DriveThru – Get What You Need

Yesterday, The Denver Post brought to my attention yet another piece of legislation pending in the U.S.  House that gay activists could use as a political tool to force their will upon schools nationwide:

It’s called the Student Nondiscrimination Act, and it was proposed this week by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado).

That sounds nice, doesn’t it? I mean, who would be against preventing discrimination?  But this bill is more sinister than it sounds.  

If passed, it would use federal mandates to micromanage local school policy all the way down to the elementary level. It would do this by mandating that every public school in the nation enforce special protections for pro-gay categories like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Why is that a problem?

 First of all, it would open our schools up to a new wave of expensive lawsuits, at a time when they are already burdened by unprecedented litigation.

The proposed legislation calls for noncompliers to not only be liable for providing “compensatory damages” and in danger of losing grants, but also to be written up in a report that is filed with a U.S. House committee. The term draconian might be an understatement in this case.

And it’s unclear exactly how “discrimination” will be defined, which is concerning–especially in light of recent cases involving attempts to censor Christian student groups for having values deemed to conflict with pro-gay “nondiscrimination” policies.

Secondly, the bill would give gay activists the leverage they need to force their agenda—against parents’ will—into public schools, again, all the way down to the kindergarten level. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Just consider recent history.

If this legislation doesn’t make it through, supporters have a backup waiting in the wings that’s equally threatening to local control. It’s called the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Both bills are heavily supported by the largest gay-activist groups in the nation, including the Human Rights Campaign and GLSEN (the organization created by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings.)

As I explained to the The Denver Post, bullying is a serious problem that should be addressed (at the local level), but you can do so without sexualizing and politicizing the entire school environment. The emphasis should be on the wrong actions of the bullies, not on their “perceived” motivations.

There’s been a growing movement afoot for states to “voluntarily” adopt national curriculum standards. So far 47 states have signed up (the holdouts are Alaska, Texas and South Carolina).

“Voluntary” is a subjective word, since it’s becoming obvious how the Obama Administration intends to use federal funding as a stick to force contrarians into line.

While this is a concerning trend, it’s not really time for flashing sirens yet—because, so far, academics are still fighting amongst themselves over who exactly should have input into the final standards and what they should look like. It remains to be seen whether the states can agree.

So I guess you could say the threat level is yellow.  In the meantime, we can look to England for some insight into where this might lead.

In 1989, England implemented a national curriculum with a call for uniformity on core subjects. But what started as core standards, now includes compulsory sex education classes that teach kids about homosexuality and same-sex unions.   Apparently, faith-based schools are not exempt—they’ll have to engage in controversial teaching, while explaining that it “runs contrary to their religious beliefs.”

Others experts have expressed concerns that politically correct agendas are edging out core subjects and that student performance on national tests has stalled in recent years.

So before we embark on another failed experiment, perhaps we should learn a lesson from our friends across the ocean.