EDITORIAL FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE CMS ANTI-BULLYING POLICY
Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.
Director, Coalition of Conscience
Has the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board opened the door to homosexual indoctrination in our classrooms with its new anti-bullying policy? The Observer (March 13th) is convinced this is not the case, stating, “The policy doesn’t tell students what to believe, it tells them how to behave.” A letter to the editor (March 14th) is stronger, arguing that it is only “religious fanatics” who would connect the anti-bullying policy with an alleged homosexual agenda.
To the contrary, anti-bullying policies are largely the brainchild of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, whose mission is to assure that all students are “valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” And it is these very categories, namely “sexual orientation” and “gender identity/expression,” that were added to the new CMS policy. Not coincidentally, one of the agenda items at the November 3, 2007 gathering of gay activists at Duke University Law School was to see these same categories added into the statewide anti-bullying policy. Similar examples could be multiplied almost ad infinitum.
Still, it would be fair to ask, “What’s so bad about this? The goal is to reduce bullying in our schools, and gays and lesbians are commonly targeted.” Certainly, none of us want to see kids picked on and bullied, but the new policy goes one step further. It “directs the Superintendent to establish training and other programs to enforce this policy . . . as well as to foster an environment of understanding and respect for all individuals.”
In other words, with little or no room granted for moral or religious disagreement, training will be introduced to sensitize teachers, administrators, and students to homosexual practice along with issues of gender identity/expression, the latter category often referring to GID (Gender Identity Disorder), which is recognized as pathological behavior by psychologists and psychiatrists. Now this disorder is codified as an acceptable behavior in the new anti-bullying policy. So 17 year-old John, who in his genetics and body is a boy, can decide that he is “Jane” and come to school wearing a dress, and students will be taught to “respect” his cross-dressing behavior.
Indeed, indoctrination such as this is already written into the elementary school curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland, and the GLSEN Lunchbox provides educators across the nation with elementary school lessons such as: “Getting in Touch with Your Inner Trannie” (meaning, transgender identity) and “Deconstructing Definitions of Family,” while the “Terminology Game Cards” activity quizzes students and teachers on terms such as: Transsexual, Cross Dresser, Genderqueer, and Sexual Reassignment Surgery, among many others. This is what we can expect to see in our CMS schools.
And perhaps we shall soon see a “gender-bender,” cross-dressing day (as happened in Iowa schools last November, with the help of GLSEN), or a girl running for prom king in her high school (as happened in Fresno last April), or a bill like Califiornia’s SB 777, which, according to attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, “redefines a student’s sex as his or her ‘gender identity,’ relying upon a student’s feelings about whether the student is male or female rather than his or her biological sex,”, opening up a Pandora’s box of potential problems.
One need not be prescient to see what’s coming. One need only look back and look around. We have been forewarned.