Posted on 11/28/2004 12:21:56 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Sunday, November 28, 2004
If administrators of Kentucky's Boyd County school district can't find a way to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity "tolerance training," the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to take them to court – again.
Ten months ago, the district settled a lawsuit with the ACLU over the right of a student group, the Gay-Straight Alliance, to meet on campus. The year-long litigation strained relations in the conservative northeast portion of the state. In addition to allowing the group to meet on campus after school, district officials agreed that all students, staff and teachers would be required to receive "tolerance training."
The agreement stipulated all would attend "mandatory anti-harassment workshops," including the viewing of an hour-long "training" video covering sexual orientation and gender identity issues for middle and high school students.
But ten months on, one-third of Boyd County students have failed to see the video, and that has the ACLU threatening court action.
"It sounds like the training can't possibly be done," James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, tells the Louisville Courier-Journal.
District figures show 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video and 145 of 971 high school students did likewise. On the day scheduled for training, 324 students didn't show up for school.
The current legal snag arises from the fact the original consent decree had no provision for parents exempting their children.
"The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what's in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum," Esseks says. "Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that or whatever else. If parents don't like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school."
"Where are the parental rights in this whole thing?" asks Rev. Tim York, president of the Boyd County Ministerial Alliance and head of Defenders Voice, a community group formed to contest the decree.
According to the group's website, Defenders Voice "incorporated due to the need for protection of both the physical and mental health of our students and citizens." Its members place blame for their current distress squarely on the ACLU:
"We have seen an onslaught of aggressive homosexual activism sweep across our country. In many cases, these activists are supported by the ACLU in their attempts. ... Defenders Voice believes that an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should not be allowed to tell parents what their children must learn."
The Alliance Defense Fund, a religious-liberties public-interest legal group, has signed on to help Defenders Voice, pledging to sue the school district unless it adopts an opt-out policy for parents this week. Alliance was formed in 1993 with the guidance of several well-known Christian conservatives, including the late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the late Marlin Maddoux.
Joe Platt, a Cincinnati attorney representing Alliance, says mandatory training on tolerance for homosexuals violates the right of conscience of parents and students who believe such behavior immoral.
But school district attorney, Winter Huff, insists to the Courier-Journal the decree does not violate parental rights: "Students certainly have the right to believe in what they want to believe, but they don't have the right to act out in inappropriate ways. The point is you don't treat people disrespectfully, you don't pick on people, you don't bully them, you don't make them afraid to come to school."
Meanwhile, only one of the seven plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit still remain in school. Six have graduated, and the teacher-adviser for the Gay-Straight Alliance club asked to transfer to another campus.
The ACLU's Esseks is now questioning whether the mandatory video meets the decree's required hour of anti-harassment training. Like one-third of the students in Boyd County schools, he has yet to view it.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
No sweat! It was worth repeating.
I would remind you of Lawrence v. Texas--we're talking about the same Texas--in which an anti-gay state law was found to be unconstitutional. So the fact that there is another anti-gay state law in Texas doesn't prove very much.
But there is a difference between the state promoting a viewpoint it likes (legitimate) and the state preventing citizens from promoting their own viewpoints, which it might not like (illegitimate).
Warning to the ACLU: If your going to kick a tiger in the ass, you'd better have a plan to deal with it's teeth.
IOW, "Schools can teach whatever they want -- right after we get a court order to tell them what they have to want."
"Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that or whatever else. If parents don't like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school."
IOW, "If parents don't like it they can go to hell."
And turn the volume up to about 98 dB, so he can't not listen.
That'd be a good tolerance check.
sounds like an unenforceable contract, but i am not a legal eagle
"What a nice definition for tolerance."
I wish I could take credit for it but I can't. Credit goes to Webster, the dictionary guy.
Why would you hope that I'm tolerant of terrorist too? We can't agree on some issues and disagree on others?
"Don't underestimate the power of advertising."
I don't... but it works in some cases and in others it fails. Your post made me think of the crafty anti-drug commercials that targeted kids. I thought they were very well done but obviously they had no effect on a lot of our children. As to follow-ups to the video... I haven't seen anything like the video in my kid's school yet. Maybe my reaction will be different when this strikes closer to home but I doubt it.
"If I am unwilling to accept these things as a normality, that is my right and the case is closed."
Yes, it is definately your right. You're also correct that gays are not normal. Their existance however, is normal. The case will never be closed because they do exist. Alot of people will never accept them but they will continue to emerge from the closet. I don't see any way to put them back in it so I tolerate their existance.
"Consider the possibility that the officials are on the ACLU side, and deliberately "took a dive" in the suit, to accomplish via the courts something they could not accomplish otherwise"
Not likely... the officials were the one's who wouldn't let the club meet on campus in the first place. More likely that they didn't want the expense of the court case that they knew they'd lose.
"They might have simply lacked the resources to fight something like this. The ACLUs multimillions...."
Bingo! They lacked the resources and the legal standing. They were trying to stand on morals...
tol•er•ance \ noun
(15th century)
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult with repeated use or exposure ;immunological tolerance to a virus; ;an addict’s increasing tolerance for a drug&;
(2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor
b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food
Merriam-Webster, I. 1996, c1993. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster: Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.
Hmmmmm... you must have looked that up in the Webster's Leftist Dictionary. ;-)
:) Thanks that was nice. Sometimes I get wrapped up in my comments and lose control of what I am supposed to be pushing or not pushing. :)
The education provision of the texas education law has never been challenged successfully. Homosexual conduct with a minor is STILL ILLEGAL.
Lawrence only adressed conduct between adults in the bedroom NOT in the classroom.
The Federal 5th DCA and the 11th DCA were one prior to 1985. They still vote close to the same. Why important? Because the 11th DCA recently UPHELD PROHIBITING HOMOSEXUALS FROM ADOPTING. Homosexual indoctrination and children do not mix as a matter of law.
Actually such "friendly" suits are not unheard of in school circles. Publicly they have to prohibit the club, so they call their lawyer friend who has ties to the ACLU an lets them in on the situation.
The politicial then does his/her cassablanca "Shocked, shocked I say.." routine and does what they want in the name of saving on legal fees.
"Hmmmmm... you must have looked that up in the Webster's Leftist Dictionary. ;-) "
What can I say? The cover of mine reads New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language (School, Home and Office Edition) c1992 by Lexicon Pub., main dictionary section c1972 by Librairie Larousse (sounds French don't it ;)
I typed verbatim entry 1. which is similar to your entry 2. (unless our definitions of sympathy and indulgence differ as well?) Thanks though, I see the need for another dictionary in the house so I can cross-reference.
"Actually such "friendly" suits are not unheard of..."
I can believe that. That's something for the locals to decide on when they look their officials in the eye. Shows the importance of paying attention during local elections to ensure you're properly represented.
That's exactly what they should be doing -- with vouchers sufficient to off-set the taxes they pay to support the homosexual indoctrination centers known as public schools.
Luckily, this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, in my state, this has never been an issue hardly and it has died a quiet death. There has never been any h-content in my school or district. I will never allow it in my classroom. I do wish the ACLU would leave the issue alone. H-issues do not belong in the k-12 classroom. In college, if they want to discuss it as adults, that's their choice.
I don't think liberal vouchers belong on the radar either.
You are welcome.
All my reference works are on my computer. This entry came from the Webster's in Logos, a powerful Bible program.
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.