ACLU To Sue Kearny

[Guest Guest]

NAMBLA "deeserves" to be in prison and I wouldn't associate with that disgusting organization. And I certainly wouldn't take any pro bono charity from the ACLU, I would treat them as a disease to be avoided.

  It doesn't surprise me the the Loony Left is so concerned about the constitutional  "rights" of NAMBLA, and it really doesn't surprise me that Paul would choose to associate with the ACLU, it just shows a persons moral priorities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In this day and age its easy to set someone up. Make anyone, without their knowledge a member of NAMBLA, put them on solicitation lists of other "undesirable" group. If you can do identify theft you can do that. The magic of computers. And believe me, there are professionals who are very expert at manipulating data.

So thank you. Once you get your way, the new America you envision and hope for will not have rights for "undesirable" groups.

It should be easy to set up pests like you - put your a** in the slammer, forever. After all, judicial reviews will no longer be needed.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Brilliant analogy !!  Driving unbuckeled and raping children. Do you read what you type ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about mandatory prison terms for "False Patriots"? Why? Because I'm offend by those who call themselves "Patriot" while pissing all over that which that are supposedly patriotic about. I don't like "False Patriots" therefore they should all be in jail.

See how silly that sounds?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

NAMBLA "deeserves" to be in prison and I wouldn't associate with that disgusting organization. And I certainly wouldn't take any pro bono charity from the ACLU, I would treat them as a disease to be avoided.

  It doesn't surprise me the the Loony Left is so concerned about the constitutional  "rights" of NAMBLA, and it really doesn't surprise me that Paul would choose to associate with the ACLU, it just shows a persons moral priorities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said NAMBLA should be treated as a "disease" which to me implies you are fearful that it's contagious. The funny thing is that one could say the same about Christianity could they not?

[WilliamK]

Brilliant analogy !!  Driving unbuckeled and raping children. Do you read what you type ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point is that being guilty of one thing (or in this case, of merely advocating the legalization of it) does not mean that one should be summarily judged guilty of any other accusations that are made against him. Nor does it mean that he should be denied any rights that have not been specifically forfeit as part of the punishment for a conviction (loss of voting rights for felons, for example).

Likewise, a defense of one thing does not constitute a defense of EVERYTHING said or done by the same person(s). The ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's free speech was no more a defense of pedophilia than their defense of Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy was a defense of prescription drug abuse.

Keep in mind that the same freedom of speech that lets groups like NAMBLA, and the KKK advocate their sickness is the very same freedom of speech that allows you and I to point out the depravity of their views and advocate the opposite. That is as it should be. And that is what the ACLU defends. Let the scumbags speak. How else are we to know what they stand for? And let the rest of us speak, so we can openly oppose them.

I'll leave you with something Thomas Jefferson said in response to a book that was being censored:

If M. de Becourt's book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose. [...]

For context, the source from which I copied this quote (http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116909) is an interesting and short read. I highly recommend it.

[Guest Paul]

It is unfortunate that through all of this that the BOE has not issued any statements supporting Matthew, but I am not sure if that responsibility lies with the BOE or the high school administration.  I would think that both bodies would have issued a statement with the BOE following the administrators lead to show that the high school and the entire education system was in line with their support.  As usual I am not aware of the BOE processes, but is it possible that initially they did not respond due to the sensitive nature of the issue?  From what I have read and listened to, this did not start out with the public involved.  If the BOE issued a statement in October it may have brought more animosity to Matthew.  I do not know why they still remain silent other than now it is bigger then a simple statement supporting the student.

It appears that this situation has mushroomed very quickly over the past several months, from a student raising an issue about a teacher to a national/worldwide debate on religion and education.  The issue itself is not a debate, but it has certainly spawned many debates due to its content.  Unfortunately at this point there is no easy solution with the high profile of the case. 

If a letter were published tomorrow with the BOE stance defining its actions up to this point and supporting the student;  and the assembly about Constitutional Rights did not take place for months, I believe we would still be chatting on this board 6 months from now.  It seems that this issue is now bigger than the student, the teacher, the administration and the BOE.  I suspect that a year or two from now we'll be reading quotes on KOTW from the Supreme Court case.  Hopefully the local piece of this national issue will be addressed long before that takes place so all parties involved can return to relative normalcy with the lessons learned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Had an appropriate statement been issued in October, I believe the situation would have been defused almost completely. School administrations and boards create and foster community impressions. A strong stand taken immediately means a lot. The same words issued after months of resistance mean much less.

I don't think the Board or the administration was deterred because this is a sensitive issue. They may not have wanted to offend the bigots and hypocrites who think this sort of behavior is OK as long as it conforms to the prejudices of the majority, or perhaps just the most vocal. But frankly, I think they're mainly just spineless and none too bright. Sorry, but I can't see any other way of looking at it.

[Guest Paul]

Fair enough.  I was not aware of the conversations between the lawyers.  I appreciate your candor and insight.

Sitting through many a high school class, as well as many biology courses in college as a Biology Major, my concern is that it would be difficult to debunk all of the science related comments you've mentioned in a single 40 minute assembly.  Assuming that the science department at Kearny High School covered those topics during the school year, I thought the corrections may have more impact when emphasized during the normal curriculum.  I apologize if my comment insinuated an issue with the science department.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe the science could be straghtened out in a single 40-minute assembly. For example, here is language (edited slightly) I proposed to the administration on evolution, in writing last October. I was never given any response whatsoever:

"It has come to our attention that certain remarks have been made in this classroom that are incorrect and not consistent with the policies of our school board or the purposes of public education here in New Jersey. Reluctant as we are to have to intervene to correct those remarks, we feel that they are so inappropriate and so wrong that they must be corrected.

"1. You were told that evolutionary biology, often called evolutionary theory or simply evolution, is not science. That is not true. Evolution is part of our science curriculum, both here in Kearny and in scientifically advanced nations all over the world. In this school, and throughout the developed world, evolution is held to be a scientific discipline. Just because evolution of species cannot be reproduced in a laboratory does not mean it is not scientific. The reason it cannot be reproduced in a laboratory in advanced species, according to the leading scientists in the field, is that evolution of a species takes thousands of years, and of course no one lives that long, and the discipline of evolutionary theory is not that old. It came to public attention in 1859 when Charles Darwin first published on the subject, not quite 150 years ago. Today and for quite some time, evolution is accepted as a scientific discipline throughout the world, and relied on by scientists in many fields. In fact, most biologists say that one cannot even understand modern biology without understanding evolution. It is that important, and that central to modern science. It is widely held to be among the greatest ideas of all time. In addition, evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory with simple organisms.

"There are at least two reasons why evolution is a legitimate and recognized science. First, it relies on recognized scientific methods to reach predictable and reliable results. These methods include radiometric dating, by which the age of fossils and other objects is measured. These dating methods are proved for other applications; therefore, it follows per recognized scientific principles that they are properly applied to fossils. In addition, paleontologists, who are the scientists and researchers who study fossils, have examined millions if not billions of fossils, and traced the physical changes between species over time. For example, a little change in the configuration of a bone near the ear explains why one species was better adapted to an environment than its predecessor. One of the pivotal changes that led to the evolution of humans was flexibility in the ankle joint of earlier primate species, allowing these ancestor species to climb trees and avoid predators. In turn, the ability to see from a height paved the way toward changes in the brain, and thereby to changes in mental capabilities, which led to further physical changes, etc. Later in human evolution, the opposable thumb made it possible for our near ancestor species to use tools. This led to further intellectual development, and eventually to the development of language. If you want to see this more clearly for yourself, there is an excellent presentation in the Museum of Natural History in New York that presents the specific changes from species to species throughout evolutionary history. We highly recommend this to anyone who is truly interested in learning more about evolution of species."

"In addition, scientists also have the ability now to study genetic markers, including DNA. That study clearly shows that the predictions from the fossil record are correct. In other words, species that appear similar just by their appearance are also closely related in DNA. All of this confirms evolutionary theory to such a great degree that scientists hold the theory to be proved. Furthermore, when these patterns are checked against the established age of the fossils, the order of development according to the dating of fossils is exactly what the fossil and DNA records predict. So the other reason evolution is considered a science is that it makes accurate predictions. This is true not only in lining up the basic measuring tools of evolution against each other, but also in the applications of evolutionary theory. Medical researchers, for example, use evolutionary theory to develop new cures and treatments. Consistently, over and over and over, evolutionary theory has led to new developments in modern medicine, which is one of the reasons we now have treatments and cures for illnesses that we did not have just a few decades ago, and why life expectancies in the developed world have been expanded by a decade or more in the past few decades. To say that evolution is not a science in the face of all this is not correct. Were this science to be discarded, medicine and biology would be set back to a point from which it might never recover."

Do I understand the problem stepping on a teacher like that? You bet I do, but if it was my school, he'd be lucky to be teaching at all after the series of idiotic remarks he made. He'd take the lumps and like it --- or leave. He's there to teach the curriculum, not to undermine in service of his own agenda.

[Guest Paul]

Hi VA, I am the guest to whom you are responding. (I finally decided to register )

anyway, here is one thing that I found, although not all that helpful.

http://www.kearnyschools.com/BOE/POLICIES%...0Discipline.htm

From what I have seen, there is nothing to indicate what, if anything, must be kept secret when dealing with a discipline case. Also, I would expect the BoE to explain why they aren't saying something if they indeed cant. What I mean is I have never heard of the Board saying something to the effect that they are not allowed, by regulation, to say.

What bothers me more though, is this.

http://www.kearnyschools.com/BOE/POLICIES%...g%20Devices.htm

The BoE clearly was able to take action to ensure that another teacher could not be proven to be violating the law. Without recording devices, its a teacher's word vs the student, and we know who would win (no necessarily unfairly) in that situation.

In other words, they quickly made sure that another Matthew wouldn't be allowed to bother them with "laws" and silly things like the separation of church and state. They did not, however, take swift corrective action after Mr. P did something wrong.

In fact I believe he first denied the allegations before being confronted with the tapes. Apparently honesty is not all that valued in the Kearny school district either.

Anyway, my long winded rant is simply to say that if the BoE's hands were tied by section blahbidy blah of article 8 billion in some obscure code, why wouldn't they say so? And even if it was, I would still expect to see some RESULTS, even if they couldn't talk about it. (After all they took the time to ban recorders, so I think we can assume they could address the problem of Mr. P if they felt like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I got news for the Board. If any teacher ever again steps as far out of line as this one did, a rule against recording won't stop a student who is seriously committed to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States from engagine a little civil disobedience.

[Guest Paul]

"Patriot," you are either stupid or mean spirited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

False choice.

[Guest Paul]

How about mandatory prison terms for "False Patriots"? Why? Because I'm offend by those who call themselves "Patriot" while pissing all over that which that are supposedly patriotic about. I don't like "False Patriots" therefore they should all be in jail.

See how silly that sounds?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've heard worse. Quite recently, in fact.

[Curious in VA]

Hi VA, I am the guest to whom you are responding. (I finally decided to register )

anyway, here is one thing that I found, although not all that helpful.

http://www.kearnyschools.com/BOE/POLICIES%...0Discipline.htm

From what I have seen, there is nothing to indicate what, if anything, must be kept secret when dealing with a discipline case. Also, I would expect the BoE to explain why they aren't saying something if they indeed cant. What I mean is I have never heard of the Board saying something to the effect that they are not allowed, by regulation, to say.

What bothers me more though, is this.

http://www.kearnyschools.com/BOE/POLICIES%...g%20Devices.htm

The BoE clearly was able to take action to ensure that another teacher could not be proven to be violating the law. Without recording devices, its a teacher's word vs the student, and we know who would win (no necessarily unfairly) in that situation.

In other words, they quickly made sure that another Matthew wouldn't be allowed to bother them with "laws" and silly things like the separation of church and state. They did not, however, take swift corrective action after Mr. P did something wrong.

In fact I believe he first denied the allegations before being confronted with the tapes. Apparently honesty is not all that valued in the Kearny school district either.

Anyway, my long winded rant is simply to say that if the BoE's hands were tied by section blahbidy blah of article 8 billion in some obscure code, why wouldn't they say so? And even if it was, I would still expect to see some RESULTS, even if they couldn't talk about it. (After all they took the time to ban recorders, so I think we can assume they could address the problem of Mr. P if they felt like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Mroberts it is always good to know your corresponding with a single person instead of a number of different guests! I too have become official, though my last few posts I neglected to log in.

Thank you for providing both links. I'll be trying to dig up the State BOE policies in the next few days to see if I can glean any other useful tidbits.

I am assuming that this was the first formal complaint against the teacher. If that is the case then he was probably reprimanded and is under close scrutiny. If the BOE process works similar to corporate America then it will go in his file, he'll be watched for a period of time and then reevaluated. At that point his fate would be decided. How quickly this happens is probably dependent on two things:

1. The BOE State policy

2. The teacher's contract and union policy

As for the second link about the taping. I have mixed feelings about the new policy.

One of the first things I thought of when I heard the original class recording was "Did the other students waive their right to privacy?" Parts of the tape deal with personal information of the other students in the class. This was not a dialog between the teacher and the student, it was a dialog between the teacher and the class. Although the conversation was critical to illustrate an issue, it was still private to the students who did not know their conversation would be open to worldwide media. I would be surprised if the students in the class were not upset by their words being taped without their knowledge. I wonder if they came forward to meet with the administration or BOE?

Yes, this stops the further taping of teachers, but it also protects the rights of students. This new policy enables a student to be able to ask questions without wondering if their voice will end up on YouTube or the 5 o'clock news.

I don't know where the middle ground is on this issue since you accurately state that it effectively prevents a student from documenting this type of issue in the future.

At the very end you mention that the BOE did act in this case. Thank you again for providing the link. I noticed the new policy was adopted on January 16th, which is several months after the issue was first brought to light. Is this simply the first piece of a reaction from the BOE? Was this piece easier to put in place than others which is why it was the only reaction thus far? (Please note: I do believe that a statement that every person has a voice and Kearny Education supports students and teachers equally could also be an easy piece to put together.)

Was this policy put in place to stop students from taping teachers or was it put in place to protect the rights of students? Perhaps both, but I do not know if the students in the class spoke to anyone, but I believe that this new policy could be to "protect" teachers and students alike.

[Guest Patriot]

How about mandatory prison terms for "False Patriots"? Why? Because I'm offend by those who call themselves "Patriot" while pissing all over that which that are supposedly patriotic about. I don't like "False Patriots" therefore they should all be in jail.

See how silly that sounds?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"pissing all over that which that are supposedly patriotic about" ??? HUH !!

Yes, I see how silly that sounds. LMAO !!

[Guest Patriot]

The more apt question is: Do you think at all, "Patriot"? Are you completely unable to understand that the law is based on principles, which remain the same from situation to situation? It does not appear that you are. The analogy was entirely correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The analogy was entirely correct" !! I love it. One radical left Kool-aider drinker defending another. Would you expect anything else. LOL

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

"pissing all over that which that are supposedly patriotic about"  ???  HUH !!

    Yes, I see how silly that sounds. LMAO !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that's a reference to my typo where I typed "that" instead of "they" then fine, have a good laugh.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

"The analogy was entirely correct"  !!  I love it.  One radical left Kool-aider drinker defending another. Would you expect anything else.  LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you cut and paste "Kool-aider drinker" ? If not then I'm sure you have set some sort of record for typing it.

Also you definately put the "anal" in analogy.

[an American in Texas]

Patriot, o ironically-named one . . .

You are aware, are you not, that the moment you use the word "Kool-aid" you lose all credibility? No serious person says things like that. The only place you see the term used is on right- and left-wing rant sites.

Amusingly enough, apparently one need only drink Kool-aid to become a wine-sipping liberal degenerate. Or a neonazi goon. Or an atheistic evilutionist Defeatocrat. Or a looney-tunes cretinist Rebooblican.

It's a freakin' wonder drug!

Too bad its magical powers can't turn you into a REAL patriot.

Leigh

[Guest Paul]

Thank you Mroberts it is always good to know your corresponding with a single person instead of a number of different guests!  I too have become official, though my last few posts I neglected to log in.

Thank you for providing both links.  I'll be trying to dig up the State BOE policies in the next few days to see if I can glean any other useful tidbits.

I am assuming that this was the first formal complaint against the teacher.  If that is the case then he was probably reprimanded and is under close scrutiny.  If the BOE process works similar to corporate America then it will go in his file, he'll be watched for a period of time and then reevaluated.  At that point his fate would be decided.  How quickly this happens is probably dependent on two things:

1.  The BOE State policy

2.  The teacher's contract and union policy

As for the second link about the taping.  I have mixed feelings about the new policy.

One of the first things I thought of when I heard the original class recording was "Did the other students waive their right to privacy?"  Parts of the tape deal with personal information of the other students in the class.  This was not a dialog between the teacher and the student, it was a dialog between the teacher and the class.  Although the conversation was critical to illustrate an issue, it was still private to the students who did not know their conversation would be open to worldwide media.  I would be surprised if the students in the class were not upset by their words being taped without their knowledge.  I wonder if they came forward to meet with the administration or BOE? 

Yes, this stops the further taping of teachers, but it also protects the rights of students.  This new policy enables a student  to be able to ask questions without wondering if their voice will end up on YouTube or the 5 o'clock news. 

I don't know where the middle ground is on this issue since you accurately state that it effectively prevents a student from documenting this type of issue in the future.

At the very end you mention that the BOE did act in this case.  Thank you again for providing the link.  I noticed the new policy was adopted on January 16th, which is several months after the issue was first brought to light.  Is this simply the first piece of a reaction from the BOE?  Was this piece easier to put in place than others which is why it was the only reaction thus far?  (Please note: I do believe that a statement that every person has a voice and Kearny Education supports students and teachers equally could also be an easy piece to put together.)

Was this policy put in place to stop students from taping teachers or was it put in place to protect the rights of students?  Perhaps both, but I do not know if the students in the class spoke to anyone, but I believe that this new policy could be to "protect" teachers and students alike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where is the harm to the students when their voices are anonymous to the world?

[Confused in VA]

Where is the harm to the students when their voices are anonymous to the world?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, I am not sure how to best respond to your question. Anonymity is relative.

I am sure that if I walked the halls of Kearny High School (KHS) I would know exactly who said what on that tape. The students may be anonymous to someone in a different place, but the students in that class are exposed in that school. Are you aware if any of the students raised this concern to the BOE or administration?

In my original post above I was just trying to understand if the BOE policy was put in place in order to protect teachers from this very situation or to protect the students. It is not necessarily about anonymity, it is about fostering a safe environment so a student can learn. Since the tapings became public I wonder if the amount of class participation has dropped at KHS.

[Guest Patriot]

Patriot, o ironically-named one . . .

You are aware, are you not, that the moment you use the word "Kool-aid" you lose all credibility?  No serious person says things like that.  The only place you see the term used is on right- and left-wing rant sites. 

Amusingly enough, apparently one need only drink Kool-aid to become a wine-sipping liberal degenerate.  Or a neonazi goon.  Or an atheistic evilutionist Defeatocrat.  Or a looney-tunes cretinist Rebooblican.

It's a freakin' wonder drug!

Too bad its magical powers can't turn you into a REAL patriot.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lose credibility ? I think not. It's a term used by the right to describe the radical left. Only the radical left take offense to it and I can see by your response that I hit a nerve........therefore, you're a Kool-aider !!

[Guest Kelly Clarkson]

THE ONLY PEOPLE THE ACLU PROTECTS ARE TERRORIST AND COP KILLERS!!!

I never had Mr. P as a teacher but I wish I did. I’m sure it would have been fine if he was protesting the war in Iraq or bashing Bush!!

[Guest Guest]

Where is the harm to the students when their voices are anonymous to the world?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well maybe they didn't want to be recorded. They didn't have to go through this. They didn't have to switch classes if it weren't for your son. By the way, during the meeting Matthew seemed so concerned about his classmates. He even chose himself to be "their lawyer". In the meeting, he even said that the reason why the students didn't complain about Paszkiewicz was because they didn't want to do work. I wonder how the parents feel when they hear these statements. Especially if their children have a higher GPA than your son! As far as I know, Matthew is not number 1 in school.

[Strife767]

THE ONLY PEOPLE THE ACLU PROTECTS ARE TERRORIST AND COP KILLERS!!!

Oh, like Rush Limbaugh?

[Strife767]

Well maybe they didn't want to be recorded.

There is no right to privacy in a public school classroom, especially during school hours. The classroom is no one's home, nor a private phone conversation, or anything like that. Everyone, teachers _and_ students, ought to be accountable for what they say in class.

They didn't have to go through this.

What exactly did they go through? Unless you want to argue that it was strenuous for them to give Matthew such a hard time...

They didn't have to switch classes if it weren't for your son.

Uh, no. The class switch was 100% Paszkiewicz's doing. Did you forget already?

By the way, during the meeting Matthew seemed so concerned about his classmates.

Well, the rights of _every_ student in that class, whether they cared about what Mr. P. was saying or not, were violated by Mr. P.'s actions, not just Matthew. Besides, there may have been more students bothered by Mr. P.'s actions but too afraid to stand up to their teacher. Regardless, Matthew did the right thing in exposing his teacher's remorseless, unconstitutional, and unethical behavior.

He even chose himself to be "their lawyer". In the meeting, he even said that the reason why the students didn't complain about Paszkiewicz was because they didn't want to do work. I wonder how the parents feel when they hear these statements.

I pity any parent who is oblivious enough to be genuinely surprised by such a statement. What percentage of students in high school go "hooray, more work" anyway? Be realistic. Very, _very_ few high school students would refuse a chance to avoid schoolwork.

Especially if their children have a higher GPA than your son! As far as I know, Matthew is not number 1 in school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does this have to do with anything?

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I am not sure how to best respond to your question.  Anonymity is relative.

I am sure that if I walked the halls of Kearny High School (KHS) I would know exactly who said what on that tape.  The students may be anonymous to someone in a different place, but the students in that class are exposed in that school.  Are you aware if any of the students raised this concern to the BOE or administration? 

In my original post above I was just trying to understand if the BOE policy was put in place in order to protect teachers from this very situation or to protect the students.  It is not necessarily about anonymity, it is about fostering a safe environment so a student can learn.  Since the tapings became public I wonder if the amount of class participation has dropped at KHS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt that students feel any less free to speak up in class. Matthew hasn't noted it, and he's the only KHS student I'm in touch with.

My understanding is that the BoE was reacting to the vocal complaint of one parent and two students. What the real reason for the complaint was remains a mystery to me. The parent happens to have an in with the Board, as her husband is a former member and she remains an employee within the system. Unfortunately, this appears to be another case of who you know carrying the day. If fostering a safe environment was the concern, that could have been handled more appropriately, too.

It is true that other KHS students may recognize voices, but so what? The comments are already made in a class of 25 or more students, so they are hardly private when made.

The other thing people should know is the reason why the September 13 session is online in two sessions. The reason is that Matthew deleted comments from a classmate that he thought might be embarrassing. Neither he nor I see any reason why any of the students should be embarrassed by any of their remarks.

In the end, he had to weigh what was right. He felt that the issue was big enough to warrant public attention, and that no real harm was being done to any student. I agree with him.

[Guest Paul]

Well maybe they didn't want to be recorded. They didn't have to go through this. They didn't have to switch classes if it weren't for your son. By the way, during the meeting Matthew seemed so concerned about his classmates. He even chose himself to be "their lawyer". In the meeting, he even said that the reason why the students didn't complain about Paszkiewicz was because they didn't want to do work. I wonder how the parents feel when they hear these statements. Especially if their children have a higher GPA than your son! As far as I know, Matthew is not number 1 in school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, don't rock the boat. Making waves is wrong, even if it is in service of something very important. That is just a personal bias, and it doesn't answer the question. Where is the harm?

[Guest Guest]

I am assuming that this was the first formal complaint against the teacher. 

...

As for the second link about the taping.  I have mixed feelings about the new policy.

.....

Yes, this stops the further taping of teachers, but it also protects the rights of students.  This new policy enables a student  to be able to ask questions without wondering if their voice will end up on YouTube or the 5 o'clock news. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, from what I've been told, (and I think its mentioned on the tape in of the meeting between Matthew and Mr. P) there were complaints (I don't know if they were "formal") about Mr. P's actions in class BEFORE Matthew decided to make the tapes. So the fact that he had been warned about it makes worry about the Board's actions even more. If this were a first time thing, I could almost see them fumbling their way through it due to uncertainty. However, they knew that this guy could cause a problem again, and when he did they stuck by him. Again, after he denied saying what he said.

In other words, any squeamishness due to procedural inexperience seems bogus as they had the same problem with the same teacher very recently.

As for the taping policy. I don't disagree with it in principle and in a vacuum. However, it is a blatant attempt to prevent the same thing from happening again: a student having PROOF of a teacher's wrongdoing. Without these tapes, there would be no reason for the school board to NOT defend Mr. P as its a he said-he said case.

If they were concerned about student's rights on this issue they would have done it a while ago. (You will also notice the names are blanked out on the recording for privacy reasons)

If you find anything about the state BOE policies let me know as I haven't taken much time to do so myself.

Cheers,

Matt