Principal Outs Gay Student Couple

[WillParkinson]

(Memphis, Tennessee) A public high school principal who posted the names of two boys on a list of students believed to be couples, revealing their relationship to their parents as well as other students and teachers, violated the students’ constitutional right to freedom of association, the American Civil Liberties Union charged Tuesday.

In a letter to school board officials in Memphis, the ACLU demanded that the school reprimand the principal and take steps to ensure such actions never happen again.

In September of 2007, the principal at Hollis F. Price Middle College High told teachers she wanted the names of all student couples, “hetero and homo,” because she wanted to monitor them personally to prevent students from engaging in public displays of affection.


http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/04/042908school.htm

[DrDan]

1. gee - you would think things like academic progress would take all that principal's time

but . . . she still has time to monitor personal relationships.

Hope she gets fried.

[yardwork]

2. This article makes me cry. Read the whole thing.

According to (the mother of one of the boys), the principal said things like “Did you know your son is gay?” repeatedly and went on to say that she didn’t like gay people and wouldn’t tolerate homosexuality at her school.

Both students say they’ve had to deal with verbal harassment from both teachers and students since word got out around the school about their principal’s actions.

According to Nicholas, he also suffered another consequence of the principal’s discrimination. He had submitted extensive paperwork and several recommendations from teachers for a school trip to New Orleans to assist in rebuilding efforts.

Having a long history of community service, he was considered a shoo-in to be selected to go before the incident, but then a teacher told Nicholas some faculty were afraid he might “embarrass the school” or engage in “inappropriate behavior.”

A few days later, another student who hadn’t even applied to go on the trip was selected in his place.

[nomorenomore08]

3. Hope it turns out all right for these two guys. I assume it would be easier in a big city

than a small town, but the South is still the South. After all, this is the state where Harold Ford, Jr. lost a Senate race due in part to insinuations about "white wimmens."

[Hobarticus]

4. Hetero or homo, it's nobody's business

And certainly not some hillbilly principal's.

Can't wait to see how this pans out.

[David__77]

5. "Monitor?" What on earth is this?

How about if someone breaks a rule, deal with it? And maybe don't draw up creepy lists of suspects.

[northzax]

6. oh baloney

students don't have the right to freedom of association while in school.

sue the principal for harassment if there is a pattern of discrimination against gay students, but if the list itself had all couples, gay and straight, it's not actionable.

[WillParkinson]

9. They should have a right to privacy...

If the principal wanted to keep the list and had it in a secure location, perhaps. But to leave it out where anyone can view it? That's just pointing it out to people. May as well have it in glowing neon on their backs.

[TheWraith]

10. You bet your ass it's actionable. It's F--KING ILLEGAL.

Constitutional freedoms don't get abridged because the person is a student, no matter what bullshit the schools try to enforce, or sometimes suceed in. Not only does this "list" violate freedom of association, it also violates half a dozen other things I can think of, such as the rights of due process, equal protection clause, laws against incitement, right to privacy, and I could go on.

[northzax]

13. there is no guaranteed freedom of association in schools

sorry. the very concept of mandated education eliminates the freedom of association. The government can't stop me from getting up from my desk right now and walking out and hanging out in the hallway all day (my employer might) they can prevent students from doing that. that's freedom of association.

laws against incitement are themselves a restriction of constitutional rights. Or are you suggesting that a student should be able to call their teacher a 'slut' without penalty? I can call any woman I see on the street a 'slut' to her face and all she can do is walk away (ok, slap me, but that's assault)

[TheWraith]

16. I suggest you reeducate yourself. Public education isn't mandatory.

Any parent has the option of withdrawing their child from public school. Freedom of association stands, as do all the others.

Besides which, your argument is bogus. Completely aside from the fact that instructing someone not to be disruptive is a totally different thing than assembling and publishing a list of suspicious persons based on whether they're thought to be couples or not, you're saying that any constitutional freedom can be simply thrown out if the government feels like it would be in its best interest to do so.

What other constitutional protections are students not entitled to, hmm? Cruel and unusual punishment? Sure, let's let principals like this nutjob go back to beating kids who don't conform. Freedom of religion? Hell, we needed forced school prayers. Equal protection? Let's start punishing left-handers and rewarding righties, just because we can.

Oh, and by the way, you can in fact be legally sanctioned for running around calling people "slut" if you do so repeatedly. See "harassment" and "stalking." The reason the law is like that is because someone doing that is infringing on another person's rights. Here there is no possible infringement--it's simply the over-controlling mania of an obnoxious person who thinks that they're entitled to control these kids' lives.

[northzax]

18. so you are claiming that the parent

has the right of assocation for their child, not the child themselves? Therefore, if, as you say, the parent has the student's proxy rights then they also have the concurrent responsibilities, which means the school is should, in fact, report on associations the parents might not agree with. But I am sure you don't think THAT is a good idea (nor do I, btb) which is it?

Minors do not have the same responsibilities as adults, legally, they also do not have the same rights.

[TheWraith]

21. You're the one who falsely claimed that compulsory schooling meant forefeiting rights.

Legal precedent is quite unambiguous: minors are entitled to the same constitutional protections for freedom of speech, religion, equal protection, etcetera that other citizens enjoy. You can't legally argue that a minor isn't a person and therefore isn't protected.

[northzax]

25. not at school

that legal precedent is also pretty clear. when the speech interferes with the mission of the school, it can be abridged. same for association, etc. I refer you to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier amd Morse v. Frederick for more recent precedents.

Why is it, you suppose, that every state has a legal process in which a minor may sue to have the disabilities of minority removed due to special circumstance? if minors do, indeed, have equivalent rights as adults, then why does the emancipation process specifically remove the disabilities of minority clauses in relevant law?

[TheWraith]

26. Yes, at school.

Unless you think it's still legal to beat students, since apparently in your world cruel and unusual punishment is okay if it's for "the mission of the school."

And don't be an ass. You're trying to equate majority-age self-determination with not having the protection of constitutional rights.

[northzax]

28. there is no constitutional protection against corporal punishment

actually. there are state laws that prohibit it in all but 23 states. one of those states, Rhode Island, while not having a state law the practice is effectively banned by every school district so the end result is the same.

so yes, in 22 states, it is perfectly legal to apply corporal punishment (stupid, unjust, immoral, but legal)

those states, in case you care, are:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (see aformentioned note), South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

so I don't know where you are getting your information, but you seem to be having a problem distinguising between what's right and what's legal. they aren't always the same thing. I recommend you check out Ingraham v. Wright (1977) the last case I know of to the Supreme Court that handled corporal punishment. The Court ruled then that discretionary and disciplinary corporal punishment in schools was not covered by the Eighth Amendment. The Court also found that students have no right to the due process protections of the Fourteenth when the practices are laid out in 'common law'. in other words, students, in school, do NOT have the same consitutional protections as adults.

want some more examples? check out T.L.O. (1985) or Vernonia v. Acton (1995) in both cases, the Court delcared that the 'special needs' of public schools outweighed the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches (T.L.O. was about searching bags, Acton was about drug testing)

you can't even make a privacy arguement, if students were engaged in 'couple like activity' at school (such as the 'making out' referenced in the article) then they waived their expectation of privacy by engaging in public behaviour. Because the list included both hetero and homosexual couples, unless they can demonstrate that one group was treated more unfairly than the other, they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

let me be clear that I think this was a stupid thing to do, but it's not illegal.

[Hobarticus]

11. No freedom of association?

:spray:

[northzax]

12. ok, I recommend

you tell your child to join a gang at his school. check out freedom of association then.

[TheWraith]

17. I recommend that you look up Tinker v. Des Moines.

Here's a hint: it tells you that you're wrong.

[northzax]

29. um, hm. Tinker was a speech case, right?

armbands and all that? which the Court determined did not create an unreasonable distraction to the primary mission of the school? subsequent decisions make it clear that the school has pretty wide leeway in determining what is disruptive:

what about TLO? Bethel SD v. Fraser? Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier? Morse v. FRederick? all antecede Tinker, and all reduce the outlined rights of Tinker for students.

[Hobarticus]

24. Hardly the same thing...

...but entertaining, nonetheless.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. its called a right to privacy.

:eyes:

[Warpy]

7. Picklebutt needs to find a new job NOW

and far, far away from teenagers.

If either of those boys has any trouble at all arising from that sanctimonious shithead's list, I sincerely hope their parents haul her into civil court and sue her ass.

I'd much prefer to see kids nauseatingly all over each other in the halls than fighting. The former should be tolerated as a normal part of sexual awakening. The latter needs to be discouraged.

Any principal who doesn't understand this needs to go. Now.

[TheWraith]

8. Gay couple or not, this person needs to be fired and banned from any position of authority.

Posting names to be watched, to prevent public displays of affection? Not only is that illegal in about 500 different ways, but it's one of the most disgustingly power-crazed and fascistic things you could imagine somebody doing in the name of "education."

This person deserves a lifetime ban from the educational system, revocation of any benefits, and to be prevented from obtaining any future jobs which place her in a position of authority.

[acmavm]

14. I most certainly agree. What an evil, spitful bitch.

[Zuiderelle]

15. Yep.

Couldn't have said it better.

[DarkTirade]

19. 2nded.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[UndertheOcean]

20. What a control freak

[Hissyspit]

22. Couples in high school can change WEEKLY.

What a dumbfuck.

[Creideiki]

27. Weekly?

You must have gone to a school where the relationships were stable. I'd go with hourly.

[canis_lupus]

23. Just in case anyone would like to contact Ms. Beas(t)ly

... here's her e-mail address:

[e-mail]

:evilgrin:

[MountainLaurel]

30. Article from abcnews

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4773381&page=1

[swimmernsecretsea]

31. I hope he's writing his resumé now, because

I'm going to get the fucker FIRED.

[jberryhill]

32. "He" is named Daphne, btw /nt