School district agrees to protect gay students

[davidinalameda]

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=10900&sd=01/06/04

The Morgan Hill Unified School District in Northern California, where gay students have described a persistent climate of antigay harassment and discrimination, including physical violence, has agreed to a wide-ranging staff and student training program and policy protections, ending a five-year-long federal battle that began with a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "I am so happy that the district has finally recognized the seriousness of this problem and is ready to do something to stop it," said Alana Flores, one of the plaintiffs in the case. "The kind of abuse I had to deal with every day when I went to school was horrible. No student should have to face that. Making schools safe for all students through this kind of training is something every school should do."

[prolesunited]

1. Just reading the headline

makes me feel ill. Why would there even be a question about it? Why would this have to go to court?

A school's priority should protect ALL students, whether fat, black, nerdy, foreign, etc. from constant taunting and provide them with a climate in which they can LEARN.

[davidinalameda]

3. it had to go to court because the administrators of the district

were stupid ass homophobes

the city is just south of San Jose and I can't believe this crap still happens in this area--we're supposed to be the most gay progressive region of the nation

it just really pisses me off

[Fleshdancer]

2. Is it me? Am I weird?

I see this as a human rights issue. It's a no brainer that all students should be protected from harassement, discrimination, and violence! And schools are just now catching on? We couldn't learn this concept during the civil rights movment? Or during the women's right's movement? Why does society have such a hard time with equality???

It's a pretty black and white issue for me.

edit: note to self, use the spell check.

[David__77]

4. LGBT students need special protection.

All students deserve a safe environment, but the type of harassment aimed at LGBT students is systemic and it is very specific. It needs special attention. It's a form of terror.

[Character Assassin]

5. Sorry, but this is bordering on double-plus bad thought control

Or, at the very least, attempting unjustified social engineering.

All students deserve a safe environment, but the type of harassment aimed at LGBT students is systemic and it is very specific. It needs special attention. It's a form of terror.

No, it doesn't need special attention and no, it's not a form of terror.

Bullies exist in every system, in limited numbers, and are most effectively addressed individually and surgically by whatever authority figures are extant in whatever system is in question.

No student should have to face physical intimidation and/or associated violence, for whatever reason, from other students, and because of this, GLBT are not in any manner different from any other students.

Accordingly, this The district is also implementing an age-appropriate training program for students and an antidiscrimination policy that bans harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. is a unnecessary and, frankly, foolish slippery slope onto which the school should not be forced.

It further singles out students on the basis of sexuality.
It can engender resentment that manifests itself the same way off school grounds.
It creates further distinctions where none are necessary, calling attention to somothing irrelevant to academia.
It uses a stupid, shotgun approach that accuses all the students for what is likely the actions of a very, very limited few, and may backfire accordingly, regardless of what the misguided intentions of the settlement actually were.

[David__77]

6. Do you support non-discrimination policies?

Would you support a policy that establishes penanties for harassment related to actual or perceived sexual orientation? I think I understand your concerns, but speaking as a gay person that was in high school not all too long ago, I know that this is a specific problem, and I believe it should be dealt with specifically.

Racial problems have been and still need to be addressed in their own right as well.

[Character Assassin]

10. In governmental environments, including schools, most certainly.

Would you support a policy that establishes penanties for harassment related to actual or perceived sexual orientation?

If you mean in a school, yes. It's a gov't entity, harassment of any sort has no business in an academic environment, and it's counterproductive to an atmosphere that fosters learning.

I think I understand your concerns, but speaking as a gay person that was in high school not all too long ago, I know that this is a specific problem, and I believe it should be dealt with specifically.

I agree. But not in this manner.

Racial problems have been and still need to be addressed in their own right as well.

True, but I think we probably differ in how to go about addressing them.

[cally]

7. I'm appalled by the systemic attacks on GLBT youth

in my community. Very few adults object and when we do we're told that the kids need to toughen up because bullying is a fact of life. Teachers and administrators allow students to say, "That's so gay!" as an insult. A lesbian friend of my daughter has switched schools twice and routinely gets beat up.

I'm having coffee with a school board member and this is the issue I will bring up. All of our students need to have a save and comfortable environment to learn.

[msmcghee]

8. Nonsense, you said . .

It further singles out students on the basis of sexuality.

How does establishing a serious administration supported no-harassment of GLBT or other minorities policy single out anyone, other than the bullies who won't comply?

"It can engender resentment that manifests itself the same way off school grounds."

It already manifests itself off the school grounds. When I worked as an after school playground director the bullies would wait until their target got a block or so away from school before attacking them - out of my earshot and out of my jurisdiction.

It creates further distinctions where none are necessary, calling attention to smoothing irrelevant to academia.

Irrelevant to academia? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only way you would understand would be to require some big dumb jock to randomly beat the crap out of you at least twice a week all during your high school career. To make it more realistic a large group of kids should be there jeering at you and calling you names while you get your bloody face pushed in the dirt. And then see what effect that might have on your overall grades. But that can't happen and you aren't interested in imagining what that would be like as it would not fit your preconceived ideas.

It uses a stupid, shotgun approach that accuses all the students for what is likely the actions of a very, very limited few, and may backfire accordingly, regardless of what the misguided intentions of the settlement actually were.

It does not punish or restrict anyone's freedom to do whatever they wish - as long as that doesn't include harassing minorities. If it is only a very, very few as you say, then what's the big problem?

You're argument is like saying the school should not have a policy that the students should not harass the mentally retarded janitor's assistant because it singles him out on the basis of his retardation, that they'll just wait until he punches out for the night and get him on his way home, it creates "retardation" distinctions and offends all the students because they might enjoy thinking about harassing the guy even if they don't carry it out.

It's amazing the lengths some people go to to protect their freedom to hate.

[Character Assassin]

12. It seems you have have misunderstood my position

It further singles out students on the basis of sexuality.

How does establishing a serious administration supported no-harassment of GLBT or other minorities policy single out anyone, other than the bullies who won't comply?

This isn't about other minorities, this is specifically about GLBT students; there is no indication of any other policies already in place directed towards others.

It seems rather likely that implementing such a policy in regards to "an age-appropriate training program for students" would provide for scenarios where kids who are not particularly comfortable (yet) with their sexuality or identity would be the focus of unwanted attention, and it serves to further delineate differences in the student body, which, IMO, is counter-productive.

My comments were specifically directed towards that part of the policy.

"It can engender resentment that manifests itself the same way off school grounds."

It already manifests itself off the school grounds. When I worked as an after school playground director the bullies would wait until their target got a block or so away from school before attacking them - out of my earshot and out of my jurisdiction.

Then, frankly, what good is it other than a cosmetic bandaid that will serve to make people feel good until school is out?

It creates further distinctions where none are necessary, calling attention to something irrelevant to academia.

Irrelevant to academia? You have no idea what you're talking about.

I consider sexual identity irrelevant, completely tangential, to studying and learning coursework.

The only way you would understand would be to require some big dumb jock to randomly beat the crap out of you at least twice a week all during your high school career.

I'm sorry, your point isn't clear. I have already stated that harassment of any kind is contrary to a proper school environment. Specifically "No student should have to face physical intimidation and/or associated violence, for whatever reason, from other students." The scenario you cite can apply to any student, not just GLBT ones.

If I'm missing your point, please rephrase it.

To make it more realistic a large group of kids should be there jeering at you and calling you names while you get your bloody face pushed in the dirt.

See above.

And then see what effect that might have on your overall grades. But that can't happen and you aren't interested in imagining what that would be like as it would not fit your preconceived ideas.

Quite clearly that is not the case and you have either overlooked or ignored what I actually wrote. I disagree part of the policy that was ordered by the court, and have stated my reasons. It has nothing to do with preconceptions.

It uses a stupid, shotgun approach that accuses all the students for what is likely the actions of a very, very limited few, and may backfire accordingly, regardless of what the misguided intentions of the settlement actually were.

It does not punish or restrict anyone's freedom to do whatever they wish - as long as that doesn't include harassing minorities. If it is only a very, very few as you say, then what's the big problem?

Did you actually read what I wrote? It's an ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all policy that will apply to all students rather than actually having the school specifically target the problem students, i.e., the bullies.

Again, I am against any sort of harassment. I am also against what appears to be misguided social engineering.

You're argument is like saying the school should not have a policy that the students should not harass the mentally retarded janitor's assistant because it singles him out on the basis of his retardation, that they'll just wait until he punches out for the night and get him on his way home, it creates "retardation" distinctions and offends all the students because they might enjoy thinking about harassing the guy even if they don't carry it out.

Wrong. I'll say this one more time: harassment of any nature is disruptive and needs to be addressed. The manner in which this school is going about doing so is, IMO, ineffective and short-sighted.

It's amazing the lengths some people go to to protect their freedom to hate.

Who, precisely, is doing that?

[trent21]

11. Why is it that someone always comes out of the damn woodwork

when discussing LGBT issues and claims that measures to combat pervasive harassment is somehow "thought control"?? The reverse of that is to say that harassment is ok..and it is NOT!

You don't have a damn clue as to what you're talking about!

You suggesting that LGBT students face no more harassment than anyone else shows how truly ignorant you are on this issue!

And, NO, an anti-discrimination policy is NOT foolish..what is foolish is claiming that it is unnecessary!

From the 2003 school climate survey available from GLSEN
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1413.html

Key findings of the 2003 National School Climate Survey include:

* Unchecked harassment correlates with poor performance and diminished aspirations: LGBT youth who report significant verbal harassment are twice as likely to report they do not intend to go to college and their GPAs are significantly lower (2.9 vs. 3.3).

* Policymakers have an opportunity to improve school climates: LGBT students who did not have (or did not know of) a policy protecting them from violence and harassment were nearly 40% more likely to skip school because they were simply too afraid to go.

*Harassment continues at unacceptable levels and is too often ignored: 84% of LGBT students report being verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation. 82.9% of students report that faculty never or rarely intervene when present.

There are 41 stateswhich have NO policies that explicitly protect LGBT students

And then you have to come in here and piss all over a story of a school district which adopted one and minimize the importance of it???

HOW DARE YOU!?!

[Character Assassin]

14. Check your misplaced outrage at the door, please.

Why is it that someone always comes out of the damn woodwork when discussing LGBT issues and claims that measures to combat pervasive harassment is somehow "thought control"?? The reverse of that is to say that harassment is ok..and it is NOT!

Evidently you failed to actually read what I wrote. I clearly did not state that harassment is OK; quite the opposite, in fact. I am disputing the appropriateness and effectiveness of the part of the program to address it.

You don't have a damn clue as to what you're talking about!

I assure you, I do. And I actually read what other people write without putting words in their mouths.

You suggesting that LGBT students face no more harassment than anyone else shows how truly ignorant you are on this issue!

I am not suggesting this.

And, NO, an anti-discrimination policy is NOT foolish..what is foolish is claiming that it is unnecessary!

I didn't say that, did I? An anti-discrimination policy is something that I clearly think is necessary. It's the means and manner that I dispute.

From the 2003 school climate survey available from GLSEN
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1413.html

Key findings of the 2003 National School Climate Survey include:

(Big Snip)

No one is disputing that harassment is harmfull, that it occurs and that it must be eradicated. However, if you had bothered to read this link here, http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/259-1. , you would have come across a methodology that is both laughable and unscientific.

And then you have to come in here and piss all over a story of a school district which adopted one and minimize the importance of it???

Stop your needless exaggerating. I did nothing of the sort.

HOW DARE YOU!?!

How dare you not bother to read what I actually wrote and huff and puff against imagined positions that I do not hold?

[bluestateguy]

9. oh brother

A few workshops and feel-good seminars and all the homophobes will be gone, right? NOT! No, what is needed is something of the equivalent of a Black Panther Party for gays that uses the show of force (yes Virginia, that means guns) to keep the bigots in their place.

[Leados]

13. To bluestateguy

What exactly do these policies have to do with solving the problem? The problem isn't necessarily with the child (at the root. of course the child shouldn't act in this manner), its with the parents and American Culture. Until we change that, these stumbly methods will have to do. And we all know how much power parents have over school policy.

[davidinalameda]

15. let's shoot the phobes

that will solve all of our problems

good in theory but not in practice