Safe Schools Coalition - not anti bullying but LGBT gross deception and indoctrination
 |
| Penny Wong, Senator for South Australia, lesbian and promoter of Safer Schools Coalition and LGBT agenda. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Safer
Schools by Paul Kelly The Australian
The
Safe Schools Coalition agenda taken up by about 500 schools in this country to
promote understanding of gender and sexual diversity is a brilliant insight
into the ideological campaigns now transforming cultural values in Australia
through capture of institutions.
This is a
highly political exercise. The progressive political class is aggressive in its
promotion and defence of this agenda, moralistic about the program’s intrinsic
value and, perhaps most remarkably, contemptuous in dismissing the critics of
this program — parents and politicians — by branding them as homophobic and
extremists.
The
Turnbull government’s lightning-fast
review of the program was delivered to Education Minister
Simon Birmingham’s department yesterday. It will be assessed over the weekend.
Depending on the extent of changes recommended by the independent review, the
government may respond as early as the end of the coming week.
It is
guaranteed to become a test of Liberal Party values under Malcolm Turnbull.
Tony Abbott, who did nothing about the program as PM, has called it “social
engineering” and wants the funds scrapped. Turnbull says his government will
protect children at school but judge criticism on merit.
The Safe
Schools constituency is mobilised and waiting. Any significant revision to the
program will lead to Turnbull being attacked as weak on bullying, as well as
for betraying vulnerable students and bending before conservative extremists.
Yet the
defects in this program make it indefensible as it stands. This raises a
pivotal question: are parents in Australia at the stage where they accept
gender fluidity as an ideology to be inculcated into their children through the
school system? It is a divisive and potentially explosive issue.
The Safe
Schools program builds on a Victorian model pioneered by the Foundation for
Young Australians and Gay and Lesbian Health, and derived from research done at
La Trobe University. It is funded by the Victorian government, and an $8
million contribution made by the former ALP federal government continued during
the Abbott-Turnbull era. The aim is to combat homophobic and transphobic
bullying and abuse and support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex
students. The extent of support for the program is immense — Labor and the
Greens have a deep emotional attachment, the Coalition has continued the
program, state educational establishments are supportive, the numbers of staff
trained in the program has reached 13,000, and 362 academics recently defended
the research basis of the program and the need to combat sexual bullying.
As
Birmingham examines the review from Bill Louden, emeritus professor of
education at the University of Western Australia, the external pressure on the
Turnbull government to minimise changes will be hefty. Louden will have
assessed some of the critiques of the program, notably the efficacy of
materials for students in years 7 and 8.
The real
critique of the program, however, is more substantial than the terms of
reference for Louden’s review. This is much more than an anti-bullying program.
Most people know an anti-bullying program when they see it. But this is
something else — a pervasive and radical ideological agenda. Indeed, it does
not even pretend to be anything less.
Senior ALP
figures Bill Shorten, Penny Wong and Kate Ellis and other politicians
stridently defending the program and attacking its critics are misleading at
best and deceptive at worst. The materials, literature, instructions and
recommended class activities are pervasive in their ideological content and
often extraordinary in the activities they recommend for years 7 and 8
students. This story is a case study in hijack: how a program of social and
sexual engineering was inducted into the school system by a lobby that won huge
institutional support. The program is legitimised by a need whose validity is
beyond question: preventing the bullying of LGBTI students.
In many
ways the program is the purist example of the disruptive cultural and power
changes sweeping through Australia. Its content would have been inconceivable
10 years ago. It reflects a transformation in thinking about sex and gender,
the collapse of traditional and religious norms, the confidence of the
progressive class that its moment has come, and the ability of a minority lobby
to seize the ascendancy and command a majority position.
Victorian
Premier Daniel Andrews has said the intention is to make the program compulsory
in all Victorian high schools. The state sent confused messages this week, but
the policy remains. Rarely has the ugly face of state power been so apparent.
If enforced, no school would be allowed choice or the freedom to dissociate
from the gender ideology.
A reading
of the materials shows this ideology is relentless and explicit: gender is not
a binary male-female stereotype but a process of self-expression and “how you
feel inside” and “may change over time”. Gender should not be reduced to the
question “is it a boy or a girl?” because “there are a whole range of human
bodies that are somewhere between”.
The
philosophy is that “it’s up to the individual to describe what gender identity
fits them best”. There are many such identities; it is a process of
self-selection.
From this
it follows that classes should not be divided into boy-girl groups for any
activities. Such stereotypes should be avoided. The program says that “phrases
like ‘ladies and gentlemen’ or ‘boys and girls’ should be avoided”. When
speaking about individuals, assumptions about gender identity must not be made.
All students must use the pronoun that individuals prefer or use gender-neutral
pronouns “such as ‘they’ (singular) or ‘ze’ ”. These are to be the new and
universal standards.
Fluidity
in gender matches fluidity in sexual identity, which means young people “can be
attracted to a whole spectrum of masculinity, femininity, both or even none”.
Components that make up sexual identity “can be thought to sit anywhere on a
spectrum between ‘female’ and ‘male’ ”. In dealing with others, you never
assume people are straight. Graphics are used to illustrate that sexual
identity is best seen as falling somewhere on a broad spectrum.
Gender
fluidity is promoted as a worthwhile and desirable choice for young students.
The program’s aim is to integrate gender and sexual diversity across the
curriculum and it is assumed this is a step towards healthy living.
Lesson two
involves sex role playing: students imagine they are 16 and going out with
somebody, one half of the class with someone of the same sex and the other half
with the opposite sex.
Class
discussions are recommended to combat the malaise of “heteronormativity” — a
belief system based on heterosexuality. Students are urged to avoid reinforcing
this mindset with questions such as whether a new baby is a boy or a girl. The
ideology is that “reducing heteronormativity in schools can have good outcomes
for everyone”.
The
program advises that one in 10 people are same-sex attracted, up to one in 25
people are transgender or gender diverse, and about one in 60 are born with
unisex bodies. These figures, used to justify the program, are high and heavily
contested.
It is hard
not to conclude there is a sinister aspect to the program. To prevent bullying
of LGBTI students the entire view of gender is being transformed in the school.
The
deliberate purpose is to weaken or break down or question the settled view of
gender that many young people and students possess. This is presented as an
unqualified good and a necessary step in the health of all students. The
schools that embrace this ideology are rewarded as being inclusive, as opposed to
schools that resist. At all points student activism is encouraged.
In dealing
with transgender experiences students are encouraged to consider what makes
them female or male.
“Most
students will mention their genitalia,” the program says. “Extend the discussion
by asking students what it would mean in terms of their gender if they were to
lose that part of themselves.”
The
purpose is to tutor students that sex is the body you are born with while
gender is what you self-select: hence the need to imagine what is it like
without your genitals.
In the
lesson on bisexual experiences students are asked to imagine a line running
through the classroom. Each student must move to a position on this line
according to whether they agree or disagree with a series of propositions on
how to avoid stereotypes. “Ask students to explain why they have chosen their
position on the line,” the manual says. At the same time “any offensive or
hurtful comments” need to be addressed.
Just
reflect on the opportunity for intimidation and pressure in this activity. It
equates with another activity in which students must stand and sit down only
when they have given the appropriate answers to a set of questions.
Students
and teachers are tutored about being a good “ally”. This means supporting
LGBTI students when they come out, not using the wrong pronoun and avoiding
giveaway phrases such as “that’s so gay”. Students are asked to write and sign
their own “ally’s pledge”.
They are
asked to brainstorm initiatives to make LGBTI students feel more comfortable,
the aim being to expose examples of homophobia and transphobia and how to
combat them.
Students
are encouraged to ask their principal to sign up to the Safe Schools Coalition
program. They are urged to give their school a makeover with posters, reward
those teachers who are LGBTI allies with stickers so everyone knows, paint a
rainbow crossing at the school entrance, press LGBTI students and their allies
to have a “safe space” in the school to meet, and ask for gender-neutral toilets
in addition to girl and boy toilets.
The
aspiration is a change in the outlook and character of the school. These
programs for students in years 7 and 8 are presented as supporting “core
outcomes” of the curriculum for health and physical education.
Any reasonable
reading of the material highlights the extent to which students would be
pressured into accepting the gender and sexual norms of the program.
The
outstanding feature among high-profile politicians backing the Safe Schools
agenda is their unqualified endorsement. The demonisation of opponents is
extreme. While Liberal senator Cory Bernardi has been rightly attacked for his
unacceptable comments, far worse remarks from Victoria’s Premier are ignored.
When the
Turnbull government announced its review, Andrews said: “I’m sick of Liberal
politicians telling our kids there’s something wrong with them — when there
isn’t.”
In short,
if you want to review or criticise the program, that means you are attacking
kids.
Shorten
branded Bernardi a “homophobe” for criticising the program. Opposition
education spokeswoman Ellis attacked Turnbull for pandering to “views of
extremists”. ALP Senate leader Wong said: “This is a Labor program, we funded
it in government, it’s a program designed to address the terrifying statistics
of self-harm, of abuse, of discrimination and of bullying of same-sex attracted
and transgender kids.”
Amid
defenders of the program it is hard to discern any concession whatsoever that
there are problems with this program.
There is
no serious sign of respect for parents who have reservations. Just the reverse
— they are patronised and insulted by indirect linkage as extremists and
homophobes.
It is hard
to find another example where the political class has been so arrogant in its
imposition of a new and far-reaching agenda.
Let’s
confront the truth: there is a process of intimidation at work. It reminds of
the mother on the ABC television’s Q&A program a few weeks ago, upset her son
was encouraged to cross-dress, reduced to saying, “but it was a science class”.
There is
no doubt the cultural norms are changing. This program constitutes dramatic
evidence. But the progressives have overreached — their arrogance and
intolerance and on vivid display.
Turnbull,
however, will find this a difficult issue to manage. And any politician
asserting this is just another anti-bullying program is naive or engaging in a
gross deception.
