No one is claiming that all bullying will stop (towards LGBT or others) because of Lesson 9 or its successor. But a community framework is being developed, the same type that has developed, after decades of discussions and lessons in school and out, around language regarding differences based on race, religious, gender, or other differences. Has bullying and intolerance been wiped out? Hardly, but it has changed, and will continue to diminish.

Over on Blogging Bayport, the discussion dove into discussions of intentions, I’d like to avoid that. I can’t presume to know why Boardmember Spencer has voted against Lesson 9 and the explicit inclusion of LGBT issues in the curriculum, but I can question why it is that she’s taken to using the same talking points of the explicitly homophobic SERVE group and hanging out with the lawyer from the Pacific Justice Institute if her intentions are indeed not anti-LGBT. Spencer may feel she is giving voice to a minority viewpoint in the district (ironically one that feels it’s a large majority) which is admirable in its own way.

But if that’s the case, there’s a level of naïveté involved if she is so unaware of what she’s saying on the dais and on the radio, that she can’t see she’s parroting the words of a group that has disingenuously worked to exclude people from tolerance lessons. The arguments made on KQED, from the idea that because children learn the word “Ally” in fourth grade during Lesson 9, that the lesson is teaching children that only LGBT-connected people have allies is absurd on its face. It shows either a rudimentary understanding of how vocabulary lists work, or a wanton need to distort the Lesson 9 lessons based on a pre-conceived assumption of unfairness. The stretch that’s taking place in this argument would make Mr. Fantastic cry “Uncle!”

As others have pointed out, Boardmember Spencer’s requests have changed at each meeting, these changes have mirrored the requests of those in our community who have spoken out loudly against gays, lesbians and their families. Not against “inappropriate language” but against the people themselves. If indeed it is Boardmember Spencer’s intention to find a middle ground for the community that honors and respects the whole community, including those families who have gay/lesbian/transgender members, then it’s incumbent on her to step back and become more self-aware of how her talking points, and her actions, are sending the opposite message.

Here’s the overview she whipped up.

The featured guests on Monday’s program include:

*Trish Herrera Spencer a Board of Education member who also opposes — and twice voted against — Lesson 9;

*John Knox White a community member who created a petition in opposition to the Board of Ed recall — and of course one of our very own In Alameda bloggers;

*Tracy Jensen a Board of Education member who supported Lesson 9 and is one target of the recall effort; and

*Kerry Cook (a representative of SERVE, which opposes the anti-gay bullying curriculum dubbed “Lesson 9″ and is coordinating an effort to recall the three Board of Education members who voted for it last May);

Feel free to blog along here as the conversation gets going.

The Good News (below the fold):

• Close to 2,000 Alamedans signed the Statement against the Recall Petition on line on on paper.
• Last week, the courts denied the Lawsuit filed against Lesson 9.

Our community has shown itself to be one of compassion and caring, just as we always knew it was!

The Bad News: the goals of Lesson 9 are in danger.

Your help is needed. Can you take 3 minutes and email the school board now! AlamedaSchoolBoard@gmail.com.

On Tuesday (Dec. 8), the AUSD school board will be looking at possibly replacing its anti-bullying curriculum with a new one. In response to the discussions around Lesson 9, members of the School Board requested additional resources to make sure that all classes of traditionally targeted people are explicitly addressed by the curriculum. But staff has been recommending curriculum that doesn’t explicitly address any of them, because of a small group of people who are trying to keep the district from “homo[ing] up the schools.”

A lot of solid work was done to identify the additional/new materials for this curriculum, but consensus on the issue was blocked by a few members of the citizens committee who are concerned about “elevating homosexuality to the level of and rectitude with heterosexuality.” These dissenters have actually written that: “It is all over AUSD schools and curricula today.  Words like “tolerance”, “anti-bullying”, “safe school”, “ally”, “diversity” and especially “feelings”.  This is all by design, and is all pro-homosexual.”

Please take 3 minutes to send an email to the school board and ask them to:

• Retain Lesson 9: The courts and the community have affirmed their support for this important tool
• Direct the Superintendent to continue identifying additional curriculum components necessary to ensure safe schools where all students in our school community see themselves and their families positively reflected.
• Reaffirm the board’s support for curriculum that nurtures an environment where all students feel safe, included and important.

You can read a more detailed explanation of this recommendation on the CARE website.

Please take 2 minutes and tell the school board not to put anti-bullying education back in the closet.

You can read more about this issue on CARE’s website: www.AlamedaCARE.org.

Note: AlamedaSchoolBoard@gmail.com is an email address I created for ease of use and it forwards to all five boardmembers, Superintendent Vital and Interim Asst. Superintendent Zepeda. You can also email the board directly at: mmcmahon@alameda.k12.ca.us, rmooney@alameda.k12.ca.us, tjensen@alameda.k12.ca.us, tspencer@alameda.k12.ca.us, ntam@alameda.k12.ca.us

Asked during the proceedings if the Plaintiffs would drop their suit if all 6 protected classes were explicitly included in the District’s anti-bullying efforts, Plaintiff’s attorney answered a non-equivocal “Yes!” News to many in the room, some of whom may be actually represented by the attorney.

The hearing began just after 9:45 this morning and ran about an hour and a half.

Kevin Snider, the Pacific Justice Institute’s General Counsel, spoke first and delved immediately into the meat of the case: Is Anti-bullying education a part of Health Education or not?

Judge Roesch quickly stepped in to ask a question that he would return to over and over again. If a hypothetical teacher presents the question “A nurse has 30 stethoscopes and gives 5 to a doctor, how many stethoscopes does the nurse have?” is that health education?

Answer: No because it doesn’t meet the criteria of the Health Education Code.

He rephrased it later as “A mother nurse has 30 stethoscopes and gives 5 to her brother, a doctor, how many stethoscopes does the nurse have?” now it’s dealing with both family and medicine, is it health ed?”

Judge asks: “You can “teach hate” and then its health education?” Following this with; “You can’t say I’m a bigot, so I don’t have to attend tolerance lessons!” This was the problem with the lawsuit; Snider appeared unable to argue that Lesson 9 constituted “health education.” He spoke in generalities about codes, etc, but never zeroed in on how it was health.

Snider spoke about the “false binary” and “false dichotomy” of the judge’s position, that something had to be either Health or Tolerance and went onto describe two overlapping circles, arguing that Lesson 9 was both, and therefore the Health ordinance should be adhered to. The judge replied “but you’ve created the overlap, the definition doesn’t insist that the two overlap,” essentially hitting a key point to be made later.

Snider switched to claim that the School District had conceded that the lesson was Health Ed because they did not refute it. Both the judge and the district read their brief which specifically stated that Lesson 9 is wholly Anti-bullying Education, which explicitly counters the claim that it’s Health Ed. (That one had to sting).

Snider moved to arguing that allowing parents to opt-out was not in conflict with anti-bulling code. Finally the judge clarified that the point was relatively moot, as Snider wasn’t arguing that it was required, which was the basis of the case. To which Snider replied that he was just establishing that it doesn’t conflict with Anti-Bullying sections of the Health Code.

Roesch then returned the discussion to “Why is it Health Ed?” saying the State Education guidelines are not specific on the issue and instead present broad, amorphous categories that you (Snider) can pull almost anything into, which is what you are doing.

Snider’s response was that he had done mathematical calculations that showed the district had a 1 in 91 chance of implementing the program as defined and that this somehow correlates directly to criminal court and “reasonable doubt.” An argument that no one else seemed to understand. The 1 in 91 comes from their filing, but I can’t find it, so maybe I’ll figure it out another time.

Then the PJI bombshell, something that I cannot believe was said out loud by the lawyer, “Lesson 9 puts one group above all others and therefore it’s indoctrination into LGBT lifestyles.” If there was any hope for this case, that line will probably be the end of it. The bald truth that the fight is not about fairness, or equality, or diversity, it’s about out and out hate and disgust. Indoctrination!

Snider then went on to mention the Richmond Gang Rape story, as proof that there are issues with gender tolerance, and stated “it’s sad that the school district is ignoring this.” WOW.

30 minutes in and it was Katherine Alberts, representing the School District, turn to respond.

She quickly pointed out that the opt-out in the Health Ed Code was once very broad, but had been narrowed in recent years, that the Legislature had specifically identified anti-bullying education needs and not placed them in Health Ed. Therefore, the opt-out is a “very limited right” and should be looked at with an eye to that.

Alberts then pointed out that Snider and the Plaintiffs were insisting on an incredibly broad reading of the Health Education Code and that by doing so, are essentially putting any lesson that mentions a family member into Health Ed and thus requiring an opt out notification for Art lessons, Storytime stories, Math and more. That since all anti-bullying education is on the same level (meaning all 6 protected classes have the same standing), the Plaintiff’s argument would lead to all anti-bullying lessons requiring an opt at.

Short and sweet.

Snider then began to argue that Lessons 1-8 do not explicitly deal with the five remaining protected classes and that Ruben Zepeda of the district had acknowledged that by starting a new process for adopting a curriculum that dealt more explicitly with the other 5 protected classes. The judge quickly pointed out that the attorney was arguing a different case, that they had not filed a lawsuit to demand equal treatment of all classes, but that they had filed a lawsuit to opt out of LGBT tolerance lessons adding “You are stretching.”

Snider came out with his Gay indoctrination theory again and Roesch responded: “It’s absurd that it’s indoctrination.” Going further to point out that the idea that the schools were teaching kids to be gay was not only ridiculous, but something that couldn’t possibly be done.

And as quickly as it started, it was over. “The tentative ruling stands.”

Next stop? Appeals court. After the case ended, Snider and entourage, which oddly included School Board member Trisha Herrara Spencer, left the courtroom saying “well that was an important step, it tells us where we need to focus our efforts next.”

Stepping away from the stated reason for  both efforts (that the Recall is about extending diversity education to more people and that the lawsuit is about allowing parents to control when their children learn about health matters), the two efforts are still very different.

The Recall claims to speak for the majority of the community. Their call to action, which by every account has failed miserably, is a claim that by incorporating one annual 45-minute long lesson of tolerance towards LGBT families and people, AUSD has acted against the will of the majority of Alameda Voters. The lawsuit is more personal, a legal attempt by a small number of parents to solely opt their own kids out of the annual lesson. In that the legal strategy makes no claim that the filing has strong community support or desire, it’s at least a more accurate reflection of our city and school populations, one where Prop 8 failed miserably.

The recall folks are now calling Lesson 9 “homosexuality education” which is fantastic. All pretense, or whatever pretense there was, about their efforts being about “inclusion” has been dropped, as their political efforts dry up, the mask has slipped off revealing the true ugliness behind the pretty words at the start of their campaign for full inclusion of all protected classes.

The lawsuit is another thing, hiding behind the fact that lesson 9 discusses family structure (i.e. same-sex parents) it claims that it falls under state health education code (like sex ed) and therefore is required to have an opt out. At least the lawsuit is about individual families who don’t want their children to be taught tolerance of those they feel are different from themselves. And by “at least,” I mean that they make no claims to some kind of silent majority that they are obviously not a part of.

One wonders, if the school loses, if they will have to allow an opt out for any lessons that talk about “family strucutre” whether it be single parent, or heterosexual parents? Ridiculous? Hardly. Tuesday’s hearing will be an interesting starting point.

Covering the issues that relate mostly to the AUSD recall but also to the lawsuit that has been filed against AUSD, Kelly and O’Reilly quickly move through all the key points. The first amazing comment by Megyn Kelly was her admission that referring to LGBT as a “lifestyle” is offensive. I don’t think I need to go too far into how Fox tends to add the word lifestyle after the word gay or lesbian whenever it can, so to hear one of its anchors acknowledge that it’s offensive to do so was interesting.

When asked if this was indoctrination, Kelly was clear: “no”

When discussing the quote controversial” book Tango Makes Three, Kelly dismisses the book as not “translateable.” So Tango Makes Three is meaningless in teaching kids about different types of family structures that exist in the human world, which would make it innocuous to everyone. (I wonder if someone should just file a lawsuit demanding that all books that anthropomorphize animals be pulled from schools. First up, Stuart Little, I mean he comes from a broken home. Kids might learn that not all families live happily ever after with two parents. And you know where that leads…..divorce.)

O’Reilly and Kelly then acknowledge that anti-bullying lessons should include LGBT tolerance. As long as they have blanket coverage for everyone, which AUSD does. Wow, so even Fox News gets it.

Disclosure: I am directly working on the anti-recall campaign, though my blog posts are my own.
Updated: 2:52 to correct for major voice recognition errors that made sentences more unreadable than usual.

During these three weeks, the petition to support tolerance and stop the recall has exploded, crossing 11oo confirmed signers and growing. Last night, I sat down to watch Flight of the Chonchords, and when I came back, there were another 30 names on the list! This makes me happy and proud of our community. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had, or overheard, with people saying “I can’t believe this is my community, that this type of thing is happening in Alameda.” Well, it’s happening, but it’s not your community, it’s a small vocal voice. Full stop.

I’ve managed to play with the poll code, and the petition now prints the total number of confirmed signatures. Tell your friends.