Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed SB 1437, a bill that would have prevented any "adverse reflection" on gays in California curriculum, saying it provides no protections that don't already exist under California law. Since school textbooks aren't exactly brimming over with anti-gay venom, it's unclear to me why this bill mattered except as an exercise in political correctness (and easy symbolism to shore up gay votes for Democrats).
Here at IGF, contributing author David Link opposed the bill (the final measure was watered down from the original, and thus of even less significance). But we were not all of one mind, and Paul Varnell wrote favorably about it, arguing that the mandate for inclusion (in the original, not the weaker version that Arnold vetoed) would help bring gay history out of the textbook closet.
8 Comments for “Textbook Tussle.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve, thanks for pointing out the diversity of views on the subject at IGF. I wonder how that will sit with those who like to post comments lumping us all together and dismissing us collectively as a result of what I will charitably call their careless reading habits.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Moving away from comments designed to self-aggrandize and towards the actual issue at hand, doesn’t this bill indicate a broader problem with public education itself — that it’s become an ideological tug of war, with both “sides” of the Republicrat duopoly viewing it as an environment where they can make the teacher into a wielder of the bully pulpit to inculcate their preferred values into more-or-less captive students?
Oh dear, there I go introducing a third point of view again. 😉
posted by etjb on
I would like to see what type of history textbooks most California high school kids read. What does it say about gay rights, if anything? Is this the big issue facing gay teenagers in California?
People here will not like to face the facts, but without public K-12 and higher education, only people with money would get a decent education. Period.
Private schools tend to be sectarian and thus not especailly gay-friendly. I am not saying that private education is all evil or that public education is a magical bullet.
If you want a society, were people have a high school degree and the possibility for undergraduate-graduate college then society is going to pick up all or some of the tab.
posted by Bobby on
A victory for free speech! Homophobia will always be better than censorship.
Get the government out of education now! I’m glad Arnold isn’t always a RINO.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Private schools tend to be sectarian and thus not especailly gay-friendly.
Whereas public schools are bastions of gay-affirming tolerance?
Been near a public school lately? One of the most popular perjoratives is “faggot.” And the various sensitivity curricula proposed by the left-leaning sorts have been running in many of those schools for over a decade now — with no difference.
Again, the whole bill is a silly diversion for politics’ sake which has no real impact on the real educational problem facing gay and straight students alike — the government’s monopoly on education, which has created soaring costs and plummeting standards.
posted by Bobby on
Northeast is right. Not only they use “faggot,” they use “gay” as “lame.”
It is up to the individual to earn respect, the State can do nothing for him.
It reminds me of the episode where Cartman goes to the museum of tolerance and takes a ride called “the tunel of bigotry” or something like that. In the ride, he hears derogatory insults, the objective is to make him feel what is like to be discriminated agains’t. Instead, he enjoys the right and learns the words.
posted by ETJB on
I said: Private schools tend to be sectarian and thus not especailly gay-friendly.
Your reply: Whereas public schools are bastions of gay-affirming tolerance?
First off all, do you conceed that private schools tend to be sectarian and homophobic. Or are you simply trying to sqiurm?
Second of all, I did not say that public schools were a paradise.
However, students have certain rights at a public school that do not exist at a private school. Also I would dispute your notion that high school textbooks have been bombareded with ‘senitivity’ training about gays.
The Libertarian solution to education is to get rid of it, and (for those that have enough green) hand if over to fundamentalist schools.
posted by Bobby on
“The Libertarian solution to education is to get rid of it, and (for those that have enough green) hand if over to fundamentalist schools.”
—Wrong, there are plenty of liberal and moderate private schools already. In California, there’s even a racist latino school where they teach young Mexican-Americans to hate America and fight for the goals of Aztlan.
Libertarians have the right idea. You want a left-wing school? Pay for it but don’t force the rest of us to finance that.
Besides, public schools tend to have more crime. Try dealing with a homophobic gang banger that the rest of the teachers are intimidated by and see how easy it is.
Private schools have more power, they can expel bad students, they’re not used as a dumping ground for the scum of society.
If you want homophobia, you should visit Columbine. That was a very homophobic public school in an expensive area of Colorado. In fact, it was homophobia that caused the school shootings. If Dylan and his partner in crime had not been called “fags” every day, maybe they woudln’t have had the need to kill all those asshole jocks.
I wish instead of guns they would have used baseball bats, pepper spray, maybe organize the nerds and the geeks and have a nice high school rampage.
My point is that you don’t need a government solution for every problem. You don’t need pro-gay propaganda laws, you don’t need sensitivity training, you need punishment for bad behavior, based on a case by case basis.