|
AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
N E W S R E L E A S E
To Avoid Lawsuit, Traverse
City Schools Agree Not to
Promote Homosexual Agenda or
Enforce Unconstitutional Speech Code
TRAVERSE
CITY -- The Traverse City Area Public School system Wednesday asked
attorneys affiliated with the American Family Association of Michigan
for assistance in the review and and revision of the
school district's so-called "harassment" policy,
part of which the statewide family values organization says is
unconstitutional.
An attorney
for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy
Wednesday also said that the district has agreed -- pending
the review -- not to allow the promotion of homosexual
behavior or the homosexual political agenda in Traverse City schools,
and not to enforce provisions of the district's speech
code that unconstitutionally prohibit students from expressing
disapproval of homosexuality or any other opinion solely
it may "offend" another student.
In return, so
long as TCAPS honors that pledge, the AFA Law Center
will delay taking legal action against the district for six
months to allow reasonable time for the review.
AFA-Michigan
President Gary Glenn, Midland, last month wrote TCAPS officials
threatening a lawsuit in defense of student free speech rights
unless the policy was amended, citing the 3rd Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals' unanimous rejection Feb. 14th of a Pennsylvania
public school speech code "strikingly similar"
to that in Traverse City. In that case, the AFA Law Center
successfully represented the legal guardian of two high school
students who faced the threat of expulsion if they expressed
disapproval of homosexual behavior.
Wednesday,
Glenn praised Traverse City school officials for "taking the
common sense approach to ensure their speech code is brought
into compliance with Constitutional guarantees, without forcing
taxpayers to finance a protracted and expensive legal
battle."
He said
amending the code is especially important because "given
the high-risk threat of fatal disease and premature death
resulting from homosexual behavior, prohibiting young
people from compassionately warning their fellow students
the severe medical consequences of such behavior
not only violates the Constitution, but arguably puts young
lives at greater risk." (See documentation of health
hazards at: http://www.afamichigan.org/issues/homosexuality/health.htm )
Attorneys
for the school district and the AFA Law Center discussed the
issue by telephone last Friday.
C. George
Johnson, Lansing, attorney for the school district, Wednesday
e-mailed Bryan J. Brown of the AFA Law Center, lead counsel
in the 3rd Circuit lawsuit, to formalize the results of
that discussion. A formal copy of the letter, plus TCAPS
"anti-harassment" policy and student code of conduct, are
to be delivered to Brown by facsimile at 10:00 a.m. Thursday
morning.
"As
indicated to you in our conversation...," Johnson wrote,
"I would be interested in your critique and comments, given
the interest expressed by Mr. Glenn of the American Family Association
of Michigan in the constitutional validity of (the district's)
policies and rules of conduct."
Brown the
same day responded to Johnson, agreeing to assist the district
in crafting necessary amendments to the district's policies,
but warning that the AFA Law Center's "self-imposed
moratorium (on filing a lawsuit) will be called off if it is discovered
that the school district is using the 'values' based gag order
built into the code to facilitate homosexualist education efforts."
If materials
promoting homosexual behavior or homosexual activists' political
agenda "are uncovered in the Traverse City Area Schools,
all bets are off," Brown wrote Johnson. "Since
you assured me that such programs are not pursued in the school
district, I assume that we will have no cause to challenge the
policy before...August 2001."
Brown issued a final warning: "I urge you,
in order to ensure that our present détente is maintained,
to let the Traverse City Area Public School District know that
opening their doors to the likes of GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight
Education Network)...or a host of other homosexual activists will
constitute the opening of their doors to litigation."
Brown
last month wrote that the TCAPS policy --
titled "Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment"-- is
"strikingly similar to the policy which the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals found unconstitutional in a strongly-worded
unanimous decision."
Brown said
then that one of the most troubling aspects of the TCAPS policy
is the threat of investigation or even termination faced by individuals
who express any written or spoken message, concerning
religious or any other beliefs, solely because such a message may offend
any other single person associated with the district. Merely
bringing a Bible to school could also be cause for termination
under the policy, he said, if any other student took offense. One
portion of the TCAPS policy is "patently unconstitutional,"
he said, because it employs the very same language found
in the Pennsylvania speech code struck down by the Court
of Appeals.
In
the Pennsylvania case, Brown represented Pennsylvania State
University Associate Professor of Education David Saxe, a member
of the state board of education. Saxe brought the case
on behalf of two public school students for whom he
serves as legal guardian, whose Constitutional rights Brown argued
were violated because they faced the threat of expulsion
if they dared express disapproval of homosexual
behavior.
The
judges unanimously agreed, ruling in a landmark decision
with national implications that such restrictions on free
speech violate the core principles of First Amendment.
"No
court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech
directed at another's 'values' may be prohibited under the
rubric of anti-discrimination," wrote the judges in their
29-page opinion. "By prohibiting disparaging speech
directed at a person's 'values,' the policy strikes at the
heart of moral and political discourse -- the lifeblood of
constitutional self-government (and democratic education)
and the core concern of the First Amendment. That speech about
'values' may offend is not cause for its prohibition."
Glenn
last week also wrote officials of the Troy School
District, threatening a lawsuit to overturn that
district's comparably unconstitutional restriction of a
student's expression of opinions solely because the views may "offend" another
student.
AFA-Michigan
will continue to methodically review the speech
codes of school districts throughout the state, he said.
"For taxpayers' sake, we hope officials
in Troy and other districts with similarly unconstitutional
restrictions on student speech will follow Traverse City's
lead in seeking to resolve this issue without costly
litigation."
Glenn
also said he will urge the state Department of Education,
the Michigan Association of School Boards, and the Michigan
School Board Leaders Association to produce model language
for school harassment policies "that will pass constitutional
muster in the wake of the 3rd Circuit's landmark ruling.
Hopefully, that way, every single school district won't
be forced to go through all the same waste of time and
legal fees just to come up with the same identical
answer."
March
14th Letter From TCAPS Attorney to AFA Law Center
Mr. Bryan
J. Brown
Litigation
Counsel
AFA Center
for Law and Policy
P.O. Drawer
2440
Tupelo.
MS 38803
Re: Traverse
City Area Public Schools
Traverse
City, Michigan
Anti-Harassment
Policies and Student Codes of Conduct
Dear Mr.
Brown:
Pursuant
to our conversation last Friday March 9. 2001, I have obtained
copies of the anti-harassment policies and student codes of
conduct currently in effect in the Traverse City Area Public
Schools and am forwarding them to you for your reference. As
indicated to you in our conversation of that date, I would be
interested in your critique and comments, given the interest
expressed by Mr. Glenn of the American Family Association of
Michigan in the constitutional validity of such policies and
rules of conduct.
As
legal counsel to the Traverse City Area Public Schools, this
firm will be reviewing the policies and rules of conduct with
respect to the current state of the law and providing
advice and counsel to our client in that regard. Receipt of
your critique and comments from the perspective of your organization
for consideration as we engage in our review will be appreciated.
From
our telephone conversation, it is my understanding there is
no intention to initiate litigation with respect to the anti-harassment
policies and student codes of conduct of the Traverse City
Area Public Schools at this time, given the review to be
conducted.
Your
cooperation in this regard is appreciated and I look forward
to receiving your critique and comments.
Very truly
yours,
THRUN,
MAATSCH AND NORDBERG, P.C.
C. George
Johnson
(517) 374-8848
March
14th AFA Law Center Letter to TCAPS Attorney
C. George
Johnson, Esq.
Thrun,
Maatsch & Nordberg, P.C.
Suite 500,
501 South Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box
40699
Lansing,
MI 48901-7899
Dear Mr.
Johnson:
Thank
you for the timely delivery of the anti-harassment polices and
student codes of conduct from the Traverse City Area Public
Schools. I will forward my comments and concerns in due time.
I
write at this time to complete our agreement as to litigation.
I have assured you that this firm will not mount a challenge
to the Traverse City Code prior to the 2001-2002 school year
in order to give the District time to evaluate its position
on Saxe v. SCASD, released by the Third Circuit on February
14, 2001.
As
I explained in our discussion of the other day, this self-imposed
moratorium will be called off if it is discovered that the School
District is using the "values" based gag order built
into the code to facilitate homosexualist education efforts.
That is, if "It's Elementary" or any similar programs
or seminars are uncovered in the Traverse City Area Schools,
all bets are off. Since you assured me that such programs are
not pursued in the school district, I assume that we will have
no cause to challenge the policy before the August 2001 date.
I urge you,
in order to ensure that our present détente is maintained,
to let the Traverse City Area School District know that opening
their doors to the likes of GLSEN, Project 10 or a host of other
homosexual activists will constitute the opening of their doors
to litigation. (See attached
article for more background.)
Sincerely,
Bryan J.
Brown
Litigation
Counsel
AFA Center
for Law & Policy
P. O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803
(662) 680-3886
(662) 844-4234 (fax)
bjb@afa.net
Homosexual
Activists Solidify Hold on School
American
Family Association
November/December 2000
Homosexual activists promised that their agenda isn’’t about
promoting a lifestyle, and it certainly isn’’t about sex. In
schools across the country, however, reality is beginning to
make a mockery out of their rhetoric.
Since the early 1990s, activists have been arguing vehemently
for access to public schools in order to make them a safer place
for ""gay"" and lesbian students. Leading
the charge is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN), the nation’’s largest homosexual activist group that
targets the public school system. Established as a national
force in 1994, GLSEN now has over 85 chapters pushing the organization’’s
agenda in communities across the country.
GLSEN’’s activities are predicated upon a simple claim: homosexual
kids are not safe in public schools because of the ignorance,
prejudice and hatred of heterosexual classmates. The only answer,
it says, is to teach everyone in the K-12 school system - administrators,
teachers, and students - that homosexuality is normal, natural,
and healthy. Those in public schools should be tolerant of the
diversity among its members, activists insist.
From tolerance to sex?
Due in
large part to GLSEN’’s tireless efforts, many of the nation’’s
schoolchildren - as young as kindergarten age - are being taught
to accept homosexuality as a wonderful variation within that lovely
mosaic that is human sexuality. Many states have absorbed the
organization’’s message of ""safety"" as the
justification for preaching tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality.
Homosexual teachers themselves are told that they must begin the
process of teaching their students to accept ""gay""
and lesbian sexual orientation. For example, at GLSEN’’s annual
national conference in Chicago this October, teachers were taught
how to deftly incorporate their own homosexuality into their daily
class time with children.
Teachers in Massachusetts have already been doing just that. In
Acushnet, lesbian middle school teacher Christine Hoyle was so
proud of her efforts in instructing her students to accept homosexuality
that she videotaped her classroom methods and showed them at a
state conference at Tufts University, sponsored in part by GLSEN.
In Newton, parents complained when they discovered that first-grade
teacher David Gaita had ""come out"" to his
students and told them he was homosexual, and loved men ""the
way your mom and dad love each other."" School Superintendent
Jeffrey Young, however, defended Gaita. ""Had the teacher
at that point said, ‘‘I’’m married and have two kids,’’ no one
would have blinked an eye,"" he said. ""There
should not be a double standard for heterosexual and homosexual
teachers.""
While getting a mouthful of meal about tolerance, parents of public
school children in Massachusetts were horrified to discover last
Spring that the GLSEN conference at Tufts, which was also funded
by the Massachusetts Department of Education, used state tax dollars
to present explicit homosexual sex lessons to kids as young as
14.
GLSEN has always insisted that it merely wants ""gay""
teens to feel safe in schools, and that its agenda does not include
talking about sex to impressionable youth. Yet organization representatives
were unable to explain the graphic sex talk when tapes of the
conference sessions became public. On the tapes, ""gay""
adult panelists could be heard discussing and even demonstrating
hardcore homosexual sex practices to teens.
Sex at state expense
Due north
of the Massachusetts state line, a group called Outright Vermont
has also been allowed to push the homosexual agenda in schools
in the Green Mountain State - also at taxpayer expense.
With a three-year grant worth $121,575 from the Vermont Department
of Health, Outright targets middle and high school kids. Kathy
Hoyt, Vermont Secretary of Administration, proudly asserted that
Outright Vermont ""developed a training program for
public schools that was designed to support diversity and safe
schools for Vermont’’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and
questioning youth.""
As in Massachusetts, however, ""safety"" has
begun to bleed into ""sex."" That’’s the serious
charge leveled by Nancy Sheltra, a six-term state representative
and founder of Vermont’’s pro-family organization, Standing Together
And Reclaiming the State (STARS). According to documents provided
to AFA by STARS, Outright Vermont has gone lightyears beyond the
simple purpose espoused by Hoyt.
For example, Outright used taxpayer money to provide ""safer
sex activities"" and ""parties""
for teens. These events included, according to Outright’’s own
documents, ""demonstrations, guided practice & skill
evaluation"" for the use of prophylactics, and the distribution
of free condoms, lubricants for sexual intercourse between males,
""dental dams"" for oral sex between lesbians,
and latex gloves for mutual masturbation.
The number of such items requested by Outright Vermont for distribution
to teens was mind-boggling: 5,000 condoms, 750 dental dams, 750
latex gloves, and 2,000 packets of lubricant.
Outright also spent monies on youth retreats, including the ""recruitment
of youth participants,"" which utilized mailing lists
and youth-related meetings to stir interest in the gatherings.
Kids who expressed an interest in attending were transported -
again using state money - to the retreat site, where youth and
adult staff again taught kids how to engage in homosexual sex
practices. Outright’’s own quarterly report said, ""All
retreat participants practiced and were evaluated on their (prophylactic)
barrier use skills and were given a variety of barriers to take
home. Participants joined in role plays.""
Other social events for lesbian, ""gay,""
and transgendered youth were paid for by Outright, and included
dances, movie nights, bowling, picnics, etc. At one such event,
the Emerald City Ball, Outright says it distributed prophylactics
and lubricants to participants ""at the door and in
the bathroom."" The ball was attended by 60 teens and
80 adults.
Tarnishing the buckle of the Bible Belt
Fresh off
its success in New England schools and elsewhere, GLSEN has decided
that the nation’’s Bible Belt is far too straight for its own
good. The organization is preparing to send trained activists
south of the Mason-Dixon line to repeat its achievements in Massachusetts
and Vermont.
In a press statement released this summer, GLSEN said it had trained
15 ""Southern activists"" from its fifth annual
Leadership Training Institute held in College Park, Maryland.
The training of representatives from six Southern states - Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas - was
aimed at ""increasing the ability of chapter leaders
to organize effectively in hometown schools and communities.""
Brenda Barron, who holds the title of Assistant Director for Southern
Organizing, said it was necessary for GLSEN to ""create
strong chapters with a strategic and highly-localized approach""
in order to combat what she called ""anti-gay bias""
in Southern schools. GLSEN’’s press release said schools throughout
the South scored well below the ""national failure rate""
in ""protecting and serving"" homosexual,
bisexual and transgendered students.
What protect
and serve means to GLSEN, however, and what it means to parents,
are evidently two different things.
|
Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts
News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or
any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.
|
