<p>“Something like this shouldn’t go on her school record though, sheesh!”</p>
<p>And why not, may I ask?</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>I agree that the student does not seem the most docile type. But
I think outing the student to her parents was presuming quite a bit on the part of the principal. I also think that kids act differently at home and elsewhere. I know a college student who took years to disclose to his parents what most people on campus knew–that he was gay. Apparently, it was a huge emotional scene at home.</p>
<p>Marite</p>
<p>As it was said before, we do not have the details of the exact actions by the principal. FWIW, I agree that the principal should NOT have contacted the parents, if his sole purpose was to cause harm to his student -even emotional. </p>
<p>My problem with this case is that ANYONE who witnessed the PDA could have contacted the parents since the actions were NOT done in private. I find this similar to someone posting embarassing text or pictures on the web and then suing the persons who may report the postings to the parents. Again, I do not see how this “victim” could have had her expectations of privacy violated by the disclosure of her PUBLIC actions. Is this a case where the principal is held to a higher standard than all others? I can see how the higher standard could apply to all private or protected matters, but this does not seem to be the case in this situation. </p>
<p>Oh well, everyone is entitled to have his day in court or his fifteen minutes of fame. The plaintiff got both.</p>
<p>And yet in this case, it was not. Why assume bad intent on the part of the Principal and sainthood on the part of the amorous student?</p>
<p>It seems to me that too often we are to quick to act upon our prejudice.</p>
<p>As a parent, I would want to know and would consider anything less a failure in my parenting…especially if my child was comfortable to live out what they are keeping from their parents in front of not only their peers but the community in general.</p>
<p>Obviously, this particular child is no shrinking violet…good for her, and yet, she is still a minor with parents who love her and a school that has certain standards that it seems to enforce.</p>
<p>I missed it - Is she 18? If she is not 18 how can the school be sued for disclosing anything to her parents?</p>
<p>My feelings are already expressed in the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, and I will add - How do you think it feels as a parent to be the only person in town that doesn’t know your daughter is gay?</p>
<p>Bill O’Reilly just had a segment on this case. His guest, Judge Napoliano, had read the legal documents. The judge in the case had determined, as a finding of fact, that the school had no written policy against kissing on school property and had no history of ever punishing heterosexual students for kissing, whether by suspensions, by transfers to other schools, or by contacting students’ parents. </p>
<p>Napoliano’s assessment was that the school district didn’t have a leg to stand on and would have to settle the case before it goes to a jury trial. California law requires equal application of rules to heterosexuals and homosexuals.</p>
<p>
That has no relevance to whether a principal should or should not disclose this. It’s a matter between the parents and the child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hard to believe that no student was ever found canoodling on school property! But none seems to have been punished.</p>
<p>Some of these posts have veered off topic. Even if (a huge if) the principal disciplined the lesbian couple in the same way he disciplines heterosexual couples, he still did not have the right to disclose the girl’s sexual orientation. All he needed to do was inform the parents that she was suspended for PDA violations; giving any information about the partner is unnecessary. Furthermore, as the NY Times article states (I don’t know which article was posted here), telling the parents of a gay student his or her sexual orientation is extraordinarily rude, insensitive, and potentially dangerous. </p>
<p>I don’t care about the specifics in this case. It doesn’t matter that her parents are supportive or that most people knew she was homosexual; what does matter is the fact that the principal volunteered information that was not necessary to disclose in order to inform the parents of the situation, and, by doing so, he violated the student and put her into a potentially dangerous situation. His behavior is inexcusable. </p>
<p>NJres, even kids under eighteen have rights. They are not as extensive, certainly, but they do exist, and they are important. To your other comment, it doesn’t matter in the least how the parents feel. This is about the student and her rights to privacy (or lack thereof). Coming out to parents is a personal decision that should be left to the child in question. Coming out is about the child, not the parents.</p>
<p>…This isn’t coming from a parent, if you couldn’t tell.</p>
<p>The legal issue will almost certainly be dealt with in a settlement, as the lawyers always knew (its been done before). However, the values issue, I believe, breaks down to whether or not it takes a village, a family, or in the least a parent, or not. One girl was 16 years old, the other 17. They had parents, or perhaps in these parts it will carry more water to refer to them as her legal guardians.</p>
<p>If you agree with the following sentiments, you obviously believe that it does not take a village, a family or a parent but rather that children are qualified to lead their sex lives in abundance and as they choose without the care, advice or consent of their parents; we should assume, it seems, that parents have no legal, moral or personal interest in even knowing; after all, the state is a childs only true guardian or benefactor…and of course other sage & wise children.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if the parents believe it would have been better for them if they had remained in the dark about their child even as everyone else in town knew.</p>
<p>I believe it takes a village to raise a child. And I do not believe that the principal acted in the best interests of the child in question. The girl does not think so. Her parents obviously do not think so.</p>
<p>a family or a parent but rather that children are qualified to lead their sex lives in abundance and as they choose without the care, advice or consent of their parents; we should assume, it seems, that parents have no legal, moral or personal interest in even knowing; after all, the state is a childs only true guardian or benefactor…</p>
<p>Well federal law does allow minors to obtain contraception without their parents permission.</p>
<p>Wood, this isn’t a “values issue,” as you refer to it; this is a legal issue, and my post was only about the legalities of the case. In terms of the law, it certainly doesn’t matter how the parents reacted. The law in this case is concerned only with what the principal needed to say versus what he actually said. </p>
<p>I did not say that children are qualified to make all sexual decisions by themselves, nor did I say that the parents have no interest in such activity. Stop trying to words into my mouth, and read what I actually wrote. </p>
<p>I feel forced to mention, though, two obvious points that you seem to ignore: 1) There is a difference between what children are legally allowed to do and what they ought to do, and 2) Parents do not always behave in the best interests of their children (although these particular parents are supportive).</p>
<p>
They obviously did agree that the principal shouldn’t have informed them; hence the lawsuit.</p>
<p>I totally agree with Marite’s points here. </p>
<p>One, it doesn’t sound like this rule about PDA was applied uniformly with heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. </p>
<p>Two, if the student broke a rule and the parents were to be informed, it was not necessary to disclose her sexual orientation. Like Marite says, would the principal have called and said, “by the way your daughter was kissing her heterosexual partner?” Disclosing this information was not neccessary or evenly applied and seems to be an “agenda” as the principal did not want the openly homosexual behavior in school. Telling the parents before the student had chosen to be open to her parents, COULD have put the student in a very bad situation. All he was entitled to do was to put her in “trouble” with her parents for breaking a school rule. </p>
<p>Three, the fact that it was in public and that “others” knew her sexual orientation, doesn’t then follow that her parents must be informed by the principal (though nothing could stop some kid who saw it from telling the parents, guess who I saw Susie kissing today?"). Sure, as Woodwork says, parents want to know this kind of thing about their kids and especially when others know and they don’t. And sure, it takes a village. But none of that is relevant to the case. Also, there are LOTS of things that kids do that others know and their parents don’t (though the parents would like to know). For instance, if my kid was overheard by the principal that she was having sex with her boyfriend, and everyone at school knew about it but her parents did not, does it give him a right to inform her parents just because he “cares” and thinks they should know? In terms of it taking a village, this adult can opt to guide the child but it doesn’t then follow that parents should be informed. AS emeraldkitty mentioned, minors can obtain contraception without their parents’ permission. So, while it is good that others in the village want to help a child, it doesn’t always follow that these “others” must inform the parents. And in this case, there was no “help” even needed. She is entitled to her sexual orientation. If she broke a rule about kissing, etc. in the hallways, then tell her to stop and if it continues, give detention or whatever is the case. If detentions have write ups to parents, simply note the rule broken “public displays of affection, repeated offenses”. But I’d really want to make sure that rule was consistently applied. The girl would have just cause if she could prove that others’ PDA go without discipline. She MAY have been treated differently. We know ONE way she WAS treated differently…the parents were informed about her sexual orienation, which was irrelevant to the breaking of the rule…unless…unless…the very fact that it WAS a homosexual display of affection that caused the principal’s disciplinary measures. </p>
<p>The fact that the parents were supportive is not relevant. This disclosure, before the student was ready to make it herself, could have caused her big problems at home. Over Thanksgiving, my daughters got together with their local friend from HS who now attends Smith. This girl had been dating boys until recently. At Smith, she is now dating a girl. My girls were meeting her somewhere and she was late. The reason she gave for being late was that she had just come out to her parents and it did not go well at all. They blamed her becoming a lesbian because she had gone to Smith and so on and so forth. Not all parents take it like the girl in this thread’s parents did. This principal may have set the girl up for a situation like the one my kids’ friend just had. Sure, like Woodwork says, parents want to know what others know about their kid. But there is LOTS that others know that you may not know and it is not the principal’s right to inform the parents of things of the nature of sexual orientation, but just about breaking rules. My child is not 18 and she is in college. If someone at school were to catch her smoking pot, they are not obligated to inform me. That is just how it works. They can counsel her but they don’t have to inform me if she breaks a rule. If they find out she is sleeping with her boyfriend, they don’t have to tell me. If they find out she is a lesbian (she is not) they don’t have to tell me. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>Reading through the many posts on this thread, I only question the suspensions that were enforced. They may or may not have been justified. Still, it seems quite clear that this young lady very much wanted to be a celebrated causewhether rightly, or wrongly; perhaps it was the right thing to do at the time, and in the cultural/political climate of the school.</p>
<p>I am troubled, though, by some of the parents posting here that seem to believe the parents should not know what was obviously a very big part of their daughters public identity and emotional life. Again, perhaps the young lady felt she needed to test the system, maybe she should, but insinuating that the parents had no right to know about their own daughters travails and trialsespecially in light of the fact that she was involving herself in a political/emotional struggle with the school administrationseems bizarre, unfeeling and unwise at the very best.</p>
<p>This is exactly what parents most need to know. Even grades are of secondary concern, and few would doubt parents need to know this, IMHO.</p>
<p>I am not saying parents shouldnt know what their child is doing
However- the law states that minors can recieve health care without parents permission including birthcontrol.</p>
<p>If a child does not want to share critical information/ if parents are not already aware of critical information- forcing the issue is not going to help- as there are bigger problems at hand</p>
<p>I do not argue that the parents have no right to know important information about their daughter. I question the principal’s decision to be the one to inform parents and his motives for doing so. It is not a life and death issue, not an emergency in which the school authorities must notify parents before acting on behalf of the child. Granted it would be desirable for the parents to know important aspects of their children’s personality and activities, but they ought to be able to choose the time and place to share such sensitive information with their parents.</p>
<p>Parents might have a right to know - however, that has never justified someone telling them. You have a right to know that your spouse was laid off; however, you would want to hear it from him, not from a (former) co-worker who calls you up before your spouse gets home. </p>
<p>IMO, the rights of the principal to disclose are separate and distinct from the rights of the parents to know. There is also a third right: that of the child to tell her parents when she is comfortable. Perhaps she had been waiting to get out of high school, fearing reprisal. Perhaps she had been a bit of a problem child (which would make her a standard teenager) and wanted her parents to be proud of her for something else when she told them. </p>
<p>Would you all think the same way if these were two very religious kids who were dating outside of their religion? Would you feel the same way if this were a black guy and a white girl? </p>
<p>I really think that the girl had a right to tell her parents herself, on her own time. I do think that the principal’s actions will only encourage gay students to not disclose anything in the school - no chance of having a supportive coming-out before telling your parents. It’s the same reason why I don’t support the fact that school counselors will always tell parents what their kids are talking about or if they came in. If a teenager can find an open, supportive environment, that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>I guess I really worry about the fact that she probably wasn’t given the option to tell her parents. It wasn’t the situation of, “I’m telling your parents by next Thursday, because they are coming in to discuss the suspension; talk to them before then.” I also worry that the “outing” was simultenous with a suspension - which, in some families, would lead to all hell breaking loose at home.</p>
<p>26% of gay children are kicked out of their homes at some point. The suicide rate is 2-5 times higher than their heterosexual peers. Only a completely self-centered individual would do anything to exacerbate those problems by inserting himself into the parent/child issue.</p>
<p>One final question… if the issue were a pregnant student, who would support the principal saying something? “Your daughter was suspended for being too kissy with the father of her unborn child.” </p>
<p>Coming out is probably just as scary in terms of fear of rejection and moral grandstanding. Sexual orientation and pregnancy are also things that a teenager’s friends would know before her parents. Why remove that support group?</p>
<p>I agree with the above posters, for the most part. It is the student’s right and responsibility to inform her parents of her sexual orientation, if she chooses to at all. This decision should never, under any circumstances, be made by someone other than the child in question. This is especially true considering the fact that so many parents react horribly. </p>
<p>My parents were the last people I came out to, and this seems to be true with most people. I can’t imagine having to come out to my parents without having been out to my peers for a length of time beforehand. By being out with my friends, teachers, and strangers, I learned how to deal with homophobia and bigotry and grew much more comfortable and confident with who I am. I came out to my parents when the time was best in the best way possible for my situation, and I am the only person who could have determined that. If I had been outed by a public school principal, you can be sure as hell I would have brought a lawsuit against them.</p>
<p>I don’t know what the “real deal” is, but has anyone considered the possibility that the principal --who saw a young woman who was totally “out” at school–ASSUMED the parents knew? And then said something that let the parents know…without any mean vindictive motive? </p>
<p>My high school --a zillion years ago–had an anti-PDA policy. Your parents were told if you “dirty danced” with someone at a school dance or were caught petting in school. In MOST of the phone calls home telling parents about the suspension, the other person involved was mentioned. I’d say 99 % of the time, parents were aware that Susie was dating John. But if John were of an unacceptable religion or skin color, that call “outed” a " straight" couple. I can remember a Mormon girl…the guy wasn’t Mormon…the phone call home was the first inkling her parents had that she was in love with someone who wasn’t Mormon. </p>
<p>This wasn’t a college kid, folks. Away from home, many gay kids are open about their sexuality. They think that it’s very unlikely mom and dad, who live a long way away, will find out if they make out in public with someone of the same sex. But in high school? Isn’t it an unrealistic expectation that nobody is going to tell the 'rents who live in the same neighborhood? </p>
<p>So, lets not jump on this principal without knowing the facts. Hey, maybe you’re all right and he treated gay and staight couples differently. But maybe you’re not right…maybe he told all couples to “curb their enthusiasm.” Maybe most couples did. Maybe this young woman and her girlfriend didn’t. (I do get the impression that the young woman and her girlfriend had been “spoken to” several times before there was a suspension. ) At that point, he called the 'rents and said something along the lines of " Your daughter Ann and her girlfriend Heather have been warned about making out at school twice. Today, despite those warnings, they engaged in petting in the school’s main hallway at lunchtime, so they are being suspended." If the parents didn’t know their daughter was lesbian, that might have been a phone call that really “outed” the girl. But the principal really could have made such a call ASSUMING that the parents of both girls were aware of their relationship. </p>
<p>I think something really important is being lost in the sauce here. That is, that the lesbian teen did NOT win a law suit! All the judge held was that she’s entitled to a trial. Simplifying somewhat, he’s saying that he doesn’t know enough to decide now. Neither do we.</p>