Saturday • December 28 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.LII
Manchester, N.H.
Amazing how Joe Biden takes credit for the decrease in Border crossings as he claims White Supremacy was America’s biggest threat when he addressed graduates at Howard University on Saturday. Usually, the number one threat is climate change, but when addressing an all-Black graduating class, you have to patronize them using the White Supremacy card. Biden has nothing to do with the decrease as he worked to end Title 42 and open our Border to the world. The reduction results from the work done by the State of Texas and its National Guard to fortify the Border and force illegal crossers to pass through a formal checkpoint.
It is amazing how Secretary Mayorkas, one of the most inept secretaries in Biden’s cabinet, was also taking credit for the same results. Sorry, Mr. Secretary, everything you have done has been to erase our Border and destroy our sovereignty. Mayorkas should be impeached and charged with treason for allowing drugs, gangs, and terrorists to enter our country without vetting. He should send a thank-you note to Governor Abbott for doing his job for him.
The videos do not lie. Yes, there are definitely families crossing the Border, but the shelters in Texas are filling up with single males. One shelter designed to hold 1,000 people currently houses over 6,000 single men. As the camera scans the scene, you see middle-aged men with no women or children in sight.
People in northern and western states are starting to fight back against the government’s policies for handling illegals. A hotel in Newburg, New York, is expelling homeless veterans to make room for illegal migrants. Black groups in Chicago are livid that the city is moving illegals ahead of homeless blacks for shelter space. New York and Chicago have declared a state of emergency with the increased number of illegals entering their cities, putting a massive burden on states and taxpayers. California has erased a $10 Billion surplus and now has a $30 Billion deficit partly due to a stream of taxpayers leaving the state while the benefits given to the illegals grow. This problem is basic math with more dollars spent versus fewer dollars collected.
People allowed into America receive notice-to-appear orders with dates for their hearings in 2026. That is three years of limbo for these people, far from the humanitarian way that the Biden Administration claims they are treating these new illegal residents. These people arrive here with no money, most owe money to the coyotes, and they only have the clothes on their backs. These people immediately become a burden to the social safety net in whatever city they land in.
This Border Crisis exposes Biden and his feckless team for mismanaging the Border and having no specific plan for the millions who will be granted access. In the meantime, the gangs are swelling, and the amount of Fentanyl confiscated at the Border \grows. The amount gathered is not a good story, as it also means an increased amount making it into the drug underworld. Biden may be taking a victory lap on his bicycle in Delaware, but cities and towns all over the country are preparing for the culture-changing impact this wave of migrants bring with them. This story has no chance of a happy ending for Biden or America, and it will battle with the economy for the top spot in the 2024 campaigns.
The post Border Not As Bad As Predicted, No Thanks to Joe appeared first on Granite Grok.
Special Prosecutor John Durham has finally delivered the goods, and there’s not much there we did not already know. No knockout blows, but Democrats will need to decide how to spin another investigation exposing the FBI’s systemic confirmation bias.
And not in any way favorable to their long-standing narratives about Trump.
The Mueller Report fell flat. The Michael Horowitz report made the Mueller Report even less helpful. And now John Durham has arrived to tell us what Democrats still refused to believe. There was some there-there; the FBI broke the law, lied, coerced, and used its resources to attack a sitting president(and anyone close to him) because that’s what Democrats wanted. He doesn’t say that, but it’s obvious.
“We conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law.”
There is no smoking gun unless the confirmation of the politically partisan nature of investigations can be called one. The locus of the inquiry was Clinton oppo sold as fact while facts about Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material (that we know was stolen by the Chinese) were overblown. A trend continued with the Hunter Biden Laptop story, among others.
I guess Hillary never pissed off “The Clintons” or “The Obamas” enough to warrant a proper public pillorying; I suspect Biden’s about to get his, but only enough to get him to drop out of his reelection race. No one needs to dig too deep. There are other Party Leaders who have much to lose if implicated.
As for the Durham Report, I wonder if anyone will go back and fisk James Comey’s book now that it’s out?
“…based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither the U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,”
Has the FBI become the single biggest threat to Democracy in America? We all know how vital The Democracy is to Democrats. Does this put a little hitch in their step?
Is that why Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten has suggested that teachers future-proof their social media feeds? “@AFTunion has partnered w/LifeBrand for a 25% discount off the cost of this powerful tool that scans your social media to catch forgotten posts that may not reflect who you are today,”
Weingarten probably thinks that there are a few woke grooming turds littering the virtual lawns of AFT dues-paying harpies, and as 2024 rolls up, it would be great if those were, you know, gone. But this latest embarrassment can’t be dismissed. While you are removing anything about genderizing other people’s kids, get rid of the Trump-Russia Collusion outrage too.
Is the DNC offering a discount to elected Dems? Will your state or local Democrat Party do something similar? There are millions of examples of Demcorats being wrong about many things (crime, cops, the climate, Trump), and the Durham report just made scrubbing those imperative.
Will Big Media use Winston Smith-like censors to correct the history and their part in the lie? Does anyone need to return any journalism awards?
I expect a purge, so get to screengrabbing as soon as possible, but if you miss out, no worries. And not just the social media feeds of your local Democrat scold. Do some searching in the local media as well for the sake of posterity. We can share them alongside all those failed predictions of climate doom.
And don’t worry about the Never-Trumpers. They won’t even think of it. Besides, removing lies about the former president could put their anti-Trump bona fides at risk and cost them an invite to a Georgetown mixer.
We wouldn’t want that to happen, now, would we?
As for the FBI, they are pretending to take this latest blow seriously. “This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect,” it added.”
And this new FBI is expected to begin work when the seas rise and swallow up Obama’s gas-powered beachfront mansion?
The post The Durham Report Confirms The FBI is a Partisan Threat to Democracy appeared first on Granite Grok.
Here is one very disturbing report coming from Mat Staver, chairman of The Liberty Counsel ever America needs to be aware of. The United Nations’ World Health Organization (“WHO”) will shortly be meeting to discuss a new treaty they want Biden to force America to sign up for. This is far more than something relating to just health issues it’s something that puts the U.N. in charge of everything.
Everything, you think? It would mean:
On top of everything on that list, they want America to pay for the whole thing!
Now if this sounds to you, as it does to me, like the back door entrance to make the United Nations the defacto one-world government, we are right. This is of course exactly the American Left’s biggest wish and Biden’s puppet masters’ goal. All he has to do is sign on the dotted line and every American will be reduced from Citizen to subject of a proven corrupt and incompetent U.N. with the privilege of paying for it, too. What a deal!
You can also guess all the countries who will get a pass on signing this: China, N.Korea, India, and all the Muslim countries. Sadly, those other countries who sign on but fail to comply will never be sanctioned (e.g. Putin’s Russia, Cuba, as well as any totalitarian dictatorship) but will never fear they won’t still get all the benefits and support the great and benevolent U.N.WHO can dole out.
This is nothing but a trap for America, liberals or conservatives. All will suffer together.
[Editor’s Note: A true treaty must be voted on by the US Senate before becoming legalized. However, Presidential Executive Orders might get most of this done anyways – that’s how Democrat Presidents roll as they say they don’t have the authority to do something….and then do it anyways. DACA, anyone?]
The post WHO is What? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Competency-Based Education (CBE) is a fundamental shift away from a knowledge-based education to a workforce training model. It was said during the Obama administration that he was going to redesign public education. Most people had no idea what he meant, but education researchers knew exactly what he intended to do to public schools across America.
CBE has been tried by individual states before. During the ’90s, they called it Outcome Based Education. Prior to OBE, they called it Mastery Learning. As parents eventually realized that the model shifted time away from learning the core academic subjects, they would demand an end to experimenting on their children.
CBE, coupled with the dumbed-down Common Core and Next Generation Science standards, are a big setup for failure in our public schools. Private schools wouldn’t touch this because they have to answer to parents who pay the tuition.
Schools across New Hampshire have been implementing changes inside the classroom for several years now. CBE officially started in New Hampshire in 2003. The move away from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning has been sold as new and innovative, but anyone who researches education policies knows this is not new or innovative. Since CBE is workforce training, it starts in Kindergarten. Requiring teachers in every class to develop workforce skills now requires teachers to implement “skills” training into the day. But what does C.S. Lewis have to say about an education focused on training instead of knowledge?
Such training, he writes, “aims at making not a good man but a good banker, a good electrician, . . . or a good surgeon.” Lewis does admit the importance of such training–for we cannot do without bankers and electricians and surgeons–but the danger, as he sees it, is the pursuit of training at the expense of education. “If education is beaten by training, civilization dies,” he writes, for “the lesson of history” is that “civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost.” It is the liberal arts, not vocational training, that preserves civilization by producing reasonable men and responsible citizens.
Lewis goes on to note that this paradigm shift will result in a significant cost to the students and civilization. Why do children need knowledge? To avoid the errors of our time. Liberal Arts is a knowledge based model, CBE is a workforce skills-based model.
In “Why ‘Competency-Based Education’ Will Deepen America’s Education Crisis” published in The Federalist, Jane Robbin describes the problem with this shift away from a focus on knowledge to a focus on dumbed-down workforce training.
CBE: it aims not for excellent, but for good enough.
Since CBE is useless in academic disciplines that don’t lend themselves to digitally measurable outcomes, we’ll inevitably see further narrowing of curricula, so that the “measurable” disciplines crowd out the humanities. This fits well with the workforce-development philosophy of Common Core, which aims to convert all of K-12 education into utilitarian job-training.
This narrowing of curricula is more apparent than ever. Students in public schools are lucky to learn history, geography, or even the sciences during the school week. Gates and his cohorts of education reformers made it clear that the focus is on learning the minimum in math, reading, and writing. That’s why legislators had to pass a state law that schools must now teach cursive writing and multiplication facts. While some cheered for the passage of this law (for good reason), I kept pointing out that this law is a direct reflection of the failure of our public schools to teach academic content. No longer are they teaching basic academic content to children because they are focusing on training workers.
During the testimony before the House and Senate Education Committee, a few teachers testified that their students no longer understand the basics when it comes to Civics. Civics skills have been elevated instead. Your children may learn to become the best protesters and community organizers, but they may never know how a bill becomes a law, why we say the pledge of allegiance, and never read some of the most important founding documents.
A parent Litchfield recently contacted me about her child’s class stepping outside during the school day to protest getting people to stop at stop signs. What does that teach New Hampshire students? That’s a good question.
Take a look here at what 8th graders learned in 1954. See the difference between training and educating children?
Dumb down the core subjects with Common Core and Next Generation Science, then add the workforce training model that further dilutes quality academic content, and you end up with poor-quality instruction for children in our public schools.
Legislators try to add back what’s been eliminated, but what are our Governor and State Department of Education doing to improve public education? Why did Governor DeSantis prioritize improving academic standards in Florida, and students in New Hampshire are still subjected to dumbed-down standards, curricula, and tests? Why are our kids subjected to this failed model promoted by CBE gurus like Fred Bramante, who has no track record of improving public education in New Hampshire or anywhere else?
Jane Robbins ties CBE to digital tracking and data collection on students in public schools while, marginalizing or reducing teachers. Is this something parents asked for? During the school shutdowns, parents were clamoring to get their kids back into schools because they understood the value of the relationship between students and teachers.
If the goal is to force every American student into the data-collection system, this scheme works nicely.
Even worse, there’s little assurance that this enormously personal data—which should never have been collected in the first place—is secure from hacking. Federal investigations have uncovered the shocking lack of data security at USED, and stories of compromised student data are all too commonplace.
Bush and other CBE proponents don’t mention any of these considerations when touting competency-based training. Nor do they mention the effect on teachers, who would be marginalized if not ultimately replaced under CBE. If a teacher is reduced to merely unlocking the next computer screen when a student achieves a “competency,” why hire a professional when a less-expensive clerk will do?
There are problems in public education that certainly need to be addressed. We need teacher training to be focused on making sure the teacher knows the academic content, and has the best training to deliver it. We need better-quality academic standards and tests. We need to stop expecting public schools to address every social problem, and instead rely on social services outside the school system to address those needs.
Schools are now expected to address the mental and medical health of children. They are supposed to train them for the workforce and educate them on drugs, alcohol, gender, and radical race ideology.
The traditional liberal arts model would return public schools back to their mission which is to educate children. This would give them the ability to at least graduate with a base of knowledge to move into a career or attend college. Instead, the classroom has been watered down, and has become chaotic. This is innovative? It’s not only NOT innovative, it has been proven to be a failure. It makes you wonder if those in charge of education reform have some kind of intent to bring public schools to their knees in order to usher in more of their disastrous reforms.
If this listening tour comes to your town, ask Fred Bramante for the results. Show us all PEER REVIEWED and INDEPENDENT studies on New Hampshire students under the CBE model. He sells this model like a used-car salesman, he should show everyone how it’s working or NOT working!
Why is Fred Bramante re-writing the rules and now charged with selling them to the public? He’s been plugging for CBE in New Hampshire for years with no evidence that this scheme helps children or public schools.
Here are some sobering facts that will not be presented during this listening tour. Competency Based Ed was introduced in 2003. New Hampshire abolished the Carnegie Unit in 2005. New Hampshire districts were required to create competencies and begin measuring credit in these terms by the start of the 2008–09 school year.
Remember that radical 2Revolutions organization that pushes Critical Race Theory in public schools? They were involved in ushering in Competency Based Education in New Hampshire:
New Hampshire educators as well as the appropriate content area state associations working with the National Center for Assessment and the Center for Collaborative Education. In addition, the NHDOE hired 2Revolutions, an education design and consulting firm, to run the New Hampshire Network Strategy, an initiative to connect educators throughout the state so that they can share and build resources in areas such as data collection, performance assessment, and professional development in support of new competency-based models.
Before moving ahead with this model, the Commissioner should have commissioned an independent and peer reviewed study to determine what is working, and what is not working. There may be some components to this model that are worth noting, and promoting in our schools. However, as the students in Sanborn revealed, under Brian Stack’s tenure as Principal, Competency Based Education was a big problem. Brian Stack is now a CBE consultant and was part of the team who drafted new education rules for The New Hampshire Department of Education. Fred Bramante’s non-profit was tasked with developing the Education Rules for New Hampshire’s public schools.
The new rules reflect another big step towards the Competency Based Education model that will be forced on public schools, and teachers across the state. After two decades of this snake oil called Competency Based Education, New Hampshire is full steam ahead. Make sure you read what the students in Sanborn reported, then start demanding real answers from these players. One thing’s for sure, you will not get that kind of critical analysis from the people selling CBE in New Hampshire.
The post Dumbing Down Public Ed in NH: FULL STEAM AHEAD with Competency Based Education appeared first on Granite Grok.
A few days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in 2019, a non-profit he shared with Ghislaine Maxwell called TerraMar shut down. Ostensibly TerraMar was supposed to be a saving-the-oceans type non-profit. But it turns out that it was most likely a fake organization that didn’t really accomplish much of anything.
We want to thank Claire Best for this uncharacteristically brief contribution.
Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com
Nevertheless, it had on its board Amir Dosal of UN Women. Also on the board was Hunter Biden’s associate Patrick Ho of China’s Energy Company CEFC, and Brian Yurasits, who appears to live in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
A few months after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest, Ghislaine Maxwell purchased “Tucked Away” in Bradford New Hampshire, via Granite Reality LLC, registered at 2 1/2 Beacon Street, Concord, New Hampshire.
When Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested she allegedly claimed to have citizenship of TerraMar. In it’s lifespan from 2012–2019, TerraMar apparently issued passports for the high seas. Scott Borgerson, her secret husband, was a former US Coastguard who founded Cargo Metric in 2010 (to track shipping container contents worldwide). He was also on the board of TerraMar and a friend of Senator John Kerry, who’d written an endorsement to a 2009 book by Borgerson on the oceans — “The National Interest and the Law of the Sea” (published by the Council on Foreign Relations). Epstein was also a friend of John Kerry’s and reportedly had 7 phone numbers for him.
In 2017, an executive at a maritime firm made multiple requests for project funding to TerraMar’s development director Brian Yuratsis that were ultimately denied despite Yuratsis professing interest in having TerraMar sponsor the project.[9][12][13] The maritime executive who made the requests stated that “My impression was that TerraMar as a whole was pretty hollow”, and that “It seemed like Brian was the entire organization.”[9]
What is disturbing about the TerraMar Project is not so much that it’s a shell non-profit but its ties to the United Nations and UN Women, especially in light of some other recent articles about Jeffrey Epstein and his social calendar from 2014.
William Burns, Director of the CIA, had three meetings with Epstein in 2014.
Epstein also worked closely with the International Peace Institute, which is tied to the International Rescue Committee, whose Director is Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights (2014–2018).
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein is IPI’s President and Chief Executive Officer.
Previously, Zeid served as the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2014 to 2018 after a long career as a Jordanian diplomat, including as his country’s Permanent Representative to the UN (2000–2007 & 2010–2014) and Ambassador to the United States (2007–2010). He served on the UN Security Council, was a configuration chair for the UN Peace-Building Commission, and began his career as a UN Peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein is on the registration papers for the International Rescue Committee listed in the Concord Building, 10 Ferry Street, Concord, New Hampshire.
The Concord address is the same as that for Virtus LLC (founded by disgraced Catholic Priest Edward Arsenault), Maximus Inc, Children’s Trust Fund, Dataminr and Dyncorp.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein seems to have somewhat of a controversial past himself. He was accused of retaliating against whistleblowers.
Coincidentally, Mary Boies, married to David Boies of Boies Schiller ( connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the Clintons, Hunter Biden, Patrick Ho, Harvey Weinstein and Elizabeth Holmes), is also on the board of the International Rescue Committee. KPMG did an audit of the International Peace Institute after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest.
KPMG did an audit of the International Peace Institute after Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest.
KPMG is a strategic partner for the World Economic Forum, whose Young Global Leader section was initiated by Jeffrey Eptein’s alleged financier Leslie Wexner of Victoria’s Secret and The Limited fame.
KPMG is the auditor for three recently failed banks, including Silicon Valley Bank tied to Boston Private Bank whose New Hampshire registered address is at 2 1/2 Beacon Street, Concord, where, coincidentally, Ghislaine Maxwell’s “Granite Reality” is also registered.
Granite Realty LLC was set up by Jeffrey Roberts, an attorney in Boston who is tied to Thomas Curry. Thomas Curry was appointed as Comptroller of Currencies in 2012 by President Obama.
Recently released records show that Jeffrey Epstein stayed close to the De Rothschild family even in 2014.
(Lyn Forester de Rothschild had recommended Jeffrey Epstein to Bill Clinton for “Currency Stabilization” in 1995. She stepped down from Rothschild Holdings right after Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested. She is a close friend of the Clintons, and she solicited Jeffrey Epstein as a client for Deutsche Bank in 2013 when she was on the board.)
Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly had dinner with Bill Clinton in 2014.
The Clintons are close friends of Bill and Senator Jeanne Shaheen. Given the proximity of the Shaheens to the Clintons; the Clintons to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein; the Maxwell & Epstein businesses in New Hampshire, it is bizarre that the Shaheens are not yet facing a grilling. Why did Shaheen & Gordon represent Ghislaine Maxwell? What is really going on at 10 Ferry Street, Concord, New Hampshire, and 2 1/2 Beacon Street, Concord, New Hampshire?
The US Virgin Islands have been intent on tracking down the money laundering network of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. New Hampshire would be the most obvious place to start with its $932.5 billion in Pandora Papers and the New Hampshire links to both via the Shaheens and Brian Yurasits/TerraMar.
Claire Best | Medium.com
The post Jeffrey Epstein’s New Hampshire Connections appeared first on Granite Grok.
You do not have to watch the news for long to realize we have lost control of our government, and some may say we have lost our way. We have a former President who has a significant lead in the polls against all challengers and head-to-head against Biden.
Trump wants to return to the White House, but he seems to be in court weekly defending himself from criminal and civil charges. We have a sitting President who is no longer in control of his faculties and would be 82 on day one of a second term. President Joe Biden is also the most corrupt President of all time, and Congress has released evidence of the Biden Crime Family receiving over $10 Million from Romania and China. The committee is yet to divulge the money the Biden’s have taken from Ukraine and Russia. There is something the people can do to take back some control from our overreaching government. That process was written into our Constitution by brilliant men who foresaw our government becoming unresponsive to the people. They gave us the Convention of States detailed in Article 5.
Mention the Convention of States (COS) to most people, especially Liberals, and they see a radical attempt at overthrowing our government. They would be wrong; the difficulty in achieving a COS is educating people on the goals and the process. A grassroots movement has been working hard for nearly a decade to bring the necessary petitions to Congress to force them under the Constitution to call for a Convention of States. The goals of COS are threefold and limited. The petition would call for Term Limits for Congress, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and restraint on Government Power, detailed explicitly in the Constitution. Is there anyone with a modicum of common sense and an understanding of the Constitution that doesn’t see the logic in these three proposed amendments.
Article V allows for the people to impact their government. We cannot wait for either party to suggest term limits. Congress is a country club where you get in and stay for life. With our interest payments on our debt greater than our defense budget, we need a harsh spending policy, and a balanced budget is the harshest. And which member of Congress will put a bill on the floor to limit power? It will not happen.
The Convention of States (COS) needs your help. No matter what state you live in, COS needs volunteers to fill roles. There are leadership, communications, social media, or people to solicit signatures on petitions-COS has a place for you. This is not a radical movement but a movement of the people. If you want to make a significant difference in your government, then COS is the movement for you.
Don’t take my word for it. Go to https://conventionofstates.com/ and get the facts. With 19 states already on board, there are only 16 more to accept the COS petitions, and then it is time to change the DC reach forever.
Click on and sign up and contact your state leadership for open positions you can fill. This is time for “We the People” to mean something.
The post Now, More Than Ever, We The People And COS appeared first on Granite Grok.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is a nuisance to his constituents, the state, and now to himself. That dog and pony show of a reparations committee he created has arrived at a number, and Newsom can’t afford it if he ever intended to go through with it.
There is some doubt.
“Creating this committee was yet another half-baked ploy for votes & accolades that has landed him in dangerous waters with no path to safety,” said Elizabeth Kolstad, Chairwoman of the Fresno County Republican Party. “What is clear, is if Gavin’s committee’s recommendations are implemented, CA is going to financially sink faster than the Titanic; only the Titanic’s lights were on when it went down.”
Gov Nuisance keeps talking up a good game, but creating a task force to reimburse people who were never slaves with money from people who never owned slaves feels like a Potemkin village. And the state is a fiscal train wreck with a 31.5 billion dollar deficit. People are fleeing east if they are able.
Promising to fiscally rape your residents for reparations in his tax-crazy regulatory nightmare of a state won’t slow that flow.
Adding a few million “migrants” is not likely to help ease either burden. But it’s typical Leftism at work. We have a housing shortage, resource issues, rising crime, homelessness, and poverty – how about a few million more impoverished mouths, and hey, let’s do reparations. If I were Mexican or Native American, I’d be pissed.
Hands out, don’t shoot?
We realize none of the people we’re paying off had “their land stolen,” but the Progressive White Guilt Reparations Fund is already a little light, and California can’t print its own money. What a blessing.
Maybe that whole notion about California slipping into the sea is better as a metaphor. Not physically be in every other way you can imagine. In which case, that’s already happened. Much of it is lost, and Gavin Newsom is just rearranging line items on a spreadsheet until the final judgment comes, part of which looks like, thank you for the reparations recommendation, but we may have to tie this to Net Zero. As in, that’s how much we can afford to pay out now or by 2035,
Not that this has ever stopped Democrats from making promises they never intend to keep.
HT | Legal Insurrection
The post California Gov. Gavin ‘Nuisance’ Snaps the Reparations Trap He Set for Himself appeared first on Granite Grok.
If nothing else, leftist propaganda can be fiendishly clever. Using selected facts and distorting them to suit their needs, those on the left are working hard to brand loving and courageous parents as radical enemies of free speech. Their disgusting claim that parents, and conservatives in general, are out to ban books is a transparent attempt to equate them to the fascists of 1933 Germany and the burning of all books they designated as anti-government. Those books included works by Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, and Helen Keller. Today, the left would have us believe that there’s no difference between those works and the pornographic material being thrust on young students across the country.
Putting aside that repugnant lie, their hypocrisy is staggering. In fact, they are the enemies of free speech. We see examples of it on college campuses, where conservative speakers are shouted down and run off one campus after another. We see it on social media, where conservative opinions are routinely blocked. And we see it in their leftist ideology, which allows no opposing opinions on issues ranging from race relations, to the LGBTQIA agenda, to climate change.
Those on the left, the woke warriors, have determined that only they can decide what speech can be allowed and what must be shut down. These self-appointed arbiters of social justice have infiltrated our private sector, our government, and our education system. Under the flag of diversity, equity, and inclusion, they’re dedicated to creating their own vision of a just society. In schools, they begin by dividing students by race, shaming one group, and exalting another. We used to call that segregation and discrimination.
And after inventing various euphemisms for what used to be called aberrant behavior, they’ve developed a bizarre plan to benefit the minute number of students troubled by those various behavior traits. Instead of helping them deal with their issues, they’ve chosen to accommodate them, to bring the rest of the student body into their world. Their misguided logic is simple: If everyone learns to embrace abnormal behavior, eventually it’s no longer considered abnormal, or even unusual. So young children, even toddlers, are now being exposed to material that would make a sailor blush. While parents struggle to shield their young children from salacious and inappropriate material, classrooms are handing out what can only be described as pornography. We used to call that pedophilia.
That is what parents are trying to keep away from their young children, and that’s why the left are accusing them of banning books. Those parents only want what’s best for their young children. They want them to have a quality education, while enjoying the precious innocence that’s supposed to come with childhood. They expect an education system that imparts knowledge without tampering with developing young psyches. And they don’t want their children to become obsessed with ideas that would never even occur to them, were it not for the twisted priorities of these woke warriors and the corrosive reading material they’re providing.
Unlike socialist, Communist, and totalitarian countries, America recognizes the God-given right of free speech and of conscientious parents to raise their children as they see fit. Here, parents can teach their children that racial discrimination in all forms is wrong. They have the right to keep sexually graphic material away from their young children until they feel the time is right. And they bear the primary responsibility for helping their children align their moral compass.
They entrust teachers with an awesome responsibility – to educate future generations, and help them compete in an increasingly competitive environment. Too many are failing that responsibility. A few, for whatever reason, seem more interested in robbing young students of their innocence. They have no business being around children. Others have been either seduced or intimidated by the woke agenda. They’ve come to believe they’re doing what’s right. Regardless of their motivation, their obsession with indoctrination, rather than education is clearly reflected in students’ abysmal math and reading scores. Various studies show that U.S. students rank significantly lower in math and reading skills compared to students of other industrialized countries.
Liberals and progressives have given us a strange new world. It’s a place where concerned parents are now labeled as fascists and enemies of free speech. It shows how dangerous government propaganda can be, especially when it’s abetted by collusive news and social media outlets. Fortunately, when the welfare of their children is at stake, courageous and determined parents won’t be deterred.
The post We’re Not Banning Books We Are Protecting Our Kids appeared first on Granite Grok.
Let’s see if we can break down the debt ceiling issue. So once upon a time, well, back in 1917, America bought the Virgin Islands for about $25 million in gold, Babe Ruth, at 22, was pitching for Boston, and the United States entered WWI. There were also some significant changes going on in D.C.
One of those changes concerned the issuance of federal debt.
Coming into 1917 the U.S. Treasury could only borrow money and/or issue debt only with very specific instructions from Congress. For example, to build the Panama Canal, funding was required. Congress would pass a law or resolution authorizing a specific debt device for a specific amount for a specific period of time. Up to this point, Congress had the power of the purse and took its responsibility very seriously.
We want to thank Marc Abear for this Op-Ed. If you have an Op-Ed or LTE
you would like us to consider, please submit it to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
With America’s entry into WWI, Congress determined the Treasury needed more flexibility in order to best fund the war effort. They passed the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This act authorized the Treasury to issue debt in whatever length or form it saw fit so long as the total debt does not exceed the authorized amount. The debt ceiling was born.
This set up a new system for funding the operation of the Government. Congress spent far less time dealing with the specifics of financing the spending it authorized. It no longer involved itself with the mechanics of debt issuance. Congress shifted its focus to spending rather than debt. This is important in understanding how we got here, now. Instead, under the new process, if Congress spent too much, it simply had to raise the debt ceiling. This was where our current debt mess really got started.
A side note: The Biden administration is asserting that it does not need Congressional action to raise the debt ceiling. Biden says he will do it himself. The administration’s argument for taking action unilaterally is; under the 14 th Amendment, specifically section 4 which says in part:
, “…The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
But if this part of the 14th Amendment, “…public debt… shall not be questioned…”, somehow conveys authority over spending and the budget to the Executive Branch, then how is removing control of spending, deficit and debt from the purview of Congress not a violation of separation of powers? Why has it not been done in over a hundred years? There have been a lot of confrontations about the debt ceiling before. Can you say posturing? Or do we now have an elected dictator? Just asking…
Now, let’s move forward in time to last year. Our Democrat controlled 117th Congress authorized a massive amount of deficit spending. They authorized spending on all sorts of things. The issue now is the spending authorized last year takes us past the debt ceiling already in place.
The 117th Congress year exceeded the debt limit. They knew they exceeded the debt limit. They knew it before authorizing the spending. But they authorized the spending anyway. They also went home knowing they had done nothing to remedy the issue they created. They left the mess for the next Congress, the 118 th, to clean up. The question is what are you as a voter going to do about this act of irresponsibility?
Let’s be clear. If we were budgeting, which we really aren’t, we would have known and debated whether to raise taxes to cover the shortfall, raise the debt ceiling ($31.4 trillion), or perhaps we might have even spent less… but we didn’t.
The process currently in use is called budgeting but it does not follow budgetary constraints. It simply authorizes spending. There is no corresponding requirement to actually pay for it in the same period the spending occurs. But we did none of those budgetary type things. Instead, the 117 th simply passed the buck to the next Congress, the 118th. You can decide if this is the responsible thing to do but it is how we got here.
If the debt ceiling does not get raised by Congress by about June 1st, or if there aren’t budget cuts which prevent us from hitting the debt, ceiling the Federal Government will default on some of its debt. So what? What is its significance? Why should you care?
Well, the consensus is this would be bad but how bad and more importantly, how bad for whom? Let’s look at the history of what has happened when other countries have defaulted. What we see are things like spikes in interest rates, dips and crashes in the stock markets and thing like recessions or recessions’ big brother, depressions.
There are two basic arguments about what to do to resolve the situation America finds itself in. Mr. Biden et al are arguing Congress has already authorized these expenses. So all of you Republicans need to knock off the male bovine excrement and just cover our a$$es: Raise the debt ceiling.
The Republican leadership is going to decline. Their position is essentially there was an election which we won and we won because the American people want us to stop with the crazy spending. They told us to stop the insane deficits and bring down the national debt. It does not matter that the old Congress authorized the spending. They could have been responsible and paid for the spending they authorized… But they didn’t. It is time to renegotiate the spending or to make a deal we can live with about future spending.
America has a $31.4 national debt. That insult is compounded with each additional follow on deficit spending. This same kabuki dance has been going on for decades. When exactly do we pay down the debt? Why are we spending upwards of $1.0 trillion in interest to service the debt? Wouldn’t the money be better spent on buying more goods and services for the people of the country?
America has not had a budget surplus in 22 years according to the U.S. Treasury. When are we going to balance the budget? You cannot pay down the debt if you don’t balance the debt first. No more deficits. Stop overspending.
There are people who think we don’t need to pay down the debt. When you have a lot of debt and interest rates go up you have a harder time paying for what you borrowed. You are left with no choice but to cut spending in non-debt service areas.
Do a little thought experiment with me: Let’s assume you owe $300,000 on a variable rate mortgage. You borrowed the $300,000 when the interest rate was 0% for a period of 30 years. That means, when you borrowed it you would have been responsible for making amortized principal only monthly payments of $833.33. So, as long as you could afford the monthly payments you were sitting pretty.
Now let’s say the interest rates go up to 2%. That would cause your payments to rise to $1,108.86 . So, to make the increased payments you have to come up with an additional $275.53 monthly, an increase of about 33%. Maybe you give up that vacation or maybe it means eating out less. There is some pain there but you still get by.
Then interest rates go up to 5%. What happens then? The monthly payment goes up to $1,610.46. So to make the increased monthly payment, now you have to come up with an extra $777.13, an increase of 93.25% over your original payment.
Then the interest rate goes up to 9%. Now your monthly payment goes to $2,413.87. Now to make the increased monthly payment, you must come up with an extra $1,580.54 monthly, an increase of about 190% over your original payment.
Then interest rates go to 15%, the monthly payment goes to $3,793.33. Now to make the increased monthly payment, you have to come up with an extra $2,690 monthly, an increase of about 355% over your original payment. What happens then?
You will get a second job. Maybe you will turn down the thermostat. You will be eating rice and beans and for variety you’ll eat beans and rice. You are going to go broke. You probably lose the house. Somehow you must get out from under the debt.
The higher the interest rates go the harder time you will have paying the interest on the debt. At some point the interest on the debt breaks you.
This same thing that happens to you holds true for a country with a lot of debt. Debt is not a problem. The problem is seldom the repayment of the principal. The struggle is the payments required to service the interest. Unlike you and me, America cannot simply declare bankruptcy. As our interest rates are going up, our debt is becoming more expensive to hold. America is playing with fire.
Sure, there is a point to be made that Congress authorized the spending. But when it did so, it authorized the Executive Branch to break the law that Congress made and has been on the books since 1917. That’s what they did when Congress authorized spending money we did not have and could not borrow. The Treasury then could not spend in excess of the debt ceiling and it cannot do so now… unless it changes the law… which it writes… but the last Congress did not do that… and it is gone.
There is not now and there never has been an expectation that one Congress could bind the hands of any future Congress. That authority does not exist. Any law a Congress of men can make a Congress of men can repeal. That is the standard.
America’s debt is now riskier in the eyes of everyone around the world. This is because of what we did to Russia last year. The problem coming is, our debt is seen as riskier. Interest rates are rising. Fewer countries are willing to buy our debt offerings. And in a time when there are fewer buyers with rising interest rates we are borrowing more. These things will mean rates will be higher than they might otherwise have been.
Up until now we’ve always just continued with business as usual, raised the debt ceiling and it was no big deal. But things are different this time. With debt already as high as we can afford to pay for and interest rates continuing to rise we may find the breaking point.
The post To Raise or Not to Raise the Debt Ceiling appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’ve said that unless the Federal Govt finally got its act together and kept spending down to the level we could afford, this was going to happen:
U.S. Interest payment is now equal to Defense spending
And 30% of the debt has to be refinanced in the next 12 months at todays higher rates!!
Hang on! pic.twitter.com/stDRMEkpSm
— Mark Moss (@1MarkMoss) May 11, 2023
With interest rates going up, it won’t be long until it exceeds it.
Our national “credit card” is all but maxed out. Sure, they can up the level of the national debt, but like your credit card (or all of them combined), that amount keeps soaring.
And for grins and giggles (or is that frowns and tears?), read this: So Why Aren’t We Paying Down the National Debt?
The post I Was Only 10 Years Ahead of Time On This: Interest Payment on Nation Debt Now > Defense Spending appeared first on Granite Grok.
The bodily autonomy crowd couldn’t drop that lie fast enough when allowed to virtue signal through the pandemic response, from masks to lockdowns, passports, quarantines, and even walking opposite the arrows on the floor at the grocery store. They were insufferable bastards.
The look you got if you stood too close at the checkout aisle.
Remote learning, remote working, essential and non-essential businesses, ratting out businesses that didn’t embrace Gestapo-like intolerance to those with a mask below their nose or (Gasp!) no mask at all!
They paraded their virtue signals far and wide, calling anyone who was not with them—insufferable bastards. And then some of them dropped dead. Many people died or will, and some were insufferable bastards.
Insufferable or not, they did not deserve to die from a systemic fraud perpetrated by politicians and public health experts. And not all of them were technically insufferable, but everyone named below was proud to have received a COVID-19 vaccine and made sure we knew that.
More than a few were insufferable. And far more than we’ll ever know suffered or died.
With that, we give you “A Short Compilation of People Who “Died Suddenly” After Mocking Others.”
!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u4"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");
Rumble("play", {"video":"v2l0twg","div":"rumble_v2l0twg"});
The post A Few of the People who Got Jabbed, Bragged, Mocked Others, Then Died Suddenly appeared first on Granite Grok.
UPDATE before publishing: Superintendent Taylor responded shortly after I emailed her this:
—— Original Message ——
From “Debra Taylor” <dtaylor@sau7.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 5/15/2023 1:57:59 PM
Subject Re: Re[2]: Response to Right to Know RequestGood Afternoon,
Your request has been received and I will reply within 5 business days.
Thank you.Sincerely,
Debra J. Taylor, Ph.D.
Superintendent
School Administrative Unit 7
21 Academy St.
Colebrook, NH 03576
603-237-5571
SAU 7 – Serving the Schools and Communities of Clarksville, Colebrook, Columbia, Pittsburg and Stewartstown Where our mission is: “To prepare all SAU #7 students for success in whatever path they choose.”
So far, she’s not been “successful” in handling Right To Know demands. In the meantime, I think that I will ready Option “Clause 7” below.
I restarted the process of getting the District’s libraries card catalog – a simple list of books. I had originally asked back in the fall, it dropped off my table, but I restarted the process back on May 5th by sending another email and an updated Right to Know demand (“Colebrook School District (SAU7) – Time To Cough Up Your District’s Card Catalog”). I asked, she told me that I could look up the books myself (she sent search URL’s instead of the list as demanded), and I told her that was insufficient on May 5th:
The card catalogs for the Colebrook School District schools are maintained digitally and can be found at the following hyperlink: https://sau7.follettdestiny.com/common/welcome.jsp?context=saas121_2800084
That response from you is insufficient and is not a proper response to my legal demand which was for the contents of the SAU7 card catalog. It is for the entire card catalog that makes up the Responsive Record that must be returned to me. A Respondent cannot fluff off their duty under RSA 91-A to the Requester to do the work themselves; this is not how it works. Sorry but this is not a grocery store where everyone has to self-check themselves out. Thus I am reissuing my RSA 91-A / Right To Know demand to the District for the District’s card catalog.
The Law requires some kind of response from the District in five business days – that was last week. Given that she didn’t return my call of last week, I decided to prompt her today:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Debra Taylor” <dtaylor@sau7.org>
Date 5/15/2023 12:54:27 PM
Subject Re[2]: Response to Right to Know RequestGood afternoon,
The Colebrook School District is now out of compliance with the time stricture set by RSA 91-A:4:
IV. (a) Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.
(b) If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying the public body or agency shall, within 5 business days of a request:
(1) Make such record available;
(2) Deny the request; or
(3) Provide a written statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied and the reason for the delay.
(c) A public body or agency denying, in whole or part, inspection or copying of any record shall provide a written statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.At this point in time, SAU7 is now responsible for supplying the following Governmental records:
- The card catalog of materials found in the District’s school libraries
- Contact information for the Elected Representatives that manage the District on behalf of their constituents.
Please remember that RSA 91-A provides relief for Requesters that find themselves in the situation we are in when Responders refuse their lawful duty to supply lawfully demanded Government records via Clauses 91-A:7 and 91-A:8. The former gives the Requester to use the services of the State’s Right To Know Ombudsman process. The latter allows a Requester to take the Respondent to Superior Court.
I have no problem with using either process.
It is my expectation that I will hear back from you within two days or I will begin one of those processes for what is a list of books and how Citizens can reach the elected members of the School Board (and neither of those data elements are covered under RSA 91-A:5.).
-Skip
Her move. I wonder if she knows that we have lawyers that write for us?
The post So SAU7 Colebrook School District Believes It Can Ignore NH’s Right To Know Law? appeared first on Granite Grok.
NH-NeverTrump Journal’s Mikey-G has been on quite the tear about the historical marker for some dead commie. Perhaps he believes it is his Brandenburg Gate moment … “Mr. Sununu, tear down this historical marker”:
Mikey-G recently retweeted a tweet by NH-Democrat Jay Surdokowski claiming that there is a “straight line” between Stalin and Putin. In other words, according to Surdukowski, the Biden regime’s proxy war in Ukraine is actually a war against Communism:
Actually, there remains a Communist Party in Russia. BUT Putin is not a part of it. He heads a different political party, “United Russia”. And it is not a mere distinction without a difference.
For example, Putin is a strong supporter of religion and the traditional family … two things that are anathema to Communists and that Communists seek to destroy because they see religion and family as obstacles to Communism. To the extent that there is a “straight line” between a historical figure and Putin it is from the Czars to Putin. Putin wants to and believes he can … delusionally, in my opinion, because the Russian economy is so, relatively, minuscule … restore Russia to great power status. In other words, it’s a line from Czar Peter to Vladimir.
I’m sure one or more of the apologists for the Biden regime’s proxy war … on behalf of Blackrock and Chase … in Ukraine will bring up Putin’s statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe. Putin saw it as a catastrophe because it dispersed Slavs into different nations, not because it was a triumph of capitalism over Communism.
The “straight line” from Stalin is to people like Matt Wilhelm and Rosemarie Rung and their ilk in the NH-Democrat Party and the Democrat Party in general, who support a socialism based on woke versus a socialism based on class. I have covered this repeatedly:
As I have posted many, many times the Democrat Party’s agenda is Mao’s cultural Revolution come to America. For example:
Every NHGOP State Rep and State Senator should be forced to read and re-read and re-read … as many times as it takes for it to sink in … Lilly Tang Williams’ tweet below that demonstrates how today’s DEI … Diversity-Equity-Inclusion … is simply Mao’s Cultural Revolution by another name. The top legislative priority of the NHGOP should be fighting DEI … that the NHGOP’s “leaders” instead ignore DEI and in some cases … like Sun-King Sununu … actually embrace it shows that they are either ignorant or cowards … or worse.
And this:
Your “Democrat friends” overwhelmingly support DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory). DEI and CRT are simply euphemisms for anti-White racism. DEI involves discriminating against White males. It is an ideology that maintains one’s race, or “identity” is defining and determinative. That is, DEI sees people not as individuals, but merely as part of a tribe, or group, or identity. CRT is the dishonest rewrite of history intended to justify DEI … America was founded by White males in order to exploit everyone else and benefit White males, so DEI is simply redressing centuries of systemic discrimination and exploitation by White males. Those who support DEI and CRT are not “good people.” They are the real racists, the real bigots.
Your “Democrat friends” overwhelmingly support abortion up to birth. At some point well before birth, the fetus has developed sufficiently that it is absurdly dishonest and indeed depraved to deny its humanity. Yet your “Democrat friends” do exactly that … they deny that seven, eight and nine month old unborn babies are human. Those who support late-term abortions are not “good people.” They are evil.
Your “Democrat friends” overwhelmingly support “gender affirming care” for children. “Gender affirming care” is another lovely Communist euphemism … to camouflage the sterilizing and removing of body-parts of children. Those who support sterilizing and removing the body-parts of children are not “good people.” They are monsters.
There is much, much more I could add … grooming, censorship, biological males taking over female sports, etc. etc. etc. Suffice it to say … the NH-Democrats’ agenda is Mao’s Cultural Revolution come to America. And they are winning because the GOP refuses to see them for what they are.
The post Another Extremely Dumb Take On The Dead-Commie Historical Marker appeared first on Granite Grok.
Don’t attempt to gaslight me by telling me I’m something when it was you folks that have been doing it for almost 3 years. I’ve had my “Gaslight shot” and I’m immune to it. More on that in a moment. However, to set the stage for that…
So what is this whole series about? One single line in an email from the Chair of the Gilford School Board, upon refusing to fix the holes, omissions, and inconsistencies of the District’s Policy JBAB – Section III Guidance, A. Privacy. and a bit of B. Official Records (below).
Sidenote: I’ve listed them below – see if you can find them by taking a REAL critical “how can this be abused” sense of logic in Comments.
Yes, I had spent a lot of time in analyzing the Privacy part and yes, I wanted the Board to fix them just like they had changed “A transgender student has the right to be called by their preferred pronoun and them…..failure to do so is a violation of this Policy” and then to “Students under this policy should be addressed by their preferred name or pronoun that corresponds to the student’s gender identity that is consistently asserted at school.” However, upon being repeatedly questioned, Superintendent Kirk Beitler revealed that “should” was to be taken in the mandatory sense even as they wanted readers of the Policy to assume it was voluntary. That was finally fixed, with language from their lawyer, with (emphasis mine):
“Should” does not mean “shall”or “must” but is a permissive term. Nothing in this Policy limits the rights of individuals under the federal or state constitutions.
While I was being told that the new language for the Privacy was sufficient, it was clear it was just another rewrite of the Pronouns to give the illusion of goodness while not being goodness. Yet again, I tried to make my case both via email and with a one-on-one with the Chair. After being patient and sending a few emails asking if the Board was going to change it’s mind, I received this (emphasis mine):
——– Original message ——–
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date: 4/26/23 3:29 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: jonos <jonos@sau73.org>
Subject: Re[3]: Public Comment timeHi Nin,
Just checking back with you on this stuff as it’s starting to get long in the tooth. Any update on the “lying to parents” part of JBAB such that the inconsistencies are gone and it is no longer the policy of the District to hide any transgender transition efforts from parents?
Thanks!
-Skip
—— Original Message ——
From “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 4/27/2023 8:13:45 AM
Subject RE: Re[3]: Public Comment timeGood Morning Skip,
We went over this in several meetings when discussing this policy. The District does not lie to parents.
Nin
I gave her one last chance:
——– Original message ——–
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date: 4/27/23 8:46 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: jonos <jonos@sau73.org>
Subject: Re[5]: Public Comment timeSo all of the inconsistencies that I pointed out, which leave loopholes to be exploited, will remain as is?
-Skip
—— Original Message ——
From “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 4/27/2023 10:48:05 AM
Subject RE: Re[5]: Public Comment timeAt this time the policy is approved and will remain as is.
Decisions have consequences. Her decision drove mine – and it was just as easy as I thought it would be: simply ask the question again as shown by the previous Parts in this series. I got the answer that I thought I would from his teacher PROVING that the Chair’s statement was false for lying by omission by the teacher is still lying.
So I confronted the Chair with that fact. This time, emphasis is as-is in my email:
——– Original message ——–
From: Skip <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date: 5/8/23 2:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: jonos <jonos@sau73.org>
Subject: Re[5]: Public Comment timeGood afternoon,
You THINK that the District does not lie to parents (by commission or omission)? Please see the email thread below.
My wife and I had a discussion with Danielle Bolduc this morning and this was part of it.
<snip>
Note that at no time was a direct answer given to a simple, unambiguous question. That’s lying by commission
And by omission as well. A direct decision to not answer my question
And then, as expected, I found out that the email thread was being monitored by “the administration”. You may wish to discuss this with Danielle Bolduc.
Emphasis mine:
We went over this in several meetings when discussing this policy. The District does not lie to parents.
Your words. Mine: loopholes.
Your move.
I have already listed those email threads in the previous Parts that I <snipped> out.
The statement was made – I merely decided to test the validity of the Chair’s statement. Knowing that the statement of”The District does not lie to parents” was made, and that the District, via a staff member, DID lie to a Parent (me), I confronted the Chair that her statement was false. I was right and she was wrong either in her own words or that she believed that the District’s staff had been properly “change order” updated as to the official holding of the Chair. The Chair took umbrage at this (for using her own words and her staff’s actions) against her. She was not happy:
Note the word I emphasized below:
—— Original Message ——
From “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
To “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
Date 5/8/2023 3:30:26 PM
Subject RE: Re[5]: Public Comment timeHi Skip,
First and foremost, this is not a “your move my move” conversation. That would make the conversations adversarial or some competition. I certainly do not see the conversation that way.
In regards to the communication, I am not reading it the same way you are. You asked the transgender status of legal son. If a conversation has never been had by your legal son, that is what Mrs. Anderson responded with to you.
Is your expectation that they go and ask your legal son what his status is and start a conversation? I feel that would be stepping over a line and inappropriate.
While I can appreciate your perception of the conversation, quite frankly, I think you are reaching and trying to create a problem with the response you received.
Jeanin
She accused ME of being adversarial when it was the District that first decided they could, and only via their own say-so, cancel everyone’s Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech and give itself the ability to lie to Parents about their child? That in fighting to restore that Freedom of Speech and to force Government to retract its policy enabling it to lie to parents, *I* was the adversarial one as if *I* threw the first punches even as the District who started this fight?
So, is it now necessitate one from being labeled “adversarial” to just just throw up their hands in disbelief and simply bend over to an overreaching Government entity that is running roughshod over you?
Yeah, not so much in my case (emphasis mine now):
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “jonos” <jonos@sau73.org>
Date 5/8/2023 6:01:00 PM
Subject Re[7]: Public Comment timeWrong.
I took your words at face value as being correct. Being an engineer (and having spent 40 years fixing problems and mistakes), I tested your words.
They failed the reality test in that the respondent refused to tell me the truth to my simple question that any parent wishing to ask would ask it in that fashion. Therefore, a fix is needed. Thus, it is “your move”, as Chair, to fix that Policy so as to make it clear to your staff what the proper response should be to that question given the rewrite it underwent.
Is your expectation that they go and ask your legal son what his status is and start a conversation?
No.
If they know, that should be the answer (and the converse as well).
I asked a simple question and the answer I received had nothing to do with the question. I didn’t ask “have you had a discussion?”. I asked about “status” which is not “discussion”.
I simply asked a question that parents across the nation have already asked; simple and direct. Didn’t get an answer to it.
-Skip
And now you know the genesis of this series. The Grandson’s teacher did not tell me the truth after given several chances to do so – she deliberately decided to avoid my simple question by answering her own question.
The next GSD meeting is coming up. Unfortunately, the Board has decided to now limit Public Comment sessions speakers to a maximum of three minutes (this just happened at the last meeting).
Due to a suggestion from a fellow SDGA (School District Governance Association – I consider it the conservative replacement for the very liberal NH School Board Association), I will try to have all of this entered into the meeting minutes.
While THIS series may now be over, I’m betting there will be more to come!
III. GUIDANCE
A. Privacy
The Gilford School Board recognizes a student’s right to keep private one’s transgender status or nonbinary presentation at school. The Board also recognizes a transgender and nonbinary student’s right to discuss and express their gender identity openly. Information about a student’s transgender status, legal name or gender assigned at birth listed on a person’s birth certificate also may constitute confidential information. School personnel should not disclose information that may reveal a student’s transgender status or nonbinary presentation to others. School personnel shall include parent(s) or legal guardian(s) when implementing a written plan for a student to address their needs as it relates to their transgender or nonbinary status.When contacting the parent or legal guardian of a transgender or nonbinary student, school personnel should use the student’s preferred name and pronoun listed in the student information system. Student’s legal names shall not be changed in the official records unless legally required to do so.
B. Official Records
The District is required to maintain a mandatory permanent pupil record (“official record”) that includes a student’s legal name and legal gender. However, the District is not required to use a student’s legal name and gender on other school records or documents. The District will change a student’s official record to reflect a change in legal name or legal gender upon receipt of documentation that such change has been made pursuant to a court order. In situations where school staff or administrators are required by law to use or to report a transgender student’s legal name or gender, such as for purposes of standardized testing, school staff and administrators shall adopt practices to avoid the inadvertent disclosure of such confidential information.
There’s a reason why I RTK’d (Right To Know) for all database schema(s) for any of their info systems in Part 3.
The post “What Is The Transgender Status of My Legal Son?” Part 4 appeared first on Granite Grok.
They’re flying so thick and fast it is amazing. Take heart – there will be a Meme Overflow and almost certainly a Friday Meme Overflow-Overflow. Last week’s Overflow-Overflow.
Remember, ridicule and mockery are effective weapons:
Now, let the mockery and mayhem begin.
*** Warning, a few possibly off-color ones, in case tender eyes are about ***
>>>>>=====<<<<<
TERRORIST NATION
In honor of Israel’s 75th birthday… let’s not forget what Israel’s up against. But then, that’s Islam.
The Greatest Murder Machine in History – American Thinker
Another great resource for learning about Islam:
Political Islam – Islam & ideology about unbelievers, Kafirs
One thing in particular to note, vis a vis Israel but applicable more broadly. Islam has a principle, unofficially “The Principle of Reconquest” – don’t know the precise name – that requires that any land, every square inch of land, that once was held by Islam to be retaken by Islam. That the land of Israel is no longer in Islamic hands, but in JEWISH hands, is especially intolerable.
Anti-Semitism in the Quran
Islamic Jew-Hatred – Geller Report
You can’t make peace with someone who openly says they want you dead.
Debunking the Palestine Lie
>>>>>=====<<<<<
PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA – PSA
Last weekend my kids went over to a neighbor’s and, upon coming home we did a tick check. Found a “nice” healthy one on my daughter, which got flushed down to the septic tank. Suck that, vermin.
Anyway, if you haven’t already seen them, they’re out. Tick check your kids, your pets, even yourselves when you go out into / through woods. Lyme disease is real and can get very bad… and is often ignored / glossed over:
19-Year-Old Confined to Wheelchair by Chronic Lyme Disease Sues Doctors, Hospitals for Medical Malpractice • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)
I read this in utter horror. But then, we have a class of people – doctors – who, despite all the pap about wanting patients to be informed, involved, and inquisitive, don’t really like being challenged. It’s the danger of knowledge and they are the new priesthood.
If you find an attached tick, photograph it in situ before removal; I understand most doctors have a way to have them tested. And then if you see any rashes, etc., take pictures too. Document any fevers not just in writing, but with pictures of the thermometer so you have a date/time stamp. Document all interactions with medical staff, in particular if they’re dismissive. If, Hashem forbid, you need to go to court, you’ll have a record to cite.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
There’s another wrinkle to this.
The clear consequences to the idea that if white people – white people alone – are somehow eliminated, “calm will return to the world”… an idea that ignores all of human history… and if followed through to the logical conclusion of the conjecture that if the root cause of all the world’s ills is white people, it becomes a moral imperative to eliminate them. While a utopian fantasy, people can still be gripped by such.
The original graphic’s sentiment is clearly a combination of Stages 4-6. Remember, every genocide that has occurred has been because people believe there is a moral imperative to eliminating a particular bunch of people. For the good of all, of course. Thus, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Now, for the white nationalists who want to kill every non-white, or every Jew, etc. Flip it. Take your language against <group you despise> and flip it to be against white people. Not so comfortable now, eh? (The same applies in reverse: to all those wanting white genocide, put your own in-group into the same text and see how it tastes.)
Look, I appreciate that there are many people concerned about white genocide. I am too. It’s been a very rude awakening to me that there are surprising numbers of people who wish this, including – shockingly – a lot of Jews (who, of all peoples, should know better) who are using migration as a weapon disguised as a feel-good virtue signal, as an example. I never, ever would have thought I’d be posting with hashtags of #whitelivesmatter #stopwhitegenocide or such. Ever. But I do.
My fundamental point is this: regardless of who you are, you cannot use eliminationist language against another group, and then expect that other group to not resent it and fight it… and, potentially, work to eliminate you back.
And, in that happening, the Globalists who want to answer the 7.3 billion person question laugh and cackle as we turn on each other.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
I don’t know if this meme is factual. The only reference I see to it is to some fascistbook posts, so… take it with a grain of salt. The size of Mount Everest. (Perhaps someone has more authoritative evidence?) Regardless, for the sake of discussion let’s assume it’s true.
First, I can only imagine that, when discovered, quite a few wives found themselves on the wrong end of, well, something – be it blade, or blunt object, simple fists, etc. But more to the point of the topic. Go back up to the discussion of white genocide. Or consider enforced Jabs, like this charmer:
The ability to rationalize bad behavior (e.g., poisoning your husband, even if mildly, to ensure loyalty) and cloak it in a noble cause is best put by Huxley:
Humans are flawed creatures. In our zeal to change things for what we see as better is wrapped a caution to consider whether we’re really doing a bad thing. A large part of this introspection is to flip things and roles; would we similarly be so enthusiastic were the roles reversed?
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Inside the Darién Gap | AGENDA 2030 MASS MIGRATION PLAN EXPOSED | Muckraker Report
HT Irish
An invasion of millions. Also see Michael Yon.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Read this request from the police, and the epic response.
Fenix deserves some business if you can.
USPSA IDPA 3-Gun Competition Ammo Novi Michigan USA – Fenix Ammunition (fenixammo.com)
In Judaism, there is a word… chutzpah. The classical example is a child who kills their parents and then begs for mercy on the grounds they’re an orphan. This comes close. A police organization that dutifully obeyed illegal & immoral orders that, on their face, should have been responded to those Covid and other orders with:
“SIR, I WILL NOT OBEY THAT ORDER.”
But instead were obeyed. Probably, in some most cases, with zeal (citing Huxley, above).
And now wants donations of ammunition to train at a swanky resort.
Chutzpah, indeed.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Better hope Elon, as the owner, has some kind of kill switch on her position. Because if she is there, and does what some are fearing, and remains… then Elon will have definitively been shown to be not what we thought.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Pick of the post:
Happy one-day-after Mother’s Day.
I miss my mother. And grandmother.
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Monday Musical Memory (trial of a new Monday feature):
Scorpions – Send Me An Angel
>>>>>=====<<<<<
Palate Cleansers:
—
—
The post MONDAY MEMES appeared first on Granite Grok.
Some folks might call it getting red-pilled. The discovery that the world Democrats have constructed for their believers is, in fact, a complete fraud. There’s an entire movement attributed to it Called Walk Away, and when anyone high-profile walks away (even a little), they inspire others to do it.
This is why the Left loses its hive mind, and the progressive pod-people attack that messenger. It is also why we need to support them, at least regarding that message, because it is an open eye, and with some support, we might open a few more.
This came to my attention care of Ace of Spades HQ. Actress Evangeline Lilly is (apparently) not that down with the Democrat struggle despite her time in Hollywood and its attendant structures. She has, in the past, (and I did not know this), expressed doubts about the political and pharmacological response to COIVD, much to the dismay of the usual suspects. A trend she continued with this bit of wisdom about the genderizer.
“Why are we only applauding masculinity in women and villainizing it in men? And why are we only applauding femininity in men and debasing it in women? Why can’t we just allow for all of it?” Evangeline writes in the caption of her photo. “Why do we feel the need to vilify a man wearing shit-kicker boots, driving a pick-up truck who’s not afraid to punch someone in the face, but if they were a woman, they would be the epitome of cool? Why is a man who loves make-up, cries easily and stays at home to tend to the domestic responsibilities valiant, but a woman who does the same is pathetic?”
Hearing someone from that world articulate it this way is almost refreshing. And you know the answer to the question. The gender flip-flop, have-a-wack, give your genderless dog a bone has nothing to do with gender roles, rights, ending discrimination, or being you. It’s just politics.
Remember when the Left was pushing gay marriage? The honest activists behind it were adamant the goal wasn’t about creating a right for same-sex couples. It was to end the institution. To undermine every American institution. Anyone who questioned them was called a bigot, and the fact was dismissed, but that’s still the goal.
The enemies of liberty are chaos, disorder, and uncertainty, and these have blossomed like invasive weeds from the political left over the decades, growing currently, at hypersonic speeds, around sex and gender. A nation where men are women, women are men, and children are nervous (or at least their parents are).
The goal is to make it impossible for anyone to think or speak straight (literally) because a world like that is easy to conquer and rule. They make us all hate each other and rule the ashes.
I can’t say if Evangeline Lilly has made the full leap, but she’s clearly suspicious of the forced march of contradiction, and she has articulated the matter well, and they have to hate her for it.
Also, care of AoSHQ, a lifelong Democrat’s walk-away story.
I have been a Democrat my entire life. I live in Los Angeles. I was an actress for years. I voted for Obama, then Clinton. I couldn’t wait to vote against the ban on gay marriage. I supported Planned Parenthood. I called JK Rowling “TERF.” I read books like THE NEW JIM CROW in an… pic.twitter.com/ib98TDpOPs
— Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) May 8, 2023
The post Where Men are Women, Women are Men, and Children are Nervous appeared first on Granite Grok.
Don’t you just love it when the Left makes up new words for things that really don’t exist just so that they can both shame and then punish us all when we don’t know what it is? And then, once you do know what it means, you get bashed for fighting back over what is someone’s figment of their imagination.
That demands that this “figment” become your reality as part of your re-education into the 2+2 = 5 cult.
The figment is “misgender” – a made-up word that gives the Left the opportunity to:
Sure thing – “Up yours!” Any other response lets them know that you are now the mouse to their cat – and the cat is very, VERY hungry.
No, our immediate reaction should be to get in their faces and double down (like David Richardson in my last post). My gratitude and praise go out to these Parents for fighting the Cultural Marxists trying to control our speech AND thoughts; refusing to let the Trans-Authoritarians oppress your kids.
School District Sued Over Policy That Punishes Students For ‘Misgendering’ People
A parental rights organization is suing an Ohio school district over a policy that allegedly punishes students who intentionally “misgender” their peers.
Parents Defending Education (PDE), a parental rights organization, sued Olentangy Local School District on Thursday on behalf of parents within the school system, stating that the district has warned that students who intentionally use pronouns different from other students’ “preferred pronouns” are in violation its policies and will be subject to “disciplinary action.” The district’s Personal Communication Devices Policy prohibits students from using their cell phone or laptop, whether on or off campus, to send any messages that may be viewed as “harassment” of others based on their race, sex, “transgender identity” and political beliefs.
I looked at their Policies below that I thought would have had any such words as pronouns, misgender, and transgender, and identity and found only transgender identity in the PCD policy. Even in that policy, there was no mention of “misgender”. Thus, I’m betting that PDE is going to have a field day in court (if the Board doesn’t settle first) concerning this “non-policy” policy and punishment.
What the District and its smelly lawyers are trying to do is take the language from the PCD and STRETCH it beyond any concise and precise definition – vagueness is the travesty of scoundrels and exactly how the lawyers are trying to build the school up (and non-school activities) as a “safe space”. Here’s the language I took from that PCD policy:
Students may not use a PCD in any way that might reasonably create in the mind of another person an impression of being threatened, humiliated, harassed, embarrassed or intimidated. See Policy 5517.01 – Bullying and Other Forms of Aggressive Behavior. In particular, students are prohibited from using PCDs to: (1) transmit material that is threatening, obscene, disruptive, or sexually explicit or that can be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based upon their race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation/transgender identity), disability, age, religion, ancestry, or political beliefs; and (2) engage in “sexting” – i.e., sending, receiving, sharing, viewing, or possessing pictures, text messages, e-mails or other materials of a sexual nature in electronic or any other form. Violation of these prohibitions shall result in disciplinary action. Furthermore, such actions will be reported to local law enforcement and child services as required by law.
Seriously, is the school trying to demand that their students believe 2+2=5? That they aren’t supposed to believe their eyes and ears? That all of a sudden, Timmy has become Tabitha? And that’s what they are trying to do:
The district, through its attorneys, allegedly confirmed to parents that its policies prohibit students from intentionally using the wrong pronouns when addressing someone, or “misgendering” them, the lawsuit stated. This violation is subject to punishment, the district allegedly told parents.
And PDE is going back to our foundational Law – that which one WOULD have thought that either the School Board or the Staff might have had an inkling about? Sadly, that evidence isn’t evident as we all know that the Constitution is just that old writing by ancient old men and doesn’t apply anymore to the new Gnostism of Wokeness:
“The ‘harassment’ policies at Olentangy impinge on basic constitutional rights and are over broad in a way that polices students’ speech both inside and outside of the classroom,” Caroline Moore, vice president of PDE, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We feel deeply for what these students and their families have gone through day in and day out during their time in the District. We look forward to championing their First Amendment rights”
…“Parent B’s constant anxiety that Parent B’s children will be subjected to this harm has, in turn, caused Parent B emotional and psychological harm,” the lawsuit alleged. “For example, it has caused Parent B to question whether to instruct Parent B’s children to follow their conscience and their religious faith or to remain silent and affirm viewpoints contrary to their conscience and faith in order to preserve their opportunities for college, among other things.”
It’s quite the thing that most School Districts only give lip service to the word “religious” in their Policies but trample it over the Fantasy Identity they have adopted. I hope that PDE, the families, and the students take the District to the cleaners – hoover up those greenbacks, dudes!
5136 – PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES
Students may possess personal communication devices (PCDs) in school, on school property, and on school buses or other Board-provided vehicles during school hours and afterschool activities (e.g. extra-curricular activities) and at school-related functions. Building administrators and teachers will have the authority to modify this allowance.
For purposes of this policy, “personal communication device” includes computers, tablets (e.g., iPads and similar devices), electronic readers (“e-readers”; e.g..Kindles and similar devices), cell phones (e.g., mobile/cellular telephones, smartphones (e.g., BlackBerry, iPhone, Android devices, Windows Mobile devices, etc.)), and/or other web-enabled devices of any type. Students may not use PCDs on school property or at a school-sponsored activity to access and/or view Internet web sites that are otherwise blocked to students at school. Students may use PCDs while riding to and from school on a school bus or other Board-provided vehicles or on a school bus or Board-provided vehicle during school-sponsored activities, at the discretion of the bus driver, classroom teacher, or sponsor/advisor/coach. Distracting behavior that creates an unsafe environment will not be tolerated.
Also, during after school activities, PCDs shall be powered completely off (not just placed into vibrate or silent mode) and stored out of sight when directed by the administrator or sponsor.
Under certain circumstances, a student may keep his/her PCD “On” with prior approval from the building principal.
Except as authorized by a teacher, administrator or IEP team, students are prohibited from using PCDs during the school day, including while off-campus on a field trip, to capture, record and/or transmit the words or sounds (i.e., audio) and/or images (i.e., pictures/video) of any student, staff member or other person. Using a PCD to capture, record and/or transmit audio and/or pictures/video of an individual without proper consent is considered an invasion of privacy and is not permitted. Students who violate this provision and/or use a PCD to violate the privacy rights of another person may have their PCD confiscated and held until a parent/guardian picks it up, and may be directed to delete the audio and/or picture/video file while the parent/guardian is present. If the violation involves potentially illegal activity the confiscated-PCD may be turned-over to law enforcement.
PCDs, including but not limited to those with cameras, may not be activated or utilized at any time in any school situation where a reasonable expectation of personal privacy exists. These locations and circumstances include, but are not limited to classrooms, gymnasiums, locker rooms, shower facilities, rest/bathrooms, and any other areas where students or others may change clothes or be in any stage or degree of disrobing or changing clothes. The Superintendent and building principals are authorized to determine other specific locations and situations where use of a PCD is absolutely prohibited.
Students are expressly prohibited from using covert means to listen-in or make a recording (audio or video) of any meeting or activity at school. This includes placing recording devices, or other devices with one – or two-way audio communication technology (i.e., technology that allows a person off-site to listen to live conversations and sounds taking place in the location where the device is located), within a student’s book bag or on the student’s person without express written consent of the Superintendent. Any requests to place a recording device or other device with one- or two-way audio communication technology within a student’s book bag or on a student’s person shall be submitted, in writing, to the principal. The District representative shall notify the parent(s), in writing, whether such request is denied or granted within five (5) days.
Students shall have no expectation of confidentiality with respect to their use of PCDs on school premises/property.
Students may not use a PCD in any way that might reasonably create in the mind of another person an impression of being threatened, humiliated, harassed, embarrassed or intimidated. See Policy 5517.01 – Bullying and Other Forms of Aggressive Behavior. In particular, students are prohibited from using PCDs to: (1) transmit material that is threatening, obscene, disruptive, or sexually explicit or that can be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based upon their race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation/transgender identity), disability, age, religion, ancestry, or political beliefs; and (2) engage in “sexting” – i.e., sending, receiving, sharing, viewing, or possessing pictures, text messages, e-mails or other materials of a sexual nature in electronic or any other form. Violation of these prohibitions shall result in disciplinary action. Furthermore, such actions will be reported to local law enforcement and child services as required by law.
Students are also prohibited from using a PCD to capture, record, and/or transmit test information or any other information in a manner constituting fraud, theft, cheating, or academic dishonesty. Likewise, students are prohibited from using PCDs to receive such information.
Possession of a PCD by a student at school during school hours and/or during extra-curricular activities is a privilege that may be forfeited by any student who fails to abide by the terms of this policy, or otherwise abuses this privilege.
Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action and/or confiscation of the PCD. The building principal will also refer the matter to law enforcement or child services if the violation involves an illegal activity (e.g., child pornography, sexting). Discipline will be imposed on an escalating scale ranging from a warning to an expulsion based on the number of previous violations and/or the nature
of or circumstances surrounding a particular violation. If the PCD is confiscated, it will be released/returned to the student’s parent/guardian after the student complies with any other disciplinary consequences that are imposed, unless the violation involves potentially illegal activity in which case the PCD may be turned-over to law enforcement. A confiscated device will be marked in a removable manner with the student’s name and held in a secure location until it is retrieved by the parent/guardian or turned-over to law enforcement. School officials will not search or otherwise tamper with PCDs in District custody unless they reasonably suspect that the search is required to discover evidence of a violation of the law or other school rules. Any search will be conducted in accordance with Policy 5771 – Search and Seizure. If multiple offenses occur, a student may lose his/her privilege to bring a PCD to school for a designated length of time or on a permanent basis.
A person who discovers a student using a PCD, recording device, or other device with one- or two-way audio communication technology in violation of this policy is required to report the violation to the building administration.
Students are personally and solely responsible for the care and security of their PCDs. The Board assumes no responsibility for theft, loss, or damage to, or misuse or unauthorized use of, PCDs brought onto its property.
5600 – STUDENT DISCIPLINE
The Board of Education acknowledges that conduct is closely related to learning – an effective instructional program requires an orderly school environment and the effectiveness of the educational program is, in part, reflected in the behavior of students.
The Board believes that the best discipline is self-imposed and that students should learn to assume responsibility for their own behavior and the consequences of their actions. The Board has zero tolerance of violent, disruptive or inappropriate behavior by its students.
The Board shall require each student of this District to adhere to the Student Code of Conduct/Student Discipline Code adopted by the Board and to submit to such disciplinary measures as are appropriately assigned for infraction of those rules. Such rules shall require that students:
The Superintendent shall establish administrative guidelines for student conduct that carry out the purposes of this policy and which:
are not arbitrary, but bear a reasonable relationship to the need to maintain a school environment conducive to learning;
The Superintendent designates sanctions for the infractions of rules, excluding corporal punishment, which shall:
The Superintendent shall publish to all students and their parents the rules of this District regarding student conduct and the sanctions which may be imposed for breach of those rules.
The Superintendent shall inform the Board periodically of the methods of discipline imposed by this District and the incidence of student misconduct in such degree of specificity as shall be required by the Board.
The Superintendent, principals, and other administrators shall have the authority to assign discipline to students, subject to the Student Code of Conduct/Student Discipline Code and, where required by law, to the student’s due process right to notice, hearing, and appeal.
Teachers, school bus drivers, and other employees of this Board having authority over students may take such action as may be necessary to control the disorderly conduct of students in all situations and in all places where such students are within the jurisdiction of this Board and when such conduct interferes with the educational program of the schools or threatens the health and safety of others.
No student is to be detained after the close of the regular school day unless the student’s parent has been contacted and informed that the student will be detained. If a parent cannot be contacted, the student should be detained on another day.
5517.03 – TITLE VI – ANTI-HARASSMENT AND NONDISCRIMINATION
Introduction
The Olentangy Local School District is committed to having a school environment free from all discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The District prohibits such harassment in the school environment, including all academic, extracurricular and school-sponsored activities. Students are encouraged to immediately report incidents of harassment. Staff members must promptly report to the staff member designated to respond to such complaints, all incidents of such harassment of which they become aware, by whatever means they become aware. The District will investigate formal and informal complaints of harassment. The District will distribute this statement in languages other than English as necessary.
Prohibited Conduct
Conduct constituting harassment on the basis of race, color or national origin may take different forms, and may involve verbal, non- verbal or physical contact. Examples of harassment include:
Conduct constituting harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin may take different forms, including, but not limited to, the following:
Harassment may occur in various activities and sites, which may include but are not limited to the following:
The District employee responsible for receiving and/or investigating reports of harassment on the basis of race, color or national origin, including the investigatory report, who is referred to in this police as the Anti-Harassment Complaint Coordinator (“Complaint Coordinator”) is:
Randy Wright
Chief of Administrative Services
Randy_Wright@olsd.us
740-657-4012
Reporting and Complaint Filing Procedures
Any student or student’s parent or legal custodian who believes that the student has been subjected to harassment on the basis of race, color or national origin may seek resolution of his/her complaint through either the informal or formal procedures as described below. Staff members making complaints shall use the formal procedures. While there are no time limits for initiating a complaint of harassment, individuals should make every effort to file a complaint as soon as possible after the harassing conduct occurs. The investigation procedures are established to provide a prompt and equitable process for resolving complaints of such harassment.
School personnel should report incidents of alleged student-on-student and staff-to-student harassment that they witness or of which they have received reports or information, whether such incidents are verbal or physical or amount to harassment in other forms.
Informal Complaint Procedure
The goal of the informal complaint procedure is to stop inappropriate behavior and to investigate and facilitate resolution through an informal means, if possible. The informal complaint procedure is provided as a less formal option for a student or student’s parent or legal custodian who believes the student has been harassed on the basis of race, color or national origin. This informal procedure is not required as a precursor to the filing of a formal complaint and will only be utilized where the parties (alleged target of harassment and alleged harasser(s)) agree to participate in such process. However, all complaints of harassment involving a District employee will be formally investigated, as will complaints against another adult where a student is involved.
As an initial course of action, if a student or student’s parent or legal custodian feels that the student is being harassed on the basis of race, color or national origin, and s/he is able and feels safe doing so, the individual should tell or otherwise inform the harasser that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The complaining individual should address the allegedly harassing conduct as soon after it occurs as possible. The Complaint Coordinator is available to support and counsel individuals when taking this initial step or to intervene on behalf of the individual if requested to do so. An individual who is uncomfortable or unwilling to inform the harasser of his/her complaint is not prohibited from otherwise filing an informal or a formal complaint.
A student or student’s parent or legal custodian who believes the student has been harassed on the basis of race, color or national origin may make an informal complaint, either orally or in writing, to the following designated staff member:
The building administrator/Superintendent will report the informal complaint to the Complaint Coordinator who will either facilitate an informal resolution as described below on his/her own, or appoint another individual to facilitate an informal resolution.
The District’s informal complaint procedure is designed to provide a student or student’s parent or legal custodian who believes the student is being harassed with a range of options designed to bring about a resolution of their concerns. Depending upon the nature of the complaint and the wishes of the student, parent, or custodian claiming such harassment, informal resolution may involve, but not be limited to, one or more of the following:
While there are no set time limits within which an informal complaint must be resolved, the Complaint Coordinator will exercise his/her authority to attempt to resolve all informal complaints within two (2) weeks of receiving the informal complaint. A student or student’s parent or legal custodian who is dissatisfied with the informal complaint process may terminate it at any time and file a formal complaint.
All materials generated, as part of the informal complaint process will be retained by the Complaint Coordinator in accordance with the Board’s records retention policy.
Formal Complaint Procedure
If a complaint is not resolved through the informal complaint process, or if the student or student’s parent or legal custodian elects to file a formal complaint initially, the formal complaint process shall be implemented.
A staff member, student or student’s parent or legal custodian who believes the student has been subjected to offensive conduct/harassment, hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant,” should file a formal complaint, either orally or in writing with the Complaint Coordinator. If a Complainant informs any other employee of the District, either orally or in writing, about any complaint of harassment, that employee must immediately report such information to the Complaint Coordinator. Thereafter the Complaint Coordinator must contact the Complainant to determine whether the Complainant wishes to make a formal or an informal complaint.
Throughout the course of the process, the Complaint Coordinator should keep the Complainant informed of the status of the investigation and the decision-making process.
Content of Formal Complaints
When a formal complaint is filed, the Complaint Coordinator will investigate the complaint and prepare an investigation report that contains the detailed information set forth below. To facilitate this investigation, formal complaints should, when possible, include this same information to the extent it is available to the complaining party:
If the Complainant is unable or unwilling to provide a written statement including the information set forth above, the Complaint Coordinator shall ask for such details in an oral interview. Thereafter the Complaint Coordinator will prepare a written summary of the oral interview which will be presented to the Complainant for verification by signature.
Investigation/Other Procedures
Upon receiving a formal complaint, the Complaint Coordinator will conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation.
The Complaint Coordinator will consider whether any action should be taken in the investigatory phase to stop the harassment, remedy the harassment that has occurred, and protect the Complainant from the recurrence of further harassment or retaliation including but not limited to, a change of job assignment, disciplinary action or a change of class schedule for the individual alleged to have engaged in the harassment, hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent.” In making such a determination, the Complaint Coordinator should consult the Complainant to assess his/her agreement to any action deemed appropriate. If the Complainant is unwilling to consent to any change which is deemed appropriate by the Complaint Coordinator, the Complaint Coordinator may still take whatever actions s/he deems appropriate in consultation with the Superintendent. The District’s response will not penalize the Complainant.
Within two (2) business days of receiving a formal complaint, the Complaint Coordinator will inform the Respondent that a complaint has been received. The Respondent will be informed about the nature of the allegations and a copy of this Policy and the Board Anti- Harassment Policy shall be provided to the Respondent at that time. The Respondent must also be informed of the opportunity to submit a written response to the complaint within five (5) business days.
Within two (2) business days of receiving the complaint, the Complaint Coordinator or a designee will initiate a formal investigation to determine whether the Complainant has been subject to offensive conduct/harassment.
Although certain cases may require additional time, the Complaint Coordinator or a designee will attempt to complete an investigation into the allegations of harassment within fourteen (14) calendar days of receiving the formal complaint. The investigation will include:
In determining whether the alleged conduct constitutes a violation of this Policy, the District will consider:
The Complaint Coordinator or designee will, in the manner required by this Policy, document all reports of incidents of harassment. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Complaint Coordinator or designee shall prepare and deliver a written report to the Superintendent which summarizes the evidence gathered during the investigation and provides recommendations based on the evidence and the definition of harassment on the basis of race, color or national origin as provided in this Policy as to whether the Complainant has been subject to such harassment. The Complaint Coordinator’s recommendations must be based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the ages and maturity levels of those involved.
Absent extenuating circumstances, within five (5) business days of receiving the report of the Complaint Coordinator the designee, the Superintendent must either issue a final decision regarding whether or not the complaint of harassment has been substantiated or request further investigation. A copy of the Superintendent’s final decision will be delivered to both the Complainant and the Respondent.
If the Superintendent requests additional investigation, the Superintendent must specify the additional information that is to be gathered, and such additional investigation must be completed within five (5) business days. At the conclusion of the additional investigation, the Superintendent must issue a final written decision as described above. The decision of the Superintendent shall be final.
Confidentiality
The District will make all reasonable efforts to protect the rights of the Complainant and the Respondent. The District will respect the privacy of the Complainant, the Respondent, and all witnesses in a manner consistent with the District’s obligations under State and Federal law. Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed however. All Complainants proceeding through the formal investigation process should be advised that their identities may be disclosed to the Respondent.
During the course of a formal investigation, the Complaint Coordinator or designee will instruct all individuals who are interviewed about the importance of maintaining confidentiality. An individual who is interviewed as part of a harassment investigation is expected not to disclose any information that s/he learns or that s/he provides during the course of the investigation.
All public records created as a part of an investigation of a complaint of harassment will be maintained by the Complaint Coordinator in accordance with the Board’s records retention policy. Any records which are considered student records in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, and/or Ohio’s student records law will be maintained in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal and State law.
Other Anti-Harassment Procedures
5517.01 – BULLYING AND OTHER FORMS OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
The Board of Education is committed to providing a safe, positive, productive, and nurturing educational environment for all of its students. The Board encourages the promotion of positive interpersonal relations between members of the school community.
Harassment, intimidation, or bullying toward a student, whether by other students, staff, or third parties is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated. This prohibition includes aggressive behavior, physical, verbal, and psychological abuse, and violence within a dating relationship. The Board will not tolerate any gestures, comments, threats, or actions which cause or threaten to cause bodily harm or personal degradation.
This policy applies to all activities in the District, including activities on school property, on a school bus, or while enroute to or from school, and those occurring off school property if the student or employee is at any school-sponsored, school- approved or school-related activity or function, such as field trips or athletic events where students are under the school’s control, in a school vehicle, or where an employee is engaged in school business.
This policy has been developed in consultation with parents, District employees, volunteers, students, and community members as prescribed in R.C. 3313.666 and the State Board of Education’s Model Policy.
Harassment, intimidation, or bullying means:
“Electronic act” means an act committed through the use of a cellular telephone, computer, pager, personal communication device, or other electronic communication device.
Aggressive behavior is defined as inappropriate conduct that is repeated enough, or serious enough, to negatively impact a student’s educational, physical, or emotional well being. This type of behavior is a form of intimidation and harassment, although it need not be based on any of the legally protected characteristics, such as sex, race, color, national origin, marital status, or disability. It would include, but not be limited to, such behaviors as stalking, bullying/cyberbullying, intimidating, menacing, coercion, name calling, taunting, making threats, and hazing.
Harassment, intimidation, or bullying also means cyberbullying through electronically transmitted acts (i.e., internet, e-mail, cellular telephone, personal digital assistance (PDA), or wireless hand-held device) that a student(s) or a group of students exhibits toward another particular student(s) more than once and the behavior both causes mental and physical harm to the other student and is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student(s).
Any student or student’s parent/guardian who believes s/he has been or is the victim of aggressive behavior should immediately report the situation to the Building Principal or assistant principal, or the Superintendent. The student may also report concerns to teachers and other school staff who will be responsible for notifying the appropriate administrator or Board official. Complaints against the Building Principal should be filed with the Superintendent. Complaints against the Superintendent should be filed with the Board President.
Every student is encouraged, and every staff member is required, to report any situation that they believe to be aggressive behavior directed toward a student. Reports may be made to those identified above.
All complaints about aggressive behavior that may violate this policy shall be promptly investigated. The Building Principal or appropriate administrator shall prepare a written report of the investigation upon completion. Such report shall include findings of fact, a determination of whether acts of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying were verified, and, when prohibited acts are verified, a recommendation for intervention, including disciplinary action shall be included in the report. Where appropriate, written witness statements shall be attached to the report.
If the investigation finds an instance of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying/cyberbullying by an electronic act or otherwise, has occurred, it will result in prompt and appropriate remedial and/or disciplinary action. This may include suspension or up to expulsion for students, up to discharge for employees, exclusion for parents, guests, volunteers, and contractors, and removal from any official position and/or a request to resign for Board members. Individuals may also be referred to law enforcement officials.
If, during an investigation of a reported act of harassment, intimidation and/or bullying/cyberbullying, the Principal or appropriate administrator believes that the reported misconduct may have created a hostile learning environment and may have constituted unlawful discriminatory harassment based on a Protected Class, the Principal will report the act of bullying and/or harassment to one of the Anti-Harassment Compliance Officers so that it may be investigated in accordance with the procedures set forth in Policy 5517 – Anti-Harassment.
Retaliation against any person who reports, is thought to have reported, files a complaint, or otherwise participates in an investigation or inquiry concerning allegations of aggressive behavior is prohibited and will not be tolerated. Such retaliation shall be considered a serious violation of Board policy and independent of whether a complaint is substantiated. Suspected retaliation should be reported in the same manner as aggressive behavior. Retaliation may result in disciplinary action as indicated above.
Deliberately making false reports about harassment, intimidation, bullying and/or other aggressive behavior for the purpose of getting someone in trouble is similarly prohibited and will not be tolerated. Deliberately making false reports may result in disciplinary action as indicated above.
If a student or other individual believes there has been aggressive behavior, regardless of whether it fits a particular definition, s/he should report it and allow the administration to determine the appropriate course of action.
The District shall implement intervention strategies (AG 5517.01) to protect a victim or other person from new or additional harassment, intimidation, or bullying and from retaliation following such a report.
This policy shall not be interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students (i.e., to prohibit a reasoned and civil exchange of opinions, or debate, that is conducted at appropriate times and places during the school day and is protected by State or Federal law).
The complainant shall be notified of the findings of the investigation, and as appropriate, that remedial action has been taken. If after investigation, acts of bullying against a specific student are verified, the Building Director or appropriate administrator shall notify the custodial parent/guardian of the victim of such finding. In providing such notification care shall be taken to respect the statutory privacy rights of the perpetrator of such harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying.
If after investigation, acts of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying by a specific student are verified, the Building Director or appropriate administrator shall notify in writing the custodial parent/guardian of the perpetrator of that finding. If disciplinary consequences are imposed against such student, a description of such discipline shall be included in the notification.
Complaints
Students and/or their parents/guardians may file reports regarding suspected harassment, intimidation, or bullying. Such reports shall be reasonably specific including person(s) involved, number of times and places of the alleged conduct, the target of suspected harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying, and the names of any potential student or staff witnesses. Such reports may be filed with any school staff member or administrator, and they shall be promptly forwarded to the Building Director for review, investigation, and action.
Students, parents/guardians, and school personnel may make informal or anonymous complaints of conduct that they consider to be harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying by verbal report to a teacher, school administrator, or other school personnel. Such complaints shall be reasonably specific including person(s) involved, number of times and places of the alleged conduct, the target of suspected harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying, and the names of any potential student or staff witnesses. A school staff member or administrator who receives an informal or anonymous complaint shall promptly document the complaint in writing, including the information provided. This written report shall be promptly forwarded by the school staff member and/or administrator to the Building Director for review, investigation, and appropriate action.
Individuals who make informal complaints as provided above may request that their name be maintained in confidence by the school staff member(s) and administrator(s) who receive the complaint. Anonymous complaints shall be reviewed and reasonable action shall be taken to address the situation, to the extent such action may be taken that (1) does not disclose the source of the complaint, and (2) is consistent with the due process rights of the student(s) alleged to have committed acts of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying.
When an individual making an informal complaint has requested anonymity, the investigation of such complaint shall be limited as is appropriate in view of the anonymity of the complaint. Such limitation of investigation may include restricting action to a simple review of the complaint subject to receipt of further information and/or the withdrawal by the complaining student of the condition that his/her report be anonymous.
Privacy/Confidentiality
The School District will respect the privacy of the complainant, the individual(s) against whom the complaint is filed, and the witnesses as much as possible, consistent with the Board’s legal obligations to investigate, to take appropriate action, and to conform with any discovery or disclosure obligations. All records generated under this policy and its related administrative guidelines shall be maintained as confidential to the extent permitted by law.
Reporting Requirement
At least semi-annually, the Superintendent shall provide to the President of the Board a written summary of all reported incidents and post the summary on the District web site (if one exists). The list shall be limited to the number of verified acts of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying, whether in the classroom, on school property, to and from school, or at school-sponsored events.
Allegations of criminal misconduct and suspected child abuse will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency and/or to Child Protective Services in accordance with statute. District personnel shall cooperate with investigations by such agencies.
Immunity
A School District employee, student, or volunteer shall be individually immune from liability in a civil action for damages arising from reporting an incident in accordance with this policy and R.C. 3313.666 if that person reports an incident of harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying promptly, in good faith, and in compliance with the procedures specified in this policy. Such immunity from liability shall not apply to an employee, student, or volunteer determined to have made an intentionally false report about harassment, intimidation, and/or bullying.
Notification
Notice of this policy will be annually circulated to and posted in conspicuous locations in all school buildings and departments within the District and discussed with students, as well as incorporated into the teacher, student, and parent/guardian handbooks. At least once each school year a written statement describing the policy and consequences for violations of the policy shall be sent to each student’s custodial parent or guardian.
The statement may be sent with regular student report cards or may be delivered electronically.
The policy and an explanation of the seriousness of bullying by electronic means shall be made available to students in the District and to their custodial parents or guardians.
State and Federal rights posters on discrimination and harassment shall also be posted at each building. All new hires will be required to review and sign off on this policy and the related complaint procedures.
Education and Training
In support of this policy, the Board promotes preventative educational measures to create greater awareness of aggressive behavior, including bullying and violence within a dating relationship. The Superintendent or designee shall provide appropriate training to all members of the School District community related to the implementation of this policy and its accompanying administrative guidelines. All training regarding the Board’s policy and administrative guidelines about aggressive behavior and bullying in general, will be age and content appropriate.
Annually, the District shall provide all students enrolled in the District with age-appropriate instruction regarding the Board’s policy, including a written or verbal discussion of the consequences for violations of the policy to the extent that State or Federal funds are appropriated for this purpose.
Students in grades seven (7) through twelve (12) shall receive age-appropriate instruction in dating violence prevention education, including instruction in recognizing dating violence warning signs and characteristics of healthy relationships. Parents, who submit a written request to the Building Director to examine the dating violence prevention instruction materials used in the school, will be afforded an opportunity to review the materials within a reasonable period of time.
The District shall provide training, workshops, and/or courses on this policy for school employees and volunteers who have direct contact with students, to the extent that State or Federal funds are appropriated for these purposes. Time spent by school staff in these training programs shall apply toward mandated continuing education requirements.
In accordance with Board Policy 8462, the Superintendent shall include a review of this policy on bullying and other forms of harassment in the required training in the prevention of child abuse, violence, and substance abuse and the promotion of positive youth development.
The Superintendent shall develop administrative guidelines to implement this policy. Guidelines shall include reporting and investigative procedures, as needed. The complaint procedure established by the Superintendent shall be followed.
5517 – ANTI-HARASSMENT
General Policy Statement
It is the policy of the Board of Education to maintain an education and work environment that is free from all forms of unlawful harassment, including sexual harassment. This commitment applies to all School District operations, programs, and activities. All students, administrators, teachers, staff, and all other school personnel share responsibility for avoiding, discouraging, and reporting any form of unlawful harassment. This policy applies to unlawful conduct occurring on school property, or at another location if such conduct occurs during an activity sponsored by the Board.
The Board will vigorously enforce its prohibition against discriminatory harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, age (except as authorized by law), religion, ancestry, or genetic information (collectively, “Protected Classes”) that are protected by Federal civil rights laws (hereinafter referred to as unlawful harassment), and encourages those within the School District community as well as Third Parties, who feel aggrieved to seek assistance to rectify such problems. The Board will investigate all allegations of unlawful harassment and in those cases where unlawful harassment is substantiated, the Board will take immediate steps to end the harassment, prevent its reoccurrence, and remedy its effects. Individuals who are found to have engaged in unlawful harassment will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
Other Violations of the Anti-Harassment Policy
The Board will also take immediate steps to impose disciplinary action on individuals engaging in any of the following prohibited acts:
Definitions
Words used in this policy shall have those meanings defined herein; words not defined herein shall be construed according to their plain and ordinary meanings.
Complainant is the individual who alleges, or is alleged, to have been subjected to unlawful harassment, regardless of whether the person files a formal complaint or is pursuing an informal resolution to the alleged harassment.
Respondent is the individual who has been alleged to have engaged in unlawful harassment, regardless of whether the Reporting Party files a formal complaint or is seeking an informal resolution to the alleged harassment.
School District community means students and Board employees (i.e., administrators, and professional and classified staff), as well as Board members, agents, volunteers, contractors, or other persons subject to the control and supervision of the Board.
Third Parties include, but are not limited to, guests and/or visitors on School District property (e.g., visiting speakers, participants on opposing athletic teams, parents), vendors doing business with, or seeking to do business with, the Board, and other individuals who come in contact with members of the School District community at school-related events/activities (whether on or off District property).
Day(s): Unless expressly stated otherwise, the term “day” or “days” as used in this policy means a business day(s) (i.e., a day(s) that the Board office is open for normal operating hours, Monday – Friday, excluding State-recognized holidays).
Bullying
Bullying rises to the level of unlawful harassment when one (1) or more persons systematically and chronically inflict physical hurt or psychological distress on one (1) or more students or employees and that bullying is based upon one (1) or more Protected Classes, that is, characteristics that are protected by Federal civil rights laws. It is defined as any unwanted and repeated written, verbal, or physical behavior, including any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, by an adult or student, that is severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational or work environment; cause discomfort or humiliation; or unreasonably interfere with the individual’s school or work performance or participation; and may involve:
Harassment
Harassment means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of technology, or written, verbal or physical conduct directed against a student or school employee that:
Sexual Harassment
For purposes of this policy and consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “sexual harassment” is defined as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when:
Sexual harassment may involve the behavior of a person of any gender against a person of the same or another gender.
Sexual Harassment covered by Policy 2266 – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex Education Programs or Activities is not included in this policy. Allegations of such conduct shall be addressed solely by Policy 2266.
Prohibited acts that constitute sexual harassment under this policy may take a variety of forms. Examples of the kinds of conduct that may constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to:
Not all behavior with sexual connotations constitutes unlawful sexual harassment. Sex-based or gender-based conduct must be sufficiently severe, pervasive, and persistent such that it adversely affects, limits, or denies an individual’s employment or education, or such that it creates a hostile or abusive employment or educational environment, or such that it is intended to, or has the effect of, denying or limiting a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program or activities.
Race/Color Harassment
Prohibited racial harassment occurs when unwelcome physical, verbal, or nonverbal conduct is based upon an individual’s race or color and when the conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work or educational performance; of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working, and/or learning environment; or of interfering with one’s ability to participate in or benefit from a class or an educational program or activity. Such harassment may occur where conduct is directed at the characteristics of a person’s race or color, such as racial slurs, nicknames implying stereotypes, epithets, and/or negative references relative to racial customs.
Religious (Creed) Harassment
Prohibited religious harassment occurs when unwelcome physical, verbal, or nonverbal conduct is based upon an individual’s religion or creed and when the conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work or educational performance; of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working and/or learning environment; or of interfering with one’s ability to participate in or benefit from a class or an educational program or activity. Such harassment may occur where conduct is directed at the characteristics of a person’s religious tradition, clothing, or surnames, and/or involves religious slurs.
National Origin/Ancestry Harassment
Prohibited national origin/ancestry harassment occurs when unwelcome physical, verbal, or nonverbal conduct is based upon an individual’s national origin or ancestry and when the conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work or educational performance; of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working and/or learning environment; or of interfering with one’s ability to participate in or benefit from a class or an educational program or activity. Such harassment may occur where conduct is directed at the characteristics of a person’s national origin or ancestry, such as negative comments regarding customs, manner of speaking, language, surnames, or ethnic slurs.
Disability Harassment
Prohibited disability harassment occurs when unwelcome physical, verbal, or nonverbal conduct is based upon an individual’s disability and when the conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work or educational performance; of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working and/or learning environment; or of interfering with one’s ability to participate in or benefit from a class or an educational program or activity. Such harassment may occur where conduct is directed at the characteristics of a person’s disability, such as negative comments about speech patterns, movement, physical impairments or defects/appearances, or the like.
Anti-Harassment Compliance Officers
The following individual(s) shall serve as the District’s Anti-Harassment Compliance Officer(s) (hereinafter, “the Compliance Officer(s)”):
Trond Smith
Director of Administrative Services
7840 Graphics Way
Lewis Center, Ohio 43035
740-657-4050
trond_smith@olsd.us
Peter Stern
Assistant Director, Equity and Inclusion
7840 Graphics Way
Lewis Center, Ohio 43035
740-657-4050
peter_stern@olsd.us
The names, titles, and contact information of these individuals will be published annually on the School District’s website.
The Compliance Officer(s) are responsible for coordinating the District’s efforts to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including the District’s duty to address in a prompt and equitable manner any inquiries or complaints regarding harassment.
The Compliance Officer(s) will be available during regular school/work hours to discuss concerns related to unlawful harassment, to assist students, other members of the District community, and third parties who seek support or advice when informing another individual about “unwelcome” conduct, or to intercede informally on behalf of the individual in those instances where concerns have not resulted in the filing of a formal complaint and where all parties are in agreement to participate in an informal process.
Compliance Officers shall accept reports of unlawful harassment directly from any member of the School District community or a Third Party or receive reports that are initially filed with an administrator, supervisor, or other District-level official. Upon receipt of a report of alleged harassment, the Compliance Officer(s) will contact the Complainant and begin either an informal or formal complaint process (depending on the request of the Complainant or the nature of the alleged harassment), or the Compliance Officer(s) will designate a specific individual to conduct such a process. The Compliance Officer(s) will provide a copy of this policy to the Complainant and Respondent. In the case of a formal complaint, the Compliance Officer(s) will prepare recommendations for the Superintendent or will oversee the preparation of such recommendations by a designee. All Board employees must report incidents of harassment that are reported to them to the Compliance Officer within two (2) days of learning of the incident.
Any Board employee who directly observes unlawful harassment is obligated, in accordance with this policy, to report such observations to the Compliance Officer(s) within two (2) days. Additionally, any Board employee who observes an act of unlawful harassment is expected to intervene to stop the harassment, unless circumstances make such an intervention dangerous, in which case the staff member should immediately notify other Board employees and/or local law enforcement officials, as necessary, to stop the harassment. Thereafter, the Compliance Officer(s) or designee must contact the Complainant, if age eighteen (18) or older, or Complainant’s parents/guardians if the Complainant is under the age eighteen (18), within two (2) days to advise of the Board’s intent to investigate the alleged wrongdoing.
Reports and Complaints of Harassing Conduct
Students and all other members of the School District community along with Third Parties are required to report incidents of harassing conduct to a teacher, administrator, supervisor, or other District official so that the Board may address the conduct before it becomes severe, pervasive, or persistent. Any teacher, administrator, supervisor, or other District employee or official who receives such a report shall file it with the Compliance Officer within two (2) days of receiving the report of harassment.
Members of the School District community and Third Parties, which includes students, or third parties who believe they have been unlawfully harassed are entitled to utilize the Board’s complaint process that is set forth below. Initiinterfere with the rights of a student to pursue a complaint of unlawful harassment or retaliation with the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.
Informal Complaint Procedure
The goal of the informal complaint procedure is promptly to stop inappropriate behavior and to facilitate resolution through an informal means, if possible. The informal complaint procedure is provided as a less formal option for a student who believes s/he has been unlawfully harassed or retaliated against. This informal procedure is not required as a precursor to the filing of a formal complaint. The informal process is only available in those circumstances where the Complainant and the Respondent mutually agree to participate in it.
Students who believe that they have been unlawfully harassed may initiate their complaint through this informal complaint process, but are not required to do so. The informal process is only available in those circumstances where the parties (alleged target of harassment and alleged harasser(s)) agree to participate in the informal process.
The Complainant may proceed immediately to the formal complaint process and individuals who seek resolution through the informal procedure may request that the informal process be terminated at any time to move to the formal complaint process.
All complainants involving a District employee, any other adult member of the School District community, or a Third Party and a student will be formally investigated.
As an initial course of action, if a Complainant feels comfortable and safe in doing so, the individual should tell or otherwise inform the Respondent that the alleged harassing conduct is inappropriate and must stop. The Complainant should address the allegedly harassing conduct as soon after it occurs as possible. The Compliance Officers are available to support and counsel individuals when taking this initial step or to intervene on behalf of the Complainant if requested to do so. A Complainant who is uncomfortable or unwilling to directly approach the Respondent about the alleged inappropriate conduct may file an informal or a formal complaint. In addition, with regard to certain types of unlawful harassment, such as sexual harassment, the Compliance Officer may advise against the use of the informal complaint process.
A Complainant may make an informal complaint, either orally or in writing: 1) to a teacher, other employee, or building administrator in the school the student attends; 2) to the Superintendent or other District-level employee; and/or 3) directly to one (1) of the Compliance Officers.
All informal complaints must be reported to one (1) of the Compliance Officers who will either facilitate an informal resolution as described below, or appoint another individual to facilitate an informal resolution.
The Board’s informal complaint procedure is designed to provide students who believe they are being unlawfully harassed with a range of options designed to bring about a resolution of their concerns. Depending upon the nature of the complaint and the wishes of the Complainant, informal resolution may involve, but not be limited to, one (1) or more of the following:
While there are no set time limits within which an informal complaint must be resolved, the Compliance Officer/designee is directed to attempt to resolve all informal complaints within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the informal complaint. If the Complainant is dissatisfied with the informal complaint process, the Complainant may proceed to file a formal complaint. And, as stated above, either party may request that the informal process be terminated at any time to move to the formal complaint process.
Formal Complaint Procedure
If a complaint is not resolved through the informal complaint process, if one (1) of the parties has requested that the informal complaint process be terminated to move to the formal complaint process, or the Complainant, from the outset, elects to file a formal complaint, or the CO determines the allegations are not appropriate for resolution through the informal process, the formal complaint process shall be implemented.
The Complainant may file a formal complaint, either orally or in writing, with a teacher, principal, or other District employee at the student’s school, the Compliance Officer, Superintendent, or another District official who works at another school or at the district level. Due to the sensitivity surrounding complaints of unlawful harassment, timelines are flexible for initiating the complaint process; however, individuals should make every effort to file a formal complaint within thirty (30) days after the conduct occurs while the facts are known and potential witnesses are available. If a Complainant informs a teacher, principal, or other District employee at the student’s school, Superintendent, or other District official, either orally or in writing, about any complaint of harassment, that employee must report such information to the Compliance Officer within two (2) business days.
Throughout the course of the process, the Compliance Officer should keep the parties reasonably informed of the status of the investigation and the decision-making process.
All formal complaints must include the following information to the extent known: the identity of the Respondent; a detailed description of the facts upon which the complaint is based (i.e., when, where, and what occurred); a list of potential witnesses; and the resolution sought by the Complainant.
If the Complainant is unwilling or unable to provide a written statement including the information set forth above, the Compliance Officer shall ask for such details in an oral interview. Thereafter, the Compliance Officer will prepare a written summary of the oral interview, and the Complainant will be asked to verify the accuracy of the reported charge by signing the document.
Upon receiving a formal complaint, the Compliance Officer will consider whether any action should be taken in the investigatory phase to protect the Complainant from further harassment or retaliation, including, but not limited to, a change of work assignment or schedule for the Complainant and/or the Respondent. In making such a determination, the Compliance Officer should consult the Complainant to assess whether the individual agrees with the proposed action. If the Complainant is unwilling to consent to the proposed change, the Compliance Officer may still take whatever actions deemed appropriate in consultation with the Superintendent.
Within two (2) business days of receiving the complaint, the Compliance Officer/designee will initiate a formal investigation to determine whether the Complainant has been subjected to offensive conduct/harassment/retaliation. The Principal will not conduct an investigation unless directed to do so by the Compliance Officer.
Simultaneously, the Compliance Officer will inform the Respondent that a formal complaint has been received. The Respondent will be informed about the nature of the allegations and provided with a copy of any relevant policies and/or administrative guidelines, including the Board’s Anti-Harassment policy. The Respondent must also be informed of the opportunity to submit a written response to the complaint within five (5) business days.
Although certain cases may require additional time, the Compliance Officer/designee will attempt to complete an investigation into the allegations of harassment/retaliation within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the formal complaint. The investigation will include:
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Compliance Officer or the designee shall prepare and deliver a written report to the Superintendent that summarizes the evidence gathered during the investigation and provides recommendations based on the evidence and the definition of unlawful harassment as provided in Board policy and State and Federal law as to whether the Complainant has been subjected to unlawful harassment. The Compliance Officer’s recommendations must be based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the ages and maturity levels of those involved. In determining if discriminatory harassment or retaliation occurred, a preponderance of evidence standard will be used. The Compliance Officer may consult with the Board’s legal counsel before finalizing the report to the Superintendent.
Absent extenuating circumstances, within ten (10) school days of receiving the report of the Compliance Officer/designee, the Superintendent must either issue a written decision regarding whether the complaint of harassment has been substantiated or request further investigation. A copy of the Superintendent’s final decision will be delivered to both the Complainant and the Respondent.
If the Superintendent requests additional investigation, the Superintendent must specify the additional information that is to be gathered, and such additional investigation must be completed within ten (10) school days. At the conclusion of the additional investigation, the Superintendent shall issue a written decision as described above.
The decision of the Superintendent shall be final.
The Board reserves the right to investigate and resolve a complaint or report of unlawful harassment/retaliation regardless of whether the student alleging the unlawful harassment/retaliation pursues the complaint. The Board also reserves the right to have the formal complaint investigation conducted by an external person in accordance with this policy or in such other manner as deemed appropriate by the Board or its designee.
The parties may be represented, at their own cost, at any of the above-described meetings/hearings.
The right of a person to a prompt and equitable resolution of the complaint shall not be impaired by the person’s pursuit of other remedies such as the filing of a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, the filing of charges with local law enforcement, or the filing of a civil action in court. Use of this internal complaint process is not a prerequisite to the pursuit of other remedies.
Privacy/Confidentiality
The District will employ all reasonable efforts to protect the rights of the Complainant, the Respondent, and the witnesses as much as possible, consistent with the Board’s legal obligations to investigate, to take appropriate action, and to conform with any discovery or disclosure obligations. All records generated under the terms of this policy and related administrative guidelines shall be maintained as confidential to the extent permitted by law. Confidentiality, however, cannot be guaranteed. Additionally, the Respondent must be provided the Complainant’s identity.
During the course of a formal investigation, the Compliance Officer/designee will instruct all members of the School District community and third parties who are interviewed about the importance of maintaining confidentiality. Any individual who is interviewed as part of a harassment investigation is expected not to disclose any information that is learned or provided during the course of the investigation.
Sanctions and Monitoring
The Board shall vigorously enforce its prohibitions against unlawful harassment/retaliation by taking appropriate action reasonably calculated to stop the harassment and prevent further such harassment. While observing the principles of due process, a violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including the discharge of an employee or the suspension/expulsion of a student. All disciplinary action will be taken in accordance with applicable State law and the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement(s). When imposing discipline, the Superintendent shall consider the totality of the circumstances involved in the matter, including the ages and maturity levels of those involved. In those cases where unlawful harassment is not substantiated, the Board may consider whether the alleged conduct nevertheless warrants discipline in accordance with other Board policies, consistent with the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement(s).
Where the Board becomes aware that a prior remedial action has been taken against a member of the School District community, all subsequent sanctions imposed by the Board and/or Superintendent shall be reasonably calculated to end such conduct, prevent its reoccurrence, and remedy its effects.
Retaliation
Retaliation against a person who makes a report or files a complaint alleging unlawful harassment/retaliation or participates as a witness in an investigation is prohibited. Neither the Board nor any other person may intimidate, threaten, coerce or interfere with any individual because the person opposed any act or practice made unlawful by any Federal or State civil rights law, or because that individual made a report, formal complaint testified, assisted or participated or refused to participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under those laws and/or this policy, or because that individual exercised, enjoyed, aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by those laws and/or this policy.
Retaliation against a person from making a report of discrimination, filing a formal complaint, or participating in an investigation or meeting is a serious violation of this policy that can result in imposition of disciplinary sanction/consequences and/or other appropriate remedies.
Formal complaints alleging retaliation may be filed according to the internal complaint process set forth above.
The exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not constitute retaliation prohibited under this policy.
Allegations Constituting Criminal Conduct: Child Abuse/Sexual Misconduct
State law requires any school teacher or school employee who knows or suspects that a child with a disability under the age of twenty-one (21) or that a child under the age of eighteen (18) has suffered or faces a threat of suffering a physical or mental wound, disability or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of a child to immediately report that knowledge or suspicion to the county children’s services agency. If, during the course of a harassment investigation, the Compliance Officer or a designee has reason to believe or suspect that the alleged conduct reasonably indicates abuse or neglect of the Complainant, a report of such knowledge must be made in accordance with State law and Board Policy.
State law defines certain contact between a teacher and a student as “sexual battery.” If the Compliance Officer or a designee has reason to believe that the Complainant has been the victim of criminal conduct as defined in Ohio’s Criminal Code, such knowledge should be immediately reported to local law enforcement.
Any reports made to a county children’s services agency or to local law enforcement shall not terminate the Compliance Officer or a designee’s obligation and responsibility to continue to investigate a complaint of harassment. While the Compliance Officer or a designee may work cooperatively with outside agencies to conduct concurrent investigations, in no event shall the harassment investigation be inhibited by the involvement of outside agencies without good cause after consultation with the Superintendent.
Allegations Involving Conduct Unbecoming the Teaching Profession/Suspension
The Superintendent will report to the Ohio Department of Education, on forms provided for that purpose, matters of misconduct on the part of licensed professional staff members convicted of sexual battery, and will, in accordance with Policy 8141, suspend such employee from all duties that concern or involve the care, custody, or control of a child during the pendency of any criminal action for which that person has been arrested, summoned and/or indicted in that regard.
Education and Training
In support of this Anti-Harassment Policy, the Board promotes preventative educational measures to create greater awareness of unlawful discriminatory practices. The Superintendent shall provide appropriate information to all members of the School District community related to the implementation of this policy and shall provide training for District students and staff where appropriate. All training, as well as all information, provided regarding the Board’s policy and harassment in general, will be age and content appropriate.
Retention of Investigatory Records and Materials
The Compliance Officer(s) is responsible for overseeing retention of all records that must be maintained pursuant to this policy. All individuals charged with conducting investigations under this policy shall retain all documents, electronically stored information (“ESI”), and electronic media (as defined in Policy 8315) created and/or received as part of an investigation, which may include but not be limited to:
The documents, ESI, and electronic media (as defined in Policy 8315) retained may include public records and records exempt from disclosure under Federal (e.g., FERPA, ADA) and/or State law (e.g., R.C. 3319.321) – e.g., student records and confidential medical records.
The documents, ESI, and electronic media (as defined in Policy 8315) created or received as part of an investigation shall be retained in accordance with Policy 8310, Policy 8315, Policy 8320, and Policy 8330 for not less than three (3) years, but longer if required by the District’s records retention schedule.
5500 – STUDENT CONDUCT
Respect for law and for those persons in authority shall be expected of all students. This includes conformity to school rules as well as general provisions of law affecting students. Respect for the rights of others, consideration of their privileges, and cooperative citizenship shall also be expected of all members of the school community. The Board of Education has zero tolerance of violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior by its students.
Respect for real and personal property; pride in one’s work; achievement within the range of one’s ability; and exemplary personal standards of courtesy, decency, and honesty shall be maintained in the schools of this District.
Students may be subject to discipline for violation of the Code of Conduct/Student Discipline Code even if that conduct occurs on property not owned or controlled by the Board but that is connected to activities or incidents that have occurred on property owned or controlled by the Board, or conduct that, regardless of where it occurs, is directed at a Board official or employee, or the property of such official or employee.
Student conduct shall be governed by the rules and provisions of the Student Code of Conduct/Student Discipline Code. This Code of Conduct/Student Discipline Code shall be reviewed annually.
The post Speaking of “Misgendering”: Suing Over Policy That Punishes Students appeared first on Granite Grok.
A local New Hampshire logger based in Webster, New Hampshire, had some of their logging equipment set on fire. The arsonist(s) is as yet unknown, but there is a 64,500 dollar reward for information leading to their arrest and conviction.
$64,500 REWARD to anyone bringing information directly leading to the conviction of the arsonist responsible for burning our logging equipment late Friday night (5/5) in Salisbury, NH.
Additional reward money has been donated by Gary Rondeau, Old Yankee Tree Service, Adam Mock, A to Z Transmission, Higginson Land Services, Montcalm Golf Club, J. P. Monley Enterprises, J. A. Roy Logging, Mike Corliss Logging, Dick Fisher, Boudette Construction, McComish Excavating, Dickerson Logging, Robert’s Greenhouse, Jim Lily Excavation, Michael Sharpe Enterprises, Dale Matthews, Steve Patten, Ron Derby, SKR Construction, D.H. Hardwick & Sons, Clarke & Co. Earthwork, Raymond’s Landscaping, Greg Hurley Land Clearing, Dick Schoch & Son Plumbing and Heating, Cersosimo Lumber, Wes Rose Contract Cutting, Drown Farm, Henniker Crushed Stone, Steve Johnston Land Clearing, Tim VanNostrand, Al Jordan Land Clearing, Brian Cressy, Wunder X, Cohen Steel, Mike Conway, The Davis Agency, Timber Root Log Yard, Patten’s Commercial Driver Training, The Barn Store of NE, Knoxland Equipment, George Cummings, Trail Side Sugar House, and anonymous donors
Private message this account with any information. We thank you all for your support!
The motive remains a mystery, but this is an opinion blog, so we feel comfortable suggesting this might be eco-terrorism.
Responsible logging is a big deal in New Hampshire and has been since most of the forests have grown back over the past 100+ years. The state is over 80% forested, with 73% of that total privately owned, and is the second most-forested state in the nation as a percentage of land area (Maine is number one).
That’s impressive when you consider that not that long ago, the state had been effectively clear-cut and, since recovery, has maintained 80-85% coverage.
If this is not some random act of vandalism, then it is the action of an individual or individuals who have no clue how well-managed New Hampshire’s forests are and the part professional loggers play in keeping it that way.
If you have information, please contact Chuck Rose Logging as directed on the Facebook Page.
The post Local Logger’s Equipment Destroyed by Arson – Was it Eco Terrorism? appeared first on Granite Grok.
The House will meet on May 18th to vote on the bills below. We are looking for volunteers to hand out fliers with our recommendations to the Reps as they enter for session on the morning on the 18th. Please respond if you are interested.
Please Submit Group communications or Press Releases to editor@granitegrok.com.
Submission is not a guarantee of publication – Publication is not an endorsement.
SB272, establishing a parents’ bill of rights in education. SUPPORT OTP. OPPOSE All Floor Amendments. OPPOSE OTPA if any floor amendment passes.
There is at least one floor amendment proposed that will render this bill completely meaningless. Tell your representatives to oppose this amendment and pass the bill as sent over from the Senate. If a floor amendment passes, tell them to oppose the bill. We do not want them to pass a useless bill and taking credit for a bill that does nothing.
House Health and Human Services and Elderly AffairsSB263, extending the New Hampshire granite advantage health care program and re-establishing the commission to evaluate the effectiveness and future of the New Hampshire granite advantage health care program.
OPPOSE OTP, SUPPORT ITL
This bill would make expanded Medicaid (ie Obamacare) permanent in NH. It comes to the floor without a recommendation. The first motion is Ought to Pass (OTP), and we are asking the representatives oppose this and support a motion of Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). There will be numerous floor amendments offered to correct the problems in the bill.
Pulled off of the Consent CalendarSB58, relative to arrests without a warrant while in the care of a medical professional on the premises of a residential care or health care facility.
OPPOSE OPTA
This bill needs to die. This bill lowers the threshold needed for warrantless arrest in medical facilities. As amended by the House, this bill is so vague that a person could be arrested for simply not consenting to medical treatment. This will lead to medical kidnappings and other potential abuses of power.
Please email your reps with these voting recommendations.
Find your reps here.
Foster Family Bill Success!
HB408, relative to foster children and vaccinations, has been voted ought to pass with amendment as we wished and placed on the consent calendar in the senate. This likely means the bill is headed to the Governor’s desk very soon. Thanks to all of you who reached out and urged the legislators to pass this important piece of legislation.
The post Critical Bills Reach the House Floor Take Action Today appeared first on Granite Grok.
First off, the ‘Grok gets nothing for this “advertisement kinda sideways,” but I am going to be ordering some because I think this is a clever tactic in the Culture War that has been thrust upon us. And if forced to, I’d have Wokesters using “My Worst Nightmare” & “My Highest Excellency” (or something else like to have them say, “I suck”).
David Richardson, a Professor of History at Madera Community College (of course in California!), was already in trouble for using “Do, Re, Mi” for his mandatory “preferred pronouns” (he got punished for that, and now he’s suing them) so I give him big props for doubling down and not saying a word.
Look at the image above again and then read this ( Reformatted and emphasis mine):
The composition of the chocolate wasn’t the problem for Madera Community College, David Richardson told Just the News. It was the gender pronouns on the wrappers: “He/Him” for chocolate bars with nuts and “She/Her” for the “nutless” version, reflecting the human sexual binary.
But shouldn’t this Community College ALSO get a ding for this
He shared the human resources letter delivered “by a uniformed police officer” Monday evening at his home.
The State Center Community College District informed the 33-year veteran he was on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into unspecified allegations of creating a “hostile work environment” and harassing and discriminating against colleagues “based on gender.” In the meantime, Richardson is banned from “non-public” areas of the district and his Madera email and prohibited from “any action which could be construed as retaliation against anyone,” the letter says.
Really? By sworn (assuming) law enforcement? Handing out candy is that high a level of offense, even if it IS California (the Land of Nuts and Nutless Fruits)? This shows how stupid this whole Wokeness schtick is – and how horribly wearying it has become. It is proving, once again, that the Leftist Wokesters have no sense of humor and no ability to take a joke.
How small of them for “shunning academic freedom” as well as violating his Freedom of Speech that Wokesters demand.
I’m still chuckling over “Do, Re, Me” – the back story:
The self-described gay conservative was already suing SCCCD for sanctions following a previous investigation into his behavior during a mandatory October 2021 “pronoun etiquette” seminar led by transgender chemistry professor Jamie MacArthur.
It’s not clear when MacArthur started identifying as a woman, or how widely the new identity was shared. Public materials discovered by Just the News show both the district and MacArthur’s students identified the professor as a man through this spring, more than a year after the disputed seminar. Faculty were well aware of the transition because MacArthur became “very zealous in correcting what might be seen as honest errors,” Richardson said.
Translation: a chip on his shoulder. But it’s clear that Richardson has got chutzpah in spades:
The new investigation was apparently prompted by Richardson’s behavior at the April 29 Madera open house for its academic programs. He had bought a case of Jeremy’s Chocolate when the conservative Daily Wire launched the chocolate brand — named after CEO Jeremy Boreing — two months ago to protest Hershey’s naming “a biological male” as its spokesperson for International Women’s Day.
“I wasn’t sure what I was going to do with” the remainder of the case, so the chocolate aficionado added the bars to the “goodies” he has always handed out while manning the history table. A staff member “started taking pictures” of the bars and “kept trying to bait me,” but nothing happened until the letter Monday.
And back to that “chip on his shoulder” and bring in that old saying “within every Progressive, there’s a Totalitarian yearning to spring out” that demands everyone must kowtow to them. I guess that being Transgender ranks higher than plain Gay on the Woke Totem pole. Oh, sorry – Richardson isn’t on that pole as “Conservative” is a disqualifying modifier. Of course, we know whose side the Administration is going to take, and take they certainly did – the whole enchilada.
According to the rest of the post, MacArthur took great exception to the “Do, Re, Me” sarcasm by Richardson when the latter signed into the former’s “pronoun etiquette” class. Then MacArthur decided to harness HR (what HR department DOESN’T hate Conservatives nowadays?) to get involved and IT told Richardson he’d better fly right when it comes to pronouns. He also got the usual re-education (like in Communist countries) of 6 hours AND (like Mao’s Red Guards used to demand), write himself up and submit his abject bowing to Wokeness. Yeah, that didn’t go over well – a man after my behavior.
This is nothing less than intimidation and the establishment of a secular religion based on sexuality by The State. The College is acting like they get to put in their own Speech Code (they are in California, right?) and that anyone accused MUST be judged guilty without due process.
Hot Air adds this:
The Daily Wire started selling the chocolate as a fun tease of Hershey’s, which used a transgender “woman” to celebrate International Woman’s Day by introducing Her She’s chocolate bars. The Daily Wire immediately shot back at the absurdity by releasing “Jeremy’s Chocolate,” with two flavors: SheHer bars, and HeHim bars, which have nuts. It is these chocolate bars that apparently can get you punished. At least in academia, and probably throughout corporate America.
Which of course makes The Daily Wire’s point.
I haven’t been getting out to events much lately but if I do this, I shall:
A college professor got suspended for handing out my delicious chocolate, so I’m making sure everyone can hand it out!
Pre-order your Jeremy’s Chocolate in our new micro-aggression size, and give it to every kid you know this Halloween.https://t.co/Ao0tFvGy82 pic.twitter.com/FSI8joXav6
— Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) May 12, 2023
Not cheap – 22 bars in a 9oz bag for $20. But the looks?
Perhaps Priceless!
(H/T: Just The News, Hot Air, Daily Wire)
The post Who Knew: Gay Professor Passing Out Chocolate To College Students is a Major Aggression? appeared first on Granite Grok.