Sure–and at that point, I’ll object to the objection not based on its form, but on its content. At that point, I’ll say, “C’mon! Being homeless isn’t always caused by poor work ethic–or do you think that Rwandans are congenitally lazy?” That’s the time for a spirited debate. And if the schoolboard sides with the parent who gets rid of the “be kind to homeless people” campaign, I’ll think they made a poor decision.
But they made a poor decision based on the content.
It is probably a continuum. On the one hand would be objections that I found imminently reasonable: a parent objects to the use of a textbook that claims that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to Africans, for example. (I had a teacher in high school who made that claim, probably trolling for arguments) I’d support that objection, and would applaud the schoolboard that mandated a less awful textbook.
On the other extreme would be a parent objecting to a book that depicts a gay character without going out of its way to condemn the character’s sexuality. That’s a really dumb objection to a minor, tangential point.
In the middle would be a parent who objected to a book that encouraged students to experiment with their sexuality, but to do so in a safe fashion. Personally I’d support that teaching wholeheartedly, but I can understand and respect a parent who finds it problematic. Similarly, a teacher might use a book that teaches students that an armed society is a polite society and that everyone should learn to use firearms safely; while I’d object to that content, it wouldn’t be so egregious that I’d get up in arms about it.
Does that make sense? I realize it’s kind of rambling. I guess it seems to me that teaching children to respect and tolerate other people is factually not equivalent to encouraging them to engage in any behavior (besides tolerance and respect), and that respect and tolerance are values that I want to be inculcated in kids, and that it’s profoundly immoral to act in a fashion that impedes such education.
I mean, not to be flippant, but imagine that the parent was objecting to Black is Beautiful, because black people really weren’t beautiful, and no black person should think otherwise. Should the school board bow to the parent’s wish then and remove that book from the curriculum?
It’s been awhile since I read Just So Stories, but I seem to recall that Hindus are portrayed favorably (if not entirely accurately) in those stories. If a parent objected to those books because they didn’t want their kids getting the idea that it was okay to worship cows, should the school board bow to their wishes?
I believe you’re stuck on the form of the objection here. While some objections (such as objections to teaching evolution instead of creationism) are wrong in form, inasmuch as they constitute an injection of religion into public education, other objections are wrong based on content.
The school should reject this parent’s objection because it promotes inequality and intolerance.
I know, we liberals aren’t supposed to be moral absolutists. But about some things we are.
But the parents’ claim is that this is an appropriate time for inequality and intolerance. They do not wish their children to be tolerant of homosexuals; they do not wish their children taught that homosexuals are or should be equal.
You disagree with the position. You aver that people should be tolerant of homosexuals, and treat them as deserving of equality.
You contend you are right.
They contend they are right.
But I’m ACTUALLY right, you say, and their contention about being right is wrong.
Sabres at dawn? What are you wanting me to say? The appropriate channels don’t make a poor decision good; instead, they suggest that the channels aren’t so appropriate.
Again, you’re still talking about the form. I’m talking about what the right decision would be.
What mechanism do you think we should use to decide on the Just So Stories example? Maybe a suggestion from you on this will give me some ideas on how to answer you.
I think think we as humans need to be tolerant of eveyone. It is not our place to be judgemental of others.
This is what drives me nuts about this issue. People are choosing their morality and religious beliefs a la carte. How can you be against gays/lesbians and still eat shrimp, or wear clothing with more than one type of fiber, or plant more than one seed in a garden, or touch a football?
The bottom line, and the source of my frustration, is that they’re being hypocrites. Don’t say you’re following God’s word and the Bible but you get to choose which words to follow. Don’t play God, it’s against your beliefs to do so (if that is what you believe).
These parents are unlikely to simply accept, as fact, your pronouncement that being gay and being black are analogous for the purposes of this discussion. They contend that being gay is wilfull and sinful: wrong, wrong, wrong. And gay people do NOT have the same legal rights as straight people: that’s a matter of demonstratable fact.
And it has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated that being gay is NOT willfull, but is inborn. The gayhaters have not one shred of fact to back up their asinine assertions, not one. I see no reason to cater to the hate-fiulled religious prejudices of moronic fundies.
[quotre]
And gay people do NOT have the same legal rights as straight people: that’s a matter of demonstratable fact.
[/QUOTE]
In this country, that’s true. Unlike you, Bricker, I don’t think that complaisance with the status quo is morally acceptable, so I’m going to keep working to change it.
I’d appreciate an answer to my question: if a parent used similar logic to object to Just So Stories, what mechanism should be in place to decide whether the book should be removed from the classroom? What about a parent who objected to Black is Beautiful?
And if my analogies are flawed, in what way are they flawed?
Daniel
I’m saying it doesn’t matter what the parents believe. There are parents who believe that white people are devils. Does that mean that schools have an obligation not to read books that portray white people in a positive light?
This is a public school, not a church.
As for the rights of gay people…I would refer you once again to the 14th amendment.
While I await Bricker’s response to my question about Just So Stories (which I think I deserve, given that I’ve answered several of his), I want to add that last night as I drove home I thought about my flippant “Sabres at dawn” response, and realized there was a grain of truth in it.
This country has a rich tradition, and I’m pretty happy with parts of it. That whole “When in the course of human events” declaration, with its “All men are created equal” schtick, is pretty powerful. The idea that equality is an inalienable right strikes me as a good guiding principle.
“Inalienable” is a key word here. That means that a school board can’t get rid of it by fiat, that there’s no mechanism can get rid of it.
But sure, you say, we’re not talking about alienating the right to equality; we’re talking about alienating the right to be discussed as if you’re equal.
Teaching children that some men are created inequal–using government dollars to teach children this lesson–shames the Declaration of Independence. It shames us all. It is not something that we accept because of the mechanism that makes the decision; when the mechanism makes that decision, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish that mechanism.
I’m not defending the parents in the OP, nor am I seriously defending banning Mowgli from the shelves. What I’m pointing out is that it’s not enough to simply announce that the other side is wrong. If there is a mechanism to decide cirricula, that mechanism should be followed - or, if it is flawed, changed.
I’ll agree with this, with the proviso that any mechanism that allows parents to remove the teaching of equality from the schools is flawed, and should be changed. This is one of those areas on which there’s not room for compromise, and I think a refusal to compromise on this issue is reflected in the Declaration of Independence.
Nazis were men, created just as equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights as well. Yet we have no problem teaching that their philsophies and actions were odious. We do not - and should not - teach that Nazis were equal and their actions should be tolerated.
So what scale do I use, one where I place the Nazis on it and the readout says, “May portray negatively,” but when I place Hindus upon it, the readout changes to “May not portray negatively.”
Two answers: the vociferous parents seem to believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice, despite evidence to the contrary. In any event, even if they accept that homosexuality is innate, there’s no question that having gay sex is a matter of choice.
So if these parents demanded that gay characters, if shown, are portrayed only as celibates, that would be ok?
