed for all the world to hear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not the tape but the taking of Paszkiewicz's comments out of context that has proved damaging.

[Guest Guest]

Is anyone else as tired as me of Paul posting as "Guest" and then posting these glowing comments on himself and junior ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there anyone who isn't tired of you posting at all?

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

Misleading and proselytizing a captive audience of students is a serious matter: not as serious as killing millions of people with a nuclear bomb, but more serious than wearing white shoes in winter.

So you agree with me that it's closer to the latter but you needed plenty of words to get around to agreeing with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone agrees with Bryan eventually --- that's the way of nature. Just ask him.

QUOTE

If the LaClairs had been interested in punishing Paszkiewicz, they could have sued him and pressed for his firing.

That costs money--LaClair money unless they get legal assistance from somebody like the ACLU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Goodness knows, the LaClairs could never get the ACLU to help them --- or two private law firms to work on the case for free. No, that would never happen.

[Guest KearnyKard]

Is anyone else as tired as me of Paul posting as "Guest" and then posting these glowing comments on himself and junior ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YES !! But I don't think he's going away any time soon. He's going to milk his grandiose notion that anyone is actually interested in hearing from him.

Fortunately, we can delete him.

[Guest Guest]

YES !!  But I don't think he's going away any time soon.  He's going to milk his grandiose  notion that anyone is actually interested in hearing from him.

  Fortunately, we can delete him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

kearny cops got slammed see the harrison posting of dispatchers! looks like paul isn't the only one with issues! lmao................