As well as once people see this system working what will stop them from adopting this kind of thinking and open more schools across the country instead of dealing with the situation from the start. Like I said before you don't put a band-aid on severe wound and hope it gets better, you treat it from the start.

So just to clear this up...the kid who got beat up gets a special school, while we leave the emotionally disturbed "######" in the public school. I dont understand how this is the best solution to the problem. Removing the weak from the situation seems to be a band-aid like Cadman said. (Truthfully I dont even understand how this is a good temporary solution.)



You seem to be pretty pro-gay. Do you think the ability for gays to come out was something that happened over night? Do you think all of the sudden things were like they are today? The answer is "no" it happened gradually. So THEREFORE this statement of yours is invalid.

"One school, in one city" is exactly how things get started. I for one do not want to be taxed so that every special interest group can have its own school.

Until parents and administrators acknowledge anti-gay violence as a bad thing, having a safe place for the victims is necessary.
Certainly, the best thing would be to take care of the actual problem- but even where rules exist they are enforced by people. When the administrator of a school says "boys will be boys", the ones being victimized need a way out.

You seem to be forgetting that we are talking about children's lives here. It's all well and good to theorize about the "best solution", but this isn't a game.

So this isn't the best of all possible solutions, I'll grant you that. It is, however, a necessary stopgap while we work on the real problem.

My understanding from reading the website for the Harvey Milk School and the articles that have been provided is that the school is receiving a one time public expansion grant. All other funds for the operation of the school are private.



The line is drawn by observing whether or not a student is able to learn in the environment that they are in. I don't care whether you are black, white, asian, homosexual, etc. If the education isn't happening for one reason or another, it's time to try something else.



There are varying degrees of violence and not all of them are punished by the authorities. They don't come everytime a kid gets pushed in the hallway or shoved into a locker. They don't come when a student is reduced to tears because people called them names and made them feel like they were nothing. These things may seem small, and they are when they are isolated, but they still hurt, and when they happen day in and day out by multiple people, the feeling builds, and it is horrible. It certainly isn't conducive to the learning environment.

Additionally, when a high school kid beats up another kid, the authorities might get involved, but the punishment is usually probation. The person doesn't go away, and the other smaller problems tend to increase. Like I said, it's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't fix the problem

These kids are in school to learn. If they can't do that, what's the point of being there?

This is the kind of attitude that I am reacting to. Why do parents have to acknowledge that anti-gay violence is bad. Isn't is just as bad when anyone else is a victim of violence? Why then is there not a school for straight victims?

What irritates me about places like this school is that they are centered around a 'disenfranchised' group, where those groups are usually defined by the people who will benefit from their creation.

My overarching point is that what you are saying (Cyan and Grendel) has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with homosexuality or gay rights. It has to do with poor behavior in schools. Violent children should be dealt with. And to answer my own question ("Why haven't the violent children be dealt with?"), public funds are siphoned away from public schools from programs like this 'one-time grant'.

What I mean is that the people who are most likely to support tax funding for a gay high school are also the one's most likely to support government entitlement programs, which divert money away from our educational funding.

If we were able to reign in government spending, we could fund schools. If we had more teachers in schools this problem could be dealt with correctly. Not to mention the fact that kids would actually have a change to learn.

I blame this problem on those who expand government entitlements in lieu of personal responsibility (see social security, representing aprox. 1/3 of our national budget according to the Congressional Budget Office) and those who need a group to feel pity for.

As for 'boys will be boys': rough housing is a part of growing up. When it gets out of hand any teaching professional with half a brain will step in. One who doesn't is incompetent and in our school system as a result of under funding.

Other violence is acknowledged as a bad thing. When I got beat up after school, the principal told me I was "egging them on" by acting so "girly".
When a kid gets beat up after school for any other reason, the administration doesn't make excused for the aggressors.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. You clearly had an incompetent principal.

However, I refuse to believe there is a corps of gay hating principals lurking around public schools in New York allowing people to be physically harmed. There are other IMEDIATE solutions to this problem rather than separating gay students into a different school.

What about parents or the school board or a teacher? Not to be a jerk, but I'm sure there were other people who could have helped you with the principal and the other students. It's not like once the principal said that you were doomed to being beaten up.

People become teachers and principals because they want to help children. There was at least one of those at your school who would have helped you.

I’m not trying to blame victims either. Obviously the bullies are the wrong-doers. However, victims should not resign themselves to being victims. There is a point when everyone has to play with the hand they were dealt and fix things for themselves.

Spending tax money to separate people into a special school for gay students is discriminatory against straight people.

Seriously, I know for a fact that I had it a lot better than some. Spend any amount of time talking to gay people and you'll hear stories much worse than I have to tell.
And no, parents and teachers can not be counted on if you're gay.
And, just for the record, it has nothing to do with being "weak". In my experience, and the experience of everyone I know, bashers (whether in school where they are accepted or in the real world where they are not) are cowards who only attack in groups. A man doesn't have to be weak to be beat by three other men.


Since I'm not going to have any children, it's discriminatory to take my property taxes to pay for public education. This is a one-time grant.

There are. The Harvey Milk School may be geared towards homosexuals, but they allow heterosexuals as well. Additionally, New York has a large number of charter schools with various different focuses.



You're making some pretty big assumptions there.

I support the right of parents to choose the type of schools that their children will attend. I like the idea of charter schools and vouchers, because I don't believe that the John Dewey system is the right system for everyone. Sometimes a specialized education is a good thing.

Absurd. School isn't about sex, it's about academics. I don't care who the students date, I care what they learn.

But that's just my opinion, I'm all for parents having all kinds of choices, and if they want a school for students whose favorite color is blue or who play the piccolo, why not? But not a regular public school -- maybe a charter school, or a private school funded by vouchers.

Quoting Grendal:


The service one receives from paying this money is NOT schooling for one's children. It is the elevation of society through education and investment in human capital. Many luxuries that you enjoy today are the result of people receiving education in public schools. You should see your property tax dollars as the fee you are charged for the benefit of living in an educated society.

So, no, you are not discriminated against in property tax.


Quoting Grendal:


A society in which a gay person has ABSOLUTLY NO ONE to turn to, like this comment of yours suggests would also have, as a feature, no friendships between gay people and straight people. Since we can look around and see these friendships present, we can conclude that we do not live in a society where gay people have no one to turn to.

To phrase it in another way, not all straight people are intolerant; in fact the majority of them are tolerant and certainly willing to help the victims of gross physical violence as is the scope of your statement. SO, there is someone to help these children without separating them into another school.


Quoting Cyan:


Right. I know. But “geared toward homosexuals” is the same thing as saying “a special school for gays”. My question still stands, how do you determine who gets special schools? You say it is the ability of the children to be in a learning environment. I know I could have learned better with a staff of private tutors because I have mild learning disabilities. Does that mean I should get my own school with a one-time grant from the government? Where are the lines drawn? The fairest way to do it is to give everyone the same education in public schools. Anything else is discriminatory.

That being said, discrimination that is based on intelligence is fair in schools. That is to say, honors programs and special education are discriminatory, but in a helpful manner. They allow students of different abilities to excel to their potential.

You mean like the service society gets from a school for at risk youth?

In the society you seem to believe exists there would be no closeted homosexuals, no teenagers kicked out of their homes by disapproving parents.
Just because some people are trustworthy doesn't make it any easier for kids who have had their trust betrayed time and again while working within the system to trust others.
You reject the Milk school because it isn't a perfect solution, then expect kids to live within an abusive system while belittling any complaints about the problems.

For some kids there is no one to turn to. The Milk school only admits 50 students, expanding to 170 with the grant. These are the few students who don't have any support system.

There are numerous publicly funded charter schools throughout the country for different groups of at-risk students. Students in these schools demonstrably outperform similar populations within the general public school system on math and reading tests.
charter school performance

Isn't this a charter school? It sounds like money well spent to me.

I don't understand your point here. Please explain further. You said property tax was not fair for gays who didn’t have children. I was trying to make an argument that everyone receives benefit from public schooling regardless of the number of children they have.

If you are trying to justify public funds for the Milk school by saying that society benefits from helping at risk students see the restatement of my argument below. Discrimination based an irrelevant trait is the issue when publicly funding a ‘special school for homosexuals’.



I reject the Milk school because it is using public funding to (according to you) more than triple its capacity. I think the Milk school is a fine idea. I have no doubt that the children who attend benefit from separation from the general population. I draw the line at public funding.

Also, I'm not trying to say that problems like the one you described are small problems. I do not want to belittle your experience. I AM saying that I don't believe that these problems are as rampant as you would have readers believe. I am also saying that there is always something else that can be tried to solve a problem.




My posts have digressed slightly from the core of my argument, so I will now restate it:

I do not think it is proper for tax dollars to be spent on a special school for homosexuals for the same reason I think it would be wrong to spend public funds on a special school for whites or blacks. These characteristics (race or sexual orientation or sex or religion) have nothing to do with a child’s ability in school.

It seems that the main argument made by supporters of this school is that these so-called gay children are constantly beat up in schools under the watchful eye of homophobic teachers and principals and therefore can’t learn. Supporters say that this is the same as depriving these children of a right or public education so they must be separated into their own school.

I say, if you want to publicly fund a school for children who get beat up at school’s with incompetent principals and therefore can’t learn, do that; but DO NOT spend people’s hard earned money on a program that discriminates on a characteristic that is irrelevant to a child’s intelligence or potential. There are straight children who would benefit from a separate school as well.

I agree that the trend for charter schools seem to tout the views that these schools are better, or allow students a better education. However we need to look at some possible reasons WHY this is so. Is it because the students are necessarily better, or just because in many cases they have a better student to teacher ratio?

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter4thyear/b3.html

The problem i have with this basic idea is that it is taking a specific group and not necessarily segregating them, but giving them preferential treatment over the rest of the general population. Not because of physical need, E.G. mental disabilities, danger to society, etc. but because of a specific life choice. Who's right is it to say that a certain group should get preferential treatment? Is creating a private, but publicly funded gay high school any different from creating a state funded school where only black heterosexuals are allowed to attend? or a state school where only females who are Jewish and like Christian males are allowed to attend? The problem is the government should not be able to take a certain group and allow them special treatment. I was in high school at one point, and i would have loved a special charter school with smaller class sizes that were specifically tailored to me any day. But in real life we arent segregated into our little groups, we act and live on the broader stage. I think its better to socialise students in a diverse environment, or is that not necessary in todays society?

And unfortunately there are tons of cases where a specific race, people with a certain life choice, or religion have been give preferential treatments, but the fact that it has happend in the past does NOT serve as an argument for it continuing to happen in the future.

You might have a point if you didn't ignore the fact that the HMI does not discriminate against heterosexuals.

A school whose catch phrase is:

"It doesn’t matter if you are “Out, loud and proud” or on the “DL”. “In the Closet” or “Living Large”."

is set up in such a way as to pander to homosexuals. This is discriminatory against heterosexuals. What you said here is preposterous. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have a “special school for homosexuals” or you have a school that does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Saying the Milk school is open to heterosexual kids is like saying a Miami Tanning club is open to blacks. They may let them in, but why would they join?

You can justify it all you want, but the tax payers were robbed by a public grant to the Milk school.

Edited to include:
It is a crime that this school has recieved a tax grant to provde facilities that are far and above what the normal student has. I have just looked at the press kit on the schools website, and it is crazy that this school's facilities are so nice.

While it is not the "catch phrase" of the school, you might do well to pay attention to the entire statement rather than selectively quoting and ignoring 2/3 of the material:


Furthermore, advertising to any target audience is not discrimination. As long as the school accepts students of all sexualities, races and creeds, they can advertise to anyone they like. On the same page of FAQ's that the above quotation came from, HMI went on to say:



It is not the responsibility of either HMI or any Miami tanning club to ensure that any and all citizens would want to join. As long as they or any other business are not restricting the right of a citizen to join or attend on the basis of any particular prejudice, they are not discriminating.


Any of the tax payers' students may turn in an application to attend HMI, so they were no more robbed or the victim of a crime than any high school having better facilities than another one down the road. Different students at different schools receive different facilities and programs. HMI likely has an easier job of maintaining facilities as the school has previously only held 50 students. Even the expansion is only increasing the student population to approx. 150.

There is no crime in a school open to the public working to maintain their facilities and provide an excellent environment conducive to education than other schools are willing to. If you continue to think so, by all means detail specifically what crime HMI or any schools of excellence are guilty of.

What you are saying is that as long as an organization publicly says "Anyone welcome" then they are not discriminatory. I argue that you can have discrimination without having people who prejudge or hate or giver undue preference.

For instance, if suddenly no one in the U.S. was racist, we would still have discrimination against blacks for the simple reason that on average across the nation they are not provided with equal education. This situation does not depend on the willful discrimination of anyone, but is a system that results in discrimination in the work place (if you look at the aggregate).

My point is that a system, regardless of the people in that system, can be discriminatory.

Why isn't the Milk school set up as a place for children who are beat up and picked on? Why do they cater to homosexuals so much? That is discriminatory because there are children who are beat up, who would benefit from the environment of the Milk school, but who won't attend because of the blatant focus on and glorification of homosexuality at the Milk school.

This is why I have a problem with tax funds being spent on this school.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with education and therefore should not be a focus at school, especially a school that is draw government funds.


Oh and the crime is taking funds away from schools who need it for an institution that discriminates.

Sexual orientation is not the focus of the school, education is. The sole reason this school exists is to give an education to kids who are at risk.
Would you claim that heterosexuality is the focus of all the other schools?

No. I would not claim Heterosexuality is the focus at other schools.

My point is, by posting things like "It doesn’t matter whether you identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight, transgender female or male. It doesn’t matter if you are “Out, loud and proud” or on the “DL”. “In the Closet” or “Living Large”." on their website, they indicate that some thought or focus is being given to sexual orientation of the students, even if that thought is “We will give homosexual students refuge.” Hell, this thread is called "Gay high school". Clearly there is something about the Milk school that has to do with sexual orientation.

To me, sexual orientation should not be an issue, or criteria, or focus, or thought or whatever is going on here when public funding is involved. If you want to focus on education, focus on education. In an environment where there is no consideration of sexuality, the schools leadership would not say things like "It doesn’t matter whether you identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight, transgender female or male. It doesn’t matter if you are “Out, loud and proud” or on the “DL”. “In the Closet” or “Living Large”." By posting this on their website, they have indicated that consideration is being given to students sexual orientation.

I’m not saying they intentionally discriminate based on sexual orientation. I am saying that it is wrong to fund this school with public funds because it has a focus or thought or whatever you want to call it, on a personality trait that has nothing to do with education.

This is my first post on this issue, and though it has been out of the news for quite some time, I was extremely angered by this idea. Sure, it is the prerogative of anyone who is willing to foot the bill to start a private school, and if they want to accept all gay students, that's also their prerogative. But, this is a public school, and even if one little sector of the school is set aside for gay students, then this is segregation and is, thus, unacceptable usage of public funds.

However, this issue goes deeper than that, to me. If everybody who was ever discriminated against, or had their feelings hurt, or whatever had their own little place in the school, then what kind of citizens would we be sending into society? It's not realistic to always be around people like yourself who will like you and respect you fully ALL the time. That just doesn't happen, folks, and kids shouldn't be made to believe that. It's the same reason racial segregation wasn't allowed to continue: many white AND black people wanted segregation to continue so they wouldn't have to intermingle with people who were different, but it just wasn't right, and neither is this. We can't have an area for all the dumb kids so they don't FEEL dumb around the smarter students, an area for the fat kids so they don't FEEL fat, and so on and so on. Maybe there is something to be said about how students act towards one another at school (in fact, I would definitely say that there is), but this is not the right way to go about solving those problems.

As their site details, it essentially is a place for children who are beat up and picked on. The school provides information and statistics on the abuse of homosexual students which led the school to emphasize that their facilities would be a safe place of learning for such students. Again, it is not discriminatory because children who are beat up and who are not homosexual are just as welcome as those who are. If any parents choose not to send their children to the school because of it's welcome attitude to homosexuals and transgendered people that is their choice. The prejudices of parents and children does not translate into prejudice on behalf of the school.


Those who teach biology, sociology and sexual education might have different opinions regarding sexual orientation. That being said, it isn't as though the school is teaching nothing but sexual orientation. Just as many magnet schools seek students with particular interests, the Harvey Milk School does the same without abandoning traditional and publicly approved curriculum.

And I'm waiting to see how the school discriminates. Thus far you have done nothing but try to shift the prejudices and discrimination of individual citizens to the school, whose doors are open to students of any sexual orientation, race, sex or creed.


Homosexual, heterosexual and transgendered students are not being isolated from one another at the school. There is no segregation occurring.


They don't all have "their own little place in the school," but they are all welcome in the school. With smaller class sizes the faculty is better able to prevent physical and psychological abuse of students by their peers. While this may be a better environment than some other schools, it by no means ensures that any of the students or faculty will be around people who like them or respect them fully all the time. They do still live in the outside world. The school isn't intended to work as an all encompassing bubble for the children's lives but rather to ensure that they are free from the distractions of abuse and discrimination while they are learning.

So long as it's a private school go for it. :thumbsup:So long as taxpayer don't have to pay for it I don't see a problem. As for gay bashing I believe thats a bad idea, however teenagers aren't all grown up yet and will be cruel to others it's a matter of teaching them to respect all people not just gays ectttt.

This is the article I read, which I assume is the article that began this debate in the first place. Here it is.

Now, Abs Like Jesus, I understand what you meant, but I was ultimately criticizing the foundation of any school, part of a school, or whatever for a certain group of students based on a defining criterium, like sexual preference, as it is in this case. As I understand this article, a gay-rights youth activist group is funding the creation of a school that will function as a school dedicated to educating homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual students in an environment where they are exclusive (or, if not exclusive, then the VAST majority). This school, while being founded to educate as any other school would, with no modifications in the curriculum, is still being founded with a specific student in mind. This is where I see the problem, regardless of whether the school is publicly funded or privately funded, and regardless of whether the charter allows "only" homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual students or not (c'mon, do you think any straight students will be going?).

The whole idea of providing a place for these students to congregate as a student body, where they are around people just like themselves and everybody can go about their happy little business, seems like a good idea at first. But, what a reality check it will be when they are out from under the shelter of the wing that this school provides! As wrong as it may be, this world is full of intolerant people, and to try and hide from that reality is fruitless. The lessons learned in school are more than just those of academics, but also of character. It gives us a realistic look at how the world works and the kind of people with whom we share it, and they are most certainly NOT always like us. This is a pacifist effort that will only give birth to greater disappointment when these students are sent into the real world.

Like I said before, we can't have a separate school (or part of a school, or whatever) for every group of students that gets their feelings hurt. Sorry, that's just not the way it works. We don't live in a dream world where everybody can get along with each other, but we also don't live in another form of dream world where we can decide to not even bother trying.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of schools with traditional curriculum and specific students as their focus (examples). In regards to whether I think any straight students attend or not, this is a non-issue. The school is not responsible for the independent choices of individuals.


They do still go home and engage in recreational activities beyond the school grounds just like any other school. As a relatively closed system, any school is going to present a different environment from how the world at large works. Besides this, the school admits a variety of students who will possess many differences amongst themselves. They aren't simply recruiting blonde haired, blue eyed homosexuals who will be filled with awe at the sight of a brunette heterosexual. There is nothing to suggest they will be somehow less capable of developing character and understanding how the world works for attending HMS.

Notice how those other schools are developed around personal characteristics that relate to education like ability in math or the ability to create art. That is the difference. The Milk school does not belong on the list you have provided.

The schools on your list are places where gifted children can learn at a faster pace. Now, if the Milk school was a school that provided a place for children who are intimidated and beat-up to learn in a safe environment, then it would be appropriate to compare HMS to those schools on your list. However, HMS included homosexuality by making their goal to provide a place for children to learn who are beat up because they are gay (or otherwise different).

This focus on sexual orientation is what makes it wrong to publicly fund HMS.

Why?

You say it is alright if the school is intended to assist those children intimidated and beat-up, but not if they are specificially homosexual? They assist any children within their ability regardless of whether they are homosexual, transgendered, straight, etc. How does any focus, be it academic interest or sexual orientation, without discrimination upon admission translate to wrong doing?

Sexual orientation is a focus at HMS. That is undeniable. Look at their web site. Look at their history. Yes, they will take straight kids, but sexual orientation is still a thought in the minds of the administration. (I dont pretent to know their thoughts, but probably in a very good way like "We want to provide refuge for gay children.")

Now to answer your question:

"Why?"

For the same reasons I believe it would be wrong for the City of New York to publicly fund a school for children who were beat up because they were white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant and male.

1) I can accept opinions that say HMS should not be publicly funded because it focuses on an aspect of children that does not relate to education.

2) I can accept opinion that say HMS can do what ever it wants if it does not take public funds.

3) I can accept opinions that say HMS should be able to receive public funds, AND a school that discriminates against black people should be able to receive public funds. (I don't agree, but I can accept this opinion as logically sound, although not morally sound.)

4) I CANNOT accept opinions that one group can have it one way, while another group has to have it another way. What I mean is, you cannot logically justify public funding for HMS without accepting public funding of all-white segregated schools.

I’ll rephrase: How can homosexuals say ‘we want to be treated fairly and equally by society’ and then seek public funding for a school that explicitly caters to homosexuals? Can people not see that this public funding is special treatment?

I’ll add another angle: Wouldn’t the gay community be outraged if tax dollars were going to an all boys school that advertised by saying: “We don’t care if you like tall girls or short girls. We don’t care if you like fat girls or skinny girls. If you like girls, there is a place for you at NYC All-Boys School.”

That school didn’t say ‘no gays allowed’. But it seems pretty funny to pitch a school using sexual orientation and sexuality.

HMS is not simply a school established for those beat up because they were homosexual or transgendered. While it is a focus of the school, it is intended for and accepts all troubled students regardless of their sexual orientation or scholastic circumstances.

Regarding your comparison between HMS and "all-white segretated schools," I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that the situation at HMS is not segregation before you get it. They are not segregating or discriminating. While there is a focus on sexual orientation, there is no segregation of homosexuals or transgendered persons, nor is there any discrimination toward those who are neither homosexual or transgendered.


As the benefits of the school are not intended or restricted solely for homosexuals and transgendered persons, there is no special treatment occurring.

Regarding the "NYC All-Boys School," there is no wrong doing or special treatment provided that there is no segregation or discrimination being practiced by the school in violation of established laws.

I can accept your opinion as consistant and logical since you feel that my hypothetical "NYC All Boys School" example is not discriminatory.

I find that many liberal organizations and liberal people would have a big problem with a school set up like my example, and laud HMS. I find those two opinions to be contradictory. This contradiction is what frustrates me the most about this issue.

If you agree that HMS and NYC All Boys School both could exist and be funded by tax payer dollars, then fine. I disagree because of a principle that cannot be argued.

What would you say if the NYC All Boys School posted the following on its website:

"We don’t care if you like tall girls or short girls. We don’t care if you like fat girls or skinny girls. If you like girls and white people, there is a place for you at NYC All-Boys School.”

What if it was a special school to help straight white male students who are beat up?

I guess what I'm saying is where do you draw the line? Is is the explicit exclusion of a certain type of person?

I'm looking at it from a legal standpoint in which they can put the focus wherever the like so long as they do not discriminate or segregate. I might point out a significant difference in your examples to start:
While HMS does have a focus on homosexual and transgendered students, they do continue to express that all students are welcome no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be. Your examples, on the other hand, specify only straight students who happen to be male and white.

I would not personally have any objection to a school making the statements you suggest so long as they practice an open admittance policy free from segregation or discrimination. I don't know that there would be any real legal opposition to exclusionary statements, but I imagine there would be enough public opposition to have such a hypothetical school adjust their wording to include any and all students, regardless of focus.

Then, like I said, I can accept your opinion regarding HMS because it is consistent and logical. I disagree because I believe schools should only focus on qualities that affect education and, in my opinion, sexual orientation does not have a direct effect on learning ability. (In fact, I believe it should be illegal to have other focuses, if you want to talk about the law. See, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

But you said it. There would be a public outcry about my example school, even if they admitted any student. (You better believe Jesse Jackson would have steam coming out of his ears.) To me, this, coupled with the fact that there is no public outcry about HMS, is indicatory of a double standard in American society.

The fact that one social stratum is held to a different standard and treated differently by the government, is what frustrates me.

Not all discriminated-against minority groups have a Jesse Jackson to go to bat for them. Your example school would cause an influx of non-caucasion students into the school (they would enroll just to prove a point). The difference is that your example school welcomes the majority, excludes(implication) the minority - HMS excludes(implication) the majority but includes the minority, gives them a safe haven. Many of the people who believe homosexuality is an abomination also believe that it is a disease, something that can rub off. There will hardly be a rush to infiltrate the homosexual school. But if anyone was so inclined, as long as he/she was welcomed - the school should continue to recieve public funding.

You say there would be public outcry about your example school. You believe there should be public outcry about a school implying the minority is not welcome. This following speech - not only was there not public outcry about the bigotry of it, but there was wide spread public support and sympathy for the speaker.
I'd like to point out this speech, which was originally printed in an article somewhere (it has been copied so many times as their rallying call, I've lost track of where it was originally published)

This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody McLoud.
"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country."
Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it "an alternate lifestyle," and if someone is offended, that's OK. I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, "safe sex." If someone is offended, that's OK. I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a "viable means of birth control." If someone is offended, no problem. I can designate a school day as "Earth Day" and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess "Mother Earth" and call it "ecology." I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depict people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as "simple minded" and "ignorant" and call it "enlightenment." However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and to ask Him to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated. This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His Commandments. Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression. For this reason, I shall "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and refrain from praying at this time. "However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God and ask Him, in the name of Jesus, to bless this event, please feel free to do so. As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet."

Of course, this was only one individual principal. But what homosexual kids in the south are finding this attitude is widespread - that this is not just a rogue opinion. Why shouldn't they have a safe place to learn until public school administrators realize that their personal beliefs have no place in a public school?

In the mainstream media, it is ok to show a member of a minority group railing the majority. Generally this is accepted. However, when you see a majority member speaking like this principal did, that person is labeled a redneck, hayseed.

This is the way it is. If you don't believe me, watch the news.

And yes, my example school would lead to a public outcry. Yet this grant to HMS has barely been covered. If you saw a news clip of someone speaking publicly against this tax grant, you would label them a bigot, just as you have labeled this principal a bigot.

It is not ok for minorities to receive special treatment

Edited for emphasis

Perhaps a bit closer attention to my previous post would have helped:
There would likely be a public outcry in your situation without applying any double standard because your example is exclusionary. HMS is not exclusionary in either word or practice. There is a difference.

The school, being open to all persons regardless of sexual orientation or other qualifiers, is not special treatment for any minority group.

-HMS


Why is this thread called "Gay high school'?

Why is the issue here about sexuality?

Why is the the story on the home page of HMI about the beating of a gay student because he was gay?

Why was the Hetrick-Martin Institute, Home of the (Harvey Milk School) founded as "Institute for Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth"?


Yes, they take care to say accepting things, but the fact of the matter stands. The focus of this school is the protection of gay children. To believe otherwise is utopian drivel.

The question of the thread also insinuates that tax dollars are being used to construct a school when it has already existed as a public school for over a decade. A member choosing to label a school with a focus, but not a limit, on homosexual students doesn't make it a strictly homosexual school.

I haven't suggested they have a different focus, but that focus does not equate in anyway to segregation or discrimination as you have repeatedly implied. You have tried to argue about special treatment when the school, regardless of its focus, is open to admitting any student regardless of sex or sexual orientation. You have tried to argue a double standard when none existed -- your examples were exclusionary whereas HMS was inclusive.

While you may disagree with a school's right to focus on particular aspects of its students, be it acadmeic or sexual or otherwise, there is no wrong doing at HMS. There is no stealing of tax dollars, segregation or discrimination as you have previously alleged.

Why shouldn't EVERY school have this focus?

Every school should focus on protection on their students. It should not be like that just because they are 'gay'. A gay school is not right. I think people who are 'gay' are not clear in there thinking, or what they are doing. I don't think they should even make a gay high school.

I have a problem with a school:
"Focusing on the protection of its gay students."

I think all schools should:
"Focus on the protection of its students."


Abs, I have backed off my statement that HMS discriminates. However, the focus at HMS is on protection of homosexual students. I believe this is wrong because I do not think schools funded by tax dollars should focus on personal characteristics that do not relate directly to educational ability. I feel this way because I believe this allocation of funds has the potential to allocate tax dollars in an inequitable manner in terms of irrelevant characteristics.

That is the entirety of my beliefs regarding this issue.

Why should taxpayers pay for a high school based on sexual orientation? If it were a private school, I wouldn't mind. But when taxpayers are going to pay for a school that bases its principles entirely on sexual orientation, it is a total abomination to the nation as we are trying to teach not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Taxpayer money should be going to awareness and tolerance of gays, not to isolate them in a school and say that they are helping them out.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for a high school based on sexual orientation? But when taxpayers are going to pay for a school that bases its principles entirely on sexual orientation, it is a total abomination to the nation as we are trying to teach not to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If gays always get what they want just because if they ddidn't then it would be discrimination. But if a straight person didnt get what they wanted then it doesn't matter. You don't hear kids that are straight saying that they don't want gays at thier school. its the gays that are isolating themseleves for straight kids.

This old topic again.


The main point here is that the "gay" high school that recieves public funds does not require that students must be gay to enroll. Just like West Point does not require that students be male, WestPoint would expect primarily males to enroll, but when females enroll at WestPoint, WestPoint expects that those females are tolerant of the predominantly male atmosphere.

Similarly, non-gay students enrolled at the "gay" high school should be tolerant of the predominantly gay atmosphere.

Similarly, gay students enrolled at "normal" high schools have to be tolerant of the predominantly bigot atmosphere.