Academia, Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Politics, Religion, Society

Student Disciplined For Telling Friend In Class That He Views Homosexuality As Wrong

There is an interesting controversy in Fort Worth, Texas where Dakota Ary, an honors student was suspended for turning to another student in his German class and saying that he viewed homosexuality as wrong. The teacher at Western Hills High School became angry in overhearing the comment and accused Ary of being a bully.

After Ary was sent home and given a suspension, the family retained an attorney and the school district backed down from the punishment.

The exchange occurred when there was a question about the translation of homosexual terms in a discussion of the German words for the vocabulary for Christianity and the Bible. As society recognizes needed protections for sexual preference, it will inevitably deal with such conflicts. If, for example, a student had said something like this comment about race, there would not be such controversy over the punishment. Yet, homosexuality remains a moral as well as a legal controversy. To say that you believe homosexuality is wrong does not mean that you are threatening gay students.

I understand the concern of the teacher, but this sounds like a circumstance where a correction comment from the teacher would have sufficed — particularly in refocusing the class on language rather than morality. I have long believed in letting high school students talk through such divisive issues when they come up in a relevant class (not German class) while being guided by a teacher. These are kids who will soon be voting adults. I would prefer to guide a civil discourse than punish such expressions. In this case, it was not relevant to the class, but the reaction was out of proportion and unnecessary. I think a discussion on relevancy and civility would have done more for the class than the controversy.

Source: CBS

87 thoughts on “Student Disciplined For Telling Friend In Class That He Views Homosexuality As Wrong”

  1. “Res ipsa loquitur, but basically that was a response for Blouise saying the student should have been given a warning.

    But for what?” (anon)

    Wow … you took that one totally out of its context by omitting the words immediately following … “without suspension thus recognizing the inappropriate nature of the remark from the teacher’s standpoint ” which was based on the points made by M.S.Huiner’s post and the “he said/he said” quotes from the article written in the Dallas Voice (all included in the same post). I have no quibble with the argument you put forward but provide your own support without twisting my words to do so. Bullshit meter registering “cheap”.

  2. David Nussbaum, a right leaning maker of PSA’s and short films sure knows the colloquial meaning and how to use it effectively to reach the cognoscenti. He does short films also and the ones I watched didn’t have a pov unlike his PSA’s. He actually does funny stuff. If he’s not on some right-wing payroll he should be.

    http://www.davidnussbaum.com/PSA.html

  3. Mike,

    1.

    I’l let you answer your own question:

    “I don’t have to put words into your mouth …….. I quote the words you used and discussed how they were in opposition to other sentiments you have expressed. All of us can ^F to find the quote and the context. Sadly, I don’t even have to hand you the rope.””

    Criticizing an argument, responding to an argument, is certainly not an act in opposition of free speech.

    Just the reverse, it supports free speech by taking your speech seriously, respecting it, challenging it, and encouraging you to produce more speech.

    2.

    How your parents treated you or how my parents raised me is irrelevant. How many parents were taught to raise their kids is.

    And I don’t know if it is natural or not for pre-adolescents and adolescents to go through a phase thinking sex is gross, they or their parents would never do that. But I suspect it is natural. I suspect too there are good evolutionary reasons for that as well. Your parents raised you with no sexual repression, kenahora. We all should have had such parents. But most people did not.

    This kid will probably change his views, most people have, but you give him a lack of sympathy and demand that he should have already risen above his stupid notions to fit your viewpoint on your timeline. Whoa there Mike.

    3.

    So may I ask why in a comment addressed to me you would write:

    “But even if he obstinately persists in his ugly and offensive thought patterns, so what? Until he actually starts taking actions on those, it’s no one’s business”

    That was addressed to someone else. Probably to swm who seems to be saying that the importance of stopping anti-gay bullying justifies this teacher and this school’s behavior.

    4.

    While you’re at it could you explain what:

    “and no one has the right to not be offended.”

    Res ipsa loquitur, but basically that was a response for Blouise saying the student should have been given a warning.

    But for what? What should he have been warned about? He expressed an opinion, and even as ugly as our civilized sensibilities recognize his opinion to be, so what?

    Possible warnings:

    “Your speech is offensive and if you continue to say it we will kick you out of school”.

    “Your speech is carefully monitored and watched and though we teach free speech and claim to value your opinion, we don’t. You better get with the program bucko or we’ll toss you into the Coliseum and we’ll do a special on you!

    No has the right to not be offended and there was nothing in his statement that deserved any warning. But if you want to use it as a teaching moment for everyone, that’s fine.

    “and no one has the right to not be offended.”

    Domestic Violence and the PC Police aside, you and I both know this is what freedom of speech is all about. Some dumbass saying offensive things and printing offensive writing and the government and school not being able to do shit about it.

  5. As one who is a virtual absolutist on the First Amendment, I have been and remain opposed to the treatment of speech as a potential disciplinary issue. I have yet to hear a definition of “hate speech” that makes any sense, and I know that I am not alone. This is hardly the first instance in which someone in a position of authority has been unable to discern the difference between the expression of an opinion and impermissible speech. The whole concept ought to be thrown out.

  6. The student’s suspension was reversed. That is probably the best outcome. It won’t be on the student’s record, and the school draws a line with regard to unfriendly behavior toward gay students.

  7. mahtso
    1, September 23, 2011 at 5:05 pm
    One other point Blousie

    Is self hatred the only way the term could be hate speech, or are there other possible explanations, like say, people did not know that the term was a sexual euphemism when they adopted it?

    ————————————————————————-

    Beats me, mathso …..

  8. “I saw a cartoon comparing those who continue to disparage people by using the term tea bagger to the child who learns a few naughty words and delights in continuing to use them. Juvenile behavior is also hilarious.” (mahtso)

    Of course you saw such a cartoon … part of the rebranding effort designed to assign blame for the disparaged teabagger movement to anyone other than teabaggers. …”It’s not our fault, it’s your fault!” Typical lament from a salesman who lost the sale.

  9. Dakota Ary: “I view homosexuality as wrong”

    Swarthmore mom: ANTI GAY BULLYING ANTI GAY BULLYING ANTI GAY BULLYING

  10. One other point Blousie

    Is self hatred the only way the term could be hate speech, or are there other possible explanations, like say, people did not know that the term was a sexual euphemism when they adopted it?

  12. Blousie

    Mr. Spindell wrote “You are correct I used the term with malice aforethought as a direct disparagement of tea baggers and their supporters.” So my thought was correct., it was hate speech, which is always hilarious.

    I saw a cartoon comparing those who continue to disparage people by using the term tea bagger to the child who learns a few naughty words and delights in continuing to use them. Juvenile behavior is also hilarious.

  13. No Mike, you’re not calling me a Nazi, you’re just saying my pointing to the words you use in the thread you use them, and my tame defense of tea baggers as not hating the US as you said three times is Naziriffic.

    And you tell me I am over the top and hysterical.

    It’s always happy hour where you live, isn’t it Mike?

  14. Clearly though, you are not in favor of free speech for people on the Left Wing, as your many comments have shown. citation-needed.jpg

    Mike, can you show me anywhere where I have made any comment against free speech from the left?

    It is fun to see an iconoclast confused and actively categorizing and comparing me to communists, tea baggers, and Jewish Nazi collaborators (I didn’t know that about Stein, thank you, having lived in Oakland, I was always a bit puzzled by her statement anyway.)

    I don’t have to put words into your mouth (or mespo’s). I quote the words you used and discussed how they were in opposition to other sentiments you have expressed. All of us can ^F to find the quote and the context. Sadly, I don’t even have to hand you the rope.

    You tie the rope off, toss one end over a branch, stick your head in the loop, stand on a bucket, and get pissed off when I suggest you climb down from your position.

    As for my sympathy for the young man you are correct I have none. Homophobia is pernicious bigotry and unfortunately the young man has fallen victim to it, probably because of the climate in his home.

    While I suspect this is true in part, I think another part of it comes from biology and the changing hormones and psychology all of us go through, especially regarding bodily functions and sexuality.

    When children first learn of sex a common reaction is “eww, that’s gross”, and then later as they grow older, they seek the same acts that were once too gross to consider their parents doing. And then as real old farts, they regret all the acts they didn’t perform and pontificate about other people’s repressions and phobias.

    So here’s this kid in Texas, part of a fairly religious community, and he’s in the throes of a teenager living with all that, driven by his hormones, and he makes a statement that he’s opposed to homosexuals.

    That’s not worthy of a suspension of 2 days, or 1 days.

    It’s not even worthy of a warning.

    It is worthy of a discussion, and god forbid, a teaching moment.

    But even if he obstinately persists in his ugly and offensive thought patterns, so what? Until he actually starts taking actions on those, it’s no one’s business, and no one has the right to not be offended.

    Or so we used to think.

  17. “Stop it! Fluffy Bunny Party!! LOL”

    Gene, Blouise, Nal and Mespo,

    The tactic of calling people what you in fact are, had its’ greatest practitioner in Joseph Goebbels. Remember to how the NAZI’s always made themselves into the victims. Not a bad tactic though, even if it does hearken back to the elementary schoolyard, but then no ones’ ever gone too far wrong when their main argument is “takes one to known one”.

    Anon and Bernard,

    BTW I’m not accusing you of being NAZI’s, I would highly doubt that you are in fact. However, that doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t stoop to a similar tactical approach. It has worked well for the Tea Baggers overall.

  18. “If I felt so strongly of a group that hated the US and hated her people, and were in point of fact a plague upon this country, I probably would be calling for violence against them.”

    Anon,

    I’m sorry that you so obviously have anger management issues that you would stoop to calls for violence. Please try not to project these violent thoughts of yours on me though. Instead do some research and find a quote of mine where I call for violence against anyone. I think your search will be in vain. The only violence I believe in is in terms of defending myself, or others against violent (physical) attacks. I’ve stated clearly that I think violent revolution for instance is futile and self defeating. From your words I guess given the right circumstance you would clearly favor violent revolution and or attacks against those you disagree with, whoever they may be.

    Your are adept though in trying to put words in my mouth and then using that straw-man to attempt to impugn me. In fact most of your comments are rife with straw-men, that you then try to demolish. You are subtle in your methodology, but ultimately transparent in your ends. I do notice though, that as the truth of your methods are exposed there is a tendency on your part to wax hysterical, though to your credit in a controlled way. It must be so hard for you though, with all those violent fantasies of yours lurking just beneath the surface.

    As for my sympathy for the young man you are correct I have none. Homophobia is pernicious bigotry and unfortunately the young man has fallen victim to it, probably because of the climate in his home. However, as I most clearly stated I think his First Amendment rights appear to have been violated. Then again I believe in free speech, even for homophobes. Clearly though, you are not in favor of free speech for people on the Left Wing, as your many comments have shown. You do seem to believe though in free speech from the Right Wing, since there are a dearth of comments from you regarding the many excesses of speech coming from that side of the political spectrum.

    I really do wonder why that is so and I’m not being ironic. I truly have no idea where your political sympathies lie. In my life I’ve known communists who expressed just as much disdain for liberals as you have and would use tactics similar to yours. On the other hand though I also see Tea Baggers and the like using these self same tactics, so I’m confused about where you are coming from, though only vaguely interested. Either from those, or other possibilities though, I do see through you, though perhaps in the words of that famed Jewish Nazi Collaborator “there is no there, there”.

Comments are closed.