Silencing Dissent from the Day of Silence
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) sponsored the 11th annual Day of Silence last April 18. The event’s premise is that lebians, gays, bisexuals and transgendereds (LGBT) who attend middle schools, high schools, and colleges suffer from pervasive discrimination and harassment. This effectively silences them and their allies. So on the day of silence, everyone participating in the event refuses to speak for an entire day, to dramatize their oppression.
This is no small event. This site lists over 1300 participating high schools nationwide. And in at least some of those schools, the event enjoys full official support. With official tax-funded muscle behind it, the event apparently becomes a celebration of the GLSEN agenda.
Some students don’t like the Day of Silence. They object to being force-fed GLSEN propaganda. So they push back. In 2004, a student attending a San Diego-area high school wore a protest shirt on the day after the Day of Silence. On the front it read: “I will not accept what God has condemned” and “Be ashamed, our school embraced what God has condemned.” The back read: “Homosexuality is shameful, ‘Romans 1:27.’” After repeated demands that he take off the shirt, he was removed from class for the day.
The student sued, alleging that the school had infringed his freedom of speech. The school had endorsed a pro-homosexual message the day before, but would not tolerate a contrary viewpoint. The Ninth Circuit sided with the school district, in an opinion that still raises my blood pressure after the second or third reading. (Summary here, full text here, dissent here.) The US Supreme Court vacated that opinion just two months ago, meaning that it has no legal effect.
Now the Pacific Legal Foundation reports that dozens of students have been suspended from Sacramento Area schools over the 2007 Day of Silence. The report estimates that three to four thousand students chose to stay home to avoid the day’s pro-homosexual propaganda. Two of the schools have agreed to drop the suspensions and eliminate any stain on the students’ records; a third school hasn’t yet responded to PJI pressure.
It’s a very confusing issue if you approach it as religion vs. non-religion. But present it as a conflict between religions, and I think it all makes perfect sense. One side believes that sexual restraint is a virtue; the other believes that it is an evil. The fact that one side believes in a God while the other doesn’t is completely irrelevant.
(Via Clayton Cramer.)
I have very low tolerance for bigotry. So if a gay teen showed up in school wearing a t-shirt that said “heterosexual sex is rape” I would be most pleased if he got sent home to put something on that did not offend his fellow straight students. Refusing to do so would be good cause for suspension.
Comment by arturo fernandez — May 18, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
It’s nice to be opposed to bigotry, but how should we define it? One man’s bigotry is another man’s basic decency. The premise of the day of silence is that deep hatred of homosexuals seethes across the land, and its supporters see any objection to that premise as bigotry. But the Christian protestors see the premise itself as bigotry. Some say that any disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry, while others say that certain passages of the Bible itself should be punished as hate speech.
And trying to build some standard out of offensiveness doesn’t help at all. In fact, it makes things worse, because it rewards the easily offended and encourages them to become more so.
Comment by BenBateman — May 21, 2007 @ 9:30 am
No, not “any” dissaproval of homosexuality is bigotry. I don’t know many, actually I don’t know any, homosexuals who believe “any” expression of heterosexuality is offensive because it can take the form of rape. If they did, they whould rightly be called bigots.
Comment by arturo fernandez — May 21, 2007 @ 12:22 pm