Liberal-Progressive Fascism in California’s Legislature

Print PDF

By Mike Gray

Recently there was a posting about a proposed California law (S.B. 48) aimed at promoting the gay agenda in public schools, a law which pointedly ignores the moral sensibilities and rights of parents and children enrolled in government-run schools.

It might be instructive to look at this seemingly innocuous bill. Any [bracketed material] has been added. The term “Liberal-Progressive” can apply to any member of any political party.

Under the section entitled “Purpose of the Proposed Law,” we find:

The FAIR Education Act would ensure that LGBT people are included in instructional materials, which studies have shown is linked to greater student safety and lower rates of bullying. [This conforms with the White House's current initiative contra "bullying." To "ensure that LGBT people are included in instructional materials" would require altering the curriculum at some cost to the taxpayers of an already cash-strapped state on the verge of bankruptcy.]

The FAIR Education Act would require that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans are included and recognized for their important historical contributions to the economic, political, and social development of California. [Note the word "require"; the local school districts will have no choice in the matter. We see here glimmers of totalitarian thinking. The rationale for these persons being "included and recognized for their important historical contributions" is not stated. Is it not possible these persons have already been recognized for their "contributions" in other contexts which did not specify their sexual orientation?]

Specifically, this legislation would add LGBT to the existing list of underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools. [The Liberal-Progressive goal is inclusiveness at all costs irrespective of "the content of their character."]

This inclusion will help to ensure that students get a fair and accurate picture of the people and events that have shaped our society, and that fair and accurate portrayals of LGBT people are no longer excluded from classroom discussions. [Just who determines what's "fair and accurate"? Ask the average Arab school child what Jews are like and wait for the word "pig." Has there really been a systematic program that "excluded (LGBT people) from classroom discussions"? Proof of concept is needed here.]

Under “Background,” we see:

Sharing accurate and inclusive information is a vital step to setting a climate of respect and keeping our schools safe. ["Inclusive" must be a code word for some larger agenda; "Sharing accurate information" would have been enough. "Setting a climate of respect" is a dubious phrase: "respect" is earned, not programmed or enforced or punished if it's not granted. Gay proponents insist on "respect" simply because they're gay; if so, heterosexuals should be demanding the same for simply being straight.]

Schools that perpetuate silence or harmful stereotypes about LGBT people can be breeding grounds for the fear and ignorance that fuel bullying during the early grades and hate violence or even suicide by the time students reach high school. [Who knew that "schools ... perpetuate silence or harmful stereotypes"? Are individual teachers, administrators, or children really meant here? The implication is that there's a wide-spread conspiracy against LGBTs on the part of everyone at school, the lunch lady and the janitors included—very paranoid. The terms "fear" and "ignorance" are always employed against anyone who disagrees with the gay (or other) agenda; and are we to believe that "fear and ignorance" "fuel bullying" in every instance? Most bullies would be bullies regardless of whom they despise; they're not picky, and most are quite unafraid of and knowledegable about their victims. "Hate violence" is redundant, like "hate crime," and just as meaningless. Using the word "suicide" in this context is very much "waving the bloody flag," implying it's the final inevitable result of LGBTs not receiving the "respect" this lawmaker thinks is their due. If that were the case, the bill signally fails to prove it.]

Accurate depictions of LGBT Americans in classroom materials teach all students to respect each other’s differences, thereby increasing students’ sense of belonging and ability to learn. [Again, "accurate depictions" is nebulous and in need of definition. Why is it government-run schools must "teach all students to respect each other's differences"? Isn't that what parents are for, to instill moral values in their children? Who made the state the final arbiter of morality? Once again, "respect" must be earned, not legislated or mandated.]

SB 48 will improve student safety, reduce bullying, enrich the learning experiences of all students, and promote an atmosphere of safety and respect in California schools. [This bill "will improve student safety" (really? how?), "reduce bullying" (any idea what constitutes "bullying"?), and "promote an atmosphere" (what the hell does that mean?) of "safety" (still no idea how it'll make anybody "safer," or even what "safety" in a school setting might be) and (unearned, coerced, required) "respect" (which will probably only engender resentment because it's being forced on kids rather than being carefully explained to them by their primary care givers, otherwise known as their parents).]

Under the section “Existing Law”:

Current law prohibits instruction or school-sponsored activities that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, ability, national origin, or ancestry. [Nobody should favor discrimination (that's my morality), but we must return again to the fascist notion that the state possesses the moral high ground and can dictate to the citizens ("subjects" might be better) whom or what they can like or dislike. The troublesome phrase here is "reflect adversely"; what does it mean (answer: no clue), how do you quantify it (answer: you can't), and how do you punish it (answer: there's no legal Constitutional basis for doing so)? It would seem "current law" in California mandates such unconstitutionality, more's the pity. No wonder the "Golden State" is in trouble.]

Current law also prohibits the adoption of instructional materials that reflect negatively on any person because of their race, sex, color, creed, disability, national origin or ancestry. It also requires schools and governing boards to include only instructional materials that, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society. ["Reflect negatively": here we go again. The Liberal-Progressives in Sacramento are all too happy to "require schools ... to include only instructional materials that, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society." What criteria are needed to "accurately portray" cultural and racial diversity? We're not told. I'm assuming that the possessive pronoun "their" refers to educrats at all levels and implicity ignores the wishes of the parents; the petty dictators in the state capitol, as in many states, lord it over the "ignorant" and "fearful" peasants all the time. The public sector unions do exercise a lot of power, do they not? Proponents of the gay agenda want to elevate sexual behavior to be on a par with "race, sex, color, creed, disability, national origin or ancestry" (a phrase that is carefully positioned here in the bill), essentially promulgating the worthless notion of "gay is the new black."]

Under the section “Research”:

The LGBT community represents a significant and indelible part of the history and social fabric of California. An analysis of the 2000 U.S. Census revealed that there are more than 92,000 LGBT households in California (not including single LGBT people or LGBT couples who do not cohabitate), and about 6% of voters in a 2000 statewide election identified as LGBT. [I'm no statistician, so I'll have to take those figures at face value. Still, 6 per cent of any population is hardly "significant."]

While LGBT people represent a sizable and important part of the state, mention of the LGBT community’s role in California history and contemporary society is virtually non-existent in textbooks and other school instructional materials. [Could that be because the other 94 per cent, many of whom pay for schoolbooks and government, don't practice or disapprove of the LGBT lifestyle and don't share those same values? What if the situation were reversed? Would a majority gay government insist on a recognition of heterosexuals' achievements?]

The studies the bill cites as unimpeachable sources of objective information prove, upon closer examination, to be altogether impeachable.

The Williams Institute is an organization that “advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public.” Essentially, it’s a pro-LGBT think tank.

Three times the bill cites The California Safe Schools Coalition, which describes itself as “a statewide partnership of organizations and individuals dedicated to eliminating discrimination and harassment on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in California schools.”

Furthermore, they say in their mission statement:

Our chief goal is to ensure the effective and comprehensive implementation of the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 by:

Coalition Building – Developing a broad, effective statewide partnership that represents the diverse needs of all students in California and that drives change at both the state and local levels.

Evaluation – Gaining a comprehensive understanding of discrimination and harassment in California schools and evaluating the efforts to prevent and remedy this discrimination and harassment.

Accountability – Holding the State of California accountable for providing a safe school environment for all students and for implementing the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 in every school.

Local change – Spreading quality training and education to more local school districts and empowering local activists to advocate more effectively for change.

The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 is essentially a “hate crime” law; it’s also a wet dream for fans of coercive government. Beneath the placid and (perhaps) well-meaning language of the bill lies the potential for massive abuse of citizens’ rights. Now that you’ve seen some of S.B. 48′s hidden flaws, you should be able to detect similar defects in CSSVPA 2000:

(1) Under the California Constitution, all students of public schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.  Violence is the number one cause of death for young people in California and has become a public health problem of epidemic proportion.  One of the Legislature’s highest priorities must be to prevent our children from the plague of violence.

(2) The fastest growing, violent crime in California is hate crime, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that all students attending public school in California are protected from potentially violent discrimination.  Educators see how violence affects youth every day; they know first hand that youth cannot learn if they are concerned about their safety.  This legislation is designed to protect the institution of learning as well as our students.

(3) Not only do we need to address the issue of school violence but also we must strive to reverse the increase in teen suicide.  The number of teens who attempt suicide, as well as the number who actually kill themselves, has risen substantially in recent years. Teen suicides in the United States have doubled in number since 1960 and every year over a quarter of a million adolescents in the United States attempt suicide.  Sadly, approximately 4,000 of these attempts every year are completed.  Suicide is the third leading cause of death for youths 15 through 24 years of age.  To combat this problem we must seriously examine these grim statistics and take immediate action to ensure all students are offered equal protection from discrimination under California law.

This all sounds harmless enough, but the act goes further. Notice the inclusion of the phrase “sexual orientation”:

Existing law provides that it is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools and postsecondary institutions, regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state.

Existing law makes it a crime for a person, whether or not acting under color of law, to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person, by force or threat of force, in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics. [Emphasis added]

Suddenly, for no clear reason other than just wanting to, California legislators have elevated “sexual orientation” to the level of a Constitutional right. Not acknowledging this newly-minted “right” is a “crime.” (Could somebody please quantify “intimidate, interfere with, oppress” with respect to sexual orientation? If you’re the arresting officer, wouldn’t you need to know what that means?)

In California, as well as other states, the legislature has become the rubber stamp of an overreaching federal bureaucracy. In the name of fairness and equality — and even in the name of the Constitution, believe it or not — legislators are enacting laws which curtail freedom while enlarging government.

Gays are free to indulge their sexual proclivities, but they shouldn’t expect special recognition from the government for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Links:
To previous TAC article.
To S.B. 48 (a PDF).
To The Williams Institute.
To The California Safe Schools Coalition.
To The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000.

Tags: gay agenda, The California Safe Schools Coalition, The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, The Williams Institute