Thursday, May 05, 2005

Hold Granted

Early word is that the judge did grant a ten-day hold on the sex-ed curriculum. Pilot testing was supposed to start tomorrow in six schools, but apparently it'll be put off a couple of weeks.

See how it is with those those liberal activist judges? -- They're never there when you need one.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, well....

Isn't that strange Jim K.?... Let me get this right... your group is liberal... ask you put is the judge is a "liberal activist judge".... this doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't a liberal activist judge be on your side? So, if the judge is liberal... does this make you and your group conservative??? NOT!!! Hum???? Go figure. Let me tell you... he (the judge) smelled a "dead rat" with what he read with his own eyes from your trusted BOE sex-ed curriculum. It's full of misinformation, unbalanced, very biased information, and the list goes on and on..... you should know it all by now. Sorry buddy! Chuck this one up in your losses column. To say CRC would not win... you've lossed any bets you've made with this one. You might as well go ahead and pack your bags and move on out to Massachussetts! They'd love ya there.... Thank the Lord! Thank the Lord! The good is finally prevailing! Oh my goodness... I said Lord. God knows you liberals don't believe in God. I'm sorry.... :O)

Suzie Q.

May 05, 2005 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Bianca said...

Statement of Dr. Jerry D. Weast Regarding Today’s Court Decision
May 5, 2005

Rockville, MD – Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Jerry D. Weast released the following statement today regarding the decision by Judge Alexander Williams Jr. to grant a temporary restraining order in the legal case regarding the revised health education pilot program.

“Due to Judge Williams’ order and the approaching end of the current school year, I am suspending the field test of the revised health education curriculum at the six pilot schools.

“I have directed the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Schools to review and evaluate the materials referenced in the judge’s order and the other teacher resource materials associated with the health curriculum before any decisions are made about future pilot testing of the revised curriculum in our schools.

“Questions also have been raised about some of the information in the videotape “Protect Yourself.” Therefore, I am suspending the use of the tape in high school health education classes and directing the Deputy Superintendent to conduct an additional, detailed evaluation of the tape.”

Very interesting, isn't it?

May 05, 2005 9:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Hey yeah, Bianca. Your side won in court today.

Susie Q, I'm not deleting your post, even though it is void of content, because people like you make it easy for readers to see what they don't want to be like.

May 05, 2005 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Bianca said...

Not just in court. Looks like our well paid superintendent is re-thinking things.

Here, just for you Jim --

And I'm sorry to hear about your son, and glad to hear he's going to be alright.


May 05, 2005 10:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Bianca, I looked at the decision, and it's clear what happened. The judge does not seem to understand that all that stuff that is quoted is not in the curriculum. I expect that lawyers will point this out to him, and one of two things will happen: either MCPS will remove the teachers' resources, which requires the teachers to learn about these issues on their own, or the judge will understand that kids are not being taught these things, and will let the curriculum continue.

Dr. Weast is doing what he is duty-bound as a citizen to do, following the court's orders. You may feel the flush of victory today, but I wouldn't get carried away if I were you.

May 05, 2005 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Bianca said...

Jim, you can justify it all you want to, but approved resources are there for a purpose. They are not merely background information for teachers. They are THE ONLY RESOURCES that are approved for use by teachers as information and to use in support of their lesson plans. We have it in writing from Russ Henke himself. You want to convince people that teacher resources are not important and that they are really of no consequence. Nothing could be further from the truth and you know it. Why do you think the CAC worked so hard to either include or exclude certain resources? Because these are what they use to support the work in the classroom. They cannot go onto the internet or go to the library and get their OWN resources -- they must be approved. And that list of approved resources was IT. Obviously, Jerry Weast realized this and decided to take another look at them. So please, end this inane argument.

May 06, 2005 7:53 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

The teachers' resources are not to be presented in the classroom. This worked, to confuse the judge about what's taught to students and what's not, and I don't blame you for sticking with it. But the resources are for teachers, the kids don't see them, and the material is not to be presented in class. Stick with this, though, it's good, tell the world that the teachers will tell the students this stuff. It works for us perfectly well, too. (And of course teachers can go on the Internet and read about these things, and I imagine that's what they'll end up having to do.)

May 06, 2005 9:47 AM  
Blogger CorinneD said...

Suzie Q., you're entitled to your opinions, but please refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain. As a liberal, church-going, active Christian I am extremely offended by your arrogance. In my Christian faith, the Lord loves us all, even the misguided and the judgemental. JimK kudos for keeping you cool, and for continuing to be a voice of reason and sanity even when the tempation is great to return irrational ranting with the same.

May 06, 2005 10:03 AM  
Blogger Isabel Manuela said...

Corine, she could say all that because she does not need to be responsible for it. She is using a fake name. You and I take responsibility for our opinions, she doesn't. She is the same that tries to be the soul of reason when in a CRC (Recall) meeting, and that says she is appalled by Dwyer's hateful comments, but under a fake name she could do wonders, couldn't she?

Bianca, did you read the document from the court? Let me quote it for you, because you are chanting victory a bit too loud for your real standing:
"Plaintiffs [this are CRC and P-FOX] also argue that increased health risks to students once they receive the “pro-gay” message
of Defendants constitute irreparable harm. This Court cannot agree. Plaintiffs’ argue that homosexual sex
is more dangerous than heterosexual sex, and that students at MPCS will be more likely to engage in
homosexual sex if presented with the Revised Curriculum. Plaintiffs cite numerous studies demonstrating
that gay men are in the highest risk groups for various sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS,
HPV, Syphilis, and Chlamydia. Plaintiffs also argue that homosexuals are more likely to have promiscuous,
group, or otherwise “deviant” sex with multiple partners
At the outset, the Court questions the reliability of the studies to which Plaintiffs cite, at least one
of which was performed in the 1970s. The Court is well-aware that studies on the health risks of a
homosexual lifestyle are numerous and, in many cases, contradictory. Indeed, as Defendants point out,
many studies conclude that lesbians are in one of the lowest risk groups for a variety of STDs, including
HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the harm that Plaintiffs posit is highly speculative and attenuated. It would require
more than a few logical leaps for this Court to find that MPCS students presented with the Revised
Curriculum would suddenly choose to engage in promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex — adhering
to the Revised Curriculum’s message of gay tolerance but somehow overlooking the even more forceful
message of safe sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship. This is not the type of “actual and
imminent” harm sufficient to demonstrate irreparable injury for the purposes of a temporary restraining
For the above-stated reasons, the Court finds irreparable harm to Plaintiffs on the basis of potential
restrictions to their First Amendment liberties."

What do you say to that? Your main concern, and you homophobia did not precisely impress the judge.

May 06, 2005 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, but the CRC and PFOX W-O-N, and you L-O-S-T.

That's what matters.

May 07, 2005 9:32 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

That would be assuming that this is the ONLY court appearance on this issue.

What matters is that it is just the first and the end is not anywhere near.

Everyone thought the same thing about the flier issue in MCPS and see how that ended.

Kay R

May 07, 2005 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, with a cost of about 400K to taxpayers, that's where. Seems the BOE LOVES spending taxpayer money. Now they've hired their high powered attorneys -- woohoo -- at a rate of probably $400 an hour.

May 11, 2005 4:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home