Does there need to be more than just a meeting? Sex Offender speaks to students in Elkton.

The Elkton School Board is apparently “having a meeting” after a convicted sex offender was invited to a classroom to speak with students:

The Elkton School Board will discuss a revision of guest policies after a sex offender was invited into a classroom as a guest speaker.

and..

According to Jandahl, the school board will be revising the guest policy so that the administration will have more oversight on who is invited into classrooms. The school board will also implement a policy that will allow them to ban non-student sex offenders from school grounds, school activities and property under control of the school.

Read the entire story here.

You hate to over react.. but I would have thought that not visiting schools would have been an automatic condition placed upon a convicted sex offender who as an element of their crime offended with a minor.  Or were just a sex offender, period.

13 thoughts on “Does there need to be more than just a meeting? Sex Offender speaks to students in Elkton.”

  1. Sex offenders in the classroom ….. sounds like some PISCHKE supports. Does everyone remember that vote ?

  2. “a convicted sex offender who as an element of THEIR crime….”

    Does this person have multiple personalties or you have gone woke with your pronouns?

    If you don’t want to use a gender-specific pronoun, the proper singular pronoun is “it.”

    1. Singular “they,” used since the 14th century and has been the recommendation of the Chicago Manual for over 30 years. But sure, let’s worry about the opinion of dime store EB White, who clearly lacks the grammatical precision to articulate the difference between a pronoun and a plural possessive.

    2. A sex offender is welcomed into a classroom around kids and you are here whining about pronouns?

        1. Magats will cut off their nose to spite the liberals. They are going to screw the rest of the gop and hand the election to biden.

  3. Nothing says “have fun” like putting sex offenders near children. Scintillating logic, here.

    1. Only deleted comment here was Scott’s inane justification of “living let live” as far as sexual predators goes.

Comments are closed.