Anti-gay, okay. Pro-gay, no way
ACLU Sues Missouri High School for Censoring Gay Student
16-year-old Brad Mathewson has been punished twice for wearing shirts with a pro-gay message. Anti-gay messages are allowed at the school.
Mathewson was disciplined twice in October by Webb City High School officials for wearing t-shirts supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and was later suspended after school officials refused to meet with his mother without the Mathewsons� attorney present. Although Mathewson had worn one of the shirts to school at least six times before without incident, Principal Stephen P. Gollhofer now claims he was concerned the t-shirts might offend other students. Students with opposing beliefs on the same issues are allowed to express their views, as anti-gay t-shirts and bumperstickers are common in the hallways at Webb City High School.
One of the offending t-shirts featured a gay-straight alliance club motto and the other had a rainbow with the caption “I’m gay and I’m proud”.
Webb City High School�s dress code reads, in part: “Dress and appearance must not present health or safety hazards, be indecent, disruptive, distracting, or inappropriate for the classroom.” School officials have yet to offer any evidence of Mathewson having violated any part of the policy.
Mathewson was told the t-shirts were fabrica non-grata because somebody might be offended by them. His concerns about anti-gay t-shirts and bumper stickers were not addressed.
If the school is genuinely concerned that discourse about homosexuality is disruptive and distracting then they need to eliminate the anti-gay messages as well as the pro-gay ones. As it is they have actively censored the minority opinion and tacitly approved the majority one.
(Tip credit to Jason Kimble)
Unfortunately I can’t take this news item on face value, because the link is to what is essentially a PRESS RELEASE by the ACLU.
The piece claims that “anti-gay” t-shirts and stickers were permitted at the school. I found this extremely difficult to believe at a public high school (even in darkest red state America), and sure enough, a few paragraphs later, the story says that in fact the student pointed out the presence of “anti-gay marriage” stickers (suddenly t-shirts disappear from the accusation, which I suspect was an ACLU exaggeration from the start).
Some extremist gay-rights proponents and the ACLU would LIKE to say that supporting traditional marriage and being anti-gay is the same thing. John Kerry and most of the Democrats in Congress disagree.
Note that the “article” does not state the actual text of these “anti-gay” stickers. I suspect they probably said “Bush for President,” a sentiment I’m sure the ACLU believes is “anti-gay.”
If you read actual news items on this, it’s clear that the principal felt the t-shirt was putting the student in danger–that he was very likely to get a punch in the nose from some neanderthal classmate–a punch for which the SCHOOL would be liable.
Would the ACLU support a kid’s right to wear a KKK t-shirt to a predominantly black school? Or would they consider that shirt inflammatory, and for the wearer’s own safety advise him to remove it? It doesn’t matter what the text of a t-shirt says, it matters if, in that school on that day, that text will put the wearer of that shirt in danger.
One last point–the ruling the ACLU piece refers to, Tinker v. Des Moines essentially said that kids should be allowed to wear whatever they want to school. That ruling has been over-ruled by nearly every court in the land since then. Court after court has ruled that of course schools CERTAINLY have a right to tell students what they may or may not wear, if it will disrupt the classroom or endanger students.
Bottom line: I think the kid’s intentionally trying to cause trouble here, and I’d say the school did the prudent thing, though also I’d say it might also be time for some voluntary school assemblies on tolerance.
What exactly are these “anti-gay t-shirts and bumperstickers” that are supposedly common at the school? The ACLU says little about them, which is not surprising. The only reference I can see is about “anti-gay marriage stickers.” That’s quite the phrase. Makes it seem as if the stickers are against gays instead of against gay marriage. There *is* a difference. In fact, many people who have no problem with homosexuality are against gay marriage.
Personally, if the ACLU really wants this student to be able to wear his t-shirts, then I hope they will have no problem with “Straight and Proud” t-shirts or t-shirts with biblical verses.
Chris:
The ACLU takes up many cases where they disagree with the message being sent. When college Republicans held their “affirmative action” bake sale on one college campus, the ACLU stopped by to make sure nobody was hassling them. And yes, the ACLU would certianly defend the student’s right to wear a shirt with biblical verses. Before buying into urban legends such as the ACLU is against personal expression of religion, please do your research.
Also, isn’t opposing gay marriage the same basic thing as being “anti-gay?” If you opposed heterosexual marriage, that certianly would be “anti-straight” in my mind. Regardless, having anti-gay marriage shirts would be at least as politically charged as a shirt that says “I am gay and I’m proud.”
As for your KKK shirt statement, you are using a straw man arguement, the analogy doesn’t work. The KKK is known as a violent group. Homosexuals, by contrast, are generally pretty pacifist. An “I’m gay” shirt is no more offensive than an “I’m straight” shirt. Neither shirt is implying hatred to anybody else, and would have no reason to start a fight.
As noted in the article, the kid has worn that shirt many other times without a problem from anybody, so there was obviously no danger to the student.
A shirt proclaiming “I’m Straight and Proud of It” would probably be considering threatening just as a “I’m White and Proud of It” would be. What the Minority can claim as expression is deemed repression when by the majority.
Jack wrote: “Also, isn’t opposing gay marriage the same basic thing as being “anti-gay?”
Not at all, and you reveal your own person extremism by suggesting that it is. And, as I said, John Kerry, who supports gay rights but opposes gay marriage, disagrees with you as well.
“As for your KKK shirt statement, you are using a straw man arguement, the analogy doesn’t work. The KKK is known as a violent group. Homosexuals, by contrast, are generally pretty pacifist. An “I’m gay” shirt is no more offensive than an “I’m straight” shirt. Neither shirt is implying hatred to anybody else, and would have no reason to start a fight.”
I admit the analogy is a little forced, but I was trying to make a point about about provocation and “fighting words.” They can be in the eye of the beholder, and are different in different situations. If I stand in an open field and yell “Fire!” I am not creating a dangerous situation. If I do the same thing in a crowded theater, I am. You cannot remove the action from the context. If the student wore the shirt to a gay pride parade, I would wholeheartedly support his right to wear it. When he wears it to a school–where, he has previously been warned NOT to wear such items and where, as he himself pointed out to school officials, conservative messages of some sort (I still doubt the existence of actual “anti-gay” messages) were apparently permitted, then it strikes me as a case where the student is LOOKING for a confrontation.
I acknowledge, Jack, that as placid a message as “I’m gay and I’m proud” should not be seen a provocative. It wish it were the case that all high school students everywhere were open-minded and tolerant. But high school principals have to deal with the realities on the ground, not a wishful-thinking world of what ought to be. (And, as I said in my previous post, this school does strike me as badly in need of some voluntary assemblies on the issue of tolerance.)
My main problem with this item being included on this site is that the whole point of the site–as I understood it–is to encourage school administrators to use their judgment, and not simply blindly follow regulations. In this case, I see an administrator doing just that and heading off a potential problem. I think this site ought to be applauding the principal.
Chris, you point out that the message has to be taken in the situational context. The “I’m gay and proud” t-shirt could be offensive to some students. By the same token a “ban gay marriage” sticker is most definitely offensive to most homosexuals.
The school banned the former and allows the later and that is why this story is on this site.
On a personal note I disagree with banning items that might offend people. I generally disagree with banning items that definitely offend people. Hiding the message is an attempt to hide the messenger, to put off an issue and avoid it. I think the school would have been much better off if they had dealt with the obvious friction within the scholastic body. It would have been more difficult in the short term but they’re going to have to do it eventually in any case.
Maybe this isn’t the right place for this debate, but, to quote a cliche, “Some of my best friends are gay.” Even so, I’m against same-sex marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and shouldn’t be recognized by the government at all. The gov’t should recognize civil unions, leave marriage to the religions, and let gays have civil unions, with all the rights implied. This is how being anti-gay-marriage is not at all anti-gay, and people who think such are not thinking too hard.
(Note: “on-topic” talk below…)
> Marriage is a religious institution, and shouldn’t
> be recognized by the government at all.
I’m not certain I agree with the “marriage is a religious institution” part. (It’s recognized by the government because you need something that can be officially recognized as such. Why require a couple that gets married in a church to also go down to the courthouse and have a second, civil, ceremony?)
But, even if it is a “religious institution”, it’s not limited to one particular religion. Just because one person’s religious beliefs say that gay marriage is “wrong”, doesn’t mean that someone else’s religious beliefs can’t see it as “not wrong”.
Yes, the government has no business in telling you what constitutes “marriage” from a religious standpoint. (ie: not recognizing it because the ceremony didn’t take place in a church, or because one person was divorced.) That’s why you need a separate piece of paper (though not a separate ceremony) for the government to recognize that you are “married”.
Those who say “marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman” go directly against the separation of Church and State in the U.S. If your religious group doesn’t want to recognize a gay couple as being “married”, and keep them out of your religious ceremonies, I have no problem with that. Just don’t try to tell them that they cannot get the benefits offered by the (secular) government to married couples.
Now, getting back to the original post…
While I agree that the lack of actual quotes for the permitted “anti-gay messages” is of concern (what, exactly, are these “anti-gay messages” that are allowed?), I also don’t think that “someone might be offended” is a very good reason to censor a simple “I’m gay and I’m proud” message. If it actually did cause disruptions to classes, that would be different. (Though, even then, I’m not sure how I would handle it. If someone started getting harrassed because they wore green, would you suspend that person, or the ones who “were offended” by the color green?)
P.S. No, I’m not gay. (Not that that should matter.) I just don’t see how gay marriages will someone “destroy the institution of marriage”.
This thread isnt about gay marriage. Homophobes are trying to make it about that. [expletive deleted]
who cares? if someone wants to wear a shirt, then let them be clothed…..why does it matter what it says be it pro or anti gay?
WTF….
So its ok to wear shirts that bash gays… but its not ok to wear shirts to support them???
EXCUSE ME????
I’d have to say Anti-gay shirts are WAY more offensive than pro-gay…
How can someone say that “I’m gay and I’m proud” is more offensive than something that bashes gays… someone saying their proud is completely different than someone that Hates their guts…
This school should get the fuk sued out of them!
This is simply another Black vs White problem… these days its considered eqaul between blacks and whites… even though the KKK is still around…
Just because its different doesn’t mean its wrong… and I dont give a FUK what your religion says… it doens’t give you the right to pass laws and suppress someone elses freedom! >_>
I hate when gay people say that they are christian. In the Bible it says that Man and woman are meant to be together, not same sex. If you are gay, shall the wrath of hell fall upon you!!
How very tolerant and supportive of you. A fine example of Christian values, to be sure.
I am a bit confused though. It was my understanding that the whole “wrath” deal was the province of the guy upstairs. Since when is hell wrathful?
Marriage is not about race, religion, physical ability, or belief. Did anyone ever think that maybe marriage is about love? Who the hell are you to tell someone who they love or dont love. If gay people arent coming into your house and raping your children and your spouse, leave it [edit] alone. Its never going to change. Gay culture is growing, and it will never ever stop. You are seriously wasting your time. Plus it makes you look very uneducated and very idiotic. By the way, I am a straight man. Oh yeah, I am also 17. You bigots disgust me.
It says in the Bible about how Homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Being homosexual IS NOT NORMAl. What would happen if all the guys in the world married guys? You think there would be any kids in this world. There is a reason why God made a man with a happy stick and a girl with that other thingy. It fits perfect. You wonder why it doesn’t work with a guy and guy. MAYBE BECAUSE ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO FIT! Its being more excepted today just like anti-governement people, who would of been hung in the day. If you don’t like our government, than go to Iraq for a month. You just might come back with your mouth shut like it should be and apriciate the government you have now. I feel sorry for you people, when you start falling down to hell and you look back and see how if only you THOUGHT about it you would of not screwed up. Man and Woman, God made us this way for a reason. THINK ABOUT IT. I’m all for rights. But there is a fine line when stupidity takes over and it did a long time ago.
It is precisely because I do love this country and because I do approve of our government that I take exception to a political body like a school system abrogating civil rights that are spelled out very clearly in our Constitution. You remember that document, right? The one that forms the base for our government?
You have obviously confused politics for government. Even worse, you’ve confused religion for politics.
As to the mention of Separation of Church & State, to find out what that REALLY means check out Thomas Jefferson’s original letter written January 1, 1802. It was written to the Danbury Baptist Association. The group was concerned that one particular Christian Denomination was going to be chosen as the National Religion & that it would be the CHOSEN form of Christianity in America. Thomas Jefferson wrote back that Christianity was to be allowed to flourish & influence society without Government hindrance. He wrote that there would be essentially a “Wall of Separation” between Church & State so that the Church could exist, flourish & influence Society without Govermental Control. Basically, he meant that statement to PROTECT RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION not to eliminate it! No where in the founding documents will the words “Separation of Church & State” be found because the colonists LEFT England to seek FREEDOM to live out their Faith without fear of the Government prohibiting their Religious Expression!
A misinformed judge in the 1940’s sadly took the words “Separation of Church & State” from Thomas Jefferson’s personal letter & WRONGLY applied them to our National Policy! And the rest is History based on one man’s misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s personal letter that was never intended to take away the Rights of Americans to publicly express their Faith or hinder their Values from shaping Society!
Up until 1962, prayer was in the Public School. In 1963, the Bible was removed from Public School. If one considers the moral decline in America since those decisions were made one short Generation ago, we must see that this is NOT the way the Founding Fathers meant it to be! There are actaully historical records that indicate that the FIRST textbooks purchased by the GOVERNMENT for the then fledging Public School System were BIBLES!!!
So how does this lengthy discussion apply to the comments listed above? Biblical Perspectives are meant to be shared in Society to help encourage a loving culture. Out of love for us, God shares guidelines to help us lead peaceful & productive lives. With the Bible we simply believe that GOD SAID IT, WE BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT! The Scriptures tell us that we shall know the TRUTH & the Truth shall set us FREE. JESUS is that Truth & it is our job as Christians to convey that Truth in a Loving Way so that EVERYONE is at least given the opportunity to accept that Truth as our Loving Lord intended it to be shared. Jesus intends for ALL people to be offered the LIFE-CHANGING Gift of Salvation. However, it is a CHOICE we each must make & we must realize that there is MUCH AT STAKE! Jesus wants NO ONE to spend eternity apart from HIM, yet out of LOVE gives each person to accept or reject HIS FREE GIFT!
Many comments discuss tolerance, yet that tolerance is only applied to one side of the equation. When one section of society wants preferential treatment, that is NOT EQUALITY! One does NOT need to PUT DOWN one section of society to LIFT UP another. IF we all spent more time truly loving JESUS & lifting up HIS NAME, I truly believe our American Culture would NEVER be the same! Tolerance is sometimes gently agreeing to disagree while trying to keep communication lines open so that THE TRUTH can set us ALL free!!!