Leftist superintendent tries bringing woke agenda to conservative community, fails to understand how the law works

The following includes content that is editorial in nature and reflects the opinion of the author, a contributing writer to Law Enforcement Today. 
 

GRANBY, CT - Granby, Connecticut, is typically considered a relatively conservative town. For example, in the 2022 election, Granby voters chose Republicans to represent them in the Connecticut General Assembly.

Conversely, town voters split their votes and chose Democrats Ned Lamont for governor and Dick Blumenthal for United States Senate. A case of voter dyslexia? Possibly. 

The superintendent of Granby schools is a woman named Cheri Burke, who was appointed to that role this past May after serving as Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Glastonbury, Connecticut.

According to the Granby Drummer, a struggling local paper run by leftists, Burke “stood out as an exceptional candidate” to serve as Granby’s new superintendent, school board chairwoman Sarah Thrall said. 

According to Burke, she consistently maintained “a focus on always asking herself what’s best for the students.” 

One of Burke’s programs was overseeing the Glastonbury Public Schools (GPS) Equity, Diversion, and Inclusion program, known in many circles as Critical Race Theory. Part of that program was to “increase equity, diversity, and inclusion” in the system’s curriculum. 

Last year, as part of a presentation on antisemitism, the GPS hosted a presentation by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). This left-wing partisan organization used to focus on fighting anti-Jew hate but has morphed into a shill for the Democrat Party.

According to the New York Post, its CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, is a former Barack Obama appointee who makes regular appearances on MSNBC. 

In 2020, when it was announced that the GPS was going to form an Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion committee, a local parent, Stephen Michaels, the father of four, learned about it during a one-on-one meeting with his son’s teacher, who happened to be a member of the EDI Committee.

During that meeting, the teacher told Michaels she would include the book The World Needs More Purple People in her curriculum. The book has been controversial for pushing “anti-racist” ideology. 

Michaels decided that since this new committee could significantly impact the school system's curriculum, he needed to keep informed. While he attempted to join the committee, he learned all volunteer slots had been filled. However, he could hear about the committee’s efforts during school board meetings. 

Those reports got Michaels’ attention since they indicated a significant influence on the school system by the EDI Committee. That influence included school programs, reading selections, teacher training, and hiring. Despite asking questions to gain more information, his efforts were hampered.

He asked to attend the meetings as a taxpayer but was denied, almost as if the committee were hiding something. He was told it was an “administrative committee,” and their meetings were closed to the general public. That despite the fact the EDI Committee has a page on the GPS website.

Michaels decided to pursue the issue and discovered, with the assistance of an attorney, that the committee met the legal definition of an “agency” under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Such meetings must be open to the public. He again requested to attend the meetings and again was denied. In October 2021, Michaels filed an appeal to the Connecticut FOIA Commission, asking for a review of his claim. The commission placed the issue on its docket in December 2021. 

Five days later, the newly renamed “EDI Council” announced they would seek ways to open their meetings to the public, which should not have been difficult. One month later, nothing had changed, and Michael’s FOIA hearing was coming up on the docket.

He notified the FOIA ombudsman he would drop his case if the Glastonbury Board of Ed made the EDI Council’s meetings public; otherwise, he would move ahead. Shortly afterward, a Feb. 3, 2022, meeting was announced and posted on the EDI’s web page with a link for public attendance. Michael withdrew his appeal.

So what exactly was this EDI Council trying to hide? And what was Cheri Burke’s role in it? 

That brings us to the present day and Burke’s role as Granby’s Superintendent of Schools. Law Enforcement Today received an anonymous tip that a parent who attended an open house at his child’s school saw a teacher wearing a pin that read, “Someone I love is LGBT.”

This particular parent, we’re told, was surprised because teachers are not typically able to wear any political or ideological pins nor share their personal views concerning social or political issues. 

This raises the question of what would happen if a student wore a pin, shirt, or other accessory that pushed particular beliefs.

Among those who would likely get unwanted negative attention from school staff would be those advocating for the Second Amendment, pro-life, MAGA, or so on. Conversely, what would happen if a student happened to wear attire supporting pro-choice, anti-MAGA, anti-religion, etc.? These are legitimate questions. 

LET obtained an email where Ms. Burke was asked some of those questions and asked what value this particular pin provides to young school children. The writer was asking on behalf of himself and other school parents. 

In response, Burke wrote that since the teacher’s contract doesn’t specify any dress code requirements, she could not address the issue, but she invited him to speak with the school principal. 

A follow-up email suggested that a “balanced and equitable standard” should be applied to all schools in the town, with no personal, political, religious, or controversial matter being addressed that falls outside of the system’s curriculum. 

That led Kyle Reyes, President and CEO of Silent Partner Marketing, who also owns Law Enforcement Today, to ask the following: 

“If a female teacher were wearing an extremely short skirt…or a male teacher had on a t-shirt that says “FJB” but the words were spelled out…are you saying this would be acceptable because the ‘teacher contract does not specify any dress code requirements?’” 

He followed up by asking:

“Are you suggesting that as the leader of the school district, you have absolutely no say in setting baseline standards of decorum in the schools by your employees?” 

In response to Reyes’ email, Burke replied that the “district’s ability to assure that teachers dress appropriately” is not affected by the absence of contract language. “Any type of teacher clothing that would be disruptive to the educational process is not allowed.” 

Fair enough. Then she went to the woke side of the force. 

“Thank you for expressing your concern regarding teachers’ wearing pins that express support for LGBTQIA+ individuals. I do not believe this is the case in preschool, where your child attends.

Rather with teachers of much older groups of students at our high school. In this case, pins expressing support of any individual group are allowable as long as they do not disrupt the educational process and do not contain profanity or promote illegal activity or substances.” 

She wrote, "This is an individual teacher's choice and is protected by freedom of speech.” She continued, "Connecticut law prohibits discrimination in our schools against students on the basis of their gender identity and expression, and a teacher’s choice to wear a pin with a message of support is consistent with school district responsibilities under state law.” 

“Teachers are free to wear pins with other messages as well, provided they are not disruptive to the educational process.” 

This is how to write a lot without saying much, and all falls to how one defines “disruptive to the educational process.” Disruptive to whom? A blue-haired, tattooed, piercing-obsessed moonbat like those made famous on Libs of TikTok? Who defines “disruptive?” 

In response, Reyes wrote back, asking for clarification on Burke’s reply, particularly where she said, “Any type of teacher clothing that would be disruptive to the educational process is not allowed.” 

“Considering a number of kids have brought these concerns to their parents, and now you’ve been forced to address it, that by definition meets the standard of ‘disruptive to the educational process.’ And so by your own email here, those pins would be inappropriate because they are very clearly ‘disruptive to the educational process.’” 

Reyes then asked who determines what is “disruptive?” Is there a committee that decides it? 

He further reminded Burke that she had, in fact, “conflated issues” by tying in the LGBT issue. 

“LGBTQIA+ is an expression of sexuality. Personally, I have no issues with who or how a person chooses to love. Despite our own faith and values, we believe that those decisions are between that person and God. We have many close friends and family members who are gay or transgender. We don’t love them any less or any differently.

“We do, however, have an issue with teachers openly discussing or displaying sexuality–gay, straight, or other–in front of children in school. Teachers have an incredible and important role in influencing children–but that influence is supposed to be educational, not sexual in nature. These pins are nothing more than a discussion about who someone chooses to sleep with–and that’s inappropriate.” 

Reyes then asked Burke to “explain how a teacher wearing a pin about who sleeps with who contributes to the educational environment in the classroom.” 

Burke was engaging in Kamala Harris-like word salad in trying to justify allowing teachers to wear pride pins in the classroom, equating failure to allow such as somehow “discriminating” against a so-called protected class. 

“Your very response is a bizarre conflation of issues,” Reyes wrote, “because your entire argument hinges on the idea that a teacher has to wear a pin about who sleeps with who to somehow NOT be discriminating against students.” 

Reyes reasoned that the natural extension of that was asking if teachers who did not wear such pins were, in essence, “somehow discriminating against students and violating state law?” 

Reyes then reminded Burke that his attorney believed she lacked “the legal knowledge and understanding about what is and is not ‘protected by freedom of speech.’” He noted this raised serious concerns about the Granby Public Schools being subject to litigation. 

“The irony, of course, is that this very pin actually discriminates against straight students and therefore would be a violation of state law,” which Reyes reasoned, “would be a violation of state law, opening up the school district–and in essence the taxpayers–to a lawsuit.” 

Reyes then cited legal precedent:

"The First Amendment does not protect a teacher from all restrictions on speech made within the teacher’s professional capacity as a teacher. A school district can prohibit any political speech, including nonverbal speech such as clothing, hats, accessories such as pins, and classroom decorations within the school setting if the speech veers from the approved curriculum. 

For instance, in Mayer v. Monroe County Community School, a 2007 U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case from Indiana, an elementary teacher indicated during a classroom discussion on current events that she privately opposed the Iraq War, and she was subsequently terminated.

The court held that, even though the speech was an issue of public importance and was germane to the classroom discussion, the school could limit that speech because it unduly disrupted the employer’s business of education. Per the court, “This is so in part because the school system does not ‘regulate’ teachers’ speech as much as it hires that speech.”

Similarly, when a sixth-grade teacher cited an offensive racial epithet that was part of the lyrics in a song as part of a classroom discussion as to why such words should not be used, the Seventh Circuit in Brown v. Chicago Board of Education held in 2016 that the school’s policy forbidding the use of such epithets could be enforced against him because his use of the term in his capacity as a teacher did not implicate his First Amendment rights, which only protect his speech as a private citizen.

Thus, a directive made in August by the Washoe, Nevada County School District to teachers not to support the Black Lives Matter movement in their capacities as teachers is an attempt to regulate political speech within a classroom setting and may be found to be a legal exercise of the board’s right to regulate classroom speech. 

On the other hand, other school districts have expressly voted to support Black Lives Matter, thereby allowing teachers to support the movement in their classrooms.

If a teacher in one of those districts opposed Black Lives Matter in a classroom setting in contravention of the mandated curriculum of the school, the school may be able to discipline the teacher for such speech without violating the teacher’s First Amendment rights.

As disruptive as it may be to a student/teacher relationship, if a student is aware of a teacher’s political opinions that may be offensive to the student, such as opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement to an African American student or anti-immigration posts to an immigrant student, the First Amendment generally does not apply to a teacher’s expression of those views as long as the speech is made in the teacher’s capacity as a private citizen.

For instance, a teacher in Oregon in 2019 wore a Make America Great Again hat to a racial diversity training for school employees and later filed a complaint, on which he prevailed, because he believed that he was improperly disciplined for his constitutionally protected private speech."

The above email was sent on Sept. 21, 2023. As of one week later, Reyes had yet to receive a response. He wrote Burke on Sept 28, 2023, writing  in part:

“As someone who runs several businesses, I can understand how busy things get. But I’ll admit, I’m surprised that after a week, I still haven’t received a response over some very serious concerns I’ve raised to you.

“You’ve made some pretty bold claims that are in direct violation of both state law and case law and seem to be single-handedly creating policies under the guise of “freedom of speech” that discriminate against students and have opened up the school board to legal action. Were these decisions made with the knowledge and support of the board of education–or by you and you alone?”  

Reyes reminded Burke that “the school budget is already out of balance, and the last thing we need are legal expenses because of poor and discriminatory leadership decisions–even if those decisions were unintentional.” 

The next thing that happened is Superintendent Burke ceased responding to Reyes’ emails and instead deferred his questions to the Granby Board of Education’s attorney, Thomas Mooney, with the Hartford law firm of Shipman & Goodwin. This well-known legal firm represents numerous cities and towns in Connecticut. Mooney wrote Reyes:

“Good Evening Mr. Reyes: 

We represent the Granby Board of Education (the District), and Superintendent Burke has referred our FOIA requests to me for further response. I understand that you have three requests pending, and I would like to inventory those requests and give you an update on the District’s response to your requests.” 

These two requests involved “copies of any and all written or emailed correspondence concerning the below signage placed in the elementary school.  While on the surface it might seem loving and inclusive, I and other parents are specifically curious about who deemed it necessary or appropriate to put up signage surrounding sex and sexuality in an elementary school - along with who put in the request, who approved the request, the relevancy to little children, how it pertains to the curriculum, who paid for it and at what cost.” 

A second FOIA request was sent as follows:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I'm hereby requesting copies of any and all written or emailed correspondence concerning the below email, which was sent out to high school students in Granby.  Specifically, I'm looking for all correspondence on who authorized a member of the staff to send out a solicitation that clearly discriminates against both straight students and white students.

I'd like any communication surrounding how this was approved, what repercussions were taken, and what was done to ensure the school won't continue authorizing discriminatory actions against our students.

I'd also like any correspondence - written, verbal, or digital - pertaining to how the students who were clearly and intentionally discriminated against were or will be apologized to and/or compensated for the financial and educational opportunity they were deprived of.

Mooney emailed back to Reyes confirming receipt of the requests and stated the District was looking for the records in question. 

Mooney replied there were no records regarding the second FOIA request. The answer to the first request was vague. 

He also sent Reyes a snarky email about an October Freedom of Information Act conference. He invited him to “say hello” if he decided to attend the conference. 

Reyes was also notified that Superintendent Burke would no longer be handling FOIA requests, to which he clarified with Mooney that would be the case moving forward, grateful that someone who had an understanding of the statute would be responding to further requests since it didn’t appear Burke did. That did raise a question from Reyes:

“One quick point of clarification–it’s my understanding from Cheri’s [Burke] last email that she will not be accepting FOIA requests from me. Is that standard practice and in compliance with the law? Candidly, I’ve never heard of this happening before–and so I want to make sure I’m respectful of the district’s protocol on this moving forward. 

“Because candidly, I am interested in submitting one other FOIA request, given that the school district is already (from what I understand) over budget. That is for a breakdown of budgeting for legal issues/legal compliance and how much taxpayer funding has been allocated to having a law firm handle something that schools typically have the head of the district handle.” 

The attorney representing the school has since stopped responding to requests for more information, and has refused to share information about the costs of legal fees the taxpayers are now absorbing from the superintendent refusing to handle FOIA requests.

He did, however, reveal in a final FOIA request that the school does, in fact, currently allow access of graphic pornographic materials by students.  We'll be addressing that in a followup article.

Cheri Burke worked magic in trying to destroy the Glastonbury Public Schools. Now, she’s taken her act north to the sleepy suburb of Granby. 

“Try that in a small town?” Not on Kyle's watch.