MaxedOutMama
Saturday, May 07, 2005
For Shame, WaPo
The editors of the Washington Post should feel great shame over this Washington Post article regarding the restraint order issued by Justice Williams blocking the Montgomery County Board of Education's new sexual education program. From first to last, this article totally misrepresents the ruling and the issues involved in the ruling. This is less news than a disinformation program, beginnning with the title is "Montgomery Blindsided Over Sex-Ed".
Blindsided? In this day and age what sane public school system thinks it can create a sex ed program discussing theology, the interpretation of the Bible, and sin? Justice Williams issued the 10-day restraint order on the basis that the program violated the Establishment and free speech provisions of the First Amendment. His opinion is here; I urge you to read it for yourself and decide whether this ruling should have come as a shock to the school officials. Justice Williams writes:
Yet all through the Washington Post article, this restraint order is depicted as some sort of new and startling development possibly related to the looming threat of the Christian right:
This appears to have been consistent. The Washington Post article did not discuss the First Amendment grounds for the ruling, but it does discuss other objections that the litigating groups have to the program, such as their concern about the cucumber video promoting condom usage. The effect of this omission is to completely mislead the viewer as to what the real grounds for the ruling were. This is the only mention of the Establishment issue in the article:
Occasionally the grave pundits of the press will regret in print the increasing factionalism of our public policy debate. Perhaps they should look in the mirror; the article referenced would lead a reasonable reader without other knowledge to completely misunderstand the import and basis of the restraint order as well as the real reasons on which this curriculum has become controversial. I rest my case, your honors.
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
Blindsided? In this day and age what sane public school system thinks it can create a sex ed program discussing theology, the interpretation of the Bible, and sin? Justice Williams issued the 10-day restraint order on the basis that the program violated the Establishment and free speech provisions of the First Amendment. His opinion is here; I urge you to read it for yourself and decide whether this ruling should have come as a shock to the school officials. Justice Williams writes:
The Court is extremely troubled by the willingness of Defendants to venture —or perhaps more correctly bound — into the crossroads of controversy where religion, morality, and homosexuality converge. The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground. As such, the Court is highly skeptical that the Revised Curriculum is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and finds that Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim certainly merits future and further investigation.and:
The Court finds that the public interest is clearly served by protecting the First Amendment rightsThe Washington Post describes the curriculum in this manner:
of Plaintiffs. Additionally, the public interest is served by preventing Defendants from promoting particular religious beliefs in the public schools and preventing Defendants from disseminating one-sided information on a controversial topic.
The new sex education program, approved by the board in November, was designed with the intent of promoting tolerance among students and of giving them more information so they could be better informed about making decisions about having sex. The most significant changes were at the eighth-grade level, where teachers would have been allowed to initiate discussions about homosexuality, and at the 10th-grade level, where students would have watched a seven-minute video that included information on how to put on a condom.Would you not assume from reading the Washington Post that this was a carefully planned and limited program? Yet here are some of the portions of the program that so startled Justice Williams:
The program was the product of more than three years of work by a 27-member committee that included parents, teachers, students and other community members, including several people affiliated with churches as well as a representative from the Washington area chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and PFOX.
Q: Loving people of the same sex is immoral (sinful).It has been long understood that a particular religious doctrine, interpretation or view may not be taught in the public schools. Here is what Justice Frankfurter wrote in 1948 (you can find this within the opinion linked above):
A: Many religious denominations do not believe this. For example, in 2002 the Anglican Church of Canada began ritual blessings of same-sex unions. What is universally understood is that intolerance and hatred is wrong.
Myth: Homosexuality is a sin.
The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality.
Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals.
Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else.
Most people feel that their sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural response for them. Trying to change one’s sexual response to straight or gay is usually unsuccessful. We do have a choice regarding how we treat each other. Hatred of gay men and lesbians is the work of humans, not God.
Designed to serve as perhaps the most powerful agency for promoting cohesion among a heterogeneous democratic people, the public school must keep scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects. The preservation of the community from divisive conflicts, of Government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the State to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual’s church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice.It is clear that Montgomery County was attempting to promote a version of religious instruction when such was not required and additionally to block any other opposing views. The curriculum is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. What is amazing is that when questions were raised that the administration did not take another look and realize that they had overstepped constitutional bounds.
Yet all through the Washington Post article, this restraint order is depicted as some sort of new and startling development possibly related to the looming threat of the Christian right:
This was a fight that few expected would break out in what many view as a progressive, liberal-leaning county.First, what on earth does the constitutional prohibition of the teaching of religion in the public schools have to do with the political leanings of the community? One would hope that both liberal and conservative communities would defend the Constitution. The article consistently implies this is some sort of conservative cabal:
"It looks like we're in Kansas after all. I'm appalled. I'm appalled," said Charlotte Fremaux, a parent leader at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, one of six campuses that was to be a pilot site for the sex-ed lessons. "Next, they'll be challenging evolution."
Irvine said conservatives have become emboldened by today's political climate, including the current debate over evolution and creationism in Kansas.Of course, following editorial practice, the other side must be quoted as well, as selectively as possible:
"We have a lot of different things happening at this moment,'' she said. "We've had a growing political Christian right movement that since the 1960s has used sex-ed as an important battleground, and that movement has only gotten stronger and stronger with [President] Bush's reelection."
"We really feel we represent the mainstream,'' said John Garza, the group's attorney and vice president.Not that Garza's one sentence quote is rebutted by implication by being juxtaposed with the description of the Erik Stanley's background. Note also that Terri Schiavo's name is mentioned. I am sure John Garza might also have pointed out that he is in the mainstream of constitutional law as explicated by the Supreme Court justices, but no one reading this article would gain that iimpression. Once again, the effect is to obscure the real basis of the ruling.
The group has received help from Erik Stanley, chief counsel for Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based nonprofit organization known for his involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, and for litigating same-sex marriage and Ten Commandments cases across the nation. Stanley argued on behalf of the two groups in federal court last week.
This appears to have been consistent. The Washington Post article did not discuss the First Amendment grounds for the ruling, but it does discuss other objections that the litigating groups have to the program, such as their concern about the cucumber video promoting condom usage. The effect of this omission is to completely mislead the viewer as to what the real grounds for the ruling were. This is the only mention of the Establishment issue in the article:
At the same time, the judge said he was disturbed by references to specific religious denominations in the teachers' guide and what he characterized as a one-sided portrayal of homosexuality.But Williams made that comment in his discussion of the First Amendment prohibitions of viewpoint discrimination in a public forum, and the sentence above ignores entirely the context of his statement. Thus one gains the idea that Williams was personally disturbed by the reference to religious denominations rather than his legal interpretation of the offense against the First Amendment protections. This sentence also implies that the religious denominations are only listed in the teachers' guide, but they are part of the curriculum to be presented to the students. This is what Williams wrote about just one segment of the First Amendment claims advanced by the plaintiffs:
Indeed, the Revised Curriculum advises teachers that the information concerning homosexuality is to be presented to students as facts and that “no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.” As such, the Court is deeply concerned that the Revised Curriculum violates Plaintiffs’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, and believes that Plaintiffs’ free speech allegations merit future and further investigation.Taken all in all, this is a blatant example of extremely biased and unfactual reporting. I urge you to read the opinion and the Washington Post article to confirm for yourself the incredibly slanted nature of this article. From the opening paragraph it is a masterful piece of distortion:
Maryland's largest school system has become a battleground over what students should be taught about sex and a symbol, some supporters of the new curriculum said, of the increasing influence the conservative movement is hoping to play in public school classrooms.Should the public really worry if the conservative movement succeeds in barring theological teachings from the public school classrooms? Perhaps the public should be more concerned about the quality of the public press given the importance that the founders placed upon a free press for the functioning of our society.
Occasionally the grave pundits of the press will regret in print the increasing factionalism of our public policy debate. Perhaps they should look in the mirror; the article referenced would lead a reasonable reader without other knowledge to completely misunderstand the import and basis of the restraint order as well as the real reasons on which this curriculum has become controversial. I rest my case, your honors.
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
Comments:
<< Home
Nothing new about the liberal bias of the Post. Too bad the media, in general, refuses to just report the news.
This debate also illustrates another point. Try to teach evolution or ID in schools, and the conservatives love it, while liberals have heart attacks. Try to teach that homosexuality is normal and AIDS isn't mainly a gay disease in the U.S., and liberals love it, while conservatives start grabbing their chests and turning blue. Same with other issues. In the Schiavo case, conservatives attack states' rights and liberals love states' rights. On abortion, liberals attack states' rights, and conservatives love states' rights.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
This debate also illustrates another point. Try to teach evolution or ID in schools, and the conservatives love it, while liberals have heart attacks. Try to teach that homosexuality is normal and AIDS isn't mainly a gay disease in the U.S., and liberals love it, while conservatives start grabbing their chests and turning blue. Same with other issues. In the Schiavo case, conservatives attack states' rights and liberals love states' rights. On abortion, liberals attack states' rights, and conservatives love states' rights.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Yes, but Tom, is this people being fractious or perhaps partly the media wishing to portray every issue in this light? I think they are creating a right/left secular/religious controversy where none exists in Maryland. I haven't been following Kansas.
This case is an old-fashioned 1st Amendment case and nothing else (plus the side issue of made up condom stats, which has not been litigated yet), and it just doesn't matter whether Jerry Falwell doesn't want info about condoms or same-sex relationships taught in schools - that is not an issue and never was. What matters is what the law says.
There is an underlying local issue. It appears the residents of this school district ought to be asking their board some hard questions. They spent 3 years working on this curriculum and wound up with an unconstitutional program loaded with factual errors that had been partly downloaded from a Canadian website and partly from a gay advocacy site?
I'd be pissed! And then to waste money forcing people to take an unwinnable case to court that you have to defend? This is a management issue.
As to the evolution I haven't been following things. I think the scientific criticisms and variations on evolution should be taught. I looked at the math and I see what the panspermia crowd is talking about.
But I doubt intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory, although I don't know exactly what is being called intelligent design. There are valid unresolved questions about whether the life we see had time to completely evolve on earth, but not that earth species transform into other earth species. DNA testing has proved that similar forms evolved multiple times.
This case is an old-fashioned 1st Amendment case and nothing else (plus the side issue of made up condom stats, which has not been litigated yet), and it just doesn't matter whether Jerry Falwell doesn't want info about condoms or same-sex relationships taught in schools - that is not an issue and never was. What matters is what the law says.
There is an underlying local issue. It appears the residents of this school district ought to be asking their board some hard questions. They spent 3 years working on this curriculum and wound up with an unconstitutional program loaded with factual errors that had been partly downloaded from a Canadian website and partly from a gay advocacy site?
I'd be pissed! And then to waste money forcing people to take an unwinnable case to court that you have to defend? This is a management issue.
As to the evolution I haven't been following things. I think the scientific criticisms and variations on evolution should be taught. I looked at the math and I see what the panspermia crowd is talking about.
But I doubt intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory, although I don't know exactly what is being called intelligent design. There are valid unresolved questions about whether the life we see had time to completely evolve on earth, but not that earth species transform into other earth species. DNA testing has proved that similar forms evolved multiple times.
I say put mamacita in charge and give her a gun.
I'm only half kidding. By the way, I wrote on education today, too.
In any event, it appears the entire commission was set up as an exercise in PR. As you say, it is about the law- present and future- and the groundwork is being laid, in my opinion, to further distance schools from accountability.
I'm only half kidding. By the way, I wrote on education today, too.
In any event, it appears the entire commission was set up as an exercise in PR. As you say, it is about the law- present and future- and the groundwork is being laid, in my opinion, to further distance schools from accountability.
Believe it or not, when I read the part of Williams' opinion that quoted the curriculum, I found myself trying to imagine what Mamacita would say if presented with that.
At this point, I'm thinking that the Montgomery County school administration might be a lost cause and that Mamacita's gun-toting teaching time might be better spent explaining the details of the constitution and the function of the press in a democratic society to the editorial staff at WaPo.
At this point, I'm thinking that the Montgomery County school administration might be a lost cause and that Mamacita's gun-toting teaching time might be better spent explaining the details of the constitution and the function of the press in a democratic society to the editorial staff at WaPo.
Good point- and on the mark. Still I say it's all a preamble for an agenda based outcome, if you will.
Thanks for contacting us here at The Yellow Line about this story. The more I look into it, the more I realize that the Washington Post did a horrible job of reporting the facts. We're looking into posting a revised analysis. Thanks for doing the hard work on this.
The centrists have to stick together. You have a good blog. I still can't grasp how on earth the school administration could have failed to realize what a blatant constitutional problem they had. They are also in violation of Maryland law, I believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home
