One town's war on gay teens

[Simon_Jester]

I'm wondering. Did the administration actually punish anyone for sheltering gay kids? For that matter, for all we know that there were teachers doing that, just... not enough.

It sounds almost like the administration and the school board didn't know what a "No Homo Promo" policy meant any more than the teachers did, because the word 'neutral' is incredibly ambiguous. Who, if anyone, got in trouble for violating it?

Were there teachers who tried to interpret "neutral on homosexuality" to mean "students who keep getting beaten up are safe in my class and I neither know nor care why punks keep beating them up?" I'd think that spread out over the whole district, there probably were. What happened to them?

[RedImperator]

I'm wondering. Did the administration actually punish anyone for sheltering gay kids? For that matter, for all we know that there were teachers doing that, just... not enough.

It sounds almost like the administration and the school board didn't know what a "No Homo Promo" policy meant any more than the teachers did, because the word 'neutral' is incredibly ambiguous. Who, if anyone, got in trouble for violating it?

Were there teachers who tried to interpret "neutral on homosexuality" to mean "students who keep getting beaten up are safe in my class and I neither know nor care why punks keep beating them up?" I'd think that spread out over the whole district, there probably were. What happened to them?

We don't know because the only information we have is from the article. The best I can tell you is that teachers are usually happy to ignore policies they don't like if they think they can get away with it.

Just remember there's more than one line of authority teachers have to worry about here. Even if the administration is willing to wink and nod at teachers who violate the policy, if you give a kid a detention for telling a classmate he's going to hell for being gay, and his parents complain to the school board, you're up shit creek. Your principal has a career to protect, too, and so do the board members. I don't even think the union could help you very much, unless you luck out and the due process arbitrator rules the entire policy is too vague to be justifiable grounds for dismissal (which may well happen, but how many people are willing to bet the mortgage on that?)

[Alyrium Denryle]

First, I'll bet you $50 nobody with any actual legal expertise would read the negligence statute the way you have (specifically, it fails the "reasonable person" test; a teacher is only guilty of criminal negligence if he or she failed to take an action a reasonable person could be expected to take, and if you think a court would rule that a reasonable person would be expected to openly defy district policy in this situation, you're out of your fucking tree). Second, what possible good do you expect to come from throwing teachers in jail for following district policy, other than satisfying your emotional desire for revenge? In what way do you think that would result in better outcomes in the future for gay students, either in this district or any other?

1) You dont have to charge everyone. A few examples in administration who directly received complaints of harassment/bullying/assault and did nothing about it would be sufficient.

2) District policy is not law. It is not an injunction against action. Would you be saying the same thing if there was a policy stating that neutrality with respect to race issues was now mandatory and there were a bunch of black kids being ruthlessly tormented by the Bedford Forest the Junior Klan League to the point of suicide while teachers and administration did nothing? I doubt it. Why? Because it is not reasonable on its face. Fuck Gay, Fuck Straight. No human being deserves to be treated like that, ever. No reasonable person could really conclude that they need take a position on homosexuality in order to intervene on that basis.

It is not as if there is no body of federal law dealing with controversial issues and neutrality in scho... Oh. Wait. There IS. It is called the sum total of first amendment case law whereby neutrality on the part of teachers with respect to religion is mandatory. You dont see jewish students being bullied for being christ killers/kikes/hooknoses/red-sea pedestrians/holocaust bait while teachers and admin sit around with a thumb up their ass now do you? If that happened, heads would roll uphill and we all know it.

here is the text of the policy:

It is the primary mission of the Anoka-Hennepin School District to effectively educate
each of our students for success. District policies shall comply with state and federal law as
well as reflect community standards. As set forth in the Equal Education Opportunity Policy, it is
the School District’s policy to provide equal educational opportunity and to prohibit harassment
of all students. The Board is committed to providing a safe and respectful learning environment
and to provide an education that respects the beliefs of all students and families.

The School District employs a diverse and talented staff committed to serving students
and families from diverse backgrounds. The School District acknowledges that one aspect of
that diversity regards sexual orientation. Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the
District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family
homes, churches, or community organizations. Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their
professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but
not limited to student led discussions. If and when staff address sexual orientation, it is
important that staff do so in a respectful manner that is age-appropriate, factual, and pertinent to
the relevant curriculum. Staff are encouraged to take into consideration individual student
needs and refer students to the appropriate social worker or licensed school counselor.

As ambiguous as it is, I fail to see how it can be combined with other policies such as:

The Anoka-Hennepin School Board recognizes stress, depression, and suicidal behavior as
critical problems which put children and youth at risk in the learning process. The Board
promotes and supports a healthy learning environment for all students; therefore, the AnokaHennepin School District will be actively involved in designated prevention and intervention
strategies with students at risk because of stress, depression, and suicidal behavior.

The Board is also committed to leadership and action toward an appropriate school/ community
response to completed suicides and to a District plan which identifies suggested actions and
resources for use in times of crisis

Anoka-Hennepin School District cannot monitor the activities of students at all times and eliminate all incidents of bullying between students, particularly when students are not under the direct
supervision of school personnel. However, to the extent
such conduct affects the educational environment of the
Anoka-Hennepin schools and the rights and welf are of its
students and is within the control of the School District in
its normal operations, it is Anoka Hennepin’s intent to prevent bullying and to take action to investigate, respond,
remediate, and discipline those acts of b ullying which have
not been successfully prevented. Appropriate administrative
and staff follow-up will be provided for victims of bullying.
The purpose of this policy is to assist Anoka-Hennepin in its
goal of preventing and responding to acts of b ullying, intimidation, violence, and other similar disruptive behavior.

II. GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY
A. An act of bullying, by either an individual student or a
group of students, is expressly prohibited on AnokaHennepin School District property, at school related
functions, or in electronic form otherwise kno wn as
cyberbullying. This policy applies not only to students
who directly engage in an act of b ullying but also to students who, by their indirect behavior, condone or support another student’s act of bullying. This policy also
applies to any student whose conduct at any time or in
any place constitutes bullying that interferes with or
obstructs the mission or operations of the School District
or the safety or welfare of the student, other students,
volunteers, or employees.
B. No teacher, administrator, other employee of AnokaHennepin School District, volunteer, contractor, or bus
driver shall permit, condone, or tolerate b ullying.
C. Apparent permission or consent by a student being b ullied
does not lessen the prohibitions contained in this polic y.
D. Retaliation against a victim, good f aith reporter, or a witness of bullying is prohibited.
E. False accusations or reports of bullying against another
student are prohibited.
F. A person who engages in an act of b ullying, reprisal,
or false reporting of bullying or permits, condones, or
tolerates bullying shall be subject to discipline for that
act in accordance with the School District’s policies and
procedures. The School District may take into account
the following factors:
1. The age, developmental and maturity levels of the
parties involved;
2. The levels of harm, surrounding circumstances, and
nature and severity of the behavior;
3. Past incidences or past or continuing patterns of beha vior;
4. The relationship between the parties involved; and
5. The context in which the alleged incidents occurred.
Consequences for students who commit prohibited
acts of bullying may range from positive behavioral
interventions up to and including suspension and/or
expulsion. Consequences for employees who permit,
condone, or tolerate bullying or engage in an act of
reprisal or intentional false reporting of bullying may
result in disciplinary action up to and including termination or discharge. Consequences for other individuals engaging in prohibited acts of b ullying may
include, but not be limited to, exclusion from school
district property and events and/or termination of
services and/or contracts.
G. Anoka-Hennepin will act to investigate all complaints of
bullying and will discipline or take appropriate action
against any student, teacher, administrator, other employee of the School District, volunteer, contractor, or bus
driver who is found to have violated this policy.
III. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this policy, the definitions included in this
section apply.
A. “Bullying” means any written, verbal, or electronic
expression, physical act or gesture, or pattern thereof, by
a student that is intended to cause or is percei ved as causing distress to one or more students and which substantially interferes with another student’s or students’ educational benefits, opportunities, or performance. Bullying
includes, but is not limited to, conduct by a student
against another student that a reasonable person under the
circumstances knows or should know has the effect of:
1. harming a student;
2. damaging a student’s property;
3. placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his or
her person or property;
4. creating a hostile educational environment for a
student; or
5. subjecting a student to ridicule, embarrassment or
social isolation.
“Bullying” may also include the misuse of technology in
any form including, but not limited to, teasing, intimidating, humiliating, defaming, threatening, harassing, stalking, or terrorizing another student, teacher, administrator,
other employee of the School District, volunteer, contractor, or bus driver by sending or posting e-mail messages, instant messages, text messages, digital pictures or
images, or website postings, including blogs, regardless
of whether such acts are committed on or of f School
District property and/or with or without the use of
School District resources.

<<Emphasis Mine on this part, as it was added later, but refers to an older policy of non-discrimination against minority Groups>>
Bullying based on a protected classification set forth in
the District’s Equal Educational Opportunity Policy
(race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, disability, status with regard to public assistance,
sexual orientation, or age) may also constitute a
violation of the District’s Harassment, Violence, and
Discrimination Policy.
<<end inserted emphasis>>

B. “Immediately” means as soon as possible b ut in no event
longer than 24 hours.
C. “On Anoka-Hennepin School District property, at
school-related functions, or in electronic form” means all
School District buildings, school grounds, and school
property or property immediately adjacent to school
grounds, school bus stops, school buses, school vehicles,
school contracted vehicles, or any other vehicles
approved for School District purposes, the area of
entrance or departure from school grounds, premises, or
events, all school-related functions, school-sponsored
activities, events, or trips, the use of an y School District
technology equipment or system on or of f-campus, the
use of a personal digital device on campus, or off-campus electronic communication that causes or threatens to
cause a substantial and material disruption at school or
interference with the rights of students or emplo yees to
be secure. Anoka-Hennepin School district property also
may mean a student’s walking route to or from school
for purposes of attending school or school-related functions, activities, or events. While prohibiting bullying at
these locations or events or through use of School
District technology resources, Anoka-Hennepin School
District does not represent that it will pro vide supervision or assume liability at these locations or e vents, or
through use of School District technology resources.
IV. REPORTING PROCEDURE
A. Any person who believes he or she has been the victim of
bullying or any person with knowledge or belief of conduct that may constitute bullying shall report the alleged
acts immediately to an appropriate School District of ficial
designated by this policy. A student may report bullying
anonymously. However, the School District’s ability to
take action against an alleged perpetrator based solely on
an anonymous report may be limited.
B. Anoka-Hennepin School District encourages the reporting party or complainant to use the report form a vailable
from the principal of each building or available from the
School District office, but oral and electronic reports
shall be considered complaints as well.
C. The building principal or the principal’s designee is the
person responsible for receiving reports of bullying at the
building level. Any person may report bullying directly to
an assistant principal, principal, associate superintendent,
assistant superintendent, or the Superintendent or designee.
D. A teacher, school administrator, other school employee,
volunteer, contractor, or bus driver shall be particularly
alert to possible situations, circumstances, or events that
might include bullying. Any such person who receives a
report of, observes, or has other knowledge or belief of
conduct that may constitute bullying shall inform the
building principal or designee immediately. Secondary Handbook 2011-12 25
E. Reports of bullying are classified as private educational
and/or personnel data and/or confidential investigative
data and will not be disclosed except as permitted by law.
F. Submission of a good faith complaint or report of bullying will not affect the complainant’s or reporter’s future
employment, grades, work assignments, or educational
or work environment.
G. Anoka-Hennepin School District will respect the privacy
of the complainant(s), the individual(s) against whom the
complaint is filed, and the witnesses as much as possible,
consistent with the School District’s obligation to investigate, take appropriate action, and comply with an y legal
disclosure obligations.
V. SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTION
A. Upon receipt of a complaint or report of b ullying, the
School District shall undertake or authorize an investigation by school district officials or a third party designated
by the School District.
B. The School District may take immediate steps, at its discretion, to protect the complainant, reporter, students, or
others pending completion of an investigation of bullying, consistent with applicable law.
C. Upon completion of the investigation, the School District
will take appropriate action pursuant to the School
Discipline Policy. Such action may include, but is not
limited to, warning, suspension, exclusion, loss of privilege, expulsion, transfer, remediation, termination, or
discharge. The School District may also contact law
enforcement if the behavior is criminal in nature.
Disciplinary consequences will be sufficiently severe to
try to deter violations and to appropriately discipline prohibited behavior. School District action taken for violation of this policy will be consistent with the requirements of applicable collective bargaining agreements;
applicable statutory authority, including the Minnesota
Pupil Fair Dismissal Act; school district policies; and
regulations. Appropriate administrative and staff followup will be provided for victims of bullying.
D. Anoka-Hennepin School District is not authorized to disclose to a victim private educational or personnel data
regarding an alleged perpetrator who is a student or
employee of the School District. School of ficials will
notify the parent(s) or guardian(s) of students in volved in
a bullying incident and the remedial action tak en, to the
extent permitted by law, based on a confirmed report.
VI. REPRISAL
The school district will discipline or tak e appropriate action
against any student, teacher, administrator, volunteer, contractor, or other employee of the school district who retaliates against any person who makes a good faith report of
alleged bullying or against any person who testifies, assists,
or participates in an investigation, or against any person who
testifies, assists, or participates in a proceeding or hearing
relating to such bullying. Retaliation includes, but is not
limited to, any form of intimidation, harassment, or intentional disparate treatment.
VII.The school district may implement violence prevention and
character development education programs to prevent and
reduce policy violations. Such programs may offer instruction
on character education including, but not limited to, character
qualities such as attentiveness, truthfulness, respect for authority, diligence, gratefulness, self-discipline, patience, forgiveness, respect for others, peacemaking, and resourcefulness.
VIII. NOTICE
The school district will give annual notice of this policy to
students, parents or guardians, and staff, and this policy
shall appear in the student handbook.

EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY POLICY
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to ensure that equal educational opportunity is provided for all
students of the school district.
II. GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY
A. It is the school district’s policy to provide equal educational opportunity for all students. The
school district does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual
orientation or age. The school district also makes reasonable accommodations for disabled
students.
B. The school district prohibits the harassment of any individual for any of the categories listed
above. For information about the types of conduct that constitute violation of the school district’s
policy on harassment and violence and the school district’s procedures for addressing such
complaints, refer to the school district’s policy on Harassment, Violence, and Discrimination
Policy. The District prohibits retaliation against anyone who brings a complaint or participates in
an investigation.
C. This policy applies to all areas of education including academics, coursework, co-curricular
and extracurricular activities, or other rights or privileges of enrollment.
D. It is the responsibility of every school district employee to comply with this policy.
E. Any student, parent or guardian having any questions regarding this policy should discuss it
with the appropriate school district official as provided by policy. In the absence of a specific
designee, an inquiry or a complaint should be referred to the principal.

To mean:

"Teachers shall permit other students to ruthlessly harass, bully, discriminate against, and physically assault students who are LGBTQ (I add the Q because they are 13ish) or perceived to be LGBTQ to the point that said students commit suicide, or suffer emotional trauma sufficient to induce cutting, autoasphyxiation, suicidal ideation, clinical depression, or other self destructive thoughts or behaviors."

For clarification, here is the Reasonable Person Standard, From wiki, but it works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_n ... n_standard

This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances.

The more contentious debate has surrounded the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable.

So, we can ask ourselves the question "Would a reasonable person conclude that, given their duty of care, vagueness of the sexual orientation policy, but given the explicit nature of the anti-bullying, and anti-discrimination policies, that the two could contradict in such a way as to mandate non-interference in cases of systemic bullying which leads to outcomes extremely harmful for the students who find themselves the victims of said bullying"

The answer is No.

[Baffalo]

We had an issue come up recently down here in Louisiana, the Jena Six, where six black students were arrested for beating a white student so severely he had to be taken to the hospital. They were arrested because they'd beaten him, then had their sentences reduced while crying out about racial injustice, that similar beatings done by white kids were not done so.

I don't care who does it or why, but if you get police involved, I want justice. I want to know that someone who rightfully deserves to be punished is being punished and isn't using their position or the position of others to justify their actions when they should be in jail. Simple battery is all they were charged with for beating a kid so severely that he suffered a concussion and had his eye swollen shut for three weeks. A 17 year old kid was going to be tried as a man, but later as a child, despite it being pre-meditated and having nothing to do with a noose incident before. This was a deliberate attack on a neutral target just because of his race. That's a hate crime. A fight at a party, which MIGHT have been the cause for the beating, isn't the same as an ambush by six on one.

Also, Alyrium Denryle, thank you for sharing your story earlier about your experience. You are a good person and no one deserves to be treated the way you were.

[Eulogy]

snip

If the gay kids in the article decided to go and put their tormentors in wheelchairs for life and made sure they had to shit in a bag, then said bullies wouldn't get any sympathy from me.
That said, I'm not surprised that there are hate attacks carried out by minorities; when they in general suffer from the majority's tyranny they would very well seek vengeance. The sad part is, most of it is preventable.

[Stark]

Justice isn't about revenge.

[Baffalo]

Justice isn't about revenge.

I never said it was.

[RedImperator]

First, I'll bet you $50 nobody with any actual legal expertise would read the negligence statute the way you have (specifically, it fails the "reasonable person" test; a teacher is only guilty of criminal negligence if he or she failed to take an action a reasonable person could be expected to take, and if you think a court would rule that a reasonable person would be expected to openly defy district policy in this situation, you're out of your fucking tree). Second, what possible good do you expect to come from throwing teachers in jail for following district policy, other than satisfying your emotional desire for revenge? In what way do you think that would result in better outcomes in the future for gay students, either in this district or any other?

1) You dont have to charge everyone. A few examples in administration who directly received complaints of harassment/bullying/assault and did nothing about it would be sufficient.

This doesn't answer the question I actually asked. What good do you expect to come from throwing teachers (or administrators) in jail? In what way do you think doing so would result in better outcomes in the future for gay students?

2) District policy is not law. It is not an injunction against action. Would you be saying the same thing if there was a policy stating that neutrality with respect to race issues was now mandatory and there were a bunch of black kids being ruthlessly tormented by the Bedford Forest the Junior Klan League to the point of suicide while teachers and administration did nothing? I doubt it. Why? Because it is not reasonable on its face. Fuck Gay, Fuck Straight. No human being deserves to be treated like that, ever. No reasonable person could really conclude that they need take a position on homosexuality in order to intervene on that basis.

Firing a teacher for clamping down on racist bullying would generate such an epic international shitstorm a reasonable person could safely believe his job wasn't in jeopardy. The same doesn't go for homosexuality, especially in Michelle Bachmann's congressional district. This is grossly unfair and probably an indictment of our society (like we needed any more), but it's also the truth.

Racial minorities are also a more thoroughly protected legal class, they're obviously more visible and consequently so is race-based bullying, school districts have a longer history learning to manage racial discrimination (the scenario you laid out above would have surprised nobody in, say, 1980), and I doubt anyone's worried that some dickhead parent will take you to court because you violated his dickhead's kid 1st Amendment right to call the black kids coons.

It is not as if there is no body of federal law dealing with controversial issues and neutrality in scho... Oh. Wait. There IS. It is called the sum total of first amendment case law whereby neutrality on the part of teachers with respect to religion is mandatory. You dont see jewish students being bullied for being christ killers/kikes/hooknoses/red-sea pedestrians/holocaust bait while teachers and admin sit around with a thumb up their ass now do you? If that happened, heads would roll uphill and we all know it.

You mean the body of Federal case law that says "BE HAPPY, NOT GAY" tee-shirts are protected religious expression?

here is the text of the policy:

It is the primary mission of the Anoka-Hennepin School District to effectively educate
each of our students for success. District policies shall comply with state and federal law as
well as reflect community standards. As set forth in the Equal Education Opportunity Policy, it is
the School District’s policy to provide equal educational opportunity and to prohibit harassment
of all students. The Board is committed to providing a safe and respectful learning environment
and to provide an education that respects the beliefs of all students and families.

The School District employs a diverse and talented staff committed to serving students
and families from diverse backgrounds. The School District acknowledges that one aspect of
that diversity regards sexual orientation. Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the
District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family
homes, churches, or community organizations. Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their
professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but
not limited to student led discussions. If and when staff address sexual orientation, it is
important that staff do so in a respectful manner that is age-appropriate, factual, and pertinent to
the relevant curriculum. Staff are encouraged to take into consideration individual student
needs and refer students to the appropriate social worker or licensed school counselor.

As ambiguous as it is, I fail to see how it can be combined with other policies such as:

<snip>

Could you do me a favor and just quote the relevant parts next time? Jesus.

To mean:

"Teachers shall permit other students to ruthlessly harass, bully, discriminate against, and physically assault students who are LGBTQ (I add the Q because they are 13ish) or perceived to be LGBTQ to the point that said students commit suicide, or suffer emotional trauma sufficient to induce cutting, autoasphyxiation, suicidal ideation, clinical depression, or other self destructive thoughts or behaviors."

And yet even the gay teachers were intimidated into silence. You're doing the same thing here you did the with the negligence statute--assuming a naive reading of the text tells you all you need to know about the policy, without knowing how the district explained it to its staff or what kind of pressure was put on the administration by the board or the teachers by the administration.

I think it's pretty easy to guess what happened--the board was intimidated by the fundamentalists in the district and possibly afraid of 1st Amendment lawsuits, so it created the "No Homo Promo" policy and enforced it for 14 years, creating a culture of silence and shame around LGBTQ issues. Then they created a blinkered "neutrality policy" written by lawyers explicitly to cover the school's ass without offending the fundamentalists, made no announcements, explained nothing, and so the teachers operated under the assumption that the old policy was still effectively in force.

For clarification, here is the Reasonable Person Standard, From wiki, but it works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_n ... n_standard

This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances.

So, we can ask ourselves the question "Would a reasonable person conclude that, given their duty of care, vagueness of the sexual orientation policy, but given the explicit nature of the anti-bullying, and anti-discrimination policies, that the two could contradict in such a way as to mandate non-interference in cases of systemic bullying which leads to outcomes extremely harmful for the students who find themselves the victims of said bullying"

The answer is No.

As I said above, you can't simply use a naive reading of the text of the policy and assume you know enough about how the district operated and what it expected from the teachers to make a judgment. I also think you'd have a very difficult time establishing proximate cause between any individual teacher and any individual suicide, even if you did establish they violated their legal obligations under duty of care. I'm happy to concede that there are probably people employed by the district who should be fired and the entire board should be turned out of office. I'm more than willing to say it's a disgrace none of the teachers or staff were willing to step up, and they're going to have to live with that. But you haven't begun to convince me this rises to the level of criminal negligence.

Look, neither of us are lawyers and the one thing we know for sure and for certain is that nobody will be charged with criminal negligence in this case, so I'm not sure what profit there is to be had by pursuing this line for anyone. I'm happy to argue over whether people deserve to go to jail over this or whether that would be a good policy, but any more amateur legal debate is probably pointless.

[Max]

As a graduate of Blaine Senior High, I couldn't be more appalled at what's going on in that district. It seems that the attitudes towards GBLT youth is getting worse. I actually came out in 11th grade and never experienced any hostility or teasing. Which I'm thankful for. Since I'm in Minneapolis, I may send a facebook message to Brittany. It may help to offer her some kind of support (an ear, "big gay brother" type, etc.).

[Alyrium Denryle]

This doesn't answer the question I actually asked. What good do you expect to come from throwing teachers (or administrators) in jail? In what way do you think doing so would result in better outcomes in the future for gay students?

It sets an example. A strong message that society and the state will not at all tolerate this sort of Shit.

Firing a teacher for clamping down on racist bullying would generate such an epic international shitstorm a reasonable person could safely believe his job wasn't in jeopardy. The same doesn't go for homosexuality, especially in Michelle Bachmann's congressional district. This is grossly unfair and probably an indictment of our society (like we needed any more), but it's also the truth.

See below... Not stopping bullying violates the state's anti-discrimination and anti-bullying statutes, and a school board policy may not violate state law.

Bullying
includes, but is not limited to, conduct by a student
against another student that a reasonable person under the
circumstances knows or should know has the effect of:
1. harming a student;
2. damaging a student’s property;
3. placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to his or
her person or property;
4. creating a hostile educational environment for a
student; or
5. subjecting a student to ridicule, embarrassment or
social isolation.

Were they doing these things? Yes? Then gay or no, they are bullying and need to be suspended. Done. No reasonable person can conclude that these two things are in conflict, even if you define "professional duties" as broadly as possible. If you can think of a way to interpret it such that they do that is not simply insane, by all means. Make the attempt.

You mean the body of Federal case law that says "BE HAPPY, NOT GAY" tee-shirts are protected religious expression?

Yes. That body of case law. The same body of case law that both deals with intellectual neutrality on the part of the state, and punishes those who discriminate or commit hate crimes on the basis of religion. A reasonable person is aware of the law.

Though admittedly, I should have specified first and fourteenth amendment case law.

And yet even the gay teachers were intimidated into silence.

That does not imply that they did not violate a reasonable person standard. I mean, I can perfectly understand how someone might be confused, and not want to risk putting up family photos, discussing Alexander the Great in history class etc. This... this is something out of the fucking twilight zone.

you can't simply use a naive reading of the text of the policy and assume you know enough about how the district operated and what it expected from the teachers to make a judgment.

No. What happened here was in violation of other parts of state law, which includes comprehensive discrimination protection, including protection for the entire LGBTQ community and protection against reprisals. They may not be fired, and any interpretation of a school board policy that might be construed to permit bullying otherwise prohibited on the basis of protected classes (because it is, explicitly, under both state law, and other school board policy) is illegal on its face. And a teacher has most certainly been informed that these laws exist.

This really is the kicker. State law absolutely trumps a school board policy, and no expectation or district level operation can contradict black letter law in this respect. No reasonable person informed of the law (as required by said reasonable person standard), could have thought they would lose their jobs by protecting a gay student. Thus, in a strict sense, they are all civilly liable, and should the state AG choose to prosecute (he wont, but I can dream) criminally liable.

Now, a real person is different from a Legally Reasonable Person. So I dont think that everyone involved needs to swell the prison population. Examples at the leadership level yes, because I think they failed the hardest. Command responsibility etc.

I also think you'd have a very difficult time establishing proximate cause between any individual teacher and any individual suicide, even if you did establish they violated their legal obligations under duty of care.

Well....

609.378 NEGLECT OR ENDANGERMENT OF CHILD.

Subdivision 1.Persons guilty of neglect or endangerment. (a)(1) A parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who willfully deprives a child of necessary food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision appropriate to the child's age, when the parent, guardian, or caretaker is reasonably able to make the necessary provisions and the deprivation harms or is likely to substantially harm the child's physical, mental, or emotional health is guilty of neglect of a child and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. If the deprivation results in substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

1) They are caretakers, so that bit applies
2) They willfully failed to provide supervision that was age-appropriate.
3) They could have done so, and were in fact mandated to do so under state law, as quoted above.
4) They knew, because they were trained educators (and thus attended mandatory training etc on this topic), that bullying causes or is likely to cause physical, mental and emotional harm. As a result, even if harm is not actually done, they are still guilty up until this point. Had no suicides happened, they would still be guilty and face this crime as a misdemeanor charge. In fact, they are guilty of dozens if not hundreds of counts strictly speaking, because of the sheer volume of children they (allegedly)criminally neglected.
5) Kids started to commit suicide or otherwise suffered severe psychological harm. Things like testimony from families, suicide notes, and other eye-witness accounts should be able to establish causal links with individuals. I am not sure if there is case law in MN, but there is federally:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/July ... d-885.html

Some forms of negligence are... statistical. In many cases, one cannot prove that, say, if I release a poison and 9 children die of cancer that they got cancer because of the poison. However, one can prove that I knowingly released the likelihood, and that at least a few of those kids would not otherwise have gotten cancer. Trivially easy to do via logistic regression....

Look, neither of us are lawyers and the one thing we know for sure and for certain is that nobody will be charged with criminal negligence in this case, so I'm not sure what profit there is to be had by pursuing this line for anyone. I'm happy to argue over whether people deserve to go to jail over this or whether that would be a good policy, but any more amateur legal debate is probably pointless.

Probably true, but I do like legal argument.

[Ahriman238]

I'm certainly depressed, disappointed, and more than a little angry about this, but I can't say I'm really suprised. Schools in the US are becoming more and more politicized,

In particular, I'm unsuprised by how the administration tries to save face and cover themselves. At that level, avoiding liability is a serious concern, because schools never win in court and settlements cost a huge portion of our already meager budgets. Plus, School Boards and Supers almost never see any of the students face-to-face, so it's easy to see them as numbers on a spreadsheet and assume there are no problems because none were supported.

The teachers absolutely should have stuck up for the kids, but again it can be hard to see problems that don't happen right in front of us, and nobody with 2 brain cells tries body-slamming in front of a teacher because they know we'll shut them down hard. And, at least in my experience, kids basically never try to ask teachers for help or confide in them unless they've known and liked them for a long time.

I'm not saying that these school offcials are entirely blameless. At least a few did know about this bullying and tried to ignore it. What I''m saying is there's a lot of blame to go around, and we're unlikely to learn the full story 1,000 miles away from a newspaper article, however well-researched.

[dragon]

A few people taking it seriously.

St. Paul, Minn. — Two national civil rights groups on Thursday announced a lawsuit against the Anoka-Hennepin School District over a policy they say contributes to a hostile environment for gay students.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center announced the lawsuit during a news conference in Champlin
The suit argues that the students' rights were violated under the U.S. Constitution, Title IX and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

link

There are 13 protected classes defined in the Minnesota

Sexual Orientation is one.

link

[Civil War Man]

I'm wondering. Did the administration actually punish anyone for sheltering gay kids? For that matter, for all we know that there were teachers doing that, just... not enough.

It sounds almost like the administration and the school board didn't know what a "No Homo Promo" policy meant any more than the teachers did, because the word 'neutral' is incredibly ambiguous. Who, if anyone, got in trouble for violating it?

Were there teachers who tried to interpret "neutral on homosexuality" to mean "students who keep getting beaten up are safe in my class and I neither know nor care why punks keep beating them up?" I'd think that spread out over the whole district, there probably were. What happened to them?

Even if the administration did not punish anyone for actively helping gay kids, I don't put much blame on the teachers. Those teachers who did nothing to help and had no interest in helping deserve as much derision as the board members who supported the policy. But those who wanted to help but felt they couldn't had their hands tied by a vague and restrictive policy (which Red goes into with the multiple lines of authority). And as for the teachers who did help (the article mentions a few who did step up, especially as the number of suicide attempts rose), they cannot be everywhere at once. As a teacher, you could enforce a safe bully-free environment in your classroom with an iron fist, but you are limited in your ability to maintain that environment outside your classroom unless you can get all of the other teachers and administrators on board, as well as most of the board and parents.

My mother told me of an incident back when she was a teacher that involved some bullying (not about sexual orientation, just general bullying the small weak kid). Where she taught, the science labs were down the hall from the rest of the classrooms, but it resulted in this very small window where there wasn't always a teacher present. This one kid was constantly bullied while going from one classroom to the other during that small window. Eventually he snapped and attacked the bully, and got in trouble for fighting. While he was being brought to the VP, a bunch of other students went to the teachers (including my mom) and told them everything that was going on. The teachers went to the VP, and in the end the bullied kid got by with a slap on the wrist while the bully got a harsher punishment. Had the process failed at any step, the outcome would have been much different. If the other students didn't speak up, then the teachers wouldn't even necessarily know there was bullying. If the teachers didn't defend the bullied kid, then the VP would not have had that information. And if the VP was unreasonable, then no amount of good intentions on the part of the teachers would have helped.

The problem in the OP is systemic, and seems to be mostly top-down. The students did the bullying, but the board and administration enabled the bullying environment, so even the most compassionate of teachers could do little to stop it.

[RedImperator]

]

Look, neither of us are lawyers and the one thing we know for sure and for certain is that nobody will be charged with criminal negligence in this case, so I'm not sure what profit there is to be had by pursuing this line for anyone. I'm happy to argue over whether people deserve to go to jail over this or whether that would be a good policy, but any more amateur legal debate is probably pointless.

Probably true, but I do like legal argument.

Yeah, except, bluntly, you're not qualified to do it, at least not when you're getting down into minutiae of state criminal law. You can read the text of the statute and understand its meaning, sure, but understanding the statute is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the law. Without knowledge of case law and any other applicable statutes, it becomes a game of a Google, Esq. vs. Google, Esq.

At any rate, I went and looked for actual case law about suicide and criminal liability, and I couldn't find a single case of an educator being held criminally liable for a student's suicide, even in cases where school personnel had been forewarned and failed to notify the student's parents. I couldn't even find any in psychiatric cases, though I would imagine there have to be at least a handful out there. If you're going to continue to make the claim that the actions of the district personnel were actually in violation of the criminal negligence statute, then you're going to have to show me similar cases where people were actually charged, because I'm simply not going to accept a rank amateur's interpretation of the law.

Now on to the part where two amateurs can actually have an informative discussion.

It sets an example. A strong message that society and the state will not at all tolerate this sort of Shit.

Society sends a lot of "strong messages" about shit it "will not tolerate", and what fucking good have they actually done? Trying to address systemic failures by tossing middle managers in jail won't do anything to affect the next district that falls up its own asshole. If seeing another district disgraced by a suicide epidemic and exposed to millions in liability doesn't inspire other districts in the state to useful action, the hypothetical threat of prison time won't (it might cause them to do the bare minimum to meet their legal requirements, but you can ask Jerry Sandusky's victims what good that does).

At any rate, by takeaway from the article is that the deeper problem, beyond the administration's failure to confront bullying (and, keep in mind, I've seen some very aggressive, concerted anti-bullying campaigns fizzle uselessly; if prison guards can't stop bullying with surveillance and authority alone, school administrations certainly can't), was the silence. Everyone was paralyzed and unwilling to offer a safe space to gay teens. This is cowardice and dereliction of moral duty (if not black letter legal duty) on the part of the faculty, but how could you possibly use the law to make them perform better? You could certainly mandate tolerance classes and you could pass a state anti-bullying law with teeth (Minnesota's present law only requires that schools have an anti-bullying policy, not that it must be effective or enforced). But if the fundamental culture in the school and community is hostile to gays, you can't make gay teachers come out or straight ones become allies. They should be allies because teaching is a moral responsibility (I will not, for obvious reasons, speak about the duty or lack thereof of gay teachers to come out for the sake of gay students), but you can't mandate that they are.

This was a management failure, a cultural failure, and ultimately a community failure. A lot more could have and should have been done for those kids. But I don't see how the threat of prison would have changed anyone's behavior beyond maybe doing the absolute bare minimum required by law. In an atmosphere that toxic, I can't imagine that would be enough.

[Eulogy]

About the only thing that could have helped those kids in the situation Red described would be to move them to another school, a school that wasn't vile and barbaric towards LGBTQ students. Such a solution would have its own problems, yes, but it'd be better than having chronically bullied kids start having homicidal fantasies.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This is the exact kind of shit that permanently damaged me in my middle and high school years in Belle Chasse, Louisiana back in the second half of the 90s. I look back on that era as a goddamn six year prison sentence under house arrest for no crime committed. If I ever did anything other than stay out of sight and mind, I was beaten and tortured mercilessly by child and adult alike. I couldn't even walk to the corner store down my old street without neighbors trying to run me over with trucks. I was chased through the woods multiple times by redneck assholes with ATVs, baseball bats, and fucking machetes. They were actively trying to kill me, and they didn't care a whit about the law, getting caught, or any consequences to themselves. The only priority to their existence was "Murder the Faggot!"

I'm quite forgiving of people and their foibles in general, but I'll never forgive the people of Belle Chasse. I am physically incapable of it. They don't deserve any. The four exceptions to that rule are my GT teacher, my history teacher, my art teacher, and my French teacher. They went to bat for me against the entirety of the society down there, and they were the only effective teachers I had during my sentence.

Belle Chasse and the right-wing Terrorists who live there are the precise reason why I take a hardline Left position on everything but defense of self and property. The right to a terminally-effective defense against bullies and any other criminals employing lethal force should always be absolute, and it should be a liberal position, not a conservative one anyway. They were trying to make a serial killer of me. They made a staunch liberal instead.

Now to see this shit again fifteen years later deliberately instituted across America's education system with the express goal of causing non-heteronormative kids to kill themselves makes me wonder if this nation of ours deserves any forgiveness or mercy ever again. We have become the Evil we bombed nearly out of existence in Europe during World War II.

[Darth Yan]

This might not be similar, but one of my former friends revealed to me years later that he is homosexual. He felt the need to hide it from everyone, including his own parents (I mean I was aware that the town I lived was largely a white upper middle class christian neighborhood, but I am starting to wonder if there was any underlying current of homophobia I'm missing.) The guy was already pretty unpopular for other reasons (social awkwardness being one of the biggest) but I'm wondering if anything would have happened if he had told.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes, I have a rolling stone subscription which is really loved by my co-worker's autistic teens...

they really related to the article especially given how much they are bullied in our little fundy community for being differetn (or as the students at their high school say retards( (fuckin assholes)

I'm finding RS journelism to be top notch

[Darth Wong]

Justice isn't about revenge.

That depends on your definition of "justice". The dictionary definition of "justice" has to do with righteousness, fairness, and impartiality: terms which can be interpreted in many ways.

[Darth Wong]

This was a management failure, a cultural failure, and ultimately a community failure. A lot more could have and should have been done for those kids. But I don't see how the threat of prison would have changed anyone's behavior beyond maybe doing the absolute bare minimum required by law. In an atmosphere that toxic, I can't imagine that would be enough.

I am reminded of the lynchings in America that were common up until the civil rights era. None of them were legal, yet almost none of them ever resulted in prosecutions. In some cases, blacks were literally dragged from police stations to be lynched, and no one was ever charged.

The law can do only so much when no one in the community, including the enforcers of the law, gives a shit.

[sciguy]

Tammy's suffering hasn't ended. In mid-December, her nine-year-old son was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies; he'd tried to drown himself in the bathtub, wanting to see his big brother again.

This seems to provide a horrible real-world example of what can go wrong when you raise children to believe in a magical afterlife...

[Baffalo]

I had a friend at work named Chris. Good kid, openly gay, we hung out a bit. Didn't really know him that well outside of work but we were alright with each other. One day he's driving along and flips his truck (there were rumors he was run off the road but nothing was proven), killing him. They scheduled his funeral and I heard after the fact (because I was working unfortunately ) that the pastor at his funeral used the opportunity to openly attack his choice of being gay, and telling the ENTIRE church full of mourners that Chris was going to hell. That doesn't sit right with me at all.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Baffalo, you should have said something. Silence in the face of rank Evil such as that is complicity in it!

[RedImperator]

Tammy's suffering hasn't ended. In mid-December, her nine-year-old son was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies; he'd tried to drown himself in the bathtub, wanting to see his big brother again.

This seems to provide a horrible real-world example of what can go wrong when you raise children to believe in a magical afterlife...

...you read the entire article, and this is the "religion is bad" money shot for you?

[Metatwaddle]

Tammy's suffering hasn't ended. In mid-December, her nine-year-old son was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies; he'd tried to drown himself in the bathtub, wanting to see his big brother again.

This seems to provide a horrible real-world example of what can go wrong when you raise children to believe in a magical afterlife...

You're seriously blaming a grieving mother for the suicide attempt of her other son? What a paragon of humanism you are.