Posted on 05/06/2003 9:35:22 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
BARRE – John Mott and Tom Treece have at least one thing in common. Make that two.
Both men think they have been unfairly accused and, if you believe their critics, both have had a chilling impact on students at Spaulding High School.
Mott is the Barre Town police officer who admits he spent part of an early morning break last month photographing student projects in the classroom of a controversial history teacher.
Treece is that teacher. A passionate pacifist, he has been skewered publicly by critics who say he is pedaling his personal political views to the students in his class. Part of the proof, critics say, is in the photographs Mott took when he visited the high school April 9 while on duty, in uniform, and out of his jurisdiction.
The photographs were taken at around 1:30 a.m. after Mott, who once worked at Spaulding, persuaded a custodian to unlock the door to the classroom Treece shares with another teacher.
Mott isn’t apologizing for his actions and says he has at least temporarily refused orders from Barre Town Police Chief Michael Stevens and Town Manager Carl Rogers to supply school officials with copies of the photographs.
“I’m going to speak to an attorney first,” he said.
Mott disputes an account of the April 9 incident contained in a letter written by school Superintendent Dorothy Anderson to the police chief.
Specifically, Mott disputes Anderson’s claim that he “banged on the front door” of the high school to get the attention of night custodian Arnold Cliche, and that Cliche opened the door and let him in.
“It didn’t happen that way,” he said.
According to Mott, he entered the school through an unlocked maintenance door, found Cliche and asked him to unlock the door to Treece’s classroom room so he could take photographs with his personal camera. Although he was on duty at the time, Mott maintains that he was on a break and wanted to photograph student projects that offended him as an American and a retired military man.
“I wanted everybody else to see what was in that room. You can’t explain it,” he said.
Among the student projects that Mott said he photographed were a poster of the President Bush with duct tape over his mouth and a large papier-mâché combat boot with the American flag stuffed inside stepping on a doll. He said there also were pictures of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his former chief lieutenant, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, posted on the walls.
“Having spent 30 years in uniform, I was insulted,” he said. “… I’m just taking a stand on what happens in that classroom as a resident and a voter and a taxpayer of this community.”
Mott said he took the photographs less than 48 hours after attending a school board meeting at which several residents complained about what they claimed was an attempt to “indoctrinate” not “educate” students.
School officials have rejected that notion, defending Treece as a “thought-provoking” teacher who provides students in his public issues class with resources from the full spectrum of political perspectives.
“As a teacher he (Treece) does present all sides of an issue,” Anderson said.
Anderson said she was concerned that Mott used his uniform to gain access to a locked classroom after hours without supervision.
“I find this behavior, at the very least, in violation of our policy for visitors at the school,” she wrote in her letter to the police chief. “I also find it disturbing that a police officer would wear his uniform under such circumstances thereby intimidating our employee (Cliche) into letting him in the building at a very unusual hour.”
Anderson said she met with the police chief and the town manager on Friday to discuss her concerns and to reiterate her request for copies of the photographs Mott took and has been circulating in the community. She said Mott had not yet complied with that request, which is based solely on her desire to confirm the photographs were not doctored in any way.
“We’re not embarrassed about what was in that classroom,” she said. “We just want to make sure that the pictures he (Mott) took are an accurate reflection of what the classroom looked like.”
Mott said the photographs he took are authentic and accused school officials of “tap-dancing” around an issue that was brought to their attention last month by using the circumstances under which he entered Treece’s classroom as a diversion.
“It leads me to believe they are out witch-hunting,” he said.
Treece said he knows the feeling. He says Mott and his other detractors don’t have a clue about what he does in his classroom, but that hasn’t stopped them from jumping to conclusions based on his personal political views.
“None of these parents know me in any way,” he said. “They just think they know me. Everything they know about me is hearsay. They don’t have kids in my class. They have taken lies and innuendoes and run with them.”
Treece does not hide his personal views and acknowledges his public criticisms of the war in Iraq and President Bush have irked many in the community. However, he said their contention that he is force-feeding his views to Spaulding students is simply wrong.
“I tell kids from day one: ‘I don’t want you to agree with me, I want you to be informed and think for yourselves,” he said. “I have never squashed dissent in my class in any way shape or form.”
Treece said his message to students is simple: “Defend what you believe and if you can’t defend it I’m going to pick holes in your argument no matter what side of the issue you’re on.”
Treece said he supplies his students with a broad range of resources and encourages them to use them to come to their own conclusions.
“My goal in that class is to get kids to think and be critical of everything they read and hear and see,” he said.
Treece said he’s tired of being painted as anti-American simply because he challenges students not to take what anyone – not the president, their parents, or even he – says at face value.
“I want them to understand that everybody’s got an agenda … everybody,” he said.
Treece said that goes for his detractors, some of whom are using the controversy over a six-word sentence – “All hail the idiot boy king” – that he posted on a bulletin board next to a picture of President Bush as a reason to reject the high school budget. The budget is scheduled for a re-vote next week.
“They’re out to get the budget and they’ve made me their whipping boy,” he said.
Treece makes no apologies for how he conducts his classes or for his own political views. In retrospect, he said, the comment he posted about Bush was probably too direct.
The board meets at 7 p.m. in the high school library. Like the Malones, both Mott and Treece said they plan to attend.
“I did not recognize how fragile people’s feelings were at the time,” he said. “It was horrible timing on my part.”
If he had it to do over again, Treece said he would spell out the same sentiments in two pages of text that wouldn’t have offended anyone.
Paul and Norma Malone, the local couple who first took issue with the comment Treece posted on the board, insist they’re not out to scuttle the budget, but want to restore balance in the curriculum at Spaulding.
“Our position has been and still is there should be a balance in that curriculum and respect in that school,” said Paul Malone.
Although the couple’s criticism is not limited to Treece, they admit his comment served as a springboard for their effort.
“It’s not an issue of freedom of speech. That was never the issue,” he said. “It’s an issue of balance and it’s an issue of professionalism.”
Based on discussions with faculty, parents and students, Norma Malone said students from a largely conservative community are being urged to view the world to through a liberal lens.
“There’s nothing from the center or from the right,” she said, rejecting Treece’s comments to the contrary.
The Malones, who have formed the group “Citizens Advocating Responsible Education,” say they plan to attend tonight’s school board meeting and present a copy of a petition signed by several hundred supporters. The petition states in part: “Students must be provided a thorough, factual, unbiased study of the history of our nation, the importance of our government institutions, and the significance of our political traditions so as to engender civic duty and respect for our national values.”
In order to accomplish that goal, the petition suggests revisions to the school’s policy regarding academic freedom and the appointment of community members to the school board’s curriculum committee.
Listen once again - he is a cop in ANOTHER CITY. He lives in the city in question where he entered the school but is a cop ELSEWHERE. THAT is what jurisdiction means.
No problem here... if the custodian let him in... Fire the custodian if you have a problem.
According to Mott, he entered the school through an unlocked maintenance door, found Cliche and asked him to unlock the door to Treece’s classroom room so he could take photographs with his personal camera.
I dont see a problem here either... the door to a public facility was unlocked and the custodian voluntarily unlocked the classroom. Any private citizen may have done the same thing as a member of the community.
There is no case here for the teacher to grasp onto... The officer was within his jurisdiction whether as an officer or as a member of that community. If the officer had tried to make an arrest based on the information he collected here then there would be an issue.
and as an aside...
condescension (n)
1: the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior [syn: superciliousness, disdainfulness]
2: a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient
So dirtboy, 'ditch' (no pun intended) the attitude or direct your posts to ALL so they dont show up in my queue.
I agree. (Did you go to public "shool"?)
Signed: A (conservative) public school teacher
That's not what you were saying in post 428:
The officer was focused on protecting the public, that's his job.
That is his job as a police officer WITHIN his official jurisdiction. And it is NOT the role of a police officer to police SPEECH or what is being taught. Once he goes outside his jurisdiction, he is just another private citizen and jurisdiction is not the proper term for what he is doing. And the super already said that he shouldn't have been there - that is more a problem for the custodian who let him in, but IMO it's still unethical for a cop on duty in one jurisdiction to leave that jurisdiction to pursue a personal political agenda.
You keep sliding your position, which makes it impossible to hold a rational debate.
So dirtboy, 'ditch' (no pun intended) the attitude or direct your posts to ALL so they dont show up in my queue.
Don't worry, you ain't worth the trouble - I prefer to debate people who don't constantly move the target.
Irrelevant, I left enough latitude in my argument to slide in that direction. You on the other hand have left no latitude in your positions.
unethical for a cop on duty
Not On Duty
I prefer to debate people
Doesnt sound like you prefer to debate people... sounds more like you are being quite defensive of a weak position, and then offering thinly veiled insults to veneer your arguments with a reinforcement of intellectual elitism. You are definitely welcome to not respond.
That's special. You just admitted to presenting a moving target. Thanks for confirming what I thought you were doing.
You on the other hand have left no latitude in your positions.
Don't need to, I'm right on the matter. One doesn't need to move a target in that situation.
Not On Duty
On duty and outside his jurisdiction. That has been proven if you would bother to read up further on the story. Oh, and BTW, the story was resolved several days ago, apparently Rush couldn't be bothered to call the officials in question and find out that the department had already addressed the school administrator's complaints (they won't comment on actions taken because it is a personnel matter) and the administrator has told the teacher to remove the offending bumper stickers in his door and he will not be teaching that class in the fall.
Doesnt sound like you prefer to debate people... sounds more like you are being quite defensive of a weak position, and then offering thinly veiled insults to veneer your arguments with a reinforcement of intellectual elitism. You are definitely welcome to not respond.
WHIIIINNNEEEEEE. Sorry, dude, you can squeal all you want, but it doesn't change the facts here. The cop was on duty and out of his jurisdiction. And, regarding your ludicrous claim that he was protecting the public safety by taking pictures in a classroom - since when did that rise to the level of a crime? The fact that you think it merits police action speaks volumes about your lack of respect for the Constitution.
That's special. You just admitted to presenting a moving target. Thanks for confirming what I thought you were doing.
Dont blame me if you arent willing to give yourself enough latitude in your positions. Im not going to apologize for presenting my arguments in any fashion that I please.
Don't need to, I'm right on the matter. One doesn't need to move a target in that situation.
You are not 'right' on the matter at all... And for your information... there is no 'MATTER' here. You should really have that anger management issue checked out before you hurt someone. You act as if you are the oracle of all knowlege and rightness and all you have demonstrated is that you are unable to tolerate other peoples opinions. This officer was well within his rights as a citizen and an officer to enter a public place. Your contention that the Public Classroom is a constitutionally protected free speech zone during the school day when the teacher is supposed to be educating these teachers within the boundaries of the community standards is completely without basis. You might get away with that argument at the 9th Circuit of San Fransisco.
On duty and outside his jurisdiction.
He said he was on a lunch break... I say he was on a lunch break. I could care less what you say, and since it was not specified what action came out 'against' the officer... the 'fact' is not in evidence.
since when did that rise to the level of a crime?
Are you then adding to your pool of 'facts' that the teacher was arrested or charged with a crime? Could this be an example of 'moving a target', or would this be an example of a strawman?
The fact that you think it merits police action speaks volumes about your lack of respect for the Constitution.
I never said it required police action... since you have now resorted to adding words that I never posted I assume you have run out of cogent arguments.
Now that is really, really special. I have NEVER made any such contention on any of the three threads on this topic. Is this part of your "latitude" for debating - that you can claim I am staking positions that are not based in the responses I have made? I don't have an anger management problem - I instead have a low tolerance for nonsense, hence my involvement with your posts. Good day.
Hint - merits does not equal required. You said this earlier:
the officer was focused on protecting the public, that's his job...[th]his officer was protecting the rights of the parents, again... thats his job.
So you said JUST THAT - that police action was acceptable here, even part of his job. Now, I would like you to find ONE police jurisdiction that has listed as an official duty for their officers that they ensure that offensive materials are not hung in classrooms. I'll be glad to give you all the time you need.
Otherwise known as... INTOLERANCE
Yeah, for stupidity, I am quite intolerant. Interesting that you saw fit to try and make that a point out of that.
If there was no arrest... you got no beef.
YOU are the one making the claim that it was the officer's duty to do this. Arrests have nothing to do with it. Please find me ONE police department that lists as a public safety responsibility for officers that they should investigate offensive political materials in classrooms. You made this claim - now back it up with facts.
the officer was focused on protecting the public, that's his job...[th]his officer was protecting the rights of the parents, again... thats his job.
And then, when I question that statement, you defend it with this:
If there was no arrest... you got no beef.
Why would an officer face arrest for doing his duties? He would only face that if he was doing something WRONG. So you go from saying that it was part of his duties ... to saying that what he was doing didn't get him arrested. Oh, that's right, you're allowed to shift your position. Gotta keep remembering that.
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.