posted on August 14, 2003 07:02:47 PM new
Can't beleive this one hasn't been hashed out here:
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City praised the plan to open Harvey Milk High School as a school for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans-gender students. He said, ''Everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools and this lets them get an education without having to worry.'' Of course, he's correct in believing that these students should be protected from harassment, beatings and worry. However, I disagree with his statement that "everybody feels that it's a good idea" to publicly fund a school that is being established by the sexual orientation of its faculty and student body. School administrations in regular public schools need only to enforce rules for all students equally.
If students are not being adequately educated or protected, then change the administration.
My primary objection in this case is that government shouldn't publicly fund the creation of a bubble, unless it intends to do so for all ideologies. There are a number of persecuted groups that form along different ideological bounds. The federal government had to force racial integration in public schools because of the segregation occurring along racial bounds. Some argued against integration at the time based upon student safety. It wasn't a strong enough argument in that situation; how's this different?
Also, someone could certainly make the case that a religious group needs a publicly funded school due to discrimination. Christians could use the evidence from the Columbine High School shootings. If anyone were to ask, "What about separation of church and state?" I have to respond, how's this different? When an ideology and way of life is so all-consuming to adherents that it merits its own school, it is as powerful as a religion.
If a state government is going to officially sanction and fund one group's ideology-based and value-based school, at which group will it draw the line, and why?
Another problem I have with the concept of a public school because of sexual orientation is the very important question of where to draw the line among the student population. If we're willing to publicly fund homosexual education at the high school level, won't the middle school level be next, and then the elementary? Who's going to decide at which age a minor, who cannot buy cigarettes, drink alcohol, or vote legally, is able to determine what kind of sexual activity he/she is going to have for the rest of his/her life? This becomes a real can of worms. Doesn't the situation necessitate a "no" at some point, and isn't the public school system a good place to say "no" to group agendas? If not, government must say "yes" to all group goals.
Finally, it is irresponsible for governing adults to be handing impressionable young people over to the leadership of William Salzman (Harvey Milk's principal), who seems driven by his sexual concept. Salzman said, ''This school will be a model for the country and possibly the world." I say this is no model to be followed. What will you say?
posted on August 14, 2003 09:04:40 PM new
tomyou - We did. Wish you'd have been there as you make several great points. I agree with them. We have opened a can of worms for all special interest 'groups'.
And while this fits into the liberal scheme of things, it is unfair. This isn't equal treatment to all school children, it's special treatment to one very small group of children.
posted on August 14, 2003 09:28:45 PM new
Sure, it was talked about here, but mostly people talking about how bad gays were and that they all needed treatment so they could be cured...
It's hard to be unbias, discussing a gay school, when you hate gays.
posted on August 14, 2003 09:32:15 PM new
KD - I certainly hope you aren't referring to me, in any way, shape or form when you make a statement like that.
One does not have to hate gays, etc. to hold the opinion this is unfair special treatment.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 14, 2003 09:35 PM ]
posted on August 15, 2003 08:22:19 AM new
Sorry I missed that one. I've been out for about three weeks so I am not caught back up on all the good fights yet
and I also hope you were not speaking of me KD. I think I gave an unbiased opinion. If you see it as anything else then your issues are with yourself and not me.
[ edited by tomyou on Aug 15, 2003 08:27 AM ]
posted on August 15, 2003 08:49:47 AM new
This is a link to the other thread.
Here is some clarification about the school. According to Steve Guillard, who has followed
the story since the school first opened, 20 years ago, the school is primarily for troubled children.
The program was supported , in large measure, by NYU. The two founders, Hetrick and Martin,
had taught there and got space from the university for their program, because there was a
desperate need for it.
Hetrick-Martin does outreach with gay youth and from what I was told, the kids they saw were at the end of their ropes, literally. They were saving kids from suicide, homelessness and sexual assault in their high schools. It wasn't for gay kids, but troubled kids who were gay and headed for the streets or an early grave.
The program is small, 100 kids, out of a high school population of 400,000. If it was merely
a school for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered kids, they would have to have in every
borough, serving anywhere from 20-40,000 kids at a minimum. Harvey Milk is not for "gay"
kids, but troubled kids. Kids who face physical violence in school. Some dismiss it as bullying,
but we're talking things as serious as assault with a deadly weapon to rape. Which gay and
bisexual kids are far, far less likely to report. Administrators are often indifferent to these attacks.
Harvey Milk exists so that these kids can get their consitutionally mandated educations safely.
Most gay kids attend New York's Public Schools with little problem. But for those facing eviction by homophobic parents, violence and sexual assault, there needs to be a place where they can continue to get their educations and become useful members of society.
posted on August 15, 2003 09:39:00 AM new
Not all in NY are in agreement as to the opening of the school.
NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York state senator and a conservative legal group have filed a lawsuit charging that a public high school for gay, bisexual and transgender students violates laws against segregation.
posted on August 15, 2003 03:14:11 PM new
No, none of you guys. It was the usual - Ebayauctionguy, Twelve & Colin, who live by the book and can't get past the fact some people ARE gay, let alone the thought of a gay school. Makes it hard to discuss when you already have preconcieved ideas.
Hate, dislike... whatever you want to call it, it's all the same thing.
posted on August 16, 2003 12:45:23 AM new
Why should the gay kids be free of bullies and no special efforts to protect the fat kids the smart kids or the poor kids who wear aweful clothing?
They just have to continue being beat up and probably more so since the gay kids won't be around as a target?
posted on August 18, 2003 01:13:54 PM new
Yeah, I want to go to the FAT school! I can chow down in peace.
I want to go to the gay school too! that would be awesome! no more creepy science teachers trying to feel me up on the nature walk or lusty coaches trying to look up my plaid skirt.
I bet the gay school would have a great interior design program and one heluva theatre department.
