Parents' rights: educators have been waging a covert war on parents -who are starting to fight back. (includes related articles on home s chooling and school conflicts in Massachusetts)(Back to School
(National Review)
Educators have been waging a covert war on parents -- who are starting
to fight back.
CRAIG Goddard's first-grade son came home from public school one day
and told his father that women could change themselves into men and
men into women. It turns out that the boy, a student at Brookline
Elementary School just outside Boston, was learning the details of
the sex-change process from a transsexual parent, invited into first-
grade classes by one of the school's faculty.
At about the same time, children in a school in Ashland, Mass., were
assigned to play "gays" in a school skit. One boy's line was, "It'
s natural to be attracted to the same sex." Two girls were told to
hold hands and pretend they were lesbians. Parents were not informed
in advance.
In nearby Newton, Mass., a young father, Brian Camenker, learned that
a 7th-grade class in sex education used graphic descriptions of oral
and anal sex. When he went to the school principal and asked to see
the curriculum, the principal said no and told him that if he didn'
t like the situation he could send his child to private school. Mr.
Camenker had the Massachusetts Secretary of State notify the school
system of statutory law regarding parents' rights to view curricula,
after which he arranged to have parents visit the school committee
and read aloud passages used for 12-year-old children. The quoted
passages were so offensive the committee cut off debate and threatened
to call the police to have Mr. Camenker removed from the meeting.
What happened to these parents and children was, sadly, not a rare
occurrence. Across the country, bizarre and intrusive programs are
part of everyday business in public (and private) schools, a world
virtually at war with the everyday values of parents.
Welcome to 1996, the year parents are finally realizing that something
goofy -- and dangerous -- is happening to their children. Consider
the First AIDS Kit, an "educational resource," to use the jargon,
put out by the Harvard Community Health Foundation -- part of one
of the most respected health establishments in the country -- for
teaching youngsters about the hazards of AIDS. Inside, students will
find, right away, a discount coupon from the local pharmacy for their
next condom purchase. Then it's on to "Talk about Sex," a "booklet
for young people on how to talk about sexuality and HIV/AIDS." Here
students read that there are all kinds of sexuality: bisexual, heterosexual,
homosexual, transsexual, and transvestite, in that order and all
treated with a fine impartiality. The booklet advises students, "For
many young people, exploring their sexuality with someone of the same
gender is a natural part of growing up." All three sexual orientations,
advises the booklet, "are part of being human."
In addition, the handy "Proud Pete" flipbook, which you activate by
flipping its pages through your fingers, shows a cartoon version of
a penis becoming erect and a condom slipping over it. One health educator
actually told a school board that "Proud Pete" was designed for Hispanic
students who might not be able to read the English prose in the rest
of the kit.
Naturally, this material makes no mention of marriage or traditional
family structure and instead assumes a norm of complete sexual anarchy.
But one item was considered potentially controversial: the condom
key chain. This contraption, with a ring for Dad's car keys, has a
slide-out drawer that holds a condom. Sensitive to parental concerns,
Harvard Health sells the kit with and without the condom key chain.
Another area that has sent parents reeling is so-called "death education."
The pedagogical "theory" here is that "death is part of life," that
if youngsters "experience" death they will be more healthy mentally
and have higher self-esteem. In these programs, children are brought
to cemeteries and mortuaries, where the viewing of corpses is deemed
to have high educational value. A common classroom exercise is having
students write their own obituary.
Again, a concrete example is instructive. Several years ago, a community
in western Massachusetts had an unusual number of teen suicides. An
educational consultant (who asked not to be identified) determined
to find out why, and arranged to meet the teacher involved in the
"death education" course. The meeting went cordially until the consultant
asked if the situation was improving, by which he meant, were the
suicides tapering off.
The educator's shocking answer was that he did not necessarily agree
that fewer suicides constituted improvement. His general tone implied
that if the students came to the suicide decision on their own, choosing
freely, it would indicate their "courage" to make an independent decision.
In this upside-down moral world, any choice is valid, as long as it
is freely chosen.
But sex remains the cutting edge, especially homosexuality.
Consider an advocacy group called the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Teachers
Network, now headquartered in New York City. It began in Boston in
1990 as a group to promote homosexual issues in public schools and
to assist teachers in "coming out." When Governor Weld gave the go-
ahead for his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, GLSTN'
s current president was active in setting the agenda for the program.
This included the training of teachers in "gay sensitivity," lectures
for school personnel and parents, formation of gay/straight alliances
for students, gay-history courses, and gay assemblies and library
materials.
The planners in Massachusetts knew full well that most parents were
not going to sit still for a direct statement about the normality
of homosexuality. Instead, as GLSTN's own documents state, it was
necessary to "re-frame" the debate, using an argument about the need
for safe schools, free of harassment, for gay, lesbian, and bisexual
youth. Through a series of unscientific surveys, an "epidemic" of
gay teen suicide was postulated, which played on the natural sympathies
of normal citizens.
Kevin Jennings, executive director of GLSTN, took the argument from
there in a speech he gave to another advocacy group, the Human Rights
Campaign Fund: "We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling
card -- safety -- and explained how homophobia represents a threat
to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling,
health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report 'Making
Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our
opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack."
' Note that Jennings brags about using teen "safety" as a rhetorical
tactic, nothing more than a debating trick. Also note that when he
refers to "opponents" he is really talking about parents. Homosexual
activists have been astonishingly successful at their task. In liberal
states such as Massachusetts, statutes now make it a "hate" crime
to express in public a negative judgment of homosexual behaviors.
Gay activists have already warned teachers, administrators, and parents
that questioning gay behavior could be grounds for criminal proceedings.
There is in all the activism about sexuality and other sensitive issues
a rather profound contempt for the bond of parent and child. Part
of this is the belief of teachers, therapists, and counselors that
all parents are dysfunctional, a hazard to their own children almost
by definition. The homosexual activists, meanwhile, know that normal
healthy and loving relationships between parents and their children
impede the goal of homosexual normalization.
But parents are striking back at all levels of government. The Parents'
Rights and Responsibilities Act, sponsored by Rep. Steve Largent
and Sen. Charles Grassley, sets broad limits to the state's ability
to interfere with parents' upbringing of their children. At the state
level, Of the People, a grassroots group, has advocated statewide
constitutional amendments along the same lines. And in state legislatures,
numbering over 28 as this is written, parents' rights bills have
been introduced that affirm and elaborate on the national-level bill.
The activism of recent years is a direct assault on something that
has operated for millennia on sacred grounds, outside the reach of
the state. The great sleeping giant of parents' rights is going to
awake in the political battles to come.
On the Battlefront
WHY have parents lost faith in public educators? Here are a few reasons
why parents across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are demanding
real protection from their legislature:
-- At a required school assembly in Chelmsford, an instructor used
four-letter words, described the joys of oral and anal sex, and had
children participate in licking condoms. Parents were not notified
about this in advance.
-- A 14-year-old Beverly High School girl came home and told her
father that he was a "homophobe." She had just returned from "Homophobia
Week" sessions at the school.
-- In Westford, 13-year-olds were asked on a quiz: "What is the best
method against pregnancy?" "Abstinence"
was deemed to be incorrect.
-- At a Lexington high school Gay and Lesbian Resource Center, 13-
year-olds can borrow a book (bought with state health funds) telling
how gay men at the opera can socialize with "the backs of their trousers
discreetly parted so they could experience a little extra pleasure
while viewing the spectacle on stage."
-- In Falmouth, a mother asked school officials why her son was being
shown R-rated movies -- not allowed at home -- in school without her
permission. The English Department head told her that it was OK because
it went along with the themes that were being presented that quarter,
and that "the message of the
films transcends the language and violence."
-- In Newton, a high-school principal told a group of parents that
they could not remove their children from the condom-distribution
program because "it is too important."
-- At Silver Lake High School, the ninth-grade health text teaches:
"Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another
person may be less threatening in the early teens with people of your
own sex." Also, "You may come to the conclusion that growing up means
rejecting the values of your parents." Students were told to keep
the book in their lockers and not take it home.
-- The "First AIDS" kits described above in "Parents' Rights" also
advised girls that even if parents tell them to abstain from sex,
"You need to make the best choice for yourself."
-- In Manomet, an 8th-grade health class passed out material which
one boy said was against his parents' beliefs. He was told by the
instructor, "If you have any trouble with your parents, tell me and
I'll handle them."
-- In Nutting Lake, "counselors" conducted a group session where
a girl was asked to share with the class the details of her parents'
divorce and her father's affair. The sessions were to be kept confidential
from parents.
-- In Lexington, students were told to answer surveys on their use
of drugs and on personal feelings about suicide and death. Parents
were outraged when they found out.
Chiusano, Michael; Lyman, Isabel,
Parents' rights: educators have been waging a covert war on parents -who
are starting to fight back. (includes related articles on home s chooling
and school conflicts in Massachusetts)(Back to School. Vol. 48, National
Review, 09-30-1996, pp 55(3).