Some of my “Christian” Internet acquaintances thought I should be warned about “the latest threat to Ameriucan values.” Accordingly, this, from the “American Family Association”:
In contrast to Mr. Wildmon’s rhetoric, the actual Day of Silence.org website has this to say about its purpose:
Mr. Wildmon, an Alabama resident, is a former Methodist minister, I believe defrocked by the United Methodist Church, who has chosen to devote his time to denouncing such “evil” things as supposed subliminal sexual innuendoes in Disney cartoons, major corporations such as Ford for daring to give benefits to the family of GLBT employees, and other “major threats to American values.” His organization, which claims over 3,000,000 supporters (last time he quoted a figure, it was on the basis of hits to his website), formerly sponsored an “objective” news source called Agape Press. When that was publicly denounced, they changed its name, but not its slanted content, to One News Now.
His organization has repeatedly misrepresented the actions and opinions of any person or institution that they have decided to oppose. (“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”) To that, they now add opposition to the bullying and killing of gay students. (“Thou shalt not kill.”) I look forward with interest to see which of the Ten Commandments he plans to break next.
Mr. Wildmon, being as this is a Pit rant, I would tell you to eat shit. However, considering what comes out of your mouth, I believe that would be unnecessary advice.
It’s for schools to decide how to approach this, of course. A school can validly decide to permit this sort of thing, because it contains a valuable educational lesson.
A school may also validly choose to forbid it, since having students remain silent even if called upon in class is certainly disruptive to the educational process.
I don’t really see how being silent promots the “homosexual agenda,” however.
While I don’t agree with the reasons for him to condemn the “Day of Silence” I would prefer my schools to be free of such expressions. I am vehemently against prayer in school, even the thinly veiled “moments of silence,” so it would be hypocritical of me to think that having a “day of silence,” imposed on those who do not wish to participate, would be okay.
One of my personal favorites from the good ole AFA (through their Onenewsnow.com website) is that they are against Proctor and Gamble right now. The reason? P&G owns the soap opera As The World Turns and a gay couple has been added to the show. AFA stresses that they are NOT seeking a boycott (at this time) but wants to see how they respond to requests to drop the gay characters. According to the AFA, this would constitute staying neutral in the ‘culture war’.
All the crap that goes on on soaps and they start complaining now because a gay couple kissed? Never mind that even they acknowledge that most of the letters of criticism that have been sent to the network want MORE affection between the gay couple.
Presumably anything that attempts to stand in the way of good heteros kicking the crap out of the gays is considered “promoting the homosexual agenda.”
How does this day of silence deal with class participation? I appreciate their cause, but it seems legitimately disruptive to me. On any normal day, I’d expect the teacher to send you to the principal’s office if you refused to speak when called upon, and now the teachers are being put in a position where they have to appear to take a political stand: if they throw the student out like they’d do any other day, they’re bigots, and if they let the student stay, that’s implicit support for the cause.
I agree that refusing to speak is disruptive. What they need to do is stay out of school, and accept whatever consequences occur. A large no-show would be a powerful statement.
Wild Man Wildmon needed to find a new traget, what with the conclusion of the AFA’s wildly successful two-year Ford boycott. The outcome of the boycott?
If any of my students elect to take part, all they have to do is inform me the day before. I have no problem skipping over them for a day in any class participation function. I hope that is seen as implicit (and explicit) support for the cause.
Boy scouts do it: This year, I had a student who, prior to his Eagle Scout Ceremony, had to observe a day of silence. He showed me a letter explaining to and I didn’t call on him that day. When they were working in groups on a analytical chart, he worked by himself, which worked fine.
I don’t know if this was something only his troop does, but if it is standard, I suspect it’s allowed in most schools and that certainly takes the wind out the “too disruptive, can’t be allowed” idea.
I’d be impressed if these kids can manage it. I tried to go an entire day without speaking in high school and it was hard as hell! You’d need the school to be aware and teachers to be cooperative if you really want to pull this off.
No, nothing is imposed on anyone directly, but as his message was aimed at schools who “officially or passively allow students to observe the ‘Day of Silence,’” my opinion is that it is an implicit endorsement of said day.
If the students do it all by themselves, hey what the hell can I do about it? Good on you. If schools are endorsing the project that would be crossing the line for me, almost as bad as if it were a “Hey let’s have a day of silence for Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.”
So, Wildmon is urging a counter-protest to the day of silence… by keeping the kids home. Well, if they’re not at school, then they sure as hell aren’t speaking at school, so I guess this counts as implicit support of LGBT rights. Quck, somebody send Donald a pride t-shirt in thanks!
Unfortunately, it’s not quite so simple as that. My 15-year-old cousin observed the day of silence in high school last year and will most likely do so again this year. She would not, however, have the option of staying home from school to protest. Her mother (along with the rest of the family) is rabidly homophobic and not only would not allow it, would probably ground said cousin for the rest of her natural for even suggesting such a thing. There is also the question of visibility - what’s going to draw more attention, a handful of students who aren’t in class for one day, or a handful who are silent, and have disrupt the class to show a card to the teachers & other students to explain the silence? I don’t know how it is elsewhere, but at her school all the kids who participate wear pride stuff - purple t-shirts and ribbons and rainbow bling out the wahoo. (My cousin gets her friends to bring stuff to school for her to wear). She reports that it’s pretty effective, overall. Lots of kids ask about whats going on, and she spends a lot of time in the days before and after talking about the event with other students. I don’t see how just staying home from school would raise the same sort of awareness. A large no-show might, as you said, have a big effect. But what happens at the typical school where only a handful of students choose to participate? Their absence would most likely go completely unnoticed, accomplishing nothing.
I’m proud as hell of my cousin because she chooses to support her LGBT friends in this way, especially considering the risk she’s running given her mother’s attitude.
Why does this need to turn into a moral question with a universal answer? Each teacher in each school can decide whether silence is disruptive; teachers should discipline students as they see fit, and students should accept the punishment without complaining.
People need to give up this ridiculous idea that you can protest legitimate causes using whatever means you want with zero repercussions. If you’re saving the baby seals and you trespass on private property, you will get arrested for trespassing. If you’re saving the unborn children and you chain yourself to an abortion clinic, you will get arrested for disturbing the peace. If you’re protesting unjust socioeconomic fiscal policies by the World Bank and throw a pie at a world leader, you will get arrested for assault.
Without risk there is no sacrifice. I protested the Vietnam War by participating in silent vigils on campus during free time, even though the football players et. al. threatened us with violence, and marched in civil rights marches, even though my parents strongly disapproved. I was prepared to leave home if it came to that.
If social change were easy, everyone would do it.
When I honored my Eagle Scout’s wish to observe silence for a day, was that “passively endorsing” the boy scouts? This is an honest question. I can see that it’s not the school’s place to put up posters and make announcements, but if I know that I am going to have a lot of kids observing a day of silence and so I schedule an in-class essay just to avoid the issue, am I endorsing the day? What if I move a class competition that has candy as a prize from Yom Kippur to the day before? What if I know half the school will be out for Good Friday so I don’t schedule a major test for that day? I have done all these things, and I am totally secular, personally.
I dunno. I think one can accomodate certain types of expression without endorsing them. The accusation of passive endorsement is moving too quickly towards forcing schools to actually forbid expression.
I completely agree, and in fact, that’s part of the point of civil disobedience: when people actually see young protesters being fire-hosed and hauled off to jail, it makes a point.
That said, as a classroom teacher, I don’t find individuals observing a day of silence to be particularly disruptive. I’d love to see the school with nothing more pressing than that to get your panties in a wad over.
It seems to me, that when this came up last year, it was explicitly stated that particpation in class in response to direct questions by teachers was permitted…I can’t seem to find that in the FAQ, though, so I don’t know.
