While California may be trailing other states in recognizing same-sex marriage, the state is poised to become the first state that would require public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.
SB 48, dubbed the “FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful) Education Act,” authored by Senator Mark Leno, would “amend the Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.”
It passed both houses of the legislature on Tuesday, awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed similar legislation back in 2006, but the Democratic Governor has not indicated what he would do, either way.
“Most textbooks don’t include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history,” said Senator Leno (D-San Francisco). “Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people. We can’t simultaneously tell youth that it’s OK to be yourself and live an honest, open life when we aren’t even teaching students about historical LGBT figures or the LGBT equal rights movement.”
Research indicates that bullying rates are double in schools where students do not learn about the contributions of LGBT Americans. Students in schools with inclusive education also report that all youth – straight, gay, and those perceived to be gay – are treated more fairly by their teachers and peers.
“As a gay young man, I struggled with accepting my identity for years. In school, I never learned that people like me had achieved great things like leading a civil rights movement. Instead, I had only learned stereotypes,” said Isaiah Baiseri, a senior at Glendora High School, who testified at a Senate committee hearing in support of SB 48. “I’m thankful the Senate passed SB 48 so that someday other students like me can learn our history.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.
“Given the number of young people who tragically took their own lives after being bullied for being LGBT – or perceived as being LGBT, it is imperative that we do more to ensure that all children feel fully welcomed, and this legislation is an important step toward that goal,” said Geoff Kors, Equality California Executive Director. “LGBT people should not be pushed into the closet when it comes to what students learn about history. Educating youth about the contributions of LGBT Californians and our state’s rich diversity will help foster true acceptance of LGBT students and will ultimately create a safe school environment for all students.”
“LGBT youth are denied a fair education when they are exposed to harmful stereotypes in classroom materials and are excluded from learning about their history,” said Carolyn Laub, GSA Network’s Executive Director. “The FAIR Education Act is a key step in preventing discrimination in the classroom and creating safe, respectful schools.”
Republicans are angry and offended at the legislature. One Assemblymember, Tim Donnelly, said “he was offended as a Christian that the bill was being used to promote a ‘homosexual agenda’ in public schools.”
“I think it’s one thing to say that we should be tolerant,” Assemblymember Donnelly said. “It is something else altogether to say that my children are going to be taught that this lifestyle is good.”
“Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves,” Assemblymember Donnelly said.
A right-wing organization called the “Protect the Kids Foundation” called this “the worst school indoctrination ever.”
The Campaign for Children and Families explains that “the Democrat state legislators pushing this radical bill want to recruit boys and girls to support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, personally and publicly. They want them to become ‘LGBTIQ’ activists….”
They say if SB 48 becomes law, “children will be enticed into political activism in support of everything pushed by ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning’ political groups, as the bill requires ‘particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.’ ”
They further say that this bill would require that teachers “positively portray homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriages,’ bisexuality, and transsexuality … because to be silent opens them up to the charge of ‘reflecting adversely’ [on this new protected LGBT class.]”
“This is radical, in-your-face sexual indoctrination that parents genuinely don’t want and children certainly don’t need,” the statement says.
A spokesperson for another group, SaveCalifornia.com, Randy Thomasson, said, “This sexual brainwashing bill would mandate that children as young as 6 years old be told falsehoods – that homosexuality is biological, when it isn’t, or healthy, when it’s not.”
The LA Times editorial board came out against the legislation, arguing that historians and not politicians should be writing texbooks.
“Does the idea have a better chance five years later, with Jerry Brown as governor?” they ask. “We hope not. Years ago, California made the wise decision to have experts draw up a balanced social studies curriculum that became a model for schools nationwide. Legislators aren’t improving education in the state by stuffing the curriculum with new politically correct requirements, any more than Texas board members improved education there.”
“Fables don’t make for solid instruction. History is the great story of people, groups and movements — their faults as well as their accomplishments — shaping the world up through the events of today. It is a story best told by historians, not by politicians,” they conclude.
However, Speaker John Perez, himself the first openly-gay speaker of the Assembly, said: “This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized.”
Catholics for the Common Good argued against the bill, not only because of the fear of “the sexualization of education,” but also the fiscal burden it could impose on the state: “In addition to its corrupting consequences for children about love, human sexuality, marriage, and family, it will cost California taxpayers millions to implement and have a disrupting effect on local school districts struggling with reduced budgets and burdened by state mandates that undermine their critical mission of educating our children.”
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano indicated that SB48 is crucial, due to the bullying that gay students experience.
Mr. Ammiano has pushed his own legislation attempting to deal with the issue of school bullying, Seth’s law, named in memory of Seth Walsh, a 13-year-old gay student from Tehachapi, California, who took his life in September 2010, after facing years of relentless anti-gay harassment at school.
“As a former teacher, I know how important it is for our students to feel safe at school. Each day throughout California, LGBT youth experience harassment. Seth’s Law will give schools the necessary tools to prevent any young person from being bullied, harassed or worse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression,” said Assemblymember Ammiano.
Senator Leno’s bill was modeled on Senate Bill 1437 (Sheila Kuehl) from 2006, which passed both houses of the Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
—David M. Greenwald
A lot depends on how the bill would be implemented. If the textbook were to say – “Mr. X made the following contribution to America”, and Mr. X happened to be gay, I have no problem with that. But if the textbook were to say – “Mr. X, a practicing homosexual, made the following contribution to American”, this is ridiculously PC and gratuituously superfluous with an ulterior agenda. A person’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with their contribution in general – unless the history book is talking specifically about the gay and lesbian movement itself. Then the question becomes whether the event in question is truly significant historically. Based on how sex ed classes are taught these days, I frankly don’t trust the schools to get this one right.
An example might suffice. I was brought up in the South in the days of segregation. Yet in our history books there was mention of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, both African Americans. George Washington Carver was described as a former slave who developed many uses for the peanut. Harriet Tubman’s underground railroad for slaves was discussed. Pictures of both of them were provided, so it was clear both were African American. The fact that they were slaves was made clear in the writings, bc it was pertinent to the discussion.
However, my guess is too much of this is going to be left up to individual school districts, and we are going to get some pretty wild results (I’m thinking San Francisco)…
And by the way, I’m not buying the bullying argument. Bullying in school is a fundamental problem for virtually all students who are in any way different, be they shy, short, tall, fat, thin, handicapped, look different, speak different, etc. ad nauseum.
I will be interested to read what others think on this one…
The only thing I can promise you Elaine, is that no text book will use the term “a practicing homosexual.”
I do however question your distinction between mentioned “happened to be gay” which you claim is acceptable and the latter “a practicing homosexual” which you ironically call “ridiculously PC” even though you use a decidedly un-PC term (homosexual). I see the distinction between the two as non-existent.
I can hardly see a problem with having a short but positive discussion on the contributions that gays have made to society as a problem. It is after all important that all people have positive role models is it not?
Here is the relevant passage. Other sections deal with non-discrimination by School administrators at all levels:
[i]SECTION 1. Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
51204.5. Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans,[b]lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities[/b] , and members of other ethnic and cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society. [url]
Here is the link (that didn’t appear when I posted):
http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20110706_enrolled.html
Neutral: The operational portion of that change is contained in paragraph two of the story, just as an fyi.
[quote]I do however question your distinction between mentioned “happened to be gay” which you claim is acceptable and the latter “a practicing homosexual” which you ironically call “ridiculously PC” even though you use a decidedly un-PC term (homosexual). I see the distinction between the two as non-existent. [/quote]
I wouldn’t put “happened to be gay”. I would just mention the person’s contribution, period, their sexual orientation notwithstanding, unless it was germane to the discussion of the accomplishment. For instance, George Washington Carver was African American, but his accomplishments were remarkable in and of themselves, and even more remarkable bc at one time he was a slave.
If I were writing the education code, I would amend it as follows:
[i][b]51204.5.[/b] Instruction in social sciences shall include the early history of California and a study of the role and contributions of [s]both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups,[/s] [b]people[/b] to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of [s]these groups[/s] [b]people[/b] in contemporary society.[/i]
From the quotes in your story, it seems like the right-wingers are exposing themselves as prejudiced against gays (based on their religious views). It seems to me a much more logical view would be to teach California history with no prejudice for or against any group.
I think there is a danger of creating a backlash when you single out gays or Mexicans or blacks or whatever you like to emphasize the role some members of those groups played. Chances are the role played by someone who was gay or Swiss or whatever was the result of extraordinary efforts or circumstances of that individual, not the result of the group he was born into. For example, if the subject of Levi Strauss in California’s economy is being told, it is irrelevant that he was born a Jew. Same with virtually all of the moguls who created the film industry. Teaching about those men is not “Jewish history.” It shouldn’t be segregated in any way from teaching about the development of industry in California.
On the other hand, we have had a history of discrimination against some groups in California which substantially affect our history. You cannot teach the story of the internment of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans from California without emphasizing the ethnic component of that policy and that period of history. The same goes for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. If the story of Harvey Milk is deemed important enough to tell, then of course teaching the fact that he was gay and he was a leader among gays is crucial to understanding his story and his death.
My belief is that the most important thing in teaching history is to have a great teacher who makes the subject interesting to the students, who figures out a way to make them understand how the things which took place in the past affect their lives today.
I’ve heard people say, “If you don’t know where you came from, you won’t know where you are going.” That doesn’t quite hold up to logic. Historians have no greater insight on the future than others. What I would change that phrase to is this: “If you don’t know history, you cannot fully appreciate what you have today.”
David: [i]The operational portion of that change is contained in paragraph two of the story[/i]
Yes, but I felt that quote didn’t provide the reader with enough context.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the attempts by legislators in other states to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism.
Recognition of the contributions of LGBT and disabled people in textbooks means more than simply mentioning that someone happened to be gay. Though, of course, not unique, these are groups that have historically and systematically been subject to physical and psychological abuses that are qualitatively different from and more extreme than the teasing and bullying that most school children endure. It is only recently that discrimination, segregation and exclusion of people with disabilities—in education, housing, employment, and community life—became unlawful. LGBT individuals are still treated as second class citizens. (See, e.g., Prop. 8.) “Retard” and “fag” are commonly used as insults, without awareness of the harm done.
The LGBT and disability civil rights movements are historically significant—particularly in California—and to ignore that part of our history is absurd. And it is not trivial to the self-esteem and pride of young students to teach that an historical figure had a disability or was gay. Knowing that FDR had a disability is of extreme importance to people with disabilities, as is knowing that many of the most revered people in history and the arts were gay to students in the LGBT community.
Bigotry and intolerance are largely based on ignorance. Teaching about the contributions of LGBT and disabled individuals is important—to raise general awareness, change attitudes, and impact the self-esteem of LGBT and disabled children and youth. As long as we continue to ignore the contributions of these groups in our educational curricula, societal ignorance and, therefore, intolerance and mistreatment will continue.
Im going to try to make some sense here. I think that to develop any curriculum on someone’s contributions based on sexual orientation is wrong. All people should be noted on good merits despite what their oriention is unless the subject is the gay movement then that would be relevent. In the good ol’ USA we are supposed to be a melting pot and undivided by any color, sex, creed,age, religion and so the civil rights continue. However, there are “groups” of people who band together based on being different, and try to make themselves individualized instead of blending in with other people. For example, the Ms Black America pagent. How do you think it would go over if we had a Ms White America pagent? It screams of racism. What’s wrong with just the plain old Ms America pagent? The blacks try to separate themselves out this way. The same point for the gays and lesbians. Why can’t we all just get along?
[i]”For example, the Ms Black America pagent. … The blacks try to separate themselves out this way.”[/i]
This strikes me as an unfair indictment against “the blacks.” I would imagine that the beauty contest you speak of is owned by a company trying to make money (just like all the other beauty contests out there). The other 99.9997983999 percent of “the blacks” have no say in the matter.
According to Wikipedia, the Miss Black America contest began in 1968 when its owner, J. Morris Anderson, believed that the Miss America pageant was excluding black women. I can understand, at this point in time, your thinking that such a legacy is outdated. However, if the contest is still making money for its owner, I can see why he would want to keep it going.
In terms of beauty contests, the ones I find the most disturbing are those where crazy mothers dress their 5 year old girls up to look like 20 year old hussies.
Im not trying to get into a debate here and I think you missed my point entirely. Although I agree with you on the child beauty contest, that does seem outrageous! The Black Entertainment Television (BET) network is a network geared primarily for black people. All shows have all black actors, etc. It is racist in my opinion. So is the Ms. Black America contest. If you go to the grocery store down the asian food isle, are asians the only people that eat rice? Labeling TV shows and Food by a specific race is wrong. Gays and Lesbians should not be separated, they should blend in with the rest of the world. When they start separating themselves it’s like segregation. If the history books need to rewritten to include that some body did something wonderful then fine, let them shine on their own merit, not because they are gay, black, white, old, disabled, etc. – That part really doesnt mean anything. Gays and Lesbians are just human beings to me, nothing below or above myself. If Im on the operating table and the dr that is performing surgery to save my life is gay – so what!
Tecnichick
I would agree with you completely if we lived in a world where everyone felt as you do. Unfortunately we do not and there is still a lot of discrimination going on based on race, religion (current anti Muslim sentiment for example ), and multiple other criteria including sexual orientation. It is only within the past year that “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been done away with. This was not gays separating themselves.
It was our military and social establishment discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. When you have a situation in which one group can talk openly about their relationship, show pictures of their partner, walk hand in hand openly, and others cannot, this is not the group isolating itself. This is imposed inequality and just as interracial couples faced this previously, it is now faced by gay couples.
Elaine
I agree with you that the means of implementation will be important. I suspect that the emphasis will be on the achievements of gays as a group in the promotion of civil rights rather than any superfluous commentary on sexual preference. And to the degree that this leads to an increased appreciation of the history this group I think it can only lead to a decrease in negative stereotypes. I am hopeful for this.
[i]”Unfortunately we do not and there is still a lot of discrimination going on based on race, religion ([u]current anti Muslim sentiment[/u] for example ), and multiple other criteria including sexual orientation.”[/i]
You used the word “sentiment,” so I won’t quibble with that for a moment. But you should know that in terms of actual violence, there is much more anti-Semitism in the United States than anti-Muslimism. It’s not even close.
From Commentary last November: [quote] The new statistics published on the U.S. Department of Justice website show that there were only 107 reported incidents of anti-Islamic hate crimes in the country during 2009. While each incident (not only actual crimes are reported, as the total published by the FBI includes all those reported or alleged without respect to whether or not the crime was proved to have occurred) is deplorable, this represents only 8 percent of all religious-based bias crimes and less than 2 percent of hate crimes tabulated last year.
Even more to the point, the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes dwarfed again the number of anti-Islamic attacks, as they have every year since such statistics were first kept: 931 anti-Semitic incidents, compared with 107 anti-Islamic incidents, a ratio of better than 8 to 1. The same was true in 2008, when the figures were 1,013 anti-Jewish incidents to 105 anti-Muslim incidents. Indeed, even in 2001, the worst year for anti-Muslim hate crimes, there were still more than twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as those with anti-Islamic motivations. Throughout this period, the vast majority of hate crimes motivated by religion have been directed against Jews, not Muslims.[/quote] Let me quibble now for a moment with your assertion that Americans are prejudiced against Muslims (“current anti Muslim sentiment”): There is some anti-Muslim feeling in the U.S. that shows up in polls. However, Gallup says only 9% have “strong” anti-Muslim sentiment; and another 20% have “some” anti-Muslim sentiment. When you consider that some of those people feel that way based on nothing more than relgious doctrine–they way a lot of conservative Protestants feel about Catholic doctrine–and others identify Islam with misogyny and hence dislike it for its treatment of women, 29% is not all that big of a number to my mind. But I won’t quibble.
One thing we do know for sure: Muslims have a very high rate of anti-Jewish prejudice ([url]http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176[/url]). This hatred of Jews is not limited to Israelis, either. Every poll in recent years has revealed a strong hatred of Jews by large percentages of Muslims all over the world. An interesting country in this regard is India*, where the polls suggest that there is very little anti-Semitism among the non-Muslims. (There used to be a substantial Jewish population in India who lived in the Portuguese colony of Goa.) However, the very large Muslim minority–India has the second most Muslims of any country other than Indonesia–is virulently anti-Semitic. Even in Europe, in countries like France and Germany, the Muslim minorities have extremely strong hatred of the Jews. This is found in Asian countries, too, where Malaysian Muslims, Indonesian Muslims and Phillipino Muslims poll being very prejudiced against Jews, when at the same time people of other faiths in those countries (mostly Buddhists and Christians) don’t express any substantial Jew-hatred.
*Pakistani hatred of the Jews is equal to that of India’s Muslims. You may recall when Mumbai was attacked by terrorists sent there by Pakistan’s intelligence service in cahoots with a major terrorist group, they set out to kill all the Jews they could find in Mumbai before attacking anyone else. It was also Pakistani terrorists who cut off the head of Daniel Pearl, because, as they said, he was a Jew.
Rifkin
My goodness. What a lot of “sentiment” I seemed to have uncovered with what I intended as a current example, not a statement of prevalence. My point was that prejudice and discriminatory behavior are destructive regardless of the target group. My hope is that including information about the positive contributions of all groups to our society will,over time, minimize these destructive attitudes and behaviors.
Rich-We all know that there’s plenty of race and religious hatred to share . What is hopeful is that we can have honest discussions and in the process discover and face our own prejudices toward others and their cultures ! For one who lives in a multi-ethnic culture, this all is taking much too long for my liking . The religion of my mother teaches tolerance and forgiveness, but too many of it’s proponents practice neither . We have wasted decades debating what amounts to a caste system . Do some humans have more native rights than others ? Whether we are gay, straight, bi, poly, Jew, Jain, Zoroastrian, Muslim, church of John Coltrane or transcendental Methodist, we are human and deserving of each other’s respect and regard .
[quote]Recognition of the contributions of LGBT and disabled people in textbooks means more than simply mentioning that someone happened to be gay. Though, of course, not unique, these are groups that have historically and systematically been subject to physical and psychological abuses that are qualitatively different from and more extreme than the teasing and bullying that most school children endure. [/quote]
While I appreciate your passion, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with your assessment that homosexuals are subject to worse bullying than any other group. My son (a WASP) was beaten several times in or on the way home to/from school, his property repeatedly destroyed, threatened, verbally assaulted, segregated and dumped into a class with all the troublemakers in school through no fault of his own. His public school years were miserable. My oldest daughter was sexually assaulted by another student at school. Look at what happened to Andrew Mockus or the child that was killed at the high school some years ago (sorry, his name escapes me). Bullying is endemic in our society bc the authorities, particularly in the school system, look the other way. It is shameful and unacceptable at any level. Kids are bullied for any number of reasons – bc they are short, tall, fat, slim, learning disabled, of a different ethnicity or sexual orientation, or were just picked out as a victim for no conceivable reason at all. Remember the little girl from Scotland who hung herself recently bc the bullying had become so extreme and vicious?
Forgive me for my passion on this issue, but bullying is an equal opportunity phenomenon not exclusive to any particular group.
[quote]I think there is a danger of creating a backlash when you single out gays or Mexicans or blacks or whatever you like to emphasize the role some members of those groups played. Chances are the role played by someone who was gay or Swiss or whatever was the result of extraordinary efforts or circumstances of that individual, not the result of the group he was born into. For example, if the subject of Levi Strauss in California’s economy is being told, it is irrelevant that he was born a Jew. Same with virtually all of the moguls who created the film industry. Teaching about those men is not “Jewish history.” It shouldn’t be segregated in any way from teaching about the development of industry in California.
On the other hand, we have had a history of discrimination against some groups in California which substantially affect our history. You cannot teach the story of the internment of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans from California without emphasizing the ethnic component of that policy and that period of history. The same goes for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. If the story of Harvey Milk is deemed important enough to tell, then of course teaching the fact that he was gay and he was a leader among gays is crucial to understanding his story and his death. [/quote]
Nicely said!
“It is shameful and unacceptable at any level. Kids are bullied for any number of reasons – bc they are short, tall, fat, slim, learning disabled, of a different ethnicity or sex”
ERM, you hit the nail on the head. Should California mandate that history books show the contributions of fat people, ugly people, height challenged, redheads……?
ERM: Thong Hy Huynh
[quote]ERM: Thong Hy Huynh[/quote]
Thank you Don for helping me remember this young gentleman’s name. If I remember rightly, he was knifed to death bc of his ethnicity?