Tuesday, January 16, 2007

A Correction

This is just a little thing, but I wanted to set the record straight. There was some question about Sarah Horvitz' suggested amendment to the sex-ed curriculum Tuesday.

I was sitting behind her, in the back row, behind some folks holding up signs so nobody else could see (but they were so effective). Straining to hear, I thought she had proposed including the whole list of "bullet points," and wrote that here.

Here's what she actually said, at about 2:10 in the meeting.
I wanted to speak on Mrs. Cox's comment that, about students in regard to this amendment, that I don't believe that students will go in and seek out a guidance counselor, because, especially in a huge school, for example Sherwood or Blair, when a guidance counselor has a couple hundred students, that, are they really going to feel comfortable going and talking to a guidance counselor and asking them these questions when most of them don't have any personal connetcion to a guidance counselor. And that when they ask this question in class and they don't get an answer they just get told to find an another adult, but that's what, basically it's going to keep happening, to find another adult, and that it's very important that this type of question gets answered and I'd like to add that, I don't know where it would be added in the curriculum, but it was one of the citizens advisory committee's recommendations about students with, um, [reads] "chiildren with fleeting same-sex attractions may incorrectly assume that they are gay or lesbian; a mere fleeting attraction does not prove sexual orientation," that all should be added somewhere into the curriculum. Because that, especially for eighth-graders, when they're starting to explore their sexuality, they're starting to think about the opposite sex or the same sex, in a different way, that it's important that they get this information, that they're taught these things.

At least that's my sloppy transcription.

So I was wrong. She only proposed the one statement.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Tish said...

Thanks, Jim.

I was across the room, facing Miss Horvitz, and that's what I thought she said. I agree with her. It is a good thing to say, "just because you love being with a friend doesn't mean you're gay." The supplemental readings in the Glencoe text say much the same thing, but not in so succinct a manner.

When my daughter was in middle school, some of the girls developed intense friendships that had a very "crush"-like character, but these were normal friendships for girls that age. Those girls, now young women, are still friends but the "crush" stage was indeed fleeting.

The corollary is that you don't say that two people are gay or lesbian just because you see that they have a very close friendship.

January 17, 2007 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Tish. The student's amendment would have improved this egregious proposed propagandistic curriculum.

January 17, 2007 10:24 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

Would you care to identify specifically the portions of the revisions that you view as "propagandistic"?

Incidentally, the provision from the CAC recommendations that you agree should be in the curriculum was in the 2005 curriculum revisions that you have so roundly criticized.

January 17, 2007 8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know it was, David.

January 17, 2007 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home