Lexington C.A.R.E.S.The Parker-Wirthlin lawsuit is preposterous.
Let's even leave aside their absurd and profoundly confused ideas about what counts as "immoral behavior." If we decide to eliminate stories that represent "immoral behavior," we can safely stop teaching the world's most important literary texts and traditions, ranging from Sophocles to Milton (have you noticed what Eve did? not the best role model, I'd say!).
But more relevantly to their parental concerns, most children's books represent "immoral" and sometimes even frankly illegal behavior. What about that arch-criminal Goldilocks? What kind of books do these people read? This whole sad case proves the need for more, not less, education.
Yoon Sun Lee
North Hancock Street
I am troubled to see that, once again, one child's parents have objected to the reading of a storybook to a class of young elementary students. Once again, the objection is couched in terms of "teaching homosexuality." As I understand it, the second grade teacher involved was teaching a unit on marriage in general and responded to a child's request to read "King and King" to the class, a book included in the Estabrook library.
This teacher was doing her job. She was teaching her class that marriage is about finding a life partner, making a commitment, and also possible between two people of the same gender.
This follows Massachusetts' law and school guidelines. Perhaps most importantly, it sends the message that people in our society are equal. I have often wondered if these storybooks had depicted interracial heterosexual marriages, would these two sets of parents raised such a fuss? My guess is no, if for no other reason than that there are many interracial married couples raising children in Lexington, quietly going about their business, paying taxes, contributing to school bake sales, and going to church or temple.
And that is the truth for gay couples as well. The real issue this year, as it was last year, is equality for and acceptance of real live people who live in our community. Most of all, the issue is safety for their children.
Yes, parents have the right to teach their children, and they may have some control over the timing of certain topics. But if they choose to send their children to public school, by doing so they accept the curriculum.
I am deeply grateful that Massachusetts in general and Lexington in particular are on the cutting edge of anti-homophobia. Massachusetts was the first state to racially integrate public schools in 1855. It seems a fitting parallel.
Margaret Micholet
North Hancock Street
Same time. Same person. Same problem. Public school is simply that: public.
If people don't like what is an acceptable public education there are many private alternatives. I am horrified at the costs that the Estabrook parents who are filing a lawsuit are willing to burden the community with. We are all taxpayers who support the public education system and the municipal services we receive. Who knows what amount of legal fees will be incurred but whether they are carried by the school system, the town or potential insurance - it doesn't matter.
All money pots start at the same source: the community taxpayers. So we are paying Mr. Parker et al for your personal opinions, and the school system is paying with a loss of productivity generated by all the press that you and your causes are seeking. Important school issues are being backburnered, yet further cost to us, the taxpayers. I am personally affronted by this loss of productivity, potential sky-high legal fees, that not LPS will shoulder, but ultimately we, your neighbors and fellow community members will have to carry. Shame on you.
Katherine Bradtke
Vine Street