03/16/2006
Brokeback High Expulsion a Hoax, Kid Now in Real Mess
As news about Brandon Flyte's expulsion over his film project Brokeback High spread across the internet at lightning speed, a larger problem developed for the student. His claims weren't true.
He did create the film Brokeback High, and did receive high marks for it in his English class, and did show it to his marine biology class with the "snuggle scene" in it. He was punished for that, but not expelled.
However, now the teens claims of expulsion have thrown the school into chaos because of the resulting anger generated by Flyte's false claims. The school has been faced with threats of arson and violence. The school superintendent Roger Woehl says he received 10,000 emails. Woehl: "He has disrupted the school. This is clearly a behavior we don't find acceptable."
On his website, Flyte appears proud of the coverage his story has received, even leading readers to the Oregonian, which today revealed the student's hoax.
There are plenty of gay and lesbian kids across the country who suffer in oppressive and intolerant school situations. Whatever Flyte's motives for fueling the hoax, he has made something of a joke of that reality. While it is good to know that there are thousands who will stand up and cry 'foul' when an incident like this occurs, it was the wrong thing for Flyte to do. The internet is a lightning rod for stories like this.
I was fooled, plenty of others were fooled too — MSNBC, CNN, the Advocate, (if you can trust Flyte!). I guess I understand now why my emails and calls to the school weren't returned. "Wow, I appreciate your support," he said, in an email to Towleroad. It seems that Flyte not only created the hoax, but perpetuated it as well.
High schooler in trouble for lie on Web site [oregonian]
UPDATE: Brandon Flyte has updated his site once again with a response to the Oregonian article. While someone has already published his response in the comments section of this site, I'll print it again after the jump just for the record. With my attempts to contact the school going unanswered, it's been very difficult to get to the bottom of this story. Brandon's most recent comments after the jump...
Previously
Brokeback High Back in Session [tr]
High School Student Expelled for Brokeback high Movie [tr]
"By now many if not all of you have seen the story in the Oregonian, a story I awoke to with no little amount of surprise. It's expected with a story that gets this kind of momentum and is over such a controversial issue to receive a negative response, and considering the overwhelmingly positive response it's expected that the negative response should be overwhelming.
It's also unsurprising that after such a strong response, the school should try to use every tactic they have to eliminate that support, and the disruption it's caused their school. While I can appreciate their stance in trying to get the school back to normal -- and I do NOT agree with or condone the apparent threats of arson and violence that the school board says they received -- I also do not appreciate their attempt to discredit me. An attempt which has clearly begun to work.
Let me be clear on something. I never expected this level of publicity. I posted this in a few places I thought it might be of interest, but, maybe foolishly, never expected more than a few dozen people to notice or care. The attempts of my opponents to paint me as an attention-monger are lies of their own. I never contacted most of these media outlets. The Oregonian, CNN, MSNBC, the Advocate, and others, all contacted me. My website initially started as a place to inform my friends at school and elsewhere what was happening with my situation. I never sought this out. I linked to them as a point of interest in how far the story was spreading, for those who were reading my site, nothing more.
If I only wanted publicity for my film, I would have posted the film in its entirety immediately. But I did not expect this kind of attention -- in fact, I expected that those who viewed my site would already have seen the film. And I certainly would not have linked to the Oregonian if I had been aware of the underhanded tactics the administration planned to use against me.
To address Superintendent Woehl's claims, why did he refuse to elaborate on my "series of misbehaviors"? Aside from my sketchy attendance -- to which even the Oregonian recognizes I have already admitted -- I have had no prior disciplinary actions taken on me. What misbehaviors is he talking about?
In addition, the superintendent claims that the class assignment forbade sex, nudity, or violence. Yet two boys in each other's arms is not sex, bare chests are not nudity (or else the entire swim team should be suspended for indecent exposure), and my film did have some violence which I was not asked to remove. Likewise, several of the other films had violence in them that was allowed to stand.
If as Woehl claims I was landed in trouble for not following the guidelines of the assignment, and was not a blanket ban on the content of my film, why were the guidelines of the CLASS assignment upheld in a DIFFERENT class?
I have seen PG-13 movies shown at my school, during classes with nothing else going on, that had more explicit sex scenes than what I showed. I saw a film made for the assignment with explicit drug use that was not asked to be removed. Why should I be disciplined for showing a film that violated no rule in the class I showed it?
Additionally, he claims that the transfer was not mandatory. Whether the rest is a misunderstanding or not, this is an absolute lie. I asked specifically when I was called into the office and informed of the transfer if I had a choice in the matter, and I was told that I did not. If I had, I would not have chosen to attend the Community College, as I wanted to spend the remainder of my senior year with my friends.
I have not been a model student throughout high school, but in the past year I've been trying to turn it around, and to have everything thrown away in the home stretch is disheartening and insulting.
As I said, I can understand Woehl's desire to stem the disruption caused by the apparently thousands of unpleasant e-mails he's received. And, now that he's tried to brand me a liar, I know can't convince anyone of my side if they want to believe him. I'm a kid with bad attendance and he's an adult who runs a school district. People will believe him. The Oregonian clearly did, and many of the blogs that have been watching this story have started spreading that version of the story. But I hope that some people out there know a smear campaign when they see one.
I'm just a kid fighting a bunch of adults who are protecting their names by now trying to destroy mine. I plan to hold my head high and continue fighting for the truth. It seems I was premature in saying that my part of the fight had been resolved."
Posted 8:27 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.
Being taken advantage of is sad and disappointing--and I certainly fell for it--but I hope that a good thing comes out of it: make a donation to The Point Foundation to help support queer kids and their allies.
Posted by: Tyler | Mar 16, 2006 8:41:18 AM
He will make a great Hollywood player some day.
You have to laugh at some level with all the vitriol that when on here over the last few days.
OK Andy now we need some photos of hot guys to argue over or just enjoy.
Posted by: Donald | Mar 16, 2006 8:49:16 AM
Well who would think someone would actually lie about something like that? Stuff like this always confuses me. I don't get why people lie about things like this. Maybe it's for attention. I just don't know.
Posted by: matt | Mar 16, 2006 9:03:01 AM
Well, jeez.
I actually defended that dumbass brat.
Somebody owes me a handjob.
Posted by: spazmo | Mar 16, 2006 9:14:24 AM
maybe he was satirizing the gay man's need to always cry "conspiracy!" whenever something doesn't go there way?
Posted by: mac | Mar 16, 2006 9:24:48 AM
With no disrespect to this blog or any other blog, this is a good example of how news without proper investigative reporting can cause great harm. But, blogs are what they are and basically link to other stories on the web. There is absolutely no excuse, however, for CNN, MSNBC, or the Advocate for not finding out the facts before reporting them.
Posted by: Patrick | Mar 16, 2006 9:47:38 AM
I fell for this hoax as well. This kid is the worst kind of fraud, taking advantage of our fight for equality for his own selfish reasons.
Posted by: Ian | Mar 16, 2006 10:03:38 AM
Hoax or no, it still wasn't porn.
Posted by: tom cruise | Mar 16, 2006 10:18:21 AM
What a jerk.
Posted by: Peter | Mar 16, 2006 10:32:30 AM
EXPEL HIM !
Posted by: chet | Mar 16, 2006 10:39:10 AM
well, in a cyberworld where we are encouraged to recreate ourselves, market ourselves and do most anything for hits and attention, this hardly comes as a surprise.
now, post more pics of Josh Hartnett and keep that traffic flowing!
Posted by: Aatom | Mar 16, 2006 10:40:30 AM
And the lesson learned for bloggers?
Check your sources. And don't publish until you've verified. You're a journalist, act like one, not a rumour-monger.
Posted by: Alan F | Mar 16, 2006 10:41:41 AM
To those that are complaining the Andy didn't check his fact before publishing this story. This is a BLOG, not CNN. The medium was designed to publish information quickly, cheaply, and with the author's personal slant. Almost all the people that write these blogs have 'day jobs', it is not their job to fact check every single thing. So give it a rest. If you are here to mainstream, fact-checked accurate to the letter news, you're in the wrong place. Take Blog posting for what they are.
Posted by: Ian | Mar 16, 2006 10:52:39 AM
I say we let Ohio Senate hopeful Kaiser (ironic name by the way) put the kid to death.
Posted by: wayne | Mar 16, 2006 10:55:47 AM
nice scolding alan f...now make sure you follow through and contact & scold all the other media outlets that ran the story. bet you'll have a busy day, won't you?
Posted by: basis4insanity | Mar 16, 2006 10:57:39 AM
Maybe this will teach you that your usual knee-jerk reactions need to be tempered with a bit of skepticism.
Posted by: Robert | Mar 16, 2006 10:59:09 AM
So much for defending the hell out of Brandon.
I told ND30 in the previous thread:
>...I'm more than willing to admit my homophobia-take looses most all of its steam if you can demonstrate that the school has forbidden similar showings of heterosexual post-coital moments.<
The Oregonian article that's linked says that "...[t]he assignment, however, forbid sex scenes, nudity and violence. Flyte removed the snuggling scene for the English class and got rave reviews for the film. Several other students also had to remove scenes from their projects..." so the request made of him was no different than the other students. While the scene isn't sex and it isn't kiddie porn, I can see how it violated the the assignment.
So no homophobia there and no homophobia in my original argument. Still an iconoclastic kid, and obviously a gifted film maker, who also knows how to play to the preconceptions of the crowd for his own benefit.
Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:34 AM
I think he means "teen's" rather than "teens."
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:35 AM
He's a STRAIGHT kid - now why wasn't I surprised by his fraudulent behaviour.
Posted by: hun | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:47 AM
if i were to father/adopt a kid there is little doubt that he would pull something like this. and then i'd have to explain to him why attention-gettting stunts are bad. and then, he'd brush his over-long bangs out of his tear-swollen eyes, turn and look in my face. "i learned by ... by watching you. [sob]"
aaaaaaaaaaaaaand scene.
Posted by: rod | Mar 16, 2006 11:25:29 AM
Yes, I will admit to having a certain amount of egg on my face over this one. I probably should have been a bit more skeptical. My skepticism, as it was in this case, can often be overshadowed by my enthusiasm to defend the underdog.
Posted by: andy | Mar 16, 2006 11:37:58 AM
No, I think he did mean "teens".
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 16, 2006 11:38:02 AM
I must admit some confusion. You first report the students side of the story as fact, without hearing the other side of the story. You then hear the other side of the story, and report that as fact. Posters who once had unwavering support for the student, now have adandoned him. For those of you who are like me, and would still like to get to the bottom of the story, here is Brandon's response to the Oregonian story on his webpage.
http://www.brandonflyte.com/
Posted by: Aaron | Mar 16, 2006 11:54:33 AM
with regards to Ian's comments--Towleroad isn't just a blog, it's the best source of gay news on the net, and i'm willing to bet it has as large an audience as the Advocate or Planet Out, or at least is more influential than those sites, because "the right people" (Andrew Sullivan, etc.) read it. i also wouldn't be surprised if CNN & MSNBC picked up the Flyte story because it first got legs on Towleroad, because the MSM has been raiding the blogosphere for stories with increasing frequency. Towleroad is the best gay site not just because it's comprehensive, but because it appears to be reliable. lose that reputation, and at best you'll lose influence, at worst you'll lose readers.
as a working journalist, one of my basic rules is to verify a story with multiple sources before publishing anything, and i do that precisely i know that i can avoid getting burned on single-source stories like Flyte's. Andy, i know you have a day job, but you might at least consider holding off on single-source stories until they look more solid.
i also agree with Robert's comment. Andy isn't the only one who needs to be more skeptical--we all do.
Posted by: Brian | Mar 16, 2006 11:55:08 AM
From Brandon's site:
-----
"...To address Superintendent Woehl's claims, why did he refuse to elaborate on my "series of misbehaviors"? Aside from my sketchy attendance -- to which even the Oregonian recognizes I have already admitted -- I have had no prior disciplinary actions taken on me. What misbehaviors is he talking about?
In addition, the superintendent claims that the class assignment forbade sex, nudity, or violence. Yet two boys in each other's arms is not sex, bare chests are not nudity (or else the entire swim team should be suspended for indecent exposure), and my film did have some violence which I was not asked to remove. Likewise, several of the other films had violence in them that was allowed to stand.
If as Woehl claims I was landed in trouble for not following the guidelines of the assignment, and was not a blanket ban on the content of my film, why were the guidelines of the CLASS assignment upheld in a DIFFERENT class?
I have seen PG-13 movies shown at my school, during classes with nothing else going on, that had more explicit sex scenes than what I showed. I saw a film made for the assignment with explicit drug use that was not asked to be removed. Why should I be disciplined for showing a film that violated no rule in the class I showed it?
Additionally, he claims that the transfer was not mandatory. Whether the rest is a misunderstanding or not, this is an absolute lie. I asked specifically when I was called into the office and informed of the transfer if I had a choice in the matter, and I was told that I did not. If I had, I would not have chosen to attend the Community College, as I wanted to spend the remainder of my senior year with my friends.
I have not been a model student throughout high school, but in the past year I've been trying to turn it around, and to have everything thrown away in the home stretch is disheartening and insulting.
As I said, I can understand Woehl's desire to stem the disruption caused by the apparently thousands of unpleasant e-mails he's received. And, now that he's tried to brand me a liar, I know can't convince anyone of my side if they want to believe him. I'm a kid with bad attendance and he's an adult who runs a school district. People will believe him. The Oregonian clearly did, and many of the blogs that have been watching this story have started spreading that version of the story. But I hope that some people out there know a smear campaign when they see one.
I'm just a kid fighting a bunch of adults who are protecting their names by now trying to destroy mine. I plan to hold my head high and continue fighting for the truth. It seems I was premature in saying that my part of the fight had been resolved..."
----------
Andy, I don't think you were suckered in. Something against the "underdog" did go on, I'm just thinking that it has far, far, far less to do with homophobia and much more over the battle between individuals & groups and young adults & older adults.
Keep sticking up for the little guy. You weren't wrong for doing so.
Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 12:07:26 PM