The issue of gay rights can rarely be debated without stirring up some controversy — especially if religion gets tossed into the mix.
The editorial page of Hawk's Post, the student newspaper at Shawano High School in Shawano, Wis., featured a point-counterpoint column discussing the issue of gay adoptions.
One column argued that sexual orientation has nothing to do with a person's ability to raise children. The opposing column not only argued that same-sex parents should not be allowed to adopt, but also that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death.
Guess which column upset everyone?
Nick Uttecht, who is raising four children with his partner Michael McNelly, complained to the school district that the column was hateful and could encourage bullying directed at children with same-sex parents.
District Superintendent Todd Carlson told USA Today that "offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned" by the school district. He went on to say that he was "taking steps to prevent" this from happening again.
While the column attacking homosexuality was certainly offensive, this incident should not lead to censorship or administrative oversight of the student newspaper by this high school.
Students should be allowed to have this discussion, and the school should recognize that the author of this offensive article wrote these backward and distasteful statements not out of hatred, but from genuine religious beliefs.
The editors of the paper, on the other hand, probably should have advised the columnist to reform his language, noting that calling someone a sinner is a poor way to persuade others to support his or her argument.
However, if the district does not allow students in a high school setting to discuss controversial issues in an open forum, then this could truly lead to a step back on the issue of freedom, in terms of both speech and sexual rights.
Students opposed to homosexuality or gay marriage would not be given the opportunity to hear counterarguments, creating an impenetrable wall against persuasion. And the district should certainly not allow pro-equality columns while censoring those on the other side.
Contrary to the beliefs of psychology professors like Christine Smith of University of Wisconsin-Green Bay who said that debates like this could have "devastating" effects, high school students are old enough to discuss these issues.
Not allowing them the ability to do so would be an assault on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of thought.
The most offensive speech, especially political speech, always deserves the most protection.
(Editor's note: The phrase "We just hunted them down and killed them" at the end of the print version of last Friday's column "Columnist shows elitism when addressing classroom, religion" should not have appeared.)
