“First” Violated

First Amendment Violated by Gag Order

At the Massapequa Post website the following July 18, 2007 article entitled: “Lawsuit adds fuel to mystery of Flaherty dismissal: Employee charges district was aware of superintendent’s controversial tenure in other districts and attempted to hide it; school officials call charges baseless and untrue,” by Carolyn James was found chock full of White Chalk Crime. It illustrated how New York EducRAT$ harm children as if they were juggling so many objects in the air that no one can figure out what is being juggled. It said: “A lawsuit filed against the Massapequa School District alleges that acting superintendent Charles V. Sulc violated employees’ First Amendment rights by issuing a gag order to effectively cover up embattled Superintendent Maureen Flaherty’s history of alcoholism, drunken driving and sexual misconduct on the job. The aim was to ‘keep… secret the failure of the District to take action against her by reason of that behavior,’ the plaintiff alleges.”

It said that Flaherty “established a reputation in Massapequa for making unwanted, and unsolicited sexually inappropriate contact with female subordinates, including the plaintiff, and that she made her concerns for that ‘repulsive’ conduct known to Sulc.” It also alleged: “the plaintiff was ordered, under threat of losing her job, to keep information about allegations of sexual abuse by a former music teacher in the district from the community. “…during her probationary employment with the District, school administrators learned that a male teacher in the music department had, for years, been sexually abusing numerous female students assigned to his classes. … she [plaintiff] was told to sign a written acknowledgment that she was forever forbidden, under direct threat of job termination to communicate with anyone regarding the abuse, the nature of it, the identities of the victims and the identity of the teacher, who has since obtained a job in another school district.”

It described Flaherty as having had problems at Holmdel district in New Jersey and said: “A story that appeared in the Holmdel Independent newspaper in August, 2005, announcing her departure from the district, pointed to some of the issues and management decisions that made her unpopular with the community and staff.” It described situations in which she had upset the community by not rehiring teachers as well as conducted a punitive reassignment of teachers. It said: “In the Florida district, Flaherty was sued by a district principal …who claimed that she and the district violated his right to free speech and equal protection. … alleged that Flaherty drove drunk to a school party to intervene in a dispute between a student and a parent.” The principal was suspended after being accused of sexual harassment. He sued on the basis “… that he received ‘selective treatment’ because he had confronted Flaherty on her actions. The courts ruled in the principal’s favor and he won a monetary judgment from the district.”

This article is a bonanza for teaching what is going on in our schools. It allows for an opportunity to dive right into a cesspool of White Chalk Crime and really begin owning the affliction to which we have subjected our children. We have a superintendent with a negative history in two other states, who unlike the blacklisted dedicated teachers, is white-chalk-listed as one who fits well into a culture of White Chalk Crime, and keeps finding employment in Education. We have a principal accused of sexual harassment after he confronted this superintendent for improper behavior, who then filed a lawsuit for having had his speech stifled. This shows the use of sexual harassment charges as retaliatory. Since this same district is being accused of threatening an employee so she would not discuss the sexual abuse of a former employee, who is now teaching elsewhere, it appears that it is not concerned with sexual predators being amongst children and only used this accusation for control over the principal. And this shows two occasions where educators are being threatened into silence when what they had to say needed to be said to protect children. It shows that teacher abuse is alive and well and used on any educator that obstructs White Chalk Crime, not just teachers, and that costly legal interactions are sapping up funds needed for children. Although this district denied the current charges, a court had already found in favor of the Florida principal who had accused her, and the history of contention in the New Jersey community was public knowledge. Thus, even if found not guilty of the current charges, it took White Chalk Crime to hire someone with such an objectionable history regardless if done so negligently, rather than with intent to hire someone cut from the same cloth, a more probable circumstance given the prevalence of board hiring known White Chalk Criminals.

Comments are closed.