Gay teen expelled from High School

The actions the school took is deplorable. What business was it if the student is gay. I hope he sues the pants off of them, including the infringment (sp) of his privacy concerning informing his parents, he is 18 an adult.

I'm appalled! How "Christian" is it to marginalize those whose sexual orientation doesn't "fit" the "norm", and why did the school feel it was within its "rights" to violate his "adult" status? It's wrong, wrong, wrong, IMO. The school has behaved immorally.

Thats terrible! Young gay people should be able to find support when they are just coming out - its no wonder the suicide rate is so high

I saw that it was a Christian school and that pretty much explained everything to me. Sad to say, but many Christian schools protect their "reputation" and money more than they nurture children. The school I taught at, a Christian school (ironic, isn't it?) had a few girls turn up pregnant in the years prior to my being there. One of the three stayed there, and that was because she was raped. They had a thing during chapel with her and the principal talking about it, about her choices, about what she was going to do (she put the baby up for adoption). The other ones were apparently asked discretely to leave because they weren't ashamed of themselves, or at least that's what I got out of it.

After I left there was a boy who was gay who was expelled. I knew him when I was there, before he came out. They expelled him because he wore a gay pride pendant and refused to remove it. They had the same lame excuse...he was "promoting immoral behavior" by not lying about his sexuality. The students had no problem with him, gay or not.

How narrow minded and hateful that school was. This is a young adult that didn't do anything at the school to cause harm. I wonder why they didn't name the homophobic student that felt the need to go to more than one administrator and report about the web site.

Well, my goodness!! The school didn't have to EXPEL him!! They could have just stepped up their preaching against homosexuality and kept bombarding the parents with God's word on the subject. The parents and or child would have left of their volition. Then the parents and kid couldn't complain!!

... just add this to the list of deplorable things done in the name of religion...

I remember the head girl at my school (a catholic all girls school) got pregnant - the school kicked her out. Where is the support? In Sex Ed classes, we were not allowed to discuss contraceptives! Is it any wonder a few got preggers???

In his own words... http://my-boi.com/

I feel the school had a right as a private institution to discharge a student who violated their rules. However, they would have much more credibility if they discharged all students who violated those rules.

They were wrong to tell his parents about his sexual orientation. That is something he should've done.

Why is it OK to claim the school was "immoral", or their behavior is "wrong", or condemn Christianity, but if anyone makes a similar claim against homosexual behavior they are suddenly "invading your rights" or "imposing their views". What a set of double standards.

This is a private school which has a set of standards which they consider appropriate, and behaviors they consider inappropriate. Attending a private school is voluntary. Why not join a church and complain because they want to throw you out for worshiping Satan? Or join the NAACP and complain because you send money to a white supremist organization.

If you expect people (or organizations) to be tolerant of your right to believe as you wish, it is just as important that you are tolerant of their right to believe as they wish. The same goes for dissenting opinions. I've seen all to many on this forum condemn others for having a differing opinion. I've even been told I wasn't entitled to an opinion because I was the wrong gender, by someone who personally attacks people for differing opinions. I've been attacked for pointing out flaws in arguments, even after clearly stating I agreed with the original point but can see the other side. While you may not agree with the schools decision it is within their right to make that decision. If you don't agree with their views, don't go to that school.

They had no right to tell his parents since he was 18. And I don't think they should have expelled him for being homosexual in orientation. If he was actively being homosexual, then they could rightly expel him for immorality if that fits in with their beliefs, but as I read it, he hadn't done anything. Why wouldn't they want to talk to him and encourage him to change. Not that he could or would, but that should be their emphasis. And, just as the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns gluttony. It would be interesting to know if any staff, students or administrators at that school were obese. But so many people just want to look at the parts of the Bible that they want to, and leave out anything that points to themselves. Becky

Was there even a rule that said "no homosexuals allowed"...how about a rule "no children allowed whose parents practice artificial birth control"...guess enrollment would shrink and so would the big bucks!

I see that most people have voted for suing the school. I have to say, he could probably sue all he wants, but I think it would be very difficult for him to win the case. They are a private organization, as George pointed out. And as a private organization they can basically make any rules they want, including exclusionary rules (as proven by with the legal precident of the Boy Scouts).

I think he should sue because they told his parents. Becky

Amazing! Without any first hand knowledge people are inventing what the schools policies do, don't or should say and then condemning the school for what they've invented. As I said, this school is a private organization and association with that organization is voluntary. If you don't agree with the schools views then don't attend or don't let your children attend.

As for law suits, the student has no grounds for a legitimate suit. As a private organization they don't have to let in anyone that exhibits behavior with which they don't agree. The school's contract was undoubtably with the boy's parents and, like public schools reporting behavior issues and grades directly to the parents of 18 year old students, the school is within it's rights to report to the parents. This has no bearing on whether people agree with this view or not, it just happens to be the legal way things are done.

In all fairness, they did not have evidence of any "behavior", they just found out he was gay through a website. For all we know, he is a virgin. I see what you're saying, but picture this: A "christian" school that still believes in white supremacy (ok, they are a little behind on the times, kind of like our homophobic friends), and said school kicks out a student for finding out that he has a great grandparent who is black. He couldn't help it, but because he finds out later that he has a black relative (just like this guy finds out he is gay), he is kicked out.

Was there a specific rule in this school against being homosexual? Or are they just applying a random interpretation of the Bible (which has also been used to justify slavery and killing abortion doctors). If it is open to interpretation, then it is open for a lawsuit.

The evidence of behavior was that he was openly gay, even if it was on a website. Physical sex isn't necessary. The hypothetical situation that you have presented assumes that homosexuality is accepted as a genetic truth, just as having a black ancestor is a genetic truth. In order to justify condemning homosexuals, the people who believe this way cannot also believe that homosexuality is not a choice but something that is "preprogrammed" in God's perfect creation of man. If they believed that, then they would also have to believe that God created imperfection. Doesn't work in the belief system, no matter what scientific evidence is provided. And if the church that this school operates under, (i.e. Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) holds the view that homosexuality is a choice and is immoral, then that's all that would need to be proven if the contract states anything about following the beliefs of the church. It wouldn't have to be specifically banning homosexuals.

(The above statements are based on my experiences working in a Christian school, and knowing the logic used.)

Apparently you missed this in the article. The school's official reason for the expulsion was “immoral behavior and supporting an immoral causeâ€. Clearly "behavior" is cited as a reason. As I said, whether anyone agrees with it or not, the school is entitled to it's opinions. If you want to state "in all fairness" about anything, why are so many on this forum making up portions of the shool policy and then condemning the school for what has been made up. Case in point:
As for "interpretation of the Bible", the school has every right to interpret it in any fashion they wish. That's called "freedom of religion". As I keep saying (and apparently keep having to reinforce) if someone doesn't agree with the schools views DON'T GO TO THAT SCHOOL.

As for your comparison with racist behavior, that's an often abused and absolutely ludicrous comparison. The school is expelling the student for behavior, and humans choose their actions. Race and behavior are two entirely different and unrelated things. Whether or not you believe that ORIENTATION has a genetic component to it, the actual behavior is a choice.

Right, the school can "inerpret", but as long as there is interpretation, there is room for argument, unless they specifically say in their rules that being gay is against the rules. If they didn't mention this specific, the student could argue that he didn't break the rule, because he didn't behave immorally -- the school has interpreted the Bible differently than he did.

And like I said, they did not cite evidence of his actual behavior. Unless you count simply proclaiming to be gay to be gay behvaior. BUt in that case, you could say proclaiming to be black is "black behavior."

Like I said, he could be a virgin for all we know.

Not true in the least, and nothing in this article indicated that this specific behavior was or was not specified in the schools policy. A company doesn't have to specify in their policies that it doesn't allow employees to have sex in the foyer of the building during business hours to fire the employees who do so for "immoral behavior". The standards that the school applies are those that are set by the church or religious community that owns and operates it. As for who's "interpretation" is the one to be used, the school's interpretation (as dictated by the church/religious community) is absolutely the one that matters in a situation such as this. If a student feels it is his "free speech right" to yell out during class that doesn't actually give him the right to do so.

The article did not cite any behavior, homesexual or not, that has any bearing in what behavior he actually did or did not exhibit, only what was reported. The reason he was expelled included the statement about what the school considered "immoral behavior". valanhb suggested it may have been simply his declaration of being openly gay on his web site, but from the article there is no indication of what the behavior might have been.

Again the ludicrous comparisons between race and behavior. The two are not the same and attempts to lump them together weaken, not strengthen, arguments supporting accepting homosexual relationships.

This student made his own choices, including the choice not to take down his web site when specifically asked (so he could be re-instated in school). He is well within his rights to keep it up, but he bears the consequences of his actions for doing so.

I understand that -- this is why I said originally that IF it is not specified, then there is a case. We don't know.

On to your second point -- yes, the do get to interpret the Bible as they see fit, but as long as they remain general in their rules and do not go into detail (assuming they did do this), it can be subject to appeal, as no one can ever know the rules if the only rule is "be moral." That is like a private school saying, "Be good," and randomly expelling students they don't like for whatever reason, saying that they have the right to decide what "good" is. It would not be legal, and would be subject to a lawsuit. As long as the rules are cryptic in nature, no one can tell how to interpret them or follow them.

I am not saying they are the same thing. I was comparing THIS situation with a possible situation of race. When you tried to say that my analogy of THIS SITUATION was false, I was showing you how THIS SITUATION is a valid comparison. I am not speaking for homosexuality as a whole and race as a whole.

I hope he sues the school! that's just not right at all

To use this arguement....isn't ANYTHING God created "perfect"?? Who's to say that God believes homesexuality is an imperfection?? Certainly not you or I or a human administrator of a school.

As for George's arguement If you don't agree with the school's beliefs, don't go there (paraphrasing, sorry George), how many kids under the age of 18 get to choose what school they are going to attend? That's the parent's decision. I know I certainly didn't get a choice.

If there is a written rule in the school about homosexuality, then the school did have the legal right to expell (being a religious based institution). My major concern is the breach of ethics on the part of the school board to advise the student's parents of his sexuality. The student (who is legally an adult) specifically requested that his parents not be told. The school had no right in doing so.

To me this isn't an issue of whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral or if the school is allowed to expel based on these types of issues. It is an issue of confidentiality.

God created man, and man isn't perfect. (If you're married, you know that to be a fact... )

This is a direct quote from the article Bumpy linked to: "Barnett attended Trinity Christian Academy for thirteen years...". Since he is now eighteen, it seems pretty obvious to me that, 1) His parents chose the school for him, and 2), He wasn't aware of his homosexuality for at least the first few years he attended the school. I'm basing that assumption on statements by two gay friends who swear they knew they were gay by the age of 9/10; I believe they were a bit precocious, and most people only "question" their sexual orientation in their mid-teens, but that's only my opinion.
The guy spent most of his life attending that particular school, and apparently hadn't seriously infringed the school rules before his Web site was brought to the school administration's notice, as otherwise he would've been expelled before this incident. Maybe my understanding of "Christian" and "moral" differs from others (I attended a Roman Catholic high school, and a Jesuit university), but to me, one of the most important Christian values is charity, and I find it extremely "uncharitable" of this school to not allow him to finish his senior year. As a teacher of teens and twenty-somethings, I find it totally wrong, i.e., "immoral", for the school to have informed the guy's parents, since he has reached his majority. I also question whether it was legal. If the private school I teach at did such a thing, we'd mostly definitely be liable to be sued. (I'm absolutely certain of this, because we had a violent 20-year-old girl attending in September and October, who has since been expelled, and her "adult" status, or lack of it, had to be clarified before her parents could be informed of her behavior. Due to a history of mental illness, she'd been "legally incapacitated" by a court, and that was the only reason we could talk to her parents without her express permission).

Not at all. One is heritage and the other is behavior. The two are completely unrelated. Efforts to compare the struggle against racial discrimination with the agenda of any group that is defined by a behavior are both laughable and appalling.

And where were school vouchers mentioned? Not once, not even a reference or an inuendo. Again, make up something than slam the school for what you've manufactured.

Equality of treatment? What an odd argument. The school establishes what penalties go with which infractions, not you. If they don't consider a drug issue the same moral magnitude as promoting homosexuality that is their decision, they are well withing their rights to do so.

The rest seems to be double speak and makes no sense at all.

And you previously claimed it was "immoral". So let me understand this, you are in such a superior position that you are entitled to tell the school what is or is not moral and appropriate, but the school is not entitled to make a judgement based on their beliefs. Are you now officially the morality police? Who are you to try and establish moral standards for someone else, particularly an entire congregation that runs a school system?

Yes, his parents put him there, which means the contract the school had was with his parents, not him. And this makes the school well within it's rights for reporting the infraction to the parents since this is their grounds for breaking that contract (and such contracts generally DO have a morality clause.) As I mentioned before, this is also like public high schools which have an established (and legally upheld) right to report grades and behavior problems of 18 year old students directly to the parent. It may be different in Germany, but that's the standard for high schools in most of the US. And when our friends' son had to go an extra year to finish high school the school still reported his grades and progress reports directly to the parents, as required by the school system, and he was 19 when he finished!

I find it remarkably distasteful that the first reaction is so often "sue them"! We already have a bloated, over used, legal system which sticks it nose in everywhere a buck might be taken from someone. In this report (granted - from a newspaper, and newspapers are not known to be the most reliable sources) there is no mention of any effort to appeal to the school's board or governing body or attempt another solution. All is said was there was no appeal to the "honor council" (is that a student council?)

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the school is within it's legal rights to expel this student based on their standards. They were also within their rights to contact his parents and tell them why he was being expelled. I still find it rather amazing that the people that are the most vocal about how others shouldn't inflict themselves on their views tend to be the loudest when it comes to condemning a view that doesn't agree with their own.