DriveThru – Get What You Need

In case you were wondering where homosexual activism in public schools can eventually lead, Maine is giving a pretty good preview right now:

“… a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”  That’s the summary from Maine’s Bangor Daily News, reporting on school guidelines currently under development by Maine’s Human Rights Commission.

So now we are on the cusp of allowing boys into girls restrooms based on their stated identity choice of the day. It’s hard to imagine an environment more sexually confusing for kids—or fraught with risky situations— than that.

At issue is the Maine Human Rights Commission’s efforts to adopt guidelines for schools on how to deal with gender-confused students. While they are being touted as just “guidelines,” the reality is that schools found in violation of the commission’s policies are more vulnerable to losing a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, according to the Bangor Daily News report,  gay activist groups—in particular, the local Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) chapter—have helped develop these guidelines. (GLSEN is the controversial group founded by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings. It is devoted to promoting homosexuality and ”transgender” behavior to kids all the way down to the kindergarten level.)

The Maine School Management Association has raised concerns that the Human Rights Commission is overstepping its bounds by giving schools specific mandates. And then there’s concerns from both secondary schools and colleges about “fairness” issues in sports  and how teams are classified under NCAA guidelines.

This is just some of the chaos we will continue to see if identity politics and homosexual activism are given free rein in our public school systems.

For more about how transgender-activism is affecting schools’ and states’ policies, check out our “Transgender” Madness commentary.

Christian conservatives on the Texas education board have found themselves under the microscope of  The New York Times.  In its magazine edition, the Times spent no less than 10 pages trying to dissect their motivations and beliefs.

So what’s with this newfound interest in Christians?

 It all boils down to this: Conservatives on the school board have dared to challenge secularist-leaning, politically correct, America-is-the-capitalistic-oppressor portrayals in the classroom, and instead are trying to give teachers the freedom to acknowledge the country’s accomplishments and its Judeo-Christian heritage.

So why is everyone in a tizzy?

Well, as they say, just follow the money: Of all the states, Texas has the most influence over the nationwide textbook market. With a $22 billion education fund, Texas uses a portion of that money “to buy or distribute 48 million textbooks annually,” reported the Times, rightfully concluding that the state could have significant influence over what children elsewhere in the nation see in print in their classrooms.

Now the alarm bells are raised especially high because the Texas State Board of Education is about to finalize adoption of social and history standards that will be effective for at least 10 years. Add to that furor, the fact that socially conservative board members dared to win a few battles acknowledging certain basic things about our nation’s history—like that we celebrate Christmas and that “religion (and virtue) contributed to the growth of representative government…”

What’s interesting about this article, though, is that despite some of the usual bias, the reporter acknowledged some unpopular facts, such as:

• “There is, however, one slightly awkward issue for hard-core secularists who would combat what they see as a Christian whitewashing of American history: the Christian activists have a certain amount of history on their side.”
• “Christian activists argue that American-history textbooks basically ignore religion—to the point that they distort history outright—and mainline religious historians tend to agree with them on this.”
• “The public seems to agree. Polls on some specific church-state issues—government financing for faith-based organizations and voluntary prayer in public schools—consistently show majorities in favor of those positions. “

What’s so encouraging about this is that even a traditionally liberal mag like the Times must acknowledge that the majority of Americans don’t actually want their kids to be force-fed secularist doctrines. Nor do they want teachers to censor objective facts about our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

Warning: Graphic content included below.

In states where gay activists are pushing hard to legalize same-sex marriage, we keep hearing the same claim: This will not have an impact on our public schools.

That claim is simply untrue, and we need look no further than Massachusetts for evidence to the contrary.

Massachusetts was the first state to legalize full-fledged gay marriage. Not long after it was legalized, National Public Radio (NPR) featured an interview with an eighth-grade teacher, Ms. Allen, who was exuberant about her new-found freedom to talk about homosexuality in the classroom.

“In my mind, I know that, ‘OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, ‘Give me a break. It’s legal now,’ ” she told NPR.

The NPR reporter went on to explain that due to the gay marriage debate, Allen now discusses “gay sex” with students “thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.”

Allen explained in detail exactly how she explains this chart to kids: “All right. So can a woman and a woman kiss and hug? Yes. Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse?, and they will say no. And I’ll say, ‘Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy. They could use’—and we talk—and we discuss that. So the answer there is yes.” (From: "Debate in Massachusetts over how to address the issue of discussing gay relationships and sex in public school classrooms,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio, Sept. 13, 2004.)

It’s also disturbing to hear what’s happening at the elementary level in that state. Consider the parents in Lexington, Massachusetts, who complained that their kindergarten and second-grade age kids were exposed to storybooks introducing them to the idea of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Even more concerning were the school officials’ response to those parental concerns, as reported by The Associated Press: “Officials there say that since same-sex marriage is a part of life in Massachusetts, it comes up naturally and it’s impossible to notify parents every time the issue is discussed.”

“It certainly strengthens the argument that we need to teach about gay marriage because it’s more of a reality for our kids,”  Lexington Schools Superintendent Paul Ash said. (“Gay Marriage Foes Face Issue in Schools,” Associated Press, May 5, 2006.)

In light of these facts and public news accounts, is there really any serious question that legalizing gay marriage will tangibly and concretely affect our public schools? It’s simply disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on the issue of bullying in public schools, innocently titled, “Strengthening School Safety through Prevention of Bullying.”

What prompted this hearing is a bill currently under consideration in the  House (H.R. 2262) that would would give money to schools who agree to craft and implement “anti-bullying and harassment” policies.

Sounds good, right? Who wouldn’t want the government to give money to schools in order to help them keep our kids safe from bullying and harassment?

But look closer.  The government gets to tell schools which categories of bullying and harassment are “worthy” of protecting against.

Here are the magical categories over which if a student bullies  another, he or she is in big trouble:  race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion.

So under this bill,  if a student harasses another for reasons other than the ones listed above, it’s, somehow, less bad? Yes.

Put another way, if Joe punches Ryan in the nose because Ryan is a Christian or maybe self-identifies as gay, then Joe is deserving of serious punishment.  If Joe punches Ryan because Ryan is small and wears glasses, Joe is deserving of less punishment.  That is unequal treatment at it’s height.

The truth is that all kids who are on the receiving end of a bully’s actions should be protected equally.  Period.

A parent standing in the principal’s office with her wounded child wants the school to bring the full force of discipline on the bully for his act,  not for what the bully was thinking when he did it.   A bully might “think” a bad thought about any number of students during the school day.  But it’s his actions that should have consequences.

There’s another problem with the bill.  Mandating that a school’s anti-bullying policy spell-out the categories of  “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” introduces sexualized and often politicized topics into the school environment–where they don’t belong.

And gay activists will use this federal mandate as the leverage they need to promote homosexuality in public schools.  We’ve already seen evidence of this.  A school district in Alameda, California recently mandated a pro-gay curriculum for elementary kids.  Parents were told they could not opt their kids out, meaning that kids as young as first grade will be taught about same-sex couples whether parents like it or not.  Guess what the school used to justify the pro-gay curriculum? So-called “student safety” and “nondiscrimination” laws.

So make sure your Member of Congress hears from you that if the federal government is going to give money to schools for anti-bullying programs, the government shouldn’t mandate that some students are more deserving of protection from bullying than others.  And that our kids’ school environments shouldn’t be platforms for sexualized or politicized topics.