You have to wonder why the ACLU is arguing a violation of "equal protection" when the gay couple recieved the same treatment as the hetero couples as far as the list is concerned. It seems that their only REAL argument would be on the field trip that the gay student was excluded from.

Equal protection is not a code for "give them a right nobody else has". It means that they should be treated no differently. If the teacher posted the names of hetero couples and it was ok, then it is likewise ok to do so for gay couples. If it was wrong for the gay couples, then it was wrong for the hetero couples as well. If it was ok for the principle to call the parents of hetero couples, then it was ok to call the parents of gay couples. If it was wrong, then it was wrong for all.

The only reason for the ACLU to treat it otherwise, is to push an agenda for gays that has nothing to do with being treated equally, since the crux of their argument has nothing to do with it also being wrong for hetero couples.

If the principal acted as is alleged, he should have his hide hung out to dry.

Doc, while I agree that it was despicable, can you fill me in on what law was violated by the principal's actions that warrants HER being "hung out to dry"?

"She's accused of publicly posting the names. . ."

If that's what happened there are, for openers, privacy issues. These aren't matters of taste or decorum; they're legal issues. There's also, potentially, a libel issue. If the principal did what she's accused of doing, she's toast and will be "hung out to dry."

Doc,

Thanks for responding. I am not trying to be snarky. I am seriously interested in debate on this.

If that's what happened there are, for openers, privacy issues.

Not necessarily. You would have to show that the information of the relationship was gained by an invasion of privacy. If it was through direct observation by someone through actions at school or another public arena then there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the students.

a libel issue

Wrong again. The students WERE gay and involved in a relationship. The veracity of the claim was never in question. Therefore there can be no issue of libel.

Gay or not, who cares. What's important is whether or not their addresses are listed.
Sincerely,
Deathpud

Moomanfl--

I believe the equal protection argument stemmed from the action by the school in not allowing the gay students to go to New Orleans because they'd be "embarrassed" if they acted like a couple. If they were using the EP argument for the release of the information, i agree with you. I just don't think that is the case.


Remember, claims of violating their freedom of association, expression, due process, etc. are also being asserted.

Doc, while I agree that it was despicable, can you fill me in on what law was violated by the principal's actions that warrants HER being "hung out to dry"?
Posted by moomanfl at 2008-05-02 08:16 AM

Uh, emotional distress for one thing, unwarranted misuse of personal data for number two, abuse of position is third.

Whether direct or indirectly, this principal knew the responsibility is to the students, not to some skewed concept of Christian cleansing.

The problem here is that gays represent a vulnerable population. The students have been put at risk because of the disclosure of their sexual orientation.

......why did'nt she post the list of whom teachers were dating ?......

The problem here is that gays represent a vulnerable population. The students have been put at risk because of the disclosure of their sexual orientation.
Posted by Scrumplet at 2008-05-02 11:09 AM

But also claiming that they are an "embarrassment" to a recovery effort segments them even further. As in, "homosexuals cannot be trusted under any situation" is just meant to emotionally hurt these kids, no-one else. School is already a warzone, these kids deserve better.

If I lived in the city of Memphis I would have this bitches head - and any supporting staff.

Schools...rules ! Just what displays of affection are offensive ?

If there are inappropritae displays of affection...why not just disipline them when you see then. I fail to see why a list was needed...it sounds so cia...a LIST.

Remember, claims of violating their freedom of association, expression, due process, etc. are also being asserted.

It is possible that you are correct about the EP claim, and I agree that if used for that situation alone then it will apply.

As for the other claims, none of those seem to really apply. The principle never said they couldn't associate, but that public displays of affection had to be curbed. Freedom of expression doesn't apply since it has been determined in other cases that freedom of expression in school can be limited when such expression causes a disruption. I also think a claim of violation of due process is very shaky. I would have to hear a VERY compelling argument for that one.

Uh, emotional distress for one thing, unwarranted misuse of personal data for number two, abuse of position is third.

Sorry, but if the principal's knowledge of them being gay came from their own actions in a public place then it is their own fault. She was simply treating them equal with the heterosexual couples per Equal Protection. Tell me how the data was misused? By stating something that was demonstrated in public? By telling parents who have a legal right to know their child's school info?

As for abuse of position... that is just idiotic. The principal's job is to fix disruptive behavior (among other things) their names were listed during an attempt to do that. It is hardly a misuse of her position.

......why did'nt she post the list of whom teachers were dating ?......

Presumably because the teachers aren't engaging in public displays of affection on campus... the students were.

Here is a question for all of you:

If you feel it was wrong for the teacher to list the gay students, do you likewise feel it was wrong for her to list the heterosexual ones as well? Why or why not?

But also claiming that they are an "embarrassment" to a recovery effort segments them even further.

RLR,

This is the one part that I think we can agree on. It was totally out of line to exclude the gay kid from the trip.

I thought gays were supposed to be proud of being gay. They should be thankful they were outed. What about the normal couples? Should they be happy or sad about being outed? Alas, it's so confusing to keep up with liberal thinking.

"They should be thankful they were outed."

You're joking, right? These are high school kids.

I thought gays were supposed to be proud of being gay. They should be thankful they were outed.

FWTHOM,

While I happen to be a conservative Republican, I have to say that you should be embarrassed to have typed such an ignorant response. Please try to think before posting.

On reviewing this, I could see how all those claims might apply to the refusal to let the kid go on the New Orleans trip. However, the way it was presented in the article seemed to suggest that they were being made because of the list and being outed to the school and parents.

If those claims are just because of the trip, then I am behind them 100%. I see no justification for any of those claims otherwise though.

This school is unusual -- it's around 100-150 high school kids whose facility is part of a college, and their test scores are off-the-charts good.

I don't think it makes it any less weird for the principal to play Perez Hilton and start reporting on relationships, but there is a good reason to keep a closer eye on high school kids on a college campus. When I went to college at UNT, it began a high school for gifted students called TAMS, and they lived on campus and were watched closely to keep them out of trouble.

"Uh, emotional distress for one thing, unwarranted misuse of personal data for number two, abuse of position is third."

Sorry, but if the principal's knowledge of them being gay came from their own actions in a public place then it is their own fault. She was simply treating them equal with the heterosexual couples per Equal Protection. Tell me how the data was misused? By stating something that was demonstrated in public? By telling parents who have a legal right to know their child's school info?
As for abuse of position... that is just idiotic. The principal's job is to fix disruptive behavior (among other things) their names were listed during an attempt to do that. It is hardly a misuse of her position.

"......why did'nt she post the list of whom teachers were dating ?......"

Presumably because the teachers aren't engaging in public displays of affection on campus... the students were.
Here is a question for all of you:
If you feel it was wrong for the teacher to list the gay students, do you likewise feel it was wrong for her to list the heterosexual ones as well? Why or why not?
Posted by moomanfl at 2008-05-02 11:40 AM

What an insensitive question. Figure this: one male/male couple. That's it. How many of you fag-bash on the retort? Remember when you were little bashers in high school? How many male/male couples were out then? Zero? Welly, welly, well.. times certainly have changed. Don't feign ignorance.

First of all they did not publicly come out about their sexuality - that was the principals doing.

Second, purposeful exclusion and exemplification are persecution for their homosexuality. Thus, "gays can't help with Katrina relief." Are you remembering those good ol' days now? Good.

Third, disrespecting their privacy, regardless how YOU choose to define that in a public institution does include personal data - sexuality is a massively important aspect therein. "Don't ask don't tell" is entirely BASED on that premise - personal information such as sexuality isn't meant to be engaged by staff. True that she didn't write "GOD HATES FAGS", but her actions do.

"It was actually frightening," he says, "to see a list with my name on it where not just other teachers could see but students as well."

Riddle me this - why would any student feel this way? Perhaps because it was wrong of the staff to proceed with making an exclusionary policy and a list students sensitive information? Or, perhaps it's precisely what the kid states "NOT JUST OTHER TEACHERS COULD SEE BUT STUDENTS AS WELL."

one male/male couple. That's it.

So what? Would 50 gay couples have made a difference to you? Maybe that was the only gay couple they knew about. The fact is, they got treated the same (equally) in the list as the straight couples. Why should they have gotten special privilege?

How many of you fag-bash on the retort?

I haven't.

Remember when you were little bashers in high school?

No I don't. But that was because I wasn't one. Would have been difficult to be one since several of my friend's were gay.

First of all they did not publicly come out about their sexuality - that was the principals doing.

They didn't to everyone. However, if the principal got her knowledge because of observed public behavior of theirs by a school official, and not by some private means then they have themselves to blame. Embarrassing? Yes. Traumatic? Possibly. The schools fault? No. After all the school didn't make them do the thing (whatever that was) that brought it to the schools attention.

Second, purposeful exclusion and exemplification are persecution for their homosexuality. Thus, "gays can't help with Katrina relief." Are you remembering those good ol' days now? Good.

Actually I had already agree with you fully on this part before so don't make yourself any more of an idiot than you are right now.

Third, disrespecting their privacy, regardless how YOU choose to define that in a public institution does include personal data - sexuality is a massively important aspect therein.

Wrong. If you do something in public that demonstrates that information, then it ceases to be private and becomes public knowledge. If you don't want people to know you keep IN PRIVATE. If you do it in public and people see, then it is YOUR FAULT that people know.

I have no problem with what the principal did.
He is merely protecting the majority of his student body from being infected

He is merely protecting the majority of his student body from being infected

And yet another idiot post oozes it's way onto the thread.

Wow... I finally got a thread on the front page. WOOT!!!

After all the school didn't make them do the thing (whatever that was) that brought it to the schools attention.
Posted by moomanfl at 2008-05-02 12:08 PM

But the school did bring it to the attention of the student body.

That could place these kids at physical risk as well as the emotional scarring of being on der naughty list.

Do you understand the distinction?

Wow... I finally got a thread on the front page. WOOT!!!
Posted by moomanfl at 2008-05-02 12:19 PM

Congrats - my telepathy headband thread died less than two minutes after being posted.:[

This is a great thread, btw.

I'll be back tonight.

Has anyone gotten their $600 check yet? Nobody in Oregon..

I have no problem with what the principal did.
He is merely protecting the majority of his student body from being infected

Posted by timbci

VERY informed opinion Timmy. I'm just curious to know why you referred to Principal Daphne Beasley as "He". Do you know something that the rest of us don't?? Hehe. Or are you just a jackass who spouts off bullshit without even reading the article?
My guess is the latter.

Soory but viruses and sickness in schools is a major issue, especially with gay students without morals and illegal immigrants without access to healthcare

MOOMANFL people like TIMBCI were able to view the list. Those two boys could have been beaten or even killed. The principal acted completely without regard for the welfare of the student's she was duty bound to protect. I can't comment on the constitutional issues but on professional misconduct alone she deserves firing and probably a lawsuit. On the issue of the boys exclusion from the trip it seems pretty obvious that they were discriminated against for no valid reason and have another case there too.
I would not want my kids taught by a stupid person like this, I can't say she did it out of vindictiveness but if it wasn't vindictive then it just showed an incredibly amount of stupidity.

But the school did bring it to the attention of the student body.

The fact is, we don't have enough information to state that the knowledge was or wasn't already known to some in the student body already. The schools knowledge had to come from somewhere, either a staff member that had observed, or a student that had. The only other possibility is that it came from a private conversation between one of the boys and schools staff.

If it was either of the first two, then it is the kids' fault for engaging in behavior in public which they wished to keep private.

If it is the last option however, then I would be fully with you and there would have been a serious violation of privacy.

Without that crucial piece of evidence though, I have to give the school some benefit of the doubt. I have seen how stupid kids in general can be about doing and saying stuff in school that would have been better kept to themselves.

As for physical risks... the school will have to deal with that as it comes up (if it does). For the emotional scarring, assuming that the knowledge was gained by their observed actions, then the kids bear the responsibility for that.

As for emotional scarring due to being on the naughty list... are you similarly outraged for the heterosexual students on "der naughty list"?

The question is... do YOU understand the distinctions? So far you have seemed to have a problem understanding the difference between public and private behavior and places.

" If you don't want people to know you keep IN PRIVATE. If you do it in public and people see, then it is YOUR FAULT that people know."

That's a false conclusion. The fact remains the straight couples won't be subject to discrimination due to orientation. We never are.

Danni. Last time I checked Pricipals are administrators not teachers.



I am a liberal. I do not believe in violence but I do believe in keeping the student body from being exposed to diseases.

THe boys were excluded from the trip because they didn't want the school to be an embarassment.

"I really feel that my personal privacy was invaded," Nicholas says. "I mean, Principal Beasley called my mother and outed me to my mother!"

Yikes. Did Principle Beasley call all the parents on the list and tell them who their child was dating?

......why did the principal not list all the people that the teachers were fucking.?......

"Danni. Last time I checked Pricipals are administrators not teachers."

And that reduces her responsibility towards the students. Ridiculous. If anything it would increase her responsibility. She sets the tone for the entire school.
If the principal is still employed then it says something very negative about the school board.

"THe boys were excluded from the trip because they didn't want the school to be an embarassment."

TIMBCI the schools already was an embarrassment because of the principal. The boys would not have embarrassed anyone.

Here lets take a hypothetical situation that would be similarly controversial:

Say I was a white kid in a school that had a some racist rednecks. Not all of the students are, but some are just bigoted assholes.

I am observed kissing a black girl at school by one of the staff.

Like this school, the principal has had big problem with public displays of affection to the point that it has become a bit of a disruption. So, like the principal in the article this one asks the staff to compile a list of all the couples in the school.

The students see the list, realize that I am with a black girl. To many it makes little difference, but the bigoted rednecks go ballistic. I am called names to vile to mention here, and even get attacked.

Is it the school's fault? No. The treated us the same as everyone else.

If I hadn't wanted anyone to know then I should have kept the relationship private. The fault also lies with the bigoted assholes for their reaction to the information.

Now, if the school then treats us differently (as this school did by refusal of the New Orleans trip) THEN they would be at fault for that. But that is the extent of it.

"Is it the school's fault? No. The treated us the same as everyone else."

No it is the school's fault. First they have no business interfering in the personal lives of the students by making a "couples" list. Then, why would they need to post it for the other students???

"The fault also lies with the bigoted assholes for their reaction to the information."

Which, as a professional, the principal has an obligation to anticipate when doing something like posting that list.

Face it MOOMANFL, the principal is a stupid person who did an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing which could have resulted in physical harm to those boys. She needs to be fired.

"Is it the school's fault? No."

That's wallowing in ignorance. If the school knows it might put the students at risk, it's a horrible mistake. Just as if the principal knows there's a racist group looking to injure multi-racial couples, posting that list is pouring gasoline on the fire.

"If I hadn't wanted anyone to know then I should have kept the relationship private."

Totally unfair. Straights don't have to hide their relationships, yet you expect gays to hide.

It is worth considering that the boys said that they had been treated differently after the list was posted so obviously it was not previously common knowledge that they were gay. Most likely some busybody bigot saw them hanging out a lot together and "assumed". Fire that bitch!

That's a false conclusion. The fact remains the straight couples won't be subject to discrimination due to orientation.

Danforth,

My conclusion was right on. Yours was in error because the fault of the discrimination lies with those that discriminate only. Not with those that treated them equally by posting their name along with everyone else's.

Yikes. Did Principle Beasley call all the parents on the list and tell them who their child was dating?

Good question, but unanswered in this article. Unfortunate since this piece of information seems very important to the story as it was put forth. The only reasons I can see for it being left out is to slant the story, or incompetence on the part of the reporter.

If they didn't then that is a serious problem, but there just isn't enough info to make that conclusion. If the school did call all the other parents, however, then there is no grounds for complaining legally.

......why did the principal not list all the people that the teachers were fucking.?......

Already answered this earlier. Try not to be an idiot.

That's wallowing in ignorance. If the school knows it might put the students at risk, it's a horrible mistake.

No, you are the one that seems to be wallowing. The school can't monitor who knows and who doesn't.

If the knowledge was gained due to observing their behavior in the school, then the school can reasonably assume that others know as well. They aren't under obligation to poll the student body to see if it is unknown to everyone first.

That is part of the danger of doing things in public that you wish to keep private.

Totally unfair. Straights don't have to hide their relationships, yet you expect gays to hide.

No, I don't expect them to hide. I don't care whether they keep it hidden or shout their orientation from the rooftops. THEY are the ones that cared to keep it hidden.

Unfortunately, if the knowledge was gained due to observation by staff, then their actions weren't conducive to their desire for privacy. That would be their fault.

"The school can't monitor who knows and who doesn't."

But the school knows the straight couples won't be subjected to the same treatment as the gay couple.

"...the school can reasonably assume that others know as well."

And what were they doing...removing any final doubt?

"They aren't under obligation to poll the student body to see if it is unknown to everyone first."

Nor do they get to assume, because possibly ONE teacher observed it, that everyone knows.

"That is part of the danger of doing things in public that you wish to keep private."

Again, only one group is expected to "keep private". You keep missing that point.

"If the knowledge was gained due to observing their behavior in the school, then the school can reasonably assume that others know as well."

You know what that is baloney. If the school observes them reading and notices they read poorly are they then allowed to make that public knowledge. No, of course not. Schools have special relationships with students which require most "observations" to be kept private between the school, the student and/or the parents. Actually the notification of the parent was less objectionable than the posting of the list. I think all the other kids on the list also have actiobably cases against the principal as well.

But the school knows the straight couples won't be subjected to the same treatment as the gay couple.

For all the school knew, the knowledge was already out there. You assume that the school knew it was a secret. Your assumption is faulty.

And what were they doing...removing any final doubt?

No, they were treating them equal to everyone else. You can't ask to be treated equally, then complain when an aspect of that is inconvenient. If there is a problem with harassment from bigots, then the school should deal with that issue when it occurs. That would be a good thing to do anyway. Maybe a little education from the school... what a concept.

Are you suggesting that we should have kept schools segregated in the 60's because putting black kids in a school with bigoted white kids was placing them in danger?

Nor do they get to assume, because possibly ONE teacher observed it, that everyone knows.

Acutally it is reasonable to assume that if they are engaging in certain behavior in public, that they aren't trying to keep it secret.

Again, only one group is expected to "keep private". You keep missing that point.

Actually, YOU have missed the point. I already addressed this in a seperate post. The KIDS wanted to keep it secret... nobody EXPECTED them too. Doing something in public that you don't want anyone to know about is just plain stupid.

If the school observes them reading and notices they read poorly are they then allowed to make that public knowledge.

If they are observed reading out loud poorly... they can reasonable assume that others already KNOW their proficiency level or lack of it.

"As for the other claims, none of those seem to really apply. The principle never said they couldn't associate"

By outing them, they're subjecting the students to ridicule (this IS high school, remember)--which will force them to not hang out around each other. I'm not saying this is a good argument, but it is a decent argument nonetheless.

"Freedom of expression doesn't apply since it has been determined in other cases that freedom of expression in school can be limited when such expression causes a disruption."

I think this is an extremely overbroad application for limits on freedom of expression in a school setting. Obviously the law allows limitations--the question is whether there actions were reasonable and appropriate to maintain an orderly school environment. I would argue their actions did exactly the opposite.

"I also think a claim of violation of due process is very shaky. I would have to hear a VERY compelling argument for that one."

Removing them from school activities based upon an erroneous assumption that they're going to basically dry hump each other in front of the entire class instead of building houses is a clear violation of their procedural due process rights. They were prohibited form participating in activities without any discussion with the students, hearing, etc. Whether you believe the substantive due process rights are violated depends on whether you believe homosexuality is a suspect class requiring heightened scrutiny (an argument for another time).

You have to wonder why the ACLU is arguing a violation of "equal protection" when the gay couple recieved the same treatment as the hetero couples as far as the list is concerned. It seems that their only REAL argument would be on the field trip that the gay student was excluded from.

Equal protection is not a code for "give them a right nobody else has". It means that they should be treated no differently. If the teacher posted the names of hetero couples and it was ok, then it is likewise ok to do so for gay couples. If it was wrong for the gay couples, then it was wrong for the hetero couples as well. If it was ok for the principle to call the parents of hetero couples, then it was ok to call the parents of gay couples. If it was wrong, then it was wrong for all.

The only reason for the ACLU to treat it otherwise, is to push an agenda for gays that has nothing to do with being treated equally, since the crux of their argument has nothing to do with it also being wrong for hetero couples.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-05-02 07:44 AM | Reply |

You did not consider "equal protection" in the context of the student body as a whole. Those who did not engage in legal relationships were not under this scrutiny.

To put this another way, the principal is trying to punish for an activity protected by the consitution. A specific activity. It makes for a more interesting story to have gaydom thrown in here, but its beside the point. Throw out the gayness and the argument would remain.

By outing them, they're subjecting the students to ridicule (this IS high school, remember)--which will force them to not hang out around each other. I'm not saying this is a good argument, but it is a decent argument nonetheless.

Actually, I would say that the argument is a desperate stretch. As I have mentioned before, if the problem is bigotry then it is the fault of the bigots and that needs to be dealt with. That isn't evidence of violating Freedom of Association by the school.

Obviously the law allows limitations--the question is whether there actions were reasonable and appropriate to maintain an orderly school environment.

Since the actions of the school were to curb disruptive behavior (public displays of affection), yes. I think it was reasonable in the broad sense. Obviously it has caused a problem for these two students in practice, but as I layed out in previous posts I don't think that is necessarily the fault of the school. Not enough info was given in the article to formulate a judgment.

Removing them from school activities based upon an erroneous assumption that they're going to basically dry hump each other in front of the entire class instead of building houses is a clear violation of their procedural due process rights.

Yes, I conceded that if used for that instance alone then it applies. However if used for the initial "outing" then it gets a little more iffy.

You did not consider "equal protection" in the context of the student body as a whole.

Knighthawk,

You really have to stretch things a bit too thin and ignore the reasons given in the article to make your argument. As stated before, disruptive behavior in school isn't protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made this clear on other cases. In this case, the school engaged in the crackdown because they saw the behavior as causing enough of a disruption to warrant action.

If they are observed reading out loud poorly... they can reasonable assume that others already KNOW their proficiency level or lack of it.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-05-02 01:11 PM | Reply |

Missing the point on this one I think. The issue isn't what the principal or anyone else knew. It was the intent, cause and effect of the thing.

Ask yourself first, what exactly was the intent of the principal posting the names? What did she expect to happen?

Second, what did occur as the result of this list.

IMHO she expected to punish these students thru public intimidation.... thats a BIG NO NO for several reasons. She could have taken these students into her office and explained the school policies, talked the parents of these children and explained it to them. Sent letters to them, brought in a counselor to talk to them. Something else other than posting a list in public.

Missing the point on this one I think. The issue isn't what the principal or anyone else knew. It was the intent, cause and effect of the thing.

Knighthawk,

I didn't miss the point. I just don't agree with the argument. Although in this post you do bring up some interesting points.

The problem with the conclusion is that there isn't enough information in the article to say what her intentions were. Here are some questions that would need to be answered to come to your conclusion:

1. How many kids were on the list? If there are too many then most of your ideas become to cumbersome to implement. I would imagine that the number of couples in a high school is rather large. That would take a lot of valuable time to cover on a case by case basis.

2. What was the text of the notice other than the list of names? This is of paramount importance in deciding intent.

I am sure I could probably come up with some more, but those two jump out at me right away.

Either way, I find it difficult to believe that it was an attempt to intimidate by simply posting who was dating who. Most of the kids on that list probably didn't care who knew and therefore an attempt at intimidation by exposure would have been ridiculously futile.

.........more Christian Taliban hypocracy..........

.......if the principal wants to put up a list like that, the first on it should be her......with a list of every cock she has ever sucked...........

.......then a list of everyone the teachers are fucking......(including the ones diddling students)....

.......and last, a list of the students.........

..............that would be equality......stupid and pointless as only a religious retard can make it.......but equality..........

.........more Christian Taliban hypocracy..........




Holy shit!

.........more Christian Taliban hypocracy..........




Holy shit!

Posted by kerrin57 at 2008-05-02 02:36 PM

Yes, I thought the same thing. I assume you were commenting on Skizziks' brain.

You misspelled it, however. You should have said "Wholly shit!"

Either way...I am sometimes astounded by some things lefties throw out there.

"You have to wonder why the ACLU is arguing a violation of "equal protection" when the gay couple recieved the same treatment as the hetero couples"

You can't possibly be that daft. Only one subset will experience a backlash. We straights aren't expected to "hide", but our gay counterparts are, every day. If you can't see that's an unfair playing field from the get-go, there's no hope.

"If the teacher posted the names of hetero couples and it was ok, then it is likewise ok to do so for gay couples."

Sheer idiocy. Using that logic, on 9/12/01 it would have been okay to list all the students with Muslim relatives, without regard to the certain backlash. Would you then be arguing it was "equal", because it treated everyone the same?!?

So, according to Nicholas' mother there was an element of prejudice in the principals actions.

Danni,

I would agree that if the principal acted the way that other article says, then it is a big problem.

You can't possibly be that daft. Only one subset will experience a backlash. We straights aren't expected to "hide", but our gay counterparts are, every day.

Danforth,

The only daft thing here is you posting the same thing over and over just slightly reworded without answering the counter arguments that are posted each time. Try scrolling up and answer my 1:09PM post which covers both of your recycled points.

Your 1:09 is full of assumptions about who knew. And you've yet to acknowledge the fact only one group will suffer, only one group is expected in our society to "hide".

So please answer directly: would it have been okay to publish the names of students with Muslim relatives on 9/12/01? Do you believe that would be treating all the students equally?

Why did this bitch call the kids mother?

If she only wanted to cut down on public displays of affection, then she should have told this to the students that were seen doing that very thing, not call the mother of some kid and tell her that her son is gay and may go on to show affection.

Give this bitch the boot. Her intentions were malicious as demonstrated by her actions.

this quote has been thrown around

"You have to wonder why the ACLU is arguing a violation of "equal protection" when the gay couple recieved the same treatment as the hetero couples"

alot of posts argue against it.... to be clear then...They don't deserve equal protection? but instead special protection?

and I'm not saying they do or they don't....but to be clear your point is that the ACLU is right in that they deserve special protection?

I thought gays were supposed to be proud of being gay. They should be thankful they were outed. What about the normal couples? Should they be happy or sad about being outed? Alas, it's so confusing to keep up with liberal thinking.

Posted by fwthom at 2008-05-02 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Confusing? Why are we not surprised to hear you say that? Oh yeah, because it's obvious!

Your 1:09 is full of assumptions about who knew.

No, YOU assume that it was secret despite that fact that somehow people knew. You seem to ignore the fact that if they were really trying to keep it private that shouldn't have been possible.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if only one group will suffer. Only one group suffered from bigotry under desegregation as well... does that mean it was wrong? Punish the bigots that pick on them... or better yet, educate them.

You have yet to respond to that even though I have said it multiple times in response to you.

Do you believe that would be treating all the students equally?

Yes. Just like in desegregation, treating them equally had some backlash. From there the bigots that caused problems were dealt with. Over time it got less and less.

Giving them special treatment (keeping them off the list that everyone else is on) because you are too lazy or afraid to deal with the other issues is a bullshit excuse.

Let me correct myself. I didn't read your entire line on the 3:17.

In the case of students with Muslim relatives after 9/12/01....

You are being an obtuse idiot. That whole question is moronic and not analogous.

We are talking about a problem in the school which is the pricipal's responsibility to deal with.

However your question is talking about the principal doing something on a national issue that isn't a part of her job to deal with. Get a freaking clue.

My mistake was in not reading your question fully. I just saw the first sentence answered it and skimmed... then saw the last part and thought you were still talking about the actual school issue, not some brain-dead attempt at a lame analogy.

"...somehow people knew."

Bullshit. You've admitted yourself it could have been as small as one teacher observing what the kids thought was a private moment.

"Furthermore, it doesn't matter if only one group will suffer."

You're part of the problem.

"Yes. Just like in desegregation, treating them equally had some backlash."

So publishing a list of Muslim-connected students on 9/12/01 would have been treating all the students equally? Bullshit. Just like in this case, only some students would be put at risk, not all. And your suggestion they do it, and deal with the backlash later is the height of irresponsibility. If you truly believe what you're posting, you should never be allowed to be in charge of children, as you obviously place your agenda over their welfare.

Moomanfl--

Just for the record--i think you raise some pretty good arguments about the merits of the ACLU's case. I don't think there are major CONSITUTIONAL violations going on here. Personally, i think this was a bonehead move by a bonehead school official. I doubt laws were broken but she still did something that jeopardized the safety and well being of the gay students she outed. That alone, IMO, calls for a suspension and/or dismissal from her post. T'would happen to anyone else in business who did something that stupid.

Give this bitch the boot. Her intentions were malicious as demonstrated by her actions.

Commonsense,

If the info in Danni's alternate article about that phone call is correct, then I agree completely.

However I think that some points have been raised here that are interesting in a more general sense. Would love to hear your take on Danforth's "arguments" (and I use the term loosely).

seems like two arguments are being blended.

1. given circumstances was it right to have posted them on the list

2. were their rights violated by being on the list


I'd say one could intellectually answer no to both of those questions.

So publishing a list of Muslim-connected students on 9/12/01 would have been treating all the students equally?

Read the post I made immediately after that one. Your Muslim scenario was idiotic and I simply was lazy in reading that post or I would have just simply said so as I did in my follow up.

My answer that you are replying to was written on my faulty assumption that you were asking if posting a list of all the students was treating them equally even though some might get some backlash. I skipped over the Muslim part.

Bullshit. You've admitted yourself it could have been as small as one teacher observing what the kids thought was a private moment.

Yes, and in that hypothetical situation the teacher would be reasonable to assume that actions carried out in public where they can be seen are not trying to be kept a secret.

You seem to ignore that part. Guess it doesn't suit your argument.

You're part of the problem.

Suuuuure... I am part of the problem because I think we should treat them equally and then deal with the issues that arise from there. Instead of just treating them specially (the opposite of equal) and trying to gloss over the real issues.

Pull your head out of your ass. You aren't doing them any favors.

My post referred to the brazen disregard for students' welfare, whether a list of "couples" goes up, or a list of "Muslim" students. Any principal putting up a list without regard to the backlash is being irresponsible.

Try this: you're the principal. On 9/12/01, a teacher wants to post a list of Muslim students. Would you do it?

It just strikes me that people like Danforth are stealth bigots.

People like him don't practice the type of in-your-face bigotry that the stereotypical Bible-thumping redneck does. Instead their brand is more insidious and couched in the guise of being helpful and sympathetic.

If Danforth's reasoning had prevailed back in the 1950's and 1960's the argument would have been:

"We can't desegregate those poor negros. The backlash would be horrible. It would just be putting them in danger. For their own safety it would be best just to keep them in their own schools, with their own water fountains, and their own little section on the back of the bus. After all, we don't want them to get ridiculed and attacked."

Thankfully, that idiot argument DIDN'T prevail.

The best way to deal with the issue is to get it out in the open. Period. Treat them equally and then deal with the issues that arise from that as they come.

If a list was being made of all the couples in the school, and the heterosexual kids were on it, then it was only treating them as equals to put the homosexual couple on it as well as long as the knowledge of that relationship was gained from a public, and not private, source.

If there is backlash, you deal with that as it arises as the necessary growing pains of a better more fair system.

That being said, it seems that the principal did NOT handle things correctly with the phone call to their parents, or with banning them from the field trip. For that reason, and that reason alone, the principal needs to be handed her walking papers and the kids are owed a big apology at the very LEAST.

"You aren't doing them any favors."

And you think you are, by posting a list you don't realize is incendiary. Like I said, you should never be left in charge of children.

"I am part of the problem because I think we should treat them equally"

No, you're part of the problem because you don't realize, with regards to children, this isn't an equal situation. None of the straight couples will be subjected to the backlash the gay couple will, just like none of the Christian kids would be affected by posting Muslim students' names on 9/12/01.

""the teacher would be reasonable to assume that actions carried out in public where they can be seen are not trying to be kept a secret."

You're assuming facts not in evidence. The two could have thought they were being private, unaware they were being observed. And if only one teacher knew---something you've admitted is possible---it blows your assumption others knew out of the water.

And you think you are, by posting a list you don't realize is incendiary.

Suuure. We HAVE to treat them unequally for their own good. Right? That is a bigoted argument. Congratulations.

"It just strikes me that people like Danforth are stealth bigots."

Um...riiiiiiight. You put your agenda ahead of kids' welfare, and I'm the bigot.

"We HAVE to treat them unequally for their own good. Right? "

You don't realize the Muslim kids will be treated differently on 9/12/01 after you post the list, you think whatever backlash comes to them is good, and you're wiling to deal with it all after the fact. You're willing to have kids taunted, or beat up, or worse, just to advance your agenda.

"We HAVE to treat them unequally for their own good. Right? That is a bigoted argument"

If you don't thing the Muslim kids wouldn't be put at greater risk by the 9/12 list, you're an idiot.

just like none of the Christian kids would be affected by posting Muslim students' names on 9/12/01.

I am going to address this one last time:

You are an idiot. Your "Muslim students" argument is moronic.

In your poor excuse for an analogy the Muslim students are being singled out as the only ones on the list.

The gay kids were NOT singled out on the list. They were on there with all the other kids in the school that were in a heterosexual relationship.

You are comparing apples to cars and trying to convince us they are the same.

Um...riiiiiiight. You put your agenda ahead of kids' welfare, and I'm the bigot.

Yes you are. You are using the same argument used by some of the bigots in the 50's and 60's that tried to SEEM reasonable and sympathetic but were bigots all the same.

Their argument: "we can't treat them the same for their own good."

Your argument: "we can't treat them the same for their own good"

So yes, I would say you are a stealth bigot. Either intentionally or subconsciously. It doesn't matter which since the result is the same.

"Your argument: "we can't treat them the same for their own good""

My argument: a teacher concerned about her students' welfare should be able to tell the difference between something benign and something incendiary when it comes to children.

And since you're willing to gamble with childrens' well-being just to advance your gay-bashing agenda, I would say you're a homophobe, either intentionally or subconsciously. It doesn't matter which since the result is the same.

Ok--let's get this right--Schools do not allow playing tag, no dodgeball, no running, no monkeybars, no swings and NO Skittles--AND No Necking! Unbelievable!

Imagine that--an adult in charge of 150 kids trying to stop petting on school property!

It should have been handled better--and you can't stop the gay kid from the field trip because of some perceived Embarrasment! Like the straight kids couldn't do something embarrassing?

That would be wrong--but the ACLU has an agenda and wants gays treated special rather than equal.


Dan--
In order for the Muslim arguement to work--you have to have it tied to the behavior to be on the list.

The kids are making out--they could be doing it with the stuffed school mascot and might get on the list as well.

But to equate the Muslim scenario is not applicable as it does not apply. Now if the Muslims were doing something that raised suspicion--then yeah they could get on a list somewhere--same with anyone acting suspicious--don't even have to be Muslim--it's the ideology--not the religion necessarily that focuses ones attention on trouble.

Murphy

a teacher concerned about her students' welfare should be able to tell the difference between something benign and something incendiary when it comes to children.

translation: "We can't treat them the same for their own good."

That is a bigoted arguement.

I am hardly a homophobe for saying treat them equally and come down like holy hell on the heads of anyone that dares ridicule them or attack them for being gay.

I don't want to keep them "in their place" like you seem to want to. The status quo is not good enough for me. I want them to be able to be who they are and not have to hide it. I want people that would treat them differently, or attack them in anyway to be dealt with.

You just want them to stay hidden in fear. Bigot

"I am hardly a homophobe for saying treat them equally "

No, you're a homophobe for pretending they will be treated equally.

"That is a bigoted arguement(sic)."

Says the guy who sees nothing wrong with posting a list of Muslim students' names on 9/12/01.

"You just want them to stay hidden in fear"

You want them taunted, beaten up, or worse. Agenda over responsibility.

"Giving them special treatment (keeping them off the list that everyone else is on) because you are too lazy or afraid to deal with the other issues is a bullshit excuse."

That is ridiculous when you consider the potential for violence and a principal, of all people, should understand the possibilities. the principal's first concern always has to be the safety of the students. Doing anything that would jeopardize their safety, in any way, would violate her professional ethics if not the law. Most likely it also violates some statutes.

No, you're a homophobe for pretending they will be treated equally.

Where did I pretend that. I acknowledged that some may try to ridicule them or attack them. I also advocated coming down on those people like the wrath of God.

Instead of offering a desegregation style solution, you just want to keep the status quo with your undesirables at the back of the bus "for their own safety".

"translation: "We can't treat them the same for their own good."

That is a bigoted arguement."

Bull shit. It is the ONLY argument that someone responsible for the welfare of children can take.

That is ridiculous when you consider the potential for violence and a principal

Danni,

There was the same potential, and indeed the outright threats, of violence in the '50's and '60's during desegregation. Should we have not done that "for their own safety"?

The fact is, treat the equally and have a zero tolerance policy for anyone that ridicules them or attacks them. Period.

Just like during desegregation, the message will get across and people will start tolerating what they can't change.

Telling them to just keep their "head down and avoid eye contact" (figuratively speaking) is a cowards solution at best. At worst it is the prime argument of bigots that want to be seen as reasonable.

" I acknowledged that some may try to ridicule them or attack them. I also advocated coming down on those people like the wrath of God."

I'm sure that would've been a great comfort to the family of Matthew Shepard, after you had posted the list.

That is ridiculous when you consider the potential for violence --per Danni--

Especially if one of the hetero couples is making out with the hetero's best friend without their knowledge!

If the kids are on school property and people are able to observe their actions--it's not such a secret.

The principle could have handled this differently.

And the ACLU is only doing this for their agenda.

They should be talking like this for EVERYONE on the list--not just the gay guys. But since they don't it is obvious they don't care about privacy or due process--they only care about treating the gay guys special and different from the heteros..

Murphy

"translation: "We can't treat them the same for their own good."

That is a bigoted arguement."

Bull shit. It is the ONLY argument that someone responsible for the welfare of children can take.

So then you agree with the bigot's of the 50's and 60's that didn't want those "negro kids" to go to the white school "for their own good".

According to you, they should have been kept seperate as the only action "someone responsible for the welfare of children can take".

Notice I use your own words.

We already went thru "separate but equal" in this country and it sucked big time.

Black kids were protected at some schools in the 50-60's so they could get to school.

Murphy

Black kids were protected at some schools in the 50-60's so they could get to school.

And if it wasn't for forces desegregation, and enforced tolerance, we wouldn't be where we are today. Thanks to those that went through that danger then, my kids are able to go to a diverse school today, and they are outside right this moment as white kids playing with black kids and hispanic kids in my neighborhood.

Too bad that those like Danforth and Danni don't want to progress. They just want the gay kids in school to keep their heads down, and stay in hiding out of fear rather than deal with the issues head on and eventually get past them.

Alas, it's so confusing to keep up with liberal thinking.

Posted by fwthom


That's because you are a moron!

MOO-
This may be the first and only time I side with DANFORTH vs you... but a key component absent in your "black" analogy is that people who are black can't hide their color.

People who choose to have a homosexual partner... or who choose to be an atheist... or who choose to be an anarchist - those choices aren't necessarily visible - certainly not as visible as one's skin color. And all three can bring ridicule or possibly other retribution. People who look, behave or think differently have been and always will be subject to some level of grief. Even as adults, look at how our friends on the Left treat us on the DR...

What you say is true regarding blacks back a couple generations ago. However, I don't see the correlation to this particular issue.

I think the principal was wrong to enlist others to out students, whether gay or straight.

I do disagree with DANFORTH in his Matt Shepard response. Kids know who's who. They know what goes on in school - so "outing" is really only "outing" them to parents, typically the last to know anything.

This may be the first and only time I side with DANFORTH vs you... but a key component absent in your "black" analogy is that people who are black can't hide their color.

No, instead they could just hide at separate schools. The issue isn't the method of hiding. Instead the issue is about the reason for it... and the solution for it.

In both cases, we had (and have) people saying they should keep the status quo "for their own good".

I say lets confront it head on, lance the boil and let the puss out. Don't just pretend it isn't there, wear loose clothes so it won't hurt as bad, and let it fester.

I see your points. Do keep in mind that there remain racial tensions/fights everyday, despite the best intentions of adults.

I'm just saying that blacks couldn't conceal their "blackness" even if they chose to.

As to one's sexual preference, one's politics, etc... those are personal choices and, for one, shouldn't become a protected civil right... and two, ought to remain the personal business of the individual and not something the principal should become involved in "outing" to other students or their parents.

Do keep in mind that there remain racial tensions/fights everyday, despite the best intentions of adults.

Yes, there are. It isn't a quick or easy process to get past bigotry.

The problem is avoiding getting the process started doesn't shorten the time it is going to take. It just delays when it starts.

those are personal choices and, for one, shouldn't become a protected civil right

You mean like a person's religion (which IS protected)? The fact is, we live in a free country. We are supposed to be free to make those choices and it is that freedom that should be protected, and which bigotry violates in cases like sexual preference.

I don't believe they should get special treatment at all, but on the same token I don't think they should suffer for it either.

Unfortunately the only way we are going to eventually get to the point where they don't have to, is by confronting the issue openly and head-on.

I do agree that the principal should not be in the business of outing someone. However there hasn't been sufficient evidence to show that the principal did that in the school since the names of the gay kids were posted along with the names of the heterosexual one. In the case of the call to the parents, however, there IS evidence that she acted inappropriately.

The principal should be shown the door, and none to gently.

" a key component absent in your "black" analogy is that people who are black can't hide their color."

But there's more. When blacks integrated:
1. It represented progress
2. It happened at the collegiate level, not high school
3. It was something they wanted.

In this case, it's a decision made in a vacuum, something the kids did not want, but was posted anyway, consequences be damned. These are children (under 18), and the "outing" was non-voluntary.

"and the solution for it."

But that's not a solution. It's pouring gasoline on the problem, with the plan to clean up in the aftermath, regardless what it brings. As someone charged with the stewardship of the young, this is reckless. And pretending Matthew Shepard wasn't a result of crap like this is-- at best--naive.

It seems that despite efforts to "normalize" homosexual relationships, the general attitude is negative. Why do you folks think this is so?

Why do more and more people in authority believe they have the "right" to invade the privacy of others, if it's "in their own best interest"?

And certainly no one gay should ever be outed by someone else for ANY reason, well...unless you're a practicing gay but openly condemn homosexuality. Then you're asking for it.

Saying that the gay couple is no different from the straight couples in the school shows a complete disregard for the safety and welfare of these gay people. I mean...you don't get beat up for being straight.

People have the right to keep their sexual orientation private.

This principal should be severely reprimanded.

Gay or straight, this principle exceeded the limits of the position.

Say, you racist bigots haven't fully investigated this matter. Ms Daphne Beasley is a somewhat overweight but cheerful "black woman." Give her the deference she merits based on what was her emotional, right-brained response (per the pedagogy of Rev. Wright).

Here is a link to a site which shows a picture of Ms Daphne.

Shameful example of racist bigotry, this assault on Ms Daphne. Base canards. Infamous calumnies. Now that the source has been identified, maybe some of you may reassess your initial conclusions and rationalize issue apologias for Ms Daphne's actions.

Posted by kwrx25 at 2008-05-02 03:45 PM

I'd say one could intellectually answer no to both of those questions.

Does the Johnson troll ever post anything that is not a racist rant anymore? How much is the KKK paying this polemuncher, anyway?