Once Again - Letter to the Mount Vernon News

The following “letter to the editor” was submitted to the Mount Vernon News on July 30, 2009 in response to an editorial published by the News on July 28.

Editor, the News:

Once again, the Mount Vernon News editorial writers have focused on what they perceive as the time-wasting thoroughness of John Freshwater’s attorney. The July 28 “Our opinion” described Freshwater’s attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, as using “trivial entries” in Ohio law to buy more time while he appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the subpoenas of school board members.

Why is the News more concerned about finding fault with Hamilton’s methods of representing his client than with the ways the school board and administration failed to protect Freshwater’s rights? Does the News consider the due process portion of the U.S. Constitution to be trivial?

A better use of the editorial writers’ time would be looking into the process the school used to investigate Freshwater. Was the decision of the school board to suspend Freshwater without pay valid if they didn’t follow the investigative process in the Master Contract?

The contract states that all witnesses identified by the teacher will be interviewed, written statements will be obtained from the witnesses if possible and the teacher will be given the opportunity to give a comprehensive written response to the complaint being made against him.

David Millstone, attorney for the school board, made the recommendation to the school that they use H.R. On Call to do the investigation. Considering that Millstone had worked with HROC on prior occasions, he would have been familiar with their investigative methods. Does any of the fault for the current mess the school is in rest on Millstone?

The News credited Hamilton with pulling a “magic trick” in delaying the hearing while he seeks to have several board members testify. It would seem that Millstone has pulled a magic trick of his own—in the eyes of the News’ editorial team he can do no wrong.

—Sam Stickle

***

(Click here to read previous letter to the editor.)

Author of Second Helpings Responds to Book Controversy

Books such as Second Helpings provide an opportunity for parents to discuss the challenges of adolescence with their teens, according to author Megan McCafferty.

McCafferty’s novel was brought up during the last Mount Vernon, Ohio, City School Board meeting. Jeff Cline spoke about the book briefly and gave the board a list of words he said were in the book and that he deemed to be inappropriate. (See article about the last board meeting.)

Although McCafferty stated banning a book was probably not the best way to deal with a controversial book, she did agree that parents should be involved in the reading choices their teens make. McCafferty said the first step should be for the parent to read the book. “If a parent finds the content problematic then it is by all means his/her right to discourage his/her child from reading it,” McCafferty said.

Author Megan McCafferty posted a “Tweet” on her website about Jeff Cline’s comments concerning her book.

The following is the complete text of McCafferty’s response to an email query from AccountabilityInTheMedia.com:

“Whenever someone asks whether my books are appropriate for his/her teen, I **always** recommend that he/she read it first. If a parent finds the content problematic then it is by all means his/her right to discourage his/her child from reading it. (A great benefit to the teen book boon is that there are plenty of other options to choose from.) However, it's been my experience that the majority of parents don't object to the language because they understand that my books reflect how teens actually act and speak, rather than how some adults wish they did. The older readers often see themselves in the realistically-drawn characters and they appreciate the series for revealing how we all make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them. I've been thanked by countless mothers for opening up a dialogue with their daughters. My books have provided a means for discussing uncomfortable--and universal--aspects of adolescence. Having that conversation, however awkward, seems more beneficial than banning.”

For more information on McCafferty’s books, visit her website.

The Politics of Scientists and the Media

It isn’t news that the media has a liberal bias—but what about scientists? According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, 87% of scientists identify themselves as being either moderates or liberals while only 9% of scientists are conservatives.

Promoters of Darwinian evolution don’t like it when they are confronted with the public’s desire that both sides be taught on the issue of origins science. They often defend the exclusion of other views by stating that science isn’t a democracy.

It sure isn’t—it sounds like they think they are an aristocracy.

The survey found that the public’s views on the issue of evolution was “strongly linked to religion.” “The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public,” the survey stated.

Among scientists, 51% believe in God or a higher power while 95% of the general public believes in God or a higher power.

Should the “aristocracy” decide what is taught in the PUBLIC classroom?