In what universe should anyone trust Dr. Malloy or Principal Whitney Cottrell around children ever again? How many "secret" reports has Malloy "lost" now when the community or LAW ENFORCEMENT demand answers? So far, Malloy has "lost" 100% of these secret reports. Even the one that he claimed justified $2M in spending - GONE. The one that supposedly showed an investigation into a teacher that molested several students - also GONE. Name any other organization where the leader can rapidly turn his nose at his legal obligations and incur ZERO consequences? How many more girls need to be molested under Malloy's watch before the baord takes action?

What is Malloy's legacy?
- Sexualized children as young as 10
- Allow girls to be sexually harassed by male students in locker rooms without repercussions
- Hiring a record number of sex offenders as teachers
- Record decrease in enrollment
- Pornography in libraries
- Allow bullying by students without any punishment or consequence
- Allow students to assault teachers without consequences
- Ignore federal and state mandatory reporting laws
- Historic learning loss
- Ostracizing parent volunteers
- Creating the largest deficit ever by giving himself unprecedented raises
- Hired known hack in Stella Kemp
- A community more divided than ever

Where is the list of what he's positively accomplished aside from filling his own pockets? It's time for him to leave.

This is a story about Jonny Mo and Stella Sue
Two education hacks nothin' better to do
Than sit around the phone, let twitter tell 'em what to do
And here is what happened when the boards let them loose

They headed down to, ooh, old San Ramon
They had some trouble there movin' a perv around
Jonny Mo lost all the things he claimed to wrote down
Stella Sue took the money and run

Hoo-hoo-hoo, go on, take the money and run
Go on, take the money and run

Billy Mack is a detective up in the creek [clap][clap][clap][clap][clap]
You know he knows the conviction will be next week
He don't care about their restorative justice
But knows when that conviction comes down
the Title IX lawsuits will be just one step around
Jonny Mo oh he'll slip away
Stella Sue will be gone the very next day

They'll get the money, hey, you know they'll get away
They'll run to somewhere else like in their previous days
Singin', go on, take the money and run ...

As I’ve said previously to SRVUSD’s Board: education’s prime directive should be the same as in medicine: FIRST, DO NO HARM.

But as “H’s” catalog of nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance indicates above: Supt. Malloy and his minions ignore that mandate.

SRVUSD’s overtly racist “anti-racism” and critical race theory meddling are exposed near the end of comments appended to a September article here ( Web Link ) and elsewhere ( Web Link ).

The District’s perverse actions in “queering the classroom” (teachers’ own term) have also been revealed ( Web Link ).

Latest SRVUSD corruption uncovered is depraved pornography in high school libraries. Among worst books in at least two of them is “Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human” (Web Link ).

This is an explicitly illustrated manual for a wide variety of sexual activities — which the book encourages, while offering tips. And “A great place to research fantasies and kinks safely is on the internet!”

“Sexting” is recommended too: “Sending or getting a wanted saucy something from a partner can be the highlight of your day. It's thrilling, sexy, and fun way of saying ‘you turn me on, hot stuff’ or ‘let's get turned on together.’”

School safety? Perhaps even Malloy and SRVUSD’s other twisted personnel can agree that these are not good ideas for teens?

Nah, Malloy and his corrupted associates are instead proposing the same temporizing process the District has relied upon for decades: complain first to principals, thence to Malloy and a committee he forms.

After the committee rubber-stamp approves the challenged material, it can finally be presented to the School Board — which itself will okay it, presently in a predicted 4-1 vote.

There is a difference between having access to books that can enlighten one's understanding of history and culture and those that advocate or endorse certain practices.

I support Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' stance which has been wrongly mislabeled by the left-leaning media as racist and homophobic demagoguery.

Governor DeSantis is not against learning about black history or alternative lifestyles. He is against the public schools in Florida promoting political agendas like BLM and LGBTQ entitlements.

I agree with the way Brent Stephen’s handled the situation in Lafayette. At the same time, I am also in agreement with the voters’ rejection of 3 candidates for school board seats in Lafayette who sponsored falsities regarding teachers and school board similar to what is happening by a minority of Danville residents about SRVSD and porn books in the library as Mr. Arata claims in his comments. These accusations are more political than reflective of reality.

How do parents protect their kids from porn and all the garbage that are so easily accessible on their PCs and mobile devices? Do you really believe the narrative that there is porn and other inappropriate material in your school libraries? then teach your kids to avoid them just like you teach your kids to avoid porn on the internet. Please don’t force your narrative on the rest of us.

So, Jim apparently feels it's okay for schools to provide porn to students, just as long as kids are taught to avoid it. Wow, now that's some kind of thinking.

I guess schools should provide marijuana to students too, as long as kids are taught to avoid it.

Progressive thinking is quite entertaining to say the least.

I look forward to Jim’s identification of “falsities… about SRVSD and porn books in the library.”

It’s plural librarIES, actually — at all four SRVUSD high school campuses. Five of the pornographic books are exposed at Web Link , but only in part because of other obscene pictorial content. At least two of the five books shown are found in each SRVUSD high school.

Of course kids know these days about “porn and all the garbage that are so easily accessible on their PCs and mobile devices.” But responsible, mature parents and other adults (“responsible and mature” being categories which exclude those who control this school district) realize that were THEY the ones placing obscene material in front of kids, they would effectively be endorsing that material.

That’s what is happening here. Kids interpret pornographic material in school libraries as implicit adult approval for adolescent full speed ahead, on sexcapade adventures with no stop signs.

Ridiculously, school librarians like Allison, who appeared at the SRVUSD Board meeting Tuesday night, claim they are “rigorously trained,” and that they “thoroughly investigate whether each book they add is student-appropriate.” One wonders: of what does their “rigorous training” consist — and what would ever be considered inappropriate?

These librarians cite the American Library Association among supposed validating authorities, though ALA opposes ANY restrict of library material based on age or content ( Web Link ). The other porn boosters these librarians quote are essentially libertine-librarian echo chambers.

Inappropriate material isn’t limited to SRVUSD's high school libraries. “Queering the classroom,” a program self-description by District “LGBTQ+” activists here, pushes homosexual and transgender-themed, read-aloud picture-story books at children in captive-audience TK-5 ELEMENTARY classrooms.

North Dakota:

House Bill 1205 would prohibit public libraries from keeping and lending “books that contain explicit sexual material.” The bill’s definition of explicit material could include “pictorial, three-dimensional, or visual” depictions of anything from sex scenes in movies to educational materials meant to teach teenagers about puberty. As the bill states, libraries have until Jan. 1, 2024 to create a procedure “for the development of a book collection that is appropriate for the age and maturity levels of the individuals who may access the materials, and which is suitable for, and consistent with, the purpose of the library.” Currently, the bill contains no explanation of what “the purpose of the library” means or how to determine “appropriate” age and maturity.

The more far-reaching Senate Bill 2360 prohibits organizations open to minors from displaying “objectionable materials,” whether image or text, including visuals or descriptions of “nude or partially denuded human figures posed or presented in a manner to exploit sex, lust or perversion.” The bill defines “nude or partially denuded human figures” as “less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic regions, female breasts or a female breast, if the breast or breasts are exposed below a point immediately above the top of the areola, or human buttocks; and includes human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state even if completely and opaquely covered.”

By that definition, a photograph or even a written description of the Venus de Milo could — depending on the eye of the beholder — be out of bounds. It’s not just a matter of interpretation, though: Senate Bill 2360 would make it possible to charge offending librarians with a class B misdemeanor, punishable with up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,500.

Bills similar to North Dakota’s have also been introduced or passed into law in states like West Virginia, Texas, Mississippi, Montana, Iowa, Wyoming, Missouri and Indiana

For starters, Jim has changed the subject. I’m still awaiting his identification of “falsities… about SRVSD and porn books in the library.”

Regarding those books: I’ve filed a complaint with SRVUSD regarding obscenities in “Let’s Talk About It.” District honchos tried to persuade me to tiptoe through their slow-walk, 3-step process (principals first, then Supt. Malloy, then finally the School Board). I refused. Reportedly (and no surprise), SRVUSD has never rejected a book already on hand.

I played their game 30 years ago. All the challenges were rejected — for an inappropriate FOURTH GRADE book. The CC Times printed objectionable words only in truncated form. The Herald back then omitted the words altogether, then juxtaposed a piece critical of PARENTAL censorship — the “Banned Books” hypocrisy. Other passages alluded to child porn, smoking dope, and kids “flipping off” each other.

The high school library book mentioned above doesn’t just portray and advise multi-modal sex; it tells teens that “A great place to research fantasies and kinks safely is on the internet!” SAFELY?

It also encourages teens to “Look up interviews with your favorite porn performers, go to the sites they recommend, and pay for your porn.” Additionally, “sexting” is promoted as “a wanted saucy something from a partner” that “can be the highlight of your day. It’s thrilling, sexy, and fun,” and a “long-distance act of intimacy and trust.”

It’s also against the law, for adults AND minors. So no, I won’t play SRVUSD’s temporizing game.

North Dakota and its HB 1205 ( Web Link )? The first paragraph declares that "‘Explicit sexual material’ does NOT include works of art that, when taken as a whole, have serious artistic significance, or works of anthropological significance, or materials used in science courses, including materials used in biology, anatomy, physiology, or sexual education classes.”

Basically, Jim wants to blur the the lines, so to speak. He makes a horrible case of stating that there are no differences between art and pornography.

Jim, your woke cultural thought process appear to be running adrift these days. Fortunately, people like Mike and the rest of us see through it.

The dilemma in this matter is purely subjective when it comes to differentiating art from pornography and defining obscene materials with reasonable accuracy.

Those old enough to remember will recall the days of rigid television censorship and when outspoken comedians like Lenny Bruce were ostracized and arrested for expressing certain vulgarities onstage.

Where do we draw the line as everyone is entitled to their personal opinions and choices pertaining to political and religious affiliations, LGBTQ lifestyles, hobbies and pastimes, favorite sports teams, and child-rearin practices.

If anything, it is the duty and responsibility of the parents to establish the parameters and now we are back to square one.

@H-Mike Arata-Malcom Hex et al...

Do you also advocate the banning of earlier American literature and art that stereotypes and/or ridicules people of color OR is this discussion primarily focused on perceived morality issues?

When it comes to censorship, one cannot have his/her cake and eat it too because there are far too many topics that could be deemed offensive depending upon the individual.

To get this discussion back on track: the original article leading it states correctly that SRVUSD has failed to assure the safety of its students, and describes instances of that failure.

But safety isn’t about just the physical environment in schools. It’s also about joining parents in protecting the minds and moral character of children from harmful influences — at the least, not allowing schools themselves implicitly to endorse such influences.

20 U.S. Code Section 3401 acknowledges that “parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children, and States, localities, and private institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role.”

But in a District “Thought Exchange” conducted last fall, 62% of responding parents said that SRVUSD is “not listening to parents” — and “should focus on academics, not ‘woke’ social issues.” Instead, SRVUSD leadership takes its direction from outside pressure groups, including GLSEN, PFLAG, and “Gender Spectrum.”

Now comes exposure of depraved, explicit pornography in SRVUSD high school libraries, wherein the youngest patrons are 14-year-olds. As I said earlier, an example is “Let’s Talk About It,” a teen-sex guidebook which — along with its descriptions and illustrations of multi-modal sex activity — calls the internet a “great place to research fantasies and kinks safely.” SAFELY???

The book also recommends “sexting” (though it’s illegal even in California); allegedly “It’s thrilling, sexy, and fun,” and a “long-distance act of intimacy and trust.”

Meanwhile, “This Book Is Gay” is a how-to guide to “online dating,” “sex apps,” and various homosexual and transgender sexual activities.

It requires native stupidity, ignorance of child psychology, or degenerate and wanton evil to retain books which PROMOTE dangerous activity to high schoolers, once those in charge are apprised of contents. But that’s what SRVUSD leaders, from librarians to Supt. Malloy, are doing.

The far-left/progressive movement and enforced PC sensitivities are creating major societal problems from the standpoint that many people are being forced to accept things that go against their moral or philosophical grain.

For example, my nephew who is a board certified psychiatrist has been promoting the elimination of the perceived stigmatic term 'pedophilia'...to be replaced by the term 'child-addicted'.

Why sugarcoat certain wordings out of empathy for those who should be outed for what they actually are?

Spot on, Mabel. Officially, it’s a “minor attracted person,” the Left’s paraphilia du jour, that now seeks normalization.

Four SRVUSD school board “trustees” favor retaining library-based pornography. Along with Supt. Malloy, librarians, and activist teachers, they’ve ABUSED the trust mistakenly placed in them.

Meanwhile, East Bay Times reporter Rachel Mercader, a young Monte Vista HS graduate, has herself violated journalistic ethics in two articles about Tuesday’s school board meeting. See Web Link and Web Link .

One article cited “outbursts from audience members, some of whom brought signs reading, ‘Latest SRVUSD Scandal: Pornographic Books in the District’s High School Libraries.’” In fact, the outbursts were exclusively those of PORN SUPPORTERS; the signs were those of porn opponents.

By email, I challenged Mercader’s mistakes. She blamed her editor, said she’d run a correction, but soon wrote back to say that “Since it’s a grammar issue and [I’m] the only one who complained. There won’t be a correction.”

Mercader correctly reported that I said “What was once a plea for tolerance has become a demand for LGBTQ porn, allegedly because LGBTQ students need to see themselves in library books, including depraved, explicitly illustrated how-to sex manuals like the books ‘This Book is Gay,’ and ‘Let’s Talk About It.’”

She claimed I’d said also that “teachers who supply these books to children should be arrested under obscenity laws.”

In fact, I said that “Were a stranger in a park to hand such materials to teens, that individual would be subject to arrest and prosecution under California obscenity laws, Penal Code Section 311 et seq.” Unfortunately, librarians, teachers, and “educational activities” are generally exempted.

The progressive-left and its fixation on political correctness has a direct impact on the censorship of opposing views and the disemination of accurate information.

This biased perspective has infiltrated both public education and the media by wrongfully branding anyone who questions or objects to certain progressive educational 'ideals' as racists, bigots, and homophobes.

@Anita

You brought race into this discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with race. That’s a socialist tactic you tried but failed, and rather miserably I might add.

By the way, if you don’t know the difference between art and pornography, maybe that’s a topic you should stay away from.

"...if you don’t know the difference between art and pornography, maybe that’s a topic you should stay away from."

@Malcom Hex...sometimes it's a fine line as evidenced by the controversial Robert Maplethorpe photo exhibit in 1989.

Many art critics considered the exhibit masterful while conservatives argued that it was pornographic and should be removed.

The arising problem was that the exhibit was approved by the National Endowment for the Arts which is funded by taxpayer dollars.

@Regina - The illustrations in question are far from art. They're instructional. If you would like to see them, I can put them in a Google Doc and share them with you. Email me at [email protected]

They are so graphic that the news outlets covering this story won't use them.