Blurred Lines

What do Education and Sexual Orientation Have in Common?

Introduction

From birth each person begins to acquire knowledge. We learn how to communicate our needs, wants, likes and dislikes. We learn to articulate our feelings and share our emotions. We also learn about our environment and our communities. Each person, at some point, develops an understanding of what it means to be a part of a culture and begins to decide where they personally fit. Such is the case with California’s youth. However, in 2007 legislation changed the course of the progression of knowledge and self awareness forever. The law is known as California Senate Bill 777 (SB 777), and it is designed to protect the rights of those who experience discrimination (Ponte, 2008). However, from the time this legislation was put in place it appears it may have done a great deal of harm rather than help. The following is a brief discussion of SB 777, the specific legalities involved, the politics that surrounded this movement, and the result as it pertains to expected guidelines for teachers.

Controversy

In October 2007 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, of California, signed a controversial measure into law that subtly but markedly redefined the way that gender and sexuality may be addressed and taught in public schools. The law is SB 777 and what it effectively does is redefines the specific terminology used to describe what is permissible in school materials, discussion within the classroom, and even extra curricular activities (Ponte, 2008).

SB 777 adds a new law to California’s established educational code. Under the previous law it was illegal to present instruction or any type of activity that “reflects adversely upon persons” due to sex, color, race, creed, national origin, ancestry, or handicap (Ponte, 2008). Under the new law the list of protected persons is revised to gender, disability, ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, and sexual orientation. The new law also changes the verbiage in the phrase “reflects adversely” to “promotes a discriminatory bias (Ponte, 2008).” Ultimately, what the new law does is deletes the original definition of sex as completely male and female and creates an environment of ambiguity and neutrality to permit students to decide for themselves what gender they are.

Conservative Views

Clearly, with an issue as controversial as this one, there are many strong and opposing views. Some more conservative critics and politicians say that SB 777 is a means of promoting the homosexual agenda throughout California. This law can be used to eliminate the portrayal of marriage and family as exclusively a union between a man and a woman. Other conservatives fear the repercussions of male students who feel more appropriately oriented as females and therefore feel it necessary to shower, share a locker room, and participate in other all female activities, all of which are now protected by law. In the Los Angeles Unified School District a policy has already been implemented that permits a boy perceiving himself to be a girl to use the girl’s lockeroom and restrooms (Ponte, 2008).

Liberal Views

In contrast, those who hold a more liberal perspective hold that SB 777 is not a means of destroying the traditional pictures of “mom” and “dad”, it simply changes the content requirements for instructional materials such as text books (Ponte, 2008). Many assert that this new law, in fact, does not actually change very much about California’s Education Code. This new law simply provides a consolidation of definitions in one location for reference by administrators and parents.

Impact to Teachers     

The impact to teachers is marked and clear. While the original law was not violated when a prom king and queen were elected, or if a transgender student felt uncomfortable in the girls locker room. Under the new law, however, legal action can legitimately be brought against all of the above as “promoting discriminatory bias (Ponte, 2008).” Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters describes this new legislation as “another troublesome step down the slippery slope of politics dictating what version of history and current events children should be taught…. [L]lawsuit-leery educators may see it as forcing them to censor or repress anything that even indirectly touches on sexual orientation in a way that someone somewhere might consider offensive (Ponte, 2008).”

Conclusion

SB 777 illustrates the progression of State and Federal agendas and interests in education. The Governors office and a third grade class in Spring Valley are worlds apart. Yet, one is controlled and manipulated by the other with no recourse. The results can be detrimental to the morale, effectiveness, and possibly even deter the interest of individuals with a more conservative view from teaching. Ultimately, the most amicable solution that I can imagine is that both conservative and liberal perspectives meet. Clearly there is a huge difference between the original law that prohibits those things that “adversely reflect” on some groups and the new under which it is illegal to “promote a discriminatory bias” towards some groups (Ponte, 2008). While homosexuals and groups that choose alternative lifestyles typically feel discriminated against, Christians, Jews, Muslims an other conservative groups are also among the less tolerated and more excluded groups in schools. I feel that the best solution is for all groups to use SB 777 to maintain the balance between value systems, conservative and liberal alike.

Reference

Ponte, Lowel (2008). New Law Redefines Gender in California. Newsmax. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Schwarzenegger_education_/2008/01/11/63761.html 

By Rochelle Davis, MAEd/TEd
http://mrsrochelledavis.wix.com/wutsoevrthngsrluvly