WGBH’s “Greater Boston” focused on the bullying of Newton North Trump supporters on its program Tuesday.
Bullying of Newton teen Trump supporters focus on Greater Boston
by Village 14 | Mar 15, 2017 | Newton | 69 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Please tell me they didn’t interview Tom Mountain.
What am I missing here?
The segment starts just after 1:00 and lasts just over four minutes. Worth watching for how wrong it is.
Seems to boil down to a white boy child who supports a racist, white-nationalist regime being compared to a racist, white-nationalist party of historical note.
The kid’s father say he’s been threatened, but there’s no threat described. A chyron on the piece says the kid’s been targeted, but targeted how? Getting your picture annotated online doesn’t seem to rise to the level of being “targeted.”
The kid’s father acknowledges that, according to the reporter (Stephanie Leydon), “the word choice used to target his son reflects a widely held view of President Trump.”
The father: “If you really believe that [Trump’s] a Nazi and I support him, then, you know, what are you going to think of me?”
Since you asked, I think you are, at a bare minimum a Nazi sympathizer.
Because, here’s the thing, putting aside the perfectly valid, but charged Nazi analogy, there is all sorts of evidence that Trump and his minions are pursuing racist, white nationalist policies. You are free to support him, but don’t be shocked when kids, however crudely, stand up to the hate.
The kids who annotated the photo are kinder, they suggest that the kids might not actually be Nazi sympathizers, but might instead by ignorant attention-seekers.
To wrap things, Jim Braude compares the Trump supporter photo-shopping to anti-black and anti-semitic incidents in Newton. These are just not comparable. In one, kids are called out for their voluntary display of political choice. In the others, well, their racist and anti-semitic.
It would have been nice — and provided some essential context — if Leydon had asked the two teens who appeared on camera what they admire about Trump.
Shame on Leydon and Braude for a terrible segment.
Oh, and being criticized, even mocked, for your political views, is not bullying.
While I agree with the premise that one should expect to be challenged on any political view, but Newton has not changed in making anyone other than democrats and their political views feel unwelcome in schools. The same is mirrored in attitudes in college and graduate school.
The tolerant left is a great irony.
@ Mike – It is the Great Irony.
And Thanks Sean for affirming just how tolerant many in Newton are of others who have a different viewpoint. And by the way Sean – Posting over the boys photos racist and slanderous comments actually is Bullying.
Help me here, Mike (not Striar).
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, a candidate turned president who campaigns on then attempts to implement white nationalist themes and policies. He surrounds himself with avowed white nationalist advisors. He appoints to the highest law enforcement position in the land an avowed white nationalist.
Is it the duty of an informed citizen to be tolerant of such a candidate/president and his supporters? Or, is it the duty of an informed citizen to oppose, resist, and stand up to such a candidate/president?
Are racists and anti-semitic acts and words really equivalent to criticizing and shaming the supporters of a white nationalist candidate/president?
Joanne, would you please also help me?
What was slanderous about the comments on the picture? What was racist?
What is the viewpoint that the boys espoused that I/we are supposed to be tolerant of?
What is the definition of bullying that makes this bullying?
I’m no huge Trump supporter, nor did I vote for him. Parroting talking points from the far left doesn’t make them true. Were he actually a white nationalist, racist, bigot, etc, then I think it would be appropriate to challenge his supporters on those positions specifically.
Mike
Mike (not Striar),
“Parroting talking points”? Them’s actually fighting words.
But, seriously, what are you actually requiring? That, to stand up to Trump-world hate you have to respond in policy-specific essays? The kids in the picture communicated in generalities. Their clothing, their sign, the picture itself says, “We like Trump.” The annotators spoke at the same level of generality, “If you like Trump you’re either ignorant or a Nazi.”
Trump is a white nationalist, or at the very least he’s implementing the policies of the avowed white nationalists he surrounds himself with. By calling his supporters Nazis, the kids who annotated the Trump supporters pictures are doing just that.
I think that there is an admirable, general idea of civility and rational that you support, but its execution against the facts of Trump’s actual actions and policy positions makes the idea difficult, bordering on impossible, to execute.
The folks who say tolerance is a two-way street have the burden here to prove that what appear on their face to be hateful, xenophobic, racist, anti-semitic policies and actions are actually worth of tolerance and don’t, in fact, demand a robust, immediate, and, if necessary, uncivil response.
Standing up to hate is not intolerance.
There aren’t a lot of liberal enclaves left in this country. I am proud that Newton continues to be a forward thinking, inclusive, hate-free community. Trump is not normal, this is not a normal political disagreement. He openly espouses racist and white nationalist views that should be rejected as morally and politically unacceptable.
I hope we’ll teach our kids to be understanding of different viewpoints while standing up to hate and bigotry and learn to deal with their emotions constructively, but of course these skills take time to develop.
Trump emboldens the types of people who threaten Jewish community centers and women’s health clinics, assault people for looking different, and put swastikas and slurs on public buildings. Instead of creating false equivalence, lets talk about the real bigotry and hatred occurring, because this can’t be the new normal. If it is, I feel really sad for our country.
@Sean Roche: Your comments are extraordinarily disturbing. When you use the term “Nazi” so lightly, you diminish what actually happened to the Jews and millions of others during World War II. You can call Trump a narcissist, a buffoon and that his intended policies are mean spirited and would hurt the country. But to call him and the entire Republican party “white nationalists” is foolish.
I don’t know your age, but you need to grow up.
@Andy: Calling Trump a white nationalist isn’t foolish, it is a fair inference from his statements and the statements of his closest advisers. This is one of many pretty good summations of the white nationalism swirling around Trump: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/14/donald-trumps-white-nationalist-genius-bar-steve-bannon-stephen-miller-michael-decius-anton-and-beyond/
Your point about calling him a Nazi is fair and it’s kind of a cheap shorthand for a longer point, although pointing out the similarities between the early Nazi agenda and Trump’s rhetoric is also fair.
Thank you Andy
Sean – Did you read what was written on the photo ? Seriously the Student should have been expelled. It shouldn’t matter – if you are Tolerant than be Tolerant of Everyone.
And Bryan – Newton is a “Inclusive and Hate Free Community”?? Then why are you supporting the students that are bullying the Trump Supporters?? Seriously. It shouldn’t matter who they support – if you are Tolerant you need to be Tolerant of everyone.
Andy,
I don’t know how old you are, but you may need to work on your reading comprehension skills*. I did not call the entire Republican party white nationalists. And, I did not endorse the use of Nazi (though I am not overly troubled by its use in this instance). In fact, I took great pains to repeatedly type the much longer term “white nationalist.”
Trump is not a buffoon. Or, more accurately, he is not merely a buffoon. One cannot casually dismiss the actions of the Trump Administration by dismissing Trump as a buffoon. He is pursuing a white nationalist agenda.
The Muslim travel bans are the actions of a white nationalist administration.
The president’s repeated fear-mongering and scapegoating of brown people is the behavior of a white nationalist.
The historically atypical failure to note the anti-Semitic roots of the Holocaust in a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day is an act of white nationalism with clear historical precedents.
The Attorney General is an avowed white nationalist who has pledged to undo civil rights gains, especially in the area of policing racism in law enforcement and protecting voting rights.
The president’s top strategist is an avowed white nationalist who regularly cites a polemically racist and xenophobic novel, which is a favorite of white nationalists.
Another top strategist is an avowed white nationalist who has declared war on an independent judiciary.
Another top strategist has pledged loyalty to a Hungarian Nazi party.
That’s not narcissism. That’s not buffoonery. That’s not just mean-spirited.
That’s a clear and prominent thread of white nationalism in Trump and his administration. There is also a clear and prominent thread of radical anti-environmentalism. There is also a clear and prominent thread of radical misogyny. There is also a clear and prominent thread of radical antipathy to science, data, and reason. (I would be happy to attribute the misogyny and antipathy to science to the GOP at large).
These threads represent real threats that you diminish with your characterization of buffoonery, narcissism, and mere mean-spiritedness.
Final point. The Nazi party in 30’s and 40’s Germany has a very clear historical definition and legacy. But, Nazi-ism is also a contemporary movement. Contemporary Nazis — neo-Nazis — are not responsible for the slaughter of millions of Jews, though they express admiration for the work of their predecessors. It does not diminish one bit the horror of the millions of lost souls to identify contemporary Nazis for what they are, though, as I have noted now twice already, I prefer the term white nationalist because it is less charged and more useful in describing the Trump administration.
*See what I did there? I did not whine like a little baby about your use of an ad hominem, but playfully turned it against you.
@Joanne: To be clear, I’m not saying I support the students. I’m saying that we shouldn’t be creating a false equivalence between their actions and the very dangerous large scale reactions to Trump’s white nationalist statements and the actions of his supporters.
@Bryan Barash
“Trump emboldens the types of people who threaten Jewish community centers and women’s health clinics, assault people for looking different, and put swastikas and slurs on public buildings.”
Yes, no doubt about it, Trump has emboldened nutcases on the fringe right. But to be honest, the one suspect arrested in the JCC threats is a former reporter for an online publication of the left. Obviously a disturbed individual as well.
I am not a Trump supporter, hate the guy and those he’s surrounded himself with.
BUT I have a few friends who voted for him – not because they are racist but because they detested the other candidate, were unhappy with the Democrats, or for other reasons. I was brought up to value active (sometimes rather loud) discussion focusing on exchanging ideas, not name calling. I can remember loud arguments in our living room between my parents and a friend who was a Nixon supporter – and they never stopped being friends. I married someone with whom I disagreed politically, and our son sharpened his reasoning skills by hearing both sides and deciding what he thinks on various issues.
Democracy cannot work if we eschew debates over ideas and resort to name calling for anyone we disagree with. And we need to try to understand those with different views rather than demonizing them. Our schools should be teaching our kids how to have respectful and constructive exchanges of ideas, and that they can be friends with people who disagree with them.
@Sean – name calling is bullying. Attacking the person rather than their ideas is bullying. Making someone feel unwelcome in your school community because they don’t agree with everyone else is bullying.
Sean, not looking to engage you in a debate that clearly you will never be able to see the irony in your intolerance… Wanted to get back to the main point of the thread, based on this comment: “demand a robust, immediate, and, if necessary, uncivil response.
Standing up to hate is not intolerance.”
How far should we as a progressive, tolerant society go to educate these kids and their families? Is bullying and shaming uncivil enough? Should other kids have the right to physically confront to intimidate or beat the hate out of them as one had mentioned in the video is already happening? Should they be taken away from their clearly deranged families for re-education? This is truly unbelievable…
So we all have context, the picture unannotated and as broadcast on Greater Boston has five high-school boys standing behind a Trump/Make America Great Again banner. One of the boys is wearing a “Trump 2016” shirt, another is wearing a barely visible shirt that appears to say “I’m with him” over a photo of Trump, and the subject of the Greater Boston piece is wearing a shirt with a drawing of Trump’s face with sunglasses and the phrase “Deal with it.” One of the boys is wearing what appears to be a Make America Great Again hat.
The annotated version obscures the banner with red over which there is the following:
idk anythin
bout Trump
or his
political
views I just
want
attention
(I’m not too old to know that idk = I don’t know.)
On the head of the boy with the I’m-with-him shirt are the words:
wait who’s
Trump
again?
On the head of the boy with the deal-with-it shirt it says:
I’m a nazi
The faces of three of the boys are blurred out in the Greater Boston versions. It appears that three additional annotations are also blurred out.
@Sean Roche
You called the Nazi analogy “perfectly valid.”
I plead guilty to misunderstanding your point about the “white-nationalist party of historical note.” (I was flying through the thread while multi-tasking.) I stand corrected. I think the use of the term “white nationalist” to describe Hitler would be a bit of an understatement, though. White nationalism is disgusting; Nazism was horrific.
@mgwa
Right on
Leopold,
You ask: How far should we as a progressive, tolerant society go to educate these kids and their families?
I’m good with calling them out. Not being silent. I might have counseled a little more humor and a little less Nazi.
mgwa,
This incident on its own (and the report seems to indicate it’s mostly an isolated incident) does not meet the statutory definition of bullying in MA. I won’t recite the full definition here, but this isn’t repeated, doesn’t appear to have caused the kids physical or emotional harm, and doesn’t appear to have created a hostile environment or disrupted the educational process.
These appear to be some not atypically teenage boys getting excited about this dude who isn’t afraid to speak some forbidden truth about how we’ve become a nation of sissified losers. And, they enjoy the provocation of going into a hostile environment and sticking it to the weepy lefties. Just look at the kid’s shirt: DEAL WITH IT. This isn’t politics of policy, it’s politics of confrontation. And, they got called out on it. We don’t need to turn them into victims.
And, for the record, not all people who support white nationalists are racists, at least not in the sense of harboring explicit racial animus. But, they supported a guy who very clearly advanced a white nationalist agenda. Because they want lower taxes. Because they hate environmental regulation. Because they didn’t like the opposition*. Because they don’t want Obamacare messing with their Medicaid. Because their nostalgic for the days when … Whatever. Doesn’t matter. They still own the fact that they supported a white nationalist. By aiding and abetting white nationalists, they’ve kind of forfeited the right to the “respectful and constructive exchanges of ideas.”
We literally went to war to defeat white nationalists.
That said, I’m happy to debate any of the policy preferences these boys are espousing in their support for Trump. Anybody know what they are? Opposition to the means-tested subsidies for healthcare reimbursement under the ACA?
*Do not get me started on the latent misogyny.
@Sean – calling someone a Nazi is definitely bullying (I don’t care about the statutory definition – laws have to be written with definitions that don’t cover every circumstance). Writing “idk anythin bout Trump or his political views I just want attention” is also derogatory.
What would I find acceptable? Having a classroom discussion on the topic, strongly moderated by the teacher to keep out name-calling and personal attacks (but not ideas). Let kids ask each other about WHY they supported different candidates and how they feel about the objectionable sides of the candidates (and ALL candidates have objectionable sides). Teach them to have intelligent debate focused on content and ideas.
If kids aren’t scared of being attacked or ostracized for their ideas, interesting and educational things can happen. Including finding out that not all Trump supporters are ignorant white racists (a friend was surprised that his wife’s Colombian immigrant family all voted for him).
And if such discussions can’t happen at our schools, then our schools are failing.
Andy,
White nationalism is just disgusting? This is me not being playful. Are you unaware of the history of white nationalism in this country? Do we have to have a little primer on lynching?
Yes, Hitler is an incomparable figure in history. But, he started as a white nationalist. His movement was founded in white nationalism. He provides the historical echo in today’s white nationalism.
And, saying that a person who translated your words into action is mentally ill does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions. Whether it’s the planned parenthood shooter, the pizza-gate shooter, the Boston guys who stomped a homeless guy, or (one of the) JCC bomb threat guys, there are all sorts of rootless people looking for purpose in their lives ready to be activated by the reckless words of a political extremist. Trump, Bannon, and the rest own the anti-Semitism that has sprouted in their wake.
mgwa,
Look, I’m all for healthy classroom discussion. I’m advocating for not overreacting to the photoshopping, not suggesting that it is the only possible response.
But, a healthy classroom discussion is not the only forum kids participate in or should participate in. Five suburban white boys brought a Trump banner to school, one of them wearing a pretty in-your-face t-shirt. They knew what they were doing. And, they got the kind of response they should have anticipated (frankly, you and I know, the kind of response they were hoping for). Let’s not turn them into victims.
This might be a good time to re-read Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which he castigates white moderates for a greater fealty to order than to justice.
@Sean – kids should be able to wear shirts expressing views others disagree with within certain limits (no attacking other people or groups (racial, ethnic, etc.) of people, no porn, and the like.) And people often behave “in your face” when they are feeling attacked or ostracized.
If I would find a certain behavior unacceptable if it were directed at Bernie supporters or Hillary supporters, then I also find it unacceptable when it’s directed at Trump supporters. I’d consider myself hypocritical if I didn’t.
The Newton schools have a good teaching opportunity. They should use it to help kids learn to disagree respectfully – it’s an important life lesson. They should also use it to help kids listen to people who are different from them – there’s a lot you can learn when you find out WHY people think the way they do.
As to your last comment, you are very quick to make assumptions about people. You have no idea what actions I take for justice. I am active (within my physical limitations) in advocacy communities for causes you would find unexceptionable. I grew up in a politically active family with a mother who was in the March on Washington and have taught my child to stand up for others.
mgwa – Thank you for your posts. The issue is that people like Bryan and Sean – Don’t understand their own Hypocrisy! This is why they can’t even comprehend that these kids were bullied. And unfortunately there are a lot of people like them in Newton.
Ah… the latest episode of the lefts “everyone I disagree with is literally Hitler.” Oh, the misogyny… must be the only reason people don’t like HRC, just like those who didn’t like BHO all felt that way because he was black.
College students don’t even know how to disagree respectfully… It’s hard to blame them when you have law professors saying they think “hate speech” shouldn’t be constitutionally protected, while being very vague on just what that means. This of course is kind of the point of the 1A being as close to absolute as it is. Because lines cannot be clearly drawn.
The same attitude is demonstrated in that virtually any online liberal policy page they will instantly eat their own if they don’t walk lock-step with every post. Progressives, the most tolerant of the “left.” Its laughable. Not only do they want to be in an echo chamber, they will go to self-defeating lengths to make that happen, which largely contributed to Trump winning. Good work on some of the posters in this thread for reinforcing that point.
Mike
Sean – the blurred out annotations were implied homophobic slurs. Does that change anything for you? Look, it’s clear that these guys were looking to make a statement and attract attention – which is their right – and it worked. And sure, others have a right – some might say an obligation – to call them out on it. But can’t you see how the method chosen – basically calling them Nazis and f*gs – only contributes to the miserably toxic atmosphere we find ourselves in? And let’s not pretend that they are not continuing to get push back at school, because they are – which would be fine, if it didn’t include anti-Semitic and homophobic remarks. These kids are not adults like Richard Spencer who I agree deserve whatever they get (other than actual physical violence, as satisfying as that punch may have been for me.) We have to be better than this. Michelle did not say, “When they go low, we go lower”, did she?
Check this out and pull in your barbed tongues while you remove your earplugs:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-middlebury-aftermath-1489532110
(I can’t get this to be a live link…try copying and pasting into your browser, it’s a good read and gives hope foe the viability of civilization in general!)
for, not foe!
Sean: thanks for doing the lord’s work.
To others: white nationalism should have no place in Newton North. If people want to support the white nationalist candidate and president, fine, but they should be prepared for people who experience this support not only as the assumption of an argumentative position but also as a threat to the physical safety of their friends, neighbors and co-citizens, to respond both polemically and with reasoned argument.
Trump supporters who don’t like being compared to nazis should simply support candidates who have less in common with nazis. This is not difficult. If they cannot demonstrate the qualitative distinction between their candidate and the nazi party, the correct solution is to support another candidate, not whine that the comparison between Trump and nazism was made.
Tricia is correct — the blurred out words were homophobic. And if the same words were used in general, or against someone who’s not a Trump supporter, the focus would be entirely on the use of those specific words. The fact that they were used against Trump supporters shouldn’t make it OK. I fully understand why the words were blurred out. But I think the show erred in not saying generally what their content was. It’s an important part of the story and likely the reason why the person was punished. I also agree with Tricia that the kids were clearly looking to provoke and that’s the problem with provoking — you can’t always control the response. But the photoshop pic was over the top in its response.
Sean, I’m in complete agreement with your positions.
Yes, kids can wear provocative shirts and carry signs and other kids can call them out on them. The medium used by kids today to call them out is social media.
I’m ok with their response only because the Trump administration has changed civil discourse. If his suppoeters feel free to call Progressives cry babies and libtards or tell them to get over it for standing up to Trump’s white nationalist agenda, strongly supported by our homegrown self described Nazis and the KKK, then they should expect to be treated in kind. Progressive adults or kids are not required to be tolerant of intolerance itself.
@Marti, Sean, and others – is your goal to retaliate and have food fights? Or is your goal to persuade and change minds? Because you’re advocating childish reactions that just harden people’s positions and lessen their willingness to change their minds in the face of new evidence.
When Michelle Obama said “When they go low, we go high”, she wasn’t saying that because it’s the easy or fun or vindictively satisfying way to behave. She said it because it’s the morally correct way to behave and the one more likely to to lead to the effect you want.
This calls for a nice big lawn
sign with a catchy phrase &
eye popping graphics. Who’s in?
“Care deeply and put up a big sign”
PG 2017
Everything mgwa has said. The people on both sides of this story are kids who are trying to figure out life: who they are, what they believe, how to set boundaries, when to take a stand and when to stand back. Give them a break. My bet is that most of them will end up okay in the end.
Jim Braude, whom I like and respect immensely, really blew it on this story. He took the easy way out – had a four minute, fast talking segment that lacked thought or insight.
Thanks mgwa – but actually let them have their food fight – it just shows everyone how intolerant they really are. It really amazes me that if they keep this up they will lose more than this election. Unfortunately it seems that they only knows how to go Low!
I cannot believe we have sunk to the point where adults are actually defending the use of bullying, public shaming, and homophobic slurs as a means of resistance. This is why we can’t have nice things.
@Joanne – there are intolerant people on both sides. Sadly, no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on intolerance and disparagement of those who think differently.
* ex-laws = former in-laws where I’m still part of the family
@Tricia – exactly! And especially, I’m appalled that we have sunk to the point where adults are defending the use of these things AGAINST CHILDREN 🙁
Just checking back in. On my phone, so this has to be short. I absolutely and unequivocally condemn the use of homophobic slurs. It does change a lot for me.
I’ll have more later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks to those who updated us on the blurred out content.
Andy:
On the JCC comment above, that was really poorly factually stated. One former reporter was caught, which police have confirmed was not the source for the other 120 or so calls to JCC/Jewish Day schools. The former reporter made 8 calls. And it seems his motivation was revenge against a former girlfriend. In other words, you completely missed the forest for the trees. You made a false equivilency argument (look both left and right do bad things) when the numbers, facts, and timing point to a distinct rise in white nationalism driving a lot of this.
But hey, a wacky leftwing reporter did it too, so “both sides”. Complete weak sauce.
MGWA for president! Totally agree with all MGWA has said. We live in a society that trashes people with name calling and labels rather than supporting thorough dialogue on the issues.
Ohhhh, calling someone a nazi is no biggie. That’s reasonable.
A homophobic slur? That changes everything!
Seriously?
Spicer, Hannity, and Roche: For constructive political dialogue Sean one, Sean them all.
The fact that the kids who posted the marked-up picture used homophobic slurs certainly complicates matters, but I wonder if that makes a clearer case for bullying.
Homophobic slurs have no place in our community, except as reclaimed and used with pride and affection by members of the LGBTQ community themselves. I think we can safely assume that the markers-up were not using the term affectionately among members of the LGBTQ community. Whatever else one might feel about other aspects of the marked-up picture, the use of homophobic slurs is just plain wrong and should be condemned.
That does not, however, make it bullying.
I think we can pretty safely assume that this was not the use of anti-LGBTQ slurs to target LGBTQ kids. (If so, you’d think the Greater Boston segment might have at least noted the general nature of the blurred slurs.) What this appears to be, then, is anti-LGBTQ slurs hurled by non-LGBTQ kids against non-LGBTQ kids.
This is offensive. Every ignorant (or worse) homophobic slur adds to the continued hostility that every LGBTQ person feels. It is proof that we still have a long way to go as a community to be fully tolerant and accepting of LGBTQ people.
But, it isn’t bullying against the kids in the picture (again, unless one or more of those kids is LGBTQ). You don’t get to claim injury because somebody uses a slur against you that doesn’t apply. You either get to say, “You really shouldn’t use slurs like that, but I don’t consider it an insult.” Or, if you’re offended by the notion that someone would dare to insinuate that you’re gay, you’re a bigot.
Use homophobic slurs? You are a bigot. Offended by the use of homophobic slurs against you (and you’re not LGBTQ)? You are a bigot. You are not a victim.
Given the Trump administration’s early hostility to LGBTQ Americans, I’m sure that this must be difficult for a teen who supports Trump to have to process.
I commend the markers up for their willingness to call out hate as hate. But, they totally undermine their case using hate to do so.
I have no patience for the boys in the picture claiming to be victims.
Actually, you need to stop making so many ridiculous assumptions and twisting yourself into knots to defend this behavior. So now kids calling other kids homophobic slurs isn’t a problem if it turns out not to be true? Tell that to all the non-athletic, geeky straight boys who were called f*gs growing up. Or are you assuming that people who voted for Trump can’t possibly be gay? If so I have a (misguided) brother-in-law you should meet. The boys in the picture are not victims because they get push-back on their pro-Trump positions. But you are actually advocating the public shaming of children (and yes, they are all children) by other children – that is unconscionable for any reason. The school handled it correctly, and now the “grownups” on all sides should sit down and stop making it worse.
Keith B,
“Ohhhh, calling someone a nazi is no biggie. That’s reasonable.
A homophobic slur? That changes everything!
Seriously?”
Uh, yeah, seriously.
As I noted above, I prefer white nationalist for describing Trump and the Trump Administration. There’s ample evidence of white nationalism in his campaign, staff, and policies. And, white nationalism avoids the rhetorical challenges of using Nazi to describe someone who is seriously unlikely to unleash anything resembling the horrors of the Holocaust (though we’re heading in a plenty bad direction).
But, I have no deep objection to someone who wants to use Nazi as a shorthand for white nationalism. At root, the motivations are the same: white, nationalist purity. And, the modern neo-Nazi movement has reestablished the brand for a less genocidal politics.
If you support a white nationalist, it’s fair to call you a white nationalist. You don’t get to ignore salient attributes of your chosen candidate even if you don’t personally share those particular attributes. You don’t get to position your support of Lenin by saying you’re really a fan of his influence on modern Russian music. Likewise, these boys own Trump’s white nationalism (and misogyny and anti-intellectualism and pro-Putinism) even if that’s not what particularly attracts them to Trump.
And, that opens them up to the reasonable (though, again, not advisable) step to being labeled Nazis.
As I wrote above, homophobic slurs are only bullying if you’re LGBTQ. If you are otherwise insulted, you share the animating bigotry. If someone tells me I think, act, throw, cry, whatever like a girl, that person is trafficking in bigoted stereotypes. If I take I umbrage — how dare you, sir, impugn my manliness — I affirm the bigotry and the stereotypes. In a sense, I’m no better.
Ultimately, the problem we have is the challenge that Trump poses to our norms. Basic tolerance, based on historical precedent, demands that we accept the supporters of, at the very least, our major party candidates. Demonizing folks for supporting the Republican Party candidate just seems wrong. But, the Republican Party candidate and now president is exceptional (though, looking at Sessions, Steve King, and others, not as exceptional as some want to think). He represents hate. Those arguing for both-sides tolerance need to process the implications.
Read Jordan above. He made the case better than I have.
I think this is much ado about nothing. My guess is that neither group of kids really could make an intelligent comment about why they support or oppose Trump. They merely repeat a lot of the simplistic name calling so evident on this blog, which probably they hear at home.
There are a ton of reasons to support Trump, and many to oppose him. Calling him names like white nationalist or Islamophobe is just plain mean given the complexities of issues he deals with. The issues are real. If you don’t like how he’s dealing with them, suggest alternatives.
After 8years of the black nationalist and Islamophile BHO (did I say that?), and the fear of HRC continuing it, people such as myself craved salvation from that frustration. To supporters of BHO and HRC and their outlook, it obviously looks different.
My thought was that this was kind of a weak/made up story. It was a very unfortunate and wrong bullying incident and the school responded well. The reporters seemed to be looking for something that wasn’t there – some kind of broader “discrimination” in Newton against Trump supporters. For me, it was noteworthy to hear in the story a person say that “no one is targeted” by the waving of the Confederate Flag. Of course people are targeted by this flag – lots of people – anyone who is a minority. That is the intent of the symbol.
Just a few final points:
– The kids were clearly wrong, bullying is never OK
– An isolated incident of bullying is a bad reason for a statewide news story, especially when there are systemic, targeted acts of hate and bigotry happening all around us
– White nationalism isn’t an insult, it’s an ideology that is far more associated with our current President than many of us are comfortable with, and is a legitimate area of concern
Tricia,
Apparently, I was not clear.
The use of homophobic slurs is wrong, with one strong exception. The target community of any slur is fully within their rights to re-appropriate a slur for use within their own community. This applies to all homophobic slurs, the n-, b-, c- and any other words that are off-limits for cis-gendered, straight, white men.
I don’t think it’s twisting myself in knots to assume that this strong exception does not apply in this context. This is not a Queers for Trump or African Americans for Trump or Women for Trump picture. It’s a bunch of white boys. If you have more information that proves me wrong …
It would be much simpler to just lead with “It’s always wrong to call someone a f*g,” not have to acknowledge the exception, and not have to set out the assumption, but that’s a different kind of bigotry. Straight men don’t get to write the rules for what LGBTQ folk say to each other.
Assuming that the kids marking up the picture were not LGBTQ kids reaching out in fun to other LGBTQ kids, the use of the slur was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 100% wrong.
And, as someone who was skinny and geeky and bookish who was relentlessly called a f*g in junior high in the 70’s, I recognize the difficulty of being targeted with slurs that don’t actually apply. But, this is the late twenty teens. I’m not that sympathetic to a straight kid claiming injury because he was called a f*g, unless you’ve got some evidence that this is part of a long-term pattern of abuse where the mere fact of being targeted is the issue, not the content of the targeting. Again, I’m separating condemnation of the action from the claim of injury. It’s wrong to call someone a f*g (see exception above). But, the injury isn’t to the kid being called a f*g.
Had I know about the blurred content, I would have initially written that it’s too bad that the markers up used hate themselves and ruined what would have been a perfectly acceptable — indeed admirable — effort to call out hate. That might have been a better starting point. But, there are multiple aspects to this incident. What made the markers up wrong — the use of homophobic slurs — does not make the boys in the picture victims. And, the nazi reference and allegations of ignorance are well within bounds.
And, while we have appropriately taken up the issue of the blurred homophobic content, let’s take it back to the scope of the Greater Boston segment. The kid’s dad never mentioned being upset by the homophobic slurs. His entire complaint was that his kid was called a nazi. That he couldn’t imagine how civil society would endure if a high-school kid couldn’t support a candidate that people feel is a nazi without being called a nazi himself.
Me, I’m grateful we live in a community where some recognize that supporting a white supremacist is not normal and is not worthy of tolerance.
A quote from the article regarding the use of the term “Nazi”, from Robert Trestan, regional director of the Anti -Defamation League, speaking of Newton North’s handling of the situation:
“They took action,” said Trestan. “More importantly, they recognized the impact that this online harassment and bullying would have on the school environment.”
He says his office advised Newton in this case and a similar one at another local school. He says in schools across Massachusetts there’s been a dramatic uptick in the casual use of inflammatory language.
“Many people are using all sort of analogies, including Nazi and holocaust analogies,” said Trestan. “Not everyone, including many young people, really have the appropriate context.”
These are kids. Calling people Nazis and questioning their manhood are pretty easy ways to get a reaction from the targets and attention from others. Our goal should be to help all these kids understand the context, and understand why this casual use of inflammatory language only drags down the whole discussion – this situation is a poster child for it!
Again, I think there are a few adults trying to use this situation to further their own agendas at the expense of all the kids involved, and this story – 2 months later – was a huge swing and miss by WGBH.
Everyone commenting in this thread is commenting with a great deal of distance from the incident, the people involved, etc. So lots of assumptions are being made: who the boys are, who the person who posted is, what sort of context of actions lead up to the facebook post. As someone who actually attended Newton North recently, I can speak confidently that the LGBTQ community finds itself at the end of far more bullying than jockish white boys. It’s ironic that someone labeling Trumpists as Nazis and whatever the homophobic insult was, is now being held responsible for a structural problem that has existed at the school for years. If we want to tackle homophobia and intolerance, fine, but that will involve a discussion of what sort of political attitudes contribute to intolerance and homophobia, and then a condemnation of those attitudes. I do not think it is difficult to make a reasoned case that white nationalism is a driver of intolerance, and that if we are interested in tolerance, we are also interested in condemning white nationalism.
The other dimension of all this is some in this thread seem to think using the term ‘nazi’ destroys the possibility for ‘reasonable’ debate. This is pretty foolish for a couple of reasons. First, political debate involves more than just reasoned argumentation, always. In fact, asserting a preference for ‘reasonable argument’ over ‘name-calling’ is basically name calling itself. Keith B’s comment above makes this obvious:
“MGWA for president! Totally agree with all MGWA has said. We live in a society that trashes people with name calling and labels rather than supporting thorough dialogue on the issues.”
There’s nothing like a substantive argument advanced here – but two sides are distinguished and one is preferred based on what it’s named. Name-calling will always be, has always been part of politics. Pretending we can do politics without it is silly.
Finally, the other point I want to follow up on is this: are high school kids entitled to political opinions? Many in this thread have assumed because it’s high school students, no real political debate is involved – they’re just kids with no idea. Others have said that categorically high school students should never be allowed to shame other high school students. This view does a massive disservice to the quality of student at NNHS. These are often (although many times also not!) very intelligent, worldly students with political opinions at least as informed as our President’s. Given that they have political opinions, and that having a political opinion very often means that you think someone else’s is not just wrong but unjust or violent, I think it is sometimes ok for high school students to shame others. In fact, I think it’s morally good for students to actively resist white nationalism, with both reasoned argument and polemic. People who think otherwise have a lot of explaining to do.
Sorry for the length of this post. But it has disturbed me a great deal that my alma mater is punishing students for resisting white nationalism. Homophobic slurs are intolerable and I agree that constitutes bullying and should not be part of NNHS. But so many in this thread basically argued that students who view Trump is a white nationalist shouldn’t be allowed to call Trump supporters Nazis, and I just disagree with that view so strongly. It’s also weird to me that this whole debate is carried out without any input from actual high school students, but oh well.
@Jordan Ecker wrote
Just because our politicians devolve to name-calling doesn’t mean that’s what we should teach our children. Political debate does not have to involve more than just reasoned argumentation (which often includes discussing differences in values and priorities). We have a responsibility to teach high schoolers how to debate using reasoned argumentation, in hopes that they can contribute to raising the level of discourse in society.
I have not seen this stated by anyone. In fact, if that were true then our schools would have been failing at their jobs. Of course teens (and even younger children) can be knowledgeable about politics. I certainly was in late elementary school, during the Nixon/Humphrey presidential race.
So, let me get this straight. Calling someone a fag is worse than calling someone a nazi?
Calling someone a nazi is an insult so deep, and so raw, that I find it hard to believe folks think it isn’t a big deal. Basically, you are saying the person supports the government creating a systematic process to murder whole types of people numbering in the millions.
As compared to calling someone a fag which is a mean spirited and hurtful way to say that the person likes someone of the same sex.
I don’t get how people rationalize that these two things are on the same level.
Unless my knowledge of the holocaust is off.
I differ from Sean’s explanations of the use of homophobic slurs qualify as bullying only if the persons on the receiving side are not LGBTQ. It’s long been a way to bully straight kids who don’t fit in to their image of what a guy should be.
Tricia, a rep from the ACLU actually said: “These are kids. Calling people Nazis and questioning their manhood … ”
That’s a bit hard to believe. Kids calling kids fags is based in fear and hate and is unconscionable but being gay has no effect on a boys manhood. That’s archaic
There’ nothing wrong with being gay so in a perfect world calling kids fags would not be insulting. No one but gay kids can use those slurs with each other – as a way to reclaim them. So yes that changes everything.
As for the actual insult the father claims, it’s not insulting to speak the truth. I too think others are discounting the savy of high school students. Students wearing a “Get Over It” shirt and carrying a Trump sign in Newton are asking for a reaction. They got a reaction from progressive students who realize that Trump is a white nationalist by his words and deeds and called them Nazis.
The Trump supporters have every right to wear Trump supporting shirts but kids who don’t agree for various reasons
have a right to respond particularly when a shirt says “Get Over It.”
Just to clarify, I do not think that it is never bullying to call a straight kid a f*g. If a kid is a target of repeated slurs, the content is immaterial. The kid is being targeted and bullied. A kid who is the subject of repeated slurs does not bear the responsibility to sort out whether the slur technically applies to him or not.
But, a kid gets called a f*g once and claims victimhood, then he’s saying “they called me a mean name.” Not bullying. That’s wrapping the hate around himself as a shield.
Keith B.,
Your visceral reaction to Nazi is understandable. It’s a harsh label. And, the fact that the Nazis were responsible for killing of six million Jews in the Holocaust lends incredible power to the use of the word Nazi. I understand why the kid’s father was unhappy that his kid was called a Nazi.
But, I think your position is a little ahistorical. The Nazis didn’t spring up as a party dedicated to the extermination of Jews. Hitler didn’t rise to power promising to kill 6 million Jews. Hitler and the Nazis started with a call to put the nation first. They identified an other as threatening the country and its way of life. They promised a return to past glory. They viewed ethnic homogeneity as a critical component of national identity. They fomented fear and hate against ethnic minorities, Jews in particular.
Any of that sound familiar?
The Final Solution to the Jewish Question arose out of those sentiments and the particular circumstances of Europe at war. Are we headed toward an American Holocaust aimed at the brown people who are white nationalists’ favorite target? I certainly hope not. But, the parallels are troubling and worth noting.
And, make the charge of Nazi against white nationalists fair and reasonable.
Paraphrasing somebody above, if the father doesn’t want his son to be called a Nazi, he ought to talk to him about the white nationalism running through the Trump campaign and presidency, about the historical precedents, and the likely parallels that thoughtful people might draw between the son’s support of Trump and, well, Nazis.
One other quick point.
I’m digging in on this bullying thing for a reason. If we expand bullying to cover one offensive response to an obvious provocation, we dilute the term bullying in a way that undermines our capacity to identify and address real bullying, which has very real and substantial consequences.
Marti, where do I start? First, the person I quoted from the article is Robert Trestan from the Anti -Defamation League, not the ACLU. Second, the part he said is in quotes. The other part, which is NOT in quotes, is me talking. Third – of course being gay has no effect on someone’s manhood; we’re talking about high school kids throwing this stuff around in a derogatory way. (To be clear, the word f*g was not used on the annotated picture, it was other expressions meaning the same thing – as an insult.)
Jordan, no one was punished for resisting white nationalism. As the principal wrote: “Hurtful, insensitive and offensive posts by some of our students on social media over the past few weeks, targeting students on all sides of the political spectrum. Many of the students involved have taken responsibility and apologized for their actions.”
And Sean, I agree that the posting of the pic doesn’t necessarily constitute bullying. It really depends on what happened after that – how many times it was shared, reposted, etc. and whether they were targeted in school afterward. By all accounts, the school handled things well at the time, and from what I have heard there was some of that, but not a lot, so if it weren’t for WGBH we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I keep hearing this argument that we shouldn’t tolerate or accept these kids’ support of a candidate/president who reeks of white nationalism. But tolerance doesn’t mean everything is sunshine and kittens and unicorns. It doesn’t mean you agree, or even accept the opinion as “valid but not one I agree with.” It is actually possible to accept the fact that someone holds a position you find abhorrent, and actively and vehemently oppose it, without resorting to abhorrent words and behavior yourself. Or at least it used to be.
Sean, we are simply too far apart. I’m not going to write about how the terms fag, gay, and queer evolved over time to have different meaning in particular contexts like you have tried to do with nazi. Nor am I going to say that if you don’t want to be called that, well, it’s your fault.
You seem to defend calling those you, Sean, in particular disagree with, a vile and hate filled name is ok because they support Trump (your insinuation that Trump supporters are automatically white supremists, and thus in bounds to make the jump to calling them nazis) is on it’s face incredibly insulting).
But calling someone a name you feel insults folks you defend, well, that’s horrible.
I’ll stop writing now. You’ve explained yourself. I strongly disagree.
Continue to torture yourself with defending your views here.
(And to be clear, I am not a Trump supporter but I know many that are very good people).
One of my favorite authors, John Scalzi, is “critic at large” for the LA Times and just wrote a nice column where he talks about straddling two worlds – living in conservative rural Ohio (Trump country) and also being an active part of the creative community (liberal, multi-cultural). He talks much more eloquently than I can about not demonizing the “others” even when you’re certain they’re completely wrong, and not casting aspersions on people because of who they voted for. Very much worth the read.
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-scalzi-bubbles-20170316-story.html
@Sean-
The underlying issue for you here
is your visceral hatred of Donald Trump. The debate topic and title may
vary but quite obviously he is at the root of your anger. The election ended
almost 5 months ago. Donald Trump is going to be our president for the next
4 years. Like I said to Jerry Reilly on another thread, I would never discourage anyone from resisting,
persisting, or even existing, but there might be better ways to spend your energy that are more healthy.
4 years is a long time to be a bitter clinger 24/7.
Spring is almost here.
Tune up that bike and burn up the road
@MGWA. You have bowled the 10 strike for this post. The sad part of it all is that too many people on one side of the political fence no longer see people on the other side as being credible, trustworthy or even politically legitimate. You can’t talk with people if you continually dump on them and that goes for both sides even if conservative talk radio and FOX News are far more consistently over the top than media folks on my side of the political divide are. We Democrats will be making a tragic mistake if we dismiss Trump voters as being beyond the political pale. I have good, solid and intelligent friends in Newton and beyond that voted for Trump and they did so for various reasons, some valid and some not so valid, but none of it was mean spirited. Several (maybe half) voted for President Obama at least once. Some of them really liked John McCain and others really despised Mitt Romney.
I think that developments in DC over the past 2 months may persuade at least some of them that Trump isn’t what he claimed to be. They will be much more likely to listen to something different if they haven’t been totally alienated by what they perceive to be a totally out of touch Democratic Party elite; they may be receptive to question an Administration that wants to get rid of school lunches, meals on wheels, student debt relief, environmental protection, basic health care protection and, of course, Big Bird. Talk about being out of touch.
One nice thing about my Trump friends is that they are not bullies and I sense they are starting to see Trump as a bully. They have been very quiet over the past month and I’m just waiting for the opportunity to subtly raise the specter of what increasing the atmospheric levels of climate change emissions will mean for their kids and grandchildren.
We’re talking about high school kids who saw other high schoolers who are Trump supporters, one wearing a Get Over It shirt. That’s provocation to me not just showing support for the president but calling those who aren’t Cry Babies – by saying get over it. The students got back at them also with words.
As for adults continuing to say “the election is over” it seems to me the only ones who don’t get that are Trump and his supporters. I know the election is over and Trump has been my president for around 50 days. I also know Trump’s words and actions since he took office are not acceptable to me. I don’t need to get over it, I need to support all the people who are being mistreated, fight like hell against his budget and his repeal of the ACA, continue to point out his lies and attempt to hold him responsible before he destroys our democracy by casting doubt on our judicial system, our intelligence agencies, mainstream news sources and facts themselves.
One part of being an adult is learning that you don’t have to respond to every provocation.
mgwa, I don’t know what you are addressing in your last comment but it was my comment I don’t get your point.
The provocation came from high school kids who reacted as high school kids.
As an adult I do not respond like a high school kid when provoked. If you’re addressing the things I’m willing to fight for they are important a words and actions that are damaging many and will continue to unless they are stopped. That’s not responding to provocation; that’s trying to protect our democratic republic.
If you are insinuating that we progressives should go along to get along, then you’re advocating to let Trump and his administration continue their unfettered con jobs and deconstruction.
I am happy to have civil. meaningful discussions about Trump’s policies, and I do regularly on Twitter, but I won’t stand by while Trump gets away with baseless accusations and rips the fabric of our constitution.
@Marti – I have not once said or insinuated that people should go long to get along. I’m doing my share of work opposing some terrible policies.
What I have said is that name calling is unacceptable and non-productive, that our schools should be teaching our kids how to have respectful (even if heated) discussions/arguments on politics and policies without trash talking and name calling. I’m saying that “he provoked me” is not an excuse for anything.
No, I don’t expect our kids to be born knowing that nor knowing that you don’t have to respond nastily to provocation. I expect parents and schools to teach them that. Nowhere have I called for punishment of the kids. I’ve called for education. I’ve called for having standards of decency. I’ve called for going high when they go low, not working to see who can go lower. And I’ve said I know it’s possible because I’ve seen it in action.