And I'm not talking about a type of sandals...
My opponent has told us many, many times that his word is strong and he will not waver.
He wavered.
From my Where They Stand Page:
My opponent "is on record that he is against book banning - even going so far as to say that "lewd" material in the high school library would be fine. Once that minor reviews that book in the library and wants to check it out, a parent would have to sign off on the book loan."
Once again, predictably, my opponent went to attack mode rather than defend the position that he had established. As you will see below, for a brief period it appeared that he may have flip-flopped on where he stands, only to backtrack... and flip-flopped today.
My opponent has said that he is against book banning. It was part of his original campaign platform. He was also not for or against it. He even said that "it shouldn't have passed when it was voted on" when someone pointed out that there was now a strict protocol that allows parents to challenge books (that's Policy 2522 which was passed in February 2023)
He even went as far as to say, "Anything offensive or 'lewd' should require approval from a parent." Taking the stance of no book banning and anything lewd would require parental approval, my opponent would have kept "Dead End" by Jason Myers in our library. This was one of the books that was removed from circulation in 2023 because of the amount of explicit sexual content. I have included some pages out of the book as example material but be forewarned about its content.
"If I were on the board I would've voted for it also."
To
"If I were on the board I could have voted for it also."
Notice the change. He went from supporting the updated policy (Policy 2522) so he could have had a chance to vote on it. That is a significant difference that shows that my opponent isn't on board with a better definition of our book challenge process and the District's transparency with making available to the public via our website all of our library resources so anyone can see what we have. If he was, why wouldn't he have kept his original text in place?
And just today, he said that he wanted to "keep lewd material away from our children."
https://x.com/danodonnellshow/status/1772988458237415692?s=46&t=1FjS2AvHDudpLCBIyjDllw (starts about the 38-minute mark)
So where does he stand? Less than one week until election day and he is flip-flopping, or seemingly flip-flopping. My opponent has said his stances do not waver, but yet, is that the truth?
Lastly, I find his comment about being "someone who is driven for personal accolades to bring to the board..." pretty selfish. I do not believe that anyone who is currently on the Germantown School Board is there for "personal accolades" at all. I am there to do what is in the best interest of our students. My opinion is that others who are currently serving on the board are there to serve this community for the benefit of the students who attend our buildings as well.
Fact: I supported, or in other words, voted for the updated policy in committee and at the Board level. The updated policy better defines the book challenge process and provides the ability for the public to review our library materials.
Fact: My opponent has been on record that he is against banning books.
Fact: My opponent has written that any "offensive or lewd" books would need a parental signature to check out - that means those offensive and lewd books would remain available for our students to review to see if they would like to have the chance to check out.
New on 03/27/2024 - Fact: It looks like he has flip-flopped from his original stance that he's against "book banning" and now doesn't want lewd materials in our schools.
So my opponent said that my post is "dishonest, at best." I'd ask who is really being dishonest? The person who has definitive examples of publicly available posts and comments to back up what he originally posted or the person who has held three different positions on the same topic in the last four months but says he never wavers?
Comentários