Suspected of a lesbian friendship, two 16-year-old girls were expelled from a Lutheran high school in Riverside, California. They’ve sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.
The lawsuit alleges that the school’s principal, Gregory Bork, called the girls into his office, grilled them on their sexual orientation and “coerced” one girl into saying she loved the other.The next day, the lawsuit says, Bork told the girls’ parents they could not stay at the school with “those feelings.” In a Sept. 12 letter to the parents, Bork acknowledged that officials had seen no physical contact between the girls but said their friendship was “uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and more characteristic of a lesbian one.”
They’re not accused of having sex. They’re accused of love.
A private school has considerable leeway in who is allowed to remain as a student. However the girls’ lawyer said the school can’t collect tuition and violate California’s civil rights laws. I wonder if the school’s “Christian Code of Conduct” bans loving relationships. I doubt it.
Sorry I’m a little confused
‘Suspected of a lesbian friendship,’ wha……..?
‘They’re not accused of having sex. They’re accused of love.’
Is it a Platonic gay relationship? Or is heavy petting involved?
I think someones got some issues to work out and I’m not quite sure who.
In defense of the principal, I doubt he randomly picked a couple of friends and decided they were lesbians based on such flimsy evidence as one girl saying she loved the other. He must have had other evidence that the two girls were, uh, very close. Maybe some student(s) saw them macking during lunch.
I also doubt that these girls are really lesbians. The more homosexuality is accepted and promoted in society, look for it to increase. It’s probably a case of lesbo chic, but the school should have the right to draw a line in the sand.
Several years ago at my school a lesbian PE teacher had an “affair” with a student and nothing was done outside of a reprimand. Female teachers can give rides to male or female students. Male teachers cannot give rides to female students.
Since homosexuals are a protected “class” that’s been “oppressed” historically, I wonder if a male homosexual teacher giving rides to a professed male homosexual student gets a pass. I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.
From another article, Rev. Bork is quoted:
“while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy…”
When I read something like this, I can only conclude that the Reverend is making policy decisions based on fantasies he dreams up in the privacy of his bedroom at night.
Let’s remember this is Riverside, not exactly a mecca of tolerance and acceptance of the “other”.
When I was in private school (7th grade), we had two kids kicked out for making out on school grounds after school. This was a boy and a girl mind you, so homophobia does not apply - to what extent do schools have the right to regulate the sexual activity of their students on school grounds?
And those of you who like vouchers, is this really where you want your tax dollars going? To schools who discriminate against girls for seeming to be lesbian?
The school here sees itself as acting in loco parentis operating from a Christian moral viewpoint. The principal concluded that the girls’ friendship had some negative aspects to it either for the community as a whole or the girls themselves. Certainly parents have the right (and duty) to monitor the friendships of their children. A private school may understand itself to have similar duties with respect to its students.
The parents may or may not have grounds to sue depending on what really happened (we don’t know the whole story) and the school’s stated policies.
We need vouchers because a cultural consensus no longer exists on how to educate children.
If two girls have some kind of friendship that has lesbian overtones, the responsible adults in their lives need to intervene to prevent the relationship from descending to a sexual one. There is also a need to protect the moral atmosphere of the school.
As much as I despise the bigotry that seems to be behind this expulsion I have to defend the right of a private school to accept or reject anyone they want. That is the idea of a private school, isn’t it?
Right now the only ones who have a choice in what schools their kids attend are the wealthy. Middle class and poor families have to settle for whatever schools the local public district deigns to offer. I don’t want my tax dollars going to schools like this one, nor do I want them going to a public monopoly. So how about letting me decide where my tax dollars go?
From Old Math:
As much as I despise the bigotry that seems to be behind this expulsion I have to defend the right of a private school to accept or reject anyone they want. That is the idea of a private school, isn’t it?
I have to agree. If these students agreed to a contract excluding certain sexual orientations, they are bound by it. The girls claim it was a set-up by the principal; if so, then the principal acted illegally. If not, then out they go.
And those of you who like vouchers, is this really where you want your tax dollars going? To schools who discriminate against girls for seeming to be lesbian?
Absolutely!
The situation today is that I am forced to pay for promotion of the acceptability of homosexuality or have my house taken. Given those two alternatives, I know which I prefer.
But Ivory presents a false dilemma. If there were vouchers, parents would get the schools they wanted for their children. If there was a principal that acted as this one did, parents could either accept it or choose to send their children to another school.
The problem we have today is that the public schools operate in a manner unattractive to many, if not most, parents. They cater to the needs of union managers and politicians instead of parents and students. A few expensive alternatives exist. And they need not be much more responsive than the public schools. With vouchers, families would get a broader choice of schools and be more likely to find one that is acceptable.
If you want a school where your lesbophobia is so great you tolerate a prinicpal like this, you’ll stay. If not, you’ll leave. If enough leave, the principal will be looking for a new job. That’s how free markets with voluntary participants work to supply consumers with the products they need at the lowest price possible.
And those of you who like vouchers, is this really where you want your tax dollars going?
What an argument! In fact, why not hold public schools to the same standard? If we can find an example of a public school with a questionable policy, we can withdraw all state funding for education. Think how much we would all save in taxes!
“If these students agreed to a contract excluding certain sexual orientations, they are bound by it.”
Er…what? Why are you talking about the students’ contractual liabilities? They’re minors: state law varies on the details, but most contracts they make are voidable.
I presume the real parties to any such contracts would be the school and the students’ parents. And then one would have to look to the exact wording of the contract itself: I could be wrong, but I’d be surprised to see words to the express effect of “no gays allowed,” particularly any terms of the contract that, as Joanne rightly notes, would govern feelings rather than behavior.
Not to minimize the situation, but it sounds like the principal did the girls a favor by kicking them out. If I were a teenager confused about my sexuality, that school sounds like the last place I’d want to spend my days.
‘If two girls have some kind of friendship that has lesbian overtones,’
WTF are ‘lesbian overtones’? Watching Ellen DeGeneres? Attending WNBA games? Not showering after gym class? If the school has rules against lesbians maybe they should enforce them against people who actually are lesbians?