cha cha cha!

That second story is heartbreaking.

Assuming they get no public funds, why can't a private institution set whatever policies they want?

They can, but expelling children for their sexual orientation seems heartless, and not exactly living up to the whole Christian thing.

I'm torn on the second one. On the one hand, it's a stupid, backward policy. On the other hand, considering the bullshit they're indoctrinating the kids with, anyone who gets kicked out is actually being done a huge, huge favor. So, I guess it sucks not to be allowed to go to Homophobe High... But then again, maybe it doesn't.

Academic policies and religious doctrine aside, the second story is heartbreaking and infuriating to me because I know what it's like to be a gay teenager. You have enough shame and fear to begin with. And then you get called to the principal's office and expelled for it?

That combines two of my biggest adolescent fears, right there -- getting sent the the principal's office and being outted. (Outed?)

So, yeah, look at it pragmatically if you want. It's a religious school. They're opposed to the gay, and so's their god.

But damn, fuck that. Those poor girls.

If the high school is a social organization that is allowed to discriminate (as their primary purpose is not instruction but to instill a set of morals), then I don't see how they can be accredited as an institution of learning.

This is just me being in my little fantasy world in my head, but I would love it if when we discuss elected officials that there were more descriptors than sexual orientation, marital status, and/or number of children. It would be nice if we described Official X as voting for or against various things instead of 'oh, they have a cute dog.' WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW A PERSON VOTES?!

They seemed to have outed themselves on myspace first. And then sued. It's certainly not a step forward, but I'm not sure it's a step back either. Sideways perhaps. I thought you were referring to the court's decision as the step back. I with you on the school being heartless, out-of-touch and just plain wrong. But the court didn't set back human rights, they just refused to force people to step forward.

Also, I just don't get it. Would a Lutheran congregation expel a gay churchgoer? Is homosexuality considered so contagious and awful that good Lutherans can't even sit next to gay people? I mean, as abhorrent as I find the view that gay teachers should be fired, I at least some sort of internal logic there -- there's a perception that, because of their job status, they might influence their students. But expelling gay students is basically saying that homosexuality is so awful that Lutherans should not have to interact with gay people at all.

Which seems to run counter to even the most homophobic Christian views I've seen, most of which seem to emphasize that gay people should be brought back into the fold.

I don't know. This seems more like fifty steps back.

But the court didn't set back human rights

I think this is the point we disagree on. They upheld certain legal rights of the school. But that doesn't mean they didn't also make a commentary on human rights -- that certain groups of people (and it's not always gay; it's bigger than that) are allowed in certain places/situations, or are treated differently in certain places/situations. To me, that is absoLUtely a question of human rights.

A question of human rights, sure. But, of course, certain people are (not?) allowed in certain places/situations. If you were throwing a party at your house and a someone brought along the principal of California Lutheran High School and you told him he wasn't welcome in your home, should the courts force you to let him party with you?

Yes, it's much more complicated in a quasi-public situation like a school (muddgirl has a good point about accreditation) but the principle is the same. Within the confines of private property, there are limits on what the government can force people to do.

Private schools don't have to be accredited. Some choose to do so but it's voluntary, and they tend to line up with voluntary associations for accreditation like the National Association for Independent Schools. Some of those require a demonstration of equal access, tolerance, acceptance, or what have you. But there are many others and many accrediting organizations are networks of religious schools, so of course they would not penalize a school they accredit for following dogmatic guidelines.

So as current law stands, yes, I think they are within their rights to run their private organization with institutional biases built in. That doesn't make it any less shitty. It is shitty. And I agree that it is a question of human rights, in terms of how the US writes its laws regarding private education - we have some choices on the matter. It would be perfectly feasible within the confines of the law to disallow discrimination in any educational facility without making it so that someone can enter a private residence without invitation - it's a matter of defining the rights and privileges and institutions to which they apply. However it's worth noting that if such legislation existed, it might mean that high schools and programs expressly for LGBT students would also be considered illegal.

But damn, fuck that. Those poor girls.

Yeah - I definitely wasn't downplaying the personal anguish, or that the very existence of a school with such abhorent views would be an affront to any God worth worshipping. But I just can't shake the feeling that, given that the place does exist, however painful the transition, those girls will be better off in the long run having been removed from that environment. Of course that's undoubtedly cold comfort to them now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, dano. Too many other things going on to provide an intelligent, articulate explanation of why, to me, this is still basically about "human rights."

But my point in posting it was that, like miko said, it's basically just shitty.

But hey, Go Iceland.

From what the article says, these girls weren't expelled for lesbian actions - they were expelled for what is essentially a thought-crime. Would Now I don't know what went down in the principal's office, but it certainly seems illogical and un-Christian if nothing else. It's akin to expelling a student for revealing that she's bipolar. Certainly their right as a "social organization", but not exactly what Jesus intended in my Book.

It just reminds me of all the annoying students in my therapy program who said they would call the police if any of their clients admitted to past criminal behavior. Ignoring the fact that doing so would be illegal in most cases, I'd just sit there thinking, "You have someone already in front of you, you're in a teacher/advisor role for this person, and you're going to.... shut off all communication and kick them out of your office? How on EARTH is that helpful to anyone? Maybe you could, you know, ADVISE them?"

ESPECIALLY with a school, it seems like "Let's make this a teaching moment" would be the FIRST reaction, rather than "Let's cut off all communication and show you the door." I do agree with IRFH that the "teaching moment" script would likely be harmful to the girls here, but for heaven's sake, it's a SCHOOL. Your job is to INFLUENCE CHILDREN. Open the dialogue already.

Harumph.

It's funny that they claim they expelled the girls because, as a Christian school that teaches Christian morals, they can't appear to condone these kinds of activities. I doubt they expel kids for disobeying or behaving dishonorably towards their parents, or for saying "Goddammit!" if they stub a toe or flunk a quiz, or for lying or gossiping. All of those break a commandment. I'm pretty sure that "Thou shalt not have a girlfriend if thou art a girl" is not a commandment.

not exactly living up to the whole Christian thing.

I think it just goes to show where many self-identified Christians are really at.