Lawsuit filed against AUSD by Alameda parents
The Petition against the School Board recall got over 300 signers before midnight of the first day. If you haven’t signed it. Please do.
Now news has broken that the Pacific Justice Institute, the defenders of “religious freedom” (often known as insisting that their version of religion be taught to others, see: Intelligent Design), has filed a lawsuit against AUSD. This is being done in conjunction with Alameda parents who don’t want their children to be taught to be compassionate to people who are gay (not teaching that kids should be consider being gay, just that families exist who have gay members and you shouldn’t bully them).
I was going to write “if that’s not galling enough” but it is galling enough. It’s freaking outrageous. I can hardly wait for the lawsuit that insisting on an opt-out for racial tolerance, gender tolerance, etc. I’m sure the PJI can find a religious sect somewhere who believe Blacks, Whites, Asians, Latinos or Australians are vile, and therefore their kids should not only be taught to despise them, but also attend school and be allowed to not be told to show tolerance and compassion toward their school mates. Heck it’ll toughen those Aussies up for the real world to get teased a bit.
So who is bringing this lawsuit?
- Aisha Balde
- Jolene Chan
- Tommy Cheung
- Daniel Chin
- Hanford Chiu
- Richard Clark
- Diane Clark
- Mikel Del Rosario
- Archie Felix
- J’aime Felix
- Wendy Fong
- Sue Fong
- Maria Gomez
- Judy Johansing
- Danlin Li
- Kerri Lonergan
- Matt Lonergan
- Linda Morgan
- Jonathan Stairs
- Vicki Stairs
In the spirit of the Safe Schools program, feel free to be angry, especially at the waste of time and energy that this lawsuit will cause (I believe the district’s fees are covered by insurance), but try and practice compassion and tolerance with these folks who are your neighbors. Even if you think their lawsuit is hateful.
Sign the Petition against the Recall as a show of support for the Safe Schools curriculum, including Lesson #9
{Edited to correct an incorrect URL}
Popularity: 2% [?]
Mitch Rudeen
August 13th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
bad URL to the creepy legal folks, should be:
http://www.pacificjustice.org/
thanks for all the good work
John Knox White
August 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Thanks Mitch. It’s fixed now
notadave
August 14th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Wow, Nothing saddens me more than to see Aisha’s name at the top of the list. I’ve known and respected Aisha as someone who has fought for tolerance towards those of the islamic faith. It is incomprehensible to know see her seek to deprive tolerance towards others.
Flavia Knorr
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Safe Schools Program? Is that what they call this bull.shi.t? Sounds like a political agenda. Gotta love the US: lawsuit right on.
kaitee nguyen
August 24th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
i applaud these brave parents for standing up against indoctrination in schools. i have the utmost respect for them.
kaitee nguyen
August 24th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I think it’s ironic that this author who claims to support safe schools and tolerance choose to employ the intimidation tactic of listing the names of the parents on the internet. How hypocritical!
Disgusted
August 26th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Ironic, yet typical and expected of this author and others. Very creepy.
Lauren Do
August 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Personally I find it creepy that teaching a lesson on tolerance is called “indoctrination.”
But to each his or her own.
David Hart
August 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The author also published the names of hundreds of people, mine among them, who oppose the lawsuit. Is that creepy or intimidating?
And in any case, what is so creepy or intimidating about posting public records?
Disgusted
August 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Vive le Rat Society!
David Hart
August 27th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Today’s Sun printed the names also. I look for ward to an angry rejoinder, signed “Disgusted,” in next week’s issue.
David Kirwin
August 28th, 2009 at 12:13 am
if that’s not galling enough”…
Then just read the 2nd paragraph of JKW’s post!
I shouldn’t be surprised that knox puts his own perverted view of realities in print suggesting they are the words of others. John you have no decency! Only you have said such things.
I don’t see the lawsuit as hateful nearly as strongly as I see the BOE decision as disrespectful of the community, and a political blunder which sets back hopes of another parcel tax. This is especially true after watching the BOE meeting the other night.
While some may feel they are wandering the road or good intentions, as perhaps the BOE felt, I think most people opposed to this just feel K-5 is an inappropriate age for a curriculum on gender identity and sexual awareness, especially when one side of the argument was given sole authority without regard of the views of others.
Just as the AUSD Principal who brought in transgendered folks to tell kindergartners and 1st graders that they can choose to be male or female and follow thru with hormones and operations to change their sex, just as they (the assembly presenters) did. That the principal then stated she did not inform parents what their kids were going to be exposed to because she knew parents would object; that just states volumes on how far this district will go in an unwanted and inappropriate direction. No wonder parents are so concerned.
Jack B.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Mr. Hart,
The author DOES like to intimidate/bully by naming names. It’s his M.O.
http://johnknoxwhite.com/2009/08/21/info-on-alameda-point/
This was not gleamed from public info as he claims… as I am not the registrant of the site he refers to. JKW must be referring to private emails (he has ignored my request about where he gets his information.)
Don’t know about “creepy”, but “UNCOOL” seems appropriate… at least from my point of view.
Michael Krueger
August 28th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Technically speaking, the registrant of the alamedapointinfo.com domain is Domains by Proxy, Inc., a company that keeps the registration information secret. However, anyone can easily ascertain that the domain servers for alamedapointinfo.com are ns1.supercleanengine.com and ns2.supercleanengine.com. The registrant of supercleanengine.com is also secret (thanks to Domains by Proxy); however, it’s public knowledge that Jack Boeger operates a Web services company called Superclean:
http://www.supercleanweb.com/contact/
So, unless supercleanengine.com belongs to some completely different Web services company that just happens to be called “Superclean,” it would appear that Mr. Boeger is, in fact, connected with alamedapointinfo.com in a public way that is easily gleaned without digging through anybody’s private e-mail messages.
Jack B.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
And the purpose of gleaning out my name is?
AD
August 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
John Knox White is into intimidating people by outing their names using his friends’ formidable deductive skilz. But he gets really scared if his house number appears on TV. Weird, huh? Hey John, I know where you live!
Thank him though, Jack. AlamedaPointInfo. com is very well done—hope you get some referrals from it.
Lauren Do
August 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I didn’t know that Alameda Point Info was such a terrible site that to be associated with it is akin to be “outed.”
And that the sheer mention of someone’s names in connection to that site is “intimidation.”
Michael Krueger
August 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yeah, it must be a real nightmare to be publically associated with a “very well done” Web site that even the supposed “bully” calls “an example of moderated criticism that has so far been missing from the discussion of Alameda Point and island development.”
John Burke
August 29th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
If you file a lawsuit against your local school district for any reason, you should surely expect that your name and the reason for the lawsuit would be published locally.
If any of these plaintiffs were led to believe that they would remain annonymous, they would be among the most naive and gullible people to have ever lived in Alameda.
kaitee nguyen
September 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Unlike Mr. David Hart and others on the so called anti-recall list who do have a choice to remain anonymous, we all know these plaintiffs don’t. I am sure any plaintiff in any legal case knows it’s public document and anyone with enough energy, motive (whatever that maybe), resources and drive can get the list. But I think we all know that we are not talking about the legality of posting names. We are talking about motives, and how hypocritical this motive is, especially in the context of this controversy.
It is most naive and gullible to think that this author (and others) publicizes and highlights the names for the good of the community, and that it is not a vindictive act to silence opposition and promote harassment. I don’t see how this list is germane to a real discussion of the issue.
John
September 7th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I wonder if the names that are submitted on the petition to recall the school board members will be made public?
Flavia Knorr
September 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
kaitee nguyen, it doesn’t take much effort to find out the names of the plaintiffs. It’s on the web: the whole legal lawsuit document filed. It’s totally public.
kaitee nguyen
September 9th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Flavia Knorr,
Which website would that be? Please send link. Thanks.
kaitee nguyen
September 9th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Flavia Knorr,
Never mind. Don’t post link.
kaitee nguyen
September 16th, 2009 at 10:20 am
It’s not about access. It’s not about legality. It’s about intent.
George
October 13th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“Even if you think their lawsuit is hateful”
why would you assume the lawsuit is hateful?
does that mean that since there are not racial, gender or religious discrimination classes that we all hate each other?
if the school district is so adamant about teaching tolerance and respect for others, it should be taught in a general sense and not allowed to kow-tow to one “group”.
Flavia Knorr
October 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
John Knox White:
I just realized that you are a parent of a child at one of these schools, and the parent of one of your son’s classmates is on the lawsuit list.
Wow, that is how you treat your fellow classroom parents?
Let me tell you something: you have no business going against other parents requesting to opt out their children from the “lesson”. Keep your child there if you wish, but don’t impose your “parenting” ways on others.
If other parents do not want the school to homo up their kids, it’s their choice to make.
Shame on you.
Theo
November 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I can’t understand how anyone would or could object to the names of the plantiffs being published in this suit. This is simply a matter of public record. I believe that you can go on the Alameda Superior Court’s website and get not only the names of the plaintiffs but also a copy of the complaint itself.
As for Flava’s comment about parents not wanting “schools to homo up their kids”, I gotta say that’s one of the most interesting things that I’ve read in a long time. How does one “homo up” a kid?