Day of silence and other perceived injustices

[MrsB]

I started this thread to respond to rebecca. I think it would be a shame if her thoughts were to be lost in an old thread.

For those of you who have not been following this, There is a group of folks who seem to have some issues with the civil rights of some of our citizens. I will not be so broad to say that all of the petition signers are of this ilk, just some, and some are allong for the ride, doing what they believe a good "person of faith" should do.


Well I am a person of faith, and I stood up at a BOE meeting and here is what I said.
********************************************
I have come out of my comfortable house to speak to you today about silence.
Last year when the day of silence was protested by Rebecca ****** and the 60 people that stood up to support her at the BOE meeting on May 11th, I was silent.
I assumed that you would take care of this.
I assumed that you, the people I voted for to protect all of Wethersfield’s children, from bigotry and hate would take a strong stand on their objection to a peaceful action of silence.
I assumed that you would take care of these adults who are so threatened by students banding together to work against hate that they would band together to discriminate against them.
I was wrong.
They are back. Which means they feel you will back down if given enough pressure.
So silence is not for me anymore.
You left last years discussion with a question mark in the air, with a -but maybe- floating above this topic.
A bad thing for any parent to do, a worse thing for a leader.

The fact that you would even slightly entertain the notion of stopping this day is slap in the face to those students, teachers, parents and staff members that work everyday to insure that every student is not just safe, but FEELS safe, is not just tolerated but equal.
Have you even gone to the front lines and asked the people who battle the tears every day?? Just ask the social worker and councilors you employ.

No one is asking to convert straight students into Homosexuals. That is as impossible as turning a blue bird into a robin. No one is asking for your churches blessings in their life choices, no one is asking for you to invite them over for dinner.
What they are asking for is for you to open your eyes and SEE them for who they really are.

The children of gay parents.
The friend of a gay student
The gay teen.
Every student who has a beloved gay uncle, aunt, grandparent, guardian, sister brother the list goes on… everyone who wants to identify friend and foe.
That is who they want you to see.
They’re under your banner and they are asking you for help.
Someone has to stand up to the bullies who hide behind the mask of adulthood, large mobs, and selectively interpreted ancient texts. The question is will that be you.

The students that do dare to wear the sticker and pass out the cards across the nation are only the bravest ones.
They are the new rights activists.
But there are also those who are not yet ready, and go sticker less and card less.
They are the ones who will be quietly watching, and in the end they will know friend and foe, they will see and hear what people say.
They are watching you. They see the teachers who signed that petition. They can see those in town that hate them and the fear their otherness.
When it is time for the watchers to reach out, and they will, because no one is so strong as to never need the help of a friend.
They will not come to you.
They will not come to that teacher who has sworn to be a protector, but does so only for some; they will come to the friend, the one who they can trust.

If you wish to God for anything, you should wish that the child silently watching is not your son or daughter, niece or nephew. Because they will know who you are and they will never forget.

It is my belief that Tolerance is never ever equality.
To tolerate someone assumes that you are superior to them.
I do not simply tolerate the petition signers in this town; I accept them for who they are even though they are not my kind. Some of them may be my neighbors or friends. I wouldn’t really know because they do not tell me their beliefs. They wait until they are 60 adults strong to stand up together, the safety of a group protecting their anonymity. But, I know that they are there and I know that the reason they feel this way is because they have not been touched by the unconditional love for man that they tout. I know that someday they will. I hope that it is sooner than later.
I do not have a group of 60 ready to stand behind me today. I can only speak for me and my husband whom you have already received a statement from.
I do this because I can take it.
I am strong enough to put on the sticker, to pass out the card and to teach my children that when god said we are all strangers in his land and we should love one another, he did not clarify that with … but ask first who turns them on, but test the color of their skin to yours, but ask if first if they vote red or blue. No he did not say that. He said Love the stranger among you, which is good advice—
Because the strangest stranger you will meet is yourself.

The mission statement of GLSEN is the following. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) envisions a future in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. I don’t know about you but that doesn’t seem so alarming. This is the group that the detractors feel is spearheading the day of silence at WHS. Since they call this group to task I have pointed out the mission statement they have on there web site as proof of their insidious plan to take over and corrupt the minds of the students in our high school.

So what will you do? Will you say the students that the day of silence represent have only 3/5’s the rights of the phobic petitioners. Or will you decide that equality truly does mean equal and this district aims for excellence in all categories for all children.

********************************************
So that is what I thought then and now. The next BOE meeting brought people from both sides out and everyone spoke about it, lots of feelings were tossed about, and the BOE made their decision. To not change anything, basically to not decide.

The BOE was protecting the students civil liberties in allowing them to excercise the club's right to take part in the day of silence.

Rebecca, You are correct in your statement of GLSENS position on how to view people who disagree, however that argument was lost on me when the minister (JD) at first Church said in his sunday sermon that he is just as concerned about the neo natzi movement as he is about the club at the high school.

Your fear of this day is not about what you say it is, your fear stems from your refusal to belive that people can be different and good all at once. YOur group wants everyone to be the same, you don't tollerate the beautiful difference in our society and that will be your downfall. I Am sure that someday I will be able to say to my children that we are all different and equal.

As white educated women you and I have the supreme privledge of sitting here and debating this, but so many people do not. That is who I fight for on a daily basis, in my town, in my state and in my country. That is who I vote for every chance I get and that is who I pray for at my church. ---Where by the way, if you happened to be a man trapped in a womans body and identify as a lesbian, you would be more than welcome to sit and worship the divine spirit that made you the gollorius person you are. Right next to me and the old lady on the other side of you.

[RGarrey]

I probably shouldn't comment on this subject because it is going to be a no win situation, but I can't seem to keep my electronic mouth shut.

Here is my take on this Day of Silence. I believe that we should always teach our children tolerance of others, even when they are different than us, or even if we don't accept their beliefs/lifestyle, and respect to all those who earn it. Teaching and allowing our children to publicly stand up for or protest causes is a good thing.

The problem I have is allowing this protest to enter the classroom. The classroom should be a place where no one persons agenda, belief, protest, etc. should be allowed to be "pushed". (Sorry, couldn't think of a better word) We would never allow a teacher to push a political or social agenda in class. We would say that is inappropriate. To discuss political or social topics in the classroom is great, but I don't believe any protest or support of any one issue is appropriate in the class.

I am not saying this because of this particular issue. My concern is when other groups decide they want to support an issue inside the classroom. Who is going to be the one to decide which group is allowed to protest in the class? White Supremists, Right Wing Christians, Supporters of war or protesters of war, animal rights groups, pro light or anti light groups, etc.

My point is that this is a policy issue not an issue of being for or against Homosexuality. I don't know anything about (GLESN) and it doesn't matter, this issue to me is not about "the issue", it is about policies and long term effects. As a citizen I am concerned about potential lawsuits and disruption of the learning experience when the administration decides to not let a certain group protest inside the class.

In closing, we should all set examples for our children in regards to tolerance and community activism. We just need to be careful when we decide to allow this activism in the classroom for one group. You had better be prepared to afford all groups the same access to that venue.

[rebecca]

MrsB, I appreciate the depth of your feeling on this matter and I empathize with all those you describe who struggle with uncertainty, fear, confusion, and feelings of rejection, whether you believe this to be so or not. I have personal experience with homosexuality as a young man, a dear friend, nearly a brother to me and a son to my parents, revealed his homosexuality, left his wife and disappeared from our lives. His decision to sever ties was not our desire, mind you. We loved him. After ten years we finally had contact...in time to watch him die. I know the pain.

How can there be any kind of constructive, productive dialog where a real attempt at an understanding between us can take place if you descend into emotionalism, claim that homosexuals and gays ( You'll note I make a distinction.) are all "victims", that anyone who questions anything that has to do with the gay agenda is filled with hate, and characterize your fellow citizens as "phobic" cowards ( "the safety of a group protecting their anonymity")?

I am more than willing and happy to sit down with you over a good cup of coffee (or 2) and a hazelnut bagel and listen and share and struggle through where we differ. You know, I had a colleague at work who I became very close to. She and I knew we did not share the same world view, but there was no denying our connection. One day over coffee and a bagel we started to talk about this issue. (Note: She nor anyone close to her is gay.) As soon as I began to make my position known, she literally lost it, yelling and demanding I take her home. I responded by saying, "What happened to tolerance?" She simply glared at me and that was the end of our friendship.

MrsB," tolerance" MEANS we "tolerate" that with which we disagree. To tolerate something is to think your way of thinking is right, but you allow that others have the right to think differently. If you truly believe what you believe then you must believe the other guy is wrong. it is illogical to say otherwise. Do you not think you are right and I am wrong as it applies to the subject of our discussion? You do not think my view is equal to yours. You think I am a phobic bigot...and you have said so. If you really want to understand why I believe what I do, and you don't know what it is I actually believe, then let's have coffee.
Really...

A civil dialog was what we had attempted to have with the WHS administration, and an attempt to come to some sort of agreement that addressed the concerns of all involved, but our good faith efforts were met with incivility and demagoguery.

Can you and I do better?

[cruzrt]

RGarrey makes some interesting points in his post of 6/1/05. But, there's 1 issue that he's behind the curve on. He assumes that no one would ever allow a teacher to push a political agenda in a Public School classroom. I refer him back to the Council meeting of 2 weeks ago, when a WHS teacher (Physics, no less) admitted to discussing the Lights Referendum to her class. If it were Social Studies, maybe it gets by. I don't know the justification of doing this in PHYSICS class (unless Sheila S. was there to propound her theory on light dispersion).

[SyZyGy]

You are not far off with your reference to Shirley S. I see this physics teacher (Sue F) as being "groomed" by Shirley S. to fill her (latter's) place when the time comes. This is just another example of playing fast and loose with the rules at WHS. I believe that Sue F. is a member of the powerful teachers union; what is Shirley S's party affiliation? Hmmm.....

[rebecca]

RGarrey and cruzrt have articulated the main concern of the Day of Silence petition signers, that concern ignored by both the BOE and the WHS administration. Politicizing the classroom is a violation of the neutrality we expect from our schools on such issues. By allowing the event into the classroom the administration is implicitly, if not explicit endorsing the message being communicated. Teachers who participate and encourage participation are putting their seal of approval on the event as well, and appear, at least, to be agreeing with GLSEN's depiction of those who hold alternative views. If you think this has no influence on students just read the recent letters from them in the latest edition of "Wethersfield Life". The national sponsor of the Day of Silence tells kids anybody who has an alternative perspective on the issue is "intolerant". They say to our kids your parents are not only wrong, they are hate-filled bigots. Those themes appear in the letters these kids wrote. If any other event was to take place in the classroom sponsored by any other group who said things like that , you can be sure the administration would have put the ca-bash on it.

cruzrt observes teachers are all too often free with their opinions. I heard about a teacher at WHS who just this week told the class anyone who voted for Bush was an idiot (I paraphrase.) As a teacher myself, I know I do have certain rights to express my opinion in conversations in the classroom, but I am very careful about when, in what context and how I do so. Teachers do have a "power" over their students and need to be careful not to abuse that influence.

I find it interesting that RGarrey places "Right Wing Christians" next to "White Supremacists". It is an indication of the success of those who have strived to marginalize a whole group of people based on innuendo, lies and misinformation. It is said the only group you can hate these days and no one will say a word is conservative Christians. I suggest anybody who isn't alarmed by this read the article (link below) by Stanley Kurtz, a self-described secularist.

www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200504280758.asp

[rebecca]

For those of you who didn't read this when posted...This is the post MrsB was responding to.


This isn't the first time those who have been given power to make decisions on behalf of Wethersfield residents have chosen to ignore the rules in order to accomplish their own agenda. I, too, was happy to see, when Wethersfield residents were made aware of the facts, they voted to rebuke those who abused their position. Even if you do not agree with those who oppose the lights, they should be commended for their efforts in shedding "light" on the questionable tactics of some. ( My yard sign was stolen, too.) Their success in adequately informing Wethersfield citizens is a lesson for others who have been marginalized, their voices silenced by our elected representatives through equally questionable means.

As a participant in the effort to bring to the attention of Wethersfield residents the concerns about The Day of Silence at WHS of over 130 residents, including 11 clergy from six different churches in town, I was amazed and deeply disappointed to discover the lengths to which the Wethersfield Public School administration and the BOE members were willing to go in order to shut down any open, fair and balanced discussion on the matter. Even after 3 years and all of our efforts to inform our fellow citizens, misinformation about this issue prevails as to the substance of our concerns and the content of our petition to the BOE, which was rejected on March 22 of this past spring.

Is anyone on this board aware the reason the Board of Ed finally granted us a hearing was because they were summoned to appear before the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission? The BOE had allowed the high school principal to speak during executive session concerning the Day of Silence. This, we believe, was a violation of FOIA regulations. During this presentation the high school principal made false statements that were intended to (and did successfully) marginalize those who brought their concerns to the BOE by depicting them as extremist, statements that would not have been made in a public forum.

Is anyone aware that the Board did not in any way address the substance of the hearing petition, which simply stated, was an appeal for true tolerance? Instead, the administration and the BOE talked of classroom disruption at both the hearing and in an article in the May edition of Wethersfield Life, this line of reasoning taken up again by letter writers in the June edition of WL.

The national sponsor (GLSEN) of the Day of Silence tells students anyone who disagrees with them is not only a homophobic bigot but also "against women, people of color, poor people, old people and children." ( Day of Silence Student training manual, GLSEN 2002) A WHS teacher at the hearing said, "Who can be against tolerance? What's on the other side of tolerance?" The answer is simple. Intolerance is on the other side of tolerance. The question is who is being intolerant? How can the administration and the BOE sanction (by allowing this event into the classroom) and thus encourage students to participate in an event sponsored by a group like GLSEN that produces such hate speech?

Our petition simply asked the event be barred from the classroom ONLY, so as to make it clear to students ALL hate speech is unacceptable. The Day of Silence is not about harassment and bullying. It is about silencing a good number of Wethersfield residents (your neighbors) who, because of their concern for ALL students, have expressed reservations concerning GLSEN's message. If respect and tolerance does not apply to those with whom you disagree the word "tolerance" is rendered meaningless.

I ask you, where were our good neighbors helping us to defend our rights to be protected from those who advocate hatred? I can only hope that as we continue our efforts to bring this matter to the attention of our fellow residents, they will, as they did in this case with respect to the lights, choose to uphold what is right.

[AB]

I agree with the issue and the message being presented in some way in school - this was probably a very educational experience for students. Not sure it belongs in the classroom, though - maybe an assembly, before/after school event, or some other forum is more appropriate. I don't know enough about the sponsoring group to have an opinion but some of their rhetoric, if accurately quoted, is a bit much. RGarrey had some good points - now that we've opened the classroom door and the regular curriculum to outside groups and messages, good luck trying to keep all the other groups out.

[MrsB]

Rebecca, I think what is missing here is the part that we all acknowledge that this is a civil rights issue. I have to tell you that while I am honored you chose to share your story concerning your friend with me (us…cyberspace…) its one of those things that makes people from my side crazy. Imagine if I said, to a person who was under the impression that I was a racist, that I have black friends, I know black people, I love black people. That is the equivalent of what I AWAYLS here from people who do not think as I do about the equality issues our society faces. EVERYONE starts out with you should listen to me because I have a gay friend, I love him, I even let him and his “friend” come over for dinner. Please don’t think I am making light of your situation, or others but really it is so hard to take time and time again.

I really take in what you say about my judgments on your group.
I will think about it, but really I can’t see my self changing over coffee. Just as I would never assume that I could change your mind. You have not walked in my shoes, you have not had the experiences I have had, and you never will because you don’t believe that people can be healthy, spiritual, productive and in a committed adult relationship, whilst being a homosexual.

As an educator you must know that schools have been at the forefront in the civil rights movement. In those cases there were teachers who refused to teach, both women and people of color. They were often supported by their towns and supported by legislators. Conversely there were also the ones who helped the movement and fought to teach those who were previously left out.
Those teachers made a political statement.

When teachers and curriculum planners pick out text books for history, civics and current political issues classes; when they get their class room subscriptions to NEWSWEEK and not TIME, they are making a political statement.

When a teacher uses the Eurocentric model of history, they are making a political statement.

When teachers sign a petition to not support the day of silence they are making a political statement.

When teachers volunteer to run a young dems club, and environmental club, a cross fire type club, they are all making a political statement.

So politics and school go hand in hand.

If this was all about a silent demonstration in class FOR The war, I would have supported it. If this was all about a silent demonstration in class for the pro lifers I would have supported it. If this was all about race, creed, or the elections I would have supported it. What I would not have supported is a MANDATORY student body assembly on homosexuality, a debate on sexuality, a debate on the war, on abortion or on religion. I am all for open organized workshops or volunteer discussion groups. I would not support a speaker at the Day of Silence. I would consider those abuses of adult power on the children. What I do support is young adults trying on political issues in a safe way, working on organizing an event, feeling powerful for doing something they believe in and working on their community at the same time.

Your group wants to dilute this day to be about bullying in general. But that is unfair, we have anti bullying policies. What we don’t have is policies on the fair and equal treatment of Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students. If they get bullied because they are gay that is a hate crime in the real world, but it falls under the same punishment standards as regular bulling if done in school.

We don’t have a People of color history month we have a black history month. We don’t talk of Cesar Chavez, or Yuri Kochiyama in February we speak of Black activists and their courageous actions. Until homosexuals get bullied for reasons other than sexual preference we need to focus on the issue. And that is equal treatment for all humans.


RGarrey,
To answer the question about other protesters in the class room, in order for that to happen there would need to be a club formed and Mr. Moore spoke in length about what it takes to form a club. The BOE spoke with the attorneys about this and it is not possible for just anyone to start a day of silence against… red meat ….or anything. So unfortunately it’s not a policy issue, there is policy on it. It is about GLSEN and the day of silence, homosexuality and our ability to see the injustice that goes on


Sygyzy and cruzrt
The example about Sue F and the lights, is a little off base, as a seasoned and nationally recognized educator of excellence, I am sure she was not off color in her comments. She has admitted in the past to working in a lot of different themes in her role as a teacher. Physics is her subject, education is her job.

[RGarrey]

MrsB, I appreciate your comments but I still believe that no protest should be allowed in the class, by teachers or students. We will probably never agree on this issue.

I do have to make a comment about the physics teacher (Sue F). I had a conversation with her about this very subject. I would never speak for her but I feel compelled to defend her. This teacher has a passion for the political process, she has worked hard to create a Young Democrats club as well as a Young Republicans club. I know that when she spoke about this referendum it was to teach the students a lesson about one of the greatest tools available to citizens in our democracy, the citizen initiated referendum, and not to push an agenda. I would have to believe that she saw a great opportunity, with a referendum that many of the students were very interested in and some were even working on, to teach a lesson in democracy. An opportunity like that may never come again.

[rebecca]

MrsB
How can it be that my experience is illegitimate and yours is not? I love my children unconditionally but I am not always happy about the choices they make and I tell them so. Does that mean I do not love them? Rather the reverse wouldn't you agree? I reject your claim to the moral high ground. That claim is merely a rhetorical "shouting down", an attempt to silence and discredit those who disagree with you by claiming you are morally superior.

I cannot determine if you are deliberately refusing to engage me on the issue we have raised, the point of our petition, or if you still do not understand what we are saying. I do not know how to say it any more clearly than we have. It is you who are being intolerant. By allowing this event into the classroom you are telling students you agree with GLSEN's characterization of those who view things differently, that they are hate- filled bigots. You are, in effect, telling students you agree with THEIR "hate
speech". Perhaps you do, but if this is the case, then again it is you who violate your own professed beliefs of respect and tolerance for all.

The point is we disagree on the relevant issues. There are many Wethersfield parents who have a different perspective on the claims of victim-hood, the claim this is a "civil rights" issue. We reject the attempt to co-opt and identify with the struggle of African Americans in their quest for equality and freedom from discrimination, as do a great many of those in the African American community, as evidenced by the fact the overwhelming majority of the 3000 people at the recent marriage rally in Hartford this past spring and of the 6000 who attended in February of last year were African American and Hispanic.

A discriminated minority is defined by three factors, the first of which does not apply to the gay community, one that is being addressed, and one that is under dispute. The first concerns economic status and the fact is the gay community is represented across the economic spectrum from congressman to ambassadors to doctors, teachers, etc. Gays, on average, make more money than the average American. The second has to do with social discrimination and once again "tolerance" is the rule. We all agree you have the right to choose to believe what you will and live accordingly. ( obviously within certain limits...The interesting question is who determines what the limits are.) The "benefits" concerns as they relate to the marriage issue are being addressed, and many, if not most, can already be obtained through other legal means. (The marriage thing is, of course, another matter for discussion and its complexity requires a forum other than this, I think.)

The third is also under dispute and this has to do with discrimination as it relates to something you have no control over such as the color of your skin or your sex. Contrary to the often repeated claim that you are born homosexual, there is, as yet, no empirical evidence to support it. The one substantive study done a few years back which was highly publicized was discredited 6th months later as the methodology was shown to be faulty, although this fact was NOT highly publicized. That is no surprise. In the absence of scientific data social "scientists" are merely expressing their "opinions". That homosexual orientation is a reality I do not deny. Some people do have these feelings. People who identify themselves as "gay" have chosen to "define" themselves by their sexual orientation and have chosen to live a certain lifestyle as a result. ( Thus the distinction between "homosexuals" and "gay".) Even if there turns out to be a genetic determinant for homosexual feelings, such an orientation does not leave human beings without the power to make choices. It has been suggested there is a propensity for some toward alcoholism and other addictive behaviors. No one would suggest since alcoholics are born with this propensity it is good for them. Just because something is does not make it good. ( I think I must note here, traditional, orthodox Christian teaching says sex is GOOD . God created it. But as C.S. Lewis notes in "Mere Christianity" something has gone very wrong with sex. This applies to everybody, ALL of us. God knows what a mess heterosexuals have made of sex, marriage, and everything connected with it. I teach 11 and 12 year-olds. It is a scandal how we have sexualized our children!) That is, of course, a traditional Christian perspective. If your world view makes out that human beings are not much more than animals, then perhaps you could argue you can only follow your instinct to satisfy your appetites. It's only natural. Indeed, that is what we hear a lot of, isn't it? But a Christian perpsective simply says what has become "natural" is not what was intended. What has become natural might not be good for us, and this applies to everybody and in many aspects of our lives, not just sex. Our "first things", where we begin, our presuppositions will determine how we think about these things. That is why the hard work of a dialog between us (all of us) is so important. We have to brush away all the smoke screens, the pat answers, all the hype, all the sensationalized stuff that gets in the way of our understanding what the real issues are.

Once again, the point is there is no agreement on these matters. The problem has become anytime anyone who disagrees with you wants to have a discussion ( A dialog involves two parties reasoning together in the hopes of "persuading" the other to change their position. That is the nature of discourse.) they are shouted down, either literally or in effect, using name-calling and demagoguery. The idea that only ignorant, uneducated bigots are on "the other side" has been repeated so often civil dialog has become nearly impossible. That is what has happened in Wethersfield as is the case elsewhere. The activist gay community, as represented by groups like GLSEN, doesn't want my tolerance. They already have that.

I noted in an earlier post that as a teacher I do have opportunity and am called upon at times to weigh in on "political issues". As teachers we do have the right to express our opinions in the proper context. In this case, the administration and the faculty are endorsing a group whose stated views contradict what the administration and these faculty profess to believe in, namely respect and tolerance for all. ( To AB: The quote is real, targeted to students ( student training manual from their 2002 website.) I have a hard copy if you want one.) Are we surprised GLSEN's mission statement is innocuous? They aren't dumb. The idea that WHS students are not being manipulated by adults in this Day of Silence activity is also simply not true. The students who started this went to GLSEN's website. Their GSA is registered. They use GLSEN's language, their materials. I do not know what the pastor you refer to, MrsB, actually said or in what context, but I surmise he might have simply been pointing out the Nazi's targeted "youth" in their campaign to get their message out. You expressed the same concern in your post. We believe this is what GLSEN is doing, as well. I don't think the pastor was calling students who participate or adults who advocate this event Nazis. At any rate, this kind of talk is not helpful and it seems to me everyone ought to refrain from inflaming emotions by using it.

I do believe two women can love each other, raise kids and have a productive, happy life. Midge Decor, a "First Things" contributer, when speaking to the marriage issue said we need to make a disctinction between lesbian relationships and those of gay men, but that is a subject for another day.

MrsB, you put words in my mouth. You tell me what I think, what I believe. Won't you let me speak for myself?

So, the offer of coffee still stands.

[standish]

In my estimation, this issue is not about "civil rights", it's about sexual politics... an issue that does not belong in the classroom.

Furthermore, to permit the issue into the classroom is an implied endorsement by the administration of this particular political position, with all of its GLSEN sponsorship baggage.

[MrsB]

rebecca,
I have taken the last few days to really think about this from as far away a perspective as I could emotionally get. I find that if I don’t step away sometimes I end up saying things I don’t mean or wouldn’t say to your face. Not exactly how I would like to represent myself.

You and I could sit here and pull web sites out of the sky supporting our claims until we are blue in the face. None of them will be any more credible than the other and all could be disputed. In the end it will just polarize us on the issue even more.

This banter is not getting me or you, or our concerns anywhere. It’s turning into a mess-- much like the lights issue. There is my side and your side and what we are not addressing is a consensual middle wherein everyone is represented and feels like they are not being abused, or demonized.

So I respectfully suggest that instead of this type of discussion, where we are just trying to win. We discuss a plan that could instead be presented as a working idea to the teachers, administration, and BOE that would be a suitable but not altogether different event.

Obviously I hope you know that I am just a tax payer like you, I have no more control over this day than anyone else. What I do have is a voice and I would rather use it to preserve the positive aspects of the day of silence (possibly minus the inclusion of GLSEN) than to use it to fight with anyone over semantics around the huge issue of homosexuality. I also hope you know this won’t be making any friends for me from the liberal camps. However, that is not my concern; my concern is that the day continues in a way that is respectful to all, rather than being fought about and brought to court. Before this lights thing I would never think something like that could happen, but as we all know these kinds of disputes can end up costing us all a lot of money, with no clear winner in the end.

My hope is that you have some idea for a compromise, a day of acknowledgement that would satisfy you and the GLB club at school. A dream plan if you will. That kind of thing I would be willing to talk about and I would be willing to take it wherever it needs to go with you, and see if it can be applied to next years event.

With out this, my fear is that your group will just throw this into legal action, costing us all a great deal of money a la WTXA. Before that happens I would prefer that there was some effort, other than angry mobs and full page ads, made at an agreeable plan.

Again let me reiterate that I am no more a decision maker in this process than you; however I think that between the two of us and like minded people on both sides we can be a stronger voice than the divided sides we present now. That is my idea; you can take it or leave it. I can tell you that this day will be presented again next year, and every year until the club is no longer sanctioned by the H.S. I don’t see that happening. If you would like to change something sometimes the best way to do it is by tiny baby steps rather than wiping the whole thing out.

If this was to work, in the end it would be healthier for our community, because we would have voluntary consensus, when was the last time that happened….

I will say upfront that I would not be willing to work on anything that completely extracted or minimized the Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transgender faction from the event. It could be equal with other issues but not eradicated. Dummying this down to "bullying” for this age group is not an option. The event is about visibility for the group/s that are discriminated against. That is not as simple as taunting. I think what is fundamental here is that it put all sides in a positive light but not slant them against each other.

Regards,
MrsB

[rebecca]

MrsB, I appreciate your taking some time to consider what I have said. Although I wouldn't characterize our exchange here as "banter", rather a necessary part of what citizens of a pluralistic free society must do if they are to figure out how to order their lives together, I do understand your frustration. The give and take of a face to face is a much better place to struggle over what divides us, but I still believe it is important to engage in this dialog in this forum.

Your suggestion of coming together and working to discover a solution everyone can be comfortable with is precisely what we have been attempting to do over the past thee years. As evidence of my naivete, after each of our meetings with the WHS administration I would come away feeling good about the exchange (always very civil, respectful), thinking our concerns were taken seriously and our suggestions would be taken into account when decisions were made as to how to proceed. I was actually shocked when it became clear the WHS administration had no intention of addressing our issues and were prepared to engage in lies and misinformation to discredit us, which they did.

If the WHS administration had dealt with us fairly and honestly and in good faith there would have been no need to go the the BOE. We didn't go to the BOE and then the CT FOI Commission because we were just throwing a kind of hissy-fit because we couldn't get what we wanted. Had the BOE been honest and fair in their dealings with us and had allowed a hearing in the first place the FOI action would not have occurred. Now that the hearing has occurred the BOE has yet to respond to the issue we have raised. The current state of things is most certainly the fault of those in power who seem to believe because you have power you can do what you wish. Frankly, I do not see that the administration has any incentive to engage in any further discussions with us. In their world, apparently, might makes right.

In addition, during this process we have learned that students who wish to participate in the Day of Silence as sponsored by GLSEN have the legal right to do so as long as they do so in the common areas of the school. The WHS administration couldn't stop them. The WHS administration can bar the activity form the classroom. So it appears that is the only remedy available to us and that is why we petitioned for this to occur. And to my mind it is a most reasonable request. (There is a principle at stake here.) Students in the hallways and cafeteria and other common areas are "free" to choose to participate or not. In the classroom they are a captive audience. It has been asked, " How is someone not saying anything in the classroom an imposition?" Allowing it into the classroom is an implicit ,if not explicit, endorsement of the activity ( as sponsored by this hate group GLSEN) by the adults in school. That is an imposition of one particular perspective on the entire student body. That's indoctrination.

We would have liked to have seen a day about harassment and bullying of all students, not singling out one particular group but focusing on the commonality of the problem, if that indeed, was the real issue, but even you say it is not the issue. The DOS is about the "civil rights" of gays. ( By the way, no one ever said the GSA ought not to be.) I have a very interesting article about "labeling" that I'll share with you when it becomes available online. (It is in a current edition, thus not accessible yet.) Isn't it odd that we decry "labeling" people and refer to the damage it causes, but when it comes to homosexuals, labeling is a good thing?

Anyway, I don't see right now that there is a solution other than the one we have requested, that is, barring the activity from the classroom. I don't see the WHS administration or the GSA advisors changing anything. Why should they? There was already a small student-initiated counter -activity during the Day of Silence this year. Three students wore buttons that said " Educate Don't Indoctrinate". I am told several students questioned them and a few asked for buttons for themselves. Just as the DOS started with a few kids, so too, this may grow.

If you have any ideas, I'd be happy to consider them with you.

The coffee offer still stands. It could be fun.

Blessings...