Galvin never implied that PSS endorse the teaching of religion in the Public School System but to allow these students to keep a limited number of religious credits as electives for their transcript purposes ONLY — meaning the courses will not even count toward their graduation requirements.
Many of these transferring students will need these credits especially if they choose to seek a theological or philosophy degree, and it would be very helpful to the students to have these courses as part of their graduation electives on their official high school transcripts.
Galvin was simply trying to help the students to keep something they have earned as apart of their official record and nothing more.
As you can see the person who wrote about him violating the law was mislead.
I will applaud them on doing their homework and researching the case history but none of those cases apply as there was never the slightest hint that religion would be taught in the Public School System.
I can understand a person being misled about what Galvin said and intended but what I truly question is the use of Galvin’s statement to promote Herman T. Guerrero.
It is my opinion that the writer should have just signed Herman T. Guerrero’s name to the letter as I recognize the mode of operation (modus operandi) signature.
Herman T. Guerrero wasn’t at the meeting and it just amazes me how the author implied that he was right about the religious issue and that Galvin was so wrong.
Twisting issues with subliminal and subversive attacks on people while promoting his self is exactly what I faced on the board; it’s exactly what John Joyner faced when he ran against Herman T. Guerrero when there were full-page prejudice ads saying vote for locals only and John Joyner was the only none local running for office.
It doesn’t surprise me that Galvin is now being subjected to the same strategy since he is running against Herman T. Guerrero’s brother.
Two and two equals four and I’m sure people with common sense can perform this simple addition and connect the dots that lead right back the Herman T. Guerrero’s style of politics.
The attack on Galvin was more of a subliminal political attack than it was about education and law.
I’m sure the common sense people can see the truth for what it is now that I have clarified what was really said in the meeting.
On a personal note, I believe Galvin and board member Tanya King are our best hope on the board for improvements in the outcomes of students, improvements in the teacher workforce and real reforms in the way PSS functions and performs.
To the misled author, the next time you go out on a limb for someone make sure the limb is strong enough to support you because the facts just don’t support your letter.
I hope this little education about educators has been an eye-opener.
One people one direction for improvements in education.
AMBROSE M. BENNETT
Kagman, Saipan
