NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/gay.friendly.school/


As stated in the title, are they necessary? Should gay students really be given their own high schools to be "safe" from the rest of society? Does it promote segregation even more?

I personally don't think there is a need, and yes it does promote segregation. It works against everything that gay rights promoters work for; acceptance in our culture. Also, just think about the football games and violence springing up from that. They must have a whole police force for sporting events.

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

The School for Social Justice Pride Campus, which officials say will not be exclusive to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, is aimed at being safe and welcoming for any student looking for another school option, said Josh Edelman, executive officer in the Chicago Public Schools' Office of New Schools.
So, what's the difference?

No they shouldn't, gay high schools would probably be targets of school shootings, vandalism etc.

That just seems like segregation. How bout we keep working on integrating, 'we are one people' rather than 'us and them?'

lol wut? :p

That is such a bad, stupid idea. How long until it gets firebombed?

That just seems like segregation. How bout we keep working on integrating, 'we are one people' rather than 'us and them?'
That's no popular with America's leftist agendas at the moment.

Strength through diversity. Diversity is our strenght. Celebrate our differences....

and all that nonsense.

That's no popular with America's leftist agendas at the moment.

Strength through diversity. Diversity is our strenght. Celebrate our differences....

and all that nonsense.Well yea, 'celebrate our differences', not 'put our differences in different rooms and don't let them talk to each other for fear of an incident.'

It works against everything that gay rights promoters work for; acceptance in our culture. Also, just think about the football games and violence springing up from that. They must have a whole police force for sporting events.

I'm confused. What do gay high schools have to do with violence at football games? And speaking of, I've not heard of anybody being particularly violent at football games lately(although I personally must confess to some shockingly bad language when the Packers lost to the Vikings just now)

You don't get a lot of queers in football, anyways. They're more likely to take up figure skating.

Well yea, 'celebrate our differences', not 'put our differences in different rooms and don't let them talk to each other for fear of an incident.'

That's a bad approach. Why would you want to bring attention to your differences? Humans don't like other humans who are different. We've spent the last 200000 years proving that point.

Well yea, 'celebrate our differences', not 'put our differences in different rooms and don't let them talk to each other for fear of an incident.'
No.....right now if one trys to say that believing in strength through diversity is simply dividing the country, they are branded as a racist and bigot...even though it is ingrained in our culture to be anti-diversity and pro-unity.

Out of many, one. United we stand, divided we fall...and all that.

This was mentioned on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart said, "A high school for gay kids? I thought that already existed (http://www.mumsword.net/images/high-school-musical1.jpg)."

I blame that poxy musical......

That's a bad approach. Why would you want to bring attention to your differences? Humans don't like other humans who are different. We've spent the last 200000 years proving that point.As an American, differences have kind of been my country's thing. One big mix of cultures. We should try to move toward accepting and celebrating differences rather than partitioning and fearing them.

I don't care for the idea. It seems like a poor substitute for an educational program that promotes social interaction in an educational environment.

On the other hand, that school must have killer tennis and wrestling programs! :D

As an American, differences have kind of been my country's thing. One big mix of cultures. We should try to move toward accepting and celebrating differences rather than partitioning and fearing them.

Or you could pretend they don't exist and act like one big homogeneous blob. That tends to work well.

Or you could pretend they don't exist and act like one big homogeneous blob. That tends to work well.Come to think of it, we do have a lot of blobs...

I personally don't think there is a need, and yes it does promote segregation. It works against everything that gay rights promoters work for; acceptance in our culture.

No, it's about equality and freedom. Challenging mainstream homophobia is part of that. But so is having "safe spaces."

Sometimes you don't want to change the world.

Also, just think about the football games

?

and violence springing up from that. They must have a whole police force for sporting events.

Wait, you think violence against gays is so endemic that simply having a high school like this one poses a threat... yet at the same time you don't see any need for "safe" high schools?

Do explain.

I'm confused. What do gay high schools have to do with violence at football games? And speaking of, I've not heard of anybody being particularly violent at football games lately(although I personally must confess to some shockingly bad language when the Packers lost to the Vikings just now)

Well you know, teenagers that are taught to hate queers and think they're bad ass just might go nuts if the gay football team kicked their team's ass. I live in the sticks and we had a yearly rivalry game. Always fighting, always cops on the premises.

You don't get a lot of queers in football, anyways. They're more likely to take up figure skating.

LOL. I want a source.

As stated in the title, are they necessary? Should gay students really be given their own high schools to be "safe" from the rest of society?

Yes. Then, they should also be given their gay universities, gay corporations (GNAA is a good one), gay cities and gay countries.

So, what's the difference?

You don't need to restrict entrance to heavily influence the proportions.

http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp295/andrewthe/lolwut-scaled.jpg

I bet this school would be faaaaabulous! I cant wait to see the dress code. And i bet you could sell tickets to Gym classes.

Wait, you think violence against gays is so endemic that simply having a high school like this one poses a threat... yet at the same time you don't see any need for "safe" high schools?

Do explain.

I don't think there's a need for a "safety" school at all. If there's violence taking place, the students inflicting the violence need to be reprimanded and given severe penalties, kind of like a message to others. The students need to be taught to respect others, not shun them into other schools. Putting them in other schools just increases the chance of other students viewing gays as being even more different and that would add to the hate.

sounds silly. We never had a major issue of gay bashing in my high school and we had a much larger then average openly gay school.

http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp295/andrewthe/lolwut-scaled.jpgWait, what was that first picture you put up?

You don't need to restrict entrance to heavily influence the proportions.

Erm... They didn't say that they were going to do that in the link.

Wait, what was that first picture you put up?

A pic of me. I posted it by mistake.

The students need to be taught to respect others, not shun them into other schools.

Great. Teach them that.

What does this have to do with the proposal?

Putting them in other schools just increases the chance of other students viewing gays as being even more different and that would add to the hate.

So you want to use gay teenagers to give straight people a crash course in the evils of homophobia?

Sorry, I don't think that's their job.

OP question:

No.

Next question.

Well you know, teenagers that are taught to hate queers and think they're bad ass just might go nuts if the gay football team kicked their team's ass.

I don't see a gay high school fielding a football team that anybody would have to worry about losing to, or fielding a football team for that matter.



LOL. I want a source.

The collective unconscious? It's one those things that 'everybody knows', like 'chicks with tongue rings like to give head'

No.....right now if one trys to say that believing in strength through diversity is simply dividing the country, they are branded as a racist and bigot...even though it is ingrained in our culture to be anti-diversity and pro-unity.

Out of many, one. United we stand, divided we fall...and all that.
...

What? How is diversity and such NOT representative of that very sentiment? I would think it would be a perfect way to show how we are all united, by combing our various cultures, beliefs, and so on.

And here I was just starting to respect you for your sudden support of Obama, and yet here you go with the same old TAI. That's what I get for getting my hopes up, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/gay.friendly.school/


As stated in the title, are they necessary? Should gay students really be given their own high schools to be "safe" from the rest of society? Does it promote segregation even more?

I personally don't think there is a need, and yes it does promote segregation. It works against everything that gay rights promoters work for; acceptance in our culture. Also, just think about the football games and violence springing up from that. They must have a whole police force for sporting events.

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?
I can see why some would defend this, and to be honest, if it weren't for the fact that in practice it ends up resulting in an isolated environment, I might support it.

But I can't support it. It's the wrong way to go. We learned our lesson with segregation. Let's not repeat our mistakes, please.

We learned our lesson with segregation.

As if offering more options to people were equivalent to forcing them into separate, often materially unequal public facilities for the purpose of maintaining their social inferiority....

As if offering more options to people were equivalent to forcing them into separate, often materially unequal public facilities for the purpose of maintaining their social inferiority....

I know where you're going with this argument, but the problem is that you're missing my point. My point is that the same atmosphere of intolerance will continue, and may even increase because of places like this, which create the impression that homosexuals have to be isolated to be protected.

It's not exactly the same, but it ends up achieving the same effect on society.

The collective unconscious? It's one those things that 'everybody knows', like 'chicks with tongue rings like to give head'

Yeah, Weasels. Don't you know that generalizations about figure skating and tongue rings are an integral part of our subconscious Jungian Weltanschauung?

I know where you're going with this argument, but the problem is that you're missing my point. My point is that the same atmosphere of intolerance will continue, and may even increase because of places like this, which create the impression that homosexuals have to be isolated to be protected.

It's not exactly the same, but it ends up achieving the same effect on society.

Could one make a similar argument for catholic schools?

Could one make a similar argument for catholic schools?

Or historically black colleges.

Or historically black colleges.

Not so much. Catholics always had a choice whether they went to public or catholic schools. Black people didn't always have that choice.

But one could argue that Catholic schools create an artificial isolation that exacerbates societal tensions.

My point is that the same atmosphere of intolerance will continue,

Maybe. So?

This isn't about ending intolerance, this is about creating a safe place.

and may even increase because of places like this, which create the impression that homosexuals have to be isolated to be protected.

...and like the OP, you're perfectly inclined to assign the task of reducing tolerance to LGBT teenagers, even if it comes at the expense of their comfort and their safety.

I dunno. Are all-boys schools necessary? Are all-girls? How about Catholic universities? Traditionally African American schools? Schools for the Deaf? Schools for Women's Studies? Schools for engineering? High schools of science? of TV and Radio?

I don't think there is any reason there should NOT be a niche school....

From the FAQ:

Q: What's the Harvey Milk High School?

A: The Harvey Milk High School is an inclusive voluntary public high school focusing on the educational needs of children who are in crisis or at risk of physical violence and/or emotional harm in a traditional educational environment.

...

Q: Why can't at-risk children remain in their current schools? Isn't this segregation?

A: These are children that have been in traditional schools, but have needed to leave or have dropped out because of physical violence and/or emotional harm....

It is not segregation to remove a child from a dangerous situation in order to give them a chance to learn safely.

What People are Asking About HMHS (http://www.hmi.org/HOME/FOR_THE_PUBLIC/Article/Params/articles/1315/pathlist/s1050_o1222/default.aspx#item1315)

Remind me again why these students need to be forced to go to their ordinary high schools?

Could one make a similar argument for catholic schools?

A good question. I would say no, because Catholic schools are private institutions. This high school isn't.

If it was a private institution, I wouldn't have anything against it per se. (I'd still argue against its merits, but I'd say let it be.)

But because it's a publicly run school, it--to me, anyway--signals some serious potential for problems I'd prefer to nip in the bud.

Not so much. Catholics always had a choice whether they went to public or catholic schools. Black people didn't always have that choice.

But one could argue that Catholic schools create an artificial isolation that exacerbates societal tensions.

But many still have student bodies that are over 90% black. Which is their choice. Mandating that all institutions be representative of the population as a whole isn't necessary.

I think such an idea is silly. The way to improve gay rights is to show everyone that being homosexual is totally normal and wouldn't be such a big deal if society didn't make it one.

No they shouldn't, gay high schools would probably be targets of school shootings, vandalism etc.
Hmmm. Funny. I do a google on the Harvey Milk school and I don't see anything about vandalism or attacks.....

Yeah, Weasels. Don't you know that generalizations about figure skating and tongue rings are an integral part of our subconscious Jungian Weltanschauung?

I was being facetious about the 'collective unconscious'(feel free to unbunch your panties, by the way)because there is no real 'source' for it, but it's one of those things that falls under the heading of 'everyone knows....' The thing about 'everyone knows...' is that depending on where you're born and raised, what 'everyone knows..' differs.

For example, I wrote a post where I mentioned my little brother's girlfriend, who was born and raised in Berkley, CA. According to her, 'everyone knows' that your average Republican's malevolence is exceeded only by their ineptitude. Whereas I was raised in a part of the country where 'everyone knows' that hippies are lazy and don't bathe.

Also, I love how straight people are so eager to speak authoritatively on how non-straight people should deal with prejudice and bigotry.

If gay kids are unsafe at other schools right now it seems like a good idea to educate them in a place where they aren't in constant fear. The article said they wouldn't be exclusive so I don't understand what all the B.S. about isolation is. I never do see what that is all about either though, I mean school is not a 24/7 destination. If a kid wants to go there what's your issue?

I would have a problem if it was a gay only, forced to be there school. This doesn't appear to be that.

I cannot think of a single use for them, utterly pointless and divisive.

Also, I love how straight people are so eager to speak authoritatively on how non-straight people should deal with prejudice and bigotry.

They should also stop listening to Barbara Streisand. It isn't healthy.

A good question. I would say no, because Catholic schools are private institutions. This high school isn't.

If it was a private institution, I wouldn't have anything against it per se. (I'd still argue against its merits, but I'd say let it be.)

But because it's a publicly run school, it--to me, anyway--signals some serious potential for problems I'd prefer to nip in the bud.
In NYC at least, you have to choose, yourself, which school you want to attend. I would hope the students signing up for this school WANT to be in this school.

But many still have student bodies that are over 90% black. Which is their choice. Mandating that all institutions be representative of the population as a whole isn't necessary.

I wonder how many students choose to go there because one or both parents did. Or because the schools are more likely to accept them. I wonder how many white people apply to those schools. I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but I suspect the reason why these schools have high black enrollment might lie somewhere in there.

From the FAQ:



What People are Asking About HMHS (http://www.hmi.org/HOME/FOR_THE_PUBLIC/Article/Params/articles/1315/pathlist/s1050_o1222/default.aspx#item1315)

Remind me again why these students need to be forced to go to their ordinary high schools?
...

Well, that ends my ability to run a Devil's Advocate argument.

I find myself in favor of this place now.

Also, I love how straight people are so eager to speak authoritatively on how non-straight people should deal with prejudice and bigotry.
I was actually running a Devil's Advocate argument, but thanks for the insult. :(

Remind me again why these students need to be forced to go to their ordinary high schools?

Careful there, you're steering dangerously close to sounding like you're supportive of vouchers and school choice. We can't have anything threatening the stranglehold the NEA has on the school system can we?

Also, I love how straight people are so eager to speak authoritatively on how non-straight people should deal with prejudice and bigotry.

Yeah, because it's only gays that have ever experienced any kind of prejudice and nobody else could possibly have any kind of experience in dealing with it that might be useful.

I would hope the students signing up for this school WANT to be in this school.

Yes, it's wholly voluntary.

The only compulsion on this issue is that advocated by those who think LGBT teenagers should be forced to endure harassment, violence, and emotional abuse so that straight people can be taught what they should teach themselves.

(Or so that the government doesn't endorse the evil gay agenda.)

Remind me again why these students need to be forced to go to their ordinary high schools?

It's not an either/or, there are other more appropriate and less divisive solutions.

Also, I love how straight people are so eager to speak authoritatively on how non-straight people should deal with prejudice and bigotry.
I hope you don't mind an educator in NYC chiming in, then?

I am, uneasy, at the suggestion. If I understand correctly, Harvey Milk High students have to be at risk of dropping out whereas this new one does not seem to have that requirement. Providing targeted help for kids in trouble or who have special needs is a good thing (Charter schools, schools for the deaf, and so on), but providing public monies for at risk population just sounds like breaking up a school community so that you only have to deal with the people you want to deal with.

In NYC at least, you have to choose, yourself, which school you want to attend. I would hope the students signing up for this school WANT to be in this school.

As would I. And to be perfectly honest, I wish I'd had a chance to go to this school. With the statistics I'm seeing, they sound like one of the best high schools in the nation.

As has already been pointed out, these schools are designed for children who have had to drop out of other schools having dropped out because of physical violence or emotional harm. If someone like that is going to feel comfortable continuing their education, where otherwise they might have skived off school, or performed worse due to stress, such schools serve a positive function. I had a bit of a bad time in school, going through lots of gender and sexuality issues and would have felt much happier and been able to be myself a lot more in a school that had openly declared itself as friendly towards LGBT students and took a tough stance on bullying.

Now, of course, what I'd like to happen is for all schools to be 'gay-friendly' and exercise a full range of punishments right up to suspension and expulsion for children who engage in homophobic or transphobic violence or name-calling. But America, with the power of the Christian lobby, clearly isn't ready for that yet. So as a 'next best thing', why not have individual liberal schools flag up their LGBT-friendliness? Its not as if only LGBT students will go there, or that all LGBT students will go to these schools, so its not really segregation either. Its hardly as if the bullies in unsympathetic schools are going to learn tolerance from verbally abusing and physically assaulting LGBT students without sufficient punishment, and its hardly as if those LGBT students who can't cope with that benefit from being forced to stay in a hostile environment. I can't see how anyone loses out by this, but I can see that some will gain. On that basis, its a good thing in my opinion.

Yes, it's wholly voluntary.

The only compulsion on this issue is that advocated by those who think LGBT teenagers should be forced to endure harassment, violence, and emotional abuse so that straight people can be taught what they should teach themselves.

(Or so that the government doesn't endorse the evil gay agenda.)
Well, Fred Phelps protested it, so I'm all for it. ;)

That and I've known enough kids who were bullied for WHATEVER reason -- if getting them into a better school where they can learn is a problem for some, too bad.

I'd say not necessary nor wise.

What does being homosexual, or heterosexual have to do with education?
Surely, People should be concentrating on how to improve behaviour in schools that already exist, not trying to seperate people who are no different to any others, and making a big deal out of it.
The purpose of schools is education, not sexual preference.

As has already been pointed out, these schools are designed for children who have had to drop out of other schools having dropped out because of physical violence or emotional harm. If someone like that is going to feel comfortable continuing their education, where otherwise they might have skived off school, or performed worse due to stress, such schools serve a positive function.

Now, of course, what I'd like to happen is for all schools to be 'gay-friendly' and exercise a full range of punishments right up to suspension and expulsion for children who engage in homophobic or transphobic violence or name-calling. But America, with the power of the Christian lobby, clearly isn't ready for that yet. So as a 'next best thing', why not have individual liberal schools flag up their LGBT-friendliness? Its not as if only LGBT students will go there, or that all LGBT students will go to these schools, so its not really segregation either. Its hardly as if the bullies in unsympathetic schools are going to learn tolerance from verbally abusing and physically assaulting LGBT students without sufficient punishment, and its hardly as if those LGBT students who can't cope with that benefit from being forced to stay in a hostile environment. I can't see how anyone loses out by this, but I can see that some will gain. On that basis, its a good thing in my opinion.
I agree.

I mean, to be honest, while it was a Devil's Advocate argument the whole potential segregation thing has a little merit, but not much.

Absolutely terrible idea.

Once there's a "gay school" in the catchment of a regular school, gay kids (or bi, or still uncertain) who choose to go to the regular school are even more a minority. And because they have the option to "go away" they'll be bullied even worse.

All schools should be safe. If any student should "go away" to make that so, it should not be the victims of bullying, but the perpetrators of it.

Careful there, you're steering dangerously close to sounding like you're supportive of vouchers and school choice.

Within the framework of a free public school system, I'm not against certain forms of school choice.

I also don't think they are a panacea, and sometimes I think they can worsen problems of stratification... but I don't think that's relevant here.

Yeah, because it's only gays that have ever experienced any kind of prejudice and nobody else could possibly have any kind of experience in dealing with it that might be useful.

That's not what I said. But "experience" or not, basic respect for others entails that you respect their right to make their own choices--and when their (perfectly reasonable) choice is to seek a high school where they do not have to endure harassment, not opposing provisions to give them that opportunity.

It's not an either/or, there are other more appropriate and less divisive solutions.

Name them.

I was actually running a Devil's Advocate argument, but thanks for the insult. :(

I don't believe I was insulting anyone.

I hope you don't mind an educator in NYC chiming in, then?

"Chiming in" is not the same as dictating to others.

As has already been pointed out, these schools are designed for children who have had to drop out of other schools having dropped out because of physical violence or emotional harm. If someone like that is going to feel comfortable continuing their education, where otherwise they might have skived off school, or performed worse due to stress, such schools serve a positive function. I had a bit of a bad time in school, going through lots of gender and sexuality issues and would have felt much happier and been able to be myself a lot more in a school that had openly declared itself as friendly towards LGBT students and took a tough stance on bullying.

Now, of course, what I'd like to happen is for all schools to be 'gay-friendly' and exercise a full range of punishments right up to suspension and expulsion for children who engage in homophobic or transphobic violence or name-calling. But America, with the power of the Christian lobby, clearly isn't ready for that yet. So as a 'next best thing', why not have individual liberal schools flag up their LGBT-friendliness? Its not as if only LGBT students will go there, or that all LGBT students will go to these schools, so its not really segregation either. Its hardly as if the bullies in unsympathetic schools are going to learn tolerance from verbally abusing and physically assaulting LGBT students without sufficient punishment, and its hardly as if those LGBT students who can't cope with that benefit from being forced to stay in a hostile environment. I can't see how anyone loses out by this, but I can see that some will gain. On that basis, its a good thing in my opinion.
Here's the thing about expulsion. EVERYTHING is in favor of the poor, misguided youth who just stole that iPod, beat a kid's head into the wall, even the kid who cuts all the time and wreaks havoc when they are in the classroom. Why? They have a RIGHT to an education. So no matter how little interest they have in school, or how badly socialized they are, or how just plain fucked in the head they are, until they commit a violent crime, they are going to be right back in there being a problem, harassing people and disrupting classes. God forbid you remove the one asshole to spare the other thirty people in the room the drama and let them learn.

I once had a 19 year old parolee from Riker's Island in my freshman at-risk English class -- he'd wander the halls until the school security dumped him in my room , then disrupt everything for the next forty minutes. When he threatened me, I told the head of Guidance to get him out of my room -- that it was NOT appropriate for a dangerous adult to be in with children, and they said they put him with me (a five foot tall woman) because he had "problems with authority" and that he had a right to be there. Meanwhile, my AP was shitting a purple twinkie telling ME not to provoke HIM.

Fortunately, one of the cops assigned to my school was from my Alma Mater and I had been good friends with his sister -- he made sure to come to my class and just look in the window every day...

After another incident where the kid got up and punched MY desk about a foot from my head, I went down and told them to transfer him to another class immediately. when they gave me the bullshit about how they couldn't, I told them, "You'd better pray he never hurts a child in that room or swings on me, because if he does, expect WABC, WNBC, WCBS, FOX, and UPN to be pulling up in news vans in front of this building."
"You can't DO that!" "Watch me. I can't do it NOW because he apparently has more rights than everyone else in that room, but if he commits a crime, that's NEWS."

THAT was what I had to resort to to get a violent criminal, who by the way broke parole and was sent right back to prison a few weeks later, out of my classroom. And officially, that wasn't what got him bounced from the school -- he told a black teacher she was an Uncle Tom, and THAT officially got him out.

Verbal insult, versus physical threat. My oh my, there's logic for you.

Here's the thing about expulsion. EVERYTHING is in favor of the poor, misguided youth who just stole that iPod, beat a kid's head into the wall, even the kid who cuts all the time and wreaks havoc when they are in the classroom. Why? They have a RIGHT to an education. So no matter how little interest they have in school, or how badly socialized they are, or how just plain fucked in the head they are, until they commit a violent crime, they are going to be right back in there being a problem, harassing people and disrupting classes. God forbid you remove the one asshole to spare the other thirty people in the room the drama and let them learn.

I once had a 19 year old parolee from Riker's Island in my freshman at-risk English class -- he'd wander the halls until the school security dumped him in my room , then disrupt everything for the next forty minutes. When he threatened me, I told the head of Guidance to get him out of my room -- that it was NOT appropriate for a dangerous adult to be in with children, and they said they put him with me (a five foot tall woman) because he had "problems with authority" and that he had a right to be there. Meanwhile, my AP was shitting a purple twinkie telling ME not to provoke HIM.

Fortunately, one of the cops assigned to my school was from my Alma Mater and I had been good friends with his sister -- he made sure to come to my class and just look in the window every day...

After another incident where the kid got up and punched MY desk about a foot from my head, I went down and told them to transfer him to another class immediately. when they gave me the bullshit about how they couldn't, I told them, "You'd better pray he never hurts a child in that room or swings on me, because if he does, expect WABC, WNBC, WCBS, FOX, and UPN to be pulling up in news vans in front of this building."
"You can't DO that!" "Watch me. I can't do it NOW because he apparently has more rights than everyone else in that room, but if he commits a crime, that's NEWS."

THAT was what I had to resort to to get a violent criminal, who by the way broke parole and was sent right back to prison a few weeks later, out of my classroom.

Thats disgusting. People who screw up other people's learning like that NEED to be expelled. I'm sure almost everyone will agree. They aren't getting educated, and they're stopping others for having an education too. And yet it continues to get harder and harder to expel people. Its sickening.

To get back to the strict topic of the thread: this makes me even more inclined to support gay-friendly schools. Because if you've got a group of vicious homophobic bullies, who no matter what they do can't be expelled, targeting kids who might be feeling insecure and confused anyway, many of those kids might be better off in a LGBT friendly school with a different ethos run by staff who are going to have a substantially more rigorous approach to dealing with bullying

I dunno. Are all-boys schools necessary? Are all-girls? How about Catholic universities? Traditionally African American schools?

All bad ideas.

Gender-segregated schools produce high academic results, it's true. Presumably because the distraction of sexual attraction lets them concentrate more on study. But that's really just a trade-off, learning more of the formal knowledge by practising less of the social skills.

Schools for Women's Studies? Schools for engineering? High schools of science? of TV and Radio?

Different case. Those are academic distinctions.

Schools for the deaf, or schools for the blind etc. are centers of specialized teaching methods. A different case again.

I don't believe I was insulting anyone.



I found the assertion that I was saying homosexuals should just put up with bigotry because I can't understand their plight because I'm a heterosexual mildly offensive, actually.

All bad ideas.

Gender-segregated schools produce high academic results, it's true. Presumably because the distraction of sexual attraction lets them concentrate more on study. But that's really just a trade-off, learning more of the formal knowledge by practising less of the social skills.

But people are less likely to be bullied based on their religion or, in this day and age, ethnicity, than for their sexuality or gender identity. Which makes LGBT students a different case.

Even though students from any background can attend, its a form of segregation and it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that homosexuals do not want to be a part of normal society and thats sort of the opposite of what they have been working to achieve is it not?

All bad ideas.

Gender-segregated schools produce high academic results, it's true. Presumably because the distraction of sexual attraction lets them concentrate more on study. But that's really just a trade-off, learning more of the formal knowledge by practising less of the social skills.



Different case. Those are academic distinctions.

Schools for the deaf, or schools for the blind etc. are centers of specialized teaching methods. A different case again.
So you don't think any alternative to 'the norm' is appropriate, then? So instead of vocational high schools, we should put those students back into academic schools -- students who can't read should be put in with their agemates, not with students with similar problems... students who are extremely high achievers should be in regular classes bored out of their minds.... slow students should be in regular classes hopelessly behind... no pre-med, no pre-law...

I'm sorry, one size does NOT fit all. If the choice is leave a child in an environment where he perceives himself to be harassed and physically unsafe and therefore can't concentrate or, to protect himself, drops out, or to provide a safe environment in which he can learn, he should have a safe environment in which he can learn. For chrissakes, that's the whole point of vouchers and homeschooling, isn't it? To get one's children the best education for them?

There are evening school programs for kids who are either emotionally or learning disabled that get them a diploma so they can make a living -- why should we deny that to someone who's being treated as if they are socially disabled? Look at the schools we're talking about, too -- in NYC, a school of 100 students in eight classrooms? Are they somehow taking something away from larger schools like mine with 4000 kids in them?

The reason for these schools is because these students are not being given the opportunity for an equal education; I think we can manage the decency of not allowing them to be bullied and the, what, eight teachers it takes to teach in that school?

Within the framework of a free public school system, I'm not against certain forms of school choice.

'Certain forms.' Gotta love that. Of course the problem with that statement is that 'you can choose from the options I'm willing to give you' is not really a choice.

That's not what I said. But "experience" or not, basic respect for others entails that you respect their right to make their own choices.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm all about people being free to make their own choices without fear or favor. Of course, along with that, you get this: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences of your actions." One might even say they were inextricably bound up together.

and when their (perfectly reasonable) choice is to seek a high school where they do not have to endure harassment, not opposing provisions to give them that opportunity.

First of all, let's not pretend that there has ever been a high school where somebody was not harassed or bullied. Even at the 'gay school' where everyone is joining hands and singing in loving tolerance like the Whos in Whoville on Christmas morning, some kid is being bullied. Being bullied is an integral part of the high school experience, because high school is the adult world in microcosm. It teaches you that it's a cold, hard, cruel, world out there and that nobody is going to do for you, so you have to stand up for yourself(or failing that, it teaches you where to buy guns and trench coats)

I say send the queers to the regular high school. There they can join the fat kids, the geeks, the retards, the kids with head-gear, the chess club, the marching band, the Bible club kids, that kid who skipped two grades and is three years younger than everybody else, the weird girl, the Goths, the Muslims, the Orthodox Jews, the kids whose parents won't let them take sex ed, the guy who doesn't shower after gym, the vegans, and everybody else in taking their lumps and learning how the world works.

Even though students from any background can attend, its a form of segregation and it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that homosexuals do not want to be a part of normal society and thats sort of the opposite of what they have been working to achieve is it not?
So does putting students into the honors and AP classes send a message of segregation? Does it make them more, or less, likely to succeed in their studies?

Is it me, or is there an awful "dog in the manger" taste to all this -- "You can't have it because we don't can't use it."

So does putting students into the honors and AP classes send a message of segregation? Does it make them more, or less, likely to succeed in their studies?

Is it me, or is there an awful "dog in the manger" taste to all this -- "You can't have it because we don't can't use it."

I typed up my initial thoughts, its Sunday that means I am in the middle of a very boring 12 hour workday and very tired.. like it always means on Sunday. I didn't give it more than a once over and an initial comment.


However, one could argue that with the lack of acceptance demonstrated by so many people that they are making the wrong move, whether it is right or wrong to do it is inconsequencial if it only serves to increae the size of the divide between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Sure, it might open some people's minds up but how many people will now never have any experience with homosexuality outside of the biggotted views of thier peers?

I found the assertion that I was saying homosexuals should just put up with bigotry because I can't understand their plight because I'm a heterosexual mildly offensive, actually.

First, stop assuming that I am only talking about you, specifically. There is generally a sort of condescending attitude by supposedly sympathetic straight people on this and other issues--"Why do you feel the need to have those obnoxious parades?", "Why do you insist on 'marriage' when it's just a word?", "Why do you isolate yourselves in your exclusive social places?", and so on.

Second, even if you were perfectly empathetic and understanding of what others go through (which is beyond any human), it would remain true that you are not them: you do not get to make their choices.

Third... it's not about you and how offended you are. If you judge, in good faith, that your view on this subject is held sincerely and justifiably, and you are perfectly inclined to respect the choices others make, then you should make a simple leap of understanding and recognize that plenty of people do not share your enlightened attitude and are justly targeted by my statement.

It sends the message that homosexuals do not want to be a part of normal society and thats sort of the opposite of what they have been working to achieve is it not?

When did equality become synonymous with assimilation?

More relevantly, when did the ideal of a society that does in fact accept everyone as they are blind us to the reality of a society that does not, and to the need to actually do something about it?

Of course the problem with that statement is that 'you can choose from the options I'm willing to give you' is not really a choice.

I fail to see what this has to do with what I said. You're the one who (I assume) is endorsing full-out school choice, not me.

Of course, along with that, you get this: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences of your actions."

Is this remotely relevant?

First of all, let's not pretend that there has ever been a high school where somebody was not harassed or bullied.

"The world's not perfect. So let's refrain from doing anything to make it better."

That has never been much of an argument, sorry.

Being bullied is an integral part of the high school experience, because high school is the adult world in microcosm.

So now harassment is a good thing?

I'm sorry, I'm not really inclined to dignify that with a real response.

Has anyone actually followed either of the links? It's not a gay high school, it's a high school that is gay-friendly, meaning that anyone who decides to attend should be comfortable with openly homosexual students. It's not excluding or segregating anyone except bigots who are too hateful to attend such a school.

When did equality become synonymous with assimilation?

More relevantly, when did the ideal of a society that does in fact accept everyone as they are blind us to the reality of a society that does not, and to the need to actually do something about it?

I'm confused as to the intent of your phrasing here; 'as they are blind us to'. Can you fix that? It makes no sense as is and a different sense when split it up.

I was being facetious about the 'collective unconscious'(feel free to unbunch your panties, by the way)because there is no real 'source' for it, but it's one of those things that falls under the heading of 'everyone knows....' The thing about 'everyone knows...' is that depending on where you're born and raised, what 'everyone knows..' differs.

For example, I wrote a post where I mentioned my little brother's girlfriend, who was born and raised in Berkley, CA. According to her, 'everyone knows' that your average Republican's malevolence is exceeded only by their ineptitude. Whereas I was raised in a part of the country where 'everyone knows' that hippies are lazy and don't bathe.

It's spelled "Berkeley," and I think her case about ineptitude can rest there.

im a gay teenager..and i think its a terrible idea, first off the crazy religious people would bomb it or somthing...and i dont see how thats gonna help...i cant stand the girly gay guys..i would rather hang out with real guys.

Great. Teach them that.

What does this have to do with the proposal?

It has everything to do with it. To a straight student (child) seeing gays as having their own schools would be the same as blacks/asians/jews/rich/poor as having their own schools. I would think it would give the impression that there is an inherent need for that group to be there, and thats the way the world is. NOW hopefully that wouldn't be the case, but I would think there would still be that impression.



So you want to use gay teenagers to give straight people a crash course in the evils of homophobia?

Sorry, I don't think that's their job.

What?

My question to all of the supporters of these schools:

So should we have separate schools for different ethnicities, social classes, and religions because there's a risk of violence and the disruption of education AND it should be funded by the tax payers?

High school is a melting pot as much as America is. It's a place where young adults learn social skills along with math/science/etc. It's where young adults learn about the world to a certain degree. There will always be bullying. I was bullied (got in some fights as well) in high school because of the fact my family was poor. I learned from that though, I learned who my friends are, and even to be accepting of others. I skipped occasionally, and all that other crap. But I dealt with it. I learned from it. If I hadn't dealt with that and learned from it, I would be a totally different person today.

Sure everyone has a right to be safe, but putting people in a protective bubble is not the answer.

It makes no sense as is

It makes perfect sense as is, it's just confusing because of the awkward sentence construction and the long noun phrase.

"More relevantly, when did the ideal of a society that does in fact accept everyone as they are

blind us to the reality of a society that does not, and to the need to actually do something about it?"

So you don't think any alternative to 'the norm' is appropriate, then? So instead of vocational high schools, we should put those students back into academic schools -- students who can't read should be put in with their agemates, not with students with similar problems... students who are extremely high achievers should be in regular classes bored out of their minds.... slow students should be in regular classes hopelessly behind... no pre-med, no pre-law...

No, I don't think that. Separating students according to their academic needs is acceptable to me -- though I'd prefer to see it done within the one campus.

Vocational schools, selective schools, schools with staff specifically trained to support the academic needs of disabled students -- all of these are justified by academic differences.

But saying "gay students are academically disadvantaged by discrimination" is a further step, because it legitimizes the discrimination. We accept the right of a bully to influence what some OTHER kid does. That is what I disagree with.

There is one kind of special school which is not determined by academic needs which I'm OK with -- remand school. Let the bully influence his or her OWN fate.

I'm sorry, one size does NOT fit all. If the choice is leave a child in an environment where he perceives himself to be harassed and physically unsafe and therefore can't concentrate or, to protect himself, drops out, or to provide a safe environment in which he can learn, he should have a safe environment in which he can learn.

By fixing the standard school environment.

The "standard school environment" gets harder to fix when you offer some students -- particularly the best students -- more options to go elsewhere. You end up with a range of good schools which require some qualification to attend: money to pay fees, a recognized talent like mathematical or dramatic talent, or the advantage of parents with the independence of mind and the time to consider something like a charter school. Or in fact a recognized personal disability which qualifies the kid to attend a well-funded special school.

Wonderful, except that you leave a "standard school" which is hardly better than a jail. Which students attend only because they are legally obliged to, and don't qualify for the other options.

There are evening school programs for kids who are either emotionally or learning disabled that get them a diploma so they can make a living -- why should we deny that to someone who's being treated as if they are socially disabled?

An evening school acknowledges that to get the diploma a disadvantaged student has to work harder (ie additional hours.) Again, this is entirely an academic provision.

"The world's not perfect. So let's refrain from doing anything to make it better."

That has never been much of an argument, sorry.


So then allowing people to run away from their problems instead of taking other courses of action such as going to their principal or guidance counselor for help, or organizing a gay awareness event or something to promote gay rights is the way to change the world?

Has anyone actually followed either of the links? It's not a gay high school, it's a high school that is gay-friendly, meaning that anyone who decides to attend should be comfortable with openly homosexual students. It's not excluding or segregating anyone except bigots who are too hateful to attend such a school.

Well I want a white friendly high school. I am scared of black and Hispanics and their rap. So anyone attending should only blare out country music on their Truck stereos. If you don't intermingle no one develops understanding of who you are and these schools will become the only safe place for them. African Americans fought tooth and nail to get into the same schools as whites why undo all their hard work?

"The world's not perfect. So let's refrain from doing anything to make it better."

There's nothing you can do to make it better. The world is irretrivably fucked up and nothing, not even (believe it or not) a government program, will fix that. The best that you can do is to worry about yourself, improve yourself,and not look to any outside agency for any kind of help. You want to spend your life trying to 'fix' the world, you'd be better off devoting your life to pub crawls and chasing women. Either way, you'll end up broke, disillusioned and misanthropic, but with option B you'll have had more fun in the meantime.

I'm sorry, I'm not really inclined to dignify that with a real response.

That's what people say when they can't think of a rebuttal. Of course I'm not saying it's a good thing, use your head. I'm saying it's an inevitable thing, so you might as well use it, learn from it, and grow stronger from it. Use it for motivation, remember, pain is weakness leaving the body.

But saying "gay students are academically disadvantaged by discrimination" is a further step, because it legitimizes the discrimination. We accept the right of a bully to influence what some OTHER kid does. That is what I disagree with.

I don't think that's what it does at all. I think what it does is accept the right of a gay teenager to have an education free of constant harassment and fear. As Soheran said, it's not up to these children to educate society about tolerance. They are minors who have the constitutional right to an education, not to mention the pursuit of happiness, and those rights should not be jeopardized because adults can't figure out how to live together.

Well I want a white friendly high school. I am scared of black and Hispanics and their rap. So anyone attending should only blare out country music on their Truck stereos. If you don't intermingle no one develops understanding of who you are and these schools will become the only safe place for them. African Americans fought tooth and nail to get into the same schools as whites why undo all their hard work?

This.

They fought because they wanted equal rights. They wanted to fit in. Now having gay kids go to a separate school because the parents want them to be safe, or are afraid of what MAY happen to their child, that is the opposite of wanting to fit in.

I would think it would give the impression that there is an inherent need for that group to be there, and thats the way the world is.

Then teach them otherwise. That's your general solution to intolerance and bigotry, isn't it? Why not apply it here?

What?

I meant exactly what I said: in the interest of reducing bigotry, you want to deprive LGBT teenagers who believe they are harassed of the choice to go to a high school where they will (in all probability) be safer and more comfortable.

So should we have separate schools for different ethnicities, social classes, and religions because there's a risk of violence and the disruption of education

In other cases where a given minority group is being bullied and harassed at proportions substantially above the norm, I have no objection to opening "safe" high schools for them.

Sure everyone has a right to be safe, but putting people in a protective bubble is not the answer.

There's no "protective bubble." They still live in this world. They will still probably endure bigotry, if not in school than out of it, and they certainly will endure the ordinary stresses of high school; this doesn't change that.

The only thing it does protect them from is a particular variety of harassment, one founded in their sexual orientation or gender identity, that other students do not endure.

It makes perfect sense as is, it's just confusing because of the awkward sentence construction and the long noun phrase.

"More relevantly, when did the ideal of a society that does in fact accept everyone as they are

blind us to the reality of a society that does not, and to the need to actually do something about it?"

You really can't put that more simply?

Dropping the "more relevantly" would be a start. Phrasing it as a statement rather than a rhetorical question would also make it easier to dispute.

Well I want a white friendly high school. I am scared of black and Hispanics and their rap. So anyone attending should only blare out country music on their Truck stereos. If you don't intermingle no one develops understanding of who you are and these schools will become the only safe place for them. African Americans fought tooth and nail to get into the same schools as whites why undo all their hard work?

Yes, that's a perfect analogy. I was definitely saying that anyone attending this school should have to conform to the heterocentric idea of what it is to be LGBT.

If you're making the argument that black students are now fully integrated in white schools and suffer no racism, harassment or violence, it's incredibly flawed. Yes, I believe it's important to teach tolerance to the bigot, and "intermingling" sometimes does that--but that's a personal choice. If Queer Teenager A doesn't want to sacrifice his education and personal safety to teach the world a lesson, he shouldn't fucking have to.

It has everything to do with it. To a straight student (child) seeing gays as having their own schools would be the same as blacks/asians/jews/rich/poor as having their own schools. I would think it would give the impression that there is an inherent need for that group to be there, and thats the way the world is. NOW hopefully that wouldn't be the case, but I would think there would still be that impression.

They aren't at 'their own' schools. The proposal isn't that all LGBT students go to one school, away from the other kids. Its that there's a school available for those who can't cope with their treatment at other schools. For them it might be a choice between going to an LGBT-friendly school, or not having the confidence to go at all. There will still be LGBT students in other schools, the intent is to remove the most at-risk.

My question to all of the supporters of these schools:

So should we have separate schools for different ethnicities, social classes, and religions because there's a risk of violence and the disruption of education AND it should be funded by the tax payers?

Schools clamp down a lot more on racist bullying. Social class and religion-based bullying is not as prevalent, socially accepted (or even endorsed by some sections of the community) nor I'd think as often violent given the intense hatreds involved. And they still aren't meant to be 'seperate' schools.

High school is a melting pot as much as America is. It's a place where young adults learn social skills along with math/science/etc. It's where young adults learn about the world to a certain degree. There will always be bullying. I was bullied (got in some fights as well) in high school because of the fact my family was poor. I learned from that though, I learned who my friends are, and even to be accepting of others. I skipped occasionally, and all that other crap. But I dealt with it. I learned from it. If I hadn't dealt with that and learned from it, I would be a totally different person today.

Sure everyone has a right to be safe, but putting people in a protective bubble is not the answer.

Putting the most at-risk and unhappy students in a 'protective bubble' of sorts might be a good idea. I was bullied at school because people assumed I was gay (in fact they got the wrong letter of the LGBT acronym, but thats essentially irrelevant). I learned social anxiety, that I had no friends at all, and that I was a worthless human being. If I'd have had a LGBT-friendly school to attend, my teenage years would have been a hell of a lot easier, and I wouldn't be having to see a psychiatrist now to try and get over the issues and allow me to get enough confidence to function normally. For some people, bullying isn't something you just 'get over' and deal with, its something that casts a shadow over the rest of your life. And these people, like myself, would have benefited massively from an LGBT-friendly school. Those who can cope with bad treatment, well they'd just stay in their existing school.

It makes perfect sense as is, it's just confusing because of the awkward sentence construction and the long noun phrase.

"More relevantly, when did the ideal of a society that does in fact accept everyone as they are

blind us to the reality of a society that does not, and to the need to actually do something about it?"

Oh wow... reading comprehension much.. I'm definatly worse for wear than I thought I was.. now please continue with your regularly scheduled debate while I imbibe a horrendous amount of caffiene in an attemp to gains ome semblance of consciousness.

This.

They fought because they wanted equal rights. They wanted to fit in. Now having gay kids go to a separate school because the parents want them to be safe, or are afraid of what MAY happen to their child, that is the opposite of wanting to fit in.

They wanted to fit in because they knew the only hope of making this country free of racism was having children go to school together. growing up together, during their formative years. They were also threatened when they first tried to get into those schools. The national guard had to escort some of the first African Americans into those schools.

It's spelled "Berkeley," and I think her case about ineptitude can rest there.

Good job. Rest an entire argument on one small spelling error. The point of the statement was that people should not be in such a hurry to get their panties in a bunch, a piece of advice I'm willing to dole out to whoever needs it.

Good job. Rest an entire argument on one small spelling error. The point of the statement was that people should not be in such a hurry to get their panties in a bunch, a piece of advice I'm willing to dole out to whoever needs it.

And the point you don't seem to be getting is that this school isn't for people whose "panties" are in a "bunch", as you keep saying--it's for students whose physical safety is threatened to such a degree that they are at risk for dropping out of school.

im a gay teenager..and i think its a terrible idea, first off the crazy religious people would bomb it or somthing...and i dont see how thats gonna help...i cant stand the girly gay guys..i would rather hang out with real guys.
You've not read the link, then, nor visited the school's site, and don't know that the Harvey Milk School has been in existence for twenty years with nary a bombing.

So then allowing people to run away from their problems

Avoiding people who want to harass you has always been a perfectly reasonable response to harassment.

instead of taking other courses of action such as going to their principal or guidance counselor for help,

Because that always solves problems of homophobic bullying and harassment, right?

or organizing a gay awareness event or something to promote gay rights is the way to change the world?

Maybe they don't want to be activists--at least not in the ordinary course of their lives, when they are trying to do other things like getting an education.

Have you considered that?

There's nothing you can do to make it better.

How exactly does helping students avoid homophobic and transphobic harassment not make it better?

Of course I'm not saying it's a good thing, use your head. I'm saying it's an inevitable thing

Maybe some bullying is inevitable. That does not mean that none of it can be prevented.

They fought because they wanted equal rights. They wanted to fit in.

What a perverse conception of "equal rights."

Now having gay kids go to a separate school because the parents want them to be safe, or are afraid of what MAY happen to their child, that is the opposite of wanting to fit in.

...but it is perfectly in line with helping people victimized by homophobia.

I'm (still) not sure why people have a problem with that.

No, I don't think that. Separating students according to their academic needs is acceptable to me -- though I'd prefer to see it done within the one campus.

Vocational schools, selective schools, schools with staff specifically trained to support the academic needs of disabled students -- all of these are justified by academic differences.

But saying "gay students are academically disadvantaged by discrimination" is a further step, because it legitimizes the discrimination. We accept the right of a bully to influence what some OTHER kid does. That is what I disagree with.

There is one kind of special school which is not determined by academic needs which I'm OK with -- remand school. Let the bully influence his or her OWN fate.



By fixing the standard school environment.

The "standard school environment" gets harder to fix when you offer some students -- particularly the best students -- more options to go elsewhere. You end up with a range of good schools which require some qualification to attend: money to pay fees, a recognized talent like mathematical or dramatic talent, or the advantage of parents with the independence of mind and the time to consider something like a charter school. Or in fact a recognized personal disability which qualifies the kid to attend a well-funded special school.

Wonderful, except that you leave a "standard school" which is hardly better than a jail. Which students attend only because they are legally obliged to, and don't qualify for the other options.



An evening school acknowledges that to get the diploma a disadvantaged student has to work harder (ie additional hours.) Again, this is entirely an academic provision.
No, an evening school program is often LESS hours, and LESS rigorous than the normal school day.

So then allowing people to run away from their problems instead of taking other courses of action such as going to their principal or guidance counselor for help, or organizing a gay awareness event or something to promote gay rights is the way to change the world?
Not everyone wants to be the sacrificial lamb and martyr to foster understanding. Why can't they just be educated?

If Queer Teenager A doesn't want to sacrifice his education and personal safety to teach the world a lesson, he shouldn't fucking have to.

This is the essence of it. And should really be the end of the debate.

I'm saying it's an inevitable thing, so you might as well use it, learn from it, and grow stronger from it. Use it for motivation, remember, pain is weakness leaving the body.
Silly cliches are very easy when it's someone else's pain, and someone else's body.

This.

They fought because they wanted equal rights. They wanted to fit in. Now having gay kids go to a separate school because the parents want them to be safe, or are afraid of what MAY happen to their child, that is the opposite of wanting to fit in.
Who are you to decide that this decision was made FOR, and not BY, those affected? Condescension much?

Yes, that's a perfect analogy. I was definitely saying that anyone attending this school should have to conform to the heterocentric idea of what it is to be LGBT.

If you're making the argument that black students are now fully integrated in white schools and suffer no racism, harassment or violence, it's incredibly flawed. Yes, I believe it's important to teach tolerance to the bigot, and "intermingling" sometimes does that--but that's a personal choice. If Queer Teenager A doesn't want to sacrifice his education and personal safety to teach the world a lesson, he shouldn't fucking have to.

they still suffer racism (blacks) But every generation since integration Racism has declined because white children and black children learn about and get to know each other.

The Gay teen might do better in a gay school. But what happens after school that many fewer people have experience with gays, which makes society as a whole more ignorant about gays.
He might have had a safer high school but he will have a less safe, less prosperous rest of his life.

Who are you to decide that this decision was made FOR, and not BY, those affected? Condescension much?

The fact that these schools are funded by tax payers is a pretty good indicator.

If the children that were affected were able to lobby for a separate "gay-friendly" school, then they're the ones that should be lobbying congress for rights to same sex marriage.

they still suffer racism (blacks) But every generation since integration Racism has declined because white children and black children learn about and get to know each other.

The Gay teen might do better in a gay school. But what happens after school that many fewer people have experience with gays, which makes society as a whole more ignorant about gays.
He might have had a safer high school but he will have a less safe, less prosperous rest of his life.

Totally agree once again. This is what I'm trying to say, but Greed explains much better.

If you want to be a part of society, why would you want to run away from it?

they still suffer racism (blacks) But every generation since integration Racism has declined because white children and black children learn about and get to know each other.

The Gay teen might do better in a gay school. But what happens after school that many fewer people have experience with gays, which makes society as a whole more ignorant about gays.
He might have had a safer high school but he will have a less safe, less prosperous rest of his life.

But there will still be gay students at other schools. The most vulnerable students are better off in schools that are avowedly gay-friendly. Those non-gay students who go to the gay-friendly schools are likely to emerge more tolerant than if they had gone to a different school due to the school no doubt focusing on developing understanding. And as for the bullies and those who are hostile to gays, they're hardly going to change their minds just because there's maybe one extra gay person in their class. I think you're perhaps overstating the net effect on ignorance of a few gay students moving to a different school. Whereas those students who need this opportunity will benefit hugely.

As stated in the title, are they necessary? Should gay students really be given their own high schools to be "safe" from the rest of society? Does it promote segregation even more?

Nope, not necessary. No they shouldn't. And yes it does.

I dunno. Are all-boys schools necessary? Are all-girls? How about Catholic universities? Traditionally African American schools? Schools for the Deaf? Schools for Women's Studies? Schools for engineering? High schools of science? of TV and Radio?

I don't think there is any reason there should NOT be a niche school....

To answer your questions in order...
No, No, No, No, Yes, No, Yes, Maybe, Maybe

If you want to be a part of society, why would you want to run away from it?

Because, right now, said "society" is prejudiced against you, and members of it are harassing you?

:rolleyes:

Totally agree once again. This is what I'm trying to say, but Greed explains much better.

If you want to be a part of society, why would you want to run away from it?

If society's coming at me with a baseball bat, you better believe I'm running away.

The point that still hasn't been addressed, despite Soheran raising it many times, is that you want children to go out and do the work of adults, sacrificing themselves to promote "tolerance". If someone WANTS to do that, fine. But if they don't, you don't get to martyr them for the good of the world's evolution. Not anyone, but especially NOT a child.

You seem to think that this equates to gays making their own country and building a wall around it. Are you really saying that the ONLY way to combat prejudice and homophobia is to put at-risk children on the front line? Adults who have had the benefit of safe educational opportunities can do that much better.

If society's coming at me with a baseball bat, you better believe I'm running away.

The point that still hasn't been addressed, despite Soheran raising it many times, is that you want children to go out and do the work of adults, sacrificing themselves to promote "tolerance". If someone WANTS to do that, fine. But if they don't, you don't get to martyr them for the good of the world's evolution. Not anyone, but especially NOT a child.

You seem to think that this equates to gays making their own country and building a wall around it. Are you really saying that the ONLY way to combat prejudice and homophobia is to put at-risk children on the front line? Adults who have had the benefit of safe educational opportunities can do that much better.

Yeah, that is the only way to combat it. Because in the end it will teach children that everyone is the same, no matter what race/religion/sexual orientation. Like greed said, there's still racism, but A LOT less of it because they've been integrated into society, not given their own schools because of fear of violence.

Putting AT-RISK (oh no!) children on the front line? The front line of what? Their future? The right thing to do is to teach them to run away from their problems? Teach them that they are different, and if someone disrespects that fact then it's okay to run away to a safe haven that caters to their needs? Then why aren't there high schools for different minorities since they're apparently at risk of getting involved with violence? What about the poor since they can't afford trendy clothes like the rest of the kids and they'll get bullied because of that? What about the rich because they might get picked on because of whatever?

25% of queer youth have skipped school because they're afraid of bullying. So a state creates a school where they won't have that problem.

Fortunately we have all you self-righteous straight bastards here to save them from a safe environment in order for them to -- do what? "Educate" bullies that are beating the shit out of them?

No, it's about equality and freedom. Challenging mainstream homophobia is part of that. But so is having "safe spaces."

<SNIP>

Wait, you think violence against gays is so endemic that simply having a high school like this one poses a threat... yet at the same time you don't see any need for "safe" high schools?


Personally I think all high schools (and grade schools, kindergartens, preschools, colleges, day cares, and workplaces) should be safe. Special "safe" schools for gay students is no different than building special "safe" schools for black students.

25% of queer youth have skipped school because they're afraid of bullying. So a state creates a school where they won't have that problem.

Fortunately we have all you self-righteous straight bastards here to save them from a safe environment in order for them to -- do what? "Educate" bullies that are beating the shit out of them?
I skipped school several times because of bullying, so what?
Personally I think all high schools (and grade schools, kindergartens, preschools, colleges, day cares, and workplaces) should be safe. Special "safe" schools for gay students is no different than building special "safe" schools for black students.
Exactly

Yeah, that is the only way to combat it. Because in the end it will teach children that everyone is the same, no matter what race/religion/sexual orientation. Like greed said, there's still racism, but A LOT less of it because they've been integrated into society, not given their own schools because of fear of violence.

Putting AT-RISK (oh no!) children on the front line? The front line of what? Their future? The right thing to do is to teach them to run away from their problems? Teach them that they are different, and if someone disrespects that fact then it's okay to run away to a safe haven that caters to their needs? Then why aren't there high schools for different minorities since they're apparently at risk of getting involved with violence? What about the poor since they can't afford trendy clothes like the rest of the kids and they'll get bullied because of that? What about the rich because they might get picked on because of whatever?

"At-risk" doesn't mean they "might" get picked on. At-risk youth means youth who have an acute risk of dropping out of high school because they have ALREADY been the subject of bullying and discrimination.

You're honestly telling me that if a gay kid goes to her parents with a split lip and a report card full of failing grades and says, "Mom, Dad, I can't take it anymore, I want to go to a safe school," it's her parents' moral obligation to say, "Sorry, honey, but that would be running away, and those bigots who beat you up would never learn. Now wipe the blood off and get back out there"?

That is NOT the only way to change things, and your argument to the contrary is deliberately obtuse. You're ignoring all of the gay ADULTS in the world who create change, as well as the gay students who CHOOSE to stay in their normal schools (far outnumbering the students who attend the TWO high schools out there that are gay-friendly). THOSE are the people who can create change; that burden should NOT be on children who endure so much harassment that a large percentage drop out of high school. Safe schools should be available for ANYONE who faces the same situation--bullies and bigots should not have the right to hijack anyone's education.

If you're so concerned about educating the world, get a sign and go march on Washington. But I think your concern for combating homophobia is entirely disingenuous.

The right thing to do is to teach them to run away from their problems?

They will still have to deal with problems--all the ordinary problems any teenager in high school deals with.

They will just be spared one particular burden founded in other people's bigotry toward their sexual orientation.

Teach them that they are different, and if someone disrespects that fact then it's okay to run away to a safe haven that caters to their needs?

Teach them that they have no obligation to fight all the time, that they are allowed to seek refuge in safe places when they feel the need?

Absolutely, they should be taught that.

And, yes, this reasoning applies to any comparable minority. I'm not sure the examples you cite are "comparable", but that's really beside the point.

Personally I think all high schools (and grade schools, kindergartens, preschools, colleges, day cares, and workplaces) should be safe. Special "safe" schools for gay students is no different than building special "safe" schools for black students.

Except for the problem Kat mentioned--the state has an obligation to educate *every* child. That means the bully as well as the bullied. The state also has an obligation to educate children in the closest school to their residence, so unless the bullies do enough damage to get them expelled--which will only send them to the next closest school, where they can terrorize different people--nothing changes.

I'm not sure the examples you cite are "comparable", but that's really beside the point.

So gay teenagers are going through something that black teenagers never did?

But there will still be gay students at other schools. The most vulnerable students are better off in schools that are avowedly gay-friendly. The most Vulnerable? You mean the one who most obviously appear gay(whether they really are or not). It is these students that are needed to so society learns to accept people for who they are. Those non-gay students who go to the gay-friendly schools are likely to emerge more tolerant than if they had gone to a different school due to the school no doubt focusing on developing understanding.
This is High school lets be honest here. Very few straights will go to the gay school, you know why because by going your chances of finding a bf/gf or prom date are almost who meets your taste are almost 0. And as for the bullies and those who are hostile to gays, they're hardly going to change their minds just because there's maybe one extra gay person in their class. I think you're perhaps overstating the net effect on ignorance of a few gay students moving to a different school. Whereas those students who need this opportunity will benefit hugely.

in a school of 1,200 lets say 5% are gay (I've heard larger and I've heard smaller numbers). that's 60 Gay students. if half go to the school that's 30 less students. These sorts of things happen in chain reactions you know why? the shortage of gays will result in more seeking out the gay school for dating etc (hormones, these are teenagers after all)
Not to mention these will be the gays who have the greatest effect on others perspectives. They leave normal schools you and normal schools will cease to have a visible gay culture.

Personally I think all high schools (and grade schools, kindergartens, preschools, colleges, day cares, and workplaces) should be safe.

Me, too. But they aren't.

Special "safe" schools for gay students is no different than building special "safe" schools for black students.

The problems black students (and racial minorities in the schools generally) suffer from are of a different character: the most harmful racism is not coming from their peers but from the larger society surrounding them. Desegregation thus can help because it means that the inequities in resources between mostly-black and mostly-white schools can no longer manifest themselves to the same extent.

Maybe. So?

This isn't about ending intolerance, this is about creating a safe place.


Ending intolerance makes EVERYPLACE a safe place.

Ending intolerance makes EVERYPLACE a safe place.

Alas, we are not omnipotent, and we cannot snap our fingers and make it happen.

From the FAQ:



What People are Asking About HMHS (http://www.hmi.org/HOME/FOR_THE_PUBLIC/Article/Params/articles/1315/pathlist/s1050_o1222/default.aspx#item1315)

Remind me again why these students need to be forced to go to their ordinary high schools?

Remind me again why is it that it isn't the violent fucknuts that are causing the problems who we're putting into different schools?

Remind me again why is it that it isn't the violent fucknuts that are causing the problems who we're putting into different schools?

I support measures against bullying and harassment, too. But until we have evidence that those measures are actually solving the problem, I also support creating safe high schools.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think that's what it does at all. I think what it does is accept the right of a gay teenager to have an education free of constant harassment and fear. As Soheran said, it's not up to these children to educate society about tolerance. They are minors who have the constitutional right to an education, not to mention the pursuit of happiness, and those rights should not be jeopardized because adults can't figure out how to live together.

Children do not have a right to the pursuit of happiness. It's a dubious right even for adults.

(I wrote two essays here. Both veered wildly from the thread subject.)

Teachers are not allowed to discriminate against students ... on any basis but their behaviour: their role in the collective learning process or their obedience of rules.

But that does not exhaust the role of "teacher" -- a teacher is also bound to prevent harm coming to students from other students. Including the "constant harassment and fear" you speak of. This is the same "provision of a safe working environment" which applies in legal adult employment. The government can, and must, provide that.

You speak of a "right" to education. By granting this "right" government takes on an obligation to provide education wherever it is not provided to a child.

Government is not fulfilling that obligation. That this idea has currency, of "special schools" (and of charter schools, and of the apparently lax supervision of home schooling) by the parent's or student's choice, shows that government is failing to uphold this "right."

As long as no one's being forced to go to these schools just because they are gay or trans, I'm not sure I see a huge problem. I mean, so they're going to have to deal with bigots and bullies later in life, but why should they have to deal with them while they're trying to get some basic education? I mean, it's one thing if the nearby schools are full of tolerant students and staff who are tough on bullies, it's quite another if some of these students are going to be tortured for four years by their peers and not end up learning what they should learn because they're afraid to go to school.

Here's the thing about expulsion. EVERYTHING is in favor of the poor, misguided youth who just stole that iPod, beat a kid's head into the wall, even the kid who cuts all the time and wreaks havoc when they are in the classroom. Why? They have a RIGHT to an education.

So instead of making gay kids go to Harvey Milk so they can be safe, why not send the bullies to a charter school instead? Imagine, Nelson Muntz high school for the empathy impaired . . .

So you don't think any alternative to 'the norm' is appropriate, then? So instead of vocational high schools, we should put those students back into academic schools -- students who can't read should be put in with their agemates, not with students with similar problems... students who are extremely high achievers should be in regular classes bored out of their minds.... slow students should be in regular classes hopelessly behind... no pre-med, no pre-law...

Wouldn't all that fall under: Different case. Those are academic distinctions.?

The most Vulnerable? You mean the one who most obviously appear gay(whether they really are or not). It is these students that are needed to so society learns to accept people for who they are.

By most vulnerable I mean more those who are less capable of dealing with bullying, or those who have suffered extreme bullying and have dropped out because of it. Both groups are likely to find that their happiness and academic performance will be improved at an LGBT-friendly school.

This is High school lets be honest here. Very few straights will go to the gay school, you know why because by going your chances of finding a bf/gf or prom date are almost who meets your taste are almost 0.

Fair point to an extent. But its not 'the gay school'. Its a 'gay friendly school'. I don't buy that straight students won't go simply on the basis of less chance of getting a date. Kids are perfectly capable of finding a date outside school. But it might be a factor for some kids, I'll concede.

in a school of 1,200 lets say 5% are gay (I've heard larger and I've heard smaller numbers). that's 60 Gay students. if half go to the school that's 30 less students. These sorts of things happen in chain reactions you know why? the shortage of gays will result in more seeking out the gay school for dating etc (hormones, these are teenagers after all)
Not to mention these will be the gays who have the greatest effect on others perspectives. They leave normal schools you and normal schools will cease to have a visible gay culture.

Given that there are only ever going to be a relatively small number of these schools due to relatively low demand, most would probably live quite far away from the school and not want to go to the effort of moving away from existing friends etc to another school unless they had real problems in their current school. So I still think you're overestimating the number of LGBT students who would actually move. Primarily it would be those 'at-risk', who it would genuinely benefit.

If Queer Teenager A doesn't want to sacrifice his education and personal safety to teach the world a lesson, he shouldn't fucking have to.

If the adults at his school would do their job he wouldn't have to.

If the adults at his school would do their job he wouldn't have to.

That may be true. But they aren't. Or it isn't working.

First, stop assuming that I am only talking about you, specifically. There is generally a sort of condescending attitude by supposedly sympathetic straight people on this and other issues--"Why do you feel the need to have those obnoxious parades?", "Why do you insist on 'marriage' when it's just a word?", "Why do you isolate yourselves in your exclusive social places?", and so on.

Second, even if you were perfectly empathetic and understanding of what others go through (which is beyond any human), it would remain true that you are not them: you do not get to make their choices.

Third... it's not about you and how offended you are. If you judge, in good faith, that your view on this subject is held sincerely and justifiably, and you are perfectly inclined to respect the choices others make, then you should make a simple leap of understanding and recognize that plenty of people do not share your enlightened attitude and are justly targeted by my statement.

Righto.

"At-risk" doesn't mean they "might" get picked on. At-risk youth means youth who have an acute risk of dropping out of high school because they have ALREADY been the subject of bullying and discrimination.

You're honestly telling me that if a gay kid goes to her parents with a split lip and a report card full of failing grades and says, "Mom, Dad, I can't take it anymore, I want to go to a safe school," it's her parents' moral obligation to say, "Sorry, honey, but that would be running away, and those bigots who beat you up would never learn. Now wipe the blood off and get back out there"?

It is the parents responsibility to go down to the school their child currently goes to and raise all holy hell. At the end of it there should be bullies in jail/juvie and school officials sued/fired for permitting it to get this bad.

I support measures against bullying and harassment, too. But until we have evidence that those measures are actually solving the problem, I also support creating safe high schools.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive.

Since I know your penchant for pedantry: they are not perfectly mutually exclusive. But provision of one detracts from the ability to provide the other.

Suppose I am a gay student in high school. I'm still in the closet, but some of the other gay students know where I'm at. Perhaps a few of the straights as well. I have a cohort of friends, some of whom are lovers and some prospects for that in the future. Some of them are just friends without prospects of ever being lovers.

Now, seven of the eight people I know to be gay (or lesbian, if I'm female) move over to the new "LBGT" school.

Aren't I being asked to choose my education according to my sexuality? I could stay in the school where I have dozens of friends, or I could follow the seven friends to some new school.

This dillemma is faced often by kids moving up from primary to middle, or middle to high school. Some of their friends go to private school, some go to a selective school, and they get to choose.

Is this a choice which a person who is legally not even allowed to consent to sex, competent to make?

I haven't read but the first post, so forgive me if I'm repeating.

As a teenager in high-school, and part of the LGBT community, I have mixed feelings about this. If the area is notably anti-LGBT (such as a religious community, where there's zero chance of change), then I'd find these schools a necessity. However, in any other situation, I find it rather divisive. I'm a believer that people need to be exposed to the LGBT community as much as possible -- kind of like when mothers have Chicken Pox parties.

Let them do what they want. But to separate themselves from society? Sounds like a cult to me. I wonder what they'd do in their own high schools anyway. Wait...no I don't.

Remind me again why is it that it isn't the violent fucknuts that are causing the problems who we're putting into different schools?

Agreed. Its the bigots we should be putting in different schools.


Or reeducation camps.

Aren't I being asked to choose my education according to my sexuality?

No. You're really choosing your education according to your friends, which is an inherent possibility in any kind of "school choice." Who knows? Perhaps your closest friends are straight, and that's your motive to stay in your ordinary high school.

In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the point.

I haven't read but the first post, so forgive me if I'm repeating.

As a teenager in high-school, and part of the LGBT community, I have mixed feelings about this. If the area is notably anti-LGBT (such as a religious community, where there's zero chance of change), then I'd find these schools a necessity. However, in any other situation, I find it rather divisive. I'm a believer that people need to be exposed to the LGBT community as much as possible -- kind of like when mothers have Chicken Pox parties.

i agree ...though i hate there to be any kind of separate schools for anyone ..except maybe for special needs schools or schools in a different language than the mainstream ...

but lets face it ... society can still be quite unaacepting and we must face reality ... in many areas it is still best to form a safe haven for those who are prone to beaing attacked ... though ironically schools are supposed to be a safe place for all children and teenagers ...

The fact that these schools are funded by tax payers is a pretty good indicator.

If the children that were affected were able to lobby for a separate "gay-friendly" school, then they're the ones that should be lobbying congress for rights to same sex marriage.
Ridiculous. So you're saying they are forced to go to these schools.

To answer your questions in order...
No, No, No, No, Yes, No, Yes, Maybe, Maybe
Any reason?

Agreed. Its the bigots we should be putting in different schools.


Or reeducation camps.
Let people believe what they want. All I want is equality and recognition under the law.

Yeah, that is the only way to combat it. Because in the end it will teach children that everyone is the same, no matter what race/religion/sexual orientation. Like greed said, there's still racism, but A LOT less of it because they've been integrated into society, not given their own schools because of fear of violence.

Putting AT-RISK (oh no!) children on the front line? The front line of what? Their future? The right thing to do is to teach them to run away from their problems? Teach them that they are different, and if someone disrespects that fact then it's okay to run away to a safe haven that caters to their needs? Then why aren't there high schools for different minorities since they're apparently at risk of getting involved with violence? What about the poor since they can't afford trendy clothes like the rest of the kids and they'll get bullied because of that? What about the rich because they might get picked on because of whatever?
No, what you're proposing is throwing specific kids who have already shown they are being abused into the arms of their abusers, and too bad if they don't like it.

It's the attitude of a bully.

Children do not have a right to the pursuit of happiness. It's a dubious right even for adults.

(I wrote two essays here. Both veered wildly from the thread subject.)

Teachers are not allowed to discriminate against students ... on any basis but their behaviour: their role in the collective learning process or their obedience of rules.

But that does not exhaust the role of "teacher" -- a teacher is also bound to prevent harm coming to students from other students. Including the "constant harassment and fear" you speak of. This is the same "provision of a safe working environment" which applies in legal adult employment. The government can, and must, provide that.

You speak of a "right" to education. By granting this "right" government takes on an obligation to provide education wherever it is not provided to a child.

Government is not fulfilling that obligation. That this idea has currency, of "special schools" (and of charter schools, and of the apparently lax supervision of home schooling) by the parent's or student's choice, shows that government is failing to uphold this "right."
Government fulfills the obligation by providing the environment necessary, at the behest of the taxpayers and those affected.

No, what you're proposing is throwing specific kids who have already shown they are being abused into the arms of their abusers, and too bad if they don't like it.
I do have to wonder though, at what point do we stop?

I think having a gay school would make it easier for kids to get picked on. I imagine church groups waiting out side to save their souls and bullies waiting out side to beat them up. In an integrated school you can be out of the closet but still be somewhat protected because you are somewhat annonymous.

The most Vulnerable? You mean the one who most obviously appear gay(whether they really are or not). It is these students that are needed to so society learns to accept people for who they are.
This is High school lets be honest here. Very few straights will go to the gay school, you know why because by going your chances of finding a bf/gf or prom date are almost who meets your taste are almost 0.

in a school of 1,200 lets say 5% are gay (I've heard larger and I've heard smaller numbers). that's 60 Gay students. if half go to the school that's 30 less students. These sorts of things happen in chain reactions you know why? the shortage of gays will result in more seeking out the gay school for dating etc (hormones, these are teenagers after all)
Not to mention these will be the gays who have the greatest effect on others perspectives. They leave normal schools you and normal schools will cease to have a visible gay culture.
Why is it the responsibility of a CHILD to fulfill this role?

I think you and others here are very selfish putting these kids on display and forcing them to be what you think a good queer is. They do not have to put their emotional and physical safety on display for anyone's edification, or more likely, kicks. They do not need to be harassed, pummeled, or made snide remarks to, just because you think it's a good idea so some bully might learn some compassion (unlikely).

So instead of making gay kids go to Harvey Milk so they can be safe, why not send the bullies to a charter school instead? Imagine, Nelson Muntz high school for the empathy impaired . . .
We used to. It was called reform school. But now we have to understand that it's not Johnny's fault that he beats other kids, he has anger management issues.

So instead of making gay kids go to Harvey Milk so they can be safe, why not send the bullies to a charter school instead? Imagine, Nelson Muntz high school for the empathy impaired . . .
You didn't read the article. They are not MADE to go. They apply to go. They choose to go. They get a list of schools -- like every other student in the city -- and select the school they want to go to.

Why the assholes aren't bounced out of schools and put into programs where they can't hurt others is a question I've been asking a long, long time.

Let them do what they want. But to separate themselves from society? Sounds like a cult to me. I wonder what they'd do in their own high schools anyway. Wait...no I don't.
The same thing other students do. They learn math and science, play football, and win scholarships. :rolleyes:

I think having a gay school would make it easier for kids to get picked on.

Well, do we have any evidence of this?

My understanding is that, as far as the benefits for the people who go there, the Harvey Milk High School has so far been rather successful.

...They do not need to be harassed, pummeled, or made snide remarks to, just because you think it's a good idea so some bully might learn some compassion (unlikely).You don't think gay kids do this to other gay kids? Bullies aren't limited to straight people, you know. Not to mention that a lot of kids don't get bullied at all. I never have, and I doubt I ever will (I'm a Junior in high school).

Call me old school, but kids need to learn early (I do hope that parents aren't telling kids that they're gay -- being gay isn't something you find out about when you're nine... so, I use "early" in a relative sense) that they aren't going to be accepted everywhere. That Phelps guy and his nutjob family -- and all those other people -- are thousands of times worse than any bully can be.

If the adults at his school would do their job he wouldn't have to.
Right, because we go to each child's house in the morning, make sure he's had a decent breakfast, escort him to school on time free of harassment, teach him a full and varied set of academic subjects, instill him with moral values without any input from his parents, sit with him holding his hand while he does his homework, feed him a good lunch, love and nurture him, tell him that it's not nice to call other people names, escort him home safely and protect him from harassment, feed him a good dinner, give him a bath, read him a bedtime story.... and then do that for the other 169 students we're responsible for.

We used to. It was called reform school. But now we have to understand that it's not Johnny's fault that he beats other kids, he has anger management issues.
And the reforms schools worked so well, didn't they?

No. You're really choosing your education according to your friends, which is an inherent possibility in any kind of "school choice." Who knows? Perhaps your closest friends are straight, and that's your motive to stay in your ordinary high school.

In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the point.

It has to do with the point, because compulsory eduction takes the decision out of the hands of legal minors. Or even of their parents, though the parents get to choose between options for their kid's education.

The option of private, etc, schooling gives some of the choice back to the parents or guardians of those legal minors.

Now, in allowing a choice between a "sexuality-segregated" school, we the gods either:


Give those legal minors a choice of their education based on their apprehension of their own sexuality, weighed against other factors like number and quality of friends, academic and career aspirations, etc.

Concede that the parents still have control over which school their kids attend. Gay parents of a gay child, no prob. Gay parents of a straight child? Maybe. Straight parents of a gay child? Maybe. Homophobic parents of a gay child -- there is the problem.


In the first case, you have put a decision based on sexuality into the hands of a legal minor -- a person not legally competent even to consent to sex.

In the second case, you may have put the decision into the hands of a parent or carer who is hostile to their sexuality, in which case the kid is not only obliged by the parent's choice to attend a "gay-unfriendly" high school, but most of the other gay students leave.

Yeah, you've made life easier for the gay students who go to the gay-friendly high school. But you've left some of the gay students in a much, much worse position.

I do have to wonder though, at what point do we stop?
And what do we wait for? Is it necessary to wait until they become depressed? Drop out? Until they are physically assaulted after being verbally assaulted?

And the reforms schools worked so well, didn't they?
I have somewhat less sympathy for the kid who hurts others, I'm afraid, and am frustrated with the number of violent kids that are in schools and who hurt others when we know they are violent and are likely to hurt others. I feel that many times, the victims of bullying are victimized twice -- once by the bully and a second time by the system that forces schools to keep the bullies in until they do something heinous and observable.

"Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

Great, just great, another form of segregation...

"Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

Great, just great, another form of segregation...

Its no segregation when its voluntary.

Aside from the far right, (and I dont think anyone here has said it), no one as suggested shipping gays off to camps.

The system may be different where you are, but where I am, students do have a choice of what state-funded school they go to. I've had students who decided they would rather have a two hour train ride from the northern tip of Manhattan or up in the Bronx to come to our south Brooklyn school, and vice versa.

So since parents and kids already decide on what school they attend, why is this an issue? If a kid from my school decided he wanted to transfer to Harvey Milk, so what?

I'd hit a gay school any day.

If anything, makes these kids have a better chance of finding other, decent kids their age to date and get friendly with, instead of living isolated, bullied-daily lives and then going half bonkers once they're 18, getting wasted on booze/drugs in clubs and getting dragged into all sorts of unhealthy or abusive relationships in their attempt to find someone to love them.

Better for them to have a safe environment to learn and socialize with others who lived through the same shit, and others who doesn't care about who they'd like to bring into their bed, than stay in schools where they're neither safe nor learning just to make a point.

Something still needs to be done about the rest of the schools, though. Every school should be safe and harassment-free for every child.

Yeah, you've made life easier for the gay students who go to the gay-friendly high school. But you've left some of the gay students in a much, much worse position.

Why? LGBT students don't have to rely on other LGBT students for support. Indeed, quite often even when no such alternatives exist they do not: sympathetic straight friends can serve as support too, and especially in schools where almost all LGBT students are closeted (as I'd imagine the schools with the worst problems to be), they generally do.

In any case, the point remains that it is not the duty of any student to be an activist for the cause.

Its no segregation when its voluntary.

Aside from the far right, (and I dont think anyone here has said it), no one as suggested shipping gays off to camps."Segregation

noun

The act or process of isolating."

Seems to fit the bill pretty well.

"Segregation

noun

The act or process of isolating."

Seems to fit the bill pretty well.

Ok, so who cares if someone wants to isolate themselves?



Regardless, I still think that the idea of putting the bigots in seperate schools is the best.

Why is it that threads such as this one go on for so long, even though the premises of the OP are undermined by the very articles on which the OP is based?

Why do people argue about fictions?

LGBT friendly schools do not segregate or exclude anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. 'Nuff said.

You didn't read the article. They are not MADE to go. They apply to go. They choose to go. They get a list of schools -- like every other student in the city -- and select the school they want to go to.


I already know that they are not being forced to go there by the system, but we are allowing the ignorant and violent to run them out of the schools they're currently going to.

Right, because we go to each child's house in the morning, make sure he's had a decent breakfast, escort him to school on time free of harassment, teach him a full and varied set of academic subjects, instill him with moral values without any input from his parents, sit with him holding his hand while he does his homework, feed him a good lunch, love and nurture him, tell him that it's not nice to call other people names, escort him home safely and protect him from harassment, feed him a good dinner, give him a bath, read him a bedtime story.... and then do that for the other 169 students we're responsible for.

I'm sorry, but school staff are responsible for preventing violence and harassment at school. Which is of course the only area of a students life where I can see Harvey Milk reducing harassment. Hell, when I worked as a special ed para it was written into my job description. If the staff at the students school is unable, or worse unwilling to prevent gay students from being harassed and/or assaulted then those staff members should be fired.

I'm sorry, but school staff are responsible for preventing violence and harassment at school. Which is of course the only area of a students life where I can see Harvey Milk reducing harassment. Hell, when I worked as a special ed para it was written into my job description. If the staff at the students school is unable, or worse unwilling to prevent gay students from being harassed and/or assaulted then those staff members should be fired.

Was this at a normal public school? or at a gay school? or private school?

Was this at a normal public school? or at a gay school? or private school?

I'm not certain what exactly your trying to get at here. Maintaining discipline is part of the staffs job, written into most job descriptions that involve dealing directly with the students. Preventing harassment and violence is part and parcel of doing so.

Regardless, I still think that the idea of putting the bigots in seperate schools is the best.

Hmm, yes that is the way to solve the problem, don't teach them don't get them in situations where they may have to live with these people they are bigoted towards which would help to break down said bigotry. No we will just place them amongst each other.

The purpose of schools is education.Not entirely. Socialization is an important part of school, as well.

Even though students from any background can attend, its a form of segregation and it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that homosexuals do not want to be a part of normal society and thats sort of the opposite of what they have been working to achieve is it not?Depends on the homosexual. Some are fine with being apart from society.

So gay teenagers are going through something that black teenagers never did?Given the much higher suicide rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide#Population_differences) one might assume so, yes.

So instead of making gay kids go to Harvey Milk so they can be safe, why not send the bullies to a charter school instead? Imagine, Nelson Muntz high school for the empathy impaired . . .So then your proposal is that school staff be omnipotent to be able to identify all cases of bullying so the bullies can be removed?

I'm sorry, but school staff are responsible for preventing violence and harassment at school. Which is of course the only area of a students life where I can see Harvey Milk reducing harassment. Hell, when I worked as a special ed para it was written into my job description. If the staff at the students school is unable, or worse unwilling to prevent gay students from being harassed and/or assaulted then those staff members should be fired.

Was this at a normal public school? or at a gay school? or private school?

I'm not certain what exactly your trying to get at here. Maintaining discipline is part of the staffs job, written into most job descriptions that involve dealing directly with the students. Preventing harassment and violence is part and parcel of doing so.

What size school, exactly, are you talking about? What's the staff to student ratio? Is it a small community school or a large regional school?

Are the staff even aware of it? Because we all know that ALL students report when they are being harassed (that stupid Snitches get Stitches bullshit) and that all bullies do it in full view and hearing of the staff, always. Right?

No, what you're proposing is throwing specific kids who have already shown they are being abused into the arms of their abusers, and too bad if they don't like it.

It's the attitude of a bully.

Don't forget it's also the same attitude shared by indifferent and apathetic sheep who then have the galls to ask why those specific kids decided to walk into school one day packing firearms and gun down everyone in sight.

On a further note, here's a little philosophical koan for y'all:

If an all-gay high school is such a bad idea, why do we still have gated communities?

On a further note, here's a little philosophical koan for y'all:

If an all-gay high school is such a bad idea, why do we still have gated communities?
'Cos it's fine for US, it's just not ok for THEM.

On a further note, here's a little philosophical koan for y'all:

If an all-gay high school is such a bad idea, why do we still have gated communities?

Is anyone here actually arguing that we should?

Is anyone here actually arguing that we should?

Unlike Harvey Milk High School, there has been no outcry over gated communities in a significant volume. Yet they're practically the same thing. A setting designed ostensibly to provide comparative safety and comfort to a group.

Alright Katganistan, since I have the attitude of a bully, I'm going to ask you this question.

How many times have you seen acts of violence/harassment towards a gay student?

And for everyone else:

How many victims do you think there are of these acts of violence and assault in high schools? Do you think it outnumbers the blacks back during the civil rights era?

If you want equal rights in your society, why would you turn away and hide from said society? If you don't mingle in the society and DO become accepted by people, you can't suddenly expect to be treated as such after withdrawing from it. (I'm talking about in the longer run) You can't tell me that if gay friendly schools become more prolific, and there are more gay kids going to them and separating themselves from other kids, it would deepen the gap between the two. I strongly believe the reason I'm so against racism today is because I've grown up with different races (and sexualities) in school, and from a young age. Now if we went into high school and these kids I've grown up with suddenly move to another school because of that, for whatever reason, that sends the message that their sexuality is wrong, and they DO need to be separated from the rest of us. You're going to tell me that that's the right thing to do? Whether you like it or not, the main reason that there is less racism today is because of the fact that there are different minorities in schools, and they are accepted because of the fact that they're there and children realize that even though your skin is brown, you're the same as me.

The entire reason I brought up this thread is because I don't understand why this specific group of minorities should have to worry about going to a separate school in this day and age when homosexuality and same sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted every day. It goes against everything the people at the head of their movement have fought for; equal rights. Having "gay friendly" and "safe" schools does not help the child, or straight children, in believing that they're equal. You can't tell me that a gay child doesn't feel awkward about having to go to a separate school, even if it is to escape violence. Why should they? Why should they have to seek out another school? What's the matter with homeschooling if they do want to withdraw from society?

And I do not appreciate being called a bully or an indifferent apathetic sheep. IF I was so fucking apathetic, I wouldn't be posting this thread.

Alright Katganistan, since I have the attitude of a bully, I'm going to ask you this question.

How many times have you seen acts of violence/harassment towards a gay student?


As someone who was in high school only a few years ago, I can tell you that it happens a lot.

I think having a gay school would make it easier for kids to get picked on. I imagine church groups waiting out side to save their souls and bullies waiting out side to beat them up. In an integrated school you can be out of the closet but still be somewhat protected because you are somewhat annonymous.

So it's really up to gay kids to do a better job of passing?

So it's really up to gay kids to do a better job of passing?

Didnt you know that when a homosexual gets beaten up its their fault for being filthy queers?

And the reforms schools worked so well, didn't they?

So you don't want a safe school for kids who are abused, and you don't want to remove their abusers. What WOULD you like? Just take the abuse and shut up about it? I mean, seriously.

So it's really up to gay kids to do a better job of passing?

What is passing?

It has to do with the point, because compulsory eduction takes the decision out of the hands of legal minors. Or even of their parents, though the parents get to choose between options for their kid's education.

The option of private, etc, schooling gives some of the choice back to the parents or guardians of those legal minors.

Now, in allowing a choice between a "sexuality-segregated" school, we the gods either:

It isn't sexually segregated. It segregates bigots and non-bigots. And it's not compulsory. Why is it so hard for everyone to get that?

It isn't sexually segregated. It segregates bigots and non-bigots. And it's not compulsory. Why is it so hard for everyone to get that?

Apperantly its ok for Rich White Guys to segregate themselves (gated communities, private schools, etc), but when those filthy minorities try it, woah boy.

ONCE AGAIN: No one opposed to these two high schools has addressed Soheran's objection, my objection and Kat's objection to harassed children being forced to martyr themselves for the enlightenment of society. I would really appreciate it if someone could explain why this is acceptable, because to me, it seems like a ridiculous burden that no child should be forced to bear.

It isn't sexually segregated. It segregates bigots and non-bigots. And it's not compulsory. Why is it so hard for everyone to get that?

You sound like a bigot.

You sound like a bigot.

How? Or are you just throwing that out there with no real reason?

How? Or are you just throwing that out there with no real reason?

Do you really even have to ask? I think not.

ONCE AGAIN: No one opposed to these two high schools has addressed Soheran's objection, my objection and Kat's objection to harassed children being forced to martyr themselves for the enlightenment of society. I would really appreciate it if someone could explain why this is acceptable, because to me, it seems like a ridiculous burden that no child should be forced to bear.

Because if society is enlightened then there will be less hatred in the future.

It isn't sexually segregated. It segregates bigots and non-bigots. And it's not compulsory. Why is it so hard for everyone to get that?

It'll end up seeming compulsory because down the line gay students will feel the need to attend this school because that's where the gays go and are happy! It does nothing to help the societal problems.

Sure we'll keep em separated, and the gay movement will stay right where it is because bigots will stay bigots since they aren't being reprimanded for their actions, nor being taught that gays are the same as themselves because of the fact the gays won't be in the same school after being chased out by violence. Thus letting the bigots win.

"HEY HOMO WHY DON'T YOU GO TO THE GAY SCHOOL WHERE YOU BELONG HUHUHUH!" sounds a lot like "Get to the back of the bus negro."

Because if society is enlightened then there will be less hatred in the future.

Ok, why dont you go have a gay son, and he can be the one we sacrifice for this future enlightened society.

ONCE AGAIN: No one opposed to these two high schools has addressed Soheran's objection, my objection and Kat's objection to harassed children being forced to martyr themselves for the enlightenment of society. I would really appreciate it if someone could explain why this is acceptable, because to me, it seems like a ridiculous burden that no child should be forced to bear.

Well go back a page.

It'll end up seeming compulsory because down the line gay students will feel the need to attend this school because that's where the gays go and are happy! It does nothing to help the societal problems.

Sure we'll keep em separated, and the gay movement will stay right where it is because bigots will stay bigots since they aren't being reprimanded for their actions, nor being taught that gays are the same as themselves because of the fact the gays won't be in the same school after being chased out by violence. Thus letting the bigots win.

Its not like because theyre at a different school no one else will know they exist.

"HEY HOMO WHY DON'T YOU GO TO THE GAY SCHOOL WHERE YOU BELONG HUHUHUH!" sounds a lot like "Get to the back of the bus negro."

Yeah, except "get to the back of the bus ******!" wasnt voluntary. And was enforced by law.

Ok, why dont you go have a gay son, and he can be the one we sacrifice for this future enlightened society.

Sure, a crappy adolescence for a great adult hood sounds like a good trade. Nerds make that kind of sacrifice too.

First off, these schools aren't private schools from what the links said, they are public.

Second of all, why is it that the people in this thread who oppose the idea are being labeled as wanting these kids to martyr themselves for the cause of equality? Having a school where they can section themselves off completely treats the symptom rather than the disease. The problem, at least from what Kat has said, is that the bureaucracy of the school system makes punishing bullies appropriately nearly impossible. Fixing the bureaucracy so that troublemakers can be dealt with appropriately should be the goal, not building a new public school for each niche that is targeted in some way.

Make the kids feel safer by letting them know that the school administration can and will protect them.

I don't care for the idea. It seems like a poor substitute for an educational program that promotes social interaction in an educational environment.

On the other hand, that school must have killer tennis and wrestling programs! :D

Don't go getting all Greco-Romano now.....

Sure we'll keep em separated, and the gay movement will stay right where it is because bigots will stay bigots since they aren't being reprimanded for their actions, nor being taught that gays are the same as themselves because of the fact the gays won't be in the same school after being chased out by violence.

Your concern for the fate of the LGBT rights movement is touching.

It would sound more sincere, however, if instead of making other people (other people who happen to be teenagers trying to get an education) sacrifice their security and comfort for its sake, you instead were telling us how you were sacrificing yours for it.

Having a school where they can section themselves off completely treats the symptom rather than the disease.

Only in the sense that the harassment and abuse of LGBT students is a "symptom" of a homophobic environment where bullying is a problem. But I have no problem dealing with that "symptom" in a society where the "disease" is not going to magically disappear anytime soon.

If you want equal rights in your society, why would you turn away and hide from said society?Transferring to a different school isn't hiding from society.

I strongly believe the reason I'm so against racism today is because I've grown up with different races (and sexualities) in school, and from a young age.Now if we went into high school and these kids I've grown up with suddenly move to another school because of that, for whatever reason, that sends the message that their sexuality is wrong, and they DO need to be separated from the rest of us. You're going to tell me that that's the right thing to do? Whether you like it or not, the main reason that there is less racism today is because of the fact that there are different minorities in schools, and they are accepted because of the fact that they're there and children realize that even though your skin is brown, you're the same as me.Couldn't these kids get the same message from having an openly gay teacher or other school official?

The entire reason I brought up this thread is because I don't understand why this specific group of minorities should have to worry about going to a separate school in this day and age when homosexuality and same sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted every day.Neither do we. Unfortunately, it is the case in some instance.

It goes against everything the people at the head of their movement have fought for; equal rights. Having "gay friendly" and "safe" schools does not help the child, or straight children, in believing that they're equal.Sure it does, but not only that, but it provides them with an education, something they wouldn't have if they're dropping out of the high school they'd been going to.

You can't tell me that a gay child doesn't feel awkward about having to go to a separate school, even if it is to escape violence.Why would they feel more awkward about going to a separate school than going to the school where they feel like an outcast?

Why should they? Why should they have to seek out another school?Because of the intolerable environment at the school they're going to.

What's the matter with homeschooling if they do want to withdraw from society?They don't want to withdraw from society. They want to withdraw from a particular segment of society.

What is passing?Passing as heterosexual.

Sure, a crappy adolescence for a great adult hood sounds like a good trade. Nerds make that kind of sacrifice too.Given that the gay rights movement has been going on for nearly 40 years now, there's scant evidence that out gay kids in regular public high schools would necessarily lead to a "great adulthood".

Only in the sense that the harassment and abuse of LGBT students is a "symptom" of a homophobic environment where bullying is a problem. But I have no problem dealing with that "symptom" in a society where the "disease" is not going to magically disappear anytime soon.

So you see high school education in a segregated environment as provision of a right to education into adulthood?

After which, they are are competent to defend their own rights, as adults, not to be intimidated or discriminated against for their sexuality.

Does the same principle apply to ALL students? Should any student who feels discriminated against by their school have the option of choosing some other school?

Passing as heterosexual.

Like that's obvious.

The assumption is very telling. Acceptance of a student's sexuality is more important to their academic success than how hard they study.

Sure, in adult society we might "get" that word. "Passing." But we're talking about high school, for fuck's sake.

Like that's obvious.

The assumption is very telling. Acceptance of a student's sexuality is more important to their academic success than how hard they study.In many cases, specifically the cases we're talking about, yes. Acceptance of these students' sexualities is more important to their academic success than how hard they study, especially since they'd likely be dropping out and therefore not having academic success.

Sure, in adult society we might "get" that word. "Passing." But we're talking about high school, for fuck's sake.Are you suggesting gays in high school aren't ever 'straight acting'?

First off, these schools aren't private schools from what the links said, they are public.

Second of all, why is it that the people in this thread who oppose the idea are being labeled as wanting these kids to martyr themselves for the cause of equality? Having a school where they can section themselves off completely treats the symptom rather than the disease. The problem, at least from what Kat has said, is that the bureaucracy of the school system makes punishing bullies appropriately nearly impossible. Fixing the bureaucracy so that troublemakers can be dealt with appropriately should be the goal, not building a new public school for each niche that is targeted in some way.

Make the kids feel safer by letting them know that the school administration can and will protect them.

And while these new schools may just keep these kids from being open to homophobic abuse, without fixing the main problem of bullying as you say through the bureaucracy then these kids will still be open to other forms of bullying and abuse.

I think that existing high schools should be protecting the kids better. In fact I've always thought this for a variety of reasons.

Your concern for the fate of the LGBT rights movement is touching.

It would sound more sincere, however, if instead of making other people (other people who happen to be teenagers trying to get an education) sacrifice their security and comfort for its sake, you instead were telling us how you were sacrificing yours for it.

Keep waiting; 14 pages and no one has bothered yet. The best I've gotten was "to enlighten society"--no mention of why innocent children had to take on that job.

Like that's obvious.

The assumption is very telling. Acceptance of a student's sexuality is more important to their academic success than how hard they study.

Sure, in adult society we might "get" that word. "Passing." But we're talking about high school, for fuck's sake.

That's the meaning of the word I intended, and considering that the thread is all about gay kids getting bullied, I don't find it too "telling".

I think that existing high schools should be protecting the kids better. In fact I've always thought this for a variety of reasons.

So do I, and I'm a teacher. Unfortunately, the world is not always fair and just, and I don't think kids should be made to pay that price--a price it seems most adults on here aren't willing to pay themselves.

In many cases, specifically the cases we're talking about, yes. Acceptance of these students' sexualities is more important to their academic success than how hard they study, especially since they'd likely be dropping out and therefore not having academic success.

No. I would accept that persecution for their sexuality would so disturb a student that they could not study effectively. Harrassment during class, physical assault in class or between classes -- these are identifiable offences against the student. They should be punished, not accepted as "necessary evils."

I will not accept that "acceptance" by peers is essential to learning. With rules and supervision it is possible to prevent harassment, and certainly violence, in schools. But there is no way to make students "accept" and approve each other ... other than to keep the tolerant students, the good students, the gentle and the kind students in the same school.

I return to my theme: yes, an optional school based on student choice (and parental approval) would be fine, but that it will always leave a residuum of students who are incompetent to choose, or forbidden by parents to move to the "ideological" better school.

I make the same argument against religious schools. Against gender-separated schools. Against race-separated schools.

There is no criterion to separate students from each other but their academic needs.

That's the meaning of the word I intended, and considering that the thread is all about gay kids getting bullied, I don't find it too "telling".

As a grown up non-teacher, I did read the word as "passing one's exams."

Anyone who ever sat an exam knows that meaning of the word.

Now, it's fine that you used "passing" in some other sense. But it's not fine that you defend that meaning as the most obvious one.

I had never until this day heard "passing" used in the sense "passing as straight."

Tell me, do you use some euphemism when you inform a student that they have "not failed" an exam?

I had never until this day heard "passing" used in the sense "passing as straight."

I have heard the expression, several times. It's commonly used here in Spain when we know there's someone still "in the closet" and pretending to be straight when he/she's otherwise. Se hace pasar por heterosexual is the expression. That translates as "passing as hetero".


NOTE: The expressions I used are not meant to be offensive in any way. They were used to explain my post. If in any way I'm offending, my apologies beforehand.

As a grown up non-teacher, I did read the word as "passing one's exams."

Anyone who ever sat an exam knows that meaning of the word.

Now, it's fine that you used "passing" in some other sense. But it's not fine that you defend that meaning as the most obvious one.

I had never until this day heard "passing" used in the sense "passing as straight."

Tell me, do you use some euphemism when you inform a student that they have "not failed" an exam?

Why the hostility, NH? I used it in a way some people may not have seen; okay. I never said it was the "most obvious" definition. You went on a tirade about assumptions and all that; I just confirmed that the interpretation that Jello gave was the one I intended. You know, to clarify.

I don't know where the hell you're getting the idea that I'm defending it as the most commonly accepted definition. I just said that Jello's interpretation (which was correct) was not "telling", it was just different.

Gay high schools are the stupidest fucking thing ever thought up.

Though the intention is to provide a safe environment in which students of non-heterosexual orientation can study, deliberately segregating does not seem, to me, to be the most advantageous approach. It seems to me that this would, in fact, promote tensions between this party and the rest of society. It is like a sociological iron curtain.

Being bisexual myself, I would never opt to attend a school of this nature. This is not only because I believe it is a counterproductive step, but also it is, in principle, wrong to draw such a division based on sexual orientation. Separate but equal institutions are something we should not be advocating. People of other sexual orientations are different in only this way: romantically and sexually. Dividing school along this line would be arbitrary if it weren't for discrimination against them. Additionally, what of the discrimination against heterosexuals wishing to attend?

The reality is that, in time, society will evolve and grow. The acceptance of homosexuality has expanded and will continuously approach an asymptote of full integration. This progression is akin to many other sociological processes such as racial difference.

Why the hostility, NH?

I don't know.

Yes, I seem to be placing a lot of significance in the meaning of one word.

I used it in a way some people may not have seen; okay. I never said it was the "most obvious" definition. You went on a tirade about assumptions and all that; I just confirmed that the interpretation that Jello gave was the one I intended. You know, to clarify.

I don't know where the hell you're getting the idea that I'm defending it as the most commonly accepted definition. I just said that Jello's interpretation (which was correct) was not "telling", it was just different.

I always get "bitter and twisted" talking about children's rights or the principles of schooling.

Knowing that you are a teacher also affected my judgement. I have made similar disproportionate attacks on the words used by Kat and by Smunkee..

Please forget that it happened. It was I, not you, who put a sinister meaning into your choice of a word. :$

That is such a bad, stupid idea. How long until it gets firebombed?

I don't know -- how long 'til you move to San Francisco? Seriously, though, it's been a school for 20 years, and no bombs yet.

I was being facetious about the 'collective unconscious'(feel free to unbunch your panties, by the way)because there is no real 'source' for it, but it's one of those things that falls under the heading of 'everyone knows....' The thing about 'everyone knows...' is that depending on where you're born and raised, what 'everyone knows..' differs.

For example, I wrote a post where I mentioned my little brother's girlfriend, who was born and raised in Berkley, CA. According to her, 'everyone knows' that your average Republican's malevolence is exceeded only by their ineptitude. Whereas I was raised in a part of the country where 'everyone knows' that hippies are lazy and don't bathe.

"Everyone knows" depends on "everyone". Why you'd want to perpetuate this kind of "it's obvious" crap is beyond me. Having lived in both Seattle and Bismarck, North Dakota, I don't "know" anything of the sort about "republicans" versus "hippies" (nice false dichotomy there, by the way). Rather, I know about people I meet and talk to.

Here's the thing about expulsion. EVERYTHING is in favor of the poor, misguided youth who just stole that iPod, beat a kid's head into the wall, even the kid who cuts all the time and wreaks havoc when they are in the classroom. Why? They have a RIGHT to an education. So no matter how little interest they have in school, or how badly socialized they are, or how just plain fucked in the head they are, until they commit a violent crime, they are going to be right back in there being a problem, harassing people and disrupting classes. God forbid you remove the one asshole to spare the other thirty people in the room the drama and let them learn.

I once had a 19 year old parolee from Riker's Island in my freshman at-risk English class -- he'd wander the halls until the school security dumped him in my room , then disrupt everything for the next forty minutes. When he threatened me, I told the head of Guidance to get him out of my room -- that it was NOT appropriate for a dangerous adult to be in with children, and they said they put him with me (a five foot tall woman) because he had "problems with authority" and that he had a right to be there. Meanwhile, my AP was shitting a purple twinkie telling ME not to provoke HIM.

Fortunately, one of the cops assigned to my school was from my Alma Mater and I had been good friends with his sister -- he made sure to come to my class and just look in the window every day...

After another incident where the kid got up and punched MY desk about a foot from my head, I went down and told them to transfer him to another class immediately. when they gave me the bullshit about how they couldn't, I told them, "You'd better pray he never hurts a child in that room or swings on me, because if he does, expect WABC, WNBC, WCBS, FOX, and UPN to be pulling up in news vans in front of this building."
"You can't DO that!" "Watch me. I can't do it NOW because he apparently has more rights than everyone else in that room, but if he commits a crime, that's NEWS."

THAT was what I had to resort to to get a violent criminal, who by the way broke parole and was sent right back to prison a few weeks later, out of my classroom. And officially, that wasn't what got him bounced from the school -- he told a black teacher she was an Uncle Tom, and THAT officially got him out.

Verbal insult, versus physical threat. My oh my, there's logic for you.

Excellent example of school districts looking to cover their asses and limit their liability. Since this thread isn't about that topic specifically, I won't go on except to point out that I've been pointing out the liability issue in education for a while.

If the adults at his school would do their job he wouldn't have to.

Well, the thing is, a school is usually a fairly large place. Unless bullies are incredibly stupid (and we all know that some of them truly are), they don't pull their horseshit in front of anyone who'll catch them, and usually intimidate anyone even thinking about being a witness to the incident for any authority. When I taught high school, I went out of my way to keep my eyes open during passing periods for the kind of shit that bullies try to get away with under cover of masses of students. Elbows, tripping, leaning in and uttering "fag" or any number of stupid shit to their targets' ears. The response when I caught someone (it wasn't often), was always "I didn't do that" or "I was just joking". Policing something as clandestine as many forms of bullying is nigh on impossible in the best of circumstances, and most public schools are far from invested into the best of circumstances.

It'll end up seeming compulsory because down the line gay students will feel the need to attend this school because that's where the gays go and are happy! It does nothing to help the societal problems.

Sure we'll keep em separated, and the gay movement will stay right where it is because bigots will stay bigots since they aren't being reprimanded for their actions, nor being taught that gays are the same as themselves because of the fact the gays won't be in the same school after being chased out by violence. Thus letting the bigots win.

"HEY HOMO WHY DON'T YOU GO TO THE GAY SCHOOL WHERE YOU BELONG HUHUHUH!" sounds a lot like "Get to the back of the bus negro."

This is a valid point.

First off, these schools aren't private schools from what the links said, they are public.

Second of all, why is it that the people in this thread who oppose the idea are being labeled as wanting these kids to martyr themselves for the cause of equality? Having a school where they can section themselves off completely treats the symptom rather than the disease. The problem, at least from what Kat has said, is that the bureaucracy of the school system makes punishing bullies appropriately nearly impossible. Fixing the bureaucracy so that troublemakers can be dealt with appropriately should be the goal, not building a new public school for each niche that is targeted in some way.

Make the kids feel safer by letting them know that the school administration can and will protect them.

Agreed, but again, just about impossible. The kid who tries to point out that the bully behind him in math class is whispering threats and epithets below the hearing threshold of the teacher or anyone who will corroborate it -- he is reduced to the silly "your word against mine" game, which nobody ever wins to anyone's satisfaction. The bully has more ammunition for his irrational hatred, and the target now has to watch his back as the bully's friends now become interested in paying the target back for getting the bully in trouble.

I don't know what the solution is to this problem.

No. I would accept that persecution for their sexuality would so disturb a student that they could not study effectively. Harrassment during class, physical assault in class or between classes -- these are identifiable offences against the student. They should be punished, not accepted as "necessary evils."

I will not accept that "acceptance" by peers is essential to learning. With rules and supervision it is possible to prevent harassment, and certainly violence, in schools. But there is no way to make students "accept" and approve each other ... other than to keep the tolerant students, the good students, the gentle and the kind students in the same school.

I return to my theme: yes, an optional school based on student choice (and parental approval) would be fine, but that it will always leave a residuum of students who are incompetent to choose, or forbidden by parents to move to the "ideological" better school.

I make the same argument against religious schools. Against gender-separated schools. Against race-separated schools.

There is no criterion to separate students from each other but their academic needs.

Agreed.

As a grown up non-teacher, I did read the word as "passing one's exams."

Anyone who ever sat an exam knows that meaning of the word.

Now, it's fine that you used "passing" in some other sense. But it's not fine that you defend that meaning as the most obvious one.

I had never until this day heard "passing" used in the sense "passing as straight."

Tell me, do you use some euphemism when you inform a student that they have "not failed" an exam?

Back off a bit there. "You haven't heard it" doesn't equate to "it makes no sense". Using the term "passing" has earlier roots than passing as straight. Light-skinned black people were referred to with that term from both sides of the racial divide -- "passing as white" became just "passing". I'm sorry you've never heard it used that way, but that doesn't mean it's in any way invalid. You might even have looked it up. It's the fifth definition of it's root word "pass" (in Merriam-Webster, at any rate), and that's a long entry. It's a versatile word.

I was going to close this paragraph with a snidely-typed "grow up", but you don't deserve that, as your contributions to this thread have been mostly reasonable and thought-out. Instead, I'll direct it here:

Gay high schools are the stupidest fucking thing ever thought up.

Grow up.

Though the intention is to provide a safe environment in which students of non-heterosexual orientation can study, deliberately segregating does not seem, to me, to be the most advantageous approach. It seems to me that this would, in fact, promote tensions between this party and the rest of society. It is like a sociological iron curtain.

Being bisexual myself, I would never opt to attend a school of this nature. This is not only because I believe it is a counterproductive step, but also it is, in principle, wrong to draw such a division based on sexual orientation. Separate but equal institutions are something we should not be advocating. People of other sexual orientations are different in only this way: romantically and sexually. Dividing school along this line would be arbitrary if it weren't for discrimination against them. Additionally, what of the discrimination against heterosexuals wishing to attend?

The reality is that, in time, society will evolve and grow. The acceptance of homosexuality has expanded and will continuously approach an asymptote of full integration. This progression is akin to many other sociological processes such as racial difference.

One more time. Not compulsory. Optional. School identifies as GLBT-friendly, that's all. Attend or don't attend per each student's choice. If I felt too threatened at my initial school to get any work done and was feeling more like staying home than going, I'd welcome a school whose stated mission was to be a safe place for someone like me.

The reality is that, right now, many students feel threatened and do indeed drop out or fail. Society never evolves fast enough for kids assaulted now.

No they shouldn't, gay high schools would probably be targets of school shootings, vandalism etc.

lol :D
american high schools already have shootings, vandalism, etc

the only difference here is that the cause would be based on sexuality rather than race

ONCE AGAIN: No one opposed to these two high schools has addressed Soheran's objection, my objection and Kat's objection to harassed children being forced to martyr themselves for the enlightenment of society.

Excuse me, I have done so repeatedly. The adults in the school system need to do their jobs and keep the violence and harassment down and the violent bigots are the ones who need to be sent to special schools.

It is the parents responsibility to go down to the school their child currently goes to and raise all holy hell. At the end of it there should be bullies in jail/juvie and school officials sued/fired for permitting it to get this bad.

winner of the thread

Gay high schools are the stupidest fucking thing ever thought up.

Well, thank you for that well supported opinion.


Womens rights are the stupidest fucking thing ever thought up.


See how easy that is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/gay.friendly.school/


As stated in the title, are they necessary? Should gay students really be given their own high schools to be "safe" from the rest of society? Does it promote segregation even more?

I personally don't think there is a need, and yes it does promote segregation. It works against everything that gay rights promoters work for; acceptance in our culture. Also, just think about the football games and violence springing up from that. They must have a whole police force for sporting events.

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

IF you're going to function in society, you need to see it every day. Whether voluntary or compulsory, apartheidt doesn't provide that.

Another way to look at it, is to replace "Gay" with some other demographic...

say, "White".

Does America really need white-only high schools? Of Course Not.

Gay is not a disability like Deafness, nor is it instantly and readily apparent, like skin-colour, nor is it apparent through special dietary restrictions like Jewish or Muslim, nor does it have specific high-holy-days that are different from those of the main-stream.

Ghettoisation does not lead to an equal opportunity in society, teaching one group of children how to only socialize within a specific demographic leads to isolation in the outside world, with commensurate inability to survive in an uncontrolled environment. This is not good for the students, and it's not good for society, it creates and reinforces the victimhood mentality, rather than developing coping strategies for dealing with the real (outside) world.

Another way to look at it, is to replace "Gay" with some other demographic...

say, "White".

Does America really need white-only high schools? Of Course Not.


They already essentially exist. Theyre called "private schools".

They already essentially exist. Theyre called "private schools".

"private" is not publicly funded...and shouldn't be. EVER.

"private" is not publicly funded...and shouldn't be. EVER.

Gee no shit.

Regardless, your "does America really need white only schools?" is bullshit, because whites arent the target of discrimination and bullying just because theyre white. White kids dont usually have to be afraid for their safety at school for no other reason then who they are.

Gee no shit.

Regardless, your "does America really need white only schools?" is bullshit, because whites arent the target of discrimination and bullying just because theyre white. White kids dont usually have to be afraid for their safety at school for no other reason then who they are.


"Who they are" is exactly why kids are bullied. all kids, white, black, yellow, brown, purple-with-green-polka-dots. Bullies are bullies regardless. If your parents and schools make fighting BACK a crime, the bullies win. If you fight back, the bullies leave you alone. It's more to do with the essential cowardice in the nature of a Bully, and less to do with what said bully's targets may or may not be.

Bullies target those they believe will not fight back, or fight back effectively, this has nothing to do with religion, race, or sexual orientation and everything to do with....

not fighting back.

Back in the nineties, I worked with a CFI (Certified Firearms Instructor) at a self-defense workshop. We saw folks of every possible colour and religion, but I didn't see any gay people. I asked him about this, as there'd been some violence in the news directed at gays.

He was surprised I didn't notice them-because, being gay, he had, and thought it was perfectly obvious to everyone.

"Refuse to be a Victim" and the bullies will pose little, if any trouble at all. Allow yourself to be victimized, and no amount of external 'protection' will protect you.

Don't confine the LBGT community to a separate shcool, but the bigots. And I know just the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz) to put it...

Don't confine the LBGT community to a separate shcool, but the bigots. And I know just the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatraz) to put it...

A perfect place for the Nelson Muntz school for the ethically and empathy impaired . . .

Having just read the thread, I wonder at how many people on one side of the debate are arguing against a strawman. In case no-one has noticed, the article isn't talking about "Gay-only high-schools", or anything like that.

It's a school set up that is explicitly gay friendly, and is primarily intended for students who are being victimised enough they cannot effectively continue at their current school. It's not some sort of separate education system or anything like that.

Sounds like a bloody good idea to me.

Also, both for relevance to the thread, and because it's a wonderful band:

Homophobia, by Chumbawamba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOMI-eeNs-E) (Youtube link)

And the lyrics, which are also fantastic.

Up behind the Bus-stop in the toilets off the street
There are traces of a killing on the floor beneath your feet
Mixed up with the piss and beer are bloodstains on the floor
From the boy who got his head kicked in a night or two before

Homophobia
The worst disease
You can't love who you want to love in times like these

In the pubs, clubs and burger bars breeding pens for pigs
Alcohol, testosterone and ignorance and fist
Packs of hunting animals roam across the town
They find an easy victim and they punch him to the ground

Homophobia
The worst disease
You can't love who you want to love in times like these

The siren of the ambulance the deadpan of the cops
Chalk to mark the outline where the boy first dropped
Beware the holy trinity - church and state and law
For every death the virus gets more deadly then before

Homophobia
The worst disease
You can't love who you want to love in times like these

Having just read the thread, I wonder at how many people on one side of the debate are arguing against a strawman. In case no-one has noticed, the article isn't talking about "Gay-only high-schools", or anything like that.

Actually as far as I can tell it's the pro side constantly bringing up the straw man that this is what the anti side is arguing. It isn't.

The argument I keep seeing from my side is the one that I keep making, creating a school where students can go after they've been chased out by violent assholes is a step in the wrong direction. We need to sort the violent assholes out into a separate group and move them away from the kids who want to learn not the other way around.

Having just read the thread, I wonder at how many people on one side of the debate are arguing against a strawman. In case no-one has noticed, the article isn't talking about "Gay-only high-schools", or anything like that.

It's a school set up that is explicitly gay friendlyShouldn't all schools strive to be tolerant or gay friendly? Does the fact that there are specifically gay friendly schools let other schools off the hook in a way? It's as if they don't have to worry about improving their tolerance and disciplinary problems, because the bullied can just find another school that's doing what they aren't.

In life they're going to have to deal with the intolerance that they're facing in high-school. To divide kids up until they feel like they're among similar enough people doesn't make sense. When they graduate, they are still going to face the same bullying they hid from before. It makes far more sense to attack the root of the problem. The bully. Granted that takes the cooperation of the students, faculty, and parents, a lofty goal, but surely not unattainable.

It's a school set up that is explicitly gay friendly, and is primarily intended for students who are being victimised enough they cannot effectively continue at their current school.

The problem is not the kids being victimized. The problem is the assholes assauting them (verbally or otherwise). Saying "Hey, let's send these LBGT kids to another school for their safety!" is fundamentally identical to saying "Hey, let' send the rape victims to riker's island for their safety!"

Actually as far as I can tell it's the pro side constantly bringing up the straw man that this is what the anti side is arguing. It isn't.

The argument I keep seeing from my side is the one that I keep making, creating a school where students can go after they've been chased out by violent assholes is a step in the wrong direction. We need to sort the violent assholes out into a separate group and move them away from the kids who want to learn not the other way around.

They actually do this already. They're called "alternative schools". However, usually only those who are failing in the traditional school environment are offered that option when they fail or fail to fit into the traditional educational mold. I've never heard of sending bullies there. And it probably wouldn't work, because many bullies are the apples of their parents' eyes and those parents would raise hell before allowing Junior to be relegated to the non-standard school. Hell, some parents refuse to believe their kids are bullies in the first place.

So the solution is, what? Cameras and full-time watchers of those cameras? That's going to be very costly. I think the option to go to an avowedly GLBT-friendly school is a reasonable solution, given the cost of how much monitoring it would take to verify bullying claims so that it wouldn't always come down to a word-versus-word situation or depending on witnesses who are intimidated by the bully and/or the bully's friends into silence.

The problem is not the kids being victimized. The problem is the assholes assauting them (verbally or otherwise). Saying "Hey, let's send these LBGT kids to another school for their safety!" is fundamentally identical to saying "Hey, let' send the rape victims to riker's island for their safety!"

Understood -- much like the Japanese were interned in camps in WWII for their safety (that was one of the justifications). Not a perfect analogy, but still.

Does the same principle apply to ALL students? Should any student who feels discriminated against by their school have the option of choosing some other school?

It's not a matter of "feels discriminated against," it's a matter of extensive objective evidence of harassment and abuse.

The problem is not the kids being victimized. The problem is the assholes assauting them (verbally or otherwise).

Right. So let's solve the problem.

But while the problem is not solved, let's also not wave our hands and do nothing, leaving the victims to suffer.

Teach the victims to fight back, and you soon run out of victims to worry about. It's really simple, the easier it is to intimidate, the more you get bullying.

Teach the victims to fight back, and you soon run out of victims to worry about. It's really simple, the easier it is to intimidate, the more you get bullying.

Must everyone become a student of dealing violence in order simply to be left alone? Poppycock.

I'm not gonna read 11 pages of this but I'll throw in my two cents. It's not segregation because the students have a choice whether or not to attend this specific school. I for one am definately for it, if I had a choice to attend a high school like this I would have in an instant, it would have been nice to not feel like an outsider.

Must everyone become a student of dealing violence in order simply to be left alone? Poppycock.

Bullies choose their victims based on perceptions of weakness. It's the same thing as walking down a city street at night-if you walk like you're afraid, the criminals will prey on you. If you look like you might NOT be afraid, that you MIGHT hurt them...they generally don't.

Going to the teacher does nothing. GOing to the Principal does nothing, and going to the Cops does nothing-the Bullies will wait until the Teacher, Principal, cops, or parents aren't looking.

On the other hand, if the Bully tries it and gets hurt, he'll back off-he fears his prey, and will leave them alone, he will also be more reluctant to prey on someone else. OTOH, you go to the "authority figure" and guess what? now he's got an extra reason to give you extra attention. Bullies and their victims know this, and bullies exploit it.

Ah, bullying... I endured over 6 years of it.

It's not a matter of "feels discriminated against," it's a matter of extensive objective evidence of harassment and abuse.

And if that objective evidence exists it should also be enough to file criminal charges against the abusers.

And if that objective evidence exists it should also be enough to file criminal charges against the abusers.

That's not the way this sort of thing works. The evidence of abuse isn't solid or specific enough to land people in jail, nor should we wait to do something about it until it is. Social science is not criminal justice.

I was small when I was in school.

I also was ready to beat the crap out of anyone who thought I'd be a good target -- just ask the bully whose nose I broke in 2nd grade.

Understood -- much like the Japanese were interned in camps in WWII for their safety (that was one of the justifications). Not a perfect analogy, but still.

Are you actually using one of our more shameful moments as an analogy intended to be PRO Harvey Milk?

Bullies choose their victims based on perceptions of weakness. It's the same thing as walking down a city street at night-if you walk like you're afraid, the criminals will prey on you. If you look like you might NOT be afraid, that you MIGHT hurt them...they generally don't.

Going to the teacher does nothing. GOing to the Principal does nothing, and going to the Cops does nothing-the Bullies will wait until the Teacher, Principal, cops, or parents aren't looking.

On the other hand, if the Bully tries it and gets hurt, he'll back off-he fears his prey, and will leave them alone, he will also be more reluctant to prey on someone else. OTOH, you go to the "authority figure" and guess what? now he's got an extra reason to give you extra attention. Bullies and their victims know this, and bullies exploit it.

And what of kids who aren't strong enough to fight back? Do we arm them or something? Your solution is old, and while it does work in some situations, not every kid's bully was scripted by Disney writers, and not every kid can effectively fight back.

And what of kids who aren't strong enough to fight back? Do we arm them or something? Your solution is old, and while it does work in some situations, not every kid's bully was scripted by Disney writers, and not every kid can effectively fight back.Teach them Judo?

Does America really need white-only high schools? Of Course Not.

Analogies only work when the two cases are comparable. They are not, for obvious reasons.

Teach them Judo?

Perhaps. But some kids will never accede to confrontation. It's just how some of them are. That doesn't mean they deserve to be harassed.

Any reason?

One the no's it is because it's segragation which does nothing to work towards eliminating the bigotry, on the yeses and maybe's, it is because those are based upon educational specialities

Silly cliches are very easy when it's someone else's pain, and someone else's body.

'Pain is weakness leaving the body' is not a silly cliche, and what makes you think that I don't know exactly what I am talking about when I say that? There are other kinds of pain than that of being a gay teenager, you do realize.

And the point you don't seem to be getting is that this school isn't for people whose "panties" are in a "bunch", as you keep saying--it's for students whose physical safety is threatened to such a degree that they are at risk for dropping out of school.

The original statement about people getting their panties in a bunch had nothing to do with queers in high school, it was about people getting so all riled about the way something was said that they miss what is actually being said, a state of affairs you have been more than helpful in demonstrating.

How exactly does helping students avoid homophobic and transphobic harassment not make it better?

Because someone dislikes(or even hates, you can hate something without having an irrational fear of it, and no, I am not saying that either the dislike or the hate is a good thing) gay people, it does not follow that they have an irrational fear of things being the same, which is what 'homophobia' means. In that vein, I'm not sure what 'transphobia' is, except maybe an irrational fear of movement, if I were to hazard a guess.

To answer your question, if you teach children that the solution to confrontation is to run away and/or avoid the confrontation, they're going to grow up to be spineless appeasers and cowards(or 'French' for short). But if you teach them to stand up for themselves and their beliefs, and defend themselves when attacked either physically or verbally, then you've done something worth doing.

Given the much higher suicide rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide#Population_differences) one might assume so, yes.

I think you need to do a little more research, showing the current suicide rates of gays vs. blacks is showing nothing meaningful.

Unlike Harvey Milk High School, there has been no outcry over gated communities in a significant volume. Yet they're practically the same thing. A setting designed ostensibly to provide comparative safety and comfort to a group.

I have a problem with gated communities as well

it does not follow that they have an irrational fear of things being the same, which is what 'homophobia' means.

Disingenuous equivocation.

In that vein, I'm not sure what 'transphobia' is

Prejudice against transgendered people.

To answer your question, if you teach children that the solution to confrontation is to run away and/or avoid the confrontation, they're going to grow up to be spineless appeasers and cowards(or 'French' for short).

The lesson that sometimes it's alright to seek refuge when you are being harassed does not amount to appeasement or cowardice.

This is rank bullshit. You would have us believe that protecting people from particular exceptional problems suffered disproportionately by members of their group amounts to making them "soft." It is reminiscent of (or indistinguishable from?) the same logic that tolerates bullying on grounds that it "toughens" children.

No one should be harassed and abused. If we can find a reasonable way to prevent it, that's pretty unambiguously a good thing.

For everyone who says we should just send the bullies somewhere else:

I don't know where you went to high school, but the homophobes made up about 80% of the population. Reporting homophobia to school officials got you a response like "Well, if gays hadn't made the wrong choice, they wouldn't be bullied, now would they?" If you fired all the school officials who said things like that, there wouldn't be a single person left running the high school I went to, or the high school my brother went to, or the high school my best friend went to. (That sentence does refer to 3 different high schools.) If you kicked out all the bullies, those high schools would be down to about 20% of their original population.

That's the state of affairs where a gay-friendly high school becomes a good idea. When almost all school administrators, and almost all students, refuse to be accepting of gays, the gay students need somewhere to go where they won't be harassed every single day, or where at least the people running the school will respond appropriately to homophobia. Fixing the other schools will take a long time, and there's no reason to tell gay students to just wait for things to get better when they might be waiting longer than they'll be in high school.