Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:36:11 -0800 From: Jean Richter Subject: 12/20/99 P.E.R.S.O.N. Project news 1. IL: Threatening anti-gay email sent from school computer system 2. England: News from Schools' Out! 3. Commentary on why school anti-harassment policies should be specific =========================================================================== Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999 435 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60611 (Fax 312-222-2598 ) (E-MAIL: tribletter@aol.com ) ( http://www.chicagotribune.com ) High school gets equipment to track e-mail after threats traced to campus Hate messages sent to Oak Park church By Deborah Kadin, Special to the Tribune In response to a pair of so-far-untraceable hate messages sent from a computer on campus, Oak Park-River Forest High School is initiating stronger security measures to pinpoint the source of any e-mail at the west suburban school. [Deleted article. filemanager@qrd.org] =========================================================================== Subject: School's Out! News 5.12.99 Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:08:04 -0000 X-UIDL: 56db9b72612c74846acab2649e6e731a SCHOOL'S OUT! NATIONAL [WORKING FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSPERSON EQUALITY IN EDUCATION] BM SCHOOL'S OUT! NATIONAL LONDON WC1N 3XX E-MAIL secretary@schools-out.org.uk HTTP://www.schools-out.org.uk NEWS 5.12.99 1 Shaun Woodward sacked from the Shadow Cabinet for supporting the repeal of Section 28 2 School's Out requests that supporters Lobby members of the House of Lords over Section 28 3 National Union of Teachers Pride in Education: lesbian and gay equality in Education Conference 4 Assertiveness training for Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Teachers 5 LGBT Education Resource List 6 Lesbian group denied funding because they "promote homosexuality" ---------- 1 Shaun Woodward Sacked from the Shadow Cabinet for supporting the repeal of Section 28 Conservative Leader William Hague has sacked his Junior Environment spokesperson Shaun Woodward from the Shadow Cabinet for supporting the repeal of the homophobic Section 28 of the 1988 local Government Act. [For more information on section 28 see http://www.schools-out.org.uk/campaigns.htm] Shaun Woodwards letter to the Conservative chief whip in response to his sacking reads:- I am extremely sorry that you did not give me the time I requested today to consider the matter of the repeal of Section 28. I have been anxious throughout the day in our meetings both at midday and at 4pm to seek a way through this issue. As you know, I very much wanted to help find a way for William Hague through this issue, which as a matter of conscience, I believe the current legislation to be discriminatory. It is a matter of public record that I find any kind of discrimination abhorrent. In addition, as a director of Childline, I know that bullying is a very serious problem in schools, particularly when it is directed at young people who may be unsure of their sexuality or simply on the end of ghastly taunts. It was my wish to find a way for the party to reconcile its views with those which I have learned from evidence are a problem in our society. We cannot ignore the voices of young people. The pain for whose who are bullied is unbearable for the individuals concerned. The current legislation, in dealing with bullying, as one of the headteachers in my Oxfordshire constituency said, `hangs like a Sword of Damocles over every teacher'. I do not think it is by chance that every headteacher in my constituency wishes to see the current legislation scrapped and a set of guidelines put in place which respects the value of each individual. I wanted the present legislation not to be scrapped, but to be improved to end the discrimination. I have tried to persuade you that this was the basis and motivation of my conviction. The legislation, which could easily have been improved, was introduced as a back bencher's amendment. I profoundly believe it is a matter of conscience. The current legislation, having been in place for more than 10 years, simply causes harm and does not protect our children. I have been a director of ChildLine for many years. I had hoped to persuade you that the views of child protection agencies, the RCN (Royal College of Nursing), Family Planning Association and many others, should have been taken into account before we formulated the policy of the Shadow Cabinet. I regret that this was not done and that time could not be found today for a period of proper consultation. I do not wish to `promote' homosexuality. I simply want a decent environment for young people to grow up in and not be bullied because of their private sexual orientation. I am sorry that you felt unable to give me more than two hours after our meeting this afternoon to find a way through this issue. It was my profound wish that we would succeed and put children first. However, denied of the time to succeed in my wish, I learn from you this evening that I must lose my job. I have enormous regret that you have chosen to precipitate this course of events. Yours ever, Shaun. The full story is on the BBC website at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_548000/548341.stm Letters of Support can be sent to >Shaun Woodward MP >House of Commons >Westminster >LONDON SW1A OAA > Letters of protest at his sacking and Conservative opposition to the abolition of Section 28 can be sent to William Hague MP at the same address. You might wish to state that this stance makes you less inclined to consider voting Conservative. Alternately phone the House of Commons Switchboard on 0171 219 3000 and ask for their offices. 2 School's Out! requests that supporters Lobby members of the House of Lords concerning Section 28 The new local Government Bill that includes the repeal of Section 28 has been introduced in the House of Lords. We must ensure that the Lords do not attempt to block the abolition of Section 28 as they did the equalisation of the age of consent. We ask you to write to Lords asking them to support repeal. The campaigns page of our website http://www.schools-out.org.uk/campaigns.htm has a link to a list of Lords. We ask you to write to Lords whose surnames are alphabetically closest to yours. You can use our briefing notes and Shaun Woodward's letter (above) as a source of arguements. Where possible include a personal account of the negative effects of Section 28. The most powerful letters are often brief-focussed on one point, and personal. 3 National Union of Teachers Pride in Education Conference The National Union of Teachers held it's sixth annual 'Pride in Education: Conference on Lesbian and Gay Equality in Education' in London on Saturday 4th December 1999. The Union has recently published "An issue for every teacher: NUT Guidance on Lesbian and Gay Issues in Education". The theme of this years conference was "Equality: The next step" The key note address was by Professor Martin Mac an Ghaill author of "The making of men: Masculinities, Sexualities and Schooling" who spoke about his research into homophobic prejudice in schools and the experience of gay pupils. Workshops were held about a range of equality issues that affect teachers and pupils. A panel of speakers; Baroness Muriel Turner for Labour, Lord GrahamTope for the Liberal Democrats, and Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality representative Paul Grey discussed Parliamentary work towards Lesbian and Gay Equality. A fuller repoprt of the conference is on our website at http://www.schools-out.org.uk/nut1999.htm 4 Assertiveness training for Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Teachers "Feel the Fear and do it anyway": Exploring and Practising Assertiveness." Is the title of a one day workshop for Lesbian Gay and Bisexual Teachers to be held at The School of Education, Nottingham University on Saturday 5th February 2000. Further details from:- Max Biddulph School of Education University of Nottingham Jubilee Campus Notttingham NG8 1BB 5 LGBT Education Resource List The Brighton and Hove Teachers' Association of the NUT have published a "Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Education Resource List." For copies contact nigeltart@hotmail.com 6 Lesbian group denied funding because they "promote homosexuality" Corby Borough Council in the County of Northamptonshire rejected an application for funding by a lesbian support group on the grounds that it promotes homosexuality. The grants team sought legal advise from a Borough Council Solicitor and in rejecting the bid advised the organisation that the sub committee "deplored the fact that the legislative position still remains that a local Authority is unable to give funding to an organisation which is promoting homosexuality." Ironically the response came the same day as National papers outlined plans for the Queens speech to reflect a repeal of section 28, and the day before Northamptonshire County Council hosted a partnership conference with Northamptonshire lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Alliance to address inclusion for LGB people throughout the County Council services. The aims of Corby lesbian line as outlined in their constitution is to provide support information and offer a safe space where lesbians will not be judged because of their sexuality. The line has done much work over the last few years to address visibility of and support local lesbians and earlier this year hosted the start of visibility 2000 an initiative to ask " what will you be doing on the eve of a new century, will it be safe for you to be out and open with the person you love?" For the most part Northamptonshire is a proactive County, there are quite a lot of opportunities for LGB people to get support, advice and be involved in social opportunities once they know about it, we even have a LGB resource centre that provides training, However this is all provided by voluntary groups, dedicated people and with limited resources. To have one of the major support lines in the County refused Local Authority grants because they are perceived, as promoting homosexuality is blatant discrimination. If this happens in a proactive County, then there is more work to done than even I imagined. Northamptonshire Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Resource Centre michelle@nlgba.dircon.co.uk =========================================================================== From: SARATOGANY@aol.com Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:40:49 EST Subject: Should School Harassment Policies List Specific Forms Of Prohibited Harassment? To: SARATOGANY@aol.com, bdm3g@gateway.net Msg fwd by: The Coalition for Safer Schools of NYS, PO Box 2345, Malta, NY 12020 Email to: saratogany@aol.com "The Actual or Perceived GLBT Student Protection Project" =========================================================== Two commentaries Posted in reverse order at www.safeschools-wa.org My thoughts Ron Bloodworth (glsenor@aol.com) Safe Schools trainer and board member of GLSEN/Oregon August 28, 1999 Yes, anti-harassment policies should specifically state generic-inclusive categories in policy language. Anti-harassent policies like Hate Crimes legislation and Civil Rights legislation attempts to "right the wrongs of the past" as well as protect future generations. Harassment of any kind is unacceptable and should be dealt with quickly, firmly, humanely, and with appropriate consequences and remedies. Historically, however, certain groups of people have suffered from systematic institutional prejudice, discrimination, and have been at disproportionate risk of harassment and violence. Social institutions such as schools have a responsibility to be inclusive of all but to also be very specific about groups that have, historically, suffered from institutional oppression. Schools have always paid lipservice to the idea of equality and safety for all but in actual practice have looked the other way when individuals belonging to certain marginalized groups were treated badly or unfairly. Listing specific categories provides the explicit language necessary to give an anti-harrassment policy the "teeth" that it needs to address the various kinds of harassment that goes on in schools. Even well-meaning teachers (both gay and straight) are often reluctant to intervene in anti-gay harassment for fear of becoming targets of homohate themselves. "Sexual orientation" language in a policy is necessary to give teachers the administrative backing they need in order to risk being the target of homohate. Indeed, it specifically requires them to intervene in anti-gay harassment. Besides many teachers being afraid to intervene, we all know other teachers who condone (or even approve of) anti-gay name calling, intimidation, and harassment. Specific language in a policy puts these teachers on notice that their participation in anti-gay harassment (through silence or encouragement or modeling) is not acceptable regardless of their personal or religious views about sexual minority people. The response of the Superintendent of Public Education in Maryland is disheartening but not surprising. Bureaucrats with a backbone are rare. We need people in positions of responsiblity who can stand up to the intimidation of the religious right and do the right thing; who can clearly articulate the need for specific inclusion of generic-categories in anti-harassment policies. ========================================================= Should Harassment Policies List Specific Forms Of Prohibited Harassment? by Beth Reis Co-Chair, Safe Schools Coalition of Washington August 27, 1999 Yesterday, Maryland State officials caved in to pressure. They dropped from their anti-harassment proposal to the state Board of Education the language that would have explicitly prohibited, among other things, orientation-based harassment. The original proposal would have promised schools that are "safe, optimal for academic achievement, and free from harassment" for all students in Maryland, "regardless of but not limited to race, ethnicity, region, religion, gender, sexual orientation, language, socioeconomic status, age, and disability." Now, all those examples have been dropped from the proposal. Opponents of these kinds of policies often claim that listing prohibited forms of harassment gives certain groups of people "special rights." So the question is, "Should harassment policies list specific forms of prohibited harassment?" The answer is YES. Well-written anti-harassment policies do not protect any one group of people. They protect us ALL. This one, for instance, before it was gutted, did not prohibit harassment of Latino students, specifically; it prohibited harassing ANYONE (African-American, White, etc..) about his or her RACE. We all have races. Similarly, we all have sexual orientations. A policy such as this one would have prohibited a slur such as "breeder" just as firmly as it prohibited "sissy." We all have ethnicities, genders, languages, etc. We may not all have religions, but I am sure that calling someone a "D--n Atheist" would be as quickly squelched under this policy as calling them a "D--n Christian" or a "D--n Moslem." (Pardon all these examples.) Most of us have (or will some day have) disabilities, even if some are invisible. Sure, some groups are more frequently targeted on these bases than other groups. But terrorizing a whole group of people ought to be deemed morally wrong in our schools no matter which whole group is the target of the intimidation. Dropping the examples only weakens the measure. Because examples say, "We really mean it. Even ___ is wrong. Even ___ is wrong." Do we really mean it or not? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- =========================================================================== 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/