Parents flooded the gym of a South Minneapolis middle school last week for a meeting about a new anti-bullying curriculum the school will be implementing. The curriculum, called "Welcoming Schools," educates K-5 students about family diversity, gender stereotypes, and name calling.
A large group of parents is vehemently opposed to the curriculum, however, because it includes GLBT families. They claim it undermines their authority by introducing their children prematurely to the existence of gay and lesbian people. They claim that their children are too young for sex ed, and that they don't want strangers educating their children about such controversial topics. What, I ask, is controversial about safe schools for all kids and their families?
The problem with their protest is that it ignores the plight of GLBT families in the Minneapolis Public Schools. Minneapolis has the second highest per capita percentage of gays and lesbians in the U.S. In addition, we have the third highest concentration of same sex couples in the country (that is, if you believe the stats on http://www.glbtminneapolis.org/glbtminneapolis/). It's sort of a family-oriented town. There are a lot of gaybies in the schools now. These kids have gay parents, and they are getting brutalized over it. The word "gay" is a rampant insult (see Wee Tiny Homophobia for more on that). Many heterosexual parents act like gay families are a big dirty secret. The kids pick up this message from their parents, and their classmates from GLBT families are made to feel like freaks. Many students are afraid to "come out" as having gay or lesbian parents. They feel unsafe in their schools.
This curriculum is necessary. It is not a shove-it-down-your-throat approach. It is an inclusive anti-bias curriculum that shows families of all colors and configurations. It is very age-appropriate, and still, the district is allowing parents to opt out, as if it were sex ed. I absolutely agree with the detractors that teaching kids about gay sex is inappropriate in grades K-5. So is teaching them about heterosexual sex. That's not what this does. There is no message in the curriculum that even hints at sex. Gay families do not equal gay sex. To acknowledge this, though, would be to admit to buying into a faulty stereotype. The protestors would have to admit to a mistake and give up an enemy. I have to think that the opposition to the curriculum is less about protecting their kids than it is about protecting their own minds against the potential of expansion.
You can view a local news channel's coverage of the meeting here:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?conte...
Learn more about the Welcoming Schools curriculum at:
I have to think that the opposition to the curriculum is less about protecting their kids than it is about protecting their own minds against the potential of expansion.
That's EXACTLY what the parents are doing. And because of their negative reaction to the curriculum, the kids are getting the wrong message and are going to imitate the way that their parents think -- which is to continue to isolate those who are GLBT and treat them as if it was wrong or punishable to be that way.
I really hope that the curriculum doesn't get taken out of the school because of these narrow-minded parents. Although they have a right to protest, have a right to feel that way toward GLBT (even if it is ignorance), and have the option to opt out of the curriculum, I feel that they are basically ripping the right of the kid to choose for himself or herself how they personally feel about GLBT away. Kid are so influenced by what they see, how people act -- and if they grow up in a society where it is not okay to be GLBT, then ignorance will remain. If anything the curriculum should be mandatory -- and if kids grew up more open-minded, and were educationally taught that it was okay for GLBT families to exist by an unbiased curriculum, I feel that a new generation of acceptance would be born.
----
"No matter what he does, every person on earth plays a central role in the history of the world. And normally he doesn't know it." -- The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.
Did you watch the news clip? There's a gayby first grader (or so) who speaks at the meeting. He was so sweet! Breaks my heart that he had to sit through all those people telling his family that they are sick and substandard.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I was at the meeting and those speaking in opposition did so in a respectful manner. It was not a bunch of people speaking about being scared of the GLBT community – it was parents who were concerned about feeling shut down simply because they held views not held by a majority of those in attendance.
All those who spoke – both in support and in opposition – did so in a respectful and thought manner. IMHO, it took a lot of courage for anyone to get up in front of 200 people to speak their minds, but what I found concerning was the treatment levied at one particular woman who simply wanted to be heard.
This petite woman rose to speak and was obviously nervous. I was able to watch in detail the expressions of those speaking as my seat was directly next to where the microphone was set-up. This woman spoke about her concern that the proposed curriculum lacked inclusivity. She share her experience being a member of a religious minority – a Muslim – and told of the discrimination she and her family felt when they came to the school the previous year. She talked briefly about this and talked about the “opt-out” option as lacking the inclusiveness that she thought the school should be aiming for. She was soft-spoken and reserved yet when she walked away from the microphone, something happened that I’ve never witnessed in this type of open forum meeting.
As she walked away from the microphone – people were given 3 minutes to speak – the Principle, Bob Brancale – literally threw his arms in the air and said loudly, “What do you want me to do about it!” She was visibly shaken and did not return to the microphone but stated something to the effect of “What am I suppose to do – teaching these things goes against my beliefs, my religion” and in response, again in an extremely negative way, Mr. Brancale said, “Oh well, that’s your religion and this is public school.”
While I agree with the Establishment Clause of our Constitution, and fully support the separation of church and state, how, in a rational way, can Mr. Brancale’s statements regarding the woman’s religion be justified? People’s values are informed by so many different facets and many draw strength and resolve from their spiritual and/or religious traditions. In the context of this discussion, is Mr. Brancale really stating this person necessarily has to separate herself from her beliefs in order to gain a seat at the table? It would obviously be inappropriate for the school to prevent something from being taught based solely on religious objections. But, how can Mr. Brancale make those statements in a public forum less than two minutes after she had shared how her family had been discriminated against because of her religion while at Hale just the previous year.
Possibly these words in text do not adequately describe the level of hostility that was being hurdled at this person by the one person who held the power. For the person specifically positioned to be a bridge between the parents and the school, for that person to treat someone in such a demeaning manner is appalling. Just as I would be absolutely outraged if someone were treated this way because of their gender non-conforming behavior, their sexual orientation, or the color of their skin, I am equally as outraged by how this person in power was speaking to this woman who simply wanted a seat at the table.
Its easy to go after people who state opposition to this program and quickly label them as being closed-minded – what’s difficult and yet what’s most critical, IMHO, in situations like this is for emphasis to be placed on relationships and getting to know the person – getting to know the people who make up the community that is charged with raising our children in the public school system.
Not one person who spoke did so with ANY emphasis on the actual curriculum content being wrong or stupid or a “slippery-slope.” People offered their opinions and concerns and joys and thankfulness. It just so happens that the person who was excluded and shamed was simply a person who wanted her voice to be heard.
It was amazing to hear all the stories from same-gendered parents, thanking the school for proposing the curriculum. It was also amazing to here roughly 3-4 people, that’s it – who spoke about the concerns they had. From where I was sitting – again, right next to the microphone – I watched the faces of the audience as these people were speaking. While people didn’t speak loudly of their disdain for them, it was palpable on their faces, and I heard several people in my vicinity say downright awful, judgmental things about the ones whos speech they disagreed with.
What I saw that night made my stomach turn. And I am not speaking in any way about the content of the curriculum – I’m talking about the treatment given to people in a minority. And to conclude that their concerns stem from some anti-gay stance without taking the time to get ot know the person does a disservice to all diversity.
How soon do you think it will be before the woman who was treated that way feels comfortable enough to go to the school administration with some other concern she might have? What impact did Mr. Brancale’s words have on many others? When you see something happen like that - when you see someone in vulnerable position being pounced upon – how willing would you be to go to that person with concerns about anything?
Again, I state these things not in anyway due to the content of the curriculum. I just hope and believe that our community is much larger and much stronger than what I witnessed that night, and when someone chooses to respectfully, honestly, and thoughtfully share a reasoned and informed voice to the discussion, I will defend their right to do so and push back against those who try to silence the voice without even taking the time to understand where that voice comes from.
Marc Laurent – Hale parent
That principal was out of line. His point was valid, but his delivery was dismissive and unprofessional. That was not reported by the media. The fact that there were 200 parents at the meeting and that the school hired police officers for security was.
If you are sensing any animosity in my post, it is probably a result of a long history of discrimination in schools. The "sex-ed" protest has been waged against us many times, and this story seemed to be yet another. I am happy to hear that it was a civil discussion; however, civil in the eyes of the majority is seldom experienced with the same warm feelings by the minority. I'm sure you can understand the need to protect ourselves.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I'm really confused about what actually happened. You say the woman spoke against the curriculum, because it lacked inclusiveness. Which is understandable if she was discriminated against because of her religion, if I'm understanding correctly. She wants the focus to be accepting everyone, not just those of a different sexual orientation/background. But I don't get why Mr Brancale would then say something like 'What do you want me to do about it', and her respond... “What am I suppose to do – teaching these things goes against my beliefs, my religion”
Maybe I'm just not reading it right... I'm stressed.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
My impression of what happened, as per marc laurent, is that a Muslim woman stood up and said she didn't want these things taught to her children, and that doing so was being intolerant of her religion. It's that issue of the religious feeling discriminated against because they won't be allowed to discriminate, I think. But I may have gotten it wrong too.
If this is the case, I think the principal had the right answer, but could have finessed it a little more. That's why they can opt out.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
The woman who spoke first talked about being discriminated against and question whether the school was being inclusive - and asked that the school be inclusive - when teaching anti-bullying to the children.
"It's that issue of the religious feeling discriminated against because they won't be allowed to discriminate, I think. But I may have gotten it wrong too."
That is not what occurred and I never implied that in my post. This was a woman struggling to deal with something difficult in her life and willing to put herself out there and ask for help through it. The response she received from Brancale was incredibly hurtful, disrespectful and wrong. She wasn't asking that anyone treat her differently nor was she looking to have any discriminatory beliefs/practices/assertions justified or rationalized in any way. She was looking for help and what she received was a kick in the face.
Actually, what she received from Brancale wasn't far off from how you just framed that above - instantly dropping her into a predetermined set without the only caveat being you might have gotten it wrong. You did get it wrong. When people are struggling with the presentation of something new and different - and doing so without malice, discrimination or disrespect - don't you think we, as a society - have a duty to extend our hand and try to help them through their struggles.
What happened to her was substantially more than simply a poorly worded response.
Marc
Totally poorly handled, but the fact is that if it is a religious concern she was having, the opt out is there for her. The principal should have arranged to have a sit down with her to talk about her options.
Was the woman asking the school to be inclusive of Muslims, in the context of including information about Muslims in the anti-bullying curriculum, or was she asking them to be inclusive of Muslims in the context of not teaching the curriculum because it is against her religion? In the latter context, the above statement holds. In the former context, that is absolutely something the school could and should accommodate.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
People only had three minutes to speak and when she began to speak of her concerns about the program not being inclusive, she was immediately challenged and never fully explained her comments. My assumption - only an assumption - would be her intent was to question why other forms of bullying weren't addressed as part of the proposed program.
I do understand why the school was focusing on GLBT bullying - Brancale shared that of the past 250 or so behavioral incidents, 30 had been kids using derogatory terms such as faggot, queer, lesbo, etc. That being the case, its actually quite refreshing seeing the administration attempt to do something about it - what I got from her comments was being that there were many other forms of bullying happening - including what her children went through - why couldn't the school approach this in a comprehensive way that would teach the children to treat others with respect simply because they are fellow human beings. Then, on top of that, she was obviously struggling to make sense of how to handle things in light of her religious views, but she never spoke of the program not being inclusive in the context of not teaching it because of her religion. She was struggling, she was asking for help, and she was dismissed.
Marc
Well, ideally, anti-bias curriculum would mean more than a unit; it should really be integrated into the entire curriculum. That is unfortunately not the case in the majority of public schools, making these units necessary. When there is a specific issue, such as the statistics cited above, you have to address it head on. It would be nice if it hadn't gotten to that point in the first place.
By the way, how did you find this blog? It seems you registered specifically to comment on this post. I know it comes up in a Google search for "gay curriculum," but how did you find it?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
There was quite a bit of misinformation going on about what happened at the meeting and someone emailed me that that the news/video link was up on this site, and I wanted to see what people had to say.
I'm a graduate social worker by trade, and a second year law student by reason of insanity, and have worked all my adult life in trying to ensure that people have an equal opportunity to have a seat at the table. It absolutely killed me when I saw that woman being treated that way during a meeting informing the community about how it was trying to include everyone in the conversation.
I understand that Brancale may not have actually intended to hurt this person but his actions should not have gone to the level I witnessed.
Thanks for all your comments and questions :)
Marc
And thank you for all the first hand reporting!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I really wish I wasn't stuck with a dial up connection right now. I would like to watch the story. If I remember, I will when I go visit some friends this weekend.
I hope that curriculum doesn't get taken away.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5961285...
But the video is compelling, if you get a chance.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This program sounds wonderful! I didn't get the impression of sex ed- I got the impression that maybe, just maybe, these kids would grow up to not bully others or abuse words such as "gay."
That's the idea! I get frustrated when people think "sex" as soon as someone says "gay."
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
The only thing the two words have in common is that they are three letters long.
Honestly, i think that America is more afraid of "Gay family", than "gay sex"....
there has always been buttsecks...lol...sorry...but now the gay community wants to have gay families, and it scares most heterosexual americans. It scares me.
What if all families were gay families? how would we procreate?
Not all families are gay families! I don't think we would ever reach that point! As for procreation, there are so many new scientific developments that would allow that to be possible.
You know, I wasn't even aware gay people actually existed until high school. And it's not like I lived a sheltered existence (quite the opposite). They just weren't something I'd even put a lot of consideration towards (I still find the terminology funny; see: any post about the "nigger" word). I never did get how an inanimate object could be gay, though...So I never used that insult. I think we were pretty sure our 6th grade Social Studies teacher was gay; then he proposed to our English teacher during class...
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
That fits with the studies I've read on GLBT (or not) teachers. If a male teacher doesn't give evidence of a sexual preference, the kids invent one for him, and it is often gay, because any red-blooded American male teacher would talk about his woman all the time in class, right? :idk:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Too bad he came out of the closet last year, eh?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
But the behavior of the class, the speculating about his sexuality, still fits with my point.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I love how we aren't allowed to exist before a certain age.
But really, though, sex ed? So anything other than assuming everyone is straight until proven otherwise is sexual? This logic is not Earth logic.
T.k.
Earth logic is against humanity's TOS
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
:))
You crack me up on a regular basis! Thanks.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I grew up on Monty Python and M.A.S.H. I can't help but be funny sometimes :-)
I also grew up on Star Trek and Star Wars but... we won't discuss that.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
How old are you? are you going for the scholarship ???
Who, me? My age is my business, and I'm not trying for the scholarship. Why?
EDIT: Sorry, I misread who you were replying to. Ignore this!
T.k.
The answers to your questions are somewhere on the site. A resourceful reader will find them. /::)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
from your post on patriotism, I have deduced that you are 4 years older than me. And I just made it easier for people to figure out your age. :-P
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Nice sleuthery.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
The basic question here, even more fundamental than Gay, straight, tolerance or intolerance is choice. Gay people should have the choice to practice relationships and sex with whomever and however they choose. Parents should have the choice of how their children are taught about controversial subjects. Choice is freedom.
This curriculum is probably too tame for some parents preference, just as it is to bold for the protestors. If parents are allowed to choose the schools that their children attend, and their taxes support, both could get an education closer to the one they feel is appropriate.
It is strange, but revealing, how the champions of multiculturalism oppose multiple ideologies in schools.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
"It is strange, but revealing, how the champions of multiculturalism oppose multiple ideologies in schools."
I'm surprised you perceive this as strange. Multiculturism, as a value, can't be compatible with every other value. Its emphasis on inclusion and acceptance of diverse cultural norms puts it in the seemingly ironic position of having to reject some norms with which it is intrinsically incompatible. Thus, multiculturalists are forced to be intolerant of intolerance, unwelcoming to the unwelcoming, prejudiced against the prejudiced. Some people choose to pretend this is hypocrisy, but it is actually not logically inconsistent that some ideologies stand in such total and direct opposition to the values of multiculturism that they cannot, unfortunately, be embraced.
"multiculturalists are forced to be intolerant of intolerance, unwelcoming to the unwelcoming, prejudiced against the prejudiced."
Excellent turn of phrase. This or any specific teaching wasn't the conflict with multiculturalism I refer to. The opposition to vouchers by the Teachers union was more what I had in mind. Vouchers create a diversity of educational options, as opposed to national ciriculum standards that are a monoculture.
"some ideologies stand in such total and direct opposition to the values of multiculturism that they cannot, unfortunately, be embraced."
Why would these parents feel attacked? All they are trying to do is destroy their culture. At least no one said it was because they were 'ignorant and intollerent.' or did they? Why do they feel threatened?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I think the champions of multiculturalism really just oppose name-calling and abuse. I guess if a parent wants to instill the value of bullying in their child, that is their choice, but the schools have a vested interest in combating that behavior.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"I guess if a parent wants to instill the value of bullying in their child, that is their choice, but the schools have a vested interest in combating that behavior."
Hopefully it will have that result. The ability to opt-out is at least some concession. I just think this type thing could be a more clear message to all of the kids if the parents had the choice to pick schools that matched their values. The drama of this type controversy gets played out in front of kids too young to fully understand it, and the collateral damage is hard to predict.
I was raised arround farm animals, so sex ed started way before school. It seems foolish to me that we teach kids so little so late. Those are just my values, I wouldn't think you were intollerant if you did not want first grade sex ed for your child. I would like you to have as near to what you thought was ideal as possible. Forcing my values on others is closer to intollerence than I would care to go.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Hammy said it perfecly......This statement is exeactly why the gay community will always be just the way it is...
"some ideologies stand in such total and direct opposition to the values of (you can add any word here) that they cannot, unfortunately, be embraced."
We accept everyone, except...**Insert target of discrimination here**. They are just not tollerable. How can people that have been the victims of discrimination miss this repetitive patern?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Honestly this is another reason why gay/lesbian couples shouldn't get married.
the couples are not thinking of the child......since socialization began there has always been those ridiculed for being different.
Whether its the fat kid, or the kid with glasses, and now you have the child of gay parents. No sensitivity training is going to really keep those kids from being bullied.
Kids will be kids. It is the adults job to raise the child in ONE a nurturing environment, but at the same time that environment should not be detrimental to the welfare of that child, and I'm sorry, some may think i'm a homophob- or a gay basher, but so be it.
If you were a cross dresser would you go to your parent-teacher conference in drag?
If you say no, then even if you are a gay couple, maybe you should keep that information away from your childs school. if you feel that YOUR personal rights outweigh the rights of the child, then you are simply an unfit parent regardless of your sexual orientation.
That's an interesting take on things. African American and Latino students are often persecuted in schools in which they are minorities. Should their parents lose custody or stop having children too?
This argument is blaming the victim. It's saying, "You asked for it by existing."
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
you dont choose your race...but you do choose to bring your sexual orientation around your childs school
"Honestly this is another reason why gay/lesbian couples shouldn't get married.
the couples are not thinking of the child......since socialization began there has always been those ridiculed for being different."
Once upon a time, that would have also been a argument for why black people shouldn't get married. Fortunately, being black is something a child is much less likely to be ridiculed for in today's schoolyards. It's about time we made similar progress for the children of gay parents.
you dont choose your race...but you do choose to bring your sexual orientation around your childs school
"you dont choose your race...but you do choose to bring your sexual orientation around your childs school"
You don't choose your sexual orientation... but you do choose to bring your race around your child's school.
See where this is going? There is a giant hypocrisy alarm going off. Listen to it.
how do you choose to bring your race around your childs school?
no-matter what if I come to my childs school, people will observe the fact that i am a certain race.
there are clearly ways to keep your CHILDS school away from you homosexual relationship...I agree that it might be difficult, but thats what being an adult is.....doing what is difficult for the greater good of your family and society
So basically, you're saying that I and my family should be punished for your bad behavior, that because some people are intolerant bigots, I should be forced to hide my family composition?
That's an enlightened worldview.
Many biracial children pass as white, so by your logic, the black parent should never come to school. Only the white parent is safe from racism, so they are the only responsible parent. They chose to have an interracial relationship, after all.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
......I am not a bigot first.....i know and speak with gay people everyday...i dont treat them any differently than anyone else
i dont know why you are not unsterstanding my position.........as GAY people you should tend to GAY issues.....
but as a parent....
you should tend to the needs of your child....If your child stands a chance of being bullied because you are gay then maybe you should stop thinking of yourself and think of what is best for the child......
If i were a parent i would do whatever it took for my child not to be bullied FIRST AND FOREMOST......THEN i can focus my attention on the underlying circumstances.......So if i were a GAY parent i would first keep that information away from my childs peers, then try to educate my community on my plight.......
and to reply directly to your statement: "Many biracial children pass as white, so by your logic, the black parent should never come to school.
As a parent you should be concerned about the CHILD FIRST.
If I were married to a white woman (i am black), and it was a chance my child would be bullied, beat up, or whatever because of his father's race. I would explain that to my child, and ask him what he wants. Atleast then he knows that he has his own choice, just as I would have had my own chioce to marry who i wanted to.
But aren't the parents trying to protect their children by trying to get an anti-bully program presented at the school?
PLEASE RE-READ( refering back to previous post, not yelling)
"If you were a cross dresser would you go to your parent-teacher conference in drag?
If you say no, then even if you are a gay couple, maybe you should keep that information away from your childs school. if you feel that YOUR personal rights outweigh the rights of the child, then you are simply an unfit parent regardless of your sexual orientation."
I feel that fighting for my personal rights and the rights of all others gives my child a good role model. It shows them that all people are worthy of respect and that all people have the right to speak up for themselves. It teaches them how the system works, and how to work for change and the betterment of society. It teaches them that bullies don't always win, and that it is worth it to assert yourself in the face of discrimination or insult.
If that's unfit parenting, I guess I know nothing about the needs of children. That's a bummer for the Minneapolis Public Schools, because it's exactly how I plan to teach, too.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
i agree, but if your child comes home with a black eye eveyday because of it....some would say that YOUR beliefs that you instilled in your child caused the abuse......in addition to the bully not liking himself but that is a whole other blog.
answer this, if your child expressed to you that he didnt want you and your partner to come to his school because then his friends would know that your gay, would you respect his/her wishes?
First of all, if my kid came home with a black eye everyday, you can bet that I'd be on the phone with the school every day getting that kid expelled (or at least suspended) for hitting my kid in the first place.
Since you obviously don't like the comparision with race, let's try another (which doesn't work so well, but we'll try it anyway). Say you were a butler (or a maid, if you were female). Say that your kid went to school with a bunch of kids whose parents were doctors, lawyers, psychologists... all parents with doctorates, basically.
If your child then came up to you after a few weeks and told you that he/she didn't want you to come to his/her school, because then all the other kids would know that you weren't a Dr., would you respect his/her wishes?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
So if you are beat up because your parents are gay, it's your parents' fault and not the bully's? What is this fuckery?
This fuckery is...
1) Anti-improvement. If children never see gay couples how do you expect them to know about them? And by "know," I mean really know, not just believe they're a synonym for "icky." Children are bullied not because the bullies hate homosexuality, but because they hate some bizarre doppleganger of homosexuality. Educate and the problem dissipates.
2) Victim blaming. So it's your fault/your parents' fault if you're beat up? What about the moron who did the beating? Is s/he exempt from blame because s/he was so shellshocked by teh ghey that s/he had to do it? Believe it or not, but some murderers use this argument to justify killing men who are gay or suspected to be gay.
3) You have a funny idea of kids being kids. When I think of healthy children I think of cooperative play, not violence. Don't you think we should discourage kids from hurting others when they're still impressionable?
It is entire at the parents' discretion to evaluate the worth of coming out to their child's school. They must decide whether they feel it is best, not you.
Also, cross-dressers would never show up at a parent teacher conference in drag. Cross-dressing, at least as you mean it here, is largely a private affair involving sexual gratification or a public performance designed to amuse. Look before you attempt a sensationalist leap.
T.k.
AMERICA doesnt want their children to see GAY COUPLES....
I dont want MY children seeing Gay couples........atleast until high school....
So you speak for all of America now?
no but a large percentage of the american population does.....
Come'on...I think you guys just like to argue this topic...everyone know that the majority of americans would not want their children involved in any corriculum that involes discussing homosexuality before at least 8th grade......before 8th grade most kids dont know much about sexuality in general......and I think America wants to keep it that way....
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
Do you really believe that before 8th grade kids know nothing about sexuality? What about gender roles, and which jobs are considered women's work and which are considered men's work? Or the structure of heterosexual families? If children know that women marry men and have children, they know about sexuality.
No one in this thread is saying that children should be taught the particulars of sex, gay or heterosexual.
We're talking about "Children sometimes have two parents, sometimes one. Sometimes they have a mom and a dad, sometimes they have two dads. And all those families come in different colors." That's it. That is NOT inappropriate content. It's just a confirmation of what they are already observing in the world.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Why? What did we ever do to you?
And furthermore, what makes you think you have the right to make us hide just so you feel comfortable? No laws protect you from awkwardness.
T.k.
Love how you 1) talk about people you don't know... my mom could personally care LESS if my little sisters saw a gay couple. Don't make broad statements that clearly don't apply.
2) Thanks for completely avoiding the issues brought up in the post you responded to. It really shows a lot about your argument style.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
This type of “anti-bullying” “curriculum” is an obvious Trojan horse to acclimate student (as young as possible) toward homosexuality and pro-gay politics.
We have come a LONG way from “what they do in their own bedrooms is their business”
There are any number of family “forms” from divorce, to illegitimate children to adopted children to orphans that can get (and do get) teased. There are any number of types of kids from fat kids, un-athletic, to redheads, to awkward children and the like who get un-mercilessly teased.
Yet All of these examples never required some specific “curriculum” to acclimate children against such a “problem”. Obviously this is mere propaganda.
Any common sense policy would stress that young people mind their own business and respect everyone while not targeting any particular “difference” as uniquely worthy of special protection.
What a obvious Trojan Horse.
The Gay Mutual Masturbation unit makes that perfectly clear.
The curriculum includes all those people. That's the point. It isn't a gay curriculum. It's a lesson in treating people with respect and decency no matter who they are, where they come from, or what they look like. People are having a fit over a small fraction of the curriculum (and I don't mean the masturbation unit...that was an obvious Trojan Horse for introducing sarcasm).
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Yet All of these examples never required some specific “curriculum” to acclimate children against such a “problem”. Obviously this is mere propaganda.
Two words:
School
Shootings.
Hence why the curriculum is for more than just GLBT, and for all minority situations in general, because school systems have finally started to realize that they are at least partially at fault for things like school shootings that are caused by the shooter being bullied in school. They've finally realized that "just ignore them"
Does.
Not.
Work
and are finally trying to do something to help prevent such situations from occurring by stopping it at the source: bullying, for whatever reason.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It’s obviously intended to normalize both a family form (gay marriage) & sexual practice (homosexuality) that is the agenda.
Kids are and will continue to be mean. A general policy against bullying doesn’t need to condone or take sides or even mention same-sex “marriage” or homosexuality.
The schools should promote reading writing & arithmetic. A soon as you let this kind of agenda in their comes a long line of other such politicized agendas that also will request acclimation to their political agenda. (This includes traditionalists & religious groups)
If I was a polygamous family I would not try and force the whole country & the schools to cater to my felt needs nor would I put my children up as fodder in the debate.
There is a lot of "kids will be kids" logic floating around the comments to this blog. If that's true, are you saying that its better to put kids up as "fodder" for bullying than for debate about diversity awareness because children are naturally mean? It seems backwards to me. Not only are children learning in that situation that its okay to single out differences in each other for violent purposes, but the children who get singled out learn that who they are is a burden they will have to carry, rather than something they should love about themselves.
Kids aren't naturally born with the knowledge of what society deems fodder for bullying. They learn it by listening to the language of the adults around them. The truth is, kids don't leave the families they come from at the door of the classroom, and when they see someone whose life is different from what they find familiar, they notice. Promoting only reading, writing an arithmetic in the classroom won't stop kids from wondering why someone can't say the pledge of allegiance, has to step out to pray several times a day or has two moms who alternate picking them up from school. And ignoring them when they ask questions about other kids is akin to implying shame. I was not schooled in a "reading, writing and arithmetic" box and because my teachers were brilliant people who knew how to incorporate diversity appreciation into the classroom, although I fit into the categories "...fat kids, un-athletic, to redheads...", I was never bullied because they had the balls to teach us how to respect each other, whether or not that respect was taught in our homes.
This is not a post about teaching children to "respect" one another. Who could be against that?
Rather this is a transparent attempt to socially engineer society & children to accept homosexuality and same-sex "marriage".
You can teach kids non-violence and toleration of differences without condoning alternate family forms or sexuality that most deem inappropriate.
The only reason to attach this agenda to "bullying" is an outright attempt at emotional blackmail were politics is the real driving motivation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respect
I do not think this means what you think it means.
T.k.
Obviously I am using respect on the sense the author originally intended it.
I.E. – respect in the humanity of the person. As in non violence, non humiliating or degrading treatment.
This is to be contrasted with open support and respect (in the sense you use it) for homosexuality & same-sex “marriage”.
One is humane (and need not directly reference sexuality) the other is propagandizing under a specious guise.
What causes violence? Disrespect of someone's humanity. But what causes disrespect of someone's humanity? My answer would be disrespect of some part of that person, which is what happens when someone is beat up for an aspect of themselves that they have no control over. When you see someone as less than human because they are gay it only a small step to violence.
Why, then, is a diversity curriculum a good idea? Because my respect leads to your respect.
T.k.
Under your rubric any disagreement turns into violence. Under your rubric we have to respect every possible behavior under the guise of diversity or we run the risk of condoning violence.
This is untenable.
Supermajorities of the American people have trouble with agendas like same-sex “marriage” & teaching public school student that homosexuality is expectable. (No matter under what guise)
Your approach seems to say “anything less than my agenda” necessarily induces violence against me and my cause.
"Under your rubric any disagreement turns into violence. Under your rubric we have to respect every possible behavior under the guise of diversity or we run the risk of condoning violence."
You have to understand that some viewpoints are non-negotiable. Racism is non-negotiable. Sexism is non-negotiable. I do not have to respect those viewpoints because those viewpoints exist soley to disrespect others. Homophobia falls under this catagory because it disrespects someone for something they have no control over.
No, not every disagreement promotes violence. I can disagree with someone's favorite band and not be violent. In school homosexuality is an abstract concept synonymous with "filth." Students do not hate gay people - students hate a fantasy version of gay people. Teaching them what is means would dispell the irrational hatered that leads to violence.
"Supermajority"? Don't make me laugh. When my state passed its anti-civil union amendment the vote was approximately 55% vs. 45%. 75% would have been a "supermajority," but surely we can agree that 10% is not?
"Your approach seems to say 'anything less than my agenda' necessarily induces violence against me and my cause."
Not always, but frequently enough for concern. See the two students murdered within the last month over sexual orientation/gender identity if you need some evidence.
T.k.
It is unfortunates that you have drawn this controversy in such stark terms.
I don’t know if you mean to say that opposing teaching homosexuality in schools or not adopting same sex marriage is akin to racism.
A lot of advocates want to go their. With discreet incidents of violence equaling lynching.
This is an unfortunate situation brought on by gay "rights” activists and their agenda. Not by bullying, harassment or hate.
Their is a protagonist to this story and its not the parents.
People are understandably hesitant in introducing student to a transparent pro-gay agenda. To turn this into being akin to racism & violence is precisely the kind of heated rhetoric the needs to be watered down.
We are looking at the situation from polar opposite points of view, and my guess is that neither of us will compromise. Would you like to stop and call it a draw while we still have some semblance of dignity intact?
T.k.
Who are the "most" you're referring to? Most people I know want to see children growing up loved in safe, happy homes, which GLBT families can provide.
And quite frankly, all teaching is a form of social engineering and I'd rather my children be socially engineered to be enriched through other people (and be proud of themselves if they find they are members of the GLBT community later on in their lives) than to judge and shun others for absolutely no reason at all.
"It is very age-appropriate, and still, the district is allowing parents to opt out, as if it were sex ed. I absolutely agree with the detractors that teaching kids about gay sex is inappropriate in grades K-5. So is teaching them about heterosexual sex. That's not what this does. There is no message in the curriculum that even hints at sex. Gay families do not equal gay sex. To acknowledge this, though, would be to admit to buying into a faulty stereotype. The protestors would have to admit to a mistake and give up an enemy."
None of the people speaking opposition voiced these concerns. An enemy? Nobody who spoke that evening communicated this in anyway. You set up a straw-man and then knock down those opposed as necessarily being part of that straw-man group.
Real inclusiveness honors all voices - the people who spoke in opposition did so respectfully, thoughtfully, and from concerns regarding simply their own families. The main crux of several people's arguments hinged on part of a lesson which states the children are to repeat the following:
"I used to think . . . but now I know . . ."
The people speaking in opposition voiced concerns over the depth of that statement and felt that if used inappropriately, it could really challenge something taught in the home - not bigotry or narrow-mindedness - but things that parent's try and teach their children, whatever that value might be.
I think this is a reasonable concern, don't you? Please, respectfully, I ask that you not answer that question with the assumption that the parent hold the view that same-gendered families are wrong. I ask for your thoughts based on only the assertion given.
Marc
if a gay family doesnt equal gay sex, then are you saying that gay people dont have sex?
I think that statement is based on a teaching strategy called KWL, in which students state what they think they know about a subject, then what they want to know, or wonder about a subject, and after learning about it, they state what they've learned and compare it to what they knew before the lesson. If the students are able to fill in the blanks themselves, I don't see the problem. If they are graded on their statements, then yes, it is being used inappropriately. But that strategy is used in other subjects all the time. What makes it dangerous when used for critical thinking about respect and the value of people?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
On its own, I think the statement could very well be a useful tool.
But, as in many facets of life, people are not perfect, and I think using such a powerful phrase invites teachers to beg the conclusion. Hopefully this wouldn't happen but I think its a valid concern.
Marc
I agree. In this case, it was considered civil through the majority lens - it just so happens that the majority lens was controlled by those supporting the curriculum and the minority likely wouldn't describe their treatment as warm.
That being said, I do understand, respect, and empathize with your need to protect yourself and I think most would have reacted the same was after hearing about this story. I think we all need to be vigilant about our labeling and prejudging - its so easy to put people into preconceived groups - its much harder to take the time to get to know someone but I fear that if we don't, we're all destined to repeat the same mistakes in the same way.
Marc
I think we have different definitions of majority and minority. I was referring to society at large; I think you were referring to the population at the meeting. Because I was not at the meeting, I am a member of the minority population of GLBT people in society at large. You are a member of the majority (I assume you are not GLB or T).
My point was that whenever the majority protests the mention of our existence, it gets our hackles up, because we've seen the argument get out of hand and deeply insulting. I'm glad no one called anyone a pervert or deviant or told them they are going to burn in hell, as has happened at so many other similar gatherings before; however, the protest itself stings. The idea that our lives are something children must be "prepared" to handle when they are "ready." hurts. We're not 'R' rated. We have families too. We exist, so don't whisper about it like it's shameful. It's the overall attitude that necessitated the meeting that gives GLBT people less than warm feelings about it, regardless of how peaceful it was.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Actually, the meeting was set up as an informational meeting and not because of a protest. The spin the news put on it is simply that - spin. It seemed intended to grab people's attention but it really was just a community talking about changes. It was a relatively peaceful meeting sans the treatment given to the woman mentioned in my previous post.
That being said, I understand and respect your comments about how these types of situations can get out of hand and how people can be extremely cruel simply because its something they haven't dealt with before.
Marc
That's good to know. Thanks.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"They claim it undermines their authority by introducing their children prematurely to the existence of gay and lesbian people."
Silly parents. That's tantamount to saying that the school board shouldn't intoduce children to students of different racial backgrounds because it undermines parents' authority to tell their children that everyone else looks and thinks like them!
~Violinstef
I was reading this research article a while back, where the researcher found out that children and people are not racist by nature but that they are taught to be racist.
Racism was not a gene that one inherent but a social concept that was used as a wedge issue among the corporate elite among the poor, especially the south.
In the old south, the plantation owner used racism to divided the poor whites and african slaves from joining each other and fighting their real oppressor.
That is what I think had to do with homophobia and the right wing fears of gay people.
People are not born being homophobic or gay hater but their parents and society taught the children from a young age to be gay hater and homophobic, just like racism.
This sort of agenda pushed down kids throats happens with all extreme groups.
ARA groups like PETA, HSUS, and others do the same tactic which may go against what parent wants or thinks kids should learn.
Published Author and Poet
Teacher Education Student.
But what about the parents who want their kids to learn it? and what about the parents who want their kids to be safe in school? The HRC is not such an extreme group. They are only asking for equality. That's really not so much to ask for. They're not asking for anything more than what YOU have.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman