Curriculum compromise?
CommentsIn discussions at the comments section about teaching the origin of the universe and humanity several weeks ago I gave the following proposal:
I would personally like to see public schools teach an interdisciplinary unit in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades (say) on the origins of the universe and the etiology of human beings, exploring scientific, religious, philosophical, and literary perspectives. Since the religious content would be “what Jews believe about the origin of the universe” and “what Hindus believe about the origin of man” and the Bible would be studied alongside the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Origin of Species, and other texts, such a unit would be legally considered the academic study of religion, not religious indoctrination, and would thus be constitutional. And it would achieve my goal of having the beliefs of the majority of parents represented, instead of the current system where Darwin is taught and if creation is mentioned it is disparaged.
Even my usual antagonist Mark Barton indicated he could live with something like my proposal. So I’m wondering if we can’t find a similar compromise to public school discussions of marriage in states that pass same-sex marriage (no revision is need in the other states, because nobody’s tring to stop any particular definition of marriage from being taught there). What if we tell teachers not to discuss marriage in any way except in carefully designed units taught in, say, 3rd, 7th, and 11th grades that would introduce legal, historical, anthropological, religious, and literary perspectives on marriage. Marriage in all its manifestations would be discussed, and as much as possible, everyone’s perspectives on what marriage is or should be would be included and respected.
What do people think?
David,
When was the last time you were in a public school, in 3rd grade, 7th grade, or 11th grade. I ask becuase I do have some background in the world of public education and early childhood education. Teachers, in early childhood programs, elementary-middle and even high schools, are building curriculum around families and the diversity of those families. Teachers are not creating these curriculums to promote an agenda, but rather are building support for children who have unique family structures. As you know, many children grow up in family sturctures of single moms, single dads, grandparents as parents, siblings, same-sex parents, blended families, interracial families, inter-religious families. This is America.
Being part of the world of early childhood education, I know first hand of how children and families in early childhood programs aka daycares create picture boards and stories that reflect their family makeup and important people in the lives are displayed for everyone . So children learn very early about different kinds of families, they share stories of marriages, divorce, mommy’s special friend, daddy’s new girldfriend, Grandpa’s new wife, daddy’s roommate, Aunt Sarah’s lover, etc. In primary grades, Parents are encouraged to participate in classrooms and help overburdened teaching staff and children again learn about family, marriage and relationships and primary schools have family nights where these diverse families blend together.
I also know that during dramatic playtime in early childhood settings and in early primary settings, children create scenes of marriage and replicate the worlds they live in and see. In those make believe worlds, marriage ceremonies come about, with suzi and billy getting married, holly and amanda getting married, and yes there are times when johnny and logan get married.
This proposal to attempt to control the introduction of marriage seems quite futile, unless we stop and step back, change the rules and adopt the rule that every child entering a public institution of education to come with one mother and one father . . . well you can see where that goes.
I know you really want to find some way to control the world of marriage, but don’t think it is going to happen. YET, what happens to children who don’t come from a family where ‘marriage’ didn’t happen, or ‘marriage’ dissolved, or ‘marriage’ was a nightmare for the child(ren)? Who honors them?
I agree that we should explore the history of marriage, honor all marriages, but it needs to be respectful of everyone.
You assume that even in states where ‘marriage is protected’ that marriage is only seen in one light. Today’s yout’ are tomorrow’s voters. Today’s college graduates grew up with Ellen, Will and Grace, Philadelphia, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Brokeback Mountain, Brothers and Sisters, Big Eden. Times are a changing.
Don’t confuse
“what Jews believe about the origin of the universe”
with
“what traditional Judaism teaches about the origin of the universe.”
They’re not the same thing. The first is a sociological question. The other is one of religious teaching. I suppose in a class a could point out that X percent of people who describe themselves as Jewish believe A, and Y percent of people who describe themselves as Christian believe B… and so forth.
I know that Orthodox Judaism teaches that the universe came into being at the command of God. I just don’t think most Jews believe that. (One Orthodox solution to this is to deny the Judaism of those who do not follow their practices.)
Personally, I don’t remember any discussion of marriage during my school days. I don’t think we need to be writing more laws concerning how curriculum should be established. They’re learning about the Civil War. Not the Same-Sex-Marriage Wars.
For that matter, I know that anything involve sex, sexuality, or reproduction, gets carefully vetted. No administrator wants a group of irate parents (of any end of the spectrum) in his or her office.
Sounds okay, David, provided we can trust the teachers to present the facts objectively. And I’m not sure that’s possible.
Rusty-
I’m trying to solve the problem that in gay-marriage states, gay activists have indicated they are going to try to silence teachers who wish to teach that marriage is between a man and a woman. In the other 48 states, public school teachers are free to teach whatever they want about marriage. I think a curriculum like I proposed would be fair to everyone. I would also be comfortable with a rule that marriage is never to be discussed in public schools in any way. But a policy where kindergartners hear their teacher read “King and King” and Heather’s two Moms come in to tell the class how great it is to be in a lesbian “marriage” - but nobody ever tells the students that most people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else is not a marriage is completely unacceptable to me. I think both the approaches I have proposed are fair to both sides, but I will not accept a policy that promotes same-sex marriage and treats the opinion of people like me as “bigoted” and equivalent to opposing interracial marriage.
John D-
I believe anyone with a Jewish mother is Jewish. So I see your point about not saying “Jews believe,” but I think practically it’s not that big of a deal. I could say “Americans believe in democracy” and that wouldn’t be technically 100% true either. Or “Democrats believe in a woman’s right to choose.”
I do not accept the need to say “traditional” before Judaism because there is no such thing as non-traditional Judaism. Reform Judaism is not Judaism (I say that both as an Orthodox Jew and as a scholar with 3.5 years of graduate training in Jewish history). Just because a bunch of Jews believe things contrary to our tradition does not make that Judaism. There are many Jews who believe Jesus is the son of G-d. Does that make Christianity Judaism?
As I mentioned above, I could definitely live with a don’t-discuss-marriage policy in public schools.
David, in the news I found some info that I would like you to consider as you continue your quest to legislate the world of public education and the issue of marriage. First is a quote by Ward Connerly and then I would like you to consider the world you would like to create where one small person who just a tad bit over a year old will be growing up in. . .
Quoting Ward Connerly, a conservative black Republican:
The government shouldn’t be making distinctions about people on the basis of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And those within my party that try to inject the government into that, they’re not the conservative, I’m the conservative. I’m saying, keep government small, keep government out of people’s personal lives. If you’re going to give benefits to people who happen to be straight, give the same benefits to people who are gay. That to me was a very easy call.
I took a lot of heat from “strong conservatives” who said that I was eroding the concept of marriage. I’m not “eroding the concept of marriage.” If marriage is that fragile, that giving people who are gay equal benefit (would cause harm), then we’re in big trouble. I believe in the institution of marriage, but I also believe in freedom. I believe in treating people equally. . . .
I grew up in a time when I was forbidden from marrying people who were not of my race. In 1962, when my wife and I got married, in some parts of the country, we would have been breaking the law. It wasn’t until 1967, when the Supreme Court in the Loving (vs. Virginia) case said that that’s unconstitutional. So, I feel very strongly that the government shouldn’t be treating people differently just because they are gay.”
And now to Samuel David Cheney, son of Mary Cheney and Heather Poe. Mary Cheney is taking a stand for gay marriage. With your current proposal of limiting - censoring - the lives of gays and lesbians who seek and want marriage, how do you with a clear conscious, state that you are respecting and honoring Samuel David Cheney, and the other children who come from families that don’t fit your definition of ‘family and marriage’. . .?
So with your don’t-discuss-marriage policy in public schools, should we not discuss other social changes like the suffragette movement because it infuriates those who believe women be silent and pregnant and at home, civil rights because it infuriates white supremecists who believe that people of color are not equal, teen pregnancy because it infuriates folk who think that talking about sex leads to sex or . . .