the lawsuit filed would appear to indicate that the facts are other than described by Kevin M-
looks like he combined two families and two kids. For the record I agree with the parkers and wirthlins that they should be allowed to opt out and parents should be informed prior to such presentations being made but I am skeptical of writers who combine facts with poetic license:
The Parkers asserted that the School's position was contrary to their religious views and
parental rights to raise their children in accordance with their personal beliefs. They
requested a meeting to discuss the matter in person with Principal Jay. Ms. Jay invited
the Parkers to a meeting with herself and Andre Ravenelle, the Director of Education, to
take place on April 27,2005 at 3:00 p.m. at Estabrook Elementary School. At the
meeting, the Parkers met with both Ms. Jay and Mr. Ravenelle. The meeting focused on
the Parkers' interim need to have a plan in place for the remainder of the school year. A
handwritten agreement was drafted and faxed to the Superintendent's Office. Ms. Parker
left the meeting, while Mr. Parker remained. At some point, Mr. Parker was informed
that the School would not agree to any temporary plan, and the meeting was terminated.
Mr. Parker, frustrated by the turn of events, refused to leave the school and was arrested
for trespassing by the Lexington Police Department.
39.
Subsequently, the defendant Superintendent Hurley issued a no-trespassing order against
Mr. Parker, banning him from all school property. (In November 2005, the no-trespass
order was dismissed by the new Superintendent, the defendant Dr. Ash.)
40.
Following the arrest of Mr. Parker, Mr. Hurley, along with the Lexington Chief of Police
Christopher Casey, released a statement to the press and community that was sent home
with all Lexington Public School children in their book bags. It reads in full:
At the request of Mr. and Mrs. Parker, a school principal and the Director of
Curriculum and Instruction for the Lexington Public Schools ("Administrators")
met with the Parkers on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, starting at approximately
3:00 p.m. The Administrators agreed to meet with the Parkers to consider their
several requests, which appeared related to a picture book entitled "Who's in a
Family?" The book was among several included in a "diversity book bag" that
children in the Lexington Public Schools are permitted to take home for parents to
read with their child if they wish. The book is designed for young children and
includes illustrations of children accompanied by various parent figures, including
two individuals of different genders, two individuals of the same gender,
grandparents, bi-racial couples, as well as a one-parent family.
In particular, the Parkers requested the Administrators to ensure that in the future,
teachers automatically excuse or remove the Parkers' child even when discussions
about such issues arise, even if spontaneously. In response, the Administrators
described Lexington Public Schools' policy, adopted under state law (Chapter 71,
Section 32A), allowing students to opt out of curriculum that "primarily involves
human sexual education or human sexuality issues." The Administrators
explained that granting the Parkers' request was not required by the Policy or
statutory language. In addition, they explained that implementation of the
Parkers' request was simply not practical, since children could even discuss such
matters among themselves at school.
The Administrators informed the Parkers that they could appeal the response both
within the school department and, if necessary, to the Commissioner of Education.
However, Mr. Parker replied, "Other people have tried that and it did not work."
The Parkers stated that they would not leave the school until their demands were
met.
With the hours passing and the Parkers refusing to leave the school building, the
Lexington Police were notified. While Mrs. Parker chose to leave before police
arrival, Mr. Parker did not. Two plain-clothed detectives arrived at 5:20 p.m.,
followed by a Police Lieutenant at 6:00 p.m. All attempted to coax Mr. Parker to
leave voluntarily. However, Mr. Parker made it clear that he would not leave
unless his demands were met and that he knew he was engaging in "civil
disobedience" and was willing to accept the consequences. Mr. Parker declared,
"If I'm not under arrest then I'm not leaving." Mr. Parker also used his cell phone .
to make a number of phone calls, and a small group of people began arriving with
cameras.
Finally, when it became necessary for the administrative staff to leave and secure
the building, the police arrested Mr. Parker at 6:24 p.m. The group with the video
camera was waiting behind the police station and photographed Mr. Parker's
arrival. Mr. Parker was processed at the police station, afforded all his rights, and
after using the telephone, chose not to be bailed. He was held overnight at the
Lexington Police Station and in the morning was transported to the Concord
District Court for arraignment.
41.
The defendant Scott Burson, an elected member of the Lexington School Committee, also
commented publicly at the May 27,2005 School Committee meeting that he was
"particularly distressed at trying to turn our children into cannon fodder in the culture
wars. They deserve better." While he did not specifically mention the Parker family, on
information and belief, the comments were directed toward the Parkers and others.
42.
During the current 2005 -2006 school year, the Parkers' oldest son Jacob is in the first
grade at the Estabrook Elementary School. In September 2006, the second of the Parkers'
children, Josh, is expected to begin kindergarten at Estabrook Elementary School. On
December 2,2005, the Parkers again notified the Superintendent's Office of their request
via a Parental Right Assertion. They requested:
to be notified when there are plans to discusslpresent homosexuality,
transgenderism, or gay relationshipslmarriage in our son's presence. When
"spontaneous" adult discussion arises with the intent to affirm, validate, celebrate,
and/or normalize homosexuality, transgenderism, or gay relationshipslmarriage -
we request that our child be removed from this discussion. We request to also be
notified in advance of any other planned human sexual education and human
sexuality issues such as abortion, birth-control, pre-marital sex, or surveys. We
also request to view any materials within the school pertaining to the
aforementioned topics within the reach of our child.
43.
On or about September 22,2005, the defendant Superintendent Ash issued a statement
that (on information and belief) was generated in part by the controversy surrounding the
plaintiffs' reasonable and constitutional requests. The statement reads, in its entirety:
What does the law say schools have to do?
By Paul Ash
Superintendent of Schools, Lexington, MA
Published in the Lexington Minuteman
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Over the summer, I have received a number of questions about implementation of
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 32A ("Section 32A"). These questions
relate to the following provision:
Every city, town, regional school district or vocational school district
implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human
sexual education or human sexual issues shall adopt a policy ensuring
parentallguardian notification. Such policy shall afford parents or guardians
the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion of said curriculum
through written notification to the school principal.
In Lexington, curriculum identified by the statute generally begins at the fifth-
grade level. LPS [Lexington Public Schools] has, of course, adopted a policy
implementing Section 32A, and school staff routinely provide parents with notice
and the flexibility to "opt out" of this curriculum.
Recently, questions have been raised as to whether school staff also has an
obligation to notify parents and allow "opt out" of other school-based activities,
particularly in the elementary grades. For example, some parents have requested
they be notified whenever their child has access to any material, conversation, or
activity that acknowledges differences in sexual orientation, including any
reference to families with same-gender parents.
Since elementary curriculum often elicits discussion of family experiences, such
references certainly may occur. In addition, our schools routinely provide
students with access to materials, activities, and discussions that recognize
diversity. This access is designed to assist us in our goal of maintaining an
appropriate and respectful educational environment for all students. As required
by law and LPS policy, this environment must be free of discrimination based on
race, gender, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin and disability.
The Massachusetts Department of Education, which is responsible for
administering Section 32A, has explained that activities and materials designed to
promote tolerance and respect for individuals, including recognition of differences
in sexual orientation "without further instruction on the physical and sexual
implications" do not trigger the notice and opt out provisions of Section 32A.
Under this standard, staff has no obligation to notify parents of discussions,
activities, or materials that simply reference same-gender parents or that otherwise
recognize the existence of differences in sexual orientation. Accordingly, I expect
teachers to continue to allow children access to such activities and materials to the
extent appropriate to children's ages, to district goals of respecting diversity, and
to the curriculum. As this new school year begins, I look forward to working with
the Lexington community to provide a positive educational environment for all
students.
44.
This release is inaccurate and intentionally crafted to demean the Parkers' legitimate and
constitutional concerns. Specific problems are identified below:
A.
The language of the statute is quoted incorrectly. The actual language refers to
"human sexuality issues" not "human sexual issues."
B.
The phrase "In Lexington, curriculum identified by the statute begins in fifth
grade . . ." is self-serving and misleading. The statute does not identify any
specific curriculum. It refers to topics within the constitutionally established zone
of familial privacy.
C.
The phrase "some parents have requested they be notified whenever their child
has access to any material, conversation, or activity that acknowledges differences
in sexual orientation, including any reference to families with same-gender
parents," is clearly intended to refer to the plaintiffs and other like-minded Judeo-
Christians. It belittles their constitutional concerns by suggesting that the
plaintiffs wish to interfere or control playground banter, when, in fact, at all
pertinent times the plaintiffs explicitly expressed concern only with adult-initiated
indoctrination.
45.
In December 2005, the defendant Superintendent Ash formally rejected the Parkers'
request for notification.
46.
These actions caused the plaintiffs severe emotional distress.
47.
Young children of the ages of the two Parker children are far more susceptible to
indoctrination and persuasion than are children even a few years older.
48.
At all pertinent times, the actions of the defendants jointly and severally constituted "state
action" as that term is defined in the various counts below.
49.
There exists a true and justiciable conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
which conflict is certain to continue such that declaratory relief may be granted.
THE WIRTHLINS
50.
At all pertinent times, Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, the adult plaintiffs, were married to
one another. The adult plaintiffs are the natural parents of the plaintiff Joseph Robert
Wirthlin, Jr., "Joey," who was born on September 13, 1998.
51.
At all pertinent times, the minor plaintiff Joey was enrolled in the second grade at the
aforesaid Estabrook Elementary School.
52.
Each week, the teacher chooses books to place on a particular bookshelf in the classroom.
The children are supposed to read the books and determine the unifying theme of the
books. The theme of the week ending March 24,2006 was "weddings."
53.
On or about Friday, March 24,2006, the teacher in Joey's class, defendant Heather
Kramer, read out loud to .the students from a book entitled King and King, which she had
selected from the library. This book describes a romantic attraction between two men.
The protagonist is a male prince who is told by his mother that he needs to find a wife.
He rejects several females for superficial reasons such as the fact that one princess is
"black" and has arms that are too long. One princess is too fat, and one has glasses and
crooked teeth. He then discovers he is homosexual, falls in love and lives happily ever
after with another homosexual male. The two males are graphically depicted as kissing at
the end of the book.
54.
Like the Parkers, the Wirthlin plaintiffs are devout Judeo-Christians. Included in their
core Judeo-Christian beliefs is the concept that issues pertaining to sexual intimacy,
procreation, human sexuality, and the holy basis of matrimony should remain private
within families, be introduced by parents, and governed by the laws of the God of
Abraham. Also included is the concept that homosexual behavior is immoral in that it
violates God's law.
55.
This theme of romantic physical contact between two men is not one that the Wirthlins
wish to have celebrated and affirmed to their young, seven-year-old son, because it is in
contravention of their sincerely and deeply-held faith.
56.
On information and belief, the defendant Ms. Kramer knew or should have known that
reading King and King would be in direct contravention of the deeply-held faith of the
Wirthlins and possibly others. On information and belief, Ms. Kramer selected King and
King; to read to the students for the express purpose of indoctrinating them into the
concept that homosexuality and marriage between same-sex partners is moral. In so
doing, she consciously intended to intrude upon the Wirthlins' right to direct the moral
upbringing of their own children.
57.
The evening of the reading, Joey returned home and was agitated. He told his parents
about the book, which he described as "so silly."
58.
The Wirthlins then sent an email to Ms. Kramer, and requested clarification. Ms. Kramer
telephoned them on Monday, March 27, 2006, confirming the book had been read, and
told them the name of the book.
59.
On March 30, 2006, the Wirthlins attended a previously scheduled parent-teacher
conference with Ms. Krarner. The book was not discussed.
60.
Later that same day, the Wirthlins emailed Ms. Kramer specifically to arrange a meeting
to discuss the book. A meeting for the next day was arranged.
61.
On March 3 1, 2006, Ms. Kramer called in the morning and asked to postpone the meeting
and to choose a different time to meet. Additional emails were exchanged and a new
meeting was set for April 6,2006. She also asked what the topic of the meeting would
be. The Wirthlins indicated they had additional concerns and wanted to discuss the book
that was read.
62.
On or about April 5, 2006, the Wirthlins received a telephone call from the defendant
Principal Jay. Ms. Jay asked them who they were bringing, besides themselves, to the
scheduled meeting, and informed the Wirthlins that she intended to be present. She also
inquired as to the intended outcome.
63.
On April 6,2006, the meeting took place. Principal Jay presented the plaintiffs with the
letter Dr. Ash had previously written. (See paragraph 43, supra.) She took the position
that allowing second-graders to view the book King and King was consistent with Dr.
Ash's statement. Ms. Jay was cordial but unwilling to bend at all on the issue of notice.
Essentially, she reiterated Dr. Ash's statement and indicated that it was the only policy
that would be considered.
64.
On or about April 1 1, 2006, the Wirthlins received an email from the defendant Principal
Jay stating that their concerns were at a "district-wide level" and that she would not be
able to answer them.
65.
At the meeting on April 6, 2006, the Wirthlins repeatedly requested that they be informed
before the adult defendants intentionally presented themes of homosexuality to their
children. The defendants have indicated that they will not do so; to the precise contrary,
the defendants intend to persist in presenting themes of romantic homosexual activity to
second-graders. |
