Because their lives are at stake.
On Tuesday night, at the Board meeting, I heard a lot of talk from opponents of the health curriculum about “agendas.” They were concerned about socialist, fascist, United Nations agendas in the document, but more than anything they worried about the imaginary menace of the “gay agenda.”
As I testified to the Board, I do have an agenda as a teacher: to ensure that my students have the opportunity to be healthy, become educated, and learn to think for themselves. They deserve to feel safe in school and know that their sexual orientation doesn’t diminish their humanity.
Two heartbreaking stories this week, one about a 13 year student who killed himself following taunts from classmates and another about a Rutgers student who committed suicide after roommates secretly recorded and broadcasted a sexual encounter, make it clear that schools play a vital health role for the safety of students. Our schools must confront harassment and violence against students and must work protect the physical and emotional health of children who face very real threats.
It’s time for the critics of the proposed curriculum to start answering questions about their position. Do they really believe we should withhold information that will protect the health of students? Should we deny the fundamental humanity and equality of all kids?
The tragedies of this week make it clear that we must not.
Remember that strange editorial in the Independent Record a few days ago that called for more tolerance in political debates that divide our community? It was unusual for a couple of reasons: it seemed to suggest that both sides had been equally intolerant despite no evidence that the progressive community had been engaging in the name calling and threats that have come from conservative quarters and, perhaps more tellingly, because it was signed by Editor John Doran instead of appearing as an unsigned opinion of the editorial board.
Both may be explained by what I’ve been told: that IR publisher Randy Rickman refused to run the piece as an unsigned editorial for fear that it would offend conservative members of the community. You might remember Rickman as the publisher who introduced himself to the Helena community with an ill-informed personal editorial about abortion disclosure laws. Apparently, he’s chosen to promote his views one more time, without signing his name this time.
The news that the publisher is directing editorial coverage in such a heavy-handed manner certainly makes one wonder what other influence he is exerting over coverage. It’s not a stretch to conclude that the original editorial was edited to its balanced but untrue form, though I can’t confirm that. It also makes Wednesday’s story about the school board meeting make a lot more sense. How else can a reader explain that the news story didn’t mention a single homophobic remark or UN conspiracy theory, both of which were uttered multiple times by opponents?
The Independent Record and other news agencies often write about the critical trust between the press and the public. Newspapers in small towns have an even more important role to play, as they often drive community discussion. I certainly hope that the Independent Record’s publisher isn’t willing to cheapen that role for the sake of his own political agenda.
Via Marnee Banks at KXLH, Dennis Rehberg’s staffers are getting their pictures taking at the Memorial Park bandshell renovation dedication. Of course, Rehberg voted against funding the project, so one has to wonder what the hell they are doing they?
It couldn’t be to take credit for something he opposed, could it?
Perhaps the media will hold him accountable. How many ribbon cuttings and unveilings have Rehberg and his staff attended this year?
I’ve read this editorial by the Montana Standard defending the Montana Meth Project three times, and can’t even begin to decode it. Maybe I’m tired, but I think it can be summarized like this:
Premise 1: The new meth study claims that meth use was declining since 2005, demonstrating limited effectiveness of the MMP.
Premise 2: Oh, no, that’s not true. Meth use is up or at least static, with 2009 looking worse than 2008.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Montana Meth Project works because it’s “in your face.”
The piece manages to engage in post hoc, non sequitur and begging the question in less than 500 words.
This thing makes the Tea Party health education lawsuit almost make sense by comparison. Surely, the ad revenue the Lee Newspapers generate from the Meth Project should result in better writing than this.
…if this is what they read. When the stimulus passed, the Wall Street Journal (and nearly every conservative blogger, and the IR) ran stories about the inevitable inflation that would result, generally in ‘six months to a year.”
Six months to a year later – inflation may be too low. Sure, that’s not a good sign for the economy, but wouldn’t that suggest that all these concerns about the stimulus making our dollar worthless a little overblown?
