Thank you. Please update your article once you do, since (as you may know) I’m the person who submitted an educator misconduct complaint against John Sanville. People in the community shared your piece with me, which is why I thought you should have your facts straight. Let me know if you have any other questions about my ongoing case, including the pending federal civil rights investigations. Thank you.
I can't verify who files the complaints (or if it's an option, I haven't looked into it). It was not particularly important to me, and I have no intention of specifically accusing anyone when I don't have sufficient details to do so. I also lack the legal expertise to interpret cases, and I wouldn't pretend to have it, so I wouldn't be qualified to make such accusations anyway.
I just kept hearing a lot about them when I attend school board meetings and watch them online. My impression from the public comments is that there are several, but I could be misunderstanding. Perhaps I'm just hearing about the same one over and over. I hope our community values the preservation of innocence until being proven guilty, in fact and spirit.
You claimed that you were giving your readers a “mini civics lesson” and you posited that the (unconstitutional) confidentiality provision in the Educator Discipline Act was intended to prevent “frivolous claims”. You also stated confidently that public disclosure was a misdemeanor and that anyone who tried to argue otherwise was just deploying “legalese.” I sent you a link to an article describing a recent decision from a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holding that the confidentiality provision is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment. You can either correct your story, delete it, or try to argue that you’re “just asking questions.” I guess that’s up to you, but the entire premise of your article on this subject is wrong and you would acknowledge that if you were actually operating in good faith.
As for the *several* pending complaints against senior officials in the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you and anyone else in the community who is interested. I even asked the school board for an open hearing on the subject, where I could present the evidence. That was part of the due process protections available under the previous version of the school district’s public complaint policy. They never responded to me. And then they amended the policy to get rid of the due process protections.
I think the tone in your original piece came through loud and clear - it was snarky and passive aggressive.
I read it that way before I read any of your other work or looked into the other things you do with your limited time, like hyping Democrat party talking points. For example, I think you wrote another piece that belittled the misinformed simpleton “MAHA moms”, didn’t you? And I think you wrote another piece about a mom in our community who was running for school board, in which you made accusations about her that turned out not to be true, and (to your credit) you issued a correction, albeit after the damage was done. That one was particularly kind and loving.
You claim that you’re “just asking questions” about the educator misconduct complaint process out of genuine curiosity, yet you also claim that what sparked your interest in the topic (which, let’s be honest, no one really cares about unless their child is harmed by the unlawful and dishonest conduct of a school official in authority) was all of the school board meetings you attend and watch. If that’s the case, it’s just odd that you somehow missed the times I’ve spoken at meetings about this subject, and you also somehow missed the occasions when other members of our community spoke on my behalf and asked school board members why they won’t meet with me and address my concerns, all without ever getting a public answer.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but given the subjects and tone of your other pieces, it seems to me that the motive behind this piece was to support the position taken by Sanville and the school board, paint my complaint as “meritless” and suggest that maybe I should be charged with a misdemeanor for disclosing it. The fact that you are still trying to defend what you wrote when it is completely wrong, starting from the title and continuing through every point you make about the confidentiality provision in the complaint and the validity of the law that purports to make disclosure a crime, suggests that you aren’t really interested in the truth - which is that the confidentiality provision in the educator misconduct complaint is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. It isn’t nuanced or subject to multiple interpretations. Unconstitutional means unconstitutional. Thats it. You could just admit you were wrong, say you’re sorry, and we can move on. It really isn’t that difficult.
In any event, as I said before, I am happy to discuss this case with you or anyone else in our community because it is a serious issue and I think parents deserve to know the truth, which is this: John Sanville is a serial liar who violated multiple laws and covered it up when he got caught. It is also true that the solicitor (Pennsylvania lawyers) violated multiple laws, helped John Sanville and the school board violate multiple laws, threatened me when I blew the whistle on them, and now they’re getting paid with our tax money to cover it up. And it is also true that every single member of the school board is now participating in the violations of law and the cover up by failing to perform their legal, ethical and moral duties as public officials. All true, all supported by evidence. And every single member of the school board knows it.
This is not political, and I am not a political person. I hold views that people would consider very liberal, and I hold views that people would consider very conservative. I think both the Republican and Democrat parties are hopelessly corrupt - from the local level to the very top.
The fight I have with the school board and senior administrators in UCFSD is about my rights as a parent. That’s it. Yet simply because I am defending my children and fighting this battle for truth, transparency and accountability, I’ve had my job threatened (multiple times), I’ve been publicly compared (by a school board member) to Luigi Mangione, I was doxed by a school administrator after disclosing misconduct by middle school teachers and counselors (which resulted in a school employee’s husband peering through my windows), I’ve been threatened by the district’s law firm with a baseless lawsuit (which they’ve never filed because they know I would win) and most recently I was defamed and lied about by John Sanville and the entire school board in a community wide letter and a press release (which, by the way, the school board immediately removed from the district website because they know it is false and defamatory, and knew it was false when they released it in the first place).
So, since my educator misconduct complaint against John Sanville is the only one I’m aware of, and certainly the only one that has been discussed by me and other members of the community at multiple school board meetings, I understood your article to be aimed at me and my complaint. If that isn’t the case, I guess I’ll take your word for it. But please understand, you definitely don’t have all the facts and, in that case, it’s probably best that you not write authoritatively about subjects you know absolutely nothing about.
I’d appreciate it if you would update any social media posts you made regarding your original piece and make sure you point your readers back to the comments so they can understand that your original piece was factually incorrect. I’ve had to endure a coordinated smear campaign by Sanville and several school board members for long enough. I don’t need the same treatment from members of the community who know absolutely nothing about me, my case or why I am still fighting this battle on behalf of my family despite the multiple acts of retaliation we’ve endured.
Thanks for all your discussions on this topic. I have no doubt it comes from a place of genuine concern for the well-being of your family. I'm sorry you've had an experience with the school that fell short of your desires and expectations.
To be clear about my perspective regarding this consideration: "it seems to me that the motive behind this piece was to support the position taken by Sanville and the school board, paint my complaint as “meritless” and suggest that maybe I should be charged with a misdemeanor for disclosing it." That truly never crossed my mind. I never thought of the issue as a single complaint or a single complaintant. I appreciate that you're taking my word on that.
My frustration is that I feel like accusations are sometimes thrown like grenades at school board meetings when they're not relevant to the topic being discussed. For the times that come to mind, I don't even know the names of the people who did it. Usually, we can't see their faces because we are behind them. I wrote the post because I would like to see more productive community conversations. We may not agree that such comments feel like grenades; I respect that not everyone will see it the way I do. However, that was the genesis of the post; it had nothing to do with any particular person or complaint.
It seems we have some things in common. Forgive me if my assumptions are wrong; I'm open to being corrected.
We both are made up of multitudes and hold views that happen to align with some party platforms and not others, and neither of us fits squarely in any party camp. You're correct that I agree with some aspects of the Democratic platform, yet I disagree with others. From your work, it seems you're a proponent of parental rights, a Republican party platform issue, and yet you have serious critiques of the party as well.
It's disappointing to me that politics have become so partisan that society (media? culture?) expects us all to fit neatly into some box when most of us don't at all. Or that our political parties are serving most Americans so poorly that it can be considered an insult just to align with their values.
I also believe corruption is rampant in politics. I suspect we both harbor real concerns about the future of our government. Hopefully, I'm wrong about those concerns, too.
I bet we have other things in common and agree on other topics. Most of us agree on more than we don't.
Thanks, Jen. I think you’re right and I’m sure we do have a lot in common. For example, I’m also passionate about the environment, hiking, and writing, so we have all of that in common as well.
But I want to be clear: the issue here is not that my experience with UCFSD fell short of my personal expectations. The issue is that school officials violated multiple laws, hurt my children, lied about it, covered it up, destroyed records, discriminated against me and my family, denied my parental rights, amended multiple school policies in direct response to my efforts to get to the truth, and threatened and retaliated against me multiple times by coming after my livelihood and my reputation. So, yes, it’s extremely personal and John Sanville and every member of the school board made it personal.
I tried to address my concerns privately for a very long time. Then I asked for an opportunity to pursue my complaint pursuant to a formal school policy that administration and the board followed in many other instances. I asked for a public hearing (also contemplated in that policy) where I could present the evidence and the school board could respond, and parents and other members of the public could review everything and judge for themselves. I was denied those rights. As a result of my willingness to make my dispute with the district public, I’ve heard from many other parents who have their own stories about the mistreatment they’ve experienced by senior school officials.
The irony is, before all of this, I was very involved in our local community in many positive ways. I was a youth coach in multiple sports (and even coached the kids of some current school board members). I was a football coach at the high school. I’ve had the honor of mentoring some of the kids I coached over the years by helping them with internships and other connections. I publicly supported the teachers the last time there was a dispute regarding their collective bargaining agreement and even wrote emails to the Republicans on the board at the time (who were against it) encouraging them to grant teachers a pay increase I thought they deserved. Two of my children want to be educators themselves. I am a product of public schools and I used to think they played an important part in building community. I don’t believe that anymore. I think those who are actually in control of public education believe that they have rights superior to parental authority, and I (paradoxically) think the only thing that can save public education is universal school choice, which is actually favored by a very diverse group of parents nationwide. So, you’re correct that I am motivated by my belief in the supremacy of parental rights, which I guess has become a Republican issue, but I see it as a human/moral issue.
In this case, had the “leaders” in our school district humbled themselves, put aside their personal beliefs/animosity toward me, and simply looked at the law, facts and evidence, this probably would have been resolved a long time ago. But, unfortunately, the school board members are still following the advice of corrupt lawyers who engaged in professional misconduct and violations of law, and so what this school board is doing now goes beyond gross negligence - it is willful blindness and intentional neglect of their legal duties.
I truly appreciate the dialogue and I commend you for at least being open to the conversation and updating your article to tell the rest of the story. If only the UCFSD school board believed in the same level of transparency, openness and honest dialogue.
Thank you for posting the update, Jen, even if you can’t bring yourself to admit you were completely wrong. About all of it.
I assume you’ll also share this update on your Facebook and other social media channels, since that is where your misinformation is being spread as well. I’m not on those platforms, and the only reason I found out about your completely inaccurate article was because people who have been following this story a lot longer than you have sent it to me.
Maybe you could ask your fellow progressive turnout coordinator Jody Allen to explain why the Board refuses to sit down with me and review the evidence, even in private? Maybe you could also ask him why the district solicitor is still serving when the entire school board knows that they prepared a false affidavit in an official proceeding (a felony, actually) and now they are covering it up.
Again, I was willing to put up the receipts in a public hearing. They have done everything in their power to silence me.
Tone is hard to convey in text, but I genuinely hope you know that my original article was not written with any direct connection to you or the complaint(s) you've filed. I actually don't even know the basis of the complaint(s) you've filed, but it was not particularly relevant to the point of my post. My piece was a reflection on the many times I've seen a general existence of complaints used to imply our educational leaders are unqualified more broadly, which I believe is unfair and misleading. I hope we can be better than that as a community.
As you've noted, I don't have all the details about your complaint(s) nor the expertise to interpret specifics, so I wouldn't have sufficient substance to reach any conclusions about merit. And learning more about the details of any particular complaint isn't something high on my priority list right now. It also wouldn't change my belief that we should be thoughtful about how we implicate people, which doesn't always seem to be the case. We all make intentional choices about how we spend the limited time we have each day. I'm sure we both are passionate about different topics that are of little interest to the other. What a boring world it would be if we all cared deeply about only the same things.
Moreover, I'm not that emotionally connected to being right or wrong. I'm wrong all the time. Aren't we all? Learning new information (which often contradicts previous beliefs) makes life more interesting. Challenging and uncomfortable sometimes too, but also enlightening. I updated my post in that way because maybe there's more to the story. Maybe there are other legal opinions that arrived at a different conclusion? Or maybe not? Maybe what you sent me reflects a bias of that particular firm? Or maybe not? The form still requests confidentiality, so maybe the case you shared had a particular set of circumstances that doesn't apply in all situations? Or maybe not? I don't have the expertise or the interest to independently verify all of that. So I left all the information available for readers to draw their own conclusions and dive deeper if they so choose.
And maybe it's worth readers considering that legal doesn't equal moral or useful. Just because it might be legal to repeat open accusations about school leaders to imply their intentions about unrelated matters are made in bad faith doesn't mean it's helpful, productive, or kind.
It felt clear to me throughout the post that I'm not pretending to be an expert with all the answers. If it's not, then this comment can assure readers that when I use words like "maybe" and "presumably" and silly, made up terms like "non-law-degree-holding-brain" I mean that I'm not the expert nor am I an attorney. Let the civics lesson be that, among other things, government is messy.
I very well may be wrong about the legality. I'm happy to receive new, useful information. I've left all the information you provided, including your critiques of my character (though we've never met or had any interactions beyond this written exchange), publicly available, offering readers the opportunity to decide for themselves what to make of it all. If I was acting in bad faith, I'm not sure that would be the case.
I suspect we're both more nuanced and complex people than can be assumed or defined by a handful of paragraphs on Substack. 💛
You should probably update your article. I know you wouldn’t want to intentionally spread misinformation.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/confidentiality-provision-of-educator-1221736/
Thanks for sharing this. I'll take a look.
Thank you. Please update your article once you do, since (as you may know) I’m the person who submitted an educator misconduct complaint against John Sanville. People in the community shared your piece with me, which is why I thought you should have your facts straight. Let me know if you have any other questions about my ongoing case, including the pending federal civil rights investigations. Thank you.
I can't verify who files the complaints (or if it's an option, I haven't looked into it). It was not particularly important to me, and I have no intention of specifically accusing anyone when I don't have sufficient details to do so. I also lack the legal expertise to interpret cases, and I wouldn't pretend to have it, so I wouldn't be qualified to make such accusations anyway.
I just kept hearing a lot about them when I attend school board meetings and watch them online. My impression from the public comments is that there are several, but I could be misunderstanding. Perhaps I'm just hearing about the same one over and over. I hope our community values the preservation of innocence until being proven guilty, in fact and spirit.
You claimed that you were giving your readers a “mini civics lesson” and you posited that the (unconstitutional) confidentiality provision in the Educator Discipline Act was intended to prevent “frivolous claims”. You also stated confidently that public disclosure was a misdemeanor and that anyone who tried to argue otherwise was just deploying “legalese.” I sent you a link to an article describing a recent decision from a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holding that the confidentiality provision is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment. You can either correct your story, delete it, or try to argue that you’re “just asking questions.” I guess that’s up to you, but the entire premise of your article on this subject is wrong and you would acknowledge that if you were actually operating in good faith.
As for the *several* pending complaints against senior officials in the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you and anyone else in the community who is interested. I even asked the school board for an open hearing on the subject, where I could present the evidence. That was part of the due process protections available under the previous version of the school district’s public complaint policy. They never responded to me. And then they amended the policy to get rid of the due process protections.
But, hey, don’t let the facts get in the way.
Thanks for all of this great info. and good writing.
You're welcome! Glad you're enjoying it.
I think the tone in your original piece came through loud and clear - it was snarky and passive aggressive.
I read it that way before I read any of your other work or looked into the other things you do with your limited time, like hyping Democrat party talking points. For example, I think you wrote another piece that belittled the misinformed simpleton “MAHA moms”, didn’t you? And I think you wrote another piece about a mom in our community who was running for school board, in which you made accusations about her that turned out not to be true, and (to your credit) you issued a correction, albeit after the damage was done. That one was particularly kind and loving.
You claim that you’re “just asking questions” about the educator misconduct complaint process out of genuine curiosity, yet you also claim that what sparked your interest in the topic (which, let’s be honest, no one really cares about unless their child is harmed by the unlawful and dishonest conduct of a school official in authority) was all of the school board meetings you attend and watch. If that’s the case, it’s just odd that you somehow missed the times I’ve spoken at meetings about this subject, and you also somehow missed the occasions when other members of our community spoke on my behalf and asked school board members why they won’t meet with me and address my concerns, all without ever getting a public answer.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but given the subjects and tone of your other pieces, it seems to me that the motive behind this piece was to support the position taken by Sanville and the school board, paint my complaint as “meritless” and suggest that maybe I should be charged with a misdemeanor for disclosing it. The fact that you are still trying to defend what you wrote when it is completely wrong, starting from the title and continuing through every point you make about the confidentiality provision in the complaint and the validity of the law that purports to make disclosure a crime, suggests that you aren’t really interested in the truth - which is that the confidentiality provision in the educator misconduct complaint is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. It isn’t nuanced or subject to multiple interpretations. Unconstitutional means unconstitutional. Thats it. You could just admit you were wrong, say you’re sorry, and we can move on. It really isn’t that difficult.
In any event, as I said before, I am happy to discuss this case with you or anyone else in our community because it is a serious issue and I think parents deserve to know the truth, which is this: John Sanville is a serial liar who violated multiple laws and covered it up when he got caught. It is also true that the solicitor (Pennsylvania lawyers) violated multiple laws, helped John Sanville and the school board violate multiple laws, threatened me when I blew the whistle on them, and now they’re getting paid with our tax money to cover it up. And it is also true that every single member of the school board is now participating in the violations of law and the cover up by failing to perform their legal, ethical and moral duties as public officials. All true, all supported by evidence. And every single member of the school board knows it.
This is not political, and I am not a political person. I hold views that people would consider very liberal, and I hold views that people would consider very conservative. I think both the Republican and Democrat parties are hopelessly corrupt - from the local level to the very top.
The fight I have with the school board and senior administrators in UCFSD is about my rights as a parent. That’s it. Yet simply because I am defending my children and fighting this battle for truth, transparency and accountability, I’ve had my job threatened (multiple times), I’ve been publicly compared (by a school board member) to Luigi Mangione, I was doxed by a school administrator after disclosing misconduct by middle school teachers and counselors (which resulted in a school employee’s husband peering through my windows), I’ve been threatened by the district’s law firm with a baseless lawsuit (which they’ve never filed because they know I would win) and most recently I was defamed and lied about by John Sanville and the entire school board in a community wide letter and a press release (which, by the way, the school board immediately removed from the district website because they know it is false and defamatory, and knew it was false when they released it in the first place).
So, since my educator misconduct complaint against John Sanville is the only one I’m aware of, and certainly the only one that has been discussed by me and other members of the community at multiple school board meetings, I understood your article to be aimed at me and my complaint. If that isn’t the case, I guess I’ll take your word for it. But please understand, you definitely don’t have all the facts and, in that case, it’s probably best that you not write authoritatively about subjects you know absolutely nothing about.
I’d appreciate it if you would update any social media posts you made regarding your original piece and make sure you point your readers back to the comments so they can understand that your original piece was factually incorrect. I’ve had to endure a coordinated smear campaign by Sanville and several school board members for long enough. I don’t need the same treatment from members of the community who know absolutely nothing about me, my case or why I am still fighting this battle on behalf of my family despite the multiple acts of retaliation we’ve endured.
Thanks for all your discussions on this topic. I have no doubt it comes from a place of genuine concern for the well-being of your family. I'm sorry you've had an experience with the school that fell short of your desires and expectations.
To be clear about my perspective regarding this consideration: "it seems to me that the motive behind this piece was to support the position taken by Sanville and the school board, paint my complaint as “meritless” and suggest that maybe I should be charged with a misdemeanor for disclosing it." That truly never crossed my mind. I never thought of the issue as a single complaint or a single complaintant. I appreciate that you're taking my word on that.
My frustration is that I feel like accusations are sometimes thrown like grenades at school board meetings when they're not relevant to the topic being discussed. For the times that come to mind, I don't even know the names of the people who did it. Usually, we can't see their faces because we are behind them. I wrote the post because I would like to see more productive community conversations. We may not agree that such comments feel like grenades; I respect that not everyone will see it the way I do. However, that was the genesis of the post; it had nothing to do with any particular person or complaint.
It seems we have some things in common. Forgive me if my assumptions are wrong; I'm open to being corrected.
We both are made up of multitudes and hold views that happen to align with some party platforms and not others, and neither of us fits squarely in any party camp. You're correct that I agree with some aspects of the Democratic platform, yet I disagree with others. From your work, it seems you're a proponent of parental rights, a Republican party platform issue, and yet you have serious critiques of the party as well.
It's disappointing to me that politics have become so partisan that society (media? culture?) expects us all to fit neatly into some box when most of us don't at all. Or that our political parties are serving most Americans so poorly that it can be considered an insult just to align with their values.
I also believe corruption is rampant in politics. I suspect we both harbor real concerns about the future of our government. Hopefully, I'm wrong about those concerns, too.
I bet we have other things in common and agree on other topics. Most of us agree on more than we don't.
Thanks, Jen. I think you’re right and I’m sure we do have a lot in common. For example, I’m also passionate about the environment, hiking, and writing, so we have all of that in common as well.
But I want to be clear: the issue here is not that my experience with UCFSD fell short of my personal expectations. The issue is that school officials violated multiple laws, hurt my children, lied about it, covered it up, destroyed records, discriminated against me and my family, denied my parental rights, amended multiple school policies in direct response to my efforts to get to the truth, and threatened and retaliated against me multiple times by coming after my livelihood and my reputation. So, yes, it’s extremely personal and John Sanville and every member of the school board made it personal.
I tried to address my concerns privately for a very long time. Then I asked for an opportunity to pursue my complaint pursuant to a formal school policy that administration and the board followed in many other instances. I asked for a public hearing (also contemplated in that policy) where I could present the evidence and the school board could respond, and parents and other members of the public could review everything and judge for themselves. I was denied those rights. As a result of my willingness to make my dispute with the district public, I’ve heard from many other parents who have their own stories about the mistreatment they’ve experienced by senior school officials.
The irony is, before all of this, I was very involved in our local community in many positive ways. I was a youth coach in multiple sports (and even coached the kids of some current school board members). I was a football coach at the high school. I’ve had the honor of mentoring some of the kids I coached over the years by helping them with internships and other connections. I publicly supported the teachers the last time there was a dispute regarding their collective bargaining agreement and even wrote emails to the Republicans on the board at the time (who were against it) encouraging them to grant teachers a pay increase I thought they deserved. Two of my children want to be educators themselves. I am a product of public schools and I used to think they played an important part in building community. I don’t believe that anymore. I think those who are actually in control of public education believe that they have rights superior to parental authority, and I (paradoxically) think the only thing that can save public education is universal school choice, which is actually favored by a very diverse group of parents nationwide. So, you’re correct that I am motivated by my belief in the supremacy of parental rights, which I guess has become a Republican issue, but I see it as a human/moral issue.
In this case, had the “leaders” in our school district humbled themselves, put aside their personal beliefs/animosity toward me, and simply looked at the law, facts and evidence, this probably would have been resolved a long time ago. But, unfortunately, the school board members are still following the advice of corrupt lawyers who engaged in professional misconduct and violations of law, and so what this school board is doing now goes beyond gross negligence - it is willful blindness and intentional neglect of their legal duties.
I truly appreciate the dialogue and I commend you for at least being open to the conversation and updating your article to tell the rest of the story. If only the UCFSD school board believed in the same level of transparency, openness and honest dialogue.
Thank you for posting the update, Jen, even if you can’t bring yourself to admit you were completely wrong. About all of it.
I assume you’ll also share this update on your Facebook and other social media channels, since that is where your misinformation is being spread as well. I’m not on those platforms, and the only reason I found out about your completely inaccurate article was because people who have been following this story a lot longer than you have sent it to me.
Maybe you could ask your fellow progressive turnout coordinator Jody Allen to explain why the Board refuses to sit down with me and review the evidence, even in private? Maybe you could also ask him why the district solicitor is still serving when the entire school board knows that they prepared a false affidavit in an official proceeding (a felony, actually) and now they are covering it up.
Again, I was willing to put up the receipts in a public hearing. They have done everything in their power to silence me.
Tone is hard to convey in text, but I genuinely hope you know that my original article was not written with any direct connection to you or the complaint(s) you've filed. I actually don't even know the basis of the complaint(s) you've filed, but it was not particularly relevant to the point of my post. My piece was a reflection on the many times I've seen a general existence of complaints used to imply our educational leaders are unqualified more broadly, which I believe is unfair and misleading. I hope we can be better than that as a community.
As you've noted, I don't have all the details about your complaint(s) nor the expertise to interpret specifics, so I wouldn't have sufficient substance to reach any conclusions about merit. And learning more about the details of any particular complaint isn't something high on my priority list right now. It also wouldn't change my belief that we should be thoughtful about how we implicate people, which doesn't always seem to be the case. We all make intentional choices about how we spend the limited time we have each day. I'm sure we both are passionate about different topics that are of little interest to the other. What a boring world it would be if we all cared deeply about only the same things.
Moreover, I'm not that emotionally connected to being right or wrong. I'm wrong all the time. Aren't we all? Learning new information (which often contradicts previous beliefs) makes life more interesting. Challenging and uncomfortable sometimes too, but also enlightening. I updated my post in that way because maybe there's more to the story. Maybe there are other legal opinions that arrived at a different conclusion? Or maybe not? Maybe what you sent me reflects a bias of that particular firm? Or maybe not? The form still requests confidentiality, so maybe the case you shared had a particular set of circumstances that doesn't apply in all situations? Or maybe not? I don't have the expertise or the interest to independently verify all of that. So I left all the information available for readers to draw their own conclusions and dive deeper if they so choose.
And maybe it's worth readers considering that legal doesn't equal moral or useful. Just because it might be legal to repeat open accusations about school leaders to imply their intentions about unrelated matters are made in bad faith doesn't mean it's helpful, productive, or kind.
It felt clear to me throughout the post that I'm not pretending to be an expert with all the answers. If it's not, then this comment can assure readers that when I use words like "maybe" and "presumably" and silly, made up terms like "non-law-degree-holding-brain" I mean that I'm not the expert nor am I an attorney. Let the civics lesson be that, among other things, government is messy.
I very well may be wrong about the legality. I'm happy to receive new, useful information. I've left all the information you provided, including your critiques of my character (though we've never met or had any interactions beyond this written exchange), publicly available, offering readers the opportunity to decide for themselves what to make of it all. If I was acting in bad faith, I'm not sure that would be the case.
I suspect we're both more nuanced and complex people than can be assumed or defined by a handful of paragraphs on Substack. 💛