'Anti-Gay Rally' Never Materializes, But Concerns Do

By Amber Lester Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Parents concerned about a possible “anti-gay” protest at Warhill High School flooded the inboxes and voicemails of WJCC officials over the weekend.

The protest, or any other kind of “anti-gay” event, did not occur. The protest was rumored to take place Monday in response to students who marked a “Day of Silence” on Friday. The “Day of Silence” is a national effort to recognize the gay and lesbian people who have no voice in the world; students organized an effort to take a vow of silence throughout the school day.

The rumors began to spread after Warhill Principal Sharmaine Grove mentioned the possibility of a protest in a memo sent to staff on Saturday, according to WJCC spokesman Greg Davy. In the memo, she said she believed the students planned to also take a vow of silence in response to the “Day of Silence.” She told staff the students would have the same right to protest, but she did not receive any formal request to host a rally.

E-mails began to spread through the community that an “anti-gay rally” would be held at Warhill. Many parents contacted acting superintendent Scott Burckbuchler, members of the school board and Davy. School Board Chair James Nickols consulted with the division’s legal counsel, D. Patrick Lacy, who said such an event would be protected under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech.

On Monday morning, Burckbuchler, Davy and Grove met at the school to monitor a rally if one did indeed occur. Davy said no rally or demonstration of any kind occurred throughout the school day. Nickols said it was hard to say how the administration would have responded if a rally did occur because nothing happened. He did say, however, if the event had violated the law or WJCC’s code of conduct, the division would have taken the “appropriate legal response.”

In a statement, Davy said, “Student opinion is always welcome on WJCC school campuses, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other students, is not inflammatory or illegal in any way, and does not disrupt normal class time.”

Lacy said the division had no idea what form a protest would take, so on the surface, it would be within students’ rights to protest. The Supreme Court has set precedent, with the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, that students have the right to free speech on school campuses. In that case, students wore black armbands to protest the United States’ involvement in Vietnam. In its ruling, the court said the school district had violated the students’ rights by demanding they take off the armbands, but did not say that schools could never control freedom of expression. Thus, school officials can censor when they can prove the expression would disrupt school or invade the rights of other students.

While free speech protects student opinions, the division does restrict students from wearing any items of clothing that contain language legally considered “hate” speech or advocating the use of substances illegal to minors. Davy said the same guidelines apply to the approval of a rally, which is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Although no anti-gay rally occurred, parents and citizens were most concerned that according to division policy, a protest might have been allowed. Many were upset that the rally would be in protest of a group of people, rather than a specific issue, such as gay marriage. Several mentioned in e-mails that the division would not allow a protest against a racial group or a religious group.

“The Day of Silence is a day to raise awareness of the oppression and harassment of gay teens that has led to their staggering rate of suicide and the tenacity of anti-gay violence in this country,” wrote Davina Parmet in an e-mail to Nickols. “As my African-American colleague pointed out to me this morning – would they tolerate an Anti-African-American rally? Anti-Jewish rally? What about the KKK? Do they have free speech rights in a school?”

In an e-mail to Francie Cate-Arries, a Spanish professor at the College of William and Mary, Burckbuchler said he could assure that WJCC does not support any type of discrimination against students or staff. “Our hope, and expectation, is that our schools are ones of tolerance, inquiry, and focused on student learning,” he wrote.

In a response, Cate-Arries said, “We’re not talking about permitting a student group to express a ‘difference of opinion’ here, as if this was health reform or redistricting or a team mascot. We’re talking about a kind of public speech that is especially harmful to the teenagers in your care who may be gay, who may be struggling in private pain to come to terms with a facet of their identity that they know can make them the target of “anti” discriminatory speech, regardless of how “non-disruptive” the negative-hate speech against them is perceived by the adults who watch on the sidelines.”

Sexual orientation is not included in the division’s Policies and Procedures manual (view here). Currently, there are no state or federal laws that require the inclusion of sexual orientation in nondiscrimination policies.

The omission of sexual orientation from protection in the state of Virginia was the focus of criticism earlier this year when Attorney General Ken Cucinelli effectively said public universities, including the College of William and Mary, had no legal basis for its inclusion in their nondiscrimination policies. After heavy criticism from the media, higher education officials and gay and lesbian rights groups, Gov. Bob McDonnell issued an executive order stating sexual orientation is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Nickols said the rights and civil liberties of all students would be protected. Lacy agreed, saying, “Don’t think we would allow people to be picked on because they may appear to be gay or because they have a bad case of acne or because of whatever.”