The CRC's strategy here really puzzles me. Yes, it's true that Kid Two's testimony is a misrepresentation, but it's pretty clear to me that he's referring to CRC's oft-repeated accusation that the curriculum encourages same-sex "play" between children. That at least explains the "homosexual role-plays" and "mutual masterbation" (I don't know about erotic movies, though).
What I believe a draft of the cirriculum actually included was the blunt fact that sometimes children engage in same-sex play with other children, and that this does not necessarily mean that the children involved will grow up to be gay or have a predominantly homosexual orientation.
The weird thing is, I don't understand why CRC opposes this fact being in the curriculum. Shouldn't they support its inclusion? They keep complaining that the curriculum encourages kids to identify as gay or straight before they're ready! It doesn't, of course, but the information about same-sex play does just the opposite -- it reassures kids that even if they've done something like this already (and wow, so many of them have!), THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY GAY! This is one fact the CRC should be embracing, not trying to cover up.
~L
August 27, 2005 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...
I'd like to add that Kid Two testified that he did not take the opt-in sexuality unit, so he was describing the content of a class he did not attend.
Those two young people were obviously very nice kids who love and value their parents, and whose parents are justified in being proud of them. But there were so many inconsistencies in their statements. Perhaps they would like to use the comments option on this blog to expand their arguments: Which MCPS high school added an unauthorized "homosexuality" unit to the curriculum? What section of the already packed lesson plan was ommitted to make room for it? Which high school taught the Sexuality unit without notifying parents that they had to give their permission in order for their teens to be included in the classes? Where in the curriculum did you find homosexual role-playing, mutual masturbation, and erotic movies?
Those of us who have read thorugh the entire curriculum, and have also attended the parents' meeting at our kids' schools, and have had our kids go through the entire semester are very curious, because our teens didn't get those units when they took the class.
Kids who are religious and moral should remember that along with Honor thy Father and Mother, the BIG 10 also says- Thou shall not bear false witness. Now the kids weren't under oath and maybe they thought saying something that happened that didn't or of which they had no actual knowledge- wasn't the same as telling a lie- but it was. I know some people think telling a lie for the "greater good" is okay- so maybe thier folks convinced these kids that getting up and telling a made-up story about their health class experience would keep other kids from being EXPOSED to the knowledge that gay people exist and have good families. Well, I'm sorry but a lie here is a lie and it is so sad that these kids were made pawns by their parents. To claim the whole purpose of CRC/PFOX is to protect our kids(not mine, thanks) and then to make your own kids get up and give false testimony-well, these are sad, sad people. To paraphrase from A Man for All Seasons on telling a lie- It profit a man not if he gain the world and lose his soul- but CRC, kids, for CRC?
Andrea
August 27, 2005 9:35 PM
I was out of town and didn't get to attend this week's Board of Education meeting, but I see that the CRC brought in a couple of students to talk at public comments. And this is creepy to write about, because I hate to have to call a kid a liar and criticize what they say -- they're just doing what they're told to do.
I won't use their names, just Kid One and Kid Two. Also, I'll spare you the whole thing, just quote a few lines.
Kid One said: Two years ago health class was a required course for graduation so I assumed we had to take all units. I wasn't told that I could opt out. When the homosexuality unit surfaced, it was taught with much laughter, awkwardness, and blunt description. One thing. You opt in, you don't opt out. The kid's parents had to sign a permission slip to take sex ed. If they signed it without reading it, well, you can't blame the school for that, can you?
Second thing. There was no homosexuality unit. Whoever told you this made you lie.
The "homosexuality unit" was not even pilot-tested. Teachers are not allowed to talk about homosexuality in Montgomery County schools. That's since, I think, 1970, and Kid, you're just a little young to go back much further than that.
Kid One ended up with this zinger: It’s rather funny to me that I learned about the implications of homosexual intercourse a whole year before I even had kissed a boy. So ... hey. How bout those implications of homosexual intercourse?
-- There's nothing in any class about homosexual intercourse.
Listen, Kid, we've been looking pretty closely at this, I don't think you're gonna slip one like that past anybody here, okay?
Kid Two is an Eagle Scout and straight-A student who told the school board this: The truth is that there are youth in this county who have not forsaken the moral fiber of their elders, who have decided for religious or moral reasons that sexual intercourse is to take place only within a marriage between one man and one woman. Yet despite these convictions, the County has constructed a curriculum opposing these beliefs, requiring students [unintelligible] to listen to degrading notions and suggestions such as homosexual role-playing and the encouraging of teens to practice mutual masturbation and watch erotic movies. Yikes!
Kid ... kid, what are you saying?
"Homosexual role-playing?" Oh, these are the moments when I struggle. I can just picture the classroom ... no ... must ... not ... go ... there ... must ... not ... use ... humor ...
Kid, there was no "homosexual role-playing" in any sex-ed curriculum in this county. Never was, never will be. Whoever told you that, you need to have a talk with them. Because they just embarrassed you.
" ... encouraging of teens to practice mutual masturbation..." Mmm, kid, what can I say? I'm sorry. Whoever told you that, you're the one who went out there and said it. You should have checked your facts, because somebody has been lying to you. And now you, an Eagle Scout (and I used to be a den leader myself, I appreciate your achievement), have repeated an untruth. To the school board, and to the community on television. It may be important to you to remain pure, that's fine, but please, it must be important to our upcoming leaders to tell the truth.
" ... watching erotic movies ..." Same thing. Nobody shows erotic movies in the health class, nobody tells you to watch erotic movies. Nobody talks about them, there's just plain nothing at all about erotic movies.
Look, if either of these kids sees this blog, or their friends tell them about it, let me say something important.
When you say something in public, it's up to you to make sure it's right. When somebody tells you what to say, and you just repeat it, and it's wrong, well, that makes you the liar. The person who told you that stuff gets away with it, because you're the one who said it where everybody could hear.
So, kids, come on, check your facts, okay? We're going to need you guys to run the world in a few years. Don't just repeat whatever some person tells you. Please?
You don't have to agree with my opinion about the sex-ed program, but please, learn to think for yourselves.
"Kid One and Kid Two Get It Wrong"
3 Comments -
The CRC's strategy here really puzzles me. Yes, it's true that Kid Two's testimony is a misrepresentation, but it's pretty clear to me that he's referring to CRC's oft-repeated accusation that the curriculum encourages same-sex "play" between children. That at least explains the "homosexual role-plays" and "mutual masterbation" (I don't know about erotic movies, though).
What I believe a draft of the cirriculum actually included was the blunt fact that sometimes children engage in same-sex play with other children, and that this does not necessarily mean that the children involved will grow up to be gay or have a predominantly homosexual orientation.
The weird thing is, I don't understand why CRC opposes this fact being in the curriculum. Shouldn't they support its inclusion? They keep complaining that the curriculum encourages kids to identify as gay or straight before they're ready! It doesn't, of course, but the information about same-sex play does just the opposite -- it reassures kids that even if they've done something like this already (and wow, so many of them have!), THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY GAY! This is one fact the CRC should be embracing, not trying to cover up.
~L
August 27, 2005 9:21 AM
I'd like to add that Kid Two testified that he did not take the opt-in sexuality unit, so he was describing the content of a class he did not attend.
Those two young people were obviously very nice kids who love and value their parents, and whose parents are justified in being proud of them. But there were so many inconsistencies in their statements. Perhaps they would like to use the comments option on this blog to expand their arguments:
Which MCPS high school added an unauthorized "homosexuality" unit to the curriculum?
What section of the already packed lesson plan was ommitted to make room for it?
Which high school taught the Sexuality unit without notifying parents that they had to give their permission in order for their teens to be included in the classes?
Where in the curriculum did you find homosexual role-playing, mutual masturbation, and erotic movies?
Those of us who have read thorugh the entire curriculum, and have also attended the parents' meeting at our kids' schools, and have had our kids go through the entire semester are very curious, because our teens didn't get those units when they took the class.
August 27, 2005 12:43 PM
Kids who are religious and moral should remember that along with Honor thy Father and Mother, the BIG 10 also says- Thou shall not bear false witness. Now the kids weren't under oath and maybe they thought saying something that happened that didn't or of which they had no actual knowledge- wasn't the same as telling a lie- but it was. I know some people think telling a lie for the "greater good" is okay- so maybe thier folks convinced these kids that getting up and telling a made-up story about their health class experience would keep other kids from being EXPOSED to the knowledge that gay people exist and have good families. Well, I'm sorry but a lie here is a lie and it is so sad that these kids were made pawns by their parents. To claim the whole purpose of CRC/PFOX is to protect our kids(not mine, thanks) and then to make your own kids get up and give false testimony-well, these are sad, sad people. To paraphrase from A Man for All Seasons on telling a lie- It profit a man not if he gain the world and lose his soul- but CRC, kids, for CRC?
Andrea
August 27, 2005 9:35 PM