Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Becky
Derek,
Do you have any idea how the school is legally justified? I can understand a school for gifted kids, deaf kids, blind kids, or emotionally disturbed kids because they're all special education categories that in their extremes can justify alternative placements. But where does sexual orientation fit in with justification of alternative placement? With federal funds set aside for public education, I wonder what kind of program they can fall under to get a separate school? If it were a privately funded school, I understand they could set up any charter they want, but this article clearly states that it's a public school. Do you know if there a different loophole in the NY system?
Becky
|
Becky, I'll take a shot at this. There is already a legally/fiscally established precedent, including economic/educational policy, regarding the establishment of magnet schools (as someone, perhaps Derek, already pointed out). In the school district in the town where I work/teach/study, there are a number of magnet schools. Some are language-specific: a French immersion school and a Spanish immersion school, for example. Others are culturally specific, including an Afri-centric school.
A good argument can be made that one's sexual orientation/identity translates, for some (not all) people into membership in a particular cultural group. As a result, a magnet school created to create a safe educational space for that particular cultural group is consistent with previous educational policy.
Just as non-African American students can elect to participate in the lottery system for taking classes at an Afri-centric school, so too could straight kids participate in the application process for a GLBT-focused cultural school.
Becky, since you work for students in an educational environment, it may be helpful for you to read up on some of the ways that GLBT students have been harmed, systematically, in different school systems around the country. Since you asked about legal information, I'll give you some details regarding two recent legal cases that have received prominent media attention, highlighting GLBT students’ experiences within unsupportive school systems.
In Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996), the United States Court of Appeals reviewed the middle and high school experiences of Jamie Nabozny, a Wisconsin student who had experienced years of physical abuse and verbal harassment at the hands of his peers, while his various school systems’ administrators took little to no action to address the problem.
It's important to note that Nabozny lived in a supportive home environment. His parents repeatedly met with school administrators who failed to take any action to ensure that Nabozny would not be physically harmed while he attended school. Instead, the level of violence directed against Nabozny increased from year to year, to the extent that Nabozny eventually attempted suicide while in eighth grade.
In high school, the violence further escalated in scope and significance, perpetrated by the same students who had harassed Nabozny while he was in middle school. After being beaten to the point of requiring surgery, Nabozny reported the incident to the high school’s assistant principal, who reacted by laughing and telling Nabozny that he deserved such treatment because he is gay.
In July 1996, in a precedent-setting federal appellate court decision, the court reviewing Jamie’s case spelled out the constitutional obligation of all U.S. public schools to treat the abuse of gay and lesbian students as seriously as they would treat any other abuse. Four months later, in November 1996 after a two-day trial, a federal jury found that school officials were liable for failing to protect Nabozny; he was awarded more than $900,000 in a settlement reached after that verdict.
More recently, in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 119 S.Ct. 1661 (1999), in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified that schools which willfully ignore the sexual harassment of one student by another can be held for violating civil rights law under Title IX, the federal law which bans sex discrimination in public schools. The Davis case involved a boy’s severe sexual harassment of a female student.
The Supreme Court’s decision expanded the protection of students beyond the range of teacher-on-student to student-on-student harassment, under Title IX. Title IX, intended to help create safe environments for all students, may now be used in some instances to help address other cases of harassment of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.
So, there is a federal as well as arguably local legal precedent that can support the creation of this type of school.
Cricket