California school curriculum requirements

California is on its way to requiring that “gay history” be taught in public schools.  From the Huffington Post:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.

Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco says SB48 is crucial because of the bullying that happens to gay students. Republicans called it a well-intentioned but ill-conceived bill and raised concerns that it would indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality.

There is so much wrong with this, it is difficult to know where to start.  Firstly, it is hard to comprehend how anybody could justify the following hypothetical dialog:

Teacher:  “Today we will learn about the accomplishments of Alan Turing.  Mr. Turing was not only a great man who served his country – he was also GAY“.

Little Johnny:  “What’s gay?”

Teacher:  “Excellent question!  A gay person is…”

For God’s sake.  Let the children grow up before they must deal with such issues.  As for Ammiano’s concern about bullying, it is easy to see how such discussions could bring about more bullying than would be the case if they were silent about it.

We could argue the pros and cons until we’re red in the face, but by now it should be obvious that there are far too many special interests to please them all by cramming their views into the heads of innocent little children.  This case supports my contention that government should not be in the business of educating children at all.  This is the inevitable result when every group, in a fractured (excuse me, “diverse”) society, is given a say in the curriculum of public schools.  Where there is “multiculturalism”, there will also be “multi-curriculumism”.  When there are thousands of different ethnic groups, religions and sexual groups that all demand their stories be told, how can there still be enough time and resources to teach reading, writing and arithmetic?

Tom Ammiano says “gay history” should be taught to students because gays are bullied.   What about fat children?  What about children with freckles?  What about short children?  What about European American children?  Actually, according to the Huffington Post, California schools are already required to teach about European Americans:

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

I wonder if this is actually done – or do they simply teach about George Washington (for example) and leave it at that, excusing themselves from teaching more by saying, “he was a European American, wasn’t he?”  Perhaps some of our Californian readers, with children in public schools, would enlighten the rest of us.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in libertarian thought, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to California school curriculum requirements

  1. countenance says:

    I have found that politically active leftist homosexuals have a persecution fetish. They always think they or their own are always being bullied, or will be bullied, even when it’s rarely happening. They have to think that someone wants to persecute them. Personally, I think they get off on the idea of being persecuted.

    As for the bill, sure, there’s a good way to get Hispanic mothers to send their Hispanic kids to school — Mandatory gay history lessons. I find it kinda ironic that people who biologically can’t have any children of their own (*) want to tell people who can and do have children what their children should learn.

    * – There’s always adoption, and really am not philosophically opposed to homosexual couples being able to adopt. I’d just want to make sure the adoption agencies are as strict on homosexual couples as they are on everyone else, or if you think they’re too strict overall, they’re not more lenient toward homosexual couples than they are toward everyone else.

  2. fred says:

    Anyone who is familiar with my comments knows that I’m not anti homosexual and have frequently defended homos’ right to be left alone. I am, however, anti militant homosexual. I’m sick and tired of radical homos shoving their business in my face. Whatever happened to their claims of “separation of church and state” and “what goes on in the privacy of one’s own home…”? Apparently, that was just a ruse radicals used to shut others up while they screamed “We’re here, we’re queer and we’re in your face!” Well, I’m tired of having queers in my face. But here’s the frustrating part — most homos aren’t in my face. In fact, I can’t currently name any acquaintances whom I know to be homosexual. I’m sure some of them are. I just don’t know about it because most of them aren’t shoving it in my face. It’s the militant homos and political @$$hats doing that through media, politics, school curriculum, etc. And I’m sick of them using homos as a political football to push a leftist totalitarian agenda. This is just Victimology 101 — demagogues establish some group as an oppressed class and then using them as a political tool / wedge issue. Homos are just the latest group to join the Democrat Plantation. They should escape while they still can.

  3. eugenicist says:

    Your use of Alan Turing as an example is well-advised. His contribution to the war effort was invaluable, and it’s useful general knowledge to know about the work he did and how it helped the Allies win the war.

    However, I have a feeling that any “gay history” curriculum would ignore all of that, and focus on the forced castration and his eventual suicide. Instead of being lauded for his brilliance, he would be lauded for his perceived victimhood. Like you showed in your example, the discussion would get sidetracked from his accomplishments to his orientation (“Being gay is…”).

    Why don’t they just advocate for a curriculum about “persons of mediocrity” and how they contributed to the world, and be done with it?

    The government has no business educating kids. More to the point, why are there brick and mortar schools still? With iTunes, bittorrent, e-books etc., all you really need is a few big rooms to monitor final exams twice a year. Kids can learn, or not learn, at home, in the library or in a computer center with a few other kids. Much less expensive, especially if the parents help pay for the computer center.

    You might like the works of John Taylor Gatto, a former NYC public school teacher who quit in disgust. Here’s a essay which he wrote for Harper’s: http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

  4. essbro says:

    When I was in the military, I would often be tasked with coordinating the United Way (Known in the service as the Combined Federal Campaign) effort for my squadron. As one of the few coordinators on the installation, I would be given an inch thick ream of authorized agencies. This is different from the tiny pamphlet given to potential donors that lists stuff like Red Cross, Teen Challenge, Disater Relief for Haiti, etc. Some of the authorized agencies I read about are real eye-openers. Stuff like The Lesbian Alliance with, “helps Lesbian & Gay couples offset the high cost of adoption” or something similar, among the description. There are all kinds of agencies like this. So, it’s often easier for gays in this regard. So, if you feel you must contribute, you should choose a specific agency within the list, rather than just giving to the UW overall, which is what most people do and contributions are distributed equally among all the agencies.

    And the UW had the audacity to drop the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay Scoutmasters.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to get too off-topic.

    • fred says:

      essbro-

      The United Way is a major pet peeve of mine, too. I absolutely despise them. Like you said, few are aware of the whole list of groups the UW shills for. Now, they do give money to some good causes but I suspect those good causes are little more than camouflage to cover up their funding of bad ones. As well as being used as leverage over the good ones the way they did with the boy scouts.

      I strongly advise people NOT to donate any money to the UW. If you want to give to a worthy cause like the Red Cross, St Jude or the March of Dimes then make your donations directly.

      Let me explain why.

      Let’s say the UW collects $50 million worth of general contributions and you donate $500 dollars to go specifically towards the Red Cross. Now, if the UW had originally budgeted $1,000,000 for the Red Cross do you think they will now give them $1,000,500? No, they won’t. What they’ll do is give them $999,500 out of the general fund plus your $500. Then they’ll give that extra $500 in the general fund to some group you don’t support. They’re just robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is no way to dedicate your contribution to a particular group unless you give it to that group directly.

  5. bob sykes says:

    California has become a gigantic Darwinian morality play. It is just entertainment, and it should be regarded and enjoyed as entertainment.

    If it comes to a theater near you, so much the better. But you might want to have a few guns.

    Also, be grateful. How often do we get to see the actual collapse of a civilization?

  6. homo says:

    I must say i agree with most of what other reader’s have posted.I’m personaly sick of being used by politicians and militant homos to use gays to destroy this country’s moral fabric and basic building blocs that make it possible for this society to continue.I don’t support teaching kids about this stuff, i agree with jewamoungyou ,let them find out naturally through the growing upprocess.I’m 100 percent opposed to this and just like always the regular homosexuals who have nothing to do with this and don’t support it will suffer the backlash!

  7. seedofjapheth says:

    At what age do they teach kids about this stuff? Is it in high school? Middle school? elementary school?

  8. Pingback: Gay curriculum in California « Jewamongyou's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s