Schools Force Kids to Participate in Gay/Lesbian Curriculum
ALAMEDA, Calif.--- A group of parents have filed a lawsuit against Alameda Unified School District after the District denied their requests to excuse their young children from controversial lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) instruction.
In late May, despite strong opposition by parents at school board meetings, AUSD approved a supplemental curriculum that will promote LGBT alternative families to kindergarten and elementary-age students. Since AUSD adopted the curriculum, numerous parents have sent letters to Superintendent Kristen Vital, requesting that their young students be opted out of the controversial instruction. The District recently sent form letters denying all of the parents' requests.
While the District has claimed that a LGBT curriculum was necessary to address bullying and harassment in elementary schools, documentation from the District obtained by Pacific Justice Institute through a public records request shows that the vast majority of reported incidents on AUSD campuses involve racial tension and opposite-sex sexual harassment, not sexual orientation. In fact, school incident reports show that there were no complaints of harassment due to sexual orientation in AUSD elementary grades.
Today, staff attorneys for Pacific Justice Institute filed suit in Alameda Superior Court, seeking enforcement of opt-out provisions in the California Education Code. Kevin Snider, PJI Chief Counsel, commented, "Alameda parents believe all children deserve safe schools. Parents do not support LGBT indoctrination that fails to address the main causes of bullying and harassment in the District and intentionally omits children belonging to the other five protected classes," Snider stated, referring to race and ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality and religion. "It is their right to remove their children from this highly controversial program, and we intend to vigorously defend that right," he continued.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
and suicides ...one has to think that this is a good idea!
Teaching tolerance is always a good idea and California seems to be ahead of the curve on this one!
Kids will always pick up lots of stuff ...some good ..some bad...why not put it in a learning environment ? Parents are still the first line of defense ....we learn what we live ....if we live with tolerance then we learn it. If parents answer questions, kids will keep asking them.
Is this the same "Who’s in a Family?" curriculum that Focus on the Family complained about a few months ago?
How about a link to the curriculum? Have the parents even seen the curriculum? Or are the opposing because groups like Focus on the Family and Pacific Justice Institute tell them it will indoctrinate their children into the LGBT community?
Why not, if this type of instuction is really necessary, teach a class on interracial couples or of polygamist families?
When did we dictate that our schools should be responsible for teaching the liberal manafesto? What happened to reading, writing and math? We have already stripped out music, PE, & theater in the name of teaching this crap. This is not, regardless of your stance, the role of our public schools. Our children are all fat and lazy because they have removed PE and recreation, yet you are all worked up about teaching acceptance? That is the parents job and no one elses. If they, the parents, fail, tough. No one said life was fair. Life is not fair, please stop trying to make it that way.
the other comments on this issue I have this to say.
Parents have the right to take their kids out of the instruction. Any instruction. It's in the California constitution and the ability to do that was promoted by the "no on 8" campaigns. The idea that children wouldn't be forced into such instruction was touted as a reason why prop 8 wasn't necessary.
The fact that they're basing their reason for the instruction on false claims means they're only doing it because it's a politically correct thing to do and they'd rather face this complaint, than a discrimination one.
The staff attorney's comments are rather sensational in their semantics however the problem isn't that parents fear their children being convinced that it's a better lifestyle, just that its a normal one, and the related idea, if it's normal, it's worth trying out. It's in the minority and crosses all boundaries of race , that being the case it's abnormal by definition.
so basically if something is different and there isnt alot of it, then is it abnormal?
Couldnt it just be a small normal part of life? does something normal have to be huge and sprung out.
For example are redheads abnormal because their hair color is the lowest populated hair color on earth?
*shrug*
this comment frustrates me, especially since to a homosexual hetero families are "abnormal" or deviating from what they might consider normal.
The idea of normal in itself is completely subjective isnt it?
*shrug*
the idea of something being "normal" may be subjective on a personal level. However because normal is defined as "conforming to the standard or the common type" the societal standard and commonality is heterosexuality.
I think it is funny that people think it ok to ask us to teach unintelligent design in schools along with evolution when in science class it is only for facts. I think it also funny that these same people want to revise what can / cannnot be taught in other areas. Here, teaching students that the LGBT community is ok and they shouldn't say harmful or hateful words to others is a good thing. Even rednecks from Lubbock Texas can understand that Jesus hung out with the quote "sinners" and taught people to love one another. If this class teaches tolerance, that is not indoctrination, it is just common decency. Both sides should be fine with that.
In this case, 10-13 year olds are calling others "fags" which is a hurtful term to both homo and heterosexuals. If teaching kids that saying this is wrong is offensive to rightwingers, then that makes you hypocrites plain and simple. No one should be singled out for any attribute, whether you agree with it or not.
PC comments aside, Alameda, nice work. Remember everyone, that it was these same people that had their undies in a bundle when an Oakland school wanted to "teach" ebonics. No, they wanted to use it to help students translate from ebonics to proper English. Students were getting left behind because the dialect was so strong that they didn't understand their teachers enough to learn.
In this case, what I think is most hilarious is that likely, the children who are getting called "fag" are probably hetero and just being picked on. In that case, most likely the rightwinger parents would be up in arms if their child was being singled out this way and want something done. Hmmm..
This idea that the inclusion of LGBT-related materials in school is somehow pushing sex, sexuality and gay issues , and "why should my child have this pushed down his throat"... all of that is such hysteria and so off-topic.
First off, every child is exposed to heterosexual-related materials in school from kindergarten onwards. It's as simple as a book that says "Mommy and Daddy". Innocent enough, right? But one could say it's shoving heterosexually-centric material down the throats of those students. But who would?
Or there could be a cartoon on a Valentine's Day poster up on the class wall of a boy and girl holding hands on and blushing. I recall pictures of Raggedy Ann and Andy doing just that. Again, forcing a heterosexual agenda and shoving sex into the face of kindergarten kids ? You tell me.
Kids are educated from day one about heterosexual attraction, dating, marriage etc. But as not all kids are straight (and in Alameda, likely a higher than average number are gay), and not all come from heterosexual parented families.
Enough with the drama.
let it be known that the teachers only adivsed this because kids this young are also starting to form use for words such as "fag"... How much you want to bet that the families that are in protest are also the families with the kids saying the bad word. Any way, only fith graders will learn about orientation stereotypes, not any grade lower. This means ages from 10-13.
YET again i would like to point out that this is only happening because kids were already starting to form stereotypes and curse words about a subject which you think should be left in the dark.
At that age?! We need to educate their idiotic parents instead!