Chris Lind Update

Well, I certainly struck a chord with this post. Members of our local educational community have made multiple comments defending the action of the school board in the comment section. That the comments were (mostly) respectful and worked toward greater understanding of the issue is greatly appreciated. It is imperative that we all communicate if we are ever going to resolve probems within the community. Talking WITH one another (as opposed to talking AT one another) is sometimes a lost art.

Two commenters took issue with my characterization that this is "persecution". I will concede that the title of the post may have been a bit hyperbolic, but given the past history of this school district it is not a totally unfair characterization - especially given today's Star Tribune story on the issue.

"His story is difficult to tell -- he's reluctant to say much, and the school district says it's legally prevented from saying much, including the substance of the complaints against Lind.
A dedicated Christian, Lind has become a de facto advice-giver, friend and religious mentor to some students. He said the district told him not to talk to students -- even off campus -- about "traditional values," namely, the district didn't want him to talk to students about abstinence or their sexual orientation. He didn't listen.
"I can't say I followed that directive," said Lind, 43. "I didn't feel that, morally, I could."

Again, I go back to one of my basic complaints about how the district is handling this. The district can not, under the tenants of the Constitution, dictate someone's speech off campus. I fully understand the need for restriction of speech ON CAMPUS. However, off campus is another story. Whether a teacher (or any other employee of a school district) chooses to use it or not, they have the same basic rights of free speech that all Americans have. They can and should advocate for the things that they believe in - as long as that advocation is off campus and on their own time and that is where Chris limited his speech about his faith. According to the Star Tribune report the board is targeting Chris because of his faith and that my friends is persecution, it is discrimination, it IS unConstitutional.

"He says students of all stripes -- "the popular kids, the goth kids, the brainiac kids" -- have approached him looking for advice. He's met with them off campus, at places such as Caribou Coffee, to talk. Sometimes, he said, parents with a troubled child would ask him to help. Some of these relationships went on for years, he said.
Lind says he would meet with students "maybe once" without parents' knowledge but would call parents for permission to mentor their children beyond that point."

This is a point of contention for the teachers in the comment thread. I do understand their concern, but there are circumstances when prior parental approval may not be wise. I would ask the teachers to put themselves into the following hypotheticals. Suppose you found out that one of your students was being sexually or physically abused by a parent or guardian. You know, as a "trusted adult" that you should try to counsel that child into making the right choice (going to the authorities). Would you go to the parent or guardian for permission to talk to that child first or would you just talk to the kid off campus where they might loosen up? Doing the former would set that kid up for retaliatory abuse from the abusive parent and doing the latter puts you in the same boat as Chris. WHAT DO YOU DO???? The second hypothetical is this. You overhear a student talking to a friend about commiting suicide. Mindful of the suicides that we had in the high school just two short years ago, what do you do? Time is of the essence in this situation....mom and dad are at work and the kid said he wanted to stage it so that he (or she) was dead by the time that mom and dad got home! What I am getting at is that there are times when parental permission is not appropriate or available on the first chat. Subsequent visits, oh heck yeah, and never, ever EVER in private. Since it appears that Chris was doing both of those anyway I would think that those concerns have been addressed.

"According to Joe Flynn, the district's lawyer, because Lind wasn't a licensed school employee or a union member, the district doesn't need to go through an extensive hearing process before dismissal. There have been no Scott County criminal or civil charges filed against Lind." (emphasis mine)

No criminal or civil charges have been filed....that is a telling statement. According to this there has been no negligence, no criminal activity, no other compelling reason for the employment action. Why is this happening if there is no negligence or criminal activity? Because the School Board, in it's role of employer, gave the employee an unconstitutional order? An order that the employee rightly refuse because of it's unConstitutionality? It is certainly looking that way...especially in light of this statement.

"Human resources director Tony Massaros wouldn't answer a generic question about what off-campus staff behavior the district can regulate. "

If the Human Resources Director can't even answer a generic question about off campus behavior, how are they going to be able to justify this action to the public and to any attorney's that might come as a result of the action (yes there are lawsuits being talked about that are dependent of the boards decision....our tax dollars at work).

A lot more detail is becoming known (thanks to the Star Tribune) we are getting a clearer picture of the school boards actions in this matter. I can not say that this is a picture that I (as a parent in the district and a taxpayer) am completely comfortable with. I may have been quick on the trigger (with the hyperbole) last week but it is starting to look justified. Should we the taxpayer, as the employers of the school board, take a closer look into this issue?