Lastly, you characterize the "neutrality" policy as a specifically curricular one, when the actual wording of the policy in no way supports that assertion. The phrases "in the course of their professional duties" and "shall remain neutral on matters of sexual orientation" are far too broad to be perceived as applying strictly to curricular discussions. Teachers' duties in middle and even high school include supervising students in the hallways, on breaks, at lunch, and much more. These are the times when "matters" related to sexual orientation can arise – matters such as bullying, name-calling, and more. This policy may not have "caused' any bullying, but it was certainly worded so poorly as to encourage teachers to look the other way for fear of losing their jobs. That was the author's point.

However, I didn't get the same impression you did regarding the author's attempt to link evangelical christian influences in the district to bullying. The impression I got was that she was linking those religious views in the community to the district's "neutrality" policy, which in turn discouraged teachers from DOING anything about bullying they witnessed. For the kids who felt endangered in their schools, it was as much the perceived official lack of attention to their plight as it was the actual bullying which caused them distress.

(cont'd in comment #3)

For purposes of full disclosure, I will state up front that I am neither Christian nor politically conservative. I assume you and I do not share the same beliefs regarding homosexuality. However, I did agree with many of the points you made regarding the gaps in logical reasoning in the Rolling Stone article in question.

For instance, you are likely correct in that conservative teachers who espoused their views on homosexuality openly in the classroom likely would be castigated and perhaps even disciplined by the administration. I believe the best solution is for teachers to keep their personal views to themselves, regardless of where those views fall on any ideological spectrum.

I also noticed, as you pointed out, that the unflattering physical characterization of the P.A.L. representative was the only one of its kind in the article. It was unnecessary to the story and obviously intended to bias readers against the woman so described.

(Cont'd in next comment)