Mom Sues Over Ejection From School Assembly On Homosexuality

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 5/13/02 | Matt Pyeatt

[JoshGray]

There is nothing presented in the article to either confirm or deny that she checked in with the principle's office first.

If she checked in at the principal's office with an invitation by a school-board member, then she should have been allowed to remain.

[MomwithHope]

You should definitely consider homeschooling. Saving their souls is the most important job.

[VRWC_minion]

The war is on. You will lose. You know that, don't you?

They have won all the battles except one. Acceptance. If the goal was tolerance they might win but its not.

[JoshGray]

But using your reasoning, the pracitical limit of space was not a deciding factor cited.

We're assuming she's alive, aren't we?

Moving past that...

She should have checked in with the principal's office. Space allowed, or with her having permission from the school-board member, she should have been allowed in. Being in, as long as she wasn't 'disruptive' -- debate is not disruptive; argument is -- she should have been allowed to remain.

Do we at least agree on this?

[VRWC_minion]

Did she, as Wurlitzer points out as a possibility, stop by the principal's office to inform them of her invitation to attend?

Would this change your opinion ? If that was the issue then the school should have politely directed her to the office where she could sign in.

It seems that you keep droping one defense after another to avoid the fact the school was wrong to evict the mother.

[BibChr]

"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."

Manion, is of course quoting from the well-known volume —

Things that Should Not Need to Be Said (And Would Not, in a Sane Society), vol. 3, p. 1179.

Dan

[Tralfaze McWatt]

You ignore the obvious reason the woman had a right to know what was going on in the school, because what was going on in the public school assembly was I-L-L-E-G-A-L by virtue of the prohibitions against prosyletizing contained in the 1st amendment.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

So have you done a 180 on this or what. That was all you needed was a loophole on checking in at the principal's office? Hmmm... no response on the broader issues here? Is that all we need to do to beat back the homosexual activists everywhere? That was little effort by our freepers. If so, then good news for us fighting the homosexual cowardstrying to steal our kids.

[VRWC_minion]

We're assuming she's alive, aren't we?

I see you got my point because you want to move past it. One person is all it was. She could stand.

She should have checked in with the principal's office.

So, the penalty for not sigining in is eviction rather than politely explaining policy ?

Space allowed, or with her having permission from the school-board member, she should have been allowed in. Being in, as long as she wasn't 'disruptive' -- debate is not disruptive; argument is -- she should have been allowed to remain.

So there we have it. You agree with us terrible conservatives. Watch out you might learn we are not shallow thinkers and you might just become one if us.

However depending on the forum I might disagree that she should attempt a debate in that setting.

[KS Flyover]

Here's the story from the May 11, 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Mom ejected from school assembly sues
This story was published in A-section on Saturday, May 11, 2002.

By Holly K. Hacker
Of The Post-Dispatch
* She had kept her daughter from the Metro High School program on gay rights, but she wanted to observe it herself. A guard forced her to leave.



Debra Loveless didn't like the idea of Metro High School sponsoring an assembly featuring a group that supports gay student rights. Loveless decided not to let her daughter, a Metro student, attend, but she wanted to observe the assembly herself.

When she tried to attend, she was ejected by an armed security guard.

Those are the allegations in a civil rights suit filed Friday in St. Louis in U.S. District Court. The suit targets Cleveland Hammonds Jr., superintendent of the St. Louis Public Schools; and Pamela Randall, Metro High principal. A Virginia-based group called the American Center for Law and Justice filed the suit for Loveless.

Chester Edmonds, the district's spokesman, said Hammonds did not want to comment on the suit because it is a legal matter. Ken Brostron, the school district's attorney, said there were valid reasons for the decision that will come to light later. He said principals have the discretion to decide whether a parent can come into a classroom.

"Not anybody can come into any classroom anytime they want to," Brostron said.

The six-page suit claims that Metro announced that the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network would participate in two school events in October, and that parents could exempt their children from attending. Loveless notified the magnet high school that she didn't want her daughter, Dana, to attend and told school officials she found it inappropriate for them to hold such events, the suit says.

Loveless got permission from Randall to sit in on the first event, she says in the suit. But when she tried to do so, she was told that parents could attend only if they'd given permission for their children to attend.

Loveless tried to attend the second event with School Board member Rochell Moore. But after the event began, a security guard asked Loveless to leave, on Hammonds' orders, the suit says.

The suit alleges that school officials discriminated against Loveless based on her religious views. It asks for unspecified damages, attorney's fees and a change in school policy.

Reporter Holly Hacker:\ E-mail: hhacker@post-dispatch.com\ Phone: 314-209-0982



Published in the A-section section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Saturday, May 11, 2002.
Copyright (C)2002, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

[EdReform]

There are several links to articles posted in GrandMoM's thread:

Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools.

[F16Fighter]

School-sponsored assembly conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network...

Phase I of the Public School indoctrination program appears complete. Phase II entails NAMBLA Education Network conducting plays at public high schools....

[eno_]

Google sez you can find "Dr." (that's an Ed.D, they come in Cracker Jack boxes) Randall here: pamela.randall@slps.org

Tell her what up.

[eno_]

So only gay-friendly people should have been allowed in? On what basis were the other attendees selected?

[Michael_S]

Why was she wanting to attend assemblies her daughter wasn't?

Try reading the post again. You should figure it out then.

[gridlock]

So now you are only for public scrutiny if it is practical.

I seriously doubt that more than one or two parents would show up for any school activity, so practicality is not really a big problem here. I my town, they have a hard time getting enough people to run for school board to fill all of the vacancies. The parents are not exactly busting down the doors to sit in the back of the classrooms and be bored silly with their kids.

That said, the intermittent parent or citizen who wants to observe would have a very disrable chilling effect on what the schools decide to teach. If a teacher knows that a parent might decide to watch what is going on in some lesson plan or assembly, they will censor themselves accordingly. This is a good thing. This is how the parents and the community assert their rightful control over the education process.

Public education is a public endeavor. For that reason, it must be open to public scrutiny and oversight. If it impractical to do that in a certain situation, the situation must be adapted to permit the necessary public oversight. If the situation cannot be adapted, then the school should not be allowed to do what it was going to do. If these were the rules, I am sure the schools would find a way to operate within them.

[PleaseNoMore]

Let me tell you a little something.

ANYTHING that affects MY child's well being, emotionally, morally, academically, soically, etc, at his school is MY business.

ANYTHING! It is NOT a matter of being a taxpayer. It is a matter of a parent having sovereignty over their children. We have a RIGHT to know ALL that is going on in public schools. EVERY school board meeting is MY business. Every assembly is MY business. From the most important thing to the least is MY business. You want to know why? I'll tell you why. BECAUSE EVERYTHING AFFECTS MY CHILD.

American's have become so damned apathetic to what is going on in this country.

[freedomcrusader]

Loveless got permission from Randall to sit in on the first event, she says in the suit. But when she tried to do so, she was told that parents could attend only if they'd given permission for their children to attend. Loveless tried to attend the second event with School Board member Rochell Moore.

Well, there you have it. Permission from the principal and accompanied by a school-board member. Only the superintendent disagreed that she should have been there, and he directly contradicted the wishes of the principal of the school and a school-board member.

[scripter]

Once again, thanks, and bump.

[Clint N. Suhks]

If she checked in at the principal's office with an invitation by a school-board member, then she should have been allowed to remain.

That’s completely different than your arbitrary made up rules that she’s just another tax payer or her child wasn’t involved with that particular function. All schools allow parent class visitations regardless of whether the student is attending that class or not, which isn’t what you said in the beginning. Your tap dancing is hilarious but don’t trip while you’re back peddling at the same time.