Hillsborough County Board Members:
I have just read the court case of student Renee Anderson.
What strikes me is the absence of a school representative to follow the case, to be in the court room to see that the victim wasn't bullied, let her know that the school board is watching out for her in loco parentis, not just backing up the icy administrative attack on her.
This negligent behavior on the board's part ill confirms its constant chorus of being "concerned about the safety of the children." Renee's case is that of a misbehaving black student faced with a hostile white administration in this incident who needs the school board's oversight and concerned care greatly. The board should not guard only the safety of the children who don't misbehave. The at-risk children are the ones who require their safety's being guarded more urgently.
After the trial, the school authorities jumped on Renee Anderson and told her she could be sent to an alternative school and could not apply for scholarships. Who thought up this sadistic conduct for school authorities? Renee Anderson performed community service ordered by the court. Why should the school board, concerned with "the safety of the children." pile on for more punishment of this student?
What would the in-house psychologist who said the Toecracker's fondling pubescent boys' feet behind the closed doors of his office to satiate his foot fetishism say about the board-sponsored treatment of Renee?
On top of the court's punishment as a result of the gang-up of the administration against Renee, the board chimes in with its sadistic treatment of her when she returns to school with the alternative-school, no-privilege-to-apply-for-scholarships dicta. Where was the board-ordered counseling that she needed to migrate back into the school community? Shame on the board for neglecting its primary duty to students--both good ones and especially ones in trouble?
I want to see the rationale that says the board should pile on to the punishment of a student whom the courts have already punished. That is public information. I have requested it from the Public Affairs Office. The board should tell Ms. Cobbe to send it to me.
I want to see any file that the board kept on this student's ordeal. That is public information as well. Don't say this involves student privacy. I will ask her father to legitimize my request.
Ms. Anderson's father wants her record cleared. That apparently is why he continues to pursue his daughter's case. The board should offer its help to him in getting the juvenile authorities to clear her record. They are supposed to do that after a period. The board's inquiry about whether it were done would motivate these bureaucrats to clear Ms. Anderson's record as a juvenile. I believe that would satisfy the father.
Renee has her life ahead of her. She is today attending college despite this setback. The board should add its weight to the effort to help Renee to become a stellar citizen. One counselor's written testimony says Renee is a gifted student with an attitude problem.
I was a college teacher for 28 years. I know about attitude problems of students; I also know how pivotal the oversight of students with problems is to turn them into the right paths of social participation. A school board and administration's piling on students such as Renee in addition to the legal ordeal she has undergone is not the formula to rescue troubled students.
I am not surprised that the counselor states that Renee had an attitude problem. Most blacks have an attitude problem in a society that puts blacks down in all areas of life.
The board shouldn't pile on to a student by augmenting this malignant policy to kick talented school-age black children out into the never-never land of marginal social participation when they grow up by crippling them with alternative-school threats and no-right-to-apply-for scholarships dicta.
Lee Drury De Cesareleedrurydecesarescasting-roomcouch.blogspot.com