I have yet to see the part of the last council meeting where the Matt Look lawsuit, with John Dehen representing Look, was on the agenda about PACT school. I caught a rebroadcast, but the tail end after that segment of the meeting.
First for fair disclosure, I have opposed the PACT school being in Ramsey and the bond mischief that aided it, from the City, given my very firm and unyielding feelings about total separation of church and state, and how I see that school with its Bethel Seminary [now calling itself Bethel University after having broadened its offering] sponsorship being in breach of that bedstone principle, not having its sponsorship with public school District 11.
I believe in the public schools.
Families without children do and should pay taxes to support the education of a next generation of civilized citizens. That is the purpose of public schools.
Rude high-handedness and phony arguments to avoid the reach of the law when it is clear is something we most certainly should not be teaching children, by example or otherwise.
My understanding from being at the work session before the televised general meeting is that the PACT school position on the statute at issue is laughably phony and interposed to delay and to mask the real motive, a desire for an autonomy that is not allowed that bunch, under Minnesota law.
The statute says such a school must, in circumstaces applying in the situation Look sues over, give preference to applicant children from the "town" in which the charter school is located.
The transparently false and disingenuous [teach the children more by what we do than what we say] position PACT school parents and administrators take - Ramsey calls itself a "city" and so they can thumb their noses at the undeniable intent of what the legislature imposed upon them in the course of allowing public funds to follow the child into the school.
If they want to go totally private, not be a charter school with funding aid from public money, then the story is different.
They deny a duty exists to favor Ramsey chilcren. Besides being bad citizens that way, these folks are denying that the law constrains them. They and their sweet young ones are considered above the law is the clear message they broadcast.
That is a false premise, and a very destructive thing to teach a bunch of children that society will rely upon in the future and that are presently being subsidized in their schooling, by society, in exchange for - the quid pro quo of - being schooled to reasonably read, understand, and follow the law.
They are dead wrong and will lose in court. In the course of their assuming such a false and clearly unjustified stance, they do damage to the minds of the children who see the drama unfolding. They are not teaching anything really sound, by posturing and engaging in their actions, which speak louder than words.
Now - I still need to see the rebroadcast of that segment of the meeting, to see if the behavior was rude or not. Whether rude or not is, however, not the major issue. It is being lawful and teaching a next generation to be lawful and not evasive and disdainful of rules that apply, whether liked or not.
I would rather speed and simply drive through that light at Sunwood and Ramsey Blvd. the unneeded one that stops you without any traffic the other three ways. I do not do that. I would not want to be unobservant and have a policeman ticket me. I also say, it's a dumb light, or the speed limit is too low certain places, but I don't say I am above a duty to comply. The duty is there. And clearly so.
And I would not tell a driver-training class of teenagers that if a traffic law is not liked, we simply disobey it.
Would you?