A few years ago I was informed by my management team that computer screen savers and pictures of scantily clad ladies in bathing suites
are no longer allowed at the facility. The reason given is that it was considered offensive by some. So like any good supervisor would do I took those orders and told my crew - all men - about the "new" corporate policy.

About a week later at a team meeting I was informed that the company had posted pictures on the company web site which were offensive to them. It was pictures of men kissing one another and grabbing each other's behinds at a "certain" parade.

My HR group was not willing to get involved citing that this was not "really offensive" and it was the company's intent to become diversified. I soon left that job.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I think philosophy is a better substitute for diversity training. The latter is often theory-laden, motivated by a particular ideology.
Will "diversity training" take seriously questions such as the following?

The purpose of diversity training is to help Americans of different hues understand and relate to one another. There are appropriate philosophical issues that should be considered in this ‘training’. What philosophical issues would you include?

Is it true that the African American community is plagued by a disproportionate percentage of crime in America?

It is an established fact the black community is plagued by a disproportionate percentage of crime in America. Any global community that is under-educated and steeped in poverty, appears to have a disproportionate amount of crime if they live where those who ‘have’ are visible.
•
Is it possible that the problems that characterize the African American community stem, not from systemic racism and white supremacy, but from dysfunction that is inherent to the community itself?

In diversity training – to begin by blaming a victim of a problem (either white or black) is a false premise. The 'majority' citizens and 'minority' citizens in America are victims of racism. Intimating that the ‘black’ community is inherently dysfunctional is just as ‘wrong’ as stating that the ‘white’ community is racist. This is already cause for conflict among the participants who are represented in the training.

Any "diversity training" that I've heard of rules such discussion out of court in advance. The axiomatic assumption is that the African American community is perpetually systemically victimized by an implicit white supremacism.

I hope that we can continue this discussion without playing the ‘blame card’ for conditions of race relations today. I don’t think we can deny that there has been pain and anger caused by racist and reverse racist practices in this country. What a meaningful discussion can achieve is to acknowledge the pain and anger and understand the other’s point of view. What do you think?

A philosophy discussion might possibly arrive at the above as conclusions through debate. But it will not begin with them.

The beginning of a successful training session – as determined by the participants evaluation throughout the years (which included a follow-up questionnaire a year after the initial training that was turned in anonymously) includes activities that develop ‘trust’ among the participants.
During the first two sessions there is NO MENTION OF ETHNIC, GENDER, RELIGIOUS differences – although people can make distinctions based on observation. Activities are designed to be non-threatening. (Many came to ‘diversity training’ ready to defend/articulate their point of view - with no thought of listening to or accepting another point of view,) The training was easier to facilitate if the participants had already established a reasonably amiable relationship before the training. I don't think we'll have to do that here.

Further, the seeming universal assumption on the part of people who urge "diversity facilitation" is that the assertion "Homosexuality is immoral" amounts to a form of hate speech and manifests an intolerable intolerance.

True. The second part of the training consists of ‘role playing’ – establishing nonsense differences – and debating them/acting them out, etc. I'll be happy to share some of these with you if you're interested. They have been published and used in many universities. i.e. (All with 'red on' will not use the word 'yes' for 15 minutes, etc.) Again, I don't think this is necessary here - just sharing with you a different approach to Diversity Facilitation.

I have a problem with any program that has, among its objectives, an affective outcome: "The student will appreciate such-and-such" or "The student will empathize with the plight of so-and-so."

Diversity Training/Facilitation is a very sensitive program – usually conducted with people who feel that they don’t need it. The objective of the instructor may be what you have stated above – but we never shared that with the participants. (Although I’m sure they realized where we were going with this) The purpose that was shared with the participants was stated as: Assisting members of (name of institution) to better relate to and understand one another as they work together in (whatever the work/ project or educational environment)

I’ll deal with Butler’s definition of ‘racism’ later. My work was with individuals that had been in ‘integrated’ environments – but probably had fears and preconceived notions about those who were different. I’m not sure when you were exposed to Diversity Facilitation – but starting out by separating by race is a terrible way to get people to interact! Was the environment where you received this training ‘newly’ integrated? I think we'll start the discussion when we look at the definition and 'understanding' of the term 'racism'.

I did watch David Wilson last night - and there were some very interesting opinions expressed. Did you see it?

I wrote:

the seeming universal assumption on the part of people who urge "diversity facilitation" is that the assertion "Homosexuality is immoral" amounts to a form of hate speech and manifests an intolerable intolerance.

David's Mom replied:

True. The second part of the training consists of ‘role playing’ – establishing nonsense differences – and debating them/acting them out, etc. I'll be happy to share some of these with you if you're interested.

I'm aware of the role playing involving, say, eye color, etc. Isn't there a film with the title "Blue Eyes" (or something similar) that is sometimes used in this context?

But to include the belpief that homosexuality is immoral with "nonsense differences" assumes much that really is hotly debatable.

I have known the occasional religious person who seemed to me actually to manifest a hatred for homosexuals. (For instance, I can recall a time in the 1970s in S. Florida when the leader of a men's group at church made his point by acting and speaking like the stereotypical gay.) But nearly everyone I have ever known who has thought that homosexuality is immoral arrived at that conclusion as a result of attempting to be faithful to the teachings of the Bible itself. (And, perhaps, there was a bit of help from considering a common sense look at human plumbing.)

To suggest that the practice is immoral is not, then, of itself, equivalent to "hate speech." I think that adultery is immoral, but I do not hate adulterers. Indeed, mature Christians that I have known have been particularly keen on separating the sinner from the sin, maintaining that we must love the former and hate the latter, and that both the love and the hate must be unconditional.

What does one do with a New Testament passage such as the following?
Let me paste it in--with some bold highlights--and then offer a bit of commentary after. My point here is not to offer an argument, biblical or otherwise, for the immorality of homosexuality. Rather, it is to show how the belief may well be a part of the package of someone's religious beliefs.

Romans chapter 1, beginning at verse 18:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Notice the context of this passage of scripture.

Paul is offering something of a sordid history of human idolatry. He begins with the observation that the refusal to acknowledge God is, at some level, intentional. They "suppress the truth in wickedness." The rest of the passage carries through with the natural consequences of the rejection of God. The mind, void of the knowledgde of God, if subjected to "futility" and the heart is "darkened." The result is a turn to idolatry, so that they worship the creation rather than the Creator. And, with all of this, almost as a centerpiece of the whole discussion, Paul identifies the turn to homosexuality as a result of this "futility," "darkening" and "depravity." It is offered in parallel to idolatry. Humans were made to worship God, but they have perverted their nature so that, instead, created things are the objects of their adoration. Men were designed to have a "natural relations with women," but they have perverted those affections and attractions and made other men the object of their desire.

The idea is almost as though an ignorance of the divine nature results in an ignorance--and distortion--of human nature.

Notice, then, that this is not merely a first century writer saying, "You know what? I hate queers! Don't you?" Rather, it is a part of a treatise that intentionally links human nature with the natural order of things as created and ordained by God, and observes that cases of "men with men" and "women with women" are actually, in and of themselves, a part of the penalty for the rejection of God. (In the same way, one of the chief punishments for idolatry is idolatry itself, as the trade of Creator for creature is a raw deal.)

Now to my point.

Say whatever you will about this passage. Tell me that Paul was simply wrong or that he was simply a bigot. Or atempt some sort of biblical gymnastics to interpret this passage as saying something other than what it seems clearly to be saying.

But the fact is, the seeming teaching of this passage is plausibly taken by many (throngs, actually) people as part and parcel of a Christian view of things.

Thus, to offer "diversity training" that aims to rub such convictions out of the student's overall outlook is to rule the student's religious beliefs out of court.

Ohio State University-Manchester included a mandatory "anti-homophobia sensitivity training session" as a part of freshmen orientation a year or two ago. This is an attempt at indoctrination, and it is from a perspective that is hostile to the fundamental religious and moral beliefs of many students and their families.

...but it seems to me that the morality or immorality of homosexuality hinges on whether it is innate or learned behavior. If an individual is born with a strong tendency towards homosexual orientation, then how can we condemn them for having those feelings? If, on the other hand, it is learned behavior, then we CAN condemn that behavior as unnatural. Paul's teachings obviously leaned towards the "learned behavior" belief, but I don't think we really know if it is or not. Perhaps it is innate for some, but learned for others. Personally, I think some people are hard wired as homosexual, but not the majority.

Perhaps you are correct. But don't lose sight of my point. Whether you are correct or not, the issue is disputed and implicates deeply held religious and moral beliefs. My beef is with "sensitivity training" that takes one side of gthe debate as axiomatic and proceeds from there.

And I remain unconvinced of the point that you make. It's an old dispute.

But it seems to me that anything that we say in support of homosexuality along these lines may be said of any other "orientation."

*Polyamorism: "I have been attracted to multiple women for as long as I can remember. I cannot help myself. And to blame me for it is to be guilty of "monogamism."

* Pedophilia: "I never woke up one day and decided, 'From this day forth I will conjure sexual attractions for little girls and boys. I was born this way.'"

* Zoophilia: "Animals are so sweet. I have been 'fond' of them ever since I was a small child. Don't ask me why. I just find myself with these urges."

The point here, of course, is that in these other areas we think the respective desires are perversions. And there are plausible explanations for how one could "discover" the desires without ever having consciously cultivated them. (Aristotle in the Nicomeachean Ethics has much of relevance to say here.)

Possibly, the sort of thing available to us to say in those contexts are equally plausible in the context of homosexuality.

Possibly the main difference between the case of homosexual desires and some of the others is that we are at the far end of a concerted effort at social engineering and marketing homosexuality is "normal."

Yes, I thought about that possibility--that if you excuse homosexuality as "innate" then it opens up all those other perverted possibilities. However, homosexuality seems to be different in that some people seem to be born with a strong preference for their same gender, or maybe that preference is developed very early in infancy. I don't buy the same argument for the other behaviors you mentioned. At some point, we each have to be responsible for our choices, and which impulses to act on or not act on. For example, the temptation to steal. Most of us have been tempted to steal something at some point in our lives. That temptation is "natural", but that doesn't make it okay to act on it. The same goes for the inappropriate sexual impulses that we have all felt at one point or another.

More to the point is what should we be teaching in diversity training. I agree with you, or with what I think you are saying, that diversity training as it currently exists tends to teach a one-sided view of the subject, whether we are talking about sexual orientation or racial issues. The intent is to help people learn to "walk a mile in the other person's shoes" but human nature being what it is, the final product tends to be politically biased.

There's a good discussion of the "homosexuality leads to bestiality, bigamy, yada yada" Republican talking point here:
Slippery Slop
___________
Diagnosing Denise

I did not intend to reopen this specific debate, but I'll offer a few comments.

I owed you a response on this from perhaps more than a year ago and never got to it. I read the essay back then and had formulated, in my mind, a reply.

First, I assure you that my arrival at any such conclusions has nothing to do with "talking points"--republican or otherwise. I have not consulted the Limbaughs or Coulters to see what they might have to say. As with just about everything I bother to post here, the opinions are my own, arrived at, for good or ill, through my own independent thinking on the topics.

Here, I am, quite simply, not offering a slippery slope argument. I am not suggesting that homosexuality "leads" to anything at all.

Rather, I have seen no compelling reason for supposing that the sorts of arguments offered in defense of homosexuality could not, in principle, be offered in defense of the indefensible. And so I remain unconvinced of those arguments when offered in defense of homosexuality.

I've said this before (an d I've never seen or heard anyone else say it): So far as I can tell, the only justification that has been offered for the "normalcy" of homosexuality moves in the following manner:

(1) Homosexual desires are present.
(2) Therefore, homosexual desires are normal.

The argument as it stands is clearly invalid, as (2) does not follow from (1). We can make it formally valid, of course, by inserting the middle premise--call it (1a):

(1a) If homosexual desires are present then homosexual desires are normal.

No one should be impressed, though, because (1a) is merely the result of taking (1) and (2) and turning them into a conditional.

But, of course, the FORM that (1a) takes is the following:

(1a*): If desire D is present then desire D is normal.

This, of course, is a recipe for justifying any and all substitutions for D.

One may, of course, observe that many of those substitutions involve practices that are plausibly through to harm others--pedophilia for instance. True. But we are still left with no good ground for saying that the desires themselves are "deviant," "perverse," "unnatural," or "abnormal."

Interestingly, (1a) is the sort of premise that was endorsed by Kinsey, who was one (and perhaps about everything else as well) himself, and who harbored the view that any sexual desires whatsoever that we discover (through his bogus "research"**) prove to fall within the range of the human "repertoire" and, therefore, are normal. After all, from what vantage point may we draw the line between the normal and the abnormal, the natural and the unnatural?

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the main difference in it all is that gays have hired good PR people.

**I say that his "research" was "bogus" because his very methodology was sure to skew his results. By the time you have put out a notice that you want to sit down face-to-face with interviewees and ask them intensely personal and potentially embarrassing questions about their sexual orientation, you have eliminated a host of people who would not think of divulging such information. So you get hookers and exhibitionists and an assortment of odd characters. Kinsey is originally responsible for the claim that ten percent of people are gay. Assuming that this percentage really does reflect his results, what we really have is this: Ten percent of people who thought it a good idea to share intimate details about their sex lives reported having homosexual desires. That is a bit like polling only viewers of Fox News and then concluding "82 percent of Americans still favor America's involvement in Iraq."

Muddle - I agree with you that one should not indulge in trying to get one to accept or reject homosexuality in a Diversity Training session.. . or to judge a persons morality because of his acceptance or rejection of homosexuality. But – let’s go back to the purpose of this type of training - to teach people of different persuasions to work together with respect/and possibly the understanding of their differences. It is interesting that the conversation has veered from 'race' and/or gender to 'homosexuality'. Gays and Lesbians have suffered from discrimination and prejudice on school campuses and in the work place. There is a belief, even referred to in this conversation, that they can make a decision and change. Women and minorities cannot change. I have not found that whom a person goes to bed with may be a threatening issue to my 'freedom' or progress. I feel that asking persons about ones sexual preference is an extreme invasion of privacy. It's like wearing a 'yellow star'.

To discriminate against those who are 'different' based on race, gender, sexual preference is wrong and illegal. I don't understand why so many 'males' fear homosexual men. (I'd appreciate your explanations)

I'll just listen to this discussion on 'the reaction to homosexuals'. . .and the attempt to make the acceptance a moral question What I will say - is that is it possible that it is easier to discuss this 'difference’ among human beings with different sexual preferences rather than the differences that are based on race and gender? Minorities in America are here; women in America are here; Homosexuals in America are here. Is it right to discriminate against any of these fellow citizens? Is it a goal to learn how to work with them? Is it a goal to 'understand' them and their views? Or is it only necessary for them to conform to the majority view of 'normal' and acceptable?

My point here is not to offer an argument, biblical or otherwise, for the immorality of homosexuality. Rather, it is to show how the belief may well be a part of the package of someone's religious beliefs.

Is it your belief that racial, gender bias is a part of ones 'religious belief? This is a sincere question.

I don't understand why so many 'males' fear homosexual men. (I'd appreciate your explanations)

The widespread acceptance of the term "homophobia" is one of the great marketing success stories in history. If Jones reads Romans ch. 1 and finds that Paul links homosexuality with idolatry and the overall depravity and loss of humanity that comes of rejecting God, and, as a result, Jones forms the belief, "Homosexuality is immoral," someone comes along and asks Jones, "Why are you afraid of homosexuals?"

How absurd.

I believe that adultery is immoral. But I am not "adulteraphobic."

The belief that homosexuality is immoral is not, in itself, evidence of either hatred or fear. And the suggestion that it amounts to either is the result of a particularly successful programme of indoctrination and social engineering over the past couple of decades or more.

Homosexuals in America are here. Is it right to discriminate against any of these fellow citizens?

Words such as "discriminate" are often left vague so as to include any number of behaviors and policies that might or might not appropriately be thought of in this way.

A religious denomination refuses to ordain openly gay men. Is this "discrimination"? If we say it is, then how are we regarding the moral beliefs of people in that denomination who have derived their thinking as a result of reading the Bible?

A person opposes gay adoption because she believes that children should be raised by loving heterosexual and monogamous parents. Is her belief "discriminatory"?

The diversity facilitation with which I am familiar tends to assume affirmative answers to such questions, and thus proceeds by taking one side in the culture wars.

Is it a goal to 'understand' them and their views? Or is it only necessary for them to conform to the majority view of 'normal' and acceptable?

The "scare quotes" here say a lot about what animates your discussion. Should we not think there is such a thing as a normal libido or sexual orientation? Why think that "normal" is, at best, reducible to its "statistical average" sense (i.e., where "normal" means "like most other people")? Those who think homosexuality immoral resist the scare quotes because they think the moral assessment is not reducible to their own particular sentiments, feelings or moral framework. And so diversity training that proceeds with the "scare quotes" approach has already marginalized their views.

Are you willing to 'hear' that there are other approaches to Diversity Training than the ones that you have been exposed to? This diversion to discussing the 'right' or 'wrong' of homosexuality is interesting. I have stated that I feel the asking a person who they sleep with is wrong. I do not pretend to judge a person on this criterion alone. There are heterosexual pedophiles (those who sexually prey on children) Muddle - are you a racist? Did your experience with Diversity Training make you feel like you were being judged as being a racist? This is not the goal of the Diversity Training that I successfully conducted for years. What about my approach 'scares you'? {You have not even given me an opportunity to describe another approach to Diversity Training} You brought in the concept of 'normal' in your discourse. Do you want to discuss learning how to work with those Americans who are different - or do you want to defend your opinion on why this is a waste of time?

You have a couple of wrong impressions from things I've said.

First, somehow I led you to believe that I have actually undergone some variety of "diversity training" in the past (and did not like it or had a bad experience). I never have.

However, I spent several years on the UW-Madison campus where the "celebrate diversity" theme was always hanging in the air.

My initial reaction to any attempt at diversity training is that a better approach is common sense mixed with good will.

Did you get a chance to read my blog that I titled
The Moral Courage of the Human Mind: The Perils of Intellectual Freedom on Today's Campus? This would likely give you a much better idea of my impression of these various attempts at indoctrination. Look at the examples, such as the "conceptual framework" for the education school at Alabama, or the "discussion guidelines" for the Women's Studies class at SOuth Carolina, or the plight of conservative students at places like Washington State-Pullman or the University of Missouri. All of this is in the name of "diversity" and it is at the sacrifice of intellectual liberty.

I am happy to hear what you have to offer in defense of some variety of diversity training. And I'll be even happier to learn that it is not laden with ideological assumptions. If it is not, then it will be the exception. (I did quite a bit of reading and research in order to write the "blog"--which is actually an article that will appear soon in a national magazine. So I'm working with that recently acquired understanding.)

As for the turn to the discussion of "homophobia," you can easily retrace those steps. I mentioned in a blog that most diversity training operates with the assumption that the claim "Homosexuality is immoral" is a form of hate speech. You replied, "True," and I took you to be endorsing that assessment.

Am I a racist? That depends upon the definition of racism.

What's yours?

Sorry - I missed this. My 'true' was agreeing with your point. I do not feel a statement 'Homosexuality is immoral' is a form of hate speech. I do feel 'Lynch the N.....' is hate speech. One requires action - the other is an opinion. The court cases that I am famiiliar with make this distinction. (Still reading your essay)
By the way - - prayers continue for you and yours.

I'll read your blog and get back to you. If you have the time - check out this video.

http://easylink.playstream.com/myron1c/ouch_preview.wvx

I have some definitions of racist; racism; and institutionalized racism that I am comfortable with. I also read your essay. Are you still interested in a conversation? Did you see the video?

It looks like we'll have a conversation! I'll get back to you.

No problem. I'll work on a definition also. No rush.

This is a frightening statistic - and should be of great concern to all Americans. Many urban schools have the same horrific statistic. A commitment by parents; community members of the failing schools, teachers, administrators, legislators and STUDENTS is necessary. I have seen a school turn around - but it had the following: A stable community. (Not necessarily 'rich' or 'middle class' - but inhabitants remaining in the community for more than 5 years, a pride in the appearance of the community; parents and teachers/administrators who respected one another and worked together on jointly created goals for the school and students; a strong community-supported security force; no fear of being innovative - and support from the central office for 'thinking' out of the box, student exposure to role models who 'look' like them. A consistent mentoring program.

Why isn't this being implemented in all public schools with statistics like the above mentioned? Where one finds statistics like 54% dropout of a public school - it usually reflects a school that is serving a community that has given up on 'hope'. It also may reflect a school where the teachers/administrators have given up - and just come to school to collect the paycheck - and are failing the students. The sad thing is that it may reflect a student body that no longer believes that education is important or relevant to their lives. Students who do not receive this concept of personal responsibility from home, church, mentors, and school - are difficult to reach in the high school environment. The concept of personal responsibility and realizing that learning is a lifelong activity must be established in the early grades - and before a student comes to school. As the judge stated, individuals, organizations, etc. need to become involved in the lives of children who enter school with little or no foundation. There are examples of schools that have made the turn-around. It takes time, money, and a great deal of personal commitment of all involved. To start at high school is difficult. The start needs to begin in pre-school - and a monitored program of evaluation needs to follow the students who are exposed to 'caring support' from all of the educational and home community. School districts that have had the luxury of doing this - have turned the dropout rate to less than 20%. We need to aim for 0% drop out rate!

Sorry to jump in here, but as a high school teacher this is not our job. I would not my children being taught values by their teachers that I should teach them. We have enough work to do just getting our subject material covered. On average, by the time a child is 12 thier values are in place. Public schools cannot and should not do what you want them to. When we have to play surrogate parent, it is game over. The answer is in the many Church's that we have in our county.

I understand. The teaching of values should begin in the home, church and early grades. However - teachers, parents, community members 'teach' and re-enforce values daily. Values are taught in history and social studies, business math, the arts, etc. The church and school cannot do the job alone. I know very few teachers who only 'teach' their subject - without counseling and/or role-playing for their students. Your 'job' is to teach the whole child. Your students are observing everything that you do - how you treat your co-workers; your students; their parents. Your child's teacher probably has more impact on your child's value system than you realize. Teachers don't teach 'subjects' - they teach children. Your job is the most important and complex job in the world. I'm sure you do an excellent job - and you are of more value to your students than your 'subject'. You are a 'role-model'. You are a teacher! Congratulations.

I realize that is what we do, but if you make it policy that opens a whole can of worms that we as a community do not want to deal with. I do more than teach science, but that is what my "job" is. I'll end a sentence incorrectly just to tick of NUK. I really just want feedback not critiques of my typing. Not trying to be personal but my grammar is usually very good. I just do not type very well.

there is a VERY long step from values to stste-prescribed values. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

That opens a whole can of worms that we as a community do not want to deal with.

Can you explain the 'can of worms'?

After correcting papers, making lesson plans, etc., I'm sure you do 'this' for relaxation. Believe me - I understand.

Anything we officially teach has to be derived from the state curriculum. If we have to teach values those values will be determined by the govt. That is the can of worms I fear. Are there values we as a community can all agree on? Are the local, state, national guidelines. There are some frightening things that govt. can and has done. I hope this explains myself better. Thanks for the feedback!

I understand. Developing the curriculum for 'values' instruction has always been a challenge. I'll check the Georgia state curricular statement and get back to you. When we arrived in Georgia - the controversy was regarding the teaching of 'evolution'. I realize that different 'state' governments have different goals in values instruction. What one state accepts - another can feel is 'frightening'. However - there are some behaviors that don't have to be 'written down' to be considered acceptable. The 'south' is known throughout the world for its courtesy towards others. Teachers can 'teach' this through their behavior towards their students. Thanks for sharing your insight.

For one thing, it puts teachers in the position of being *required* to teach a specific set of moral values. Moral values are inherently subjective, and just as aliquando said, this would be a huge can of worms. Some teachers would inevitably end up teaching a different set from other teachers, either intentionally or unintentionally. Teachers and school systems could and would get sued for teaching things that the parents didn't agree with, or that wasn't exactly from the curriculum.

The other major point is that this is the job of parents, not teachers. It gets back to what I said previously about the trend in our culture for parents to be less and less responsible for parenting. We need to correct that trend, not encourage it. Davids Mom, you mentioned celebrity parents like Britney Spears (you didn't mention her by name, but she is the perfect example of irresponsible parenting) and I agree with what you said, but I strongly agree with aliquando. I'm also a teacher, and I do try to teach moral values on the side, mostly by example, but if you make it an official part of the curriculum, then I'm suddenly held accountable for kid's moral training, and their choices. Trust me--teacher's plates are already too full, as it is.

Look at those teenage girls who were beating up on their ex-friend and putting it on YouTube. Do you want to hold their teachers responsible for that? Of course not, not now and not in the future. In that particular case, the kids are old enough to be treated as adults for their crimes, but if they were 12-13, I would tend to blame their parents somewhat for lack of supervision. NOT the school system.

Like you said, we teach the "whole" child, but let's keep the "moral values" part informal.

Please tell me you're joking. I know that message board postings are a very casual environment where only the real anal-retentive care about spelling and good grammar, but a post from a teacher shouldn't be this bad.

Ok so I mis-spelled a few words. It is late and I am new at this. Now you have made me paranoid about my grammar. Do I need to post my SAT scores to make you feel better? Hell, you probably would not believe me. Oh crap, I almost dangled my participle.

And don't mind us vultures. We're always looking for something to devour irregardless of our political affiliations.

Click Here To Download IE Spell

The above free download can be very helpful for those late night blogging nights when the ideas are flowing but the organic based spel cheker ain't workin corectely.

Blog away and have fun.

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

I offer my hello and welcome as well. I also offer this advice; don't get addicted. Blogging has been banned in at least 30 countries and also where $age resides. You have been warned.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Thanks! Been lurking for a long time and finally decided to get my hands dirty! I am looking forward to participating in the discussions.
Thanks for the download info!

Let me know if I can help you figure out links and other stuff.

CLICK HERE FOR: Citizen Online Formatting Options

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

Why isn't this being implemented in all public schools with statistics like the above mentioned?

Perhaps it's the absence of a true family environment. This is something that no amount of money can buy.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

A 'true' family environment as you and I may have known it is almost absent from the experience of many students - however, with support of community, mentors, etc. some of these kids actually succeed.

David's mom, I agree with you and Cyclist, but that's the problem. As you said, we can help SOME of these kids succeed, but as long as it is acceptable for teenagers and young adults to make babies without a long-term commitment on the part of BOTH parents, we will continue to watch the decline of our culture.

We need to start promoting the idea that it's NOT okay to have babies out of wedlock. Maybe that sounds old-fashioned, but the alternative--the epidemic of single parenthood--is turning out to be a disaster. We need to promote raising kids into responsible adults as our primary objective in life, above "self". If a young person cannot make that commitment, then they should be told that they are not ready to be parents.

In the 1970's, it was fashionable to say that "anything goes" and people were free to live whatever lifestyle they chose to. Well, that didn't work so well. So now we need a major change of direction back to basics.

Amen to that! The 'celebrity' role models who are having children out of wedlock; using children as a pawn in their destructive relationships; the glorifying of 'my baby's daddy - or whatever is the current slang - has made the traditional family appear obsolete. But in the meantime - I've seen some of these kids, with the right support from school, church, community - overcome the destructive home life. I must admit - not many - and those who do are usually exceptional kids. What can be done? More individuals look for ways that they can be role models or assist an organization that is helping to compensate for some of the destructive lifestyles that these kids are exposed to. "Each one teach one." - is a phrase used in my community.

Davids mom's Link

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Thanks!!

You may have important input to this discussion
Muddle asked me to read a 'diversity training' syllabus - which was for 'whites only'. Many years ago, I conducted workshops - but never for 'whites only'.

Honestly, I don't believe the NBC/MSNBC show is the way to go about this. Perhaps, I'm missing something but, these "problems" are viewed differently by everyone.

The message I keep hearing is that because I;

1. have a reverse mohawk (bald)
2. I'm fat
3. I'm over 50
4. have a job
5. I'm part of the system
and finally
6. I'm white

is that I'll never understand. Heck I don't know. But, I think Bill Cosby knows.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I just posted that for information. Muddle was going to share with me what he found difficult/unacceptable about the Butler training strategy. You may also have important input. I had questioned Muddle about his distrust of diversity training - and he shared two samples with me. I had never heard of presenting the training for 'whites' only. This could have been a strategy 'after my time'. Stick with us - and see what happens. I was just made aware of this TV program - and will watch it, but this was not meant to be part of our discussion. The focus of the discussion is the strategy of Diversity Training. . . and does it help to bring diverse groups together.