PDA

View Full Version : Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality



Rockntractor
09-23-2011, 12:26 AM
Todd Starnes
Published September 22, 2011
| FoxNews.com






Western Hills High School.

An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong.

Holly Pope said she was “absolutely stunned” when she received a telephone call from an assistant principal at Western Hills High School informing her that her son, Dakota Ary, had been sent to in-school suspension.

“Dakota is a very well-grounded 14-year-old,” she told Fox News Radio noting that her son is an honors student, plays on the football team and is active in his church youth group. “He’s been in church his whole life and he’s been taught to stand up for what he believes.”

And that’s what got him in trouble.

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:

“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”

After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.

“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”

Pope contacted the Liberty Counsel immediately after her son was punished.

“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

The school district would not comment on why a teacher was discussing homosexuality in a ninth grade German class.

“In German class there should be no talk of being pro-Gay or homosexual topics,” Krause said.

Dakota’s mother said she believes the teacher should apologize.

“He should never have been punished,” Pope said. “He didn’t disrupt the class. He wasn’t threatening. He wasn’t hostile. He made a comment to his friend and the teacher overheard it.”

“My son knows people that are homosexual,” she said. “He’s not saying, ‘I don’t like you.’ He’s saying, ‘I’m a Christian and I believe that being that way is wrong.’”

Krause said school leaders told Dakota that in the future he should be careful when and where he talks about his opposition to homosexuality – suggesting that he talk about such matters in the hallway instead of the classroom.

He said Liberty Counsel will monitor the situation to make sure there is no future retaliation. Meantime, Pope said her son will return to the teacher’s classroom.

“I’ve told him to treat this teacher with respect,” she said. “He is your elder. He is your teacher. What his beliefs are or what they are not – outside the school is none of our business.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/

djones520
09-23-2011, 12:29 AM
School was totally in the wrong here IMO.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 12:36 AM
School was totally in the wrong here IMO.

I'd like to see the school rules regarding proscribed speech before commenting. Are similar remarks about different kinds of people also punishable events? Naturally the article leaves this out, because it would take the fun out of the issue.

Rockntractor
09-23-2011, 12:45 AM
I'd like to see the school rules regarding proscribed speech before commenting. Are similar remarks about different kinds of people also punishable events? Naturally the article leaves this out, because it would take the fun out of the issue.

Dam you're slippery!

lacarnut
09-23-2011, 01:02 AM
I'd like to see the school rules regarding proscribed speech before commenting. Are similar remarks about different kinds of people also punishable events? Naturally the article leaves this out, because it would take the fun out of the issue.

Then don't comment dumb ass.

noonwitch
09-23-2011, 09:07 AM
The school was wrong. The kid expressed an opinion-it wasn't obnoxious, he wasn't calling anyone a name, he wasn't bulling another student.


Discussions of sexuality have no place in german class. That's what health class is for.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 10:00 AM
The school was wrong. The kid expressed an opinion-it wasn't obnoxious, he wasn't calling anyone a name, he wasn't bulling another student.


Discussions of sexuality have no place in german class. That's what health class is for.

Just a wild guess would be that the teacher in the German class was talking about the German demonstrations in response to the papal visit. Current events can be a legitimate part of a foreign language class.

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 10:08 AM
Next, it will be some grunt in the military facing punishment over something like this.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 10:17 AM
Students are expected to:
• Attend school the entire instructional day, except when ill or otherwise lawfully excused and be on time to all classes.
• Follow the rules and regulations established by the teacher and the school as stated in the Student Code of Conduct,
Campus Discipline Management Plan, and the procedures concerning appropriate behavior.
• Cooperate with all lawful and reasonable directives issued by school personnel.
• Be prepared for each class with assigned work and appropriate materials.
• Pursue mastery of the essential knowledge and skills of the curriculum as prescribed by the District and the State.
• Establish an effective working relationship with parents, peers and school personnel.
• Show respect for others and their property.
• Abstain from making profane, insulting, threatening or inflammatory remarks.
• Stay away from other Fort Worth ISD campuses during the school day, except with permission from school personnel.
• Express opinions and ideas in a respectful and courteous manner.
• Strive toward self-discipline, setting individual goals and utilizing good work habits.
• Leave campus immediately after the dismissal bell unless involved in a school activity.
• Assume responsibility for making choices and accept the consequences of those behaviors.
• Adhere to dress code standards.

3*
*
GENERAL MISCONDUCT VIOLATIONS
Students are prohibited from:
• Cheating or copying the work of another.
• Being disrespectful to adults and/or other students.
• Engaging in any conduct that constitutes harassment of any type.
• Bullying others.
• Violating the Student Code of Conduct.
• Violating the campus student handbook.
• Violating the behavioral standards set by teachers, coaches, administrators and/or sponsors.
• Leaving school grounds or school-sponsored events without permission.
• Scuffling or fighting.
• Disobeying school rules regarding conduct on school buses.
• Failing to comply with directives given by school personnel.
• Possessing matches or a lighter.
• Behaving in any manner disruptive to the school environment or educational process.
• Violating safety rules.
• Violating the dress code.
• Violating extracurricular standards of behavior.
• Unauthorized use of a telecommunication or an electronic device.
• Possessing, smoking or using tobacco products.
• Possessing a hazardous item or storing a prohibited item in his/her vehicle if the vehicle is unoccupied.

In any professional workplace in the US, this student's comment, which was obviously made to the teacher or loud enough that he heard it, would be considered "creating a hostile workplace."

OK, so I think that's a stifling standard, and we know that the "hostile workplace" construct has many workplaces considered hostile by most people who work there, not due to the off comment but the policy making it so that almost anyone can be hauled down to HR at any time.

But looking at these broad rules and considering the response to the same remark if one were to plug in a race, sex, or religion, then the action of the teacher seems to be consistent with Fort Worth ISD policy.

The bottom line is that you wouldn't make a similar remark about another race, religion, etc... then you shouldn't make it about gay people. The only thing new here are the particulars which have evolved considerably in our lifetime. But society has always had expectations of respectful speech and consequences for disrespectful speech in certain environments. Wrapping an anti-gay statement in religion doesn't make it more acceptable, nor does it protect it in places where rules require that one not make offensive remarks.

marv
09-23-2011, 10:22 AM
...in the future he should be careful when and where he talks...
Very chilling.........very Orwellian!

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 10:35 AM
Very chilling.........very Orwellian!

Not at all, and you get ten points off for overworking an overworked literary shorthand.

Schools are not the public square. The students are the charges of the school, and the school has a duty to all the students first and foremost to protect the student physically and emotionally, not to champion his alleged right to free speech. While schools are public property, they are reserved public property. The Capitol is public property too, but if you sit in the gallery announcing "My religion says women should be quiet." while Maxine Waters is speaking, you will be removed and your First Amendment rights will not be the issue.

marv
09-23-2011, 11:04 AM
Not at all, and you get ten points off for overworking an overworked literary shorthand.

Schools are not the public square. The students are the charges of the school, and the school has a duty to all the students first and foremost to protect the student physically and emotionally, not to champion his alleged right to free speech. While schools are public property, they are reserved public property. The Capitol is public property too, but if you sit in the gallery announcing "My religion says women should be quiet." while Maxine Waters is speaking, you will be removed and your First Amendment rights will not be the issue.

Wrong, Nova.

The boy was punished for WHAT he said, not for "shouting" it or otherwise disrupting the classroom. Nor did he advocate anything. He was punished for simply having an opinion that disagreed with the teacher, and expressing it very quietly, to a fellow student.

This teacher was known to advocate his personal position. That's a no-no in any classroom to students. That goes for sex, politics or religion!

Bailey
09-23-2011, 11:13 AM
Wrong, Nova.

The boy was punished for WHAT he said, not for "shouting" it or otherwise disrupting the classroom. Nor did he advocate anything. He was punished for simply having an opinion that disagreed with the teacher, and expressing it very quietly, to a fellow student.

This teacher was known to advocate his personal position. That's a no-no in any classroom to students. That goes for sex, politics or religion!

+ 1

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 11:14 AM
Wrong, Nova.

The boy was punished for WHAT he said, ....

I haven't said otherwise. His remark, which was obviously not confidential, was a negative characterization of gay people and as such is considered inappropriate in a school where gay students are expected to attend in a nonhostile environment. Expressing disdain for a group of students based in their race, religion, creed, sex, orientation, what have you is disrespectful to the group and the individual.

Bailey
09-23-2011, 11:21 AM
I haven't said otherwise. His remark, which was obviously not confidential, was a negative characterization of gay people and as such is considered inappropriate in a school where gay students are expected to attend in a nonhostile environment. Expressing disdain for a group of students based in their race, religion, creed, sex, orientation, what have you is disrespectful to the group and the individual.

That's the problem with the pussifacation of this country, you don't have a right in or out of school not to be offended.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 11:30 AM
That's the problem with the pussifacation of this country, you don't have a right in or out of school not to be offended.

Actually schools and workplaces do have a responsibility to maintain a non-hostile environment through policing the words and actions of others.

Or do you not believe that your daughter has a right to go to class without boys making nasty remarks about her breasts or other body parts and/or what they would like to do to her or have her do to them?

Bailey
09-23-2011, 12:04 PM
Actually schools and workplaces do have a responsibility to maintain a non-hostile environment through policing the words and actions of others.

Or do you not believe that your daughter has a right to go to class without boys making nasty remarks about her breasts or other body parts and/or what they would like to do to her or have her do to them?

Well your diffention of hostile and mine are a bit different. It's one thing if a kid gets picked on over something they can't control and an entire group of degenerates who can control their behavior.

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 12:15 PM
I haven't said otherwise. His remark, which was obviously not confidential, was a negative characterization of gay people and as such is considered inappropriate in a school where gay students are expected to attend in a nonhostile environment. Expressing disdain for a group of students based in their race, religion, creed, sex, orientation, what have you is disrespectful to the group and the individual.

Nice try. None of that happened. There was no negative characterization. There was no hostility, there was no disdain. It wasn't even disrepectful.

What the boy said was that he thought homosexuality was wrong. He could have said I think eating twinkies makes you fat. He was punished for having that OPINON. The school agreed that the teacher was wrong. In essence, the teacher said "I think that having the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, is wrong, and I have a position where I can punish that opinion and I will."

Bailey
09-23-2011, 12:33 PM
Nice try. None of that happened. There was no negative characterization. There was no hostility, there was no disdain. It wasn't even disrepectful.

What the boy said was that he thought homosexuality was wrong. He could have said I think eating twinkies makes you fat. He was punished for having that OPINON. The school agreed that the teacher was wrong. In essence, the teacher said "I think that having the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, is wrong, and I have a position where I can punish that opinion and I will."

Spot on, this is how they want to reshape our kids into their own image.

CueSi
09-23-2011, 12:43 PM
If this teacher has a history of imposing his sexuality on his High School students as evidenced in the story. . .that really should be considered here.

I get it, the school, in loco parentis, but- - shouldn't the student have the right not to be imposed upon by a teachers religion, politics OR sexuality?

If a Christian teacher is looked askance for viewing his pupils as a mission field for winning kids for Christ, which really isn't his issue; shouldn't a gay teacher be looked askance the same way for brooking no opposing opinion regarding his personal life, which really has no business in the classroom?

It's no different than a teacher who ridicules a student for having parents who are active in the tea party due to that teacher being a union leader. I'm all for respecting others...and this kid was sotto voce to his classmate with his opinion and respected the teacher in all other ways, I gotta say this teacher had a power trip and probably needs to have some of his previous disciplinary actions examined to see if this is a pattern.

~QC

noonwitch
09-23-2011, 12:51 PM
Just a wild guess would be that the teacher in the German class was talking about the German demonstrations in response to the papal visit. Current events can be a legitimate part of a foreign language class.




My german teacher used to show us anti-nazi films from the 40s. This was in the late 70s/early 80s. She thought that watching Hogan's Heroes had desenstized us to the evil that was Nazi Germany. She also used to bring in records of german drinking songs.

Seriously, though, the school way over-reacted. Some student behavior can be handled with actions short of suspension, especially when it involves a kid who has no previous behavior problems. It's called verbal redirection, and good teachers use it every day when dealing with average teenagers. A teacher who resorts to punishment for such a minor thing is a teacher who is insecure in his leadership role.

CueSi
09-23-2011, 01:14 PM
My german teacher used to show us anti-nazi films from the 40s. This was in the late 70s/early 80s. She thought that watching Hogan's Heroes had desenstized us to the evil that was Nazi Germany. She also used to bring in records of german drinking songs.

Seriously, though, the school way over-reacted. Some student behavior can be handled with actions short of suspension, especially when it involves a kid who has no previous behavior problems. It's called verbal redirection, and good teachers use it every day when dealing with average teenagers. A teacher who resorts to punishment for such a minor thing is a teacher who is insecure in his leadership role.

By George, noonie, I think you've GOT IT!

~QC

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 01:31 PM
By George, noonie, I think you've GOT IT!

~QC

I agree that the teacher should have simply corrected the student (his unsolicited opinion rather than the opinion itself if you like) and moved on. Howbeit, I equate his comment to saying loud enough for others to hear that he was a member of Army Of God and that Jews are going to Hell, or that the sons of Ham shall ever live in servitude.

Many teachers would have merely said, "No one asked for your opinion on the matter." and been done with it.

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 02:34 PM
There is nothing on campus or more politically correct than hating Jews!

http://www.adl.org/campus/campus_incidents.asp

Bailey
09-23-2011, 04:01 PM
I agree that the teacher should have simply corrected the student (his unsolicited opinion rather than the opinion itself if you like) and moved on. Howbeit, I equate his comment to saying loud enough for others to hear that he was a member of Army Of God and that Jews are going to Hell, or that the sons of Ham shall ever live in servitude.

Many teachers would have merely said, "No one asked for your opinion on the matter." and been done with it.

What if the other kid was interested in his opinion? Face it you don't get to punish a kid who believes in the truth.

marv
09-23-2011, 05:27 PM
Actually schools and workplaces do have a responsibility to maintain a non-hostile environment through policing the words and actions of others. Hmmm, sounds like you're comfortable with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. They don't like religion in China either.


Or do you not believe that your daughter has a right to go to class without boys making nasty remarks about her breasts or other body parts and/or what they would like to do to her or have her do to them?"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"...unless you let them.........

BTW Nova, I notice that you only cited a case for girls. No boys? How sexist of you!


Howbeit, I equate his comment to saying loud enough for others to hear that he was a member of Army Of God and that Jews are going to Hell, or that the sons of Ham shall ever live in servitude.

Hmmm, that quote says a lot about you, Nova............

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 05:29 PM
The boy could have offered up this opinion as his justification for refusing a homosexual encounter. Which might have gotten him expelled!

CueSi
09-23-2011, 08:28 PM
The boy could have offered up this opinion as his justification for refusing a homosexual encounter. Which might have gotten him expelled!

How would that work?

~QC

newshutr
09-23-2011, 11:06 PM
I haven't said otherwise. His remark, which was obviously not confidential, was a negative characterization of gay people ...

Actually, you are a negative characterization of gay people..

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 11:58 AM
How would that work?

~QC

When I'm not gay. I think homosexuality is wrong. Leave me alone, becomes hate speech.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 12:01 PM
When I'm not gay. I think homosexuality is wrong. Leave me alone, becomes hate speech.

Is it at all possible for you to stick to the known particulars of an article and event? Can you make your point without wandering into hypotheticals and speculation?

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 12:22 PM
Is it at all possible for you to stick to the known particulars of an article and event? Can you make your point without wandering into hypotheticals and speculation?

In the case presented, the boy said that he thought homosexuality was wrong. It was enough of a hostile statement to merit punishment. How about "leave me alone. I'm not gay." Is that enough of a statement of hate, of homophobia to warrant punishment? Does adding "I think homosexuality is wrong" put the opinon in an objectionable context? Without that statement is it acceptable? We really don't know what was said. It is unlikely that one boy turned to another and out of the blue said "I think homosexuality is wrong". We don't know what the context was or what else was said. We are developing to a point where ANY rejection of homosexuality is something that should never be voiced.

In any event, the question was asked, of me, and I answered it.

Apache
09-24-2011, 11:00 PM
Is it at all possible for you to stick to the known particulars of an article and event? Can you make your point without wandering into hypotheticals and speculation?

So sayeth a 2%er :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
09-25-2011, 02:13 AM
Students are expected to:
• Attend school the entire instructional day, except when ill or otherwise lawfully excused and be on time to all classes.
• Follow the rules and regulations established by the teacher and the school as stated in the Student Code of Conduct,
Campus Discipline Management Plan, and the procedures concerning appropriate behavior.
• Cooperate with all lawful and reasonable directives issued by school personnel.
• Be prepared for each class with assigned work and appropriate materials.
• Pursue mastery of the essential knowledge and skills of the curriculum as prescribed by the District and the State.
• Establish an effective working relationship with parents, peers and school personnel.
• Show respect for others and their property.
• Abstain from making profane, insulting, threatening or inflammatory remarks.
• Stay away from other Fort Worth ISD campuses during the school day, except with permission from school personnel.
• Express opinions and ideas in a respectful and courteous manner.
• Strive toward self-discipline, setting individual goals and utilizing good work habits.
• Leave campus immediately after the dismissal bell unless involved in a school activity.
• Assume responsibility for making choices and accept the consequences of those behaviors.
• Adhere to dress code standards.

3*
*
GENERAL MISCONDUCT VIOLATIONS
Students are prohibited from:
• Cheating or copying the work of another.
• Being disrespectful to adults and/or other students.
• Engaging in any conduct that constitutes harassment of any type.
• Bullying others.
• Violating the Student Code of Conduct.
• Violating the campus student handbook.
• Violating the behavioral standards set by teachers, coaches, administrators and/or sponsors.
• Leaving school grounds or school-sponsored events without permission.
• Scuffling or fighting.
• Disobeying school rules regarding conduct on school buses.
• Failing to comply with directives given by school personnel.
• Possessing matches or a lighter.
• Behaving in any manner disruptive to the school environment or educational process.
• Violating safety rules.
• Violating the dress code.
• Violating extracurricular standards of behavior.
• Unauthorized use of a telecommunication or an electronic device.
• Possessing, smoking or using tobacco products.
• Possessing a hazardous item or storing a prohibited item in his/her vehicle if the vehicle is unoccupied.

In any professional workplace in the US, this student's comment, which was obviously made to the teacher or loud enough that he heard it, would be considered "creating a hostile workplace."

OK, so I think that's a stifling standard, and we know that the "hostile workplace" construct has many workplaces considered hostile by most people who work there, not due to the off comment but the policy making it so that almost anyone can be hauled down to HR at any time.

But looking at these broad rules and considering the response to the same remark if one were to plug in a race, sex, or religion, then the action of the teacher seems to be consistent with Fort Worth ISD policy.

The bottom line is that you wouldn't make a similar remark about another race, religion, etc... then you shouldn't make it about gay people. The only thing new here are the particulars which have evolved considerably in our lifetime. But society has always had expectations of respectful speech and consequences for disrespectful speech in certain environments. Wrapping an anti-gay statement in religion doesn't make it more acceptable, nor does it protect it in places where rules require that one not make offensive remarks.

The Constitution guarantees this student the right to be a Christian, to hold Christian opinions, and to speak freely. A teacher that punishes a student for a quiet exercise of First Amendment rights, especially over an issue that is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is fully in the wrong in the US. The teacher is creating a hostile environment for learning by pushing his agenda in the classroom instead of teaching. The teacher is engaging in conduct that constitutes religious harassment. The teacher is the adult responsible for demonstrating respect for the peaceful opinions of the students, and should have been fired on the spot.

marv
09-25-2011, 12:17 PM
So sayeth a 2%er :rolleyes:I hope you're not suggesting that Nova might belong to Mensa........http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/images/smilies/doh0715.gif

The teacher promoted the hostility by expressing his support for homosexuality. The teacher reinforced that hostile environment when he punished a student who expressed opposition to his position.

People, of whatever persuasion, have the privilege to express themselves, but they do not have the privilege of demanding that others, who in disagreement, accept their position.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 12:35 PM
A teacher that punishes a student for a quiet exercise of First Amendment rights, especially over an issue that is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is fully in the wrong in the US.

Neither racial nor sex discrimination is addressed specifically by name in the Bill Of Rights, but if you make a remark about your opinion that blacks or females are inferior to you in a public school classroom, you will be corrected. It is indeed part of the role of schools to correct such behavior.

Your freedom of speech in a public school classroom as a student is quite restricted. I have already said that if that which is in the article is actually what happened, then this teacher overreacted. That's my opinion, of course, and I suppose that there are scenarios in which a teacher is concerned about not taking sufficient action against a student for a remark, or an opinion as you like to present it.

This teacher reported the student for making his remark. Had his remark been a similar disapproval of others based in race, religion, or gender and the teacher merely instructing him to keep his opinions to himself and moving along, I suppose it's possible that a parent or supervisor might accuse the teacher of not taking sufficient action.

In any event, as I read the article and understand the system, it was the administrator rather than the teacher who decided the consequences, all the teacher did was report the student.

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 12:55 PM
It was a superb object lesson that dissent to the "party line" is not tolerated in the United States. The kid might as well have been in 1939 Germany suggesting that Aryan's might not be the master race after all.

marv
09-25-2011, 03:42 PM
It is indeed part of the role of schools to correct such [disapproved] behavior.

Your freedom of speech in a public school classroom as a student [of the state] is quite restricted.

No, it's not. But such was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and.where you live in Orwell's "1984" Nova. A United States citizen, by virtue of the First Amendment, is free to express personal opinions! Period. Of course, that's not the freedom to ACT upon those opinions.

MrsSmith
09-25-2011, 10:39 PM
Neither racial nor sex discrimination is addressed specifically by name in the Bill Of Rights, but if you make a remark about your opinion that blacks or females are inferior to you in a public school classroom, you will be corrected. It is indeed part of the role of schools to correct such behavior.

Your freedom of speech in a public school classroom as a student is quite restricted. I have already said that if that which is in the article is actually what happened, then this teacher overreacted. That's my opinion, of course, and I suppose that there are scenarios in which a teacher is concerned about not taking sufficient action against a student for a remark, or an opinion as you like to present it.

This teacher reported the student for making his remark. Had his remark been a similar disapproval of others based in race, religion, or gender and the teacher merely instructing him to keep his opinions to himself and moving along, I suppose it's possible that a parent or supervisor might accuse the teacher of not taking sufficient action.

In any event, as I read the article and understand the system, it was the administrator rather than the teacher who decided the consequences, all the teacher did was report the student.

The teacher didn't "overreact." The teacher created an environment of extreme hostility toward a Constitutionally protected religious position quietly stated by a student, and he did so after raising the topic of homosexualiity in a foreign language class, not in any class that might conceivably require this subject be addressed. The teacher needs sensitivity training on the subject of tolerance, at minimum, though I'd still lean toward firing him.

This new "tolerance" and "diversity" that requires groupthink does not belong in a free country.

Apache
09-25-2011, 11:23 PM
I hope you're not suggesting that Nova might belong to Mensa........http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/images/smilies/doh0715.gif

.

No. Not at all. Nova is a sick person, who is all over the place.

Maybe, one day, he will mature :rolleyes:

CueSi
09-26-2011, 01:10 AM
When I'm not gay. I think homosexuality is wrong. Leave me alone, becomes hate speech.

Were you saying that the boy said what he said as a rejection of a gay proposition? That's what you stated/implied in your response, and I'm wonder where in the story you got that from.

It makes no sense, and it's taking alot of assumptions.

~QC

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 09:33 AM
Were you saying that the boy said what he said as a rejection of a gay proposition? That's what you stated/implied in your response, and I'm wonder where in the story you got that from.

It makes no sense, and it's taking alot of assumptions.

~QC

Yes, it takes a lot of assumptions. WHEN, meaning at some point in the future, the words' "I'm not gay. Leave me alone" becomes hate speech.

I think homosexuality is wrong (I'm not gay and it's something I won't do)

I am not saying that what he SAID was a rejection of a gay proposition. Although rejecting a gay proposition in the future might be socially unacceptable.

marv
09-26-2011, 10:51 AM
An interesting direction.........

I'm a 72 year old white, straight, married, atheist male. Now if I choose not to associate with a particular ( fill in the blank ) person or group of people, does that make me a racist or homophobe or anti-religion or political radical? When I emphatically say "No!" to their invitation, am I guilty of "hate speech"?

I thought not! After all, they are all free to tell me in no uncetrain terms that they do not wish to associate with me..........

Isn't that the way the world is supposed to work?

CueSi
09-26-2011, 11:32 AM
Yes, it takes a lot of assumptions. WHEN, meaning at some point in the future, the words' "I'm not gay. Leave me alone" becomes hate speech.

I think homosexuality is wrong (I'm not gay and it's something I won't do)

I am not saying that what he SAID was a rejection of a gay proposition. Although rejecting a gay proposition in the future might be socially unacceptable.

"I'm not gay. leave me alone" was something the student didn't say. I'm wondering where and how this became part of the discussion.

I doubt being forced to accept a sexual proposition will become legal. Ever. What do you base this declaration on?

~QC

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 11:40 AM
An interesting direction.........

I'm a 72 year old white, straight, married, atheist male. Now if I choose not to associate with a particular ( fill in the blank ) person or group of people, does that make me a racist or homophobe or anti-religion or political radical? When I emphatically say "No!" to their invitation, am I guilty of "hate speech"?

I thought not! After all, they are all free to tell me in no uncetrain terms that they do not wish to associate with me..........

Isn't that the way the world is supposed to work?


Look at it this way, the term "faggot" is derogatory. You could be punished for saying that. The term "breeder" or even "bleeder" is not derogatory. There is no punishment for that.

So far, rejecting an invitation for same sex intimacy is not cause to be hate speech. It might be at some point in the future especially with the direction that we're going. Especially the reasoning! If someone rejects such an invitation because they "think homosexuality is wrong" does that cross the line? Is it implied that if the person didn't think that homosexuality was wrong they would be open to such an invitation? The solution is to change the opinion.

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 11:52 AM
"I'm not gay. leave me alone" was something the student didn't say. I'm wondering where and how this became part of the discussion.

I doubt being forced to accept a sexual proposition will become legal. Ever. What do you base this declaration on?

~QC

It became part of the discussion because I put it in there! As a logical progression of where we are going. Not to mention that, although we know that this boy said that he thought homosexuality was wrong, the entire context of the statement has never been revealed. It is highly doubtful that right in the middle of a lecture on the Kaiser, one boy turned to another and said "I think homosexuality is wrong" back to the Kaiser.

No one ever said that there would be any law forcing a sexual proposition. I made no such declaration, reread and fine tune your comprehension. We aren't talking about laws, but social engineering which has its own social punishments and rewards. After all NO LAW was broken when this boy said he thought homosexuality was wrong. Was he punished anyway? He was punished for having a dissenting opinon.

CueSi
09-26-2011, 12:02 PM
It became part of the discussion because I put it in there! As a logical progression of where we are going. Not to mention that, although we know that this boy said that he thought homosexuality was wrong, the entire context of the statement has never been revealed. It is highly doubtful that right in the middle of a lecture on the Kaiser, one boy turned to another and said "I think homosexuality is wrong" back to the Kaiser.

No one ever said that there would be any law forcing a sexual proposition. I made no such declaration, reread and fine tune your comprehension. We aren't talking about laws, but social engineering which has its own social punishments and rewards. After all NO LAW was broken when this boy said he thought homosexuality was wrong. Was he punished anyway? He was punished for having a dissenting opinon.

Why? Unless you have evidence that rejection of a sexual encounter against one's will become hate speech at some point in the future (please tell me if I have the premise you're offering correct), I fail to see the logic. Hell, if this was another forum, I'd mistake it for some of the more paranoid pronouncements libs make whenever a Republican is elected. :p

Well, unless you have evidence other than what the story presented, it is what it is. Constructing your own version of the truth doesn't make it the truth. The teacher had a history of pushing an irrelevant and inflammatory (in the light of local values) opinion and the boy voiced his dissenting opinion to another student, not the teacher. The teacher attempted to punish him and the school overruled said punishment.

In the end, the kid wasn't punished. Remember that. The school overruled that teacher's desire to punish the kid.

You're right, it's not a legal issue, but I doubt it will ever be socially OKAY to assent to a sexual encounter against your will, which then would actually make it a legal issue. Social engineering is not all powerful, as evidenced by the school's reaction to the teachers action. The boy even got clearance to play in a football game that week, which should not have happened, had the teacher gotten his way.


~QC

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 12:11 PM
I don't know that I agree fully. I'd like to, but experience tells me, - it all depends. The boy was fortunate in that the administration saw how unreasonable the teacher was. The boy was reinstated, the teacher should have been fired.

Judging just from how successful social engineering and social supression is in the workforce, I don't see the possibility of more freedom of dissent and opinon, but less. Far less.

Odysseus
09-26-2011, 12:42 PM
Students are expected to:
• Show respect for others and their property.
• Abstain from making profane, insulting, threatening or inflammatory remarks.
• Express opinions and ideas in a respectful and courteous manner.
• Being disrespectful to adults and/or other students.
• Engaging in any conduct that constitutes harassment of any type.

In any professional workplace in the US, this student's comment, which was obviously made to the teacher or loud enough that he heard it, would be considered "creating a hostile workplace."

OK, so I think that's a stifling standard, and we know that the "hostile workplace" construct has many workplaces considered hostile by most people who work there, not due to the off comment but the policy making it so that almost anyone can be hauled down to HR at any time.

But looking at these broad rules and considering the response to the same remark if one were to plug in a race, sex, or religion, then the action of the teacher seems to be consistent with Fort Worth ISD policy.

The bottom line is that you wouldn't make a similar remark about another race, religion, etc... then you shouldn't make it about gay people. The only thing new here are the particulars which have evolved considerably in our lifetime. But society has always had expectations of respectful speech and consequences for disrespectful speech in certain environments. Wrapping an anti-gay statement in religion doesn't make it more acceptable, nor does it protect it in places where rules require that one not make offensive remarks.

Race is not sexual orientation. To equate the two is specious. Religion can be said to constitute a choice of belief, but that's as close as it comes, and even there, it is possible to discuss it without landing in detention. One can say that a tenet of a particular religion is wrong without suffering for it, unless, of course, the religion is Islam, in which case you risk your life, but if a Christian were to say that personally felt that Jews are wrong not to accept the divinity of Christ, or a Jew stated that he did not consider Jesus to be the messiah, it would be a very thin-skinned individual who would take offense at that. The end result of this is that any discussion of homosexuality that is not 100% positive would land anyone in similar hot water. Of course, that is the intent, that any legitimate criticism of homosexuality be criminalized. One cannot oppose what one cannot articulate. In that regard, this is precisely what Orwell was discussing in 1984, and as such, calling it Orwellian is perfectly apropos.

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 12:46 PM
BraVO! Very well put!

Wei Wu Wei
09-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Race is not sexual orientation. To equate the two is specious. Religion can be said to constitute a choice of belief, but that's as close as it comes, and even there, it is possible to discuss it without landing in detention. One can say that a tenet of a particular religion is wrong without suffering for it, unless, of course, the religion is Islam, in which case you risk your life, but if a Christian were to say that personally felt that Jews are wrong not to accept the divinity of Christ, or a Jew stated that he did not consider Jesus to be the messiah, it would be a very thin-skinned individual who would take offense at that. The end result of this is that any discussion of homosexuality that is not 100% positive would land anyone in similar hot water. Of course, that is the intent, that any legitimate criticism of homosexuality be criminalized. One cannot oppose what one cannot articulate. In that regard, this is precisely what Orwell was discussing in 1984, and as such, calling it Orwellian is perfectly apropos.

paranoiac imagination. I hear slurs being thrown around pretty regularly. I've heard words like "faggot" thrown around more times than I can count, just this year. It's extremely common. No one gets hauled away for it, only on a few rare occasions have I ever even seen someone corrected by their peers for it. That type of language is encouraged.

That includes on this forum. However, if someone uttered a slur directed at Jewish people, or even simply implied anti-semitism, there is a very strong outcry. That includes on this forum. That's a good thing, but it also highlights the difference between the two.

There should be social self-policing with regards to racism or anti-semitism, I want to see people correcting one another about respecting others and not being idiots. It should not be against the law, obviously, but it's good to see the culture keeping the bigots out of the spotlight. However, when it comes to homosexuality, that just isn't here yet.

Odysseus
09-26-2011, 03:51 PM
paranoiac imagination. I hear slurs being thrown around pretty regularly. I've heard words like "faggot" thrown around more times than I can count, just this year. It's extremely common. No one gets hauled away for it, only on a few rare occasions have I ever even seen someone corrected by their peers for it. That type of language is encouraged.

Perhaps you should do something about that Tourette's syndrome.

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 03:53 PM
Race is not sexual orientation.

I never said that they were. They are both among a handful of categories which are the basis for a variety of socially or legally proscribed behaviors by those who focus their dislike on one or more of those identities.


Race is not sexual orientation. To equate the two is specious.

Thank god I didn't do that then.


The end result of this is that any discussion of homosexuality that is not 100% positive would land anyone in similar hot water.

We are handicapped in this discussion by not having details on the topic the teacher was discussing. I do think it's reasonable to believe that he did not solicit the opinion of this student on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

If I were teaching a class on American cities, and today was DC day, and I said, "This is Adams Morgan, once a summer retreat it's now a largely Latino community. And this is Dupont Circle, center of the Gay community in Washington. " I would not expect nor welcome a comment from a student giving his negative general opinion of Americans of hispanic ancestry or of Americans who are gay. By the same token, a negative comment about blacks would not be welcome, or a backhanded comment like "Chevy Chase is nice because it's white." either.

As a school teacher, of any subject, one is also supposed to be teaching social skills and promoting the American ethic of equality.

Odysseus
09-26-2011, 04:23 PM
I never said that they were. They are both among a handful of categories which are the basis for a variety of socially or legally proscribed behaviors by those who focus their dislike on one or more of those identities.
What an incredibly convoluted way of saying that you are equating the two, while trying to pretend that you are not.


We are handicapped in this discussion by not having details on the topic the teacher was discussing. I do think it's reasonable to believe that he did not solicit the opinion of this student on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.
One has to ask why the topic was raised in a German language class to start with. I'm willing to be that the teacher is an ideologue who brought it up as a means of indoctrination of his students in PC thought, and when one of them balked and disagreed, the teacher went ballistic. As the article stated:


“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

>Snip<

...“I told the school that he should never have been suspended for exercising his Constitutional rights,” Krause told Fox News Radio. “The principal is sincere in trying to do the right thing and hopefully they will tell the teacher, ‘Do not do that anymore.’ He won’t be pushing his agenda.”

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”


If I were teaching a class on American cities, and today was DC day, and I said, "This is Adams Morgan, once a summer retreat it's now a largely Latino community. And this is Dupont Circle, center of the Gay community in Washington. " I would not expect nor welcome a comment from a student giving his negative general opinion of Americans of hispanic ancestry or of Americans who are gay. By the same token, a negative comment about blacks would not be welcome, or a backhanded comment like "Chevy Chase is nice because it's white." either.
First, he wasn't giving a class on American cities, he was teaching German, or supposed to be. But he also had a history of pushing gay subject matter on the students, as the article pointed out. Second, if you were giving a class on Washington DC, I would think that the capitol, the various memorials and the major officers of the government would be of more concern to the average student than sexual proclivities of Dupont Circle's residents. That you think otherwise is irrelevant, and you do not have the right to impose your agenda on a classroom of other peoples' children. Third, a student would not expect or welcome being indoctrinated into a lifestyle as part of a class on any subject, especially a language class, where homosexuality is complete irrelevant to the teaching of German.


As a school teacher, of any subject, one is also supposed to be teaching social skills and promoting the American ethic of equality.

The social skills taught in a language class are the rules of grammar, vocabulary and idioms. It is not the place of the German teacher to indoctrinate children into his worldview on subject that are not part of the curriculum. If this teachercan't concentrate on what he's being paid to teach, then he needs to find another line of work. Of course, with my luck, he'll show up at a recruiting office. :rolleyes:

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 06:25 PM
Indoctrination of straight students into homosexuality is 100% of the time, the responsibility of every teacher.

Why? Because that's the way gays want it that's why.

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 06:36 PM
He reports (and has reported to his school) repeated acts of anti-gay harassment by several students that occurred this and last year, including by a group of four specific boys in this class, of whom Ary is one. Among other incidents, Mr. Franks maintains a “word wall” for his German IV class on which he posts articles and images from several journals, including the German magazine, Stern. One of these articles concerned gay rights in Germany, and included a photo of two men kissing. The group of four boys concerned was sitting near this image immediately before Mr. Franks found it had been ripped from the wall. The student and his lawyer are now asserting that including this photo among the others constituted his teacher’s “imposing acceptance of homosexuality” in his classroom. These students subsequently took every opportunity to denounce homosexuality in class, frequently without context; that is, with the topic having otherwise been broached.

On the particular day in which this incident occurred, Mr. Franks was opening class when the topic of Christianity in Germany was broached by one student, who asked what churches were there, another whether they read the Bible in English, etc. Franks asserts that the topic of homosexuality was not broached in any way, and that Ary‘s assertions to the contrary are entirely false. At this point, Ary declared, with a class audience, “Gays can’t be Christians; homosexuality is wrong,” looking directly at Mr. Franks. Franks says he understands and affirms students’ right to free speech, and that he is perfectly prepared to lead a respectful discussion on topics such as gay rights that allows for the assertion of opinions with which he disagrees. He has led such discussion in the past in his sociology classes. But in this case, hr feels the context makes it clear that this remark was made ad hominem, aimed specifically at him to devalue him and any information he might share on the topic of religion, on the basis of his perceived sexual orientation.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/lgbt-groups-fort-worth-teacher-suspended-student-victim-anti-gay-harassment-1090417.html

Let's see now, according to Bailey and a couple of others, if the gay mafia beats the crap out of these little pricks, it's to be expected?

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 07:03 PM
That's a far different story from the first one, which is that the comment was made to another student not to the class generally. I take it that the teacher is gay.

IF the statement was gays can't be Christians, homosexuality is wrong, it was entirely inappropriate for the teacher to address it AT ALL. This is a question of theology. If any comment was made whatsoever, the student should be referred to his religious leader NOT CORRECTED. The teacher is not paid to share his views on the topic of religion. Especially to start instructing children in more appropriate religious beliefs.

There is a wall of separation between church and state, UNTIL a teacher wants to correct all those false religious beliefs.

Elspeth
09-27-2011, 10:53 AM
A teacher who resorts to punishment for such a minor thing is a teacher who is insecure in his leadership role.


Actually, a teacher who is afraid of being suspended for leaving such a comment unchecked might also resort to punishment. We don't know what kind of pressures the teacher is under. It's possible that, if the teacher had done nothing, some of the other students might have mentioned the comment to the principal, counselor, or faculty member, resulting in the disciplining of the teacher for NOT punishing the comment right away.

Novaheart
09-27-2011, 11:02 AM
Indoctrination of straight students into homosexuality is 100% of the time, the responsibility of every teacher.

Why? Because that's the way gays want it that's why.


One can only imagine the intellectual isolation you must reside in. Thank you for sharing.

Tipsycatlover
09-27-2011, 11:10 AM
Then whoever did the reporting should be instructed that in this country we do not punish dissent. This would not be a problem if we taught American history. We don't so people are able to make up all kinds of fanciful things to suit their own agendas.

Tipsycatlover
09-27-2011, 11:18 AM
One can only imagine the intellectual isolation you must reside in. Thank you for sharing.

True, I shouldn't assume that all homosexuals are like yourself.

Bailey
09-27-2011, 11:27 AM
He reports (and has reported to his school) repeated acts of anti-gay harassment by several students that occurred this and last year, including by a group of four specific boys in this class, of whom Ary is one. Among other incidents, Mr. Franks maintains a “word wall” for his German IV class on which he posts articles and images from several journals, including the German magazine, Stern. One of these articles concerned gay rights in Germany, and included a photo of two men kissing. The group of four boys concerned was sitting near this image immediately before Mr. Franks found it had been ripped from the wall. The student and his lawyer are now asserting that including this photo among the others constituted his teacher’s “imposing acceptance of homosexuality” in his classroom. These students subsequently took every opportunity to denounce homosexuality in class, frequently without context; that is, with the topic having otherwise been broached.

On the particular day in which this incident occurred, Mr. Franks was opening class when the topic of Christianity in Germany was broached by one student, who asked what churches were there, another whether they read the Bible in English, etc. Franks asserts that the topic of homosexuality was not broached in any way, and that Ary‘s assertions to the contrary are entirely false. At this point, Ary declared, with a class audience, “Gays can’t be Christians; homosexuality is wrong,” looking directly at Mr. Franks. Franks says he understands and affirms students’ right to free speech, and that he is perfectly prepared to lead a respectful discussion on topics such as gay rights that allows for the assertion of opinions with which he disagrees. He has led such discussion in the past in his sociology classes. But in this case, hr feels the context makes it clear that this remark was made ad hominem, aimed specifically at him to devalue him and any information he might share on the topic of religion, on the basis of his perceived sexual orientation.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/lgbt-groups-fort-worth-teacher-suspended-student-victim-anti-gay-harassment-1090417.html

Let's see now, according to Bailey and a couple of others, if the gay mafia beats the crap out of these little pricks, it's to be expected?

I keep hearing you drone on and on about not creating an hostile learning environment but i guess if the student(s) saw a picture of two men kissing disgusting and objectionable that's his tough luck?

Novaheart
09-27-2011, 12:42 PM
I keep hearing you drone on and on about not creating an hostile learning environment but i guess if the student(s) saw a picture of two men kissing disgusting and objectionable that's his tough luck?

Let me try to explain this in terms you will understand.

The hostile environment is created when Billy keeps telling Marge she has nice tits, not by Marge's refusal to tolerate Billy's comments about her breasts.

The hostile environment is not created because Marge has breasts, it is created because Billy is a crude lecherous jackass.

Does that clear it up for you?

Bailey
09-27-2011, 12:55 PM
Let me try to explain this in terms you will understand.

The hostile environment is created when Billy keeps telling Marge she has nice tits, not by Marge's refusal to tolerate Billy's comments about her breasts.

The hostile environment is not created because Marge has breasts, it is created because Billy is a crude lecherous jackass.

Does that clear it up for you?



Not really because marge has to be there and the picture does not. Besides the picture is pushing an agenda onto kids without their parents consent.

Novaheart
09-27-2011, 02:54 PM
Not really because marge has to be there and the picture does not. Besides the picture is pushing an agenda onto kids without their parents consent.

Gay people are a part of German society, American society, and the German class in American society. Parental consent is no more needed to include a photo of gay people in a collage than it is to include a photo of any other couple. Now, do you understand?

Bailey
09-27-2011, 03:05 PM
Gay people are a part of German society, American society, and the German class in American society. Parental consent is no more needed to include a photo of gay people in a collage than it is to include a photo of any other couple. Now, do you understand?

Still don't, i'm afraid being taught a language doesn't give them a right to post shit like this but you can keep trying to justify your twisted lifestyle choices, i enjoy shooting it down.

Odysseus
09-27-2011, 04:34 PM
He reports (and has reported to his school) repeated acts of anti-gay harassment by several students that occurred this and last year, including by a group of four specific boys in this class, of whom Ary is one. Among other incidents, Mr. Franks maintains a “word wall” for his German IV class on which he posts articles and images from several journals, including the German magazine, Stern. One of these articles concerned gay rights in Germany, and included a photo of two men kissing. The group of four boys concerned was sitting near this image immediately before Mr. Franks found it had been ripped from the wall. The student and his lawyer are now asserting that including this photo among the others constituted his teacher’s “imposing acceptance of homosexuality” in his classroom. These students subsequently took every opportunity to denounce homosexuality in class, frequently without context; that is, with the topic having otherwise been broached.
Posting an image of two men kissing in a public school classroom is is not appropriate, regardless of the language that the article was in. That's not the kind of German tongue that he's supposed to be teaching. By your logic, he could have posted a centerfold from the German edition of Hustler with equal justification.


On the particular day in which this incident occurred, Mr. Franks was opening class when the topic of Christianity in Germany was broached by one student, who asked what churches were there, another whether they read the Bible in English, etc. Franks asserts that the topic of homosexuality was not broached in any way, and that Ary‘s assertions to the contrary are entirely false. At this point, Ary declared, with a class audience, “Gays can’t be Christians; homosexuality is wrong,” looking directly at Mr. Franks. Franks says he understands and affirms students’ right to free speech, and that he is perfectly prepared to lead a respectful discussion on topics such as gay rights that allows for the assertion of opinions with which he disagrees. He has led such discussion in the past in his sociology classes. But in this case, hr feels the context makes it clear that this remark was made ad hominem, aimed specifically at him to devalue him and any information he might share on the topic of religion, on the basis of his perceived sexual orientation.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/lgbt-groups-fort-worth-teacher-suspended-student-victim-anti-gay-harassment-1090417.html

Let's see now, according to Bailey and a couple of others, if the gay mafia beats the crap out of these little pricks, it's to be expected?

The Dallas Voice bills itself as the "The Premier Media Source for LGBT Texas." I'd take that article with a salt lick if I were you. Not only does the paper clearly have an agenda, but the article provides the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of the school administrators, so that the readership can more easily harass and intimidate them before the hearing. Well, I suppose that they're lucky that they didn't have their home addresses posted, as well.

Since there are now two conflicting versions of events, the logical thing would be to investigate and determine what the facts are. However, given that Franks admits to having posted the photo in the first place, he clearly was attempting to impose his sexuality on the students. I suspect that the rest of his story is not going to be supported by the thirty or so other kids in the class if this is the case.

Oh, and you may want to avoid terms like "little pricks" in a discussion of sexual harassment in the classroom. You're in no position to determine the size of their pricks, and if you are, then you are going to be in more trouble than the teacher is.


I keep hearing you drone on and on about not creating an hostile learning environment but i guess if the student(s) saw a picture of two men kissing disgusting and objectionable that's his tough luck?
Those of us who don't find it attractive or desirable are clearly just intolerant homophobes, because we lack the same aesthetic appreciation of two men making out. Guess we're just supposed to "get over it."

Let me try to explain this in terms you will understand.

The hostile environment is created when Billy keeps telling Marge she has nice tits, not by Marge's refusal to tolerate Billy's comments about her breasts.

The hostile environment is not created because Marge has breasts, it is created because Billy is a crude lecherous jackass.

Does that clear it up for you?

So, if Marge doesn't want to look at the German edition of Hustler's photo spread (and I do mean spread), even though it's a German class and the description of the model's breasts is in German, then Billy isn't a lecherous jerk for posting it on the collage board, but just a good student of the German language? Face it, when the teacher posted a photo of two men engaged in a lip lock, he was being a lecherous jerk.

Novaheart
09-27-2011, 09:22 PM
Posting an image of two men kissing in a public school classroom is is not appropriate, regardless of the language that the article was in. That's not the kind of German tongue that he's supposed to be teaching. By your logic, he could have posted a centerfold from the German edition of Hustler with equal justification.

That only makes sense if you also believe that posting a mainstream magazine cover of Prince William kissing Whatshername equals posting a picture of Pamela Anderson's vagina because it's in a magazine. Sometimes I wonder about your brain.

Rockntractor
09-27-2011, 09:56 PM
That only makes sense if you also believe that posting a mainstream magazine cover of Prince William kissing Whatshername equals posting a picture of Pamela Anderson's vagina because it's in a magazine. Sometimes I wonder about your brain.

Huh?:confused:

Elspeth
09-27-2011, 10:14 PM
That only makes sense if you also believe that posting a mainstream magazine cover of Prince William kissing Whatshername equals posting a picture of Pamela Anderson's vagina because it's in a magazine. Sometimes I wonder about your brain.

But I think that is how some people see it. The famous photo of the sailor kissing a woman after WWII is considered an acceptable display of affection and can be tacked to a school bulletin board in a 21st century history classroom. However, two male sailors kissing seems to be the moral equivalent of pornography to many people. Why that might be is an interesting question. I can understand the porn connection with two women kissing because, for most straight males, the one place they see two women kissing is porn videos. That's why you get same-sex kissing equated to a porn mag's centerfold. But the two men? There's a sense of offense against "manhood" I think, however manhood is defined. To many people, two men kissing feels like it should be pornographic because it transgresses society's sense of what a man is.

What many people don't remember is that America has a long history of forbidding public displays of affection and that, once upon a time, a hetero couple kissing was considered verboten. In colonial Massachusetts, public displays of affection between husbands and wives were prohibited:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1164.html

The acceptability of public displays of affection have varied throughout history, and the rules differ everywhere. There was this funny article about an Israeli husband and wife who got fined in India for kissing in public at their wedding:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4268058.stm

At any rate, even in the US opinions differ about how far (and long) heterosexual couples should go when they are displaying their feelings. Most Americans accept heterosexual kissing in public if it's short and not repeated for an extended length of time. Teenage kissing is even more controversial, especially in a school situation. When I was in high school, there were full make-out sessions going on at the lockers and no one did anything, except one teacher who would flash his credit card and tell them he was willing to pay for the motel room if they would just move away from his door. (He'd be fired now.) These days, some schools are instituting zero tolerance policies on any and all kissing, even a light, quick kiss that would not bother most Americans.

But in terms of homosexual kissing, American straights--even the most liberal--are still not comfortable with it. I really think the reference to pornography made in this thread is common and is key to understanding the discomfort.

lacarnut
09-27-2011, 10:32 PM
Still don't, i'm afraid being taught a language doesn't give them a right to post shit like this but you can keep trying to justify your twisted lifestyle choices, i enjoy shooting it down.

Queer boy while in the hospitalis is going to be SOL when Obamacare kicks in, and some young punk in DC kicks orders him to go home, take a pill and die.

Zathras
09-28-2011, 12:31 AM
That only makes sense if you also believe that posting a mainstream magazine cover of Prince William kissing Whatshername equals posting a picture of Pamela Anderson's vagina because it's in a magazine. Sometimes I wonder about your brain.

You Heterophobe!!!!

Novaheart
09-28-2011, 12:44 AM
Huh?:confused:

Don't worry about it, it's just the death rattles of the last dinosaurs.

Rockntractor
09-28-2011, 01:02 AM
Don't worry about it, it's just the death rattles of the last dinosaurs.

You're a piece of a work!

marv
09-28-2011, 08:42 AM
Tits are a part of German society, American society, and the German class in American society. Parental consent is no more needed to include a photo of tits in a college than it is to include a photo of any other body part. Now, do you understand?

Fixed it for ya Nova!



Boy, has this thread deteriated........

Odysseus
09-28-2011, 04:10 PM
That only makes sense if you also believe that posting a mainstream magazine cover of Prince William kissing Whatshername equals posting a picture of Pamela Anderson's vagina because it's in a magazine. Sometimes I wonder about your brain.
Only if you see absolutely no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The overwelming majority of people do see a difference. And if you don't see the difference, then you cannot pretend that putting up that picture was not an attempt to equate the two and promote the latter, in which case the teacher was wrong to do so.

Don't worry about it, it's just the death rattles of the last dinosaurs.

Said the arrogant little weasel, who still ended up on the bottom of the food chain. Don't be so ready to consign us to the tar pits just yet. The dinosaurs died off after an extinction level catastrophe, at least according to most theories. While DADT repeal is certainly a catastrophic mistake, I don't think that it rises quite to that level. Just because you managed to push something highly unpopular through the congress when you had a brief majority doesn't mean that it will last, or that a backlash isn't coming. Sometimes what seems like progress is just the far end of the swing of the pendulum.

Novaheart
09-28-2011, 04:43 PM
Only if you see absolutely no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

What kind of an idiot sees a man and woman kissing on the cover and considers it benign but considers a man kissing a man on the cover pornographic? Have you seen the picture? Is it a porn kiss? Is it what I would consider an acceptable wedding kiss or is it one of those gross tongue swallowing lizard porn kisses that some heterosexuals think makes for an interesting wedding album?


The overwelming majority of people do see a difference.

Utterly irrelevant. Equality is a principle of our constitution, not a popularity contest in your corner of the culture.


And if you don't see the difference, then you cannot pretend that putting up that picture was not an attempt to equate the two and promote the latter, in which case the teacher was wrong to do so.

I haven't see the "word wall" and neither have you. It doesn't matter if the teacher included the picture on purpose, gay people are part of society and have as much business in a collage about Germany or the United States as straight people do. Or do you want to know how many pictures there were so that you can determine a quota? I thought you didn't like quotas.

It's interesting that you haven't even had a word about the fact that our little buddy whose mom conveniently has Matt Staver on speed dial vandalized his classroom. No comment on that? You are a piece of work.

Novaheart
09-28-2011, 04:46 PM
I don't know that I agree fully. I'd like to, but experience tells me, - it all depends. The boy was fortunate in that the administration saw how unreasonable the teacher was. The boy was reinstated, the teacher should have been fired.

Judging just from how successful social engineering and social supression is in the workforce, I don't see the possibility of more freedom of dissent and opinon, but less. Far less.

So the administration "saw how unreasonable the teacher was" (despite the fact that the teacher was not the one who determined the punishment, the admins were) when LIberty Counsel got involved,

But when the ACLU steps in to defend a lesbian study who wants to take hr girlfriend to the prom, well that's blackmail or some other nefarious function of liberalism.

Your brain, your brain, think of your brain.

Novaheart
09-28-2011, 05:09 PM
Said the arrogant little weasel,

Now now .....





Said the arrogant little weasel, who still ended up on the bottom of the food chain. .

Um, sure...




Don't be so ready to consign us to the tar pits just yet.

You're soaking in it, Madge.




The dinosaurs died off after an extinction level catastrophe, at least according to most theories. .

No they didn't. They co-existed with man. Didn't you know? The same people who get their panties in a knot over gay equality tell us that this is the case, that the Bi-ble is one hunert percent akkirrit. And you keep telling me that that's the majority. Or it seems that way.




I don't think that it rises quite to that level.

I knew you would come around. See, that didn't hurt a bit.



........ doesn't mean that it will last, or that a backlash isn't coming. Sometimes what seems like progress is just the far end of the swing of the pendulum.


If there is such a reversal in our society, I doubt seriously that any ethnically Jewish person will be celebrating it.

Odysseus
09-28-2011, 05:39 PM
What kind of an idiot sees a man and woman kissing on the cover and considers it benign but considers a man kissing a man on the cover pornographic? Have you seen the picture? Is it a porn kiss? Is it what I would consider an acceptable wedding kiss or is it one of those gross tongue swallowing lizard porn kisses that some heterosexuals think makes for an interesting wedding album?
Well, that answers my question. To answer yours, apparently the vast majority of people throughout the world are idiots, since pretty much all of us consider two men kissing to be a more prurient image than a heterosexual couple kissing. That's just the way that it is, and no amount of posturing or namecalling will change the fact that heterosexuality is the norm, and constitutes roughly 95-97% of the population, while homosexuality is not the norm. This isn't a judgement, simply a statement of fact. The majority determines the norm.


Utterly irrelevant. Equality is a principle of our constitution, not a popularity contest in your corner of the culture.
The Constitution does not guarantee equal protection to all public expressions of sexuality. Public displays of some acts are more controversial than others, and only an ideologue would argue in favor of forcing images of gay sexual conduct on a class of public school kids. Not that you're an ideologue... :rolleyes:


I haven't see the "word wall" and neither have you. It doesn't matter if the teacher included the picture on purpose, gay people are part of society and have as much business in a collage about Germany or the United States as straight people do. Or do you want to know how many pictures there were so that you can determine a quota? I thought you didn't like quotas.
Gays are a miniscule part of society, and in this case, the subject was the German language, not the sexual orientation of 2-3% of the German people. Berlin probably has a higher percentage of leather fetishists than any other part of the world, but does that mean that a photo of a dominatrix would have been appropriate?


t's interesting that you haven't even had a word about the fact that our little buddy whose mom conveniently has Matt Staver on speed dial vandalized his classroom. No comment on that? You are a piece of work.
I didn't comment because I didn't see anything about vandalizing the classroom. The offending photo was removed, according to the teacher, but there's no proof that the student was responsible, nor does removing it constitute vandalism.

So the administration "saw how unreasonable the teacher was" (despite the fact that the teacher was not the one who determined the punishment, the admins were) when LIberty Counsel got involved,

But when the ACLU steps in to defend a lesbian study who wants to take hr girlfriend to the prom, well that's blackmail or some other nefarious function of liberalism.

Your brain, your brain, think of your brain.

I'm sure that she does think of her brain, but not as often as you think of your other head, which really seems to be your only area of concern. What you fail to understand (well, in this case, anyway, since what you fail to understand across the board would fill the server and then some), is that being in the majority doesn't mean that you have no rights. A student who seeks to rub her school's collective nose in her sexual orientation by taking another girl to the prom solely to generate controversy, is demonstrating intolerance for the sensibilities of the majority. A teacher who uses his position in the classroom to impose his sexuality on his students and punishes them for speaking out about it is acting intolerantly towards the heterosexual majority. The fact is that in any democratic system the majority will determine what it is willing to accept as public behavior. Some of this is codified into law, while some of it is unwritten in the form of taboos, but either way, the majority has the right to dictate the norms of the culture. The minorities, be they religious, ethnic, cultural or sexual, have the right to expect to be free in those areas where their norms do not conflict with the majority's, but they do not have the right to dictate what the majority must accept. Thus, the teacher and the lesbian student can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes, but they cannot impose it on the general public and declare that it is the new standard. Tolerance is a two-way street, and if you aren't willing to respect the sensibilities of the majority, then they will soon get tired of having to deal with yours.

NJCardFan
09-28-2011, 06:48 PM
What this comes down to is that the teacher is gay. That much is obvious. And my guess is that the teacher knows that this student is Christian. Now, as stated in the article, the teacher, a German language teacher at that, likes to poke the stick in the dog cage, so to speak. I mean, putting a picture of 2 men kissing on the wall of his classroom. Knowing full well that it would embarrass a student like this. But that's OK to Nova I guess because as we all know, when it comes to gays, gays can do no wrong and everybody MUST kowtow to them or else, but I digress. This teacher obviously goes out of his way to push his agenda on his students, however, when one doesn't tow the line, he tries to get that student censored. There is nothing the student said that is wrong, obnoxious, or whatever, especially considering that this teacher is using his captive audience to push his agenda. This is the primrose path we are all on at this moment.

Odysseus
09-28-2011, 07:54 PM
Now now .....

Um, sure...

You're soaking in it, Madge.
And the Dennis Miller award for the most obscure reference in a desperate reach for a laugh goes to... Nova! Congratulations, Nova. Don't forget to thank the academy and all the little people.


No they didn't. They co-existed with man. Didn't you know? The same people who get their panties in a knot over gay equality tell us that this is the case, that the Bi-ble is one hunert percent akkirrit. And you keep telling me that that's the majority. Or it seems that way.

Ah, I see. People who believe in God must, therefore, be ignorant troglodytes who are incapable of thinking beyond scripture. For a guy who claims not to tolerate prejudice, you sure sling offensive and simplistic stereotypes with the best of them.


I knew you would come around. See, that didn't hurt a bit.

I'll bet you say that to all the boys.

I said that DADT repeal doesn't rise to the level of an extinction level event. I did say that it was catastrophic. If you consider that common ground, then perhaps you're the one who is coming around.


If there is such a reversal in our society, I doubt seriously that any ethnically Jewish person will be celebrating it.
Why do you think that I am careful not to go out of my way to piss off the majority? One of the things that people forget about Germany, Iran and many other states that went south into totalitarian bigotry, is that before the deluge, they were quite liberal and tolerant. Believe me, I don't want to see the pendulum go to the other extreme any more than you do, but aggravating the masses isn't the way to go about gaining tolerance.

What this comes down to is that the teacher is gay. That much is obvious. And my guess is that the teacher knows that this student is Christian. Now, as stated in the article, the teacher, a German language teacher at that, likes to poke the stick in the dog cage, so to speak. I mean, putting a picture of 2 men kissing on the wall of his classroom. Knowing full well that it would embarrass a student like this. But that's OK to Nova I guess because as we all know, when it comes to gays, gays can do no wrong and everybody MUST kowtow to them or else, but I digress. This teacher obviously goes out of his way to push his agenda on his students, however, when one doesn't tow the line, he tries to get that student censored. There is nothing the student said that is wrong, obnoxious, or whatever, especially considering that this teacher is using his captive audience to push his agenda. This is the primrose path we are all on at this moment.

No argument. The teacher is an ideologue. Ironically, the argument that allowed him into the classroom in the first place was that his private life shouldn't impact on how he does his job, but now he, and others like him, demand that their private lives become the focus of everything that they do, no matter how out of line it is. Those who predicted that gay teachers would use the classroom as a forum to normalize their sexual behavior were attacked as bigots by the likes of Nova, but they turned out to be right. Now, instead of demanding that the private remain private, they are demanding that the private be made public and embraced. The "love that dare not speak its name" is now the love that won't just shut up for one damned minute.

Tipsycatlover
09-30-2011, 05:02 PM
Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on the boy's behalf. The teacher has been placed on adminstrative leave.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=349765#ixzz1ZTCaJOMd

newshutr
09-30-2011, 05:05 PM
Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on the boy's behalf. The teacher has been placed on adminstrative leave.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=349765#ixzz1ZTCaJOMd

Fire the damn teacher and let him move in with Nova. They're made for each other.

Bailey
09-30-2011, 05:08 PM
Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on the boy's behalf. The teacher has been placed on adminstrative leave.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=349765#ixzz1ZTCaJOMd

Thank God no fag should be allowed to push his pro-gay agenda in the classroom.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 07:14 PM
Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on the boy's behalf. The teacher has been placed on adminstrative leave.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=349765#ixzz1ZTCaJOMd


Fire the damn teacher and let him move in with Nova. They're made for each other.


Thank God no fag should be allowed to push his pro-gay agenda in the classroom.

neener neener neener

Tammye Nash | Senior Editor
nash@dallasvoice.com

FORT WORTH — Gay Western Hills High School teacher Kristopher Franks, put on paid administrative leave on Monday, Sept. 26, following allegations of improper behavior, has been cleared of all allegations and was set to return to work today (Friday, Sept. 30).

newshutr
09-30-2011, 07:17 PM
neener neener neener

Tammye Nash | Senior Editor
nash@dallasvoice.com

FORT WORTH — Gay Western Hills High School teacher Kristopher Franks, put on paid administrative leave on Monday, Sept. 26, following allegations of improper behavior, has been cleared of all allegations and was set to return to work today (Friday, Sept. 30).

You're gloating over pushing gay agenda..


Oh, sorry...forgot what a freak you are..

NJCardFan
09-30-2011, 07:58 PM
neener neener neener

Tammye Nash | Senior Editor
nash@dallasvoice.com

FORT WORTH — Gay Western Hills High School teacher Kristopher Franks, put on paid administrative leave on Monday, Sept. 26, following allegations of improper behavior, has been cleared of all allegations and was set to return to work today (Friday, Sept. 30).

Yeah, nice. So apparently it's OK to hang pictures of men kissing in a German language class. See Nova, gays are like all other minority groups. It's not equal rights you're after. You want special rights. The term hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe it.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 08:20 PM
Yeah, nice. So apparently it's OK to hang pictures of men kissing in a German language class. See Nova, gays are like all other minority groups. It's not equal rights you're after. You want special rights. The term hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe it.

Mulefritters. Are you telling me that you would be surprised by some "April in Paris" photos in a French class? Of course not.

Inclusion is not infringement.
Inclusion is not infringement.
We can repeat this as often as necessary.

By the way, the teacher in question is both a German language and Sociology teacher, both of his subjects in his classroom.

Are you now going to maintain that Gay people or gay issues have no place in a Sociology classroom?

newshutr
09-30-2011, 08:24 PM
Mulefritters. Are you telling me that you would be surprised by some "April in Paris" photos in a French class? Of course not.

Inclusion is not infringement.
Inclusion is not infringement.
We can repeat this as often as necessary.

By the way, the teacher in question is both a German language and Sociology teacher, both of his subjects in his classroom.

Are you now going to maintain that Gay people or gay issues have no place in a Sociology classroom?

Gay people no. Gay issues, Yes.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 08:29 PM
Gay people no. Gay issues, Yes.

Definition of SOCIOLOGY

1
: the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings

newshutr
09-30-2011, 09:02 PM
Definition of SOCIOLOGY

1
: the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings

Yeah..big whoop.

No to teaching gay agendas in schools.

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 11:01 PM
Yeah, nice. So apparently it's OK to hang pictures of men kissing in a German language class. See Nova, gays are like all other minority groups. It's not equal rights you're after. You want special rights. The term hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe it.
No, he wants equality of result. In his world, there's no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, and anyone who sees a difference is a bigot and homophobe.


Mulefritters. Are you telling me that you would be surprised by some "April in Paris" photos in a French class? Of course not.
You really don't see any difference between two men kissing and a man and a woman kissing? Really?


Inclusion is not infringement.
Inclusion is not infringement.
Repetition is not persuasion.
Repetition is not persuasion.

We can repeat this as often as necessary.
No, you can't. You cannot repeat it often enough to convince anyone, without strapping them down and pulling a Clockwork Orange on them. The next best thing is having a captive audience that you can subject to harangues and images in order to indoctrinate them, which is what this teacher tried to do. But, and this is the critical thing that you're missing, the kids in that class are not his kids. Their minds don't belong to him, their feelings are not his to mold. Their parents didn't put them in his classroom in order for him to indoctrinate them, they put them there for him to teach them German. Do the kids in that class speak German fluently? No? Then he obviously isn't spending enough time on the task at hand, and needs to focus on what he's being paid to teach.


By the way, the teacher in question is both a German language and Sociology teacher, both of his subjects in his classroom.

Are you now going to maintain that Gay people or gay issues have no place in a Sociology classroom?
At the high school level? No. There is no reason to teach kids at that age about sexual behavior of any adults in the classroom. The biology of reproduction is appropriate for a science or health class.

Definition of SOCIOLOGY
1
: the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships; specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings
You are aware that there are aspects of society, social institutions, social relationships and the rest that have nothing to do with homosexuality, aren't you?

NJCardFan
10-01-2011, 08:10 PM
Mulefritters. Are you telling me that you would be surprised by some "April in Paris" photos in a French class? Of course not.

Inclusion is not infringement.
Inclusion is not infringement.
We can repeat this as often as necessary.

By the way, the teacher in question is both a German language and Sociology teacher, both of his subjects in his classroom.

Are you now going to maintain that Gay people or gay issues have no place in a Sociology classroom?

Um, in my French class, and Italian class as well we didn't have any pictures of anyone kissing anyone. We did, however, have plenty of pictures of the assorted historic sites in both countries. And don't be so obtuse, the teacher hung that picture to be an asshole plain and simple. But the again, to you, anything gay is a-OK. I guess you also believe that NAMBLA has a point.

NJCardFan
10-01-2011, 08:21 PM
You are aware that there are aspects of society, social institutions, social relationships and the rest that have nothing to do with homosexuality, aren't you?

No, he doesn't. To Nova, it's tunnel vision when it comes to homosexuality. To him, sociology and homosexuality should go hand in hand with a music class that only discusses rap.

Odysseus
10-01-2011, 10:03 PM
Um, in my French class, and Italian class as well we didn't have any pictures of anyone kissing anyone. We did, however, have plenty of pictures of the assorted historic sites in both countries. And don't be so obtuse, the teacher hung that picture to be an asshole plain and simple. But the again, to you, anything gay is a-OK. I guess you also believe that NAMBLA has a point.

In that case, imagine would the German wall would look like :D:

http://www.wilderspin.net/School%20stuff/History/WW2/NaziCollage.jpg