October 09, 2006
"Laramie Project:" Get Me Re-Write
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 This
Matthew Shephard was lynched. He wasn't robbed and beaten to death. He was taken out into the country, strung up on a fence and beaten. It was a lynching, a hate crime. No amount of second-guessing one's admissions to police, prosecutors and judges can undo it.
If 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.
Of course, you sort of elide over the fact that criminal defendants and their legal defense team would think fagbashing and "gay panic" as an excuse would sound better to a Wyoming jury than being hopped up on meth.
Oh, 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?
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?
3. It's a morality play, pure and simple. It doesn't really matter how and why the actual murder of Matthew Shepherd took place; this is a play not a documentary. It's a play about a hate crime taking place and it sounds to me like it would have been very valuable for the students to have seen it.
I remember my public junior high school going to great lengths to "promote tolerance" of jewish people and ensure the students understood the history of the holocaust.
At 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"?
I have relatives that visit that area quite a bit because they live close by. Most people, even the "cowboys", in the area don't give a crap one way or another if someone is gay. Contrary to popular belief, Wyoming is not filled with uneducated hicks just looking for a homo to go kill.
BTW - 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.
Schools "teaching" tolerance...what nonsense.
Let'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'.
7. A quick question to those complaining about this force-feeding morality. Have you actually seen the play, and, if so, which parts taught a pro-homosexual message stronger than "homosexuals are people whom you shouldn't be killing"?
Matt, you said "There is a legitmate question of whether we want public schools instead of families teaching tolerance."
Really? 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.
Randy @ 8:
Actually, he's not.
Cheryl: "You lefties don't want traditional religion in schools but you have absolutely no problem with the theology of political correctness"
Please 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.
11. At least you are refreshingly consistent, Ivan. You can always be counted upon for a personal insult.
12. He deserved it for this piece of trash.
13. Gee, Ivan, you could at least explain in some coherent form why you believe it is a "piece of trash".
14. why, bill? your mind was made up a long time ago. you will go on and on about the lack of credibility at abc or 20/20 whenever they report something you disagree with, but they report something you like, and all of a sudden it's more definitive then a jury trial and signed confession. if you refuse to have your preconceived notions challenged, ivan shouldn't waste his breath.
Randy - What a pessimistic life you must live with the fear that if government schools did not teach kids 'what to think' instead of 'how to think', they will all grow up to be bigots.
Splinter - 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?
Let's see, this is maybe liberal tactic #14--Attack conservatives as close minded.
You trolls are pathetic.
17. conservative tactic #37: ignore the issue, attack the messenger. why don't you explain why abc all of a sudden has so much credibility on this matter, while they would have none if they published something critical of republicans.
18. Uh Guest. If you read this thread you'd have realized that I have taken no position on the issue at hand whatsoever.
Concerned: "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?"
How 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.
20. i'm sorry for the misunderstanding, bill. please continue to post additional comments advocating no particular position.
21. Actually, if you'd go see the play before telling people what its about, you'd know that the play really has less to do with the crime itself than the reaction of the Laramie community in the days and weeks afterwards. I lived in Laramie when Matt Shepard was killed and I still do today. The play was staged here by the original cast, and it was wonderful. The play is about a community, and violence, and tolerance and hate and love... not about a hate crime, but the reaction of a community to a crime.
Applying the same "logic" as the ponderous iban suggests, the porcinus one would best serve the community at large if he/she/it were to douse itself with the flammable liquid if its choice, strike a match, and then "let nature take its course"...
"What's that broilin' on the grill?"
"Oh, just blubber!"
question: of the unlimited good and inspiritational topics & ledgends in human recorded history--namely--the rich plays of ancient Greece, literature of 1,000 countries, or otherwise,
why 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.
Because 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.
25. Alphabet, we're grilling pork chops tonight. Ah, the irony!
I would view the disagreement in this discussion as a vote for school vouchers. The left does not like the inclusion of any religion in public schools and the right does not like the injection of left wing social issues in the public schools. So let the left send their kids to the left wing schools (i.e. public schools) and let the right send their kids to religious schools.
The 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.
I think the play should not have been canceled, but I also think the topic is more appropriate for a college level production or above. I think there are instructive points in the topic of the play which shed light on ignorant hatred, and those points would be a valuable lesson for any student. But Matt's point that there is a clear gay political agenda is also irrefutable and worth discussion.
Interesting that in just the 25 or so comments so far, there are some good examples of ignorant hatred on both the right and left.
28. bill h, do you have a specific list of religions that would be allowed to run taxpayer funded schools (i think in pakistan they call them madrasses), or would that opportunity be open to all?
Guest, I'm glad you asked. First of all, vouchers do not create taxpayer funded schools. What we have now are tax-payer funded schools and in many areas they are not working. This is a red herring. The parents of the school age kids would be choosing the schools that their children go to and they would be utilizing the vouchers. The parents would be tax-payer funded, not the schools.
I 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!).
30. so the tax revenue would go to the parents, and then the parents would direct it to the schools. and that wouldn't qualify as tax-payer funding.
correct--the schools would have to "earn" the trust of the parents that choose their schools, unlike the current tax-payer funded public schools that do NOT have to earn it. Do you really not see the difference?
32. Why, guest, are you so afraid of letting parents have a choice of where to send their kids with taxpayer money? Which, by the way, is their money. There must be a reason, what is it?
33. no, you've convinced me. i'm also going to take my share of transportation funding and repave my driveway.
34. guest, can't you do better than that? It's a simple direct question. Read it again.
They never have a reasonable reason for being so opposed to vouchers--the obvious reason is they can't afford to tick off the teachers' union. NEA and WEA spank! (even though corporal punishment was eliminated in schools years ago!)
Well kids, it's been fun, but I have to sign off now.
37. i gotta sign off too. it's been fun, bills.
then 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.
Matt... have you seen The Laramie Project? I have, and you know what? It's a PLAY for chrisakes. Not a documentary, not a history book, but a PLAY.
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?
This page of comments is truly saddening. Right here both the left and the right have showcased the worst of each. The only thing that the play promotes is respect for another human being regardless of any differences,as splinter noted, a value that is pretty fundamental of American society.In my opinion, the play should not have been cancelled and the talk after the performance is a great idea, it allows the students to choose what they want to believe, which is really the purpose of schools, to provide students with the basis of many beliefs that they may formulate their own. Jimmie, TO keep your kid home from school that day is your perogative, however, if his or her beliefs are going to conflict with yours, its going to happen regardless of whehter your child sees this play. Anyone who read this entire post, I applaud you.I now leave this open to be completely destroyed by the posters who proceed me.
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.
#30/31: Lest we forget, that tax money belongs to the PARENTS ANYWAY, it's their own money, and they should have a say in how it's spent.
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....
BillC@34-- I'll try to respond for guest. Let me start by saying that I understand the arguments for school vouchers, and I find them somewhat logical. If you are serious about your question, you need to accept that there could be some reasonable arguments on the other side as well.
First, 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.
43. The reportewr failed to ask a very important question of the drama teacher, "Are you a gay/homosexual man?"
"There is a legitmate question of whether we want public schools instead of families teaching tolerance."
Not 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.
'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.
Boy Matt, you sure went a little nuts on this topic. Better follow up with a letter to the Yakima newspaper.
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.
I notice that it is liberals (Goldy, Thor) who have seen this play and say how good it is. I've never even heard of it, but not only have they heard of it--they have seen it! Knowing nothing about the play, that alone makes me suspicious (like Jimmie) of the intent of the sponsors.
Bill H, it's real interesting to do a little research on this play. Seems it was written by Moises Kaufman of the "Tectonic Theater Project"
"TTP has produced innovative works that explore theatrical language and forms, fostering an artistic dialogue with our audiences on the social, political and human issues that affect us all."
Seems 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
49. Thank you for this update. I have been living in a brain washed state of mind in regards to this story. Boy you really have to dig a little deeper and not take the main stream media's take on things as gospel. I would expect the sodomites to attack your post because Matthew has been their martyr and poster child for almost a decade.
You'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.
#50: Dave: You wrote, "Outside, of course, of those True Believers on the right who ardently believe that all crimes are hate crimes."
Are 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.)
52. Bill C @ 48, thank you for your excellent research. Gays writing plays? I had no idea! What's the world coming to???
53. "Outside, of course, of those True Believers on the right who ardently believe that all crimes are hate crimes."
Which is how many exactly? 5 people? 6 people? (as opposed to the throngs on the left who are muddle-brained moral relativists)...
Paul: "white people are beginning to be the minority, so soon it will be a hate crime"
Here'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.
55. And the "missing the point entirely" award goes to...
Wow. Check out the lengthy Goldy rant on this topic today at HA.
Matt 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.
Splinter, I know that some people feel strongly about the "hate crime" issue, but there is a difference between intent and motive. Intent is a real consideration in a death. If there was no intent to kill, it may be considered an accident or manslaughter, if it was not pre-planned it may be second degree murder, if it was pre-planned it is first degree murder.
However 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.
Paul 51--we need only look to our recent example of Seattle's schools for insight into the lib mind. Remember their famous, flammable & previous definition of "racism?"
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.
BillH@57, I appreciate your attempt to distinguish between between "intent" and "motive", but I think it's incorrect.
If 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.
bruce - are you on drugs?
That's the stupidest thing you've said yet (well among the stupidest anyway ;'}
61. As a previous Yakima resident and student to Davis High, as well as an active member of the Drama Club there, I am amazed and ashamed that this incident took place at all. More than that, I feel that this article here is completely baseless. The point of theatre is to present an issue, and it is the job of schools to present arguments, not just present facts. Students should be allowed to take a part in something that actually forces them to think, and in the previous few years, Davis Students (myself included) have been allowed to do this. From musicals such as Les Miserables to plays such as Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew (which I might remind a reader is a topic on the treatment of women). Simply put, the Yakima school district did not kowtow to fear of the Drama program presenting an issue, they caved in fear of the homosexual side note to the overall theme. In short, this was a stupid decision, and when parents expect schools to educate their children, a certain amount of civic commentary is allowed. If intolerance was really taught by families, then I am sure one play won't destroy their years of bigoted mind washing.
62. As a previous Yakima resident and student to Davis High, as well as an active member of the Drama Club there, I am amazed and ashamed that this incident took place at all. More than that, I feel that this article here is completely baseless. The point of theatre is to present an issue, and it is the job of schools to present arguments, not just present facts. Students should be allowed to take a part in something that actually forces them to think, and in the previous few years, Davis Students (myself included) have been allowed to do this. From musicals such as Les Miserables to plays such as Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew (which I might remind a reader is a topic on the treatment of women). Simply put, the Yakima school district did not kowtow to fear of the Drama program presenting an issue, they caved in fear of the homosexual side note to the overall theme. In short, this was a stupid decision, and when parents expect schools to educate their children, a certain amount of civic commentary is allowed. If intolerance was really taught by families, then I am sure one play won't destroy their years of bigoted mind washing.
63. As a previous Yakima resident and student to Davis High, as well as an active member of the Drama Club there, I am amazed and ashamed that this incident took place at all. More than that, I feel that this article here is completely baseless. The point of theatre is to present an issue, and it is the job of schools to present arguments, not just present facts. Students should be allowed to take a part in something that actually forces them to think, and in the previous few years, Davis Students (myself included) have been allowed to do this. From musicals such as Les Miserables to plays such as Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew (which I might remind a reader is a topic on the treatment of women). Simply put, the Yakima school district did not kowtow to fear of the Drama program presenting an issue, they caved in fear of the homosexual side note to the overall theme. In short, this was a stupid decision, and when parents expect schools to educate their children, a certain amount of civic commentary is allowed. If intolerance was really taught by families, then I am sure one play won't destroy their years of bigoted mind washing.
There you have some fine biagra http://biagra.biz.ly/ biagra at the site of biagra
online cheap and easy