|
|
932,395 visitors since
11/25/2003
|
|
Printer Friendly Version
Critical Review of LWSD Curriculum:
'Dealing With Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues'
Mark and Baerbel Sweetwood
NOTE: The following document was done by a committee of parents in Washington state. I am providing this document for research purposes and may not agree with every conclusion contained in the paper. I think the reactions of parents to curricular materials concerning homosexuality are of great interest to those who are involved in this issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Review of LWSD Curriculum
'Dealing With Difference: Opening Dialogue
About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues'
April 6, 2004
Prepared by EHS Parents:
Mark and Baerbel Sweetwood
With the support of LWSD Parents:
Steve and Marianna Richardson
Shalimar Backman
Clair and Nancy Jenkins
Jeff and Roxanne Teddy
John and Debbie Gibbons
Mike and Nancy Breinig
Tom and Debi Fairbanks
W. Kener and Kaye Rich
Steve and Susan Roberts
Richard and Angela Wood
Bob and Laura Brandt
Kyle and Debra Young
Darrell and Vicki Paxman
Van and Ardith Hardy
Ron and Tori Bezzant
Bob and Linda Krulish
Jeff and Michelle Ranck
Gregory and Julie Wright
Jeff and Lauri Sandquist
Eric and Laurie Bush
Mark and Pam Collier
Nyle and Susan Kinghorn
Dan and Cammy Peay
Bruce and Lori Salmon
Ted and Mindy Telford
Dana Heiser
Review Objective: Present a critical review of the LWSD curriculum entitled 'Dealing with Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues' for the purpose of providing the reasoning and facts necessary to cause the removal of the curriculum in its entirety from the school and district.
Disclaimer: This review does not necessarily state or reflect the views or opinions of any church or company.
The do not necessarily state or reflect those of any organization, church, group, or company.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 4
Curriculum Basics 8
Curriculum Section Reviews
1. Objectives 9
2. Video 11
3. Student Activities 13
4. Fact Sheets 16
Appendix A - Sexually Perverse and Dangerous GLSEN Material 18
Appendix B - Sammamish Review Newspaper Article 22
Appendix C - Parental Letters of Concern to Administrators 24
Executive Summary
Background
The Lake Washington School District and specifically Eastlake High School acquired and maintains a curriculum titled 'Dealing with Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues'. This material was purchased to satisfy a general strategy to help ensure a safe school environment and was promoted as an anti-harassment program. In spite of strong parental objections to the curriculum, the purchased material was used (in an edited form) in the EHS advisory classes in March 2004. Per the LWSD administration, the curriculum will no longer be used in any form at EHS or any other school in the district until a LWSD curriculum board ruling is given. The date when the board will review the material is unknown. Parents will use the Curriculum Reconsideration Process if the board's eventual ruling is to maintain the curriculum in whole, or in part.
Parental Findings and Objective
Many LWSD parents and students find this material, 1) wholly inappropriate in the school setting, 2) unacceptable in its promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) sexual orientations and associated LGBT politics, 3) too limited in focus, 4) grossly ineffective for stopping harassment and of limited value, 5) extremely divisive and controversial, 6) dangerous to the health of students, 7) immoral and contrary to the values taught in most families, and 8) prejudicial against all those not of the LGBT sexual orientation or sexual life style. It is the desire of those parents and students that this curriculum be removed in its entirety from the district and be replaced with an appropriate and comprehensive anti-harassment program.
Critical Points
The critical review, as found in the subsequent sections of this report, of the curriculum 'Dealing with Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues' is intended as supporting reasoning and documentation for the removal of said material. The following is a summary of the major points from the review:
Lack of Value
The most compelling evidence that the material is of little value and filled with inappropriate instruction is demonstrated by Eastlake High School's recent use of the material. EHS administrators only felt comfortable using 80-85% of the video and 2% of the written material originally contained in the curriculum. Financial logic and fiduciary responsibility alone would dictate the removal of a curriculum that contains so little useable material and/or that requires such a lengthy effort to excise the irrelevant and/or inappropriate portions. If the class topics were math or history, we would find it totally unacceptable if only 2 out of every 100 pages were of worth to the students and teachers!
Unacceptable Support of GLSEN
GLSEN, curriculum co-producer, openly promotes sexually perverse and dangerous material that contains illegal adult-child sexual acts and relationships, pornography, unprotected sex, youth finding adult sex partners on the Internet, sexual orientation, and perverse behavior of all
varieties (see Appendix A). They promote sexual orientation and sexuality education to grades kindergarten through adulthood with an emphasis on school children. The LWSD and EHS should not be affiliated with or support in any way such a perverse and dangerous group.
Ineffectiveness
The video presents the gay-straight alliance as the solution to curbing LGBT harassment. A large part of the video and written material is dedicated to this "solution". First, these alliances are already allowed in the LWSD. Secondly, the belief that this solution will resolve such harassment is illogical in that those that join such an alliance are not likely to be those that would harass anyway. Thirdly, it is inappropriate for the administration to be actively promoting a club over all the others. It is unlikely that the administration would support a religious group with the same fervor.
A curriculum that 1) receives objections from hundreds of LWSD parents and students, 2) causes many dozens of students to opt-out or to simply not attend the program even in its edited form, 3) receives a negative response from the students, 4) forces the creation of parental rights groups, 5) drives a wedge between parents and administrators, and 6) causes parents, district and school administrators to spend significant and valuable time contending (see Appendix C), has to be considered very ineffective and indeed a failure.
Blatant Promotion of LGBT Sexual Orientation and Associated Issues
There are large sections of the curriculum material dedicated to promoting the LGBT orientation. (E.g. "coming out", identifying LGBT people in history, changing the media and schools to incorporate more LGBT considerations, covering LGBT laws and social issues, reviewing racial diversity among LGBT people, promoting books that encourage LGBT sexual behavior, etc.) None of that material is relevant to a valid anti-harassment program. The school should not be party to the promotion of any sexual orientation or life style or of any group promoting these same, or of any materials, even in "edited" form produced or promoted by any such group.
Encroachment on Personal Beliefs
The curriculum is full of surveys and activities that cause students to reveal and evaluate their personal beliefs about sexual orientation and sexual life style choices. It is not the responsibility of the school to discover, survey, or to mold the personal beliefs of students on human sexuality, sexual orientation, morality, religion, politics, etc. It is highly inappropriate to encroach on personal beliefs and such activities trigger Federal and Washington parental notification and opt out rights. It is also inappropriate to point the students to other material that has as its main purpose to convert youth to a particular sexual orientation or life style that is contrary to the moral values and health practices of most families.
False Premises and Assumptions
The material mistakenly assumes that personal beliefs on human sexuality and morality that are contrary to that of LGBT people automatically lead to harassing behavior and intolerance. This is absolutely not the case and is insulting to those who regardless of their beliefs treat all people
with respect. This false premise and assumption demonstrates the very type of intolerance an
anti-harassment program should instruct against. This mistaken premise also causes the curriculum to focus heavily on beliefs instead of harassing behavior, which effectively invalidates many of the solutions as they are built on a false assumption.
Labeling and Prejudicial Definitions
All people are labeled in one way or another by the curriculum. The film shows the sexual orientation by the name of each student panel member. Students should not be taught that sexual orientation identification is how we are publicly identified. Labeling in this way can lead to harassment and identity issues.
The material contains many cases of negatively labeling anyone who has mere beliefs contrary to LGBT people (e.g. heterosexists are those who believe heterosexuality is normal, even if there is no accompanying harassing behavior). Such negative labeling is very prejudicial and harassing in nature.
Lack of Comprehensiveness
Youth of all varieties are harassed in the LWSD, yet this program only focuses on a group that is estimated to represent only 1% to 3% of the student population. By solely focusing anti-harassment instruction on the LBGT population the school is showing extreme bias and sending the message that the other groups do not need protection from harassment. No other single group has received its own dedicated anti-harassment program. Will the school support a specific program for each individual religion or ethnic background?
Companies and government agencies have used professional and comprehensive anti-harassment videos for decades. These videos are far superior in effectiveness, comprehensiveness, and appropriateness. Their instruction includes that of experts in the field.
Lack of Expert Instruction
The video instruction is predominately presented by teenagers instead of using the expertise of the facilitator, Dr Thompson. It is unrealistic to expect that teenagers have the proper level of wisdom and experience necessary to teach this complex issue. Student input is valuable, but leaving them to wholly teach other students is naive, and akin to students regularly teaching in the school classroom instead of the teachers.
Inappropriate Introduction of Sexual Gender and Orientation Issues
The video and material introduces transgender, a little known gender identity, and encourages the youth to research it. Similar gender and LGBT human sexuality issues are presented. As this is not necessary to teach anti-harassment, this introduction can only be seen as inappropriate human sexuality instruction. Students should not come to an anti-harassment program and be introduced to LGBT human sexuality and gender instruction.
Summary
The curriculum 'Dealing with Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues' must be removed from the district as it lacks value, encroaches on personal beliefs, has at its foundation false premises and assumptions, is very ineffective, negatively labels people with different personal beliefs, lacks the needed comprehensive inclusion of other groups and individuals, blatantly promotes the LGBT sexual orientation, supports a perverse and dangerous organization, lacks significant expert instruction, and inappropriately introduces sexual gender and orientation issues.
Even a greatly edited version of the curriculum (as used at EHS) is unacceptable as it supports and promotes GLSEN, is highly ineffective and narrow in scope, promotes prejudicial labeling and divisiveness, and introduces sexual orientation and gender identity issues.
Curriculum Basics
Curriculum: Dealing With Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay & Straight Issues distributed by Human Relations Media Inc. and co-produced by Human Relations Media Inc. and Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Copyrighted in 2003.
Curriculum contains a video and 82 pages of written material. Table of Contents: Teacher's Resources - Introduction, Learning Objectives, Program Summary (Scene One: A Gay 'Ol Time?, Scene Two: To Join or Not to Join, Scene Three: Under the Microscope, Scene Four: Which Side Are You On?, Student Activities - Attitudes Toward Difference Survey, Earliest Beliefs, Gender Talk, Talking the Talk, What's in a Name?, Student reflections, How Homophobia Hurts Us All, History Match-up, School Climate Survey, LBGT People and the Media, Undoing Institutionalized Heterosexism in Schools, What Do We really Think?, Fact Sheets - The 2001 National School Climate Survey, Safe School Laws by State, Laws and Policies Impacting LGBT Youth, Institutionalized Heterosexism, Gay-Straight Alliances, Coming Out, Safe Zone Programs, One Umbrella, Many People, Diversity Within the LGBT Communities, Resources for LGBT Youth, Bibliography of LGBT Themed Books & Videos, Other Products from Human Relations Media.
District Use: The Eastlake High School Advisory classes showed 80% of the film and used two of the eighty-two pages of the written material in March 2004 as their anti-harassment program. Even in its edited form, many students opted out of the class and many more simply did not attend.
Parental Input: Even with just short notice, over 100 community parents expressed before the program was conducted their desire that other more appropriate and comprehensive material be used to teach anti-harassment at EHS. Many more expressed dissatisfaction and concern after the curriculum even in edited form was shown. Many parents were never made aware of the contents or background of the material. (see Appendix C for letters from parents to administrators)
Student Reaction: Many students, as quoted in the Sammamish Review (see Appendix B), felt the program was not about harassment, but rather about lifestyle. As reported by students, students at EHS used the terms "Dyke" and "Faggot" more in school after the program than ever before.
Note on Producer: One of the co-producers, GLSEN, openly promotes other material that
contains illegal adult-child sexual acts and relationships, pornography, unprotected sex, youth finding adult sex partners on the Internet, and sexual orientation and perverse behavior of all varieties (see Appendix A).
Curriculum Objectives As Stated By The Producers
The curriculum objectives (bolded and in quotes) below are those stated by the producers on page four (4) of the written curriculum. Analysis of each objective is italicized.
"After viewing the video Dealing With Difference: Opening Dialogue about Lesbian, Gay and Straight Issues and participating in the activities provided in this Teacher’s Resource Book, your students will be able to:"
- "better understand their own attitudes and beliefs with regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and issues"
An anti-harassment curriculum should focus on harassing behavior regardless of the social, racial, religious, political, or sexual orientation of the recipient. Discovery of personal beliefs about LGBT people is not required in an anti-harassment curriculum, and if covered triggers parental notification and opt-out codes and policies. Harassing behaviors, not personal beliefs are what should be understood and taught as inappropriate. The inclusion of transgender, a gender identification that most adults and students know little about, requires the teaching of a particular lifestyle, which goes beyond the teaching of anti-harassment. This objective is also discriminatory and incomplete as it excludes all other groups of people who may be harassed.
- "understand and use appropriate and accurate terminology with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression"
This objective goes beyond teaching that harassing terminology is inappropriate and promotes the understanding of sexual orientation definitions.
- "consider the ways in which gender expectations in our society limit all people and reinforce homophobia and heterosexism"
Gender expectations are based on beliefs that are personal and do not alone constitute harassment. The terms homophobia and heterosexism are prejudicial towards one having personal beliefs different than LGBT people even when no harassing behavior accompanies those beliefs. The negative labeling of anyone simply for his or her personal belief is harassing and prejudicial. Harassing behavior, not personal beliefs, is what an anti-harassment program should cover.
- "understand the violent history of homophobic name-calling and develop strategies for reducing name-calling in their schools"
A valid anti-harassment curriculum would teach that name-calling of any kind is inappropriate. Knowing the history of inappropriate words is not needed to teach that name-calling is unacceptable. Labeling is again introduced and requires the inappropriate evaluation of personal beliefs.
- "appreciate and empathize with the experiences of LGBT people from diverse backgrounds"
Desiring appreciation and empathy for LGBT people is not part of anti-harassment instruction and is very simply an objective to promote a particular sexual orientation or sexual life style choice. Appreciation and empathy is based on personal beliefs and is not for the school to solicit for any particular group.
- "recognize how homophobia and heterosexism impact straight as well as LGBT people"
Again, the negative labeling of anyone simply for his or her personal belief, regardless of the fact that there is no exhibited harassing behavior, is harassing and prejudicial. Harassing behavior, not personal beliefs, is what an anti-harassment program should cover.
- "assess the local school climate around LGBT issues and develop strategies for reducing institutionalized heterosexism and intervening to stop bias"
Prejudicial labeling is again present. This objective does not limit itself to harassing behavior, but promotes assessing all LGBT issues. Assessing constitutes a survey and falls under Federal law and Washington code requiring parental notification and opt-out rights.
- "critically analyze media representation of LGBT people and issues"
Again, this does not limit itself to harassing behavior and is open-ended to what issues will be covered. It also does not limit itself to the school, which clearly falls outside of the safe-school objective.
- "identify LGBT people throughout history and understand the ways in which their contributions have been made visible in school curricula"
This objective is plainly promoting LGBT people, their identification, and their inclusion in school curriculum. This has absolutely nothing to do with anti-harassment instruction.
- "understand the political landscape around LGBT education issues and the major laws and policies impacting LGBT youth in the U.S. today"
This objective is LGBT political and activist instruction and has no bearing on harassment instruction in the school.
- "increase strategies for “coming out” as openly LGBT individuals and/or supporting peers who may be in the process of coming out"
This objective is promoting the declaration of a sexual orientation or life style choice at school, which has absolutely no valid connection to anti-harassment instruction.
- "increase their awareness of student initiated and school based programs for reducing anti-LGBT bias, including gay-straight alliances and safe zone programs”
This objective is directed mainly at the school administrators and also sends the message that only LGBT are in need of protection from harassment.
Video Review
The video is about 30 minutes in length, includes four scenes, and includes a panel of "nine racially diverse teenagers who encompass lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and straight identities". Dr. Michael Thompson facilitates the discussion, but the youth panel gives the vast majority of comments and instruction. The following is a brief critique/analysis of each scene and the video in general.
Scene One: A Gay 'Ol Time?
This scene shows very blatant and widespread harassing of a young man in a classroom while the teacher does nothing to stop it. To most this seems very unrealistic, if for no other reason than that teachers would allow this behavior.
The discussion indicates that anti-LGBT harassment happens to those that do not fit society's gender norms. First, a true anti-harassment program would include all groups. Secondly, the curriculum should not be attempting to change a student's view of gender norms. Inappropriate behavior, not beliefs need to be changed. Beliefs are personal and the school does not have the role of changing those beliefs.
Scene Two: To Join or Not to Join
This scene consists of very open and hostile behavior towards a girl who is writing down information about a gay-straight alliance. Again, many students feel this level of blatant and widespread harassing for something so mundane is not realistic. Sexual orientation does not have to be the foundation of a worthwhile organization. Such groups, by their very nature, are labeling the students, which can cause harassment.
One of the LGBT panel members says that those who are hesitant to join a gay-straight alliance are homophobic. The negative labeling of those that do not want to join a particular organization is offensive and is intended to force a behavior that is not necessary. Not joining a gay-straight club is not an indication of harassing behavior.
A large percent of the video is dedicated to promoting the formation of a gay-straight alliance. There is no LWSD data to support the position that the forming of such an organization curbs harassment. Those that are likely to exhibit harassing behavior towards LGBT people are not likely to join such an organization. Proposing this organization as the single biggest solution to stopping harassment is misguided.
Scene Three: Under the Microscope
This scene consists of harassing comments towards a transgender student. It is not necessary to introduce a relatively unknown gender identity to teach anti-harassment. The panel recommends that students research what a transgender is. This segment is of significant length, which is illogical considering the small population of transgenders.
Introducing a little known gender identity is teaching sexual and gender orientation instead of anti-harassment. This segment can lead to students exploring this rare gender identity.
Scene Four: Which Side Are You On?
Scene four introduces harassing behavior towards a lesbian who is African American. It also includes a kiss between two girls.
It is not necessary to display sexual behavior between students to teach the principle of anti-harassment. The kissing scene is intended to gain acceptance of a certain orientation or behavior.
The title "Which Side Are You On", is very divisive as it sends the message that you must condone and accept LGBT lifestyles or you are the enemy (on the other side). What should be taught is that harassing behavior against any group is unacceptable. It is not necessary to join any organization, or to condone a life style or orientation, to support anti-harassment.
Conclusion
The very brief conclusion by Dr Thompson seems out of place with the rest of the video as it actually addresses comprehensive principles associated to harassment and prejudice that could be used in any anti-harassment curriculum.
General Analysis
The video is very ineffective in regard to curbing harassment. It spends a majority of the time promoting a gay-straight alliance and the understanding of transgenders. The alliance is not likely to curb harassment, as those that join are probably not prone to harass anyway. It should also be noted that gay-straight alliances are already allowed in the LWSD. Promoting the understanding of transgenderism has nothing to do with anti-harassment, but is part of an inappropriate instruction on sexual orientation.
The film is full of labeling and stereotypes. The sexual orientation of each panel member is displayed by his or her name and those that do not join a gay-straight alliance are labeled as homophobic. Teaching our students that sexual orientation must be part of how they identify themselves and others can lead to prejudicial and harassing behavior. It can also lead to psychological identity issues, as they are not Johnny, but rather Johnny the Transgender, etc.
The video instruction is predominately done by teenagers instead of using the expertise of the facilitator, Dr Thompson. It is unrealistic to expect that teenagers have the proper level of wisdom and experience necessary to teach this complex issue. Student input would have been valuable, but leaving them to wholly teach other students is naive and akin to students regularly teaching in the school classroom instead of the teachers.
Companies and government agencies have used professional and comprehensive anti-harassment videos for decades. These videos are far superior in effectiveness, comprehensiveness, and appropriateness. Their instruction includes that of experts in the field instead of relying on students.
Student Activities Review
The written material contains thirty-three (33) pages of student activities. The following is a brief critique/analysis of those activities and a general analysis.
Attitudes Toward Difference Survey
The use of any survey regarding human sexuality or sexual orientation requires parental notification and opt-out capabilities. This survey asks questions concerning personal beliefs and then is constructed in a way to ensure that any beliefs contrary to LGBT people result in a homophobic labeling (e.g. question one includes a belief that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral and also the statement that LGBT people are emotionally ill. Such survey practices, the inclusion of two statements within one choice that are not necessarily dependent on each other, would invalidate many surveys, are used so that a desired result is manipulatively achieved). The focus of the survey appears to be more on LGBT acceptance and promotion rather than on harassing behavior.
Earliest Beliefs
This activity asks the students where their early beliefs about LGBT people came from (e.g. family, religion, etc.). It then poses the question, "Which of those ideas do you need to work on changing?" Such a blatant attempt to convince students that what they have been taught at home and in their churches needs to be changed is appalling and again violates the student's right to have beliefs contrary to LGBT people. The school should not promote students abandoning values taught in their home or church.
Gender Talk
This activity attempts to change personal beliefs on gender identity and sexuality. Personal beliefs do not automatically lead to harassing behavior and it is not the role of the school to change such beliefs.
Talking the Talk
This labeling activity introduces label definitions. It teaches that there are more than two sexes, promotes "coming out", introduces non-traditional gender identities and roles, labels one that believes heterosexuality is normal as a heterosexist, and introduces other LGBT terms or concepts. This activity is primarily about human sexuality and orientation and has little to do with anti-harassment.
What's in a Name?
This activities includes a survey of experiences and introduces definitions for the terms 'Faggot' and 'Dyke'. The survey should require parental notification. A valid anti-harassment program would highlight that any words, not just the two presented, that are offensive to others are unacceptable.
Student Reflections
Numerous student "testimonials" are given. The promotion of gay-straight alliances is prominent. It should not be the place of the school administration to promote one club over another. These experiences encourage "coming out', promote schools to include more education on LGBT issues (not just harassment), detail brutal self abuse, and push for schools to include sexual orientation identification in history and literature instruction. The intent of this section appears to be to identify all LGBT people as being harassed, to address/solve the issue with gay-straight alliances, and to "shame" the schools into including more specific LGBT issue instruction and LGBT people identification. Again, there is very little here that assists in solving harassment.
How Homophobia Hurts Us All
This activity attempts to identify scenarios where "homophobia" hurts straights as well. Scenario one labels a father as homophobic because he wants his son to pursue a different career than drama. Scenario two sends a message that because a young woman said no to sex with her boyfriend, and he questioned her sexual orientation, she then felt compelled to give in. Scenario three assumes that peer pressure will force a boy to physically assault another boy. Scenario four ties a girl being called a dyke because she was too smart, to her dropping out of her classes. Scenario six ties pregnancy to the fear of being labeled as a lesbian. It also throws in religious beliefs requiring the baby to be kept.
This activity ties almost all youth challenges in the world to homophobia. Tying teen pregnancy to homophobia was especially misguided considering all the other factors and complexities. This simple-minded approach to relationship, peer, sexual, behavioral, and youth issues is unrealistic and very misleading.
History Match-Up
Identifying the sexual orientation of people throughout history is the intent of this activity. It promotes schools and society to identify sexual orientation in instruction. This cannot be logically tied to anti-harassment instruction. Again, we see the promotion of LGBT people as the objective.
School Climate Survey
This survey triggers parental notification and opt out rights. It sends the message that the harassment of LGBT is prevalent and requests information on sexual orientation, sex, age, and race. Such a survey is financially self serving to the writers of the curriculum and does nothing to curb harassment.
LGBT People and the Media
Exploring how LGBT people are represented in the media goes well beyond the professed goal of stopping harassment in the school. This is a LGBT activist activity and has no place as part of a school anti-harassment program.
Undoing Institutionalized Heterosexism in Schools
Again, it is presented as fact that prejudice is institutionalized in the school. It implies that other gender bathrooms are needed (vs. just boys and girls), promotes forms to be changed to include other gender indicators, promotes sex education that includes sexual orientation and other gender identities, promotes libraries including LGBT issues material, and promotes the changing of holidays to ensure all family structures are identified.
This exercise is political in nature and is not addressing harassment by the students. In fact, it is geared directly towards the school administration.
What Do We Really Think?
This includes a public survey that triggers federal and state laws requiring parental notification and opt out capabilities. The teacher is instructed to survey if the students believe being lesbian or gay is normal. Surveying beliefs and trying to mold them is inappropriate in the school setting. Harassing behavior was supposed to be the purpose of the curriculum, not changing personal beliefs. This dangerous survey can directly contribute to harassment and was illegally conducted in one of the advisory classes at EHS.
General Analysis
The fact that EHS used only 2 pages out of the 33 pages of activities in their program is compelling evidence of the lack of worth of this section. The activity contains 3 formal surveys that trigger Federal and Washington parental notification. Additionally, 9 more activities include questioning of personal beliefs that should also require parental notification. Overall, the activities have very little, if any, value in curbing harassment in the school. Mostly, the activities attempt to change personal beliefs and to promote LGBT sexual orientation.
The activities do not assist in stopping harassment against all the non-LGBT students. Considering it is likely that 97%-99% of the students are not LGBT, the focus of the entire curriculum is too limited to be effective in a school-wide program.
Fact Sheets Review
This curriculum section includes a variety of political, social, and sexual orientation material.
GLSEN provides some rather self-serving statistics on the harassment of LGBT students. Self serving in that the more the schools believe that they all have serious LGBT harassment issues, the more GLSEN will be contacted to roll out their programs and curriculum. (Note: To date, there has been no actual data released by the district or EHS that supports the premise that LGBT people are harassed anymore than the other groups of people within the school.) The survey itself is suspect considering GLSEN's other survey practices, the small survey population size, and the lack of survey control data.
Included in this section are two pages of laws that impact LGBT youth. The section makes it clear that the BSA and Military are not welcome, Internet filtering is not desired, and abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education should be changed to promote healthy sexual activity. None of this has anything to do with harassment in the school. This section was only removed at EHS after a parent complained.
Labeling occurs here as well. Heterosexism is defined as one who believes that heterosexuality is normal. Personal beliefs should not cause a person to be negatively labeled (which is exactly what LGBT supposedly are asking for). Labeling can lead to harassment. It appears that the producers feel that it is acceptable to negatively label heterosexuals, but reserve protection from such labeling for the LGBT people.
Gay-straight alliances are pushed as the answer to harassment. Details are provided on how to start such an organization. The school does not push any other club the way this one is being pushed. Would the school be as anxious to help start a religious club?
Three whole pages are dedicated to declaring LGBT sexual orientation. This is pure promotion of LGBT sexual orientation and has a solicitation message. This is very inappropriate in any school curriculum.
Five pages are dedicated to "encouraging student to learn more about LGBT people".
Several sexual orientations are defined. Again, this has nothing to do with harassment.
Four pages are used to highlight the LGBT lives of people with different racial and religious backgrounds. This segment does not address how to stop harassment, but is included to show that the LGBT communities are diverse.
LGBT hotlines and websites are included in this section. Most of the sites have little to do with harassment as their core mission. Some introduce chat rooms, information on reproductive and sexual health, and cover topics such as sex, coming out, school, parents, etc. Relying on any of these websites to address any harassment in the schools is severely misguided. They have at their core entirely different missions with only a partial interest in anti-harassment education.
Four pages include LGBT themed Non-fiction and Fiction books. Again, these are rather financially self serving to the producers and contain very little to address harassment in the schools. One book, 'Rainbow Boys" contains child-adult sex, finding a sex partner on the Internet, a young man having unprotected sex with a man he met on the Internet, and pornography. Other "advertised" media includes stories of children trying to understand their uncle becoming a woman. These materials are dangerous, considered perverse by most, and are unacceptable as part of an anti-harassment program. They are included to promote the sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle choices of the LGBT community, which should not be part of the school curriculum.
General Analysis
It is unacceptable to include LGBT social, political, and sexual orientation material in a supposed anti-harassment curriculum. It is also inappropriate to point the students to other material that has as its main purpose to convert youth to a particular sexual orientation or life style that is contrary to the moral values and health practices of most families.
Appendix A - Sexually Perverse and Dangerous GLSEN Material
GLSEN openly promotes material for children in kindergarten through high school that is considered sexually perverse and dangerous by most parents. The following is a review of some material promoted by GLSEN.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS APPENDIX CONTAINS SEXUALLY GRAPHIC MATERIAL.
1. GLSEN believes the early sexualization of children can be beneficial. This means that virtually any sexual activity as well as exposure to graphic sexual images and material, is not just permissible but good for children, as part of the process of discovering their sexuality.
"I released his arms. They glided around my neck, pulling my head down to his. I stretched full length on top of him, our heads touching. Our heavy breathing from the struggle gradually subsided. I felt ---" and then follows a graphic description of a homosexual encounter between two ten- year- old boys who are playmates, in a childhood recollection of Malcolm Boyd, an Episcopal priest, in Growing Up Gay/ Growing Up Lesbian, ed. Bennett Singer, New Press, 1994, p.100. This book is part of recommended reading by GLSEN for 7-12th grade students.
The president and founder of GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, wrote the foreword for a book for educators called Queering Elementary Education (William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears, eds., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999.) One chapter is written by a woman who says she and her male partner have raised their daughter "queerly." She then goes on to describe Stephanie's attendance at several "gay" pride parades by the time she is eight. Stephanie already has a detailed familiarity with her own female genitalia "because it gives her pleasure when she masturbates." And the mother describes one incident where she and her daughter, while observing a group of twelve- year- olds, decide they are both attracted to the same girl. (pp. 71-81)
"As far as I know, I've been masturbating my whole life. But it wasn't until 9 that I realized it was an impulse that you had to turn off. Especially in class."
(Revolutionary Voices: a multicultural queer youth anthology, Amy Sonnie, ed., Alyson Books, 2000, p.220. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.)
In the novel Rainbow Boys (Alex Sanchez, Simon & Schuster, 2001), three 17-year old boys explore their homosexual attractions. Frequent themes include obtaining sexually explicit magazines (p.51) and movies (p. 88), as well as graphic descriptions of male homosexual arousal (pp.51-52, 89). The book features several scenes of explicit heterosexual sex, and a scene where one of the teen boys has anal intercourse without a condom with a 29-year-old man he has just met via the Internet (p.148). Rainbow Boys is recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.
2. "Coming out" (calling oneself or believing oneself to be homosexual) and even beginning homosexual sex practices at a young age, is a normal and positive experience for youth which should be encouraged by teachers and parents, according to GLSEN.
"I first began to come out when I was 11. In terms of my family, I was fortunate because my parents have always been accepting of my sexual identity....So at the age of 12 I came out to my entire elementary school, which included grades K-8." (Fifteen-year- old girl writing in Revolutionary Voices, Amy Sonnie, ed. [cited above], pp.43-44. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.)
"Young people are just as capable of exploring or asserting their sexual identity as adults." (Author Mary L Gray, in In Your Face: Stories From the Lives of Queer Youth, Harrington Park Press,1999, p. 23. Book recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.)
"'My first experience was with a much older man, a friend of Derek's [his dad]...When I was fifteen, he must have been twenty-nine, thirty...I seduced him...It was a wild night. We did everything.'" ( Young man, Eliot, telling about earlier experiences in a story excerpted in Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian [cited above], p.111.)
"Despite my best efforts, someday the artifice of 'normality' had to fall away. It did, early one Sunday afternoon when I was twelve. My cousin was sixteen." The author then recounts his homosexual activities with his cousin. Queer 13: lesbian and gay writers recall seventh grade [cited above], pp.86-87.
"I identify as bisexual, and have since I was about six or seven...I sort of experimented when I was young." (Eriq Chang, age 17,in In Your Face: Stories From the Lives of Queer Youth [as cited above], p. 32.)
"I am a fifteen year-old dyke artist and activist. I've got flaming pink hair and a passion for genderf--- in both directions." ( Young girl writing in Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology [cited above], p.28).
"Toward the end of my first year, during the spring of 1988, Brewster appeared in my office in the tow of one of my advisees, ...to whom I had been 'out' for a long time. 'Brewster has something he needs to talk with you about,' she intoned ominously....On a hunch, I suddenly asked, 'What's his name?' Brewster's eyes widened briefly, and then out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face...." (Kevin Jennings, former teacher and current president of GLSEN, describing his interaction with a male student, in One Teacher in Ten: Gay and lesbian educators tell their stories, Kevin Jennings, ed., Alyson Publications, 1994, p.25.)
"By tenth grade, though, the gang had split up....That left me and Matt. He lived just four blocks up the street...." There follows a very explicit story of a boy named Jesse's homosexual obsession and then sex encounter with a classmate. ( Love & Sex: ten stories of truth, edited by Michael Cart, Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers, 2001, pp.129-156. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.)
3. Bisexuality, "fluid" sexuality and sexual experimentation is encouraged by GLSEN as a right for all students.
"Although it's common to feel more strongly attracted to one sex or the other, many people feel at least some amount of attraction for both sexes. Alfred Kinsey, the famous researcher of sexual behavior, found that our attractions and our sexual behaviors are seldom absolute..." (Passage continues to describe the Kinsey Scale, a 0 through 6 continuum from heterosexual to homosexual, that the now-discredited Kinsey described as "fluid" sexuality. In Free Your Mind: The Book for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth-- and Their Allies, Ellen Bass & Kate Kaufman, HarperPerennial, 1996, pp.6-7. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.)
"Hello," I Lied (M.E. Kerr, Harper Trophy, 1997) is a novel about a 17-year-old boy who believes he's homosexual, has an actor boyfriend, and yet "falls" for a French girl during his summer vacation-and has sex with her. The book closes with his reunion with his male lover, and his acceptance of even more undefined boundaries for sexuality. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.
"Curtis flops over the side of his bed and looks underneath....he browses his modest library of soft to medium-core pornography....Image upon image, man upon woman. Upon woman. Upon man. Curtis swims in a sea of bodies..." A very graphic story of masturbation, fantasy and real sex unfolds in this tale about a teen boy who, after viewing homosexual porn, has homosexual fantasies and believes he's "gay." His girlfriend, with whom he has been having sex, convinces him otherwise after he visits her in her bedroom, she confesses that she likes female homosexual pornography, and his arousal results in their sexual encounter. Story "The Cure for Curtis" in Love & Sex: ten stories of truth [cited above], pp.109-126. Book recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.
" '...You never wanted to, like, do it with a girl?' 'No, I guess I'm a Kinsey six.'"( Two boys discuss the Kinsey scale in the novel Rainbow Boys [cited above], p.95.)
"Weetzie changed into her lace negligee from Trashy Lingerie and went into Dirk and Duck's room and climbed into bed between Dirk and Duck....And that was how Weetzie and Dirk and Duck made the baby-well, at least that was how it began, and no one could be sure if that was really the night...." This group sex encounter between a girl and two homosexual men (p.37) occurs in the novel Weetzie Bat, part of a collection of several books, Dangerous Angels, by Francesca Lia Block (Harper Collins Publishers, 1998).The heroine, Weetzie Bat, is trying to get pregnant, and turns to her two "gay" housemates when her live-in boyfriend doesn't want a child. A child is conceived by this teen girl and one of the three men. Dangerous Angels is recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12.
"I think the first time I actually thought about being bi or questioned my sexuality was when, under the influence, I kissed a girl. I would have been thirteen...I was really heavily into drugs and stuff like that..." ( Paige, age 18, in In Your Face: Stories from the Lives of Queer Youth [cited above], p.42.)
"Each of us should have the freedom to explore our sexual orientation and find our own unique expression of lesbian, bisexual, gay, straight, or any combination of these." (From a lesson called "Bisexual Basics" for students in middle school and up, in a curriculum manual published by GLSEN for educators called Tackling Gay Issues in School: A Resource Module by Leif Mitchell. Co-sponsored by GLSEN, 1999, Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and Leif Mitchell, p.78.)
4. Meeting other "gay" and "questioning" youth, sometimes without parental knowledge, is a frequent theme in GLSEN materials. At these meetings, minors will come into contact with college-age people and adults practicing homosexuality.
"The night I got back from my first support group meeting, I lied to my mother about where I'd been. And I was horrible at lying because I had a good relationship with my mother......" (Dawn, age 17, in In Your Face: Stories From the Lives of Queer Youth, [cited above], p.50.)
"....One of the best ways to meet other lesbian, gay and bisexual young people - is a gay youth support group. There are youth groups all over the country....If you find a group you can get to, GO!" (Passage mentions nothing about checking with parents. From Free Your Mind: The Book for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth-- and Their Allies, [cited above] p.30)
"...I joined this youth group called Positive Images; it's the Sonoma County gay/lesbian/bisexual youth group. I got a boyfriend instantly; he picked me up right away, right when I joined the group. He was older; he was twenty-five, I was sixteen...." (Todd Fay-Long, age 17, from In Your Face: Stories from the Lives of Queer Youth [cited above], p.58.)
5. In GLSEN material, the "cool" adults-parents, teachers and counselors--are those who encourage students to embrace homosexuality and cross-dressing. They also allow adult-level freedoms and let children associate with questionable teens or adults.
" For Nancy, talking to a supportive adult was the start of finding affirming information about being a lesbian:
'The first time I said anything I was fourteen. I told this social worker. I told him I had feelings for women....He was really cool. He ran around giving me all this information and he gave me the number for the gay and lesbian center. He helped me a lot. He opened the door.'" ( From Free Your Mind: The Book for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Youth-and Their Allies, [cited above], p. 35).
"I first met Danny in my seventh year of teaching....I said I was planning to go to Santa Monica Boulevard to watch the [gay] ' parade'...Suddenly Danny said, 'Take me along!'...We made plans and waited for the day....I took Danny to dinner at a nice gay café. We made quite an entrance with Danny looking all of fifteen and I looking all of thirty-one...."( HIV positive teacher Gary Dowd writing about his mentoring relationship with one of his students in One Teacher In Ten: Gay and lesbian educators tell their stories [cited above], pp. 65-67. )
6. The spirituality presented positively in GLSEN resources is heavily laced with occult themes and nightmarish images.
"The creature came into the light. It had thin, pale, slightly blueish skin....'Who are you?' La felt a slice of fear, remembering her mother's tub of blood. Had her mother seen this creature? Had this been the demon who told her mother to cut herself?" ( From the story "Blue" in Girl Goddess #9, Francesca Lia Block, Harper Trophy, 1996, p.17. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12)
"...What I really noticed was his aura....'One day you can be like me,' he whispered...'You saw how that girl looked at me? I'm going to have her tonight. I can get any woman I like-or any man, if I was that way inclined.....You know why? Because I was born with the Power. Power over things seen and unseen, power over folk and field, power over wind and water....You've got to keep it charged up. You've got to use it, boy! You have to feed the Power!'" (Love & Sex: ten stories of truth [cited above], p.46,48. Recommended by GLSEN for students in grades 7-12)
Appendix B - Sammamish Review Newspaper Article
Gay issues in Eastlake video spark debate
By David Hayes
A video designed to bring together Eastlake High School students to combat harassment of gay people has instead divided the community about whether it is an appropriate teaching tool.
Eastlake administrators have been criticized for their nearly every move concerning the video “Dealing With Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay and Straight Issues.”
The movie was shown last week during students’ advisory period as part of the school’s ongoing anti-harassment series. Parents were also invited to watch the video a couple of weeks ago.
“It was very unrealistic,” said senior Eugenio Barfaro. “None of that (harassment shown in the video) is going on here.”
The school lied to us saying it was about harassment,” added senior Jeff Wilkinson. “It wasn’t about discrimination of gays and lesbians, but about the whole lifestyle. It presented a very tainted view. It made straight people feel uncomfortable and like bad people, for not being gay.”
Junior Robert Borrego, however, disagreed, saying the video wasn’t that big a deal.
Emotions have been running high since the video was originally scheduled to run the first week of February.
It was postponed after several parents felt the martial was inappropriate and wanted to view it before their children did.
Eastlake Principal Rondel Hardie did have her entire staff and the Advisory Committee that initial recommended the video reassess it. As a result, a 4 ½ minute segment about transgendered students was cut from the video.
And in response to the growing number of requests to see the video, Hardie hosted a public viewing March 4.
About 100 community members, both gay and straight, filled the school’s library and an overflow classroom. Hardie explained that after viewing the tape, parents had the choice of pulling their students from the viewing and instead having them watch an alternative presentation.
Mark Sweetwood, who has a child at Eastlake, said he is concerned that the opportunity for parents to view the video also included several gay community members, and he was disappointed to overhear a gay couple thank Hardie for inviting them.
“It’s appalling that the administration is not staying neutral,” Sweetwood said. “Why not call and invite other (straight) parents?”
Hardie defended her decision to invite gay community members, saying they were the ones that initiated the contact.
“I had a couple of contacts with some folks who knew there was going to be a viewing, and I let them know when it was and that they were free to attend,” Hardie said.
Sweetwood said about 100 people met the night before the video was shown, and discussed several of their concerns.
Some say they want to ensure that parents have the opportunity to pull their children from perceived controversial curriculum and were disappointed that they weren’t initially notified about the video.
In addition, several parents say they want to make sure that the school will not teach any sexual, political, social or religious lifestyle choices or values that may be contrary to those taught by students’ families.
Sweetwood and many other parents said they feel that Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN), which produced the video, promotes a gay agenda in the schools.
Hardie refused to pull the video, and disagreed that it promoted a gay agenda. Instead, she said, it is a portion of an overall anti-harassment message.
“You can’t compartmentalize adolescent behavior or human behavior,” Hardie said. “There’s a sense that yes, teens harass each other. But you have to bring an awareness to the population in an effort to prevent it.”
She added that they regularly take parts of various productions to teach an overall anti-harassment message.
Dr. Howard Leonard said at the meeting that he and his partner have two daughters in the school district, one a senior at Eastlake. He was surprised by the way parents were speaking out against the video.
“I find it absurd the way parents are talking about this video when it’s perfectly acceptable to students,” Leonard said. “Where else are you going to talk about anti-harassment but in the safe environment of the school? There’s no agenda. It’s about individual choice and zero tolerance.”
Sage Alixander, who is lesbian, said she has supported numerous levies and other school issues. But her partner had to leave the meeting early in tears because of negative comments from some parents. Alixander said she’s witnessed harassment of gay people in the community.
“I don’t see how this video is negative for students,” she said. “We are terrified at times to live in our neighborhood. We came to this meeting fearing for our safety. But now we fear leaving this building.”
Shalimar Backman, one of the first parents to speak out against the video, felt the focus of the meeting was redirected away from its intended topic.
“This was supposed to be a night for parents to view the video and choose an opt-out approach for their kids,” Backman said. “Instead it turned into a gay-rights rally designed to intimidate the parents into compliance.”
Other parents felt the video was little more than a half-hour advertisement to form a Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GLA) club at the school. Parents argued that when the video showed the topic “Whose side are you on?” it implied that either you’re defending the homosexual lifestyle or against it.
Hardie said the school already had a similar club, called SMASH – Students Making a Safe Haven. She said it currently had no members this year, but she would allow it to start up again if anyone expressed an interest.
Regardless of the number of community members who spoke in favor of the video, not one parent indicated after viewing it that their minds were changed. In all, 29 indicated they would still keep their student from viewing it.
Sweetwood said he and many other parents will continue to work with the administration to ensure that parents’ concerns are not ignored.
Appendix C - Parental Letters of Concern to Administrators
The following are copies of a few of the letters (some have been reduced in length) from LWSD parents to administrators expressing concern over the use of the curriculum.
___________________________________________________________________________
Re: Anti-Harassment Program/Materials – EHS
Dr. Saul,
We have recently become aware that a video is to be shown at Eastlake High School (apparently next week), followed by at least one day of class discussion based upon materials/curriculum prepared by the video's authors, and that this has been billed, as best we can determine, as an "anti-harassment" awareness program. Our son and many of our neighbors and friends attend EHS.
While we are very much in favor of preventing/stopping harassment with respect to all areas and groups (e.g., minorities, those with disabilities, with varying religious beliefs, or having ethnic and/or racial differences, etc.), we were amazed to discover that this particular effort appears to be very narrowly focused to present and promote, in whole or in large part, the agenda of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – a co-author of the materials - and its beliefs and purposes. This group appears to openly promote or condone, among other things, sexual perversions of many, if not all, types regarding children. Although the particular program in question may include only a portion of the beliefs and practices of the members of GLSEN, from what we understand of those beliefs and practices, we do not want any of our tax dollars spent in supporting, directly or indirectly, or of our son's time spent in listening to, the agenda of a group whose life style is diametrically opposed to many, many traditional family unit values.
It is our understanding that several parents (i.e. those who (by chance) have become aware of this proposed program) have vigorously complained (as do we) about both its proposed content and its sponsoring entity (entities) and about the fact that this program, with its specific content (video and discussion curriculum), was being considered by EHS without adequate (or any) notice to parents and community members. Such notice would allow them/us to be able address the issue (a extremely controversial matter, you must admit) and to explore, on a timely basis, alternatives to and/or modifications of such a presentation. Merely providing the opportunity to have a student "opt-out" is not sufficient with respect to this type of program! It is our understanding (and this is very disturbing to us) that the proposed program was originally to have been presented a month earlier (during the first week in February) with little or no notice, and that the original video contained such materials as transgenderism (now apparently to be removed) and that the original accompanying curriculum materials included such stated objectives as "Increase strategies for coming out as openly LGBT individuals and/or supporting peers who may be in the process of coming out." Which materials are proposed to remain in the final proposed video and printed materials continues to be of great concern to us. Of equal or greater concern is the way in which this matter has been handled by the administration from the beginning. For a school and school district that advocates a school/parent/community "partnership" in the educational process, it is amazing that this type of program was not clearly and diligently put on the radar screen in the "light of day" long ago for community and parental input. This is simply unacceptable. Further, it is our understanding that some, if not all, of the portions of the originally proposed materials that are apparently now being excluded (edited out) for next weeks proposed presentation, are being so excluded (edited out) only because a few parents became aware (indirectly) of the originally proposed program and its content and strenuously objected to those, and other, materials being included – i.e. only because the administration was "caught" ahead of time. This is deplorable.
If the educational process is to be a partnership, we are now inclined to believe that we can no longer trust our partner – a truly regrettable fact.
This has not always been the case. We have had several other children (five) attend another high school within this district (incidentally, they served in such positions as Student Body President, Senior Class President, Honor Society President (two), etc., etc.). In the past, when controversial matters arose (e.g., a book containing potentially objectionable sexual or violent material), the administration was very forthcoming and very responsive and sensitive to parental input. Such does not appear to be the case any longer. It now appears that instead of trusting our "partner," we must constantly be vigilant of and police its every move – particularly those that involve programs, such as this, that are manifestly controversial, and that are planned quietly, with little or no notice – apparently with the hope that few parents will become aware in time. This is not the school district that I once greatly respected.
An appropriate anti-harassment program, with sensitivity and awareness instruction, would include all (or at least a very broad portion of all) areas and peoples, not just a particular group, and indeed such a program should not be authored by any group whose efforts seem to be targeted against the fundamental beliefs and values of most people. This is clearly a controversial topic and one that needs a substantial amount of parental input and advance notice.
We specifically urge you to seek a better vehicle to show and discuss the topic of anti-harassment on a much broader scale, avoiding the political and moral agenda of such groups as GLSEN. The proposed vehicle is, plain and simply, the wrong vehicle. The way this matter has been handled has dealt a very serious blow to the trust that has existed (and that ought to exist) between families and the schools. This needs to be corrected – now.
Very truly yours
Richard G. Wood , Angela B. Wood
___________________________________________________________________________
"While I agree with teaching proper behavior on the subject of harassment, I most strongly object to the showing of this film. Why, of all things, is the topic of gay and lesbian life style chosen as a demonstrative example in teaching proper social behavior?
Given the politically liberal, left slant of the NEA, and WEA, a parent would wonder what hidden agenda is behind the showing of this film. It’s interesting to note that any religious references have been stripped from public schools, including such words as “Christmas”, etc. Yet, there seems to be an anxious agenda on behalf of our public schools to teach alternative life-styles under the guise of “tolerance.”
In showing such alternative life-styles, even as a minority of our society, students are left with the impressions that such choices are not only alternatives, but are also encouraged and endorsed, contrary to what may be considered fundamental moral principles taught at home. Thereby, your actions undermine the basic family moral values that so many of us strive to instill in our children. Once the moral fabric of our families and society is torn, it is not easily repairable, if at all.
Harassment is fundamentally wrong. Your approach should not be limited to such limited controversial examples, but should therefore include the entire broad spectrum of harassment. Examples would be the various religious denominations and beliefs of all types, including Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Seventh-Day-Adventists, atheists, and agnostics for that matter. Further, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to include more common forms of harassment, including people who are obese, skinny, ugly, anti-social, mentally challenged or handicapped, and other situations that more closely represent true high school issues? These examples are faced far more frequently at school.
As a parent of six children in this school district, I am frustrated with what appears to be a more political agenda of the school district in furthering its own political slant and values, devoid of moral guidance and values to our children. One would wonder if the real agenda of the NEA, and WEA is to teach such views to our children while they’re young to sway the political landscape for the future. I can see why private schools are rapidly becoming the education of choice for those who can afford it.
It’s unfortunate that most parents simply do not realize or care with what is going on. For those of us who do however, our public education seems more intent on not teaching the fundamental education needed for life, but in teaching special interests, leaving us exasperated with public schools."
Sincerely,
Clair L. Jenkins
____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Superintendent Saul,
I am writing to express my concern about the lack of judgment shown by the administration of Eastlake High School and to question the oversight role of the Lake Washington School District (LWSD). I have two issues for your consideration and comment. First, I want to highlight the failure of Eastlake’s administration to obtain input from parents before showing a specific video to students. Second, I want to express my reservations about the message contained in the video and the group that created it.
Eastlake High School scheduled the showing of “Dealing With Difference; Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay and Straight Issues” on February 3rd. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an organization that I discuss below, produced the video. Although they apparently did not view the video beforehand, the Eastlake administration had decided it wasn’t necessary to notify parents prior to airing this material to students and that the message contained in the video was appropriate for our children.
The mother of an Eastlake student became aware that the video would be shown and questioned Principal Rondel Hardie about the contents and why parents had not been notified that it would be shown. Based on this mother’s questions, Principal Hardie postponed the showing of the video. She requested that the school’s Advisory Committee watch the video and determine whether it is appropriate for the students to view and whether parents should be notified before it is shown.
I appreciate the belated decision to evaluate this video in more detail, but I question the administration’s initial decision to show the video without any internal or external review. It is my understanding that, prior to the parent’s objection, neither you, the LWSD Assistant Superintendent, the Eastlake Principal, Vice Principal, Director of Curriculum, nor the School Board had seen the video. I am especially concerned that the District administration did not have an active role in reviewing these sensitive materials before they are shown to students.
The reason for showing this video, as expressed by Ms. Hardie, is to provide a safe, harassment-free environment for children and to comply with state mandates. This video is being used in conjunction with similar presentations on race, ethnicity, and religious diversity. I strongly support efforts to ensure that students can learn in a “harassment-free” environment and I believe that offending students should be dealt with swiftly. Behavior that jeopardizes the safety of our students must not be tolerated. However, I question whether harassment exists at the level implied by the Principal, or at a level that would require the showing of this video. Certainly, if the security of students was really at stake, it would represent a significant failure on the part of the current school administration.
I requested and was able to view the video, and teaching materials, at the district headquarters on February 9th. While the administration’s stated intent is to use this video as a way to protect students and teach tolerance, I believe the video’s underlying objectives are much more aggressive. Based on my research, I believe this video and the accompanying materials go well beyond simply teaching tolerance of other lifestyles; rather this is an attempt to intimidate viewers into accepting alternate sexual lifestyles. In my estimation, it has little or nothing to do with protecting students from a hostile environment.
For example, throughout the video, individuals are labeled “homophobes” and “heterosexists” if they believe homosexuality is not normal or natural. The teaching materials describe a homophobe as a person that has “a fear or hatred of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people, especially in others, but also in oneself (internalized homophobia).” The materials go on to misinform the reader that sexual orientation is influenced by a variety of factors, including genetics.
The group that created this video, GLSEN, is an organization that promotes the sexualization of our children and, in plain language, advocates the practice of dangerous sexual behaviors by children and adults. In my estimation, GLSEN is an extremist group whose aim is to define our children by their sexuality through programs they have designed for all age levels, K-12. They have cloaked their message in the mantra of tolerance, safety and understanding. Behind this facade, however, is the sordid reality of what GLSEN actually supports. According to this group, nearly every type of sexual practice imaginable is acceptable and even worthy of celebration by any age student and teacher.
Using the schools as its major platform, GLSEN conveys these radical ideas through its website; books and curricular material; teacher training workshops; and after-school homosexual clubs for students, which includes an Eastlake chapter according to the website. A review of the materials recommended by GLSEN confirms their implicit promotion of criminal sexual contact between adults and minors. I have included some of the explicit excerpts from the reading materials recommended by GLSEN for 7-12th graders on their website. GLSEN’s ultimate goals go far beyond eliminating harassment in our schools. In my view, they are intent upon defining our children solely by their sexuality and by “normalizing” the homosexual lifestyle.
I trust that you and the Eastlake administration will take a proactive role in assuring that the materials presented to our children are appropriate. I also want the rights of parents respected in this process. Second hand, I’ve heard statements from Eastlake school members implying that parents “don’t care” about their children and that’s why the schools must provide this type of sexual information. That’s nonsense. I believe the more parents learn about what is, and is not, being taught in their high schools, the more they will want to have input into what is taught to their sons and daughters.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Shalimar Backman
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Ellis,
While we appreciate your clarification of the video that is scheduled to be shown to the students at Eastlake, our opposition to the showing of such a video remains strong. We agree that any kind of bullying or harassment towards "self-identified or perceived gay and lesbian students" is wrong and should be dealt with accordingly. Those students attending Eastlake with homosexual tendencies are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other student. However, we do not believe that a video should be dedicated solely to dealing with this issue. In the wake of all the negative attention that "same sex marriages" are receiving in society, despite the publicity being provided by the press, the unwillingness of the majority of the population to accept the gay or lesbian lifestyle is demonstrated by many states not passing laws acknowledging this lifestyle to be legal. We strongly and adamantly object to the showing of any video in the public school system that singles out the homosexual lifestyle, no matter what the objective is.
There are adequate policies currently in place that prohibit harassment and intimidation of any kind and they should be enforced. We believe this could be reinforced by producing a video or presentation that deals with and shows a variety of examples and ways for our students to be tolerant and civil towards anyone who stands out as different. In light of the current events in California, giving attention solely to the homosexual person and dedicating an entire video to this cause is sending a message to our kids that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
While we are sympathetic to the heavy burden that you bare in balancing the acceptable behaviors of society against the need to provide a quality education, we believe that the public school system has an obligation to respect the wishes of society and minimize the students exposure to unacceptable social norms. Each parent that sends a child into your care, trusts that you will not publicize or encourage anti social behavior or introduce illegal or immoral behavior. We are not asking that you control the activities of these students, but we are holding you and the school system at large responsible for maintaining our trust, and for the material that you place in front of our children. We only ask that you maintain as a minimum standard, those same social mores that are acceptable to our region and society at large. By singling out any one group you are crossing over the invisible line between educating the student and the publicizing of a particular agenda. At this stage of our children's development they are already facing many difficult challenges and they do not need exposure to more unacceptable behavior. We have all heard the saying that "any publicity is good publicity". By singling out homosexuals as a minority that deserves special treatment, you will emphasize their behavior as something unacceptable, make them a target for individuals who have such tendencies, and publicize a political cause. The local high schools should not and cannot not become a forum for any minority or other political parties to promote their individual agendas. In summation it is our belief that the environment is a important contributor to homosexual orientation, and anything that appears to legitimize this behavior will result in a higher likely hood that more students will experiment with homosexual experiences.
We appreciate your time and serious consideration of our position regarding this matter and look forward to your reply.
Very Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. W. Kener Rich
_____________________________________________________________________________
Gentlemen,
I am writing to express my concerns relative to the curriculum at Eastlake High School. Specifically, the issue that has brought this to the point that I am writing to express my concerns is the "anti-harassment" curriculum
soon to be presented in what I believe is called the Advisory class.
First let me give you some background on myself. My wife Ardith and I have been residents of what is now Sammamish for about 25 years. Our children went through elementary school (Margaret Mead), Jr. High (Evergreen) and High School (Redmond) here. We continue to be concerned citizens and are
supporting the schools through the payment of property taxes. I am a business owner, and have dealt with the issues related to harassment in a very real sense for many years in that and other roles that I have.
I think it is critically important to have a policy that does not tolerate any type of harassment in the schools - whether it is based on athletes vs. non-athletes, boys vs. girls, teacher vs. student or student vs. teacher,
religion, national origin or skin color (or any other reason you can think of). In short any type of harassment should not be tolerated. It is, unfortunately, the nature of teenagers to single out others to make fun of
and "harass". It has been going on since the beginning of time and will probably always go on. This is not to say it is acceptable, just that it is an expected part of growing up and maturing (like many other undesirable
traits). When encountered, the school needs to have appropriate disciplinary procedures that are consistently followed.
Now here is what I object to. It is not the responsibility of public school educators to teach (or undermine for that matter) any moral, religious, or lifestyle lessons. That is the responsibility of the parents and the family
of the students. It is not appropriate for the school to undermine these family values (regardless if you agree with them). If parents fail in this responsibility, that is a shame, but it is their responsibility
non-the-less. The problem with having the school take on that responsibility is that what is taught will invariably cross the line and teach principles that are contradictory to the parents (not in all cases,
but in enough).
You would probably not want to send your children to school and have me or anyone else teach them what I thought were appropriate principles relative to moral issues (religion, drug and alcohol use, sexual conduct, importance
of education, integrity, etc.). Why? Because they might not be the same lessons you were trying to teach inside your family and personal culture. That may be very different based on your religion or lack thereof, national
heritage, race, sexual preference, and any number of other factors. Similarly, many of the citizens of Sammamish do not want the school curriculum taking on those issues with their children. Rather, many of us
believe that the job of the school (along with the parents) is to teach academic skills and leave the teaching of "life skills" and moral issues to the parents.
Pretty clearly the school is running the risk of infringing on the teachings that are and should be happening at the family level whenever they choose to address a moral or lifestyle issue as part of the curriculum. Specifically
with respect to the anti-harassment curriculum, I would strongly question the wisdom of selecting a curriculum created by a special interest group like the Gay Lesbian group that created the anti-harassment curriculum.
Their stated goals for the curriculum are at a minimum strongly slanted to a specific group and not broad based. If it is the intent of the administration to eliminate harassment, what about religious groups, ethnic
differences, and all the other types of harassment? Pretty clearly the selection of this curriculum subjects the administration to criticism as to whether there is an underlying agenda - why would you want to go there?
There are so many other sources for non-special interest group curriculum.
I believe strongly that the challenges of providing a strong academic curriculum are plenty for the school administration to deal with without straying into the more controversial issues related to moral and life style
issues. If you do not agree, then I would ask in all sincerity if you are satisfied with the test results designed to measure the academic excellence of Lake Washington (and specifically Eastlake) students.
My hope is that the curriculum will be adjusted to address the concerns expressed by myself and other concerned citizens of Sammamish. As an alternate to that, it seems imperative to me that parents should be given an
opportunity to "opt ought" their children from all curriculum dealing with moral or lifestyle issues (not on a piecemeal basis) in a way that will not subject the students to being singled out or harassed (by other students or
by educators) for their choice not to participate.
Concerned taxpayers,
Van and Ardith Hardy
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Its time that the education system of this country gets back on track. Parents and teachers are at a crossroads right now, instead of working together to help the youth of today, teachers are taking away parental
rights (in the materials they teach) are parents concerns are not heard. As a senior I just found out last week that the curriculum that is taught in advisory is not required and any student can object to the material and
opt themselves out of seeing it simply by telling the teacher that they are not comfortable with the subject matter.
It seems strange to me that this choice was kept secret from the students, had I known this 3 years ago I would have spent far less time being forced to watch these "anti-this or anti-that" videos and more time in the library,
doing school work and actually educating myself. People can shout as much as they like that this is an anti-gay issue, that if you are against a subject matter such as this then you are for harassment, these are the people I am
addressing this to. The majority of the parents up in arms about this do not have a problem with the homosexual lifestyle (and if they do they usually keep it private because its no ones job to change their opinion) but the
fact is that the administration is conveying to the parents that "you're just not doing a good enough job," and that's not right.
When I was five I was teased at school by a girl who thought it was funny that my father died when I was two. My mom came to the school and made it clear to the girl that it was not a laughing matter and I'm sure the girl
got the point, but where's my video? I have a friend on the newspaper who is teased because she it religious, where's her video? My point here is not that we need more videos but that adversity is a character builder. At some point
in everyone's life their are situations where not everything is fair and what the schools are teaching us it that life should always be fair when it is blatantly clear that it is not. It is not fair that some people live, some die, some form addictions while others steer clear of the temptation effortlessly. Its not fair that some kids have good parents and others have bad but if the school feels they must educate us on every little thing that could possibly go wrong or be painful in life, then they are creating a whole generation of unrealistic, and in the end, unhappy individuals.
Another point I wish to bring up is that the adults in charge here are not listening, not to concerned parents (who's students make up the school) or the students themselves. I will use an example that came up today in my
journalism class to back up this; A junior in the class was reading the Seattle Times and the main headline today was about the gay-marriages in Portland, the student asked the teacher if we were still going to watch the "gay video," teacher replied (with much restrained glee) yes, and the student responded "Why are we even watching this video,
so many people have different opinions about this, what gives the school the right to tell us what's right and wrong." This student has heard my mom on the radio but only has a small clue as to what's really going on, what's
amazing is he formed his opinion all by himself and was even bold enough to share it was an obviously biased teacher."
Brynn Sandquist (EHS Senior)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Hardie:
Thank you for responding to my previous email. During the night, after attending the meeting last evening a very important thought came to me which might help you and those who belief that using these materials is a benign way of conveying an anti-harassment policy at EHS. To understand my position you would need to approach the teaching of the anti-harassment policy from the opposite approach to that of GLSEN. The opposite approach is that homosexuality is a sin and that it is a lifestyle that is abhorrent to many of all religious faiths. Now if you knew that GLSEN had that agenda instead of the agenda that it is a normal lifestyle and that we have no right to judge, you would never allow GLSEN material or a GLSEN associated group such as GSA to associate with the school and be part of advisory. To do so who promote someone’s views over another.
In using GLSEN material you are allowing a group to promote their views, which is that this is a normal and acceptable lifestyle. What you need to be using is material that teaches that harassment of anyone for any reason, including their choice of sexual orientation lifestyles, is unacceptable without using material produced by anyone with any agenda.
Again, would you allow a group to teach this anti-harassment policy if their agenda was to distribute material that condemned the homosexual lifestyle?
If your answer is no, then you must reconsider your use of GLSEN material because their agenda is to distribute material that promotes acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Please use material that teaches the unacceptability of harassment in any form without promotion of any lifestyle at all.
Now I must speak to another issue. My Daughter is already being harassed because of my stand on this issue and I am sure that many other students are going to be harassed. While I don’t want an overt statement made, because this would cause even more harassment I do think that you and all the teachers must be aware and stop this kind of harassment also. I am deeply concerned that those who support the GLSEN agenda and are upset by our protest of the use of this material will add their voice to the voices of intolerance of my point of view and that of the other parents in attendance last night. This of course would be harassment of the worse kind, if it came from teachers or administrators, and could cause great harm to our students and a lot of liability to you and to the administration. If a student who opposes the use of this material is harassed by another student and complains to a teacher or administrator and is told (by the teacher or administrator) that their position is wrong and hateful and that this is a civil rights issue, then you have just opened yourself to great liability because instead of working on the issue of the student opposed to this material being harassed for their beliefs the teacher or administrator are further harassing that student. My student and every other student must have the right to their own religious views without anyone telling them their view is wrong unless that view infringes on the rights of another.
As one of the parents said last night, I don’t want to opt my student out of an anti-harassment discussion. I want a discussion based on an agenda of only discouraging harassment.
Thanks for you time,
Tom Fairbanks
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Dr. Saul,
Last night I attended the meeting at Eastlake High School to review the video that is planned to be shown next week on the subject of harassment of Gays and Lesbians. While I appreciated the opportunity to participate and give my feedback as a parent of two students now at Eastlake and two others who have graduated from Eastlake, I was appalled at the way last night’s meeting was deceptively manipulated by Principal Hardie. Please consider the following actions:
1. She specifically (and covertly) invited Gay and Lesbian couples from outside our community—who do not have children at Eastlake nor who live in our area--to come and speak out in favor of the biased agenda portrayed in the proposed video and curriculum. She was heard speaking with these individuals about her invitation and when confronted about it, first denied and then acknowledged that she'd spoken with them. The presence of these individuals resulted in a contentious atmosphere in which focus was diverted from the specific issues parents had with the video and the organization that produces it. This kind of action by Principal Hardie provides strong evidence that her objective is much more than simply providing an "anti-harassment" curriculum as she claims, but it is indeed to promote this particular lifestyle and possibly the objectives of the GLSEN organization.
2. A representative of the GLSEN organization was also invited (it is not clear by whom, but one may assume that Prinicipal Hardie extended this invitation as well) to participate in the meeting, and that individual was given a planned speaking slot in one of the classroom gatherings as well as in the library. As you already know, the clearly stated objectives of this organization, as well as its distribution of curriculum materials that advocate illegal and dangerous practices (see issue "B" below) is the most serious issue of concern with the parents opposed to this curriculum. Principal Hardie on the one hand claimed that this video was only being used for its anti-harassment message and dismissed its source as irrelevant to the message. How and why would she then invite and support the participation of this organization at this review meeting? This behavior by Principal Hardie is clearly deceptive and manipulative. It can only be concluded that she has an ulterior agenda.
3. She purposefully divided the group of people who attended into smaller groups in different rooms (she was heard discussing this plan) so that an accurate assessment of the feelings of the vast majority of parents (I emphasize parents, rather than others who were invited) attending would not be observed by those who came. I was personally in one of the classrooms, rather than in the “main” group in the library. Our room was full, the discussion was well handled by the staff member and administration member who were present, and all but one or two individuals present expressed serious concerns about the video curriculum and its messages. Some of this feedback was discussed in a responsible way, and written feedback was invited and received. Those who wished to discuss the issues further were told that the administration would be available in the library. I proceeded to the library and was dismayed as I entered and found out what had happened and how the logistics of the meeting had been manipulated.
Dr. Saul, you know what the main issues of concern are that are being voiced by parents:
A) that parental notification regarding this curriculum was completely inadequate (I received the “Wolf Tracks” flyer vaguely announcing an “Advisory curriculum presentation; video viewing” on the front page, with the title of the video buried seven pages back in a message from Principal Hardie, and only distributed after parents had voiced concerns),
B) the alarming and disturbing political and social agenda of GLSEN, the organization that produced this video and curriculum (I have personally reviewed their web site and came away utterly dismayed and disgusted by the focus on teaching children in schools everywhere that the LGBT lifestyle is not only acceptable, but should be explored and embraced—including illegal and dangerous activities such as sex between minors and adults), and
C) that the focus on LGBT harassment inappropriately overshadows all other forms of harassment that could and should be discussed. The administration defended this focus by saying that this curriculum was part of an ongoing anti-harassment curriculum, but in discussing some of the other assemblies and activities with my two children (current students), I found that “harassment” was not discussed in these other settings—rather they were simply positive portrayals of, for example, the life of Dr. M. L. King. That harassment of any kind and to any group is inappropriate and unacceptable is indeed a needed and important topic, but it should be covered generally, without inordinate focus on this particular group.
I now add other serious concerns after seeing this video: messages were clearly and directly given in the video (even in the so-called “edited version”) that:
1. Those that do not accept the LGBT lifestyle as normal and acceptable are “homophobic” (I consider this to be a form of "reverse discrimination"--negatively labeling those who disagree with your beliefs)
2. You must pick “which side you are on” (a quote from the video) in this matter; in other words, it is not possible to disagree with the LGBT lifestyle and still be a respectful, responsible individual who cares for and gets along well with others (as I, and many other parents at EHS, strive to teach their children to do)
3. Gay/Straight Alliances should be formed to educate and support this lifestyle in our schools
(One added note about the video is that the section on "transgenderism" was not completely removed as Principal Hardie had promised it would be.)
The claim was made by the staff member and administrator in our meeting that even though such messages existed in the video, the discussion would be maintained only on the points about anti-harassment. This claim is unrealistic and ignores the impact of the video’s messages.
Dr. Saul, in summary, I find that Principal Hardie has repeatedly acted in a deceptive, manipulative, and unprofessional manner regarding this matter. How can such actions be allowed to continue? I further find that the proposed Eastlake curriculum does not solely focus on anti-harassment as claimed, but also contains both direct and indirect messages and support for the LGBT lifestyle, as well as support of an extremist and dangerous organization, GLSEN.
I respectfully request an opportunity to meet with you on this topic. I know that other parents have made this request as well. Perhaps you could have a meeting inviting concerned parents where you could address not only the issues about this curriculum, but also how it has been handled by Principal Hardie and what actions you plan to take in response.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding the opportunity to meet together.
Sincerely,
Steve Richardson
_____________________________________________________________________________
RE: Video: “Dealing With Difference; Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay and Straight Issues”
Dr. Saul,
I have left several messages for you today at your office and appreciate that you are busy, so I decided to put some of my thoughts done in writing:
I am writing as a concerned parent of 3 children currently in the Lake Washington School District and one daughter who graduated from Eastlake High School last year.
My wife and I attended the preview of the fore mentioned video last night at Eastlake High School. The library was overflowing with parents and other members of the community and a second classroom was also full to capacity of concerned parents. Following the viewing a discussion ensued in the Library at Eastlake High School with Principal Hardie facilitating. It became quickly apparent that the vast majority of the people present were parents objecting to the showing of the video to their children. In addition, there were others there who supported the showing of the video. I was disappointed to find out that several of these people were Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) individuals who had personally been phone called and invited to the meeting by Principal Hardie.
School administrators and PTSA leadership present at the meeting reflected their strong support of the video and its anti-harassment theme toward GLBT individuals. The comments of the parents (myself included) also reflected their support of anti-harassment of GLBT individuals and any type of harassment which occurs against individuals of a certain race or individuals who are obese, “nerds”, religious, handicapped, etc. Most every individual who spoke, on behalf of showing the video, indicated that they had been harassed or had known of harassment toward GLBT individuals and thought it should be stopped. I did not hear one parent disagree with any school administrator, parent, community member, or PTSA leader regarding any anti-harassment message! I believe the majority of the parents of Eastlake High children, and certainly most who were at the meeting last night, agree that schools should be a safe haven and that harassment of any kind toward any individual should not be tolerated. So … therefore I feel that school administrators are showing a lack of leadership and good judgment in not seeing and understanding the real sexual issue that the parents are upset about:
The concern of the parents that attended was not related to any issues with harassment of GLBT individuals, as they supported [anti-harassment instruction], but rather to the underlying sexual theme of this video and it producer. History is full of hidden agenda’s being pushed behind the guise of well meaning and worthy causes. This is exactly what is happening here! I believe that the teachers and administrators are generally supporting anti-harassment of GLBT individuals … we do not fault this! However, I believe there is an individual or perhaps several individuals who feel a little stronger about other sexual issues and find that this particular video also brings these sexual issues to the students under the guise of anti-harassment. Therefore, we can and do find fault in the administration for not recognizing that behind this important civil rights issue lies a controversial sexual issue. I feel the school district has gone beyond it’s bounds in not discussing with parents an important sexual issue that is clouded over with the civil liberties agenda and therefore not being recognized for what it is.
The producers of the film, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), sent curriculum materials, along with the video, that specified the objectives of showing this video to the students. Following is a direct quote from the GLSEN materials:
“After viewing the video Dealing With Difference: Opening Dialogue about Lesbian, Gay and Straight Issues and participating in the activities provided in this Teacher’s Resource Book, your students will be able to:
- better understand their own attitudes and beliefs with regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and issues
- understand and use appropriate and accurate terminology with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
- consider the ways in which gender expectations in our society limit all people and reinforce homophobia and heterosexism
- understand the violent history of homophobic name-calling and develop strategies for reducing name-calling in their schools
- appreciate and empathize with the experiences of LGBT people from diverse backgrounds
- recognize how homophobia and hetrosexism impact straight as well as LGBT people
- assess the local school climate around LGBT issues and develop strategies for reducing institutionalized heterosexism and intervening to stop bias
- critically analyze media representation of LGBT people and issues
- identify LGBT people throughout history and understand the ways in which their contributions have been made visible in school curricula
- understand the political landscape around LGBT education issues and the major laws and policies impacting LGBT youth in the U.S. today
- increase strategies for “coming out” as openly LGBT individuals and/or supporting peers who may be in the process of coming out
- increase their awareness of student initiated and school based programs for reducing anti-LGBT bias, including gay-straight alliances and safe zone programs”
Some of the objectives I think we all agree to. However, there are several objectives that many, myself included, find unacceptable. Anti-Harassment is a portion of GLSEN’s objective but I hope their objectives shown above clearly indicate to you a sexual agenda that is not appropriate for schools to be educating students on. Thankfully, because some parents earlier intervened, the full curriculum is not being used and Principal Hardie indicated about 4 ½ minutes of the video had been edited out. I repeat … thankfully for some parents who earlier intervened. I would estimate that half the video still contains material and comments not related to harassment. For example: one entire section (that the teacher is asked to stop and discuss) was labeled: “Join or not to Join” where the entire video segment was given to promote having a Gay/Straight Alliance at the school. In the video one of the LGBT students said, and I will paraphrase, “if anyone is not accepting of the LGBT lifestyle then they are homophobic”. This clearly is out of line as it states that if you do not morally agree with the LGBT lifestyle – you are then placed in the “homophobic” group. I really have a problem with the Transgender discussion as well. This lifestyle is not commonly known among students … therefore Eastlake high school will introduce a whole new lifestyle to the students there. Eastlake High School thus fulfilling the sexual objective of the GLSEN and not just the civil right objective of anti-harassment. The video contained other comments such as, “A Lesbian is a guys sexual fantasy” and then a discussion about how guys like to see Lesbians in action, etc. Where is the teaching on sexual harassment?
In my career as a principle owner of a corporation with hundreds of employees, our Human resources personnel and I, recognized the need for anti-harassment materials in the work place. We previewed several materials and found excellent sources and materials that teach anti-harassment. These materials identify individuals and groups, GLBT individuals included, and teach diversity, tolerance and anti-harassment. It also teaches that harassment at any level will not and should not be tolerated in any circumstance. These teaching materials would accomplish the real objectives I think the majority of administrators want to be taught at Eastlake High School and would instantly get rid of the objectionable sexual objectives of the GLSEN video. I find this a “no-brainer” unless there are indeed hidden agenda’s at some level in the administrative leadership of the district or high school. It would be interesting to see if some members of the administration are indeed LGBT and if they have any former connection to GLSEN and sympathize with their sexual agenda …. Otherwise … why not use so many other appropriate materials that teach the important civil rights objectives and leave alone the sexual discussions found prevalent in this video and certainly the producer. Our kids do not need to learn about the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender subculture to learn not to harass.
Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope that you will make a wise executive decision to see past the accepted important civil rights issue and see the clouded over sexual issues which the school is going to teach our children; and then make the decision to pull the video from Eastlake’s advisory program.
Sincerely,
Darrell Paxman
______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Saul,
My husband and I attended the viewing of the video "Dealing with Difference: Opening Dialogue About Lesbian, Gay and Straight Issues" at Eastlake High School last night. We recognize and support the school's efforts to discourage and effectively deal with harassment, regardless of the underlying cause.
After viewing the video, it is our opinion that the video content oversteps the boundaries of anti-harassment, and presents an agenda suggesting that the students should choose and declare their position on two opposing sides (the presentation includes bold text to stimulate thought and discussion: "Which Side Are You On?") One side being characterized as tolerant and accepting of alternative lifestyles; and the other side being described as being "homophobic".
The adult moderator of the dialogue (identified as a doctor and portrayed to our children as the professional and expert) validates one of the harassed student's comments that one method of responding to, or coping with harassment of GLBT students is to "label" the harasser as "homophobic". This prescribed practice of using such potentially intimidating labels is itself harassment, meeting many of the definitions specifically outlined by the District's Harassment Policy (i.e., "has the ...effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment"; "has the ...effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or education"; "has the ...effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school"... etc.)
Using the approach presented in this video to curb harassment seems misdirected and ineffective. It seems more likely that use of these materials will increase division and name calling among our students, rather than decrease it. The mere fact that there was 100% agreement among last night's audience, that harassment is bad, and there was significant disagreement about whether the video presentation was bad should be evidence that the video's content and message goes beyond the scope of anti-harassment, and in fact, distracts from that cause.
We understand that parents and students have the right to "opt-out" of the video, and will receive what was described at the meeting last night as "alternative anti-harassment instruction" during that time. While we are appreciative of the option, "opting out" does not wholly satisfy our concerns, since we believe that showing the video to those who do not "opt-out" is harassing and against Board policy. In fact, the concepts presented in the video may actually promote harassment of those who "opt-out", encouraging "participating students" to categorize "non-participating students" as intolerant, heterosexist, and homophobic.
I am not sure if the content for the proposed alternative program has been developed yet, or what it will contain, but I assume that every effort will be made to make this alternative content effective at educating the students about harassment, strategies to prevent and/or deal with harassment, etc. And if this alternative program IS expected to be effective at meeting the originally proposed anti-harassment focus, then might I suggest that this format - one which can focus the students' attention on anti-harassment, and not on the promotion of particular agendas - be used as the school's presentation, instead of the proposed objectionable video?
My husband and I were also more than concerned when Principal Hardie suggested that the reason that parental notification to show the film was not originally given, was that she did not perceive the topic or content to be at all controversial, or of interest or concern to parents. I think that after last night's meeting, it is clear that she does not have an adequate appreciation of the opinions and concerns of a number of the parents for whom she is making such assumptions.
Through our awareness of this particular series of events, there has been a level of trust that has been lost in the ability and interest of those at Eastlake in some positions of authority and influence to stay within the bounds of their roles, and to reasonably and responsibly interpret and comply with Board policies.
We appreciated the time we were able to spend with your Assistant Superintendent, Cindy Meilleur last evening, and found her to be genuinely interested in hearing and responding to parental concerns. We hope that in the future, the leadership at Eastlake will be more receptive than was apparent last night, in considering and acting on viewpoints that differ from their own.
In light of these events, we highly encourage reconsideration of the school's plan to present the video to the students, citing it as harassing in nature. Additionally we would encourage a period of enhanced parental notification and involvement in discussions, planning and decisions regarding our children; allowing the school's leadership a chance to have a broader and more accurate perspective of the range of viewpoints posessed by those in the Eastlake community, and allowing interested parents and community members to more effectively serve as partners with the Eastlake administration.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these thoughts.
Bob and Linda Krulish
_____________________________________________________________________________
3/4/2004
Dr Saul and Principal Hardie,
Over 100 parents and students of diverse backgrounds and beliefs met last night to express concern about Eastlake's Gay Anti-harassment program.
I implore you to partner with the community in understanding and resolving this issue. Categorically rejecting the input of so many parents will only hurt the objective that I believe we both desire; the proper education of our children. We can resolve this. It can be a win/win. Let's work together on a comprehensive anti-harassment program. The parents are even willing to fund it.
Dr Saul, delaying the conducting of this program until we can work out a combined solution will go along way in restoring trust between parents and the administration. Will you reconsider?
Below is the overwhelming consensus from the community meeting.
Mark Sweetwood
POINT 1
•
WE MUST ENSURE THAT OUR SCHOOLS DO NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PROMOTE, IMPOSE, EMPHASIZE, NORMALIZE, OR NATURALIZE ANY SEXUAL LIFE STYLE CHOICE. OUR CHILDREN MUST NOT BE TAUGHT PERSONAL CHOICE VALUES THAT MAY BE CONTRARY TO THEIR PARENT'S VALUES. TEACHING THE NATURALIZATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SEXUAL LIFE STYLE CHOICES HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INFLUENCE THE SEXUALITY CHOICES THAT OUR CHILDREN MAKE.
POINT 2
WE MUST ENSURE THAT SCHOOLS DO NOT SUPPORT OR PROMOTE THE POLITICAL OR SOCIAL AGENDA OF ANY ORGANIZATION. REGARDLESS OF HOW EHS HAS NOW MODIFIED THE OBJECTIVES AND MATERIAL GLSEN PRODUCED, SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT AFFILIATE WITH, OR USE MATERIAL FROM A GROUP WITH SUCH A DANGEROUS AND EXTREME AGENDA.
POINT 3
•WE MUST ENSURE THAT PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW OF, AND TO OPT OUT OF, PERCEIVED CONTROVERSIAL CURRICULUM. PARENTS WERE NOT GIVEN THIS RIGHT WHEN THIS PROGRAM WAS GOING TO BE FIRST CONDUCTED.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Dr Saul,
In speaking with several students after the first day of the EHS GLBT advisory program, the following observations were made:
1) The terms Faggot, Dyke, and "That's so gay" were heard more in the halls and classrooms today than every before at EHS. The attention given to these terms promoted more verbal use which can lead to true harassment.
2) Some students wondered why they were not given an opt out form and were going to be speaking with their parents. Some students opted out during advisory or simply did not go. Many parents (including me) believe that EHS has been noncompliant with the Hatch amendment and will pursue legal counsel (some parents are attorneys) and then remedies if indeed the beliefs are founded. Noncompliance appeared to be particularly the case when the program was originally going to be conducted.
3) Some students who saw the film were insulted that the administration was implying that harassment as represented in the film was taking place at EHS.
4) Some wondered why the administration felt that only the non-heterosexual population needed to be protected from harassment. The very nature of the program was prejudicial. Several parents are researching the issue of prejudice.
I see divisiveness as a product of the program and the behavior of the EHS administration. Divisiveness between students and other students, divisiveness between students and the administration, and divisiveness between parents and the administration.
I again respectfully request a meeting to share ideas on how we can resolve this parental and student concern. What forum would you recommend? Please partner with the actual parents of your students.
Sincerely,
Mark Sweetwood
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
Ask Dr. Throckmorton
Submit a
question for Dr. Throckmorton.
Questions & Answers: Archives
Email Updates
Enter your email address to subscribe to Dr. Throckmorton's Email Updates.
|
|
