From the South Bend Tribune
Michiana Point of View
12/12/08
I was sitting in the Local 5, United Auto Workers, hall for the 60th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 6 and I was feeling proud. I had a smile in my heart. I was smiling because my dear mother was so proud of being a union member all of the years that she worked at Simplicity Pattern Company. I was proud because my daughter is a current member of Local 5. The unions make it possible for working-class people, people of color and women, to live well -- good decent independent lives. Honest money.
I was proud of the Indiana University South Bend students who provided us with slapstick between speakers. I smiled at the adorable little girl, now a teenager, who I remember sleeping in the brown rocking chair that I bought from her mother during the West Washington Street yard sale 10 years ago. I smiled at all of the people in the room who I have known for years who, like me, are gray, wrinkled, pot-bellied and committed.
I smiled to think about the article in The Tribune that said Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in getting the Universal Human Rights Declaration passed and how Hillary Clinton stood up for women's rights in Beijing 13 years ago.
When it was my turn to speak, I was in good company as I stood up once again for individuals' long overdue human rights. A person's right to file a complaint with the South Bend Human Rights Commission if that person believes he or she may have been discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity in the areas of education, housing, public accommodations or employment is a human right. I smiled because the South Bend Common Council came within one vote in 2006 of amending the ordinance that would allow this very basic human right: justice.
The late, beloved and former council member Roland Kelly and I held hands under the table as the ordinance was being debated. I always smile when I think of my sweetheart.
It seems so pitiful, so embarrassing and so sad that people today in this great country would have to beg for a basic human right, justice. Indianapolis passed the same ordinance in December 2005. South Bend can also.
The boogeyman accusations are, "where will this stop, we are going down a slippery slope, and these are special rights."
In the USA we don't stop. There is nothing slippery about this slope and the only thing special about these rights is that we openly deny them to some people while we give them to others.
I continue to run into people who are shocked that these rights are denied to some of our citizens. Those shocked are old and young, people of all races, and Christians and non-Christians.
Our Declaration of Independence talks about inalienable rights ... "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We don't stop until we fulfill the promise of the president that President-elect Barack Obama most admires, Abraham Lincoln, who stated in the Gettysburg Address, "Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
I smiled. I smiled inside; a smile of pride, hope and the confidence that we will do the right thing ... we always do. Happy birthday, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Happy birthday to ya!
Charlotte D. Pfeifer lives in South Bend.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
"Special Rights"
More wacky comments brought to you by CCV member, Tom Uebbing. Notice that he claims that regardless of what the facts are regarding homosexuality, we should still make a moral judgment on it. Of course, this moral judgment must be based on HIS understanding of HIS religion. No other opinions need apply.
From the South Bend Tribune
Voice of the People
12/12/08
Rev. Edward Ruetz's characterization of the opponents of special rights for homosexuals as unChrist-like is facile. He alleges that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. Jesus affirmed the sin of Sodom will be punished. (Matthew 10:15; 11:24) Jesus' personally authorized representatives ("He who rejects you, rejects me" -- Luke 10:16), the Apostles, repeated his warning. Jude identified the sin of Sodom as "unnatural vice." (Jude 7)
Paul identified homosexual sex as sin (Romans 1:27) which if unrepented bars entrance to heaven. (1 Corinthians 6:9)
Even if homosexuality were inborn and genetic, which it is not, the practice should not be legitimized in the law any more than a hot temper. You still must make a moral judgment about it.
Simply uttering the magic word "discrimination" does not make a case for good law. If what is protected is an intrinsically disordered and morally wrong behavior -- homosexual sex -- enforcement of the law will inevitably pose a conflict for citizens of conscience. They would be punished for opposing the negative effects of homosexual behavior. We would punish what is good for the sake of accommodating what is bad. That is bad law.
Tom Uebbing
South Bend
From the South Bend Tribune
Voice of the People
12/12/08
Rev. Edward Ruetz's characterization of the opponents of special rights for homosexuals as unChrist-like is facile. He alleges that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. Jesus affirmed the sin of Sodom will be punished. (Matthew 10:15; 11:24) Jesus' personally authorized representatives ("He who rejects you, rejects me" -- Luke 10:16), the Apostles, repeated his warning. Jude identified the sin of Sodom as "unnatural vice." (Jude 7)
Paul identified homosexual sex as sin (Romans 1:27) which if unrepented bars entrance to heaven. (1 Corinthians 6:9)
Even if homosexuality were inborn and genetic, which it is not, the practice should not be legitimized in the law any more than a hot temper. You still must make a moral judgment about it.
Simply uttering the magic word "discrimination" does not make a case for good law. If what is protected is an intrinsically disordered and morally wrong behavior -- homosexual sex -- enforcement of the law will inevitably pose a conflict for citizens of conscience. They would be punished for opposing the negative effects of homosexual behavior. We would punish what is good for the sake of accommodating what is bad. That is bad law.
Tom Uebbing
South Bend
Bathroom 'issue' just a silly distraction
From the South Bend Tribune
Voice of the People
12/10/08
Bathrooms? Please. This is the argument used in the '70s when many of us were working to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. I remember hearing that what the proponents of the ERA really wanted was joint bathrooms. It was a ludicrous, weird argument.
And here it is again, being used by Joe Sergio, in his letter of Nov. 13. It would be laughable, except that it completely ignores the real issues: Justice, equality, and freedom -- in the workplace, in education, in housing and medical care -- for all people, not just for some, and instead focuses on toilets.
Why is that? Why would anyone want to cheapen a conversation about people and justice and equality in such a way? Conversations about difficult, controversial subjects are far better served, surely we can all agree, by focusing on the real issues.
Nancy Mascotte did not stand before the SouthBend Common Council to make a case for the creation of joint bathrooms serving both males and females. These already exist -- in our homes and in family bathrooms in many public places. She was speaking out for what does not exist: equality for all Americans. Let's not trivialize the issue.
Martha Carroll
South Bend
Voice of the People
12/10/08
Bathrooms? Please. This is the argument used in the '70s when many of us were working to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. I remember hearing that what the proponents of the ERA really wanted was joint bathrooms. It was a ludicrous, weird argument.
And here it is again, being used by Joe Sergio, in his letter of Nov. 13. It would be laughable, except that it completely ignores the real issues: Justice, equality, and freedom -- in the workplace, in education, in housing and medical care -- for all people, not just for some, and instead focuses on toilets.
Why is that? Why would anyone want to cheapen a conversation about people and justice and equality in such a way? Conversations about difficult, controversial subjects are far better served, surely we can all agree, by focusing on the real issues.
Nancy Mascotte did not stand before the SouthBend Common Council to make a case for the creation of joint bathrooms serving both males and females. These already exist -- in our homes and in family bathrooms in many public places. She was speaking out for what does not exist: equality for all Americans. Let's not trivialize the issue.
Martha Carroll
South Bend
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Judge and Jury
I've never been on trial before, although I worked as a paralegal for many years and am familiar with courtrooms. It is quite a different perspective, however, to actually feel like your fate lies in someone else's hands. That is the feeling I get when I think about the South Bend Common Council deciding whether or not to amend the city's Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity. I feel like they are judging me - like they have some strange power over my life.
In reality, these feelings are quite overblown. Although it seems like I'm begging for their blessing, all I really want is a place to go to file a grievance should I believe I've been discriminated against. The Council members don't need to condone with my orientation, or even really to understand it. They just need to admit that GLBT persons do face discrimination and should have somewhere to go to report allegations. This system works in cities all over America; there is no reason why it should not work here in South Bend.
I've given some thought as to why I feel like the Council is scrutinizing my friends and me every time this issue comes up. Maybe it's because of the way society tries to put GLBT persons in a box and marginalize us? Or, perhaps it is because it feels like those who condemn do so much more loudly than those who accept?
For whatever reason, I think there needs to be perspective on this issue. After all, this is not Solomon deciding whether or how to split the baby; it is elected officials recognizing a hole in the system of justice and equal rights that needs to be filled.
If the Council decides to allow GLBT persons access to the Human Rights Commission, life will be more secure. I'll gain assurance in the knowledge that my job, my house, my education, and my life in South Bend are valued and protected. If the amendment is rejected, I'll know that discrimination is definitely alive and well, and that it still permeates not only the fabric of society, but the power structure in our government, too.
Unfortunately, the latter confirmation would be no surprise, but it would be a big disappointment. After all, I am a constituent, too.
In reality, these feelings are quite overblown. Although it seems like I'm begging for their blessing, all I really want is a place to go to file a grievance should I believe I've been discriminated against. The Council members don't need to condone with my orientation, or even really to understand it. They just need to admit that GLBT persons do face discrimination and should have somewhere to go to report allegations. This system works in cities all over America; there is no reason why it should not work here in South Bend.
I've given some thought as to why I feel like the Council is scrutinizing my friends and me every time this issue comes up. Maybe it's because of the way society tries to put GLBT persons in a box and marginalize us? Or, perhaps it is because it feels like those who condemn do so much more loudly than those who accept?
For whatever reason, I think there needs to be perspective on this issue. After all, this is not Solomon deciding whether or how to split the baby; it is elected officials recognizing a hole in the system of justice and equal rights that needs to be filled.
If the Council decides to allow GLBT persons access to the Human Rights Commission, life will be more secure. I'll gain assurance in the knowledge that my job, my house, my education, and my life in South Bend are valued and protected. If the amendment is rejected, I'll know that discrimination is definitely alive and well, and that it still permeates not only the fabric of society, but the power structure in our government, too.
Unfortunately, the latter confirmation would be no surprise, but it would be a big disappointment. After all, I am a constituent, too.
Monday, November 24, 2008
A voice of reason
Straighten up and gain some tolerance
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
11/24/08
Joe Sergio's Nov. 13 letter scolds Nancy Mascotte for her mantra of "intolerance" which was not directed toward the whole South Bend community, as Sergio indicates, but toward those citizens who do discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transvestite people.
In fact, his organization, Citizens for Community Values, has used deceptive language to cloud the issue of our citizens' human rights in South Bend. Its members sanitize the word "discrimination" and turn it into a catchy, duplicitous phrase: "no special rights."
Some citizens, I believe strongly, are not only intolerant of GLBTs, but acting unChrist-like. While on this Earth, Jesus chose to serve the poor, the outcasts and the marginalized in his Jewish society. Jesus never uttered a word of condemnation about homosexuality. We can presume that if gays were present and marginalized, they were a part of his community.
In our own times, gay people have come out of the closet into which most societies put them for centuries. Recent scientific studies find that, for a true homosexual, sexual orientation was not chosen by them but given to them by nature (and God?). I know that I did not choose my own heterosexuality.
I consider myself as a "straight for equality." Doing what is right can be simple. Easy. Straightforward.
Rev. Edward J. Ruetz
South Bend
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
11/24/08
Joe Sergio's Nov. 13 letter scolds Nancy Mascotte for her mantra of "intolerance" which was not directed toward the whole South Bend community, as Sergio indicates, but toward those citizens who do discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transvestite people.
In fact, his organization, Citizens for Community Values, has used deceptive language to cloud the issue of our citizens' human rights in South Bend. Its members sanitize the word "discrimination" and turn it into a catchy, duplicitous phrase: "no special rights."
Some citizens, I believe strongly, are not only intolerant of GLBTs, but acting unChrist-like. While on this Earth, Jesus chose to serve the poor, the outcasts and the marginalized in his Jewish society. Jesus never uttered a word of condemnation about homosexuality. We can presume that if gays were present and marginalized, they were a part of his community.
In our own times, gay people have come out of the closet into which most societies put them for centuries. Recent scientific studies find that, for a true homosexual, sexual orientation was not chosen by them but given to them by nature (and God?). I know that I did not choose my own heterosexuality.
I consider myself as a "straight for equality." Doing what is right can be simple. Easy. Straightforward.
Rev. Edward J. Ruetz
South Bend
Thursday, November 13, 2008
More "love" from the opposition
11/13/2008
GLBT
Nancy Mascotte's letter on Oct. 7 should be a real eye-opener to those who haven't been following the efforts by the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual group to enact special rights for those professing to engage in these sexual behaviors.
After analyzing years of information, this group not only failed to demonstrate discrimination against GLBT, but they only evoked disagreement with their efforts.
During this time, Mascotte and others attacked many of our largest and most community-oriented employers, including Martin's Super Markets, Memorial Hopital and Wal-Mart, during these public hearings for, among other things, not allowing men to use women's bathrooms and visa versa. With the mantra of the South Bend community as being "intolerant," Mascotte and the GLBT leaders continue to demonstrate their hypocrisy by chanting "intolerance," while themselves demonstrating intolerance with those who dare to disagree with their conclusions.
Now they are demonizing leaders like Jay Dunlap, who lovingly oppose them. Those in the community who know Dunlap recognize him as an educated, thoughtful gentleman, father and husband. Mascotte's characterization is outright bizarre. The GLBT community should stop the vicious personal attacks and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them bigots, fanatics, extremists and hatemongers.
Joe Sergio
South Bend
Note: Joe Sergio is also the owner of First Response, a disaster restoration company located in South Bend.
If you're interested in reading the actual minutes from the hearing/public comments, the transcript is located on the Common Council website. The hearing on 29-06 starts on page 2.
GLBT
Nancy Mascotte's letter on Oct. 7 should be a real eye-opener to those who haven't been following the efforts by the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual group to enact special rights for those professing to engage in these sexual behaviors.
After analyzing years of information, this group not only failed to demonstrate discrimination against GLBT, but they only evoked disagreement with their efforts.
During this time, Mascotte and others attacked many of our largest and most community-oriented employers, including Martin's Super Markets, Memorial Hopital and Wal-Mart, during these public hearings for, among other things, not allowing men to use women's bathrooms and visa versa. With the mantra of the South Bend community as being "intolerant," Mascotte and the GLBT leaders continue to demonstrate their hypocrisy by chanting "intolerance," while themselves demonstrating intolerance with those who dare to disagree with their conclusions.
Now they are demonizing leaders like Jay Dunlap, who lovingly oppose them. Those in the community who know Dunlap recognize him as an educated, thoughtful gentleman, father and husband. Mascotte's characterization is outright bizarre. The GLBT community should stop the vicious personal attacks and stop calling anyone who disagrees with them bigots, fanatics, extremists and hatemongers.
Joe Sergio
South Bend
Note: Joe Sergio is also the owner of First Response, a disaster restoration company located in South Bend.
If you're interested in reading the actual minutes from the hearing/public comments, the transcript is located on the Common Council website. The hearing on 29-06 starts on page 2.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Majority Rule, Minority Rights
Majority Rule, Minority Rights
On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.
· Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
· Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.
· Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.
· Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.
· Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.
· Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.
· There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Discrimination
Discrimination
(SBT Voice of the People)
10/15/08
Jay Dunlap, who opposes an amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance to protect gay, leslian, bisexual and transgendered people (Voice, Sept. 25) is confused and misguided. The SouthBend Human Rights Commission does not deal with individuals who are disadvantaged; it deals with individuals who are discriminated against. Even a wealthy, well-educated man could be the target of discrimination.
Only members of Citizens for Community Values, such as Dunlap, dispute that there is discrimination against GLBT persons. The question is, are our representatives on the Common Council going to remedy the situation? Will they give GLBT persons the right to bring complaints of alleged discrimination to the HRC for investigation? Other Indiana cities permit this (e.g. Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Bloomington, Michigan City), and it works.
In his Viewpoint on Aug. 15, Don Wheeler stated that he didn't pay too much attention to the rhetoric of the opposition when the amendment was voted on two years ago, because the arguments against the legislation were factually incorrect or irrational. Dunlap's letter is a perfect example. The council must see through this obfuscation.
Discrimination is discrimination, even when it's called "loving opposition."
Elizabeth Karle
South Bend
(SBT Voice of the People)
10/15/08
Jay Dunlap, who opposes an amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance to protect gay, leslian, bisexual and transgendered people (Voice, Sept. 25) is confused and misguided. The SouthBend Human Rights Commission does not deal with individuals who are disadvantaged; it deals with individuals who are discriminated against. Even a wealthy, well-educated man could be the target of discrimination.
Only members of Citizens for Community Values, such as Dunlap, dispute that there is discrimination against GLBT persons. The question is, are our representatives on the Common Council going to remedy the situation? Will they give GLBT persons the right to bring complaints of alleged discrimination to the HRC for investigation? Other Indiana cities permit this (e.g. Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Bloomington, Michigan City), and it works.
In his Viewpoint on Aug. 15, Don Wheeler stated that he didn't pay too much attention to the rhetoric of the opposition when the amendment was voted on two years ago, because the arguments against the legislation were factually incorrect or irrational. Dunlap's letter is a perfect example. The council must see through this obfuscation.
Discrimination is discrimination, even when it's called "loving opposition."
Elizabeth Karle
South Bend
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
A Democrat by any other name...
The following statement is included in the 2008 platform of the national Democratic Party (p. 51-52):
"A More Perfect Union We believe in the essential American ideal that we are not constrained by the circumstances of birth but can make of our lives what we will. Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in. We all have to do our part to lift up this country, and that means changing hearts and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law. "
And, in our own state, the 2008 Indiana Democratic Party platform states:
“The Indiana Democratic Party is proud of our long-standing commitment to and support for civil rights and equality. Our 2008 ticket makes history, creating the opportunity for the first African-American president and the first female governor. As the party of the people, we strongly oppose restriction of opportunity to Hoosiers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or economic background.”
These ideals are what the Democratic Party, and - dare we say - many Republicans, aspire to. The Mayor gets this. The South Bend Common Council, which is comprised of 9 members (eight of whom claim to be Democrats) fell short of reaching the goal of equality by failing to pass an amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance to level the playing field for GLBT persons in July, 2006. Only Pfeifer, Kelly, Kirsits, and Puzzello stood firm.
No doubt this issue will come up again. When it does, will the Democrats be true to their party's ideals, or will they turn their backs on these aspirations? Will the eight (D)s be Democrats, and vote like Democrats...or will they behave like something else?
"A More Perfect Union We believe in the essential American ideal that we are not constrained by the circumstances of birth but can make of our lives what we will. Unfortunately, for too many, that ideal is not a reality. We have more work to do. Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in. We all have to do our part to lift up this country, and that means changing hearts and changing minds, and making sure that every American is treated equally under the law. "
And, in our own state, the 2008 Indiana Democratic Party platform states:
“The Indiana Democratic Party is proud of our long-standing commitment to and support for civil rights and equality. Our 2008 ticket makes history, creating the opportunity for the first African-American president and the first female governor. As the party of the people, we strongly oppose restriction of opportunity to Hoosiers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or economic background.”
These ideals are what the Democratic Party, and - dare we say - many Republicans, aspire to. The Mayor gets this. The South Bend Common Council, which is comprised of 9 members (eight of whom claim to be Democrats) fell short of reaching the goal of equality by failing to pass an amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance to level the playing field for GLBT persons in July, 2006. Only Pfeifer, Kelly, Kirsits, and Puzzello stood firm.
No doubt this issue will come up again. When it does, will the Democrats be true to their party's ideals, or will they turn their backs on these aspirations? Will the eight (D)s be Democrats, and vote like Democrats...or will they behave like something else?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Chicago may get 'gay-friendly' high school
from CNN.com
By Mallory Simon
Story Highlights
High school would not be exclusively for gay students
Officials say harassment contributing to high dropout rates among gay students
39 states don't have laws against bullying based on sexual identity
Advocate: "We can continue to do nothing ... or we can save young people's lives"
(emphasis added)
(CNN) -- Public school officials in Chicago, Illinois, are recommending approval of a "gay-friendly" high school because harassment and violence are causing gay students to skip class and drop out at alarming rates.
School officials say the proposed school would offer a welcoming, harassment-free environment for gay students.
The School for Social Justice Pride Campus, which officials say will not be exclusive to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, is aimed at being safe and welcoming for any student looking for another school option, said Josh Edelman, executive officer in the Chicago Public Schools' Office of New Schools.
"It is not going to be a 'gay high school,' but yes, in a way, it is meant to target kids who feel they have been victims of bullying for their sexual orientation or perceived orientation," Edelman said.
Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan announced his recommendation Wednesday. Officials said Pride Campus would be separate physically but be attached administratively to the School for Social Justice.
School officials said the standards and curriculum for the school would be in line with other schools in the district. The school would also offer counseling for students, though because of federal laws, officials cannot ask students about their sexual orientation. The curriculum would not rely on, but would incorporate lessons about, sexual identity in history and literature classes, officials said.
"It's about creating another option for kids," Edelman said. "When it comes down to it, though, it is all about having a choice and providing high-quality options for students, whether they are gay or not."
The school could be a lifeline for students who are struggling for academic success.
Gay and lesbian students are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe, according to a 2003 Chicago Public School District survey. And a study released Wednesday by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network showed similar trends across the country.
The national study, which the group says is the most comprehensive report ever on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students nationwide, found that 86.2 percent of those students reported being verbally harassed, 44.1 percent physically harassed and 22.1 percent physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.
This harassment, the study concludes, has affected students' ability to achieve success in school, causing their grade-point level to be, on average, half a point lower than that of heterosexual students nationwide.
Dropout levels are higher among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students because of more frequent truancy, the study found. Almost 32 percent of those students missed a class because of feeling unsafe, compared with only 5.5 percent of heterosexual students nationwide, the study said.
Truancy and lower grades aren't the only repercussions of anti-gay sentiments in schools, said Kevin Jennings, the founder and executive director of GLSEN. He cited the killing of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student shot by a classmate in Oxnard, California, in February after King asked to be his valentine.
Jennings said the repercussions of harassment alone underscore the need for Pride Campus.
"If we keep doing nothing, we are going to keep getting these horrifying levels of harassment, greater rates of skipping, not going to college and more tragic violence like the murder of Lawrence King," he said. "Those are our choices. We can continue to do nothing, and we know the results, or we can save young people's lives and offer them an education and a future."
A similar school in New York, the Harvey Milk High School in the East Village, was created because of similar fears.
The school, which had been around since 1985, serving gay and lesbian students, expanded to a "gay-themed" school for 100 students in 2003. The Pride Campus is expected to serve 600 students, school officials said.
Harvey Milk High School, like the Pride Campus, is open to all students regardless of sexual orientation. But unlike the proposed school in Chicago, Harvey Milk requires its attendees to be at risk of dropping out because of harassment.
Harvey Milk boasts a graduation rate of 95 percent of its students -- all of whom were at risk of or had dropped out -- well above the city average of 52 percent.
When the school opened its doors, protesters, led by anti-gay Kansas minister Fred Phelps, screamed at supporters gathered outside to repent for their "sodomite behavior."
Edelman said that while some concerns have been raised about Pride Campus at community meetings, officials have not heard any large-scale opposition.
One Chicago resident said at a meeting that he could not support the school because of his religious beliefs, Edelman said. Others told local media they didn't support the use of public money to create the school. Some thought that if gay students went to the Pride Campus, students in other schools would not learn to accept the gay community. Instead, they suggested, the focus should be working toward acceptance in all schools.
"Absolutely, we should work for [acceptance] across the board," said Jennings, the GLSEN executive director. "But it's not going to change overnight, and in the meantime, these kids aren't going to graduate."
Jennings said that GLSEN research shows acceptance among peers is helped by having a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender support group at school.
The most important factor, according to the GLSEN study, is the existence of a state law that protects students from harassment based on their sexual orientation.
Thirty-nine states, including Illinois and New York, do not have laws offering that specific protection, Jennings said citing the GLSEN study. Some have laws, but they don't specify on what basis the protections apply, which Jennings said was essentially as effective as having no law at all. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin are the only states with specific sexual orientation protections for students.
The Chicago School Board will vote October 22 to approve the School for Social Justice Pride Campus in addition to 17 other proposed schools.
As far as Jennings is concerned, the school board's choice is an easy one.
"The choice they are making is not should we have this kind of school," he said. "The question is 'Are we going to do anything we can to get these kids an education?' And there's only one right answer -- yes."
By Mallory Simon
Story Highlights
High school would not be exclusively for gay students
Officials say harassment contributing to high dropout rates among gay students
39 states don't have laws against bullying based on sexual identity
Advocate: "We can continue to do nothing ... or we can save young people's lives"
(emphasis added)
(CNN) -- Public school officials in Chicago, Illinois, are recommending approval of a "gay-friendly" high school because harassment and violence are causing gay students to skip class and drop out at alarming rates.
School officials say the proposed school would offer a welcoming, harassment-free environment for gay students.
The School for Social Justice Pride Campus, which officials say will not be exclusive to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, is aimed at being safe and welcoming for any student looking for another school option, said Josh Edelman, executive officer in the Chicago Public Schools' Office of New Schools.
"It is not going to be a 'gay high school,' but yes, in a way, it is meant to target kids who feel they have been victims of bullying for their sexual orientation or perceived orientation," Edelman said.
Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan announced his recommendation Wednesday. Officials said Pride Campus would be separate physically but be attached administratively to the School for Social Justice.
School officials said the standards and curriculum for the school would be in line with other schools in the district. The school would also offer counseling for students, though because of federal laws, officials cannot ask students about their sexual orientation. The curriculum would not rely on, but would incorporate lessons about, sexual identity in history and literature classes, officials said.
"It's about creating another option for kids," Edelman said. "When it comes down to it, though, it is all about having a choice and providing high-quality options for students, whether they are gay or not."
The school could be a lifeline for students who are struggling for academic success.
Gay and lesbian students are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe, according to a 2003 Chicago Public School District survey. And a study released Wednesday by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network showed similar trends across the country.
The national study, which the group says is the most comprehensive report ever on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students nationwide, found that 86.2 percent of those students reported being verbally harassed, 44.1 percent physically harassed and 22.1 percent physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.
This harassment, the study concludes, has affected students' ability to achieve success in school, causing their grade-point level to be, on average, half a point lower than that of heterosexual students nationwide.
Dropout levels are higher among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students because of more frequent truancy, the study found. Almost 32 percent of those students missed a class because of feeling unsafe, compared with only 5.5 percent of heterosexual students nationwide, the study said.
Truancy and lower grades aren't the only repercussions of anti-gay sentiments in schools, said Kevin Jennings, the founder and executive director of GLSEN. He cited the killing of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student shot by a classmate in Oxnard, California, in February after King asked to be his valentine.
Jennings said the repercussions of harassment alone underscore the need for Pride Campus.
"If we keep doing nothing, we are going to keep getting these horrifying levels of harassment, greater rates of skipping, not going to college and more tragic violence like the murder of Lawrence King," he said. "Those are our choices. We can continue to do nothing, and we know the results, or we can save young people's lives and offer them an education and a future."
A similar school in New York, the Harvey Milk High School in the East Village, was created because of similar fears.
The school, which had been around since 1985, serving gay and lesbian students, expanded to a "gay-themed" school for 100 students in 2003. The Pride Campus is expected to serve 600 students, school officials said.
Harvey Milk High School, like the Pride Campus, is open to all students regardless of sexual orientation. But unlike the proposed school in Chicago, Harvey Milk requires its attendees to be at risk of dropping out because of harassment.
Harvey Milk boasts a graduation rate of 95 percent of its students -- all of whom were at risk of or had dropped out -- well above the city average of 52 percent.
When the school opened its doors, protesters, led by anti-gay Kansas minister Fred Phelps, screamed at supporters gathered outside to repent for their "sodomite behavior."
Edelman said that while some concerns have been raised about Pride Campus at community meetings, officials have not heard any large-scale opposition.
One Chicago resident said at a meeting that he could not support the school because of his religious beliefs, Edelman said. Others told local media they didn't support the use of public money to create the school. Some thought that if gay students went to the Pride Campus, students in other schools would not learn to accept the gay community. Instead, they suggested, the focus should be working toward acceptance in all schools.
"Absolutely, we should work for [acceptance] across the board," said Jennings, the GLSEN executive director. "But it's not going to change overnight, and in the meantime, these kids aren't going to graduate."
Jennings said that GLSEN research shows acceptance among peers is helped by having a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender support group at school.
The most important factor, according to the GLSEN study, is the existence of a state law that protects students from harassment based on their sexual orientation.
Thirty-nine states, including Illinois and New York, do not have laws offering that specific protection, Jennings said citing the GLSEN study. Some have laws, but they don't specify on what basis the protections apply, which Jennings said was essentially as effective as having no law at all. California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin are the only states with specific sexual orientation protections for students.
The Chicago School Board will vote October 22 to approve the School for Social Justice Pride Campus in addition to 17 other proposed schools.
As far as Jennings is concerned, the school board's choice is an easy one.
"The choice they are making is not should we have this kind of school," he said. "The question is 'Are we going to do anything we can to get these kids an education?' And there's only one right answer -- yes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
