Posted on 04/04/2006 1:35:55 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past
Sexual orientation: When conflict rules the school By Chad Thompson and Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Apr 4, 2006
For over a decade, parents have warred with gay advocacy groups who want to infuse school curriculum with messages about homosexuality. Groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) say that society must address the abuse and ridicule that gay and lesbian kids face in school in order to create a safe environment for learning. However, many parents believe instruction that teaches respect for gay-identified youth is actually a Trojan Horse that advocacy groups like GLSEN use to indoctrinate kids with favorable messages about homosexuality.
To address the rancor that attends these debates, representatives from the Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) recently sat down with members of GLSEN to hammer out ways to discuss sexual orientation in schools. These groups were brought to the table by the First Amendment Center and another group called Bridgebuilders. The First Amendment Center seeks to apply principles of free speech to resolve problems and Bridebuilders has had success in resolving disputes in the public schools. If there was ever an issue where conflict is the rule, it is sexual orientation and how to present it in school.
Recently, these organizations crafted a framework that could provide school districts and parents with principles of dialogue when conflicting groups square off over sexual orientation. The paper is called Public Schools and Sexual Orientation: A First Amendment Framework for Finding Common Ground (“The Framework”) and has aroused significant conflict from both sides of the ideological spectrum.
The level of emotion and conviction that people feel about the things which influence the morals and beliefs of their children make it difficult to find consensus on matters of conscience. Thus, the framers of the Framework did not attempt to form common ground on matters of ideology. The Framework states: “No ideological or religious consensus is possible – or perhaps even desirable – in our diverse society.” Rather, based on the First Amendment, the writers of the Framework attempt to develop what could be considered rules of engagement in the culture war.
Thus far, the guidelines have built very few bridges. Groups on the political right and left have found fault with them. One recent headline from a conservative source said: “Christian education group caves to homosexuals.” Conversely, liberal Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) said the Framework was designed to foster discussion of gay issues in schools and that the views of ex-gays should not be considered. We believe critics are missing the central aim of the guidelines: “Educators can and should require that all viewpoints be expressed in a respectful manner, but they may not exclude some views merely because they don’t agree with them.”
We believe agreement on First Amendment principles will address concerns of people on all sides of the debate. While agreement on substance may never occur, promoting free speech principles could address two issues which concern both the right and the left: ideological coercion and personal safety.
The Framework says that parents should be given information about any and all resources, books, video's, and curricula that are introduced to their students. As the most infamous scandals of homosexual propagandizing have historically taken place behind closed doors, schools promoting common ground communication should take steps to prevent teachers from introducing controversial classroom materials without due process.
Conservatives have often pointed out that much of the curricula designed to foster discussions about sexual orientation in public schools are biased against traditional views of sexuality. For instance, we know of only one curriculum that contains any mention of homosexuals who have re-directed their sexual orientation to conform with traditional religious beliefs. When mentioned in school, the lives of former homosexuals are often either discredited or ridiculed.
Where discussed in school, we believe a comprehensive perspective on the nature of sexual orientation should be offered. And that is exactly what the Framework suggests: “School officials should address the controversy fairly and openly by including all of the stakeholders in an effort to develop policies that promote fairness for all…" (emphasis ours).
We believe that the public school system has become a social climate where conservative and Christian views are frequently bullied into silence. This Framework supports the right of social conservatives to freely express these perspectives in schools by sending a clear statement to educators that if they introduce a gay advocacy perspective, they should also allow a countering voice.
In contrast, it appears to us that social conservatives and others who oppose the introduction of programs which teach respect for gay and lesbian students often minimize the legitimate struggles faced by students who identify as gay or are perceived to be gay. Everything from name-calling to vandalism is aimed at young men whose demeanor is even slightly feminine, or young women who come across as “butch” or masculine. Yet conservative commentator, Linda Harvey, responded to the Framework’s release with these words: "While no one doubts that some bullying of students who believe they are homosexual does occur, these are sad, yet isolated incidents with no uniform characteristics. They are not the fault of Christian values."
We while agree that harassment of gay and gender nonconforming students is not the fault of “Christian values,” we are not persuaded that such bullying is isolated. One of us (Thompson) has experienced such harassment first hand as an ex-gay and the other (Throckmorton) is a counselor who deals with the fallout of such harassment on a daily basis.
If we want Christian values to be taken seriously, we must start by acknowledging the true suffering experienced by young men and women who are perceived to be or do identify as gay. And we must take a stand against their mistreatment even if we disagree with homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. Any other approach only increases the likelihood that impressionable and confused kids will join up with these gay advocacy groups. Conservatives who fail to compassionately address this issue further alienate the very kids we need to help, while the open arms of gay advocacy groups appear to be a place where these kids can be understood.
The Framework is helpful here as well, in that it suggests that schools dealing with controversy over this issue begin deliberations where agreement is most likely to be achieved: Teaching respect for all. Some social conservatives may think it’s dangerous to even talk with gay-affirming parents. However, we believe it’s possible to dialogue in such a way that maintains principle and respects human dignity.
Finally, critics of the Framework on both sides should recognize that embracing free speech rights does no violence to other rights. After all sides are heard and a school determines a course of action, parents who disagree are still free to exercise their right to go to court, vote school board members out of office or remove their children from the public school.
Social conservatives and homosexual advocacy groups will probably never agree on ideology; the chasm is just too deep. Nonetheless, all those involved in crafting the Framework should be commended, not for finding consensus on one of the most politically divisive issues of our time, but for finding means to disagree agreeably and, where applied, model civil discourse to our children.
Chad Thompson is the founder of Inqueery and author of the book Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would. View his archive here.
Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at Grove City College. He produced the documentary, I Do Exist and authored anti-bullying and sexual orientation curriculum available for free download at www.respectandthefacts.com.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thompsonandthrockmorton/2006/04/04/192340.html
I will not separate the issue. When two groups are forming an agreement -- one in the name of Christianity -- then I think it is fair to ask who profits. I simply want to know. How rich has the author of Heather Has Two Mommies or the producer of It's Elementary gotten specifically off of selling their product to the public schools. How much does GLSEN make selling their nonsense to the schools? What about Planned Parenthood for that matter? Follow the money and let's see the picture behind the picture.
These are very controversial subjects as everyone would agree. It's pitiful that we have degaded so much as a culture that they have become controversial, but that's where we are. So LEAVE IT OUT. Teach the kids to read Poe, Hemmingway, Dickens, heck....Dr. Seuss. Teach them to write with care and beauty. Teach them to calculate. I don't mind if you teach them to sing, play an instrument, or play ball. But if the government cannot take a position on morality then the government should not broach these controversial subjects with children. Leave it to homes and churches. They are the ones who will pick up the pieces of the broken lives ruined by immoral behavior.
The nature of the issue is that young impressionable minds can be corrupted and desensitized. How dare the gov't decide that it can teach my child that having a strong sense of morals is a bigoted and hateful way to be. "All of the above" equals moral relativism. They do not need more of that.
Regardless....SHOW ME THE MONEY! Who profits and how much?
I think school districts buy all the materials. If GLSEN isn't profiting directly, then they are indirectly by promoting the materials of their own donors.
I'm sure you can find Dr. Throckmorton's website and email him with your financial questions.
Second of all, you seem to be saying that giving kids information about the way out of the "gay" life is equivalent to GLSEN indoctrination. If GLSEN wasn't in thousands of schools, obviously there would be no need to be presenting the truth about homosexuality. Most of us opposed to the homosexual agenda want the whole topic out of public schools. But as long as GLSEN and similar groups or individuals are in the schools poisoning kids, anyone making an effort to present the truth should be lauded, not attacked.
Well guess what? The bad guys are winning. In my county, Montgomery County Maryland, conservatives are about as abundant as downtown Manhattan. No matter how or who I vote for my child is going to be taught in the publik scrools that the practice of perversion is normal, good, right and true. Now if that is GOING to happen wouldn't you want to have at LEAST a counter balance to that argument in the form of demonstrating that the practice of perversion is NOT and innate condition? That's the situation HERE!
All scripter is doing is being an advocate for that conservative political position. What is reprehensible is your conspiracy theory moonbat sniping that he is somehow making a profit for his right-headed advocation instead of doing the best for children who have no other choice. Some people have no other choice but to send their children to publik scrools. How many times has he told you he has NOTHING to do with profiting from his advocacy...have you no shame Ms. McCarthy? You have a problem if you can't see past your own deluded conspiracies. Give it a rest and let the adults here answer WWJD.
Surely we are just getting the wrong impression here, right?
Throckmorton does not want the topic out of the public schools. Read what he wrote.
I will not laud this. No way! None of these people belong in the schools. They can cry free speech all they want. But the students are a captive audience. What about their choices. And they are not talking about free speech. They are talking about selling their particular sexual ideologies to a captive audience of minors, offering them a smorgasbord of amoral choices. It's relativism run amok and/or sex therapy for children and teens. This is not the job of the schools.
I think it would be wise for you to think about whether you support people or principles. This agreement was a mistake and the reasons are suspect.
Human nature is human nature on all sides. Money always has a way of distorting people's principles. It is a reasonable question to ask: Who is profiting from this stuff? And how much?
No. Neither group belongs in the schools making money off this nonsense. I don't like the hypocrisy from the so-called right. We have been saying for a long time that GLSEN doesn't belong in the schools indoctrinating the kids. It is wrong when GLSEN does it and it is wrong when we do it. Now we get this "First Amendment" spill about how they do belong and so do we? The First Amendment should not be used as cover to market moral relativism to our children. If they need sex therapy, get it on their own time and at their own expense. My child should not have to be part of a group therapy session under the guise of compulsory education.
If free speech in public schools can be put aside for other respectible reasons -- racism, civility, proselytizing -- then it should be able to suffer moral boundaries as well. School attendence is not optional and the kids are all at varying impressionable stages. Education is compulsory because kids need to learn basics like reading, writing, and arithmetic. The gov't should not be in the business of demanding compulsory attendence to this other nonsense. Nor should it happen on the public dime. If GLSEN wants to speak to kids, let them invite them to private meetings at their own facilities if parents allow it.
And if someone wants to make an agreement in the name of Christianity, then he should at least offer full disclosure about his own financial profits in the matter.
It is fair to ask if these people touting this stuff are profiting financially from it, especially if public money is the source of their gain.
None of this stuff belongs in the schools.
No Kidding genius. But when you emerge from your cabin in the woods Nell you're going to find out it's already there. Now what do you do Nell, just let pro-sodomy education go unbalanced? Most people with common sense would elect to have that balance as opposed to none at all as you advocate.
It is fair to ask if these people touting this stuff are profiting financially from it...
Yeah once...but when scripter said he doesn't profit from it you continue to accuse him with no proof. Have you no integrity or are you just not capable of telling the truth?
Knock it off and grow up.
Since you keep bringing up the topic of financial gain, why not do some investigation and find out about it? It's easy to make unfounded accusations. Find out the truth if you're so bothered about it.
And you're comparing "ideologies" as though the truth that people can become free from the "gay life" is equivalent to GLSEN pro-homosexual indoctrination. That's certainly muddying the waters.
It's not the government's job to require kids to attend school so they can get the full monty on sexual and moral diversity. The gov't requires school attendance so kids can learn to read and write.
What is equivalent is that both GLSEN and Throckmorton think they are entitled to use the conpulsory attendance laws and public tax dollars to promote their materials to minor children, their captive, impressionable audience.
At minimum, full disclosure should be required from these people. How much do they or their interest groups stand to profit off these presentations? It's not my job to break into their offices and dig through their financial papers. It should be their job to disclose any financial motives they might have.
No. Now we are getting this "They don't belong there, but if you are going to allow them, then you must allow us to counter their propagnada"
If we could get glsen and the NEA out ofthe schools you'd never hear a peep from PFOX or other ex-gay organizations about being in the schools. There'd be no reason.
Indeed. As I see it, that's the main argument against GLSEN being in the schools.
I read the article and didn't see a quote or implication from Throckmorton as you did. Is there something in the above article to which you are referring?
Schools have just gotten so ridiculous for so long. I agree that they should be just concentrating on reading writing and arithmatic.
I think I can vouch for all on this thread who are opposed to homosexual propaganda in schools - that schools should teach the fundamentals of learning. But, that said, education cannot and never has been "values neutral". Values are in fiction, literature of all kinds, essays, history lessons, social studies at every level. Values cannot be separated from reading and writing; maybe arithmatic can be neutral.
The question remains - what values?
Throughout history schools both public and private, tutors, educational insititutions large and small, have all been considered not just ways to teach children skills, but values. To help them grow up with good character and morals. Ever read McGuffy's Readers? Just about every story, poem and essay has a moral lesson. The basic moral values of loyalty, honesty, courage, faith, chastity, obedience to elders, even thrift and self abnegation - were all taught, along with reading and writing.
There is no such thing as "values free" education.
We'd better find a way to do it because as it stands, no one seems worried about whether Johnny can read or not. They only care that Johnny lusts. Here's a poem for the new relativsm:
Johnny's diverse lust
Sometimes Johnny lusts after boys
Sometimes Johnny lusts after girls
Sometimes Johnny lusts after swine
When they are wearing pearls
Please forgive me if anyone has a lust preference that I left out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.