NewsTalk Transcript: First Part

We have a lot of the NewsTalk show from the other day transcribed. The show was an hour long, so I'll split up the text into several posts. Expect my usual sarcasm commentary to break it up a little bit. Thanks to Christine for working so hard on this.

BD=Bruce DePuyt, the show's host; DF=David Fishback, TTF member and former chair of the citizens advisory committee that evaluated the 2004 curriculum; JG=John Garza, president of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum who oppose the curriculum.

BD: For year now parents and activists urging tolerance of different lifestyles have been battling parents and activists seeking a more traditional curriculum in a fight that's gone from the local level to federal court and back again. Now students at some schools are part of a pilot curriculum. Teachers are tightly constrained in what they can say. They say they are essentially reading to the class with little discussion or interaction possible.

We're going to get a couple of perspectives in this discussion now. David Fishback joining us. He's with a group called Teachthefacts.org. Welcome David, it's good to see you. Also with us is John Garza. He's with a group called Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Welcome John, it's good to see you. Thanks to both of you for coming in.

Let's talk about where we are. I know we'll end up kind of going back in time a little bit, inevitably and that's great. But let's talk about where we are in terms of this pilot curriculum. That's what I understand it to be and by all means correct me if I'm wrong. How satisfied are you with the thing that's begun to roll out in thee Montgomery schools, David?

DF: The process is going along very well. And it's a very, very good start. The piloting went along without any incident. The vast, vast majority of parents chose to have their children take the pilot. Now the Superintendent and his staff are looking over the feedback from the program from the teachers, and the families, to see where some fine-tuning could be done.

They're also going to be, I believe, examining some recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee, which were not included in the first go around, but which members of the Board of Education at its January meeting made it very clear they want seriously considered -- principally some very, very basic statements from the mainstream medical and mental health organizations about, well principally for example, the fact that all those groups have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease, not a disorder, and it's not something people choose.

If you know David, you know that this topic will come up eventually: the bullet points. He strongly believes that these statements by the medical and mental health organizations should be included. Later in the interview you'll see some reasons why.

BD: How content are you with the curriculum? I mean to the extent that there's been a long fight, people really skirmishing about what we should teach the kids to what extent. Are you largely satisfied or do you still have issues with what it is that's contained, at a meat and potatoes level, with the curriculum?

DF: With respect to the section on human sexuality -- and that is different from the condom demonstration video. It's very important to understand the distinction between the two parts …

BD: Right.

DF:... of what is going on. With respect to the information on Human Sexuality, I am satisfied with everything that is in it. There are some things that need to be added, particularly since the school system has chosen, at this stage at least, to have it very, very tightly scripted in which teachers can't answer questions. For example, right now if a child asks, "Well, if somebody is gay does that mean they're sick?" Even though the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, all those groups say, "No, homosexuality is not a disease," the teacher can't answer that question. But hopefully that omission will be corrected as they review the piloting and put it in final form.

Man, that was good. This is the strong case for why the bullet points need to be included. There is simply a gap in the information that is presented without them.

Now we'll hear from the CRC's John Garza:

BD: John Garza, to what extent are your concerns about the nuts and bolts of the curriculum similar to concerns your group and others like it have had all along?

JG: Well, we've maintained the same objections all along. Some of those objections were removed when we filed a lawsuit two and a half years ago, and a lot of the overt religious discrimination was removed from the curriculum. There's a what I would call covert religious discrimination in this particular curriculum that's at the county level now. We have a lot of other problems with the curriculum, for example the definitions that are in the curriculum are somewhat amusing to use a fair word. They don't meet scientific, the scientific definition that we would find in a textbook at a university for example. There's a lot of other problems with the curriculum. It promotes homosexual conduct. There's just a number of things that we think should be stripped out of the curriculum and changed. Mr. Fishback mentioned the mainstream medical societies. I, I brought with me here the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association and in that book if your turn to the page I've marked, it says that gender, transgenderism is a mental disorder. This curriculum encourages it, in fact, promotes it, that a boy in 8th grade or 10th grade for example who may feel that he is a girl should go through this transformation process of becoming a girl. That would be, all you have to do is open this book I brought here from American Psychiatric Association and you'd see that they'd diagnose that.

Wow, there's a lot here. Covert religious discrimination, that's a good one. He knows there's no overt religious discrimination, so he complains about what's ... not there. What's between the lines. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt you can sue over covert discrimination.

Fishback had been jotting things down while Garza spoke.

DF: Can I respond to this?

BD: Absolutely, in just one moment. I want to pick up on something he said though. How specifically does the curriculum promote homosexuality? I mean are you suggesting that it's telling straight kids, "Hey listen. Give up that crazy straight lifestyle. Gay is much better." Are they really promoting in that sense?

JG: Ah no, but if you were to turn to, for example the, this -- I brought the curriculum with me as well -- the Voices and Personal Statements on Being Different, Esperanza and Michael and Tyrone, they all promote the gay lifestyle and the problem that we have...

BD: Are you saying - I don't mean to interrupt but just to get a discussion going - are they saying they're happy with who they are or are they saying, "We're in this really cool club. Come join us," promoting in other words?

JG: I think it does both of those, it does both of those things in a subjective way. So we would prefer a sterile, clinical examination of these things. Now one of the things...

BD: Staying with that topic, what should gay kids be quoted in the curriculum as saying?

JG: Well I don't think you need to quote gay kids in the curriculum at all.

BD: What should the voice be? What should the tone be? What should the statements be?

JG: Well I think we should have a academic discussion of homosexuality. This is not an academic discussion.

We know the CRC hates those vignettes, just hates them. Because what they do is to present gay and transgender teens as people, with feelings. When you read those vignettes you see high school life from their point of view, and that is something the CRC's position can't withstand. Their approach is to demonize gay people, and if students start thinking of them as human beings the strategy will crumble.

BD: David?

DF: I'd like to respond to a few things on that. Number one: The curriculum which Mr. Garza's group was able to derail with a last minute lawsuit -- in which it misrepresented what was in the curriculum, but given the short time, the Board did not have adequate time to respond -- did precisely what Mr. Garza just said, "a sterile" description. The only thing said about homosexuality in the original curriculum was that the mainstream medical groups all say that it is not a mental disorder, most experts say it's not a choice, that children that are raised by gay parents do not have any predisposition to being gay, there are gay families in our community. That is all it said about homosexuality. The only. And that was very clinical, there was nothing more said than that.

The only thing said about religion in the original curriculum was that different religions have different views about sexual behaviors and that there are even differences in viewpoint among people of the same religions. The only...what Mr. Garza's group did last time was take teacher resources, which were explicitly -- as to which teachers were explicitly told, "Don't discuss these in class." And those resources provided some background information on the idea that different religions have different viewpoints about homosexuality.

He's right about this. The "old new" curriculum gave a quite clinical accounting of the various aspects of sexual orientation. Looking back, the CRC has said they liked the "old new" curriculum better than the "new new" one. Well, they didn't really say it that way. They said the "new new" curriculum is worse than the first one.

The host was interested in the religion aspect.

BD: The judge really went after that part, by the way.

DF: He did, and if that had been in the curriculum I would have struck it down. But it wasn't in the curriculum.

BD: So why have it anywhere?

DF: Well, the point is that, the reason that was in there is that at that time, several years ago, the sense of the school staff was that teachers may not realize that there are, that many different religions have different views about homosexuality. That is not the case now, particularly, for example, the disputes within the Episcopalian Church and Bishop Robinson. It's very clear there are different religious viewpoints about that. You wouldn't need those resources. In any event, on this go round, there is no mention of religion whatsoever in the resources or in the curriculum itself.

With respect to the idea that this is somehow a covert attack on religion, what Mr. Garza is essentially saying is that if you say anything about homosexuality which does not comport with their view that it is sinful and that it is wrong and that it is somehow an illness, that that will attack certain people's religious beliefs. I have two responses to that: Number one, if a family does not wish their children to have that as part of their curriculum, they do not have to give permission to take it. No child can take this curriculum unless their parents give them permission to do so. Number two, the logic of Mr. Garza's position would be that if any religion has opposition to anything said in any part of the curriculum, then that curriculum can't be taught. On that basis, in Dover, Pennsylvania, for example, where they had the big creationism argument, they shouldn't teach evolution because some people's religion might run counter to it.

Several other things that are very important on this: The idea that the curriculum promotes a gay lifestyle. The curriculum on sexual orientation talks about feelings that people who happen to be gay have. It doesn't promote a lifestyle.

This seems like a very reasonable accounting of that difficult topic. Why did the background materials talk about religion? Because some people don't know that religions differ in their views on homosexuality. I'm glad he explained that.

Back to the "promoting a lifestyle" idea.

BD: But he says he has examples, though.

DF: Well, but if you go to the curriculum, which is on the school board's website, you will see discussions about kids feeling about how they feel, not what they do sexually because there's nothing in the curriculum about behaviors, but rather how they feel internally. Most people are heterosexual and have certain feelings. Some people aren't heterosexual and have certain feelings. And keeping, creating the situation where people can really talk about that openly will eliminate discrimination and will also create a situation where children who happen to be gay do not feel they are somehow beyond the pale.

BD: The phone line's open for your questions and comments here on Newstalk. We would love to know what you think about that it is that the public schools should teach when it comes to human sexuality particularly homosexuality. We may get to the condom demonstrations. We won't do a condom demonstration but whether or not there should be one in the schools. Abstinence-only, that's going to come up across our radar as well and we would love to hear from you. Afternoon viewers join us at 703-387-1020. We'll work in as many of your questions and comments as we absolutely can.

DF: Can I respond to the transgender? There's one more...

BD: In a moment, yes, absolutely. We're setting aside a long time for this discussion today. We will get to the transgender issue. Mr. Garza, to what Mr. Fishback just said about teaching in a broad sense that homosexuality is not a disorder, which I think the American Psychological Association decided 35 years ago, that there are gay families in our community, tolerance of those who might have a different sexual thing than the mainstream population. Are these fundamentally off the track from your perspective?

Fishback wants to go back to that transgender thing, the DSM comment. But now it's Garza's turn.

JG: No, I would agree with everything you just said. I would prefer to talk about the curriculum.

BD: Go for it.

JG: Mr. Fishback likes to talk about the American Psychiatric Society. I mean that's the only professional organization's been censured by Congress unanimously by not only the House, but the Senate when they came out with their pro-pedophile thing.

Well, I understand that we can all get our words tangled up. But ... there is no American Psychiatric Society, that I've ever heard of.

He is referring to an incident in 1999 when an American Psychological Association journal published an uncontroversial meta-analysis that concluded that people who were molested as children generally turn out okay. Congressman Tom DeLay, who I believe is currently not in prison, started a big deal in Congress, pretending that the APA was endorsing pedophiles. Doctor Laura was involved, too, and the Family Research Council played a big role in it. A resolution was passed through Congress, but by that time the wording had been greatly softened, and it was not a "censure."

BD: I need to get to a break in about a minute.

JG: OK.

BD: Pull something right out of the curriculum that promotes...

JG: OK let me show you a few things here, for example, the definition of "tolerance." It says, "the ability to accept others' differences and to accept people for who they are." That is not the definition that you'll find in any dictionary.

BD: So is it the word "accept" that you would object to?

JG: Right, I mean...

BD: So you would prefer no "accept?"

JG: No, I would prefer the definition you find in the dictionary, the one that everybody else uses, except Montgomery County. Also the Los Angeles schools. There are only two schools in the whole country that have a curriculum like this, Los Angeles County and Montgomery County. We like the dictionary definition of "tolerance" which means "putting up with something that you disagree with in a respectful and kind way." That's our definition. That's the definition that's been around for a thousand years since the English language has been in existence. This definition says that you have to accept others that you disagree with. That's an improper definition in our opinion.

Can you imagine any other class in the school day being submitted to this kind of criticism? We object to the way you carry the numbers when you subtract. We don't think it's right to teach Newtonian physics in the quantum age.

Also, there is good reason to question his assertion that LA and MoCo are the only places with classes like this. He needs to define what he means by "like this:" as the Washington Post recently reported, plenty of school districts cover sexual orientation as a topic.

BD: Are we forcing people to accept something that their religion, their teaching, their family history is all contrary to?

DF: What this curriculum does is to simply draw on the wisdom of the mainstream medical associations including the American Medical Association, which, last I heard, has never been censured by Congress and I don't know what Mr. Garza is talking about.

[CROSSTALK]

But the point is the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, experts from whom consulted and looked at every single word in this curriculum and approved it, in a health curriculum. And here we're talking about a health curriculum. It is appropriate and indeed necessary to draw on the wisdom of the mainstream medical profession in terms of what we're going to say about important issues including homosexuality.

BD: David Fishback, John Garza, stand by. We'll take a quick break...

We won't transcribe the commercials for you.

... Welcome back to the program. I'm Bruce DePuyt joined at the table today by John Garza. He's with the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. David Fishback with Teachthefacts.org. These two groups and others have been involved in a debate of many years standing in Montgomery County that's gone all the way to the federal courts and back and now finally a pilot program, satisfactory to some, not satisfactory to the others, is being rolled out.

We're going to go to the phones in just a minute. Ebony in Vienna, stand by. We'll talk to you first and we'll take all the calls we have time for as we continue here on News Talk. Let me, several strands of the conversation to pick up. Let me seize on one for just a moment: the opt-in/opt-out provision. You talked about it, so we'll give Mr. Garza a chance to weigh in. Do I understand correctly that you cannot get in this curriculum unless a parent takes signature to page and says, "Yes. My Johnny can be in. Go ahead and teach him or her the curriculum." Absent that, nothing happens, right? No one's kid is indoctrinated without an affirmative step by the parent, a parent.

JG: The opt-in provision has been a moving target with us. We've seen the County change the way they handle that from day one. We don't like the opt-in/opt-out concept. We don't like separate education, separate but equal education or whatever you want to call it. We would like to have a curriculum that satisfies David Fishback, Bruce DePuyt, and John Garza and all the other parents in Montgomery County. We think that that can be arranged. We don't think that you have to force one side to get their point across and then shut down the other side.

Sadly, the demands that have been made by the CRC make it impossible to compromise. This is a fine talking point, the we-just-want-to-work-something-out point, but anybody who's been involved in this situation for any time knows it's not true.

BD: Do the numbers so far suggest that the curriculum that they came up with is pretty darn acceptable to the masses because the people opting out are so infinite almost?

JG: Well, we did a study at Watkins Mill after the first pilot and we sent out a questionnaire to all the parents there. We got back about 100 responses. About 60 of the parents whose kids took the pilot program responded and about 30 of the kids who didn't take the pilot program. And believe it or not, our, our, we'd be happy to share this with you, we found that the kids who did not take the pilot program were better educated about sex than the ones who did.

DF: Well it would be interesting to see Mr. Garza's...

JG: We'd be happy to turn that over.

We do look forward to seeing how the CRC defines "better educated about sex."

The point of the question is this: with all the pressure the CRC put on the community, less than five percent of parents decided to opt their children out of the new classes. The CRC's view is not shared by many residents of Montgomery County.

But Fishback still has something on his mind from the beginning of this show, and he's going to get back to it.

DF: I'd love to see it and see what they view as being correctly educated about sex is. The point about the opt-in/opt-out and having separate class is when you have a situation where maybe one or two children in a particular class [whose] parents decide they're not going to take the course, that isn't enough, those simply are not enough numbers to justify running an entire class. Now separate, separate materials, health related, are provided for those children to study. But again, if you follow Mr. Garza's logic, given the numbers how they actually have actually operated in the real world...

BD: And are they 90% or above?

DF: It has been 90% or above in the schools that were went through. I think less than 5% of parents refused permission. Traditionally in the County in our sex ed programs, it's been 1-2% and I suspect that number will probably get back to that as people understand.

But one thing I really would like to follow up on, on this question about transgender, because this is very significant. The DSM does list transgender as a disorder and why do they do that? Because some people, a very, very small percentage, but there are some people who are essentially born in the wrong bodies. And if they are diagnosed as having this disorder, then, and although this is done with very, very rigid safeguards to make sure mistakes aren't made and it isn't done blithely and it's never done blithely, that people, some people, a very small percentage but do go through sex change operations. Yes, that is a disorder and it is a disorder which is curable. CRC talks about it being a disorder and then leaves it hanging, and says, "What do you do about it?" Well, the medical community can do something about it and does.

We'll have more for you shortly, I'm sure.