N.Y. to Open 1st Public Gay High School

This may sound hopelessly naive, but just as people criticize the sort of socialization that forces people to declare their heterosexuality at a young (even presexual) age, what does it mean for a 13- or 14-year-old to enroll in a "gay high school"?

(X-post. I figured these q's would come up.)

New Yorks interested in the public school system to thread.

this is needed.
huzzah

How about disciplining the assholes who harass and abuse instead? Why let them off the hook this way?

I'm sorry that I'm being quite glib but I find this really disgusting.

amateurist, I really don't know the answer to your question but it seems to be the case that, yes, there are support groups in the schools here from what I can tell of the two high schools nearest my house. I do not know if they are typical (IIRC LaGuardia High is an arts-based school and as we live in a world of stereotypes probably is more aware of the issue since EVERYONE KNOWS ALL THEATRE GUYS R GAY OMG)

You can take out the word queer from that statement and it describes half of high school lives.

i wonder if there will be stories about students exploiting the situation in this case e.g. lenient grades because of possible student-teacher sexual relationships. obviously this occurs in all genders and sexes but the fear is that inappropriate behaviour like that is tolerated more among homosexuals (i don't necessarily agree with this but wasn't this the whole reason why they wouldn't allow homosexuals in the military, officially?)

That said, I'm not sure this gay high school is the best response to that.

I wonder what the criteria for enrollment will be. Will it be open to all adolescents who claim to be gay? Will it be for students who have suffered on-record harrassment at other schools? For "talented" gay students a la LaGuardia and Stuyvesant?

Horace you're missing a key point, I think. Maybe it's all the x-posts.

A study of schools in the state of Washington revealed some fascinating statistics. The Safe Schools Anti-Violence Project issued their third annual report in late 1996. It included the results of a survey of over 8,400 students:

95% of the students described themselves as heterosexual; 5% as homosexual or bisexual, and 4% as uncertain.

Among the gay/lesbian/bisexual students:

34% had been harassed because of their sexual orientation

they were 3 times as likely to have been injured in a fight requiring medical attention than their heterosexual contemporaries

they were twice as likely to have seriously considered suicide

they were 75% more likely to report feeling unsafe at school.

6% of heterosexual youth reported being the victim of homophobic harassment.

Sorry, continue.

I would disagree--this is a unique problem that ought to be addressed by every school system, but I'm pretty sure having a separate gay high school is not the best solution.

Also don't you have a school in NYC named after yourself? What's that about?

104%?!?!?!?!??!!?

Whoops, maybe that study wasn't so reputable after all.

It was in the case of the Garvey/Booker T. Washington efforts. But I think this analogy will probably cause more problems that it will resolve.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

IN THE UNITED STATES

MURDER . Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends.
That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the
number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

BATTERING . Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates
indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require
hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT . Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them
knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by
their current or former male partners, some more than once.

THE TARGETS . Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single,
low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among
families below poverty levels, and severe spouse abuse is twice as likely to be committed by unemployed men as by those working full time. Violent attacks
on lesbians and gay men have become two to three times more common than they were prior to 1988.

IMPACT ON CHILDREN . Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have
witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES . Women who are battered have more than twice the health care needs and costs than those who are
never battered. Approximately 17 percent of pregnant women report having been battered, and the results include miscarriages, stillbirths and a two to four
times greater likelihood of bearing a low birth weight baby. Abused women are disproportionately represented among the homeless and suicide victims.
Victims of domestic violence are being denied insurance in some states because they are considered to have a "pre-existing condition."

LEGISLATION . In 1994, the National Organization for Women, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and other organizations finally secured
passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides a recordbreaking $1.8 billion to address issues of violence against women.

Will there be a line of assholes waiting outside the front door everyday to pummel some easy targets? Will there be frequent bomb threats? Will there be extra security?

Also, this is a case where I would think all students involved have some sort of contact with heterosexuals. They aren't being segregated from heterosexual society across the board. They don't live in separate neighborhoods and go to separate schools. Generally they are going to be living in predominantly heterosexual neighborhoods.

Um...

Meaning: It's not equivalent to blacks being stuck in particular neighborhoods and prevented from going to schools with whites. Most of these kids will not be living in segregated neighborhoods, nor are they being prevented from going to schools with heterosexuals.

(Ha ha I just read an article about it from a year old copy of Seventeen or YM that was in the laundromat)

Or maybe things have changed since the attention that Columbine and similar incidents have brought to bullying, but I doubt it.

Maybe not all of the students will use the school as a safe haven -- maybe some of them feel confident and unafraid and just want to be around other gay kids.

NYC has several dozen high schools and any New York resident of high school age can enroll at any one of them. I wonder how many of you who went to high school in suburban/rural areas understand this -- you probably only had one or two schools in your area. NYC kids who don't like their schools transfer out all the time; almost everyone I knew transfered at one point in ther high school career. Harvey Milk HS is just one social experiment out of MANY.

NYC resident, that is.

I did not know that. That clears up a lot of my objection to this, actually.

you probably only had one or two schools in your area

We has two, on the same block, and put thogether they equal the world's largest high school. About 11,000 kids.

Well I was addressing people in suburban/rural areas -- Austin is neither.

If it were my kid who was being harrassed and wanted to change to the gay-friendly school, I'd prioritize my kid being safe and getting a solid education way above keeping them in a regular public high school just to make some abstract social point. Sure the problem rests with the bullies and not the gay kids, but until the public school system figures out a way to deal with it effectively, you can't expect the gay kids to wait around and just suffer if there's an alternative.

This is absolutely true, and it's a big reason why educational policy is so tricky and so important. Parents will inevitably want "the best" for their children, whether that means school busing or no school busing, tracking or no tracking, etc. Policy has the ability to alter not just the perception but the reality of what's "best" over not the short term, but the long term. If gays-only high schools are put forth as the cutting edge of "being safe and getting a solid education" in the short term, then what does that idea hold for the long term, once it takes hold?

Try condoning, encouraging, and participating in it. It happened at my h.s. to a certain extent...I certainly remember kids getting called 'faggot' by faculty and who knows what else happened. Kids already traveled 45 miles to get to our school (v.v. rural), how do you ask them to travel another hour?

Anyway, on the topic: better support and counselling and protection for the gay/lesbian/bi students please, better education for everyone in issues of sexuality, and massively greater punishment for abusers, very much including psychological abuse and bullying. But segregation seems a mistake to me. Walking into or out of these schools is a public declaration that you aren't straight. I have no particular doubts about academic standards, and I see no reason to imagine more problems with pupil-teacher relationships, but part of schooling is socialisation, and learning to cope with the bad attitude of some people, wrong as it is, is necessary. There is the same problem with all kinds of minority groups or people who deviate from some ludicrous norm, and I'm equally against segregating people on the basis of race, sex, appearance or whatever. The only case for separate education should be based on special educational needs - deaf or blind people, for instance, shouldn't have to attend the same classes as everyone else, for reasons entirely related to the way they are taught. Nonetheless, pending the positive steps above, I don't think this is too terrible, and it seems well-intentioned.

the public school system has had ages to implement stuff like this. they haven't, or they can't. how long should gay kids have to wait for somebody to step up for them? why should they sacrifice their education and safety for the good of society?

but part of schooling is socialisation, and learning to cope with the bad attitude of some people, wrong as it is, is necessary.

other people can do want they want with their kids. if it's my kid, not a chance. not if "learning to cope" means a visit to the emergency room.

part of schooling is socialisation, and learning to cope with the bad attitude of some people, wrong as it is, is necessary.

I learned to put with things in high school that I would not put up with now. In retrospect, high school seems like an artificial island world, kind of like The Lord of the Flies. In my life as an adult I have a lot more choices about who to associate with. When I was a teenager I think that to some extent I had bought into a code of not complaining to adult authorities about abuse from my peers (although I think maybe I also doubted that they could really remedy the problem).

well, i'd want it to be viewed as an extreme measure. obviously any community where things are so bad that they need gay-only high schools should be ashamed of themselves. the community has dropped the ball, big-time. you can't blame the idea taking hold on the gay kids who just want to go to high school and not get beat up. it's not their failing so whatever the long-term consequences are of their workaround, it simply isn't their problem.

-Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Houston), from an interview in the El Paso Times.

different from vouchers would be the problem of, since I argued for separate 'gay schools', separate schools for other marginalized minority groups (including women). in the terms of the distinction between separatism and segregationism above, I don't think these groups are any different. in principle women, ethnic minorities, etc. may decide that they have to separate. but I would expect arguments from these groups about why their circumstances merited separation, and the discrimination against the groups is historically and geographically (etc) contingent, so it's not as if what I'm saying amounts to across the board approval of separation. but in the sort of case talked about in this thread it seems to me reasonable enough to at least warrant more careful thought (and attention to the concerns of the people who want to go to the school!) than quick equations like separation = bad show.

however there are also bad unmotivated students trapped in terrible environments

Well, it's a little classist, isn't it?

I imagine myself saying, "Well, while you are off marginalizing yourself off from society (whether you intend to or not, because people who take a seperatist stance automatically marginalize themselves in the eyes of the majority regardless of the reasons for seperation), I will be mainstreaming myself as much as possible so that I can really learn the system and make it work for me and my family."

I fully support the idea of seperate, specialized schools. I also fully support making them private enterprises. A public school for gay students isn't really a public school (unless I'm misunderstanding and the school isn't meant to exclude straight students).

I'm all for the belief in getting a strong education, but the last thing teens want is to be seen as different from their peers. Sure, they would be cool at school. What happens when the bell rings at 3:15, and they go back to the 'hood? The teasing would run rife.

This isn't the 60's and there isn't a place for separation in schools. Would be better to allow gay and straight to mix, wouldn't it? As it is, homophobia starts early; better to cut it off, before the spores have a chance to grow.

(On a more serious note, some teens revel in being different from their peers; it depends on if they derive esteem from acceptance or envy.)

Hazel, this is the opposite of what I was saying! I'm arguing for massively improving the lot of gay people, increading their protection! The last thing I want is to sacrifice anyone, and my arguments, good or bad, were all about the good of the victims of this bullying - none were about the good of society.

Yes, if the schools won't improve the protection and care and education, I accept that some other approach is necessary. But if there is the will these things can all be improved a great deal, and I think that is by far the best long-term solution. I do think that a measure like this proposal will massively weaken any interest in making such moves in all other schools.

Another thing that worries me: what about those who don't want to change schools, for reasons of location or quality or friends or indecision or not wanting to choose or come out or whatever, but are G/L/B/T? They suddenly become a substantially tinier minority, and I can't see that as a good thing. It seems to me that a school for G/L/B/T kids becomes another stick with which to beat those who go and don't go.

I agree with that. However, it takes time to learn to accept who you are: some teens learn early that it's OK to be different; others never do, and continue to grow into needy adults. As been highlighted here already (I think), tis all about your environment.

Americans less tolerant on gay issues Poll indicates backlash
By Susan Page
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Americans have become significantly less accepting of homosexuality since a Supreme Court decision that was hailed as clearing the way for new gay civil rights, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found.

After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.

Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48% said yes; 46% said no. Before this month, support hadn't been that low since 1996.

In early May, support for legal relations reached a high of 60%, while 35% were opposed.

The shift in attitudes comes after a spate of headlines on gay issues. In recent weeks, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, a Canadian court decision allowed gay couples to marry in Ontario, and Wal-Mart expanded anti-discrimination protection to gay workers.

Conservative social activists see a backlash to those developments and the growing visibility of gay characters in entertainment, including such TV shows as the NBC comedy Will & Grace. ''The more that the movement demands the endorsement of the law and the culture, the more resistance there will be,'' says Gary Bauer, president of American Values.

Bauer says that sentiment will make it harder for elected officials to avoid taking positions on such questions as a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar marriage of gay couples.

Advocates for gay men and lesbians called the poll disappointing. ''Clearly, the debate (over recent developments) has had an effect,'' said David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign. But over time, he said, ''The country always ends up on the side of fairness, and I think they will here, too.''

Those making the biggest shifts included African-Americans. On whether homosexual relations should be legal, their support fell from 58% in May to 36% in July. Among people who attend church almost every week, support fell from 61% to 49%.

The survey also found rising opposition to civil unions that would give gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals. They were opposed 57%-40%, the most opposition since the question was first asked in 2000.

By 49%-46%, those polled said homosexuality should not be considered ''an acceptable alternative lifestyle.'' It was the first time since 1997 that more people expressed opposition than support.

That said, it still doesn't strike me as the best idea, for lots of personal-type reasons -- not least among them the fact that it can wind up reinforcing or excusing homophobic prejudice elsewhere, or create an artificially sheltered environment that might serve the students poorly in the long term. But as Josh points out, those aren't reasons that I can project too far onto other people: I'm not convinced it's so wise, but I'm not the one with the gay kid.

This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post. Plenty of people who practiced fitting in as high school students have moved on to get MBAs and are doing quite nicely.