DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Carolina teacher resigns after backlash from proactively teaching acceptance.

Teacher resigns after backlash for reading "acceptance story" to class.

There is the link.

In a nutshell, a 25-year old teacher in North Carolina read his elementary school class a story about a prince who falls in love with another prince. He did it to proactively attempt to teach them to be accepting of others who are different from them. Naturally a majority of the parents got upset, and even felt obligated to attack him personally because his beliefs are different from theirs...



"But at the committee meetings to discuss Currie's use of the book, some parents whose children were not in his class made their attacks personal, telling him he would die young and spend eternity in hell. He also began receiving hate-filled letters and emails, including one copied to other teachers at the school, described homosexuality as a "birth defect" while accusing Currie of trying to "indoctrinate" children through "psycho-emotional rape."

Just wanted to get some opinions on this and what everyone thinks....

psycho-emotion rape?

like the prison camps they call "conversion" for kid's who are gay in christian families?

look, i don't know what to say about him and that story, maybe it was out of line..who knows.

but time and time again, the real psycho's come out the woodwork when stuff like this happens, aka these parents.

I'd need more information before coming to a truly reasoned response. I'd need to know more about the story. I'm not sure if I want a teacher reading romance of any variety to my imaginary, elementary-aged child.

While the hate is clearly unnecessary, I don't think I'd want to have my theoretical kindergartener asking me about boys tonguing boys. While personally I think the Native Americans/Many early peoples had it right with not shielding their children from sex, I think it should be up to the parents to decide that.

why?

third grade my teacher was reading romance novels. not anything graphic but still.

and here's another thing:

children are being taught to treat and accept gender and race as equal, so why should sexual orientation be any different?

It's a picture book for Children.

The homosexual acts in the book were probably minimal to none.

Children have to learn to be accepting of other races and the opposite sex while in school, I don't know why being taught to be tolerant of other sexual orientations is any different.

Just my own opinion.

The backlash he got was pretty unnecessary.

Took the words out of my mouth as I was typing a response.

+1

With no due respect to your Ohio source, which points out nothing but the comments of the very few and most harsh people... here is a local story of the meeting, which shows that he got quite a bit of support. And that the majority of those who actually disagree with him reading it don't disagree with treating gay people with respect but feel that is an issue best left to be discussed at home, especially for 3rd graders.

If you click on the link and look at the picture, you will see that he is receiving a standing ovation from most of the people in the picture.. they are all white, he is black, they are probably all straight, he is gay.... so sick of sources taking a select few comments and failing miserably to show the whole picture.



200 fill Orange County school meeting on gay fable


BY MARK SCHULTZ
mschultz@newsobserver.com


A teacher who read his third-graders a book about two princes getting married after a bullying incident in his class got strong support Friday night, while some who spoke against the book said they’re now the ones being bullied.

About 200 people attended the meeting at Efland-Cheeks Elementary School, a school in western Orange County. A school policy requires a review committee to hold a public meeting whenever someone lodges a formal complaint about instructional materials.

Teacher Omar Currie, 25, in his second year at the school, said he read “King & King” by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland about three weeks ago because a boy in his class who acts “a little feminine” was being called a girl and the word gay was used in a derogatory way.

On Wednesday, the committee, acting on an earlier complaint, upheld the use of the book. But Currie said the principal also instituted new policies that require teachers to notify parents of all the books they plan to read in class and to fill out a form for every bullying incident.

On Friday night, speaking loud and fast in his allotted three minutes, Currie objected to the new rules.

“This egregious policy creates an undue burden on teachers, and it hurts students,” he said. “The district must understand silence is poison.”

Currie, who is gay, said his school and the district should have fully supported his decision to read the book, as he said happened in another system where a school district defended the book in court.

“In direct contrast ... here in Orange County I repeatedly heard from school officials that the book might have been appropriate to read in a more progressive area without parental consent, but in Efland we need time,” he said.

“These comments were made as if to persuade me that today is not the time to stand up and protect students ... but that change on all issues must come about slowly, even if the safety of my students is compromised.”

About three-quarters of the crowd supported Currie, judging by sustained applause after he spoke.

Kim Grooms said children should be exposed to a variety of cultures, “and it is disappointing that this teacher does not feel supported.”

Tyla Olson noted that gay people can now legally wed.

“We cannot shelter our children from same-sex marriage,” she said. “We should allow diversity to be taught in our school. Teach peace and acceptance.”

But several other speakers criticized Currie’s action.

They said the book, in which the two princes kiss on the last page, was inappropriate for third-grade children.

Some said other books that focused on bullying could have been used to address the incident and that the actions by Currie and the assistant principal who gave him the book showed a “homosexual agenda” at the school.

“I’ve been called a racist. I’ve been called a bigot, and I am none of those things,” said Lisa Baptist, a grandmother who said she worries children might act out what they saw in the book. “This is nothing more than bringing homosexuality into a school where it does not belong.”

Several parents said they should have been notified before Currie read the book.

“These are my children. These are not your children,” said Rodney Davis, who has two children at Efland-Cheeks. “What gives you the right to tell me what they can listen to and what they can hear in our school? That’s bullying.”

Shelby Tyson, who identified herself as a Christian, said she appreciates Currie’s zeal for teaching and that her objection was not personal.

“We’ve known there are homosexual teachers in this school for years,” she said. “It doesn’t bother us.”

“I do not believe relationships as described in this book are biblically sound,” she said. “Our children are still very young and emotionally immature. I do not believe they need to be educated on finding a soul mate ... between two men, two women or a man and a woman.”

School district spokesman Seth Stephens repeatedly told speakers to focus on the book and not individuals.

When Davis interrupted him, Stephens asked Davis to leave, which he did.

A week earlier, Davis had carried a sign outside the school that said, “Mr. Currie read the book ‘King & King’ (homosexual relationships) without parents nor school’s permission.”



RN&O

My problem isn't that he read the story, my problem is that he did it a school to third graders.

Sexual tolerance (in fact tolerance in general) should be taught at home.

That's just my opinion of course.

Mom's at work, Dad, if he lives there is at work, I agree, let HBO teach them.

In this "emo" world we live in, no matter what you do or say, someone going to get offended. You get made up crap like "psycho-emotional rape".

Now, people are losing jobs over it.

The teachers biggest problem is his quote that he didn't stop to think about what the parents would think. Really? You are going to read a book promoting a gay relationship to 8 year old kids and you didn't stop to think that some parents might have a slight objection to that?

It could all have been avoided if he had notified parents and administration.

If you want to create your own curriculum you'll need to provide justification in writing for doing so.

I think that parents are perfectly within their rights to protest the material ..... but Christians don't need to, and should not, be objectionable in order to object.

We can strongly defend our beliefs, and fight against actions that violate the teachings of Jesus Christ, but we need to be careful how we do so. (and I include myself among this group) Christians need to fight for our beliefs, but we should not do so in a way that pushes people away from Jesus. We should never misinterpret the teachings of Jesus, and we should point out things that are contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible ..... but we need to so do like using a scalpel to save a life, not like a shotgun.

There's a time and place to discuss issues like this. Teachers need to look at their community as a whole before they launch into controversial topics.

If it were me, I would've sat down with my superiors to discuss this beforehand.

BECAUSE IT'S SEX, DAMMIT... SEX, SEX, SEEEEEXXX!!!

It's dirty. it's shameful. It's unclean. And when you add the "ick factor" of it being 2 guys.... well, that's just more than a decent God-fearing person should be forced to tolerate. Don't forget: tolerance is the first step towards acceptance... think of it as 'the gateway drug' for every form of promiscuity and depravity.

Love has nothing to do with sex... and especially homo sex.

You seem like a reasonably well-educated person, and yet I have to spell it out for you in terms that a Kindergartner could understand. Typical Libs: so concerned with the theoretical and ideal, they miss the obvious.

I want my kids fearing and hating the things I don't understand. It was good enough for my grandpap, it was good enough for my pap... and it will be good enough for my son, too. That's how it works in America. As soon as teachers get involved, they start undermining the parents' authority. Next thing you know, they're little minions of Evil...trying to tell us that the Earth revolves around the sun, or some such foolishness.

No- those parent were RIGHT to send their hate- and truth-filled screeds to that teacher. He should be put in jail for poisoning defenseless young minds.

A line was crossed. He should take his backlash lying down. (Oh... that sounded kinda- 'gay' right there, didn't it?) See... now it's even happening to ME.

This stuff is pernicious... and needs to be nipped in the butt early and often.


[/purple]

What ultraconservative account are you ghosting as?

i find it funny that my dad is a muslim, my mom is catholic, and yet not only have they been married for 22 years, but they have zero issues with gays because, and that's where i get my phrase from:

"gays being gay doesn't affect my bills on the first of the month".

we're sinners Rocket. Sinners. we are going to burn in hell for all eternity, for treating others how we want to be treated.

don't pour gasoline over yourself before we go, or i'm not gonna stand by you in the express line.

I can treat you with respect without having to agree with how you choose to live.

I have no problem with the message the book is conveying.

I just dont think it is a teachers place to teach moral issues.

Beliefs and morals should be taught at home.

KING

After looking at some of the book, I'm actually more disappointed that he thought that glorified picture book was appropriate for third graders. I remember reading Where the Wild Fern Grows in 3rd grade. Is that what the 3rd grade reading level has come to?

Youtube Reading of King and King excerpt

Don't we all wish!

I still think people should be required to get a license to breed.

You have to go to school to get a driver's license, but that doesn't teach anything about the back seat.

Do kids even use back seats these days?

Okay first points first... If you think sex is too big a topic for third grade you must live in a bubble. Third graders are surfing the web, watching TV and Movies being exposed to all sorts of things that us older folks never were... I've seen it with my grand children. In today's world, in a school room public or private, your kid or somebody else's kid will bring their limited knowledge, questions and right or wrong answers about sex to class as early as kindergarten.

Second, we are now in an age were we are on the way to total acceptance of differences based on EVERYTHING. Race, Physical/Medical Conditions, Sexuality, Religion, Values, Family backgrounds, etc...

I understand this change and am trying to be proactive and support it too, but I often find myself being educated and having to overcome my own feelings on the matters before I can even begin to be comfortable with the NEW WAYS...

I'm not sure how much better off we will be living in a world of total acceptance when I know there will be bad actors that abuse that stage. But I do marvel at the death of all this HATE we older folks just seem to have for anything or anybody different from our own perceptions of normal. There is now NO normal.

you bring up a good point.

i remember topics amongst my friends at that age that were....well, well above "grown". and teachers didn't have anything to do with it.

Years ago, this board had much more conservative lean to it, folks like PDR and others complained that they were constantly mocked and shouted down and most topics quickly became virtually unreadable... congratulations for switching the dynamic and letting me see how they felt.

The number of topics that remain on a reasonable level of debate are becoming fewer and farther between.... I find myself wanting to come here less and less... and I find myself wanting to comment even less frequently because making a comment from a conservative/Christian viewpoint on here is like throwing chum on the floor at MSNBC.... the tolerant accepting folks will come out in droves to mock you and tell you quickly what a moronic idiot you are for disagreeing with their mainstream views.. then those who adamantly oppose stereotyping will take the words of a few Christians and paint everybody within that religion with the same broad brush....

this read like the typical "christianity is under attack" nonsense,

even though the majority on this board is still christian, still conservative leaning.

you're just upset that there are more people challenging yours and other viewpoints.

i've paid attention to this board even when i was with the old one. i seen the topics. y'all was slinging mud at the few liberals on the board before some of us came from the old one and had to make an account here.

now you're playing victim, even though you're still the majority on the board.

just like real life.

and the old board was majority christian conservative too. got the same flack here that i did on the old one.

My apologies then.. it should have read like "honest discussion is under attack"


No, I'm really not. Because I'm about as equally frustrated with a lot of the people who actually share my viewpoints...


Part of that may be true.. because those who used to make claims about conservatives now act just like them since their numbers have grown.. I was hoping for more.

it's easy.

this board seems to love discrimination sometimes.

i argue against it.

y'all don't like it. it's easy.

I think the point DC is making, and I agree with him, is that I can count on one hand the real conservative people on this board who I would consider "mud slingers". They have no true wish to have meaningful discussions or exchange ideas. They would rather point fingers, label and degrade others.

We also have people who take exception to that, yet use those same tactics themselves. I do believe that devalues their opinions as well.

what can i say, i fight fire with fire.

I could count the number of people who act like that on one hand.. yet you treat everybody who disagrees with you as if they are one of them.

It's like this thread. What the 3rd grade teacher did was STUPID... it was a totally asinine thing to do and think he wouldn't get any push back on it. Not because he's gay, not because he's black.... but because he took it upon himself to read a very controversial book about homosexuality to EIGHT YEAR OLD KIDS without consulting anybody first.

He had one kid call one other kid gay... neither probably having a real firm grip on what that actually means.. and rather than dealing with one kid who used a word he shouldn't have used, he took it upon himself to read this book to 24 other kids...

I have a feeling that if a kid in the class asked about love and a teacher decided that the best way to explain it was to read 1 Corinthians 13, a whole lot of people would be crapping in their drawers trying to get that teacher out of there as fast as they could.

So we have this teacher, who made a serious error in judgement and all anybody wants to talk about is the one Christian who said inappropriate things at the community meeting...

reading a book trying to teach equality.

hate mail saying he's gonna burn in hell.

yea....those poor christians.

i already said he probably didn't do something smart, however, all YOU want to do is point out the poor christians getting treated.

that pic you posted, apply it to yourself as well.

And this is what it boils down to. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation or disability.

Yep. There are ways to handle such childish actions by children other than by doing what this teacher did. If he had said, "I just want you to know that gay people are people just as all people are, and honestly, you often cannot tell whether a person is gay just by looking at him", or something like that, then I doubt that anyone would have objected. Instead he decided to tell a story about 2 gay princes, which many parents would find inappropriate for their 8 year old children, if not also offensive to them as far as their religious beliefs are concerned. It was a stupid move on the teacher's part, and he should have known better that to do such a thing.

I do see a similarity as far as many people wanting to explain why, when someone does something wrong today, that person really isn't the one who is at fault ......

this was the very post, by you, in this thread... now let's whine about how I set the tone..

Are you the satire guy around here? The age of the children are the problem for me here. If you make them 14, I have no problem with it. But they're 8. Let them enjoy the beauty of innocence a bit before introducing them to the complicated tortures of sex and love (hetero or homo)

Just to clarify, Clems response had the [/purple] tag at the end, so I presume he mis-typed the true tag at the beginning, so his post was supposed to be in purple text, which here on the board we have deemed to mean sarcasm.