Judge Rules Against Girl in "That's so Gay" Lawsuit
School administrators did not single Rebekah Rice out for punishment, nor did they break any laws when they disciplined her for using the phrase "that's so gay" in response to students who were teasing her about her Mormon upbringing, a judge ruled yesterday. As a result of the subsequent attention Rice's family created over the incident, Rice was also then teased as the "That's so gay" girl by her peers.
Said Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing: "All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punished by a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies. Unfortunately, this is part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults. The law, with all its majesty and might, is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings."
The Rice's argued that the teacher who sent Rice to the principal's office violated her first amendment rights, but the judge said "the law under which the Rices brought the lawsuit specifically excludes schools. In addition, she said that school officials are given wide latitude in deciding how to enforce non-discrimination provisions of the state education code."
Rushing also rejected the family's claim that the school observed a double standard because they refused to protect Rebekah from teasing over the fact that she is Mormon. In fact, Rushing reprimanded the family for making their daughter's situation worse: "If the Rice family had not told everyone that Rebekah had been given a referral for saying 'That's so gay' then no one else would have know it either, and she would not have been referred to as the 'That's so gay girl.'"
Judge: No money for girl who sued over saying 'That's so gay' [ap via san jose mercury news]
You may have missed...
"That's So Gay" Gets its Day in Court [tr]
And please, Buddha, Jesus, Allah, and Elijah, please please please let this be the last we hear of the "that's so gay" girl.
Posted by: Brian | May 16, 2007 8:55:26 AM
Amen, Brian.
Posted by: Rad | May 16, 2007 9:00:35 AM
This is the first I have heard of this. I really can't believe tax dollars were wasted on this.
Posted by: Matt | May 16, 2007 9:03:16 AM
That's totally queer.
Posted by: Greg | May 16, 2007 9:14:53 AM
IS she like the Bee Girl form that Blind Melon video?
Posted by: Marco | May 16, 2007 9:25:36 AM
Instead of challenging the school for not protecting their daughter from inappropriate religious bullying, the parents chose to turn this into an anti-gay campaign. That is really sad and it is the very reason that my sympathy for her for being bullied has turned into anger for her being yet another whining bigot.
There is absolutely NO evidence that any of the kids who were bullying her for her faith were gay. There is no evidence that any of the kids who were bullying the girl for her Mormonism were doing so because of the LDS’s anti-gay teachings. In fact, the only “gay” angle to this story is the fact that the girl chose to use the phrase “that’s so gay” (a derogatory and bullying phrase) to respond to the bullying directed at her. Somehow she and the parents have twisted and warped this into a claim that THE GIRL is the victim of homosexuals through some vast homosexual conspiracy.
This is a perfect example of a situation where a person makes enemies out of potential allies.
If she had sued the school for not protecting her from being bullied for her Mormon faith, I, and most other gay people, would have supported her because we know that NO KID deserves to be bullied in school. Instead she chose to insult another minority group that probably had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the bullying. Her parents decided that her bullying was part of some vast homosexual agenda under which the entire school administration and student population operated.
Why did these people feel the need to attack another vulnerable minority, and potential ally, in order to make a point about the plight of bullied minorities in school?
Posted by: Zeke | May 16, 2007 9:50:53 AM
I'm happy she didn't win, but I also think she shouldn't have been punished to begin with. There's a fine line between discrimination and oversensitivity.
Posted by: shane | May 16, 2007 10:02:54 AM
"The law, with all its majesty and might, is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings."
A pearl of wisdom everyone in this lawsuit happy country should take to heart.
Posted by: Mitch | May 16, 2007 10:17:29 AM
Beutiful post Zeke. Couldn't have said it better.
Posted by: Craig | May 16, 2007 10:35:13 AM
Right on, Zeke.
Posted by: Brian | May 16, 2007 10:51:02 AM
Regulars are familiar with my hatred of religionists generally and Mormonism specifically, but we must tread a little more carefully through the sticky forest of Unintended Consequences. The attitude in the quote above from the judge, "picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies. ... part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults. The law, with all its majesty and might, is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings" is the same that has been used to reject lawsuits by gay or perceived-as-gay students who have been terrorized and by teachers and administrators from protecting those students.
Posted by: Leland | May 16, 2007 11:09:11 AM
The so-called "necessary injustice" defense lives! Well, the judge knows who pays her salary. It might be a good thing overall in the sue-happy world we live in, but it ain't fun. Can five wrongs make a right?
Teasing girl.... bad
Girl saying "That's so gay".... bad
School punishing girl.... bad
Parents suing school.... bad
Judge ruling in favor of school.... bad
Pick your favorite three bads out of five.
Posted by: anon | May 16, 2007 12:22:49 PM
Well, you get the feeling that the judge would've said just about anything to dismiss this lawsuit. It seems like she doesn't want to play "Judge Ito" for the That's-So-Gay case.
The interesting point (from my POV any way) is that the school bullies are actually choosing the gays over the religious loonies. Maybe it's because we're talking about suburban San Francisco, but this is something that would have been unimaginable when I was in HS.
Gays were at the bottom of the totem pole. Anyone...anyone...had a right to attack homosexuality with completel impunity. Apparently, that's not the case anymore at this particular school.
Remember, the taunting didn't start until the Rice family tried to discriminate against gays by protesting the school's Day of Dialogue.
Posted by: John | May 16, 2007 12:25:21 PM
Yeah Leland, I found some of the judge’s remarks very troubling too.
She definitely gave the impression that bullying is OK and the school has no obligation to try to stop it because it is a fact of life, and just part of the growing up process.
I find this to be a very troubling and dangerous message to send from the bench.
Tell that to those kids who killed themselves because bullies had made them feel like dirt and made their lives hell.
Posted by: Zeke | May 16, 2007 1:06:30 PM
I don't think the bullies are choosing gays over religious loonies--it was the school that punished her for her "that's so gay" comment not the bullies.
Posted by: Daniel | May 16, 2007 1:34:01 PM
Ugh. Rebekah Rice = Dawn Weiner.
This ish is totes gay.
Posted by: phil | May 16, 2007 1:59:32 PM
This entire situation is stupid on all sides.
#1: A 13-yr-old or whatever she is saying "That's so gay" is NO BIG DEAL. People have been saying this for a million years and while I would prefer they didn't, they're KIDS and kids say stupid things! Lighten up. This is NOT the affront to the gay community or gay rights that everyone seems to want to make it to be, and by asserting that it is you further injure our "image." It's a stupid pre-teen in the middle of nowhere saying something that--let's be honest--we ALL know has little more significance than if she had chosen to say "that's so retarded"--which, incidentally, is basically what "that's so gay" means. Get over it.
#2: The fact that she was chastised for this stupid remark is an absolute ludicrosity given that she was being taunted for her RELIGION (all be it an absolutely insane and ridicule-worthy one) in the first place, she was not the first aggressor, and NOTHING was done about it. RIDICULOUS. A more appropriate course of action would have been to reprimand BOTH children, tell them both to knock it off and get over themselves, and send them back to class so everyone could move on with their lives.
#3: To take this whole thing to court is even stupider. Shame on the parents of this child.
#4: I agree with the judge. I'm sorry, but LITIGATING over playground taunts is beyond the realms of ridiculous. And bandying about terms like "bullying" is too melodramatic by half. There is a HUGE difference between consistent, day-after-day victimization and taunting and physical violence (take it from one who KNOWS from previous experience), and kids being kids running their mouths about stupid crap the ramifications of which they don't really even understand. That's part of being a kid--fucking up and LEARNING FROM IT. NOT going to court over it.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
Posted by: John | May 16, 2007 2:29:27 PM
John, do you have kids?
I usually find that people who seem to know the most about kids (or claim to anyway) are those who don't have any of their own.
If you want to tell me or any other adult to "get over it" that's fine but I really take exception to people telling kids to just get over being bullied and stop expecting teachers and school administrators to provide a safe and non-threatening environment for learning.
Give ME a break!
Posted by: Zeke | May 16, 2007 3:09:50 PM
But, the parents didn't sue the school because they didn't protect her from being taunted for her religion--they decided to make it about the "that's so gay" remark. Had they sued because the school didn't protect her I would feel completely different about this issue.
Posted by: Daniel | May 16, 2007 3:26:32 PM
Daniel, I think most of us, save John and Mitch, would have.
Posted by: Zeke | May 16, 2007 4:40:30 PM
Remember though, Zeke, that it is a lot of hassle being a plaintiff, so you need to balance out that with the needs of your kid.
Posted by: anon | May 17, 2007 1:15:41 AM
Anon, you are absolutely right my friend.
I'm helping a friend with a case of ongoing bullying of her child in school, even as we speak. I've talked about it in more detail on another thread. We are trying to challenge the school in a way that encourages change with as little distraction to the child as possible. This is REALLY an issue that should be handled between the parents, teachers and school administrators. The only involvement that the child should have to have is reporting the bullying, abuse and assault. Of course if the school doesn't act responsibly and the only option left for the parents is going to court, then it becomes more intrusive into the child's life. In this particular case that intrusion would be necessary because the kid is in a situation of living hell everyday he goes to school. He has a 130 IQ and is a wiz at science, far beyond his years, but he is failing science, because that is the class where the bullies attack him most and that is where the teacher does the least about it. Unfortunately the child has nothing to lose from the hassle of being a plaintiff, if need be. Of course his parents won't proceed any further than the child is personally willing to go.
Posted by: Zeke | May 17, 2007 10:53:05 AM