The Washington Times Tries to Stir Stuff Up

Monday was the first meeting of the MCPS citzens advisory committee. That was an important milestone, as the school district gets back on its feet after the controversy over the sex-ed curriculum. So, not surprisingly, I got a call from Washington Times reporter Jon Ward, who has been covering this issue in print for more than a year now. He wants to know how I feel about being on the committee with Peter Sprigg.

Listen, I despise everything Peter stands for. I've been clear about that, and I have not changed my opinion.

But we have work to do. He and I are two people out of fifteen on a committee that is charged with advising the school board on a new curriculum. The committee will vote on stuff, and if Peter can convince the majority that his gay-hating point of view is better, he will get his way. If he can't, he won't. I am confident that reasonable people will vote against him, but maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But actually, I'm pretty comfortable with this. When Peter and I met at the meeting Monday night (we have met before, in the green room at MSNBC and other places), we shook hands and spoke amicably to one another. We want different outcomes, but we are working together in the process.

I have no desire to badmouth the guy in the press or on the blog at this point. If I have to fight him, we can fight fair, in the committee meeting room, following Robert's Rules of Order or some adaptation thereof.

Jon tried different angles to get me to say nasty things about Sprigg. I did tell him that I thought Sprigg was "malicious," which was not nice, but, well, I do think that, and he would say something equally sweet if asked to describe my viewpoint. I'll guess he would call me a "pro-homosexual," which is a word, I think, that he made up himself and uses frequently.

Other than that, I told Jon I thought we could work together. I said nice things about differences of opinion. I said I didn't think the committee would have to fight, that we could all discuss and come up with a consensus.

Failing to get any ugly personal comments from me, this young reporter went back into the blog, to last summer, when I explained why I thought Peter Sprigg is a nut. He went back to THIS POST, where I discussed Sprigg's talk at the CRC Hate-Fest, summarizing his points and explaining what I found evil about it. In that post I also talked about Sprigg's part in the campaign against SpongeBob SquarePants and his statement that "tolerance" and "diversity" are code-words used by the "pro homosexual movement," which is unbelievable to somebody like me. (For the record, I support tolerance and diversity. I like them. And I'm not gay, and don't give a damn about any pro-homosexual movement, if they have one, whatever a pro-homosexual is.) Re-reading it, it was a pretty good post, and I stand by it. But that was last summer. Jon pulled a couple of inflammatory statements out of context and put them into the Reverend Moon's paper yesterday morning.

It might have been good if he had attended the meeting, maybe he could have had a news story about an actual event, rather than digging through last summer's blog for quotes. But, y'know, it was his girlfriend's birthday. And of course Clark always chooses Lois over covering a story.

I have my beliefs and Peter Sprigg has his, and we are on the new committee together. If everybody felt the same about everything, there would be no need for a committee. So we disagree. I can live with that.

Let me say, I think there are two legitimate sides to the ongoing controversy over sex education. One side seeks to protect the innocence of children, to preserve some sense of modesty, and to resist the sexualization of everything our young people are exposed to. The other side seeks to present important facts in an objective way, so that students learn enough to make wise decisions in their own lives and to live as respectful citizens. The two sides are not opposed, they simply focus differently. It is entirely possible for an open discussion to result in compromise and consensus.

But there is a third view. There are people, represented by the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and the Washington Times, who simply want it all to go away. They don't want to improve the sex-ed curriculum, they want to destroy it.

I think it was bad form for The Times to try to stir up discord when Montgomery County needs to move in a positive direction. And I hope that in the future The Times will strive to support the county, rather than attempt to undermine our hard work by trying to make a serious collaborative process into a petty personal squabble. I don't expect it, but I do hope.