School distict administrators in Yakima have put on indefinite hold plans by Davis High School students to stage "The Laramie Project" because of concerns the pro-tolerance play might be perceived as promoting homosexuality. Yakima Herald Republic reporter James Joyce III characterizes the play and the underlying real-life story thusly:
The play is based on Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student who was brutally murdered in 1998 at the age of 21 because he was gay.
Well, no, James Joyce III. The reasons for his killing are highly disputed, in fact. There is no certitude to it whatever. True, the play's script echoes dubious claims by the killer's girlfriend and the killer himself that his rage about a purported gay come-on from Shepard led to the fatal attack. However, an in-depth report on ABC-TV's "20-20" casts that claim as likely manufactured to aid the killer's defense and pegs drug-money robbery and a methamphetamine-induced rage as the likely motivations in the killing.
Shepard's killers, in their first interview since their convictions, tell "20/20's" Elizabeth Vargas that money and drugs motivated their actions that night, not hatred of gays.....Prosecutor (Cal) Rerucha recalls that Shepard's friends also contacted his office. Rerucha told "20/20," "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."Helping fuel the gay hate crime theory were statements made to police and the media by Kristen Price, McKinney's girlfriend. (Price was charged with felony accessory after-the-fact to first-degree murder. She later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor interference with police officers.) Price now says that at the time of the crime she thought things would go easier for McKinney if his violence were seen as a panic reaction to an unwanted gay sexual advance. But today, Price tells Vargas the initial statements she made were not true and tells Vargas that McKinney's motive was money and drugs. "I don't think it was a hate crime at all. I never did," she said.
Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide," he said. "If it wasn't Shepard, they would have found another easy target. What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it," Fritzen said.
Asked directly whether he targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, "No. I did not. ... I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him."
But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely? Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.
Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells "20/20" the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior. "In the first weeks after you've stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It's completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off" Rawson said. "If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today," Rerucha said.
James Joyce III of The Yakima Herald Republic - among others - should make himself familiar with this report.
There is a legitmate question of whether we want public schools instead of families teaching tolerance. Regardless, any staging of The Laramie Project should also include a post-production discussion forum where the differences between the 20-20 report and the script are fully aired; and where the Leftist meme of "politically constructed realities" gets the full treatment it so richly deserves in this instance.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 09, 2006 02:28 PM | Email ThisIf they wanted to rob Matthew and beat him, why the fence? why the admission? No coincidence, just a lynching.
"There is a legitimate question of whether we want public schools 'instead' of families teaching tolerance"?
You're kidding, right? What a remarkable statement. Who would suggest that schools do it instead of families. How about in conjunction with? Would you be any more inclined toward public schools' efforts on tolerance if we substituted the word "Jewish" for "gay"?
Matt - you're a real treat.
Posted by: bluneck on October 9, 2006 02:28 PMOh, and the Laramie Project was written in 2002. The 20-20 Report? Made in 2004. So yeah- I guess you should blame the "leftists" who wrote a play for criminals who lie in court under oath.
You might reflect on all that for a minute. But it doesn't make as good of a blog post to feed to the "GAYS AND LEFTIES ARE TEH EVIL" crowd you cater to here, does it?
Oh, and:
There is a legitmate question of whether we want public schools instead of families teaching tolerance
So, if famiies don't want to "teach tolerance", and school districts can't because of "legitimate questions" that make it impolitic to teach it, where exactly does that leave school districts where intolerance shows up? And what the hell is suposed to be meant by "teaching tolerance"? Is saying "fagbashing's and bullying's wrong" something a school district shouldn't be doing?
Posted by: eponymous coward on October 9, 2006 02:55 PMAt the time, I knew about Jewish people, but had never heard of the holocaust or how they had been historically persecuted over time.
There are still lot of individuals in the world that believe the holocaust was a hoax, and that Jewish people are indeed the cause of much of societies problems. I suppose you think that this lesson in tolerance was a poor use of public schools and should have been left to the parents as well?
Another thing.... Exactly how does the Laramie Project, which is basically a bunch of people explaining their views on the Matthew Shepard lynching, "promote homosexuality"?
Posted by: Splinter on October 9, 2006 03:12 PMBTW - lynching means being hung by the neck with rope or wire until dead. Being "strung up on a fence and beat" is not a lynching.
Posted by: H Moul on October 9, 2006 03:40 PMLet's encourage them to teach discriminate thinking, how to THINK for yourself, how to make rational decisions based on facts not feelings.
Or let's get really radical and encourage them to teach old fashioned civics, unedited American History.
You lefties don't want traditional religion in schools but you have absolutely no problem with the theology of political correctness. You want to criminalize God in the public arena, then, without even the slightest notion of your own hypocrisy, scream to legislate against 'hate'.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 9, 2006 03:45 PMReally? Is that a legitimate question? The ugly truth is many families won't teach tolerance, leading to the creation of intolerant little child-bigots that eventually become full-blown adult bigots. Sure that may not always happen, but is there anything wrong with public schools teaching that everyone should be treated with equal respect and rights regardless of skin color, sex, religion, or sexual orientation?
I do agree that a well-planned discussion/forum after the play would be beneficial to all involved. And the administrators are probably suffering from cranial-rectal inversion if they really think this production will be "promoting" any particular lifestyle, when what it really says is "Hey gays, move to Wyoming so you can get the sh*t kicked out of you!"
C'mon Matt, you're better than this.
Posted by: Randy Mueller on October 9, 2006 03:48 PMActually, he's not.
Posted by: ivan on October 9, 2006 03:55 PMPlease define what "traditional religion" is for us if you can. And those "lefties" are absolutely correct, along with any clear minded Conservative (not that there are many of those left).... Religion has absolutely no place in our public school system other than possibly a "history of religions" class.
And since when did teaching a basic civic lesson in treating people not exactly like you with dignity, or at least teaching kids that it's not ok to kill or beat them up, become a "theology of political correctness"? Although it happens to be Christ's "Greatest Commandment", it also happens to be a basic rule of civilized western society.
Posted by: Splinter on October 9, 2006 04:03 PMSplinter - Any wonder if there is a correlation between your endorsed banishment of religious principles over the last 50 years and why 'public schools' are the cesspools they are now?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen on October 9, 2006 04:26 PMYou trolls are pathetic.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 9, 2006 04:29 PMHow exactly has religion been "banished" from public schools in the past 50 years? And if you want to compare public schools of 50 years ago to public schools of today, maybe it would be a better idea to look at things like class size, instructor pay adjusted for inflation and even thing like having to integrate the races under one roof. Don't you think these things might have had a little bit more to do with the condition of our public schools today than, say, not giving the children a "moment of silence" in the morning... at least at those schools that did it.
And by the way, if you live in Bellevue, Issaquah or Sammamish, I would venture to guess that your child not in a public "cesspool". Hmmm... what is it that they have in $ammami$h that they don't have in Seattle? Hint: It's not religion.
Posted by: Splinter on October 9, 2006 04:40 PM"What's that broilin' on the grill?"
"Oh, just blubber!"
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 9, 2006 05:02 PMwhy do we just happen to "pick" THIS topic and THESE heroes? merely a co-inky-dink, eh? i smell agenda. my kid would call in sick that day with my full approval.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 9, 2006 05:05 PMBecause it's topical and involves a group that has been subjected to violence recently? Because people can connect with it more?
Have you seen the play? It really isn't pro-homosexuality. It's anti-violence and the impact that it can have on a community. Instead of not exposing your child do it, why not give him the chance? I'm glad my parents gave me the chance to think for myself, instead of sheltering me from any differing opinion.
Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on October 9, 2006 05:09 PMThe only reason the left is against this solution is that one of their biggest constituents (the NEA and, in Washington, the WEA) won't allow it. Even though another big constituency (the Black and inner city voters) strongly favor it.
Oh well, sometimes you have to keep one constituency in squalor to satisfy another--that's Democrat politics.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 9, 2006 05:37 PMInteresting that in just the 25 or so comments so far, there are some good examples of ignorant hatred on both the right and left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 9, 2006 06:04 PMI think any school that could receive voucher funds would need to be accredited (i.e. teaching a curriculum that gets students to a specified level of knowledge), and they would have to allow their classes to be inspected. These two things would prevent the issue you are alluding to--i.e. brainwashing.
The vast majority of parents would choose the best school that they could find for their children. This would open up education to competition--right now it is a government mandated monopoly. (Maybe we need an anti-trust law for schools!).
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 9, 2006 06:35 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 9, 2006 06:53 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 9, 2006 07:19 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 9, 2006 07:21 PMthen let's do an age-adjusted play about Catholic victims in other countries who are persecuted for their beliefs, crosses in urine called "art" and other things that make Catholics victims. then, we will address 'victims' of newspaper cartoons who riot and burn when THEIR ox is gored. then we will address the victims of "pollack" jokes in large midwest cities. or how about Asian or white kids being teased about their appearances in the inner city? do you now see my point?
Cheryl at 6 had it--just teach plain old civics or history without all the political historionics & doo-dads attached. Our kids are being pulled away from the basics of learning in favor of every splinter agenda group's tint on life. this play's choice is no accident. its topic or realtionship reeks of agenda--just my opin. if parents want to inject political messages, let them do so at home or take them to such plays on their own dime.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 9, 2006 07:38 PM
The Sound of Music isn't historically accurate, yet nobody opposes that being performed in high schools. Why should The Laramie Project be held to higher standards. What could possibly be the harm in performing this play? Theater's only scary when it's bad.
My God Matt... could you be more knee-jerk?
Posted by: Goldy on October 9, 2006 07:39 PM O and for the record, I am a raligious school educated civil libertarian, so have fun with that if my post wasn't enough fodder.
Ciao
As for the religion aspect, since basically it was Christianity that was banned from public schools, at what point do they banish the religion of Politically Correctness, since there are so damned many people worshipping at the alter of the PC???? Hmmm....
Posted by: Paul on October 9, 2006 08:24 PMFirst, how would the program work? I am most concerned with helping those who are worst served by the public schools -- the poor -- so I would like vouchers limited to schools that accept them for the entire tuition bill. (Same principle as Medicare, I think.) OK?
Bill H said he would have schools "inspected" to avoid "brainwashing" -- but how would we define "brainwashing"? Who would set the requirements for curriculum, staff, etc.? I oppose govt funds facilitating people getting religious instruction, so I'd like religious schools excluded. Do you agree?
How much would a voucher be worth? I think the amount should correspond to the cost to educate that student. Some students cost more than others to educate due to disabilities and disadvantaged backgrounds. If private schools are allowed to admit selectively, they should not be rewarded for creamskimming; we'd need a way to adjust for that.
If those issues could be solved, I'd be OK with vouchers. I love the idea of innovation, competition, and flexibility. However, I also believe in reality, and empirical data is not kind to vouchers and charter schools. Most studies have failed to show that they get better results than public schools. So even if we do everything you want, it's questionable whether it will accomplish anything. Arguably we should improve our education system in ways that have been demonstrated to work, rather than ones based on free market ideology.
Finally, we must recognize the reality that the students worst served by public schools tend to be those with unsupportive families who will probably take the path of least resistance and leave them in the public schools. The fewer families in public schools, the less society will care about those who are left in them. Maybe we can live with that state of affairs, but it bothers me.
So while I don't reject vouchers categorically, I have serious concerns about them and I don't see them as a silver bullet.
Posted by: Bruce on October 9, 2006 08:55 PMNot really. "Tolerance" is not "respect." And it is very much the school's role to explain what is proper and legal and which must be accepted & left-alone, even if one doesn't like it.
For example, I rarely agree with anything Matt Rosenberg says and I do not often "respect" his opinion. But I certainly "tolerate" his right to offer them.
And it's that line -- between tolerating something because the law requires it and respecting something based on your own assessment of the merits -- which schools are supposed to teach. Tolerance is not a matter of personal taste and preference.
Posted by: David Sucher on October 10, 2006 06:39 AM'promoting respect' plays and examples are many. Aesop's fables are some. if it's just a coincidence at that play's background or main historical characters, then let's pick Brokeback Mountain to substitute for any western story about friendship and pals.
my point it that it's an interesting coincidence--to me--that's all--and i sense some whif of pc influence. others like you have a right to disagree. we all see the world from different views and experiences. you prob. think i'm reading too much into it. maybe so. but detectives also look at seemingly unrelated things to try to make sense of a bigger picture.
and no--no stomping of you here--it seems like a civil thread os many opinions--thanks for yours.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 10, 2006 06:51 AM
Matthew Shepard was a gay Uiniversity of Wyoming student who was strung up, beat up, robbed, and left on a fence to die. You now claim that the fact that he was gay had nothing to do with the murder. Maybe not. Maybe so.
I saw The Laramie Project and I was surprised about how good the play is. And it is a play.
And Davis High School, and Yakima, are surely better than blocking the staging of this play.
Posted by: thor on October 10, 2006 07:18 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2006 07:23 AMSeems that TTP exclusively produces works with homosexual themes such as a play written about Oscar Wilde, and a heretofore unknown work by Tennessee Williams.
You can read a bio of Kaufman here: http://www.glbtq.com/arts/kaufman_m.html
Agenda? Nah!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 10, 2006 08:40 AMYou're giving waaaay too much credit to that 20/20 report, which was pretty broadly discredited shortly after its broadcast, particularly by the ADL and SPLC, as well as officials in Wyoming.
For some of the details, you can check my post on the subject. Certainly you seem to have fallen into the reporters' conceit. As I pointed out at the time:
Indeed, the entire thrust of ABC's "revelations" -- that it was all a drug binge, not a hate crime -- reveals how little the reporters who worked on this understand not just bias crimes but criminal law generally. One factor, such as drug use, does not cancel out another, such as a bias motive. They often in fact appear together and work in conjunction.
It's pretty clear in retrospect that the 20/20 report was seriously flawed. No one -- not in Wyoming, nor in law enforcement generally -- took it seriously. Outside, of course, of those True Believers on the right who ardently believe that all crimes are hate crimes.
Posted by: David Neiwert on October 10, 2006 09:07 AMAre not all crimes "hate" crimes? You mean there are "love" crimes? "like" crimes? There is NO DIFFERENCE between murder of a ________ (insert your 'protected' class here) and the murder of a white male. Murder is murder. Crime is crime. By saying that Gay crime (for the present topic) or crimes against Black/Yellow/Green/Purple people, or whatever are any more or any less heinous than another crime is discriminatory at best.
What your are really trying to say is that if my child was murdered it would be less important than if she were gay, or a 'person of color'? Or that if a gay person or a 'person of color' were the victim of a crime it would be more important than if the victim was white?
Hate to let y'all in on a big secret, but here goes - white people are beginning to be the minority, so soon it will be a hate crime.
(Now, before everyone gets all uppity here, let me explain the "white" part of the comments. Currently, crime against a minority is apparently more important as it gets labled as a hate crime. Therefore, the only group of folks who CANNOT be victims of a "hate crime" are the straight white male.)
Which is how many exactly? 5 people? 6 people? (as opposed to the throngs on the left who are muddle-brained moral relativists)...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 10, 2006 11:37 AMHere's a little secret for you: It already IS a hate crime. If a white guy walking through a predominantly black area were followed, called "cracker", chased down, beaten up and then killed, it would be a hate crime.
Although I do not necessarily agree with the concept of "hate crimes", I do understand (somewhat) the logic behind them. A crime of passion, where a man kills his wife in the heat of the moment after finding her with another man, is completely different than a person of a certain race being singled out and killed based soley on his race. It could be argued that the latter murder is more serious because the intent of the "hate crime" is to intimidate an entire group of people, not just one person.
Posted by: Splinter on October 10, 2006 11:39 AMMatt must be doing something right to incite such an ill-tempered F-word peppered diatribe.
The left does its most revealing freak-outs when their agenda is betrayed.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 10, 2006 05:04 PMHowever the "hate crime" tries to ascribe a motive to an attack. Motive is an important part of proving that a person may have committed a crime, but it should not be confused with intent. I think it sends a very bad signal, as others have said, that some victims are more important than others. Personally, I think all first degree murders ought to be prosecuted harshly, but I don't think there should be some additional penalty associated with the motive in the crime.
Bill H
you had it nailed: "Murder is murder. Crime is crime." simple. sometimes the simple answer is the right one. my guess with the 'hate crime' distinction issue is that liberals & special interest groups do not like uniform, fairly applied definitions and rules--much like like red traffic lights mean 'stop' for all, not selected groups.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 11, 2006 02:39 AMIf you kill someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., arguably your intent -- and effect -- includes intimidating other members of that group. The penalty should arguably be greater not because the victim is more important than others, but because there are more victims, and therefore the crime is more damaging to society.
Posted by: Bruce on October 11, 2006 03:39 PMThat's the stupidest thing you've said yet (well among the stupidest anyway ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 05:33 PM