School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners (FAUX NEWZ)

[Zhade]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html

A California school system refuses to say what action, if any, it will take after it received complaints about a kindergarten teacher who encouraged her students to sign "pledge cards" in support of gays.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."

The school has acknowledged that the exercise was not appropriate for kindergartners.

***

As a pansexual (aka "gay+") man, I'm not certain what to say, or even how accurate this is (knowing Faux, it's questionable).

Thoughts?

[Unvanguard]

1. So is kindergarten too young for anti-racism, too?

Or is it just the gays who are too dangerous for little minds?

[Oregone]

6. Look, this is a very complicated matter

Most discrimination is visual based (race/gender). You don't need to teach a kid that someone looks different than them. Its a pretty universal concept and most kids understand that already. Hence, its easy to teach to not discriminate in that case, being that it isn't exactly a foreign concept you are starting with.

But homosexuality is not visually apparent, and the first exposure to the concept may in fact be in those instances. It is a sexual preference, and many children of that age may not even know what sexuality is at that point. You have to introduce a concept about sexuality before you can teach about discrimination. Hell, when I was in school, I didn't have any sexual education until I was in 6th grade. This is awfully young for teaching about sexual identity, etc.

I think it is all very complicated and not clear cut at all. I can imagine a good cartoon to show kids about not discriminating against people who look different or "love" different people, but its actually not an easy topic at all to approach directly to kids of that age who may not have any inkling what homosexuality is first.

[Withywindle]

7. It's not about sex.

When I was in kindergarten, we certainly were aware of the concept of "crushes." It seemed exciting and grownup but weird and scary too and we teased our classmates about them and claimed to have them.

All you need to tell a child of that age group is that "Yes, it's most common for girls to have crushes on boys and boys to have crushes on girls, but sometimes boys have crushes on boys and sometimes girls have crushes on girls, and that's OK too."

Even that young, it's entirely possible that a child might be having puppy-love crushes on the same sex and worrying that there's something wrong with them. For LGBT youth, alienation often starts WAY early, long before puberty and "sex" comes into the picture at all. It's about the emotions.

[Oregone]

14. Well, I agree that you can put it in "agreeable" terms

But you can easily do the opposite (I guess that is why curriculum standards are made--this is definitely uncharted waters...who knows where it all could go). The more ambiguous, I feel, is the better at that age.

My opinion is that I would rather have the emphasis put directly on anti-bullying and anti-discrimination in any and ALL situations (enumerated and unenumerated). You can culture young minds to be tolerant, treat everyone as equals, and act properly while even being ambiguous.

[Zhade]

8. IT IS NOT A PREFERENCE.

NT!

[Oregone]

10. Regardless of semantics, its about sexuality

Yes, I understand how such a term that is widely used has an implicit meaning. I had no intention of suggesting that with that usage.

[Zhade]

12. If you know it has a WRONG meaning, then don't use the term.

NT!

[Oregone]

16. I meant to say "now"

Because I have not honestly seen it used in a questionable manner at all before. Now that you point it out, I see it could be construed as a problem. On the other hand, the term "preference" doesn't at all imply "choice" whatsoever. There are many things I prefer that I don't think I have much of a choice in, including size 12 shoes. If you look at a dictionary definition ("a predisposition in favor of something"), Im not particularly sure why it is not an accurate way to talk about sexual "{fill in the blank}".

[Zhade]

17. Because it has been used to imply choice for decades.

It's a well-known dismissal of our biological reality. I'm sorry to be so irritated, but it's not the proper term GLBT folk use.

[Oregone]

22. So what is the proper term...

If not one defined as "a predisposition in favor of something"?

Seriously...I do think language is important, especially if it has an implicit meaning.

Is it "orientation" (cannot that be implied to be a choice based word?)? What do you consider the proper term for "sexual preference"?

[Zhade]

24. It's a sexual orientation, not a preference.

Prefer means you could go with the alternative. Gays and lesbians cannot choose to be sexually or romantically attracted to the opposite sex. That's a biological fact.

[Oregone]

31. Orientation? That doesn't seem much clearer

an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs (which could change, eh?)
position or alignment relative to points of the compass or other specific directions (and you can re-orient something)
predilection: a predisposition in favor of something; "a predilection for expensive cars"; "his sexual preferences"; "showed a Marxist orientation" (shared definition with preference)
a person's awareness of self with regard to position and time and place and personal relationships (doesn't imply biological origins)
the act of orienting (see orientate definitions below)

to orientate (third-person singular simple present orientates, present participle orientating, simple past and past participle orientated)
(transitive) To determine one's position relative to the surroundings; to orient (surroundings and positions may change)
He came out of the station and took some time to orientate himself
(intransitive) To turn to face the east (changed his orientation)

This seems silly....and it does not seem to escape your issue. You can change your orientation (used generically). It even shares a definition with "preference".

Why not "Sexual predisposition" or "Sexual predilection"?

I mean, if it is that important to you, but I do not see "orientation" (also used to describe a familiarity one has with an issue, that can change with exposure) as being a more clear way to say it than "preference". Im not clear why it stands as grounds to jump down someone's throat.

[Bluebear]

34. Why the need to argue this so? "Preference" is irritating to gay/lesbian people. Not enough for you?

[Oregone]

49. Thats understandable enough...

But I also feel like I should be able to express this "irritation" irritates me in this instance, being that "orientation" is no more clear than "preference" (and it created quite the tangent). I hope I have a right to say that. :)

[jhrobbins]

167. In the first place, you don't get to decide what is 'irritating' to gay/lesbian

people, unless you survey all of us. Secondly, it seems very clear to me that Oregone is not an individual who supports GLBT bigotry. I'm fairly certain that in the past I may have even used the term preference over orientation. At any rate, this contretemps seems to reinforce the old saw, 'No good deed goes unpunished'. We have enough enemies out there without conjuring more from our supporters.

[Bluebear]

170. Ah, you again. The one who doesn't think "fag" is offensive because you use it.

Whatever.

[jhrobbins]

175. There you go again,acting all Republicanny, changing what I said

the other day (and thanks for remembering-sorry I didn't remember you , but I will from now on). I did not say, I would never say, that the word fag isn't offensive in many/most instances. I did say that it was all a matter of context and intent. Context and intent are paramount in communication.

ANd about the preference vs orientation thing - I read the other day an opinion by some noted gay writer/pundit (maybe Signorile) that he had revisited his stance on this and that he had changed his position. He said that he had defended this orientation thing for so long, but that on reflection, he decided that even if it wasn't genetic, i.e., something that we couldn't 'help', he was no longer going to be so strident about it. He said that he was gay, and whether it was nature or nurture, he was fine with it and if 'they' didn't like it - tough. I like that, because I have come to this same way of thinking - I don't need to justify it anymore because it is something I can't 'help'.

[Zhade]

39. YOU don't get to label US. That's the issue.

NT!

[Oregone]

43. But it isn't a label for YOU. Everyone has a "preference" or "orientation" or whatever it is called.

Are you confused?

[Zhade]

47. No. *I* know what offends me and my brothers and sisters.

I'm not the confused one here.

IT IS OFFENSIVE TO US.

[Oregone]

54. Regardless, its not a label for YOU, as implied. Its a label for a concept that applies to everyone

Now I agree that we should have a word for such a concept which has no derogatory implicit meaning and is not offensive. I just find your alternative could be construed as equally offensive. All ambiguity should maybe be taken out of it, eh?

[Zhade]

55. When was the last time you heard someone talk about a straight preference or orientation?

You don't! It's assumed the default!

[Name removed]

77. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

110. Why do you insist on using offensive langauge?

Do you also feel the need to use racist language? Or do you only feel the need to use homophobic language?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

117. "Fuck off"...that is always persuasive in an argument, Oregone

That worked so well for you last time.

You're sooo cute when you get mad.

:loveya:

[Oregone]

141. It also works brilliantly to label someone as homophobic.

Im cute all the time.

[donco6]

56. You're obviously not familiar with how it's used today . . .

. . . in the GLBT discussions.

"Preference" is used as a code word by the right wing as a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" to the fundies in the audience who believe that, since homosexuality is the absolute worst sin imaginable, God wouldn't actually create anyone that way. Therefore, it must be a choice. In this sense, "preference" is used to infer a sinful decision to engage in unholy acts.

"Orientation" on the other hand, is a similar code word to reveal the speaker or poster's position that sexuality is not chosen, but rather "predilected", as you say.

Those who are achingly familiar with the endless fundamentalist arguments against gays are very sensitive to these terms.

[Oregone]

65. No, Im really out of the loop on this one...

I think Im up on most stuff. If Im out of the loop on this one, what if 99% of people are? Haha...I don't know..yes, this one is all new to me.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

83. You and me both - even when it's unintentional.

NT!

[LostinVA]

97. Which I don't think this is

I'm tired. I'm handing off teh computer and letting Haruka log in and take over. Uh oh!!!

[donco6]

100. *Ducking* n/t

[Oregone]

84. Why was using this language equivilent to HOMOPHOBIA?!?

I said "preference", a term that has an implicit meaning that I wasn't aware of. And now I am a homophob. You got to be kidding me.

Don't you undermine the meaning of such a term by throwing it out without care of reason? That is absurd. Now who is labeling who?

[Zhade]

89. It's already been explained to you.

NT!

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

99. You don't WANT to accept that it's been explained.

Hence your anger.

I have to laugh at the temerity of someone using well-explained offensive language calling US bigots.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

101. Gee, I THOUGHT I did a pretty good job. Oh well. n/t

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

111. *yawn*

Buy yourself a fleshlight.

BTW, you're breaking DU rules.

[LostinVA]

72. "Preference" in this context DOES imply choice -- how can you say it doesn't?

[Oregone]

91. I guess it depends on how you define "preference"

I meant it more as predilection (as I always have understood it), which shares a definition with "orientation".

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

113. As if "predilection" is better

You know EXACTLY what you're saying.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

128. Look, then how do reconcile that orientation uses that definition if it is the wrong one?

Seriously, don't you see the problem here?

Preference has definitions that are acceptable, and those that may not be. But the same case applies to "orientation" too.

I cannot imagine why you have an issue with "predilection" referring to this concept, nor how "orientation" (which can mean that), is then therefore correct. This is all rather nonsensical.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

129. You're right -- your "argument" is rather nonsensical

Lots of "fuck offs" and "are you stupids?" Not very "scientific."

[Oregone]

132. That is beyond disingenuous

Because I was trying to honestly approach the issue before being labeled "homophobic". You can clearly see that.

"Preference" and "Orientation" both have "predilection" as definitions, and 2 out 3 of the words you rule as unacceptable. It just makes no sense to me, and that makes me homophobic?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

134. How is it "disingenuous?" I used YOUR words

[Oregone]

135. In no specific order, eh?

How can I take you seriously? How can I take this entire flame-fest over the usage of 1 word seriously?

2 out of those 3 words (all sharing definitions) are unacceptable. How do you reconcile your outrage? This has become a joke at this point.

"Sexual Preference"
"Sexual Orientation"
"Sexual Predilection"
"Sexual Predisposition"

They all share some of the same definitions. NO ONE has spent the time to discuss why some are taboo while the others not. All I am supposed to take away is that I am some kind of a homophobe. Nice.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

138. You continue to defend using langauge that is offensive, after the reason has been explained to you

Over and over again.

Don't play stupid. Why do you insist on using homophobic (or homophonic, as you call it) language. Do you feel the need to use sexist and racist language? Or do you just insist on offending the gays?

[Zhade]

139. You still don't understand why that "one word" is offensive?

Even though it's been explained to you more than once?

Why is it so hard for you to understand? Have you truly never heard the rampant use of "preference" by homophobes and bigots in our culture?

Maybe it's not prevalent where you are - which makes me quite envious, let me tell you. The christian right "pray away the gay" assholes use that term CONSTANTLY, even here in California.

It is offensive. We've told you that. DU disallows offensive speech. Responding with "fuck you" and calling US bigots for attacking the bigoted language you used (even if unintentionally, though that's impossible after it's been explained to you) is beyond the pale.

(And I'd really, really, REALLY like to know why DU's dictionary STILL DOESN'T HAVE THE WORD HOMOPHOBE IN IT!)

[Oregone]

142. Calling me "homophobic" is offensive to me...

Incredibly, considering how I live my life and how I conceive of "homophobes". So welcome to the club of being offensive. This time I'm gone for good and probably wont see your response. You don't have to deal with me anymore.

[Zhade]

144. Remember, YOU made that decision by trying to define as acceptable what WE find offensive.

That's your fault, not mine.

Also, for the record, not ONCE did I call you a bigot or a homophobe - though you did, even if unwittingly, use bigoted language.

[anigbrowl]

19. It's not wrong.

I am a heterosexual and have a preference for women. I didn't choose my sexuality, but I choose my partners. I think you are reqading something into Oregone's post that was never there.

[Zhade]

25. Yes, it is wrong. Read above for why.

NT!

[anigbrowl]

28. I disagree with your point of view. Sorry.

And I don't think it's due to bigotry; Mrs Browl and I spent several hours in line that afternoon to vote against proposition 8 (among other things), for which we have attended several fundraisers. I don't think of homosexuality as a preference, but I'm not going to just drop the word from my vocabulary and I don't think anyone else needs to either.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

32. Scumbags also use the word "the"

And you do to. Hell, what is one to do, eh?

[Zhade]

42. Such bullshit. You know that the word has implied meaning, but you don't care.

NT!

[Oregone]

59. Look, NOW I know that you find offense with it...

And you claim other people use it purposely with the intent of implying another meaning. But that didn't occur to me before and I haven't seen this before. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention (now I am).

Look, it isn't that I don't care. Im just trying to wrap my head around it all, honestly. Nothing accomplishes that more than a good conversation, right? Thats what this is, a conversation, more or less.

It seems like any word can have a negative implied language when used by devious minds (even 'orientation'). Sometimes you gotta take a stand, of course.

[Zhade]

66. Well, damn it, I'm sorry. I've been hit with that word by haters too many times.

The conversation has been good, but not entirely on my end.

Thank you for voting to uphold our rights.

[anigbrowl]

126. It has implied meaning in a particular context.

You didn't pay attention to the context in which it was used and just reacted to the word. That is your immaturity and your problem, and now you have wasted loads of time flying off the handle when no offense was made to begin with. You don't care that I've voted and donated against Prop 8; it's more important to you to win a childish argument on DU than admit you might have over-reacted. Grow up.

[Zhade]

130. 1) The context is exactly what we're so offended by.

2) You'd see my apology for my anger (though I am right to be offended) and my gratitude for your vote if you'd bothered to read RIGHT ABOVE THIS POST.

3) It's not YOUR place to decide what WE find offensive, or to dismiss our feelings as "childish"

4) "Grow up" is a personal attack, and they're not allowed on DU.

[anigbrowl]

136. You clearly don't udnerstand this

'The context is what we're so offended by' is a statement that simply doesn't make sense. That context wasn't present in Oregone's message to begin with, which was why your whole rant was misplaced.

To answer your otehr points...

2. I feel no obligation to read every last message in the thread before answering your reply to me.
3. I'm not addressing a collective you, I'm addressing you as an individual.
4. And suggesting someone's a bigot without any foundation isn't a personal attack? This is why I told you to grow up: you're behaving like a kid throwing a tantrum.

I don't think you're interested in discussing this subject, but just want to vent about it. That's your right, but it's also my right to suggest you've ended up misinterpreting people and getting bent out of shape for no reason.

[Zhade]

143. Please show me ONE PLACE where *I* called the poster a bigot.

He's using offensive language - you disagree, but you're also wrong, since you're not the party the language is aimed at and it's not your right to define what's offensive to us - and keeps using it despite its offense being explained more than once.

I am sick and tired of people trying to explain away our grievances. You don't get to do that, even when you vote as we hope.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BostonMa]

30. no suprise

[LostinVA]

68. Well, no, it isn't about sexuality -- not the way you are using it

The focus of being gay is not about SEX. But, you know that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

108. You straight people are all about sex aren't you?

Flaunting your sexual "preferences" everywhere...the streets, the media, the WORKPLACE. It just makes me sick. Can't your kind control yourselves? I mean, I don't care what you do in the BEDROOM, but I don't want to see it, and I definitely don't want my kids exposed to it.

Sick.

[Oregone]

112. What can I say, I like sex

:)

Hey now...sexuality is about more than sex though. Its about love, human interaction, courting behaviors, companionship, etc. A lot of which could potentially be beyond the conception of a 5 year old kid.

[Withywindle]

163. NO, it's NOT.

It's about relationships, that was the point of what I posted before. Every child knows relationships exist from toddlerhood; they get the concept from seeing their parents together. Even if their parents aren't together, they have friends whose parents are. They have siblings who date, maybe, or they see the prince and the princess in Disney movies. All you have to explain to them at that stage is that male/female isn't the only configuration possible for people to fall in love. That some people want to be with those of the other gender, and some people want to be with others of the same gender.

It's not complicated.

but it's not a "preference" because it's not a choice! A truly gay person cannot fall in romantic love with a member of the other gender any more than a truly straight person can fall in romantic love with someone of the same gender. (The only people with a "preference" in this regard are bisexuals).

[Political Heretic]

164. To complicate matters even futher, it IS a preference for some

...like my roommate, who is attracted to both sexes, has been in relationships with both sexes, but prefers the same sex most of the time.

Of course, anti-gay homophobes have been using the "its a lifestyle choice" line for decades to demonize and discriminate against people for whom their sexual orientation is not a choice.

[donco6]

33. So when DO you teach kids not to say the "N" word?

And is there anything wrong with teaching them not to scream faggot down the hall? Because I hear it every goddam day. And I doubt most of the kids even know what it means.

[wtmusic]

40. To teach kids not to use LGBT slurs

you would need to teach them what LGBT means. IMO that's not appropriate for kindergartners.

Perfectly fine to teach them the word "faggot" is derogatory and not to be used.

[donco6]

46. Huh?

You say, "To teach kids not to use LGBT slurs, you would need to teach them what LGBT means. IMO that's not appropriate for kindergartners."

Then in the next sentence you say,

"Perfectly fine to teach them the word "faggot" is derogatory and not to be used."

What's the difference?

[wtmusic]

57. There are many swear words which are offensive

Kids at that age are not capable of understanding why, but do need to be discouraged from using them.

[donco6]

69. The card doesn't imply that anyone will be teaching the "whys"

It just says,

The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."

I don't see how this differs from your point about telling kids not to say "faggot"?

[wolfgangmo]

149. former teacher here...

... how many kindergardeners do you know who can read, and who know all about acronyms and there political undertones. Kids that age do not understand abstract concepts because of their developmental levels. A very small percentage might have a glimmering but the vast majority will not.

The teacher in question should have known that and could have taught a developmentally appropriate lesson on the same subject in another way. She did not do that and was wrong pedagogically. In other words, right message, wrong words.

[Oregone]

105. Its important to teach them a bit more than its derogatory though...

Because discrimination is about inequality and differences, which is the root of it. These words make fun of differences or imply them. They imply differences are inferior. This is a distinction that needs to be made. By no means should discrimatory slurs be held on the same level as inappropriate language (though it is inappropriate, it is much more).

[Zhade]

62. So it's not appropriate for kids to understand that some of their friends have two dads or moms?

It's not appropriate to tell children that sometimes boys love boys and girls love girls, and there's nothing wrong with that?

[Oregone]

41. I think you can tell kids not to do name-calling, period...

And you don't have to specifically go into sexual education to do it. Discrimination, name-calling, inequality can all be taught in ambiguous way.

Is it right for a teacher to tell 5 year olds not to use the N-word? I don't think so actually. That word has no place in a kindergarten class, nor does education explaining exactly how terrible of a word it is for that age group (because the word has to do with incredible hate and dehumanization). Instead, a teacher needs to say all name-calling is bad, especially that which has to do with people being "different" (in any manner).

[donco6]

52. As a teacher, you have to deal with it all the time.

When one kid (yes, even kindergartners) call each other "Nigger" and "Faggot", what we do is stop the class and explain to everyone that those words are never, ever to be used. We don't go into anything else, but they get it.

But as part of bullyproofing curriculum, we often set up role plays where one student is being picked on or called names by others. We provide strategies for kids to deal with this. Indeed, it's a legal responsibility to do so. Maybe laying it all out on a card was a bit much, but it's not dissimilar from what really happens in schools.

[Oregone]

75. Look, that sounds incredibly reasonable for a response

And believe it or not, ambiguous, being that you don't get into the details of the meanings of the word really. I would feel its important to say these words mean "the person is different in some way", and its NEVER acceptable to use them because everyone is different and special in their own way.

The responses to this instance just seemed way to simple on this complicated issue though, being that it was introduced (and may of specifically done, in some details--who knows, I wasn't there). I think that this can be done well and very, very badly.

[donco6]

87. Well, what happens is this:

When Johnny is told not to use a word, the first thing he does is asks someone what the word means. Maybe an older sibling or friend. They may not get the best information that way, but they get the gist of it all. And then they have a choice. They can continue to use it in secret, because they have issues with gay people, or they can choose not to use it at all, because they believe it's harmful. It's up to them in the end, really.

[ruggerson]

36. No, it's really very simple

at that age it's whether or not Johnny's best friend has a mom and a dad, or two moms, or two dads. Not tough or complicated at all. It's about FAMILY, not sexual relations.

[LostinVA]

64. Being gay is neither sexual nor a preference =-- maybe YOU need to go back to school

[Lifetimedem]

172. I agree

Many of these kids do not know how babies are made, let alone homosexuality.

What ever happened to just teaching kids to love their neighbor ?

This kind of thing is what drives people to talk about the "homosexual agenda" and vote no on things that they think are a part of it.

This teacher pushed the envelope too far IMHO

[Lifetimedem]

173. I agree

Many of these kids do not know how babies are made, let alone homosexuality.

What ever happened to just teaching kids to love their neighbor ?

This kind of thing is what drives people to talk about the "homosexual agenda" and vote no on things that they think are a part of it.

This teacher pushed the envelope too far IMHO

[Unvanguard]

176. Um, homosexuality IS pretty apparent.

Obviously you can't generally tell a gay person by his or her appearance, but you certainly can often tell a same-sex couple (the same way you can tell any couple), and in a country where more and more children are being raised by same-sex couples we'd expect that kindergarteners are going to increasingly be exposed to family structures that are different from their own.

Absolutely we should teach them not to discriminate.

[OrwellwasRight]

2. Hey, even kindergarteners can and do parrot anti-gay slurs, so why not help teach

them early that it isn't OK?

As an activist for getting bullying out of schools, if this is true, I don't think the the teacher was all that wrong for trying it.

[anigbrowl]

21. I'm a believer in crossing bridges when you come to them

So if a kindergarten teacher encounters such slurs, it's a teachable moment. Bringing the issue up to kids who don't have any concept of sexuality is asking for misinterpretation and accusations of indoctrination. The teacher's intentions were good, but I think her execution was flawed.

[Zhade]

92. Don't you think these kids have a concept of people who love each other?

Well, guess what - that's what GLBT means. People who love each other and just happen to be the same gender.

[anigbrowl]

131. This has little to do with getting them to sign a pledge card

The point was that while it's appropriate for a teacher of such small kids to prevent discrimination or any sort of defamation going on in the classroom, trying to proactively address with such small kids is borrowing trouble. I doubt kindergartners could explain the concept of a pledge card 24 hours after they signed one, for that matter. It doesn't seem like an effective teaching technique to me.

I'd like people to be more tolerant of BDSM practitioners and drug use too, but I don't think that kindergarten is necessarily the best place to introduce the ideas of alternative sexuality and the joys of smoking pot.

[Zhade]

137. I understand - but the question was aimed at wtmusic, who doesn't seem to want to answer.

Several of his responses have indicated that being GLBT is solely about the sex and suggested that teaching kids what GLBT means is "sex education", thus disregarding the fact that being GLBT is about so much more.

Kids learn that people of the opposite gender love each other - I fail to see why he seems to think that teaching kids that about people of the same gender is "inappropriate" (his words).

[anigbrowl]

145. It's something very much in the eye of the beholder

My experience of kids (and I've had some) is that they assume people are pretty much the same as their own family, certainly at kindergarten age. Some kid has two dads or two Moms and they are fairly inlined to just take it for granted; if they ask about it, you say 'well some families have a mom and dad, some have just a mom or a Dad, some families have two Moms or whatever' and they're like 'uhuh' and go back to playing with etch-a-sketch or whatever.

Where I think this teacher went wrong was in bringing it up as a political issue which many of the kids wouldn't be able to understand,; and once you introduce the concept of discrimination, then you have to explain the concept of minorities, and in order to adequately explain what makes GLBT people different from hetero people you are getting close to reproductive biology and thus to sexuality.

It's not about sex so much as maybe foisting the question of gender identity on kids who had not even considered it until then. This was a stupid move because most parents would prefer to wait until the kid starts asking questions on the subject before discussing it.

[Zhade]

147. Kids at that age understand "girl" and "boy".

Telling these kids that sometimes boys love boys and girls love girls, or can love both, is not age-inappropriate - as supported by your first paragraph. But wtmusic seems to think it's wrong to tell kids this. I disagree.

For the record, I have a son, so I'm not exactly ignorant on kids.

[anigbrowl]

151. I didn't interpret his remarks that way.

And I really see no point in pro-actively bringing it up in a classroom context - any more than I think it's appropriate for some teacher to pro-actively insist that only people of opposite genders can get married.

[Zhade]

152. This is in California, where Prop 8 is all over the news.

It's not exactly proactive, so much as responsive to the lies being propagated by those who support this attempt to rob us of our rights.

You also didn't interpret "preference" as offensive, despite the fact that GLBT folk find it so. I'm not surprised we disagree. But I will once again thank you for voting no on 8.

[anigbrowl]

157. I really can't tell from the news story

I have no problem with the issue being discussed if it came up in the kindergarten class somehow, though I kind of doubt kindergarten kids are even aware of prop 8. I still think the pledge cards were a dumb idea, and just give free ammo to the Yes on 8 crowd. Then again I don't have much time for things like signing pledges anyway; I'm not enthusiastic about kids pledging allegiance to the flag every day either.

[Zhade]

160. We're on common ground there.

NT!

[RidinMyDonkey]

3. Good for that teacher

If anyone really has complaints about someone teaching students not to be a hateful bigot, they probably shouldn't have had kids.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

4. I don't see anything wrong with teaching the kids that.

I'm sure the teacher was smart enough to explain to the kids what it all meant in terms they understood.

[luv_mykatz]

5. Bullying and bigotry need to be discouraged.

I know this will anger the fundy fanatics, who seem to believe that teaching tolerance towards those who are different from themselves seems to mean 'recruiting' for those different ways of being. Yet, I know that kids seem to learn all kinds of bigotry at home or from close friends, and they begin parroting this kind of bile at very young ages. It needs to be actively discouraged, and challenged with ideas of acting with more courtesy towards others.

Kudos, to this brave teacher! She will need all the support she can get.

[Zhade]

9. I agree.

Certainly would have helped me growing up!

[TahitiNut]

11. Well, I'm against any kind of coercion of a minor to make a 'Pledge' ....

... and that includes scout 'pledges' and the 'pledge' of allegiance. The idea that some child below the age of consent is supposed to raise their right hand or sign something ... particularly if 'suggested' or 'instructed' to do so by an authority figure ... is just offensive to me.

Even in our churches, we're giving kids a "mixed message" by giving such (binding) importance to pledges, oaths, and creeds ... and then telling them they're not old enough to have sex or sign a contract.

If they're not old enough to CONSENT then they're NOT old enough to pledge.

[Zhade]

13. They weren't coerced, though. They were encouraged.

NT!

[wtmusic]

20. Encouragement is more or less the same thing to a young kid

Kids will do it to please their teacher - the wrong reason.

[Zhade]

50. That's a fair point.

NT!

[mitchtv]

58. Good, then they can be forbidden to use that type of bullying

and pledge to behave themselves

[ogneopasno]

15. I agree with you.

Signing a pledge is pretty heavy for a kindergartner.

[wtmusic]

18. agree, particularly about a specific issue they don't understand

Teaching kids to be tolerant of other lifestyles is always appropriate.

[Oregone]

23. And issues they don't have the conceptual tools yet to understand

In this, I opt for ambiguous tolerance over specific instances, clearly.

[Zhade]

26. Being GLBT is not a "lifestyle".

NT!

[wtmusic]

27. It is as far as a young child is concerned

Personally I don't think sex education is appropriate for kindergartners. Do you?

[OrwellwasRight]

35. This wasn't sex ed.

It was teaching them: "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts."

That can, and frankly, should, be taught to kindergartners without any discussion of sex at all. It would primarily consist of telling children that calling another kid "a fag" or other derogatory term is cruel and unacceptable. If you don't teach them, they will continue to say it.

I found when I was a teacher that my students thought it was an OK insult to use because it wasn't a "cuss word." It was an uphill battle to fight, and it would have been easier if the elementary teachers had taught it so that they already knew it was wrong before they got to my class.

[wolfgangmo]

153. If you say the word faggot or [pick a word] to kids that age...

... and tell them they can't say it you are assuring that it will be the "word of the day" in the entire school and that every parent within a 500 mile radius will be calling and asking why you taught their kids to say something so offensive.

Don't believe me, try teaching young kids.

[OrwellwasRight]

179. Um, I didn't say to teach them the word. They are already saying it.

That's what makes it a teachable moment. You teach them why it is mean and not acceptable to say. Believe me, even 5 year olds get empathy and compassion. That's why they are not the little monsters they can be at 3.

Try to read somebody's posts before going off.

[ruggerson]

38. Explaining to young children that there are different kinds of families

has nothing to do with sex. At that age they're pretty aware that their best friend might have two moms.

[wtmusic]

44. The "B" in LGBT stands for bisexual

They were to pledge not to use anti-LGBT slurs. They couldn't possibly understand what that means without being taught bisexuality, which IMO is age-inappropriate.

[Zhade]

80. Teaching children that some people can love both men and women is AGE-INAPPROPRIATE?

Are you kidding me?

[wtmusic]

93. Zhade, you can't have it both ways.

I am a man who loved my dad, that doesn't make me gay. If you don't understand this I can't explain it to you.

[Zhade]

102. Nice dodge. So, again - do you think it's inappropriate to tell children that being gay isn't wrong?

Being gay IS NOT JUST ABOUT SEX.

[anigbrowl]

140. Were any of these kids suggesting that it was wrong to begin with?

You know, suppose you have a multi-ethnic group of small kids who are happily playing together and getting on just fine - is it necessary or useful to run in and say 'KIDS! You must renounce racism, now and forever!'. It's entirely possible that they hadn't considered discriminating until they were told not to do it, especially at kindergarten age. Possible, not inevitable.

[Zhade]

146. No, but wtmusic seems to be suggesting it's wrong for kids to know same-sex people love each other.

I'm not sure what this reply has to do with what I asked him.

[anigbrowl]

155. Why assume they need to be told? for example...

'It's important not to discriminate!'
'what's discrimination?'

If you pro-actively bring up tolerance to small kids, you're introducing them to intolerance, possibly before it's occurred to them to be intolerant.

[Political Heretic]

166. Can you be gay and only desire sexual relationships with opposite sex partners?

Probably not.

Most people understand that while gay people are certainly much, much more than just their sexual orientation, it is their sexual orientation that gives them the descriptor of "gay" - just like someone else's sexual orientation gives them the descriptor of straight, even though their much more to that person that just his sexual orientation.

I certainly know that if my straight friend walked into a meeting hosted by our local LGBTQ equality community organization and started talking about being gay and what's is like to be gay, many other people who believe that calling yourself "gay" in part requires that you be sexually attracted to people of the same sex would be very offended.

"My wife donna and myself, Jason, as a gay couple, really know what its like to suffer discrimination" - BZZZT. Being "gay" may include much much more than just sexual orientation, and people who are gay are much much more than simply their sex life, but a key component of being gay is sexual orientation.

[Zhade]

123. Well? Going to keep avoiding the question?

NT!

[wolfgangmo]

154. No I am not saying that.

Of course it is appropriate, but the level of the language and concepts in that card a clearly inappropriate of the typical kindergardeners developmental level. They won't get it.

I should be taught but not with a pledge card that should only be taught to those who can use non-concrete concept formation.

Right idea. Wrong words.

[Zhade]

159. Um, the post you're replying to wasn't aimed at you.

I understand your argument in this post, but the other post wasn't meant for you - I know you never said it was inappropriate.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

125. OMFG

You're cute!

:loveya:

[Zhade]

45. Um, being GLBT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SEX.

NT!

[wtmusic]

48. You defined it as "sexual orientation". nt

[Zhade]

53. You do realize that also means romantic and other forms of attraction, right?

IT. IS. NOT. A. LIFESTYLE.

[mitchtv]

51. sex education? What are you talking about?

The issue in question is bullying, That education is appropriate anytime in life. Tho, I believe pledges are unwise with kiddies

[wtmusic]

60. How would you explain "anti-LGBT" to a kindergartner? nt

[donco6]

63. Tommy, we don't say "faggot" in this room.

That's all the further it has to go.

[wtmusic]

71. They were asked to pledge "not to use anti-LGBT slurs"

General, not specific.

[donco6]

74. So, care to share the others?

I'm beginning to think you must know many more.

[wolfgangmo]

156. yes

Abstact concepts and not concrete. Kids that age ain't a gonna get it.

[mitchtv]

73. A civics lesson,

this is america , we are all equal, and this is a school you don't behave that way here or you get in trouble

[wtmusic]

78. Agreed. nt

[donco6]

61. Wait a minute.

Here's the card's actual language:

The cards asked signers to be "an ally" and to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts.

Where's the "sex ed"?

[Zhade]

70. For some, being GLBT is only about the sex.

Of course, when we talk about straight people, we're not focusing on their sex lives.

Shame we can't get the same in return.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

76. You want them to pledge to "not use anti-LGBT language or slurs

(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender)" when they don't even know what that means? Or do you want to teach them? :shrug:

[donco6]

82. They learn as the go, just like everything else.

It's really not that difficult. And the pledge simply gives the teacher an avenue to broach the subject when it arises. "Johnny, remember that card we signed? Well, that word you just used is really offensive to some people. We won't use it here."

See?

[wtmusic]

85. OK, so you would have them sign the card before they understand

what they're signing.

IMO not that big a deal, I recited the pledge of allegiance for years without knowing what the hell it meant.

On the other hand, there is value in not making kids promise anything they don't understand. I get that POV too.

[donco6]

90. Well, since kindergartners cannot read, and . . .

can barely write their name, I would think that would be fairly difficult.

So it's signing the card that's a problem for you? Or pledging not to harrass people with derogatory slurs?

[wtmusic]

104. Who could argue about having kids pledge not to harrass people with

derogatory slurs?

It's specifying "LGBT" to kids who couldn't possibly understand what that means - and in doing so, teach them to parrot their teacher - which rubs some the wrong way. This is not an LGBT issue.

My kids picked up very quickly that I was no fan of W by watching me. When they started imitating me by insulting him when he came on TV I kicked their ass: "What is it you don't like about this man? Why are you insulting and making fun of him?" They learned very quickly that they better know WTF they're talking about before they criticize someone that way. To me that's more important. To play devil's advocate: if a kid learns to parrot teacher, what happens if they get a subtle or even an overt homophobe for a teacher? I want mine thinking for themselves.

[donco6]

107. Kids ALWAYS parrot the teacher.

There's no avoiding it. They watch how you wear your hair, what clothes you like, music you listen to - it's simply impossible to avoid parroting. And if the kids have the misfortune of stepping into a homophobic classroom, well it just seems to point to the need for school pledges, doesn't it? If a teacher can't agree with the anti-bullying sentiment, they really don't belong in a classroom.

Indoctrinating, of course, is another issue altogether. And some of your phrasings seem to hint that you don't like kids being "indoctrinated" on gay issues . . . that you cannot separate *indoctrination* from the teaching of civil behavior, particularly when those behaviors have to do with gay people. I find that curious.

[wtmusic]

118. School pledges are pretty useless, all

They hit my kids at school up big time with the "Say No to Drugs" stuff. The education was fine, but singing the songs, signing cards, reciting pledges was all a little too much groupthink. Completely useless when it comes to compassion and sensitivity, which are the antithesis of groupthink.

I'm trying not to take offense at your implication I'm homophobic - I'm sorry you feel that way, I have always had a lot of respect for your posts here, but nothing I've said in this thread should give you cause to think that.

[donco6]

120. Well maybe I'm being too touchy.

And maybe I just need to go to bed. Nerves are frazzled, big days are upon us, and life's too short for anger. With that, I appeal for truce and wish you a good night.

[wtmusic]

121. Backatcha.

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

127. Maybe it's your constant contention that being GLBT is about the sex.

Maybe it's your so-far refusal to answer the question, "do you think it's inappropriate to teach kids that people of the same sex can love each other?"

[Zhade]

88. Are you unaware that there's a very good chance some of these kids already know what GLBT mean?

Do you not understand that there's nothing wrong with teaching kids that some people love others of the same gender?

[wolfgangmo]

158. Sure you can teach them that.

Just at a developmentally appropriate level.

For example, " there are many different types of parents , there are many types of parents JUST LIKE there are many types of kids ." From there you can quickly mention all sorts of different types of relationships and then MOVE ON. I hope this helps.

Anything can be taught at any age as long as it is understandable for the kids at the age they are at. I would never analyze the pledge of allegiance with a group of 5 year olds but I would with high school kids. But I might teach them the words.

[TahitiNut]

109. Teaching kids to be tolerant of all other people is usually only needed when ...

... their parents have taught them otherwise. Nonetheless, I agree ... ESPECIALLY then.

[Withywindle]

165. Unfortunately, not necessarily.

Where do you think I first heard words like "n****r" and "f****t"? Not from my parents! From other kids--who might have heard from their parents, sure, but just as likely might have heard them from older siblings or their friends or, well, you name it.

Kids are *extremely* attentive to the world around them. They eavesdrop. They talk among themselves. They have their own little 'lord of the flies' hierarchies.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

116. I have a LIFE, not a lifestyle

If we want to talk about lifestyle, I would say I'm middle-class, have a 9-5 job, like beer and doing martial arts. None of which have anything to do with the fact that I'm married to another woman.

[SweetieD]

181. I'm with you. This is ridiculous.

[LeftyMom]

37. How is asking kids not to use slurs gay? Would asking them not to drop the n bomb make them black?

Jebus. :eyes:

[mitchtv]

67. they should be taught

don't get caught with that kind of behavior at or near school

[Oregone]

106. Why not teach them to treat everyone as equals and celebrate differences?

Not to bully and accept that which makes people unique?

Seems like your approach is to teach kids to use slurs at baseball practice, not school halls.

[mitchtv]

180. I don't see how you interpert that

A teacher can't control playground behavior, unless it is a school playground, He can condition them to be civil and hope it gets reinforced. ( Jumping to conclusions is not included)

[anigbrowl]

162. "What's a slur and why would I want to use one?"

If one came up in class, of course it's appropriate for the teacher to shut it down and explain that it's not nice to call people names, whether it's 'faggot' or 'doo-doo head'. On the other hand, conflict resolution in the absence of any conflict is a waste of time.

[hulklogan]

86. The language in this "pledge" is probably too theoretical for kindergarteners.

At that age, isn't it best to treat the situation and language specifically, like correcting them when they use anti-gay slurs, or racist slurs, or swear words? Surely the teacher could have just encouraged them to avoid put-downs rather than addressing concepts that kindergarteners wouldn't really understand like "allies" or "intervening." Her lack of age-appropriate awareness is likely to give a great organization like GLSEN a bunch of bad fundagelical publicity that they don't deserve.

[wolfgangmo]

161. Anything theoretical ...

... is too theoretical for 5 year olds. They do not think in abstract terms.

[ContinentalOp]

95. FFS, why does this shit always come out right before an election?

Kind of like the kids in San Francisco going to the gay wedding. Very convenient. Who is this Tara Miller at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward?

I support the sentiment behind this but the timing couldn't be worse.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

122. The Gays are really part of a GIANT REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY

We just don't want The Straights to know about it.

[Chovexani]

168. Gays

We're in ur elekshun, spoilin' ur winz

[TechBear_Seattle]

124. I'm inclined to agree with the school: This was not appropriate for kindergarteners

In much the same way that it is not appropriate to teach kids about manipulating fractions until they have a working knowledge of addition and multiplication.

Teach the kindergarteners about fairness ("Johnny, there is only one dump truck so you will have to share.") and about not using hurtful language ("Jane, we do not use words like that in this classroom.") Teach them about diversity ("Children, today's storybook is Sammy Spider's First Rosh Hashanah.") and how some words hurt ("Pat, did you know that that word is used to hurt people like your friend Chris?") But you really cannot expect them to make a pledge like this when they have no concept of "harassment" or "slur," and it is not fair to ask five year olds to intervene when others are being harassed. I mean, how many kids that age can write their own name, much less read -- much less understand -- a pledge like this?

I expect the cards were designed for fourth or fifth graders, who certainly should have the basics concepts already, and that this is a case of an overzealous kindergarten teacher trying to do the right thing, or may have misunderstood a request to distribute the cards. It was a mistake, and of course, Faux News is blowing everything up into a vast conspiracy to indoctrinate the children. I repeat: THIS IS FAUX NEWS.

[Zhade]

133. They were actually designed for middle/high schoolers, so you're close.

NT!

[rpannier]

169. Having Kindergarteners sign pledge cards was a stupid thing to do

If they can make the case that she was engaging in a political activity while at work, she could lose her job.

[dsc]

171. Honestly the pledge cards are a bit over their heads

but the need to have them not harass others is real. My first gym teacher used to call me names in class and get the kids to join in. It is one of the most painful memories of my childhood for me. It was when I first knew what being different meant and not in a good way. To this day I don't know what I did to that teacher to make him hate me so much. It seems all the teacher really needs to do is say we don't name call in this class and leave it at that with maybe using a kids family as a teachable moment if it comes up.

[and-justice-for-all]

174. I see no issue with that...

teaching tolerance(sex and race) at that age should be part of the curriculum.

Some people like their bigotry and racism, they look forward to teaching their kids how to be good haters.

[gollygee]

177. The pledge card thing is stupid but the educational attempt is good

and I'm sure no right-wingers would be unhappy if the kids were asked to sign a pledge card devoting their lives to Jesus, so I don't think it's the card that they're worried about.

Kids should be taught about discrimination and various kinds of differences, and that those differences are OK, so that they don't grow up to be bigots. But of course a lot of people WANT their kids to grow up to be bigots. This must be part of that "homosexual agenda" we've all heard about - "have fewer bigots in the world."

[SmokingJacket]

178. Children shouldn't be pledging ANYTHING

They're too young to know their own minds yet. Getting kids to make pledges at this age is coercive. And I include the pledge of allegiance in this: it's coercive propaganda.

Kids that age should be taught that most people want to be with and marry the opposite sex, but some people want to be with the same sex, and that in every other way they're perfectly normal and have families just like anyone else's.

And that, more generally, it's wrong to make fun of people, for being different or being the same or for whatever. Harrassment is wrong, period.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

182. "in every other way they're perfectly normal"

So.... except for loving the opposite sex, which is ABNORMAL, gays are "normal."

Oh brother.