Last week many applauded and some lamented the decision by Governor Jerry Brown to sign what amounts to landmark legislation, to amend the education code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, as well as of people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.
SB 48 is the FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful) Education Act, authored by Senator Mark Leno. Supporters of the legislation claim that the bill ensures that the historical contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and disabled individuals are accurately and fairly portrayed in instructional materials, by adding these groups to the existing list of under-represented cultural and ethnic groups already included in the state’s inclusionary education requirements.
“Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT Americans,” said Senator Leno, the bill’s sponsor. “Denying LGBT people their rightful place in history gives our young people an inaccurate and incomplete view of the world around them.”
However, when the Vanguard spoke with UC Davis Law Professor Courtney Joslin, and Rebecca Rosa, a supervising lecturer in the UC Davis School of Education who specializes in social sciences teaching and curriculum, the sense we got from both is that this really is more of a tweak and a formality than some sort of landmark change.
“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.
As Professor Joslin noted, schools have been doing this for some time with regard to other groups.
“California law already requires schools to teach students about the role and contributions of a number of underrepresented groups including African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans,” UC Davis law professor Courtney Joslin, who co-authored the 2009 book, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Family Law,” told the Vanguard in a phone interview Monday afternoon.
For years, schools have already taught about other groups which were not adequately represented in history books, but all this does, according to Professor Joslin, is to add LGBT contributions to that list. “SB 48 added Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people to that mandate,” she said.
“Schools have experience doing this, adding information into their curriculum to make sure that students learn about the full diversity of California in its history,” she added.
Schools will be able to implement this law in different ways, as the law does not mandate any specific means for compliance.
Rebecca Rosa’s area of expertise is in teaching social studies instruction. Professor Rosa argued that currently, that there is a good deal of latitude within the social studies framework in California for inclusivity.
“Our standards were adopted in 1997 and updated in 2001,” she told the Vanguard during a phone interview Monday evening. One of the frameworks adopted at that time explicitly states, according to Professor Rosa, “It wants teachers to present controversial issues honestly and accurately within their historical and contemporary contexts.”
So, in the past and currently, teachers could have students take a look at issues that were controversial, including but not limited to gay rights issues. She said, “The goal behind that is to present multiple perspectives so that students could get a better understanding of an historical event or a contemporary issue.”
Through history she said, “Students should learn as part of a democratic process and a democratic society we have a right to disagree and that we should listen to different perspectives, that they need to be taken into account. We make judgments based on evidence and not bias and emotions.”
She argued this component existed prior to the passage of SB 48 into law.
What the fair act has done, Ms. Rosa claims, is that it makes the language of the Education Code explicit to include within its standards specific mention of LGBT community members, people with disabilities and Pacific Islanders.
“That really does give teachers more freedom because before within the framework sometimes teachers would get some backlash for say, teaching a lesson or two on Harvey Milk in the civil rights unit,” she added.
“What this new act does is it really does give teachers freedom to teach historical events in an accurate and comprehensive fashion,” Rebecca Rosa told the Vanguard.
There is a second component to SB 48, Professor Joslin said, and that deals with education promoting discriminatory bias. “California law had already prohibited instruction that promoted discriminatory-based bias on a number of bases, SB 48 adds sexual orientation and gender identity to those provisions.”
Professor Joslin pointed out that over a decade ago, California Education Code was amended to include the obligation to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in schools.
Following passage of that legislation, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction convened a task force on the best way in which to implement that requirement.
“One of the specific recommendations they came up with was to require schools to acknowledge Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered historical figures and related events into the curriculum in California Schools,” Professor Joslin said.
The task force found that this was an important way for schools to comply with their obligations to provide safe schools for all of their students.
“A number of studies have found that students feel safer when the curriculum is inclusive,” Professor Joslin added. “LGBT students report feeling safer when they also report that their school includes an inclusive curriculum that includes information about [LGBT] people.”
“In addition to making the LGBT students feel safer because they see positive images of LGBT people, including diversity issues in the curriculum also helps to dispel negative stereotypes that students may have,” Professor Joslin added.
Rebecca Rosa also believes that SB 48 and the diversity and tolerance it brings will help reduce the instances of school bullying that she believes is really at the heart of this bill.
She argued, “This idea of respect for diverse opinion really does provide a great foundation for tolerance which will help schools and teachers develop a sense of community.”
Rebecca Rosa believes that teaching about elected officials like Harvey Milk who are part of the LGBT community opens the door for a group of people traditionally discriminated against to be seen in a different light.
“These people became advocates for that community really speaking about equal rights,” she said which are “really the foundation of our nation’s ideals.”
“These individuals are willing to advocate for groups who are marginalized, that is really significant,” she added.
She also spoke to the need for role models, positive role models that young people can look up to as perhaps they struggle with their own sexual identity. “We don’t see them in the history books,” she noted. “It’s good for students to see all sorts of individuals, from all sorts of backgrounds.”
When students can get engaged in these different discussions, Ms. Rosa believes that students can learn that it is okay to disagree with each other.
Of course, not everyone sees it that way. A backlash has developed in some circles against this legislation and, in particular, the inclusion of the LGBT community in social science curriculum.
Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, urged parents to remove their children from “immoral” public schools.
“It’s time for parents who love their children to match their words with deeds and do what’s necessary to get them out of the immoral government schools and into the safe havens of home schooling and church schools,” a statement read.
“People are already responding on our Facebook and saying they’re pulling their children out,” he told the Sacramento Bee. “Some people say they want to move out of the state.”
“People really are still afraid of this idea that we include the LGBT community,” Professor Rosa pointed out. “No one is really upset that we are including contributions of people with disabilities. No one is really upset that we have included the contributions of Pacific Islanders.”
“I just think that the word Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender, those words are really just a hot button issue and I think that’s why that focus is there,” Professor Rosa added.
However, she argued that the focus here is misplaced.
“No one is really going to get mad if we say we can’t bully each other. We have to treat each other with respect and dignity,” she said. “That to me is very rich and I think people are missing that component of it.”
Republican 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.
Rebecca Rosa responded to Assemblymember Donnelly’s inflammatory rhetoric, “I read that and I took pause.”
She talked about one of her colleagues, a teacher who is lesbian. Her friend told her, “It’s really funny when people say these things because I have enough trouble making my students do their homework; how am I going to make them gay and make them believe in a homosexual kind of agenda?”
“That’s not what this is about,” Ms. Rosa continued, stating that this is not just about putting someone in a history book because they are gay. “We are looking to create a comprehensive inclusive history and if it’s relevant in the teaching of history, if California educators are to present historical events and contemporary issues honesty and accurately, then doing so means to deliver an inclusive and representative curriculum.”
“There are people who have lost their lives because they are advocating what they believe in,” she continued, and “it doesn’t mean that you have to believe in it, it just means that within in our constitution… we have this right to protest.”
She argued that we are looking at the people who have made a difference and looking at the events, not necessarily whether the participants are homosexual or not.
If someone wants to understand the modern history of San Francisco, how do you do it without a discussion of Harvey Milk? And how do you understand broader issues such as the struggle for marriage equality, AIDS, and even the military ban on gays without understanding their origins?
I think that is the point that Rebecca Rosa was making and I think before people have a knee-jerk reaction to the incorporation of some manufactured notion of a homosexual agenda, perhaps they ought to think about what that community has historically had to endure.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From DMG article above: [i]”It’s really funny when people say these things because I have enough trouble making my students do their homework; how am I going to make them gay and make them believe in a homosexual kind of agenda?”[/i]
A Harvey Milk quote makes a similar argument:
[quote] “If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you’d sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around”
as quoted from Randy Shilts’ biography[/quote]
great… now generations of teenagers will be vindicated for saying that history is totally gay.
Gunrock – you crack me up.
I was thinking about the impulses that lead to this type of social engineering and revisionist history, and it occurred to me that they are rooted in individual insecurity. Individuals lacking enough self love and acceptance gravitate toward groups sharing some similar “victim” characteristics and then demand changes to society that they believe will make them feel more accepted and more loved.
However, since the root of the impulse is the lack of self-confidence and self-love, it does not solve their problem and after the excitement wears off from the last win, they are off looking for the next social engineering cause.
I expect the next step will be the gay rights group trying to force religious organizations to accept gays in all ceremonies or be sued by the ACLU. This is already occurring as churches vacate the use of public facilities and help with public programs. For example, look at the reduction of religious organizations running adoption and foster-care programs in cities across the country due to the new conflicts from gay-rights groups. In this way, gays put their individual needs above the welfare of the many children saved by the help of these religious organizations.
It is ironic to me that that the damage done to children is caused by adults that behave as children using the welfare of children as their proxy cause. The same can be said for the entire education system.
[quote]“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.[/quote]
Here is the real agenda behind this law – to teach about the LGBT movement and its “historical significance”. It does not have one whit to do with introducing gays who accomplished something of historical significance; or to somehow reduce bullying, which were nothing more than a smokescreen.
[quote]Schools will be able to implement this law in different ways, as the law does not mandate any specific means for compliance.[/quote]
And now we are going to have each school district teaching about the LGBT movement to whatever extent they see fit. Now think – San Francisco versus Bakersfield. This whole issue should be left to historians, not politicians…
[quote]One of the frameworks adopted at that time explicitly states, according to Professor Rosa, “It wants teachers to present controversial issues honestly and accurately within their historical and contemporary contexts.”[/quote]
Honestly and accurately by whose definition?
And what do we do with bisexuals? And those who are 10% ethnic minority? Are we saying that after every historical figure, we need to spell out what their ethnic heritage and sexual orientation was? This is just the height of PC silliness…
[i]And now we are going to have each school district teaching about the LGBT movement to whatever extent they see fit. [/i]
That’s how curriculum changes are already implemented. Curriculum committees review available choices and recommend what the district adopt. The districts have latitude in what they choose to use, and teachers have latitude in how they use the textbooks. Would you prefer top-down implementation of curriculum changes?
I continue to be mystified by the disparagement of this change, as well as by the pop-psych theories and the strange notion that there is some insidious “gay agenda.”
“rooted in individual insecurity. “
I found this comment appalling Jeff. Nothing makes someone more insecure than being mercilessly picked on and bullied -sometimes quite severely.
Nice article. SB 48 the FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful) Education Act is an excellent law that will further the understanding of the diversity of our people. It will help give our LGBT community its rightful place in our history and schools. By including this important history as a part of the curriculum our youth will have the benefit of a more accurate education. This will also help to lessen the prejudice, discrimination, bigotry and violence that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender folks have endured for centuries. It will help reduce the bullying and violence that LGBT youth suffer.
The following quotes from the article are worth repeating:
[quote] “Most textbooks don’t include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history. Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT Americans. Denying LGBT people their rightful place in history gives our young people an inaccurate and incomplete view of the world around them.” – Senator Mark Leno
“History should be honest. This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books. It represents an important step forward for our state, and I thank Senator Leno for his hard work on this historic legislation.” – Governor Jerry Brown
“California law already requires schools to teach students about the role and contributions of a number of underrepresented groups including African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. SB 48 added Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people to that mandate.” – UC Davis Law Professor Courtney Joslin
“What this new act does is it really does give teachers freedom to teach historical events in an accurate and comprehensive fashion.” – UC Davis Professor Rebecca Rosa
“A number of studies have found that students feel safer when the curriculum is inclusive. LGBT students report feeling safer when they also report that their school includes an inclusive curriculum that includes information about [LGBT] people. In addition to making the LGBT students feel safer because they see positive images of LGBT people, including diversity issues in the curriculum [this] also helps to dispel negative stereotypes that students may have.” – UC Davis Law Professor Courtney Joslin
“This idea of respect for diverse opinion really does provide a great foundation for tolerance which will help schools and teachers develop a sense of community… It’s good for students to see all sorts of individuals, from all sorts of backgrounds.” – UC Davis Professor Rebecca Rosa[/quote]
“Honestly and accurately by whose definition? “
Obviously that would be a subjective view that encompasses the teacher, principal, and school district.
[quote]Nothing makes someone more insecure than being mercilessly picked on and bullied -sometimes quite severely.[/quote]
The problem is this has nothing to do w bullying…
ERM: [i]The problem is this has nothing to do w bullying…[/i]
Please explain why bullying wouldn’t necessarily be a factor in making a victim feel insecure.
JB & ERM: Just to clarify where you’re coming from, do you think that homosexuality is a choice or something you’re born with?
[i]”I found this comment appalling Jeff. Nothing makes someone more insecure than being mercilessly picked on and bullied – sometimes quite severely.”[/i]
David, I get the potential damage done to a person by extreme bullying. I want it dealt with. But just about everyone is bullied at some point. There is a saying “what does not kill you should make you stronger”. I would prefer that we teach all kids how to develop coping skills with the expectation that ignorant people will pick on them from time to time. By instituting so many protections you never develop the individual coping skills… you instead set the expectations that nanny government will continue to protect you from any and all struggles in life.
I believe this is unnatural as humans were designed or evolved to struggle and develop as a result of their struggles.
But, I agree that extreme bullying should be eliminated. I think we are just going way too far to protect people from human confrontation and conflicts over differences. Doing so also has the consequence of ruling all by fear of punishment instead of growing and winning hearts and minds. Why do libs demand we win hearts and minds to encourage change in foreign countries, but use the force of government and law enforcement to force change in their own country.
[i]”JB & ERM: Just to clarify where you’re coming from, do you think that homosexuality is a choice or something you’re born with?”[/i]
I think it is both… the evidence of choice is evident in the “B” in “LGBT” and the fact that there are people that go straight after being gay, and gay after being straight.
However, I think these are the minority and it is more likely that someone homosexual is born with some genetic mutation or biological deviation that causes them to be sexually attracted to members of their own sex. I suppose some of this shifting could be due to biological sexual ambiguity… but I think it is also likely it can be from social sexual confusion.
I do worry that increasing social acceptance will lead to a greater percentage of “choice” gays… especially women. There are clear indications that women – probably because they have more career options – are excluding marriage and children from their future plans. The equalizing downside is the lack of a husband to share a life with. In other words, if you don’t get married to a man you don’t get the benefits of marriage.
Now, with full social acceptance of a gay lifestyle, what would prevent two career women from marrying to enjoy the benefits of marriage while having casual sex with men outside their married relationship? I think the same could happen with men, but I don’t know many straight men that would consider this. The sexuality of men and women I think are different that way. I think straight women more likely could find happiness in a same-sex life partner, a good vibrator and a few casual sex encounters with men outside their core partnership… assuming they get all the benefits of marriage and can adopt kids and give birth through artifical means.
Let the responses begin!
So some same-sex couples (women, apparently) might have open marriages, just as some straight couples do. Got it.
I think you over-think these things, Jeff.
[quote] “Nothing makes someone more insecure than being mercilessly picked on and bullied -sometimes quite severely.”
E Roberts Musser: The problem is this has nothing to do w bullying… [/quote]
Elaine, sure it does. A good education, one that encompasses an accurate and truthful understanding of our fellow human beings (throughout history to the present day) including the teaching about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks and their contributions to our society builds respect for everyone – and that is an effective antidote for bullying. Bullying is a result of the dehumanization of individuals or a class of human beings. Bullying of LGBT kids in school and society is well documented. Studies show that a huge percentage of all youth suicides are amongst kids who are gay or perceived as gay. A study published in Pediatrics, April 2011, stated “lesbian, gay and bisexual teens are five times more likely to attempt suicide than the heterosexual peers”. By educating our youth and community at large on the human and civil rights struggle of the LGBT community and the major accomplishments of many within that community will help to end this appalling situation.
Don: I certainly have been guilty of overthinking things from time to time, but yours is not a valid comparison in the context of my point. wdf1 asked the question if I thought homosexuality was a biological circumstance or choice. My point was that greater social acceptance of gay lifestyle generates a concern that more straight women would chose a gay lifestyle rather than pursue a traditional marriage.
[i]”A good education, one that encompasses an accurate and truthful understanding of our fellow human beings (throughout history to the present day) including the teaching about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks and their contributions to our society builds respect for everyone – and that is an effective antidote for bullying.”[/i]
Bill – I think you have a big problem with this worldview. Bullies are insecure strong-aggressive people who prey upon insecure weak-passive people. It does not matter what the perceived difference is. If you remove one using the law, then the bully will just find the next difference to exploit.
Think about it this way… who would be left out from this new emphasis on teaching kids about LGBT contributions? What about shy people, and introverted people, and people with low IQ? How about red-heads and people with cancer or skin disease? What about the contributions of OCD people, and ugly people? How about the contributions of people lacking any notable athletic ability? I had a receding hairline at a young age and got (still do) picked on about it all the time… what about the contributions of the follicle challenged? I had a friend who had hair on his back in middle school and was picked on… I think we need a MHLH (much hair, little hair) section of the history textbooks to make sure kids stop picking on people like me and my friend. What about fat people… don’t they need some mention of history to help keep kids from picking on them? The list goes on does it not?
Other than ensuring physical safety, the solution is to develop people to be more secure and kind, and to better able to cope with adversity. That is the educational improvements we should be focusing on.
The controversy surrounding the FAIR Act, I believe, is the best argument for why it is needed. The existing statute to which LGBT Americans is added already includes men and women, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups. It merely requires that instruction in the social sciences shall include the “role and contributions to the economic, political, and social development of California and the U.S.” of these groups, “with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.” It says nothing about outing individual historical or contemporary figures.
The visceral reaction to the addition of LGBT Americans says a lot about the societal attitudes surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation. And to those who would protest, I would point out that the FAIR Act also added “persons with disabilities” to the list—yet there is nary a word in any of the commentary in reference to that change. Nor, for that matter, is there an outpouring of sentiment to repeal any or all of the existing statute.
In today’s news is the story that James Oetken was just confirmed as the first openly gay man ever to be appointed to the federal bench. That’s incredible and says much about the stigma associated with, and societal attitudes about LGBT individuals in today’s society. The FAIR Act is one small step in remedying this situation through our education system. That’s a good thing.
“Students should learn as part of a democratic process and a democratic society we have a right to disagree and that we should listen to different perspectives, that they need to be taken into account. We make judgments based on evidence and not bias and emotions.”
lmao. democratic Process being what leno has decided the curriculum should be. then theres a contradiction in the next breath “…we should listen to different perspectives…” those “different perspectives” as defined by Leno, and the people “should” listen to those because Leno and the governor said so. where’s the democracy in that?
the last sentence is halarious because it is clear bias and emotions are driving this bill.
I love this. “the FAIR act.” in other words, you have to agree with this, otherwise you are being “unfair.” the danger in this act is it is an attempt to squash differing opinion. CA should just let people who are pro LGBT run our education establishment because they say that is “fair.” and if you don’t like it, tough doo doo because we say so.
there is a plague on CA, and it is these self important do-gooders that are attempting to do nothing more than use social causes to consolidate their own power over the electorate by any means necessary, and that is what this bill is.
91 O: [i]I love this. “the FAIR act.” in other words, you have to agree with this, otherwise you are being “unfair.” the danger in this act is it is an attempt to squash differing opinion.[/i]
I love this. “the [s]FAIR[/s] Defense of Marriage act.” in other words, you have to agree with this, otherwise you are [s]being “unfair.”[/s] “against marriage”. the danger in this act is it is an attempt to squash differing opinion. etc.
Jeff, all bullying is wrong and needs to be prevented whenever and wherever possible. Teaching people to be kind to one another and respectful of our differences as human beings is a key to ending it. Just as important too is the disciplining and holding those accountable who fail to obey the rules or laws on hazing or bullying which have been enacted in recent years. Making schools safe, free of harassment and intimidation and accepting of all is fundamental to a good learning environment. Bullying for any reason should have no place in our society.
But there is a huge difference between a person who suffers bullying due to their race (Afro-American, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American), national origin, creed (Jewish, Catholicism, Muslim), gender, age, disabilities or sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) verses the forms of bullying you list which can effect people in any group, whether they be from the majority or a minority. All races, nationalities, creeds, genders, ages, disabilities or sexual orientations have people who are shy, introverted, have low IQ’s, have red hair, suffer from cancer, skin disease or OCD. Every group has ugly people, although “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Every group has those with less than an athletic ability, receding hairlines, or are fat, etc. But none of those characteristics rise to the same level or are in the same league with people who have suffered the indignities, prejudice and discrimination because they belong to any of the enumerated protected classes (minorities).
America has a long history of legalized bigotry, discrimination, segregation and violence that has plagued the above mentioned minority groups. The toleration of this brutality has been overwhelming directed towards our minority people. In other words, throughout our country’s history racism, sexism and homophobia has been widely acceptable both socially and codified in the laws of America and many individual states. These actions gave rights to the majority to legally discriminate against minorities. As a result a large portion of American history is about the many civil rights movements (including the Civil War) who over the centuries have fought and continue to fight to end these discriminations and protect our minorities as we as a country still work towards becoming a more perfect union.
Bill, [i]”But there is a huge difference between a person who suffers bullying due to their race (Afro-American, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American), national origin, creed (Jewish, Catholicism, Muslim), gender, age, disabilities or sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) verses the forms of bullying you list which can effect people in any group.”[/i]
It terms of the impact to the individual, I completely disagree. Bullying has the same or materially similar impact. It is really a stretch to make the case to justify only certain groups deserve this level of protection. The kid with unattractive facial features that gets bullied cannot help his appearance any more than a black boy who gets bullied can. In terms of the status held in the template of political correctness, I would agree that a bullied white male would not be equal to the groups you mention.
Think about it this way, a white boy with facial deformations and a black boy with facial deformations… both get severely beat. However, the black boy is better protected by hate crime laws. The ACLU and the NAACP comes to his rescue. How do you justify this difference. Isn’t it just another form of discrimination? How might the white boy’s family feel about the difference in protection and support?
[i]”America has a long history of legalized bigotry, discrimination, segregation and violence that has plagued the above mentioned minority groups.”[/i]
Compared to which other countries? Please make a list of all the countries you think are more tollerant so I can understand how America is so deserving of this image you paint.
[i] Please make a list of all the countries you think are more tollerant [/i]
Why?
JB: Where I disagree with you in your argument is that adult society, in recent years, has legitimized discrimination of homosexuals. In my day in school, I remember teachers (male coaches specifically come to mind) and parents making specifically disparaging comments about males being effeminate. The military, in the very recent past, has made it clear that if you’re caught being homosexual, then you can’t serve. That kind of behavior gives a certain amount of permission to perpetuate discrimination among my generation and potentially younger generations, and includes presidential candidates.
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079221-503544.html[/url]
According to her quotes in the above article, Michele Bachmann would like to establish that it is wrong to be gay.
By contrast, I’m not aware of a standardized pattern in society that says that it’s wrong to have facial deformations. Imagine the additional outrage that Bachmann would spark if you replaced all of her references to homosexuality in the above article with “facial deformities”.
“what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”
And sometimes in this country being gay has led to being killed. Matthew Sheppard comes to mind.
I doubt that one could point to specific instances in which someone was killed simply because someone did not like the arrangement of their facial features. I agree that the amount of animosity stirred up by this proposal says more about the mind set of those opposing it than it does about any supposed agenda of its proponents.
I would have no difficulty accepting information about any difficulties encountered by religious groups stemming from what they consider unacceptable forced inclusiveness. That is also a legitimate point of view worth considering. So, what exactly is it that makes presenting historical information about the gay civil rights movement so unacceptable ? Should not our history be the story of all of our groups and movements, not just the ones we happen to admire ?
I hope that the specification of race, cultural background, sexual prediliction, religion, etc. etc. etc. for historical figures is not given undue emphasis, and strengthen the lure of identity/wedge politics in our country.
I guess I’m concerned that teaching of history becomes overly-politicized; and we go down a road like the Soviet Union in presenting a politically correct version of history, instead of focusing on the most important figures in advancing the history of the USA (unless it becomes fractured into the history of each identity group). I think all groups of peoples have made significant contributions to civilization, and all of us of all races and creeds have ancestors that went thru sheer hell and abuse; far worse than almost anything going on today. Hopefully the added annotations to historical figures will focus mainly on contributions made, and secondarily on greviances suffered.
[i]”Please make a list of all the countries you think are more tollerant. [/i]
Don: [i]Why?[/i]
In the inclusion game, we are better than all others in my opinion. Our glass is 95% full by comparison to what might be considered reasonable perfection.
There is a business principle that says the last 10% of perfection can be 90% of the cost. There is another principle that says “perfection is the enemy of the good”.
wdf1: [i]”adult society, in recent years, has legitimized discrimination of homosexuals.”[/i]
Recent years? What calendar to you use? In any case, there are always going to be a few people that have hostile bias against gays, just like there are always going to be a few blacks owning hostile bias against whites (as an example). Some religious people still consider homosexuality a sin. There will always be a percent of the population that feels the way they do. As long as they do no harm, they are entitled to their opinion. Legislating the inclusion of gay historical figures in text books is not going to change their opinion. Frankly, it is a stupid idea.
[i]In the inclusion game, we are better than all others in my opinion. [/i]
There are about 196 nations in the world. I doubt if you have the slightest idea how inclusive most of them are by any subjective or objective standard.
[quote]Anyone can be the victim of bullying but certain types of children are more likely to be victimized. Here are the characteristics that make someone more likely to be a victim of bullying.
[b]The Typical Victim of Bullying Has an Insecure Personality[/b]
Children who act submissively and anxiously are more likely to be bullied than children who do not have those tendencies. Bullied children also tend to be insecure and to cry often, even before the bullying begins. In fact, some researchers believe that a child’s lack of assertiveness and security may serve as a cue to bullies that the child is a “perfect victim”. There’s also evidence that children who experience depression and bodily symptoms of stress (such as headaches or stomachaches) may be more likely to be bullied. This is particularly unfortunate since these problems also seem to be caused or worsened by bullying.
[b]The Typical Victim of Bullying Has Lower Peer Acceptance[/b]
Bully victims tend to have fewer friends than children who do not experience bullying. In addition, a victim of bullying is often perceived poorly by peers and may have experienced peer rejection. These children are often found alone at recess and lunchtime. This negative peer response typically occurs long before the bullying begins.
[b]The Typical Victim of Bullying is “Different” in Some Way[/b]
Unfortunately, children with special needs are disproportionately victims of bullying. For instance, children with learning disorders often report that they are bullied as a result of their disorder. Children with obvious physical or mental issues may also face abuse at higher levels than their peers, as may those who are homosexual or bisexual.
[b]The Typical Victim of Bullying is Physically Weak[/b]
Being physically weaker than peers also seems to put a child at increased risk of being bullied. This particularly seems to be the case for kids who look weaker at first glance; in other words, kids who are shorter, thinner or less muscular than peers. Victimized children also tend to fail at sports.
[b]The Typical Victim of Bullying Has Overprotective Parents[/b]
Perhaps because their child demonstrates many of the characteristics listed here, parents of bully victims tend to overprotect their child. These parents tend to avoid open disagreements with their child and try to create a sense of harmony in the household at all costs. Unfortunately this makes the child less able to deal with conflict and more likely to be victimized by peers. In addition, parents of victims often become socially over-involved with their child to make up for peer rejection. Again, this only makes the child’s problems with peers worse rather than better.[/quote]
[quote]Bill, “But there is a huge difference between a person who suffers bullying due to their race (Afro-American, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American), national origin, creed (Jewish, Catholicism, Muslim), gender, age, disabilities or sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) verses the forms of bullying you list which can effect people in any group.”
Jeff: It terms of the impact to the individual, I completely disagree. Bullying has the same or materially similar impact. It is really a stretch to make the case to justify only certain groups deserve this level of protection. The kid with unattractive facial features that gets bullied cannot help his appearance any more than a black boy who gets bullied can. In terms of the status held in the template of political correctness, I would agree that a bullied white male would not be equal to the groups you mention.
Think about it this way, a white boy with facial deformations and a black boy with facial deformations… both get severely beat. However, the black boy is better protected by hate crime laws. The ACLU and the NAACP comes to his rescue. How do you justify this difference. Isn’t it just another form of discrimination? How might the white boy’s family feel about the difference in protection and support?[/quote]
Using your example, if either boy regardless of their race was beaten because of facial deformities they are both victims of the same crime of assault and also possibly victims of a hate crime due to their disability (facial deformations). If either boy was solely or additionally beaten because of his race (black or white) that is both an assault and a hate crime. Hate crimes are enhancement charges added to the original crime if the motivation to hurt someone is due in part or solely to their race, nationality, religion, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation. Both boys (black or white) are equally protected by the same criminal code including statutes relating to hate crime enhancements.
[quote]Bill, “America has a long history of legalized bigotry, discrimination, segregation and violence that has plagued the above mentioned minority groups.”
Jeff: Compared to which other countries? Please make a list of all the countries you think are more tollerant so I can understand how America is so deserving of this image you paint.[/quote]
I am not comparing bigotry, discrimination, segregation and bullying between countries. I am concerned about my community and my country. I am focused on America’s history of discrimination and the accompanying bullying and violence which have primarily victimized Afro-American, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native Americans, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, women, youth and the elderly, people with disabilities as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Our country’s history is replete with horrific examples of discrimination, violence towards these human beings which have many times been institutionalized as acceptable behavior in our society. I am not aware of many examples of hate crimes towards people due to being Caucasian or any examples of hate crimes against a person for being a male or heterosexual. But if a person was assaulted due to being white, male or heterosexual that would qualify as a hate crime enhancement.
JB: [i]Recent years? What calendar to you use?[/i]
Yours and my lifetimes. Even 2011 has some interesting situations
JB: [i]In any case, there are always going to be a few people that have hostile bias against gays, just like there are always going to be a few blacks owning hostile bias against whites (as an example).[/i]
But not as openly and as publicly as hostile bias against homosexuals. Here’s another Republican candidate, Herman Cain, who also thinks homosexuality is wrong:
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070225-503544.html[/url]
[quote]Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain told Hotsheet Wednesday that homosexuality is a sin and a choice.
“I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” he said. “But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice.”
Cain was asked: “So you believe it’s a choice?”
“I believe it is a choice,” he responded.[/quote]
Again, replace homosexuality with black or white in the article above, and then see how amped up the outrage gets. The Republicans in particular probably need to have Mark Leno’s bill as law so that they can cultivate more viable presidential candidates. If we are going to have a viable democracy, then we need to be able to have a public discourse that doesn’t condemn marginalized groups whose behaviors don’t cause harm to others.
wdf1: So, essentially you are singling out people with religious convictions that cause them to see homosexuality as a choice or a sin as being hostile to gays? From that logic it would also work to say that you are hostile against religious people.
I think Herman Cain is wrong that homosexuality is a choice or a sin for all gays, but isn’t it his right to have that opinion? What is hostile about it?
Back to my original point, from you and other’s apparent high sensitivity to what we should consider hostility toward gays, many people on the left should be incarcerated for hate crimes against religious people.
JB: “In any case, there are always going to be a few people that have hostile bias against gays, just like there are always going to be a few blacks owning hostile bias against whites (as an example).”
Yes the poor oppressed white males of america must learn to suffer the hostile bias of blacks against whites. Oh our burdens are so great, our causes so just, the strength of our spirits in the face of such trials and tribulations so admirable. How can anyone deny the righteousness of our views.
[i]”I am not comparing bigotry, discrimination, segregation and bullying between countries.[/i]
Bill: Why not? You are backing your position by pointing out the terrible behavior of America and Americans; don’t you think it makes sense to test that position by comparing our behavior to all other humans? Maybe your expectations for racial nirvana in the US are irrational given human nature and statistics. Maybe too, you have lost objectivity for seeing the full part of the glass with media-enflamed racial bias glasses affixed to your face.
There is a great Clint Eastwood movie called Gran Torino. You should watch it if you haven’t already. It is a good story of inner-city race relations, racial violence and the complexities for blending cultural differences in communities. Elite libs live in their safe and predominately white gated communities were they lose touch with this reality. However, when you are at the bottom rungs of the ladder climbing toward higher prosperity, there is tremendous frustration and friction. The frustration and friction manifests in many different ways including racial and cultural bias. It is bias that cuts all ways. It will always exist. The US is already the most positive country in terms of racial and cultural harmony. To make it better we need to improve the economic circumstances by creating a stronger private sector economy and more jobs. Adding pages to a history text book to glorify homosexuality is just plain stupid if the goal is to increase tolerance of homosexuality.
JB: [i]So, essentially you are singling out people with religious convictions that cause them to see homosexuality as a choice or a sin as being hostile to gays? From that logic it would also work to say that you are hostile against religious people. [/i]
Depends. I think a person is free to have whatever religious convictions he/she chooses. But there are limits on whether it is appropriate or legal to act on them. And there are limits on socially acceptable discussion. I suppose we could all defend the late Gov. George Wallace’s right to publicly advocate for segregation, but we also could probably agree that these views are not socially acceptable for public discussion. An orthodox muslim politician has the right to campaign for shariah law, but I argue that this is not socially acceptable discussion in the U.S.
Herman Cain has no problem singling out people with religious convictions. I don’t have any problem singling him out for what he publicly professes as his religious convictions.
[url]http://www.personalliberty.com/news/herman-cain-banning-mosques-is-not-discriminating-against-muslims-28698/[/url]
It is hostile, because it publicly devalues another human being for traits that are not necessarily a choice, and which do not harm others. It is easy to have your views when you and your loved ones don’t belong to a group that has been socially stigmatized, Religious views are more of a choice than homosexuality.
[quote]Elaine, sure it does. A good education, one that encompasses an accurate and truthful understanding of our fellow human beings (throughout history to the present day) including the teaching about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks and their contributions to our society builds respect for everyone – and that is an effective antidote for bullying. Bullying is a result of the dehumanization of individuals or a class of human beings. Bullying of LGBT kids in school and society is well documented. Studies show that a huge percentage of all youth suicides are amongst kids who are gay or perceived as gay.[/quote]
First, doesn’t it seem a bit ridiculous to you that after every name of someone who has made a valuable contribution to history, must follow a list of his/her ethnic background and sexual preference? Unless that ethnic background or sexual preference is central to their contribution, it is just plain silly. And what to we do about the person who is bisexual, or 10% native American, 15% Irish American, etc.? This is just political correctness run amok – a solution in search of a problem.
Secondly, every group likes to play victim, as if they are the only ones bullied or killed at school. This is just plain not true. My son was beaten numerous times, my daughter sexually assaulted in Davis schools. Severe bullying is not exclusive to any group. While it may feel good to single out specific groups for protection by anti-bullying policies, it is a cop-out and fails to get at the root problems of bullying.
For those of you who think homosexual kids are bullied more severely, how about the Asian student killed at Davis High School for just being Asian? Or Andrew Mockus for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. How about the white Irish girl who hanged herself bc of extreme bullying in MA? My son was probably slated for elimination by knife – fortunately the student who was going to do the killing was caught with the knife before the crime could be carried out. Bullying is seen by too many as a normal rite of passage, and NO ONE IS IMMUNE. Bullying goes on bc society as a whole has failed to put pressure on our schools to do anything substantive about it.
To wdf1: I’m not sure why it matters, but I believe that homosexuality is most likely genetic. It occurs naturally in other animal species, so it is not hard to extrapolate to the human species…
And yes, I have gay friends…
[i]”It is hostile, because it publicly devalues another human being for traits that are not necessarily a choice, and which do not harm others. It is easy to have your views when you and your loved ones don’t belong to a group that has been socially stigmatized, Religious views are more of a choice than homosexuality.”[/i]
First, I think your definition of what constitutes hostility is way too extreme for what would serve a society or culture well. Everyone needs to grow some thicker skin. The hyper-sensitive are a plague on the process of healthy conflict. You cannot make a better world by adding more police to enforce laws that prevent all hurt feelings.
I am starting to see a pattern here which seems to cover some of the reason why people with similar education and backgrounds gravitate ideologically left or right. For those espousing more left-leaning views, there seems to be a thicker emotional rind for processing events of the world and human interactions. The vision seems to be a world where there is no conflict, no struggle, no adversity… where everyone is made equal by rules… but we celebrate all non-mainstream cultural differences so that we do not offend those with minority status. It seems that what we are seeing is a manifestation of that saying “the meek will inherit the earth”.
Those with right-leaning views seem to be more at ease with a world where conflict, struggle and adversity will always exist at a higher level. They appear to be much more logical and less emotional in how they process world events and the behaviors of humans. They also seem to get the long term negative consequences of social engineering to legislate fairness, verses a society that creates copious opportunities but expect individual competition and self determination to succeed and win. They value rational conflict and the constant development of skills to negotiate and maneuver through a maze of challenges that helps support the Darwinian Theory (get the irony there?) of natural selection and survival of the species.
If either of my sons were gay, I would still be working hard to toughen them up for the world. I would be teaching them the things they need to have self confidence and self-worth. I would tell them they are different and that it is okay. I would tell them that they are going to have a more difficult time in life because humans tend to exploit the differences of others to make themselves feel more successful by comparison. I would help them grow thick skin… to take self-defense classes. To learn how to behave so they have the best chance to integrate with our society and culture and be successful and happy. I would teach them to laugh about themselves and be humble. I would teach them that life is a hard struggle that is not always fair… that it is supposed to be a hard struggle that it is mostly not fair. I would teach them about the red flame of negative emotions versus the blue flame of positive emotions and the actions associated with them. I would teach them about God and evil and help them develop a spiritual foundation that could support them in their darkest moments. I would tell them that, despite what liberals constantly try to do, you cannot fundamentally change others… you can only change yourself.
[i]The US is already the most positive country in terms of racial and cultural harmony.[/i]
Again, you probably have no idea whether this is true or not, assuming it could be objectively or even subjectively assessed.
Actually, Singapore is probably the most racially and culturally harmonious. The US is better than all of Europe and Asia. Australia and Canada may be better than the US, but I would say not by much especially when making adjustments for population and population density.
What all of these high-ranking harmonious countries have in common is a very strong private-sector economy. Jobs and prosperity do wonders to create harmony. Without them, government can only nibble at the edges at best.
[i]The US is better than all of Europe and Asia[/i]
[i]Australia and Canada may be better than the US, but I would say not by much[/i]
Wow. Again: you have no idea. Where do you get this stuff?
JB: [i]Actually, Singapore is probably the most racially and culturally harmonious. [/i]
I agree with Don that there’s subjectivity that you’re not acknowledging. But to take your statement at face value, then you may want to also evaluate some other things, as well. Singapore has a relatively restrictive society compared to the U.S. For instance:
[quote]The People’s Action Party (PAP) has won every election since self-government in 1959. The legal system of Singapore has its foundations in the English common law system, but modifications have been made to it over the years, such as the removal of trial by jury. The PAP’s popular image is that of a strong, experienced and highly-qualified government, backed by a skilled Civil Service and an education system with an emphasis on achievement and meritocracy; but it is perceived by some voters, opposition critics and international observers as being authoritarian and too restrictive on individual freedom.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore[/url][/quote]
And…
Chewing gum ban in Singapore
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore[/url]
JB: [i]What all of these high-ranking harmonious countries have in common is a very strong private-sector economy. Jobs and prosperity do wonders to create harmony. Without them, government can only nibble at the edges at best.[/i]
And apparently their citizens have a higher tax burden than the U.S., as measured by &#xGD;P. See [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP[/url]. Rather interesting, in light of Republican opposition to taxing in order to balance the budget.
SB 48 is the FAIR (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful) Fair Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful as defined by whom? Leno?
[i]”Wow. Again: you have no idea. Where do you get this stuff?”[/i]
Don, I read alot of stuff. Also, isn’t a blog a place to post opinions? Or do we require a peer review process?
We all can quote articles and statistics to support our worldview, so why not just cut to the chase and post our opinions instead of using references to qualify or disqualify them.
By the way, Google is working hard to solve the problem of negative references being favored in search returns. For example, if I search on race inclusion by country, articles from people complaining about the US being racist tend to dominate. So, this then requires to spend more time and effort using other search tools. I don’t have that time.
However, since I am very comfortable with my opinion that the US is the most inclusive country on the planet when controlled for the level of freedom and population density, I feel I don’t need to cite references.
wdf1: You make some good observations about restrictiveness and taxation. Then how do you explain the multiculturalism conflicts stewing in old Europe?
its already begun: several people on this blog have opened their argument saying “anyone against this bill…. or similar statements…” in otherwords, there is something wrong if you do not agree with the bill or its premises, namely LGBT is underrepresented in history and it needs to be dealt with. I do not agree that LGBT is underrepresented because LGBT is a relatively new term, that has been recently defined only a few years ago.
this is political correctness run amok by those who wish to use feel good terms to consolidate their own power.
the only thing this bill has achieved is one thing: making california’s loony status official.
this is also an attempt for extreme leftists to literally re-write history. that is dangerous and they need to be stopped.
what’s the difference between Mark Leno/Jerry Brown and Bozo the clown? Bozo the clown’s act doesn’t have far reaching implications for the the entire state.
I can stomach Gay Marriage. Arguments have been posited which make sense for that. but this is nothing short of grotesque, and giving a vocal minority control of the curriculum for all of CA, to indoctrinate our children into extreme-Liberal ideas. Its one thing to voice ones opinion about what CA should be like, to impose it on others is something else, let alone our children.
meanwhile, the one thing that gets lost is the economy. somehow, there is always something to distract from that. people don’t care about this. we need jobs in CA, and we need them now. Jerry Brown and Mark Leno need to cut the crap.
Good point 91 O. The extreme left knows, like Stalin and Mao knew, that the way to win the ideological war is to brainwash the young and be patient for those with more common sense to die off.
91 O: [i]I do not agree that LGBT is underrepresented because LGBT is a relatively new term, that has been recently defined only a few years ago.[/i]
Perhaps the “BT” part has only been acknowledged in more recent years, but homosexuality has existed since ancient times. From my personal experience, it has been taboo to discuss homosexuality, academically, in a public school setting. But just because there are certain aspects of history that aren’t discussed doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
In light of recent history, I think it’s entirely appropriate that a high school U.S. history course discuss various ways that social values have changed in recent times — women getting the right to vote and acquiring professional flexibility, the civil rights movement, the movement of disabled citizens into mainstream society with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the increasing acceptance of homosexuals in society in recent years.
With the latter issue of homosexuals, it would be appropriate to include, as history, the Stonewall riot, Harvey Milk, and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. It all happened. Why pretend that it didn’t?
I realize that Jeff Boone argues that there will always be social oppression, and trying to do something about it is probably a waste of time. I disagree. I think the U.S. has done a good job of working to reduce societal prejudice over time. There are worthwhile public discussions, such as we’re having here, that ultimately allow for a bigger market of participation in our democracy.
91 O: [i]this is also an attempt for extreme leftists to literally re-write history. that is dangerous and they need to be stopped.[/i]
And I perceive you as being interested in suppressing history. That is dangerous and needs to be stopped.
Jeff, right on. and brainwashing the young to grow up and give lots of democratic votes.
JB: [i]The extreme left knows, like Stalin and Mao knew[/i]
Lovely, Jeff. I have been civil and respectful to you and your ideas, even as I disagree. I suppose now you wouldn’t mind if I associate you with the extreme right and compare you to Hitler and Mussolini?
I think we’d probably both agree that we all live somewhere between those extremes.
WDF, I’m not talking about the existence of homosexuality, I’m not talking about suppression of women, I’m not talking about the civil rights act, and I’m not talking about the disabled. cut the crap.
WDF: “And I perceive you as being interested in suppressing history. That is dangerous and needs to be stopped.”
suppressing history as you, Mr. Leno, and Mr. Brown have ultmately decided it to be.
wdf1: On Stalin and Mao… although probably insensitive of me at some level, I was making a point that there are similarities in these collectivist worldviews and how these leaders strategized to grow and maintain their power through the brainwashing of the masses of young… and how the practice can lead to bad things. The American left controls the young. It is right out of the text of the Bill Ayers School of liberalism how the public schools and universities are key to winning the hearts and minds of future voters. Say something enough times and it becomes knowledge… despite the truth. You can actually manufacture a new morality with this thing called propaganda. That is how Hitler convinced enough of those pragmatic Germans that Jews should be exterminated (that is my extreme example).
Isn’t the intent of this Leno bill that Brown signed… repeat pictures and stories of gays enough times to enough young people and it will serve to mainstream homosexuality? Isn’t that just another form of propaganda-manufactured morality (i.e., homosexuality is normal and right)?
I would be interested in how you might connect Hitler and Mussolini to my American conservative libertarian worldview. I might learn something because I don’t see the fit.
…and yes I see us both as substancially inbetween extremes. But debates btween the stubborn don’t benefit from too much nuance.
91 O:[i]suppressing history as you, Mr. Leno, and Mr. Brown have ultmately decided it to be.[/i]
And I offered you the history that you would like to suppress:
“With the latter issue of homosexuals, it would be appropriate to include, as history, the Stonewall riot, Harvey Milk, and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. It all happened. Why pretend that it didn’t?”
None of that was in my high school history book (my high school years pre-dated DADT). Now what do YOU think SB48 will look like?
And I offered you the history that you would like to suppress:
“With the latter issue of homosexuals, it would be appropriate to include, as history, the Stonewall riot, Harvey Milk, and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. It all happened. Why pretend that it didn’t?”
None of that was in my high school history book (my high school years pre-dated DADT). Now what do YOU think SB48 will look like?
Sorry, WDF: but you are wrong on two fronts. The first is that I ever said I was against discussing the existence of don’t ask don’t tell policy in high school. You put those words in my mouth, and used a straw man on that one.
Second, The bill does not specifically say, we want to make sure high schoolers are aware of don’t ask don’t tell. And there is a reason for that. The bill is more vague, and we all know damn well why it is, so it can be freely interpreted to allow left leaning teachers to allow LGBT causes to dominate the curriculum the way they see fit, and use this bill as a legal vehicle for such political campaign platforms on behalf of leftist social causes, and socially engineer the next generation of would-be liberal democrat voters. I’m not naive. nice try though.
Actually, as I understand it this bill tells curriculum writers what to do. It doesn’t tell teachers what to do. Here is the text of the bill in what I believe to be the final form: [url]http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/74798[/url]
This is much ado about nothing.
“… governing boards shall include materials that accurately portray the role and contribution of ” etc. etc.
It is at the discretion of those districts as to which curriculum they choose. Curriculum committees, including public members, review them. Parents have the right to review curriculum materials at any time.
I had left-leaning teachers and right-leaning teachers, and more whose political leanings were not apparent. Those of which I am aware would emphasize some things more than others. But in neither case did they try to brainwash me, and if you’ve ever had a teenager you know that attempts at brainwashing usually backfire.
Meanwhile, down in Texas….[url]http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/07/state_board_of_education_chair.php[/url]
DMG: “It is at the discretion of those districts as to which curriculum they choose. Curriculum committees, including public members, review them. Parents have the right to review curriculum materials at any time.
I had left-leaning teachers and right-leaning teachers, and more whose political leanings were not apparent. Those of which I am aware would emphasize some things more than others.”
my understanding is well more than half of educators in CA are democrats or green. who is kidding who, who is the curriculum committees going to be stacked with? half republican, half democrat? yeah right. there is plenty of legal wiggle room to allow unfettered abuse of the system.
91 O: [i]You put those words in my mouth, and used a straw man on that one.[/i]
Okay. Sorry about that. It seemed you had some specific rant at first, but I suppose not.
91 O:[i] The bill is more vague, and we all know damn well why it is, so it can be freely interpreted to allow left leaning teachers to allow LGBT causes to dominate the curriculum the way they see fit, and use this bill as a legal vehicle for such political campaign platforms on behalf of leftist social causes, and socially engineer the next generation of would-be liberal democrat voters.[/i]
Really? There are homosexual Republicans that have also been involved in the larger cause (Log Cabin Republicans). Mark Leno, as sponsoring legislator, just happened to be Democrat and gay.
[i]unfettered abuse of the system.[/i]
Please explain to me what this means.
JB: [i]From that logic it would also work to say that you are hostile against religious people.
I think Herman Cain is wrong that homosexuality is a choice or a sin for all gays, but isn’t it his right to have that opinion? What is hostile about it?
Back to my original point, from you and other’s apparent high sensitivity to what we should consider hostility toward gays, many people on the left should be incarcerated for hate crimes against religious people.[/i]
I’m not a constitutional scholar or historian, so what I offer here is not grounded in cited references: I believe our country was founded on a secular framework in order that people of different religious faiths and orientations could have space to practice their worship. In order for that to work, there are limits to how far religious beliefs can be imposed on others. Herman Cain can believe that homosexuality is a sin, but he needs to clarify very concretely how far his governing policy will be dictated by his religious beliefs.
I disagree with certain lines of conservative/Republican thought which insist that the U.S. is and should remain fundamentally a Christian nation, and should run as such. I would speak out against such views. I disagree that that is a hate crime. I’m not sure what you refer to that liberals should be jailed for hate crimes against religious people.
For the record, I consider myself a religious person. I don’t care to discuss my religious views with others, because as far as I’m concerned, they help me make sense of the world personally, but may not work for others. I’m not interested in pushing my religious views on anyone else. But I expect others to allow equivalent space for other citizens to explore individual religious views without undo coercion. I think this is a core value for many liberals and founding fathers. If this is a hate crime, then please explain.
Going out and publicly decrying someone as sinful, especially when done by a public figure, and where there is no legal basis (being homosexual is definitely not a crime) is crossing the line. It is public shaming, and it is inappropriate. Clearly the Supreme Court would legally protect a certain amount of speech in this realm, but nevertheless, it is undesirable social behavior.
[i]”I believe our country was founded on a secular framework in order that people of different religious faiths and orientations could have space to practice their worship.”[/i]
I believe that our country was was founded on a secular framework based on a primarily Christian foundation. The word “God” is all over the documents and articles that comprise our original books of laws.
Personally, I don’t think our Christian God sees homosexuality as a sin. However that is my opinion and other Christians see it differently. It is unfortunate, but it is their right to hold their beliefs as long as they do not harm others. The idea that “public shaming” is hostility is a very, very slippery slope and one that would erode many freedoms of speach and expression if it were true.
Since you are such a fan of law replacing religion as a common base of morality, then why not just use the law to sue for damages from slander?
In any case, gay supporters stating that religiious people stating they think homosexuality is a sin are being hostile to gays is itself a demonstration of hostility against religious people using that same benchmark. Obama saying republicans cling to their guns and religion is also hostility against a group of people using that logic.
See how this might be evidence of a bit too much sensitivity for our ongoing public welfare? I think it is time for the PC correctness movement to fade away so we can get back to having productive American thick skin. Remember the “sticks and stones” verse?
[quote]I had left-leaning teachers and right-leaning teachers, and more whose political leanings were not apparent. Those of which I am aware would emphasize some things more than others. But in neither case did they try to brainwash me, and if you’ve ever had a teenager you know that attempts at brainwashing usually backfire. [/quote]
And my kids had all left leaning teachers that were extremely intolerant of any views other than their own. My kids were maligned by teachers, for expressing any view that differed from the teachers’. And I am not talking about very substantive issues here. I am talking about things as simple as a teacher who thought it was sacrilege to drive a car, period. Never mind that he drove a car to work himself. Frankly, I don’t think most people realize how radicalized left some of the teachers in our schools are…
[i]”And my kids had all left leaning teachers that were extremely intolerant of any views other than their own”[/i]
Me too. Part of my two kids’ developed distaste for education had to do with this… they believed differently and were marginalized (maybe “bullied”?) by certain teachers in the Davis school system. The result was that they clammed up and found a away to just get through the day without being motivated to participate and learn.
Thinking about the elite left’s cry for more tolerance and diversity; I find it ironic how much they demonstrate intolerance for any ideas except what fits in their ideological box. They shield themselves from having to face debate with media-sponsored political correctness rules.
See where we are headed:
[url]http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/canada[/url]
[url]http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080[/url]
You gotta love all those liberal Canadians with their crappy free healthcare. It appears they are short on mental illness medication.
ERM: [i]And my kids had all left leaning teachers that were extremely intolerant of any views other than their own.[/i]
Every last teacher being left-leaning? and extremely intolerant? I think that’s actually rare to end up that way. And some courses just don’t lend themselves to injecting politics so easily — math, for instance.
I have had college professors (philosophy, political science) who, in class, postured as more liberal than they truly were in order to make students defend their own views. In recent years the political science professor actually postured more conservative than most students could stomach. A lot of students really needed that. Many adopting, usually, their parents views without really thinking why.
[i]I am talking about things as simple as a teacher who thought it was sacrilege to drive a car, period. Never mind that he drove a car to work himself.[/i]
The way you describe it, that sounds like someone whose just a little eccentric. Not necessarily a radicalized leftist.
Jeff, you might want to read the ‘updates’ on that first link you posted, since they cite attempts by the Bush administration and advocacy by Newt Gingrich of the kind of intolerance you’re ascribing to the “elite left.” And, as noted, quoting Noam Chomsky in the same article, “freedom of speech is protected in the United States to an extent that is unique in the world.”
Gallup poll, 2003, health care satisfaction: [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx[/url]
“In Great Britain, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (43%) is consistent with satisfaction with quality (42%). In Canada, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (57%) is slightly higher than satisfaction with quality (52%). But the most dramatic variation in satisfaction with these two facets of the healthcare system occurs in the United States, where only 25% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, but 48% are satisfied with quality. Once again, this dichotomy seems to support the hypothesis that private healthcare encourages high-quality standards, but may be a barrier to access and affordability.”
[i]The word “God” is all over the documents and articles that comprise our original books of laws. [/i]
I’m not an originalist anyway, but just for the record, “God” (or Creator) appears thrice in the Declaration of Independence, and not at all in the Constitution.
Don: That is true, but the separation of church and state as defined by the left is a myth. The actual text is:
[quote]”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”[/quote]
John Adams:
[quote]”We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[/quote]
Tomas Jefferson (the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence):
[quote]”I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.”[/quote]
It is clear that the intended purpose of the designed “wall” between church and state was to protect the churches from the state (protect the freedom of religion and religious practice), not the reverse and not to remove the traces of religion from all public resources, practices and beliefs.
Most of the framers were Christian. It is mine and many others’ belief that the lack of mention of God and religion was more in deference to the individual states handling of religion than it was some fear or distaste for religion in public life. In addition, the clause dealing with the veto power of the President (Article I, Section 7) provides that the President shall have ten days to consider a bill for veto except “Sundays”. This paid deference to the traditional observance of the Sunday sabbath by most Christian denominations. Finally, the Constitution dated itself both from the year of national independence and “in the Year of our Lord.”
There is no question that Protestant tradition played a key role in shaping both the institutions and the ideas in the Constitution and during the debates of 1787.
Yes, which is why we can thank Rhode Island for preserving our rights. So, what does that have to do with California’s education curriculum?