Comments on: Conservatives for School Bullying?

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:39:37 +0000

#9: “Tragic example of unreported statutory rape”? Hilarious!

First, “statutory rape” refers to sex in which factual consent is irrelevant because the age of one of the participants renders them legally unable to give consent. In other words, the “letter of the law” you despise so much is what defines statutory rape, and it’s not on your side. To call a legal, consensual act “statutory rape” is to misunderstand both halves of the phrase.

Second, if you’re referring to the incident I think you are, no actual sex took place or was reported anyway:

“In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence.”

By: NBarnes

NBarnes — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:39:06 +0000

It’s not exactly a big surprise that conservatives are more or less ok with bullying. They are a bunch of social conformists at heart, and bullying is exactly the kind of enforcement of social norms that they’d approve of.

By: Satori

Satori — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:00:56 +0000

The thing is, conservatives are fine with bullying. Growing up as a boy who wasn’t into sports in Nebraska, my bullying was tolerated by the schools. Counselors would tell me things like “well, maybe if you tried to like football the other kids would like you, more”. The reality is, conservatives think that bullied kids *are* the problem for acting in “inappropriate” ways in the first place.

By: Matthew Yglesias » Beck and Plato on Politics and Aesthetics

Matthew Yglesias » Beck and Plato on Politics and Aesthetics — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:29:27 +0000

[...] who thinks cigarette taxes are fascism, but torture and indefinite detention are great) while others don’t seem very [...]

By: Number 6

Number 6 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:02 +0000

BKennedy-Congratulations on combining an ad hominem attack, a strawman, and a false statement of fact in one post.

By: Dom

Dom — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:08:25 +0000

“If he had reported it, I’d consider him a scumbag and a moral failure.” Really? If it had been a 16 year old girl? My guess is you don’t have a daughter.

And my other guess is that no one would find excuses for him had he served under Presdent Bush.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:24:03 +0000

The age is “disputed” only in the sense that some people insist on repeating false claims in the face of dispositive evidence; the student himself says he was 16 and his drivers’ license proves it.

And what “given a pass”? On failing to report the legal romantic relationship of a student who came to him in confidence? If he had reported it, I’d consider him a scumbag and a moral failure.

By: BKennedy

BKennedy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:33:35 +0000

I wonder if, since we’re on the subject of Kevin Jennings, the kind, tolerant, well adjusted liberals can tell me why Kevin Jennings is given a pass on not reporting sexual relations between a 16 year old boy and a 24 year old man in his capacity as a teacher? A position which mandates he do so as a first reporter.

Why, the letter of the law of course (and not its spirit). 16 (the age is disputed, btw.) is the age of consent in the incident. You see, “power differences” is only applicable when you’re race/gender/orientation baiting the straight white man. A priori, gay older men cannot take advantage of gay younger men, and have no responsibility as long as the age of consent is low enough. Kevin Jennings just didn’t want to pry in this young boy’s “exploration” of “his nature.” He didn’t want to “interfere” with “experimentation,” which as we all know is perfectly healthy between grown adults and legal minors.

As one of those conservatives with an irrational psychological fear of teh gay, as diagnosed by self-righteous hacks with no medical training, I must have missed something in primary school.

Can we also dedicate mucho government dinero specifically against the bullying of short kids, fat kids, kids who climb on rocks, tall kids, skinny kids, and even kids with chicken pox in schools?

I’ve seen Mr. Jennings as the exemplar of “Queering Up” Schools, and I didn’t like it. That tragic example of unreported statutory rape is, sadly, squarely in non-fiction. What is truly queer is that he still is in a position of power to influence the education system.

By: Perry de Havilland

Perry de Havilland — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:28:48 +0000

When I read this my conviction that no free thinker would not move heaven and earth to home school is greatly strengthened. I would not care of any children of mine to be given to ‘policy makers’ of left or right to craft according to their particular mores.

The notion I need professional strangers to teach appropriate moral theories is bizarre… the only worthwhile role for professional pre-university level teachers in my view is that of teaching technical subjects, but in this internet age even that starts to look less important.

By: K.Chen

K.Chen — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:32:53 +0000

Ewe, when talking about education policy, its usually best to use small words and simple concepts – because anything else complicates a simple and noble goal.

While yes, education has some terrible science in it, whinging about “rhetorical questions at the end of your cri de coeur” doesn’t help at all. It doesn’t take a country scholar to realize that bullying is bad. Its very bad. Its not just inherently wrong, it makes it much harder to learn. Homosexuals need a safe environment to learn in just like everyone else, and just about anything that works towards that goal is worth looking at. Just about everything besides this sort of obvious reasoning is window dressing.