New York Open Gay Public High School
- Thread starter static76
- Start date
I promise ... if ever my opinion is that simple ... well, I'll keep it shorter then
At any rate, recap of influential vagaries:
- At Catholic school, we were subject to yearly retreats to get closer to God. Some of these were morbidly hilarious, including the day fifty sophomores sat around talking about cliques and making an effort to eat their lunch with someone new next week. Not a particularly direct point, but more a suggestion of motif.
- At a reputedly liberal university (U of Oregon, home of Nat'l Lampoon's Animal House, saw the occasional professorship of Mr. Ken Kesey, and what a ferocious left wing!) I was shocked when certain segregations entered dorm life. I understand cultural segregation when language is a barrier, but from the elitist Singaporean Chinese° (1% of campus population) to the blacks to the gays, the lesbians, the boys, the girls ... the only "rainbow" was composed of cloistered and dedicated potheads in various groups according to such criterion as Grateful Dead or Spin Doctors ....
- During the Clinton administration, of all times, although also during the Republican Revolution, attention was given to minority segments advocating a return to segregation
- Many have heard me rant about Oregon in the 1990s; no need to revisit that chapter here.
- A new divisiveness ripples coldly through my surroundings under the auspices of the war on terror.
None of these influences has brought back full-blown segregation, but the simple fact is that any institutional segregation bothers me. In one sense, we might look to a complaint in the 1980s and early 1990s; American education was imperiled, said the critics, and quite often rightly, because we were tailoring school standards to equalize by accommodating the bottom end of the curve. There was no striving to bring that bottom end up to a higher par.
And that's kind of what bugs me about the modern whispers and rumors of "return to segregation"; it seems to me that we're lowering the standard. It's too hard to figure out, so we'll give the bigots their stomping ground and go off over here ....
In the short term, like I said, this seems a good idea. Properly managed ideologically, the near future might point toward the self-evident fact that people who are allowed to feel normal perform better than those who are expected to feel alienated or ostracized.
And from that is a difficult long-term potential. It's a challenge in the modern day to hope for anything on such a scale; a dangerous comparison here would be to point toward HIV and gay men in the United States, where recent data has shown that ethnic minority gay men, responding to a stronger expectation of heterosexual normalcy, behave less responsibly. Among gay men whose other social factors are more normalized (e.g. white, out of the closet), HIV trends are declining. Among the closeted, pressured, alienated, there is a behavioral response suggesting recklessness common to any party under certain levels of stress regardless of the source.
So if we take a survey, and just to use generalizations, between, say, New York and San Francisco, and if conditions show that gay students are more accepted socially in San Francisco schools than New York schools, would we be surprised if we found that SF's students performed, for all relevant factors, better?
I do not, however, propose the method of quantifying that progress. It's one of the reasons I ruled against a sociology major when I was still in college (certain kinds of detail work drives me nuts).
The public/private issue is something I'm less prepared to comment on. Something about Pepsi, something about private influence in public policy, and possibly all paranoia. So ...
Anyway, I suppose there is a long-term good I can hope for, the reinforcement of the somewhat observable fact that many problems people come to associate with homosexuality go away when people stop making such a big deal out of it. (e.g. "This brings up another positive point ... craziness of the closet ....")
And, of course, those students who, in the meantime, get a better education than they would have gotten otherwise ... we can't overlook that.
But I do worry about institutional segregation at any level.
(You know, this started out as a short post. I swear.)
Notes:
° Singaporean Chinese - My freshman-year roommate was a Singaporean Catholic of Chinese descent; essentially part of the ruling ethnic and ideological group. At first I left his quirkiness alone, but by the time I got to meet the rest of the folks from Singapore--they even got us raided for beer one night by campus security, the reckless bastards--I was stunned. All of those years of resentment regarding anti-Asian stereotypes and here I was among a flock of, literally, bad-driving, picture-taking, American-cool-wanna-be second-sons with $30k cars who complained about paying taxes on American money taken from their investment portfolios ... stunning. Interestingly, the University recruited heavily in Singapore, namely because the students who came brought money with them. Among them, though, was one--a whole one Singaporean Sikh. The cultural difference was amazing. So I cannot blast Singaporeans in general for being among the elite of the elitists at the University, and thus must identify them according to further superficial categorization. It is my regret, but that's about what superficial categorization was worth to them. In the end, I wanted to beat all of them severely for every bit of shite I'd taken from two-bit backwater divorce-baby white thugs in my day. I mean, if I were to depict them honestly in a film, I would be excoriated in the press as a racist. They were a serious hitch in my awareness of racepolitik.
:m:,
Tiassa
(Associative mistakes ....)
At any rate, recap of influential vagaries:
- At Catholic school, we were subject to yearly retreats to get closer to God. Some of these were morbidly hilarious, including the day fifty sophomores sat around talking about cliques and making an effort to eat their lunch with someone new next week. Not a particularly direct point, but more a suggestion of motif.
- At a reputedly liberal university (U of Oregon, home of Nat'l Lampoon's Animal House, saw the occasional professorship of Mr. Ken Kesey, and what a ferocious left wing!) I was shocked when certain segregations entered dorm life. I understand cultural segregation when language is a barrier, but from the elitist Singaporean Chinese° (1% of campus population) to the blacks to the gays, the lesbians, the boys, the girls ... the only "rainbow" was composed of cloistered and dedicated potheads in various groups according to such criterion as Grateful Dead or Spin Doctors ....
- During the Clinton administration, of all times, although also during the Republican Revolution, attention was given to minority segments advocating a return to segregation
- Many have heard me rant about Oregon in the 1990s; no need to revisit that chapter here.
- A new divisiveness ripples coldly through my surroundings under the auspices of the war on terror.
None of these influences has brought back full-blown segregation, but the simple fact is that any institutional segregation bothers me. In one sense, we might look to a complaint in the 1980s and early 1990s; American education was imperiled, said the critics, and quite often rightly, because we were tailoring school standards to equalize by accommodating the bottom end of the curve. There was no striving to bring that bottom end up to a higher par.
And that's kind of what bugs me about the modern whispers and rumors of "return to segregation"; it seems to me that we're lowering the standard. It's too hard to figure out, so we'll give the bigots their stomping ground and go off over here ....
In the short term, like I said, this seems a good idea. Properly managed ideologically, the near future might point toward the self-evident fact that people who are allowed to feel normal perform better than those who are expected to feel alienated or ostracized.
And from that is a difficult long-term potential. It's a challenge in the modern day to hope for anything on such a scale; a dangerous comparison here would be to point toward HIV and gay men in the United States, where recent data has shown that ethnic minority gay men, responding to a stronger expectation of heterosexual normalcy, behave less responsibly. Among gay men whose other social factors are more normalized (e.g. white, out of the closet), HIV trends are declining. Among the closeted, pressured, alienated, there is a behavioral response suggesting recklessness common to any party under certain levels of stress regardless of the source.
So if we take a survey, and just to use generalizations, between, say, New York and San Francisco, and if conditions show that gay students are more accepted socially in San Francisco schools than New York schools, would we be surprised if we found that SF's students performed, for all relevant factors, better?
I do not, however, propose the method of quantifying that progress. It's one of the reasons I ruled against a sociology major when I was still in college (certain kinds of detail work drives me nuts).
The public/private issue is something I'm less prepared to comment on. Something about Pepsi, something about private influence in public policy, and possibly all paranoia. So ...
Anyway, I suppose there is a long-term good I can hope for, the reinforcement of the somewhat observable fact that many problems people come to associate with homosexuality go away when people stop making such a big deal out of it. (e.g. "This brings up another positive point ... craziness of the closet ....")
And, of course, those students who, in the meantime, get a better education than they would have gotten otherwise ... we can't overlook that.
But I do worry about institutional segregation at any level.
(You know, this started out as a short post. I swear.)
Notes:
° Singaporean Chinese - My freshman-year roommate was a Singaporean Catholic of Chinese descent; essentially part of the ruling ethnic and ideological group. At first I left his quirkiness alone, but by the time I got to meet the rest of the folks from Singapore--they even got us raided for beer one night by campus security, the reckless bastards--I was stunned. All of those years of resentment regarding anti-Asian stereotypes and here I was among a flock of, literally, bad-driving, picture-taking, American-cool-wanna-be second-sons with $30k cars who complained about paying taxes on American money taken from their investment portfolios ... stunning. Interestingly, the University recruited heavily in Singapore, namely because the students who came brought money with them. Among them, though, was one--a whole one Singaporean Sikh. The cultural difference was amazing. So I cannot blast Singaporeans in general for being among the elite of the elitists at the University, and thus must identify them according to further superficial categorization. It is my regret, but that's about what superficial categorization was worth to them. In the end, I wanted to beat all of them severely for every bit of shite I'd taken from two-bit backwater divorce-baby white thugs in my day. I mean, if I were to depict them honestly in a film, I would be excoriated in the press as a racist. They were a serious hitch in my awareness of racepolitik.
:m:,
Tiassa
But, again it could be that it's a school with a public charter, which does not receive public funds. Like I said I'd prefer that this kind of school not receive public money, but I'm honestly not going to lose any sleep if it does, Homosexuals are already excluded from enough public organizations, it's really time they gave a bit back, hah! Though, honestly if we want to have hope of leveling the playing field, that is, we can't be asking that special money go to homosexual causes just because in certain places they were or are excluded from other organizations funded by their tax dollars. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, and all that.
Re: I promise ... if ever my opinion is that simple ... well, I'll keep it shorter then
Thanks for the recap, I don't see how a few of those points relate back to the issue, but I think we've come to expect a bit of long windedness and just a bit of a detour when reading your posts, and only come to appreciate you more for it.
I've got to agree with your conclusion. I don't think that anyone is going to be reveling in the fact that these students are separated from their heterosexual peers, but at the same time if that's what it takes to let these kids feel like they are in a safe and supportive environment so that they can concentrate on their schooling, well then so be it!
Oh yes, well they always start short, don't they?
Thanks for the recap, I don't see how a few of those points relate back to the issue, but I think we've come to expect a bit of long windedness and just a bit of a detour when reading your posts, and only come to appreciate you more for it.
I've got to agree with your conclusion. I don't think that anyone is going to be reveling in the fact that these students are separated from their heterosexual peers, but at the same time if that's what it takes to let these kids feel like they are in a safe and supportive environment so that they can concentrate on their schooling, well then so be it!
Oh yes, well they always start short, don't they?
Well ....
Quite simply: Segregation is wrong. That it stands to benefit a group of people who have my political, personal, and spiritual sympathies as human beings does not change that fact.
If I refuse segregation to the racists, I must refuse it now.
Easy enough?
At any rate, sorry I can't agree with you 100% today. But for all the bitching I do about justice and fairness, don't you think I ought to stand for it?
Just curious.
What was wrong before is not right in the present just because I perceive a benefit.
Or would honor and integrity compel me to reasonably forfeit a standing principle for abstract greed?
Care to give me an opinion one way or another?
:m:,
Tiassa
Sorry to make it so difficult.
Quite simply: Segregation is wrong. That it stands to benefit a group of people who have my political, personal, and spiritual sympathies as human beings does not change that fact.
If I refuse segregation to the racists, I must refuse it now.
Easy enough?
Experience has taught me that people just aren't smart enough for the short version, either. But the short version usually leads to the long version anyway. Several times longer and spread out over an extended period.
At any rate, sorry I can't agree with you 100% today. But for all the bitching I do about justice and fairness, don't you think I ought to stand for it?
Just curious.
What was wrong before is not right in the present just because I perceive a benefit.
Or would honor and integrity compel me to reasonably forfeit a standing principle for abstract greed?
Care to give me an opinion one way or another?
:m:,
Tiassa
What public organizations are gay people excluded from? Yes there are people who will make the lives of gay people miserable, but that is true of Jewish, Black, Latino, etc., people also. I don't see gay students being hurt by public schools, in fact they are usually more successful than their straight counterparts.
The answer to homophobia in schools is not to hide away gay students in a special school for them where they will be protected. The real answer is to handle the people and issues that inflict the harm in the first place.
At the same time though, shouldn't there be some sort of safe refuge for those who decide that they just don't want to have to put up with the hassle? Consider it a little vacation so that they can focus on what really matters at that point in their life and being in such a place: their education. If all they are going to get is shit from their peers, and that interferes with their schooling, then I think it's great that they have the ability to just walk away from it all. I really can't make a comparison to segregation in my own mind; the two are working on much different levels.
We're not talking about all here, we are talking about some; some who make a voulentary desision that they would be better off in a less traditional environment. There's nothing to keep them from returning to a normal public school. As I think I mentioned earlier, I would also be more at ease if I knew for sure that a heterosexual student applied to join this school (for whatever his or her reasons may be) that he or she not be denied on grounds that it would not have a major impact on the goal the school set out with, creating that sort of safe haeven as it were.
I'd have to agree with you there, but as I've tried to illustrate here there is a very large qualitative difference between that thing in the past and that thing in the now. Examine the situation, what was wrong with segregating schools in the past? Are the negative aspects still the same in the current situation? In my mind they are not, and we can get into that if you like.
I just don't have enough skills in mental gymnastics to view the situation in this context, I'm sorry. I don't see greed, and the virtue of the principle eludes me, I also feel that it's a completely different principle than was present in the past.
Well, I'm talking primarily about the military in this case, if you're looking for direct official administrative policy excluding them from public organizations.
Yes, and in an ideal world this wouldn't just be a pipe dream. The issue is quite a bit more complex than you make it sound, unfortunately a lot of these issues can't just be mediated away, genuine hatred isn't really quite that responsive to a slap on the wrist and a stern warning. While large campaigns of educating people and promoting tolerance could well have an effect over a long period of time (and it seems that they are) I don't think that it's unreasonable to provide a sort of "quick fix" for those who feel they need one in the mean time.
The military situation is definantly unfair, it is one of those old laws Republicans and conservatives cling to. But I would ask you question, is the answer to start gay-only divisions or keep trying to intergrate? IMO, the fight should continue to change this policy, instead of running from it.
Creating seperate schools isn't the answer either. Intolerance exists for MANY groups everyday, gay people aren't the only ones persecuted. The precendent this sets is a very dangerous one, and it will be used vigorously by the people with their own agendas.
Last edited:
Mystech
It's sort of the same thing that's wrong with the most common and abusive uses of the phrase, "America, love it or leave it."
I really don't see the difference. Honestly. Some people believed that black Americans would prosper under such conditions, as well.
Utterly and completely privatized, I would leave such a school to its explorations and results without opposition, and perhaps with encouragement. But as there are public associations with it ....
When the Supreme Court overturned "separate but equal", people gasped because it was one of the few times the court overturned itself on such a fundamental issue. And that overturning would not have happened if "separate but equal" had not proven a general failure.
Pundits of sympathy to homosexuality will have to tread delicately when the conservatives raise hell; this won't be the standard leftist defense for anybody. I don't foresee a Christian attempt to usurp the schools any more than we're already used to. But if they manage their salvos on this issue correctly, they'll have a point. And if that happens ... it's not so much about denying the Christians a point, per se. But at that point, the whole thing gets heaps tougher for everybody involved, especially those with the absolute best of intentions.
:m:,
Tiassa
It worked so well for blacks and the schools ....
I have acknowledged the short-term benefit. If that has to become the long term benefit ... well ... doesn't that sort of speak to the problems of segregation?
What other harassed segment of society gets that privilege?
Perhaps there's some dimension of the art of keeping people separate that I don't understand in relation to our discussion, but would you mind clarifying that difference?
Again, I'm seeing a difference between the short term and the long term.
It's sort of the same thing that's wrong with the most common and abusive uses of the phrase, "America, love it or leave it."
The only difference I'm seeing in the large picture is the idea that it's the "other side of the fence". It takes on the appearance of the idea that because this segregation benefits a group receiving sympathies instead of a group one opposes segregation is suddenly the right thing to do.
I really don't see the difference. Honestly. Some people believed that black Americans would prosper under such conditions, as well.
Perhaps your perception of those aspects is what I'm missing here.
Utterly and completely privatized, I would leave such a school to its explorations and results without opposition, and perhaps with encouragement. But as there are public associations with it ....
When the Supreme Court overturned "separate but equal", people gasped because it was one of the few times the court overturned itself on such a fundamental issue. And that overturning would not have happened if "separate but equal" had not proven a general failure.
Pundits of sympathy to homosexuality will have to tread delicately when the conservatives raise hell; this won't be the standard leftist defense for anybody. I don't foresee a Christian attempt to usurp the schools any more than we're already used to. But if they manage their salvos on this issue correctly, they'll have a point. And if that happens ... it's not so much about denying the Christians a point, per se. But at that point, the whole thing gets heaps tougher for everybody involved, especially those with the absolute best of intentions.
:m:,
Tiassa
can anyone compairing this to segrigation try to see this as a short term solution to save kids who feel like they might kill themselves if there is no alternative to the type of higschool situation they are in now (the numbers are quite large) rather than a systematic exodus of homosexuals from the heterocentric (oooh i bet thats not the first time somone has used the word but i feel like i just invented it... im special.. and urm *clears throat* intellectual) school system?
it might be possible that a school like this could act like a safty net to actualy save lives, give another option in those situations.
it might be possible that a school like this could act like a safty net to actualy save lives, give another option in those situations.
They're not refugees from an opressive country, we're talking about highschool.
Almost everyone hates high school, from the geeks to the jocks to the teachers and so on. It's a part of growing up, a right of passage we all have to endure.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and PFLAG:
more info at http://www.pflag.org/education/schools.html
The know your facts section sums up some of what homosexuals go through that isnt just your run of the mill highschool bull.
catholic schools do not keep out people who are not catholic. they simply don't ask. what it means to be in a catholic school is that it is private and the money to run it comes from sunday collection baskets. my elementary school was community; it got it's money from the church it was affiliated with. my high school was diocesan; it got money from pooled funds of the entire diocese. my brother's high school was private but catholic; money from parents and alumni but run and taught by an order of brothers who live on the school grounds. it's all about where the money comes from. i can't imagine this harvey milk school keeping out straight people who want to go to a gay school. i can't imagine them even asking their students what their orientation is. seems to go against the point of it.
if it is as good as private, i might have wanted to go there if it was around back then.
if it is as good as private, i might have wanted to go there if it was around back then.
Right, and policy does continue to change for the better, but very slowly, and cultural acceptence even slower. That's what this is all about.
And in your opinion should these kids be asked to stay in the trenches, as it were, and continue to win over acceptance? These kids aren't political activists, they aren't civil rights advocates, they aren't fucking freedom fighters. Their needs at the moment are a learning environment where they don't have to worry about people scratching "Fag" into their lockers, throwing bricks at them, threatening to run them over or defecating into their lockers (go ask an openly gay person how high-school was for them, these are all real anecdotal complaints, and you know that there is even worse out there, death threats and minor violence are pretty much just the usual fare).
This isn't segregation, this is not the categorical separation of one group from another, this is voluntary separation for the purpose of safety and providing a more friendly learning environment, and that's it. That's all there is too it.
Originally posted by static76
They're not refugees from an opressive country, we're talking about highschool.
Almost everyone hates high school, from the geeks to the jocks to the teachers and so on. It's a part of growing up, a right of passage we all have to endure.
You really need to look into this matter more, static76. This goes quite a bit beyond the run of the mill high-school angst. We're talking about kids trapped in the middle of a state endorsed cultural hatred of homosexuals. Combine that with the vicious little animals that are high-school kids, and yes in many instances it can even be lethal.
Re: Mystech
The main difference is that this is not a categorical separation of one group from another. It does not follow the separate but equal mentality, but instead the goal is to provide a safe alternative to what, for many, may be an unworkable situation.
It is completely voluntary, meaning yes, there are still going to be homosexuals in NY's regular public schools. If you're worried that this school is going to crate an us vs. them mentality, then I'd have to point out the fact that this school wouldn't exist if that mentality wasn't already in existence and making a lot of kids lives miserable.
In the end this is what is best for the children (Good lord I feel like a conservative all of a sudden). We are talking about troubled teenagers here, these aren't going to be the people who are going to break down the barriers and bring about a new age of tolerance in this country, they are just some frightened kids who want to be able to go to school in an environment where they don't have to constantly worry about being targets for all sorts of mental and especially physical abuse.
This school does not cater to the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals can't or shouldn't try to co-exist or intermingle, but recognizes that the tensions among youths about these two groups make for a very difficult learning environment.
The main difference is that this is not a categorical separation of one group from another. It does not follow the separate but equal mentality, but instead the goal is to provide a safe alternative to what, for many, may be an unworkable situation.
It is completely voluntary, meaning yes, there are still going to be homosexuals in NY's regular public schools. If you're worried that this school is going to crate an us vs. them mentality, then I'd have to point out the fact that this school wouldn't exist if that mentality wasn't already in existence and making a lot of kids lives miserable.
In the end this is what is best for the children (Good lord I feel like a conservative all of a sudden). We are talking about troubled teenagers here, these aren't going to be the people who are going to break down the barriers and bring about a new age of tolerance in this country, they are just some frightened kids who want to be able to go to school in an environment where they don't have to constantly worry about being targets for all sorts of mental and especially physical abuse.
This school does not cater to the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals can't or shouldn't try to co-exist or intermingle, but recognizes that the tensions among youths about these two groups make for a very difficult learning environment.
Excellent question, SpyMoose
And while the short-term benefit of normalized study and social environments are a good thing, there is a flip-side.
- "Here's your diploma, and your lesson for life: Remember that people hate you so much that we had to segregate you from the rest of society in order to protect you."
It doesn't exactly solve the problem.
:m:,
Tiassa
What an excellent question, SpyMoose. I do believe that if you read through the topic, at least one of them acknowledges that point.
And while the short-term benefit of normalized study and social environments are a good thing, there is a flip-side.
- "Here's your diploma, and your lesson for life: Remember that people hate you so much that we had to segregate you from the rest of society in order to protect you."
It doesn't exactly solve the problem.
:m:,
Tiassa
Re: Excellent question, SpyMoose
Haha, well as it stands if they are going to be going to a regular public school they are probably going to be getting that same message every single day they attend, anyway.
But if it should say something to that effect on their diplomas I'd just have to steeple my fingers as I sit here, face partially concealed by the shadows of my dark room, and laugh bitterly and menacingly, as it advances my own secret agenda of promoting tensions between sexual orientations so that I may more easily sway others into gateway organizations such as the pink pistols and eventually recruit them into my secret gay militia.
. . . sorry I’m just in a silly mood tonight.
Haha, well as it stands if they are going to be going to a regular public school they are probably going to be getting that same message every single day they attend, anyway.
But if it should say something to that effect on their diplomas I'd just have to steeple my fingers as I sit here, face partially concealed by the shadows of my dark room, and laugh bitterly and menacingly, as it advances my own secret agenda of promoting tensions between sexual orientations so that I may more easily sway others into gateway organizations such as the pink pistols and eventually recruit them into my secret gay militia.
. . . sorry I’m just in a silly mood tonight.
Sorry, but that's high school. Running from those who don't like you, serves no purpose but to give the homophobes what they want.
Also, I think your being unfair to the vast majority of American youth in their views of homosexuality. I'm willing to bet that they are many more people willing to defend gay students, than there are to opress them.