To whom it may concern,
SafetyNet is a non-profit organization striving to provide Seattle Public Schools with comprehensive sexual education curriculum, including specifc curriculum promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. We have been in existence for 10 years in the Seattle community and are a certified non-profit.
SafetyNet is proposing a reconstruction of Seattle Public Schools current sexual education program, FLASH. This would include an intensive review, update and comprehensive inclusion of issues pertaining to gay and lesbian youth. Our schools are inundated with hateful language--fag, homo, etc--derived from a lack of knowledge when it comes to homosexuality. Our schools need to represent reality--homosexuality is one of these realities. To make it invisible within our schools is to make it mysterious and consequentially unaccepted. Introducing curriculum specifically designed to reduce prejudice and creating a safe place for students is beneficial to both schools and society. We are proposing a grant at a monetary base of $20,000 to provide for curriculum update, research and teacher training. SafetyNet has a history of working within the community and has been a beacon for the public schools in years past. The review process will plan to take one full academic year.
We are asking for your help in educating our students. This proposal is first and foremost a way in which our public schools can provide useful, applicable and respectful resources to our students. We ask funding of roughly $20,000 in order to provide a systematic review of the FLASH program as well as implementation of a same-sex based curriculum. Teacher training is also included. This proposal will be followed up with a phone call. Thank you so much for your time and attention. It is greatly appreciated.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Funding Project.
Proposal: A comprehensive sexual education program would include proper materials as well as trained educators in order to provide a medically accurate, socially representational and respectful sexual education environment for students in the Seattle Public School district. Most importantly, as it is often lacking in already well-established programs, funding would seek to implement a specific chapter covering issues pertaining to the homosexual. This is to say sexual education would include curriculum designed to teach students about the acceptability and varying viewpoints of "different" lifestyles. It is a presentation of the issue and a representation of the reality in our society then subsequent moral/value judgment by students themselves. Money would be needed for this, and thus this is where grant writing comes into fruition. This is an easily arguable and acceptable proposal since we are dealing with children--our society's greatest commodity.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
An Open Letter to Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson
Today, I mourn the loss of five Seattle Public Schools. The decision to do so puts a mark of shame and fault on the district, a mark identified not by its academics and success but rather by its failure to serve our number one commodity--students. This is an enormous social blunder. We are facing a loss to our community, one that will have impacts for years.
The closure of the five schools is an issue of social justice, not one of capacity management or financial relief. You have decided to uproot these students from their communities.
Let me share a story with you.
Two years ago, I worked for the district as a mentor at Meany Middle School. There I met with a boy named Deshawn---a shy, quiet, sensitive yet eager young man who thrived when he was at school. Deshawn was an amazing kid. He had the demeanor of a tough guy, but the swagger of a gentle soul. When we would be talking or working together, he would seek my approval. Deshawn would be proud when he got a question right, looking up to me for that "Great job" or a simple glance of boastfulness that "my" student had done something incredible. Seeing his face put a smile on mine everyday.
While his academics were below average, school was the one place he had consistency. Deshawn's father was not present in his life, and his mother had died. He was cared for by his grandmother. Late in the year Deshawn's grandmother died of a heartattack. He was devastated. While he had a minial support group at home, school was the one place he had as a source of safety and comfort. Meany Middle School became his family. His teachers, myself and his peers were his brothers and sisters. Deshawn became even more attached to Meany and the community that surrounded him. Without this at the time of his grandmother's death, Deshawn would have been lost.
It is this kind of story that stretches across your school district, and these stories that will be affected by your recent decision to close five schools. A consolidation of schools does not mean an increase in educational equality. What you fail to realize is that these closures signify a destruction of a community--a community founded on cultural competency and diversity.
What are we teaching our students by closing these five schools? That they don't belong at the school they've called home for the past 4, 6, 12 years? What does it tell them that the district is closing all minority, low income schools?
This is an issue that needs to be readdressed. Not for the sake of my arguments, but for the sake of the children who are being so dramatically affected. Transferring students like Deshawn to a completely new environment will only yield negative academic and personal results. Let him be. Let him thrive in a community he calls home.
The closure of the five schools is an issue of social justice, not one of capacity management or financial relief. You have decided to uproot these students from their communities.
Let me share a story with you.
Two years ago, I worked for the district as a mentor at Meany Middle School. There I met with a boy named Deshawn---a shy, quiet, sensitive yet eager young man who thrived when he was at school. Deshawn was an amazing kid. He had the demeanor of a tough guy, but the swagger of a gentle soul. When we would be talking or working together, he would seek my approval. Deshawn would be proud when he got a question right, looking up to me for that "Great job" or a simple glance of boastfulness that "my" student had done something incredible. Seeing his face put a smile on mine everyday.
While his academics were below average, school was the one place he had consistency. Deshawn's father was not present in his life, and his mother had died. He was cared for by his grandmother. Late in the year Deshawn's grandmother died of a heartattack. He was devastated. While he had a minial support group at home, school was the one place he had as a source of safety and comfort. Meany Middle School became his family. His teachers, myself and his peers were his brothers and sisters. Deshawn became even more attached to Meany and the community that surrounded him. Without this at the time of his grandmother's death, Deshawn would have been lost.
It is this kind of story that stretches across your school district, and these stories that will be affected by your recent decision to close five schools. A consolidation of schools does not mean an increase in educational equality. What you fail to realize is that these closures signify a destruction of a community--a community founded on cultural competency and diversity.
What are we teaching our students by closing these five schools? That they don't belong at the school they've called home for the past 4, 6, 12 years? What does it tell them that the district is closing all minority, low income schools?
This is an issue that needs to be readdressed. Not for the sake of my arguments, but for the sake of the children who are being so dramatically affected. Transferring students like Deshawn to a completely new environment will only yield negative academic and personal results. Let him be. Let him thrive in a community he calls home.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Collegehumor.com: Generational Humor
CollegeHumor, an accessible funny video site, created for an by college students is spot on with its blatant sarcasm.
What makes these videos hysterical is not necessarily the humor itself but rather their relatability. The audience of these videos is easy to identify--liberal, college aged students who can "go the distance" when it comes to sometimes caustic humor. A Video like "Hand Vagina" is not necessarily driven towards an audience of middle aged women.
The videos are a glimpse into college humor, a sense of humor that is only relatable to a specific group of individuals. Much of what CollegeHumor uses as material is based off a specific generation. The "Minesweeper" movie, for example, takes something so mundane as a simple computer game and turns it into a sarcastic movie-trailer based on a game many of us played.
We can all recognize the hilarity of the situations presented in CollegeHumor's videos. There is a universal commonplace within the generation that has distinguished things funny, abnormal, sarcastic or just odd. By making light of everyday situations, CollegeHumor establishes a base or recognition and identity with viewers. We seemingly say to ourselves, "That is funny, because I've been through that" or "I get it! I use to play that game as a kid."
Blatant sarcasm also appeals to college students who tend to be more liberal in thinking. It is to go without saying that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. The college years then are a time to question, make fun of, and examine certain establishments and the CollegeHumor creators do this with ease.
What makes these videos hysterical is not necessarily the humor itself but rather their relatability. The audience of these videos is easy to identify--liberal, college aged students who can "go the distance" when it comes to sometimes caustic humor. A Video like "Hand Vagina" is not necessarily driven towards an audience of middle aged women.
The videos are a glimpse into college humor, a sense of humor that is only relatable to a specific group of individuals. Much of what CollegeHumor uses as material is based off a specific generation. The "Minesweeper" movie, for example, takes something so mundane as a simple computer game and turns it into a sarcastic movie-trailer based on a game many of us played.
We can all recognize the hilarity of the situations presented in CollegeHumor's videos. There is a universal commonplace within the generation that has distinguished things funny, abnormal, sarcastic or just odd. By making light of everyday situations, CollegeHumor establishes a base or recognition and identity with viewers. We seemingly say to ourselves, "That is funny, because I've been through that" or "I get it! I use to play that game as a kid."
Blatant sarcasm also appeals to college students who tend to be more liberal in thinking. It is to go without saying that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. The college years then are a time to question, make fun of, and examine certain establishments and the CollegeHumor creators do this with ease.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Homosexuality in Schools
Homosexuality has entered into our social conscience now more than ever, therefore igniting the need to open up a conversation concerning the representation of gay and lesbian issues in our schools. I contend that a greater acceptance of homosexuality needs to be implemented in the sexual education curriculum in our public schools, both providing sensitive and medically accurate information concerning gays and lesbians. The debate often centers around the role of the school in education, and whether or not morals should be taught (many consider homosexuality a moral and ethical issue). The fact of the matter is, our public schools are in place to educate the whole person. This includes introducing students to concepts that they may not agree with completely. Education is about learning, not necessarily what is learned. To this extent, it is our schools obligation to present an issue of social importance. It needs to be talked about.
Additionally, the fact of the matter is there are individuals who use hurtful language to disrupt those who identify as homosexual. Phrases like "That's so gay," and "You're a fag" run rampant in our schools. This is unacceptable. By implementing a curriculum that teaches respect for those that are different--not a moral lesson on gay sex--will only breed positive results. At the foundational level, people should be able to recognize another persons right to be happy and safe. The debate is not about religion. I would argue that sexual education should not be centered around moral teachings, but rather the reality of our world. The reality of our world is that gay people are a reality. They are people. Respecting this is the first step and doing it through such a huge public arena as our public schools will only prove beneficial.
Additionally, the fact of the matter is there are individuals who use hurtful language to disrupt those who identify as homosexual. Phrases like "That's so gay," and "You're a fag" run rampant in our schools. This is unacceptable. By implementing a curriculum that teaches respect for those that are different--not a moral lesson on gay sex--will only breed positive results. At the foundational level, people should be able to recognize another persons right to be happy and safe. The debate is not about religion. I would argue that sexual education should not be centered around moral teachings, but rather the reality of our world. The reality of our world is that gay people are a reality. They are people. Respecting this is the first step and doing it through such a huge public arena as our public schools will only prove beneficial.
Debate Response.
The oral presentation of the local and pertinent debate surroudning the Alaskan Way viaduct proved lively. To see both sides of the argument explored was interesting, but even more so in light of our current economic recession.
While the safety of our citizens is important, I wonder if spending 4 billion dollars on a tunnel is where our priorities should be focused. With the recent closure of five Seattle Public Schools, infrastructure is not the type priority in our city--the thousands of displaced students are and should continue to be. Granted, we can't ignore our cities infrastructure. However, there are options that would eleviate costs. There was a hybrid tunnel/highway model proposed by a group that would end up saving money and still increase infrastructure safety.
The debate itself was lively. One debater, Nick, seemed as if he was not incredibly prepared. Issues were often repeated (especially the ecological impact) again and again with little gain. When he did mention Seattle Public Schools, however, I began to pay more attention. I realized that the debater themselves do not ultimately persuade. It is rather the narrative--connected through personal experience that attracts listeners. Having worked in schools for years, I have an invested emotional interest in the preservation of our schools. To know that 4 billion is going towards a tunnel rather than our schools is disheartening and automatically put me on the opposing side.
While the safety of our citizens is important, I wonder if spending 4 billion dollars on a tunnel is where our priorities should be focused. With the recent closure of five Seattle Public Schools, infrastructure is not the type priority in our city--the thousands of displaced students are and should continue to be. Granted, we can't ignore our cities infrastructure. However, there are options that would eleviate costs. There was a hybrid tunnel/highway model proposed by a group that would end up saving money and still increase infrastructure safety.
The debate itself was lively. One debater, Nick, seemed as if he was not incredibly prepared. Issues were often repeated (especially the ecological impact) again and again with little gain. When he did mention Seattle Public Schools, however, I began to pay more attention. I realized that the debater themselves do not ultimately persuade. It is rather the narrative--connected through personal experience that attracts listeners. Having worked in schools for years, I have an invested emotional interest in the preservation of our schools. To know that 4 billion is going towards a tunnel rather than our schools is disheartening and automatically put me on the opposing side.
Sexual Education Curriculum and Homosexual Inclusiveness: Evaluating the Debate Surrounding Sexual Education in the Classroom
It is often said that our nation’s schools become the battleground for many, if not most, controversial issues surrounding our societal values, ideals and morals. Whether it is a battle over a few words in the pledge of allegiance, a disagreement over parenting styles or the repercussions of an economic downfall, schools generally feel things first. The issue of homosexuality does not evade this inevitable confrontation for the mere fact it has become so prevalent in our social conscious and has of recent been an issue—specifically when it comes to gay marriage— that has dominated our news media. As gay marriage has become legal in several states, the question arises as to whether or not educators should include curriculum pertaining to homosexuality in school sexual education programs. This is to argue that if heterosexuality is commonly taught in schools where does homosexuality fit into the equation, if at all? To this extent, if it is included in our schools sexual education programs, what exactly is included? The issue ushers in a plethora of opinions—many strong and deeply rooted in personal value and tradition. There is no option of skirting the issue. The fact is homosexuality has entered our social conversation in an unprecedented way therefore directing our attention to its treatment in schools. Each side of the argument is framed in a distinctly different way, presenting itself to two audiences with dissimilar backgrounds—one generally conservative in nature, the other more liberal. While it is often counterproductive to dive into a polarized form of argument, the stylized performances of those in support of introducing homosexuality in schools and those not in favor do tend to target a specific demographic with specific beliefs. There are two implied audiences for each side of the argument. While demonstrating itself in our schools, the issue of normalizing and educating individuals about homosexuality in mainstream culture gives rise to a larger societal issue of acceptance and whether or not a higher degree of acceptance should be taught in schools.
The history of sexual education, in particular sexual education that includes mention of homosexuality, dates far back in American history. As early as 1904, Doctor Prince A. Morrow and Psychologist G. Stanley Hall warn against the teachings of homosexuality in a classroom setting. The word itself at the time was a recent invention. Sexual education for much of the early to mid century was devoted to heterosexually normative education. When the Kinsey report came out in 1948, there was a national push to idealize heterosexuality in sexual education programs. In 1988, congress passed the Helms act—a bill that does not provide funding for AIDS education that promotes or encourages homosexuality. More recently in 1992 Oregon voters voted down an initiative that essentially forbid any school to discuss, facilitate or promote any conversations surrounding homosexuality. In 2004, California passed what was described as a “gay-inclusive” law which advocated for medically accurate and age appropriate sexual education.
Sexual education was not advocated for heavily until the 1940's when the U.S. Public Health deemed it an “urgent need.” The progression of sexual health programs has generally been slow in nature and to this day does not exist in every school district. Many programs back then and today refer to themselves as “Family and Life” curriculum rather than “sex ed.” Because homosexuality has been a controversial topic for years, naturally the issue of including it in our schools has been a point of contention.
Generally speaking the debate surrounding sexual education in schools lies along party lines. This is to say that those who identify as more “liberal” in party politics tend to side with those who insist sexual education—level of inclusion not counting—should be included. Contrastingly, many individuals who generally side with a more conservative form of party politics agree that sexual education should not have its primary place in the classroom but rather at home with the family and parents. Religion also often comes into play. Of course, these somewhat polarized viewpoints are not always consistent with reality. The arguments are varied and not always black and white.
Linda P. Harvey, in her article “Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality” argues that homosexuality should not be taught in schools nor a huge stress put on acceptance of the lifestyle. She describes a “gay agenda” in which schools are imposing moral teachings on students. She states that “Religious freedom and freedom of speech issues are threatened by programs (that encourage acceptance of homosexuality).” What she proposes, instead, are sexual education programs that exclude the mention of homosexuality. Harvey contends that by doing this, the issue is avoided and conversely the heterosexual community is no longer demonized in the process of homosexual representation—a representation, she states, is defined by victimization. She argues that “the vast majority of people in this country are not potentially violence and do not deserve to be unjustly associated with violence toward homosexuals!” Harvey contends that by initiating homosexuality in sexual education and normalizing it puts both the straight and gay community’s at risk. She argues that by singling out a group of individuals, in this case heterosexuals, a pattern of persecution occurs wherein the heterosexual is deemed dangerous and/or negative. She argues that no single group is benefited by teaching a greater acceptance of homosexuality in our schools.
It is important to place Harvey's rhetoric in a specific situation given her personal history and narrative. She is a well-know conservative who discusses issues surrounding women, homosexuality and education. She is a regular contributor to Focus on the Family—a conservative group striving to preserve the traditions of the family. Her initial need in writing this article centers on the squelching of pro-homosexual activists who advocate homosexuality in schools. Furthermore, she has a need to get out her own agenda (or rather conservative agenda). Given this information, Harvey is clear and concise in her rhetorical mission. There is no denying she caters to a distinct audience. This specific article was written in 2002—about the time Massachusetts began the conversation on allowing gay marriage. There were also movements, as well as a piece of legislation in the state, to include homosexuality as a topic of conversation in a comprehensive sexual education curriculum. She is responding to this ongoing conversation and she makes it clear where she stands. Her audience is twofold. On one hand she is addressing a group of people who already agree with her—a largely conservative audience. Additionally, however, Harvey is making an appeal to parents who may be on the fence about homosexuality in schools. She appeals to the “don't let the schools form your child's morality,” an idea that strikes an emotional chord with parents who want to preserve family ideals and values.
Harvey also mentions one of the more widely held beliefs on the side of opposition. She contends that schools do not have the moral agency to provide students with education surrounded on what she describes as essentially a moral issue. Ezola Foster, a Nation writer and common contributor to CNN echoes Harvey's argument in her article “Infiltrating America's Public Schools.” She states that “Courts have repeatedly ruled that parents have the right to control the values taught to their children.” Much like Harvey, Foster focuses on the gay agenda—something she believes is taking over our schools. She uses several warrants in her argument, including what would normally be described as a credible source—Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist, who argues that "homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality by a 'neutral' therapy that uncovers repressed childhood conflict that interferes with 'normal' heterosexual development." This statement, while not pertaining directly to homosexuality in schools exemplifies a common belief along the extremely conservative side of this argument. Often times, the argument for sexual education that includes homosexuality is unarguable because of the fact homosexuality is not something biologically inherent according to people like Foster and Harvey. Foster continues to state that “Certainly, homosexuals deserve sympathy and love. They shouldn't be beaten or humiliated. At the same time, our young children must be allowed to know the truth of the tortured and unhealthy lives of homosexuals.” The argument here is foundational. She believes that homosexuality has severe moral implications and by presenting it to our children, schools are introducing them to a lifestyle deemed “unhealthy.”
While Foster is extreme in her defense against homosexuality in schools, she does represent a rhetorical strategy that addresses a specific audience with success. Because she is writing in The Nation, a largely conservative publication, her audience is more than likely conservative individuals who read along political lines. One can assume not very many far left liberals pick up a copy of The Nation. Language used in the piece is indicative of a certain—and strong—opinion. The fact that the article includes the world “infiltrate,” immediately sets the tone for the article and alludes to the fact that the “gay agenda” is one to be feared. Fear is something Foster plays off on a lot in this article exclaiming at one point, “LAUSD is the second largest school district in America. Your schools don't have it yet? They will soon!” LAUSD refers to the Los Angeles Unified School District. In the late 90's there was push by a homosexual teacher to create a counseling program for gay and lesbian students. Foster immediately describes it as “a program that recruits students for the homosexual cause.” Foster includes a rhetorical strategy that plays directly to the pathos of her viewers. By placing an individual’s children—a precious and important commodity for parents—alongside something that “recruits” and “infiltrates” creates an immediate sense of protectionism. She presents an almost cult-like standard, and what parents wants there students to be recruited and brain-washed? The locus of her argument is that the exclusion of a homosexual education is quantified. This is to say that by excluding such an education, ultimately the maximum good will be achieved for the greatest number of people. Everyone will benefit.
Kevin Jennings, in his article “Schools Should Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality” is fairly straight-forward in arguing why schools should adopt a more inclusive sexual education program which includes the acceptance of homosexuality. Jennings makes the claim that right-wing conservative individuals often against homosexuality taught in schools, insist that homosexuality has nothing to do with education (as demonstrated in Harvey's argument). He provides an example of an experience in Merrimack, New Hampshire where he attended a school board meeting. The board was voting on whether or not homosexuality should be brought up at all. A woman turned to him and simply said, “What does homosexuality have to do with education?” His response: A lot.
Jennings claims that a good education revolves around “learning to think.” He states that “a good teacher is one that takes a subject that matters to his or her students and helps them to think about it in a thoughtful, critical manner.” Addressing the woman's question, he claims that homosexuality has nothing to do with education—just like reading, writing and math don't have anything to do with education. He says instead that discussing the subject of homosexuality in terms of values, ideas and what it means for our world has large capacity to be educational. In order to combat the “gay agenda” response many conservatives label, Jennings claims that there is no agenda other than to combat serious hate.
He uses statistics in his article to site what he calls “verbal gay bashing” in schools. Of these statistics is one which states “88% of 1,000 students interviewed in a 2001 national phone survey conducted by Hamilton College reported having heard classmates use “gay” as a derogatory term.” He warrants that because of these statistics homosexuality needs to be addressed in schools. The fact that he as statistical information provides his argument with a sense of rationale. His main warrant, however, is that parents cannot control everything their children are exposed to. This is assuming that they are not keeping a constant eye on what teachers are instructing. Jennings claims that homosexuality is not what parents should fear. Rather, it is homophobia.
Jennings seems to value an education that relies heavily on exploration and conversation. His truths rest on the fact that children have the capacity to learn by themselves and discover their own truths through a positive education. This is to say that schools should present the topic of homosexuality and then ultimately allow students to decipher it in the way that fits in with their respective values and ideals. Jennings, coming from a bias perspective, obviously values teaching that focuses on the acceptance of homosexuality. However, on a deeper level, he seems to value education as a means of developing critical thinking skills. When it comes to homosexuality he values the acceptance of the homosexual and the consequent normality of the homosexual in our society. What he does not value is homophobia, to which he indicates statistics of derogatory language use. He describes this as a manifestation of cultural homophobia.
Jennings employs two loci specifically in his continuous argument promoting the inclusion of homosexuality in sexual education—person and quantity. His argument centers on comprehensive education for everyone. That is, the most good for the greatest number of people. He makes it a point of stating that introducing homosexuality is ultimately a way to provide the most good for the greatest number of people regardless of one’s position on the topic. According to Jennings, by exploring the topic, children are enlightened and encouraged to develop their own opinion, something crucial in the development of a child and responsible citizen says Jennings. He uses the loci of person in that his argument centers on the human being. The article has an overarching theme of human dignity and acceptance. He seems to say that regardless of one’s position, what we all do know is basic human respect, dignity, and autonomy. We are human beings above all else according to Jennings regardless of sexual orientation.
It is also important to note that Jennings uses somewhat of a logical appeal in his argument. What he suggests is to not focus on the issue of homosexuality itself but rather the presentation of it and consequent translation of it by students. Jennings seems to indicate that students are endowed with their own free will and therefore able to decipher what is right for them. According to Campbell and Huxman, Jennings creates a truth standard around his argument in that he presents his side as if he is attempting to solve a problem—one he cites through statistics and what can be perceived as logical argument.
With a similar degree of logic, Barbara Foulks Boyd enters the conversation in her article “Should Gay and Lesbian Issues Be Discussed in Elementary school?” Her main argument, in accordance with many of her peers in the same school of thought, centers on an ever-changing world full of diversity. She states that:
“Today's teachers work in an increasingly diverse society. Teachers are expected to broaden awareness of, and appreciation for, this diversity among children and families by being advocates for all people, including those of different lifestyles. By addressing diversity issues in the classroom, teachers can celebrate both similarities and difference among children and their families.”
Boyd uses increasing diversity, as an address of the current state of our world, and places it as an argument in why it is essential teachers include gay and lesbian issues in sexual education. She essentially defines the situation for us—there is a growing population of diverse and non-traditional families, therefore we need to address them in the largest sphere we know possible, our schools.
The issue of sexual education is one deeply rooted in controversy. While some would argue it is our schools obligation to introduce and educate our students on nearly every issue, many would contest this and would rather have public educators stay out of the topic altogether. What is consensual, however, is the conversation that has arisen out of the growing need to address the issue much like what Boyd has presented. As more and more attention is drawn to the homosexual community, gay legislation, and gay public figures there requires an addressing of the situation in the public sphere. Which way this conversation goes depends on the nature of the individuals involved and whether or not they are willing to enter a civilized and well-rounded discourse. For something as sensitive as sexuality, there is an obligation above all else to continue in this debate with a general attitude of respect and dignity for other human beings regardless of sexual orientation or opinion. The debate is not whether all homosexuals should be banished and exiled from mainstream society, but whether or gay and lesbian issues should be discussed in such a large arena as our public schools. No matter what side, the issue is one of importance because of its social relevance but more importantly its relation to our country's youth. People are talking about it. Therefore, we all need to enter the conversation and deem whether or not it is appropriate in all of our schools.
Jennings, Kevin. Schools Should Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality. GLSEN Education Department Resource. January 1, 1999.
P. Harvey, Linda. Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality.“ Safe Schools: The Trojan Horse of 'Gay' Education,” Culture & Family Report, May 16, 2002.
Foster, Ezola. “Infiltrating America's Public Schools.” Headway. Volume 9. Issue 5. May 1997
Boyd Foulks, Barbara. “Should Gay and Lesbian Issues be Discussed in Elementary School?” Childhood Education. Vol. 76, Issue I. Fall 1999.
The history of sexual education, in particular sexual education that includes mention of homosexuality, dates far back in American history. As early as 1904, Doctor Prince A. Morrow and Psychologist G. Stanley Hall warn against the teachings of homosexuality in a classroom setting. The word itself at the time was a recent invention. Sexual education for much of the early to mid century was devoted to heterosexually normative education. When the Kinsey report came out in 1948, there was a national push to idealize heterosexuality in sexual education programs. In 1988, congress passed the Helms act—a bill that does not provide funding for AIDS education that promotes or encourages homosexuality. More recently in 1992 Oregon voters voted down an initiative that essentially forbid any school to discuss, facilitate or promote any conversations surrounding homosexuality. In 2004, California passed what was described as a “gay-inclusive” law which advocated for medically accurate and age appropriate sexual education.
Sexual education was not advocated for heavily until the 1940's when the U.S. Public Health deemed it an “urgent need.” The progression of sexual health programs has generally been slow in nature and to this day does not exist in every school district. Many programs back then and today refer to themselves as “Family and Life” curriculum rather than “sex ed.” Because homosexuality has been a controversial topic for years, naturally the issue of including it in our schools has been a point of contention.
Generally speaking the debate surrounding sexual education in schools lies along party lines. This is to say that those who identify as more “liberal” in party politics tend to side with those who insist sexual education—level of inclusion not counting—should be included. Contrastingly, many individuals who generally side with a more conservative form of party politics agree that sexual education should not have its primary place in the classroom but rather at home with the family and parents. Religion also often comes into play. Of course, these somewhat polarized viewpoints are not always consistent with reality. The arguments are varied and not always black and white.
Linda P. Harvey, in her article “Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality” argues that homosexuality should not be taught in schools nor a huge stress put on acceptance of the lifestyle. She describes a “gay agenda” in which schools are imposing moral teachings on students. She states that “Religious freedom and freedom of speech issues are threatened by programs (that encourage acceptance of homosexuality).” What she proposes, instead, are sexual education programs that exclude the mention of homosexuality. Harvey contends that by doing this, the issue is avoided and conversely the heterosexual community is no longer demonized in the process of homosexual representation—a representation, she states, is defined by victimization. She argues that “the vast majority of people in this country are not potentially violence and do not deserve to be unjustly associated with violence toward homosexuals!” Harvey contends that by initiating homosexuality in sexual education and normalizing it puts both the straight and gay community’s at risk. She argues that by singling out a group of individuals, in this case heterosexuals, a pattern of persecution occurs wherein the heterosexual is deemed dangerous and/or negative. She argues that no single group is benefited by teaching a greater acceptance of homosexuality in our schools.
It is important to place Harvey's rhetoric in a specific situation given her personal history and narrative. She is a well-know conservative who discusses issues surrounding women, homosexuality and education. She is a regular contributor to Focus on the Family—a conservative group striving to preserve the traditions of the family. Her initial need in writing this article centers on the squelching of pro-homosexual activists who advocate homosexuality in schools. Furthermore, she has a need to get out her own agenda (or rather conservative agenda). Given this information, Harvey is clear and concise in her rhetorical mission. There is no denying she caters to a distinct audience. This specific article was written in 2002—about the time Massachusetts began the conversation on allowing gay marriage. There were also movements, as well as a piece of legislation in the state, to include homosexuality as a topic of conversation in a comprehensive sexual education curriculum. She is responding to this ongoing conversation and she makes it clear where she stands. Her audience is twofold. On one hand she is addressing a group of people who already agree with her—a largely conservative audience. Additionally, however, Harvey is making an appeal to parents who may be on the fence about homosexuality in schools. She appeals to the “don't let the schools form your child's morality,” an idea that strikes an emotional chord with parents who want to preserve family ideals and values.
Harvey also mentions one of the more widely held beliefs on the side of opposition. She contends that schools do not have the moral agency to provide students with education surrounded on what she describes as essentially a moral issue. Ezola Foster, a Nation writer and common contributor to CNN echoes Harvey's argument in her article “Infiltrating America's Public Schools.” She states that “Courts have repeatedly ruled that parents have the right to control the values taught to their children.” Much like Harvey, Foster focuses on the gay agenda—something she believes is taking over our schools. She uses several warrants in her argument, including what would normally be described as a credible source—Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist, who argues that "homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality by a 'neutral' therapy that uncovers repressed childhood conflict that interferes with 'normal' heterosexual development." This statement, while not pertaining directly to homosexuality in schools exemplifies a common belief along the extremely conservative side of this argument. Often times, the argument for sexual education that includes homosexuality is unarguable because of the fact homosexuality is not something biologically inherent according to people like Foster and Harvey. Foster continues to state that “Certainly, homosexuals deserve sympathy and love. They shouldn't be beaten or humiliated. At the same time, our young children must be allowed to know the truth of the tortured and unhealthy lives of homosexuals.” The argument here is foundational. She believes that homosexuality has severe moral implications and by presenting it to our children, schools are introducing them to a lifestyle deemed “unhealthy.”
While Foster is extreme in her defense against homosexuality in schools, she does represent a rhetorical strategy that addresses a specific audience with success. Because she is writing in The Nation, a largely conservative publication, her audience is more than likely conservative individuals who read along political lines. One can assume not very many far left liberals pick up a copy of The Nation. Language used in the piece is indicative of a certain—and strong—opinion. The fact that the article includes the world “infiltrate,” immediately sets the tone for the article and alludes to the fact that the “gay agenda” is one to be feared. Fear is something Foster plays off on a lot in this article exclaiming at one point, “LAUSD is the second largest school district in America. Your schools don't have it yet? They will soon!” LAUSD refers to the Los Angeles Unified School District. In the late 90's there was push by a homosexual teacher to create a counseling program for gay and lesbian students. Foster immediately describes it as “a program that recruits students for the homosexual cause.” Foster includes a rhetorical strategy that plays directly to the pathos of her viewers. By placing an individual’s children—a precious and important commodity for parents—alongside something that “recruits” and “infiltrates” creates an immediate sense of protectionism. She presents an almost cult-like standard, and what parents wants there students to be recruited and brain-washed? The locus of her argument is that the exclusion of a homosexual education is quantified. This is to say that by excluding such an education, ultimately the maximum good will be achieved for the greatest number of people. Everyone will benefit.
Kevin Jennings, in his article “Schools Should Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality” is fairly straight-forward in arguing why schools should adopt a more inclusive sexual education program which includes the acceptance of homosexuality. Jennings makes the claim that right-wing conservative individuals often against homosexuality taught in schools, insist that homosexuality has nothing to do with education (as demonstrated in Harvey's argument). He provides an example of an experience in Merrimack, New Hampshire where he attended a school board meeting. The board was voting on whether or not homosexuality should be brought up at all. A woman turned to him and simply said, “What does homosexuality have to do with education?” His response: A lot.
Jennings claims that a good education revolves around “learning to think.” He states that “a good teacher is one that takes a subject that matters to his or her students and helps them to think about it in a thoughtful, critical manner.” Addressing the woman's question, he claims that homosexuality has nothing to do with education—just like reading, writing and math don't have anything to do with education. He says instead that discussing the subject of homosexuality in terms of values, ideas and what it means for our world has large capacity to be educational. In order to combat the “gay agenda” response many conservatives label, Jennings claims that there is no agenda other than to combat serious hate.
He uses statistics in his article to site what he calls “verbal gay bashing” in schools. Of these statistics is one which states “88% of 1,000 students interviewed in a 2001 national phone survey conducted by Hamilton College reported having heard classmates use “gay” as a derogatory term.” He warrants that because of these statistics homosexuality needs to be addressed in schools. The fact that he as statistical information provides his argument with a sense of rationale. His main warrant, however, is that parents cannot control everything their children are exposed to. This is assuming that they are not keeping a constant eye on what teachers are instructing. Jennings claims that homosexuality is not what parents should fear. Rather, it is homophobia.
Jennings seems to value an education that relies heavily on exploration and conversation. His truths rest on the fact that children have the capacity to learn by themselves and discover their own truths through a positive education. This is to say that schools should present the topic of homosexuality and then ultimately allow students to decipher it in the way that fits in with their respective values and ideals. Jennings, coming from a bias perspective, obviously values teaching that focuses on the acceptance of homosexuality. However, on a deeper level, he seems to value education as a means of developing critical thinking skills. When it comes to homosexuality he values the acceptance of the homosexual and the consequent normality of the homosexual in our society. What he does not value is homophobia, to which he indicates statistics of derogatory language use. He describes this as a manifestation of cultural homophobia.
Jennings employs two loci specifically in his continuous argument promoting the inclusion of homosexuality in sexual education—person and quantity. His argument centers on comprehensive education for everyone. That is, the most good for the greatest number of people. He makes it a point of stating that introducing homosexuality is ultimately a way to provide the most good for the greatest number of people regardless of one’s position on the topic. According to Jennings, by exploring the topic, children are enlightened and encouraged to develop their own opinion, something crucial in the development of a child and responsible citizen says Jennings. He uses the loci of person in that his argument centers on the human being. The article has an overarching theme of human dignity and acceptance. He seems to say that regardless of one’s position, what we all do know is basic human respect, dignity, and autonomy. We are human beings above all else according to Jennings regardless of sexual orientation.
It is also important to note that Jennings uses somewhat of a logical appeal in his argument. What he suggests is to not focus on the issue of homosexuality itself but rather the presentation of it and consequent translation of it by students. Jennings seems to indicate that students are endowed with their own free will and therefore able to decipher what is right for them. According to Campbell and Huxman, Jennings creates a truth standard around his argument in that he presents his side as if he is attempting to solve a problem—one he cites through statistics and what can be perceived as logical argument.
With a similar degree of logic, Barbara Foulks Boyd enters the conversation in her article “Should Gay and Lesbian Issues Be Discussed in Elementary school?” Her main argument, in accordance with many of her peers in the same school of thought, centers on an ever-changing world full of diversity. She states that:
“Today's teachers work in an increasingly diverse society. Teachers are expected to broaden awareness of, and appreciation for, this diversity among children and families by being advocates for all people, including those of different lifestyles. By addressing diversity issues in the classroom, teachers can celebrate both similarities and difference among children and their families.”
Boyd uses increasing diversity, as an address of the current state of our world, and places it as an argument in why it is essential teachers include gay and lesbian issues in sexual education. She essentially defines the situation for us—there is a growing population of diverse and non-traditional families, therefore we need to address them in the largest sphere we know possible, our schools.
The issue of sexual education is one deeply rooted in controversy. While some would argue it is our schools obligation to introduce and educate our students on nearly every issue, many would contest this and would rather have public educators stay out of the topic altogether. What is consensual, however, is the conversation that has arisen out of the growing need to address the issue much like what Boyd has presented. As more and more attention is drawn to the homosexual community, gay legislation, and gay public figures there requires an addressing of the situation in the public sphere. Which way this conversation goes depends on the nature of the individuals involved and whether or not they are willing to enter a civilized and well-rounded discourse. For something as sensitive as sexuality, there is an obligation above all else to continue in this debate with a general attitude of respect and dignity for other human beings regardless of sexual orientation or opinion. The debate is not whether all homosexuals should be banished and exiled from mainstream society, but whether or gay and lesbian issues should be discussed in such a large arena as our public schools. No matter what side, the issue is one of importance because of its social relevance but more importantly its relation to our country's youth. People are talking about it. Therefore, we all need to enter the conversation and deem whether or not it is appropriate in all of our schools.
Jennings, Kevin. Schools Should Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality. GLSEN Education Department Resource. January 1, 1999.
P. Harvey, Linda. Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality.“ Safe Schools: The Trojan Horse of 'Gay' Education,” Culture & Family Report, May 16, 2002.
Foster, Ezola. “Infiltrating America's Public Schools.” Headway. Volume 9. Issue 5. May 1997
Boyd Foulks, Barbara. “Should Gay and Lesbian Issues be Discussed in Elementary School?” Childhood Education. Vol. 76, Issue I. Fall 1999.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A Student's Perspective
For Laurel Saito, junior journalism major at Seattle University, she is not expecting a big career with a lot of money after graduation. As an SU student, she has her eyes set on something a little more realistic and life-giving--a life devoted not only to her passion but to service.
"SU is about exploring different educational avenues and working to help people," says Saito.
Acccording to Saito, Seattle University is ideal because of its feeling of community.
"I like how the classes are so small and the professors are generally very accomodating," says Saito. While SU does not have the collegiate appeal of a large state-school Saito says her education has been enhanced by SU's unique and succint mission of educating the whole person.
"We have a definition for why we are receiving an education here," says Saito.
"SU is about exploring different educational avenues and working to help people," says Saito.
Acccording to Saito, Seattle University is ideal because of its feeling of community.
"I like how the classes are so small and the professors are generally very accomodating," says Saito. While SU does not have the collegiate appeal of a large state-school Saito says her education has been enhanced by SU's unique and succint mission of educating the whole person.
"We have a definition for why we are receiving an education here," says Saito.
SU: On the Path to Victory
It will be a long and tough road for the Seattle University men’s basketball team. After a near four decade hiatus, the team will be entering an athletic arena featuring some of the biggest teams in the country. The taste of loss is something to be expected, but already the universities move to Division I athletics has been prosperous and sweet for the team. Isocrates notes that the journey itself is tough and often bitter in atmosphere, but the end result of anything worth doing is momentous and uniquely positive.
The same can be said about the larger university population—who at times has not been so positive about the transition from Division II to Division I athletics. The general fear—no wins, and a loss of academics.
Well, the men’s basketball team seems to be shouting a resounding “I told you so!” with a 13-6 season this year, making it one of the best in recent year. But the wins are generally silent, as the team is in a period of transition and has gone largely unnoticed.
But the mood is changing. As Steve Kelley says it in a recent times article, “When you walk out of the gym after basketball practice this week, the sun still is shining. The air is warmer. There are birds in the trees again and students are wearing shorts and T-shirts.”
The article was written in the dead of winter. However, the possibility is there and the team knows it. They can see the fruits of their hard labor in the distance. The next step: beating the University of Washington, a top pac-10 school. When in years past the thought of playing the Huskies was a drag, indifference has been replaced with excitement and hope.
The same can be said about the larger university population—who at times has not been so positive about the transition from Division II to Division I athletics. The general fear—no wins, and a loss of academics.
Well, the men’s basketball team seems to be shouting a resounding “I told you so!” with a 13-6 season this year, making it one of the best in recent year. But the wins are generally silent, as the team is in a period of transition and has gone largely unnoticed.
But the mood is changing. As Steve Kelley says it in a recent times article, “When you walk out of the gym after basketball practice this week, the sun still is shining. The air is warmer. There are birds in the trees again and students are wearing shorts and T-shirts.”
The article was written in the dead of winter. However, the possibility is there and the team knows it. They can see the fruits of their hard labor in the distance. The next step: beating the University of Washington, a top pac-10 school. When in years past the thought of playing the Huskies was a drag, indifference has been replaced with excitement and hope.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Rough Draft: Introduction. MPA.
It is often said that our nations schools become the battleground for many, if not most, controversial issues surrounding our societal values, ideals and morals. Whether it is a battle over a few words in the pledge of allegiance, a disagreement over parenting styles or the repercussions of an economic downfall, schools generally feel things first. The issue of homosexuality does not evade this inevitable confrontation for the mere fact it has become so prevalent in our social conscious and has of recent been an issue—specifically when it comes to gay marriage— that has dominated our news media. As gay marriage has become legal in several states, the question arises as to whether or not educators should include curriculum pertaining to homosexuality in school sexual education programs. This is to argue that if heterosexuality is commonly taught in schools where does homosexuality fit into the equation, if at all? To this extent, if it is included in our schools sexual education programs, what exactly is included? The issue ushers in a plethora of opinions—many strong and deeply rooted in personal value and tradition. There is no option of skirting the issue. The fact is, homosexuality has entered our social conversation in an unprecedented way therefore directing our attention to its treatment in schools. Each side of the argument is framed in a distinctly different way, presenting itself to two audiences with dissimilar backgrounds—one generally conservative in nature, the other more liberal. While it is often counter productive to dive into a polarized form of argument, the stylized performances of those in support of introducing homosexuality in schools and those not in favor do tend to target a specific demographic with specific beliefs. There are two implied audiences for each side of the argument. While demonstrating itself in our schools, the issue of normalizing and educating individuals about homosexuality in mainstream culture gives rise to a larger societal issue of acceptance and whether or not a higher degree of acceptance should be taught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
