School gets sued for sexual orientation discrimination

[Astralinre]

 

 

Since when are schools obliged to tell parents of every single little punishment? It's the first I've heard of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, additionally, there are other ways the schools could've informed her parents - they could've said that she partook in overt displays of affection. If that was breaking the rules, then that's all they had to say. The fact that they specified that it was with a girl suggests that there were some ulterior motives there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its perfectly reasonable for a school to say "Your daughter was seen partaking in some extreme displays of affection with another girl" just as I have often heard of it being said "Your daughter was seen partaking in some extreme displays of affection with a boy."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case, it is obviously a very touchy situation. If she was, after all, breaking the rules, then the school should exercise their rights and punish her, and, if need be, inform her parents. However, when a controversial factor such as homosexuality is present, care must be taken, and the school should do their best to avoid invading her privacy. They could have just as easily said it was with another person and not a girl; thus avoiding informing her parents of something they may not know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since when do parents not have the right to know such important things about their children? Don't they have every right to know what their daughter is doing and how she feels? If she has no problem with strangers at school knowing, she shouldn't have any problem with the two people who love her most knowing.

[ClassicNerd]

 

schools need to realise now that ppl do not save themselves till marriage anymore (probably only a very very very small minority do) and that this type of behaviour is not regarded as exceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude, lay off the TV and movies...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For real :roll:

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I know a lot of people act * just for the attention. <- Another reason why I don't like them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah.... obnoxious highschoolers...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can assure you that if I went to highschool with her we wouldn't get along.

[Lionheart_0]

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

[logic-is-overrated]

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

They "could" have done a 100 different things. But the whole point is that what they did was well within their authority.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

They "could" have done a 100 different things. But the whole point is that what they did was well within their authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. That entire point has been said repeated times but the defenders of her case seem lack the ability to comprehend it. You can't sue someone because you wish they handled it differently if what they did was legal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I also don't understand is that the ACLU fights for the rights of sex education at ANY level and in ANY way in schools. So kids have the right to tell their parents their sexual orientation on their own terms, but parents don't have the right to teach their kids about sex on THEIR own terms? The ACLU strikes again - protecting only the freedoms they see fit.

[stevester77]

 

 

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

They "could" have done a 100 different things. But the whole point is that what they did was well within their authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. That entire point has been said repeated times but the defenders of her case seem lack the ability to comprehend it. You can't sue someone because you wish they handled it differently if what they did was legal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I also don't understand is that the ACLU fights for the rights of sex education at ANY level and in ANY way in schools. So kids have the right to tell their parents their sexual orientation on their own terms, but parents don't have the right to teach their kids about sex on THEIR own terms? The ACLU strikes again - protecting only the freedoms they see fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meh in my opinion, the aclu has never really done any good to protect anyone's rights (i may be wrong.. its just a general opinion)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACLU=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AThousandLies]

 

Proof for these statements, please.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/19925prs20050907.html

 

Previously he had singled Nguon out for discipline a number of times for displaying affection with her girlfriend.

 

She is enrolled in a number of advanced placement and honors classes and was a candidate for the National Honor Society until the offer was rescinded because of discipline, including one weeklong suspension, for hugging her girlfriend on campus.

 

 

 

http://www.queerday.com/2005/sep/13/lesbian_teen_charlene_nguon_sues_garden_grove_school_district.html

 

Charlene Nguon, 17, has filed suit against Garden Grove Unified School District, claiming she was suspended several times and forced to temporarily transfer because she refused to stop hugging and kissing her girlfriend on campus.

 

The Santa Ana resident and her girlfriend, Trang Nguyen, 16, allege that Santiago High School Principal Ben Wolf told them not to show affection toward each other after they began dating as juniors last year. Throughout the year, the two defied the order and continued to hug and kiss on campus despite suspensions ranging from one to five days, the suit says.

 

 

 

http://www.*.com/news/article.html?2005/12/01/4

 

Nguon was repeatedly disciplined during the 2004-05 school year by Santiago High School Principal Ben Wolf for displaying affection for her girlfriend.

 

 

 

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051202141509990008

 

 

 

The suit also claims discrimination, contending that Nguon was suspended several times because she ignored orders by Wolf to stop hugging and kissing her girlfriend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of gay students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

They "could" have done a 100 different things. But the whole point is that what they did was well within their authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. That entire point has been said repeated times but the defenders of her case seem lack the ability to comprehend it. You can't sue someone because you wish they handled it differently if what they did was legal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I also don't understand is that the ACLU fights for the rights of sex education at ANY level and in ANY way in schools. So kids have the right to tell their parents their sexual orientation on their own terms, but parents don't have the right to teach their kids about sex on THEIR own terms? The ACLU strikes again - protecting only the freedoms they see fit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find it rather hypocritical that you're now going against the "could have" scenarios.

[logic-is-overrated]

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

[AThousandLies]

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're saying we shouldn't believe a single thing we read?

[insane]

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're saying we shouldn't believe a single thing we read?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, he's saying don't trust what *she* says. His quotes came from (suposedly) unbiased sources, whereas your quote was from the defendent herself.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're saying we shouldn't believe a single thing we read?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually...testimony such as that is always taken with a grain of salt in court. Haven't you ever heard of perjury?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite instead of just making a blanket statement.

[logic-is-overrated]

So you're saying we shouldn't believe a single thing we read?

No, i'm saying in America it's innocent until proven guilty and so far all the facts point towards the conclusion that she wasn't discriminated against and until she does prove something, the people she is accusing are considered innocent. Quit making irrelevant generalized statements to make up for the fact that you have no real argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My sources may not have been unbiased but you can't say they were biased against her. The first one is the website of the people who are supporting her and most of the other ones are various homosexual magazines. Some of the major supporters of her are saying that the principal is overlooking all the positive things she's done and just looking at the fact that she's a homosexual. I say their overlooking all the negative things she's done and just looking at the fact she's a homosexual.

[Astralinre]

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once more, what in the world is wrong with them giving personal information to the girl's parents? Surely the two people who have raised her and likely love her like they love themselves have every right to know her personal information - she's their daughter!

[AThousandLies]

 

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

And please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite instead of just making a blanket statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember our little debate in the police-SUV driver thread?

[Faux]

Well... What the school could of done is just not gone into specifics. They could of said "Your child was showing public affections with another student (not saying sexual orentation), and after repeted offences, she is expelled/suspended/whatever"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would of been a better way to do it. That why, the paretns know that she is atleast doing some stuff... but the schol isnt giving out personal info like sexual oreientation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the girl a minor? If yes, then the parents have every right to know what she's doing at school :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't believe some people are even defending this girl...

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

And please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite instead of just making a blanket statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember our little debate in the police-SUV driver thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the biggest spin on words I've ever read. In the SUV argument it was a "could have" situation involving the danger of someone's life. This is completely different. And I am not against could have situations, but because what was done was perfectly okay with the school's rights, you can't sue the school for other things it COULD have done. There is no relation in the two.

[AThousandLies]

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

And please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite instead of just making a blanket statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember our little debate in the police-SUV driver thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the biggest spin on words I've ever read. In the SUV argument it was a "could have" situation involving the danger of someone's life. This is completely different. And I am not against could have situations, but because what was done was perfectly okay with the school's rights, you can't sue the school for other things it COULD have done. There is no relation in the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't referring to suing the school for what they could've done. I'm saying they could've avoided being sued if they had played things safe and not given too much detail into the situation - but enough. The parents are not entitled to knowledge of the daughter's sexuality. Maybe what she did was wrong - maybe her claims were wrong, but the school should not have stated that it was with another girl.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

And please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite instead of just making a blanket statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember our little debate in the police-SUV driver thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the biggest spin on words I've ever read. In the SUV argument it was a "could have" situation involving the danger of someone's life. This is completely different. And I am not against could have situations, but because what was done was perfectly okay with the school's rights, you can't sue the school for other things it COULD have done. There is no relation in the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't referring to suing the school for what they could've done. I'm saying they could've avoided being sued if they had played things safe and not given too much detail into the situation - but enough. The parents are not entitled to knowledge of the daughter's sexuality. Maybe what she did was wrong - maybe her claims were wrong, but the school should not have stated that it was with another girl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just made an incorreect statement. The girl is 17 and in full custody of her parents- therefore, the parents are entitled to know EVERYTHING about their daughter. And it is the school's RIGHT to tell the parents EVERYTHING that happens at school. That's how it works when you're a minor. I'm sorry if you didn't know this, but your point is legally incorrect.

[AThousandLies]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I just don't understand why my girlfriend and I were not allowed to be affectionate but other couples are," said Nguon, who hopes to attend the University of Southern California, Stanford University or Loyola Marymount University next fall. "Most other students at Santiago are very accepting and tolerant of * students, but the administration is a different story. We were singled out and disciplined because we are lesbians."

There is proof that she was warned to stop showing affection at school, repeatedly broke the rules and was repeatedly disciplined for her refusal to follow the rules. There is NO PROOF that she was discriminated against. You can't site her unproven claims as evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait - so the girl has NO privacy rights whatsoever regarding her parents?

 

 

 

And please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite instead of just making a blanket statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember our little debate in the police-SUV driver thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the biggest spin on words I've ever read. In the SUV argument it was a "could have" situation involving the danger of someone's life. This is completely different. And I am not against could have situations, but because what was done was perfectly okay with the school's rights, you can't sue the school for other things it COULD have done. There is no relation in the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't referring to suing the school for what they could've done. I'm saying they could've avoided being sued if they had played things safe and not given too much detail into the situation - but enough. The parents are not entitled to knowledge of the daughter's sexuality. Maybe what she did was wrong - maybe her claims were wrong, but the school should not have stated that it was with another girl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just made an incorreect statement. The girl is 17 and in full custody of her parents- therefore, the parents are entitled to know EVERYTHING about their daughter. And it is the school's RIGHT to tell the parents EVERYTHING that happens at school. That's how it works when you're a minor. I'm sorry if you didn't know this, but your point is legally incorrect.

[Mercifull]

You you guys REALLY have to quote all the other quotes bhefore you? Makes the forum look very messy and its hard to red whats a new message and whats just being quoted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It does all depends on if a rule was broken here. Most schools have a no PDA (public display of affection) rule while on campus and authough hugging is generally tollerated its not good to use schools as bedrooms if you understand what i mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what I have been able to read from both sources is that this girl was repeatedly told NOT to show her affection publicly in the school on several occasions and refused to follow the rules. Hence her parents were told. Obviously difficulties arise because this girl was kissing another girl and the parents did not know of her sexuality but thats no grounds for litigation surely?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I dont have a problem with girls kissing other girls ;) but if a rule was broken then the school is not to blame for what has happened. Perhaps the staff member who told the parents should be put to a disciplinary but certainly no suing. If its school policy then she broke a rule and has no case, and if there was no policy about telling parents a childs sexuality then it is the individuals responsibility not the schools and so again there should be no grounds for suing.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

That's very true, Mercifull, the question in my mind, however, is whether or not they were truly discriminating against her. I.E. enforcing the rule in only her case simply because of her sexual orientation.

 

 

 

If it's true, they certainly have a case, and I certainly agree that something wrong was done on the school's part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for them telling her parents - she's a minor. Not to mention if she didn't want her parents to know she shouldn't have been doing it in extreme public.

[insane]

That's very true, Mercifull, the question in my mind, however, is whether or not they were truly discriminating against her. I.E. enforcing the rule in only her case simply because of her sexual orientation.

 

 

 

If it's true, they certainly have a case, and I certainly agree that something wrong was done on the school's part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's funny though... I doubt anyone would complain or yell "discrimination!" if the rule was enforced on heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

[Guest GhostRanger]

From what I have been able to read from both sources is that this girl was repeatedly told NOT to show her affection publicly in the school on several occasions and refused to follow the rules. Hence her parents were told. Obviously difficulties arise because this girl was kissing another girl and the parents did not know of her sexuality but thats no grounds for litigation surely?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the big thing for me that I'm finding it hard to understand. Its not like she had action immediately taken against her - she was repeatedly warned to quit doing it and would not stop. Unless they can gain proof of heterosexual couples being warned repeated to quit kissing in public, ignoring the warning, and pursuing in the act (or even possibly never even being warned) than they have grounds for a case. I seriously doubt they will be able to prove that though.

[AThousandLies]

 

That's very true, Mercifull, the question in my mind, however, is whether or not they were truly discriminating against her. I.E. enforcing the rule in only her case simply because of her sexual orientation.

 

 

 

If it's true, they certainly have a case, and I certainly agree that something wrong was done on the school's part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's funny though... I doubt anyone would complain or yell "discrimination!" if the rule was enforced on heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What makes you think that?