|The "gay" high school....||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 6:26 AM
|So, what is yall's take on this? I cant believe the ACLU is behind this ridiculous idea of a high school for gay/lesbian/transgendered students...how many transexuals of high school age are there anyway? They claim that these kids get harrassed..I was fat I got harrassed. Nerds get harrassed, minorities get harrassed, kids wearing braces get harrassed. Blacks get harrassed. Why not make a school for blacks and one for whites! OH! Wait! They did that! It was called SEGRAGRATION! They have rules against excessive harrassment in schools, just enforce them...idiot liberals at work here....and no, not all liberals are idiots, but the ones behind this idea are...|
|this does smack of segregation||ColnagoFE|
Jul 29, 2003 6:38 AM
|i have nothing against gays but this seems like a misguided effort.|
|Just another "knee jerk" liberal reaction' ...||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 6:40 AM
|to a problem that has laws already in place. Enforcing the existing laws is just too easy and expedient. Let's make more laws that we can't properly enforce and create another level of bureaucracy that we can't manage.
I find it ironic that these fools are segregating themselves. Were a conservative to recommend such a policy, they would be hung from the highest lamppost.
Jul 29, 2003 6:44 AM
|what is George Bush had proposed separate schools for the gay/lesbian students...could you hear the uproar? calls for impeachment? marches on Washington? And rightfully so! This is an IDIOTIC idea...hey you New Yorkers, what are you thinking????|
|for those of you who think I am joking..here is the link....||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 6:42 AM
|I apologize, CT, but as an idiot liberal I||OldEdScott|
Jul 29, 2003 6:43 AM
|sort of have to agree with you. I know this will send you into a panicked fit of self-reflection.
While I understand and sympathize with the motives and thinking behind this, I think it's panty-waste liberal reformism (nasty leftist term for chickensh!t thinking) to segregate out a special class of people this way.
The road to gay rights (black rights, women's rights, panty waste rights, redneck Southern commie rights, whatever) is to decline to accept the benign oppression of institutional victimhood. Rear up on your hind legs and FIGHT.
That said, I'm not offended by it, I just think it's bad politics and ultimately hurts the cause.
|now now Old Ed...||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 6:50 AM
|I qualified my "idiot" remark..I said that not all liberals are idiots, but the ones who agree with this are...that apparently makes you an non-idiot liberal :~)|
|Not offended but confused,||TJeanloz|
Jul 29, 2003 7:05 AM
|Didn't the Supreme Court just uphold the benefits of diversity in public education? And now, New York wants to eliminate diversity from its schools. Maybe the point is that these kids will never have to leave the West Village in their entire lives, so they will never need to deal with people who don't like them. It's also a disservice to the bullies, who should have their bigotry exposed and learn that there are consequences to it.
In my opinion, the right thing to do is for New York to say that all schools provide a learning environment for gay students, and that tolerance is required of all students.
|I agree; just doesn't make sense to me nm||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 7:11 AM
|Hey Doug SLoan or other lawyer...||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 7:15 AM
|how could this be defendable in a court??? Seems overtly discriminatory and against all decisions regarding segregation...|
|no members of "protected class" involved||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 7:21 AM
|Unless this scheme has the effect of discriminating against protected classes, that is, say more blacks are gay than whites, proportiately, then it's not unconstitutional. You can segregate all you want on bases that are not protected, assuming you have any "rational basis" for it, and they always do.
|no members of "protected class" involved||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 7:25 AM
|By starting a special school arent you defacto creating a "protected class", that being gay/lesbians? And logic tells me that if gays/lesbians are protected that all sexual orientations would be protected, thus hetero's would logically be protected, yes?|
|not the way it works||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 7:29 AM
|"Protected classes" are largely defined by existing law. For example, a civil rights law may expressly ban discrimination against someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, etc. As far as I know, at least under federal law, sexual orientiation is not included.
Jul 29, 2003 7:30 AM
|The segregated in this case, want this. They see it as discrimination in their favor , so it's OK. It is also quite hypocritical. Those on the outside of this will have a hard time showing how they are being damaged by the policy. It will be tough to fight unless some group from within the gay/lesbian community is willing to side against it.
Heck, the next thing you know, the skinhead, commie hating, gun loving whackos will want their own school. Why should they be denied? They have every right to their lifestyles and beliefs too, don't they :O)
Jul 29, 2003 7:37 AM
|a school for racists, supported by NYC....why not? they have opened the door...|
|We don't know what the admissions policies are...||jtolleson|
Jul 29, 2003 8:54 AM
|or at least I don't. If an applicant has to be GLBT to be admitted, I think there would be an equal protection problem. The case law is unclear about what level of scrutiny should be applied to legal distinctions based on sexual orientation, but I don't think it would pass muster under even a rational basis test.
But if straight kids are eligible for admission (knowing that the school's basic mission is to create a welcoming environment for GLBT students) then I don't see much basis for constitutional attack.
On the other hand, I think it is crummy public policy. The key to GLBT equality is integrating sexual minorities into the mainstream in all of its facets. For most, their acceptance of gays and lesbians is a direct function of personally knowing GLBT people and realizing that they are essentially just like everyone else. You separate them, and you lose that most powerful tool.
Jul 29, 2003 9:17 AM
|Agree we don't know much about this, but I think it is fair to assume that attendence at this school is purely voluntary. That being the case, I doubt anyone is damaged by having it.
I think it would be easy to articulate a rational basis -- the kids are being mistreated at regular schools. Separating those who desire to be separate allows them to focus on academics free from harrassment. It doesn't have to be the best alternative, just rational.
If more than rational basis scrutiny is applied, then that could change things. I'm not aware of any decisions that would require or allow higher scrutiny, though. I don't see a privacy issue, nor am I aware of any statutes creating any class protection.
All this aside, I agree it's probably a bad idea in the long run. Short run, it could be good for some.
|this scenario Doug.....||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 9:34 AM
"Separating those who desire to be separate " So, suppose a large group of white students wanted their own school, should the city of NY sanction and permit that?
|and I am guessing ...||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 9:36 AM
|you can provide some legaleeze about protected groups..but I am talking about what is morally correct, which isnt always the same as legally correct..|
|legal vs. moral||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 9:40 AM
|I said in several places that I did not think this would be a good idea. Not sure it rises to the level of "immoral," but at least not the best alternative.
Someone asked me about the law, and I opined on that, too. BTW, I can potentially articulate the school's "rational basis" without agreeing with it.
Separating based upon race would be a problem, even if voluntary. I think that was sufficiently addressed over 40 years ago.
|which begs a follow up question...||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 9:43 AM
|if the gay lobby gets special "protected" status under the law, as they openly are trying to do, wouldnt that basically make such a school as we are discussing illegal? It would be the same as having a school for only one race..|
Jul 29, 2003 9:45 AM
|You raise a good point, as well at JT, that likely not all gay persons agree with this idea.
|Where does this lead????||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 7:13 AM
|What if parents of a straight student who live next door to the school want their kid to go to that school? To prevent him/her based on their sexual affiliation is descrimination, yes? How could you prevent that parent from getting their kids in that school if they filed a lawsuit.
Would the concept of busing apply here? A judge could say that NYC has to bus in so many straight students to the school and bus so many gay students to the other schools..this is such a STUPID idea...what are the people in NYC thinking?
|Not offended but confused,||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 7:16 AM
|In my opinion, the right thing to do is for New York to say that all schools provide a learning environment for gay students, and that tolerance is required of all students.
Isn't this the dictum that the school system operates under presently?
My opinion of why this "program" was even considered is that the gay/lesbian community does not want equality, but rather they want some preferential treatment and distinct advantages that this school will provide.
|I don't think that's the case,||TJeanloz|
Jul 29, 2003 7:24 AM
|I think the G/L community does want what they percieve to be equality, rather than preferential treatment. Their argument is that they should have equal access to an educational environment that does not terrify or needlessly endanger them every day. New York seems to have decided that the best way to eliminate this danger is to keep these kids out of the general population of students, rather than deal with the problems of bigotry in that population. They would say that access to such an environment is not special, but equal treatment.|
|so, should NYC create schools||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 7:27 AM
|for every group that gets harrassed? A "fat" high school"? a "nerd" high school? a school for the "unattractive"? you get my point....|
|That point has been made a lot,||TJeanloz|
Jul 29, 2003 7:33 AM
|It's not an original point, but I think this is a precedent for such schools.|
|I think it is the case||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 7:43 AM
|The City is already responsible for the education and safety of it's young. There are laws already on the books that provide for this. Why do we need another institution to accomplish this? I find this to be redundant, fiscally irresponsible and socially unacceptable.|
|find the students ....||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 7:45 AM
|who harrass the other kids, if they dont quit, send them to a special school, a reform school with guards and bars on the windows til they straighten up.|
|consider the context of this for a minute.||dr hoo|
Jul 29, 2003 7:27 AM
|NYC has special schools for kids who want to be performers (FAME), law enforcement, and other special programs. They have schools for non-english speakers, kids in prison, and kids with kids (teen mothers, don't know if fathers are included). Are all of those programs segregation? Also, the g/l/b/t school attendence will be voluntary, not mandatory such as segregation was. State force versus voluntary association... a BIG distinction!
NYC already has all g/l/b/t classrooms. Given this, an all g/l/b/t school is a small step. And since the mayor supports it, i don't think you can claim it is the evil ACLU behind it.
Also consider why this school might be a good idea. Gay kids are picked on, beaten, and have their lives made miserable every day. Kids call things they don't like "gay". The gay teen suicide rate is very high, which is quite different than racial minorties (or even fat kids), which tend to have an average suicide rate. That is the reality educators face.
Would it be better if the schools acted to STOP this kind of behavior? Heck yeah! But if they tried to do so, with a program of education and tolerance, conservative would have their panties in a twist over the pushing of a "gay agenda" on kids. Rember the flap about "my two mommies"?
For the record, I do not think such schools are a good idea in the long run. The glbt classrooms have been show to improve learning of the kids in them. All girl classrooms have been shown to improve learning for girls too. While this might mean a better education and preparation for life for minority and oppressed groups, it seems too much like giving in to bigots. If educators cracked down and taught properly such programs would not be needed.
As a matter of principle, I think those who see a problem should wade in and fight the problem. Walking away and isolating yourself from the problem does not go to the root.
FYI, transgendered means that the person feels they were born into the wrong gender. So there are probably a few kids in NYC who are transgendered. I doubt there are ANY post-operative transexuals in the schools.
|good points nm||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 7:32 AM
|we shouldnt be dividing ourselves..we should...||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 7:42 AM
|be pulling together. While all do not agree with homosexuality, harrassement should not be tolerated, on any issues in schools. To run away from it is to run away from the problem and admit defeat. The problem here is that you have a school system that will NOT enforce discipline on their students. The real problem then is the school system, the administrators, teachers, etc.
Find the students who "step over the line" in harrassing on any issue, discpline them appropriately. If they do not learn from this , you consider sending them to a special school, not the "regular" students.
I really suspect it is part of a larger scheme. To get homosexuality as a "protected" group.
|How is the real problem 'the school system'? Blaming the gov't?||128|
Jul 29, 2003 8:25 AM
|and teachers and aministrators for punk kids on a homo-phobic tear? I disagree. Now teachers have to "teach tolerance" Whatever the f that means. Teachers are there for substantive education (3R's) especially in the public schools (contrasted with pvt. boarding schls where more social training and discipline is incorporated/permitted.) Parents blame absolutely anything bad about their child on the teachers and the school "system" (btw, the "system" is broken.)
And try "enforcing" anything like discipline in the public school, you'll be strung up right after Limp Stems consevative on the "highest lamp post" (ooh, a lynching metaphor. How unexpected)
This bs starts at home. SELF-discipline. Responsible parenting. Stop the blame game. Of course the aggressive 'pc-in your face gay agenda' imo does not help matters but engenders aggressive responses.
|This is a societal problem. What makes you think...||94Nole|
Jul 29, 2003 9:26 AM
|that they will discipline unruly and harrassing students, when the streets are full of criminals? Proper discipline brings about crys of gruel and unusual (relatively speaking) punishment from those being punished and their parents.
The problem is parenting or LACK THEREOF!!!!!!!!! We have kids raising kids. We have parents who see their kids 1-2 hours per day and to make up for that, the get anything they want. An hour in the morning to get them off to school and and hour in the evening to get them to bed. We have created a society of "to each his own" without fear of consequence. It really is that simple.
How many here who have lawns and have kids old enough to mow their own lawns but hire it out instead? That is another part of the problem, kids today are not taught to work.
Kids aren't disciplined at home, why the heck should they listen to some man or woman who have been given stewardship over them for 6-7 hours per day?!?!?!?!?
They won't! But I can bet you one thing, they'll continue to throw money at the problem so get your pocketbook open and ready.
|Don't you think||moneyman|
Jul 29, 2003 10:05 AM
|That there is a problem with a school made for the exclusive benefit of teenagers and their sexuality? I think this raises a whole host of questions. It assumes that being g/l/b/t is due to a choice, much like those other schools you mentioned. Yet it seems to me that the g/l/b/t "community" asserts that their sexuality is not a choice, but rather how they were born. As an anecdotal comment, I have a cousin who is gay. I asked him if it was a choice or inherent. He asked me why, considering all the baggage associated with it, anyone would choose to be gay. He didn't know, and neither do I.
If g/l/b/t is inherent and not a choice, it seems that a separate school would not be the same as an arts or law enforement school, but rather akin to a school exclusively for blacks, or Asians, or whites. I am not sure any of those would be acceptable. If g/l/b/t is a choice, then we establish a school based on teenage sexual preference. What's next? S&M academies? Threesome classes? Let your imagination run. While its running, remember that establishment of a school for teenage sexuality implies approval of teenage sexual activity, and all that goes along with that.
This seems much more confusing than simply establishing a separate but equal school for a certain group.
Your opinion is welcomed, by the way.
|Very well put...nm||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 10:07 AM
|as long as we are discussing separate schools...||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 10:11 AM
|How about a special school for students who have strong religious beliefs, want to pray in school, and are being persecuted or oppressed in the regular schools? Now *that* would cause a stir.
|Doug! run and hide! hurry!!!||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 10:14 AM
|The ACLU is headed for your office! You must not think such thoughts! Heretic!!! Your thoughts will be erased! Run and seek freedom!|
|I critiiqued the idea from a left perspective and||OldEdScott|
Jul 29, 2003 10:26 AM
|found it wanting as a means to gay liberation.
I could also critique it, still from a left egalitarian perspective, and still find it wanting for some of the reasons you cite. There are 'classes' other than economic classes (oh hush, Karl, I know this is heretical) and a class system based on sexual preference is just as invidious from an egalitarian leftist perspective as any other class.
|Invidious? cha ching...||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 10:30 AM
|25 cent word there Old Ed...had to look it up to make sure I knew what it meant..that is 25 cents in the kitty for you....|
|Hell, I thought EVERYONE had read Veblen.||OldEdScott|
Jul 29, 2003 10:39 AM
|I think there are problems, sure.||dr hoo|
Jul 29, 2003 10:51 AM
|Is it a choice? Not for most, but there are plenty of bisexuals who argue that it is a choice for them. That is a side issue. The establishment of such a school does not endorse nor deny sexual orientation as a choice or as biological destiny.
The central issue is educating children. By establishing this school (which is an expansion of existing glbt classrooms) the NYC district is saying that there is a group that has not been being served, and they are trying to serve them as best they can. If S&M students or group sex kids were being beaten up in school and threatened with weapons and dropping out and killing themselves, then maybe that WOULD be a valid response. There is no evidence that is the case, so this is pretty much a red herring.
NYC has schools for teen parents. Is that an endorsement of teenage sex and reproduction? No. Want to bet that those schools teach about NOT having sex? Want to bet that the gay school will teach about HIV/AIDS? Think there will be orgies in the hallways endorsed by the faculty and staff?
As I said, I do not agree with this on principle, but I can see how it would provide better education, and keep more kids in school and off the welfare rolls and the streets. It's a band-aid solution to a larger problem, that of social order in the schools.
There's a reason I live where I live. One is that the schools work.
Jul 29, 2003 12:22 PM
|Respectfully, of course....
The establishment of such a school does not endorse nor deny sexual orientation as a choice or as biological destiny. I believe it does. If the state uses public funds to establish an institution for a particular group, does it not recognize that group as unique and endorse its very existence?
NYC has schools for teen parents. Is that an endorsement of teenage sex and reproduction? No. I don't think that is an open and shut case, either. Not everyone would agree that it does not endorse teenage sex and reproduction. Personally, I think those schools provide a vital function, but it is not universally accepted.
...I can see how it would provide better education, and keep more kids in school and off the welfare rolls and the streets. So would separate schools for boys and girls. It has been shown that kids learn better when they are separated from the opposite sex. If I recall, there was some talk of that in the NY schools as well.
On its face, I would be opposed to the separate school. I am inclined with czardonics idea to remove the harassers, rather than the harassed. We tried that at one time, sending "bad" kids to reform schools and vocational schools. Then we determined that stigmatized them and got rid of those institutions. Myabe its time to rethink that strategy.
|i figured you would||dr hoo|
Jul 29, 2003 12:44 PM
|"If the state uses public funds to establish an institution for a particular group, does it not recognize that group as unique and endorse its very existence? "
It acknowledges it exists. It does not make a claim as to the cause of its existance.
"I don't think that is an open and shut case, either. Not everyone would agree that it does not endorse teenage sex and reproduction."
Would you say that schools for kids who have been thrown out of school for behavioral problems (alternative schools) endorses juvenile delinquency? In my home town we had an "alternative" school and NO ONE wanted to go there, and EVERYONE looked down on those that did.
"So would separate schools for boys and girls. It has been shown that kids learn better when they are separated from the opposite sex. If I recall, there was some talk of that in the NY schools as well. "
Yep, and there is evidence that separating out races does the same thing. Bad principle, but positive effect. Just like Bush's policy of "pre-emptive attack for potential future threats" (bad for many reasons, especially when other countries start to apply it) can lead to positive effects (evil dictator taken down).
I agree with czar too, but the schools in NYC obviously can't manage that.
done with this dead horse yet?
|What we really need is special schools for bigots and bullies.||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 10:35 AM
|Creating a special school for the victims of harrasment makes the statement that they are the aberrations, and that their tormentors are incapable of being disciplined or reformed.
It may appeal to g/l/b/t advocates to create g/l/b/t specific schools because it at least recognizes a serious problem. But it ultimately does not solve that problem. The problem is not g/l/b/t students, it is "normal" students who feel the need to harass others who are different, "normal" schools that do not stop this behavior and "normal" parents who teach their children these irrationaly intolerant attitudes.
As ClydeTri noted, g/l/b/t students are but one of many groups that are singled out for abuse by their classmates. Obviously, a significant portion of our society has real trouble dealing with differing appearances, cultures, orientations and lifestyles. I say, single out these little twerps for the special attention they so richly deserve.
|oh my gawd!!!||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 10:51 AM
|Czardonic and I agree...we effectively have a group of people here who allegedly have a crime being committed against them, g/l/b/t, that being harrassement. Rather than going after the real problem, those doing the harrassment, we are just removing their targets..this is a completely wrong way to approach the problem.|
Jul 29, 2003 11:00 AM
|for all its virulent conservative-liberal split, this board has generally seen eye-to-eye (in the ballpark of eye-to-eye, anyway) on glbt issues.|
|I'm way left on g/l/b/t issues, but waaaayy right on violence.||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 11:12 AM
|I don't see this so much as a g/l/b/t issue but as an issue of cracking down on people who victimize and do violence to others, whomever those others are.
We got plenty of room in this country to create a seperate, supportive, nurturing environment for people who can't live and let live.
|Don't think that its a g/l/b/t issue||moneyman|
Jul 29, 2003 12:08 PM
|Its really about equality of treatment and opportunity. I think we could probably all agree that people should be treated equally. Didn't I read that somewhere before?
|WHAT IS HARRASSMENT and since when was it...||94Nole|
Jul 29, 2003 12:19 PM
|a crime when one school kid harrassed another?
Then why don't we regulate toddlers? Do you know that I have seen a toddler walk right up to another toddler and just take the toy right out of another toddler's hand?!?!?
I have even seen the toddler that had the toy taken turn right around and bite the other!!!! Maybe we should prosecute the 2nd toddler for assault. After all, it is the football player who retaliates (sp?) who gets teh flag thrown on him, right?
How stupid is this. What happens when the gay students begin harrassing each other? What the heck do we do then??
|Harassment can be either a felony or misdemeanor. . .||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 12:37 PM
|. . .in the State of New York. Since it can also include physical violence, assault laws would also apply.
If the difference between one toddler taking a toy away from another and one teenager systematically intimidating another is not clear to you, I won't bother trying to explain it.
|I guess it was an poor attempt to be absurd. Just as absurd||94Nole|
Jul 29, 2003 2:05 PM
|as a school that caters to sexual orientation. My example is no more ridiculous than that.
And assuming your post is correct, why would the laws that define harassment need to include physical violence when there are already laws that protect one from physical violence? It's because those who legislate know only how to pass laws, be have no idea of how to enforce them. And don't care.
This part of the stupidity that governs the State of NY.
|Here are the laws (I was referring to)||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 2:44 PM
S 240.25 Harassment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury.
This section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.
Harassment in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.
S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.
S 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic
means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person`s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or
4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.
Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
S 240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person`s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:
1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquired pursuant to section six of the religious corporation law and maintained for purposes of religious instruction, and the damage to the premises exceeds fifty dollars; or
2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conductproscribed by t
|Here are the laws (I was referring to) [continued. . .]||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 2:49 PM
|2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 or he has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment in the first degree within the preceding ten years.
Aggravated harassment in the first degree is a class E felony.
I imagine that harassment by physical violence is distinguished from assault because it involves repeated behavior or a "course of conduct". It may also be a way of recognizing that the sum of the effects of harassment may be greater than its parts, i.e. small acts add up to create an environment of more serious intimindation or harm.
Should NY simply enforce the laws on the books? I think so. Will it? No. Should g/l/b/t students suffer because society doesn't want to deal with its larger problem of intolerance? I don't think so. The best solution would be to make the existing schools safe for all students. Until that happens, the decent solution is to create a safe place for the victims.
|re: special schools for bigots and bullies=prison nm||DougSloan|
Jul 29, 2003 3:08 PM
|Something like that, though not as punitive. . .||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 3:39 PM
|. . .as most "law and order" types would have it.
I think that rehabilitation is ideal, but so far has not been proven to work. On the other hand, the deplorably violent and hellish prisons we have built out of the misguided desire to scare people away from breaking the law don't work as advertised, discharge worse criminals than they take in and are generally and indictment of our collective human decency (or lack thereof).
I don't think that people who have been violent need to be locked away in a cell forever, but neither do they deserve to walk the streets after some arbitrary period of time. Prisons should enforce a seperation from general society or loss of priviliges as appropriate, but otherwise allow law-breakers to live productive lives if they choose, or ascetic, boring (but safe) lives if they choose. All sentences should be N years to life. When you can demonstrate after a period of time that you can follow the straight and narrow (in a system that allows you to demonstrate that ability) then you can go. Re-offend, and you are in the system for good though your level of privilege is not fixed.
|Ridlin High? Prozac Prep....... nm||128|
Jul 30, 2003 5:25 AM
|guessing their football team wont be particulary good :) nm||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 11:17 AM
|Mark Kendall Bingham.||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 11:33 AM
|remember that..one of the ones that supposedly led the charge.....been a handful in the NFL that have come out, undoubtly more that havent.
However, would you take a bet that if you picked at random 40 "straight" boys from a high school that they would beat a team made up of 40 "gay" boys also randomly picked? I would quickly take that bet any day of the week.
|I would advise you to keep your money in your wallet.||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 11:46 AM
|My personal experience tells me that a random match would be a toss up.|
|Is it pc to say ...||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 11:53 AM
|"gay boy"? :O) You better watch it or czar will say your a homophobe! I wonder what his "personal experience" was? :O)|
|Oh, I <i>bet</i> you wonder! In vivid detail, at that. (nm)||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 11:56 AM
|I may have nightmares tonight :O)||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 12:32 PM
|Hey czar how you doin'? Sorry, but your response begged a question. I think the whole discussion is silly. If a conservative were to propose taking all of the g/l/what ever kids out of the mainstream and put them in a "special" school, the feathers would be flyin'. But just let liberal lawmakers make the same proposal and it's viewed as "progressive".|
|On the other hand. . .||czardonic|
Jul 29, 2003 12:40 PM
|. . .look at the stink that conservatives raise if we try to teach children that g/l/b/t should not be singled out for harassment or discrimination.|
|Where is the stink?||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 1:00 PM
|Conservatives don't make a stink about "tolerance". They get upset when those with "alternative lifestyles" try to justify and explain them to the chaste. We should teach our children respect for all and should need not teach acceptance of those just because they have an "alternative lifestyle". There should be no distinction and it shouldn't have to be made. "My Two Mommies" was not an appropriate way to introduce homosexuality to young minds. IMO of course.|
Jul 29, 2003 1:22 PM
|You claim to respect others. But, how can you respect someone if you don't think that their "alternative lifestyle" can be justified. (Maybe I'm just not following your argument).
As far as I am concerend, the g/l/b/t "issue" is entirely a construct of intolerance and irrationality on the part of straight people. There have always been g/l/b/t people, and for the most part I suspect that most would prefer to live lives that do not revolve around their sexual identity, i.e. neither in the closet nor on the front lines of a social movement. But the systematic discrimination and terrorization perpetrated on their "alternative lifestyle" has left them with little choice but to make a proactive effort to claim their rights as Americans and as human beings. IOW, we wouldn't need the "My Two Mommies" type of educational material if not for the illegitimate demonization and criminalization of "alternate lifestyles" fostered by, yes, homophobes. Don't raise kids who think that g/l/b/t's and their families are freaks who need to be "tolerated". Problem solved.
|Co-ed naked transgendered mixed doubles tennis team.||128|
Jul 29, 2003 11:57 AM
|Try choosing up those sides.|
|that would be..hmmmm..||ClydeTri|
Jul 29, 2003 12:03 PM
|two naked women who want to be guys..two naked guys who want to be women..no idea which sex any of them prefer...interesting concept...how about making it naked mud wrestling instead of tennis?|
|It seems to me that this silly program could be doomed ....||Live Steam|
Jul 29, 2003 11:34 AM
|from the get go. What is the criteria one must satisfy to be admitted? If stating a sexual orientation is the sole criteria, there may be many who might be willing to lie about their sexual orientation in order to get into a school that could provide a better opportunity for them to excel. Is there a test for gay/lesbian orientation that one must pass that I don't know of? I can't believe this is actually being considered in my city. I think it's time for me to move :O)
My wife works in the school system with kids having "special needs". (read kids from drug addicted mothers, kids with emotional problems and kids with behavioral problems) These poor kids were "mainstreamed" years ago (integrated into the general population of school children) because it was believed to be in their best interests. They would be socially integrated in with "normal" children and thus would stand a better chance of having a successful life after leaving the school system.
Now they want to take, for the most part, physically and mentally healthy children and segregate them from the general population. I thought the integration of the "needy" children was foolish and unhealthy for all concerned. These kids with the special needs get half of what they really require and the "normal" child get half because they are somewhat neglected because the "special ed" kid requires a good deal of the teachers attention. Often, they also cause a distraction in the classroom because of some emotional or physical problem.
These knee-jerk reactions to solving problems cost us all a lot of money and waste time and in the end may not help very many of those they were intended to help. I do not see this in a similar light to the "fame" school or any of the other schools dr hoo suggested. Those schools have a clear purpose and distinction that I do not see this school meeting. Why can't the administrators manage what they have better rather than creating another potential problem.