Connect with us

Student Of Anti-Gay Florida Teacher Jerry Buell Speaks Out – Exclusive!

Published

on

Former student of anti-gay Florida teacher Jerry Buell, 2003 graduate and honors student Bryan Blaise speaks out in this exclusive Q&A interview with The New Civil Rights Movement’s Scott Rose.

Florida school teacher Jerry Buell has made headlines for weeks after his anti-gay comments on Facebook were revealed. Buell wrote on Facebook:

“I’m watching the news, eating dinner, when the story about New York okaying same sex unions came on and I almost threw up.”

“If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool as same-​sex whatever! God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable???”

Buell, who is also the faculty advisor for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at his school, was removed pending an investigation but was fully-reinstated last week.

READ: Anti-Gay Facebook Post Teacher: I Teach As If I’m Jesus Christ Himself

Even after he was re-instated, Buell made this shocking statement:

“I’m passionate about my faith, I’m very patriotic about my country. I just feel very strongly about certain issues…basically it comes down to if you’re uncomfortable with that — if it’s a personality thing — then maybe you need to get your schedule changed.”

There are now reports coming to light consistent with what former student Bryan Blaise tells The New Civil Rights Movement here.

Bryan Blaise was a student in Jerry Buell’s 11th grade Social Studies/American History class. He was also a National Merit Finalist with multiple (full-ride) scholarships, president of the National Honor Society, and co-editor of his high school yearbook.

SCOTT ROSE: WHAT SPECIFICALLY CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT JERRY BUELL’S ANTI-GAY BULLYING IN THE SCHOOL? 

Bryan Blaise: The clearest and most specific example I can provide of Jerry Buell’s anti-gay remarks in the classroom happened my 11th grade year (2001-2002) during his American History course. Before explaining this occurrence, I would like to first comment on Mr. Buell’s classroom. Among several things hung around the room, Bible verses were spread across the walls, accented by a picture of Jesus Christ above the clock. While there may have been some additional quotes from other scholars and philosophers, the signs were predominantly Christian. And while, yes, Buell’s number one rule was/is Respect, I personally fail to find how those signs are equally respectful to other religions in a public school classroom or how his statement respects human life.

Mr. Buell typically opened his classes with a review of current events, quizzing the class at the end of each week. During one of these updates at the beginning of class, a student provocatively asked Mr. Buell what he thoughts about gays in the military. I tensed, knowing full well the point of view to follow in Mr. Buell’s response.

I looked up when he said he supported gays in the military, stunned by the answer. He immediately followed that comment with the statement that we should then put them on the front lines, and pull back. Disgusted at the thought of violence and murder of humans being vocally supported, I shut my book and walked out of class, the only time I would ever do this during my educational career.

I returned at the closing bell to raise the issue with Mr. Buell. He noted my actions could be grounds for discipline, to which I countered by noting that his comments, if reported, would be the same. I also pointed out that the man in the picture hanging above the clock never advocated murdering another human being.

I didn’t report him then, and am sharing this story now to simply provide an example of Buell’s personal opinions infiltrating his classroom and teaching. His statements in recent media stories that he values students equally and loves his gay students I personally believe are inaccurate given my experiences as a student and alumni of his classrooms.

SCOTT ROSE: WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE FREQUENCY OF ANTI-GAY BULLYING IN THE DISTRICT?

Bryan Blaise: First, I would like to be clear that my general observations below on anti-gay bullying in the Lake County School District and Lake County in general are from my school experiences in the late ‘90s and early 2000s and my personal observations on subsequent visits to the area over the past decade, respectively.

Throughout both middle school and high school years, I continually was teased and bullied. In most cases, the taunts centered on my obvious differences from most boys in the area. My inherent personality was more emotive and my mannerisms were more stereotypically feminine. My athletic pursuits included dance and tennis, while I spent additional free time in school, artistic, civic and church activities, generally in the company of female friends.

It was quite common to go through a school day and hear remarks toward me from strangers or acquaintances in the hallway or classroom, many of which included the words “gay,” “fag,” or “girl.” These didn’t stop even in my senior year of high school, when I was dating my female ballet partner. (That relationship lasted almost five years.) The taunts even reached my younger brother, who in his freshmen year (my senior year) was confronted by a student about a false rumor that my father had caught a male dance friend in bed with me.

Clearly there was an established definition of what a young man in Leesburg should be, do, act and say – and I didn’t fit that at all. Being different wasn’t a non-issue or something to be celebrated, but rather something continually pointed out and mocked.

I chose to handle taunts by raising the most severe comments with my parents and mentors. I chose to surround myself with intelligent, high-performing friends, and largely insulated myself as best as possible from the bullying. Looking back, after many sessions of therapy, I can better understand many internalized issues that resulted from those years.

I do not find my experience as entirely unique. It follows the same course of other closeted LGBT youth in the school system and around the country, who happen to live in a small largely conservative and homogenous area. Overall culture inside and outside of Lake County school premises is not one of inclusivity and diversity for LGBT individuals, and I would assume other minority races, religions and cultures may feel the same. Though likely stating the obvious, being white, straight and Christian is the least controversial “way” to be.

From my personal experiences, anti-gay bullying is typically motivated by individuals’ conservative “Christian” interpretations of scripture and basic fear of those who are different from the area’s definition of what is “normal.” Among local residents, the perception and understanding of the LGBT community is archaic, and many generally avoid ideas, conversations or even gay people that will challenge the opinions they have developed. It’s easy to hate or fear that which we don’t know.

I’d also like to add that since moving away for college in Tampa and my career in Chicago, I continued to have my personal sexual orientation be the source of bullying and unsolicited “help” from Leesburg residents. Among them were both of Jerry Buell’s children, who contacted me via social media to provide their unsolicited comments on my sexual orientation, God’s wrath for the sinful and so on. In each case, I requested that they not contact me with these messages, no matter how “lovingly” they shared them, as I had lived long enough in a community where I was consistently told, verbally or nonverbally, that I was – in their eyes – an anomaly, abomination, etc .

 

SCOTT ROSE: HAVE YOU EVER COMPLAINED TO A LAKE COUNTY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT BULLYING TAKING PLACE IN THE SCHOOLS THERE, AND IF SO, WHAT DID THE ADMINISTRATOR(S) SAY/DO?

Bryan Blaise: As previously noted, I did not report Mr. Buell’s comment about gays in the military. Nor did I formally report bullying comments from students. My attempts to internalize and buffer myself from the comments, as well as awareness of the area’s general attitude towards LGBT individuals, made such an action seem futile.

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘New MAGA Slush Fund’ Could Hand Trump Coalition ‘Cut of the Spoils’: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump reportedly may drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in a settlement handing him control of a $1.7 billion “MAGA slush fund” to compensate victims of government abuse, according to The New Republic‘s Greg Sargent, who calls it a “Shakedown.”

Citing an ABC News report, Sargent explains that the proposed settlement “would create a ‘commission’ with ‘total authority’ to settle ‘claims’ brought by those who allege such weaponization. Per ABC, this not only includes the insurrectionists; it could even settle purported claims by ‘entities associated with President Trump himself.’ By all indications it would operate with little-to-no congressional oversight.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Sargent it is “a shocking new betrayal of the Constitution.”

This “new MAGA slush fund,” Sargent says, would come from an existing Justice Department fund that has strict controls, including transparency requirements. But “Trump would wield quasi-direct control” over the $1.7 billion, including being able to fire commission members “without cause,” and “it wouldn’t be required to disclose its decision-making involving who gets awarded compensation.”

Raskin told Sargent, the “Judgment Fund exists to settle valid judgments against the United States government.”

Raskin said that Trump and his allies are “trying to take money from the Judgment Fund while eliminating any controls and oversight” and put it under Trump’s “direct unilateral control.”

Because Congress did not set up any fund like this it could be unconstitutional.

“Congress never would have passed a $1.7 billion slush fund for his friends—this is completely outside of our constitutional framework,” Raskin said. He called it “an outrageous desecration of congressional power of the purse.”

Raskin also noted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits government from assuming any “obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

So if Trump wants to use the $1.7 billion to compensate the January 6 rioters, he will be “using federal taxpayer dollars to compensate people who participated in insurrection,” according to Raskin.

Trump and his lawyers “are figuring out a way to refund the January 6 militia, presumably to get them ready for the next round of battle,” Raskin said.

“So at bottom,” Sargent concludes, “payments from this fund might ultimately serve as a form of coalition management: They’ll keep large swaths of his coalition persuaded that a win for Trump, no matter how illicit or ill-gotten, is a win for them. That his corruption isn’t just in his own interests, but in theirs, too. Because, after all, they’re getting a cut of the spoils.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

CNN Analyst Stunned Bottom Has ‘Completely Fallen Out’ For Trump

Published

on

CNN analyst Harry Enten is stunned at how far President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen, especially among Latino voters.

“The bottom has completely fallen out when it comes to Donald Trump and Latino voters,” Enten said on Friday.

“What a different world,” he exclaimed. “Oy vey, if I’m the president of the United States, because just take a look here.”

Trump won a “record share” of Latino voters for a “Republican presidential nominee, 46 percent of the vote,” Enten said, “going all the way back since we had the advent of exit polls back in 1972.”

Trump’s job approval rating, in an average of CNN polls, is 28 percent — “an 18 point drop,” Enten explained.

Latino voters from 2024 “have abandoned him with the utmost, just, dislike of what he is doing so far — just 28 percent, a drop of 18 points.”

And with Latino men, Enten said, “Oh, my goodness gracious.”

Trump is at -41 points, a “movement of 51 points, a shift away from the president of the United States.”

“Again, the bottom has just completely fallen out, and, of course, when you look across that political map, there are so many races that will be involving a lot of Latino voters, and when you see numbers like this, I just go, ‘Uh oh,’ if I am a Republican running for Congress,” he said.

Enten also said that one of the reasons Trump had “record performance with Latinos back in 2024, was because the issue of the economy. They trusted Donald Trump by a three-point margin against Kamala Harris.”

But his net approval on the economy now? “Minus 46 points.”

“No wonder the bottom has fallen out with Latino voters and Latino men in particular,” he added.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Alito Refuses to Recuse From Supreme Court Case Despite Stock Ownership in Industry

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to recuse himself from a major climate case despite owning stock in several energy companies, although none in the two that are parties in the lawsuit the court will hear next term.

Citing his energy stock ownership, liberal groups have been calling for the conservative justice to recuse, and they have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement, NBC News reports. But the Supreme Court says Alito is not obligated to do so.

“Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” involved in the case, a court spokesperson told NBC News in a statement. The court’s legal counsel advised that “his recusal is not required.”

ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy are fighting to have dismissed a lawsuit involving damages for climate harms, NBC News reports.

Justices are not required to recuse unless they have a direct conflict, such as specific stock ownership, a personal relationship, or a history with the case prior to their appointment to the Supreme Court.

In their letter, the liberal groups say that justices should recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by an “unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances.”

The liberal groups also say they have “deep concerns” about Alito’s “inconsistent history of recusals from cases from which he should be compelled to recuse under long-standing federal law.” They cite “his substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies and other personal ties.”

They point to what they call Alito’s “irregular recusal practice in oil and gas industry-related cases,” saying that it is “undermining public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.”

NBC notes that “in 2023, Alito did recuse himself when the court turned away an appeal from the companies in the Colorado case.” That same day, “the court rejected appeals in similar cases involving other companies, including ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Alito also did not participate in those cases.”

But the court’s spokesperson said that Alito was “inadvertently recused” from the Colorado case.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.