Should the state being teaching gay history in the classroom?
California has become the first state in the nation to require public schools to add lessons about gay history to social studies classes, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the landmark bill on Thursday.
Side Score: 17
Side Score: 29
How about you just teach history to students, and if a person comes up in history and is also gay, don't mention it! Why does that have to be added as well? Why can't they just learn about that person, instead of basically saying "So and so did such and such for our land, oh and you know what, he was also gay! So yay for gay people, look kids, gay people can contribute to society too!"
That's stupid. Just learn it and forget about their sexual orientation, unless that was a big part of history; (say they were assisinated because they were gay).
Side: call it history
Another great opportunity to plug my "voucher program" advocacy. In a private sector, this would not be an issue because the State would have no say on the curriculum of all schools, and parents would be able to choose schools based on the curriculum.
If you want your kids to learn about gay history, choose a school with it in its curriculum. If you don't like gay history, find a school that doesn't teach it. If a school changes their mind, switch your kids' schools.
I really have no say on the matter other than that the State should not be controlling the education system... it should be privatized. So should the state force public schools to teach gay history? Well, clearly I'm against State run education... so no.
I totally support what you said in your post. The state should butt out. Our schools are failing and something has got to change.....privatization.
I believe however that schools should teach history and current events. If they touch on things indirectly that have something to do with this...then ok. But a curriculim that just addresses gay history. NO.
And this is one of the things I would use as an example as to why I am not as Libertarian as you are. I do not support entitlement programs in general, but a voucher program is simple and helps people who need it the most. I can not just say "forget about the poor, they can fend for themselves".
The problem with teaching Gay history is that if it is not of significance then it only serves to further marginalize homosexual people as different or special in some way. Class time can be better spent learning things that matter and not shoehorning in lessons to make the Gays feel better. This is like teaching white history simply because it is about white people. Not a good thing in my books.
"This is like teaching white history simply because it is about white people."
I'd compare it more to teaching Black history. It appears to me that the critics are focusing on how the law will allegedly force schools to teach about homosexuality, when in fact it seems that the law would be teaching about historical events surrounding the homosexual community. Is it wrong to teach about African American culture? Asian American culture? European American culture? Why is homosexuality so taboo that they may not have important events surrounded by them/brought about by them that would be important to mention as a part of the culture of the United States?
I'd compare it more to teaching Black history.
Only because you believe Black people need special mention and they don't, if the history is significant then I say let it be taught. It matters not whether they are homosexual or not and in this context I would have no problem with it being mentioned but not pushed upon.
the critics are focusing on how the law will allegedly force schools to teach about homosexuality, when in fact it seems that the law would be teaching about historical events surrounding the homosexual community.
The critics in this case are mostly bigoted and are fighting this based on religious reasons.
If the history is insignificant then why teach it? Focusing on Gay history or any other denomination or orientation serves only to point out that they are different.
Is it wrong to teach about African American culture? Asian American culture? European American culture?
Now you are laboring the point, and what about European, Asian, African, Australian cultures etc. The world is far bigger than America. The point I'm making is that these things are not specifically historical subjects and the points within them that are and are of educational value should be taught and that includes Gay history, but putting Gay, Black, White blah blah blah as a specific topical heading is enforcing stereotype and cutting off one part and marginalizing it. No single group needs special mention simply because they are different.
Why is homosexuality so taboo that they may not have important events surrounded by them/brought about by them that would be important to mention as a part of the culture of the United States?
Why are you even asking me this? I've not stated anything to the contrary.
I agree that time can be better spent on the basics.
But the fact is gays are singled out and they do recieve more protection from the government than the average citizen gets. Hate Crimes laws do this. Hate crimes is dangerous to free speech.
Hate crime legislation violates the fundamental Constitutional protections of equal justice by promoting unequal justice under the law. And in this case for homosexuals.
So they are special in the eyes of the government. That mentality is spreading into the schools. They are special...lets treat them as such.
"Public schools with a mandated pro-homosexual, antidiscrimination policy that sends objecting students to appropriate counseling without notifying their parent." (California)
California Assembly Bill 1785 Chartered Bill Text, introduced by Assembly member Villaraigosa, 26 January 2000, Section 4)b) 3.
"The homosexual strategist says that to be recognized as disadvantaged and victimized...the greater a groups victimization, the stronger its moral claims on the rest of society."
James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Policies (Oxford University Press, 1998), 5.
So today gays are portrayed as disadvantaged and special...they are victims. Is it any wonder why schools are picking up on that. Our schools are run by unions that embrace homosexuality for whatever it is. This is just the tip of the iceburg...as to what our schools will be teaching regarding this.
Your phraseology makes it seem like acceptance and tolerance magically spring forth from a well of nothingness. Neither occurs without dialogue. And dialogue doesn't occur without an encounter with "others". Including disfranchised people in the sociological and historical dialogue is not a wrong way of going about instilling a sense of normalcy. Exposure is the very first, the most significant, and quite frankly, the only necessary step in the right direction. Adding people like Harvey Milk, events like the Stonewall riot, even literary works like Queer London into curricula only serve to broaden our collective understanding and appreciation of the full scope of the human experience. What you are advocating is an education that deludes for the sake of comfort. I don't think you can be any more wrong in your conclusion.
Adding people like Harvey Milk, events like the Stonewall riot, even literary works like Queer London into curricula only serve to broaden our collective understanding and appreciation of the full scope of the human experience.
This is exactly what I'm getting at, I believe the points which hold significance should be used, while not being labelled as Gay-whatever, simply to point out that they are Gay.
I think what people are saying is that what should be taught is "history." In other words, teach about what you just said (Harvey Milk, events like the Stonewall riot, even literary works like Queer London into curricula) in the context of "history," not in the context of a "special type of history."
Tolerance of diversity has never come at the hands of a steel toed boot, so forcing students to learn about gay history is counterproductive. Some will refuse, some will just succumb to government wishes, and some will embrace love it.
During my secondary and post secondary education, gay history was not mentioned once, gay people were rarely mentioned at all, but as a true believer in freedom, I am tolerate of gay people because my stance on freedom, and I think that tolerance will come voluntarily based on freedom and liberty.