I find this chilling. NOT because I support racists or homophobes, but because I don’t want the state dictating “teachings” and “attitudes”.
Don’t any of you see the obvious correlary to your well meaning proposals? If you can dictate what “teachings” and “attitudes” are good and bad, so can the other side.
How will you like it when the Falwell or Phelps types decide to start cramming their warped ideas of what attitudes are “damaging” and “corrosive” down our kid’s throats
**
To me, this is the way to go: it’s not about warped teachings or corrosive attitudes which, as disgusted as I am with them, fall clearly under the pervue of free speech (a parent’s right to teach their kid) but about objective guidelines for observable, unambiguous behavior.
Seriously: the thing that’s bugging me about this whole discussion is the thought-crimes vibe I’m getting from a bunch of posters I otherwise agree with.
We’re not trying to tell anybody what to think. We’re trying to present our perspective on this issue. If you’re afraid that our perspective is so powerful that one presentation on the issue will turn kids away from everything else they’ve been taught about it, then that sure says a lot for the presentation, doesn’t it?
We’re not trying to make it a crime to think bad things about gay people. We’re trying to disseminate information about gay people. We’re trying to expose people to ideas about gay people that go against what they may have learned from popular culture. And that’s all this presentation was about. I’d very much like someone to prove that it harms anyone to hear a positive message about gay people. Because I know the kind of harm it can cause when such messages are suppressed.
No. It should neither respect nor um… un-respect? disrespect? attack religious views, even obscene ones like Hate4Ever spews.
That sort of propagandizing even though I support the message opens the schools up to be even more of a battleground for content. I do NOT want Phelps demanding equal time and if a school is teaching
It should stand neutral on it except as it pertains to behavior. (“Timmy, I understand that your daddy says it’s wrong for two men love each other. You can believe whatever you want, but that does NOT give you the right to call Billy names or hit him. If you do it again, I’ll expel your sorry homophobic ass.” Well, maybe not the last sentence )
Frankly, this is why I’m such a big proponent of vouchers.
Go back and read Diogenes’ post. He’s specifically saying that he supports the state trying to tell people what to think.
**
Good FUCK. :rolleyes:
I’m ON YOUR FUCKING SIDE about gay rights. I support gay marriage, I support gay adoptions. I support gays in the military. The fact that I disagree with you regarding the school not being the place for propaganda* EVEN PROPAGANDA THAT I AGREE WITH does not make me “afraid” of “your” perspective. I fucking agree with your perspective except as it relates to schools.
It’s possible to disagree with you on this one issue and NOT be a homophobe, despite your attempt to paint everyone who disagrees with you with that brush.
I’d be interested in your answer to the religious question, Fenris. Should the public schools teach tolerance of Jews even though some people find you repulsive (remember the SF folks)?
So a teacher shoud never express in school an opinion that being Jewish or Black or homosexual is OK, even if Jewish or Black or homoesexual kids are killing themselves because they cannot find any acceptance? I just think that the argument for respect for other people and education about different sorts of people would be a complete no-brainer if it wasn’t that the group under discussion was gays. If there was a school where large numbers of kids systematically harrassed black kids due to some religious beliefs or just plain meanness, would it be out of line to have a presentation that talked briefly about, oh, black dialect and culture and that being black didn’t mean you were evil or stupid? Or should the school respect the beliefs of the harassing children and only try to stop the harrassment they manage to publically see, and not address the underlying problems at all, even just to reassure the black kids that they aren’t all the horrible things people said they are?
MrVisible provided a link to district policy…which even he admitted suggests that teachers are required to vet controversial speakers with local administration (principals)…not necessarily school board members. (that vetting process might or might not include prior parental notification…I have no idea)
The original news story that I quoted said that the principal at Wilson K-8 noted that he was not informed of the speaker.
Another story quotes an anonymous teacher who claims that he/she is not aware of such a policy. Like I explained earlier in the thread…that does not mean that there isn’t such a policy.
If you can’t verify this claim, would you mind retracting it…or do you really just want to keep repeating an unfounded, unsupported and inaccurate claim over and over again?
But how can a school take a neutral position on racism? What if a kid objects to being taught by a black teacher on the grounds that his Christian Identity faith tells him “not to take orders from n*ggers?” Does the school put him in a different class so as not to contradict his sheet-wearing parents, or does the school say, “listen here, you little cracker shithead, you’re going do whatever the fuck Mr. Blank tells you to do and you are going to like it.”
Beliefs are one thing, but beliefs cannot be allowed to infringe on the rights of others. A public school should provide a zone of safety and freedom for all its students. A gay student should not have to live in secret or in shame because his very existence might offend the sensibilities of other kids, or their parents, or even his own parents.
We’re not really talking about abstract values here, we’re talking about basic civil rights, a very legitimate, even crucial part of an American education.
I don’t want the schools pushing any values. Rules? Fine. Behaviors? Great. Laws? Wonderful. Tolerance (except as manifested as behavior) No.
As I said back on page one or two: (paraphrased) I strongly support the right of Nazi shitheads to teach their kids to be Nazi shitheads. I see this as one of the fundimental rights of free speech and, as much as I despise both Nazis and homophobes I don’t see that the state has any Constitutional way to interfere with their teachings. (On both a free speech and a seperation of church and state basis)
And once more, I DO NOT support homophobes, I think that there should be no tolerance in the schools for bullying (verbal or physical) but I do not want the schools to be used for propaganda, even if I agree with said propaganda.
on preview Gaudere: Sorry, I’m consistant on this. No. I don’t support having a program without parental consent where an hour or two were spent talking about how it’s OK to be Jewish*. I don’t accept the “If it saves only ONE life, wouldn’t it be worth it” argument. Are you consistant too? Would you allow whatshisname…the Holocaust Hoax guy to come and talk to the school about “How it’s OK to be a Holocaust denier?” I’m sure there are some Nazi kids with low self esteem. Hell, that’s the reason people become Nazis: they feel powerless.
Fenris
*I was bullied nearly every day throughout late elementary school for being Jewish (I was the only Jewish kid.) I have at least an idea of what gay kids go through. And I still don’t support the idea of propagandizing without parental consent.
I totally agree with Fenris. I posted a similar topic in Great Debates on teaching morality in schools and most people agree that insisting on behavior is one thing, but insisting on respect (a state of mind) is totally different.
I was teased in school for being a redhead. Insted of insisting on a school program on respect for those with red hair, let’s just not tolerate name calling, teasing, bullying towards ANYONE.
If you lost the last seven words, I’d be just fine with telling the little cracker shithead just what you said (possibly in nicer terms.)
He doesn’t have to like Mr. Blank. His emotions are his own racist business. He does have to behave in a socially acceptible way.
**
Fair points.
Telling His4Ever Jr. upon finding out that H4E Jr was calling Jimmy a “faggot” “School rules state that we’ll bounce your sorry ass if you ever bully Jimmy again. You can believe anything you want, but you can’t act on it.” is fine.
Telling the kid “You have to accept and tolerate Jimmy” is NOT.
One deals with actions, the second deals with beliefs and values.
I’m not saying to ignore homosexuality either: when doing mythology courses by all means talk about the gay heroes/gods/etc. If you read a story by Oscar Wilde, go ahead and talk about him being gay.
But don’t teach a value judgement about it any more than you want the other side doing the same thing.
How about an hour spent without parental consent about how it’s OK to be black?
It seems to me that there is a sliding scale about which people we can say are “Ok”.
Mentally retarded? Yes, you can say it’s OK.
Physically handicapped? Yes, you can say it’s OK.
Physically disfigured? Yes, you can say it’s OK.
Black? Yes, you can say it’s OK.
Gay? Wow, better get consent!
Are kids being picked on because they believe gay things, or are they being picked on because they ARE gay, just as some kids are black, some are retarded, some are handicapped? I think eventually saying that being gay is OK will be as acceptable as saying that being handicapped is OK. But I guess we’re not there yet.
I would not support an “It’s OK to be handicapped”, “It’s OK to be Black”, or “It’s OK to be a Ross Perot Supporter” meeting without parental consent either. The minute you start teaching that a belief (even a racist, hateful, stupid one) is “OK” or not, you’ve opened a can of worms that I don’t want to see in the schools.
It’s none of the school’s business to teach students what they should believe it’s “OK” to be. NONE. Unless you’re willing to grant equal time to all POVs. And no rational person is.
I think it’s it IS the school’s business to insist on standards of behavior.
**
**
I hate the “What you believe” vs “What you are” distinction. I can’t logically support my hatred (as I do see a distinction, but feel it’s not a relevant one) for it but I < cough > believe that picking on someone for either reason is absoultely unacceptable.
Well, I hope Fenris reprimands a teacher the next time s/he says to her class that little Timmy with the wheelchair is “Ok” or “normal” rather than just saying “treat everyone well”. Shame on him/her, imposing her morality that Timmy might not be cursed by God and deserving of eternal hellfire for his sin. To say that Timmy is normal and acceptable is obviously opening the door for the KKK and NAMBLA to come to school and talk.
Fenris, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the school system reinforces values every single day. There is no way that human beings can teach other human beings anything without having some sort of value judgement involved; it may be nice to think that theoretically that could happen, but in practice, it doesn’t.
What we have currently is a system that demonstrably teaches that being gay is not okay, that gay people are bad, and that if you’re gay you’d better keep it to yourself or you’ll get the crap beaten out of you. If you’re really interested in having a morally neutral educational system in place, then this needs to be offset by at least making the alternative to that perspective, the idea that being gay is all right, to be presented.
Doesn’t a school have the right to promote the values of the US Constitution? The Constitution says it’s ok to be Jewish. Is teaching civil rights propoganda?
)
Shame on him/her, imposing her morality that Timmy might not be cursed by God and deserving of eternal hellfire for his sin. To say that Timmy is normal and acceptable is obviously opening the door for the KKK and NAMBLA to come to school and talk.