posted
Perhaps teaching some history of homosexuality and queer culture studies - and offering some specialised courses in later years - would be an excellent way to start countering discrimination against gays.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have to go google the whole high school with the 'black curriculum' thing and I don't have time to do that. So, I will concede the point.
Rather than argue that point, what do you guys think about segregating by sex at taxpayer expense?
And, again, if you support vouchers, won't you end up with the exact situation that you have now in any case? Shouldn't parents be able to choose to send their students to all-girl, or all-gay, or all-boy schools? Isn't that what school choice is all about?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of them were intended to be black only, if they are old schools that is. Which is then why it's in a 'black' neighborhood. my elementary was mainly a black only school because it was in a black-dominant area and because it was built in a time when everything was divided, or more divided than now.
Posts: 4628 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some of them were intended to be black only, if they are old schools that is. Which is then why it's in a 'black' neighborhood. my elementary was mainly a black only school because it was in a black-dominant area and because it was built in a time when everything was divided, or more divided than now.
Partially true. Most of the time when there was a 'black' school, whites moved away and forced blacks to live there.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never actually heard of a single-sex public school. Are they even allowed to exist? That is, I understood that a public school that was intended to be single-sex would still have to admit students of both sexes if they should so desire.
And the question isn't whether the schools were originally intended to be segregated back before Brown vs. Board of Education, it's whether they are intended to be so today.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Potemkyn or saxon75, if it's o.k.(I know you didn't say it as o.k., but you didn't argue that it wasn't) to make a public school have an afrocentric curriculum if the area is predominantly black, does this mean that if the parents of gay children all got together and moved to a, let's say, empty school district, then you would support a high school for gay people?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon75, my slant is that it's not necessarily that the schools are public as much as that they recieve taxpayer money. So, you have the exact general result that started this thread--a school geared towards one type of person payed for by taxpayer money. I guess I should have mentioned that already. Pardon.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but it would be one because only gays moved to the school district and it was empty before so...
But your point is inherently wrong because it approaches the problem from the wrong direction. Black schools are there because of the situation, very rarely because of choice.
These gay schools would be a choice not a product of oppression.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I'm not completely clear on what you mean by "afrocentric." If you mean that the curriculum focuses on or includes extra information about black history and/or culture, then I don't see a huge problem with an afrocentric curriculum at a school with a high WASP population. I would prefer to see a more multi- or inter-cultural aspect, though.
Frankly, I don't see how you can stop the local culture from influencing the curriculum of a school, and so long as it doesn't promote bigotry and does meet the same education standards as any other school, I don't think it's really a bad thing. I know it's a little different, but my school district's K-12 curriculum included a lot on local history and culture, and I think I'm the better for it.
Regarding school funding, it's my understanding that almost all schools receive some amount of state and/or federal funding. And really, so long as they are not promoting Bad Things, why shouldn't they? Specialized or selective enrollment schools, though, receive a lot less funding than a normal public school would. At least I think that's how it works.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This school would be a tool of repression. Suddenly, instead of "okay, the gay kids at this school are all beat up far more than anyone else, what on earth is wrong here?" It becomes "okay, another gay kid got beaten up here, time to pressure his parents into sending him to the gay school so we don't have to deal with the issue."
It's presented as a school gay kids have a choice to go to, but it will become a place where gay kids who do not choose to go there are terrorized.
Bloomberg has long supported many issues near and dear to the glbt community, but I fear his support in this case will have negative consequences.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, if vouchers can be used to pay for any 'private' school, then it simply becomes a matter of starting a school strictly for glbt students.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But your point is inherently wrong because it approaches the problem from the wrong direction. Black schools are there because of the situation, very rarely because of choice.
These gay schools would be a choice not a product of oppression.
Naw, my point is completely valid. Your argument, correct me if I am wrong, is that because this 'gay school' is exclusionary and payed for by public money, then it shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I've rebutted this by showing that there are already plenty of schools that are already segregated and payed for, at least in part or in full, by public money. If they can do it, why not the gay people?
Your point about choice over circumstance is so far meaningless since you haven't supported why it should have any meaning.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. I don't know. Rather than addressing the issue of whether it's a legal use of public money, I'll just throw my 2¢ in on whether or not it's a good idea . . . with the people who think it isn't.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mae-two things. one-what makes you so sure it's a choice to be homosexual? and the second...why can't they be proud to be who they are with heterosexual people around?
You don't solve a problem by shunting it to one side. You solve it by confronting it, by changing people's attitudes. There is a MAJOR problem in that many people have unreasonable prejudice toward homosexuals. How are they going to learn differently if they're never confronted with the problem, never shown how wrong they are? I went to the safest high school in the city-but I sure saw plenty of the prejudice people have, after joining the GSA. It frightens me to think that if it was that bad at BRMHS, which is the safest most tolerant school, how bad it must be at other ones. It needs to be changed, people need to see that homosexuals are people just like any others, not someone to be feared, not an evil entity you need to get rid of-just a person. And that change will not be brought about by making a sepeerate high school for them. It will be brought about by making such prejudice unacceptable in society, just as racial prejudice is being made unacceptable.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how we force diversity on students in college these days only to have them graduate and go back to hanging out with people with similar tastes and lifestyles.
I've had friends of all different sexual orientations, dated women of all races(and all sexual orientations, oddly enough)...
Because we've had similar interests. A lot in common.
Am I the only one who doesn't think that's diversity?
Why do we let such superficial things as skin color and sexual preference define "diverse"?
Anyway, back on the topic...
The comparison of homosexuals to blacks is a bit flawed. I think we're in a pretty unprecedented situation. This is a whole subset of kids that has different needs--Separate bathrooms, locker rooms, sex ed. classes, maybe even separate gym classes. Are public schools willing to become places these kids can get what they need? It's not as easy as adding handicapped ramps and lowering door handles this time.
How many generations of gay teens are going to have to be shunned/ridiculed/beaten to a pulp/driven to suicide/forced to stay in the closet until they're old enough to purchase a gun before we learn to accept them? There has to be a better way to solve the problem than sacrificing them. And while we're solving it....here, kids--have your own school where you can be yourself.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the biggest problem is naming. By which I mean, if we were just discussing high school students we would not make any divisions, they were just students. But now we have to name "the gays" and "the others", we have to put a label on these kids. Because if you spend so much time in a place that is based on your sexual identity, it can really define you. Most high school students are a whole lot of things before they are straight/gay; but now these students are being defined by everyone around them as (for example) "gay track star". Or a "gay acadmeic", they can't just be a track start or a scholor, they have to be gay first. It's this type of labeling that can really set back social progress.
posted
I disagree. I think in high school and beyond, being homosexual is as big a part of who you are as being male or female is. And I think many are proud to see themselves labeled as "gay [whatever]".
I think maybe we could start being tolerable to gays by, um, making it legal for them to exist. Yeah. That would be a good start.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so Frisco. I've found that most people who define themselves as gays (as in gay is at the front of all of their titles) generally act out every single stereotype of being gay they've ever heard of. I always get the impression that they're acting when I talk to them. Not that my experience is proof or anything, but for me it seems that most gays (gays to me meaning homosexuals of both gender) that really are gay don't define themselves by their sexuality. Certainly it is a big part of who they are, but they can't be described simply by their sexual prefrence.
posted
In the interest of being fair, I think we need to create special separate schools for sexually active teenagers and for virgins as well. As we all know, sex is the defining characteristic of all humans. Think of the labels, the poor treatment etc that the sexually active get. Labels such as "slut" and "hoochie" abound. And even worse is the predicament of the prudes! Imagine trying to study while all the students around you are engaged in traditional courtship behavior! The virginal student is in dailt danger of losing their protected status as long as they must co-exist with their sexually predatory colleagues.
Our society will never be fair until all students have a chance to study and learn with other students of like sexual predilection!
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be worth pointing out that this is New York City, not Nashville Tennessee.
And even though I disagree with the creation of this school, I need to point out that voluntary separation does not equal forced segragation. Many communities create public school systems that try to cater to individual student needs, whatever those may be.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have mixed feelings whether or not this is the "right way to go about things," but I definitely see the advantages.
Things that haven't been addressed yet: -I'm pretty sure they'll accept straight people, no problem. However, these straight people have to be supportive of LGBT's. Seems reasonable. If this school ends up having an excellent curriculum, it will probably become a sort of magnet school.
-Teachers. It's not just abuse from students. A great deal of the injustice is in the fact that there are homophobic teachers. These teachers treat LGBT students differently, and can really harm the education path for these kids. In most cities, it is unacceptable to show bias against one's race. But unfortunately, in many many schools, it is still acceptable to show your disdain for an LGBT student. Remember that gay teacher? That teacher was scorned by her peers.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would you know they're acting though Hobbes? All gays don't have to follow all of those stereotypes. The use of the stereotypes is to notice if one is gay or not.
To me a gay boy is one who likes to mess around with hair, wear 'tight' clothing and has too good of a posture that it seems abnormal. (It's as if saying all male hairstylists are gay...they might be though. ) I don't live in New York so I don't know how people are treated in schools and out of it. It all depends on your surroundings and New York seems like the best spot to experiment with this idea.
Posts: 4628 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Giving the option of opting out of the regular school system allows a group that is somewhat ostracized (nowhere to near the levels it used to be) to selectively remove themselves from the mainstream. No one should be made to "conform" to the accepted norms, but one should have experience with the mainstream of modern society. High school should prepare someone for adult life and let's face it folks, it's a scary world out there at times.
Also, what about the gay student that chooses NOT to attend the all gay high school? Won't they suffer the possibility of being ostracized by two groups: their current classmates and the other gay students who did choose to go to the new high school?
Sadly, this is another knee-jerk reaction in our society, a society wherein no one is embraced until they can figure out how they are the victim of something. Right meaning folks want to make a safe place for special people where they can live their lives the way they choose. From the outside and the beginning, it looks like a good idea. Down the road, problems always arise. Take a look at Indian Reservations or the state of Israel.
In a vacuum, it looks fine, but in actuality there are tons of potential problems. Want to do some gay bashing? Head on over the Harvey Milk HS, they've got all you can bash. How will the surrounding community react to having all those gay kids together in one place in their own back yards? Trust me, someone will shout about the evils of this and how it ruined their neighborhood. Think of the busing issues: what if a poor gay kid from Harlem wants to head across town to this school? What if all of the best teachers decide to head to this one school, stripping quality educators from the system at large?
And finally, why should a school system be involved in the decision of a child's sexual orientation. Isn't this a big "outing" of students?
Sadly, the school system needed to looking at making safe learning environments, with equal educational opportunities, for all students. Educators need to stand up for individual students rather than try to pigeon-hole them into "safe" places. It's better for us all if society adjusts rather than sequesters.
Edit to add: Exactly right Jacare. Why is it that so many folks in our society wish to identify themselves purely by sexual orientation? Whatever happened to being talented, skilled, thoughtful, energetic or other things that take personal effort and character?
I've never had a problem with someone because they were gay. I've had little interest, however, in folks who were ONLY gay. Why get to know someone with only one dimension?
posted
If they're opening this school to give gay students an opportunity to have a harrassment-free education, shouldn't they instead open a school for anyone who is being harrassed/bullied? Shouldn't geeky kids who get picked on have an opportunity to attend school harrassment-free? And disabled kids? And minorities? And whatever other kids may be targeted?
The whole thing is ridiculous. It really ticks me off how schools think they're solving problems when really they're just treating symptoms instead of the cause.
Posts: 374 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take a look at Indian Reservations or the state of Israel.
No, no, no. Again, I think it needs to be pointed out that this isn't anywhere NEAR segragation.
Many of you are reacting as if New Yorkers were going to start hauling homosexuals away in UPS trucks and shove them all into the the gay school. Not so. They aren't going to make students take a gay test.
It seems to me that the school will exist so that certain homosexual individuals that personally feel--of their own volition--that their education experience is being hindered by homophobic conditions will have a place to go.
That is not segragation. It's the magnet-school equivalent of French Club vs. Football team. The true sadness here is that anyone would feel that such an option is necessary.
The benefits of such a school could be that instead of growing up in an environment where your very identity was shunned, you could be around supportive and understanding students and staff that could help you explore a better awareness of your self. The negatives of such a school is that you'd be taking that very necessary attitude away from the very place where it is needed most.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's turn this around, for the sake of argument. What if some people wanted to start a school for only straight students? (I don't want girls hitting on me... it's disruptive to my education.) That would never get set up because people would be yelling "discrimination!" and "segregation!" Oh, and it would be detrimental to the students who go there because they would not learn to offer oblations to the god of diversity. (::slight tangent:: I don't see diversity as an end-at-all-costs, or even a necessary end. I see it as a useful means to various good ends. But I digress.)
Posts: 25 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate. Lots of things should take place, and this is not an ideal solution, but I find it hard to condemn it when there are so many teenagers that are hurting. I don't like this solution, but at least someone is doing something concrete about it.
posted
Taygeta, your flipside example doesn't work. The school is supposed to be a refuge for students that feel they are already being discriminated against in some way. I've never met a heterosexual who felt that they were being discriminated against purely on the basis of their heterosexuality.
Unless you interpret an environment where students attracted to each other in the same school as a discriminatory environment. That's a hard sell.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
So what if you're gay, and then one of these magical Christian witch doctors comes along and converts you back to a heterosexual? Do you get thrown out of school?
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, that's not my point. My point is that, for better or for worse, we have a double standard. While setting up a separate school is "ok" for gay people, it is completely unacceptable for straight people.
Posts: 25 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Setting up urinals in public restrooms is okay for boys and not okay for girls. That is a double standard, too. You're the one missing the point. Double standards are precisely the reason that people felt this school needed to exist in the first place.
_________________________________
The silly thing about your point is that the reason it's not acceptable to have a Hetero High is because there's absolutely no need for it.
UNLESS of course you built Hetero High for the express purpose of keeping Homos OUT of the school. That would be different. But it still wouldn't matter because I doubt that the new Homo High will be discriminating against sexual orientation when it comes to enrollment.
posted
But if they let in heterosexual students, then what's the point of the school? To keep anti-homosexual heterosexual students out? How is that not discrimination?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But see, the heteros won't have stars on their bellies.
Yeah, I hate this solution. What else could we do for those teenagers who are struggling with this, though?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discrimination in and of itself is neither wrong nor illegal. For instance, that girls cannot use the guys' bathroom is form of discrimination (felt particularly during show intermissions). And vice versa.
Yet I doubt there is one among us who would argue that this practice is either wrong or illegal.
Arguing that something is discriminatory doesn't mean much, unless you can argue that the effects of the discrimination are wrong, harmful, or both.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is necessary to discriminate between alternatives in order to act at all. It is natural to do so.
In fact, we need to discriminate between instances when it is okay to discriminate and when it is not.
The arguments (usually from conservative religious types, but conservatives in general have "glommed" onto this tactic) about supposedly calling everyone's bluff about discrimination are just silly. I call these things "tolerate my intolerance." They basically are saying that if we want a tolerant society, we have to be tolerant of bigotry as much as we are tolerant of things that they (the conservatives) consider aberrant behavior.
On the face of it, it seems an appealing argument. A society that prides itself on not being discriminatory would essentially fall into inaction because it could never even tell right from wrong, and that's the point the conservatives are trying to make in their clumsy pedantic way.
But it begs the real issue. When we find victims of unjust discrimination in our society, what should we do to address those wrongs? In some instances, we find the only way to right a wrong is to create a new imbalance in favor of the victims. Sometimes we opt to segregate in order to protect or nurture -- business set-asides for historically underutilized business are as much an act of segregation as is setting up neighborhoods and schools along ethnic lines.
But, really, we know that there's only one right way -- that is to stop the discord at the level of discourse. If racism were just an opinion, with no consequences in the world of opportunity, then no-one should be stopped from stating racist viewpoints. But the fact is that racism is harmful to the ones who are at the receiving end of it. It isn't just opinions, it creates barriers and that's bad.
Just so with other forms of discrimination based on things that OUGHT NOT TO MATTER. And isn't that the key? What should it matter if a soldier is attracted to same-sex partners if he or she is good at killing the enemy or working well in a cooridinated army? What should it matter if a high schooler is gay or straight?
But harrassment over such issues is frequent and serious enough of a problem that people of good will ultimately agree that SOMETHING needs to be done. Segregation is one option. Strict enforcement of anti-harrassment rules is another good technique. Heck, we have zero tolerance for aspirin, why not bullying?
But the bottom line is that no matter what we do, it will not be perfect. It will be an experiment that, if it seems to work, we'll repeat elsewhere. If it doesn't work, we'll either alter or abandon it.
Constructive alternative suggestions are always welcome. Complaining about how we should have set asides for the majority is just missing the point -- usually on purpose, it seems to me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I personally wouldn't want my own gay children to go to this new Homo High unless they truly felt like they were in emotional or physical danger in their regular school. Or maybe if they just really really wanted to go there. I'd rather they do their best to be themselves in a diverse atmosphere like Hetero High, but having the option there is more than understandable.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But harrassment over such issues is frequent and serious enough of a problem that people of good will ultimately agree that SOMETHING needs to be done. Segregation is one option. Strict enforcement of anti-harrassment rules is another good technique. Heck, we have zero tolerance for aspirin, why not bullying?
This is yet another issue which cannot be solved by any sort of legislation or rules. (Can be helped, but not solved.) The only real solution is for each person to be nice. Not necessarily accept what everyone else does (i.e., don't condone their sinful behavior), but recognize that everyone, just by virute of being a person, is worth just as much as anyone else.
::sits around waiting for Utopia:: ... ::Utopia still isn't here yet:: ... Oh, well. In the mean time, I agree with your strict enforcement of anti-harrassment rules. I cannot see how self-segregation will ultimately help lower animosity, however.
edit: I am not actually advocating a straight-only school. I was merely using that to point out the double-standard.
posted
Taygeta, this just isn't a double standard. You have to see that. It would only qualify for double-standard if we forced ALL homosexuals to seek other education (and of course you don't know that they won't let heteros into this new school), and EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE, it still wouldn't be a double standard because you WOULD have an all-heterosexual school as a result.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They shouldn't use public money. It should be a private school.
And what they should do is declare it some type of Gay Religious school that way no one could claim any type of segregation.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not actually advocating a straight-only school. I was merely using that to point out the double-standard.
I refer you to my previous post. I believe that the argument that says correcting societies injustices through discriminatory practices sets up a "double-standard" is really a smoke screen. To me, it usually signals that the person likes the status quo, doesn't see anything wrong with discriminating against a particular class or group, and doesn't want to address the wrongs because they think they either aren't that big a deal, or they are well earned and justified.
Instead of coming out and saying "Hey, you know what, I kind of like a society where it's okay to beat up homosexuals because they are aberrant little snots" people say things like "well, they aren't getting any worse treatment than anyone else." or "why should we have special protections for them? The laws we have are good enough."
The problem is that those laws aren't good enough and they haven't proven to be effective or enforceable, or something...or the problem wouldn't exist.
I don't particular favor a gay lifestyle myself, but I figure if someone pays taxes then they deserve to have the same benefits from society that I do, and everyone else does. I view society's benefices as a community resource, not something that only should go to those who go along with the mainstream.
And if a society can't protect its own members, then the rest of the benefits of that society are meaningless.
Look to places in South America, where the haves must live behind iron fences and hire 24-hour guards because they suck up so much of what their society has to offer. They set up the inequities, and now are imprisoned by them.
I don't want to see America go that route, where those who benefit from society do so at the expense of the general welfare and ultimately set up a situation in which too many people have too little to lose by just going after the elite and killing them.
And the place it starts is in our willingness to bend a little in the opposite direction, to ensure that the people who get the short end of the stick have some things that definitely and obvious break in their favor.
It's not a perfect way of doing things, granted. But it is sure a lot better than just sitting on the pile of comforts and saying "well, if they want to be happy, they should conform."
From their perspective, ultimately, eliminating the comfort of others might end up being the only option left to them. And then we'll all be unhappy.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
My opinion that this school is a bad idea is not based on any desire to see gays either conform or continue to take abuse. I don't think you think I hold such a desire, either.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Studies consistently show that a high percentage of gay and lesbian youth (25-30%) attempt suicide.
In a study of 686 gay men, 337 heterosexual men, 293 lesbian women and 140 heterosexual women - 35% of gay men and 38% of lesbian women considered suicide. 8% gay men and 23% lesbian women had attempted - compared to only 3% heterosexual men and 14% heterosexual women. The majority of the suicide attempts were before the age of 20, nearly 1/3 of all attempts were before age 17. [1] In a study of 5,000 gay men and women - 35% of gay men and 38% of gay women had seriously considered or attempted suicide. [2] In a study of 60 gay males age 16-22, 32% had attempted suicide. [3] In a study of homeless youth entering a shelter, 65% of the gay youth had attempted suicide as compared to 19% of the heterosexual youth. [4] In a study of 137 gay and bisexual males, 41 had attempted suicide (31%). 18 made multiple attempts. The mean age of those attempting was 15.5 years old. [5]
I don't agree with the separate school, but what can we do instead?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't endorse anyone being abused, and I don't pass judgment on people based on things they can't help (sexuality being one of those things, I believe). I was bullied pretty constantly from elementary school into high school. There were stretches where I got beat up every day. Funny, bullies are always smart enough to leave bruises where they don't show. Sometimes I got beat up right in front of teachers (gym teachers must think you're getting exercise that way). I had to deal with the depression that comes with that; I considered suicide, too.
Why did this stop happening to me? One day in my sophomore year of high school, I had had enough, and despite everything I had been taught, I started fighting back. My problems more or less ceased. I was still small, still smart, still Japanese, still a jerk, but I was no longer an easy target.
Bullies will always pick on people if they can. We teach our kids that they should never hit back, they should tell the authorities. Anyone who has ever been in this situation knows that doing so only makes the situation worse. You cannot avoid people like that by running away from confrontation.
I'm not saying we should start teaching kids to fight at the drop of a hat, I'm just saying that I don't think that teaching kids to run away from their problems is the right idea. I also don't think that creating a separate school addresses the real problem. I don't know what the best way is to teach kids to accept others for their differences, but I do know that when bullies see their victims run away, they see it as a victory and they continue doing it.
But the problem is not limited to bullies in this case, obviously. There are plenty of people that would never hit a gay but would have no problems calling them names, excluding them, or at least giving them dirty looks when they thought they could. The problem now is that no matter what kids may learn in school, if the parents are teaching them that gays are bad, it's tough to undo that. Tough, but not impossible.
The key, in my opinion, is not merely in education (which is important), but integration. I know that's a dirty word these days, especially in education, but that's what needs to happen. The way I see it, mixing black kids in with white kids and allowing the kids to see what the others were really like, and make up their own minds at a young age was what really started to break down color barriers.
Admittedly, it's different with sexuality. Most people don't even start expressing sexuality until middle school at youngest, and at that point many prejudices are already deeply ingrained. But the fact remains that you cannot expect or even hope for successful integration by practicing segregation, not even voluntary segregation. Combining integrated schools with education/propaganda seems like the only way, to me. Some people are unreachable, some are already enlightened, but many are on the fence, and even as late as high school can be nudged in the right direction. These people, once convinced, would not teach their kids to hate gays, and so on. It's a long road, but changes like this, where the bigotry is so deeply rooted cannot be expected to happen quickly.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the topic at hand goes, I don't think creating a separate high school is the optimum solution. However, considering all the factors, I'm not against this idea. As at least one case in my general geographical area shows, it isn't just the students that are the problem when gay teens get harrassed in school. Sometimes, some of the teachers are doing the harassing as well. I think there should be some sort of alternative for gay students who run into these problems, besides having to go to continuation school (where they are labeled the problem just by having to go to a "problem kids'" school) or having to go on home study.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) to be openly proud of being gay, many of them are.
