Omar Currie is a 25-year old second-year third-grade elementary school teacher in Charlotte, NC. He noticed that one of the children in his class was being bullied and called ‘gay’ in a derogatory way by fellow students. In order to make the child feel that he was not alone and to teach children tolerance and acceptance, he recalled that he had heard in his teacher-education program about a book called King & King by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland that is a fable that tells the story of two princes who fall in love and get married. Since the class was reading fairy stories, he thought that book would make for a timely inclusion. The book was not available in his school library but his assistant principal had a copy and he borrowed it and read it to the class.
Well, you can guess what happened. When some parents got wind of it, they complained and said that parents should have been given notice about the book and the opportunity to have their children opt out before the book was read to the class.
A parent who does not have a child in Currie’s class came to the school to protest the book – and Currie – last Friday. Three sheriff’s deputies were present as a precaution, Sheriff Charles Blackwood said. The man exited the school but carried a protest sign along a nearby road.
Currie said administrators pulled him out of his classroom to tell him about the man. A short time later, he said, officials told him and another teacher who had taken their students outside for recess to come back indoors.
…Frederick McAdoo, 53, who attended the school in the late 1960s, has put three children through Efland-Cheeks. He saw the man with the sign on the road last week.
“It doesn’t fit in,” McAdoo said of reading a tale featuring gay characters to third-graders.
“People have been gay for years. People have been lesbian for years,” the retired power company worker said Thursday. “But why (does) a third-grader needs to know about that?”
Even though a committee that reviewed the complaint felt that the book was appropriate for the class, the school administration made a new rule that said that teachers had to provide parents with a list of all the books they will read in class, presumably so that they can identify those that are objectionable and raise a fuss.
As a result of the rule, Currie and the assistant principal who lent him the copy have resigned because they did not feel supported by the administration.
Somebody needs to tell these parents that are 3rd graders are not stupid. Children pick up more information than parents realize. Obviously, some picked up the idea from their parents that being gay is bad. Actually, what is probably upsetting these parents is the idea that their kids will learn to be tolerant of people who are gay.
But they already know about it. The story was all about how some of the students were bullying others with gay slurs. So, the question isn’t whether the students should know, but in what context they should learn about it. Should we tell them this is normal or should we tell them to hate gay people?
That’s the question here and anyone who opposes mentioning homosexuality in school is, whether they realize it or not, supporting the latter view. They’re supporting the notion that homosexuality is something abnormal that can’t be mentioned without special exceptions or permissions, instead of the entirely normal and natural thing it is.
I find this exactly like sex education and my child’s school notifies me when this occurs and we (my wife & I) decide if this is appropriate for his/her age and/or if it meets our standards and morals of what we wish to teach our child. We are traditional Christians and thou you may hate us we believe that choosing to be LGBT is wrong. You are welcome in our church just as all sinners are welcome. I am a sinner myself and hope to one day follow in Jesus’ foot steps and sin no more. I believe in equal rights but do not believe in teaching that sin is acceptable. I will never agree with two men or two women being married just as multiple people being married or an adult and a child being married is correct or should be legal but I know the left is chomping at the bit for this next wave of lawsuits. The day my church says this type of behavior is acceptable is the day I will believe it so. Tolerance classes should be taken by those on the far left to recognize that those of us on the far right have a choice to agree or disagree with them and they can’t do anything about it. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman = baby and any other manipulation of the formula nets you zero.
dano, why would anyone deliberately choose to be a member of a group that is so mistreated by society? People discover who they are and seek ways to find happiness while being true to themselves.
Anyway, you may think whatever you want. If you disagree with same sex marriage, by all means don’t marry a member of your own sex. Nobody is forcing you. However bullying behavior against someone who is just living their life and not harming you in any way is wrong.
dano,
Same-sex marriage is now officially recognized as a Constitutional right for every American.
You don’t like that fact.
Too bad.
Well, dano, you choose to be a member of that church, and believe your beliefs. I don’t believe that your beliefs are right or acceptable, and you know what? I don’t expect you to give a damn. I don’t object to my kids learning that people like you exist. I will not refuse to serve you in any restaurant that I may hypothetically own, or attack your beliefs in class should you show up at my college, nor will I refuse to acknowledge your marriage.
Dano has c&p’d that rant before on FTB, and probably elsewhere, very bot-like.
If third-graders don’t need to know, then don’t send them to school, you stupid fuck.
dano
The day my church says this type of behavior is acceptable is the day I will believe it so.
See, that’s where you and I are different: I prefer to think for myself.
So, what does this mean in practice? If I teach a child not to shout obscenities at gay people, am I teaching them that sin is acceptable or just common decency? Doesn’t state recognition of gay marriage constitute an acceptance of it? Given that the state has accepted gay marriage, shouldn’t children be taught this fact? Children should be taught about the laws of their country, even the ones you disagree with, right?
You don’t have to agree. You can think whatever you like. You just have to learn treat other people with respect, even if you disagree with them.
Good for you! A lot of people carry around wrong-headed beliefs for their whole lives, so I’m glad to see that you’re willing to change. Based on what I’ve seen with similar issues like segregation and interracial marriage, I’m guessing that your church will change their position sometime in the next 10-15 years.
I’m a radical leftist and I’ve already figured out that I can’t do anything about people who disagree with me. Is that all that your classes would cover, or are there some other subtleties I still need to learn?
Here are some resources on Teaching Tolerance put together by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I believe in equal rights, but gay people are not entitled to equal rights. Such coherence!
The day my church says this type of behavior is acceptable is the day I will believe it so.
So, you are incapable of forming your own opinions? Sad.
You do not have the right to keep your children ignorant. Your children are not your slaves. You are not their master. You are their guardian, and they are your wards. It is the duty of you and the rest of us to ensure that your children are educated about the world, about the way that other people think, about other religions and their practices, etc.
And hopefully, via simple education about the ways that other people think, the bigotry which you express will be exposed to the light of day and extinguished.
#3 dano:
Huh. I also think this is exactly like sex education, and in both cases, I believe parents should most definitely not have the option to decide against having their children participate. Another similar case would be evolution. I have yet to hear any good argument for such options.
In general, I’m extremely dubious about religious (or other ideological) exemptions. They are almost never a good idea. (And I’m not positive about “almost” belonging in that sentence.) It is pretty much by definition a bad idea for general rules to depend in any way on the personal beliefs of the people impacted.
GOD WANTS YOU SHELTERED AND TERRIFIED, MINDLESS SHEEP