[Bryan]

Gov. Brown signs bill requiring teaching of gay accomplishments - latimes.com

"It’s a sad day for the state of California,’’ said Lopez, legislative analyst and advocate for the group. "We have failed at our core educational mission and yet we are now going to inject gay studies into the classrooms. Its absurd and offensive.’’

was it absurd and offensive when they injected women's studies into the classroom?

[slap_j]

So the reason this is bad (and, from that statement, the entirely of the humanities) is because reading, writing, and 'rithmatic aren't up to par? They could at least attempt to not be so transparently homophobic.

[thesteve]

I heard about this passing the legislation a couple weeks ago. It's something I find interesting, and I don't know if it's really comparable to women's studies.

I guess it really depends on how these sorts of things are actually implemented. When I was a kid I didn't learn about Baron von Steuben being gay. Heck, I didn't learn about Baron von Steuben at all. I just really wonder what this "LGBT friendly" curriculum will look like. Is a one-liner about von Steuben being gay sufficient, "He trained the Continental Army at Valley Forge...and he was gay."

I don't say that to make light of the situation. With the addition of women into history books it seemed pretty easy to figure out who was and wasn't a man. I don't know if "gay studies" will streamline as easily.

From what I've heard from some sources, a big concern will be whether or not this leads to the introduction of speculative history and how it's handled. For example I did a quick Google search and found that in 2004 a book was published exploring the question of whether or not Abraham Lincoln was homosexual. From a cursory reading of a few reviews it sounds like the author's claims are sketchy at best, but because there is a segment that believes he could have possibly been gay, is Abraham Lincoln now an accomplished member of the LGBT community? Even if he wasn't, will teachers teach that he might have been? Writer Larry Kramer supposedly goes as far to say that the Lincoln assassination was a 19th century Matthew Shepard story, with the homophobic Booth playing out the role of Shepard's killers.

I don't write this to say that these things can't be true, but that I'm concerned about having to explain to my kid that what their teacher is telling them is really just speculation, because honestly a lot of school teachers either don't realize what they're teaching isn't truth, or because they're trying to intentionally inject a controversial, unproven subject in the minds of children.

In short, I'm fine with teachers teaching about Harvey Milk when the topic is on 20th century California. I'm a lot less comfortable with teachers teaching that Lincoln, Hamilton and other 18th and 19th century figures were homosexual when at best evidence of such things are difficult to come by.

[Bryan]

well I'd certainly hope that this doesn't mean we start speculating on which of histories major figures were gay, but more about the accomplishments of those that openly identify as gay. Harvey Milk is a perfect example. Dan Savage may one day be another. If it's a study on music history it would certainly include information about Cole Porter's homosexuality.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I heard about this passing the legislation a couple weeks ago. It's something I find interesting, and I don't know if it's really comparable to women's studies.

Queer studies is a serious academic endeavor but it will probably get as glib a treatment in the public school system as women's studies does (or black studies).

[JerryLove]

I don't see this as queer studies (I read the article but not the bill).

It simply seems to me a law to prohibit censoring homosexuals from the record (or crafting your depiction of them to avoid imparting the knowledge that they were homosexual).

As I read this: a biographical summation of Alexander, at least one that would mention is wives, should also mention his male lover.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't see this as queer studies

No, I suppose not. State Sen. Mark Leno: "Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT Americans."

I don't grok this. I wonder which people they have in mind.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't see this as queer studies (I read the article but not the bill).

It simply seems to me a law to prohibit censoring homosexuals from the record (or crafting your depiction of them to avoid imparting the knowledge that they were homosexual).

As I read this: a biographical summation of Alexander, at least one that would mention is wives, should also mention his male lover.

I don't see the problem if thats the intention. But if the intention is for educators to go out of their way to include a higher representation of gay and lesbian interests, than it doesn't seem like a great law. Also if like mentioned above, they feel the need to include unconfirmed notes that Lincoln is gay or such.

[jthomas1600]

I've read a few articles on this over the last few weeks. Here's what concerns me: from what I've read, it sounds like this can easily be interpreted to mean that "you must include" as opposed to "you must not exclude". I have no problem with the later. If there's a chapter in a text book dealing with the 10 most influential California law makers and there's one that should be on that list but has been excluded because he/she is gay, then I have no problem fixing that. I do have a problem with teaching "these are the 10 most influential..." and including someone that probably doesn't belong in the top 50 list but that individual is gay and we need to include a gay person on this list.

And if this does sort of turn into a gay studies kind of thing where there are whole chapters and weeks and weeks of the students time dedicated to studying specifically "the contributions of..." I'm not a fan of that either. I've always thought the whole point was to become color blind, gender blind etc. So I go back to what I said in the previous paragraph. If there are gays that should be included because they have made significant contributions, but they are being excluded then fix that and then leave it alone.

Just my two cents. Not trying to offend anyone.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I've always thought the whole point was to become color blind, gender blind etc.

Teaching children to ignore differences is just as bad as exaggerating those differences.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

Teaching children to ignore differences is just as bad as exaggerating those differences.

I think his point is not to discrimate bsaed on differences. To neither focus on them, nor gloss over them.