What schools do in their
health education curricula and in their guidance offices
can be vital. The deafening
silence of our schools regarding matters of sexual orientation
that was the near-universal
approach in the recent past was never wise, and is certainly no
longer viable. A number of
public school systems are demonstrating that providing
accurate information on
sexual orientation is the appropriate way to proceed.
Yet, many school systems
may be afraid to deal with these issues. School board
members and school
administrators are often leery of getting into the middle of the
"culture wars" or
seeming to promote some suspect "gay agenda." So in preparing to
raise
these issues with your
local school system, you should be ready to define the "gay
agenda" in education:
It is simply to enable students to understand what our mainstream
medical and mental health
care professional associations have concluded -- specifically,
that being gay is not an
illness, that "reparative" or "conversion" therapies are
dangerous
and destructive, that LGBT
people can live happy and healthy lives, and that children of
LGBT parents do just fine.
We need to convey to school
officials (and our communities at large) that these
conclusions are not
ideological positions, but are, rather, the collective wisdom of the
mainstream scientific,
medical, and mental health care community. In 2008, the
American Psychological
Association distributed to thousands of public school systems an
excellent
publication, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A
Primer for
Principals, Educators, and
School Personnel, endorsed by a wide range
of health care and
school professional groups,
including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
School Counselor
Association, the American School Health Association, the National
Association of School
Psychologists, and the National Association of Secondary School
Principals. It is essential
that local boards of education and school administrators be
aware of Just the Facts. It is vitally important to
stress that the concepts set forth in Just
the Facts follow the conclusions of every mainstream medical and mental
health
professional association,
including the American Medical Association, which has come
out foursquare in
opposition to "reparative" or "conversion" therapies. See
AMA Policy
Number H-160.991 Health
Care Needs of the Homosexual Population. See, also, the
American Psychological
Association’s Answers to Your Questions
for a Better
Understanding of Sexual
Orientation and Homosexuality.
This is particularly
significant in light of the efforts by groups like Focus on the
Family to oppose
anti-bullying programs, which they argue are a way to press the “gay
agenda.”
Indeed, Focus on the Family
typically ignores the mainstream medical
community conclusions, or
pretends that “science is still out” on all these issues. Focus
on the Family and similar
groups seek to create the impression that this is just a dispute
among “interest groups.”
What the right wing groups seek to do is to create a scientific
dispute when, in
fact, no such dispute exists. This is related to the right wing’s
reliance
1
on statements from a group
calling itself the "American College of Pediatricians," a tiny
ideological fringe outfit
which objects to the conclusions of the American Academy of
Pediatrics (which is the
mainstream professional association for pediatricians). It is
essential to show school
officials (and the public at large) that the dispute is not between
contending "interest
groups," but rather, between the mainstream medical community and
theologically-driven groups
like Focus on the Family.
The experience in
Montgomery County, Maryland – a suburb of Washington,
D.C. – provides a blueprint
of how to make progress, as well as the game plan of those
who would seek to derail
such progress.
On June 17, 2014, the
Montgomery County Board of Education unanimously gave final approval to a revised health education
framework for secondary schools. This revised framework is based specifically on the longstanding
findings of every mainstream American medical and mental health professional
association regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, including the
propositions that being gay is not an illness and that so-called “reparative”
or “conversion” therapies are dangerous and ineffective. The framework
was presented to the Board on
May 13; the Board gave preliminary approval,
triggering a month of public comments,
the overwhelmingly majority of which were positive.
This action brought to a
successful conclusion a dozen years of work by members of PFLAG Metro DC and
others to bring the wisdom of the mainstream health care professionals into the
middle and high school health education curriculum.
The Montgomery County
experience may be useful for others around the country who seek to make schools
not only safe for our LGBT children and children of LGBT families, but to help
create a climate in which all of our children understand and appreciate each
other. What follows is a comprehensive report on that experience.
We recommend that readers
be aware, on the one hand, of the fact that this process took place in a
relatively progressive community (which made it easier than it might have been
elsewhere); but also, on the other hand, of the fact that the culture in
America has moved significantly in the last dozen years (which means that the
dozen years it took from the start of the process in 2002 to the 2014
culmination could well be far longer than future efforts in other places). We
also note, however, that in some places, unlike in Maryland, state laws may
limit what may be said in health education classes.
In some communities, there
may be widespread opposition to change; in others, opposition may be limited to
a very small group of people. In some communities, political leaders may be
very supportive; in others, they may be antagonistic or reluctant to “make
waves.” In some communities, there may be a pent up desire to make the needed
changes; in others, there may be a great fear of even talking about sexual
orientation or gender identity. Within school bureaucracies, much may turn on
the life experiences and hopes and fears of particular administrators. Every
community is different, but there are common threads.
2
The two overarching themes
are (1) that we are advocating not for abstractions, but for our children’s
lives; and (2) that the policy dispute is not between pro-gay and anti-gay
interest groups, but, rather, between the mainstream American medical and
mental health community and those who, perhaps for theological or other
reasons, are unable to come to terms with the proposition that being gay is
just another way people are.
The report is based in part
on a September 2010 series posted by the Human Rights Campaign and written by
PFLAG Metro DC Advocacy Chair David S. Fishback. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 (And an enormous thank you to
Teachthefacts.org President Jim Kennedy for archival material contained on the
Teachthefacts.org website.)
LESSONS LEARNED OVERVIEW
Before going through the
actual events, it might be useful to discuss the lessons
we learned. They might be
worth thinking about as one goes through the nuts and bolts of
the process.
1. As more LGBT people come
out, more straight people are willing to talk about
their LGBT relatives,
friends, co-workers, and acquaintances. Once you begin real
conversations about the
challenges that society poses for gay people – whether with
school officials, reporters
or members of the general public – more people will begin to
talk about their LGBT
relatives, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances. As this happens,
more LGBT people may be
more likely to come out. Always be ready to tell your stories.
Personal stories of real
people, real pain, and real struggle often do as much or more than
abstract academic conclusions
to help people understand the importance of action. This
openness breaks down the
walls that have kept people from confronting the issues. Once
those walls break down,
progress can be swifter.
2. School officials – both
elected and non-elected – need information, not just
conclusions. This is important because when being asked to take steps in
directions
previously not taken, and
where there may be pushback from others living in the school
district, officials need to
know not just the general conclusions about sexual orientation,
but also the fact that
those conclusions are supported by the mainstream medical and
mental health care
community. This will assist those who already agree with us, and can
bring along those who may
not have thought about the issue enough to be ready to take
the needed steps. And, in
the context of the emerging understandings about sexual
orientation and gender
identity, such information may help bring along those who once
had been in the opposition.
3. Identify allies within
school system. There may well be many
teachers, guidance
counselors, administrators,
and others who will be supportive of your efforts. They may
be able to provide insights
into the ins and out of your school system. But, depending on
3
the nature of the
bureaucratic culture of a particular school system, they may or may not
be able to be public
allies. Of course, if schools have Gay/Straight Alliances (GSAs), the
GSA sponsors, and the
students themselves, may be great partners.
4. Identify and work with
allies outside the school system. Don’t think you have to go
it alone. Find other groups
– both governmental and non-governmental – who may be
supportive. They may be
part of the process of figuring out how best to proceed,
including entrée to decision-makers.
They may also be invaluable in creating an
atmosphere of support in
the community-at-large.
5. The media needs to be
well informed. In the Montgomery County
situation,
advocates educated local
reporters about the reality of where the mainstream health care
professional associations
stood, and why they held those positions. We did this not just at
the time of the onset of a
big story, but, whenever possible, in advance of such events. By
sufficiently educating
reporters in advance – just like we did for school officials and the
public at large – the
reporters were more able to present balanced articles, rather than
simply writing on the fly.
6. Find forums in which to
present your views and your evidence. Letters to the
editor, op-ed pieces, and
presentations on broadcast media are important. Find those
outlets and use them.
Always be prepared to make the best case for your position. Do not
limit your advocacy to
matters specifically related to curriculum. We need to foster a
general atmosphere of
understanding; such an atmosphere helps not only school system
efforts, but other
advancements, as well.
7. Personal relationships
matter. As in any community,
personal relationships
developed over the years
are very useful. In Montgomery County, for example, a
principal advocate had
worked for years as a PTA volunteer, as a local PTA president,
and as a member of a number
of other advisory committees and community school
advocacy committees. In
those activities, he developed relationships and credibility that
made it easier to be an
advocate for potentially controversial issues, like this one.
8. Never underestimate the
depths to which the opposition will go to impose their
views. This may seem harsh, but sadly it is a reflection of reality. The
opposition, at least
in our experience, does not
simply reach conclusions by seeing the world through a
different side of the
prism. Rather – perhaps because their views are ideologically and
theologically based – they
often seem to take the view that the ends justify the means. We
always need to be prepared
for that, and to be prepared for the most outrageous attacks
imaginable. Significantly,
we need to be prepared to assist school systems in defending
against lawsuits the
opposition may bring in order to intimidate, and to be able to
convince school systems
that, if necessary, it is worthwhile to stand up to such
intimidation.
9. Be ready for wolves in
sheep's clothing. More skillful members of
the opposition
may couch their arguments
in terms of respect for all without condoning or encouraging
what they view as immoral
behavior, all the while focusing on the respect angle. We
4
must always remember that
generalized statements of civility are nice, but they do little
good if they are coupled
with policies that marginalize our LGBT children. Also, keep in
mind that people may run
for school boards, or other public offices, without revealing
that they have an anti-gay
agenda.
10. Always be civil and
dignified. It will be tempting to lash
out in public against
outrageous attacks on
ourselves and/or our children. But it is always more important to
channel that passion into
effective public presentations. Anger may create a good news
story on some televisions
stations, but it does not advance the ball. Over time, people of good will come
to recognize the humanity of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
11. Efforts to reform our
public schools take hard work and dedication. Activists
who care about educating
children on the realities of sexual orientation must be prepared
to do the hard work of
educating both school officials and the community-at-large. They
also must carefully
cultivate allies, and develop a sense of when to push hard, and when
to give people in power the
space to act. It is also important to understand which players
we can count on to be
proactive – and how to help them be so.
2002-04:
MOVING OUT OF THE SHADOWS1
In 2002, the elected Board
of Education, on the recommendation of its Citizens
Advisory Committee on
Family Life and Human Development (CAC), instructed the
Montgomery County Public
Schools (MCPS) staff to develop revisions to the school
system’s 8th and 10th grade
health education curriculum to provide accurate information
on sexual orientation.
Previously, teachers were forbidden to discuss the subject, unless
asked a direct question,
and then they could only provide vague answers and then move
on. In order to facilitate
the process, the Board appointed a group of new members to the
CAC, which, by state law at
that time, had to review any recommendations regarding
sexuality education; those
25 members included a school nurse, a school health teacher,
representatives from the
PFLAG Metro DC and a Unitarian Church, as well as from the
local Catholic Archdiocese
and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) – a group about
which little was known in
2002. One of the new members was David S. Fishback, a
relatively new PFLAG dad
whose children had graduated from MCPS, and had been
active in a variety of MCPS
matters (including as a PTA Co-President) going
back to 1984. Asked, in
2002, by a local newspaper about the statement by the then-chair of
the Advisory Committee that the appointment of a PFOX representative was a
“slap in
the face,” Mr. Fishback
commented that “[w]hen people of good will sit down together
with . . . open mind[s], a
lot more can be accomplished than some people think.”
In late 2002, the
then-chair of the CAC retired from his position, and Mr.
Fishback was elected chair.
MCPS staff had decided to set up a working group of health
teachers, guidance
counselors, school psychologists, etc. to develop additions to the 8th
1 For more details on this and the next section, including
5
examples of what went on
during the CAC deliberations,
see the presentations made
by Mr. Fishback to the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education (2005)
(Attachment A) and the
Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (2006) (Attachment B).
and 10th Grade health curriculum on
sexual orientation in the Summer of 2003, and asked
the CAC Chair to appoint
members of the CAC to join that working group. Mr. Fishback,
seeking balance, appointed
a conservative member, Henrietta Brown as well as a PFLAG
representative to join the
working group.
The working group developed
a draft of the curriculum revisions, which included
descriptions of the
mainstream health professionals’ consensus on sexual orientation.
During the extensive
deliberations Ms. Brown presented materials from the National
Association for Research
and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group with which
none of the other working
group members were familiar; after examination of the
NARTH materials, all the
other members of the working group rejected NARTH’s
assertions, which were not
supported by any valid data.
The staff recommendations
were presented to the CAC in the autumn of 2003.
Ms. Brown and the PFOX
representative, along with Michelle Turner, an at-large
representative, vigorously
opposed the recommendations. They were given every
opportunity to convince
other members of the CAC that their views were valid. They
presented hundreds of pages
of materials from groups like NARTH at each meeting.
Because the materials were
so extensive, the CAC imposed a rule that all such materials
had to be presented in
advance of the monthly meetings, so that other members would
have the opportunity to
examine them. Mr. Fishback did extensive research into those
materials,
and provided responses at the meetings. What the other members of the CAC
concluded was that the
materials presented by Ms. Brown and the PFOX representative –
which focused heavily on
the propositions that no one or hardly anyone was really gay, or
that if people identified
themselves as gay that they could change their sexual orientation
-- were filled with
misrepresentations, and did not warrant inclusion in the curriculum.
In one instance, Ms. Brown
characterized the research of a University of
Pennsylvania medical school
professor as concluding that gay men were generally
pedophiles and that
children were “turned gay” by contact with such men. Mr. Fishback
read the entire study that
was being cited, found that it did not say any such thing, and
contacted the professor,
who confirmed this assessment and authorized him to convey
that to the CAC. Ms. Brown
also cited “studies” done by allegedly objective researchers,
but the CAC discovered that
the authors were not qualified experts and were publishing
in non-peer reviewed
publications that were simply fronts for outfits like Focus on the
Family. By thoroughly
examining their allegations, the CAC was able to determine that
all the attacks on the
draft curriculum were bogus. Ms. Brown audio-taped every meeting,
presumably to provide
evidence of bias in the event that she was unsuccessful; Mr.
Fishback then began taping
the meetings, as well.
As the CAC was completing
its work on the proposed revised curriculum in
Spring 2004, Ms. Brown, Ms.
Turner, and the PFOX representative wrote letters to the
largest circulation local
weekly newspaper (the Gazette) and the Board of Education
accusing the CAC generally,
and Mr. Fishback in particular, of unfair bias. However,
even with every word of the
meetings on tape, they were unable to cite any evidence to
support their allegations.
The letter to the Gazette contained such vitriolic attacks that the
6
newspaper, rather than
publishing it, contacted Mr. Fishback and other CAC members for
interviews and wrote a
fair description of what had occurred. (The article also highlighted
another tactic of the
opposition: to endlessly debate everything, and to re-raise issues that
had already been resolved.
Since the CAC met for only for two hours, once a month, a
failure to conclude the
curriculum review by the end of the school year would have
delayed any action, since,
at that time, no action could be taken on sexuality education
changes without the review
and recommendations of the CAC, and the staff report on the
recommendations was always
completed over the summer. One CAC member described
it as “filibustering.”)
Over time, it became clear
that the opposition’s attacks on any progress in this
area would be rife
with ad hominem attacks and unsupportable allegations. After many
months of debate on the
proposed staff revisions and some recommendations for
improvement by the CAC, Mr.
Fishback was assigned the responsibility of drafting the
CAC report to the Board of
Education, recommending adoption. Mr. Fishback offered the
dissenters on the CAC the
opportunity to prepare a minority report. This offer was
declined. The MCPS staff’s
recommendations, along with the CAC report, were
presented to the Board in
the autumn of 2004. There was no full-scale revamping of the
curriculum. Rather, a few
definitions of sexual orientations and gender identity were
added, along with a few
basic statements, which were summarized in Mr. Fishback’s
testimony presenting the
report
(Attachment
C, 11/9/04 testimony):
That "all major
professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a
mental disorder", that "most experts in the field have concluded that
sexual orientation is not a choice", that "different religions take
different stands on sexual behaviors and there are even different views among
people of the same religion", that "having homosexual
parents/guardians does not predispose you to being homosexual", and that
there are families in our community headed by same-sex couples.
At the Board’s November 9,
2004 meeting, the Superintendent declared that these
additions to the health
education curriculum were “long overdue,” and the Board
unanimously adopted them.
Immediately, there was an
onslaught of criticism on right-wing talk radio shows
and in other venues,
attacking the recommendations as a “gay agenda” conspiracy and
accusing the Board of
developing it without any community notice or opportunity for the
consideration of dissenting
viewpoints, even though this accusation was demonstrably
false.2
2
The attacks also included
criticism of a proposed condom demonstration video, which the Board had ordered
in
November 2002 for use in
the high school health education classes, which had, for many years, included
general
information on condoms;
there was much concern about the dangers of unprotected sexual activity,
including the
unwanted pregnancies and
transmission of sexually transmitted infections.
7
One of the dissenting
members of the CAC, Michelle Turner, established a group
first calling itself
RecallMongtomerySchoolBoard.org, and later, after discovering that
there was no legal
mechanism for recall, calling itself Citizens for a Responsible
Curriculum (CRC) to oppose
the revisions. CRC held a community meeting at a local
high school, where the
rhetoric was so inflammatory that a group of parents (who
previously had no
association with LGBT issues) formed a rival group,
TeachtheFacts.org. CRC
then grabbed the web domain name Teachthefacts.com to
redirect any searches to
the CRC’s website, which was named MCPScurriculum.com; yet
another indication of the
underhanded approaches it would take to the public debate.
Then a very interesting thing
happened. Typically, people only write or call a
government agency when they
object to something the agency has done. In this instance
the calls and letters to
the Board ran something like 5 to 1 in favor of the proposed
curriculum revisions (and
the condom demonstration video). Some of this came from
community mobilization, but
much of it was purely spontaneous. And some of the
support came
from groups that the opposition liked to think were its natural
allies.
2005:
COUNTERATTACK FROM ANTI-GAY FORCES
Throughout the winter,
local right-wing talk radio tried to drum up opposition,
and our opponents were able
to get items in the major local daily newspapers: the
Washington
Post, the Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner.
In January, PFOX rented
a billboard near the MCPS headquarters touting
“reparative therapy.” In
February, petitions were circulated in
Catholic Churches in the
County opposing the
curriculum revisions.3
In March 2005, CRC sought
to have a mass community meeting to oppose the
revisions, but could not
find a single local public official to attend as a speaker. Instead,
they brought in officials
from Focus on the Family-related groups like the Family
Research Council, Take Back
Maryland, and Concerned Women of America (whose
representative, oddly, was
a man), as well as a notoriously homophobic state legislator
from another part of
Maryland. A CRC spokesman tried to distance the organization from
many of the comments made
by the speakers, even though it was clear in advance want
the speakers would say.
The speeches may be found
here.
3 For a useful response to the Archdiocese’s arguments against the
curriculum, see Mr. Fishback’s response on
the Teachthefacts.org blog.
(It is noteworthy that one
of the speakers, Family Research Council executive Peter
Sprigg, several years
later, stated on national television that consensual adult
same-sex activity should be criminalized and that the United States should
"export homosexuals.")
Through the winter and
early spring of 2005, CRC argued that the Board of
Education should negotiate
with it about the revisions before any piloting (scheduled for
8
May 2005) would start, and
publically stated that it would not try to use the courts to
derail the process.
Subsequently e-mails, that inadvertently were made public, revealed
that CRC was
surreptitiously planning litigation from the outset.
What
happened next was a shocking setback.
Just days before the
curriculum revisions were to be piloted in six county schools,
CRC and PFOX, through Jerry
Falwell's Liberty Counsel, filed a 43-page complaint in
the federal district court
seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to halt the piloting. The
complaint was rife with
factual misrepresentations about the revisions and the applicable
law. The complaint asserted
that the curriculum included attacks on particular religious
beliefs, even though this
was demonstrably untrue: The only thing the curriculum said
about religion was that
“Different religions take different stands on sexual behaviors and
there are even different
views among people of the same religion”; while one of the
background teacher
resources provided by the MCPS staff – which teachers were
instructed to not bring
into the discussion – said some critical things about anti-gay
theologies, it was
clearly not part of the curriculum. See 8th Grade Pilot Curriculum and
10th Grade Pilot
Curriculum. More significantly, the complaint asserted that the
plaintiffs’ First Amendment
rights were abridged because their “side” of the
“controversy” about sexual
orientation was not presented.
With only a few days to
respond, the Board of Education was caught flatfooted
and the judge, who was also
a Baptist minister, granted the order on May 5, buying into
not only the
factual misrepresentations, but also the incorrect legal argument: the
unprecedented idea that the
United States Constitution required all sides of any dispute to
be presented in a public
school curriculum -- a doctrine which had been specifically
rejected a decade earlier
by the United States Supreme Court. See Rosenberger v.
Trustees of the University
of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995)
(“When [a public
educational institution]
determines the content of the education it provides, it is the
[school] speaking, and we
have permitted the government to regulate the content of what
is or is not expressed if
it is the speaker. . . . [W]hen the government along speaks, it need
not remain neutral as to
viewpoint.”
But rather than fight the
lawsuit – which, given the judge's reputation for being
very slow to issue final
decisions that could be appealed, would have tied things up in
expensive litigation for
years – the Superintendent, on May 12, announced that MCPS
was scrapping the
revisions, while entering into settlement discussions with CRC and
PFOX. In the meantime, CRC
sought (unsuccessfully) to intimidate opponents into
silence and misused
PTA resources to seek to mislead parents.4
Then, on May 23, the
Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendation to
discharge all members of
the CAC and start the process over again. We then regrouped
and worked to make certain
that this would only be a temporary setback.
44 CRC’s misuse of PTA resources continued to be
a problem in the ensuing
years. 9
In late June, the Board
entered into a settlement agreement, scrapping the
curriculum revisions and
agreeing to appoint members of CRC and PFOX to the new 15-
member CAC (although there
had already been members of PFOX and the CRC on the
earlier 25-member CAC). In
the settlement agreement, the Board reserved the right to
make curriculum decisions.
See here and here.
In the next several months,
MCPS did nothing public, other than to pass a
resolution establishing the
framework for a new Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) – a
CAC which could not, by
rule, include any former members of the CAC.
Throughout the summer of
2005, the opposition brought in a series of speakers to Board
public comment periods to
make presentations misstating what had been in the proposed
revised curriculum, saying
scurrilous things about gay people, presenting then-PFOX
President Richard Cohen
(who was subsequently exposed as such a fraud that he was
expelled from the American
Counseling Association (ACA) and later became such an
embarrassment
that PFOX removed him as its president), and presenting an alleged “ex-
gay” (who we eventually
discovered was imported from New Jersey, where he was a paid
ex-gay organizer).
Mr.
Fishback responded to the Board, pointing out that Richard Cohen had
been
expelled from the ACA and presenting all
the specifics on what the mainstream medical
and mental health
professional associations say about sexual orientation. He also took on
a Washington Times editorial, which had
mischaracterized the events in Montgomery
County, and, after
some back and forth with the Times, resulted in the Times’
publication of his letter
in response.
The opposition sought to
use a local cable access show to present a one-sided
view of the controversy,
including participation by Mr. Cohen, but when the line-up of
speakers became public, the
producers invited Mr. Fishback and State Delegate Anne
Kaiser to balance the
discussion. The opposition then backed out, and the taping was
cancelled.
The Teachthefacts.org
Vigilance blog, written by Jim Kennedy, provided a
continuous stream of useful
analyses, posted an article from The Nation on the
controversy, and at the end
of the year presented a useful summary of what had
transpired. In September
2005, Teachthefacts.org sponsored a well-attended forum, at
which all the issues were
fully aired. Among the speakers were Dr. Paul Wertsch, a
PFLAG dad from Wisconsin,
who spoke about the American Medical Association’s
important statements on
sexual orientation; Deborah Roffman, a prominent sexuality
education expert; and Robert
Rigby, Jr., a survivor of “reparative therapy.” There was
extensive media
coverage of the forum, which helped us to counter the messages sought
to be pushed by the
opposition, and also enabled us to keep the issues before the Board
and the public.
Still, action from MCPS
seemed, at least from the outside, to be slow, and it was
not at all clear that the
Superintendent was taking any actions to secure experts to consult
10
on a new curriculum –
something he had asserted publically he would do. Finally, in late
summer 2005, the former
Vice Chair of the CAC, Dr. Lara Akinbami, a pediatrician,
arranged to have the
Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics offer its
services as consultant to
MCPS, and that offer was accepted.
Then, on October 24, the
Board announced most of the membership of the new
CAC. The CAC included, per
the June settlement agreement, Peter Sprigg representing
PFOX, but also included
Emily Wurst from PFLAG Metro DC and Teachthefacts.org
President Jim Kennedy. Dr.
Carol Plotsky, a well-respected pediatrician (also trained in
law) was designated as the
Chair. CRC objected that the Board had turned down the
nomination of Henrietta
Brown, who previously had been on the CAC (and had been the
practitioner of the
“filibuster” noted by another CAC member in April 2004, supra). The
Board, as noted earlier,
made it clear that it would not appoint past-members of the CAC.
CRC threatened to
sue, but finally relented and appointed another one of its members.
While the CAC’s new mandate
limited its involvement to responding to MCPS
staff suggestions,
the membership of the Committee assured that all issues would be
fully
aired, and, over the next
year, they were. Mr. Fishback attended, as an observer, all of the
new CAC’s meetings, sharing
his experiences from the previous years, including the
earlier materials PFOX
presented and the rebuttals, providing insights to allies as to the
tactics employed by the
opposition, and providing the resources he had amassed over the
preceding two years.
CRC continued to attack our
efforts, and we continued to respond to correct the record.
2006-08:
THE ROAD BACK – PROGRESS, INCOMPLETE
Throughout 2006 and beyond,
all letters to the editor in local papers from CRC
and PFOX were responded to
immediately with letters rebutting their assertions. Mr.
Fishback appeared in a
number of radio and television show debates, made presentations
on local and national
programs supporting the reform efforts. Mr. Kennedy made similar
media appearances and
provided a stream of analysis on the Teachthefacts.org Vigilance
Blog, helping to keep the
wider community informed.
Having concluded that a
major mistake in 2005 was the failure to anticipate a
lawsuit filled with factual
and legal misrepresentations, PFLAG Metro DC – working
withTeachthefacts.org,
PFLAG National, Hayley Gorenberg of Lambda Legal, and a
team of attorneys from the
law firm of WilmerHale led by Jonathan Frankel (now
managing partner of Frankel
PLLC) began to develop a comprehensive defense and
established a working
relationship with the school system attorneys. Key to the defense
was
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
(which includes
Maryland), which confirmed
that public educational institutions are entitled to speak for
themselves in matters of
curriculum, without having to present “all sides,” however
absurd certain sides might
be.
11
In October 2006, the MCPS
staff presented to the CAC its proposed new revisions
for the 8th and 10th Grade Health classes. The
upside of the new revisions was that, rather
than simply including a few
basic statements about sexual orientation as had been done in
2005, they now covered two
entire classroom periods and went into great depth on the
challenges faced by LGBT
students, brought in useful material on transgender people,
and drew on statements from
the American Psychological Association and a textbook
developed for the Los
Angeles County School District. This was a major step
forward.
The downsides were that --
apparently to protect the school system from another
lawsuit -- the lessons were
tightly scripted: teachers were instructed to follow a specific
script and not engage in
discussion that might lead to saying anything that was not in the
script. And the specific
statements set forth in the 2005 revisions – notably, that being
gay is not an illness and
that reparative therapy has been rejected as dangerous by
mainstream medical
professionals – were absent from what was permitted to be said,
again presumably to stave
off a lawsuit.
In the autumn of 2006,
Teachthefacts.org held a candidates forum, at which all
candidates for the Board of
Education seats were asked whether they believed that the
2005 statements should be
in the new curriculum. Four seats were up for election, and all
the winners, incumbents
Patricia O’Neill and Nancy Navarro and open seat candidates
Shirley Brandman and Judy
Docca, announced their support for inclusion of the
statements.
In November 2006, the
overwhelming majority of CAC members voted to
recommend inclusion of most
of those specific statements from the 2005 version (see
here and here –
precisely what the winning Board of Education candidates favored (and
what we understood that all
but one of the carryover members favored). Mr. Fishback
wrote to the Board
supporting the CAC recommendations, explaining why they made
sense and why there was no
legal impediment to their inclusion. (Attachment D, 12/12/06
testimony). But the
Superintendent rejected the recommendations, presenting his
proposals without any of
those recommended changes (see here, here, here, and here)
and
inexplicably telling the
Board that the statements did “not align with the target objectives
of the lessons” (at
115, 128-29 and 131).
This difference created
significant controversy. See here. During public comments at
the Board’s January 9, 2007 meeting, Mr.
Fishback, now a member of the PFLAG Metro DC Board, vigorously
urged inclusion of the CAC recommendations, again explaining why there was
no legal impediment. In response, Board member Steve Abrams, one of
the carryover members, threatened to vote
against the proposal if any of the CAC statements were added, thus
depriving the Board of unanimity that Mr. Abrams asserted was needed to resist
another lawsuit. Board member Patricia
O’Neill moved to include the statement that being gay is not an illness.
The motion failed on a 4-4 vote, although some of those voting “No” said they would revisit it in June 2007, following
piloting of the classes in a few schools.
The Board then voted unanimously to pilot the new revisions.
See here and here.
12
The debate
continued through the winter and spring, and it continued to be the
subject of media
attention. One illustration of the intensity of the discussion was a
locally-televised debate
between Mr. Fishback and the head of CRC, John Garza. See
here and here. Another
was reflected in an opposition March 2007 letter to the
Washington Post, and CAC
Chair Dr. Plotsky’s response.
There continued to
be concerns about the inadequacy of the proposed curriculum,
for while the new revisions
went farther and deeper in many respects than the 2005
version (and this was a
very good thing), it omitted key information, and the tight
scripting was problematic,
to say the least, in terms of effective teaching and learning.
Through the month of May
2007 and into early June, Mr. Fishback engaged in vigorous private discussions
with all the Board members except for Mr. Abrams (who
clearly was not going to
budge) and other opinion leaders in the community, including
officials of the Montgomery
County Teachers Association (MCEA, the teachers’ union,
which had developed a very
cooperative relationship with the Board and the
Superintendent, and was
supportive), urging inclusion of the 2006 CAC
recommendations. Following
the piloting and comments from stakeholders in the Spring
of 2007, the Superintendent
still did not make any changes, presenting his proposal to the
CAC only a short time
before it was to be presented to the Board. The CAC reiterated its
2006 recommended additions,
but, once again, the Superintendent declined to incorporate
them into the curriculum
he submitted to the Board for its June 12 meeting.
The night before the June
12 meeting, however -- following individual
discussions by Board
members with the Superintendent and a June 7 Washington Post
article on the
Superintendent’s disagreement with the CAC -- the Superintendent finally agreed
to propose an “extension” to the curriculum, in which, if a student
asked if being
gay were an illness, the
teacher should say that it is not – that the American Psychiatric
Association says it is not.
This was a useful, albeit not sufficient, step. After a contentious
meeting on June 12, at
which Mr. Abrams accused the Superintendent of going back on
an agreement to make no
changes in the curriculum, and the Superintendent passionately
responded that the
school system owed students this answer, the Board passed the revised
curriculum with only Mr.
Abrams dissenting. See also here and here (Board minutes at
pp. 33-35)
PFLAG Metro DC supported
the revisions, but made it clear that they were still
inadequate, and urged
reassessment after the first year of implementation (Attachment E,
6/12/07 testimony). And
PFLAG Metro DC continued to support the Board’s action
against attacks from those
opposing any LGBT-affirming curriculum.
Unfortunately, the
Superintendent made it clear, through his staff, that he had no
intention of dealing again
with the curriculum during his term of office, which extended
through the end of the 2010-11
school year. Our assumption was that he was still afraid
of a lawsuit, even though
we had demonstrated that the law and, significantly, the 2007-
08 litigation (discussed
below) eliminated any danger of significant litigation, because the
legal issue was now
settled. The tightly-scripted nature of the curriculum (unlike the rest
13
of the curriculum, which
did not have such strictures) and the gaping absence of key
information about being gay
as an illness (many students would be too afraid to ask, and
others needed to have that
information even if they themselves were not gay) and total
silence on reparative
therapies made these deficiencies quite serious. The “charge” to the
new CAC made it clear that
it was barred from proactively suggesting anything, so any
action to improve or alter
in any way the health education curriculum would have to be
initiated by the
Superintendent, who simply refused to do so. Even though all members of
the Board of Education
agreed with PFLAG substantively (Mr. Abrams was defeated in
his reelection bid in
2008), they did not want to challenge the Superintendent. And they,
too, may have been
concerned about the expense of another round of litigation.
As is described below,
PFLAG found ways to keep the issue alive during this
period of “benign neglect.”
2007-08 LITIGATION: LAYING
TO REST ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE
LEGALITY OF HEALTH
EDUCATION CURRICULUM BASED ON
WISDOM OF MAINSTREAM
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS
In February 2007 (shortly
after the Board approved the second revised health
education curriculum for
piloting), CRC, PFOX and a group calling itself the Family
Leader
Network (FLN) asked the state superintendent of education to
block the piloting
as the federal judge had
done in 2005.
This time our side was
ready, and both the school system and PFLAG Metro DC
filed effective,
comprehensive arguments in opposition to the CRC/PFOX/FLN request.
(Attachment F, 3/1/07
letter). In March 2007, the state superintendent denied the request.
CRC/PFOX/FLN appealed to
the State Board of Education, using the same arguments
they made in 2005. PFLAG
Metro DC again filed papers opposing the request.
Following the County
Board’s June approval of the revised curriculum,
CRC/PFOX/FLN reasserted
their request to the State Board of Education to block the
curriculum. Later that
month, the State Board of Education rejected the CRC/PFOX/FLN
request without a single
dissenting vote.
The opposition – now
represented by the Thomas More Legal Center – brought
suit in Montgomery County
Circuit Court. See here and here. As noted above, Hayley
Gorenberg of Lambda Legal
and the attorneys from WilmerHale led by Jon Frankel
represented PFLAG Metro DC
as an amicus curiae (Attachment G, PFLAG Metro DC
court filing), and Mr.
Frankel ably presented oral argument before the Court. In January
2008, the Court
resoundingly dismissed the claims (here and here), and there
was no
appeal. This was a major victory, because it confirmed the very basic proposition that
MCPS could decide to use material from mainstream medical and mental
health professional associations as the basis for its health curriculum,
without having to include PFOX-supported material.
14
Teachthefacts.org
was honored at PFLAG Metro DC’s annual gala in March 2008. CRC and PFOX continued to try to make its case in the media,
and PFLAG Metro DC continued to rebut
it. And, on local television, PFLAG Metro DC continued to debate the “reparative therapy” advocates.
INTERLUDE:
2010 BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTION
The opposition continued to
fail to gain any traction in the court of public opinion
in Montgomery County. They
did, however, take a run at getting one of its members
elected to the Board of
Education, through a stealth campaign in 2010.
In Montgomery County, all
Board positions are voted on “at-large,” even though
most candidates must reside
in different districts. The District 5 member had resigned
when she was elected to the
County Council, and the Board appointed a recently-retired
high school principal,
Michael Durso, to complete her term. Mr. Durso was a supporter of
our position on health
education. But he had never run for political office and had no
“organization” of
supporters (although he was very popular and well-respected among
those who knew him). Mr.
Durso decided to stand for election, and a number of others
also signed up to run. In
the first round of voting, the Washington Post endorsed one of
the challengers, making Mr.
Durso potentially vulnerable. That challenger did not make it
through the first round of
voting. The two remaining candidates were Mr. Durso and a
former high school PTSA
President named Martha Schaerr. Ms. Schaerr had a very
professionally-constructed
website, saying nothing “controversial,” and campaigning as a
“fresh face.”
Mr. Fishback recognized her,
recalling a conversation he had had with her after a
Board of Education meeting
several years earlier, and then recalled that she had been the
PTSA President who, in
2007, had sought to have a “forum” on the health education
revisions at her high school
by inviting – and only inviting – the CRC representative on
the CAC to speak. Jim
Kennedy of Teachthefacts.org, who was then a member of the
CAC, was alerted to this
event, and arranged to have other CAC members, including the
Chair, to attend, as well,
thus diffusing a one-sided attempt to subvert the revisions.
Mr. Fishback also
discovered that Ms. Schaerr was a board member of the Family
Leader Network, which had
been part of the 2007-08 litigation against MCPS, and that
her husband was board chair
of the Family Leader Network. (In 2014, Mr. Schaerr left
his partnership at a
major Washington, DC law firm to go to Utah to head up Utah’s
defense of its unequal
marriage statute.)
Mr. Fishback publicized
these connections – which were not disclosed in any of
Ms. Schaerr’s campaign
literature or statements. He responded to discussions of the
election on community
blogs; responded to reports on local on-line local newspapers that
had not pointed out (and
likely were not aware of) her history; wrote letters to local
newspapers; brought up Ms.
Schaerr’s history at campaign forums; enabled the MCEA to
15
inform the teachers
about Ms. Schaerr; and presented the facts to reporters, leading to
accurate articles in
the Washington Post, the local Gazette, and the on-line version of the
local ABC outlet.
On October 26, 2010,
the Washington Post, which earlier had endorsed one of
Mr. Durso’s opponents,
now endorsed Mr. Durso, noting that it was “troubled by [Ms.
Schaerr’s] involvement in a
group hostile to gay rights. She is also a member of the board
of the Family Leader
Network, one of the groups that sued Montgomery school officials
in an unsuccessful effort
to block a new sexual education curriculum that dealt
forthrightly with sexual
orientation.”
Mr. Durso defeated Ms.
Schaerr overwhelmingly, and the other incumbents who
were supportive of
LGBT-affirming curriculum were also reelected overwhelmingly.
2008-11: GUIDANCE OFFICES,
FLYERS, AND EFFORTS TO HAVE THE
CURRICULUM REVISITED AND
IMPROVED
While the Board was not
prepared to challenge the Superintendent on the
curriculum, we did find an
avenue to improve the MCPS climate. We had heard reports
that the Department of
Student Services (DSS, the guidance counselors and school
psychologists) had removed
useful resources on sexual orientation in 2006, following
complaints from the
CRC/PFOX people, and that now there was significant confusion as
to what the guidance
counselors could use.
So in the summer of 2008
(once it became clear that the Superintendent was not going to revisit the
curriculum), we began working with a strong Board ally to assure that the DSS
could use mainstream medical and mental health resources. In particular, we
suggested the American Psychological Association’s Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth, the publication from the
American Psychological Associationdiscussed at the beginning
of this report, be a principal resource along with other materials, including the excellent American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) Guidance for
the Clinician on Sexual
Orientation. This effort was
successful, and we were able to
inform all the high school
GSA sponsors of this development in April 2009. (Attachment
H, Metro DC PFLAG
memorandum to GSA sponsors, 4/27/09).
In addition to this
important step in making MCPS a safe and comfortable place
for LGBT students, the
information provided by the DSS also established that the DSS
side of the MCPS house
officially accepted the mainstream wisdom, thus heightening the
disconnect with the gaps in
the curriculum. In 2012, when concerns were
raised that pupil personnel workers were not aware of the resources or
insufficiently trained, DSS hired an
excellent trainer, Sue
Garner, a retired school psychologist from Howard County MD, who is also active
in the PFLAG Columbia/Howard County Chapter, to provide training.
Still, the problems with
the curriculum’s silence (or near silence) on key issues
was heightened by
periodic distributions of PFOX flyers touting “reparative therapy”
16
notions in some high
schools, starting in October 2006 and nearly every year for the next
six years. PFOX was
entitled to do such distributions because, in another context, the
United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had ruled that MCPS could not
discriminate based on viewpoint
with respect to flyer distributions by outside non-profit
groups.
Initially, the flyers were
quite specific in their advocacy of such notions; later,
they became more veiled,
but the purpose was still unmistakable. At first, media coverage
was only in minor weekly
newspapers, which noted how upset people were about the
distributions. There was
always grave concern from schools about the PFOX flyers, and
many students made a point
of throwing them out; in some schools, trash cans were set
up for that purpose. Mr.
Fishback explained in public forums that the Board of Education
appeared to be bound by the
Fourth Circuit decision, unless the distribution program were
eliminated; he also
explained that those distributions made it all the more important that
the CAC recommendations
about illness and reparative therapy be included in the health
curriculum.
Understanding that the
absence of an MCPS substantive response to the flyers
created a potentially grave
and harmful situation, Metro DC PFLAG distributed flyers of
its own, rebutting the PFOX
notions. In 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, PFLAG
Metro DC, working with
Teachthfacts.org and a number of GSA faculty sponsors and
later the Rainbow
Youth Alliance, countered the PFOX flyers (which had been
distributed at a handful of
high schools) by distributing flyers at all MCPS high schools.
Indeed, each time such
“flyer wars” took place, PFLAG Metro DC informed the Board
that the Board’s decision
to continue the flyer distribution program made it incumbent on
MCPS to cure the
deficiencies in the curriculum.
The Washington Post covered
the PFOX flyer distributions for the first time in
February 2010. Resentment
in the schools increased as more and more schools were
targeted by PFOX, and later
that month Mr. Fishback for PFLAG Metro DC and
Stephanie Kreps (another
PFLAG parent) for the Rainbow Youth Alliance wrote a letter
to the
Board explaining the full nature of the potential harm caused by the
flyers. In April
2010, Mr. Fishback wrote
to, and testified before, the Board stating that because “MCPS has
chosen to continue the flyer distribution program, we believe that it has a
heightened
responsibility to deal with
the PFOX misrepresentations,” and urging that the Board add
the CAC 2006
recommendations to the health education curriculum. As noted above, it
had become clear that the
Superintendent would not act, and that the Board would not
challenge him. But it was
also becoming clear that the Superintendent would not likely be
continuing at the end of
his contract in 2011, so it was imperative to keep the issues
before the Board – all of
whose members were in agreement with us on the substance.
In August 2010, the
Superintendent announced that he would not seek renewal of
his contract. The next
month, at the urging of Mr. Fishback and Dr. Akinbami, the
Superintendent’s own
advisors the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) wrote to
the Superintendent and the Board urging inclusion of the CAC
17
2007 recommendations, thus
giving the Superintendent an opportunity to revisit the
curriculum (Attachment I,
AAP letter, 9/28/10); but the letter was ignored.
In April 2011, with a new
Superintendent scheduled to arrive in June, Mr.
Fishback worked with CAC
members to reiterate their 2006 and 2007 recommendations,
in order to have those
recommendations on the record for the transition. This was a
difficult process, since
the rules imposed on the CAC theoretically prevented it from
taking any proactive steps
– it could only respond to the Superintendent’s staff. After
some resistance from the
staff, the CAC Chair, Dr. Plotsky, firmly asserted the CAC’s
right to recommend, and the
staff did not prevent the CAC from making an affirmative
recommendation. Peter
Sprigg of PFOX and the Family Research Council (who was still
a member of the CAC) made
veiled threats of more lawsuits if such changes were made,
but the full CAC
overwhelmingly approved the recommendation. PFOX then accused the
CAC of acting in an abusive
and discriminatory manner, and particularly singled out Mr.
Fishback for harsh
criticism, and concluded by urging that its views about “ex-gays”
should be included in
the curriculum.
Mr. Fishback reported the
CAC’s recommendations to the Board (Attachment J, 4/22/11 letter), since there
was no official mechanism for the staff to provide it until the following autumn, and it was unlikely that the out-going
Superintendent was going to pass the recommendation along before he left.
JUNE 2011
TO NOVEMBER 2012: PROGRESS AND DETOUR – FLYER WARS
In the spring of 2011, the
Board announced the appointment of Joshua Starr, the
young superintendent of the
Stamford, Connecticut public school system, to be the new
Montgomery County
superintendent. Mr. Fishback contacted Stamford PFLAGers, who
were very positive about
him. PFLAG Metro DC provided background materials to his
transition team in Summer
2011, but received no response. Taking over a large
bureaucracy like that at
MCPS was clearly a big job, with lots of issues other than health
education policy, so we
initially bided our time. We were assured by a strong ally on the
Board that this issue would
be raised with him in early 2012.
Very quickly, there
appeared to be challenges stemming from holdovers from the
previous administration who
shared the former Superintendent’s fear of making any
changes to the curriculum.
At the first meeting of the CAC in Autumn 2012, a top
holdover administrator, in
briefing the new members of the CAC (Dr. Plotsky had
stepped down after nearly
six years of service), boasted of how tightly scripted the
Respect for Differences in
Human Sexuality units were. And it took
considerable effort to
find a copy of the annual
report from the staff to the Board, which included the 2010-11
CAC’s work. In the past,
CAC recommendations were presented to the Board, but the
September 2011 report was
so vague that it was impossible to determine on its face what
was being reported. Indeed,
allies on the Board, having received it, reported to Mr.
Fishback that they were not
aware that the staff had hidden the CAC suggestions. It
18
seemed very possible that
the key holdover staff was simply not presenting the issue to
Dr. Starr.
Then PFOX came back into
the picture. The Board declined to appoint Peter
Sprigg to another term on
the CAC, and he received, as did other outgoing members, a
form thank you letter
signed by Dr. Starr. PFOX then, in a website post (later taken
down), characterized the
form letter as an endorsement by Dr. Starr of Mr. Sprigg’s
views (and also
misrepresented an action of the CAC). When this was brought to Dr.
Starr’s attention, his
chief of staff wrote to PFOX’s executive director as follows:
We have
received a number of emails from people who are concerned about
information you posted on your blog regarding the standard letter that
Dr. Starr
sent to
Mr. Peter Sprigg thanking him for his service on the Citizens Advisory
Committee on Family Life and Human Development. Some are concerned that
Dr.
Starr’s letter is singling out Mr. Sprigg for praise and is being
misinterpreted
as an
endorsement of PFOX and its beliefs and issues.
Let me
be clear, Mr. Sprigg received the same thank you that Dr. Starr sent to all
members
of the committee who completed their service this spring. Dr. Starr
was in
no way singling out Mr. Sprigg for special recognition. Any effort on your
part to
portray this simple thank you as an endorsement of PFOX or its
perspective is misguided and should cease.
Dr. Starr does not endorse nor agree with the views represented by
PFOX.
On February 4, 2012, the
Montgomery County Office of Human Rights’
Committee on Hate Violence,
held an event entitled Bullying in Schools: A
Community
Symposium on Prevention and
Intervention Strategies, with Dr. Starr, other
MCPS
officials, and a high
school GSA leader on the symposium’s panel. PFLAG Metro DC
attended with a table with
information (including a flyer explaining the need for
curriculum improvements
(Attachment K, Metro DC PFLAG flyer, 2/4/12) and raising
the issue during the
questions and answer period (although Dr. Starr left before that
period). In post-event
discussions, it became clear that MCPS Department of Student
Services (DSS) leaders
agreed with us.
Then, before members of the
Board were able to urge prompt action on health
education curriculum
changes, a new round of PFOX flyers – and Dr. Starr’s public
response to PFOX –
dominated the discussion. Around the first of February 2012, PFOX
distributed flyers in
several high schools, and there were a number of parent and student
complaints. Then, a few
days after the distributions, Dr. Starr was asked about the flyers
by a student during a
televised forum at Wootton High School, and responded as follows:
I find
the actions of PFOX to be reprehensible and deplorable, but we are bound
by law
to enable non-profits to distribute fliers four times per year. We can’t
really
do much about it unless we cut off all flier distribution. This group has
19
figured
out a way to use that law to spread what I find to be a really disgusting
message.
(In addition to local
Montgomery County coverage, this was also reported by the
Washington Post.)
The story quickly hit
the national media.
The Board of Education
immediately decided to consider whether to cut off the
flyer distribution program,
and then decided to investigate how much the program was
used before making a
decision.
PFLAG Metro DC used the
opportunity to point out that there was, in fact,
something that MCPS could
do other than end all flyer distributions: On PFLAG Metro
DC’s blog and
in e-blasts, in Mr. Fishback’s Letter to the Editor in the Gazette,
and in his
letters and testimony to
the Board of Education (Attachment L, 2/17/12 Testimony and
letter, 2/27/12), PFLAG
Metro DC explained that MCPS could and should add material
to the health education
curriculum that would rebut the PFOX message. The Gazette
published
a letter from another PFLAG Metro DC Board Member explaining why the
PFOX message was so
dangerous.
PFOX, of course, attacked
Dr. Starr in a letter to the Gazette. As did Peter Sprigg
in an op-ed in the Washington Times.
On March, a local
television program, News Talk, had Mr. Fishback and Mr.
Sprigg discuss the issues
surrounding the PFOX flyer and message. In a spirited half-hour
debate (which was then
covered in some local media), the arguments of both sides were
clearly set forth. A
shorter version of the debate was illustrated in Letters to the Editor of
the Washington Post by Mr.
Sprigg and Mr. Fishback, also in mid-March.
Through March and April,
PFLAG Metro DC took the lead in working with the
Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC), the Equality Maryland (EQMD) Foundation, The
Trevor
Project, Rainbow Youth Alliance, the Rockville Open House to
develop, produce,
and then distribute nearly
50,000 flyers in all 25 of Montgomery County’s high schools.
The considerable cost for
printing of the flyers was defrayed by SPLC, EQMD
Foundation, and PFLAG
National. The distribution was done by a team of Montgomery
County residents, including
PFLAGers, Teachthefacts.org members, Rainbow Youth
Alllance members, and GSA
sponsors. This effort received positive media coverage in
the Washington Post (see here and here)
and in the Gazette. (Note that the PFLAG flyer
sets forth the basic
information that advocates can use in efforts in their own
communities.)
A Board of Education
committee did a survey of the MCPS schools, and
discovered that the flyer
program, while used widely in the elementary schools, was used
only sparsely in the
secondary schools. As a result of that survey, it decided, in June
2012, to eliminate the
flyer distribution program in the secondary schools. See also here.
20
In May, PFOX continued its
harassment of Superintendent Starr, filing a
complaint against him
with the Board of Education, alleging that he had violated the
MCPS non-discrimination
rules by his statements about PFOX that February. The
frivolous complaint was
dismissed. And in December 2013, PFOX filed similar
complaints with the
federal Departments of Justice and Education; those complaints went
nowhere.
We had hoped that this
discussion about PFOX would help stimulate the school
system to finally grapple
with the curriculum. In addition to our continued advocacy in
the winter and spring of
2012 (Attachment M, 5/20/12 letter), the Montgomery County
Commission on Children and
Youth, after conducting a symposium on the problems
faced by LGBT youth in the
County, invited Mr. Fishback and Ms. Kreps of the Rainbow
Youth Alliance to address
it. At the end of the meeting, the Commission sent a letter
(Attachment N, 6/15/12
letter) to MCPS urging the curriculum improvements.
But the staff responses
were variations of the responses made under the previous
Superintendent, essentially
declining to make or consider any changes. (Attachment O,
6/25/12 testimony with
attachments).
What we discovered later
was that the flyer dispute essentially absorbed all the
oxygen, and that holdover
bureaucrats from the ancient regime were still controlling the
message. Our challenge was
to figure out how to proceed.
One Board member privately
explained that it would be easier to deal with the
issue once the Maryland
marriage equality referendum, which was up for a vote that
November, had been won.
Indeed, PFLAG Metro DC was part of the statewide coalition
working on the referendum,
and Mr. Fishback gave us visibility in a WUSA television
debate with a
conservative talk show host on the day that President Obama announced the
completion of his
evolution, and in rebutting a prominent Gazette columnist.5
So we focused our efforts
on the Marriage Equality Referendum until the
November 2012 victory in
Maryland. (In Montgomery County, 66% of the voters
approved Civil Marriage
Equality). We also attended a Board of Education candidate
general election forum, and
received confirmation from all the candidates (not only the
two incumbents who won, and
the winner of an open seat, but also the losers) that they
substantively agreed with
us.
It seemed clear that
Superintendent Starr also substantively agreed with us, but we
did not know whether, with
so much on his plate, that he had made sufficient progress in
placing like-minded people
in key administrative positions, thus removing bureaucratic
impediments, to take the
next steps; or whether, if there were still holdovers who shared
5 Indeed, through this entire period, PFLAG Metro DC took advantage
of opportunities to use local media to advocate on other LGBT issues and to
foster a general atmosphere of understanding. See, for example, letters to the
editor
on local candidates'
support for civil marriage equality, Fairfax County VA library decisions,
and testimony on Montgomery County government contracting rules; and
television appearances on "reparative therapy", civil
marriage equality, Apple Apps, and a local sports figure's statements
about the sexual orientation of another sports figure.
21
the mind-set of the former
Superintendent, Dr. Starr was ready to expend internal
political capital to act.
JANUARY
2013 TO JUNE 2014: THE FINAL PUSH AND VICTORY
So, after years of pressing
for an adequate curriculum, getting close, and then
being stymied, we
approached 2013 with a combination of anticipation and trepidation.
The question was whether
this would be a priority for the Board and the Superintendent,
and what kind of pressure,
if any, would be needed to get movement.
Our friends at MCEA, who
likely were better plugged into the internal MCPS
dynamics, featured LGBT
issues at its January 5, 2013, “Legislative Breakfast,” attended
by County politicians in
advance of the upcoming General Assembly session in
Annapolis. MCEA invited Mr.
Fishback to attend. The Breakfast included an award to
the Blake High School GSA
for its "Allie the Ally" program, and the GSA sponsor
mentioned the need for
curriculum improvement in her presentation. There was ample
opportunity for networking.
Mr. Fishback brought up the curriculum issue with the new
Board of Education
President. And Mr. Fishback spoke at length with MCEA officials,
following up with a comprehensive
e-mail to the MCEA executive director, laying out
the history of the
curriculum struggles, and noting the following:
"At present, health teachers may address the [question of whether being gay is an illness] only
if asked, and they may not say anything regarding ['reparative therapy"], since the curriculum is
so tightly scripted. As [a teacher from one of the high schools] pointed out to me at the
Legislative Breakfast, we now have a bizarre situation in which guidance counselors and school
psychologists may discuss these matters with students (as may individual teachers who students
might speak with -- like GSA sponsors), but the health teachers are severely limited in class. ****
"From the discussions I have had over the years with the elected Board members, I am confident
that every one of them agrees with the substance of the CAC/AAP/Commission recommendations
It may well be that key people in the MCPS administration -- all of whom, I believe, also agree
with the substance -- are still scarred by the 2005 litigation and would prefer not to deal with the
issue again. They may not fully understand that any possible legal impediments to further action
were swept away by the 2008 decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court, affirming the
right of MCPS to place information from mainstream medical professional associations in the
health education curriculum.
"I believe it is time for Board members and MCEA leadership to speak with Dr. Starr."
At a subsequent meeting
with the new Board of Education President, who had been supportive, but not, as
far as we could tell, been an activist within the Board on the issue, Mr.
Fishback made it clear, as gently as he could, that he had gone out of his way
22
to be supportive of the
Board for many years, even when it did not take the steps that it knew were
right – and that his patience was about to run out if action was not taken
soon. The Board President told Mr. Fishback that he planned to bring the issue
up with his fellow Board members and with the Superintendent in the near
future.
Mr. Fishback continued to
speak with other community leaders, including Bonnie Cullison, a former MCEA
President who was now a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, conveying
the need for prompt action and suggesting that he would go public with his
concerns in a very vigorous way if no action was forthcoming.
Fortunately, we began to
see movement for the first time since 2007. In late April, an MCEA staffer
asked Mr. Fishback for a summary paper on why action could be taken now, which
Mr. Fishback provided. (Attachment P, Memorandum) In May, Board Vice President
Patricia O’Neill, who had been a vocal supporter from the beginning of the
effort in 2002, introduced Resolution 247-13, providing that the superintendent and his staff perform a comprehensive review of
the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Health Education Curriculum, benchmarking with other
districts, reconsider the requirement for the scripted lessons and the
recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human
Development [CAC] report, and bring to the Board of Education proposed changes
so that they may be in place no later than Fall 2014.
The resolution passed
unanimously. See here at pp. 26-29. What apparently had occurred was
that the Superintendent and Board members reached a consensus that the best way
to proceed was to have the Board send a clear message to the Administration
that the Board wanted a revised approach to health education classes and sexual
orientation and gender identity, eliminating the strait jacket of tight
scripting and including the CAC substantive recommendations. This portended a
complete victory.6
In the ensuing months, the
relevant curriculum staffers did all the right things. They consulted with the
new community advisory committee (made up of members of the most recent CAC)
and took into account the background resources used by the Department of
Student Services and background resources Mr. Fishback provided to a member of
the new community advisory committee. They engaged in discussions with students
and health teachers, who uniformly criticized the scripting as pedagogically
unsound.
6 What factors led to this action, after so many years of failure to
make improvements after June 2007? One may well be that the recalcitrant
holdovers from the previous administration had retired or had moved to
different positions, so no longer presented an internal bureaucratic problem.
We never had the sense that any of these people opposed the substance of what
we proposed, but, rather, that they were so afraid of another lawsuit that they
felt it was best not to take up the issue again. For them, and perhaps for
members of the Board, as well, “the time was just not right.” And it may well
be that the Montgomery County results in the Civil Marriage Equality referendum
assured them that now it was safer to act. There is a school of thought that
suggests that failure to take any steps to improve the curriculum between 2007
and 2013 was driven by resource allocation issues – i.e., the reluctance to risk going to the expense of litigation a
third time. While, from the outside, it is hard to see how that litigation
concern would be any less in 2013 than following MCPS’s resounding court
victory five years earlier in 2008, that was how some saw it.
23
On May 13, 2014, the
Superintendent presented his proposed new health education curriculum
framework. That framework wisely moved up the first discussions of LGBT
matters to 7th Grade, eliminated the tight scripting, and specifically noted
reliance upon a document from the American Psychological Association
that referenced the longstanding findings of every mainstream American medical
and mental health professional association regarding sexual orientation and
gender identity, including the propositions that being gay is not an illness
and that so-called “reparative” or “conversion” therapies are dangerous and
ineffective. When the revised framework was presented, PFLAG Metro DC gave
its full support. The Board gave preliminary approval, triggering a
month of public comments. PFLAG Metro DC alerted supporters to the comment
period. The overwhelming percentage of the comments were positive.
At the Board’s June 17,
2014 meeting, Mr. Fishback presented PFLAG Metro DC’s support and thanks (Attachment Q, 6/17/14
testimony). Peter Sprigg of PFOX and the Family Research Council presented
a statement in opposition. The
Board then voted unanimously to give final approval.
The changes went into effect in September 2014 – this time without any legal
challenge.7
This action brought to a
successful conclusion a dozen years of work by members of PFLAG Metro DC and
others to bring this wisdom into the middle and high school health education
curriculum.8
****************************
PFLAG Metro DC is happy to
assist anyone in developing their own strategies and
tactics. Advocacy Chair
David Fishback may be reached at fishbackpflag@gmail.com.
7 In anticipation of a possible legal challenge like the ones in
2005 and 2007, Lambda Legal and Jon Frankel again agreed to represent PFLAG
Metro DC if needed, and we arranged with the Board’s new General Counsel to
assist in
the defense of any new
lawsuit. Fortunately, that was not necessary.
8 The baseline resources now being used by the Montgomery County
Public Schools for the secondary school health curriculum on LGBT matters are
the American Psychological Association's Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual
Orientation & Homosexuality and its Answers
to Your Questions About Transgender
People, Gender Identity,
and Gender Expression.
24
