Connect with us

Local

Advocacy group assails Mont. Co. schools over ‘ex-gay’ flier

But superintendent can’t stop distribution of materials

Published

on

Wayne Besen, gay news, gay politics dc

Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen. (photo by Michael Murphy)

LGBT advocacy group Truth Wins Out sent an open letter to the Montgomery County, Md. school district, and its superintendent, Joshua Starr, Tuesday excoriating school leaders for allowing an “ex-gay” group’s publicity material to go home with high schoolers late last month.

As the Blade reported earlier this week, alarmed parents contacted the school district to complain about roughly 8,000 fliers distributed to young students claiming sexual orientation is not permanent, and that the organization — Parents & Friends Of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX — can offer services and resources for youths experiencing “unwelcome” same-sex attraction.

“While non-profit literature must not be blocked based on viewpoint, it can and should be prohibited if it contains blatant misinformation that jeopardizes the health and well being of students,” wrote TWO’s executive director Wayne Besen in the letter to Starr. “The PFOX flier easily fits this description and the group has a dubious history that includes bizarre and bigoted practices that have no place in your public school system.”

The letter notes that the president of PFOX is on record using anti-gay hate speech and epithets, such as “faggot” when describing the gay community.

“Let’s not beat around the bush: If an unsavory organization insulted other minorities with despicable epithets and demanded that they be ‘exported’ or jailed – no school in Montgomery County would be distributing their leaflets,” Besen writes in the letter. “The fact that you would allow this politically motivated organization to spread its noxious message about LGBT people shows an unreasonable and unfathomable double standard.”

The district responded to Besen with the following:

 

Thank you very much for your correspondence regarding the fliers from PFOX. Many other community members and students have also emailed the Board of Education regarding the nature of these fliers.

First, I would like to say that Superintendent Dr. Starr has stated on the record that these fliers are reprehensible. I also empathize with your concerns and am acutely aware of the inappropriate content disguised within these fliers. Neither the Board of Education, MCPS, nor I support or endorse the content contained within these fliers. Unfortunately, there is nothing that we can do to prevent PFOX from distributing these fliers because we are bound by the law.

Current practice regarding the distribution of flyers is a direct result of a 2006 opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Below are links to that opinion, as well as an August 2006 memorandum to the Board of Education, both of which put in context the current MCPS Board Policy and MCPS Regulation regarding distribution of flyers.

1. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2006-07/2006-0824/CNA%20Revision%20Board%20Item.pdf
2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/031534p.pdf
3. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/cna.pdf
4. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/cnara.pdf

In most cases, fliers that are distributed in school are for legitimate opportunities offered by non-profit associations. PFOX is able to forward its agenda by distributing these fliers because it apparently meets sufficient criteria to fall under the auspices of this court ruling. Although we cannot stop the distribution of such fliers, we in MCPS are committed to promoting values of diversity and acceptance in our school system by teaching students how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate information.

Please rest assured that we in Montgomery County Public Schools are always extremely receptive to the community and towards promoting a culture of the twenty-first century.

Best,
Alan Xie
Student Member of the Board of Education

 

When reached for comment, a school district spokesperson expressed sympathy for those who were outraged by the flier, but repeated the district claim that the situation was unavoidable under the law.

“4th Circuit Court made it clear that if we’re going to send home any fliers that we have to send home any 501(c)3 non-profit fliers,” said school district spokesperson Dana Tofig, when contacted by the Blade Wednesday. “Dr. Starr finds what PFOX says reprehensible …but the courts made it clear that we’re in a very tight box.”

On Feb. 7, Superintendent Starr held a televised student town hall, where the PFOX fliers came up almost immediately in a twitter question from a student.

“I find the actions of PFOX to be reprehensible and deplorable,” Starr told the gathering of students at Wooten High. “We are bound by law, …Circuit Court in District four, to enable non-profits to distribute fliers…”

Starr said he hopes a solution can be found that allows the school district to avoid this circumstance in the future.

“We can’t really do that much about it, unless we want to cut off all flier distribution — which is an option,” he said. “We’re bound to do it. And this group …has figured out a way to use that law to spread what I find to be a really disgusting message, quite frankly.”

Tofig indicated that the both the school district and Superintendent Starr would like to avoid controversies like this in the future, but that the district has yet to find a way to exclude material presented by organizations like PFOX if they are to include materials presented by the Parent-Teacher Association, which is also a non-profit.

“[Superintendent Starr] is disturbed by this and it’s frustrating for him and for the school system. We are limited in what we can do, but if people have ideas we’re perfectly willing to listen.”

“If people have other ideas, bring them on,” Tofig concluded.

Besen is skeptical that the school district will do much to avoid this situation in the future unless their hand is forced.

“I think that the school district will do nothing unless we do a larger campaign,” Besen told the Blade on Wednesday. “They are receiving horrible legal advice. We are not objecting based on viewpoint, but the specific group of people behind PFOX. They are a clear and present threat to students and the school district is blindly hiding behind legalese to justify it not keeping pupils out of harm’s way.”

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case

Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge

Published

on

Sean Charles Dunn was found not guilty on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10. 

Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets. 

Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers  standing in front of the shop.

 Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.

 “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.

 “And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”

The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.

Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured. 

Prosecutors  with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1. 

Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom. 

Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various  provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.

The dispute over the intricacies of  the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.

Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called  “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.

DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.

“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.

Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.

Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident. 

“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it  was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.” 

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.

“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Democrats hold leads in almost every race of Annapolis municipal election

Jared Littmann ahead in mayor’s race.

Published

on

Preliminary election results from Tuesday show Democrats likely will remain in control of Annapolis City Hall. Jared Littmann thanks his wife, Marlene Niefeld, as he addresses supporters after polls closed Tuesday night. (Photo by Rick Hutzell for the Baltimore Banner)

By CODY BOTELER | The Democratic candidates in the Annapolis election held early leads in the races for mayor and nearly every city council seat, according to unofficial results released on election night.

Jared Littmann, a former alderman and the owner of K&B Ace Hardware, did not go so far as to declare victory in his race to be the next mayor of Annapolis, but said he’s optimistic that the mail-in ballots to be counted later this week will support his lead.

Littmannn said November and December will “fly by” as he plans to meet with the city department heads and chiefs to “pepper them with questions.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Democrats increase majority in Va. House of Delegates

Tuesday was Election Day in state.

Published

on

Virginia Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democrats on Tuesday increased their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

The Associated Press notes the party now has 61 seats in the chamber. Democrats before Election Day had a 51-48 majority in the House.

All six openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual candidates — state Dels. Rozia Henson (D-Prince William County), Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County), Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), Marcia Price (D-Newport News), Adele McClure (D-Arlington County), and Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) — won re-election.

Lindsey Dougherty, a bisexual Democrat, defeated state Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield County) in House District 75 that includes portions of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties. (Attorney General-elect Jay Jones in 2022 texted Coyner about a scenario in which he shot former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican.)

Other notable election results include Democrat John McAuliff defeating state Del. Geary Higgins (R-Loudoun County) in House District 30. Former state Del. Elizabeth Guzmán beat state Del. Ian Lovejoy (R-Prince William County) in House District 22.

Democrats increased their majority in the House on the same night they won all three statewide offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Narissa Rahaman is the executive director of Equality Virginia Advocates, the advocacy branch of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, last week noted the election results will determine the future of LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights in the state.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.

The General Assembly earlier this year approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment that defines marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. The resolution must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.

Shreya Jyotishi contributed to this article.

Continue Reading

Popular