Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Sick gay hate in a Louisiana school

Dec 3, 2003 1:54PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
NT One would think it not too wise to have eyes wide open whilst the dust is swirling. :)
Dec 4, 2003 3:14AM PST
- Collapse -
Cooler heads?
Dec 3, 2003 10:55PM PST

Given that this was discussed in reference to a CNN article about same, I wonder how many people read your link Dale. It certainly had a little more info on what happened.

This seems to be an overreaction all the way around. It's absurd that "gay" is considered a dirty word or that a child should not be able to answer a question regarding his family. But, the teacher's rationale is really not worthy of being labeled as "sick hatred" either. To quote from your article: On a separate form for the Louisiana Department of Education), Bethea said Marcus "told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room," she continued. "I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way."

I still wonder what the response would have been if the other kid had made any reply along the lines of gay being wrong, abnormal or sinful. Whether anyone agrees or not, it would still just as much the First Amendment right of the other student to express such views. So, perhaps, this teacher just controls any discussions of this nature in her classroom. With the pc culture we have these days, and the ever-present fear of litigation (that you seem to be encouraging), is it any wonder that teachers might seek to stifle ALL discussions of "sticky topics"??

I am a bit struck by the kid's spelling abilities. Maybe he isn't learning in school or at home that which a public education is intended for: Marcus came home with a "Student Behavior Contract" for his mother's signature, where he had been obliged to detail his transgression. "I sed bad wurds," wrote the second-grader under the heading, "What I did." Under "What I should have done," Marcus wrote: "Cep my mouf shut."

Kinda sad no?

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Looks like pretty good spelling, phonically, for a second grader ;-)
Dec 4, 2003 1:45AM PST

.
A lot of high school kids spell the same way and not only in Louisiana

- Collapse -
Very sad then Rosalie
Dec 4, 2003 2:06AM PST

I thought maybe I was misremembering being a second grader, so I looked up a couple of spelling lists for the first and second grades.

Cep? That's a phonetic spelling? Mouf? Do young children now learn phonetic spelling for improper pronunciation??

http://home.att.net/~elteach/first_spell.html
http://plymouth.k12.ct.us/pss/zabek/spelling.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~snowden2teach/First%20Grade%20Spelling%20List.htm
http://www.myschoolonline.com/page/0,1871,46465-195290-50-20793,00.html

I find this very sad.

- Collapse -
Re:Very sad then Rosalie...pretty sad indeed
Dec 4, 2003 3:13AM PST

Since it reflects on the teaching abilities or lack thereof rather than the student, doncha think?

TONI

- Collapse -
Agree ...
Dec 4, 2003 3:29AM PST

... but also indicative of how these issues are increasingly preventing schools from actually accomplishing their purpose of teaching children basic academic skills.

Not sure that at this point in the second grade, this particular teacher can be faulted entirely for this student's poor spelling. I think it's much more all-encompassing than that, and includes the parent-child, and parent-teacher relationship as well.

Still think this probably boils down to an inappropriate punishment for a situation that evolved out of discussion inappropriate for school, period. The teacher's reasoning that this is something best explained to a second grader by their parents and not by a classmate because the teacher has no control over the content of such discussions seems pretty rational to me. The asst principal or whoever it was who called the mom seems to have the big problem in describing the word as too dirty to say over the phone. In this litigous and hypersensitive era, it seems safer all the way around to limit the discussion all the way around as a matter of practicality.

Would you and the others think it fair to merely limit these discussions in the school environment w/o the overreactive punishment?

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
In an older age group, probably
Dec 4, 2003 3:55AM PST

>>>Would you and the others think it fair to merely limit these discussions in the school environment w/o the overreactive punishment?>>>>

For two reasons....the older aged children would already have some knowledge of what 'gay' means and wouldn't need to ask normally, whether their parents condoned the lifestyle or not. Any discussions about it in school would probably be in a sex-ed class where it would be more appropriate than a 'normal' classroom. If there was no sex-ed class for this type of discussion, then the teacher would be correct in telling the students that they can and should take the discussion to lunchtime or after school but that discussions regarding sex is inappropriate for normal class time.

The younger aged children, as in this case, usually needs a one-line answer to satisfy their curiosity and are happy with the 'simpler the better', which is what happened here from what I've read.

The fact that the teacher decided that 'gay' was a bad word and punishment insued reflects on the TEACHER having a problem with issues and NOT the children involved since there wasn't even a 'discussion' per se between the children as near as I can tell from the complaint or the link. It seems that the 'discussion' came from the teacher to Marcus and/or between the teacher and the principal.

This appears to me to be a teacher who over-reacted and badly and dragged a principal into it who also over-reacted and badly.

TONI

- Collapse -
Maybe policy Toni ...
Dec 4, 2003 4:44AM PST

... however misguided.

We have a close friend of the family who has been teaching grades K-3 (varies year by year lately) for over 20 years. At the end of each summer she has to go for the meeting where new policies and procedures are discussed. Ya know kids that age sometimes just need a hug if they are upset or injured on the playground, etc. Well, teachers have to be very careful when it comes to even touching a student. We don't know the procedures at the school or if there was an incident in the past where a parent complained that their child came home questioning about what gay meant or whatever. Obviously this mom discussed it with her child, but it would be totally logical for the next question to be -- well, I like you, does that make me gay?, and soforth.

I agree, there is no need for punishment in this instance and surely there was an overreaction. But maybe if the ACLU stopped making such mountains out of molehills a lot fewer of these instances would pop up in the firstplace. There are idiotic things going on because of unintended consequences of zero tolerance policies every day.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Maybe policy Toni ...
Dec 5, 2003 5:19AM PST

...But maybe if the ACLU stopped making such mountains out of molehills a lot fewer of these instances would pop up in the firstplace....

You're kidding, right? If we just ignore this type of treatment of children it will just stop? Or do you mean to say that if we don't make a big deal out of them no one will ever know and we won't have to deal with the problem?

Dan

- Collapse -
No Dan, I'm not kidding
Dec 6, 2003 11:27PM PST

If there wasn't such a fear of ACLU lawsuits, this kid might actually be learning grade-level appropriate spelling with the funds. We only have the complaintant's side of things. Now had the mother tried to address this with the principal or school board and been rebuked, surely such would have been included. Since there is no indication that the mom tried to resolve this before crying trauma to the ACLU, it's reasonable to assume she didn't. Because otherwise the complaint would be beefed up with "the mom proposed xyz and the school board denied her request", etc.

The reaction to this instance is a perfect example of an overreaction, every bit as much as the teacher/school reaction was.

- Collapse -
Re:No Dan, I'm not kidding
Dec 8, 2003 11:21PM PST

The ACLU will, as usual, go to extremem lengths to settle problems before going too far into the litigation process. Filing is just the first step and tends to get people's attention. It sure worked here. Many of the ACLU's actions are settled out of court.

Dan

- Collapse -
Evie - The punishment was way out of line -
Dec 4, 2003 8:56AM PST
Would you and the others think it fair to merely limit these discussions in the school environment w/o the overreactive punishment?



The teacher should have ignored what a child should say to another child, and politely request that the discussion should stop whilst she was teaching.
What one child says to another child has absolutely nothing to do with her, she should mind her own business, and that is to teach the children good spelling, which she certainly seems to have failed in.
The teacher obviously detests the situation of the child being looked after by the two lesbians, and deliberately picked on the child for that same reason.
- Collapse -
While not supporting the actions taken
Dec 4, 2003 9:15AM PST

I'm afraid the teachers here can't take the attitude that "What one child says to another child has absolutely nothing to do with her, ..."

In our lawsuit crazy society today, employers are responsible if their employees make another uncomfortable. School officials are held responsible if any one feels that someone else is making school unpleasant atmosphere for them.

Some of that is reasonable, but the threat of lawsuits has resulted in the nonsense of zero tolerance policies, which normally means punishing anyone involved in something, no matter who is the aggressor.

That includes expelling second graders for sexual aggression actions, imagine that? expelling everyone in a fight, even if it was 3 jumping one, all 4 go. If someone complains a person or group is making fun of them, there will be meetings and conferences and social workers ad infintium.

roger

- Collapse -
A seven year old couldn't be sued - right?
Dec 4, 2003 10:33AM PST

The teacher should turn a blind eye at what a little 7 year old has to say. If the class mate went home and discussed the matter with his parents, then it would be between the lesbians and them to sort things out.
Well all I can say is that I am so glad I don't live in such a crazy society that thinks it can allow people to sue over such a menial thing.
The UK hasn't got that bad yet, and I just hope it never does.
Steve

- Collapse -
And it is still none of her business even if she overheard -
Dec 4, 2003 10:42AM PST
Sad
- Collapse -
A parent could sue the school for allowing words considered
Dec 5, 2003 2:38AM PST

inappropriate to be used and/or for allowing situations, including discussions, involving inappropriate (as defined by the parent often) to exist and continue without interferring and censoring.

I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm just suggesting why the teacher might have felt she should stop it.

I'd agree that she shouldn't have had the child write the lines or punished the child at all. But the discussion might have had to be interrupted per school policy, community guidelines, etc.

The teacher could lose her job over something like that, depending on the local school board's stance.

roger

- Collapse -
Considering how the teacher should have handled the situation
Dec 5, 2003 5:20AM PST

and what she actually did, I still think there is no excuse for punishment.
She should have stopped the conversation between the two children, and announced to the class that the use of such words were inappropriate for the class room.
That should have adequately covered her against any legal problems, so that's the legal side out of the way. What other excuse has she got for her disgusting behaviour.

- Collapse -
Re:Considering how the teacher should have handled the situation
Dec 5, 2003 7:53AM PST

Never excused her behavior.

Just was pointing out a situation that often exist in the current "sue" mode of public life in the US now. Figured you might not be aware of how much everything that a person does now is subject to put them at risk for a lawsuit.

There's a man where I work that most people that know him hope he never sets foot on their property. He's sued and threaten to sue multiple people, businesses, etc multiple times. I suspect anyone that know him would never want to even give him a lift if his car broke down, just because of the danger of being sued.


roger

- Collapse -
Re:Evie - The punishment was way out of line -
Dec 4, 2003 11:20AM PST

Hi Steve,

I agree that it was inappropriate.

But I was unaware that you were present at the last faculty meeting of this school and a participant in the classroom, because unless you were, you are jumping to conclusions regarding the teacher's motives.

You don't know if there have been other incidents, what you say about conversations between students may very well be true, but there are all sorts of speech code things going on in our schools these days that make things particularly sticky for teachers. We have only the complaint to go by here. It may be that it is policy to report such things to the principal at which point the disciplinary action appears to have been handed down from there. You don't know if there have been incidents of parents complaining that their second graders are coming home from school wanting to know about gay parents or with details about discussions that in their opinions do not belong in the second grade classroom.

Mine are, of course, suppositions too, but neither of us knows all the facts and I don't see where lawsuits are going to make this situation better for all the children in this class or school in the long run.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Point taken Evie - We don't know all the facts of the situation
Dec 4, 2003 11:37AM PST

Which makes me wonder if this thread, and the large one, which also deals with the same problem, is likely to be of any value.
These stories are very often reported with a political bias, and mitigating circumstances are deliberately not mentioned.

- Collapse -
Re: jumping to conclusions -- how about "circumstantial evidence?"
Dec 5, 2003 1:43AM PST

Hi, Evie.

Even if Steve wasn't there, with the facts in hand his interpretation is the only logical one, given precisely what the kid was supposed to write over and over.
-- Dave K.

- Collapse -
Good point Dave
Dec 5, 2003 5:38AM PST

Come what may of what was discussed in the staff room, or whatever you call it in the US, the teachers behaviour should not be excused, and neither should the head teacher be let off without some recourse.
If the case went to court one of the questions I would be asking is what was discussed in the "staff room" about the two lesbians.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: jumping to conclusions -- how about
Dec 5, 2003 7:52AM PST

Hi Dave,

Read Dale's link as it provides more info. It is not clear that the teacher dictated the punishment and there is only the complaint to go by. Nobody has a clue the history of this teacher or issues such as this at this particular school. Sheesh, even if it's exactly like it was stated in the complaint, whatever happened to talking things out and coming to a mutual arrangement. There is no indication that the mother appealed to a school board or anything. If what this kid gets out of this is how to handle conflict by suing ...

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
I just cannot believe you said that. :-(
Dec 5, 2003 12:47PM PST

Unless you have amnesia, you know quite well that your initial learning about sexuality, friendships, religion et al was effected to a large part in discussions with your peers - starting from about age 3.

Teachers who lack selective deafness to the discussions of children, except where they are enforcing regulations regarding the use of expletives, will end up in trouble. As this teacher did.

As this thread has developed, the literal understanding of the link has been further and further reduced to non-meaning, whilst assumptions from James and Ed have gained greater and greater credibility. The complaints about giving literal credulity to the link are valid. The wild assed guesses that have reinterpreted the link into their particular religious and societal believes are complete and utter garbage.

The article states clearly the teacher/school objected to the use of the word gay. In other words, they placed "gay" under the teacher's responsibility to control the use of expletives.

Schools are about learning. That includes learning about the society around us. That you would support not permitting a child to tell his schoolmatye he has two mothers, rather than a mother and a father, and that his two mothers love each other. Well. I'm shocked that you can make in depth consideration posts, then make this narrow minded bigotted statement that people living in other than "man, woman, missionary style sex" must not discuss their home situation.

Ian

- Collapse -
Misunderstanding AGAIN Ian ...
Dec 6, 2003 1:22AM PST

... I didn't say that "people living in other than "man, woman, missionary style sex" must not discuss their home situation"

I did say that it is not necessarily discriminatory IF there are some school policies or even a policy of this teacher to limit ALL discussion of sexuality. Personally, I think it's an overreaction, but when you have the law-suit happy politically correct, ACLU agenda driven atmosphere we have these days in schools it's not at all surprising to me to have such limits.

As I said, you don't know if there have been complaints from other parents whose kids come home with all sorts of questions based on something they heard in school. I also doubt the ACLU would be backing the other kid if he/she was disciplined for saying he/she would pray for this kids family.

And we still are only dealing with limited details based on only the complaintants version of events.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Misunderstanding AGAIN Ian ...
Dec 7, 2003 5:12PM PST

I read your other post last night my time. Quite good.

I understand your point. HOWEVER:

I believe that a school policy that punishes children because other childrens' parents may be asked difficult questions reflects a bad attitude, of not teaching children wherever such is required to make the Parents and Citizens' Association happy.

The legal issue you raised is unfortunately fact. Yet the problem is the other parents' refusing to take responsibility for the social training of their own families.

Where does this lead in terms of the article? Damned if I know. I just personally believe the school should not have involved themselves. Apart from anything else, they have made it very clear to that child that he is in an unacceptable family situation from the school's perspective.

Its none of the school's damned business!!

Ian

- Collapse -
Is it a parent's business in your opinion...
Dec 7, 2003 10:41PM PST

...to have concern over what their child is exposed to at school? Is it their business to want an environment in which references to sexual liasons outside marriage become the topic of discussion? There was a PBS docu-disgusto a couple years ago called "It's Elementary" in which this lesbian went into kindergarten classes and spoke about gay relationships to the children there without their parent's knowledge of it. Needless to say, when it hit the PBS circuit it didn't get rave reviews from parents and people everywhere were outraged over it and the fact that other people's children, which could have been their children, were subjected to this "expirament" without their prior knowledge or consent. We used to give money each year to MPT the PBS here in Maryland, but after they allowed that on their stations we quit all further yearly donations. We may resume at some future time but they still have "gay" programming I object to and don't wish my donations to support.

Parent's have a right to expect their minor children to have a protected environment at public school that is hopefully comparable to the values they try to instill in their children. What the parents don't need are social expiramenters and PC adherents trying to use their children for their own social engineering purposes.

Why do you think private schools have become so prevalent in America today? It's because the public schools have become the playgrounds in many areas of the social leftists and parents wish to have their children properly educated, not propagandized.

- Collapse -
Our public schools have been transformed ...
Dec 7, 2003 11:32PM PST

... from community schools to government schools in my generation.

The PTA (Parent Teacher Association) was a big thing back when I was in grade school, and the curricula, holiday observances, etc., reflected the makeup of the community to a large extent. When the Feds and NEA took over, along with some big publishing companies, the curriculum became increasingly dictated. Lots of education in non-academic subjects was introduced -- often without the knowledge or permission of the parents. James is right, one reason many send their kids to private schools is that they have a say in what their kids are exposed to and don't have to worry about what little Johnny is going to learn at his next "diversity seminar" or sex ed class.

This is agenda driven Ian, because if AIDS prevention were really one of the goals of sex education, then abstinence would be the only message on a health policy basis. But no, because there are religious and moral reasons for abstinence, that would somehow be teaching religion.

The school should stay out of it. Sounds great. But to what extent then? Should the school prohibit all such discussions? If not, which ones does it allow? Is it OK to have Marcus' mom come to class and explain her family? And if so, why then not have a devoutly Catholic mom come in and explain their family too.

The ACLU sees the first part of our first Amendment as excluding even a mention of God -- unless of course it is a God of the minority or the rejection of God in total. I contend that sexular humanism is every bit as much a religion for the sake of the First Amendment! But the ACLU goes on to see the second part as only relating to the free speech of "minorities". They feel Marcus has a right to discuss anything in school -- which may be the ideal situation -- but they don't feel that Marcus' classmates can equally opine any view that doesn't fit with the total acceptance of gay parents as normal. For a policy to be equally applied to all, it must be applied to all, so if speech is limited condemning homosexuality, then so too must speech condoning it be.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Dec 4, 2003 8:29AM PST
- Collapse -
No because...
Dec 4, 2003 11:43AM PST

a sampling of one student is not only insignificant but meaningless in assigning "blame" for the poor spelling.

Apparently the other post was deleted because I "named names", so I will only remind one and all that a "highly educated" moderator of this forum engages in sometimes atrocious spelling BUT I do not believe his/her teachers are the cause of the bad spelling as I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of their students spell much better than this unnamed moderator.

Before blaming the teacher one should see how the rest of the students are doing "doncha think?".