California's "Gay History" Bill

[Sayonara]

yes' date=' but why does the scenario actually exist?

Is 'gay history' not being taught for homophobic reasons, or because it's genuinely not of enough academic interest to justify it's teaching in school? I'd guess it's the latter, hence my thinking she's wrong in her statement.[/quote']

Or, surprise third option, perhaps it is actually of some academic value, but conservative parties such as the Campaign for Children and Families, and "traditional values" nod nod wink wink, actually have managed to keep the nasty ungodly homos out of text books.

 

Think of all the gay people who are major names in history. If you can't, that's a shame - because there are plenty of pivotal figures on the list - but that pretty much demonstrates the need for the bill.

 

it's history focusing on gay people. 'gay history'.

I disagree strongly. The specification of a property of a thing does not magically overshadow the function of that thing.

 

there have been many midgets throught history, many of whom i'm sure have been valuable members of our society; but, do we specifically focus on midgets who have contributed to society just to prove that they do?

You are being misleading. The bill does not aim to make any curriculum "specifically focus on" anything; it merely requires some of that information to be made available at some point during the course. This is a world away from ramming "gay history" down peoples' throats.

 

no, and i really dont see why we should specifically point out someones sexuality in a history class unless it's relevent to understanding the history being discussed.

Because everything is connected, and we should want to learn from the mistakes of a past society that may have derided or elevated inventors, artists, etc on the basis of their personal characteristics, so that we can all better our own society together.

 

Society is not "us lot, oh - and the gays and midgets too I guess, as long as they are quiet". It's everyone.

 

IMO, this is highly relevent from an historical pov ...

BUT, if someone were to suggest passing a law stating that women who had achieved stuff should be found and students tought about them just to show them that women are capable of being useful i'd react in the same way as i am to this proposed bill

Well, bear in mind the "useful" bit came from me, not the proponents of the bill. Their aim is to stop the trend of passively making homosexual contributions disappear, which - need I point out - is reactive and not aggressive.

 

No, but i'd accuse you of adding in completely irrelevent facts for no reason whatsoever; if you want to do that, thats fine, but legally obliging people to do so kinda turns the mole-hill into a mountain IMO.

The requirement is to make the information available, not to force people to learn it. In lessons at all academic levels, varied ancillary information is given out to put people and events into context. Randomly deciding that one particular kind of information is "irrelevant" pretty much signals bias as far as I am concerned.

 

If we are in a position where the law has to be used to get some things taught, then we should first be questioning how the situation came to be in the first place, not objecting just for the sake of continuity.

 

I think you are perhaps objecting to a set of circumstances that have not been proposed. I sincerely doubt that pupils will be flunking their exams because they don't know who is straight and who is not.

[Sayonara]

You seem to be indicating that you feel that some special interest groups can be held to have higher moral character than others, and trusted with regard to dealing with local government officials. Specifically, the gay SIGs can be trusted not to distort the purpose of education, but the creationist SIGs cannot. Even in cases where neither is asking for anything overtly wrong.

I do not believe I mentioned morals or trust at any point.

 

This has to do with the high-level usefulness of the changes to society as a whole, and nothing else.

 

IMHO encouraging a civilisation to be more aware of its own diversity and the details of how it arrived at the here and now is far far more useful than sneaking in a specific religious doctrine via the back door, and I am certain that some part of you agrees with that.

 

Shouldn't we view all SIGs with the same skeptical eye, regardless of who they represent?

Absolutely, but scepticism does not require denial.

 

 

You have ignored some of my questions, by the way.

[padren]

My main point here is that a special interest group is a special interest group is a special interest group. Whether it's creationism' date=' anti-tobacco, environmental, or whatever, doesn't really change the fact that the general approach of these groups is always more or less the same. The goal is the only variable.

 

That being the case, shouldn't we be every bit as leery of a "gay activist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum as we are about a "creationist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum?[/quote']

 

Weren't there various groups lobbying to modify the historical numbers of native americans killed to reflect more accurate research?

 

We are talking about teaching history as accurately as possible: in this case, homosexuals have for a long time been forced to hide their orientation and live in the closet, passing themselves off as successful influential hetrosexuals leading to a general difficulty in naming any homosexuals that actually were influential in the shaping of our society and a general false sense that homosexuals have not contributed.

 

All this bill wants to do, is help ensure that gay people are more accurately portrayed so as to counter that long entrenched false perspective.

 

 

Creationists, on the other hand, are trying to introduce the Intelligent Design concept as a scientific theory on par and a counterpoint to The Theory of Evolution.

 

Their conviction does not arise from the conclusions of their research, nor do they feel their research is anything more than a formality...hence they tend to rally around arguments that involve watch makers and bananas.

 

There is no rational basis for creationism to be taught as a scientific counterpoint to invalidate the natural sciences, whereas acknowledging the contributions of gay individuals in history can actually help reverse a well established bias, using nothing but mentioning a little more proven factual information.

 

 

 

 

I understand the dangers of actitivists and education - activists can often get there way not by the substance of their arguments but by the power of their political connections.

 

That is dangerous, but to close off the "activist angle" entirely would prevent any kind of grass roots critique on our education system, which is a system regularily in serious need of critique.

[Pangloss]

You have ignored some of my questions' date=' by the way.[/quote']

 

And you've read a great deal between the lines of what I've been saying here. I'm not sure why, because we seem to agree 100%, but you seem bound and determined to find some sort of subterfuge in my posts.

 

 

Creationists' date=' on the other hand, are trying to introduce the Intelligent Design concept as a scientific theory on par and a counterpoint to The Theory of Evolution.[/quote']

 

But they've also asked for relgion to be taught as history, separate from science, and those efforts have often been met with rebuke by the scientific community as well, on the basis that they're just part of furthering their secret agenda.

 

My only point here is just that all special interest groups have agendas. None of them are about "what's best for the people" -- they're about achieving those goals, whatever it takes. People should understand that and not just accept one or another because of who the special interest group represents.

 

Skepticism only works when it's applied in equal measure. Why is skepticism acceptable when we're talking about creationists, but when it's gay rights then the skeptic is pawned off as a homophobe? Why is skepticism acceptable when we're talking about consverative fiscal policy, but when it comes to the environment the skeptics are pawned off as "global warming deniers"?

 

(Again, I don't mean that that's happened here in this forum. I'm talking about the larger stage.)

[padren]

But they've also asked for relgion to be taught as history' date=' separate from science, and those efforts have often been met with rebuke by the scientific community as well, on the basis that they're just part of furthering their secret agenda. [/quote']

 

I'll assume you mean "rebuked by [some members of] the scientific community" given that many members (even here) are religious themselves and many non-religious people aren't so jumpy.

 

As always, the exact nature of the instances need to be examined: its not hard to believe that while some religous groups may be very careful with what they propose as defendable historical fact, others may not, and [members of] the scientific community may be rejecting shoddy research more than the idea of teaching the cultural influences religions have had in shaping the world.

 

If the research is in fact shoddy in those cases, it would be fair to assume that the activists are more about pushing an agenda than improving historical accuracies.

 

 

My only point here is just that all special interest groups have agendas. None of them are about "what's best for the people" -- they're about achieving those goals' date=' whatever it takes. People should understand that and not just accept one or another because of who the special interest group represents.

[/quote']

 

That is very jaded. People start special interest groups (at least at the grass roots level) because they are concerned for the general welfare. Whether its healthy lunches or the stigma gay students recieve, or the poisoning of God's Word in the classroom, I think they often stem from compassion, even if sometimes horribly misguided.

 

Also, no one at all is suggesting we accept one or another because of who the special interest group represents, but solely and wholely on the merits of their proposal.

 

If the horribly evil Rev Phelps himself (who pickets gay funerals) came up with a good idea that helped the education system in a real way, I'd be all in favor of it. If he then tried to use that as a springboard for some evil plan, naturally people should slap him upside the head and reject whatever his "phase two" idea was, but again its still all based on the merits of the plan and not on the messenger.

 

 

Skepticism only works when it's applied in equal measure. Why is skepticism acceptable when we're talking about creationists' date=' but when it's gay rights then the skeptic is pawned off as a homophobe? Why is skepticism acceptable when we're talking about consverative fiscal policy, but when it comes to the environment the skeptics are pawned off as "global warming deniers"?

 

(Again, I don't mean that that's happened here in this forum. I'm talking about the larger stage.)[/quote']

 

Skepticism should work on an equal measure, and I think most people would agree with that. The issue you bring up is one of stigmas and association.

There is a history of creationists trying to dismantle the natural sciences, and it is harder now for moderate groups that just want corrobrorated historical evidence of religious figures lives taught in schools, which is an unjust stigma, but not mysterious.

 

There are also a lot of people that outright reject homosexuality for irrational religious reasons, and try to use false information to create false rational debates on the topic, when they are not even honestly open to a rational debate. This has caused harm and there is a stigma.

 

There is also evidence of corporations paying to obtain sympathetic environmental research to counter well conducted research. Of course, corporations aren't the only ones who do that - so do environmental groups - but we rarely end up with superfund sites from those so the stigma again is on the former.

 

I am not saying the stigmas are fair or just, I am only pointing out they are understandable in origin, and while we should strive to overcome them all they are not mysterious in nature.

[Pangloss]

I'll assume you mean "rebuked by [some members of] the scientific community" given that many members (even here) are religious themselves and many non-religious people aren't so jumpy.

 

Sure' date=' that's a fair point, but when the leader of the largest and most influential skeptical organization in the world labels anybody who is skeptical about global warming as a "global warming denier" then I think that's something we have to be wary of.

 

 

That is very jaded. People start special interest groups (at least at the grass roots level) because they are concerned for the general welfare. (etc)

 

It's a fair point, and worth considering, I agree.

 

But it doesn't ultimately counter my point about the need for skepticism.

 

 

Also, no one at all is suggesting we accept one or another because of who the special interest group represents

 

Well I'm not sure that's the case, but if it is, then isn't that a full-stop, end-of-discussion agreement with my point?

 

I think that the specific example I chose in Post #1 must have been a really good one, because it seems to have really made some folks nervous!

 

 

Skepticism should work on an equal measure, and I think most people would agree with that.

 

Again, full-stop, end-of-discussion agreement. Why go on from there?

 

 

The issue you bring up is one of stigmas and association. There is a history of creationists trying to dismantle the natural sciences, and it is harder now for moderate groups that just want corrobrorated historical evidence of religious figures lives taught in schools, which is an unjust stigma, but not mysterious.

 

Oof, there goes the wind from the sails. You say that as if there's no history of the gay and lesbian community having any kind of controversy in their agendas! Nothing like, oh I don't know, deliberate outings of celebrities, involvement in military personnel issues, legitimizing gay parenting, opposition to research that doesn't suit the gay agenda, oh no, nothing like that!

[padren]

Sure' date=' that's a fair point, but when the leader of the largest and most influential skeptical organization in the world labels anybody who is skeptical about global warming as a "global warming denier" then I think that's something we have to be wary of.

[/quote']

Again, I think we are 100% on the same page there. I am not familiar with the individual or that aspect of the global warming debate, but it sounds like the fellow made an emotional statement rather than a rational one. It sounds like a stupid thing to say, as most statements of generalized ridicule are.

 

 

It's a fair point' date=' and worth considering, I agree.

 

But it doesn't ultimately counter my point about the need for skepticism.

[/quote']

 

100% on that, though I think the bill in question regarding homesexuals in history passes the skeptical tests.

 

Well I'm not sure that's the case' date=' but if it is, then isn't that a full-stop, end-of-discussion agreement with my point?

 

I think that the specific example I chose in Post #1 must have been a really good one, because it seems to have really made some folks nervous!

[/quote']

 

I am willing to bet it is the case, because if gay activist groups called for creationism to be taught in schools, it would be met with the same skepticism that it would from creationists.

 

I would agree its a full-stop, except you suggest in your OP that the reason why creationist and homosexual activist agendas are treated differently is because of special treatment of the latter group itself, instead of the latter having an actual worthy agenda that has passed skeptical review.

 

 

Oof' date=' there goes the wind from the sails. You say that as if there's no history of the gay and lesbian community having any kind of controversy in their agendas! Nothing like, oh I don't know, deliberate outings of celebrities, involvement in military personnel issues, legitimizing gay parenting, opposition to research that doesn't suit the gay agenda, oh no, nothing like that![/quote']

 

People have attacked them sure, and I wouldn't doubt some people have been outed against their will because some person or group wanted that to happen, but the agenda some have of "being treated equally" is pretty benign and I dare say, tame. Try preventing black people from adopting kids or bar them from the military for "making good white folk uneasy" and see what happens.

 

But before you drop those sails, let me ask you this: Are you saying that culturally, gay rights groups do share an equal stigma that creationist groups do in the education system for the reasons you cited?

 

We are talking about the stigma attached to these generalized groups in their attempts to push unfounded or biased material for their agenda upon students. I learned that Newton was a christian in school, and I am sure if a religous group found that christians in the sciences where systematically having their religious beliefs buried and not printed, that they would have a merited case in changing the textbooks. I think their case would survive any stigma within the educational system that may be caused by being painted with the same brush as the creationist whackos.

[Jim]

True, but there are just a few more issues covered by the Constitution than merely the separation of church and state.

 

Certainly but I'm not aware of any that would preclude a local school board from deciding to teach black history, gay history, Irish history or really any kind of history. I'm only pointing out that analytically these two issues are in completely different ball parks and it doesn't surprise me that they might have different resolutions.

 

I'm not sure if it runs afoul of the first amendment as might a creationist viewpoint in a public high school text book.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid bill:

 

SB 1437 reads in part, "No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion."

 

The bill also requires all social studies textbooks to "study the role and contributions of...people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender...with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."

 

What if the academic truth is that trangenders have not made a particularly huge contribution on balance. How does this even get "studied?" Do we factor in negative actions to counterbalance the positive? Is it important whether transgendered have contributed more than straights? What if they have contributed when analyzing objective measures (GNP contribution, taxes contributed vrs. taxes used) but not as much as straights. Is this even an issue we want "studied?"

 

The answer, of course, is no. The bills authors do not want analysis; they want anecdotal feel good sections that advocate. It's a stupid bill but it presents different issues from having creationist text books in public schools.

[Dak]

link

The bill also requires all social studies[/b'] textbooks to "study the role and contributions of...people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender...with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society."

 

I was tired; i misread the enboldened bit above as 'history books'. the study of different groups of people is what social studies is about, and the exclusion of gays from this is, of course, extremely hard to justify.

 

also,

 

Not requiring textbooks to include homosexuals' and transgenders' contributions to California history amounts to "enforced invisibility," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Democrat lesbian who introduced the bill.

 

i misinterpreted this as 'not requiring by law that history text-books include homosexuals' and transgenders' contributions to California history amounts to legally preventing their inclusion', which should explain my 'imbecil' comment.

 

I also missed the fact that 'enforsed invisibility' was the only direct quote, and read 'CNS news' as 'CNN news', and so trusted the source to not be overy-biased.

 

i was tired, ok

 

that said, i'm going to retract/rebuke some of my own statements (some still stand).

 

Or, surprise third option, perhaps it is actually of some academic value, but conservative parties such as the Campaign for Children and Families, and "traditional values" nod nod wink wink, actually have[/u'] managed to keep the nasty ungodly homos out of text books.

 

that would pretty much be the first option that i suggested: "'gay history' not being taught for homophobic reasons"

 

I disagree strongly. The specification of a property of a thing does not magically overshadow the function of that thing.

 

I dont understand.

 

but...

 

SB 1473 (amended)

Instruction in social sciences shall include the early

history of California and a study of the role and contributions of

[...] people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, 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.

 

it's history focusing on gay people, as opposed to 'gay history' or 'history with gay people left in', both of which would be different.

 

I still maintain that this would be an unjustified hijacking if it was to be done in a history class, but it's not -- it's for social studies class.

 

You are being misleading. The bill does not aim to make any curriculum "specifically focus on" anything; it merely requires some of that information to be made available at some point during the course. This is a world away from ramming "gay history" down peoples' throats.

 

if so it was unintentionally.

 

by 'specifically focus' I meant that homosexuals, both contemporary and historical, were being specifically targetted for inclusion in the sylabus; not that they were the main focus or anything.

 

anyway, it was an argument against slanting the history sylabus to overly focus on gays, rather than against the inclusion of historical gay figures in the social science unit (which is what has actually been adopted)

 

no, and i really dont see why we should specifically point out someones sexuality in a history class unless it's relevent to understanding the history being discussed.

 

(and all the other arguments against focusing on gays within history class)

 

I objected to the above scenario due to it's insiduouseness and it's hijacking of the academic process to promote the currently reccomended political ideology.

 

BUT, the bill requires the inclusion of gays throughout time in social studies class, not history class.

 

social studies is for studying variouse aspects of our society, and so the exclusion of gays (contemporary and historical) from this course would be (obviously) extremely hard to justify.

 

The requirement is to make the information available, not to force people to learn it.

 

no, people will be required to either learn it or fail the unit, as it is to be included in the social studies unit.

 

In lessons at all academic levels, varied ancillary information is given out to put people and events into context. Randomly deciding that one particular kind of information is "irrelevant" pretty much signals bias as far as I am concerned.

 

there is no bias. einsteins sexual orientation is irrelevent to his theories, or to the understanding of his theories. one's sexual orientation is, as far as i am concerned, irrelevent in the majority of cases; in fact, arbritrarily attatching some kind of relevance to someones sexuality is, by definition, more indicitive of bias than to concider ones sexuality irrelevent.

 

the fact that people aren't being required to teach about historical gay people outside of social studies makes this point irrelevent either way.

 

You are being misleading.

 

I think you are perhaps objecting to a set of circumstances that have not been proposed.

 

yup (see above). I think i managed to also pull you into defending a set of circumstances that have not been adopted. soz about that.

 

==========

 

i still think this bill is a tad heavy-handed, and the wrong way of addressing the issue, but tbh this may stem from my ignorance of american law/educational regulation rather than any genuinly valid point.

 

so... can someone more familiar in this area tell me what the californian education code is? i.e. is it law, eduacational policy, or both?

 

as i read it, the bit that was recently amended (the bit were talking about) was "REQUIRED COURSES OF STUDY (General Provisions)", which seems to be a curriculum outline, but also law?

[Pangloss]

I am willing to bet it is the case' date=' because if gay activist groups called for creationism to be taught in schools, it would be met with the same skepticism that it would from creationists.

[/quote']

 

(chuckle) Nice turn of phrase, there.

 

 

I would agree its a full-stop, except you suggest in your OP that the reason why creationist and homosexual activist agendas are treated differently is because of special treatment of the latter group itself, instead of the latter having an actual worthy agenda that has passed skeptical review.

 

It IS because the latter group gets special treatment, and IMO nobody EVER gets to "pass skeptical review". Skepticism is never a one-shot, pass/fail deal, where you get your license and move on and never get treated with a jaundiced eye ever again. Every proposal should be scrutinized with exactly the same level as skepticism as the one before it.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the theme of this thread -- the power we endow special interest groups with, when we fail to be skeptical about their motives and whether or not their goals actually ARE "what's best for everyone".

 

I'll be even more evangelical about this: I believe that if you give an ideological pass to any special interest group, regardless of its current motives and goals, they will BECOME corrupt and dangerous, no matter who they are.

 

 

But before you drop those sails, let me ask you this: Are you saying that culturally, gay rights groups do share an equal stigma that creationist groups do in the education system for the reasons you cited?

 

I have to acknowledge the point that Sayo made earlier about SIGs having a role to play in our society. Doesn't mean I have to like it. They're a cop-out to serve people too busy to do the dirty work themselves. We shouldn't need them. Maybe we do, but we shouldn't.

 

So I'm not saying that all special interest groups are evil and dangerous. I'm saying that they all have that potential, and must be watched carefully and kept in check.

 

As Ike put it when talking about one specific SIG, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." He could just as easily have been talking about any and all SIGs. And probably would have, had he been asked.

[padren]

It IS because the latter group gets special treatment' date=' and IMO nobody EVER gets to "pass skeptical review". Skepticism is never a one-shot, pass/fail deal, where you get your license and move on and never get treated with a jaundiced eye ever again. Every proposal should be scrutinized with exactly the same level as skepticism as the one before it.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the theme of this thread -- the power we endow special interest groups with, when we fail to be skeptical about their motives and whether or not their goals actually ARE "what's best for everyone".

 

I'll be even more evangelical about this: I believe that if you give an ideological pass to any special interest group, regardless of its current motives and goals, they will BECOME corrupt and dangerous, [i']no matter who they are[/i].

 

I agree absolutely, but I wasn't talking about anybody or group getting to "pass skeptical review" at all, but that each item any group wants to submit must pass skeptical review before it is adopted, and continue to be able to survive future challanges should they come up.

 

 

I have to acknowledge the point that Sayo made earlier about SIGs having a role to play in our society. Doesn't mean I have to like it. They're a cop-out to serve people too busy to do the dirty work themselves. We shouldn't need them. Maybe we do' date=' but we shouldn't.

[/quote']

I think there is a blurring of terminology. The term SIG applies as much to industrial lobbyists as it does to a group of 20 parents in a small town trying to get the local government to approve a highway fence near a playground.

 

I agree with you that it is unpleasant that we seem to have to allow huge SIGs with too much money that run amok in order to protect the smaller healthy ones.

So I'm not saying that all special interest groups are evil and dangerous. I'm saying that they all have that potential' date=' and must be watched carefully and kept in check.

[/quote']

 

I agree here too, and I guess your feeling is that while we watch creationists carefully, we let other groups like homosexual rights groups get by without being watched carefully. I can respect that opinion, but I personally don't feel the bill cited in the OP is an example of something getting by due to a lack of skepticism...I think its an example of something that happens to meet the grade. We can agree to disagree or debate the merits of the bill, since I think it may be the key point we actually disagree on.

 

What if the academic truth is that trangenders have not made a particularly huge contribution on balance. How does this even get "studied?" Do we factor in negative actions to counterbalance the positive? Is it important whether transgendered have contributed more than straights? What if they have contributed when analyzing objective measures (GNP contribution' date=' taxes contributed vrs. taxes used) but not as much as straights. Is this even an issue we want "studied?"

 

The answer, of course, is no. The bills authors do not want analysis; they want anecdotal feel good sections that advocate. It's a stupid bill but it presents different issues from having creationist text books in public schools.[/quote']

 

Jim, I don't think its trying to go that far. I would interpret the first section as you can't say because a person was black or gay they were evil etc.

 

For the second part, I think that means "hey, if you are going to teach about the life of Walt Whitmen don't sweep the stuff you don't like under the rug and play him off as a good ol assumed-to-be straight guy that contributed to american poetry...unlike those no-good gays." instead of "lets calculate the GNP by sexual orientation" or anything.

[Severian]

For the second part' date=' I think that means "hey, if you are going to teach about the life of Walt Whitmen don't sweep the stuff you don't like under the rug and play him off as a good ol assumed-to-be straight guy that contributed to american poetry...unlike those no-good gays." instead of "lets calculate the GNP by sexual orientation" or anything.[/quote']

 

If that is what it means then it needs reworded.

 

The expression used was "study the role and contributions of...people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender...with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society." To me, this sounds like emphasising the sexual orientation of a historical figure as being the cause (or major contributing factor) of their 'great dead'. The implication is that it is gay society as a whole which has played the contributing role rather than the individual. Since the individual may or may not have been influenced by his or her sexual orientation I think this is an unfair representation.

 

Also, I dislike the labeling and stereotyping implied by the expression 'these groups'.

[YT2095]

The curvy things look rather labial...

 

you guys are strange! I saw a Coffee bean the 1`st time I saw it, ok, a rather Anaemic Coffee Bean, but non the less...

[john5746]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200605%5CCUL20060505b.html

 

Why bother learning gay history? I mean' date=' if someone played an inportant part in history, why specifically point out his/her sexuality, unless it was specifically relevent?

 

[/quote']

 

One problem I see off-hand is that in the past it seemed to be OK to see villians or victims as gay, not a hero or leader. Hollywood's love affair with homosexuals is changing that and since most Americans are educated by TV and movies, this will probably have a larger effect than schools. Although, Hollywood still likes the victim role.

[insane_alien]

Why is peoples sexuality so important? Alexander the great was gay, so what? does it make a difference, no.

[Jim]

One problem I see off-hand is that in the past it seemed to be OK to see villians or victims as gay, not a hero or leader. Hollywood's love affair with homosexuals is changing that and since most Americans are educated by TV and movies, this will probably have a larger effect than schools. Although, Hollywood still likes the victim role.

 

Jim' date=' I don't think its trying to go that far. I would interpret the first section as you can't say because a person was black or gay they were evil etc.

 

For the second part, I think that means "hey, if you are going to teach about the life of Walt Whitmen don't sweep the stuff you don't like under the rug and play him off as a good ol assumed-to-be straight guy that contributed to american poetry...unlike those no-good gays." instead of "lets calculate the GNP by sexual orientation" or anything.

[/quote']

 

I see no problem with having some references to homosexuality in text books. It is, after all, a part of our culture. I do not agree with a state legislature trying to force an outcome which seems to call for more than a neutral description of facts. Banning text books that "reflect adversely" on an ethnic group and requiring the course be slanted to only provide the positive "contributions" is very Brave New Worldish.

 

Would comments similar to those now being made by Bill Cosby "reflect adversely" on his race? What if a text book included a Bell Curve type section in its materials? Do the Tulsa Race Riots reflect adversely on my race?

 

Does it reflect adversely on homosexuals to teach that Alexander the Great was gay? [Dang, while drafting this someone beat me to the Alexander reference! ] Alexander cut a brutal swath through Persia and has been aptly compared to Hitler. Can these books say that J. Edgar Hoover wore women's clothes?

 

Look at the breadth of this thing:

 

No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion."

 

Where relevant, I have no problem with a textbook author telling my kids that a particular historical or literary figure was gay. I don't think you can or should dictate a particular spin in an academic setting. Just put out the facts and let the kids make up their own minds.

[Dak]

The problem I have is for the state legislature to try to force an outcome which seems to call for more than a neutral description of facts. Making it a crime to write a text book which "reflects adversely" on am ethnic group and to require the course be slanted to provide the positive "contributions" is very Brave New Worldish.

 

it doesnt illegalise the wrighting of books that paint gays etc in a bad light, just says that schools can't use that book.

 

is this actually legislature then? or just a sylabus-type-thing?

[Jim]

it doesnt illegalise the wrighting of books that paint gays etc in a bad light' date=' just says that schools can't use that book.

 

is this actually legislature then? or just a sylabus-type-thing?[/quote']

 

Right. I edited my earlier post to say that the law effectively bans the text books, not criminalize them. Basically the books are banned from public schools. I can see a lot of litigation in California on what exactly "reflects adversely" on various races, sexual orientations, etc. In light of the law, publishers are going to play it safe.

 

You are supposed to teach kids that gays have made positive contributions. If the good actions of gays reflects positively on the group, then the bad actions of particular gays would presumably reflect adversely. Then you've got to figure out if a historical figure like Alexander or J. Edgar Hoover was a good or bad guy. Then we can litigate who actually was gay or transexual. Do we really know for sure about either Alexander or Hoover's private lives?

[padren]

 

Look at the breadth of this thing:

 

No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity' date=' gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion."

[/quote']

 

Please note the red bold, since it is key to the context to the black bold text...

 

You can say anything you want about Hilter or Alexander the great, even though you mention in the same text that Hitler's ethnicity was white or whatever. You just can't say that he was bad because of his ethnicity. If any academic evidence does come up that can demonstrate a connection between "evil" and a person's race, ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion....then naturally the bill will be challanged. However, outside some circles such as the KKK, it is fairly well accepted that research shows that such a connection doesn't exist.

 

 

I think it is fair for schools to want to counter the bias. How many teachers in the 50s would actually speak to Michelangelo's sexual orientation, or the works inspired by his affairs with male lovers?

 

How many text book printers today, wanting to avoid being targeted conservative SIGs the way Disney was, would choose to just leave some facts out...even if it did contribute to the false impression that only straight people ever did anything for the world?

 

If that is what it means then it needs reworded.

 

The expression used was "study the role and contributions of...people who are lesbian' date=' gay, bisexual, or transgender...with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society." To me, this sounds like emphasising the sexual orientation of a historical figure as being the cause (or major contributing factor) of their 'great dead'. The implication is that it is gay society as a whole which has played the contributing role rather than the individual. Since the individual may or may not have been influenced by his or her sexual orientation I think this is an unfair representation.

 

Also, I dislike the labeling and stereotyping implied by the expression 'these groups'. [/font']

 

I think sexuality may be the source or instigating force behind some great works of literature and poetry, in which orientation was a factor, but I don't think any group who is trying to just for once be accepted as equal is going to turn around and say "we are better than you because of sexual orientation.

Its completely counter to the whole point of the gay rights movement - the idea that gay people are completely equal and that orientation does not change them into lesser [or greater] people.

[Jim]

Please note the red bold' date=' since it is key to the context to the black bold text...

 

You can say anything you want about Hilter or Alexander the great, even though you mention in the same text that Hitler's ethnicity was white or whatever. You just can't say that he was bad [i']because[/i] of his ethnicity. If any academic evidence does come up that can demonstrate a connection between "evil" and a person's race, ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion....then naturally the bill will be challenged. However, outside some circles such as the KKK, it is fairly well accepted that research shows that such a connection doesn't exist.

 

Causation can be implied. If you go out of your way to point out that a serial killer was homosexual then you don't have to say directly that the homosexuality caused the killings. The use of the words "any" and "reflecting" often the word "because" in this legislation. Suppose a text book incorrectly states, "Hitler, was of course, gay." The only reason for this inaccurate and gratuitous statement is to malign gays.

 

If this part of the statute does anything, it can't be limited to banning statements of strict causation. I doubt seriously there are any textbooks in the California public schools which say "homosexuality causes XY&Z social ills." The entire point of the act is to chill negative speech and by using such fuzzy words, they will make publishers censor themselves.

 

I think it is fair for schools to want to counter the bias. How many teachers in the 50s would actually speak to Michelangelo's sexual orientation, or the works inspired by his affairs with male lovers?

 

How many text book printers today, wanting to avoid being targeted conservative SIGs the way Disney was, would choose to just leave some facts out...even if it did contribute to the false impression that only straight people ever did anything for the world?

 

 

If you are going to censor, then at least be specific. Do not make such an amorphous restriction that publishers end up refraining from saying anything that has to do with sexual orientation.

I think sexuality may be the source or instigating force behind some great works of literature and poetry, in which orientation was a factor, but I don't think any group who is trying to just for once be accepted as equal is going to turn around and say "we are better than you because of sexual orientation.

 

I certainly agree which is a good reason to dislike this law. Text books will stay far away from anything sexual for fear of some SIG suing them for casting an adverse reflection on their group.

 

Its completely counter to the whole point of the gay rights movement - the idea that gay people are completely equal and that orientation does not change them into lesser [or greater] people.

[john5746]

The curvy things look rather labial...

 

Thought I would add a phalic symbol as my avatar. Now, If I can just get under Sayo...

[Dak]

lol.

 

 

what about the kkk... their take on christianity is that the killing of blacks is sanctioned by god.

 

terrorist islams take on islam is that the killing of civilians is sanctioned by allah.

 

surely, in these two cases their religions genuinely reflect badly on them.

 

"No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their [...] religion."

 

would having stuff about the KKK or terrorist islamics in a text-book prevent its adoption by schools?

 

what about paedophillia (reflecting badly upon because of their sexual orientation)?

 

Do all three of these groups have to avoid being talked about to avoid painting them in a bad light (bearing in mind that the bill seems to be some kind of legeslature, so presumably schools would leave themself open to suing if they breach the bill).

[Sayonara]

And you've read a great deal between the lines of what I've been saying here. I'm not sure why, because we seem to agree 100%, but you seem bound and determined to find some sort of subterfuge in my posts.

If I am reading between the lines, and appear to be looking for "subterfuge", it is only because you are not supplying full reasoning for the objections you have stated. I am not trying to be combative; I am simply trying to establish a better understanding of your position.

 

Perhaps we do agree on some key points but it should not have to fall to me to guess at your logic.

 

Do you not have any thoughts on the meat and bones of my last post?

 

 

 

What if the academic truth is that trangenders have not made a particularly huge contribution on balance. How does this even get "studied?" Do we factor in negative actions to counterbalance the positive? Is it important whether transgendered have contributed more than straights? What if they have contributed when analyzing objective measures (GNP contribution, taxes contributed vrs. taxes used) but not as much as straights. Is this even an issue we want "studied?"

I think you are missing the point slightly.

 

The value of this bill is not that it shows gays etc do contribute, but that they can contribute.

 

 

 

that would pretty much be the first option that i suggested: "'gay history' not being taught for homophobic reasons"

Not necessarily - you don't have to present a homophobic reason as such in order to present an objection to something, even if your motives are utterly homophobic. But I recognise that's splitting hairs somewhat.

 

I dont understand.

What I mean is that the fact we mention Professor Bighips is gay does not change anything about his wonderful invention we're about to study.

 

but...

SB 1473 (amended)

it's history focusing on gay people, as opposed to 'gay history' or 'history with gay people left in', both of which would be different.

I still don't see where this "focusing" is coming from.

 

To me, that implies that the thrust of the course will be about gay people, which I don't believe is the intention of the bill at all. If you study 50 historical personalities over a two-year course and, say, 6 of those are not straight, you can hardly be said to be focusing on "gay history".

 

I really don't think curriculum authorities will be going out of their way to pack the gay into lesson plans.

 

I still maintain that this would be an unjustified hijacking if it was to be done in a history class, but it's not -- it's for social studies class.

Why the term hijacking? If you are studying a personality in a lesson then any of their attributes are perfectly valid topics.

 

Clinging to ideas such as hijacking is part of the problem in the first place.

 

by 'specifically focus' I meant that homosexuals, both contemporary and historical, were being specifically targetted for inclusion in the sylabus; not that they were the main focus or anything.

Surely it would be unreliable to include them accidentally. And we should reasonably expect an open-minded and democratic society to be inclusive.

 

anyway, it was an argument against slanting the history sylabus to overly focus on gays, rather than against the inclusion of historical gay figures in the social science unit (which is what has actually been adopted)

But nowhere in the bill does it require or request any such slanting or focus. That is something that has just appeared from nowhere in this thread.

 

 

I objected to the above scenario due to it's insiduouseness and it's hijacking of the academic process to promote the currently reccomended political ideology.

 

BUT, the bill requires the inclusion of gays throughout time in social studies class, not history class.

 

social studies is for studying variouse aspects of our society, and so the exclusion of gays (contemporary and historical) from this course would be (obviously) extremely hard to justify.

Hard to justify maybe, but it does happen and it will continue to happen unless something stops it. It's sad, but there we are.

 

Don't forget that an individual is generally smart, but a group can be relied on to make stupid decisions. That's why society needs curricula and legislation.

 

no, people will be required to either learn it or fail the unit, as it is to be included in the social studies unit.

They'll be required to learn about the contribution of the individuals and expected to be able to demonstrate that knowledge under exam conditions or in coursework. They would have to do this whether sexuality was mentioned or not, so the inclusion of that information makes no difference in terms of grading.

 

there is no bias. einsteins sexual orientation is irrelevent to his theories, or to the understanding of his theories.

Well, now we are becoming inconsistent. If we're only considering social sciences then it might be time to abandon the Einstein's theory example.

 

one's sexual orientation is, as far as i am concerned, irrelevent in the majority of cases; in fact, arbritrarily attatching some kind of relevance to someones sexuality is, by definition, more indicitive of bias than to concider ones sexuality irrelevent.

I don't think anyone plans to attach arbitrary significances to the sexuality of historical or contemporary figures. It should not be about saying "hey look, she was a lezzer and she was great!"

 

The function of this bill is to say to the future society "look, gays and bis are here, and they make as much difference to everyday life as anyone else does."

For the reasons we have already discussed, a large segment of society do actually need this pointing out to them.

 

the fact that people aren't being required to teach about historical gay people outside of social studies makes this point irrelevent either way.

Well yes, but that's not where the bill has effect so why go into it?

 

 

yup (see above). I think i managed to also pull you into defending a set of circumstances that have not been adopted. soz about that.

No worries.

 

i still think this bill is a tad heavy-handed, and the wrong way of addressing the issue, but tbh this may stem from my ignorance of american law/educational regulation rather than any genuinly valid point.

I suspect some people are reacting to this bill as "heavy handed" because they fear the ways in which it might be implemented.

 

However two things spring to mind: (1) that's not the bill's fault, and (2) most schools will just do the absolute bare minimum required to meet legal requirements and horror "the SIGs are invading!!!!!111" scenarios will not arise.

[Dak]

Not necessarily - you don't have to present a homophobic reason as such in order to present an objection to something, even if your motives are utterly homophobic. But I recognise that's splitting hairs somewhat.

 

i was actually refering to the motives, as opposed to the stated reasons.

 

either way, my original point I retract, as it was against the 'teaching gays within history lesson' thingy which isn't actually the case.

 

I still don't see where this "focusing" is coming from.

 

To me, that implies that the thrust of the course will be about gay people, which I don't believe is the intention of the bill at all. If you study 50 historical personalities over a two-year course and, say, 6 of those are not straight, you can hardly be said to be focusing on "gay history".

 

I really don't think curriculum authorities will be going out of their way to pack the gay into lesson plans.

 

the powers-that-be have descided that certian groups should be learnt about. one of those groups is homosexuals. hence, focusing on homosexuals. Maybe 'targetting' would have been a better word, or 'focusing on a group of groups, one of which is homosexuals'.

 

i wasnt meaning to imply that the course would focus mainly on gays, to the exclusion of other groups; merely trying to point out that neither of our summing-ups of the situation were accurate: it is, as you said, NOT gay history (this was me being confuzzled), but it's also not merely history with gay people left in.

 

Instruction in social sciences shall include the early

history of California and a study of the role and contributions of

[...] people who are lesbian' date=' gay, bisexual, or transgender, 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.[/quote']

 

as you can see, the bill states that gays -- amoungst other groups -- should be specifically targetted for inclusion (which is what i meant when i said 'focused upon') in a historical and contemporary context -- so, with reguards to the historical aspect, it's history with homosexuals (and the other groups) specifically being included: not 'gay history' by a long shot, but also not merely 'history with gay people left in' as you suggested, the difference being that someone who was gay but not noteworthy enough to be included in 'history with gay people left in' might be included in 'history with emphasis on homosexuals'.

 

Not that this is, imo, unnaceptable given that the point is to teach about different sub-groups of society within a unit specifically designed to teach about society: my only objection was when i thought that history class was to be used for this purpose.

 

also note that i'm not implying that 'focusing on' is bad.

 

Why the term hijacking? If you are studying a personality in a lesson then any of their attributes are perfectly valid topics.

 

Yes, of course. and i at no point said that i objected to discussing the sexuality of an historical figure, who was chosen for his historical relevence.

 

But if someone is included in a history lesson just so that his sexuality can be discussed, then this is hijacking as far as i'm concerned, because it's is taking a lesson designed to be teaching about history, and teaching social science/propoganda.

 

note, again, that now that i've done some checking up i realise that the above (i.e. history lessons having to focus on gays) is not actually the case.

 

But nowhere in the bill does it require or request any such slanting or focus. That is something that has just appeared from nowhere in this thread.

 

yes, i know. hence why the text that you quoted was from the part of my post that can be summed up as 'whoops! i retract this, this, and that. sorry'.

 

to ensure that there's no more confusion residual from my initial mistake: we are, as far as i can tell, both in agreance that the issue that this bill is addressing is a valid issue that needs to be addressed, and that that the aim of the bill (to prevent the unfair exclusion of gay's from the sylabus) is a justified aim.

 

the only thing we possibly (i'm still not going to comment without knowing wether this is law, policy or a bit of both) disagree on is the execution. plus a few ancillary arguments that, whilst interesting and not exactly off-topic, aren't directly related to the central argument any more as they are left-overs from arguments against points that I have now retracted.

 

They'll be required to learn about the contribution of the individuals and expected to be able to demonstrate that knowledge under exam conditions or in coursework. They would have to do this whether sexuality was mentioned or not, so the inclusion of that information makes no difference in terms of grading.

 

what if the question is 'describe the role of homosexuals in recent californian history'?

 

It has only very rarely been my experience that something would be included in the sylabus that would not be assessed in one way or another.

 

I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one quesiton about either the contemporary or historical role of one of the groups marked for inclusion (gay's, transgenders, an ethnic group etc).

 

 

I don't think anyone plans to attach arbitrary significances to the sexuality of historical or contemporary figures.

 

for the record, i just meant that mentioning someone's sexuality without it holding any contextual relevence would be implying some kind of base significance of ones sexuality that, in my oppinion, does not exist.

 

Well yes, but that's not where the bill has effect so why go into it?

 

again, it was part of the 'whoops, i take this bit back' bit

 

 

I suspect some people are reacting to this bill as "heavy handed" because they fear the ways in which it might be implemented.

 

However two things spring to mind: (1) that's not the bill's fault, and (2) most schools will just do the absolute bare minimum required to meet legal requirements and horror "the SIGs are invading!!!!!111" scenarios will not arise.

 

for the record, i concider it heavy-handed because it's, in effect, positive discrimination (possibly -- see below).

 

I always feel that, rather than the heavy-handed "oh so your discriminating, eh? well, take this *KAPOW* now you're legally oblidged to discriminate in the opposite direction, to counter-act your previouse discrimination", the situation should be handelled by blanket-forbiding unjustified discrimination of any form, introdusing mechanisms to identify and 'complain about' unjustified discrimination, assessing any area where discrimination is apparently occouring, and, if genuine and unjustified discrimination is found to exist, punish the person responsible and ensure that they stop it.

 

HOWEVER, i'd like to make two points:

 

1/ whilst i hold the above to be ideologically true, realistically it is sometimes not possible; and there are certainly arguments in favour of 'positively' discriminating, at least temporaraly, in certain cases.

 

2/ wether or not i object to the bill on the above grounds depends on wether it is legeslature, focusing only upon equal-rights, or educational policy/curriculumn etc, focusing on academic needs without prejudice.

[Sayonara]

I think we are pretty much in the same place now, politically speaking.

 

The only part where we might disagree is this bit:

 

what if the question is 'describe the role of homosexuals in recent californian history'?

My response to that would be that it's not going to be the only question on the exam paper, and any student is free to learn or ignore the material depending on how many guaranteed marks they want to sacrifice.

 

I realise this is not much of a choice, but it is still a choice, and my view is that setting work in the curriculum on gay social history and then expecting pupils to be able to discuss that topic is no more "forcing" them to learn it than expecting them to discuss the significance of, say, the bill of rights.

Although many would probably argue that the latter is more useful to the typical US citizen, at the same time neither topic should be required to justify its existence any more than the other, since they both reflect different aspects of the same society.