The 50 Spot: Should Parents Be Notified if a Teacher Wants to Discuss Sexual Orientation in Class?

by Michael Jones · 2009-02-12 07:04:00 UTC

ClassroomWe generally consider it trouble whenever the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) gets behind a piece of legislation.  The MFI has a lengthy track record of opposing LGBT rights, including diehard opposition to same-sex marriage.  They've called homosexuality "destructive to individuals" and "unhealthy."  Now they're behind a bill that would require teachers to get written permission from parents before discussing "sexual orientation issues" in schools.  To us, this sounds like another attempt by an anti-LGBT group to hamstring learning in the classroom.  And others agree.  More below in the 50 spot, and we're also stopping by California and Minnesota.

Massachusetts: Bay Windows has the scoop -- a conservative Massachusetts State House Member (Republican Bradley Jones - North Reading) has filed a bill in the legislature that would expand the state’s sex education parental notification law to require written parental approval for students to participate in any "curriculum, or a school sanctioned program or activity, which involves ... sexual orientation issues."  Backed by the Massachusetts Family Institute, supporters of the bill see it as a way of safe-guarding children from radical sexual orientations.  In reality, of course, the bill is just another attempt by anti-LGBT groups to limit the ability of schools to teach children about diversity.  The bill could also severely limit the way schools teach sex education, which could have profound impacts on the health and well-being of students.  As Marc Solomon of MassEquality said to Bay Windows, "I think we want to be teaching our kids about the diversity of families and the diversity of human experience, and not having kids who have gay parents feel some sort of shame about their family. And I think that’s what this bill does. Somehow there’s this notion that teaching about sexual orientation is like teaching about sex, and I think that that is profoundly wrong, and it’s disappointing that the bill was introduced."  Disappointing, indeed.

California: Californians Against Hate (CAH) has filed a second campaign finance complaint about the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints' involvement in helping pass Proposition 8.  According to the Associated Press, CAH founder Fred Karger announced at a news conference yesterday that he believes the Mormon Church deliberately covered up its financial role in helping pass Prop 8, accusing the church of spending millions of dollars more than they actually reported to state officials.  Per Karger, "I'm calling this Mormongate.  I think there's been a massive cover-up."  Specifically, Karger wants to know if the Mormon church spent money on phone banks in Utah and Idaho, on precinct walks, and on buses and a California legal firm.

Minnesota: Heading back into the schools, Minnesota's largest school district (Anoka-Hennpin, which covers Minneapolis) has lifted a fourteen-year-old policy that required school employees to refrain from discussing issues of homosexuality.  The new policy, adopted by the school board on Monday night, says that school officials "shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation, including but not limited to student-led discussions."  Phil Duran, a staff attorney for OutFront Minnesota (the state's largets LGBT organization), told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that "We're grateful the board put some thoughtful effort into moving forward and balancing the district's obligation to serve all students and recognize there was some sensitivity about this issue."

Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor. He has worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School.
PREVIOUS STORY:
When Same-Sex Marriage = $248 Million
NEXT STORY:
On Aeroflot's Birthday, Russian Activists Condemn Company's Anti-Gay Record. And You Can Help.

COMMENTS (9)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.