Homophobia run amok

[Judy G. Russell]

The high school year books at East Side High School in Newark NJ were distributed to students on Thursday night. In them were lots of different photos, including student-submitted photos, and especially -- on pages bought and paid for by the students themselves -- including lots of photos of couples. Some of the couples were kissing. And all of those photos were allowed to stand.

All, that is, except one.

And it happened to be a photo of two young men.

According to the Newark Star Ledger:Newark Superintendent of Schools Marion Bolden called the photograph "illicit" and ordered it blacked out of the $85 yearbook before it was distributed to students at a banquet for graduating seniors Thursday.

"It looked provocative," she said. "If it was either heterosexual or gay, it should have been blacked out. It's how they posed for the picture."

Russell Garris, the assistant superintendent who oversees the city's high schools, brought the photograph to Bolden's attention Thursday afternoon. He was concerned the picture would be controversial and upsetting to parents, Bolden said.

There are several photos of heterosexual couples kissing in the yearbook, but the superintendent said she didn't review the entire yearbook and was presented only with Jackson's page.Wanna see this "provocative" photo that was so bad it had to be blacked out even while lots of other photos of couples kissing were allowed? Check it out. It's below.

Sigh... can we say "ridiculous", boys and girls? How about "gross discrimination"?

[Gail]

Sigh... can we say "ridiculous", boys and girls? How about "gross discrimination"?

Hmmmmm. Looks like a lawsuit looking for a place to happen. Know a good lawyer? ;)

[Judy G. Russell]

Hmmmmm. Looks like a lawsuit looking for a place to happen. Know a good lawyer? ;)I think I might be able to come up with one or two... But I feel so sorry for those kids. At a minimum, they are owed (a) a reprinting of the yearbook; and (b) an official apology. I hope the school board steps in and does so immediately, if not sooner.

[Jeff]

Someone has no bloody business being anywhere near a school, much less "in charge" of them.

- Jeff

[Judy G. Russell]

Someone has no bloody business being anywhere near a school, much less "in charge" of them. Ain't that the truth... I sure hope the Board of Education steps in ... fast ... and does something to (a) make this right for the students and (b) take action against this idiot.

[Lindsey]

If they had any pictures in that yearbook from a school dance, I strongly suspect at least some of those would be a good deal more "provocative" than the one the superintendent saw fit to black out.

I went to the Waffle House one night about a month ago after gettting in on a late flight from the west coast. It was 1 a.m. by the time I got out of the airport, I hadn't had any supper beyond the crackers they served on the plane, and the Waffle House was the only thing still open at that hour.

Not long after I sat down, some kids from the local high school started drifting in after what must have been their prom. Most of the girls looked like streetwalkers -- many of their dresses were so tight that they may as well have been completely naked.

If the school systems are OK with that, why get upset about a fairly innocuous picture? If some parents get upset about that one picture to the exclusion of anything else, well -- they should be told to get over it. I'd bet some of them would be upset about pictures of an interracial couple kissing, too. Is the school system going to black those pictures out as well?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

If they had any pictures in that yearbook from a school dance, I strongly suspect at least some of those would be a good deal more "provocative" than the one the superintendent saw fit to black out.Absolutely. The high school dance today ain't quite what it was in our day (says the old fart...).

If some parents get upset about that one picture to the exclusion of anything else, well -- they should be told to get over it. I'd bet some of them would be upset about pictures of an interracial couple kissing, too. Is the school system going to black those pictures out as well?Of course not. This was homophobia plain and simple. And that superintendent needs some serious mind-changing.

[Jeff]

Absolutely. The high school dance today ain't quite what it was in our day (says the old fart...).

Of course not. This was homophobia plain and simple. And that superintendent needs some serious mind-changing.

Last evening I watched the original 1955 "Blackboard Jungle". Glenn Ford was the (star) teacher and the location (from the overhead L tracks) was Chicago, both of which while interesting are of no importance. The background for the opening rolling credits is an outdoor asphalt basketball court. After about a minute and a half the credits stopped and the camera simply kept panning around looking at the kids, two of whom were jitterbugging in the background. One black, one white, and both boys. In 1955. What did we know then that we don't know now?

- Jeff

[Judy G. Russell]

What did we know then that we don't know now?When things kids do should be left alone?

[Mike]

<sigh>

I hadn't heard about that one yet.

Someone deserves his head on a platter.

[jdh]

(says the old fart...).
As an old foggy, I have to admit that I am still full of adolescent pride and rebellion, but I am not proud of it. Therefore I try to suppress it, for example, by trying not to talk like them. I don't particularly like to eat a sandwich in front of other people when I'm not in a dining area. I suspect that the situation with popular culture has become ever more like the tail wagging the dog. I don't particularly want money and hormones (tail) to become more totalitarian than they always have been.

I was ticked off by the photography studio ads on the local school district channel on TV marketing their services by having a large proportion of their sample poses flash on the TV screen during the commercial showing young women, presumably high schools students lying supine on the beach and elsewhere gazing seductively , I suppose, into the lens. I assume that this is kosher A-OK all the way because the so called sexual liberation of society has liberated women to talk dirty, etc. So why the f weren't there any pictures of guys lying on their backs? I thought the theory was that biology had been abolished by politics and there is no difference between men and women (except perhaps that now women are supposed to be on top so the guy is supine?).

A lot of teen agers are hypocrites like the rest of us, just because a person is older or younger than another person doesn't justify imitating bad behavior. But I suppose mom and dad probably had hard core porn videos readily available in the house to keep up with society and juice their hormones, so that after viewing the videos when mom and dad were out of the house, the kids ought to think necking anywhere in public is required protocol.

I suspect that most of the aboriginal tribes are equally or more highly civilized than us (although there is a lot of variability out there culturally).

Signing myself as %$# 'd off,

DH

[Judy G. Russell]

Signing myself as %$# 'd off,Although I'm sure it's way too late to put that particular genie back in the bottle, I have to say that it wouldn't bother me one bit if we took a lot of sex, violence and swearing out of the public eye. I don't think it's fun to have to explain the bumperstickers to my six-year-old nephew, and most of what's on television I find crude. And frankly all of the "erectile dysfunction" advertising I see around everywhere these days is every bit as offensive as the rest of it.

However, the issue here is not whether photos of two kids kissing is or isn't appropriate for a high school year book. The issue is whether, having allowed heterosexual kissing in a high school year book, the school superintendent can black out one photo she thought was "provocative"... and was of a homosexual couple.

[jdh]

Although I'm sure it's way too late to put that particular genie back in the bottle, I have to say that it wouldn't bother me one bit if we took a lot of sex, violence and swearing out of the public eye. I don't think it's fun to have to explain the bumperstickers to my six-year-old nephew, and most of what's on television I find crude. And frankly all of the "erectile dysfunction" advertising I see around everywhere these days is every bit as offensive as the rest of it.

However, the issue here is not whether photos of two kids kissing is or isn't appropriate for a high school year book. The issue is whether, having allowed heterosexual kissing in a high school year book, the school superintendent can black out one photo she thought was "provocative"... and was of a homosexual couple.

I say "dip them all in cold water" homo & hetero.

DH

[Judy G. Russell]

I say "dip them all in cold water" homo & hetero.And I wouldn't object to that. It was the discriminatory action of allowing some while censoring one that's the problem here. And, fortunately, though I'm not sure it's enough, the schools chief realizes she blew it:
In response to controversy surrounding a decision to black out the photograph of a gay couple kissing in East Side High School's yearbook while leaving pictures of heterosexual couples untouched, Newark Public School officials have decided to reissue the book to students interested in an unedited copy.

According to a statement released this morning, Superintendent Marion A. Bolden will personally apologize to Andre Jackson, the student whose photo was blacked out with a marker.

Bolden "regrets any embarrassment and unwanted attention the matter has brought to (Jackson)," reads the statement. "The District takes pride in its diverse student population and supports all our students, regardless of race, gender, ethnic background or sexual orientation."

Thursday while Jackson and others waited to receive their yearbooks at a senior banquet, school staff sat blacking out a photo of him kissing his boyfriend David Escobales. There were other photos of heterosexual couples kissing elsewhere in the book.

Last week Bolden said she made the decision to black out Jackson's photo because it was provocative, illicit and inappropriate for a yearbook. She acknowledged she hadn't seen the pictures of heterosexual couples kissing but said the decision to redact Jackson's photo wasn't homophobic

According to today's statement Bolden's decision was also "based, in part, on misinformation that Mr. Jackson was not one of our students and our review simply focused on the suggestive nature of the photograph."

Again, this isn't really enough in my view. The fact is, this woman acted on ONE photo and didn't even look to see what the others were like.

[jdh]

And I wouldn't object to that. It was the discriminatory action of allowing some while censoring one that's the problem here. And, fortunately, though I'm not sure it's enough, the schools chief realizes she blew it:


Again, this isn't really enough in my view. The fact is, this woman acted on ONE photo and didn't even look to see what the others were like.

Second thought:

Instead of dip in cold water,

4 graduated levels of price for supplemental photographs added to standard mug shots in yearbook:

1. mug shot, no extra charge

2. extra pictures of non-romantic nature minimal extra charge

3. romantic non-pornographic (homo and hetero) $100 extra per

4. soft porn $500 extra per

5. hard core $1000 extra per

with 3 thru 5 in tear out section for trash disposal and/or separate filing

That way the social and sexual climbers can strut their stuff in-your-face and the run of the mill folks can get a discount on the books with the extra income from the romantic and porn pix.

They could even put soft and hard porn on an optional CD in a sleeve inside the cover.

That way everybody can be happy.

DH

P.S.

Plus let the students have x number of tries to throw the ball to hit the paddle lever to release the seat over the cold water so that the admin sitting on it falls into the cold water, if the students are good baseball pitchers.

Or invite some aborigines from tropical jungles to throw the balls and the extra income from the pix can pay for the air fare so that those poor folks will have opportunity to appreciate our advanced culture.

[Judy G. Russell]

Second thoughtA bit too complicated... and still not focused on what the problem here was.

[jdh]

A bit too complicated... and still not focused on what the problem here was.
Correct, instead of trying to discourage young people, the whole boatload of them, from anti-social behavior and from the promotion of the spread of STD's equally, regardless of sexual orientation, we must always insure that everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, has an equal right and opportunity to behave badly in a provocative in-your-face manner. The best policy is always to make everybody afraid of being taken to court in a case probably actually a setup by agent provocateurs who don't give a damn about having a memory of a sweet moment captured on the page. Lets guarantee that everybody has an equal right to provoke conflict, esp. young adults and minors. Too bad they couldn't erase (punish) all the photos of hetero kissing couples and leave just the one same sex couple, because it would generate even more anti-gay backlash. Too bad, because the hetero couples deserve punishment in my mind. Of course, any punishment would merely result in additional rebellion of the heteros. Can't win with teen agers. I know, I was (am) one. If you think about the dysfunctional hetero families to result from such licentious attitudes and the havoc from the couple dozen different now widespread STD's over the next decade for current HS graduates, who knows, maybe/probably worse than the deaths and injuries to be caused from their alcohol binging and drunken driving.

Since my graduation from my college alma mater 40 years ago, a tradition of drinking yourself to death later developed to celebrate end of spring semester exams. Now they have to dispatch extra police to patrol the open air drinking parties to carry the comatose off to the hospital to save them from dying. Sort of like living in a cartoon (nightmare). Better off if they went to pick veggies with migrant laborers for a day, to see a real world.

Phooey,

DH

[Lindsey]

Again, this isn't really enough in my view. The fact is, this woman acted on ONE photo and didn't even look to see what the others were like.
Agreed, but as you said, it is at least something that she's willing to admit that she handled it badly and is apologizing to the student involved. (Only one was named, but there were two people in the picture -- maybe the other one was not a student? Not that that should preclude an apology.)

--Lindsey

[Mike]

I say "dip them all in cold water" homo & hetero.
Speaking for those of the homosexual persuasion, we really don't mind straight people. We just wish they wouldn't act that way in public.

[Judy G. Russell]

Correct, instead of trying to discourage young people, the whole boatload of them, from anti-social behavior and from the promotion of the spread of STD's equally, regardless of sexual orientation, we must always insure that everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, has an equal right and opportunity to behave badly in a provocative in-your-face manner.It wouldn't have bothered me in the least if they had taken steps against all provocative in-your-face photos by all the kids. Singling out one group, however??? No. It's wrong. No matter how you cut it, it's wrong.[/QUOTE]

[Judy G. Russell]

Agreed, but as you said, it is at least something that she's willing to admit that she handled it badly and is apologizing to the student involved. (Only one was named, but there were two people in the picture -- maybe the other one was not a student? Not that that should preclude an apology.)An apology is better than no apology, but...

[Judy G. Russell]

Speaking for those of the homosexual persuasion, we really don't mind straight people. We just wish they wouldn't act that way in public.ROFL!!!! And it's a sure bet there are more of us folk acting out in public than of you folk!

[jdh]

I figured out another way for the youngsters to act up.

The greek fraternities in colleges could haze the pledges by requiring the pledges to take and hold the hand of any brother or pledge when walking and/or talking together outdoors on campus.

DH

[Judy G. Russell]

I figured out another way for the youngsters to act up. The greek fraternities in colleges could haze the pledges by requiring the pledges to take and hold the hand of any brother or pledge when walking and/or talking together outdoors on campus.Ooooooh, how terrible! I mean, after all, boys never ever hold the hands of (gasp) girls while walking and/or talking together outdoors on campus, do they???

[jdh]

Ooooooh, how terrible! I mean, after all, boys never ever hold the hands of (gasp) girls while walking and/or talking together outdoors on campus, do they???

I sure hope American culture does not infect the whole world (except such things as bill of rights and habeas corpus). I guess there are still some few cultures left in which holding hands doesn't have anything particular to do with sex (and presidents and prime ministers don't all wear suit and tie).

DH

[Judy G. Russell]

I sure hope American culture does not infect the whole world (except such things as bill of rights and habeas corpus).Right now let's hope WE get infected by such things as bill of rights and habeas corpus, which have been grossly eroded in the last six years.

[Lindsey]

Right now let's hope WE get infected by such things as bill of rights and habeas corpus, which have been grossly eroded in the last six years.
Amen. But this year's list of Supreme Court decisions is not terribly encouraging. It's going to take a strongly Democratic Congress and a Democratic president to counter the movement of the Court toward executive power and corporate privilege and swing the balance back in the direction of balanced government and individual rights.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Amen. But this year's list of Supreme Court decisions is not terribly encouraging. It's going to take a strongly Democratic Congress and a Democratic president to counter the movement of the Court toward executive power and corporate privilege and swing the balance back in the direction of balanced government and individual rights.Not to mention good choices when the remaining members of this Court end up needing to be replaced...

[Lindsey]

Not to mention good choices when the remaining members of this Court end up needing to be replaced...
Amen. And unfortunately, the days of collegiality on the Court appear to be at an end, at least for the time being.

If this Court will all but reverse Brown v Board of Education, there is nothing it will not do. I have heard speculation (how knowledgeable, I don't know) that the reason the Court changed its mind and accepted that Guantanamo case after refusing to hear a similar one only a couple of months ago, is because the new right-wing intends to dismiss any notion that the Guantanamo inmates are entitled to habeas corpus rights. I don't think it will go that far, but only because I think Anthony Kennedy isn't quite that nuts.

What was that complaint the right wing has been making about activist judges? This Court is taking activism to a new level.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I have heard speculation (how knowledgeable, I don't know) that the reason the Court changed its mind and accepted that Guantanamo case after refusing to hear a similar one only a couple of months ago, is because the new right-wing intends to dismiss any notion that the Guantanamo inmates are entitled to habeas corpus rights.I wouldn't be too sure about that. Even right-wing justices are protective of their own turf and effectively suspending the writ of habeas corpus is their turf...

[Lindsey]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Even right-wing justices are protective of their own turf and effectively suspending the writ of habeas corpus is their turf...
Actually, the decision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is Congress's turf, but yeah, it would be the Court who would be asked to decide whether the Guantanamo inmates have the basic right to lay claim to it. And I do hope you are right about their desire to protect their own turf!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

AI do hope you are right about their desire to protect their own turf!So do I... so do I.