California schools are no longer a “safe emotional environment for children” after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB777, officially titled the Student Civil Rights Act.
That’s the reaction of some citizens and organizations to recent legislation written to create uniform standards and clear up inconsistencies in state statues dealing with discrimination and bias in education.
Earlier state statutes already banned bullying, harassment, or other discrimination against students based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But any law that mentions both schools and sexual orientation strikes a nerve with some people.
Already there are warnings that the terms “mom” and “dad” could be banned from schools or that gender-specific restrooms could be challenged in court. Campaign for Children and Families released a statement suggesting the law “means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms” through lessons that “positively portray transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.”
Such hyperbole is all too common in today’s take-no-prisoners political environment. But such vehemence has had the unintended result of distracting people from a more reasonable concern about the law.
No one should object to responsible efforts to protect students from bullying or abuse—for any reason. But a more reasonable concern is that, in attempting to stop discrimination, educators could implicitly suggest acceptance of different sexual orientations and inadvertently challenge the moral values that parents are trying to instill in their children.
Which values public schools should teach—and which they should leave to parents—are questions that will be debated until the end of time. But, if one can get past the emotionally charged rhetoric, concerns about how educators will interpret the law are legitimate—and California educators need to address them.
But the law’s intent is simply to protect children from mistreatment. If people keep the focus on that simple goal, then these other concerns—both legitimate and fanciful—should prove unfounded.
Del Stover, Senior Editor