Here's the scenario: a high school student, fed up with what he perceived as the school district's official anti-gay stance, wears a t-shirt to school that says "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what all decent people should condemn" on the front and "Homophobia is shameful" on the back. The day he wore the shirt, it went pretty much unnoticed. The second time he wore it, however, a school official noticed the shirt and told him that he had to remove it. The student refused and filed a suit to prevent the school from telling him he could not wear the shirt. The court dismissed the case and the appeals court, on a 2-1 vote, upheld that dismissal.
Bad decision? You bet it is. Under the controlling precedent of Tinker v Des Moines ICSD, the school can only prevent student speech if that speech "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others" and only if the school can show "evidence that [the ban] is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline." And even under that standard, the reason for the alleged disruption cannot merely be that the sentiment is unpopular.
Okay, I have to confess that I changed the facts around a bit in the scenario above in order to make a point. Here's the real story. A student in California was disturbed by what he perceived to be the school's pro-gay bias. On the day that many students in the school participated in a Day of Silence, a silent protest against the bullying of gay and lesbian students, he wore a t-shirt that said "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on the front and "Homosexuality Is Shameful" on the back. All of the rest is accurate; only the content of the message has changed.
Does that change your opinion of the proper outcome of the case? I'm going to argue that it shouldn't. Regardless of the content of the speech, the school was wrong to censor the student and the court was wrong to dismiss the case. I've uploaded both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for download in PDF format. The majority opinion was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the chief judge of the 9th circuit; the dissenting opinion was written by Judge Alex Kozinski.
Tinker involved the question of whether students could wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. The school tried to prohibit this symbolic speech and the Supreme Court ruled that the school had violated the first amendment rights of the students in doing so. Overall, the court ruled that while first amendment rights had to be applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment", it could not be maintained that "either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They articulated a two prong test for cases involving student speech and ruled that such restrictions can only be deemed constitutional if they meet one of the two prongs. The first prong was the "rights of others" test; the second prong was the "material and substantial interference" test.
In the present case, the court attempted to rule on both prongs, arguing that the student's speech violated the rights of others and that it promised a substantial disruption of the functioning of the school. Both conclusions are problematic and difficult to defend. On the first prong, the court asserts that the expression of anti-gay views causes "psychological injury" and that gay students have a right to be protected from such injuries:
We conclude that Harpers wearing of his T-shirt colli[des] with the rights of other students in the most fundamental way. Public school students who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation, have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses. As Tinker clearly states, students have the right to be secure and to be let alone. Being secure involves not only freedom from physical assaults but from psychological attacks that cause young people to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society.
The problem here is that such a standard is so broad that it could be used to prohibit a vast range of views expressed in virtually any manner. It would appear to prohibit any and all criticism of another person's religious views, whether expressed on a t-shirt or verbally. It also appears to ban any and all criticism of homosexuality, regardless of how it may be expressed, which amounts to viewpoint discrimination. As Eugene Volokh correctly notes:
This isn't limited to, say, threats, or even personalized insults aimed at individual student. Nor is there even a "severe or pervasive" requirement such as that requirement to make speech into "hostile environment harassment" (a theory that poses its own constitutional problems, but at least doesn't restrict individual statements).
Rather, any T-shirt that condemns homosexuality is apparently unprotected. So are "display[s of the] Confederate Flag," and T-shirts that say "All Muslims Are Evil Doers."
So presumably would be T-shirts that depict some of the Mohammed Cartoons, as the dissent quite plausibly suggests -- note that the majority's confederate flag example makes clear that even ambiguous statements are stripped of protection if they can be seen as insulting based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. So perhaps might be T-shirts that condemn illegal aliens, since those too are directed at "minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" (the "such as" makes clear that race, religion, and sexual orientation needn't be the only "minority status[es]" that would get special protection from offensive viewpoints).
The majority "reaffirm[s] the importance of preserving student speech about controversial issues generally." But, according to the constitution, this First Amendment principle somehow omits speech about controversial issues having to do with race, religion, or sexual orientation.
The Gay-Straight Alliance has a constitutional right to argue that homosexuality is quite proper, that same-sex marriages should be recognized, that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be banned, and that antigay bigotry is an abomination. But when the other side of this debate "about controversial issues" wants to express its views, which will often have to rest on the theory that homosexuality is wrong, sorry, apparently it's not important to preserve student speech that expresses that view.
"[T]here is an equality of status in the field of ideas," the Supreme Court has said. "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea." "The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." And yet according to Judge Reinhardt, the First Amendment itself discriminates against viewpoints that express hostility to minority races, religions, and sexual orientations.
One can certainly imagine ways in which such an opinion could be expressed that would not warrant protection. A t-shirt that said "All fags should die" probably doesn't warrant protection. Certainly, t-shirts or verbal messages aimed at bullying or harrassing a particular student may constitutionally be forbidden. But statements about the moral status of homosexuality, not done in the contect of harrassing or bullying but merely as an expression of personal belief, cannot reasonably be said to violate the rights of others. Certainly gay students have a right not to be targeted specifically for abuse, but this t-shirt did not abuse anyone it merely made a moral argument (a moral argument I personally find highly immoral and false, of course, but that is irrelevant to this argument).
On the second prong, the court's ruling is even harder to defend. The defendants offered a couple of very weak arguments to justify their claim that the t-shirt would cause substantial disruption to the school's educational function. The first was the report from a single teacher that several students in his class were discussing the t-shirt when they should have been working. But as Judge Kozinski says in his dissent, this is hardly evidence of subsantial disruption. Students engage in conversation rather than doing their schoolwork a thousand times a day in every school. The teacher did not indicate that the students refused to stop their discussion when the teacher told them to get back to work. There simply is no evidence of substantial disruption here.
The second piece of evidence that they offered was that the offending student himself told the principal that he had had a "tense verbal conversation" with a group of students earlier in the day. Kozinski pretty much shreds this as an argument for violation of the second prong:
There is no indication that Harpers discussion turned violent or disrupted school activities. There is no evidence that it involved shouting or threats, or that it interfered with the passage of students to and from class. The discussion, tense though it may have been, did not have to be broken up by school authorities; rather, it seems to have come to a peaceful conclusion. The best proof that this tense verbal conversation did not cause substantial disorder is that the school authorities knew nothing about the incident until Harper himself reported it. The only thing one can infer from this evidence is that, whatever strong feelings Harpers t-shirt may have aroused, it did not cause any disruption of school activities, substantial or otherwise.
Now, I will admit that Tinker is not a perfect ruling. I think an argument can be made that it should be modified, as Dale Carpenter argues over at the Volokh Conspiracy. But under the Tinker standard, the student clearly had a colorable case and it should have been allowed to proceed. At the very least, the case should not have been dismissed and that dismissal should not have been upheld. I would not be surprised to see this case remanded back to the district court for a full hearing and a ruling, and I think that's the right outcome. If the Supreme Court wants to tinker with Tinker and draw some brighter lines for schools to follow, that might be the best thing that could come from the case.
I also recognize that this is not one of those easy, no-brainer decisions. Reasonable people can disagree. I have great sympathy for the pain that it can cause a gay teenager in particular because I know what so many of my friends have gone through. Being a teenager is tough enough as it is; add to that the confusion and social disapproval and the self-loathing that often results and I completely understand the desire to protect them from disapproval as much as possible. But I think we need to be very careful in giving government the power to decide what controversial opinions can and can't be expressed.
- Log in to post comments
I think that the more fervently a person believes that a given principle is true and wants to pursue the freedom to live that principle, the greater responsibility they have to allow for other people's right to contradict them. The more passionately you think X is right, the more it is to everyone's benefit, including yours, to allow others to say X is wrong.
If it were adults doing this, I really wouldn't have a problem with it. My only objection lies in the fact that it's children, and kids do stupid things - which is why we don't go around argueing that children should have Second Amendment rights - especially in schools.
If a kid had worn a shirt that said "Blackness is shameful" to any schools in my district he'd be found dead in a ditch - and of course, the level of disruption it caused would be far greater than the disruption caused by saying "Homosexuality is shameful". So I ask, if you're going to be banning free speech in schools for kids, on the grounds of disruption, you are caving to the violent elements in schools that disagree with it. So at that point you're basically saying that its ok to denounce homosexuality because there aren't enough gay kids around who'll turn around and stick a knife between the kids ribs.
You are right, of course, on the decision, and on the danger of accepting a vague standard of "pyschological damage" to justify throttling free speech. [Sounds perilously close to asserting a "right" not to be offended.]
However, when Professor V. throws in "the confederate flag" as something that might also be banned under the court's new standard, I think he may have overstepped his argument some. I know most of the debate over displaying the confederate flag [actually, the battle flag] involves questions of race, i.e. that its display is racist, its adherents endorse racial discrimination, etc. But I wonder if it might reasonably be banned on public property [in schools, flying over courthouses, and state capitol buildings] on other grounds: that it represents [and so advocates] treason. It is of course the battle flag of the treasonous consipiracy that cost the lives of close to 400 thousand men in the U.S. Army and Navy [1861-65]. Is it an unreasonable restriction on free speech rights to ban, on public propetry the flag of a treasonous conspiracy that made war on the United States and that was suppressed at horrendous cost [in lives] to the nation? I'm not at all sure that it is.
Gretchen wrote:
I think that's really well said, thank you.
flatlander wrote:
I think one can certainly make a strong case for outlawing the flying of the confederate flag on government property, at least in terms of a state or county courthouse flying it. But I think there's a clear distinction between banning that and banning the wearing of a t-shirt with the flag on it if they walk onto public property - one is government expression and one is private expression on government property. I certainly don't think it's true that those who wear a confederate flag shirt are actually advocating treason and the overthrow of the government. In fact - and this is probably ironic - most of those who display such flags on their trucks and bodies would likely tend to be of the hyper-patriotic sort.
If it were adults doing this, I really wouldn't have a problem with it. My only objection lies in the fact that it's children, and kids do stupid things - which is why we don't go around argueing that children should have Second Amendment rights - especially in schools.
Some of us do go around argueing that children should have second amendment rights. I am not argueing that children should have the freedom to disobey their parents or teachers but they should have a freedom of speech. I would argue that if the school doesn't want to have clothes that express those opinions they do not agree with they should have a blanket ban on clothes that say anything. It is easy enough that many schools have adopted dress codes that don't single out any single group or opinion. Instead they require that students wear clothes free of writing and pictures. . .
"It is easy enough that many schools have adopted dress codes that don't single out any single group or opinion. Instead they require that students wear clothes free of writing and pictures. . ."
This is, of course, an easy solution, if a solution is what you want; I don't.
I want these kind of issues to be not solved, but managed in such a way that everyone can speak his/her mind, while at the same time keeping the children safe.
I think controversy is a good thing.
I personally am a bit torn on this one. I can see Ed's point of view and agree with it somewhat, but I can also see (being a classroom teacher) how an act like this could become disruptive very quickly, especially within the context of Wednesday's day of silence. The silent protest is intended to commemorate the disgraceful treatment of gays, lesbians, bi, and transgender people worldwide. To have someone respond to this non-disruptive silent protest with a counter protest that includes a shirt/placard, etc., that personifies the very treatment the first group is protesting? That goes beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.
We wouldn't allow a shirt that condemned Jews for "killing Christ..."
We wouldn't allow a shirt that said, "I love Niggers, everyone should own one..."
We wouldn't allow a shirt that said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian ..."
Okay, in light of the Washington Redskins, etc., that last one may be okay. [sarcasm]
In my opinion it would be fine if someone wore a shirt that proclaimed they were Christian (without the anti-gay message). That allows them to state their position without actively taking an aggressive stance that the court found unconstitutional.
Again, I'm kind of torn on this one ... this is the best I can come up with at 8 am while watching my students take a test.
Some of us do go around argueing that children should have second amendment rights.
I'm curious, do you also argue that children should be able to vote? and at what age and should they have assistance from parents while doing so?
It is easy enough that many schools have adopted dress codes that don't single out any single group or opinion. Instead they require that students wear clothes free of writing and pictures.
Having worn a uniform with a tie to school when I was a kid and never running into these issues in school, I would be all for having such a dress code for school kids.
dogmeat1b wrote:
There's a danger in taking this stance though, because one could just as easily argue that the Day of Silence, by taking a very public stance on a controversial issue, is what triggers the controversy and potential disruption. By allowing that and banning any response to it, the school is clearly engaging in viewpoint discrimination, saying that it's okay to take one side on a controversial issue, but not okay to take the other side.
Except that being a Christian doesn't entail a particular position on gay rights. I would think that a real Christian would join in protesting ill-treatment of gays; I think Jesus would have done so. I think one could even publicly state that they think homosexuality is sinful and still be strongly against mistreating, harrassing or bullying gays. If the t-shirt was in any way threatening or insulting, I think the argument would be stronger. But it just declared a moral judgement of homosexuality, one that is shared by probably most Americans even if only a small percentage of people would actually go out of their way to harrass or bully someone who is gay.
So am I, obviously. I just think we need to err on the side of maximum freedom even to express ideas I abhor. But I do understand the contrary position. Emotionally, it appeals to me a great deal because I've seen my friends go through it and I empathize with them.
Here's my question, Ed.
Since schools are also tasked with keeping students safe, and since numerous school districts have been sued (successfully) by gay students who were subjected to verbal abuse and intimidation while there, isn't there a case to be made that allowing such shirts / comments would contribute to such a dangerous environment and must therefore be banned? If this decision is overturned, what stops other student from wearing and making comments regarding blacks or women or Muslims?
As someone who believes strongly in the First Amendment, as much as I detest the views on that t-shirt, I do believe the young man has the right to share those views. I was also a social worker for many years, and emotionally, my heart is with the gay kids (or any kids for that matter) who shouldn't have to encounter that kind of hate in school.
Legally though, what is the right thing here where values clash?
Ed:
OK. I see the point about the student not representing expression of government opinion as, say, a flag flying over a court house would.
However, with respect to Confederate flag-wearers being superpatriotic.... Don't know how familiar you are with the neo-Confederate movement down south [and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere], but they strike me as "patriotic" only in the sense that the original Confederates claimed they were patriotic: that they are defending the original and true constitution [absolute states rights, contract theory of federal constitution, bill of rights not applicable to the states, etc], and are willint to do it by challenging the authority of the federal "usurpers" [yes, they use that term], forcefully if necessary when the time is right. As Yogi might have put it, "it's deja vu all over again."
I can see your point Ed, which is why I'm torn. I think the problem remains within the condemnation element of the protest. Honestly is:
"Homosexuality is shameful"
That different from:
"God condemns homosexuality"
or
"God hates fags"
While the language is, of course, increasingly hateful, isn't the basic message the same? If you're a homosexual you should be ashamed because God says so, therefore God condemns homosexuality, therefore you are a sinner and will go to hell. How far is it, for a teenager who already has issues (just being a teenager), to take the logical leap to "God hates me?"
I think, by utilizing the neutral "Christian" versus the anti-homosexuality message, it lets the protestor believe what they want to believe without the direct harrassment/insult quality of the anti-message shirt (or protest).
Jody wrote:
I think we have to distinguish between abuse and intimidation and mere expression of opinion. As I said, if the t-shirt had a clear intent to bully or intimidate - if it said, "Fags should be killed" or "gays have no place in this school", for instance - then there's a much stronger case to be made. But just expressing a moral judgement should not be considered in the same category.
That's pretty much exactly how I feel as well.
flatlander wrote:
Oh, I'm familiar with these folks. I've written about them in the past. Scary group of nuts, they are. But I don't think your average guy from the south with a confederate flag sticker on his truck really believes much of that. They're much more likely, I think, to be the kind to stand up and cheer when Toby Keith sings about Uncle Sam putting a boot up someone's ass. The southern nationalist types are strongly anti-globalist and strongly against virtually all of our government's foreign wars.
dogmeat-
I think those statements are considerably different. As I said, one can certainly believe that homosexuality is sinful but also be strongly against harrassment or bullying of gays. I know many Christians who would take both of those positions. Now, I certainly agree that they could be perceived the same way by a teenager already struggling with his sexual orientation and society's problems with it, but we can't make legal decisions based on such factors.
I'm confused here. Every article I've read about this story says the court just upheld a ruling against a preliminary injunction that would bar the school from continuing the dress code during the case. I was under the impression that the actual case was still pending, that this decision was only regarding the preliminary injunction and that they were still waiting for a different judge to rule on the case itself.
I disagree with this ruling too, in any case, I just don't see why this is such a big deal. Shouldn't we be waiting for the ruling itself to decide whether they get it wrong or not?
Ed,
I'm curious as to how far things need to go in order to constitute 'disruption'? Does that also mean that as long as gay kids form up into a group and beat the crap out of the kid with the t shirt, it'll be disruptive enough to ban that message from the school? If that is so, could we be encouraging the maginitude of disruption in order to ban innocuous messages? Sort of like how so many organizations self-sensored themselves regarding Mohammed so that they won't suffer a violent backlash - and the greater the violence of the backlash, the more they sensor themselves. Capitulating to disruption and capitulating to terrorism seems just a difference in magnitude.
While I agree with your argument partiallly Ed, I see many of those who object to Homosexuality say that they are against harassment, but don't actually do anything to stop it. Those who would wear a Christian shirt condemning homosexuality on a day marked to commemorate and educate people regarding harassment and bullying of homosexuals pretty much solidifies that argument.
"I would think that a real Christian would join in protesting ill-treatment of gays; I think Jesus would have done so."
I think so too. And many "real Christians" do in fact protest such treatment. I've been a part of a church that provided meeting space for a gay group and actively worked against the neighborhood perception that a person cannot be both Christian and gay.
As mentioned by nicole above, this is a fairly narrow ruling and does not at all affect the student's main case:
From the San Diego Union-Tribune
(snip)
(snip)
I think your point is valid in that, there doesn't apprear to be any major "disruption" over the shirts, although the year before (2003) there were physical confrontations over the event that had to be broken up.
Which begs the question: Aren't the "Day of Truth" and the "Day of Silence" events themselves cause for concern over "substantial disruption"? The "Day of Silence" was to protest the treatment of gays and lesbians, and the "Day of Truth" the next day was a Christian event. These dueling events seem to be asking for fights. Just a thought.
I also agree with you there doesn't seem to be any personal threat or intimidation, and moreover it doesn't appear in any way that the student was infringing on anybody's "rights".
Same old story. I may disagree with what you have to say, but...
Nicole is indeed right, but it took a second look at the opinion in order to see that. I was under the impression that the lower court had dismissed the case for lack of a colorable claim, and I skipped over all the procedural stuff and went right to the meat of the opinions. But she's right, this ruling is only on the question of whether the district court was right not to grant a preliminary injunction. The standard is a bit higher on that question than it would be on a motion to dismiss. So my prediction was all wrong. The case will continue in the lower court on its merits and even if the district court rules against the student, the appeals panel will likely not be the same one. So the outcome of the actual case could be very different. Thanks to Nicole for catching my mistake.
Soldats wrote:
The courts haven't said much on the subject since Tinker, but you've identified one of the real problems with the second prong. It's probably too much to say that it actually encourages disruption in order to get a message one doesn't like out of the school, since it's not likely that a high school kid is going to know about such a legal ruling, but it does set the standard in that way. However, I think it would also do so in a way that is potentially subjective. For instance, one could just as easily argue that it was the Day of Silence that caused the disruption and this kid's t-shirt is such a disruption. But it's not likely that any school administration is going to say that the Day of Silence is a disruptive political expression and needs to be banned (nor would I want them to). But if we're going to accept one, we probably need to accept the other as well unless it is done in the form of direct harrassment.
One of the primary reasons public schools exist is to provide the means for children to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to participate in civic life, a crucial aspect of which is the exercise of the right to freely express opinions, even unpopular or offensive ones. So, my first impulse is to say not only that the student should be allowed to wear the t-shirt in question, but that it should be encouraged.
However, there is a fact that changes the picture drastically: children are not adults. We say that as an adult, your sensibilities do not require state protection against the expression of viewpoints opposed to your own, even if they are defamatory, but for a child, the impact of a direct challenge to his/her worth as a member of the community in equal standing is harmful and cannot be ignored, especially when that challenge has the implicit support of a majority in power (as in the case of homo- vs hererosexual, or black vs white, respectively). Crucially, the harm is not only to that individual, but to what should be seen as a supporting goal of the civic mission of public education: to dampen forces that reinforce conformity, in recognition that the greatest diversity of viewpoints nourishes democracy best. So, in the case of children, I think that free expression of opinions should be taught and encouraged, but restrictions should be in place to ensure that this impulse does not defeat itself with respect to the adults it produces, who in the end are what alone constitute our democracy. I don't mean this to sound dismissive of children... I have one, and I was once one myself :), but I think it's a fundamental mistake to ignore the distinction between children and adults in these kinds of issues.
Lastly, to borrow from a previous post on this thread, "I love Niggers, everyone should own one" is emphatically NOT just the other side of the coin from, say, "Black is Beautiful", and the same is true of "Homophobia is shameful" and "Homosexuality is shameful". One is a plea for tolerance, and the other is not. Tolerance (not acceptance, just tolerance) of opposing viewpoints is indispensible to a democratic government based on the free exchange of ideas. Tolerance promotes that system, and intolerance corrodes it.
To correct my previous post, I meant "denigrating" not "defamatory"...
Okay, sweet. More than trying to correct any mistake of Ed's, I was worried that I had made one myself when I first encountered this story. I've spent the last couple days trying to convince some right-wingers of the StoptheACLU variety that this was a narrow ruling and it wasn't time to get up in arms. But as a non-lawyer (albeit with a lot of lawyer-exposure) I was starting to get worried that I might be wrong. I'm glad I wasn't, because I also think the shirt should be allowed, and I hope we'll see that reflected in the final ruling.
Is this Day of Silence a student-led event or is it by the administration or what? If it was endorsed by the school somehow, I can't see how they could possibly go after the kid's shirt.
Kele-
I'm not entirely sure. I've seen various claims that it was "endorsed" by the school. I think that means that while it was not an officially school-sponsored event, they did allow posters and the like to be put up about it. But that's just an assumption on my part; the facts may be otherwise.
Mark,
I think you touch on a fundamental conflict in how we tend to regard schools, and how we treat children generally-- the clash between "How are they going to become responsible adults if they're not exposed to adult situations?" and "They're not adults, and don't think like them, so why should we pretend they do?" I bet most of us have been on both sides of that fence, depending on the issue. (But I bet people with children are a lot more likely to come down on the latter side than people who don't. Just a hunch.)
Do I have any easy answers? Nope. But I do remember learning about Tinker vs. Des Moines in high school journalism class, and being a co-founder of a gay/straight alliance club, and thinking how great it was that kids were allowed and trusted to espouse even unpopular speech in school. I honestly think people benefitted from that, even if the messages occasionally stirred up controversy.
Quick opinion: yes, kids have rights; but adults -- and society in general -- have obligations toward kids which supercede those rights. If a high-schooler were heard telling other students that Hitler had good reasons for killing all those Jews, or spreading false information about gay people or contraception, the school authorities -- acting "in loco parentis" -- would be obligated to sit the kid down, shut him up, and at least try to teach him that what he was saying was flat wrong and/or contrary to his society's basic values. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons we create schools in the first place.
If a kid's parents -- instead of the school -- had forbidden him to wear a certain T-shirt outside their house, would there be a court case?
In the case you cite, the kid who wore the offending T-shirt was, in effect, at least implicitly refusing to obey the rules by which all students are (or should be) bound. Even if he doesn't do any bullying himself, that act alone could easily be seen as threatening; and schools are obligated to take reasonable measures to maintain a non-threatening learning environment.
Gretchen,
I glossed over a thorny detail to make my point, which is that the distinction between a child and an adult is not a sharp one; there is a continuum between those two extremes. Types of speech and expression that are not appropriate in grade school might be perfectly appropriate in high school. And to reiterate, I think there is a fundamental difference between arguing for tolerance and arguing for intolerance. To take an example, fundamentalist Christians may view themselves as "threatened" by speech that acceptance of gays and lesbians, but this is not a "threat" in any comparable sense to how a gay student is threatened when other students express unequivocal opposition to anyone's homosexuality. In the adult world, both types of expression are rightly allowed, but in pre-adult schools, I think it is correct to make rules that recognize the distinction, for the reasons I gave before.