FaceCalifornia. Repeatedly.

[agamemnus]

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

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:

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?

[agamemnus]

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

[Dreadnaught]

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

[agamemnus]

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?

[Dreadnaught]

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.

[agamemnus]

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.

[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.

[agamemnus]

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?

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!"

[Ominous Gamer]

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?

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

[Aimless]

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

[LittleFuzzy]

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?

[Ominous Gamer]

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

[Timbuk2]

A shortening of Facepalm @ California I'd imagine.

[Aimless]

Hey Aggie, Alan Turing was gay.

[Veldan Rath]

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

[Aimless]

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?

[agamemnus]

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...

[Lebanese Dragon]

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.

[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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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

[agamemnus]

So of course history education is primarily composed of the first three

I don't think that is a universal effect, but it seems to be pretty common. It's much easier for teachers to give a multiple choice test on what date Alexander first battled the Persians than to ask students to write about the lasting impact of Alexander's empire.

It's also easier to grade multiple choice tests.

It's also easier to teach those.

Thus it goes back to teacher quality (and student quality), not some indomitable tendency towards mediocrity.

[Loki]

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

You can't learn the why and the how until you know the who and what.

[LittleFuzzy]

You can't learn the why and the how until you know the who and what.

You can't learn without the what, but I said the what. How is usually not closely explained in history education, that's pretty much on the learner to figure out. The who is usually interchangeable and hence not all that meaningful. Like the when, it only serves to keep events separated and tracked accurately in all but rare cases. You're the IR realist, but now you're trying to claim that it's the person who matters and not the situation?

[Loki]

You can't learn without the what, but I said the what. How is usually not closely explained in history education, that's pretty much on the learner to figure out. The who is usually interchangeable and hence not all that meaningful. Like the when, it only serves to keep events separated and tracked accurately in all but rare cases. You're the IR realist, but now you're trying to claim that it's the person who matters and not the situation?

I'm not talking about what matters more. I'm saying that one can't appreciate historical events without knowing some basics about the actors and the situation.

Major historical events and concepts rarely revolve around a single person. How much of history consists of being in the right place at the right time? and history is so rarely written by the deeds of a single name. Students (and its not only their fault), at least in America, have an extremely hard time understanding history as a conceptual experience (the why), and usually end up requiring some sort of labeling, which ends up being the "who"

Take the light bulb and modern electricity for example. So commonly tied to Edison's name, when honestly, it should be taught as a result of the industrial research laboratory.

It doesn't hurt to know some of the people responsible for the invention and a rough idea of the context (including a rough date) when it took place. Without that basic information, the conceptual learning is much more difficult to achieve. Try getting someone to understand WWI when they don't know most of the countries involved, the leaders of those countries, or even the time period during which it took place.

And let's be honest here, the kind of concepts taught to high schoolers are inevitably so simplified as to be caricatures. I'm prefer someone knew the basic facts when they came to college than if they came to college with no knowledge of facts along with a warped idea of historical processes.

[Ominous Gamer]

Major historical events and concepts rarely revolve around a single person. How much of history consists of being in the right place at the right time? and history is so rarely written by the deeds of a single name. Students (and its not only their fault), at least in America, have an extremely hard time understanding history as a conceptual experience (the why), and usually end up requiring some sort of labeling, which ends up being the "who"

Take the light bulb and modern electricity for example. So commonly tied to Edison's name, when honestly, it should be taught as a result of the industrial research laboratory.

[agamemnus]

Well, I'm sure 95% of us remember that it was Archduke Ferdinand who was assassinated, but it's not really important. However, you should be able to know at least which major countries fought on which sides because the end result of whether they won or lost (and the war and armistice affected them) is the building block of WWII and eventually modern history.

[Loki]

Ok, less time learning about context of WWI, more time learning about San Francisco gay rights movement.

[GGT]

History and Literature get short-changed. It's amazing we're still on the K-12 + 4 year degree plan, after so many added decades of historical world changes. We should either add school days to each year, summer school, year-round or another whole year. There's just too much to cram in now without glossing over or ignoring huge chunks of time.

[Ominous Gamer]

History and Literature get short-changed. It's amazing we're still on the K-12 + 4 year degree plan, after so many added decades of historical world changes. We should either add school days to each year, summer school, year-round or another whole year. There's just too much to cram in now without glossing over or ignoring huge chunks of time.

Thats why we have world history (WWI) and american history (gay rights) as different classes in most curriculums. Loki's current issue sounds like the same moaning people had when schools started beginning their american history classes at the beginning, then ending, of the Civil War.

[Dreadnaught]

I have no objection to the general concept of teaching the experiences of various groups. I think my only objection is the law could be used to fuel never-ending lawsuits from interest groups that their particular group isn't being properly represented/included.