Ohio Curriculum Evolving
In 2002 Ohio passed a law that set standards for classes to criticize evolution. But now they're about to give it up. The New York Times:
It's interesting that a survey funded by a pro-Intelligent-Design group showed that a majority of Ohio residents favor teaching about alternatives to evolution.
This same survey also found that a majority of Ohioans also believed that students should take a full semester class studying the question of what happened to that cute blonde girl who disappeared in Aruba.
Not really.
But you gotta ask, do you always give the people what they want? Or do you do the right thing? For some people, that's a tough question.
A majority on the Ohio Board of Education, the first state to single out evolution for "critical analysis" in science classes more than three years ago, are expected on Tuesday to challenge a model biology lesson plan they consider an excuse to teach the tenets of the disputed theory of intelligent design.
A reversal in Ohio would be the most significant in a series of developments signaling a sea change across the country against intelligent design — which posits that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone — since a federal judge's ruling in December that teaching the theory in the public schools of Dover, Pa., was unconstitutional.
A small rural school district in California last month quickly scuttled plans for a philosophy elective on intelligent design after being challenged by lawyers involved in the Pennsylvania case. Also last month, an Indiana lawmaker who said in November that he would introduce legislation to mandate teaching of intelligent design, instead offered a watered-down bill requiring only "accuracy in textbooks." And just last week, two Democrats in Wisconsin proposed a ban on schools' teaching intelligent design as science, the first such proposal in the country.
Here in Ohio, pressure has been mounting on board members in recent weeks to toss out the lesson plan and the standards underpinning it.
Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, called this month for a legal review of the plan, while newly revealed education department documents linking it to treatises of the intelligent design movement have renewed threats of a lawsuit by opponents of the movement. At the same time, a national group of evolution defenders has bombarded 5 of the 19 board members considered key to a vote against the lesson plan with 30,000 e-mail messages over the past week, and just Monday, the president of the National Academy of Sciences urged the board to change the lesson and the underlying curriculum guidelines to "conform to established scientific standards."
"All of that adds up to a sense of urgency and a sense of now is the time to clean up our act," said Robin C. Hovis, a stockbroker from Millersburg who is one of two board members pushing an emergency motion on Tuesday to delete the "critical analysis" language and the lesson plan. "There is an atmosphere among the board, at least a growing atmosphere, that this is a misguided policy and we better get rid of it." Ohio Expected to Rein In Class Involving Intelligent Design
It's interesting that a survey funded by a pro-Intelligent-Design group showed that a majority of Ohio residents favor teaching about alternatives to evolution.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, intellectual home of the design movement, had distanced itself from the Dover case but has long heralded Ohio's "critical analysis" approach as a model for the nation, and is ardently defending the lesson plan.
On Monday, the institute released a Zogby International poll it had commissioned showing that 69 percent of Ohio voters believed that scientific evidence against evolution should be included in curriculums, and 76 percent agreed that "students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life." The institute has also proffered letters from two university science professors supporting Ohio's standards and model lesson plan.
This same survey also found that a majority of Ohioans also believed that students should take a full semester class studying the question of what happened to that cute blonde girl who disappeared in Aruba.
Not really.
But you gotta ask, do you always give the people what they want? Or do you do the right thing? For some people, that's a tough question.
posted by JimK at 1:09 PM
64 Comments:
"At the same time, a national group of evolution defenders has bombarded 5 of the 19 board members considered key to a vote against the lesson plan with 30,000 e-mail messages over the past week, and just Monday, the president of the National Academy of Sciences urged the board to change the lesson and the underlying curriculum guidelines to "conform to established scientific standards.""
Wow. Sounds like the evolutionists are really scared of having the deficiencies of evolutionary theory exposed. If IT is so clearly wrong, why can't its merit and arguments be discussed? Why does the very mention of intelligent design need to be banished from the thoughts of men? Sounds to me like someone is running scared. They're running around with their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la-la-la". Right, Jim?
American citizens are all free to climb up on a soapbox in the public square and preach about our religious beliefs including Intelligent Design because every last one of us has the right to freedom of speech. None of us however may preach our religious beliefs under the auspices of a public school system. This American system of maintaining a separation between church and state has kept us from fighting a religious civil war for over 200 years. The radical right's unabashed efforts to change this system to favor one religion over all other religions in American public life is short-sighted, dangerous, and unAmerican.
"American system of maintaining a separation between church and state"
I don't see this in the founding documents of our country. Where do you get this?
Theresa, I'm sure you feel that you just called somoebody a hypocrite. But I don't think anybody wants to talk in a public school about whether Jesus thinks such-and-such is a sin, or compare what one church or the other thinks about it.
I don't see any such comments in this thread, and in fact have never seen anyone here make such statements. So it's not clear to me who are addressing with your capital letters and exclamation marks.
JimK
Theresa, I think you know where you exaggerate, so I won't try to go point-by-point here. Some teachers' background materials contained comments that everybody agrees did not need to be there. It would not have been hard to remove the offending materials, it was certainly not necessary to throw out the whole curriculum because of them.
And you know as well as I, the materials were not for classroom use.
JimK
"Theresa, I think you know where you exaggerate, so I won't try to go point-by-point here. Some teachers' background materials contained comments that everybody agrees did not need to be there. It would not have been hard to remove the offending materials, it was certainly not necessary to throw out the whole curriculum because of them.
And you know as well as I, the materials were not for classroom use."
Theresa was correct in nearly everything here. Many of her points did not involve the resource material. There is a selection and presentation of facts to create a false impression of homosexuality and the birth control information was framed in such a way as to remove any societal stigma from promiscuity.
On for those points that did refer to the teacher resources: everyone, Federal judges included, realize that the selection of the resource material indicated how the teachers would expound and expand, as they necessarily would have had to do because of the skeletal nature of the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions.
A couple of interesting comments, there, Anon.
This one is central: There is a selection and presentation of facts to create a false impression of homosexuality and the birth control information was framed in such a way as to remove any societal stigma from promiscuity.
There was nothing that created any "false impression of homosexuality." As usual, I refer the reader to the curricula, which are linked on the righthand side of this page. There were simply some facts. Unless your point is that a "correct impression" should include the suggestion that gays are drug-crazed, promiscuous, child molesters. And no, that was not part of the curriculum.
Also, nothing at all in the curriculum would have been interpreted as endorsing promiscuity, of all things! Approximately one percent of people are virgins when they marry. Just about everybody has sex before marriage, and most of those do not intend to make babies. It does not seem unreasonable that a health class for adolescents would address that topic.
Anyway, I don't think there was anything in the "new" curriculum about contraception, including condoms, that was not in the "old" (current) one.
JimK
"There was nothing that created any "false impression of homosexuality." As usual, I refer the reader to the curricula, which are linked on the righthand side of this page. There were simply some facts. Unless your point is that a "correct impression" should include the suggestion that gays are drug-crazed, promiscuous, child molesters. And no, that was not part of the curriculum."
There you go again, Jim. You're an extremist. Either we have to imply that homosexuality is completely normal or we make "the suggestion that gays are drug-crazed, promiscuous, child molesters." We need to tell the truth about the negative aspects of homosexual life in our society if we have to bring up the topic at all.
By the way, the things the constitutionally flawed Fishback revision wanted to teach were not facts- they were opinions. Unless you're saying it's a fact that someone has an opinion. If so, let's put in some more opinions not just those of professional organizations.
"Also, nothing at all in the curriculum would have been interpreted as endorsing promiscuity, of all things! Approximately one percent of people are virgins when they marry. Just about everybody has sex before marriage, and most of those do not intend to make babies. It does not seem unreasonable that a health class for adolescents would address that topic."
It would be more supportive of societal stability if the information is taught as something you do when you get married rather than when you're "old enough". Don't kids always think they're old enough. The way the information is presented, makes it seem that society is approving of premarital promiscuity, if carefully considered and responsibly performed.
By the way, your idea that "hardly anyone" believes premarital sex is wrong was contradicted by a survey you posted here a few weeks ago.
"Anyway, I don't think there was anything in the "new" curriculum about contraception, including condoms, that was not in the "old" (current) one."
Well, at this point, we're considering an appropriate revision now that the constitutionally flawed Fishback revision is beyond consideration. It would be OK to amend the old curriculum to make it more responsible. We don't need to err on the side of TTF-style irresponsibility.
Theresa said, "I do believe though, that you have to do what is good for the majority."
Well then we are in agreement as majority of students and adults have approved of sex ed being taught. Majority of students take it..very few opt their children out. You can do that too, Theresa.
freebird
"Well then we are in agreement as majority of students and adults have approved of sex ed being taught. Majority of students take it..very few opt their children out. You can do that too, Theresa."
Actually there hasn't been a vote- or even a poll- on the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions.
Under-age kids, by the way, don't always know what's good for them. In our society, eighteen is the age when we deem them to be independent of adult guidance.
Anonymous you need to get out more...sex ed has been taught for years. You are trying to have us believe the old proposed revisions made huge drastic changes...it did not.
By the age of 18..how many children have had sex...unprotected or otherwise?
Let's not forget the abstinence pledgers who have oral or anal sex to keep from having "real sex."
freebird
I'd love to see two versions of sex-ed. One developed by CRC, one by TTF. I'd love to see them promoted by the schools are equivalent options and see which one most parents would opt for. Does anybody really doubt which would prevail?
I'd love to see the textbook Theresa kids use at their school and the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions presented to voters for their choice. Does anybody really doubt which would prevail?
The why are you not posting your support over at CRC message board?
You already know which prevails here and in majority. You already know CRC says all kids will be indoctrinated into being gay if they hear the word homosexual and transgendered people mutilate themselves and are mentally ill. Why not throw in there hearing about families in all sorts of combos will just make kids ears fall off. Let us not forget those ex-gays that do not exist. Yes indeed CRC and PFOX would do a bang up job on anything they put out. Other bigots like you would think so.
freebird
Theresa said, "That was your position on the whether the Mass fisting dicussion would be appropriate for the school system - if you don't like it opt-out. Doesn't matter what sort of crap we are trying to corrupt all the public school kids with - if you don't like it, opt-out."
Now Theresa are you going to pretend the "Mass fisting discussion" that you are fixated on would happen here? Oh wait you tried that on your school community and they told you to take a hike in that "the sky is falling discussion you tried to engage your school community in.
If you do not want your children to hear anything that exists in real life then keep them home locked up in their bedrooms while you limit what they see and hear.
TTF prefers a full comprehensive sex ed taught and not some bigoted version.
freebird
Free
Afraid of an open public comparison. TTF wants a full comprehensive sex-ed myth course taught. Facts selected and presented to support a "free love" ethic.
State drops analysis of evolution
Reversal represents a setback to backers of intelligent design in science classes
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Catherine Candisky
The State Board of Education yesterday stripped controversial provisions from science standards that critics said promoted the teaching of intelligent design.
After narrowly rejecting a similar attempt last month, the board voted 11-4 to eliminate portions of its curriculum guidelines for 10 th-grade biology and an accompanying lesson plan that called for the critical analysis of evolution. It also directed a committee to determine whether a replacement lesson is necessary.
The reversal marked another setback for the intelligent-design movement, which holds that some life forms are too complex to be explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution and that a higher authority must have played a role.
Continues at
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/02/15/20060215-A1-00.html
Anon said TTF wants a full comprehensive sex-ed myth course taught. Facts selected and presented to support a "free love" ethic.
Anon, that may be what you think you oppose, but it is a terrible description of what we want. We worry about our kids just like everybody else, and want them to learn to behave in a modest and moderate way.
Readers, please review the curricula linked on the righthand side of this page, if you wish to see what TTF advocates.
This Anonymous troll is a liar.
JimK
"Anon, that may be what you think you oppose, but it is a terrible description of what we want. We worry about our kids just like everybody else, and want them to learn to behave in a modest and moderate way."
A good first step would be to teach them the truth. It's worth a shot- they might be able to handle it.
Jim
Do you think if you told them the truth about how homosexuals live in this country, about what dangers are inherent in the lifestyle, they would automatically start persecuting them? Give them credit. They could handle the information.
Theresa
I don't understand, was this recently? Why are you posting these things?
JimK
Theresa you left out your "sky is falling" routine as well as telling school community folks BOE broke their own laws...the Mass episode would be on our doorsteps and more. The alarmist you are and you were asked to take it elsewhere.
freebird
Theresa, I don't know about last year, but today, on this blog, you implied that something similar to the Massachusetts "fisting" literature would be taught in MCPS if the new curriculum had gone through.
Which is absurd. You know that.
JimK
I find in general the opposition here makes any kind of grandstanding statement they want. Theresa is being silly about the fisting thing- she knows it was never going to be taught.
But let's bring it up as if it was. As to Anon- or Anons- there is a text used in Montgomery County schools- if you were actually interested you could read it. However, it is so much easier to spout nonsense about what is taught. I read the text along with my student who took the 10th grade class- I know what the text says about STIs and what photos it shows ans what it says about relationships. It is obvious that the opposition does not.
"I find in general the opposition here makes any kind of grandstanding statement they want. Theresa is being silly about the fisting thing- she knows it was never going to be taught.
But let's bring it up as if it was. As to Anon- or Anons- there is a text used in Montgomery County schools- if you were actually interested you could read it. However, it is so much easier to spout nonsense about what is taught. I read the text along with my student who took the 10th grade class- I know what the text says about STIs and what photos it shows ans what it says about relationships. It is obvious that the opposition does not."
Sounds like you covered what you wanted to teach your kids, Nadrea. Why do you think you need to impose your point of view on everyone else's kids?
anonymous said, "Why do you think you need to impose your point of view on everyone else's kids? "
Sorry anonymous you have the TTF blog mixed up with the lame CRC message board in which this question would be right at home there. Yes CRC/PFOX would love nothing better than to hoist their views on the majority.
freebird
"Sorry anonymous you have the TTF blog mixed up with the lame CRC message board in which this question would be right at home there. Yes CRC/PFOX would love nothing better than to hoist their views on the majority."
Just shows how deluded you are. The CRC has consistently said that parents should have more say over what their kids are taught. TTF holds that the taxpayers' money should be reserved for converting as many kids as possible to the warped point of view of GLAAD. They favor viewpoint discrimination. Ask judge Williams.
anonymous if you wants us to believe this and that CRC is this nice little group...well you will not get that at TTF because we and others saw how CRC got started, saw their plotting and see it continued. Just look at the items Michelle Turner as CRC pres. has put forth lately alone.
CRC wants to tell ALL parents what their children should be allowed to have in sex ed. As said before on this blog.."CRC says all kids will be indoctrinated into being gay if they hear the word homosexual and transgendered people mutilate themselves and are mentally ill. Why not throw in there hearing about families in all sorts of combos will just make kids ears fall off. Let us not forget those ex-gays that do not exist. Yes indeed CRC and PFOX would do a bang up job on anything they put out. Other bigots like you would think so."
freebird
"it is the state's obligation to educate its children,"
If you believe this, do you then want to change this?:
"If you don't want the state involved, you can get them a private education or educate them yourself."
Doesn't seem you can consistently hold both views.
"Second, that nowhere did I suggest saying that I would teach kids "that they might possibly have a gender different than what they were born with is wrong." You won't find my saying that anywhere. You're implying, again, that I'm somehow trying to confuse or recruit kids. That's so patently absurd. I've been very clear what I would teach. I would teach that sex and gender are complex concepts, that brain sex is the determinant for who you feel you are, that your genitals do not determine your sex, and that there are people, 1:1500, whose genitals do not match their brain sex. That's all. And I have taught that, at the college level. I have never gone into a room of children and said "Some of you have a gender different from your genitals," because they would think such a statement hilarious. Though it might get their attention. If I did say that, I would then say that it's true but only for that 1:1500. But I would provoke them into understanding just what makes the boys feel like boys and the girls feel like girls. That is always very instructive, and not harmful at all. It's even worked with Bob Knight and Don Dwyer. You still haven't explained to me why that makes you uncomfortable."
Kids at that age are still forming their identity. We shouldn't throw gender in. At a minimum, it could cause some difficulties.
"And, finally, I'm glad we've cleared up that it isn't a religious thing with you and your husband."
The really unclear thing here is why you've rejected any belief in Judeo-Christian doctrines and, yet, in any discussion about it, you seem to have a proprietary interest in it. Bizarre.
"Which is probably why we can dialogue with you on this blog but not with Anon."
No, it's because Theresa always is gracious enough to give you a back door out of your illogical arguments while the incisive anon appears to have discarded that strategy. The sad thing is her restraint usually results in a bunch of epithets and ranting on your side.
"But the bottom line is your fear, which is completely irrational."
It's called concern and it's justified. You yourself complain about how difficult your life has been. Let's be careful not to say things that will cause kids to consider that demented path.
"I suggest you and your husband read the Rudacille book (she's a regular, straight white woman) and then discuss between yourselves why this whole topic makes you uncomfortable. Ask yourselves, seriously, what makes you a woman and your husband a man."
Hey, maybe the Y chromosome does it.
"You might find it instructive. I've counseled men post-prostatectomy who can't get erections, and they still feel like men. Or men on estrogens for prostate cancer with no erections and large breasts. And they still feel like men. Or women post-mastectomy, or total hysterectomy, who still feel like women."
And why would they come to you for counseling?
"To say nothing at all of the intersex cases which put a lie to the religious fundamentalists' attitude that the penis is all that matters."
Your bigoted interpretation.
"I, and others on this blog, have read extensively in the literature from your side, as well as the scriptural writings."
We all have read your propaganda.
"As a matter of fact, when I came out to my rabbi, I presented a halakhic (Jewish legal) case, fully documented, as to why trans persons are perfectly acceptable according to Jewish tradition. I've been there, and done that. Now it would be nice if you and some of your colleagues actually took the time to read the evidence that we have for our position, instead of just saying "It's wrong. period." That's not an argument."
Don't say "it's just wrong period". We've told you why.
You disrespect science and don't listen to facts. And make them up.
"I didn't invite you into the discussion"
Well, obviously. It's not your place, though. You made an insult to a friend of mine. I responded. Think before you speak or it might happen again.
"and I won't respond to your inanities."
Oh, come on. It's the weekend. Give us a good laugh.
"I take science seriously,"
Yes, we know. You commonly exploit its gravitas by selectively manipulating facts to push your twisted ideas.
"and I also take my religious and ethnic background"
Background being the key term. You've got a lot of it.
"and history seriously. I apply rational arguments to any and all issues,"
Oh, please.
"including religion; with science it goes without saying."
You blatantly ignore the warnings of scientists that you should not jump to conclusions. Science has a responsible core at the center. You're on the fringe.
"I've had a rather unique life experience which I can use to clarify issues which have been ignored and which are subject to fear."
Or which have boxed you into a corner you can't get out of. You made your choices. There's no need to evangelize for your cause.
"You are willfully ignorant, blind and hateful, particularly when it comes to sex and gender."
I thought you said none of us has a will. We can't help it, right?
Theresa wrote:
"The short list of problems with the old curriculum are :
"1) It did not include any of the specific increased health risks of homosexual behavior. David Fishback's justification was a. well that section wasn't being changed and b. well we don't want to stigimatize homosexuals. Retta tells me that the Fishback committee specifically voted down materials dicussing MSM risks, etc - all of which Michelle and she were advocating including.
"So you talk about homosexual behavior, present it as a normal alternative lifestyle, and don't include any of the health risks. That is just flat out irresponsible."
***********************************
I just went through this thread for the first time. A lot of it is just a restatement of debates we have already had. I do want to respond to the above comment, however.
Theresa, why don’t you ask Retta to give you the entire tape of the meeting where these matters were discussed? When she raised these materials, I specifically asked the MCPS Coordinator of Health Education if materials setting forth risks of sexual activity, including same-sex activity, were already discussed in the Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) Unit. He confirmed that they were. The high school students on the Committee confirmed (either at this or at other meetings) that these issues were discussed extensively in the STI Unit.
Heterosexual activity also has health risks. Retta did not offer to restate those in the Family Life and Human Sexuality (FLHS) Unit. If she had, then there might well have been an interesting discussion as to whether the STI materials should be brought in again into the FLHS Unit. But she did not – she plainly wished to single out gays. After the vote turning down Retta’s materials, I pointedly spoke directly into the microphone she kept on the table and laid out all of what I have just discussed.
In any event, you should seriously consider not taking what Retta says at face value. This lie -- which has been repeated over and over by Retta and her allies -- that I urged that MCPS ignore the dangers of sexual activity is outrageous. I have endeavored to be calm and measured in my responses in these conversations, but this libel should be beneath the dignity of anyone who wishes to have reasoned, respectful discussions of the health education curriculum.
"Heterosexual activity also has health risks...she plainly wished to single out gays."
Monogamous heterosexual marital relations carry no risk (excepting, of course, infidelity.) However, even in those who are promiscuous, heterosexuality is nowhere near as dangerous as homosexuality. It's just a fact.
David, think of these kids who decide they are going to pursue homosexuality. Looking for partners, they are much less likely to find a safe situation than if they were looking for heterosexual partners. It's not just a matter of intercorse mechanics. To say or imply anything else is to present a fairy tale version of the gay life. The kids deserve better.
"In any event, you should seriously consider not taking what Retta says at face value. This lie -- which has been repeated over and over by Retta and her allies -- that I urged that MCPS ignore the dangers of sexual activity is outrageous. I have endeavored to be calm and measured in my responses in these conversations, but this libel should be beneath the dignity of anyone who wishes to have reasoned, respectful discussions of the health education curriculum."
David, do you think facts that would tend to stigmatize homosexual should be left out of the curriculum? Do you think that no such facts exist?
You used the term libel. Do you think a person on a governmental committee can sue for libel or slander in connection with actions taken by that committee?
I don't think that Theresa said that you "urged that MCPS ignore the dangers of sexual activity". I think that she was saying that the particular dangers of homosexual activity were specifically excluded from the curriculum. Isn't that what this meant: "After the vote turning down Retta’s materials,"?
David, did you have any associations or conflicts of interest that made you inappropriate as a selection to chair the committee?
Not making any statements, just asking what you think.
"equal parts ignorance and fanaticism."
We're all ignorant and fantical about some things- and probably always will be. We still have to do our best to look for truth- that's what I've done. I'm not in a box- I constantly re-evaluate and reconsider. The fact is none of you have said anything that would make a reasonable person reconsider traditional sexuality morality.
"And the sad thing about it is that you actually believe your God is proud of you for your beliefs, actions and words."
You've need to get over this "your God" thing. It helps you cope and gloss over things, I guess, but, truthfully, there is only one God. Doesn't change if you don't believe in Him. "Hear O Israel. The Lord our God is one God."
I hope the above deleted comment wasn't demented.
Darn. I wanted to start referring to you as "Dr. Demento".
Try standing up straight, Anon. Your knuckles are scraping
again
Anonymous said in response to my posting:
1. "Heterosexual activity also has health risks...she plainly wished to single out gays.
"Monogamous heterosexual marital relations carry no risk (excepting, of course, infidelity.) However, even in those who are promiscuous, heterosexuality is nowhere near as dangerous as homosexuality. It's just a fact.
"David, think of these kids who decide they are going to pursue homosexuality. Looking for partners, they are much less likely to find a safe situation than if they were looking for heterosexual partners. It's not just a matter of intercorse mechanics. To say or imply anything else is to present a fairy tale version of the gay life. The kids deserve better."
My response: Monogamous homosexual relations similarly avoid risks of STIs. But your position in which society would continue to marginalize gays obstructs, rather than encourages monogamy. Imagine if heterosexuals were not permitted the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, for example.
2. "David, do you think facts that would tend to stigmatize homosexual should be left out of the curriculum? Do you think that no such facts exist?"
My response: I will say this once again, MCPS staff informed the CAC that the facts about same-sex, as well as opposite sex, transmission of STIs was already included in the STI unit of the Health Education Curriculum. That you persist in ignoring that fact demonstrates that your purpose is not to educate, but to demonize.
3. "You used the term libel. Do you think a person on a governmental committee can sue for libel or slander in connection with actions taken by that committee?"
My response: I do not know whether an public institution can sue for libel or slander. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, dealing with libel suits by public figures, the bar would be very high – as it should be. I did not use the term libel with respect to the CAC; rather, I used it as to me personally. In any event, as former chair of the CAC, I would probably fall within Sullivan, as well. More to the point, I am not going to sue anyone over this libel – and unlike the CRC, I mean what I say. I would note out that my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines libel as a defamatory written published statement; it defines defamation as falsely attacking someone’s reputation. To accuse me of not caring about the risks of sexual activity fits that definition, in my view.
4. "I don't think that Theresa said that you 'urged that MCPS ignore the dangers of sexual activity'. I think that she was saying that the particular dangers of homosexual activity were specifically excluded from the curriculum. Isn't that what this meant: 'After the vote turning down Retta’s materials.'?"
My response: See response No. 2, above. I want my children and everyone's children to be safe and to lead happy fulfilling lives. If there had been no adequate material in the STI Unit on same-sex transmission of STIs, I would have pushed to include it. To say otherwise is to accuse me of caring more about an abstraction than about my children and other people's children. THAT is defamatory. People like Alan Keyes, who threw his lesbian daughter out of the house, elevate abstraction over humanity. I am proud to say that I am the polar opposite of Alan Keyes.
5. "David, did you have any associations or conflicts of interest that made you inappropriate as a selection to chair the committee?"
My response: No. When the previous chair retired from the CAC in late autumn 2002, another CAC member offered himself as a replacement. He, like me, was a newly-appointed member; we had had conversations about several matters, and I did not get the sense that he would be a good chair. No one else came forward, so I offered my candidacy, as well. We both presented our backgrounds and qualifications. The other candidate withdrew, and I was elected in January 2003. The other candidate was elected vice-chair without opposition, but never came to another meeting and eventually resigned from the CAC. I was re-elected without opposition in autumn 2004.
I am sure that you are alluding to the fact that my wife and I are the parents of two adult, gay sons. I applied for membership on the CAC in the spring of 2002 because I thought my family’s experience would be a useful in the discussions that the CAC was to have in the future. (In March 2002, the BOE deferred consideration of the CAC’s recommendation that information on sexual orientation be included in the 8th and 10th grade curriculum; this recommendation was adopted by the BOE the following autumn). I had learned much in the years since my younger son had come out at the age of 15, and I thought it appropriate to share that knowledge with the CAC; I did not want other children to go through the unnecessary pain and isolation my children went through. Presentation of basic information about sexual orientation as understood by the mainstream medical and mental health communities could go a long way toward making those children’s lives better. My experience and knowledge was not a conflict – rather, I believe it was an asset.
Incidentally, I laid all this out to my fellow CAC members in advance of my election as chair. This was no secret – in fact, it was reported in the Gazette in 2002, following the BOE’s appointments, which included a member of PFOX. There was much controversy over the PFOX appointment. I was asked by the Gazette to comment and my response was that a range of views in the CAC deliberations could be useful. That article noted that I had two gay sons..
Those opposing the CAC’s recommendations often noted the fact that I have gay children, but never explained why this was a problem.
To complete my answer to your question, I certainly have no financial conflicts. Except for two semesters as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law School a long time ago, the only financial compensation I have received since I graduated law school has been my salary as a career government lawyer.
"Try standing up straight, Anon. Your knuckles are scraping again"
I'm just bending over to watch you slithering through the grass.
"I am sure that you are alluding to the fact that my wife and I are the parents of two adult, gay sons."
I was talking more about your alleged membership in gay advocacy groups.
"Monogamous homosexual relations similarly avoid risks of STIs."
The idea that this would ever be a widespread phenomena is purely conjecture. A realistic view is that gays will always be promiscuous.
"But your position in which society would continue to marginalize gays obstructs, rather than encourages monogamy. Imagine if heterosexuals were not permitted the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, for example."
But, David, it doesn't look like homosexual marriage is ever going to be a permanent reality. Are you saying that the curriculum has as part of its goal, gay marriage?
"To say otherwise is to accuse me of caring more about an abstraction than about my children and other people's children. THAT is defamatory."
Nah.
"To accuse me of not caring about the risks of sexual activity fits that definition, in my view."
Actually, there were probably just saying that you thought other considerations are more important- like individual rights.
Do you think preventing the risks of sexual activity are more important than anything? I don't.
Anonymous suggests that I should not have been elected chair of the CAC because of my “alleged membership in gay advocacy groups.” Anonymous tries to make it sound nefarious, by asserting my “alleged” membership. What a bizarre suggestion: That because I am a member of PFLAG I should not have been CAC chair.
By his reasoning, I likewise should not have been chair because of my membership in a synagogue that is affiliated with the Union of Reform Judaism, which is very public in being very gay affirming. Likewise, any member of, for example, a congregation of the United Church of Christ.
By his reasoning, no one who is a member of the American Medical Association should be chair of the CAC. Is he calling for the resignation of the current CAC Chair, Dr. Carol Plotsky, who I assume is an AMA member?
Anonymous seeks to rebut my statement that his “position in which society would continue to marginalize gays obstructs, rather than encourages, monogamy,” by saying that “it doesn't look like homosexual marriage is ever going to be a permanent reality. Are you saying that the curriculum has as part of its goal, gay marriage?”
I want the health curriculum to state the facts as understood by the mainstream medical and mental health care professionals. When people have the facts, they can draw their own conclusions regarding issues such as same-sex marriage.
I do believe that the health curriculum should do more to describe the rights and responsibilities of marriage, setting forth why marriage is a good thing period. Surely Anonymous would agree with that.
"By his reasoning, no one who is a member of the American Medical Association should be chair of the CAC. Is he calling for the resignation of the current CAC Chair, Dr. Carol Plotsky, who I assume is an AMA member?"
AMA is not a political advocacy group. Your appointment could be seen as more like appointing Saddam Hussein to be chair of a committee to promote democracy.
"I want the health curriculum to state the facts as understood by the mainstream medical and mental health care professionals."
How about just the facts- and nothing but the facts? "Facts as they are understood" is a euphemism for "opinion". Fact is no one knows for sure what mainstream medical and mental health professionals think. We do know what scientific researchers have said in their papers, though.
By the by, should we teach the position of the DSM that transexualism is a mental disease?
"When people have the facts, they can draw their own conclusions regarding issues such as same-sex marriage."
And you hope by carefully selecting which facts they are taught, you'll manipulate them into reaching the same conclusion as you.
"And it, of course, undercuts itself"
Could you let your friends here know this? They think the DSM is infallible. That's why they want to teach it in the new curriculum.
Theresa,
As I have said before, I specifically asked the MCPS Health Education Coordinator if the risks of same-sex transmission of STIs were discussed in the STI unit, and he assured the CAC that it was. No one on the CAC, including Retta and Michelle, engaged in a cross-examination of Mr. Henke on that issue.
Anyway, I have said it before and I say it again: I believe that full accurate information regarding the risks of all kinds of sexual activity should be impressed upon our students. That information need not -- to have its desired impact -- be spun to attack gays. Since the revised curriculum was not a "gay" unit, but rather incorporated some basic information into the existing unit on human sexuality, the only reason to discuss same-sex, but not opposite sex, STI transmission in that unit would have been to stigmatize gays. Again, a proposal to reiterate ALL the details of the STI unit in the Family Life and Human Sexuality Unit may be worth discussing. But that is NOT what was involved with the proposals Retta made in 2004.
Finally, I agree that the different degrees of risk posed by different types of sexual behaviors -- e.g., vaginal, anal, oral both with and without the use of condoms -- should be a part of the STI unit. My understanding is that that information is conveyed now. If not, it should be. As Dana noted, those relative risks are not "unique" to same-sex activity, other than vaginal sex, which, of course, is not germane to gay men.
All of this information, presented properly, should lead students to more carefully consider the benefits of abstinence and, ultimately, permanent monogamous relationships. That is a goal we share for heterosexuals; I am disappointed that you do not share it for homosexuals.
The purpose of the STI and Family Life and Human Sexuality Units should be to help our children be healthy, both mentally and physically. That will not be accomplished by singling out gays as being "uniquely" in danger because they are gay. People are at higher risk if they are promiscuous; they are at no risk if they are abstinent and then monogamous. That is true of all people, whether gay or straight.
Remember, for example, the AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is principally one of heterosexual, not homosexual, transmission.
"OK, people, any of you here think the DSM is infallible? Please let me know."
It was the basis of the Constitutionally flawed Fishback revision's statement that homosx is not a disease. Whenever I question it, Jim goes into an epiphany of a speech about maintaining the proper reverence for scientific professionals.
I was at a seminar recently on detecting fraud in the health industry and the errors of the DSM was mentioned more than once.
"The purpose of the STI and Family Life and Human Sexuality Units should be to help our children be healthy, both mentally and physically."
You're a persistent fellow, David. This can't be achieved without letting them know what kind of characters they will encounter if they pursue this lifestyle. There aren't alot of Ozzie and Harold situations available. If kids choose to pursue a gay lifestyle, early death is a strong possibility.
Mental problems are also part of the package. Both from the potential partners and from the consequences of the act itself.
Solely focusing on the physical dangers of the mechanical act of intercourse is not enough.
"Medicine is a huge and unwieldly bureaucracy, besiced being a healing profession."
Quite so. This is why we can't just take opinions of professional associations and make them into a curriculum. We need to look at actual scientific findings.
Virtually any organization that holds this position refers to the DSM as justification.
The opinions of practitioners is unresearched as far as I know. If you got ant evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.
"Anon, once again, the DSM is not a SOURCE. It is a product."
If you'll read the statements from those organizations, you'll find they almost always specifically refer to the DSM as their soruce.
"As to research, at least with regards to gender identity"
In the words of Dick Vitale,
broken-record-city, baby!
"You just don't like the results when it comes to sexuality."
I love the results about sexuality. They all say things are quite inconclusive. I love that!
Dana
If I feel in my mind I should be a cat, I should get a doctor to attach a tail on me? Should I start purring?
Dr D
That last one about the cat wasn't from the usual anon. When you think about it... it is an interesting thought, though.
Theresa said, "What I believe David is suggesting is HIDING FACTS. He is suggesting NOT GIVING KIDS THE MSM AIDS rates, NOT GIVING KIDS the TRUTH. He is suggesting taking all the data that the CDC gathers specific to increased health risks in a homo-sexual life style and HIDING IT "
I disagree. David did not talk about hiding these facts. He said several times they were already in the STI portion of the curriculum:
"I will say this once again, MCPS staff informed the CAC that the facts about same-sex, as well as opposite sex, transmission of STIs was already included in the STI unit of the Health Education Curriculum. That you persist in ignoring that fact demonstrates that your purpose is not to educate, but to demonize."
Further, David pointed out that the idea of repeating the risks for ALL sexual activities is an interesting one that Retta never brought up:
"Heterosexual activity also has health risks. Retta did not offer to restate those in the Family Life and Human Sexuality (FLHS) Unit. If she had, then there might well have been an interesting discussion as to whether the STI materials should be brought in again into the FLHS Unit. But she did not – she plainly wished to single out gays. After the vote turning down Retta’s materials, I pointedly spoke directly into the microphone she kept on the table and laid out all of what I have just discussed."
In response to your question, Theresa, I weigh in with David. It seems obvious there's a difference between what David says here and what Retta is telling you off line. There's one way to find out who is telling the truth and the fact that it hasn't been done yet speaks volumes to me about who is being truthful here. Ask Retta to produce audiofiles of her tapes so we can all hear for ourselves who is telling the truth.
And Theresa, I believe I have answered every inquiry you've made of me. I would like to point out that I am still waiting for you to answer a single question I posed to you: when did CRC began to plan to join PFOX's lawsuit against our public school system? I await your reply.
Thank you,
Christine
"I personally have a very good friend who was infected because her husband -- HUSBAND -- was on the "down lo." And a religious guy to boot."
We probably need to find a way to out these guys, right? Do you ever hear of wives infected by straight husbands who cheat? Wonder why?
"And in Africa transmission has always been heterosexual. It is only here that the epidemic broke in the gay community."
That's because there is no open homosexuality in Africa. It's not tolerated. Maybe that's the safest thing for gays- to be a societal taboo.
Theresa said, "David is saying keep them out "
No, he is not saying that Theresa. He said MCPS said the rates are included in the STI unit. We all agree they should be included. He also said the idea of adding all HIV rates to the FLHD unit would have been an "interesting" discussion for the CAC to have but that it never came up. And he informed us that the vote to add MSM-only HIV rates indicated the majority did not approve of Retta's idea. Retta's tapes can prove who is telling the truth. These are the facts.
When did CRC begin to plan to join PFOX in the lawsuit against MCPS?
Christine
"So the straight population needs this information much more than the gay population does,"
Actually, unless they are IV drug users or prostitutes or have a shady thug husband gettin' it on the down low, it's probably not imperative. Better to counsel them to associate with persons of good character and strong family background and to teach them to hold the Ten Commandments as an ideal. That will save lives in the long run.
"As David has pointed out, globally HIV transmission is overwhelmingly via vaginal sex"
Failing to point out it's usually in poor areas where prostitution is rampant.
The U.S. isn't a third world country yet. And we've got a new Supreme Court to turn things around.
Actually, it hasn't.
I love how a posting about a set of scientifically inaccurate lessons in the OHIO curriculum (with implicitly religious overtones) critiquing EVOLUTION gets hijacked into issues of homosexuality and related concerns (not unimportant in their own right) in MCPS(?). There was NO lesson activities asking about the relationship between homosexuality and sin in that Ohio package--in the health curriculum in MCPS, who knows, but that was NOT the curriculum under debate. Last time I checked, MCPS is not in Ohio unless the Discovery Institute has initiated a new form of faith-based geography where communities are designated as fluid dependent upon where you sleep that night in which case parts of Michigan are now in Florida (temporarily).
Does anybody have any idea what this guy is saying? "Parts of Michigan are now in Florida?"
The attempt to undermine the science of evolution in the schools is definitely relevant to the parallel efforts to undermine the teaching of medically and scientifically accurate information about sexuality. We will be following both subjects on this blog.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home