Parents at a school board meeting in California fumed over the implementation of textbooks indoctrinating youngsters into the LGBTQ agenda.
The Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD) on Tuesday held its final meeting over whether to adopt History and Social Science textbooks which would highlight contributions to history from LGBTQ figures.
Parents blasted the textbooks, which would be used as instruction materials for grades K-8, arguing LGBTQ issues shouldn’t be taught to children at such a young age.
“I totally support inclusivity,” stated one woman at the meeting, “however I do not believe it’s necessary for 7 and 8-year-olds to be required to learn about bi-sexuality.”
Another person accused the school district of corrupting young minds: “You are raping the innocence of our children.”
And another parent asked why knowing the sexual preferences of historical figures should factor into education.
“If they don’t need to know what your sexual preferences are, why is this information relevant for them for historical figures?” she asked.
EGUSD argues they need to adopt the new textbooks, published by McGraw-Hill, to replace older ones from 2007.
Additionally the textbooks will meet requirements put forth in California’s SB 48, or Fair Act, which changed the state’s Education Code to require “inclusion of the contributions of various groups in the history of California and the United States,” including from “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.”
A pilot textbook from publisher Pearson, Scott Foresman and Prentice Hall reviewed by EGUSD last year also came under fire after parents complained it contained political propaganda favoring then-gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom, calling him a “champion for people’s rights.”
“Gavin said that people could marry who they choose,” the textbook stated. “Sometimes, Gavin helped marry people. Some marriages were not between a man and a woman. He made sure that people’s rights were respected.”
Despite tense deliberation with parents, the school board unanimously approved the new textbooks, which will be in EGUSD schools in the upcoming fall semester.
Watch the full school board meeting, with parents commenting on the History Social Science curriculum at 2:04:16.
Below are just a few excerpts transcribed from speeches of parents who objected to the new curriculum.
I am speaking for the children. It is my opinion because I am a woman of faith that you are raping the innocence of our children. How can you come and say LGBT without the children actually saying, “What is that?” When a child comes home and says, “Hey mommy, I have a lot of male friends, so I guess I’m gay.” You are interfering with those children who are not struggling with LGBT issues. I’m not here to say I hate these children. I’m not here to say that I hate our LGBT community, our brothers and sisters. I’m here to speak up for those of us who do not want our children… – this world’s already over-sexualized and there is an exposure coming on that started a year and half two years ago…
As a grandparent of two little girls who will soon attend public schools, my primary concern with the history social science curriculum is this: why do you want to encourage children to look at a person’s gender identity or sexual preference when considering their contribution to society? I thought we were trying to teach children not to look at someone’s gender, at their skin color or other physical features when determining their value? Why do you want to go backward? Why do you want to make gender an issue again? I seriously doubt that any of you [school board members] would want to tell children your sexual preferences. If they don’t need to know what your sexual preferences are, why is this information relevant for them or for historical figures. Isn’t it far more important for our children to learn about the content of a person’s character?
I totally support inclusivity, however I do not believe it’s necessary for 7 and 8-year-olds to be required to learn about bi-sexuality and the like. To illustrate my point I do want to bring up the way we for instance teach about Thomas Jefferson. In elementary school we learn that Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Constitution and the third president and the like. In middle school we learned how he shaped our rights and laws. Also that he was a wealthy southern person who owned slaves. In high school we learned more about his political beliefs and also that he fathered about half a dozen kids with one of his slaves and that the descendants of that slave woman fought for centuries for recognition as his descendants.
See as we matured we learned more detail about Jefferson’s life that took maturity to process. Sexuality is a topic that takes maturity to process and actually what was excluded from the curriculum [Powerpoint] presentation is that the Fair Act allows for this by not specifying the grade levels where sexual identity issues are to be explained. Further, on their website the California Department of Education states on their FAQ that it falls to the teacher, the local school and district administration to determine how the content is covered and at which grade levels. LGBT issues were never taught to me or my kids in elementary, but we were all taught many lessons about extending respect to all. Respect for diverse people can be taught without diving headlong into sexual identity issues so early. I respectfully suggest that any adoption at elementary may include LGBT Americans but it doesn’t necessarily have to detail their sexuality at a young age.
I’m a proud parent of two and I’m here tonight to speak against the McGraw-Hill, or LGBTQ teaching that you are trying to implement, let me just say that the LGBTQ community makes about 1 percent of the entire population of the United States, and I don’t think it’s fair that this community is trying to teach and shove these things down our children’s throat for whatever purposes or agendas they have to accomplish. So I’m here to tell you that I’m capable of raising my two children without the teaching of this community. And I’m also here to tell you that if this passes I should be able to opt out and not subject my kids to this teaching.