Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Great Article in The Nation

Wow, The Nation nails it in this great article: Teaching Sexuality. It's a very concise and to-the-point analysis of our situation here in Montgomery County, with the CRC and PFOX and Teach the Facts, and the political machinery behind this crazy anti-gay crusade that we're so dead against.

There's quite a bit here, I'll quote a few lines.
Students taking sex education in Maryland's Montgomery County public schools this fall won't be discussing homosexuality, not unless a student raises a hand to ask about it--and even then, the teacher will have to keep it brief. Nor will students be watching a new video called Protect Yourself!, which uses a cucumber to demonstrate how to put on a condom. (Copies of the video now gather dust in administrative offices in Rockville, Maryland.)

I'll skip down a little, you already know this part ... right? They talk about the new curriculum that was going to be piloted ...
No sooner had the school board given the green light than an assembly of right-wing activists formed to block it, mobilizing under the banner Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and launching a sensationalistic campaign that accused the curriculum of having a "pro-gay agenda." Claiming it encouraged students to "self-identify as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual," and citing what it deemed were inaccurate statistics about STDs, CRC quickly caught the attention of the right-wing Washington Times, eventually being covered by everyone from the Washington Post to Bill O'Reilly.

By spring, the county was mired in controversy. In late April it decided to remove some of the more controversial aspects of the curriculum, including the language about same-sex "sex play." But it wasn't enough. Days before the new curriculum was to enter classrooms, the CRC, joined by a Virginia-based group called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), sued the school board. The central charge: "endorsing a homosexual lifestyle."

In a stunning ruling on May 5 (the day before classes were to begin), a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, invoking their First Amendment rights and writing, "The Revised Curriculum presents only one view on the subject--that homosexuality is a natural and morally correct lifestyle--to the exclusion of other perspectives." A restraining order was placed on the curriculum. The Florida-based religious nonprofit--and Jerry Falwell brainchild--Liberty Council, which provided pro bono legal representation for the lawsuit, called the ruling "the most significant curriculum decision ever rendered."

Well, I guess that's a matter of perspective. I'm sure they were proud of themselves, they really did pull off a fast one.
In many ways, Montgomery County is an unlikely setting for these events. Located just north of DC, it has a reputation as a liberal enclave--a "Kerry-supporting, nuclear-free, recycling county," in the words of conservative pundit Mona Charen--that would appear to make it fertile ground for a progressive approach to sex ed. Its public schools are considered some of the best in the nation: Five MCPS high schools made the top 100 in the country in Newsweek's 2005 "Best 100 High Schools" issue. And residents of Montgomery County, the state's largest and wealthiest jurisdiction, donated more money to political campaigns in 2004 than all the rest of the counties in the state combined. Donations to Democrats exceeded those to Republicans by a margin of 2 to 1.

Anyone wondering who could be so opposed to teaching about homosexuality in such a solidly "blue" county would find only partial clues in the local press, which repeatedly referred to CRC and PFOX as a pair of local groups made up of "parents and community members." No thoughtful analysis was provided on the groups' origins or broader political aims. Moreover, the judge's ruling in the lawsuit cast the controversy as a fight between concerned parents and an ideologically driven school board, cloaking CRC and its allies in the hallowed robes of the First Amendment and obscuring its underlying agenda.

Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum was founded by Michelle Turner, a born-again Christian and mother of six--as well as a former member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee who voted against the final version of the curriculum, largely because of its take on homosexuality. ("Our bodies are not meant or created to be used in that way," she recently told the Washington Post.) In December Turner organized a local meeting unsubtly titled "Recall Montgomery Schoolboard." The strident right-wing atmosphere surprised Christine Grewell, a local mother and now leader of an opposition group called Teach the Facts. "We came out of there thinking, 'Here come Dobson and Falwell,'" she recalls, "and damned if we weren't right."

Soon thereafter, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum was born. The group scheduled meetings, started a petition and launched a website. CRC's innocuous name and catchy tag line, "Safe Schools, Safe Students," helps obscure the group's ideology. Not only does it blast the curriculum's "forceful advocating [of a] pro-gay agenda"; a blog, written by multiple authors, includes everything from potshots at Hillary Clinton to references to Massachusetts's "diversity police state." A prominently displayed question: "What is wrong with the new Curriculum?" appears on the homepage. The number-one grievance: It "normalizes homosexuality and presents it as natural and a morally correct lifestyle."

Well, this isn't right -- obviously I want you to read the whole thing, right?

Click on the link and check this fine story out.

Oh ... I just don't seem to have the self-control I should have. I've gotta show you one more little chunk from the story.
With the demise of the curriculum and plans to create a new one from scratch, PFOX and CRC's lawsuit is basically moot. Still, the ruling remains significant. Much like the current debate over "intelligent design," wherein creationists have won the right to present an "alternate viewpoint" on evolution, the successful lobbying for a right to bring an "alternative perspective" on homosexuality sets a dangerous precedent. It is bigotry sanctioned as a different point of view. "These kids should not feel that they are sick," says David Fishback, former chair of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Most of Montgomery County, he says, would agree with him. "This [curriculum] didn't get derailed because of the people of Montgomery County. This got derailed because of an extremist group that is trying to impose its beliefs on the rest of the county."

Follow the link at the top of this post, and read the whole thing, and you'll see -- we need to keep our eyes open, or these people are going to make a mess of our county.

9 Comments:

Blogger Kay2898 said...

Story excerpt:

Anyone wondering who could be so opposed to teaching about homosexuality in such a solidly "blue" county would find only partial clues in the local press, which repeatedly referred to CRC and PFOX as a pair of local groups made up of "parents and community members." No thoughtful analysis was provided on the groups' origins or broader political aims. Moreover, the judge's ruling in the lawsuit cast the controversy as a fight between concerned parents and an ideologically driven school board, cloaking CRC and its allies in the hallowed robes of the First Amendment and obscuring its underlying agenda.

*************

They got that part right on target...

Kay R

August 17, 2005 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last portion of the article states:

"And while Fishback resents the CRC's coercive strategies, he
doesn't consider their broader efforts much of a threat: 'The idea
that they may have a broader political agenda? That's America.'"

I must clarify. The quote is accurate. But while I do not see
anything illegitimate about CRC having a broader agenda, my
understanding of their agenda leads me to conclude that it is not
good for our county or our country. We cannot assume that the
mistaken views they wish to impose on our schools and elsewhere will
simply disappear. Anyone familiar with the operations of James
Dobson and related groups knows that they are extremely well-funded
and are feared by not a few politicians. There will be a vigorous debate. And now is the time, and Montgomery County is the place, to turn the tide.

David S. Fishback

August 17, 2005 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good grief, if The Nation wants to cover this story they could try getting simple basic facts correct, like this,

Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum was founded by Michelle Turner, a born-again Christian and mother of six

This is not correct; Turner is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But hey, why should it get in the way of a good story attempting to link CRC to the nefarious James Dobson, et al?

Since those represented by Teach the Ideology...opps, I mean Facts want to push the homosexualist agenda, they ought to expect that CRC and even folks like myself will push back, making it clear that we want our public schools to focus on the task at hand, towit: education (as opposed to political "re-education").

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

August 18, 2005 4:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802314_pf.html

"A 1973 high school graduate, Turner was raised in the county by her divorced mother and by grandparents after her mother died.

Hers was not an especially religious upbringing, she said. Her mother explained the facts of life to her when she was a sixth-grader, after two pet mice in the family mated and their babies were born. As for homosexuality, she said, back then "it was just something that you heard about, with your peers. . . . I know that people joked about it, and people would get ridiculed."

In the early 1980s, when her first marriage was falling apart, Turner said, a friend introduced her to the Mormon church, and she was baptized in 1984. Through the church, she met Grant Taylor Jr., a Montgomery native who was born into the faith. They married in 1985.
"

Date of her rebirth: 1984.

Who's got the facts straight?

Aunt Bea

August 18, 2005 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since those represented by Teach the Ideology...opps, I mean Facts want to push the homosexualist agenda, they ought to expect that CRC and even folks like myself will push back, making it clear that we want our public schools to focus on the task at hand, towit: education (as opposed to political "re-education").

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

********************
No...."we" as in you want schools to do only education that is approved by "we".... you and company. Outing yourself by talking about the "homosexualist agenda"...says it all on what folks like yourself think.

August 18, 2005 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin: I understand your annoyance at the incomplete description of Michelle's religion. However, I am puzzled by your assertion that a mention of her Mormon faith would have "gotten in the way of" the link between CRC and Dobson. In fact, there is an extremely clear link. Rather than being defensive about the Dobson connection, I would hope that conservatives who support CRC could publicly stand behind Dobson -- who is PFOX's initial financial backer -- and explain to his critics why they support him and his views. Anything less than this is a blatant attempt to trick taxpayers in Montgomery County who are following the story only in passing.

And in regard to "pushing back," we must remember that Teach the Facts was only formed in REACTION to CRC and its forerunner, Recall Montgomery School Board, both founded by Michelle Turner. So the more accurate statement would be, to borrow your sentence structure: If CRC wants to push an agenda of educational ignorance, they ought to expect that Teach the Facts and other common-sense folk will push back, making it clear that we want our public schools to focus on the task at hand, towit: education (as opposed to ideological "mis-education").

August 18, 2005 8:48 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I have sometimes heard the modern crop of religious hypocrites referred to as "Christianists," because they claim to follow Jesus, but don't. It's like, they believe in the Gospel, except for that stuff about loving your enemy, casting the first stone, forgiving people, judge not lest ye be judged, and that other bothersome stuff.

But homosexualist? Is that, like, a belief in homosexuality? What would that be?

JimK

August 18, 2005 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A great question, Jim. "Homosexualist" would have to mean someone who has chosen to believe in and/or "practice" homosexuality because he or she has determined that homosexuality is a superior way to be. In a way, this trivial semantic discussion highlights the major disagreement between the two sides.

Our side understands that people who are gay have simply realized they are gay and make the most of the circumstances life has given them. Some gay people form traditional-style families and raise children with their partner. Other gay people devote their efforts to making society safe and equitable for all minorities, spurred by the inequities they have experienced in their own life. Other gay people choose other life paths -- but gay people who are "out" don't allow their homosexuality to debilitate them.

The other side, however, seems to still believe that people who are gay have made some kind of decision that out of all the choices for how to be sexually active, homosexuality to be the best. The other side sees homosexuality as debilitating in and of itself. But anyone who knows real live gay people also knows that this is bogus. That's why we can't allow the public schools to condone ignorance -- let alone teach it!

This is my fourth post. I'm going to start signing an initial.

~L

August 18, 2005 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Orrin.

--Bianca

August 18, 2005 9:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home