Judge: Teen can wear anti-gay T-shirt

I find the tshirt and its message in poor taste and unkind. However, the "Day of Silence" which occurs each year in the high schools is likely to evoke comments for and against a homosexual lifestyle. To promote one view and not the other would be simply unconstitutional and reflect a bias within the academic community. If nothing else, the tshirt will be a perfect demonstration of the destructive judgmentalism that people of all minorities often endure and which should be personally reconsidered ... not legislatively.

"... is it fair that a slogan of this nature be displayed at a public school or do you disagree? ..."

The legal question being asked and answered wasn't about fairness, it was about free speech. For the Naperville Sun to ask this question only serves to ignite the earlier debate and give credit to those who argue that the Naperville Sun continues to stoop lower and lower into "tabloid journalism".

Many of us argued that the SD would not prevail. Rather than dwell in the "I told you so" realm, it is time, not to continue to debate and argue the merits of the case, but rather to demand full and total accountability for all those who had a hand in this:

1. The SB attorney simply must be replaced immediately. The quantity and quality of legal advice that the SB has received simply is not acceptable. The SB is loosing case after case and is wasting too much money on cases that never should have gone to trial.

2. Teachers, administrators, and SB members all wield an enormous amount of power when it comes to student discipline. Most student discipline issues are the result of poor choices, poor decisions, or poor judgement. When students make these kinds of errors and mistakes they are held accountable. This is not a one way street. When adult make mistakes, they too must be held accountable. In this case several teachers and administrators made some really poor decisions and they must be held personally responsible and accountable for the consequences of the decisions they made. These teachers clearly attempted to bully and coerce this student, which by itself should be cause for termination. At least one administrator crossed way over the line when they took it upon themselves to deface this students personal property. That was an even more egregious decision. Such conduct must not be accepted or tolerated and appropriate discipline of all teachers and administrators who were directly involved is demanded. If there is even a possibility that current SD policies do not provide provisions for discipline in such cases then the SB must enact or revise such policies as soon as possible.

3. None of the teachers, administrators, or SB members involved in this incident have demonstrated much competence or practical knowledge of constitutional rights and even worse they have allowed themselves to be held emotionally hostage by the morally corrupt concept of "political correctness". I expect and demand more from these teachers and administrators. Our tax dollars pay for teachers to get continuing education. Our tax dollars pay for "teacher institute" days. Our taxes are high and so are our expectations. We have every right to ask what in the heck is going on with this administration that so many adults could be so far off the mark. I demand the next possible "teacher institute" day be devoted to getting all teachers, administrators, and SB members up-to-date and on the same page with current knowledge and practice as pertains to student free speech and student constitutional rights.

Free speech entitles everyone to be able to express their beliefs and opinions, no matter how small-minded, bigoted, and hateful they may be.

Of course, free speech does not entitle one to be free of consequence in regard to spewing said hateful opinions, so if this kid gets his butt kicked after school for being a bigot, well, then he will have learned a valuable lesson about keeping his ignorant views to himself, won't he?

To By Disgusted,

I disagree with your opinion, as posted, and while I could call you small-minded, bigoted, and hateful for the opinion you expressed, I won't.

I may disagree with your opinion but, unlike you, I will not advocate violence against you or anyone else because of your opinion.

I'm pretty sure if you are like most people you have a variety of views on a lot of topics/issues. I'm also pretty sure you don't want someone else kicking your butt on a regular basis because of your viewpoint. I'm pretty sure the girl in this case doesn't want her butt kicked either.

One thing I've learned from living in Naperville is that no matter what your opinion on an issue/topic there is someone who feels differently, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. I accept it as part of life as we know it.

Another thing I learned as a child is that violence never solves anything and more likely only causes more problems.

I could also say that if you take this to heart you may have learned a valuable lesson about keeping your ignorant views to yourself, but I won't.

Free speech is a fundamental and critical element of our society. In my opinion, nothing should abridge the individual's right to responsible speech (Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is an example of irresponsible speech.)

Disgusted: you make the point that the teen wearing the T shirt is bigoted and spewing hateful opinions? I'm not sure where the hate was in what the T Shirt said. Some might say the slogan was less than tolerant or politically correct. Should the school have taken the same position if a student wore a t-shirt to school that said - "Be Gay - Not Straight"? The shirt didn't say gays should be treated differently, it didn't say gays are second class. It just said don't be gay.

Personally, I don't care if someone is gay or straight or any other orientation. If I don't agree with their opinion, I just disagree. I don't wish them to get attached or physically harmed. Maybe the next T-shirt should say - "Be Happy - Not Angry".

Or would the angry people of the world be offended?

Fair is fair. If there can be a day of silence, then this student should also be able to express herself. Why should her rights be subjugated to others?

Her civil rights were infringed and she should sue the school district 204 for millions of dollars. We are quickly losing our constitutional right and it must be stopped and a good lawsuit might help.

Glad to see the Gay Agenda being pushed on high school students by the ham-fisted secularists at D204 suffered a setback from the Constitution today. Initially, it must be pointed out that pushing anyone's sexuality on high school students, straight or gay, is hare-brained public policy. Furthermore, standing up for the principle that homosexuality is wrong does not constitute "hate speech." That is flame-throwing and irresponsible rhetoric from supporters of the Gay Agenda. It is loving and courageous in the face of the secularism rampant in public schools to stand up for sexual morality and chastity and the salvation of one's peers. It is even more loving and courageous in the face of the nasty, over-heated, and hateful rhetoric employed by supporters of the Gay Agenda. As a perfect example, please review "Disgusted's" post. It may be his or her opinion that people that stand up for the principles of sexual morality are "small-minded" and "bigoted," but I don't see anyone who shares my viewpoint making veiled threats about "butt-kicking" either. Let reason guide the determination as to just who is "bigoted" and "small-minded."

The Gay Agenda argues for toleration. Does it extend tolerance to others--definitely not. Maybe what is needed is constructive programs that teach high schoolers to deal civilly with those that espouse different ideas than they themselves hold. Teach civil and respectful debate, and you would really be promoting something worth promoting.

There are some here who confuse being principled and living a moral code with being judgmental. No one is pronouncing sentence here nor has such power. That is in other hands. Therefore, standing up for one's beliefs is not "judgmental." Ironically, it is far more "judgmental" to call people "bigoted" and "small-minded." Instead, it is loving to try to stand up for such a code so that others might be saved, even as they jeer. No one on this Earth is perfect. However, once we condemn the abilty to discern right and wrong and to stand up for what is right, then we are headed by a short route to libertinism and the chaos of everyone for him or herself. Not a pretty picture.

Finally, I get a kick out of the posters who are ripping D204's lawyers. Frankly, it was a waste of resources for D204 to take the risible position it took in this case. D204 beter hope that its lawyers did right by them regarding the Brach-Brodie failure. If D204's legal team was in the wrong with regard to that failure and the district owes millions, there should be consequences. In the end, the only ones who suffer from such bad decisions are the students and the taxpayers, and that is truly intolerable.

Fair is Fair....She got her way in a court of law. It's the jury of the people that will truly judge her. I'm an employer and when I get resumes I follow-up with a little background check in the 'almighty' world of the internet. Google, Facebook, MySpace...you get the picture. If I come across this name, I'm going to have to pass. Why? I don't want to get sued someday and lose my business over our difference of opinions. I know, I know....you will attack me in the next blog, I'm just glad you don't work for me either.

Your profile on the internet stays forever! That's why we are all blogging in pseudo names....except for Dawn.

I am just amazed that your proofreaders don't double check the page references on your front page to make sure the article actually appears not only on the listed page, but actually somewhere in the edition. i.e. the article on the Gay T-shirt. It did not only appear on page 8 as listed on the front page but was nowhere in the entire paper. Shame shame.

Moderator Jim to Wjearly: Actually, it wasn't a proofreader mistake. It was a production error that happened at our printing plant. It was very, very frustrating. The only bright spot was that it was on the web site most of the day and a full, updated story with reaction from D204 and a detailed explanation of the judge's ruling will be in tomorrow's print edition and on the web site. Thanks.

Moderator Jim I was going to call you on the page issue but then reconsidered figuring there are many that like to point out mistakes.

As for me what a disappointment this went to court. Shows when you are part of a successful district there is always something someone is willing to sue about. Is there anyone out there that would like to gander a guess as to how many Chicago school kids have had their civil rights repressed this month. Forget those rights, how about the "God Given Right TO" not be shot down. What a shame this goes to the extent it has, says a lot for our community.

Let's not forget the Naperville Sun Editorials called this one all wrong.

Thanks Naperville Sun editors,

Mistakes happen, nice to see the Sun own up to it.

In that light it will be really interesting to read tomorrow's article and see what D204 have to say for themselves now.

To Will not hire,

You have a lot more to fear from lawsuits stemming from your own opinion on fair hiring practices than you do from a lawsuit from an employee who has the personal conviction and moral courage to stand up for what they believe in.

Hey, here is a tip! You might want to go offer the SD204 lawyers a retainer. Rumor has it they will be looking for work.

TO: Will not Hire: I am very pleased with the decision from Judge Posner. The SD 204 excellence continues. IPSD now has the established reputation of supressing free speech in violaton of the consitution of this country. Imagine, in a country where free speech is one of the principle elements in its foundation, a bunch of so called "educators" cannot understand their actions are in violation of the constitution. And why does an "educator" think they have some right to deface another persons property because they object to it? Because they are simply an educator? Imagine further the lunacy in the "Day of Silence" thinking, in celebration of some cause in a country where free speech is as important as it is in this country. Keeping your message silent SAYS nothing! Message to IPSD school board: schedule an in service training day to teach the staff about the constitution! Focus on the Bill of Rights. (You know, the first ten) Back to Will not Hire: Keep your lousy job. Something tells me not working for you at Burger King is not the end of the world. You may think you are very shrewd but you are not. Your disfunctional thinking probably will result in you going out of business or being sued anyway at some point in time.
Just like the highly incompetent IPSD is, frequently.

so you want to look the other way when someone wears an offensive tee-shirt huh? O.K. but get ready for the other shoe to drop. The school was attemptiing to protect all cultures and society that exsists within it's wall. The dress code is clear about what is unacceptable or at least it was until this debacle. Now the gloves are off and let me tell you something. Violence will occur over this type of rethoric that you call free speech.Kids will be offended and they will react. That is why the code was written. Now we take steps backward and allow bullying through the use of tacky tee-shirts etc. Freedom of speech is a great thing I hope it doesn't get trampled by bad judgement

to: Anonymous on April 25, 2008 1:09 AM

Please explain how the shirt that said "Be Happy - Not Gay" is bullying?

Wondering out loud. If the parents of the "t-shirt masquerading kids" had to pay the legal bill, I wonder how far this civil rights thing would have gone. Look who flipped the legal bill on the plaintiffs side (interesting religion at work). Lets do some research on who paid for the legal work on the defendants side, oh that would be all the 204 school boundary tax payers.

As part of our legal evolution away from individual rights to group rights, it is not surprising that every group will try to carve out as much territory as possible to accrue the maximum benefits.

In the case of gays, they do not reproduce naturally so they must be able to recruit in order to meet their needs for partners. The Day of Silence is simply an effort to break down any barriers to recruiting, especially in the schools where kids are more prone to believe their teachers, since we tell them to.

The Day of Silence should be renamed under the truth in labeling act as “National Gay Recruitment Day”.

As to Free Speech, the only speech the Left likes to hear is their own. Judy Biggert's legal initiative to criminalize free speech (anyone opposing the gay agenda) is a disgrace.

Yes the T-Shirt represents reasonable free speech especially when confronted with state sponsored terrorism by the school district.

Anonymous writes: so you want to look the other way when someone wears an offensive tee-shirt huh? O.K. but get ready for the other shoe to drop. The school was attemptiing to protect all cultures and society that exsists within it's wall. The dress code is clear about what is unacceptable or at least it was until this debacle. Now the gloves are off and let me tell you something. Violence will occur over this type of rethoric that you call free speech.Kids will be offended and they will react. That is why the code was written. Now we take steps backward and allow bullying through the use of tacky tee-shirts etc. Freedom of speech is a great thing I hope it doesn't get trampled by bad judgement."

===========================================================

First of all, not everyone finds the shirt offensive, so I'll thank you not to speak for me or trample my right to free speech. And you advocate we should base decisions such as the one over this T-shirt not on what the law says, but rather to prevent some possible effect? That's some clear thinking, there. What if I'm offended by a kid who wears a shirt with a rainbow on it -- no words, just a rainbow? Where in your fascist world do we draw the line?

Are you serious? You believe that gays "recruit"? How shamefully ignorant is that. It's genetic. You're born gay, or you're not. Period. There's no question of it.

With all the hatred and violence shown towards gays, the last class of people in America that it's still OK to openly discriminate against, do you seriously think that anyone would ever CHOOSE to be gay?

If you really think that being born gay is against God, please remember that God does not make mistakes, that He saw the world that He made and found it to be "good" - all of it - not just the heterosexual parts of it.

Hey, lets slow down here a minute. Let's not forget that the SD204 Administration actually started this whole mess. Yes, they did when they thought it was a great idea to allow the day of silence. Pretty bad thinking on their part.

The schools are there to teach our children. The schools and the teachers remind up CONSTANTLY that they can not do it alone and that for education to be successful it takes active parents being involved in their child's education on a daily basis. Now let's consider for a minute that, not a slight majority, but an overwhelming majority of the people in our community think that homosexuality is morally wrong. That is what children are learning at home and at their church. Now all of a sudden the school wants to take it upon themselves to tell our children that what they have learned at home and at church is wrong and they don't have a clue that this is going to start a controversy?

If these teachers and administrators know so little about freedom of speech and consitutional rights what makes them think they know anything about homozexuality or morality?

The school district has no legal requirement or obligation to support homosexuality. The school district could have declined the request for a Day of Silence and avoided this whole controversy.

The number of homosexual students is extremely small. Definitely a minority. There are lots of other very small minority groups of students... race, religion, ancestry to name a few. We have students who are smokers, drinkers, drug abusers. We have students with piercings, tattoos, and self inflicted scars. And this is just a few examples, there are more.

Is it even logical that every minority group should have their 15 minutes of fame? Does every group that is somehow different from the norm deserve a "Day of Something"? I think not.

Fact is the schools are supposed to stay out of teaching religion. The result is that the schools do a really poor job of teaching our children anything related to morals and ethics and pretty much leave that up to parents and the discipline code.

The root of this problem from the very beginning is that the school district exercised extraordinarily poor judgement when they thought it was a good idea to promote homosexuality knowing full well that homosexuality goes against the moral fabric of a majority of the school district.

Knowing how children act and behave, especially within their peer groups, at the high school age is critically important in understanding what an exceptionally poor idea this was. The Day of Silence was intended to be a day of support for homosexual students. The consequence was that every single student was forced to think about homosexuality. Every single student was forced to take a side. Every single student was forced to consider how their friends think and feel and how they might react based upon what they decided. Our school district administration set this up for failure from day one. This was a mini-Civil War brewing among classmates all at the hands of educators who should have known better.

Let's get back to education. Let's leave the controversies out of our schools. If that means no more Day of Silence then maybe that is a good thing. Our children are not stupid. They read, they watch TV, they have access to the internet, they talk. They have know about homosexuals since elementary school. They do not need a Day of Silence to educate or inform them on homosexual issues. In the end each of these children will be responsible for the decisions they make on how they feel about homosexuality.

Disgusted,

Apparently not enough people are born gay as you suggest.

I recommend that 204 institutes a day of silence and awareness classes for gay rape.

I forget the exact numbers; but, I recall it is around 250,000 per year in our prisons.

Then there are all those teenage alter boys who were raped. Yes older men and teenage boys is homosexual.

Let’s not forget the girls that were raped in schools by gay gang rape last year, was it Kansas or Oklahoma?

Perhaps we can do Gay Rape Day on the same day as the Gay Day of Silence after the class discusses how someone's feelings were hurt when a classmate called them a bad name.

What is wrong with fully discussing the topic; better still, lets rape the Free Speech Rights of those that disagree with 204s Gay Recruitment Day by wearing a T Shirt in protest?

Be happy--not gay is discriminatory regardless of how anyone including the idiot of a judge wants to spin it. My hubby and I are straight and our kids are too young for us to know. I am all for a day of silence for those that support straight rights--that would be equal and not hateful (though my guess is that he would be awfully lonely) but wearing a shirt that says don't be gay is discriminatory and exclusionary and banned by the dress code. What happens when it becomes "be happy not christian" or "be happy not blind" This ruling says nothing is off limits--beer, sex, naked women, foul language all these things appear on t-shirts and are no longer off limits. Hope the Christian Rights people don't start crying foul when the someone shows up wearing "Be happy, get laid" on a t-shirt, or "be happy, join rasta" with a big old marijuana leaf--that too is a religion

Why do we continue to refer to homosexuals as gay? There is nothing gay about being a homosexual. Period. In fact there is a tremendous amount of personal and family pain. Maybe not in every single case, but certainly in the vast majority. Anyone who denies that isn't being honest with themselves.

I am a heterosexual and proud of it. You can call me that anytime and I won't get offended.

Those of us who do not CHOOSE to associate with homosexuals or accept the morality of homosexual activity are quickly branded as homophobes by the homosexual activists.

This is nothing more than part of their agenda to promote themselves and ram acceptance down our throats.

Call a spade a spade. A homosexual is a homosexual.

To me gay will always be an emotion or mood. Gay will never be a sexual orientation.

"This ruling says nothing is off limits--beer, sex, naked women, foul language all these things appear on t-shirts and are no longer off limits"

That is absolutely, positively 100% false. You clearly have neither read the opinion or know anything about the basics of the First Amendment.

By your logic, Anonymous on April 25, 2008 12:30 PM, white people who CHOOSE not to associate with black people are not racists. They're just, you know, excercising their choice. Now, how silly a does that sound? I'm sorry, but there's never a rational-sounding spin on hate, fear, and bigotry that I've ever heard from the paranoid homophobes (yes, you are one - sorry, but that's your "choice") who would rather practice hatred than compassion and understanding.

Also, Anonymous Rights, all homosexuals are not automatically rapists by nature of their sexual orientation. THAT is an offensive and grossly misinformed statement, miles away from the truth.

Furthermore, priests who molest little boys (or nuns who molest little girls, I guess) are not homosexuals - they are PEDOPHILES, and there's a world of difference between the two. Homosexuality has nothing to do with a sexual interest in minors.

It is interesting to note that so many people who espouse Christian teachings to further a bigoted, discriminatory agenda often forget the teachings of Jesus Christ in doing so. He instructed us to "love thy neighbor" - and He did not follow that statement up with "except if they are homosexual, black, Jewish, Muslim, or in any way otherwise different from us."

Here is something I humbly suggest to you all: Learn to love. Learn to feel compassion and empathy for others. Learn to embrace our differences instead of using them to divide us. Learn to resist the rule of fear, and learn to let go of the hate in our hearts.

Life is too short to do otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

Oh. My. Lord.

I feel like I wandered into Big Al's House o' Homophobia instead of a blog put out by a newspaper in the state's fourth-largest city.

So gay people "recruit," according to Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous Rights? That's like people "recruiting" people to be short, tall, or left-handed. It's in the genes.

Mr. A. R. then goes on to equate homosexuality with gay rape, as if victims of homosexual rape "become" practicing homosexuals. You can't really be serious, can you?

Then, Anonymous at 12:30 pm states that, "Those of us who do not CHOOSE to associate with homosexuals or accept the morality of homosexual activity are quickly branded as homophobes by the homosexual activists."

Well, uh, yeah.

And by the way Mr. A., you state that being gay carries "a tremendous amount of personal pain and confusion." Gee, I wonder if that's because so many upstanding heteros such as yourself treat them as if they are lepers, and encourage students to wear gay-basing t-shirts?

You say that you are "a heterosexual and proud of it." Why can't gay people feel that same type of pride? What is it about gay people that you fear so?

I suggest all of you dash out to the drug store and buy a big tube of Empathy Cream. You need it.

I agree with the courts ruling. What built this country was freedom of speech which is slowly being lost because it might hurt someones feelings. That is a lot of crap. We should be able to say what we want.

If you don't like what is said, deal with it. As for th gay's it should be kept in closet where it belongs !!!

This applies to many other groups as well. The majority is having to change its ways for a smaller groups of people.

What ever happened to freedom of speech !!!

By Mark on April 25, 2008 2:05 PM

"So gay people "recruit," according to Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous Rights? That's like people "recruiting" people to be short, tall, or left-handed. It's in the genes."

Mark,

After years of trying, still no gay gene discovery. Most gay people I know told me they chose the life style.

=======================================

"Mr. A. R. then goes on to equate homosexuality with gay rape, as if victims of homosexual rape "become" practicing homosexuals. You can't really be serious, can you?"

Mark
Actually, the day of silence is all about the pain inflicted on gays, why not also discuss pain inflicted by gays? The day is all about victimization?

There is almost no way to know who is gay unless they announce it, I have never met anyone that was actively out hunting to see who was gay.

While discussing this topic at work today, I once again had to defend what is going on in Naperville. I reminded people at work I live in 203. There is a difference. Albeit slight but nonetheless a difference. This time, some women who live in 204 were complaining about homophobia on the part of those who agree with Judge Posner's ruling. They disagreed with the judges decision. I suggested perhaps 204 students should be required to wear uniforms. This would solve offensive shirts and at the same time, eliminate the GAP, Abercrombe, Guess clashes with the Target, Pennys, Kohls crowd at the same time. Naturally the response was this would be an infringement on individual rights. Funny how they were quick to notice trampling on individual liberty some times and not in the case of the person and offensive shirt. Those of you who disagree with the Judge should remember the constitution requires even the big fat government school monolith must abide in equal protection under the law when they are promoting their brand of "social justice". If you promote the Gay Aliance you must also equally promote the opposing point of view. Or alas, you wind up on the defendent end of a federal civil rights suit. And that is neither stylish or progressive. In times like these I just wish Indian Prairie would just form their own town. Call themselves Indian Prairie, Illinois 90120. Sorry, I meant Native American, Illinois.

Okay, I think we need to get our facts straight (no pun intended). First off, the Day of Silence is NOT sponsored by the school. It is a national movement that would occur even if the GSA did not promote it. Neuqua is not pro-gay nor anti-gay, but rather neutral place that fosters a safe learning environment (as it should).

Second, the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this case. When in school, a student has no rights. It's that simple. The school may open any and every locker, search backpacks without warrants, and even limit speech. As a student at NVHS, I'm okay with this. School is not the "real world" and we students are not adults. I know that these rules only exist to protect me and maintain a learning environment free of fear.

Third, the shirt is most definitely derogatory! In my mind, anything that is anti-something is offensive. In other words, pro-straight is different than anti-gay. Is the shirt any better than wearing one that says "Be Muslim, not Christian"? Of course not! Plus, I can say from experience that the shirt created a great deal of disturbance to the learning environment. When Heidi wore it lastyear, some wanted to praise her, some wanted to argue with her, but most people just stared. No one could focus on classwork.

Fourth, there is no such thing as a "gay agenda" -- do you really think anyone would CHOOSE to be treated like a second-class citizen? Science shows that people are BORN gay or straight. You cannot "convert" someone to "gayism". I have to say that this is the most absurd claim I have ever heard!

"Science shows that people are BORN gay or straight. You cannot "convert" someone to "gayism". Science shows that people are BORN gay or straight. You cannot "convert" someone to "gayism". I have to say that this is the most absurd claim I have ever heard!."
____________________________________________________________________

What is absurd is how people buy into all the agenda based "science" as of late. There is no proof that people are born gay, just more theories from those who want to shove their agenda down everyones throat.

So my kids have to put up with the BS "day of silence" and other students cannot wear a shirt that counters that message? HUH? The shirt and message was a creative play on words...I could care less about someones sexual orientation but frankly find it rather ironic that the only ones ever shoving their agenda in our face is groups supporting the "day of silence". God help us all if a little "back at ya" cannot prevail.

RJ, et al:

Yes, the idea that there is "science" behind homosexuality certainly is threatening to those who fear that their son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, cousin, best friend or neighbor might be - *gasp* - a homosexual.

If one accepts the truth that homosexuality is truly a genetic variation that is randomly expressed in populations, it implies that it is a factor of someone's life that they have no control over, just like (as someone earlier stated) height, hair color, eye color, etc. This is threatening to homophobes, because they would like to believe that it is just a "choice" that some rebellious sexually immoral people are making, and these confused folks could just as easily "choose" to be straight.

I could "choose" to dye my hair blonde, but it doesn't make me a blonde. It makes me a brunette with dyed hair. One cannot change how God and genetics made them. Interestingly enough, you mention that there is not a "gay gene" that has yet been found. Genes don't all simply operate on Mendelian single traits, and there are certain attributes which are polygenic, which mean that they are expressed across a number of genetic loci. It is likely that sexual orientation is one of these.

So, RJ & friends, I can understand how you would want to eschew any mention of science in your fear and chosen ignorance. It is indeed scary to think that there are factors in our life that are beyond our individual control.

However, as a scientist, I've managed to get over it, and the more I learn the more I learn to love my fellow man and often wonder at how incredibly unique and incredible we all are. I encourage you all to do the same.

"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too." - Kurt Vonnegut

I like how the homophobes on this blog are all citing a supposed "Gay Agenda" as their reason to hate.

I mean, it sounds so absurd. Substitute other words in for it, and see if it doesn't make you giggle. "Black Agenda". "Jewish Agenda". "WASP Agenda". "Conservative Agenda". "Preschool Agenda". "Wal-Mart Agenda".

Can someone please post a link to this highly organized gay manifesto that homosexuals across the nation are all working together to promote? I want to know exactly what's on it. For something that so many people are supposedly "shoving down our throats" (Anonymous @ 4/25 12:30 PM, RJ) I've never seen a copy of it, nor even heard of it before.

Exactly! The only "agenda" is that of civil rights! Homosexuals are human beings, just like African Americans, Jews, and women. All of these groups have faced discrimination in the past. Now it is time to make discrimination against homosexuals a thing of the past.

And, as a student at Neuqua, I can confidently say that the Day of Silence is hardly "shoved down our throats". In fact, most people don't even know what it is! Homosexuality has become almost taboo in school these days because of people like Heidi and Alex.

By NVHS Student on April 26, 2008 9:54 AM

"Exactly! The only "agenda" is that of civil rights! Homosexuals are human beings, just like African Americans, Jews, and women. All of these groups have faced discrimination in the past. Now it is time to make discrimination against homosexuals a thing of the past."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm pretty sure that I can guess someone's ethnicity or age, religion is always a tough one.

Tell me, how do you know if someone is gay so you can discriminate against them? Do you propose making them wear rainbows or yellow stars?

TO NVHS student: What do you mean the First Ammendment does not apply to this case? This case was in Federal Court as a civil rights case pertaining to SD 204 allegedly infringing on a students right to free speech. One could also make the argument that the SD, found guilty in the misconduct, also violated the equal protection clause. (maybe it too was argued) By the way, you still have civil rights even when you are in school as the owner of this so called offensive shirt proved. You are subject to locker searches because you do not own the lockers. You are allowed to use the lockers. If the school said no to the searches, the police would have to obtain warrants to search them. Of course the SD is concerned that you or some of your peers may store drugs, weapons or other illegal items such as bibles in the lockers. The SD correclty in my opinion allows police permission to search the lockers because they own the property. You should have no expectation of privacy the courts rule when you are storing property in a school locker. The SD does not own what is in the lockers, you do and that is what gets some of you in trouble at times. Finally, can you explain why a teacher or other school employee has a right to deface someone elses property as they did by crossing out the "not gay" part of the shirt? Do they not teach you to respect property of others in D204 schools? If they do, then why is it that someone who is supposedly teaching you to respect property is also defacing it?

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: The correct characterization of Heidi is "alumna"...for female.

Thank you moderator Jim:
plus the statement I made is false. My apologies. Remove it, please.

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: Thanks for letting me know...will do. And, by the way, I wasn't trying to be a wise guy. Thanks.

Sigh.

The ignorance and hatred espoused by some of the people on this blog is equalled only by the equally frightening rationalization of discrimination toward gays.

No one -- no one -- chooses to be gay. They may fight it, they may even enter into heterosexual unions, but they are gay nonetheless.

The gay "agenda" has only goal: to provide and support the rights of gay people. Period.

So we are to believe that homosexuals were born that way. It is genetic and not mental illness or perversion.

And sodomy used to be against the law and now it isn't and that happened all on it's own, even though there is no "homosexual agenda". Obviously it was all of the heterosexual couples out there who lobbied their representatives to allow them to peacefully and legally practice sodomy in the privacy of their own homes.

So if we are to believe homosexuals were born that way, then I suppose next we are going to be convinced that pedophiles were born that way too? And incest,? Yep, I can't help it I was just born that way? What the heck, should we throw in polygamy? How about rapist? Is there no conduct that is not morally wrong? Is there no conduct that is not illegal or criminal? Or do we explain it all away as "I was born that way"?

There is no definitive "science" that has ever proved anything about homosexuality. Yes, there is some research that has been done. It is mostly inconclusive. I, for one, remain skeptical of all "research" that is funded by any kind of special interest. There is just as much "bad" science floating around out there these days as good science. Makes it hard for everyone to know what to believe. For that I'll continue to trust in my church's teachings.

To NVHS & Science and Reason

You have continually stated that there is a large body of scientific evidence that shows a genetic relationship to homosexuality. I challenge you to provide the studies for all to read. I believe that no such study exists that proves a genetic link.

Here is a reference article to get the ball rolling. It was copied from, and is available on the NARTH website:

Study Seeks To Discover Genetic Origin
Of Homosexuality
October 17, 2007 - The Associated Press has just published a report on Dr. Alan Sanders with the Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, who is conducting a study that seeks to discover if there's a genetic origin to homosexuality. (Sanders' apparently began his project in 2005, according to a previous report from NARTH.)

Working with a federal grant, Sanders is studying 1,000 pairs of gay brothers as well as straight brothers and parents. He suspects there isn't one so-called "gay gene," but several genes that interact with non-genetic factors. "If there's one gene that makes a sizable contribution, we have a pretty good chance" of finding it.

Joel Ginsberg with the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association is concerned that discovery of such a gene would result in discrimination. But, he added, "If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination."

Sanders' research is designed to duplicate or expand upon a study published in 1993 involving 40 pairs of gay brothers.

Alan Chambers of Exodus International has said that even if research ultimately shows that genetics play a larger role, it "will never be something that forces people to behave in a certain way. We all have the freedom to choose."

The 1993 twin studies paper has been thoroughly debunked by researchers. NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee member Dr. Neil Whitehead, for example, has authored detailed rebuttals to this flawed study and others that purport to show a genetic origin to homosexual behaviors.

Whitehead, writing in "The Importance Of Twin Studies," notes:

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Anonymous Rights: You do not have to know who is homosexual and who isn't in order to discriminate against them. I think you may be thinking of hate crimes. Discrimination includes limiting freedoms of an entire group of people; for instance, keeping same-sex marriage illegal or discharging homosexuals from the military.

To Big$Education: I agree that the staff member should not have defaced the shirt (even though it was only an inexpensive undershirt with Sharpie on it). However, the school has every right to prohibit a student from wearing an inappropriate shirt. We cannot, for example, wear shirts that advertise alcohol or display "mature" messages. I suppose the main issue boils down to whether or not you believe students should have the freedom of speech in school. Which do you value more: freedom of speech or an environment that allows students to feel safe and learn without inhibitions? Personally, I find the latter to be more important. In the "real world," of course, the former should prevail.

Mark, if you didn't wear your sexual preferences on your sleeve, then no one would know and therefore couldn't discriminate. If you are into guys, more power to you, the rest of society really doesn't need to know.

More Info Please:

In regards to your article - Use your reading skills. Refer to what I said earlier about polygenetic traits. The article implies exa

Furthermore, Exodus International is an anti-gay Christian group who believes that homosexuality is a mental illness that they can "cure" through prayer, and are without question a biased source and not at all reputable in terms of scientific data.

I find it very telling that one of the most intelligent and well-informed commenters on here is a high school student.

Hmmm...somehow I must have mangled my response, because it's cut off midsentence. My apologies.

Anyhow, what I was saying can be corroborated by actual scientific data (not data "researched" by a religious group or other similar biased sources).

See this article here: http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html, which states in part:

"These studies and others—while unable to point to a specific gene—do point to the idea that homosexuality may be inherited through a polymorphic gene, which is a gene that has more than one different form, and can exhibit either form. Studies have shown that this gene inheritance must be more complex than for common Mendelian traits."

So if you're looking for a definitive "gay gene", yeah, you're not going to find one, because it doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that being a homosexual is not a result of multiple genes working together in concordance with the individual's environment.

RJ, we don't need to know if you're into women. So, if you are, more power to you, but the rest of society doesn't need to know.

To: NVHS Student

Always nice to blog with an honest debater.

Questions:

- Does society have the right to regulate marriage and sexual practices?

- What should define those parameters?

- What is the primary role of the military and how do you know when someone is gay?

Anonymous,thank you! That is the point. Whatever anyones sexual preference is is their business. No need for days of silence, or t-shirts.

TO NVHS student: sorry, I continue to be shocked by your seemingly trivialization of constituional rights-they only apply in the "real world"? I URGE you to see the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". While it debates Darwin v. Creation, the overriding message is what happens when free speech is stymied, either in the real world as you put it or in the educational enviornment. Its kind af a heady movie. Probably more people will see Baby Mama. You are more likely to see Baby Mama in your school than this documentary. You see, the Darwin crowd will want to limit the free speech of this movie under the guise it promotes religion. If you see the movie, you will realize the lack of foundation in your question: "which do you value more"...You will have no educational debate or experience when you eliminate free speech. You will be indoctrinated and trained what to think because of advocacy groups that influence cirriculum, (Gay-Straight Alliance) not how to think. The erosion of free speech as the Stein movie points out and demonstrated with your comments seems to have its origins within the educational establishment. Remember, the court ruled that the shirt IS APPROPRIATE.

That's exactly what the movie does. It promotes a religious idea in the face of scientific fact. I don't think anyone (including me) who chooses not to watch that movie does it in order to limit Ben Stein's freedom of speech - we'll be doing it because the idea of "intelligent design" that the movie promotes is laughably implausible and can be utterly debunked in just a single semester of a biological anthropology course.

We've already made up our minds, we already know how to think. This is because we listen to both sides before making our decisions - not just one side, which the homophobes above have clearly done.

But if religion-based "science" with no basis in fact floats your boat, whatever. Apparently, from all I've seen here, people revel in their own ignorance in Naperville.

Science & Reason,

I read your link, and it is what it is: A THEORY !! That doesn't mean being a homosexual IS the result of multiple genes working together in concordance with an individual's environment. Does it?? That study was written in Dec. 2006, WHERE are the subsequent studies ? The study itself states that it POINTS to the IDEA that homosexuality MAY be inherited through a polymorphic gene. Hardly words of fact.

I will continue to believe homosexuality is a choice until there is proof that one is born that way.

NVHS student: Keep drinking the public school kool-aid. Why did the student wearing the said shirt keep anyone from "focusing on classwork" ? Get over it.

I find it interesting that the people preaching tolerance are the MOST INTOLERANT of others.

To RJ: No, society shouldn't need to know what your sexual orientation is, but in order to acheive equal rights for homosexuals, things like the Day of Silence are necessary. It is a civil rights movement. There may not be an MLK Jr. for gays yet, but the movement is no different.

To Anonymous Rights: No, society does NOT have the right to regulate marriage or sexual practices. Honestly, I could care less if you wanted to marry a lampshade. Will it affect me? No. So why should anyone be able to say who can and cannot marry if it won't affect them? And I'm not quite sure I understand your last question, but I'll answer it to the best of my ability... the role of the military is to protect our country and its citizens. You can never know for sure if someone else is gay, but I'm sure you can tell if you yourself is gay.

To Big$Education: I can tell we will never agree anytime soon, so let's agree to disagree. I do have some questions though... have you never thought to question the court's decision? Isn't that what this blog is about? I mean, the courts originally sided with the SD. I suppose if you appeal again and again, someone is bound to side with you. And do you think that I'm brainwashed by the school? If I were so easily brainwashed (as most homophobes are), I wouldn't be questioning the authority of the court. Oh, and FYI: the GSA does not influence cirriculum. Most students don't know the first thing about it.

To Just the facts, please: In science, a THEORY is as close as you can get to a LAW. And I am not intolerant of homophobes; I am intolerant of hate. I don't know if you're a religious person, but I ask you this: will God judge me for accepting love (even homosexual love) or will He judge you for hating your neighbor?

I'm gay and I can tell you for a fact that homosexuality is NOT a choice. You may not believe me, but why would I choose to be this way? Don't you think I want to be able to get married? Do you think I enjoy being called a fag and being the butt of jokes on TV? There is simply no logical reason to choose to be gay. I've always been this way and always will be whether I like it or not. I'm your living proof. I don't want to get into any arguments with anyone, but I'd be happy to answer any serious questions if you're curious about homosexuality.

Oh, and how can you compare homosexuals to pedophiles and rapists? The reason that rape is illegal is one party did not consent to the intercourse. Homosexual rape is wrong, but homosexual intercourse between two consenting adults is completely moral.

There are really TWO separate issues and only one of them is being discussed.

The first issue is the conduct of the student and her t-shirt. Yes, that is being fully discussed.

The second issue is the conduct of the school administrator and that is not being discussed at all.

If a student makes a mistake we have an entire disciplinary code and all kinds of methods to investigate, evaluate, and dole out appropriate discipline. In the example case the administrator made a decision that the t-shirt was offensive. Ok, lets not argue whether the t-shirt was offensive or not as that is already being discussed as part of the first aspect of this issue. Let's assume, just for purposes of friendly debate, that the t-shirt was offensive. Ok, so if it was offensive then what do school policies allow or call for. What is an administrator to do? Certainly as the student poster has already stated students are supposed to know the ground rules as to what is appropriate and what is not. So what then are the students and parents expectations if such ground rules are broken? Do we expect to be told to remove the item? To wear it inside out? To receive a detention? To be sent home? To be suspended? To be expelled?

Now thinking into the very extreme I can see situations where based upon how each side of such a confrontation handled themselves how any or even potentially all of these levels of discipline could have been appropriate. But then we have to compare these extremes against what we have actually been told about how each side behaved themselves.

Now as a reasonable and understanding adult I can clearly see how students within this age group can and will make mistakes and errors of judgement. The high school years are a difficult time, no one is perfect, and I feel strongly that schools should be to a very large extent a safe haven for students to make a lot of mistakes in an environment that will continue to foster their growth and development and generally be supportive and non-judgmental. Clearly, on a regular basis, we read the thoughts of the student who contributes to the editorial page of the Naperville Sun as a shining example of the type of intellectual growth and maturity that still is occurring in high schoolers. I wonder what he will think himself in 5 or 10 or 20 years when he reads back and reviews what he is writing today?

However, let's for a while discuss the conduct of the administrator. Let's not forget that this was supposed to be the adult in the equation. Let's not forget that this is an administrator who is judging the students behavior. Let's not forget all that we have invested in this administrators eduction in an attempt to make sure they fully knew and understood the law and school policies. Let's not forget that our expectations is that our school administrators will be exemplary role models to all of our children at all times.

Now if these are our expectations of an administrator can a reasonable person explain to me how, when, or why we would ever tolerate an administrator defacing a students personal property? The act is what bothers me not the value of the property. Whether it be a $1.00 t-shirt from Hobby Lobby or $100 t-shirt from Neiman Marcus is not relevant. What is relevant is that the administrator made a conscious decision to deface a students personal property during a situation on which they disagreed. Considering all the training, education, and experience this administrator possessed along with all of the options at their avail through the school disciplinary policy why was it necessary to deface person property?

This act demonstrated a total lack of empathy towards the students feelings and beliefs. This act demonstrated a total lack of respect to the student. This act demonstrated a clear violation of school policy. This act demonstrated a clear violation of federal, state, and local laws. Yes, we are talking lots of violations, not just the freedom of speech thing.

I do not think administrators should be in the business of trying to coerce or bully a student at any time. The student knew full well what she was doing and the message she was attempting to convey. I'm pretty sure she either felt she was within the school guidelines or not and was probably somewhat prepared for any consequences. If she had been called for being over the line and simply sent home that may not have changed the actual outcome of this case as we know it today.

However, in the bigger picture of this case and what may lie ahead in the future I do think an equally important aspect is exactly how the teachers and administrators conduct themselves. In this case, in my opinion, the administrator crossed the line big time into an area of personal conduct that is prohibited. It is up to the student in question as to whether or not she wants to pursue charges against this individual or the school board to investigate the conduct of one of its administrators, or the Naperville Police Department to investigate to see if any local or state laws were violated. I do know that if an administrator conducted themselves in an identical manner in an incident involving one of my children I would most definitely be filing criminal charges against the administrator and filing complaints with the school board as well.

Discipline must be fair and equitable and it must apply equally to all sides involved without exception. To hold students who may not know better to a higher standard than teachers and administrators who, by their very nature of being in a position of authority, are assumed to know better simply is not fair, equal, or just.

The student involved was held accountable for her actions that day. Why has the administrator not also been held accountable for their actions?

By Lawyer Guy on April 25, 2008 1:28 PM
"This ruling says nothing is off limits--beer, sex, naked women, foul language all these things appear on t-shirts and are no longer off limits"

That is absolutely, positively 100% false. You clearly have neither read the opinion or know anything about the basics of the First Amendment.
........

You are absolutely right, I hadn't , but I still think the decision in this case is wrong. This particular "gray" is a bit dark for me. The shirt was meant to be discriminatory and exclusionary and it was. From the shirts I've seen in support of the silence there is nothing discriminatory, it simply tells what the students support, not what they don't support.

To "Living Proof",

Ok, we accept that you didn't choose to be a homosexual. In that same line of thinking how are we supposed to react to another person who says: "I didn't choose to be a pedophile. I can't help it. I was born that way. I can't help that I am sexually attracted to children."?

How are we supposed to react to a rapist who says: I didn't choose to be a rapist. I can't help it. I was just born that way. I can't help that I am sexually attracted to having sex by force."?

And on and on with every other fetish, idiosyncrasy, perversion, etc. that anyone can possibly or potentially think of. Now why should homosexuals get special treatment? Why should it be acceptable for homosexuals conduct, but none of these other groups get equal protection?

If we are going to give credibility to homosexuals based solely upon their maintaining that they were "born this way" then how does that make them any different from all of these other groups that were "born their way?

Unless society is prepared, and I maintain that it is not, prepared to tear down ALL barriers related to sexual conduct then we have to draw a line somewhere. I'm not sure that the vast majority of society buys the argument "I was born that way". At best it is a very weak defense. At worst it is outlandish.

Moderator Jim to Anonymous: Just to stick my 2 cents in here. "Living Proof" was being very specific in his argument. Your rebuttal was a blanket statement that covers a lot of areas, some of which are illegal and reprehensible. In doing so, I believe you totally took "Living Proof's" statement out of context and twisted it to suit your very dubious thesis.

Look at the bright side, with this ruling the born gay types can now wear "I'm happy, I'm Gay" shirts. Gives a whole new meaning to coming out, doesn't it?

Thank you, Moderator Jim.

Anonymous, you simply cannot compare homosexuality and rape. The issue is not how you were born, but rather how you treat others. Rape (heterosexual or otherwise) should remain illegal because one person took advantage of another. Legal homosexual intercourse requires the consent aspect. In theory, if a child were to willing partake in sexual activities with a pedophile, the intercourse would be legal. I am not saying I agree with pedophilia -- I'm just trying to make a point.