Last week parents attended elementary “Math Night” in North Hanover Township (Burlington County). Below to find these posters that greet children at the Elementary School's main entrance.
The kids had an assignment to create a poster for a “safe space” for everyone to “feel good and accepted.” Kids as young as 9 years old participated in creating these posters.
Creating a “safe space” seems appropriate for this age. A safe space could be a place for kids to go who feel lonely helpless or misunderstood. But it turned into an introduction the types of sex preferences, which shouldn’t really make any child or parent feel safe.
New Jersey elementary schools are promoting/allowing elementary KIDS to research topics of sexuality and create posters to decorate the main entrance of our schools. This is not in the state elementary standards (law) nor in the BOE-approved curriculum. These sexual concepts are suppose to be presented in health class on an “opt-out” basis but, in this situation you can’t opt your child out of the main entrance of the school.
There is a push throughout NJ to get young children to be accepting of people “who are sexually attracted to multiple genders” at an age where they can’t even consent to sexual activity. These are young children being introduced to the concepts of polyamorous (to have open intimate or romantic relationships with more than one person at a time), multi-gender (a term for anyone who experiences more than one gender identity), Androgynes (people who “feel” simultaneously feminine and masculine, although not necessarily in equal amounts). The purpose of introducing these concepts at an inappropriate age seems at best, reckless, and at worst, nefarious. This goes beyond, “sometimes girls like boys, sometimes girls like girls and sometimes boys like boys.”
Lets be clear that all people are deserving of respect and dignity. Kids should respect differences in all people. Kids should show kindness to all. Kids should respect and understand there are various family structures. However, kids should not be forced to learn about concepts of sexuality in elementary school when at the moment they enter the building. Schools can instill kindness, acceptance and safe spaces in children without talking about sex. It’s possible. And the excuse that some kids will see this on social media or the playground does not give the green flag to schools to hang age-inappropriate content on the walls.
There is no way elementary students knew the spelling and flags for each of these identities off of the top of their head. This means the school had open internet, which exposed them to these concepts. That’s very concerning since there are supposed to be online search protections in the schools.
Parents have been told that they can opt out of the health curriculum, but it seems like a fake offer when sex preferences are pasted all over the halls of the elementary school for all the kids to see. Clearly, there is never going to be an opt-out in New Jersey. Our elementary children will be exposed to sexual content without parental consent, even if parents opt-out. This is in conflict with long-standing scientific principles of age-appropriateness, parental rights, and the health and safety of elementary school-aged children.
When did it become the school’s responsibility to force a 9, 10, 11, or 12-year-old to learn the 50+ terms that describe sexual attraction, behavior, and orientation? Now the school’s job to explain all these definitions: autoromatic (people who experience their personal relationship with themselves as being romantic, while people who are autosexual feel intense sexual attraction to themselves), Cupiosexual (an individual who does not experience sexual desire, but still wants a sexual relationship), polysexual/pansexual (incorporating many different kinds of sexuality)? Or should the parents should have that timing choice for their own young children?
Look up the terms on these posters, and you will see they are sexual in nature. Its time the parents address this at the next BOE meeting on December 13th.
They are coming for our children. If we sit back and do nothing we too are accountable. I encourage you to get people who are in opposition of this together and voice your disgust and concern. Otherwise, we are no different then the teachers who promote this or remain silent. Please join me in Lawrence Township on December 14, 2022 at 6pm. I believe if we all unite we can end this madness.
It actually is because it shows that this type of conduct will not be tolerated. In addition, the social media naysayers and liberals who support this will be there in full force in an attempt to grandstand about things that actually serve no legitimate purpose but to complain about their hurt feelings and to support this satanic agenda.
this is true, activists are called to go to our BOE meetings, people without kids in any district, some are not even from New Jersey. Its time to take our schools back.
I would try to go to your meeting, but I am speaking near me at a library meeting on the 14th as I'm sure you know the agenda to sexualize children is also in the libraries. I also speak out in my town, but keeping asking for more help because we definitely need more involvement from the community at large.
I worry about my young grandchildren being exposed to situations like this. We all accept the gay community but let's keep things private and stop trying to influence our young in a direction that could be confusing. This poster was created by an adult/teacher. They are using our children as their pawns. I'm glad to see parents are fighting back.
This is appalling and incomprehensible and outright disgusting. I recently found out in Lawrence Township that the Board of Education gave the 1st grade teacher who was promoting this as well as wearing a "Columbus was a murderer shirt" to the Ben Franklin School a two week PAID leave of absence. To add insult to injury the school then welcomed her back with a gift basket. The social media content that this teacher had displayed showing a willful and wanton bias towards other races and police officers was disgusting. The Lawrence Board of education thinks they can reward this type of behavior, however, I will be speaking out against it. I implore anyone who does not want this or allow this type of behavior to continue to meet at the Board of Education meeting at the Lawrence Highschool on December 14, 2022 at 6pm. The time to act and stop this madness is now but we need to support one another and show up in force. Just as the naysayers and the social media liberals do, we too need to come together and support one another against this evil agenda. You will know who I am as I will be one of the speakers during the meeting. I ask for your support and your encouragement to end this madness.
This is the kids answer to a " safe space" when asked to draw one? Parents in this town lost the battle. These kids are way into the indoctrination process. What is the culture in the town, maybe the parents are all for it?
Students were assigned a project of inclusion and they expressed their thoughts by showing support for different kinds of love. The kids weren't thinking about it in a sexual way, but you sure are. That is what is disgusting. Why are you sexualizing children?
Why do you feel the need to call everyone a bigot in stopping you from forcing kids to cheer on your personal sex life? Why do you need an audience for private activity?
Exactly. Keep in mind- this is happening in ELEMENTARY school. They need to be working on math , reading and spelling. There is no place or time for anything related to sexual styles of life in elementary school settings
If I am reading this correctly the students came up with the designs. I guess I don't understand all of the anger towards the teachers and administration. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of them coaching kids? I assume censoring something that the children came up with would be considered a first amendment violation.
I get that people feel these subjects are WAY to sexual and advanced for children. These kids are learning this from social media, Tik Tok and the news. I highly doubt teachers are going out of the way to teach this stuff against curriculum. Teachers and the principal have no say in the curriculum.
You really think that children have a first amendment right? Then why is there a dress code? Why aren't they allowed to wear expletives on their shirts? Why are hib reports filed and children suspended for calling each other's names? Children have no 1st amendment rights. That is a lie and an excuse that you're using to allow children to Have inappropriate sexual conversation On the wall of your school. The fact that this needs to be explained to you is why their needs to be laws. Obviously common sense has left the building after 2020.
I am not condoning sexual anything in school. You are very wrong on 1st amendment in school. Perhaps review Tinker Case or Healy VS James and several other supreme court decisions on the matter. Please brush up on the laws for children. The supreme Court has ruled on this countless times.
And are you really giving me court cases for adults at college and trying to make a comparison to the rights of 9 year olds right now? I want you to think about a little bit now of the things that college students are allowed to do legally but 9 year olds are not. It explained to me why someone 18 is allowed to do these things But someone 9 can't.
Children are not free to do whatever they want and the school has the wall. Let me know what happens when the kid makes a poster with an N bomb on it. Will the school display it? Come on now think a little harder.
Really!? Hate speech is totally different. Rights do have limits that are clearly outlined in case law that you can easily Google. I am done with this pointless conversation. Feel free to contact a lawyer and have them educate you.
Contrary to popular misconception, there is no First Amendment exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “Fuck the Draft” in a public building (Cohen v. California (1971)), protest a soldier’s funeral with a sign that says “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” (Snyder v. Phelps (2011)), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990)), and give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)). In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech when it held the “government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
Federal courts have consistently followed this holding when applying the First Amendment.
Offensive Isn’t Enough. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. __ (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because “speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.”
It's freedom of speech!! Do you live in Canada? You have the right to say offensive things in the United States...that is what freedom of speech is. You don't even understand 1 a and you quoting court cases that don't even apply . I don't know if you're really this simple or if you're just trolling me at this point
As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed so eloquently in his 1929 dissent in United States v. Schwimmer, “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
Nearly 90 years later, in 2017, Justice Samuel Alito memorably expressed this concept in Matal v. Tam with a homage to Justice Holmes, writing: Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Contrary to popular misconception, there is no First Amendment exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “Fuck the Draft” in a public building (Cohen v. California (1971)), protest a soldier’s funeral with a sign that says “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” (Snyder v. Phelps (2011)), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990)), and give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)). In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech when it held the “government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” Federal courts have consistently followed this holding when applying the First Amendment.
Let's say kids have limited First Amendment rights. That is more accurate. The Court has previously outlined three specific categories of student speech that schools may regulate in certain circumstances: (1) ‘indecent,’ ‘lewd,’ or ‘vulgar’ speech uttered during a school assembly on school grounds [Fraser], (2) speech, uttered during a class trip, that promotes ‘illegal drug use’ [Morse]; and (3) speech that others may reasonably perceive as ‘bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,’ such as that appearing in a school-sponsored newspaper [Hazelwood ].” In addition, it cited Tinker for the proposition that “schools have a special interest in regulating speech that ‘materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.’” “These special characteristics call for special leeway when schools regulate speech that occurs under its supervision.
In the 1980s, the Court carved out exceptions to Tinker in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007). The Court in Fraser empowered school officials to regulate student speech that was vulgar, lewd, and plainly offensive and in Hazelwood created a more lenient reasonableness standard for reviewing school officials’ regulation of school-sponsored student expression. The Court in Morse ruled that public school officials can restrict student speech that they reasonably believe advocates illegal drug use. Tinker remains the leading student speech precedent for First Amendment jurisprudence.
Funfact--> Justice Thomas believes kids have no First Amendment Rights.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding: [T]he most constitutionally sound approach to the question of applying the Fourth Amendment in local public schools would in fact be the complete restoration of the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis. … So empowered [in the early years of U.S. public schooling], schoolteachers and administrators had almost complete discretion to establish and enforce the rules they believed were necessary to maintain control over their classrooms.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include a right to speak to minors [or a corresponding right of minors to access speech] without going through the minors’ parents.
Morse v. Frederick: In a concurrence in a 2007 decision restricting the school speech rights of students, Justice Thomas said he would go further than the court’s majority and overrule the landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. [I]n the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. ... In the name of the First Amendment, Tinker has undermined the traditional authority of teachers to maintain order in public schools.
Are we saying we should just be allowing kids to do whatever because they came up with it? As adults are we just giving them a free pass to run the show now?
What line would they need to cross for you to be like ok we are the adults and this is not ok?
Would you be ok if they made posters around liquor and beer? All of that is blasted all over social media and tik tok.
These absolutely ARE not age appropriate topics and I fear anyone who thinks it is.
Contact your BOE if you have issues with what is being displayed. All of them have a lawyer on retainer that they can talk to. Blaming the educators who are just trying to do a job is quite silly. Many of them feel the same way about some of these subjects.
Thank you for your comment. I am most upset the posters were hung on the wall for my six and seven-year-old to see, and they asked about the meaning of words like "polysexual." Your article stated, "Educators may decide that detailed scientific information about human reproduction may not be age-appropriate for six-year-olds but would be understood by 12-year-olds who have been introduced to basic biology." North Hanover is an elementary district where kids are under 12. Again, my kids are six and seven.
I am not blaming educators. I love the teachers. I was a teacher for 10 years. I am blaming admins who created this activity, allowed open internet to research the terms (without parental consent), and hung them for kids as young as 4 to see.
Just so you are aware, all parents have to sign a form for kids to watch PG movies. Why aren't parents asked for consent to research terms which involve sexual attraction and partners?
Opinions are my own and not authorized or representative of any Board position I serve on.
Do you have proof that kids researched this in school on school computers? Maybe the school should invest or ask the Board for money to invest in better software.
We had a similar situation in our board and are still fighting for better Internet restrictions.
Yes. Thank is what the community was told by the superindent via a blast email. And kids have access to concepts such as polysexuals, pansexuals, and the like. Reserach and see what you find. It is not simply about love and partnership.
Thank you for your comment. First, my six and seven-year-olds are not on social media and will never be on Tik Tok. They certainly do not watch the news. My kids play with their American Girl Dolls, play house, and put on zero-budget musicals in my basement (free of charge). They also think that our elf of the shelf flew in last night from a bunch of red and green balloons.
I love the teachers in my town. I cannot say who is pushing this. But it likely does come from the home in many cases. But the teachers and school leaders are in charge of content moderation and what is hung on the school's walls.
Let me give you some context of the First Amendment in schools. The Court has previously outlined three specific categories of student speech that schools may regulate in certain circumstances: (1) 'indecent,' 'lewd,' or 'vulgar' speech uttered during a school assembly on school grounds [Fraser], (2) speech, uttered during a class trip, that promotes 'illegal drug use' [Morse]; and (3) speech that others may reasonably perceive as 'bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,' such as that appearing in a school-sponsored newspaper [Hazelwood ]." In addition, it cited Tinker for the proposition that "schools have a special interest in regulating speech that 'materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.'" "These characteristics call for special leeway when schools regulate speech under its supervision.
In District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court held that a school may control the content of "school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school." This would include posters on a wall that contains sexual content in an elementary school.
In Settle v. Dickson County School Board (6th Cir.) (1995), A public school teacher restricted a student's choice of topic on an English class assignment ("The Life of Jesus.”) Subsequently, the student commenced a civil action against the teacher claiming that the restriction violated her rights of free speech. The district court dismissed the case on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that there was no violation of Settle's right to freedom of speech. In reaching its decision, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that, "although students do not lose entirely their right to express themselves" at school, "[s]o long as the teacher violates no positive law or school policy, the teacher has broad authority" over grading, curriculum, and course content. The Court stated that federal courts should exercise restraint when intervening in conflicts between teacher and student over curriculum matters. Analogizing the facts of the Hazelwood case to the Settle case, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that if, under the facts of Hazelwood, a school could constitutionally exercise editorial control over student speech in a school-sponsored newspaper, then certainly a school may exercise even more control over student speech in the classroom.
Thanks for the well thought out reply. Most of what is considered lewd is open for interpretation according to the law. I agree that the state needs to clearly define this line (I doubt Jersey will). The last thing I want to do is try to explain Pan sexual or any one of these subjects to my kids. Where I differ from everyone else is that I don't blame some 50 something educator who doesn't know half the terms on those walls and doesn't even know what Tik Tok is.
The only thing I would disagree with is that educators are not responsible for moderation. With all the political division Boards have lawyers. No teacher wants to be fired for making a decision that could violate someone's rights. They are not educated on the subject and just want to educate children. Teachers and Administration are not well versed in law and need to rely on BOE and lawyers in these matters.
If people have a problem they should address the BOE and state in these matters.
There are multiple articles about teachers doing the same thing in New Jersey. This is not an isolated incident. The teachers do this with the support of the administration. And then when there is push back everybody gets upset and acts like they didn't do anything wrong.
I have never blamed teachers. I was a teacher for ten years before going to law school. But per Settle v. Dickson County School Board and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), schools have full editorial control over the content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities (such as posters on the walls) where young children 3+ can see. We have a preschool in the district. The kids could have been given parameters for the assignment. They should not have had full access to the internet to look up these terms and then write them out for young children to see. This was not BOE-approved or in the curriculum. Opinions are my own and not authorized or representative of any Board position I serve on.
If you say they should have had parameters than that falls on the teacher. That's still blaming the educators. The email from the District said this has been an assignment for quite some time.
I work in software and you can restrict sites but good luck restricting Google and Google images, it's damn near impossible.
You might want to rethink letting them play with American Girl, if your views are this intense, you might want to look it up because they too are pushing these views...
About your kids' American Girl dolls...you probably won't want to take them back to that store--ever. Even American Girl is actively indoctrinating small children now!
I respectfully ask that you take this report down. I understand the mixed feelings but Do you not realize all of the hate in this world and the hate crimes in example shootings, etc. and that you are putting our children in danger by posting where this school is… the children are now vulnerable targets all because someone did not think about the consequences this may have. If something happens at this school will you care that you may have caused it!!!!
The “ someone “ that did not think about the consequences is the teacher and the entire school administration that allowed CHILDREN research sexual topics and make posters with SEXUAL terms. And if “ something happens at this school “ will be caused by school’s administrators actions or lack of it
Worried parent: The First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. Moreover, the Supreme Court has said that political speech is the most important—and thus most protected—kind of speech in our democracy. To quote Justice Brennan, our county is guided by the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. I know that may be uncomfortable for you. But please don’t use moral blackmail to silence, respectful, and open communication.
With that said, the pictures (many parents shared) were anonymous posters, which were hung for the PUBLIC to see in the main hallway of a tax-payer-funded building (a school). From what I can see, no student, staff member, or school is named. Even if the article did name the school, that would have been fine.
Second, this post respectfully expresses concerns and does not call for anyone to be harmed or child to be shamed. This article does not threaten anyone, legally incite violence, or violate any provision of the law. Because you targeting this post for its explicit critique of the school, this is a form of viewpoint discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination that is prevalent in our society today. Is is truly upsetting.
The above statements are made in my capacity as a private citizen and not in my capacity as a board member. These statements are also not representative of the board or its individual members and solely represent my personal opinions. My statements are not authorized by or written on behalf of the board. This matter involves the local public school district, I do not serve on the board.
(1) Teachers, parents, school administrators, and students post pictures daily from the school (many with actual pictures of children). Many of the pictures posted daily share information about school entry points and when kids are outside (security issue), students' names and images (seems like a security issue), and other information that anyone could argue could add "risk" to school security. Have you ever asked anyone in the past to remove any of their posts?
(2) Would you have called for this post to be removed if it posted the same pictures with a glowing review of the assignment and posters?
As a parents we can use our voices to challenge the government when we believe they are harming our children. I know that not everyone will agree, and I am ok with that. With that in mind, I am deeply concerned by members of the public linking posts like this with the treat of violence. This is a form of moral blackmail that should not be tolerated.
The threat of violence should be removed from our political discussions because it is inherently flawed, malicious, and self-serving. violence should not be simplified, politicized, and weaponized to silence dissenting views that don't align with your values.
Outside of criminal incitement, the horrible and malicious acts of one cannot be blamed on the public/political speech of another. For example, the five Dallas officers killed in 2016 cannot be blamed on BLM or those who advocated violence against police officers. The man who shot a Republican member of congress in 2017 was a Bernie Sanders supporter; however, Bernie Sanders was not to blame. I think you get my point.
Based on the data, we cannot say what does and does not "cause" violence in every circumstance. We can only speculate based on the self-reports of shooters if they are even available. Violence can often be linked to childhood trauma and mental illness (which seems to be the case for the non-binary shooter in Colorado). We can determine that there is NO objective evidence to suggest that a mother or website sharing public artwork displayed in a government building will lead to violence. That is absurd on its face.
The above statements are made in my capacity as a private citizen and not in my capacity as a board member. These statements are also not representative of the board or its individual members and solely represent my personal opinions. My statements are not authorized by or written on behalf of the board. This matter involves the local public school district, I do not serve on the board.
What kind of logic is that … wouldn’t you want the school to take down the wall of sexualizing posters the children were told to make by adults in the building. The police should be concerned - but about the content publicly being displayed in a school lobby.
"someone did not think about the consequences this may have? "
The consequences are due to this project being in our public schools with minors.
Any teacher or administrator that allows this in the schools are the ones putting the children in danger and that is why this 100% should be posted and shared.
Worried Parent: Did you by chance miss that the Colorado LGBTQ nightclub shooter is claiming to be non-binary? Yet this person entered a "safe space" with intention to kill others. This post should absolutely remain here, and should be shared with as many NJ parents as possible.
Has anyone slamming this project, thought for one second that some of these kids come from LGBTQ homes and that is how they know about all these words? And, that they are learn acceptance in their homes? Not everyone lives with their heads burried in the sand. Nobody is "coming for your children"! YOU CAN'T CATCH GAY! You can't be "taught" to be gay, or transgender or pansexual or anything else! You're children are NOT being indoctrinated into anything!!!! They're being taught ACCEPTANCE! Racism is taught. Hate is taught. WHY ARE YOU TEACHING YOUR KIDS TO HATE SOMEONE WHO IS DIFFERENT?
Everyone up in arms need to reflect on their home life. If you are teaching your beliefs at home, are secure in your parenting, and make sure your kids know that they can always have an open dialogue with you why are you so concerned? Wouldn't you rather they come to you with questions then anyone else? This can be a teachable moment for instilling what you expect of them. I'm not saying one way or another if this school is right but education should start at home, if other kids didn't make posters featuring the words "poly sexual" then it wasn't forced and those parents may want to look in their own home. Kids learn worse then this at school and it's not from administration, it's from friends ...
I am not an overtly religious person but, all of this blatant degeneracy reminds me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps our civilization will end up in ashes over this cultural, ethical, and moral breakdown.
Thank God the parents saw this. The entire school, every faculty member is accountable for this, as no one spoke up against it.
Every district needs parents bringing these things up as warnings to their superintendents and principals that this is not acceptable.
They are coming for our children. If we sit back and do nothing we too are accountable. I encourage you to get people who are in opposition of this together and voice your disgust and concern. Otherwise, we are no different then the teachers who promote this or remain silent. Please join me in Lawrence Township on December 14, 2022 at 6pm. I believe if we all unite we can end this madness.
People not from your district attending a BOE meeting, is that effective?
It actually is because it shows that this type of conduct will not be tolerated. In addition, the social media naysayers and liberals who support this will be there in full force in an attempt to grandstand about things that actually serve no legitimate purpose but to complain about their hurt feelings and to support this satanic agenda.
this is true, activists are called to go to our BOE meetings, people without kids in any district, some are not even from New Jersey. Its time to take our schools back.
Most of the people advocating for this are not from the town but plan to come the meeting to push thier agenda from thier towns.
If you know someone in the town, I say why not join!
I would try to go to your meeting, but I am speaking near me at a library meeting on the 14th as I'm sure you know the agenda to sexualize children is also in the libraries. I also speak out in my town, but keeping asking for more help because we definitely need more involvement from the community at large.
I worry about my young grandchildren being exposed to situations like this. We all accept the gay community but let's keep things private and stop trying to influence our young in a direction that could be confusing. This poster was created by an adult/teacher. They are using our children as their pawns. I'm glad to see parents are fighting back.
This is appalling and incomprehensible and outright disgusting. I recently found out in Lawrence Township that the Board of Education gave the 1st grade teacher who was promoting this as well as wearing a "Columbus was a murderer shirt" to the Ben Franklin School a two week PAID leave of absence. To add insult to injury the school then welcomed her back with a gift basket. The social media content that this teacher had displayed showing a willful and wanton bias towards other races and police officers was disgusting. The Lawrence Board of education thinks they can reward this type of behavior, however, I will be speaking out against it. I implore anyone who does not want this or allow this type of behavior to continue to meet at the Board of Education meeting at the Lawrence Highschool on December 14, 2022 at 6pm. The time to act and stop this madness is now but we need to support one another and show up in force. Just as the naysayers and the social media liberals do, we too need to come together and support one another against this evil agenda. You will know who I am as I will be one of the speakers during the meeting. I ask for your support and your encouragement to end this madness.
OMG! Kick ass! I pray many many parents join you.
This is the kids answer to a " safe space" when asked to draw one? Parents in this town lost the battle. These kids are way into the indoctrination process. What is the culture in the town, maybe the parents are all for it?
Its a pretty conservative town also. No doubt the teacher has influenced the kids about the poster topic.
SUE THEM ALL
That too, if that Board doesn't act correctly.
Students were assigned a project of inclusion and they expressed their thoughts by showing support for different kinds of love. The kids weren't thinking about it in a sexual way, but you sure are. That is what is disgusting. Why are you sexualizing children?
Why do you feel the need to call everyone a bigot in stopping you from forcing kids to cheer on your personal sex life? Why do you need an audience for private activity?
The kids didn't come to school knowing what the word "Pansexual" means.
Someone obviously told them.
The teachers and other adults at this school are clearly the ones sexualizing children.
It MUST stop.
NOW.
Totally inappropriate for any age/grade in a public school. Period. This is not health education.
Why has sexual perversion become such an important topic for children to learn about?
Exactly. Keep in mind- this is happening in ELEMENTARY school. They need to be working on math , reading and spelling. There is no place or time for anything related to sexual styles of life in elementary school settings
If I am reading this correctly the students came up with the designs. I guess I don't understand all of the anger towards the teachers and administration. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of them coaching kids? I assume censoring something that the children came up with would be considered a first amendment violation.
I get that people feel these subjects are WAY to sexual and advanced for children. These kids are learning this from social media, Tik Tok and the news. I highly doubt teachers are going out of the way to teach this stuff against curriculum. Teachers and the principal have no say in the curriculum.
You really think that children have a first amendment right? Then why is there a dress code? Why aren't they allowed to wear expletives on their shirts? Why are hib reports filed and children suspended for calling each other's names? Children have no 1st amendment rights. That is a lie and an excuse that you're using to allow children to Have inappropriate sexual conversation On the wall of your school. The fact that this needs to be explained to you is why their needs to be laws. Obviously common sense has left the building after 2020.
I am not condoning sexual anything in school. You are very wrong on 1st amendment in school. Perhaps review Tinker Case or Healy VS James and several other supreme court decisions on the matter. Please brush up on the laws for children. The supreme Court has ruled on this countless times.
And are you really giving me court cases for adults at college and trying to make a comparison to the rights of 9 year olds right now? I want you to think about a little bit now of the things that college students are allowed to do legally but 9 year olds are not. It explained to me why someone 18 is allowed to do these things But someone 9 can't.
I cited accuarte case below. :)
Children are not free to do whatever they want and the school has the wall. Let me know what happens when the kid makes a poster with an N bomb on it. Will the school display it? Come on now think a little harder.
Really!? Hate speech is totally different. Rights do have limits that are clearly outlined in case law that you can easily Google. I am done with this pointless conversation. Feel free to contact a lawyer and have them educate you.
Contrary to popular misconception, there is no First Amendment exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “Fuck the Draft” in a public building (Cohen v. California (1971)), protest a soldier’s funeral with a sign that says “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” (Snyder v. Phelps (2011)), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990)), and give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)). In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech when it held the “government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
Federal courts have consistently followed this holding when applying the First Amendment.
Offensive Isn’t Enough. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. __ (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because “speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.”
It's freedom of speech!! Do you live in Canada? You have the right to say offensive things in the United States...that is what freedom of speech is. You don't even understand 1 a and you quoting court cases that don't even apply . I don't know if you're really this simple or if you're just trolling me at this point
Correct. But not in schools.
As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed so eloquently in his 1929 dissent in United States v. Schwimmer, “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
Nearly 90 years later, in 2017, Justice Samuel Alito memorably expressed this concept in Matal v. Tam with a homage to Justice Holmes, writing: Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Contrary to popular misconception, there is no First Amendment exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular or that some may find downright offensive. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “Fuck the Draft” in a public building (Cohen v. California (1971)), protest a soldier’s funeral with a sign that says “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” (Snyder v. Phelps (2011)), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990)), and give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)). In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech when it held the “government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” Federal courts have consistently followed this holding when applying the First Amendment.
You claim to have knowledge of free speech for children - you defend it. I am not aware of this "Hate Speech" being "totally different."
Well, glad you are done with your POINTLESS discussion.
Trolls, frauds and bullies usually resort to just what you did there.
Let's say kids have limited First Amendment rights. That is more accurate. The Court has previously outlined three specific categories of student speech that schools may regulate in certain circumstances: (1) ‘indecent,’ ‘lewd,’ or ‘vulgar’ speech uttered during a school assembly on school grounds [Fraser], (2) speech, uttered during a class trip, that promotes ‘illegal drug use’ [Morse]; and (3) speech that others may reasonably perceive as ‘bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,’ such as that appearing in a school-sponsored newspaper [Hazelwood ].” In addition, it cited Tinker for the proposition that “schools have a special interest in regulating speech that ‘materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.’” “These special characteristics call for special leeway when schools regulate speech that occurs under its supervision.
In the 1980s, the Court carved out exceptions to Tinker in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007). The Court in Fraser empowered school officials to regulate student speech that was vulgar, lewd, and plainly offensive and in Hazelwood created a more lenient reasonableness standard for reviewing school officials’ regulation of school-sponsored student expression. The Court in Morse ruled that public school officials can restrict student speech that they reasonably believe advocates illegal drug use. Tinker remains the leading student speech precedent for First Amendment jurisprudence.
Funfact--> Justice Thomas believes kids have no First Amendment Rights.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding: [T]he most constitutionally sound approach to the question of applying the Fourth Amendment in local public schools would in fact be the complete restoration of the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis. … So empowered [in the early years of U.S. public schooling], schoolteachers and administrators had almost complete discretion to establish and enforce the rules they believed were necessary to maintain control over their classrooms.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include a right to speak to minors [or a corresponding right of minors to access speech] without going through the minors’ parents.
Morse v. Frederick: In a concurrence in a 2007 decision restricting the school speech rights of students, Justice Thomas said he would go further than the court’s majority and overrule the landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. [I]n the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. ... In the name of the First Amendment, Tinker has undermined the traditional authority of teachers to maintain order in public schools.
Ahhh, I am the former prosecutor for my county, and have done criminal and civil defense and much more during my law career. You are very mistaken.
Are we saying we should just be allowing kids to do whatever because they came up with it? As adults are we just giving them a free pass to run the show now?
What line would they need to cross for you to be like ok we are the adults and this is not ok?
Would you be ok if they made posters around liquor and beer? All of that is blasted all over social media and tik tok.
These absolutely ARE not age appropriate topics and I fear anyone who thinks it is.
The law has limits based mostly on harmful speech and educational standards.
https://ncac.org/resource/first-amendment-in-schools
Contact your BOE if you have issues with what is being displayed. All of them have a lawyer on retainer that they can talk to. Blaming the educators who are just trying to do a job is quite silly. Many of them feel the same way about some of these subjects.
Maybe you didn't read the article clearly. This is not part of the curriculum. The teacher wanted this.
These are children. Apparently we need a law to clear this up for you about what is appropriate for a learning environment
Exactly. The world has gone mad.
Thank you for your comment. I am most upset the posters were hung on the wall for my six and seven-year-old to see, and they asked about the meaning of words like "polysexual." Your article stated, "Educators may decide that detailed scientific information about human reproduction may not be age-appropriate for six-year-olds but would be understood by 12-year-olds who have been introduced to basic biology." North Hanover is an elementary district where kids are under 12. Again, my kids are six and seven.
I am not blaming educators. I love the teachers. I was a teacher for 10 years. I am blaming admins who created this activity, allowed open internet to research the terms (without parental consent), and hung them for kids as young as 4 to see.
Just so you are aware, all parents have to sign a form for kids to watch PG movies. Why aren't parents asked for consent to research terms which involve sexual attraction and partners?
Opinions are my own and not authorized or representative of any Board position I serve on.
Do you have proof that kids researched this in school on school computers? Maybe the school should invest or ask the Board for money to invest in better software.
We had a similar situation in our board and are still fighting for better Internet restrictions.
Yes.
Yes. Thank is what the community was told by the superindent via a blast email. And kids have access to concepts such as polysexuals, pansexuals, and the like. Reserach and see what you find. It is not simply about love and partnership.
The 1st amendment does have limits.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
Thank you for your comment. First, my six and seven-year-olds are not on social media and will never be on Tik Tok. They certainly do not watch the news. My kids play with their American Girl Dolls, play house, and put on zero-budget musicals in my basement (free of charge). They also think that our elf of the shelf flew in last night from a bunch of red and green balloons.
I love the teachers in my town. I cannot say who is pushing this. But it likely does come from the home in many cases. But the teachers and school leaders are in charge of content moderation and what is hung on the school's walls.
Let me give you some context of the First Amendment in schools. The Court has previously outlined three specific categories of student speech that schools may regulate in certain circumstances: (1) 'indecent,' 'lewd,' or 'vulgar' speech uttered during a school assembly on school grounds [Fraser], (2) speech, uttered during a class trip, that promotes 'illegal drug use' [Morse]; and (3) speech that others may reasonably perceive as 'bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,' such as that appearing in a school-sponsored newspaper [Hazelwood ]." In addition, it cited Tinker for the proposition that "schools have a special interest in regulating speech that 'materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.'" "These characteristics call for special leeway when schools regulate speech under its supervision.
In District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court held that a school may control the content of "school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school." This would include posters on a wall that contains sexual content in an elementary school.
In Settle v. Dickson County School Board (6th Cir.) (1995), A public school teacher restricted a student's choice of topic on an English class assignment ("The Life of Jesus.”) Subsequently, the student commenced a civil action against the teacher claiming that the restriction violated her rights of free speech. The district court dismissed the case on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that there was no violation of Settle's right to freedom of speech. In reaching its decision, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that, "although students do not lose entirely their right to express themselves" at school, "[s]o long as the teacher violates no positive law or school policy, the teacher has broad authority" over grading, curriculum, and course content. The Court stated that federal courts should exercise restraint when intervening in conflicts between teacher and student over curriculum matters. Analogizing the facts of the Hazelwood case to the Settle case, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that if, under the facts of Hazelwood, a school could constitutionally exercise editorial control over student speech in a school-sponsored newspaper, then certainly a school may exercise even more control over student speech in the classroom.
I hope that helps. :)
Thanks for the well thought out reply. Most of what is considered lewd is open for interpretation according to the law. I agree that the state needs to clearly define this line (I doubt Jersey will). The last thing I want to do is try to explain Pan sexual or any one of these subjects to my kids. Where I differ from everyone else is that I don't blame some 50 something educator who doesn't know half the terms on those walls and doesn't even know what Tik Tok is.
The only thing I would disagree with is that educators are not responsible for moderation. With all the political division Boards have lawyers. No teacher wants to be fired for making a decision that could violate someone's rights. They are not educated on the subject and just want to educate children. Teachers and Administration are not well versed in law and need to rely on BOE and lawyers in these matters.
If people have a problem they should address the BOE and state in these matters.
There are multiple articles about teachers doing the same thing in New Jersey. This is not an isolated incident. The teachers do this with the support of the administration. And then when there is push back everybody gets upset and acts like they didn't do anything wrong.
I have never blamed teachers. I was a teacher for ten years before going to law school. But per Settle v. Dickson County School Board and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), schools have full editorial control over the content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities (such as posters on the walls) where young children 3+ can see. We have a preschool in the district. The kids could have been given parameters for the assignment. They should not have had full access to the internet to look up these terms and then write them out for young children to see. This was not BOE-approved or in the curriculum. Opinions are my own and not authorized or representative of any Board position I serve on.
If you say they should have had parameters than that falls on the teacher. That's still blaming the educators. The email from the District said this has been an assignment for quite some time.
I work in software and you can restrict sites but good luck restricting Google and Google images, it's damn near impossible.
The word "sexual" can be restricted from Internet searches
You might want to rethink letting them play with American Girl, if your views are this intense, you might want to look it up because they too are pushing these views...
About your kids' American Girl dolls...you probably won't want to take them back to that store--ever. Even American Girl is actively indoctrinating small children now!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11513307/American-Girl-book-Body-Image-comes-criticism-promotion-puberty-blockers.html
The children did not mass to do this. Even if they did - and school is not a mob democracy - it should have been stopped by the teachers.
I respectfully ask that you take this report down. I understand the mixed feelings but Do you not realize all of the hate in this world and the hate crimes in example shootings, etc. and that you are putting our children in danger by posting where this school is… the children are now vulnerable targets all because someone did not think about the consequences this may have. If something happens at this school will you care that you may have caused it!!!!
The “ someone “ that did not think about the consequences is the teacher and the entire school administration that allowed CHILDREN research sexual topics and make posters with SEXUAL terms. And if “ something happens at this school “ will be caused by school’s administrators actions or lack of it
There should be concern for your children in school that they are being exposed to sexual content. Your concern is misguided.
Are you now concerned about the military Personnel who are posting about this? Why are you not getting them to take what they are saying down?
Worried parent: The First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. Moreover, the Supreme Court has said that political speech is the most important—and thus most protected—kind of speech in our democracy. To quote Justice Brennan, our county is guided by the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. I know that may be uncomfortable for you. But please don’t use moral blackmail to silence, respectful, and open communication.
With that said, the pictures (many parents shared) were anonymous posters, which were hung for the PUBLIC to see in the main hallway of a tax-payer-funded building (a school). From what I can see, no student, staff member, or school is named. Even if the article did name the school, that would have been fine.
Second, this post respectfully expresses concerns and does not call for anyone to be harmed or child to be shamed. This article does not threaten anyone, legally incite violence, or violate any provision of the law. Because you targeting this post for its explicit critique of the school, this is a form of viewpoint discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination that is prevalent in our society today. Is is truly upsetting.
The above statements are made in my capacity as a private citizen and not in my capacity as a board member. These statements are also not representative of the board or its individual members and solely represent my personal opinions. My statements are not authorized by or written on behalf of the board. This matter involves the local public school district, I do not serve on the board.
"Worried Parent" I have some questions.
(1) Teachers, parents, school administrators, and students post pictures daily from the school (many with actual pictures of children). Many of the pictures posted daily share information about school entry points and when kids are outside (security issue), students' names and images (seems like a security issue), and other information that anyone could argue could add "risk" to school security. Have you ever asked anyone in the past to remove any of their posts?
(2) Would you have called for this post to be removed if it posted the same pictures with a glowing review of the assignment and posters?
As a parents we can use our voices to challenge the government when we believe they are harming our children. I know that not everyone will agree, and I am ok with that. With that in mind, I am deeply concerned by members of the public linking posts like this with the treat of violence. This is a form of moral blackmail that should not be tolerated.
The threat of violence should be removed from our political discussions because it is inherently flawed, malicious, and self-serving. violence should not be simplified, politicized, and weaponized to silence dissenting views that don't align with your values.
Outside of criminal incitement, the horrible and malicious acts of one cannot be blamed on the public/political speech of another. For example, the five Dallas officers killed in 2016 cannot be blamed on BLM or those who advocated violence against police officers. The man who shot a Republican member of congress in 2017 was a Bernie Sanders supporter; however, Bernie Sanders was not to blame. I think you get my point.
Based on the data, we cannot say what does and does not "cause" violence in every circumstance. We can only speculate based on the self-reports of shooters if they are even available. Violence can often be linked to childhood trauma and mental illness (which seems to be the case for the non-binary shooter in Colorado). We can determine that there is NO objective evidence to suggest that a mother or website sharing public artwork displayed in a government building will lead to violence. That is absurd on its face.
The above statements are made in my capacity as a private citizen and not in my capacity as a board member. These statements are also not representative of the board or its individual members and solely represent my personal opinions. My statements are not authorized by or written on behalf of the board. This matter involves the local public school district, I do not serve on the board.
Seriously? You are taking a post about concern for children being exposed to sexual content and twisting it into a school shooting? Are you deranged?
What kind of logic is that … wouldn’t you want the school to take down the wall of sexualizing posters the children were told to make by adults in the building. The police should be concerned - but about the content publicly being displayed in a school lobby.
"someone did not think about the consequences this may have? "
The consequences are due to this project being in our public schools with minors.
Any teacher or administrator that allows this in the schools are the ones putting the children in danger and that is why this 100% should be posted and shared.
Worried Parent: Did you by chance miss that the Colorado LGBTQ nightclub shooter is claiming to be non-binary? Yet this person entered a "safe space" with intention to kill others. This post should absolutely remain here, and should be shared with as many NJ parents as possible.
Has anyone slamming this project, thought for one second that some of these kids come from LGBTQ homes and that is how they know about all these words? And, that they are learn acceptance in their homes? Not everyone lives with their heads burried in the sand. Nobody is "coming for your children"! YOU CAN'T CATCH GAY! You can't be "taught" to be gay, or transgender or pansexual or anything else! You're children are NOT being indoctrinated into anything!!!! They're being taught ACCEPTANCE! Racism is taught. Hate is taught. WHY ARE YOU TEACHING YOUR KIDS TO HATE SOMEONE WHO IS DIFFERENT?
Everyone up in arms need to reflect on their home life. If you are teaching your beliefs at home, are secure in your parenting, and make sure your kids know that they can always have an open dialogue with you why are you so concerned? Wouldn't you rather they come to you with questions then anyone else? This can be a teachable moment for instilling what you expect of them. I'm not saying one way or another if this school is right but education should start at home, if other kids didn't make posters featuring the words "poly sexual" then it wasn't forced and those parents may want to look in their own home. Kids learn worse then this at school and it's not from administration, it's from friends ...
I am not an overtly religious person but, all of this blatant degeneracy reminds me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps our civilization will end up in ashes over this cultural, ethical, and moral breakdown.