Evidence of gay activists motivation in Anoka-Hennepin School controversy. Looks like they want homosexuality promoted in district.

A call from the Star Tribune reporter on the Anoka-Hennepin sexual orientation policy controversy got me digger a bit deeper. I found an interesting February 2009, Star Tribune article on the change in its sexual orientation policy, to its current form. The new policy includes neutral language regarding discussion of sexual orientation by school personnel.

Back then gay activists praised the policy change.

From the February 2009 Star Tribune story.

OutFront Minnesota and the Midwest Office of Family Equality Council, two of the state's leading gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) advocacy groups, praised the vote.

Phil Duran, a staff attorney for OutFront, said since the policy was enacted 14 years ago his office has received several inquiries from students and parents who said it led to censorship in journalism assignments and GLBT awareness training for teachers.

"It was a very odd situation," Duran said. "We're grateful the board put some thoughtful effort into moving forward and balancing the district's obligation to serve all students and recognize there was some sensitivity about this issue."

The old board policy "made teachers nervous," said Mary Pedersen, a Champlin Park High School teacher who advises the school's gay-straight alliance. "They didn't want to overstep the boundary of that board directive."

What's changed? I think it's quite clear they want homosexual advocacy in the district.

Gay activists manipulate suicide tragedy for ideological purposes.

Homosexual activists are beating the drum for homosexual doctrination of school children in Anoka Hennepin School District in response to the tragic suicide of Justin Aaberg, a teenager who had embraced homosexuality.

It's been argued that Justin committed suicide, because he was harassed for being homosexual. I talked to parents of students in the district and the word among students is that Justin was distraught over his male lover having an affair. Whatever the exact reason for Justin's suicide it's an enormous tragedy that shouldn't be manipulated for ideological purposes which is what's being done now.

Certainly harassment of a student or any student for homosexuality or any other reason is unacceptable and needs to be swiftly dealt with. Even if the reason a student's harassment is his or her homosexuality that does not justify "anti-homophobia" indoctrination of the entire student body and faculty. (This indoctrination seeks to promote acceptance of homosexuality as a normal form of sexual expression.) Yet that's what is being demanded.

The mother of the student notes that " some groups are more vulnerable, noting "there's literature that says (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) persons are a high-risk group."

I would agree that youth who embrace homosexuality are at greater risk, because they've embraced an unhealthy sexual identity and lifestyle. These alternative sexual identifications or lifestyles deny the reality that we are created male and female. To live or try to live in conflict with how we are made will invariably cause problems, e.g. emotional, psychological and social. Notwithstanding gay activist assertions to the contrary, people aren't gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. by God's design or nature. We are male and female with sexual expression designed for a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Denying or fighting against this reality is the reason alternative forms of sexual expression, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will put people at greater risk. To assert otherwise is to deny reality and involves "kicking against the goad" to use a biblical analogy.

The manipulation of this tragedy is reminiscent of the Matthew Shepard tragedy. Shepard a homosexual was brutally murdered by two men who robbed him. It was asserted that Shepard was murdered, because he was homosexual. It turns out that wasn't the case. No matter. Shepard's tragic death served an important ideological purpose for homosexual activists.

I'll of course be accused of being unloving, hateful, etc. But is the loving thing to encourage and promote unhealthy and harmful behaviors and practices? If we love and care for people won't we encourage them to do the right thing and discourage the wrong? Warn them the course they're headed down is dangerous? What does this say about people who actually encourage people to engage in harmful practices?

Political correctness and misguided Department of Human Rights appear to infringe on teacher's rights.

A front page Pioneer Press story titled, "Former Anoka-Hennepin student's claim of harassment was retaliation, 6 students and 2 teachers say" raises troubling questions about the alleged anti-gay harassment of an Anoka Hennepin high school student. It also suggests political correctness run amok and abuse of individual rights by government agencies.

The student who said two Anoka-Hennepin School District teachers harassed him with comments hinting he was gay made the allegations only after one of the instructors reported him to school officials for talking about bringing a gun to school, former students and the lawyer for one of the teachers assert.

Six former students at the school claim in a letter that the student, Alex Merritt, "went around saying he was going to get that teacher fired for sending him down (to the office) ... He was only trying to get himself out of trouble."

"That's what precipitated this whole thing — the gun incident," said Philip Villaume, an attorney who represents Diane Cleveland, one of the teachers. "I don't know whether the administration will admit that she reported the gun incident, but that's what happened.

"But ... for that report to the administration about the gun, none of this would've happened," he said. "Basically, the student took things that were said in class, or things that happened in class, and either exaggerated or misconstrued them."

Villaume and some former students claim that Merritt made his January 2008 allegations only after Cleveland reported to school officials that he and some other students had discussed bringing a gun to school. Teachers are required by law to report such incidents.

"She had been told by the school (police) liaison officer that this group of kids had been heard talking about taking a gun to school," Villaume said. "She had to report that. Within a few days of that, she was being targeted for making harassing or discriminatory remarks, which she absolutely denies making."

...Six former students at the school claim in a letter that the student, Alex Merritt, "went around saying he was going to get that teacher fired for sending him down (to the office) ... He was only trying to get himself out of trouble."

"That's what precipitated this whole thing — the gun incident," said Philip Villaume, an attorney who represents Diane Cleveland, one of the teachers. "I don't know whether the administration will admit that she reported the gun incident, but that's what happened.

"But ... for that report to the administration about the gun, none of this would've happened," he said. "Basically, the student took things that were said in class, or things that happened in class, and either exaggerated or misconstrued them."

So contrary to prior news reports, there's another side to this story. The charged teachers and a number of students say the alleged harassment never occurred. And the student alleging the harassment apparently had a grudge against the teacher and, in the minds of other students, wanted to get him fired.

In today's politically charged, politically correct environment, any hint of anti-gay comments immediately grab headlines and the accused is assumed to be guilty.

This story also points out the dangers inherent in the state's Department of Human Rights which operates on the assumption that if there's an allegation of discrimination, the accused person or organization is forced to prove their innocence rather than be proven guilty. This means a person must go to great expense to prove they're not guilty. This turns our justice system on it's head regarding presumption of innocence.

According to the news story, the state human rights department never interviewed Cleveland or Filson, nor did agency investigators interview any of the students who might have witnessed the alleged incidents. Instead it was looking at whether the school was guilty of discrimination. Apparently, they thought the school was guilty without asking the accused teachers or students with some knowledge of the situation.

Although the school district denied it violated the state's Human Rights Act and admitted no wrongdoing, it paid Merritt $25,000 in a settlement finalized in July by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The agency said its investigation found sufficient evidence that Merritt "had been subjected to unwelcome harassment" by Cleveland and another teacher, Walt Filson, and that the harassment forced the student to transfer to another school.

...In reaching its harassment finding, the state human rights department never interviewed Cleveland or Filson, nor did agency investigators interview any of the students who might have witnessed the alleged incidents.

Instead, the department relied on the investigation conducted by DeAnn LaValle, director of employee services for the Anoka-Hennepin School District. Records show officials spoke to Cleveland twice with a union representative present, and Filson once without union representation.

The teachers claim that in those meetings, they denied the student's allegations. But it is unclear whether the Department of Human Rights knew that the two teachers disputed the student's claims.

Jeff Holman, a spokesman for the agency, said such information is part of the investigation and state privacy laws prohibit the department from talking about it.

Holman said there was no need for the agency to investigate the teacher's claims because it was looking only into whether the district had violated the Human Rights Act, and the agency concluded there had been a violation, based on the district's own admissions.

"Because the district's own investigation had determined the comments were made, the Department of Human Rights had no need to prove what the district had already admitted," he said.

But Filson, who spent nearly three decades as a police officer before becoming a teacher, said he believes it is unfair that the human rights department issued a report accusing him of wrongdoing when it had never interviewed him.

"The accusations are false," Filson said in an interview with the Pioneer Press in his first public comments on the matter. "The Department of Human Rights never spoke to me or the other teacher, or the other students in the classes. In 28 years in law enforcement, I don't think I ever closed an investigation without at least attempting to talk to the accused."

Filson taught law enforcement and Cleveland was a social studies teacher. Both are on voluntary unpaid leaves.

I've always had misgivings about the State Department of Human Rights, because it's premised on the belief that individuals accused must prove their innocence rather than the department must prove their guilt. And the department's activities are premised on group identity issues, e.g. race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. rather than on individuals.

And it looks like the school district wanted to avoid controversy, so they decided to pay a settlement rather than find out whether there actually was harassment.

If today's story is accurate, the teachers are left with damaged reputations and I wonder whether the school district may well be paying out more money.

Harassment of students by teachers unacceptable.

There's been quite a bit of media attention drawn to the recent harassing incident in the Anoka-Hennepin School District. In this instance, it involved harassment of student for being gay, though the student actually wasn't homosexual. Any and all forms of harassment of students, for being gay or anything else, is wrong and should be dealt with strongly.

New policy is better than old policy on sexual orientation in Minnesota's largest school district.

A couple of weeks ago it was reported that the Anoka-Hennepin School District dropped it's "anti-gay" policy regarding the promotion of homosexuality. It was seen as a victory by gay activists.

In fact, the new policy is stronger than the old one. The old policy simply said the district would not teach homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle. The problem with that policy is it was limited to homosexuality and it was unclear what "advocate the homosexual lifestyle" meant.

Here's the wording of the old policy:

"We recommend that while respect be maintained toward all people, homosexuality not be taught/addressed as a normal, valid lifestyle and that district staff and their resources not advocate the homosexual lifestyle."

The new language is as follows:

"Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations. Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student-led discussions. If and when staff address sexual orientation, it is important that staff do so in a respectful manner that is age-appropriate, factual, and pertinent to the relevant curriculum."

This expands the definition to encompass transgenderism, transvestitism, cross dressing and so forth. It also makes explicit that sexual orientation is not a part of the district's curriculum and teachers must remain neutral regarding sexual orientation, e.g. they can't promote homosexuality. And lastly, it makes clear sexual orientation is an issue best left to families and churches not the school district. This should preclude situations where homosexual teachers attempt to promote homosexuality in the classroom or in their interactions with students. Situations had arisen in the past where teachers were leading the charge regarding pro-homosexual initiatives in a particular school.

This change is significant because Anoka-Hennepin is the largest public school district in the state with over 40,000 students and can serve as an example to other district wrestling with how to address this issue.