Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You may remember a few months ago I posted about a lawsuit against Ponce de Leon High School in Florida, where the principal had suspended several students and declared that no one could have any message on anything in the school that was pro-gay rights - even a rainbow sticker. As predicted, the principal lost the case and lost badly.
The facts as stipulated by the court are actually worse than what was originally reported. You really have to read this ruling to believe just how insane this principal was. It started when a lesbian student complained to a teacher about being bullied and harassed by a group of students. Rather than dealing with the harassment, the principal called the lesbian student into his office and berated her. I'll let the court ruling lay it out:
At the end of the school day on the following Monday, September 10, 2007, Davis called Jane into his office. Davis asked Jane if she had told the teacher's aide that she identified herself as a lesbian. Jane answered, "Yes." Davis then asked, "Are you a lesbian?" Jane again answered, "Yes." Davis counseled Jane that it was not "right" to be homosexual. He then questioned Jane about whether her parents were aware of her sexual orientation. When Jane answered in the negative, Davis asked Jane for her parents' telephone number so that he could call them and inform them of her sexual orientation. Davis also instructed Jane to "stay away" from the middle school students or that he would suspend her. Jane left Davis's office in tears.
Gosh, I can't imagine why. And it actually gets worse from there. Davis then brought in a local minister to hold a "morality assembly" for the whole school. At that point, a group of students began expressing their support for Jane, wearing t-shirts and buttons showing their support. And yes, it actually gets worse:
Following the assembly, Davis began investigating what had come to be known as the "Gay Pride" movement at the school. He interviewed approximately thirty students, interrogated them about their sexual orientations, and questioned them about their involvement in the planned walk-out of the assembly and their activities in relation to the movement. During those meetings, Davis instructed students who were homosexual not to discuss their sexual orientations. He also prohibited students from wearing rainbow belts or writing "Gay Pride" or "GP" on their arms and notebooks.
But wait, there's more. Believe it or not, it actually gets worse:
He required students to wash "GP" or "Gay Pride" from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.
A nice touch, don't you think? But no, we still have not hit the depths of this cretin's behavior.
On Friday, September 21, 2007, and Monday, September 24, 2007, Davis suspended eleven students, including Gillman's cousin, for five school days each as punishment for their involvement in the "Gay Pride" movement. As grounds for the suspensions, Davis explained that the students belonged to a "secret society" or "illegal organization" forbidden by school board policy; had threatened to walk out of an assembly; and had disrupted the school. Davis told the mother of a student whom he had suspended that he could secretly "send her [daughter] off to a private Christian school down in Tallahassee" or to the juvenile detention center and that "if there was a man in your house, your children were in church, you wouldn't be having any of these gay issues."
This is all beginning to sound like the script from a John Hughes movie, where the brave students stand up to the evil principal - but this sonofabitch actually exists! And the school board was just as idiotic:
In light of Davis's prohibition of messages relating to the support and acceptance of homosexuals, Gillman sought clarification from the School Board about its own position on the matter. On November 2, 2007, Gillman and her cousin (who had previously been suspended by Davis), through legal counsel, sent a letter to the attorney for the School Board. The letter requested guidance on which phrases and symbols students could display at school without being disciplined. Specifically, Gillman sought permission from the School Board to display rainbows, pink triangles, and the following slogans: "Equal, Not Special Rights," "Gay? Fine By Me," "Gay Pride" or "GP," "I Support My Gay Friends," "I Support Gays," "God Loves Me Just the Way I Am," "I'm Straight, But I Vote Pro-Gay," "I Support Equal Marriage Rights," "Pro-Gay Marriage," "Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice. Religion, However, Is."By letter dated November 12, 2007, the School Board responded that none of the phrases, symbols, or images contained in the letter dated November 2, 2007, could be displayed by students at Ponce de Leon High School. The School Board justified its censorship on the ground that the expressions indicated membership in an "illegal organization" prohibited by School Board policy and were disruptive to the educational process.
Apparently the school board attorney got his degree from Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop. They could sue that idiot for malpractice for being that utterly clueless of the law. There's no point in quoting the court's legal conclusions; if ever there was an open and shut case, this was it. The plaintiff's brief could have just said "DUH" in big letters on it and they would have won.
But I'm glad to see that the judge didn't mince words. He called the principal's behavior "deplorable" and says, quite rightly, that he engaged in a "witch hunt" that was blatantly unconstitutional. He also calls Davis out for lying on the witness stand (Mr. Buckingham to the white courtesy phone).
He also blasts the school superintendent for his utter ignorance of the constitution. That guy actually said on the witness stand that he thinks students should not be allowed even to wear a button supporting a presidential candidate. And these are the halfwits charged with the education of our children. This is absolutely one of the most ridiculous cases I have ever come across.
Politics
Comments
The principal got off easy. He was nailed evangalizing to captive kids in a public school, and the judge just gave that a pass, instead focussing on the free speech issue.
Posted by: Lawdog | July 30, 2008 9:53 AM
Posted by: WScott | July 30, 2008 9:58 AM
Somebody let the authority power trip go to their heads. If people ever wonder why others who are bullied don't speak out...that is your answer.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 30, 2008 10:08 AM
Yippee! I expected the defense lawyer would find ways to tie up this case for a year then get it dismissed on standing after Gillman graduated. Glad to see it didn't happen that way.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 30, 2008 10:17 AM
He required students to wash "GP" or "Gay Pride" from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.
Wait, you can actually force teenage girls to lift their shirts for your fantasization -- oops, I mean "inspection?" And get PAID for it? I WANT THIS GUY'S JOB!! (Or do only women get to "inspect" the nubile bodies of teenage suspected lesbians?)
I guess that's one reason why there's so much homophobia: policies like this make bigotry FUN. Does anyone in the pro-gay, pro-equal-rights faction get to do this? NOOOOO, all those losers get to do is file depositions and write editorials and make speeches to fully-clothed audiences.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 30, 2008 10:19 AM
The ruling was in May. This is the formal opinion. Judge Smoak is a "W" appointment (2005), unanimously confirmed. He also reportedly awarded $300,000+ in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Mr. Davis is apparently no longer a principal. He's said to be teaching American history in the local high schools now.
Posted by: Jeff Chamberlain | July 30, 2008 10:25 AM
I'm encouraged by the fact that enough students banded together to fight this. The next generation's attitudes are dramatically different. Give it up, social conservatives, you've lost on this one.
Posted by: Taz | July 30, 2008 10:29 AM
WTF?!!? He peeked up the shirts of female students to check out their torsos? Why isn't also being nailed with some kind of sexual assault charge? Why hasn't his sorry ass been summarily FIRED?!
Damn, if I had a daughter who reported to me that the principal had been playing that kind of game, I'd be in his office PDQ telling him to keep his hands to himself, and THEN I'd be in the office of a good lawyer to see about bringing action.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 30, 2008 10:34 AM
Sickening. Thanks for bringing news stories like this to my attention, Ed.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | July 30, 2008 10:42 AM
AbbyNormal, from what I gathered, the plaintifs picked their complaint well. The student who was harrassed and graduating was the older cousin of the actual plaintif. The student in the case (through her mother) still had a year to go, she isn't slated to graduate until spring 2009. They'd have to find a way to drag the case on a good 18 months (which for a fairly cut and dried matter is not going to fly with a judge who has to waste his/her time reviewing all the filings) to 'time-out' of this.
I do think that the family likely got together with a lawyer and were informed of the most straightforward way to address the matter, while making sure they had the time they needed to stop the board from mooting the issue.
Posted by: kodiak | July 30, 2008 10:56 AM
I sure hope you mean "learning American history"; he isn't qualified to teach it.
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 30, 2008 11:04 AM
Holy crap, that's like 100 miles away from me and my family. More and more I'm thinking about moving north while my two kids are still young.
Posted by: Joe V. | July 30, 2008 11:09 AM
Pretty sure he meant "lying about American history," given the circumstances.
Posted by: MartinM | July 30, 2008 11:11 AM
lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.
Depending on the extent on this, this guy is a pervert, and should not be allowed to be near children anymore.
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | July 30, 2008 11:11 AM
I am pretty sure he could have been arrested for lifting girls' shirts. If someone had been wise enough to bring up charges, he'd probably have been barred from working with children.
Posted by: rpsms | July 30, 2008 11:13 AM
lawdog: I don't think they filed a complaint on the evangelizing issue in regards to the "morality assembly", and that's likely why the judge didn't go after them for that; after all, he can only rule on what is included in the complaint. Also, having a religious figure speak at a school isn't in itself illegal; its the nature of the presentation and the speech given that moves it into a church/state issue.
Posted by: Julian | July 30, 2008 11:30 AM
rpms: I doubt it. Of course, it depends on the nature of the act itself; how far they were lifted, how long he looked, whether there was someone like a school nurse present, but typically school administrators are given a slightly longer leash than teachers on these sorts of issues, and the environment isn't as anti-sexual harassment these days as it was in the 90's. Of course, now that his acts have been deemed unconstitutional, any of those students who's shirts he lifted who happen to still be in school could file similar rights-violation or official harassment charges against him, maybe even pursue a civil case for damages (hint, hint).
Posted by: Julian | July 30, 2008 11:37 AM
No need to worry. Plaintiffs had requested nominal damages, which normally precludes mootness. The three exceptions to the rule: 1) if nominal damages aren't available as relief [such as when the state is the defendant], 2) if the plaintiff has failed to allege a set of facts that would establish that a past violation occurred, or 3) if the claim for nominal damages is made in an untimely manner. Since none of the three exception were present, the case could not have been mooted.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 30, 2008 11:48 AM
I'm pretty impressed by that $300,000+ figure.
$300,000 for this case? Was it done on contingency?
How can we make a case that our legal system is working, when a simple case like this one costs that much money to prosecute?
I would think that 99% of all people in this country can not afford to use the legal system, based on these figures. And fewer still will ever see "justice" if aggrieved by the powerful.
Or is $300K a "fantasy" figure that, while legal to charge to the losing side, would never actually be charged to the plaintiffs? If so - is that really not illegal?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 30, 2008 11:49 AM
I just want everyone to know that I had nothing to do with Steve's posts. I take no responsibility.
Posted by: StevePsBrain | July 30, 2008 12:10 PM
Gingerbaker:
Regarding legal fees, I have no knowledge of the specifics of the fees in this case, beyond reporting the figure I read.
I don't know how "simple" this case was. An apparently "simple" outcome is not necessarily a particularly good measure of how "simple" it may have been to obtain that outcome. (Fee awards do take into account the "complexity" of a case. That's slightly different, and means that fees can be adjusted -- up or down, by the judge -- in consideration of how simple or complicated the legal matters were.)
However, fee awards are usually based on time spent. There were reportedly discovery proceedings (taking depositions, answering paper inquiries) and a trial. These are surprisingly time-consuming.
I don't know whether the attorneys worked on a contingency basis. Plaintiffs' civil rights cases are often taken on contingency. However, fee awards are almost always "hours based." The prevailing party's attorneys submit "time records" to the court (and the other lawyers). The court is required to determine whether and to what extent the time claimed was reasonable and realistic (and necessary) for the case involved. That yields a number (of hours) on which fees are computed. The computation is usually based on "prevailing rates" (or, in legal slang, a "lodestar" rate): an hourly fee figure which is the same (or about the same) as attorneys (of similar experience and reputation) typically charge for similar legal services in the area.
Fee awards are supposed to be "real." Judges monitor that. In a contingency situation, of course, the attorney would "get nothing" if the case is lost. If attorneys take a case "pro bono" (for free), that usually does not preclude an award of legal fees if their client prevails (and the type of case permits an award of legal fees).
Posted by: Jeff Chamberlain | July 30, 2008 12:25 PM
..."lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies."
WTF! If he'd tried that in my daughters central NJ High School he'd need police protection for the rest of his life. And not from me.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | July 30, 2008 1:18 PM
"Of course, it depends on the nature of the act itself; how far they were lifted, how long he looked, whether there was someone like a school nurse present, but typically school administrators are given a slightly longer leash than teachers on these sorts of issues, and the environment isn't as anti-sexual harassment these days as it was in the 90's."
On it's face ridiculous...why in the world would one wear a symbol of protest under one's clothes in this instance... The man needs to be brought up on pedophile charges.
Posted by: CityzenJane | July 30, 2008 3:29 PM
i hope that you are a teenager.
Posted by: sdg | July 30, 2008 3:30 PM
Lawdog Wrote:
But the judge can't rule on that unless he was specifically asked, can he? Isn't that the reason Judge Jones was able to rule on whether ID is science, because the parties requested it?
Posted by: Spidergrackle | July 30, 2008 5:28 PM
I just read through the decision --
@Cityzen Jane -- it says that the students painted their bodies with messages of support; I guess that's why he found it "necessary" to lift the shirts of females students
The principal apparently lifted the shirts himself, according to the decision. No mention if anyone else was present.
I'm glad to hear he's not principal anymore, but it is disheartening to see that he is still working with children. I wonder what lies he's telling his students.
Posted by: Nada platonico | July 30, 2008 5:37 PM
There's no such thing. What you presumably mean is child molestation charges or the like.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 30, 2008 6:35 PM
I spent a good 20 years as a science text book editor and publisher and, in that capacity, visited hundreds of schools, public, private and parochial. And I met with countless principals. Many were good people who worked hard and tried their very best to foster an atmosphere that encouraged education. But more were most interested in keeping a lid on things. The worst outcome in their eyes was not a failure to educate, but "trouble" in a classroom. They valued above all else a quiet school were students and faculty alike were obedient, followed the rules, did as they were told, and never, never were sent to the principals office (the kids) or went kids to the principal (the teachers). They also held it against a teacher if a parent complained, even if the parent was justified. All too many are run like mini boot camps. I found it distressing and eventually left publishing for that and related reasons.
Posted by: Keanus | July 30, 2008 10:02 PM
While I'm not up on the movies of John Hughes, the actions and claims of Davis and the school board attorney sure sound scripted to me.
And it's the old Same story. Some people are just in love with the idea that their deity does not change. (Read the Torah for the evidence that it does.) There is copious evidence that there really are multiple ways to assess, address and cope with "things that are different and strangely unsettling." We do it every day. Science, with a small 's'.
One striking feature of human nature that I discovered when I was small was that two people could go about the same task in different ways and still produce a useful result. When it came to dealing with human politics, another thing that we do every day (and to grievous excess, I say), I learned that an appeal to emotion would trump an appeal to sensibility even before I evolved from three wheels to two.
And all of this is of no account to those who have allowed themselves to think they know the mind of their deity. As far as they are concerned, if it hated homosexuality way back then, then it surely hates it today. As if nothing had changed in all the passing centuries; as if nothing had happened at all.
Sad, it is, to know that there are so many people who not only won't think for themselves but are publicly grateful that they have divine leave to not do so. Sadder still is the ignorance that elected and appointed public servants display concerning the basic underpinnings of American law and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 30, 2008 10:18 PM
"Apparently the school board attorney got his degree from Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop."
My wife worked at Billy Bob's Bait Shop...I'll ask her if she signed his degree...
Posted by: GP | July 30, 2008 10:44 PM
I googled around for more info on this case and discovered, among a number of other details, a claim that Davis did indeed call the girl's parents, and that her father at one point threatened to kick her out of the house for being gay. This guy is a monster.
And he did get off easy (although I'm not saying that's the fault of the judge, who seems to have conducted himself impeccably). If all the appropriate remedies/reactions to his behavior had been pursued, with vigor, I could easily see Davis never working in an educational capacity, or a capacity with children, again. I really wish the lawsuit had also asked, among the other remedies, for Davis to be barred from any such work in the district in the future, but I suppose that's easier said than done.
I hope we hear about this guy again, pulling some Establishment Clause trampling crud in the classroom or something. Because we know he's doing it, and if we don't hear about it again it's probably only because he's getting away with it. As it stands, this is far from an unalloyed happy ending to this sorry episode.
The scariest thing, as so often, is the reader comments at various Florida news sites. It's terrifying that so many people believe, or behave as if they believe, that the #1 job of schools is to inculcate docile obedience in students. I looked in vain for any glimmer of awareness that long-settled constitutional law gives students the right to political expression in schools. But even the law aside, it's bizarre that anyone would consider that inappropriate in an environment that's supposed to be the last preparatory stage for children before joining the world of adult citizens - most of these kids are just a few years away from being able to vote, for crying out loud.
Of course, that's probably mostly doublethink, of the sort so often practiced by authoritarians and their enablers. I'm sure a lot, if not most, of these people would take very different attitudes towards students expressing views they agreed with.
Posted by: MPW | July 31, 2008 1:26 AM
CityzenJane: I'm just telling you how things are, you can get angry with me if you like, but it isn't going to chance the fact that he would likely win given the facts of this case and the claim that he was doing it in furtherance of his duty to keep the peace. Did he over step his bounds? Of course he did; I'm not arguing that he didn't, I'm saying it's doubtful that the court system, particularly in the Florida panhandle, would decide against him on this. School admins check under people's clothing everyday in this country for everything from disallowed body markings to weapons to drugs, and I can't think of one brought up successfully on molestation or harassment charges as a result. That may annoy you, but it's how it is, and its how the law means it to be.
Posted by: Julian | July 31, 2008 10:20 AM
I read the whole pdf, and it is a beautiful thing. Congratulations to the students, what a learning experience! Sorry you had to go through it, but it will make you stronger.
Mr. Davis, you are a jacka$$.
Posted by: kim | July 31, 2008 10:59 AM
Gee: Selwyn Duke of the John Birch Society apparently takes exception to the ruling: surprise, surprise.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | July 31, 2008 11:22 AM
Florida remains one of the most repressive states in the country of equal rights and protections for it's GLBT citizens and students. Bullying in our public schools has been at epidemic proportions for decades. Sadly teachers and administrators turn a blind eye to this. We fought for over 7 years to finally get an anti-bullying passed. Which not only protects GLBT students, but, heterosexual students as well.
I read the ruling word by word, and must say it gave me goose bumps. It most certainly should send a powerful message to our school teachers, administrators and boards of education. That being, such despicable behavior will be tolerated or condoned by the judicial system or by society.
I commend the students for not giving in to the ex-principal's blatant homophobia and fighting for their rights of free speech. Our youth is our future, it warms my heart to see that they, both GLBT and heterosexual, are turning their backs to the long standing principles of bigotry, hatred and intolerance. In favor of acceptance, inclusion and understanding for all people's differences.
I agree the ex-principal got off easy, his actions go far beyond just appalling. He should have been charged with sexual abuse of a minor and have to register as a sexual predator. It amazes me that this predator is still allowed to be a teacher, he should have been fired.
I'm sure the religious will add the judge to their long list of radical judges for promoting the GLBT agenda and disagree with their agenda of hate of GLBT people. But, I for one an grateful that the judge took those responsible for this travesty to task in the harshest words possible.
Also, much thanks to you Mr. Brayton for posting this and your support of our GLBT youth.
R.Zeke Fread
Director
Pride Tampa Bay
Posted by: R. Zeke Fread | July 31, 2008 1:29 PM
Wow. Looks like they only asked for attorneys fees plus $1.00 in damages. That's rather generous of them. Of course, with the principal's conduct entered into the public record, it would be rather trivial to sue just him for damages related to the sexual assault.
Posted by: Josh in California | July 31, 2008 7:58 PM
" If all the appropriate remedies/reactions to his behavior had been pursued, with vigor, I could easily see Davis never working in an educational capacity, or a capacity with children, again."
Oh come *on*.
This is Florida we're talking about. Their standards aren't that high.
Posted by: Jon H | August 1, 2008 9:56 AM
OMG! The now former principal David Davis has apparently now transferred back to the classroom, returning to teaching . . . American government!? (and other classes).
See this brief report: (don't know if it will let me post a link)
http://www.wtvynews4.com/news/headlines/25875264.html
Posted by: wdcraft | August 2, 2008 3:42 PM