Hey, there! Log in / Register
Hingham Catholic school accepts kid, then rejects him because it objects to his parents' sleeping arrangements
By adamg on Fri, 05/14/2010 - 5:04pm
Because they're both divorced and remarried, right? No, no, of course not. Jeff Cutler, who lives in Hingham, discusses St. Paul School, which objects to the fact that one third grader's parents are both women:
... I'm just wondering if St. Paul's is teaching this boy the hard lesson that even religious organizations can lie and go back on their word, what sort of lessons should we worry they're teaching the children already enrolled there?
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
It's a Catholic school, and
It's a Catholic school, and they play by Catholic rules. This is very simple. If you don't like their rules, don't foul your child with their teachings. There is no Constitutional right to send your child to a school funded and run by the Catholic church.
If those are "Catholic rules"...
...why is the Archdiocese so ticked off at the school -- and working to find a school that IS willing to accept this little boy as a student?
Uh..
Because it understands what a public relations nightmare this is in one of the only states that legalized gay marriage?
Do you think this is the first time a Catholic has ever sacrificed their moral high ground to make themselves look better?
Fine then
No PUBLIC school buses and no STATE funding for ANYTHING.
The Catholic schools take money from the state and benefit from city/town services when it comes to transportation and school lunch funding. Sounds like they want to pay for their own damn buses and meals - no open doors, no public funds.
When they stop taking PUBLIC money to help run their PRIVATE school, THEN they can do what they want.
That simple.
I was a little catholic
I was a little catholic school boy most of my childhood and I do not recall anyone stepping foot on a bus or getting a lunch from the school (except for high school and even then nobody got federal help, even the poor kids.) Actually most of the catholic schools I know of do not have the capacity to serve lunch and are BYOB (B for brownbag) affairs.
I was going to say something similar.
If Catholic schools did take public money, it would probably be illegal to ban someone based on their parents sexuality right?
I don't remember my Catholic schools using public transportation or lunch money either. I guess I wouldn't know about the lunch money but in Boston kids didn't use public money to get to school. Although the MBTA might have given discounts to students at these schools. That may have been true. Then again, maybe the schools paid the MBTA for the lower rate. I think some surburban public schools do that with the MBTA as well.
Hmm. I could swear
There was some controversy last year over kids using BPS buses to get to private schools, presumably Catholic Schools- though I'm not sure. Somebody wanted the City Council to stop the practice, and I think the city claimed they would be sued if they did stop it. Something like that.
Ayup
Here's the background.
ahhh yea I remember that.
Two things there though:
1. It seems like it was the students, not the schools that tecnically got the money for transportation and
2. The opinion from the Boston Pubilc Schools was that they legally did not have a responsibility to transport those kids but did anyway? Did I read that right?
And did I also read that the city pays the MBTA 315K a year for passes?
MBTA passes
Ayup! Kidlet gets one of those next year. Guess they figure it's a lot cheaper than providing school buses for high school/exam school students from all over the city.
Yea I knew they got them.
But does the City of Boston really have to write a check to the MBTA for 315 thousand dollars?
I got one when I was in high school. I still had to pay 25 cents when the train cost 75 cents I think.
Me too...
I got a badge and a monthly pass from 1984-1990, and the monthly passes were paper up until 1986 and heavy-duty plastic after that. No monthly school pass or commuter rail fare = half-off regular fare.
I remember paying $10 for the 10 ride half-fare pass until senior year, when I splurged on the $52 (in 1990 dollars) Zone 1 commuter rail pass as trains were running again and I could catch the 6:30 train to Ruggles and walk through the Fens to BLA when it was over across from Fenway Park.
Supplemental bus service was the norm for almost all the high schools that weren't served by yellow school buses. Two charters ran to BLA and BLS from Cleary Square in the morning and back in the afternoons.
It's a Catholic school, and they play by Catholic rules.
...which has, in the past, meant no accountability for pedophile priests or the church hierarchy that treated the issue like a mild transgression deserving of a slap on the wrist and well ... just move them along to the next parish.
In a country of laws, the church has earned no deference on matters of accountability as it has shown repeatedly that it will abuse its power and influence, in situations in which the least powerful and most vulnerable suffer.
That's why
you get the big bucks. :)
Medford uses public buses
Parochial schools in Medford all use public funded school buses. My husband worked at St. Clem's for two years, and they get crossing guards from Somerville. St. Clem's also got assistance from the federal school lunch programs.
The idea is that they can use transport where it is offered to public school kids, because they would use it if they went to public schools. I think the legislature might have to reconsider this in light of recent exclusionary practices.
Before you start tearing down
Before you start tearing down the Catholic School system I would advise that you remember that every child in the private system saves the city you are in the cost of one child being educated. As you know the average cost of educating a child can reach into the 20,000 in some cities around here but I would fully admit that most catholic schools are taking non special needs kids so would most likely be in the 10,000 per student range. If you have a class of 20 students that would be 200,000. In a small Catholic school of 8 grades and a kindergarden/preschool system that is 1 million dollars the city is saving per small Catholic school. Does Medford have an extra million dollars kicking around to educate those children? My point is busing and lunches, I still stand by my earlier statement that most Catholic schools I know of do not use these services anyway, are a very small line item in the budget. The Catholic school takes pressure off of the public school system that is several magnitudes greater then anything the city can give back. I wonder if that is one of the reasons why some cities offer these services? If a child needs a ride to school that could be the difference between the parents sending them to Catholic versus public school. So the city sticks the kid on a bus and saves 10,000 a year. I think it is a smart move.
transfer of payments
When a public school student in a particular school district ops to attend an open school in another district, the student's home district pays the student's chosen district the cost of the education. Approx $7,000.
Is the same true when a public school kid attends a private school?
If you send your kids to private or parochial school...
... you essential "pay" twice.
This is why some people are
This is why some people are pushing for the "voucher" system where vouchers are available to parents who send their kids to private schools. Some would want this for all schools and some feel it should only be in areas where schools have been proven to be inept. In this scenario where the government is paying out 5,000 per student to supplement private school the points made earlier about the government having more of a say would make more sense. After all if the government is paying for the student to go to your school you can no longer stop people from attending. It would not even have to be all that proactive about it, it would just not allow vouchers to those schools who discriminate and the market would arrange itself.
our school wont bus catholic kids
We live in a small town but one with bad sidewalks and broken down buildings. The local district does run buses but refuses to bus the 20-30 catholic school kids that need busing in the area. They said "The catholic kids are not our problem. Come back to our school and you will get busing" It makes me sick that they cannot see the danger of these little ones crossing two major roadways to get to school. The major roadways do not have crossing guards or crosswalks. They said that since it is a small town they do not have to provide busing for their own students. My son has asperger's and bad asthma. There is no way he could make it up and down the hill 9-12 blocks to and from school every day. How can they get away with doing this to the little kids in that school?
school busing catholic kids
It has been my understanding that by law the public school transporation system in the district the catholic school is in is responsible for the Catholic school kids to get a free ride to school.
Or tax breaks
Catholic schools don't pay property taxes and are tax-exempt for donation purposes. So they should be open to everyone. Seems pretty simple.
eeka I'm not sure its that simple though.
I asked this before (not to you) and never really got an answer, but what about Wellesley College or like a Women's health club? They don't legally have to accept men do they?
Pretty sure Healthworks pays taxes
and Wellesley probably kicks in some kind of arbitrary PILOT. Not that this fundamentally answers your argument, but the tax relationships are a little nuanced. Not sure if the Church pays a dime to old "Ceasar", as it were.
Yea I was just kind of wondering that is all.
I mean, this school should let this kid in just like Wellesley College should give the town of Wellesley something. But I'm not sure they legally have to. Which brings me up to my main question; Does Wellesley College or Healthworks legally have the right to ban men from joinging those institutions fulltime?
from joining...
The right to have a single-sex private college has been tested in the courts. They have the right and it applies to admissions.
I do not think Wellesley can discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity or sexual preference (becuase its in MA) in its hiring practices however.
Yea I was thinking of that woman at the Citadel
But then I read up and found out The Citadel is a public college and the Supreme Court decided that a public school could not discriminate on the basis of sex.
But since Wellesley, (like a Catholic School) is private, maybe they can hire whomever they want?
protected classes in hiring policy
Public v Private school admissions and expulsion differences.
Discrimination and Wrongful Termination
[Massachusetts] Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:
* Age
* Race
* Sex
* Religion
* National origin
* Disability
* Pregnancy
It's illegal for an employer to consider these characteristics with regard to:
* Promotions
* Job assignments
* Termination
* Wages
And it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee:
* For refusing to break a law
* In retaliation for filing a discrimination or safety claim
* For taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act
* Without following its own stated procedure or policy
* For reasons not contained in the employment contract, if one exists
women's health clubs in MA were forced to accept men...
...after a lawsuit against healthworks, in boston, back in 1996. a man who lived across from the gym was denied membership, and he challenged healthworks in court, and basically won. it was a bit of a pyrrhic victory however. because of the uproar that was caused, governor paul cellucci wrote into law that health clubs were exempt from the anti-discrimination laws regarding gender. so long as they will employ both genders, they are allowed to open membership to women only. the law requires that the health club does not take government or corporate funds.
so health clubs in massachusetts are no longer legally obligated to accept men so long as they meet the requirements spelled out in the MGL.
Interesting story
Thanks- I didn't know about that.
^^^ Correct
That having been said, why would anybody pay money to have their child educated by diddlers who talk out of their ass on social issues? Serious question. I don't like public schools, but even those are better than forcing backwards doctrine upon them.
Play by the rules
I think the issue here is that the Church (or really, this school) is selectively picking which doctrine they want to really take to heart. As the posting alludes to, if their rules are no divorcing, no remarrying, then why would they accept any child of divorced or remarried parents? That seems inconsistent and a bit hypocritical.
Now add on to that the whole diddling, hiding diddlers, copping an attitude about other peoples' sins, then you just have something well beyond hypocritical. But you're right, there is no Constitutional right to send your kid to a Catholic school.
Catholic schools
will generally take any student who wants to enroll with the understanding that the student will follow Catholic teachings while at school (attend mass, take religion classes). That's why you'll find non-Catholic students at these schools, students with divorced parents, etc.
as soon as they start kicking
as soon as they start kicking out the students whose parents:
-are divorced
-used birth control
-are not both baptized
-don't attend church every sunday
-don't attend the holy days of obligation
...then we'll buy your defense
Your interest in consistency
Your interest in consistency is touching. It's still their ball, their bat, and their game. You are free to call them hypocrites - you are not free to tell them whom to accept in their school.
you said they play by
you said they play by catholic rules, i was just merely reminding you of them. You're right I can't tell them who to accept, the archdiocese is taking care of that, but I'm more than happy to point out to the lunkheads at Hingham's St Paul where their actions conflict with their mouths.
We're also free...
to pull our kids out until they're reduced to a 12-student-per-grade shell of an institution one roof or asbestos abatement away from collapse. It's their ball and their bat, but it's our league. If they need non-Catholics to bolster the ranks, there are going to have to be compromises.
Your argument that I could set up a "Whiteys Only"
school for my young Aryan brethren or whatever, and would be within my rights, is well taken. But I'm not sure anyone is arguing for forcibly shutting down Catholic schools. People are just pointing out that this particular school is going out of its way to enforce one aspect of the Church's teaching on monogamous, procreative sexuality. Nobody said they don't have the right to exclude people from their private club- it's just that the position seems to lack moral and logical sense.
So I assume that at all times
So I assume that at all times and in all ways you are morally and logically consistent?
ha, if your argument has been
ha, if your argument has been whittled down to that you may as well shut off the computer and head to bed
Wish I could go to bed right now.
Ugly loss, that. Ouch.
Go Celtics.
Ummmmm, no.
It is illegal for private institutions to discriminate on the basis of race, period.
Race is a protected class. It is not within your rights to start a "whites-only" school.
private institutions.
They can let in whomever they want based on whatever they want. I don't have to let anyone in my house, and a private club doesn't have to let anyone in the private club.
They can indeed
But to all of a sudden claim it's a "policy" when it's clearly no such thing? Not illegal, but very bad form.
While "private" schools may be able....
... to do what they want, "parochial" schools are almost completely subject to the policies and rules of the Archjdiocese. The Hingham parochial school ignored this rather important fact.
Yes, we're also free to call them
douchebags, hypocrites and unchristian, because targeting a child like this seems to meet all that criteria. We may not be free to tell them who they should accept, but that doesn't absolve them from rightly earned criticism.
Apparently the boys' moms,
Apparently the boys' moms, undoubtedly wishing to do the best for their kid, want him to attend a Catholic school rather than a public school. And it looks like they'll get their wish.
So then a gay couple have
So then a gay couple have decided that sending their child to a Catholic school is "doing the best for their kid?" That's interesting. Their little Prince is too good for a suburban public school, so they send him to the homophobic Catholic school.
you seem far less tolerant
of the parents' alleged hypocrisy that the schools.
The school is not playing by its _own_ boss's rules
... and clearly didn't bother to consult with the Archdiocese before pulling its stunt. Although the Archdiocese didn't overrule the school (this would have put the kid and his family in an uncomfortable position), it has made its displeasure known -- and is apparently pulling various subsidies. The Archdiocese ultimately calls the shots -- and the school thumbed its nose at official policy.
most of the catholic schools in eastern mass
are no longer run by the diocese, they are run by an independent board of trustees unique to the school.
For example, the diocese severed itself from Archbishop Williams and leased the building to Archbishop Williams for $1 for 99 years. It has its own board of trustees.
I'm pretty sure that the the school in Hingham....
... is NOT a private school but rather a parochial one under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese.
My understanding is that
My understanding is that there is a trend among high schools to disengage from the church while many of the grade schools remain connected. I am sure it has something to do with alumni being more willing to give back to their high schools if they know their money will not be sucked up by the church to pay for law suits where as the grade schools do not have the same alumni donor relationship to worry about.
if they are going to pick and choose which rules to follow
They should at least let it be known to parents ahead of time, not after they accept the student of the lesbian couple, who never hid that fact.
But Jesus called the children
Yeah, but here's Jesus on homosexuality:
Uh...hold on a sec...dang, it must be in my other Bible. Never mind.
why not just tell the truth
the catholic church is a bigoted organization.
catholics are bigots.
the guy in charge is a nazi.
A crucial and important lesson
It's a critical lesson: Life's not fair, and might makes right, but you have to pretend otherwise most of the time.
It's a lot like teaching your child that Santa (or god) is real, then allowing them to find out you've lied to them. They'll learn not to trust grownups about things they can't verify, including the truthfulness and benevolence of teachers & clergy.
The pastor of St Paul's
The pastor, Fr. James Rafferty, is said to be popular among his parishioners and "the nicest, sweetest guy you'd ever want to meet" by someone in my circle who knows him. Too bad he can't stomach openly gay folk (god knows he works with enough closeted ones) and consequently decided to make up new "rules" to support his own visceral revulsion to the parents' relationship.
Good on the mom for being honest in the first place, then standing up to him and calling the Associated Press.
Most Catholic schools accept
Most Catholic schools accept people with parents who are Jewish, Muslim, Divorced, having affairs, Mormons, not married, single mothers by choice, parents who have had abortions and any number of other combinations of "hideous" things. Why is it that some schools would like to just restrict inclusion based on sexual orientation?
I would like to point out a few things. First, the children themselves are assumed to be asexual until later in life and therefor are "not gay" themselves. Even if we are to allow discrimination based off of sexual orientation it is still unfair to the children who are being targeted for the "sins" of their parents. Second the church has said on many occasions that it is not a sin to be gay, just a sin to act on it. It is a gross invasion of the couples privacy to reach into their bedroom. Third, this is insane and has no basis in reality. This priest obviously did not consult with the higher ups in the system, otherwise he would have been told to calm down and shut up a long time ago.
yeah shady
.
1. The parents were not
1. The parents were not honest up-front.
2. The school does not have a "policy" of excluding anyone, that was made up by the press and the Archdiocese (who inferred that the school had a policy of excluding, by claiming that the Archdiocese did not have one)
3. The press quoted an anonymous person, attributed quotes to other people based on what this anonymous person said, and harassed children on their school buses by trying to shove microphones to the windows - Ms.Gail Huff (wife of Scott Brown) being the worse offender - because its a good sound byte to say that the student was not allowed in because the parents are lesbians. The truth wouldn't have been a story.
4. The Globe has been praising the Archdiocese for the past couple of days. Let me say that again - The Boston Globe has been praising the Archdiocese. If that doesn't make you suspicious that there is more to this story then I don't know what would.
5. All private school students (parochial or otherwise) are entitled to busing under state law (look it up) if the school is in their town. Therefore, students who live in Hingham get buses for St. Paul's, Derby, etc., but if they live in Scituate they can't get busing to Hingham. The parents pay REAL ESTATE TAXES and school buses are paid for with REAL ESTATE TAXES. This is not a service provided to the school. The school doesn't care how the students get there.
Cagey language?
> The school does not have a "policy" of excluding anyone,
So the decision was based on somebody's whim?
It's always so much fun when anonymour posters call people liars -- and seem to expect people to credit their unproven assertions.