Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

QUEERING THE SCHOOLS
City Journal ^ | May 29, 2003 | Marjorie King

Posted on 08/11/2003 7:40:47 AM PDT by JesseHousman

At a high school in prosperous Newton, Massachusetts, it’s “To B GLAD Day”—or, less delicately, Transgender, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Day. An advocacy session for students and teachers features three self-styled transgendered individuals—a member of the senior class and two recent graduates. One of the transgenders, born female, announces that “he” had been taking hormones for 16 months. “Right now I am a 14-year-old boy going through puberty and a 55-year-old woman going through menopause,” she complains. “I am probably the moodiest person in the world.” A second panelist declares herself an “androgyne in between both genders of society.” She adds, “Gender is just a bunch of stereotypes from society, but I am completely personal, and my gender is fluid.”

Only in liberal Massachusetts could a public school endorse such an event for teens, you might think. But you would be wrong. For the last decade or so, largely working beneath public or parental notice, a well-organized movement has sought to revolutionize the curricula and culture of the nation’s public schools. Its aim: to stamp out “hegemonic heterosexuality”—the traditional view that heterosexuality is the norm—in favor of a new ethos that does not just tolerate homosexuality but instead actively endorses experimenting with it, as well as with a polymorphous range of bisexuality, transgenderism, and transsexuality. The educational establishment has enthusiastically signed on. What this portends for the future of the public schools and the psychic health of the nation’s children is deeply worrisome.

This movement to “queer” the public schools, as activists put it, originated with a shift in the elite understanding of homosexuality. During the eighties, when gay activism first became a major cultural force, homosexual leaders launched a campaign that mirrored the civil rights movement. To claim their rights, homosexuals argued (without scientific evidence) that their orientation was a genetic inheritance, like race, and thus deserved the same kind of civil protections the nation had guaranteed to blacks. An inborn, unchangeable fact, after all, could not be subject to moral disapproval. There ensued a successful effort to normalize homosexuality throughout the culture, including a strong push for homosexual marriage, gays in the military, and other signs of civic equality.

But even as the homosexual-rights campaign won elite endorsement and lavish funding, even as supportive organizations proliferated, the gay movement began to split internally. By the early nineties, many gay activists viewed goals such as gay marriage or domestic partner unions as lamely “assimilationist”—an endorsement of standards of behavior that “queers,” as they called themselves, should reject as oppressively “straight.” And they militantly began defending the “queer lifestyle” not as an ineluctable fate but as the result of a fully conscious choice.

Underlying this militant stance was a radical new academic ideology called “queer theory.” A mixture of the neo-Freudianism of counterculture gurus Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse and French deconstruction, queer theory takes to its extreme limit the idea that all sexual difference and behavior is a product of social conditioning, not nature. It is, in their jargon, “socially constructed.” For the queer theorist, all unambiguous and permanent notions of a natural sexual or gender identity are coercive impositions on our individual autonomy—our freedom to reinvent our sexual selves whenever we like. Sexuality is androgynous, fluid, polymorphous—and therefore a laudably subversive and even revolutionary force.

Rutgers English professor Michael Warner, a leading queer theorist, observes that categories like “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are part of “the regime of the normal” that queer theory wants to explode. “What identity,” he writes, “encompasses queer girls who f*&k queer boys with strap-ons, or FTMs (female-to-male transsexuals) who think of themselves as queer, FTMs who think of themselves as straights, or FTMs for whom life is a project of transition and screw the categories anyway?” To overturn the old dichotomies of hetero/homo and even male/female, Warner encourages continuous sexual experimentation.

A relatively recent arrival on college campuses, queer theory has swiftly dominated the myriad university gender-studies programs and spread its influence to other disciplines, too, “queering” everything under the sun. Type “queering” into Amazon.com’s search engine, and up comes Queering the Middle Ages, Queering the Color Line, Queering India, and many other books, many from prestigious academic presses.

It would be tempting to dismiss queer theory as just another intellectual fad, with little influence beyond the campus, if not for gay activists’ aggressive effort to introduce the theory’s radical view of sexuality into the public schools. Leading the effort is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN, pronounced “glisten”), an advocacy group founded a decade ago to promote homosexual issues in the public schools. It now boasts 85 chapters, four regional offices, and some 1,700 student clubs, called “gay/straight alliances,” that it has helped form in schools across the country.

GLSEN often presents itself as a civil rights organization, saying that it is only after “tolerance” and “understanding” for a victim group. Sometimes, therefore, it still speaks the old gay-rights language of unchangeable homosexual “identity” and “orientation.” But it is, in fact, a radical organization that has clearly embraced the queer-theory worldview. It seeks to transform the culture and instruction of every public school, so that children will learn to equate “heterosexism”—the favoring of heterosexuality as normal—with other evils like racism and sexism and will grow up pondering their sexual orientation and the fluidity of their sexual identity.

That GLSEN embraces queer theory is clear from the addition of transgendered students to the gays and lesbians the group claims to represent. By definition, the transgendered are those who choose to change their gender identity by demeanor, dress, hormones, or surgery. Nothing could be more profoundly opposed to the notion of a natural sexual identity. Consider as evidence of queer theory’s influence, too, the GLSEN teachers’ manual that says that middle-schoolers “should have the freedom to explore [their] sexual orientation and find [their] own unique expression of lesbian, bisexual, gay, straight, or any combination of these.” What is this but Michael Warner’s appeal to pansexual experimentation?

One of the major goals of GLSEN and similar groups is to reform public school curricula and teaching so that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender—or LGBT—themes are always central and always presented in the approved light. GLSEN holds regular conferences for educators and activists with workshops bearing titles such as “Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls: Creating a Safe, Supportive School Environment for Trans, Intersex, Gender Variant and Gender Questioning Youth” and “Developing and Implementing a Transgender Inclusive Curriculum.” Every course in every public school should focus on LGBT issues, GLSEN believes. A workshop at GLSEN’s annual conference in Chicago in 2000 complained that “most LGBT curricula are in English, history and health” and sought ways of introducing its agenda into math and science classes, as well. (As an example of how to queer geometry, GLSEN recommends using gay symbols such as the pink triangle to study shapes.)

Nor is it ever too early to begin stamping out heterosexism. A 2002 GLSEN conference in Boston held a seminar on “Gender in the Early Childhood Classroom” that examined ways of setting “the tone for nontraditional gender role play” for preschoolers. To help get the LGBT message across to younger children, teachers can turn to an array of educational products, many of them available from GLSEN. Early readers include One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads; King and King; and Asha’s Mums.

As for teaching aids, a 1999 book, Queering Elementary Education, with a foreword by GLSEN executive director Kevin Jennings, offers essays on “Locating a Place for Gay and Lesbian Themes in Elementary Reading, Writing and Talking” and “How to Make ‘Boys’ and ‘Girls’ in the Classroom”—the scare quotes showing the queer theorist’s ever present belief that categorizing gender is a political act.

For comprehensiveness, nothing beats a GLSEN-recommended resource manual distributed to all K–12 public schools in Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The manual presents an educational universe that filters everything through an LGBT lens. Lesson ideas include “role playing” exercises to “counter harassment,” where students pretend, say, to be bisexual and hear hurtful words cast at them; testing students to see where their attitudes lie toward sexual “difference” (mere tolerance is unacceptable; much better is “admiration” and, best of all, “nurturance”); getting students to take a “Sexual Orientation Quiz”; and having heterosexual students learn 37 ways that heterosexuals are privileged in society. In turn, principals should make an “ongoing PA announcement”—once a week, the manual says—telling students about confidential support programs for LGBT students.

Teachers, the manual suggests, should demand that public school students memorize the approved meanings of important LGBT words and terms, from “bigenderist” to “exotophobia.” Sometimes, these approved meanings require Orwellian redefinitions: “Family: Two or more persons who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitments to one another over a period of time . . . regardless of blood, or adoption, or marriage.”

Two videos come particularly highly rated by gay activists and educators as tools for making primary school queer-friendly. Both films strive to present homosexuality in a favorable light, without saying what it actually is. It’s Elementary, intended for parents, educators, and policymakers, shows how classroom teachers can lead kindergartners through carefully circumscribed discussions of the evils of prejudice, portrayed as visited to an unusual degree on gays and lesbians. In That’s a Family, designed for classroom use, children speak directly into the camera, explaining to other kids how having gay and lesbian parents is no different from, for example, having parents of different national backgrounds.

GLSEN even provides lesson plans for the promotion of cross-dressing in elementary school classes. A school resource book containing such lesson plans, Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry for Kids, Parents, and Teachers, has already been used in second-grade classrooms in California. A children’s play in the book features a little boy singing of the exhilaration of striding about “In Mommy’s High Heels,” in angry defiance of the criticism of his intolerant peers:

They are the swine, I am the pearl. . . . They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen! When I rule the world! When I rule the world! When I rule the world in my mommy’s high heels!

Some of the LGBT-friendly curricular material aimed at older children is quite sexually explicit. The GLSEN-recommended reading list for grades 7–12 is dominated by such material, depicting the queer sexuality spectrum. In Your Face: Stories from the Lives of Queer Youth features a 17-year-old who writes, “I identify as bisexual and have since I was about six or seven. . . . I sort of experimented when I was young.” Another GLSEN recommendation, Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology, has a 16-year-old contributor who explains, “My sexuality is as fluid, indefinable and ever-changing as the north flowing river.”

Some of the most explicit homosexual material has shown up in classrooms. An Ohio teacher encouraged her freshman students to read Entries From a Hot Pink Notebook, a teen coming-out story that includes a graphic depiction of sex between two 14-year-old boys. In Newton, Massachusetts, a public school teacher assigned his 15-year-old students The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a farrago of sexual confusion, featuring an episode of bestiality as one of its highlights. Such books represent a growth industry for publishers, including mainstream firms.

As part of its effort to make the public schools into an arena of homosexual and transgender advocacy, GLSEN works assiduously to build a wide network of student organizers. It looks for recruits as young as 14, who in turn are to bring on board other students to form gay/straight alliances or other homosexual-themed student clubs at their schools. Glancing over the biographies of 2002’s student organizers reveals a uniform faith among them that experimenting with a range of homosexual behaviors serves the cause of civil rights.

The behavior in question involves some practices that the Marquis de Sade would welcome. A GLSEN-sponsored, taxpayer-funded “teach out” for activists, educators, and students to brainstorm ways of creating schools and communities that “are truly inclusive and safe,” held at Tufts University a while back, is a case in point. The daylong conference, with Massachusetts Department of Education and other state employees as workshop leaders and drawing many high school students and teachers (who received professional development credits for attending), featured a “youth only, ages 14–21” session that offered a lesson in “fisting”—the potentially dangerous act, called by some the first new sexual invention in 1,000 years, of inserting one’s fist into a partner’s anus or vagina.

Thanks to two members of the local Parents’ Rights Coalition, who secretly taped the session, we know that the fisting lesson did not arouse universal enthusiasm among the teens present. A boy asks why anyone would want to do such a thing. Other teens reportedly winced. But the self-identified gay and lesbian state employees turned aside doubts. One—a woman—explained that, though fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” it usually isn’t about the pain—“not that we’re putting that down.” Rather, she assured, it is “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be close and intimate with.”

And so the workshop proceeded, marketing the polymorphously perverse to the sexually naive and emotionally immature. The etiquette of swallowing versus spitting after oral sex came up, as did the question of whether a tongue ring makes oral sex more pleasurable. Other topics included: how to use dildos, the mechanics of lesbian sexual gratification, and whether celery makes semen taste sweeter. The workshop leaders were sophisticated, yet breezy and colloquial, using street language and referring quite openly to their own sexual experiences—a Department of Public Health worker making his homosexual promiscuity obvious. The workshop initiated adolescents into a forbidden world that their parents likely knew nothing about.

In the winter of 2001, Tufts hosted another GLSEN-sponsored conference, entitled “Creating Safety—Teaching Respect.” This time, most of the 650 people present were teenagers, rounded up by gay activists or coming on their own to receive instruction in queer sexuality. Planned Parenthood representatives handed out special kits, containing latex gloves and lubricants, for “safe” fisting.

GLSEN and other activist homosexual groups have effectively used “safe school” campaigns to further their agenda. The federal Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program—Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—provides millions of dollars to state education departments to combat drugs and violence in the public schools. Using some of these funds, gay activists have helped design and promote public school “tolerance” programs. One of the mildest of such programs, “Healing the Hate,” released in 1997 under Department of Justice sposorship, implicitly likens disapproval of homosexual behavior with the prejudices that in the past have led to lynchings, church burnings, and the Holocaust. Gay groups contend—dubiously—that such programs are necessary because homosexual students must endure bullying and hatred every day in schools across the country.

GLSEN is quite explicit about using the safety issue to silence opponents. As GLSEN chief Kevin Jennings puts it, “We knew that, confronted with the real-life stories of youth who had suffered from homophobia, our opponents would automatically be on the defensive. . . . This allowed us to set the terms of the debate.”

At the urging of gay/straight alliances, schools across the U.S. have also created “safe” rooms for homosexual or sexually confused students, as if they might not be safe from “hate” and “intolerance” elsewhere in the school. In these rooms, identified by inverted pink triangles, students can discuss same-sex attraction or anxiety about sexual orientation with teachers or counselors, who promise a nonjudgmental and sympathetic hearing. Students who drop by for private discussion about their sexual confusion will often be referred—without parental knowledge—to local chapters of gay and lesbian organizations. If queer theorists are correct that homosexuality is a free choice, then parents might be forgiven for thinking such advocacy a kind of recruitment.

Without doubt, most parents would look at the subversive agenda on offer at GLSEN conferences and in LGBT-friendly curricula and find it bizarre and offensive. What sense, they might ask, does it make to “queer” math or science or other classes—whatever that might mean—when so many public schools fail even to produce minimally literate and numerate graduates?

Especially when all the evidence suggests that the incidence of self-labeled homosexuality and bisexuality in the population is in fact minuscule—just 1.4 percent of female subjects and 2.8 percent of male subjects, according to one of the largest and most scientific surveys by the National Opinion Research Center. Even Kinsey, with a very distorted sample population of volunteers, prison inmates (including sex offenders), and deliberately solicited homosexual respondents, only came up with a 4 percent figure for exclusive homosexual behavior, still far below the 10 percent frequently cited by homosexual activists. Should we revolutionize the schools for such a tiny minority?

Even more to the point, how many parents, even those not just tolerant of homosexuality but actively sympathetic toward homosexual rights, would really want their teenage children to be seeking out a “unique expression” of sexuality (let alone with their school’s help) or learning how to “fist”? How many would want their kindergartners—just figuring out their identities and desperately needing clear-cut categories like “boy” and “girl” to make sense of them—to engage in “non-traditional role play,” so that they grow up with warm feelings about transgendered people? Or their elementary school boys and girls exposed to sexual themes that they aren’t old enough to understand and that are likely to fill them with anxiety? Parents might well brush off an old-fashioned word and describe it all as, well . . . perverse.

As for bullying, the real problem is not anti-gay prejudice but the overall breakdown of school discipline. No child should have to put up with verbal or physical intimidation at school. Making schools safer, however, does not require importing a broader LGBT agenda that offends the values of many students and parents.

Nevertheless, though many parents aren’t aware of it yet, the agenda has moved far beyond the wishful thinking of activists. The keynote speaker at GLSEN’s 2000 conference was Robert Chase, president of the 2.7 million-member National Education Association, the nation’s biggest, most powerful teachers’ union. The program booklet for the event featured greetings not only from Chase but from then-president Clinton, Chicago mayor Richard Daley, and the head of the American Federation of Teachers, the second-biggest U.S. teachers’ union. The celebratory notes expressed the kind of praise once reserved for groups like the Boy Scouts. A long list of well-known organizations has backed LGBT programs in the classroom, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Library Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

No organization has been more steadfast in its support of GLSEN than the NEA. During the NEA’s annual convention in July 2001, many observers expected the teachers’ union to pass an official resolution incorporating GLSEN’s sweeping educational goals into K–12 curricula nationwide. As it turns out, the NEA, clearly trying to minimize public awareness of an unprecedented infringement on parental prerogatives, tabled the resolution and announced a task force to study how best to approach LGBT issues in the schools. But in February 2002, the NEA board of directors approved the task force’s report—a pure emanation of the GLSEN worldview, as is clear both from its numerous citations of GLSEN documents in the footnotes and from its recommendations.

Following the task force’s lead, the NEA will now struggle to expunge “heterosexism” from the consciousness of children in the classroom. The union has encouraged schools to integrate LGBT themes into curricula, instructional material, and programs; to emphasize the legitimacy of different “family structures,” including domestic partner arrangements; and to offer counseling services for students struggling with their “sexual/gender orientation.” Small wonder that GLSEN greeted the NEA task force’s report, and its endorsement by the union, with hosannas. “These powerful new recommendations signal that help is on the way for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and staff who experience day-to-day abuse in America’s schools,” enthused GLSEN head Jennings.

The queering of the public schools has perhaps advanced furthest in California, where a new state law requires public schools to teach all K–12 students (and K means five-year-olds) “to appreciate various sexual orientations.” What the new law might mean in practice, warned a state assemblyman, was on display at Santa Rosa High School, where invited homosexual activists “talked about using cellophane during group sex and said that ‘clear is best because you can see what you want to lick,’ ” or at Hale Middle School in Los Angeles, where during an AIDS education course, “12-year-olds were subjected to graphic descriptions of anal sex and tips on how to dispose of used condoms so parents don’t find out.” As the assemblyman noted, sex ed courses throughout California public schools, influenced heavily by national sex education advocates SEICUS and Planned Parenthood, have already enthusiastically endorsed the GLSEN worldview.

But California is only the cutting edge: efforts to queer the schools are under way in many other locales, from Massachusetts to Oregon. The co-chair of the Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, for example, informs the Boston Globe that teachers across that state are increasingly integrating LGBT themes into lessons—discussing the sexual orientation of authors as an interpretive tool in literature classes, she says, or comparing gay and bisexual with straight student mental health data in order to study percentages. After a ferocious battle, the Broward School Board in Florida recently voted to rely on GLSEN to train teachers in LGBT “sensitivity.” In Gresham, Oregon, in early 2002, school officials at Centennial High School brought in gay and lesbian speakers in English, drama, and health classes during the school’s annual “diversity” week, neither telling students about it beforehand nor letting them opt out of the classes if they wanted. Parental anger forced school officials to issue a public apology.

GLSEN constantly emphasizes the need for tolerance for homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism, but if someone bucks the LGBT party line in a school that follows it, watch out. Consider the experience of Elliott Chambers, formerly a student at Woodbury High School in a suburb of Saint Paul, Minnesota. Woodbury High had posted pink triangles on 48 of its 60-odd classrooms and offices (what made the other rooms “unsafe” isn’t clear). Belonging to a conservative family, Chambers decided one day to express his values and wore to school a sweatshirt with the words STRAIGHT PRIDE emblazoned across the front and an image of a man and woman holding hands on the back.

The school principal found this expression of support for heterosexuality unacceptable. He forbade Chambers from wearing the sweatshirt in school, explaining that another student had found it offensive. Chambers’s parents, increasingly concerned about what they considered Woodbury’s aggressive endorsement of the LGBT agenda, met with the principal, who charged them with being “homophobic”—a frequent accusation made not only against anyone who questions the morality of homosexual acts but also against anyone who doesn’t accept the entire gay activist program, as if such questioning could only grow out of psychological disturbance rather than reasoned judgment. The parents then filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the school had squelched their son’s First Amendment rights.

When a preliminary judgment came down in Chambers’s favor, the principal announced over the school public address system that the court had actually agreed with school officials that the sentiment of “straight pride” seemed intolerant toward homosexuality, and if circumstances changed so as to create “a reasonable belief that a substantial disruption of, or material interference with, school activities might ensue” from the wearing of the shirt, the school could prohibit it again. Foreseeing further disturbance, Mrs. Chambers decided to home-school her son.

The Chamberses’ experience was far from unique. Objecting when a teacher joins the ranks of the transgendered is out of the question in some school districts, no matter how disturbing it may be to schoolchildren and parents alike. But for those adhering to the queer agenda, the problem is with the kids and parents, not their “evolving” educator. When Principal Donald Reed of the Marie Murphy Middle School in Wilmette, Illinois, announced to school officials a few weeks before the 2001 school year began that he had undergone “gender reassignment”—a sex-change operation—and would henceforth be Principal Deanna Reed, the school superintendent and other administrators, faithful to the GLSEN spirit, didn’t remove him/her, despite parental outrage. Instead, the school district hired a psychologist to advise teachers on how best to counsel children who seemed confused or disturbed by their principal’s strange transformation. Administrators encouraged parents, too, to bring their concerns to “professionals.”

Parents or other concerned citizens who complain about any aspect of the queering of public education can face withering attacks, not just from gay activists but from cultural elites in general. When the two members of the Parents’ Rights Coalition released their tape of the GLSEN-sponsored fisting workshop to the public, to take one typical example, the Boston Globe didn’t condemn the use of public funds and state employees to instruct schoolchildren in an arcane and dangerous “sexual” practice; instead, it denounced the whistleblowers as fomenters of “intolerance.”

School districts that refuse to go along with the homosexual agenda now must contend with the American Civil Liberties Union, too. The ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project has launched a national effort, called “Every Student, Every School,” that plans to sue on First Amendment grounds any school that refuses gay/straight student clubs on its premises. Already, schools in Kentucky and Texas face legal action.

No compulsory public school system can be justified unless what it teaches is a worldview that the taxpayers who fund it can support. The “common schools” came into existence, after all, to acculturate immigrants to American values. For schools to try to indoctrinate children in a radical, minority worldview like that promoted by GLSEN and its allies—a vision that will form those children’s values and shape their sense of selfhood—is a kind of tyranny, one that, in addition, intentionally drives a wedge between parents and children and, as queer theorist Michael Warner boasts, “opposes society itself.” We must not let an appeal to our belief in tolerance and decency blind us to indecency—and to the individual and social damage that will result from it.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: glsen; homosexual; homosexualagenda; nea; queer; recruitment; schools; youngsters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: JesseHousman
Thanks. Forwarded it on.
21 posted on 08/11/2003 9:03:57 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
That answers the question.

If you were able to read two consecutive sentences with comprehension, you would have known that I was referring to your desire to impute to me all the failings of America's educational system.

I care that the system is failing, of course: I care enough to make my own arrangements and to help my like-minded fellow citizens do the same.

The only political means of resistance is to push for the defunding of public schools. There is no way to legislate teachers into being loyal Americans with good, moral values. One must instead take their ill-gotten money away from them and give it back to citizens so they can reallocate those funds to decent people.

And of course, you have no positive suggestions of your own. You impotently carp at me while simultaneously being unable to read an English paragraph properly.

22 posted on 08/11/2003 9:08:50 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Consort
The good Lord willing, my sons have never seen the inside of a public scrool, and will never have to.....
The Capt.

No, I dont drive a new car, my sons are worth much more than a stupid car.
23 posted on 08/11/2003 9:10:11 AM PDT by Capt.YankeeMike (get outta my pocket, outta my car, and outta the schools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman
She adds, “Gender is just a bunch of stereotypes from society, but I am completely personal, and my gender is fluid.”

Would someone please explain what that means?

English is my only language.

24 posted on 08/11/2003 9:12:57 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Your initial answer was wrong and then you went to smoking mirrors to try to cover it. Keep digging.
25 posted on 08/11/2003 9:13:47 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Consort
What was the Right doing when the Left took over academia?

Bending over.

26 posted on 08/11/2003 9:14:20 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman; scripter; All
"The queering of the public schools has perhaps advanced furthest in California, where a new state law requires public schools to teach all K–12 students (and K means five-year-olds) 'to appreciate various sexual orientations.' "



"Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling, Edited by William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999, 291 pages"

An excerpt from:

Book Review - Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities in Schooling

Progressive Perspectives
Vol. 4, No. 1, John Dewey Project on Progressive Education, Spring 2002
College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont


"Queering Elementary Education is unique because as it's title suggests it does not apologize for the stance that it takes, nor does it wallow in the problems of being homosexual in a heterosexist society. It is a book all educators should read whether they are elementary school teachers, administrators, or college professors. It challenges assumptions about how we view education and how we view caring for children. Edited by William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears, it offers many perspectives on the various aspects of elementary education and the myriad ways it is heterosexist.

In the first chapter James T. Sears proposes several ideas that appear throughout the book: speaking the unspoken by teaching about queer issues in elementary school, homosexuality as part of the human condition, and asserting that heterosexism and homophobia are acquired or learned beliefs. Bickmore asks, "why discuss sexuality in elementary school?” and answers “given the amount of (mis)information about gender relations and sexuality that flows freely these days in public spaces, media and peer groups, elementary educators could not prevent children from acquiring sexual information even if they wanted to do so"(p. 15). These concepts as well as others are discussed in various ways throughout the book..."


An excerpt from:

Queering Elementary Education - Book Review By Jack Nichols, GayToday.com

"Probably no other title in the pantheon of liberationist literature will evoke more controversy than Queering Elementary Education. If there was an unseemly uproar over Daddy's Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies, just wait till the Religious Reich spies this august tome on some thoughtful teacher's shelf.

Its editors, both educators, have provided what some see as a companion volume to the award-winning film, It's Elementary. They take it for granted that children in the earliest grades have already been introduced "through schoolyard and media" to the concept of same sex love and affection, that most remain confused about it and that it is best to begin demystification processes early in life rather than allowing mistaken perceptions to take root.

It's Elementary's producer, Debra Chasnof, exults: "What a relief to finally have such a thoughtful collection of essays and research to back up what we've found in schools across the nation... an examination of the ways children's lives are hurt by homophobia and an inspiring array of strategies educators can use to turn this problem around."...

The American Pediatric Association recently called for the teaching of sexuality to begin by the middle of elementary school. Dr. Sears requests that Queering readers remember that "by the time boys and girls have become teenagers they have well-developed gender and sexual scripts: how boys and girls should behave, who makes up a family, and so on. These become our cultural straightjackets that cultivate the homophobia and sexism we see in the adult world."

"Rather than focussing on reducing such prejudices, shouldn't we consider how not to instill, foster, or intensify these prejudices in the first place?" he asks. Queering Elementary Education begins with "Foundational Issues" answering queries such as "Why Discuss Sexuality in Elementary School?".

The book's second section deals with children's sexual and social development, including supposed effects of being taught by openly gay teachers. Part three looks at possible curriculums, examining and critiquing the "heteronormative nature of elementary school science." Part four deals with family ties while the final section examines educators and their allies..."



Teaching Kindergarten Kids About 'Human Differences' and Homosexuality Isn't 'Easy' in Newton



Choice4Truth

27 posted on 08/11/2003 9:15:21 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Bending over.

We have a winner.

28 posted on 08/11/2003 9:16:42 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JesseHousman; scripter
Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools

GLSEN (Gay and Lesbian Educational Network) Assault on Broward County Public Schools!!!

( An Introduction to GLSEN )

Parent Alleges Harassment for Exposing 'Fistgate'

Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15





How You Can Help Stop PFLAG & GLSEN!


29 posted on 08/11/2003 9:22:59 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Your initial answer was wrong

No it was right, as I demonstrated. The takeover of US universities by leftists using the loophole in the draft laws is a well-known fact of history.

The tradition of the US university previously was to try to stay out of politics - but when the war protesting/draftdodging crew was given the run of the place, the previously apolitical conservative element in the university was caught unprepared and routed.

Most intelligent observers of the phenomenon know how tenure committees work, etc.

then you went to smoking mirrors to try to cover it.

"Smoking mirrors"? LOL!

Far from it - I accurately explained why US academia is ruined and I articulated my alternative strategy for dealing with the reality of the situation.

You've offered nothing - you've said that my explanation was wrong twice now. But have you offered a counterexplanation, or have you disproven even one detail of my assessment? Not in the slightest.

Keep digging.

You're the one who's digging - and so far you've been unable to disprove my analysis (hint: "no you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" isn't an argument - it's schoolyard trashtalk).

30 posted on 08/11/2003 9:24:21 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You blamed the war in Viet Nam and you denigrated the profession with your "day job" remark. Your answer was wrong on both accounts. That's the way it is.

Your "solution" is poor idealistically and is unworkable. Schools are the business of the states and the problem is the predominance of the Left. A strong Conservative influence would go a long way in solving the problem. Closing the schools will move the bad Liberal teachers to whatever replaces the schools.

31 posted on 08/11/2003 9:45:32 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Consort
You blamed the war in Viet Nam

I blamed the deferment policy which put patriotic potential professors on the battlefield, while their America-hating counterparts were racking up the academic points necessary for advancement. It's kind of hard to compete for a postdoc position while you're fighting.

you denigrated the profession with your "day job" remark

The "profession" is anything but professional nowadays. If you were ever hectored in a classroom by an unprepared and unbathed man in sneakers and a t-shirt while you were paying thousands of dollars a quarter for the privilege, you'd understand.

The denigrators of the profession are the members of the profession.

Your answer was wrong on both accounts.

My answer was correct. Three times now you've claimed that I was wrong about the Vietnam War's imapct on academia. Three times now you've failed to offer even the semblance of an argument that it was not.

Your "solution" is poor idealistically and is unworkable.

Tell that to the tens of thousands of families who homeschool their children. Tell that to the thousands of Americans who graduate from small denominational colleges every year.

Schools are the business of the states

The root of the problem. Education used to be the business of the family.

the problem is the predominance of the Left. A strong Conservative influence would go a long way in solving the problem.

How do conservatives assert this influence? By pleading with the leftists who control the schools to please, please hire people we like? Do we ask them nicely to resign?

No - we take our kids out of their poisonous system, we demand our money back and we strive to make them as irrelevant as possible.

Closing the schools will move the bad Liberal teachers to whatever replaces the schools.

What it will do is put them on the unemployment line.

Private schools can require a teacher to teach traditional Christian morality and respect for our nation's history and accomplishements, and can fire teachers at will if they fail to comply.

Public schools cannot do that, by definition.

32 posted on 08/11/2003 10:04:55 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I think the original poster was correct... My parents were Assistant Principals in the NYC school system for years. As a kid, I heard them talk about male teachers who had no idea what to do in the classroom, mostly because they didn't care. They were just happy to be anywhere else than Vietnam. I met some of them. Even as a kid, I could tell they were worthless- They were in it for the deferment, and also the summer vacation. My Mom tried to have an ESL teacher fired for incompetence- The teachers' union backed him, there were hearings, he was transferred out of the classroom, but eventually won. We heard that he just retired. My Mom has been retired since the mid 80s! These are the ones who are running the system right now. They're either retired, or are getting ready to, and they have trained the current crop of "Teachers". The City recently eliminated the Board of Education. Sounds good on the surface, but the same people that ran the board are running the Dept. of Education. Until they're gone, and the UFT no longer has politicians by the b***ls, then nothing will EVER change.
33 posted on 08/11/2003 10:12:00 AM PDT by LoneConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
How do conservatives assert this influence? By pleading with the leftists who control the schools to please, please hire people we like? Do we ask them nicely to resign?

You're right, it's way too late for conservatives to "take back" academia. The leftists are way too entrenched. The only options are homeschooling or conservative private schools.

A liberal friend of mine down in L.A. recently told me something I never thought I'd hear -- he's enrolling his 4 year old kid in private school. ...And believe me, it says alot that this guy is taking (for him) that drastic a step.

34 posted on 08/11/2003 10:19:11 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gigantor
I'm moving closer to believing that maybe Hitler had the right idea when it comes to homosexuals...

You mean give them prominent positions in government and allow them to practice their perversions with complete freedom? That's already happened.

Don't buy the sodomite propaganda that they were targeted by Hitler - he made the laws more lax for them when he came to power, not stricter.

35 posted on 08/11/2003 10:32:54 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I believe both parents were working to pay all the taxes imposed by the liberals. If you want a conspiracy theory - there's a huge one!
36 posted on 08/11/2003 10:49:36 AM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The war thing doesn't fly. Not every coonservative went off to fight the war. They could have and should have countered the Left's Plan to take over education. The Right dropped the ball, big time.

For the fourth time, your answer was wrong.

Homeschooling is not an option for every family.

Education is the business of the states whether we like it or not.

...we demand our money back...

Try it.

Private schools can require a teacher to teach traditional Christian morality and respect for our nation's history and accomplishements, and can fire teachers at will if they fail to comply.

You're getting it backwards. The Left will make private and religious schools as bad as public schools rather than public schools going away. Vouchers will be one of the ways they will accomplish it. When you fight City Hall, you usually lose and the lawyers get richer.

37 posted on 08/11/2003 10:57:54 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LoneConservative
They were just happy to be anywhere else than Vietnam. I met some of them. Even as a kid, I could tell they were worthless-....

All true, but not an excuse for letting them get away with it. There are no good excuses.

38 posted on 08/11/2003 11:00:58 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gigantor
I'm moving closer to believing that maybe Hitler had the right idea when it comes to homosexuals...

Actually the idea that Hitler targeted homosexuals for punishment or death is a myth. Hitler was likely a sodomist himself (there's a new book called "The Hidden Hitler" - just translated from German, that makes that assertion) and homosexuals formed the elite of the SS and other Nazi elements. Homoesxuality was at the core of the Nazi philosophy. You should read "The Pink Swastika" - it's online at www.abidingtruth.com. The myth that Hitler targeted "gays" was invented by the "gay activists" so they could join the ranks of groups who really have been the target of unfair discrimination and hatred, such as Jews. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

39 posted on 08/11/2003 12:11:03 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: admin; Consort
Oh oh. How has this troll stayed around here since 2000?
Admin - please do something.
40 posted on 08/11/2003 12:27:59 PM PDT by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson