Educational Forums on Rapid City School Nondiscrimination Policy

By Bob Ellis on January 5th, 2010

The Rapid City School Board recently began looking to add language to the district nondiscrimination policy which would add “sexual orientation” as a protected class.

The board looked at this a couple of weeks ago in a heated public meeting where dozens of concerned Rapid City citizens attended to express their displeasure with this politically correct move.

The board is now looking to add several more protected classes to the already bloated nondiscrimination policy.  The proposed language would read:

“The Rapid City Area School District will not tolerate racism, discrimination, harassment, exploitation or victimization of students, school employees, non-employees or any person who are invitees of the District for any reason, including but not limited to race, color, ethnic background, national origin, pregnancy, student marital status, religion, creed, age, sex, citizenship, political affiliation, mental and/or physical challenge, disability, sexual orientation or status as a veteran….”

The South Dakota Family Policy Council and Citizens for Liberty oppose this politically correct expansion of government that places our school children in the middle of the culture war.

The SDFPC and CFL recommend that the Rapid City School board stay with the basic six categories specified in law at the federal level: race, color, national origin, disability, age and sex.  These categories have already been established by federal law, are consistent nationwide, and more than adequately protect adults and children.

Further, the policy already includes the language “…including but not limited to…”  which provides plenty of authority for school officials to protect children from being bullied or harassed for any reason–which is the stated goal of this language exercise in the first place.

The proposed changes may also generate lawsuits against the school district, requiring the expenditure of additional taxpayer funds–funds that could be better spent educating our children.

SDFPC and  CFL are hosting two educational meetings to help the public understand the issue before the Rapid City School District.  The first meeting is tonight, Jan. 5 at 6:30 pm at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Classroom Building in Room B.  The second educational forum will be a part of the regular Citizens for Liberty monthly group meeting on Thursday, Jan. 7 at 11:45 am at the Ramkota Rushmore Room.

The second reading of this policy will be Thursday evening at 5:30 pm at the School Board meeting at the City School Administration Building, 300 6th Street in Rapid City.  Everyone should make plans to attend, as this is a very important issue for the children and taxpayers of Rapid City.

Several Rapid City area citizens will be providing testimony against this expansion of government and for keeping the school policy consistent with long-established federal law.  Attenders are encouraged to attend and show the utmost respect and courtesy for the gravity of these proceedings.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • Brian rutledge
    It would seem to me that adding more specifics is just clarifying what can not be discriminated against. From your,dcm and Gina's stance, why even have the basic six you mentioned that are law now? You feel that sexual orientation is a choice, but many feel it is not. Why not say we aren't going to discriminate against it, because opionion is still dividided over it. Isn't that the beauty and strength of our country to give the benefit of doubt to the involved person until the issue is settled
  • A few things come immediately to mind.

    The first being that the entire exercise is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to further legitimize homosexual behavior and brainwash impressionable children into believing it is normal, natural, moral and health--while it is none of these things.

    Another is that, as you pointed out, there isn't even a need for the six we have--just treat everyone fairly and based on the same standards, and when there are violations against anyone for any reason, deal with it.

    But if we insist on specifying protections for certain favored people groups, the number of said groups should be kept to a minimum, and since these six are already laid out in federal law, that's as good a place as any to draw the line.
  • dcm
    If nothing else, the use of the term "sexual orientation" needs to be discouraged wherever possible. "Sexual preference" is more accurate. "Orientation" goes along with the indisputably false (yet widely accepted) idea that sexual preference is inborn and firmly set.
  • WXRGina
    Bob, I pray that all who are involved in the fight against this insidious campaign of "nondescrimination" will succeed in knocking it down.

    This kind of thing is going on all over our country. It is sly and sneaky, and many people do not understand where this is going, because most people naturally think, "What's wrong with not discriminating against people?" But, as you point out, we already have nondiscrimination laws that cover everyone; we don't need MORE LAWS! This brings to mind the "hate crimes" laws that create a uniquely protected class of people based on their perverted lifestyle choice, not on things they have no control over, like their sex or race.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »