- ACTIVIST PARENTS ARE PAINTED AS TERRORISTS - October 12, 2021
- The Sandstorm: California’s Children Are Property Of The State - October 6, 2021
- The Sandstorm: It’s Time To End Government-Run Schooling - September 28, 2021
When I speak to groups in California about the problems with public education and parents ask what they can do to change things, I advise them to speak to their kids daily about what they have learned in school – and complain loudly if they don’t like what they hear. And if their school and school board won’t listen to their concerns, I suggest that “10,000 angry mothers and fathers with pitchforks and torches storming the gates of Sacramento might get some attention.”
This Thursday, March 28th at 10am, outraged parents will be doing just that – rallying on the steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento. At issue is the new California sex-education framework which is due to be voted on by the state board of education during their May 8-9 meeting. As I wrote in December, the framework draft recommends the book Who Are You? for pre-k–3rd graders as a “guide to develop their gender identity.” This book introduces young children to the idea that gender is a spectrum – unlimited and ever-expanding, rather than confined to two biological sexes. In the book, gender is described as, “boy, girl, both, neither, trans, genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, gender neutral, agender, neutrois, bigender, third gender, two spirit…” The draft also introduces sexual orientations as fluid. LGBTQ+ is defined as an ever-changing spectrum with expanding concepts to include “queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, allies and alternative identities (LGBTQQIAA).”
It gets worse. Informed Parents of California – the group of 12,900 (and counting) concerned mothers and fathers behind the March 28th rally – has put together a 24 page summary of the framework for k-6th graders which includes some of the recommended supplemental materials. Just a few examples:
- Lessons for 6-year-olds that provide detailed descriptions of sex with quotes such as: “The man’s penis goes inside the woman’s vagina,” and “sperm can swim out through the small opening in the man’s penis – and into the woman’s vagina.”
- Pictures in a book for third graders showing a cartoon drawing of a penis ejaculating sperm while inserted into a vagina.
- Books that introduce 10-year-olds to anal sex, and the slang for male and female genitals.
While the California legislature is responsible for AB 329, the toxic law that paved the way for unbelievable, age-inappropriate things to be taught to children, the teachers unions have been complicit. Earlier this month, a fawning Lily Eskelsen García, National Education Association president, read sections of I am Jazz, a book about a sexually confused child, to a kindergarten class in Arlington, VA. When parents learned of the “lesson,” they were outraged.
In fact, the teachers unions are hardly new to the sex indoctrination world. In 2004, NEA gave its prestigious Human Rights Award to Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. This is the group that presided over the infamous “Fistgate” conference held at Tufts University in Massachusetts in March 2000, where state employees gave explicit instructions about “fisting,” and other forms of sexual activity to children as young as 12. (The conference was secretly recorded; its extraordinarily vile contents can be heard here.)
At a United Nations conference in 2011, Diane Schneider, an NEA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender “Trainer of Trainers,” proclaimed “Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education.” She also advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in our schools, with curricula based on “liberal hetero and homosexual expression.” Schneider also insisted that comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” and claimed that the idea of sex education “remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence based, or if students are still able to opt-out.”
NEA currently maintains a gender “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” tool kit on its website.
Many parents in California are rebelling. Last May, moms and dads in San Diego were not exactly jazzed by a sex-ed lesson their 11-year-oldsreceived, which covered a variety of topics including birth control and stages of sexual response. Parents there kept their kids out of school instead of letting them be assaulted by a barrage of sexual information they were too young to handle.
Earlier this month, parents in Santa Ana, who had just recently learned of the new sex-ed regimen, attended a school board meeting to vent. Mothers and fathers in the heavily Hispanic district were outraged, because the state didn’t make the new framework available in Spanish for them to review. Clearly, in a state which requires just about every government document to be written in English and Spanish, this was a deliberate attempt to keep parents in the dark about the “education” their kids would be receiving. As one mom put it, “How can a state that claims to be so much for the rights of immigrants and minorities then ignore our concerns on purpose? They are hypocrites!”
And now parents from San Diego, Santa Ana, and every other city and town in the Golden State will have a chance to let the hypocrites know that the inappropriate sexualizing of their kids is not okay. Fed-up mothers and fathers will take to the streets on March 28th to let legislators know that the new sex-ed guidelines are unacceptable.
Informed Parents of California spokesperson Aileen Blachowski summarizes the whole thing perfectly: “They are using our kids and our tax dollars to undermine families, parental authority, cultural values and the very principles this nation was founded upon. California parents will not tolerate the State’s attempt to use our children as pawns to push their extreme and damaging agenda.”
With the state board of education due to vote on the new framework in early May, fire up your torches and sharpen your pitchforks. There is quite simply no time to waste.
[Originally Published at the California Policy Center]