In Memphis, Tenn., people are shaking their heads over the decision of Daphne Beasley, the principal of Hollis F. Price Middle College High School in South Memphis, who published the names of gay students who were “couples” on a list with heterosexual couples. The result was to “out” the students — a potentially dangerous course.
Beasley was apparently obsesses with public displays of affection and demanded that her staff put together a list of “couples,” which she then put in an area where both teachers and students could read it. One couple was composed of two boys, Andrew and Nicholas, who had just started dating.
Nicholas has complained about being singled out by students due to the listing. The result is that Beasley appears to be more concerned with public displays of affection than public displays of alienation . . . or more likely public beatings. How exactly do we find these people to teach our children? Given the recent beatings of gay and lesbian student, click here, Beasley’s action was both reckless and ridiculous. It is like the list that gossipy teens put together in sleep-overs. Yet, when posted, it becomes a virtual hit list for homophobic bullies.
Both constitutional and tort actions are possible here on the basis of privacy and negligence (as well as the negligent infliction of emotional distress). Hopefully, the boys will file and create a deterrent for other hopelessly clueless educators.
For the full story, click here.
MichaelSpindell:
You articulately stated what I was desperately trying to say. It is true that earnest belief in the rightness of a cause sometimes makes for bad reporting about it, as any professional journalist will tell you. That was my point and you were its eloquent advocate.
Evan:
As we say, your assertions are facts not in evidence. I see no mention in either article saying the names were posted together to imply some sort of coupling. Even Nicholas, one of the affected students, does not say his name was linked with any other boy, he merely says he was “frightened” to see HIS name listed there for students and teachers to see. Likewise there is no direct evidence to prove that the principal posted anything. Nicholas does not say so directly, although the ACLU letter apparently makes that allegation. However, the principal denies doing so, leaving open the possibility that teachers, students or other unknown persons may have posted it (if it actually was) and thus breached privacy. Finally, I saw nothing verifying that the principal said she would not “tolerate homosexuality,” as you suggest. In fact, Nicholas complaint is that he was “outed” to his parents, which, quite frankly, doesn’t raise any privacy issues in my mind since they are his legal guardians, and entitled to know if he is having behavioral issues in school. That his parent alleges that inappropriate statements were made by the principal, is not particularly persuasive either since she has an obvious financial motivation and we have merely a “she said-she said” situation. So it’s a “pick-em.”
You probably will note that based on the initial allegations I too was outraged. However unlike you, I care to see both sides before making judgments, and I am not persuaded so far that the allegations of a teenage boy seeking his sexual identity, coupled with a parent bent on suing, and a blog with an obvious bias in favor of the accusers will carry the day. You may want to ask yourself: why you are so quick to damn the Memphis officials. Like you, I am always suspect of governmental officials in the South and have said as much. You seem particularly wary of accepting ANYTHING these officials say, which begs the question as to why do you remain there with such mistrust, and also if you are somehow personally biased in this matter due to some particular knowledge or relationship with this situation. Knowing the answers to those questions would certainly tell me how and why you think as you do.
More sensible dissection of the school board’s response can be found here.
here’s the thing…
the principal called the parents and outed the kids, based on no infractions of the PDA rule, saying that she wouldn’t “tolerate homosexuality” in her school. OBVIOUSLY sexual orientation and bigotry was a factor here, and that one statement to a parent shows that she lacks the maturity and qualifications to be a high school principal.
and, as a long-time Memphian, i wouldn’t put too much faith in the “response” of the school board of the City of Memphis.
I still must side with Mespo on this. As I noted in my initial post on this topic if the original story was true the principal must be held to account. If true her actions were intolerant and motivated by religious sentiment that has no place in education. However, some doubt has been raised as to whether the entire story has been faithfully recounted.
My experience is that at times cases are made and overstated by well
meaning people in the heat of their supposed victimization. Then to the news media at times (far too many)does a poor job of reporting the facts. Finally, people who espouse causes sometimes go overboard in their zealous need to make a point. As much as my sympathy goes out to all Gay people who must bear the unfair treatment of ignorant bigotry,
I refuse to take part in virtual lynchings based on overstatement. As important as fighting all forms of bigotry and intolerance are to me, I don’t believe in sacrificing innocents to the supposed greater good. That represents an evil as great as the one being opposed.
I knew I could count on you for reasonable discourse. I’m eager to see where this goes from here. I believe your position to be less alarmist and more reasonable than mine after reading your response, in fact … calming.
binx101:
“I understand very clearly that you are calling for calm heads and no ‘rushes to judgment’ but doesn’t the mere fact that the ’students’ privacy, whether it is true or not, that they are gay, has been compromised by ANY list.”
***************
By that logic the roster of students is a threat to personal privacy. I am sure you don’t want to go that far, but the point is that the only ones we know who have published the sexual orientation of the students is the supposedly affected students themselves. The principal denies the publication, and I firmly believe the burden rests on the aggrieved to prove their case since it is obvious that someone is lying.
I do agree that we constantly engage in conjecture, but I think it incumbent upon us to note when allegations change or when responses are made which alter our assumptions. That is what happened here once I read the School Board’s response in the latest article. If we stick to our opinions in the face of new or conflicting information we are no more than partisans, and betray the reason (IMHO) for our gathering which is to apply reason to an increasingly unreasonable world.
As always, my friend, I respect your opinion, but the lawyer in me says hold on a moment and make sure you are not being manipulated by the actions of those who stand the most to gain.
Mespo:
I understand very clearly that you are calling for calm heads and no ‘rushes to judgment’ but doesn’t the mere fact that the ‘students’ privacy, whether it is true or not, that they are gay, has been compromised by ANY list. I fear the Students require the immediate protective stance.
Shouldn’t the students be the ones that require a shield from a judgment?
Isn’t already there a serious enough question as to the principal’s professional demeanor and performance acting in loco parentis? Yes indeed the answer to that question from this lofty angle is mere conjeture but, that’s what we do here, conjectural discourse. Even mock trials.
She gets to point to a statute or a sub-section of sub-section of manual as her defense; but, as we’ve seen discussions of bullies, Facebook, MySpace suicides and treatment tantamount to torture – I’m much more concerned about the price the students have to pay, as a result of the alleged impropriety of the principal.
breaktheterror:
I read your comments but I have seen nothing to prove she posted the call list or in any way associated one student with another, hence the benefit of the doubt. In addition and according to the article I posted, she apparently did try other more general means of conduct correction before making calls to parents. I see nothing wrong with making calls to parents about behavior issues. I can wait awhile until the facts come out before vilifying someone. To rush to judgment seems to me to be the same thing you are accusing Daphne of doing, and it is wrong, if true, in both instances.
note: the “smiley” after “proverbial or literal” was a typo.
haha.
sometimes my fingers go so fast they don’t even know exactly what it is they’re supposed to be doing.
I’m a Memphian, and in my opinion, there’s no “benefit of the doubt” to give.
Yes, this is the South, and yes the ignorance of fundamentalism + cultural mores are playing a role. However, Ms. Beasley’s actions go above and beyond, as she may have put the students in danger. Principals have a responsibility to protect ALL of their students, as best as they can. A 15-year old was murdered, at school, in California a couple of months ago, just for being gay. It didn’t get much mainstream press, but believe me, the gay community knows all about it. The principal claims there had been problems with “public displays of affection,” possibly stemming from the location of the high school on a college campus. An adult might have taken the following steps:
1. Keep an eye on the kids and try to discern FOR herself who is and isn’t a couple. This school only has 150 students…it’s not like old Daph is overwhelmed.
2. If students are caught committing an infraction on school grounds, pull them into her office. (These kids hadn’t done anything…of COURSE they hadn’t! They’re gay kids, not ready to be out to the world yet, in the South, in a predominantly African-American community, which, sadly, is pretty homophobic.) But for kicks, let’s say these kids, DID commit an infraction:
3. Pull them into her office anyway. Speak to their situation. Find out if they’re out to their parents. In short, try to have a little damned decency, sensitivity, and TACT, rather than tattling to their parents, then forcing her ignorant views on human sexuality on them. It would behoove a high school principal in 2008 to educate herself on issues of sexuality and coming out, since gay kids are often dealing with their truth during that time period.
Instead, Daphne Beasley reacted like a bigoted child, and she may have put a target (proverbial or literal…) on these kids’ backs…kids, I would emphasize again, of the type that we should be cheering to success for their achievement and ambition.
Messed.
Up.
I’ve been blogging about this at http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com
I’m not being as nice there.
🙂
Oh one other thing:
re: “She further claims she did not reveal sexual orientation on the call list.”
Well, duh. In a school of 150, putting the names “Nicholas X and Andrew Y” next to each other on a list of couples, which decidedly WAS posted in her office in full view, is sufficient information to ascertain that, *smacks head*, they’re gay. If it were a random list of “Suzy, John, Margaret, Bill, etc,” it wouldn’t even fulfill its purposes as a list of “couples” to monitor.
Mespo,
I agree that the benefit of the doubt is in order. All sides in this may have their axes to grind and the “facts” often are in the eye of the beholder. Rashoman.
MichaelSpindell:
In the latest twist, the Memphis School Board says the principal did nothing wrong. They specifically deny she publicly posted the names of the couples at the school, and say she merely notified the parents after general announcements of PDA disapproval did not work. She further claims she did not reveal sexual orientation on the call list. Not knowing who to believe at this point, I would give her the benefit of the doubt until we see more proof. See the link below:
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1d49f672-e98a-498c-b9f0-32e19ef30474
Mespo,
Sad to say it for the South, but you’ve probably hit the nail on the head.
MichaelSpindell:
“Your point about this HS being a program for overachievers deserves more emphasis, because one would think such a program would be led by someone whose skills as an educator would be far above average.”
********************************
The scary part is that for this area, the principal might just be “far above average.”
Mespo,
You are right action should be taken. Whether it will or not depends on the mores of Memphis, a City of which I know little, but obviously Tennessee is a Bible Belt State. Your point about this HS being a program for overachievers deserves more emphasis, because one would think such a program would be led by someone whose skills as an educator would be far above average.
Scarlett,
Too much emphasis on discipline in a school environment is a sure way of degrading, rather than enhancing education. Nothing is more destructive of authority than an attempt to enforce rules, that are unenforceable. Teenagers are going to be obsessed with their growing sexuality, it’s in their genes. The object should be to help them cope responsibly with their feelings, rather than trying to legislate them.
Michael Spindell:
As a follow up, apparently this high school is affiliated with LeMoyne-Owen College and serves about 154 kids who receive college credit for some of the curriculum. Obviously these are high achievers who are compressed into a small group on a college campus. The action of the Principal is even more egregious under these circumstances, and I hope the affected students take action. An investigation has begun, and I would hope the School Board’s and the College’s anti-discrimination policy would take over here.
Susan:
I thought educators were in the education business and not the punishment business. With all due respect to the truly religious, I am willing to bet that our sweet Ms. Dauphne is another born-again, intolerant hypocrite who just “feels” she is right to do this because her magic book tells her so. After all it is an “abomination” isn’t it? I wonder how the book classifies encouraging other intolerants to beat up teenagers?
It’s unfortunate, but in that part of the country, it is commonplace to out those who do not “fall in line” with the so-called family values of the area. As an educated person, this administrator cannot deny knowing that fact. Of course, PDA is disruptive in the learning environment, but somehow, she failed to see that the alienation she has caused will cause divisions that will be much more disruptive in the long run.
If she can punish students for ignoring the policies, then she should not be allowed to ignore those policies regarding students’ privacy and discrimination. There is no way that we can hold children accountable if we do not hold the adults in authority accountable as well. If the school district fails to take action, they are setting a dangerous precedent for a double standard that will not do them any favors in the long run.
How sad that this person is a HS Principal. That she is upset about HS students showing affection publicly says more about her own neurosis than about the student’s behavior. Underneath it all for her is a fear of teenage sexuality no doubt tinged by pseudo-religious underpinnings. She is patently unfit for her position by her publication of this list because it exposes her lack of understanding of the children whose education she is supervising. Recent studies show the abject failure of the “abstinence education” thrust of the Bush Administration. Indeed the studies show that “abstinence” programs actually increase the possibility of risky sexual behavior by teens.
The fact that she included the identity of a gay couple on her list raises the issue from one of educational incompetence to one of malicious behavior, that I think opens her up to a tort suit. How could a reasonable person, living in Memphis, not realize the potential danger to a boy identified as gay to his classmates.
Absent other facts I surmise that at the root of this person’s problems is her religious beliefs, which she allows to influence her performance in her job. Constitutionally, this is not how things should be, but more than that given the multiplicity of viewpoints that exist within most major religions, it leads us down a road ending either in chaos or tyranny.