Susan Martinuk, National Post, December 31, 2004
Abraham Lincoln once claimed, "The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of governance in the next."
This may explain why two well-known gay activists are seeking profound changes to B.C.'s public school curriculum. They claim the curriculum is discriminatory toward gays, lesbians and the transgendered, and they will be making that argument to a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal this July.
This would be a reasonable plan of action if discrimination were apparent -- or even present. But, in this case, the activists admit there is no evidence of discrimination or derogatory comments in the curriculum. Instead, their claim is based on the assumption that systemic discrimination exists because of the "omission and suppression of queer issues" in the curriculum. That is, there is supposedly discrimination because public schools do not promote homosexuality, implicitly conveying the message that heterosexuality is the "preferred" culture.
When an assumption of discrimination is deemed the equivalent of discrimination, our society is heading down a dangerous path. But gay activists have employed this assumption before, with some success. The now infamous Surrey School Board decision not to promote books dealing with homosexuality as resources for Kindergarten and Grade 1 students was based on a thought-out conclusion, namely, that homosexuality is not an age-appropriate topic for children who still need naps and playtime. But activists (including the activist leading this present challenge) assumed the decision was based on discrimination, and that claim travelled through the courts until the Supreme Court simply stated that the board might want to reconsider its decision.
Similarly, there was an assumption that Trinity Western University, a Christian college in B.C., would somehow produce homophobic teachers who were unfit to teach in the province's schools. There was no evidence to prove the claim, yet the assumption itself led to a legal claim that went to the Supreme Court -- which then ruled there was no such evidence.
Just as the present accusation is based on assumptions, so too is the proposed solution -- that B.C.'s curriculum be changed to promote "queer history and historical figures ... positive queer role models ... same-sex marriage and adoption."
Assumption one is that it is reasonable for public schools to teach any subject with an emphasis on the sexual practices of individuals. It is the ultimate in revisionist history to define its players by their sexuality and to assume that their sexual proclivities played a major role in determining their acts and contributions to history. (Could it be that former prime minister Brian Mulroney's heterosexual orientation led him to impose the GST?)
Apparently it is no longer enough to teach students that all human beings are created equal and are all deserving of the same rights, privileges and respect, and that equality isn't dependent on what people believe or their sexual acts. Teaching the rigid idea that identity is reduced to sexuality will do nothing to build badly-needed bridges of acceptance among those who are different.
The second assumption is that same-sex marriage, same-sex families and homosexual acts contribute to the betterment of society for the majority. This remains unproven.
Same-sex marriage may be legal (in some places), but it's still an experiment in social engineering and we have yet to fully consider or encounter its many implications. It is not supported by 50%-60% of the population -- and it's likely that many who do support it have some concerns. Same-sex marriage remains highly controversial and there is no historical, legal or social data to suggest that it will enhance the public good.
For example, there is no evidence to suggest that children will thrive in homes where there is either no biological dad or biological mom -- and where the basic right and need for either is openly denied. As society has discovered from liberal divorce laws, adoptions and the creation of children with donor sperm, children eventually reach a stage where biological connections matter and are actively sought out.
Based on this uncertainty, why would we specifically impose the topics of homosexuality and same-sex marriage on young children -- or allow them to be taught (without debate) as positive ideals for society?
A third assumption is that teaching tolerance toward homosexuals must be linked to the outright promotion of homosexuality and homosexual unions. Teaching children tolerance (accepting something you don't like for the good of society) is very different from teaching them they must actively support and promote homosexual practices. The claimant himself admits that he is not advocating neutral curriculum changes; he is deliberately calling for the promotion of homosexuals and their lifestyle.
Finally, there is the erroneous assumption that any of the above matters will even be considered when the case goes before B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal. A curriculum dealing with "homophobia and heterosexism" is already available on the Web sites of the B.C. Teachers Federation and the Gay and Lesbian Educators of B.C. As if to foreshadow the current situation, a note prefacing the curriculum acknowledges the "funding and support" of the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Despite all these assumptions, it's likely safe to expect that the tribunal will rule in favour of a new, pro-gay curriculum.
From http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=db130c00-3951-4c47-8ef2-b6c53f131d68
|