(cross-posted at The California Courage Campaign)

Earlier today, Arnold Schwarzenegger promised to veto SB 840, State Senator Sheila Kuehl's universal health care bill that passed the legislature last week.

The Republican governor said the single-payer system proposed by Sen. Sheila Kuehl would "cost the state billions and lead to significant new taxes on individuals and businesses, without solving the critical issue of affordability. 

"I won't jeopardize the economy of our state for such a purpose," the governor said in a statement.

Sheila Kuehl slammed him in a response released shortly ater his announcement:

“I suppose the number of erroneous and misleading statements made by the Governor on SB 840 were inevitable since he consistently refused to meet even once with me for a factual presentation on what the bill would actually do for California .” 

This follows on the heels of Angelides's tough denouncement of the governor:

"It's a signal when he vetoes it of his failure to do anything on the issue of health care."

Over the flip, more of Kuehl's smackdown.

“The Governor is engaging in conservative-speak to call the bill ‘socialized medicine’ since all providers of healthcare would have remained as they now are, public or private, under the bill.  That’s 180 degrees from ‘government run healthcare’, a phrase coined by the insurance industries and parroted by the Governor.  Under SB 840, healthcare providers work, as they now do, for private concerns or public healthcare systems.  The big difference is that, under 840, every person would have been able to select their own physician, dentist, hospital, or pharmacy, and there would have been no unreimbursed care.  Doctors would have done a great deal better under this bill than they do now under the thumb of insurance companies.” 

And…

“The Governor makes an even bigger mistake in saying the bill would cost new money or there would be new taxes and no help to affordability.  Such a statement shows that he has not read the bill, doesn’t understand the bill, or is being completely misdirected by his handlers.  In truth, premiums to be paid by businesses and individuals under SB 840 would have taken the place of all premiums, co-pays and deductibles we now pay, saving almost every person and business who now pays for healthcare significant money.  In addition, where there are no cost controls at all now, and enormous administrative overhead and profit for insurance companies, there would have been a transparent system that actually would succeed in making healthcare coverage affordable in California .”

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Director of Communications, Adam Mendelsohn has thrown the right a bone by announcing that the governor will veto Sen. Kuehl’s SB 1437.

“The governor believes that school curriculum should include all important historical figures, regardless of orientation,” said Schwarzenegger’s director of communications, Adam Mendelsohn. “However, he does not support the Legislature micromanaging curriculum.”

Wednesday’s announcement signaled a death blow to the efforts of state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, the openly lesbian author of the measure, to obtain recognition for the contributions of gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexual people to the social and historical landscape.

Kuehl’s bill had passed the Senate on a 22-15 vote on May 11 and was awaiting hearings in the Assembly. She expressed disbelief that Schwarzenegger, who traditionally has withheld comment on legislation until it passes the Legislature and reaches his desk, has broken with his own precedent and made up his mind on a bill that still hadn’t been vetted by one house of the Legislature.(SacBee 5/26/06)

So what could the reason for announcing a veto of this bill?  Amongst all others?  Well, I can think of one reason and one reason only.  He wants to throw a bone to the right.  Listen, this bill would not cause any major altertations of the curriculum.  Current law already includes other minorities in barring “adversely reflecting” against the minorities.  It has not changed the schools.  This law would simply allow LGBT citizens to receive the same treatment as other minorities in the state.

And you can rest assured that the wing nuts will not be satisfied:

“We’re very pleased that Schwarzenegger is listening to the concerns of parents,” Thomasson said. “Now the governor needs to pledge to veto the two remaining transsexual, bisexual, homosexual bills, AB 606 and AB 1056. Parents and grandparents are demanding it.”

I’m pretty sure that Thomasson doesn’t speak for California’s parents; neither should Arnold.  There have been a few instances when Arnold has shown his true colors: he is no moderate.  Now we need to make sure that the California electorate understands that too.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s SB 1437 is back in the news.  The SacBee published an excellent article about the current debate:

Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, agreed that bullying and harassment have no place in school. However, he doesn’t believe the bill is a panacea.

Morrow, who spoke out against the bill on the Senate floor, called the legislation unnecessary, noting there’s nothing in the state’s education code preventing schools or teachers from discussing homosexuality.

[Student gay activist Lance] Chih said he has had to seek out his own heroes in literature.
***
Chih believes there are lessons to learn. For example, the gay rights movement was sparked by civil disobedience. The 1969 Stonewall riots in New York was one of the first times in modern history a significant body of gay people resisted arrest when police raided gay bars.  Students whose memories may include the slaying of Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard in 1998 could get a civics lesson on the subsequent push for hate crimes prevention.  “It’s not talked about in U.S. history. It should be,” Chih said. (SacBee 5/23/06)

As Chih states, it’s not about any agenda.  It’s about giving LGBT students the opportunity to thrive in educational settings.  Health classes just don’t cover enough. LGBT students are far more likely to attempt suicide and generally have lower grades. This law will help LGBT youth deal with the coming out process and the questioning that comes during adolescence in addition to promoting tolerance. 

Last week the Senate approved SB 1437 and sent it on to the house in a party line vote.  The bill has upset many, many on the right and some in other postions on the political spectrum.  But this is mainly because they don’t really get it. 

The LA Times doesn’t really get it when they say:

Under her proposal, textbooks would have to “accurately portray in an age-appropriate manner the cultural, racial, gender and sexual orientation diversity of our society.” They also would have to include “the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the total development of California and the United States.”
***
Instead, under Kuehl’s proposal, books would recount history in part through a gay and lesbian prism. This is as misguided in its way as the state Board of Education in Texas two years ago insisting that middle-school textbooks define marriage as the “lifelong union between a husband and wife,” which, aside from its anti-gay slant, chose to ignore the existence of divorce.
***
California already has among the strongest social studies curriculums in the nation and is considered a model for its balanced and comprehensive approach to history lessons….The commission should be allowed to do its job without interference from legislators. And Kuehl should return to the kind of worthwhile legislation, on such issues as family leave, for which she is justly known.(LA Times 5/9/06)

But this misses the greater point.  This bill only adds LGBT Californians to a long list of minorities.  Somehow the curriculum commission has managed to keep California a leader in curriculum despite the earlier meddling that requires similar inclusions of various races and national origins. Sen Kuehl responded in a letter to the Times:

You fail to mention that the bill would amend two sections of current law that protect many other categories of students. To this we add gay and lesbian people. The law prohibits the adoption of official teaching materials that reflect adversely on people because of their race, sex, disability, nationality and religion. To this we add sexual orientation and gender.

The invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the history curriculum only exacerbates school climates in which homophobic bullying, harassment and violence are rampant. Studies show that a bias-free and inclusive curriculum fosters tolerance, resulting in greater feelings of student safety and less bullying. The idea behind SB 1437 is not a new or a radical one. SB 1437 simply would add our community into existing sections of the law.(LA Times 5/13/06)

This law merely adds LGBT Californians to the list.  If you think that the law in general should be done away with…well, I see the logic.  But merely to deny LGBT citizens, is there a reason other than homophobia for that?

But I can tolerate the Times’ position: I can see that they tried logic, but didn’t quite survey the whole backstory.  However, Bill O’Reilly and the wingnuts, well that’s a different story.  I included in my previous posts about SB 1437 some of the crazy things that Thomason and the gang are saying.  Stuff like (No link, as I don’t really like linking to homophobes and racists, but you can find the campaign for “children and families” if you really like hate-filled rhetoric):

As a result, several school activities will be deemed to “reflect adversely” on transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality:

  * School proms (Prom “kings” and “queens” could not be gender-specific)
  * Gender-specific sports (“Boys Basketball” would be “discriminatory” against transsexuals)
  * Cheerleading (Can you say “transsexual cheerleaders”?)

Uh, well, it looks like they have a huge issue with transgendered students.  I mean that’s ok, because the trial of Gwen’s murderers has been over for what…7 months?  I mean nobody ever gets hurt by a little homophobia, right? (R.I.P. Gwen)  And would a school even have a right to stop transgendered cheerleaders even without this law? No, there are already male cheerleaders.  This law does NOT outlaw all recognition of gender in our schools.  It merely requires the curriculum to reflect the contribution of LGBT citizens and to ensure that the LGBT community is not disparaged.

Does this mean we have to rewrite history? Of course not, we are still teaching about the Nazis right?  Mussolini, Stalin, the Incquisition…they are all still in the curriculum, even though they may reflect adversely upon Californians with a national origins of their respective countries. 

But Bill O’Reilly thinks that students can’t learn about Jeffrey Dahmer (is he really a huge area of study for today’s students?) because that would reflect adversly upon gay men:

O’REILLY: Well — and also, if you are a teacher, what are you — you’re not going to be able to say bad things about Jeffrey Dahmer? He’s a cannibal, a gay cannibal, and you can’t say, “Well, that’s wrong.” I mean, if what you’re saying is true, teachers would not be able to cast aspersions on even villains if they were homosexual.

MALKIN: Yeah, that’s right. And in any case, I think school teachers in California and everywhere else ought to be paying more attention to whether or not third graders can find, oh, Sacramento or Washington, D.C., on a map than what the sexual orientation is of historical figures in America. (Media Matters 5/9/06)

Um, yeah, Dahmer reflects adversely on homicidal skizophrenics, not gay males.  Does Ted Bundy reflect adversely on straight males; do we think less of all straight men because of him?  Not so much, eh?  Perhaps Bill O and his crowd can figure out that people should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of some homophobic opinion.  But, I guess that’s all part of why Sen. Kuehl is pushing this law.

And, yeah, that’s Michelle Malkin just buying into his crap.  Surprise, surprise.  Watch the Video over at Media Matters.

Straight (pun intended) from the SacBee’s wires, SB 1437 has come out of the committee today:

Written by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, and sponsored by Equality California, SB 1437 attempts to create bias-free curriculum and school activities by adding sexual orientation to the state Education Code’s list of protected categories.(SacBee 5/3/06)

I’ve written several posts about 1437.  One reacts to Dan Walters and the other is an extended memorandum about the bill (in PDF).  I probably don’t need to go into any more detail about my opinions on the matter, but I always enjoy mocking Randy Thomason and point out what an utter failure he is:

Kuehl said her bill seeks to acknowledge the contributions of people in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in future school textbooks as a way to foster acceptance.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said the bill would require textbooks to portray those lifestyles in a positive context and interferes with parental instruction.

Dozens of people, particularly from Sacramento’s Russian community, lined up to speak in opposition of the bill.

The Senate Education Committee voted 8-3 along party lines. The bill will now go before the full Senate for a vote.

So, Randy fails yet again to deliver his hate-filled agenda.  Just so you know, the bill requires textbooks only to go so far as to include contributions of the LGBT community.  It essentially just adds the LGBT community to a list of minorities.  Toleration is a value we all should embrace, but Randy prefers to hate.  Time is passing the hatemongerers by, and California is on the front edge.  Congrats to Sen. Kuehl.

Sheila Kuehl’s SB 1437 adds the LGBT community to a laundry list of other minorities in an education code section that bans treating these minorities adversely in the curriculum.  It bans this adverse treatment in textbooks and day-to-day teaching.  The list includes race, gender, national origin amongst others.  Finally, it also includes “role and contribution” of the LGBT community along with other minorities in social sciences classes.

Dan Walters brings up a counter point: when we legislate on these matters we put ourselves on a slippery slope to, well, Holocaust denial?

To  date the list singled out for mandatory attention are “men and women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people and other ethnic groups” while another section of state school law bans instruction “which reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or ancestry” and still another prohibits textbooks or other materials “reflecting adversely” on the same grounds.

Essentially, therefore, students must be told about certain groups, but cannot receive any instruction deemed to be negative, which is why, for instance, the Hindu American Foundation is now suing the state to block printing and distribution of new sixth-grade textbooks that are, the group maintains, demeaning to Hindus. Specifically, the foundation doesn’t like the textbooks’ depiction of women’s historically inferior status, the treatment of “untouchables” in the Indian caste system and the theory that Aryan migration played a major role in Indian cultural development.

  Implicitly, the suit is telling state officials that the textbooks must be altered to reflect the Hindu American Foundation’s version of the ethnic group’s history – regardless of what that history may truly be. (SacBee 4/24/06)

Ok, I see how this could actually lead to holocaust denial.  It is a poorly drafted bill in that there is no exception for teaching factual history events.  Does teaching about the Holocaust “reflect adversely” against Germans?  Well, obviously, the answer has to be yes.

So, how do we separate the theory and the practice? Is there some arbitrary standard?  Is it the same as a libel standard in court?  I think the resolution to the Hindu suit will go a long way in determining what these laws really mean.  I think ultimately, there is a place where we are teaching historical fact while still striving to promote a balanced curriculum.

Walters also criticizes the “role and contribution” legislation, but I think this represents at least part of the compromise.  We need to teach history, but if we teach our students not only about the Holocaust, but also about Germany’s advancements and contribution to society, we help decrease hostile feelings. 

But Walters wants to draw a line and not pass 1437.  I agree with some of his points, but can we really draw that line and exclude the LGBT community simply because they are controversial?:

The Legislature’s dictating cultural propaganda of any kind to be distributed in the classroom is troubling. It’s troubling when the cultural identification is homosexuality, and it’s troubling when – as another legislative bill this year would require – the group singled out for special attention is Italian American.

I think the answer is no.  If we are to retain the other legislation banning “reflecting adversely” with the other groups, we must pass 1437. 

Walters chooses the blunt sword, cutting all the legislation. (“It’s a slippery slope, down which California probably has slid too far already.”)  However, perhaps we should do some serious thinking about how we can help reduce discrimination in adults through our education system.  Reform is possible, but ignoring the issue just abdicates an opportunity to improve the state.