Huff - Paragraph # 4 sums it up perfectly. I can see the point of having a "magnet school" to foster a student's skills, but not to foster their gender, culture, ethnicity... Those are traits we should be educating and encouraging tolerance of at home and in schools. Thanks for such a thoughtful blog. b

"Some gay activists will herald it as a step forward in the acceptance of homosexuality."

Actually on MSNBC this afternoon (or morning) a woman from a major GBLT org said that while the school's intentions are good, she's not sure it is the 'right' answer. So she applauds the gesture, but didn't quite say she wants all NYC GBLT students to attend. Of course the anti-gay right-winger said that he didn't like the school because 'every school can protect every student' - that made me laugh a nice hearty one.

Harvey Milk wasn't a supervisor in NYC. He was on the San Francisco City Council and was shot and killed by a disgruntled aide, Dan White, who excused his behavior with the "Twinkie Defense."

My biggest issue with it is that it uses public funds to discriminate. That just doesn't seem right to me. What if my child were straight, but wanted to enroll in Harvey Milk because it had, say, a great orchestral program? Or a really good golf team? It seems unfair to disallow my child to attend Harvey Milk on the basis that he/she is straight.

The Harvey Milk School isn't new, it's just reopening bigger and better. It was started for LGBT kids who had extremely negative and abusive public school situations -- who, in effect, had been driven out by their peers and couldn't cope to finish school otherwise. I believe there needs to be an alternative like this for kids in that situation.

I don't think the school is going to do much to the diversity of public schools, not at its current size. In a hugely populated area like New York, 100 students is just a drop in the bucket.

And actually, if the school grows in such popularity that it is a place where all the guidance counselors want to send all the troubled gay kids, and all the gay kids want to go, etc., maybe it will bring home to all the high schools that they need their own internal support system.

Jeff, all he has to say is that he's "questioning."
Actually, but it doesn't specifically say straight kids can't go, just that the school is intended for GLBT -- and "Q" -- students. I'm sure this question will be tested soon.

Shylo: thanks, I misremembered the article. Fixed.

i saw one of the NY guys on "today" and he specifically said ANY child could go to this school, but if is obviously aimed at those with questioning sexuality. they will by no means discriminate against straight kids....

So then, the question is why do it at all? If anyone can attend, what does it accomplish, other than giving gays an opportunity to be in the majority instead of the minority?

Andrew, I wouldn't want to encourage my kid to say he's questioning if he's not just like I wouldn't want my kid to say he's not questioning if he is.

Either way, if it provides a place to finish school for kids who might not otherwise, that seems like a good thing to me, regardless of the reason why the kid might not otherwise finish.

Rrf! Why do it at all? Because public schools, though they often are not, should be safe places to learn. And I'm talking physically safe, not just protecting teens' tender egos (though in theory I think that should be important, too). That anyone could attend does not change the point that it's intended to be a safe place for kids who, because of their sexuality, have high get-the-crap-beaten-out-of risk.

(I was joking, Jeff.)

Other than the jocks and cheerleaders, I can't think of a group in high school that *doesn't* have a high risk of getting beat up. But we don't give a separate school to the immigrants, the nerds, the artists, the metalheads, the punks, the whatever -- we make them sit together in class.

Another example: we don't separate members of rival gangs into different schools, despite the very high risk of violence.

One of my best friends went to an alternative school, and he definitely wouldn't have finished high school if he hadn't. But I'm sure he would agree with me that sending him to an alternative school did nothing to change the regular H.S.'s attitude toward problem students. I think Harvey Milk High is far more likely to allow NYPS to pretend there's no problem than draw attention to it, even if the school swells to several hundred students.

Andrew, I see your points. But I would disagree that the Harvey Milk School will allow the rest of the system to ignore the problem. Gay students have been in the system as long as the system's existed, and it's done little or nothing to change attitudes. (Hollywood does more.) Having a separate school isn't the ultimate "right answer" but it at least acknowledges that America's schools have gay students and a homophobia problem -- gets the problem out of the closet, so to speak, which is where the religious right would love to keep it. New York funding such a school will give activist groups in other parts of the country more leverage to implement programs locally.

I have to agree with Lisa. GLBT kids have the highest runaway, suicide, addiction rates in this country. Having a safe place where they can simply learn without getting abused will go a long way to increasing their chances of doing better later on. Sure, all kids get beat up or teased or subject to emotional upset by their peers, but these kids have historically been ignored. There may be better ways to handle this, but I find this to be a good start.