On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:50:31 GMT, ByTor <ByTor@no-spam>
wrote:
Thank you for a well reasoned reply, not often seen on usenet
unfortunately, as this would be a great open forum where people
get to "speak" their piece and not be shouted down or "censored"
by rules of order etc., Yet, I do suspect that the better
"voices" on the net, even in spite of the "cacophony" do get read
by some pretty important people looking for opinions and ideas
that can matter. 'nough said, now to the chase...
Obwon
>In article <p0vhjv8v2uuovsdsta8mtjhn05n4a35aol@no-spam>, ob110ob@no-spam
>says...
>
>> >> That's another question entirely since the "targeting" under
>> >> discussion is of a kind that exists when gays are in the public
>> >> environment that this is supposed to correct. As someone else
>> >> here said, being located in Greenwich Village, there's an
>> >> extremely low expectation of outsider attacks. So no, I don't
>> >> see any reason to think that special security is needed.
>> >
>> >Hmmmmm, interesting, I actually think it would be a part, not seperate,
>> >question of the issue. Public environment? Why not make it a private
>> >school than? Why is it a "public" responsibility? I mean don't get me
>> >wrong, education is every students right, it is our systems obligation
>> >to comply and that is already being done now without seperatism.
>>
>> Yes, it has been going on that way, but now they've come to
>> recognize a problem that they have reason to believe that
>> separatism might solve.
>
>Ok, point taken......But, it still brings up a statement you make below.
>
>>
>> >1) What about the E.O.E (Equal Opportunity Employment) will only Gay
>> >teachers, Janitors, Principals, etc., only be hired?
>>
>> I don't think it will be needed to extend this to the staff,
>> since the staff are under the schools control and authority, if
>> they perform well in their roles regardless of their own
>> orientation, there should be no problem.
>
>Ok, this I can concede.........
>
>>
>> >2) What about non-gay students, will they be allowed to attend?
>>
>> I don't see a problem with non-gay students attending, except
>> that they may not want to be identified as gay, as they would be
>> for merely attending a school known to be for gays. So I would
>> find it difficult to imagine that many non-gays would apply.
>
>This is a good point, did not think of it like that....Kids are already
>worried about their images..... ;0)
>
>>
>> >3) Will non-gay students be teased & attacked? How will that be
>> >confronted? Or does gay children not exhibit that type of behavior?
>>
>> Here I think you are misconstruing the type of attacks that are
>> being attenuated. Here... Let's give it a try:
>> There's one kind of "attack/teasing" that will be pretty generic,
>> "four-eyes" for kids wearing glasses and like that. Okay, maybe
>> a little bit insensitive, but it's not like there's any
>> "constituency" against people who wear glasses and such. Get it?
>
>Here is what I mentioned above about looking below to your statement
>here, "constitutional." Is it not a correlation that other kids are
>harrassed & assaulted based on their ethnic orientation? Forget about
>calling someone pimple face, tubby, geek, nerd, etc., Is it not in fact
>that this is also a "constitutional issue that is protected by laws and
>the "public" school system, yet, to this day, has not made any special
>arrangements to use "seperatism" to solve the problem? So, again, why is
>the "Gay" issue so unique???
Okay, that is the specific question that makes this problem
unlike other problems of race etc., which may seem similar on the
surface because they have many points that are alike. Race, for
instance, also cannot be changed to suit the mores of the
majority, powerful and so on.
The trouble is we're new to this gay thing, while we've had
many more years of experience with examining racial issues. In
neither case have we "won" the battles, but we've at least a
better chance of understanding racial issues in the near term and
as a society.
With gay issues, however, even though we've begun to understand
that gays don't become gay by any choice of their own, there are
theocratic teachings that do not recognize this fact and until
they resolve the issues they can be expected to and will continue
to teach that gays are to be blamed for their sexual preference.
Or that they should change their ways and such. There are many
different approaches taken to the issue but clearly there is no
widespread body of similar religious teachings on such matters as
race, generally speaking here of course.
So it derives that since gov't can't possibly stop or amend,
theocratic interference with their educational mission from this
vector, all they can do to remedy it is separatism. The benefit
that is being sought is to allow "normal" social development in
such a way as to negate the otherwise harmful effects that would
be present in a school where educators could do nothing to
attenuate opprobrium.
If we go to the "constitutionality" of the exercise, we must
find that the public has an interest and that that interest
weighs in favor of the children, who are, after all guardians of
the educational system and are generally considered to be special
case citizens anyway for most purposes of law.
Obwon
>Don't get me wrong but if "constitutional" is the issue here than
>establishing a Gay "public" school seems to set the trend for "public"
>black, white, hispanic, chinese, japanese, buddhists, catholic, etc.,
>schools to follow because they will also claim they are violated.......I
>personally don't see the supporting justification to say that "Gays" are
>more prone to attacks than lets say "whites" in a black school & vice
>verse.......I'd like to see some studies if you have them? I'm not being
>a smart-ass now, I'm actually interested in reading this..... ;0)
>
>>
>> With the first cry of "Homo", in a regular school, one doesn't
>> know what to think, and there is also a possibility that there is
>> real physical danger being threatened. Why? Well, I'm not sure
>> you are familiar with the term "latent homosexual"? These are
>> people who suspect that they are homosexuals, they aren't sure,
>> don't know for sure, but for some reason they suspect that they
>> may be. Well, they can be incredibly dangerous people because
>> they will go to great lengths to either prove that they aren't or
>> deny that they are or might be.
>
>So putting them in a "Gay" school will help them decide if they are? I'm
>not sure I'm following you here......There is a lot of speculation that
>a Gay school will promote homosexuality....Well I think you know as well
>as I do where that comes from....I on the otherhand really don't
>subscribe to that but what you are saying seems to give those the
>impression that you are confirming what they are insinuating.....As I
>said, I'm not sure I grasp this part of what you are stating.
No, not help them decide, "latent" homosexuals will probably
not attend this school. Perhaps re-reading with this in mind
will make it more clear. Latent homosexuals, as I've attempted to
explain here, would be more likely than not to be in denial and
if their sexuality came under question, they'd be the most likely
to become very aggressive, if not violent, towards gays as a way
of "protesting" their conformance.
Obwon
>>
>> There are also those who may take their religious teachings to
>> heart and take matter into their own hands to deliver a vision of
>> justice they feel is proper. All of which can interfere mightily
>> with the mission of education. The school doesn't have to be in
>> a continuous uproar to still be a hostile place for gay children.
>
>As I stated above, I think we know who "those" are. If you mean
>resorting to justice in the sense of actually committing a crime?
Yes, but in the interim, until they actually decide to commit any
crime, there would likely, in such cases as these, be a certain
period of "target definition and softening".
>Than
>they should be "punished" as well as anybody else that breaks the
>law....Violence is never an answer......Weeeeeelll, I don't know about
>that, after being strung along by a mortgage company for 3 months and
>than denied at a critical moment, I think I had some "Violent"
>feelings....Pricks............ ;0)
Yes, and as you well know that we can't ignore the added
complexity that the "martyr" complex brings into it.
>
>>I would think the entire spectrum is to be looked at, not seperating
>>the "different" issues. All of these will also fall under the umbrella
>>of approaching the undertaking of a project like this. It appears to me
>>that this issue is more of a political issue/statement and those
>>motivations should be questioned first. When it comes to political
>>involvement sometimes people tend to forget the welfare of the people
>>that may be affected because they have succumbed to their own personal
>>statements and only regard their own motivations. Isn't that basically
>>how our political arena works, screw the people, lets see where we can
>>benefit. Very blinding and scary isn't it.........
>
>There is one thing that I would have to admit to, and it appears that
>most on usenet spout without clout.....I finally updated myself on the
>issue & never realized that the NYC school was already "private" and is
>approved to officially open in Sept....My bad, I admit it.... :0)
>
>I have also seen that the city is being sued for this:
>
>http://www.neoflux.com/archive/data/003160.shtml
>
>But I have a suspicion now? The special interest groups that supported
>this school when it was private, I have to ask, are they running out of
>money and cannot support their statement/issue anymore????
>Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Just another issue for the "conspiracy" elite... (LOL)
Well, as I understand it the city has been using two class
rooms to run a test school for over 19 years. If that is true,
and I'm sure it is, then it means that the city already has data
in hand to prove the utility and therefore the need for this
school. Better performance would justify it, if I'm reading the
words of the opponents here correctly.
The constitutional issues, as I said before, will take second
place over the educational mission. This is because, as any
judge will likely rule, children are "special case" citizens as
is evidenced by the laws requirement that they have guardians act
on their behalf in the greatest majority of cases on the largest
number of issues.
So then, with the educational department citing a need and
proving utility of what it is doing, the rules of guardianship
will take precedence since it supports the educational mission.
That gets us around the issues of why and how gays suffer etc.,
and get us straight to the point of how do they do better.
Without having to go into why.
Obwon
Article from today's Daily News...
-----------
POL SUES CITYB OVER GAY HS
By Joe Williams
Spending public money to give gay and lesbian teens their own
school is illegal segregation and a violation of the city's
education rules, said a lawsuit flied yesterday challenging the
Harvey Milk High School.
"Public funds should not be used to segregate city schools,"
state Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) said after filing the suit in
Manhattan state Supreme Court with conservative legal group
Liberty Counsel.
The Milk program has existed for 19 years, but the city is
spending $3.2 million to renovate 2 Astor Place to expand it into
a ful-fledged high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender
and "questioning" students in the fall.
It is expected to teach about 170 students. Advocates say a
waiting list for enrollment shows many students feel picked on in
regular schools because of their sexual orientation.
The lawsuit charges that the school violates the Education
Department's own rules against educating students based on their
sexual orientation. It also alleges a gay school robs money from
other schools and earmarks it for a special class of students,
amounting to an illegal form of segregation.
Paul Rose, a spokesman for Chancellor Joel Klein, called the
suit a frivolous attack on "a program that has helped children
for many years."
---
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
In article <mknmjvslbd75vmjmn1riublnias3m2ol8d@no-spam>, ob110ob@no-spam
says...
Obwon:
> Thank you for a well reasoned reply, not often seen on usenet
> unfortunately, as this would be a great open forum where people
> get to "speak" their piece and not be shouted down or "censored"
> by rules of order etc., Yet, I do suspect that the better
> "voices" on the net, even in spite of the "cacophony" do get read
> by some pretty important people looking for opinions and ideas
> that can matter. 'nough said, now to the chase...
ByTor:
And thank you for not misinterpeting my intentions....Also a rarity on
usenet.......... ;0)
I did read everyone of your threads regarding this matter so I sort of
got a good sense as to the credibility of your intent and that it is
indeed "not" hostile. I feel "every" issue is emotional at first, but
the key is to first try & seperate because it clouds logic/reasoning.
"Can't we all just get along?" (HA,HA) ;0)
(Rodney King) Was it? I forget<g>
ByTor:
> >Here is what I mentioned above about looking below to your statement
> >here, "constitutional." Is it not a correlation that other kids are
> >harrassed & assaulted based on their ethnic orientation? Forget about
> >calling someone pimple face, tubby, geek, nerd, etc., Is it not in fact
> >that this is also a "constitutional issue that is protected by laws and
> >the "public" school system, yet, to this day, has not made any special
> >arrangements to use "seperatism" to solve the problem? So, again, why is
> >the "Gay" issue so unique???
Obwon:
> Okay, that is the specific question that makes this problem
> unlike other problems of race etc., which may seem similar on the
> surface because they have many points that are alike. Race, for
> instance, also cannot be changed to suit the mores of the
> majority, powerful and so on.
> The trouble is we're new to this gay thing, while we've had
> many more years of experience with examining racial issues. In
> neither case have we "won" the battles, but we've at least a
> better chance of understanding racial issues in the near term and
> as a society.
> With gay issues, however, even though we've begun to understand
> that gays don't become gay by any choice of their own, there are
> theocratic teachings that do not recognize this fact and until
> they resolve the issues they can be expected to and will continue
> to teach that gays are to be blamed for their sexual preference.
> Or that they should change their ways and such. There are many
> different approaches taken to the issue but clearly there is no
> widespread body of similar religious teachings on such matters as
> race, generally speaking here of course.
ByTor:
And this I will concede to....I'm beginning to believe that even the
Vatican is taking a loooooooong look at themselves. I am a Catholic (not
practicing, as I have a very strong issues of hypocricy when it comes to
religion) but I will admit that I am not a very educated one in the
sense of the Bible & stuff so I'm not in "full" understanding of where
their exact issues come from.
Obwon:
> So it derives that since gov't can't possibly stop or amend,
> theocratic interference with their educational mission from this
> vector, all they can do to remedy it is separatism. The benefit
> that is being sought is to allow "normal" social development in
> such a way as to negate the otherwise harmful effects that would
> be present in a school where educators could do nothing to
> attenuate opprobrium.
> If we go to the "constitutionality" of the exercise, we must
> find that the public has an interest and that that interest
> weighs in favor of the children, who are, after all guardians of
> the educational system and are generally considered to be special
> case citizens anyway for most purposes of law.
>
ByTor:
Exactly, the children must come first...They are also the guardians of
the future....Hopefully though this whole seperatism does not convey a
mixed message.
You also chose a perfect word, "social" development....I don't subscribe
to religion as "social" development, I'm more on the lines of choosing
whatever you want for the development of moral practices & beliefs. I
think what happens here is theocrats fail to see that all their beliefs
and practices are just a mere suggestive one, not something that should
be used to "DICTATE" to society what the "normal" social standards
are.....As you can tell, I do not respond well to religion(well, not all
though). Is it emotional? Yes, in a sense. After all I did attend
Catholic school back in the early 70's so I think you can just
imagine...... ;0)
But, there is a difference, I do keep my "emotions" in check whenever I
get into a discussion about religion.
ByTor:
> >So putting them in a "Gay" school will help them decide if they are? I'm
> >not sure I'm following you here......There is a lot of speculation that
> >a Gay school will promote homosexuality....Well I think you know as well
> >as I do where that comes from....I on the otherhand really don't
> >subscribe to that but what you are saying seems to give those the
> >impression that you are confirming what they are insinuating.....As I
> >said, I'm not sure I grasp this part of what you are stating.
>
Obwon:
> No, not help them decide, "latent" homosexuals will probably
> not attend this school. Perhaps re-reading with this in mind
> will make it more clear. Latent homosexuals, as I've attempted to
> explain here, would be more likely than not to be in denial and
> if their sexuality came under question, they'd be the most likely
> to become very aggressive, if not violent, towards gays as a way
> of "protesting" their conformance.
>
ByTor:
I see, said the blind man! ;0)
That is pretty troublesome..............
Obwon:
> >> There are also those who may take their religious teachings to
> >> heart and take matter into their own hands to deliver a vision of
> >> justice they feel is proper. All of which can interfere mightily
> >> with the mission of education. The school doesn't have to be in
> >> a continuous uproar to still be a hostile place for gay children.
ByTor:
> >As I stated above, I think we know who "those" are. If you mean
> >resorting to justice in the sense of actually committing a crime?
>
Obwon:
> Yes, but in the interim, until they actually decide to commit any
> crime, there would likely, in such cases as these, be a certain
> period of "target definition and softening".
>
ByTor:
Good point!
ByTor:
> >than they should be "punished" as well as anybody else that breaks the
> >law....Violence is never an answer......
Obwon:
> Yes, and as you well know that we can't ignore the added
> complexity that the "martyr" complex brings into it.
ByTor:
> >There is one thing that I would have to admit to, and it appears that
> >most on usenet spout without clout.....I finally updated myself on the
> >issue & never realized that the NYC school was already "private" and is
> >approved to officially open in Sept....My bad, I admit it.... :0)
> >
> >I have also seen that the city is being sued for this:
> >
> >http://www.neoflux.com/archive/data/003160.shtml
> >
> >But I have a suspicion now? The special interest groups that supported
> >this school when it was private, I have to ask, are they running out of
> >money and cannot support their statement/issue anymore????
> >Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Just another issue for the "conspiracy" elite... (LOL)
Obwon:
> Well, as I understand it the city has been using two class
> rooms to run a test school for over 19 years. If that is true,
> and I'm sure it is, then it means that the city already has data
> in hand to prove the utility and therefore the need for this
> school. Better performance would justify it, if I'm reading the
> words of the opponents here correctly.
> The constitutional issues, as I said before, will take second
> place over the educational mission. This is because, as any
> judge will likely rule, children are "special case" citizens as
> is evidenced by the laws requirement that they have guardians act
> on their behalf in the greatest majority of cases on the largest
> number of issues.
> So then, with the educational department citing a need and
> proving utility of what it is doing, the rules of guardianship
> will take precedence since it supports the educational mission.
> That gets us around the issues of why and how gays suffer etc.,
> and get us straight to the point of how do they do better.
> Without having to go into why.
>
ByTor:
Refering to the below article.............
You have to admit, it does appear that they may have a very valid
point/position if it does not adhere to specific guidelines already set
by the educational system.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am saying this without full understanding of
these "guidelines" so I can't really form much of an opinion until I see
them.......I guess with the "Lawyerly" ways out there everything is just
a matter of interpretation....And boy oh boy can some lawyers twist
it......;0)
But, I will do my research though..............
Obwon:
> Article from today's Daily News...
> -----------
> POL SUES CITYB OVER GAY HS
> By Joe Williams
>
> Spending public money to give gay and lesbian teens their own
> school is illegal segregation and a violation of the city's
> education rules, said a lawsuit flied yesterday challenging the
> Harvey Milk High School.
>
> "Public funds should not be used to segregate city schools,"
> state Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) said after filing the suit in
> Manhattan state Supreme Court with conservative legal group
> Liberty Counsel.
>
> The Milk program has existed for 19 years, but the city is
> spending $3.2 million to renovate 2 Astor Place to expand it into
> a ful-fledged high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender
> and "questioning" students in the fall.
>
> It is expected to teach about 170 students. Advocates say a
> waiting list for enrollment shows many students feel picked on in
> regular schools because of their sexual orientation.
>
> The lawsuit charges that the school violates the Education
> Department's own rules against educating students based on their
> sexual orientation. It also alleges a gay school robs money from
> other schools and earmarks it for a special class of students,
> amounting to an illegal form of segregation.
>
> Paul Rose, a spokesman for Chancellor Joel Klein, called the
> suit a frivolous attack on "a program that has helped children
> for many years."
> ---
>
> Obwon
>
>
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can
> make you commit atrocities."
> - Voltaire
> O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
>
