The Constitution doesn’t say “it’s OK to be Jewish.”
It says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Teaching history is fine. Teaching laws is fine.
I can totally support the first ammendment and all the while hate Rastafarians. There CAN BE a big diffence between how a person thinks and how they act.
Yup. And I’m such a monster that I’d not only reprimand the teacher, but I’d roll little Timmy with his wheelchar to the top of a stairway and, with a shove yell “Maybe this’ll give you some incentive to get off your butt! Off ya go!”. And when he’s lying, broken and bleeding at the bottom of the stairs, I might just urinate on him.
Please.
Insisting that Junior Crackerboy treat little Timmy with respect, courtesy and dignity is fine. Tiny Timmy has a right to go to school and be safe and free from harrassment. But Junior Crackerboy also has a right. He has a right to hold his his (stupid, hate-filled) beliefs about Tiny Tim. He may not act on them, but he certainly has the right to believe it.
Is the idea that “If you can shove your morality on them, they can (and will) do it to you.” really so hard to accept?
MrV:
That’s true and a good point. There are values taught and there are values passed on even without meaning to. Someone (Matt perhaps?) several pages back talked about how gay people were never even mentioned in school. That’s also pushing a value that I don’t agree with. I’m not saying to hide gay people: integrate them into the curriculum. You can’t honestly teach Greek mythology without dealing with gay characters. Tons of people in history were gay. Ignoring this fact is absolutely wrong. Teach about them.
But having an hour long propaganda session (EVEN ONE I AGREE WITH) is not the way to accomplish our goals. It will provoke a backlash (witness this thread, for example…and many of these people (H4E excluded) are pro-Gay Rights). Once again. If you can push your morality on them, they can and will do it to you.
Diogenes: This, I think, is our fundimental point of disagreement. The Constitution, IMO, does not say “It’s OK to be Jewish.”. It says “The State isn’t allowed to stop you from being Jewish”. It places no values on Jewishness.
Teaching Civil Rights as “Here’s what happened, here’s the law, here’s the parts people disagreed about, here’s what’s commonly accepted” (scaled up or down by age group) is wonderful.
Hmmm…I suppose we’d better clarify what “our” goals are.
Off the top o’ me head:
Mine are to use the schools for education, not propaganda. Teaching someone “Your values are wrong” is propaganda by my definition.
I’m strongly in favor of not ignoring gays in literature, current events or history. I think that teaching how prevelant gay people were/are will go a long way to enlightening people. It would also help…um…normalize the idea that being gay is fine without preaching. The Phelps’s of the world may object, but what can they do? It’s historical fact that, say, Alan Turing was gay and it’s impossible to teach about computers without talking about him.
When I was in school, we were taught that Hannukah was a low-grade Christmas substitute and other than that, Jewishness was never mentioned. Nowdays, my nephew does not have “It’s OK to be Jewish” rallies in school, but (in some part), because there’s more teaching about Jewish people integrated into his curriculum, he’s experienced little or no harassment about his religion. I believe the same method can and will work with gay people.
I don’t want the schools to make rules they can’t enforce. Saying “It’s wrong to hate gay students” gets you nowhere because you can’t prove that someone hates gay students or not. However, I’m just fine with rules prohibiting bullying (verbal or physical), harrassment (verbal or physical), fighting, etc.
There was a Supreme Court decision recently (last 10 years) that said that if schools were going to allow some groups to meet after school, they couldn’t exclude on the basis of religion/philosophy. I applaud that decision and would suggest that Wingspan (or similar organizations) start after school clubs. If the Boy Scouts can meet there and exclude gay people, then certainly under the “equal access” decision…
In the long run I think this sort of thing (and there are certainly others that I can’t think of at the moment) will have a far more positive effect on gay students and straight students attitudes towards gay students than one hour long propaganda session.
Seeing as there are a number of questions that haven’t been answered about this subject in the news, I thought I would go right to the source. So I wrote to the reporter whose story this was in the first place. And this is what I wrote:
Mrs. Gonzalez was nice enough to reply with additional details:
She later responded that I was welcome to post her reply here.
Again. To recap then, teacher invites a member of Wingspan to speak to an elective middle school class. The topic matter would be considered “controversial” by the district (and FWIW, most school districts that I’m aware of). The principal says that the teacher did not vet this speaker with him (or any other administrator) prior to the presentation. The teacher is NOT specifically required to clear this kind of thing with the school board…but IS required to clear it with local school administration. It appears that the school board member in question is bothered that the principal was not notified (and perhaps that parents were not notified before hand…thats at bit more unclear). The school board member was NOT suggesting that he/she should have been personally notified before the presentation.
Therefore, it IS quite possible that the teacher in question violated the school building (and district) policy of not obtaining “clearance”/vetting from school administration of controversial topics.
Is anyone really in disagreement with the facts as layed out here?
It is one thing to “talk and argue and persuade”. It is quite another to COERCE change. To punish someone for having “wrong thoughts”. To fuck up their ability to earn a living, take care of their family, and otherwise exist in the world.
Let me put it this way – I think the cesspit of bigotry represented by the likes of the KKK and the Neo-Nazi’s is … well, I don’t want to sound like Kirk, here. Let’s just say I won’t call them scum because that’s an insult to pond life. Nonetheless, provide they obey the law and do not commit violence upon their neighbors, I can’t see any justification for locking them merely for having objectionable thoughts.
Or, if that’s not graphic enough - if someone fantasizes about lobotomizing people, having sex with them, then eating them and it never goes beyond the thought stage, then while they are a sick puppy no actual crime has been committed. It is the ACTIONS which should concern the law, not the thoughts. Once you actually ACT on such thoughts… then you are to be locked up and removed from society.
But when I see proponets of tolerance DEMANDING that someone be fired because they hold an unpopular opinion… that’s punishing thinking, and opinions. True freedom includes the right to be wrong.
I believe you when you say that you do not support racists or homophobes. But to expect public school teachers (part of the state) to be uninvolved in “dictating teachings” is sort of a contradiction, isn’t it?
I cannot force anyone to think anything. I can’t dictate beliefs. What I can do is to teach tolerance and acceptance of everyone. And if I see that one group is being stigmatized in particular, I will address that in my classroom.
And after reading these exchanges, I will encourage my students to remember that when they are adults, what is done in private between two consenting adults ** is no one else’s business.**.
They may not always be the law, but I enjoy teaching Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and I take it to heart. Further, Emerson said, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” How can I teach Emerson and Thoreau and then tell my students that their opinions of themselves and their actions don’t matter?
I understand Libertarian’s frustration with state schools and I admire his determination to teach his children what he wants them to know. I will also confess that the public schools with which I am familiar are absolute disasters!
Um, yes, and where did I argue that you would say/do this? YOU argued that it was wrong to say that person of group X was “OK” or “normal”, AFAICT. YOU argued that by doing so we would have to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry [by implication] to espouse their viewpoint. My reflection that then a teacher should be reprimanded for saying someone in a wheelchair was “normal”–or that saying same need not force the school to espouse every viewpoint out there–was not wildy out of line, IMHO. I never argued that you went around kicking or pissing on wheelchair-bound children, just that you thought it wrong for a teacher to say that they were OK or normal. And as far as I can tell, you still think that an inappropriate moral judgement. Very well, if so I accept your moral judgment as consistent.
And yet…unless my recollections of high school (not so long past!) are wildly wrong, we do teach that mentally ill or handicapped or disfigured or black people are not neccessarily evil or stupid. We teach that caring for those in your community is good. We collect cans of food for the needy, even if some people believe the poor are that way out of laziness or sinfullness and don’t deserve free food. If you object to teaching that gays are normal variations, I think you also should object to teaching that handicapped or blonde or blue-eyed or Jewish people are normal variations…which you may well do! But if you’re attempting to remove all trace of community and constitutional morals from school, you have a long row to hoe.
Even if you want no “moral” teachings, I believe we should at least educate children on the existence of gays, what gays are actually like (NOT child rapists), that some people think they are sinners and some do not, that homosexuality is observed in animals too. This will offend some people for whom it goes against their beliefs. And yes, it may take an hour long presentation. And yet, I believe it is factual. Would you require parental consent for this?
I don’t wish to “shove morality”, I simply wish that we could say, if we’re pushing morals at all, “if X group (behaves in a manner/espouses beliefs) that cannot reasonably be said to offer empirical evidence that they harm others, they shall be ‘acceptable’ in the school’s eyes”. Perhaps this opens the doors for all sorts of abuse, but to me it seems pretty acceptable. Your thoughts?
Of course he does, just as if in the face of evidence to the contrary, he wishes to believe that evolution is bunk. Would you require parental consent for a fact-based evolution presentation?
I wouldn’t want my children to accept everyone. I don’t mind if they tolerate neo-nazis, communist, racist, those who dislike homosexuals, or members of PETA. I do not want them to accept any of the above as being valid political, ethical, or moral choices because I believe they are wrong.
That’s my big problem with teaching tolerance. It really isn’t about teaching tolerance it is about teaching acceptance. While I support people accepting homosexuals I don’t support accepting everyone or everything as being equally valid.
Probably not. I’d certainly allow an opt-out for the troglodytes, were I presenting a lesson plan about it. But at the same time, I wouldn’t use an hour long"Gays aren’t rapists or child molesters" class. I would have integrated them into the curriculum throughout the year. Talking computers? Alan Turing’s life gets described. Lit? Oscar Wilde. Hans Christan Anderson. Music? Cole Porter (I think). Current events? Too many to name. and so on…there’s literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of examples. I think this’ll demonstrate exactly the same thing (except for the bit about the animals which never convinces anyone despite it being correct) without preaching. This method also normalizes homosexuality a whole lot better than a “We’re going to skip our math class today for a Very Special Lesson-plan” deal.
**
I apologize in advance for answering a question with a question but I’m gonna:
Could you define 'acceptable" in this context? What does being an “acceptible” group do? By 'they shall be ‘acceptable’ in the school’s eyes" do you mean “We’ll all love and feel good about them?” or do you mean “You bully/harass them, we’ll bounce your ass”? Or do you mean “We’ll let them come and propagandize for their group/view/cause without parental consent” Or some other alternative? I’m not trying to be obtuse here. If it means “We’ll treat them with dignity and respect”, I have no problem with it, but why single out one group?
And where would you put White < coughNazis> Seperatists like our St*rmfront contingent? They claim that they just want to be left alone, they want White segragation but < cough > don’t want any harm to anyone else. They claim. :rolleyes: Would they get an “acceptable” rating? Why or why not? What about Black Seperatists? How do you define “harms others”?
I, as an indivdual have NO problem making value judgements against belief systems. I have a problem when the State does it outside of the widest possible bounds.
**
Nope, but I would allow an opt-out. Or better, vouchers. Let the troglodytes send their kids to their troglodyte schools. They certainly have the right to bring their kids up as they see fit (within limits…and those limits should be damned narrow, relating to the child’s health and well-being (learning the facts of evolution does NOT constitute “well being” to me). It should NEVER approach their belief system as Diogenes suggested).
The fact that I think “creation” science is one of the stupidest fictions in the history of mankind and despite the fact that it’s demonstrably false, those troglodytes have the right to, at very least, not have their beliefs undermined on their tax dollars, if not supported.
And before anyone asks; Yes. I would happily allow tax dollars to go to a school that teaches such bunkum. (As long as the government doesn’t favor a specific religous point of view, I think the wall of Church and State is kept intact.) There’s a phrase that’s used all the time except when it comes to schools and beliefs that are unpopular: “The rights of the majority must not be allowed to trample on the rights of the minority”. Somehow, at that point it becomes “We can’t make exceptions for every group.” usually by the people who’re up in arms about (say) exceptions not being made for Muslim women to have their driver’s license photos taken with their veils on.
Strawman.
What does “acceptance” mean to you people? Acceptance does not mean that we’re asking you to come hang out with us at JR’s in Cedar Springs. It means that we want you to accept us a regular folk; your co-workers, your neighbors, perhaps even your friends. Acceptance doesn’t mean we want to you become gay. In fact we don’t want some of you on our team. Just Accept the FACT that we’re here, we’re normal and we ain’t goin’ away.
Would be a much more effective way. Unfortunately, until I got to college, there was no mention that Walt Whitman - one of the greatest American Poets - was gay.
As the sun sets slowly on this wildfire thread, I’m looking back over the twisted, smoldering remains and wondering, what have we learned? What came out of all of this?
One thing that becomes instantly apparent is that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue. That’s going to go under the heading of ‘incredibly obvious.’
On one side, you’ve got people who really think that kids need to be exposed to this information, if only to save the lives of their gay peers. It only makes sense to them that if a good percentage of a school’s population is of a non-traditional sexual orientation, then the school should help them survive by giving them the information that they need. After all, what’s being taught in schools currently isn’t helping to reduce the body count, and may, in fact, be contributing to it significantly.
I’m one of those people.
On the other side, there are people who insist that they know what’s best for their kids, and are appalled that anyone would presume to teach them about homosexuality without getting their consent first.
To them I say, the ones who need the information most are the ones who will never be able to get parental consent. It’s the sons and daughters of the bigots, the kids who turn out to be gay in an anti-gay family, who are the most at risk. I say, where are you when your kids are being taught that the only sexual orientation worthy of respect is heterosexuality, a message that’s burned into your kids’ minds every day at school? Why doesn’t that require your consent?
There are a lot of people that feel that what is needed is an overhaul of how the school system works, and that equality for gay people ought to be integrated into the curriculum, instead of treated as a separate issue.
With which I agree, but I think that’s going to take a long, long time. What do we do about the students killing themselves in the meantime? What do we do for the kids who, every day, walk the hallways being told that they are inferior, disgusting, unworthy? It seems like lecturing classes on these subjects, and having resources available to help these kids, are good stopgap measures while the dream of a school system that respects them is being realized.
We learned that Kirk can apologize, and do it nicely. We learned that local TV newscasters respond to email. We re-learned that H4E will never change, no matter what. And we learned that even on a board that’s dedicated to fighting ignorance, there are still some people who believe that information is dangerous. That teaching kids about gay people is somehow wrong.
Meanwhile, there’s one teacher out there who realized that this was a message that their students needed to hear. And he or she subverted a system which would never have allowed the message to get out there to the students and brought in a knowledgeable speaker on the subject. And, out of fifty-eight kids who walked into the presentation, three of them are probably gay. Which means one of them would try to commit suicide before they’re out of high school. Gay people have a much higher incident of success per suicide attempt, too, you know. That kid would probably have died.
And when the fifty-eight kids walked out of that classroom, I think there was a much better chance that fifty-eight sets of parents were going to be able to watch their children grow to adulthood.
Tolerance: I agree to put up with your presence on this Earth whether I agree with you or not. That includes no violence towards you, no verbal threats, and no interference with your ability to make a lawful living.
Acceptance: That means I not only tolerate you, I think you’re OK.
My personal definitions, YMMV, as always.
Well, a lot of us DO both tolerate and accept homosexuals (see above definitions) even if we happen to be heterosexuals. I have no objections to gay couples (or triples, or groups), had a lesbian sister, many gay friends, shared an apartment with a lesbian through college… I think same-sex marriage should be legal, and barriers to same-sex couples adopting dropped because there are so many kids who need a good stable home and I believe same-sex couples are as likely to provide that as different-sex couples. I view homosexuality much like I view lefthandedness - a perfectly normal variation of humanity that can occassionally be inconvient but should be of no social consequence. I happen to be het. Others are gay. Others are bi.
I will confess to having some difficulties with transexuality, but that’s largely because I simply do not, on an emotional level, comprehend being in a body of one gender yet convinced you’re really a different gender. Intellectually, yes, I have had it explained, but I don’t understand on a guy level. Nonetheless, if someone feels so strongly about this issue they are willing to have major surgery and turn their whole world upside down - I just have to respect their feelings on this, even if I don’t understand them. And certainly I feel that in the eyes of the law they should have the same rights as everyone else, and certainly not be abused, harassed, or their lives made more difficult because they are the way they are.
On the other hand, I do realize there are many many people in this world who do NOT accept gays, who, in fact, do not even tolerate them. We will not win them over by trying to shove a particular viewpoint down their throat.
If we can’t get someone to accept homosexuals (see above definition) then I will settle for tolerance (see above definition). If, in order to get a speaker into a school to discuss tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people I have to acknowledge, for the benefit of folks like His4ever, that there are still many people in this world who do NOT think homosexuality is “morally acceptable” then I will do so. Why? Because it’s the truth. And kids respond to the truth. They have massive bullshit detectors when it comes to adults talking to them.
Yes, the LGBT kids already know there’s a lot of disapproval out there - but let them get the help they need. I doubt that His4ever (and let her correct me if I’m wrong) would have a problem with letting LGBT kids know of counseling services that can either keep them off the street, or help them if they find themselves there. Of course, His4ever would prefer they find her Christ-based solution - but if they can’t, then at least help them avoid becoming runaways, child prostitutes, thieves, and suicides. It’s awful damn hard to argue about that. His4ever and I will never agree on the acceptability of homosexuality, but we can both agree that one teen suicide is too many. if I have to mention that some folks have religious objections to a practice in order to get good information to desparate teens I will. If only so they know what counseling services are likely to be accepting of them as they are, and which are not, and would want them to change to be something else.
If nothing else, bringing up the the fact that many religions and cultures do NOT approve or even tolerate homosexuality would be an entry for the idea that, here in the United States, it is NOT OK to abuse, harass, or harm another person because you don’t approve of their bedpartners. It is a very important difference between the US and certain other parts of the world. In the United States “He is homosexual” is NOT a valid defense when a person is accused of murder or assault (although, regrettably, there are too many miscarriages of justice). You can not use your religious beliefs to justify breaking the law or violating the rights of other people in this country.
