Okay, I am quite liberal (a few paychecks and showers removed from a hippy), and I'm confused about this. [suntimes.com] I'm having a difficult time admitting the conservatives have some valid points regarding segregation. It seems the adolescent gay community may stand to gain more from an effort directed toward minimizing abuse in integrated situations. What are the benefits of setting aside a high school for gays, lesbians and transgender kids?

The way I try to approach all issues of race/class/gender/sexual orientation(different! than gender), I try to ignore the specific race/etc in question.

What are the benefits of setting aside a high school for women?

What are the benefits of setting aside a high school for black/AA/term-of-the-day students?

What are the benefits of setting aside a high school for Young Republicans?

And you're probably not quite as liberal as you think you are. Nobody is - if they were, the 80s would have been MUCH different.

I had read about the school, and didn't think of it in terms of segregation until I read your post. There are at least two reasons for this:

First, I'm pretty stupid.

Second, I'm under the impression that gay and lesbian students are being given the choice to attend a different school, not being forced to. It's less like racial segregation of decades past and more like the idea of a Catholic school (except, IIRC, still with public funding).

Now, do I think it's a Good Thing? Well, never having been in the New York public school system (and also never having been homosexual), I'm in no position to judge the situation. However, I do think the strategy could ultimately be harmful. I would prefer to see the school system address the underlying discipline problem that must exist if any group of students feels threatened by another.

The major problem with this is that it affirms the idea (to both gay and straight students) that homosexual students "don't belong" in "normal" schools and, by extension, in "normal" society. Care to bet on whether this new school and its students are the object of ridicule by other students within a year?

A more disturbing thought: Care to bet on how long it'll be before some religious / socially conservative extermist attacks the school physically?

As a person who spent most of my time in public school being mistreated because i was queer, i would have welcomed an opportunity to attend classes in an environment where i wasn't subject to continuous abuse. "Integration" got me nothing but hate and beatings, whereas a chance to be surrounded by supportive peers and educators might have made me more motivated-- even eager-- to go to school, rather than despising it most every day.

I'm opposed to segregated schools (optional or otherwise) for three reasons :

1. By being forced to mix with children unlike themselves, some children will develop some tolerance for others. The arguement that mixed schools lead to bullying is a straw man - bullying occurs in all schools, regardless. Kids are bastards like that.

2. Segregated schools are a deliberate attempt to foster a cultural education on the child - turning the child into a model of its parents. In a mixed school the child is a child who happens to be black, catholic, gay, whatever. In a segregated school that label takes on an importance that is disproportionate. To an extent, prejudice survives because we can still point at different sub-cultures - the gay community, the black community, etc. A thousand years ago, my parents would have been from different communities (my father looks distinctly saxon, my mother celtic). Now, such a distinction is meaningless. I'm not arguing for some single monolithic culture here, but for membership of some sub-culture to be viewed as a part of who a person is, not their defining label.

3. Last reason is largely specific to the homosexual issue, but to lesser extent applies to other groups, especially religious ones. The average adolescent has not discovered his sexuality. I was probably twenty-five before I fully discovered mine (or at least, last made a major discovery). Segregation based on a choice that may change is pointless - you're forcing a child into a mould that may not be appropriate. Would there be a mechanism for moving children between the "gay" and "straight" schools, based on the current stage of their experimentation? If not, does the child in the "wrong" school receive less support because the other school exists?

Wow, this is heavy for this time in the morning.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to zamphir (#7846):

Young republicans are often segregated by their parents.

...these schools they go to are called 'private' schools.

In Response to mcgrue (#7901):

Yes.

Are there any benefits of this?

In Response to Teledildonix (#7856):

Very good points; though, I wonder if a whole separate school is the best answer.

For everyone's wellbeing through high school and beyond it seems resources might be better spent on making sure students are not abused mentally or physically for any reason. How about providing safe locations for groups where students feel comfortable reporting abuse and feel they have supportive peers?

One of the biggest difficulties I have with an entirely separate school is what happens after the students graduate. Most states in the US do not have anti-discrimination laws in place to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation. Would gay high school students miss learning some vital coping/protection skills if they are nurtured in an environment not at all like the rest of the world?

Then again, perhaps high school age students are simply too brutal to each other to keep all of them locked in the same building eight hours a day...

In Response to albionsoft (#7858):

Ah Graham, I always love it when you join a debate. Your input is often well thought out and expressed clearly.

I completely agree with your first two points. Those along with others expressed in this thread keep me leaning towards the Harvey Milk not being the best use of funds and perhaps even detrimental in fostering tolerance of diversity.

I'm not completely sure of part of your third reason. Once a person starts producing hormones and feeling any sort of attraction to another person discovery of sexuality has begun. From what my homosexual friends have told me, by high school they started to wonder why they weren't attracted to the opposite sex like most of their peers. Of course a person's sexual identity is far from fully developed by high school, but fourteen year olds have an idea of what they find attractive before they even enter high school.

Also, this isn't too new of a school. This recent hoopla is about the publicly funded renovation of a building so Harvey Milk will be able to expand beyond a two classroom school they've been operating in for the last two decades. With the larger space the school will be able to admit around 100 students already waiting to get in. As small as it has been I doubt they've needed to work out any systems to move students from Harvey Milk into integrated schools. It may be interesting to see if they do need to work out such systems as the school grows to its max capacity of 170.

Now the last bit in your third point about less support because the other school exists holds a lot of weight. This is why I'm not sure about spending a pretty good sum of money on Harvey Milk, one resource available to a limited number of individuals. What about the abused homosexual students in the integrated schools? Will there be any money left to help gay non-Harvey Milk students cope?

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#7915):

For everyone's wellbeing through high school and beyond it seems resources might be better spent on making sure students are not abused mentally or physically for any reason

So you advocate suppression of freedom of speech, then?

I didn't think you were as liberal as you thought you were.

Then again, perhaps high school age students are simply too brutal to each other to keep all of them locked in the same building eight hours a day...

So at what age do you consider someone to be human, and fully deserving of all the rights and privileges thereof?

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#7917):

Ah Graham, I always love it when you join a debate. Your input is often well thought out and expressed clearly.

Yeah.

What's up with that?

Doesn't he want to fit in?

In Response to Teledildonix (#7856):

but which would be worse, the current situation...or you finding out the brutality/mockery/hatred/fear after you've been isolated for several years....especially since they haven't had to develop any form of tolerance because they haven't had to confront it

desegregation is not just for making equality for the minority, it is to force awareness/acceptance upon the majority as well

I was listening to NPR [npr.org] yesterday and they had a speaker on who was talking about this. The concept of the school - a refuge for those kids who are brutalized to the point of not being educated - seems like a good idea.

However, the speaker also mentioned the segregation will never solve any problems. It merely delays them until after graduation.

The inclusion of blacks into white schools in the 50's and 60's demonstrates the benefit of the abandonment of segregated schools. Forcing kids (and adults indirectly) to accept the other side and deal with the differences allows everyone to grow and start to work with each other. Obviously it's not easy and doesn't work perfectly from the start.

Postponing integration of homosexuals into heterosexual mainstream until after high school is great for high-schoolers. Unless of course they go out into public or graduate. Rather than pull the children away from mainstream and create a temporary buffer of a fantasy high school, it would be more profitable to work at changing current stereotypes and focus on acceptance rather than ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#7917):

I'm not completely sure of part of your third reason. Once a person starts producing hormones and feeling any sort of attraction to another person discovery of sexuality has begun. From what my homosexual friends have told me, by high school they started to wonder why they weren't attracted to the opposite sex like most of their peers. Of course a person's sexual identity is far from fully developed by high school, but fourteen year olds have an idea of what they find attractive before they even enter high school.

Okay, lets start with a small problem. In Scotland we have a two school system - Primary (ages 5-11) and Secondary or High (ages 11-18). I get the impression Americans use "high school" differently than we do. Could someone let me know what ages we're talking about?

Back to the main point. I have known many people who believed they might be gay at high school (because they weren't attracted to the opposite sex, because they had a crush on another person the same sex) but discovered their heterosexuality later. Largely these people were simply late developers. I have also known people who only discovered their homosexuality in their twenties, thirties, and in one case forties.

This is the major part of my third point. Sexual experimentation may start in adolescence, somewhere between 11 and 21, depending on the person. It is not finished till much later, possibly never. Drawing a line round a person at 14 and saying "gay" or "straight" is nonsense. Plenty of people at that age do not know. They may know how they've experimented up till that point. They may know which way they're leaning. "Having an idea of what they find attractive" is not enough to label someone for life, and segregated schooling is largely about doing just that.

Partly, it might be worth noting that I believe that most people are neither gay nor straight, but somewhere in between. There's an enormous cultural pressure to conform to one end of the spectrum or the other. Increasing this pressure on children at a confused age is not a good thing.

Ideally, I think encouraging people to believe that bi-sexual is the norm, anything else an acceptable preference might be the least harmful and most honest approach. I don't believe it'll happen. I do know that segregation is a step in the wrong direction.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#7925):

I get the impression Americans use "high school" differently than we do. Could someone let me know what ages we're talking about?

American High School is typically from age 14-18. It's the last four years of pre-college education.

How the years before that are split up depends a bit on where you are. It could be three years of "middle school", or two years of "junior high".

Ideally, I think encouraging people to believe that bi-sexual is the norm, anything else an acceptable preference might be the least harmful and most honest approach.
I don' think we need to lie to people, but I agree that convincing people that in some matters everyone has their own choice and that's OK is the right thing to do.

Everyone has made good points so far, but i think something that needs to be pointed out here is that it would be unfair to compare the Harvey Milk High School to racially or religiously segregated schools. The students at HM are there because they are basically refugees from hostile situations, and probably the only way to prevent them from dropping out of public school altogether is to provide them with a safer alternative. In a more ideal world, this would be unnecessary; but America has so much cultural and institutional prejudice and hatefulness. So until there is some genuine attempt at egalitarianism, Harvey Milk may be a decent (albeit temporary) part of a solution. It would be nice if there were no need for such a school, but that's obviously not the case at this point in our history.

Something else that may not be obvious, particularly to people in this discussion who do not identify themselves as "queer" or "gay" or such, is that the HM school may be providing something vital to these youths that other people take for granted. If you are a young African American, and you suffer from prejudice during your day at school, you can go home to your African American family, which in most cities is also part of an African American community. If you are a Jewish child, and all the other kids treat you despicably, at the end of the day you can go home to your Jewish family and community. But what about the kid who is harassed all day at school for being gay? How many of them go home to families that accept and support them? How many can be part of a community that values them and respects them? There may be a few lucky kids whose parents, relatives, communities and peers offer them some kind of safety; but i bet they are in a miniscule minority. Most queer kids are in danger from their own families and neighbors as much as from hostile classmates; in my experience, my queer friends' experiences, and probably most young gay Americans' teen years, a place like Harvey Milk would have been the ONLY zone of safety, sanity, and respite from hostility.

Additionally, there is the possibility that by supporting a place like the HM High School, the community is giving positive sanction to the whole notion that it's OK to be gay. If a queer teen is rejected and criticized and denigrated by their parents and other family members for being non-heterosexual, they can point out that the community at large has approved of their sexual orientation. It would have been such a powerful counter-argument to my parents' idiotic close-mindedness if i could have said to them, "But look! There's a whole school for kids like me, so you can't tell me that i'm wrong to be who i am."

Maybe eventually people will become more enlightened and tolerant, and this whole situation will be moot. But i don't see that happening very soon; so until then, i bet the Harvey Milk school is really helping some gay teens to survive. And that is NOT an overly melodramatic supposition: most sociological studies of teenagers in America show that the rates of suicide (and attempted suicide) are as much as ten to twenty times higher among those who are not heterosexual. Add those statistics to the already horrifying levels of violence and abuse perpetrated against queer teens by others, and you begin to see that the HM School is only a tiny part of the sort of overall effort that needs to be made to correct these injustices.

I really don't want to prattle on from atop a soapbox; and since most of you people in these forums already seem very intelligent and understanding, i'm sure there's no need to preach to the choir. So i'll just try to make my point with a lame (but true) humorous illustration. When i was only fifteen, and still several years away from high school graduation, i was considered by my teachers to be sufficiently advanced in mathematics to go ahead and take an advanced-placement Calculus course that was intended for college freshmen. My neanderthal parents didn't have the foggiest notion about what my days at sc...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to albionsoft (#7858):

You make very reasonable arguments. However, on point 1, i would counter that the Harvey Milk school isn't just sparing some kids a bit of bullying-- it may actually be the only conceivable way for them to survive to matriculation

On issue 2, i would point out that my public high school-- a supposedly "diverse" and "multicultural" environment-- was almost completely devoid of any attempts to include homosexuality in that education and diversity. There was a terrible lack of education about any kind of sexuality, especially any that wasn't enjoyed by a popular majority. There was virutally no mention of people's sexual orientation in the context of American history, social science, art, literature, science, or any other topic, despite the fact that there were plenty of appropriate contexts in which it could have been indicated as just another fact. Omission is tantamount to denial, and fosters a ridiculous attitude of "don't ask, don't tell"-- pretty much the opposite of what education is supposed to do.

Most importantly, on your 3rd point, i wish to contradict you here. Although there may be people whose experience was quite different from mine, i bet i wasn't the only person who was aware (and not tremendously uncertain) of my sexual orientation as soon as puberty and adolescence arrived. It was actually the combination of social stigma, peer pressure, family and community oppression that led me to deny, hide, and lie to myself and everybody else. If i could have been in an environment like the HM School, i would have started being an honest person about ten years sooner. If my community had anything remotely resembling the HM School, even if i'd not been in attendance there, i probably would have had more courage and self-esteem to stand up for myself, just knowing that i wasn't absolutely alone. And please don't use the term "choice that may change" as if this were a hairstyle or a pair of shoes... sexual identity is as fundamental as gender identity, and probably more basic than any cultural trait.

Perhaps circumstances have improved a tiny bit since i left high school half a lifetime ago, but i don't see any significant changes in my culture to suggest that hostility and hate have been reduced. So maybe kids nowadays are safer than i was; but until that's proven, until we actually have (and enforce) rules or laws or some kind of social standards that keep queer kids-- any kids-- safe from severe hostility, ostracism, and violence, and until we have standards that give the same quality of balanced education to a gay teen as to a non-gay teen, we are going to need some kind of interim remedies. It would be lovely if our culture quickly changed and made the HM School obsolete... but certainly that isn't going to happen before the end of the current academic year, is it?

In Response to Teledildonix (#7928):

You make very reasonable arguments.

Thank you.

However, on point 1, i would counter that the Harvey Milk school isn't just sparing some kids a bit of bullying-- it may actually be the only conceivable way for them to survive to matriculation

Not sure what you mean here. Children are being murdered? Pretty unusual, I'd have thought, even in America. Children are being driven to suicide? That happens, but the reason for the bullying that leads to that situation can be enormously diverse. Are we going to build special schools for all the kids who are into role-playing or heavy metal? What about those who are good at maths, or have ginger hair or spots?

Bullying is a problem, but it is not reduced by specialist schools. Children find new reasons to bully.

Omission is tantamount to denial, and fosters a ridiculous attitude of "don't ask, don't tell"-- pretty much the opposite of what education is supposed to do.

Absolutely agree. Which is why I campaign for the repeal of the odious Section 28 over here. That's the law that bans any school from "promoting homosexuality". I believe in sex education from a fairly young age, including all variants on sexuality.

i bet i wasn't the only person who was aware (and not tremendously uncertain) of my sexual orientation as soon as puberty and adolescence arrived

So what? I never said kids *CAN'T* know their final sexuality from a young age. I said that many kids *DON'T* know. I'm not denying your experience, I'm stating that for many who later get classed as "gay" their teenage years were "straight" or "confused"; and vice versa. I've known a fair number of people who's final "gay"/"straight" orientation was purely down to the sex of the person they happened to fall in love with.

Look, strongly gay people *can* be part of the problem here. For many people, the issue is very shades of grey. I realise you're very sure of your sexuality, but most people aren't.

And please don't use the term "choice that may change" as if this were a hairstyle or a pair of shoes... sexual identity is as fundamental as gender identity, and probably more basic than any cultural trait

Sorry, you are wrong. Our society has repressed homosexuality to the point where only those with a strong drive will make that choice, true. But if you look at societies that accepted homosexual behaviour, the word "choice" is entirely appropriate. As in "choice of music". It is pretty normal for teenagers (when not exposed to inhibitry pressures) to experiment with homosexuality, then decide it wasn't really for them later. I realise this is not true of you, but you cannot generalise from one person, especially when they appear to be pretty much at one extreme of the scale.

It would be lovely if our culture quickly changed and made the HM School obsolete... but certainly that isn't going to happen before the end of the current academic year, is it?

It isn't going to happen at all while society has somewhere to push the queer kids off to. Segregation cannot bring solutions.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to zamphir (#7926):

Ideally, I think encouraging people to believe that bi-sexual is the norm, anything else an acceptable preference might be the least harmful and most honest approach.

I don' think we need to lie to people, but I agree that convincing people that in some matters everyone has their own choice and that's OK is the right thing to do.

I don't believe this is lying. More and more women are finding that lesbianism is socially acceptable, and wish to experiment. There are many examples of men denied access to women who will happily engage in homosexual behaviour. I think is we weren't so repressed, we'd genuinely see bi-sexual as the norm.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#7930):

I think if we weren't so repressed, we'd genuinely see bi-sexual as the norm.

I still have to disagree. One, I don't think the "norm" is really determinable. I don't know that there are reliable statistics that cover sexual mores and practices over the entire human populace.

Two, I don't think we agree on what the term "bi-sexual" means. I don't think it's a reasonable term for having a variable sexual preference over a lifetime. Plus I don't like the term anyway.

More and more women are finding that lesbianism is socially acceptable, and wish to experiment
I think basic American sexual history shows that the social acceptance of any given sexual preference varies almost decade to decade, and is usually a lot more localized than people take it to be. Nor do I think America is unique in this.

In Response to zamphir (#7918):

So you advocate suppression of freedom of speech, then?

I didn't think you were as liberal as you thought you were.

Blast! You've figured me out.

So at what age do you consider someone to be human, and fully deserving of all the rights and privileges thereof?

This varies. In some cases, Mr. Bush for example, an individual may never reach an age for me to consider him human, fully deserving of all rights and privileges.

In Response to albionsoft (#7929):

"...it may actually be the only conceivable way for them to survive to matriculation"

Not sure what you mean here.

I personally knew a half-dozen queer kids who wound up either on the streets or bouncing around in an unstable manner because they weren't safe nor welcome in their own homes, and that was in a rather small town. The HM Institute was founded by people who saw teenagers being beaten and ejected from homeless shelters because they were gay... and they were in the homeless shelters in the first place because they were driven out of their own homes. And since they do not enjoy the legal status and benefits of adults, and they have been forsaken by their own parents, then it is not much of a stretch to see that survival can be a very real issue.

This refers back to my point that Korean kids don't get kicked out of their homes for being Korean; Mormon kids don't get beaten by their parents for being Mormon; but queer kids, if they don't successfully lie and hide their identity from their own families, may be ejected just for being queer. So where do they go for support?

The HM Institute states clearly that they accept and assist any youth who is gay, lesbian, transgendered, straight, questioning or whatever. They are not excluding straight kids, and they are not forcing kids to make a definite determination (the label "questioning" leaves plenty of room for future developments). They are merely providing a safer place for kids who would otherwise be deprived of a chance to complete their high school education simply because they might be queer. If you go to hmi.org [hmi.org] and look at their policies, i think you'll see that this is not a case of exclusiveness, nor do they say any of their students have to be of a specific sexual orientation.

With that in mind, i would like to counter your wise but inappropriate statement: "It isn't going to happen at all while society has somewhere to push the queer kids off to. Segregation cannot bring solutions." You are correct, but please do not equate the Harvey Milk High School with Segregation. Surely you can see that there are signifcant differences? Nobody is saying, "Let's put all the kids who seem a bit queer in the HMS." Quite the opposite, actually: i bet a lot of kids meet terrible obstacles as their parents and families and peers try to discourage them from attending such a place. But the HM Institute says that their goal is to work with youth and their parents to try to improve that situation.

I'm certain that many teens who matriculate from the HM school would not have finished their secondary education otherwise. In fact, there are probably dozens or even hundreds of teens over the years who survived deplorable circumstances and went on to have successful lives, largely because they had help from the HMI. So until we have social standards that genuinely attempt to protect these kids and encourage them to feel like equal members of their society, why should we take away an institution that is actually helping so many teenagers?

I would be just as happy as i presume you would be, if the Harvey Milk School closed its doors because it was superfluous, because all the queer/bisexual/questioning teenagers could go to any regular public high school in our country and not have their sexual identity used against them. If we had laws to stop that kind of mistreatment of children, and we all tried our best to follow the spirit of such rules, then i would say that the HM school was outdated, unnecessary, moot. But until we have some progress towards those circumstances, it probably won't help anybody (especially not queer kids who are looking for support, and sometimes survival) to toss away something that is actually doing some good at the moment. I would be the first person to jump on your bandwagon and discard the HM Institute's programs, if you could propose some viable alternative solutions. I mean that sincerely and respectfully,...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to zamphir (#7931):

I don't think the "norm" is really determinable

With any reliability? No. Hence my scattering of "thinks" and "believes" through my comments.

I don't think we agree on what the term "bi-sexual" means. I don't think it's a reasonable term for having a variable sexual preference over a lifetime. Plus I don't like the term anyway.

I don't particularly like any of the terms associated with this area - we have a choice of anally academic or insults. My point is that it appears to me (without overwhelming proof!) that many people vary between "straight" and "gay" through their lives.

I think basic American sexual history shows that the social acceptance of any given sexual preference varies almost decade to decade, and is usually a lot more localized than people take it to be. Nor do I think America is unique in this.

Given my evidence for my comment was based more on Britain than America, I can but agree. The point remains that this appears to be one area where people appear quite keen to explore when the restrictions are relaxed.

We seem to be agreeing an awful lot here. Don't you want to fit in either?

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to Teledildonix (#7933):

Long post again. I don't have time to respond to every point, but let me make a couple of points here...

The original question I responded to was :

What are the benefits of setting aside a high school for gays, lesbians and transgender kids?

I know very little about the school in question, and am responding to a more general question. Specialist schools, even if they are not "strict" in their intake, are not a good thing.

Second point. I think your thinking is clouded by specifics. You keep talking about kids who are bullied for being gay, running away from home, not being accepted by parents. There are many, many reasons why children end up in these situations. They all need support. I think your arguments make sense, but are focused wrongly. Kids being bullied in school need help and support in the school. Kids who are bullied at home need support outside the home. Kids who run away need help where they end up, schooled and (if necessary) rehomed. Their sexuality doesn't come into it.

I think this is our big difference. Your background means you are focusing on a specific problem. I want to see a more general solution that doesn't make the specific problem worse.

And, yes, solutions to the homeless problem can make other problems worse. That's a whole other rant...

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#7936):

anally academic

beg pardon?

The point remains that this appears to be one area where people appear quite keen to explore when the restrictions are relaxed.
But how much of that is likely due to a real "preference", and how much of it is just "well, I'm allowed to do this now, let's give it a go and see how it suits"? I think Tele* would agree with me that "experimentation" does not imply "orientation".

This is another problem I have with "bi-sexual is the norm". Just because you suck one dick, doesn't mean you're gay. And just because you choose a life partner based on personality rather than gender, doesn't mean that you've got a non-gender-specific orientation.

I view sexual orientation as the thing that determines which set of gender-associated "secondary sexual characteristics" cause your brain to go "Hey! That's hot!". Well, and non-gender associated "secondary sexual characteristics", like feet.

We seem to be agreeing an awful lot here.
So you've changed your mind about A Song of Ice and Fire?

Don't you want to fit in either?
I was responding to the comment that your arguments were well thought out and clearly expressed - and implying that this was unusual in this place.

If it happens that my arguments here are also well thought out and clearly expressed, I'm sure it's simply a coincidence.

In Response to Teledildonix (#7927):

I'm going to respond to a couple of your posts here.

So until we have social standards that genuinely attempt to protect these kids and encourage them to feel like equal members of their society, why should we take away an institution that is actually helping so many teenagers?

One big problem here is we don't have social standards or laws that protect homosexuals at any age in most US states. Right now is it legal to refuse service or fire a person on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay people cannot legally get married, thereby sharing with their community their chosen life partners, have a legal right to visit their dying partners in a hospital, receive joint filing tax breaks, etc. There is a broader problem here, and socially sanctioned separation may not be the best answer.

If you are a young African American, and you suffer from prejudice during your day at school, you can go home to your African American family, which in most cities is also part of an African American community. If you are a Jewish child, and all the other kids treat you despicably, at the end of the day you can go home to your Jewish family and community. But what about the kid who is harassed all day at school for being gay?

This point is a bit muddled. What happens to the Jewish child who decides he or she would like to look into a different religion? Where is the community or family support for that individual?

Most queer kids are in danger from their own families and neighbors as much as from hostile classmates; in my experience, my queer friends' experiences, and probably most young gay Americans' teen years, a place like Harvey Milk would have been the ONLY zone of safety, sanity, and respite from hostility.

While a safe zone is certainly important for any sufferers of abuse I don't see how a four year escape will help people gain a larger sense of acceptance in the long run. I'd prefer to see this effort and money spread out to more communities rather than invested into one institution that serves a very limited population. It would be much more cost effective to set up safe zones within the existing system of integrated schools. Let the integrated schools spend the money on maintenance, staff, n'such so all of the money could be spent directly on helping society gain a greater understanding and acceptance.

Additionally, there is the possibility that by supporting a place like the HM High School, the community is giving positive sanction to the whole notion that it's OK to be gay.

This may be the best reason I've seen for HM. It seems a touch smarmy to use the school as advertising, but it has gotten quite a bit of press. A school dedicated to educating homosexuals that uses this much public funding and has been given the green light by a few different governors could be viewed as a major step towards society seeing homosexuality as nothing to get worked up about.