NYC's Gay High School

au1929 wrote:

Scrat.
If you remember that was a response to someone saying that some students would pose as being gay just to get int the school.

Jespah wrote that some students might say that they were gay. I took your comments to mean that they would have to make some sort of pretense beyond simply stating it, and was having a little fun with the idea. No big deal, but that's where I was coming from, since you seemed to want to know.

I've been on the fence on a few angles, but I agree with you that this school is a profoundly bad idea, for many reasons.

0 Replies

Sozobe - We aren't talking about Kansas, we are talking about NYC. If a kid is making the school UNSAFE for other students, he or she should be sent packing. If children are harassing others, it should be stopped. Ideally the bulk of the student body would find the behavior of the harassers despicable and support the victims.

And let's turn this around and see if you still support the idea. Suppose your football team were harassing a student because he was black? Would you be arguing that we put the black student in a separate school where he will be safe from derision, or would you argue that the school system ought to do something to root out prejudice at the school? I would champion the latter.

The Harvey Milk solution seems to begin from the premise that the schools are powerless to effectively police and deal with bigotry among students. That to me is unacceptable. Deal as harshly with someone who calls another student a "fag" as you would someone who calls another student a "n-----" and you'd be on your way to solving the problem. Bus the gay students off to their own separate-but-equal facility and you're just making them this year's n-----. You've neither helped them learn to deal with the a$$holes of the world, nor punished the a$$holes so that they might change their behavior.

Putting these kids in a cocoon may serve some agenda and sound noble to people who like to think they care, and it may help some of these students feel good and wanted and accepted for a few years, but it does nothing to change the root problem, which means that they will one day have to leave Harvey Milk and deal with the jerks that the school system refused to deal with now.

0 Replies

(Re: the $3.2 million, I was thinking throughout that it was for a new school -- but it had been serving 50 students, and the renovation/expansion allows it to serve 170. Renovation/expansion funding is different from new school funding.)

$3.2 mil info

This is interesting:

Quote:

THE FACTS ABOUT THE HARVEY MILK SCHOOL (HMS) PARTNERSHIP

HMS serves a very at-risk population with unique and individual needs not able to be addressed that require additional support not available to them in a mainstream venue.

HMS services only a small portion of the total LGBTQ youth population. The vast majority of LGBTQ youth attend their zoned schools. If you use a standard that 10% of any population is LGBTQ, there are over 100,000 LGBTQ students in NYC; 170 (1.7%) of them will go to HMS, the other 99,830 (98.3%) will be in their zoned schools.

The $3.2 million renovation and expansion investment for the school was approved by the Board of Education in June 2002. The funds are specifically for that purpose and not for operating costs.
The DOE investment is more than offset by the millions of dollars in desperately needed services that HMI is independently providing to students.

Higher suicide rates, homelessness and health issues are basic primary needs and must be met regardless of a student's sexual orientation.

HMS curriculum is no different than that of any other high school. Curriculum content is the same as any other mainstream high school. HMS students take the same Regents and other tests.
The admission standards for HMS are the same as those of any other NYC high school. All are welcome to apply.

HMS is no different than any other small school collaboration. The current educational trend is to develop small schools that meet the specific needs of individuals in a focused environment.

Delivering the specialized services that the school will provide for this at-risk youth population has the potential of saving the taxpayers millions of dollars in future costs related to the health and productivity of its graduates.

A lot more:

Harvey Milk info

0 Replies

Quote:

HMS services only a small portion of the total LGBTQ youth population. The vast majority of LGBTQ youth attend their zoned schools. If you use a standard that 10% of any population is LGBTQ...

10%??? Come on. Does anyone actually believe that number outside the halls of gay issues lobbying firms? Seriously? I have nothing against homosexuals, but that doesn't mean I just mindlessly accept any so-called statistic they want to conjur up to support their agenda.

0 Replies

U just might be surprised scrat !

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Sozobe - We aren't talking about Kansas, we are talking about NYC. If a kid is making the school UNSAFE for other students, he or she should be sent packing. If children are harassing others, it should be stopped. Ideally the bulk of the student body would find the behavior of the harassers despicable and support the victims.

OK, so, NYC. Everything else the same, substitute "NYC" for "Kansas."

Scrat wrote:

And let's turn this around and see if you still support the idea. Suppose your football team were harassing a student because he was black? Would you be arguing that we put the black student in a separate school where he will be safe from derision, or would you argue that the school system ought to do something to root out prejudice at the school? I would champion the latter.

Who is talking about "putting"? If the principal looked at a gay kid and said, "That's it, you're going to the Harvey Milk school", whether the kid wanted to or not, sure, I'd object. But we're talking about the kid's own choice.

If the black kid in your example wanted to go to a separate school, I'd have no problem with that. That is exactly why I brought up the black charter schools. It happens, for some small percentage of the total black school population, while -- let me emphasize this again as it keeps being overlooked -- WHILE attempts to root out prejudice at schools everywhere are being made. It doesn't need to be either/or.

Scrat wrote:

The Harvey Milk solution seems to begin from the premise that the schools are powerless to effectively police and deal with bigotry among students. That to me is unacceptable. Deal as harshly with someone who calls another student a "fag" as you would someone who calls another student a "n-----" and you'd be on your way to solving the problem. Bus the gay students off to their own separate-but-equal facility and you're just making them this year's n-----. You've neither helped them learn to deal with the a$$holes of the world, nor punished the a$$holes so that they might change their behavior.

See above. Punish the a$$holes, for sure. Deal harshly with someone who calls another student a "fag", for sure. Hope that this would instantly stamp out homophobia and harrassment, if you'd like. Realistically, though, it's a process. And WHILE all of these things are happening, what's the harm of one tiny little haven?

Scrat wrote:

Putting these kids in a cocoon may serve some agenda and sound noble to people who like to think they care, and it may help some of these students feel good and wanted and accepted for a few years, but it does nothing to change the root problem, which means that they will one day have to leave Harvey Milk and deal with the jerks that the school system refused to deal with now.

Again with the "putting." You could as easily say, "Allowing the kids who feel that they have no hope to find a safe haven will allow them to come out of their cocoon, to become confident and secure individuals who will then do great things and help along change in mainstream schools to the extent that the Harvey Milk school is no longer necessary."

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:
HMS services only a small portion of the total LGBTQ youth population. The vast majority of LGBTQ youth attend their zoned schools. If you use a standard that 10% of any population is LGBTQ...

10%??? Come on. Does anyone actually believe that number outside the halls of gay issues lobbying firms? Seriously? I have nothing against homosexuals, but that doesn't mean I just mindlessly accept any so-called statistic they want to conjur up to support their agenda.

OK, so say 5%. Better? Then 3.4% of all GLBT students in NYC will go to HMS. Quelle horreur.

(Hee hee Gautam.)

0 Replies

Well, then let's take away the word "putting". I do find the idea of a separate place to be, well, unrealistic. And yes, I know, there are schools for this and schools for that, but the bottom line is, I'm not so sure the Milk School (or any other separate schools, other than for academic or artistic purposes) serves the kids' needs.

After all, life ain't a cocoon. I know, I know, protect, nurture, mentor, etc. This is all lofty and grand. But what happens when these kids go out into the real world, where things aren't so safe and comfy? Isn't one of the purposes of High School a preparation for life? I'm not saying that kids have to be assaulted with harrassment and worse when they go to school. But I'm not so sure that the creation of a separate place for them is the answer. It just bothers me, it's like a voluntary ghetto. And it makes me wonder how prepared the kids will be when the safety net is pulled, when they graduate. Will they seek other separate communities? Separate career paths? Separate sporting events and anything else you can imagine. Yes, I know, people voluntarily separate themselves out all the time. This is why there's a Chinatown in Boston and a Greenwich Village in NYC and whole host of other separated communities. I just have a big problem with taxpayer-financed separations, and not just in this case but in all other cases.

Scholastic separations for artistic or academic purposes are a different matter. Students are in school to learn, and it is an enhancement of their learning process if academically slow (or gifted) students are put together or if artistically inclined students are given their own space. But separations for other purposes smack, to me, of a school board that cannot handle its charges and passes the buck. The school board creates divisions in order to make its job more manageable but the reality is that these are, IMHO, artificial distinctions and can prove, in the long run, far more troubling than just keeping everyone together and providing as many students as possible with an excellent education in a heterogenous environment. Got a problem with girls not being called on as often as boys? Instead of reeducating the teachers, just move the girls! Got an issue with black students not having black male mentors? Instead of hiring more black male teachers in the preexisting schools, put 'em all in one separate place! Got a problem with gay students being bothered? Don't expel or arrest the troublemakers, or try to get to the root of why there's trouble in the first place, just provide a separate environment and, by extension, a tacit acceptance of the chaos in the schools.

Argh, I just see it as being a cop-out on the part of the board and it still reeks of segregation to me, no matter what its purpose is or how voluntary the procedures are.

0 Replies

Well, my experience with deaf schools may well be coloring my thinking on this. I have already accepted the idea that segregation is sometimes not only OK but beneficial. What I have seen time and time again is that the leaders, the ones who come back and make things better for everyone, are those who went to all-deaf schools. What I have seen time and time again is that the ones who were mainstreamed, and hated it, are bitter people who direct their hatred toward hearing people.

In other words, those in the "cocoon" tend to have better adaptive and social skills with those outside the "cocoon" than those who were forced to just deal.

This is just a general tendency I've noticed, with exceptions. And again, I've never said this is a totally fantastic idea -- if it really were something where all gay people were isolated from all straight people, yeah, I'd have problems with it. But on such a tiny scale?

0 Replies

sozobe
I can't equate a school for the deaf or blind with one for gay's.

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

U just might be surprised scrat !

I suppose it depends upon what you want to use the statistic for. If you are trying to estimate the percentage of the population who has had any experience or leaning--no matter how fleeting--involving the same gender, then 10% might be a valid number, but that doesn't mean it is representative of the size of the special interest block or of the number of students in that school system who would label themselves in any one of those categories. (Of course, gay activists would argue that they are accounting for those people who simply refuse to tell us their predilections. Kind of a free pass there, isn't it? "Only 1% of students tell us they are gay, but we're sure another 9% are lying about it." Confused

)

Now, on the other side of the issue let me state that I believe the gay community faces the most open and (frankly) often accepted bias, bigotry and hatred in our society. I heard a man speak a few years back who had previously been a spokesperson for a white supremacy group and claimed to have had a change of heart and was now speaking out against them. He commented that in his previous role as a PR person for this white supremacy group, he had always toned his message down for outsiders; internally they talked of "white supremacy" while to the public he spoke of "white separatism"--we don't think we're better, we just want to be able to choose to be apart. He commented that his job was to obfuscate and soften their image for the public, but he noted that the one area where he generally didn't have to soften their message of hate was when speaking about gays. His perception was that around America many people were quite tolerant of open hatred of gays.

That's the problem we need to solve, and it's one that Harvey Milk will not put a dent in.

0 Replies

sozobe - Now you've gone and made me think again! :wink:

Very good comments, and perhaps you are right. We are talking about giving kids and parents more choice, and I'm always for that. I also don't pretend that we can change things instantly, so your comment about offering a "safe haven" for those who wish it makes sense. I understand why you offer the analogy to black schools, but still don't think it's an analogy that works, because (and correct me if I'm wrong) I know of no instance where these schools were created as "safe havens"; in each case, they were created to recognize a special set of educational needs--strong male role models for black boys, etc.--not to give black kids a place to be schooled where they are safe from white bigots.

But again, I found a lot of food for thought in your comments, and I'm afraid you've put me back on the fence on this one. I see reasons to dislike the idea (some of which I've stated), but you've helped me to see some reasons to think it isn't the worst idea to come down the pike.

Thanks for the interesting and (for me, at least) useful exchange. Cool

0 Replies

I agree that the 10% number is rather arbitrary, but don't see that it makes that big of a difference in support for or opposition to the school. They don't claim it is factual, either.

Au, I brought up the deaf experience in terms of whether being forced to deal with the "oppressors" (which is how many deaf people think of hearing people) in high school necessarily helps the "oppressees" in their later life. I have found that the "oppressees" have more issues and problems than those who had an "oppressor-free" enclave for those high school years. Again, I don't think all gay students should be thus segregated. But I think the assumption that segregation will always lead to being unable to cope later on is flawed.

Scrat, yes, I'm in total agreement with what you say about how widespread homophobia is. I just don't think that Harvey Milk will have any negative effect on that, all by its little old lonesome. I don't think it will have that large of a positive affect, either, but I think that where it deviates from neutral -- not affecting anything at all -- it will be towards positive.

0 Replies

Oh, hi, missed you there.

I posted a link a while back about a blacks-only educational program that specifically used the word "security" -- it's a bear to Google for, hard to get a handle on it via keywords. But I found lots of references to that, the idea that black children feel safer and more able to focus on their studies in a black-only environment.

I've found the exchange interesting, as well. Smile

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Scrat, yes, I'm in total agreement with what you say about how widespread homophobia is. I just don't think that Harvey Milk will have any negative effect on that, all by its little old lonesome. I don't think it will have that large of a positive affect, either, but I think that where it deviates from neutral -- not affecting anything at all -- it will be towards positive.

Well, on that point we can soundly agree; if Harvey Milk has no negative effect it will be a positive thing! :wink:

0 Replies

Don't Segregate Gay Students

By LELAND SCRUBY

As a young gay man only a few years out of high school, I see the appeal of the Harvey Milk High School, a public school in New York City for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students that will be expanded this fall. But it is the easy way out — an exercise in wishful thinking that will do little to foster tolerance.
I know that public high schools can be unfriendly and scary, especially if you are homosexual. But the purpose of high school is not just earning a diploma, but also learning how to interact with people who may be different from you. There's no way an isolated, segregated environment will teach homosexual and heterosexual students to coexist and respect each other.
After years of keeping silent, I decided to come out during my sophomore year in high school. I knew it wouldn't be easy, but at least I would be facing reality. My school, Schenley High School in Pittsburgh, is an inner-city public high school. It is slightly famous because Andy Warhol went there, and it's pretty liberal, but there was still the same bullying and homophobia that exist in just about every high school.
At first I only told a few people, but within a month the whole school knew. Much to my surprise, my life got better. I made a new set of friends among other students who considered themselves outsiders. Teachers, impressed by my courage, gave me support. My grades improved significantly (by the end of my junior year, my grade-point average went up to an A from a C). Sure, not every day was easy, but by lifting the burden of my secret, I was able to get my act together and start focusing on my future.
I know that not every gay high school student has such a positive experience, but I do feel that being in a school among other students who were "different" in their own way made accepting me easier. And it was great for the school. Students who had never known a gay person now knew one. And I wasn't scary to them.
I do think it's important for people to express their sexuality, even at a young age, and it's only fair that they should be able to do so in a safe environment. But if gay students are afraid of being called names, going to an exclusively gay high school is not going to solve their problems. The straight bullies (and the closeted gay bullies) will be able to thrive and fester in their own hateful paradise, while the gay students will sit around hating the bullies in theirs.
The sad truth is that gay people are discriminated against no matter what — no matter where we go to school, where we live, where we work. Segregating gay students won't prevent it. Rather than promoting unity and understanding, it will foster intolerance among both straight and gay people.

Leland Scruby is a student at Carnegie Mellon University.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I know that public high schools can be unfriendly and scary, especially if you are homosexual. But the purpose of high school is not just earning a diploma, but also learning how to interact with people who may be different from you. There's no way an isolated, segregated environment will teach homosexual and heterosexual students to coexist and respect each other.

An excellent argument to Sozobe's excellent argument. I'm torn between the reasonableness of Sozobe's "what harm can it do" and my own suspicion that it can in fact do harm. Since the harm or good it does are likely to be difficult to measure, I suspect we will never have a hard answer as to whether making HMS a GLBT haven is a good idea.

0 Replies

Well...just from personal experience, not only can high school be unfriendly, scary and predatory, your "getting laid" rights go out the window if the girls presume you are gay, just because you try to be sensitive. At least at HM, the sexuality cards are totally laid out on the table, so to speak. Laughing

Time will tell if it is a good idea or not.

0 Replies

Yeah, I read that this a.m. and thought it might turn up here. Smile

I don't completely disagree with Mr. Scruby, and again my position throughout has not been "this is a great idea!" but "It just doesn't bother me that much." There is one part I disagree with, though:

Quote:

There's no way an isolated, segregated environment will teach homosexual and heterosexual students to coexist and respect each other.

I really do get how that makes sense to a lot of people, that it is counterintuitive that segregation, in some instances, would lead to improved relations later on. But that is exactly precisely what I have seen in the deaf community, which would seem to belie "there's no way..."

Again, if we were talking about across the board, all gay people segregated from all straight people, bad bad bad. But if 3.4% of all of the gay and lesbian students in all of New York City -- and just New York City -- go off to their little haven, leaving 96.6% of them in a mainstream environment in New York City, and 100% of them in a mainstream environment out of New York City... Just can't get too het up about it. The 96.6% who are left can do all of those good educational things. It's not like New York City mainstream high schools will suddenly be gay-free zones.

0 Replies

NYC's Gay High School

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know