To the Editor:
This letter is in response to the video just recently published, as well as documented evidence of district wide curriculum bends towards one ideological direction.
Due to the potential criminal nature of the admissions of the Vice Principal of Cos Cob school, it appears quite possible that the scheme of hiring that he, with specificity, acknowledges as part of a larger goal of imposing on the free will of students, i.e. to make them vote in a certain political direction, exertion improper influence demands IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND RECTIFICATION.
The potential for this scheme being created at the highest level of administration and curriculum planning, even at a state or federal level, seems within the realm of reasonability. This disturbs me as a parent, and as an attorney. Breaking the law in discrimination in hiring against Catholics, and/or other religious or personal believes, in hiring has alarmed many in my alma mater, Catholic University of America, as well as Catholic Bar Associations, as my religion was specifically targeted. As you are aware, having already been personally affected with my children’s religious rights being allegedly breached of TITLE VII during your unauthorized medical procedures, it truly comes as little surprise to me. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school for many years, my daughters also attended Sacred Heart in Greenwich where they received a stellar education, as well as an important spiritual education, which creates in them a moral compass of what is right and wrong. It is a parents fundamental right to decide such issues of morality with their own children in order to exercise their freedom of religion which is enshrined in the Religious Restoration Act of Connecticut. To deny any influence from link minded thinkers creates a disservice to children who should be exposed to many different perspectives in order to, through the development of their own free will, assess their own moral authority.
Three distinct issues (at least) are at play 1) Breaches to Title VII with regard to discrimination of hiring and 2) Coercion of a (future) Voter & Improper Influence over the minors 3) Breaches of
“The First Amendment governmental restrictions on free speech, which means that public schools, including charter schools that qualify as public, cannot infringe on teachers’ or students’ rights to freedom of expression. This is not an exhaustive list of potential areas of concerns. “
‘Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166)”
“Under CT General Statute
Sec. 36.03. COERCION OF PUBLIC SERVANT OR VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if by means of coercion he:
(1) influences or attempts to influence a public servant in a specific exercise of his official power or a specific performance of his official duty or influences or attempts to influence a public servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty; or
(2) influences or attempts to influence a voter not to vote or to vote in a particular manner.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony, in which event it is a felony of the third degree.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person who influences or attempts to influence the public servant is a member of the governing body of a governmental entity, and that the action that influences or attempts to influence the public servant is an official action taken by the member of the governing body. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “official action” includes deliberations by the governing body of a governmental entity.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 67, Sec. 1, 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 36.04. IMPROPER INFLUENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if he privately addresses a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication to any public servant who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law.
(b) For purposes of this section, “adjudicatory proceeding” means any proceeding before a court or any other agency of government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Here are the immediate Demands in order to instill in the public TRUST in this institution:
- An immediate freeze on hiring
- A independent evaluation of hiring processes
- Authors of all books and curriculum the authors names, political leanings/donations disclosed.
- Independent investigation of recent hires and hires past five years
- All internal documents pertaining to political belief.
- All political contributions from all teachers and Administration for the past five years
- All of the names of the applicants for teaching positions that were denied for the past ten years.
- Teachers Unions and Connecticut Department of Education must also disclose their internal documents pertaining to curriculum and Pension funds holdings.
Parents create a relationship of a consent allowing a temporary physical custody supervision, while they are in school; no parent knowingly consents to the manipulation of their children’s minds for any gain that is not in their child’s best interest. And parents retain that right at all times as to know what is in their child’s best interest, not the state through its agents or assignees.
Regards,
Caitlin M. Hayes, Esq.
