Go back through page 1 for the two cites to the L.A. Times and read the Wikipedia article I already showed you.
The L.A. Times stories have a teacher talking about her testimony, how she addressed this issue to the assistant principal on behalf of both McInerney and the other students who were complaining. The assistant principal’s reaction was to wag her finger at McInerney, while King paraded back and forth.
It kinds of looks like the assistant principal using a gay kid to promote an agenda. One can only wonder how she would have approved if McInerney had eventually given in and become King’s boyfriend. She’d have had a big smile on her face and talked glowingly of the victory for gay rights.
Er… you linked to the wikipedia article to prove that the assistant principal was a lesbian. The wikipedia article links to the vastly more in-depth Newsweek article.
Also, I looked at both of the LA Times articles and neither claims that Larry repeatedly propositioned or flirted with Brandon nor does either article mention teachers complaining about Larry repeatedly flirting with Brandon specifically as opposed to the boys who’d bullied him.
If I’m wrong, it’s easy to prove.
Please quote from the LA Times article where it says that Larry repeatedly propositioned Brandon.
Nor does it say Boldrin was referring to Larry’s behavior towards Brandon.
Nobody disputes that Larry often retaliated against bullies who harassed him by saying things like “you’re cute” to make them feel uncomfortable, because being small and effeminate it was the only way he could defend himself.
His behavior towards Brandon is a separate issue. Brandon was a boy he had a crush on and Brandon murdered him for publicly revealing ghat crush.
It’s explainable, it’s just not justifiable. And I don’t think anyone is saying that the kid doesn’t deserve to go to jail. Just that his age, and the degree to which the administration let him down should be taken into consideration.
It sounds like it was a bit more than that. He didn’t just reveal it. He advertised it, to the point that if he was a duh going after a girl he’s probably be considered a stalker.
Please note that Epstein only brought this matter to the attention of higher ups in the school administration over the concerns of a substitute over one issue: dress. Substitutes may only have a limited picture, and it is easier to dismiss their concerns. Boldrin, a regular teacher who knows these kids on a day to day basis, was ignored, with a more complex complaint than mere dress.
The defense well disproved the “administration-never-knew” theory. It’s not true; the facts are that the assistant principal knew about King’s antics and encouraged them and did noithing about the sexual harrassment faced by other students.
Repeatedly I complain, Ibn Warraq, that you keep trying to narrow this into a single act…“Brandon murdered him for publicly asking Brandon to be his Valentine.”
There is a whole lot more to it than that. Start talking about the whole picture, please, instead of isolating each incident in a series, looking at it out of context, and saying “there’s nothing wrong with that act.” There’s a lot here that isn’t wrong if viewed alone out of the rest of the circumstances.
If a guy did what King did to a girl, no responsible adult would have hesitated to tell him to back off, after it had caused conflict and had gone on a couple weeks.
It is very clear that the assistant principal viewed the expression of gay sexuality a prerogative over the sexual harrassment of other students, on a theory that the other students weren’t accepting enough of gay sexuality and needed to learn some tolerance. (finger wagging)
Now when the fat dork asks the head cheerleader to prom, she says “Ugh,” and turns her nose. Nobody condemns her for not wanting to date a guy she doesn’t like.
But when Brandon McInerney said “UGH,” the assistant principal wagged her finger with a disapproving look.
I wasn’t the fat dork kid, but I still never had the courage to ask the cheerleaders out, even though I was a football player. How I wish I had a principal to stand around in disapproval of her sexuality and wag his finger while she says UGH. No-one ever thought that my sexuality was special enough to do that for me.
Are you conceding that there’s no mention in the articles of Larry repeatedly propositioning Brandon?
Tell us exactly what Larry did to Brandon that would have caused him to be condemned had he done it to a girl.
Also what are you talking about “after it had caused conflict and gone on for a couple of weeks”?
Brandon shot him less than two days after the “be my Valentine”.
Ok, what exactly did Larry do to Brandon that he’d have been condemned for if he’d done to a girl?
Huh, what are you talking about?
Epstein didn’t “wag her finger” at Brandon because he rejected Larry’s proposal, But because another day, Brandon got “visibly upset” when he say Larry “prancing around in high heels.”
Well, Larry has just as much right to “prance around in high heels” as Jewish people do to wear yarmulkas, girls have the right to prance around in high heels, or whites have the right to wear American flags at a school, even if people get upset by that.
Also, even that shouldn’t piss you off since the standard you set was would it have been considered inappropriate if he’d done it to a girl.
In fact, Larry pranced around in high heels in front of lots of girls and none were offended and I think all would have laughed had people insisted he was sexually harassing them.
What makes you think a principal wouldn’t have disciplined a girl who ridiculed you for “prancing around in high heels.”
Had you wanted to prance around in high heels or wear makeup to school that was your right and a girl who verbally mocked you for doing so would be considered intolerant.
The Holy Grail of gay rights: tolerance trumps all.
I see; in your opinion my sexuality will be taken seriously ONLY IF I prance around in girls clothing and high heels. MY POINT was that no-one thinks its important to disapprove of those who reject my advances. Apparently, you believe that my sexuality isn’t special enough if I do not don high heels makeup and girls clothing and come on to men.
My suggestion is that if an appropriate behavior for school principals is to disapprove of one student’s lack of desire for another, I’d sure appreciate it if someone did the same for me cause I’d have asked a whole lot more girls out than I did when I was in high school.
As Magellan01 said, “And with that, reason departs the scene.”
But I doubt you’ll figure it out being told a second time, when you wouldn’t understand the first.
D’oh. Maybe it actually started BEFORE the valentine proposal?
Read carefully enough and you will realize that concerns over Larry King’s behavior in school go back FIVE YEARS before the valentine’s day proposal.
It’s documented that King came out as gay at 10 years old. (and tell me that this isn’t possibly adolescent confusion, even before puberty)
At the very least, the L.A. times article has King’s mother expressing her concerns over her son’s behavior four days, NOT TWO, before the shooting. She was disregarded because of Larry’s rights to be gay.
The teacher who got ignored was forced out of her job. The assistant principal who ignored her got promoted to be the full principal of another school. One can only imagine how this principal lectures her kids on gay rights after being rewarded after ignoring the pleas of the teacher and mother who saw this violence coming.
This assistant principal should spend a few of Brandon’s years in jail and rethink this matter thoroughly.
Please quote exactly where the principal ever made it clear that students were forced to “accept the advances” of gay students.
All the principal did was say that Brandon couldn’t get visible upset at Larry for wearing high heels.
What’s wrong with that?
How is that different from saying that students can’t get upset at or ridicule Jews who wear Kippas?
Are you saying that if Larry had been Jewish and wanted to come to school dressed as a Hasid the school could have prohibited him from doing that because that type of outfit is “distracting” and would be seen by many as “weird” and would have attracted lots of attention?
So then you’re saying that students have the right to ridicule people wearing religious attire that many consider “distracting”?