written (or copy and pasted) solely by Stanley H. Wotring, Jr. I am not a representative of the LSC (BUT I WANT TO BE!}
nor are they responsible for the content. My email address is ***Lynn.School.Watch@gmail.com***.
TIME TO GET SERIOUS!
Here is a copy of a letter that was or was not sent to the ITEM (I can't tell) but was PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE so it was said. I am reprinting it here because I think it is an intelligent and reasonable expression of the issues at hand.
Dear Editors at the Daily Item,
Here are two compelling reasons for the school committee to continue LPS' relationship with Gordon College.
As a proud parent of three LPS students, I value the diversity - including religious - in the Lynn schools. I've known Guatemalan Pentecostals, Arabic traditional Muslims, and Africans of both of these persuasions as well as traditional Roman Catholic. I am saddened to think that the school committee would demonstrate via this vote that some future cooperation with a conservative mosque on English classes or with a Catholic non-profit on a service drive is not appropriate either. The opposite should be true in a pluralist society.
Second, in my role as a faculty member at Gordon, I have placed many students in tutoring and mentoring positions in Lynn in the high-need field of mathematics, with very positive feedback as to their professionalism. I have seen many students' attitudes and ideas changed dramatically with exposure to the rich diversity of this urban community. I would be very surprised if these changes did not include the issue of same-sex relationships.
Anyone serious about both pluralism and opening minds should instead support making very clear to *any* outside group the expectations of professionalism required, rather than telling a large number of Lynn residents that their religious traditions are no longer welcome, which would be the (perhaps unintended) effect of the proposed change.
I just received this old opinion piece originally published in the Boston Globe that applies to the many complicated matters at hand in the Gordon College controversy. Basically I read it to be a long-winded version of my favorite philosopher, the late Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?".
Respectfully resolving tensions between religion, law is possible
AFP/GETTY IMAGES
A protester shouted slogans against same-sex marriages outside the US Supreme Court on April 28.
By Martha Minow and Michael McConnell
LATELY, THERE has been a disturbing turn toward ill will and demonization when discussing tensions between religion and law in the United States. Many avidly watch who will “win” and who will “lose” in high-stakes conflicts over the place of religious views and practices in health care, marriage, commercial contracts, and public life. But the biggest losers are the entire nation if we descend into intolerance. We would abandon the remarkable American promise to welcome people of all religions and give up our model for the world on how to be both religiously vibrant and mutually respectful. Today’s struggles on behalf of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people mirror protracted struggles by Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, and other religious groups toSECURE freedom and tolerance in schools, workplaces, and daily life, including marriage. All these issues are deeply felt, constitutive of identity, and difficult to change.
Until recently, there was a broad consensus that religious and other serious conscientious dissenters from legal and cultural norms should be accommodated when practical to do so. George Washington wrote of Quakers who refused to serve in the Revolutionary Army: “It is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard for thePROTECTION and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” Recently, we have begun to see partisans of various causes treat accommodation as unacceptable in principle and people requesting religious accommodation as outside the realm of conceivable views.
In jeopardy is no less than the admirable American promise of respect for dissent — including vigorousPROTECTION for freedom of expression even when that expression can be offensive or troubling; the distinctive American tradition seeking accommodation for free exercise of religion; and the recognition that a free society benefits from disagreement. These traditions have contributed to robust debate and remarkable diversity of religious and political views. The key to this American promise — its secret sauce — is our ability to agree to disagree, even about matters of profound importance, both by accepting legal resolutions of intense disagreements and by preserving avenues for ongoing dissent. By accommodating dissent, it often will be easier to bring about support for social change if dissenters know they will continue to able to live their own lives in accordance with older norms.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides this term in the same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges, new difficulties will arise. Especially challenging will be to find the line between assured protection for one’s own religious freedom and equality on the one hand and interference with the religious freedom and equality of others. There are in fact many potential lines: what is punished or penalized, what is subsidized by tax exemptions, and what latitude is permitted to individuals or religious institutions but perhaps not to other institutions. In the oral argument before the Court in Obergefell, Solicitor General Verrilli told the justices “it certainly would be a question” whether religious institutions likeCOLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES would retain tax exempt status if they “oppose same-sex marriage.” Tough questions lie ahead.
As we address them as Americans, we need a minimum level of civility for our process to work. People who disagree over particular issues should be able to agree that we need more, not less, mutual respect and more, not less, consideration of accommodations for those on the losing side of debate.
We hope that better natures will prevail. Issues about marriage and procreation, life, death, and family are intensely personal for millions of Americans. We must not deprive dissenters of basic civil privileges or brand dissenters as pariahs.
Otherwise, we all lose.
Martha Minow is dean of Harvard Law School. Michael McConnell is director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center.
Earlier in the week I received a written notice in the nail from MR. TOMTERRIFIC that the meeting for the PUBLIC HEARING about severing ties with GORDON COLLEGE had been moved to JUNE 25th. As you know by being one of the TEN initial petition signatories the charter mandates that I be given such notifications.
Imagine my surprise when I WATCH the recording of yesterday's LSC meeting and they just officially voted to move the meeting to match up with the date printed on my letter. Wait, do you see my shocked face staring at the computer screen? That must be some kind of violation. When didROBERT'S RULES go RETRO?
A public hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, June 25 at 6:00 PM, concerning the Lynn School Committee's previous vote on August 28, 2014 to sever ties withGordon College. This hearing will take place in the Lynn Public Schools Administration Building at 100 Bennett Street.
Please note that the date of the public hearing has been revised from an earlier notice.
Here I got all excited I got this fancy letter in the mail notifying me of the PUBLIC HEARING about GORDON COLLEGE. It was all official-like from UNCLE TOM, a PRIVILEGE EARNED BY VIRTUE OF BEING ONE OF THE FIRST TEN signatures of the petition.
I started getting all excited, thinking about picking out a TUXEDO, a real BLACK TIE affair. Yeah I started penciling my calender, yeah JUNE 11 was all clear. Then I get this text that the HEARING has been moved to JUNE 25 because PRESIDENT MICHAEL LINDSAY of GORDON COLLEGE was going to be out of the country and he wants to be there.
I found out this morning at the COOK STREET GARDEN planting that the ITEM ran my letter on the upcoming PUBLIC HEARING on GORDON COLLEGE. Well good for them and THANK YOU to them. Honestly I wasn't sure they'd run it because well I have been just a teeny bit harsh in my judgement of them. Well it's all good - FOR NOW.
Well here it is if you missed it!
A Public Hearing will come to pass on the wisdom of severing
ties between Lynn Public Schools and Gordon College despite the best, failed
efforts of committee member Gallo to prevent the expression of opinions on both
sides of the issue.
At the time of the ill conceived vote in question not only
was there not any evidence of discrimination but only the asking for an
exemption from an executive action. Later the exemption was granted making said
discrimination legal if it in fact did occur going forward.
While I personally find discrimination of any kind
abhorring, I find it more offensive to impose such unwarranted restrictions on
any group. It is especially hypocritical in what is arguably the birthplace of
religious liberty.
As recent incidents in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other places
around the country have given testimony to “Forced compliance to laws of racial
discrimination has done little to extinguish racism”.
It is not the government’s job to confuse moral and legal
arguments for the sake of political pandering. As I think as has been said
before, “Only when all rights are protected can any of us have rights, even the
right to be wrong”.
WE MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM.You see the CITY CHARTER says that a PUBLIC HEARING that is initiated by a PETITION DRIVE is thereby mandated to occur THREE MONTHS after the signatures are certified.
From: "Mary Audley" <maudley@lynnma.gov> Date: Mar 20, 2015 12:51 PM Subject: Re: Signatures for Petition to School Committee To: "Lori D'Amico" <loridamico74@gmail.com> Cc:
Lori,
The certified signatures were sent over to Tom Iarrobino the day after submitted. There were sufficient signatures certified.
Mary A
> On Mar 20, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Lori D'Amico <loridamico74@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good Morning Mary, > > I am contacting you to find out if you have received the remaining 14 certified signatures needed for the petition to the school committee to rescind their vote regarding Gordon College. If we are still in need or more signatures, please let me know. > > Thank You > > Lori D'Amico
Now VERBALLY it was told to LORI that the signatures were certified on 2/28. Now 1 month would be 3/28, 2 months would be 4/ 28, and 3 months would be 5/28! I know there is a trail of e mails out there that can substantiate something.
Don't worry though the secret is SAFE with me and I don't know anybody that has a mind to complain.
freedom and tolerance in schools, workplaces, and daily life, including marriage. All these issues are deeply felt, constitutive of identity, and difficult to change.