A small paper in South Carolina called The Statesman indulged in some blatant hetero bashing this week in a story about a high school principal who resigned because of his convictions that the school should not allow a homosexual club to be started in his school. Naturally, the paper tries to make it seem as if the principal is an unreasonable bigot. The paper even conveniently forgot the part of the principal's resignation letter that clearly explains why he disagreed with allowing a club based on sexual activity in a high school -- and the explanation had nothing to do with any anti-gay sentiment.
The headline of the piece, "Irmo principal to resign after gay club approved for school," frames this as if homosexuality was the only issue here but that is only an ancillary problem as far as the principal is concerned. The first line of the story affirms that the paper views the principal as a bigot.
The principal of Irmo High School has opted to resign rather than share his campus with an organization for gay students.
How rude of Principal Eddie Walker, eh? The headline seems to scream "what's this guy's problem?"
The Statesman also allows the controversy to be framed as a "civil rights" issue, even though it is no such thing.
Gay-rights group Faith in America says Walker's decision is based on prejudice that is harmful to students and likened his decision to policies that once allowed segregation to flourish.
Now we are likening keeping a sex club out of a high school with "segregation"? Talk about absurd and dangerous hyperbole.
The Statesman then excerpts Principal Walker's resignation letter to the fact that he was resigning because of a "recent conflict involving my professional and religious beliefs" concerning the approval of the gay club by the school board. Conveniently for the paper's pro-gay bias, however, they left out the full explanation of why the principal was resigning, making it seems as if his bigoted religious beliefs was all there was to it.
Here is the part the paper "forgot" to include in the story:
The formation of this club conflicts with my professional beliefs in that we do not have other clubs at Irmo High school based on sexual orientation, sexual preference, or sexual activity. In fact our sex education curriculum is abstinence based. I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.
This is exactly right on. Why are we promoting "clubs" in a high school based on sexual activity? Do we have a porno club at Irmo high school? Why not? How about a polygamy club? Maybe a bestiality club?
In fact, we don't want to be encouraging kids to be interested in ANY club that would promote sexual activity, do we? Just as Principal Walker said -- and the paper refused to report -- we do not want to encourage our students toward sexual activity at all.
Ridiculously, the cowards at the school board who haven't the spine to stand up to these radical gay activists are hiding behind a Federal law.
"...our attorneys have advised us that because Irmo High School has permitted the formation of a number of non-curricular clubs at the school, the federal law known as the Equal Access Act does not permit the school to discriminate against a club based on the club's purpose and viewpoint by not allowing it to form unless the purpose of the club is unlawful."
Like I said, if the kids wanted to form a "club" that supports pornography, would that be OK? After all, porn is legal. How about a "club" that promotes dancing strippers? A beer drinking club? How about a club that specifies support of terrorists? One that promotes Jew hatred, supports the KKK, the Nazis, gangs, the Black Panthers or Louis Farrakhan? Wouldn't the school have a vested interest in stopping these sorts of clubs based on hatred, anti-Americanism, and anti-social behavior? Is the school so bereft of moral convictions that they'd bend over for every socially backward and dangerous "club" to be formed just because the kids wanted it?
But all that aside, why did The Statesman decide not to give a full report about exactly why Principal Walker was resigning? Was it because reporting only some of the facts made Mr. Walker seem less sympathetic and more homophobic?
Looks like it to me.
(Photo credit: TV10 Tampa)