Posted on 05/13/2002 3:10:36 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - A St. Louis, Mo. mom is suing the public high school that blocked her from observing a school-sponsored assembly conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Debra Loveless had told school officials she considered the event inappropriate, but was trying to view it herself on Oct. 24, 2001 when she was escorted out of the assembly, according to Loveless' attorneys, who have filed the federal civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. Loveless' daughter attends Metro High School.
GLSEN bills itself as the country's largest network of parents, students and educators aimed at preventing "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender/identity expression in K-12 schools," according to its website.
GLSEN did not return phone calls to CNSNews.com.
The group conducted two assemblies at Metro High School, Oct. 17 and Oct. 24 of last year, both of which Loveless' daughter was exempted from attending because of the family's religious beliefs, according to the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the public interest law firm representing Loveless.
However, when, at the urging of a school board member, Loveless attempted to attend the Oct. 24 event, she was ejected by an armed security guard, the ACLJ stated.
Francis J. Manion, senior counsel for the ACLJ, said parents should be able to participate in activities at a public school to see if it is appropriate for their children.
"This case is about protecting the rights of parents to participate fully in the education of their children," he said. "Parents do not abandon their rights as parents once their children go to school. Parents have a right to know what a school is teaching their children, and should not be punished for exercising their parental responsibilities. That's exactly what happened in this case."
The ACLJ lawsuit contends that school officials deprived Loveless of her parental right to be fully informed of the content of her daughter's education. The suit also claims Loveless' constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection was infringed.
Manion believes there were ulterior motives to blocking Loveless from attending the assembly.
"The real reason we believe our client was not permitted to observe the school assembly is because the school did not like her religious objections to the assembly," said Manion. "The only thing our client wanted was an apology and a change in the school policy governing the rights of parents to observe school assemblies.
"After Mrs. Loveless was ejected from the assembly, she had no choice but to file suit - to ensure that no other parent in St. Louis is treated in the same manner," he added.
The lawsuit names as defendants the superintendent of St. Louis Public Schools and the principal of Metro High School.
CNSNews.com attempted to contact Metro High School Principal Dr. Pamela Randall, but she was away from the campus and unavailable for comment. The Metro High School Instructional Coordinator refused comment Friday, saying she was unaware of any lawsuit.
E-mail a news tip to Matt Pyeatt.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Uh, to see what propaganda a militant pro-homosexual group was spreading in a public school at the taxpayers' expense? As a parent or taxpayer, why shouldn't she have that right?
Have you thought about homeschooling? A friend of our is pulling her 13-year-old out of school. The girl wants to get out.
I wish I could have escaped. That's part of the reason why we're homeschooling our two daughters (4 &7) and loving it.
Oh, so you want to discriminate on the basis of thought? Well, you just explained yourself completely.
BIG what.
What are you? A freaking communist? A liberal gay? But I repeat myself.
Your type thrives in dark, moist places. I'll be damned if I let you turn our public schools into secret, dark, moist sewers for the propagation of your bilge. The war is on. Cower and scatter, cockroach.
FMCDH!
And yet another pro-homo cheerleader joins the ranks of FR to troll the true conservatives.
Just flush this guy!
You honestly think that the prom should be open to the general public and not just students of a school?
Your Reply: You're right. But they're not.
At least we agree on the principle that there should be full and open public scrutiny. While I agree with you that there in many cases the schools will try to do things in the dark, away from public observation, this is completely inappropriate. Now, we can discuss the way things are endlessly. It is better discuss the way they should be, and to try to get to that point. At least we agree that schools should be completely open to observation.
Parents and taxpayers hold the power over the schools. They should assert their rights and perogatives aggressively, or else the schools will not respond. Any person who complains about the schools and has not run for school board should have some explaining to do.
I vehemently disagree. Any parent/taxpayer has a right to KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HIS/HER CHILDREN ARE BEING TAUGHT (OR INDOCTRINATED WITH). Have parents go through metal detectors and have them frisked. But they have the right. Otherwise, we may as just well sign our children away.
You're right.
So the question becomes "Was the material otherwise available to her?" Missouri law only requires that the material be available for inspection by any person; it does not require, that I can find, that it be open to attendance by any person.
Was the material open to her inspection prior to the assemblies? I assume something was, as she knew enough about it to withhold permission for her daughter's attendance and to tell the school-administration that it was inappropriate.
I submit that she had no purpose at the assembly other than disruption, and she was treated no differently than a disruptive student.
Proof please. You are assuming something might happen in the future. If she WAS disruptive, she should be removed. But she should not be removed under suspicion of possibly being disruptive. That's a dangerous precendent.
Have you thought about homeschooling? A friend of our is pulling her 13-year-old out of school. The girl wants to get out.
Thanks. We are thinking about it. We were just in the process of moving our kids to Catholic school when the homosexual molestation crisis hit the airways. We will do whatever is necessary to protect our kids, from both physical and spiritual depravity.
Nor should this pervert group be allowed into the school. THEY are the outsiders who more than likely are NOT taxpayers in this district.
The more this lobby tries to make perversion normal in the eyes of the public the more their evil is exposed.
However, she was asked to attend the assembly by a school-board member, which in and of itself ought to be reason enough to let her attend.
It is simple, most taxpayers don't want their money to support programs they do not agree with. This is a case where people can consider how their money is spent, due to the fact that school board members are voted on. The public has the right to know what they support and do not support through money collected as taxes. It is called Democracy, ever heard of it? .
Most schools have an open door policy to parents. Because they are the parents and have the absolute right to their children at all times.
If this was an issue of an assembly teaching good moral behavior,straight sex is healthy , marriage is good and healty, it is not right to discriminate against white men, or conservative politics You wood be spouting something else. If the schools kept any of the parents out of these assemblies then the liberals and socialists would be comming out of the wood work to protest the forable removable of anyone. You know that is true, so don't try the "typical taxpayer has no right to know what is going on in school... blah... blah ... blah".
It's just not practical.
If her daughter had attended against her express wishes. If she had not been given the opportunity to keep her daughter out. If her daughter had been forced to attend. If there were any consquences whatsoever to her daughter not attending.
If...
Then I would agree that Ms. Loveless has a valid beef. She doesn't. She knew what the material was. She kept her daughter away from it. End of story.
Your a friggen liar. Your attempt to cover up this perversion and sugar coat it is blatantly obvious. In my school district, as long as I report to the Principals office first, so they know I am in the building, I can attend just about any activity. The school encourages it.
There is no truth emanating from the mouths of the homo population. They have to lie to push their agenda.
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.