(permission is given to post or distribute)
A good lesson on dealing with school bureaucrats. Rule #1, always transact in writing.
HS TEACHER'S WRITING ASSIGNMENT FOR HS STUDENTS.
PART OF A PROGRAM TO TEACH ADVOCACY ON CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS.
IN THIS INSTANCE, SHE WANTED THEM TO ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST VACCINATION MANDATES.
PARENTS WITH VACCINE EXEMPTIONS REFUSED TO HAVE THEIR SON TO PARTICIPATE
I'm
frequently asked to compose letters for parents who refuse various
demands or requirements that are outside or against administrative
codes. It usually pertains to how they enforce the rules governing
religious exemption. But I never encountered this requirement.
The
teacher didn't back down when parents verbally cited vague "religious
reasons." She dismissed them. But she did back down after this letter I
drafted for parents.
STRATEGY (no guarantees):
It's best
to flood the zone by presenting your full case up front. Time is not on
your side to go 20 rounds of emails. You have one shot, so don't
expect to go tit for tat with an administrator with the power to pull
the plug and issue final decision on the matter. (There are exceptions
to the rule.)
You also want to align yourself with powerful
groups if they exist. Bureaucrats ultimately make decisions based on
power assessment. What they think they can get away with. If you're
perceived as weak, they will consider you road kill. Exempt parents are
in the minority, and are vilified in the media as pariahs, spreading
disease etc.
So in this example, I made it appear this wasn't
just an exempt parent, but someone part of a larger movement.
Conservatives have power now. I chose them because they dominate the
executive branch and congress and the state houses. Just hinting at the
end that the parents may want to publish this letter might be an
incentive for teacher to back down. Again, because bureaucrats only see
power relationships and respond accordingly.
And of course, copy all supervisory staff. i.e. the principal.
HOW YOU WANT TO APPEAR
1. well-informed
2. outraged
3. passive-aggressive (leave no question who the victim is)
4. reasonable (by way of your arguments)
5. motivated to take legal or political action
THE LETTER:
Dear Principal Bitchi Bitcherson,
Sorry
I wasn't completely forthcoming with you in our first encounter on this
matter. I didn't wish to appear to insult you by explaining how your
writing assignment was ill-considered. I will do so now. Not to insult
you, but because you have a right to know. And I hope you'll be as
proud of me in honstly expressing MY views as you say you are when
students do that.
First, I do not object to the idea of having
students learn about controversial subjects per se . It's a great way
to motivate them to learn history and current events. In fact, my
concern has nothing to do with controversial subject.
And it has
nothing to do with educators injecting their bias on matters having to
do with politics, and social/religious values. As you probably know,
social and political conservatives vigorously object to many instances
in which educators are indoctrinating their children into the radical
left "progressive" views to distrust the police, or to blame America for
the world's ills.
In fact, some schools (and colleges!!) are
banning the works of Mark Twain (because words like "nigger" is used)
and replacing it with historically inaccurate polemics, like Howard
Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."
So parents have
a right to object to what schools are doing. I mention those examples
because while these pathologies exist in schools predominantly run by
the totalitarian-mindset of transnational progressives, I am not
accusing you of that. So don't confuse my criticism of your assignment
with the aforementioned political war going on now, resulting in the
rise in homeschooling. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you educated your
student about the controversial issue of schools and colleges pushing
their progressive agenda.
But I will tell you why your assignment needs to be reconsidered. You write:
QUOTE
The
assignment was framed around whether or not students agree with
mandatory vaccination. Therefore, it is fine to not agree with it. The
topic of vaccination is outlined in the Living Environment curriculum
guide and has been a topic covered on the regents exam in June.
There
is no reason why Daniel should not be able to express his opinion about
vaccination; I am actually proud to have students honestly express
their views. This is a skill needed as they progress through their high
school and college career as well as everyday life.
UNQUOTE
FIRST,
you are asking students to take a position for or against something.
You didn't consider that a student could research an issue and remain
undecided. I know ADULTS who are undecided on abortion, jihad, gay
marriage, climate change, immigration (etc.)! If you teach students the
virtues of honesty and truth, and force them to express a view that
they don't possess, then you are teaching them to be dishonest and
untruthful.
You cannot tell students to "honestly express their
views" for or against an issue, if they have not resolved the issue in
their own mind. It has taken me years to resolve controversial issues,
and some I have yet to resolve. And you want students to resolve them
in a few days?! What you'll get are simple, cookie-cutter responses,
usually siding with the majority consensus (they're just high school
students, don't forget). Is that what you want?
I think what you want to teach students is the mechanics of effective advocacy. Most of that can be done in speech class.
SECOND,
I don't think you appreciate the dangers of your request for students
to be outspoken on controversial issues generally, and vaccination issue
specifically. You write that you're "proud to have students honestly
express their views." Will you help them deal with the fallout
afterwards?
The political environment for adults has never been
as corrosive and vitriolic as it is today. Trump isn't even president
yet and half the country is going insane. Pro "Black Lives Matter"
advocates are torturing and killing whites SUSPECTED of being pro Trump.
Even
before the campaign for president, you could take your life in your
hands for honestly express your views. A professor quietly donated to a
fund that opposed gay marriage. Through a FOI request, the names on
that list was given to liberal activists, who in turn, publicly "shamed"
the contributors, and lobbied in ways that caused them great hardships.
The professor was forced to resign, as well as the CEO and founder of
Mozilla. Another professor---in the news last week---was forced to
resign her college post because she dissented from Global Warming
theory. US Senator Whitehouse introduced a bill to criminalize
dissenters, if they work as scientists and openly express their
dissenting views on what they claim is the prevailing view. Some of his
colleagues have suggested making it a crime to advocate that HIV is not
the cause of AIDS.
You write that, This skill, "to honestly
express their views", is "needed as they progress through their high
school and college career as well as everyday life." HAVE YOU VISITED A
COLLEGE CAMPUS OR CLASSROOM IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?!!
Liberal
totalitarianism on college campuses is worse. Intolerance and
conformity to uniformity is mercilessly enforced by students, and
cowardly upheld by faculty. When your students enter college, their
"honestly expressed their views" will not be tolerated unless they're
pro Palestinian, abortion, illegal immigration, global warming,
Islamist, and anti police. They will encounter safe spaces and speech
codes that are as silly as they are igorously enforced to silence
honestly expressed opinions.
The penalties are organized shaming,
harassment, and isolation. They will not receive a thoughtful
counter-argument. Instead, they will be tainted with the labels which
Hillary made famous: homophobe, islamophobe, zenophobe, nativist,
racist, misogynist, capitalist! Palestinians and Muslims are more
direct: They will assault you for promoting hate (i.e. supporting
Israel)!
Since the election, the Alinsky rules for radicals has
been applied to Trump by liberals everywhere: Isolate him, then
demonize him with labels and personal allegations, in order to render
him radioactive so that no Democrat lawmaker will vote for his
legislation. Not through open debate----which you're teaching your
students is pivotal to advocacy----but through the tactics of personal
destruction. Any Democrat legislator who agrees with the merits of a
Trump public policy provision, and votes in favor of it, will then be
painted a racist, misogynistic, zenophobe etc. Even if it's a bill to
fund highway construction!
Perhaps you might want to teach your
students the risks of guilt by association, as a reward for honestly
expressing their views.
With respect to vaccination:
Vaccination
mandates have also been made radioactive for anyone to "honestly
express their views." This week, President-elect Trump met with RFK Jr.
this week and afterward, "honestly expressed" his view that too many
doses are given too early in an infant's life. He was immediately
chastised by media and "experts", and declared a "one-man public health
threat", as if homophobe, islamophobe, zenophobe, nativist, racist, and
misogynist, weren't sufficient labels to destroy him.
The
president merely commented on the amount of doses given to newborns.
Your assignment is for students to take a position on whether vaccines
themselves should be mandatory. And you insist that "[T]here is no
reason why Daniel should not be able to express his opinion about
vaccination"?!
I read various parenting and mothering blogs and
discussion lists. Their personal experiences are not included in your
"Living Environment" curriculum guide, so allow me to educate you in
real-world ostracism and hardship for expressing your views about
vaccines.
We cannot cite doctors' opinions, because those who are
outspoken against vaccines are portrayed as pariahs, and made examples
of, by targeting them for license suspension. Any patient complaint
will do to set them up, just like any defamatory label pinned on
conservatives will do.
examples:
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/practice-silencing-medical-doctors-must-end/
(Silencing physicians who question vaccines.)
http://vaccineimpact.com/2017/cleveland-medical-director-attacked-for-questioning-vaccine-safety/
(Cleveland Medical Director Attacked for Questioning Vaccine Safety)
Parents
will also be penalized for honestly expressing their views. Around
2003, in LIC, Queens, Rolando Bini answered a fellow parent's question
at a PTA meeting. He announced that exemptions from vaccines are
possible and that he had a religious exemption. The school nurse was
present and took exception to that. But she did not openly express her
views in a way that would have made you proud, Mr. Titus. Instead, she
reported Bini to Children's Services!
It doesn't matter what the
allegation was (it turned out to be a lie). Like the labeling of people
which liberals don't like, any allegation will do. It happens that the
nurse made a false allegation. But Children's Services have a mandate
to turn you life upside down based upon any allegation----true or
false---because the investigation doesn't end once the allegation is
quickly shown to be false. Because they're mission is not to
investigate the allegation. It's to investigate YOU. YOU become
suspect of neglect or maltreatment of a minor.
Mr. Bini, like all
subjects of these "investigations", was guilty until proven innocent.
He unlike most other parents, didn't plead out by agreeing to go to
parenting class and be on the intrussive Children's Services watch list.
He made his case public and fought it. Because he fought it, the
guilty until innocent Mr. Bini lost custody of his son. Family court
returned custody 6 months later when he won his case. Today, his son
attends college and Rolando is a renowned family advocate.
There
are many similar stories like that one. Some don't end well for
parents. Anyone can report anyone to Children's Services----our
modern-day Gestapo. A universally incompetent agency that cannot
distinguish between a child who is physically abused and starved, and
the parents of a child who are exercising freedom of speech. Like any
predator, to that agency, meat is meat.
There are also many
instances in which a parent's religious exemption is not kept
confidential by school administration. Some schools don't appreciate the
consequences of that negligence. Have you ever had parents knock on
your door by parents shouting at you to keep your unvaccinated children
away from their children? Do you honestly think that an open and honest
debate be conducted in the current atmosphere of fear and ignorence?
Mr. Titus, why don't you get back to me when our society and laws do not
have it's heavy foot pressing on my neck! I will decide then how
important it is for you to be proud of my son for "honestly expressing
[his] views" on controversial subject.
As you can fathom, I'm not
afraid to speak my mind. I'm an adult, with access to a megaphone and a
good lawyer. He can explain to you how this drama will end should you
keep pressing me on this matter. May I suggest another topic for your
students? "Why there isn't freedom of speech on certain topics and
venues."
You may not know this, but my son is forbidden from
speaking honestly on vaccination mandates. Because school
administrative codes require principals to deny or rescind religious
waivers if parents possess one scintilla of secular thoughts about
vaccination. Should Daniel's research lead him to determine, for
example, that vaccines are not very effective, the principal can allege
he was influenced by my views, and have grounds to rescind our waiver.
Again,
you wrote, "There is no reason why Daniel should not be able to express
his opinion about vaccination." I gave you plenty of reasons.
I
would like your permission to post this response to your message on the
internet with your real name. If you deny me that permission, may I
conclude that I convinced you that open and honest debate in the current
climate of intolerance is dead, and can invite serious consequences?
Sincerely
Katie Kickass
copyright 2017
Gary Krasner, CFIC
