Dakota Ary a Fort Worth area high school student wants an apology from the school district after he was removed from class for a negative comment about homosexuality.
The school is investigating but the media reports have the boy making an offhand comment to another student proclaiming his Christianity and saying he thought homosexuality was wrong. The classroom teacher overheard the remark and sent the boy from class.
If it turns out that the boy was expressing his views in response to a discussion about religion and homosexuality, then I suspect he will not be disciplined and may get his apology. If he was inciting an incident then the situation becomes more complex.
Addtional thoughts: I went back to the first report I could find on this story which comes from an NBC affiliate in the Fort Worth area. The discussion in class was about religions, Bibles and Germany and the discipline referral form quotes him as saying: “no gays allowed in Christianity.”
According the Fort Worth report, the form also said that “the comment was unprovoked and out of context.” The form also said, “It is wrong to make such a statement in public school.”
The school is not commenting so I do not think we can evaluate the situation at this point. According the Liberty Counsel (the same group who falsely said that the AACC is larger than the APA), another student asked how to say lesbian in German. At that point, according to Liberty Counsel, Ary told another student that homosexuality is wrong.
If that narrative is accurate, then I believe the boy’s statement would have been in relation to something else taking place and apparently intended to stay between him and the other student. A teacher should focus the conversation back to the topic. However, if the statement was brought up without provocation and seemed to the teacher to inflame, then a teacher would be correct to address it, albeit in a less dramatic manner.
The school district is not talking but they have relented on the severity of the punishment according to this report from the LA Times.
154 thoughts on “High school student opposed to homosexuality will not have negative mark on record”
Comments are closed.
@jtah … Well I see we have yet another new visitor to the blog who has confused behavior with identity and … additionally … has an opinion on a situation for which the facts are sketchy. And you have even pulled out the Nazi Card .. (Yawn) We’ve heard it all before.
Reality check here … we don’t know all the facts about what happened with this student. Context is key .. ..was he having a private conversation or was he doing something else??
Example of how context is critical: Lets say a student is discussing terrorist actions on 9/11 (with fellow students in a private conversation) and says that he believes all Muslims are terrorists (which of course is not true). Unless a teacher decides to make this a teachable moment the off-handed remark passes into obscurity.
But .. what if the teacher is a Muslim and the student is always making loud mouth remarks of this kind in the teacher’s classroom???? This would require intervention since it is disruptive to learning and reflects bigotry and disrespect toward the teacher. (if it was a Muslim student that was being taunted this would also require intervention.)
Are some Muslims terrorists? .. Yes .. are all Muslims terrorists? No .. thus the above represents stereotyping . If it is not in casual conversation but is instead used to ridicule someone else then it has gone beyond misinformation and moved into hateful remarks and/or bullying.
Taking this a step further …
Being a Muslim is a choice .. Being gay is not .. so if the hypothetical example I have given applies to someone who has chosen their religion then it certainly applies in parallel to someone who has not chosen their orientation. And again .. all gay folks do not believe or practice the same thing .. so generalizations here would be stereotyping as well.
——–
In school situations such as this one .. Christian far right groups .. and I suppose Christian and nonChristian gay rights groups tend to spin such a story to their advantage. This leaves us with the disadvantage of not knowing what has actually taken place.
Additionally ..not all Christians interpret the scriptures the same way on this issue .. so your making blanket statements about what the bible says is misleading. This blog includes participants from a variety of viewpoints who typically have a common concern over misinformation particularly in the area of sexual identity, politics and the culture wars that ensue. Again .. though we have diverse views..we have a common concern for people and how they are treated.
Dave
Jtah is correct to point out that the Bible should be interpreted using proper hermeneutics; so also should be the Qur’an.
The key difference between the two religions is the place of ‘The Book’. For Muslims, the Qur’an is the Message; for Christians, the Bible is the messenger: the Word was made Flesh. The main theological problem facing Christianity is desire to turn the Word back into words; the main theological problem (from a Christian perspective) with both Islam and fundamentalist heresies within Christianity is that mere words are always inadequate for expressing the truth about God.
I know Muslims who are both moderate and extremely well-versed in the contents of the Qur’an; while they and I have our theological differences, we can engage in meaningful dialogue … and we share a deep concern about ‘fundamentalist heresies’ in our respective religions.
As for ‘Tradition’: this is very important in religion, and ‘healthy tradition’ is a dynamic and evolving thing which is constantly being tested against both Scripture and Reason/Conscience. For those who understand that the ultimate Message is enshrined in a Person, there are no pat answers or trite party lines … but rather an ongoing search for truth.
jtah# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 9:56 am
Regarding your sources.
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
this paper is a piece by Dr. John Diggs a name familiar to me. Rather than write why this article is crap, I’ll just point you to this link about Diggs (and his paper ):
Diggs rebuttal
http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160.htm
This article is an interview with a guy named Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons. Don’t recall that name, but from the start of the article:
this tells me Dr. Fitzgibbons isn’t interested in the facts about sexual orientation, just that he wants to repeat over used misrepresentations. and it looks like the rest of his comments are similarly biased interpretations of other’s work.
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
Ah NARTH, I knew they would show up on your list. I’ll assume you are new here, but NARTHs credibility on these issues was shoot down on this blog long ago.
http://www.ncfpc.org/FNC/0707S3.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
these last 2 are conservative christian web sites that are just pushing their anti-gay agenda.
The problem with your (and your sources) arguments are way you (pl) are using the research. You (and they) are not looking at medical research the way it was intended, which is to determine causes of illness and find ways to prevent and/or cure them. Instead, what you are doing is trying to use the research to condemn a class of people you don’t like. And the problem with that (other than the condemn those you don’t like part) is that you are taking just the bits that support your political views and ignoring the rest, which ends up misrepresenting what the original research actually says and is deceptive at best.
Yes – well said indeed.
Jtah –
The vast majority of professional medical, social working, nursing, and psychological groups do not agree with you, or the few, mostly conservative and Christian groups you listed, that homosexuality is a disease.
I wonder how many times we’ve dealt with this exact same issue on this blog? LOL. If I had a dime… 🙂
Jtah –
And of the thousands of Christian groups that exist, please tell me which ones hold to the Proper Christian Doctrines? You’ll find so many Christian groups that interpret the Bible differently, I’m curious to know which ones you believe are proper.
Dave# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Well said.
@Dave
Dave, you are right up to a certain point in life. You and I appeare to disagree on when that point is. I think 14 years old is old enough to know better, the boy is in high school after all, I think 14 is old enough since apparently this has been repeated behaviour on his part. (Again I will be the first to change my opinion if the facts are different than what I believe them to be). I don’t know Dave it seems to me the way you write to me, that you are more or less giving Dakota a free pass based on his age and this bothers me. The sexual minority children commit bullicide because of Dakota and his group, I think you abe being to lienent on Dakota, blaming his parents instead of Dakota. That is my impression. Dave 14 is old enough, especially when he is provoking. And yes if he goes through life and maintains this behaviour what are we to think of him? How is he to be treated? Dakota is in control of his destiny, the bullied sexual minority children are not in cntrol, they can’t make it stop.
jtah# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“I grew up in a muslim country.”
Which one?
“If you really want to know what true Islam is you must read Sayiid Qtub or go to a muslim country.”
Sayyid Qutb did not speak for all muslims. Any more than Fred Phelps speaks for all christians. Islam is a religion based on the teachings of the Qur’an. It’s has many different sects that interpret these teachings differently, just as christianity has many different sects that interpret the bible differently.
“Moderate muslims pick and choose what they want to believe from the koran.”
funny, I think the same thing about conservative christians and the bible.
“Those who call themselves Christians and advocate the killing of homosexuals, for example, do not hold to the proper Christian Doctrines.”
Ah another amateur theologian who gets to decide what is or isn’t christian (and muslim apparently).
When islam begins to dominate the United States as it is doing in Western Europe (shariah courts in britain now), then you can thank me for warning you about the threat of muslim ideology.
Perfect.
Actually most moderate muslims have never even read all of the Koran and can’t stand up to their beliefs when you challenge them to back up their claims from the Koran. I say this from experience talking to many moderate muslims. It’s all just tradition for the moderates, no true orthodox faith.
Oh and I am not angry in the least bit. I’m just stating my opinion on the issue. You can say whatever you like. Doesn’t really bother me in the least.
I went back and read the link to the Advocate article. Assuming the boy(s) had given this teacher problems before, had indeed harrassed him–for any reason— then I am left wondering if the teacher followed what is standard procedure –the documentation of each of those incidents. It’s understandable that a teacher might let one incident slide in hopes the kids would cease, but not understandable if a second incident occurred.
Again, where were the adults?
Straight Grandmother,
“Socially acceptable behavior?”
I mean no disrespect, but you seem a bit out of touch with adolescents and their mouths, which frequently spew forth in volcanic fashion all sorts of things before their brains have chance to catch up to them and put on lid on them.
Seriously, whether the issue/topic is gay, sexy, ugly, beautiful, fat, skinny, what they ate for dinner the night before, belching, anal gas, hot babes, big boobs, bad teachers, cool teachers, hated teachers, pants on the ground, best porn sites, favorite football teams, hated football teams, their best friend (no longer their best friend), their moms, their , their mom’s lover, their dad’s lover, their step brothers and sisters, their full brothers and sisters, their little pest of a brother, their hatred of all things, their love for all things, their love of themselves, their contempt for themselves, their love of country, their hatred of country—it comes out of them at the most predictable times and at the most unpredictable times. I hope you see what I am saying.
This kind of statement of a kid’s personal belief is so endemic to a classsroom, so common anywhere a bunch of as-yet unformed adolescent brains have gathered that it occurs even in the higher grades and even when the kid wishes he had kept his mouth shut a split second after he has let the words escape. I might also add that it’s common for a kid to let tumble out a group of words that even he doesn’t agree with. You ought to see what comes out of the ADHD kids. No one is spared from the eruptive mouths of adolescents. And even when the kid has said something he meant to say, something he believes, he often does so in a classroom precisely because he has been encouraged for years by teachers and by the school to feel that he can feel free to state his opinion. Context, the propriety of setting are not variables weighed by the adolescent mind .” Impulse control is not a strength of most of them.
There are days in a public school classroom at any grade level when, if a teacher so inclined chose to do so, he or she could justify kicking out an entire class of kids on the basis of their insensitivity to others. On good days, excellent days, there are still these occurrences in each and every classroom. ( Can you begin to imagine what teachers hear in one day in just the comments not meant for their , in those comments whispered by one student to another?)
There are other issues here I might address, but I’ll leave it at its simplest level: the grown-ups, the teacher first, the administration second, handled this badly. I’ve done it; every teacher has done it–over-reacted– only to regret it (hopefully). In our over-reaction, we’ve missed an opportunity to teach the kids something by modeling respectful and modulated behavior.
I wish adults would show kids how to be adults by acting like adults.
Report: Suspended Student Had Harassed Teacher
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/09/27/Report_Suspended_Student_Had_Harassed_Teacher/
Carole, I see what you are saying about what comes out of the mouthes of babes. However Dakota and his parents have brought this on themselves. First Dakota taunted, bullied using his religion as his weapon, and then he and his parents followed up to make a Federal case out of it. Speaking without thinking is one thing, he should have just taken his punishment and let it lye. But when you go and publicize a school incident and bring in the Liberty Counsel now you are escalating and demanding that your socially unacceptable behaviour (which you and your parents have now had time to cool down and think over) is permitted in our schools. This didn’t happen on a sidewalk in the neighborhood, this happened in a public school classroom.
Students like Dakota and his parents remind me strongly of similar parents in Mississippi who threw a second secret prom so that Constance McMillan would be excluded and instead sent Constance to a fake prom with 6 other kids from Special Ed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/constance-mcmillen-fake-p_n_525856.html
jtah# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 9:12 am
“But he was just stating his beliefs.”
that is certainly the narrative that his lawyers want to put out there, However, subsequent articles on the matter seem to indicate it was more than that. it seems he was hiding behind his religion in order to denigrate a group he doesn’t like.
“Muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death (if you that person is truly a student of the koran that is). ”
While some some muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death, so do some christians as well (just take a look at the Uganda threads on this blog). However, that doesn’t mean all muslims (or even a majority of them) believe that. And before you start citing the koran (which I suspect you do not have any meaningful understanding of) keep in mind I could also cite biblical passages that would make christians look just as bad or worse.
“I think it was wrong for that teacher to punish that student for his beliefs. ”
if that were the case, I would agree, and I have said as much elsewhere. However, from other accounts, Ary was speaking out of turn (Ary admits this himself) and deliberately disrupting the discussion and supposedly this is not his 1st offense.
(I really must stop trying to multitask when contributing to Warren’s blog!)
Well the teacher has been cleared and is returning to teach tomorrow. I thought the teachers version rang true to me, teachers just don’t throw kids otta class for nothing, just saying…
From a few comments up, Dave as to Dakota commiting suicide one day if he is villified, well he has the ability to stop the villification. He can come out and say his behaviour was inappropriate. However those poor sexual minority kids who are bullied have nothing in their control to make it stop. I am not sympathetic to bullies nor people whatever age, who gay bash. If Dakota made a mistake at 14 he has all the time in the world to correct it, GLBT kids do not, they are his victims. If he and his parents stand fast well good luck getting a good job by a Fortune 500 company one day. There is always the ministry I guess… Something to think about Dave.
SG .. In case you haven’t noticed .. no one on this blog has affirmed your harsh judgments on a 14 year old .. You might want to consider that .. When we let our anger take us to the place where even the people that agree with us disagree with our harshness its time to rethink the issue. Responses such as yours serve to give more ammo for the other side than they do for the side you support and feed into their whole free speech rhetoric/ fear tactic.
Frankly I don’t find it very likely that a 14 year old would contact Liberty Council .. That would be actions taken by adults .. ie . his parents. The speed at which this happened makes me a bit suspicious of the parents .. since .. as a parent .. I would have talked to the school administrators first. The problem isn’t a 14 year old boy .. the problem is adults and organizations that woud put folks .. such as his parents .. into hyper defensive mode (they’re going to be defensive enough since their son was suspended) .. The far right just fuels the fire of that , takes advantage of their anger and (perhaps) has them skipping the obvioius step of talking to the school first. Obviously some of this is guess work on my part and we may never know what really happened here but the reallity is that it is the adults who are raising their children .. not vice versa .. it is the adults that are misinforming their children on how to treat others and it is that adults that have turned a point of moral disagreement into a vendetta. Your aiming of your anger at a child misses the target.
Dave
Sorry: should have that “… punishment was not appropriate.”
@Richard Wilmer
In Canada, it is more a civil liability than a criminal one. A human rights complaint can be filed if a school district fails to prevent bullying based on several actual or perceived personal characteristics listed in the human rights law, including sexual orientation and sex (incl gender identity via interpretation).
The school’s legal liability, and authority, applies to bullying both in and out of school (eg cyber-bullying), provided it affects the learning environment and the school could have prevented the bullying through discipline or education, for example.
The human rights complaint process can result in a settlement or tribunal order that incliudes damage awards, injunctions, curriculum and textbook revisions, and teacher suspensions or dismissals. Bad publicity,lawyers fees and considerable expenditures of staff time are other outcomes.
Teachers and counselors can also be disciplined by their professional bodies, eg for making in-school or public anti-LGBT statements or for promoting ex-gay “therapy”.
Still, anti-LGBT bullying continues. It will take time. A lot of Christian parents object to effective anti-bullying and anti-suicide programs for LGBT’s.
It is indeed very disappointing that it appears to be the case that ‘Christian parents’ (their views on same-sex relationships notwithstanding) oppose anti-LGBT bullying measures. Bullying of any kind is always indivisibly wrong; it threatens the most fundamental principles of a healthy society, and is thus always contrary to the common good. There are Christians, both parents and otherwise, who do not oppose such measures, of course: Warren is one; I am another. And, as far as I know, none of my Christian friends and acquaintances oppose such initiatives. It could be argued that we have been much too quiet on this issue in the past. Very well – we’ve started making a noise now! As much as anything, we do not wish to be misrepresented by people with whom we profoundly disagree – morally, philosophically and (I might add) theologically.
In this particular case, the issue is: did Dakota’s behaviour constitute some form of bullying or intimidation, or was it simply an expression of an opinion (however ‘defective’ his opinion and/or choice of words may, in the opinion of many of us, have been)? Perhaps we do not yet know enough about the whole situation to make a sound judgement on this point.
Thank you, Mr. Young.
In a sense, it is perhaps easier in London, UK than in Fort Worth, TX to deal with these kinds of issues in a measured way. Also, over here we have the Equality Act 2010 which effectively criminalizes unjustly discriminatory treatment of any kind in just about any ‘public’ context one might care to mention. Thus efforts to combat any real homophobia in schools (or ‘junior colleges’ such as the one in which I work) has the full force of UK law behind it. So, for example, any school found not to be dealing with homophobic bullying that might be taking place there could be found to be criminally negligent.
I think it’s hard to strike absolutely the correct balance between allowing open, honest discussion (and I do think that people should have the right to express ‘disagreement’ with something – though they simultaneously have a duty to do so with care, so that they do not compromise the fundamental rights of others) and protecting the vulnerable. If one is going to ‘err’, then I would favour ‘erring’ on the side of protecting the vulnerable. Maybe this school in Fort Worth shares this perspective, hence this apparent ‘overreaction’?
As a teacher, what would be my aim? It would, in the first instance, be to get Dakota to analysis and evaluate his own thoughts and words, taking into account the effect they could have on others. He probably just said something that he had been ‘fed’ without thinking it through. Those of us who have ‘thought things through’ know that the statement “being a homosexual is wrong” is a morally bankrupt one, if only because it ignores the fact that, in the field of sexual relations – gay or straight – there is a wide range of behaviours that occur; some if these behaviours are clearly morally dubious or worse, while others are ‘wholesome and nourishing’.
@ F Young
I understand. I think you might taken the part you quoted of my original comment out of context – which does raise an important point regarding what Dakota might have said: it is important to establish what Dakota actually meant by his comment, and that would have formed an important part of any discussion I would have had with him (or indeed the whole class) had I been his teacher. (We all know that words like ‘homosexual’ and ‘homosexuality’, both of which are broad terms, are bandied about – especially by people who are homophobic – without it being made clear what is actually being referred to.)
@ F Young
I entirely agree with what you about the need for the teacher publically to make the necessary moral and educational point (and I personally would, and – in fact – have, cut out the words ‘in school’!); I was merely questioning whether it was appropriate to actually punish Dakota. If he was being malicious in some way, then punishment was indeed warranted; if not, then a ‘therapeutic’ approach would have been far preferable, in my view.
I would just add that I never said (or even I think implied) that only Dakota’s feelings and rights were important here, so I’m not quite sure from where you got that idea.
@ Ken
Maybe I misunderstood something in the Reuters article.
@ Richard Wilmer
“I would just add that I never said (or even I think implied) that only Dakota’s feelings and rights were important here, so I’m not quite sure from where you got that idea.”
I “got that idea” from….
which to me implied that you recommended a private discussion between Dakota and the teacher after class, which, to me, ignored the effect of Dakota’s statement on the rest of the class.
You explained your position more fully in your second post, and I agree with it.
Jtah is correct to point out that the Bible should be interpreted using proper hermeneutics; so also should be the Qur’an.
The key difference between the two religions is the place of ‘The Book’. For Muslims, the Qur’an is the Message; for Christians, the Bible is the messenger: the Word was made Flesh. The main theological problem facing Christianity is desire to turn the Word back into words; the main theological problem (from a Christian perspective) with both Islam and fundamentalist heresies within Christianity is that mere words are always inadequate for expressing the truth about God.
I know Muslims who are both moderate and extremely well-versed in the contents of the Qur’an; while they and I have our theological differences, we can engage in meaningful dialogue … and we share a deep concern about ‘fundamentalist heresies’ in our respective religions.
As for ‘Tradition’: this is very important in religion, and ‘healthy tradition’ is a dynamic and evolving thing which is constantly being tested against both Scripture and Reason/Conscience. For those who understand that the ultimate Message is enshrined in a Person, there are no pat answers or trite party lines … but rather an ongoing search for truth.
Jtah –
The vast majority of professional medical, social working, nursing, and psychological groups do not agree with you, or the few, mostly conservative and Christian groups you listed, that homosexuality is a disease.
I wonder how many times we’ve dealt with this exact same issue on this blog? LOL. If I had a dime… 🙂
Jtah –
And of the thousands of Christian groups that exist, please tell me which ones hold to the Proper Christian Doctrines? You’ll find so many Christian groups that interpret the Bible differently, I’m curious to know which ones you believe are proper.
Yes – well said indeed.
Dave# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Well said.
jtah# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 9:56 am
Regarding your sources.
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
this paper is a piece by Dr. John Diggs a name familiar to me. Rather than write why this article is crap, I’ll just point you to this link about Diggs (and his paper ):
Diggs rebuttal
http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160.htm
This article is an interview with a guy named Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons. Don’t recall that name, but from the start of the article:
this tells me Dr. Fitzgibbons isn’t interested in the facts about sexual orientation, just that he wants to repeat over used misrepresentations. and it looks like the rest of his comments are similarly biased interpretations of other’s work.
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
Ah NARTH, I knew they would show up on your list. I’ll assume you are new here, but NARTHs credibility on these issues was shoot down on this blog long ago.
http://www.ncfpc.org/FNC/0707S3.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
these last 2 are conservative christian web sites that are just pushing their anti-gay agenda.
The problem with your (and your sources) arguments are way you (pl) are using the research. You (and they) are not looking at medical research the way it was intended, which is to determine causes of illness and find ways to prevent and/or cure them. Instead, what you are doing is trying to use the research to condemn a class of people you don’t like. And the problem with that (other than the condemn those you don’t like part) is that you are taking just the bits that support your political views and ignoring the rest, which ends up misrepresenting what the original research actually says and is deceptive at best.
@Dave
Dave, you are right up to a certain point in life. You and I appeare to disagree on when that point is. I think 14 years old is old enough to know better, the boy is in high school after all, I think 14 is old enough since apparently this has been repeated behaviour on his part. (Again I will be the first to change my opinion if the facts are different than what I believe them to be). I don’t know Dave it seems to me the way you write to me, that you are more or less giving Dakota a free pass based on his age and this bothers me. The sexual minority children commit bullicide because of Dakota and his group, I think you abe being to lienent on Dakota, blaming his parents instead of Dakota. That is my impression. Dave 14 is old enough, especially when he is provoking. And yes if he goes through life and maintains this behaviour what are we to think of him? How is he to be treated? Dakota is in control of his destiny, the bullied sexual minority children are not in cntrol, they can’t make it stop.
jtah# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“I grew up in a muslim country.”
Which one?
“If you really want to know what true Islam is you must read Sayiid Qtub or go to a muslim country.”
Sayyid Qutb did not speak for all muslims. Any more than Fred Phelps speaks for all christians. Islam is a religion based on the teachings of the Qur’an. It’s has many different sects that interpret these teachings differently, just as christianity has many different sects that interpret the bible differently.
“Moderate muslims pick and choose what they want to believe from the koran.”
funny, I think the same thing about conservative christians and the bible.
“Those who call themselves Christians and advocate the killing of homosexuals, for example, do not hold to the proper Christian Doctrines.”
Ah another amateur theologian who gets to decide what is or isn’t christian (and muslim apparently).
Perfect.
When islam begins to dominate the United States as it is doing in Western Europe (shariah courts in britain now), then you can thank me for warning you about the threat of muslim ideology.
@jtah … Well I see we have yet another new visitor to the blog who has confused behavior with identity and … additionally … has an opinion on a situation for which the facts are sketchy. And you have even pulled out the Nazi Card .. (Yawn) We’ve heard it all before.
Reality check here … we don’t know all the facts about what happened with this student. Context is key .. ..was he having a private conversation or was he doing something else??
Example of how context is critical: Lets say a student is discussing terrorist actions on 9/11 (with fellow students in a private conversation) and says that he believes all Muslims are terrorists (which of course is not true). Unless a teacher decides to make this a teachable moment the off-handed remark passes into obscurity.
But .. what if the teacher is a Muslim and the student is always making loud mouth remarks of this kind in the teacher’s classroom???? This would require intervention since it is disruptive to learning and reflects bigotry and disrespect toward the teacher. (if it was a Muslim student that was being taunted this would also require intervention.)
Are some Muslims terrorists? .. Yes .. are all Muslims terrorists? No .. thus the above represents stereotyping . If it is not in casual conversation but is instead used to ridicule someone else then it has gone beyond misinformation and moved into hateful remarks and/or bullying.
Taking this a step further …
Being a Muslim is a choice .. Being gay is not .. so if the hypothetical example I have given applies to someone who has chosen their religion then it certainly applies in parallel to someone who has not chosen their orientation. And again .. all gay folks do not believe or practice the same thing .. so generalizations here would be stereotyping as well.
——–
In school situations such as this one .. Christian far right groups .. and I suppose Christian and nonChristian gay rights groups tend to spin such a story to their advantage. This leaves us with the disadvantage of not knowing what has actually taken place.
Additionally ..not all Christians interpret the scriptures the same way on this issue .. so your making blanket statements about what the bible says is misleading. This blog includes participants from a variety of viewpoints who typically have a common concern over misinformation particularly in the area of sexual identity, politics and the culture wars that ensue. Again .. though we have diverse views..we have a common concern for people and how they are treated.
Dave
Ken in regard to your inquiriy about where I got the information:
I’ve done research in the past and they are from that. Had them saved on my computer so I just copied and pasted some. I have a lot more if you want them.
Oh and I am not angry in the least bit. I’m just stating my opinion on the issue. You can say whatever you like. Doesn’t really bother me in the least.
Actually most moderate muslims have never even read all of the Koran and can’t stand up to their beliefs when you challenge them to back up their claims from the Koran. I say this from experience talking to many moderate muslims. It’s all just tradition for the moderates, no true orthodox faith.
In defense of my statements regarding Islam, I have read the koran and am well acquainted with Islamic beliefs. I grew up in a muslim country. If you really want to know what true Islam is you must read Sayiid Qtub or go to a muslim country. And btw radical (orthodox) islam is now becoming the norm among muslims, especially in Europe and Asia (Britain: 54% of muslims, Pakistan: 60% of muslims). Moderate muslims pick and choose what they want to believe from the koran. They do not truly hold to the Koran. And with regards to the Bible, if you study the Bible using PROPER hermeneutics, you will find that Christians are strictly forbidden from killing someone whether they be homosexual or not. It is a matter for God to judge alone. I recommend before you criticize True Christian beliefs that you undergo a proper study of hermeneutics. Those who call themselves Christians and advocate the killing of homosexuals, for example, do not hold to the proper Christian Doctrines.
I think what he is saying is that our morals shouldn’t come from society and government because they are so subjective. Our morals must be based on objective truths in order to stand up in the face of reality.
Jtah –
Society and government have also been on the side of conservative Christians in this country and in others at different times. You can’t just equate society and government with the morals of evil regimes without acknowledging they have also championed the values that I think you do. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would bet you could find an example of “society” and “government” supporting all sorts of values and morales at different times and in different places.
Warren# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 9:48 am
“Perhaps you should go off on the multitude of medical problems associated with “homosexual relations.” I would be curious to see what you think they are.”
As would I, and I’d also like to know where you got your information, although I suspect I already know.
jtah# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 9:12 am
“But he was just stating his beliefs.”
that is certainly the narrative that his lawyers want to put out there, However, subsequent articles on the matter seem to indicate it was more than that. it seems he was hiding behind his religion in order to denigrate a group he doesn’t like.
“Muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death (if you that person is truly a student of the koran that is). ”
While some some muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death, so do some christians as well (just take a look at the Uganda threads on this blog). However, that doesn’t mean all muslims (or even a majority of them) believe that. And before you start citing the koran (which I suspect you do not have any meaningful understanding of) keep in mind I could also cite biblical passages that would make christians look just as bad or worse.
“I think it was wrong for that teacher to punish that student for his beliefs. ”
if that were the case, I would agree, and I have said as much elsewhere. However, from other accounts, Ary was speaking out of turn (Ary admits this himself) and deliberately disrupting the discussion and supposedly this is not his 1st offense.
(I really must stop trying to multitask when contributing to Warren’s blog!)
Sorry: should have that “… punishment was not appropriate.”
Medical Problems:
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160.htm
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
http://www.ncfpc.org/FNC/0707S3.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
There are also many medical professionals within my family (mostly doctors and lawers in my family… I’m the oddball and chose a IT field) who have stated the medical problems that are presented within these articles to me.
@ jtah
If it were simply the case that Ary was simply voicing a genuinely-held opinion, then I for one do think that the – or indeed any – punishment was appropriate. However, it does now appear that there was rather more to this situation …
Please specify what you mean by ‘that lifestyle’? If you are going to criticize something (and I respect your right to do that), I think you should at least be clear about what it is you are criticizing.
The comparison with drinking is, I submit, a bogus one: in our societies, people are not the object of malicious speech or action simply because they enjoy a tot from time to time.
SG .. In case you haven’t noticed .. no one on this blog has affirmed your harsh judgments on a 14 year old .. You might want to consider that .. When we let our anger take us to the place where even the people that agree with us disagree with our harshness its time to rethink the issue. Responses such as yours serve to give more ammo for the other side than they do for the side you support and feed into their whole free speech rhetoric/ fear tactic.
Frankly I don’t find it very likely that a 14 year old would contact Liberty Council .. That would be actions taken by adults .. ie . his parents. The speed at which this happened makes me a bit suspicious of the parents .. since .. as a parent .. I would have talked to the school administrators first. The problem isn’t a 14 year old boy .. the problem is adults and organizations that woud put folks .. such as his parents .. into hyper defensive mode (they’re going to be defensive enough since their son was suspended) .. The far right just fuels the fire of that , takes advantage of their anger and (perhaps) has them skipping the obvioius step of talking to the school first. Obviously some of this is guess work on my part and we may never know what really happened here but the reallity is that it is the adults who are raising their children .. not vice versa .. it is the adults that are misinforming their children on how to treat others and it is that adults that have turned a point of moral disagreement into a vendetta. Your aiming of your anger at a child misses the target.
Dave
Now speaking of a teacher disciplining a student for “moral responsibility.” Who defines these so called morals? Society? Government? Society and Government dictated the morals in Natzi Germany. Society and Government dictated morals in the soviet union and in China. So if society all of a sudden Society and/or Government decides that, let’s say, being a Hindu is unacceptable, is it the teachers duty to exercise discipline on that student for being a Hindu due to the “moral responsibility” of society? The teachers duty is to teach the students and uphold order in the classroom. Their job isn’t to dictate the morals of their students. If the kids get angry and lash out at what a student believes, than it is the kids who lash out that should be disciplined, not the student in question. If the student lashes out as well, than he should be punished, not because of his beliefs, but because he lashed out.
And to be clear. In no way do I think that I am superior to a homosexual or that a homosexual is superior to me. I personally just think that that lifestyle is wrong. That is completely different than a disagreement about race, because when it comes to race, it is a superiority complex that always drives the discrimination. That can be the case for homosexuality as well, but not always and definitely not in my case, but with regard to race that is ALWAYS the case. There is a big distinction there.
Another example would be if I think drinking is wrong. Does that mean I am bullying drunk people? of course not. It is NOT an AD HOMINEM. Am I going to force someone not to drink? No, of course not. It’s their CHOICE. But i will admonish them not to in a loving manner. And I will live by example. If i believe that what someone is doing is wrong, it wouldn’t be loving if I didn’t tell them what they were doing is wrong (again not in an insulting or condemning manner, but out of love). The reason people react to such statements is because of pride and selfishness. Let’s be honest here, how many of us when taking a cookie from the cookie jar when we were kids, for example, didn’t get angry and feel like we were being mistreated when we got in trouble for it. How many people doing drugs don’t get angry when someone tells them that what they are doing is wrong? I doubt few, if any at all don’t feel threatened, angry, or emotional. But I’m not loving that person if I don’t tell that person that doing drugs is wrong. I’m not loving my kids if I don’t discipline them. I’m not loving my alchoholic father, if I let him kill himself with alchohol. Most of the time, the people who the admonishing is dirrected to don’t see it as love. They are so wrapped up in their emotions. We need to take matters like this in an objective manner rather than just lash out with our emotions. That is just immature and makes us look even worse.
For crying out loud. The kid was just saying what he believed. He wasn’t bullying anyone or calling out any gays. If someone asked me if I thought thievery was wrong, then I’d say yes. Doesn’t mean i’m bullying thieves, I just think it’s wrong. If your identity is on your sexual orientation, obviously you are going to take offense. If your identity is on your financial gains (ie money), you are going to take offense when someone says that he thinks that more people should be charitable. In reality that person is just being self-centered, whether his/her identity is on money, sexual orientation, etc. Now if the 14 year old kid started beating up and insulting the homosexuals in his class, then it would be a problem. But he was just stating his beliefs. Muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death (if you that person is truly a student of the koran that is). Now that is a completely different story from just merely thinking homosexuality is wrong.True tolerance is willingness to listen to someone else’s ideas and not condemning them for disagreeing with yours and being willing to listen to their disagreements and they yours. And if you are truly a student of the Bible you would see that Homosexuality was not in our design. I can go off on the multitude of medical problems associated with homosexual relations (which are much more severe and numerous than those of heterosexual relations), but I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I think it was wrong for that teacher to punish that student for his beliefs. That is just pulling a double standard: “I can disagree with you, but you can’t disagree with me and if you do I’ll punish you.” That is very intolerant.
jtah – If you are not here to debate homosexuality, then why are you here?
If the boy was disrespectful to the teacher in ways that have not been disclosed by him or the Liberty Counsel attorneys (who have not always presented the facts properly on other matters) then there could be more to the story.
Perhaps you should go off on the multitude of medical problems associated with “homosexual relations.” I would be curious to see what you think they are.
Ken in regard to your inquiriy about where I got the information:
I’ve done research in the past and they are from that. Had them saved on my computer so I just copied and pasted some. I have a lot more if you want them.
In defense of my statements regarding Islam, I have read the koran and am well acquainted with Islamic beliefs. I grew up in a muslim country. If you really want to know what true Islam is you must read Sayiid Qtub or go to a muslim country. And btw radical (orthodox) islam is now becoming the norm among muslims, especially in Europe and Asia (Britain: 54% of muslims, Pakistan: 60% of muslims). Moderate muslims pick and choose what they want to believe from the koran. They do not truly hold to the Koran. And with regards to the Bible, if you study the Bible using PROPER hermeneutics, you will find that Christians are strictly forbidden from killing someone whether they be homosexual or not. It is a matter for God to judge alone. I recommend before you criticize True Christian beliefs that you undergo a proper study of hermeneutics. Those who call themselves Christians and advocate the killing of homosexuals, for example, do not hold to the proper Christian Doctrines.
I think what he is saying is that our morals shouldn’t come from society and government because they are so subjective. Our morals must be based on objective truths in order to stand up in the face of reality.
Whoops … should have said “While I do share …”
Jtah –
Society and government have also been on the side of conservative Christians in this country and in others at different times. You can’t just equate society and government with the morals of evil regimes without acknowledging they have also championed the values that I think you do. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would bet you could find an example of “society” and “government” supporting all sorts of values and morales at different times and in different places.
Warren# ~ Sep 30, 2011 at 9:48 am
“Perhaps you should go off on the multitude of medical problems associated with “homosexual relations.” I would be curious to see what you think they are.”
As would I, and I’d also like to know where you got your information, although I suspect I already know.
@ SG
While do share your extreme annoyance at people being nasty and homophobic, and then bleating about their ‘rights’, I think we do need to remember that this was just a boy (and maybe a confused one at that).
Glad to hear that the teacher’s been cleared, by the way.
Medical Problems:
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160.htm
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
http://www.ncfpc.org/FNC/0707S3.html
http://www.wpaag.org/Homosexuals%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
There are also many medical professionals within my family (mostly doctors and lawers in my family… I’m the oddball and chose a IT field) who have stated the medical problems that are presented within these articles to me.
@ jtah
If it were simply the case that Ary was simply voicing a genuinely-held opinion, then I for one do think that the – or indeed any – punishment was appropriate. However, it does now appear that there was rather more to this situation …
Please specify what you mean by ‘that lifestyle’? If you are going to criticize something (and I respect your right to do that), I think you should at least be clear about what it is you are criticizing.
The comparison with drinking is, I submit, a bogus one: in our societies, people are not the object of malicious speech or action simply because they enjoy a tot from time to time.
Now speaking of a teacher disciplining a student for “moral responsibility.” Who defines these so called morals? Society? Government? Society and Government dictated the morals in Natzi Germany. Society and Government dictated morals in the soviet union and in China. So if society all of a sudden Society and/or Government decides that, let’s say, being a Hindu is unacceptable, is it the teachers duty to exercise discipline on that student for being a Hindu due to the “moral responsibility” of society? The teachers duty is to teach the students and uphold order in the classroom. Their job isn’t to dictate the morals of their students. If the kids get angry and lash out at what a student believes, than it is the kids who lash out that should be disciplined, not the student in question. If the student lashes out as well, than he should be punished, not because of his beliefs, but because he lashed out.
And to be clear. In no way do I think that I am superior to a homosexual or that a homosexual is superior to me. I personally just think that that lifestyle is wrong. That is completely different than a disagreement about race, because when it comes to race, it is a superiority complex that always drives the discrimination. That can be the case for homosexuality as well, but not always and definitely not in my case, but with regard to race that is ALWAYS the case. There is a big distinction there.
Another example would be if I think drinking is wrong. Does that mean I am bullying drunk people? of course not. It is NOT an AD HOMINEM. Am I going to force someone not to drink? No, of course not. It’s their CHOICE. But i will admonish them not to in a loving manner. And I will live by example. If i believe that what someone is doing is wrong, it wouldn’t be loving if I didn’t tell them what they were doing is wrong (again not in an insulting or condemning manner, but out of love). The reason people react to such statements is because of pride and selfishness. Let’s be honest here, how many of us when taking a cookie from the cookie jar when we were kids, for example, didn’t get angry and feel like we were being mistreated when we got in trouble for it. How many people doing drugs don’t get angry when someone tells them that what they are doing is wrong? I doubt few, if any at all don’t feel threatened, angry, or emotional. But I’m not loving that person if I don’t tell that person that doing drugs is wrong. I’m not loving my kids if I don’t discipline them. I’m not loving my alchoholic father, if I let him kill himself with alchohol. Most of the time, the people who the admonishing is dirrected to don’t see it as love. They are so wrapped up in their emotions. We need to take matters like this in an objective manner rather than just lash out with our emotions. That is just immature and makes us look even worse.
For crying out loud. The kid was just saying what he believed. He wasn’t bullying anyone or calling out any gays. If someone asked me if I thought thievery was wrong, then I’d say yes. Doesn’t mean i’m bullying thieves, I just think it’s wrong. If your identity is on your sexual orientation, obviously you are going to take offense. If your identity is on your financial gains (ie money), you are going to take offense when someone says that he thinks that more people should be charitable. In reality that person is just being self-centered, whether his/her identity is on money, sexual orientation, etc. Now if the 14 year old kid started beating up and insulting the homosexuals in his class, then it would be a problem. But he was just stating his beliefs. Muslims believe homosexuals should be put to death (if you that person is truly a student of the koran that is). Now that is a completely different story from just merely thinking homosexuality is wrong.True tolerance is willingness to listen to someone else’s ideas and not condemning them for disagreeing with yours and being willing to listen to their disagreements and they yours. And if you are truly a student of the Bible you would see that Homosexuality was not in our design. I can go off on the multitude of medical problems associated with homosexual relations (which are much more severe and numerous than those of heterosexual relations), but I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I think it was wrong for that teacher to punish that student for his beliefs. That is just pulling a double standard: “I can disagree with you, but you can’t disagree with me and if you do I’ll punish you.” That is very intolerant.
jtah – If you are not here to debate homosexuality, then why are you here?
If the boy was disrespectful to the teacher in ways that have not been disclosed by him or the Liberty Counsel attorneys (who have not always presented the facts properly on other matters) then there could be more to the story.
Perhaps you should go off on the multitude of medical problems associated with “homosexual relations.” I would be curious to see what you think they are.
Whoops … should have said “While I do share …”
@ SG
While do share your extreme annoyance at people being nasty and homophobic, and then bleating about their ‘rights’, I think we do need to remember that this was just a boy (and maybe a confused one at that).
Glad to hear that the teacher’s been cleared, by the way.
Well the teacher has been cleared and is returning to teach tomorrow. I thought the teachers version rang true to me, teachers just don’t throw kids otta class for nothing, just saying…
From a few comments up, Dave as to Dakota commiting suicide one day if he is villified, well he has the ability to stop the villification. He can come out and say his behaviour was inappropriate. However those poor sexual minority kids who are bullied have nothing in their control to make it stop. I am not sympathetic to bullies nor people whatever age, who gay bash. If Dakota made a mistake at 14 he has all the time in the world to correct it, GLBT kids do not, they are his victims. If he and his parents stand fast well good luck getting a good job by a Fortune 500 company one day. There is always the ministry I guess… Something to think about Dave.
But, Dave G., some of us believe that homophobia, and the injustice and violence it spawns, are much more damaging to society than loving same-sex partnerships. Even the Pope (not noted for being a ‘liberal’) says that “malice in word and action [directed at LGB persons simply because of ‘who they are’] undermines the most fundamental principles of a healthy society“. The reality is that the vast majority of human persons has been, is and will be heterosexual, so there’s no danger of our species dying out (unless we completely mess up the environment … but that’s another issue, of course). The blatant nastiness and untruthfulness (all those unjust slurs against gay people, e.g. comparison of same-sex relationships with bestiality, paedophilia and psychosis) of the so many in the ‘anti-gay brigade’ is testimony to said ‘brigade’s’ moral bankruptcy.
As for our ‘cultural guidelines’ these days: they are more and more mitigating against unjust discrimination in regard of LGB persons. I’m sorry: but on this matter it is now you who is ‘out of step’.
DAVE G# ~ Sep 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“But when, where, and with whom this should be explicitly expressed sexually is learned behavior. ”
this is a load of nonsense designed to obfuscate the facts about sexual orientation. While there are many societal restrictions about sexual behaviour that do effect the when, where, how and who of sexual activity (and hence much of this would be classified as “learned behaviour”, the GENDER of whom a person is attracted to IS NOT a “learned behavior”
But, Dave G., some of us believe that homophobia, and the injustice and violence it spawns, are much more damaging to society than loving same-sex partnerships. Even the Pope (not noted for being a ‘liberal’) says that “malice in word and action [directed at LGB persons simply because of ‘who they are’] undermines the most fundamental principles of a healthy society“. The reality is that the vast majority of human persons has been, is and will be heterosexual, so there’s no danger of our species dying out (unless we completely mess up the environment … but that’s another issue, of course). The blatant nastiness and untruthfulness (all those unjust slurs against gay people, e.g. comparison of same-sex relationships with bestiality, paedophilia and psychosis) of the so many in the ‘anti-gay brigade’ is testimony to said ‘brigade’s’ moral bankruptcy.
As for our ‘cultural guidelines’ these days: they are more and more mitigating against unjust discrimination in regard of LGB persons. I’m sorry: but on this matter it is now you who is ‘out of step’.
@SG; et al: –So, is Google the new messiah, and Liberty Counsel the anti-christ? Truly, this whole issue is a matter of conviction, as to what is really real. Is what you feel that which is real? The Bible says the heart is thoroughly deceptive.
As for gender attraction (not necessarily sexual), this changes during identity development while a child is growing up, and varies according to family experience of expressed affection. We all need affection; to love and be loved; these are feelings, “matter of the heart.” But when, where, and with whom this should be explicitly expressed sexually is learned behavior. Morality is a culture’s guidelines as to which is beneficial, and which detrimental, to community and generational development for humanity.
DAVE G# ~ Sep 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
“But when, where, and with whom this should be explicitly expressed sexually is learned behavior. ”
this is a load of nonsense designed to obfuscate the facts about sexual orientation. While there are many societal restrictions about sexual behaviour that do effect the when, where, how and who of sexual activity (and hence much of this would be classified as “learned behaviour”, the GENDER of whom a person is attracted to IS NOT a “learned behavior”
@SG; et al: –So, is Google the new messiah, and Liberty Counsel the anti-christ? Truly, this whole issue is a matter of conviction, as to what is really real. Is what you feel that which is real? The Bible says the heart is thoroughly deceptive.
As for gender attraction (not necessarily sexual), this changes during identity development while a child is growing up, and varies according to family experience of expressed affection. We all need affection; to love and be loved; these are feelings, “matter of the heart.” But when, where, and with whom this should be explicitly expressed sexually is learned behavior. Morality is a culture’s guidelines as to which is beneficial, and which detrimental, to community and generational development for humanity.
StraightGrandmother# ~ Sep 28, 2011 at 5:10 am
“However Dakota and his parents have brought this on themselves. First Dakota taunted, bullied using his religion as his weapon, and then he and his parents followed up to make a Federal case out of it. Speaking without thinking is one thing, he should have just taken his punishment and let it lye”
However, you left out an important piece here. The school administration (potentially) overreacted and suspended him for 3 days. And THAT is when the parents got the lawyers involved. Now there have been allegations (but NO EVIDENCE) that he has been involved in more than this single incident. If that is the case, then perhaps the 3 day suspension wasn’t an over-reaction. But frankly, I haven’t seen enough evidence to know for sure (nor do I think that you have SGM). Further, we don’t know what discussions occurred between the parents and school admin BEFORE they went to the Liberty Counsel.
StraightGrandmother# ~ Sep 28, 2011 at 5:10 am
“However Dakota and his parents have brought this on themselves. First Dakota taunted, bullied using his religion as his weapon, and then he and his parents followed up to make a Federal case out of it. Speaking without thinking is one thing, he should have just taken his punishment and let it lye”
However, you left out an important piece here. The school administration (potentially) overreacted and suspended him for 3 days. And THAT is when the parents got the lawyers involved. Now there have been allegations (but NO EVIDENCE) that he has been involved in more than this single incident. If that is the case, then perhaps the 3 day suspension wasn’t an over-reaction. But frankly, I haven’t seen enough evidence to know for sure (nor do I think that you have SGM). Further, we don’t know what discussions occurred between the parents and school admin BEFORE they went to the Liberty Counsel.
Well, yes. Ary is a 14 year-old boy (with all that that, including a fascination with anything remotely to do with ‘sex’, implies). If it transpires that he had been harassing the teacher and made an unwarranted and undermining remark (‘the last straw’ if you like), then he deserves a ‘slap on the wrist’ to teach him how to function acceptably. The ‘injured innocence’ (‘my First Amendments rights’ etc) – if that is what it can judged to be – is infuriating, to be sure, but – let’s be honest – we all play the ‘my rights’ card from time to time.
As an educator (like Carole?), I do agree that it is vital that any disciplining of students is proportionate and – where possible – designed to ‘educate’, not ‘crush’. Let’s wait for more details of this affair to emerge …
SG … 🙁 .. You actually claim to know what happened in a situation where each side is spinning its own tale??? … Really? And you want to pass this harsh judgment on a 14 year old?? Wishing that he be vilified for life until he repents shows that you haven’t learned much from kids who are vilified and end up comiting suicide. And now (from your last post) you want to compare the remarks of a 14 year old (made allegedly to his adult teacher) to the actions of ADULTS againt children?
Sorry .. but you are IMO way over the top on this one for reasons that others have already stated. If you aren’t careful your anger is it is going to take you to a place where others will no longer be able to hear you.
Blessings and peace,
Dave
Carole, I see what you are saying about what comes out of the mouthes of babes. However Dakota and his parents have brought this on themselves. First Dakota taunted, bullied using his religion as his weapon, and then he and his parents followed up to make a Federal case out of it. Speaking without thinking is one thing, he should have just taken his punishment and let it lye. But when you go and publicize a school incident and bring in the Liberty Counsel now you are escalating and demanding that your socially unacceptable behaviour (which you and your parents have now had time to cool down and think over) is permitted in our schools. This didn’t happen on a sidewalk in the neighborhood, this happened in a public school classroom.
Students like Dakota and his parents remind me strongly of similar parents in Mississippi who threw a second secret prom so that Constance McMillan would be excluded and instead sent Constance to a fake prom with 6 other kids from Special Ed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/constance-mcmillen-fake-p_n_525856.html
Well, yes. Ary is a 14 year-old boy (with all that that, including a fascination with anything remotely to do with ‘sex’, implies). If it transpires that he had been harassing the teacher and made an unwarranted and undermining remark (‘the last straw’ if you like), then he deserves a ‘slap on the wrist’ to teach him how to function acceptably. The ‘injured innocence’ (‘my First Amendments rights’ etc) – if that is what it can judged to be – is infuriating, to be sure, but – let’s be honest – we all play the ‘my rights’ card from time to time.
As an educator (like Carole?), I do agree that it is vital that any disciplining of students is proportionate and – where possible – designed to ‘educate’, not ‘crush’. Let’s wait for more details of this affair to emerge …
SG … 🙁 .. You actually claim to know what happened in a situation where each side is spinning its own tale??? … Really? And you want to pass this harsh judgment on a 14 year old?? Wishing that he be vilified for life until he repents shows that you haven’t learned much from kids who are vilified and end up comiting suicide. And now (from your last post) you want to compare the remarks of a 14 year old (made allegedly to his adult teacher) to the actions of ADULTS againt children?
Sorry .. but you are IMO way over the top on this one for reasons that others have already stated. If you aren’t careful your anger is it is going to take you to a place where others will no longer be able to hear you.
Blessings and peace,
Dave
I went back and read the link to the Advocate article. Assuming the boy(s) had given this teacher problems before, had indeed harrassed him–for any reason— then I am left wondering if the teacher followed what is standard procedure –the documentation of each of those incidents. It’s understandable that a teacher might let one incident slide in hopes the kids would cease, but not understandable if a second incident occurred.
Again, where were the adults?
Straight Grandmother,
“Socially acceptable behavior?”
I mean no disrespect, but you seem a bit out of touch with adolescents and their mouths, which frequently spew forth in volcanic fashion all sorts of things before their brains have chance to catch up to them and put on lid on them.
Seriously, whether the issue/topic is gay, sexy, ugly, beautiful, fat, skinny, what they ate for dinner the night before, belching, anal gas, hot babes, big boobs, bad teachers, cool teachers, hated teachers, pants on the ground, best porn sites, favorite football teams, hated football teams, their best friend (no longer their best friend), their moms, their , their mom’s lover, their dad’s lover, their step brothers and sisters, their full brothers and sisters, their little pest of a brother, their hatred of all things, their love for all things, their love of themselves, their contempt for themselves, their love of country, their hatred of country—it comes out of them at the most predictable times and at the most unpredictable times. I hope you see what I am saying.
This kind of statement of a kid’s personal belief is so endemic to a classsroom, so common anywhere a bunch of as-yet unformed adolescent brains have gathered that it occurs even in the higher grades and even when the kid wishes he had kept his mouth shut a split second after he has let the words escape. I might also add that it’s common for a kid to let tumble out a group of words that even he doesn’t agree with. You ought to see what comes out of the ADHD kids. No one is spared from the eruptive mouths of adolescents. And even when the kid has said something he meant to say, something he believes, he often does so in a classroom precisely because he has been encouraged for years by teachers and by the school to feel that he can feel free to state his opinion. Context, the propriety of setting are not variables weighed by the adolescent mind .” Impulse control is not a strength of most of them.
There are days in a public school classroom at any grade level when, if a teacher so inclined chose to do so, he or she could justify kicking out an entire class of kids on the basis of their insensitivity to others. On good days, excellent days, there are still these occurrences in each and every classroom. ( Can you begin to imagine what teachers hear in one day in just the comments not meant for their , in those comments whispered by one student to another?)
There are other issues here I might address, but I’ll leave it at its simplest level: the grown-ups, the teacher first, the administration second, handled this badly. I’ve done it; every teacher has done it–over-reacted– only to regret it (hopefully). In our over-reaction, we’ve missed an opportunity to teach the kids something by modeling respectful and modulated behavior.
I wish adults would show kids how to be adults by acting like adults.
Report: Suspended Student Had Harassed Teacher
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/09/27/Report_Suspended_Student_Had_Harassed_Teacher/
Well Ken I think 14 years old is ld enough to know right from wrong, I believe he knew his comments were taunting and he did it anyway and his parents backed him up and ran to the right wing Liberty Counsel, so I pretty much see what we are dealing with. This didn’t have to be the big deal that it is, he is challenging his teacher which seems pretty smug to me. They are the one who made this a big deal so you reap what you sow.
Of course he can come out in public and repent, I’m sure Google would pick that up. In the future as an adult if he repudiates his words and actions and stands up for gays, lesbians, bi-sexual or transgender citizens that might buy him some sympathy. It is all on him. Like I said my sympathazies are for the members of his community who are a sexual minority. Ken 14 is old enough, he knew what he was doing and he did it anyway. I have no sympathy for him and if he doesn’t publically repent this WILL follow him all of his life. It is no longer socially acceptable to denigrate sexual minorities, even IF it IS your religion.
We only know one name in this school, Dakota, what about all the other kids who are sexual minorities in his school, who speaks up and protects them from this bully? Teachers! I stand with the teacher. If later facts prove me wrong i will change my opinion. Until then I will be very happy if all people who shout out taunting in our classrooms that gays can’t be Christian are publically villified. Forever. Unless and until they repent. Ken remember Dakota controls the outcome, not me. He started it and he controls the ending. Unless he goes to a small Christian College can you imagin the reactions of his fellow students once they Google him? And they all Google each other. Dakota’s behaviour is NOT socially acceptable, and thank goodness for that. If Dakota wants a different ending than what I have written for his future, it’s on him. Think of all the sexual minority children who have taken their lives exactly because of students like Dakota, why not think of them?
StraightGrandmother# ~ Sep 27, 2011 at 9:29 pm
“I hope this follows Dakota for the rest of his smug life.
Is this mean of me?”
Yes, it is. Very mean and uncharitable, and frankly I am quite disappointed that you would post such a thing. This boy is 14 years old. 14 year olds do and say stupid things all the time and he has probably just gotten caught up in a whirlwind way beyond his control. And you want to condemn him for the rest his life for that. Is that really the type of person you want to be?
First off people can go on the internet and claim to be anything they want. I highly doubt Dave G is a licensed psychologist. What school granted you a Psychology degree Dave G?
Dave G =
This sentence proves you have no scientific expertice.
I believe the teachers version to the story. It makes more sense and rings true. Figures the parents of the student would run to Liberty Counsel, it just validates to me what went on in the class. Even though Dakota Ary may feel smug about getting away with it and getting off scott free he will pay a price, as his name will forever be all over the internet assosiated with anti gay predjudice just waiting for all his future employers to Google his name while screening for future employees. Oh, and if HR does a lousy job screening I am sure with his smug attitude his future co-workers will Google him one day. The beauty is, he will never know why he never seems to land that good job he wants. Google never forgives nor forgets. And he can thank his parents for the predjudicial upbringing they gave him and for running to Liberty Counsel. Good companies want to only hire people who can work in multi cultural teams, I hope this follows Dakota for the rest of his smug life.
Is this mean of me? Nah, think of all the gay or lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender students in his school who have suffered simply because he is a member f their student body. It is those kids my heart goes out to, not Dakota.
Well Ken I think 14 years old is ld enough to know right from wrong, I believe he knew his comments were taunting and he did it anyway and his parents backed him up and ran to the right wing Liberty Counsel, so I pretty much see what we are dealing with. This didn’t have to be the big deal that it is, he is challenging his teacher which seems pretty smug to me. They are the one who made this a big deal so you reap what you sow.
Of course he can come out in public and repent, I’m sure Google would pick that up. In the future as an adult if he repudiates his words and actions and stands up for gays, lesbians, bi-sexual or transgender citizens that might buy him some sympathy. It is all on him. Like I said my sympathazies are for the members of his community who are a sexual minority. Ken 14 is old enough, he knew what he was doing and he did it anyway. I have no sympathy for him and if he doesn’t publically repent this WILL follow him all of his life. It is no longer socially acceptable to denigrate sexual minorities, even IF it IS your religion.
We only know one name in this school, Dakota, what about all the other kids who are sexual minorities in his school, who speaks up and protects them from this bully? Teachers! I stand with the teacher. If later facts prove me wrong i will change my opinion. Until then I will be very happy if all people who shout out taunting in our classrooms that gays can’t be Christian are publically villified. Forever. Unless and until they repent. Ken remember Dakota controls the outcome, not me. He started it and he controls the ending. Unless he goes to a small Christian College can you imagin the reactions of his fellow students once they Google him? And they all Google each other. Dakota’s behaviour is NOT socially acceptable, and thank goodness for that. If Dakota wants a different ending than what I have written for his future, it’s on him. Think of all the sexual minority children who have taken their lives exactly because of students like Dakota, why not think of them?
StraightGrandmother# ~ Sep 27, 2011 at 9:29 pm
“I hope this follows Dakota for the rest of his smug life.
Is this mean of me?”
Yes, it is. Very mean and uncharitable, and frankly I am quite disappointed that you would post such a thing. This boy is 14 years old. 14 year olds do and say stupid things all the time and he has probably just gotten caught up in a whirlwind way beyond his control. And you want to condemn him for the rest his life for that. Is that really the type of person you want to be?
First off people can go on the internet and claim to be anything they want. I highly doubt Dave G is a licensed psychologist. What school granted you a Psychology degree Dave G?
Dave G =
This sentence proves you have no scientific expertice.
I believe the teachers version to the story. It makes more sense and rings true. Figures the parents of the student would run to Liberty Counsel, it just validates to me what went on in the class. Even though Dakota Ary may feel smug about getting away with it and getting off scott free he will pay a price, as his name will forever be all over the internet assosiated with anti gay predjudice just waiting for all his future employers to Google his name while screening for future employees. Oh, and if HR does a lousy job screening I am sure with his smug attitude his future co-workers will Google him one day. The beauty is, he will never know why he never seems to land that good job he wants. Google never forgives nor forgets. And he can thank his parents for the predjudicial upbringing they gave him and for running to Liberty Counsel. Good companies want to only hire people who can work in multi cultural teams, I hope this follows Dakota for the rest of his smug life.
Is this mean of me? Nah, think of all the gay or lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender students in his school who have suffered simply because he is a member f their student body. It is those kids my heart goes out to, not Dakota.
Let’s hope the whole truth comes out (no pun intended!).
I figured there was more to this story.
@ Dave (not ‘G’):
You said: “As for your I Cor 6:9-11 reference .. that would speak to certain actions being sinful not to a person’s feelings or identity being sinful.”
I agree entirely. And since (we Christians believe) all human persons are ‘sinners’, the particular suggestion that LGB persons are, by virtue of their sexual preference ‘sinful’ is misleading and irrelevant.
As for the ‘behaviour’ (and its effects – always an important moral consideration): neither the I Cor. 6 nor the Rom. 1 passage clearly states that all same-sex activity is ipso facto sinful; the implication in the former passage (where the word ‘homosexual’ in some translations would probably be better translated as ‘pimp or ‘pervert’) is that behaviour that is exploitative or damaging to others is sinful, while the latter focuses on the sinfulness of behaviour in terms of the effect on a person’s character. Like you, I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the lack of any kind of proper understanding of morality on this issue shown by homophobic people.
Let’s hope the whole truth comes out (no pun intended!).
@ Dave G … your post to me is the exact example of the problem … I separated out feelings from “behaviors” to use your word .. but you put them back together again .. Please re-read my post. A quick example of feelings versus actions follows … Jesus in the garden did not want to go through with what was planned and asked that “this cup be taken from me”. But he added .. “Not my will but thine be done” .. His feelings were so intense that he sweat what was like drops of blood .. but His choice was to override those feelings.
As for your I Cor 6:9-11 reference .. that would speak to certain actions being sinful not to a person’s feelings or identity being sinful.
I think you would be hard-pressed from a biblical perspective to solidify the personality allusions you are making from scripture into a moral code for personality. Just to be clear .. I am not making the argument that because a person feels a certain way they must act a certain way. I am saying that the bible is much more clear on actions being sinful than on feelings being sinful. Where you draw the line on this (feelings vs. actions being sinful) is more likely related to your faith tradition or your personal opinion then it is to any biblical rock of truth for all people.
Dave
I figured there was more to this story.
@ Dave (not ‘G’):
You said: “As for your I Cor 6:9-11 reference .. that would speak to certain actions being sinful not to a person’s feelings or identity being sinful.”
I agree entirely. And since (we Christians believe) all human persons are ‘sinners’, the particular suggestion that LGB persons are, by virtue of their sexual preference ‘sinful’ is misleading and irrelevant.
As for the ‘behaviour’ (and its effects – always an important moral consideration): neither the I Cor. 6 nor the Rom. 1 passage clearly states that all same-sex activity is ipso facto sinful; the implication in the former passage (where the word ‘homosexual’ in some translations would probably be better translated as ‘pimp or ‘pervert’) is that behaviour that is exploitative or damaging to others is sinful, while the latter focuses on the sinfulness of behaviour in terms of the effect on a person’s character. Like you, I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the lack of any kind of proper understanding of morality on this issue shown by homophobic people.
@ Dave G … your post to me is the exact example of the problem … I separated out feelings from “behaviors” to use your word .. but you put them back together again .. Please re-read my post. A quick example of feelings versus actions follows … Jesus in the garden did not want to go through with what was planned and asked that “this cup be taken from me”. But he added .. “Not my will but thine be done” .. His feelings were so intense that he sweat what was like drops of blood .. but His choice was to override those feelings.
As for your I Cor 6:9-11 reference .. that would speak to certain actions being sinful not to a person’s feelings or identity being sinful.
I think you would be hard-pressed from a biblical perspective to solidify the personality allusions you are making from scripture into a moral code for personality. Just to be clear .. I am not making the argument that because a person feels a certain way they must act a certain way. I am saying that the bible is much more clear on actions being sinful than on feelings being sinful. Where you draw the line on this (feelings vs. actions being sinful) is more likely related to your faith tradition or your personal opinion then it is to any biblical rock of truth for all people.
Dave
I’m not sure that it is necessary for Ary himself to have a history of disrupting classes in order to justify his being punished. If his comment was unwarranted and designed to undermine the authority of the teacher, then it could be argued that the school had a duty to act decisively in order to maintain discipline in the class, especially if that comment was part of an ‘on-going situation’.
Like Ken, I would be interested to know more …
I’m not sure that it is necessary for Ary himself to have a history of disrupting classes in order to justify his being punished. If his comment was unwarranted and designed to undermine the authority of the teacher, then it could be argued that the school had a duty to act decisively in order to maintain discipline in the class, especially if that comment was part of an ‘on-going situation’.
Like Ken, I would be interested to know more …
Interesting info F Young. I doesn’t really change my opinion on the matter. Unless Ary had had history of disrupting class AND the teacher had previously tried to engage him (or tell him his comments were inappropriate). Although, as I said before I really would like to hear (directly) from other people who where in the classroom at the time.
This is more information about the incident, from a comment posted at Towleroad:
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/09/student-suspended-for-saying-homosexuality-is-wrong-video/comments/page/5/#comments
[paragraph breaks and text in brackets added by F Young]
By the way, a similar argument can made for the passage in Romans 1. The key point about this passage is the result of whatever it is that is being condemned v. 27, viz. injustice, rottenness, greed, malice, envy, murder … (see vv. 28 and 29).
Reality shows us that there are many people in same-sex relationship who are not unjust, rotten, greedy, malicious, envious, murderous … Refusing to recognize this is not only nasty but also untruthful. Does the Romans passage refer to such people? My answer to that is ‘no’.
And this brings us back to the essential problem with Dakota’s statement … although I agree with many commenters here that the situation was almost certainly mishandled, not least because an opportunity to actually educate this young man was lost.
There are grounds for claiming that I Cor 6 : 9 does not refer to same-sex relationships per se. The latest translation used by the Catholic Church (the NJB – a translation highly regarded by many scholars) does not include the word ‘homosexual’ in that verse (it uses instead that word ‘sodomite’, thus implying violence and/or exploitation).
Interesting info F Young. I doesn’t really change my opinion on the matter. Unless Ary had had history of disrupting class AND the teacher had previously tried to engage him (or tell him his comments were inappropriate). Although, as I said before I really would like to hear (directly) from other people who where in the classroom at the time.
DAVE G# ~ Sep 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“The problem I’m addressing is that they (and the comments listed here) assume the “sexual orientation” paradigm –innate, unchangeable, morally equivalent behavior —all contradicted by scientific fact and by scripture.”
William has sufficiently addressed the other issues you brought up. So I’m just going to ask for the citations to the “scienitifc facts” you claim exist.
Further, I have no interest in your particular interpretation, of your particular version, of your particular religious text.
“As a psychologist I have scrutinized the “innate sexual orientation” paradigm, and found it lacking,”
I suspect you scrutinized it more as a conservative christian, and than as a psychologist. Since your posts indicate you have a hard time separating science from religion.
Dave G, I wrote that it doesn’t sound as though you know anything at all about homosexuality. Your latest post amply confirms that impression.
There is so much wrong with that curious statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin, but I’ll have a try.
The “sexual orientation” paradigm, as you call it, refers, as might be deduced from the wording, to people’s sexual orientation, i.e. to whether their sexual attraction is to people of the other sex, the same sex, or both. Orientation and behaviour are not the same thing. People’s sexual behaviour does generally tend to be in line with their sexual orientation, of course, but it is not inevitably so: people may, for one reason or another, choose to refrain from any sexual behaviour at all, or even to act contrary to their sexual orientation.
The term sexual orientation does not of itself imply any assumption as to whether the orientation is either innate or unchangeable. Some may think that it is; others may think that it isn’t. But again, note that this is a question about the orientation. The belief that the orientation is innate is not contradicted by scientific fact: as far as science goes, we still don’t know. As for scripture, the concept of sexual orientation does not appear therein. As to whether it is changeable, the evidence indicates that in males, at any rate, it very seldom is.
Poppycock. Being gay is in no way equitable [sic – equivalent?] to being a smoker. Being a smoker means that you are regularly doing something, viz. smoking, and to be addicted to smoking you have to start smoking. To be gay you don’t have to do start doing anything at all. It simply means that anyone to whom you are sexually attracted will be someone of your own sex. If this is so, then you will still be gay even if you never have sex with anyone, just as a heterosexual person will still be heterosexual even if he or she never has sex with anyone. That said, most gay people, just like most heterosexual people, do tend sooner or later to express their sexual orientation in sexual behaviour. As far as I’m concerned, all other things being equal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t.
This is more information about the incident, from a comment posted at Towleroad:
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/09/student-suspended-for-saying-homosexuality-is-wrong-video/comments/page/5/#comments
[paragraph breaks and text in brackets added by F Young]
@Ken… You’re right, the issue is the improper response by the school administration. The problem I’m addressing is that they (and the comments listed here) assume the “sexual orientation” paradigm –innate, unchangeable, morally equivalent behavior —all contradicted by scientific fact and by scripture. Being gay is simply not equivalent to being Jewish, being black, or even being left-handed; it is more closely equitable to being a “smoker” –addicted to behavior ultimately harmful to self and others.
I also agree that this incident could have been handled as a teachable moment rather than a knee-jerk discipline. Perhaps a dialogue could have ensued on why Christianity would hold such a view, and why so many people agree or disagree with it. As a psychologist I have scrutinized the “innate sexual orientation” paradigm, and found it lacking, just as I have rejected any claims of a flat 5000-year-old earth.
@Dave#… Who’s scripture are you reading? The Christian Bible is very clear throughout regarding sexual transgressions, including homosexuality. Granted, a few writers, utilizing a sort of convoluted exegesis, have tried re-writing scripture to match their own preferences, but thyey have been thoroughly discredited.
My first scripture reference for what I said earlier would be 1Corinthians 6:9-11. For the record, you will also find allusions to personality types in scripture, and how these impinge on the flow of history.
The point of morality, however, is that whereas human behavior has many options not consciously chosen, some are more harmful than others, not only to individuals but also to others, to succeeding generations, and ultimately to civilized humanity. These lessons should not be avoided or ignored in our children’s classrooms.
By the way, a similar argument can made for the passage in Romans 1. The key point about this passage is the result of whatever it is that is being condemned v. 27, viz. injustice, rottenness, greed, malice, envy, murder … (see vv. 28 and 29).
Reality shows us that there are many people in same-sex relationship who are not unjust, rotten, greedy, malicious, envious, murderous … Refusing to recognize this is not only nasty but also untruthful. Does the Romans passage refer to such people? My answer to that is ‘no’.
And this brings us back to the essential problem with Dakota’s statement … although I agree with many commenters here that the situation was almost certainly mishandled, not least because an opportunity to actually educate this young man was lost.
Dave G, you certainly have some very remarkable beliefs about homosexuality. But do you actually know anything at all about it? It honestly doesn’t sound like it.
There are grounds for claiming that I Cor 6 : 9 does not refer to same-sex relationships per se. The latest translation used by the Catholic Church (the NJB – a translation highly regarded by many scholars) does not include the word ‘homosexual’ in that verse (it uses instead that word ‘sodomite’, thus implying violence and/or exploitation).
DAVE G# ~ Sep 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“The problem I’m addressing is that they (and the comments listed here) assume the “sexual orientation” paradigm –innate, unchangeable, morally equivalent behavior —all contradicted by scientific fact and by scripture.”
William has sufficiently addressed the other issues you brought up. So I’m just going to ask for the citations to the “scienitifc facts” you claim exist.
Further, I have no interest in your particular interpretation, of your particular version, of your particular religious text.
“As a psychologist I have scrutinized the “innate sexual orientation” paradigm, and found it lacking,”
I suspect you scrutinized it more as a conservative christian, and than as a psychologist. Since your posts indicate you have a hard time separating science from religion.
oops posted with the wrong email .. I’ll try again..
@Dave G … And the verses you have to support his are …??? The truth is that scripture says noting about sexual orientation .. You can have whatever personal opinion you want on orientation but scripture does not back you up. Also .. the fact that scripture does not talk about it does not mean it does not exist … scripture also does not talk about personality types .. the Myers Briggs test … the autism – asperger spectrum and a host of other things. Maybe all these things don’t exist either.
The only moral point here is the issue of what constitutes sexual morality which is seperate and distinct from how a person identifies and/or what attractions or feelings they have and how they incorproate that into their view of themselves.
The student confused how a person views/identifies themselves with a moral position .. what should have happened was some correction in this area (as Ken suggests) .. not a suspension.
Dave
@Dave G … And the verses you have to support his are …??? The truth is that scripture says noting about sexual orientation .. You can have whatever personal opinion you want on orientation but scripture does not back you up. Also .. the fact that scripture does not talk about it does not mean it does not exist … scripture also does not talk about personality types .. the Myers Briggs test … the autism – asperger spectrum and a host of other things. Maybe all these things don’t exist either.
The only moral point here is the issue of what constitutes sexual morality which is seperate and distinct from how a person identifies and/or what attractions or feelings they have and how they incorproate that into their view of themselves.
The student confused how a person views/identifies themselves with a moral position .. what should have happened was some correction in this area (as Ken suggests) .. not a suspension.
Dave
Dave G, I wrote that it doesn’t sound as though you know anything at all about homosexuality. Your latest post amply confirms that impression.
There is so much wrong with that curious statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin, but I’ll have a try.
The “sexual orientation” paradigm, as you call it, refers, as might be deduced from the wording, to people’s sexual orientation, i.e. to whether their sexual attraction is to people of the other sex, the same sex, or both. Orientation and behaviour are not the same thing. People’s sexual behaviour does generally tend to be in line with their sexual orientation, of course, but it is not inevitably so: people may, for one reason or another, choose to refrain from any sexual behaviour at all, or even to act contrary to their sexual orientation.
The term sexual orientation does not of itself imply any assumption as to whether the orientation is either innate or unchangeable. Some may think that it is; others may think that it isn’t. But again, note that this is a question about the orientation. The belief that the orientation is innate is not contradicted by scientific fact: as far as science goes, we still don’t know. As for scripture, the concept of sexual orientation does not appear therein. As to whether it is changeable, the evidence indicates that in males, at any rate, it very seldom is.
Poppycock. Being gay is in no way equitable [sic – equivalent?] to being a smoker. Being a smoker means that you are regularly doing something, viz. smoking, and to be addicted to smoking you have to start smoking. To be gay you don’t have to do start doing anything at all. It simply means that anyone to whom you are sexually attracted will be someone of your own sex. If this is so, then you will still be gay even if you never have sex with anyone, just as a heterosexual person will still be heterosexual even if he or she never has sex with anyone. That said, most gay people, just like most heterosexual people, do tend sooner or later to express their sexual orientation in sexual behaviour. As far as I’m concerned, all other things being equal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t.
DAVE G# ~ Sep 26, 2011 at 10:48 am
the specifics of what he said are largely irrelevant. the issue being discussed is the improper response by the school administration. And in either case (the original statement or your alternative one) I think the teacher should have simply pointed out how such attitudes can be harmful. Personally, I hope the administration at that school uses this incident as a way to educate the teachers on how to respond to such incidents.
For example, I think better response by the teacher would have been to say:
“Do you also think your religion says being jewish is wrong? Such an attitude was once prevalent in germany with horrific results.”
And the teacher could have either followed up with a class discussion about using religion to denigrate others or perhaps suggested/encouraged students to come back after class/during a free period to discuss it and continued on with the original lesson. I’d certainly be interested in hearing other ideas on how the incident should have been handled.
“I still say that the false paradigm of “sexual orientation” ought to be dropped. ”
And some people say the earth is only a little over 5000 years old and that it is flat, however, saying (or simply believing) something doesn’t make it true or worth pursuing.
How about if Dakota had said, “Christianity says you don’t HAVE to be gay; no one does. God loves gays as much as anyone else, and He offers compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation, and a new birth of understanding ‘who you are.’ A lot of former gays attest to this from their own experience of overcoming homosexuality.”
I still say that the false paradigm of “sexual orientation” ought to be dropped. Behavior presented as a live option will be adopted by some, and some others will become convinced that they belong in that category. Homosexuality is a combination of false conviction and behavioral addiction, and should be handled as such.
@Ken… You’re right, the issue is the improper response by the school administration. The problem I’m addressing is that they (and the comments listed here) assume the “sexual orientation” paradigm –innate, unchangeable, morally equivalent behavior —all contradicted by scientific fact and by scripture. Being gay is simply not equivalent to being Jewish, being black, or even being left-handed; it is more closely equitable to being a “smoker” –addicted to behavior ultimately harmful to self and others.
I also agree that this incident could have been handled as a teachable moment rather than a knee-jerk discipline. Perhaps a dialogue could have ensued on why Christianity would hold such a view, and why so many people agree or disagree with it. As a psychologist I have scrutinized the “innate sexual orientation” paradigm, and found it lacking, just as I have rejected any claims of a flat 5000-year-old earth.
@Dave#… Who’s scripture are you reading? The Christian Bible is very clear throughout regarding sexual transgressions, including homosexuality. Granted, a few writers, utilizing a sort of convoluted exegesis, have tried re-writing scripture to match their own preferences, but thyey have been thoroughly discredited.
My first scripture reference for what I said earlier would be 1Corinthians 6:9-11. For the record, you will also find allusions to personality types in scripture, and how these impinge on the flow of history.
The point of morality, however, is that whereas human behavior has many options not consciously chosen, some are more harmful than others, not only to individuals but also to others, to succeeding generations, and ultimately to civilized humanity. These lessons should not be avoided or ignored in our children’s classrooms.
Dave G, you certainly have some very remarkable beliefs about homosexuality. But do you actually know anything at all about it? It honestly doesn’t sound like it.
oops posted with the wrong email .. I’ll try again..
@Dave G … And the verses you have to support his are …??? The truth is that scripture says noting about sexual orientation .. You can have whatever personal opinion you want on orientation but scripture does not back you up. Also .. the fact that scripture does not talk about it does not mean it does not exist … scripture also does not talk about personality types .. the Myers Briggs test … the autism – asperger spectrum and a host of other things. Maybe all these things don’t exist either.
The only moral point here is the issue of what constitutes sexual morality which is seperate and distinct from how a person identifies and/or what attractions or feelings they have and how they incorproate that into their view of themselves.
The student confused how a person views/identifies themselves with a moral position .. what should have happened was some correction in this area (as Ken suggests) .. not a suspension.
Dave
@Dave G … And the verses you have to support his are …??? The truth is that scripture says noting about sexual orientation .. You can have whatever personal opinion you want on orientation but scripture does not back you up. Also .. the fact that scripture does not talk about it does not mean it does not exist … scripture also does not talk about personality types .. the Myers Briggs test … the autism – asperger spectrum and a host of other things. Maybe all these things don’t exist either.
The only moral point here is the issue of what constitutes sexual morality which is seperate and distinct from how a person identifies and/or what attractions or feelings they have and how they incorproate that into their view of themselves.
The student confused how a person views/identifies themselves with a moral position .. what should have happened was some correction in this area (as Ken suggests) .. not a suspension.
Dave
DAVE G# ~ Sep 26, 2011 at 10:48 am
the specifics of what he said are largely irrelevant. the issue being discussed is the improper response by the school administration. And in either case (the original statement or your alternative one) I think the teacher should have simply pointed out how such attitudes can be harmful. Personally, I hope the administration at that school uses this incident as a way to educate the teachers on how to respond to such incidents.
For example, I think better response by the teacher would have been to say:
“Do you also think your religion says being jewish is wrong? Such an attitude was once prevalent in germany with horrific results.”
And the teacher could have either followed up with a class discussion about using religion to denigrate others or perhaps suggested/encouraged students to come back after class/during a free period to discuss it and continued on with the original lesson. I’d certainly be interested in hearing other ideas on how the incident should have been handled.
“I still say that the false paradigm of “sexual orientation” ought to be dropped. ”
And some people say the earth is only a little over 5000 years old and that it is flat, however, saying (or simply believing) something doesn’t make it true or worth pursuing.
How about if Dakota had said, “Christianity says you don’t HAVE to be gay; no one does. God loves gays as much as anyone else, and He offers compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation, and a new birth of understanding ‘who you are.’ A lot of former gays attest to this from their own experience of overcoming homosexuality.”
I still say that the false paradigm of “sexual orientation” ought to be dropped. Behavior presented as a live option will be adopted by some, and some others will become convinced that they belong in that category. Homosexuality is a combination of false conviction and behavioral addiction, and should be handled as such.
On the subject of the UK EA 2010 and liability: I suspect that an individual alleged case of (anti-LGBT) bullying would be dealt with as a civil matter, but that, if systemic failings became evident, people like myself (who is a governor, as well as an employee, of the establishment where I work) and others could be liable for criminal charges under the Act.
It is indeed very disappointing that it appears to be the case that ‘Christian parents’ (their views on same-sex relationships notwithstanding) oppose anti-LGBT bullying measures. Bullying of any kind is always indivisibly wrong; it threatens the most fundamental principles of a healthy society, and is thus always contrary to the common good. There are Christians, both parents and otherwise, who do not oppose such measures, of course: Warren is one; I am another. And, as far as I know, none of my Christian friends and acquaintances oppose such initiatives. It could be argued that we have been much too quiet on this issue in the past. Very well – we’ve started making a noise now! As much as anything, we do not wish to be misrepresented by people with whom we profoundly disagree – morally, philosophically and (I might add) theologically.
In this particular case, the issue is: did Dakota’s behaviour constitute some form of bullying or intimidation, or was it simply an expression of an opinion (however ‘defective’ his opinion and/or choice of words may, in the opinion of many of us, have been)? Perhaps we do not yet know enough about the whole situation to make a sound judgement on this point.
@Richard Wilmer
In Canada, it is more a civil liability than a criminal one. A human rights complaint can be filed if a school district fails to prevent bullying based on several actual or perceived personal characteristics listed in the human rights law, including sexual orientation and sex (incl gender identity via interpretation).
The school’s legal liability, and authority, applies to bullying both in and out of school (eg cyber-bullying), provided it affects the learning environment and the school could have prevented the bullying through discipline or education, for example.
The human rights complaint process can result in a settlement or tribunal order that incliudes damage awards, injunctions, curriculum and textbook revisions, and teacher suspensions or dismissals. Bad publicity,lawyers fees and considerable expenditures of staff time are other outcomes.
Teachers and counselors can also be disciplined by their professional bodies, eg for making in-school or public anti-LGBT statements or for promoting ex-gay “therapy”.
Still, anti-LGBT bullying continues. It will take time. A lot of Christian parents object to effective anti-bullying and anti-suicide programs for LGBT’s.
On the subject of the UK EA 2010 and liability: I suspect that an individual alleged case of (anti-LGBT) bullying would be dealt with as a civil matter, but that, if systemic failings became evident, people like myself (who is a governor, as well as an employee, of the establishment where I work) and others could be liable for criminal charges under the Act.
Thank you, Mr. Young.
In a sense, it is perhaps easier in London, UK than in Fort Worth, TX to deal with these kinds of issues in a measured way. Also, over here we have the Equality Act 2010 which effectively criminalizes unjustly discriminatory treatment of any kind in just about any ‘public’ context one might care to mention. Thus efforts to combat any real homophobia in schools (or ‘junior colleges’ such as the one in which I work) has the full force of UK law behind it. So, for example, any school found not to be dealing with homophobic bullying that might be taking place there could be found to be criminally negligent.
I think it’s hard to strike absolutely the correct balance between allowing open, honest discussion (and I do think that people should have the right to express ‘disagreement’ with something – though they simultaneously have a duty to do so with care, so that they do not compromise the fundamental rights of others) and protecting the vulnerable. If one is going to ‘err’, then I would favour ‘erring’ on the side of protecting the vulnerable. Maybe this school in Fort Worth shares this perspective, hence this apparent ‘overreaction’?
As a teacher, what would be my aim? It would, in the first instance, be to get Dakota to analysis and evaluate his own thoughts and words, taking into account the effect they could have on others. He probably just said something that he had been ‘fed’ without thinking it through. Those of us who have ‘thought things through’ know that the statement “being a homosexual is wrong” is a morally bankrupt one, if only because it ignores the fact that, in the field of sexual relations – gay or straight – there is a wide range of behaviours that occur; some if these behaviours are clearly morally dubious or worse, while others are ‘wholesome and nourishing’.
@Richard Wilmer
By the way, kudos to you for having spoken out. It’s responsible, courageous and important, and too few teachers do it.
In some cases, it is because the teacher himself is closeted and is afraid of being outed, or is heterosexual and is afraid that others will perceive him/her as being gay. I understand this, but I still have problems with the fitness to teach of a teacher who does not have the courage to defend a student.
I generally favor teachers being disciplined for failing to intervene against bullying. However, I recognize that, in some environments, if you dealt with every incident (eg “That’s so gay.”) there would be no time left to actually teach.
Patrocles# ~ Sep 24, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“On the other hand, when and where at school are children to learn about the importance to accept free speech even if we don’t like it?”
to be clear, in this case there is no free speech (1st amend) issue. By Ary’s own admission, his comment was NOT part of a class discussion, but an aside to a friend during class. If his comment had been made in the hallways between classes, at lunch, before class has actually started etc, then there might be a free speech issue. But not in this case.
@Richard Wilmer
By the way, kudos to you for having spoken out. It’s responsible, courageous and important, and too few teachers do it.
In some cases, it is because the teacher himself is closeted and is afraid of being outed, or is heterosexual and is afraid that others will perceive him/her as being gay. I understand this, but I still have problems with the fitness to teach of a teacher who does not have the courage to defend a student.
I generally favor teachers being disciplined for failing to intervene against bullying. However, I recognize that, in some environments, if you dealt with every incident (eg “That’s so gay.”) there would be no time left to actually teach.
Patrocles# ~ Sep 24, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“On the other hand, when and where at school are children to learn about the importance to accept free speech even if we don’t like it?”
to be clear, in this case there is no free speech (1st amend) issue. By Ary’s own admission, his comment was NOT part of a class discussion, but an aside to a friend during class. If his comment had been made in the hallways between classes, at lunch, before class has actually started etc, then there might be a free speech issue. But not in this case.
@ F Young
I understand. I think you might taken the part you quoted of my original comment out of context – which does raise an important point regarding what Dakota might have said: it is important to establish what Dakota actually meant by his comment, and that would have formed an important part of any discussion I would have had with him (or indeed the whole class) had I been his teacher. (We all know that words like ‘homosexual’ and ‘homosexuality’, both of which are broad terms, are bandied about – especially by people who are homophobic – without it being made clear what is actually being referred to.)
@Patrocles
Can it be taught? How would you do it?
And why is it that the victim has to change and not the aggressor?
I can see that Dakota saying “being homosexual is wrong” could allow him to feel closer to the other homophobes, but how would it enable him to be closer to the closeted LGBT student, except in an abusive way?
@ Richard Wilmer
“I would just add that I never said (or even I think implied) that only Dakota’s feelings and rights were important here, so I’m not quite sure from where you got that idea.”
I “got that idea” from….
which to me implied that you recommended a private discussion between Dakota and the teacher after class, which, to me, ignored the effect of Dakota’s statement on the rest of the class.
You explained your position more fully in your second post, and I agree with it.
Incredibly bad idea that someone else once had. And in case you haven’t noticed, the end result of this practice has been happening a lot lately.
@Patrocles
Can it be taught? How would you do it?
And why is it that the victim has to change and not the aggressor?
I can see that Dakota saying “being homosexual is wrong” could allow him to feel closer to the other homophobes, but how would it enable him to be closer to the closeted LGBT student, except in an abusive way?
Personally, I think that everyone may say everything if only (a) he really is convinced of it and (b) he has a serious reason for his sayings
.
That wouldn’t include intentional bullying, because reasons like “getting Joe angry” or “making Joe cry” aren’t serious reasons.Also, they seduce people to say things they aren’t convinced of, only in order to get the effect they long for.
I wouldn’t agree – and in fact, I don’t see why it’s necessary – to restrict free speech in school more than so far. If there’s a closeted gay boy in the class, first, it’s more important to teach him resiliance, secondly, he should realize that it’s often better for him to know the real feelings of his fellow-men. Politeness isn’t bad but it prevents to be open and to be close with each other.
On the other hand, when and where at school are children to learn about the importance to accept free speech even if we don’t like it?
@ F Young
I entirely agree with what you about the need for the teacher publically to make the necessary moral and educational point (and I personally would, and – in fact – have, cut out the words ‘in school’!); I was merely questioning whether it was appropriate to actually punish Dakota. If he was being malicious in some way, then punishment was indeed warranted; if not, then a ‘therapeutic’ approach would have been far preferable, in my view.
I would just add that I never said (or even I think implied) that only Dakota’s feelings and rights were important here, so I’m not quite sure from where you got that idea.
@ Ken
Maybe I misunderstood something in the Reuters article.
Incredibly bad idea that someone else once had. And in case you haven’t noticed, the end result of this practice has been happening a lot lately.
Personally, I think that everyone may say everything if only (a) he really is convinced of it and (b) he has a serious reason for his sayings
.
That wouldn’t include intentional bullying, because reasons like “getting Joe angry” or “making Joe cry” aren’t serious reasons.Also, they seduce people to say things they aren’t convinced of, only in order to get the effect they long for.
I wouldn’t agree – and in fact, I don’t see why it’s necessary – to restrict free speech in school more than so far. If there’s a closeted gay boy in the class, first, it’s more important to teach him resiliance, secondly, he should realize that it’s often better for him to know the real feelings of his fellow-men. Politeness isn’t bad but it prevents to be open and to be close with each other.
On the other hand, when and where at school are children to learn about the importance to accept free speech even if we don’t like it?
@Richard Wilmer
Okay, maybe a suspension was excessive, but whatever approach is taken must consider that Dakota’s feelings and rights are not the only ones that were in question.
We can safely assume that there was a closeted LGBT or questioning student in class who was told yet again that it is wrong for him to exist. So, the teacher was required to address that publicly.
Ideally, the teacher should have said: “In school, we don’t say a person is wrong just because of who or what they are. We don’t judge people because of their religion or race or sexual orientation. Everyone in school has the right not be made to feel bad about who or what they are. The Holocaust is an extreme example of what can happen when people are judged by what they are. Now, let’s get back to the topic, which is…”
“The school is not commenting so I do not think we can evaluate the situation at this point. ”
yes, and unfortunately, none of the news organizations thought to interview any of the other kids in the class (a perspective I’d really like to hear).
As I said in the other thread, I think the school (and not just the teacher) over-reacted here.
Also, Richard, where did you read that the teacher was of german decent?
@Richard Wilmer
Okay, maybe a suspension was excessive, but whatever approach is taken must consider that Dakota’s feelings and rights are not the only ones that were in question.
We can safely assume that there was a closeted LGBT or questioning student in class who was told yet again that it is wrong for him to exist. So, the teacher was required to address that publicly.
Ideally, the teacher should have said: “In school, we don’t say a person is wrong just because of who or what they are. We don’t judge people because of their religion or race or sexual orientation. Everyone in school has the right not be made to feel bad about who or what they are. The Holocaust is an extreme example of what can happen when people are judged by what they are. Now, let’s get back to the topic, which is…”
“The school is not commenting so I do not think we can evaluate the situation at this point. ”
yes, and unfortunately, none of the news organizations thought to interview any of the other kids in the class (a perspective I’d really like to hear).
As I said in the other thread, I think the school (and not just the teacher) over-reacted here.
Also, Richard, where did you read that the teacher was of german decent?
From what one of the commenters on the Reuters article has said, it seems that Dakota’s words were “I’m a Christian; I think being a homosexual is wrong.”
Dakota is 14 years old. Boys of that age do make remarks without considering their implications. Sure the statement is very problematic, as is suggests that there is something intrinsically ‘defective’ about LGB persons relative to other human persons, and this is unacceptable; it also ignores that fact that many Christians do not consider same-sex relationships to be ipso facto ‘wrong’ (and indeed that the Church does not see homosexual orientation as ‘sinful’). As a teacher myself, I would have much preferred it if this situation had been treated as a ‘pastoral’ one, with the matter being discussed Dakota in a way that was non-threatening to him.
Of course, we don’t know what else was going on in the class at the time. If Dakota’s intervention had been intended to ‘inflame a situation’ or ridicule another child in the class, then there would be grounds to discipline him on that score.
The teacher was German. Many Germans are still ‘painfully aware’ of the various murder programmes during the Hitler years: LGB persons were murdered in considerable numbers by the Nazis, as all but the likes of Scott Lively know well.
From what one of the commenters on the Reuters article has said, it seems that Dakota’s words were “I’m a Christian; I think being a homosexual is wrong.”
Dakota is 14 years old. Boys of that age do make remarks without considering their implications. Sure the statement is very problematic, as is suggests that there is something intrinsically ‘defective’ about LGB persons relative to other human persons, and this is unacceptable; it also ignores that fact that many Christians do not consider same-sex relationships to be ipso facto ‘wrong’ (and indeed that the Church does not see homosexual orientation as ‘sinful’). As a teacher myself, I would have much preferred it if this situation had been treated as a ‘pastoral’ one, with the matter being discussed Dakota in a way that was non-threatening to him.
Of course, we don’t know what else was going on in the class at the time. If Dakota’s intervention had been intended to ‘inflame a situation’ or ridicule another child in the class, then there would be grounds to discipline him on that score.
The teacher was German. Many Germans are still ‘painfully aware’ of the various murder programmes during the Hitler years: LGB persons were murdered in considerable numbers by the Nazis, as all but the likes of Scott Lively know well.