Some Thoughts on The FAIR Education Act
posted by Ari Waldman
My apologies to the Co-Op community for being incognito the previous week. There’s the wonderful medicine called Augmenten that is finally getting me well!
The quaint Sacramento Bee published an Op-Ed of mine today. It urges California Governor Jerry Brown to sign SB 48: The FAIR Education Act, that asks California school districts to find a way to include references to the contributions of gay Americans in their history or social studies curricula. I see this as an essential tool in combating anti-gay hate and bullying in schools.
Maybe it was a mistake to include my email address at the bottom of the Op-Ed (though that is the Bee’s, and most paper’s, custom) because I’ve already gotten quite a few emails using the word “Satan,” “destroying America,” “sodomy,” “rectum,” “bending over backward” and even a few veiled threats from one person who insisted on reminding me that he is a “real Christian.”
Any time someone mentions the word “gay,” there always seems to be a small, vocal and virulent segment of the population that cannot help but think of sodomy and how “gross and unnatural” they think it is. Historically, it is common for hateful societies to identify and exaggerate physical or personal features of those groups they wish to keep down. In Germany, Hitler published photographs of Jews that over-emphasized hooked noses; in the Jim Crow South, it was terribly and disturbingly common to equate African Americans with monkeys.
But that obvious and outward hate only worked because it tapped into long held, deeply rooted beliefs about Jews and African Americans. Hooked noses symbolized the Jews-as-sinister stereotype for Germans; monkeys reminded Southern whites that African Americans were less than human. Images conjured up by words like “rectum” and “bending over backward” comport with homophobic stereotypes of gay men as sex-crazed, obsessed with pleasure and incapable of love, only lust.
The only way to fight against these stereotypes is to teach reality: that gay people can love each other, that gay lives are no different than straight lives and that gay people have been positive forces in American history. So-called “real Christians” (methinks he doth protest too much!) may be unreachable, but that is because their religious leaders feed into the stereotypes and teach them. To suggest that forces of tolerance and acceptance are not allowed to teach the truth to combat these devastating stereotypes is to accept the legitimacy of hate, homophobia and discrimination.
July 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Posted in: Education, LGBT
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Anna - July 13, 2011 at 2:39 pm
I understand where you are coming from, and support the idea of highlighting positive social contributions made by gay individuals. But I wonder about how this concept can be practically implemented — how many openly gay historical figures are there? I assume that you are not suggesting that we open up for speculation the sexuality of figures in American history?
SeniorD - July 13, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Mr.Waldman,
The fact that an individual made significant social contributions is either a closeted or open homosexual is not in question. Their contributions are valuable regardless of their sexual orientation.
A.J. Sutter - July 13, 2011 at 9:20 pm
A better description of the act is that, if signed into law, it will require, not “ask,” school districts to include such references. And there could be some reasonable objections to the law, as mentioned in my comment to your earlier post, which perhaps you missed because you were under the weather. Among them are that the wording implies that persons with disabilities constitute an “ethnic or cultural group”, and that the law would do nothing to prevent exclusion of references to heterosexuals from the curriculum. Even someone who is sympathetic to the ideals of inclusiveness, tolerance and acceptance you promote might cavil at the technical drafting aspects of this particular piece of legislation.
AYY - July 13, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Prof. W.
It’s unfortunate that you received those e-mails, but I have to wonder if maybe there were also some e-mails that had a principled opposition to the bill. Also, maybe they changed the wording from the time AJ and I read it, but the version I read doesn’t “ask”, it “requires.” .
Also I have to wonder about how effective putting these matters into textbooks will be in fighting the stereotypes you mentioned. It’s not as though the textbooks are the only source material kids get on this issue. The typical kid is going to have some exposure to gays whether or not they are taught about gay people in school, and they can draw conclusions from that experience. What they learn in a textbook is only going to be a small part of their worldview.
Anna,the way this can be implemented is the key. But it’s not what you mentioned. It’s not as though anyone is worried that students would never hear of Alexander the Great or Plato or Oscar Wilde if the bill isn’t signed.
The point is that once something is put in textbooks it becomes part of the official agenda that must be adhered to if one has any realistic hope of being part of an elite. The idea is to deter opposition to that agenda.
Jamie - July 18, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I do wish people would actually read the bill for themselves. The bill’s intent is not so much as to force schools to include homosexual contributions in their curriculum, as to keep content discriminatory against homosexuals out of curriculum. The point is to not emphasize a historical figures sexual orientation, but rather to include their contributions to gay-related events, such as civil/social rights (same as every other group included on the list). Let’s also not forget that in this same bill which amends current law, Pacific Islanders and the disabled are also included.
Whether or not people agree that these events are worth informing students about is another story, but the fact remains, discrimination of any sort should not be tolerated in schools, and this bill will ensure that a few more groups are protected under law.
If you want to read the actual bill that was signed into law (it’s pretty short), visit this site:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20110714_chaptered.pdf
Bethany - July 20, 2011 at 6:05 pm
I’m not happy about this at all. What is the relevance of someone’s sexuality to their place in history? James Baldwin was a great writer but by adding the word “gay” seems to cheapen his place in history because it has nothing t do with him being relevant. His gayness didn’t cause him to be a great writer. But what really bothers me about all of this is that the California school system is badly broken and just plain broke. Where is the money going to come from to buy books about a child having two mommies or two daddies? This is just plain ole dumb and I don’t want my 6 year old force to learn the word “gay” or homosexual before he’s ready for that. The person who determines whether he’s ready for it isn’t Jerry Brown, the school superintendent, or Mark Leno. I’m his parent and I say when he learns about sex, heterosexual or homosexual. Don’t force this idiocy on people.
Schools need to get back to the business of teaching children something useful that can help them be competitive in a global economy and this surely doesn’t accomplish that goal.
Bethany
Joshua - September 28, 2011 at 11:51 am
So what next? Shall we ensure people who practice incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or any other sexual activity is included as well? How about alchoholism? That’s a behavior that people claim has a genetic factor. If we are going to put a special class on people who behave a certain way because of their genetics, what else shall we add?
I am sure 1st graders need a lesson on the crossdressing of past presidents, right?
Leave a Reply