Most local school districts ignore state's anti-gay bullying law - First of two parts

Mr. Zonkel, your headline is worded in such a manner as to imply that the law MANDATES anti-gay bullying.
Since there is an inherent problem with hyphens here, it should be worded as "Most local school districts ignore state's law prohibiting anti-gay bullying."

Now go back to Journalism school and study English grammar.

I know that back in the 90s, especially early 90s, Nassau County, Florida Schools did not do much to protect gay or perceived gay students from bullying, harassment, intimidation, and violence, especially the old Yulee Middle School. Fernandina Beach Middle School was the lesser of two evils. Welcome to the Bible Belt! I heard it's worse and still is on the west side of Nassau County like Hilliard, Callahan, and Bryceville for gay people and students. The more east you get the less rural it is. It's still conservative in surrounding areas like Baker County, FL and Charlton and Camden Counties of Georgia and Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida where the council members voted down an ordinance that would add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to be protected along with religion, race, gender, and disability, etc. I guess Jacksonville still wants the "right" to discriminate against gays.

Google the bullying incident that happened to Zach Huston in Chillicothe, Ohio.

JohnInToronto wrote:

Mr. Zonkel, your headline is worded in such a manner as to imply that the law MANDATES anti-gay bullying.
Since there is an inherent problem with hyphens here, it should be worded as "Most local school districts ignore state's law prohibiting anti-gay bullying."
Now go back to Journalism school and study English grammar.

Wow, a little harsh so early in the morning, eh?

The headline appears clear enough... grammatically, the schools are ignoring the law. Which law? The anti-gay bullying law. The law that prohibits bullying, including the bullying of apparently gay kids. Anti-gay bullying. It seems fair enough.

Your headline may be better, but perhaps it didn't fit in the column inches in the print edition. And if you knew anything about Journalism or went to Journalism school yourself, you'd know that it's not uncommon for the headline to be written by someone other than the writer of the article. Don't jump all over Mr. Zonkel. Headline suggestions by the writer are frequently changed by editors so that they might fit the space in the print edition, and don't ordinarily get a makeover in electronic editions.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, a little harsh so early in the morning, eh?
The headline appears clear enough... grammatically, the schools are ignoring the law. Which law? The anti-gay bullying law. The law that prohibits bullying, including the bullying of apparently gay kids. Anti-gay bullying. It seems fair enough.
Your headline may be better, but perhaps it didn't fit in the column inches in the print edition. And if you knew anything about Journalism or went to Journalism school yourself, you'd know that it's not uncommon for the headline to be written by someone other than the writer of the article. Don't jump all over Mr. Zonkel. Headline suggestions by the writer are frequently changed by editors so that they might fit the space in the print edition, and don't ordinarily get a makeover in electronic editions.

I think John is correct. It's worded poorly and it indicated to me also that anti-gay bullying was required.

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
I think John is correct. It's worded poorly and it indicated to me also that anti-gay bullying was required.

I'm almost always more confident in my opinion when you take an opposing view. How one can read that headline and reasonably construe that it says that school districts require bullying is beyond me. But you're free to pick nits as you wish; you usually do.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm almost always more confident in my opinion when you take an opposing view. How one can read that headline and reasonably construe that it says that school districts require bullying is beyond me. But you're free to pick nits as you wish; you usually do.

The headline says: "Most local school districts ignore state's anti-gay bullying law - First of two parts"

1. One can infer that the state has an anti-gay bullying law which one could reasonably assume outlaws bullying of gay students.

2. Since the headline says in part: "Most local school districts ignore...", one could be led to belive, as I was, that the schools are doing the OPPOSITE of what teh law requires, i.e. promoting bullying of gay students.

It's obviously a poorly worded headline which can lead to conflicting interpretations.

Granted, it is minutae.

Even if sexual orientation isn't covered I thought they still had to provide a safe learning environment to ALL student (minors). I would think one could still sue them and win if they don't protect someone's child from danger when the child is ordered by law to attend school and they are a child unlike an adult who could choose to leave the hostile environment at any time.

equalityboy81 wrote:

Even if sexual orientation isn't covered I thought they still had to provide a safe learning environment to ALL student (minors). I would think one could still sue them and win if they don't protect someone's child from danger when the child is ordered by law to attend school and they are a child unlike an adult who could choose to leave the hostile environment at any time.

I agree. I think federal law mandates a safe learning environment for all students, without regard for any sort of classifaction, be it gender, color, sexual orientation, etc.

Most victims of bullying in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools are little non-Homosexual girls and boys. This is especially true ever since revolutionary activists *(now in power)* saw fit to integrate Thug students into all Government schools. As much as we love our Homosexual friends and the lesbians, one must wonder why Government licensed "news" media are not speaking out in defense of little non-Homosexual children who are victims of bullying in Government schools.

Ronald

Ronald wrote:

...saw fit to integrate Thug students into all Government schools.... rest of the crap snipped.
Ronald

So you prefer going back to segregated schools. Thanks for letting us in on your real views so we can dismiss anything else you might say. Racist much?

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
So you prefer going back to segregated schools. Thanks for letting us in on your real views so we can dismiss anything else you might say. Racist much?

Jerald.

I do not know why you would interject race into the discussion. Is that a "knee-jerk reaction" on your part that reveals your deep seated bigotry and feelings of smug superiority towards non-Homosexuals who do not "look like you"?

Ronald

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Jerald.
I do not know why you would interject race into the discussion. Is that a "knee-jerk reaction" on your part that reveals your deep seated bigotry and feelings of smug superiority towards non-Homosexuals who do not "look like you"?
Ronald

No, I reacted to what you said when you wrote:

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>"This is especially true ever since revolutionary activists *(now in power)* saw fit to integrate Thug students into all Government schools.

What "thug" students are you referring to? What evidence can you provide for activists achieving integration of public schools on any other basis than that on race?

Since you used "thug students" and "integration" in the same sentence, I was left to draw the only reasonable conclusion that you injected race into the discussion, not I.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I reacted to what you said when you wrote:
<quoted text>
What "thug" students are you referring to? What evidence can you provide for activists achieving integration of public schools on any other basis than that on race?
Since you used "thug students" and "integration" in the same sentence, I was left to draw the only reasonable conclusion that you injected race into the discussion, not I.

Jerald.

Well, you seem quick to jump to conclusions. I said nothing about race. You should try to grab hold of your emotions. Race is no issue unless - in your own mind - you associate Thug people with a particular race. The question is not one of race. The question is why do you hate non-Homosexuals of ANY race, including little non-Homosexual children, little children who are the majority of students being bullied in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools.

Ronald

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Jerald.
Well, you seem quick to jump to conclusions. I said nothing about race. You should try to grab hold of your emotions. Race is no issue unless - in your own mind - you associate Thug people with a particular race. The question is not one of race. The question is why do you hate non-Homosexuals of ANY race, including little non-Homosexual children, little children who are the majority of students being bullied in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools.
Ronald

he was right, your sentence scremed of racism. who are these thug people your reffering to that were integrated by activists, the only people who have been integrated by activists have been people of color, thus you must be racist

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Jerald.
Well, you seem quick to jump to conclusions. I said nothing about race. You should try to grab hold of your emotions. Race is no issue unless - in your own mind - you associate Thug people with a particular race. The question is not one of race. The question is why do you hate non-Homosexuals of ANY race, including little non-Homosexual children, little children who are the majority of students being bullied in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools.
Ronald

I agree that the question is not one of race. The question is one of making sure that children are able to go to school without having to face harassment and discrimination, including harassment that is based on real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

By the way, such anti-bullying language protects all children, not just those who happen to be gay. Kids who are harassed because they may be perceived to be gay are also protected by these laws.

But your language made it one of race, since you have failed (twice now) to explain just what form of integration you were referring to. The only logical inference was that you were referring to race, since there has never been segregation of schools based on sexual orientation.

The conclusion that I "jumped to" was one that your own language clearly suggested.

truth wrote:

<quoted text>
he was right, your sentence scremed of racism. who are these thug people your reffering to that were integrated by activists, the only people who have been integrated by activists have been people of color, thus you must be racist

truth.

Yes. You seem to gloss over pertinent points. The issue is not whether Jerald is attempting to gain advantage by conjuring up specious "racist" "charges" for the purpose of refusing to address points that are contrary to his own preconceived bigoted notions. The issue is why Jerald and politically correct Government licensed "news" organs hate little non-Homosexual girls and boys who are the overwhelming majority of bullying victims in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools. Whether or not non-Homosexuals are, or not, "racist" has nothing to do with it.

Ronald

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
truth.
Yes. You seem to gloss over pertinent points. The issue is not whether Jerald is attempting to gain advantage by conjuring up specious "racist" "charges" for the purpose of refusing to address points that are contrary to his own preconceived bigoted notions. The issue is why Jerald and politically correct Government licensed "news" organs hate little non-Homosexual girls and boys who are the overwhelming majority of bullying victims in expensive taxpayer funded Government schools. Whether or not non-Homosexuals are, or not, "racist" has nothing to do with it.
Ronald

What evidence do you have that I or anyone else hates "non-Homosexual" children? Especially when the law in the article protects all children equally?

Feel free to cite (with links) any anti-bullying or hate crime law anywhere in the United States that only protects gay people and doesn't protect heterosexuals as well.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that the question is not one of race. The question is one of making sure that children are able to go to school without having to face harassment and discrimination, including harassment that is based on real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
By the way, such anti-bullying language protects all children, not just those who happen to be gay. Kids who are harassed because they may be perceived to be gay are also protected by these laws.
But your language made it one of race, since you have failed (twice now) to explain just what form of integration you were referring to. The only logical inference was that you were referring to race, since there has never been segregation of schools based on sexual orientation.
The conclusion that I "jumped to" was one that your own language clearly suggested.

Jerald.

Well, when I made the post I had no idea that it would be read by one who is *(as you put it)* "highly suggestible". If my post caused you an unnatural amount of distress, please accept my apology.

To be truthful, I have not read this law that was presumably enacted by the free-spending out-of-control Homosexual and non-Homosexual California legislature. I was going by the title of the article that was printed in the Government licensed Press Telegram and which was linked to this thread: "Most local school districts ignore state's anti-gay bullying law - First of two parts." Please forgive me for "jumping to conclusions" too.

Earlier on this thread you defended the wording of the Press Telegram article. I believe there would have been less confusion if the non-Homosexual and Homosexual California politicians had named their Bill "The non-Homosexual and Homosexual anti-bullying law".

Ronald

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
What evidence do you have that I or anyone else hates "non-Homosexual" children? Especially when the law in the article protects all children equally?
Feel free to cite (with links) any anti-bullying or hate crime law anywhere in the United States that only protects gay people and doesn't protect heterosexuals as well.
Go ahead, we'll wait.

Jerald.

So what are you really saying? Are you saying that the revolutionary activists *(now in power)* are now using our Homosexual friends and the lesbians to achieve revolutionary objectives just like they previously used women and people of color?

Ronald

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Jerald.
Well, when I made the post I had no idea that it would be read by one who is *(as you put it)* "highly suggestible". If my post caused you an unnatural amount of distress, please accept my apology.

You just didn't have any idea that someone would read the words you wrote and take them for what they meant and hold you to it. You STILL haven't clarified exactly what "thug students" and integration efforts meant.

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>To be truthful, I have not read this law ....

Well that's really no surprise. It's name is "The Safe Place to Learn Act"

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>Earlier on this thread you defended the wording of the Press Telegram article....

So you only bother reading headlines? That's how you get your information? You apparently didn't bother to read the article. The name of the law is right there in the 5th paragraph.

Here is the actual language of the law (with a link):

"The department [of Education] shall assess whether local
educational agencies have done all of the following:
(a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination, harassment,
intimidation, and bullying based on the actual or perceived
characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and
Section 220, and disability, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more
of these actual or perceived characteristics."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode...

That's how one provides evidence, Ronald.

Feel free to explain how this law only protects homosexuals and doesn't protect "non-Homosexuals."