Arrested father had point to make Disputed school's lesson on "diversity"

Boston Globe ^ | April 29, 2005 | By Maria Cramer and Ralph Ranalli

[ninonitti]

CONCORD -- For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington's Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity. Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of ''Who's In a Family?" by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children. The book's contents concerned Parker and prompted him to begin a series of e-mail exchanges with school officials on the subject that culminated in a meeting Wednesday night with Estabrook's principal and district director of instruction. The meeting ended with Parker's arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail. Yesterday, Parker was arraigned in Concord District Court on one count of trespassing, and a not guilty plea was entered on his behalf. Bail was set at $1,000, and Parker was freed after being ordered to stay off Lexington school property. He is due back in court June 1. Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks. Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them.

[Alouette]

"Who's In a Family?" by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families

But no families consisting of female human mother and male human father with their own children.

[the invisib1e hand]

schools, like all "public" facilities, are most definitely no free speech zones. If you assert an incorrect opinion, you will be considered a threat.

send the kids home. nuke the system.

[shhrubbery!]

But no families consisting of female human mother and male human father with their own children.

LOL. Good observation.

The only heterosexual couple are shown not with a child, but with a dog and cat!

I originally thought the middle couple on the right side, shown with a baby, were supposed to be a female human mother and male human father. But now I think they're depicted deliberately as androgynous.

[jjmcgo]

Why don't we ask Congress for a federal law banning discussion of sex by teachers to students in public schools?
Ban all discussion or instruction of heterosexual and homosexual matters between adults and children in public schools.
There's no benefit to any kid from sex-ed in schools. Pregnancy rates and STD rates all skyrocketed after the introduction of sex-ed.
Either parents educate their children on this subject or education returns to "the streets." The results would not be worse than what we have now and those "educators" with an agenda would be stripped of their vulnerable audience.

[Wallace T.]

Sorry, no free pass for the police officers. The father in question was fighting to prevent his little child from being exposed to pro-sodomy propaganda. A mere 60 years ago, sodomy was a criminal offense virtually everywhere in America. Now, at least in Massachusetts, woe betide anyone who does not embrace perversion. Jesus said that it would be better that a person tie a millstone around his neck and jump into the sea rather than lead children into sin. By arresting and indicting the father, the police and the prosecutors have become the "hit men" for the perverts at the public school.

[12B]

Sorry Wallace, but that is a bunch of horse hockey. If the parents and the school can't reach an agreement then he should have taken his complaint to the courts where hopefully he could get a lasting, legal opinion in his favor.

The courts are the appropriate venue to make a decision on school policy. The police do not have the time, resources, and authority to make such decisions.

The father WANTED to get arrested to publicize his situation. He VOLUNTARILY refused bail in order to publicize his situation. It was HIS strategy to get arrested so he shouldn't be moaning about it after the fact.

[Wallace T.]

This country, especially "deep blue" states like Massachusetts, has public schools that are more interested in indoctrinating young people into the PC mindframe than in learning. We have a judiciary that sees its role as change agents rather than the administration of justice. Particularly in a place like Massachusetts, what chance does this man have to redress his grievances? The deck is almost as stacked against him as it would have been in the old Soviet Union. Of course, he can place his child in a private school or homeschool him and perhaps he should do so. However, he is no doubt taxed heavily to support a public school system. He and other parents should expect to have their children receive the sort of educational product that public schools, for the most part, provided to a majority of Americans prior to 1960.

I don't blame this father for being militant. Checks and balances are less effective than was the case in the past and the democratic process is mocked by bureaucrats, judges, and legislators. Civil servants, whether in business suits, uniforms, or casual clothes, have a moral obligation to do right that should be more important than mere obedience to their superiors. Only when Americans in both the public and the private sector cease cooperating with governmental tyranny will this nation end its decades long descent into socialism and moral degradation.

[eno_]

So what's your beef with the cops? He was asking to be arrested. He got arrested.

He was aressted on the say so of the pricipal, who invited him to a meeting at a school where his child attends.

And the cops had no time to question whether it was, in fact, trespass?

And you want to shield the cops from community opprobrium? Why? Do you also think the Elian raiders should remained masked and anonymous?

[eno_]

The LEOs here have done absolutely nothing wrong.

You keep repeating that.

You also think they ought to remain anonymous.

So, if they are in the right, their community will support them, right?

[AdamSelene235]

The Parkers can homeschool their kid. They don't have to subject him to the multicultural liberal indoctrination that passes for public education.

They will still be required by law to pay for the indoctrination of other kids.

[taxesareforever]

Take a look at how many children now are either homeschooled or in private schools compared to 10 years ago. Then take a look at funding for public education. It hasn't stopped increasing at an obscene rate. Go figure.

[Bear_Slayer]

We need to speak up more often and much louder.

[Mad Dawg]

So, if they are in the right, their community will support them, right?

Do you really think that all that is required for community support is that you be in the right? Does your community support you?

Do you really think that if somebody is in the right the entire community -- every member -- will support him?

Does it follow that police should not need firearms, weapons of any kind, handcuffs, or any such thing? They should just say to the malefactor,"I consider there is probably cause to arrest you for [whatever]. Please be so good as to come with me." And, by your reasoning the officer, if he was right, would need no means to carry out his orders or to defend himself?

I guess you are also against the whole concept of a witness protection program? The witness is doing right, so no one would harm him or her or the family. So why do they need anonymity?

Why would we need laws at all? If you do right every one will applaud you, no one will harm you.

Somehow, I don't think that can be right.

And you think, do you, that when the legally elected representatives of the community delegate the enforcement of laws, the officers sould subsitute their own opinion for that of the elected representatives? If a community outlaws abortion, but an officer thinks a teenage child should have an abortion, he OUGHT to see that she gets one?

Or do you think officers of the law should follow their opinion, rather than that of the elected representatives of the community, only when their opinion agrees with yours.

I don't see how these opinions comport with the notion of representative government or criminal law.

The fault here lies with the people of the community who tolerate such nonsense in their school system.

[ninonitti]

I beleive the Globes circulation numbers are down also.

They have bought up local free advertising sheets in an effort to boost revenues and their website looks like it's being set up for some fee system.

The plain fact is more people are opting out of the MSM particularly All Gay Editorial Staff sheets like the Globe.

[eno_]

I think that is the vast majority of cases it would help if all public servants were more-exposed to direct feedback from members of their communities, or of a wider community of interest.

In this case, the police should have asked if the situation was in any way dangerous and, if not, told the pricipal to manage the situation themselves.

In either case, we ought to know more about the police invovled in this case. Police that anonymously enforce the public skool agenda should be known. They might want a job in YOUR town someday.

[gakrak]

I agree he should continue the fight, but I wonder how they would put up a defense and how then to attack this problem legally? Definitely need legal advise. Amen.

[gakrak]

"I don't have a problem with people being gay." Boy I sure do,
they are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and we know that He destroyed two cities because of their deranged acts. Amen.

[mlc9852]

A reasonable person would not EXPECT homosexuality to be taught in school, especially elementary school! What gives schools the right to push sexually deviant behavior on little children as normal? What's next - books from NAMBLA?

[Mad Dawg]

I think that is the vast majority of cases it would help if all public servants were more-exposed to direct feedback from members of their communities, or of a wider community of interest.

Well, as long as you concede that the argument that "if you do right, no one will oppose you," is bogus, we can move on.

And the next question would be "'more-exposed' than what?"

Right now, the father could find out, either by simply asking or by filing a FOIA request the names of the officers who arrested him. So could the newspapers. One of the reasons LEO's are reluctant to arrest is that each such interaction requires reams of paperwork, and months of scrutiny -- and exposes them to harassment, as I saw in court as recently as yesterday, when an officer's competence was viciously attacked by a defense attorney (who was doing his job as he ought).

Once I was assaulted while I was rerouting traffic around a disabled vehicle and a fellow with a severe authority problem combined with racial hatred (and also the record proverbially as long as your arm) decided he didn't like what I was doing. I drew my gun to deter him.

He is still at large, and I had to write a 4 page report, spend an hour under review, and another hour or more at the magistrate's office. All for defending myself against the gratuitous attack of a felon. (I was too busy with the dangerous traffic situation to bust the guy.)

In any event, all this information is public knowledge, though not published in a newspaper. And since this happened, it is no longer prudent for me to go into certain parts of the county, and I am armed 24/7 because I anticipate "Direct deedback from members of my community, or of a wider community of interest." especially as that "feedback" might be directed to my child or my wife.

But the greater question (to me, at least) is whether we want our public servants to follow, to the best of their ability, the will of the people expressed through the legally constituted means of expression, or do we want them conscientiously objecting every time they deem that the situation (the details of which they may not know or understand until way later -- as I did not know the record, history, or character of my assailant).

We decry activist judges and rightly so, because they substitute their will for the rule of law. Can we decry them and at the same time encourage LEO's to do the same thing? I think not. The LEO's execute the will of the people. The better they do their job, the more transparest they are to that will. When the outcome is not as you would wish, I think your beef is with the people, not with the LEOs.

[eno_]

I agree with much of what you say, but this:

But the greater question (to me, at least) is whether we want our public servants to follow, to the best of their ability, the will of the people expressed through the legally constituted means of expression, or do we want them conscientiously objecting every time they deem that the situation (the details of which they may not know or understand until way later -- as I did not know the record, history, or character of my assailant).

...just amounts to "hold a bake sale, sign a petition, and go back to sleep, sheeple."

Cops have large discretion over enforcement priorities and policies, and even over the laws. Putting pressure on cops to de-prioritize or change policy on enforcement style for bad laws is perfectly legitimate and effective.

We live in a deeply imperfect republic, and many here would call that a generous assesment.

I make an audio recording of EVERY interaction with any government employee. That alone has saved me a couple speeding tickets. (I "accidentally" left my digital dictation machine running.) I look forward to the day when people can make video recordings just as conveniently.