Outrageous ideologues running for Board of Education in your town?

Submitted by Throwaway103122CT t3_yibnhc in Connecticut

Posting this from a throwaway due to bad mobbing experiences in the past!

I started watching our local Board of Ed meetings on Zoom during the pandemic to find out what was happening with school openings, masks, etc. It's mostly boring reports, budgets, occasional posturing from wannabe politicians, and a few dweebs fighting over Roberts' Rules of Order. There is one hardcore ideologue on there who proposed that the Board should have to approve any "sensitive" teaching materials, which basically meant anything about race or gender (which they admitted only when pushed repeatedly). It was quickly shot down.

The Board is 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The latter never win but they get seated due to a minority representation rule in CT. I had no idea about this until it was explained to me recently! This year the Republicans are running three candidates that they are advertising as nice parents. They don't put "Republican" on any of their materials, don't use red color themes, American flags, etc. I thought this might be better than the hardcore ideologues you hear about in other towns.

BUT, when asked about their top priorities, one of these Republicans named Diane Melchionne stated IN THE LOCAL PAPER that her priority is requiring teachers to out LGBTQ students to their parents! https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-race-Board-Education-schools-17536539.php

"Fostering a collaborative environment for Parents & Teachers: Today, there are policies on the books that instruct teachers to withhold certain information from parents, such as a student’s gender identity. It makes parents distrustful of the entire system and puts teachers in between parents and their children. It also implies to students that it’s OK to keep some things from their parents. I would amend these policies and ensure parents and teachers are working collaboratively for the best interests of students."

I have no idea what policy she is referring to, and highly doubt it exists (or is being grossly misrepresented). If a student is not out to their parents, it may be they simply aren't ready, fear a negative reaction, or in the worst cases may even be abused or kicked out of their home. Students should have adults in their life they feel safe talking to. What a disaster!

Are you seeing this kind of thing in your town? How could outing students be a priority for the school system!?

49

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_iuhrzpd wrote

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because you do not meet the required account age threshold. Please contact a moderator.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

bob-a-fett t1_iuisr1j wrote

we've got a racist MAGA guy with a history of photos on Facebook of himself in blackface in my CT town.

39

maxanderson350 t1_iuixl7q wrote

I'm a gay, married dad and I fully support teachers outing kids to their parents.

−52

EarthExile t1_iuj24h9 wrote

Replying to maxanderson350 (#394,157)

You are gay and married to another gay person, do neither of you know any of the countless people who'd have been abused and/or disowned if their parents had known? I'm straight and I know a bunch of them.

22

EarthExile t1_iuj46z1 wrote

The Republicans are fascists. No asterisk, it's the whole thing.

34

maxanderson350 t1_iuj4exe wrote

Replying to EarthExile (#396,223)

I agree that is a reason to not have schools out students. But that is only one side of the coin - for me, the reasons to out a child to their parents are more persuasive. Specifically:

  1. It is immoral for schools to withhold important (even vital) information from parents regarding their child and their well-being.
  2. The withholding of such information is allowed regardless of who the parents are or what they believe.
  3. The withholding places a school employee's values and morals above the values and morals of a family, which may lead to discrimination based upon religion, ethnicity or immigrant status.
  4. It may result in harms to the child because the parents lack critical information about the child's needs, threats, or risks.
−20

ertebolle t1_iuj5sgn wrote

We had one definite ideologue run here in Wilton in 2021, but he lost by a landslide.

He may try again in 2023 when the Republicans are guaranteed 2 of the 3 seats that are up due to those minority representation rules, but I expect they'll run candidates for all 3 seats, and so even if they nominate him I expect he'll get the fewest votes + remain off the BoE (unless they find someone else even worse and nominate them too). Or alternatively the Democrats may dig up somebody to run as an independent petition candidate, which doesn't count against their board representation but would reduce the number of guaranteed Republican seats.

That, incidentally, is the best way to keep people like this off the BoE - you have to both a) be a registered independent (for at least 3 months, I believe) and b) run as a petition candidate, not with either major party's nomination, but as long as you do that, you don't count against the Democrats' representation and so can take away one of those 3 seats that would otherwise be guaranteed to go to a Republican. There's no minimum number of seats for any party, just a maximum - it wouldn't break the rules for Republicans to have zero seats on the Stamford BoE as long as there were three independents.

8

Bathroomtrader t1_iuj7l6d wrote

My kids are now in private school (after pandemic shutdowns) to prevent politics from ruining their education.

−4

ertebolle t1_iuj84ew wrote

Replying to maxanderson350 (#396,386)

You're essentially proposing to take something that is currently a judgement call between the student and the school and replace it with an inflexible requirement; this seems risky.

If a child's parents are likely to be supportive - if they're not going to use this "critical information" to kick the kid out of their home or send them to conversion therapy or some other awful thing - then the odds are that the child and the school are going to work together to figure out a way to come out to them anyway.

If, on the other hand, they're likely to respond badly, you're creating an impossible situation for everyone; the kid has to go through school hiding their identity, terrified that somebody might find out they're gay + tell their parents. And if some teacher does find out, then they're in a situation where their career is in jeopardy unless they out this kid to their parents and thus subject them to abuse.

I'd like to think that in 99% of cases - at least in Connecticut - parents would continue to love and support their children even if they had deep moral misgivings about their sexual orientation, but even if that were the case, you've still got that 1% of kids whose lives would be utterly destroyed by their school outing them. It may have worked out for you - which is great, and congratulations on surviving that absolutely awful situation - but it might not work out so well for others.

14

mkt853 t1_iuj9bxu wrote

Republicans believe kids are p!ssing in litter boxes and dancing on stripper poles while wanting books banned. 0.0% chance I'm voting for Republicans.

55

ertebolle t1_iujfvad wrote

Replying to maxanderson350 (#398,420)

Again, if the school would out the kid and the kid doesn’t want to be outed, that’s not going to result in the parents finding out - it’s just going to mean the kid has to hide their identity at school so the school doesn’t out them.

So there’s little possibility that this would enable parents to help their kid - absent the kid making a mistake, they’re not going to find out either way, you’re just taking away the one other potential safe space the kid had.

10

EarthExile t1_iujgg6z wrote

Replying to maxanderson350 (#399,754)

Your points imply that there is some risk inherent to kids being gay and their parents not knowing yet, but I don't see the actual harm there. I am very familiar with the harm inherent in outing people, even adults- they can face ostracism, abuse, discrimination, lose their jobs, etc. But the other side of the coin is not apparent to me at all.

7

pinktwillshirt t1_iujhbv3 wrote

So basically these characters in the BoE want to put sexuality as priority and not teaching them anything useful like mathematics and how to manage money and not get into debt.

What is with neoliberals and kids - they abort their own and then go after controlling the minds of the kids of conservatives who didn't abort theirs.

Like the other poster said - I am sending mine to private school

It's a very disturbing Stalinist ideology - the parents don't own the kids - the state and the system does and will even take the kids away if the system deems that the kids are not safe to disclose some details to their own parents. Bolsheviks.

−56

carcadoodledo t1_iujm2gg wrote

Moved back to CT (Pawcatuck) after 14 years in the shithole state of Floriduh. Reading/watching all I can for the local candidates. There’s one that said he’ll stay in office for as long as he will/wants, or some craziness. Also vocal anti-lgbtq

21

maxanderson350 t1_iujnhdv wrote

Replying to EarthExile (#400,605)

The harms I see off the top of my head are:

- breaking the trust and bonds between parents and child;

- preventing the parents from providing often crucial guidance to their child, including access to medical care (e.g. Prep or MP vax);

- having the parents teach their child completely useless sex ed instead of things that the child actually needs to know given their orientation.

I see these harms as more salient in 2022 Connecticut than a risk of a teenage losing her job because of being a lesbian or facing discrimination.

1

EarthExile t1_iujpd1j wrote

Replying to maxanderson350 (#403,267)

Maybe this is the difference between us, you're speaking from the perspective of a parent who is open and welcoming of their kid, and wants to do right by them. But I doubt you're the kind of parent whose kid would feel the need to conceal themselves from you.

I'm thinking about the parents I had, the kinds of people who will take a kid's door off the hinges if they suspect there's masturbation taking place, or beat them savagely for 'seeming queer.' People like that don't have a trusting bond in the first place, just authority and wants.

If I told my parents I was gay, they wouldn't customize my sex education and get me on prep, they'd kick my ass and keep me from my friends.

5

IRLootHoore t1_iujq3it wrote

Replying to pinktwillshirt (#404,046)

I'm not a fucking Democrat. I'm an unwilling participant in a 2 party system. Before the Patriot Act I considered myself a libertarian. I have morals, empathy, and more than 2 brain cells, so I can't vote for Republicans

28

maxanderson350 t1_iujqrwz wrote

Replying to EarthExile (#404,066)

That's part of the difference, but another aspect of my opinion I think arises from what I think young gay men need - access to medications that keep them safe and that is where parental knowledge is crucial. Too many young gay kids unreasonably fear their parents' reaction and thus don't come out to them, while at the same time engaging in unsafe practices that they can't get protection for because their parents don't know about it. I see that as the bigger risk to young gay men that rejection or ostracism - maybe in the 1990s, but not today.

1

Fhatal t1_iukbkvf wrote

Replying to mkt853 (#397,943)

We had a kid fart in middle school one time and he was nicked named shot stain mark. If someone was shitting in a litter box it would be national news, recorded from 29 different angles. That kid shitting in a box would never live it down.

Such a weird thing to lie about.

15