Johnny can't read, and Susie can't do long division. But who cares whether their schools teach the basics, as long as they are both learning to stamp out heterosexism and to explore--or at least endorse--queer sexuality? Marjorie King's new City Journal article, "Queering the Schools," is a chilling and thought-provoking account of how gay activists are hijacking the curriculum and even the culture of American public schools. You don't have to think that homosexuality is wrong to have a problem with what's happening in the schools: so don't skip this piece if it sounds on the surface like so much reactionary gay-bashing. It's quite the opposite, and the trends it exposes concern us all.

Yes, it's true: In this age of hate crimes and ultra-sensitivity to all manner of "communities" amongst us, we are in general anymore not even allowed to say that homosexuality is aberrant, or that some people find it repugnant (understandably so, in my opinion). Personally, I have no problem with so-called "gay rights", as long as this stops short of recognizing gay marriage, allowing adoption by gays, and just this sort of inappropriate curriculum content. And I think my views are more mainstream than is often admitted.

Hilarious claptrap!! Made me laugh. The educational community will do almost anything to avoid real work, won't it?

My daughter currently lives in San Francisco. She informed me that gays were "oppressed." I told her that things have changed very little in the 30 years ago since I lived in SF. Then, my gay friends all had good jobs, wore designer clothes and spent their evenings walking from club to club and party to party. 30 years later, my gay friends are doing the same here in NYC. This is not "oppression," whatever that is.

Gays are in fact that privileged, pampered pets of New York society. It's interesting that gays don't seem to speak the language of "inclusion" when it comes to protecting their own turf. The acting and modelling businesses are almost entirely gay, and you won't get a job if you're not gay and don't attend the parties where info is swapped.

Gays are only 5% of the population of less. We've already spent too much time on their issues. You'll notice that gays are very effective in focusing our time and effort on their issues, and screaming prejudice if we want to ignore them for a while.

Comments like the ones above - "gays are pampered pets", "let's ignore their issues for a while," etc. are exactly what it will take to get people to ignore the issues mentioned in the article. The point of Erin's post, and this article, is that one doesn't need to be a bigot to be opposed to indoctrinating children into the realm of far-left gay politics. Bashing gays to prove this point is hardly the answer.

I think that this article has its flaws - particularly the assertions that it's "dubious" that gay students are more likely to be harrassed (of course they are - anyone who's set foot in a public school should be able to tell you that), and that there is no basis for the belief that homosexuality is a genetic or biological trait (there's plenty of evidence - is she implying it's a conscious choice?).

I don't see anything wrong with public schools teaching children that all people should be treated with respect, regardless of sexual orientation, or that bigoted comments (about gays or any other minority groups) are to be avoided. Teaching students explicit sex practices, attempting to instruct students on the "correct" political stance on gay rights, and teaching gender politics to young children, on the other hand, is obviously wrong.

The uproar caused by groups like GLSEN (who are a huge threat to the very cause they profess to fight for), may very well prompt schools to avoid controversy by ignoring the harassment of gay students altogether.

Hello Jake:

I intentionally included the "pampered pets" rhetoric to get your goat.

The history of the oppression of gays is patent nonsense. Since I'm old enough to know better, I'll tell you that the generational repetition of this nonsense makes me laugh.

30 years ago, when I was young, it was an article of liberal faith that gays were abused. It wasn't happening 30 years ago, wasn't happening 50 years ago, wasn't happening 100 years ago.

The inclusion of gays into the ranks of those suffering from "bigotry" is rank nonsense. When we're young we all like to mouth this nonsense because it is required to prove that you are sensitive and knowledgeable. As we get older, we begin to see it for the delusion that it is.

There is no campaign of bigotry against gays, no campaign of violence, no nothing.

It's all a fake.

This item and these comments are proof positive that huge slabs of our country are allergic not only to alternative life-styles but to the basics of thought. You put communities in quotes, for God's sake? Now you're going to argue that anything promoting community is a communist plot? ("Well, just look at the words! Obviously "community" is a concept produced by communists!")
Pathological ... anti-social in the most basic sense (except for those who push your buttons, I'm sure; they are your clan and tribe, right? It's called /fascism/ dumb-ass ... look to where that word came from to see just how true it is.)
A nation united by hatred.

I think the key to Erin's blog is the first sentence: "Johnny can't read and Susie can't do long division."

The issue at play is not the gender/orientation politics around which this blog item revlolves. Admittedly, it is easy to focus on the gay-issue rather than the learning issue. I think the critical issue is the diversion of critical resources at elementary schools and middle schools from basic learning to new-age self-esteem curricula.

This is the Stuart Smalley-ization ("You're good enoug, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you.) of elementary education. This grows out of the well-intentioned desire to boost our childrens' self-esteem. These are new-age empowerment tools.

My problem with this approach, and one I think suggested by Erin in her first sentence, it that it is not undertaken to supplement the essential elements of learning but rather seems to be supplanting them. If schools were not failing in their core area of competency these 'self-esteem/empowerment' opportunities would be of only marginal importance. In the context of failing school systems the diversion of time and reseources only serves to exacerbate these failures.

I lived in the school district in Queens, New York that tried to incorporate texts such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" into the grade school currcula. The Board's argument focused on the need to raise the self esteem of those children with gay and lesbian parents. At the same time the elementary schools in this district were in the lower-third of the city-wide reading and math skills tests.

I suggested two things then and will repeat it now: self-esteem and empowerment relating to differently-constructed family untis begins at home; and the best way to create self-esteem and empowerment in any child (in my opinion) is to teach them to read and to write. Once a school system can do that - I am all for exploring additional issues (be it race, gender, orientation - you name it) that might help enrich our childrens' world view.)

Who is less empowered: the child of gay parents (or a gay child for that matter) who is not taught the fundamentals of learning or the child whose self-image and future horizons are limitless because they have been provided with essential building blocks.

So again, as Erin suggests, this debate does not have to focus on the Gay rights agenda (pro or con). Instead it could focus on whether any school should reach out into Stuart Smalley-land before they have achieved their essential goals of teaching Johnny to read, write, etc.

Thanks.

Well put Stolypin. Moreover, it's clear from the article that GLSEN (the group that is apparently spear-heading the effort) is not concerned with the education of America's youth. I think it's fair to say that they are hijacking our public schools for their own political gains - not because they advocate something with which I disagree, but because they are attempting to supplant the actual education of children with identity politics.

I said homosexuality is aberrant. It is. I said that in today's political climate you risked excoriation just for stating this obvious fact. I was right. I said that, with specific limitations, as human beings gays have rights, just like the rest of us, and that most Americans share this view. I believe I am right about this. I put communities in quotes because it seems to me the sort of community identification encouraged in America today is divisive; identification based on race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth, emphasizes differences, not what we have in common. If you don't agree, then wait, for example, until the next time MALDEF files a lawsuit not because Hispanic citizens cannot vote, but to redraw districts to create ethnic voting blocks to guarantee election of Hispanics, and then ask yourself: What happened to the melting pot? Is this the future of an increasingly diverse America?

And watch the name-calling.

Solypin, great post. You are, of course, right.

"A nation united by hatred." How does one begin to answer such self-pitying stupidity?

The great 50 year search to ferret out bigotry is now one of our greatest problems. Sanctimonious self-righteousness is now like an opiate for those who want to luxuriate in the status of victimhood.

The U.S. is such a great country, and Americans are remarkably friendly, warm and good people. The last refuge of the scoundrel is now the great search for bigotry. Nothing will make the whining fools who bathe in their victimhood happy. We must watch and listen endlessly to their self-pity and cry great crocodile tears for them.

To say that Bernard D. Tremblay is a poser and a fool is a dramatic understatement. I'm looking forward to the day when the sort of statements he's uttered cause him to be the butt of jokes everywhere. When that happens, we will know that our country has returned to a semblance of sanity.

WoHOO
Newton North HS grad, class of '88.
Go Tigers!!!!!
Remember, these are the people that after 9/11, brought in Howard Zinn to help students put things into the proper perspective.
Concerned however, that the dialogue doesn't properly represent all points of view, and that heterosexual males are not given equal opportunity to eroticise 13 year old females, and encourage them to explore the boundaries of their sexual identies.

Bernard Tremblay...when you said "a nation united by hatred," exactly what nation were you referring to?

Most educators (administrators, teachers) are reasonable people (aren't you?). They just don't have the courage to oppose this preachy teaching of tolerance etc when it goes too far. I don't believe much class time (usually Social Studies) is taken up by this, or that it significantly interferes with ("supplants") teaching basics. The problems with outcomes, measured or not, is more complicated than that. It is worth asking: Why are the same schools many of us attended achieving such poor results today? In trying to answer this question, I suggest looking at student demographics might be a good starting point.

And do you really want to hear more from Mr Tremblay?

One additional thought - albeit a lengthy one. This little item is but a small skirmish in a broader war.

Why do you suppose academic-activists and teacher groups are opposed to school vouchers, charter schools, school choice programs and similar measures designed to alleviate stress on overburdened school systems and revert the focus back to basics?

Why do you suppose there is an inexeroable trend in focus away from core areas of competence (math, English, science) towards intangible self-esteem based areas?

The two issues are related.

For me the answer is about controlling the minds of those we attempt to educate. Why the opposition to vouchers: because the public school/NEA k-12 establishment loses control over the educational (or indoctrination) process.

Why the trend towards self-esteem based modules - because it focuses on teaching students WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.

As long as the schools focus on teaching kids WHAT to think - they will create allies for life. If schools teach children HOW to think - these children might, heaven forfend, learn to think independently and be lost forever to the orthodoxy that is the public school teaching establishment.

This movement is very well-constructed and is designed to insulate it from scrutiny. It is built around a public assertion that it is designed to enhance self-esteem and respect for diversity along gender, race, sexual orientiation fault lines. Note that these are all immutable characteristics. This construct enables supporters to attack anyone who questions the implementation of these programs as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

As a result anyone that questions these programs is immediately put on the defensive and forced to defend their motives. Thus the focus on the programs themeslves is lost. It is all ver clever.

The absence of support for a diversity of mutable characteristics [and yes I made up the word mutable] such as political views, religous views etc. lends credence to my assertion that the focus on taching children WHAT to think rather than HOW.

There can be no room for debate as to how children (or adults for that matter) must think about race, gender, seuxal orientation. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that there may not be any room for debate on any other issues - except for support for the received orthodoxy of the public school academic establishment.

All the best.

Hello Stolypin:

If you keep making sense like this, I'm going to report you to the authorities. It's not allowed.

Having taught in the humanities and in the sciences, I continue to believe that the overwhelming issue for those who teach is this: it is easier and less laborious to teach ideology than it is to actually teach skills.

So, sloth leads most people to prefer to teaching of ideology.

You don't have to be a bigot to agree ... but it sure helps.

You don't have to be a bigot to agree ... but it sure helps.

A cute bon mot to be sure and one I can appreciate even if it has the fluffy substance of cotton candy.

I'm willing to concede the point that bigotry sure helps. We might differ, however, on identifying who it helps.

Let's take homophobia and insert it into the debate on the GLSEN'S efforts to to “queer” the public schools to use the activists' vernacular. Let's take Jerry Falwell and have him go on Larry King and blast away at the program. Who does that help?

I think the answer is obvious. It helps those seeking to implement GLSEN's agenda because being attacked by a Falwell allows GLSEN to steer debate away from defending the prorgam substantively and diverts it to an attack on Falwell's (hypothetical) well-known homophobia. The latter is easier - and probably a bit more fun than the former.

When the debate is framed in that context most of those in the mainstream will either support GLSEN's agenda or, as is more likely, will refrain from supporting Falwell's position lest they get tarred with that brush.

So yes, I agree, being a bigot makes it easy; easy to defend programs that might not withstand substantive non-bigoted scrutiny.

Just a thought.