Tennessee Senate Bill 49: "Don't Say Gay" means "Don't Teach Abstinence"?

Pat Dollard brought this story to my attention earlier today. His story included a link to an identical post at azcentral.com (the story had an Associated Press byline). A Democratic state senator is mentioned as criticizing the bill for its potential to "prevent  the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence". I wanted to know how that could be, but nowhere were there links to the particular bill in question or to the current Tennessee state law. That isn't meant to disparage the original author, or those who reposted the story. I just like knowing as much as possible about such topics. So I did a little investigating. It started with a careful reread of the story. Here are some key excerpts.

Opponents deride the measure as the "don't say gay bill." They say it's unfair to the children of gay parents and could lead to more bullying. Supporters say it is intended to give teachers clear guidance for dealing with younger children on a potentially explosive topic.

Under the proposal, any instruction or materials at a public elementary or middle school would be limited to age-appropriate lessons about the science of human reproduction.
The legislation was amended from the original version, which said no elementary or middle schools will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." Republican Senate sponsor Stacey Campfield of Knoxville said some of his colleagues were uncomfortable with that language.

However, a critic said the new wording could create other problems. Sen. Roy Herron, D- Dresden, said it "may inadvertently prevent the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence."

 

It is true that our actions can have unintended consequences. Is that the case here? Could a bill (intended for a state law) intended to "ban teaching of homosexuality" prevent any educational materials from being presented about sex to children in grades K - 8?

The bill in question (Tennessee SB 0049, crossfiled with Tennessee HB0229) was first proposed as this:

SENATE BILL 49

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49,

Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to education.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:

(c)

(1) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Bill Summary

ON MAY 20, 2011, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #5 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 49, AS AMENDED.
AMENDMENT #5 rewrites the bill and requires that any instruction or materials made available or provided at or to a public elementary or middle school must be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science. This requirement will also apply to a group or organization that provides instruction in natural human reproduction science in public elementary or middle schools.

Both the original bill and the amendment seem to have as a goal that public elementary or middle schools (K-8 is the typical range for those schools) would only be able to teach "natural human reproductive science." I am not sure I see the distinction that Mr. Campfield's colleagues noticed; after all, as he states in the original story, is not the only natural human reproduction accomplished in heterosexual relationships? The headline on the original stories seems to be true: the bill would "ban teaching of homosexuality"-- in K-8 schools in Tennessee. Notice that the language of the bill, and its amendments, don't deny the existence of homosexual relationships. The bill just prevents teachers and others who "provide instruction" in K-8 classrooms from acknowledging the existence of those relationships as part of the curriculum and the all-powerful teacher/student information conduit.

How does this compare to current Tennessee law? The 2010 Tennessee Code, Title 49 Education says this:

49-6-1005. Sex education.

(a)  It is unlawful for any person in any manner to teach courses in sex education pertaining to homo sapiens in the public, elementary, junior high or high schools in this state unless the courses are approved by the state board of education and the local school board involved, and taught by qualified instructors as determined by the local school board involved. Any such course in sex education shall, in addition to teaching facts concerning human reproduction, hygiene and health concerns, include presentations encouraging abstinence from sexual intercourse during the teen and pre-teen years. With respect to sex education courses otherwise offered in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (a), no instructor shall be construed to be in violation of this section for answering in good faith any question, or series of questions, germane and material to the course, asked of the instructor and initiated by a student or students enrolled in the course.
(b)  This section shall not apply to general high school courses in biology, physiology, health, physical education or home economics taught to classes.
(c)  A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

[Acts 1969, ch. 304, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., § 49-1924; Acts 1987, ch. 388, § 1; 1987, ch. 427, § 1; 1989, ch. 591, § 113.]    emphasis mine

Let's look at the current law. Courses in sex education have to be approved (by the state and by the local school board; TN recognizes the need for local input and control), taught by qualified instructors, and must include presentations including abstinence. When combined with the amended bill, what I see is that courses in sex education taught in K-8 classrooms in Tennessee must:

• be approved by the state and by the local school board;
• be taught by qualified instructors;
• include presentations including abstinence; and
• be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science.

Additionally, any materials used in K-8 schools must follow that same limitation of natural human reproductive science. Perhaps this is where the "don't say gay" moniker originated. If the only "kinds of families" discussed in K-8 classrooms are those of heterosexual parents (married or not), then the LGBT community will not have representation in the curriculum of Tennessee classrooms. To be noted is:

Stephen Smith, assistant commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education, (who) also said he's unaware of homosexuality being taught anywhere in the state. He said there is nothing in the state's curriculum standards that allows students to be taught about homosexuality.

Regardless of the intentions of the bill, the criticism remains that teachers may be prevented from instructing their student in "ethics, morality and abstinence." Amendment 5 does not address abstinence, and neither abstinence nor the words ethics or morality were included in the original bill text. The bill as written is a new subsection (c); sections (a) and (b) would not be altered. The only way that these topics could conceivably be "prevented" by SB0049/HB0229 is if these ideas--ethics, morality and abstinence--are somehow not considered natural. That is clearly not the case. As Tennessee current state law requires abstinence to be taught, there is no reason to suppose that SB0049/HB0229 would change the law to prevent such teaching. Amendment 5 reads this way:

Comments on others' blogs

I love making comments on blog posts, or on articles posted at various sites around the internet. I post comments on "the BIGs"--Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, and BreitbartTV mostly. I check out other sites now and then: http://www.chrisisright.net/ and http://www.therightscoop.com/, plus FOX, MSNBC; mostly, what I view is conservative, religious, and / or sites that are disparaging the conservative or religious viewpoints I hold dear. One recent example was the "wonkette" fiasco and the subsequent takedown by #TrigsCrew. I would not have visited that site without learning of the atrocities posted there. The advertisers who dropped wonkette as a client need not fear loss of revenue; I never saw their ads before, and am more likely to support those advertisers now than ever.

I once posted a comment on a blog authored by a person I "knew" only from viewing tweets on Twitter. I am not sure that I ever interacted with the author other than through the comments on this blog, though it is possible that I did so and have forgotten. The author of the blog made a statement about a friend,  questioning if my friend was a journalist and perhaps implying that my friend had not written for the Associated Press. My comment was polite and thoughtful, and offered evidence refuting the blog's content. The comment did not remain viewable for long, and eventually the post itself was deleted.

I decided to post my comment here, because I thought it a nice example of persuasive writing (if I do say so myself) and I wanted it to be available for anyone who might want to read it. This comment was posted on or about November 19, 2010. It is given in its entirety, in italics. The only edits I have done to post it here are to

• activate the links and
• place the entire comment in a different color.

The "quotation" you offer: Updated: November 18, 2010

"If she doesn't take down that blog entry, she will be sued for libel. I have a lawyer and I can prove that I worked for the AP as a staff member for 4 years, and I will absolutely sue her."

is almost entirely NOT what I personally posted to the original version of your blog on November 17, 2010, at approximately 2:18 PM EST.

However, that's not today's topic. Today I'd like to discuss "freelance writer" not 'journalist'. If you would like to agree that working for the Associated Press (www.ap.org) and publishing written work on a variety of topics, in a variety of publications, over a period of time, qualifies one as a 'journalist', then we will be in agreement.

Here are some additional "sources" for you. Each identifies Heidi Russell in the byline along with her employer "Associated Press." Several different publications, variety of topics, period of time: these sources demonstrate that Heidi Russell, now Heidi Russell Rafferty, meets those qualifications.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/13/business/fi-12715

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/04/news/mn-29119

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19555592.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19726177.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19533951.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23419119.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19960925/ai_n10094333/?tag=content;col1

I suppose that once one no longer works for AP, one might do freelance writing. That does not disqualify the person as a journalist.

MerriamWebster.com offers this definition of JOURNALIST

1a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium 1b : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Gee, I guess any of us with works published in "news medium" or a substantial number of followers as a "mass audience" on Twitter qualify as journalists.

Can I prove 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the journalist Heidi who aims at a mass audience on Twitter and at http://christiansafehouse.blogspot.com/ is the same journalist Heidi who wrote all those AP articles? Of course I cannot.

I'm not Heidi. If you'd like to meet me, come find me @bteacher99 on Twitter.

I will close with this:

As I said, I cannot prove that these articles belong to my friend. However, she says (in many places) that she once wrote for AP, and I believe her. She has earned my trust, and I have faith in her. Do I know all the words and ideas that Heidi has exchanged with you or anyone in the "BratPack"? Of course not; remember, I'm not Heidi. I'm her friend. I have faith in her, and I believe absolutely that she is who she claims to be.

This will be crossposted to @bteacher99's twitter feed about 15 minutes from now. Hopefully that will provide any readers with some proof of my identity.

I have a screenshot available of the posting I made to the original blog. I have covered in black part of the url where the blog was posted, part of the name of the blogpost and the nickname of the author. I do not wish to cause trouble for the author of the post to which I responded. I just wanted to be certain that evidence of my original comment was available for any who would wish to read it.

The Best Kids in the World (or at least my corner of it)

Public (and private) schools around the world often have students from a variety of cultures and countries. In the USA, the dominant nationality in those schools would be "American"--students born with all the rights and responsibilities of a US passport holder and resident. In Germany, I imagine the dominant nationality would be...German. "International schools" are the exception, and I teach in such a school. We have well over 200 students who hold passports for more than 40 different countries. We have students from every continent except Antarctica. (Someday, maybe :)  )

Tonight was the night of the long-awaited Modern Classics concert. Except for a 6th grader who played a Bach prelude to open the evening, the entire performance belonged to the 18-member concert band. They played six pieces, from grade 2.5 to 4. (If you direct an amateur band or orchestra, those numbers have meaning for you.)

Membership in the concert band begins at grade 8. Tonight's band featured kids from the USA, Pakistan, South Korea, and our host country. Because our school has limited space, concert band is an after-school activity rather than a course for a grade. With sports teams, a spring drama, a choir, and several other after-school options, the concert band is limited to one 90-minute practice per week. There are only four seniors in the band. Musical instruments here are tremendously expensive; a "beginner" flute is about double the price one pays in the US, and renting an instrument is unheard of here. The school owns a few instruments, but many concert band members must share (everything except mouthpieces) with the 7th grade beginner band. Practice schedules are fun.

Many of our students are here for just a few years. Their parents have jobs with one of the giant aerospace companies, or have been sent by a government as diplomats and staff (with families) for a brief stint. Other students will probably be here until they graduate. Perhaps their parents teach at our school (1st trumpet, 2nd trombone and 2nd clarinet). Perhaps they were born to a family of hyphenated citizenship (1st baritone, the FIRST ever student from this country to be accepted into the AMIS International Honor Band). Perhaps their families have invested years living in this country to bring hope to a barren land.

Our school doesn't have a swimming pool. We don't have an auditorium for concerts, or a gym for basketball practice. We have hot lunches delivered every day (including McDonald's once every two weeks) and we just this week got our first lettermen jackets and official school t-shirts. Our teachers are qualified teachers who love to teach and who genuinely care about their students.

The reality is, though, that our students--the concert band kids, the drama kids, the soccer stars, the juggling-club kids, and the 4-year-olds who took a field trip to the dentist today--our students are the best kids in the world. They are from all over the world, will leave us to live all over the world, and if statistics are true, will probably spend some part of their adult lives in residence far away from their home countries. The best part of a school with the best kids in the world is that "home" for these kids is whatever place they are right now. No one's country is better than another's; no one fights with a classmate because their nations' armies can't get along. English is our common language (which the teachers appreciate) and the kids use it faithfully to communicate: in class, at lunch, and for hours each evening on Facebook.

A concert band is a collection of individuals, each playing an instrument. The rhythms are usually different from section to section. Percussion notation is very different from the melodies played on flute; the also sax music is transcribed in a different key from the music played on trombone. Once everyone is seated, the conductor raises the baton, and it all fits together. Some whole notes, played fortissimo; some staccato drum beats; a boom from the gong and a fanfare from the trumpets.

The best kids in the world are just like that. Some stay with us for years, resonating in our hearts. Others have our attention for just a short time before they fade away into memory. Together, they fill our school with laughter and learning and life. These kids may make the world a better place someday, and I'm thankful to be part of the audience.

Message or messenger? (aka "The Attack of the Killer Comment")

Within a half-hour's time, I received two different links in my Twitter timeline. One dealt particularly with the concept of Creation vs. Evolution as it appears in a US state's public-school curriculum. The other offered a rather science-intensive look at a possible flaw in "Neo-Darwinism". The juxtaposition of the two ideas intrigued me, and I began to contemplate a blog post on the subject.

I wasn't sure which direction to take: simply reporting on the information, discussing the concepts of creationism and evolution in school classrooms, the science of creationism. I remembered a tweet  I had favorited a few days ago about legislation involving the teaching of evolution in US public schools:

9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom

Then I read the comments on the that article. I knew after reading just a few comments that I had my blog post.

First, to summarize the article in my own words:

Even though our country has money troubles, it's the perfect time to force schools to teach creationism. Texas, Kentucky, Florida, New Mexico, and Missouri each had a bill presented this year (2011); Tennessee and Oklahoma had two. Some of these pieces of legislation passed; others died in committee. Speaking of the bills in process in Tennessee, Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education states: (this legislation will) "allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."

If you have not yet heard of the "National Center for Science Education", it is a "not for profit" 501(c)(3) organization with a ".com" internet prefix. Organized in 1981, it boasts 4,000 members "with diverse religious affliations." In the "disclaimer" section, the mission is stated: NCSE is "devoted to promoting and enhancing the teaching of science, especially the evolutionary sciences, in K-12 public schools." (emphasis mine)

This post is not intended to be about the NCSE; I offer that information simply as a means of explaining the position taken by the author of the "9 Bills" post. The tone of the article, from the opening lede to Steven Newton's quote, indicates nothing but contempt for the idea of creationism. As I read the comments, I realized that the intended audience was expected to agree with that contempt.
There was very little clear, factual explanation of the theory of evolution and its educational value. (Kudos to the few commenters who tried.) There were a few "anti-evolution creationists" who tried to offer clear, factual explanations of their ideas. However, the overwhelming use of comment space was personal attack of those creationists. Appeal to Ridicule, mis-direction, ad hominem attacks abound. Why?


As the article is a few days old, I don't expect that my comment at the MotherJones site will be read by those who frequent the site, so I've reproduced the comment here. I replied to a comment that began with this sentence:

If you wish to understand why the cliche of "Dumb Americans" gets kicked about so much over here in Europe.... look no further than this article.

From bteacher99: Having lived outside of the US for several years, I can assure you that "dumb Americans" has less to do with the beliefs of Creationists and more to do with the behavior of American tourists and expats who give every impression that what they want is the most important concern, and that the only thing worth thinking about is the latest claptrap on TV or the web.

Any Creationist who dared to comment on this thread was immediately shot down with "facts" accompanied by insults. Are some of you unable to have a coherent conversation with someone that disagrees with you without calling names like kids on the playground? That's not the impression you are leaving for the reader.

If this is such a serious and important issue to you, shouldn't you be about the business of converting the opposition with reasoned arguments and replies? There is some of that, to be fair, but what I saw more than anything is appeal to ridicule, and perhaps some personal attack. So what if I disagree with you? Does that mean you should explain your views step by step, or just take the easy road claim those with whom you disagree are uneducated, "special", "dumb" or perhaps even in need of re-education.

Creation or evolution? Anti-creation and anti-evolution? The original topic, a very important discussion in today's America, is lost (at least in this comment stream) in the flood of an attack. This flood, I suspect, will last much longer than did the flood in Noah's day. A note of caution to those who wish to defend their faith, regardless of Who or what is the recipient of that faith: if you disagree with the message, don't shoot the messenger. Your readers will appreciate it, and you may actually accomplish what you set out to do: share your ideas with others.

How would you know?

I was working late the other day. The boss was still in the office. The nature of our jobs sometimes requires that. The particular place where we work requires something else of us as well: he and I are both believers. We are Christians. We chose to become Christians long before we took our respective jobs here, but we would not have chosen this location in which to work if we had not already chosen to follow Christ.



My boss had collected his briefcase, coat, and the remains of his lunch. I heard him say, "Good night, see you tomorrow" or something equally innocuous. I realized that it was nearly dark outside and that the workday should have ended more than an hour ago. I busied myself with collecting papers, shutting down the computer, and exiting my office. As I locked my office door, I noticed the boss's office was still open. As I walked through the lobby, I saw that his coat, briefcase and lunch were sitting on the desk. The light was on. The boss was nowhere to be found.



It had been a few minutes since his goodbye, but I presumed he had stepped into the restroom before his brief walk home. I collected my lunch from the office fridge, signed out, and put on my coat, rather more slowly than normal. The boss was simply not in the office, but neither had he left for home.



As I exited the front gate of the campus, I thought, "Heh. Maybe the rapture happened."
(Briefly: I Thessalonians 4:16 - 17 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. The rapture is the time when Christians--those who are saved by the grace of Christ's death on the cross--are taken from the earth to live forever in heaven. The time when this will happen is not known, nor is the timing known: what must happen first. One thing that will take place: wars and rumors of wars.)



As I mentioned in the beginning, I am a Christian. If the rapture had actually happened, I would not have been Left Behind. I wasn't really worried...then a much more sobering thought occurred to me.



How would I know?



I live in a part of the world where the Muslim call to prayer sounds five times each day. The number of Christian churches in this part of the world are numbered in the single-digits per major city (if one is even available for local citizens).  In some lands, Christians can choose to be identified as such on their government identification, and officially should fear no reprisal. The reality is, though, that Christians who are natives of this region often keep their faith from their family and friends for a little while. If those closest to them do not know of their faith, how likely is it that I will know, as I see them only at the grocery store or on the bus to the mall?



Had the Christians in this region...in my city...suddenly been "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air", the effect on daily life would have been minimal. A wife missing from this building; a husband missing from the office; perhaps an entire family might be gone here and there. Governments would still have their personnel in place. Stores could still open; transportation would run without a hitch. Teachers would be in their classrooms to greet the children that arrived that morning. What would those teachers tell the children about the disappearances?



Never figured out where the boss went that day, but the feelings remain a week later: feelings of despair—so few believers here in this region of the world; feelings of hope—that while the time grows short, time still remains; feelings of longing—how would they know, unless someone tells them?