Posted by Tina
As most of you probably know the Governor of California recently signed a bill that will require public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals.
I couldn’t write a better evaluation of the consequences to this bill than this one by Howard Portnoy over at Hot Air:
Even allowing for the possibility that the accomplishments of gays are accurately recorded, how will they appear in print? Will the books mention that Ann Bancroft (not the actress who appeared in The Graduate and who spelled her name differently anyway but the explorer) was a lesbian? And if so how? Will there be a paragraph reading:
Ann Bancroft, American author, teacher, and adventurer, was the first woman to successfully finish a number of arduous expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic. And by the way, she is gay.
Or perhaps they will start calling out attributes of sexual orientation parenthetically, much the way elected officials’ party affiliation and state are called out currently in journalistic writing. Thus, twentieth-century composer Aaron Copland would appear in textbooks as “Aaron Copland (G-J-NY).” The “J” is of course for “Jewish.” (You don’t want to start offending other minorities.)
For those who prefer a more traditional news report see::
“Calif. governor signs landmark law to teach gay history” – Oregon Observer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill making California the first state in the nation to add lessons about gays and lesbians to social studies classes in public schools.
Brown, a Democrat, signed the landmark bill requiring public schools to include the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in social studies curriculum. The Democratic-majority Legislature had passed the bill last week on a largely party-line vote.
“History should be honest,” the governor said in a statement Thursday. “This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books.”
See a transcript of the bill as introduced by Senator Leno here.
As expected the bill’s signing has stirred an effort to overturn the bill with a ballot measure.
In California the beat goes on!
How soon will it turn into a how to class? When I was a little kid I had enough on my plate learning my ABC’s, basic reading, colors and the other crap little kids learn. I was and still am a very inquisitive person, when I didn’t understand something I asked questions sometimes to the point of pissing the teacher off. My point to this is when you start talking to little kids about gay people and their contributions to history, more than a few kids are going to ask what gay people are and what makes them gay and why would anyone want to be one? How do you think our over paid and not overly bright “educators” will handle those questions? Some kids will ask why it matters?
Oh and lets talk about the dead gay history makers. Who says they were gay? How do the “experts” plan on proving it? The people are dead and can not speak for themselves. Other than pissing a lot of people off WTF is the point of this?
How will it look and what will happen when millions or parents keep their children from going to school? This should be a hoot to watch unfold. Oh and what will it cost to rewrite history and print the books? Who is going to pay for it?
If this stops one gay kid from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing the gay kid, I say it’s worth it.
Toby: “My point to this is when you start talking to little kids about gay people and their contributions to history, more than a few kids are going to ask what gay people are and what makes them gay and why would anyone want to be one?”
Toby, you honestly think kids aren’t already asking these questions?
By first grade most of these kids are watching GLEE. (Although my niece, who is 11, has been banned from the show this season due to too much sexual content, involving both orientations.) Some of the kids you mention will grow up to realize that they ARE gay.
It’s absurd to expect schools to pretend that gay people don’t exist just because an increasingly small number of people in this country would prefer if they didn’t.
The gay rights movement is a significant part of our nation’s recent history, and there is no reason not to teach it.
“Oh and lets talk about the dead gay history makers. Who says they were gay? How do the “experts” plan on proving it? The people are dead and can not speak for themselves.”
This is silly. I am sure only those who were known homosexuals will be identified as such.
“Oh and what will it cost to rewrite history and print the books? Who is going to pay for it?”
Nobody has to comply with the new law until 2015…hopefully by then we will have pulled ourselves out of this mess.
Keep in mind that I highly doubt this will make a huge impact on textbooks…textbooks are already required to provide coverage on blacks, women, and other minorities, but they’re mostly still about straight Christian white dudes (which, to be fair, have made most of the history in this country due to the fact that they were the only ones in power for most of it).
It hasn’t been important to teach the sexual orientation of inventors, writers, explorers, scientists, and inventors up to now. Sexual orientation isn’t relevant to the work of famous contributors (in most cases – the Drs. Johnson in the seventies might be an exception). Are these talented people special for their contribution or their private lives?
2014-2015 is the target date for books to be rewritten. CA taxpayers will foot the bill. It’s possible that fewer butts will fill the chairs in CA but that’s happening anyway with parents seeking alternatives to public school to express their dissatisfaction with performance and curriculum.
The main reason given for this, as cited in the article, is that maybe some kids will feel better about themselves, less lonely and seperated. Kids being taught that famous people have been gay is apparently going to stop some of the bullying too. What if it makes it worse?
According to this Bloomberg article the cost could be significant:
California is the largest textbook buyer in the U.S., representing almost 13 percent of the $3.4 billion market in 2009, according to the Association of American Publishers.
A change is in the wind and there’s a good chance that the material will end up online:
http://www.opensourcetext.org/
It’s a brave new world Toby. I see some parents embracing the new world and eventually abandoning responsibility completely letting UN organizations determine the educational standards for their kids. Others will fight to educate their kids at home.
We are at a tipping point in history. Diversity training isn’t the only thing intruding to replace our heritage and traditions.
We are the world….we are the children…..
Re: “If this stops one gay kid from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing the gay kid, I say it’s worth it.”
Next up:
1) Special, narrow educational legislation for Christian contributions.
If this stops one Christian kid from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing the Christian kid, I say it’s worth it.
2) Special, narrow educational legislation for Muslim contributions.
If this stops one Muslim kid from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing the Muslim kid, I say it’s worth it.
3) Special, narrow educational legislation for Republican contributions.
If this stops one Republican kid from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing the Republican kid, I say it’s worth it.
4) Special, narrow educational legislation for pedophiliac contributions.
If this stops one pedophilac from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing a pedophiliac, I say it’s worth it.
Chris: “If this stops one gay kid from killing themselves, or stops a would-be bully from beating up or killing the gay kid, I say it’s worth it.”
It won’t. You are being overly optomistic about the power of this bill to help kids with personal emotional challenges and problems. All of the diversity training has moved students away from the one model that puts all kids on the same level…this will just add to the division and call attention to the difference.
“It’s absurd to expect schools to pretend that gay people don’t exist just because an increasingly small number of people in this country would prefer if they didn’t.”
You really are a little punk. It’s easier to pretend that people who disagree about airing personal business in public and in school are hateful.
“I am sure only those who were known homosexuals will be identified as such.”
Naive…jesus was a homosexual, didn’t you hear?
“textbooks are already required to provide coverage on blacks, women, and other minorities, but they’re mostly still about straight Christian white dudes (which, to be fair, have made most of the history in this country due to the fact that they were the only ones in power for most of it).”
Sadly history books have not refelcted accurately the contributions of straight Christian white “dudes” if this is what you have learned about them. Your assessment of the people that founded and built this country is tainted with attitude…a negative attitude. You haven’t been educated, Chris, you’ve been brainwashed!
By the way, the above list is endless. I could go on forever. Care to contribute?
Re: Keep in mind that I highly doubt this will make a huge impact on textbooks …
Oh great, yet more useless, feel-good legislation that will have little impact and create yet another, ever-increasing-budget, bureaucratic dynasty packed with SEIU parasites.
Business as usual. Liberal business. The business of the left.
Tina: “It hasn’t been important to teach the sexual orientation of inventors, writers, explorers, scientists, and inventors up to now.”
Quick, was George Washington married? Second question, was he married to a woman? Bonus question, what was her name?
If you can answer any of these questions, congratulations! You probably learned those facts in school, which means that you did learn, however indirectly, about our first president’s orientation.
“The main reason given for this, as cited in the article, is that maybe some kids will feel better about themselves, less lonely and seperated. Kids being taught that famous people have been gay is apparently going to stop some of the bullying too. What if it makes it worse?”
Unlikely. Acceptance toward blacks in America increased once Americans were taught about their contributions. Equality for women is also helped through education about women’s contributions. Why do you feel this might be different?
Pie, once again you manage to completely fail at satire. The contributions of Christians are already taught in schools, as they should be. I also recall learning about Islam and other religions in middle school. Of course, kids are taught about historical pieces of legislation put forward by both Republicans and Democrats every day; you don’t think they’re studying the Emancipation Proclomation, put forth by a Republican president? I’m not even going to dignify the pedophilia thing with a response. Not to mention that neither Christians, Muslims or Republicans have high rates of suicide compared to the general population, although hate crimes against Muslims are a pressing issue.
Tina: “It won’t. You are being overly optomistic about the power of this bill to help kids with personal emotional challenges and problems.”
Perhaps. But it’s worth trying.
“All of the diversity training has moved students away from the one model that puts all kids on the same level…this will just add to the division and call attention to the difference.”
That’s your biased, uninformed and unsupported opinion. Studies have shown that celebrating diversity in schools works.
“Naive…jesus was a homosexual, didn’t you hear?”
I hadn’t. What classroom in America teaches this?
“Sadly history books have not refelcted accurately the contributions of straight Christian white “dudes” if this is what you have learned about them.”
What are you talking about? What part of what I said was objectionable to you, the word “dudes?”
“Your assessment of the people that founded and built this country is tainted with attitude…a negative attitude.”
I hold a mostly positive attitude toward the people that built this country, and I’m still not sure what part of my comment led you to believe otherwise. Is any comment that mentions the founders without extreme reverance now evidence of “brainwashing” to you?
Chris, the man dubbed the father of our country proves the rule, eh? Martha Washington was the first, first lady even though the title did not exist when George was president. I would expect to know a little about her. When we learned the names of other Presidents the subject of wives or any other arrangements never came up.
Quick was Dr David Salk a homosexual and if not was he married, single, living with his dog? How about Levi Strauss…what do we know about him other than he was the inventor of jeans.
I can understand learning indepth information through research about these people for a special report if the information is out there. I can appreciate this information being included at the college level but in grade school? In grade school it is irrelevant information; it might even be confusing for some students.
“That’s your biased, uninformed and unsupported opinion.”
Biased an uninformed? Not just my opinion? why must you qualify it and why no similar qualifying on the next statement:
“Studies have shown that celebrating diversity in schools works.”
Not biased, uninformed studies?
To what end does diversity training “work”? It’s certainly not contributing to higher academic achievement and it may be getting in the way of reaching that goal. I can’t say it has caused less animosity among students and it may be causing more. Kids today have an entire list of reasons to feel like they are “different” (and another list to feel justified about their feelings) thanks to diversity training. Instead of being normal kids struggling with growing pains (we’ve all been through it) they are now labeled and categorized…set up for ridicule if you ask me. I liked it better when kids were all Americans, human beings, and all were expected to behave decently and with respect while attending school where they learned math, science, history, english, etc.
“What are you talking about? What part of what I said was objectionable to you, the word “dudes?”
All of the qualifiers: straight, Christian, white, male and dudes!
The implication has been that something untoward was done. Some evil plot was perpetrated on these shores that purposely kept the alphabet of diverse categories of people down at the hands of this list (straight, Christian, white, male). There is a decided negative attitude.
History happened as it did because of the accepted practices of the day. There isn’t any reason to insert issues of gender and color to disparage these people. Pointing out the realities of slavery and the traditions of marriage in the times is one thing…making white chritian straight men bad guys in the process is not only inaccurate but socially evil. Had you learned without the diversity training you wouldn’t feel it necessary to insert these labels.
“I hold a mostly positive attitude toward the people that built this country, and I’m still not sure what part of my comment led you to believe otherwise.”
If I misunderstood your intent I apologize.
“Is any comment that mentions the founders without extreme reverance now evidence of “brainwashing” to you?”
See…there it is again. “Extreme reverence”?
Is having a healthy amount of respect for the men that founded this nation now considered “extreme” religious expression, perhaps due to the fact that I support Tea Partiers or I’m a Christian? Your evaluation sounds like disdain to me. I admit that my sensitivity is strong right now because of the attack on these men…and yes…it certainly COULD BE an indication of brainwashing.
Our American heritage is a precious thing. I’m not sure you have developed a healthy understanding or respect for the incredible thing those men did…or that they risked their lives, their families and their fortunes to hand it to us. Until quite recently the fact that they were white, male, straight, and Christian wasn’t a topic of discussion…we admired them for the incredible accomplishment.
Tina: “When we learned the names of other Presidents the subject of wives or any other arrangements never came up.”
Perhaps that’s true in your experience, but I remember learning about the wives of many of our presidents. My point is that no one would ever raise an objection to informing a class that George Washington was married to a woman…but if a teacher mentions the truth about Alexander the Great’s arrangements then she’s likely to face a firestorm of criticism. There’s no reason for that other than homophobia.
“Not biased, uninformed studies?”
Why don’t you read them and find out?
“To what end does diversity training “work”? It’s certainly not contributing to higher academic achievement”
It certainly is for the students in Arizona I pointed out to you, and thousands more as well.
“Kids today have an entire list of reasons to feel like they are “different” (and another list to feel justified about their feelings) thanks to diversity training.”
What a ridiculous statement. Kids have ALWAYS had reasons to feel different, long before diversity training was ever even an idea. This is especially true for minorities who often faced legal discrimination in our country’s past. But it seems that to conservatives, it’s always those who acknowledge the problem who are the real troublemakers…Global warming’s not a problem, it’s those damned environmentalists; racism isn’t a problem, it’s those who point it out; gender inequality isn’t a problem, it’s those damned feminists; homophobia isn’t a problem, gay rights activists are. These are backwards ideas in a forward-moving country.
“Instead of being normal kids struggling with growing pains (we’ve all been through it) they are now labeled and categorized…”
Kids have been labeled and categorized for all of human history. Diversity training isn’t about that…it’s about recognizing how these labels effect us and how to work through them. In some cases it’s about breaking out of those categories and defying stereotypes. I don’t think you’ve ever taken a class on diversity in your life, Tina, and I don’t think you know anything about them other than what you’ve heard from other conservatives.
“I liked it better when kids were all Americans, human beings, and all were expected to behave decently and with respect while attending school where they learned math, science, history, english, etc.”
That’s exactly what diversity studies promote, Tina.
“All of the qualifiers: straight, Christian, white, male and dudes!”
Tina, those qualifiers were completely relevant because Toby was expressing concern that textbooks would have to be radically changed to fit this bill…I was merely pointing out that laws have already changed to require the teaching of other minority group contributions, but that this hasn’t changed who recievs the vast majority of coverage in textbooks, and this bill won’t change that either. I meant no disrespect with my comment, I was merely pointing out a fact.
“The implication has been that something untoward was done. Some evil plot was perpetrated on these shores that purposely kept the alphabet of diverse categories of people down at the hands of this list (straight, Christian, white, male). There is a decided negative attitude.”
Tina, that wasn’t my point but even if it was, so what? What you’re describing is completely factual. Slavery was indeed an “evil plot,” and I don’t think one can argue otherwise.
“History happened as it did because of the accepted practices of the day. There isn’t any reason to insert issues of gender and color to disparage these people.”
Issues of gender and color had EVERYTHING to do with the accepted practices of the day. No one needs to “insert” these issues into history, they stand out quite prominently on their own. My intent was not to “disparage” anyone, I was pointing out a fact.
“Pointing out the realities of slavery and the traditions of marriage in the times is one thing…making white chritian straight men bad guys in the process is not only inaccurate but socially evil.”
I did not set out to make anyone a “bad guy.” You are being far too sensitive and that is why I made the “extreme reverence” remark.
“Until quite recently the fact that they were white, male, straight, and Christian wasn’t a topic of discussion…we admired them for the incredible accomplishment.”
The problem is that you are seeing this as an either/or thing. That is another tendency of conservatives that liberals don’t seem to share, generally speaking of course. I don’t have any problem admiring the founders for their incredible achievements. They wrote some of the most beautiful words ever written about freedom and individuality, and those words make up the bedrock of our nation. I don’t know a single liberal who would contest this. However, the fact that many of them were slave owners and that many of the social constructs of their were oppressive toward those who were not white straight Christian men is equally important to understanding history. That MUST be a topic of discussion, otherwise students will not be getting a full and accurate depiction of history, and they won’t know how to deal with issues of race and gender that they will still be confronted with in the future.
Chris: “would ever raise an objection to informing a class that George Washington was married to a woman…but if a teacher mentions the truth about Alexander the Great’s arrangements then she’s likely to face a firestorm of criticism. There’s no reason for that other than homophobia.”
I can understand the feelings of those whose focus is homophobia believing this nonesense, after all the only possible reason anyone would object to their child being taught at the age of 6, 8 or even 13 that some historical figures indulege in sexual activities with people of the same sex is homophobia. It doesn’t occur to you that this information at that age is more than some parents want their children to have. It doesn’t occur to you that those parents have a right to teach their children about such things themselves at what they believe is a more appropriate age. And it doesn’t occur to you that like it or not parents have the right to teach their children what their religion believes is morally wrong behavior at a more appropriate age. It has nothing to do with discriminating against another or hatred.
“It certainly is for the students in Arizona I pointed out to you, and thousands more as well.”
A. Test scores may have been changed to produce the result.
B. Diversity has also created division and seperateness and to that degree it is not working.
C. There is no evidence that those scores could not have been achieved without diversity ttraining.
Your argument is weak.
“Global warming’s not a problem, it’s those damned environmentalists; racism isn’t a problem, it’s those who point it out; gender inequality isn’t a problem, it’s those damned feminists; homophobia isn’t a problem, gay rights activists are. These are backwards ideas in a forward-moving country.”
Actuially you are on the tail end of dying movements that have gone overboard, have become tarnished, have been shown to be about money more than solving problems, and are rife with politcal schemes and scams. We don’t need diversity training and PC movements because the level of racism and bigotry in the nation is very low. You have to gin up the notion of racism with false accusations because there are so few incidents of it in our country. Americans are sick of being categorized and labeled and we’re not having any more of it. the political “rights” machine is coming to a well deserved end.
“That’s exactly what diversity studies promote, Tina.”
Sorry but I don’t buy it. You are the first one to jump on an issue in terms of race or bigotry. Such a determined focus has to be taught…just as hatred was once taught in many parts of the country. You have been trained to think in terms of race and sex.
“Tina, that wasn’t my point but even if it was, so what? What you’re describing is completely factual. Slavery was indeed an “evil plot,” and I don’t think one can argue otherwise.”
That is a distortion of the times. Salvery was an accepted reality and had been for centuries of human existance. Blacks sold blacks into slavery; free blacks owned slaves. Jews had been enslaved. White men had been indentured. The notion is repugnant to us now because of Christian values and conscience expressed by objecting men and women and they were, in this nation, legally backed up because of what was included in our Constitution.
“No one needs to “insert” these issues into history, they stand out quite prominently on their own.”
Then why is it necessary to create an atmosphere of hatred toward white men and our white founders? You may not have taken that position or attitude but a lot of people have. What’s been inserted is attitude and I resent it highly!
“However, the fact that many of them were slave owners and that many of the social constructs of their were oppressive toward those who were not white straight Christian men is equally important to understanding history.”
The information is interesting to note but it isn’t taught just as an intersting note in our history. It has been made a focus to the point of inciting hate and used as a reason to disparage America and our American system in favor of Marxism. You may not travel in those circles, Chris, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
“That MUST be a topic of discussion, otherwise students will not be getting a full and accurate depiction of history, and they won’t know how to deal with issues of race and gender that they will still be confronted with in the future.”
Once again, I think it’s important for students to learn these things. What has been printed in some text books don’t reflect your appraisal. Some of the changes to textbooks that have been suggested by the left:
* Removing references to Daniel Boone, General George Patton, Nathan Hale, Columbus Day, and Christmas.
* Including the cultural impact of hip hop music, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow, and the Hindu holiday of Diwali
.
* Replacing the term “American” with “Global Citizen” stating that students need to be shaped “for responsible citizenship in a global society” without any mention of citizenship in American society.
* Replacing expansionism and free enterprise with imperialism and capitalism.
Many of those teaching, and some of those writing history are not engaging in accuracy, the good, bad, and ugly, they are engaging in a propaganda effort. They are engaged in social engineering not education. This is just another incremental point on the scale to change American heritage and values. (The values being respect for others, keeping private matters private, being repsonsible for your childs emotional development and health) A non-collectivist approach.
“I can understand the feelings of those whose focus is homophobia believing this nonesense, after all the only possible reason anyone would object to their child being taught at the age of 6, 8 or even 13 that some historical figures indulege in sexual activities with people of the same sex is homophobia.”
*sigh* Where do you get the idea that this bill will teach kids about “sexual activities?” That is a homophobic assumption, Tina. It relies on the stereotype that homosexuality isn’t about love; it’s just about sex. And it relies on the same double standard I mentioned before; when kids are taught that George Washington was married to a woman named Martha, parents don’t say “GASP! Why are you teaching my children about the president’s sex life!” Because we recognize that straight love involves more than sex.
“A. Test scores may have been changed to produce the result.”
Well, anything’s possible, but you have no evidence of this. So it just sounds like you’re accusing them of cheating because you don’t like the results.
“B. Diversity has also created division and seperateness and to that degree it is not working.”
Diversity has created this, or diversity training?
“C. There is no evidence that those scores could not have been achieved without diversity ttraining.”
The evidence is that those who have taken the class do better than those who don’t.
“Sorry but I don’t buy it.”
You’ve never taken a class on diversity, how would you know?
You should read from people who have taken these classes, who’ve spent time with this material. Most of them report that they feel empowered, more connected and more able to identify and confront prejudice, including their own.
“You are the first one to jump on an issue in terms of race or bigotry.”
I call it like I see it, Tina.
“That is a distortion of the times. Salvery was an accepted reality and had been for centuries of human existance. Blacks sold blacks into slavery; free blacks owned slaves. Jews had been enslaved. White men had been indentured. The notion is repugnant to us now because of Christian values and conscience expressed by objecting men and women and they were, in this nation, legally backed up because of what was included in our Constitution.”
The notion was repugnant to many even then, including to Jefferson himself. He famously wrote that he could not defend or justify his practice of slave ownership on any ethical grounds. He struggled with it…and if there’s anything wrong with how history is taught in school it’s not that there is a left or right bias; it’s that kids are not learning about the struggle. History is portrayed as a straight line that always leads toward enlightenment, when in reality it is much more complex than that.
“Then why is it necessary to create an atmosphere of hatred toward white men and our white founders?”
I don’t think that is necessary or desirable, and I don’t think it’s happening as frequently as you claim.
“The information is interesting to note but it isn’t taught just as an intersting note in our history. It has been made a focus to the point of inciting hate and used as a reason to disparage America and our American system in favor of Marxism. You may not travel in those circles, Chris, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”
I think you are greatly misinterpreting what is taught, Tina.
“Some of the changes to textbooks that have been suggested by the left:
* Removing references to Daniel Boone, General George Patton, Nathan Hale, Columbus Day, and Christmas.”
Hm. I would need to hear more about why these changes were suggested. Was it for an ideological purpose, or was it a space issue? I can see why holidays might not be entirely necessary for a U.S. history textbook, but any world history textbook would definitely need to discuss Christmas. Columbus Day, I could care less about.
“* Including the cultural impact of hip hop music, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow, and the Hindu holiday of Diwali
.”
I don’t really see much wrong with this. I had to look up Clarence Darrow to remember his role in the Scopes Trial, which I did learned in high school history. That was an important case and I think it’s valuable to teach, although I don’t know if Darrow’s personal backstory is necessary.
“* Replacing the term “American” with “Global Citizen” stating that students need to be shaped “for responsible citizenship in a global society” without any mention of citizenship in American society.”
Now that’s crazy, but I think most liberals would agree. Whose idea was this? I don’t think it’s a very popular one.
“* Replacing expansionism and free enterprise with imperialism and capitalism.”
I think both terms should be taught. For example, “Expansionism, or as some historians now refer to it, imperialism, was the policy that…” I think history classes need to deal with controversial issues like this so that students will be prepared to deal with them in the future.
“Many of those teaching, and some of those writing history are not engaging in accuracy, the good, bad, and ugly, they are engaging in a propaganda effort. They are engaged in social engineering not education.”
Keep in mind that it isn’t just liberals doing this…remember the controversy over the changes to textbooks in Texas a couple years ago, all of which were made to fit a conservative ideological agenda.