DirectoryxCalendarxJobsxPersonal HomepagesxAIDS & Health InfoxSearchxChatxMessage BoardxGaywire Network News
		Latest developements at NW Classenxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

The following are e-mails from Joe Quigley
(Posted 9-18-01)

Monday, September 17

Having failed in his most recent attempt to invent a reason to put the
Gay man who did not run into the closet when he was told to in a position to
get fired, principal Davis of Northwest Classen is trying again. The amount
of time this man devotes to trying to find something to nail me on can only
mean he is either unstable, unable to run the school so he slips to something
he finds comfortable (harassment), is becoming dangerously pathological, may
eventually turn to something a little more physical, or really enjoys this in
a way that can only be described as a mental orgasm.
     His obsession is extreme.
And, from what he said today to assure me that he had done his homework, he
is apparently getting advice and encouragement from the central office.

The story:
The legend of King Arthur is part of the sophomore English curriculum. Two
years ago when I first came to NWC and had two classes of sophomores among my
four of seniors, I noticed the other sophomore teacher showed "Excalibur".
This is a rather faithful adaptation of Le Morte D'Arthur by Thomas Mallory,
and after reading the scant selections from the text written by a variety of
authors which exposes the students to a mix of styles and treatments, it is a
good way to illustrate the Arthurian Legend.
     At that time I was assured by the teacher that the video had been okayed
by principals, and was shown the signature and initials of two principals.
that was the 1999-2000 academic year
     This year I showed "Excalibur" to my classes when we dealt with the
legend of Arthur.
      Although, once again not revealing the name of the "student", I was
informed by davis that one student had objected to the conception of Arthur
(his father raped a friend's wife which would eventually sow the seed for the
destruction of Arthur and all he stood for, so it is essential to the legend
and very cyclic).
     I also found out that while I had informed my students of the complete
details of the legend and how the "rape" was an essential part as it would
explain the future actions of others in the tales, and after they had written
summaries of the legend, sticking to the facts, the substitute who had
rummaged through my desk and complained to the principal about the GAYLY in
my desk, had informed the students they would not be seeing the second half
of the video as she considered it pornography.
     Where my students were dealing with the story of Arthur, the Sub put
this extraneous thought in the students' heads, and then left them to imagine
what "pornography" they were not seeing.
     The district's policy on movies is that they should be related to the
curriculum and should be approved by the principal. In practice, at least
since I have been with the district and at NWC, if the teacher knows a movie
is rated "R", the principal's approval must be given. If it is in the "G"
area, teachers should use their professional judgement. When a film is
approved, as "Excalibur" had been, regardless of its rating it is permissable
to show it.
    When you check with another teacher to ascertain if a video has been
approved, and you are shown a signature to that effect, there is no reason to
do anymore.
     Today, without facing my complainant, I was issued a "oral reprimand"
using the
principal's favorite phrase, "willful neglect of duty", because it is the
first step in the attempt to dismiss a teacher, and he has used it as
recently as the verbal reprimand that fizzled when it became clear he was
attempting to universally apply a specific (and followed) directive, and that
he had not given all the teachers the bulletin board memo addressed to them
which he was supposed to have done when we resolved the first grievance on
9/20/00.
    The man is so picky, inspite of my informing him that I had shown the
movie before, and had watched it in the past, he insists I did not "preview"
it according to policy, as I did not watch it specifically prior to showing
it to my class. (pardon my slip from professionalism, but....DUH)

Here is the "oral reprimand":

"You are receiving an Oral Reprimand for "willful Neglect of Duty". This is
a result of failing to view a video prior to it being shown to your class in
your absence Thursday, September 6, 2001." (see #1 below) "The video shown
was entitled "Excalibur". The Request for Classroom Use of Video Form you
relied on and presented to me on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 was submitted by
(teacher's name withheld by me to protect privacy) on May 5, 1994 and showed
a film rating of "G". The film which you left to be shown to your class was
rated "R" and was not appropriate for students. District Regulation I-29-Ri
requires that teachers view the entire film or video prior to showing it to
students and requires that the film or video be approved by the principal.
You failed to comply with the District's regulation."

As is plain, Davis is pushing half truths to back his charge.
1) I've seen the film on more than one occaision. If the reprimand is based
on my failing to view it prior to showing it, as stated in the second
sentence of the reprimand, is there a statute of limitations concerning prior
viewing?
Had the rest of the letter been reasons for the verbal reprimand, sentence
two should have been worded properly and come at the end.
2) If I am shown not one, but two principal approvals (he conveniently refers
only to the one from 1994, ignoring the more recent one of 1997) why would I
question anything further. What reason would I have to second guess the
signatures I was shown. My interest was in that the video had been approved.
why would I read the whole form in detail as it was the same video.
     Why are this principal's reactions always so extreme?
     Would not a simple, professional reminder be enough?
I will keep you informed. I get the feeling that if this blows over, he will
try to find something else.

On a funny, ironic note. Remembering his apoplexy about rainbows in my room
and hissy fits he has thrown about anything rainbow (I cannot have any in my
room), today he cheerfully got on the P.A. to announce the flag pole in front
of the school had been repaired, and he more than once praised RAINBOW
BANNERS for their work in doing that. I counted four times.
So inspite of previous claims that his objection to rainbows is that they are
symbols of sexual orientation, this exhuberance belies that, and points out
that his objections to rainbows is pointed and limited to only me, thereby
making me the only teacher in the Oklahoma City Public schools to be under
that bann.
This is inequitable treatment, and is a violation on Soooo many levels, Civil
and contractual.
Any interested attorneys? Can't pay you, but the case would be a changer.

Joe Quigley
NWClassen

Thursday, September 13

Today I received a summons to report to a meeting during my planning period.
I received it at 7:10 am when i had just arrived at school.
The first part of the meeting dealt with a matter that is so laughable if it
weren't for the principal taking the stupidity so serious, and trying to
decide if I should be disciplined. It is just another ludicrous attempt by
the principal to make a childish point, of throwing a tantrum rather than run
the school as he should.
I feel so important.. I take up more of his time than running a school of
over 1400 students, so that he can "win".
GUTCHA.
    After the principal finished with the business of the meeting, he once
again brought up his concern that I had brought a copy of the GAYLY to school
to read on the toilet.
     His concern was that the GAYLY may be disturbing to certain people, but
he seems to forget that the only reason it disturbed my substitute was
because she rummaged through my desk when she did not have to, nor did she
have the right to. It was not in public view nor accessible to my students.
      He told me that he prefer I do not bring "controversial" reading
material to school.
The GAYLY is not controversial reading material.
The substitute teacher's personal views should be taken as just that, her
personal views, and should not become a benchmark.
     He suggested that I remove any "controversial" material from the GAYLY
before I brought it to school to read. I do not see how or why I should be
expected to exercise self-censorship, or be held to anticipate the personal
tastes and views of other people.
     Mr. Davis told me that I should be mindful that all "issues" have two
sides.
I question why if this were the case the GLBT side is expected to be the one
that must automatically acquiesce.
     He also suggested that if I intended to bring the GAYLY to school to
read on my own time (and on the toilet) that I first bring it to him for his
approval.
     I told him I would comply with this so long as he put this in the form
of a memo addressed to all faculty and staff, and that he present and explain
it at the next faculty meeting, and hold ALL teachers to it.
     He told me the GAYLY was offensive because THERE WAS A PICTURE IN WHICH
ONE MAN HAD HIS HAND ON ANOTHER'S BUTT.
      This apparently to him is tantamount to pornography. I pointed out that
even Time Magazinbe had pictures of people kissing, cleavage and any form of
sexually suggestive pictures that to him were totally acceptable, but a man
with his hand on the clothed butt of another man was pronographic?
    Is this man for real???!!!
       He then drew a comparison that he would object equally to a teacher
bringing in a magazine where there were pictures of women with their rather
large breasts hanghing out all over the place.
     AND THE COMPARISON IS WHERE?
     I finally told him that the substitute had a sewer mind that
automatically went to filthy perverted thoughts when she saw the word "GAY",
and that this was not my problem, but hers, and that he was no better than
she was as he was willing to enter her sewer with her.
     I then informed him that for two years I patiently went along with his
treating me in a way that put me as the only teacher at NWC and the district
to be treated this way. But, this year that is going to stop.
My patience is at an end.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WANTED ME TO ALLOW HIM TO APPROVE WHAT I CHOSE FOR MY
PERSONAL READING?
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WANTS ME TO EXERCISE SELF-CENSORSHIP TO HONOR THE
PERVERTED AND FILTHY THOUGHTS OF ANOTHER PERSON?
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT HE EQUATES ANYTHING RELATED WITH GAY OR LESBIAN WITH
PORNOGRAPHY, YET HE IS THE PRINCIPAL OF A SCHOOL WITH GAY AND LESBIAN KIDS IN
A SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT SAYS IN ITS MISSION STATEMENT THAT IT WILL EDUCATE ALL
STUDENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS, AND THAT ALL STUDENTS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE?
     Enough is enough.
This man is clearly harassing me, and creating a hostile work environment as
he keeps calling me to meetings, and this morning at the time that teachers
report to work.
    I am going to follow this up with an e-mail in answer to the question,
"what can we do to combat this?" .
Joe Quigley

What do you think? Post your opinion on GayOKC.com's Message Board!

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO FRONT PAGE