Search
User login
Elected officials must sign a form if they want to speak at public schools
What do you think about the Wake County Public Schools policy that requires guest speakers to sign forms promising to watch what they say and do? The policy is in response to a controversial guest speaker who attacked Islam at Enloe High School last year, invited to the school by teacher Robert Escamilla. Elected officials such as Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison refuse to sign the form, deeming it an insult.
So, form or no form?
a little bit overboard...
This just truly shows how our freedoms are starting to be taken away. The fact that they ask anyone to sign a form before speaking in a public school is unconstitutional. Where is the freedom of speech? Where is the freedom to make different choices? Our children already have lost the freedom to think by being bombarded with the "fact" that evolution exists and they are unable to actually "question" that fact. Scientists "question" that "fact" and other ideas. That's why they are scientists. Where is the absolute truth. Truth is just relative now in our day.
Children are now being introduced in kindergarten that homosexuality is normal without questioning it one bit. If I was to say this was wrong I would be told I'm not being tolerant.
So, for them to ask a speaker to sign a form before speaking is going a little bit overboard. The teacher should know who is speaking. You would think the teacher is qualified enough to make a good decision on who is to speak in their class.
Alicia in Cary
Speakers shouldn't have to sign
Schools, like newspapers, should be open to different opinions.
What may appear to be the truth to one person may not appear to be the truth to another.
I remember reading a statement by someone that went something like "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I've always thought that was the reason the United States was born.
People shouldn't have to sign a form saying what the will or wouldn't say at a gathering.
Just my thoughts.
They should be happy to sign!
Of course, they should sign it! To disagree would be like me saying that I shouldn't have to submit to a background check before I volunteer at my daughter's school just b/c I'm so honest.
This is PUBLIC school we are talking about - not a Christian school, or a Jewish school, or an open forum, or a newspaper. It is appropriate for the system to do it's part to guarantee that the expectations of public education are met. While it is unfortunate that we have to have such policies, the event that precipitated it is evidence that we do. I certainly do not expect my children to experience proselytizing at school!
Don't elected officials willingly take public oaths when they take office stating things that they already know are true? To claim this is a civil liberties issue is a misunderstanding of civil liberties.
Respectfully,
Ann in Wake Forest
They shouldn't be happy to sign
The analogy to a background check is strained, at best. What Ann is promoting is prior restraint, and is illegal and constitutional under the first amendment, particularly because this prior restraint in no way promotes public or student safety the way that background checks do. I don't want my kids exposed to prosletyzing either, but I trust the teachers to use their judgment rather than for the school board--which cannot get out of its own way--to substitute its amateurism for the teachers' professionalism. As for the Enloe incident, I don't have all the facts, but it appears that there is a process to hold teachers accountable for the choices they make about inviting in speakers. And as noted in the comments, the WCPSS response is overkill, and the board's promise to "look at" the policy without any prospect of making changes to the policy simply further demonstrates its arrogance.
What sort of paternistic message does the new policy send to students? That mayors and sheriffs need to be told how to dress to visit a school? I'd like to think that our public schools teach crticial thinking and citizenship skills, and many teachers try; their efforts are undermined by the board's asking grown-ups to agree to an insulting set of conditions to talk to students.
By the way, how does the board define "accurate"? Who is going to vet all these facts? What about controversies in natural and social sciences? What if a speaker goes into the schools and presents the solid evidence that the DARE program doesn't work (as discovered by our very own RTI)? What happens when accurate--or good faith--information runs counter to school board provincialism?
Students know that this is happening, and are likely either dismayed that their teachers are considered so untrustworthy by the board, or are amused by how their elders and "betters" are unable to make legal, rational, and sensible decisions. Some example our board is setting.
Why sign, it amounts to censorship and violates the 1st ammendment of the constitution. The Sheriff is on solid ground for refusing..... We elect him and he should be able to speak without restrictions. He is honest has been forthcoming and is a hard working official..
RR
Neurosis lives in Raleigh
I have heard psychosis defined as real solutions to unreal problems and neurosis as unreal solutions to real problems. I was horrified by the Escamilla incident and don't think enough people have been punished severely enough for it. But this is just ridiculous!!
"Why would someone not want to sign that form?" said Michael Evans, a schools spokesman. "That's in place to protect everybody from the speakers to the teachers to the students."
What a stupid thing for a spokesman to say, and what an unreal solution to a very real problem. The problem in the Escamilla incident is that the teacher was directly complicit in the proselytizing, and perhaps some of the administration as well (I do not mean to accuse, I have no idea - but it is certainly possible.)
If a speaker is being compensated for the appearance, and perhaps even if not paid but they have approached the school to appear rather than being invited, by all means have them sign something like this, and withhold payment if they fail to meet the standards.
For speakers volunteering their time, whether they are community leaders or parents helping with career day presentations, the educators are responsible, and the only people who should sign the forms for volunteer speakers are those IN THE SCHOOL, doing the inviting. It is their responsibility to invite appropriate speakers, make sure they are made aware of the policies if necessary and stop the speaker and/or the discussion if the policies are not followed.
Wake School attitude
It seems that this air of assumed guilt and predesposition to bad behavior permeates the system. We have been witness to policies that are applied without consideration to severity or situation, and watched as school personnel hid behind "the rule". I am sympathetic to the burden that the schools face, especially in regards to overcrowding. But turning from an educational institution to a "punitive first" institution shows a complete misalignment of priorities and a disregard for propriety, fairness and priorities. I expect more, as should we all.
How do they pick speakers anyway?
Not only is the form clearly censorship -- it's clearly intended to have a chilling effect on speakers -- it seems monumentally pointless.
How do they pick speakers anyway?
Don't these teachers sit down with speakers before hand and discuss what they're going to talk about? Aren't these speakers designed to fit precisely into the curriculum and have legitimate connections to what students are learning?
The form is a clear indication that school administrators believe that teachers do no preparation and are incapable of selecting effective and relevant speakers.
This is not a question about whether students should be exposed to different points of view. Students today have resources greater than any previous generation to get information from all over the world.
This is about a vain attempt to head of bad publicity. And like every such attempt, it is vanity -- and draws publicity rather than quelling it.
The students have learned a lesson from this that will serve them the rest of their lives -- Censorship always backfires.
What are they censoring?
Everyone screams censorship ... but what are they really censoring? Lies. Untruthfulness. Preaching. I don't want any of those attributes from a speaker to my children in a public school.
Until politicians and police personnel are completely out of our headlines for lying, cheating, extortion, and other unethical activities, then get off your collective high-horse and sign the paper.
In my opinion, censorship is not the right argument. The argument is ... what does this prevent? We have lots of rules and laws on paper. This form was written by a lawyer so that lawyers could sue offenders ... however that's defined. But it doesn't prevent a speaker from lying, preaching or saying anything derogatory or racially insensitive. Let it stand. Let a speaker sign-it. Let that speaker violate it. Let the lawyers sue each other. Let the Constitution prevail! And hopefully, let my children come home and tell me about their day and how a lunatic came to speak to them, but they thought he was full of sh*t.
I am glad that the elected officials are standing up
Three cheers for the elected officials who are standing up to this absurd and probably unconstitutional policy. Not a day goes by when the WCPSS leadership makes a really dumb decision that makes them look like fools. What message does it send to, say, kids in a high school civics course when we say "participation in a democracy and in democratic debate is really important" when we then subject guest speakers to unconstitutional prior restraint? Doesn't the school system have bigger fish to fry--year round school, reassignment, mistreatment of teachers (even ones I vehemently disagree with)? I cannot see myself voting to return any incumbent to the school board in the next board election.