The ink was barely dry on the Governor’s signature on SB 48 when a group of conservatives announced that has filed papers to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal the law that amends 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.
The effort to repeal the law is being led by the Pacific Justice Institute and an arm of Capitol Resource Institute.
“Governor Brown refused to listen to the calls of pro-family voters asking him to veto SB 48,” Ms. England added. “The bill costs too much and it goes too far. He ignored the majority in our state who object to the implementation of this controversial, objectionable, and poor public school policy. The people of the state want a vote on SB 48.”
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “We have been seeing a groundswell of opposition to the enactment of SB 48, and now it is time to act.”
He added, “This effort will require us all to sacrifice and work together. We cannot afford to stay silent or stand on the sidelines. Californians are extremely tolerant, but we draw the line when history is revised to please a special interest group.”
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.
“History should be honest,” Governor Brown said in a written statement upon signing the legislation just over a week ago. “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.”
“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.”
Earlier this week, he 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.
“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.
Rebecca Rosa told the Vanguard, “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.”
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.
Backers of the bill also believe it will help alleviate the bullying of students who may be gay or seen as gay.
“A number of studies have found that students feel safer when the curriculum is inclusive,” Professor Joslin said. “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.
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.”
Presently the law would take effect in January but that does not mean schools will automatically update their textbooks. Implementation could run through 2015, alleviating some of the criticism of opponents who have argued that this would be a hit on the budget.
Supporters of repealing this law would need to gather about 505,000 voter signatures within 90 days to place the issue before voters next year.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]“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.”
Earlier this week, he 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.
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]
This says it all. This law is not about “bullying” or “inclusion of historical LGBT people who made great contributions into our history books”; it is about teaching the “great significance to both CA and the U.S. about the LGBT movement”.
I’ll make a prediction – introducing discussion of the great importance of the LGBT movement in CA will not reduce bullying one iota…
“I’ll make a prediction – introducing discussion of the great importance of the LGBT movement in CA will not reduce bullying one iota… “
I think you are looking at this too simplistically. Is it going to stop bullying by itself? No. But I think a lot of educators see it as one tool among many to promote a greater understanding for differences. To me that’s the key. Bullying is just a small part of the problem for LGBTs in schools, sexual identity is a much larger problem. You are confused enough as a teenager, now try coping with sexual desires for the same sex, uncertainty about one’s own gender, and you have a recipe for psychological problems that could be avoided with better guidance. Does this fix that problem? No. But as people like Harvey Milk become mainstream figures, maybe it becomes a bit easier for a 16 year old boy to situate his own inner struggles. Maybe.
Elaine,
Even if this had absolutely no effect on bullying, what argument can be made for deliberately and systematically excluding the history of a civil rights movement which, for better or worse depending on your point of view, has had a major impact on our society ?
Karen England from DMG article: “”We think the bill goes way too far and [b]costs way too much[/b],”
I would like to hear more about why this would cost way too much. The way I understand this, schools update their textbooks at certain intervals, and this material would be included in the next cycle of textbooks.
[i]”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.”[/i]
I don’t see this as making any judgement as to whether this lifestyle is good or not, anymore than judging whether it is good to have a disabled lifestyle or not, whether it is good to be one race or another or not. To me it is a matter of pointing out that there are good people who live in these conditions, and that they can make positive contributions to society.
Ultimately, I think one’s attitudes on this hinge on whether one thinks that homosexual impulses are a conscious choice or not. I would presume that a majority of individuals would assume that heterosexual impulses are not a conscious choice. Why not allow for a similar view of homosexuality?
[i]Karen England …. executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, one group supporting the repeal. [/i]
Which, from its web site, appears to be a barely-existent group with a barely-filled-in web page, no staff, about three news articles, and a ‘Donate’ button. She was a far-far-far-right write-in candidate for Lt. Governor. The Pacific Justice Institute appears to be a law firm.
Wedge issues are always great fund-raisers for fringe groups.
“wedge issue are always great fund-raisers for fringe groups”
Like the LGBT group?
“Supporters of repealing this law would need to gather about 505,000 voter signatures within 90 days to place the issue before voters next year.”
Shouldn’t be a problem. When it makes the ballot SB48 will go down in flames, no pun intended.
[quote]Even if this had absolutely no effect on bullying, what argument can be made for deliberately and systematically excluding the history of a civil rights movement which, for better or worse depending on your point of view, has had a major impact on our society ?[/quote]
Oh, where do I begin w this one? It has been admitted this bill has essentially nothing to do with bullying; and nothing to do with introducing the historical contributions of LGBT figures. Finally it has come out what the real agenda is – the “historical importance” of the LGBT movement. And I wonder just how that will be taught? Oh wait, it will be up to politicians and individual school districts to decide, rather than historians. Now think – how do you think San Francisco is going to teach this, versus Bakersfield? This is a minefield, it is going to backfire badly, and is not going to achieve much of anything other than to alienate further the extreme elements of society.
Let me digress a bit. Do any of you have any idea what is taught in sex ed classes these days? It is downright frightening and disgusting. Let me explain… Sex ed classes are coed. Kids are given index cards to right down any questions they may have on any aspect of sex, to be turned into the teacher anonymously. No subject about sex is taboo, no questions are filtered out. Then the teacher reads the question to the class, and attempts to answer them – according to her own judgment/bias. As you can imagine, sex ed class becomes an absolute free for all, of the basest variety, where some obnoxious students try and shock the rest of the students/show off/snigger. Nothing is off limits remember. My daughters and son found the class singularly uninformative, gross, embarrassing, degrading. Then a wooden penis is brought in for show and tell, and then the fun really begins…
Let me digress a bit more. When controversial subjects were discussed in school, the teachers let all three of my kids know in no uncertain terms that divergent viewpoints would not be tolerated. And I’m not talking about creationism versus evolution folks. I’m talking about things like “sustainability” and that everyone should be taking mass transit and it is sacrilege to be driving a car (despite the fact the teacher was driving a car to school). You think I’m making this stuff up? Think again. Since I have come to CA, I have never been subjected to such absolutism, intolerance, and illogical thinking as I have witnessed in this state. And I know there are others who agree with me, and plan to retire outside this state for that very reason.
Political correctness in this state has become an absolute religion and run amok…
Sorry for the rant, medwoman, but you did ask!
ERM: [i] Do any of you have any idea what is taught in sex ed classes these days?[/i] etc.
Okay. How do you think sex ed. should be taught, and why do you think it should be taught that way?
[i]No subject about sex is taboo, no questions are filtered out.[/i]
What subjects about sex should be taboo in sex ed. and why?
Yes , I did ask and now I would like to reply with a very different perspective.
1) First, other than you, who has “admitted”that the bill has nothing to do with bullying? Many posters, including me, have explained why we believe that the bill will affect bullying.
2)Who again besides you feels that it has nothing to do with individual positive contributions? Several posters have included specific examples of individuals whose contributions should be included.
3) I certainly hope that you are not taking my single post about the importance of covering all civil rights movements as the definitive and exclusive reason for this bill,
4) I see the issue of sex Ed in the schools very differently from you. First, no child is forced to go through the sex ed portion of the health course. I know since my son chose to opt out and did the sex ed portion online. Granted, his reason was somewhat different from what most might be since as the son of a very open gynecologist, I’m sure he felt it might be a waste of time.
The experience that you are describing is certainly not universal in the school system. For years one of my friends, and mother of close friends of my son lobbied the schools to allow me to volunteer to come in and do the reproductive health unit in a factual and nonjudgemental manner. Her efforts were to no avail because the parents objected to a presentation by a gynecologist. This would seem to me to be significant filtering.
I personally favor coed sex education as a way of making sure that both boys and girls are getting the same factual information and the awareness that both genders are responsible for the decision hopefully to abstain until adulthood, but also the consequences that may accompany the choice not to abstain.
While I am aware that many people believe this should be the responsibility of the family, I would counter that many parents, including my own, did not feel the need to provide any information at all. This can I does have sometimes disastrous consequences for the uninformed adolescent.
And I also am interested in your response to the questions posed by wdf1.
“Even if this had absolutely no effect on bullying, what argument can be made for deliberately and systematically excluding the history of a civil rights movement which, for better or worse depending on your point of view, has had a major impact on our society ?”
because it doesn’t have a major impact on our society, that’s why. THe term LGBT practically came into existence within the last few years by extreme leftists.
“No. But I think a lot of educators see it as one tool among many to promote a greater understanding for differences.”
and I’ll bet to you that nearly 10 out of 10 of those educators are democrats, green party affiliates, or leftist “independents”
I have no urge to rip on this anymore. I’m not going to try to argue logically that CA classrooms should not become bastions of looniness, perversion, and insanity than they already are.
To wdf1 and medwoman:
1) All three of my children had the same experience in sex ed, and they are 8 years apart in age from youngest to oldest. So what was experienced was NOT an aberration.
2) Abstaining until adulthood was not something any of my three children remember from sex ed. What they do remember was the embarrassment from the gross questions, the wooden penis and the coarse/crude comments that followed, etc.
3) Some of the things discussed were just too gross to be printable here, and had nothing to do with sex ed and everything to do with a bunch of hooligans who were having fun at the expense of everyone else in the class.
4) The teachers in sex ed showed no professionalism whatsover.
5) My son and I had a discussion on this topic a few days ago. I was picking his brains for information about what he remembered specifically. He thought the junior high sex ed class was optional and required parental permission, but that the high school course was mandatory. Believe me, if the sex ed classes were optional, all of my kids would have been opted OUT. If a sex ed class was mandatory, as a parent I would find the time to sit in on a few classes, to let the teacher know I was watching the content. If there was anything like what my kids had to go through, I would raise holy heck at the administrative level.
6) If sex ed class is any example, heaven save us from how they are going to teach the LGBT material, especially if it is left up to the individual schools. And that is my main issue – I don’t trust the schools to teach much of anything…
85 percent of public school teachers are female. Women are more likely to be Democrats. So from that alone we can conclude the likelihood that more teachers are Democrat than Republican.
However, the issue is not Democrat versus Republican, it is…
1 – The teachers’ union track-record for political contributions and support,
2 – And the conflict of interest this creates for deciding what is taught in the classroom through the political process.
See the following…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/CATeachers1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/CATeachers2.jpg[/img]
From Wikipedia… [quote]” The CTA is the most influential spender in California politics, spending more money on politicians and to influence California voters than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined.”[/quote]
CTA contributed $1.25 million to the campaign to defeat Prop-8. So, how is that “education” related?
What we have is an ideologically-driven symbiotic partnership where the education system works hard to grow liberalism to support Democrat causes, and in return Democrat politicians work hard to protect the education system from accountability.
ERM: [i]2) Abstaining until adulthood was not something any of my three children remember from sex ed.[/i]
Interesting. The abstinance message was almost the only thing my daughter remembered of the high school program. And that the STI/STD discussions were focused too much on the symptoms and not really at all on a discussion about how one gets them and why.
ERM: [i]If a sex ed class was mandatory, as a parent I would find the time to sit in on a few classes, to let the teacher know I was watching the content. If there was anything like what my kids had to go through, I would raise holy heck at the administrative level.[/i]
I suspect that because sex ed. is controversial enough to bring about in many others the kind of reaction you express, and that what one parent would consider a good sex ed. unit is not what another parent would consider acceptable, I think sex ed. in schools gets watered down into something that is almost useless. But I have yet to learn of a grade school sex ed. program that is considered adequate to all interested parties.
And that is unfortunate, because teenage pregnancy is the most common reason why girls do not finish high school. I’m sure that the right message from the right person could avoid some of those situations.
My parents heavily supplemented what was taught in sex ed. when we were in school. Sex ed. was almost non-existent when my parents were in school. And we heavily supplement what our kids get in sex ed. in the schools. I presume it will remain so for a while.
91 O: [i]because it doesn’t have a major impact on our society, that’s why.[/i]
That would be apparently true for a person who is not homosexual and/or doesn’t have family members or close friends who are, either.
ERM
So since your children are separated by eight years in age, I am wondering what the response was at the administrative level when your first child had such a bad experience. and you “raised holy hell about it “? I completely agree with you that if the subject is being directed off course by a handful of students, they need to change their behavior or be removed from the classroom so that the lesson can continue just like with any otthefr subject. But that brings me to what is a central point for me. Sex education should be provided as an opt out ( which by my children’s experience is true at both the junior high and high school level) although it may have been different for your children depending on their ages. And it should be taught in as straight forward and factual manner as any other class. And I can only assume that there must be considerable variability in either teaching style, comfort of the instructor or class composition since my daughter’s experience was straight forward, unfortunately boring since she knew the material and heavily ( and appropriately in my opinion) biased towards abstinence.
But I am still curious about what you would consider appropriate sex education. Your post did not address that question
[i]”appropriate sex education”[/i]
Go ask your parents or if you have none, then talk to your other trusted adult relatives. If you have none, then talk to your doctor.
JB: [i]Go ask your parents or if you have none, then talk to your other trusted adult relatives.[/i]
And if your parents don’t happen to keep up with the latest research, then what?
My parents didn’t “keep up with the latest research” and took care of it just fine. My uncle filled in the blanks for me. Has sex really changed that much?
JB: [i]My parents didn’t “keep up with the latest research” and took care of it just fine. My uncle filled in the blanks for me. Has sex really changed that much?[/i]
It is a parent’s right to be the primary sex educator of his/her kids, but that doesn’t mean that a parent is always the best person to do so alone. Our church provided an excellent sex ed. program to our teens. The instructors were well-trained, and they offered plenty of information that I would never have thought to include if I or my spouse had done this ourselves.
As to what about sex has changed, well I am willing to concede that maybe you had really knowledgeable family members, but there were plenty of new things to me: HPV and HPV vaccine, I didn’t know that much about chlamydia, that now there is an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea, unexpected ways in which some STD/STI are transmitted, that women almost always have a higher % chance of getting a STI, some interesting ways that contraceptives can fail, either in preventing pregnancy or STI.
But a guiding principle to the program — that understanding sex is more than learning the plumbing and how it works or fails.
“Go ask your parents or if you have none, then talk to your other trusted adult relatives.”
Since this is my field, I would like to offer a small sampling of questions I have been asked by patients who had received well intended but inadequate and in some cases dangerous medical advise from trusted family members :
1) is it true you can’t get pregnant the first time ? ( this seems to be a common myth as I have heard it many times )
2) Condoms are as effective in preventing pregnancy as birth control pills.
3) You are safe from STDs as long as you both are tested. ( men are not routinely tested for HPV) So much for protection from increased risk of cervical cancer.
4) if you raise your arms above your head while pregnant you can choke the baby by wrapping the cord around it’s neck ( hugely popular and completely inaccurate.
5) it is normal not to feel the baby move when you are close to term. Tragically, this bit of advice handed down from mother to daughter has been contributory to several term fetal deaths in my practice since people frequently value the advice of loved ones over that of someone more knowledgeable but less well known.
My question to those of you who think sex education should be provided exclusively by families, in what other very high stakes area of life with lifelong implications for health and well being would you advise that a young person consult someone with no special knowledge of the field because they happen to be related ?
wdf1: You are making a point about sex-ed being about STD. Now you are crossing into the medical/health arena… and I will take you back to my point that we should rely on this teaching and advice from medical professionals. Public school teachers are not certified to provide medical advice. However, I am fine with education about STDs being included along with education on other deseases and health-related issues.
medwoman: Your points are reflective of a liberal-progressive mindset that the general public is ignorant and we need public institutions funded by the government and staffed with all the smarter people to help save the dumber people from themselves. Within this country, I have a bit more faith in humans to learn what they need to from their family and culture to survive and thrive. Uneducated immigrants provide a different challenge when they import their cultural myths and practices. However, I still stand by my opinion that your profession is better suited to answer these questions than are public school teachers.
JB
I fail to see how “my points”at least on this post have anything to do with any political mindset. I was quoting actual questions and statements that have been made to me by my patients. I invite the participants on this blog to decide for themselves if they really believe that all families are well prepared to provide adequate sex education for their children. Most of the “myths I quoted, and I have many more, are as prevalent among the dominant culture as they are among immigrants. And, as a matter of fact, the three babies that I have lost to the myth of decreasing fetal movement have all been from families well educated in other areas. This is not a matter of being “dumb”. It is a matter of lacking specific knowledge. I do not for instance feel that I am dumb because I do not have specific knowledge of, for example, auto mechanics. I would prefer that my children consult with a mechanic rather than their mother about how best to maintain their cars even though I have been driving for 40 years. My experience behind the wheel does not make me a car expert any more than having had sexual relations for an equal amount of time would make me an expert in that area. And I agree with you that gynecologists would be a better source of information on sex education than would most public school teachers, however , as I previously posted, my offer to present this module was consistently declined because the parients (not the teachers) did not approve.
medwoman: I’m sorry they declined your offer, because you definitely appear to be qualified to teach the subject. You would meet with my approval being a medical professional. I doubt there are very many trained and certified medical professionals teaching in the public schools.
My “ideological point” was more that I recognized a common theme in your arguments… one that looks at the most needy as the benchmark and motivation for action.
This gets me thinking about all the other arguments to support government programs and services. 4-person fire engine teams; the Afghanistan war; Obamacare; Medicare and Medicaid; Social Security; amnesty for illegal immigrants… if you listen to the arguments in support of all these things they have something in common… they all result in more government spending, and their proponents focus on the lowest or most extreme, negative, situational emotives to generate fear that people will needlessly suffer.
The best way to make decisions on all this is to step back with a bigger picture view. We simply cannot afford to save the world… we cannot afford to eliminate all risks… all stupid decisions… all unlucky circumstances. If we can even reduce them, then the question is “at what cost?”
There is an equilibrium for all spending that is determined by a cost-benefit analysis. 3-person fire teams will increase the risk that a multi-fire day will not be covered as well as it could be with 4-person teams. Leaving sex-education to families and doctors will result in some kids not getting enough information to make informed decisions about their sexual activity and pregnancy. Not going to war to eliminate or weaken the Taliban or Al Qaeda would result in some increased risk that additional terrorist attacks would happen against the US. Much of this spending is social insurance… and like insurance, there is a limit to what we should purchase to provide the nation as a whole adequate security.
There is a 90-10 rule… that achieving the last 10 percent of perfection can cost 90% of the total cost. A good example of this is the war on hunger. What do we spend today on feeding people apparently not capable of feeding themselves? How long have we been doing this? What would it take to completely wipe out hunger?
One reason the last 10% or so is so expensive, is that the act of saving people from themselves creates more dependency to be saved. For example, giving out food stamps teaches generations of the same family to always count on and rely on food stamps. Teaching sex education in the public schools means many families will re-train to rely on the schools to take care of it all.
For the “poor” in this country, 97% have televisions. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Three-quarters own a car. Over half have a cell phone. About 43 percent own their own home. We are an information society… information on sexuality and sexually-transmitted disease is everywhere and relatively easy for any parent or adult family member to access.
The case to have the government save so many people from themselves and eliminate all risks makes less and less sense from a cost-benefit perspective. It provides a perpetually smaller benefit at an ever increasing cost. It is time to get back to basics of people and families taking care of themselves, and for all of us to accept that living involves risks that we cannot afford to completely eliminate.
The Teen Suicide Epidemic in Michele Bachmann’s District
Two years. Nine suicides. Why critics blame the congresswoman’s anti-gay allies for contributing to a mental health crisis.
[url]http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/michele-bachmann-teen-suicide?page=3[/url]
[quote]Throughout all of this, Bachmann has remained uncharacteristically quiet. Her office did not respond to a request for comment. But she is on the record opposing anti-bullying legislation. In 2006, Bachmann attended a hearing on an anti-bullying bill in the state legislature and voiced her opinion that bullying was simply a fact of life.
She told state lawmakers: “I think for all us our experience in public schools is there have always been bullies, always have been, always will be. I just don’t know how we’re ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?…What will be our definition of bullying? Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression? Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be—will we be expecting boys to be girls?”
As civil rights groups have pushed the Minnesota school district to do more to increase tolerance of LGBT students, conservative religious groups fought to keep them away from public schools. After Samantha’s suicide and several others, students in Anoka-Hennepin schools participated in the Day of Silence. The event, organized by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, encourages kids to remain silent for the day in recognition of the effect of anti-gay bullying and harassment. In response, religious activists took up the “Day of Truth,” an event championed by the “ex-gay ministry” Exodus International that’s usually held the day before the Day of Silence. Students who participated were encouraged to engage their classmates in discussions of homosexuality from a Christian perspective.
The anti-gay climate in the schools in Bachmann’s district has been so extreme that it has attracted the attention of the Justice Department and the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.Fifteen-year-old Justin Aaberg appears to have been one of the targets of this initiative. One day last year Justin came home and told his mom, Tammy, that another student had told him he would to go to hell because he was gay. “That did something to his brain,” she says. He hanged himself in his bedroom last summer. Only after his suicide did Tammy learn that the Parents Action League had reportedly worked with area churches to hand out T-shirts promoting the “Day of Truth” to students at his high school (which is also Bachmann’s alma mater). The students were also instructed to “preach to the gay kids,” Aaberg says. (No one from the Parents Action League responded to a request for comment.)[/quote]
From above article: [i]…religious activists took up the “Day of Truth,” an event championed by the “ex-gay ministry” Exodus International that’s usually held the day before the Day of Silence. Students who participated were encouraged to engage their classmates in discussions of homosexuality from a Christian perspective.
One day last year Justin came home and told his mom, Tammy, that another student had told him he would to go to hell because he was gay. “That did something to his brain,” she says. He hanged himself in his bedroom last summer.[/i]
This is an example of an inappropriate allowance of religious influence in a public school. If somehow that means I am “persecuting” other Christians with this point of view, so be it. It is arrogant for one person to decide what the future fate of another person’s soul is; in a Christian framework that is only for God to know. As far as I’m concerned, religious freedom is to allow individual exploration of religious issues, not to coerce others to your way of thinking, most especially in this kind of setting.
[i]”The Teen Suicide Epidemic in Michele Bachmann’s District”[/i]
Here is a prime example of the liberal media at work trying desparately to derail Michelle Backmann. Obama has been against gay marriage. Has the media looked at his state for suicide rate and then attempted to connect it with his political positions?
It is media crap reporting like this and the denial from others that benefit from it that really pisses me off. There is only ONE FRIGGIN’ PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR SUICIDE AND IT IS THE PERSON THAT KILLS THEMSELF!!!!! I don’t care how old the person is. Nobody is responsible for another person’s happiness. If anyone else is to blame it is her parents for giving birth to a human that biologically or socially lacked the capacity to cope with a hostile world.
As you might note, I am angry about this. I have had plenty of suicide in my family and everyone wants to blame someone else at some point. However, it is a form of murder and it is ONLY the responsibility of the murderer.
Jeff, with all due respect, I’m sorry for what you’ve had to go through with respect to family suicides. I’m aware that it is a very tough situation to face.
I agree with you up to a point. We generally don’t hold kids responsible for their actions in the same way as we do adults, especially because kids don’t generally have much choice as to the environment they live in.
I agree that it is inappropriate to be blaming Michele Bachmann for those suicides, as the title and article imply. But she is someone who aspires to lead this country, and what she says or doesn’t say on issues like this matters.
Her response on the issue of bullying is as if saying, there’s really nothing we can do about this. It maybe true that there will always be bullying, but it’s still worthwhile to assess ways that will reduce bullying. Her response suggests that this isn’t a problem that can be addressed.
If there were a notable number of teenage suicides and/or bullying instances I’d think it would be irresponsible to not look at the school situation to see if or how it could be improved.
I also think that religiously motivated initiatives in this situation are inappropriate and counterproductive. I can agree with you that “nobody is responsible for another person’s happiness”, but individuals have a responsibility to exercise reasonable measures to not make others unhappy. Hypothetically, you may fined contentment and happiness in proselytizing your religious beliefs to your co-workers and neighbors; they may not share in your happiness in such discussions. Hypothetically, you might very happy to have Playboy centerfolds posted on the walls of your office; your clients and co-workers might not agree.
wdf1: Thanks for the sentiment, but don’t forget the additional nuance of Backmann’s comment…
[quote]”I just don’t know how we’re ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?…What will be our definition of bullying? Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression? Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be—will we be expecting boys to be girls?”[/quote]
I think that is right on. Do you disagree?
The devote Christian kid going to school in San Francisco that gets bullied for his beliefs that homosexuality is a sin… how does that sit with you?
Instead of the general assurance of a physically safe school environment, I think the best thing we can do to reduce the damaging impacts of bullying is to teach kids the tools for dealing with and coping with bullies.
As an aside, I recently read a fiction book where the child main character went to a public middle school where certain classes were separated by gender. I had never heard of that in public schools, and I wondered if it was based on reality or just more fiction. The reason I bring this up is because I see a solution to public school bullying being to do away with public schools so we can do all sorts of segregation based on likeness and need. Private schools can develop catering to children with similarities. Or in a model where vouchers are available, both public and private schools can help… for example private religious schools where students can hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, or not, based on their particular religious interpretation, without fear of repercussion. And, let’s say, a public school that legislates what the students can believe and say to prevent bullying of kids.
I think if you don’t support vouchers and want the kids of all types to attend public school, then I fear you may be as culpable as Michele Backmann for causing the suicides. If that statement makes you mad, then I can say welcome to the club.
[i]The devote Christian kid going to school in San Francisco that gets bullied for his beliefs that homosexuality is a sin… how does that sit with you?[/i]
I don’t condone bullying. But beyond that, one’s religious beliefs are one’s own business between you and your God, if you have one. I would wonder why he went out of his way to discuss his religious views publicly, especially when those views would be offensive to others. And I point out that there are also plenty of Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, especially in light of the fact that we now understand that this is how people are born.
[i]I think that is right on. Do you disagree?[/i]
Yes I do. She is redefining the issue so as to excuse herself from caring enough to act on it. As I said previously, even if it is impossible to completely get rid of bullying, I think it is possible to reduce it further, especially in the case presented in the article.
We have had societies that have made fun of (bullied) people based on mental disability, physical disability, having a disease, race, and of course, religion. I think we have improved from such times, and that we can do better. Do you disagree? Do you feel like your free speech and expression are stifled because it is now socially unacceptable to mock people with these conditions?
[i]Or in a model where vouchers are available, both public and private schools can help… for example private religious schools where students can hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, or not, based on their particular religious interpretation, without fear of repercussion[/i]
I don’t believe in allowing government resources to promote a religious view, especially one that can lead to the persecution of other citizens with different beliefs or practices (i.e., that homosexuality is a sin). I think that’s a founding principal of our country — to live and let live.
How would it sit with you to watch your tax dollars go to fund vouchers to a hypothetical school run by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?
wdf1: Thanks for answering those questions. I can see where we differ.
[i]”I don’t believe in allowing government resources to promote a religious view, especially one that can lead to the persecution of other citizens with different beliefs or practices (i.e., that homosexuality is a sin).”[/i]
“Persecution”? I find it interesting when people project this way. I see it all the time in higher sensing people. Recently I had to mediate a conflict with two coworkers because one felt physically threatened by the other. It turned out to be a simple work process disagreement where two people held different views… but for one the words manifested into something that felt like an attack.
In reviewing what was said, my assessment of the problem was the employee feeling threatened was the one in need of correction. Conflict is necessary for a company (and a country) to thrive. It is a performance requirement for employees to be able to handle appropriate professional conflict. They must treat each other with dignity and respect, but it is expected that there will be differences of belief and opinion. Understanding our differences is a requirement to strengthen our relationships. A top-down approach to stifle opinion and belief the more sensitive find offensive does not work unless you value the loss of freedoms and the development of a more collectivist society.
Expressing a belief that homosexuality is a sin is not an attack on gays anymore than is expressing a belief that it is wrong to hold the view that homosexuality is a sin is an attack on the pious.
Hypersensitive people need to grow thicker skin, because protecting them from anything and everything that offends them is impossible and costly to the whole. And setting up the expectation that this can be done fails to prepare people for the real world they will need to face. Bullying is not defined by having views that offend some politically-correct-protected group. Bullying is an act of intended harm. There is a clear line between acts that intend harm and beliefs held by one that offend another.
Religious schools tend to do a better job teaching. They also teach morality which is sorely lacking in our public forums of human development and behavior. Good Christians should accept and love gay people even as they might hold the view that homosexuality is a sin. I think most real Christians do NOT hold that view, but I can accept people that do as long as they treat others with dignity and respect. Apparently you cannot.
[i]Religious schools tend to do a better job teaching.[/i]
A recent study I read concluded that when you correct for income, religious schools do not do a better job of teaching than public schools.
[i]Expressing a belief that homosexuality is a sin is not an attack on gays[/i]
Depends. If you publicize broadly, it is easily perceived as an attack on gays. In one extreme example, whenever one sees a Westboro Baptist Church (and yes, they’ve made appearances in this area) sign in the news saying, “God hates fags”, how can that not be seen by many as a public insult to gays?
[i]Bullying is an act of intended harm.[/i]
And the targets of bullying are usually on victims who are perceived as different in a negative way. If the rest of society views those traits as negative, then it helps the bully to get away with his/her deeds. If society is giving the out the message that “homosexuals are psychologically deviant and morally sinful” then our unenlightened kids pick up on that message and process it when choosing victims to bully. It becomes one factor; but not the only factor.