Were 3rd-grade boys asked to dress as girls? The fashion show is off

By JASON NARK
Philadelphia Daily News

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20100414_Were_3rd-grade_boys_asked_to_dress_as_girls__The_fashion_show_is_off.html

WHEN JANINE Giandomenico's son explained his school project to her, she dismissed his worries and figured she'd have to fork out a few bucks for poster board, magazines and a glue stick or two.

Then she read the letter that accompanied the project, over and over again, and believes that her son's third-grade teacher at the Maude Wilkins Elementary School in Maple Shade, Burlington County, was asking the class, including the boys, to dress as women during a fashion show for a Women's History Month pro-ject.

Quote"The school doesn't get it," she said. "I'm not a right-winger. I'm not a radical, but I believe in the Constitution and I believe in my parental rights."

You mean the part about all men are created equal?

As far as the "not a right winger" part - why did you send this to Glenn Beck?

Quote"I'm not freaked out by alternative lifestyles. It's just the fact that the school system is trying to introduce alternative lifestyles in a sneaky way," she said. "At 9 years old, I'm not ready to have the conversation with my son about homosexuals, lesbians and cross-dressing. When he's ready, he'll come and ask me."

Sure.  You're not freaked out but you've completely freaked out. 

And don't count on your son talking to you about anything like this "when he's ready" because he doesn't want you to go off on him like you did his teacher.

Quote"I asked a lot of men if they would let their sons do this," she said. "They all said 'hell no.' "

Well, those guys at the town tap tend to be that way, especially after a few brewskys.

No, the parent is right. A parent can be very supportive of GLBT issues but it should still be up to the parent to decide when and how their own children are taught moral issues, not a government school. The state does not own your children although they think they do. Schools should be focusing on the three Rs not ethics and morality.

I think it is wonderful that in many schools these days children feel safe enough to come out as openly gay or openly trans and be accepted. I also feel that schools are liable for what happens on their property and that bullying or violence should not be tolerated. I just don't think that this should be taken further to the school telling students what morals and ethics to have. One child has the right to support multiculturalism just as another child has the right to be a racist bigot. As long as neither child is forcing their personal beliefs onto the others or interfering with others' right to education, the school should stay out of it. Schools should not even be teaching that murder is wrong other than that murder is illegal. Again, morals are to be taught in homes, the three R's are for the classroom.

How is a history lesson a morals issue?

This wasn't to be a GLBT lesson. It was a history lesson, until the parents injected a GLBT element.

Quote from: Britney_413 on April 15, 2010, 01:14:11 AMOne child has the right to support multiculturalism just as another child has the right to be a racist bigot. As long as neither child is forcing their personal beliefs onto the others or interfering with others' right to education, the school should stay out of it. Schools should not even be teaching that murder is wrong other than that murder is illegal. Again, morals are to be taught in homes, the three R's are for the classroom.

So if the teacher hears a child spout racial epithets, the teacher should tell the other children the racist child has the right to say such things?  Isn't the teacher, by staying out of it, teaching the children this is acceptable behavior?

It is exactly this kind of thing that leads to violence.  You say you are against bullying and violence in schools but if the teachers and administrators don't enforce certain codes of conduct, all hell breaks loose.  The inmates are running the asylum.

As far as this being an LGBT event or teaching the children about crossdressing, you are way off, as already pointed out.  What if this was celebrating Native Americans?  Would it be seen so wrong if the children were encouraged to dress up as Native Americans?  What if this was celebrating men and the girls were asked to dress up as men?

The children would have learned about the history of women and how it has evolved in a very visual way.  They would have experienced it almost as if they lived it.  It's a very effective way to teach.  But knee jerk reactionaries let their little minds go to a place that the event was never intended to go.  It's the parents, not the teachers, who made this a what it became.

I think I was misunderstood. I have no problem with school projects including children dressing up for something. If I let on otherwise, I stand corrected. The issue I have is not necessarily the end result of things but the way in which they are done. You have three situations here in a school. The extreme right-wing method would be "prevent" or "ban" something. The independent method would be to "permit" or "allow" something. The extreme left-wing method would be to "require" or "mandate" something. Maybe I read the article wrong but it sounded like the school was requiring students to dress a certain way instead of just allowing it. That is my issue.

Forcing something is generally just as bad as banning it. I wouldn't want the government to make it legal for someone to beat me on the street for being trans but I also wouldn't want the goverment to make it law that someone give me a hug either.

As to your example of racial epithets, the above applies and I take the "independent" approach. If a child is using racist language in a classroom and disrupting the education, then obviously that should be against code of conduct because one child is interfering with another child's learning. If it is said during a break or lunch, sorry but it is protected free speech. Someone yelled obscenities at me for being trans when I was walking down a street. I didn't call the police because guess what? Their speech was perfectly legal. Now, if the child using such language continues to harrass another child or makes threats against him or her, then that is different. Just like in my example, if the person that yelled at me continued to follow me around and wouldn't leave me alone, then that would be illegal harrassment and then I would have grounds to have him arrested. The same child that would have the free speech to say something to offend another child would mean that ten other children would also have the free speech to correct the offender.

Ultimately, as always this comes down to a freedom issue, not a feelings issue. I have the right to enter a McDonald's and not be harrassed, threatened, or attacked for being trans. I don't have the right to enter a McDonald's and be unanimously accepted by everyone in the restaurant. McDonald's would also have the right to tell me they don't want my business and then I would have a right to get 100 of my friends together to protest and expose the company's discrimination.

Proper progress is made when people utilize their free speech and openly discuss issues. Trans people are not going to get trans rights by hiding silently in the background trying to force the government to force businesses not to discriminate and force schools to make everyone accept us. We would have equal rights tomorrow if every trans person (pre and post transition) came out of the closet all at once and showed the world that they are just as normal as everyone else and that we pay taxes too.

Companies can easily get away with discrimination against racial minorities, gender, and a host of other things. But most companies don't discriminate because they also value the business that those minorities bring and see that those minorities are also normal people as well. Gay rights have not been coming about because of laws being changed. They have been created because gays started coming out of the closet.

Quote from: LordKAT on April 15, 2010, 01:21:53 AM
How is a history lesson a morals issue?

Like when people used morality to "cleanse" society of evil?  The Crusades.  The Inquisition.  Burning women at the stake because we labeled them witches. 

Today it's things like denying equal rights to LGBT people because they are immoral. 

And they walk away feeling perfectly justified because, "It was the moral thing to do."

As soon as you approach this from a position of morality, that's the kind of thing you'll have to deal with.

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 19, 2010, 09:08:05 AM
Like when people used morality to "cleanse" society of evil?  The Crusades.  The Inquisition.  Burning women at the stake because we labeled them witches. 

Today it's things like denying equal rights to LGBT people because they are immoral. 

And they walk away feeling perfectly justified because, "It was the moral thing to do."

As soon as you approach this from a position of morality, that's the kind of thing you'll have to deal with.

That is teaching history as well as morals, not using morals to teach history.  Big difference and I guess my comment didn't clarify what I was thinking well enough. I meant how is method of teaching history such a problem. Sort of. I will give as my writing skills suck.

Britney, teachers are supposed to avoid injecting personal politics into the classroom, but basic morals - racism is bad, stealing is bad, sharing is good - are part of what teachers impart. I'm taking nighttime college classes in an elementary school building right now, and there are posters all over the place promoting everything from proper posture when sitting at one's desk to timeliness, sharing, and, yes, acceptance of racial/ethnic minorities and LGBT people. I don't see the problem with that.

Racist language is wrong on its own, not because it disrupts class. It's just wrong for a student to treat other students like that; it's hurtful. Keep in mind also that the "it disrupts class" argument has been used as a justification to prevent trans students from dressing according to the gender they identify as while they're at school - as though being trans is a fashion choice, or something.

As for the "three Rs," reading, writing and 'rithmetic by themselves hardly constitute a full education.

QuoteAs for the "three Rs," reading, writing and 'rithmetic by themselves hardly constitute a full education.

I quite agree, That is 3 hours, what do the other 5 hours in school do.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't feel schools should be teaching morality or ethics of any kind as that job should be with the parents. That is because I support the right of the individual over the right of the community which makes me a libertarian. Schools these days are so tied up in feelings-based and morality-based education that a large portion of students are graduating high school with a deficiency in the three Rs. I work at a company where everyone at least has a high school education and some have college degrees. Yet I never see anyone reading a book, they have trouble with basic arithmetic, and severe deficiencies in grammar, spelling, and vocabulary.

It's not necessarily so great if a school teachs kids to accept GLBT people yet the kids aren't capable of doing their own research on their own time to learn more about GLBT because they lack the reading, writing, and research skills to do so.

I don't like the way that schools constantly violate the Constitution in order to push their so-called agenda. For instance, one school will send a trans child home for his or her non-conforming dress when it hasn't harmed anyone. Yet another school will discipline a Christian child who mentions that they don't agree with homosexuality. Guess what? BOTH schools are wrong. They have both violated the rights of the child.

These are reasons I'm generally against modern education period. It is communist in design and with the failing standards of today's public school system it has proven not to work. You cram 20-40 children in a room regardless of age or class and blanket teach all of them the same content. This assumes that all children have equal needs, equal intelligence, and equal opinions. That simply isn't true. I say scrap all public education, save the tax dollars, and let the free market take it over. Use vouchers if you have to but let parents and kids get the education that THEY need, not the education that Uncle Sam decides they should have.

Free market education would just make larger ghettos with no way out.  The opportunities need to be as close as possible to the same for each kid or school is once again only for the rich.

QuoteI don't feel schools should be teaching morality or ethics of any kind as that job should be with the parents.

Schools may not be in a position to affirm what is right and wrong, they still:

1) Have to enforce basic rules that kids have to obey (a limited sense of morality) in order for schools to function reasonably smoothly.  Kids may not have to agree with the rules, but they still have to generally obey them.

2) Have to present historical arguments amount about morality and ethics.  This isn't just about politics in history, but medicine and law.  Parents are not well-equipped to present these themselves.

3) Have to teach kids how to do research so they can make their own informed judgment as to what is appropriate (not just from a "moral" aspect, but so these future-adults can make good decisions).  Parents typically do not teach this.

Also, for all of the problems of the public school system, we are much better off with a "public option" with at least some commitment to provide the same baseline for everyone.

Yes, modern education was designed by Leon Trotsky himself, with major input from Rosa Luxemburg and Mao Tse-Tung. 

That inanity aside, I do agree with a somewhat civil libertarian approach to schooling - I'm against most dress codes, for example - but the idea that American schooling is bad because it's so "Communist" is preposterous and unsupportable. Other countries have excellent public schooling; the Japanese system, while certainly too collectivist/authoritarian for American students and probably too competitive/strenuous as well, offers stellar results. While it makes heavy use of groupthink, you'd probably like the way in which it's designed to reward the hardest-working and smartest students. It has its major downsides, but you can't deny that it produces some brainy kids.

A lot of the people using the term "libertarian" in the popular dialogue nowadays make my eyes roll into the back of my head. "Glenn Beckitarians" would seem to be more appropriate to describe these folks; another good term would be "uneducated morons." 'Twould be nice if such people would actually bother to, ya know, read John Stuart Mill and Reason Magazine. I don't mind debating with libertarians/classical liberals, but I prefer when they know what they're talking about. Mimicking the John Birch Society does not equal "libertarianism."

From what I've seen in some kids & parents, I would say we as a society should teach some form of civics, or social morality.

Where did this notion ever begin that children, who will be adult and legally emancipated at age 18, are the sole property of their parents? Makes me think the kid is a dog, or their Toyota. I've seen kids treated worse than dogs by their parents, yet we're suppose to think this is okay? Don't we step in when children are being abused?

Parents who are teaching their children to hate and be intolerant of others are perpetuating  harm upon society and the next generation. Public school is an opportunity to nip some of this in the bud. That's why we have anti-bullying rules. This includes verbal harassment, too. To some parents, harassing a trans or gay kid by their own kids is okay as long as mom and dad don't get dragged down to school to take responsibility.

Obviously, I don't agree with this "hands off" approach towards kids who happen to have the misfortune for being born to hateful, ignorant parents. We as a society owe these kids more than that.

Quote from: Britney_413 on April 19, 2010, 03:12:31 AMAs to your example of racial epithets, the above applies and I take the "independent" approach. If a child is using racist language in a classroom and disrupting the education, then obviously that should be against code of conduct because one child is interfering with another child's learning. If it is said during a break or lunch, sorry but it is protected free speech.

It's pretty clear to me that public schools are not havens of free speech. Just take a look at how school newspapers, radio shows, and TV shows are handled. While it's true that all of these are school-sponsored activities, some freedoms, such as certain forms of speech, can be curtailed even during classroom breaks. Some schools do and some don't. Some enforce what I consider to be rather cockeyed views. But for right or wrong, our public schools do have the responsibility of teaching and enforcing general standards of...call it courtesy or civility. So in both theory and practice, public school isn't quite like the "real world."