Saturday, 29 Apr 2006
By Katelyn Sills
Some of you may have heard about the Day of Silence and the related events at Mira Loma High School here in Sacramento, CA. As a student there, I wanted to share the information I have gathered, and then, in a separate post, explain my opinion. In this post, I have tried to be as accurate and unbiased as possible, but if I have faltered in achieving either, please leave a comment.
The Day of Silence, according to the GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network), is “an annual opportunity for students to tell their truths about anti-LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender] bullying, violence and harassment.” This Wednesday, April 26, was the Day of Silence at my school, Mira Loma. As I entered school, I saw people wearing shirts like the ones above, or wearing rainbow colors.
Near the beginning of the day, students wearing the “Homosexuality is sin” shirts were told by the Mira Loma administration that they had the choice to either turn their shirts inside out, or accept a suspension for the rest of the day. According to one of my teachers, (see below), some members of the predominantly Eastern European Christian club had told Mira Loma’s administration about their future actions on the Day of Silence before it actually occurred. According to another of my teachers, the school administration had responded by warning the students about the possible consequences. Also, the school administration sent the teachers of Mira Loma an email with the following San Juan District regulation: “Clothing and other items worn or carried by students, including buttons and backpacks, may not: denigrate any group…”
Throughout the day, there was some discussion in my classes. One teacher called the “Homosexuality is sin” t-shirts “hateful”. A student in my English class stated that she felt like she wanted to throw tomatoes at those against the Day of Silence. However, nothing much happened (that I am aware of, at least) until the end of school.
After the bell rang, many students and faculty went to the front of the school, finding a line of protestors on the opposite side of the street whom I will call “anti-gay”; and a group on the school side, whom I will call “pro-gay”. (These labels may not be perfectly accurate, but they are as accurate as I can get without using a paragraph every time I try to reference each side.) (Note: Pictures were taken on Thursday, the day after the Day of Silence, where the same scenario was repeated.) The anti-gay group had posters such as, “One Nation Under God” and “School Bans Free Speech.” The pro-gay side had signs such as, “Gay is Okay” and “Thou shall not judge.” There was also an anti-gay van that had many signs on it, one being a picture of a male gay couple kissing with a circle and line through it, another saying “Stop the Insanity”, and more mentioning things like “Sodom and Gomorrah”. I overheard someone next to me in the pro-gay section who was looking at the signs on the van say, “Look! They forgot the ‘y’ in sodomy.” Now, on the actual Day of Silence (Wednesday), I simply observed both sides. But, on the next day (Thursday), with the same scenario continuing, outside and within school, I decided that I needed to start to interview and photograph.
The first girl I interviewed on Thursday (while still in class at this point) told me that she had participated in the Day of Silence because she had had friends that were targeted. When asked if she could share examples of incidences, she replied that she didn’t have any specific incidences, but just that there was a general hatred because gays were not accepted. She described the protesting as “hurtful” and said it was “targeting groups.” “They should be able to do it respectfully. Gays shouldn’t be treated any different than anyone else. They should be able to get married, and it’s their business what they do in bed.” When I asked if she would do anything differently if she were in the place of the school administration, she mentioned that she thought the school administration was handling things “really well”. Now, earlier, in this same class, our substitute teacher had given a student time to talk about the Stop the Hate day, which would occur on Friday. “If you disagree with what’s going on out there,” declared the student, gesturing towards the window, “then wear a t-shirt with Stop the Hate on it. You can even make it yourself.”
After school, I went out to the front of the school, just like the day before. There, I asked a nearby teacher if she thought it was all right for me to interview people for an article on my website. “On the opposite side of the street?” she asked. “Both sides,” I said. “Just be careful,” she answered. I tried to interview one of the actively protesting (for Day of Silence) students. The girl who volunteered to be interviewed explained that she was upset that those against the Day of Silence would bring in the Bible. She told me of a flyer that had been handed out, and I asked if I could have a copy. (Click here to view the flyer.)
I thought I should at least try to talk to one of the many police officers, but when I did, the officer (understandably) said that he needed to watch what was going on, but that I could call their media number. I also attempted to ask a school administrator if I could interview him, and he agreed. However, when I asked what his personal opinion was on this whole incident, he (in a rather frustrated manner, I thought) said that he was “just an administrator doing my job.” I thought it best to move on.
Thinking that I probably had enough viewpoints from that side of the street, I went to the other. There, I talked with one of the students who had been suspended for refusing to turn his t-shirt inside out. He told me that he had been suspended the day before after telling the principle “I have free speech and I will not remove the shirt.”, but today had stayed out of school to protest. He said that the police had taken away his megaphone, and that he and the others are just expressing their opinions. “The Bible says Adam and Eve,” he told me, “not Adam and Steve.” Another student at Mira Loma stated that there had been “fingers shown to us,” meaning that people had been flipping them off. “We harass, they say, but we are saying our opinion.” She said that they had had objects thrown at them, and that one girl had wrote an essay in a class at Mira Loma that mentioned God, but that the teacher had crossed out every mention. I knew they had attempted to pass out pamphlets, so I asked for one. (Click here to view the pamphlet.)
I went home, thought about what I had heard from both sides, and decided that I needed a t-shirt of my own, stating “Tolerance for all means everyone… even if you disagree.” When I wore it today (Friday) I think some people were unsure of what I meant, but I will explain that in my next post.
So, some people wore “Stop the Hate” shirts on Friday, as I earlier explained. This included some of the teachers. I then interviewed one of my teachers that had been wearing one of the shirts. She said that nothing like this (meaning the opposition) had happened before. Mira Loma had had the Day of Silence three or four times, she explained. “We were surprised.” When asked if she had perceived any discrimination against gays at Mira Loma, my teacher said that she had not noticed “any gay bashing”, but that there had been a gay student who had committed suicide a few years before. “I don’t know if that was from direct or indirect pressure,” she told me. Because she was wearing a “Stop the Hate” t-shirt, I asked (politely) what particularly she perceived to be hateful. She appeared slightly startled, but said that she was against any intolerance, “just like your shirt says.” Also, according to my teacher, the administration was “doing a fairly good job of it.” They had gotten police officers to keep the peace, and had tried to disperse the Day of Silence students on the school side of the sidewalk, she said. We then started talking about the email that the faculty had been sent about San Juan School District’s t-shirt policy, so I inquired as to how she felt the San Juan policy fit with the student expression section of the California Education Code (read here).
“48907. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press including, but not limited to, the use of bulletin boards, the distribution of printed materials or petitions, the wearing of buttons, badges, and other insignia, and the right of expression in official publications, whether or not such publications or other means of expression are supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities, except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous. Also prohibited shall be material which so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.”
She replied that the San Juan policy was more restrictive, but that someone “can’t incite problems at school.” The intent behind both is the same, she said. You can view more pictures here. As soon as possible, I plan to write a follow-up essay outlining the reasoning for my opinions.
April 30th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
This is just more testimony to the liberal version of “tolerance”. Real translation: intolerance for everything and everybody who doesn’t think like them. We need to call them on it. Even school officials are afraid to stand up and say the other side has a right to express their views without being called hatemongers and intolerant! It is so ludicrous. If the bill passes for mandatory sexual education on homosexuality, California will have truly crossed the line into LaLaLand. As if it hasn’t already. My mother opted me out in freshman year of almost everything in “Social Issues”: euphemism for indoctrination of the liberal lifestyle. I spent a semester in the library!
April 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
good article, but i disagree with the reply.
One cannot use the phrase…well…technically u CAN, lol, but “liberal version of ‘tolerance’” , by americafirst is simply stereotyping all liberals, and i–certainly can be called a liberal–do not agree. If i was of this sort of liberals, i wouldnt be in this website, taking in what the other side is saying, right?
Anyhow, i think it is true in many cases that “tolerance means: intolerance for everything and everybody who doesn’t think like them”. But that is not to say that ALL the time its like that.
Really…EVEN if it is true, i think they have more reason to use the word in such a way, than the (if u call this “liberal”, then) the rightwingers’ killing of LGBT.
But thats not to say that killing on anyside is justified, eh?
Lets try to put ourselves in the other people’ shoes before judging i guess.
–The “pro-gay” group might be scared of the “anti-gay” group, because of the history of violence.
–The “anti-gay” group feels that their free speech is taken away.
The authority cannot really do anything, but to seperate the groups…But this is no way to say that they are limiting free speech(they’re allowed to protest across the street, lol). Hey, one group is condemning the other of being Sinful, while one group says its perfectly fine, since they’re not harming anyone (and got pretty good proof).
“Compare” this to the KKK. You know what we all prefer to do (seperate the two sides, or to take the side against KKK, right?)
Of course, under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, the KKK still have their rights. =) wouldnt u agree?
April 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
You’re right. Not all “liberals” are intolerant of those that disagree with them. For example, yourself. However, many times the opposite viewpoint is censored by those that call themselves liberals.
Secondly, anyone who would think that the Christian club members would harm the homosexual students is delusional. According to the “pro-gay” side, there have been no instances of abuse against homosexuals from individuals at our school. The only alleged abuse (throwing of objects) came from the “pro-gay” side. So, to place the crimes of others onto these students simply does not work, and cannot be used as an excuse for censorship. It’s like saying, “Christians have been killed for their beliefs (example: Columbine http://ctlibrary.com/15184 ) so therefore, nobody can criticize Christianity because you Christian-haters have a history of violence.”
Obviously, this is ridiculous. A much better and fairer way of managing the conflict would be to allow free speech (expressing concern about Christianity, the gay lifestyle, etc.), but stop any and all acts of violence, whoever they are against (unpopular people, Christians, Buddhists, homosexuals…).
The school should not separate the two groups if they are both simply expressing their viewpoints. As we can see in just our conversation here, having different opinions is healthy.
Actually, one group is calling the other “sinful”, while the other group is calling the other “hateful” for being so judgmental. The irony.
The differences between the KKK and the current situation are that
1) Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a physical characteristic. It is a choice to have sex with someone of your gender. Scientific studies support the conclusion that homosexuality is not genetic. Otherwise, all identical twins (same genes) would either be both straight or both gay, and this is not the case.
2) The KKK directly did violent acts and pushed for violence against African Americans. The “anti-gay” side here is clearly non-violent.
So, yes, the KKK has the right to state their beliefs legally, but they do not have the right to be violent or to incite violence, which was the biggest problem.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
word.
1. Although sometimes it was quite hard for me to be productive here. We have an “internet” barrier, sort of, as in most case of electronic communication. We have the choice of taking back what we typed by Backspace. This enable us(me) to realize how biased our (or my) statements are, and correct them
2. I also think there should be debate in school…i truely believe that through reason, and even apathy that gays and lesbians will gain rights, or at least not lose to the argument that of religious or traditional views:
Gay is, like u said, a lifestyle, which is related, though has nothing directly to do with anything immoral (or my version of immorals: in terms of adultery, stealing, killing, raping,…)
2(ex) You can think of it like this….imagine the world all eats grape, and they never eat strawberries, Now SOME IDIOTS started eating strawberries and love it, bare with me here,….so some day in the morning paper it reads:
“eating strawberries, sinful, harmful ? or tasteful?”
then
“pro-strawberry eaters vs. anti-strawberry eaters”
then “two men are killed today for publicly eat strawberry at the town square, when the angry mob happened to be eating grapes”
…
…
is this not a lifestyle? do we really have to go and find a “strawberry eating DNA”?!?!?! hahaha.
I seriously think people can use their hatred on things like fighting tobacco, poverty, or “terrorists”…but thats just my opinion, what do YOU think? =)
3. anyhow. as for saying that school authorities (or anyone else) thinking that Christian club might harm the “pro-gay” group as being delusional, i dont think is completely valid.
Humans are known (reasonable) to make precautions, have prejudices…like this…
u see the dog barking at u all the time, then sometimes it even threaten you, theres another time when it even bit your friend…
____ NOW, being non-prejudiced as u are, do u still walk right next to that dog when u passes its house?_0
I think the school did what any reasonable (and Very careful) authority would do.
Of course, i think that is why some people are fed up with “liberals’ lies”.
P.S. I hope i can persuade GSA to having a debate or something after the day of Silence (i know that we ARE having a “talk” the day after).
Although, i think the point of Day of Silence was just to show support, and educate on violence against LGBT community. I believe it is a strict rule at our school to not hurt anyone at any point during the protest .
Good night
April 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I understand why you think that homosexuality may have nothing to do with immorality. Legally, as of now, there is nothing “wrong” with it. However, first, it is against what God has intended. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 -
“9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
I realize that many people don’t care what the Bible says. But, if you are looking for a moral standard, what better source than God’s own book? If you have a more impressive source, I’d like to see it. But if that still isn’t a good enough reason, homosexual behavior is harmful- to the individual and to those around him or her. Homosexuality correlates with other problems such as suicide and depression (see http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html). It’s immoral in the same way as cutting or otherwise harming yourself. According to your logic, it is perfectly fine to, say set yourself on fire. It doesn’t hurt anyone else, isn’t against the law, so how can you condemn that?
Secondly, I’m glad you mentioned fighting against tobacco, but how do you think this makes smokers feel? Are you judging them for their behavior? If it is alright to be against smoking, why can’t you be against homosexual behavior? Both are behaviors that have medical risks.
So do you see what I am saying? Homosexuality should be opposed because it is part of a harmful lifestyle. For the person’s own sake, just like smokers, they should “quit”. And some do.
Lastly, there is a problem with your dog analogy: you’re using the same dog. These people have committed no prior crime. They are not the ones that have “bitten” you before. So, a better analogy would be to say that, in the past, a dog bit you. Now, you want to keep all dogs (even those who have committed no crime and have not bitten you) in cages because of their “history of biting”. Is this fair? I don’t think so.
In America, we are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:17 am
1. good one. i like ur dog analogy. you’ve made me realize that, the reasons i give for the administration to react in such a way makes them look just like some of the other bloggers here, who hate “liberals’ lies”. hahaha, maybe its just the politicians that lie, whether what party they’re in.
But anyhow, if u want to say that there is a problem with that dog analogy, i can change that…Why are people scared of dogs when there is just ONE time they got bitten by the dogs? Or why do people have flight fright when flying is the safest way of transportation?
But of course you’re right, what i said justified that the administration just made a prejudice decision, haha. All i was trying to say is that its understandable.
2. The Bible is a great source of morals, no doubt, but that is not to say that it knows everything and dictates every human moralities. I will not try to find “a better source” because i do not wish to go into that area, lol.
3. HAHAHAHA, u know, according to my logic, it IS ok to burn yourself up, hahaha, i cant believe u actually said that, because to me, that is ok. lol. I have thought about suiciding when i was a kid, and really, to me its ok, BUT.
That is different than homosexuality.
To kill oneself (or cut oneself) can hurt your family members. According to a Chinese saying, you are literally “bones of your father, muscles of your mother”. To have piercings and tattoos fall into this category.
–Homosexuality have nothing to do with that, at least in my belief.
3b. It is not immoral to do something that does not harm others, in my belief. You can be a lazy bum, and still be alright to me. But, if u were to be more hardworking, and improve society, but instead u choose to be idle, then thats another thing.
do you get what im trying to say?
4. anyhow, as for smoking, my father smokes for the past 20 years i believe, and i think that its ok for him to smoke. Although, the reason why i dont like it, ok, erase that, hate it, is because its quite enough evidence in that his skin looks like that of a man 10 years older than him (hes 55). He used to be healthy, a martial artist when he was a teenager, but now he gets a cold almost half the year…
That, is more evident than some study on homosexuality, but of course, i would not deny your source, because i have no credentials to do so.
(we should always be careful with messing with psychology, a very new part of science)
4b. this is an extra part. This is a summary of why i dont like smoking, (seperate from the homosexuality issue):
—we’ve been to the United States for almost 5 years, not yet securing citizenship; we are “poor”, though gladly under financial aids from the government (which can help u understand my sympathetic attitude towards leftists). Anyhow, Smoking is:
- A. Economically:
—expensive (being addictive doesn’t help)
—is used before (similar to Opium), and still used today to put economic imperialism on third world countries (such as SE Asia)
I believe tobacco—as well as alcohol, addictive drugs— is one of many different reasons poor people stay poor, while rich people stay rich.
- B. Health:
—bad for the body (almost guarantees cancer to my knowledge), which includes making the mind dull, making the skin dead faster, bad nails, bad hair, worse eyesight, worse hearing, generally the senses are dull, weaker….the WHOLE body, which effects human efficiency dramatically.
—addictive, which ties to part A.
- C. Family:
—bad for family because of health issue, also, because of part B effect on the brain (evident in my family where my dad becomes more unreasonable)
——i said a fight against tobacco, not smokers. i said fight poverty, not poor people, lol. of course, then u can say that u fight homosexuality, not gay people.
=)
4c====> to me, i find smoking, to humanity, much more harmful than homosexuality. What do you think? But do we fight that enough? i dont think so, partially because its addictive of course, and..Of course, it is a choice.
4d. I am not sure whether homosexuality is a choice, or linked to DNAs…but i dont know if that matters.
5. There is one thing about that link u gave me that i find objectionable . One cannot say that homosexual men/women focus purely on looks and sex, but not emotional aspects, based on a quote from “a gay advocate”.
I think Homo sapiens, whether gay or not, have the ability to enjoy sex, why not say that everyone’s clouded by sexual thoughts?
hey, i think this is funny. You know how they always say that men think of sex every 6 seconds …so if a relationship is between two gay males, wouldnt that make it more likely that they think of sex, hahaahhaha. Of course…i believe that the above statement is not true. and even if it IS, i blame it on culture.
lets not be sexist here =).
i got another one i think people have sex too much, lol. the world is overpopulated dam it! hahaha, complain about too many people? stop having sex then! or protected or something…or pills, which might be controversial, b/c people can use that too much, hahah. Just have sex, and “the morning after pill’ is solve everything. haahaaha.
OR>….u can have gay sex, no way there’ll be a need for abortions :D. hahaha.
p.S. i think that “please add # and #” thing resets on its own or something, so i always keep a copy of my reply before i cliick submit, haha
April 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
You’re trying to say that the administration had a reason for denying groups their free speech. I’m trying to say, yeah, but it’s not a valid one. And therefore, should not have been acted on.
Sorry, I found some of what you said confusing, like: “it IS ok to burn yourself up”, “To kill oneself (or cut oneself) can hurt your family members”, and “It is not immoral to do something that does not harm others, in my belief.” These seem contradictory to me. You said that harming yourself, hurts others. Then you said that it is immoral to hurt others. Therefore, isn’t harming yourself immoral?
I think harming anyone, especially oneself, is immoral. Homosexuality harms the person, and others too.
I definitely agree with you on the effects of smoking.
I think you kind of misinterpreted the last part of the article. It says, “And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions” To me, it seems that what the article is trying to say in that particular part is that because there is not an evident idea of caring for the other person, most relationships are based on sex. Such a relationship (homosexual or heterosexual) - where you just use the other person, is harmful.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
i will return for a real reply when i have time. its sunday, and i have not much time left to do hw. sorry, but be back later (maybe next week,lol)
April 17th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
tomorrow’s Andrew Hill’s Day of Silence. I’m excited
hopefully there wont be violence, started from our side. =)
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
when i said hurting yourself will harm other, what i meant was related to Chinese’s belief that your body is given to you by your parents, so you should respect them in a sense that you should not harm it. But by any means, you dont always HAVE to do what you SHOULD do. thats all. Technically, if I just use the “what you should do”, then i dont have the right to force anyone to do it. do you get this?
its like, if you believe its wrong, thats fine, but you dont have to force a law or rule, that will actually interfere with the other groups.
my values depends from case to case, as with most people.
If “anti-gay” dont like to be gay, then ok, be straight. Certainly they can accept something, and not be For it?
If “pro-gay” wants acceptance for gay people, then ok.
and referring to the article…so i guess i misinterpreted. it was just saying that ANY kind of relationship based on sex is wrong, heterosexual or homosexual. ok.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I understand that “what you should do” is not always the same thing as “what should be enforced by law”. However, doing something that you shouldn’t do is wrong and should not be encouraged or accepted.
You said, “If “anti-gay” dont like to be gay, then ok, be straight. Certainly they can accept something, and not be For it?” No, people have the right to disapprove. We are allowed to disapprove of many other life choices, such as drinking or smoking, for the person’s own good. This is no different. It is no more hateful than being against smoking.
Mainly, I think a lot of people don’t understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I think we are all called to tolerate, that is, treat our companions with the respect that they deserve as human beings. But that does not mean that we have to accept their actions in the name of tolerance.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:32 am
word
April 25th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
NO GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
gays bring damnation to our nation…