Lawrence King and gender expression in school
by Kevin Sparrow
The concept of sexuality in young people has been a focal point for Americans throughout history. The sexual mores of youth color the way we observe past and present eras. As mores change, an outcry against the demoralization of youth inevitably strikes, and recently, it has been against scantily clad female singers, increased teen pregnancy and sexualized teen TV shows ala Gossip Girl. However, sexual identity is another issue that has been misappropriated as part of this concern. This fear is one of the reasons for the shooting death of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old junior high school student who expressed himself as decidedly different from others. Newsweek’s July 28 cover story by Ramin Setoodeh followed a five-month investigation into King’s school—E.O. Green—his home life and his relationships. The angle chosen—delving into the responsibility schools and students having when dealing with sexual identity—contained a negative bias that will have an impact when future scenarios such as this tragedy occur.
An example of this bias comes early: “One study found that the average age when kids self-identify as gay has tumbled to 13.4…” First, the reliability of this statement is in question because the study referenced is not named and is only one example of possible statistics that could have been used. A more immediate impact is from the negative rhetoric employed when talking about the age of kids coming out. Setoodeh uses “tumbled,” implying that this is an undesired effect. Many people first discover sexual attraction around the age of 13, the average age of puberty. It’s sad that even after a wealth of media coverage, gay relationships for teenagers have to remain hidden behind locker doors and instant messages. While many of their straight peers are allowed to openly date younger than ever, gay teens are told that their sexual identity does not even exist at their age. “Kids may want to express who they are, but they are playing grown-up without fully knowing what that means.” Here, the experience of coming out is conceived as an even more complex, restricted action; only adults are allowed to be gay in society’s view.
On the other hand, the article addresses the multiple players providing children with moral values. “[T]eachers and parents are often uncomfortable dealing with sexual issues in children so young. Schools are caught in between.” This discomfort is real, but it seems acceptable by this statement; it reflects that parents are not held to the same accountability as schools. The subtitle for the article even states “… are schools ready to handle the complex issues of identity and sexuality.” It leaves parents unaccountable for their children’s actions, a problem that has been affecting schools with behavioral issues at a growing rate. By establishing school as the first line of responsibility, the article adds to this problem. In lieu of condemnation, the article does go to great length in establishing that the school had many forms of protection and information for queer students. Setoodeh mentions “… a [California] hate-crime law that prevents gender discrimination” and an e-mail by one assistant principal stating, “ ‘We have a student on campus who has chosen to express his sexuality by wearing make-up… It is his right to do so.’”
A clear indication that a large portion of the country’s concept of queer is misguided is provided secondhand by a source of authority on the subject. “… [Larry’s] therapist told Greg [King, Larry’s adopted father] he thought that Larry was just trying to get attention and might not understand what it meant to be gay.” Although many stories about superheroes contain a subtext of being gay and the coming out process, in this context, it is condescending. Being gay is not a simple construct; it is not a disorder or anomaly, so it does not affect everyone who is gay the same way. Being gay does not have a singular meaning. If it is considered acting out to identify as gay, it shows more about those who are bothered by that description than the person identifying as such.
The story only gives a cursory glance at a far more troubling issue that may not have been explored simply because it has recently been more prominent than sexual expression in schools. Jerry Dannenberg, the superintendent for the Hueneme school district, of which E.O. Green is a part, stated, “Why do we have youngsters that have access to guns?” The stance the article takes is that reactions to an admittedly disruptive student based on his sexual orientation are more a concern than the fact that his killer had access to a gun. It seems to reinforce an old sentiment that it is preferable to be dead than gay and even worse, it states unequivocally that Larry’s sexuality was more harmful than a gun when Setoodeh writes “… King… flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon.” It makes it all right for a person to shoot someone else when sexuality is seen as comparably deadly. A backtracking statement near the end of the article to disavow the notion that King was complicit in his death is accompanied by “For [many teachers and parents], the issue isn’t whether Larry was gay or straight… but whether he was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger.” Yet, the suggestion is that how he chose to reveal his identification as gay was what caused these boundaries to be pushed. Had he been straight, this article would not even have existed.
