Lexington C.A.R.E.S.This is my perspective in the David Parker matter. Here's a little background. My wife, three daughters and I moved from California to Lexington in 2001. My daughter was a kindergartner with Mr. Parker's son this past year.
We chose to move to Lexington after looking at a myriad of towns. We sought a community with a commitment to quality education and one that reflected our belief in openness, inclusion and diversity. This type of decision-making is based on "the social economics of townships." Towns are differentiated with diverse values and services, thereby, providing consumer choice. Families are social consumers in this way. After becoming a member of this community, I expect to reap its benefits, i.e., openness and inclusion.
I support Mr. Parker's right to his beliefs, but do not agree with either the premise or the structure of his proposal. His "premise" would result in the school having to marginalize the existence of some families. In its structure, his request is impractical.
His wish to disrupt school activities, based on spontaneous discussions wherever his child is present with a resulting parent notification and the removal of his child from a school activity, is unworkable no matter what the subject matter. Without definitions of what discussions qualify as offensive to Mr. Parker, and without every adult in the school being made aware of both the student and the hazy definitions, how could the school possibly satisfy his desired outcome?
I also have a hard time reconciling Mr. Parker's words with his actions. Instead of working to get a solution that could be accommodated, he had one proposal. Instead of running for School Committee to institute change through community channels, he chose to be an activist. He chose to be arrested. He chose to align himself with outside groups to obtain administrative, media, tactical, financial and legal support.
He chose to use local, regional and national media to distort his case and denigrate Lexington. He chose to bring his crusade to communities as far away as Maine, just recently, speaking at the "Wake UP Maine Tour," a statewide rally opposed to homosexual rights. These conscious decisions speak volumes.
Mr. Parker's states he is "anguished that his arrest has caused any pain to this community." His continued promotion of this crusade does nothing but cause the community anguish and pain.
His actions speak louder than his words.
Craig Cyr
Revere Street
I would like to thank Neil Tassel for clarifying several issues surrounding the David Parker/Estabrook School incident ("Refuting accusations against David Parker," July 28 Minuteman). I would also like to respond to a few points.
Mr. Tassel said that the Parkers wanted the school to "...notify them in advance if there is a planned discussion about same-sex issues, and, if an adult becomes involved in a discussion spontaneously begun by a child, then remove their child from the discussion. Their concern is that impressionable children will hear for the first time from a respected adult that a homosexual-headed family is a normal family structure, and an equally 'good' one at that."
But do Mr. Tassel and the Parkers not understand that if their demands were met, these same impressionable children would be getting the message from a "respected adult" that these families are not normal, and not equally "good?"
This is the view of the Parkers, and they are demanding that the school present their view to all of the children, no matter how damaging this view is to the children of the affected families. Put yourself back into kindergarten and imagine if any time you wanted to talk about your family to the teacher and the class, the classroom ground to a halt so that certain kids could leave.
How would that make you feel? How often would you bring up your family in classroom discussion after that? How would you feel when other kids freely talked about their families? How would you feel when the other kids teased you about it?
Mr. Tassel also said that "...the Parkers find it alarming that the definition of diversity does apparently not include people with views such as theirs." It's not their views that create the problem. It is their attempt to impose those views on everyone else that is the problem.
As far as I know, no families with same-gender, multi-racial, divorced or single parents have asked that the schools tell children that their families are better than anyone else's. Most parents I know are comfortable with presenting all families equally and understand the importance of doing so. If they have differences with what's presented in school, they talk about it with their children at home. The Parkers, via their notification and removal demands, are asking that the schools incorporate into the curriculum their view that same-gender families are not as good.
Finally, Mr. Tassel said that David Parker "...does not desire to impose [his principles] on anyone." That's hard to swallow. I can't know what Mr. Parker's desires are, but the effects of his demands are exactly that.
John J. Krawczyk
Outlook Drive