Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Why Does He Get A Choice?!?

Courtesy of Box Turtle Bulletin comes news of Principal Davis:
Davis outed a gay student to her parents, organized a “morality assembly”, and interrogated students about their orientation, and suspended students that were
part of the “Gay Pride” movement.
From the judge's ruling (.pdf):

During those meetings, Davis instructed students who were homosexual not to discuss their sexual orientations. He also prohibited students from wearing rainbow belts or writing “Gay Pride” or “GP” on their arms and notebooks. He required students to wash “GP” or “Gay Pride” from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies. One of the students that Davis questioned was Gillman’s cousin, who identifies as homosexual. Davis questioned Gillman’s cousin about her sexual orientation. Davis stated that being gay was against the Bible and that it was not right. He expressed his hope that Gillman’s cousin would not “go down the road”of being a homosexual.


Let us ignore, for one minute, the horrid insertion of this man's personal beliefs about homosexuality into public policy within the school system. As you can see by the sentence I've highlighted in bold, this man lifted the shirts of female students and examined their bodies. That alone should be enough evidence for his permanent expulsion from the education field. Yet, astonishingly, as BTB points out, "Davis has chosen to return to the classroom and teach American government and other classes." (video)

WHY? Any other teacher accused of lifting the shirts of female students would be summarily dismissed, in my experience. So why does Davis get a pass?

55 comments:

North Dallas Thirty said...

Because he did not do so with the intent of or to sexually gratify himself. It's similar to looking for gang tattoos.

And suddenly I'm thinking of the "Family Guy" episode that was on last night in which Peter sues the doctor who performs his prostate exam for rape.

Jamie said...

Hilarious Family Guy reference aside, "intent" is irrelevant in these cases, historically. If the impression of impropriety is there, the teacher is usually dismissed, so as not to put the students "at risk."

Jamie said...

After all, NDT, this is the same state where they dismissed a teacher because he was "accused" of, wait for it, wizardry

Pat said...

I can't believe the school board left a pervert on as principal. Looking for the letters GP on someone's body is nothing simialr for looking for gang tattoos, unless of course, one thinks that supporting gay persons is equivalent to supporting gangs.

What surprised me the most was that this is a public school. I just assumed that this was some run of the mill private school run by some obsessive, immoral, homophobic organization.

Anyway, perhaps the people in the district will fight to remove this reprehensible creature as principal.

Jamie said...

Well, Pat, the district has already approved his transfer to a teaching position. (Click the video link)

Pat said...

Thanks, Jamie. I forgot about the part of his transfer to a teaching position. Unfortunately, until I get a new computer (which will be soon, hopefully), I'm not getting any audio. Anyway, I see the school was prudent in having this person in a position where the children are safer. Kind of like transferring a coyote from sheep tender to shepherd in a sheep farm.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Substitute teacher, Jamie, which is another matter entirely.

Meanwhile, I suggest you be careful with your "impression of impropriety"; that would justify dismissing a gay teacher who removed a boy's shirt for any reason, or who was checking for compliance with a physical education uniform code.

Tommy said...

Male principal lifts girls' shirts to look for gang tatoos? In what public school does that happen?

Jamie said...

Substitute teacher, Jamie, which is another matter entirely.

How is that different in any way that matters?

Meanwhile, I suggest you be careful with your "impression of impropriety"; that would justify dismissing a gay teacher who removed a boy's shirt for any reason, or who was checking for compliance with a physical education uniform code.

I don't have a problem with dismissing any teacher, gay or otherwise, for removing a boy or girl's clothing. Teacher's hands belong on students for exactly three reasons:

To prevent harm to another student;
To prevent harm to the student himself or herself;
To render lifesaving assistance. THAT'S IT.

To take the example you used, I would say that if a teacher needs to check for a jockstrap (for instance) so the boy won't get his nuts injured, and the child won't lower their own gym shorts to comply, then a conference with the child's parents is in order. NOT a physical inspection. PERIOD.

Also, NDT, you act as if I'm somehow the one who's constructed the notion of "impression of impropriety." Not so. I'm only pointing out the vastly different treatment in this one instance.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Male principal lifts girls' shirts to look for gang tatoos? In what public school does that happen?

Ones that are concerned about gang activity and know that the display of gang clothing, tattoos, and whatnot are often pretexts for violent activity.


How is that different in any way that matters?

No permanent relationship is in any way implied. It's like a temp worker; you are perfectly within your rights to dismiss one and request a better one.


I don't have a problem with dismissing any teacher, gay or otherwise, for removing a boy or girl's clothing.

Let's take it to the next step, then. Do you also agree that gay and lesbian teachers should be barred from supervising locker rooms, coaching sports, or other situations in which the opportunity may arise for them to see members of the gender to which they are attracted naked, to avoid "the impression of impropriety"?


To take the example you used, I would say that if a teacher needs to check for a jockstrap (for instance) so the boy won't get his nuts injured, and the child won't lower their own gym shorts to comply, then a conference with the child's parents is in order. NOT a physical inspection. PERIOD.

After the child is suspended and punished for failure to demonstrate the proper uniform, as established by rule and policy?

Jamie said...

It's like a temp worker; you are perfectly within your rights to dismiss one and request a better one.

If you're concerned that a few slight-of-hand tricks constitute "wizardry," you have bigger problems than looking for "better" teachers. At least he had the students' attention!

As for your "next step." The answer is a resounding "no." I hate to break this to you, but "gay" does not equal "pedophile." Your mileage may vary. The only "impression of impropriety" in the scenario you imply is if one conflates the two concepts.

After the child is suspended and punished for failure to demonstrate the proper uniform, as established by rule and policy?

Funny, but most schools I've subbed at issue a written reprimand for noncompliance with a dress code upon the first instance, and that is when the parents should be consulted. If a school starts suspending every child that does one little thing out of line, the schools would be fairly empty. That's why educating children should constitute a partnership between faculty and family, in concert. Parents have a responsibility to know what is expected of their child, including, say, a jockstrap.

Seems easily remedied to me. Without accosting a child. The schools around here are fairly strict about when you can touch a student (I outlined the 3 reasons) and we seem to do just peachy. Without yanking down a kids shorts because one happens to have authority.

Pat said...

Ones that are concerned about gang activity and know that the display of gang clothing, tattoos, and whatnot are often pretexts for violent activity.

And girls possibly having "GP" or "Gay Pride" is a pretext for what, may I ask?

I did some substitute work at my high school 20 years ago. I had to go through a background check, including getting fingerprinted. Even back then, I'm sure if it was on my record that I touched children like Davis did for specious reasons, I would never have been hired.

Now if the school decides to use Davis in a substitute teacher role, they are knowingly employing someone who is a known danger and menace to children. What specious reason will he now use to improperly touch students?

Tommy said...

"'Male principal lifts girls' shirts to look for gang tatoos? In what public school does that happen?'

Ones that are concerned about gang activity and know that the display of gang clothing, tattoos, and whatnot are often pretexts for violent activity."

What? The whole internets at your disposal and that article (about a drive by on a public street with no connection to any school) is all you could find to support your bald assertion that male public school principals regularly lift girls' shirts to look for gang tatoos? That just shows you have no support for your ridiculous defense of this weird principal. (Besides the facts that if the tatoo is under thier shirt, they aren't displaying anything.)

North Dallas Thirty said...

What? The whole internets at your disposal and that article (about a drive by on a public street with no connection to any school) is all you could find to support your bald assertion that male public school principals regularly lift girls' shirts to look for gang tatoos?

You seem to be unaware that gang tattoos or displays of clothing can result in violence, Tommy; therefore, you needed to have that example shown to you.

Furthermore, do you deny that schools have banned gang signs and gang tattoos and put in place policies that anyone displaying or having such signs and tattoos may be suspended and removed for the good of the student body?


Next:

As for your "next step." The answer is a resounding "no." I hate to break this to you, but "gay" does not equal "pedophile." Your mileage may vary. The only "impression of impropriety" in the scenario you imply is if one conflates the two concepts.

It has nothing to do with pedophilia, Jamie; it has everything to do with seeing the gender to which you are attracted naked.

But, since you state publicly that there is nothing wrong with gay men being allowed to look at naked boys and that this is not automatically wrong, you should then support straight men being allowed to look at naked girls without it being considered automatically wrong.

Unless, of course, you're saying that all straight men are pedophiles.


Parents have a responsibility to know what is expected of their child, including, say, a jockstrap.

Which is why schools communicate dress codes in advance. What we're talking about is the case where Junior decides he doesn't want to listen to the teacher.


And girls possibly having "GP" or "Gay Pride" is a pretext for what, may I ask?

Deliberately-disruptive behavior.

Tommy said...

"You seem to be unaware that gang tattoos or displays of clothing can result in violence, Tommy; therefore, you needed to have that example shown to you.

Furthermore, do you deny that schools have banned gang signs and gang tattoos and put in place policies that anyone displaying or having such signs and tattoos may be suspended and removed for the good of the student body?"

You, NDT, seem to be unaware, once again, of both logic and the subject at hand. Once again you provide absolutely no support for your assertion that male public school principals' lift up girl-students' shirts to look for tatoos. Since you use that alleged practice in defense of this disgraced ex-principal, you should be able to come up with dozens of examples.

Once again I note, if the tattoo is under their shirt, no one is displaying it.

And as the Judge found in the case at hand, nothing the students did was nearly as disruptive as what the principal did . . . like lifting up girls shirts

Jamie said...

It has nothing to do with pedophilia, Jamie; it has everything to do with seeing the gender to which you are attracted naked.

Tell me you don't honestly believe that drivel. It's got nothing to do with gender. It has to do with being sick enough in the head to be staring at naked children in the first place.

But, since you state publicly that there is nothing wrong with gay men being allowed to look at naked boys and that this is not automatically wrong, you should then support straight men being allowed to look at naked girls without it being considered automatically wrong.


You'd better damned well not put words in my mouth again. I have never publicly or privately stated any such thing. There is a world of difference between, as you originally stated, "situations in which the opportunity may arise for them to see members of the gender to which they are attracted naked" (a passive circumstance), and "being allowed to look at" (a deliberate activity).

A gym teacher, straight or gay, has no business "looking at" either sex of child in a state of undress. If the teacher is rounding up the kids to take them to the gym or outside to exercise, and happens to see a bit of skin in the course of his or her duties, that is not even remotely the same as "looking at." If he stands there and leers at them, well, obviously that's a bit different. But it's not the argument you made. You might want to be a bit more precise.

Further, my discomfit with a male teacher going into the female locker room has more to do with the innate dissimilarities in anatomy than orientation. You see, without even knowing orientation of any parties involved, a man in a woman's locker room is going to upset the women, and vice versa.

Next:

What we're talking about is the case where Junior decides he doesn't want to listen to the teacher.

That has never been a specified premise before in this argument. You jumped straight over that, which is why I said that parents have responsibilities to be informed as well.


ALL OF WHICH is beside the original point, NDT. Had this teacher been lifting girls shirts for any reason other than a gay-related one, he'd have been summarily suspended. PERIOD. That is the original point that I made, and you have yet to even come close to refuting it. All of your strawman arguments are moot.

Pat said...

Deliberately-disruptive behavior.

What What What??? Having GP or Gay Pride hidden is deliberately disruptive? And the ex-principal/pervert lifting up these girls shirts was a "good educational experience" for the girls, I suppose. Thankfully, the judge had some good sense to see otherwise.

North Dallas Thirty said...

And here we get to the real issue.

Had this teacher been lifting girls shirts for any reason other than a gay-related one, he'd have been summarily suspended. PERIOD. That is the original point that I made, and you have yet to even come close to refuting it.

"Have been" is a future hypothetical -- which means that it is based entirely on your individual belief.

Meanwhile, my argument has been to show that the reason you believe that is simply your prejudice against straight people who you don't like, given that it seems to be perfectly all right for gay and lesbian teachers to look at the bodies of students to which they are sexually attracted in the course of their work.

Add to that the fact that no charges were filed against this principal, and I think we can easily see that "lifting girls' shirts" means something quite different in reality than what the spin, influenced by personal prejudices and hatred of this individual, has construed it to be.

Further, my discomfit with a male teacher going into the female locker room has more to do with the innate dissimilarities in anatomy than orientation. You see, without even knowing orientation of any parties involved, a man in a woman's locker room is going to upset the women, and vice versa.

Irrelevant. Gay and lesbian liberals argue that straight men have no right to object to the presence of gay men on the basis of "upset" or sexual tension. Hence, allowing women to object is discrimination on the basis of gender, and must be disallowed.

North Dallas Thirty said...

What What What??? Having GP or Gay Pride hidden is deliberately disruptive?

Of course. They were told not to do it and they did it anyway, for the sole purpose of creating a disruption.

One wonders if the reaction would have been the same had the students been writing "SP" or "Straight Pride" on their bodies, just as these gay students did, for the sole purpose of being disruptive and drawing attention to themselves.

Jamie said...

"Have been" is a future hypothetical -- which means that it is based entirely on your individual belief.

That, dear boy, is the conditional tense, not "future hypothetical," and has been borne out by hundreds if not thousands of teacher dismissals. Two at my own high school during my tenure. Due to accusations, not proven incidents, mind you.

Meanwhile, my argument has been to show that the reason you believe that is simply your prejudice against straight people who you don't like, given that it seems to be perfectly all right for gay and lesbian teachers to look at the bodies of students to which they are sexually attracted in the course of their work.

No, your argument has been baseless accusations based on your own prejudice against other gay people--who you don't like for some twisted reason. I, however, am just peachy with straight people. Not once have I used separate criteria for straight or gay teachers, unlike you, sir.

And if you imply one more time that I am somehow "alright" with gay OR straight teachers "looking at" students to whom they are sexually attracted, you are going to get it. You have been warned.

Tommy said...

NDT, Your absurd defense of this disgraced principal has crossed the line of all decency, when you accuse Jamie as you do. Everything Jamie has said would lead any reasonable person to conclude that he supports male princpals being fired for lifting up female students' shirts, regardless of the content of thier tatoos. Your accusations against him are disgusting, as well as lies. Your arguments illogical and without support.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Due to accusations, not proven incidents, mind you.

Then you would think this "proven incident" would lead to dismissal, if the conditions were the same.

Obviously they were not. As I stated originally, this was not done with the intent of or to sexually gratify himself; it was done with the intent of identifying students who were engaging in deliberately-disruptive behavior.


Not once have I used separate criteria for straight or gay teachers, unlike you, sir.

Try again, Jamie. I am fully supportive of teachers having the right to investigate students physically if necessary as part of the course of their duties. What I am pointing out is that, when a straight person does so, you automatically scream "pervert", while if a gay person does so, you can come up with a million reasons for why it's OK.


NDT, Your absurd defense of this disgraced principal has crossed the line of all decency, when you accuse Jamie as you do.

You mean, my refusal to join the lynch mob and automatically assume this principal is some kind of sexual predator.

I happen to believe that schools are places of learning and not of protest, Tommy. Furthermore, I find it hilarious that a supporter of outing such as yourself is so incensed when a principal does it.

Tommy said...

What? How is it you have such little ability to comprehend what you read -- another non-sequiter, NDT? No one in this discussion has even mentioned outing.

You crossed the line because you have made patently false and utterly offensive allegations against Jamie.

Tommy said...

". . . if a gay person does so, you [Jamie] can come up with a million reasons for why it's OK."

Just stop lying NDT, Jamie has not once done this.

North Dallas Thirty said...

How is it you have such little ability to comprehend what you read

followed by:

You crossed the line because you have made patently false and utterly offensive allegations

A clear case of irony deficiency, that.

Jamie said...

Try again, Jamie. I am fully supportive of teachers having the right to investigate students physically if necessary as part of the course of their duties. What I am pointing out is that, when a straight person does so, you automatically scream "pervert", while if a gay person does so, you can come up with a million reasons for why it's OK.

That's just an out and out lie. I have done no such thing. I have repeatedly said neither gay nor straight teachers have the right to lay hands on a student other than the three reasons listed above. You are the one trying to paint twisted scenarios in order to justify your Elaine Donnelly-like belief that gay teachers don't belong in the locker room with straight students because somehow you think gay=going to molest boy children.

It's not my fault you can't follow a cogent argument without assuming I'm somehow against straight people.

Pat said...

You mean, my refusal to join the lynch mob and automatically assume this principal is some kind of sexual predator.

NDT, I think I was the only one that concluded that Davis was a sexual predator. In any case, I'll retract somewhat. Davis is either a predator or a complete, incompetent imbecile. I didn't think that anyone could be that stupid, but perhaps Davis fits the bill. So I am open as to which one of the two (if not both) that it is.

And it's all nice that you're being noble since you are the only one that is defending Davis. But considering that his actions seem to be as bad, if not worse, as these parents that bring their children to FSF, I find it puzzling that you are defending Davis.

Of course. They were told not to do it and they did it anyway, for the sole purpose of creating a disruption.

Um, it looks like the principal was the one that created the disruption.

One wonders if the reaction would have been the same had the students been writing "SP" or "Straight Pride" on their bodies, just as these gay students did, for the sole purpose of being disruptive and drawing attention to themselves.

1. If straight students were being harassed and outed by Davis, and being told how immoral it is to have a heterosexual orientation, my reaction would be exactly the same.

2. Even though (1) is not the case, if the principal decided to lift girls' shirts, I would still classify him as either a pervert or a complete imbecile who obviously shouldn't be near children.

I happen to believe that schools are places of learning and not of protest,

If Davis actually believed that, this event would never have happened. But yet, Davis decided to step over his authority and preach his bigoted, hateful views.

Furthermore, I find it hilarious that a supporter of outing such as yourself is so incensed when a principal does it.

I find it hard to believe as one who is adamantly against outing that you can defend this creature. He didn't out a hateful, bigoted adult who was trying to take rights away from people and demonize them (and I would still be against outing in that case), this was a student he outed! Talk about indefensible.

And the suggestion that this would be different if the perpetrator was guy is false. In fact, I don't even know what the sexual orientation of Davis is. What he has done (not just one act, but several acts) was wrong, immoral, and indefensible.

Tommy said...

"How is it you have such little ability to comprehend what you read

followed by:

You crossed the line because you have made patently false and utterly offensive allegations

A clear case of irony deficiency, that."

Is that an attempt at satire from your lying keypad, NDT? Everyone who reads this can see multiple proof of your inability to comprehend what you read and your patent lies about Jamie. But perhaps your're telling us that your inability to read is a deliberate act, which pretence of course goes along with your demonstrated character trait for lying.

North Dallas Thirty said...

You are the one trying to paint twisted scenarios in order to justify your Elaine Donnelly-like belief that gay teachers don't belong in the locker room with straight students because somehow you think gay=going to molest boy children.

LOL.....did I not say the following?

I am fully supportive of teachers having the right to investigate students physically if necessary as part of the course of their duties.

Note that, Jamie; "teachers". Blanket statement. Doesn't matter what sexual orientation. I figure that, given the background checks, testing, and whatnot that have to be done to allow a person to go into the classroom in the first place, we've vetted them enough; therefore, if they need to lay hands on a student, I trust that they have a good reason for doing so.

What I AM pointing out is that, if you're going to argue for separation of males and females due to sexual tension and uncomfortableness, then the same argument must apply to gay and lesbian people.

I find it hard to believe as one who is adamantly against outing that you can defend this creature.

John Adams was as much against British tyranny as anyone else, but he felt strongly that the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre deserved representation -- even if, as he observed, for no other reason than to make it clear that principles were not going to be set aside in the face of prejudice.

Hence, in this case, even though I disagree with what this man did and state quite clearly that he handled it inartfully, he is not a sexual predator, he is entitled to his beliefs, and students who insist on being disruptive should realize that there are consequences for their behavior.

Jamie said...

Note that, Jamie; "teachers". Blanket statement. Doesn't matter what sexual orientation.

Which is what I said for this entire thread, NDT. However I do NOT trust a teacher to have the discretion on whether or not to touch a child unless it falls within the three instances I described. Reread the thread,however, and you will note that it is you, not I, who consistently tried to introduce divisive circumstances based on orientation. I put out 3 flat rules devoid of reference to orientation.

Also note that not once did I say this man was a "sexual predator." What I did say that is that if he had lifted the shirts of female students for any other reason than to check for something gay-related, he'd have been summarily dismissed from any school I know of. So whereas you kept implying that I have dual standards, quite the opposite is true: I keep asking WHY their is a double-standard with regards to the conduct of this teacher. I do not excuse it, I question it. And I would feel the same way if it were a straight man lifting the shirts of straight boys. The Touching is completely inappropriate.

Why you just can't seem to understand that and insist on trying to manipulate what I've said into something I haven't, escapes me.

Jamie said...

What I AM pointing out is that, if you're going to argue for separation of males and females due to sexual tension and uncomfortableness, then the same argument must apply to gay and lesbian people.

And what I've already told you is that you are conflating unease due to sexual orientation with unease due to gender association. Therein lies a world of difference.

Pat said...

Hence, in this case, even though I disagree with what this man did and state quite clearly that he handled it inartfully, he is not a sexual predator, he is entitled to his beliefs, and students who insist on being disruptive should realize that there are consequences for their behavior.

Well, thanks for the admission that you at least agree that what Davis did was wrong. I am not convinced that he is not a sexual predator, and even if he wasn't, "inartfully" is a top candidate for understatement of the year.

Interesting how you characterized Davis's hate and bigotry, and overstepping his bounds with his (im)morality police bullsh&t as being "entitled to his beliefs," while the students are not entitled to theirs. In fact, their beliefs were not borne out of hate and bigotry, but rather solidarity and support for fellow students, which you characterized as being disruptive.

It appears Davis, (who is supposed to be the adult here) didn't realize the consequences of his reprehensible actions. Or perhaps he did, since his actions suggest utter stupidity, and he chose to engage in these behaviors anyway.

John Adams was as much against British tyranny as anyone else, but he felt strongly that the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre deserved representation -- even if, as he observed, for no other reason than to make it clear that principles were not going to be set aside in the face of prejudice.

That's very nice and all. I agree that even people like Davis, FSF parents, etc., deserve representation, and it appears he did get representation. It's interesting that you chose to defend this creature's actions and beliefs. But why defend his hateful, bigoted beliefs as staunchly as you have? And why don't you defend the beliefs of the FSF parents? I don't defend the beliefs of either. Why the selectivity on your part?

North Dallas Thirty said...

Interesting how you characterized Davis's hate and bigotry, and overstepping his bounds with his (im)morality police bullsh&t as being "entitled to his beliefs," while the students are not entitled to theirs. In fact, their beliefs were not borne out of hate and bigotry, but rather solidarity and support for fellow students, which you characterized as being disruptive.

Davis is an adult in a position of authority whose job it is to ensure that the school runs smoothly and safely with a minimum of disruption.

The students, however, are children, whose primary job it is to learn, not to advertise for their sexual needs and desires. Furthermore, as has already been established, since school districts can ban "Straight Pride" clothing and whatnot, "Gay Pride" expressions should also be perfectly legal to ban without infringing one whit on the rights of students.


And what I've already told you is that you are conflating unease due to sexual orientation with unease due to gender association. Therein lies a world of difference.

No. Simply put, since women should not be forced to expose themselves in front of men due to sexual tension and because they may be uncomfortable, straight men should not be forced to expose themselves in front of gay men. To do otherwise is discrimination on the basis of gender.

Pat said...

Davis is an adult in a position of authority whose job it is to ensure that the school runs smoothly and safely with a minimum of disruption.

And he did a hell of a job, let me tell you. He makes Homer Simpson look competent in his nuclear plant job.

The students, however, are children, whose primary job it is to learn, not to advertise for their sexual needs and desires.

If that's what this was all about, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, Davis took it upon himself to decide what sexual orientations were acceptable and which ones weren't.

Furthermore, as has already been established, since school districts can ban "Straight Pride" clothing and whatnot, "Gay Pride" expressions should also be perfectly legal to ban without infringing one whit on the rights of students.

And it's been established that straight students in Davis's district were not being harassed and demonized, there's a big difference between the expressions "Straight Pride" and "Gay Pride." Maybe in 100 years it will be different, but right now...

Straight Pride = heterosexuality is okay, homosexuality is immoral

Gay Pride = heterosexuality is okay, so is homosexuality

Even so, that's fine if school districts want to ban both expressions. But Davis went well beyond that and imposed his bigoted hateful views on the student body. If he kept his views and obsessions to himself, there wouldn't have been a problem. But that's not what happened. His views were intentionally meant to harm students that are homosexual. (Of course, since it's been practically established that Davis was an imbecile, he may not have realized he wrongfully tried to harm students). So students decided to show support for gay students.

Sure, under normal circumstances, students need to follow the rules. But these weren't normal circumstances.

Compare the behavior of Davis with the behavior of the students. The students acted more respectful, more rational, and more like adults than Davis did.

No. Simply put, since women should not be forced to expose themselves in front of men due to sexual tension and because they may be uncomfortable, straight men should not be forced to expose themselves in front of gay men. To do otherwise is discrimination on the basis of gender.

You can "simply put" this anyway you want. You are still wrong, but I'll defend your right to believe it. Thankfully, most people can see the obvious difference that you cannot see. The last thing we need is people making excuses for unwarranted discrimination.

North Dallas Thirty said...

And it's been established that straight students in Davis's district were not being harassed and demonized, there's a big difference between the expressions "Straight Pride" and "Gay Pride."

Yes; you like the latter and hate the former. Hence, you demand that the former be suppressed and the latter be promoted.


If that's what this was all about, I'd agree with you.

Explain to me this, then, Pat; if this girl wasn't advertising her sexual needs and desires, how did these fifth-graders manage to tag her so accurately as a "dyke"?


Sure, under normal circumstances, students need to follow the rules. But these weren't normal circumstances.

What we have here, Pat, is a case of high school students spreading false rumors, planning and carrying out disruptive events and behaviors based on those false rumors -- and then arguing that they shouldn't be punished because they acted on the false rumors they started and perpetuated.


Thankfully, most people can see the obvious difference that you cannot see. The last thing we need is people making excuses for unwarranted discrimination.

LOL...then show some intellectual consistency and demand that men be allowed to use womens' restrooms and vice versa.

Simply put, Pat, people should not be forced into situations where they have to reveal themselves to people who, it is clear, may have a sexual attraction to them. I respect that. You don't because it's inconvenient.

Jamie said...

LOL...then show some intellectual consistency and demand that men be allowed to use womens' restrooms and vice versa.

You do realize that you just shot your own "argument" dead in the ass, don't you? Similar to the case at hand, we don't ask gay men to use the women's restroom, do we? Because it's about gender expression, not sexual orientation. The bathrooms don't say, "if you like vagina, use this one," and "if you like penises, use this one." No, they say "Men" and "Women," (usually).

We expect people to use the restroom for one purpose--unless they're a republican senator. Similarly, I expect students and teachers to use the locker room for one purpose--showering and changing. Unprofessional conduct should be handled regardless of orientation.

What we have here, Pat, is a case of high school students spreading false rumors, planning and carrying out disruptive events and behaviors based on those false rumors -- and then arguing that they shouldn't be punished because they acted on the false rumors they started and perpetuated.

No, see, what we have here, folks, is NDT diverting a thread from the question at hand. I, for one, have not argued about the students' activities, involvement, punishments, or rumors. The conversation I wish to have is about the conduct of Principal Davis, and how his retention of his job is an abomination that smacks of a good-ol-boy network down there.

Tim said...

NDT strikes again, gays should not be proud or okay with being gay and children should be beaten if they think they might be gay, "to save them from themselves", oh and the life of debauchery they are sure to lead, involving leather chaps, lipstick, bareback sex, and harassing straight people. Only NDT is capable of flashing his nude pic online, "for the right reasons." Because there is a java link that ask if the viewer is 18.
Tired old arguments that betray his loathing of other gays. Not himself though, NDT loves himself, cause he is a proper gay. The rest of us wish we could be as quiet and unassuming as him. Children should never be encouraged to be happy with being gay or think of it as normal, They should never express pride or happiness but rather shame.

Jamie clearly listed his problem with the teacher, and the reason he thought he had crossed a line, (you know besides using religious morals to determine proper sexuality.) NDT made an assumption that the teacher lifted up the shirts for the proper reasons, rather than sexual. Than he twisted the definition of "displaying tattoos" to cover for his searching for the grossly indecent letters "GP". Quite the crusade there.

Pat said...

Yes; you like the latter and hate the former. Hence, you demand that the former be suppressed and the latter be promoted.

Um, NDT, I think I made very clear why I thought they were different. Since you chose not to address it, let me remind you what the differences are.

Straight Pride = heterosexuality okay, homosexuality is immoral.

Gay Pride = heterosexuality is okay, so is homosexuality.

How you can conclude that these are the same is beyond me. The students' recognize one as being supportive of gays, while the other demonizing gays. Yet you either don't see the difference, or approve of promoting hate.

Even so, I agreed with you that it was best that neither should be displayed at the school.

Explain to me this, then, Pat; if this girl wasn't advertising her sexual needs and desires, how did these fifth-graders manage to tag her so accurately as a "dyke"?

Was your head stuck underneath the ground when you went to school? I saw that many students had boyfriends and girlfriends. They didn't announce their sexual needs and desires, yet I figured out they were straight.

What we have here, Pat, is a case of high school students spreading false rumors, planning and carrying out disruptive events and behaviors based on those false rumors

That's a new one. You mean high school students did this? The problem here is how the principal handled it. If he kept his hateful, bigoted views to himself, and behaved respectfully to all students, not just the straight ones, and not demonize the gay students, the problem would have been solved.

You could argue all you want how bad the students' actions were. Yet they showed much more class than Davis did. But even conceding this point to you, it still does not excuse Davis's own reprehensible actions. And it still doesn't excuse the board failing to remove him entirely from the classroom.

LOL...then show some intellectual consistency and demand that men be allowed to use womens' restrooms and vice versa.

Jamie tried several times to explain the clear difference to you, and I tried once. It's not getting through to you for some reason.

Simply put, Pat, people should not be forced into situations where they have to reveal themselves to people who, it is clear, may have a sexual attraction to them. I respect that. You don't because it's inconvenient.

You can pander to all the people who have hangups on homosexuality all you want. It doesn't change the fact that we have always traditionally had separate rest rooms, locker rooms, public showers based only on gender. Since you feel you need to "respect" the straight males that might be using these facilities, then by all means, stay away from them. Most of us do just fine. I'm not sure what you mean by inconvenient, but yes, it is inconvenient when I need to use a men's room when a private bathroom is not available. For example, Yankee Stadium only has men's rooms and women's rooms. They don't have gays only rooms.

Tommy said...

I agree Jamie, if only NDT would try to make his comments relevent to the topic you laid out on your blog, instead he accuses you of gross moral failings and lies about your arguments. When he is not doing that, he brings up situations to denigrate "gays," as is his want, and pretend arguments no one has made. And he presents supposed "facts" to justify this ex-principals conduct, that he cannot back up with any evidence. It is all so predictable with him.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Because it's about gender expression, not sexual orientation.

And discrimination on the basis of gender expression, according to gay and lesbian liberals, is illegal; you should be allowed to use whatever bathroom fits your personal needs, regardless of what anyone else thinks.


The conversation I wish to have is about the conduct of Principal Davis, and how his retention of his job is an abomination that smacks of a good-ol-boy network down there.

Of course, ignoring the conduct and behavior of the students in question rather changes the perception of what Davis was doing, doesn't it?

Students had been ordered not to mark themselves with said words or initials. Students chose to break the rules on the basis of false rumors that they themselves had spread. Davis acted to identify and punish students who chose to break the rules.

I personally find it hard to believe that the ACLU would not have screamed child molestation if there had even been a hint of such behavior -- or that it would not have been called out in detail in the court proceedings as inappropriate. They didn't.

Where Davis screwed up in this is simple; he should have simply disciplined the middle-schoolers for their inappropriate behavior and left it be.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Emphasis mine:

Um, NDT, I think I made very clear why I thought they were different. Since you chose not to address it, let me remind you what the differences are.

Since you get to supply your own interpretation of these words and act accordingly, Pat, why doesn't Davis?


Was your head stuck underneath the ground when you went to school? I saw that many students had boyfriends and girlfriends. They didn't announce their sexual needs and desires, yet I figured out they were straight.

LOL....so I see you never dated anyone of the opposite sex in school.

So how did these fifth-graders figure out that this girl was a lesbian? What exactly was she doing?


Since you feel you need to "respect" the straight males that might be using these facilities, then by all means, stay away from them.

When they object, I will. But, for some reason, I've never had a problem -- maybe because all the guys that I work with, which would be the most prominent place that I shower and visit the restroom, know that I respect their space and their wishes.

Jamie said...

Of course, ignoring the conduct and behavior of the students in question rather changes the perception of what Davis was doing, doesn't it?

Considering the fact that I've stated about 5 billion times that it's IRRELEVANT, then, NO, it doesn't change a thing. This man was not rendering life-saving assistance, and not preventing harm to any students. Therefore he had no business laying one finger on a child. End of story, end of argument, that's it. El finito.

Simply because he made up a rule while principle doesn't give him the right to arbitrarily stripsearch children because he thinks they may have violated his arbitrary rule!

Jamie said...

Explain to me this, then, Pat; if this girl wasn't advertising her sexual needs and desires, how did these fifth-graders manage to tag her so accurately as a "dyke"?

She couldn't possibly have, perhaps, been bashful around a girl she may have had a crush on, and a friend noticed, hmmm, NDT? There are thousands of ways for children to notice the minute interactions between schoolmates. Only the truly obtuse would even ask the question you did in such a way.

Tell me, NDT, when you weren't dating and you saw a man on the street that you might've been attracted to, did you have to pump your hips and whistle and shake your booty and whatnot in order to get his attention? Or was there another, more nondescript way that might've led him to believe you were interested in getting to know him that doesn't classify as "broadcasting sexual needs and desires?" Because if there isn't then you're admitting that you're a slut.

Tommy said...

"She couldn't possibly have, perhaps, been bashful around a girl she may have had a crush on, and a friend noticed, hmmm, NDT?"

Your right kids can sometimes be intuitive about these things. And its also sometimes the case with elementary school kids that they tease others for being gay, whether the person is gay or not. (Or perhaps the middle school kids are gay themslves.) Dosen't matter. But I will give credit to NDT for finally realizing that the Principal was creating a dangerous and obstructive school environment for his students by choosing not to reprimand the middle schoolers, and instead blaming the victim, and going on to launch an auto de fe.

North Dallas Thirty said...

NDT strikes again, gays should not be proud or okay with being gay and children should be beaten if they think they might be gay, "to save them from themselves", oh and the life of debauchery they are sure to lead, involving leather chaps, lipstick, bareback sex, and harassing straight people.

The funny part, Tim, is that I can come up with excellent examples of gays harassing straight people and engaging in debauched public behavior in the name of being "proud" and "OK with being gay" -- and insisting that people who oppose it are "homophobic" or "neurotic" and "prudes".


That ties out to this:

Tired old arguments that betray his loathing of other gays. Not himself though, NDT loves himself, cause he is a proper gay. The rest of us wish we could be as quiet and unassuming as him. Children should never be encouraged to be happy with being gay or think of it as normal, They should never express pride or happiness but rather shame.

Actually, Tim, the reason I am so harsh on behaviors like I just outlined and that of these teenagers is precisely because I don't believe that being gay is an automatic switch for abnormal or disruptive behavior.

Problem is, though, that puts me at odds with the bulk of the community, which has figured out that it can get away with pretty much any stupid behavior it wants as long as the claim is made that it was done in the name of "pride". What is particularly reprehensible about that is how it insists those who disagree with that idea are not "proud" of being gay, support beating gay children, etc.

Finally:

Only NDT is capable of flashing his nude pic online, "for the right reasons." Because there is a java link that ask if the viewer is 18.

Yup. It's a limited-access site that deliberately flags itself to almost all of the major 'Net filters, with a pseudonym on my profile to avoid the possibility of kids accidentally reaching it.

Moreover, I posted it because I wanted to post it, not because it's what gay people do. I am fully aware that my doing so could have consequences and am willing to accept that.

North Dallas Thirty said...

She couldn't possibly have, perhaps, been bashful around a girl she may have had a crush on, and a friend noticed, hmmm, NDT?

Then how, Jamie, did these fifth-graders manage to figure it out?

Tell me, NDT, when you weren't dating and you saw a man on the street that you might've been attracted to, did you have to pump your hips and whistle and shake your booty and whatnot in order to get his attention? Or was there another, more nondescript way that might've led him to believe you were interested in getting to know him that doesn't classify as "broadcasting sexual needs and desires?" Because if there isn't then you're admitting that you're a slut.

Where exactly are we talking about, Jamie?

The reason I ask is because that "means" is going to be far different depending on the location, and may in fact not exist at all. Flirting at work, or at one of my professional associations, is out of the question, regardless of how handsome the guy is. I don't even think I'd do what you described in the depths of a gay bar.

Tommy said...

I can come up with excellent examples of gays, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, bully for you. Apart from whether those articles even support your thesis, you should be applauded for being able to come up with articles that could show some gays behaving badly. So tough. So typical.

John said...

I don't think I can improve on the trial court judge's succinct and well thought out decision, so I won't try. I will say that this doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Utilizing the "But-For" test, it is clear that Davis is at fault.

Pat said...

Since you get to supply your own interpretation of these words and act accordingly, Pat, why doesn't Davis?

NDT, you've got a point there. Since Davis is probably an imbecile, I can see how he couldn't understand the obvious difference between the two. I think it's more likely that he did understand the difference, but because of his hate and bigotry would do anything to squelch and support for fellow gay students. Heck, he made sure that only gay students don't tell others about their sexual orientation.

LOL....so I see you never dated anyone of the opposite sex in school.

I didn't realize I told a joke here. And as a matter of fact, I didn't date anyone of the opposite sex (or of the same sex) in school either. I'm not sure why that's funny, or relevant, since we were talking about how one could tell about others' orientations.

So how did these fifth-graders figure out that this girl was a lesbian? What exactly was she doing?

People gave reasons how one can discern others' orientations. Also, perhaps, she herself exhibited stereotypical behavior that people guessed (correctly, in this case) that she was a lesbian. Or perhaps, she herself, told someone else she was a lesbian, and word got around. Oh, that's right, in Davis's world of hate and bigotry, it is wrong for homosexuals to tell another person that they're homosexual.

When they object, I will. But, for some reason, I've never had a problem -- maybe because all the guys that I work with, which would be the most prominent place that I shower and visit the restroom, know that I respect their space and their wishes.

Gee, that's nice. I bet they let you drink from the same water fountain too. See how things work out nice sometimes.

The funny part, Tim, is that I can come up with excellent examples of gays harassing straight people and engaging in debauched public behavior in the name of being "proud" and "OK with being gay" -- and insisting that people who oppose it are "homophobic" or "neurotic" and "prudes".

Well, I guess you came up with one example. Your famous Bleskavich example doesn't count. She didn't call people homophobic because she was harassing straight people, she was calling them homophobic because she was contending that people were making up the allegations. In any case, I unequivocally condemned such behaviors.

However, I could come up with a link of a poster here who excused the reprehensible behavior of Davis. But I'll just supply one of the relevant quotes.

Add to that the fact that no charges were filed against this principal, and I think we can easily see that "lifting girls' shirts" means something quite different in reality than what the spin, influenced by personal prejudices and hatred of this individual, has construed it to be.

Would you excuse Bleskavich's harassment if no charges were filed?

You have no problem condemning reprehensible behavior by gay people, and that's fine. In fact, I condemn the behaviors that you referred to in your links. But you seem to find a soft spot for hateful and antigay bigots who engage in reprehensible behavior and blame those who are the targets of their hate.

Tim said...

Oh NDT you always box yourself into these ridiculous corners that leave you apologizing for bigots and castigating gays.
We all know gays who can be offensive, we also know straights that cross the line from "cultural observances", to straight hate and discriminatory practices. The problem is only one exists for you. Your daily admonishments of gays is never uplifting or helpful, it's just tedious and pedantic.
Your only excuse is pointing to the media's examples of raucous gays and saying that because they exist we must all be damned. 'Cept you of course, your just perfect. In your marriage less relationship and your online naked pictures that give birth to suspicions of hypocrisy. Didn't your lofty sense of self and duty give you warning that by participating in the same behavior that you criticize ceaselessly you leave yourself open for public humiliation? Or shall we draw inferences from your statements that you don't believe your relationship could ever equal a marriage, to point to darker shadows in your opinions of gays? After all you are saying that the real and legal marriages of your fellow gays are meaningless pieces of paper that should be ignored and that any of them with children are only playacting to the detriment of their offspring?
Or perhaps you are saying that straights who adopt children are not true parents either?

As for this current ridiculous stand on a principle that clearly over stepped his secular boundaries by trying to impose his religious beliefs on his young charges, to the point of making them expose themselves to him. As perfectly reasonable, because he "wasn't charged." Leaves me once again chuckling at your weak grasp of protocol and a concern for the workers under your HR care. Should they strip if their boss orders them too? Or will you fall back on "en absentia" and say that he was imposing local mores for the good of the community? After all being a school principle IS a religious position.

"Because he did not do so with the intent of or to sexually gratify himself. It's similar to looking for gang tattoos." Here as always you make positive assumptions about straights for no reason other than the fact that he was not immediately arrested you assumed the best of this instructor. Even excusing it away in your mind as something similar though not related. Unless you share Sally Kerns opinion that gays are worse than terrorists?
Or this convulted, don't look at my argument because I'm going to toss out bs about gays in locker rooms argument. "I don't have a problem with dismissing any teacher, gay or otherwise, for removing a boy or girl's clothing.

Let's take it to the next step, then. Do you also agree that gay and lesbian teachers should be barred from supervising locker rooms, coaching sports, or other situations in which the opportunity may arise for them to see members of the gender to which they are attracted naked, to avoid "the impression of impropriety"?

Of course you are assuming that these gays would go around lifting up kids shirts to search them and thus be inflamed by their homo desire and rape the child (this is what you are implying of course) Now even in your red herring argument you make no connection to the actual event you are talking about, and ignoring the real implications of your comparisons. If gay or straight teachers were caught leering at students they should be dismissed, yet here we have a principle that went past leering to actually forcing children to partially disrobe in front of him in an effort to ferret out his own dark fears. (fear of gays for the slow). Yet this man you support because he does it in the name of religion.

You didn't catch that in your own argument did you? probably not you do it a lot.

Well enough of this your the same as always annoying, gay bashing, and a religious apologists. I hope it wins you brownie points with your self described gay hating family cause you've not won a friend here.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Also, perhaps, she herself exhibited stereotypical behavior that people guessed (correctly, in this case) that she was a lesbian. Or perhaps, she herself, told someone else she was a lesbian, and word got around. Oh, that's right, in Davis's world of hate and bigotry, it is wrong for homosexuals to tell another person that they're homosexual.

So how exactly did he out her, if she herself was telling people?


But you seem to find a soft spot for hateful and antigay bigots who engage in reprehensible behavior and blame those who are the targets of their hate.

Or I simply fail to leap to the conclusion that gay and lesbian people like Bonnie Bleskachek wish.


Now, to the statement most troubling here:

Gee, that's nice. I bet they let you drink from the same water fountain too. See how things work out nice sometimes.

Indeed they do, and it is nice.

Why does that bother you so much?

North Dallas Thirty said...

Tim, yours takes a bit more in-depth response. Emphases throughout are mine.

In your marriage less relationship and your online naked pictures that give birth to suspicions of hypocrisy. Didn't your lofty sense of self and duty give you warning that by participating in the same behavior that you criticize ceaselessly you leave yourself open for public humiliation?

That is the first time I've heard that having an online profile of that sort at an age-protected website was equivalent to encouraging and having unprotected promiscuous sex and doing so in front of minors -- which are the things I "criticize ceaselessly".


Or shall we draw inferences from your statements that you don't believe your relationship could ever equal a marriage, to point to darker shadows in your opinions of gays?

Or you could draw the inference that I, being a practical sort, recognize that there are profound differences in biology, psychology, and societal impact between heterosexual and homosexual couples that justify dealing with them differently.

This is possible because I am not of the mind that recognizing difference makes matters "unequal".


After all you are saying that the real and legal marriages of your fellow gays are meaningless pieces of paper that should be ignored and that any of them with children are only playacting to the detriment of their offspring? Or perhaps you are saying that straights who adopt children are not true parents either?

As the case of Eric Erbelding and his marriage shows, a marriage certificate did nothing to produce responsibility in him. Since he ignores it, why should it not be similarly ignored -- and since it has been demonstrated to be ineffective in producing responsibility, what logic is there in having it?

Meanwhile, I notice that society gives first priority to the biological parents and does not arbitrarily strip parents of their children to give to others to adopt unless the biological parents are absent or patently unfit. Hence, that should make it obvious that adoptive parents are not the same or valued similarly as biological parents. Does that make them inferior? It depends on the situation; if the choice is between abandonment and adoption, adoption wins, but if it's between reasonably-fit biological and adoptive parents, biological wins.

Furthermore, gay parents who take their children to sex fairs to "show off" and for an "educational experience" are quite obviously playacting as parents. Why should it not be called out as such?


Leaves me once again chuckling at your weak grasp of protocol and a concern for the workers under your HR care. Should they strip if their boss orders them too?

The irony is, of course, that a couple of years ago, the kitchen staff was ordered to do just that -- because, as it turned out, they were smuggling in bags of meth under their clothes.

My profession does not obligate me to protect people engaging in crimes, just as my sexual orientation does not obligate me to protect children who are being deliberately disobedient and disruptive.

And that leads us to this.

I hope it wins you brownie points with your self described gay hating family cause you've not won a friend here.

You assume that I would want a "friend" who badmouths me, who badmouths my relationship, who badmouths how I do my job, who implies I'm not a real gay, since I don't think the way he does, and who ultimately badmouths my family.

Sorry, but all those things are more important to me than fulfilling someone else's expectation of how I "should" behave based on my sexual orientation.

Pat said...

So how exactly did he out her, if she herself was telling people?

You're kidding, right? First of all, I don't know if she was telling people. We've seen various ways where people can figure out someone else's orientation, or guess and happen to be correct. But let's go ahead an assume that she did tell people.

What surprises me is how you are now defending people like Michael Rogers. Every person he outed has outed themselves to others, certainly at least to the people they were having sex with. In other words, it's a hell of a difference when someone other than oneself outs one. How you can defend this despicable action alone is beyond me.

Indeed they do, and it is nice.

Why does that bother you so much?


Actually, it doesn't bother me. I did find it amusing though and your use of the word respect. Respect shouldn't be confused with unwarranted submission. I just imagined the following exchange.

Coworker: NDT, I don't want you using the same water fountain that I do. I don't want to catch your "disease."

NDT: I respect your wishes. I'll use the water fountain in the next building, after, of course, I make sure it's okay that gay people use it.

I just don't see the big deal in either situation under normal circumstances. If people start using bathrooms or water fountains other than their intended and accepted purposes, only then do we need to make a big deal out of it.

Or I simply fail to leap to the conclusion that gay and lesbian people like Bonnie Bleskachek wish.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but it doesn't explain the soft spot that you have for Davis.

On the other hand, with Bleskavich, you didn't give a tepid disapproval and blame her victims. When there was a chorus of condemnation for her, you didn't call out any lynch mob. You didn't quote John Adams saying how Bleskavich needed to be defended.

Look over yourself your reaction to the reprehensible behaviors of Davis and Bleskavich. I consistently unequivocably condemned both behaviors. You've unequivocally condemned Bleskavich, but showed a soft spot for Davis.

Suppose this was the situation instead. Davis was a principal who was gay. He hates Christianity and instead of keeping his bigotry to himself, he takes it upon himself to tell students of his views. He counsels a student to tell him how Christianity is wrong and that he should keep his religious preferences to himself. He even calls a student's parents to tell them about his religion. Other students show solidarity for Christian students. Davis then tells students that they are not allowed to bring or wear anything that identifies with Christianity. In fact, to make sure, he lifts the shirts of all the boys to make sure they are not wearing crucifixes.

If your reaction would be the same for both situations, at least you're being consistent, and I can agree to disagree.

North Dallas Thirty said...

If your reaction would be the same for both situations, at least you're being consistent, and I can agree to disagree.

The reason my reaction would be the same, Pat, is because I see no reason for students to be disruptive and use religion as an excuse for it, just as I see no reason for students to use being gay as an excuse for it.


I'm not sure what you mean here, but it doesn't explain the soft spot that you have for Davis.

Simply put, Bleskachek tried to argue that she shouldn't be investigated and that the people who were doing so were homophobic and sexist.

In short, I don't always believe that the straight person is wrong because a gay person tells me they are.


What surprises me is how you are now defending people like Michael Rogers.

Please note what I originally stated when the question of outing first came up, Pat.

Furthermore, I find it hilarious that a supporter of outing such as yourself is so incensed when a principal does it.

Defending, no. Pointing out that this is a logical consequence of the outing that the gay community has been doing in the name of "gay pride", yes.

Or, as Mr. Miyagi so elegantly and ironically put it at the beginning of Karate Kid II: "Mercy is for the weak... when man confronts you, he is enemy..... enemy deserve no mercy."

Pat said...

The reason my reaction would be the same, Pat, is because I see no reason for students to be disruptive and use religion as an excuse for it, just as I see no reason for students to use being gay as an excuse for it.

You would be okay with a principal telling students that they may not wear crucifixes, and then looking up their shirts to make sure? Okay, fair enough.

I also said that, under normal circumstances, students should follow orders. But this principal sense of rationality was way out there, it should be no surprise that students were disruptive. Heck, student disruption occurs even when orders are rational. Regardless, the principal's actions under either scenario are reprehensible and indefensible in my book. Obviously, we view this differently, and I'll leave it at that.

Simply put, Bleskachek tried to argue that she shouldn't be investigated and that the people who were doing so were homophobic and sexist.

Of all the crap she pulled, I wouldn't be surprised that she would try that. Besides, I wouldn't leave it up to the target of an investigation whether or not they should be investigated. If Davis, on the other hand, was "willing" to be investigated as if this is a big concession, that only gets a big "so what?" from me.

Defending, no. Pointing out that this is a logical consequence of the outing that the gay community has been doing in the name of "gay pride", yes.

??? Okay. I'll just attribute this to a gross logical misstep on your part then.

Or, as Mr. Miyagi so elegantly and ironically put it at the beginning of Karate Kid II: "Mercy is for the weak... when man confronts you, he is enemy..... enemy deserve no mercy."

Unless it's Mr. Davis, I suppose.