Queer Eye for Hunt High
ACLU sues school over election posters
Okay ladies and gents, I could be reading this wrong, but to me it seems like the school did right in this instance. I say that because from my read of the article, it appears that they took down two specific posters by the candidate but not any other posters by that candidate.
I say this because depending upon how you read the posters, to me it comes across like blacks vs. whites when using the word n*gger. If one of the other candidates had put up posters claiming that the student was "queer." It would be considered hate speech. Yet if the student uses it himself, it is considered okay and, I suppose to some, not disruptive.
So what do you think. Were they trying to harm the students free speech or were they trying to insure there was not "hostile atmosphere" created by what could be termed hate speech by some?
Nick
Okay ladies and gents, I could be reading this wrong, but to me it seems like the school did right in this instance. I say that because from my read of the article, it appears that they took down two specific posters by the candidate but not any other posters by that candidate.
I say this because depending upon how you read the posters, to me it comes across like blacks vs. whites when using the word n*gger. If one of the other candidates had put up posters claiming that the student was "queer." It would be considered hate speech. Yet if the student uses it himself, it is considered okay and, I suppose to some, not disruptive.
So what do you think. Were they trying to harm the students free speech or were they trying to insure there was not "hostile atmosphere" created by what could be termed hate speech by some?
Nick
Comments
"The North Carolina Constitution makes it clear that students in situations like Jarred's have a right to free expression..."
I think the school messed up. I think the officials are probably just homophobic since the term 'Queer Eye' is obviously now mainstream, and 'Gay' has been mainstream for a long time. Neither is derogatory in the context it was used and couldn't really be construed in that fashion.
I say homophobic administration.
Originally posted by bunge
Because of this:
"The North Carolina Constitution makes it clear that students in situations like Jarred's have a right to free expression..."
I think the school messed up. I think the officials are probably just homophobic since the term 'Queer Eye' is obviously now mainstream, and 'Gay' has been mainstream for a long time. Neither is derogatory in the context it was used and couldn't really be construed in that fashion.
I say homophobic administration.
So if some students had hit Jarred while calling him a "queer" they couldn't be prosecuted for a hate crime?
I've certainly heard n*gger more than queer on television. Tell me that if I put up a flyer saying "No n*ggers for president" or even "No queers for president" it wouldn't be considered hate speech.
Nick
If the kid wants to run on the gay platform, let the students decide, but i also see where the school was comeing from, If the kid had lost, then he could find some ACLU-type to sue the school for homophobia or something insamne like that.
The problem is not his sexuality, it is that that is all his campeign was, if he was running on the average 8th grade-ish platform, "MORE JUNK FOOD - LESS HOMEWORK" and just happened to be gay, then it would be differant.
Imagine this, a kid uses "What Would Jesus Do" (or WWJD), He would be silenced quicker than you can say "Queer Guy".
Originally posted by trumptman
So if some students had hit Jarred while calling him a "queer" they couldn't be prosecuted for a hate crime?
I've certainly heard n*gger more than queer on television. Tell me that if I put up a flyer saying "No n*ggers for president" or even "No queers for president" it wouldn't be considered hate speech.
Nick
There's obviously an "intent" component to the use of a word. A word itself can change in its usage, the intent behind racism or homophobia does not.
The examples you give are particularly weak, in that they are clearly abusive, in contrast to the self empowering language of the high school student.
Moreover, a distinction can be made between "queer" and "n*gger". You may hear the latter on television more, but its deployment is vexed in a way that "queer" is not. N*gger remains the terms of choice for a particular kind of racist viscousness, despite its re-adoption by african-americans; "queer" has been almost entirely rehabilitated into mainstream use (witness "queer study" programs on campuses across America-- care to name a "n*gger studies" department?
Originally posted by addabox
care to name a "n*gger studies" department?
That would go over like Ice-T at a Klan rally.
Originally posted by trumptman
So if some students had hit Jarred while calling him a "queer" they couldn't be prosecuted for a hate crime?
First off, other posters have already explained my point so I won't repeat it. But, I would like to add that if someone hit Jarred while calling him a "homosexual", it would still be a hate crime (going the the implied definition of hate crime that you're using...I'm not really sure what a hate crime is.) The word doesn't matter, it's the motive.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think the school is right here. Their position is that the posters had no relevance to the campaign and may have served to disrupt the educational environment. If he can use his sexuality in that way, then so could a straight student. Example: "Vote Great. Vote Straight." Would that be acceptable? No...it would be labeled hate speech. The creator of the poster would be called a bigot. Seems like a double standard to me.
I swear, you guys...
"Vote Straight" has an obviously exclusionary, even threatening tone in a world where the vast majority of everybody is straight, and given the well known travails of gay Americans.
"Queer Eye For Hunt High" is far closer in tone to, say, "The Buddha Within Says Vote for Tim", in the case of a Buddhist student running for office in a largely Christian high school (although I dare say a practicing Buddhist wouldn't go there, but you get my point).
And, it wouldn't be that surprising if the principal of our example school decided that running as a "Buddhist" was "disruptive to the educational environment" while remaining oblivious to the fact that everything else at the school conformed to a tacit "christian" flavor.
"Disruptive to the educational environment" is the "national security" of K-12 schools.
As in other instances, this is an example of someone's sexuality intruding where it doesn't need to be. What if some young lady pronounced "Vote for me because I have the biggest hooters"? Same idea -- the information about sexuality is irrelevant and should be removed from the posters.
Originally posted by finagain
What if the Christian students at the school find queerdom to be offensive according to their culture? Isn't it being culturally insensitive for the self-proclaimed queer to throw that in their faces or try to make that an issue in the campaign? Aren't we supposed to respect multiple cultures and make diversity a priority?
As in other instances, this is an example of someone's sexuality intruding where it doesn't need to be. What if some young lady pronounced "Vote for me because I have the biggest hooters"? Same idea -- the information about sexuality is irrelevant and should be removed from the posters.
IMHO, People take offence and get mad at WORDS way too easilly today.
I wear glasses, I need them, if someone calls me "four eyes" then points and laughes at me, I just "consider the source" I know that the person who has to resort to that is demonstrating their own inmaturary, I dont run and scream "HERASSMENT" or "HE OFFENDED MY SENCIBILITIES!!!!" or "TEACHER, HE'S MAKING FUN OF ME" and cry over it, that just gives the person the satisfaction
You may think it is a bad example but I here people all of the time saying "people cant help being gay, it is something you are born with" if that is the case then it is perfectly fine, weaker eyes is just something I was born with.
let the kid run, he would loose, not because he is gay, but because he is running on it, he apperently has nothing to say eccept "elect a 'queer'"
Originally posted by a_greer
IMHO, People take offence and get mad at WORDS way too easilly today.
I wear glasses, I need them, if someone calls me "four eyes" then points and laughes at me, I just "consider the source" I know that the person who has to resort to that is demonstrating their own inmaturary, I dont run and scream "HERASSMENT" or "HE OFFENDED MY SENCIBILITIES!!!!" or "TEACHER, HE'S MAKING FUN OF ME" and cry over it, that just gives the person the satisfaction
You may think it is a bad example but I here people all of the time saying "people cant help being gay, it is something you are born with" if that is the case then it is perfectly fine, weaker eyes is just something I was born with.
You're off the subject. The student's sexuality had nothing to do with the campaign or his qualifications. You can't honestly tell me a straight student would have gotten away with anything similar.
"Vote Straight" has an obviously exclusionary, even threatening tone in a world where the vast majority of everybody is straight, and given the well known travails of gay Americans.
Now you're just "playing semantics" with me. Word it any way you'd like...how about "Straight Guy for Hunt High"? Would that be acceptable? I think not. It's the exact same statement.
Originally posted by finagain
What if the Christian students at the school find queerdom to be offensive according to their culture? Isn't it being culturally insensitive for the self-proclaimed queer to throw that in their faces or try to make that an issue in the campaign? Aren't we supposed to respect multiple cultures and make diversity a priority?
The ideal of multiculturalism is no different than classic liberal (as in enlightenment) ideals.
Every person has inherent dignity, regardless of origin. This dignity is to be extended to every walk of life, except insofar as it intrudes on the dignity of others.
Hence, liberal values call upon me to refrain from mocking or inhibiting in any way the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness of my fellows, even if the practices, styles, or beliefs of my fellows strike me as alien or distasteful, except insofar as those practices, styles, and beliefs limit my access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being "offended" by someone else's attributes doesn't rise to the level of inhibiting your access to these things.
As in other instances, this is an example of someone's sexuality intruding where it doesn't need to be. What if some young lady pronounced "Vote for me because I have the biggest hooters"? Same idea -- the information about sexuality is irrelevant and should be removed from the posters. [/B]
Body part size is very obviously a different matter than sexuality.
Your sense of "sexuality intruding were it doesn't need to be" (I'll forgive your choice of words) is informed by an easy acceptance of heterosexual messages engendered by their ubiquity.
It is exactly here that "cultural diversity" becomes important, because without an overt message of tolerance, it is far to easy for the comfortable majority to operate on a collectively self-supporting notion of "common sense", that would make outcasts of everyone not adhering to group norms.
Phrases such as "But people like that are just nasty", or "It's not that I'm prejudiced, but, come on, there are limits" become the mechanism of marginalization when the only appeal is to how "regular" folks think.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're off the subject. The student's sexuality had nothing to do with the campaign or his qualifications. You can't honestly tell me a straight student would have gotten away with anything similar. ...
What could a straight student do to compare with this? vote for me because I have a hot girlfriend that all the other guys in the school want...?
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're off the subject. The student's sexuality had nothing to do with the campaign or his qualifications. You can't honestly tell me a straight student would have gotten away with anything similar.
Now you're just "playing semantics" with me. Word it any way you'd like...how about "Straight Guy for Hunt High"? Would that be acceptable? I think not. It's the exact same statement.
(edit) I know you're capable of making arguments that are not that obtuse.
"Straight Guy for Hunt Hight" is in no way shape or form "the exact same statement".
Gay people have been beaten to death for being gay. It is a long and sorry history. You know that. Straight people do not get assaulted for "being straight". You know that.
To allude to ones homosexuality in the context of a hight school election is to clearly and obviously make a gesture in defiance of the history of oppression of the homosexual minority.
To explicitly allude to one's heterosexuality in the context of a high school election is to clearly and obviously imply that heterosexuality is to be kept at bay.
It's a fact that majorities have different tools at their disposal than minorities.
Surely you know that.
(and addabox, arguments are obtuse, not people. no baiting-- let's police ourselves here)
Originally posted by a_greer
IMHO, People take offence and get mad at WORDS way too easilly today.
I wear glasses, I need them, if someone calls me "four eyes" then points and laughes at me, I just "consider the source" I know that the person who has to resort to that is demonstrating their own inmaturary, I dont run and scream "HERASSMENT" or "HE OFFENDED MY SENCIBILITIES!!!!" or "TEACHER, HE'S MAKING FUN OF ME" and cry over it, that just gives the person the satisfaction
You may think it is a bad example but I here people all of the time saying "people cant help being gay, it is something you are born with" if that is the case then it is perfectly fine, weaker eyes is just something I was born with.
let the kid run, he would loose, not because he is gay, but because he is running on it, he apperently has nothing to say eccept "elect a 'queer'"
Perhaps you would like to direct me to the literature on the ongoing disenfranchisement of people with glasses. Not allowed to marry? At risk for being denied housing, or a job, or being beaten to death? Considered an abomination in the eyes of God?
I can really see where being called "four eyes" IS JUST THE SAME THING.
God almighty.
By the way, I really hope you "don't run and scream "HERASSMENT" or "HE OFFENDED MY SENCIBILITIES!!!!" because the short bus is a real drag.
Originally posted by addabox
Perhaps you would like to direct me to the literature on the ongoing disenfranchisement of people with glasses. Not allowed to marry? At risk for being denied housing, or a job, or being beaten to death? Considered an abomination in the eyes of God?
I can really see where being called "four eyes" IS JUST THE SAME THING.
God almighty.
By the way, I really hope you "don't run and scream "HERASSMENT" or "HE OFFENDED MY SENCIBILITIES!!!!" because the short bus is a real drag.
Be nice adda.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It would be helpful if we had the ACLU's argument on this-- because it would better inform our arguments and benefit this discussion.
(and addabox, arguments are obtuse, not people. no baiting-- let's police ourselves here)
Good call Shawn. More information is always better for the discussion. Now go find it for me.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Be nice adda.
Nick
Just jokin about typos, no offense intended.
Originally posted by addabox
Just jokin about typos, no offense intended.
I understand, but it could be offensive since he might not realize they are typos.
However I would appreciate you devoting a few more words to the thought that the same actions between enfranchised and disenfranchised people can lead to two completely opposite conclusions or are permissable in one instance but not the other. SDW did seem to find an example where the candidate would be broadcasting their sexuality (Straight Eye for Hunt High) without a hateful intent. You still disagreed with it and I would like a bit more understand into the underlying thinking regarding the enfranchisement/disenfranchisement point you were making.
Nick