Message-Id: <EE021E10-15EB-4D45-9A52-B9CF4E4C257C@uwec.edu> From: Andy Swanson <swansoac@uwec.edu> Subject: Re: Spectator coverage of a current issue Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:24:53 -0500
I'm not someone who has children, but...
This whole thing about the unsigned(!) letter. The fact that the
Leader Telegram reported it at all is disgraceful. After all, I could
write an unsigned letter claiming that I'm a "group of parents". How
do we know that this "group of parents" contains anyone other than
Neal Bennett himself. The fact that it was unsigned recalls any
number historical of incidents of cowardice paired with prejudice. In
any responding action, we should demand that these "parents" come
forth and identify "themselves".
OK, it may not be much more than a symbolic act, but I think any
letters responding to this unsigned letter should always include
quotes. E.g. "I am responding to the 'group of parents' who sent the
unsigned letter to the school board. I find the willful ignorance of
the 'parents' unAmerican."
I also think Marty had a good point about the Leader Telegram fanning
the flames of this story. They could just have easily chosen to
ignore the whole episode. After all, there are plenty of cases where
parents have much more legitimate complaints about how their children
are being educated.
Andy Swanson
On May 12, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Kate Hale wrote:
> How many folks on the SFPJ listserve have children at Memorial? Or
> elsewhere in the ECASD? Perhaps we could do a “group” letter to
the
> school board.
>
> I have a son, just finishing his junior year at Memorial.
>
> Kate Hale
>