I shaq-fuing love this guy.

[quote name='evanft']No, I'm saying that some people AREN'T necessarily equal because of the way society views them. Steps must be taken to correct that and therefore make them equal.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, this seems to contradict what you say in the next sentence, unless by "steps" you mean "words."

[quote name='evanft']Basically, what AM said. To a certain extent (although I probably wouldn't go as far as AA or any kind of reverse-discrimination, if you wanna call it that), government does play a role in helping groups who have been disadvantaged, shunned, etc. for no other reason than a natural trait that harms no one. I mean, look at how far women and blacks have come in just the last 50 years. I would argue that men and women, blacks and whites are on an almost equal playing field when it comes to employment, education, etc. Of course, the numbers may not necessarily say that, but if you set everything else equal (income, development, etc.), my argument would probably pan out. Now obviously, gays today do not have it as bad as women, or especially blacks once did, but the fight for their equality is still important.

Also, like AM said, there is no special treatment in question hear. This is just a poster reminding people that harassing someone because of their sexuality is not ok. This does not cause harm to anybody, nor should it offend any reasonable person. The motivation behind it is to end the cultural acceptance toward the hating of homosexuals, which makes standard measure against bullying (punishment, general "no bullying" ploicies) somewhat ineffective.[/QUOTE]

It most certainly is special treatment. They aren't putting posters up sayiing "School is safe for blacks" or "School is safe for women" or "School is safe for nerds" or "School is safe for Satanists" and on and on and on. They are singling out a number of students, defining them by their sexual behavior pattern, and pledging to protect them because of that. As Kayden aptly put it, the school shouldn't be singling out groups to pledge to protect from violence; it should have a policy against any violence toward anyone.

EDIT: I think this can be a reply to myke as well, just so you don't think I'm ignoring your argument.
 
Well, briefly, framed like that, then yes, elprincipe, it can be considered special treatment.

OTOH, considering that this discussion is even brought up, can we reasonably consider schools to be safe for gay students? Compare that to the assumption that schools are safe havens for victims of racial/sexual harrassment or violence. Would you argue that it should be permissible for students to participate in such abuse, or that teachers/faculty should be exempted from offering protection to these students in the event it occurs? Of course not. That's one major difference, IMO. Safety from race/gender based violence doesn't need to be spelled out, because it's a natural assumption. A student or faculty member participating in or permitting such actions would be severely sanctioned. In the case of gay students, faculty and students are looking to exempt themselves from complicitly agreeing to provide the same protections.

It's special rights, perhaps, in the sense that it needs to be spelled out to students; that's the consequence of its necessity.

In the end, I've pointed out that respecting a person's right to existing safe from threat or violence is not, even complicitly, the same as being forced to accept who you are. The actions being undertaken are focusing on the former, and are not trying to shape the latter.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, briefly, framed like that, then yes, elprincipe, it can be considered special treatment.

OTOH, considering that this discussion is even brought up, can we reasonably consider schools to be safe for gay students? Compare that to the assumption that schools are safe havens for victims of racial/sexual harrassment or violence. Would you argue that it should be permissible for students to participate in such abuse, or that teachers/faculty should be exempted from offering protection to these students in the event it occurs? Of course not. That's one major difference, IMO. Safety from race/gender based violence doesn't need to be spelled out, because it's a natural assumption. A student or faculty member participating in or permitting such actions would be severely sanctioned. In the case of gay students, faculty and students are looking to exempt themselves from complicitly agreeing to provide the same protections.

It's special rights, perhaps, in the sense that it needs to be spelled out to students; that's the consequence of its necessity.

In the end, I've pointed out that respecting a person's right to existing safe from threat or violence is not, even complicitly, the same as being forced to accept who you are. The actions being undertaken are focusing on the former, and are not trying to shape the latter.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how safe the schools are, not having been in one for a while. But every effort should be made so that there is no violence occurring in them between anyone, gay or straight or whatever. No violence at all should be assumed because it should be the policy. I don't think it's a good or even necessary thing to single out a group of students based on one aspect of their lives, define them as a monolithic group, and pledge special attention to them.
 
The reaction of the students and faculty objecting to being expected to uphold these protections (which should, I agree, simply be a given) suggests that, unlike norms relating to interaction between students of various races and genders, students don't consider sexuality to be within the same realm of protection as race and gender.

It makes me think of an adjunct professor here who teaches deviance (though I've told her I want to take it from her). She has students do a "breaching" experiment, where they intentionally defy social norms, monitor peoples' reactions and write about them. She was in some hot water after a student dropped the "f-bomb" in front of an inebriated homosexual at a local extablishment (the drunk guy filed a complaint, I believe - the student was so embarassed about being confronted that they spilled the beans about it being for a school project).

How that's related to this subject is because many students are consistently comfortable with using homosexual epithets, but they almost always gasp with exasperation when she asks them why they didn't use the word "nigger." To most, racial epithets are to modern America what "Yahweh" was to orthodox Jews - one becomes guilty just by hearing the word said, in a sense. There is clearly a divide in which racial words are considered more taboo than gender/sexuality terms. I don't mind that, but it certainly suggests that some things do need to be spelled out, and others don't.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hmm, this seems to contradict what you say in the next sentence, unless by "steps" you mean "words."[/QUOTE]

Well, the steps can really be anything that doesn't harm other groups, i.e. extra monitoring of the bullying of gay students that takes away from protection of non-gay students.

[quote name='elprincipe']It most certainly is special treatment. They aren't putting posters up sayiing "School is safe for blacks" or "School is safe for women" or "School is safe for nerds" or "School is safe for Satanists" and on and on and on. They are singling out a number of students, defining them by their sexual behavior pattern, and pledging to protect them because of that. As Kayden aptly put it, the school shouldn't be singling out groups to pledge to protect from violence; it should have a policy against any violence toward anyone.

EDIT: I think this can be a reply to myke as well, just so you don't think I'm ignoring your argument.[/QUOTE]

I think what mykevermin said really address this issue. It is more acceptable for students to participate in the harassment of gay students, and many doing so do not view one's sexuality as something that should be protected the same way as their race or gender.

[quote name='elprincipe']I don't know how safe the schools are, not having been in one for a while. But every effort should be made so that there is no violence occurring in them between anyone, gay or straight or whatever. No violence at all should be assumed because it should be the policy. I don't think it's a good or even necessary thing to single out a group of students based on one aspect of their lives, define them as a monolithic group, and pledge special attention to them.[/QUOTE]

I think mykevermin nailed it on the head. Harassment of gay students because of their sexuality is much more acceptable that harassment of blacks, women, etc. Now, the later groups assume a level of protection because they're not necessarily victims of harassment too often, at least not on the level of gay students. Gay students, because they are victims of harassment at a much higher level, and also because of the social acceptance of such harassment, must be reassured directly that school is safe for them, and those who would do the harassment educated as to why it is wrong.
 
[quote name='evanft']I think mykevermin nailed it on the head. Harassment of gay students because of their sexuality is much more acceptable that harassment of blacks, women, etc. Now, the later groups assume a level of protection because they're not necessarily victims of harassment too often, at least not on the level of gay students. Gay students, because they are victims of harassment at a much higher level, and also because of the social acceptance of such harassment, must be reassured directly that school is safe for them, and those who would do the harassment educated as to why it is wrong.[/QUOTE]

There is harrassment of nerds at schools. There is harassment of women at schools (no doubt about it). There is harassment of goths at schools. Heck, you guys would probably argue that atheists in Kansas schools are more likely to be harassed. The point is that many groups are harassed, and that by defining a group by one particular behavior, as if they are all the same because they are gay and they all think the same way and act the same way, and then singling them out, not only is it not equal to all students, but it's probably bad for the gay students in the long run, considering schools can't exactly control what happens off campus.

Don't you see that this kind of policy heads exactly in the opposite direction from your goal, which is to make these students accepted and equal? It's the same mind-set as affirmative action; the government has to fight societal problems by dividing people into groups and singling people out instead of attempting to stop violence and letting society sort its own norms out with confidence it will eventually come to the right conclusion.
 
[quote name='evanft']I think mykevermin nailed it on the head. Harassment of gay students because of their sexuality is much more acceptable that harassment of blacks, women, etc. Now, the later groups assume a level of protection because they're not necessarily victims of harassment too often, at least not on the level of gay students. Gay students, because they are victims of harassment at a much higher level, and also because of the social acceptance of such harassment, must be reassured directly that school is safe for them, and those who would do the harassment educated as to why it is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Okay , so you agree with Myke's 'rules'. If they're true, and the goal is to influence negative behavior agaist gay students, does anyone believe that a student who picks on another student becuase he is gay should be punished more severly than someone who harasses another student becuase he just likes picking on other students ?

Here are some of myke's rules:

1) Heterosexual students are not harrassed, mocked, beaten, gossiped about, or otherwise abused because of their sexuality.

2) Homosexual students do run the risk of harrassment, mockery, physical violence, and abuse directly as a result of their sexuality.

3) The rules suggested by the school seek strictly to remedy the differential treatment presented in #1 and #2. The goal is for sexual orientation to not be a causal factor in intra-student conflict.

4) There is a qualitative difference between disapproving of homosexuality and actively abusing those who are homosexual. The school rules seek to affect the latter, not the former.

5) Those who disapprove of the school's tactics do not recognize the point in #4, or they otherwise promote the abuse of homosexual students.
Click to expand...

The way I'm reading it, especially in rule #4, is that this special catagory requires special treatment. And, in point #5, if the harassment rule does not state a specific group affected, like the nerd group, then the school must be promoting abuse against nerds. To treat affected groups as special requires that we catagorize every student into his subset of the general population and determine proper behavior rules for each group. The consequences of which will only serve to foster discrimination and abuse of other students if some groups are to have restrictions that other's do not. By stating, for whatever reason, that a certain group of students are exempt from harassment becuase of what group they belong to is discriminatory in and of itself and only serves to differentiate them from the general population and engender alienation of both groups from each other, causing more possible animosity between groups singled out for special treatment and could therefore cause more harassment between groups.

A better rule for the school would be to have a non-descript policy and state that harassment of another student for any reason is improper. And as for posting on a flier that gay students are safe in a particular gathering would be moot since harassment would be 'illegal' to begin with at any of the school's events.

You obviously feel strongly for affirmative action for gays becauase according to your 'rules':

1. Everyone should be equal.

2. Some people feel that others are not equal to them because of factors beyond their control.

3. A group especially viewed in this way is homosexuals.

4. This is especially true in schools, where gay students are persecuted by their peers at a much higher degree.

5. Thus, in order to combat this, schools sometime take measures above and beyond what they do for other groups in order to prevent any harassment of gay students.

6. Eventually, society will reach a point where this isn't even an issue, so extra steps will no longer have to be taken.
Click to expand...

My question to you is who is the one who determines which group is more persecuted? You? a committee? How does one measure the incidence rate for harassment of gays over jews? Nerds over blacks? Doing so requires you to become a racist and catagorize the 'disenfrachisement' of everyone and place them in a certain catagory and importance to determine whether or not the harassment fits a particular punishment. It's reverse discrimination no matter how good your intentions are to make everyone 'equal'.
 
A better rule for the school would be to have a non-descript policy and state that harassment of another student for any reason is improper.
Click to expand...

But then we get back to the study done showing schools which explicitly spell out the various forms of harrassment have less bullying.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']There is harrassment of nerds at schools. There is harassment of women at schools (no doubt about it). There is harassment of goths at schools. Heck, you guys would probably argue that atheists in Kansas schools are more likely to be harassed. The point is that many groups are harassed, and that by defining a group by one particular behavior, as if they are all the same because they are gay and they all think the same way and act the same way, and then singling them out, not only is it not equal to all students, but it's probably bad for the gay students in the long run, considering schools can't exactly control what happens off campus.

Don't you see that this kind of policy heads exactly in the opposite direction from your goal, which is to make these students accepted and equal? It's the same mind-set as affirmative action; the government has to fight societal problems by dividing people into groups and singling people out instead of attempting to stop violence and letting society sort its own norms out with confidence it will eventually come to the right conclusion.[/QUOTE]
Woah, that's a little bit of wishful thinking. Hoping that society will be able to sort out it's own norms and come to the right conclusion?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']My question to you is who is the one who determines which group is more persecuted? You? a committee? How does one measure the incidence rate for harassment of gays over jews? Nerds over blacks? Doing so requires you to become a racist and catagorize the 'disenfrachisement' of everyone and place them in a certain catagory and importance to determine whether or not the harassment fits a particular punishment. It's reverse discrimination no matter how good your intentions are to make everyone 'equal'.[/QUOTE]

In my earlier post, I remarked that different categories are treated differently. Few need to be told that racial harrassment is against school policy. On the other hand, the opposition to stating that schools are "safe havens" from sexual harrassment suggests that people are perfectly fine stating, publicly, their bigotry against people of a certain group.

Some rules need to be stated perfectly clearly; you've taught before, you should know that well enough. Others are more commonly understood. Since you've completely ignored that point, instead opting for a conventional "you're marginalizing the marginalized" bmulligan nonsense - a straw man argument at that - I don't know how to respond to your point.

Perhaps I can ask you this: Do you REALLY believe that we can live in an organized society in the absence of categorizations and the natural hierarchy that results from such classifications? That if we stop calling those who like people of the same sex "gay," or people with a certain combination of physical characteristics "black" or "jew," for instance, then all social ills will simply disappear away? Do you truly believe that society can ever even approach living without categorizations?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']There is harrassment of nerds at schools. There is harassment of women at schools (no doubt about it). There is harassment of goths at schools. Heck, you guys would probably argue that atheists in Kansas schools are more likely to be harassed. The point is that many groups are harassed, and that by defining a group by one particular behavior, as if they are all the same because they are gay and they all think the same way and act the same way, and then singling them out, not only is it not equal to all students, but it's probably bad for the gay students in the long run, considering schools can't exactly control what happens off campus. [/QUOTE]

If you are gay, you are more likely to be harassed than any of the groups you mentioned. Also, being gay is an inherent characteristic, making the harassment of such a quality especially heinous. Being a "goth" or a "nerd" isn't necessarily an inherent trait, and therefore harassment of such people is more tolerable than the harassment of gays. It's still wrong, but I'm just pointing out the difference.

[quote name='elprincipe']Don't you see that this kind of policy heads exactly in the opposite direction from your goal, which is to make these students accepted and equal? It's the same mind-set as affirmative action; the government has to fight societal problems by dividing people into groups and singling people out instead of attempting to stop violence and letting society sort its own norms out with confidence it will eventually come to the right conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Comparing this to AA is a load of bullshit. AA's goal (which I agree with, but not really the means) is to make up for generations of government-sanctioned segregation and hate. Putting up the poster is meant to make things safer for gay students. Now, you could point out that the bigger-picture gaol of both is to make the groups more level with the rest of us, but ignoring the specifics in this case is somewhat doging the issue.

I'm gonna have to pull a QFT on myke:

[quote name='mykevermin']In my earlier post, I remarked that different categories are treated differently. Few need to be told that racial harrassment is against school policy. On the other hand, the opposition to stating that schools are "safe havens" from sexual harrassment suggests that people are perfectly fine stating, publicly, their bigotry against people of a certain group.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='evanft']If you are gay, you are more likely to be harassed than any of the groups you mentioned. Also, being gay is an inherent characteristic, making the harassment of such a quality especially heinous. Being a "goth" or a "nerd" isn't necessarily an inherent trait, and therefore harassment of such people is more tolerable than the harassment of gays. It's still wrong, but I'm just pointing out the difference.[/quote]

But how does one determine the priority of harassment equalization? I say there is no objective standard to do so. Suppose there are 100 gay students in a school and there are 50 reported incidents of gay harassment. Is that greater than 20 goth students reporting 20 incidents ? Is it more than 1000 white students reporting 500 incidences of harassment ? You have no way to judge which groups should get preferential treatment without ostracizing all other groups that don't receive the same treatment. It's not even seperate but equal, it's discrimination whether the intent is benevolent or not. Treating people better becuase of their group affiliation is the same as maltreatment of a group because of their distinguishing characteristics. As myke clearly believes, not including gays in an anti-harssment rule is endorsing gay hatred by default.

Comparing this to AA is a load of bullshit. AA's goal (which I agree with, but not really the means) is to make up for generations of government-sanctioned segregation and hate. Putting up the poster is meant to make things safer for gay students. Now, you could point out that the bigger-picture gaol of both is to make the groups more level with the rest of us, but ignoring the specifics in this case is somewhat doging the issue.
Click to expand...

So, the techniques are similar, and the goals to eliminate past oppression are the same, but the two programs are different. Specifically, what are the differences?
 
Since I'm a satanist, can they put some posters that say "it's okay to worship Satan?" Actually, I don't worship Satan because I'm not a Gothic Satanist but I think I also need equal treatment. Too bad I'm not in high school anymore though.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']Since I'm a satanist, can they put some posters that say "it's okay to worship Satan?" Actually, I don't worship Satan because I'm not a Gothic Satanist but I think I also need equal treatment. Too bad I'm not in high school anymore though.[/QUOTE]

I treat all religious people equally. As in, fuck off.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']Since I'm a satanist, can they put some posters that say "it's okay to worship Satan?" Actually, I don't worship Satan because I'm not a Gothic Satanist but I think I also need equal treatment. Too bad I'm not in high school anymore though.[/QUOTE]

I've never heard of any genuine satanists (ie. not nutcases) who actually worshipped satan, the devil etc. I think gothic satanists are mostly a few solitary individuals and figments of christian imaginations.
 
[quote name='evanft']I treat all religious people equally. As in, fuck off.[/QUOTE]

It's funny - one of Anton Lavey's rules was that if someone who disagrees with you comes in your sacred temple, destroy them.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's funny - one of Anton Lavey's rules was that if someone who disagrees with you comes in your sacred temple, destroy them.[/QUOTE]

It's actually (I'm paraphrasing) respect people, their beliefs and belongings. If they bother you or attempt to disrupt your beliefs, belongings etc. ask them to stop, if they do not then destroy them.

But all that is with the understanding that you will be responsible for your actions and you should act accordingly.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Woah, that's a little bit of wishful thinking. Hoping that society will be able to sort out it's own norms and come to the right conclusion?[/QUOTE]

So your solution is the government imposing what you all by yourself have determined is right? That has worked really well for issues such as abortion...oh, wait, it caused more divisiveness and bitterness over the issue than ever. If you don't think gays are becoming more accepted in America over time you're blind, and that is not the government's doing.

Bottom line, the government has a hard time forcing social progress and generally shouldn't really try. The government should focus on protecting us from each other and from the world without and let us set our own social norms.
 
[quote name='evanft']If you are gay, you are more likely to be harassed than any of the groups you mentioned. Also, being gay is an inherent characteristic, making the harassment of such a quality especially heinous. Being a "goth" or a "nerd" isn't necessarily an inherent trait, and therefore harassment of such people is more tolerable than the harassment of gays. It's still wrong, but I'm just pointing out the difference.[/QUOTE]

We've got a disagreement there. I would argue it isn't inherent, but simply a behavior pattern like people categorized as nerds or goths.

And how do you know which group is harassed more than another? Give me some statistics on that, or I'll go with my instinct, which is you're pulling that comment right out of your ass.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So your solution is the government imposing what you all by yourself have determined is right? That has worked really well for issues such as abortion...oh, wait, it caused more divisiveness and bitterness over the issue than ever. If you don't think gays are becoming more accepted in America over time you're blind, and that is not the government's doing.

Bottom line, the government has a hard time forcing social progress and generally shouldn't really try. The government should focus on protecting us from each other and from the world without and let us set our own social norms.[/QUOTE]
I understand where you're coming from, but would intergration happened if the government hadn't stepped in (not sure if it was fed or state government, so please correct me if I am wrong).
 
[quote name='docvinh']I understand where you're coming from, but would intergration happened if the government hadn't stepped in (not sure if it was fed or state government, so please correct me if I am wrong).[/QUOTE]

Mostly federal, though sometimes circumstantially (Brown v Board did not have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, but since it did, it certainly facilitated in passing the Civil Rights Act, a federal measure).

If there is ever any confusion as to whether or not it is a state or federal matter, there are two things to remember: one, when states act on the same thing, rarely would it happen so uniformly. Even the anti-gay marriage amendment were passed in roughly 1/3 of the states, and support for that is pretty constant.

Two, just remember George Wallace. While I believe he's best known for the "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" statement, though there's more to it than that. He'd not likely have approved of anything promoting integration during his tenure in the early to mid 1960's, but he's truly the most extreme example of the time period (in terms of political figures anyway). http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/schooldoor.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top