They're back...
Obscuring yearbook photo of a male kissing boyfriend is illegal, gay advocate says ^
Posted on 06/26/2007 11:44:45 PM PDT by Stoat
Tuesday, June 26th 2007, 10:53 AM
Superintendent Marion A. Bolden issued an apology to the student, Andre Jackson, according to a statement released by the district on Monday.
"The decision was based, in part, on misinformation that Mr. Jackson was not one of our students and our review simply focused on the suggestive nature of the photograph," the district said.
"Superintendent Marion A. Bolden personally apologizes to Mr. Jackson and regrets any embarrassment and unwanted attention the matter has brought to him," according to the statement.
The district said it would reissue an "un-redacted version" of the 2007 yearbook to any student of East Side High School who wants one.
Bolden, through a spokeswoman, declined a request for an interview.
At a news conference organized by Garden State Equality, a gay rights group, Jackson said he was disappointed that the superintendent had not told him she was sorry face-to-face and in public.
Because of that, he said he didn't accept her apology as sincere.
"I would accept an apology - a public apology," said Jackson, who found out about the district's statement through the media.
District spokeswoman Valerie Merritt later said Bolden would meet on Tuesday with Jackson.
But Garden State Equality Chairman Steven Goldstein said Jackson had not heard from the district by 10 p.m. Monday.
"They don't have a meeting set up, it's not true," Goldstein said. "The school district hasn't contacted him. Whether they reach out to him on Tuesday remains to be seen."
Jackson said his teachers, classmates and his parents all knew he was gay and that his sexual orientation was never a problem at school.
"I've never had to deal with this before," he said. "It's shocking. It's crazy."
In addition to Garden State Equality, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey also condemned actions taken by the district last week.
"With so many challenges the Newark Public Schools face in educating their students, what a waste that they took the time to teach a lesson in discrimination and censorship instead of equality and free speech," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.
Previously, Bolden had described the picture, which showed Andre Jackson, 18, kissing boyfriend David Escobales, as "illicit."
"If it was either heterosexual or gay, it should have been blacked out. It's how they posed for the picture," Bolden told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Saturday's editions.
In the 4 1/2-by-5-inch photo, Jackson is seen turning his head back over his right shoulder and kissing Escobales, 19, of Allentown, Pa. It was blacked out after Russell Garris, the district's assistant superintendent who oversees the city's high schools, told Bolden he was concerned that the photo could upset parents.
The photo was among several that appeared on a special personal tribute page in the yearbook.
Jackson, who paid $150 for the page, questioned the decision to black out the photo, noting that the yearbook is filled with pictures of heterosexual couples kissing.
Newark public schools have about 42,000 students.
The district is the state's largest and is one of three in New Jersey that are under state control. It is among 31 districts in the state's neediest areas that get special financial aid.
The mere fact that anyone even takes notice of an idiotic statement like this, much less prints it in a newspaper, reinforces the feeling of many that our culture is spiraling down into a seething cauldron of hopeless corruption and bile.
Once again a school system's administration has chosen to raise the white flag and cave to those who wish to destroy our culture.
I hope that ample opportunities for home and private schooling are available in The Garden State.
OK., so, if it were 2 women kissing, I don’t think I would have an issue with it.
Sad ping :-(
We have a homeschool yearbook filled with pictures of kids playing instruments, attending classes, and having fun with friends. There are no pictures of couples kissing, it’s inappropriate. How far we’ve come.
I was “having a disagreement” with someone the other day. He said compared to Europe, America was backward in the 60’s. I told him no, Europe had regressed.
Mau-Mau...now that’s a term from the past....so is it true that Osama Bin Obamarama’s daddy was a member of the terrorist Mau-Mau in colonial Africa....?
I would. One is just as bad as the other and neither should be condoned in a high school setting, IMO.
They're back...
Obscuring yearbook photo of a male kissing boyfriend is illegal, gay advocate says ^
No mention of the faculty advisor who should have been the adult supervision in the assembly and printing of the yearbook. How curious.
from pookies toons thread this morning
Disgust at an abhorrent immoral practice is not fear.
The good news is: homeschooling thrives in NJ. The bad news is: half of them are Far Left Loonies, too. LOL.
Ping
... The district is the state's largest and is one of three in New Jersey that are under state control. It is among 31 districts in the state's neediest areas that get special financial aid.
If he has $150 to spend on publicising his sexual perversion why is the school district receiving extra aid? Aparently the kids don't need any help. Wasting money on publishing soft core pornography doesn't seem like something a "needy" child would do.
They took his money, and never told him the picture was inappropriate.
Then, after printing the book, they decided the picture was offensive, and MARKED IT OUT WITH A MAGIC MARKER.
Meanwhile, they allowed male/female kissing pictures to remain.
Sorry. I think Homosexual activity is wrong. But the government can’t really be regulating between kisses from different people based on their gender.
And even if they could, they can’t do it after the fact, with no stated policy, when they took his money.
Further, once they had actually PRINTED the picture, what was the point of blacking it out? Suppose there were people offended by the picture. Couldn’t those people have just blacked out the picture themselves?
Of course, those people would say “why should we have to deface our yearbook to keep from being offended?” But since the school had to deface the yearbook anyway, the argument would be a moot argument.
If some parent said they were offended by the picture of a heterosexual couple kissing, because they believed all physical contact was “sex” and was inappropriate until marriage, would the school be OK to use magic marker over all the pictures?
What if there was a mixed-race couple, and some found it offensive to see THEM kissing? Can the school black THAT out?
what if there was a student who had a much older partner? The image of an 18-year-old girl kissing some grissly old man might be offensive. Ban that too?
Then there are the weird hairdos, the funny clothing, the mocking facial expressions. Can we have the school take a pen to anything anybody would be offended by?
I would be HAPPY if the school banned all pictures of student engaging in physical affectionate contact. That’s not the function of the school anyway.
Your tax dollars at work.
So here we are. Life in government schools, circa 2007.
God help us.
Why?
Isn’t it amazing? I was astonished the first time I saw an interview with a (lib)principle where he basically stated school was to mold your children into their idea of fulfilled citizens.
Silly me. I always thought school was to teach your child basic foundational skills and knowledge, like reading and stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.