<p>lol, good one Elio, but seriously, if we keep this up, we run the risk of getting this topic erased. That would be bad. :(</p>
<p>So This topic is closed........................NOW!</p>
<p>what happened after they recieved the letters? What did the schools do? did they ever track them?</p>
<p>1923, Did your friend call and ask the school why? Maybe the notes were not threatening as some have implied, but were just questioning the necessity/validity of this group. This would jibe with the Dean's comment that the note-writer' needed support, understanding, and education. Since there was no danger, and it was not a crime, maybe they did not feel the need to blow things out of proportion.</p>
<p>I never considered that possibility Kelyme.</p>
<p>Rewind!
OK: Topic Closed, please don't reply to this thread unless you have something to say about the actual response of Deerfield to the situation.</p>
<p>we were talking about deerfield.</p>
<p>My son will be attending Deerfield. I am heterosexual yet empathic to this hate incident at DA and the other racial incidents at Loomis, exeter, etc. We will see what is communicated at the revisit day next Friday.</p>
<p>Keylyme: even if the notes were not directly threatening, I can certainly believe that students may have felt harassed and uncomfortable. Unfortunately, we don't have enough specific information. Which, in my opinion, has been part of the problem in Deerfield's response. However, as others have said that Deerfield has specifically responded internally, I am trying not to be too critical of Deerfield, but am withholding judgment until more facts are brought to light. </p>
<p>Nervedoctor: anything specific that you find out would be quite interesting. It would be great to have some more concrete details about the original incident, and Deerfield's response, both internally and externally. I hope that you and your family enjoy your visit. Please post any information on this incident that you learn, if you feel comfortable doing so. Thanks!</p>
<p>Yes, Nervedoctor, if you do find out anything, please let us know. However, may I make a suggestion? Start a new thread, so that we don't have to rehash all the rhetoric posted here. Thanks :)</p>
<p>Keylyme, I don't think she did call. I think she had faith that the school would handle the matter appropriately, but she was perplexed when parents were not officially notified immediately, especially because kids must have been telling their parents bits and pieces of the story. I can think of far lesser incidents that have prompted an immediate schoolwide email to parents in our own (public) school....but, again, I don't think she was faulting Deerfield per se, just perplexed by the whole thing.</p>
<p>hey guys,
i'm a deerfield student who in fact recieved one of these letters, so let me give you a bit of info on the real situation here. we as a community have decided that it wasn't really necessary for us to inform the general public of the situation. this is an issue for us as a community to deal with and heal from together, without the added pressure of being in the public eye. the deans and all the administration have been amazingly supportive and are actively searching for the culprit. the subject is not dead, we are having forums and opening dialogue more and more. in some ways the letters were helpful in that they opened the floor for discussion. for us (the nine students who recieved letters) it is less about turning this into a witch-hunt and more into using this as a tool for positive change.
the letters were not threatening in the same way that saint paul's were. however, there was incredible animosity and a strong urging for homosexual students to leave and not be admitted to deerfield, which is a threat, if not a directly physical one.
for those of you wondering about the climate of deerfield: we are all about diversity. however, this is a traditionally conservative boarding school. there is a large population of students who come from incredibly conservative backgrounds and resist the direction of change we are headed in. (i.e. the sevens--a group of six seniors and one junior who believe DA should be and all-male, all-white institution). but the administration (not to say the trustees or alums) as well as an equally large segment of the student population are pushing this school towards being a safe environment for everyone of every minority. that is what mr. emerson especially has been pushing. whether or not you agree with a lifestyle or dislike someone because of their race, we are a community and we must show each other respect and make sure everyone feels safe in what has effectively become our home. </p>
<p>any other questions?</p>
<p>The Sevens? I can sort of understand all-male as Deerfield was one of the last BS to go coed and there are a lot of alumni who morn the day girls were admitted, but all white??? So I guess that means no african-americans, no asians, no hispanics, no indians, etc. How about Jews? Catholics? Do they feel that minorities somehow detract from the school? If so, on what basis? Seems to me perilously close to hate speech. Surely this is not a school sanctioned group.</p>
<p>Thank you for supplying a few facts to the situation. And I hope that you still feel comfortable in your "home" as you call it at Deerfield.</p>
<p>I do have one comment to make regarding the label "conservative" being applied to people who hold racist or homophobic views. Although there seems to be a significant number of racist and homophobic people who hold conservative political views, racism and homophobia know no political boundaries, nor are they necessarily part and parcel of a conservative ideology (or any other ideology). Racism and homophobia are psychological traits that are sociological in nature - that is feelings that exist in the minds of individuals resulting as a part of social conditioning. Political beliefs do have roots in psychological traits (desire for freedom vs need for security) and are influenced by social conditioning, but ultimately political theories are about governance. Racism and Homophobia are not theories about governance - i.e. how much power government should have vs. how much individual liberty one should have (although some would try to use governance to "fix" a feeling of fear) but Racism and Homophobia are used to justify certain actions of government. The idea that the conservative tag gets applied to racists and homophobes comes from the fact that our government does a poor job of protecting people's liberties, as enforcement is often a function of those whose psychological makup may affect their desire to equally apply the laws of the land to all in an impartial manner. Those who like the current end result want to preserve the way things are done and are opposed to change, and as a result get labled conservative - usually applied to those against change in the political system.</p>
<p>BTW, I am neither conservative nor liberal. I am a cynic. Given a choice of freedom or rule of law, I will always choose rule of law, as without it, freedom cannot exist. When all are subject to rule of law, freedom will result.</p>
<p>Other than the labeling of conservative (I find labeling to be a divisive activity), I found your assessment to be quite informative.</p>
<p>Thank you again.</p>
<p>Goaliedad, I think you're confusing social conservativism with political conservatism. conservative</a> - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
:)</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure the poster means traditional, as in "disposed to maintaining existing conditions", not political power division. The homophobic students want to return to what Deerfield USED to be, the "traditional".</p>
<p>Websters: Homophobia = irrational fear. A religious aversion to homosexual aberrant behaviour is not an irrational fear. Nor is such belief "conservative" nor "liberal", it is correct.</p>
<p>I'll agree with you that I think the poster was referring to the concept of being "disposed to maintining existing conditions". Using the term traditional is fair game here.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if I agree with the existence of a "social conservatism", although lots of pundits seem to throw about the term freely. "Social conservatism" to me is a code word for "we're afraid of all of these people not like us and want to discourage them through the use of power". Is it an intellectual movement? "Socially conservative" means different things in different cultures. In the middle east we see "socially conservative" being defined by the mullahs. Some places this is putting the genie back in the bottle (see Afghanistan). It is different from the "social conservative" in the Far East and Western cultures.</p>
<p>The same issue comes with the term "liberal". It too is a catch phrase used to label those in favor of change. For many years the "L word" was considered bad. Perhaps it may come back.</p>
<p>My point here is that these "labels" are loosely used and in a heated topic (this one has been very heated) and aren't good for the clear discussion of ideas and feelings that needs to take place in a civil society.</p>
<p>I don't take exception to the posters thoughts on the issue. It is just after the multiple pages of shouting on this thread, I'd just rather not use terms that might be misconstrued to antagonize someone.</p>
<p>BTW, clarifying this stuff is good, allidoiswait.</p>
<p>Bigfeet, I have this quote from the wikipedia entry for "certainty" for you to chew on:
Strictly speaking, certainty is not a property of statements, but a property of people. 'Certainty' is an emotional state, like anger, jealousy, or embarrassment. When someone says "B is certain" they really mean "I am certain that B". The former is often used in everyday language, as it has a rhetorical advantage. It is also sometimes used to convey that a large number of people are certain about B. However the fact that certainty is an emotional state is not always heeded in the literature. The truth is, certainty is an emotional state that is attained by many people every day.</p>
<p>My last post on this issure:
Nice post by sinj. The forums and discussion are what is needed. Despite my beliefs, I would be the last to tell sinj and his friends to "go home" -- just as I would not tell that to a Muslim, etc. I also think that every school should be a safe place for every student. I would love to sit with Brooklyn and discuss and learn why he "sins" (in my opinion). Do I have some "homophobia"? = probably in that I will not ride an elevator with a lone male, but that is not why I believe it is a sin. One is due to past experiances and one is due to the Bible.</p>
<p>I have also learned from this discussion board that I will probably be most happy at Villanova Preparatory School where I will plan on attending (as will most of the people on this board). However I will talk about this next week on my trip to Mass. Perhaps Sinj and others will convince me differently. I have never met an Indian (person from India) nor a Hindu nor a German and I would love the diversity to be able to.</p>
<p>anyone want to chime in on closeted gays at bs? Teachers and students. I visited a school which will remain nameless where I felt that was the case esp with teachers. yet there was an active gsa.</p>
<p>No, personally, I don't want to "chime in."</p>