Your ignorance astounds me. I knew at 6.
Esprix
What drugs are you doing? Christ.
Esprix
I’m curious about this whole idea of a “general tolerance” program. Would the program be able to address the issue of gay people at all? Would they be able to define what gay people were, in the course of telling kids to be tolerant of them? Would they be able to refer kids to informtion that they’re going to need if they do realize that they’re not growing up heterosexual like the other kids?
I mean, if this is all done in the context of a “tolerate everybody” class, does that make it acceptable? Or does this innocuous information offend you no matter what context it’s presented in?
And I’m still waiting, in vain, probably, for Witch to answer my questions. Ah, well.
I’ve only had a chance to skim the new additions to this thread (it’s grown a lot since this morning!), so maybe this has been brought up. My apologies if it has.
Many people have already mentioned this kind of education as an antidote to homophobia from other children and sometimes parents. But at my school, and I suspect at a lot of others, the homophobia is institutionalized, and this education could be an antidote to the homophobia existant in the system.
I had a geography teacher who made snide remarks about gays in a class where the subject wasn’t even remotely relevant. I was called into a counselling office and told to stop spending time with my friends because I could be “influencing them.” When I was considering bringing my boyfriend to the prom, I was told by the vice-principal that proms were not places “to make political statements.”
Textbooks, too, can be a problem A history text of mine brought up the subject of homosexuality exactly once – to categorically refute that Socrates was gay.
I got to hear about the lovers Helen and Paris in a literature class talking about the Trojan war, and the “friends” Achilles and Patroclus. When we read the works of heterosexual authors, our teachers would let us in on all the juicy gossip of their personal lives – right down to adultery and promiscuity. Writers like Forrester or Wilde, to take two examples, did not seem to have a personal life. There is a reason that they don’t teach Shakespeare’s Sonnet XX in high schools.
Homosexuality was only mentioned positively twice in my high school years. Once in grade 10, by a girl giving a short presentation on “homophobia and religion” – a presentation that rather upset our fundamentalist teacher. The second was by an English teacher in grade 11 who asked me – to my shock – why I hadn’t mentioned that Michelangelo was gay in my biography of him (I didn’t know – none of the biographies I read for the report mentioned it). It was the first time I had ever heard that homosexuality was not something to be secret. I don’t think it’s a coincidence I came out a week later.
Silence is a form of indoctrination. There’s simply no way around the fact that if parents and teachers pointedly avoid the subject, the child will learn there is something wrong with that subject. My examples above are from a high school context, but since I had my first sex ed class in grade 7, I don’t see why I couldn’t hear about two men in love at that age. Any situation in schools in which heterosexuality could mentioned (at whatever degree of explicitness) is a situation in which homosexuality can be mentioned. Period.
Wow. You’re my new best friend. Truly. I stand in awe of your unbridled stupidity.
Yes, because we all know that because adults use a word, it should be open for use by children - hence your seeming approval of “motherfucker.”
You’re a twisted li’l fuckhead, ain’tcha?
Esprix
Oh, come on, GOBEAR. That’s four examples. Do you really think it’s realistic, not even to ask if it’s wise, to grant a one-hour tolerance forum to every self-perceived persecuted group that might want to tell 11 year olds to be nice to its members?
WEIRDDAVE –
Where are you getting that? Because from MR VISIBLE’s link, it does not appear he or she did. I’m not being sarcastic – did I miss something?
DIOGENES –
When it comes to morality as opposed to facts – of course they do. You think the public schools have some right to teach children concepts that violate their parents’ moral or religious beliefs? Wrong. If a child is raised with the religious belief that homosexuality is wrong and condemned by God, then the school arguably has an obligation to refrain from attacking that belief in any way. Teaching general tolerance is fine; teaching that homosexuality is okay probably is not. I realize you may not like this, but there it is.
No one said it did. NO ONE SAID IT DID. But parents certainly do have the right to be advised of a school’s intention to expose their kids to controversial or mature topics, which obviously would include issues of sexuality. You appear to be arguing that a public school can teach kids whatever it wants with NO regard to the beliefs of their parents. That right does not exist, either. As it is most of the time, reality is not in the extremes but somewhere in the middle.
Really. Why? Because you say so? Fortunately for all of us, you’re not in charge, either of school curricula or of what deserves consideration by public schools, which certainly do consider – and consider carefully – the religious objections of parents. To fail to do so in this day and age invites a lawsuit, which no superintendent in his or her right mind wants to deal with.
I went to Amphi. 
I think that this is totally stupid. I agree with the subject: God forbid we teach our kids. Hey, wouldn’t want to give them a chance at being informed or developing tolerance.
And, again, the program presented (as I’m reading it) was doing just that - teaching tolerance towards a specific group of people that is one of the last to achieve that tolerance. So what’s your beef.
And, as far as I can tell, no one is arguing that the teacher in question should have gotten the proper permissions for this presentation. Sadly, I feel if they had, the presentation never would have happened, precisely because of the reactions in this thread.
Thank whatever you believe in for places like the Hetrick-Martin Institute and the Harvey Milk School.
Esprix
Excuse me, but what the hell’s the difference? Even if you don’t equate “fag” to “kike” and “nigger” (which I do), I feel there’s a civic responsibility to teach children tolerance, and that any bullying - and I really don’t give a rat’s ass why they’re bullying or if they actually believe the words they’re using are appropriate ( :rolleyes: ) - is UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR SOCIETY.
Why are you having such a hard time with that concept?
Esprix
You know, as much as I wish they were, the rabid fundies aren’t the problem here. They’d be easy to deal with; they tend to spontaneously combust with astounding regularity. It’s easy for people to see through bigotry that’s that blatant.
The real problem is people who don’t think they’re prejudiced. They’re the ones who like gay people, no really, but they don’t think their kids should know anything about them, because they’re too young to be exposed to that kind of thing, you know. They’re the ones who have lots of gay friends, but who think that two gay people getting married just seems kind of wrong, you know? They’re the ones who vote for the candidates who run on platforms labelled ‘family friendly,’ despite the fact that they’re full bore against gay people ever getting the same rights as straight people.
These are the people that are causing the most suffering to the gay minority. Fred Phelps would be a happy, happy man indeed if he could cause just one percent of the damage that ten million families that “just don’t talk about that kind of thing” do.
The people in the middle of the road are standing in our way.
And what opinions and beliefs about racial identity are so dangerous that kids (at ages when they are well aware of race, as well) need to be shielded from them? That black, hispanic, and asian people exist? That they have racially diverse peers? That those peers should not be treated any differently because of their race?
Those sound, to me, like questions that parents ought to answer on behalf of their own children.
Well put.
Esprix
MRVISIBILE –
Sure. Why not? A class that attempts to teach tolerance should certainly define the terms it uses, explain what intolerance can result in, and even advise the kids of related resources for all such groups. But IMO it should not concentrate on one group of persecuted people, instead of addressing the issues of persecution and discrimination generally, and why they are wrong. It should be age-appropriate – and to introduce the topic of gender confusion to 11 year olds is not IMO age-appropriate. You may disagree, which is why you should raise your kids and allow me to raise mine.
If the issue is limited to homosexuality generally without introducing concepts that may well be over the heads of middle-schoolers; if relatively equal time is given to various types of discrimination, in order to show that none of it is okay; if the information is provided by a teacher, not someone with an agenda to push; and if, should the subject include controversial or complicated topics, the parents are advised of what is going to be said, and by whom – sure, then it’s okay. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Yes, definitely wait until they have already developed their own prejudices and uninformed ideas before you try to teach them something.
<sniff> Does me heart good… 
Esprix
Okay, this time in big print:
The teacher apparently followed the established school procedures in regards to presentations in the classroom.
KGUN9 has dropped the part of the story that said the teacher had done this without consent; now the story reads:
He didn’t get permission from the school district, and one board member is up in arms about it, even though getting permission from the school district is not, apparently, standard policy.
“Love everyone” doesn’t work, obviously (otherwise a certain faction of zealous right-wingers would stop trying to curtail my freedoms).
However, using concrete examples of the differences between people - i.e., race, skin color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, veterans status, whatever - is more effective. Kids see black people, and are sometimes taught to think less of them, so by saying very specifically “black people are the same as you,” that’s what gets the message across.
I can’t believe I’m saying this to grown adults. I wish someone here were an expert in harassment issues or diversity issues and could speak on what methods are most effective in teaching tolerance.
Esprix
You’re damn right I’m standing in your way – every time you try to tell me you know better than I do how to raise my own children, and what’s best for them.
I do not believe 11 year olds need to be taught much other than the basics of human reproduction, the fact that different people like (and love) different people, and that we should not condemn anything or anyone just because they’re different. I firmly believe that every competent person should be allowed to raise his or her children as he or she sees fit, regardless of my own opinion on it, and so long as the child is not neglected or endangered. Guess that makes me a big ol’ bigot. :rolleyes:
You are aware that this presentation was part of a whole course on Life Skills, that in all probability devoted time to a number of other tolerance issues, right? That the teacher didn’t just kidnap a bunch of random kids and teach them about gays? That the presenter of the program was trained in doing these lectures for schools? That the organization he represents is well-known in the community as a safe haven for gay and lesbian youth? That gay and lesbian youth have unique problems that most schools, churches, or clubs aren’t set up to handle, but that there are specific resources out there to help them that the presenter was making the kids aware of?
Anyway…
Please point out where in your link it says the teacher followed established school procedures regarding presentations in the classroom, because I don’t see it.