IL Teacher Suspended For Assigning Article On Homosexuality In Animals

[Roland99]

IL Teacher Suspended For Assigning Article On Homosexuality In Animals
http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/il-teacher-suspended-assigning-articl

Bigotry is not a natural instinct, it is taught. Homosexuality is as natural as the sun in the sky, but ignorant, hateful people will never accept that fact. The suspension of this high school teacher in Piasa, Illinois is a perfect example of how this hatred and ignorance infests the minds of our children:

Yesterday, Mr. Delong, a 10th and 12th grade Honors English teacher in Piasa, IL was suspended for assigning an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom to his students. Should teachers ask their students to read about controversial topics? Should we allow parents veto power over the curriculum

Mr. Delong is reportedly a married, heterosexual teacher who identifies as an ally of the GLBTQ community and clearly has the respect and admiration of his students. This is just one of many examples of how teachers are taught to be conservative and non-controversial and why GLBTQ youth don't feel safe in schools. If a school district considers teaching with a scientific article written by a professor at Stanford University and published in a popular science magazine as controversial and worthy of suspension - then how can we convince other educators to stand up and teach critically? In order to help students learn to become critical thinkers and active citizens in a participatory democracy, it is essential to have teachers encourage students to question normative thinking and learn to critically evaluate information for themselves -- particulary with respect to sex, gender, and sexuality.

Are we past the point of no return to a society that fights to learn and think?

Perhaps it's because I'm currently reading Fahrenheit 451 that news like this really scares the hell out of me in that it actually fucking happened!

[Canuckistanian]

1. Here's the Facebook page supporting his re-instatement

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=163432612279&ref=mf

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. And here's the article

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she’s no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there’s a vertebrate out there that does it. Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior.

Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University, wants to change that perception. After cataloging the wealth of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom two years ago in her controversial book Evolution’s Rainbow—and weathering critiques that, she says, stemmed largely from her being transgendered—Roughgarden has set about replacing Darwinian sexual selection with a new explanation of sex. For too long, she says, biology has neglected evidence that mating isn’t only about multiplying. Sometimes, as in the case of all those gay sheep, dolphins and primates, animals have sex just for fun or to cement their social bonds. Homosexuality, Roughgarden says, is an essential part of biology, and can no longer be dismissed. By using the queer to untangle the straight, Roughgarden’s theories have the potential to usher in a scientific sexual revolution.



more . . . http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Here is a good piece about his suspension in Psychology Today:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gender-and-schooling/200910/high-school-teacher-suspended-after-assigning-article-homosexuality

[aikoaiko]

4. The suspension is wrong, but teachers who push local bondaries....

... check these things out with their principal so that the principal can protect them.

[MadHound]

5. Umm, teaching about what goes on at the San Francisco pride parade might be controversial,

Teaching about the realities of the animal world, that's not controversial except for a few parents that have a huge problem. Should we continue to cater to the bigoted minority out of fear, or shall we teach our children the truth? I suggest the latter, since that's the only way we're going to advance as a society.

Furthermore, they were teaching this in my high school thirty years ago. Any farmer kid can also tell you about this. Are you telling we have to pander to the assholes who want to drag our education back to the Stone Age? I don't think so.

[joeycola]

7. The resulting book, Evolution’s Rainbow,...........

is an interesting book.



.....After living for a year in Santa Barbara while undergoing the “physical aspects of the transition,” Roughgarden returned to Stanford in the spring of 1999 and decided to write a book about the biology of sexual diversity. In particular, she wanted to answer the question that had first surfaced in her mind back in 1997. “When I was at that gay pride parade,” Roughgarden remembers, “I was just stunned by the sheer magnitude of the LGBT population. Because I’m a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist? A lot of biologists assume that they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual orientation. If so, gay and lesbian people are a mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. But this hasn’t happened. That’s when I had my epiphany. When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.”

Credit: Catherine Ledner

The resulting book, Evolution’s Rainbow, was an audacious attack on Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. To make her case, Roughgarden filled the text with a staggering collection of animal perversities, from the penises of female spotted hyenas to the mènage à trois tactics of bluegill sunfish. As Roughgarden put it, “What’s coming out is to the rest of the species what the Kinsey Report was to humans.”

According to Roughgarden, classic sexual selection can’t account for these strange carnal habits. After all, Darwin imagined sex as a relatively straightforward transaction. Males compete for females. Evolutionary success is defined by the quantity of offspring. Thus, any distractions from the business of making babies—distractions like homosexuality, masturbation, etc.—are precious wastes of fluids. You’d think by now, several hundred million years after sex began, nature would have done away with such inefficiencies, and males and females would only act to maximize rates of sexual reproduction.

But the opposite has happened. Instead of copulation becoming more functional and straightforward, it has only gotten weirder as species have evolved—more sodomy and other frivolous pleasures that are useless for propagating the species. The more socially complex the animal, the more sexual “deviance” it exhibits. Look at primates: Compared to our closest relatives, contemporary, Westernized Homo sapiens are the staid ones. ...............




http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom

[izquierdista]

13. Artificial dialectic here

I don't see the reason to set this up as an "audacious attack" on Darwin. This reviewer must have blundered into this bit of science writing from a background of writing melodramatic soap operas. Darwin has no problem with sexual selection, his analysis was correct in the first order -- sex is primarily about reproduction. However, in the higher order analysis, it gets more interesting and varied, but it still reinforces the basic premise: survival of the fittest. It is interesting that Roughgarden has documented how being the "fittest" in a socially complex setting involves MORE sexual behaviors than just plain reproduction.

[joeycola]

16. I agree, I did not the so so oppositional language either.

[SallyMander]

21. Well, the writing may be a bit over the top

but this book/perspective did cause a BIG stir in the evolutionary biology community (of which i am a part). There is an "old guard" that is EXTREMELY put out by Dr. Roughgarden's views, and that dismisses her work as pushing an agenda. I've had the pleasure of meeting her and hearing her speak on a couple occasions -- she is incredibly sharp and a great speaker. At one of these events the questions following her talk got more heated than i've ever seen at a scientific presentation, basically accusing her of doing biased research because of her personal background. It was pretty uncomfortable, but she handled it gracefully!

[aikoaiko]

36. Pander? No. Protect yourself from suspensions? Yes.

Its fine to have the truth on your side, but it helps to be political.

[tonysam]

46. Not only run it by the principal but get parental consent over issues

that are controversial.

Teachers in public schools do NOT have academic freedom or freedom in anything else. You do what you are told--or else.

Of course I am extremely biased about the inside politics of public schools.

[wolfgangmo]

63. Principals "protect" teachers. Bwahahahahahahaha.

I suppose it might happen somewhere but I've never seen it.

[aikoaiko]

82. Its more likely if you work with them ahead of time so that they can be prepared for the complaints.

[Tim01]

6. He is right ,but that is not the point, at all.

Most parents don't want their kids taught this at school. Especially by a teacher who has no business pushing his personal agenda in English class.

I have a very long list of issues I would like kids taught in school, including the safe use of guns, but that is not what the majority of parents of the kids want. But there is also a list of things that almost all parents DO want their kids taught in school. Gay sex is not on that list, neither is gun safety. Do the job or get fired.

[Roland99]

8. "almost all parents", eh? Done a study of "almost all parents" have you?

The point is that education is being dumbed down and turned politically correct and anything that is deemed controversial by even one parent or offensive by another is shouted down.

The United States of Obedience is not what we should be about!

[Tim01]

9. Have you ever lived in the United States at all? Ever?

Parents DO NOT want their kids being taught about gay sex in English class. English class is for English. They want math, reading, writing, and athletics. Not gay sex, not guns, not religious extremists, not politics.

Do you need a study to know most people don't want to eat dirt?

[Roland99]

10. In animal behavior, not human.

The only people offended are the brain-dead Fund-A-Mental cases who think the earth is 6000 years old.

The day we give in to them is the day we might as just stop trying at all.

[immoderate]

22. Just meat and potatoes?

You are generalizing the preferences of the mostly uneducated. Doesn't sound like you condone it as an educational philosophy. At worst, you are caving to the tyranny of the (ignorant) majority. No critical thinking, art, music, shops? Do you call that education? Do most parents want their kids to learn trigonometry? If not, do we discontinue it?

And in an English class, what do you do after you finish diagramming sentences? What about gathering information, summarizing and analyzing, and reporting? Are these not skills we want to teach? What topics would no one find controversial? Who would want to read only those bland essays?

I'll speculate that this topic didn't come out of the blue. It probably emanated from a class discussion. The students are motivated. A few assholes have effectively axed real education. This is not teaching homosexuality. It's teaching reading and thinking.

--imm

[Roland99]

56. "It probably emanated from a class discussion." You are correct

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. So you'd be in favor of teaching gun safety?

[Roland99]

39. Did you even read the article? And other links in this thread?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Yes but what does that have to do with my question?

[Roland99]

50. You obviously didn't.

*sigh*

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Don't be scared just answer the question.

[Roland99]

65. Your question has nothing to do with the topic. You are distracting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. No I'm asking you about a specific topic that would be controversial and your support for it.

[Roland99]

72. I know what you're doing and you're distracting from the topic of the article

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. You are avoiding a simple question because the answer is contrary to your declared beliefs.

[Roland99]

76. Actually, it's not. But you're *still* distracting from the original topic.

You offered up absolutely no criticism nor praise of the article. You questioned my sensitivity on an unrelated topic.

Either address the topic or take your trolling elsewhere.

[LeftyMom]

41. Is there no thread you people won't try to hijack?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Common criticism when people don't want to answer a question.

[rd_kent]

81. Who are "you people"?

[QC]

95. No. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Whaaaaah. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. How does scientific fact become a personal agenda? Oh, yeah, to religious loonies

anything they don't like is a "personal agenda"; everything else is "common sense", even if it's demonstrably false.

To normal people, if something is factual, then there is no ethical or moral reason not to teach it in our public schools, unless the end-product is for something unethical, illegal, or immoral. That is, teaching how an atomic bomb is made and operates is just plain science; asking the kids to build one as a lab experiment or handing out flyers of places they can illegally buy uranium is utterly wrong.

We should educate our children into truth and facts, not into avoidance and pretend make-believe bullshit.

[theHandpuppet]

14. This was an optional, extra-credit assignment

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/10/seed_magazine_in_the_classroom.php

Seed Magazine in the Classroom: Grounds for Suspending the Teacher??
Category: Religion in Schools
Posted on: October 31, 2009 9:15 AM, by Mike Dunford

Apparently, offering high school English students the chance to read an article on the Seed Magazine website is ground for suspension - at least if you're an English teacher in Piasa, Illinois.

According to several media reports, teacher Dan DeLong has been suspended with pay pending a Monday evening board meeting. The suspension came about when a parent complained about the content of an optional, extra-credit assignment that DeLong had offered students in one of his 10th grade honors classes. The assignment? Read an online version of an article by ScienceBlogger Jonah Lehrer that appeared in a 2006 issue of Seed Magazine. The article in question deals with homosexuality. In animals.

That's right. Apparently, Teh Gay is so offensive that students need to be protected from being permitted to read about it in any form whatsoever, even in animals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Was the same extra credit offered for an assignment on another topic?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

18. I almost agree, but it was an Honors class

And according to a comment made to the newspaper article (http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/animal-32564-article-delong.html?orderby=TimeStampAscending&oncommentsPage=1#slComments) by someone who apparently is familiar with the circumstances, this article was suggested as optional reading to augment a discussion that started the day before.

It is quite likely the discussion was started, or moved in this direction by the students. Allowing the benefit of doubt and so assuming it was something like that, what should the teacher say? "Well we can't talk about that because it involves sex and I'm not allowed to discuss sex with you, even in the animal kingdom." So much for teaching critical thinking skills.

That said, I guess I hope it was the 12th grade class and not the 10th grade class. I think our society is WAY too hung up on this stuff and it should have been fine to bring it up even in the 10th grade - but our reality isn't like that.

And, it should not be controversial for these Honors students because it damn sure should have been taught to them in Biology class, that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Most (all?) Honors students would have had Biology in 9th grade, right? Or sooner?

[Tim01]

23. Honors class does change things.

Even if it was an honors class the teacher was still riding the ragged edge. But he could/should expect to have a lot more latitude to push the boundaries of expected norms than a teacher who is teaching spelling and sentence structure.

This is really about classism, but it is the way it is.

[DeSwiss]

28. "...but it is the way it is."

And it always will be. Until we change it.

[Deja Q]

30. I must agree. If two girls hand out nekkid pics of themselves to others and the school steps in,

people say "THAT IS NOT THE SCHOOL'S BUSINESS!"... especially when the girls instigate a frivolous lawsuit because the school dared to discipline them...

School (used to be/should be) about acting behaved, reprimanding troublemakers, and teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and other intellectual fundamentals. For 40+ years, it's been rather different -- and far worse now than it was even 20 years ago (and back then, when I was in high school, it was bad enough, with what was allowed...)

When sexuality is introduced, all hell breaks loose and there are enough double-standards already (it's not the school's business to reprimand a couple of teenage freaks who indiscriminately hand out pix of themselves) but it's apparently the school's business to teach kids that two male mallards might be getting busy behind the bushes?! Of course it's ridiculous!

Whether the teacher be a fundie or the left-wing extremist equivalent, since when is having kids study the gay sex lives of animals relevant... or heterosexual sex lives of animals for that matter... hell, we can't even teach our own not to make babies when they themselves are little older than babies either...

[surrealAmerican]

55. It's relevant because the students brought it up in a class discussion.

A good teacher will encourage students to follow their intellectual interests, even when they might be controversial.

These aren't little kids, they're 15 and 16 year-old honor students. They can cope with reading things they may disagree with.

[TommyO]

58. This wasn't teaching "gay sex"

[Toasterlad]

59. Yep, Every Discussion of Homosexuality Eventually Comes Down to An Illustrated Lesson in Fisting.

:eyes:

You're disgusting.

[krabigirl]

67. Um, I'm a parent and I'd rather my kids learn this than waste time in stupid pep rallies.

[JerseygirlCT]

93. +1

[saltpoint]

12. So is homosexual behavior in seals and giraffes and so forth as greivous

an abomination in the eyes of the Creator as it is in humans?

I think Jim Dobson ought to go on LARRY KING LIVE and address this topic at once.

[saltpoint]

15. You spelled 'grievous' wrong, you moran.

[joeycola]

17. LOL.

[JerseygirlCT]

94. Hey, don't pick on Saltpoint!

;)

[saltpoint]

108. : )

:hi:

[saltpoint]

19. If no such assignment had been offered as a curriculum mandate or as

extra credit, the same high schoolers would still go home to their computers after school and log on to Miss Trixie's Fun Page and BaZoobs.com and any other site they want to, gay or straight, right?

Those are PG versions of the sites they're actually logging onto.

So one assignment on animal sexual behavior just doesn't strike me as worth a tinker's damn, nevermind the excoriation of a teacher.

[MH1]

20. If this ends well for the teacher, it might be good in a way

This situation certainly expands on the lesson!

By the way another commenter on the news article said: "The reading in question was offered as a text in the study of persuasive speech. The text, as it was explained to me, was offered so students could examine whether the author's sexual orientation and personal views about homosexuality resulted in bias in the presentation of the material."

Seems like a good choice for discussion of that point.

[TicketyBoo]

24. I hope this isn't too far off topic

…but a teacher in our high school was suspended for a week in 2004 for showing students the online video of Nick Berg being beheaded.

That teacher, too, was an English teacher.

[Roland99]

25. What was his claimed context for showing that?

[TicketyBoo]

27. I really don't remember for certain, but

I believe he wanted to show the kids what we are up against.

[Roland99]

37. lovely.

[Deja Q]

31. Those were the days...

Fairly dumb on that instructor's part too...

May as well show the episode of "Sesame Street" where they had Big Bird mewling over the death of Mr. Looper...

[Mimosa]

49. ^ Not off topic

It's another example of an English teacher using the classroom in service of his personal concerns.

[Odin2005]

26. People are so delusional it's sad.

maybe it's my Asperger's, but I don't get how people can simply deny facts because they don't like the consequences. it's pure fallacy.

[Deja Q]

32. And maybe it's my Asperger's but if the teacher's job was to teach English,

shoehorning in biology as a mandatory topic for the kiddies to study is pretty much clueless on me too.

Maybe if this were a "Creative Writing" class, it would have gotten a pass. But I see zero relevance for adumbrating various reproductive habits of various non-human species in an English class.

[wolfgangmo]

66. Tell us, "o Bard. What should be in an English class?

Please tell us the approved list of literature. All others shall be banned and burned.

[DeSwiss]

29. K&R!

- I hope this teacher sues them for so much money that when he wins, he be able to open up his own school system.

[snake in the grass]

34. k/r

[depakid]

35. How about teaching science in science class- and literature, etc. in English class?

The guy was asking for trouble and he got it.

[Roland99]

38. Oh really? Read the article? Or posts 14 and 18?

[depakid]

45. What do they have to do with science?

If the teachers wants to explore the issues in advanced English classes, there's plenty of literature out there to read and discuss.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

69. What a ridiculous response

Education is interdisciplinary at every level. For example, one cannot study art, science or civics without the study of history. One cannot understand the mechanisms of persuasion (a common topic for composition courses) without examining psychology and sociology.

Effective education uses an interdisciplinary curriculum. Period. It is too bad so many people are ignorant of this very basic and important concept.

[wolfgangmo]

70. I agree - he was asking for trouble.

I mean, what was he thinking? He should have stuck to teaching only English in his class. He should have never brought that article into class as an extra credit assignment because it was obviously written in some kind of Teh Gay Swahili, which some people say leads to anal fisting.

I guess the reason I am no longer a teacher (got in too many pissing matches with pin headed principals who hated kids) , and yet tons of my former students stay in touch, is that I TAUGHT STUDENTS. I didn't teach my subject but rather used that subject to teach my students how to think. My favorite teacher/mentor taught HS chemistry and he once told me afer I became a teacher that my job was to teach students to think first and my subject matter second. Of course he taught in Canada so he never had to deal with the level of divot head that US teachers get to deal with.

But you are probably right, that teacher needs to be punished... by a homosexual giraffe with a perverse taste for pink primates.

[raw oysters]

102. How, exactly, does an American learn about science without reading English?

(assuming it's hir Lingua Franca, as it were...)
:silly:

[QC]

105. Composition students read texts from a variety of fields, including science.

It's not all about memorizing the first fourteen lines of the Canterbury Tales in Middle English, you know.

[Swamp Rat]

43. k&r

[The Midway Rebel]

47. Sounds like an awesome teacher! We need more like him! n/t

[Mimosa]

48. Do we want teachers pushing personal agendas?

I'm troubled when teachers use classrooms to forward any personal agendas. The class the teacher taught was English, not biology.

[Roland99]

51. First, read thru the article and the links in it, plus posts 14 and 18. NO personal agenda involved.

[olegramps]

52. What struck me was "when one parent complained."

I wonder what the other parents thought about this. Perhaps the parent that complained is a fundamentalist with as much of an agenda as some suppose that the teacher had. Seems to me that it would be a great topic for exploration in a biology science course. I appreciated the remark by one person who said that kids that grew up on farms saw this type of behavior. I can attest to this. I just supposed that the cows weren't in the mood except a couple of times a year and the bulls were just horny all the time.

[Ohio Joe]

53. HE IS TRYING TO CONVERT OUR CHILDREN TO TEH GAY!

By educating them on how it is normal and natural. Stupid fundies.... They have no regard for anyone or anything that does not fit their agenda of control.

[KamaAina]

104. AND OUR BOX TURTLES!!!1!!111!!

:sarcasm:

[NoodleyAppendage]

54. Next class assignment. "Why are conservatives threatened by opposing views?" 5pgs double-spaced.

It's high time that the Xtians get their asses kicked. At least the Romans had a sensible solution...

J

[Ishoutandscream2]

57. An excellent teacher. One who teaches critical thinking

And he's getting punished for it. This man doesn't deserve this. Sad.

[Toasterlad]

62. Reading the Blatant Ignorance and Subtle Homophobia In This Thread Is Illuminating.

Learning about natural animal behavior is now "pushing an agenda". And these people are supposed to be LIBERALS.

This is one fucked up country.

[redqueen]

64. " Learning about natural animal behavior is now "pushing an agenda". "

Yep... very fucked up. I just skimmed the subject lines of the posts in this thread, and decided it wasn't worth it.

*sigh*

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

71. we have been conditioned to applaud ignorance

..and it has worked well.

[Tim01]

73. Next class assignment should be reading the christian bible, just a book. No agenda.

Probably the most influential book in our culture, ever. It should be required reading in english class.

And in science class the bits of the bible that have been proved true can be examined. No agenda, just science.
Lets look at the fact that bible thumping christians on average are much happier than non christians in this country. No agenda.


Might as well look at the disproportionate number of jews in the american media industry. Nothing wrong with it if it is true.

And lets study aids and which groups of people it has killed the most, and if their "lifestyle choices" had anything to do with the massive casualty rate. More science.

Lots and lots and lots of things we can look at that just for the sake of learning about, things that will seriously piss off parents because it is obviously part of somebodys personal agenda.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Extra credit write a paper on intelligent design. It's just a controversial subject after all.

[The Midway Rebel]

77. "ID" is not controversial. After critical analysis, it has been proven to be...

religious dogma. Besides that, if you bother to read the OP and the links provided you will see that teaching a controversy was never the teachers goal.

[Roland99]

78. Now you're starting down a real path. Albeit laced with sarcasm and derision

but you're still headed down the correct path.


What you fail to understand is that the topic should NOT matter. It's the process of teaching our children to THINK and either support or reject a topic and use reasoned logic to do so.

Your reaction, and that of too many others in this thread, is reactionary tripe on the same level as the one dissenting parent.

[Tim01]

79. The parents will vote out the school board members who are pissing them off.

The parents go nuclear on the board members who are NOT running the schools the way the parents want. The board chats with, or FIRES the principal who is allowing the controversial subjects in his school. The principal fires teachers who can't get it through their thick heads that causing an uproar will get them fired.

If the school board members do not protect the interests of the parents, they will be removed. And replaced with someone who will actually listen to the parents. REGARDLESS of whether the parents views make sense or not.

Do the job, or get fired. And then go home and cry about how terribly unfair the world is. Cry to the unemployment commission too, and the landlord who wants his rent.
So very uncomplicated.

[Roland99]

80. And you're supportive of that scenario? You have no problems with that?

*sigh*

[Tim01]

83. You think everybody should have to do things your way because you are right.

Exactly the same attitude as the fundamentalist christians.


School is basically a democracy, and extremist groups like fundamentalist christians don't get to force their ideas on everybody elses children.

If you want children taught about gay sex in public school then convince the rest of the parents to vote for board members who will encourage it. Math, reading, writing, P.E., history, and gay sex.
If you want your own children taught about gay sex, or white supremacy,or guns,fundamentalis or any of these volatile issues then teach them yourself or spend the money to send them to a private school which is in business to teach an agenda, like catholic school.

[joeybee12]

84. Your post is ignorant on so many levels, but let me point out one...

...it was one paper, clearly not an agenda...controversial topics open up discussion, help people to think or reason..big difference.

[Tim01]

85. Oh, please do enlighten me.

Even a brain dead idiot knows what a hot topic this would be at a school. And I don't know any teachers who would be enough of a dumbass to pull something like this. And I know a lot of them. Even the bible thumpers limit their recruiting to the teachers lounge, not the class room.
The fact that this teacher was fired indicates that somebody else knows how to keep their job. And knowing how hard it actually is to fire a teacher I have a very strong suspicion this was not this teachers first time of making their bosses life hard. And I'll bet the teachers file has enough documentation to protect the principal from a potential lawsuit by the teacher who got himself fired.

[Roland99]

87. Go read Fahrenheit 451 a few times over.

Then you'll realize how ridiculous your obedience argument is.

[Tim01]

91. You are so very disappointing. nt

[Roland99]

92. Project much?

[Tim01]

96. I work in the school system, and you're a fan of a movie guy.

I'm losing respect for your opinion at a pretty good clip here.

[Roland99]

97. A movie guy? wtf?

Have you or have you not read that book?

If so, are you not aware of the type of society that existed in there?

If so, do you not see the glaring parallels between that and what we're seeing in the REAL WORLD in situations such as this one in this thread?


If not, then you do not need to be teaching.

Oh wait. You didn't specifically state you're involved in teaching. I guess I can only hope that's the case and you're just some paper-pusher in the office or on the janitorial crew. Perhaps you're an assistant coach on the football team. You'd fit right into the type of society you're defending.

[TommyO]

99. Teaching "gay sex?" Recruiting?

Thank you for parroting the right-wing hate mongers.

[QC]

103. DU is a very different place since the right wing takeover, isn't it?

Did you ever imagine that you would read this kind of shit, along with the sophomoric red-baiting that now passes for "pragmatism" around here, on this site?

[Roland99]

86. Have you not read the other links in this thread?!?! It's an *OPTIONAL*, *EXTRA CREDIT* assignment.

and it came about from a conversation that came up previously in class!!

[Toasterlad]

90. Natural Animal Behavior Is Not Gay Sex

You bigoted asshole.

[Toasterlad]

89. So It's Wrong to Teach Children About How the World Works Just Because Some Parents Are Stupid?

You don't belong here.

[Tim01]

98. I'm getting sick of explaining reality to you.

For the LAST TIME! It doesn't matter if the subject material is true. DOES NOT MATTER! If you get parents pissed off and freaked out because you are teaching their children stuff they absolutely do not want you teaching , those parents can and will fire everybody all the way down the chain of command.
As has been so efficiently demonstrated by the fact that this teacher was FIRED!

A teacher has every right to stand on their morals and insist on teaching things that are true, in spite of what the parents of those children want.
Just like the teachers who have no choice because they are answering the call of almighty god. They can teach people at the unemployment office.

[Toasterlad]

100. So If Parents Decide 2+2=5, You're Totally Cool With a Teacher Getting Fired For Saying Otherwise

Got it.

I hope for the sake of the children that you don't REALLY work in the school system.

[Tim01]

106. Parents are fine with math in math class. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

They are NOT ok with subject matter that is not part...........oh fuck it. You are never going to get it. Carry on with your crusade.

[Toasterlad]

107. THAT Is Your Best Argument?

That ignorant, bigoted parent didn't object because the class was English rather than Homosexual Behavior in Animals. The ignorant, bigoted parent objected because it heard "homosexual" and immediately thought "teh gays are after my kid!" Which is apparently what YOU thought.

I reiterate my fondest wish that you aren't really in a position to "educate" children.

[Toasterlad]

88. You Can't Equate Religion and Homosexuality. Religion Is a CHOICE.

And exactly WHAT parts of the bible have been "proven true"?

What time are you due back in Freeperville?