FaceCalifornia. Repeatedly.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/cal...gbt.education/

Quote:

---

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday he had signed a bill that will require public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas.

---

Me: "Why not let them teach what they think is best, instead of throwing your own insane biased agenda into law?"


This is a good one:

Quote:

---

California law already requires state schools to teach about the contributions of Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans, among other groups.

"Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Americans," Sen. Leno said in a statement.

---

So.... forcing inclusion (for what I assume is at least every single student year) is now the same as preventing exclusion? Good one.

:) I can has lolgic? :)

This should possibly be in the huge California thread, not sure.

I don't think it's really budget related. States often set curriculums, and often set them to appeal to political bases.

Yeah, but it's just twisted. There should have been a public debate on this; instead the governor just signed it into law after presumably it was voted on in Sacramento... well, this is what you get when you don't actually look at the politicians you are voting for.

And those who want their children to be educated in actual un-biased history get burned because of these irresponsible voters. It just sickens me when that sort of stuff (groupthink, I'd say) happens locally, but on a state-wide scale of such a huge state?

There was a news cycle about it over there, but their elected representatives voted it in.

More specifically, what kind of bias would there be? That homosexuality is a sin? To some extent schools do moralize on the side of tolerance. That's really nothing new and probably for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

More specifically, what kind of bias would there be? That homosexuality is a sin?

---

That is my point. It's like when the history books (that I read) "forgot" to mention that Julius Caesar was possibly gay because he's had a relationship with this boy or that regent... do we really care about teaching kids details like this, when they won't even remember who Julius Caesar was?

Forget Julius Caesar, what will probably happen is that the history books will have sections on random unimportant obscure people who may have been "LGBT", and those sections will emphasize that they are "LGBT".

The history curriculum is already pathetic for students who have a choice and choose the "easy" curriculum in MA, as opposed to the mid or hard courses. (Apparently MA has the highest % of college grads in the country).

I shudder to think that the "easy" curriculums are standard practice in some states, perhaps parts of CA, and they are just going to add random stuff in there to please the governor's fairy-tale laws.

Forcing inclusion does prevent exclusion, laugh out loud. I really don't see this as a big deal, it's kind of odd it's mandatory, but I don't see it as bad or taking from education at all.

I'm not sure if I'm more confused by whats upsetting agamemnus, or by what "facecalifornia" is supposed to mean :confused:

A shortening of Facepalm @ California I'd imagine.

Hey Aggie, Alan Turing was gay.

The idea aga could just be that the belittling of the fagellas as weaklings and nancies kinda gets cut out at the knees when it is pointed out that some of the most powerful/smartest people in the world of the time may have sucked cock too...

duh

Maybe it might make life a little easier for the troubled youngsters. Mexicans, gay people... are there any minorities you DON'T want to continue punishing, Aggie? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

Forcing inclusion does prevent exclusion, laugh out loud. I really don't see this as a big deal, it's kind of odd it's mandatory, but I don't see it as bad or taking from education at all.

---

Forcing inclusion prevents exclusion, but it also forces topics and people in that would otherwise have not made it in because they are actually irrelevant/insignificant, see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hey Aggie, Alan Turing was gay.

---

Ok, so say that Turing was gay. But turing machines are not a subject in high school history, as far as I know. Maybe in Computer Science. But should we really care whether he was gay? "No!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Forcing inclusion prevents exclusion, but it also forces topics and people in that would otherwise have not made it in because they are actually irrelevant/insignificant, see?

---

So your problem now is that the students are at risk for learning to much? I've never had to use algebra or calculus outside of school, does that make those subjects irrelevant/insignificant?

Quote:

---

Ok, so say that Turing was gay. But turing machines are not a subject in high school history, as far as I know. Maybe in Computer Science. But should we really care whether he was gay? "No!"

---

I didn't see anything that stated their personal life had to be made known, only that their accomplishments can't be ignored because of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Forcing inclusion prevents exclusion, but it also forces topics and people in that would otherwise have not made it in because they are actually irrelevant/insignificant, see?



Ok, so say that Turing was gay. But turing machines are not a subject in high school history, as far as I know. Maybe in Computer Science. But should we really care whether he was gay? "No!"

---

His work was among the more important in winning the war as well as bringing about the modern age. he was also hassled like you wouldn't believe for his homosexuality and after undergoing forced "treatments" finally ended up committing suicide. There's a lot to think about in that story, even for highschoolers. History, sociology, philosophy, psychology, whatevs

And we should care that he was gay because otherwise kids will grow up thinking that no awesome men have been gay. Their default position will be that awesome men are straight, gay men are not awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I didn't see anything that stated their personal life had to be made known, only that their accomplishments can't be ignored because of it

---

Well, you looked at it incorrectly. It stated that "their accomplishments" HAVE to be included (in perhaps every history/literature course??), even if they are not important or the status of that individual is rumor... forcing inclusion IS NOT THE SAME as not permitting exclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

And we should care that he was gay because otherwise kids will grow up thinking that no awesome men have been gay. Their default position will be that awesome men are straight, gay men are not awesome.

---

Fantasy. Don't educate kids to be stupid and they won't have that default position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Well, you looked at it incorrectly. It stated that "their accomplishments" HAVE to be included (in perhaps every history/literature course??), even if they are not important or the status of that individual is rumor... forcing inclusion IS NOT THE SAME as not permitting exclusion.

---

and you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Law (and yeah, I'm not fixing all this editing)

INTRODUCED BY Senator Leno
(Principal coauthor: Senator Kehoe)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Atkins, Gordon,
and Lara)
(Coauthors: Senators Hancock, Pavley, and Yee)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Allen, Blumenfield, Fong, Galgiani,
Hayashi, Huffman, Mendoza, Portantino, and Yamada)

DECEMBER 13, 2010

An act to amend Sections 51204.5, 51500, 51501, 60040, and 60044
of the Education Code, relating to instruction.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 48, as introduced, Leno. Instruction: prohibition of
discriminatory content.
Existing law requires instruction in social sciences to include a
study of the role and contributions of both men and women to the
development of California and the United States.
This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also
include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans,
African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific
Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups, to the
development of California and the United States.
Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities
that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex,
color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law
prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any
school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional
materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon
persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national
origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in
these provisions to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion,
disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other
characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law prohibits a governing board from adopting
instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely
upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin,
ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian
or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in
this provision to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion,
disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other
characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials
for use in the schools, governing boards shall include materials that
accurately portray the role and contribution of culturally and
racially diverse groups including Native Americans, African
Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans
to the total development of California and the United States.
This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse
groups to also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups.
Existing law provides that there shall be no discrimination on the
basis of specified characteristics in any operation of alternative
schools or charter schools.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that
alternative and charter schools take notice of the provisions of this
bill in light of provisions of existing law that prohibit
discrimination in any aspect of their operation.
This bill also would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

and you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about

---

Your post just confirmed what the article said, and what I simply repeated..?? So, back at ya, pal.

Quote:

---

This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also
include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans,
African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific
Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups, to the
development of California and the United States.

---

What the hell aga. This:

Quote:

---

This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also
include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans,
African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific
Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans, and other ethnic and cultural groups, to the
development of California and the United States.

---

does not mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Well, you looked at it incorrectly. It stated that "their accomplishments" HAVE to be included (in perhaps every history/literature course??), even if they are not important or the status of that individual is rumor...

---

This bill is stating that certain people can't and should not be ignored because of several reasons that might upset conservative fundies. It, at no point, states every gay, female, mexican, or any other group of people have to be in included just to be included. This is why the bill mentions no discrimination. This thing was already on the books for several groups, notice how it says "existing law"? Its only expanding that dicrimination protection to more groups of people. I don't know about you, but I didn't waste away in high school learning about millions of non-important african americans or oppressed women.

There is a reason this bill carries the "history should be honest" tagline.

Basically, this bill is stating that Edison shouldn't be favored over someone like Telsa, even though Edison is a better image of what a true blooded white american is all about. Because, honestly, Edison was a lying, thieving, asshole, and Telsa was a fucking genius badass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

What the hell aga. This: <snip> does not mean <snip>

---

Can we agree to disagree, then? If it only wanted to do what you said it should, then the bill would be a lot smaller and just say what you just said.

Quote:

---

There is a reason this bill carries the "history should be honest" tagline.

---

What's the point of textbook writers and all those highly paid school boards if California is just going to legislate to them every single aspect of what they should have thought of in the first place?

Quote:

---

Basically, this bill is stating that Edison shouldn't be favored over someone like Tesla, even though Edison is a better image of what a true blooded white american is all about. Because, honestly, Edison was a lying, thieving, asshole, and Tesla was a fucking genius badass.

---

Well...

Edison: lightbulbs. YOU CAN SEE IT IN YOUR HOUSE.
Tesla: crazy radio waves and death-ray man. WHUT'S A RADIO, HURR?

I just don't see any evidence of some cabal that decides who is a true-blooded white American and who isn't, and then writes textbooks on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Ok, so say that Turing was gay. But turing machines are not a subject in high school history, as far as I know. Maybe in Computer Science. But should we really care whether he was gay? "No!"

---

What the measure really means and is for is that at some point, the state history curriculum is supposed to mention Harvey Milk. It's Bay Area fan service. It's not going to make the curriculum any worse. It probably won't make it any better either, mind, but it's not going to make it worse. Finally, are you a Californian? I thought there were only two of us on here. If you're not Californian, and if this change isn't going to make our curriculum any worse, then may I kindly ask you to remove your nose from our business?

I see. Interesting take... perhaps you are right.

I don't live in California, but I live pretty close, ideologically speaking. I live in the Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts. (that's a joke... but I do live in Massachusetts.) If California is going to have such laws (I know it's only a "refinement" of the current law), then Massachusetts shouldn't be far behind, in theory...

I don't think he needs to be californian to comment, but I really just don't see this as impactful. If done right it could be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

What the measure really means and is for is that at some point, the state history curriculum is supposed to mention Harvey Milk. It's Bay Area fan service. It's not going to make the curriculum any worse. It probably won't make it any better either, mind, but it's not going to make it worse. Finally, are you a Californian? I thought there were only two of us on here. If you're not Californian, and if this change isn't going to make our curriculum any worse, then may I kindly ask you to remove your nose from our business?

---

You really want to use that standard for discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Fantasy. Don't educate kids to be stupid and they won't have that default position?

---

Do you think that 99% of all kids ever educated have been "educated to be stupid"? They weren't stupid, they simply were not exposed to everything there is to know. Leave them alone and they'll only learn that which they're frequently exposed to. Men are doers, women are weepers, gay people dress and speak funny and only work with music and fashion.

I think it comes down to what a society thinks is the purpose of History at the secondary school level. According to the NY Times article on the topic, the people who passed this law seem to think that it's to teach about "the diversity of experience", not to focus on the most influential events and people. While that might or might not be a valid objective, it's dishonest to claim that it won't attract from the other objective mentioned. Days spent learning about obscure gay/black/Latino/etc. leaders are days that are not spent learning about major historical figures or events. The goal of this legislation isn't to point out that Alexander might have been gay, but rather to add people like Harvey Milk to the curriculum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Can we agree to disagree, then? If it only wanted to do what you said it should, then the bill would be a lot smaller and just say what you just said.

---

Alright, so you don't know how to read bills, or how bills are written.
This bill is short, less than a page in length, and if you take out the legal speak where it has to repeat the same phrases and introduction every other line, its made even smaller.

Quote:

---

Edison: lightbulbs. YOU CAN SEE IT IN YOUR HOUSE.
Tesla: crazy radio waves and death-ray man. WHUT'S A RADIO, HURR?

---

this is an awesome example of what I was talking about. such an ignorant recall of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You really want to use that standard for discussion?

---

What "superficial, has no relevance to anyone not directly involved, there is no reason for anyone else to care, so why are you ranting"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think it comes down to what a society thinks is the purpose of History at the secondary school level. According to the NY Times article on the topic, the people who passed this law seem to think that it's to teach about "the diversity of experience", not to focus on the most influential events and people. While that might or might not be a valid objective, it's dishonest to claim that it won't attract from the other objective mentioned. Days spent learning about obscure gay/black/Latino/etc. leaders are days that are not spent learning about major historical figures or events. The goal of this legislation isn't to point out that Alexander might have been gay, but rather to add people like Harvey Milk to the curriculum.

---

Major historical figures. . . almost always a pointless exercise in rote memorization. The who, the where, and the when are the least useful, most trivia-based areas of knowledge in history education. The what and they why are the only questions that matter. The others merely serve to help keep track of things and give them some context. So of course history education is primarily composed of the first three :rolleyes: