Posted on 08/04/2021 12:33:25 PM PDT by servo1969
Nicole Solas is the South Kingstown, Rhode Island, mother who gained national attention when she told her story at Legal Insurrection regarding her stymied efforts to obtain school records regarding teaching of Critical Race and Gender theory, I'm A Mom Seeking Records Of Critical Race and Gender Curriculum, Now The School Committee May Sue To Stop Me.
We have followed Solas' story since the beginning:
Solas has had dozens of national media appearances, and has continued to make news in Rhode Island and nationally. I expect that news cycle will continue because Solas was just sued by the Rhode Island branches of the largest teachers union in the country, the National Education Association, trying to prevent South Kingstown from providing Solas with information she has requested, including communications involving the union or its members.
You can read the full Complaint with exhibits (pdf.), filed in Rhode Island Superior Court, at the bottom of this post. Legal Insurrection is the first to report on the lawsuit.
We will add additional analysis and commentary to this post. My initial take is that this smells collusive. South Kingstown doesn't want to produce records and the union is helping them out. The lawsuit purports to prevent disclosure of "private" information, but the public records laws and Solas' requests pursuant to those laws only require the district to produce public records. The district has been very aggressive in asserting exemptions and redacting documents, so the union's concern and rush to court seems peculiar, at best.
It's worth noting that the South Kingstown NEA previously targeted Solas, as we reported, by holding a special membership meeting singling her out as a danger.
MORE TO FOLLOW
[[Now The School Committee May Sue To Stop Me.]]
When they gotta sue, AND tell their students not to tell their parents what they are being taught- you just know it’s nasty, racist, vile or violent- otherwise there would be no reason whatsoever to prevent parents from knowing and seeing what is being taught-
The teachers union even wanted to prevent parents fro m viewing the home-school lessons on the computers-
That should be a huge red flag, and parents should sue to gain access to what their kids are learning- parents have a right to know!
I don’;t know if they still do it, but parents used to b able to sit in on classes- even show up unannounced- it was to try to keep teachers honest (although the teachers would just put on a good show while parents were there)
TEACHERS: Disown unions. Refuse to pay union dues. Your job is to educate the kiddos in your class. Not to politicize them or make them racists.
Same to me, but I looked up the RI laws, by requesting declaratory relief, they have to add anyone affected as a party, hence her inclusion.
The suit itself is pretty bad. The people involved aren’t just union members, they are public servants, and their correspondence within the scope of their employment is a public record. As teachers, when they discuss implementing a curriculum, they are within the scope of their employment, hence there is no basis for the discussions to be withheld. The suit is pretty far out there.
How can they redact a document like that?
Someone needs to fry here. Really fry.
Biggest question I have about the teachers’ unions, is...
Since when is it their jobs to set the agenda and curriculum for schools?
Teachers’ unions job was supposed to represent and protect teachers, in labor discussions and salaries and benefits.
It was not and should not be their jobs to define classes or curriculum. It’s supposed to be the job of the states and counties and cities, to define the curriculum and what schools students will attend. It’s also supposed to be the school boards that determine the grade levels and achievement levels before kids graduate and move on to their next grade or to high-school graduation.
Unions are not elected by the people, and when they interfere with the running of the schools, they’re stepping out of bounds and should be illegal.
All true. The key to making it work is a lopsided fee provision: You defeat the suit on an Anti-SLAPP motion and the other side pays your attorney, you fail to defeat it, and each pays their own. That means a public-spirited attorney can take your case on the cheap, and if he or she wins, they get a judgment for full compensation. It’s no trip to the dentist, but at least it levels the playing field a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.