Education Reform

This evening in my Ethnic Diversity class we were talking about the Chicano "Walk Out" movement in LA in the 1960's.  This got me thinking about current situations in the educational system.

Firstly, it is important to realize what causes poor education.  Poor education is a result of poor resources.  Poor resources include incompetent teachers, outdated text, etc.  These poor resources come from poor funding.  Schools are funded largely by property taxes paid by residents of the school district.  Property taxes are based on home values, and home values vary by location.  What can cause home values to decrease? Here's a hint: Why do most real estate resources offer demographic information on the residents of the area the property is in?  Unfortunately, large numbers of minority races lower home values.  People with lower incomes in an area will also lower home values.  This means that the taxes are lower because the home values are lower.  Lower taxes mean less funding for the educational system in that area.  The youths most at need - the lower class minority groups - have less funding and poorer resources available to them.  In the long run, this means they are less prepared for college.  Lack of college educations means they will continue to make a lower income than those more educated.  Lower income keeps them in lower income areas where their children will go to poorly funded schools.

Obviously, there is a vicious cycle that needs to be ended in the lower income, primarily urban educational settings.  How can we make a change?  We need to make attempts to even the playing field.  Perhaps all property taxes should be pooled nationally and allotted to schools based on number of students.  Perhaps the funding system should be completely reorganized so that it doesn't have an economic/locational bias at all.  There are many ideas floating around in my head on what can be done to help.  One thing that doesn't seem right is that the educational issues for these areas has not been in debate for the upcoming elections at all.  Do your elected representatives in congress even know that it is an ongoing issue?  Maybe you should write them. Actually, you probably should.

Homosexual Rights

The topic has been in the news a lot this year - what rights should homosexuals be legally entitled to? Can they serve in the military? Can they marry each other? Can they adopt children?

There is a debate on whether sexual orientation is a choice or not. If it is, then sexual orientation is as important a choice as religious preference, political identification, or language spoken.  If people are born with a preset sexual orientation with no choice to choose it, then it is much like eye color, left or right handedness, or race.  I do not want to explore the argument of sexual orientation versus sexual preference today, but I wanted to make it clear that for the topic I would like to explore today, it doesn't matter. There are laws that prevent discrimination against both chosen and innate human traits, and those laws should be used as precedent when considering legislation involving homosexuality.

The news article that got my mind working this week about the blatant discrimination against homosexuals was one in which a young man committed suicide after his sexual encounter with another man was broadcast online. Clearly, the most blatant problem here is the invasion of privacy, and would have been upsetting to a heterosexual individual as well.  This instance, however, brings into light the substantial bullying that LGBTQ*'s are put through.   An interesting tidbit from an article on the statistics surrounding bullying of LGBTQ students is that they are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual students.  It is really sad that the prejudices of society lead to the deaths of innocent young people.

From there, news of the GOP NY gubernatorial candidate trying to protect children from the harmful effects of assuming homosexuals are equal caught my eye. He states, "I just think my children and your children will be much better off and much more successful if getting married and raising a family." So do I, but why can't homosexual couples get married and have a family? It is the work of conservative political restraints that keeps LGBTQ individuals from getting married and raising children, not the sexual orientation of these people.  If this man was serious about that statement, he would be pro-same sex marriage and pro-same sex parents, and then he wouldn't have to worry about "dysfunctional homosexuals" ruining the normalcy of our children.

The big one in the media currently is the attempts being made to reverse the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the armed forces.  The policy bans homosexuals from being open about their homosexuality while serving in the military and states that a member can be discharged if their sexuality is revealed to be anything other than heterosexual.  President Obama has promised to attempt to repeal the law, but it appears that he is facing some pretty strong opposition.  Supporters of the ban state that morale and readiness for action would suffer in the military branches if homosexuals were allowed to be open about their sexual orientation.  I think that what many people are forgetting is that homosexuals are already in the armed forces.  They are not banned from joining the military, and I am certain that there are vast numbers of LGBTQ members already participating in defending our country.  Repealing the ban is not going to allow homosexuals to enter the military - they are already allowed to - it will allow the members to remain in the service of protecting us, regardless of their sexual orientation.  Won't morale improve for those servicemen and women who are hiding themselves and living in constant fear of "being found out?" Don't you think that those people are going to be much more willing to go to action to save our country if our country supported them? I think we are disrespecting those who risk their lives for us by damning them if they reveal a facet of themselves which has nothing to do with the job they perform.

Overall, I support the "integration" of LGBTQ individuals into the rights and privileges assumed for heterosexuals.  I see no harm in opening the minds of members of society to include the notion of equality for each and every person.  Fifty years ago, we were overcoming the idea that the Negro was inferior to the White Man, and now that just seems silly.  Look at us.  What's the difference?  LGBTQ's are not a generalization - they are human beings with emotions, choices, and families - and they should have RIGHTS. I am not the only one who thinks this way.  American approval of gay marriage is rising, and just the fact that these stories are making their way into the media means that they are of debate and importance.

*LGBTQ stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning