Kearny school district under federal investigation

[Guest Guest]

Typical tactics. Ignore the FACTS. Make an accusation to deflect attention away from the FACTS.

FACTS: Some of the most competitive races, most likely to be attended by college recruiters, are held on a Sunday, or a Saturday/Sunday. The girls' crew team NEVER races on a Sunday, even though that would obviously be in their best interests. No one is saying they should race every Sunday, only that they should have the opportunity to race on Sundays, in well-attended meets. They NEVER do. How do YOU explain it?

FACTS: A few years ago, our KHS team was invited to race The Head of the Charles, which is the most prestigious crew regatta in the world, a Saturday-Sunday event. For a crew team or an athlete, it's a little like the Olympics. Our team was invited but they did not go. It would have been a great opportunity for the girls but SOMEONE decided they should not go. How do YOU explain that?

When you get all done accusing, deflecting and ignoring, here are the FACTS. Kearny girls are being denied equal opportunities. The reasons won't matter to the federal Office of Civil Rights, which has ACCEPTED the case and is investigating. But the real reason is that the coach sets the schedule to suit himself, not in the students' best interests. That will NOT stand up under the law. As a result, Kearny TAXPAYERS stand, yet again, to foot the bill for another investigation into the shenanigans of one person, and the failure of the school district to take action promptly to correct the problem. If that is not the TRUE explanation, then what do YOU think the TRUE explanation is?

Pertinent FACTS this time in your response, please.

Great questions. Let's hear some answers from Mr. P and/or his supporters.

[Guest A Santos]

I guess Matt Laclair got that *** ****** and decided ** *** for kearny crew, that's who really brought this issue to light. A true hero, good job ******, ***** ****** name now fyi

Edited March 1, 2015 by KOTW
Content.

[Guest Guest]

This particular equality topic sounds a bit self-serving. It would be interesting to know whether the one person who brought this argument to light has the support and backing of the girls on the team . . . not just their moms.

How is it self-serving? What does she stand to gain for herself?

[Guest Anonymous]

You are incorrect. The law at issue is a federal civil rights law, which is concerned only with issues of equality. It does not address what level of funding school districts must provide to their sports programs. School districts are free to have no sports programs; however, when they do, they must offer equal opportunities to students of both genders. That is what the law is about. I can just imagine what Mr. P would have to say about the federal government dictating what level of funding local districts must provide to their athletic programs.

It doesn't matter. People support existing policies and practices for many reasons, including personal loyalty to a coach, comfort with things as they are, a sense of group loyalty (which can easily be misplaced and misdirected, not to mention manipulated), and a variety of other reasons, some of which are good and some of which hold teams, schools and their student athletes back. Sometimes, student athletes or their parents are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution or intimidation, which is exactly what is being attempted here. Look at all the crap the one person who had the courage to come forward is having to put up with. Recognizing that, the law does not allow for excuses like that. Equal opportunities must be afforded to teams and athletes of both genders.

And just how do you propose that there might be anything self-serving in the complaint? Who stands to gain anything? Not the one person who brought the complaint to the OCR. If she wanted personal gain, she could have filed a lawsuit under section 1983 of the federal civil rights act. She has not done that. Instead, she asked for an investigation under TItle IX, so that the program will comply with the law, and students of both genders will have equal opportunities. Ms. C has acted on her convictions, with nothing to gain and a lot of aggravation to face from people like you who sit on the sidelines and either question her motives or attack her, or both. So you're just making stuff up, an anonymous accusation with no facts whatsoever to support it. If you're going to do that, then tell us, what axe do you have to grind? If you're going to make an accusation like that, 'fess up yourself. Talk is cheap. She has taken action, courageously, whether you agree or disagree with her.

Where do you see an attack and what stuff is being made up? Where is the anonymous "ACCUSATION"? What accusation? A theory that it seems self-serving, is that an accusation? Calling it self serving might be because there is only one person claiming inequities. And on what basis is there a fear of recriminations? And Ms. Cavalier can take action all day long for all I care, but everybody is afforded an opinion that they also can freely express. I do believe you are overreacting. Chill out.

[Guest Guest]

There's no shortage of ignorance in Kearny.

[Guest Guest]

Where do you see an attack and what stuff is being made up? Where is the anonymous "ACCUSATION"? What accusation? A theory that it seems self-serving, is that an accusation? Calling it self serving might be because there is only one person claiming inequities. And on what basis is there a fear of recriminations? And Ms. Cavalier can take action all day long for all I care, but everybody is afforded an opinion that they also can freely express. I do believe you are overreacting. Chill out.

This isn't the only place where she's being attacked. You didn't say all that much but some people have been nasty (including someone - ahem - who knows Mr. P quite well), and even your comment questions her motives, without any basis in fact for it. That's making stuff up, and it is an accusation. You don't have a theory, only a guess, and when pressed, you can't even say how it makes any sense. She has nothing to gain, and faces a lot of aggravation to do it. That's courage.

In the end, none of that will matter. Professionals from the OCR will make their findings, and we'll go from there.

[Guest anonymous]

This isn't the only place where she's being attacked. You didn't say all that much but some people have been nasty (including someone - ahem - who knows Mr. P quite well), and even your comment questions her motives, without any basis in fact for it. That's making stuff up, and it is an accusation. You don't have a theory, only a guess, and when pressed, you can't even say how it makes any sense. She has nothing to gain, and faces a lot of aggravation to do it. That's courage.

In the end, none of that will matter. Professionals from the OCR will make their findings, and we'll go from there.

Questioning one's motives is not an accusation - it's simply questioning one's motives. And anyone has the right to do that, just as you have the right to defend her. And yes, the OCR will investigate and all the lawyers involved will make money. I'm just not sure it reaches the level of a federal investigation. And you may call it courage, but I wonder if it's a decision on her part that was not fully thought out.

[Guest Guest]

Questioning one's motives is not an accusation - it's simply questioning one's motives. And anyone has the right to do that, just as you have the right to defend her. And yes, the OCR will investigate and all the lawyers involved will make money. I'm just not sure it reaches the level of a federal investigation. And you may call it courage, but I wonder if it's a decision on her part that was not fully thought out.

That's passive-aggressive crap, by insinuation, one of the cheapest tricks in the book. If you're going to say "I wonder" if she did this or that, then say why you think it. And if you can't give a good reason for it, then don't say it. Sure, you're free to do it. You're free to be a jerk. But you are being a jerk.

So congratulations, you managed to shift the discussion from the facts to the messenger. Meanwhile, there is an investigation, it is by a federal agency, and our wonderful school administrators continue to do nothing.

[Guest anonymous]

That's passive-aggressive crap, by insinuation, one of the cheapest tricks in the book. If you're going to say "I wonder" if she did this or that, then say why you think it. And if you can't give a good reason for it, then don't say it. Sure, you're free to do it. You're free to be a jerk. But you are being a jerk.

So congratulations, you managed to shift the discussion from the facts to the messenger. Meanwhile, there is an investigation, it is by a federal agency, and our wonderful school administrators continue to do nothing.

Well, there certainly isn't anything "passive" about you now is there? You must have some personal stake in this since I can't think of any other reason you would be so "aggressive". I didn't think I was being a jerk, I thought I was being circumspect and went out of my way to give the messenger the benefit of the doubt. But in your learned opinion, my questioning was an accusation, my attempt at being polite makes me a jerk.

To address your "accusations": Number 1, I don't see anyone joining the complainant in her charges against the crew program, or against any other sports program offered at Kearny High School. I haven't heard of anyone else leveling charges of discrimination. In fact, from what I've learned, the vast majority of the girls on the team seem to be quite happy with both their schedule and their coach and are not clamoring to row on Sundays. Number 2, it's more than likely that the complainant's main target, and don't even bother to argue the point, is the coach. So it would SEEM (gee, hope that's not too passive-aggressive for you) the complainant isn't being perfectly honest about her motives. Number 3, it APPEARS ( so sorry!) the girls traditionally have been offered more in the way of scholarships than the boys teams. So other than not attending Sunday meets, how else is the crew program shortchanging female athletes? Got any facts to add to that conversation?

The complainant took the initiative to file charges against the school district with a federal agency. She set it in motion. I don't see any reason for school administrators to get involved. PERHAPS (oops!) they don't believe there is much merit to the charges. Let the process play out, however long it takes.

One other thing. Jerk? Really? What are you, 9?

[Guest Shane Murphy]

Instead of complaining, vote the board out, period. What good does it do to come to a board and B**ch and moan anonymously? To say this and that? Thats the problem with Murika' today. Everyone is a keyboard warrior. Get off your ass and do something about it if you don't like it. We were giving the right to vote for a reason. If our elected officials aren't doing what we want, then we vote them out. Not go to KOTW and cry and B**ch and moan. Oh, and leave your real names. A lot of people talk a lot of crap on this board, but very few have the balls to leave their real names.

ANd to answer the questions. Yes I think Mr. P has the right, jsut as you all do, to practice his religion. And yes, I think the girls should be offered a fair opportunity to attend the best races. But my solution is a lot better then the complaining going on here on this thread. Have P coach like hes been for years, and if there is a race on Sunday, his assistant can attend. Whats the issue with that? And Matt Mclair? The attention *****?? LoL give me a break. I dont believe in God/religion so Im the first to say separate state and religion, all of it. From schools, to christmas on federal property, to hanuka on town buildings, etc...My point is, Matt was a media *****, plain and simple.

Edited March 9, 2015 by KOTW
Content.

[Guest Guest]

Well, there certainly isn't anything "passive" about you now is there? You must have some personal stake in this since I can't think of any other reason you would be so "aggressive". I didn't think I was being a jerk, I thought I was being circumspect and went out of my way to give the messenger the benefit of the doubt. But in your learned opinion, my questioning was an accusation, my attempt at being polite makes me a jerk.

To address your "accusations": Number 1, I don't see anyone joining the complainant in her charges against the crew program, or against any other sports program offered at Kearny High School. I haven't heard of anyone else leveling charges of discrimination. In fact, from what I've learned, the vast majority of the girls on the team seem to be quite happy with both their schedule and their coach and are not clamoring to row on Sundays. Number 2, it's more than likely that the complainant's main target, and don't even bother to argue the point, is the coach. So it would SEEM (gee, hope that's not too passive-aggressive for you) the complainant isn't being perfectly honest about her motives. Number 3, it APPEARS ( so sorry!) the girls traditionally have been offered more in the way of scholarships than the boys teams. So other than not attending Sunday meets, how else is the crew program shortchanging female athletes? Got any facts to add to that conversation?

The complainant took the initiative to file charges against the school district with a federal agency. She set it in motion. I don't see any reason for school administrators to get involved. PERHAPS (oops!) they don't believe there is much merit to the charges. Let the process play out, however long it takes.

Then you don't understand the law, or the process of the investigation. There's no surprise that no one joins in the complaint, considering what the first and only complainant has had to put up with. And there's no reason to join in a complaint that has already been filed. Under federal law, the investigation is exactly the same, regardless of whether there is one complainant or one thousand. And if school administrators don't see a problem here, then they're not paying attention. Remember what is going on here. Kearny is involved in another "situation," mainly because of one person. The problem isn't with the one person who finally did something about it.

There's no basis for your supposition about the complainant. It makes perfect sense that a woman who was denied an opportunity to compete thirty years ago would be upset when she sees girls being treated unfairly now. That's an obvious motive, which has nothing to do with how she feels about the coach. Unless you know of something she had against the coach before this situation began, you're just making stuff up. And that's being a jerk.

Same thing with how many scholarships girls are getting as opposed to boys. If you want facts, where are yours? "Appears" from what? Just because you claim it doesn't make it factual.

[Guest Elvis Presley]

Instead of complaining, vote the board out, period. What good does it do to come to a board and B**ch and moan anonymously? To say this and that? Thats the problem with Murika' today. Everyone is a keyboard warrior. Get off your ass and do something about it if you don't like it. We were giving the right to vote for a reason. If our elected officials aren't doing what we want, then we vote them out. Not go to KOTW and cry and B**ch and moan. Oh, and leave your real names. A lot of people talk a lot of crap on this board, but very few have the balls to leave their real names.

ANd to answer the questions. Yes I think Mr. P has the right, jsut as you all do, to practice his religion. And yes, I think the girls should be offered a fair opportunity to attend the best races. But my solution is a lot better then the complaining going on here on this thread. Have P coach like hes been for years, and if there is a race on Sunday, his assistant can attend. Whats the issue with that? And Matt Mclair? The attention *****?? LoL give me a break. I dont believe in God/religion so Im the first to say separate state and religion, all of it. From schools, to christmas on federal property, to hanuka on town buildings, etc...My point is, Matt was a media *****, plain and simple.

But Shane, you're doing exactly the same thing, only difference is that you're leaving your name. Of course, we have no way to check to know that you are who you say you are.

Your solution is perfect. It's an obvious solution, which is fair to everyone. The Board isn't doing it. It could cost us all money, never mind that it's the right thing to do. So why shouldn't we be upset with the Board? There's no Board election in March, so it makes perfect sense to express our displeasure publicly. That way, when the election does come around, maybe some people will remember what happened.

[Guest anonymous]

Then you don't understand the law, or the process of the investigation. There's no surprise that no one joins in the complaint, considering what the first and only complainant has had to put up with. And there's no reason to join in a complaint that has already been filed. Under federal law, the investigation is exactly the same, regardless of whether there is one complainant or one thousand. And if school administrators don't see a problem here, then they're not paying attention. Remember what is going on here. Kearny is involved in another "situation," mainly because of one person. The problem isn't with the one person who finally did something about it.

There's no basis for your supposition about the complainant. It makes perfect sense that a woman who was denied an opportunity to compete thirty years ago would be upset when she sees girls being treated unfairly now. That's an obvious motive, which has nothing to do with how she feels about the coach. Unless you know of something she had against the coach before this situation began, you're just making stuff up. And that's being a jerk.

Same thing with how many scholarships girls are getting as opposed to boys. If you want facts, where are yours? "Appears" from what? Just because you claim it doesn't make it factual.

I'm aware of how the law works (or more occasionally, doesn't work). And I have no idea what the complainant has "had to put up with". You two must be very close, or you're just a very interested bystander. I don't believe I've made anything up. Perhaps you can point out whatever you think I made up, since I'm not convinced YOU have all the facts. So the complainant was denied 30 years ago & that gives her the impetus to judge the program to now be so egregiously unfair that a federal investigation is necessary? You assume that's enough motivation and you know for a fact that the coach has nothing to do with it? "Just because you claim it doesn't make it factual".

Well, counselor, we'll just have to wait and see where the investigation goes with this current "situation" as you label it. And enough with the adolescent name calling. There's really no need for it.

[Guest Guest]

I'm aware of how the law works (or more occasionally, doesn't work). And I have no idea what the complainant has "had to put up with". You two must be very close, or you're just a very interested bystander. I don't believe I've made anything up. Perhaps you can point out whatever you think I made up, since I'm not convinced YOU have all the facts. So the complainant was denied 30 years ago & that gives her the impetus to judge the program to now be so egregiously unfair that a federal investigation is necessary? You assume that's enough motivation and you know for a fact that the coach has nothing to do with it? "Just because you claim it doesn't make it factual".

Well, counselor, we'll just have to wait and see where the investigation goes with this current "situation" as you label it. And enough with the adolescent name calling. There's really no need for it.

If you want to know what she has put up with, check out some of the threads on Facebook, in the group called "You know you're from Kearny if." Mrs. P opened a thread where she and several others were very nasty. You can read it all online without being a member of the group. All you need is Facebook account. So yet again, you just made stuff up, in this instance about me.

I know Paula but am not close to her. The Kearny school system is at it again, though, taking something that should be easily resolved, and turning it into a problem. And her daughter is on the current girls' team, which explains how she knows what is going on with the program.

[Guest anonymous]

If you want to know what she has put up with, check out some of the threads on Facebook, in the group called "You know you're from Kearny if." Mrs. P opened a thread where she and several others were very nasty. You can read it all online without being a member of the group. All you need is Facebook account. So yet again, you just made stuff up, in this instance about me.

I know Paula but am not close to her. The Kearny school system is at it again, though, taking something that should be easily resolved, and turning it into a problem. And her daughter is on the current girls' team, which explains how she knows what is going on with the program.

Because I haven't gone out of my way to trawl through Facebook to see what Mrs. Cavalier has gone through, that means I have made stuff up? About you? I don't see it and frankly, I'm not all that interested in her trials and tribulations. You have misconstrued most of what I've said or you just don't understand the nuances of the English language. Good luck to Mrs. Cavalier. She's a real trailblazer. And good-bye to you.

[Guest Guest]

Because I haven't gone out of my way to trawl through Facebook to see what Mrs. Cavalier has gone through, that means I have made stuff up? About you? I don't see it and frankly, I'm not all that interested in her trials and tribulations. You have misconstrued most of what I've said or you just don't understand the nuances of the English language. Good luck to Mrs. Cavalier. She's a real trailblazer. And good-bye to you.

In other words, you didn't bother to check the facts before spouting off.

[Guest Guest]

It doesn't matter what her motives are. Title IV was decided a long time ago!

If the job requires the coach to do his job on a day that conflicts with his religious beliefs then he should not apply for the job. If he were Jewish and could not coach from Friday night at sunset to Saturday at sunset would he have been hired?

I am a teacher and it is against my religious beliefs to teach on Mondays. Do I still get the job? Highly unlikely.!

[Guest Guest]

Because I haven't gone out of my way to trawl through Facebook to see what Mrs. Cavalier has gone through, that means I have made stuff up? About you? I don't see it and frankly, I'm not all that interested in her trials and tribulations. You have misconstrued most of what I've said or you just don't understand the nuances of the English language. Good luck to Mrs. Cavalier. She's a real trailblazer. And good-bye to you.

You have alleged that her motives are self-serving. When pressed for your basis, you don't have one. Then you implied ignoble motives of your critic, again without any basis in fact. So by

definition, you made it up.

[Guest Guest]

It doesn't matter what her motives are. Title IV was decided a long time ago!

If the job requires the coach to do his job on a day that conflicts with his religious beliefs then he should not apply for the job. If he were Jewish and could not coach from Friday night at sunset to Saturday at sunset would he have been hired?

I am a teacher and it is against my religious beliefs to teach on Mondays. Do I still get the job? Highly unlikely.!

What's Title IV?????

[Guest Guest]

What's Title IV?????

Title IX is what is involved here. It's the sections of federal laws governing equal treatment for women, including female athletes in the schools.

[Guest Guest]

Title IX is what is involved here. It's the sections of federal laws governing equal treatment for women, including female athletes in the schools.

No kidding. The poster referred to Title IV. Typo, or could there possibly be a Title IV that maybe pertains to this topic? Or maybe it's just those pesky Roman numerals that nobody remembers from their elementary school days.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry typo. However, still have the same questions. I think there is a bit more to it. The girls cannot compete on Sundays because of the coach's religious practices? Maybe a little church and state debate? Be careful of ACLU. They love this stuff and will cost the board tons of $. I still ask why someone is hired that cannot fill the responsibilites?

[Guest Guest]

Sorry typo. However, still have the same questions. I think there is a bit more to it. The girls cannot compete on Sundays because of the coach's religious practices? Maybe a little church and state debate? Be careful of ACLU. They love this stuff and will cost the board tons of $. I still ask why someone is hired that cannot fill the responsibilites?

Because people are afraid of Paszkiewicz. Don't ask me why. This guy is a problem, and has been for a long time. This behavior should have been stopped when he first started teaching. Now he has tenure, and it's harder to control. But if it isn't done now, he's going to continue to cause more problems, one of which could be that he costs us all a lot of money. Sounds like we're not on the same side of all the issues but we appear to agree on what should be done here.