Gay High
- Thread starter Joe DeFuria
- Start date
Dr. Ffreeze
Regular
Natomi,
Please read the below:
Some metric, no. Discrimination (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation), yes. Plain and simple. =)
Dr. Ffreeze
Please read the below:
Some metric, no. Discrimination (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation), yes. Plain and simple. =)
Dr. Ffreeze
nggalai said:
Public schools in the NYC school system have a P.S. designation and representatives from the Education Board and the Teachers Union, not to mention answer to the Education Board.
Harvey Milk is a private school that receives public funding. It is classified as a public school by Hetrick Martin because they receive public funding now, but it is by definition a private school.
Dr. Ffreeze said:
Indeed. Yet this is not simply a black and white issue or else you wouldn't have things such as athletic scholarships or other "discriminatory" funding that make the argument murky. Not to mention instances of schools that cater, for instance, to the blind that are by their very nature "discriminatory" due to who they cater to, yet receive public funding.
sorry Vince didn't see your post.
my
was to emphasize that I didn't really want to go into details on how to test!but it does raise a serious consideration though, it's easy to qualify for a ballet school, a single-sex school (tranvestites?), a jewish school etc as it's easy to quantify the requirements.
but a school for homosexuals, lesbians etc? I'm actually interested whether they have qualifying tests and the means to which they go about this....
Natoma it was a stupid example yes and I'm not saying it's a valid one. I know there are non-israeli jews... did I specify israeli? anyway don't want to get off topic like the other thread just did (now 2 threads regarding this school! )
edit: and was just locked
)edit: and was just locked
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Oh, but gay marriage is?
Again, those are all "ability" type scholarships. Awarded based on some performance metric relative to the position.
(We can have an entire side-subject on athletics in higher education, and I do agree that the current system is flawed....)
The point is, they are non discriminitory based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. All of the things that we say "make no difference" wrt to equal treatment.
You can't have it both ways. You can't insist on "equality in the eyes of government" wrt to sexual orientation, and at the same time support preferential treatment, "because it's different".
And public buildings are required to be handicap accessible too, I believe. These are physical handicaps for which it can be argued deserve some level of preferential treatment to give access.
I don't recall the homosexual lobby arguing that sexual orientation, in and of itself, is a dabilitaing condition or handicap of some sort. Quite the opposite, right?
Oh come off with the bad analogies. A school for the blind receiving public money is quite a bit different than a school for gays, male, female, whites, blacks or fat people only. Not to mention the fact that I doubt that anyone would want to attend one who wasn't blind.
Surely you can see that public funds for disabilities or mental illnesses is all together a different ballpark.
Merit based institutions like the ballet school or ones that cater to say science or the arts are also quite a bit different, they don't discriminate based on criteria that a person has no control over (like race or sex).
Surely you can see that public funds for disabilities or mental illnesses is all together a different ballpark.
Merit based institutions like the ballet school or ones that cater to say science or the arts are also quite a bit different, they don't discriminate based on criteria that a person has no control over (like race or sex).
I can see the difference. But the same arguments can be made against schools for the blind, unisex schools, etc. Also, you doubt that anyone would want to attend a blind school who wasn't blind. How many heterosexual students do you see lining up to attend a gay school?
This is the basic breakdown.
Harvey Milk is a school funded by private money from the Hetrick Martin Institute and other backers, which serviced about 50 gay students who experienced debilitating (not dabilitaing joe.) levels of abuse (physical/mental/emotional) in their high schools. The school was founded in the mid to late 80's and has to date existed entirely on private funding.
The NYC government in recent months decided to assist HMI and the other backers to fund Harvey Milk, allowing it to expand to 150 student capacity (roughly the size of my high school when I attended). Personally I don't know why this occurred but I also have no issue with it.
If you have an issue with NYC providing funds to Harvey Milk, then take it up with NYC. I don't have any problem with it, others do. Logical and plausible arguments can be made for and against this funding, as they have been. However, I also don't feel like going around in circles for another 15 pages stating, restating, and restating again my position, and hearing the same voices do the same on their end.
This is the basic breakdown.
Harvey Milk is a school funded by private money from the Hetrick Martin Institute and other backers, which serviced about 50 gay students who experienced debilitating (not dabilitaing joe.
) levels of abuse (physical/mental/emotional) in their high schools. The school was founded in the mid to late 80's and has to date existed entirely on private funding.The NYC government in recent months decided to assist HMI and the other backers to fund Harvey Milk, allowing it to expand to 150 student capacity (roughly the size of my high school when I attended). Personally I don't know why this occurred but I also have no issue with it.
If you have an issue with NYC providing funds to Harvey Milk, then take it up with NYC. I don't have any problem with it, others do. Logical and plausible arguments can be made for and against this funding, as they have been. However, I also don't feel like going around in circles for another 15 pages stating, restating, and restating again my position, and hearing the same voices do the same on their end.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
No, it's not in this case.
How many "bullied" students would want to attend a school that perports to have an environment free of such things? The school's mission:
And yet, it only offers this "safe and supportive environment" based on sexual orientation / identity.
Yes, you've repeated this mantra several times already, and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
We're taking it up here. That's not OK?
Glad to hear you admit this much.
We know your position. You've been trying to support it the last 8 pages and others have been debunking it. You can continue to try and support it, and we'll continue to try and debunk it. But yes, you can cease re-stating your position, as you can the largely irrelevant "history lesson" on the school.
natoma your grasping at straws. You want a gay school, fine. Dont take public funds. (or taken them in the form of school vouchers). You mentioned why have schools for atheletes, blind people, smart people, musically talented people, ballet dancers,....
These school do not discriminate because they do take anyone regardless of race, gender, sexual prefrence. Since they have a limited supply of seats/funds they do have to make the choice of picking the most talented or whose needs are greatest.
The gay school does discriminate based on sexual prefrence. The Citadael was forced to allow women in because they took public funds. The arguemnent was that once you take money you have to conform to some (govermnent) standard. Since the gay school has now taken public funds, if they dont have an open door policy to allow anyone in then they should also be sued into submission or give up the public funds.
I know you will say/do anything to further your agenda, but common, lets not start teaching discrimination at such an early age. It would have been better to start a school for people who have been abused, severly mistreated, or had continuous violence done onto them. Regardless of your race, religion, sexual prefrence, gender,... Since you assume gays are the majority of these cases the school would have leaned towards being a semi-quasi gay school, but at least it would not be official and govermnet sectioned.
just my 2 cents
epic
These school do not discriminate because they do take anyone regardless of race, gender, sexual prefrence. Since they have a limited supply of seats/funds they do have to make the choice of picking the most talented or whose needs are greatest.
The gay school does discriminate based on sexual prefrence. The Citadael was forced to allow women in because they took public funds. The arguemnent was that once you take money you have to conform to some (govermnent) standard. Since the gay school has now taken public funds, if they dont have an open door policy to allow anyone in then they should also be sued into submission or give up the public funds.
I know you will say/do anything to further your agenda, but common, lets not start teaching discrimination at such an early age. It would have been better to start a school for people who have been abused, severly mistreated, or had continuous violence done onto them. Regardless of your race, religion, sexual prefrence, gender,... Since you assume gays are the majority of these cases the school would have leaned towards being a semi-quasi gay school, but at least it would not be official and govermnet sectioned.
just my 2 cents
epic
I never said that gays are the majority of the abused. I said that the founders of this school began it because of abuse against gay students. The original and continuing message of this school is outreach for abused gay students. The only difference between now and last year, or the past 20 for that matter, is that this school for abused gay and lesbian students is now receiving NYC funds. From the very beginning, without public funds, the school was "discriminatory" toward abused gay students. If you think this is an issue because it is now receiving public funding, then that's understandable. However, I don't see it as an issue.
Again the school was created for abused gay students. That is the original mission of the school. If the NYC government would like to change that mission to encompass all abused students, then they can use the funding they're receiving now to hire qualified personnel. Until then, they are qualified to handle only the particular cases that have been stated, and I see nothing wrong with that. This school isn't just a regular school for specifically gay kids. It's an abuse center that happens to provide an education for those abused gay kids. There is a difference.
Again the school was created for abused gay students. That is the original mission of the school. If the NYC government would like to change that mission to encompass all abused students, then they can use the funding they're receiving now to hire qualified personnel. Until then, they are qualified to handle only the particular cases that have been stated, and I see nothing wrong with that. This school isn't just a regular school for specifically gay kids. It's an abuse center that happens to provide an education for those abused gay kids. There is a difference.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
And that's fine.
Outreach is one thing. Actually admitting gay students who have not been abused in a way that you described earlier is something else.
Again, where are the admission requirements that you must have suffered some "non trivial" type of abuse, to be admitted to this school?
Is over 3 million dollars in public funds.
Agree to disagree. But then, you've been in favor of publically supported discrimination in favor of minority groups before.
It's not understandable to me, that one can favor discrimination on one hand, and then rattle off the dangers and "wrongness" of discrimination and segregation against those same groups.
Yes, There is a difference between
1) a "school for gays"
2) "school for abused kids who are gay."
and also
3) "School for kids who are gay, who by someone's definition means that they are inherently abused."
What you have not established is that the current practice of the school defines it as number 2. That may have been the case in the past. What about now?
I certainly agree it's not number 1 right now. But it seems to me that it's more like number 3.
And in all 3 cases, it is discriminatory in favor of sexual preference. This again, strikes me as a highly hypocritical viewpoint, coming from someone who champions "equal treatment irrespective of sexual orientation."
Joe DeFuria said:
Where did I describe admitting gay students who haven't been abused? I don't recall ever doing that.
Wrt the admission requirements, I'm relaying what I know from my own personal experience while speaking with the faculty and students at the school. And that is they only admit students who have been horrifically abused in their school environment.
Joe DeFuria said:
It depends on whether or not you see this as discrimination. Again, I see this as a center for abused gay kids that also happens to provide a safe and supportive schooling environment for those kids.
If a center for abused fat kids opened up and they also happened to have a school which provided a safe and supportive schooling environment for those kids, I wouldn't have an issue with that either.
However, if the NYC Board of Education specifically created a school for gay students only, irregardless of the situation, then I would have an issue with that because that would be inherently unfair. But this is a different scenario than what is currently in existence on Astor Place.
Joe DeFuria said:
I can only speak on what I know. And what I know comes directly from the administrators, faculty, and students at Hetrick Martin on Astor Place. What they state is in line directly with #2.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Did I say you described that? I don't recall so.
I'm saying I don't see anywhere on the web site that even makes that condition of "being horrificially absused" any type of basis for admission.
And even if that's true, that remains the case with this "expansion?"
Of course it is.
I don't care how you "see it." It is discrimination. This is a fact...assuming some type of "sexual orientation condition" is a requiremnent for admission. That is the definition of descrimination based on sexual orientation.
There's no mutual exclusivity here. You can see it as a "center for abused gay kids that also happens to provide a safe and supportive schooling environment for those kids", and that doesn't change the fact that it is for gay kids (sexually discrimintory by definition).
It's not a question of being discriminitory or not. It is. The questions are:
1) Why do you think discrimination when public funds are involved is justified in this case. (Which I think you have already given your reasons.)
2) Is it constitutional? (Which you haven't addressed.) I say no.
I would...if they're using public funds for it.
I would have less of a probelm (not sure if I'd have any problem) if they opened up a center / school for "abused kids", upon which the entrance criteria was, shock, level of abuse. And nothing to do with the REASON for the abuse, certainly not with respect to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation....
Irregardless of the situation, the school discriminates based on sexual orientation. That's why it is wrong. It is inherently unfair that this school exists for abused gay kids, and not abused kids.
I don't know how you cannot see that.
Had this school started as a center for abused gay kids, and is now EXPANDING to be a "center for abused kids...gay or not", THAT would be different.
And I can only speak on what I know, which comes directly from their web-site, which makes no mention of that at all, nor has any of the press coverage on this noted that.
Joe DeFuria said:
Misread.
Joe DeFuria said:
Probably comes up in the mandatory interviews. I don't know the process' ins and outs, just what I've been told. You can email them and ask if you're curious though.
Joe DeFuria said:
I don't know. I never thought about it frankly because this expansion and any potential aftereffects just came to my knowledge a couple of days ago.
Joe DeFuria said:
There are publicly funded centers for abused women that also provides shelter for those abused women if they wish to leave their abusive spouses. They are all over NYC. Is this necessarily discrimination against abused males? I don't see it as such. I see it as an extension of a core service provided to a particular sect of people.
Joe DeFuria said:
Yea I answered #1. #2 however is another one that I never gave thought to. I'll get back to you on that one. The only thing I can think of on that particular is the scenario I brought up earlier wrt centers for abused women that also provide shelter for those abused women, but no one else but the people they're servicing, i.e. abused women only.
Joe DeFuria said:
Understandable that you see it as such. Then again, the press also covered this in a manner that it appeared that it was NYC that was creating this all new school just for gay kids, when that is a completely disingenuous interpretation of the reality of the situation.
I had to correct nggalai on this as that is the interpretation garnered in his home country. So I can understand as well why you would believe that the only criteria for this is gay kids and mentions nothing about abuse. I wouldn't be able to answer why the website makes no mention of it. I didn't design it, nor did I write the copy for it. I can only relay what I know from personal interactions with the center goers and the administrators and faculty.
