Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:39:19 -0700 From: Jean Richter Subject: 8/27/99 P.E.R.S.O.N. Project news 1. "This Is A Safe Place To Talk About..." posters 2. PA: Right-wing opinion piece against anti-harassment policy ==================================================================== From: OMARAM@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:38:10 EDT Subject: poster addition THE SAFE PLACE POSTER at... http://www.bloomington.in.us/~iwish/wildflower/page13.html This is an 18x24 inch color poster that is great for counseling offices, youth centers, classrooms and even at home. It states in bold " This is a Safe Place to Talk About..." and is followed by a comprehensive list of safe topics to discuss, ranging from eating disorders, depression, anger, dreams, to homosexuality, feeling different, and dating. Thanks! Michele O'Mara, Director -------------------------------------- Wildflower Resource Network 4722 Crestview Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46205 http://www.bloomington.in.us/~iwish/wildflower 317.726.1264 ================================================================================== Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:37:38 -0700 From: Jessea NR Greenman P.E.R.S.O.N. Project readers may wish to know the following: The actual policy is at http://www.scasd.k12.pa.us/antihar.html State College Area School District Administrative offices are located at 131 W. Nittany Avenue, State College. Phone: (814) 231-1011 The District Superintendent, Dr. William H. Opdenhoff, can be reached at who11@scasd.k12.pa.us Finally, the writer of the opinion piece below is cites as a member of a local community advocacy group, but in actual fact Citizens for Excellence in Education is a national, right-wing fundamentalist group based in California. CENTRE DAILY TIMES (PA) Guest column complains about "special protection based on sexual behavior" proposed for area school district Centre Daily Times, August 8, 1999 Box 89,State College,PA,16801 (Fax 814-238-1811 ) (E-MAIL: pcarty@knightridder.geis.com ) ( http://www.centredaily.com ) Column: Why not a policy to provide equal protections for all? By DAVID DURKIN On Monday, under the guise of an anti-harassment/discrimination policy, board members of the State College Area School District will attempt to do what no school board in Pennsylvania has yet done - extend special recognition and protections to individuals solely on the basis of their real or perceived sexual drives or behaviors. Many ask: "Isn't it possible to come up with an anti-harassment policy that applies to all students equally and doesn't attempt to give 'special rights' to a sub-class of students?" The answer is yes. State College Area School District's current disciplinary structure already provides a satisfactory framework for resolving the rare infractions of "harassment" and/or "abusive language" found in its schools. The handbook for students and parents classifies these as a "continued Level I misbehavior," by which the student is referred to the administrator for prompt and appropriate disciplinary action. Parents are notified of student's misconduct. Suggested corrective options include counseling, detention, contracts, suspension, withdrawal of privileges and legal action. Why is this issue so important to our community? Because the language of the policy carries significant legal weight. The new policy gives special consideration to seven categories of individuals. Six are already protected by civil rights legislation at the federal and state level. The intrusion of "sexual orientation" into this very select list is intended to suggest and secure a legal, civil rights status for this "exceptional" group within our school district. This could be interpreted by a court as an inference that the State College school board intends to include "sexual orientation" into all of the school's policies. The activists promoting this pro-homosexual agenda know this and want "sexual orientation" to become a "basis for protected status" in all areas of the State College district's oversight: employment, curriculum, educational services, etc. What else? Implicitly, the proposed text is an anti-speech policy. It goes far beyond existing state and federal guidelines, defining "sexual orientation harassment" as any "unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct." Can students or faculty in the school system openly share the hard truths about the destructiveness and costs of risky sexual behaviors without fear of the harassment charge because it is unwelcome or possibly even offensive to someone? This suggests a deliberate and likely unconstitutional attempt to suppress the rights of free expression. According to the policy draft, parents will not be notified of harassment charges if the school official arbitrarily feels it's not in the student's best interest. They notify a parent if a child chews gum in class or listens to his Walkman - how could they possibly not notify the guardian concerning harassment charges? This blanket exception intentionally permits harassment proceedings to be shrouded in secrecy, and shields both students and administrators from accountability. Potential litigation, not only by free-speech advocates and concerned parents, but also by individuals with various sexual propensities, will be protracted and expensive to taxpayers. The solution? Any anti-harassment policy in the State College Area School District should include all forms of harassment to all students equally. The focus should be on the intent of the aggressor to harass and the effect on the victim, not on the substance of the harassment. This would be consistent with both our current policies and Pennsylvania state law: "A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: He strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects him to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same ... or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose." In sum, this new policy proposed by our board attempts to create special rights for individuals identified solely on the basis of their real or perceived sexual preferences. On the basis of First Amendment rights, the equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, parental rights, the apparent inability of the board to define the term "sexual orientation," and the likelihood of radical social agendas being thrust into our children's curriculum should it become a "basis for protection," are a few reasons why this draft, with the goal of incorporating the terms "sexual orientation" into its verbiage, should be tabled indefinitely by the school board. In order to secure a safe, secure, and nurturing environment for all students, the board should direct their attentions to correcting the lack of discipline, the lack of enactment of existing rules and regulations, and most importantly to the lack of support of the teachers and counselors who are in the trenches trying to enforce these policies while giving our children an education. It's time for those school board members who are responsible for this "politically correct" charade to end it. The writer is president of State College Citizens for Excellence in Education, a local community advocacy group (www.cee.statecollege.org). He lives in Ferguson Township. 0+0+ 0+ 0+0+0+ jessea@uclink4.berkeley.edu "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." former CA Congressman Sonny Bono, explaining his Biblically-based reasoning for supporting English-only legislation ================================================================================ Jean Richter -- richter@eecs.berkeley.edu The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project (Public Education Regarding Sexual Orientation Nationally) These messages are archived by state on our information-loaded free web site: http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/