Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The ACLU has filed suit against Ponce de Leon High School in Florida on behalf of several students who have been forbidden from any form of expressive support for gay rights - t-shirts, buttons, even a rainbow symbol on a bookbag or a notebook. The school board is taking the bizarre position that any such symbol is evidence that students belong to an "illegal organization" and that all pro-gay speech is inherently disruptive.
The ACLU sent a letter to the school board on behalf of a student named Heather Gillman and another student who was suspended for 5 days for such expression. The school attorney's response letter was absolutely bizarre. The ACLU had given him a list of statements like "Gay? Fine with me" and symbols like traditional gay rights rainbow symbols and asked for clarification on which ones the school would prohibit. Their response:
Because of the occurrences at Ponce de Leon School over the last several months, none of the phrases, symbols, or images contained in your November 2, 2007, letter would bepermitted to be worn by students at Ponce de Leon School. The School Board and the administration of Ponce de Leon School have a duty to all students to protect the learning environment. Just as anti-gay speech, clothing and symbols would not be tolerated, neither would the items you have requested.
They further said that using pro-gay symbols is evidence of membership in "secret/illegal organizations."
Also, said symbols were used and can further be used by select students to show participation in an illegal organization as defined by the School Board...As you know, Illegal organizations are defined by the School Board as any attempt to use the school day for activities that are not school related or school sponsored. Illegal organizations
are, therefore, prohibited as they interfere with the educational process.
Talk about overly broad! By their definition, a Nike symbol conveys membership in an illegal organization and must be banned. According to the legal complaint, this all began in September when a lesbian student at the school was harassed by a group of students. She complained to a teacher about it and was then called into the principal's office and harangued for being gay:
Upon information and belief, at the end of the school day on Monday, September 10,2007, Defendant Davis called Jane Doe into his office to discuss the incident on the previous Friday. Defendant Davis asked Jane Doe if she had told the teacher's aide that she was a lesbian. Jane Doe answered "yes" in order to give context to the taunting. He then asked, "are you a lesbian?" Jane Doe answered yes. He explained that Jane Doe should not be gay and she should not tell people she is gay. Mr. Davis then instructed Jane Doe not to talk with the "middle school" girls. Defendant Davis also told Jane Doe that "gay pride" was a disgrace to the school.
And it just gets worse:
14. Upon infOlmation and belief, Defendant Davis's admonishments against Jane Doe became publicly known among the student body. Some students began writing "GP" or "Gay Pride" on their arms to show support for Jane Doe. On or about Tuesday, September 11, 2007, a rumor stalted among the students that Defendant Davis had invited an antigay preacher to speak at a mandatory assembly on Wednesday, September 12,2007. The rumor was partly confirmed by a silent bulletin on the classroom video monitors showing that there was going to be a "morality assembly" at the end of the day Wednesday.15. Upon information and belief, during lunchtime on Wednesday, September 12,2007, a group offriends ofJane Doe discussed the idea of peacefully walking out of the assembly in protest.
16. The "morality assembly" occurred on Wednesday, September 12,2007, and proceeded without incident. No students walked out of the assembly.
17. Upon information and belief, during the days after the assembly, Defendant Davis called in about a dozen students to interrogate them about the "GP" and "Gay Pride" writings that some students were displaying on their anns and school materials and about the rumored walkout of the assembly. During those meetings, Defendant Davis instructed students not to wear a rainbow belt and or to write "Gay Pride" or "GP" on their arms or notebooks.
18. One of the students that Defendant Davis called into his office during the days after the assembly is Heather's cousin, who is also a student at Ponce de Leon High School. Upon information and belief, Defendant Davis interrogated Heather's cousin about her sexual orientation and about the sexual orientation of other students at the school. Defendant Davis also stated something to the effect of being gay was not right and that being gay is against the Bible. He further stated that he hoped that Heather's cousin would not "go down that road" of being gay. He then instructed her not to discuss her sexual orientation with any students at the school, not to say "gay pride" or write it on her body or school materials, and not to wear gay themed clothing, including her rainbow-colored belt. Defendant Davis explained to Heather's cousin that if she were to do any of these things, he would suspend her from school.
19. Upon information and belief, on or about Friday, September 21, 2007, and Monday, September 24,2007, Defendant Davis suspended a handful of students, including Heather's cousin, for five school days each for expressing their support for the fair treatment of gays and lesbians. To at least one student, Heather's cousin, and her parent, Defendant Davis explained that he was suspending the student for: (1) belonging to a "secret society," (2) threatening to walk out of the assembly, and (3) disrupting the school by being part of a gay protest. Heather heard about the suspensions and Defendant Davis's prohibitions of student expression supporting the fair treatment of gays and lesbians from her cousin and a few other students.
Absolutely outrageous. This is a school in serious legal jeopardy, with a principal who needs to be fired immediately.
Comments
How can someone who managed to pass a bar exam write a letter like that? I would think they are so obviously going to lose on this that the attorney could be guilty of malpractice. But then, I'm not an attorney, so what do I know?
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | February 4, 2008 9:57 AM
Can you please explain what "upon information and belief" indicates?
Posted by: Gretchen | February 4, 2008 10:00 AM
"Half the practice of a good lawyer is telling your client he's a damn fool and he needs to observe the law."
~Elihu Root
This school needs a good lawyer.
Posted by: Chris Bell | February 4, 2008 10:02 AM
Since we know religion cannot be taught or promoted in school, doesn't the school policy likewise ban religious symbols? Bet the fundies would LOVE that result of this policy.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 4, 2008 10:05 AM
You're neglecting some of the best examples of "secret/illegal organizations" that that incredibly overbroad definition would cover. Since it's any organization or activity that's unaffiliated with the school, you can impugn just about anyone and anything you'd like. A short list: any religious symbol, anything related to boy/girl scouts, major league sports apparel, any shirts from the various community service orgs, marathons, etc. Basically anything that's not completely void of brand name, pictures, logos, words, etc. And that's not symbolic of any other affiliation. I don't even think you could get away with wearing all black, since you'd be a goth. I'm pretty sure that if they enforced that rule equally across the board, it'd be impossible for students to NOT be in violation of it.
Posted by: Kevin S | February 4, 2008 10:12 AM
This is a public school, right? Then what the hell is a public school doing inviting preachers in to give "morality assemblies"??
This principal is a'goin down in flames.
Posted by: Rick R | February 4, 2008 10:20 AM
Illegal organizations? Really? When did the school board gain the authority to pass laws?
Classic rhetorical tactic - villify your opponents right out of the gate by using a scary label.
Please note that students at this school are apparently no longer allowed to wear crosses, Stars of David, saints' medals, etc., since all of these indicate membership in "illegal [sic] organizations"
Posted by: AnneS | February 4, 2008 10:28 AM
By the school attorney's definition, the local churches are "illegal organizations". If they're going to ban rainbow belts, they have to ban crosses too. Something tells me the logic of that is totally lost on any resident of Florida, though. Not a hotbed of rational thinking there, ya know. In fact, note that the school is named after a guy who was allegedly searching for magic water that could make him stay young forever (or possibly to cure his impotence).
Posted by: The Mad Patriot | February 4, 2008 10:59 AM
First reaction is surprise, then disgust, then amusement.
Instead of writing "GP" or rainbow banners, why not borrow some old tactics: put up posters announcing that anyone wanting to support gay pride should wear blue jeans/a crucifix/red... The possibilities are endless. It's less about getting a real showing of support than it is about getting accidental support ("What do you mean I'm supporting gays?") and driving the administration insane with paranoia.
So far, kudos to these students for getting these idiotic administrators to put their feet so firmly in their mouth, and get it in writing too!
Posted by: Adrian | February 4, 2008 11:16 AM
I'm not at all a lawyer, but wouldn't that letter pretty much prove the ACLU's case to any federal judge? What kind of lawyer reports facts that make them lose to opposing counsel? I don't understand.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 4, 2008 11:25 AM
how is a rainbow any different than a swastica? think about this one.
i believe the school is right to foster a neutral, unopinionated LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
if students wish to express their individuality, let it be through class participation, not just merely standing out with shirts and symbols. after all, the minds are still young, they know not what they are dealing with. maybe the school is a little bisguided, but what they are dealing with is something thats been around for a while (teenage stupidity) in a new form (being gay).
Posted by: unxzst | February 4, 2008 11:34 AM
The obvious question:
What the hell is wrong with Florida? Has it been completely taken over by religious fundamentalists?
Is it too late to give it back to the Spanish? Would they want it?
Things like this go on all the time down there. From the banning of materials supportive of gay people in Hillsborough County public libraries to the Creationist movement to the de facto segregation in Taylor County to this latest example, it seems like (and from my experience it is the case that) fundamentalists of Florida believe they can do whatever they think their religion dictates with impunity, as the response you've posted above demonstrates.
Commenters here keep asking why a lawyer would write a response that practically guarantees that his client will lost a lawsuit. The reason is that they don't care; they'll do whatever they feel like and, if they lose, they'll go right back to doing it again. If the school goes broke from a string of lawsuits, the state will ultimately step in and prop them up. In the meantime, the students who were suspended will be subjected to harassment, even violence, and be forced to leave in one way or another. Eventually, anybody who would instigate a suit over behavior like this won't be at the school anymore. The Bible-thumpers will have gotten rid of them, and that's exactly what they wanted all along.
That's how fundamentalists work in Florida. They're blatant, they're aggressive, and ultimately they're truly dangerous. Don't think for a moment that lynchings are a thing of the past; they've just refined the technique a bit over the years.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | February 4, 2008 11:37 AM
Wow, the ignorance of basic rights by this administration is astounding. Get em ACLU.
Posted by: JoH | February 4, 2008 11:41 AM
Chris: Unfortunately, the other half of law is recognizing that, as a lawyer, you are hired to advise the client, not direct the client. If the client wants to continue to be a damnfool, there really isn't much you can do other than resign or go on.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | February 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Gee: principal blatantly pushing his religion on a student; principal trying to muzzle student's speech, even in casual conversation? The guy sounds like the classic petty-bureaucrat control-freak with a chip on his shoulder (unfortunately, the job seems to attract such).
And the letter admitting all that is from the principal's lawyer? This guy is toast.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Well, one stands for gay pride and/or support of gay pride, and the other stands for the establishment of an Aryan nation free of Jews.
I have yet to hear of anyone who was scarred for life because they made a bad choice about what to wear in high school. Well, aside from unfortunate fashion choices. It's funny to imagine that kids could somehow damage themselves psychologically by being allowed to wear a shirt that says being gay is okay. I know I wore one in high school, yet magically have made it to adulthood unscathed.
If you think being gay is a new form of teenage stupidity, I have to suspect that you know very little about either teenagers or homosexuality.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 4, 2008 11:54 AM
Hmmm, The school is called PONCE de Leon.
As a Brit I find that very funny.
The clue, as they say, is in the question.
Posted by: Alan | February 4, 2008 11:56 AM
Gretchen wrote:
Yeah, this is a phrase you see in legal complaints of this type all the time. Basically it means "we've got testimony or evidence to support this allegation and we'll present it when we get to trial." Sometimes it means something slightly less certain, roughly "we've got some information that this is the case and we'll find out for sure during discovery and depositions." Sometimes those things turn out not to be supportable during the trial.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 4, 2008 12:14 PM
Gretchen,
Would the wrong gang colors be part of those "unfortunate fashion choices?" I work with someone who lived in South Central LA, and he has said that when he was growing up, he was quite careful to not wear certain colors, because they were gang colors. It isn't too hard for me to imagine that wearing the wrong things could be VERY dangerous in certain parts of the country.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 4, 2008 12:23 PM
While surely bringing a priest into an American school to preach must mean curtains for the headmaster the biggest kicker for all these bigots is that survey after survey shows that their attitudes are on the wane.
Kids today just don't see anything wrong with being gay and no amount of shouting at them is going to make any difference.
50 years from now it won't even be a "thing" like race today. You may argue that there is still a lot of racism about but today America is seriously thinking about electing a black President.
Posted by: David Durant | February 4, 2008 12:29 PM
Duly noted, Shawn, thanks. There are indeed ways to dress/style oneself in high school that can be permanently damaging. I would draw a line, however, between advising that a person dress a certain way to protect himself from others, and doing so in protection from himself.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Kevin S:
One of my favorite quotes is this one:
"Everybody in this hall is wearing a uniform, and don't you forget it."
It was Frank Zappa's response to someone in the audience at a concert yelling that they needed to get rid of the f***ing uniforms. (Presumably police officers in the concert hall.)
Unfortunately, school teachers often seem to think that their mission is to make those kids conform to their 19th century morality. I get into this every time I suggest that at my school, we would be better off without a dress code so tha adminsitration could worry about things that matter.
"I don't want to see all that cleavage." OK, so don't look.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Posted by: Dunc | February 4, 2008 12:44 PM
Apparantly, as defined by the school board, being an Ameican citizen and exercising the right to free speech is participation in an illegal organization.
This one has already been decided by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. There it was black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. And since Lawrence v. Texas, the board can hardly claim the students were promoting illegal activity.
Now the only question is how much the school board wants to pay the ACLU.
Posted by: John Pieret | February 4, 2008 1:02 PM
Anybody want to make any bets on the completeness of the Ponce de Leon HS biology curriculum?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2008 1:39 PM
Ed: You might want to mention that Ponce de Leon is in Holmes County, Florida. I was two paragraphs into an angry letter when I realized the problem wasn't with my alma matter, Ponce de Leon of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Posted by: Ompus | February 4, 2008 2:05 PM
I can tell you exactly what happened.
The principal of that high school is a fundamentalist prick who doesn't understand that his job is to educate, not to indoctrinate, he took his moralizing too far, and when he got caught, his super-close pals on the school board, unwilling to turn on one of their own, have instead put the entire school system in one of the worst legal predicaments of their lives.
Nice.
Posted by: Patrick | February 4, 2008 2:50 PM
I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Roberts-led SCOTUS pretty much cut the knees out from under the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District with its recent decision in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. In that case, SCOTUS essentially ruled against the students by saying that the school district in that case had a vested interest in opposing student speech since it could be perceived as promoting illegal drug use.
Could it be this ruling that the Ponce de Leon school administrators are counting on to support their actions against these students?
Posted by: Engr Tony | February 4, 2008 2:50 PM
"Could it be this ruling that the Ponce de Leon school administrators are counting on to support their actions against these students?"
If it is, it's stupid, because being gay isn't illegal.
Posted by: Russell Miller | February 4, 2008 3:07 PM
The principal might try using the same argument other schools have used against gay-straight alliances. Mentioning gays is supposedly talking about sex, and if I recall correctly, Florida law states minors are unable to consent to sexual activity. Therefore supporting gays equals underage sex.
Posted by: Michael Cook | February 4, 2008 3:25 PM
That would still be stupid, though on a different level of stupidity. Talking about sexual activity isn't engaging in sexual activity.
On the other hand, people tend to do all sorts of stupid things to justify their hangups and prejudices...
Posted by: gwangung | February 4, 2008 4:52 PM
As I mentioned in my post about this, they have to be worried about those shadowy lesbian gangs.
Posted by: Skemono | February 4, 2008 6:03 PM
"morality assembly"???
Winston first saw Julia at one of those, didn't he?? Double-plus ungood.
Posted by: O'Brien | February 4, 2008 6:06 PM
i believe the school is right to foster a neutral, unopinionated LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
IF this were what the school was doing, you might have a leg to stand on, but this isn't what the school is doing. On the one hand it is suppressing the speech and expression of its students, on the other hand the school itself is advocating a particular point of view through the actions of the administration and the mandatory meeting. That is not fostering a neutral, unopinionated learning environment.
Second, the school itself should foster a neutral environment, but there are limitations on its ability to silence the students expression of their views.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 4, 2008 6:07 PM
"even a rainbow symbol on a bookbag or a notebook"
My new gotta-have-one bumper sticker:
"Every time you see a rainbow, God's having gay sex"
Excepting, of course, my pickup would get bricks through the windshield and my house would get burned.......
Posted by: Coragyps | February 4, 2008 6:19 PM
It is more than a little unclear how the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case is going to effect free speech in high schools. The majority opinion is, to be frank, incoherent in places, and it does not do a good job of distinguishing between the actual holding and dicta. At the very least, we can predict that it will weaken Tinker and allow schools much more leeway to censor for the purpose of keeping order. I imagine the school's attorney is reading it very broadly.
I'd sure as hell like to ask that lawyer for a list of "Illegal Organizations" that are on the banned list. I'm guessing the ACLU is near the top.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 4, 2008 7:14 PM
Pierce Butler:
Sure, since you didn't limit which side I could take. I'll take "Not enough evolution" for a bottle of Knob Creek bourbon, please.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 4, 2008 7:22 PM
Re: "Bong hits 4 Jesus" case. I suspect that it may not undermine Tinker much because it dealt with druuuuuuugggs! The Supreme Court seems to have decided that the Constitution still matters in a time of war, except not for a war on drugs. Kurt's right that the majority's reasoning is incoherent--it tends to happen when they try to justify what's blatantly unconstitutional.
Cases in point: Plessy: If he feels singled out because he has to ride in the baggage compartment, it's just in his head, it's not really racist; and : He hasn't been detained because he's Japanese, he's been detained because we're at war with Japan.
Since homosexuality isn't as scary as drugs to the Supremes (except maybe for Scalia--see his dissent in Romer, where he almost seems to foresee the decline and fall of western civilization as a consequence of not discriminating against homosexuals), I don't think "Bong Hits" will have much effect on this case.
I think part of what's going on here is a consequence of the absolutely dreadful education of most school administrators. They get BAs, MAs, and PhDs in Education which means they actually learn almost nothing of substance. I think every school administrator in the country--heck, maybe even every teacher--should have to take a course on Civil Rights and Liberties. Maybe at least some of them would get it then.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 4, 2008 7:32 PM
The irony of this is that Florida's Governor is -- all but openly -- gay. He has frequently been escorted by his long-time companion to political events, and didn't even deny it when it was brought up in debates -- by a minor party candidate, I think it was someone from the Green party, but I'm not sure about that.
It will be interesting to see if he gets involved in the issue. I doubt if he will, but will certainly keep the state from supporting this idiot principal.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | February 4, 2008 11:08 PM
"morality assembly" -- Orwell would steal this euphemism if he were still alive and writing.
Posted by: markcross | February 4, 2008 11:29 PM
OT...
>> how is a rainbow any different than a swastica? think about this one.
>> Well, one stands for gay pride and/or support of gay pride, and the other stands for the establishment of an Aryan nation free of Jews.
Unfortunate, wikipedia says it all: "The swastika was appropriated as a Nazi symbol and gained further association with the Third Reich as the Reich gained influence. Though once commonly used over much of the world without stigma, over time the symbol has become a controversial motif, especially in the Western world."
Posted by: jan van mourik | February 5, 2008 9:58 AM
I am almost tempted to believe that the lawyer in fact does know what he/she is doing and purposely spelled out in exact detail why the school district will go down in flames.
The alternative is that the lawyer is stupid...very, very stupid. More stupid, in fact, than the principal, because at least the lawyer should know better.
Posted by: Russell Claus | February 5, 2008 11:42 AM
Or, to gay it up a bit:
"We're born naked, and the rest is drag."
- RuPaul
Posted by: Alex | February 5, 2008 11:52 AM
Actually, one portion of Morse V. Fredrick ("bong hits 4 Jesus") could be rather relevant: in his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas argued that Tinker should be overturned, and that students in school have no free speech rights.
Posted by: Kevin C. | February 5, 2008 2:38 PM
Actually, one portion of Morse V. Fredrick ("bong hits 4 Jesus") could be rather relevant: in his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas argued that Tinker should be overturned, and that students in school have no free speech rights.
Generally, I frown upon people who home school their kids because I feel that they are denying their kids the whole experience and also because most of the home schoolers seem to be Fundies. But if Thomas' opinion ever becomes law and students truly have no free speech rights in school then I will begin to understand why more parents keep their kids out of public schools.
Posted by: Bruce | February 5, 2008 4:02 PM
About Morse v. Frederick (Bong Hits 4 Jesus,) most of the majority signed a concurrence that underscored that the school's interests could not be said to extend to political speech, even that which advocated for changing the drug laws. Being for gay rights is so obviously political speech that even the conservative judicial activists on the court would have a hard time reverse-engineering the outcome they might prefer, and they'd be outnumbered. Thomas stands alone in defense of allowing the bigotry of local majorities to determine the limits for other people's kids. Sheeesh.
It never ceases to amaze me how our country lets itself be paralyzed by fear. Homosexuality is going to spread like a disease! Because, you know, in the end everyone secretly wants to be gay and the only thing holding them back is social disapproval. Thank goodness the next generation is over it.
Posted by: ScottS | February 5, 2008 4:57 PM
"morality assembly"
Under no circumstances should Tab A be inserted into Slot B. In fact, Tab A and any and all Slots are absolutely off-limits and should never be touched in any way whatsoever. Just leave them be and pretend they're not there until matrimony...
Posted by: BobN | February 5, 2008 5:01 PM
Justice Thomas argued that Tinker should be overturned, and that students in school have no free speech rights.
What a shocker - not........
I'm also not the slightest bit surprised this school is in the heart of Florida's panhandle. If I understand correctly, aside from a state boundary this area's really no different than neighboring Alabama & Mississippi.
Posted by: oddjob | February 5, 2008 5:02 PM
You know, since it's not ok for fundies to rag on people of color, they have to pick some new target for their rage. Guess it's gays now, huh? What are they so afraid of? It's not catching...
Posted by: BeeA | February 5, 2008 5:10 PM
Sheesh, this doesn't even happen at my nearby Catholic school . . .
Posted by: boom | February 5, 2008 6:27 PM
The father of a friend of mine once asked if I had heard that the rainbow was being used as a Satanist symbol. At that time it was probably the end-is-nigh folks demonizing gays. I told him the last I heard it was supposed to be God's promise not to drown the world again.
Posted by: Monado | February 5, 2008 9:15 PM
Think about this one? Think about this one? Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick! Did you rub two brain cells together before you wrote that? Did you think? At all?
Bullshit. You believe in something else: your beliefs, no matter what they are, remaining UNchallenged.
The only way to combat bigotry is to put the practitioners of bigotry environments where their behaviors are properly remonstrated, via peer pressure, as being troglodyte. And it's definitely not pretending that life is fairies and unicorns and that if we don't talk about it, it'll go away.
Posted by: Moses | February 6, 2008 8:57 AM
Florida is complicated. Minors that are 16 or 17 can engage in sex with people under the age of 24. If they engage in sex with people 24 or over, the adult has committed a felony. While I understand their reasoning, to some lame extent, it's still seriously bizarre in my book. But it turns their little fundamentalist cranks.
The laws Florida had regulating gay sex between minors were struck down as unconstitutional.
The way I read it, petting and a hand-job might be okay.
Posted by: Moses | February 6, 2008 9:10 AM
You know, that's a crock of shit. Homeschool kids are, as a population, more socialized than the warehoused kids in school. A lot of this is due to their being around a WIDE AGE RANGE of people with a lot of one-on-one contact in social situations. Further, they avoid a lot of the "group-think" and "group-victim" traumas.
You know, even those "fundy" kids finish their compulsory testing, on average, at the 80th percentile. I look at my daughter's Math & Science Magnet and see them teach 3 hours, or less, material in a day that, from commute-to-school to arrive-at-home takes eight-to-nine hours. The same with my older daughter in college who went to Martin Luther King Magnet High School, one of the Top-50 High Schools in the United States.
That's six hours wasted, per day, that my daughter could be learning or enjoying her life. And in a dirty, rude, hositile to anyone who doesn't conform like a sheep environment.
And why we'll be homeschooling from 6th grade on and we regret the mistake of not starting earlier. Maybe you should read this:
http://thefaithfulpenquin.blogspot.com/2008/02/bitter-homeschoolers-wish-list.html
Or start with the all the reference materials and links on this blog: http://intothesunrise.blogspot.com/
And realize that there are a LOT of people who homeschool that are secular or even religious but it's not about fundamentalism. Rather, it's about an educational system that was designed for the needs of the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION and is based on CONFORMITY, BRUTALITY and AUTHORITARISM.
Posted by: Moses | February 6, 2008 9:34 AM
As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
Wait, wait, WAIT A MINUTE. Where can I find this "bona fide medical purpose" for oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by the sexual organ of another? I totally could have used this as a line when I was in my teens and twenties: "But it's for a bona fide medical purpose! If we don't do it, you'll DIE!"
aestheticpisces
Posted by: aestheticpisces | February 6, 2008 1:55 PM
... out of a cannon.
Posted by: Brian | February 6, 2008 7:14 PM
They are going to equate it with wearing "Gang" colors -you just wait.
Posted by: S.Scott | February 7, 2008 12:53 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ponce
No wonder they're upset.
Posted by: PonceDeLeon | February 7, 2008 10:41 PM
Hey, time will tell, you guys.
I stand up among the crowd that supports the ban on pro-gay talk, activities, etc. Love ya all, but the three letter word gay equates with the three letter word sin. Time will make that clear to more people. There is a lot we all don't know. Keep an open mind for Truth. :)
Posted by: Robin | February 7, 2008 10:52 PM
If that's so, then that's treading on the territory of God.
Humans generally shouldn't try to do God's work for Him---they generally get it wrong.
Medicine for thee, but not for me, eh?
Posted by: gwangung | February 7, 2008 11:12 PM
I found the link for the email address of the school staff. I sent this email to the principal and Bcc everyone else.
Subject: Prinipal Davis did you ever consider...
Dear Sir,
I read the story about the young lady that went seeking for help after being apparently taunted by fellow classmates for being a supposed lesbian. I am not sure that you will even receive this email or if you do that you will read it. I simply feel that it's important that everyone attempts to see several sides of a situation.
1. I understand from the articles I read that you had stated to several students (or maybe just one) that in the bible it says homosexuality is explained as being wrong or a sin. Yes it does say this in the bible; however do keep in mind that it was still very abundant through out those times. Whether or not it is right or wrong.
2. I am astonished that you would have the audacity to tell a young child what they are or what they are not. High school is the crappiest time of any ones life. It really is the worst thing to go through. How can someone who is vulnerable and extremely impressionable be able to cope with the fact, from a very tender time in her life, is told that the feelings she has, are wrong? How do you come to the conclusion that you are any type of judge to make such a ruling on someone so young? Did you ever consider that when saying this to the student you may not have been helping them, as I am sure you think you were lending some valuable wisdom or leading them down the "right" path. Do you realize you may have completely scared this child. They will probably define their whole life around that fact that you felt it your responsibility to tell them who they are or who they "should" be.
No one, and I mean no single solitary person is the judge, or ever will be the judge of anyone but themselves.
Here's the deal: you can not tell any teenager what is right or wrong. They have to find this on their own. I could have never been corrected on my feelings when I was younger. When I was told "you shouldn't feel that way" all I did was get mad and feel hurt. I always understood, with christian background, that encouraging or seeding negative emotions is not practiced. Instead I understood that love, forgiveness and acceptance was the main idea of your tenets.
I would like to suggest that you revisit your ideas and reserve your opinions for those who seek it out.
-Amy
Posted by: Amy | February 7, 2008 11:52 PM
Most of the people running the schools in Florida have to be removed and replaced with ... oh, I dunno ... trained termites perhaps. Or kumquats. Anything.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM
"Unfortunate, wikipedia says it all: "The swastika was appropriated as a Nazi symbol and gained further association with the Third Reich as the Reich gained influence. Though once commonly used over much of the world without stigma, over time the symbol has become a controversial motif, especially in the Western world.""
Unfortunately, you are not well read enough or cultured to realize that 1) Wikipedia is not a real source of valid information and 2) The "swastika" used in much of the rest of the world, i.e. ASIA, is a Buddhist symbol for harmony or something similar to that. In fact, it is still commonly used throughout Asia without stigma. The difference here is in meaning and presentation. Unless, I have completely misunderstood what you said... jan van mourik.
On a different note, I guess I can't enjoy the beauty of rainbows in this school without being part of an illegal organization? Do they serve Lucky Charms at breakfast?
Posted by: Jasmine | February 8, 2008 2:33 PM
At the risk of further feeding the troll, I wonder how swastikas and rainbows are similar.
At the risk of feeding the other troll, I suspect that citing Wikipedia as a reference probably lends marginally more credence to an argument than not citing anything at all.
Posted by: JCos | February 8, 2008 7:42 PM
Can anyone tell me what:
"(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person 16 or 17 years of age who has had the disabilities of nonage removed under chapter 743."*
means? Thanks - DJ
*posted by moses above in a fold. (also how do you do a fold?)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 8, 2008 11:56 PM
DingoJack, here's the relevant part of Florida law. "Removal of disabilities of nonage" seems to mean basically that a 16- or 17-year old can be treated legally as an adult, even though they're still a minor.
And you do a quote with the HTML command blockquote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Quoted text</BLOCKQUOTE>
Posted by: Skemono | February 9, 2008 1:01 AM
Thanks Skenno. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2008 10:33 PM
Um .. Thanks Skemono. It's been a long day. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 11, 2008 1:34 AM
What's happening on this? Any updates?
Posted by: Monado | February 12, 2008 12:48 PM
Well, I looked into the website of the high school, and I realized Mr. Davis is no longer a principal, but a Social Studies teacher. I personally think he should have gotten fired, but at least he got demoted.
Posted by: Kylie Moore | May 1, 2009 11:04 PM
Also, they added to their school policies that "no student will be discriminated against based upon political belief".
I hope they hold that up.
Posted by: Kylie | May 1, 2009 11:08 PM