About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Wanzer does not deserve a fourth term

By Scott Tibbs, November 4, 2012

One of the big reasons Sue Wanzer should be denied a fourth term on the MCCSC School Board is her disrespect for parents' rights and the rule of law. No elected official should ever openly defy the law as Wanzer did in 2005, and no government school official should ever trample over the parents' right to raise their children as we see fit.

Back in 2005, in the beginning of Wanzer's second term, MCCSC attempted to dishonestly sneak a "sex survey" to not only middle and high school students, but elementary school students as well. Once parents heard about it, they began meeting to oppose and protest the decision. Parents and concerned citizens turned out en masse to send a very clear message to the school board that they do not have the moral and legal authority to be asking sensitive questions of students about their sexual history.

The most egregious part of the survey was that it was to be conducted with "passive consent." Instead of sending children and teens home with a permission slip for their parents to sign allowing them to take the survey, parents would have to explicitly opt of the survey. As an uncle of nine and a great uncle of four at the time, I found this dishonest and sneaky tactic to be an abomination. Now as a father myself, I find it even more despicable. The hope was that MCCSC could deliver this perverse "survey" without the parents ever finding out about it.

But "passive consent" was more than a violation of parents' rights. It was illegal. Indiana Code 20-10.1-4-15 (b) prohibits schools from issuing a survey about sexual activity without the prior written consent of the parents.One of two things happened here: MCCSC either was ignorant of the section of the Indiana Code prohibiting this behavior (highly unlikely) or the administration and the school board simply did not care that it was illegal and were trying to sneak it through anyway. It is important to note that Wanzer actively opposed active consent and advocated for "passive consent."

This is simply not acceptable. No one who expresses such obvious disregard for parents and for the law should serve in elective office at any level. It is highly unfortunate that voters did not throw Wanzer out of office when we had the chance to do so in 2008. There is no reason we cannot fix this egregious error in 2012. However you vote, vote against Sue Wanzer.

See previous articles on the infamous sex survey here and here and here and here.