Action Alert and Update
on Pro-Homosexual Curriculum in Alameda

Alameda School District
 Curriculum Update

An Open Letter to the AUSD Board of Education

Dear AUSD Board of Education:

Thank you for enduring the long hearing on May 12 and your pledge to hear everybody out on the subject of the controversial Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender curriculum.
 
Obviously the size of the crowd caught you by surprise.  But it should not have.  Passions run strong on both sides whenever public conversation touches on the morality and promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism.  Disregard for the sincerely held religious and moral beliefs on one side of this issue contributed to the size of the crowd and is the reason for this letter.
 
Conspicuously absent in the proposed curriculum is any reference or even acknowledgment of the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose bullying for any cause but do not want their children made to feel that moral opposition to multisexuality is unacceptable.  Superintendent Vital said in her opening remarks that she wanted to create an environment that was accepting of all students.  But clearly this proposed curriculum will not do that.  If accepted, it will further marginalize and stigmatize those who hold to traditional moral notions on these issues.  These victims will be even more a target for the labels "bigot", "homophobe", "heterosexist", "intolerant", and according to the proposed curriculum "unwelcoming".
 
Candidly, the proposed policy is thinly veiled advocacy of one point of view in this moral debate.  If passed, the weight of the State, exercised by the District, would be choosing one set of victims at the expense of another.  Perhaps we should ask if that is in fact the intent.  Does the Board believe that the position expressed by so many at the forum is just too intolerable and must be addressed with the full resources of the District?
 
The forum audience was passionate but polite.  Still, there were audible gasps on several occasions when a speaker referenced a desire to educate his or her children that certain sexual lifestyles did not align with their family religion or morality.  These passions and the divide on whether morality leads to disapproval of certain sexual lifestyles or disapproval of the disapprovers even spilled over into the overflow room.  In that room a spontaneous debate came about.  To prod this along, one self-appointed facilitator asked if there was anybody present from the religious right.  A 17-year-old girl later described her discomfort with publicly being put to the choice of not standing for her religious convictions or being labeled in this intimidating way.
 
If a forum prior to adoption of this curriculum results in intimidation and categorization, why would we believe implementation of the curriculum will not?  Of course it will.  The question raised is whether the District will side with these victims with the passion that has been shown in bringing this curriculum to a vote.  Those students that approach these issues from the standpoint of their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs also deserve the sympathy and protection of the District.  The law requires protection of these religious values with the same emphasis it provides for sexual orientation.  And there is little doubt that such protection will be sought in court if not granted by the District. 
 
Obviously the favored outcome is to reject this new controversial curriculum and enforce the various AUSD policies that now exist, not only prohibiting bullying but specifically bullying related to sexual orientation.  A detailed description of current law and a resolution to actively enforce the same would be quite sufficient.
 
But if the District insists on forcing this controversial, multisexual curriculum, then we must politely but firmly request the development of a parallel curriculum that is equal in terms of classroom time, emphasis and sympathy for the sincerely held religious and moral views of those opposed to the lifestyles discussed in the subject curriculum.  Failure to provide this will necessarily be interpreted as ignorance, fear or hatred of these views.  And few will miss the irony of those being the things that are supposed to be remedied by introduction of this curriculum.  
 
I urge you to support the protection of all students in your district and reject this multisexual curriculum.
 
Karen England
Executive Director

Mike McMahon, Board President 
510-523-2263
510-522-6926 fax
mmcmahon@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term: 2006-2010

Ron Mooney, Board Vice President 
510-522-6926 fax
rmooney@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term: 2008-2012

Tracy Jensen, Trustee
510-865-6350 phone
510-522-6926 fax
tjensen@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term: 2006-2010

Trish Spencer, Trustee
510-522-6926 fax
tspencer@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term: 2008-2012  

Niel Tam, Trustee
510-522-6926 fax
ntam@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term: 2008-2012