Local High Schools Participating in GLSEN Event

GLSEN (the gay, lesbian and straight education network) is planning a “National Day of Silence” in our public schools on April 26.    This group has established a presence in various schools ostensibly to advocate against bullying and harassment of “gay” students.

GLSEN advises that this observance will be held at the following Guilford County public high schools: Eastern Guilford, Greensboro Middle College, Grimsley, Northwest, Page, Southwest, the Early College at Guilford, Weaver Academy, and Western.  In addition, the group lists  Southwest Guilford Middle School.

There are several problems with the approaches taken by GLSEN.  First, stigmatizing the “harassment” of gays would have the effect of creating policies against verbally expressed moral objections to homosexual behavior.  It would create a speech code that should not be broken-- effectively silencing certain community members on these matters.  Conscientious objectors to this type of policy become targeted when they express moral objections.

Second, it furthers the cultural normalization of homosexuality. 

Third, it presumes that all of the high school students regarded as gay or lesbian have a fixed, immutable gay sexual identity. This is simply untrue.

An alternative observance is being proposed-- a “National Day of Truth”-- on April 27.   

Concerned parents of students in these schools should do several things.  They should speak with the principal; and contact the county school system and/or their school board member. 

School policy should dictate that everyone be treated with respect, but that students’ legitimate free speech rights should not be infringed upon.  In addition, it should be clear that homosexuals do not need to be singled out for protection if a broad policy protecting everyone from bullying is enforced.

This pendulum should be swung back toward the middle.

Comments

[Brenda Bowers]

Joe, I have always believed that homosexuality was not “chosen”, but is a natural part of that individual. In other words they are born with their sexual preferences. This of course is now being proven as we learn more about genetics. It is thought to be a genetic/hormonal combination. HOWEVER, I agree with you that our schools can not be used as a bully pulpit for this group. And freedom of speech must be preserved at all costs. Especially with our impressionable youth. You know, Europe is so inundated with Laws concerning things that can not be said, and it all started with prohibiting anyone from denying the Holocaust. Then of course every group had their own sacred cow to add. I am not a parent, but I am going to e-mail Grier. This has to be stopped!

[Roch101]

Brenda wrote: "This has to be stopped!"

Before you send that email to Grier, I trust you will inform yourself about what it is exactly you are objecting to:

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1920.html

[Joe Guarino]

Brenda and Roch, I appreciate your comments.

Brenda, I had posted previously regarding the incomplete nature of the evidence suggesting that sexual preference is exclusively genetic. It appears there may be some mix of genetic predisposititions and environmental influences.

Roch, thanks for the link you provided. It indicates that sexual identity is among the top three reasons students are harassed. This is, of course, an implicit admission that students are harassed because of other factors as well. Why not have a generic policy that precludes bullying and mistreatment of others, regardless of personal characteristics? It appears to me there may be a political edge to this observance.

[jw]

It seems to me that your concern is that the day of silence may result in the silencing of students whose opinion may be more in keeping with what you believe.

Except for hate speech, all students' should be able to express their feelings opening and safely.

Gay bashing is hate speech.

[Roch101]

Joe, you'll have to explain you suspicions of a "political edge" for me to understand what you mean. I didn't read the whole site, so maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything political.

Why not have a generic policy against bullying? I suspect most schools do. But these aren't two mutually exclusive things: a consciousness raising of bullying against gays and lesbians or a policy against all bullying.

If gays and lesbians experience bullying in school, then the policies aren't working.

I don't know what the other two groups are that constitute the groups most subjected to bullying, but would you object if there were, say, a day to raise awareness about harassment of handicapped students, minority students or girls?

[Joe Guarino]

JW, one person's "gay bashing" or "hate speech", depending upon personal interpretation, can be another person's principled objection to the recalibration of societal norms. My feeling is that those terms can be quite unhelpful, with inflammatory language used to quell reasoned discourse.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, an atmosphere needs to created within schools in which bullying of students-- of anyone, for any reason-- is unthinkable. I do not see the need to establish specially protected groups, because bullying is problematic no matter whom it affects. A student needs to be able to feel safe in the school environment, and that there is a community of adults who will enforce generally accepted ground rules.

We need to remain mindful that we have a school system that is not uniformly successful at creating a safe environment even for teachers and administrators-- let alone for students who are preyed upon by other kids for various reasons. I am not suggesting that we have a "Day of Silence" for teachers and administrators. But the fact that only this one group is singled out for protection-- among the varied groups and individuals that can be victimized in the schools-- suggests to me a policy created by political advocacy.

[jw]

Some language cannot be defended, no matter how "principled" the person may think they are.

[Chip Atkinson]

Joe- thank you for this post. I think the real danger here is characterizing a person's moral view of sex as hate speech. Matt Comer calls himself a queer. Some homosexuals call themselves fags and dikes. There is no question verbal abuse is wrong, but this about much more than kids calling each other names.

If a person has no choice over his or her's sexuality, in what way is this determined. Roch and Brenda think desire determines a person's sexuality. Roch has said because has never desired a man sexually, he has no choice but to remain heterosexual.

Another problem with singling out homosexuality is ignoring the immorality of all forms of sex outside the bounds of marraige. More and more we are seeing kids call themselves whores and worse.

[Joe Guarino]

Thank you, Chip. You make some good points, and I agree.

JW,I agree with you that some language cannot be defended. The question is who gets to choose what type of language is regarded as impermissible. There's the rub.

[JK]

I know a few guys who will tell you we should be battling the cultural normalization of interracial relationships and that calling a white high school girl with a black boyfriend a "nigger lover" is their way of exercising their free speech rights and objecting to the "recalibration of societal norms" (after all...how the hell did we get to a place in this country where white girls are going around with black guys...? Wasn't that way 60 years ago...)

I know them but I don't want to have lunch with any of them.

And I'm certainly not going to ally myself with people using the same logic to justify their narrow, religious objection to homosexuality. Being on the wrong end of this argument is certainly not anything I want to have to explain to my grandchildren the way many people (particularly in the South) have had to shame-facedly own up to their own small-mindedness before, during and even after the Civil Rights movement.

There are many things in the society worth preserving and protecting. The right of high school kids to use the language targeted here to harass their schoolmates about their private lives doesn't begin to pass muster.

[Joe Guarino]

JK, some African-Americans have been among the most passionate in refusing to allow others to draw equivalency between race and sexual preference. Two different issues, apples and oranges.

The problem is what type of speech is being proscribed. Some is objectionable, designed to hurt others. Other speech is a sincere disagreement on moral grounds.

In my opinion, being on the wrong side of history involves teaching certain messages regarding moral equivalency that lead to a life of multiple partner sexuality-- with all its adverse impacts-- and HIV transmission. That is a tragedy, and eminently avoidable.

[Roch101]

"But the fact that only this one group is singled out for protection-- among the varied groups and individuals that can be victimized in the schools-- suggests to me a policy created by political advocacy."

But Joe, as far as I can tell one group isn't being singled out for protection. A group that is victimized by bullying is seeking to raise awarness about an unacceptable behavior towards them. Nobody seems to be asking for special protection, just equal protection.

[Roch101]

"Roch and Brenda think desire determines a person's sexuality. Roch has said because has never desired a man sexually, he has no choice but to remain heterosexual."

Chip, I know you are not an idiot, but you sure write some stupid things sometimes. I don't know if in this case you are chosing to misprepresent what I've written about this or if it went completely over your head the first time.

Quite contrary to what you wrote, I think a person's sexuality determines their desires and I don't desire men because I'm heterosexual. Next time you use someone's ideas as an example, perhaps you'll be more carefull to make sure that you represent them accurately.

[Roch101]

"JK, some African-Americans have been among the most passionate in refusing to allow others to draw equivalency between race and sexual preference. Two different issues, apples and oranges."

So says you Joe. For some people who are neither black nor gay, the underlying belief that has them reject bigotry towards either is a single principle.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, with respect to the issue of special protection vs. equal protection-- sorry, but I do not see organized efforts to protect students who may be ridiculed or bullied because they are small, weak, obese, studious, unattractive, regarded as geeky or nerdy, wear glasses, wear braces, refuse to party with alcohol or drugs, lack social skills, etc. These particular groups have not been singled out for special protection, although they may, at times, need help against fellow students. Recall the high school students that began shooting others in school because they were made to feel different, to feel excluded-- and race or sexual preference had nothing to do with it.

When one person's conception of bigotry is another person's sincerely held belief, there is an enormous potential for teachers and administrators to overshoot in enforcing speech codes, and to have a chilling effect on free speech unnecessarily.

Ideally, we should refrain from labelling high school students as homosexual, or accepting uncritically this type of self-identification-- as these students should be postponing sexual activity anyway. Early sexual activity is a predictor for various negative outcomes, and it should be discouraged.

[Joel Gillespie]

Joe,

I was anxious to get home tonight to make the points you just made about equal opportunity bullying - but American Idol at a friend's had to come first! This issue is very close to home for me. Having had now four kids at one of the schools in question it concerns me and has concerned me very much as a parent. Because this is state supported school, this special day of silence is thus, implicitly, government or state induced or controlled speech, or non speech, which is a form of speech; it is government controlled stifling of speech. I hope very much that all the people who object to such stifling of free speech, even homosexuals, will protest by making noise all day. It is the most perfect sort of thing to protest. It IS chilling that we would condone the existence of such a day. I have always encouraged my children to verbally and loudly object all day both to the idea of this event, and to express their moral objections to homosexuality, not that I think that they should necessarily feel compelled to do the latter normally, but to make the point that they are free to do so and that doing so is most certainly not hate speech. What they do is up to them but that is my advice.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Joel. Your comments have particular standing because you have had your teenage children in our public high schools. It is unfortunate that the ethical sensibilities of certain groups of parents and students must be violated in order to appease other groups.

[Jim Caserta]

JW, one person's "gay bashing" or "hate speech", depending upon personal interpretation, can be another person's principled objection to the recalibration of societal norms. My feeling is that those terms can be quite unhelpful, with inflammatory language used to quell reasoned discourse.

Are you kidding? Do you have one example of "reasoned discourse" being "quell"ed as "hate speech"?

Are you equating the amount of bullying of a homosexual student with the amount of bullying someone gets for wearing braces? Have you ever heard of someone being killed because they wore braces?

As for "choice", check out this story - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?ex=1278216000&en=5a82f18cadf2ad83&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss There are measurable physiological signs of arousal - besides the obvious, which would tell you if you are gay or not.

For the people posting that have "moral objections to homosexuality," how do you treat homosexuals that you know or come into contact with?

[Jim Caserta]

Try google - it's cool:
http://kidshealth.org/research/bullying_overweight.html

[Lex]

[[First, stigmatizing the “harassment” of gays would have the effect of creating policies against verbally expressed moral objections to homosexual behavior.]]

I don't think anyone's arguing against objections to homosexual *behavior* in public schools. I don't want kids in schools engaging in sexual behavior of any kind, homo- hetero- or whatever. This is more about the way children allowed to behave toward one another in a government-sponsored setting -- i.e., one that must be respectful of ALL religions. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see it as simply putting some muscle behind the notion that if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything at all, in a setting in which kids are still learning about the rights and responsibilities associated with free speech.

[[I do not see organized efforts to protect students who may be ridiculed or bullied because they are small, weak, obese, studious, unattractive, regarded as geeky or nerdy, wear glasses, wear braces, refuse to party with alcohol or drugs, lack social skills, etc.]]

At my daughter's elementary school, there is a well-publicized, strictly enforced zero-tolerance policy against bullying of ANY kind, including verbal abuse of whatever variety, including against the small, weak, obese, etc.

[Joe Guarino]

Lex, I am glad to hear of the measures at your daughter's elementary school. It would be great if it was enforced system-wide. But its existence should theoretically obviate the need for specific policies or observances on behalf of students labelled as homosexual.

Your statement regarding "if you can't say anything nice" is generally a good guideline. Conscience, however, sometimes dictates that we speak up when we see something that is not right. And it is almost inescapable that when you establish a protected group, and the attribute that defines that group is associated with certain behaviors, there is implied acceptance of those behaviors.

[Joe Guarino]

Jim, I appreciate your comments.

You asked for an example of reasoned discourse being called hate speech. Some of the previous comments might be examples. But the initial communication that made me aware of this situation contained other examples-- www.called2actrion.org/ViewAlert.php?id=91. Also, there have been examples in the corporate world in this country where stated disagreement with gay-friendly policies resulted in punitive action.

There is no question that kids can be very cruel to each other for various reasons-- not just perceived homosexuality.

With respect to your NYTimes link, I would like to refer you to two articles that I have posted about in the past-- one by Professor R.V. Young at NC State; and the other by Nathaniel Lehrman,M.D. They can be accessed at www.guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2005/12/north_carolina__.html.

[Jim Caserta]

I would side with Owens in the Canadian case, and the only mention of America was about someone protecting against a potential problem. The link provided no evidence of "moral objections" being considered "hate speech" in the US.

There is a big difference between bullying and written speech. I would not limit any written speech based on a designation of "hateful." I would encourage rational discourse between both sides in this argument. But there is a lot of homophobia and hatred towards gays in this country and around the world. I think acknowledging that and working to combat the hate is a good thing.

link to your old posts is broken.

[Jim Caserta]

'"Severe condemnation of any deviation from procreative sexuality seems... to have been in force in the ancient world only among the Hebrews, but it was incorporated into both the morality and the law of the Christian society emerging at the end of classical antiquity and became the standard view of the Western World...'

This would condemn contraception.

Plus, this author is a professor in English, I thought we were talking science.

[Jim Caserta]

I'm reading the MD's article, but would you argue for homosexuality to be reincluded in the DSM's list of mental illnesses?

"it says nothing about the unique nature of those needs or the promiscuous, disease-spreading behavior patterns that aggravate them."

Both homsexual and heterosexual promiscuoity are disease-spreading and cause many other problems too.

As for the journal:
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html

There are examples of men who were married for 10-20 years and then "come out" as gay. Does that mean their orientation changed, or that they just admitted what they had felt for a long time? Just because someone engages in hetero or homo behavior does not mean they are oriented that way.

[Matt Hill Comer]

TO Chip, Joe and other readers: NEVER have I idenitified myself as a "queer". I have only identified myself as a gay man. I personally do not recognize myself as queer or as a fag, although some (misguided) LGBT people do. There is a recognizable difference, however, between using those words for positive self-identification and another person using those words with intended malice or harm. If you cannot recognize the difference there then I don't know what I can do to help you.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Also to Joe... about the high school shootings. A great many of the shooters (including Columbine and others) were victims of anti-gay harassment from their peers. Although the shooters may not have been gay, anti-gay harassment certainly did have a role in their shaping the mental psyches which led to them becoming the aggressors.

[Joe Guarino]

Matt, I appreciate your clarification; and for the record, I am not in favor of students harassing any other student in the school setting, for any reason.

[Matt Hill Comer]

It is good to hear that you stand against harassment. I just don't understand why you wouldn't be in support of putting the actual term "sexual orientation" into the policies. You know as well as I that many people in North Carolina do not consider harassment or discrimination against gay people to be real harassment or discrimination. Putting the term sexual orientation into the policy for all to see would silence any question as whether or not harassing a gay student is wrong or not.

Also let me say for the record: I don't care what people believe. People are free to believe whatever they want to, but just because some one "strongly believes" or has a "strong conviction" that homosexuality is wrong does not mean that they ever have the right to throw their beliefs in hateful and disrespectful ways in the faces of gay students. I think we can all agree that open dialogue and respectful, considerate debate is good and should be a centerpiece in our schools. I think we could all also agree that disrespectful, mean-spirited and hateful langauge does not belong. If two students (one gay, one straight) want to have a thoughtful and considerate debate on the merits of homosexuality and the Church, then so be it. What does not need to be tolerated, however, are situations which turn into a "You are gay, you are going to hell, God does not love you, you are worthless" speech railing against a gay student. Students, all students, need to be taught respect and all students need to realize fully that that includes LGBT students, whether you agree with who they are or not.

[Joe Guarino]

Jim- I agree that the Young excerpt you quoted would tend to speak against contraception. In fact, contraception has created a great many problems-- but that really is another post.

Young argues against arbitrary categorizations based on the object of sexual desire, and labelling folks in this manner. I thought his article was powerful. And yes, it was based on his knowledge of history and language, not science. Science was not his purpose.

You are correct that heterosexuals also can transmit STD's. However, the higher prevalence of multiple partner sexuality among homosexual males, and the higher efficiency of anal sex in the transmission of HIV, suggest it is a humanistic error to suggest that this cultural trend is not without consequence. Indeed, it would be a failure of compassion to ignore it. The CDC has expressed concern regarding the higher rates of multiple partner sexuality in this population since the advent of successful multiple drug regimens to treat HIV.

Before I trained, homosexuality was listed as a pathologic entity in the DSM. When I was in medical school, my recollection is that it was listed, but was only considered pathologic if it was "ego-dystonic"-- i.e., if the person was unhappy with his (or her) state. Now, of course, it has changed once again. The fact that this has gone through so many transmogrifications arouses concern regarding how the issue was politicized.

The fact is that we are establishing somewhat arbitrary criteria for what constitutes medical pathology, and I am a bit uncomfortable with it. The object of sexual arousal, it seems to me, defies medical classification. It is an issue in other spheres. I am enormously persuaded by Young on this matter.

But Lehrman's work is valuable because it highlights the incomplete nature of the evidence on the genetic basis for homosexuality. This has been represented as established fact for a decade or more, but is fact the evidence is equivocal.

And yes, folks do migrate to and from homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles. This, to me, supports the premise that a putative genetic link is not dispositive, and does not act in an all-or-nothing fashion.

[Joel Gillespie]

Matt,

You have just proved the point as to why such legislation would be really ridiculous. You are already drawing out the fine distinctions of speech that will have to be made which make this task so impossible. I can already see the lawmakers and judges with the 300,000 possible combinations of words that could be said, tones of voice in which they could be said, and maybe video clips of body language and verious gestures that could do along with the words and the tone. If someone wants to tell me (or my daughter) "you are a Christian and you are going to hell" that's their business, and I or my daughter needs to buck up. So do homosexuals. If someone wants to tell me or my daughter that they are going to kill me (or them) after school, then that goes to the police. What does have to be distinguished is speech which is not nice or which is rude, from speech which is threatening. OK, yes, even that will take some work, but that is where the work has to go. Suddenly I am having visions of that awful movie Demolition Man. So, when are these kids going to learn to deal with mean people? Or are we just going to gradually outlaw unkindness everywhere? Ha. I think a lot of bloggers will have to go to jail! On a side note I miss the good old days when minor violence was tolerated, when the bullies got theirs, when the sense of hoplessness didn't build up to the point of murder, when the principals heard that bully Bob was getting his butt kicked by supposed nerd Jimmy and he sort of ambled over not in great haste, and Jimmy didn't go to jail, as Jimmy would do today. But that's a different issue. I think we empower bullies too much by disallowing and criminalizing the old fashioned ways of dealing with them.

[Joe Guarino]

Matt, I appreciate your providing an illustration of the manner in which the issue of preventing harassment can be transformed into something different than what might otherwise be represented.

[Brenda Bowers]

Joe, Joel and Lex, I agree entirely with your comments so will only say that as an educator (5 years in elementary school) I did not tolerate bullying of any kind and was able to teach my students about kindness and understanding. Even children from the age of 5 or 6 KNOW when they are being mean, they don’t have to be told what is and isn’t kind actions or speech. As for being homophobic: NOT ME. I have always believed as I stated above that homosexuality was a natural (genetic) trait for some people. And the finest MAN I have ever known in my life is a homosexual. He saved my life at a time when I no longer wanted to live.
But people, we must not ever start down that slippery slope of limiting freedom of speech. Never.