Contributor Opinion By Theresa Defino: A Rotten Phone Call
Oct 29, 2010 8:55 - 26 Comments
Posted by: Brad Rourke
Department: Contributor Opinion,Opinion
Tags: by Theresa Defino, election 2010, politics
Department: Contributor Opinion,Opinion
Tags: by Theresa Defino, election 2010, politics
This Contributor Opinion is by Theresa Defino:
Photo by Brad Rourke
I was on the phone when the call came in, and not recognizing the number, I let it go to voicemail. I was surprised that the unknown caller actually left a message. When I heard it, my surprise turned to anger.
“Hi, are you frustrated with your elected officials?” she asked. Well, sometimes I am, with some….but which ones was she talking about?
“Recently, [the caller went on] The Washington Post exposed how the powerful teachers union controls the Apple Ballot. Because the Apple Ballot wins big in Montgomery county, candidates at all levels depend on it to get elected. Candidates can pay up to $6000 to the union.
Voters trust the teachers handing out the big Red Apple ballots and vote for the union-suggested candidates. But are they voting for the teachers’ choice? No, it’s the union’s choice.
Officials who depend on the Apple Ballot to get elected feel compelled to listen to the teachers’ union instead of voters. The Washington Post has called the apple ballot a toxic influence in Montgomery County.
Don’t be fooled by glossy candidate mailings that appear to be from candidates but are really from the MCEA [Montgomery County Education Association] union.
Teachers are great, but union control of Montgomery County is not. Learn more at rottenappleballot.com. Rotten apple ballot.com.”
Then she mumbled something fast about “removal from calls, press eight.”
Well, thanks, I don’t want any more calls like this, I thought, but you can’t press eight on a voice mail message.
I was stunned. By now I am used to robo calls but I usually expect to be told who to vote for, not against.
And I usually can easily tell who the message is from. I know that the electoral system, in my view, has recently been polluted since the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision allowing the funding of ads by shadowy groups, but so far they’ve been about a candidates by name. Not this one.
I immediately went to the rottenappleballot.com website and was confronted with a huge, ugly photograph of-you guessed it. The only name I could find on the site was Ruth Jacobs, who identified herself as an “M.D.” with Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government. I had never heard of her, or them.
After hunting around on the site, I still knew nothing about the organization behind this effort. More importantly, the message I again got was this: Vote against anyone on the Apple Ballot.
How’s that for educating the voters?
Wanting to know more, I dialed 301-641-4678 the number captured by caller ID, and heard an annoyed-sounding message from a woman saying to contact the organization by email only, and thanking me for “not leaving a message.” That’s rich-she can call me, but I can’t call her.
The phone message and the website made me furious for a number of reasons. The statement that candidates pay to be endorsed is patently false. The statement that elected officials listen only to the union and not voters is not only false , it’s nonsensical. Do union members not count as voters?
Two years ago, I was one of a handful of people who helped Laura Berthiaume get elected to the Board of Education. Laura was endorsed by MCEA but did not give the union a dime. She never was and two years later still is not beholden to the union. While critical of the union, The Post, by the way, never used the word “toxic” and made it clear that a number of candidates had not given MCEA money. And a 400-word editorial is not an “expose.”
When The Washington Post editorial board printed its “expose” of MCEA, Laura responded, noting that it is outgoing Superintendent Jerry Weast, not the board, that has “the coziest” relationship with the union.
The admonition to voters to “not be fooled” into thinking candidate materials came from the candidates shows basic distain for voters’ intellect. What I get from MCEA says MCEA and it’s not glossy. And what I get from candidates is from the candidates; I’m pretty sure I can tell the difference.
I also don’t buy that Montgomery County is “controlled” by this union or any other union. Seriously, the whole county? Why not mention the firefighters’ union or any other group that makes endorsements?
And really, I can’t even vote for folks who are running unopposed? Apparently I only have the rotten apples’ permission to vote in the District 3 County Council election, because MCEA didn’t endorse anyone in that race.
This “Maryland Citizens’” negative and deeply cynical message, right before the election, gave me a stomach ache, just like from eating a rotten apple.
Sure, I’ve voted for candidates on the Apple Ballot in the past and I am sure I will again. I’ve also given my support to those, such as Cheryl Kagan, who did not win that endorsement.
But I decide who to vote for, after studying the issues and candidates as best I can. And I surely won’t vote against an entire slate just because one decidedly unpleasant, semi-anonymous phone caller told me I should.
Theresa Defino
This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!
Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.
I, for one, think it is a matter of freedom of speech as protected by our Constitution. The Supreme Court decision to which you refer not only allows Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government the freedom to send their message, but also other “shadowy groups” such as Moveon.org (funded mostly by George Soros who makes his money internationally) to fund ads with their message.
No matter what your political ilk - go out and vote! Vote for the party and candidate of your choice. Inform yourself on the candidates and their platforms and vote your conscience.
Gerry Cashin
Card-carrying Republican in Montgomery County
I think we should demand the truth in campaign materials and full disclosure as to who is behind various messages. Move-on is hardly a shadowy group.
It is a disservice to those who want to be educated about the issues to receive calls that only tell you who NOT to vote for, and never discuss a substantive issue. And websites that do that same.
That weakens our democracy and I can’t imagine even a “card-carrying Republican” could disagree with that.
“Freedom of speech” is a sad premise to hide behind when spreading fear and mistrust and opinion thinly veiled as fact, in some cases bordering on slander. Quotes out of context, in many instances blatant mis-quotes, but once they’re out there, they can’t be un-heard or un-read.
And before the next election I’d either like an opt-out option for political pre-recorded phone calls or I’ll be turning off my phone ringer for about 6 weeks before the next election. Dinnertimes and kids’ bedtimes have been interrupted more than enough for me lately.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020404421.html
Here’s the post article the call appeared to be quoting.
They use the words toxic to describe the apple ballot.
The message on my home phone about the Rotten Apple ballot annoyed me. After working the Early Elections I came home late to listen to my phone messages. I was more concerned about the important missed calls since I was not reachable by phone all day. Thank goodness I didn’t get this call on my prepaid cell phone because it would cost me minutes to listen to it. Do cell phone users appreciate these types of robo calls?
I appreciated Ms. Defino’s report because I was not able to concentrate on the entire message. As a rule, I don’t take the apple ballots recommendations serious. I assumed this robo call was intended to attack the apple endorsements. I wonder if the attack is more about the union where there are disagreements among its members.
It is interesting how a group presents their point of view by selecting one specific issue to attack. The public don’t get all the facts and they don’t have the time to investigate. That is why groups select their hot issues to get people’s attention.
Mr. Cashin I am with you about our Freedom of Speech, but get annoyed with long robo calls. I do delete them. I thought if we are on the “Do Not Call” list we would not get these types of calls.
I am an unaffiliated registered voter and support the Tea Party movement. Unfortunately, the Tea Party people are being attacked very unfairly and the mainstream media is bias to the two big political parties.
Ms. Stahl I hope I don’t have to turn my phone off to avoid those unwanted robo calls. You have good reason to request peace at home.
If you’re opposed to what the phone call says then do exactly as you did and research the issue and make a choice for yourself. And now you’re doing exactly what the phone call was doing, spouting an opinion to those who may or may not want to hear it. I’m grateful for the phone calls I’ve received during this election season as they have intrigued me, on occassion, to research the candidate or issue a bit further so I can make an informed decision on my own. I think they’ve served a purpose…I don’t trust everything I hear and I don’t hold everyone else in the world accountable for presenting the truth, I’m not naive.
I guess the short and long of this is, I don’t see a problem with the phone call, regardless of its message. I think you’re in charge of what you do with the call and if anger is your response (as you stated above) then that is your issue to deal with. Hopefully you can take your anger and make something positive from it.
ms. sellers,
as i noted, i had already been informed about this election long before this call and did not find it in anyway helpful.
i am not “spouting my opinion” or doing what the caller did-she invaded my home and expressed falsehoods, distortion and misinformation designed to cause confusion among voters.
here i author a written opinion piece on a blog. does this blog invade your privacy somehow?
i was trying to balance what the robo call said with facts that i know personally, and to educate others about this call who may not know what i know.
i have to laugh also at your statement that i need to “do” something positive with my anger.
i did, and you read my positive response! what will you do with yours?
Thank you Theresa Rickman for providing the link to the Post article titled “In Montgomery County, the teachers union and its toxic influence”. I think the disconnect is that Mrs. Defino is using a different Washington Post article then the one referred to by the phone call and on the home page of the Rotten Apple website. In my view the Washington Post not only confirms everything Mrs. Defino heard in the phone call but goes further. I think this is a useful campaign designed to inform voters. I am not a big fan of automated calls but it seems the information provided in this one is something voters should know.
My purpose was to decry the lost opportunity to educate voters. It is of no value to say vote against endorsed candidates without commenting on the merits of the candidates and offering alternatives.
I apologize that I was not aware that the Post had written an earlier editorial using the word “toxic.” I stand corrected on that point.
I would like to provide a little more context.
It took me a while, but I have since learned why this group is making these calls. It actually has little to do with the union itself. Martha Schaeer, a candidate for the Board of Education, District 5, is against Mike Durso. Ms. Schaeer was not endorsed by the teachers’ union.
The organization behind the “rotten ballot” website is Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, run by Ruth Jacobs, who supported Ms. Schaeer’s organization in failed attempts against MCPS’ sex ed cirriculum. Ms. Jacobs also testified against DC’s gay marriage law, arguing it would lead to more cases of AIDS.
Please note that even though BOE members run in districts, voting is COUNTY-WIDE. It is also non-partisan-candidates don’t list their party affiliation.
Quoting from the Gazette:
But Schaerr is a “stealth” candidate who is deliberately hiding anti-homosexual views that she knows to be unpopular in the county, said David Fishback, an Olney resident who helped the school system write the sex education curriculum in the past.
“She should have the courage to talk about it,” said Fishback, who is chairman of the Metro DC Chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. “But she’s trying to avoid it. She’s trying to basically get on the school board without people knowing.”
Previously, the conservative Christian Coalition has been accused of backing “stealth” candidates in local elections, such as the San Diego school board race in 1990. Schaerr denies she is such a candidate.
Schaerr is on the board of directors of the Fairfax, Va.-based Family Leader Network, an organization that supports abstinence education, traditional marriage and “decency in broadcasting.” She held the same volunteer position when it partnered with Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) to stop portions of the sex education curriculum.
Incidentially, in the interest of learning more, I looked to see how Ms. Schaerr had answered the QA all candidates were given by the Gazette. Turns out she never responded.
Okay, if you are talking about the school curriculum, one is mcpscurriculum.com, which is Citizens for a Responsible Govt. This is the group which did sue MCPS, twice. In the first case it was over the famous “cucumber curriculum” and that fact that the County was calling the Catholic Church repressive and archaic in its view on homosexuality. Regardless of whether you believe this is true or not, a public school can’t use tax payer dollars to teach that a particular religous viewpoint is wrong. A county judge recognized that and stayed the curriculum, at which point the county scrapped it. And the CRC said fine, we are not suing for damages because our objective all along was to have the county changed the curriculum.
The county did change the curriculum, and came back with one as progressive as any in the nation. Teaching eigth graders that trans-sexuality is just another way to be, and that homosexuality is “innate”. The APA disagrees, they say they don’t know what causes homosexuality, but that is not what our county is teaching. The county is teaching that is “innate” and cannot be changed. The county also doesn’t bother to point out the increased risks of AIDS and STDs present in the homosexual population. They just tell the kids it is another way to be and then have them do exercises asking them to think about their sexual orientation. Montgomery’s curriculum is as progressive as Los Angeles…. the CRC’s website is http://www.mcpscurriculum.com, and the curriculum is posted there.
Some of us believe that sex education should be taught with an emphasis on abstinence and marriage for kids, rather than a political indoctrination. So, sure, I agree with Mrs. Schaeer, a little more balance might be appropriate.
Whoops, sorry it was the Baptist Church the county was targeting in its curriculum. Here is the county judges opinion on the matter :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/highlights.shtml
The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Montgomery County Public Schools to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Montgomery County Public Schools must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest… Viewpoint discrimination consists of state action in which “there is no ban on a general subject matter, but only on one or more prohibited perspectives.”. When government restrictions “target notsubject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination.”
If Ms. Shaerr indeed holds these views, it would be upstanding of her as a candidate to publicize them. This move with the phone call message against the entire Apple Ballot makes it seem more like a case of sour grapes, and her not publicizing her views can’t help but come across as shady at best, especially as she does not make it easy for people to contact her directly. Even if I did agree with her stance on homosexuality, or agreed that the MCPS approach to sex ed could focus more on abstinence and marriage, I would have a hard time trusting her with holding public office if she couldn’t be up front in the campaign. She might have even garnered more support from those with views closer to her own had she been up front in the first place, rather than turning off people with borderline-anonymous blanket-statement phone calls.
JMHO, worth what ya paid for it. *grin*
MCPS won the two court cases.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/4672/
I don’t believe Martha is associated with the phone calls AT ALL. The apple ballots influence in the county simply means that the MOST liberal candidates get elected, that’s all. Their endorsements one 44 out of 46 races in the Democratic primary, and given we have not one elected Republican in the the entire county….. that’s an issue. The more conservative leaning Democrats don’t get the MCEA endorsement, and thus in MC we end up with a governing elite that mirrors San Francisco more than Maryland. It is unfortunate.
I was just pointing out that the description of Martha in the Gazette was pretty inaccurate and one sided. But its the Gazette, so what else would be expected…..
MCPS definitely did not win both court cases. The first case was settled when MCPS agreed to drop the curriculum in question after a DEVASTATING opinion issued by the judge.
You can read the whole opinion here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/May5doc-2.pdf
and the highlights here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/highlights.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/2/20050602-085746-8116r/
Here is a Washington Times Article that describes the case, a bit more of a credible source than “Pam’s House Blend”…
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050523/23john.htm
US news and world Report…
And a whole list of other stories published at the time. I am not sure how many of these links still work…. I couldn’t get on the Posts ones without a subscription…
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/archived_news_room_crc_coverage_2005_2.shtml
08/25/2005 Washington Post A Victory That Protects Our Values
07/05/2005 Washington Times Schools incite feud with sex-ed advisers
06/21/2005 Agape Press Silencing the Truth: Homosexual Activist Group Targets Kids in School
06/12/2005 Washington Times Perils of Valueless Teachings
06/07/2005 BP News Are public schools the next battleground over homosexuality?
06/06/2005 Phyllis Schlafly Judge rules sex-education curriculum violates First Amendment rights
06/03/2005 Washington Times Lost in the city
“…Montgomery County School Board’s sex education pilot-plan in Maryland was so flagrantly in violation of the First Amendment…”
06/02/2005 Washington Times A clean slate for Montgomery sex-ed
05/27/2005 Washington Examiner Biased sex ed goes down in flames
05/27/2005 Washington Times Sex-ed opponents part of movement to reclaim schools
05/25/2005 World Net Daily ‘Gay-friendly’ curriculum scrapped
05/24/2005 Washington Examiner Groups vow to continue sex-ed suit
05/24/2005 Guardian Newspaper (UK) Md. School Board to Revise Sex Education
05/24/2005 Yahoo! Md. schools revising sex ed after lawsuits
05/24/2005 Washington Times County schools ditch sex-ed class
05/24/2005 Washington Post Md. Board Starts Over on Sex-Ed Revisions
05/23/2005 Gazette
the comments are getting far afield yet pointing exactly to my position-no transparency.
but it’s always the minority party that accuses the winning party of being elites. it’s a worn-out accusation.
fact is maryland is 2/3 democratic and that’s not because there’s a teachers union.
according to state records of those called “Eligible Active Voters on Precinct Register” there were 1,957,279 registered democrats, 925,614 republicans and 528,000 unaffiliated, out of total of 3.46 million registered voters statewide.
the stats in montgomery county are similar: 324,195 democrats, 123,253 republicans and 122,587 unaffiliated, out of a total of 573,431.
http://www.elections.state.md.us/press_room/2010_stats/gg10_statewide.pdf
Theresa misrepresents what was actually in the 2005 curriculum revisions. The only mention of religion in the curriculum that was to be presented to students was that “different religions have different views concerning sexual behavior and that there are even differences among people of the same religion.” The plaintiffs in 2005 brought a last minute suit against MCPS just before the piloting was to begin, and MCPS did not have sufficient time to fully respond. The plaintiffs took materials from background teacher resources — materials the teachers were explicitly told not to use in class — and presented them as actually being in the curriculum. But rather than spend years litigating the case, MCPS decided to start over.
In February 2007, a few weeks after the BOE had unanimously voted to pilot the revised curriculum revisions (which, in most respect, went further and deeper than the 2005 revisions, which simply presented a few key facts about sexual orientation without much opportunity for disucssion), Ms. Schaerr, as president of the Magruder H.S. PTSA, organized a “forum on the Family Life Curriculum,” for which she invited “members of the [Board of Education’s] Citizens Advisory Committee [on family life education] to present their thoughts on the curriculum.” What she did not tell the Magruder community was that the only member of the Advisory Committee she invited was anti-gay physician, Dr. Ruth Jacobs, who opposed the Board’s action (and is the organizer of rotteappleballot com). Ms. Schaerr’s attempt to present a one-sided attack on the revisions failed when members of the Magruder community got wind of it and the a student member of the Committee (who was a Magruder student) and Dr. Carol Plotsky, Chair of the Advisory Committee (and former chief of pediatrics at Shady Grove Hospital) were also invited. Dr. Plotsky, the student member, and other members of the Committee came to the meeting and presented their viewpoints in favor of the revisions. See http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2007/02/magruder-last-night.html#comments
Shortly thereafter, the Family Leader Network (along with Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), two notoriously anti-gay groups) brought legal action against MCPS and asked State Superintendent of Education Nancy Grasmick to halt the piloting of the revisions. (Ms. Schaerr is a member of the Board of Directors of the Family Leader Network, and her husband is chair — see http://familyleader.net/Home/servlet/staticContent?contentTitle=about_us),
In March 2007, Dr. Grasmick declined . http://www.gazette.net/stories/030707/montnew171234_32335.shtml
The Family Leader Network then petitioned the State Board of Education to stop the revisions.http://www.gazette.net/stories/062207/polinew225330_32367.shtml In June 2007, the State Board, without a dissenting vote, declined. The Family Leader Network then asked the Montgomery County Circuit Court to halt the piloting, pending full briefing of the issue.http://www.gazette.net/stories/091207/montnew72439_32362.shtml
Circuit Court Judge Rowan declined to do so (http://www.gazette.net/stories/101007/montnew55657_32366.shtml).
In January 2008, following a full hearing, Judge Rowan roundly rejected the Family Leader Network’s attempt to stop the revisions. http://www.gazette.net/stories/020108/montnew164125_32406.shtml
David, please clarify which “Theresa” you are referring to. Thanks!
Theresa Defina,
I was addressing Theresa Rickman.
I should have provided the documentation for my refutation of Theresa R’s mischaracterization of the 2005 curriculum revisions. Here it is. The links go to the entire curriculum.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/Grade8_Field_Test_Revised.pdf
The enclosed material comprises the revisions to the Grade 8 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum approved by the Board of Education on November 9, 2004. Teachers are directed to replace the Mental Health unit and the Family Life and Human Sexuality unit with the revised units contained in this packet. This material is the teacher’s edition and includes specific directions and information to
be used in the delivery of instruction. The text material comprising the revisions and the curriculum to be field-tested is noted in bold italic print. The teacher directions included in this packet are noted by the shaded areas. Teachers are directed to present the information in bold italic print as direct lecture and they are not to provide additional information, interpretation, or examples.
**********************************
IV. CULTURAL AND FAMILY BELIEFS CAN AFFECT RELATIONSHIPS AND
MARRIAGE
A. Possible Effects of Cultural Factors (The following are examples of how cultural and/or
family beliefs may affect relationships.)
1. arranged marriages
2. chaperoned dates
3. gender roles in household
B. Possible Affects of Religious Beliefs
1. cannot marry outside the religion
2. children must be raised in the same religion
3. different religions take different stands on sexual behaviors and there are even
different views among people of the same religion
**************************************
See also http://www.teachthefacts.org/Grade_10_Field_Test_Revised.pdf
Okay, David and I will never agree on this.
On the 2005 curriculum, the best thing you can do is go read the judges opinion highlights, which are here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/highlights.shtml
The judge thought the teachers resources (ie, advising teachers how to teach which included the morality of homosexuality, etc) was unconstitutional,,,.even if this information was not in the actual curriculum. That curriculum was discarded and is thus irrelevant.
The current curriculum being taught (which we note David did not post) is posted here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pilot.shtml
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/10gradestories5.pdf
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/exercise.pdf
If you like this current curriculum vote for the current incumbent board of education and the apple ballot recommendations, most of whom voted for it. Personally I think it is way over the top and wouldn’t let my kids take it, but to each his own.
If you don’t like this and believe like I do it is way over the top, vote against them !
Make up your own mind.
That is what today is all about.
Happy voting ! (though I am writing this at 5:00 and the other Theresa will probably take hours to post this….. )
Hi all, Brad here. Theresa R., I just want to wade in here and make one point, spurred by something in your recent comment. It’s about Rockville Central overall, not about this particular issue (I have enjoyed reading the back and forth on it).
Rockville Central is managed by me (publisher and founder) and Cindy Cotte Griffiths (editor). We are the only ones who moderate comments, and we typically post them as soon as possible, after just making sure they meet our guidelines (full names, not libelous).
We solicit opinion pieces from as wide a range of people as possible. Over the years, pieces have appeared in the “opinion” column that were diametrically opposed to our personal beliefs, as well as perfectly in line. Our main goal is to keep this channel open for all, so that we can have discussions like the one we are having.
Just didn’t want you to think any delay in posting a comment was Theresa D.’s responsibility; it is solely mine and Cindy’s.
Thanks for all your contributions!
yes, i simply send in my comments like everyone else, AND i not liking the accusation.
i am just a private citizen who wrote a piece and i do appreciate the forum. i’d also like to note that brad and cindy have been extremely generous in posting comments that have nothing to do with what i wrote about.
they also both have lives and they moderate and post on their schedules.
Theresa R:
Thank you for posting the links to the current curriculum. Just as nearly 100% of parents who have the opportunity to review the curriculum and then give their children permission to take the health education unit, I suspect a vast majority of readers would have the same positive reaction. (I do not generally post the curriculum, because I have been told that MCPS has some copyright issues, since some of the material comes from a textbook which has, for economic reasons, copyright concerns. Other than that concern, I would very much like for people to be able to read it on-line.)
You may well be correct that we will never agree on this. But I do hope that someday your sense of our common humanity will enable you to see things differently than you currently do. Perhaps you will, in other parts of your life, encounter people who happen to be gay, get to know them, and begin to reconsider. It is not a coincidence that as more gay people come out, the incidence of homophobia decreases, as it has in Montgomery County.
David, how in the world would you define the “incidence of homophobia”… what statistic are you looking at ?
I do have friends that are gay, that doesn’t mean that I belive that kids should be taught at age 12 to question their sexual orientation - heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual.
I believe, given the number of parents that showed up at the pilot meetings at BCC (like 12 out of a class of what, 700 or so, that very few parents are paying ANY attention at all to the health curriculum…)… they are just not.
I can tell you that when getting flyers printed at Staples I had a conversation with a check out lady who informed me that her nephew had decided he was really female after taking the 10th grade health class which introduces transgenderism and teaches kids all about it in MCPS.
Have you figured out the following :
1) what is the incidence of kids coming out as gay in MCPS since the new health curriclum was introduced ?
2) what is the incidence of suicide among teenagers at MCPS (compared to the national rate) since the curriculum was introduced ?
Because you see, since there are studies that prove that kids that identify as gay as teenagers are somthing like 20x more likely to commit suicide as kids that don’t, I would think if you encourage kids to THINK about their orientation at a young age, and then teach them that their orientation is innate and can’t be changed, even though sexual orientation among teenagers pretty fluid, that you would INCREASE the suicide rate of teenagers in MC.
Finally, what’s the AIDS incidence among teenagers in MC since the curriculum was introduced ? Because you taught all about homosexuality and transgenderism from one point of view, and then didn’t tell them about the increased health risks of engaging in that behavior (even though you had a petition from 270 physicans asking you to do so….)…
So, David, any numbers to report ? Any way to figure out those statistics ?
Because, unlike the “increased incidence of homophobia” those should be pretty concrete numbers. Not nebulous at all.
Theresa
By the way Theresa D, Sorry for assuming you had not posted stuff promptly. I thought you personally were deciding what to post and not post because of two comments posted within 5 minutes of each other, one comment took a lot longer than another to show up… shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions, my apologies to Brad and Cindy and you.
Theresa
On Wednesday, The Gazette posted a story about this, under the hedline, Rotten Apples or Sour Grapes?
http://www.gazette.net/stories/11032010/montnew190555_32559.php