Stop the Bullying!

[Mr. X]

Values? Well, heres one.

In kindergarten a couple of values that get pounded into the heads of students are 'wait your turn' and 'sharing'

What if the parents do not like those values? Well, really, these values at that point in time are more of a way for the teachers to control the students but still... These are values that the parents might not want taught.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Values? Well, heres one.

In kindergarten a couple of values that get pounded into the heads of students are 'wait your turn' and 'sharing'

What if the parents do not like those values? Well, really, these values at that point in time are more of a way for the teachers to control the students but still... These are values that the parents might not want taught.

Those aren't really values. They're more of a way for teachers to maintain order in their classrooms.

Even if they are values, they are not sociopolitical values.

 

[Oryx]

Those aren't really values. They're more of a way for teachers to maintain order in their classrooms.

Even if they are values, they are not sociopolitical values.

If bullying is occurring in the classroom, teaching tolerance would maintain order there as well.

Besides, a "gay history" portion of a history class would be very similar to a "black history" portion, which I've personally gone through and seen other people implement with no problem. What's the difference?

 

[Mr. X]

It really boils down to the basic beliefs about what people think of those people.

To hard core religious people, blacks are born blacks. Gays are not born gay, but rather straight and then influenced by the devil or the immoral people in our society to turn gay.

And thats the issue with ensuring equality for all. Hard core religious people.

 

[Dakotah]

The parents aren't the ones physically harming anyone, so there is no basis to take away their rights.

A school does not have the luxury of treating parents or students on an individual basis. When dealing with policy issues, a school must make decisions that benefit the whole. Certain exceptions, of course, are made, but where it comes to the safety of the students on the school's property, the wishes of the parents is secondary. As it should be. We cannot have some parents not following the rules where the remainder of the parents do. There has to be consistency in the application of the school's policies. If anti-gay bullying, or any form of bullying for that matter, is deemed a real issue the school faces, then the school is well within its rights to institute programs and policies designed to protect all its students, provided those programs do not violate the law.

Schools teach children how to read and write and do arithmetic, but they are also required to teach history, health, social sciences, physical education, and the arts. Teaching students about gay history is simply a logical extension of lessons already being taught. If it is a parent's wish that their child not learn that type of history, then they have the right to either move the child to a different school (either public or private) or withdraw the student from school altogether and home-school the child.

The courts have repeatedly and consistently ruled that parents do not have the right to dictate to school districts what subjects are or aren't taught in school. Or, according to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf in a Massachusetts case: "Schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens." Parents can either accept the education being given, or they find an alternative allowed by law.

So in effect, no rights are being taken from a parent to decide on what education their child receives. They have plenty of options available to them.

Oh, and in that same ruling, the Judge also said: "federal courts have decided in other cases that parents' rights to exercise their religious beliefs are not violated when their children are exposed to contrary ideas in school."

So this idea that parents should be able to withdraw their children from objectionable material in school which conflicts with their beliefs just doesn't hold legal water.

It really boils down to the basic beliefs about what people think of those people.

"Those people?" Exactly who are "those people?"

We are gay, not "those people."

That very term is derogatory.

To hard core religious people, blacks are born blacks. Gays are not born gay, but rather straight and then influenced by the devil or the immoral people in our society to turn gay.

Let's qualify that assertion shall we? To SOME hard core religious people, gays are not born gay. Others who are equally deeply religious know in their hearts that gays are born the way we are.

This is why a school cannot institute policies for one group, and other policies for another. There has to be one set of policies designed for all its students regardless of religious or political belief. These policies are specifically designed to ensure fairness for all students, as well as provide for an optimum learning environment where students can feel safe. It is not a school's duty to cater to one belief over another. All must be treated equally, under one set of rules. To do otherwise is to show favoritism which is illegal.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

If bullying is occurring in the classroom, teaching tolerance would maintain order there as well.

Besides, a "gay history" portion of a history class would be very similar to a "black history" portion, which I've personally gone through and seen other people implement with no problem. What's the difference?

I would support a tolerance or a "gay history" plan if objectors could opt-out of the lessons. I would oppose a mandatory plan.

I helped craft legislation like that here on our campus. The maximum opt-out rate we've had is 5% for any give semester. This semester had a 2.5% opt-out rate.

 

[Mr. X]

"Those people?" Exactly who are "those people?"

We are gay, not "those people."

That very term is derogatory.

And people say that I miss things. Had you read the quoted post, you would have realized that I was referring to the groups that Toujours mentioned.

Please don't try taking posts out of context to incite argument. Because thats my job.

 

[Dakotah]

And people say that I miss things. Had you read the quoted post, you would have realized that I was referring to the groups that Toujours mentioned.

Please don't try taking posts out of context to incite argument. Because thats my job.

It would actually help if you had quoted the post to which you are referring. Even so, the use of the term "those people," which historically is an extremely offensive term, should have been avoided in my opinion. It is simple politeness to be specific about the person or group of people to which you refer.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It would actually help if you had quoted the post to which you are referring. Even so, the use of the term "those people," which historically is an extremely offensive term, should have been avoided in my opinion. It is simple politeness to be specific about the person or group of people to which you refer.

There's no need to beat people up over political correctness.

 

[Alice]

The problem with not making it compulsory is that the people that need it most are the people with parents that would opt them out of it if it wasn't compulsory. So it's on the verge of useless if homophobic parents block their homophobic kids from actually learning anything.

True, but if more kids learn about it, then those kids are more likely to do something when the homophobic kids start to bully someone.

Even if every single homophobic kid in the school opted out of it, I think it would still make a difference.

 

[Oryx]

It would actually help if you had quoted the post to which you are referring. Even so, the use of the term "those people," which historically is an extremely offensive term, should have been avoided in my opinion. It is simple politeness to be specific about the person or group of people to which you refer.

What he was saying was a shorter way of saying "it really boils down to what people think about black people as opposed to what people think about gay people". He used 'those' to combine both into one much shorter to type phrase, you suggesting he use the term 'gay people' actually changes the meaning of what he was trying to say. :x The word 'those' doesn't necessarily hold the connotation of being derogatory, it can easily just be used grammatically the way Mr. X used it, so I think you're kind of making a big deal out of nothing here.

True, but if more kids learn about it, then those kids are more likely to do something when the homophobic kids start to bully someone.

Even if every single homophobic kid in the school opted out of it, I think it would still make a difference.

That may be true, but the question is enough of a difference to mandate it? Keep in mind that each school has to pay extra, get textbooks, decide what to teach, make a curriculum, either hire a teacher or pay a teacher more to do it, etc. If it's not going to make a significant difference, then the thousands of dollars of cost is probably not worth it per school. There has to be a better way.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Mandating that kind of curriculum is wrong. If there are serious objections raised by parents, schools should respect them.

 

[Oryx]

Freaky, your solutions don't seem to have any preventative measures at all. They only deal with what happens once a person is attacked or bullied, since there's no way to teach tolerance.

Honestly tolerance is something that should be taught in every grade level starting from kindergarten until people understand it. :x Not just sexuality, just general tolerance towards everyone. It would fit it well alongside sharing and waiting your turn as lessons that the average person needs to know from a young age.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Freaky, your solutions don't seem to have any preventative measures at all. They only deal with what happens once a person is attacked or bullied, since there's no way to teach tolerance.

Honestly tolerance is something that should be taught in every grade level starting from kindergarten until people understand it. :x Not just sexuality, just general tolerance towards everyone. It would fit it well alongside sharing and waiting your turn as lessons that the average person needs to know from a young age.

I actually didn't say that tolerance programs should not be allowed. I said that the rights of parents should be respected in the process.

Social and political values are to be taught in the home. Parents send send their kids to school to learn academics, not to be raised. Parents do the raising.

 

[Oryx]

Their right to move their child to a private school is perfectly intact. I don't see the problem here.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

[SIZE="a"]Are you willing to pay for that child to receive a private education?[/SIZE]

 

[Mr. X]

Are you willing to pay for them to receive a education? Public education is free and parents accept it because they have no desire to pay for private education.

The government pays for it. They can mandate whatever they want. If the parents don't like it, then they can pay for private schooling or home school them.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Are you willing to pay for them to receive a education? Public education is free and parents accept it because they have no desire to pay for private education.

The government pays for it. They can mandate whatever they want. If the parents don't like it, then they can pay for private schooling or home school them.

The parents are the ones who pay for the public schools already through their tax dollars. On that basis, they should have full control over their children's education or be able to receive school vouchers to send their children elsewhere.

What you are saying is that the privileged have more educational rights than the poor have. The poor are such easy targets.

 

[Mr. X]

Adn the taxes is my point. They ALL pay. There is no way that they all can get what they want. Thats why the government decides.

If you can get every single tax paying parent who has children in the public school system to agree on what exactly should be taught, then your point is valid. Until then, its not.

That said, vouchers? Really? Everyone pays these taxes, even if they don't have children in school. If a parent doesn't like the public education then it is their right to pay for a different type of education.

And thats the sad fact. The poor don't have as many options. But they still have the option to home school their children.

 

[Phantom1]

And thats the sad fact. The poor don't have as many options. But they still have the option to home school their children.

Um, my family was pretty poor, yet I went to a $40,000 high school, grants, scholarships, there are ways for those who really want to get in. Almost every, might as well say all, private schools have some form of aid for students who have low income families. Hell I know students who've gone to private schools for free.