Newsx Eventsx Directoryx Searchx AIDS & Health Infox Personal Websites of GLBT Oklahomansx Chat/Message Board
Joe Quigley - NW Classen update


Get on the list!
Enter your email address here to join GayOKC.com's
mailing list!

Oklahoma City Public Schools

Oklahoma State Department of Education

ACLU of Oklahoma

ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union

PFLAG: Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

GLSEN: Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network

Lambda Legal

What do you think?
CLICK HERE
to post your opinion on GayOKC.com's Message Board!

 x

The following are emails from Joe Quigley
(Posted 4-11-03)

(4-9-03) Last week when the "Gift Of" plaque mysteriously reappeared the day after I spoke to the police officer about the filing of a police report I asked the principal three logical questions. I did not get a reply to those questions.
A second inquiry went ignored, so I followed up this week with a third.
Now it has been two weeks from the report of the missing plaque, and I know that the principal is aware of the story in Chicken Fried News as I and another teacher saw it posted above the teachers' mailboxes, all highlighted in yellow with the word "ATTENTION" and an arrow pointing to it done in what seemed to be the same red felt tip pen in which had been written "OK. WD. 04-04-03". WD standing for and in the style of the WD I have seen on so many memos from Weldon Davis.
He even responded to my memo congratulating him on the swiftness of its return and his apparent swiftness with a "you are welcome". So, at that time, even though he did not answer my three questions, he seemed to take credit for dealing with the matter.
So I am puzzled that he responded this third time as he did. What or whom is he covering for? Certainly if he could respond as he did, it would have taken as much time to list a name, place and discipline action.
And in answer to a question I received, yes, the district is aware of all of this, not only with the plaque, but all the rest as I include sending these emails to the Superintendent (then and now), the head of School Community Relations, chief of operations (second in command), and not too long ago beginning the inclusion of the head of the district's legal department. You may see their addresses on the top of each email. I allow the list so everyone can see they get it. Surprisingly, they either don't read because to them it is not important, or they ignore it.
Makes one wonder if this is how acts of theft or vandalism are routinely handled by the principal and the district, or is this yet another example of unequal treament.
Or is there a more "sinister" reason that the principal is not forthcoming with the information.
Again he responds that he will look into it, so certainly he seems to know that there is someone out there responsible for it, and that he himself had nothing to do with it, or he would not have to look into it. So, Whom is he protecting?
Here are the emails:

Subj: Re: repetition of inquiries
Date: 04/09/2003 7:18:08 AM Central Daylight Time
From: wdavis@okcps.k12.ok.us
To: JQuiglee@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



I regret that with RIFs, and other pressing issues I have not had time to look into the matter. I understand it is installed properly, not on the door as before, and is secure. If this is incorrect please contact [secretary] for a Conference with me.

Weldon Davis, Principal


----- Original Message -----
From: JQuiglee@aol.com
To: wdavis@okcps.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 8:58 PM
Subject: repetition of inquiries


04/08/03

Mr. Davis:
It has been almost a complete week since the plaque whose absence I brought to your attention on 03/26/03 was returned to the community bulletin board.
Since its return I have twice inquired as to the identity of the the person who took it, where it was found, and what disciplinary action, if any, was taken against the perpetrator. Although you have rsponded to the first email acknowledging that you received it with a "you're welcome", you have not responded to my inquiries. I hope I am not to infer by this that you are protecting the identity of the perpetrator, or that no disciplinary action has been taken.
I would appreciate your responses to the above repeated inquiries.
Joseph M Quigley

 

 

 

(4-10-03) Do you think such a ruling should be a wake up call to administrators who seem bent on making sure that no one is made aware of the inclusion of Gay and Lesbian Students in such laws as Title IX or applicable school policies?
   Why is there such a reluctance?
My principal removed from my classroom (and has kept) a statement I had framed which was made in 1998 during an inservice by the then Director of Student Services wherein he said we needed to protect Gay and Lesbian Students from harassment as it could make the district liable under Title IX . This has never been reflected in any publication of the district, although they have had the opportunity to do so each time they have published the Parent/Student Handbook since then.
    I was directed to remove from my classroom a sign I had hung next to a district notification on Title IX because it said, "Gay or Straight, no one has to put up with sexual harassment. REPORT IT." The principal claimed it was because that was not an official district sign.
   Permission to hang Gay and Lesbian positive information is routinely denied even when requested to be hung during appropriate times such as Gay and Lesbian History Month and Brotherhood (diversity) Week. Such postings could help dispel the stereotypes on which verbal and physical harassment are often based because they show that GLBT people are part of the fabric of society and may very well be people students, Gay and Straight, actually admire for their accomplishments or example.
   Gay and Lesbian students are denied positive role models, and this marginalization to the general population often results in the very actions the policies and various laws are meant to prevent.
   Students and teachers are forced to either assume GLBT students are protected, or must figure it out often after the fact when they have unknowingly violated the rules such as the two students at NWClassen did when they harassed the two girls who are believed to be Lesbian. Something they may have been more reluctant to do had they KNOWN such actions were against policy and that they WERE violating a school rule. They were punished, but couldn't the whole situation been avoided in the first place?
   Why must anyone be in a position to try to figure the rules out only to be punished when they don't while a principal takes much effort, even to the point of being a little bizarre about it  to keep it secret that the rules also cover GLBT students?
  If, as the Office of Civil Rights holds, wherever the word "Students" appears in a district policy or publication it includes Gay and Lesbian Students, why doesn't the district make this known, and why when the principal takes actions that prevent this from being known does it do nothing?
     Gay and Lesbian students ARE protected, at least on paper and in theory, but there seems to be a concerted effort to hide that and to take action against anyone who endeavors to make that clear.
      Perhaps the following article about a recent ruling should be given consideration.


Court Rules Schools Must Fight Gay-Bashing
By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
        Public school administrators who fail to take effective steps to
counter anti-gay harassment may violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of
equal protection of the law, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
    Merely having an anti-discrimination policy is insufficient if the
policy is not enforced, according to the 3-0 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The ruling covers school districts in California and
eight other Western states.
        The case arose in the Northern California town of Morgan Hill, where
six students - a male and five females - alleged that they were severely
harassed from 1991 to 1998, and that school officials failed to take
corrective measures.
        One student, Alana Flores, found pornography and notes to the effect
of "Die, dyke bitch" inside her locker, Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote in her
opinion for the court.  When the student complained to an assistant
principal, he told her, "You need to go back to class.  Don't bring me this
trash any more."
        Another student alleged that he had been beaten by six other students
who yelled disparaging epithets.  The boy was hospitalized and treated for
severely bruised ribs.
        School officials punished only one of the six culprits and the victim
transferred to another school.
        The other students were derided for their sexual orientation,
according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the students in San Jose federal
court in 1998.
        The students contended that the Morgan Hill Unified School District
and several officials of schools there violated both state and federal laws
in failing to adequately respond to the complaints.
        The California School Boards Assn. currently advises its 1,000
districts to immediately intervene in situations in which a student is being
harassed or discriminated against, said James Morante, a representative of
the organization.
        But not all districts follow such guidelines, Morante said.
Tuesday's ruling is important, Morante said, because "one of the primary
responsibilities of a school district is to ensure the safety of its
students, as well as provide a good learning environment" free from
discrimination.
        Attorneys representing the defendants in the case had argued that
having an anti-discrimination policy in effect should protect the defendants
against a lawsuit.
        The defendants also argued that the students had failed to show that
administrators had acted out of an "improper motive" and that the law at the
time of the alleged incidents had not clearly required the district to
protect students against harassment by their peers.
        Schroeder, joined by judges Richard A. Paez and Richard C. Tallman,
rejected those arguments.
        Although the district had anti-discrimination policies, evidence
indicated they were not enforced effectively, the judges noted.
        The evidence suggested the school "failed to adequately train
teachers, students, and campus monitors about the district's policies
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," they wrote.
        There was no immediate comment from the school district.
  Unless the decision is overturned, the students will go to trial in
federal court in San Jose seeking damages and other relief that could lead
to changes in school district policies.

 

 

Previous postings from Joe Quigley:

 

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO FRONT PAGE

 

GayOKC.com COPYRIGHT © 1998 - 2003 ROBERT D. ABIERA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. (NO, THIS IS STILL NOT JOE QUIGLEY'S PERSONAL WEBSITE!)

Click Here!