Student enraged by Tennessee legislation concerning adoption

As I was searching the internet for information on present day policies in the news I came across a very interesting title that caught my eye right away. The title of the article that grabbed my attention is Tennessee OK’s Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination in Adoption. Overall, the article discusses how the governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, signed the discriminatory adoption bill into law. This means that any faith based adoption and foster care agencies in the state of Tennessee can turn away same sex couples and other prospective parents who violate the agencies’ religious beliefs. As I was reading this article, another aspect that stood out to me is that eight other states have similar laws, with West Virginia still pending on the law. This article had me very intrigued and I am glad that I decided to read the entire article. 

This article mainly caught my attention because I want to go into the adoption field with my degree. Reading this article actually disgusted me and infuriated me. Reading more and more into it I could not help but agree with what a lot of the individuals who oppose this bill were stating. One of these individuals, the Human Rights Campaign President Alphonso David,  was expressing that with “this bill will do nothing to improve the outcomes for children in care, it shrinks the pool of prospective parents and is a blatant attempt to discriminate against LGBTQ Tennesseans.” I could not agree more with this statement made by Alphonso David. It does limit the amount of prospective parents and will eventually lead to an increasing number of children in care. What I do not understand is why they feel like LGBTQ parents would not be a deem-able fit to be parents to children that need a good home. Alphonso David also stated “These legislators are disregarding the best interests of kids in the child welfare system to create a ‘license to discriminate’ against qualified, loving prospective parents.” After reading that statement, it got me to thinking about how LGBTQ parents have just as much love to give and just as much the possibility to provide a wonderful life to a child as a heterosexual couple. Another point that was made in this article is that by allowing faith-based discrimination against the LGBTQ adoptive parents, this law is limiting the pool of potential parents. By allowing this law, agencies can even discriminate to refuse to place these children with close relatives who are LGBTQ or of a different faith than the agency believes in. This bill that is being passed as a law is only harming the children. A statement made by the Rev. Stan J. Sloan, the CEO of Family Equality, “If the bill is signed into a law, Tennessee will join a small group of states that have broken the cardinal rule of child welfare-that the needs of children should come first.” When I think about this statement, it really upsets me how some people can be so against LGBTQ and other religious beliefs that they would put children’s needs below these hateful feelings. In my opinion, if you are going to act this way towards these groups of people, you need to find a different line of work. The individuals that suffer the most from this bill are the vulnerable children, and that is not fair to them. It is also not fair to discriminate against these groups of people. 

After reading this article and trying to let my brain process all of this absurd information, it made me that much more determined to try and change some aspects of child welfare. As I want to work on adoption cases when I earn my degree and start working in the field, I am getting a first look into what I may be dealing with. This article has made me want to change some aspects of the child welfare system but it also makes me nervous to see what the system is going to be like in a year or so when I do start working in the system. Is the system going to be even more beyond repair to where it may be a lost cause? I have always told myself that “I know I can’t change the whole world, but if I can change the life of just one individual, I will consider myself successful.” Overall, this article infuriated me, but it also made me that much more determined to start working on the child welfare system. 

First, I agree that it’s infuriating that people have such prejudices and will be allowed to base decisions on placement using these prejudices to discriminate against potential parents. Any argument that homosexual or queer parents are by nature of their sexual relationships or identities unfit parents isn’t supported by evidence, because even if this were generally true, the adoption agencies could still screen adoptive parents and use valid reasons related to actual unfitness rather than using sexual orientations and identities as a determining factor.

But, for the sake of enhancing our critical thinking, let’s consider the possible motives. 

One possibility is that these adoption agencies have people who dislike LGBTQ, and they are motivated by hatred and a desire to harm the LGBTQ parents who would like to have children through adoption. Another possibility is that they want the “best interests of the child” and believe that any child that grows up in a household headed by LGBTQ will be harmed in some way, and the harm that the child suffers as a result of being in a family with LGBTQ parents is greater than the harm the child suffers if they are must wait longer to find an adoptive family. This would raise empirical questions: how much longer would children have to wait if LGBTQ adoptive parents weren’t allowed to adopt from some agencies? If the discrimination is only allowed in regions where at least agency does not discriminate, would all potential LGBTQ adoptive parents go to the agency that didn’t discriminate against them, and would that remove all harm children would suffer by needing to wait longer for adoptive parents (because there would be no increase in waiting time)? What moral principle would a person claim justifies this sort of bill? I understand that freedom of thought and religious belief is a very fundamental value, and would that freedom of religious expression be damaged by any policies that forced religious groups to allow children in their custodial care to be adopted out to families that were LGBTQ, or atheist, or non-Christian, or “immoral” according to some peculiar religious teachings of the sect operating the child welfare agency (e.g., interracial marriages?) 

But, what if we aren’t so much concerned with the violation of the religious rights of those family welfare agencies, but the religious groups operating them said they would shut down if they weren’t allowed to discriminate against parents who weren’t “spiritually worthy” in some sense (were atheist or LGBTQ or whatever). That would raise questions about harms to children arising from the new decrease in supply of child welfare agencies providing services.  

If our priority is the well-being of the children, I could imagine a situation where religious child welfare organizations could extort from me approval for a bill allowing them to discriminate.  This could happen if: 1) the agencies were doing a lot of help to a lot of children in foster care, and were very successful in placing many children in homes of people the agencies considered spiritually “worthy” (e.g., straight, religious, racially homogenous, and Christian); 2) there was in the same region an agency that did not discriminate against prospective adoptive families based on their “spiritual” condition (e.g., was happy to place children with LGBTQ, atheist, interracial, and non-Christian adoptive parents); 3) the religious agency would cease its operations if it was not allowed to discriminate; 4) there was no plausible alternative possibility of non-discriminatory agencies to take up the increase in demand for chid welfare services if the religious groups closed their child welfare services; 5) there was evidence that if the religious child welfare was forced to not discriminate, and therefore reacted by closing down operations, children awaiting adoption would face much longer waits and placements in areas much further away.  If all those five conditions were met, I think I might regretfully allow some agencies to discriminate, because it would be a way to avoid harm to the children. 

The article did not give us enough information to understand if the government in Tennessee was going to pass the law because failing to do so would cause a collapse in the provision of child welfare services in their state.  Were the child welfare services and adoption services in Tennessee highly dependent on private religious organizations that were threatening to close their doors if they were not permitted to discriminate?  Were there other private child welfare organizations that could place children with LGBTQ parents, so that there would be no delays in adoptions, but where those non-discriminatory agencies unable to take up the service demand if all the discriminatory private agencies ceased providing services?  I wanted to know those, so I could know if this was an entirely ridiculous case of politicians conceding to demands from ignorant citizens to implement stupid policies, or whether this was a case of politicians genuinely concerned about religious freedom and making a pragmatic decision to accommodate some people for the sake of maintaining an adequate level of services to children in foster care and awaiting adoption. 

Student recommends that the Illinois House pass the Inclusive Education Act

The Senate Bill 3249 is also known as the Inclusion Bill. This bill makes it mandatory to teach LGBTQ history curriculum for public schools. State Senator Heather Steans sponsored this bill. It passed the Illinois Senate in March of 2018. Now the bill has to pass the Illinois House, where it is House Bill 5596. This curriculum will be limited to the public schools; it will not apply to private or religious schools. The superintendent of the school district will be required to monitor and enforce compliance with this new curriculum. The program requires all kindergarten-12^th grades to include this curriculum in their unit studying. 

Schools can still control the school environment and curriculum, but this law will require that there be some specific coverage of the contributions of LGBTQ persons. Learning about the history of LGBTQ persons teaches the importance of not discriminating against others. If this bill passes Illinois will be the second state to swap out textbooks for LGBTQ inclusive texts. California adopted similar measures in 2011; however, California just approved the LGBTQ textbooks for elementary schools in November. California was the first state to approve this bill. This idea was mainly brought on by suicides among LGBTQ youth. In the upcoming year, California students will gain an understanding of the past and present of LGBTQ community. 

This bill will have no fiscal impact. Textbooks would be purchased through the textbook block grant program whether or not the selections are restricted to textbooks that have LGBTQ content. This textbook block grant program gives annual funding to school districts. School districts can look into online textbooks, which are cheaper. California approved 10 textbooks for elementary and middle school students, so the same ten would presumably be approved for use in Illinois if the Inclusion Bill is passed into law here in Illinois

Change needs to happen. The LGBTQ community is not going to go away. Their history is just as import for students to learn about as is the African Americans, war history, the Holocaust, etc. It is time to stop erasing LGBTQ identities. It is time to acknowledge LGBTQ roles in history. It is time to acknowledge that someone like James Baldwin was an openly gay writer. LGBTQ students need to feel the support from their peers and teachers. It is important for our students to learn about role models of the LGBTQ communities. Of course changing the textbooks will be a slow process, but it something that needs to be done. It is time for Illinois to follow California and approve the Inclusive Curriculum Bill. Our youth need to know about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community. This community is a now a part of history. 

There are several historical figures whose sexuality and sexual orientation are ambiguous, and I hope the presentation of these figures will be nuanced, and help students understand that in historical work, we cannot always be sure of our conclusions.  Also, the ideas we now have about sexual identity and orientation, and the words we use, were not prevalent in the past, so there is an interesting debate about whether our modern terms and ideas about LGBTQ apply in past times and other cultures.  All that sort of information will help students move away from the faith in categories and labels that so many of us rely upon these days.  And I think it's very healthy for children and students in our public schools to learn about different critiques of how gender and sexuality have been expressed or understood at different times and places.  Give the many disappointing aspects of mainstream heterosexuality in 21st Century North American culture (such as the high rates of domestic violence and the high incidence of rape and sexual abuse of children), I think our schools will be doing a great benefit to our society if they open up children to some critical ideas about assumptions and values prevalent in our culture.  It is especially good to know that there have always been eccentrics, misfits, and persons who rebelled against conformity, and among these people were some of the great geniuses and heroes of history, and also some of the villains. 

Transgender Military Service, a Letter to President Trump

Letter to the Commander in Chief, President Donald Trump,

Dear Mr. President:

By March 23, 2018, you have a plan to no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in the military forces. I believe this idea is severely flawed and will negatively affect not only your presidency, but also the lives of many Americans. 

Transgender people have just as much right to defend the United States as all other Americans. A study commissioned by the Department of Defense from the Rand Corporation (Source 1) found that, “there are no readiness implications that prevent transgender people from serving openly and that numerous foreign militaries have successfully permitted upon service” (Source 2). One of your major arguments is about the cost of medical care for the transgender troop members. This study also proved that the medical cost would be very small. Transgender troop members can be held to the same standards as their respective counterparts. They can keep up and be successful in the military. For a very long time, people were not even allowed to be openly gay in the military. That has become such an outdated idea. 

I believe I was the most alarmed by the comments in support of your tweet about not allowing transgender people into the service. Many people had very vividly cruel language to describe the people in the LGBTQ+ community. Dear Mr. President, you are the President for all Americans. We all need your help to encourage feelings that we can all love and respect each other based on our moral strength and our contributions, and we need you to discourage the hatred and hostility shown against people in the LGBTQ+ community.

 The men and women fighting for the protection of our nation should be able to be comfortable in their own skin. I do not see any threat to our country or the effectiveness of our soldiers, sailors, and aviators by having a transgender member of the military. I see more benefit than anything else. Allowing a diverse group of people to serve in any capacity will allow more perspectives. More perspectives offer a greater ability to problem solve and create innovative new solutions. This idea can work especially in the military sector. If women and men are both allowed to serve in the military, so should transgender people. 

President Trump, I sincerely ask that you reconsider, if for nothing else, I believe this to be a very basic right. You have many things to gain, and the country will gain, if you do not follow through with your idea to restrict Transgender persons out of the military.  I wish you the best in making an educated and well-informed decision about the troops. 

Best,

[A student in the SWK-355 class]

P.S. the rest of the study can be found at http://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-military-service

Source 1: Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly .
Source 2: Transgender Military Service

Bathroom Bill in Illinois!

Here is an editorial by a student in the class.

House Bill 4474 in the Illinois General Assembly is now being called the “Bathroom Bill”. The new bill decides who can use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their sex. To the bill sex is an individual’s anatomy at birth.  

Amends the School Code. Requires a school board to designate each pupil restroom, changing room, or overnight facility accessible by multiple pupils simultaneously, whether located in a public school building or located in a facility utilized by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use of pupils of only one sex. Defines "sex" as the physical condition of being male or female, as determined by an individual's chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual's anatomy. Provides that no member of the female sex may use a pupil restroom or changing room that has been designated by the school board for the exclusive use of the male sex and no member of the male sex may use a pupil restroom or changing room that has been designated by the school board for the exclusive use of the female sex, with exceptions. Authorizes a school board to provide reasonable accommodations to a pupil to use a single-occupancy restroom or changing room or the regulated use of a faculty restroom or changing room if the pupil is an adult or an emancipated minor, or the parent or guardian of a minor pupil submits to school officials, in writing, a request to receive such accommodations and the pupil is a member of the male sex but does not identify as a member of the male sex or the pupil is a member of the female sex but does not identify as a member of the female sex. Sets forth a complaint procedure. (ilga)

Let’s say this bill passes, in some people eyes it will stop the perverts. The new bill’s purpose is to have privacy while in the bathroom and safety for the children.  Except the new bill will only prevent the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming youth. This is basically saying that they have no rights, they’re not respected, or valued. 

They should be allowed to feel safe and secure in a restroom. It is only fair for the students to decide for themselves, not be singled out because of their gender identity. This will only make a bigger problem instead of solving an issue. 

We’re in the year of 2016, in a generation that’s very accepting, so why take steps back when we’ve been progressing altogether by including the LGTBQ community? The new bill is like a slap to the face of the transgender community. We like to encourage and accept people, but once it’s done we want to take their rights. It’s wrong, it’s unfair, and there’s not enough evidence that this new bill will stop any unsafe activity going on in the restrooms. 

Wow, this bill has many co-sponsors, and it has some bi-partisan support.  One way of looking at it is the misguided definition of sex: “as determined by an individual's chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual's anatomy.”  I guess whoever drafted the bill didn’t know anything about Maria Patino and other women athletes (about 1 in 500) who have XY chromosomes like men, but don’t have a sensitivity or receptor for testosterone, and therefore develop as women and are physically women.  Or, what about when the the SRY gene gets deleted from a Y chromosome or displaced onto an X chromosome?  What about the intersex persons?  Surely people these days know that sometimes the sexual assignment at birth is wrong.  And now of course, as you say, we are accepting people who don’t even want to be put into the dichotomous categories of male and female. 

It turns out that there have been some occasional problems with men going into women’s bathrooms wearing disguises as men, or claiming that they are transgendered, but in every case I have read about, the man was heterosexual and not at all transgendered, and was using the excuse to get into the bathrooms to satisfy some sort of kink, or just to make a point.  And even in these incidents, I have never heard of any violence, and ever case I am aware of took place in adult bathrooms, not in schools. Would it not be strange if the only men who are bothering women in bathrooms are men who want to pass laws to keep transgendered women out of women’s bathrooms because they were assigned a sex of male at birth or happen to have a Y chromosome?  They are creating the problem they seek to remedy.

Any excuse to pass more laws and give police and tyrants more excuses to fine people and get them involved with the devilish mechanisms of the justice system. I am shocked that this bill has so much support in the General Assembly. Perhaps someone will offer an amendment to change the way sex is defined in the bill.  Or, more likely, it will just die in the Rules Committee. Barbara Currie from Chicago chairs that committee, and she has some sense.

REFERENCES

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for 4474. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4474