Well, another "activist/concerned citizen"
rescued from North Korean detention by a
former democratic president..

Thank you, President Carter, for being willing
to make the effort. 

To those of you thinking about testing the
North Korean border in the future..be advised
We are running out of former Democratic
Presidents that the North Koreans deem
politically acceptable.. The Next U.S. citizen
detained by the North Koreans needs to be
aware that the only thing standing between
themselves and several years of hard labor,
might be former President Bush..

CSM

What is tolerance? It used to be that when you
heard the phrase, what people were talking
about was learning not to discriminate against
those currently being targeted by such activity.

Now it seems that the phrase has been hi-
jacked, and what many of those who now use
it want it to mean is 'That we must now be
tolerant of those who hate or discriminate"

I think we need to restore this phrase meaning
to what it used to mean.

What do you think?

Colin Stuart McCoy

I have been asked about my last post, and
whether I'm familiar with the provisions of
separation of church and state. Namely that
the government shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise there of ect, ect..

The fact is that our government has over the
past 200 plus years passed multiple laws
regulating what becomes perceived as being
problematic religious practices. Human or
animal sacrifice, polygamy, faith healing on
children where harm results, ect. 
(Pretty much, the Government is required to
take no position for or against the
establishment of a religion or its practices..
unless those practices are found to cause
harm.) {Also as to polygamy and related
personal life stye choices, we only list it as an
example of government action..we believe that
activities in which adults are the participants,
that do not clearly harm others not wishing to
be impacted,,,that these activities are no ones
business, especially government.}

and there's the rub..

I think we have reached a evolutionary fork?,
in the road..we now live in a society where the
last safe refuges for many remaining
discriminatory thought processes lie within
established religion, these areas of
discriminatory thought must be eliminated with
the same vigor with which we have approached
other problematic areas of civil rights
protections, many of which were at the time
also accepted religious tenants.

Consider this:.. when the process of
tolerance becomes not a process of reform in
the effort to include, in an effort to stop
discrimination, when the concept of tolerance
becomes a mutual support group for those
that want to be able to discriminate..well
then, I say the process has has gone down
a wrong path, and needs a kick in the pants
or a shot in the arm.

There will never be, under current control
mechanisms a perfect human society, but
solid room for improvement still exist in
public sector/tax payer/collectively
funded arenas. Fully inclusive.. no
discrimination, no hate, non-hostile.
(The implementation of fully comprehensive
protocols for the creation and maintenance
of non-hostile environments in these public/
tax payer funded programs..)

Keep in mind, legally private organizations
use the concept of their "private" nature
in order to implement policies or protocols
that are either clearly discriminatory or
promote same.  Clearly, not only does the
state of social degradation require it, but
from a legal standpoint...programs that are
meant to serve the melting pot that is our
nation, for that matter on a global basis as
well, programs that are public, that are
funded by a process of taxation...Have a
right, a mandate, a need, to have in place
zero tolerance policies towards discrimination,
and hiring standards to ensure that these
public domains/programs are open to all,
accepting to all, except those beliefs, or
activities that are inappropriately discriminatory.

Support of this process may begin with the
loss of tax exempt status for offending
"private" organizations.

It should also clearly include provisions that
allows for quick and easy separation of those
who adhere to discriminatory beliefs, supported
by public actions, from purely tax payer funded
jobs..Why should a tax payer/citizen have to
be faced with having to deal with government 
employees who think they, the tax payer/
citizen/student, is a second class citizen?
Public schools, our courts, the military, are
pretty clear examples of areas to be protected.
 
This is a sticky situation for a lot of people,
philosophically for me I have resolved these
issues along these lines... If a person has
privately held beliefs that are hateful or
discriminatory, towards categories that have
become recognized as protected, but they take
no actions to publicly support/enforce/spread
or negatively impact others with their beliefs,
then there's not much you can do.

However when they take action, when they
promote or support their discriminatory beliefs
openly, publicly, (on Face Book, ect) then
protective action should be taken in some
cases. It depends on the potential for harm
towards those whom their hate/ignorance
targets. There are already protective measures
available to deal with those that would
promote, or incite violence..but even this in a
free society can become a blurry line. Protective
action in these cases often times has to wait
until the process of words takes a clear step
toward deed.

I believe that we have areas/zones that are
required to be fully inclusive, non-hostile.
some of these zones are very sensitive, like
'public schools" where we nurture and educate
our young peoples minds.

In these area/zone we have always tried as a
society, since the civil rights movement started
gaining needed victories, to be very sensitive,
as sensitive as our growing awarness would
allow.

In these areas we do not allow the same types
of free speech that is acceptable in the town
square, because it would have the effect of
creating a non-acceptable hostile environment.
(See districts policies against hate speech and
discriminatory behavior, bullying ect.)

I believe in these captive audience settings that
ensuring that these areas/zones people who
through their own actions are discovered to be
discriminatory in their thinking, should not be
allowed to taint the learning environment 
by their presence as an employee, a presence
that many would feel intimidated by.

(And just to be clear the issue being addressed
has to do with staff not students, or parents,
codes of conduct are already on the books for
these folks.) Higher standards of conduct has
aways been enforced towards those seeking
"employment" in these instances.)

A hostile environment cannot be created in
the tax payer funded, public sector. If the only
way to reach this accommodation, without
creating an undue hardship upon the
organization, is to remove them from a
particular position, then under these narrowly
defined conditions removal is acceptable.

Although where workable, I would accept the
compromise position related below.

Although I would have to think long and hard
before I would let my children attend or support
financially in any way a university that had as
one of it's instructors a holocaust denier or
supporter of hate based organizations.

So..

We have some interesting case studies that
cover actual events at some of our nations
universities. I believe this is a more suitable
environment for the possible employment of
people with discriminatory beliefs, when no
acceptable alternative exists...

At the University level we have cases where  
professors are holocaust deniers or possible
high ranking skinhead supporters. In these
cases we find the universities while protecting
the free speech rights of these instructors have
been made to offer the exact same classes,
taught at the exact same times, by teachers
not supportive of hateful or discriminatory
beliefs. I would find this an equitable
compromise...at a university, which is
privately funded to a large extent..I do not
know how well this solution would work in a
k-12 environment, or say other government
public service providers? Nor would I find such
a solution in a k-12 environment personally
satisfying.--but I could live with it as a
transitional solution. 

With devastating budget cuts.. school districts
or government employers may be able to put
forth the "hardship" protocols/provisions they
simply can't afford to hire enough non-
discriminational thinkers to accommodate/
provide alternative non-discriminational class
rooms in support of a hiring program that
regularly hires people who discriminate, or
belong to discriminatory groups. (So to be
clear, use the hardship clause to avoid having
to hire, or continue to employ discriminating
thinkers in the first place.) Some other
reasons that the university system is better
suited to more vigorous free speech protection
efforts for teachers, when warranted, is that
the student body is more mature and able to
participate in the level of dialog required, two
as being more mature, on an intellectual or
experience level these students are generally 
more capable of standing up for themselves,
or detecting when a line of inappropriateness
has been crossed, also as being significantly
privately funded, students as customers can
take their money elsewhere, whereas in a
k-12 setting you have a captive audience that
in most cases would find relocating to another
school a significant hardship, just on
transportation issues alone.

Under the auspices of free speech you may
have to put up with the occasional Klan rally
or other hate speech event...a necessary evil
in a free society...

Common sense clearly requires that public
environments required to be non-hostile
be made that... 

Believe me, even with a shift in the direction
we explore, there will still be plenty of private
sector areas for the die hard discriminationist
to promote their beliefs.

CSM

Recognizing the growth of such sources as face
book, as well as other "social networking"
Internet resources.

Also recognizing that as parents we are
required by law to have our children in school,
most parents if at all possible will choose a
traditional school type setting over, say a home
school situation if at all possible because we
think it may be the best suited, for the purpose
of giving our kids a social network, community
building experience/opportunity.

(Although the parents this writer has met, that
have fled the Tigard, Tualatin District in favor of
home schooling..Not wanting their children to
become forced into becoming one of the twenty
percenters that do not make it through to
graduation, because they have not received
the support they require, or have fallen prey to
the various aspects of cultural bias in the district,
or have been worn out due to the fact that the
district lacks the interest in having effective
dialog over the issue that effect them.

I have found that these parents have universally
shown they have the creative ability to 
compensate for what ever positive
potential may be missed? by not having their
children in what has become for them a
negative environment/experience.)

Also let us not forget the premise that there are
laws requiring that public school environments
be non hostile places for children from all across
the demographic spectrum.

So here is the problem..In our Public School
systems, you have faculty members/staff proudly
displaying their affiliations with religious and
social groups that clearly follow practices, or
beliefs considered to be discriminatory, or
sending out news letters that proclaim or
divulge the same information...

Anybody thinking about the negative impact
this environment would have on students that
belong to a particular demographic group that
is discriminated against by these aforementioned
social groups or churches? I think this process
creates a hostile environment for some students
or families.

You don't make a team, not sure your grade is
reflective of your effort.. perhaps your just not
comfortable being around people that think
your just not acceptable to "God?" "Heaven?"
your just a lessor/misguided human?

People doing the discriminating will of course
say, wait your exaggerating the potential problem,
the harm ect... those of us who have studied
history know full well, and the evidence is clear,
people who discriminate on any basis currently
covered under federal protections or being
considered for same....have regularly done far
worse to those they "look down upon" than just
negatively impact that person scholastic
experience..processes to correct such harms
can be less easily implemented in a public k-12
system than in a university setting.

Most public School Boards get the fact that they
are running a Public School Program, not a
Private School Program... As do most public
school administrators.. Unless they have been
sought out and hired by school boards that have
subtly gone "rogue"?

The issue discussed here today is a problem
that is being repeated in other little "stepford"
townships across the nation.

In Oregon we are faced with the additional
issue that soon our public school employees
may begin to wear religious items in the work
place to a greater extent than allowed before.

A reason given, to promote free speech and
tolerance. Basically that we need to be tolerant
of the existence of some peoples discriminatory
religious affiliations, I guess, I'm not sure that
is the actual reason though...My concern is that
it is actually another attempt by our courts to
undermine the progressive elements of our
communities.

I also believe that what it may actually do, and
this would be a good thing, is promote a
different kind of free speech exercises, a 
discussion about the discriminatory
shortcomings of the various social and religious
groups.. and then help promote reform in
same.

It could, unfortunately, also, provided
the right social forces create a very negative
outcome, or environment for some students/
families, and thus our communities.

I am not comfortable with the negative impact
that this process may have on some students
that belong to discriminated against
demographics.

I think this is a process that may be better
suited for the town square, the universities.

I also tend towards my continued belief that
the public school system needs to operate
under the mandate of our constitution/anti
discrimination laws. As such, because of the
clearly discriminatory nature of some of these
social groups, and religious organizations
that bringing them into a public school
environment violates that mandate and
threatens the progressive advancement in
civil rights, and (thought processes) that so
many have fought and struggled for.

Those that fail to learn from the lessons of
history?

Current surveys/studies indicate that within
a generation, 30/40 years, all these issues
of discrimination being tracked by us in
our dialogs, will have been resolved in favor
of those being discriminated against.

I think it would be a positive if our more
conservative/discriminatory community
elements re-evaluated their positions and
made this evolutionary process as painless
as possible for those currently being
discriminated against.

What is the solution? A more vigorous vetting
process for those that seek to work in a public
school position. I.E. a person who is known to
be a card carrying anti Semite, or Klu Klux klan
member would probably be passed over in the
hiring process. We need to advance the
awareness levels, the sensitivity levels of those
doing the hiring today...If a person does not
support full anti discrimination protocols, as
demonstrated by their personal affiliations, they
should be precluded from being an employee
in a public school setting. Just my opinion,
although as with universities, providing separate
but equal non-hostile, non-discriminational
alternative classrooms could serve as a trans-
itional compromise position.

Serve on a public school board, forget it..need
not apply..make it a position requirement. Part
of the bylaws of any institution accepting tax
payer provided financial support. The reason
why this position is more restrictive then that for
public k-12 employees, is that I see no similar
compromise position as being available to
protect the public from the hostility or harms
associated with a school board comprised of
such thinkers., but I am open to suggestions.

What if they are members of a police
department, running some kind of "Dare"
program.. (although these programs have
faded out in the more progressive communities
as research has shown mixed or failed results
in the programs studied.)

I want to add that in Tigard, Oregon the
DARE program appears to be pretty solid? I
have not seen any of the issues most often
criticized in such programs, present.

Where I have a problem with this and similar
programs lies in who is doing the "instructing".
In this case a local police dept. with a dubious
- or very week record of demonstrating a
consistent awareness or support of very
important civil rights, non-discriminatory
awarenesses, in my opinion, as supported by
documented events.

Are there not other non-police affiliated folks
capable of teaching these courses?

I have also always been very uncomfortable
with the concept of uniformed police being in
our schools, I have always found it to be more
than just a little creepy. If a police department
will not demonstrate through public disclosure
that their members adhere to anti-
discrimination protocols, or supports systems..
They are to be denied access to public school
property and the students therein.
(Police officers have been fired, and their
terminations upheld for their support or
membership in discriminatory organizations.)

For example, they think the Boys Scouts are a
great social club...the Boy Scouts are a
discriminatory group of folks..(As operated in
the U.S...A potentially wonderful program
that is slowly being wiped out by the
DISCRIMINATORY nature of it's current
managers/policy originators), thus access to
school grounds or students denied.

Because of social/political failures in our
society we now have police officers in our
public schools. Why should parents or students
have to deal with authority figures/with guns,
that are discriminatory in their awareness's,
or civil rights sensitivities.

Side note:.. I would love to have my son in a
program that does the activities that the Boy
Scouts do, I think it would be fun, good for
him. ...but again Boy Scouts discriminate so
that won't work for us. Got to put your money
where your mouth is... In Tigard, Oregon the
price you can be made to pay for such principle
can become a life destroying process for your
family.

Please look around... the system failures that
are opening stress fractures all around you have
been largely produced, or expanded by those
that engage in hateful processes.

When you study the actual history of our nation,
and the harm caused by those carrying little
black books around or maybe other symbols,
like crosses ect..when can we expect a process
of intellectual honesty to kick in to challenge
the "magical" or destructive thinking?

I should probably be careful with what I say..
I live in Tigard, Oregon.. My children will now
probably experience increased processes of
exclusion, or assault, my wife will probably be
accused of all manner of hateful things, and be
called vile names by the local vigilante groups..
Perhaps I'll be framed for crimes not
committed?

Historically, so very often, when you put
people together in large enough groups, and
these people possess, intellectually dishonest
reasoning/processes..And then what you do
is create or recreate barriers that protect these
damaged processes from being properly 
discussed....You end up with the inquisition, or
people being burned at the stake, or maybe
some management types will equate the
ordination of a woman in the same criminal/sin
category as those that are pedophiles?? 

You end up with a planet that is dying, and a
global economic system completely incapable
of meeting the needs of humanity!

Colin Stuart McCoy

I sure hope everyone is paying attention to the
confirmational coverage that is coming out of
various media sources..

I.E. specifically CIA's interrogation tapes that
were not turned over to a congressional
investigation because they were not supposed
to exist!!

Generally, how we have become a society that
honors those that promote hate with the most
zeal and populace fervor...

Additionally the recognition of the hypocrisy
between our faiths? and our actions?

I find these issues to be of the greatest concern
when you study the extent that these processes
behaviors have infiltrated the personnel that
staff our tax payer funded agencies..schools..
courts...local and national political operations.

Lets emplace some blue ribbon panels to
study the problem ;-)

Or perhaps we should form our interactions
around committees..

Both of these processes are typically
emplaced when some wish to avoid liability
or responsibility for processes reflective of
individual failure or incompetence.

CSM

I have long been an advocate for ending the
life destroying era of the drug wars in the
United States. History has shown us that
prohibition type efforts lead to violence and
the growth of other processes that undermine
a free society.

I saw a story today about how Portugal had
legalized "all" drugs if you are a user..
with less than a ten day supply in your
possession. (They did this ten years ago)

Drug dealers and smugglers still face serious
fines and jail terms.

Drug related crimes are down, the number of
heroin addicts has been reduce by more than
half, and HIV related rates of infection have
been reduce by aprox 90%.

CSM

Two middle schools, as well as both High
Schools in the district failed federal standards
related to students with disabilities, and I
believe students using English as a second
language..(Federal - No Child Left Behind
Program)

All the elementary schools passed, which was
a surprise to some..."perhaps" it was because
their reading departments are/may be 
allowed???..

To keep lowering the reading material grade
level upon which students are being tested,
until student can read the offered passages at
the rate/ proficiency targeted??I.E. 3rd grade
students scores posted for reading grade 1.5
level materials??

CSM

It took me a while to get to this...but did
everyone catch the reports concerning
the tests FBI personnel were required to take,
and pass, in order to demonstrate that they
were fully knowledgeable about codes of
conduct, laws and regulations regarding
U.S. civil rights..so that they, the FBI
personell would not violate said rights,
laws, or regulations in the performance of
their duties/interactions with citizens and
residents of the United States..

Apparently a significant number were unable
to pass the tests without cheating...and were
caught doing so.

Unfortunately, totally predictable!

Colin Stuart McCoy

And yes, at least they were caught, so we
must make note of the continued existence
of operational integrity at some level within
the organization. I wonder where the people
that blew the whistle on this situation are
working now..if they have jobs?;-)