A student of uncommon courage

[Strife767]

How about approaching the teacher?

Result: Preaching possibly stops in Matthew's class, more then likely doesn't in other classes. In addition, no one undergoes education that leads to more students (and faculty) knowing that what he was doing was wrong, and why it was wrong.

Try again. Remember, we're looking for an alternate course of action that ultimately results in everyone getting perspective on this sort of thing--to be able to identify it as something that needs to be corrected, and to be willing to act on it the way Matthew did.

Interestingly enough, Matthew's detractors also don't seem to realize no recordings would have been necessary if the majority (if not all) of the students were aware of the problem and all called Paszkiewicz on it together. Matthew did what he did because there was no other way to adequately address the situation. He didn't create the situation--his teacher, his stagnant (at best) classmates and the deaf-eared Board did. If one or more of those (groups of) people had been doing the right thing, Matthew would have had to go that 'less far.'

I can't think of a better way to reach the same end Matthew did; frankly, I'd be very interested in learning of one, especially when people like you make it sound like the most obvious thing in the world. So keep in mind what kind of 'alternatives' obviously don't fit and see if you can actually back up your claims. Admittedly, I won't be holding my breath, but I won't ignore a valid response either. Let's see it.

[Strife767]

Please go back to your own hick state.

Primitive bigot.

If you listened to the tape you would might learn something.

68699[/snapback]

"Would" or "might." Choose one. They can't both be there right next to each other. Care to rephrase your "hick" comment?

[Strife767]

Would it BE possible for you to pose your question in English that can form a complete sentense without making you sound stupid?

68700[/snapback]

He pretty much always does that. He can correctly spell "sentence," too, "stupid."

[Strife767]

C'mon.  That's a little self-congratulatory, don't you think.  I'd have to say that neither "side" has done a stellar job avoiding personal insults.

68785[/snapback]

At least when I insult someone, it's based on something that they actually said, as opposed to making up lies (such as those spread around here about the LaClair family) or resorting to infantile comments about one's personal life, even creating entire topics just to slam someone that way (I challenge you to find me saying something analogous to the childish "push broom" comments made toward me, for example).

Sometimes it just gets frustrating--I have a very low tolerance for dishonesty.

[Strife767]

It is obvious only to you since you chose not to go that route of not approaching the teacher. You have no proof what would or would not have worked.

Are you quite high? Paskiewicz had the guts to lie through his teeth in front of Paul and the principal, and even to maintain he did nothing wrong with all the evidence out in the open, and you think it's unreasonable to assume he'd do the same in a private, one-on-one situation? It would be easier for him to get away with dishonest denial that way! Use your head, for crying out loud.

You attempts at strong-arming both the school and the school board

What the hell do you expect when no one's doing what they're supposed to be? It's not like they filed a lawsuit the moment Matthew came home with his classroom recordings. They tried really hard to convince Paszkiewicz, and then the Board, to do the right thing on their own, over months. They refused! So, the LaClairs put some pressure on them to do what's right, and what's Constitutional. Even the Bible says to try to resolve a dispute with your brother, and if that doesn't work, then (to paraphrase) keep 'going higher' until the situation is resolved. That's exactly what they did. If you expect the LaClair family to just sit down and shut up when people are F**KING up this badly, prepare for continued disappointment. They're not that weak-willed, and I'd tell God to bless them for it (sounds self-important when written that way, but is that any worse than basically doing the same thing in response to a simple sneeze? ) if I believed in Him.

[Strife767]

It is not obvious only to me. It is obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the facts. It's like a guy who watches two football games every Sunday afternoon: I don't need to wait until next Sunday to know where he's going to be.

Bern, Keith and Strife, how about it: is it obvious only to me?

68823[/snapback]

I'm still shocked every time I learn of a new person who it isn't obvious to.

[Strife767]

I'm a long time Kearny (and Harrison) resident and a graduate of KHS.  I'm depressed and disturbed to know that I live and walk among people who are so obviously unobjective and so overwhelmingly behind a 'teacher' who is scientifically illiterate!

As a local, I have wanted to reach out to Matthew and his family since this broke.  I wanted them to know that not all Kearny residents think what Matthew did was illegal or motivated by attention seeking.  Far from it.  What Matthew did was, in fact, brave and courageous.

Having recently found this forum and seeing that residents are still having issues with this I thought I would finally speak up.  I support what Matthew did and I applaud it.  I graduated long before Paskiewicz started teaching at KHS but I would have done EXACTLY the same thing Matthew did.  We go to school to be educated, not indoctrinated.

68843[/snapback]

Rock on, fellow sensible Kearnian. That post was a breath of fresh air.

[Guest Guest]

The point was why Mathew did not approach the teacher when he was not happy with the discussions.

68867[/snapback]

This question has been answered many, many times.

[Guest Guest]

Go to almost any university in the country, they will gladly indoctrinate you into their line of thinking.  They tried it with me, it just never took.  I do not have issues w/ what Matt did, (though I do think there was some attention seeking IMO, and ONLY my opinion), but really enough is enough.  Paul has come to dominate this board on all topics and I am just tired.

He talks of meaningful debate, but unilaterally dismisses ALL who disagree with him.  I promised not to respond to his posts, but frankly won't give him the satisfaction. 

It is simple, and I've said it before, I believe what I believe.  I am not asking anyone to share my beliefs, but bet your ass I am allowed to hold my own beliefs; it is after all a free country.

68850[/snapback]

He doesn't dismiss people who disagree with him. He states his reasons, and very often asks for comment in response. In fact, one of the complaints is that he dominates the board. He does it by discussing facts, values, etc. That's not dismissing. It's engaging.

[an American in Texas]

It is not obvious only to me. It is obvious to anyone who looks objectively at the facts. It's like a guy who watches two football games every Sunday afternoon: I don't need to wait until next Sunday to know where he's going to be.

Bern, Keith and Strife, how about it: is it obvious only to me?

68823[/snapback]

It's obvious to any rational person. On your side is all the evidence:

1) the tapes; obvious preaching in class

2) past experience w/ P; testimony that he'd been doing this for years; Matthew was aware of this

3) P's response in the meeting w/ the principal; flat-out lying

4) P's response since this became public; more preaching and an assertion he had the right to preach (this is a lie, of course, but he copied that lie from David Barton)

Give what DID happen, it's really hard to argue that Matthew's approach was not reasonable. That doesn't seem to be stopping some of the Kearney folks, but nobody with any sense is taking them seriously.

Leigh

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

You are such an idiot!

The point was why Mathew did not approach the teacher when he was not happy with the discussions. He was given that opportunity instead he decided to record the teacher. As far as I heard, he did not show any dislike on those recordings in anyway. He ACTED like he was enjoying the discussions in fact he participated in the discussions.

Did you ever payed attention to how many questions were asked? How many was asked by Mathew?

Ask Paul how many times he went to talk to the teacher himself?

Get your head out of Paul’s behind and you might learn something.

Don't be a follower Keith. Or maybe you are not capable of doing that either?

68867[/snapback]

I guess you really told me, huh? I can only feel insulted if it is a comment made by someone who's opinion I hold in high regard. Better luck next time.

[Guest Loki]

He doesn't dismiss people who disagree with him. He states his reasons, and very often asks for comment in response. In fact, one of the complaints is that he dominates the board. He does it by discussing facts, values, etc. That's not dismissing. It's engaging.

68938[/snapback]

What you call engaging, I call demeaning. He talks down to people. I try very hard to discuss issues as well, I just don't pretend that my opinion somehow carries more weight than ANYONE else on the board.

[agyness]

Go to almost any university in the country, they will gladly indoctrinate you into their line of thinking.  They tried it with me, it just never took.

68850[/snapback]

That's too bad that it didn't take.... You might have learned something.

Seriously though, comments like that I have a huge gripe with. Loki, please share with us exactly what you mean by THEIR LINE OF THINKING? Sounds to me like what you're trying to say is... liberal thinking. I hope your source wasn't the book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth". If so, the following review of that book is something I wish I could take credit for writing myself as it nicely sums up how I feel about your comment:

"Only in America have universities and colleges, the seats of higher learning, become institutions of derision. Only in America has "liberal" become a derogatory term. "Liberal," the root of words such as "liberty," which formed the basis of what was once America's "liberal democracy," the freedom of people to make up their own minds and rule themselves - now a prejorative term. The "liberal arts" of open-minded, critical investigation of the greatest ideas ever conceived of by man, created to "liberate" the citizen from narrow-minded parochialism and fundamentalism, now a subject of scorn and ridicule by the ignorant, the uneducated, and the uninformed. To the rest of the world, to be called a "liberal" is the greatest of complements; it means one is intelligent, educated, curious, well-read, broad-minded, open to new ideas, democratic, free - characteristics no longer valued in America. Keep your kids out of universities, and never let them be exposed to new ideas or critical thinking, lest they start thinking for themselves. Convince yourselves that the freeing of minds is "brainwashing." Obey your political and religious leaders, from whom your forefathers fought so hard to free themselves. Continue America's slide back to the Dark Ages."

[Guest Guest]

That's too bad that it didn't take....  You might have learned something. 

Seriously though, comments like that I have a huge gripe with. Loki, please share with us exactly what you mean by THEIR LINE OF THINKING?  Sounds to me like what you're trying to say is... liberal thinking.  I hope your source wasn't the book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth".  If so, the following review of that book is something I wish I could take credit for writing myself as it nicely sums up how I feel about your comment:

"Only in America have universities and colleges, the seats of higher learning, become institutions of derision. Only in America has "liberal" become a derogatory term. "Liberal," the root of words such as "liberty," which formed the basis of what was once America's "liberal democracy," the freedom of people to make up their own minds and rule themselves - now a prejorative term. The "liberal arts" of open-minded, critical investigation of the greatest ideas ever conceived of by man, created to "liberate" the citizen from narrow-minded parochialism and fundamentalism, now a subject of scorn and ridicule by the ignorant, the uneducated, and the uninformed. To the rest of the world, to be called a "liberal" is the greatest of complements; it means one is intelligent, educated, curious, well-read, broad-minded, open to new ideas, democratic, free - characteristics no longer valued in America.  Keep your kids out of universities, and never let them be exposed to new ideas or critical thinking, lest they start thinking for themselves. Convince yourselves that the freeing of minds is "brainwashing." Obey your political and religious leaders, from whom your forefathers fought so hard to free themselves. Continue America's slide back to the Dark Ages."

69002[/snapback]

Ugh. This book review quote partially represents why "liberals" are sometimes subjected to derision.

To the rest of the world, to be called "liberal" is the greatest of complements [sic]? So then Liberal is a universal term in all languages meaning the exact same thing? Not the last time I checked. And that's an odd foundation from which to begin an argument.

The elitisim ("now a subject of scorn and ridicule by the ignorant, the uneducated, and the uninformed") is clear. The idea that anyone who disagrees is unintelligent and ignorant. The inflated sense of self-importance ("it means that one is intelligent, educated, curious, well-read, broad-minded, etc.") is also pervasive. So someone cannot be a "liberal" if they are not educated or well-read?

Please ... this type of crap is exactly what marginalizes those of us to the left who are committed to maintaining a social conscience. While I applaud the theme, the lexicon is rude, abrasive and does nothing to open dialogue or encourage debate with those who may disagree with our positions. And while the author of the quote may be intelligent, as Hereclitus said, "much knowledge does not teach wisdom".

[Guest Guest]

Result: Preaching possibly stops in Matthew's class, more then likely doesn't in other classes. In addition, no one undergoes education that leads to more students (and faculty) knowing that what he was doing was wrong, and why it was wrong.

68887[/snapback]

Strife, the "problem" is that Matthew's course of conduct made it impossible to determine whether another course of action would have yielded a different result. Basically, Matthew got "one bite at the apple" and he proceeded in the fashion that he deemed to be most effective (which, I believe, was in fact effective). However, we can never KNOW (though we can surmise) what would have happened had Matthew approached the teacher first. This is precisely why this is an endless debate. But this is also precisely why your conclusion above is neither correct nor incorrect - and why no other conclusions on this topic can firmly rest on either side of that fence.

[billydee4]

I've been following this issue from afar since the beginning. The people who think what Matthew did was wrong either recirculate arguments that have been proven wrong a thousand times, or they say something really, really stupid like "Kool-aid Alert" or they make fart remarks, or they call people names. I think that some of these discussions lead other people to think that Kearny is a backwards hick town full of radical right-wing fundies because most of the responses they see are written by people like patrat, 2dim, and brayn. Paul, Matt, and Strife sometimes seem like the only identifiable sane people in Kearny.

[Guest Loki]

That's too bad that it didn't take....  You might have learned something. 

Seriously though, comments like that I have a huge gripe with. Loki, please share with us exactly what you mean by THEIR LINE OF THINKING?  Sounds to me like what you're trying to say is... liberal thinking.  I hope your source wasn't the book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth".  If so, the following review of that book is something I wish I could take credit for writing myself as it nicely sums up how I feel about your comment:

"Only in America have universities and colleges, the seats of higher learning, become institutions of derision. Only in America has "liberal" become a derogatory term. "Liberal," the root of words such as "liberty," which formed the basis of what was once America's "liberal democracy," the freedom of people to make up their own minds and rule themselves - now a prejorative term. The "liberal arts" of open-minded, critical investigation of the greatest ideas ever conceived of by man, created to "liberate" the citizen from narrow-minded parochialism and fundamentalism, now a subject of scorn and ridicule by the ignorant, the uneducated, and the uninformed. To the rest of the world, to be called a "liberal" is the greatest of complements; it means one is intelligent, educated, curious, well-read, broad-minded, open to new ideas, democratic, free - characteristics no longer valued in America.  Keep your kids out of universities, and never let them be exposed to new ideas or critical thinking, lest they start thinking for themselves. Convince yourselves that the freeing of minds is "brainwashing." Obey your political and religious leaders, from whom your forefathers fought so hard to free themselves. Continue America's slide back to the Dark Ages."

69002[/snapback]

And that review is from where? The New York Times??? This actually fits, since you obviously place me in the category of "the ignorant, the uneducated, and uninformed;" call people names, assume that your position is the ONLY one that makes sense. I encourage subscribing to both sides of political thought, minus extremists. I don't think liberal Democrats are bad people who want to do harm to this country, I just don't think their policies work. Agree to disagree.

[Guest Paul]

Paul asks a valid question and this is the reply.

This bunch will never discuss the issues. How can they? They have nothing valid to say. Instead, they reply with personal insults.

Looking at this forum, you can see that almost all personal insults are from the right wing.

68740[/snapback]

In the past couple of weeks, we have seen yet another example of the right-wing personal attack machine at its dirty work, this time directed against a 12-year-old boy. His sin was speaking out publicly for a medical insurance program for families too poor to afford private insurance on their own. The right wing launched a personal smear campaign against a 12-year-old boy, and its charges turned out to be false.

In today's New York Times, an Op-Ed piece by Paul Krugman contains the following statement: "All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're 'phony soldiers'; if Michael J. fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud. Meanwhile, the leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them."

There are many points to make here. One is that these tactics have filtered down to the right-wing rank and file, which is why we see what we see from them here at KOTW. This method of attack has become routine, part of the right-wing game plan.

The second is the sad and unfortunate fact that when more reasoned voices finally call the right wing on it, we can only describe these tactics for what they are if we are to speak the truth. This puts us in the position of looking, superficially, like the same thing we are attacking --- an attack on an attack. That's the evil genius that makes smear tactics work. You can't speak the truth without looking like an attack machine yourself. The only solution is to look to content, and recognize that respectful discourse must be founded on facts; that it's one thing to have your own opinions, quite another to insist on having your own facts.

No doubt the right wing would point out that Krugman's piece is in the New York Times, so what do you expect. The problem with that is that it ignores the facts, which is part of the strategy. This is the main distinguishing feature, however, between the right-wing system of planned smear and attack, and their calling out from the middle and left. We don't systematically ignore that facts. That's the difference, and it is a world of difference.

There are strong parallels to our case.

[Guest Guest]

In the past couple of weeks, we have seen yet another example of the right-wing personal attack machine at its dirty work, this time directed against a 12-year-old boy. His sin was speaking out publicly for a medical insurance program for families too poor to afford private insurance on their own. The right wing launched a personal smear campaign against a 12-year-old boy, and its charges turned out to be false.

69086[/snapback]

And what would you know about sin? Since your whole platform is geared against religion. You have again gone to the dark side with this left vs. right wing thing. You are so far to the left that maybe you fell off the table and bumped your head too many times. I am sure its time to replenish your meds again.

In today's New York Times, an Op-Ed piece by Paul Krugman contains the following statement: "All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're 'phony soldiers'; if Michael J. fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud. Meanwhile, the leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them."

There are many points to make here. One is that these tactics have filtered down to the right-wing rank and file, which is why we see what we see from them here at KOTW. This method of attack has become routine, part of the right-wing game plan.

The second is the sad and unfortunate fact that when more reasoned voices finally call the right wing on it, we can only describe these tactics for what they are if we to speak the truth. This puts us in the position of looking, superficially, like the same thing we are attacking --- an attack on an attack. That's the evil genius that makes smear tactics work. You can't speak the truth without looking like an attack machine yourself. The only solution is to look to content, and recognize that respectful discourse must be founded on facts; that it's one thing to have your own opinions, quite another to insist on having your own facts.

No doubt the right wing would point out that Krugman's piece is in the New York Times, so what do you expect. The problem with that is that it ignores the facts, which is part of the strategy. This is the main distinguishing feature, however, between the right-wing system of planned smear and attack, and their calling out from the middle and left. We don't systematically ignore that facts. That's the difference, and it is a world of difference.

There are strong parallels to our case.

69086[/snapback]

Raise your right hand to God and say aloud "I am an idiot!"

[Guest Guest]

At least when I insult someone, it's based on something that they actually said, as opposed to making up lies (such as those spread around here about the LaClair family) or resorting to infantile comments about one's personal life, even creating entire topics just to slam someone that way (I challenge you to find me saying something analogous to the childish "push broom" comments made toward me, for example).

Sometimes it just gets frustrating--I have a very low tolerance for dishonesty.

68891[/snapback]

Thank you Matthew for those stellar comments.

[agyness]

And that review is from where?  The New York Times???  This actually fits, since you obviously place me in the category of "the ignorant, the uneducated, and uninformed;" call people names, assume that your position is the ONLY one that makes sense.  I encourage subscribing to both sides of political thought, minus extremists.  I don't think liberal Democrats are bad people who want to do harm to this country, I just don't think their policies work.  Agree to disagree.

69076[/snapback]

I did not call you names. The review is not from the NYT - it is just a post on Amazon.com

You made a statement and I followed up on that statement. The point under discussion was universities and indoctrination. Universities, at least the two that I have been exposed to, always showed both sides and I never felt that anyone was 'trying' to make me or anyone else think one way or the other. That is why I questioned your comment about all universities indoctrinating their students to 'their line of thinking'. Wasn't sure how you came to that conclusion.

And I don't think my position is the ONLY one (especially when I don't have or subscribe to any defined position) my point again was that all universitites should do is teach students to be open-

minded, have their own opinions on issues that they learn both sides of, etc.. Isn't that something we all want? Regardless of position?

[agyness]

Please ... this type of crap is exactly what marginalizes those of us to the left who are committed to maintaining a social conscience.  While I applaud the theme, the lexicon is rude, abrasive and does nothing to open dialogue or encourage debate with those who may disagree with our positions.  And while the author of the quote may be intelligent, as Hereclitus said, "much knowledge does not teach wisdom".

69051[/snapback]

You're absolutely right with that quote from Hereclitus. I didn't focus on the details of that review but rather the theme as it related to the topic at hand. You make a good point.

[Bern]

Raise your right hand to God and say aloud "I am an idiot!"

69107[/snapback]

Proven again. Another example of not being able to argue on facts. So, again the personal insult.

[Strife767]

Raise your right hand to God and say aloud "I am an idiot!"

69107[/snapback]

You know, we really don't need more proof that people like you resort to nonsense like this when you have no real counter-argument.

[Guest Paul]

I had thought this story was over on KOTW, but someone decided to comment on it again on the "David Paszkiewicz should be fired" topic and the senior play topic. The students involved in the play, and their teacher, should be given their credit without reference to anything else, so I'm posting this response on this topic instead.

Can't figure out why someone would post to say Matthew's "15 minutes of fame" are over, but that's up to them. Just as a hint, if you don't want to discuss it, stop posting on it. I had let a few things pass because the topic appeared to be dying out, but since you raised it again and obviously are still interested, I'll post an update.

Some people don't think Matthew's time on the stage is over. He has earned a national, and perhaps international, reputation as a student activist on church-state, science and education issues, and continues to receive correspondence from numerous organizations and individuals. All of his speaking engagements have been extraordinarily well-received. Nearly everywhere he speaks, several people express their hope that he will become involved in politics, and the reasons they cite almost every time are his honesty and his courage. I've heard at least a dozen people ask, only half-joking, if he might run for president someday. When he spoke at New York Ethical Culture (you have to know these people to get the point), there was a line of adults asking him for his autograph. You want to talk about it, I can talk about it.

On Thanksgiving weekend, a Kearny High alumnus from the 1960s, who had never met Matthew, visited us at our home because he wanted to meet Matthew. Last Friday Matthew received a plaque from the freemasons group in Jersey City, at the installation ceremony of their new officers. Last Thursday, he was invited to go to Abingdon, PA, on invitation from Ellery Schempp, who was filming a program for CNN; he was going to go but decided not to at the last minute because he wasn't feeling well enough and didn't want to miss school the next day. (Ellery Schempp was the Plaintiff in Abingdon School District v. Schempp, the 1963 US Supreme Court case on school prayer.) Next week Matt will speak to a group of students at Columbia High School in Maplewood, on their invitation. He has been invited to address the Westchester County Ethical Culture Society in the winter.

When Rev. Barry Lynn addressed the student body last week, as arranged by Matthew, we were privileged to drive him to the school. There is also a possibility that one or more groups involved in this story will be writing about it further. I'll be sure to update you if that occurs.

The Anti-Defamation League will finish the teacher training on these issues in January, and after that the teachers in the social studies and science departments will convey the material to their students. All except Mr. Paszkiewicz. Ms Wood, the department head, will be presenting the material in his classes. That is per our legally binding agreement with the Board of Education. Draw your own conclusions about that.

In February, Dr. Charles Liu of the Hayden Planetarium will present the last of three student assemblies, this one on cosmology (including the Big Bang theory) and science in general. That will conclude our arrangements under the settlement, but of course we can continue to discuss the issues here if you want to.

And of course Vic Losick continues to film for the documentary. Kearny residents haven't been eager to speak to him, but Rev. Lynn, Dr. Miller, Dr. Tyson and many others have. No telling what distribution it may get, but I'll be sure to let you know when it comes out in a year or so.

No doubt I'll be accused of re-opening the issue, but the fact is that several of these things happened within the past week or so, and I let them go to allow the topic to die out. But I tell you again, as I have been telling you for a year that this is not going to end on your terms. As long as you keep discussing it, so will I. Up to you.