The Vanguard received a few notes and a photo about an incident that happened last weekend at a soccer game between Davis High and Jesuit. It has now become completely clear what occurred, based on two letters to the editor of the local newspaper.
One letter writer in the newspaper reports, “Homophobic slurs were being hollered out throughout the game and a large banner with homophobic language was displayed to the crowd as they paraded in hot dog costumes in front of the stands.”
Now Superintendent Winfred Roberson writes an apology to the community, stating, “On Monday, my office became aware of inappropriate behavior from three fans at last Saturday’s DHS vs. Jesuit home soccer game. The three fans, dressed as hot dogs, displayed a large banner that read “Jesuit (heart symbol) Loves Wieners.””
He writes, “Students and staff agree that the sign was a clear anti-gay message targeting the Jesuit all-male student body population.”
He states unequivocally: “The Davis Joint Unified School District opposes this type of messaging and fan behavior and apologizes to those who were present.”
At the same time he writes, “Though disappointed by the incident, it was reassuring to know that the three fans were not currently enrolled DJUSD students. We encourage our students to display sportsmanship, fair-play and respectful cheering behaviors during athletic events. We want everyone who attends a DJUSD event to feel respected and included.”
However there is a bigger problem here, as the letter writer to the newspaper indicates: “As appalled as I am at the behavior of these spectators, I am even more appalled at the adults in the crowd who did nothing, at least from what my daughter and adult sister observed.”
In fact, this is a systematic failure: “Security failed to detect these fans and the banner at the gate, even though administrators and faculty members were present and on guard for this vulgar behavior.”
When the writer’s sister removed the banner from the young men, she was verbally assaulted with profanity.
The writer adds, “According to DHS Principal Jacqui Moore, Davis fans are well-known for being inappropriate and crass. She told me the school is taking great measures to educate the students about appropriate fan behavior, but she can’t compete with a community that remains silent when administrators don’t catch such horrific hate speech.”
Commentary: Not An Isolated Incident
The problem here is that this really is neither an isolated incident nor anything new. The Reverend Tim Malone often makes it a point to show Davis Enterprise photos from 1978 where Davis High Students showed up to a basketball game wearing KKK hoods.
In June, barely four months ago, a noose was found on the uprights at the high school football stadium. While the perpetrator of that was never caught, it is widely believed to have been a Davis High School student.
The overall climate and diversity in the district is still concerning. There has and continues to be a large achievement gap between the performance of white and Asian students on the one hand, and African-American and Latino on the other hand.
Last week, at the Vanguard‘s school board candidates forum, the question was asked about the lack of diversity of teachers.
While Davis has become increasingly diverse – In 1992-1993, just twenty years ago, the student population was 75% white. Hispanics were just 10.8% and the number of Asians just 8.5%.
By 2010-2011 according to the California Department of Education’s Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS), the percentage of white students in Davis school is 57.9%. Hispanic is the largest subgroup at 17.2%, Asian just behind at 15.1%, mixed race at 4.3% and African Americans at 2.8%.
That is remarkable change in two decades. But one not matched by teaching population.
The number of teachers of color is still remarkably low. 81.6% of teachers are white. There are 41 Hispanic or Latino teachers, but a large number of them are hired through the dual immersion program.
The stunning number is that we have just 3 African-American teachers and 16 Asian teachers.
These numbers have not improved over the last twenty years.
The bottom line here is that the district has an increasing problem with diversity and tolerance. It is unfortunate that these demographic changes are occurring during times of budget crisis when the district is strapped for resources.
The question at this time is what is the district going to do? The letter writer noted that Davis fans are well-known for being inappropriate and crass. Perhaps. But in 2012, it should be unacceptable – particularly in a community like Davis, for fans to make such inappropriate comments and have such inappropriate banners.
The fact that personnel and adults did not step in is appalling.
The Vanguard is pleased that Superintendent Roberson has published an apology, but we believe more needs to be done – far more.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”… a large banner with homophobic language was displayed …”[/i]
How is that homophobic?
Do I really have to explain this to you?
Winfred’s statement again: “Students and staff agree that the sign was a clear anti-gay message targeting the Jesuit all-male student body population.”
Rich wrote:
> How is that homophobic?
Then David wrote:
> Do I really have to explain this to you?
If the girls from St. Francis High played Davis High and a sign said “St. Francis Loves Boobs” would the sign be “lesbophobic” or would it be just like the Jesuit sign a poor attempt to make fun of the kids at a single sex Catholic High School?
David also wrote:
> The stunning number is that we have just 3
> African-American teachers and 16 Asian teachers.
I don’t see why the number of African-American Asian teachers has anything to do with a sign that says kids at a Catholic all boys’ school love weiners? Would more African-American and Asian teachers in Davis help the schools do a better job of teaching kids that making fun of Catholic school boys is wrong?
SOD, I was wondering the same thing. How did 3 stooges who are no part of the DJUSD showing an ignorant banner turn into the diversity of teachers in Davis? Only in David’s world.
Over-reaction to stupidity. Don’t think we need a “purge”. If anything, you should be arguing against the Catholic admonition against active homosexuality. Somebody’s skin is too thin.
Used to consider myself as a “liberal”… have supported Sierra Club, Amnesty International, NOW, and ACLU… then lived in Davis for over 35 years… am tired of the “ubers” right or left. You are all ‘pains in the butt”.
forgot to add, to many I am also a PITB.
Rich: [i]”How is that homophobic?”[/i]
David: [i]”Do I really have to explain this to you?”[/i]
Yes, please do. Explain to me how that really is hurtful to gays.
While I happen to be straight, if someone called me “a wiener lover” I would not think he was trying to disparage gays.
Further, if the game had been between St. Francis’s girls’ team and Davis High’s girls’ team and the banner had read “St. Francis ♥ Loves Wieners,” I don’t think anyone would think that was an anti-gay slur.
I’m sure you think I am just dense or disingenuous. Neither is the case. I think this is a perfect example of political correctness run amok, where some are inferring a hatred of gays which (probably) does not exist and should not be assumed. I think it was just kids having fun in a childish way.
Rich wrote:
> I think this is a perfect example of political
> correctness run amok
Did anyone ask the kids who made the sign why they made it? When the local Catholic girls school would play the public school when I was a kid people would make jokes and signs about “the girls from the nunnery” and did not harbor any ill feelings toward Catholic nuns (or prostitutes since there are two very different buildings that are sometimes called a nunnery).
It scares me that in our new politically correct world we will have to change cheers like “Davis High is Number One” to “Davis High is a good team, but no better than any other team” so we don’t hurt the feelings of the visiting team or damage their self-esteem when they hear that the Davis High cheerleaders don’t think they are as good as Davis High.
I’m trying to understand how this would be offensive enough to warrant an apology. An “Oh, c’mon! or maybe a rolling of the eyes, but not an apology by an administrator. I think there is a growing hypersensitivity in the Davis community to anything that possibly might be offensive in anyway to anyone. Consider the initial cancellation of Emerson’s production of “A Christmas Carol” because 1)it mentioned Christmas (how offensive is that), and 2) the play was scheduled at the same time as Hanukkah and might be offensive to Jewish people in the community. Thank goodness that these guys were not currently enrolled DHS students or their lives would have been ruined by suspension & public humiliation, which, hypocritically, I think some people would consider just fine.
[i]The Reverend Tim Malone often makes it a point to show Davis Enterprise photos from 1978 where Davis High Students showed up to a basketball game wearing KKK hoods.
[/i]
How dare you correlate the 3 young students that wore Hot Dog costumes to those who wore Ku Klux Klan hoods. These are two completely different types of cultural and historical apparel and should not at all be associated with each-other.
The students that wore Klan hoods were directly attempting to threaten and intimidate African Americans by wearing a culturally and historically racist and oppressive uniform that symbolized prejudice. The students with the Hot Dog costumes attempted to create a practical joke, a pun, anything but malicious or slanderous material.
You cannot compare the disgusting symbol of a Ku Klux Klan hood to that of a silly Hot Dog Halloween Costume. The Ku Klux Klan used their uniform as a symbol of an all white supremacy, while the Hot Dog men used their costumes as a prop for a practical joke. The Klan had blood stains of innocent men and women on their uniforms, and emotionally wrecked African American families, while these Hot Dog costumes never physically or emotionally harmed any minority, and did not intend to do so whatsoever.
The point is this, Students have been cruel and awful in the past, but to compare something so harmless as 3 young people dressed as Hot Dogs to something as distasteful as students wearing Klan hoods, is completely unjust.
Perhaps if writers such as David Greenwald were not so hellbent on exaggerating the events that occurred, the city, school district, and Superintendent would realize that these students did not directly threaten, intimidate or harass the homosexual community in any way whatsoever, and that those offended should re-evaluate their hyper-sensitive attitudes.
DavisStudent
[quote]The students with the Hot Dog costumes attempted to create a practical joke, a pun, anything but malicious or slanderous material. [/quote]
A question that makes a lot of difference to me with regard to this issue. Do you know these students personally and have you actually discussed with them what their motives were ? Or are you speculating based on your view of what the might have been intending ?
If this was just intended as a prank which misfired, perhaps the best thing they could do is to state this clearly, publicly and apologize for what it was, poor judgement and nothing more. That would certainly help to diffuse any unjust criticism, help them to understand the consequences of poor choices, and would help those who cover such issues to put these actions into appropriate perspective.
“a large banner with homophobic language”
This isn’t fear of homosexuals or -uality. It is calling names. The insensitivity here is the implication that -uals are something negative. It is insensitive.
“horrific hate speech”
Not hardly. This is the same implication-reaction as was seen with the noose or backwards swastika. The problem is demonizing insensitive morons as possessing actual hate as the first-step assumption without evidence of such. I have experienced many morons saying insensitive things about Jews, and much more rarely I’ve experienced first-hand visceral hate directed at Jews. The energy difference between the two is nothing alike. Those of you calling insensitive morons “haters” are taking real hate speech and insensitivity and typing the same words onto a blank page. The same words may appear on the page exactly alike, but the motivation is nothing alike. To demonize insensitivity is to cheapen and desensitize all of us to actual hate. Hate is a threat to us all. Insensitivity can be dealt with through ignoring it, mocking it, or trying to inform — whatever suites your personality. What doesn’t work is . . . demonizing Davis . . . such as . . .
“she can’t compete with a community that remains silent”
The same sort of implication was made with the noose incident, that being that the actions of a few insensitive morons shows the systematic moral bankruptcy of the entire population of Davis, except those holier-than-us who are accusing the rest of us. I’m not going to own that, and I doubt most of Davis will either. Davis may be really, really white, and that may not be utopian, but as a whole, we are a decent community that would not put up for a moment with actual hate. Cease the distraction of calling moronic insensitivity “hate”. It is not.
However, I do agree that the implication of the sign is that homosexuality is “less than”, and that is not something that should go uncalled. And the young woman who took their sign away made that point quite well. That she was sworn at does not make her point any less valid, it just shows those who swore at her are insensitive morons. She made her point, and everyone had a chance to hear it. Good job.
“I am even more appalled at the adults in the crowd who did nothing.”
It is also possible that many of them didn’t get the “joke”. I looked at the picture and headline before reading, and all I saw was guys in hot dog suites and sign that didn’t say anything that struck a chord. It wasn’t until I read the article that I was lead through the connection first with sexual implication of the hot dog, then the connection to being an all-male school, and then it was impossible to ignore. That security failed to detect that a guy in a hot dog costume was supposed to be a metaphor for a penis doesn’t bother me in the least. If security keeps out the guns and bombs then they’ve done their job.
Re: Alan Miller
“This isn’t fear of homosexuals or -uality. It is calling names. The insensitivity here is the implication that -uals are something negative. It is insensitive.”
I agree with Alan.
I think it is important to use language accurately; unfortunately around politically sensitive issues words are often used inaccurately, when it is around such issues that it is especially important to communicate clearly and accurately, to help minimize confusion and misunderstanding.
I’ve often chuckled at the term “homophobic”. I’ve known people who are “homo-averse” or even “anti-homo”, but very few people who are actually afraid of homosexuals. Or is the implication that some people do not engage in homosexual behavior because they are afraid of such behavior? Maybe for a scant few.
By analogy with terms such as anti-black, anti-hispanic, anti-white, anti-asian; or racially prejudiced; perhaps it would be more accurate to call many of those who are now designated as “homophobic” as “anti-homosexual” or perhaps ” prejudiced against homosexuals” (a bit wordy there).
“Further, if the game had been between St. Francis’s girls’ team and Davis High’s girls’ team and the banner had read “St. Francis ♥ Loves Wieners,” I don’t think anyone would think that was an anti-gay slur.”
That would be correct, the insult is situational. An all-girls team making that comment would imply something else entirely.
“Did anyone ask the kids who made the sign why they made it?”
Really? You need to ask a bunch of boys why they made up a sign that effectively accuses a bunch of bunch that they love “d*ck” why they did it? I’m sorry to be crass here, but apparently the point needs to be driven home because some of you are not understanding the meaning of the sign.
“Perhaps if writers such as David Greenwald were not so hellbent on exaggerating the events that occurred, the city, school district, and Superintendent would realize that these students did not directly threaten, intimidate or harass the homosexual community in any way whatsoever, and that those offended should re-evaluate their hyper-sensitive attitudes.”
You’re right, now big deal to have a sign that implies the other team likes a slang for male genitalia.
“but very few people who are actually afraid of homosexuals. “
I very much disagree with you here. A lot of people are uncomfortable around gay people, particularly men who are afraid that if someone is gay that that means they “want” them. There is a real level of discomfort. This act is a joke that plays on two things, one the fact that gays are perceive as less manly and weak and that boys at an all-boys school are engaging in same-sex gratification. 30 years ago it would have been chalked up as inappropriate humor at a public school, now people should know better. Unfortunately from the response here, it appears they do not know better and the effort by some to explain this away is frankly disturbing.
David
[quote]Really? You need to ask a bunch of boys why they made up a sign that effectively accuses a bunch of bunch that they love “d*ck” why they did it? I’m sorry to be crass here, but apparently the point needs to be driven home because some of you are not understanding the meaning of the sign.[/quote]
I don’t think the question of intent should be dismissed so lightly here. There is a huge difference between the insensitivity of what they may have considered a light hearted playful name calling as young men are prone to do back and forth ( spoken as the mother of a son who was frequently both the perpetrator and recipient of name calling ) and” true hate speech which has an entirely different intent. Without speaking with the boys who did this, I would respectfully say that neither the folks calling this a homophobic episode or those brushing it off, have the slightest idea how serious…..or not….it may be.
However, there is a principle that is used in the work place to judge the creation of a “hostile environment”.
What is deemed of most importance is not the intent of the perpetrator, but the perception of the “recipient”.
Name calling, bullying, calling unwanted social attention to minority groups regardless of intent is not socially acceptable behavioral and has the potential for getting people into serious trouble up to and including job loss.
The sooner these young men learn a very important lesson about the limits of what may appear to them as innocent teasing, the better off they will be in the long run.
Harumpf. (Cross arms and look stern. Better if wearing glasses that can be peered over in a glare.)
[quote]When the writer’s sister removed the banner from the young men, she was verbally assaulted with profanity.[/quote]
You know, I don’t think that that she had a right to physically take the banner from the young men. She had no more right to take the banner away than the woman who removed the anti-Measure E campaign materials. To call their verbal protests as an “assault” is wrong and a gross misrepresentation.
“There is a huge difference between the insensitivity of what they may have considered a light hearted playful name calling as young men are prone to do back and forth”
That’s my assumption as to what this was BUT, it’s still inappropriate.
Ryan:
While I don’t know if it was appropriate to take the material in this case – I would draw a clear distinction from taking the No on E material and given that I don’t know what was said, I cannot weigh in as to whether it constituted a “verbal assault” or not – and frankly neither can you.
Manalive, this blog goes to such lengths to drum up a publicity-for-itself mini-controversy sometimes. But when the author has to explain what the mini-controversy is about over and over, that works too, I guess. Any publicity is good publicity.
Jesuit: They’re not “Winners”; They’re “Weiners.” So, quit whinin’ pc weinies and let’s deal with some news that matters, okay?
David, the quote is yours – taken directly from the article you wrote. Now, you are saying that you can’t really say if there was a “verbal assault.” Are you changing your statement?
I would state with certainty that it was inappropriate for the writer’s sister to “remove the banner from the young men.” Per the administrator, these young men are not DJUSD students. Perhaps she felt that, since they appeared young and she was an adult, that she could take the banner away (age discrimination?). She is then horrified when they voiced their displeasure and starts calling school administrators and sending letters to the media. She should have kept her hands to herself and watched the game.
“David, the quote is yours – taken directly from the article you wrote.”
It was paraphrased from the letter to the editor.