Full Version: Gay high school?
Some of you might be interested in investigating the White Ribbon Campaign before making a final decision on this issue. It is estimated that a teen in the United States takes his or her own life every five hours because he or she is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, and can't cope with the added stress of abuse and threats of violence which they encounter in our society - and our schools. According to a 1989 US Department of Health and Human Services study, up to 30 percent of teen suicides are by gays and lesbians, and they are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are straight youths. And this is before we even mention the amount of physical violence against gay teens. Our gay youth are routinely assaulted, raped, and murdered. (More on this can be found at Victim Assistance - and numerous individual stories have been documented at The Data Lounge).
I don't think the same can be said of many teens who are overweight.
I believe the funding issue has been addressed, but to make it clear: the funds that the New York City Board of Education has allocated to the Harvey Milk School are not being taken from other students in other schools; they are funds which already exist and which will enable an established school to expand, taking on more students who would've been similarly funded elsewhere. And, Amlord, that "$18,823 per kid" only applies if you are looking at the first year. This is not annual funding - it is a one-time grant to upgrade a school which has been open for a generation. If the expansion provides additional space for students for ten years, that's $1,882 per student. If the school doesn't shrink for twenty years, that's $941 per student. The operating costs will continue to be provided by the Hetrick-Martin Institute. I have seen nothing anywhere about the state being requested to provide any additional funds for operations.
Clearly, attending such a school does not place students into some kind of plastic bubble. They still encounter "the real world" in every other aspect of their lives. They are exposed to homophobia on the street, in the home, in the media - and in discussion boards. Trust me, any student who wishes to attend the Harvey Milk School is well aware of the existence of homophobia and anti-gay violence. That's why they are there. The school does not shelter them from "taunting", it allows them to get an education in a supportive atmosphere, free from the threat of deadly physical violence and abuse which can lead to suicidal depression. And if you don't think that such threats and abuse are all too real, you have never been queer - and you have certainly never had gay friends who were battered to death.
Some have characterized this school (and we are only talking about one school, sadly) as an instance of segregation. As has also been pointed out (and I saw this in the first article I read about the infrastructure grant a few weeks ago - in the New York Post, of all places), the school is open to all students, regardless of sexual orientation. Granted, most straight students in attendance are either questioning or gay-friendly, but it's worth mentioning that straight students who befriend gays are often as open to harassment and violence as their queer peers. But the intent is not to segregate, it is to remove obstacles to education - and to protect students under mortal threat.
Obviously, something like the Harvey Milk School is not a final - or even, perhaps, the best - solution (the Gay-Straight Alliances which are forming in many of our nation's schools is probably a more productive approach - where they haven't been banned), but until our society has evolved to the point where lives are not at stake, I don't see how anyone can argue against such a haven.
I don't think the same can be said of many teens who are overweight.
I believe the funding issue has been addressed, but to make it clear: the funds that the New York City Board of Education has allocated to the Harvey Milk School are not being taken from other students in other schools; they are funds which already exist and which will enable an established school to expand, taking on more students who would've been similarly funded elsewhere. And, Amlord, that "$18,823 per kid" only applies if you are looking at the first year. This is not annual funding - it is a one-time grant to upgrade a school which has been open for a generation. If the expansion provides additional space for students for ten years, that's $1,882 per student. If the school doesn't shrink for twenty years, that's $941 per student. The operating costs will continue to be provided by the Hetrick-Martin Institute. I have seen nothing anywhere about the state being requested to provide any additional funds for operations.
Clearly, attending such a school does not place students into some kind of plastic bubble. They still encounter "the real world" in every other aspect of their lives. They are exposed to homophobia on the street, in the home, in the media - and in discussion boards. Trust me, any student who wishes to attend the Harvey Milk School is well aware of the existence of homophobia and anti-gay violence. That's why they are there. The school does not shelter them from "taunting", it allows them to get an education in a supportive atmosphere, free from the threat of deadly physical violence and abuse which can lead to suicidal depression. And if you don't think that such threats and abuse are all too real, you have never been queer - and you have certainly never had gay friends who were battered to death.
Some have characterized this school (and we are only talking about one school, sadly) as an instance of segregation. As has also been pointed out (and I saw this in the first article I read about the infrastructure grant a few weeks ago - in the New York Post, of all places), the school is open to all students, regardless of sexual orientation. Granted, most straight students in attendance are either questioning or gay-friendly, but it's worth mentioning that straight students who befriend gays are often as open to harassment and violence as their queer peers. But the intent is not to segregate, it is to remove obstacles to education - and to protect students under mortal threat.
Obviously, something like the Harvey Milk School is not a final - or even, perhaps, the best - solution (the Gay-Straight Alliances which are forming in many of our nation's schools is probably a more productive approach - where they haven't been banned), but until our society has evolved to the point where lives are not at stake, I don't see how anyone can argue against such a haven.
My biggest worry about the school is that it could easily become a magnet for gay bashers. I know the school has been in existence for 16 years, but my understanding is that they have not had their own school building until now.
I certainly hope that fear is unfounded.
As for the comparison with other forms of bullying... I don't know of any other group who have to worry about school administration and their own parents often times taking the bullies' side. That is a major difference:these kids have no one to trust.
I certainly hope that fear is unfounded.
As for the comparison with other forms of bullying... I don't know of any other group who have to worry about school administration and their own parents often times taking the bullies' side. That is a major difference:these kids have no one to trust.
How would the school prove a student is homosexual? Would it be possible for students in lesser funded schools to fake homosexuality as to get into a better school? Just a thought...
QUOTE(adzguy @ Aug 25 2003, 05:08 PM)
How would the school prove a student is homosexual? Would it be possible for students in lesser funded schools to fake homosexuality as to get into a better school? Just a thought...
Considering that the school doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation I don't think any "proof" would be needed.
QUOTE
It is estimated that a teen in the United States takes his or her own life every five hours because he or she is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, and can't cope with the added stress of abuse and threats of violence which they encounter in our society - and our schools. According to a 1989 US Department of Health and Human Services study, up to 30 percent of teen suicides are by gays and lesbians, and they are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than are straight youths
Could you please provide a link to that report?
Teens completing a suicide every five hours because they are gay? That would mean over 1400 teens a year commit suicide because of sexual orientation.
According to the CDC, 321 children under the age of 15 committed suicide in 1994.
The NIH has this to say in their suicide FAQ:
According to the CDC, 321 children under the age of 15 committed suicide in 1994.
The NIH has this to say in their suicide FAQ:
QUOTE
Are gay and lesbian youth at high risk for suicide?
With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual. Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account.
With regard to suicide attempts, several state and national studies have reported that high school students who report to be homosexually and bisexually active have higher rates of suicide thoughts and attempts in the past year compared to youth with heterosexual experience. Experts have not been in complete agreement about the best way to measure reports of adolescent suicide attempts, or sexual orientation, so the data are subject to question. But they do agree that efforts should focus on how to help GLB youth grow up to be healthy and successful despite the obstacles that they face. Because school based suicide awareness programs have not proven effective for youth in general, and in some cases have caused increased distress in vulnerable youth, they are not likely to be helpful for GLB youth either. Because young people should not be exposed to programs that do not work, and certainly not to programs that increase risk, more research is needed to develop safe and effective programs.
With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual. Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account.
With regard to suicide attempts, several state and national studies have reported that high school students who report to be homosexually and bisexually active have higher rates of suicide thoughts and attempts in the past year compared to youth with heterosexual experience. Experts have not been in complete agreement about the best way to measure reports of adolescent suicide attempts, or sexual orientation, so the data are subject to question. But they do agree that efforts should focus on how to help GLB youth grow up to be healthy and successful despite the obstacles that they face. Because school based suicide awareness programs have not proven effective for youth in general, and in some cases have caused increased distress in vulnerable youth, they are not likely to be helpful for GLB youth either. Because young people should not be exposed to programs that do not work, and certainly not to programs that increase risk, more research is needed to develop safe and effective programs.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Aug 26 2003, 01:48 PM)
Teens completing a suicide every five hours because they are gay? That would mean over 1400 teens a year commit suicide because of sexual orientation.
According to the CDC, 321 children under the age of 15 committed suicide in 1994.
The NIH has this to say in their suicide FAQ:
According to the CDC, 321 children under the age of 15 committed suicide in 1994.
The NIH has this to say in their suicide FAQ:
QUOTE
Are gay and lesbian youth at high risk for suicide?
With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual. Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account.
With regard to suicide attempts, several state and national studies have reported that high school students who report to be homosexually and bisexually active have higher rates of suicide thoughts and attempts in the past year compared to youth with heterosexual experience. Experts have not been in complete agreement about the best way to measure reports of adolescent suicide attempts, or sexual orientation, so the data are subject to question. But they do agree that efforts should focus on how to help GLB youth grow up to be healthy and successful despite the obstacles that they face. Because school based suicide awareness programs have not proven effective for youth in general, and in some cases have caused increased distress in vulnerable youth, they are not likely to be helpful for GLB youth either. Because young people should not be exposed to programs that do not work, and certainly not to programs that increase risk, more research is needed to develop safe and effective programs.
With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual. Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account.
With regard to suicide attempts, several state and national studies have reported that high school students who report to be homosexually and bisexually active have higher rates of suicide thoughts and attempts in the past year compared to youth with heterosexual experience. Experts have not been in complete agreement about the best way to measure reports of adolescent suicide attempts, or sexual orientation, so the data are subject to question. But they do agree that efforts should focus on how to help GLB youth grow up to be healthy and successful despite the obstacles that they face. Because school based suicide awareness programs have not proven effective for youth in general, and in some cases have caused increased distress in vulnerable youth, they are not likely to be helpful for GLB youth either. Because young people should not be exposed to programs that do not work, and certainly not to programs that increase risk, more research is needed to develop safe and effective programs.
The only thing I could find was a reference to an 1989 study that claimed 30% of attempted suicides were due to gay and lesbian issues. However, from what I can find, the 1989 study says no such thing. This was one person's determination of the study (he wasn't a researcher), and it's been refuted by the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of Mental Heath, the American Psychological Association, the American Association of Suicidology, among others (Boston Herald, "Gay teen suicide stat refuted," May 25, 1997, p. 5). Additionally, a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education has conceded in writing that the information is false.
I stand corrected. So much for trusting secondary sources. 
But what, then is an acceptable number of suicides - or even suicide attempts? According to the American Psychiatric Association, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 19 years - and every day, fourteen young people (ages 15 to 24) commit suicide, or approximately one every hundred minutes. So maybe only a quarter of them are suicidally depressed due to their sexual orientation. Is three a day acceptable? Maybe it's even less. Is one a day okay? One a week? And how many beatings are all right? How many rapes? How many murders?
Sorry, the argument stands. The Harvey Milk School was established to protect students and enable education. Where's the argument against that?
But what, then is an acceptable number of suicides - or even suicide attempts? According to the American Psychiatric Association, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 19 years - and every day, fourteen young people (ages 15 to 24) commit suicide, or approximately one every hundred minutes. So maybe only a quarter of them are suicidally depressed due to their sexual orientation. Is three a day acceptable? Maybe it's even less. Is one a day okay? One a week? And how many beatings are all right? How many rapes? How many murders?Sorry, the argument stands. The Harvey Milk School was established to protect students and enable education. Where's the argument against that?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Aug 28 2003, 06:57 PM)
I stand corrected. So much for trusting secondary sources. But what, then is an acceptable number of suicides - or even suicide attempts? According to the American Psychiatric Association, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 19 years - and every day, fourteen young people (ages 15 to 24) commit suicide, or approximately one every hundred minutes. So maybe only a quarter of them are suicidally depressed due to their sexual orientation. Is three a day acceptable? Maybe it's even less. Is one a day okay? One a week? And how many beatings are all right? How many rapes? How many murders?
Sorry, the argument stands. The Harvey Milk School was established to protect students and enable education. Where's the argument against that?
But what, then is an acceptable number of suicides - or even suicide attempts? According to the American Psychiatric Association, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 19 years - and every day, fourteen young people (ages 15 to 24) commit suicide, or approximately one every hundred minutes. So maybe only a quarter of them are suicidally depressed due to their sexual orientation. Is three a day acceptable? Maybe it's even less. Is one a day okay? One a week? And how many beatings are all right? How many rapes? How many murders?Sorry, the argument stands. The Harvey Milk School was established to protect students and enable education. Where's the argument against that?
They're all too many. But others experiencing depression for their own reasons (the leading cause of suicide in teens) don't want their own special high school.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 28 2003, 08:07 PM)
But others experiencing depression for their own reasons (the leading cause of suicide in teens) don't want their own special high school.
Do we know that they don't? And, even if we did, perhaps that's because a safe educational haven woudn't address their problems. No "special high school" will protect a student from their parents' divorce or from domestic abuse. No "special school" can solve an unwanted pregnancy or the death of a parent or, sadly, a substance addiction. No school can cure mental illness.
But, when the child is driven to suicide by abuse, threats, ridicule, and assault by fellow classmates within the school itself, a "special high school" can address that problem. Why shouldn't it? Even if another such school could prevent other factors which can lead to suicide, should the fact that no such school yet exists be an argument against a such a school which does?
So, where do we stop after Homo High? Fat High? Black High? Poor High? ADD High? Girls Who Like ESPN Better Than The Oxygen Channel High?
Instead of having a diverse school system, we'd go back to segregation as a tool to solve our problems instead of addressing them head-on.
If gays are being attacked for being gay, blacks attacked for being black, kids attacked for being fat, whites attacked for being white, girls attacked for liking blue better than pink, we should deal with those perpetrators severely. Society, as a whole, does not accept any of this type of behavior. And segregating our society "for their own good" will do nothing to advance change and/or put a stop to criminal behavior.
Instead of having a diverse school system, we'd go back to segregation as a tool to solve our problems instead of addressing them head-on.
If gays are being attacked for being gay, blacks attacked for being black, kids attacked for being fat, whites attacked for being white, girls attacked for liking blue better than pink, we should deal with those perpetrators severely. Society, as a whole, does not accept any of this type of behavior. And segregating our society "for their own good" will do nothing to advance change and/or put a stop to criminal behavior.
Making light of murder and assault has, I believe, already been addressed in this thread. When you can come up with some instances of liking-blue-better-than-pink homicides, get back to me. Unfortunately for you, DaytonRocker, "Homo High" already exists and has done so for sixteen years. A preference for ESPN does not yet seem to have produced enough abused students to warrant the establishment of such a school.
We should, yes, but we don't.
Yes, DaytonRocker, it does.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 28 2003, 08:35 PM)
If gays are being attacked for being gay... we should deal with those perpetrators severely.
We should, yes, but we don't.
QUOTE
Society, as a whole, does not accept any of this type of behavior.
Yes, DaytonRocker, it does.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Aug 28 2003, 08:33 PM)
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 28 2003, 08:35 PM)
If gays are being attacked for being gay... we should deal with those perpetrators severely.
We should, yes, but we don't.
QUOTE
Society, as a whole, does not accept any of this type of behavior.
Yes, DaytonRocker, it does.
That's simply not true. We've even added another charge so the penalty for beating a gay man 'cause he's gay is more severe than beating a woman 'cause she burnt the toast. While I don't agree with hate-crime laws, it's a lie to say they don't exist.
I also take issue with your statement that society as a whole accepts the beating of gays 'cause they're gay. You'd have to go to quite some length to 'source' that blanket statement.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Aug 28 2003, 08:50 PM)
I also take issue with your statement that society as a whole accepts the beating of gays 'cause they're gay. You'd have to go to quite some length to 'source' that blanket statement.
All I have to offer is anectdotal evidence.
When I was in high school and being beat up on a daily basis for being a "fag", the administration told me on multiple occasions that it was my fault for acting so "girly".
When a friend of mine was beaten pretty severely a few years back, the police giggled about it when he reported the assault. The people who did it have never been caught.
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Aug 28 2003, 08:59 PM)
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Aug 28 2003, 08:50 PM)
I also take issue with your statement that society as a whole accepts the beating of gays 'cause they're gay. You'd have to go to quite some length to 'source' that blanket statement.
All I have to offer is anectdotal evidence.
When I was in high school and being beat up on a daily basis for being a "fag", the administration told me on multiple occasions that it was my fault for acting so "girly".
When a friend of mine was beaten pretty severely a few years back, the police giggled about it when he reported the assault. The people who did it have never been caught.
Big deal. I got beat up once a week when I was in 7th grade for being white. Me and a few others were bussed (they called annexation back then) to an all black school and got the hell beat out of us. I heard all the same crap.
But does that mean society tolerated that behavior because of a few examples? That's ridiculous. As bad as your treatment was, there are just as many examples of people getting beat up for other reasons. Gays do not have a patent on being victims of cruel behavior. I would like to get rid of all of it, but that's as easy as world peace. Technically possible, but in reality, it will never happen. So, we don't fix these problems via victim segregation.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 28 2003, 09:15 PM)
Big deal. I got beat up once a week when I was in 7th grade for being white.
And did your parents call you "honky" when they found out about it?
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Aug 28 2003, 09:15 PM)
So, we don't fix these problems via victim segregation.
How, exactly, is a school that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation segregation?
I don't happen to think the school is the best solution to the problem, either, but to just ignore the problem is ridiculous.
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Aug 28 2003, 09:59 PM)
All I have to offer is anectdotal evidence.
When I was in high school and being beat up on a daily basis for being a "fag", the administration told me on multiple occasions that it was my fault for acting so "girly".
When a friend of mine was beaten pretty severely a few years back, the police giggled about it when he reported the assault. The people who did it have never been caught.
When I was in high school and being beat up on a daily basis for being a "fag", the administration told me on multiple occasions that it was my fault for acting so "girly".
When a friend of mine was beaten pretty severely a few years back, the police giggled about it when he reported the assault. The people who did it have never been caught.
And every openly gay man that I know has similar stories, Grendel - every single one. No exceptions. I don't think every white man - or even every black man - can make the same claim. The police here specifically target gay clubs for the monitoring of DUIs - and I've routinely seen them watch - and laugh - as passers-by hurled abuse. I know of two people over the summer who witnessed physical attacks on gay patrons by these bigots - while the police looked on. One witness was arrested - for obstruction - because he tried to get the police to intervene. Apparently, trying to stop a gay-bashing interfered with the deputies' entrapment of gay clientele.
(Last year, incidentally, my partner tried to warn a few patrons that the police were hiding in the bushes, waiting for people to get into their cars, before leaping out to breathalyze them - which they were. He was arrested for obstruction and - because he asked what the charge was while being cuffed - "resisting without violence".)Only a straight man who doesn't get out much could post something like "I also take issue with your statement that society as a whole accepts the beating of gays 'cause they're gay" and think that they meant it.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Aug 28 2003, 10:08 PM)
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Aug 28 2003, 09:59 PM)
All I have to offer is anectdotal evidence.
When I was in high school and being beat up on a daily basis for being a "fag", the administration told me on multiple occasions that it was my fault for acting so "girly".
When a friend of mine was beaten pretty severely a few years back, the police giggled about it when he reported the assault. The people who did it have never been caught.
When I was in high school and being beat up on a daily basis for being a "fag", the administration told me on multiple occasions that it was my fault for acting so "girly".
When a friend of mine was beaten pretty severely a few years back, the police giggled about it when he reported the assault. The people who did it have never been caught.
And every openly gay man that I know has similar stories, Grendel - every single one. No exceptions. I don't think every white man - or even every black man - can make the same claim. The police here specifically target gay clubs for the monitoring of DUIs - and I've routinely seen them watch - and laugh - as passers-by hurled abuse. I know of two people over the summer who witnessed physical attacks on gay patrons by these bigots - while the police looked on. One witness was arrested - for obstruction - because he tried to get the police to intervene. Apparently, trying to stop a gay-bashing interfered with the deputies' entrapment of gay clientele.
(Last year, incidentally, my partner tried to warn a few patrons that the police were hiding in the bushes, waiting for people to get into their cars, before leaping out to breathalyze them - which they were. He was arrested for obstruction and - because he asked what the charge was while being cuffed - "resisting without violence".)Only a straight man who doesn't get out much could post something like "I also take issue with your statement that society as a whole accepts the beating of gays 'cause they're gay" and think that they meant it.
While anecdotal evidence might be interesting to some, it has no validity in a debate. But then you already know that. For every gay you know who's been slapped around I can give you one who wasn't. More than one actually. For every gay bar you name that has cops waiting for DUI's I can name dozens of others that are in the same boat.
As for your little personal jab, it has no place in a debate and has been duly reported.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Aug 29 2003, 04:31 AM)
While anecdotal evidence might be interesting to some, it has no validity in a debate. But then you already know that. For every gay you know who's been slapped around I can give you one who wasn't. More than one actually. For every gay bar you name that has cops waiting for DUI's I can name dozens of others that are in the same boat.
I disagree. IMO, anecdotal evidence is important to many types of debate. How else am I supposed to understand what it's like to be a gay person and go to highschool? I have to see it through the eyes of someone who has been there. Obviously, no one's experience is going to encompass every situation for every person in America, but it does offer a general idea.
What other reason is there for debate to begin with? I try to bring my experience and opinion as a military spouse to the debate, ethnic minorities bring their experience to the debate, ect. Otherwise the debate would be comprised of nothing but mindless cutting and pasting, the 'winner' being the person who had the most time to surf the net. That would grow boring rather quickly.
I agree for the most part. Anecdotal evidence is valuable, but I don't think it can be used to paint society with a wide paintbrush as it is typically used here. As stated, for every anecdotal example given, there are many that can be countered.
However, as P51 stated, I know of several places in area close to mine where cops do the same thing to straight people. Cops aren't picking on anybody except drunks in the interest of public safety. If you are staggering out of a bar and get behind the driver's wheel, you SHOULD be arrested. But not for driving. For public intoxication. I am not going to attempt to dispute the likelihood of cops hiding in bushs to target drunks, but I have a very difficult time beleiving they would be allowing public intoxication so they can get someone behind the wheel of a car. Cops in my area wait in their cars for people to leave parking lots, and then the lights come on. Being a musician playing nightclubs fequently, I get pulled over reguraly simply for leaving the parking lot. I've been forced to blow, walk, yadda yadda yadda. And even thought I'm pulled over for not having lights on, weaving, too slow, too fast, and other reasons I can't even remember anymore, I've never got so much as a ticket. Plenty of warnings though.
Maybe they're picking on me because I'm a musician? Of course not.
However, as P51 stated, I know of several places in area close to mine where cops do the same thing to straight people. Cops aren't picking on anybody except drunks in the interest of public safety. If you are staggering out of a bar and get behind the driver's wheel, you SHOULD be arrested. But not for driving. For public intoxication. I am not going to attempt to dispute the likelihood of cops hiding in bushs to target drunks, but I have a very difficult time beleiving they would be allowing public intoxication so they can get someone behind the wheel of a car. Cops in my area wait in their cars for people to leave parking lots, and then the lights come on. Being a musician playing nightclubs fequently, I get pulled over reguraly simply for leaving the parking lot. I've been forced to blow, walk, yadda yadda yadda. And even thought I'm pulled over for not having lights on, weaving, too slow, too fast, and other reasons I can't even remember anymore, I've never got so much as a ticket. Plenty of warnings though.
Maybe they're picking on me because I'm a musician? Of course not.
I'm just curious to know if the people who have a problem with the Harvey Milk School also have a problem with alternative school programs for other kids who have had a difficult time adjusting to standard high school.
These types of schools exist all over the United States, and they take in students who have had problems with being bullied, drug abuse, truancy, pregnancy, etc. It's usually a last stop for students who are ready to drop-out of school completely.
If you read the website for The Harvey Milk School, they serve the same function, and as has already been discussed, they accept people of all sexual preferences.
I agree that the ultimate goal should be for students to exist together in peace, but if that isn't working, and the educational experience is negative enough to cause the student to quit school than an alternative program seems logical to me.
I have known quite a few people who have completed their schooling at alternative facilities.
These types of schools exist all over the United States, and they take in students who have had problems with being bullied, drug abuse, truancy, pregnancy, etc. It's usually a last stop for students who are ready to drop-out of school completely.
If you read the website for The Harvey Milk School, they serve the same function, and as has already been discussed, they accept people of all sexual preferences.
I agree that the ultimate goal should be for students to exist together in peace, but if that isn't working, and the educational experience is negative enough to cause the student to quit school than an alternative program seems logical to me.
I have known quite a few people who have completed their schooling at alternative facilities.
P51: Your contention that anecdotal evidence "has no validity in debate" is just wrong. I'll be taking this up in the Debating Tactics thread in the near future - no use belaboring the point here.
EDITED TO ADD:
Platypus beat me to it here.
I think this is highly unlikely. I have known literally thousands of gay men. Shall we compare address books? My "anecdotal evidence" is based on a larger sample than most national elections polls. I very much doubt that you can say the same for your counter-argument.
And we're not, of course, just talking about "slapping around", however much you, personally, may wish to belittle and minimize anti-gay violence - and its level of acceptance in our society. But then you already knew that.
You're the expert on personal jabs, so I'll take your word that there's one in there somewhere - I don't see it, though.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
DaytonRocker: This is a bit off-topic, but it's not worth starting a new thread to clarify. You are no doubt right about police practices in many places. But, in Orlando, the gay community is specifically targeted. One club, Firestone's, has a "gay night" on Saturdays. The police are never there on the "straight nights", but they are there every Saturday. On any other given night, one is far more likely to find police outside of gay clubs - I patronize both, often on the same night, and have seen this dozens and dozens of times. If the intention were to keep drunks off the road, the police would make their presence known; they would maybe make arrests for public intoxication. They don't (at least not at the gay clubs). They literally hide and wait until a guy is in his car and has started the engine - and arrest him for DUI. This is not about public safety.
In any event, my point was not so much about police harassment as it was their refusal to intervene in anti-gay violence. You know, that phenomenon that not one single member of our society has ever tolerated for so much as a nanosecond?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cyan: Thanks for the additional info - I'm not all that familiar with the American school system (at least not for the past twenty-odd years). I'm glad to hear that there are similar programs for other students at risk. This now leads me to seriously wonder what peoples' problem is with the Harvey Milk School. Well, sorta.
EDITED TO ADD:
Platypus beat me to it here.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Aug 29 2003, 07:31 AM)
For every gay you know who's been slapped around I can give you one who wasn't. More than one actually.
I think this is highly unlikely. I have known literally thousands of gay men. Shall we compare address books? My "anecdotal evidence" is based on a larger sample than most national elections polls. I very much doubt that you can say the same for your counter-argument.
And we're not, of course, just talking about "slapping around", however much you, personally, may wish to belittle and minimize anti-gay violence - and its level of acceptance in our society. But then you already knew that.
You're the expert on personal jabs, so I'll take your word that there's one in there somewhere - I don't see it, though.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
DaytonRocker: This is a bit off-topic, but it's not worth starting a new thread to clarify. You are no doubt right about police practices in many places. But, in Orlando, the gay community is specifically targeted. One club, Firestone's, has a "gay night" on Saturdays. The police are never there on the "straight nights", but they are there every Saturday. On any other given night, one is far more likely to find police outside of gay clubs - I patronize both, often on the same night, and have seen this dozens and dozens of times. If the intention were to keep drunks off the road, the police would make their presence known; they would maybe make arrests for public intoxication. They don't (at least not at the gay clubs). They literally hide and wait until a guy is in his car and has started the engine - and arrest him for DUI. This is not about public safety.
In any event, my point was not so much about police harassment as it was their refusal to intervene in anti-gay violence. You know, that phenomenon that not one single member of our society has ever tolerated for so much as a nanosecond?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cyan: Thanks for the additional info - I'm not all that familiar with the American school system (at least not for the past twenty-odd years). I'm glad to hear that there are similar programs for other students at risk. This now leads me to seriously wonder what peoples' problem is with the Harvey Milk School. Well, sorta.
QUOTE
In any event, my point was not so much about police harassment as it was their refusal to intervene in anti-gay violence. You know, that phenomenon that not one single member of our society has ever tolerated for so much as a nanosecond?
Please show me where anybody denied a single member of our society acting like an idiot. That is an absurd claim. Of course there are examples of people tolerating this behavior. But not many because as a society, we don't. You've twisted that point into something it's not.
QUOTE
DaytonRocker: This is a bit off-topic, but it's not worth starting a new thread to clarify. You are no doubt right about police practices in many places. But, in Orlando, the gay community is specifically targeted. One club, Firestone's, has a "gay night" on Saturdays. The police are never there on the "straight nights", but they are there every Saturday. On any other given night, one is far more likely to find police outside of gay clubs - I patronize both, often on the same night, and have seen this dozens and dozens of times. If the intention were to keep drunks off the road, the police would make their presence known; they would maybe make arrests for public intoxication. They don't (at least not at the gay clubs). They literally hide and wait until a guy is in his car and has started the engine - and arrest him for DUI. This is not about public safety.
No, they had a gay night because they had to get rid of it due to drug use. The club was losing money in liquor sales because the gays aren't drinking - they're doing illegal substances. While it's true that all classes of society abuse drugs, it's noted that it's disproportional in the gay community. Go figger. I had a feeling there was more to this story and it was easy to find.
And this relates to the topic because a gay high school is wanting special treatment. Your case for the need for a school such as this is completely bogus.
DaytionRocker: I'm afraid your "press release" is nine months out of date (and, if you actually read the item you cited - sponsored by a rival club, I might add - you will notice that the statements you mention were made by a former employee and were disavowed by the current management). Anyway, regardless of their plans last December (according to an ex-employee), Saturdays at Firestone's are still "gay nights". Odd that the county sheriff's department is using breathalysers and DUI arrests to combat a drug problem, though, don't you think? I guess they're stupid as well as homophobic - though I have noticed that the two often go hand in hand.
You are right, though, this is straying from the topic somewhat. My mention of police harassment was incidental to their acceptance of gay-bashing here in Orlando - which arose from Passion51's attempt to deny of the reality of anti-gay violence in the US and our society's relative tolerance of it - which itself arose from the need for havens like the Harvey Milk School.
Perhaps we can try to drag this discussion back to the topic. I would ask you for some sort of foundation for your statement that "While it's true that all classes of society abuse drugs, it's noted that it's disproportional in the gay community", but on the basis of past experience I know you wouldn't provide it - and, typical of most of your homophobic slurs, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
You are right, though, this is straying from the topic somewhat. My mention of police harassment was incidental to their acceptance of gay-bashing here in Orlando - which arose from Passion51's attempt to deny of the reality of anti-gay violence in the US and our society's relative tolerance of it - which itself arose from the need for havens like the Harvey Milk School.
Perhaps we can try to drag this discussion back to the topic. I would ask you for some sort of foundation for your statement that "While it's true that all classes of society abuse drugs, it's noted that it's disproportional in the gay community", but on the basis of past experience I know you wouldn't provide it - and, typical of most of your homophobic slurs, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
FINAL WARNING.
DEBATE THIS TOPIC:
I will issue no more warnings after this. If it strays from topic again, I will close it.
DEBATE THIS TOPIC:
QUOTE
Should taxpayers be made to pay for a special school to be built for gays and transgendered teens?
I will issue no more warnings after this. If it strays from topic again, I will close it.
QUOTE
Should taxpayers be made to pay for a special school to be built for gays and transgendered teens?
The Harvey Milk School homepage seems to lay to rest the very question for debate. The school is almost two decades old, so nobody is building a special school for LGBT teens. The school also doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. While LGBT teenagers are addressed specifically, the intention of the school is described as "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."
In regards to the need for such a school, brought up most recently by DaytonRocker, the school cites information from the National Mental Health Association:
- 28% of gay teens drop out of school annually, three times the national average.
- 69% of LGBT youth reported experiencing some form of harassment or violence.
- 42% of LGBT youth do not feel safe in their school.
- LGBT youth are three times more likely to attempt suicide than other youth
I don't see a problem with a school focused on helping children in crisis, regardless of whether most students are LGBT or minorities coming from intolerant classrooms elsewhere.
The school is not a special school excluding heterosexual students as implied by our question for debate. It is there to help all children "in crisis or at risk of physical violence" who are not getting the help they need in the traditional environment. And judging from their success -- 95% of HMS students graduate, well above the NYC average, and over 60% of HMS students go onto advanced programs or college -- it seems a shame tax payers aren't getting their money's worth from more traditional school programs.
*A direct quote from the HMS homepage
QUOTE(Wertz @ Aug 29 2003, 03:58 PM)
- which arose from Passion51's attempt to deny of the reality of anti-gay violence in the US
Pure lie, never said any such thing.
As for the school I don't think it's a good idea. We lose more than we gain when we segregate by mandate.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Aug 29 2003, 06:39 PM)
We lose more than we gain when we segregate by mandate.
Who is mandating students segregate themselves? It's voluntary.
A lot of people have said that segregating one's self from a negative situation will inhibit students from being able to deal with bullying "in the real world," but one thing that hasn't been noted is that, as adults, we do have the ability to segregate ourselves if we find it necessary. If my employment situation is perpetually awful, I can find another job.
Since the school system is set up in the way that it is, students have little choice of what school they can attend. (Perhaps an argument for vouchers?)
It is the responsibility of the administration of each school to insure that students are safe and able to receive a decent quality of education, but with schools being the size that they are, this is not always possible particularly if the administration is not sensitive to the problem.
Obviously, the goal that we should strive for is an accepting and diverse population, but in the meantime, I don't see a problem with taking alternative measures to insure that students are graduating. That is, after all, the reason that we go to school in the first place, and when faced with a student who is ready to drop out completely, offering an alternative is a good idea.
It's all well and good to say that the only way to progress is for abused students to stick it out and learn to stand up for themselves, but would you want to be the guinea pig in that scenario?
I've mentioned several of the different reasons that students might not be able to function properly in a standard high school: harrasment, pregnancy, drug abuse, truancy, boredom, incompatible learning style, etc. Maybe it is because someone is fat or black or poor. Who cares as long as they are being educated? They're not going to be productive members of society if they can't get through the most basic levels of our school system.
As I understand it, schools receive funding on a "per head" basis. Would it be a problem if the funds were diverted accordingly?
Additionally, from what I've seen in Denver, the buildings that the alternative schools use are buildings that were once used by standard schools and are no longer being used for whatever reason.
Just for reference: List of alternative schools in the Denver metro area. There are many more in other Colorado counties.
Since the school system is set up in the way that it is, students have little choice of what school they can attend. (Perhaps an argument for vouchers?)
It is the responsibility of the administration of each school to insure that students are safe and able to receive a decent quality of education, but with schools being the size that they are, this is not always possible particularly if the administration is not sensitive to the problem.
Obviously, the goal that we should strive for is an accepting and diverse population, but in the meantime, I don't see a problem with taking alternative measures to insure that students are graduating. That is, after all, the reason that we go to school in the first place, and when faced with a student who is ready to drop out completely, offering an alternative is a good idea.
It's all well and good to say that the only way to progress is for abused students to stick it out and learn to stand up for themselves, but would you want to be the guinea pig in that scenario?
I've mentioned several of the different reasons that students might not be able to function properly in a standard high school: harrasment, pregnancy, drug abuse, truancy, boredom, incompatible learning style, etc. Maybe it is because someone is fat or black or poor. Who cares as long as they are being educated? They're not going to be productive members of society if they can't get through the most basic levels of our school system.
As I understand it, schools receive funding on a "per head" basis. Would it be a problem if the funds were diverted accordingly?
Additionally, from what I've seen in Denver, the buildings that the alternative schools use are buildings that were once used by standard schools and are no longer being used for whatever reason.
Just for reference: List of alternative schools in the Denver metro area. There are many more in other Colorado counties.
[SIZE=7][FONT=Arial] Well, I'm kind of split by the new gay school. On one side, gay youth deserves a protective environment to attend school in. The harassment they face at many schools is often destructive to their learning. It is ridiculous how hard youth make it for gays to have a stable learning environment in the public school system. The legislature constantly ignores the bills that have been pushed toward them for the past 5 years in states like New York, Florida, Texas, and California. If they're not going to help the gays in the public schools, you might as well let them have some peace and quiet in their own schools.
But on the other side, it's like segregation all over again. Did we not decide seperate but equal was not constitutional? Now we're separating the gays into their own school? This provides an unrealistic environment for both the straight and gay youth because real life has gays and straights mixed, not separated.
Chelsea
But on the other side, it's like segregation all over again. Did we not decide seperate but equal was not constitutional? Now we're separating the gays into their own school? This provides an unrealistic environment for both the straight and gay youth because real life has gays and straights mixed, not separated.
Chelsea
QUOTE(ChelseaRoff @ Sep 3 2003, 08:22 PM)
[SIZE=7][FONT=Arial] Well, I'm kind of split by the new gay school. On one side, gay youth deserves a protective environment to attend school in. The harassment they face at many schools is often destructive to their learning. It is ridiculous how hard youth make it for gays to have a stable learning environment in the public school system. The legislature constantly ignores the bills that have been pushed toward them for the past 5 years in states like New York, Florida, Texas, and California. If they're not going to help the gays in the public schools, you might as well let them have some peace and quiet in their own schools.
But on the other side, it's like segregation all over again. Did we not decide seperate but equal was not constitutional? Now we're separating the gays into their own school? This provides an unrealistic environment for both the straight and gay youth because real life has gays and straights mixed, not separated.
Chelsea
But on the other side, it's like segregation all over again. Did we not decide seperate but equal was not constitutional? Now we're separating the gays into their own school? This provides an unrealistic environment for both the straight and gay youth because real life has gays and straights mixed, not separated.
Chelsea
Welcome to America's Debate!
A couple of clarifications...
1. This school is not "new." It's been around for over 20 years.
2. They do not segregate - the school is not for gays only.
If this school was to be a private school, I would see no problem. If they desire their own personal school where they have no fear of harassment or becoming an outcasts, good for them. But to cater to special intrest groups while the school system itself is a mess seems to be just a waste of money. I'm from a military family and am currently in the military and have moved all over the country and been in dozens of schools, including those in New York. They are a mess and need the money for books and computers and other learning aids, not providing a safe haven for homosexuals and transgendered students. The problem will not by solved by segregating the individuals. If anything it will only let the antagonists know where to focus their efforts.
Welcome to the site, Lobo. 
I realize quarkhead might not have been clear in his points about this school, so allow me to clarify:
I realize quarkhead might not have been clear in his points about this school, so allow me to clarify:
- They do not segregate - the school is not for gays [or transgendered students] only
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Sep 5 2003, 09:06 PM)
Welcome to the site, Lobo.
I realize quarkhead might not have been clear in his points about this school, so allow me to clarify:
I realize quarkhead might not have been clear in his points about this school, so allow me to clarify:
- They do not segregate - the school is not for gays [or transgendered students] only
On the face they do not segregate, but what is the true situation?
Of course they do. If a battered homosexual shows up at the minute school of 160 pupils, who is likely to be given the boot to make room for him (assuming there is a choice between another "battered" homosexual and a non-battered straight kid...) The straight kid is out, almost guaranteed.
Look at the situation objectively and you will see that it is a segregated school, albeit voluntary segregation.
Compare the argument being made FOR voluntary segregation to that of racial segregation. I think that is where the argument for a (public) school of this type falls apart...
RACE-CONSCIOUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES
If you read through that and change "racial" with "sexual orientation", I think you will discover that this attempt would go AGAINST the established non-remedial policies of "Promoting Educational Diversity" and "Reducing Sexual Orientation Isolation".
Also, read through that link to find "Interests Rejected by the Courts"
QUOTE
C. INTERESTS REJECTED BY THE COURTS In cases involving public contracting and public employment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the following are not compelling governmental interests and presumably would not be constitutional in public education: remedying societal discrimination (City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.) providing role models for racial minorities (Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education) Some lower courts have also rejected interests such as promoting diversity in employment and promoting diversity in broadcast programming; however, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled specifically on whether these interests are compelling.
The courts reject using the public schools to remedy societal discrimination and rejects using schools to provide role models for (replacing race with sexual orientation) homosexuals.
Amlord, whether you are correct or not; whether a school like this ought to exist or not, Abs and I were both merely trying to address those who had made clearly uninformed statements about the school, as it presently exists.
Actually, given the mission statement of the school, and assuming it is being well-run, such a choice is not very likely to arise. I can see where and how your thinking about that came from, however - that those representing a "fringe," be it sexually, or ethnically, are likely the ones to suffer, that the "minority" viewpoint will be the one naturally suppressed. This is true, generally speaking - but doesn't necessarily mean that the situation you described is likely to occur.
Actually, given the mission statement of the school, and assuming it is being well-run, such a choice is not very likely to arise. I can see where and how your thinking about that came from, however - that those representing a "fringe," be it sexually, or ethnically, are likely the ones to suffer, that the "minority" viewpoint will be the one naturally suppressed. This is true, generally speaking - but doesn't necessarily mean that the situation you described is likely to occur.
Harassment in schools is not addressed nearly as much as it should be. It is unacceptable in schools and should be enforced that way. Sending gay and lesbian high school students to a special school to run away from the problem implies that it can't be solved by addressing the problem itself, i.e. some type of action against the harrasser. Also, for the record, I would be passionately against a Christian school for gays and lesbians. Reason being that Christianity is academically, historically, and implicitly against all types of homosexual acts. It would be like having an Islamic Institution for the promiscuous.
I agree with the people that are against a school that makes the gay community feel that this is the only safe place for them. Yes it is intolerable that our schools as well as society has this attitude against the gay community.
Just like the people that are against giving the gay community equal protections under the law when it comes to marriage. What are you afraid of and how will it effect you if they are given these protections like insurance for there partner just like a married couple.
The same goes for the schools instead of isolating them and not holding society to face the facts they are here and are not going away is why these students feel they need a safe haven to hide in. If the schools are not doing there responsiblities which they are required to by giving all the students a safe place to be educated that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Yes it is a hard mandate to work out, but until we change how our society views the gay community you wont be able to change anything. You will never get rid of the Raciest, the homophobs or the bullies. And it starts at home how the parents teach their kids of exceptance instead of ignorance.
A better solution is like what I saw on HBO where they had an after school center where the kids can go to talk and hangout with their friends within the gay community. Or like a few people have said even an organization within the school. When it comes to isolating people that are not like you it is true you are not allowing them to learn how to coop with society. For instance, within my old high school the disabled students went to my school, they had a few classes that were only for them, but they also had the students integrated into the other classes as well.
Just like the people that are against giving the gay community equal protections under the law when it comes to marriage. What are you afraid of and how will it effect you if they are given these protections like insurance for there partner just like a married couple.
The same goes for the schools instead of isolating them and not holding society to face the facts they are here and are not going away is why these students feel they need a safe haven to hide in. If the schools are not doing there responsiblities which they are required to by giving all the students a safe place to be educated that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Yes it is a hard mandate to work out, but until we change how our society views the gay community you wont be able to change anything. You will never get rid of the Raciest, the homophobs or the bullies. And it starts at home how the parents teach their kids of exceptance instead of ignorance.
A better solution is like what I saw on HBO where they had an after school center where the kids can go to talk and hangout with their friends within the gay community. Or like a few people have said even an organization within the school. When it comes to isolating people that are not like you it is true you are not allowing them to learn how to coop with society. For instance, within my old high school the disabled students went to my school, they had a few classes that were only for them, but they also had the students integrated into the other classes as well.
I would agree with Cadman and several others that the Harvey Milk School is not the best solution to this problem - but it is addressing the problem. I would hope that this school is not a permanent solution.
You are right that schools should be adressing homophobia, that anti-gay harrassment and violence should be ebing dealt with, that perpetrators should be punished, that all students should be able to learn in a safe environment. But they're not.
When the Harvey Milk School was founded, homophobic violence was a problem. Twenty years later, it is still a problem. When the world is a bright, happy place with no prejudice, no inequality, no hatred, filled with harmony and peace, sure, close the school down - or change its focus. In the meantime, until some of the alternative solutions being discussed here have been implemented, what's the problem?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
GrandInquisitor: For the record, Christianity is not academically homophobic, Christianity is not historically homophobic, Christianity is not implicitly against homosexual acts. The homophobia of some Christian churches is a very recent innovation. In the early Church there were even same-sex unions. This should all be taken up in the other threads on homosexualtiy elsewhere here, though, where this issue had already been addressed.
Suffice to say that a Christian school for gays and lesbians would be like having a Christian Institution which actually preached love: highly unlikely, but not inappropriate.
You are right that schools should be adressing homophobia, that anti-gay harrassment and violence should be ebing dealt with, that perpetrators should be punished, that all students should be able to learn in a safe environment. But they're not.
When the Harvey Milk School was founded, homophobic violence was a problem. Twenty years later, it is still a problem. When the world is a bright, happy place with no prejudice, no inequality, no hatred, filled with harmony and peace, sure, close the school down - or change its focus. In the meantime, until some of the alternative solutions being discussed here have been implemented, what's the problem?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
GrandInquisitor: For the record, Christianity is not academically homophobic, Christianity is not historically homophobic, Christianity is not implicitly against homosexual acts. The homophobia of some Christian churches is a very recent innovation. In the early Church there were even same-sex unions. This should all be taken up in the other threads on homosexualtiy elsewhere here, though, where this issue had already been addressed.
Suffice to say that a Christian school for gays and lesbians would be like having a Christian Institution which actually preached love: highly unlikely, but not inappropriate.
One of the main reasons why I am against it even though it is helping certain students is because it is like putting a band-aid on a severe wound and hope it gets better. Instead of going to the root of the problem, because imo if we give society an out to deal with this issue instead of having to face it directly on to fix the problem it can become the norm of what to do with parts of society that people don't want to deal with.
Just look at how society used to make unwed mothers feel like, where they would ship the pregnant girls off to a place until they had the baby and not tell anyone where she was cause of the embarrassment of her being a pregnant teenager ( yes this is a problem, but we don't hide the facts anymore in society because its a fact of life unfortunately) just like with gay people in high school.
Just look at how society used to make unwed mothers feel like, where they would ship the pregnant girls off to a place until they had the baby and not tell anyone where she was cause of the embarrassment of her being a pregnant teenager ( yes this is a problem, but we don't hide the facts anymore in society because its a fact of life unfortunately) just like with gay people in high school.
homophobic violence isn't the only wholesale violence going on in our public schools, yet because it's a well funded special interest group it gets the most attention. Don't homosexuals, by "segregating" themselves from the rest of society promote their "difference" more blatantly rather than promote the important ways that they are NOT different from the rest of society?
In my opinion, this "protection" of homosexuals, as if they are handicapped, will only widen the divide and dare I say... create more hostility against this, what some may see as a "special" group who gets "special" treatment?
If I lived in NYC I would say that my tax dollars going to schools such as Harvey Milk or ANY schools not specifically designed for either the handicapped, the sciences or arts, would not sit well with me.
Tax dollars spent on "general" tolerance educating towards ALL humans in public schools starting from kindergarten and continued through 12th, would be dollars better spent.
In my opinion, this "protection" of homosexuals, as if they are handicapped, will only widen the divide and dare I say... create more hostility against this, what some may see as a "special" group who gets "special" treatment?
If I lived in NYC I would say that my tax dollars going to schools such as Harvey Milk or ANY schools not specifically designed for either the handicapped, the sciences or arts, would not sit well with me.
Tax dollars spent on "general" tolerance educating towards ALL humans in public schools starting from kindergarten and continued through 12th, would be dollars better spent.
QUOTE
Don't homosexuals, by "segregating" themselves from the rest of society promote their "difference" more blatantly rather than promote the important ways that they are NOT different from the rest of society?
The problem is that these students have been singled out by their peers as being different, and no matter how much they try to fit in, they won't, because they have already been singled out. The goal in this case should be to provide these kids with an education. Creating acceptance of the homosexual community can be persued using other avenues first. Our children should not be used as guinea pigs in the war against intolerance.
QUOTE
In my opinion, this "protection" of homosexuals, as if they are handicapped, will only widen the divide and dare I say... create more hostility against this, what some may see as a "special" group who gets "special" treatment?
Perhaps, but until society grows more accepting, these kids should not be subjected to the amount of violence that they are experiencing. The percentage of the homosexual students that are sent to the Harvey Milk School is minute. They are extreme cases.
QUOTE
If I lived in NYC I would say that my tax dollars going to schools such as Harvey Milk or ANY schools not specifically designed for either the handicapped, the sciences or arts, would not sit well with me.
But tax money does go to other projects like this. Isn't that what charter schools are about? I'm not as familiar with the New York education system, but in Colorado, we have a large number of charter schools with various different themes. Parents make the decision as to whether or not their children will attend these schools, and they pay their share of the taxes. It doesn't seem that this would cost more money, it just diverts resources to other areas.
QUOTE
Tax dollars spent on "general" tolerance educating towards ALL humans in public schools starting from kindergarten and continued through 12th, would be dollars better spent.
I agree, but it doesn't fix the problem as it currently stands, and if it's a choice between separating these students or having them drop out of school, I would rather see them separated.
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jul 29 2003, 02:01 AM)
Though I think an all gay school is a great idea, it should be in the realm of a private school, such as a Christian School. If this were to be a publicly paid school, it would feed to the bygone idea of state sponsored segregation.
I bet you would be outraged if someone founded a whites-only private school. How do you determine which classifications of people can have their own special programs?
QUOTE(Cyan @ Sep 29 2003, 01:03 AM)
I agree, but it doesn't fix the problem as it currently stands, and if it's a choice between separating these students or having them drop out of school, I would rather see them separated.
What happens when these students, who apparently will drop out if they aren’t protected from the harsh reality of the world, have to get jobs and interact with those people they were protected from? High schoolers maybe mean, but there is more intolerance in the real world than in high school. Quite frankly, any child is better off learning to deal with problems than being taught to run from them.
QUOTE(campbejm @ Sep 29 2003, 08:44 AM)
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jul 29 2003, 02:01 AM)
Though I think an all gay school is a great idea, it should be in the realm of a private school, such as a Christian School. If this were to be a publicly paid school, it would feed to the bygone idea of state sponsored segregation.
I bet you would be outraged if someone founded a whites-only private school. How do you determine which classifications of people can have their own special programs?
I understand your comparison, campbejm, but I don't believe it applies. The supreme court of our land, and our legislative bodies, have ruled that a school or place of business, public or private, that discriminates on the basis of race, is against the law. No such laws or rulings exist, to my knowledge, that bar a private school from discriminating according to religious affiliation or to sexual orientation. While that may seem hypocritical to some people, that is the law as it stands.
That being said, let's keep this topic on the Harvey Milk school, which is a public school, and which does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in any case.
QUOTE(campbejm @ Sep 29 2003, 10:50 AM)
What happens when these students, who apparently will drop out if they aren’t protected from the harsh reality of the world, have to get jobs and interact with those people they were protected from?
The ###### who attempts to beat his co worker and stuff him in a locker gets fired.
In the real world the crap that goes on in high school does not fly.
Edited to remove gratuitous profanity -J
QUOTE(campbejm @ Sep 29 2003, 09:50 AM)
What happens when these students, who apparently will drop out if they aren’t protected from the harsh reality of the world, have to get jobs and interact with those people they were protected from? High schoolers maybe mean, but there is more intolerance in the real world than in high school. Quite frankly, any child is better off learning to deal with problems than being taught to run from them.
I disagree. High School is not even close to being more tolerant than the "real world". Adults have to learn to be reasonably tolerant out of necessity. They may not like someone, but in more cases than not, they won't offer violence. High School culture doesn't have the same restraint because the punishment isn't as harsh and the people aren't yet mature.
Additionally, in the "real world", we all have the ability to choose which job we work at and which people we are willing to interact with. A High School student generally doesn't have the same luxury.
If you were experiencing extreme violence everday and your superiors, for whatever reason, were unable to put a stop to the situation, how would you handle the situation? I ask this because there are so many people who think that these students need to learn to "deal with it," but how do you deal with a daily diet of violence? What action would you suggest taking?
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Sep 27 2003, 12:02 PM)
Homophobic violence isn't the only wholesale violence going on in our public schools, yet because it's a well funded special interest group it gets the most attention.
What? Do you have foundation for this? Well-funded by whom? Is there a multi-million dollar gay lobby in Washington that I haven't heard about? Or a well-funded equivalent to the Jewish ADL or the NAACP or the National Council of La Raza?
QUOTE
Don't homosexuals, by "segregating" themselves from the rest of society promote their "difference" more blatantly rather than promote the important ways that they are NOT different from the rest of society?
In my opinion, this "protection" of homosexuals, as if they are handicapped, will only widen the divide and dare I say... create more hostility against this, what some may see as a "special" group who gets "special" treatment?
In my opinion, this "protection" of homosexuals, as if they are handicapped, will only widen the divide and dare I say... create more hostility against this, what some may see as a "special" group who gets "special" treatment?
Perspective break: We are talking about one school in one city - and one news story which has been blown way out of proportion (even when it's been accurately reported). If half the school districts in the country were thinking of instituting a Harvey Milk School, some of the arguments being put forward in this discussion (and I am not singling you out by any means, SoCal), might have a point to make.
This single school was founded nearly twenty years ago because certain students were handicapped - handicapped by their peers; peers who were not being monitored, reprimanded, or disciplined. Anti-gay violence in schools is still not being monitored, reprimanded, or disciplined. All that has happened in two decades is that the demand for a school such has this has grown to the extent that this otherwise privately-funded school was seeking a one-time expansion grant.
QUOTE
If I lived in NYC I would say that my tax dollars going to schools such as Harvey Milk or ANY schools not specifically designed for either the handicapped, the sciences or arts, would not sit well with me.
The Harvey Milk School is specifically designed for the sciences and arts (and, as I have mentioned, the education of some of its students had been seriously impaired). All this school does is allow some of its students to get an education where before they couldn't. And, by the way, the parents of these students also pay taxes...
QUOTE
Tax dollars spent on "general" tolerance educating towards ALL humans in public schools starting from kindergarten and continued through 12th, would be dollars better spent.
Yes, they would. Absolutely. But tax dollars are not being spent "tolerance education". And it isn't because a single school in one state is sucking up all the funding that would otherwise have gone to the excellent sort of program you advocate. Until such a program comes to fruition (in our lifetimes, do you imagine?), should we eliminate all short term solutions?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(campbejm @ Sep 29 2003, 11:44 AM)
I bet you would be outraged if someone founded a whites-only private school.
Were this a gays-only private school, you might have a point. It's not.
QUOTE(campbejm @ Sep 29 2003, 11:50 AM)
What happens when these students, who apparently will drop out if they aren’t protected from the harsh reality of the world, have to get jobs and interact with those people they were protected from?
I doubt that any of the gay students who have sought refuge at the Harvey Milk School would need any lessons from you or anyone else on the harsh realities of the world. As has been mentioned, this school only enables them to get the education they were being deprived of elsewhere - it can't "protect" them during the other 130-odd hours of each week of the school year.
QUOTE
High schoolers maybe mean, but there is more intolerance in the real world than in high school. Quite frankly, any child is better off learning to deal with problems than being taught to run from them.
Okay, I don't know about your high school, but mine was way more intolerant of everything than I've found to be the case anywhere in "the real world". And at least in "the real world" people have recourse to the law and the courts. In many cases, anti-gay violence in schools is ignored, dismissed, or condoned even when it is reported.
Let's not forget two other things: schools are a closed system and we are not talking about adults. In "the real world", one can walk out of a bar or a restaurant if one is being harassed (as an alternative to, say, starting a fistfight or pulling a gun). One can quit a job if harassment is subtle or not provable by legal definitions - or if discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not proscribed by one's employer. One can't just walk out of school. And, while I'm certain that many gay students at risk do learn to deal with such problems (even those who eventually end up in the Harvey Milk School), some students who have been similarly marginalized may seek less "mature" means for sorting out their problems. Columbine, for example, leaps to mind. Or, more likely, crippling depression, drug addiction, or suicide.
AYet aain, I don't feel that the Harvey Milk School is the best solution. But let's see some alternatives put into action. And then let's revisit this debate.
QUOTE(Cyan @ Sep 29 2003, 09:46 PM)
If you were experiencing extreme violence everday and your superiors, for whatever reason, were unable to put a stop to the situation, how would you handle the situation? I ask this because there are so many people who think that these students need to learn to "deal with it," but how do you deal with a daily diet of violence? What action would you suggest taking?
How about having the person who is violent arrested and charged with assault? I didn't realize this school was founded to stop gross violence. If that is really the case (and I doubt it is) why haven't the violent children be dealt with?
Edited to include the following:
If you believe that corporate America is a kinder, gentler place than high school you are naive.
My question is:
Where do we draw the lines delineating which groups get tax dollars?
If someone can give me a concrete answer to that question, then I'll be convinced that homosexuals need their own schools. But until that time, I will continue to think that these types of programs (regardless of when they were founded) are knee jerk reactions of people who are scared to stand up for themselves.
QUOTE(campbejm @ Oct 2 2003, 11:31 AM)
How about having the person who is violent arrested and charged with assault? I didn't realize this school was founded to stop gross violence. If that is really the case (and I doubt it is) why haven't the violent children be dealt with?
If you go back through the thread and visit the homepage for the Harvey Milk School, you will find that the percentage of people who attend the Harvey Milk School is a very small percentage of the homosexual population in the area. The school was founded as a safe haven for students who were being abused within the public school system. It's sort of a last ditch effort to keep students within a learning environment.
As far as the assault charges go, it is a step in the right direction. The problem is that High School is made up of cliques, and if you cut off the head of one abuser, you can end up aggravating the others. I have been a victim of school violence, and I've seen it in action. It does not create an environment conducive to learning, and that should be the primary goal.
There is always the zero-tolerance policy, but when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, parents and faculty are still trying to figure out if they are okay with it. The schools are on pins and needles, and until society advances a bit further into the realm of acceptance, this is a good solution.
Like Wertz, I hope that it isn't the permanent solution, but for now, it works, and it's not as if the school is being operated with tax-payer money. It is merely an expansion grant.
QUOTE(Cyan @ Oct 2 2003, 05:56 PM)
Like Wertz, I hope that it isn't the permanent solution, but for now, it works, and it's not as if the school is being operated with tax-payer money. It is merely an expansion grant.
So which is it? Is this school public or not? People are saying both on this thread.
Also, you have provided no answer to my question. Where do you draw the line? Should I get special treatment because a black man assumed I was racist because I was white a few weeks ago? Should I get special treatment because some Northerners assume I'm a hay seed because I'm from Texas? I don’t understand where this coddling stops.
Cyan, please define 'violence'. If people physically harm others, the law is designed to punish the offenders. (In fact homosexuals even get special treatment under the law in this case as well). I don’t understand why the laws that protect me from violence aren't good enough for gay, high school New Yorkers.
edited for spelling (sorry)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.