Lexington C.A.R.E.S.Mr. Tassel's recent commentary suggests that we should respect David Parker for his willingness to face arrest in his quest to raise his children in a "healthy" manner. To do so, however, requires ignoring several facts. The first is that David Parker had by no means exhausted other, legal remedies for what he perceived to be an injustice. He might have involved the state board of education, pursued legal action against the town, lobbied School Committee members individually, and/or begun campaigning for School Committee.
I am sure that Mr. Parker is not the only parent who has been frustrated in obtaining what they believed would be right and healthy for their children from the Lexington Public Schools. If each of those other parents refused to leave meetings with school officials unless physically removed from the building, our police force would be very busy. Some parents have pursued their grievances with the schools through legal channels. Other parents have made the decision, at great cost, to enroll their children in private schools that more fully meet their needs.
Finally, many, many families have sacrificed to move to Lexington in order to enroll their children in its well-regarded schools, some specifically in search of a school environment in which children from all backgrounds would be welcome. Mr. Parker persistently and conveniently avoids addressing the implications of his demands for those families. Would any teacher spontaneously get involved in a discussion regarding gay-headed families if she or he knew that the next step would be to make sure that no child was present who was not allowed to be there, and to remove such children if they were there? How would a teacher explain such removals, to all of the children involved? How would a gay teacher respond truthfully to questions about his or her own family?
Vicky Parker Harding Road
Mr. Tassel says that the complexity of Mr. Parker's situation is beyond the capacity of young children. In fact, it centers entirely on what young children need to learn about respecting the differences in each other's families. David Parker does not "believe that a gay couple with children is a normal and morally equivalent family structure." He is free to teach these beliefs at home and to send his child to a likeminded private school. But his solution (to have his child removed from any discussion - planned, spontaneous or in a book - relating to same-sex issues) is laughably impractical and clashes completely with the mandate of public education. Which is why his request was denied.
Public schools educate all children, without moral judgment about the families from they come. As long as his family lives in Lexington, Mr. Parker's impressionable child will grow up with gay and lesbian neighbors, with lab partners or teammates who have two daddies or mommies, in a state where gay marriage is legal. Every young child notices differences. As teachers (and I am one), we worry about those who don't! Information, not willful ignorance, helps children make sense of all of our myriad human differences and lays the foundation for respect.
Jeanne McDermott
Field Road
I support Mr. Parker's right to have and voice his opinions, even if they are abhorrent to others. However, I do not understand Mr. Parker's surprise at the reaction he has received. By published accounts, Mr. Parker chose to be arrested and to spend the night in jail. He welcomed the photos and initial nation-wide press. If you choose to be a lightning rod, do not be surprised if you are struck by lightning.
Mr. Tassel states that Mr. Parker's requests are based on well-intentioned, strong, principled beliefs. Such requests, while noble, are not always reasonable.
The following is taken from Mr. Tassel's recent guest commentary. I have changed the phrase "gay couple" to "divorced family:"
"... takes exception to specific belief. That belief is that a divorced family with children is a normal and morally equivalent family structure which is equally beneficial to the ultimate goal of any family, the wellbeing of the children being reared..."
How shall we react when someone with a profoundly deep and terrible experience with divorce wishes to have their child protected from the discussion of divorce as described above?
The following is also taken directly from Mr. Tassel's commentary. This time the phrase "same sex" has been replaced with "multi-racial," and "homosexual headed family" with "multi-racial headed family:"
"... notify them in advance if there is a planned discussion about multi-racial family 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 multi-racial headed family is a normal family structure, and an equally "good" one at that ..."
What should our reaction be if someone with strong principals borne of personal experiences feels they need to protect their child from discussions regarding multi-racial families in this manner?
Some may hold firm, principled beliefs that the only good and moral family consists of a mother and a father, married and living together with their birth children. Very few of us in this community look like that. If we allow one parent to use the schools to "protect" their children from hearing about one type of family in our community, can we prevent others from requesting the same protection from some other type of family? Mr. Parker's request is unreasonable and impractical.
Sarah Long
Fletcher Avenue
On Aug. 2, my wife and I went to the Concord District Court House to follow the trespassing hearing of David Parker. When we arrived we were greeted by more than 20 Parker supporters holding professionally printed signs that said things like, "No Trespassing on Parental Rights!" Some also held signs that read, "David Parker jailed for being Christian" and "Sue the Lexington Public Schools, Chapter 71, Section 32A." The only David Parker supporters from Lexington that I recognized were: Lorraine Fournier, Jed Snyder, Jesse Segovia and Iang Jeon. Certainly there may have been a few more. I do know that at least one of his supporters was from Carlisle, another from as far away as Western Mass., and of course Brian Camenker of Newton representing his Article 8 Alliance.
Why does this group of activists want to sue the Lexington Public Schools, and on what grounds? I looked into the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 71: Section 32. Here's what the law says: "Every city, town, region school district or vocational school district implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parental/guardian notification."
Mr. Parker maintains that any discussion in the classroom or picture in a book about two moms or two dads is covered by this law. Therefore such a discussion must be the same as "human sexual education or human sexuality issues." By this logic, any picture of a mom and a dad, or discussion of a mom and dad must also fall into this same category, since, in most cases, sex is involved when a heterosexual couple have children. Frankly, I believe that expanding the commonwealth's parental notification law from its conservative position regarding sexuality education to include general discussions of families would ill serve our wonderfully diverse community.
Robert Schneider
Stevens Road