Lawsuit over Brokeback Mountain in class

[Mikaela]

Thanks Chrissi. As usual you''re so kind.  

Everyone here involved in the situation -- the students, their parents, the teacher -- is a product of a cultural in which pre-adolescent kids are not supposed to be shown explicit sex or nudity.

And also, the product of a culture where everyone seems to be suing everyone else for big sums of money on every possible (and impossible) pretext. The teacher in question must have known about *that* risk, just as much as she should have realized it was poor judgement to show this film rated R (even if she disagreed with the rating) to 12-year olds in the US. (But when she chose to do something like that, at least she chose to show a film that could do the kids no harm and might open their eyes to a broader perspective than some of them are evidently getting at home... Imagine what she might have shown them!) Still, there was more than one cultural trait that should have warned her off.

So based on that and the news story I'm  a bit curious and not totally certain as to why the teacher did it. Deliberate provocation in order to achieve discussion among the kids and between kids and parents and bring new insights? Promote tolerance? Wanted to just shock and thrill and become popular with the kids by showing something "risqué" and otherwise off-limits? Wanted her 15 minutes of newsworthy fame? Plain stupid and without ability to consider consequences of her actions - i.e. lacking the common sense that Scott mentions?  

Not that her reasons have any bearing on the reactions of the people whose 12-year old needed "psychological treatment and counseling".   For some reason I totally imagine this counseling to be along the lines of the kind that Ted Haggard used to offer not too long ago.   Poor kid.

[HerrKaiser]

both postings by Scott and Mikaela above make great sense to me.

In answer to Mikaela's question of "why?" would a teacher do this.... I think this is one small event among thousands that happen every day in public schools where teachers present classroom material of which parents are unaware and about which many would object. Teachers do it because they actually do have a fairly broad scope of authority on teaching materials, and many teachers also have a personal desire to implant their personal ideas on their classes. Most of the time, parents (and the kids) roll their eyes and just let things go that ought not to have been in class; obviously others make a point by taking legal action. My guess is that the teacher in this case was not 'testing the water' to see if any parent would take issue; rather, she wanted to be avante gard in her own mind and viewed that way by her colleagues.

[Fran]

both postings by Scott and Mikaela above make great sense to me.

My guess is that the teacher in this case was not 'testing the water' to see if any parent would take issue; rather, she wanted to be avante gard in her own mind and viewed that way by her colleagues.

I believe it was a substitute teacher.  She probably didn't know the kids or the parents.  The sub probably didn't feel like teaching and took the easy way out:  a movie.

The newspaper articles are saying this was a class of 8th graders -- kids in 8th grade are mostly 14 or close to it by the time the school year ends.  The 12-year-old must have been double-promoted somewhere along the way, or else the reporters got the grade wrong.

[moremojo]

It's interesting that the movie is back in the news after all this time, but unfortunate that is in such a context as this. For such a beautiful, life-affirming work of art, a lot of negativity has accrued around this creation: the humiliating loss at the 2006 Oscars, Annie's embarrassing article attacking the Academy (sorry, Annie, I love ya, but that was not your proudest moment), Randy Quaid's lawsuit, and now this.

My own two cents': The substitute teacher should definitely have sought parental and administrative permission before showing any R-rated movie to students. She showed a considerable amount of contempt for the potential feelings of lots of people by ignoring this procedure (I'm wondering if her sub status gave her more chutzpah for such an action). At the same time, I think the girl's family is overreacting by their absurdly litigious claim, and their attitude does seem tinged with homophobia (and homophobes do not deserve any coddling anymore).

[ednbarby]

Actually, I was only responding to your direct quote...that "God, I hate what Bush has done to this country.  So to speak.  I also can't help but think that this kind of crap would not fly at all if we had a social liberal in the White House." If that does not mean without Bush as president (and if he wasn't president it would be Kerry) this case would have no standing, then I do not know what you mean. I read your words literally; if your meaning was otherwise, how are we to know?

Again, just responding to the words used, and it seems fair and reasonable to question your belief that social attitudes would be so different (in such as short time) if Kerry was pres.

Interesting that you have taken my words so literally, and yet you have neglected to directly quote me when I said not once but twice that the teacher should not have shown an R-rated film to her students.

I'm not defending the teacher.  What she did was wrong.  But I also think our society is in a sad state when it seems acceptable to many that this girl's guardians are actually *suing* the school board over it.  The same guardians who also had a problem with some of the reading material the school was teaching.  This was a substitute teacher who did not inform the school or the kids' parents she was showing the film.  She was wrong on a number of levels.  I don't think the school board should be held accountable for her actions.  It would be entirely acceptable to me if I were the parent and a substitute teacher taking it upon herself to show 12-14 year olds an R-rated movie upset me and my child to see that she got fired and never hired to teach there again.  But to sue them?  That's just insane.  And you're right - the number of such frivilous lawsuits in such cases probably hasn't increased since Bush took office.  But I think that the current climate in this country that he has largely instigated empowers these kind of right-wing nut jobs to spout their closed-minded little views citing that it is "against their faith."

It's true:  I hate what I think George W. Bush has done to my country with his fear- and war-mongering and his pandering to the Christian Right.  You don't agree.  That's fine.  But please allow me the levity to criticize the man just as I have allowed Conservatives the levity to criticize Clinton for 8-plus years, now.  It's only fair.  And it's still a free country.  At least last I checked - I haven't read the papers today.

[Kd5000]

I like how money is attached as comfort to the traumatized youth. Half a million can buy alot of psychological  therapy. What are they going to do with the money. Are the parents wanting to put it aside for college savings. Can I sue my school because we had to watch DELIVERANCE in 9th grade. Male rape, things of that nature was involved.  Like it was just a movie.  Still not as boring as BLESS THE BEAST AND THE CHILDREN which we watched latter in the schol year.   

Greed and moral hysteria seem to be making the legal system somewhat of a joke.

[HerrKaiser]

I like how money is attached as comfort to the traumatized youth. Half a million can buy alot of psychological  therapy. What are they going to do with the money. Are the parents wanting to put it aside for college savings. Can I sue my school because we had to watch DELIVERANCE in 9th grade. Male rape, things of that nature was involved.  Like it was just a movie.  Still not as boring as BLESS THE BEAST AND THE CHILDREN which we watched latter in the schol year.   

Greed and moral hysteria seem to be making the legal system somewhat of a joke.

Yes, and welcome to the so-called American justice system which is not about justice, but legalites. The real damages in most cases are small dollars; the big numbers come from 'pain and suffering' etc and from hot coffee on one's lap to fear of sex afer falling of a cable car, lawyers will sue for anything anytime to get insurance money...and schools have deep pocketed insurance policies. I guarantee that if the movie were seen by the same girl at the local bingo club, no such lawsuit would be filed.

Sadly, whether its viewed as right wing or left wing radicals, everyone has jumped in the bandwagon of suing for pain and suffering damages. President Bush no more created the litigious society we have than he created global warming. In fact, the vast majority of trial lawyers are registered democrats.

I believe the stat last year was that the dollars won and gained via settlement in lawsuits was over 20% of the GNP. First, Americans worked for their money; then divorced for it, now they sue for it. And it seems to be getting worse.

[serious crayons]

BTW, there are currently at least four very active threads buzzing away at imdb over this one issue. The funny thing is, almost everybody, there and here, agrees on two basic principles:

-- The teacher showed bad judgement.

-- The parents are overreacting.

(Well, OK, not everybody at imdb agrees on the latter.  But most reasonable people do.)

The differences center mainly around which of the two principles people choose to emphasize in their posts. Was the teacher really wrong, or are the parents really wrong? But the thing is, both ideas are right -- that is, both teacher and parents are wrong! And the two ideas can peacefully coexist!

Not only that, but both of the above ideas can coexist with the notion that children should learn (at school, at home, on the streetcorner, on late-night talk shows) not to be homophobic. Showing BBM to a class of unprepared 13-year-olds is obviously not the best way to accomplish this. But as long as there are parents who feel they're owed $500,000 because their daugher WAS required to watch it and was traumatized by it, there's obviously still a lot of work to be done.

[serious crayons]

BTW, there are currently at least four very active threads buzzing away at imdb over this one issue.

Update: Make that SIX very active threads at imdb.

[j.U.d.E.]

The suit claims Jessica continues to suffer from emotional distress caused by watching the film and is currently undergoing psychological treatment and counseling.

Hello?! Twenty-first Century - anyone home??!

For that money they should all move to Europe!

Brokeback Mountain Certification: Netherlands:12 / Sweden:7 / Spain:13 / Finland:K-11 / France:U / Portugal:M-12 / Norway:11 / Germany:12 / Belgium:KT / Iceland:12

j. U. d. E.