David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Guest Guest]

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

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

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

81148[/snapback]

But that's not what you said. This is what you said.

QUOTE(Guest @ Jan 10 2008, 10:42 PM)

What's scarey is that Mrs. LaClair has to post this posts to pretend that her son is a hero to keep his name in the media. Sorry I don't go posting Matthew LaClair in Google. I have a life.

Now if you want to argue about whether Matthew portrays himself as a hero, that depends on what you mean by portrays. If you mean that he claims to be a hero, you cannot point to a single place where he has said that. That is a fact.

On the other hand, if you mean that he acts like a hero, that would be correct. He stood up to people who were more powerful than he was, outsmarted and outmaneuvered them, and was vindicated. He withstood tremendous pressure to accomplish his goals, and they are important goals. You're entitled to think he is not a hero, but you do not get to dictate what others think, and the fact is that most people think he is.

And if you want a second opinion, you're still an imbecile.

[Guest Guest]

Baloney.

Baloney.

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

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

81313[/snapback]

Go finish your baloney, Bryan.

[Guest Guest]

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

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

81343[/snapback]

Bingo!

[Guest Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

81349[/snapback]

Waaaaaaaaaa! Those are facts. You're not being faaaaiiiirrr! Waaaaaaaaaa!

[Guest Guest]

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

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

[And blah, blah, blah. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You kicked our ass! Waaaaaaaaa!]

81365[/snapback]

Obviously not everyone has the luxury of a brain either.

[Guest Guest]

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

81425[/snapback]

A good sense of proportion tells me that this teacher didn't just step over the line. He stepped on it, smashed it and did everything he could to destroy it. When he was caught he lied about it. Then he tried to say he did nothing wrong. When people finally came to the school to correct what he had done, he tried to undermine them. This isn't just a mistake. It's deliberate conduct and he has shown no humility or contrition.

David Paszkiewicz isn't just a teacher who made a mistake. He is a religious zealot. That's OK if he keeps it to himself while he is on the public's time, but he doesn't, and from all appearances he won't.

He is also profoundly ignorant of science and many other subjects. Educationally, that is very dangerous, and in complete opposition to what the school system is for.

So what do we have from this teacher?

- Violation of the US Constitution.

- Multiple acts of dishonesty.

- No humility.

- No intellectual honesty.

- Blatant hypocrisy.

- An abysmal ignorance of science, which he had no business commenting on in his history class.

- A complete lack of contrition, not the least of which is failure to apologize to the community he has divided.

- No apparent understanding that what he did was wrong, which means he will almost certainly do it again.

A good sense of proportion says he should have been fired last year, but since he wasn't fired then, he should be fired now.

[Guest Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

81365[/snapback]

I’m curious, what does DP stand for?

Paul has already addressed the fact that Matthew went to the school with this and not the teacher, many times. He made the point that when a teacher is this far out of control, there’s no point going to him. Paszkiewicz’s behavior since then proves that he was right. Obviously Paszkiewicz is a very stubborn man. Matthew saw it and acted accordingly. What’s curious is that you criticize Paul for writing a long post, and then criticize him for leaving things out.

Then the family became involved. That’s not the royal “we.” They were acting as a family. Not to mention: so what?

As far as Paul’s position as a lawyer, again, so what? Those remarks are just childish.

It became an assault because the school refused to act. They turned it into a war by refusing to do what they should have done, and have now as much as admitted they should have done. You think the LaClairs should have backed down. They didn’t. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

He knows people are still telling him to shut up and go away. Of course you are. But again, it amounts to nothing more than “Waaaaaaaaaaa! You kicked our ass. Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

By the way, the entire community didn’t say he was wrong. Only the religious zealots. Nearly everyone else in Kearny was shamefully silent. But all over the country and throughout the world, people spoke up, and 99% of it was in favor of Matthew and his family. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

By the way, your comparison to Don Quixote tilting at windmills make no sense. The LaClairs accomplished what they set out to do. If theirs was a hopeless cause, then they’re amazingly smart, because they succeeded. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Apparently the New York Times called Paul. They didn’t call Matthew. That’s not surprising, considering that Matthew is a minor. He’s relaying the facts. What’s your point? Oh yeah. “Waaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Now, as a result of all this, Matthew is successful. He became famous and it’s lasting more than fifteen minutes. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

And yes, hid dad helped him. Probably him mom did too. What awful parents. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

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

Yes, he did give his dad and the rest of the legal team all the ammunition they needed. Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy. He kicked your ass so that it would stay kicked. "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

As for the rest of those last remarks, shame on you. There’s a zero in this picture, alright.

[Guest Captain Obvious]

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

81424[/snapback]

Why, because I'd be unwilling to do something as stupid as door-taping, which insults the rule-following kids and amuses the rule-breakers, who can defeat the system with minimal effort?

What's "defeatist" about knowing something's a stupid idea, and therefore avoiding it?

[Guest Guest]

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

81424[/snapback]

You actually bred kids? Poor things.

[Guest Guest]

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

81387[/snapback]

Or a variation on that that seems not only likely, but inevitable if this kind of surveillance isn't stopped:

Not just controversy, but they find that you have political/social views they don't agree with, so you aren't hired. Imagine this being done at the federal level! It would be so simple, too...once someone's information is logged, allt hey need to do is search the index for, say, the last name of the current President. Then they read around it, and most likely it won't take very long to categorize people, and if they are critical of the current administration, they're denied.

In this and the other cases, NOTHING illegal is being done on the part of the person who is being 'surveilled'. So dismissing it as a problem because it can only negatively affect lawbreakers is absurd! Not to mention that whole personal privacy thing...no big deal, right? Just hand it all over to Big Brother? Over my dead body.

[billydee4]

I’m curious, what does DP stand for?

DP stands for Displaced Person. The term was used after WWII for the people who had to leave their homes in Europe and then came to America. At least in the area where I grew up it was also a derogatory term for all recent immigrants from Europe, especially those from eastern Europe. Some people, including members of my own family, still call people DP's.

[Guest Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

81079[/snapback]

Yeah, maybe you're right. With people like Matt out there willing to secretly record everything I guess we should all be worried.

You dope.

[Guest Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. What are the expectations of the people involved?

2. What is the basis for their expectations?

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

4. What are their motives?

5. What is the quality of their motives?

6. What are their legitimate interests?

7. What consequences will ensue if expectations are violated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

81397[/snapback]

Those are pretty weak analogies from someone that uses deception as his stock and trade.

I don't agree with DP's speech in the classroom, but I'd hardly call what Matt did a mild form of deception. Matt was probably in his glory when he got DP as as a teacher. He initiated the conversations, engaged and encouraged DP all of the way. Then he secretly recorded him. All taken out of the context that it was informal conversation and not a history lesson. Then he secretly recorded a private meeting. All along looking for just the right moments to pull out the recordings.

Maybe Somma should file a notice of claim because Matt violated his rights.

[Guest Guest]

I’m curious, what does DP stand for?

Paul has already addressed the fact that Matthew went to the school with this and not the teacher, many times. He made the point that when a teacher is this far out of control, there’s no point going to him. Paszkiewicz’s behavior since then proves that he was right. Obviously Paszkiewicz is a very stubborn man. Matthew saw it and acted accordingly. What’s curious is that you criticize Paul for writing a long post, and then criticize him for leaving things out.

Then the family became involved. That’s not the royal “we.” They were acting as a family. Not to mention: so what?

As far as Paul’s position as a lawyer, again, so what? Those remarks are just childish.

It became an assault because the school refused to act. They turned it into a war by refusing to do what they should have done, and have now as much as admitted they should have done. You think the LaClairs should have backed down. They didn’t. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

He knows people are still telling him to shut up and go away. Of course you are. But again, it amounts to nothing more than “Waaaaaaaaaaa! You kicked our ass. Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

By the way, the entire community didn’t say he was wrong. Only the religious zealots. Nearly everyone else in Kearny was shamefully silent. But all over the country and throughout the world, people spoke up, and 99% of it was in favor of Matthew and his family. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

By the way, your comparison to Don Quixote tilting at windmills make no sense. The LaClairs accomplished what they set out to do. If theirs was a hopeless cause, then they’re amazingly smart, because they succeeded. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Apparently the New York Times called Paul. They didn’t call Matthew. That’s not surprising, considering that Matthew is a minor. He’s relaying the facts. What’s your point? Oh yeah. “Waaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Now, as a result of all this, Matthew is successful. He became famous and it’s lasting more than fifteen minutes. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

And yes, hid dad helped him. Probably him mom did too. What awful parents. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

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

Yes, he did give his dad and the rest of the legal team all the ammunition they needed. Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy. He kicked your ass so that it would stay kicked. "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

As for the rest of those last remarks, shame on you. There’s a zero in this picture, alright.

81489[/snapback]

Your post makes it sound like it's time for a diaper change for you. The one question I do have for you is this: "If this teacher is so "out of control" as you call it, then why is he still teaching? Hundreds of people have read all Paul's posts and have chances to react and none have. None of the other students in the class have ever posted one negative remark about this teacher, but actually praised his teaching and he has been teaching for a number of years. Many have have reviewed all the information about this and nothing has been done. So it sounds like Paul and his attacks are "out of control."

[Guest Guest]

I’m curious, what does DP stand for?

Paul has already addressed the fact that Matthew went to the school with this and not the teacher, many times. He made the point that when a teacher is this far out of control, there’s no point going to him. Paszkiewicz’s behavior since then proves that he was right. Obviously Paszkiewicz is a very stubborn man. Matthew saw it and acted accordingly. What’s curious is that you criticize Paul for writing a long post, and then criticize him for leaving things out.

Then the family became involved. That’s not the royal “we.” They were acting as a family. Not to mention: so what?

As far as Paul’s position as a lawyer, again, so what? Those remarks are just childish.

It became an assault because the school refused to act. They turned it into a war by refusing to do what they should have done, and have now as much as admitted they should have done. You think the LaClairs should have backed down. They didn’t. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

He knows people are still telling him to shut up and go away. Of course you are. But again, it amounts to nothing more than “Waaaaaaaaaaa! You kicked our ass. Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

By the way, the entire community didn’t say he was wrong. Only the religious zealots. Nearly everyone else in Kearny was shamefully silent. But all over the country and throughout the world, people spoke up, and 99% of it was in favor of Matthew and his family. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

By the way, your comparison to Don Quixote tilting at windmills make no sense. The LaClairs accomplished what they set out to do. If theirs was a hopeless cause, then they’re amazingly smart, because they succeeded. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Apparently the New York Times called Paul. They didn’t call Matthew. That’s not surprising, considering that Matthew is a minor. He’s relaying the facts. What’s your point? Oh yeah. “Waaaaaaaaaaaa!”

Now, as a result of all this, Matthew is successful. He became famous and it’s lasting more than fifteen minutes. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

And yes, hid dad helped him. Probably him mom did too. What awful parents. “Waaaaaaaaaaa!”

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

Yes, he did give his dad and the rest of the legal team all the ammunition they needed. Bad boy, Matthew. Bad, bad boy. He kicked your ass so that it would stay kicked. "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

As for the rest of those last remarks, shame on you. There’s a zero in this picture, alright.

81489[/snapback]

Strife? Is that you?

[Guest Guest]

Yeah, maybe you're right.  With people like Matt out there willing to secretly record everything I guess we should all be worried. 

You dope.

81638[/snapback]

Good God, if you'll pardon the expression. Now you right wing idiots are equating a sixteen year old kid with massive surveillance by the most powerful government in the world. The kid really got to you, didn't he.

[Guest Paul]

Those are pretty weak analogies from someone that uses deception as his stock and trade.

I don't agree with DP's speech in the classroom, but I'd hardly call what Matt did a mild form of deception. Matt was probably in his glory when he got DP as as a teacher.  He initiated the conversations, engaged and encouraged DP all of the way.  Then he secretly recorded him.  All taken out of the context that it was informal conversation and not a history lesson.  Then he secretly recorded a private meeting.  All along looking for just the right moments to pull out the recordings. 

Maybe Somma should file a notice of claim because Matt violated his rights.

81642[/snapback]

So much for any attempt at a real discussion. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's not what happened. A topic was opened a few months ago blasting Paszkiewicz and laying out exactly what happened in class with specific and lengthy quotes from the transcripts. Your side barely touched that topic because it was so obvious what had happened. Paszkiewicz was proselytizing, and Matthew's first several questions were attempts to draw the discussion back on topic. When Paszkiewicz persisted, Matthew followed the line Paszkiewicz insisted on pursuing. Matthew did not initiate any of the topics. Those are facts, and if you care to see them spelled out again, see: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=17885.

A Notice of Claim is only filed against a governmental body. It's a special protection they use to buffer themselves from litigation. So Mr. Somma couldn't file a Notice of Claim against Matthew or any private citizen even if he wanted to, which he doesn't. I've had several very pleasant conversations with him since this all occurred, and as I have told him, he has been a gentleman throughout, even though I don't think he handled the situation well at the time. Honestly, I was really hoping you would address the issues instead of attempting a few more cheap insults.

[Guest Paul]

Your post makes it sound like it's time for a diaper change for you.  The one question I do have for you is this: "If this teacher is so "out of control"  as you call it, then why is he still teaching?  Hundreds of people have read all Paul's posts and have chances to react and none have.  None of the other students in the class have ever posted one negative remark about this teacher, but actually praised his teaching and he has been teaching for a number of years.  Many have have reviewed all the information about this and nothing has been done. So it sounds like Paul and his attacks are "out of control."

81675[/snapback]

That is absolutely false on several counts.

1. Mr. Paszkiewicz was disciplined. We just don't know how. Presumably he is still teaching because they Board decided not to fire him. That's their call. It doesn't mean they're happy with him. It's very hard to fire a tenured teacher with a powerful union behind him.

2. No student in that particular class spoke out, which is not surprising considering the abuse Matthew took. However, several of Mr. Paszkiewicz's former students did speak out to verify that this is longstanding behavior.

3. Something else was done, too, besides whatever discipline was handed out to Mr. Paszkiewicz. The ADL has done teacher training, which it will complete this month. After that, the social studies teachers will impart that information to their classes, except that Mr. Paszkiewicz will not be allowed to impart the information to his students. Ms. Wood, the department head has been named to do it in his place. The clear message is that he cannot be trusted to teach students on church-state separation. I can't see any other interpretation, can you?

In addition, two assemblies have taken place, and in February we are scheduled to have a third. That will complete the terms of the settlement.

4. Many people have reacted favorably to and in support of what Matthew has done and what he and I have written.

Those are facts. Your post is simply, factually wrong.

[WilliamK]

I’m curious, what does DP stand for?

81489[/snapback]

Dr. Pepper is the only thing that comes to mind. The previous poster probably was thinking of something else, since Dr. Pepper doesn't seem particularly offensive, or particularly likely to have been an intended connection. More likely the intent was simply what it appeared to be: a shorthand to save having to type out "David Paszkiewicz" in full, over and over.

[Guest Guest]

Your post makes it sound like it's time for a diaper change for you.  The one question I do have for you is this: "If this teacher is so "out of control"  as you call it, then why is he still teaching?

Only because the LaClairs showed mercy in not seeking his dismissal, as given P's conduct, they could have easily justified it.

In fact, regardless of any LaClair's actions, Paszkiewicz showed himself to be both dishonest and incompetent in the very subject he's supposed to be teaching, as his happy little 'separation of church and state is a myth' letter clearly showed. The Board has no excuse for allowing him to continue teaching.

Hundreds of people have read all Paul's posts and have chances to react and none have.  None of the other students in the class have ever posted one negative remark about this teacher, but actually praised his teaching and he has been teaching for a number of years.

Most of those same people also denied that Paszkiewicz made the statements that the audio clearly proves he made. What's your point? Protecting someone who doesn't deserve it, that's all it amounts to.

Many have have reviewed all the information about this and nothing has been done. So it sounds like Paul and his attacks are "out of control."

81675[/snapback]

Only if you're an idiot.

[Guest Be my Guest]

Those are pretty weak analogies from someone that uses deception as his stock and trade.

And all blacks are rappers and/or criminals too, right? Stupid generalizations like that just make you sound like a fool.

I don't agree with DP's speech in the classroom, but I'd hardly call what Matt did a mild form of deception. Matt was probably in his glory when he got DP as as a teacher.  He initiated the conversations,

Bullshit, as has been proven countless times. Paszkiewicz started every religion-based conversation himself.

engaged and encouraged DP all of the way.

"DP" has no excuse--he's supposed to be the TEACHER, the one who knows when a certain topic is inappropriate, and can easily refuse to answer a given question based on that.

Then he secretly recorded him.  All taken out of the context that it was informal conversation and not a history lesson.

Kearny's tax money pays teachers to teach, not preach. Period. When the "informal conversation" is about who does or doesn't belong in a place of eternal suffering depending on whether or not they believe what the teacher does, it is WAY inappropriate.

Also, how else could Matthew prove that his accusations were truthful, other than recording Paszkiewicz, a proven liar? Matthew predicted he'd need the recordings to back him up, and guess what? Paszkiewicz proved him 100% RIGHT. If Matthew HADN'T recorded Paszkiewicz, he would have gotten away with his dishonesty, and Matthew would have been left with no way to support his claims.

You disagree so much with Matthew's decisions: why don't you become the first person on this forum to actually present an alternative that would have been able to successfully make Matthew's case, other than what he did? Just be sure not to suggest one-on-one talking with Paszkiewicz (he lied in a meeting with the principal, therefore he'd obviously lie in a 'lesser' situation like that too), since that obviously wouldn't work. Also, don't bother even mentioning the rest of the class--most of them lied about what Paszkiewicz said the same way Paszkiewicz himself did, so they obviously would not have been of any help.

I'd love to hear your suggestions, since your reaction obviously implies Matthew could have gone about things in a better way. Come on, let's hear it, hotshot.

Then he secretly recorded a private meeting.  All along looking for just the right moments to pull out the recordings.

Guess what? There would have been no "moment" if Paszkiewicz answered the questions Matthew asked honestly! In fact, if Paszkiewicz wasn't such a filthy liar, there would have been no need to present the recordings AT ALL! And if Paszkiewicz wasn't such a self-righteous twit, Matthew wouldn't have to PROVE he did wrong, because Paszkiewicz would have the sense to acknowledge his mistakes, and the integrity to truly want to correct them.

But no--Paszkiewicz is a lying scumbag who had every intention to bullshit his way out of getting caught doing something he OBVIOUSLY knew was wrong; if he TRULY didn't think it was wrong, as he claims, HE WOULDN'T HAVE LIED ABOUT IT!

Maybe Somma should file a notice of claim because Matt violated his rights.

81642[/snapback]

New Jersey is a one-party-consent state. No one's rights were violated.

[Guest FR]

Those are pretty weak analogies from someone that uses deception as his stock and trade.

I don't agree with DP's speech in the classroom, but I'd hardly call what Matt did a mild form of deception. Matt was probably in his glory when he got DP as as a teacher.  He initiated the conversations, engaged and encouraged DP all of the way.  Then he secretly recorded him.  All taken out of the context that it was informal conversation and not a history lesson.  Then he secretly recorded a private meeting.  All along looking for just the right moments to pull out the recordings. 

Maybe Somma should file a notice of claim because Matt violated his rights.

81642[/snapback]

They’re not analogies. Their purpose isn’t to suggest a factual comparison.

They’re examples. Their purpose is to outline the contours of a principle.

What makes something “sneaky and underhanded” versus resourceful and heroic? You were invited to think about it and discuss. But since you’re not interested in thinking or in any real discussion, you responded with unthinking insults and "points" that either aren't true or have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Matthew didn’t harm any innocent party. He made an objective record of misconduct so that it could be addressed by the proper authorities and corrected. He did it because he suspected that DP would deny what he had done; that's exactly what happened. When they refused to address it, Matthew took it to the media and to counsel. After much stonewalling, the school system finally did the right thing. Matthew’s conduct is not sneaky and underhanded. It’s resourceful and heroic.

You’re free to disagree, but if you’re going to do that you should be able to justify it. You’re not even interested in trying. You say several things, none of which makes any sense.

You say that recording the class isn't a mild form of deception. You don't explain why. It's a mild form of deception because it didn't harm anyone's legitimate interests. All you do to justify the remark is speculate that Matthew must have been "in his glory." Number one, you don't know that, number two, there's no evidence for it, and number three, it has nothing to do with your point.

You say that Matthew initiated the discussion. No he didn't. DP brought up every single topic. Not to mention the fact that one person was supposed to be in charge of that classroom, and it wasn't Matthew. You're completely ignoring where the responsibility lies for the conduct of the class.

Then you accuse Matthew of taking something out of context. That's not true either. He produced the recordings in their entirety. Most people who looked at the situation thought that DP's conduct amounted to preaching in the classroom, which it does. Whether it was a history lesson or an informal discussion makes not a shred of difference. So what you're calling Matthew taking something out of context is just that most people don't agree with you. They're the ones who characterize this mainly as improper teaching.

Finally, you accuse Matthew of seeking an opportunity. Yet again, you don't know that, have no basis for it, and it isn't supported by what Matthew did. He gave everyone numerous opportunities to address the problem. Only when they refused and after waiting a month were the recordings made public. The meeting in Somma's office wasn't revealed until after DP effectively called Matthew a liar in a letter published in the local paper. What basis do you have for saying that Matthew was "just looking for the right moment to pull out the recordings?" None. He gave all parties involved an opportunity to make it unnecessary, and every one of them failed. How do you respond to that? You don't.

When you’re asked to think about this, you refuse. You don’t seem to care about principle, which is what morality and ethics are all about. So the moral and ethical deficiencies here are yours.

If you’re going to try to insult someone, you should check very carefully to make sure you understand what’s being said. What's immoral and wrong is accusing a kid of things that he simply did not do, anonymously no less. If you're going to put the kid under a microscope, how about trying to justify yourself? We'll see whether you have the moral character for that.

[Guest Guest]

That is absolutely false on several counts.

2. No student in that particular class spoke out, which is not surprising considering the abuse Matthew took. However, several of Mr. Paszkiewicz's former students did speak out to verify that this is longstanding behavior.

81770[/snapback]

There you go lying again. For a lawyer you should be embarrassed to post this response. You cannot name 5 people who spoke out. Think about it, except for some fictitious guests on here you have not named anyone. I do not think that no one constitutes as "several". Those are the facts. I along with others have come to the conclusion that you cannot yourself from lying.

[Bryan]

That is absolutely false on several counts.

1. Mr. Paszkiewicz was disciplined. We just don't know how. Presumably he is still teaching because they Board decided not to fire him. That's their call. It doesn't mean they're happy with him. It's very hard to fire a tenured teacher with a powerful union behind him.

Isn't that a flip-flop from you, LaClair?

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

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=80842

Apparently "refused to act"="didn't do what we wanted them to do"

2. No student in that particular class spoke out, which is not surprising considering the abuse Matthew took. However, several of Mr. Paszkiewicz's former students did speak out to verify that this is longstanding behavior.

Perhaps they can guest on John Edward's show, given that they were apparently discouraged from speaking out at the time on the basis of clairvoyant knowledge of Matthew's future struggles.

Seriously, the content of the allegations is key, along with the motives and reliability of those former students.

3. Something else was done, too, besides whatever discipline was handed out to Mr. Paszkiewicz. The ADL has done teacher training, which it will complete this month. After that, the social studies teachers will impart that information to their classes, except that Mr. Paszkiewicz will not be allowed to impart the information to his students. Ms. Wood, the department head has been named to do it in his place. The clear message is that he cannot be trusted to teach students on church-state separation. I can't see any other interpretation, can you?

Sure. Since the ADL training program was instituted in the wake of a complaint about Mr. Paszkiewicz the school avoided the appearance of impropriety by keeping him from the chore.

That explanation should be obvious to a competent lawyer. Perhaps the opportunity to continue to smear Paszkiewicz was too juicy to pass up, though.

[Bryan]

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

“Sneaky and underhanded” is a value judgment. You’re not explaining that value judgment, and that’s ironic. Your use of the words “sneaky and underhanded” is itself sneaky and underhanded, and most definitely spin, both of which you criticize when you think someone else is doing it – but then you do them both yourself.

Why is his use of the words "sneaky and underhanded" sneaky and underhanded?

My post is long because it contains facts. Yes, I put in my conclusions, but I explain them with the facts. You didn’t do that. All you did was spin, then accuse me of it. If you’re going to make that accusation, you should not do it yourself. At least that’s my value judgment.

Don't you need to explain the value judgment (or risk a fallacy of inconsistency)?

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

Okay, we're in agreement that Matthew acted deceptively.

Deception isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are plenty of circumstances where our culture applauds it and considers it clever and laudable.

Fallacy of appeal to popularity (and a window into LaClair's secret metaphysical foundation for ethics?).

People have won medals from our military for “good” deceptions, which we might define loosely as deceptions that serve an important and just cause and are therefore entirely justified.

I haven't seen LaClair use this line of reasoning to defend the NSA wiretapping program for some reason.

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

Saves lives where there's no clear way of achieving the same effect without the deception.

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

I can't wait to see the attempt to bring the supposed parallels to bear on the actual case.

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

You mean the Jets, I believe.

I snipped two more paragraphs of the same type of stuff, since it's kind of unbelievable that somebody would need that much space to explain something so simple unless he were also trying to create a distraction.

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

Sure he can, because he might have a specific context in mind (Lord knows various folks on LaClair's side have employed that technique often enough). Though it's always helpful to provide an explanation where the point is disputed.

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

1. What are the expectations of the people involved?

2. What is the basis for their expectations?

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

4. What are their motives?

5. What is the quality of their motives?

6. What are their legitimate interests?

7. What consequences will ensue if expectations are violated?

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

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

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

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

Doesn't appear to cover the recording of the private meeting with Somma, Woods and Pasziewicz, does it? Where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy?

My conclusion under the circumstances is that Matthew did the best thing under the circumstances.

That conclusion, according to my recollection, is typically build on an apparently unfounded assumption that other methods would not have resulted in a better outcome. It seems to me that the LaClairs' minority ideology plays the chief role in guiding their value judgment, here (perhaps with a healthy dollop of the ends justifying the means).

There was deception, but it wasn’t sneaky or underhanded because no one’s legitimate interests were violated in any meaningful way by the recordings being made.

That seems somewhat spare in the explanation department.

You posted elsewhere about the constitutional right to privacy, LaClair. If you don't recognize that the private meeting at the school carried a reasonable expectation of privacy (a meeting that your son surreptitiously recorded, adding misleading words to the deception) then you provide the appearance of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

If he faced the situation again and asked me what he should do (he wouldn’t because he already knows), I would tell him to do exactly the same thing. This was not innocuous behavior by this teacher. Of course, people who don't care about church-state separation or evolutionary biology don't care, but the one is established law and the other is established science; the school is obligated to follow the law and teach the science. Therefore, what Matthew did was good and important.

In my humble opinion there's something missing from this apologetic: a plausible rationale as to why non-deceptive methods could not have worked just as well.

Returning to the football analogy, Matthew acted in a manner that was no routinely condoned and applauded (as with a play-action pass to fool the defense). It was close to the Patriots using film to steal signs from other teams, particularly before the NFL created guidelines specifically prohibiting the practice. As with Belichek, the LaClairs are willing to use sneaky tactics to achieve what they deem is the prize.