A press release issued by the Traditional Values Coalition on California’s Senate Bill SB48, which was approved by Governor Jerry Brown on July 13, 2011, offered some sobering conclusions as to how this new law would be instituted in public schools. The bill amends the Education Code in several ways: (1) Requiring instruction in social sciences to include the role and contributions of a number of specific ethnic and cultural groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals; (2) Prohibit teachers from giving instruction or sponsoring activities that promote bias “… on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation,”; and (3) Prohibit the adoption of curriculum materials that contain matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of those same characterisitics previously listed.
I often take issue with radical and untrustworthy conclusions offered by the Traditional Values Coalition … but in this case, I think they are right to be concerned. However, one point that the Coalition has not accurately portrayed is a distinction between “people” and “lifestyles” — the text of the bill does not include the word “lifestyles” at all, whereas the Coalition (incorrectly) says that school children must be instructed on gay persons AND their lifestyles. The intent is to positively portray these “people groups”, which can be done (albeit with some difficulty) by highlighting their positive contributions to society and culture without really addressing the issue of “lifestyle”. For example, if Abraham Lincoln were a gay individual, instructional materials could identify him as such in an effort to show that gay individuals do, in fact, make important contributions to society … but this in no way requires said material to discuss what a “gay lifestyle” is. There is no need to bring it into the discussion. The only reason we are considering this at all is because the world is still full of redneck bullies who choose to harass people that don’t fit their narrow definition of “people” … if only people would “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (sigh).
The more important concern I have with this bill is the obvious destruction of our freedom of speech rights. I’m not talking about the freedom to lash out at people groups, but if the letter of this bill is followed, it means that school districts could not adopt the Bible as instructional material. The Bible presents gay persons in a very negative light … therefore, it could not be adopted by any governing board for use in schools. This is extremely frightening to me. What if a teacher wanted to discuss a religion’s particular views on different cultural groups, perhaps for the sake of identifying how these groups have been viewed over the course of history, or understanding that religion better? Nope, can’t do it – sources that comment on what the Bible has said on the issue could probably be used, but not the primary source material itself. This is opposed to even sound principles of simple research — one always uses source material if it is available, not what someone has said about that material.
There are valid reasons for concern about the passing of this bill, but time will tell of its significance or impact. In the meantime, how should parents respond? By attending parent/teacher conferences, speaking about the concern at city council or school board meetings, carefully explaining your own family’s views to your own children BEFORE they receive such instruction, actively participating in the selection and review of curriculum, volunteering in your children’s school to be informed, serving on your school’s school site council or P.T.A. … but PLEASE, think carefully if your knee-jerk reaction is to pull your kids out of public school because of this. Public schools NEED the attention and contribution of informed, concerned parents and students … Christians committed to sharing the love of Christ in a world that so desperately needs Him.
My first concern is that here is another victorious push by gays to shove their lifestyles down our throats in their neverending quest to be accepted as ‘normal” and that there is nothing wrong with them or what they do. They are tireless about working to have kids taught about their lifestyle. Evil doesn’t sleep. Christians are under attack in a number of ways in this country, and God continues to be thrown out of things. Right is considered wrong and wrong is considered right. Pastors are being charged with hate crimes for speaking out against homosexuality. We need to pray, pray, pray.
Raquel,
Thank you for your comment. Scripture itself is indeed controverisal, but it has an important place in society and in public schools — the Constitution is on our side. The bill was passed because of a renewed interest in stamping out bullying, which is an honorable goal, but so difficult to achieve. Bullying won’t stop because someone has been “legislated” to do so — hearts have to be changed. This bill is an attempt to change attitudes towards people who are different, but I’m not sure it’s worded well enough to prevent those who want Scripture banned from public schools from getting their way. I STILL say the Constitution is on our side, and it will be a “cold day in hell” when Scripture gets pulled out of public schools.
Existing law prohibits a governing board from adopting instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
This bill [i.e. SB 48] would revise the list of characteristics included in this provision to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Source: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20101213_introduced.pdf
Hypothetical Scenario: Dave’s kid comes home from school one day…
Dave’s Kid: Daddy, why are you so evil?
Dave: What?
Dave’s Kid: Our textbook in school said that all Christians are evil and are going to hell and that every good child has a duty to kill all evil Christians.
Dave: What!?
Dave’s Kid: Yea. We have this new textbook. It’s called holy scripture, so I guess God wrote it.
Dave: They can’t use one religion’s scriptures as instructional material!
Dave’s Kid: Sure they can! Remember that the “Traditional Values Coalition” got SB 48 repealed.
Dave: Oh, no!
Don,
Point well taken — and you’re right (perhaps that’s the answer to my concerns): This is already EXISTING law, but the new provisions add culture groups to the existing list. I would think that there are PLENTY of resources that reflect adversely on different groups (which is why there are lists of “banned books”), but I suppose it depends on the intended instructional use that a governing board restricts that resource to. The Constitution would allow the bible to be used to illustrate what Christians believe about Christmas, let’s say, just as it would allow the use of Muslim teachings to illustrate why Islam celebrates Ramadan … but a teacher cannot use the bible for purposes of proselytizing.
Hmmm… what do you mean by “culture groups”? The original legislation already includes what I would call “culture groups.”
What I meant by “culture groups” is that society seems to have a need for subdividing human beings into definable little pockets — race, creed, background, gay/lesbian/transgender, etc. — but the need arises because people choose to be intolerant of others, even though we are all supposed to be awarded the same freedoms in this country. I don’t like being divided into “culture groups”, yet at the same time it is a good thing for people to understand that many things have been accomplished by people from a broad variety of backgrounds.
Got it. Yes. Hence the piecemeal approach of the legislation. Different cultures create different sub-groups at different times. That’s fine – let people associate with whom they want to associate, and avoid those they want to avoid. That’s freedom, baby! But when it becomes a problem, and some group is targeted for serious abuse, that’s when a government committed to freedom and equality has to step in, like a referee.
Regardless of one’s personal feelings about homosexuality, e.g., it is more than obvious that this is a group that has long been targeted for some really serious abuse. It seems to me that loving Christians following the example of Jesus would be the very first to champion this kind of legislation.