Indoctrination and the Fair Education Act
So California’s governor Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating that students in the state learn that gay, lesbian, and transgendered people exist and have made noteworthy contributions to the country. I gather that the antagonisms toward the bill have ranged from opposition to it being the California legislature mandating the content of the curricular materials to hostility toward the subject matter itself. Kevin Ryan describes the bill as public school indoctrination, convinced that the bill’s language of “reflecting adversely” will mean that “instructional materials must positively promote ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans’ as role models and that children as young as 6 will be taught to admire homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriages,’ bisexuality, and transsexuality.” I didn’t catch any of that from reading the text of the bill, but I guess we’ll see how it plays out in textbook publishing and instruction in the classroom. My money’s on not happening.
I’m going to conveniently put aside my fringe opinions about education policy and focus instead on Ryan’s concerns about indoctrination. Let’s say for argument’s sake that public education really does involve indoctrination. If that’s the case, what’s to be done? Change public education policy, sure, but that’s a daunting, long, arduous road. And there’s little guarantee that traversing this path will bring change one can believe in. What options does a concerned parent have in the meantime?
Now I say the following as someone who believes in a handful of doctrines: If you’re a parent fearful of indoctrination at your school system, teach your child/children to see through indoctrination. Teach the boys and girls to think—critically and with a healthy dose of suspicion. Most kids already have the interrogative foundation for critical thought: they ask “Why?” and “How come?” to every statement some supposedly learned person makes. My son is fond of asking “How do you know?” whenever I tell him something—anything! He’s a budding epistemologist going into Kindergarten.
Seriously, this youthful inquiry is something to nurture and develop into a mature critical inquisitiveness and passion for knowledge. I sometimes fail at this, telling my son to shut up instead (in nicer words) because, quite frankly, his constant questioning is as annoying as Bieber fever. So he needs to learn discretion. We’ll work on that. He’ll need that too. His teachers will probably teach him things with which I’ll disagree. Okay, we reside in Texas; his teachers will definitely teach him stuff I think unfit for a sound mind or even for the recycling bin.
Whatever the content of my children’s education (of course, I want it to be good), my primary educational goal will be that my children learn in time how to think—how to understand and not just repeat. I intend to work with them as they learn the ways of the world and what unfortunately passes for the ways of the world. When my children hear a lesson that contradicts what I’ve taught them (or plan to teach them), I don’t want them to raise their hands and just repeat what I’ve told them or sit quietly thinking my Dad would disagree with this. I want them to learn how to weigh evidence and assess the soundness of arguments. I want accurate thinkers, not repeaters. Heck, I’d prefer them to be mediocre thinkers to outstanding repeaters.
Thinkers are better equipped to deconstruct indoctrination. Mine included.
Comments are closed.
1. So there is a bill mandating that students be taught material that gay, lesbian, and transgendered people exist and have made noteworthy contributions to the country, and prohibiting any material that “reflects adversely” on homosexuality, etc. Then you say that you don’t think students “will be taught to admire” homosexuality, etc. I don’t think I follow your point, because it sounds very much like the purpose of the bill. Maybe you’re taking issue with the term “admire”. Would it be more accurate to say instead of “students will be taught to admire….”, that “students will be taught to accept as legitimate, and be dissuaded from questioning or thinking that it is improper….”?
2. While it’s admirable and laudable to have a child who is equipped to question and challenge indoctrination, it seems like it would be a singularly brave and precocious 8-year old who takes a public position contrary to the opinion and peer pressure of his classmates and contrary to the authority of a teaching adult who might even penalize the student’s grades for this unpopular position. That’s difficult for even highschool- and college-age kids to do. Having said that, I agree with your point wholeheartedly, about the fact that parents should take an active role in nurturing their children’s minds and teaching them to think “critically and with a healthy dose of suspicion”.
One doesn’t need to “admire” homosexuality in order to admire, for instance, Walt Whitman. I admire him as a poet. I don’t admire him as a “homosexual poet.” The purpose of the bill would be (to my way of thinking) to teach students not to dismiss Walt Whitman’s poetry (or his work as a Civil War nurse, for that matter) simply because they find out that he was homosexual.
I’m not certain what you mean above by “legitimate.”
Rodak, good point about Whitman re: admiring him as a poet vs. admiring him as a “homosexual poet.” But that brings up the question of what the new curriculum is going to be like: will the curriculum be telling students to admire Whitman as a poet or as a “homosexual poet”? If the latter, then that would be giving short shrift to Whitman, who should be remembered for his poetry, not his sexuality. I agree wholeheartedly that we should not dismiss his poetry simply because he might have been homosexual — and that it’s good to teach students not to dismiss someone’s work just because of one’s sexuality. But is that even a problem? Is there a current problem of students dismissing Whitman’s work or Earhart’s accomplishments just because of questions about their sexuality? I wonder whether the new bill will have the unfortunate result of making students focus on the sexuality of the actor, at the expense of recognizing the significance of the accomplishments.
When I use “legitimate”, I mean “students being taught to accept homosexual relationships as a legitimate relationship worthy of social approbation.” I’m of the mind that homosexual persons are worthy of respect and should not be discriminated against, while at the same time, believing that a homosexual act or relationship should not be given moral approval. That’s the basic position of the Catholic Church, I believe.
I’m of the mind that homosexual persons are worthy of respect and should not be discriminated against, … That’s the basic position of the Catholic Church, I believe.
What makes you think that?
What makes you think that?
Catechism, sec. 2358
Thales,
Might someone want to clue in the bishops to that who have supported laws to jail homosexuals or denying gay people the right to hold a job? Or does the Catholic Church believe that imprisionment and firing are not unjust forms of discrimination?
Catechism, sec. 2358
Thales,
Unfortunately, when you specify that you are against “unjust” discrimination, you are permitted to argue that denial of such things as jobs and housing is not unjust when there is “objectively disordered behavior,” one example of which would be marrying your same-sex partner. It is very easy to oppose “unjust discrimination” when you allow yourself to discriminate “justly” on matters like jobs, housing, insurance benefits, adoption, ordination, and so on.
Kurt,
I have no idea what you are referring to; and regardless, I suspect that this is not the forum to get into that discussion.
David,
You found me out! When it comes to men wanting to use the women’s bathroom, or non-Catholics wanting to be Pope, or meat-eaters wanting to be the president of PETA, I’m all in favor of discrimination!
Thales,
This is the pertinent part of the law, and the change was to add what I have put in bold:
In signing the bill, Governor Brown said, “History should be honest.” It seems clear to me that is what the bill is all about. Fears that the bill will be used to make children “admire” gay people seem rather silly given the extensive laundry list of people and groups in the bill.
David,
Thanks for the law’s language. That is helpful to me. I wasn’t sure what was happening. But what is this discussion about the law prohibiting any material that “reflects adversely” on homosexuality? Is that language coming from somewhere?
“Teach the boys and girls to think—critically and with a healthy dose of suspicion.”
Teach girls to think!?!?
Now HERE’S indoctrination for you…
:P
While it’s admirable and laudable to have a child who is equipped to question and challenge indoctrination, it seems like it would be a singularly brave and precocious 8-year old who takes a public position contrary to the opinion and peer pressure of his classmates and contrary to the authority of a teaching adult who might even penalize the student’s grades for this unpopular position.
This is where discretion and prudence comes in. I don’t plan to encourage my children to vocalize their opposition whenever it occurs. There are appropriate and inappropriate times to make one’s views known. The classroom session ain’t always an appropriate time.
I can’t think of any person of great accomplishment whose accomplishments are either attributable to his/her sexual orientation, or diminished by them. Being heterosexual does not automatically make you a good anything, including: a good Christian, a good parent, a good neighbor, or a good colleague. And I don’t believe that being gay (etc.) automatically makes you a bad example of any of those categories. Some of the greatest figures of history, in any field of human endeavor you might want to examine, were homosexual. And some of the worst were “straight.” It is absurd to suggest that any school system is going to promote homosexuality. It is almost certainly equally absurd to believe that homosexuality can even BE promoted. It is what it is. I’ve never known a gay person who hasn’t told me that he or she knew they were “that way” from very early childhood. Children can be taught not to fear it and hate it; but I don’t believe that they can be taught to prefer and choose it, unless that was always going to be their choice anyway. In that event, that also can’t be taught NOT to prefer it. And the evidence is strong that they can’t forever be taught not to choose it, even after paying an often huge psychological price for trying to do so. Only look at the mess within the Catholic priesthood for evidence of that.
If I have this right, people who primarily send their children to private schools feel public school children need to be better educated about ‘insert pet cause’. People who predominantly have eschewed public education for homeschooling are complaining about the state improperly inserting themselves. Oh why can’t they both lose?
California isn’t much different than my state. We have seen something like $800 million in cuts. Our largest school district is laying off 350 teachers, over 5% of the teaching staff. They are also pulling the nurses from all the schools.
Again, it wouldn’t be so bad if the people doing the social engineering weren’t exempting their own children from the experiment.
Man are we hung up about sex. My adult children have know since about age 3 that sperm from dad’s penis crawl across the bed to mom and then she gets pregnant. I wonder why I don’t have grandchildren? The only problem people have with homosexuality is that they are afraid of sex. They are afraid of heterosexual sex, self-sex, National Geographic insect sex, animal sex, etc. I think I am really tired of hearing the whining about other people’s sexual preference. It is their whining that has caused such a backlash.
That might be partially true however of course the fact that most societies around the globe historically do/did emphasize procreation and tend to not look very favorably on all those perfectly healthy societal members in the prime of their life that ‘opt’ out.
One can kind of understand really – that is where we all come from.
But how cool is it that just within a generation or two this is come and gone.
It is just the last 40 years (?) that this is shifting and not surprising particular in western societies we see a clear opening for full acceptance of homosexual relations.
So the last thing otherwise standing is the icky factor of the envisioned sex act.
We will get over that one too. In my view full acceptance of sexual orientation is a done deal. What is the next challenge – major injustice?
Kyle,
For the historical record: compulsory schooling was founded as a means of socialization, which refers to the thing most people refer to in the term ‘indoctrination.’ Public education is principally driven by this motivation that goes back as far as its genesis in the 19th century common school movement.
Sam
If the new language in this law is about honesty – that is, about not glossing over the accomplishments or contributions to society of LGBT Americans simply because they were LGBT – it should be possible to show that there was actually a lack of such honesty before, that the passage of the law is intended to address. In other words, it should be possible to show that people worthy of inclusion in the history books were being excluded, or at least shortchanged, because of their sexuality. Maybe that’s true, but in modern California its a priori implausibility is very great.
If it is not possible to show this, then the true reason for the law is not what its supporters say, and one must ask what the true reason is. In that case, it’s not outrageous to suggest that one reason is to draw children’s attention to the homosexuality of certain individuals they would have admired in any case with the purpose of indirectly making them admire or at least approve of homosexuality itself. And that’s a best case scenario; in many classrooms I’m sure the process would be less subtle than that.
In that case, it’s not outrageous to suggest that one reason is to draw children’s attention to the homosexuality of certain individuals they would have admired in any case with the purpose of indirectly making them admire or at least approve of homosexuality itself.
Maybe not outrageous, but at least a little paranoid. Do kids in public schools really form their attitudes about homosexuality in their social studies classes? Would a kid come home and say, “Mom and Dad, we learned about Dag Hammarskjold today, and I really admire homosexuality”? And suppose a kid learns about a gay person he or she really finds admirable. What is wrong with that? Will the kid turn gay?
I remember in the early 1960s reading the books by Dr. Tom Dooley. It was well hidden at the time, but it turns out he was gay. There is the Dr. Tom Dooley Society, a group for the medical alumni of Notre Dame. Is this a bad idea? Might people come to admire Dr. Dooley and approve of homosexuality?
Also, note the list of people to be included social studies classes and texts: “both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups.” It is not as if California is mandating the addition of gay studies classes to existing curriculum. Exactly how much space in textbooks are gay people going to get and how much classroom time is going to be spent on LGBT issues? It’s my understanding that teachers in California, like teachers everywhere else, are basically “teaching to the test.” How many LGBT questions do you suppose are on standardized state tests?
It is not as if California is mandating the addition of gay studies classes to existing curriculum.
I know the law doesn’t mandate this, but you don’t think that school districts and school boards will eventually create such mandates, while citing the law’s language in support?
I know the law doesn’t mandate this, but you don’t think that school districts and school boards will eventually create such mandates, while citing the law’s language in support?
No, of course not. Why in the world, in this time of budget cuts, would anyone add new courses to the curriculum? Even in prosperous times, the idea that elementary and secondary schools would have a gay studies curriculum is preposterous.
I wish this vast homosexual conspiracy to rule the world were 0.001 percent as successful as some people seem to think it is.
Forget about new, separate, additional classes…. what about units within existing classes? You doubt that English or Social Studies classes will ever have required units devoted to the contributions of homosexuals or gay studies, as is sometimes the case for other minorities?
The bottom line is that you call “instruction” according to your own faith, you refer to as “indoctrination” when you see its counterpart in the other guy’s belief system. Everybody thinks they have a monopoly on the Truth.
I would suggest that the purport of the law is to allow children to see that if Walt Whitman is admirable, despite his sexual orientation, then your classmate, John or Jane, is likewise to be judged on the basis of his or her accomplishments and common humanity, and–above all–not harassed, shunned, teased, intimidated, assaulted, or driven to suicide. I don’t see this as so hard to grasp.
Scapegoating and bullying, especially in schools, are much more common social diseases than AIDS. Those who think otherwise or think the consequences aren’t serious haven’t been reading the Huffington Post (no surprise there, of course!) See, for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/lgbtq-hate-crimes-up-in-2010_n_896409.html. Good luck following that story on Foxnews.
The “social” and practical impact of the law is not to create more gay people nor even to create more gay admirers, but to reduce the incidence of social diseases and their serious consequences. A hidden subtext and rarely outed consequence of the “oh we can’t have this because it will force the schools to promote homosexuality” argument is that it perpetuates an attitude which actively reduces the number of visibly gay people by harassing or killing them (see link cited above) or encouraging them to hide or kill themselves.
I find it worrisome that in modern US political discourse not continuing to give wealthy people tax breaks is a “tax increase” and not marginalizing gay people is “promoting homosexuality.”
The “social” and practical impact of the law is not to create more gay people nor even to create more gay admirers, but to reduce the incidence of social diseases and their serious consequences.
Out of curiosity, can you point me to a study that shows this is the actual effect of the law? If so, that is a very serious consideration, although the question would remain whether such legislation is the only or the best way to achieve such an effect. However, I can’t help suspecting that these deplorable incidents have been on the increase as a reaction to the societal effort to legitimize homosexuality.
If these incidents of violence against homosexuals have increased it is because a great number of people have a terminal, yet treatable, social disease.
Pachyderminator:
I am not aware of any such study, and it seems unlikely that such would exist, given that the law has not yet been implemented. Using google scholar, it isn’t hard to find studies which examine the causes of prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. And, I’ve already linked an article demonstrating the seriousness of the problems we have.
I agree with you, that this legislation is neither the only nor the best way to reduce gay-bashing. I also agree that at least some gay-haters may feel driven to act out because their attitudes are being marginalized. Bullies, unable to differentiate themselves from their fears and attitudes, fear their own marginalization more than anything else. Nevertheless this is how we confront intimidation, and hope that eventually the bullies choose to grow up rather than to act out.
I disagree that this legislation “legitimizes homosexuality” as you say. What it attempts to do is de-legitimize the marginalization of social “undesirables” in school textbooks. I suspect you really intended to say that the legislation would legitimize homosexual behavior. Is this accurate? It doesn’t make sense to talk about “legitimizing homosexuality” any more than it makes sense to legitimize the sky’s blue-ness or rain falling on the ground: These simply exist. But the legislation does not may any requirement about discussing homosexual behavior or expression; it only relates to the existence of homosexual persons and their contributions to the state’s development.
The legislation does not require a pre-study to legitimize itself. Legislation is plainly needed because textbook publishers have a keen interest to produce books which meet the minimum legal requirements for textbooks, and minimize offense to special interest groups, regardless of whether those groups represent mature social perspectives or not.
Well,put, Frank M.
Pachyderminator–There is nothing recent about the either terms or the practices of “gay bashing” or “rolling queers.” You are attempting to put the cart before the horse.
The problem I see is that this indoctrination is happening at such young ages. Teach your children to think and work through arguments–yes, absolutely, but at five years of age my daughter doesn’t even know what homosexuality is and is not capable of the sort of reasoning that would need to go on to work through something like that with the limited information she might be given in the classroom and at home (she hasn’t even asked how babies are made, etc). She should not have to be exposed to any discussion of the subject matter. These topics should be addressed at older ages when most children are at a different stage of learning. My daughter, like your son, is always asking questions and she always accepts the answer (with several more questions on her side just to be sure she gets it). If she asked me what the moon was made out of and my answer involved it being made of blue cheese, at this age, she would believe me. If, in several years, she asked the same question for the first time, she would likely begin to suspect my answer as having some flaws as she learned more about the world around her and might seek to investigate and research on her own. The only reason this stuff is in the law is because a few people want to normalize a certain lifestyle; and I do understand the difference between someone bearing the cross of homosexual inclinations and living chastely vs. someone living an active homosexual lifestyle. These laws were introduced so children would be exposed at an early age to the idea (presented as truth) that it is acceptable for couples of the same sex to publicly live together and raise families. Someone quoted the actual law above and I have no doubt the way this will be implemented is through teaching about how practicing homosexuals have contributed to “social development”. If they weren’t publicly practicing homosexuals, their sexuality would most likely not be public and they would be just another human being contributing “to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America”
Heather: “I have two moms.”
Joe: “Cool. I have a mom and a dad. What have you got for lunch?”
This, I believe is the primary goal of the law.
You seem to be naive to the social dysfunction already present in public schools.
The elephant in the room of course is that the push for social homogeneity is being done in a counter-cultural context. I’m just like every other piece of snow in one context, and I’m a unique snowflake in another instance. And I get to choose how I’m perceived dammit. What isn’t being sought is “norming” despite the guise. What is being sought is the same nonjudgmental, individualistic garbage that has been sought for at least the past 20 years. It is the culture wars all over again except it is being offered by the left. Rather than the suburbs, they find their refuge in urban centers where they can bravely afix their Darwin-fish bumper sticker and their COEXIST bumper sticker without worry that they will have any real encounter with anyone outside their own class.
Michelle:
I find your post persuasive only in the sense that I am persuaded your opinion has at best a tenuous connection with facts, and most likely belies a deep antipathy toward sexual minorities. Let me explain,…
“…indoctrination is happening at such young ages. [...] but at five years of age…” Where did you get the idea that your daughter will read textbooks on California History while she’s in Kindergarten?? The bill addresses the content of textbooks she will typically use in Junior High or High School. Not relevant.
“The only reason this stuff is in the law is because a few people want to normalize a certain lifestyle…” And I suppose I should believe that you personally know the “few people” who want history books to include the whole truth of who built what we have today? Do you think deliberately excluding ethnic and sexual minorities, denying their personhood or their contributions to our common history supports the Common Good? And if the unchaste behaviors practiced by so many luminaries of history and the present should not be “normalized” as you say, why limit this to a particular minority? I wouldn’t want Ben Franklin’s or Thomas Jefferson’s or Newt Gingrich’s or Anthony Wiener’s sexual behavior to be “normalized” as you say. The number of families broken apart and children raised in chaos because of heterosexual unfaithfulness far exceeds the number of same-sex couples. Not consistent.
“These laws were introduced so children would be exposed at an early age to the idea (presented as truth) that it is acceptable for couples of the same sex to publicly live together and raise families.” Again, you claim to understand the motives of people you neither know nor want to know. You seem to believe, first, that sexual predation is primarily part of a non-Christian, non-Catholic world, and, second, that our community cannot hold fast to our faith while accepting that many people, even some of the consecrated among us and in positions of great responsibility, act out sexually. Not persuasive.
Frank:
I never said anything about ethnic minorities.
“And if the unchaste behaviors practiced by so many luminaries of history and the present should not be “normalized” as you say, why limit this to a particular minority? I wouldn’t want Ben Franklin’s or Thomas Jefferson’s or Newt Gingrich’s or Anthony Wiener’s sexual behavior to be “normalized” as you say. The number of families broken apart and children raised in chaos because of heterosexual unfaithfulness far exceeds the number of same-sex couples. Not consistent.”
You’re right, it’s not consistent. Why don’t we add categories to the law that include letting our children know the contributions, sexters, and adulterers have made to the political, economic and social spheres of our government? Because, as of now, there are not organized groups trying to normalize that sort of disordered behavior. I never indicated that active homosexual lifestyles are the only sinful lifestyles that should not be normalized. No objectively sinful lifestyle should be presented to children as healthy and beneficial to society.
Also, I have not read the entire law, but from what I’ve heard there is no precise age given as to when these history lessons may begin. They could very well take the form of a Kindergarten teacher reading a true story from the suggested curriculum of an orphan adopted by two mommies and then have a class discussion.
Google says: life·style /’līfˌstīl/ Noun: The way in which a person or group lives: “the benefits of a healthy lifestyle“.
When I hear a statement like “No objectively sinful lifestyle should be presented to children as healthy and beneficial to society,” that sounds reasonable at first, but on closer examination, I have to ask:
How do we distinguish an “objectively sinful” lifestyle from one that is not?
Given that all humans are sinful, does this mean we should never present any lifestyle as healthy or beneficial?
Is the lifestyle what’s objectionable, or is it the people who live “that way” which are objectionable?
It seems like a very good idea to teach children how to live a healthy lifestyle. Hiding the truth about how historical people lived and what challenges they overcame or succumbed to does not somehow improve that education. Telling the truth does not somehow endorse unhealthy aspects of their lives either. Learning about George Washington’s dentures does not endorse poor dental hygiene, and neither does learning about Thomas Jefferson’s relationship with a slave he owned endorse his unchaste behavior. It is still up to parents and teachers to teach first by example, and by clear exposition what the benefits and consequences of life choices are.
To answer your question: I agree that the law is getting rather long-winded and even intrusive. That came about because of the realities of writing, approving and publishing school textbooks, and the resulting very limited selection available to school boards and teachers. And, there’s no need for the law to require teaching about the contributions of adulterers (not sure what a “sexter” is) — At least half the characters in existing history books were heterosexual adulterers. I suspect that the same eros which drives people to invent, contribute and lead drives their sexual behavior as well. But that’s a tangent for another thread.
Regarding “a Kindergarten teacher reading a true story from the suggested curriculum of an orphan adopted by two mommies and then have a class discussion”: Yes, this could happen, and it’s possible that a teacher might make that choice, especially if one of the students in the class is such an adoptee and is being ostracized by the other children. The teacher might also make such a selection because she and her female partner have adopted a child. The selection, whether made with altruistic or self-serving motivation, is neither required nor enabled by this change in the law.
The law change primarily affects how new history textbooks will be written. It neither requires nor enables particular kinds of read-aloud books in an elementary school library. This makes it hard to imagine how the content and completeness of history texts would directly affect Kindergarten education. Thus, I find the scenario of a teacher’s two-mommy read-aloud not relevant to the change in the law.
I am using the term “objectively sinful lifestyle” to refer to those actively, publicly and unapologetically participating in acts that have been authoritatively deemed by our Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to be inherently evil and not ordered to the good. We can’t at anytime judge a persons culpability for those sins, that’s up to God. But we can and should be judging and labeling certain actions as what they are– sinful.
Yes all humans are sinful, but unfortunately instead of realizing this truth there is a trend today to run away from it and justify, justify, justify. The problem is that many have never been shown God’s unconditional love and forgiveness. When people don’t understand their self worth and where it originates (from God), they associate what they do with who they are. So, instead of sinners running toward the forgiving arms of God, we have some organized groups of people, struggling with recognizing their own dignity aside from the disorder sexuality they have become a slave to, running to the arms of congress to get the affirmation they are desperately seeking.
We are definitely all sinful; I was addicted to pornography for eight years of my life! What do you think about amending this law to include my past sexually disordered lifestyle? After all, I was a sexual minority; most females do not view and enjoy pornography. Women like me should be recognized and acknowledged because we held important jobs or political positions all while sinning. The point of this law is not to simply acknowledge the fact that a person can contribute to society while having a bad habit on the side; it’s to try to make a specific vice appear normal and healthy. It just so happens that there are some organized groups of people that struggle with homosexual sins, want to justify them and then lobby for the inclusion of their homosexual lifestyle in these types of laws. I’m glad there weren’t organized groups of female porn viewers lobbying congress at the time I was living that lifestyle because I might have been tempted to run to their arms for affirmation instead of Christ’s.
Also, I looked up the actual text of the law, it can be found here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_48&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno
The bill does not have an age where this instruction is to begin. It just says “Social Science instruction shall include…” Kindergartners have Social Science included in their curriculum in the state of California. The bill also does not limit this to textbooks. It states instructional materials AND activities. Furthermore, the bill states that these instructional materials and activities must not only include “accurate” contributions homosexuals, etc. have made but these materials and activities can not have anything in them that “adversely” portray homosexuals, etc. And the “governing board” is left to decide what is an “accurate” portrayal, and what is an “adverse” portrayal.
So, my scenario involving a kindergarten read aloud with positive discussion following is completely plausible and completely relevant to this law.
Michelle said:
These laws were introduced so children would be exposed at an early age to the idea (presented as truth) that it is acceptable for couples of the same sex to publicly live together and raise families.
Rodak said:
Heather: “I have two moms.”
Joe: “Cool. I have a mom and a dad. What have you got for lunch?”
This, I believe is the primary goal of the law.
Am I right in concluding that these two commenters agree on the intention of the law’s framers and differ only in their moral evaluation of that intention?
The key to my comment is that “Joe” is more interested in what “Heather” has in her lunch box than he is in the fact that she “has two moms.” I.e.: it isn’t a big deal. No sign that Joe is being corrupted. No sign that Joe is going to tease, or otherwise harass, Heather. Having two moms is acceptable and not that interesting.
So, yes: my little dialogue was meant to depict how Michelle’s phrasing, having become a reality, would affect the hearts and minds of kids. I.e.–not very much at all.
I’m wondering what happens when Joe responds “That’s very sad. You don’t have a dad!” How does the teacher respond?
Judgment about intent works best when applied to myself. If I’m judging Rodak’s and Michelle’s posts correctly, and comparing with my own intents and moral judgment, there’s disagreement on multiple levels:
(1) The intention behind the law’s framers: whether they intend to promote homosexual behavior* (specifically in children**), promote acceptance of people with same-sex attractions, or promote acceptance of children who are somehow associated (as in the adoption example) with persons who act on their same-sex attraction.
(2) The meaning of “acceptance” or “acceptability” in the context of adult behavior: When speaking about our children, “unacceptable” behavior is behavior they act out which demands a response from us. When speaking about adults, “acceptable” behavior only relates to whether we believe it actually happened and whether it injures someone else. Does “accepting” adult behavior prevent us from responding to the corresponding behavior in our children?*
(3) The meaning of “accept” in the context of identity: If we “accept” that homosexuals have made significant contributions to our society, can we still see the difference between this and promoting homosexual behavior? If we “accept” that most of us have behaved in an unchaste manner at least at some point in our lives, does that require us to abandon our witness to a life of sexual self-responsibility?*
(4) The relative importance of suppressing unchaste sexual behavior (homosexual* and otherwise*) vs. prejudicial, bullying and exclusionary behavior.
I’ve tried to be helpful by putting an asterisk after the questions and assumptions I disagree with.
Today’s world presents us with issues of life and death on a massive scale. We’re called to deal with those urgently. Much more urgently, I think, than worries about legislators’ intent with regard to homosexuality.
Thales:
I don’t see why the teacher needs to respond in the situation you describe, which sounds like a remarkably tender response from a teen or pre-teen. About half the students in High School don’t live with both biological parents, typically as a result of the parents’ separation.
This fact and the way the students deal with it are completely orthogonal to homosexuality and the teaching of history.
Thales– A goodly percentage of the kids in any school today don’t have a dad for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in general. What should the teacher say to them?
The idea here is that Joe will not see Heather’s family as being in some way inferior to his family. Each family has two loving parents providing stability and security to the children.
Almost every single homosexual was brought up in a heterosexual environment. What does that tell you?
I’m not sure what your last sentence tells me (maybe you’ll spell it out for me), but I think that what the teacher says to single-parent households should be the model for what they say to same-sex parent households.
I was just working with a group of teachers on this and one young teacher who worked in a rough neighbourhood where many kids don’t have a Dad at home said that one little boy asked her, “How come Mommies are more important than Daddies?”
That, it seems to me, is the tough spot here. Of course we need to affirm that every student is loved and accepted in our schools, but we need to find ways to affirm them without saying that every home situation is ideal. We need to be able to encourage the next generation of Dads to be there for their kids. Treating Dadless (or Momless) situations as if they are practically equivalent to having a Mom and Dad strikes me as asking for trouble.
Nevertheless, I think there are ways for teachers to handle this well. Whether a school is mandated to teach about same-sex relationships or not, teachers are going to have to deal with the fact that some kids come from these homes.
One thing you might be able to say to the little guy who asked why Daddies are less important, is that “Daddies are just as important, but many Dads don’t know how important they are and so they don’t act like they’re important.” At least that is my first impulse.
“…but I think that what the teacher says to single-parent households should be the model for what they say to same-sex parent households.”
I totally disagree with that. You will have to show me that a loving homosexual couple can’t be a good model for a loving heterosexual relationship, assuming that any children they are raising are heterosexual. The important thing is the love and its expression as part of daily life, is it not?
I think you totally disagree with an aspect that was not the analogous aspect. I certainly don’t need to show that a loving homosexual couple can’t be a good model for a loving heterosexual relationship. I never denied this. What is analogous is that in a same-sex pairing, either a mother or a father is missing, by definition. That is the analogous aspect and where teachers might have some experience to draw on.
And it is certainly true that one important thing, maybe even the most important thing, is love and it’s expression in daily life. I don’t deny that either. (And, one might point out, that single-parent households don’t necessarily lack this either!) What I do deny is that a fatherless or motherless home is the same thing as a home that is not fatherless or motherless. I don’t find the lack of a father or mother an irrelevant datum. To me, their presence is one other “important thing.”
Rodak and Frank,
Brett is right on here. Schools/teachers should affirm and support all their children, even those from difficult or non-ideal home situations (and especially so!). There doesn’t seem to be problem about recognizing that a broken of fatherless home is non-ideal, and affirming the child. I was wondering about whether that will be the same with homosexual family situations, since I wonder whether we’re stepping into a world where we’re not allowed to say that a homosexual family situation is non-ideal.
Sorry, typo: “broken OR fatherless home”
I don’t know about where you live, but in Canada it is certainly the case that we’re not allowed to say that a homosexual family situation is non-ideal. Furthermore and by extension, and this is what strikes me as the actual problem, we are not really allowed to call any family situation non-ideal.
This is exactly the argument I got from my ethics class: “But, if you say that same-sex homes are non-ideal because of a missing father or mother, aren’t you also saying that single-parent homes are not ideal?” When I responded in the affirmative, they were utterly horrified.
There are very few–I’ll go out on a limb and say NO–ideal homes in which real kids are raised by two, perfect, heterosexual, loving parents who both always do the right thing and never fail to set a good example for their children. It’s all on a continuum. Some kids are better off with their single mother situation than are some of their classmates who are dealing with a wretched, hateful situation in a two-parent household.
What kids should be taught are not models based on categorical inventories of gender representation, but models of behavioral modes, based on love and respect.
A “family” consists of at least one responsible adult caring for at least one dependent child. That is a sufficient condition for the use of the word. From that point one can begin to discuss how those two or more individuals can best comport themselves in order to increase the quantity of love and security in this difficult and often frightening world.
I’m sorry. Did someone say the word “family” cannot be applied to any situation but Mom + Dad + kids?
Also, did anyone say heterosexual couples are immune to dysfunction?
I’m really not sure whose positions you’re attacking here, but I don’t recognize them as my own.
All I said is that I think it is better to have a Mom and Dad than not to. It is quite immaterial that some Moms and/or Dads aren’t great people. That applies across the board and can’t be used just to slag “traditional” families.
Of course some single-parent homes are better than some two-parent homes. And of course some same-sex homes will be better than some opposite-sex homes. I’m not sure what that proves. That Dads (or Moms) are irrelevant or unnecessary?
Some kids are better off with their single mother situation than are some of their classmates who are dealing with a wretched, hateful situation in a two-parent household.
I was shocked when I found out from a psychologist that this isn’t, in fact, statistically accurate. Believe it or not, the statistics show that kids tend to fare better with both parents together than split up, even if the household isn’t peaceful. It’s counter-intuitive, but apparently it is true.
Rodak, I would ask whether you were raised without appropriate gender role models. If not, I would suggest you defer to those who have. Your theory in good in principle, but problematic in practice. I know because I am your ideal case. As someone raised in a perfectly loving home by a single mother, I can point to much suffering I have experienced (and will continue to experience) because of a lack of a proper male role model in my life. It’s not for a lack of love – my mother was a saint and I don’t think I could have been raised in a more supportive, loving, and nurturing environment. But the funny thing is, her love wasn’t enough to make me whole. Even a mother’s infinite love can never compensate for the missing presence of a father.
Everyting else being equal, one can argue that it’s better to have a Mom and Dad. But, then again, everything else being equal–if it’s really equal–than where does “better” come in?
So, yes: it proves that Dads (or Moms) are not *necessary*. It doesn’t prove that they are not *desirable* (if they are relatively good examples of father- or motherhood), but–other than biologically–they are not *necessary*.
You found this out from *a* psychologist? Can you show us some stats to support this anecdotal datum you cite? I just don’t believe that you suffered more living with your saintly mother, and no father, than would a kid who had to witness his drunken father come home every night and beat the crap out of his wife, and possibly out of the kid for good measure. Or even if he just came home disgruntled from his lousy job and berated and humiliated his wife and belittled her every thought and word and criticized her every attempt to make the home a pleasant place. Not only is that counter-intuitive. It’s nuts.
I will grant you that a two-parent home is statistically more likely to provide kids with economic security and creature comforts. If your psychologist is basing his assertion on those kinds of data, I’ll grant the point, as far as it goes. But then you’ll have to show me that affluence equals happiness. Money is the equivalent of free speech, so they say; is it also the equivalent of love?
If you’re actually interested in the truth, you’ll do your own research. I trust his professional opinion, particularly in the context in which he gave it. I have no need to justify my position.
Again, I ask – were you raised without appropriate gender role models? Do you really think you can speak with more authority on the matter than someone who actually lived through such an environment?
I reiterate from my actual experience – if your thesis is that “it’s all about love”, and gender has nothing to do with it, your premise is false. I had more love from one parent than most experience from two. But even the juice of a thousand apples can not provide the nourishment of a single orange. Our identity is constructed of more than just the quantity/quality of the love we receive. Something is lacking in even the most perfect single-parent or homosexual parents that love simply cannot account for.
I know this because I’ve lived it and continue to live it to this day. You’re going to discount my testimony because you don’t know me. But I know it more deeply than you ever could, and my testimony is irrefutable. Take it for what it’s worth.
Rodak,
You say: “It’s better to live with a single mother than to live with a physical abusive two-parent home”. And it’s better for a child to live in an orphanage than with a single mother who beats her child. And it’s better for a child to live caged in a zoo than in a two-parent home where they torture their child, etc. etc. These are all straw man arguments. We’re talking about on the average, not particular individual cases. If you want stats for children being, on the average, better off in two-parent households instead of divorced or separated households, just Google “children are worse with divorced parents”
Thales,
And if you want evidence that Benedict XVI is a heretic, just google “Benedict XVI is a heretic,” and you’ll have it!
David,
Sigh. I’m referring to the scientific studies which are easily found by the Google.
Apparently, as with most human matters, “it depends.” This WHO study on resilience is available, and looks at inter-relations between numerous factors.
http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/80247/1/resilience_hbsc.pdf
Here’s an older article (1982) with abstract and first page available, which more directly addresses the question, by Blechman:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/351272
I’ve looked, but I found no peer-reviewed texts which unequivocally state two-parent children have better outcomes regardless of how deranged the parents are and regardless of other factors. Two-parent households statistically have better income and stronger socioeconomic factors, and this makes the question much more complex than “yes or no, is it better to grow up with both biological parents?”
But all of this is off Kyle’s original topic, where there should be no ambiguity: History texts and curricula are necessarily filtered by the authors’ and textbook buyers’ attitudes. California law attempts to prevent specific kinds of filtering of the facts, not the attitudes. Some people, apparently including a majority of California’s bishops, call this indoctrination.
My opinion is that the bishops waste their breath and their moral capital on a side-topic when they oppose this bill. But then again, they are the ones in charge, and probably for good reason. They have staff and years of experience to help them examine the facts; I have Google. Maybe their opinions are better informed than mine.
And maybe they’re just reflexively following the party line?
Thales–
As I said above, we’re talking, in even the best of circumstances, about a continuum. Child abuse is, most unfortunately, very prevalent. The point I’ve been making throughout is that we should not categorically stigmatize one or two whole kinds of family unit, and thus put unneeded external pressures on persons living in those kinds of family. If we do that, we will end up in x-number of cases going from bad to worse. Or even contributing to that “worsnesness.”