First published at 365gay.com on August 4, 2008
A recent Newsweek article ("Young, Gay and Murdered") about Lawrence King-the cross-dressing gay 14-year-old fatally shot by a classmate last February-has prompted many accusations of "blaming the victim." In it author Ramin Setoodeh asks:
How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior? Larry King was, admittedly, a problematical test case: he was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon-it was often his first line of defense. But his story sheds light on the difficulty of defining the limits of tolerance.
And later:
For [many teachers and parents] the issue isn't whether King was gay or straight-his father still isn't convinced his son was gay-but whether he was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger. They're not blaming King for his own death-as if anything could justify his murder-but their attitude toward his assailant is not unsympathetic.
Let's start with the obvious. The murder of Larry King was wrong.
It's tempting, and maybe prudent, to end there. Because anything else said, particularly anything critical of King's behavior, will look like a "but": "The murder of Larry King was wrong, but…"
No-the murder of Larry King was wrong, period.
There is, however, more to be said, not with a "but," but with an "and." So here goes.
By most accounts, Larry King was something of an obnoxious presence at school, engaging in behavior that at least bordered on, and probably crossed the line of, harassment. Assuming these accounts correct, Larry King should be blamed. Not for his own murder, obviously, but for some of the behavior that preceded it. He wasn't perfect.
Yet there are many complicating factors. First, it is unseemly to speak ill of the dead, especially dead children, most especially dead murdered children.
Second, both King and his killer Brandon McInerney came from rather troubled backgrounds, and both were merely kids-factors that mitigate responsibility generally.
Third, some of King's obnoxiousness was an understandable defense mechanism against others' cruelty. (For example: tired of being taunted in the locker room, he got revenge by ogling the boys as they changed clothes.)
And fourth, any criticism of King will strike some people as homophobic or transphobic, as some of it certainly has been.
All of that said, one can criticize bad behavior without in any way suggesting that it warrants murder, much less premeditated murder. Such may be the case of Larry King.
The important thing now is not blame; it's learning from what happened. Doing so requires a candid look at what went on and why, with an eye to reducing the likelihood of similar tragedies.
In assessing the case, Setoodeh focuses on whether Larry was allowed to push too far. He's certainly correct that if teachers had reined in some of King's misbehavior, he might well be alive today.
Isn't that blaming the victim? Not in itself (though other aspects of Setoodeh's treatment are admittedly troubling). To say that King's misbehavior was causally connected to his killing is not to say that King was in any way morally responsible for his killing. (Technically speaking, even King's showing up for school was causally connected to his killing: had he not been there, he would not have been killed as he was.) A causal factor is not the same as a justifying factor.
But King's misbehavior wasn't the only causal factor, and we must be careful not to ignore others. Among these was teachers' discomfort in discussing GLBT issues, leading them to feel a false dilemma between "We need to let him express himself" and "We need to prevent disruptive behavior." Freedom of expression never justifies sexual taunting, gay or otherwise, just as sexual taunting never justifies murder.
Moreover, there was teachers' failure to rein in other students' harassment of King-a causal factor Setoodeh scarcely considers.
There were other factors as well, including troubled family backgrounds for both youths, and McInerney's access to a gun. Had any of these been absent, King might be alive today.
Most of all, let's not forget McInerney's apparent belief that it's better to be known as a killer than suspected as a homo. Why did McInerney kill King? Perhaps the simplest answer is that he was embarrassed by King's sometimes unpleasantly expressed crush on him. His "solution" was to shoot King in the head, twice, as the latter was sitting quietly in an eighth-grade classroom.
And that was wrong, period.
Corvino, John
{ 97 comments }
Corvino, do you not read the comments on this site? There have been numerous comments blaming Larry King and condoning his murder right here. I assumed that sense there was no condemnation for the comments here that the site had given tacit approval to these thoughts. LULZ
Dammit..that should be since not sense.
DUMP, I don’t recall seeing such quotes condoning Larry King’s murder. Do you have a link?
The worst I’ve seen is people saying King’s behavior contributed to his murder, or something of that sort.
When I saw the title, I was thinking of the points I was going to address, but the article covered it all.
I think the two major points, again covered in the article are:
1. The school administration let the bullying and harassment go on for all parties concerned.
2. There is still a mentality that a teen feels the need to commit violence, and in some cases murder, in response to unwanted advances by another boy (whereas I seriously doubt if it was unwanted advances by a girl, that he would have resorted to any violence).
I apologize, condone was the wrong word to use. There have been multiple postings here sympathizing with Brandon McInerney and calling him a victim of sexual harassment who was acting in his own defense against King the predator. These postings don’t condone the murder of King, but the line between sympathizing with McInerney and defending his actions is tenuous at best.
I’m not sure about the line being tenuous. Speaking for myself, I don’t defend McInerney’s actions at all. Unless King came after him with a weapon, there was no excuse for McInerney to kill him. However, I sympathize somewhat, because he was a kid, and had a crappy family life himself. Also, if the school administration handled bullying and harassment of all involved, this most likely would not have happened.
Further, I’m fairly convinced that despite the school’s incompetence, if McInerney was the object of a girl’s affection, this would never would have happened. So there’s still a climate in this school, and too many others that a student feels that killing another student is not as bad as being possibly pegged as being gay.
“To say that King?s misbehavior was causally connected to his killing is not to say that King was in any way morally responsible for his killing. (Technically speaking, even King?s showing up for school was causally connected to his killing: had he not been there, he would not have been killed as he was.) A causal factor is not the same as a justifying factor.”
To realize how very unconvincing is Corvino’s point, replace King’s destiny as “being shot at” or “killed” with “being punched in the stomach.”
You can argue that King should have had the right to wear eyeshade and flirt with straight boys who made it clear they didn’t like it. But get real. He should have been told, if he didn’t realize it himself, that given the circumstance (public high school), it could also be extremely dangerous. Tragically, it’s very possible the lesbian assistant principal encouraged King to express himself, without regard to what could happen.
I think King knew full very well what the consequences were — he was often being harassed with little or nothing be done about it.
Death threats, violence, and harassment are a fact of life for most out gay high school students, I suspect its the same for middle school students.
I suspect that the school administration did not want to deal with the matter — out of prejudice, a desire to avoid anything that might lead to a lawsuit or because they simply did not really care beyond the — often meager — paycheck.
Offers were made by a area PFLAG and another group to provide basic anti-bullying training and they were denied. Probably still are.
If kids believe that they are suppose to/are allowed to harass, beat up or kill people that they dislike, then we are going to have some serious problems.
McInerney was the bully and the one who constantly approached King. There is rarely an option of minding one’s own business. Whether you’re considered weak (because you’re female, puny or gay), can be the trigger without ANY response whatsoever from the target.
In fact, it’s the bullying…the constant reminder that your very presence is unwanted no matter WHAT you do that makes all of it an impossible conundrum.
Bullies are trying to draw you out, as you try to make yourself disappear.
Well, which option is in the hands of the gay kid?
Children take their cues from adults that a challenge, a conflict can and should be resolved with violence. Period.
No matter what King did, McInerney was going to take the cue that King was going to be reminded of who was in control.
Women and girls are subject to unwanted attention all the time. And WE are trained to not respond in out of proportion anger and violence.
I have no sympathy for ANY parent that doesn’t teach their kid that, and keeps a gun in the house.
I thought we had laws in CA that if a child uses a gun in a crime, the parents can be prosecuted too.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this whole family going to jail.
Well written piece, John. And a nice retort from Pat to the usual, predictable angry & hateful prose of our resident “bloody-shirt” waving hysteric, DUMP/CharlesWilson.
I’m not so sure that people (or even gays, gasp) who argue that King was responsible for his harassing, demeaning and taunting ‘tude are, what was the phrase, “…blaming Larry King and condoning his murder right here” as some hysterically claim.
Those taunts are/were a form of bullying and, if addressed properly, might have avoided this tragedy being triggered.
To be responsible for your behavior seems to be the one personal value that many gays want to avoid. Was King’s conduct worthy -in any way, shape or form- as a reason for his cold-blooded murder? Of course not. Was he the innocent gay rights group want to project? Of course not. The simple truth avoided by the Newsweek story is that gay rights groups, the school administators and the non-school counselors failed King miserably.
And for the love of reason, this is NOT about gun ownership. It isn’t about the NRA or the 2d A. Having been a wrestler, soccer player and jock in high school, I’ve known lots of guys just like McInerney. If McInerney hadn’t used a gun, he’d have likely used his fists to dish out the same, bloody inhumane result.
Shall we ban all fists? Paring knives? Pencils with a sharp point? Should baseball bats now be kept locked up in a tamper-proof safe? Of course not.
But that doesn’t stop the gayHysterics from trying to draw a line of connection where none exists.
Again, nice job John. I’m sorry for King and McInerney that this tragedy has ruined two young lives and scarred many. many more. And I’m disappointed that our community slumps to using the King tragedy as some pawn in the debate over hate crimes, gun ownership or for more base fundraising efforts.
We have to remember that both the victim and the alledged prep were both middle school kids or — in the modern slang — tweens.
We expect most adults to be responsible for their actions — both good and bad. But it is another story when you are dealing with kids.
I have mixed feelings about treating a minor perp as an adult. But one has to remember that these are just kids. Where were the adults?
Remember kids (and too many adults) often have a hard time understanding the difference between how things are and how things ought to be and, perhaps more importantly, what they can do to address personal or social problems.
Most LGBT kids learn at a very young age to simply remain in the closet until their senior year in high school or until they move away to college or until much later in their life.
I suspect that most of the LGBT adults in the local, larglely blue collar, community are probably in the closet given the reltionship that socioeconomic class has with the ‘decision’ to come out.
It seems that a neighboring PFLAG offered to help as did a nearby school anti-bullying program, but the school itself did not want to deal with the issue. In short, adults did not want to be adults. Why?
Prejudice, ignorance, uncertainty about what to do, cycnism brought about my meger pay and low respect.
Richard2, like my Jesuit teachers were fond of telling us in grammar school and high school, “Don’t go padding those kneelers quite yet”; meaning: don’t be so quick to argue that maybe King/McInerney get an out because they were too young to appreciate or comprehend the moral discord and capital demerits of their actions.
King’s conduct, by most accounts, was sexual harassment aimed at the very core of self esteem in McInerney and his peers. McInerney can’t argue that society’s seeming casual attitude toward violence permitted or sanctioned his use of violence against King. We have far too many willingly making excuses for the conduct of people who know better and ought to act better.
Even at middle school ages, the vast majority of students know what’s right and what’s wrong in this capital offence. Their emotions might move them to a different conclusion (like excusing the actions of McInerney because of King’s sexual harassment and verbal taunting or maybe excusing the role of administrators in the tragedy) but even middle schoolers know it’s a grievous horror and immoral act to take the life of another student.
Like the Jesuits said: Don’t go padding those kneelers too fast.
John,
My problem with your article is that you assume that the claims made by Setoodeh are correct. I don’t.
Setoodeh was barred from speaking with the administration and the DA can’t prejudice her case. But he’s inexperienced (his history seems limited to 5 minute celebrity interviews, several of which ended badly). So Setoodeh ran with what he heard from those who would talk to him, ie McInerney’s defense.
But you, John, are not inexperienced. You know better than to assume that a novice reporter for an outside paper would have a better portrayal of the events than the local press. And from what I can tell, the local press didn’t observe King to be the aggressor in the days leading up to the shooting. They reported that King was regularly bullied and had taken a defensive posture as a survival mechanism.
They also didn’t find need to use language such as “flaunt” and “weild it like a weapon”, terms I have only EVER heard from those with anti-gay bias.
So if I have to question the motives or the facts of Setoodeh v. the local press, I’m going to look at bias language, access to information, and experience. And all of this suggests to me that Setoodeh wrote a hit piece (whether or not intentional). And I very much doubt that his version of events will hold up in court.
And that is what DA Fox angrily told Newsweek (they mocked her in response).
“King’s conduct, by most accounts, was sexual harassment aimed at the very core of self esteem in McInerney and his peers.”
That is kind of offensive. You just proved DUMP’s point.
Most people who have experienced bullying, me included, don’t act like Lawrence King, we certainly didn’t oogle straight boys, or harassed them. We acted like soldiers in enemy territory, always looking behind, always ready to run and hide.
Lawrence King was already a target, and yet he still insisted on provoking his enemies. And while I admire his bravery in the face of such bullying. I don’t think it was smart.
As for the adults, they can’t be everywhere at the same time. Let’s face it people, anyone who remembers their childhood will remember that the kid’s world is a completely different world from the adult world. Just like most parents in suburbia are clueless about their kids doing drugs and having sex, most parents and teachers are clueless about bullying.
bobby,
You are assuming that King oogled and harassed straight boys and that he insisted on provoking his enemies.
Other than the defense argument – as told to inexperiences and willing Setoodeh – we have no reason to believe that this is the case. We do know that King did stand up for himself at times, but we have no reason – OTHER than what the defense attorney told Setoodey – to believe that he behaved in any manner towards these boys other than the way you behaved towards your tormentors.
It truly bothers me when we allow ourselves to buy into every accusation that phobes display against us. Perhaps King “flaunted”, but I’m not going to believe it so just because his killer is using that as a defense.
Defense attorneys are not known for being the most factually accurate.
Kids have few legal rights and thus have few legal responsibiliites. The law treats minors very differently then adults for a reason and, unless someone here happans to support the NAMBLA, that is a good thing.
By all accurate accounts, Larry was a kid who was being bullied for being different. The adults knew about it, but generally chose to avoid the issue or tell the kid to just keep a stiff upper lip about it. If he ‘sexually harassed’ anyone, it was a reaction to the daily harassment he recieved from his peers.
Lawrence King was already a target, and yet he still insisted on provoking his enemies. And while I admire his bravery in the face of such bullying. I don’t think it was smart.
Bobby, that was my first thought. But then I wondered why it wasn’t so smart. Was he afraid that his behavior would cause him to be further harassed? Probably not, since it was pretty clear to him that he was harassed simply for being gay and/or effeminate. And as you said, he was already a target no matter what he did or didn’t do. Should he have figured he could have been murdered? Maybe. But then again, the kids that constantly harassed King in the first place, apparently weren’t worried that King’s reaction to these bullies was to shoot them either. So if King’s behavior wasn’t smart, then the same is true for the ones who bullied him.
Sure, there’s always the kids will be kids reaction to kids bullying. But too often, there are dire consequences. The target of the harassment may try to kill the harasser, or the target may kill himself. If that’s bad enough, we’ve seen enough Columbines to see what else bullying could lead to. No, bullying does not excuse the teen (or adult) who kills or massacres others. But that’s not going to help the next person that is killed because a school administration failed to knock off the harassment in their school.
As for the adults, they can’t be everywhere at the same time.
That’s true. Even with the utmost competence, there will still be bullying that goes on without the school administration aware. But it appears in this case, many in the school knew. Even if this didn’t end up as tragically as it did, the school failed miserably.
But he’s inexperienced (his history seems limited to 5 minute celebrity interviews, several of which ended badly)……
a novice reporter for an outside paper ……
I’m going to look at bias language, access to information, and experience. And all of this suggests to me that Setoodeh wrote a hit piece…..
as told to inexperiences and willing Setoodeh…..
Typical; launch a smear campaign rather than to actually deal with the facts and evidence presented.
One wonders if Timothy actually read the entire article, especially this part.
Greg King doesn’t feel sympathy for Brandon, but he does believe his son sexually harassed him. He’s resentful that the gay community has appropriated his son’s murder as part of a larger cause. “I think the gay-rights people want it to be a gay-rights issue, because it makes a poster child out of my son,” King says. “That bothered me. I’m not anti-gay. I have a lot of co-workers and friends who are gay.” That anger was made worse when he heard this summer that Epstein would be promoted to principal of an elementary school. “This is a slap in the face of my family,” Greg says.
Or this:
Larry’s father also blames Epstein. He’s hired an attorney and says he is seriously contemplating a wrongful-death lawsuit. “She started to confuse her role as a junior-high principal,” Greg King says. “I think that she was asserting her beliefs for gay rights.”
I think that’s the problem here. Timothy’s newest idol is showing a bit of tarnish; so, as a precaution, he has to smear and slander anyone who would dare criticize said idol’s behavior. Even worse, there is demonstrable evidence that this idol was allowed to sexually harass other children because a lesbian school administrator thought allowing a child to be disruptive because they were gay was more important than any other consideration.
It truly bothers me when we allow ourselves to buy into every accusation that phobes display against us.
Ah yes, the old “invoke gay unity and claim homophobia to cover up improper and even criminal behavior”.
Sorry, not interested. All that that does is make clear that gay people are so controlled and dominated by their sexual orientation that the mere criticism of someone else who happens to share it will make them throw every other value out the window and blindly attack the person who they perceive to be criticizing them as a “homophobe”.
NDT,
I did read the whole article. I also read the follow up which quoted the DA. I also read the local coverage, including blog entries from local heterosexual residents. I also grew up in rural California. I also have a good friend whose family still lives in Oxnard.
Yes, I am critical of Setoodeh. Based on some of his prior writing and based on much of the language of the piece, I suspect that he has a strong bias against effiminate gay men.
I also believe that he was woefully unprepared for a serious article and was a very poor selection on Newsweek’s part. Setoodeh simply doesn’t have the experience to delve into a story this complex. And in the follow up, it was pretty much admitted that he only had access to one viewpoint (the defense’s) so he wrote his article from that viewpoint.
If you find my criticisms to be “a smear”, you are entitled to your opinion. I think others here are capable of determining who is allowing worldview to dictate what facts they choose to believe about the piece.
I do find it fascinating that Setoodeh’s artice has the only coverage that claims that King sexually harassed McInerney. Indeed, all previous reporting placed the bullying as coming from McInerney and his friends. And yet some here leaped on this cliam as though it were undisputed fact.
And the basis for the claim about King harassing McInerney seems to soley consist of anonymous “teachers and parents” (a fascinating idea considering that the school has instructed teachers not to talk to media). Interestingly, these same “teachers and parents” seem to think that the lesbian assistant principal had an “agenda”.
Have you every met or heard of anyone anywhere that refered to gay people as having an “agenda” to be accurate in their portrayal of anything involving a gay person?
And relying on Setoodeh’s reporting of the words of an adoptive parent that was allegedly abusive and who is suing the school to get a financial reward for the death of a child that was not in his care, well I think that’s a bit weak.
For those who are wondering whether Setoodeh’s reporting is unbiased, I ask you to consider the following:
It is irrefutable that McInerney picked on King. That is not disputed by any party. If Setoodeh set out to present a balanced story, why is that entirely eliminated from his article? Not even the most casual of reference. Surely that’s a curious omission.
And look at the way that Setoodeh reported that King told boys, “you want me”. He presents it as a stand alone event, that King approached boys out of the blue and said this.
I find that highly unlikely. This sounds much more like a response to something said to King. Something like, “you’re such a fag” or some other insult. I HAVE heard people respond to insults with “you want me” but I’ve never heard it said as an isolated statement.
This challenges, for me, Setoodeh’s credibility. The obvious exclusion of harassment which has been previously documented and the overemphasis of King’s “flamboyant” behavior, when taken with language that is universally reserved to anti-gay writing, strongly suggests that this is not an article that is unbiased or remotely accurate.
We don’t know the extent to which either child tormented the other. But it will come out in court. And that the DA is taking the most aggressive stance suggests to me that the defense’s desire to blame King for his own death is not likely to have much substance.
So I guess we’ll see whether I’m setting up and defending a false idol or whether you are jumping to find someone gay to find at fault.
I think others here are capable of determining who is allowing worldview to dictate what facts they choose to believe about the piece.
Indeed. Yours.
Case in point.
I also believe that he was woefully unprepared for a serious article and was a very poor selection on Newsweek’s part. Setoodeh simply doesn’t have the experience to delve into a story this complex.
Based on what? Your assessment? Do you know his background? Do you know his education, his capabilities? Please cite the link that you used in which this is outlined so that people may see your judgment and assessment.
Or this:
And in the follow up, it was pretty much admitted that he only had access to one viewpoint (the defense’s) so he wrote his article from that viewpoint.
Or, in other words, you insinuated it; it wasn’t stated or spoken. Please provide a link to the followup article outlining the exact words that make the claim you are stating.
Or this:
We don’t know the extent to which either child tormented the other.
But you did; you denied that King had ever harassed McInerney and insisted, as I quote, that “all previous reporting placed the bullying as coming from McInerney and his friends” — which, since Setoodeh had stated that King was sexually harassing others, you then used to insinuate that Setoodeh was homophobic and lying.
In short, you admit you don’t know something which you just claimed to know and used as a basis for an attack on another person.
And again:
And relying on Setoodeh’s reporting of the words of an adoptive parent that was allegedly abusive and who is suing the school to get a financial reward for the death of a child that was not in his care, well I think that’s a bit weak.
No. What is weak is the desperation of a gay liberal to protect his idol to the extent that he slanders a child’s parents and attempts to downplay their loss because they are daring to criticize a lesbian individual for her behavior and her obvious encouragement of an emotionally-unstable child to act disruptively.
And that the DA is taking the most aggressive stance suggests to me that the defense’s desire to blame King for his own death is not likely to have much substance.
Sort of like how Mike Nifong took “the most aggressive stance” against the Duke lacrosse players. When a DA who needs votes and money can tap both from an aggrieved minority group, why wouldn’t they be expected to be “aggressive” in order to score points with that group?
The obvious exclusion of harassment which has been previously documented and the overemphasis of King’s “flamboyant” behavior, when taken with language that is universally reserved to anti-gay writing, strongly suggests that this is not an article that is unbiased or remotely accurate.
Sort of like your insistence that harassment was never mentioned, that King was never flamboyant in his behavior, and that the use of certain words always indicates that a writer is anti-gay suggests that you are not remotely unbiased or accurate.
By the way, why are you not mentioning your piece at Box Turtle Bulletin? I thought it was an excellent example of how bigoted gays think, especially the comment that implied it was “ironic” that Satoodeh did not automatically take Larry King’s side because Satoodeh is a minority member.
eekamouse (lovin’ that one) trumpets: “That is kind of offensive. You just proved DUMP’s point”.
Hardly, my elephantine friend. If you took offense, it was your fault because I clearly explained the variables behind why King should be held accountable for his own harassment and sexual bullying of McInerney.
And I purposefully pointed out, for the thin-skinned crowd here of “let’s-feel-our-emotions-first”, that King’s sexual harassment of McInerney could not be construed as a license for murder.
eekamouse, what part of King’s repeated and aggressive sexual taunting of McInerney directly and through McInerney’s peers don’t you get? If that target wasn’t the core of McInerney’s self-esteem, you don’t know jack about young str8 guys.
You want offense? Save yours for the right party: the administrators who allowed this tragedy to unfold, the social workers who knew of King’s sexual harassment of other MALE students but did nothing to educate or restrict King’s conduct, and the gay advocates in King’s residential program who may/may not have known about King’s conduct and didn’t intervene.
Spare us your sense of fake outrage. Save it for when BarryO next plays the race card and you can, horror of horrors, slap your face and do the faux outrage act to better effect, eh?
Tim complains: “… Setoodeh’s artice has the only coverage that claims that King sexually harassed McInerney. Indeed, all previous reporting placed the bullying as coming from McInerney and his friends.”
Wow, we didn’t even wait a year before the revisionists got out their sharpies and started rewriting the truth.
No, Tim, the local newspapers reporting on the King murder took great care to note King’s sexual harassment of McInerney both directly and King’s employment of gossip via McInerney’s peers.
Nice try at revision… you need to do some research and a little broader reading.
It is rather odd that a child is killed and the position taken by certain, mostly conservative, gay people here seems to be; all blame must be put onto gays and or racial or ethnic minorities. Odd and pretty sick to.
Larry was, based on credible reports, being harasssed almost on a daily basis by many of his peers, including his murderer. His ‘sexual harassment’ — which has a precise legal definition — was in response to this harassment. Not an appropriate response, but very different from the Newsweek depiction that he was basically being tolerated but was using his sexuality as a ‘weapon.
The reality, from credible reports, is that he was not be tolerated or respected and he was using sexual taunts as a defense. The more relevant question is what did the adults in their two kids lives know and not know about the harassment?
One has to remember that adults do have their own prejudices and that teachers and social workers are oftentimes underpaided and overworked. Most probably have had little or no formal training or education on what to do with LGBT students, and are aware that sticking their heads out, even to do the right thing, is not always the most wise career move.
“I clearly explained the variables behind why King should be held accountable for his own harassment and sexual bullying of McInerney.”
No, you didn’t. You seem to relish name-calling and hurtful remarks though. Maybe you should just stick to that.
what part of King’s repeated and aggressive sexual taunting of McInerney directly and through McInerney’s peers don’t you get? If that target wasn’t the core of McInerney’s self-esteem, you don’t know jack about young str8 guys.
Yes, this is a problem. But it still ignores two other problems here. That King was being taunted repeatedly and aggressively in the first place. And that there is a double standard in response to unwanted advances. As to the former, many will overlook the bullying, even when it involves violence (boys will be boys). As to the latter, the situation would have been different if the child harassing McInerney was a girl, even if McInerney found those advances unwanted and even if McInerney was gay. Harassment under any of these circumstances is wrong, but merely regarded as a nuisance if the harasser was a girl.
The other problem was that King himself witnessed that the school administration allows bullying and harassment to occur without punishment. No wonder he felt that it was okay to be the harasser. Yes, it’s still wrong, and it’s too bad that he harassed McInerney. But it’s also too bad that King was the victim of harassment as well.
Yes, King should have been educated about his behavior. But it’s also time for other student’s to be educated as well.
Greg King doesn’t feel sympathy for Brandon, but he does believe his son sexually harassed him. He’s resentful that the gay community has appropriated his son’s murder as part of a larger cause. “I think the gay-rights people want it to be a gay-rights issue, because it makes a poster child out of my son,” King says. “That bothered me. I’m not anti-gay. I have a lot of co-workers and friends who are gay.” That anger was made worse when he heard this summer that Epstein would be promoted to principal of an elementary school. “This is a slap in the face of my family,” Greg says.
NDT, I came up with a list of unfortunate things that are relevant to King’s death.
1. School administration’s failure to punish bullies and those that harassed others.
2. Students continuous bullying another student
3. A student’s continuous unwanted advances against another student.
4. Prevailing bigotry against homosexuals and resulting double standards.
5. Very dysfunctional family
6. Someone, who had no business having a gun, being able to get access to a gun.
Each of these things by itself is bad enough. But what makes this even more tragic is that if just one of the above did not happen, King would be alive today. In other words, a lot of things had to go wrong for this tragic event to happen, and they all did.
So when this tragic event occurred, people have said that something has to be done about holding school administrator’s accountable, that children should stop bullying, that children shouldn’t sexually taunt others, etc. I’m a little troubled that out of the six things that went wrong, Mr. King chose to single out those who believe that if gay bigotry didn’t exist that King deserved the same rights as the other students, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened. In other words, he didn’t say, “I don’t want my son to be a poster child for improving school administration response (or for stopping bullying, or for gun protection, etc.).”
In regards to the ‘double standard’ issue. Yes, it is certainly a problem when bullying is tolerated as, “boys will be boys”. However, sexual harassment
laws — bully may or may not fall under this legal issue — are written or suppose to be enforced in a gender neutral format.
If a boy or a girl student or — in the wokrplace a male or a female employee faces persistent and unwelcomed sexual advances or language, that might be sexual harassment.
Yet, the tricky part is that sexual harassment is often illegal, can involve same-sex, opposite sex, male victim or perp, female victim or perp, but not if its based on sexual orientation.
This is in terms of Federal Law, State law may be different. What could have been done to prevent this horrible murder;
(1) Metal detectors
(2) An Intervention, possible school wide, to address BOTH bully and harassment for any reason; race, ethnity, sex, sexual orientation, gender, disabiliy, class, size, politics.
(3) A sit-down with both kid’s parents to explain harassment and bully polices and possible suggest that both kids start seeing a therapist.
Mr. King chose to single out those who believe that if gay bigotry didn’t exist that King deserved the same rights as the other students, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.
Actually, Pat, King had MORE rights than the other students, given that he had a lesbian vice-principal sending out emails that flatly told teachers they could not and should not stop him from doing whatever he wanted, including violating the dress code, in the name of “tolerance”.
It is rather odd that a child is killed and the position taken by certain, mostly conservative, gay people here seems to be; all blame must be put onto gays and or racial or ethnic minorities. Odd and pretty sick to.
No, Richard; what is sick is that liberal gays encouraged an emotionally-disturbed child to behave in a deliberately-disruptive fashion and to sexually harass other children.
Gay and lesbian people at his school and his support groups obviously told him that it is normal behavior for a gay person to dress in opposite-gender clothing, act like the opposite gender, and make repeated and frequent sexual advances against his classmates. They manipulated a mentally-unstable child into carrying out their beliefs of how a gay person should exist and act.
Of my three suggestions, why did they not seem to happen?
(1) Metal detectors cost money and require a willingess upon the community to accept that violence crime is a problem at their school.
(2) Anti-Bullying/Harassment education costs money and if is meant to apply to LGBT kids, people will scream bloody murder about the, ‘gay agenda’.
(3) It sounds like the parents of both kids were struggling to keep afloat. Did they know that their kids were having problems at school? Were there kids comfortable coming to their parents with their problems?
eekamouse pines: “No, you (Michigan-Matt) didn’t (explain the variables). You seem to relish name-calling and hurtful remarks though. Maybe you should just stick to that.”
Nice try at spinning eekamouse, but the simple truth deflates your spurious claim.
I seriously wonder what part of “variables” don’t YOU get?
I wrote that King was engaged in sexual bullying of McInerney -both directly and indirectly via McInerney’s peers, McInerney murdered King without excuse, at least two lives have been ruined and many more scarred, the administrators and social workers involved seemed to be getting off scot-free and the only ones “profiting” from the King-McInerney tragedy seem to be the gay community’s HateCrimeVictim advocacy industry.
Variables, eekamouse. Now, what was that you were saying about I didn’t explain? Maybe there’s variable YOU think is more important, then say it.
And if “elephantine friend” is what’s sticking in your craw, the line was in reference to your name here (elephants afraid of mice, “eek” etc)… which is a new name, no?
Pat, I read King’s father’s complaint about his son being used by the HateCrimeVictims industry to be exactly that –a complaint against the ex-appropriation of his son’s tragedy by gay groups to plead their cause, raise money, gain attention, yada yada.
I think, as the father, he sort of has the right to stake his claim about how his son’s memory and tragedy is employed by even well-meaning promoters within the HateCrimeVictim industry. Maybe he isn’t the sharpest dad, but he has a right to protest the ex-appropriation of his son’s tragedy.
King’s father did say he wasn’t anti-gay. What he was complaining about was how a collection of special interests -who he probably thinks know nothing about his son- can swoop in and profit from the tragedy. And to learn that one of the promoters/protagonists in this tragedy is being advanced… that’s just plain ol’ wrong. It’s almost as immoral as the central acts in this tragedy –it is a slap in the face of his son’s memory.
And those here who argue that this tragedy could have been avoided if but for the expenditure of money for program x, y or z, I say that’s nonsense… in my own state (Michigan) there are 17 programs that do NOT charge for anti-bullying education programs for middle and elementary school kids and their parents and the staff. These are volunteer professionals who gladly give of their time and don’t feature the latest victim group’s interests over the broader issues in play.
Not even part of the answer here was …. “gee, if we had just spent more money” anymore than it is “gee, if we had just locked up all the guns in America”.
The answer was competent school administrators DOING their jobs… not paying them more, not giving them another flash-bang $15,000 to bring in natl experts with slideshows and video games, not in locking up the sharp pencils in the classroom.
What is it with liberals who think every problem can be solved by tossing other people’s money at the problem du jour?
Competent school administrators were the single most viable tool to have fixed this tragedy before it soared out of proportion.
“No, Tim, the local newspapers reporting on the King murder took great care to note King’s sexual harassment of McInerney both directly and King’s employment of gossip via McInerney’s peers.
Nice try at revision… you need to do some research and a little broader reading.”
Perhaps I missed a local newspaper that reported that King sexually harassed McInerney. I don’t want to mistate the facts so if you can please provide a link to that article I would appreciate it.
“Actually, Pat, King had MORE rights than the other students, given that he had a lesbian vice-principal sending out emails that flatly told teachers they could not and should not stop him from doing whatever he wanted, including violating the dress code, in the name of “tolerance”.”
All reports, including Setoodeh’s, agree that King did not violate the dress code.
“Based on what? Your assessment? Do you know his background? Do you know his education, his capabilities? Please cite the link that you used in which this is outlined so that people may see your judgment and assessment.”
Try google. My assessment is based on what’s available. I’ll not be preparing a treatise and submitting it to your scrutiny, but it’s pretty clear that Setoodeh had no detectable hard news reporting in his past. Unless, of course, interviews with Clay Aiken and movie reviews are qualifiers.
http://daily.stanford.edu/author/Ramin+Setoodeh
http://services.newsweek.com/search.aspx?offset=0&pageSize=10&sortField=pubdatetime&sortDirection=descending&mode=summary&q=setoodeh
“And in the follow up, it was pretty much admitted that he only had access to one viewpoint (the defense’s) so he wrote his article from that viewpoint.
Or, in other words, you insinuated it; it wasn’t stated or spoken. Please provide a link to the followup article outlining the exact words that make the claim you are stating.”
Yep, that’s what I took from it. Particularly “While Fox thought the anonymous sourcing was unnecessary, Setoodeh says his story would have been impossible to tell without it.”
You, most likely, will find another interpretation. I guess we’ll just have to let readers decide whose interpretation is more reasonable.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/148817
“Sort of like your insistence that harassment was never mentioned, that King was never flamboyant in his behavior, and that the use of certain words always indicates that a writer is anti-gay suggests that you are not remotely unbiased or accurate.”
I don’t believe that previous reports stated that King sexually harassed McInerney. I did not state that King was not flamboyant – he clearly was – but I don’t consider flamboyance to be a factor in a murder defense or to be justification of McInerney’s actions (though you, Setoodeh, and William Quest seem to want to focus on it).
And, yes, some word indicate anti-gay bias. I believe that most gay folk know by now that certain phrases are indicative of an anti-gay mindset. Perhaps you disagree, but others are pretty aware that “inappropriate behavior?, ?flaunted his sexuality?, ?flamboyance?, “agenda” and ?pushed his rights? tend to be the catch phrases of those who filter all information about gay people through a filter of animus and bias.
Perhaps you choose to vest immediate trust in those who use such language, but it gives me pause and triggers a warning that anti-gay bias may be present.
“What is weak is the desperation of a gay liberal to protect his idol to the extent that he slanders a child’s parents and attempts to downplay their loss…”
Well I can be called many things, but “liberal” is not generally included among them. And as for slander, I believe that it is accurate that King was no longer residing with his adoptive family because of alleged abuse. I also beleive it has been reported that the Kings are suing the school and accusing the administration of being at fault; I’d not be surprised at statements that support their lawsuit.
I’m sure you will have plenty to say in response… but I don’t have any desire to continue. This is not really communication, just accusation and invective, neither of which I have time for.
So I’m going to move on now and leave the thread to others who delight in personal abuse, hyperbole, and ranting – from either the “gay is always right” or your “gay is always wrong” perspective.
I believe that thinkers (should they wander here) are capable of gleaning from my comments my point (that Setoodeh’s article is inconsistent with prior reports and appears to be biased and faulty) and deciding whether it has merit. As for bomb throwers… well who really cares what they think?
NorthDallas30 is a professional troll. He is not being serious, he is playing a game. Don’t play the game with him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
Interesting.
I don’t want to mistate the facts so if you can please provide a link to that article I would appreciate it.
But later:
I’ll not be preparing a treatise and submitting it to your scrutiny, but it’s pretty clear that Setoodeh had no detectable hard news reporting in his past.
So Timothy Kincaid is demanding proof from others while refusing to provide it himself. Typical.
Meanwhile, I’m curious to know how many gays here agree with Timothy Kincaid’s postulate that anyone who states that a gay person is exhibiting “inappropriate behavior” or criticizes them for public sexual displays is automatically antigay and homophobic.
If you do, then I would challenge both you and Timothy Kincaid to practice what you preach and to demand the restoration of Bonnie Bleskachek, who obviously was removed due to “homophobia and sexism”. That is made clear in the Minneapolis City Council report talking about her behavior using the code words that Timothy Kincaid claims mean the Council is automatically antigay and biased.
NorthDallas30 is a professional troll.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the buzzer indicating that DUMP has run out of arguments.
Not surprising; after all, he and his fellow liberal gays are being asked to explain why they, including what are presumably gay student groups and a lesbian school administrator, told a child with a history of emotional disturbance and antisocial behavior that it was “normal” behavior for gay and lesbian people to dress in opposite-gender clothing, to act like the opposite gender, and to make unwanted sexual advances and comments to their classmates.
It makes it a lot clearer why gay and lesbian liberals want ENDA so badly. The sort of behavior in which Larry King engaged, which was fully supported by his gay support group and his lesbian school administrator sort of behavior, would never be tolerated in any workplace. However, if it is protected by law, as is the case in California schools, gay and lesbian people will be allowed to be disruptive and sexually harass others in exactly the fashion as they taught Larry King to do in his everyday life and in the classroom.
I find it really hard to understand why some commenters seem to sympathize overwhelmingly with McInerney yet not at all with King. I agree that much of King’s behavior was inappropriate and unnecessarily provocative (and should have been addressed more seriously by the adults who witnessed it), but I disagree with the insinuation that King himself was completely unprovoked and that McInerney was an entirely innocent prior to the shooting.
I don?t think it?s too far a stretch to think that King?s behavior was reactive and that he was being bullied and harassed long before he started harassing back — a scenario a number of commenters seem extremely reluctant to acknowledge. Didn’t Setoodeh?s article mention a Mean Girls-inspired “burn book” that called for Larry’s death, created by one of his elementary school peers, among other harassments he suffered before he ever set foot in the same school as McInerney?
And, if King really was struggling with his orientation or gender identity and not just putting on a show, then couldn’t all the bullying he suffered be considered — as you put it, Michigan-Matt — “targeted at the core of his self-esteem?” and just as damaging as what he inflicted on McInerney?
All of the comments vilifying King for provoking his straight peers smack of the attitude that effeminate men will always get bullied and harassed, and there?s nothing to be done about it ?cause that?s just the way things are, so best just to play it as butch as you can until you can afford to move to New York. I find that attitude incredibly cruel. Is it wrong to hope that someday ridicule and shame won?t have to be the status quo for questioning teens?
There was no Gay-Straight support group at King’s school.
OK, I’ve been goaded into responding… but I’ll keep it to statements of fact.
California law does protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Sexual harassment is illegal in the state and there are no known instances of persons using non-discrimation laws as justification for harassment in the state.
Well metal detectors are, generally, not given away free. There are also other ‘costs’ then financial.
I think that their were people in the administration, faculty or staff, who simply felt that it was not worth getting involved due to the possible ‘political’ (office politics and community backlash) costs.
I never suggested that we, “look up all the guns in America.” I think that part of the problem is that for a lot of reasons the teachers and staff just ddidn’t feel that it was worth getting involved.
Teachers and staff are typically not paid too well. Higher up admin might be, but they also tend to have less interact with the students.
Typically the pay is not great, the amount of respect they get from other students or society in generally is often pretty low and, yes, some of the people simply were prejudiced.
Social workers are also, generally, not paid too well and are over worked and given little respect.
While anti-gay harassment in the schools rarely rises to the level of an actual murder.
The fact remains that harassment and discrimination is rather common, and often tolerated by the adults. As a result most kids hide in the closet.
Certainly the other gay kids at Larry’s school will feel compelled to hide in the closet as will many other middle and high school students.
There was no Gay-Straight support group at King’s school.
From the article:
Every day a driver would take Larry to school, and some weeks he went to nearby Ventura, where he attended gay youth-group meetings.
Next:
Is it wrong to hope that someday ridicule and shame won?t have to be the status quo for questioning teens?
That depends. Is the “status quo” for questioning teens going to involve their dressing up as the opposite gender, their acting like the opposite gender, and their making unwanted sexual statements and advances towards their peers?
We obviously have a situation here in which children, even emotionally-disturbed ones, are being taught by government social services homes, in gay youth groups, and by gay and lesbian school administrators that such behavior IS normal and the “status quo”, and that it is their “right” to do it.
Sexual harassment is illegal in the state and there are no known instances of persons using non-discrimation laws as justification for harassment in the state.
Let’s see….James McGreevey, Bonnie Bleskachek….the list goes on of gay people who have sexually harassed others, then claimed their sexual orientation makes them immune to charges.
Meanwhile, Timothy, that is meaningless, given that children like Larry King are apparently taught that sexually harassing others is their “right” and is a normal part of “self-expression” when you’re gay.
Facts:
Neither James McGreevey nor Bonnie Bleskachek live in California.
James McGreevey did not claim that his sexual orientation made him immune to charges. No charges nor claims were filed against James McGreevey for sexual harassment. Golan Cipel threatened to sue but did not.
I am unaware of a list of gay persons (Californian or otherwise) who have harassed others and claimed that their sexual orientation makes them immune to charges.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Larry King was taught by anyone that sexually harassing others was his right nor that it was a normal part of self-expression.
Richard2 writes: “Well metal detectors are, generally, not given away free” to my claim that tossing money at the problem of school bullying isn’t the answer.
Right, Richard2, I was responding to the other nonsense about not having enough monoey for harassment/bullying programs… I think that’s what, in the main, YOUR point was… and why you doublebacked to point out that your three “solutions” required money.
Frankly, the notion that King’s school should have had metal detectors to thwart anyone thinking about carrying a weapon to school is assine. Metal detectors are an admission that school administrators and staff and parents failed the students, miserably.
Building a safe, nuturing environment isn’t all that hard even for publik skewls. It’s just that parents aren’t empowered in most jurisdictions to “fire da bums” when schools fail the kids –as they did overwhelmingly in King’s and McInerney’s case.
As for locking up the guns, you’re right. You didn’t say that and I didn’t say you said that, either. I said the suggestion here by some to lock up the guns (and sharpened pencils) is a good response to McInerney’s cold blooded murder of King is like your suggestion of tossing money at the problem.
What part of “Not even part of the answer here was …. “gee, if we had just spent more money” anymore than it is “gee, if we had just locked up all the guns in America” didn’t you get, Richard2?
I’ll grant you, the suggestion of installing metal detection equipment to stop this kind of tragedy again is expensive… and stupid.
How about you put away OTHER PEOPLE’s pocketbooks and use a little common sense?
I knew from the beginning that for you it’d all be about spending money –more money for teachers (who are well paid in Michigan and California), more money for social workers, more money for schools, more money for x, y, and z.
Like I said: What is it about liberals who want to toss money at every problem?
Hey Pat,
“since it was pretty clear to him that he was harassed simply for being gay and/or effeminate.”
—It is one thing to be effeminate, but to dress like a woman? Wear nail-polish? That’s a visual-statement. At my job, we have a guy who’s a drag queen at night in gay bar. He’s VERY effeminate, he doesn’t hide who he is, but he comes to work in a professional attire. He knows people would freak out if they saw him in a dress at work.
You know, I feel the same way about jews who wear a yarmulke or a star of David. Why are you advertising who you? That’s what I think. Why are you provoking people? Why are you standing out from the crowd? My point is this, if you are gonna stand out from the crowd, then you better know how to defend yourself, if not, you’re better off blending in.
“So if King’s behavior wasn’t smart, then the same is true for the ones who bullied him.”
—For the most part, a bully doesn’t want anyone to get in his way, visually or otherwise. The really cruel ones go out searching for targets, the rest are the ones you try to avoid, you walk the other way if you see them, you don’t make eye contact, etc. I’m assuming King failed to do any of these things. As for his bullies, nobody expects them to be smart. Bullying isn’t based on smarts, it’s based on sadism which can be a great source of pleasure for some people.
Tim posits: “There is no evidence whatsoever that Larry King was taught by anyone that sexually harassing others was his right nor that it was a normal part of self-expression.”
Tim, I think when depositions are taken in the multiple lawsuits that will be certainly be filed in this matter, the astute legal counsel on one side will raise the issue of a gay culture which promotes “having sex with a str8″ as the ultimate humiliation of str8s by a badgering, harassing gay youth… in fact, one of McInerney’s friends told investigators that King was saying he would have sex with McInerney and make him “his bitch”.
Again, for our faint of heart gay hysterics here, that doesn’t translate into a rational reason for murdering King… it simply goes to this underbelly in our gay community that makes a killing (no pun) on gay porn fantasies about gay-str8 sex.
You might be right at this moment in time… but I doubt it or that, if you’re right, it will last –and that’s based on news stories about King’s harassment of McInerney and confidence that legal counsel will try anything to get at a big settlement.
And no one denies that this tragedy is ripe for litigation AFTER the criminal trial is finished… almost as ripe and profitable as it is for the GayHateCrimes industry.
I knew from the beginning that for you it’d all be about spending money –more money for teachers (who are well paid in Michigan and California), more money for social workers, more money for schools, more money for x, y, and z.
The interesting thing is how teachers, teachers’ unions, and the Democrats who support them all say the same thing: “Give us more money or your children will be hurt — since it’s not worth it to us to stop them from doing so.”
In most places, that’s defined as blackmail.
MM;
I talked about three broad issues that MIGHT be worthy of some attention and why, one possible reason, why they had not already been done at this particular school. Your reply was that money was not needed and neither were any sort of programs. Well, that simply makes no sense.
Their may be people who were willing to volunteer to teach some anti-bullying classes. I think at least two area groups made the offer to the school, but were both turned down, probably for reasons I have already stated.
Yet, metal detectors are an obvious security measure that can be taken, but does cost money. It is not something, as a general rule, that people give away for free. Maybe you feel it would be a waste of money. Maybe it would be and maybe it would not, but such things do cost money and a willingess to lose some political capital. I doubt that their was much desire to do that over LGBT youth.
Their are ‘costs’ to each possible solution or, better put, worthy thoughts to consider. Some are financial and others are political. Combined you have a deadly combination for many LGBT youth. If people do not want to admit that violence is a problem at their school, then they are probably not going to support the costs involved in getting, installing and maintaining metal detectors.
Again, you keep trying to accuse me of trying to take your guns and sharp pencils away.
I do not recall making such comments, but it seems to be your way of avoiding dealing with these problems.
If you want to get things done, especially if it involves helping LGBT youth, then you are going to have be willing to allocate resources; financial, time and political. Otherwise, nothing will change.
If you want great teachers, then you got to be willing to offer a competitive salary and benifits package. Dont expect miracles from teachers and social workers who are overworked, underpaided and disrespected at every turn.
I am speaking as some one who was an educator, in both public and private settings.
How about you put away OTHER PEOPLE’s pocketbooks and use a little common sense?
I knew from the beginning that for you it’d all be about spending money –more money for teachers (who are well paid in Michigan and California), more money for social workers, more money for schools, more money for x, y, and z.
Like I said: What is it about liberals who want to toss money at every problem?
It is really sad, that gay conservatives are jumping at the chance to use a dead kid for their partisan politics.
I never suggested that we should “spend more money” on anything. I simply pointed out some basic facts. The lack of interest in spending capital — financial and political –to help LGBT youth is a major factor in what went wrong at this school and what goes on, albeit in a less violent way, in schools across the nation.
I knew from the beginning that for you it’d all be about spending money –more money for teachers (who are well paid in Michigan and California), more money for social workers, more money for schools, more money for x, y, and z.
The interesting thing is how teachers, teachers’ unions, and the Democrats who support them all say the same thing: “Give us more money or your children will be hurt — since it’s not worth it to us to stop them from doing so.”
In most places, that’s defined as blackmail.
I really do not care too much for teacher’s unions. Some of what they do is great, some of it…not soo much. My experience with unions is a tale for another time.
It is hard to stop kids from bringing guns to school, if you dont know what or who is coming or going. It is hard to deal with harassment and discrimination if its not being taken seriosuly by the school or the broader society. Its hard to be a great teacher or social worker when you have dozens of students/clients, and you are being overworked, underpaided and devalued.
From my own experience as a teacher, the kids dont respect you, the parents dont respect you, people would prefer to ignore the challenges facing young people, and anytime someone makes a suggest that might actually make things better, people dont want to pay for it, they dont want to deal with it and they certainly dont want their little Jack or Jill to be told about it.
Comments on this entry are closed.