Education and Sexual Orientation
Introduction
From birth each person begins to
acquire knowledge. We learn how to communicate our needs, wants, likes and
dislikes. We learn to articulate our feelings and share our emotions. We
also learn about our environment and our communities. Each
person, at some point, develops an understanding of what it means to
be a part of a culture and begins to decide where they personally fit.
Such is the case with California's youth. However, in 2007 legislation changed the course of the progression of knowledge and self awareness
forever. The law is known as California Senate Bill 777 (SB 777), and it
is designed to protect the rights of those who experience discrimination
(Ponte, 2008). However, from the time this legislation was put in place it appears it may have done a great deal of harm rather
than help. The following is a brief discussion of SB 777, the
specific legalities involved, the politics that surrounded this movement, and
the result as it pertains to expected guidelines for teachers.
Controversy
In October 2007 Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, of California, signed a controversial measure into law that
subtly but markedly redefined the way that gender and sexuality may be addressed
and taught in public schools. The law is SB 777 and what it effectively does is redefines the specific terminology used to describe what is
permissible in school materials, discussion within the classroom, and even
extra curricular activities (Ponte, 2008).
SB
777 adds a new law to California's established educational code. Under the
previous law it was illegal to present instruction or any type of activity that
"reflects adversely upon persons" due to sex, color, race, creed,
national origin, ancestry, or handicap (Ponte, 2008). Under the new law the
list of protected persons is revised to gender, disability, ethnicity,
nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation. The new law also changes
the verbiage in the phrase "reflects adversely" to "promotes a
discriminatory bias (Ponte, 2008)." Ultimately, what the new law does is deletes
the original definition of sex as completely male and female and creates an
environment of ambiguity and neutrality to permit students to decide for
themselves what gender they are.
Conservative
Views
Clearly,
with an issue as controversial as this one, there are many strong and opposing
views. Some more conservative critics and politicians say that SB 777
is a means of promoting the homosexual agenda throughout California. This law
can be used to eliminate the portrayal of marriage and family as exclusively a
union between a man and a woman. Other conservatives fear the repercussions of male
students who feel more appropriately oriented as females and
therefore feel it necessary to shower, share a locker room, and
participate in other all female activities, all of which are now
protected by law. In the Los Angeles Unified School District a policy has
already been implemented that permits a boy perceiving himself to be a girl to
use the girl's lockeroom and restrooms (Ponte, 2008).
Liberal Views
In contrast, those who hold
a more liberal perspective hold that SB 777 is not a means
of destroying the traditional pictures of "mom" and
"dad", it simply changes the content requirements for
instructional materials such as text books (Ponte, 2008). Many assert that
this new law, in fact, does not actually change very much about
California's Education Code. This new law simply provides a
consolidation of definitions in one location for reference by
administrators and parents.
Impact to
Teachers
The impact to teachers is marked
and clear. While the original law was not violated when a prom king and queen
were elected, or if a transgender student felt uncomfortable in the girls
locker room. Under the new law, however, legal action can legitimately be
brought against all of the above as "promoting discriminatory bias (Ponte,
2008)." Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters describes this new
legislation as "another troublesome step down the slippery slope of
politics dictating what version of history and current events children should
be taught…. [L]lawsuit-leery educators may see it as forcing them to censor or
repress anything that even indirectly touches on sexual orientation in a way
that someone somewhere might consider offensive (Ponte, 2008)."
Conclusion
SB 777 illustrates the progression
of State and Federal agendas and interests in education. The Governors office
and a third grade class in Spring Valley are worlds apart. Yet, one is
controlled and manipulated by the other with no recourse. The results can be
detrimental to the morale, effectiveness, and possibly even deter the interest
of individuals with a more conservative view from teaching. Ultimately, the
most amicable solution that I can imagine is that both conservative and liberal
perspectives meet. Clearly there is a huge difference between the original law
that prohibits those things that "adversely reflect" on some groups
and the new under which it is illegal to "promote a discriminatory
bias" towards some groups (Ponte, 2008). While homosexuals and groups that
choose alternative lifestyles typically feel discriminated against, Christians,
Jews, Muslims an other conservative groups are also among the less tolerated
and more excluded groups in schools. I feel that the best solution is for
all groups to use SB 777 to maintain the balance between value systems,
conservative and liberal alike.
Reference
Ponte, Lowel (2008). New Law
Redefines Gender in California. Newsmax. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Schwarzenegger_education_/2008/01/11/63761.html
No comments:
Post a Comment