Apparently Facebook Has Never Masturbated

We all know this is some bullshit, right?

A pearl-clutcher reported a post on my Facebook page from yesterday (they obviously did so in retaliation for my post about CVUSD board trustee Mike Dunn's threat to my work this morning) and now I'm locked out of Facebook for THREE DAYS. I can see your messages and your comments. I cannot respond or interact with them in any way on Facebook for three days, meaning.... reach out to me on my: 

Twitter: @anonymousmommmy
​Email: iamanonmommy@gmail.com

Let's recap with what happened to lead us to this point, shall we?

On Tuesday, at the school board meeting, I gave this speech:

Good evening Dr. McLaughlin, president Andersen, board members and district personnel,
 
I was so pleased to see Sherman Alexie’s “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” on the curriculum list this semester for 9th grade English. Thank you for removing it as a hostage agenda item and voting in favor of approving the purchase order after, much to the dismay of the public you were able to push through your board majority vote on a hastily written alternative assignment policy that is still being implemented as I speak.
 
Now, upon seeing the title on the district-created addendum that is being distributed to parents this week — an addendum which contains asterisks per CDE annotations — and a warning note which warns of “mature content” and other content potentially disturbing to students,” I was surprised to see that Part Time Indian was not asterisked.
 
Let me say it again for those in the back. “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” which started this whole circus of creating a formalized alternative assignment policy is not asterisked as “mature.”
 
I’m not really surprised. Unlike Mr. Dunn, I actually read the book in its entirety. In fact, I led an online book reading of Part-Time Indian, so that local parents could be better informed as to the concern regarding this literature selection before its approval, concern which Mr. Dunn raised at a June board meeting over the phrase “kicked him in the balls.” I was quite disappointed to find no salacious material! You all had me bracing to clutch my pearls! Mr. Dunn, who cannot and has not confirmed he actually read the book in entirety, (I mean, he couldn’t even find time to attend board governance training) falsely and inappropriately asserted in a public letter to the Acorn that approving this book was akin to “child abuse” and that it was “pornographic” in nature. Aside from noting how reprehensible it is to assert that our curriculum committee and teachers want to impose pornography on our students and take part in an act of child abuse, if this were to be true, I find it curious it’s not asterisked as such here. It’s because it’s not pornographic, nor, as Mr. Dunn would have our community believe, child abuse.
 
Mr. Dunn, how dare you suggest critically acclaimed literature written by a Native American about his childhood on an Indian reservation equates to child abuse. 

I’m aware of Mr. Dunn’s tactics to further disperse a false narrative regarding this title. In an email exchange with Mr. Dunn this past summer, I asked him to identify passages from the book which he found to be problematic. He responded by sending snippets of passages from another book which contained sexual content, in attempts to pass them off under this title. Perhaps he was hoping I was like so many of his followers blindly hanging on every planted phrase and word at board meetings and public editorials. Mr. Dunn, I did my homework. I read the book. Again we ask, did you?
 
I find it extremely troubling that this board majority has allowed a board member to disperse a false narrative about this book, in order to take advantage of and greenlight a shoddy alternative assignment policy (one that also contains verbiage regarding the literature selection and review process, because, why not sneak in a two-for one, right?) written by one board member, with less-than-ideal collaboration that was to come from a Superintendent’s committee as promised and publicly voted upon this past fall. Lest we forget, we were never presented the Superintendent’s committee’s policy for discussion, although Mrs. Everett did her best to assure us during a lengthy PowerPoint presentation that the two drafts weren’t all that different. I’m glad she had that time to present, as well as cherry pick and read off parent testimonials that supported her policy, while denying students who had stood for six hours the chance to speak, by the way.
 
I also find the addendum’s content misleading, painting books with a broad brush stroke as “published for an adult readership”, when this is simply not true of Youth Adult novels, like “The Hunger Games” asterisked and listed on curriculum.
 
This policy is sloppy. The implementation of it, forced and rushed is sloppy. And all the nonsense about supporting parent choice? Well, we know from last meeting, when the board majority voted to be able to hand pick their own community members for the “parent but not just parent committee” that this was nothing more than orchestrated and feigned outrage in order to justify creating an alternative policy with oversight from board members’ friends that align with their political agendas.

I’d like to know, has the district made any progress on these alternative assignments they’ve boasted about and guaranteed to parents? Last I heard, no such assignments yet exist. I imagine this would be problematic for teachers, who will potentially feel the brunt of additional work. If my child were of age to be receiving such an addendum, I most certainly would not sign this document.
 
I for one, am Done With Dunn and done with this board majority wreaking havoc on our curriculum. See you at the polls in November.

****************************************************************************************************

This morning, Mike Dunn sent the following email to my boss. The screenshot below is his email and my boss's reply.

I am utterly astounded that a publicly elected school board member would attempt to threaten my place of employment because he and I disagree on school board policy. Further, I have to believe that if you attempt to contact my work and threaten them into silencing me or you will retaliate, you are also doing so with the intent of harming my employment. 

And big shout-out Mike, for contacting my work while I am out on maternity leave with a newborn, nonetheless. 

This is ripe with irony. A CVUSD board member attempted to threaten my work into censoring me because I.... EXPRESSED MY CONCERN OVER POTENTIAL CENSORSHIP OF OUR CURRICULUM'S LITERATURE.

Above is a screenshot of the post I made on Anonymous Mommy recently. Apparently Facebook is fine with running sponsored ads of dildos, but I use the word masturbation in regards to a novel, and bam. Banned for three days.

Oh look! Mike just replied to my boss while I was typing this blog.

"Hurting the economy"? Shit... he must find me pretty damn important.

For fuck's sake. IT'S WEIHE. IT'S IN MY EMAIL ADDRESS Mike and I have corresponded on multiple times.

Now here's the deal. Mike Dunn is a publicly elected representative. He works for ME. He works for YOU. He has been elected to represent the constituents in this county. I am a tax-paying resident of this county with children who will receive their education in the CVUSD.

Now, you can disagree with me VEHEMENTLY on everything I say... but you cannot justify these actions by Mike Dunn. It cannot be done. There is no nuance. No grey area. A publicly elected official threatening a constituent's employer (and indirectly her employment) because he does not like what she has to say IS WRONG. It is 100% not defensible even if you'd like to see the air sucked from my lungs. 

Everyone in this community should be concerned. What does this mean for everyone who speaks at board meetings? Are they to fear that Mike Dunn will seek retaliation against them and their employers because they disagree with him on policy or the way he conducts himself at board meetings? Using threats of retaliation to censor anyone is reprehensible. 

I will not be bullied or threatened into silence.  Period. 
​