03/15/2006
Brokeback High Back in Session
The administrators at West Linn High School, where Brandon Flyte was "expelled" for airing his school project video Brokeback High have backpedaled on their decision to oust the student from classes and transfer him to a community college.
From Brandon's site: "They reiterated to me the fact that this was never called an expulsion. In their eyes, transferring me to CCC was in my best interest. The fact that this transfer was mandatory is what I've been protesting. They said that given my attendance record and how "things didn't seem to be working [at WLHS]", regardless of my last report card (which is the best I've ever done in high school), they thought that moving me to another school was for my benefit. The school insists that my 'transfer' was never the result of homophobia, but either way, it seems clear that they've had a change of heart regarding my situation. The school has agreed to allow me back in and graduate with my classmates this Spring, provided that I have the credits I need and that my attendance is solid. I appreciate all the support I've recieved from everyone. If we can continue showing this kind of support and unity, equality will win it in the end."
I received an email from Brandon today thanking Towleroad and its readers for the support. So, thank you all.
While it's hard to believe their explanation for transferring Brandon, the good news is, word got out, the administrators felt the heat, and ultimately did the right thing. Let's hope it made them realize that bigoted values won't be tolerated.
High School Student Expelled for Brokeback High Movie [tr]
Posted 8:16 AM EST by Andy Towle in Current Affairs, Film & TV | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Take that, weird gay conservative guy! Wheeeeeee!
Posted by: Wooldoor | Mar 15, 2006 9:51:50 AM
Thanks, Andy, for drawing attention to Brandon's situation. It is a great opportunity to make a donation to The Point Foundation as well.
http://thepointfoundation.org/
There are a lot of queer students and their allies who need support to finish their educations. The Point Foundation is a great way to help deserving students succeed.
Posted by: Tyler | Mar 15, 2006 9:52:37 AM
Good news! Thank you Andy for making us aware of situations like this every day.That a site as wonderful as yours can do such good makes me very happy.
Posted by: Chris | Mar 15, 2006 11:19:22 AM
But..but..This kid was a child pornographer! And he tied up his classmates and forced their eyes open and made them watch it! And...he..he DISOBEYED A TEACHER!!!! Aaaargh! You gay liberals and your sinister agenda win again. I hope you're all happy now.
Posted by: Wierd Gay Conservative Guy | Mar 15, 2006 12:07:55 PM
Actually, the Point Foundation's money should be saved for deserving students, not just seventeen-year-olds who can't follow instructions and insist on filming sex scenes for showing in the classroom.
And you wonder why Oregon's voters decided in 2004 that gays should be stripped of rights.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 12:35:35 PM
"And you wonder why Oregon's voters decided in 2004 that gays should be stripped of rights."
No need to wonder. First, that's an incredibly sloppy sentence that suggests Oregon voters decided gays should have no rights. Second, voting against gay marriage as they did was a simple expression of bigotry by a majority of voters. A majority of voters that was inflamed by "people" such as yourself and not by any pursuit of fairness or equality on the part of gays.
Posted by: jfbiii | Mar 15, 2006 1:05:46 PM
Considering that I'm a gay man who's speaking out AGAINST seventeen-year-olds filming gay sex scenes and insisting they have some sort of "right" to show them in the classroom, on what exactly do you base that opinion?
What I don't think you realize, JFB, is the message that you are sending to voters, which is that anything's permissible as long as gay sex and gay themes are involved -- including, in this case, showing it to children without parents' knowledge and permission AND in defiance of teachers and school administrators.
That sort of attitude is exactly why Oregon decided that stripping gays of rights was a good idea.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 1:13:16 PM
Yeah, ND30, the two situations are SO alike. [insert 30 eye rolling emoticons] And YOU probably wonder why most gay men hold conservative gays like you in such contempt.
Posted by: Henry Holland | Mar 15, 2006 1:14:03 PM
Because I'm a bitch. :)
But, in addition to that, because I speak that which other gays do not dare; does our willingness to defend the idea of gay sex anywhere and everywhere without restriction damage our reputation and lead to political problems?
It's easier to blame "bigotry" than it is to admit the fact that most parents don't WANT their underage children watching sex scenes in school, gay OR straight, and would be rather inclined to vote and act against people who insisted that showing these in defiance of school administrators, teachers, and rules was a good thing.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 1:30:54 PM
Attempts by some anti-gay wingnuts in Oregon to repeal anti-discrimination laws that protect people on the basis of sexual orientation via voter initiative have repeatedly been voted down by Oregon voters. In fact, if memory serves, the guy that keeps wasting taxpayer time and money getting these things on the ballot is in default on a civil judgment against stemming from an assault on gay demonstrators at one of his rallies by members of his organization.
Posted by: Craig | Mar 15, 2006 1:35:40 PM
That's great, Craig.
Now, how long do you think those initiatives will last when voters find out that gays are using them to force teachers and school administrators to allow underage teenagers to stage and film sex scenes, then show them in the classroom, even when it's totally unrelated to the subject matter, without parental approval or notification AND over the objections of teachers and school administrators?
This is why the gay community needs to be ever-vigilant and smart in choosing our causes. A person being fired because of antigay animus is one thing. A seventeen-year-old who is acting in a manner to deliberately be disobedient and disruptive is quite another. Taking our stand on the first is being principled; doing it on the second is being stupid.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 1:45:02 PM
Hey NDT..
I don't hate you because you're a bitch..i like a good bitch
I hate you because like many conservatives you're an idiot
Do you know the difference between a Gay Republican and a Jewish Natzi? .... none
Posted by: patrick nyc | Mar 15, 2006 2:13:39 PM
chill out ndf!! it wasnt a sex scene. it showed two guys with their shirts off in bed. while it is obvious what had just occurred, its quite a stretch to label it a sex scene. i believe you need to move to a blue state cause all those closeted yokels in tx have got you running scared. the freak faction of the crazy religites dont hold back and nor should we. we dont need to be as obnoxious as them but its ok to be in their face. as MLK bravely exemplified. luv ya.
Posted by: andy phx | Mar 15, 2006 3:05:48 PM
Ignore the fool. He's a professional troll and he's baiting you. (Quite succesfully).
Posted by: jon | Mar 15, 2006 3:26:13 PM
i didn't think it was possible to fit an entire log cabin up one's ass...
so boneheads, THIS is child pornography:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/childporn.arrests/index.html
let it go.
Posted by: bunchyerpanties | Mar 15, 2006 3:34:41 PM
"i believe you need to move to a blue state cause all those closeted yokels in tx have got you running scared. the freak faction of the crazy religites dont hold back and nor should we. we dont need to be as obnoxious as them but its ok to be in their face."
Hardly. Indeed, thanks to the efforts of myself and other gays in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, these two solidly-red cities have gay city council members and model nondiscrimination ordinances, Dallas's even including gender identity.
The key is focusing on gay rights and refusing to be suckered into defending stupid and immature decisions because they involve gay sex. Such as underage minors staging and filming sex scenes, then demanding that they be allowed to show them in unrelated classes and whining "homophobia" when they are appropriately punished.
Brandon and his ilk are more than aware that most gays are stupid enough to defend anything if you link it to "homophobia" or, now, if you slap the word "Brokeback" on it.
And now gays are demanding that this poor spoiled child who doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions get money from the Point Foundation, whose top priority is funding students who were driven out of their homes and were estranged from their families because they were gay?
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 4:13:29 PM
N D T
I am worn out aren't you? You sure as hell can take a punch. I rarely agree with you but I do admire your ability to hold your ground and to be clear in your opinions.
You have a fan in this old style FDR/JFK liberal (there is a difference between this type and more modern liberals).
You are a good man! And you have my best wishes.
dcf
Posted by: Donald | Mar 15, 2006 4:20:52 PM
Donald, his strategy is no different than Bush's. Keep telling the same lie over and over again ad nausuem even when there ie evidence to the contrary. Do it often enough and the lie becomes "fact" in the minds of people too dumb to do any fact checking.
Posted by: Craig | Mar 15, 2006 4:29:13 PM
I think he is genuine in his beliefs unlike the President who has no real core values other than power.
Posted by: Donald | Mar 15, 2006 4:36:01 PM
Thanks, Donald....likewise. :)
Craig, the fact that you don't like the reality of something doesn't make it a lie. You've done a valiant job of explaining how two underage minors in bed, unclothed, kissing and fondling each other is just something that boys do every day, akin to high school wrestling and the like.....but you still haven't changed the fact that it's depicting sex, and that its whole point was to depict sex.
Moreover, what is also made clear is that this child refuses to follow directions or listen to authority figures, and then invokes "homophobia" as a justification for why he doesn't have to do either and why he can show his sex depictions in unrelated classes. You can try to explain how this student's "First Amendment" rights allow him to be deliberately disobedient and disruptive, but you've got a long road to climb.
Finally, you DO realize that wasting time and effort defending spoiled and disobedient children because what they're doing involves gay sex takes resources away from REAL issues and problems and gives ammunition to those who would deny us our rights?
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 4:46:15 PM
Well, ND30s gone and shook things up again.
I feel for him -- he just can't understand why other people don't get him when he says that two shirtless guys in bed together is child porn.
It's not enough that even the most liberal (that's a joke, ND30) reading of 18 USC 2257 -- the Federal law which defines Child Porn -- says that two minor guys (or girls) in bed together without their shirts doesn't qualify as child porn, there still must be some deeper, morally bankrupt reason that gays are supporting this young man, at as far as ND30 must think.
The mere suggestion that gays even accept that young people have sex is part of the problem. Brazenly linking to the porn inherent in EMO boys kissing is yet another manifestation of this moral decadence.
We all have to believe, like ND30 does, that people under the age of 18 shouldn't have any sexual thoughts, feelings or urges -- and that if they do, they should recognize how dirty those urges and keep them locked away til that magic 18th birthday when they can let them all out with only one partner for the rest of their lives -- and that those of us over 18 shouldn't condone any mention or depiction of it, lest we be revealed for the predatory animals that we truly are.
ND30s world is a tough world, but a simple one, once you realize there's no room for gray in it.
Ugh.
If you Google Brandon Flyte on-line, you can see that he's one of those kids who's interests rest outside of school. He seems to be more into special effects, writing, and film making than anything else. As the "No Child Left Behind" act doesn't have a section for such kids, his problems with the school system are obviously because he's a bad seed, rabble rouser and a child pornographer and not because he's interested in the larger word, in saying something he feels is important, and in being simply bored out of his mind.
We need more Brandons in the world -- we've got enough ND30s. People who tweak the rules, who have something to say, and who go to the mat for doing it, are far more important not just to the Gay community but the world itself, than all those who worry about upholding every iota put before them by a government.
Posted by: Jody | Mar 15, 2006 5:08:17 PM
Really, Jody, I think this is the point you make that most needs answering.
"We all have to believe, like ND30 does, that people under the age of 18 shouldn't have any sexual thoughts, feelings or urges -- and that if they do, they should recognize how dirty those urges and keep them locked away til that magic 18th birthday when they can let them all out with only one partner for the rest of their lives -- and that those of us over 18 shouldn't condone any mention or depiction of it, lest we be revealed for the predatory animals that we truly are."
Oh, hardly. If Brandon wants to film sex scenes on his own time and show them to his friends in his own house on his own equipment, he can do as he likes.
The problem comes when Brandon tries to do it at school, is not allowed to do so, and then does it anyway -- then screams "homophobia" when he gets caught.
Unfortunately for Brandon, what he's going to find out is that, at his first job, when he decides to film sex scenes of underage minors and show them at a budget meeting because he's "bored" with the regular stuff and he "thinks it's important" to make a point, the business world is far more unforgiving and less prone to screaming fits from misguided gay activists.
In short, there's a time and a place for everything. If Brandon wants to play junior gay porn director and projectionist, he's more than welcome to do so in the privacy of his own home. But doing so in the public school system, especially in unrelated classes, is not in the least bit appropriate.
What I find funny is that accepting that simple and easy fact means that I believe in complete sexual repression. If that's the case, I wonder if Jody and other gays like him believe that laws against pedophilia are an unhealthy denial of the sexual urges of minors, or that rules preventing students from having sex in school means we want them to consider their sexual feelings "dirty".
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 5:39:20 PM
Hasn't it been stated repeatedly ND30 that we don't think this kid is a martyr or should not be disciplined in any way? We just think that expelling him from school is a gross overreaction and that yes, homophobia is involved. This issue is not ONLY about a kid who can't follow directions.
Posted by: jmg | Mar 15, 2006 5:46:21 PM
I also love it when conservatives go on about liberals breaking rules when we live under a president who has never met a rule or law that he does not want to break, give us a break nd30 and give it and us a rest.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Mar 15, 2006 5:58:44 PM
"Hasn't it been stated repeatedly ND30 that we don't think this kid is a martyr or should not be disciplined in any way?"
In a word, no.
I'd love to see one of you admit the following:
a) The kid showed an inappropriate sexual scene in school
b) The kid did so after being told not to, repeatedly, by teachers and administrators, in a completely-unrelated class
c) The kid was not prevented from showing his video, which depicts numerous scenes indicative of homosexuality - just that specific scene, which is depictive of gay sex.
d) The kid has a past history, by his own admittance, of disobedience and breaking school rules
Once you can admit all of those, then we can talk about homophobia.
The problem is....after you admit that, the overwhelming evidence is that Brandon was expelled for perfectly legitimate reasons. Indeed, the fact that teachers and administrators were willing to allow the rest of the video to be shown sans the specific sex scene significantly weakens the argument that they are homophobic and strengthens the argument that they are doing so because that specific scene was inappropriate for a public school classroom.
In short, JMG, you're being played as a sucker by a spoiled child who is depending on your knee-jerk reaction to the accusation of "homophobia" to allow him to show gay sex scenes in a public school classroom.
What I find particularly disgusting is that people are demanding that the Point Foundation waste money on this child whose problems are solely of his own making, thus taking money that could be used to help gay kids who, by no fault of their own, are in financial need in order to fund their education.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 15, 2006 6:17:04 PM