The Board Keeps the Applications Secret
A little item from this morning's Washington Post.
The interesting thing is that they won't release the names of people who applied. It was my understanding that those applications were public record. I know that a Freedom of Information Act request was filed, someone wanting to see the applications, and that the school district has not yet come up with the documents. From this article, I would guess that they don't intend to.
They can say they're protecting "the privacy of citizens who apply," but what can that mean, really? These aren't personnel records, this isn't a job, there's no pay. The board is just seeing if they can get away with it, if they can avoid controversy by failing to comply with the law. Because we do know how the CRC and PFOX love to go to court -- and you can be sure they'll squawk over something if they can see those applications. Let me guess -- there is probably some nutty extremist who applied and didn't get picked, and they'll scream for the next year about how "unfair" it all has been. Yes, I understand the board wanting to avoid that, but ...
I know what I'd like to see in that stack of papers. I'd like to know if the two anti-MCPS groups who are guaranteed seats on the committee followed the rules. Did the CRC and PFOX submit three names? A Washington Times article earlier this year suggested they each submitted one, in violation of the rules. Were the names they submitted former members of the citizens committee, and therefore ineligible? That same Times article suggests that one of those groups' applicants was a former member.
What will the school board do on October 11th, if the CRC and PFOX violate the rules for applications? This will be a test for them. They could let those groups' representatives join the committee, even though they violated the rules, and I can easily understand the temptation to let them. I mean, who needs the hassle and expense of a big fight over something as uninteresting as the membership of a committee? On the other hand, they could simply hold those positions open until the groups both submit names of three people who have not been on the committee previously. In which case, I'd bet money the groups will sue.
In my view, it is most important for the board to retain control over the process. If they put ineligible people on the citizens advisory committee, they can't really kick when more demands are made. They might save a few bucks of taxpayer money off the top, but in the long run the whiners are going to feel empowered to drag the whole system down from the inside.
The citizens committee should reflect the community. By definition, that puts the anti-gay, anti-safe-sex groups in the minority. And like before, they will be outvoted when they try to introduce their ridiculous stuff into the classroom. So ... OK, they're outvoted, that's fair. It was fair before, and it will be fair now.
The Montgomery County School Board is slated to make appointments on Tuesday to the citizens advisory committee that will work with staff on revisions to the health education curriculum tossed out last May.
More than 175 county residents applied to sit on the 15-member board, but the identity of the applicants will remain a mystery, it seems. The school system has declined to release the names of prospective committee members or the applications that detail their reasons for wanting to be a part of the public advisory group. Officials say the privacy of citizens who apply for a spot on a public board trumps the public's right to know who they are and why they want to serve.
Board members will meet in closed session to go over the applications and will vote on their choices in open session.
What is known about the prospective committee is that two seats have been set aside for representatives from the groups that filed a lawsuit against the school system -- Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. Two other spots will be reserved for student representatives. In addition, representatives from four community groups will have seats at the table, leaving seven seats for citizens at large.
The previous curriculum, which allowed teacher-initiated discussions about homosexuality at the eighth-grade level and the screening of a video on condom use in the 10th grade, drew criticism from some members of the community who felt that it was not balanced and that its teacher resource materials favored the beliefs of some religious denominations over others. School Board to Appoint Members To Citizens Advisory Committee
The interesting thing is that they won't release the names of people who applied. It was my understanding that those applications were public record. I know that a Freedom of Information Act request was filed, someone wanting to see the applications, and that the school district has not yet come up with the documents. From this article, I would guess that they don't intend to.
They can say they're protecting "the privacy of citizens who apply," but what can that mean, really? These aren't personnel records, this isn't a job, there's no pay. The board is just seeing if they can get away with it, if they can avoid controversy by failing to comply with the law. Because we do know how the CRC and PFOX love to go to court -- and you can be sure they'll squawk over something if they can see those applications. Let me guess -- there is probably some nutty extremist who applied and didn't get picked, and they'll scream for the next year about how "unfair" it all has been. Yes, I understand the board wanting to avoid that, but ...
I know what I'd like to see in that stack of papers. I'd like to know if the two anti-MCPS groups who are guaranteed seats on the committee followed the rules. Did the CRC and PFOX submit three names? A Washington Times article earlier this year suggested they each submitted one, in violation of the rules. Were the names they submitted former members of the citizens committee, and therefore ineligible? That same Times article suggests that one of those groups' applicants was a former member.
What will the school board do on October 11th, if the CRC and PFOX violate the rules for applications? This will be a test for them. They could let those groups' representatives join the committee, even though they violated the rules, and I can easily understand the temptation to let them. I mean, who needs the hassle and expense of a big fight over something as uninteresting as the membership of a committee? On the other hand, they could simply hold those positions open until the groups both submit names of three people who have not been on the committee previously. In which case, I'd bet money the groups will sue.
In my view, it is most important for the board to retain control over the process. If they put ineligible people on the citizens advisory committee, they can't really kick when more demands are made. They might save a few bucks of taxpayer money off the top, but in the long run the whiners are going to feel empowered to drag the whole system down from the inside.
The citizens committee should reflect the community. By definition, that puts the anti-gay, anti-safe-sex groups in the minority. And like before, they will be outvoted when they try to introduce their ridiculous stuff into the classroom. So ... OK, they're outvoted, that's fair. It was fair before, and it will be fair now.
posted by JimK at 12:06 PM
28 Comments:
I find it very fitting that the Board will announce the new members of the brand new Citizen's Advisory Committee on the eighteenth annual National Coming Out Day. It is even more fitting when you learn that the theme for this year's Coming Out Day is "Talk About It."
We all know how little some people in Montgomery County want to talk about sexual orientations other than heterosexuality. They would rather not mention homosexuality and bi-sexuality at all and do not want to teach our kids about the undeniable fact of life that not all people are heterosexual, even in health class.
Let's hope the Board of Education selects people who are willing and able to "talk about" sexual orientation to serve on the CAC.
Aunt Bea
It's interesting how this group scours publications and websites for any mention of this topic and, yet, a major national newsmagazine put out a cover story on gay teens at the beginning of the week and there hasn't been any mention of it.
Time's article is a balanced and thoughtful discussion of the phenomena without the hyperbole and raving that push aside any glimmer of intelligent conversation on this website. Time discusses the Liberty Counsel victory over religious discrimination by the Montgomery County government, quotes Regina Griggs of PFOX in a respectful way and says, "you don't have to be a right-wing idealogue to think that having young teens identify themselves as gay is not a good thing." Read the article as an antidote to the TTF venom.
I printed out that article (it's behind a subscription wall online but somebody sent me the text), and read it, and you're right, it contains a lot of information. As I recall, it even mentions our situation here in Montgomery County. I didn't see the point in summarizing the whole article, and it was really a kind of review, nothing new that I saw. Somebody posted it on our Yahoo discussion group, so I know that TeachTheFacts people saw it, and there's no real point in just telling the world what was in Time this week.
JimK
You're right Jim. No point bringing up a major news magazine article that favorably looks at this controversy and even gives CRC some good points. Let's celebrate COMING OUT DAY, why don't we!!! Yes Aunt Bea -- congratulations on coming out! I'm sure all the people at TTF are so proud and happy for you!
Enjoy!
This is so weird. Anon's comments made me go back and look at that Time article again. And guess what I found.
First of all, the quote about "you don't have to be ... " etc isn't in that article anywhere. He/she made it up.
Second, the only thing it says about Regina Griggs is this:When I spoke with PFOX executive director Regina Griggs about the PTA'S rebuff, she projected a sense of crepitating resentment: "How can you be more diverse than an organization that says if you're happy being a homosexual ... that's your right? But if you have unwanted feelings or are a questioning youth, why can't you make those decisions? I guess diversity stops if you are a former homosexual."
The same old whining and feeling sorry for herself. Regina, nobody cares. If you're a "former homosexual," you're straight, and I just don't see how you can say that straight people are discriminated against.
And "crepitating resentment" -- is that "respectful," Anon. Time blows her off just like everybody else does.
They do quote the guy from Liberty Counsel, but say nothing about any "victory over religious discrimination," which is ridiculous anyway. There was no "religious discrimination" in the curriculum. Judge Williams' ruling was a victory for tricky lawyering.
I don't know why, but even after all these years I still assume people are telling the truth. This person who logged in as "Anonymous" is just making stuff up, telling us what's in this article. None of what he/she says is actually in there. If someone sees otherwise, please let us know.
I just hate being lied to by these guys.
And MCPS Mom, the article, as you certainly know, doesn't even mention CRC. I recommend it to all, it's a nice overview of gay teens.
JimK
MCPS Mom said...
Let's celebrate COMING OUT DAY, why don't we!!! Yes Aunt Bea -- congratulations on coming out! I'm sure all the people at TTF are so proud and happy for you!
Enjoy!
***************
Watch out... I see a closet door being closed by MCPS Mom....on anything that resembles "coming out..."
Jim, for such an innocent bloke, you sure are quick to jump to an accusation.
Here's the quote you didn't notice (see, you can give people the benefit of the doubt), copied directly from the text:
"You don't have to be a right-wing ideologue to ask whether it's always a good idea for a child to claim a gay identity at 13 or 14."
Here's the reference to Liberty Counsel:
"Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, an influential conservative litigation group that earlier this year won a court order blocking a Montgomery County, Md., teachers' guide that disparaged Evangelicals for their views on gays."
I'd say when a governmental body disparages an religious group, that's discrimination.
You do have a point that the adjective used to describe Ms Griggs viewpoint is a little negative but it doesn't approach the caricature you create of a woman who is simply fighting to help those who've been trapped by the expectations of the "cause du jour" crowd.
OK, Anonymous, I was searching for terms from your text, thanks for providing these pointers. I take back what I said about you making it up. You merely modified it beyond recognition, but I can see what you were talking about.
The "right-wing ideologue" quote is not what you said. Close, but importantly different. But most importantly, there's no argument about the point. It is not a good idea for young teens to pronounce themselves "gay" or whatever, for a lot of reasons, Number One being that they might grow a little more and find out they're not. Nobody, at least in the discussion of the MCPS sex-ed curriculum, has ever suggested that students should come out or identify themselves as gay. So this statement doesn't support one side or the other of the argument, it is only there because the article is about gay teens.
The Staver quote is also importantly different from what you said. You said the article "discusses the Liberty Counsel victory over religious discrimination." The article describes Liberty Counsel as a group "that earlier this year won a court order blocking a Montgomery County, Md., teachers' guide that disparaged Evangelicals for their views on gays." That's some pretty good wordplay. The court order did talk about teachers' background resources that mentioned that some religious groups are less tolerant of homosexuality, and the judge's ruling was largely based on that. But it was nothing like "religious discrimination," as you put it. These materials were not going to be used in class, and in fact the school board had never even seen this stuff. It was unused wording in documents that provided material to develop the curriculum, like if something from Chapter 10 was used in the curriculum, these were quotes from Chapter 2. Again, there is no argument here. Neither side of the controversy believes that anything needs to be said about any particular religions, whether they are tolerant or not. So this does not support one view or the other, we agree on this.
JimK
Thank you "MCPS Mom" for your display of a classic bullying behavior; the schoolyard taunt.
"Let's celebrate COMING OUT DAY, why don't we!!! Yes Aunt Bea -- congratulations on coming out!"
My husband of 29 years was particularly amused by your claim, dear, but you sure couldn't prove it by him!
Aunt Bea
Well, not that I expect logic or actual understanding but- the curriculum was already developed- the teacher resources were not what was going to be used to develop the curriculum. And the fact is that the push for the ex-gay nonsense is firmly based in religious bias against gay people-if CRC/PFOX's champion Richard Cohen "work"(I can barely stand to use the word for his poisionous fakery) is an example. So now CRC/PFOX is pushing for open religious bias in school.
Andrea
Andrea
No one is naive enough to believe that the teachers were going to simply read the skeleton curriculum you always refer to. It would take less than five minutes. The resources guided the teachers into the school board's intent in creating the curriculum.
Jim
We'll let you off easy but observant readers will notice that you first claimed to have read the article, then to have printed it out and reread it- only later did you acknowledge that you merely searched it. We could easily say you lied but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were trying to be efficient. Maybe you might want to reconsider your tendency to call people liars and hypocrites at the drop of the hat.
After your comments, I searched it for words that you quoted, and didn't find them. I already said I take back what I said about you making stuff up. I now believe your misinterpretation was unintentional.
JimK
Funny how CRC'rs are posting the life out of the TTF blog now.
Too bad they cannot revive their own dead as a doornail less than public message board after it was exposed as a farce.
Anyone who opposed the CRC nuttiness was promptly removed leaving...well you know.....
I welcome the discussion, as long as people can be civil.
JimK
Hey Aunt Bea,
Thanks for your plug for National Coming Out Day, next Tuesday, October 11. I've been "out" as a proud straight ally for years, but I always try to be more visible on NCOD. Straight allies have so much to offer, and visibility is not to be discounted.
Thanks, also, for coming out as a straight ally yourself. On Tuesday, if I see anyone wearing a pink triangle, or a piece of rainbow-striped ribbon, or maybe a button that says, "straight but not narrow," I'll assume it's you and I'll be sure to give a thumbs-up.
Theresa, you posted a lot of stuff there, I'll try to keep my reply short.
First of all, these resources were not for teachers to "develop the curriculum from." They were used by MCPS to develop the curriculum that teacher's got. This stuff was not supposed to be used in classrooms at all, as was explicitly stated in the official curriculum documents that you can read on the righthand side of this blog.
But -- look, nobody liked that stuff being in there. We didn't, you didn't, the board didn't. It would have been very easy to throw out the four offending background resources. It wouldn't have changed a thing. Nobody wanted to teach kids that Baptists are intolerant, and if these documents created that appearance, they should have been tossed.
The wording you posted proves that the judge was confused about what was in the curriculum. For instance, his first sentence was, "The Revised Curriculum also implies that the Baptist Church’s position on homosexuality is theologically flawed." In fact, the "revised curriculum" didn't say anything about the Baptist Church, but there was a statement in the background resources to that effect. He was led to believe these statements would end up in the classroom. Good lawyering, very clever on Liberty's side, and bad lawyering on MCPS's side, to let the impression stand uncorrected.
It would have been agreeable to everybody involved, if those resources were simply removed from the list. It would not have changed a single word of the curriculum itself, wouldn't have changed anything that was said in the classroom, if those documents were thrown out. It was not necessary to shut down the whole thing, MCPS did that to avoid the expense of dealing with CRC/PROX's out-of-state pro bono lawyers. It was a real loss to our community, and the wrong way to do things.
And even if there were sample quizzes in the background resources, it is silly to think teachers were going to use those in the classroom. They weren't, because those documents were not in the curriculum.
My last comment on this for now as I need to write a document giving business guidance. The curriculum cannot be read in 5 minutes-there is more than just an outline and there is a textbook- which I read this summer- have you?.
And by the way- we know CRC holds a low opinion of teachers and MCPS(all of that private and home schooling)-but do you really think most people don't already know how some religions denigrate and hate gay people? I do not think the document needed to exist as a resource because religion does not belong in a science class but how many times has a kid already said in school that gay people are sinners or worse.
A poster was defaced at Churchhill with the words "God hates fags"-a kid learned this somewhere-maybe from someone who told him "love the sinner, hate the sin"
Andrea:
your comments:
"The curriculum cannot be read in 5 minutes-there is more than just an outline and there is a textbook- which I read this summer- have you?."
No, I haven't and I wasn't aware of it. I never heard about it during the controversy last year. What's the name and author of the textbook?
"And by the way- we know CRC holds a low opinion of teachers and MCPS(all of that private and home schooling)"
A generalization, although the teaching profession is not full of the same kind of dedicated and selfless people it once had. Public school teaching has largely sacrificed professionalism for unionization and politicization. That too is a generalizaion I realize- but the reality is dismaying. By the way, you'd be surprised how many public school teachers don't have their kids in public school. I'm personally friends with two different public school principals whose wives homeschool their kids. I also know that one of the vice principals at Einstein has their kids in private school.
"-but do you really think most people don't already know how some religions denigrate and hate gay people?"
Other than some bizarre cult groups, I'm not aware of any denominations that hold this position- certainly not any large ones.
"I do not think the document needed to exist as a resource because religion does not belong in a science class"
Says who? One of the greatest scientists of our most recently concluded millenium, Albert Einstein, frequently referred to God when he spoke about his scientific discoveries. Let's name a high school after him.
"but how many times has a kid already said in school that gay people are sinners or worse.
A poster was defaced at Churchhill with the words "God hates fags"-a kid learned this somewhere-maybe from someone who told him "love the sinner, hate the sin""
I've been an active evagelical Christian for thirty years and I've never heard any other Christian say "God hates fags" or even use the term "fag". It's just as likely someone from the GSA over there did it for publicity purposes.
As far as Einstein referring to God, he is a good example of a religious person in science. He often repeated his fundamental argument against quantum theory: "God does not play dice."
If you read Einstein's published papers, though, you will not find any mention of deity, I assure you. And if he mentioned God in the classroom, he was certainly wandering off the topic. His belief that random processes cannot exist in nature was easily summarized in religious terms that the average person could understand, but he could back it up using just the dynamics of the system under consideration.
There is no contradiction between practicing rigorous science and believing in God. Humans have spiritual needs, and even if it turns out that we are "just" machines, we are very interesting machines with profound feelings.
The saying "God hates fags" comes from the name of a web site put up by a Baptist church. Yes, they are a fringe group, but the mainstream Baptist belief, that they hate the sin and love the sinner, is only slightly more civil. Let's not pretend in this argument that fundamentalists and evangelists accept homosexuality. It doesn't need to be mentioned one way or the other in a public school, but let's not pretend that anti-gay religious sentiment doesn't exist, or we're going see the comments filled up with a long list of quotes from Falwell, Dobson, and Co.
JimK
"And if he mentioned God in the classroom, he was certainly wandering off the topic."
He often mentioned God in the context of the topic.
"His belief that random processes cannot exist in nature was easily summarized in religious terms that the average person could understand, but he could back it up using just the dynamics of the system under consideration."
Yes, just like the proponents of ID today.
"There is no contradiction between practicing rigorous science and believing in God."
Exactly, and there is no contradiction between rigorous science and noting patterns which indicate a designer of creation. There's certainly no contradiction between practicing rigorous science and mentioning God in a classroom or anywhere else. A moral compass might even restore some integrity to modern science. What are you so scared of?
"Humans have spiritual needs"
Yes, they do and they weren't instilled by natural selection.
"The saying "God hates fags" comes from the name of a web site put up by a Baptist church. Yes, they are a fringe group, but the mainstream Baptist belief, that they hate the sin and love the sinner, is only slightly more civil."
Well, Jim, basic Christian doctrine is that all men are sinners including Christians. I guess, by your reasoning, we all hate everyone, including ourselves. It's amazing that Western civilization has survived at all.
I think there's a good chance that a GSA student defaced the poster. They would have the most to gain from the incident.
"Let's not pretend in this argument that fundamentalists and evangelists accept homosexuality."
Has anyone here done that? Authentic Christian believers will never stop calling sinners to repentance.
"It doesn't need to be mentioned one way or the other in a public school, but let's not pretend that anti-gay religious sentiment doesn't exist, or we're going see the comments filled up with a long list of quotes from Falwell, Dobson, and Co."
It's fine for the beliefs of various groups to be mentioned in public schools. The schools just shouldn't take sides.
Religious concepts have not had a place in science. Human experience needs a language of description, but there has never yet been the need to insert a spiritual event into the chains of causality in nature.
And no, the "proponents of ID today" can't back up anything at all. Their "intelligent designer" doesn't explain anything beyond what conventional science already understands. Oh, and Einstein may have believed in God, but he did not include God in his theories.
And man, don't tell me that "by my reasoning" Christians must hate everybody. I didn't make any of this stuff up, it sounds crazy to me. It is not my reasoning.
--And your accusation that the GSA kids defaced their own posters ... you just can't imagine that was one of your peace-lovin' Christian Knights, can you?
JimK
I could easily see Einstein walking into a classroom and saying "Beyond all that we've discovered, any thinking person has to realize there is a First Cause too mysterious for us analyze but, based on the order built into the universe, that Cause must have been a purposeful intelligence."
Here's a recent paraphrase of Stephen Hawking, "At the beginning of our universe an extremely dense amount of latter began a rapid expansion. Obviously, something or someone caused this expansion. If you want to call that something or someone God, I have no problem with that." Can we read his books in a public high school?
"And man, don't tell me that "by my reasoning" Christians must hate everybody. I didn't make any of this stuff up, it sounds crazy to me. It is not my reasoning."
Yes, Jim, it is you who has reasoned that believing something is sinful is the equivalent of hating them. The whole idea of Christianity is compassion for sinners.
"--And your accusation that the GSA kids defaced their own posters ... you just can't imagine that was one of your peace-lovin' Christian Knights, can you?"
I don't know who did it but you're the one convicting a group without evidence. I'm just noting that there are other possibilities that make more sense.
Anon says..."it is you who has reasoned that believing something is sinful is the equivalent of hating them. The whole idea of Christianity is compassion for sinners."
Judging from the volume of sexual orientation hate-crimes, discrimination, and harassment, it seems plenty of folks have done a better job of teaching that gays are sinners than teaching compassion for gays.
Instead of Einstein preaching before teaching, maybe if you would try to imagine things from the perspective of a gay teenager living in America today, you might come to see how rampant the hatred of gays is and how rare the compassion.
Ma
Actually, Jim, in Montgomery County, harassment is much more common against kids who dare to believe in traditional morality than kids who've been mislead by the liberal establishment to believe that they are trapped by an immoral desire and ruin their lives. The harassment is often lead by the teachers. I know many examples.
I was just watching the Einstein special on NOVA and the young Einstein character tells his friends, "I want to find out how God created the universe." He must have been an enemy of true science, huh?
Anon, Einstein can say that in his private life, I have said over and over there is no contradiction between being religious and being a scientist. But he didn't develop a theory where energy is converted into ether and then God makes matter out of it, or anything of the sort. It is not part of his science. It may motivate him, but God is not a causal variable or constant in any formula.
JimK
"harassment is much more common
against kids who dare to believe
in traditional morality"
There it is. Those who
spread hate (of homosexuality, not
homosexuals, we got it) are
assuming the mantle of victim.
How desperate can this insurgency
get?
>>Springer
Taking a quote from NOVA's "dramatization" of Einstein's life to support your views, Anon?
Many people who hold strong religious views and are scientists. The vast majority of scientists and the professional organizations they belong to have studied and concluded that homosexuality is not a disease, that homosexuals can lead perfectly happy and healthy lives, and that reparative therapy is a dangerous practice that was banned a generation ago due to the harm it was shown to cause to individuals and their families. Even more of these scientists and their professional organizations support evolution and conclude that creastionism/ID is a religious view, not a scientific theory of earth/life development.
But you go right on relying on fiction to make your point for you.
Ma
<< Home