Editor’s note: Last Sunday’s article on the Safe Schools NC conference advocating greater awareness of LGBTQ students and their needs generated several online comments. Here is what some of you said:
Terry Wyatt: Every single child comes into a classroom with some dark secret or baggage. A teacher can make sure their child has a respectful environment in the classroom, but once that bell rings, transitions begin, and every stop at a locker is an opportunity for the absolute worst in our society to torment and prey upon them. How about society just allows teachers to teach? Teachers are not hardly compensated enough, well not compensated at all really especially in the state of North Carolina. How about we have parents take the lead for once on these issues? If your child is involved in these situations, get them some help in dealing with their choices they and, well, you allowed them or encouraged them to make.
Rick Silva: I’m all for making schools safe for all kids, but these teachers are pushing an agenda. Let parents decide if “the object is to blow up the box” of social norms as one of the conference speakers said. Teachers are paid to teach kids math and English, not to attend LGBT conferences.
Gail Sutton McNally: Teachers that demand respect for themselves and every other person in their classrooms are part of an agenda? Well, yes it is an agenda (or should be) of all who want to live in a civil society. And disrespecting anyone, for whatever reason, in our schools is just plain bullying!
Will’s “evil” ideology
Remember that case not too long ago when a student suggested online that another student was a bad person and should commit suicide and the student followed the suggestion?
If George Will were to be consistent in applying the principle he espoused in his column in the Nov. 15 N&O “On campus, a freedom from speech” (and consistency of application is important to ideologues), he would proclaim that the comments/suggestion were legitimate free speech and the suicide was the fault of the student who committed it for being "emotionally fragile."
This is why I consider the conservative ideology Will champions, with its implicit or explicit embrace of social Darwinism, to be borderline evil.
Conservative assaults on free speech
In his commentary “As faux liberals betray freedom,” (N&O Nov. 18) J. Peder Zane blamed “the rise of the left in America” for an assault on free speech. As evidence, he pointed to the hypersensitivity of some leftist-thinking college students to ideas that cause them discomfort.
I respect Zane but question his analysis.
After all, it was conservative Christian students at Duke who rejected a summer reading book because it conflicted with their beliefs.
It was conservative evangelist Franklin Graham who led the effort to stop a Muslim call to prayer at Duke Chapel.
And it was conservatives who pushed to shut down the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill after it criticized our state’s treatment of people in poverty.
Yes, the assault on free speech is real. But to characterize it as strictly leftist is incorrect.
Please send letters of up to 300 words to firstname.lastname@example.org. All submissions and online comments may be edited for space and clarity. Thank you.