High School Newspaper Editorial Condones Executing Gays

[singtopher]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 10:00pm

"Ah, high school journalism programs. They offer a venue for budding young writers to get their feet wet in the world of reporting. They also offer ample opportunities to stick a big, wet, ginormous foot in your mouth.

Case in point, in my junior year of high school, I tried to argue that the Red Hot Chili Peppers were a better band than The Beatles. Perhaps I might have misjudged just how much pop culture influence the Chili Peppers would have on this world. But whatever, I've tried to put that article "Under the Bridge." (Heyoo!)

But it's not like I wrote an article that suggested it would be moral to execute an entire population of students. Yet that's exactly what happened in Wichita East High School in Kansas, where a student got the green light to author an editorial, and have it published in the school's newspaper (The Messenger), that said same-sex relationships were not normal, and then quoted from a Leviticus translation that says men who lie with other men should get the death penalty.

So much for creating a learning environment where all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, can feel respected and safe. In Wichita East High School, you can just get on the Internet or open up a copy of The Messenger and be told that you're not normal, and that some people think it's moral to have you killed.

The article, "Homosexual Teens Alienated By Current Societal Trends," is still available online here. (Here's a PDF in case they take it down.) That's also somewhat of an ironic headline, given that the tenor and tone of the article itself does quite a job of alienating LGBT students.

Among the points that the student author makes: "[Same-sex relationships] relationships just are not normal. One thing to notice is that there is legislation against homosexual marriage. However, there are no legislative restrictions to same-sex dating. Dating does often lead to marriage, so same-sex dating should be frowned upon."

And while that's offensive, it barely compares to this nugget: "Same-sex dating in high school is not accepted by many, despite the efforts of a few. It is a social disruption in many cases, and should be kept out of school to ensure our educational mission with as little of a distraction as possible."

Then comes the Leviticus nugget that anti-gay activists have been using for decades to justify discrimination and violence toward LGBT people: "Also, less commonly cited, is the death penalty called for in another Bible verse, Leviticus 20:13, 'If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.' These are the most common arguments against homosexual marriage and/or dating."

Uh, so what faculty member in charge of overseeing the student newspaper allowed this to be printed? And why hasn't the school issued a retraction, or at least pledged to publish an op-ed by someone readily prepared to argue that when schools fail to be inclusive of LGBT students, bullying, suicide and violence run rampant?

A local television station, KSN-TV, ran a segment on the article, and interviewed a number of parents and students who were not only outraged that such an article would be printed in a student newspaper, but angry that the student newspaper doesn't have appropriate oversight to make sure that articles condoning violence toward a particular population don't get printed.

And sure, some are arguing that this is a free speech issue, and that the student has every right to have an article calling LGBT people abnormal printed by the student newspaper. But that's a hard argument to buy. Would the student newspaper allow an article to be printed that suggested people of color are inferior to white people? That women aren't as smart as men? That disabled people can't compete with able-bodied people?

Perhaps it's not even worth debating hypotheticals. Perhaps it's just worth reminding ourselves that teachers, principals and educators have a responsibility to make sure that all of their students are treated with dignity, and free from harassment. Folks at Wichita East High School failed to do that here, by letting this editorial run. Sure, the student has every right to these beliefs. But to put them before the entire school? Talk about sending a dangerous and marginalizing message.

Send the folks at Wichita East High School a message that they should take steps to address the damage that this article may have caused. For starters, they can run an article in their next issue that talks about the importance of safe schools, and why it's absolutely necessary to talk about LGBT issues inside the classroom. Second, they can pledge to send a school-wide message that harassment targeted toward LGBT students or those perceived to be LGBT is never acceptable, whether in the hallways, or in the pages of the school's student newspaper."



http://news.change.org/stories/kansas-high-school-newspaper-says-its-moral-to-execute-gays#share_source=blog-top_fb

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 11:24pm

What's most offensive is how badly written it is, but I don't necessarily think the change.org article is on point with the tack it's taking, which reads a little breathless and hysterical. I'm not sure - misguided as the editorial is - that the inclusion of the Leviticus verses is saying it's moral to execute gays.

The kid who wrote the editorial is an idiot, to be sure, but I didn't read the editorial as a call to violence, or even a justification of violence.

Updated On: 2/17/11 at 11:24 PM

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 11:48pm

The Editors have posted a response.
Editorial Response

[bethnor]

Posted: 2/18/11 at 10:21am

it is very poorly written, but it doesn't seem to espouse any point of view until the very last sentence (probably in an attempt, by the writer, to sound as "neutral" about the subject as possible).

jones is quite incorrect, however; it is a free speech issue (though the supreme court has ruled in the past that minors can be deprived of those right, IIRC). the point about publishing articles suggesting racial or gender inequality is not apt; people don't write those sort of things nowadays precisely because we have elevated our social consciousness to the point where they aren't acceptable and people (for the most part) don't feel the need to write editorials about it, and would only do so at the risk of ridicule.

the reason why it is a free speech issue is that if you censor this person, you run the risk of censoring your ability to use free speech to resist it, to run a counterpoint.

which, i think, represents a good opportunity for someone at that school to do, and would go something like this: leviticus (nor the rest of the bible) is not the word of the divine, or a revelation, but the ramblings of illiterate sheepherders. the reader would do well to remember that shepherds raise sheep not because they love them, but rather to fleece or consume them. as such, while we can study it as literature, it cannot be used as law by which we can or should bind our fellow human. while we cannot be certain of anything regarding the existence of a diety, we can be 100% certain of this: this is the only lifetime we know we get (i.e., if someone gets a "second peek," they are not aware of it). we should be allowed, and therefore allow our fellow human, to live it to the fullest, so long as it harms no other. therefore, the christian (or any other monotheistic) injunction for people to live their lives alone and celibate for the remainder of their days simply for being born as they are is evil, immoral, and inhumane in the highest, as their only reward for doing so, that we are aware of, is to die alone and celibate.
Updated On: 2/18/11 at 10:21 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/18/11 at 11:43am

I think my biggest issue with the student's article is this:

"Not only is this a big controversy in the adult media, but also is prominent with the teenage population, as many homosexual students have to suffer insults and jibes by ignorant teens."

He characterizes homosexuals as victims and the bullies as ignorant. Then he goes on to hypothesize that Leviticus may be the cause of the bullying and victimization. But he never address the ignorance, which is the cherry-picking of Leviticus. He only offers the opinion that same-sex relationships are not normal, are disruptive to students, and should not exist openly in school. He doesn't state one way or another regarding violence against homosexuals, but he definitely straddled the fence before eventually falling on the side of the condemnation of homosexuals.

Moron.