tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post1974024578726179027..comments2023-05-30T05:16:03.894-04:00Comments on The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, proprietor: Don't cut parents out of classroomsDennis Byrne...http://www.blogger.com/profile/12684119518936854024noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-30840351111692957662007-04-17T16:45:00.000-04:002007-04-17T16:45:00.000-04:00Mr. Byrne, Thank you for taking a risk in being a ...Mr. Byrne, Thank you for taking a risk in being a party to this debate regardless of whether or not you "feel" comfortable. There a very serious issues at stake in our public education system in Deerfield, a local system just as "broke" as any other public school, although in its own unique ways. I refer anonymous of 11:01 AM post to the District website to learn the name of the individual who selected last year's curriculum, which included a discussion of "heterosexism." The Social Justice Packet in use last year condemned whites, males, christians, and heterosexuals as the evil "power overs" the victimized Jews (funny in a community that is over 50% Jewish with a school board comprised of 7 Jews), gays, blacks and women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-79973638853012126262007-04-17T12:01:00.000-04:002007-04-17T12:01:00.000-04:00Mr. Byrne - in reference to what anonymous (11:27 ...Mr. Byrne - in reference to what anonymous (11:27 PM) said - Deerfield High school is "...proscribing traditional" views on sexuality? The definition of proscribing is: 1. to denounce or condemn (a thing) as dangerous or harmful; prohibit. DHS is not proscribing traditional views. So who is it that is giving "propagandistic materials" (Anonymous, 9:20AM)? Mr. Byrne - are you comfortable being a party to all of this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-730001227428026712007-04-17T00:27:00.000-04:002007-04-17T00:27:00.000-04:00Dear Mr. Byrne,I deeply appreciate your column abo...Dear Mr. Byrne,<BR/><BR/>I deeply appreciate your column about Deerfield High School. The Diversity unit of the Freshman Advisory curriculum for the past few years had several activities that demanded student confidentiality. These demands, are wholly inappropriate no matter what their intent. Public school classrooms are neither therapeutic settings nor counseling sessions. There should be no discussions that my child cannot share with anyone, peer or parent, outside the class. I especially welcome your comments on "hurt feelings." The subjective emotional experiences of students have assumed a place of supremacy in public schools and are used to proscribe only conservative or traditional views of sexual orientation. Administrations assert that LGBTQ kids will be "hurt" if they hear that some disapprove of homosexual conduct or transsexuality, even if those who hold those views treat all with grace and civility. Schools manipulate rhetoric by using the term "safety" when they are often referring to emotional comfort or absence of disapproval. This is the same sort of manipulation of language for political efficacy that goes on with the use of "tolerance" when what schools really mean is "approval." There are myriad ways that schools find to permit the expression of non-traditional views while proscribing traditional ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-67685583180429126442007-04-16T20:50:00.000-04:002007-04-16T20:50:00.000-04:00Dennis Byrne's column “Don’t cut parents out of cl...Dennis Byrne's column “Don’t cut parents out of classroom” (April 16, 2007) exaggerates and misleads the issues. “Now comes the ultimate: …” writes Mr. Byrne. How is it that asking students not to discuss other students’ personal views, preferences, and sexual orientation is the “ultimate” in censorship? Parents are not cut out of their role in the debate. There are no restrictions in home discussions of sexuality. Sexuality has frequently been a topic in our house and we have three kids in, and one graduated from, the Deerfield school system. And Mr. Byrne, don’t kid yourself - you are no Kurt Vonnegut. Is that cantankerous enough for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-6177168060702922382007-04-16T16:49:00.000-04:002007-04-16T16:49:00.000-04:00Dear Mr. Byrne, I must take issue with your column...Dear Mr. Byrne,<BR/> <BR/>I must take issue with your column in today's Tribune (4/16/07, "Don't cut parents out of classrooms." I believe the crux of your arguement is contained in this paragraph:<I>"Here is an attempt to scrub a discussion clean of debate, disagreement or - astonishingly - agreement. It assume that "choosing sides" is a horrible way to come to a mutual understanding."</I> To me it seems the point of the "confidentiality agreement" was to, as you said, to allow students to speak out about how they felt. But you want to take the expression of these feelings and make them into a subject for discussion wth debate, disagreement, or agreement. Why would it be necessary or desirable to do so? The feelings expressed are neither right nor wrong. They are neither diminished nor enhanced through debate. They simply are what they are.<BR/> <BR/>A debate clarifies, refines, and if participated in with an open mind, may change opinions. With the confidentiality agreement, the teachers in this class were making a statement that the feelings expressed were not subject to debate. They simply were. There is no one who can rightfully say these students were right or wrong to have these feelings. THAT was the point of the agreement, and I hope a major point of the class.<BR/> <BR/>The only exception I could see would be if a feeling was expressed that was potentially harmful to the student expressing that feeling or to another student. In this case and at this level, I believe intervention, not debate, would have been needed.<BR/> <BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> <BR/>Alan NudelmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19614248.post-75379454479955800442007-04-16T10:20:00.000-04:002007-04-16T10:20:00.000-04:00Dennis, if you saw the entire curriculum that was ...Dennis, if you saw the entire curriculum that was in use last year for this so-called "Diversity Unit" it would curl your hair. There is no doubt that a dialogue is needed, but the coordinator of the program chose propagandistic materials that slam heterosexuality, whiteness, maleness, and Christianity. I think they call it "Social Justice" but to me, it's a whole lotta idiocy. This year, the curriculum may have been replaced BUT, parents are not allowed to review it. The superintendent has argued that there is a link to the curriculum on the District Website but in fact, it is but a link to Illinois Learning Standards. This is the same superintendent who left Ann Arbor roiling and was known for his secretive, "byzantine" modus operandi. I suspect that the confidentiality agreement is the tip of the iceberg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com