We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
Mr. Ervin has explained that he meant nothing offensive and that we have simply misunderstood his intentions,” the board said.
Uh huh, we just misunderstood (slightly paraphrased) "god you're hot, what school do you go to?"
There are SO many ways to interpret this, you don't know what he meant, except for that all those ways are all fucked up in the head
Watch the far right rally around this.
I'm sure you are correct, but is there a non-far right anymore?
the majority of people are not far right.
the issue is that people who are far right, are far more likely to run for office than moderate candidates are. and run better campaigns, and win more votes.
Because they can lie with impunity while the rest of us have a conscience.
I don't know. I ask because I cannot explain anyone even tolerating Trump's actions in any way unless they are far right. I still know people defending his actions... Anyone opposing him in any way, the rest of America thinks is "far left". So it's a weird time...
You are captured by the false media narrative that you are one thing or the other.
The vast majority of voters are neither far right or far left. They are moderate. However, moderate people dont' get any airtime because the extremists here, and everywhere else, paint everyone as either FOR or AGAIN things.
Moderate voters went for Trump because he offered them a better platform to vote for, especially economically. And Trump's tanking now that his policies are showing to be horrible. But he has 2.5 more years in office.
I'm literally citing personal experience.
If they're voting for the far right candidates then they are far right.
I would say they're heavily misled. What may seem obvious here is invisible on their Twitter feeds, on TV, in their communities, and even Google due to "search customisation".
And he is sitting next to her and grabs her when he says it... Ewww.
Definitely investigate this guy, i bet he has a BAD history. May be some criminal charges in the future.
He is already not allowed on school grounds unsupervised because of his sexual comments to children from before this incident.
So agreed on the bad history.
Thats what you get when you choose your leaders by popularity contest. That wouldn't be appropriate even if she was an adult.
how else are you suppose to select school board members? should they be appointed by the town/county or something?
In a sane world, by ability and competence
How do you assess that exactly? What are the qualifications or objective measurements of competence as a school board member?
And furthermore, according to whom? your personal assessment in particular?
There isn't a single right answer to that and I'm not going to suggest there is.
How any organisation operates, be that public or private, is down to the culture of the organisation, and culture comes from people, process, motivation, legislation, and a whole bunch of factors.
If an organisation has a clear mission, is held organisationally accountable in appropriate ways to that mission and makes people feel professionally enriched and valuable, it will attract competent people. And importantly, an organisation full of competent and principled individuals will attract other competent individuals.
On the flip side, if an organisation is subject to decades of mismanagement, has very poor oversight, doesn't reward people for being good at their jobs and in fact rewards the wrong behaviours then exactly the opposite will happen. People who are competent at what they do will either leave or be crushed down, while those who know how to play the bootlicking game will be raised up, and this type of organisation again becomes self-perpetuating.
None of this happens overnight, in either direction. Failure can take years or decades, and so can the reverse.
So your general point is a concern. Who can you trust to make the judgement. But that doesn't mean you should just toss up your hands either. As was pointed out, tests of various sorts could be done and the results presented to the voters so that they have more to go on than the number of lawn signd they have seen for a person. The write ups in the guides are nearly pointless. They can say anything they want in there. For a person running for reelection, their voting record would be nice to give voters easy access to. There are lots of ways to present the voters with objective information so that they can choose based on thier preferences. But none of that happens today.
it's a democratically elected position.
the judgement is the judgement voters of that district.
do you vote in your own local school board elections? I do, and yeah you vote based on the person's policy stated positions. however, just because I do that, doesn't mean lots of candidates I don't vote for, don't get elected and push policies I don't agree with... because they get more votes than the candidates I vote for did.
Also, why do you assume that the voters in this school district, don't want this guy? He may very well be who they think is best for the job. If you don't live in this district... you don't get to vote for the school board there.
By merit??
who judges that merit? how is it defined?
In typical fediverse fashion, the users responding to you have no answer so they get stuck on semantics and counter arguing your question rather than the intent.
I genuinely would like a well thought out response to this too. Would merit be someone with many years of teaching experience? Maybe school administration?
Do those things make that person capable of performing board responsibilities? Do those things preclude them from making creepy remarks (I highly suspect they don't)
For the record, the dude here has been on the board for 12 years, which should be more than enough time to learn the necessary skill set to do the job. Doesn't make him less creepy though.
White House chief of staff: “Mr president.. we’ve found your new Secretary of Education sir”
Might end up attorney general. Have they been on TV before?
everyone at that meeting should be barred from any sort of role in the educational sector + atleast a year long mandatory training on identifying & preventing sexual harassment.
They.. just... laughed?
The member would never have said it in the first place, if the school board culture was not already like that.