It also spelled out my initial reaction to his ideas on sexual orientation, before I realized he was serious… 
jayjay
In my humble opinion (I know, wrong forum), if a school is going to allow students to wear “gay pride” t-shirts, then they’re going to have to allow the wearing of “straight pride” t-shirts, as well. If you’re going to allow freedom of expression for one valid viewpoint, you’re going to have to allow freedom of expression for the opposing valid viewpoint, as well. The simplest solution is to prevent the wearing of any t-shirts that advertise sexual preference.
Sauron -
As far as we can tell from the information that has been presented, the only “gay pride” going on is the “safe zone” stickers (I did a search on CNN.com and Fox.com and found some information on Fox and a broken link on CNN). Even Elliot’s own story does not say that there were students wearing “Gay Pride” t-shirts. As was mentioned in one of the other threads where we discussed the topic, such shirts would be more likely to lead to abuse of the student wearing it, and therefore unlikely to be worn. (Sorry, I don’t remember which thread - I think andygirl might have been the one to say so, however.)
Strangely, I cannot now find the Fox news story about this, which is the only (semi) unbiased cite I could find for it, and which stated that there were pink triangles indicating the safe zones. That’s it. No one was fighting for their right to wear gay pride anything, just objecting to a shirt that is designed by a company who believes that being gay is “wrong.”
Now, that said, I hate to admit this but the older I get the more arguements I find for mandatory school uniforms. This is one of them. :rolleyes:
I participated in the original BBQ Pit thread on this topic, and I recall the sticker design being a sticking point (you should pardon the pun). Some advocated the removal of the pink triangle, and others said it’s impossible to get the message across otherwise.
Where I live, I’ve noticed several “Safe Zone” signs at various businesses and establishments (the most recent being at our local YMCA). These signs are black and yellow, the traditional colors of street “warning” signs. They feature a black silhouette of a small person superimposed on the larger yellow silhouette of a person with their arms halfway around the smaller person. I’m not sure what the “safe zones” in our area refer to – my guess is it’s an area that’s drug-free, where kids can go after school to play or be safe from harassment.
Why can’t this design be adopted for the “safe zone” stickers in the school in question? It removes the pink triangle (which has been identified with a particular advocacy group) and creates a neutral image that still gets the message across. Anything wrong with that?
My only objection to that is that it does not allay the concerns of the GLBT students that the instructor in question might tell them they’re going to Hell (go directly to Hell, do not pass Go…)
Believe me; I was one of those at-risk kids, once (although my problem was endemic depression rather than my sexuality), and it would have been nice to know that there was someone trained to at least listen.
Oh, wait. There was someone like that at my school. It was the class’ guidance counselor. However, had my problem been my sexuality I doubt I would have gone to him for help.
Do you see? This is also what was being argued in the Pit thread.
Someone in that thread suggested combining several images, indicating what kinds of training the instructors have had. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that option, either, as long as at-risk kids have somewhere to go for help.
Yeah, but who tells kids that the inverted pink triangle is the symbol for gay pride? Surely people aren’t born knowing that. It’s a matter of education. You tell students at the beginning of the school year (or during a school assembly) that these “safe place” stickers mean that these rooms have teachers trained to deal with issues faced by teens, including gay, lesbian and transgender teens. In one fell swoop, you’ve notified all students what the signs or stickers mean, you’ve removed a symbol that’s identified with a particular advocacy group, and you’ve ended histrionics over “straight pride” t-shirts (because neither position is being promoted in the school). Wouldn’t that work?
Much to my embarrassment, I did not learn what a pink triangle meant until I had already flunked out of one college. So no arguement here, although a teen already struggling with this issue may or may not know what it means.
I don’t see any inherent problems with this (other than the fact that kids have a real tendency not to hear what’s being said at an assembly/during announcements - this from my own personal experience); someone more knowledgable on the subject may have further insight, however.
Although, sadly, I don’t think it would end this particular problem. The kind of person likely to get all worked up over the school expressing this kind of tolerance for the different is (IMNSHO) likely to object to any sort of “safe zone,” on the grounds that those who are (and I use this term very loosely) normal are being “left out.”
Sauron, actually I don’t think that there was any concern over the actual image. People were concerned that GLBT students were getting counciling, not over the actual image. They wanted it to be more inclusive.
To stay more on topic…
Do you really think establishing a ‘safe-zone’ in a high school is not going to do more harm than good? Does anyone really think that doing so will magically create a force field of social tolerance around it? Or that it won’t brand anyone who gets within five feet of it as even more of an outcast?
I remember high school. Kids that age are not going to be understanding and mature about their own or (especially) others sexuality, straight or otherwise. They are going to be insecure and hostile about it, and setting up a ‘gay room’ (which it will undoubtebly will be ridiculed as) will do nothing more than make these kids an easier target.
Hail Ants, I suggest you read the origional pit thread. These “safe rooms” were simply teachers who would understand the above issues and had that on there.
You obviously do not understand how the Safe Zone program works. This puzzles me, as I personally have explained it several times in this thread and the Pit thread on this issue.
For what I hope is the last time, THERE IS NO “GAY ROOM”.
This is how the Safe Zone project works: participating teachers and faculty members display a small “Safe Zone” sticker on the doors of their regular classrooms or offices. This serves as an indicator that said teacher or faculty member is sympathetic to the special problems of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered youths. The “Safe Zone” is not really a place at all, but a person.
Let me be the first to say that I stand corrected. If this is indeed the policy then I think it is a good idea. It seems that the whole thing has been a tad sensationalized by all the press.