slur during last nights FCPS Board mtg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like KKG because her planning for the Lewis Academy has been atrocious. However, I'm almost cetain she meant "retarded" in the real definition of the word, meaning delayed. Like fire retardant. Due to taking so much time for a trivial matter.

The only people who use that term in a derogatory sense are people like me who grew up in the 80s and 90s where that was a common insult in middle and high school. She's way too old to have picked up on that lingo.

I was born in 1970 and recall the term being used quite often. It wasnt “new slang”.

It used to be a medical diagnosis. I distinctly remember handing out tootsie rolls to collect money as part of a philanthropic fundraiser for a church organization wearing a vest that said "Help the Retarded"

[Anonymous]

The thing we all know is that if you accidentally say a slur in public/work that is because you regularly say it in personal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing we all know is that if you accidentally say a slur in public/work that is because you regularly say it in personal life.

+1. I think we’ve seen all we need to in public to know that Karen Keys Gamarra should resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an embarrassing group. I’m so ashamed for them. They literally can’t do anything right.

Except the student reps. Ever since Nathan, the only sensible people in the room are the 17 year olds.

Did you see the current student rep’s comments that evening? She isn’t sensible. Nathan was awesome and unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the word is no longer politically correct but now we are calling it a slur? I am not a fan of that because if you call someone mentally challenge, it still has the same meaning.

Yes, it’s a slur. https://www.spreadtheword.global/about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an embarrassing group. I’m so ashamed for them. They literally can’t do anything right.

Except the student reps. Ever since Nathan, the only sensible people in the room are the 17 year olds.

Did you see the current student rep’s comments that evening? She isn’t sensible. Nathan was awesome and unusual.

Stop. Don’t use a prior student rep as a prop to attack a minor here.

[Anonymous]

It’s okay to praise a student rep but not criticize?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the word is no longer politically correct but now we are calling it a slur? I am not a fan of that because if you call someone mentally challenge, it still has the same meaning.

You get 90 seconds of education, because this matters to the community I serve while doing my job. So, it matters to me.

It’s a slur. And none of your options are great. It implies that the person you are insulting is “as bad” as an individual with SNs. Which implied their is something wrong with the person with SNs. Not medically or psychologically— they may have a medical Dx. But that on a human level, a retarded individual is inferior, because comparing someone to one is an insult. And, of course, intellectually challenged individuals are not defective or so less that calling an AAP kid retarded is a terrible insult. What does that say to people who are retarded? What does using this as an insult do to our collective mindset about the value of people who don’t have the highest IQs? You are basically saying a smart sociopath is a better human being than a person who is kind and empathetic and works hard, but has an IQ of 75. And that a big problem.

Further, no one likes to be defined by one trait. And that is especially true if that trait makes their life challenging or that makes people think they are less than or seems to be all people see. They are people first and their trait second (or fifth).

So, if you want to be respectful (and it is about respecting that all people have inherent value and are individuals with hope and dreams and difficulties, not just “wokeness”) then, y say: Jane is an individual with an intellectual disability (which is the preferred term). Which acknowledges that her ID is just one of the many things that make her a person.

One would think KKG, who I’m sure has been reduced to the color of her skin for years, would understand this. It isn’t hard. I did an video training session and it included dealing with individuals who are blind and deaf and in a wheelchair and how to provide assistance appropriately amd ESL with service animals, etc. Because I serve disabled people. It took one hour. It’s not complicated stuff.

And, now you know.

Back to school board bashing.

Very thoughtful post. These are the posts I read DCUM for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s okay to praise a student rep but not criticize?

Correct. You should not be attacking a minor on this forum. Not complicated.

[Anonymous]

She served as Guardian ad Litem for children. A number of children in the court system have mental health and developmental issues.

This is not a new area— she is aware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s okay to praise a student rep but not criticize?

Correct. You should not be attacking a minor on this forum. Not complicated.

My comment was not an attack. Someone praised her and I disagree. She has taken a public role and makes comments in a public forum (including pretty personal attacks on board members). It’s reasonable to evaluate them. Of course it’s not okay to attack or insult her personally.

[Anonymous]

Any insight as to what happened at the closed Board meeting today? Is the Board going to censure or take a vote of no confidence in Keys Gamarra? It appears they may have been getting advice from legal counsel on what their options were. A separate work session planned on Esser funding ended up being postponed.

[Anonymous]

I bet they will issue some wordy, meaningless statement rather than censuring her as would be appropriate (and they can’t do anything else to her). The left wing groups have all ignored this. Even SEPTA immediately accepted her “apology” that was based on the fact that she was frustrated. As a moderate democrat, I find the hypocrisy infuriating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an embarrassing group. I’m so ashamed for them. They literally can’t do anything right.

Except the student reps. Ever since Nathan, the only sensible people in the room are the 17 year olds.

Did you see the current student rep’s comments that evening? She isn’t sensible. Nathan was awesome and unusual.

Stop. Don’t use a prior student rep as a prop to attack a minor here.

Why not? Many posters on this thread demonstrate the emotional maturity of an 8 year-old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:KKG has no interest beyond black administrators, staff and students. She needs to apologize for this slur. As someone who is supposed to care for all students, it is beyond inappropriate. The board wven did a resolution last year or the year before about how this word is a slur! She knows better even if she grew up with this term like many of us did in the 70s and 80s.

The PP who described the speaker situation above was wrong. John Foster said it wild be a speaker substitution despite the power of attorney and it would require a vote to suspend the rules. The parlimentarian agreed. Why didn’t that speaker identify herself as a substitute up front? Rachna read the rules very clearly that said no speaker substitution. They needed to follow the process and that’s whay they did.

Exactly, that's why she's racist.

I don't think that makes her "racist." It makes her race-focused.

And I do agree with the PP's statement. That is her focus. Disappointment. I voted for her to expand the racial make up of the SB... but I assumed she was more well-rounded. I was wrong.

There you go. You voted for her just because of one of her immutable characteristic, not because of her qualifications as a SB candidate compared to others. (personally I don't know who the other candidates were, I was not even in VA that time)

Please don't do that again.

^^ THIS ^^

This reminds me of Biden when selecting his nominee for SCOTUS
"On January 27, Biden reiterated his intention to keep his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman."
He basically disqualified many other candidates just because they had the "wrong" skin color.

Yet in the decades upon decades where only white males were seriously considered or accepted, you said nothing. Funny, that.