On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:53:18 GMT, ByTor <ByTor@no-spam>
wrote:
>Let's do a little snipping<
>
>Obwon:
>> Well, as I understand it the city has been using two class
>> rooms to run a test school for over 19 years. If that is true,
>> and I'm sure it is, then it means that the city already has data
>> in hand to prove the utility and therefore the need for this
>> school. Better performance would justify it, if I'm reading the
>> words of the opponents here correctly.
>> The constitutional issues, as I said before, will take second
>> place over the educational mission. This is because, as any
>> judge will likely rule, children are "special case" citizens as
>> is evidenced by the laws requirement that they have guardians act
>> on their behalf in the greatest majority of cases on the largest
>> number of issues.
>> So then, with the educational department citing a need and
>> proving utility of what it is doing, the rules of guardianship
>> will take precedence since it supports the educational mission.
>> That gets us around the issues of why and how gays suffer etc.,
>> and get us straight to the point of how do they do better.
>> Without having to go into why.
>>
>
>ByTor:
>Refering to the below article.............
>You have to admit, it does appear that they may have a very valid
>point/position if it does not adhere to specific guidelines already set
>by the educational system.
>Now, don't get me wrong, I am saying this without full understanding of
>these "guidelines" so I can't really form much of an opinion until I see
>them.......I guess with the "Lawyerly" ways out there everything is just
>a matter of interpretation....And boy oh boy can some lawyers twist
>it......;0)
>But, I will do my research though..............
>
>
>Obwon:
>> Article from today's Daily News...
>> -----------
<and snipping here too>
Nor have I seen the guidelines either, but one things for
sure, guidelines are simply that: guidelines, hardly the best
basis for a lawsuit since they are under the direct control of
the agency that sets them. So that a conference or hearing
within the agency would be the most logical place to start any
oppositional action. The judge in this case may very well rule
the case out for "failure to exhaust remedies".
Certainly with an education department hearing record in hand,
they stand a much better chance of going forward since they would
also have benefit of the education departments opinions, data and
other informations that went into the decision.
That aside, the department of education is free, without aid of
outside authority, to change, alter and amend it's own guidelines
to conform with its views of how to better discharge its duties
and mission. As a result, the judge may very well rule that the
plaintiff's arguments do not give him jurisdiction. Or, he may
simply order that the dept. of Ed. amend its guidelines to
conform with its new reality. Neither of which would be seen as
a very big win for the plaintiffs.
They are on a very slippery slope to begin with and they risk
being seen as part of the problem in their efforts to maintain,
rather needlessly, the state of "arrested cultural development"
our society suffers. We do have "bigger fish to fry," in our
society at large, after all.
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
In article <a92njvsbm3hi3qrn0urb0ep5kaikh2j87r@no-spam>, ob110ob@no-spam
says...
> >Let's do a little snipping<
What happened? Ya didn't like my snipping? I was straining my eyes to
read.....It was beginning to get harder to follow... ;0)
>
> >
> >Obwon:
> >> Well, as I understand it the city has been using two class
> >> rooms to run a test school for over 19 years. If that is true,
> >> and I'm sure it is, then it means that the city already has data
> >> in hand to prove the utility and therefore the need for this
> >> school. Better performance would justify it, if I'm reading the
> >> words of the opponents here correctly.
> >> The constitutional issues, as I said before, will take second
> >> place over the educational mission. This is because, as any
> >> judge will likely rule, children are "special case" citizens as
> >> is evidenced by the laws requirement that they have guardians act
> >> on their behalf in the greatest majority of cases on the largest
> >> number of issues.
> >> So then, with the educational department citing a need and
> >> proving utility of what it is doing, the rules of guardianship
> >> will take precedence since it supports the educational mission.
> >> That gets us around the issues of why and how gays suffer etc.,
> >> and get us straight to the point of how do they do better.
> >> Without having to go into why.
> >>
> >
> >ByTor:
> >Refering to the below article.............
> >You have to admit, it does appear that they may have a very valid
> >point/position if it does not adhere to specific guidelines already set
> >by the educational system.
> >Now, don't get me wrong, I am saying this without full understanding of
> >these "guidelines" so I can't really form much of an opinion until I see
> >them.......I guess with the "Lawyerly" ways out there everything is just
> >a matter of interpretation....And boy oh boy can some lawyers twist
> >it......;0)
> >But, I will do my research though..............
> >
> >
> >Obwon:
> >> Article from today's Daily News...
> >> -----------
> <and snipping here too>
>
> Nor have I seen the guidelines either, but one things for
> sure, guidelines are simply that: guidelines, hardly the best
> basis for a lawsuit since they are under the direct control of
> the agency that sets them. So that a conference or hearing
> within the agency would be the most logical place to start any
> oppositional action. The judge in this case may very well rule
> the case out for "failure to exhaust remedies".
>
> Certainly with an education department hearing record in hand,
> they stand a much better chance of going forward since they would
> also have benefit of the education departments opinions, data and
> other informations that went into the decision.
>
> That aside, the department of education is free, without aid of
> outside authority, to change, alter and amend it's own guidelines
> to conform with its views of how to better discharge its duties
> and mission. As a result, the judge may very well rule that the
> plaintiff's arguments do not give him jurisdiction. Or, he may
> simply order that the dept. of Ed. amend its guidelines to
> conform with its new reality. Neither of which would be seen as
> a very big win for the plaintiffs.
>
> They are on a very slippery slope to begin with and they risk
> being seen as part of the problem in their efforts to maintain,
> rather needlessly, the state of "arrested cultural development"
> our society suffers. We do have "bigger fish to fry," in our
> society at large, after all.
Well, I guess I can say that hopefully all of this works out....I'm
still not sure if I believe that seperatism is the answer though even
though you have been very persuasive in your analysis and approach, and
I most definitely respect that. I still think the bottom line is the
idea of "seperatism."
I feel in some way that seperatism is a remedy to avoid the situation,
not prevent it. People will do what they want but we as a society must
uphold the principles & laws laid down, people MUST respect the law and
if they are found to not respect someones contitutional right than they
should be dealt with. In the past oppressed people dealt with there
situations "without" public supported seperatism....Yes there are still
things to be worked out but it's working. And as you have stated this is
an unexplored area as compared to "racism" and we are better equipped,
but, that took time & so will this..........
