School can expel lesbian students, court rules
Oh, California.
Tamora Pierce (tammy212) mentioned this news item--a January 28, 2009 article from the L.A. Times by Maura Dolan-- here. I'm posting the article here because damn it, I need to talk back to the school, their lawyers and the judges. BADLY.
***
Reporting from San Francisco -- After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," the girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.
Please note the phrasing. The girls "had a bond of intimacy." That is, they were close. That's really the only thing the school had to go on when determining if they were lesbians or not. In fact, the school and its administration didn't even have the balls to say outright that they were expelling the girls for being gay. They just said that the bond between them was characteristic of a lesbian relationship. Because, y'know, all them lesbians act the same way. [/sarcasm]
In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Now, this isn't good. According to this site:
The CDE [California Department of Education] has no authority over private schools and does not investigate complaints against them. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the school level or with the assistance of the private school organization, you may consider contacting the following agencies, depending on the nature of the complaint:
* Criminal issues - county child protective services or local law enforcement authorities
* Health and safety issues - child protective services, local county health or fire departments
* Discrimination (based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition) - the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education
* Other complaints - local Better Business Bureau; the Department of Consumer Affairs
So the California Department of Education has no authority over private schools. And laws regarding businesses don't apply, either. And the Office of Civil Rights--well, as the Russian peasants used to say, "It is very high up to heaven. It is very far to the Tsar." Washington, D.C. is a long way away. On a day-to-day basis, California private schools don't appear to be liable to anyone.
Dwell on that.
The appeals court called its decision "narrow," but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits.
Which rather implies that private religious schools across California ARE discriminating against kids, doesn't it?
Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the "very troubling" ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.
"It is almost like it could roll back 20 to 30 years of progress we have made in this area," said the San Diego attorney. "Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate."
It does.
John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School, said the ruling correctly acknowledged that the school's purpose was to "teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct."
Apparently Mr. McKay thinks that if he keeps saying the word "Christian," no one will ask him what the hell he's talking about.
Well, I'm asking. Mr. McKay, what ARE Christian values?
I presume for them to be Christian, they would have to be unique to Christianity and not held in common with any other religion. And most religions believe in things like truth, compassion, understanding and forgiveness. So I'm guessing that whatever these values are that you're defending have nothing to do with any of those.
The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends" and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said.
Now, I know a fair number of lesbian and bi women. I have to say that I don't know what "acting like lesbians" means. I would, however, LOVE to hear McKay's definition.
Oh, and did you notice that the girls never admitted to being lesbians in the entire court case? They were just accused of it. Just being accused was enough to get them expelled.
What century are we in again?
The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other.
Something I've said about a number of my friends without meaning that I was having sex with them. Presumably if one of the girls had told Tallulah Tattletale that she loved her puppy, Tallulah would have gone to a teacher and accused the other girl of bestiality.
The student advised the teacher to look at the girls' MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
Yes, because it is obviously the duty of all teachers to monitor MySpace pages and be alert for any mention of alternative sexuality. That clearly falls within the provenance of education. Of COURSE it does.
And obviously a bisexual girl would have to be sleeping with her best friend, right?
What I want to know is why Little Miss Antoniette Comstock cared so much about whether the two girls were lesbians. I don't see why it was any of her business.
I'm getting a very The Children's Hour vibe about the whole thing.
McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
Oh, well, that PROVES it! After all, everyone who hugs or kisses someone else is sexually attracted to them! It's not possible for parents or grandparents to hug children, or siblings to hug each other, or friends to hug friends! That never happens!
...oh. Wait.
According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
So far, this sounds like a "he said, she said" proposition. All I see are two girls who are physically affectionate. So far, that's basically half of my high school. I'm not really seeing any evidence of homosexuality--or a need to expel either of them.
The principal "just looked at me like I was a disease and I was so wrong," one of the girls later said. They were identified in the legal proceedings only as Jane Doe and Mary Roe.
In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.
So private schools in California are not engaged in the business of education--unlike the public schools. The private schools are just social clubs. Good to know.
"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."
Yes, God forbid that children learn little things like tolerance or compassion at a Christian private school. It's far more important that they learn about how to use religion to justify prejudice. Up with bigotry! [/sarcasm]
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.
Since the girls weren't doing anything at school, and since there is no evidence that they were doing anything away from school, I fail to see why they were expelled in the first place. Oh, that's right. They were accused. Being accused of doing something wrong proves that it was done, doesn't it?
In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat "very close" to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything "inappropriate," the court said.
Mary Roe said, "He got very close to me and he said, 'Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that."
But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.
"It is hard to imagine how he could have determined whether they had a homosexual relationship without asking the questions that he in fact asked," wrote Richli, appointed to the court by former Gov. Pete Wilson.
How about asking, "Do you have a homosexual relationship?" Or even "Are you having sex with each other?" Not that those are appropriate questions either, but there ARE other ways of asking the question that don't involve asking for prurient details. The principal sounds like he was stocking for private fantasies later.
The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls' "suspected sexual orientation" to their parents, the court said. The parents, "in light of their right to control their children's upbringing and education, had a right to know why" they were being expelled, the court said.
I want to know how they told the parents that. I mean, it's one thing if you can say, "Your kid gave someone a gun, brandished a knife at another student, sells controlled substances, committed sexual assault and attempted to commit sexual battery, and possesses a bomb, so we're expelling him/her right now."
It's quite another to say, "Well, one girl outed Jane and Mary, and though we don't have any proof that the girl who outed them wasn't being spiteful or lying, we're expelling both Jane and Mary because we're squicked by the very idea of the gay."
Hanson said the entire episode was "very traumatic" and "humiliating" for the girls.
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was based on "the particular circumstances of this school."
And no one is going to use this as precedent at all!
"Labeling a young person or telling her she is 'sinful' can be psychologically devastating," Minter said. "Regardless of one's religious beliefs, all adults have a responsibility to treat young people with compassion and respect."
It's a shame the school didn't.
School officials could not be reached for comment.
Just as well. They've said more than enough.
Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said the ruling "preserves the right of Christian schools in California to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs."
If I were a parent in California, I'd be making some admission decisions consistent with my belief in courtesy, compassion, understanding, logic, and solid evidence. And they wouldn't include any school who pre-judged others based on someone else's say-so.
Goodbye to you, California Lutheran High School. May you close your doors forever, and soon. Kids do not need to be taught to be bigoted.
***
ETA: Oh, and here's the appellate brief if you want to read it.
Tamora Pierce (tammy212) mentioned this news item--a January 28, 2009 article from the L.A. Times by Maura Dolan-- here. I'm posting the article here because damn it, I need to talk back to the school, their lawyers and the judges. BADLY.
***
Reporting from San Francisco -- After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," the girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.
Please note the phrasing. The girls "had a bond of intimacy." That is, they were close. That's really the only thing the school had to go on when determining if they were lesbians or not. In fact, the school and its administration didn't even have the balls to say outright that they were expelling the girls for being gay. They just said that the bond between them was characteristic of a lesbian relationship. Because, y'know, all them lesbians act the same way. [/sarcasm]
In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.
Now, this isn't good. According to this site:
The CDE [California Department of Education] has no authority over private schools and does not investigate complaints against them. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the school level or with the assistance of the private school organization, you may consider contacting the following agencies, depending on the nature of the complaint:
* Criminal issues - county child protective services or local law enforcement authorities
* Health and safety issues - child protective services, local county health or fire departments
* Discrimination (based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition) - the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education
* Other complaints - local Better Business Bureau; the Department of Consumer Affairs
So the California Department of Education has no authority over private schools. And laws regarding businesses don't apply, either. And the Office of Civil Rights--well, as the Russian peasants used to say, "It is very high up to heaven. It is very far to the Tsar." Washington, D.C. is a long way away. On a day-to-day basis, California private schools don't appear to be liable to anyone.
Dwell on that.
The appeals court called its decision "narrow," but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits.
Which rather implies that private religious schools across California ARE discriminating against kids, doesn't it?
Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the "very troubling" ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.
"It is almost like it could roll back 20 to 30 years of progress we have made in this area," said the San Diego attorney. "Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate."
It does.
John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School, said the ruling correctly acknowledged that the school's purpose was to "teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct."
Apparently Mr. McKay thinks that if he keeps saying the word "Christian," no one will ask him what the hell he's talking about.
Well, I'm asking. Mr. McKay, what ARE Christian values?
I presume for them to be Christian, they would have to be unique to Christianity and not held in common with any other religion. And most religions believe in things like truth, compassion, understanding and forgiveness. So I'm guessing that whatever these values are that you're defending have nothing to do with any of those.
The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends" and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said.
Now, I know a fair number of lesbian and bi women. I have to say that I don't know what "acting like lesbians" means. I would, however, LOVE to hear McKay's definition.
Oh, and did you notice that the girls never admitted to being lesbians in the entire court case? They were just accused of it. Just being accused was enough to get them expelled.
What century are we in again?
The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other.
Something I've said about a number of my friends without meaning that I was having sex with them. Presumably if one of the girls had told Tallulah Tattletale that she loved her puppy, Tallulah would have gone to a teacher and accused the other girl of bestiality.
The student advised the teacher to look at the girls' MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
Yes, because it is obviously the duty of all teachers to monitor MySpace pages and be alert for any mention of alternative sexuality. That clearly falls within the provenance of education. Of COURSE it does.
And obviously a bisexual girl would have to be sleeping with her best friend, right?
What I want to know is why Little Miss Antoniette Comstock cared so much about whether the two girls were lesbians. I don't see why it was any of her business.
I'm getting a very The Children's Hour vibe about the whole thing.
McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
Oh, well, that PROVES it! After all, everyone who hugs or kisses someone else is sexually attracted to them! It's not possible for parents or grandparents to hug children, or siblings to hug each other, or friends to hug friends! That never happens!
...oh. Wait.
According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
So far, this sounds like a "he said, she said" proposition. All I see are two girls who are physically affectionate. So far, that's basically half of my high school. I'm not really seeing any evidence of homosexuality--or a need to expel either of them.
The principal "just looked at me like I was a disease and I was so wrong," one of the girls later said. They were identified in the legal proceedings only as Jane Doe and Mary Roe.
In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.
So private schools in California are not engaged in the business of education--unlike the public schools. The private schools are just social clubs. Good to know.
"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."
Yes, God forbid that children learn little things like tolerance or compassion at a Christian private school. It's far more important that they learn about how to use religion to justify prejudice. Up with bigotry! [/sarcasm]
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.
Since the girls weren't doing anything at school, and since there is no evidence that they were doing anything away from school, I fail to see why they were expelled in the first place. Oh, that's right. They were accused. Being accused of doing something wrong proves that it was done, doesn't it?
In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat "very close" to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything "inappropriate," the court said.
Mary Roe said, "He got very close to me and he said, 'Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that."
But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.
"It is hard to imagine how he could have determined whether they had a homosexual relationship without asking the questions that he in fact asked," wrote Richli, appointed to the court by former Gov. Pete Wilson.
How about asking, "Do you have a homosexual relationship?" Or even "Are you having sex with each other?" Not that those are appropriate questions either, but there ARE other ways of asking the question that don't involve asking for prurient details. The principal sounds like he was stocking for private fantasies later.
The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls' "suspected sexual orientation" to their parents, the court said. The parents, "in light of their right to control their children's upbringing and education, had a right to know why" they were being expelled, the court said.
I want to know how they told the parents that. I mean, it's one thing if you can say, "Your kid gave someone a gun, brandished a knife at another student, sells controlled substances, committed sexual assault and attempted to commit sexual battery, and possesses a bomb, so we're expelling him/her right now."
It's quite another to say, "Well, one girl outed Jane and Mary, and though we don't have any proof that the girl who outed them wasn't being spiteful or lying, we're expelling both Jane and Mary because we're squicked by the very idea of the gay."
Hanson said the entire episode was "very traumatic" and "humiliating" for the girls.
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was based on "the particular circumstances of this school."
And no one is going to use this as precedent at all!
"Labeling a young person or telling her she is 'sinful' can be psychologically devastating," Minter said. "Regardless of one's religious beliefs, all adults have a responsibility to treat young people with compassion and respect."
It's a shame the school didn't.
School officials could not be reached for comment.
Just as well. They've said more than enough.
Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said the ruling "preserves the right of Christian schools in California to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs."
If I were a parent in California, I'd be making some admission decisions consistent with my belief in courtesy, compassion, understanding, logic, and solid evidence. And they wouldn't include any school who pre-judged others based on someone else's say-so.
Goodbye to you, California Lutheran High School. May you close your doors forever, and soon. Kids do not need to be taught to be bigoted.
***
ETA: Oh, and here's the appellate brief if you want to read it.