I am reading the Amy Sorrell story from New Jersey...

2007-05-09T13:57:00.000-05:00

I am reading the Amy Sorrell story from New Jersey, as someone who is about to publish a similar story, but in fiction—and my outcome was the same.

A teacher-newspaper advisor targeted by unhappy parents, including school board members, for allowing students to run a controversial story, is reassigned from high school to middle school. I reassigned the teacher in my story, on the suggestion of a former superintendent of schools, because it appeared to be a credible outcome. My teacher allowed students to run a sex test in the school paper without consulting her principal, during a time when sex education was being debated statewide.

The major difference is that my story, called The Sex Ed Chronicles, takes place in 1980, not today.

When I started on my story, I spoke with teachers in my hometown in New Jersey who had taught me 30 years ago. They made the same arguments as Ms. Sorrell: that a high school paper was a student forum and students were entitled to freedom of expression—as long as the writer made no comments that were disrespectful to classmates, teachers and school administrators or disruptive to school activities. My former speech and debate coach told me that it had been only recently that her principal had asked for final approval on student work in the school paper and literary magazine. Recently--as in the 21st century—even though this had not been required of an advisor during the late 1970’s.

I read Megan Chase’s column. She wrote nothing that would have offended anyone, even some one who is, for whatever reason, opposed to homosexuality. She presented an argument and backed it with facts, as a responsible journalist is supposed to do. I read no challenges to her column from parents or classmates; no one proved her wrong in any forum of public opinion, in least in the various articles I read online. I read only one objection from a parent who was not connected to the school district and it was not about the content of the story, but that her teacher did not follow the rules—to get approval from the principal before the story ran.

In Ms. Sorrell’s story, and mine, the principal wants the power of being publisher--but not the full responsibility.

I bet that Ms. Sorrell would have been fortunate to work with a principal/publisher who would have defended Megan Chase, if any one, parent or classmate had attacked her or her column. In that role, he would have followed through on Ms. Chase’s message of tolerance. He would have done the same as a publisher in the professional media would have done.

I can only guess that he was not willing or ready to do it.

In all this time, I do not remember reading anythi...

2007-04-28T10:11:00.000-05:00

In all this time, I do not remember reading anything by Amy Sorrell. My disgust of the administrators is entirely their own doing and fully merited. They still insist that a column promoting tolerance (of gays) is obviously too controversial to let run in the school paper. (If as they pretend, there was no real harm in running it, and they only wanted to make a couple of changes, they could have had a talk with Amy. All the attempts at discipline, firing, appologies &c. indicate that they believe that allowing a student to express support for tolerance is counter to what they teach and dangerous to their administration of the school.)

Students, both the vicious looking for an excuse, and the intelligent, who will understand the principal's message, will understand that the school, backed by the school board, will not tolerate tolerance, that is to say that it promotes intolerance, and the students will act. Probably teachers will take heed of the very public lesson and refrain from promoting tolerance in their classrooms and in the hallways, and look the other way when students are bullied. As shameful as such neglect would be, it is clear that to do otherwise would be to court the wrath of the administration and the school board.

There is nothing "apparent" about the school's intolerance of gays. They have made it clear in writing and they have fought tooth and nail in support of their intolerance. Their reputation is amply justified by their own words and deeds. If they have any doubts, they should seek counseling, because their prejudice has blinded them, or resign because they are insufficiently familiar with the English language to know what they say and thus unfit to teach children.

Comments on Advance Indiana™: Woodlan Takes Parting Shot At Sorrell And Media

I am reading the Amy Sorrell story from New Jersey...

In all this time, I do not remember reading anythi...