Parents sue for school's actions
HEARING SET: On behalf of two students, a lawsuit claims discrimination and invasion of privacy.
11:37 PM PST on Tuesday, March 7, 2006
By JESSICA ZISKO, The Press-Enterprise

The principal of a private Christian high school in Wildomar was justified when he questioned, then later suspended, two teenagers suspected of having a lesbian relationship, the school's attorneys argued in court documents.

Principal Gregory Bork also did not violate the students' privacy by discussing the matter with their parents, some teachers and the California Lutheran High School board of trustees, the attorneys contended.

Furthermore, allowing the girls to remain on campus would have contradicted the school's religious beliefs and infringed upon the rights of students who condemn homosexuality, they said.

The lawyers are asking a Riverside County Superior Court judge to drop a lawsuit filed in December against Bork and the California Lutheran High School Association, which operates the school.

The girls, who are not named in court documents for privacy reasons, are suing through their parents for discrimination, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment and unfair business practices.

A hearing is scheduled March 22. Experts say the case could set a state precedent on whether religious schools can exclude gays and lesbians.

The lawsuit contends Bork humiliated the girls when he separately asked them inappropriate personal questions about their sexuality during a school day in September. A day before, he learned through a student that the girls might be in a relationship or may harbor homosexual ideas, the lawsuit said.

The school board ultimately expelled the girls for violating the school's religious code of conduct. It states students can be removed from school for immoral or scandalous behavior that contradicts Christian values.

Christopher Hayes, the girls' lawyer, could not be reached Tuesday but said in December that Bork acted on suspicions only. He would not say whether the girls are lesbians.

Hayes said California Lutheran is immune from laws that grant some rights to private religious schools to exclude homosexual students because the school operates as a business. It therefore falls under California civil-rights laws, he said.

However, lawyer Michael Acain argued in the court documents filed last month that such schools are exceptions.

Citing the Boy Scouts' Supreme Court win in 2000, allowing it to bar homosexual troop leaders, Acain said courts have found that some discrimination laws cannot be applied if they contradict an organization's religious beliefs.

Neither Acain nor Bork returned calls Tuesday.

However, the principal and other school officials handled the situation within their rights as school administrators, Acain wrote in the documents.

School officials have a duty to maintain and promote order on campus and should supervise and discipline students without the fear of legal liability, he said. That includes detaining and questioning students.

"Bork maintained order at the school by ensuring that CLHS's disciplinary standards were not being violated," Acain said in the documents, adding that the principal prevented the girls' "alleged immoral conduct" from disrupting other students.

Also, he said, discussions about the girls with a handful of school officials were "necessary and nonmalicious" in confirming whether an expulsion was necessary.

California Lutheran, on Central Avenue in Wildomar, has about 140 students and is owned by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the nation's third-largest Lutheran church body. The synod characterizes itself as a conservative denomination.

Reach Jessica Zisko at (951) 375-3731 or jzisko@pe.com

Do you think religious schools should have the right to expel suspected homosexual students? Comment

March 8, 2006 03:36 p.m.
I believe parents sign a contract to send their children to religious schools with a clause stating that their children must adhere to the school's beliefs. Therefore, without question, the school has a right to expel the students. Homosexual students need to attend schools that promote open-mindedness. What religious schools provide is the exact opposite of that.

March 8, 2006 10:44 a.m.
If you are paying for your child to go to a Christian school, then you need to make sure that they follow the rules and have the Christian beliefs as you and know what the rules are. Yes, they should be removed if they are lesbians -- that is not a Christian belief. That is why there are private schools where you can pray and study in a Christian environment.

March 8, 2006 10:44 a.m.
Parents put their children in Christian schools because it goes with their beliefs and (the schools) are more structured. Homesexuality is against god and should not be in a Christian school. I don't think the girls should have been expelled, but warned that they are not to express any relations with the same sex on the school's grounds and if they violated the warning, then they should be expelled.

March 8, 2006 09:56 a.m.
Of course not! How Christian is it to bar anyone of God's creatures from an education? We must be accepting of everyone, regardless of what we believe to be moral or immoral. We do not have the right to pass judgement on others, lest we be judged. If we continue on this path, anything could be next -- expelling because of race, job, you name it. Where does the judgement end and the accepting begin?

March 8, 2006 09:12 a.m.
If you are paying for a private school and you are kicked out just cause "GOD" believes man and woman only belong together, then the school is wrong in many levels. Now a days we must teach our kids about all the different kinds of worlds there are out there. Regardless of beliefs. It's considered discrimination towards that individual if they are not allowed to express themselves.

March 8, 2006 07:04 a.m.
ABSOLUTELY! Private schools have a right to expect students to conduct themselves according to their standards. The other students have a right to expect the same from their peers. If you don't have standards and accountability, anything goes. Parents choose to put their kids in private Christian schools for that very reason. Separation of church and state seems to only matter to people when the word "god" is mentioned in the public arena. Now they want to dictate what Christians can do in their private schools. Seems like a double standard to me!!

December 30, 2005
Principal vs. girlfriends

LINK

Suspected of a lesbian friendship, two 16-year-old girls were expelled from a Lutheran high school in Riverside, California. They've sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.

The lawsuit alleges that the school's principal, Gregory Bork, called the girls into his office, grilled them on their sexual orientation and "coerced" one girl into saying she loved the other.

The next day, the lawsuit says, Bork told the girls' parents they could not stay at the school with "those feelings." In a Sept. 12 letter to the parents, Bork acknowledged that officials had seen no physical contact between the girls but said their friendship was "uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and more characteristic of a lesbian one."

They're not accused of having sex. They're accused of love.

A private school has considerable leeway in who is allowed to remain as a student. However the girls' lawyer said the school can't collect tuition and violate California's civil rights laws. I wonder if the school's "Christian Code of Conduct" bans loving relationships. I doubt it.

Posted by joannej at December 30, 2005 11:09 AM

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.joannejacobs.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/6488

Comments
Sorry I'm a little confused

'Suspected of a lesbian friendship,' wha........?

'They're not accused of having sex. They're accused of love.'

Is it a Platonic gay relationship? Or is heavy petting involved?

I think someones got some issues to work out and I'm not quite sure who.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at December 30, 2005 12:29 PM

In defense of the principal, I doubt he randomly picked a couple of friends and decided they were lesbians based on such flimsy evidence as one girl saying she loved the other. He must have had other evidence that the two girls were, uh, very close. Maybe some student(s) saw them macking during lunch.

I also doubt that these girls are really lesbians. The more homosexuality is accepted and promoted in society, look for it to increase. It's probably a case of lesbo chic, but the school should have the right to draw a line in the sand.

Several years ago at my school a lesbian PE teacher had an "affair" with a student and nothing was done outside of a reprimand. Female teachers can give rides to male or female students. Male teachers cannot give rides to female students.

Since homosexuals are a protected "class" that's been "oppressed" historically, I wonder if a male homosexual teacher giving rides to a professed male homosexual student gets a pass. I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Posted by: BadaBing at December 30, 2005 02:52 PM

From another article, Rev. Bork is quoted:
"while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy..."

When I read something like this, I can only conclude that the Reverend is making policy decisions based on fantasies he dreams up in the privacy of his bedroom at night.

Posted by: boo at December 30, 2005 05:51 PM

Let's remember this is Riverside, not exactly a mecca of tolerance and acceptance of the "other".

When I was in private school (7th grade), we had two kids kicked out for making out on school grounds after school. This was a boy and a girl mind you, so homophobia does not apply - to what extent do schools have the right to regulate the sexual activity of their students on school grounds?

And those of you who like vouchers, is this really where you want your tax dollars going? To schools who discriminate against girls for seeming to be lesbian?

Posted by: Ivory at December 31, 2005 12:16 PM

The school here sees itself as acting in loco parentis operating from a Christian moral viewpoint. The principal concluded that the girls' friendship had some negative aspects to it either for the community as a whole or the girls themselves. Certainly parents have the right (and duty) to monitor the friendships of their children. A private school may understand itself to have similar duties with respect to its students.

The parents may or may not have grounds to sue depending on what really happened (we don't know the whole story) and the school's stated policies.

We need vouchers because a cultural consensus no longer exists on how to educate children.

If two girls have some kind of friendship that has lesbian overtones, the responsible adults in their lives need to intervene to prevent the relationship from descending to a sexual one. There is also a need to protect the moral atmosphere of the school.

Posted by: CRW at December 31, 2005 01:19 PM

As much as I despise the bigotry that seems to be behind this expulsion I have to defend the right of a private school to accept or reject anyone they want. That is the idea of a private school, isn't it?

Right now the only ones who have a choice in what schools their kids attend are the wealthy. Middle class and poor families have to settle for whatever schools the local public district deigns to offer. I don't want my tax dollars going to schools like this one, nor do I want them going to a public monopoly. So how about letting me decide where my tax dollars go?

Posted by: Old Math at December 31, 2005 01:24 PM

From Old Math:

As much as I despise the bigotry that seems to be behind this expulsion I have to defend the right of a private school to accept or reject anyone they want. That is the idea of a private school, isn't it?

I have to agree. If these students agreed to a contract excluding certain sexual orientations, they are bound by it. The girls claim it was a set-up by the principal; if so, then the principal acted illegally. If not, then out they go.

Posted by: Indigo Warrior at December 31, 2005 01:33 PM

And those of you who like vouchers, is this really where you want your tax dollars going? To schools who discriminate against girls for seeming to be lesbian?

Absolutely!

The situation today is that I am forced to pay for promotion of the acceptability of homosexuality or have my house taken. Given those two alternatives, I know which I prefer.

But Ivory presents a false dilemma. If there were vouchers, parents would get the schools they wanted for their children. If there was a principal that acted as this one did, parents could either accept it or choose to send their children to another school.

The problem we have today is that the public schools operate in a manner unattractive to many, if not most, parents. They cater to the needs of union managers and politicians instead of parents and students. A few expensive alternatives exist. And they need not be much more responsive than the public schools. With vouchers, families would get a broader choice of schools and be more likely to find one that is acceptable.

If you want a school where your lesbophobia is so great you tolerate a prinicpal like this, you'll stay. If not, you'll leave. If enough leave, the principal will be looking for a new job. That's how free markets with voluntary participants work to supply consumers with the products they need at the lowest price possible.

Posted by: Mr. Davis at December 31, 2005 01:47 PM

And those of you who like vouchers, is this really where you want your tax dollars going?

What an argument! In fact, why not hold public schools to the same standard? If we can find an example of a public school with a questionable policy, we can withdraw all state funding for education. Think how much we would all save in taxes!

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:54 PM

"If these students agreed to a contract excluding certain sexual orientations, they are bound by it."

Er...what? Why are you talking about the students' contractual liabilities? They're minors: state law varies on the details, but most contracts they make are voidable.

I presume the real parties to any such contracts would be the school and the students' parents. And then one would have to look to the exact wording of the contract itself: I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised to see words to the express effect of "no gays allowed," particularly any terms of the contract that, as Joanne rightly notes, would govern feelings rather than behavior.

Posted by: Dave J at January 1, 2006 09:37 PM

Not to minimize the situation, but it sounds like the principal did the girls a favor by kicking them out. If I were a teenager confused about my sexuality, that school sounds like the last place I'd want to spend my days.

Posted by: trotsky at January 2, 2006 10:14 AM

'If two girls have some kind of friendship that has lesbian overtones,'

WTF are 'lesbian overtones'? Watching Ellen DeGeneres? Attending WNBA games? Not showering after gym class? If the school has rules against lesbians maybe they should enforce them against people who actually are lesbians?
Posted by: Jack Tanner at January 3, 2006 09:32 AM