HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
US SUPREME COURT HAS A NEW DRED SCOTT
UPDATE ON MY US SUPREME COURT CASE
by Karen Horwitz
On April 27, 2007, the US Supreme Court denied hearing my case, or I should say our case. I made sure the Court knew this was much bigger than me by filing a motion for a representative in case I died, pointing out how many people are affected by EducRAT policies that silence teachers who try to report the EducRAT$’ misconduct in our schools. Had I taken it there to win, I would be deeply depressed. But because I pursued it to help us expose the truth, with faith that the truth is what is needed to get the help we need, my disappointment quickly morphed into elation over the gift this Court gave NAPTA – it helped us prove that our nation’s treatment of teachers is based on economics, not on the Constitution, a fact we needed validated to set real reform in motion.
This case was never about winning. It was always about exposing and frankly I think a loss shows exactly what is wrong with teaching: those in authority want to maintain the status quo. Rather than follow the laws, our courts have legislated the status quo all the way to the top. A Court that follows established law that guarantees citizens the right to know the law could not have upheld the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision to make this an unpublished ruling unless it believes that teachers are not equal citizens. My ruling says that teachers must follow all orders, even damaging, retaliatory orders, based on higher authority, and that teachers who speak out about public concerns stand to lose their jobs with no protection, which is what Hearing Officer Stephen B. Rubin decided when he ruled in my case: “Is it appropriate for a teacher to make certain demands even if she is being picked on….One wrong does not justify another..and you may take this up to as many courts as you wish, I will not hear a trial about the competence, treatment, or anything else of Dr. Biancalana [principal] or Dr. Sloan [superintendent],” which the highest court now validates as law. This ruling that denied me the right to show retaliation either needed to be openly supported as law or overturned for the sake of all impacted by Education; instead the courts dodged their duty to all of us by doing neither.
I realize it is possible that we have conservative courts that want schools to self-destruct so privatization will succeed. If this is so, how irresponsible is it that Supreme Court Justices would leave our children and teachers in harm’s way to allow this? We can’t know this, however. What we do know beyond a doubt is this: if it was right for the courts to deny me a defense against a retaliatory, predatory discharge, the U.S. Supreme Court at least owes teachers a ruling that would order the lower court to publish this ruling so attorneys would stop advising teachers that we have a right to speak about or disobey retaliatory orders and that it is safe to file complaints of any sort including those to advocate for children. To do otherwise was a negligent and callous treatment of teachers and students, who will continue to experience the collateral damage as teachers continue to speak out believing they have constitutional rights and file futile lawsuits.
On a business level, Education has to be able to attract bright, competent idealists since idealists do not care about money and will work diligently for low salaries. If the truth comes out that being a teacher is not an opportunity to really help children, and that teachers do not have equal rights, idealists would avoid this profession. EducRAT$ would be left with only materialistic types. Given that materialist’s value money, only those with unmarketable skills consider teaching and do so out of desperation – it is a relatively easy degree to obtain and they will be hirable. Hence incompetent and unstable types will increasingly dominate a marketplace known for limited salaries, while idealists will use their marketable skills where they feel respected and can find meaning.
This explains the increase in teachers with odd behavior, including those having sex with their students and those who cannot spell, do math, or even possess common sense. This profession has opened the door to a different caliber of people in order to maintain the kind of army that EducRAT$ need to hold our schools hostage from parents. I suspect that the courts realize that allowing the truth about teachers being denied constitutional rights will diminish the quality of teachers even more and thus they need to keep the truth from the public. As the courts work to support the EducRAT$ that are intentionally dumbing down our schools, they are a huge part of the reason reform will not happen in our schools. Rather than face the fact that we have criminals running our schools, our courts are trying to plug the holes in the dam that these criminals are causing and advance an agenda of deceit to attract better teachers. Not only is this foolish, but it makes a case for what our forefathers taught us: if we stop becoming a nation of laws, our nation will self-destruct. Since, as it pertains to teachers, our courts legislate from the bench rather than follow the existing laws, they remove the checks and balances against the criminals running our schools, while euthanizing the only governmental watchdog.
Fortunately, I have this information in time to use in my book, which is important in that we cannot arrive at solutions when we have not arrived at the core of the problem. The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial helps me describe the landscape that has so devastated our schools. We can no longer rationalize that it was just the lower courts’ ignorance of the law. We have confirmed that teachers in 2007 are in a similar position as were African Americans in 1807. At that time, Courts denied African Americans constitutional rights, viewing them unequal to white people, and this continued for many years even after laws were enacted to protect them, particularly in the South, until the federal government intervened and instituted civil rights legislation in the 1960’s, forcing courts to stop legislating from the bench. Thus, until another branch of the government intervenes for teachers, we can expect EducRAT$ to have their way and hence place children in harms way while squandering taxpayers’ funds. This means we must engage the public, the most important pillar of a democracy, to insist that teachers become equal citizens.
In essence, our courts are hopeless in terms of protecting our children and the future of Education. We must look to the court of public opinion for the help we need to have effective and safe schools. Our courts have decided that to assume our school officials are doing their job remains sufficient when EducRAT$ are robbing us blind, literally and figuratively. We need to vote in a president who comprehends and embraces this, regardless of party, since the foundation of our nation rests on Education, and what it is resting on is infested with corruption. We still have time. I am working hard to get my book published soon to help people see the truth about Education and establish a voice above this pretense that has kept the truth from being public.
I lost my job and my case because I stood up for my students; I spoke to ensure that my administrators followed the law and stopped harming children and this country provided me no ability to show what my administrators and board did to silence me. Many other teachers are in the same position. I believed it was time we forced our courts to tell us whether they agree with EducRAT$ and believe that the laws do not apply to Education, so I took my case to the highest court for a definitive answer. We now have our answer.
Although the Supreme Court reviewed Dred Scott rather than denied hearing it, I have renamed my case the Dread School case, because both were economic decisions that disregarded our Constitution. In Dred Scott, the U.S. Supreme Court held that African Americans were an underclass; in Dread School, the Illinois Appellate Court held, unpublished, that teachers are an underclass, and the U.S. Supreme Court authorized denying teachers their rights by allowing this unpublished ruling to stand. Dread School says everyone needs to dread schools – teachers, parents, children, and citizens. If you ever refer to it in letters to officials or the media, call it the Dread School case since it will deliver our message. And do refer to it since it represents the truth, something we need to set us free.
Parents need to know that teachers have little to no power so parents will recognize and blame the real problem, EducRAT$, as well as protect their own children since teachers cannot protect their students while under the control of EducRAT$ who worship power and perks while pretending to care about children. Too many children are in harm’s way unbeknownst to parents. Taxpayers need to know that taxation without representation is occurring within Education since that which ensures our nation’s adherence to our society’s agreed upon values – our laws, which are our codified principles – are not being enforced when it comes to EducRAT$. (Not all school boards and administrations are EducRAT$, but far too many are; parents and taxpayers must become alert to school boards and administrations that dispose of quality teachers unethically and unlawfully, not only for the act of teacher abuse, but for what lurks behind EducRAT$’ failure to protect children’s rights. We all know that quality teachers are the backbone of a good Education. Thus, removing these teachers signals an improper agenda.)
There is power in this Court’s rejection. The extent of abuse we have undergone simply does not make sense if there is a Court in this country that cares about teachers, children and taxpayers. How could so many lower courts be so off? We now know these courts were not “off,” and that keeping teachers submissive is the agenda in this country. For teachers, not applying the law is the plan. Watch Judgment at Nuremberg and listen to Burt Lancaster who played a Nazi judge speak about how he ruled to better his country and decided cases before they were before him. Our judges think they are doing what is right just as Lancaster’s character believed that. It is now up to the people to demand their country back. The courts are part of the problem, not part of the solution; other than a few maverick judges, or juries of our peers, they are not going to listen to us. Even in the instance of a rare teacher who won her case, Pamella Settlegoode, her judge dismissed the jury’s decision that supported her; the jury wanted to uphold the law, not the judge.
None of what happened to me or any of us was a mistake. Our government is broken in terms of Education and this is what it wants; the only solution is people protesting. That means parents and citizens must unite with us for anything to change. None of its institutions will help us. We have proven this as we have pleaded for help in every direction and been ignored. It makes sense that this Court would not care and in order to complete our journey, making sense is vital. Otherwise, how could the lower courts misinterpret the law as much as they did? I wanted to think that the lower courts were asleep at the wheel, but now I know they are driving our country over a cliff with the Supreme Court’s permission. Justice Thomas, who had directed the EEOC, was obviously not bothered by entrenched discrimination in Education, since he did not dissent in this denial. The lack of any dissent means that all of the Justices decided it was not in the best interest of this country to solve the horrific problems that play a role in school violence, by performing their supervisory role in an arena desperately needing supervising. Deciding this in such close proximity to the Virginia Tech Massacre is disheartening. Pro-life decisions are judicial hypocrisy when limited to ensuring that babies are born, but not that children’s and teachers’ lives are physically or psychologically safe.
The other information it gives us is the futility of the legal course. Of course, some judges will follow the law, but look at how hard it is for teachers to find or keep a lawyer. Many of them abandon us as they discover the truth – teachers do not really having rights. I do believe many attorneys take our cases thinking they can help, but dodge us when they find out the truth, not wanting to explain why because it might mean they have to return our money for not having known the legal landscape for teachers. There is a code of silence about what is going on and no one wants to break it. The only court that is going to hear this case is the court of public opinion.
I have never believed that the legal route was wise, just necessary. I pursued my case to expose it, to make my book complete. I have been saddened to hear about so many people spending their last dollar and their time only to be disappointed to find that our courts are an extension of our schools. The legal route is typically a waste of money and time. Although it works for a few, so does buying lottery tickets. Thus, having the Supreme Court abandon us gives us a clearer picture for the court of public opinion; what happened, happened for the best. We will go on from here stronger for having completed this. We will break through the media with Dread School. It is a strong case to show everything that is wrong with our schools and to prove how our courts are part of the problem, definitely not part of the solution. We will leave it on the site so you can share this with others until our country wizens up and figures out that lawlessness opens the door for all of the crime that is ruining our schools. We now know that the courts are not our answer to protect teachers or children or the institution of Education.