Monday, October 16, 2006
Just a comment about Thursday's editorial "Blind Eye."
The writer does not understand the legal problems the superintendent of the pretend school district would be subject to if he started an investigation of a gay teacher or gay person without iron-clad proof of sexual activity.
If the superintendent would start an investigation of a gay with e-mails similar to those sent by Foley (before the text messages), the ACLU would bring suit immediately against the superintendent, and the district would pay millions.
The e-mails did not demonstrate any real indication of being of a sexual nature. Therefore, any questions or suggestions using these e-mails that a gay communicating with a student was improper would be considered harassment of a gay.
By law, the superintendent must have a blind eye until he has proof of a crime. That isn't the way it should be, but that's the law.
Another point of interest: When school systems are faced with legal problems where the ACLU may become involved, they will generally use their blind eyes because school boards do not have the financial resources to fight the ACLU.
Finally, let's face reality. In every school system there are at least five to 15 underage girls getting pregnant every year, and many of them impregnated by men over the age of 17. The superintendent uses his blind eye many times each year to these crimes, as does our communities and this newspaper.
It's easy to write the words, but will the editorial board demand the father and his age of each child that becomes pregnant in Beaver County? Or, will it use a blind eye and permit these crimes to occur? I know the answer, and it isn't pretty.