Standards of Education

In Texas, a conservative constituent has succeed in passing a new set of standards for education, according to the Huffington Post. This isn't the usual evolution vs creationism debate. It actually avoids biology, as near as I can tell. This one focuses on history, economics, and sociology.

Some gems? The religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers will be addressed, but not the reasons behind the separation of church and state. Kids will be required to learn about John Calvin, but not Thomas Jefferson. And they will also be required to learn that the free market economy works best without government interference.

Now, I have no problem with talking about the faith of the Founding Fathers. Certainly many of them had deeply held religious beliefs. But they also, had strong philosophical beliefs founded in the ideas of the Enlightenment. These philosophies about the rights of men and about individual freedom of conscience had an equal if not greater influence on the formation of the Constitution than did any religious ideas. Likewise, John Calvin is a very important historical figure, and it's certainly good to know about him, but why on earth should a British religious reformer be taught at the expense of an American intellectual? Isn't it American history that we're teaching? And as far as the free market goes, yes, it does seem to be the most profitable economic system that we've come up with so far. But it's also brought us things like Enron, which clearly point to a need for significantly more market regulation than a pure free market philosophy would advise.

It could be worse, though. One of the amendments that fortunately got struck down was one that suggested that the civil rights movement created "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes." The fact that anyone would even think about making that statement part of a generation's educational standards is seriously bile-inducing. "No, kiddo, all these people marching for their rights...they're not actually oppressed, they just think they are! Someone should just tell them what their place is so they don't get any unrealistic ideas..." Bleh.

Really, my main problem is that education should not be so politically driven. I understand the concept that you have to "get them while they're young" if you want kids to later subscribe to almost any ideology. But what about the idea of an actual education? What about educating kids so that they'll actually learn to think well about different ideas and later do well in college? Isn't that supposed to be the point of education in general? That should be more important than which historical figures you include or exclude, and it should prohibit you from only teaching certain facts about an event or period in history while willfully ignoring others. Intellectual honesty, people. I don't care what you choose to believe based on your analysis of the facts. I just want to know that you actually have the facts, all of them, and that you're actually, amazingly, using your ability to think.

Welcome back to America, Land of the Free

Ah, America. I've been back for almost two months now, writing a lot and looking for a job and housing. I seem to have finally found a place to live, pending paperwork, but so far the only employment I've found has been a one-time gig as a photograpy school model and a one-time gig as a tutor for a thirteen-year-old. Today, the father of the thirteen-year-old called me and asked if I would be interested in teaching English as a second language to latinos. I said sure. At this point I'm interested in almost anything that would result in a semiregular paycheck. So we talked a bit about my teaching experience and things, and then, when the conversation seemed like it was wrapping up, he said, "I don't know why I'm getting this vibration, but I feel I should ask you, do you have a boyfriend?" Before I could answer he continued. "I know its a personal question, but I need to know you're not a child molester...do you like girls or boys?" My first instinct was to tell him that it was illegal to ask me questions about my personal life in a professional context. Instead I laughed and said, " Don't worry, I'm not a child molester. I don't have a boyfriend, but I'm not interested in dating." But he continued, "It's a simple question, just answer, you know I'm asking as a parent, etc. etc." and I just said again that I wasn't interested in anyone, full stop, and that as a teacher or tutor I'm always very professional. He finally accepted that and left it alone.

What I really want to know is, what prompted him to even ask that question? I'm not obviously gay. At least not when I'm by myself. Being in the vicinity of my girlfriend ups my obviousness exponentially, but he's never seen me anywhere near her. And I certainly didn't display any interest whatsoever in his daughter beyond wanting her to rewrite her essay. I didn't like thirteen-year-olds even when I was one. I understand not wanting to hire a pedophile. That would be dangerous. But not wanting to hire a lesbian is just absurd. It's not like it's contagious to be gay. And I have no doubt that if I'd admitted to being sapphic in my orientation the offer of potential employment would have been rescinded faster than you can say "ACLU." It's nice to see that discrimination is alive and well.