On December 13, California state Senator Mark Leno introduced the "Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act" (FAIR) to add the contributions of gay people to the history curriculum in California, hoping that such visibility will serve to reduce gay teen bullying and gay teen suicide.
Not surprisingly, Faux News disagrees with the bill. On December 17, Fox and Friends interviewed Fox contributor, Tucker Carlson, who is evidently an expert on gay teen suicide.
Tucker had some very unusual objections to the bill.
He says:
"There are two problems with this.[FAIR] One, it's propaganda and two, it's blackmail. The point of history is to teach what happened. Not what you wanted to happen. Not what you hope will happen but what actually happened."
This is in fact not true The bill doesn't suggest that lies about the contributions of gay people be published, only that the truth about their contributions be included in the history curriculum. The fact that the March on Washington was organized by a gay man, Bayard Rustin, for example, is a fact, not propaganda. Propaganda would be writing that Bayard Rustin, a gay man, organized the March on Washington, and hence gay people are superior to straight people, because, after all, no straight person ever thought of a march for civil rights. See the difference, Tucker? Well, maybe you don't, but smart people do.
Not getting his stupidity quota in for a 2 minute interview, Tucker continued:
"In this case, a lawmaker is saying, portray a special -- an interest group in a positive light or kids will be hurt. Hence the blackmail. They are basically saying if you don't do this, kids could die. And that's an outrageous thing to say."
This is incorrect. No one is saying "do this, or gay kids will die." What people are saying is that gay teens ARE dieing, so lets do this! That's a fundamental difference.
Then Tucker launched into his philosophy of history, something he obviously spent a lot of time developing:
"What I -- what they're saying is the point of history is to raise the self-esteem of students. It's to find yourself in the history book and see the group to which you belong portrayed in a positive light. And again, of course, that's not the point of history. The point of history is to teach you what happened....It's the -- that's exactly right. It's not to make people feel good about themselves. It's not to achieve social aims. It's to tell the truth about what went before. And that's being subverted by a lawmaker and it's dangerous."
Subverted??? Wow, subversives in the California Senate? We better resurrect Joseph McCarthy! Wait, we don't need McCarthy. We have Tucker!
But what Tucker fails to mention is that FAIR simply adds the contributions of gay people to an already existing list of minority contributions. For some reason, Tucker didn't advocate eliminating the contributions of other minority groups from the history curriculum. He only advocated keeping gays from being added to it. If history is not about teaching contributions, then why are the contributions of other minorities ok to keep in? But gay contributions are not?
I'm actually not necessarily disagreeing with Tucker's philosophy of history. He is right that the point of history is to teach what happened. But what happened is that gay people have been oppressed, persecuted, harassed, tortured, excluded, and murdered for thousands of years by straight people. It is also a fact that some very brave people have tried to end heterosexual bigotry. And those facts are not in the history books. If it's the point of history to learn what happened, lets put the facts in the history books. And to suggest that putting in facts is somehow inconsistent with making gay teens feel better about themselves is factually incorrect. Including the fact that Bernard Rustin was gay makes gay people feel better. So, the truth has been told, and gay teens feel better. Who could possibly object to that?
Tucker continues by stating that it won't work, because his extensive knowledge of the studies done on this subject reveal that telling the truth about gay contributions to history won't help them at all.
"Well, I mean, not only is it -- first of all, it's unproven. There isn't social science that demonstrates that teaching children about the glories of the gay rights movement will reduce bullying. That just doesn't -- we don't know that."
Actually according to The California Safe Schools Coalition, as pointed out in Media Matters, surveys of California students and school administrators on 3 different years revealed:
"Students who report learning about LGBT issues in school... report fewer mean rumors or lies spread about them, fewer reports of being made fun of because of their looks or the way they talk, and less LGBT bullying at school." The California Safe Schools Coalition also concluded that not only did more LGBT students feel safer at schools with LGBT issues in the curriculum, but "[m]ore straight students report feeling safe if they learned about LGBT issues."
So, if by "There isn't social science that demonstrates that teaching children about the glories of the gay rights movement will reduce bullying," he actually means, "There IS," then finally Tucker has said something factually accurate. There is a first time for everything.
Not surprisingly, Faux News disagrees with the bill. On December 17, Fox and Friends interviewed Fox contributor, Tucker Carlson, who is evidently an expert on gay teen suicide.
Tucker had some very unusual objections to the bill.
He says:
"There are two problems with this.[FAIR] One, it's propaganda and two, it's blackmail. The point of history is to teach what happened. Not what you wanted to happen. Not what you hope will happen but what actually happened."
This is in fact not true The bill doesn't suggest that lies about the contributions of gay people be published, only that the truth about their contributions be included in the history curriculum. The fact that the March on Washington was organized by a gay man, Bayard Rustin, for example, is a fact, not propaganda. Propaganda would be writing that Bayard Rustin, a gay man, organized the March on Washington, and hence gay people are superior to straight people, because, after all, no straight person ever thought of a march for civil rights. See the difference, Tucker? Well, maybe you don't, but smart people do.
Not getting his stupidity quota in for a 2 minute interview, Tucker continued:
"In this case, a lawmaker is saying, portray a special -- an interest group in a positive light or kids will be hurt. Hence the blackmail. They are basically saying if you don't do this, kids could die. And that's an outrageous thing to say."
This is incorrect. No one is saying "do this, or gay kids will die." What people are saying is that gay teens ARE dieing, so lets do this! That's a fundamental difference.
Then Tucker launched into his philosophy of history, something he obviously spent a lot of time developing:
"What I -- what they're saying is the point of history is to raise the self-esteem of students. It's to find yourself in the history book and see the group to which you belong portrayed in a positive light. And again, of course, that's not the point of history. The point of history is to teach you what happened....It's the -- that's exactly right. It's not to make people feel good about themselves. It's not to achieve social aims. It's to tell the truth about what went before. And that's being subverted by a lawmaker and it's dangerous."
Subverted??? Wow, subversives in the California Senate? We better resurrect Joseph McCarthy! Wait, we don't need McCarthy. We have Tucker!
But what Tucker fails to mention is that FAIR simply adds the contributions of gay people to an already existing list of minority contributions. For some reason, Tucker didn't advocate eliminating the contributions of other minority groups from the history curriculum. He only advocated keeping gays from being added to it. If history is not about teaching contributions, then why are the contributions of other minorities ok to keep in? But gay contributions are not?
I'm actually not necessarily disagreeing with Tucker's philosophy of history. He is right that the point of history is to teach what happened. But what happened is that gay people have been oppressed, persecuted, harassed, tortured, excluded, and murdered for thousands of years by straight people. It is also a fact that some very brave people have tried to end heterosexual bigotry. And those facts are not in the history books. If it's the point of history to learn what happened, lets put the facts in the history books. And to suggest that putting in facts is somehow inconsistent with making gay teens feel better about themselves is factually incorrect. Including the fact that Bernard Rustin was gay makes gay people feel better. So, the truth has been told, and gay teens feel better. Who could possibly object to that?
Tucker continues by stating that it won't work, because his extensive knowledge of the studies done on this subject reveal that telling the truth about gay contributions to history won't help them at all.
"Well, I mean, not only is it -- first of all, it's unproven. There isn't social science that demonstrates that teaching children about the glories of the gay rights movement will reduce bullying. That just doesn't -- we don't know that."
Actually according to The California Safe Schools Coalition, as pointed out in Media Matters, surveys of California students and school administrators on 3 different years revealed:
"Students who report learning about LGBT issues in school... report fewer mean rumors or lies spread about them, fewer reports of being made fun of because of their looks or the way they talk, and less LGBT bullying at school." The California Safe Schools Coalition also concluded that not only did more LGBT students feel safer at schools with LGBT issues in the curriculum, but "[m]ore straight students report feeling safe if they learned about LGBT issues."
So, if by "There isn't social science that demonstrates that teaching children about the glories of the gay rights movement will reduce bullying," he actually means, "There IS," then finally Tucker has said something factually accurate. There is a first time for everything.
RSS Feed
