Gay High School in NYC
Jonathan
Now, why I can understand the need (harassment, rape of lesbians, etc...), I
have difficulty accepting the need to segregate some students from others,
especially when those students do not have different educational
requirements than any other.
[I have no problem with separate schools for mentally and physically
handicapped kids, as their educational needs are incompatible with a regular
public school].
I am a big proponent of equal rights for gays, and even I think this is
unnecessary and is more likely to create further dislike of gays...
especially when you segregate them.
Oh, wait, I forgot, if it is voluntary segregation then it is ok...
Jonathan
Jim
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
I think this is one of the largest wastes of tax payer I have read about
in years. This school stated years ago when i was living in the city -
it was a dumb liberal idea then and a dumb liberal idea now.
Gays don't need any special rights - they have chosen the lifestyle they
lead.
This is one dumb ass state I live in. I'll give Hillary's office a call
tomorrow and bitch up a storm!
Userb3
@news1.news.adelphia.net:
> Gays don't need any special rights
They're not asking for any.
Jonathan
"Jim" <j...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:jim-F68B8A.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Chosen?
I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the 21st Century still
believes that people choose to be gay...
Jonathan
Thom Wilkerson
that bizarre - "special rights" all of their own:
News Story
Parents: White Teacher Should Not Teach Black History
Group Of Parents Protest District's Decision
Should White Instructors Be Allowed To Teach Black History?
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2360897/detail.html
OBERLIN, Ohio, Updated 1:33 p.m. EDT July 28, 2003 -- A group of parents
said they will fight a possible decision to allow a white teacher to
lead classes in black history at Oberlin High School.
SURVEY
Should white instructors be allowed to teach black history?
0 Yes. As long as they're truthful and fair, 0 I'm all for it.
0 No. I think it sends the wrong message.
NewsChannel5 reported that a scheduling conflict could cause the
district to reassign the black teacher who has taught the course for
seven years.
Using a white teacher at Oberlin High School would send the wrong
message to black students, said A.G. Miller, an associate professor of
American and African religious history at Oberlin College.
"The message is that we are not concerned about the importance of your
historical background ... that that is less important than a schedule
conflict," said Miller, whose three children graduated from Oberlin High
School.
Jaqui Willis, a black Oberlin parent, said the teacher is a role model
and that removing him from the class would be detrimental to students.
The parents have protested the move to the school board, but the
district's superintendent, Beverly Reep, has not commented on the case.
Reep told parents at a school board meeting that scheduling issues would
be addressed this week.
Schools and community leaders in the Cleveland area are split over the
issue of whether blacks should be the only ones to teach black history.
In Cleveland, white and black teachers teach black history. A black
teacher teaches black history at Shaker Heights High School, but a white
teacher handles classes on oppression and human relations, both which
deal extensively with race relations and slavery.
Little research has been done to determine whether same-race teachers
lead to higher achievement by minority students. Ronald Ehrenberg,
director of Cornell University's Higher Education Research Institute,
said many researchers steer clear of the topic out of fear of being
attacked.
Michael Williams, interim director of Cleveland State University's black
studies program, said schools should choose a black teacher if that
person is most qualified, not just because the teacher happens to be
black.
If two teachers are equally qualified, Williams gives the edge to the
black teacher.
"That person still has the advantage of the culture," said Williams, who
is black. "They understand the nuances of the culture."
Phyllis Yarber Hogan, a member of the Oberlin Black Alliance for
Progress, said a white teacher wouldn't be well-suited to teaching
students about subjects like slavery.
"When you talk about slavery, students need to understand it is not our
fault," she said. "Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be enslaved.
"How do you work through that when the person teaching it is the same
type of person who did the enslaving?"
Thom Wilkerson
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans have become significantly less accepting of
homosexuality since a Supreme Court decision that was hailed as clearing
the way for new gay civil rights, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found.
After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a
level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.
Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be
legal, 48% said yes; 46% said no. Before this month, support hadn't been
that low since 1996. (Related item: See poll numbers)
In early May, support for legal relations reached a high of 60%-35%.
The shift in attitudes occurs as gay issues have been in the news. In
recent weeks, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, a
Canadian court decision allowed gay couples to marry in Ontario, and
Wal-Mart expanded anti-discrimination protection to gay workers.
Conservative social activists see a backlash to those developments and
the growing visibility of gay characters in entertainment, including
such TV shows as Will & Grace. "The more that the movement demands the
endorsement of the law and the culture, the more resistance there will
be," says Gary Bauer, president of American Values.
Bauer says that sentiment will make it harder for elected officials to
avoid taking positions on such questions as a proposed constitutional
amendment that would bar marriage of gay couples.
Advocates for gay men and lesbians called the poll disappointing.
"Clearly, the debate (over recent developments) has had an effect," says
David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign. But over time, he says, "The
country always ends up on the side of fairness, and I think they will
here, too."
Those making the biggest shifts included African-Americans. On whether
homosexual relations should be legal, their support fell from 58% in May
to 36% in July. Among people who attend church almost every week,
support fell from 61% to 49%.
The survey also found rising opposition to civil unions that would give
gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals. They were
opposed 57%-40%, the most opposition since the question was first asked
in 2000.
By 49%-46%, those polled said homosexuality should not be considered "an
acceptable alternative lifestyle." It was the first time since 1997 that
more people expressed opposition than support.
brandons of mass destruction
th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> NewsChannel5 reported that a scheduling conflict could cause the
> district to reassign the black teacher who has taught the course for
> seven years.
This is probably the real issue for the parents. they don't want that
specific teacher reassign.
BTR1701
<use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, just special schools.
BTR1701
th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> Phyllis Yarber Hogan, a member of the Oberlin Black Alliance for
> Progress, said a white teacher wouldn't be well-suited to teaching
> students about subjects like slavery.
>
> "When you talk about slavery, students need to understand it is not our
> fault," she said. "Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be enslaved.
> "How do you work through that when the person teaching it is the same
> type of person who did the enslaving?"
So this teacher is the "same type" of person as a slave trader merely
because of the melanin content in her skin?
Talk about racism....
Userb3
@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net:
> Blacks also are now asking for, -no, demanding - some very odd, - make
> that bizarre - "special rights" all of their own:
Having a difference of opinion isn't the same as demanding a special right.
Userb3
A552A1.074...@news-server.austin.rr.com:
Believing that there is a need for a particular type of school isn't the
same as asking for a "special right". NYC, among other cities, also has
special schools for the arts, special schools for advanced students,
special schools for handicapped students, and a wide variety of programs
and curriculums within the existing system to cater to specific student
needs. So while I have mixed feelings about the school (similar to my
mixed feelings about boys' or girls' schools - I see both sides of the
argument), I hardly think there's anythng particularly unique about a
large school system offering an optional school for students with
partiular needs or interests.
Jonathan
>"Thom Wilkerson" <th...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:24360-3F260D65- >
3...@storefull-2358.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> POLL SHOWS BACKLASH ON GAY ISSUES
> By Susan Page, USA TODAY
>
> homosexuality since a Supreme Court decision that was hailed as clearing
> the way for new gay civil rights, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found.
> After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a
>level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.
I saw this article this morning...
I cannot say I am encouraged by its results...
This may actually make it harder for a pro-gay rights candidate to win...
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C75ED9E5C...@207.14.113.17...
> BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-
> A552A1.074...@news-server.austin.rr.com:
>
> > In article <Xns93C6E3B71DA...@207.14.113.17>, Userb3
> > <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jim <j...@noreply.com> wrote in news:jim-F68B8A.23162628072003
> >> @news1.news.adelphia.net:
> >>
> >> > Gays don't need any special rights
> >>
> >> They're not asking for any
> >
> > No, just special schools.
>
> Believing that there is a need for a particular type of school isn't the
> same as asking for a "special right". NYC, among other cities, also has
> special schools for the arts,
High School of Art and Design, Class of 1986.
Music and Art, Performing Arts (now part of Juliard) and FIT.
> special schools for advanced students,
Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of Science, Brooklyn Tech.
> special schools for handicapped students, and a wide variety of programs
> and curriculums within the existing system to cater to specific student
> needs.
There is an aviation HS in Queens, and a whole slew of vocational schools...
NYC has the best Secondary School system (at least for variety) in the
world...
> So while I have mixed feelings about the school (similar to my
> mixed feelings about boys' or girls' schools - I see both sides of the
> argument), I hardly think there's anythng particularly unique about a
> large school system offering an optional school for students with
> partiular needs or interests.
>
Nor do I... However, there are no schools in the NYC Board of Education for
black students, Jewish students or Hispanic students... So, why for gays?
Jonathan
Jim
th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> Blacks also are now asking for, -no, demanding - some very odd, - make
> that bizarre - "special rights" all of their own:
>
> News Story
> Parents: White Teacher Should Not Teach Black History
>
> Group Of Parents Protest District's Decision
> Should White Instructors Be Allowed To Teach Black History?
I am curious as to why they are teaching Black History at all? Do they
offer a white history or oriental history.
They should be taught general history and american history.
Jim
BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
They can succeed or fail as everyone else can, in a regular public school.
This is a stupid ass idea.
Userb3
news:NmwVa.1190933$mA4.1...@news.easynews.com:
<list of special schools snipped>
> Nor do I... However, there are no schools in the NYC Board of
> Education for black students, Jewish students or Hispanic students...
> So, why for gays?
Because there are specific legal and constitutional issues that prevent
ethnic or religious based schools.
Userb3
@agppp15.buffnet.net:
> I am curious as to why they are teaching Black History at all? Do they
> offer a white history or oriental history.
Thanks for identifying yourself early in the conversation.
Jonathan
> In article <21398-3F2...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>
> > Blacks also are now asking for, -no, demanding - some very odd, - make
> > that bizarre - "special rights" all of their own:
> >
> > News Story
> > Parents: White Teacher Should Not Teach Black History
> >
> > Group Of Parents Protest District's Decision
> > Should White Instructors Be Allowed To Teach Black History?
>
>
> I am curious as to why they are teaching Black History at all? Do they
> offer a white history or oriental history.
>
Yeah, they do.
And I do not think teaching the Civil Rights movement is a bad thing... I am
sorry to hear that you think so...
> They should be taught general history and american history.
What is known as 'Black History' is American History.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Wouldn't you agree that a 'gay' school would fall under the same category?
Jonathan
David Marc Nieporent
> th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote in news:21398-3F25F985-373
>> Blacks also are now asking for, -no, demanding - some very odd, -
>> make that bizarre - "special rights" all of their own:
> Having a difference of opinion isn't the same as demanding a special
> right.
No, but demanding a special right is the same as demanding a special right.
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://tollbooth.blogspot.com
Userb3
news:_5xVa.1195878$ZC.1...@news.easynews.com:
Maybe when sexual preference gets the same legal protections that race
and religion do.
Jonathan
So, you are saying that as long as Gays are a non-protected class of
citizenry, then other laws that would restrict gov't involvement in their
culture/lifestyle/etc do not apply?
Jonathan
Userb3
$cI2.1...@news.easynews.com:
>> >> Because there are specific legal and constitutional issues that
>> >> prevent ethnic or religious based schools.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Wouldn't you agree that a 'gay' school would fall under the same
>> > category?
>>
>> Maybe when sexual preference gets the same legal protections that race
>> and religion do.
>
> So, you are saying that as long as Gays are a non-protected class of
> citizenry, then other laws that would restrict gov't involvement in their
> culture/lifestyle/etc do not apply?
I'm saying that if sexual preference doesn't get the same protection that
religion and race do, then it isn't subject to the same restrictions,
either.
brandons of mass destruction
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> So, why for gays?
well, they're...gay.
brandons of mass destruction
Jim
Well, if American History is considered white history - why teach anything
else as this is America.
Until minorities cease demanding things to keep themselves seperated, and
angry, they will always be less than what they deserve. It's about time
that people who have been in this country 150 years join mainstream
society and simply become Americans.
Jim
> >
> >
> > I am curious as to why they are teaching Black History at all? Do they
> > offer a white history or oriental history.
> >
>
> Yeah, they do.
Show me one thing that "White History" is taught in a public school.
Jonathan
POLL SHOWS BACKLASH ON GAY ISSUES
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
A Pew poll says that opposition to gay marriage has decreased from 65% (in
1996) to 53% now...
Jonathan
Annie Keitz
Open any US high school history textbook --- they are pretty bland
lilly white....
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
David Johnston
Pretty much all of the history classes are "White History", aren't
they? About people like George Washington and Kit Carson?
Thom Wilkerson
>th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>Blacks also are now asking for, -no,
>> demanding - some very odd, - make
>>that bizarre - "special rights" all of their
>> own:
>Having a difference of opinion isn't the
> same as demanding a special right.
It is not just a matter of a difference of opinion. These [Black]
parents are demanding that a white teacher NOT be allowed to teach black
students a specific subject, namely "Black History".
Should conservative parents now expect to demand that liberal or
Marxist-leaning teachers not be allowed to teach their children American
history?
If these Black parents truly want their children to learn Black History
only from Black teachers, then have them start their own private
race-oriented school.
brandons of mass destruction
j...@noreply.com (Jim) wrote:
> > > They should be taught general history and american history.
> >
> > this is white history.
>
> Well, if American History is considered white history - why teach anything
> else as this is America.
that IS usually what's taught.
> Until minorities cease demanding things to keep themselves seperated, and
> angry, they will always be less than what they deserve. It's about time
> that people who have been in this country 150 years join mainstream
> society and simply become Americans.
i loved the oj verdict.
Jonathan
Well, let's see, it starts with the emphasis on European history that starts
in around 1000 AD and continues up through the present, with no mention of
happened anywhere else in the world (unless it was relevent to what
Europeans were doing...)
Jonathan
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/945134.asp?0cv=CB20
>
> Now, why I can understand the need (harassment, rape of lesbians, etc...), I
> have difficulty accepting the need to segregate some students from others,
> especially when those students do not have different educational
> requirements than any other.
You understand the need, you just find it hard to accept. I can
understand that, I suppose. It's a terrible thing that there's a need
for this. But there is. Even in enlightened New York City, there are no
doubt places where many of these kids simply can't attend class safely.
> Oh, wait, I forgot, if it is voluntary segregation then it is ok...
Not because it's voluntary segregation, but because it's segregation in
response to a problem rather than segregation that creates a problem.
One thing I do feel the need to say: I just clicked on Google News, and
the headline story about this topic is from Focus On The Family. To me,
that's no different from having the top link for a story about
African-American issues being to a KKK site. Inexcusible.
David Marc Nieporent
Annie Keitz <ke...@his.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, they do.
Unless you're speaking of the color of the glossy paper on which they're
printed, that's wrong.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
David Marc Nieporent
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:14:38 GMT, Jim <j...@noreply.com> wrote:
>>> > I am curious as to why they are teaching Black History at all? Do they
>>> > offer a white history or oriental history.
>>> Yeah, they do.
>>Show me one thing that "White History" is taught in a public school.
>Pretty much all of the history classes are "White History", aren't
>they?
No.
>About people like George Washington and Kit Carson?
So that would be American history. Not white history. George Washington
wasn't the president of white people.
David Marc Nieporent
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/945134.asp?0cv=CB20
>> Now, why I can understand the need (harassment, rape of lesbians, etc...), I
>> have difficulty accepting the need to segregate some students from others,
>> especially when those students do not have different educational
>> requirements than any other.
>You understand the need, you just find it hard to accept. I can
>understand that, I suppose. It's a terrible thing that there's a need
>for this. But there is. Even in enlightened New York City, there are no
>doubt places where many of these kids simply can't attend class safely.
If that were really true, then it would seem to be even more crucial not to
waste money on this project when they need to improve security in schools.
>> Oh, wait, I forgot, if it is voluntary segregation then it is ok...
>Not because it's voluntary segregation, but because it's segregation in
>response to a problem rather than segregation that creates a problem.
Segregation is segregation.
Jim
So, nope - that's not the same as White History. Show me a class that is
"White History". Simple request.
Open any history text book about america and most will be about whites
because that is who founded the country.
Jim
<use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why should gay students have a gay high school?
Jim
So I should have my boys skip the chapters about King, Tubbs and the civil
rights movement? They don't look too white to me.
Chris Crandall
: So, nope - that's not the same as White History. Show me a class that is
: "White History". Simple request.
Well, obviously whatever class it was that you took. My evidence? The
following howler you wrote:
: Open any history text book about america and most will be about whites
Steve Bartman
>So why should gay students have a gay high school?
Because school authorities admit they're unable to keep them from
getting beaten up in regular high schools.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>So that would be American history. Not white history. George Washington
>wasn't the president of white people.
I think you could say he was. Black people couldn't vote for him, and
in his era slavery was a completely state-level issue.
It's a dumb argument. Most of taught American history is about white
men because for most of American history white men operated the
institutions that make up classic historic topic areas: government,
economy, wars, exploration, religion, invention.
I had a similar argument once with a good female friend (former
college roommate) who complained that her children weren't being
taught about the contributions of females to American history. I told
her it was because they didn't contribute that much. They were
excluded from the above list except for minor aberrations. A study of
cultural history---yes. A study of social history--yes. Art
history--of course. But a general, introductory history course such as
that taught in the average high school? Women weren't involved enough
to take precious class time away from the accomplishments of the men.
That isn't PCness, it's just the truth.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
David Marc Nieporent
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:51:05 -0400, j...@noreply.com (Jim) wrote:
>> So why should gay students have a gay high school?
> Because school authorities admit they're unable to keep them from
> getting beaten up in regular high schools.
Some kids are bullies. If you eliminate gays from regular schools, that
won't eliminate bullying. It will just change the identity of the bullying
victims. So if the goal is to protect kids, then it would make far more
sense to actually protect them than just to move the targets-of-the-moment.
Have security. Punish kids who misbehave. Kick them out if the misbehavior
continues; if necessary, lobby courts and legislatures to eliminate the
insane rules that say that everyone has the "right" to an education no
matter how they act while in school.
Steve Bartman
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Some kids are bullies. If you eliminate gays from regular schools, that
>won't eliminate bullying.
Of course not. But bullying gay kids is different in kind than
regular, garden-variety bullying. You were a boy, once, same as me.
You know how difficult it was to come to the aid of someone thought to
be "fruity" (in my era; you're younger and have a different term no
doubt.)
>Have security.
I have no doubt that NYC schools are overflowing with armed security.
But schools are big buildings with lots of blind corners. Cops can't
be everywhere at once, and lots of bullying techniques are silent and
unobtrusive.
Besides, this way, the gay kids get to go to the prom.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Annie Keitz
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>Open any US high school history textbook --- they are pretty bland
>>lilly white....
>
>Unless you're speaking of the color of the glossy paper on which they're
>printed, that's wrong.
Have you checked the texts used in your local high school of late?
They are an atrocity. Not only are they bland and "safe" they are
riddled with typos and factual errors. A travesty!
Annie
Annie Keitz
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>So that would be American history. Not white history. George Washington
>wasn't the president of white people.
Well actually he was -- only property owning white males were allowed
to vote at the time....
Annie
J Alex
Userb3
news:bg94ju$m5di8$1...@ID-90378.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Some kids are bullies. If you eliminate gays from regular schools,
that
> won't eliminate bullying.
You will, however, eliminate anti-gay bullying. It's entirely conceivable
that some bullies aren't bullying anyone in their path, but are instead
simply anti-gay.
And, of course, in many schools, the bullying isn't necessarily all from
students. Faculty and administration are very often a problem themselves.
God knows we see that in the Bible Belt.
But the NYC school isn't designed to end all anti-gay bullying. For that
matter, the school will only take a couple hundred students, and no one
is suggesting that they will handle every GLBT student in the NY school
system.
As I've posted previously, I have mixed feelings about the school, and
view it the same way I view single gender schools. A GLBT school is
further complicated by the fact that adolescents re-invent themselves
every 5 minutes and I'm sure some kids will enroll as a way to get
attention or piss off their parents, rather than out of a sincere desire
to study in that environment. But I certainly see no problem with a
school system that has as many specialized schols as NYC trying a GLBT
school.
As someone else pointed out, at least the kids will get to go to the
prom.
David Marc Nieporent
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> So that would be American history. Not white history. George
>> Washington wasn't the president of white people.
> Well actually he was -- only property owning white males were allowed
> to vote at the time....
Untrue. The property-owning part, yes, but not the white part. Don't
confuse what was allowed with what was mandatory. In most of the New
England states, property-owning blacks could vote.
David Marc Nieporent
I agree with all of that, but it doesn't contradict what I said. Mediocre
and bland, yes. Lilly-white, no.
David Marc Nieporent
> "David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Some kids are bullies. If you eliminate gays from regular schools,
>> that won't eliminate bullying.
> Of course not. But bullying gay kids is different in kind than
> regular, garden-variety bullying. You were a boy, once, same as me.
> You know how difficult it was to come to the aid of someone thought to
> be "fruity" (in my era; you're younger and have a different term no
> doubt.)
Fag would have been the term, I think -- though I think most of us started
using it as a slur long before we knew what it meant. (One thing that
strikes me as somewhat funny, looking back, is that I remember using the
word "gay" in elementary school as a put-down. Not of homosexuals
particularly, though. "My teacher won't let our class watch the movie with
the rest of the students because we kept the room too messy." "That's so
gay.")
But I don't honestly recall that gay people had a tougher time than other
"easy targets." Of course, I shouldn't generalize from my school; while
there was obviously bullying going on (where isn't it?), there was no
violence at my school.
> >Have security.
> I have no doubt that NYC schools are overflowing with armed security.
> But schools are big buildings with lots of blind corners. Cops can't
> be everywhere at once, and lots of bullying techniques are silent and
> unobtrusive.
1. I thought we were talking about kids being beaten up? That's not silent
and unobtrusive.
2. Blind corners? That's why god invented security cameras.
3. Again, what about the other students? Especially since, as someone else
pointed out, this school will take only a small percentage of gay students.
What about the rest?
4. Find solutions better than segregation. Like
* Real punishments for the guilty.
* Better architecturally designed schools so that there are fewer blind
corners. I don't believe my high school had any; the floor plan was such
that the main corridors were arranged in a grid, with all the halls right
off those. So walking down one of the main corridors, you could see
anything that happened in any hallway.
* Better designed schools in a social sense. Smaller attendance, etc., so
that people know each other and things are less likely to happen.
> Besides, this way, the gay kids get to go to the prom.
Yeah, but the geeks still don't.
Chris Crandall
: I agree with all of that, but it doesn't contradict what I said. Mediocre
: and bland, yes. Lilly-white, no.
I'll have to agree with DMN on this. History books for high schools make
a special effort to pay attention to non-controversial non-white issues.
Noble red man, interesting cultural differences, the "true" Thanksgiving,
and so on.
They won't meet issues of hegemony, racism, race-baiting, or genocide face
on, though. They must be bland.
In short, one will not obtain a proper history education from a public
school prior to college. It is only in college, where professors have
tenure and can (typically) choose their own textbooks, that the teaching
of history takes flight, makes sense, and grapples with important and
central issues of the day.
Steve Bartman
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Fag would have been the term, I think -- though I think most of us started
>using it as a slur long before we knew what it meant.
In the 60s we played Smear the Queer until one parent got upset and
called a parents' council on the block that decreed it would be Smear
the Guy With the Ball henceforth.
In 4th grade (1967) Charlie Cox taught me to call everybody a "fruit",
which I did until my mother asked me to stop. I knew she was
uncomfortable, but I didn't know why.
A year later a kid got thrown off the bus (blocks from his stop, in
the rain--oh innocent, non-litigious times!) for drawing "the finger"
in his spiral-ring notebook and passing it around until it crossed the
driver's field of view. The worst thing was I was the only kid who
didn't know what it meant!! And nobody would tell me. Hard to live
that down, man.
>> I have no doubt that NYC schools are overflowing with armed security.
>> But schools are big buildings with lots of blind corners. Cops can't
>> be everywhere at once, and lots of bullying techniques are silent and
>> unobtrusive.
>
>1. I thought we were talking about kids being beaten up? That's not silent
>and unobtrusive.
There's both, but a lot of bullying is psychological warfare. It
interferes with learning probably more than physical stuff.
>2. Blind corners? That's why god invented security cameras.
A lot of the crap I saw was in locker rooms. Something about being
naked together makes boys unsure of their own deal get pushy.
>3. Again, what about the other students? Especially since, as someone else
>pointed out, this school will take only a small percentage of gay students.
>What about the rest?
Not sure what you mean here.
>4. Find solutions better than segregation. Like
> * Real punishments for the guilty.
It's NYC. And most bullies are smart enough to not get caught, and
know the kid code of silence.
> * Better architecturally designed schools so that there are fewer blind
>corners. I don't believe my high school had any; the floor plan was such
>that the main corridors were arranged in a grid, with all the halls right
>off those. So walking down one of the main corridors, you could see
>anything that happened in any hallway.
I doubt tearing down the school infrastructure and starting over is in
the cards for NYC.
> * Better designed schools in a social sense. Smaller attendance, etc., so
>that people know each other and things are less likely to happen.
Ditto. The NYC schools have been teetering on the edge of implosion
for decades.
I doubt they just up and took this action without reason and analysis.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:bg94ju$m5di8$1...@ID-90378.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Steve Bartman wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:51:05 -0400, j...@noreply.com (Jim) wrote:
>
> >> So why should gay students have a gay high school?
>
> > Because school authorities admit they're unable to keep them from
> > getting beaten up in regular high schools.
>
> Some kids are bullies.
I have an idea, why don't we eliminate bullies.
Pretty cool idea, actually... expel the bullies.
> If you eliminate gays from regular schools, that
> won't eliminate bullying. It will just change the identity of the
bullying
> victims.
This is why I don't think some school-shootings are necessarily a bad
thing... If only bullies are being killed, I do not see the harm being done.
> So if the goal is to protect kids, then it would make far more
> sense to actually protect them than just to move the
targets-of-the-moment.
>
> Have security. Punish kids who misbehave. Kick them out if the
misbehavior
> continues; if necessary, lobby courts and legislatures to eliminate the
> insane rules that say that everyone has the "right" to an education no
> matter how they act while in school.
>
I agree.
This compulsory education crap is a disaster... the kids who want to learn
get screwed over because teachers spend 90% of their time on 5% of the
students.
Allow kids to drop-out of school after 6th Grade... and make it easier to
expel the bad kids...
BUT.
I am a huge fan of responsibility... you want to drop out of school? Fine...
you also drop out of gov't entitlements.
Jonathan
J Alex
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:29:37 -0500, "David Marc Nieporent"
> <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >Fag would have been the term, I think -- though I think most of us
started
> >using it as a slur long before we knew what it meant.
>
> In the 60s we played Smear the Queer until one parent got upset and
> called a parents' council on the block that decreed it would be Smear
> the Guy With the Ball henceforth.
>
it, but banned it entirely. Probably just as well - "Smear the Guy with the
Ball" just doesn't have the same impact. Can't say your situation, but in
mine, I'd be very surprised if any of the kids actually new what a 'queer'
was.
Jonathan
"Userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C895AA9EC...@207.14.113.17...
Doesn't this completely go against the idea behind desegregation? If we
separate the gays from maintsream schools, then less non-gay students will
see them and interact with them, making the gay kids appear even more alien.
I grew up in Manhattan (204th and Broadway), and I have never seen a more
diverse population of students... I grew up non-racist because I saw every
single race out there... I interacted with them on a daily basis... there
was nothing alien about a gay person, or a black or latino person, they were
all just peopl to me (some of them were assholes, some were really cool)...
If I had gone to an all-Jewish school (Yashiva or Keneret), I would have not
had that experience and would not have viewed those other cultures the way I
do now...
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>That was everyone's facorite game at recess.
We played in front yards. It was full-tackle, so school clothes
wouldn't have lasted long. (No jeans or sneakers in those days. Slacks
and oxfords.)
Recess was reserved for that other childhood mind-scrambler, dodge
ball.
In our case, they didn't rename
>it, but banned it entirely. Probably just as well - "Smear the Guy with the
>Ball" just doesn't have the same impact. Can't say your situation, but in
>mine, I'd be very surprised if any of the kids actually new what a 'queer'
>was.
Nope, no idea. Of course, when the parents banned it we did our best
to find out then, but without the Internet available it was, uh,
fruitless.
Steve
Userb3
news:ZFWVa.1289329$ZC.1...@news.easynews.com:
> Doesn't this completely go against the idea behind desegregation?
No. It is unrelated to the segregation and substandard education offered
to minority students in prior years. This is far more akin to the wide
variety of specialized optional schools offered students with particular
needs, skills, or interests. No one is required to attend this school,
and there is no reason to believe it will offer sub par programs.
> If
> we separate the gays from maintsream schools, then less non-gay
> students will see them and interact with them, making the gay kids
> appear even more alien.
On the other hand, assume for a second that students attending this
school reverse some of the trends associated with gay teens - i.e. high
depression and suicide rates, and begin to perform at a much higher
level. Surely we'd consider that a good thing, no?
> I grew up in Manhattan (204th and Broadway), and I have never seen a
> more diverse population of students... I grew up non-racist because I
> saw every single race out there.
And I grew up non-racist despite attending lily white rural schools and
living on an ethnicly homogenous farm. I think the key to raising non-
racist kids is non-racist parents.
>.. I interacted with them on a daily
> basis... there was nothing alien about a gay person, or a black or
> latino person, they were all just peopl to me (some of them were
> assholes, some were really cool)...
Amazingly, I know just what you mean. People's people all over the world.
> If I had gone to an all-Jewish school (Yashiva or Keneret), I would
> have not had that experience and would not have viewed those other
> cultures the way I do now...
So the yashive educated yet open-minded Jews I know who manage to
interact well among the assorted goyim should be considered exceptions to
the rule? My best friend in college attended a military school - should I
be amazed that he can interact with women? How about my friends who
attended the W when it was still a women's college - are they exceptional
for being able to relate to men?
While I'm glad you did well in a diverse school, and agree that diversity
is a good and desireable thing, I'm not willing to say that that is the
only good and desireable model for education, or single
sex/religion/sexuality/ethnicity schools can't produce open-minded, well
rounded graduates.
After all, the school only has you for 35 hrs a week 9 months a year. We
all still live in the real world, and TV, the internet, and ordinary
business bring us into contact with the rest of humanity on a regular
basis. Unless they're going to keep gay students locked in a cabin in
Idaho somewhere, its a fair bet that they'll encounter the straight world
and that the straight world will encounter them.
Userb3
news:v8egivcr88u3cu694...@4ax.com:
> Can't say your situation, but in
>>mine, I'd be very surprised if any of the kids actually new what a
>>'queer' was.
>
> Nope, no idea. Of course, when the parents banned it we did our best
> to find out then, but without the Internet available it was, uh,
> fruitless.
>
Oh, that's baaaaaaad!
BTR1701
(Chris Crandall) wrote:
> David Marc Nieporent (niep...@alumni.princeton.edu) wrote:
> : I agree with all of that, but it doesn't contradict what I said.
> : Mediocre and bland, yes. Lilly-white, no.
>
> I'll have to agree with DMN on this. History books for high schools make
> a special effort to pay attention to non-controversial non-white issues.
> Noble red man, interesting cultural differences, the "true" Thanksgiving,
> and so on.
>
> They won't meet issues of hegemony, racism, race-baiting, or genocide
> face on, though. They must be bland.
>
> In short, one will not obtain a proper history education from a public
> school prior to college. It is only in college, where professors have
> tenure and can (typically) choose their own textbooks
And coincidentally they usually choose the ones they themselves wrote...
Annie Keitz
wrote:
>It's a dumb argument. Most of taught American history is about white
>men because for most of American history white men operated the
>institutions that make up classic historic topic areas: government,
>economy, wars, exploration, religion, invention.
Ah but what *is* history? It's not simply what the leaders of a
particular time frame were doing. Even women in early American
history participated in society and contributed to the founding of the
country....
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
Steve Bartman
>Ah but what *is* history?
I believe you've mentioned before that you have a BA in History from
Va Tech? I have one from that institution in Charlottesville. I think
we both know the answer to your question on the university level. But
on a HS level, where many Americans get all the formal history
teaching they're ever going to get, you have to hit the high points,
and that isn't a study of village-level crafts and inter-county
barter. <g>
It's not simply what the leaders of a
>particular time frame were doing. Even women in early American
>history participated in society and contributed to the founding of the
>country....
Of course they did, in a very direct way. But as to participating in
institutions that wielded the power--money, troops, votes--that built
the gross culture we stand upon today they were bystanders and
unofficial advisors. I happen to think HS girls get a lot more from a
forceful teaching of that reality and a comparison to the world they
know now than they do with curricula that desperately try to dig up a
handful of extraordinary women (Molly Pitcher, Abigail Adams,
Sacagawea et al) and leave an impression that they were typical.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
Jim
>
> No. It is unrelated to the segregation and substandard education offered
> to minority students in prior years. This is far more akin to the wide
> variety of specialized optional schools offered students with particular
> needs, skills, or interests. No one is required to attend this school,
> and there is no reason to believe it will offer sub par programs.
If a gay teen is unable to function in a normal high school how will
they be able to function in the world?
> > we separate the gays from maintsream schools, then less non-gay
> > students will see them and interact with them, making the gay kids
> > appear even more alien.
>
> On the other hand, assume for a second that students attending this
> school reverse some of the trends associated with gay teens - i.e. high
> depression and suicide rates, and begin to perform at a much higher
> level. Surely we'd consider that a good thing, no?
How about they leave their sexuality outside of school and stop the
pissing ans whining and just focus on being a student.
>
> > I grew up in Manhattan (204th and Broadway), and I have never seen a
> > more diverse population of students... I grew up non-racist because I
> > saw every single race out there.
>
> And I grew up non-racist despite attending lily white rural schools and
> living on an ethnicly homogenous farm. I think the key to raising non-
> racist kids is non-racist parents.
>
> >.. I interacted with them on a daily
> > basis... there was nothing alien about a gay person, or a black or
> > latino person, they were all just peopl to me (some of them were
> > assholes, some were really cool)...
There is something alien about them if they make their sexuality an
issue. Same with the above - leave it at home and outside of work/school
because I don't give a damn what hole you are screwing. Just do the damn
homework or job.
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:ZFWVa.1289329$ZC.1...@news.easynews.com:
>
> > Doesn't this completely go against the idea behind desegregation?
>
> No. It is unrelated to the segregation and substandard education offered
> to minority students in prior years. This is far more akin to the wide
> variety of specialized optional schools offered students with particular
> needs, skills, or interests. No one is required to attend this school,
> and there is no reason to believe it will offer sub par programs.
>
On the contrary it will probably be better than average...
My problem lies in the purpose of desegregation (to the point of bussing)...
If you isolate groups of people so that they do not experience other
cultures, religions, races, orientations, whatever, you make it far more
easy for people to view them as foreign and alien...
The goal should be integration, to mainstream all those that are different
(to an extent...), so that people grow accustomed to others in such a way as
to view them as a normal occurence.
> > If
> > we separate the gays from maintsream schools, then less non-gay
> > students will see them and interact with them, making the gay kids
> > appear even more alien.
>
> On the other hand, assume for a second that students attending this
> school reverse some of the trends associated with gay teens - i.e. high
> depression and suicide rates, and begin to perform at a much higher
> level. Surely we'd consider that a good thing, no?
>
Possibly.
But by establishing a place for them that is separate, are we not
reinforcing the notion that they are odd and different? Doesn't this make it
less likely that mainstream society will accept them as equals?
> > I grew up in Manhattan (204th and Broadway), and I have never seen a
> > more diverse population of students... I grew up non-racist because I
> > saw every single race out there.
>
> And I grew up non-racist despite attending lily white rural schools and
> living on an ethnicly homogenous farm. I think the key to raising non-
> racist kids is non-racist parents.
>
That probably has a lot to do with it...
But, growing up not experiencing other cultures seems likely to foster fear
and distrust... most parents in rural areas are probably not as open-minded
as yours were... I see it daily in the people I meet who support
discriminating against groups of people that are different than they are...
> >.. I interacted with them on a daily
> > basis... there was nothing alien about a gay person, or a black or
> > latino person, they were all just peopl to me (some of them were
> > assholes, some were really cool)...
>
> Amazingly, I know just what you mean. People's people all over the world.
>
Right.... and you get a mix of cool and dick... no matter where you go...
> > If I had gone to an all-Jewish school (Yashiva or Keneret), I would
> > have not had that experience and would not have viewed those other
> > cultures the way I do now...
>
> So the yashive educated yet open-minded Jews I know who manage to
> interact well among the assorted goyim should be considered exceptions to
> the rule?
No, exceptions to the norm...
I had friends that went to Keneret in the Bronx, and they did not view
blacks and hispanics the way I did... I viewed them as people, they viewed
them as goyim...
I dated a black girl in High School... I took her to a party with my Jewish
friends and they asked me what I was doing with her... (I would tell them I
was trying to convince her to convert...)
> My best friend in college attended a military school - should I
> be amazed that he can interact with women?
To an extent, yes.
> How about my friends who
> attended the W when it was still a women's college - are they exceptional
> for being able to relate to men?
>
> While I'm glad you did well in a diverse school, and agree that diversity
> is a good and desireable thing, I'm not willing to say that that is the
> only good and desireable model for education, or single
> sex/religion/sexuality/ethnicity schools can't produce open-minded, well
> rounded graduates.
>
> After all, the school only has you for 35 hrs a week 9 months a year. We
> all still live in the real world, and TV, the internet, and ordinary
> business bring us into contact with the rest of humanity on a regular
> basis. Unless they're going to keep gay students locked in a cabin in
> Idaho somewhere, its a fair bet that they'll encounter the straight world
> and that the straight world will encounter them.
That doesn't seem to be happening.
While the SCOTUS seems to be going that way, Bush started a new rand of
anti-gay moves today...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/30CND-BUSH.html?hp
The fact that religious institutions around the country are teaching their
flocks to hate gay people isn't helping either...
Jonathan
David Johnston
>> > Doesn't this completely go against the idea behind desegregation?
>>
>> No. It is unrelated to the segregation and substandard education offered
>> to minority students in prior years. This is far more akin to the wide
>> variety of specialized optional schools offered students with particular
>> needs, skills, or interests. No one is required to attend this school,
>> and there is no reason to believe it will offer sub par programs.
>
>If a gay teen is unable to function in a normal high school how will
>they be able to function in the world?
The world is generally a gentler place than high school.
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If you eliminate gays from regular schools, that
>> won't eliminate bullying. It will just change the identity of the
>bullying
>> victims.
>
>This is why I don't think some school-shootings are necessarily a bad
>thing... If only bullies are being killed, I do not see the harm being done.
School shootings are rarely restricted to just bullies.
David Johnston
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>About people like George Washington and Kit Carson?
>
>So that would be American history. Not white history. George Washington
>wasn't the president of white people.
He sure as hell wasn't representing black people to the same extent.
Hunter Rose
> Gays don't need any special rights - they have chosen the lifestyle
> they lead.
This mantra is as persuasive as "Some of my best friends are
black" used to be.
> This is one dumb ass state I live in. I'll give Hillary's office a
> call tomorrow and bitch up a storm!
Hillary had nothing to do with this program, as far as I know,
so calling her office sounds like a particularly dumb ass thing to do.
HR
Hunter Rose
wrote:
> In article <21398-3F2...@storefull-2353.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> th...@webtv.net (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>> "When you talk about slavery, students need to understand it is not
>> our fault," she said. "Our ancestors did nothing wrong to be
>> enslaved. "How do you work through that when the person teaching it
>> is the same type of person who did the enslaving?"
> So this teacher is the "same type" of person as a slave trader
> merely because of the melanin content in her skin?
>
> Talk about racism....
Not to mention that the "same type of person who did the
enslaving" was most likely black. Many blacks were sold into slavery
by blacks from other tribes who had captured them.
HR
Jonathan
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3f28a688...@news.telusplanet.net...
And for that recklessness, the shooters should go to prison forever...
however, if they were a bit more careful in their target selection, I would
think a small fine would be in order...
You raise a bully, that bully torments kids in school for sport, that bully
gets a couple of hollow-points in his head... I would be the last person to
weep for him...
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Hunter Rose" <hun...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:968hivclg96js48ha...@4ax.com...
> > This is one dumb ass state I live in. I'll give Hillary's office a
> > call tomorrow and bitch up a storm!
>
> Hillary had nothing to do with this program, as far as I know,
> so calling her office sounds like a particularly dumb ass thing to do.
>
No it doesn't.
Jim lives in NY, Hillary Clinton is his Senator... if he has a complaint
about a government actiivty, it is perfectly within his rights to complain
to her...
Personally, I don't think Senators really serve their constituencies the way
Representatives do, and I would suggest he call his Congressman first.
jonathan
> HR
>
>
Userb3
news:bga60...@enews4.newsguy.com:
> My problem lies in the purpose of desegregation (to the point of
> bussing)... If you isolate groups of people so that they do not
> experience other cultures, religions, races, orientations, whatever,
> you make it far more easy for people to view them as foreign and
> alien...
Do you seriously believe that gay and straight New Yorkers will be
isolated from each other just because a couple hundred students attend an
optional school?
>> On the other hand, assume for a second that students attending this
>> school reverse some of the trends associated with gay teens - i.e.
>> high depression and suicide rates, and begin to perform at a much
>> higher level. Surely we'd consider that a good thing, no?
>>
>
> Possibly.
Possibly? You don't consider fewer teen suicides and reduced teen
depression a universal good thing?
> But by establishing a place for them that is separate, are we not
> reinforcing the notion that they are odd and different? Doesn't this
> make it less likely that mainstream society will accept them as
> equals?
No. Mainstream society will stil interact with GLBT people on an every
day basis. The few hours a day students spend in school won't change
society's awareness of them or vice versa. Remember, these are kids in a
big city going to school, not kids being shipped off to a camp somewhere.
> But, growing up not experiencing other cultures seems likely to foster
> fear and distrust... most parents in rural areas are probably not as
> open-minded as yours were... I see it daily in the people I meet who
> support discriminating against groups of people that are different
> than they are...
In my experience, racists are just as likely to be from urban areas and
base their position on experience with minorities as they are to base
their position on ignorance. The worst interracial/ethnic violence seems
to occur in cities, which makes me think that simple exposure isn't a
cure-all for xenophobia.
>> > If I had gone to an all-Jewish school (Yashiva or Keneret), I would
>> > have not had that experience and would not have viewed those other
>> > cultures the way I do now...
>>
>> So the yashive educated yet open-minded Jews I know who manage to
>> interact well among the assorted goyim should be considered
>> exceptions to the rule?
>
> No, exceptions to the norm...
On behalf of my yeshiva-educated friends, I take offense.
> I had friends that went to Keneret in the Bronx, and they did not view
> blacks and hispanics the way I did... I viewed them as people, they
> viewed them as goyim...
Obviously you and I run in different circles. Goyim and people are not
mutually exclusive in my mind. And somehow I suspect your friend's
attitudes had more to do with attitudes in their social circle than with
attending a Jewish school.
> I dated a black girl in High School... I took her to a party with my
> Jewish friends and they asked me what I was doing with her... (I would
> tell them I was trying to convince her to convert...)
You could get the same reaction from a wide variety of people. Blaming it
on your friends' school makes no sense. Interracial dating is still a hot
button for many people, and certain was in the past.
>> My best friend in college attended a military school - should I
>> be amazed that he can interact with women?
>
> To an extent, yes.
Why? He had a mother, a sister, female teachers at the academy, female
friends outside school, dated, watched TV and read books with female
characters, and had a normal social life outside of school. He simply
didn't have girls in the classroom. Why would that make it difficult to
interact with women?
>> After all, the school only has you for 35 hrs a week 9 months a year.
>> We all still live in the real world, and TV, the internet, and
>> ordinary business bring us into contact with the rest of humanity on
>> a regular basis. Unless they're going to keep gay students locked in
>> a cabin in Idaho somewhere, its a fair bet that they'll encounter the
>> straight world and that the straight world will encounter them.
>
> That doesn't seem to be happening.
Please - just last month, hundreds of thousands ofgay men and women
marched through the streets, gathered for festivals, and got front page
headlines for pridefests. Will and Grace is a Prime Time hit. Networks
use gay kisses as sweeps week gimmicks. Bravo gets rave reviews for gay
themed shows. Barney Franks sits in the US congress, and state and local
officials around the country are out of the closet. Every major city in
the country has gay bookstores and nightclubs. J-Lo is playing a lesbian
in her newest movie. While there's still a long way to go, I'd say that
anyone who is unaware of gays in America needs to pull their head out
from under a rock.
> While the SCOTUS seems to be going that way, Bush started a new rand
> of anti-gay moves today...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/30CND-BUSH.html?hp
>
> The fact that religious institutions around the country are teaching
> their flocks to hate gay people isn't helping either...
But note that those actions are drawing equaly strong reactions from the
other side. I suspect that gay rights may be ready to join abortion and
guns as a front running political issue. That tells me that there's
little doubt of anyone not having ample opportunities to encounter and
consider the issue
Annie Keitz
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:04:50 -0400, Annie Keitz <ke...@his.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ah but what *is* history?
>
>I believe you've mentioned before that you have a BA in History from
>Va Tech? I have one from that institution in Charlottesville. I think
>we both know the answer to your question on the university level. But
>on a HS level, where many Americans get all the formal history
>teaching they're ever going to get, you have to hit the high points,
>and that isn't a study of village-level crafts and inter-county
>barter. <g>
Oh yuck a Wahoo!!!!!!
The question comes down to who chooses what the "high points" are. I
think a mix of "Dead White Guys" and samples from non-traditional
sources would be better. Obviously more easily done for more recent
history but it still can be done for older periods of history.
> It's not simply what the leaders of a
>>particular time frame were doing. Even women in early American
>>history participated in society and contributed to the founding of the
>>country....
>
>Of course they did, in a very direct way. But as to participating in
>institutions that wielded the power--money, troops, votes--that built
>the gross culture we stand upon today they were bystanders and
>unofficial advisors. I happen to think HS girls get a lot more from a
>forceful teaching of that reality and a comparison to the world they
>know now than they do with curricula that desperately try to dig up a
>handful of extraordinary women (Molly Pitcher, Abigail Adams,
>Sacagawea et al) and leave an impression that they were typical.
Why does history have to be about "extraordinary" people? To me it's
about "all" people. Thus the children should learn about the hardships
of the typical colonial wife, not just about Molly Pitcher or Abigail
Adams.
Annie
Jim
I certainly would not agree that college teaches correct or even factual
history. My college was even more slanted the local high school because
the prof's were ultra left wing nut jobs. They make clinton, gore and
hillary look conservative.
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bga60...@enews4.newsguy.com:
>
> > My problem lies in the purpose of desegregation (to the point of
> > bussing)... If you isolate groups of people so that they do not
> > experience other cultures, religions, races, orientations, whatever,
> > you make it far more easy for people to view them as foreign and
> > alien...
>
> Do you seriously believe that gay and straight New Yorkers will be
> isolated from each other just because a couple hundred students attend an
> optional school?
>
Yes, if you establish special places for them to go that are not with
everyone else.
> >> On the other hand, assume for a second that students attending this
> >> school reverse some of the trends associated with gay teens - i.e.
> >> high depression and suicide rates, and begin to perform at a much
> >> higher level. Surely we'd consider that a good thing, no?
> >>
> >
> > Possibly.
>
> Possibly? You don't consider fewer teen suicides and reduced teen
> depression a universal good thing?
>
Not if they are forced (or choose) to live in an isolated, segregated
community... why are there gay areas of major cities? It is because gays
have been persecuted so vehemently in the past.
The solution is to mainstream them, make them so ordinary that they are not
particularly interesting... not to isolate them and cordon them off from the
rest of society.
> > But by establishing a place for them that is separate, are we not
> > reinforcing the notion that they are odd and different? Doesn't this
> > make it less likely that mainstream society will accept them as
> > equals?
>
> No. Mainstream society will stil interact with GLBT people on an every
> day basis. The few hours a day students spend in school won't change
> society's awareness of them or vice versa. Remember, these are kids in a
> big city going to school, not kids being shipped off to a camp somewhere.
>
We are also talking about formative years of their lives here, when their
prejudices are formed... Anyone they are not familiar with is going to be
perceived as different and alien.
> > But, growing up not experiencing other cultures seems likely to foster
> > fear and distrust... most parents in rural areas are probably not as
> > open-minded as yours were... I see it daily in the people I meet who
> > support discriminating against groups of people that are different
> > than they are...
>
> In my experience, racists are just as likely to be from urban areas and
> base their position on experience with minorities as they are to base
> their position on ignorance. The worst interracial/ethnic violence seems
> to occur in cities, which makes me think that simple exposure isn't a
> cure-all for xenophobia.
>
Not a cure-all... but certainly not something to be disregarded....
This was the purpose of integration... so that blacks and whites would
interact, so that it would be impossible for either side to say "those
people are weird and different..."
> > I dated a black girl in High School... I took her to a party with my
> > Jewish friends and they asked me what I was doing with her... (I would
> > tell them I was trying to convince her to convert...)
>
> You could get the same reaction from a wide variety of people. Blaming it
> on your friends' school makes no sense. Interracial dating is still a hot
> button for many people, and certain was in the past.
>
No one in my public school thought it was interesting enough to mention...
Why is that? Because they had seen so many interracial couples that it
wasn't even worth noting any more... Hell, I didn't see her as black...
(though she probably saw me as the cream-cheese cracker that I was...)
> >> My best friend in college attended a military school - should I
> >> be amazed that he can interact with women?
> >
> > To an extent, yes.
>
> Why? He had a mother, a sister, female teachers at the academy, female
> friends outside school, dated, watched TV and read books with female
> characters, and had a normal social life outside of school.
Then it wasn't a normal military school...
> >> After all, the school only has you for 35 hrs a week 9 months a year.
> >> We all still live in the real world, and TV, the internet, and
> >> ordinary business bring us into contact with the rest of humanity on
> >> a regular basis. Unless they're going to keep gay students locked in
> >> a cabin in Idaho somewhere, its a fair bet that they'll encounter the
> >> straight world and that the straight world will encounter them.
> >
> > That doesn't seem to be happening.
>
> Please - just last month, hundreds of thousands ofgay men and women
> marched through the streets, gathered for festivals, and got front page
> headlines for pridefests. Will and Grace is a Prime Time hit.
And I still haven't figured out why... It isn't very funny... I thought
Ellen was better.
And also, doesn't this somewhat prove my point?
Look at Will and Grace... have we ever seen Will kiss another man? Why not?
A few years ago, Ellen was getting ABC and Disney boycotted... Will and
Grace shows gay men who never do anything gay... and it is accepted...
You want me to believe that gays have come of age? Then let's see uncut
episodes of Queer As Folk air on NBC after Will and Grace...
> Networks
> use gay kisses as sweeps week gimmicks. Bravo gets rave reviews for gay
> themed shows.
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is a pretty good show, but it doesn't have
any legs... I can't see myself being interested for more than a few more
months...
Their new Gay dating show seems almost as sleazy as Married by America...
> Barney Franks sits in the US congress,
You mean "Barney Fag"? Dick Armey's more interesting moment...
> and state and local
> officials around the country are out of the closet. Every major city in
> the country has gay bookstores and nightclubs. J-Lo is playing a lesbian
> in her newest movie. While there's still a long way to go, I'd say that
> anyone who is unaware of gays in America needs to pull their head out
> from under a rock.
>
Americans are definitely aware of gays, no one is saying they aren't... but
look at the laws passed against them...
It is illegal for gays to adopt children in Florida, illegal for gays to get
the same legal rights as any hetero married couple (and now Bush wants the
DMA passed again, to make it really stick.. and a constitutional marriage
amendment is being presented...).
Gays haven't been under this kind of assault since the 1960s.
> > While the SCOTUS seems to be going that way, Bush started a new rand
> > of anti-gay moves today...
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/30CND-BUSH.html?hp
> >
> > The fact that religious institutions around the country are teaching
> > their flocks to hate gay people isn't helping either...
>
> But note that those actions are drawing equaly strong reactions from the
> other side.
You mean like the new Vatican move to get non-Christians to discriminate
against gays?
> I suspect that gay rights may be ready to join abortion and
> guns as a front running political issue.
I will agree there, but all of the polling I have seen recently seems to
suggest that gays are losing ground.
In all likelihood, we will probably see more legal gay bashing in the
future...
And if I ever meet a Log Cabin Republican, remind me to smack him.
> That tells me that there's
> little doubt of anyone not having ample opportunities to encounter and
> consider the issue
Negatively.
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:06:00 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:04:50 -0400, Annie Keitz <ke...@his.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah but what *is* history?
>>
>>I believe you've mentioned before that you have a BA in History from
>>Va Tech? I have one from that institution in Charlottesville. I think
>>we both know the answer to your question on the university level. But
>>on a HS level, where many Americans get all the formal history
>>teaching they're ever going to get, you have to hit the high points,
>>and that isn't a study of village-level crafts and inter-county
>>barter. <g>
>
>Oh yuck a Wahoo!!!!!!
But not a Gobbler. <g>
>The question comes down to who chooses what the "high points" are.
Well, committees do, but I think your question points to those forces
that shaped the nation and last into the present day, with a few
exceptions. There are so many of them to cover in a 189-day school
year that I don't se a lot of room for Colonial Sociology. We had some
of that in elementary school social studies, english, and reading
("Johnny Tremain", etc.) but US History was crammed into one required
11th grade course, and it was full. As usual, we got to WWII about
June 1st and raced through all the interesting stuff, but this was
Virginia, and the War of Northern Aggression had to have its full six
weeks.
I
>think a mix of "Dead White Guys" and samples from non-traditional
>sources would be better. Obviously more easily done for more recent
>history but it still can be done for older periods of history.
My books had some of this in sidebars. I hear the books these days are
ALL sidebars and pictures--no text. In Va. Beach's school system we'd
also had a grunch of this in earlier years through field trips to
Jamestown, Williamsburg, the Adam Thoroughgood House (oldest brick
building in North America), and Yorktown.
Out here in Minnesota folks think the world began in 1858 with
statehood, so the kids are robbed of some of that, but in the colonies
it's easier.
>Why does history have to be about "extraordinary" people? To me it's
>about "all" people.
That was the gist of my discussion with my friend. I'd say what you're
after might be archaeology, or soc., or maybe cultural history
(although most of them were dirt farmers and not artists), but history
at that level is about sweeping forces of change and motion forward,
not how butter got churned.
Thus the children should learn about the hardships
>of the typical colonial wife, not just about Molly Pitcher or Abigail
>Adams.
I'd say fine if we were graduation kids who knew what they need to
know to be effective voting citizens, but over half our seniors can't
place the Civil War within fifty years, don't know what the New Deal
was, and have never heard of MLK except that he has a holiday.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jim lives in NY, Hillary Clinton is his Senator... if he has a complaint
>about a government actiivty, it is perfectly within his rights to complain
>to her...
The Senate doesn't run school districts.
>Personally, I don't think Senators really serve their constituencies the way
>Representatives do, and I would suggest he call his Congressman first.
The House either.
Last week my a city councilman here was quoted bewailing the low
degree of civic understanding in the country. He said people are
always calling him wanting their federal income taxes lowered.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Userb3
news:POfWa.1365918$ZC.2...@news.easynews.com:
>
> "Userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93C969993C3...@207.14.113.17...
>> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bga60...@enews4.newsguy.com:
>>
>> > My problem lies in the purpose of desegregation (to the point of
>> > bussing)... If you isolate groups of people so that they do not
>> > experience other cultures, religions, races, orientations,
>> > whatever, you make it far more easy for people to view them as
>> > foreign and alien...
>>
>> Do you seriously believe that gay and straight New Yorkers will be
>> isolated from each other just because a couple hundred students
>> attend an optional school?
>
> Yes, if you establish special places for them to go that are not with
> everyone else.
For a few hours a day? Are you serious?
>> >> On the other hand, assume for a second that students attending
>> >> this school reverse some of the trends associated with gay teens -
>> >> i.e. high depression and suicide rates, and begin to perform at a
>> >> much higher level. Surely we'd consider that a good thing, no?
>> >
>> > Possibly.
>>
>> Possibly? You don't consider fewer teen suicides and reduced teen
>> depression a universal good thing?
>
> Not if they are forced (or choose) to live in an isolated, segregated
> community...
Who said anything about an isolated, segregated community?
> why are there gay areas of major cities? It is because
> gays have been persecuted so vehemently in the past.
No, that's why gays are careful and seek hate crime laws. The reason that
there are "gay areas" is that people with similar interests tend to
congregate in the same areas. Of course, this is far from a universal
phenomenon, and many gays live in the suburbs and even *gasp!* on the
farm.
> The solution is to mainstream them, make them so ordinary that they
> are not particularly interesting... not to isolate them and cordon
> them off from the rest of society.
Who's cordoning them off?
>> > But, growing up not experiencing other cultures seems likely to
>> > foster fear and distrust... most parents in rural areas are
>> > probably not as open-minded as yours were... I see it daily in the
>> > people I meet who support discriminating against groups of people
>> > that are different than they are...
>>
>> In my experience, racists are just as likely to be from urban areas
>> and base their position on experience with minorities as they are to
>> base their position on ignorance. The worst interracial/ethnic
>> violence seems to occur in cities, which makes me think that simple
>> exposure isn't a cure-all for xenophobia.
>
> Not a cure-all... but certainly not something to be disregarded....
>
> This was the purpose of integration... so that blacks and whites would
> interact, so that it would be impossible for either side to say "those
> people are weird and different..."
The current situation has nothing in common with racial segregation. Gay
students already attend school with everyone else. They're already
mainstreamed. the situation is that some of them would like to attend a
specifically gay-friendly school and feel a little more comfortable while
they're in math class. Seems to me that it'd be worth trying.
And, of course, most gay students will still be in mainstream schools.
For that matter, most of them are in the closet, and we'll never know who
they are unless they want us to.
>> > I dated a black girl in High School... I took her to a party with
>> > my Jewish friends and they asked me what I was doing with her... (I
>> > would tell them I was trying to convince her to convert...)
>>
>> You could get the same reaction from a wide variety of people.
>> Blaming it on your friends' school makes no sense. Interracial dating
>> is still a hot button for many people, and certain was in the past.
>
> No one in my public school thought it was interesting enough to
> mention... Why is that?
Because they didn't. Lots of public school grads have also populated
lynch mobs and race riots. I'm not buying your argument that attending a
yeshiva made one set of friends racists while another set of friends
became open-minded through public school attendance. Have you considered
that you may be getting the chicken and the egg reversed?
> Hell, I didn't see her as black...
All evidence to the contrary aside, I suppose. "Some of my best
friends..." and all that.
>> >> My best friend in college attended a military school - should I
>> >> be amazed that he can interact with women?
>> >
>> > To an extent, yes.
>>
>> Why? He had a mother, a sister, female teachers at the academy,
>> female friends outside school, dated, watched TV and read books with
>> female characters, and had a normal social life outside of school.
>
> Then it wasn't a normal military school...
Please. Do you actually know military school grads?
>> >> After all, the school only has you for 35 hrs a week 9 months a
>> >> year. We all still live in the real world, and TV, the internet,
>> >> and ordinary business bring us into contact with the rest of
>> >> humanity on a regular basis. Unless they're going to keep gay
>> >> students locked in a cabin in Idaho somewhere, its a fair bet that
>> >> they'll encounter the straight world and that the straight world
>> >> will encounter them.
>> >
>> > That doesn't seem to be happening.
>>
>> Please - just last month, hundreds of thousands ofgay men and women
>> marched through the streets, gathered for festivals, and got front
>> page headlines for pridefests. Will and Grace is a Prime Time hit.
>
> And I still haven't figured out why... It isn't very funny... I
> thought Ellen was better.
>
> And also, doesn't this somewhat prove my point?
No, it doesn't. You're arguing that homosexuals are some rarified bird
that most straights have never seen or heard of, and I'm giving examples
of mainstream culture's exposure to homosexuality.
> Look at Will and Grace... have we ever seen Will kiss another man?
Yes.
> You want me to believe that gays have come of age?
No, I want you to recognize that mainstream culture is well aware of
homosexuality and vice versa. That a couple hundred kids attending an
optional school won't rob New York kids of their opportunity to interact
with people of varying sexualities.
> Americans are definitely aware of gays, no one is saying they
> aren't...
Isn't that the basis of your argument that taking a couple hundred GLBT
kids out of mainstream NYC schools wil somehow harm the cause of open-
minded acceptance?
>> I suspect that gay rights may be ready to join abortion and
>> guns as a front running political issue.
>
> I will agree there, but all of the polling I have seen recently seems
> to suggest that gays are losing ground.
Look further.
> And if I ever meet a Log Cabin Republican, remind me to smack him.
Why? You'd make specific political views mandatory for gays?
BTW - I'm a card carrying member of the LCR. So smack me.
Userb3
>>Jim lives in NY, Hillary Clinton is his Senator... if he has a
>>complaint about a government actiivty, it is perfectly within his
>>rights to complain to her...
>
> The Senate doesn't run school districts.
>
>>Personally, I don't think Senators really serve their constituencies
>>the way Representatives do, and I would suggest he call his
>>Congressman first.
>
> The House either.
>
> Last week my a city councilman here was quoted bewailing the low
> degree of civic understanding in the country. He said people are
> always calling him wanting their federal income taxes lowered.
To be fair, however, if its an issue that gets your rep's attention, he
likely carries more sway with the school board than you do. Constituent
services is a big part of the job for most elected officials, and they
often make phone calls on behalf of people in their districts.
Steve Bartman
>To be fair, however, if its an issue that gets your rep's attention, he
>likely carries more sway with the school board than you do. Constituent
>services is a big part of the job for most elected officials, and they
>often make phone calls on behalf of people in their districts.
And the school district can politely take the call and then forget it
happened, federal education money and all. Seems better to call the
school superintendent, or, better, show up at a meeting with 500
friends. D.C. is not the answer to every problem.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
David Marc Nieporent
>>It's a dumb argument. Most of taught American history is about white
>>men because for most of American history white men operated the
>>institutions that make up classic historic topic areas: government,
>>economy, wars, exploration, religion, invention.
>Ah but what *is* history? It's not simply what the leaders of a
>particular time frame were doing. Even women in early American
>history participated in society and contributed to the founding of the
>country....
I think you're confusing history and sociology.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Hunter Rose
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Hunter Rose" <hun...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:968hivclg96js48ha...@4ax.com...
>> > This is one dumb ass state I live in. I'll give Hillary's office a
>> > call tomorrow and bitch up a storm!
>>
>> Hillary had nothing to do with this program, as far as I know,
>> so calling her office sounds like a particularly dumb ass thing to do.
>>
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>Jim lives in NY, Hillary Clinton is his Senator... if he has a complaint
>about a government actiivty, it is perfectly within his rights to complain
>to her...
And as US Senator, Hilary has nothing to do with the operation
of the NY school system. There are state representatives and senators
(or school boards) that can be complained to, who might even actually
be able to do something about it. Complaining to the US Senate about
a state matter is nothing more than obnoxious grandstanding.
HR
Annie Keitz
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <t5ugivsvremi5u5f0...@4ax.com>,
> Annie Keitz <ke...@his.com> wrote:
>>Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's a dumb argument. Most of taught American history is about white
>>>men because for most of American history white men operated the
>>>institutions that make up classic historic topic areas: government,
>>>economy, wars, exploration, religion, invention.
>
>>Ah but what *is* history? It's not simply what the leaders of a
>>particular time frame were doing. Even women in early American
>>history participated in society and contributed to the founding of the
>>country....
>
>I think you're confusing history and sociology.
Nope I'm arguing for socialist interpretation of history (not to be
confused with a history of socialism). Many cogs in the machine of
time have contributed to history. History is simply what came before
us and shouldn't be limited to some notion that only the "famous" or
"powerful" are historically relevant.
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
Jim
hun...@attglobal.net wrote:
I understand that Hillary has nothing to do with the operation of a local
school district - however - school districts receive a large amount of
Federal aid to operate. So I will/have complained to my US Senators and my
state legistlature.
Jonathan
"Jim" <j...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:jim-010803...@adppp33.buffnet.net...
No they don't.
I keep hearing about Federal education spending, and how this or that
president will be the "Education President"... The Federal Gov't provides
just 6% of local school budgets...
Jonathan
Jim
> > > And as US Senator, Hilary has nothing to do with the operation
> > > of the NY school system. There are state representatives and senators
> > > (or school boards) that can be complained to, who might even actually
> > > be able to do something about it. Complaining to the US Senate about
> > > a state matter is nothing more than obnoxious grandstanding.
> >
> >
> > I understand that Hillary has nothing to do with the operation of a local
> > school district - however - school districts receive a large amount of
> > Federal aid to operate. So I will/have complained to my US Senators and my
> > state legistlature.
>
>
> No they don't.
>
> I keep hearing about Federal education spending, and how this or that
> president will be the "Education President"... The Federal Gov't provides
> just 6% of local school budgets...
6% of my school district's 100 million dollar budget is 6 million
dollars. I don't know about you but that is significant. In my district
the school's actually receive more than this.
Additionally, there is another percentage that comes from state-aid, of
which a portion is given to the states by the federal government.
Ed Rhodes
news:bg99rm$ma9tg$1...@ID-90378.news.uni-berlin.de...> >> Some kids are bullies. If you eliminate gays from regular schools,
> >> that won't eliminate bullying.
>
> > regular, garden-variety bullying. You were a boy, once, same as me.
> > You know how difficult it was to come to the aid of someone thought to
> > be "fruity" (in my era; you're younger and have a different term no
> > doubt.)
>
> Fag would have been the term, I think -- though I think most of us started
> using it as a slur long before we knew what it meant.
I think it was Carlin who commentted; "A fag wasn't a queer... a fag was a
guy who wouldn't go down to the Village with you to beat up queers!"