Next stop: Prom Queen

A somewhat troubling article appeared in today's paper concerning a young man in California who was shot and killed by a fellow student, in what prosecutors are calling a "hate crime", based on the fact that the victim was -- and I quote -- "a gay eighth-grader who used to go to school in makeup, high heels and earrings." So OK, let's not have any idle remarks about David Bowie; this is for real.

To begin with, what constitutes being a "gay eighth-grader"? Are we to assume that this kid's gender identity and sexual proclivities were already set in stone, at that tender age (15, by the way, which makes one a bit curious as to why he was still in eighth grade -- but let that go for now)? I thought the conventional wisdom was that kids that age are still infinitely malleable, and that all one has to do is manipulate the environment a bit and they come out a different person. You don't suppose this has anything to do with the "gay gene" argument, do you? I have always considered that issue a monument to liberal hypocrisy, since it represents a point of view exactly 180 degrees from liberal premises on all other social and psychological issues.

And of course, no story of this type would be complete without some mush-brained sympathy for the "perp". Apparently the kid who came to school in drag might have been "threatening to (his) ego and... sense of identity". The same way watching the Olympic opening ceremonies on TV threatens mine, I guess. Nonetheless, he has been charged -- as an adult, no less, which is probably another spin-off of "hate crime" legislation, in addition to the fact that his name was revealed even though he's a minor -- and appears headed for jail, where he will have to face the wrath of people from all across the sexuality spectrum. Wonder how his ego and sense of identity will survive in that environment.

So far, the story is merely sad and tragic. But I have a question. Did the school not have at least some responsibility in this matter? I'm not talking about the obvious one of keeping a kid with a gun from showing up in class. I'm talking about maybe just taking the victim aside before he became a victim, and oh-so-gently hinting that his clothing and grooming habits might not give him the highest survival potential in a public school environment -- especially in what the article describes as a "strawberry-growing section" of the state (read: "descendents of Okies")? Ah, but wait! Here we go again. Let's say the kid had been called into the principal's office and provided even that modest level of counseling. The school could have -- and given that we're talking about California here, undoubtedly would have -- been slapped with a lawsuit faster than you can say "Boy George". Discrimination! Bigotry! "Hate"! And so forth. So the school did the right thing in their lights, namely allow the kid to prance on, until he pranced into a couple of bullets. So I guess they're off the hook, aren't they? Sure beats having to deal with a discrimination suit.

I'll say it again -- when is someone going to finally put the public schools out of their misery?