From the Chicago Sun-Times:
The column in the student newspaper seemed innocent enough: advocating tolerance for people ‘’different than you.’’
But since sophomore Megan Chase’s words appeared Jan. 19 in the Tomahawk, the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School newspaper, her newspaper adviser has been suspended and is fighting for her job, and charges of censorship and First Amendment violations are clouding this community.
At issue is whether Chase’s opinion column advocating tolerance of homosexuals was suitable for a student newspaper distributed to students in grades 7 through 12 and whether newspaper adviser Amy Sorrell followed protocol in allowing the column to be printed.
Media advocates say the debate has deeper ramifications.
‘’This is a real threat to quality student journalism if an adviser can be removed for not having censored a perfectly legitimate story that there was no legal reason why it shouldn’t have been published,’’ said Mark Goodman of the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va.
School officials in this community say the issue isn’t about First Amendment rights, but about a teacher who failed to live up to her responsibilities. They contend Sorrell should have alerted Principal Ed Yoder to the article because of the sensitivity of the material.
‘’The way we view it is the broad topic of homosexuality is a sensitive enough issue in our society that the principal deserves to know that it’s something the newspaper is going to write about,’’ said Andy Melin, an assistant superintendent.
Sorrell, 30, acknowledged she had agreed to let Yoder know about controversial articles. But, she said, ‘’There isn’t anything controversial about tolerance.”
Actually, there’s plenty controversial about “tolerance” the way it is currently marshaled—none of which means that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply, or that a student opinion column calling for “tolerance” in the shallowest, most muddle-headed way should be stricken because it mentions a subject, homosexuality, with which some people remain uncomfortable.
Of course, the school is within its rights to suspend Sorrell—and the principal, superintendent, and the school board can dictate, should they so choose, what is appropriate for publication—but what they wind up doing in this case is giving relativistic pap about celebrating “difference” a kind of rhetorical martyrdom, and in the process deal a blow to real tolerance, which allows shallow thinkers to publish pap (which in turn allows that pap to be greeted with pointed rejoinders exposing its flaws, creating an opportunity for debate).
The student’s essay, after all, hinged on the assertion that:
society teaches […] “it is only acceptable for a boy and a girl to be together,” which can make declaring sexual orientation difficult.
“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society […] I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you.”
”Those people”?
Well then.
Obviously, the premise of the essay—that society frowns on homosexuality (rather than, say, frowns on the idea of same sex marriages)—is so flawed that not raising a fuss over the piece could have actually gone a long way toward promoting an educated discussion about tolerance properly understood.
Instead, by reacting to the column as they did, the school has actually lent credence to the student’s thesis—the suggestion being that the very mention of homosexuality, and its defense by a student, is too “sensitive” to be spoken of openly. Turning a potentially “teachable moment” into a cause that will likely only wind up strengthening the student’s simplistic arguments.
Pity, that.
These days, “tolerance” seems to mean full-blown acceptance of different moralities and behavior and embracing the otherness. I remember when tolerance meant that you didn’t necessarily accept something, but that you would simply not make an issue of it.
I think intelligent young students won’t be fooled: one of the reasons I turned right was the silly bloviating that was on constant display in school. I think I had a typical Gen-X experience: tie-dye and sappy save-the-world sentimentality represented the ultimate conformity. The only way to rebel was to put on a tie.
The people who made “Family Ties” were really onto something with Alex P. Keaton. That guy had a lot more resonance for the coveted Nanonymous demographic than anyone else on TV.
Meanwhile the days of having “thick skin” and “not caring what people think” ride farther off into the sunset. Besides, we know this was a smokescreen by the administration to bury the outrage of the “mystery meat in the cafetria” story on page 6.
The turf war over school newspapers…right up through college papers marches on
Since they are funded by the school, who gets editorial rights/responsibilities? Since schools are taxpayer funded … yada yada yada.
Obvious competing “rights”, obvious over-reaching by the usual ham-handed school admins,
obvious simple solution…get government out of the school biz
I remember when “tolerence” was not kicking the wierd kids ass. It took a ‘real man’ to be gay back then….
I know, it sounds wierd to even say that but you have to have some respect for the non-conformist who doesn’t need the nanny state or society to prop them up and validate them.
I hate it when communities get clouded when the quality student journalism is threatened just because the broad topic is a sensitive enough issue.
Straighten this out soon, Ed Yoder should.
The real teaching moment here is that the world does not owe you freedom from feeling bad or different. I could imagine how horrible it must be to come out as a homosexual teen. I myself had to come out as a conservative to my union-member, Massachusetts-dwelling parents during the Reagan administration. Talk about being a pariah…
The fact is that, if you even take the homosexual lobby’s skewed percentages at face value, you still are different than 9 out of 10 of your peers. But if you cannot accept that and live with it in that controlled environment, you will be ill-prepared to face the real world my young gay friend.
And any cloistered 12 – 18 year old child of the most buttoned up evangelical family knows that gays exist. The principal is an idiot. Instead of saying to himself, you’ll learn little girl, now he will face the wrath of the indignant PC crowd defending the rights of the naive to be naive.
My favorite line is, ‘ “society teaches […] “it is only acceptable for a boy and a girl to be together,†which can make declaring sexual orientation difficult.’
Like you’re declaring your major in college or something. I don’t recall having anyone ask me to declare my orientation.
“There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you.”
I wonder if she said that about mass murderers in a column about Virginia Tech if there would be condemnation and outrage, if people would claim there are free speech issues?
I mean, its only very recently that society (at least the loudest members) decided homosexuality isn’t morally wrong, based solely upon the activism of a tiny group and support by prominent, loud voices.
Without some standard, objective and absolute standard for right and wrong, what’s unthinkable today might be right tomorrow by the insistance of an influential few.
Ah, I remember in grad school, I was thought to be backward, naive, and conservative because I didn’t make a big fuss about “the gay people.”
Hell, my aunt lived with 2 gay men. I was over the gay thing by kindergarten…
I agree. They’re hard to find since they are busy living their lives rather than wasting time being drama queens and asking for handouts of one kind or another, either social or monetary.
Just to be damn annoying, and it does not invalidate your point at all, but before the Judeo-Christian ethic became dominant in the west, homosexuality per se didn’t exist because most men had sex with both males and females. They had no reason to invent the term.
I find the idea of behaving that way to be very strange, but way back when it was “normal.” The idea of even kissing a guy gives me the willies, but maybe they weren’t kissing.
The teachable moment could’ve occurred if the student newspaper adviser actually taught how to construct an argument to be used in a newspaper essay or opinion-editorial.
There are so many faulty premises and unsupported assumptions utilized in the essay, it’s likely a new adviser was called for–though not for the reasons identified.
I realize the writer is merely a sophomore, but learning how to write has to start sometime.
Jeff, do you really believe that society (or at least a great big hunk of it) doesn’t frown on homosexuality? Yeah, same sex marriage is more controversial than homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean that society isn’t pretty torn up about gays in general.
– Sorrell might as well be bounced, for what appears to be, a total failure as an editor. Not for the subject matter persee’, but rather for the condesention, arrogance, and patronizing tone that would tend to escape the notice of the typical high schooler. She, however, should certainly know better. If the hack-headed principle, and his administration could find their asses with both hands, THAT would be the issue, not the subject matter, but the immature way it was written. Had Sorrell been on the ball, she could have suggested the theme to be along the lines of “Gay advocacy against societal intolorance”, thereby eliminating the hubris.
– I can only imagine the reaction of gays, reading anything in which the author focuses on grandmal ideas “….[that] tolerate their existance”. The only possible response to that sort of insufferable thinking is a rousing “who the fuck asked you?
TW: turned14 ….Sorrell’s true age….
As opposed to how relatively EASY it must have been back in the 1950s. Or the 19th century. Or Medieval England. Or modern-day Iran. (oops, did I almost just hijack the thread?)
Has science really determined that’s there’s nothing different about the brains of homosexuals? I thought we (OK, they, being “scientists”) were still puzzling this one through. Although I’ll have to admit that different doesn’t imply “rightness” or “wrongness”, but (purely hypothetically) if you asked a roomful of strict Social Darwinists, wouldn’t they have to conclude that homosexuality was “wrong”? Just askin’.
Except, apparently, for the very definition of the word. Others have already said it, and perhaps better, but what “those people” want is advocacy, not tolerance. Full-blown (poor choice of words, sorry) endorsement. Which, we can hopefully agree, is NOT the same as tolerance.
Our society is not very frowny about too terribly much really. Well, fat people. And fat gay people are thems what really needs them some advocacy. Even other gay people won’t tolerate them. Bless their hearts. Except Rosie.
Just a reminder – a high school sophomore wrote that ‘those people’ sentence. Me? I’d cut her some slack.
Per Jeff:
Obviously, the premise of the essayâ€â€that society frowns on homosexuality (rather than, say, frowns on the idea of same sex marriages)â€â€is so flawed that not raising a fuss over the piece could have actually gone a long way toward promoting an educated discussion about tolerance properly understood.
Obviously? I’m a married w/ two kids, two time Dubya voter and I don’t disagree with an argument premised with ‘society frowns upon homosexuality’ – this is befrowning by society is <b>especially apparent during the years the kids are in high school.
Also, the school’s reaction would appear to prove the sophomore’s point rather than simply ‘lending credence’ to it.
–
I’m thinking your average homosexual gay kid in your average high school would much rather the subject of the tolerableness of his homosexual gayness NOT be the topic du jour with everyone’s favorite journalism sponsor’s job in the balance.
Straight, not that it should matter.
I grew up in the 70’s on the left coast, orientation was not a big deal. Everyone pretty much knew who was what and noone pushed their ideolgy on others. The general society was tolerent. Now, because of a few people trying to get ‘rights’ you have to be vocal about what you are so that you can get yours. Quite a few of the ‘rights’ that are demanded are really priveleges anyway. Makes me glad I live in the midwest now.
The pun in ‘left coast’ was purely unintentional, I didn’t realize how apropriate the phrase was until I reread the sentence.
No, the real question is: is the high school girl hot? I mean, like real hot? Like can she melt steel, like melt steel for the first time ever? Or actually, this would be the second time ever that steel was melted.
I’d Google it, but Rachel Ray is making donuts.
Yeah…
Well…
We’ll get back to you on that…
(BTW, if this a global warming debate, I could make a movie with that data alone)
Good grief! Some of you – especially Big Bang Hunter – need to get over yourselves. Sorrell was the adviser for the newspaper, which means her job was merely to watch for articles that would upset the administration. She obviously felt this one would not.
Teachers who sponsor most activities don’t have a lot of time for teaching during the activities because they are so busy getting the final “product” out. The newspaper adviser may or may not be an English teacher, usually it’s just someone who isn’t sponsoring anything and gets roped into it. I sponsor 6 after-school activities at my school because none of the young teachers will take any of them.
In her defense, if the article wasn’t full of obscenities and didn’t seem offensive, she might have rubber stamped it to move on to the other 35 that were waiting for her attention that week.
You might scream that she shouldn’t do such a thing, but with a full teaching load to prepare for, the newspaper, and whatever other responsibilities she’s got, what else can she do?
The student is about 15. She has no real world experience. You judge her based on your knowledge of the world and find her lacking. That child isn’t arrogant. She is naive.
TW average 44 … the number of years since some of these commenters have been in a high school??
I would.
I think the bulk of “society” is of the “live and let live” variety. People may privately frown on homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean they’d vote to stone gays to death, or deny them rights.
Bumperstickerist —
I’d hardly equate this particular school’s decision with the position of “society” in general.
I guess we’ll have to see. But at least for the time being, you have many liberals, most libertarians, and many conservatives who believe the school made the wrong decision.
How people personally feel about homosexuality is not relevant so long as they are truly “tolerant.”
Which is not, in my opinion, where this article was going.
Here’s the article Megan wrote:
Now, I think the adviser should have consulted with the principal. I think the appropriate solution would have been to have some additional oversight for the balance of the school year rather than suspending the teacher.
As for the article itself, it’s an opinion piece and she’s clearly stated her sources that inform her opinions and isn’t pushing for any state policy changes. It’s an opinion piece on an opinion page.
It’s probable that the ‘fun with stats’ part of her argument should be reworked. But, hell, NYT Reporters have problems with innumeracy. This is a 14 year old student.