For the Feb. 28 issue
By:
Board member
responds to critics
To the editor:
I want to respond to the letter regarding my comments during the Feb. 10 school board meeting.
The militarization of our society, and the protests against that trend, absolutely have relevance to our students and our district’s curriculum. Our students have to be asking why millions of people around the world are protesting U.S. policy in the Middle East. They have to know that our government has in the past used false and misleading information to justify war. They have to understand the true objectives of this war. They have to wonder whether it could be related to the "personal political agenda" of the oil barons we have running the White House.
I mentioned another event during that meeting. The theme of the student strike on March 5 is "Books Not Bombs." It is a protest against the lack of funding for education while our government diverts billions of dollars into this war drive, including billions of dollars in bribes to our reluctant allies such as Turkey. Our efforts to make public education work successfully and meet the requirements of "No Child Left Behind" are severely handicapped by the lack of federal funding. This just leads to higher and higher property taxes.
Finally, what would I tell the graduates of Hightstown High who are proudly serving their country? I would tell them that this community doesn’t want to trade their blood for oil. You want to support our troops? Tell our government to bring them home.
East Windsor
The writer is a member of the East Windsor Regional Board of Education.
Resident supports
Laverty’s intents
To the editor:
I disagree with the position taken by Ms. Jaketic in her letter to the editor of Feb. 21. Ms. Jaketic criticizes Mr. Laverty’s comments made during the board forum section of the Feb. 10 meeting of the East Windsor Regional School Board. While I was not at the meeting, the comments were recounted to me by a board member and a second attendee of the meeting. The tone of the remarks, as I was informed, was to recommend that peace demonstrations in New York and/or Trenton might be fitting opportunities for field trips by students.
While I agree that it is inappropriate for Mr. Laverty to use his position on the school board to advocate his political views, except as they relate directly to educational policy, it can be appropriate for him to inform the public of the opportunity to participate. If Mr. Laverty’s agenda is only to encourage students to observe and perhaps participate in public assemblies that espouse a political viewpoint, then we should applaud his suggestion. Public participation is one of the core principles upon which our democracy depends.
East Windsor
Criticism of Laverty
hit the mark
To the editor:
Suzanne Jaketic is right on the money per last week’s letter in her criticism of East Windsor Regional School Board member Robert Laverty’s public advocacy of a school-sponsored student field trip to Trenton to participate in an anti-war demonstration. School board members are elected to their posts without the banner of political affiliation or personal political agendas for a reason it has no place in the business of educating our children.
Mr. Laverty should resign his position immediately because his action has proven him to be violation of the board’s code of ethics and poor judgement in general. In addition, the entire board should be admonished for passively letting Mr. Laverty get away with this, as it amounts to an endorsement of his idea. Furthermore, it is an insult to parents, students and taxpayers and certainly our men and women from this area who serve in the military.
I’ve always publicly stated that the East Windsor School Board is less concerned with excellence in education and more concerned with social engineering and liberal pursuits within the district and Mr. Laverty has certainly proven my assertion. The test score results in the district are some of the worst in the state and aren’t getting any better; it’s high time voters wise up and replace this bunch with members that care about real education and are willing to do something about it.
Cranbury
Editorial missed
the point on Iraq
To the editor:
Your editorial titled "Engage in debate on war on Iraq," (Feb. 21) prompts my response. You cite the hundred of thousands who marched in protest as evidence that a solid core of Americans is opposed to the war. Yet, you failed to acknowledge the polls that conclude otherwise, and the millions who did not march against the war. Using your logic, one must conclude that an even more solid core of Americans understands the issues, and although understandably reluctant to put American lives at risk, realizes that more lives will be at risk if we don’t act. Just ask the people of Kuwait.
You cite Iran and North Korea as more dangerous than Iraq, but I suspect you are equally willing to appease these dictatorships. Such comparisons are irrelevant, unless of course you wish to engage in three wars simultaneously?
What’s at stake here is the very survival of the free world against those who seek our destruction, those who harbor them, those who supply them with weapons, those who finance them, and those who have made it abundantly clear that they seek nothing short of our destruction. You might want to check the editorial pages of their newspapers, rather than take my word. If you are not able to understand these world issues, and their risks to the United States, I suggest you restrict your editorial coverage to local issues.
East Windsor

