Category: sexual orientation

Suicide victim endured anti-gay bullying

This time in Buffalo, NY.

Parents carry on anti-bullying message: wivb.com

Jamey Rodemeyer’s parents believe years of bullying drove their son to suicide. The Williamsville North freshman took his life Sunday, he was only 14 years old.
Jamey Rodemeyer posted a message online hoping that others would be inspired by his struggle with bullying. A part of the message reads, “That’s all you have to do. Just love yourself and you’re set. And I promise you, it’ll get better.” 
Soon after coming home from a family camping trip, Jamey was found dead Sunday. His parents say he was always under pressure because of struggles with his sexuality.
Jamey’s mother Tracy Rodemeyer said, “So he hung around with the girls a lot, so then the teasing started happening like ‘Oh you’re such a girl or you’re gay or whatever and that bothered him for many years.”

For religious conservatives reading this: Isn’t it past time to become part of the solution? Criticizing anti-bullying programs on ideological grounds doesn’t help kids or your ideology.
More on the situation:

Death catches attention across nation: wivb.com

Anoka-Hennepin School District's Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy

Currently, the Anoka-Hennepin School District (AHSD) in MN is under fire in relationship to eight suicides in the district over the last two years. Critics say they have not done enough to prevent the anti-gay bullying and harassment that often precedes despair and depression for kids who are same-sex attracted and those who are perceived to be.
The AHSD added a page on GLBT issues to their website recently. The district neutrality policy is at the center of the controversy with some parents wanting to allow teachers to discuss sexual orientation and others wanting to keep the policy as is. For our consideration, here is the policy in full:

604.11
SEXUAL ORIENTATION CURRICULUM POLICY
It is the primary mission of the Anoka-Hennepin School District to effectively educate each of our students for success.  District policies shall comply with state and federal law as well as reflect community standards.  As set forth in the Equal Education Opportunity Policy, it is the School District’s policy to provide equal educational opportunity and to prohibit harassment of all students.  The Board is committed to providing a safe and respectful learning environment and to provide an education that respects the beliefs of all students and families.    
The School District employs a diverse and talented staff committed to serving students and families from diverse backgrounds.  The School District acknowledges that one aspect of that diversity regards sexual orientation.  Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations.   Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student led discussions.  If and when staff address sexual orientation, it is important that staff do so in a respectful manner that is age-appropriate, factual, and pertinent to the relevant curriculum.  Staff are encouraged to take into consideration individual student needs and refer students to the appropriate social worker or licensed school counselor.
Anoka-Hennepin District No. 11
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Adopted February 9, 2009

What does neutral mean in the context of this policy? Can teachers supply information about false and stereotypical claims?
If a student says, all Christians are haters; or unscientific. A teacher, no matter what his or her feelings about Christianity could point out the overgeneralization and ask, “What about Mother Teresa?” or “What about Francis Collins?” One could safely point to examples which address the error in logic without giving the impression that the school favors Christianity over other religions.
However, if a student says in class that gays are mentally ill, or choose their orientation or are all miserable people who should change in order to be happy (Parents Action League talking points), what could a teacher say in response? I think the ambiguity of the policy would make teachers worry that they are going to violate the policy just by responding factually.
It appears that the AHSD is making some strides to providing staff training as indicated by this staff training outline. However, if teachers are unable to correct fact errors or stereotypes directly, how will this training benefit students?
I have some of the sharpest readers around, so I am wondering what you think of the policy and what would you recommend to the AHSD?

Primer on Anoka-Hennepin Suicides Controversy

ON Tuesday, I linked to a NYT article about the controversy over teen suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin School District. In that post, I noted that a parents’ group in the Minnesota district — the Parent’s Action League — used books and articles from NARTH and Exodus to make the claim that gays can and should change their orientation. (I should have also noted the involvement of Mission America and the American College of Pediatricians as well since materials from both groups are used by the PAL.)
On point, today Andy Birkey has a summary of events relating to the eight suicides and the controversy in the community about how to handle sexual orientation in the schools. I recommend reading it as a place to start in understanding the situation there.

MN Parents Action League Obstructs Bullying Prevention with Help of Ex-Gay Groups

Today, the New York Times examined the conflict in the Anoka-Hennepin school district over bullying prevention. The school district in Michele Bachmann’s Congressional district has lost eight students to suicide in the last two years. Critics of the district say that some of the suicides are due to anti-gay bullying and want the school district to renounce a policy of neutrality toward discussions of sexual orientation. A parent’s group, using ex-gay literature and arguments, is fighting to keep the policy in place.
Although not named in the article, the group is called the Parents Action League.  They claim to disapprove of bullying for any reason; however, I believe they are a part of the problem. Their website does not do what they claim — “to…equip citizens with current and accurate information” — and in fact adds to harmful sterotyping of GLB people.
You can read what they have to say about homosexuality on their FAQs page. Most of it is outdated criticisms of old studies. I have addressed these issues in prior posts. My focus now is to point out what appears to me to be the real focus of this group. One of the questions asked and answered is:

If we don’t approve of homosexual behavior and affirm same-sex attraction, won’t we be causing depression and unhappiness for “gay” teens?
On the contrary, when a child has been deliberately misinformed about the causes of homosexuality and told that homosexual acts are normal and natural, all hope for recovery is taken away.  Hopelessness can lead to depression and affect a child’s ability to be happy.  If we really love someone, we’ll tell him or her the truth that change is possible.

After deliberately misinforming their readers about homosexuality, the PAL people then get to their bottom line. The depression felt by bullied kids at Anoka-Hennepin is not due to disapproval and vilification, it is due to the fact that no one has given you the ex-gay message – change is possible.
PAL claims it wants a neutrality policy but it really doesn’t. PAL people want kids told that there is hope for change. Not neutral; and mostly wrong.
As I wrote on the CNN Belief Blog last year, I believe the school should name the problem and specifically forbid bullying based on real or perceived sexual orientation. The Olweus Bullying prevention program should be implemented.
I also believe that groups like NARTH and Exodus should take some responsibility for the information they promote. Speaking directly to NARTH and Exodus: Parent’s are obstructing the well being of children because of the information you disseminate. You promote change as happening more frequently than it actually does, and I believe you know it.  Many people do decide to channel their actions in alignment with their beliefs, but it is infrequent that someone goes from gay to straight in attractions, fantasies and actions. You should end your silence and communicate the real situation to these groups. Part of the reason they obstruct progress in addressing bullying is because of the distorted narrative you have helped to create.
I believe there are caring people with the PAL, but they think that being attracted to the same sex is due to deliberate choice of a lifestyle or the result of bad parenting or a wicked culture. If they knew that many same-sex attracted kids have great loving parents, attend church, live moral lives and are simply trying to understand what is happening to them, they might become part of the solution and not the problem. Why do PAL people think what they think? Many reasons probably, but the intellectual source nearly always comes back to NARTH or Exodus.
UPDATE: To be consistent, I need to add Mission America, PFOX, Focus on the Family and the American College of Pediatricians to the two groups listed above. Regarding Exodus, there is only one item (Janet Boynes’ book) directly related to an Exodus affiliate. However, the organization does offer for sale books which are listed on the PAL website, including Joseph Nicolosi’s Parents Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
I have received several emails on this post, most supporting this call for groups to evaluate how their message is working against bullying prevention. A couple have criticized me saying that I advocate censorship of a valid point of view.  I don’t see it that way. I see it as advocating responsibility. When a group like PAL is using the belief that gays are by definition disordered, depressed and the products of bad parenting and/or abuse in order to offset bullying prevention efforts, then I think it is time to re-evaluate the situation.

Wikileaks: Uganda's First Lady behind the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

So says Uganda’s Daily Monitor:

The First Lady Ms Janet Museveni, was behind the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, US Ambassador to Uganda, Jerry Lanier, said in a leaked diplomatic cable.
The revelation was made by Senior Presidential Adviser John Nagenda, during a discussion with a US embassy political officer.
In Mr Lanier’s comments which were leaked on September 1, by whistleblower Wikileaks, Mr Nagenda is quoted to have told the US embassy that President Museveni is “quite intemperate” when it comes to homosexuality, but the First Lady, who he described as ‘a very extreme woman,’ “is ultimately behind the bill.”
Mr Nagenda further told the US government that the bill’s most vociferous public supporter, the ex-Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo, was responsible for a campaign of mass arrests – known by the Swahili term ‘panda gari’ – during the Obote II regime.
Mr Nagenda said Buturo is using the anti-homosexuality legislation to redefine himself and “will do anything in his power to be a populist.” He advised the US and other donors to refrain from publicly condemning the Bill as this fuels the anti-homosexual and anti-western rhetoric of the Bill’s proponents.
When contacted, Mr Nagenda agreed to the contents in the Wikileaks report saying it is a well representation of what he discussed with the US embassy political officer.
“There must be a word here and there which is inaccurate but the overall all spirit of what I said is well represented,” he said. “I had a conversation with the political officer who came to my house and we discussed issues about the homosexuality bill.”

Reading the rest of the article, it appears that President and Mrs. Museveni were at odds on the issue. The President was assuring the U.S. that the bill would be derailed or weakened and Mrs. Museveni was pushing the matter forward.
If these leaks represent reality, it appears that there are powerful forces in Uganda who will work against the bill but do not want to be viewed as favoring gays. Recent Cabinet actions to quash the bill seem to be extensions of Museveni’s promise to the US. The Parliament’s reaction was to declare the bill to be off limits to the Executive branch. With this back drop, it will be interesting to watch who steps up to advocate for and against the bill.