Effort to repeal California gay history law fails

[nofurylike]

Effort to repeal California gay history law fails
By Don Thompson
October 12, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/effort-repeal-cali...23359.html

-snip-

The groups wanted to force a vote on Senate Bill 48, the nation's first law requiring that public schools include gay rights milestones and gay and lesbian contributions in social studies lessons. It takes effect in January.

Groups that had been circulating signature petitions said they would not meet Wednesday's deadline.

-snip-

"Legislators in Sacramento have been put on notice if they pass something that is disrespectful to parents and the way parents want their children to be raised, they can and will, in one way or another, be held accountable," Dacus said in a telephone interview.

He said the groundswell of dissatisfaction was evident because his organization and the Capitol Resource Institute were able to gather thousands of signatures in just 90 days without time to raise the money needed to hire professional signature-gatherers.

-snip-

###

[jaxx]

Damned bigots, they just don't quit. The world has passed them by.

[nofurylike]

(10-13-2011 08:17 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Damned bigots, they just don't quit. The world has passed them by.

you said it, jaxx.
and yes, "the world has passed them by."

thank you!!

[RoyGBiv]

Well ... for an entirely different set of reasons than those put forward by the group trying to overturn this law, I don't like it either.

I do not like a legislature or even popular referendum dictating the content of public school courses. What is taught should be determined by a board of qualified, non-partisan professional educators who have expertise in the subject matter as opposed to board made up entirely of theoretical education professionals and politicians.

The same legal theory behind this law also rests behind the law that requires the teaching of creationism as a "theory" or that requires that the history of the Confederacy not use the word "treason."

The contributions of those who are gay to our history is important, but in most cases the importance of their contribution has little to nothing to do with the fact they are gay. That they are gay should be mentioned as a part of any biographical sketch of an individual, but unless that person was involved directly in a civil rights movement supportive in which the rights of homosexuals are relevant, this should not be the focus. There could be a "history of homosexuality" course, but that's a specialized subject probably not appropriate as a full-length course below the college level. It is rare even to find an "African American history" course dedicated just to AfAm history in high schools.

[nofurylike]

(10-13-2011 10:58 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Well ... for an entirely different set of reasons than those put forward by the group trying to overturn this law, I don't like it either.

I do not like a legislature or even popular referendum dictating the content of public school courses. What is taught should be determined by a board of qualified, non-partisan professional educators who have expertise in the subject matter as opposed to board made up entirely of theoretical education professionals and politicians.

The same legal theory behind this law also rests behind the law that requires the teaching of creationism as a "theory" or that requires that the history of the Confederacy not use the word "treason."

The contributions of those who are gay to our history is important, but in most cases the importance of their contribution has little to nothing to do with the fact they are gay. That they are gay should be mentioned as a part of any biographical sketch of an individual, but unless that person was involved directly in a civil rights movement supportive in which the rights of homosexuals are relevant, this should not be the focus. There could be a "history of homosexuality" course, but that's a specialized subject probably not appropriate as a full-length course below the college level. It is rare even to find an "African American history" course dedicated just to AfAm history in high schools.

Quote:The same legal theory behind this law also rests behind the law that requires the teaching of creationism as a "theory" or that requires that the history of the Confederacy not use the word "treason."

it is disgusting that it would take making a law, i will agree with that. but it did. lesbians and gays are viciously victimized human beings in desperate need of, and DESERVING, LIFE-SAVING normalization, not crackpot superstitious theories, or propagandist disinformation designed to further white-supremacism.

[RoyGBiv]

(10-13-2011 11:54 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  

Quote:The same legal theory behind this law also rests behind the law that requires the teaching of creationism as a "theory" or that requires that the history of the Confederacy not use the word "treason."

it is disgusting that it would take making a law, i will agree with that. but it did. lesbians and gays are viciously victimized human beings in desperate need of, and DESERVING, LIFE-SAVING normalization, not crackpot superstitious theories, or propagandist disinformation designed to further white-supremacism.

What part of this is confusing for you?

If legislatures or popular referendums are responsible for setting course curriculum, those legislatures and referendums can set any curriculum they want. I'm not saying history that includes the historical issues surrounding homosexuality should not be taught. I am saying that this should be determined by people who actually know something about it and not politicians and random voters who tend not to know a damn thing about anything.

[nofurylike]

(10-14-2011 03:49 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  What part of this is confusing for you?

If legislatures or popular referendums are responsible for setting course curriculum, those legislatures and referendums can set any curriculum they want. I'm not saying history that includes the historical issues surrounding homosexuality should not be taught. I am saying that this should be determined by people who actually know something about it and not politicians and random voters who tend not to know a damn thing about anything.

it did not confuse me, it hurt and offended me. equating adding lgbt...s to an already existing list of populations to be portrayed with accuracy and dignity in history curriculums, to legislating that creationism (a superstition) has to be taught, or that genocidal confederates must be protected from that truth, was degrading to me as a lesbian. what part of that is confusing to you, Roy?

education has been legally standardized by the government in this country for a very long time now. do you not feel that has been, and is, for the best?
that standardization is so that narrow minds can not restrict education to what serves their narrow cultural preferences and domination.

The Fair Education Act is not about "history that includes the historical issues surrounding homosexuality." heterosexual orientation is taught about historical figures all the time, and always has been, while homosexual orientation of historical figures has been CENSORED.

teachers are fired for voluntarily teaching the historical fact of certain historical figures being homosexual. there being such a law makes it possible to practice that equality without being stereotyped, and harmed, by sympathy/association.

"California already requires that when school districts adopt instructional materials, they seek to ensure that Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans are accurately portrayed. The new bill would add not only LGBT to that list, but also people with disabilities and Pacific Islanders."

|EXISTING LAW:
Existing law requires social sciences instructions of both men and women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people, and other ethnic groups to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society. Current law prohibits instruction or school-sponsored activities that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, ability, national origin, or ancestry.
Current law also prohibits the adoption of instructional materials that reflect negatively on any person because of their race, sex, color, creed, disability, national origin or ancestry. It also requires schools and governing boards to include only instructional materials that, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society.|


"people who actually know something about it" (to quote you) :

"The 325,000-member California Teachers Association supports SB 48. 'We believe that school curriculum materials should adequately portray the diversity of our society ... [and the bill] doesn’t impose an undue burden,' says spokesperson Mike Myslinski."

[RoyGBiv]

(10-15-2011 03:36 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  it did not confuse me, it hurt and offended me. equating adding lgbt...s to an already existing list of populations to be portrayed with accuracy and dignity in history curriculums, to legislating that creationism (a superstition) has to be taught, or that genocidal confederates must be protected from that truth, was degrading to me as a lesbian. what part of that is confusing to you, Roy?

No, nfl, I in no way "equated" teaching history inclusive of gays with teaching creationism. I am sorry you have chosen to feel offended due to your misinterpretation.

I pointed out, accurately, that the same legal theory that allows a legislature to set a curriculum that includes this history also allows them to include creationism, etc. I am also not saying this manner of setting curriculum doesn't exist everywhere. I am saying it shouldn't. If you like this setup, then do not for a moment complain when some other state uses it to enforce the teaching of subjects you do not like.

My point, as I will have said three times now, is that legislatures and public referendums should not dictate school curriculum. Boards composed of educators with subject matter expertise should do so. And that does not mean some collective organization's spokespeople should only attempt to influence policy through supportive legislation. It means those people actually setting policy themselves and not having to campaign for it through the TeeVee. Teachers' organizations support these things because they have no power. I say they should have most of it.

Quote:education has been legally standardized by the government in this country for a very long time now. do you not feel that has been, and is, for the best?

Please cite for me these standards and indicate which government you're talking about. I would like to look them up.

Quote:that standardization is so that narrow minds can not restrict education to what serves their narrow cultural preferences and domination.

So, would you care to apply this notion of yours to the cases of Kansas and creationism and Texas and banning the word "treason" from discussions of the Confederacy? Or, further, are you able to explain to me how this standardization you claim exists resulted, in Texas, with the creation of a curriculum for history that intentionally omits labor leaders, anyone who may have at one time possibly been a communist or come from the family of communists? How have these standards prevented narrow minds from essentially banning Eric Foner, the expert on Reconstruction in this country, from being cited in high school level history books because a) his father was blacklisted for being a Communist, and b) he writes from the perspective of blacks during Reconstruction and had the audacity to refer to many Texans as racist murderers during the period.

And, please advise on how all this functions in the face of the fact that Texas's history curriculum will end up dictating national curriculum for the most part due to the book publishers who use it as a guide. California will be different in this because they have a large enough population to support their own publishers, but they are still influenced by Texas.

How have the not narrow minded been avoided by legislatively controlled school curriculum given these things?

[nofurylike]

do you think the current law in california - which "requires social sciences instructions of both men and women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people, and other ethnic groups to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society" - invites "law that requires the teaching of creationism as a 'theory' or that requires that the history of the Confederacy not use the word 'treason.'"?

if so, do you think that is reason for not having that current law?

[RoyGBiv]

(10-16-2011 01:42 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  if so, do you think that is reason for not having that current law?

I think you're determined to twist this into a discussion that was in no way even implied in my original message. I will not be baited any further into it.

If you cannot see the difference between what I am saying and what you want to argue about, continue to refuse to address the points I raise, and act as though I am purposefully insulting someone, we don't have anything to discuss on this matter.

[nofurylike]

(10-17-2011 09:40 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(10-16-2011 01:42 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  if so, do you think that is reason for not having that current law?

I think you're determined to twist this into a discussion that was in no way even implied in my original message. I will not be baited any further into it.

If you cannot see the difference between what I am saying and what you want to argue about, continue to refuse to address the points I raise, and act as though I am purposefully insulting someone, we don't have anything to discuss on this matter.

i asked you a question that is pertinent to what you originally stated. i would appreciate an answer, but not answering is your right, of course.