On Friday an amendment (for which I cannot find the official text) was submitted, and then adopted – leading to the passing of the bill – with at least two changes from the original. First, the phrasing "sexual orientation other than heterosexuality" was stricken and replaced by limiting discussions to only "natural human reproduction science." (This change was fine with Campfield who said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat.… I got what I wanted.… Homosexuals don't naturally reproduce.") In addition, the amendment loosened the scope of the bill such that educators could respond to student questions about homosexuality without punishment, but still cannot offer materials or engage curriculum or instruction inclusive of homosexuality.
According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, "Companion legislation in the state House of Representatives has not advanced out of committee, and supporters of the bill do not intend to bring it up again until 2012."
As a practicing teacher of Kindergarten students, my concerns and fears about this bill are stacking up. Limiting the possibility for discussion and dialogue on any subject typically has dangerous results. Even hypothesizing the consequences of this bill, the following are a few of my concerns. If I were teaching in Tennessee (which I am not):
- The bill would prohibit my inclusion of curriculum and dialogue that acknowledges the lived experiences of my current students who have gay parents or other gay family members or friends.
- The bill would prohibit my colleagues who work with older elementary and middle school students from including dialogue or curricular material that acknowledges and supports students who may be gay or questioning or who have gay family members or friends.
- The bill would limit our inclusion of curriculum in which sexual orientation or identity is relevant to understanding. For example, a discussion of race, ethnicity, and power is relevant to understanding slave narratives or narratives by native peoples (both of which are currently part of our third grade curriculum, by the way). This bill prohibits a similar discussion of sexuality and power as it relates to understanding historical and cultural events, social structures and consequences, literature, poetry, other creative works, and so on.
- The bill severely limits and/or prohibits teachers and counselors from sharing gay-positive materials with gay and questioning students (who do exist in middle school, and sometimes even late elementary school).
- The bill severely limits and/or prohibits both offensive and defensive efforts to address bullying around issues of sexuality or perceived sexuality.
In addition, the bill seems reliant on at least two faulty assumptions. First, the bill suggests that sexuality is a non-issue before ninth grade. As anyone who knows anything about human development can confirm, sexuality has a place in the lives of all people at all points in their life, both personally and contextually. This looks very different at different ages, but has a presence nonetheless. For example, my students are four and five. Generally, they are not dealing with issues of their own sexuality, but the sexuality of their parents, older siblings, extended family members, family friends, and so on, plays an important role in shaping the cultural and social contexts in which they live. I have a responsibility to help my students understand the world they see around them – a world in which diversity has an active presence (as relates to sexual orientation and a billion other identity markers). Sexuality has consequences for our social structures and the lives of my students. As such, sexuality is a relevant issue prior to ninth grade and being able to address it in age-appropriate ways is vital for supporting healthy students, families, and communities.
Second, the bill seems to suggest the idea that NOT talking about homosexuality means it doesn't exist or will disappear. Sorry to say, that’s not true. Campfield says his bill is morally and ethically neutral, but banning the discussion of one thing while allowing continued discussion of another is not neutrality. It is blatant bias. And, looking through the examples of history, intentionally creating silence around an issue won’t silence those fighting the injustice of hatred.
And in times of blatant hatred, sometimes a little tongue-in-cheek comedy is a helpful way to take action. Thus, props to George Takei. I’m on board. "It's OK to be Takei!"
Plus, as an ironic side note, yesterday (before I knew about SB49 passing) I read And Tango Makes Three with my students. It’s a children’s book that’s been banned all over the place because it “promotes the gay agenda.” It’s a true story about two male penguins in NYC's Central Park Zoo who adopt an egg in need of care and raise the resulting chick, Tango. We read the book because it integrated perfectly into our current curriculum. We’ve been talking for months about families – what a family is, who’s in a family, and really working to acknowledge the idea that no two families are the same, that all family compositions and identities are ‘real’ families, and that we can find similarities between ourselves and others, just as we can find differences. In addition, this week we were talking about zoos – as we focused on the letter Z, continued investigations about animals, and visited the zoo one block from our school. AND, we’ve been preparing the children for their eventual transition to the next grade level. We’ve been visiting the classrooms they may be in next year and the students in those rooms have been studying bird life cycles, so have been hatching chicken, duck, and quail eggs. My kids loved hanging with the baby birds. As such, And Tango Makes Three touches on all these curricular topics – families, zoos, animals, baby birds. How could I possibly have found a better curricular match?! “Gay themes” be damned. And what did the kids want to talk about when we finished the book? How cute penguins are and how parenting penguins prepare and then care for their baby chicks. Very controversial stuff.
For other (blatantly anti-SB49) videos, you can check out Jon Stewart and the folks at FCKH8.
