California Requires LGBT History In Textbooks; The Disabled, Too

The rulers of the State of California are very unhappy with their subjects and their backward and old fashioned ideas; and, darn it, the rulers are just not going to take it anymore.

For instance: just recently the subjects had the temerity to band together (and, most distressingly, this included a majority of blacks and Hispanics) and pass a law among themselves which banned “gay marriage.” The rulers, anxious that gay marriage should be recognized, reacted with indignation and brought the people’s judgment to the courts, hoping to find satisfaction. There the matter sits, awaiting an outcome.Diversity!

Meanwhile, in an effort to educate the people and get them to see their error of their ways, the rulers have mandated that children, from age five to eighteen, must be taught the historical contributions of those that were gay, i.e men whose sexual desires were of other men, those that were lesbian, i.e. women whose sexual desires were of other women, those that were bisexual, i.e. people whose sexual desires encompassed all other people, and those that were transgendered, i.e. those men who wished to ignore biology and be treated as women and women who wished to be treated as men and whose sexual desires were variable.

The new, not-to-be-escaped-from mandate also blesses “Americans with disabilities” with the same special status accorded to non-heterosexuals, in that those with limps and lisps must also be searched for in the records and brought to light.

Of course, the kiddies must already learn about the “contributions” of women and of blacks and, I believe, Hispanics. There might be, and probably are, other groups. There are surely more to come.

What contributions means is unclear (surely no negative “contributions” will be mentioned), but it is sure to cause much discussion among the historians (or their simulacra) who write the textbooks. I do not envy them their task.

For example, in writing about Shays’ Rebellion, do the historians just write about Shays’ Rebellion per se, or must they first ask whether Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck had a “thing” for each other? Before allowing kids to read about Abraham Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation, must the historians first ask how Lincoln’s disability (he was tall and ugly) made him feel, and would he had rather signed wearing a dress?

If they cannot find, in the traditional battery of events and people, those whose sexuality was non-heterosexual, others will have to be ferreted out from the record. This will not be an easy task, because records of men who slept with the husbands of others’ wives, or who slept with the both the husbands and their wives (separately or at once), or who wished they had rather had been a girl, were not kept with the ferocious assiduity they are today.

Certain creativity will thus have to be demonstrated by these writers. Speculations will have to be made. Lesser personalities and incidents will have to be magnified. What is important is not fidelity to the historical record, but what the history ought to have been, if only those in the past were as Enlightened as we now are.

Of course, with these new inclusions, and with the necessary limitations of space, some of that old stuff, like the constitutional debates and World War II, will have to be left out of textbooks. There is only so much time in the day, after all. And what’s more important? Learning about John Marshall and “Black Jack” Pershing or that the transgendered are people too? The question answers itself.

Democratic state senator Mark Leno of San Francisco is adamant and says that “inclusive education is as important as the 3R’s.” And the SF Chronicle reports that “Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.”

These opinions are echoed by California’s university system, which is suffering its own crisis, but one of money. There is only so much of it around and not all programs can receive funding. Decisions are being made about what to keep, what to cut, just as with the textbooks.

Out go some of the three R’s, but kept, and even bolstered, are the offices of “diversity.” Heather MacDonald reports that amidst the cutbacks:

The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.

Cut are the “master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering” and “a master’s program in comparative literature and courses in French, German, Spanish, and English literature.”

Apparently, the new motto of the Education Department of State of California, given to them by those that rule, is “Diversity or Bust!”

12 Comments

  1. Amazing how the Democrats have turned upside down on their values.

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) polio handicap though known was kept hidden–as a courtesy, etc.

    I can’t help but wonder how those Democrats will use FDR as a role model for embracing handicapped, given he actively suppressed display & mention of it–a significant historical figure of a handicpapped role model that behaved exactly the opposite of their latest propaganda initiative.

    Oh, I bet know how they’ll use his example. They’ll lie. Maybe not outright (maybe), but certainly via selective presentation of facts to present a distorted image of reality.

  2. In Ontario, Canada, the province attempted to introduce something similar in to the public schools. They wanted to teach kids, by grade 3, about same sex marriages and the like.

    One of their reasons was that they believe education is about making children “good citizens”.

    There was a huge public backlash, in part because we have two school boards here, one of which is Catholic. As a result the new curriculum was not introduced.

    Many people, myself included, have no issue with LGBT matters. What is at issue is the notion that the public education system is becoming more and more of a social indoctrination program, and less a place of fundamental learning (the 3 R’s).

  3. Reaction Formation.

    That’s the psychological term for the behavioral phenomena in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency (e.g. when a person undertakes to work extra hard at something that, deep down inside, they really disagree with/don’t want to do, etc).

    The military, a predominantly conservative/Republican bunch if ever there was, has historically been pretty quick to accept minorities into the general social structure. Granted, this occured by legal force at the outset, but things worked out ok as predjudices quickly–relative to society at large–gave way to inclusion & acceptance when it was clear the minorities involved performed to standards, or above. Which is to say that in the long run this hasn’t been a problem needing special offices, etc.

    However, these liberals that want to work so hard at addressing inclusiveness of various groups looks so much like Reaction Formation at work one can’t help but wonder if the clash between some theoretical feel-good concept like multiculturalism clashing with the reality of day-to-day activity is anxiety-provoking…that, in reality, they like the concept in the abstract but only to the extent they can talk about it…and actually confronting the reality reveals, to them, their real insecurity & distaste for thier philosophy — so they work extra unnecessarily [& ineffectively] hard at it to compensate. Such is how some people “brainwash” themselves to beleive their own lies to themselves. Its really pathetic.

  4. RE Will & Ontario, Canada:

    I’ve got a nephew & nieces (High School & just starting college ages) there…and when Obama got elected they were agog. In the invariable discussion about a given policy–and talking ONLY about he policy, any disagreement with an Obama-Administration policy was immediately attacked with, “you’re racist.”

    It was pointed out that even within a political party total agreement at all times is seldom encountered or possible — a detail they naturally accepted in isolation of other facts/considerations. Then they were asked how, or even if, one could possibly disagree with an Obama policy without being “racist” — or — if one MUST under all circumstances agree as ANY & ALL disagreement must be racist…they were stumped. And changed the subject. Their total either/or indoctrination to accepting inclusiveness couldn’t comprehend compromise, or, that one’s views on a subject are distinct & separate from the person.

    This latter inability to segregate one’s views from oneself is in layman’s terms an inability to set & appreciate “boundaries.” Its a common underlying trait in people that are “co-dependent” & many other psychological neuroses.

  5. The schools evidently don’t think the three Rs are very important because they have been turning out large numbers of functional illiterates for years. The advocates have been pushing this type of “education” for a long time. Go here and take a look. http://nameorg.org/

  6. Matt: Regarding negative contributions they do teach that white Europeans were horrible to native Americans, killing them and stealing their lands. And don’t forget slavery. So white people have been mostly bad.

  7. This reminds me of an article by Paul Graham ( http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html ):

    “The famous scientists I remember were Einstein, Marie Curie, and George Washington Carver. Einstein was a big deal because his work led to the atom bomb. Marie Curie was involved with X-rays. But I was mystified about Carver. He seemed to have done stuff with peanuts.

    “It’s obvious now that he was on the list because he was black (and for that matter that Marie Curie was on it because she was a woman), but as a kid I was confused for years about him. I wonder if it wouldn’t have been better just to tell us the truth: that there weren’t any famous black scientists. Ranking George Washington Carver with Einstein misled us not only about science, but about the obstacles blacks faced in his time.”

  8. I’m tickled pink [sorry about that] over the LGBT history “push” for Cali indoctrinators educators. It means the more time they spend fine-tuning and playing their politically correct fiddles, the less time they have to work on other stuff. Plus the closer we draw to Sacromento burning. Fun times ahead.

    The other part of this is that real students undergoing slanted indoctrination efforts understand they are being fed dung, anyway. It only serves to cause those youth even further disgust with the public school effort. We have one more validation of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and that’s certainly not an altogether bad outcome, is it?

  9. They say what happens in CA happen will eventually happen nationally, if this is the case, I wish CA would secede. A great discovery, contribution, idea, philosophy, etc. should judged by its own merits, how is sexual orientation or disability status even relevant. It makes me think of the expression, “some of my best friends are (fill in the blank).

  10. If memory serves, during the debate a few years ago about the constitutional amendment in California to ban gay marriage (or, should I say, to clarify constitutionally what the law had always been in California since day one for those who were having trouble understanding the existing law), the proponents of traditional marriage were arguing that one of the likely results of legalizing gay marriage in California would be that it would be required to be taught in school to children as an acceptable lifestyle. The proponents of gay marriage responded with righteous indignation that this was certainly not the case, that they would never push such an action forward, and that the school curriculum was in no danger whatsoever of being required to include such matters.

    Wherever you stand on this issue, it is now apparent which side was speaking genuinely at the time . . .

  11. They’ve left out a group from the curriculum. In the interest of fairness they need to include a hated, persecuted group singled out for their cultural beliefs that clash with the American norm:

    Yes, they need to include Mormons in those text books. It’s only fair.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *