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.
Because they have no basis for such regulation. There is no compelling government interest in keeping the lips of two boys from touching, while allowing the lips of a boy and a girl to touch.
There is a compelling interest in not showing any kissing, because it’s not the function of school to facilitate sexual contact.
I think my post contained enough examples to further illustrate the problem with government picking and choosing arbitrarily which things to censor. If the criteria is that some people find something offensive, then you have to ask how many people have to find something offensive before you ban it. Otherwise lots of other pictures would be banned.
An athiest would probably be upset if any pictures showed a child wearing a cross, or praying, or carrying a bible. They’d probably object to any text a student wrote that included a bible verse. Muslims might be upset if women appeared uncovered. Conservative christians might be mad at satanic symbols, goth makeup, or suggestive clothing.
The Amish might not like pictures that showed children using cell phones :-)
Government, especially at the school level, can censor things, but they must do so broadly, on the basis of a compelling general interest, not targetted at specific things that a few people find offensive.
The bad news is: half of them are Far Left Loonies, too. LOL...
...this is especially true of a lot of private schools across the country, in which the faculty and curricula make a typical public school the equivalent of Bob Jones U...
A boy kissing a girl is a natural act. Two boys kissing is unnatural. The former may or may not be appropriate for a school yearbook. The latter may never be.
And the notion of "natural acts" is knowable to all people, Christians and non-Christians alike, since what is natural is what is in keeping with reason. The understanding of what is unnatural does not require divine revelation.
There is no such thing as "Homophobia"
A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
There is nothing nothing irrational in the distaste of sexual activity that involves fecal matter and endangers public health.
Furthermore, the left don't treat it as a phobia. The is no other group of phobics that are villefied for their phobia, all other phobias are treated sympathetically.
Gay’s a such a yawn -
Gay’s are such a yawn...
Another reason to homeschool bump.
This is the same argument used by television producers. “Just turn off the set.” Instead of Hollywood acting responsibly, it becomes the responsibility of tens of millions of people to turn off the set in order to stop moral waste from being spewed into their living rooms. It’s far more efficient to get at the source of the waste. There is a time and place for individual freedom, but we must also attempt to safeguard public morality, whatever is left of it. We’ve seen a trickle of immorality become a deluge by focusing on individual rights and ignoring the community.
By blacking out the photo, the school sent the message to students that school authorities do not approve of it. By caving in to gay rights activists, they then sent the message that they are spineless when confronted with gay activists. This is not how to fight the gay rights movement. They become stronger by the day while traditional society is asked to back down and step aside.
Why is any kissing considered a “natural act”? It’s unnecessary for pro-creation, it’s not part of any other animal’s sex act.
It seems an entirely artificial social construct, not “natural” at all.
And sticking your tongue in another person’s mouth? Don’t get me started.
But that is beside my point, because I don’t think the government has a compelling interest to judge pictures based solely on the concept of “natural” vs “unnatural”. If they did, they would ban pictures of girls with hair if it is dyed an “unnatural” color. Or maybe dyed at all, since for each girl “natural” is the color they were born with.
My high school yearbook didn’t have any pictures of couple kissing.
Yes, but why does the school object to two boys kissing? Is it the school policy that people should not be allowed to have gay relationships?
However, my point on that matter was that if they had kept the picture OUT of the yearbook, that would be a way to prevent the problem. having let the picture INTO the yearbook, SOMEBODY was going to have to black out the picture. At that point, why not let each person black out their own, rather than the school substituting their opinion for that of the owners of the book?
I’d argue different if it was a curse word, or a statement of hate or inappropriateness, or if it was a sexually explicit image that had snuck in. Or if they had blacked out every picture of people kissing.
Mine didn't either. "sigh"
And since they have equated homosexual kissing with heterosexual kissing, what is to stop a particularly brain-damaged student, perhaps one who has read about Caligula and was particularly impressed with how he married his horse, from making the case that he has a 'significant relationship' with a given farm animal and wishes to publish a picture in the HS yearbook of him engaged in an open-mouthed kiss with this farm animal?
What basis is there for preventing this now?
Will children be bringing home their yearbooks with pictures of football trophies and science fair projects interspersed with that of students engaged in open-mouthed kissing with goats and sheep?
Once we abandon the fact that homosexuality is simply UNNATURAL and ABNORMAL we set ourselves up for all kinds of disruptions. Personally, I wouldn’t allow photos of kids kissing (other than maybe friendly pecks on the cheek) in yearbooks at all. But allowing natural displays of sexual affection between a boy & a girl doesn’t mean we need to allow homo kissing. Such kissing isn’t natural. It’s sick and abnormal. We aren’t allowed to say that anymore, but it’s true.
They passed a law in England a few months ago forcing pub owners to allow homo kissing in their establishments.
People today are frightened to death of being called “homophobic”, an absurd Orwellian term designed to shut off debate. A relatively few years ago no one would have thought twice about disallowing a photo of two boys erotically kissing in a yearbook. The school officials would have said such behavior is unnatural, sick, and contemptible, and that kids shouldn’t be exposed to it.
I have to agree — if the school really had a problem with the picture, they shouldn’t have taken the kid’s money in the first place.
Stop making sense.
The problem I have with this argument is that, if we are GOING to raise the “unnatural” issue, this is a wasted place to do so.
They are teaching that homosexuality is natural IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. It’s in the curriculum, the kids are told so in books, in lesson plans, it’s the right answer on tests.
How could a school that teaches “heather has two mommies” then say that a picture of heather’s two mommies kissing is “unnatural” and therefore offensive?
We can’t win the “government should discriminate against homosexuals because they are unnatural” argument. I’m not sure I want to win that argument, but those that do should realise first they can’t win, and second that if they WANT to win they aught to make the fight on something more important than a picture in a yearbook.
There is no doubt that this was discrimination, and not really against homosexuals (because two heterosexual boys could put a kiss in the yearbook as a joke), but simply against an image that offends some people.
But could we ban two men from kissing on a public street? If it’s “offensive”, we should be able to do so, but are we ready to raise the objection to homosexuality from a moral argument to a legal prohibition?
Given that the Supreme Court ruled we couldn’t even make it illegal to have gay SEX ACTS, which clearly are harmful to society because of the medical issues, how would you ever ban people from same-sex kissing?
And if you can’t ban it, how do you then argue that it is inappropriate for a yearbook if opposite-sex kissing is allowed?
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.