The rulers of the State of California are very unhappy with their subjects and their backward and old fashioned ideas; and, darn it, the rulers are just not going to take it anymore.
For instance: just recently the subjects had the temerity to band together (and, most distressingly, this included a majority of blacks and Hispanics) and pass a law among themselves which banned “gay marriage.” The rulers, anxious that gay marriage should be recognized, reacted with indignation and brought the people’s judgment to the courts, hoping to find satisfaction. There the matter sits, awaiting an outcome.
Meanwhile, in an effort to educate the people and get them to see their error of their ways, the rulers have mandated that children, from age five to eighteen, must be taught the historical contributions of those that were gay, i.e men whose sexual desires were of other men, those that were lesbian, i.e. women whose sexual desires were of other women, those that were bisexual, i.e. people whose sexual desires encompassed all other people, and those that were transgendered, i.e. those men who wished to ignore biology and be treated as women and women who wished to be treated as men and whose sexual desires were variable.
The new, not-to-be-escaped-from mandate also blesses “Americans with disabilities” with the same special status accorded to non-heterosexuals, in that those with limps and lisps must also be searched for in the records and brought to light.
Of course, the kiddies must already learn about the “contributions” of women and of blacks and, I believe, Hispanics. There might be, and probably are, other groups. There are surely more to come.
What contributions means is unclear (surely no negative “contributions” will be mentioned), but it is sure to cause much discussion among the historians (or their simulacra) who write the textbooks. I do not envy them their task.
For example, in writing about Shays’ Rebellion, do the historians just write about Shays’ Rebellion per se, or must they first ask whether Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck had a “thing” for each other? Before allowing kids to read about Abraham Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation, must the historians first ask how Lincoln’s disability (he was tall and ugly) made him feel, and would he had rather signed wearing a dress?
If they cannot find, in the traditional battery of events and people, those whose sexuality was non-heterosexual, others will have to be ferreted out from the record. This will not be an easy task, because records of men who slept with the husbands of others’ wives, or who slept with the both the husbands and their wives (separately or at once), or who wished they had rather had been a girl, were not kept with the ferocious assiduity they are today.
Certain creativity will thus have to be demonstrated by these writers. Speculations will have to be made. Lesser personalities and incidents will have to be magnified. What is important is not fidelity to the historical record, but what the history ought to have been, if only those in the past were as Enlightened as we now are.
Of course, with these new inclusions, and with the necessary limitations of space, some of that old stuff, like the constitutional debates and World War II, will have to be left out of textbooks. There is only so much time in the day, after all. And what’s more important? Learning about John Marshall and “Black Jack” Pershing or that the transgendered are people too? The question answers itself.
Democratic state senator Mark Leno of San Francisco is adamant and says that “inclusive education is as important as the 3R’s.” And the SF Chronicle reports that “Gay rights advocates said they will be vigilant about making sure schools across California comply.”
These opinions are echoed by California’s university system, which is suffering its own crisis, but one of money. There is only so much of it around and not all programs can receive funding. Decisions are being made about what to keep, what to cut, just as with the textbooks.
Out go some of the three R’s, but kept, and even bolstered, are the offices of “diversity.” Heather MacDonald reports that amidst the cutbacks:
The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
Cut are the “master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering” and “a master’s program in comparative literature and courses in French, German, Spanish, and English literature.”
Apparently, the new motto of the Education Department of State of California, given to them by those that rule, is “Diversity or Bust!”