Welcome..... Wissup??


Copyright (c) 2009 Ginny Maziarka. All rights reserved.

Monday, June 30, 2008

My thoughts exactly...

Sent to WB School Board on 06/30/08:

I can't help but understand now why people don't bother to go to school board meetings or share thoughts and opinions with their elected officials. When one simply asks for what rightfully belongs to all people, and is REJECTED, as though that "opinion" is from a small "group.", one must wonder if the School Board believes the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution truly IS for everyone.

Yes, you have clearly committed to review the policy changes as I presented them. This is true. I have contacted Kathy Zarling and asked whether the attorney has given direction, and where the policy-writing was at to this date, and have not received a response. One would think that if our school district hired an attorney who is knowledgeable in legislative law, then the violations and infringements mentioned in the previous school board meeting will be exposed.

As for feedback from others, I am not aware of any, nor is the general public. No-one has spoken at any recent board meetings concerning this issue. The seats remain empty.

You stated "A group of 15-20 people who share their ideas on a matter does not mean that the 15,000+ other parents and taxpayers who elected the board and did not come to the meeting feel the same way as your group." So you are saying that not everyone believes in the First Amendment, nor feels that students should have the ability to exercise free speech?

You also stated, "We were elected to listen to everyone on both sides of an issue." May I respectively point out that there IS only ONE SIDE. The side of the Law and the Constitution of the United States.

One of your remarks was "I know you would want us to do the same if a different group with the exact extreme opposite view from yours came to us and wanted to impose their views into our policies." Isn't that exactly what is going on here? The policy has an "exact extreme opposite view from mine/ours." My "view", by the way, is not a "view" at all. It is a law. Since when are First Amendment rights considered only a "view?"

Though I do agree with you that you "must be careful what you choose to invest your time and resources into", I do NOT agree that this is a "small matter", as you have indicated in your previous email.

I realize that the State Administrative Code prevails and you are simply following protocol. However, there are areas of the new policy that need not be taken to the degree to which they have been written. I urge you to consider my prior recommendations, as well as those in this email.

I remain faithfully hopeful that out of the seven people representing our district and protecting our school children's rights, that at least ONE of you can see the light and expose the intentions of the State of Wisconsin Administrative Code PI-9.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

MARK BELLING rings the bell!

West Bend school officials are putting the tax referendum that failed earlier this year right back on the ballot this November. As part of their effort to con voters into building more schools in a district with declining enrollment, they have a "survey" on their district Web site that attempts to find out why the first referendum failed. (ANSWER: The good people of West Bend think their taxes are high enough.)

So far this is par for the tax-hiking course. But as you wade through the survey, the school district asks a fascinating question. It demands to know which talk radio stations residents listen to! Answering the question isn’t optional. If you don’t check WISN, WTMJ, none of the above or something else, it keeps sending you back to the same page.

The West Bend school taxers are apparently upset that their pro-tax message is countered on talk shows like mine. That shouldn’t, however, justify a government poking into the private radio listening habits of taxpayers. Next, they’ll be demanding to know which books people are reading. The teachers, Tim Sheehy, now the West Bend School Board - people around here sure don’t like it if you get between them and their taxes. At least I’ve found my calling.


(PS - Thanks, Mark!)

Survey Sighs.....

Some things I'd like to point out about the West Bend School District Referendum Survey...

1. Though the website states "Survey Open Only to District Residents Through July 3rd", how are they
ensuring this?

2. Q. What do you like about this November 2008 referendum plan?

If you choose to leave this answer blank, you wil receive an error message. Ditto with the question directly following it that asks for what you DISLIKE about it. You MUST give an answer and state what you LIKE (or dislike), or you may not continue with the survey. And ditto with any other "fill in the answer" type questions.

3. Under FUTURE NEEDS, you are FORCED to rank the order of schools. What if you don't want to? Can't rank 0. You are FORCED to rank, even if you don't think it is "rankable."

4. Respondent information. What in the world does Talk Radio have to do with the referendum? C'mon...

Do you have children in your household who attend: Please select only one answer.
Public K-12 school
Private K-8 school
Both public and private school
No children who currently attend public or private school

I have two kids that attend private school? What do I check????

Considering all of the above, it's not worthy of my time.

Wisconsin Puffs 'n Stuff

MELKED? Did she say "MELKED???" If you live in Wisconsin, never say MELK.

How 'bout some crackers with that cheese?

LITTLE CHUTE, Wis. (Map, News) - A Wisconsin sculptor's version of a historical painting is a bit cheesy.
Troy Landwehr has carved a version of John Trumbull's painting "Declaration of Independence" in a 2,000-pound block of cheddar.
The artist's painting of the historic signing hangs in the Capitol in Washington and graces the back of the $2 bill.
The cheesy version is to be displayed near Independence Mall in Philadelphia for July 4, then returned to Wisconsin to be shown at Landwehr's Kerrigan Brothers Winery.
The cheddar will eventually be cut up and sent to food pantries.
It is Landwehr's second project for Kellogg Co.'s Cheez-It cracker brand. Last year, he did several renditions of Mount Rushmore.


Saturday, June 28, 2008

Friday, June 27, 2008

Where are the "thought police" ???

"In Canada, we respect freedom of speech, but we don't worship it."--
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council in its rebukeof radio talk-show host
Dr. Laura Schlessinger for her remarks on homosexuality."
Proponents of "hate crime" laws say they are needed to protect minorities from acts of violence. But "hate crime" laws are unnecessary. Criminal acts are already illegal. What's more, "hate crime" laws violate the constitutional right to equal protection, create the un-American offense of "thought crime," and abridge the freedoms of speech, religion and association.
Here, again, we have the same issue concerning the First Amendment right to free speech. How does one gauge the level of another's "thoughts?"
By the way...scroll down and read the stories from Canada.....

Thursday, June 26, 2008

WB School Board Rejects Offer

Can't say I didn't offer to help... Guess First Amendment Rights for students is not top on the agenda in District #1. Considering the fact that NOBODY spoke on behalf of those "other people", percentage-wise we were a pretty darn good representation By the way, I never offered to personally pay for anything. I simply posed a hypothetical question and offered to "assist."

School Board Response:

We have clearly committed to review the specific policy changes you and others have suggested as we indicated to everyone at our board meeting and in the email exchanges we have had on this topic, which is in process as we speak. Kathy Zarling will be working with our Attorney's to make sure we are in compliance with our state and federal laws first and foremost. Then we will work to find the options we can legally consider to deal with the District and Board's desire to provide All of our students with a safe environment and to incorporate feedback we have from you and others who have spoken to us on this matter.

A group of 15-20 people who share their ideas on a matter does not mean that the 15,000+ other parents and taxpayers who elected the board and did not come to the meeting feel the same way as your group. We were elected to listen to everyone on both sides of an issue and then with that input make a choice that is legal and in the best interest of all students, our district, and our community. I know you would want us to do the same if a different group with the exact extreme opposite view from yours came to us and wanted to impose their views into our policies.

Therefore, let me further clarify my email response to you to avoid any confusion.

When you have been and still are one of the top 10 lowest spending districts of 426 in the State of WI with ongoing publicly documented growth in student enrollment and $80MM+ in deferred capital expenditures ( not declines as some would argue ) you must be very careful what you choose to invest your time and resources into even on the smallest of matters. This board would also not choose to initiate a lawsuit until we were absolutely forced to do so and that this elected board determines it is our only recourse since doing so places our limited district resources of staff time, educational programs, and money at risk.

We appreciate your unlimited financial offer to provide support towards all of the legal costs the taxpayers of this district would incur to fight the State of WI or DPI. A legal action like that remains highly unlikely even with your offer.

We did not in this or any other communication indicate to you that we agreed with you or that we would adopt your specific additions and deletions. Even if we choose to adopt some or all of your positions we did not indicate that we have any desire to bring suit against the State or the DPI if that would be required to implement them.

We will leave that issue for your group to decide what you would like to do and fund keeping in mind that any discussion of suing the State and DPI for your proposed changes came solely from you not this Board or the District staff.

Thanks Ginny for asking for allowing me to clarify my prior communication for you and everyone else on this email.


Talk Radio Affects How our Kids Read and Write!

The WB School District survey has a specific question about talk radio...how bizarre! How does Talk Radio influence whether kids can read and write???

Here's the Question: "Which of the following talk radio stations do you listen to on a regular basis?"

This survey is available on-line and likely will be getting a lot of WEAC input from across the state. How's that for local accountability? I think for any on-line submissions, contact info should be required of the respondent to prevent outside influence in the district. Either they require contact info or they should take the survey off-line.

And by the way, who paid for all the hard copies and postage?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

ADL reaping liberal benefits

SO...here is wherein the problem lies....and where we get our carefully-worded harassment policy. Read on..

"The following is the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) online definition of “homophobia.” The ADL is the leading advocate for federal and state “hate crimes” laws that are inclusive of homosexuality and gender confusion (”sexual orientation” and “gender identity”). Note the bolded portions below and how the ADL seemingly gives no ground for acceptable religious and moral opposition to homosexual behavior. This is important because currently many governmental agencies and “hate crime” law advocates rely on the ADL for definitions of “hate,” “prejudice,” etc. To read an online ADL report on Hate Crime Laws, click HERE. To see the ADL’s recommendation of the pro-homosexual “Heather Has Two Mommies” as an “anti-bias book for children,” click HERE."


Tuesday, June 24, 2008


Dobson accuses Obama of `distorting' Bible

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy - chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.""Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament."I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said."... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.""Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Here's your opportunity - TAKE IT!

The West Bend News is ASKING, yes ASKING, for your comments on whether or not the proposed revised harassment policy is unconstitutional and violates the student's rights to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.


Email your thoughts (all the information to get you started is right here within this blogsite) and viewpoints directly to mmaersch@conleynet.com .

The door has been opened. Tell the State of Wisconsin and the School Board what you REALLY think.

Monday, June 23, 2008

With liberty and justice...

To quote F.I.R.E.

"As the Court ruled: "The Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside the school context, that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of speech is not sufficient justification for prohibiting it."

Administrators at public universities no longer may claim that they have the power to ban "offensive" speech on the grounds that it somehow interferes with the rights or opportunities of other students. One has a right to equal opportunity in our society, but one does not have a right to live without being offended, particularly on a campus of higher education where the exchange of ideas is of primary importance. If the banning of "offense" were applied equally to all, we would be a community of silence. A free society does not exchange liberty for other social values."


F.I.R.E. fires away!


West Bend Daily News Sheds Light...


Watch Out, Milwaukee!

Peer review lets students resolve behavior issues

When Kevin Blackman joined the peer jury at James Madison Academic Campus this past school year, the 19-year-old senior worried his classmates would call him a snitch.

After all, he and the other dozen students in the inaugural group would rule on disputes involving classmates accused of disrupting class, bullying or truancy — traditionally the work of an assistant principal.
But being on the jury turned Blackman into a hero, not a snitch, in classmates’ eyes, he said.


Sunday, June 22, 2008

Kewaskum and Hartford School Districts Go Along for the Ride

HARTFORD and KEWASKUM School Districts have equally-horrendous, illegal and unconstitutional harassment policies in place similar to West Bend's.. Let us give thanks to the State Administrative Code PI9 for making this all a reality.

The School District of Hartford Joint No. 1 is committed to an educational environment that is
free of harassment of any form. That may include, but not be limited to, acts of bullying, hazing,
intimidating, threats, or violence. The District will not tolerate any form of illegal harassment
and will take all necessary and appropriate action to eliminate it, including suspension or
expulsion of students engaged in illegal harassment.
Harassment is illegal if it is based upon a protected group status. In that regard, no student shall be subject to harassment on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin (including limited English proficiency -- LEP), ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, physical, mental or emotional disability, handicap or any other basis protected by State or Federal Law.

Illegal harassment may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Verbal harassment, including epithets, kidding, derogatory comments, slurs or ethnic jokes;
2. Physical harassment, including patting, pinching or intentional brushing against another’s
3. Physical interference with movement, activities or work;
4. Visual harassment, including derogatory cartoons, drawings or posters; and
5. Demands for sexual favors, whether or not accompanied by implied or overt promises of
preferential treatment or threats.
Students who believe they have been subjected to illegal harassment may file a report and/or
complaint pursuant to the District’s Pupil Harassment Complaint Procedure. A copy of the
procedure may be obtained from the building office.


The Kewaskum School District shall not discriminate in standards and rules of conduct or disciplinary measures relating to suspensions and expulsions, including those pertaining to student harassment, on the basis of sex, race, national origin, ancestry, religion, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability.

The Kewaskum School District seeks to provide a school and learning environment that is free from intimidation and harassment based on any of the above characteristics and prohibits intimidation and harassment.

Sexual harassment includes any unwelcome sexual advance, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual's learning process; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by a individual is used as the basis for learning decisions affecting such individual; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's school performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive learning environment.
Intimidation and harassment can arise from a broad range of physical or verbal behavior (by students, teachers, administrators, staff members) which can include but is not limited to the following:
Racial, ethnic, sexual or religious insults or slurs;
Physical or mental abuse;
Unwelcome sexual advances or unauthorized touching;
Sexual comments, jokes, stories, or innuendos;
Display of sexually explicit or otherwise offensive posters, calendars, or materials;
Referring to a female student as a "hunk", "doll", "babe" or "honey";
Making sexual gestures with hand or body movement;
Intentionally or repetitively brushing against another student;
Inappropriate staring at another student, touching their clothing, hair or body;
Whistling at another student, cat calls;
Asking unsolicited personal questions about another student's sex life;
Engaging in any type of unwelcome advances, such as repeatedly asking a student out if the student has stated that he or she is not interested; and
Elevator "eyes" - repeatedly looking a student up and down.
Harassment that relates to a person's school performance provides a basis for assessment decisions, creates a hostile intimidating or offensive environment are specifically prohibited by the Kewaskum School District. These activities are offensive and inappropriate in the school setting. These are serious issues for the Kewaskum School District and each individual student. A student may be held individually liable as a harasser and subject to the same penalties which may be imposed upon employers under state or federal law. This is in addition to discipline the Kewaskum School District may impose.
Management, including all administrators, is responsible to assure that prohibited activities do no occur, and any student who believes that he or she has been the subject of prohibited harassment or retaliation should report the matter immediately to the District Administrator or Building Principal as an alternate. Any student wishing to make a harassment complaint may do so by following the instructions listed in Board Policy #529.1. Disclosure will be made only to those with a legitimate need to know. Students are required to cooperate fully with any harassment investigation. Reports will be investigated promptly and confidentiality maintained within practical bounds.
Either a complaining student or an accused student who is not satisfied with the outcome of any investigation under this policy may request review by the Kewaskum School Board President.
A student who engages in harassment or retaliates against another student because a student made a report of harassment or participated in an investigation of a claim of harassment is subject to immediate discipline, up to and including expulsion.
This prohibition against harassment reinforces the Kewaskum School District's tradition of developing and maintaining a professional learning environment comprised of students who respect one another. It is the responsibility of all students to uphold that tradition.


Received in an email yesterday - couldn't have said it better myself.

"When we lose our constitutional rights to freedom of religion and free speech, then we have begun a steep descent toward losing all rights. If we lose those rights, it is because we did nothing to prevent it while it was happening. Then we will have given back the precious heritage our ancestors fought, died and struggled to secure. We will dishonor the Lord and Saviour that has providentially blessed this nation."

"All that is necessary for evil to prosper, is for good men and women to do nothing."

What happened to "Our America"?


Saturday, June 21, 2008

I Challenge You...

to listen to this oldie "School House Rock" version of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I think you will be tempted to be-bop a little and perhaps click on it again just to get the tune down!


Pennsylvania has already shown us how

Saxe v. State College Area School District


Summary: The guardian for two students challenged a school district's anti-harassment policy, contending it violated their First Amendment rights. From a free speech perspective, the guardian held that the policy prohibited students and other citizens from voicing opinions that were constitutionally protected.
Background Information: Fearing that the directors of the State College Area School Board would not listen to their concerns about the Board's proposed anti-harassment policy, a group of local parents approached David Saxe, a Member of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education, to present their objections. The Board, however, did not respond. Three months later, the Board scheduled a "town meeting" to attend to the growing dissent over the proposed policy. Dr. Saxe again attempted to persuade the School Board to revise the policy. He was, however, denied the opportunity when the School Board removed his name from the official speakers list claiming that the list of speakers was too long. In order to limit the number of speakers, the Board held a lottery; Dr. Saxe was not selected as a speaker.
Setting the stage for a legal challenge, a month later the School Board passed the policy without revision or recognition of the policy's Constitutional flaws as suggested by Dr. Saxe in his initial presentation to the Board or in subsequent media presentations.
In specific, the policy provided several examples of harassment, including: "any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which offends, denigrates or belittles an individual" because of "race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics." Essentially, any comment/action that was deemed offensive could invoke penalties. The policy protected all individuals in the school and also applied to comments/action of any individual directed at students or school personnel on or outside of school property. The broad and sweeping character of the policy attracted the attention of Constitutional specialists from the legal department of the American Family Association.
Believing they had found an ideal test case to expose unconstitutional attempts to curb student speech, AFA lawyers visited State College to discuss legal options with parents. Aligned to the case's First Amendment concerns, David Saxe agreed to take the lead position with the litigation.
The District Court at Williamsport supported the School Board's policy. Saxe then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals seated in Philadelphia.

In a 3-0 decision, the panel held that such a broadly worded policy prohibits too much speech and violates the First Amendment.
The court held that the policy prohibits a substantial amount of speech that is neither vulgar within the meaning of the Fraser standard nor school-sponsored within the meaning of the Hazelwood standard. It even prohibits speech that harasses someone based on "clothing, physical appearance, social skills, peer group, intellect, educational program, hobbies, or values."
The policy must be judged under the Tinker "substantial disruption" test. This policy could essentially be applied to any speech that another might find offensive. "This could include much 'core' political and religious speech," the panel wrote. "The policy, then, appears to cover substantially more speech than could be prohibited under Tinker’s substantial disruption test."
No college, under this legal decision, could successfully be sued for failing to prohibit such speech. Indeed, public campuses are subject to legal liability for failing to protect the First Amendment rights of students. Private campuses that claimed that they believed in free speech but were forced, by law, to restrict it, now can honor their commitment. In short, all campuses now have a strong incentive to abolish such codes.
This decision is consistent with the holdings of virtually every other federal appellate court faced with a similar question. The Third Circuit went farther than any other court, however, in drawing the line between legally sanctionable true "harassment" and speech that, because of its unpopularity, is deemed "harassment" by school administrators. Although "non-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the gambit of the free speech clause," the Court held, "there is also no question that the free speech clause protects a wide variety of speech that listeners may consider deeply offensive, including statements that impugn another's race or national origin or that denigrate religious beliefs." Warning school authorities against the use of "harassment" codes to silence speech, the Court noted that "where pure expression is involved, anti-discrimination laws steer into the territory of the First Amendment."
The Court made clear that harassment laws purporting to prohibit verbal activity "that objectively denies a student equal access to a school's educational resources"—the purpose claimed by proponents of academic speech codes—are not constitutional when what they actually do is prohibit speech seen as offensive by those who disagree with or are annoyed by it. Furthermore, the claim that the government has the power to curtail speech when it is likely to produce "a specific and significant fear of disruption" cannot justify the banning of offensive speech in a free society that is protected by the First Amendment. As the Court ruled: "The Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside the school context, that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of speech is not sufficient justification for prohibiting it."

TEAM WORK - Let's do it!

You can begin to help by simply calling our School Board members and encouraging them to take a step to protect the rights of the schoolchildren they are representing. Let them know you believe this Administrative Code is unlawful and unconstitutional. We need as many people as we can to lend support either by a phone call or an email. Thanks so much for helping us be heard as we move forward to hold secure what our Constitution promises us and our future generations!

Contact information for the West Bend School Board:

Superintendent: Patricia Herdrich = 262-334-5820 or pherdrich@west-bend.k12.wi.us
President: Joe Carlson = 262-334-1042 or jkcarlson@west-bend.k12.wi.us
Vice President: Kathy Van Eerden kvaneerden@west-bend.k12.wi.us
John Duwell: 262-338-2024 or jduwell@west-bend.k12.wi.us
Kris Beaver: 262-677-3412 or kbeaver@west-bend.k12.wi.us
Mike Weston: 262-338-2251 or mweston@west-bend.k12.wi.us
Bruce Koenig: 262-335-2408 or bkoenig@west-bend.k12.wi.us
Todd Miller: tmiller@west-bend.k12.wi.us

West Bend School District "Out of Cash"???

Here is the response I received from the School Board President when challenged to table the new Harassment Policy and confront the State of Wisconsin with a declaratory judgment to change Wisconsin Administrative Code PI9:

"Thank you for your clear and specific language and request for us to consider as we take up our work on this important issue affecting our children in committee. We can now obtain some legal advice on this matter prior to considering your input.It is highly unlikely that we would legally challenge the state on this matter as you suggested. We are financially struggling to keep teachers, programs, and facility needs here. We would not pursue a potential costly matter such as this and risk further reductions in resources for our students educational offerings.You are welcome to attend and provide this and additional input to us in our committee work and at the board.Thanks Ginny, I know you and others have great passion on this matter and we will respect the work you have done as we consider other views from the community as we carry out our intent to create a safe learning environment for our students."

I think we should set up a brat stand and start fundraising! I'll bring the kraut! Anyone else in?

Can you break "The Code"?

Here is Wisconsin Administrative Code broken down, along with some notes I have made...have at it!

PI 9.01 Discrimination prohibited. This chapter establishes procedures for compliance with s., Stats., which provides that no person may be denied admission to any public school or be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of or be discriminated against in any curricular, extracurricular, pupil services, recreational or other program or activity because of the person's sex, race, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability. This chapter does not intend to prohibit the provision of special programs or services based on objective standards of individual need or performance to meet the needs of pupils, including gifted and talented, special education, school age parents, bilingual bicultural, at risk and other special programs; or programs designed to overcome the effects of past discrimination.

118.13(1) Except as provided in s. 120.13 (38 (37m), no person may be denied admission to any public school or be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of or be discriminated against in any curricular, extracurricular, pupil services, recreational or other program or activity because of the person's sex, race, religion, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability.

MY NOTE: This statute refers to discrimination by those who run the school as opposed to discrimination and/or harassment by fellow students.

PI9.02 points out specific definitions within the code:

PI 9.02(1)
"Bias" means an inclination for or against a person or group of persons based, in whole or in part, on sex, race, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability, that inhibits impartial or objective judgment affecting pupils.

MY NOTE: Sexual orientation would be considered a “behavior.” This cannot and should not fall under a “protected class.” See more on this below..

PI 9.02(9) "Pupil harassment" means behavior towards pupils based, in whole or in part, on sex, race, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability which substantially interferes with a pupil's school performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive school environment.

MY NOTE: “creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive school environment”. Who would be the one to interpret the intimidation, hostility or offensiveness of the so-called harassment? This portion of the code leaves the interpretation of harassment open to the person/student who is supposedly offended. It creates intimidation and oppression among students and prohibits free speech for fear of punishment or discipline. We believe this code basically states “if a listener is offended, a legal wrong has occurred”. The First Amendment gives all people the right to free speech and this is not measured by the subjective effect on the person to whom it was armed against. Furthermore, I feel PI9 has the purpose or effect of causing a substantial and material disruption of the District’s schools or interferes with the rights of the individual.

PI 9.02(12(12) "Sexual orientation" has the meaning defined in s. 111.32. (Statute defined for you below)

"Sexual orientation" means having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, having a history of such a preference or being identified with such a preference.

Dictionary definitions -
Heterosexuality: Sexually attracted to and/or engaging in sexual behavior with members of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality: Sexually attracted to and/or engaging in sexual behavior with members of your own sex.
Bisexuality: Engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual practices.

Would these not be considered “behavioral choices?” Why are these looked at as “protected classes?”

As well, by bringing “sexual orientation” into the protected class of persons, we open the door wide to leaving others out. What about short people, tattooed, pierced, tall, thin or fat people? Now let's throw in pedophiles and those who practice beastiality. It's only "fair!" One would wonder if, perhaps, they should also be mentioned as a protected class. As you can see, setting apart children into protected classes is inappropriate and further causes division between students. We believe this is an unnecessary overdefinition. Certainly not required by any State Code, State law or Federal law.

PI 9.02(14)
"Stereotyping" means attributing behaviors, abilities, interests, values and roles to a person or group of persons on the basis, in whole or in part, of their sex, race, national origin, ancestry, creed, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability.

MY NOTE: Again, sexual orientation would be considered a “behavior” and does not fall into the “protected class” category. Why categorize at ALL? If someone is male, or female, and one would simply point this out, do we not open the door to “stereotyping” according to this policy? Would this be a punishable form of harassment? If someone is pregnant, and one makes mention of that fact (which would be obvious truth spoken freely), would this then be punishable because the pregnant woman (oops, did I just double stereotype?) would be offended with an open comment? ALL people should be protected from harassment. Not just “protected classes” defined by the state or anyone else.

PI 9.03 Policies.
PI 9.03(1) (1) Each board shall develop policies prohibiting discrimination against pupils. The policies shall include the following areas:
PI 9.03(1)(a) (a) Admission to any school, class, program or activity. This does not prohibit placing a pupil in a school, class, program or activity based on objective standards of individual performance or need.
PI 9.03(1)(b) (b) Standards and rules of behavior, including pupil harassment.

FORCES all schools within the State of Wisconsin to create harassment policies that are illegal and unconstitutional.



We believe that Wisconsin State Administrative Code PI 9 violates the rights of the students guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


Yep, that's right. If we simply say this is someone elses' problem, then, yeah, that's pretty much it. We will go down...right along with the kids in the West Bend School District.

When I say "we", I mean EVERYONE. Everyone = MR., MRS., MS. WISCONSIN CITIZEN. And we can go a step further, which would be appropriate in this case. Everyone = ALL U.S. CITIZENS.

If Wisconsin State Administrative Code PI9 does not get shunned and changed, it is US who will pay the consequences. When we allow a State to declare NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM, then we begin to allow classification of the people who ARE NOT allowed to exercise what is rightfully theirs. This Administrative Code basically DISALLOWS ALL STUDENTS to exercise Freedom of Speech, which, according to our U.S. Constitution, CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be taken away by ANYONE. (Keeping it simple here.)

So, yeah, this is pretty much the nutshell version. I'll be throwing some legalese your way in case you are interested. I'll catch you up on what has been done and sent so far. But in the meantime, be forewarned. This is not MY problem. It is not the STUDENT'S problem. This is OUR problem.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Wisconsin Family Council Gives Accolades to the Benders!

Wisconsin Family ConnectionWeek of June 16, 2008 - # 734
The Multiplied Power of One

“The multiplied power of one.” I love the concept and talk about it every chance I get. It produces some of the best stories we know—stories about people who are getting involved at the local level, communicating the truth and positively impacting their community and culture. Here’s one of the best “multiplied power of one” stories I’ve heard in a long time!
Last week, we received an email from a concerned citizen in West Bend informing us of a harassment policy that the West Bend School Board was going to vote on last Monday. The West Bend School District already has a harassment policy in place. For some reason, however, the administration decided to write a new policy that went far beyond the requirements of the state law and far beyond their existing policy. To my way of thinking, the new policy closely resembles the so-called “hate crime” laws proposed at the federal level.
Among a number of disturbing changes to the existing harassment policy, the new policy gives a sweeping description of but no real definition of harassment. The policy simply says that harassment can include verbal or physical conduct based on a person’s protected class that has the “purpose or effect” of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive atmosphere or interfering with a student’s performance.
Questions beg to be asked. First of all, what is a protected class? According to this policy, it’s one of 13 or more “conditions” that the school board decided needed to be protected, including sexual orientation and physical, mental or emotional disability. So, would the school board protect pedophilia? That falls into a “sexual orientation” category! Why even create protected classes? Why not just protect everyone at the school, regardless of whether they fit inside one of these artificially created classes?
The danger with this policy is that it gives anyone who claims to be “intimidated” or “offended” an unfair advantage because the policy is not based on actual behavior but on verbal or physical conduct that is perceived to be offensive or intimidating. Imagine what would happen if a Christian student expressed his opposition to homosexuality and a homosexual student took offense. Under the proposed, ambiguous harassment policy, that Christian student’s rights would be trumped by the homosexual student’s feelings.
The state policy on harassment requires only that schools not discriminate against students; it does not address student to student behavior. The proposed West Bend policy, however, specifically addresses employee and student behavior.
As a former teacher, I recognize the value of student-to-student policies regarding harassment and bullying—and it is within the district’s authority to create a harassment policy. However, the district goes outside its jurisdiction when it creates special, protected classes and puts a limitation on the free speech rights of students.
My point is school boards have a great deal of latitude when it comes to creating school policies. It is not only crucial but absolutely necessary for parents and members of the community to be aware of district policies and activities because of the amount of power we grant our education system over our children’s lives.
Parents and community members in West Bend did exactly that last Monday night when they attended the School Board meeting and voiced their concerns about the proposed harassment policy. One concerned citizen alerted other parents and community members, did some research, spoke to the experts and encouraged others to do the same.
The result was that the School Board listened to the citizens’ concerns, tabled the proposal and sent it back to a committee for review. That tells me that the citizens of West Bend had already paved the way for this decision by electing reasonable people to the School Board. This is a wonderful example of what happens when you elect the right people, stay aware of what’s going on in your community, get others involved and do what you can to make an impact.
I want to commend the community members in West Bend who took the time to get informed, attend this meeting and voice their concerns. You’ve set a great example for all of us.
I trust this story of the multiplied power of one encourages you as much as it has me. It’s exciting to see how the Lord works when we fulfill our Christian obligation to be Salt and Light in our community and exercise our civic duty to get involved in our culture and our government.
-Julaine Appling

Um, yeah. Humbly I confess that I was the "one", kind of, but not really. You see, it took one friend to open my eyes to the casualties that were about to lie ahead. Casualites of a political sort. Dead voices. Futuristic silence. More later... This is enough to chew on.