Titles are meant to grab attenion and perhaps that one will for those who have followed the worries of Focus on the Family about bullying prevention programs. Essentially, FOF is concerned that gay activists are using anti-bullying programs to infiltrate schools with political messages. To counter that perceived threat, FOF placed a list of bullying facts on their True Tolerance website. Given my interest and current involvement in bullying prevention, I checked it out. I will have a more extensive look at it next week but for now I wanted to post something I was surprised to see there.
As a reference for the contention that bullying of kids who are gay and perceived to be gay is not a big problem, the fact sheet lists an article from the Newsweek blog. First here is one of the FOF bullet points:
Statistics also indicate that race, ethnicity issues, and even opposite-sex harassment actually account for more bullying problems, than do homosexual-related issues.
As a reference for that factoid, the author of the sheet lists a Newsweek blog article by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, titled, “Does Labeling Bias as “Bullying” Hide the Real Problem?” The authors first describe the case of a young man, Alex Merritt, who allegedly suffered sexual orientation related harassment and then report the research of Stephen Russell on reasons kids report being bullied.
Russell went to public and private schools in California, surveying 235,000 kids in 7th, 9th, and 11th grades. Russell asked each student if he had been bullied within the past 12 months, and if they answer was yes, to describe the incident.
37.4% of the kids said that they had been bullied.
Then Russell broke that data down by category.
14% of the kids had been bullied because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. 9.1% of the kids said they’d been bullied because of their religious beliefs, while 10.3% said the bullying was gender-based. Like Alex Merritt, 7.5% said that the torments had been about their sexual-orientation – that includes kids who were actually homosexual, and those just perceived to be gay. Another 4.9% said that they were bullied because of they had a physical or mental disability.
By the end of his data analysis, Russell had concluded that 75% of all bullying came from some type of bias – racial, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
This article is apparently a reference designed to prove that anti-gay bullying is down the list of reasons why kids are picked on. I assume the reason for that point is to make a case that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a means of preventing bullying. However, that is not the message of the article referenced. Based on the data, the Newsweek authors point out that bias is involved in the lion’s share of the bullying. The authors then raise the possibility that school personnel should be promoting discussions of the factors involved, including sexual orientation.
Dorothy Espelage has been analyzing the curriculum of the anti-bullying programs most commonly used in schools. She found that hardly any of the programs even addressed bullying relating to sexual orientation.
If the majority of bullying is bias-related, and yet we don’t even acknowledge this in anti-bullying programs, what does this mean? In the chapter of our book, excerpted in Newsweek, we presented evidence that demonstrated how many of us have assumed kids are race/color-blind, and thus we don’t need to talk about race with them – however, that leaves kids to their own devices on how they respond to racial and ethnic differences. Perhaps the same pattern is going on in other forms of bias. We think that we as a society are past making fun of people with disabilities, people of different religion or gender, etc. – and thus we don’t actively talk about these issues with our children. And that has inadvertently left the door open for kids to use these differences as the basis of torment.
The implication is clear: at least in some schools, maybe most, we need to discuss the hidden elephants in the rooms, whether they be race, religion or sexuality.
Looking again at the numbers, the 7.5% who were bullied due to sexual orientation is staggering. The prevalence of students who are gay or perceived to be gay is probably not much higher than 10-15%. That means a very high percentage of such children are getting harassed. In evaluating the meaning of the numbers it is not sufficient to simply rank order the reasons as FOF has done. One must also consider the prevalence of harassment in that population.
Schools differ and in some ethnicity might be the largest elephant in the room, but I suspect in many districts around the country and probably the corner, kids are being subjected to regular harassment based on real or perceived sexual minority status. In those situations, as this FOF referenced article reminds us, we need to talk about it.
Here’s Candi Cushman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUXkY5ejJg8&feature=player_embedded
Michael Bussee:
I admire your sentiment.
As a side note, you are certainly right about the unfair anti-Christian attitudes held by some, individual gay men. I think, fortunately, that such claims are not made by any gay-rights organization — certainly not one of any size or influence. Perhaps I am wrong. The same cannot be said, quite unfortunately, of FOF or the AFA. While some Christians fear that their religion (or aspects of it) might be criminalized, homosexuality actually was, until quite recently, in fact criminalized, with quite horrific results. While the responsibility is, indeed, entirely mutual, the problem is notably disparate.
(I don’t mean to suggest that you implied otherwise, I’m just adding the above as my personal addendum.)
Michael Bussee:
I admire your sentiment.
As a side note, you are certainly right about the unfair anti-Christian attitudes held by some, individual gay men. I think, fortunately, that such claims are not made by any gay-rights organization — certainly not one of any size or influence. Perhaps I am wrong. The same cannot be said, quite unfortunately, of FOF or the AFA. While some Christians fear that their religion (or aspects of it) might be criminalized, homosexuality actually was, until quite recently, in fact criminalized, with quite horrific results. While the responsibility is, indeed, entirely mutual, the problem is notably disparate.
(I don’t mean to suggest that you implied otherwise, I’m just adding the above as my personal addendum.)
Some gays, it should be said, really do have that sort of animosity towards Christianity and think it should be outlawed to some extent or another. That’s because they mistake a certain branch protestant/fundamentalist/legalist/dominionist Christianity (which often claims to be the only “true” Christianity) with “Christianity” as a whole.
In the same manner some Christians make the mistake of believing that all gays are of the radical/atheistic/anti-Christian/antifamily variety.
Christians and gays alike have some responsibility for not making it clear “Christian” and “Gay “are not mutually exclusive or threatening, tat such extremists are not the majority, that most people are of the “live-and-let-live” variety — and that, with just a little bit of tolerance, we could and should make very good neighbors.
Some gays, it should be said, really do have that sort of animosity towards Christianity and think it should be outlawed to some extent or another. That’s because they mistake a certain branch protestant/fundamentalist/legalist/dominionist Christianity (which often claims to be the only “true” Christianity) with “Christianity” as a whole.
In the same manner some Christians make the mistake of believing that all gays are of the radical/atheistic/anti-Christian/antifamily variety.
Christians and gays alike have some responsibility for not making it clear “Christian” and “Gay “are not mutually exclusive or threatening, tat such extremists are not the majority, that most people are of the “live-and-let-live” variety — and that, with just a little bit of tolerance, we could and should make very good neighbors.
Well put – Amen
Likewise, Christians can accept homosexual persons and relationships while still promoting the non-coercive acceptance of their own doctrines concerning sexual morality. Really, this should be easy. It’s organizations like FOF that make it unnecessarily hard.
Well put – Amen
Likewise, Christians can accept homosexual persons and relationships while still promoting the non-coercive acceptance of their own doctrines concerning sexual morality. Really, this should be easy. It’s organizations like FOF that make it unnecessarily hard.
Acceptance is the issue — and that should be non-controversial. Christianity clearly guides people to accept Christ and reject false idols. Yet most Christians easily (and happily) accept non-Christian persons, temples and organizations as valued peers and contributors to society.
Likewise, Christians can accept homosexual persons and relationships while still promoting the non-coercive acceptance of their own doctrines concerning sexual morality. Really, this should be easy. It’s organizations like FOF that make it unnecessarily hard.
Certainly those that seek to denigrate, vilify, and exclude gay persons will experience increasing disapproval toward those attitudes. This is an agenda we should all be able to get behind.
Acceptance is the issue — and that should be non-controversial. Christianity clearly guides people to accept Christ and reject false idols. Yet most Christians easily (and happily) accept non-Christian persons, temples and organizations as valued peers and contributors to society.
Likewise, Christians can accept homosexual persons and relationships while still promoting the non-coercive acceptance of their own doctrines concerning sexual morality. Really, this should be easy. It’s organizations like FOF that make it unnecessarily hard.
Certainly those that seek to denigrate, vilify, and exclude gay persons will experience increasing disapproval toward those attitudes. This is an agenda we should all be able to get behind.
I completely agree. You can and should mention types of bullying and groups most often singled out for such abuse by name — and actively confront it regardless of who is being targeted. Name it and fight it. Both.
I suspect that what groups like FOTF are worried about is that mentioning sexual orientation/gender identity by name with lead to moral acceptance — which will lead to toughening up on what Christians can say about these things in schools.
This will then lead to Christians being persecuted for saying anything negative about these things — which will lead to the end of freedom of speech and freedom of religion — which will eventually lead to Christianity being outlawed — and eventually, Christians being put in prison or executed.
Some actually believe that’s the “gay agenda”.
I completely agree. You can and should mention types of bullying and groups most often singled out for such abuse by name — and actively confront it regardless of who is being targeted. Name it and fight it. Both.
I suspect that what groups like FOTF are worried about is that mentioning sexual orientation/gender identity by name with lead to moral acceptance — which will lead to toughening up on what Christians can say about these things in schools.
This will then lead to Christians being persecuted for saying anything negative about these things — which will lead to the end of freedom of speech and freedom of religion — which will eventually lead to Christianity being outlawed — and eventually, Christians being put in prison or executed.
Some actually believe that’s the “gay agenda”.
Thans for the link to the actual article. Its actually a bit more comprehensive thhen I thought it would be. Somehow though I would think it would help to categorize some types of bullying ie. who is being bullied and how the are real peope too. General statements about treating people with respect do not always get through to some folks. This is why bve specific programs to address sexual harrassment for example.
I found the following part of FOTF’s article interesting.. (bold emphasis is mine)
I find it interesting that FOTF interprets programs that address sexual oreintation as being a “narrow political agenda” and is concerned about sexual topics introduced “against their parents will”
My questions are: … Whose political agenda? and Which parent’s will?
I am a Christian in case some of you have forgotten that. What is coveniently forgotten here is that not all people and indeed not all Christians have the same view of this. We as Christians make statements like this with the assumption that only our (narrow) view should prevail. But we forget that ours is not the only view. The public school is just that … public. It is not church… it is not Sunday School. The students educated there come from a wide variety of religious, political, ethnic, and social backgorunds. It is the school’s job to teach respect for all of these .. not just support a narrow view whether it comes from FOTF or certain Christians or any other source. It is the task of the parents and/or the child’s religious institution to teach the tenets of their particular faith or social viewpoint.
Thans for the link to the actual article. Its actually a bit more comprehensive thhen I thought it would be. Somehow though I would think it would help to categorize some types of bullying ie. who is being bullied and how the are real peope too. General statements about treating people with respect do not always get through to some folks. This is why bve specific programs to address sexual harrassment for example.
I found the following part of FOTF’s article interesting.. (bold emphasis is mine)
I find it interesting that FOTF interprets programs that address sexual oreintation as being a “narrow political agenda” and is concerned about sexual topics introduced “against their parents will”
My questions are: … Whose political agenda? and Which parent’s will?
I am a Christian in case some of you have forgotten that. What is coveniently forgotten here is that not all people and indeed not all Christians have the same view of this. We as Christians make statements like this with the assumption that only our (narrow) view should prevail. But we forget that ours is not the only view. The public school is just that … public. It is not church… it is not Sunday School. The students educated there come from a wide variety of religious, political, ethnic, and social backgorunds. It is the school’s job to teach respect for all of these .. not just support a narrow view whether it comes from FOTF or certain Christians or any other source. It is the task of the parents and/or the child’s religious institution to teach the tenets of their particular faith or social viewpoint.
FotF uses an article to say exactly the opposite of what the logic in the article says. What esle is new?
I wonder if they have bullying among the young grades base on sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation in Uganda?
Here’s Candi Cushman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUXkY5ejJg8&feature=player_embedded
You need a better imagination. FotF is very clear that they oppose any anti-bullying efforts that include discussion about sexual orientation.
Poor old FOTF can’t catch a break, can they? Why assume that’s the point they wanted to make with this article, when the article, itself, does not make that point?
I can’t imagine FOTF not wanting to cover all the bullying bases.
Maybe more skeptical people ought to visit Focus on the Family, like gay activist John Corvino did, and blog about it:
FotF uses an article to say exactly the opposite of what the logic in the article says. What esle is new?
I wonder if they have bullying among the young grades base on sexual orientation or percieved sexual orientation in Uganda?
You need a better imagination. FotF is very clear that they oppose any anti-bullying efforts that include discussion about sexual orientation.
Poor old FOTF can’t catch a break, can they? Why assume that’s the point they wanted to make with this article, when the article, itself, does not make that point?
I can’t imagine FOTF not wanting to cover all the bullying bases.
Maybe more skeptical people ought to visit Focus on the Family, like gay activist John Corvino did, and blog about it: