new banner 2
 
 
 Web  Ramona Sentinel 
?
ACLU threatens suit over report
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ramona Unified School District officials, threatened with a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of San Diego County for allegedly violating a 12-year-old Mount Woodson Elementary School student’s right to free speech, are caught in  “an impossible Catch-22 situation, damned if you do and damned if you don’t,”  according to former school board member Christopher Smith.
“But I think the district has done the right thing, and is out in front. Instead of possibly facing 20 or more lawsuits by angry parents, they are facing just the one, threatened by the ACLU,” said Smith, who recently stepped down after four years on the board.
The issue arose when sixth-grader Natalie Jones sought to give her fellow students a PowerPoint presentation on the life of the late gay activist, Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official when he won his seat as a San Francisco supervisor in 1977. Eleven months later he was assassinated in a city hall shooting by former supervisor Dan White, an attack that also killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone.
Jones’ presentation was the result of an Independent Research Project Class for advanced placement or “Excel” students, who were required to select a person or topic, and, after independent research, make a presentation to the rest of the class. Jones chose Milk after seeing last year’s Academy Award-winning film Milk, starring Sean Penn, in which the late supervisor’s life was featured.
But the district singled out Jones’ project, allowing parents to withdraw their children from being exposed to the “sensitive” material. The ACLU wants an apology for the student, her right to present her project to all her classmates, a clarification of the policy under which the district acted, and assurances that there will not be a repetition. The district had until May 26 to respond.  
According to the ACLU, Jones submitted a description of her project and a draft report without incident prior to her final report, on which she received a score of 49 out of a possible 50.
But on April 22, the day before Jones’ scheduled presentation, she was called to school principal Theresa Grace’s office where she was told that her research work was “sensitive.” It was decided by Grace and other district officials she could not present it to the rest of the class without the parental permission of her classmates.
According to David Blair-Loy, legal director for the ACLU Foundation for San Diego and Imperial Counties, the district and school position are based on an incorrect interpretation of the district’s “Family Life/Sex Education” policy.
That policy says in part, “At the beginning of the school year, parents/guardians shall be notified in writing about any instruction in which human reproductive organs and their functions, processes or sexually transmitted diseases are described, illustrated or discussed. In addition, before any instruction on family life, human sexuality, AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases is given, the parent/guardian shall be provided with written notice explaining that the instruction will be given and stating the parent’s/guardian’s right to request a copy of Education Code 51201.5 and 51551. This notification shall inform parents/guardians that they may request in writing that their child not attend the class. No student shall attend such instruction if the school receives this request. At the parent’s/guardian’s request, any student may be excused from any part of family life/sex education instruction.”   
On April 28 such a letter went out to the parents of the other 13 “Excel” students. It noted that one of the presentations revolved around the life of Harvey Milk. The letter said, in part: “Mr. Milk was an elected supervisor in San Francisco. He was the first openly gay person elected to public office in the United States. While he was in office, he championed the rights of minorities and sponsored the Gay Rights Act and founded the first gay rights parade.  He was assassinated in 1978 while still holding office.
“We understand this is a sensitive topic. In order to respect the rights of all our students and their parents, we are requesting permission from a parent or guardian of our 13 sixth-grade Excel students, before these students are allowed to see the Harvey Milk presentation.”
The letter was signed by Grace. The presentation was rescheduled for May 8, during a lunch recess, when approximately half the class attended. Neither Grace nor district Superintendent Robert Graeff returned phone calls for comment.
In essence, the debate is whether the life of Harvey Milk is subject matter within the district’s Family Life/Sex Education policy or not. The district says it is; the ACLU says it is not, in addition to being a violation of free speech.
For Smith, who did not run for re-election because “I found I could only give 100 percent of my commitment to something that demands and the public is entitled to 120 percent,” said, “There are some incredibly fine lines that teachers and administrators are forced to walk in making decisions in some of these areas, areas that might not include sex education.
“Imagine what might happen if a student decided to do a project on the Iranian President’s argument against the Holocaust ever having happened. Many people believe he is a nut case and I believe he is crazy, but someone could easily argue that as the head of a nation that frequently is cited in U.S. foreign policy plans, he might justify a research project. But I can also imagine that a lot of people would consider it totally inappropriate for their children to be exposed to such a project.
“This cannot be seen in a vacuum,” said Smith. “We all saw how Ramona voted on Prop 8 last fall (the gay marriage bill), and I will bet there are people in this community who would not be thrilled to hear their sixth-grader coming home to tell of how the learned about the gay lifestyle today at school.”  

Post A Comment
* Indicates required information
Comment Title:
* Comments:
Nickname:
* Validation:
Comments 7 comments for this article
Added: June 15, 2009. 11:45 AM
I'm glad to see that RUSD took the time to apologize to Natalie and allow her to give her presentation to the entire class. The fact that Harvey Milk was the first openly gay person elected to office is part of history, not an agenda.

The idea that the mention of someone's homosexuality is sexual education is ridiculous. Is it sex education to state that someone is married? Or that they have a boyfriend or girlfriend? Sixth graders are dealing just fine with these concepts, and are able to understand what attraction to the same sex means just as well as an attraction to the opposite sex. Presenting it as a fact does not encourage or discourage children one way or another.

Insisting that kids in school avoid mention of homosexuality is unrealistic and archaic. There are responsible and unbiased ways to present homosexuality in the classroom. Discussion of a topic allows for ideas to flourish and thinking to occur. Would you have the teachers pretend that homosexuality not exist at all? Remove all homosexuals in history from the classroom? Prepare to avoid Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Walt Whitman, Homer, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Julius Ceasar, Hans Christian Anderson, and J. Edgar Hoover.

Parents have every right to be involved in what their kids learn. Take this opportunity to discuss your values with your kids. And to teach them that what they learn in the classroom is a jumping off point for further thought and learning. Not indoctrination into a way of thinking.
ensie
Added: June 11, 2009. 04:40 PM
Harvey Milk Report
Harvey Milk’s fame is not based on his stature as a political figure, or even as a result of his assassination. His fame is derived because of his sexual orientation. Had Harvey Milk been a straight politician who was assassinated, nobody would have ever heard of him outside of San Francisco. So, if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to recognize that the basis for his fame is, in fact, his sexual orientation.

Since Harvey Milk’s sexual orientation is the primary aspect of his fame, one cannot have a discussion about him without a focus on that element. Given that, it is appropriate that the principal should provide an opt-out for children in that class. If this was a high school class discussing him, that would be another story, but let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a sixth grade class. It is inappropriate to deal with these subjects in elementary school. As a parent, I applaud the principal’s actions.

The fact that the parents of the child who wrote the report have resorted to contacting the ACLU is proof that this is nothing more than an attempt on their part to force their political agenda on the rest of us. I have lived in Ramona all my life and have found that most of us just want to be left alone to raise our children as we see fit.

To these parents, the ACLU, and those who think we need to be enlightened, please quit attempting to save us from ourselves. Ramona has been a wonderful place to raise our children for decades. We have done just fine without you in the past and will undoubtedly be able to do so in the future.
Anonymous
Added: June 05, 2009. 12:10 PM
Damed if you do
You are never damed if you do the right thing in the first place. Part of doing the right thing is to have the courage to tell complainers that constitutional rights take precident over local politics.

Do the right thing RUSD. Apologize.
Dave Patterson
Added: June 03, 2009. 07:53 AM
Freedom of speech, implies the freedom to listen
The school did the right thing. No matter where you stand on gay rights, Milk is a controversial figure, especially in the post Prop 8 California. Just because parents don't support gay rights does not strip them of the right to control their child's upbringing. (Tolerance goes both ways) If the presentation was about another controversial topic such as the KKK or Neo Nazis, then I'm sure that there would be lot of parents that would want to know about it. Freedom of speech also implies the freedom NOT to listen. By forcing the other students of the class to attend this presentation is tantamount to forced indoctrination by the ACLU.
Gerald
Added: June 01, 2009. 04:11 PM
To: "What about the rights of others"
There's a far jump between a powerpoint on the life of someone who served for and furthered the state of California and an organization that supports the lynching of a minority.

What's your argument against a powerpoint on a government figure besides "it shouldn't be talked about because of his sexual orientation"? The argument here is essentially equivalent to "You shouldn't do a presentation on Arnold Schwarzenegger because he's straight." The powerpoint isn't covering gay porn. He was a government official that was gay. Come on.
Stephen
Added: May 31, 2009. 12:12 AM
What about the rights of others
The school did the right thing by notifying parents and giving them the option to withdraw their kids. I'm sure that the ACLU would be nowhere to be found if this presentation was about Fred Phelps and his gay bashing church - how much free speech would we have then. If we are going to be 'open minded' then it's time for a presentation on the wonderful KKK and why Neo-Nazis are nice people who just want to be left alone to live their lives.

It's obvious that the Jones family is now using the RUSD to promote their liberal agenda and the ACLU is only happy to do the bullying needed.
Anonymous
Added: May 28, 2009. 05:52 PM
Ramona residents need to be less close-minded
There is absolutely no reason that kids should not be learning about world events, or about someone who fought for human rights for that matter. You can shelter kids from learning it now, but as soon as they leave home and go off to college they'll find out about it regardless of if you want them to or not. Not letting a student do a project about Harvey milk fighting for gay rights is exactly the same as not letting a student show a project about Martin Luther King Jr, or Rosa Parks. Just because people in Ramona don't like gay people because they don't follow "christian values" doesn't mean that a student shouldn't be allowed to show that particular group of people's viewpoints.
Anonymous
Google
Article Popularity
Views
Comments