Posted on 01/04/2008 9:28:22 PM PST by NormsRevenge
When society tells a young person ---- in subtle or, often, not so subtle, ways ---- that they are less valuable, perhaps because of the color of their skin, their religious practices or the gender of the person they want to take to the prom, the whole society suffers.
When we mandate that every young person must go to school, we must also provide the safety and dignity of an education free from harassment, discrimination and violence. That is why, over the last several years, I have authored several laws that strengthen civil rights protections for students and improve school safety. This year, as a simple cleanup measure, I authored SB 777 to include civil rights protections that have already been required for the last eight years by law to be more clearly spelled out in California's Education Code.
Seeing an opportunity to confuse their supporters by pretending the bill added protections to the code, the opposition has invented a number of inflammatory and false claims about the operation of SB 777. A bit of clarity, not to say truth-telling is in order.
First bit of balderdash: SB 777 certainly would not ban reference to "mom" and "dad" in the curriculum. Because nothing in SB 777 changes law that has been in place for eight years, you might have heard if such a ban had been put in place. In addition, if you did try to ban all reference to "mom" and "dad," it would be promoting a bias against heterosexuality, which is prohibited under current law, which means SB 777, as well. Ironically, SB 777 actually makes it clearer that this type of discrimination is prohibited by spelling out the legal definition of sexual orientation (heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality) in the section of the Education Code that prohibits discrimination in school programs and activities.
Second bit of balderdash: SB 777 does not create a radical new definition of gender that will allow boys and girls to shower together and force schools to have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms. California has prohibited gender discrimination in schools using the exact same definition of gender found in SB 777 since the year 2000. Interestingly, precisely the same allegations were attempted 35 years ago by opponents of Title IX, which banned gender discrimination in schools under federal law. Those rather amusing predictions did not come true under Title IX and they have not come true under the law concerning schools that has been in effect in California since 2000, a law that is simply repeated in SB 777.
Third bit of balderdash: SB 777 does not change the content requirements for textbooks and other instructional materials. Although the opposition makes a valiant attempt to create confusion about the scope of current law, discrimination based upon a student's actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or association with a person who has any of these characteristics has been prohibited in all publicly funded school programs and activities (including textbooks and classroom instruction) since 2000.
Until now, the legal prohibitions and requirements for schools were not printed in one easy-to-find section of the Education Code and parents, students and administrators had to hunt for a simple and complete listing of the prohibited bases of discrimination. In order for someone to piece together the complete list of the current prohibited bases of discrimination and the current definitions for those terms in existing law, they have to look to several different code sections and two separate legal codes. While this may be all well and good for an attorney, it can prove to be very frustrating to the average parent, student or school administrator. SB 777 simply lists the current prohibited bases of discrimination and the current definitions for those terms in one place for easy reference by parents and school administrators.
For instance, before SB 777, when a charter school student was being harassed or discriminated against at school because of disability, nationality, religion or sexual orientation and they looked only at the outdated list of prohibited bases of discrimination found in the charter school law, they might mistakenly believe that there were no legal protections for them. Under the existing overarching education law, charter schools cannot discriminate on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, but the law doesn't help much if students and their parents don't know about it.
A repeal of SB 777 cannot strip away the existing protections for students against discrimination that have been in the law since 2000, the only effect of a repeal of SB 777 would be to confuse the public as to the scope of the existing civil rights protections for students.
Perhaps, after all, that is the goal of the opposition. If you don't know your rights, you can't use them.
Bio
Sheila James Kuehl was elected to the State Senate in 2000 and again in 2004 after serving for six years in the State Assembly. During the 1997-98 legislative session, she was the first woman in California history to be named Speaker pro Tempore of the Assembly. She is also the first openly gay or lesbian person to be elected to the California Legislature. A former pioneering civil rights attorney and law professor, Sen. Kuehl represents the 23rd Senate District in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. She is the chair of the Senate Health Committee and sits on the Agriculture, Appropriations, Environmental Quality, Joint Rules, Judiciary, Labor and Employment, and Natural Resources and Water Committees. Ms. Kuehl is also chair of the Select Committee on School Safety and Chair of the Select Committee on the Health Effects of Radioactive and Chemical Contamination. Senator Kuehl served as chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee from 2000-2006.
In her thirteen years in the State Legislature, Sen. Kuehl has authored 171 bills that have been signed into law, including legislation to establish paid family leave, establish the rights contained in Roe vs. Wade in California statute, overhaul California’s child support services system; establish nurse to patient ratios in every hospital; require that housing developments of more than 500 units have identified sources of water; further protect domestic violence victims and their children; prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and disability in the workplace and sexual orientation in education; increase the rights of crime victims; safeguard the environment and drinking water; many, many others. Since 2003, she has led the fight in the legislature to achieve true universal health care in California, and, in 2006, brought SB 840, the California Universal Healthcare Act, to the Governor’s desk, the first time in U.S. history a single-payer healthcare bill had gone so far. Undaunted by its veto, Senator Kuehl continues to work to bring universal, affordable, quality health care to all Californians.
She was selected to address the 1996 Democratic National Convention on the issue of family violence and the 2000 Democratic National Convention on the issue of diversity. In 1996, George magazine selected her as one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics and the California Journal named her “Rookie of the Year.” In 1998 and, again, in 2000, the California Journal chose her as the Assembly member with the greatest intelligence and the most integrity. In 2006, the Capitol Weekly picked her as the most intelligent member of the California Legislature.
Prior to her election to the Legislature, Senator Kuehl drafted and fought to get into California law more than 40 pieces of legislation relating to children, families, women, and domestic violence. She was a law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC Law Schools and co-founded and served as managing attorney of the California Women’s Law Center.
Senator Kuehl graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978 where she was the second woman in the school’s history to win the Moot Court competition. She served on the Harvard University Board of Overseers from 1998 to 2005.
In her youth, she was known for her portrayal of the irrepressible Zelda Gilroy in the television series, “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis.”
So why the wasted time and effort on making this into a law, rather than a handout for the state Department of Education? Just makework for a publicly paid servant?
So on the one hand, we have the argument that Sheila Kuehl wasted everyone’s time and energy with a bill that means nothing, and on the other hand, we have people claiming it changes vast portions of the law to discriminate against heterosexuals and to make it easier to convert more to homosexuality.
Seems like it’s in the interest of /both/ sides to repeal this useless piece of legislation to calm the fears of those who oppose it, and to remove a duplicative section of California code that didn’t need to be there in the first place.
There, problem solved.
Yeah, some people are more equal than others.
“When society tells a young person —— in subtle or, often, not so subtle, ways —— that they are less valuable, perhaps because of the color of their skin, their religious practices or the gender of the person they want to take to the prom, the whole society suffers.”
Of all the arguments I’ve heard against homosexuality, I have NEVER hear anyone say the person is less valuable. Such crap from this nutso woman.
I refuse to follow it.
Man, the years have not been good to her.
She’s a dyke.
I'm offended by your comment. You left out that she's butt ugly, too.
As Dobie would say to Zelda: Now cut that out!
Looking at that fugly-socialist-lesbo, I would say the bill should be renumbered SM 666.
Sheila Kuehl is the poster child for everything that is deeply wrong with California politics.
The Sheila Kuehl to-do-list (for next Monday):
1. Ban dodgeball in schools.
2. Modify the sexist term "history" with the benign "theirtory".
3. Force the Governor to change his offensive last name ("Schwarzenegger" ends with letters that may be interpreted as a racist slur against sensitive disadvantaged minority pupils). His new name: "Arnold Magic Puffball".
Ooh, now you've done it! She will proceed to ban the word 'dyke' from all geology textbooks and maps.
Since this woman is a known homosexual I would bet the farm that it is meant to promote homosexuality. Read the real bill, it tells you all you need to know
So?,,,, What should *** Christian teachers*** do about this? As I see it, there are only 2 ethical options:
1) They can get themselves fired. How? They can reject, oppose, protest, and refuse to cooperate with this law and any government education program that undermines the Judeo Christian principles upon which all freedom rests.
2) Quit.
They do have a third option that is not ethical.
Christian teachers can aid, abet, and cooperate with the Marxists and their Useful Idiots in our government schools that are working to turn children against Judeo Christian principles and that is determined to destroy Western Civilization and freedom.
So?....What do the students learn if they see Christian teachers helping push forward an anti-Judeo Christian worldview?
Answer: Students learn that Christians are hypocrites. Possibly they learn that Christians are lukewarm in their beliefs, are good fence sitters, or that a pension and paycheck are more important to Christians than principles.
I have read posters here on Free Republic suggest that teachers cooperate with the anti-Judeo Christian worldview, but tell their students they don’t believe but have to teach it anyway.
Students surely know that no gun is being held to the head of any teacher, so, what do students learn with this approach? Answer: They learn that Christian teachers KNOW the truth but will teach them lies anyway.
Some have suggested that Christian teachers can sneak in a little “Salt and Light” and possibly be a good example for Christianity. Really? So? When was being sly and sneaky being a good example?
Some have posted that some Christian teachers really need their paycheck and, ( my goodness!) where would they find another job?
What lesson are they teaching their students? Answer: That Christians are people that have little faith in God’s providence and that Christians are too stupid to adapt to the free marketplace.
Example is NOT the best teacher. It is the ONLY teacher! What example are these Christian teachers setting?
Will the job of true missionaries for Christ be easier, when these kids finally reach adulthood, or harder?
What is a true missionary for Christ to do with a person who believes that their Christian teachers were weak, lukewarm, fence sitting, stupid, timid, greedy for a paycheck, people of little faith in God’s providence, unable too incompetent to work in the free market, and liars! Will their job be easier or harder? Answer: Harder!
With the passage of 777. Conditions are now so bad in the government schools that trying to be an influence for good is like aiming a water pistol at a raging forest fire. Give it up! It is time to get out! Staying does more harm than good.
Get out! And,,,Then start working to close these government school cesspools down. Work to start a viable system of education within your own churches.
***Your own children and the children of your congregation are your most important mission field!***
Once you have a smoothly running church education system in your own school, then invite non-members ( provided it does not overwhelm the Christian culture of the school). Mentor and love the parents of these children. Teach them to be good parents.
Finally, get away from the outdated idea that a school needs to be brick and mortar. Instead, think in terms of homeschools, micro-schools, and one room school houses. With today’s technology it is possible to have excellent schools at very little cost. Also... Build a system of Christian athlete leagues to break the monopoly that the government and it schools has on sports.
I read recently in the Wall Street Journal that Harvard has a 35 BILLION dollar endowment. Isn’t it time that Christians started private scholarship foundation to give private scholarships to private Christian schools? We are a wealthy nation. It really is possible for every child in the U.S. to have a free Christian education. (possibly even every child in the world) Christian could do this if they wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.