NOW Contradicts NOW

New York has created the first American gay-only public school, Harvey Milk High School. Thus, the line to cross for absurdity has officially been moved.

Ironically enough, however, this issue actually illustrates how shady and inconsistent liberals are on almost identical and contemporaneous issues. For example, compare the special interests that support gay-only schools with their ideological stance on say, single-sex public schools.

On May 8th the radically liberal organization NOW (National Organization for Women), which operates as a “women’s rights front group” as I call it, released their comments on the Department of Education’s intent to regulate on single-sex education:

Since 1954, this principle has been part of the fabric of United States constitutional law, and indeed, our society. Notwithstanding this deeply embedded principle, the United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") has recently proposed to take steps that will reintroduce segregation into the public education system—this time in the form of segregation by sex, instead of race.

On May 8, 2002, OCR issued a Notice of Intent to Regulate ("Notice") stating that it "intends to propose amendments to the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [("Title IX")] to provide more flexibility for educators to establish single-sex classes and schools at the elementary and secondary levels." 67 Fed. Reg. 31,098 (May 8, 2002). The purported intent of these anticipated amendments is "to support efforts of school districts to improve educational outcomes for children and to provide public school parents with a diverse array of educational options that respond to the educational needs of their children, while at the same time ensuring appropriate safeguards against discrimination." Id. The Notice makes reference to recent amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") allowing local educational agencies to use certain funds for innovative assistance programs, which may include, among other things "[p]rograms to provide same-gender schools and classrooms (consistent with applicable law)." 20 U.S.C.A. § 7215(a)(23) (2002).

Other points used to substantiate NOW’s opposition to single-sex schools in their report are:

--“The landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court recognized that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
--“Current research fails to support OCR's threshold position that separating boys and girls produces educational benefits.”
--“The Supreme Court [or more accurately Justice Powell, being that his opinion was not shared by a single other justice on the court at that time] has recognized that the government has a compelling interest in promoting diversity in educational settings. See Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 314 (1978). Although cloaked in rhetoric about enhancing diversity, OCR's proposal to separate students based on identity characteristics would undermine this compelling interest and deprive students of the benefits associated with a diverse educational environment.”
--“Perpetuates Sex-Stereotyping and Feelings of Superiority/Inferiority”
--“While sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination are legitimate concerns for girls in our public schools, separating the sexes is merely a ‘band-aid’ fix that inappropriately treats girls as the problem by removing them from the presence of their male peers. Only a small portion of girls would likely participate in same-sex programs, and those girls who remain in the coeducational environment would be even more likely to suffer from harassment and discrimination as a result of the schools' failure to address those problems head-on.”

These are pretty solid arguments, especially being that they apply to gay-only schools as well. Separating gays and heterosexuals in public schools is only a “band-aid” fix to harassment and for those gay students that do remain in traditional public schools would be even more likely to suffer from “harassment and discrimination as a result of the schools' failure to address those problems head-on.” “Separate but equal” gay-only schools are unconstitutional and the schools are “inherently unequal”. Gay-only schools “deprive students of the benefits associated with a diverse educational environment” and there is little to no research that would corroborate the benefits supposedly to come from this taxpayer-funded experiment. NOW has essentially made the argument against gay-only schools.

But, as we’ve grown accustomed to, NOW isn’t so concerned about the Constitution, fixing the root of the problem, and previous court cases advocating diversity when it comes to gay-only schools.

Speaking of Harvey Milk High School, Carol Lee recently wrote on NOW’s website commending the school as an “accepting atmosphere” and brags about the 3-year waiting list. When referring to gay-only schools, Lee quotes Carl Strange, a spokesman for the Hetrick Martin Institute which houses the gay-only high school, as saying "It's a high school where sexual orientation is taken off the table…there's no excuse not to excel." Absolutely no criticism.

When it comes to guy-only schools, expect fierce resistance from the advocates of women’s rights because after all, it doesn’t fix the problem it just separates the culprit and the victim. But, if it’s a gay-only school, that’s got to be something good.

Same-sex and gay-only schools should be privately funded, not funded by taxpayers, and vouchers ought to be awarded to parents that choose to have their children educated in those establishments.

Consistency has never been the trademark of liberals or liberalism, but when you can copy and paste their own comments on a subject to both contradict them and prove your point simultaneously – priceless!

The horsemanure is so transparent. The homosexual lobby is attempting to create a privileged society in which the ~best and brightest~ are same sex attracted. If you aspire to this lofty goal, you have to be queer. Been a long time, but I think this was one of those absurdly strange proposals in some queer manifesto written a while back.

Wasn't this also a goal of some of the leftist think tanks out there to control population growth? Like this works in Africa or Iran or Asia.

Easy answer to National Organization of Wenches hypocracy:

Same sex schools = education without distraction = better students

Same perversion schools = education with distraction = continued poor performance, extra burden on taxpayer, and fresh (but not necessarily literate) fish for the homosexuals

I have been watching the debate about this queer high school for a couple of days now, and while I am against in on one way, I am for it in another.

I am appalled by the wasted money and the city government's endorsement of the gay lifestyle for teens, but it's also a way of drawing the poison out of the other schools.

Look at it this way, if it all the perverts transfer out of the regular high schools and congregates there, what is the downside of that? I would much rather they associate among themselves then prey on the normal teens.

Now if they try to force a straight kid to go to that school, I would be up in arms.

Why do you assume that separating the problem from the masses will result in a discontinuance of public dollars to support perverted lifestyle choices?

I'm thinking pink and brown. If I were still in school, I'd love to go up against this team. Just make sure to wear a cup.

Is this school just for homo guys? If its for lesbos too, I would predict absolute domination by the softball team.

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.