quote: NEW YORK, July 28 — New York City is creating the nation’s first public high school for gays, bisexuals and transgender students.The Harvey Milk High School will enroll about 100 students and open in a newly renovated building in the fall. It is named after San Francisco’s first openly gay city supervisor, who was assassinated in 1978.
“I THINK EVERYBODY feels that it’s a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday. “It lets them get an education without having to worry.”
The school is an expansion of a two-classroom public school program that began in 1984. A gay-rights youth advocacy group, the Hetrick-Martin Institute, has managed and financed the program since its inception.
The new school’s principal, William Salzman, said the school will be academically challenging and will follow mandatory English and math programs. It also will specialize in computer technology, arts and culinary arts.
State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long criticized the creation of the school.
“Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong,” Long said. “There’s no reason these children should be treated separately.”
The Hetrick-Martin Institute’s Web site says the school will give its students “an opportunity to obtain a secondary education in a safe and supportive environment. ... We believe that success requires the ability to respect and value the diverse human community.”
Hatrack, what do you think? On the one hand, it's been obvious over the last decade that gay and lesbian students are more likely to be harassed then straight students, especially in tough inner city high schools. On the other hand, will this sort of thing create a rift in society between those who are gay and those who are not? Education is fundamental to culture.
This is, of course, not affecting colleges and universities -- at least not officially. There are schools, like Smith, that are known for having a large gay population.
I'm decidedly torn on this issue, but in a way it seems like voluntary segregation...
[ July 28, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Short, scrawny, geeky kids get picked on a lot, too. I didn't get my own high school.
Anyway, isn't this a blatant violation of Title 9? Heterosexuals don't have their own schools. That's not "equal protection," is it?
Posted by Darwin (Member # 5473) on :
I plan on being the Prom Queen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Its a good idea of students are completely free to put themsleves into the school without interference from parents. At the same time it needs to be made very clear that it is not segregation or else we may see a serious shift toward isolating members of our society much like we did before the '60s.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
As long as we're at it, why not make some public high schools just for black people or Asians or Latinos? Of course, that would create a bit of a problem for your average gay Asian teen; which school should he attend? Hey, while we're at it, why not just put gays on reservations? I mean, that way they'd be safe from all those dangerous heteros and able to live however they pleased.
Posted by Darwin (Member # 5473) on :
Would they have to dress up like Indians?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The idea is that you're not forcing them. If a homosexual feels that the only way he/she can learn without being harassed is by being in a high school with other homosexuals that this might not be such a bad idea.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So, basically, if anyone feels harassed, they can have their own "public" school?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This is ludicrous. An all-gay PRIVATE school makes a certain amount of sense, but encouraging students to further marginalize themselves is just idiotic -- and an outrageous use of taxpayer monies.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
No, but when certain groups can be identified as especially high risk for harrasment then maybe they should be able to be given special environments where they can learn. It could be argued that the exceptionally smart and the learning impaired do get special treatment so that they can learn without being harrassed. At the same time it is a dangerous situation that could lead to even more widespread discrimination.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I remember desperately wanting an all lizardman high school.
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
But Slash, then you would not be at the top of the food chain. At least in Oregon you have all those ducks you can eat.
Posted by Darwin (Member # 5473) on :
And slugs.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
quote: it's been obvious over the last decade that gay and lesbian students are more likely to be harassed then straight students, especially in tough inner city high schools.
hehehehe...you mean with "thugs" and "gangstas"...where the "gangbangas" roll.
You're mistaken, I spent four years in a "tough inner city high school and that is bull. Honestly, that's not a problem. You ask me, suburban schools are where those sort of harassment problems exist.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I have to concur with TomD.
All you end up doing is delaying the harassment and abuse 4 years, while making them easy targets for discrimination because the high school name will be immediately identifiable.
The point is to stop the abuse and harassment; this is a band-aid, at best.
-Bok
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Too true. But my friends tell me that they were made fun of more in Middle School than High School. Of course our HS was really big.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: We believe that success requires the ability to respect and value the diverse human community.
And let's help these students develop that ability by creating a separate school for them.
I don't know. If they're all about celebrating diversity, they're doing a good job of making the gay community even more separate, exclusive, and "diverse." Now all the straight kids can learn about their friends who deserve complete acceptance in everyday society and who have their own high school. It's a great teaching tool for everyone.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
The timing and the motives are all wrong.
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
How is this *not* segregation?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
So this is just a High School, yes? So what age do you guys start high school? (In Australia we only have primary K-6 and high school 7-12). Cos I also kinda question how responsible it is to try and enforce sexuality roles on kids who may only be 14 or 15.
Surely it would be a better use of taxpayer money AND better for society if that money went into funding better education in schools about homosexuality and better education of teachers to prevent inadvertant discrimination.
Posted by Deidra (Member # 5455) on :
This school only postpones the hurt, I think that the sooner they deal with the "problem" of harassment the better they will be to deal with it later on in life. This school can not even be a bad aid, I feel it only makes the problem worse in the long run.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Ethics Gradient, high school here is 9-12.
The problem with the whole postponing the hurt argument is that at least theoretically people are more mature, and so are both less likely to harrass others and are more able to deal with the harrassment that exists.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Bah, "postponing the hurt" is just a nice way of saying "we'll never get rid of discrimination, so deal with it". Of course, if everyone takes that attitude, not only will discrimination never disappear or even lessen, it will probably become accepted as okay. After all, that's just life, right?
NFL, thanks. So we're talking about kids who might still be figuring a helluva lot about themselves making a decision at age 14 or so that they are gay. What the hell?!? Do hetero kids have to do this? No. They don't.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
Honestly, I agree with the plan. In highschool, you learn who you are and what you plan to do. The problem for gays is that people don't like what they represent even though those same people do the same thing; they love another person.It's just that in highschool, you can't react to the torment. If you do react, your education suffers because you'll be either suspended or expelled. After highschool, I'm not really sure what happens to you if you do react.
Geeks had their brains. Yes, they get tormented but the reason they're tortured is because those that torture them want to look good and not feel, 'under' these 'ugly dweebs'. Gays though, they're only tortured because of the way they are and not because they make someone else look bad or something. They get harrassed for 'loving' someone and I believe they should be allowed to do that without disruptions.
Posted by Deidra (Member # 5455) on :
If people are not exposed to homosexuals then they are unable to understand how to be around them. "maturity" comes with experience not age.
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
How will segregating gay students lessen or get rid of discrimination? Isn't segregating them saying we'll never get rid of it?
The whole idea is ridiculous.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I just think you underestimate how much 14 year olds already know about themselves, Ethics Gradient.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Let's be clear about one thing: bullies pick on people because they can. You can say that gays get beat up for different reasons than nerds in high school, but I have never seen any evidence of that. If a bully sees an opportunity to bully someone, he will.
And aside from that, what difference does it make what the reason for the bruises is? A black eye, a fat lip, a laceration from having rocks thrown at you, getting spit on, getting called names, these things hurt the same to everyone.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Also the purpose is not to lessen discrimination but to enable homosexuals to have a good learning environment.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Maeth, so do you set gay kids up as being so different, so strange, so not like every other kid that they need their own school? How does that help them to be a part of society or society accept them? So what happens after school? Do they go to a predominantly gay college? Do they get a job in a predominantly gay industry (is there one)? Do they live in a predominantly gay suburb? And what happens to the other 95% of the population? How do they learn to accept homosexuality? No, I don't think it helps. It's a stop-gap solution. It says "well, gay kids get bullied at school so lets take them out of school" rather than "gay kids get bullied at school, so let's work hard to make sure that kids are educated from kindergarten that being gay is ok and that teachers never discriminate on the basis of sexuality".
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
I agree with NFL.
It's not always bruises, Saxon. If something goes out of hand, 'the fun' goes out of hand, who know what might happen.
Yes, maturity comes with experience but if you're concerned for someone's education, their reactions towards how they're treated can affect their education. Even for other things, not including education, like sports. Would you want a gay person to be on your team for some coaches do not? Do you want a gay to be changing in the same lockerroom as you? Not everyone gets treated fairly.
Also, are you saying that the disabled should also be treated equally? I'm not saying the gays are disabled, I'm just saying that if the disabled were treated the same as others, they would also get bullied or pitied. If everyone got treated equally there'd be a lot of suffering.
Anyhow, why not experiment with the idea?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
absolutely outrageous.
If people think this is good for these kids, then why dont they go ahead and re-segregate us? Let blacks have their high schools, and whites have theirs. Come to think of it - let's go ahead and split them by economics too. All the kids with parents whose per-capita income is below $50,000 get their own school where they won't get intimidated by "rich kids"
Separating people is saying "we can't exist together, it's better if we're separate." But then the same group stands up and says "We want to be treated like everyone else!"
"You do? How so? You don't want to go to school with the rest of us."
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
No, it should give them at least some pride for who they are and not let the society get to them because of their differences. If they're together with their own 'kind' it should at least encourage them that they are not alone in such a discriminating world. We're all different, all strange but some of us learn to accept the diversity. Some of us disagree and try and make another person unstrange and undifferent. Yet, if these people experience what it is to feel proud of who you are without disruptions, isn't that good?
This shouldn't let them feel they are hiding from reality, just showing them a certain way to stay true to themselves. Of course they're going to get criticized out of school. They're stil going to be bothered, they're still going to be discriminated but you shouldn't let that affect their way of finding themselves.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
quote: Come to think of it - let's go ahead and split them by economics too. All the kids with parents whose per-capita income is below $50,000 get their own school where they won't get intimidated by "rich kids"
Isn't that why public schools are for, while private schoolers have to pay for education/'safety'? There is always something that classifies someone.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:It's not always bruises, Saxon. If something goes out of hand, 'the fun' goes out of hand, who know what might happen.
I don't understand what you mean here.
Mae, I know you mean well, but I think you're a bit misguided. If we treated disabled people the same they'd get bullied or pitited? I'm sorry, but disabled people are probably the most singled out, made fun of group that exists in school. And even when they are not actively made fun of, they are the most isolated and tend to have the fewest friends outside of the other disabled students. Very few people in our society are capable of interacting normally with a disabled person, even fewer when you're talking about kids.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Actually, I think I have a very realistic idea of 14 year old kids. I don't think kids that age are prepared to definte their sexuality identity - for Pete's sake, they're not even allowed to have sex and find out what they like. Can you explain exactly what the difference is between "lessening discrimination" and "having a good learning environment"? It seems to me that what you're saying is "it's ok to hate these kids because they're gay, so let's just chuck 'em all together in a special school so they still learn stuff." Why not actually try and prevent discrimination? For example, blacks are still discriminated against in the US... but nowhere near as much as they were 30 years ago. Why? Education, integration, anti-discrimination classes for teachers, etc. So, the answer for gay kids is obviously segregation...
I understand that this is all being done with the best intentions of the kids at heart. However, I think it will be productive in the short term (kids avoid descrimination / "get a better learning environment") and immensely counter-productive in the longer term (i.e. the minute they leave high school).
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
For you, maybe Saxon, but others think differently and try and have the public interact with them. Yet when they do, there are those that abuse the time they have with a disabled person and hurt the person even more. Also, people always will pity disabled people because we feel we're more capable than them.
In schools, or the schools I've been to, they try and interact the disabled with the other students. The only reason they're treated as well is because of pity. Do these same people pity gays?
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
quote: I don't think kids that age are prepared to definte their sexuality identity - for Pete's sake, they're not even allowed to have sex and find out what they like.
Does it take sex to realize that you like the same gender as your own?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
quote:If they're together with their own 'kind' it should at least encourage them that they are not alone in such a discriminating world. We're all different, all strange but some of us learn to accept the diversity.
Mae, I understand what you're trying to say here. And it really is a good sentiment. However, I think you are totally wrong about the way to achieve self-confidence and an equal, harmonious society. Yes, absolutely homosexual and lesbian teenagers shouldn't be discriminated against. They shouldn't feel less because of their sexual orientation. However, they also shouldn't be shut away from everyone else, locked up in a small world which not only HELPS the outside world (the rest of their generation, especially) develop strong feelings against them but also prevents them from having contact with the rest of the world. It seems all nice and happy-happy on the surface. When I first read the article I went "hey, great!". Then I actually thought about it. No, it's a stop-gap. It side steps a problem in society. It avoids blame, it lets everyone NOT deal with the fact that discrimination exists. It will cause more problems for the kids it tries to help than having them in the same schools as everyone else... with a positive message about homosexuality.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Mae, no it doesn't take sex. However, if we believe that teenagers aren't allowed to have sex until a certain age then we shouldn't force them to completely define their sexual orientation until that age either.
That comment is simply putting things in perspective.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
It's just highschool. They'll have friends from middle school who aren't like they are. This highschool is their choice, they don't have to go if they feel they can survive this behavior they're given. Is this idea preventing them from going to public places AFTER school? There's summer, winter holidays... School isn't the whole year or the whole day. What if they get criticized at home? They need some place to feel a bit more..free.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
If they choose to be gay at a young age, then they choose it. They can go to that highschool and see if they really believe it's what they want to be without having people force them to mold themselves into someone they don't intend to be at first.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Belle, do you think vouchers will cause more clumping by particular group, leading to the exact situation you see in this thread?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Let's try this situation:
The city opens up a new high school just for black students, but keeps all other public schools open to all students. The choice to go to this new school is entirely up to the students and/or their parents, the rationale being that if they could get away from racism, they would have a better learning environment.
Is this a good idea?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There are at least a few black high schools with an afrocentric curriculum. I'm pretty sure that they're, to one degree or another, taxpayer funded. Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
It's not a good idea nor is it a bad idea. If a parent feels that this enviroment is best for his/her child, then they'll feel that way. If the child is still getting an education, in an enviroment the parent or even the student wishes to be taught in, shouldn't they at least be given that privilege? It's the decision of the person and some group is letting that person decide wether this school is best for him/her to learn in or a different school. It all depends on choices.
Yet, there would then be many ways to make different schools out of different classifications, making it a bad idea.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And as far as that goes, there have been a ton of all-girl or all-boy schools. I believe there have been at least a few studies that demonstrate that boys and girls learn better when segregated by sex.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Storm Saxon,
Most of those schools are predominantly black because they are in predominantly black neighborhoods. They do not "choose" so to speak but are forced by conditions.
The situation with a school for the "sexually orientated challenged" is that they are choosing to seperate themselves using the taxpayers money.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Storm, are they black high schools because of their location or because they were created just for black students?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Perhaps teaching some history of homosexuality and queer culture studies - and offering some specialised courses in later years - would be an excellent way to start countering discrimination against gays.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would have to go google the whole high school with the 'black curriculum' thing and I don't have time to do that. So, I will concede the point.
Rather than argue that point, what do you guys think about segregating by sex at taxpayer expense?
And, again, if you support vouchers, won't you end up with the exact situation that you have now in any case? Shouldn't parents be able to choose to send their students to all-girl, or all-gay, or all-boy schools? Isn't that what school choice is all about?
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
Some of them were intended to be black only, if they are old schools that is. Which is then why it's in a 'black' neighborhood. my elementary was mainly a black only school because it was in a black-dominant area and because it was built in a time when everything was divided, or more divided than now.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
Then again, shouldn't it be the student who's making the decision?
..ok nevermind, before I get myself in an even more messier situation..
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Maethoriell,
quote: Some of them were intended to be black only, if they are old schools that is. Which is then why it's in a 'black' neighborhood. my elementary was mainly a black only school because it was in a black-dominant area and because it was built in a time when everything was divided, or more divided than now.
Partially true. Most of the time when there was a 'black' school, whites moved away and forced blacks to live there.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
I guess...I wasn't born and there to witness it, just read about it..
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I've never actually heard of a single-sex public school. Are they even allowed to exist? That is, I understood that a public school that was intended to be single-sex would still have to admit students of both sexes if they should so desire.
And the question isn't whether the schools were originally intended to be segregated back before Brown vs. Board of Education, it's whether they are intended to be so today.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, Potemkyn or saxon75, if it's o.k.(I know you didn't say it as o.k., but you didn't argue that it wasn't) to make a public school have an afrocentric curriculum if the area is predominantly black, does this mean that if the parents of gay children all got together and moved to a, let's say, empty school district, then you would support a high school for gay people?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
saxon75, my slant is that it's not necessarily that the schools are public as much as that they recieve taxpayer money. So, you have the exact general result that started this thread--a school geared towards one type of person payed for by taxpayer money. I guess I should have mentioned that already. Pardon.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to go. Sorry.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
No, but it would be one because only gays moved to the school district and it was empty before so...
But your point is inherently wrong because it approaches the problem from the wrong direction. Black schools are there because of the situation, very rarely because of choice.
These gay schools would be a choice not a product of oppression.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
First off, I'm not completely clear on what you mean by "afrocentric." If you mean that the curriculum focuses on or includes extra information about black history and/or culture, then I don't see a huge problem with an afrocentric curriculum at a school with a high WASP population. I would prefer to see a more multi- or inter-cultural aspect, though.
Frankly, I don't see how you can stop the local culture from influencing the curriculum of a school, and so long as it doesn't promote bigotry and does meet the same education standards as any other school, I don't think it's really a bad thing. I know it's a little different, but my school district's K-12 curriculum included a lot on local history and culture, and I think I'm the better for it.
Regarding school funding, it's my understanding that almost all schools receive some amount of state and/or federal funding. And really, so long as they are not promoting Bad Things, why shouldn't they? Specialized or selective enrollment schools, though, receive a lot less funding than a normal public school would. At least I think that's how it works.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This school would be a tool of repression. Suddenly, instead of "okay, the gay kids at this school are all beat up far more than anyone else, what on earth is wrong here?" It becomes "okay, another gay kid got beaten up here, time to pressure his parents into sending him to the gay school so we don't have to deal with the issue."
It's presented as a school gay kids have a choice to go to, but it will become a place where gay kids who do not choose to go there are terrorized.
Bloomberg has long supported many issues near and dear to the glbt community, but I fear his support in this case will have negative consequences.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Storm, I'm not sure I see your voucher angle. How will vouchers create the same situation?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Icarus, if vouchers can be used to pay for any 'private' school, then it simply becomes a matter of starting a school strictly for glbt students.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But your point is inherently wrong because it approaches the problem from the wrong direction. Black schools are there because of the situation, very rarely because of choice.
These gay schools would be a choice not a product of oppression.
Naw, my point is completely valid. Your argument, correct me if I am wrong, is that because this 'gay school' is exclusionary and payed for by public money, then it shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I've rebutted this by showing that there are already plenty of schools that are already segregated and payed for, at least in part or in full, by public money. If they can do it, why not the gay people?
Your point about choice over circumstance is so far meaningless since you haven't supported why it should have any meaning.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Interesting. I don't know. Rather than addressing the issue of whether it's a legal use of public money, I'll just throw my 2˘ in on whether or not it's a good idea . . . with the people who think it isn't.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Mae-two things. one-what makes you so sure it's a choice to be homosexual? and the second...why can't they be proud to be who they are with heterosexual people around?
You don't solve a problem by shunting it to one side. You solve it by confronting it, by changing people's attitudes. There is a MAJOR problem in that many people have unreasonable prejudice toward homosexuals. How are they going to learn differently if they're never confronted with the problem, never shown how wrong they are? I went to the safest high school in the city-but I sure saw plenty of the prejudice people have, after joining the GSA. It frightens me to think that if it was that bad at BRMHS, which is the safest most tolerant school, how bad it must be at other ones. It needs to be changed, people need to see that homosexuals are people just like any others, not someone to be feared, not an evil entity you need to get rid of-just a person. And that change will not be brought about by making a sepeerate high school for them. It will be brought about by making such prejudice unacceptable in society, just as racial prejudice is being made unacceptable.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
I'm not so sure, Toretha, for I've only confronted 2 gay people that were actually confident about it.
I'll explain later, my mom's questioning exactly what Hatrack is, at the moment.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I love how we force diversity on students in college these days only to have them graduate and go back to hanging out with people with similar tastes and lifestyles.
I've had friends of all different sexual orientations, dated women of all races(and all sexual orientations, oddly enough)...
Because we've had similar interests. A lot in common.
Am I the only one who doesn't think that's diversity?
Why do we let such superficial things as skin color and sexual preference define "diverse"?
Anyway, back on the topic...
The comparison of homosexuals to blacks is a bit flawed. I think we're in a pretty unprecedented situation. This is a whole subset of kids that has different needs--Separate bathrooms, locker rooms, sex ed. classes, maybe even separate gym classes. Are public schools willing to become places these kids can get what they need? It's not as easy as adding handicapped ramps and lowering door handles this time.
How many generations of gay teens are going to have to be shunned/ridiculed/beaten to a pulp/driven to suicide/forced to stay in the closet until they're old enough to purchase a gun before we learn to accept them? There has to be a better way to solve the problem than sacrificing them. And while we're solving it....here, kids--have your own school where you can be yourself.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think the biggest problem is naming. By which I mean, if we were just discussing high school students we would not make any divisions, they were just students. But now we have to name "the gays" and "the others", we have to put a label on these kids. Because if you spend so much time in a place that is based on your sexual identity, it can really define you. Most high school students are a whole lot of things before they are straight/gay; but now these students are being defined by everyone around them as (for example) "gay track star". Or a "gay acadmeic", they can't just be a track start or a scholor, they have to be gay first. It's this type of labeling that can really set back social progress.
Hobbes Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I disagree. I think in high school and beyond, being homosexual is as big a part of who you are as being male or female is. And I think many are proud to see themselves labeled as "gay [whatever]".
I think maybe we could start being tolerable to gays by, um, making it legal for them to exist. Yeah. That would be a good start.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think so Frisco. I've found that most people who define themselves as gays (as in gay is at the front of all of their titles) generally act out every single stereotype of being gay they've ever heard of. I always get the impression that they're acting when I talk to them. Not that my experience is proof or anything, but for me it seems that most gays (gays to me meaning homosexuals of both gender) that really are gay don't define themselves by their sexuality. Certainly it is a big part of who they are, but they can't be described simply by their sexual prefrence.
[ July 29, 2003, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
In the interest of being fair, I think we need to create special separate schools for sexually active teenagers and for virgins as well. As we all know, sex is the defining characteristic of all humans. Think of the labels, the poor treatment etc that the sexually active get. Labels such as "slut" and "hoochie" abound. And even worse is the predicament of the prudes! Imagine trying to study while all the students around you are engaged in traditional courtship behavior! The virginal student is in dailt danger of losing their protected status as long as they must co-exist with their sexually predatory colleagues.
Our society will never be fair until all students have a chance to study and learn with other students of like sexual predilection!
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
It may be worth pointing out that this is New York City, not Nashville Tennessee.
And even though I disagree with the creation of this school, I need to point out that voluntary separation does not equal forced segragation. Many communities create public school systems that try to cater to individual student needs, whatever those may be.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I do have mixed feelings whether or not this is the "right way to go about things," but I definitely see the advantages.
Things that haven't been addressed yet: -I'm pretty sure they'll accept straight people, no problem. However, these straight people have to be supportive of LGBT's. Seems reasonable. If this school ends up having an excellent curriculum, it will probably become a sort of magnet school.
-Teachers. It's not just abuse from students. A great deal of the injustice is in the fact that there are homophobic teachers. These teachers treat LGBT students differently, and can really harm the education path for these kids. In most cities, it is unacceptable to show bias against one's race. But unfortunately, in many many schools, it is still acceptable to show your disdain for an LGBT student. Remember that gay teacher? That teacher was scorned by her peers.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
How would you know they're acting though Hobbes? All gays don't have to follow all of those stereotypes. The use of the stereotypes is to notice if one is gay or not.
To me a gay boy is one who likes to mess around with hair, wear 'tight' clothing and has too good of a posture that it seems abnormal. (It's as if saying all male hairstylists are gay...they might be though. ) I don't live in New York so I don't know how people are treated in schools and out of it. It all depends on your surroundings and New York seems like the best spot to experiment with this idea.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
There are just so many problems with this.
Giving the option of opting out of the regular school system allows a group that is somewhat ostracized (nowhere to near the levels it used to be) to selectively remove themselves from the mainstream. No one should be made to "conform" to the accepted norms, but one should have experience with the mainstream of modern society. High school should prepare someone for adult life and let's face it folks, it's a scary world out there at times.
Also, what about the gay student that chooses NOT to attend the all gay high school? Won't they suffer the possibility of being ostracized by two groups: their current classmates and the other gay students who did choose to go to the new high school?
Sadly, this is another knee-jerk reaction in our society, a society wherein no one is embraced until they can figure out how they are the victim of something. Right meaning folks want to make a safe place for special people where they can live their lives the way they choose. From the outside and the beginning, it looks like a good idea. Down the road, problems always arise. Take a look at Indian Reservations or the state of Israel.
In a vacuum, it looks fine, but in actuality there are tons of potential problems. Want to do some gay bashing? Head on over the Harvey Milk HS, they've got all you can bash. How will the surrounding community react to having all those gay kids together in one place in their own back yards? Trust me, someone will shout about the evils of this and how it ruined their neighborhood. Think of the busing issues: what if a poor gay kid from Harlem wants to head across town to this school? What if all of the best teachers decide to head to this one school, stripping quality educators from the system at large?
And finally, why should a school system be involved in the decision of a child's sexual orientation. Isn't this a big "outing" of students?
Sadly, the school system needed to looking at making safe learning environments, with equal educational opportunities, for all students. Educators need to stand up for individual students rather than try to pigeon-hole them into "safe" places. It's better for us all if society adjusts rather than sequesters.
Edit to add: Exactly right Jacare. Why is it that so many folks in our society wish to identify themselves purely by sexual orientation? Whatever happened to being talented, skilled, thoughtful, energetic or other things that take personal effort and character?
I've never had a problem with someone because they were gay. I've had little interest, however, in folks who were ONLY gay. Why get to know someone with only one dimension?
[ July 29, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
If they're opening this school to give gay students an opportunity to have a harrassment-free education, shouldn't they instead open a school for anyone who is being harrassed/bullied? Shouldn't geeky kids who get picked on have an opportunity to attend school harrassment-free? And disabled kids? And minorities? And whatever other kids may be targeted?
The whole thing is ridiculous. It really ticks me off how schools think they're solving problems when really they're just treating symptoms instead of the cause.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Take a look at Indian Reservations or the state of Israel.
No, no, no. Again, I think it needs to be pointed out that this isn't anywhere NEAR segragation.
Many of you are reacting as if New Yorkers were going to start hauling homosexuals away in UPS trucks and shove them all into the the gay school. Not so. They aren't going to make students take a gay test.
It seems to me that the school will exist so that certain homosexual individuals that personally feel--of their own volition--that their education experience is being hindered by homophobic conditions will have a place to go.
That is not segragation. It's the magnet-school equivalent of French Club vs. Football team. The true sadness here is that anyone would feel that such an option is necessary.
The benefits of such a school could be that instead of growing up in an environment where your very identity was shunned, you could be around supportive and understanding students and staff that could help you explore a better awareness of your self. The negatives of such a school is that you'd be taking that very necessary attitude away from the very place where it is needed most.
Posted by Taygeta (Member # 5337) on :
Let's turn this around, for the sake of argument. What if some people wanted to start a school for only straight students? (I don't want girls hitting on me... it's disruptive to my education.) That would never get set up because people would be yelling "discrimination!" and "segregation!" Oh, and it would be detrimental to the students who go there because they would not learn to offer oblations to the god of diversity. (::slight tangent:: I don't see diversity as an end-at-all-costs, or even a necessary end. I see it as a useful means to various good ends. But I digress.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In theory, this is horrifying.
But...
Gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate. Lots of things should take place, and this is not an ideal solution, but I find it hard to condemn it when there are so many teenagers that are hurting. I don't like this solution, but at least someone is doing something concrete about it.
[ July 29, 2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Taygeta, your flipside example doesn't work. The school is supposed to be a refuge for students that feel they are already being discriminated against in some way. I've never met a heterosexual who felt that they were being discriminated against purely on the basis of their heterosexuality.
Unless you interpret an environment where students attracted to each other in the same school as a discriminatory environment. That's a hard sell.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: To me a gay boy is one who likes to mess around with hair, wear 'tight' clothing and has too good of a posture that it seems abnormal.
Frisco is a gay boy?
Oh the Horror!
quote: They aren't going to make students take a gay test.
So what if you're gay, and then one of these magical Christian witch doctors comes along and converts you back to a heterosexual? Do you get thrown out of school?
Posted by Taygeta (Member # 5337) on :
Caleb, that's not my point. My point is that, for better or for worse, we have a double standard. While setting up a separate school is "ok" for gay people, it is completely unacceptable for straight people.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
And?
Setting up urinals in public restrooms is okay for boys and not okay for girls. That is a double standard, too. You're the one missing the point. Double standards are precisely the reason that people felt this school needed to exist in the first place.
_________________________________
The silly thing about your point is that the reason it's not acceptable to have a Hetero High is because there's absolutely no need for it.
UNLESS of course you built Hetero High for the express purpose of keeping Homos OUT of the school. That would be different. But it still wouldn't matter because I doubt that the new Homo High will be discriminating against sexual orientation when it comes to enrollment.
[ July 29, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But if they let in heterosexual students, then what's the point of the school? To keep anti-homosexual heterosexual students out? How is that not discrimination?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But see, the heteros won't have stars on their bellies.
Yeah, I hate this solution. What else could we do for those teenagers who are struggling with this, though?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Discrimination in and of itself is neither wrong nor illegal. For instance, that girls cannot use the guys' bathroom is form of discrimination (felt particularly during show intermissions). And vice versa.
Yet I doubt there is one among us who would argue that this practice is either wrong or illegal.
Arguing that something is discriminatory doesn't mean much, unless you can argue that the effects of the discrimination are wrong, harmful, or both.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It is necessary to discriminate between alternatives in order to act at all. It is natural to do so.
In fact, we need to discriminate between instances when it is okay to discriminate and when it is not.
The arguments (usually from conservative religious types, but conservatives in general have "glommed" onto this tactic) about supposedly calling everyone's bluff about discrimination are just silly. I call these things "tolerate my intolerance." They basically are saying that if we want a tolerant society, we have to be tolerant of bigotry as much as we are tolerant of things that they (the conservatives) consider aberrant behavior.
On the face of it, it seems an appealing argument. A society that prides itself on not being discriminatory would essentially fall into inaction because it could never even tell right from wrong, and that's the point the conservatives are trying to make in their clumsy pedantic way.
But it begs the real issue. When we find victims of unjust discrimination in our society, what should we do to address those wrongs? In some instances, we find the only way to right a wrong is to create a new imbalance in favor of the victims. Sometimes we opt to segregate in order to protect or nurture -- business set-asides for historically underutilized business are as much an act of segregation as is setting up neighborhoods and schools along ethnic lines.
But, really, we know that there's only one right way -- that is to stop the discord at the level of discourse. If racism were just an opinion, with no consequences in the world of opportunity, then no-one should be stopped from stating racist viewpoints. But the fact is that racism is harmful to the ones who are at the receiving end of it. It isn't just opinions, it creates barriers and that's bad.
Just so with other forms of discrimination based on things that OUGHT NOT TO MATTER. And isn't that the key? What should it matter if a soldier is attracted to same-sex partners if he or she is good at killing the enemy or working well in a cooridinated army? What should it matter if a high schooler is gay or straight?
But harrassment over such issues is frequent and serious enough of a problem that people of good will ultimately agree that SOMETHING needs to be done. Segregation is one option. Strict enforcement of anti-harrassment rules is another good technique. Heck, we have zero tolerance for aspirin, why not bullying?
But the bottom line is that no matter what we do, it will not be perfect. It will be an experiment that, if it seems to work, we'll repeat elsewhere. If it doesn't work, we'll either alter or abandon it.
Constructive alternative suggestions are always welcome. Complaining about how we should have set asides for the majority is just missing the point -- usually on purpose, it seems to me.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Well said.
I personally wouldn't want my own gay children to go to this new Homo High unless they truly felt like they were in emotional or physical danger in their regular school. Or maybe if they just really really wanted to go there. I'd rather they do their best to be themselves in a diverse atmosphere like Hetero High, but having the option there is more than understandable.
Posted by Taygeta (Member # 5337) on :
quote:But harrassment over such issues is frequent and serious enough of a problem that people of good will ultimately agree that SOMETHING needs to be done. Segregation is one option. Strict enforcement of anti-harrassment rules is another good technique. Heck, we have zero tolerance for aspirin, why not bullying?
This is yet another issue which cannot be solved by any sort of legislation or rules. (Can be helped, but not solved.) The only real solution is for each person to be nice. Not necessarily accept what everyone else does (i.e., don't condone their sinful behavior), but recognize that everyone, just by virute of being a person, is worth just as much as anyone else.
::sits around waiting for Utopia:: ... ::Utopia still isn't here yet:: ... Oh, well. In the mean time, I agree with your strict enforcement of anti-harrassment rules. I cannot see how self-segregation will ultimately help lower animosity, however.
edit: I am not actually advocating a straight-only school. I was merely using that to point out the double-standard.
[ July 29, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Taygeta ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Taygeta, this just isn't a double standard. You have to see that. It would only qualify for double-standard if we forced ALL homosexuals to seek other education (and of course you don't know that they won't let heteros into this new school), and EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE, it still wouldn't be a double standard because you WOULD have an all-heterosexual school as a result.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
They shouldn't use public money. It should be a private school.
And what they should do is declare it some type of Gay Religious school that way no one could claim any type of segregation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I am not actually advocating a straight-only school. I was merely using that to point out the double-standard.
I refer you to my previous post. I believe that the argument that says correcting societies injustices through discriminatory practices sets up a "double-standard" is really a smoke screen. To me, it usually signals that the person likes the status quo, doesn't see anything wrong with discriminating against a particular class or group, and doesn't want to address the wrongs because they think they either aren't that big a deal, or they are well earned and justified.
Instead of coming out and saying "Hey, you know what, I kind of like a society where it's okay to beat up homosexuals because they are aberrant little snots" people say things like "well, they aren't getting any worse treatment than anyone else." or "why should we have special protections for them? The laws we have are good enough."
The problem is that those laws aren't good enough and they haven't proven to be effective or enforceable, or something...or the problem wouldn't exist.
I don't particular favor a gay lifestyle myself, but I figure if someone pays taxes then they deserve to have the same benefits from society that I do, and everyone else does. I view society's benefices as a community resource, not something that only should go to those who go along with the mainstream.
And if a society can't protect its own members, then the rest of the benefits of that society are meaningless.
Look to places in South America, where the haves must live behind iron fences and hire 24-hour guards because they suck up so much of what their society has to offer. They set up the inequities, and now are imprisoned by them.
I don't want to see America go that route, where those who benefit from society do so at the expense of the general welfare and ultimately set up a situation in which too many people have too little to lose by just going after the elite and killing them.
And the place it starts is in our willingness to bend a little in the opposite direction, to ensure that the people who get the short end of the stick have some things that definitely and obvious break in their favor.
It's not a perfect way of doing things, granted. But it is sure a lot better than just sitting on the pile of comforts and saying "well, if they want to be happy, they should conform."
From their perspective, ultimately, eliminating the comfort of others might end up being the only option left to them. And then we'll all be unhappy.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Bob,
My opinion that this school is a bad idea is not based on any desire to see gays either conform or continue to take abuse. I don't think you think I hold such a desire, either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
saxon,
what would you instead? Whether or not you agree with the lifestyle, it is a wrenching experience to be a teenager coming to grips with it.
Studies consistently show that a high percentage of gay and lesbian youth (25-30%) attempt suicide.
In a study of 686 gay men, 337 heterosexual men, 293 lesbian women and 140 heterosexual women - 35% of gay men and 38% of lesbian women considered suicide. 8% gay men and 23% lesbian women had attempted - compared to only 3% heterosexual men and 14% heterosexual women. The majority of the suicide attempts were before the age of 20, nearly 1/3 of all attempts were before age 17. [1] In a study of 5,000 gay men and women - 35% of gay men and 38% of gay women had seriously considered or attempted suicide. [2] In a study of 60 gay males age 16-22, 32% had attempted suicide. [3] In a study of homeless youth entering a shelter, 65% of the gay youth had attempted suicide as compared to 19% of the heterosexual youth. [4] In a study of 137 gay and bisexual males, 41 had attempted suicide (31%). 18 made multiple attempts. The mean age of those attempting was 15.5 years old. [5]
I don't agree with the separate school, but what can we do instead?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I don't endorse anyone being abused, and I don't pass judgment on people based on things they can't help (sexuality being one of those things, I believe). I was bullied pretty constantly from elementary school into high school. There were stretches where I got beat up every day. Funny, bullies are always smart enough to leave bruises where they don't show. Sometimes I got beat up right in front of teachers (gym teachers must think you're getting exercise that way). I had to deal with the depression that comes with that; I considered suicide, too.
Why did this stop happening to me? One day in my sophomore year of high school, I had had enough, and despite everything I had been taught, I started fighting back. My problems more or less ceased. I was still small, still smart, still Japanese, still a jerk, but I was no longer an easy target.
Bullies will always pick on people if they can. We teach our kids that they should never hit back, they should tell the authorities. Anyone who has ever been in this situation knows that doing so only makes the situation worse. You cannot avoid people like that by running away from confrontation.
I'm not saying we should start teaching kids to fight at the drop of a hat, I'm just saying that I don't think that teaching kids to run away from their problems is the right idea. I also don't think that creating a separate school addresses the real problem. I don't know what the best way is to teach kids to accept others for their differences, but I do know that when bullies see their victims run away, they see it as a victory and they continue doing it.
But the problem is not limited to bullies in this case, obviously. There are plenty of people that would never hit a gay but would have no problems calling them names, excluding them, or at least giving them dirty looks when they thought they could. The problem now is that no matter what kids may learn in school, if the parents are teaching them that gays are bad, it's tough to undo that. Tough, but not impossible.
The key, in my opinion, is not merely in education (which is important), but integration. I know that's a dirty word these days, especially in education, but that's what needs to happen. The way I see it, mixing black kids in with white kids and allowing the kids to see what the others were really like, and make up their own minds at a young age was what really started to break down color barriers.
Admittedly, it's different with sexuality. Most people don't even start expressing sexuality until middle school at youngest, and at that point many prejudices are already deeply ingrained. But the fact remains that you cannot expect or even hope for successful integration by practicing segregation, not even voluntary segregation. Combining integrated schools with education/propaganda seems like the only way, to me. Some people are unreachable, some are already enlightened, but many are on the fence, and even as late as high school can be nudged in the right direction. These people, once convinced, would not teach their kids to hate gays, and so on. It's a long road, but changes like this, where the bigotry is so deeply rooted cannot be expected to happen quickly.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
As far as the topic at hand goes, I don't think creating a separate high school is the optimum solution. However, considering all the factors, I'm not against this idea. As at least one case in my general geographical area shows, it isn't just the students that are the problem when gay teens get harrassed in school. Sometimes, some of the teachers are doing the harassing as well. I think there should be some sort of alternative for gay students who run into these problems, besides having to go to continuation school (where they are labeled the problem just by having to go to a "problem kids'" school) or having to go on home study.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
quote: I've only confronted 2 gay people that were actually confident about it.
Mae....why do I find that choice of words kinda ominous? confronted?
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
..blah..
*meaning uncertainty*
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Toretha...I was thinking the same thing.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Combining integrated schools with education/propaganda seems like the only way, to me. Some people are unreachable, some are already enlightened, but many are on the fence, and even as late as high school can be nudged in the right direction. These people, once convinced, would not teach their kids to hate gays, and so on.
The problem, saxon, is that while you're mostly right about a long-term solution rather than a short-term solution, you couldn't add homo-friendly curriculum to just any public school. We would have a Scopes trial all over again.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
You're probably right. I know I don't have all the answers. I guess I just get a little touchy when I feel that people are insinuating that I'm some kind of closet bigot or that I'm insensitive to or misunderstanding of teenage pain.
Posted by Taygeta (Member # 5337) on :
quote:I believe that the argument that says correcting societies injustices through discriminatory practices sets up a "double-standard" is really a smoke screen. To me, it usually signals that the person likes the status quo, doesn't see anything wrong with discriminating against a particular class or group, and doesn't want to address the wrongs because they think they either aren't that big a deal, or they are well earned and justified.
I agree that setting up a school for homosexuals will shield them from harassment while they are there, which is a good intention, but it's a small bandaid for a gaping wound. My reason for disliking the double standard is not because I like the way things are; it's because I don't think it fixes the real problem. In the short run it can address symptoms of the problem. In the long run, it contributes to the problem by furthering the idea that they need to be separated and that peaceful coexistence is too difficult to achieve. It also, incidentally, gives bigots a bit more ammo: "You <expletive>, why don't you go to your <expletive> gay school where you belong?!" etc.
Double standards are not the way to deal with this issue. Stronger enforcement of anti-bullying and anti-harassment laws is a better way. Besides, such enforcement would not only help gay people but also scrawny geeks, loners, goody-two-shoes, and everyone else who gets harassed. I don't see any way to legislate or enforce that everyone simply be nice, so I leave that to personal responsibility. I leave it to the rules and law to keep the harassers and bullies in check.
I wish that I was more eloquent and better able to clearly express what I think on the subject.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The problem with more enforcement and harsher punishments for bullies and harassers is that it won't stop them. Anyone who has ever been bullied will tell you that when the bully gets punished, he comes back twice as mad and wants to punish you for getting him in trouble. He will also probably feel more justified in his bigotry.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Right. And bullies aren't even the root of the problem anyway. They will pick on anyone different, not just homosexuals. Dealing with bullies is an entirely different issue altogether, one that needs addressing with discipline rather than separation.
The real issue is that these kids need a safe place to learn while being taught that who they are is ok, and unfortunately we just can't do that in front of heterosexual kids because their PARENTS would cry bloody murder if they were conservative enough to care. Start teaching that homosexuality is an okay lifestyle in public school? Probably not in this decade. But in the mean time we can put them somewhere where they won't be offending anyone or getting beaten, and train them together how to deal with a world that doesn't always accept them. Yet.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The real issue is that these kids need a safe place to learn while being taught that who they are is ok
I agree with this, but I think that protection from harrasment is only part of the issue. I agree that being able to like yourself is another part of the issue. One thing that I don't see being mentioned, though, is that of being able to love someone else. I believe that without this high school, glbt teenagers will not have a place where they can date and learn what it means to be in love and in a relationship. They will not have a place where they can love and be loved by other people (outside their family). Since they are teenagers, where else are they really going to do these things but out in the public eye?
You might say that they could hook up and express affection in private, but holy hell, how would you have felt having to do that as an expectation when you were growing up? That you have to act towards the person you love most in the world as if they were just a friend? That you couldn't even hold their hand, accept in private, without fear of ridicule and shame and hate? Bob knows it's friggin hard enough going through the whole dating process when you're a teen (unless you're a T_Smith or something ). Throwing shame and fear into the mix doesn't really seem to me to be a viable way of helping people to grow up to be healthy individuals, and isn't that what school is supposed to do?
I agree that running away from your problems is not the answer, but this ignores a basic truth. Children, young adults, shouldn't have to face ridicule and hate as a matter of course when they are growing up. I have to confess that the fact that some of you were saying that because some other people get 'picked on' (what an innocent phrase for such a wretched experience), they should, too, is a little irritating to me. I'm glad that as the thread progressed, people killed this foolishness and started to emphasize the fact that no one should have to put up with bullying and hate.
Young people should absolutely be given every opportunity to love other people their age without fear of ridicule. I think learning how to do so is a foundation for being a healthy person. Almost nothing else comes close to the importance of learning this vital task. Currently, I don't think glbt teens really have a place to do this. I don't think it's fair to ask them to be the soldiers in a social war that they may not be prepared, or even want to, fight. That's why I support the idea of a Harvey Milk High. Once the teens graduate, they will still have to go out in the world. They will have to function in the world while they are going to the high school, but Jesus Christ, shouldn't there be one place in the world where you can be accepted while you are growing up?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I think the dissenters are speaking in silence. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Someone earlier on the thread said more Gay history was in order, so I present these links on the begining of the modern Gay and Lesbian rights movements. Stonewall riots.wikipedia's entry for Stonewall riots.What a weird story--SWAT teams and cops held at bay by drag-queen chorus lines. The death and mourning of Judy Garland is cited as a reason behind the riots. I'm sorry, but I find that hilarious. 15 years ago when my brother took me on a walking tour of Manhattan, the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village was a stop. I didn't believe him about Judy. He also took me to Grant's Tomb. Anybody that can answer the famous trivia question "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" wins a cookie.
As far as the thread topic, I think the school will be an interesting experiment. As it's only going to have 100 students, I think it's premature to come out against it. If it were being rolled out across the country I'd have a lot more problems with it. Posted by DraKKenN (Member # 5512) on :
I can understand why someone would go to this kind of school. It's easier to live (and learn) when you are not someone else's target...supposing that it won't happen there for any other reason.
And, of course, they will still live in the real world, so they can't get so easily disconnected from the rest of the society.
But...It's been said that we should accept, understand and respect other people's choices, points of view, religions, color of skin...
If you don't have any contact with...let's say, russians, you will never understand them, you will never accept them. They will always be strangers to you. And if some of few russians you know were harassing you
If by any chance you end up living in a place sorrounded by mostly russian people, then you won't feel comfortable, and you'll look for people like you, segregating yourself even more than the russians by themselves were segregating you already.
It would be a lost opportunity. A double-lost opportunity. You won't get to know the russians, and the russians won't see people like you as people.
So, if the russians build different schools for normal-russian-kids and "people-like-you", when you get out of schoool, you will have far less contact with russians than before.
Bad for you. As you are going to live with russians, you can't feel your whole life as a stranger, seeking people-like-you, people who don't mind how you are, because they are like you.
If the russians knew you, you could be yourself, because they won't mind.
Bad for the russians, because they will lose the opportunity to know and accept between themselves the people-like-you...and, at least, that's not wise, because there is a lot of people-like-you.
If a society pretends to heal the wounds "protecting" the wounded instead of rebuilding itself into a society with no wounds at all, that society will never be a real HUMAN society.
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) to be openly proud of being gay, many of them are.![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)