RI Dept of Education Transgender Guidelines Continue Disturbing Trend of Government by Political Correctness

mike-stenhouse-avatar

[The RI Department of Education has announced “comprehensive guidelines” with regard to transgender students, though the ProJo reports that it is not a mandate. The RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity this morning issued the following statement.]

While professing to protect students from bullying and to respect all students, the RI Department of Education (RIDE), via its June 2016 Guidance Document on Transgender Students, itself appears to have been bullied by the federal government; seeks to bully local school districts into conformity; and openly flaunts its disrespect of of other students.

In perpetuating a disturbing trend of ‘government by political correctness’, RIDE has succumbed to federal pressure and has adopted a one-size-fits-all position that may not be compatible with the morals held by many public school families. There may never be a more obvious reason to empower parents with additional choices to escape an increasingly politicized government school system that does not respect their personal values.

The repeated emphasis in the document on laws dealing with “discrimination” can only be seen as a heavy-handed threat to local school districts, who may choose not to conform, by elitist bureaucrats who believe they know what’s in our family’s best interests.

The open and blatant disrespect (page-9, paragraph-2) for the comfort level of the majority of students, in favor of the comfort of a tiny minority of students, along with the disdain for the rights of parents and the sanctity of the family (page-7, paragraph-2), is particularly alarming.

The Center maintains that no single statewide or federal dictate can possibly satisfy the varying sentiments among Rhode Island’s diverse array of local communities.

Related: Video commentary by CEO Mike Stenhouse on The Ocean State Current following release of federal “guidance” document in May of 2016.



  • Russ

    So the Center would support schools that segregated bathrooms according to race so long as the majority were uncomfortable and those affected were a tiny minority of students? How about banning teachers in same sex relationships? OK, so long as it can be demonstrated to be an affront to “personal values” of the local community? Perhaps we ban unmarried women from teaching as well, right?

    Freedom!
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/demint-sexually-active-unmarried-women-and-gay-teachers-should-be-barred-from-classrooms

    • OceanStateCurrent

      The layers of poor thinking, bent into a malicious weapon, that you display when you comment really do give evidence of why our country’s in the state it’s in.

      * Rules for what can be done in a school building =/= banning unmarried women categorically from teaching or banning teachers in same-sex relationships
      * Assigning bathrooms based on the organs by which people relieve themselves (which, you might have learned somewhere or other, happen to be closely associated with the organs by which men and women have sex and create babies) =/= segregating bathrooms by skin color

      But the biggest leap that you make — a political scam and bullying tactic, actually — is to admit no difference between saying that the federal government shouldn’t be dictating local schools’ bathroom policies and saying that all schools should have the opposite policy of the federal government. Such rhetorical gimmicks are indicative of the totalitarian, nearly theocratic, mindset of progressives.

      If I were similarly inclined, I’d pose questions related to conservative positions (having to do, particularly, with Christianity and 2nd amendment rights), but doing so would not only validate your illogic but also assume you’re arguing in good faith, which you’ve proven again and again you never do, at least in this space.

      • Russ

        Well, as expected… personal sleights and accusations that I don’t “argue in good faith” whatever that means.

        The rest shows the lengths groups like RIC”F”P will go to justify suppressing minority rights. So does the state or federal government play a roll in protecting minority rights or not? I think Stenhouse makes it pretty clear that he feels the majority can do as it likes, so long as the minority in question makes them uncomfortable.

        “The repeated emphasis in the document on laws dealing with ‘discrimination’ can only be seen as a heavy-handed threat to local school districts, who may choose not to conform, by elitist bureaucrats who believe they know what’s in our family’s best interests.”

        Let’s try it this way, could a local school district ban openly homosexual students from using bathrooms or locker rooms corresponding to their biological sex if it made straight students and parents uncomfortable? I suspect many students are initially uncomfortable changing in front of a gay student. Perhaps we need 3 locker rooms… separate but equal. That’s freedom, right?

        • Russ

          er, slights

      • Mike678

        Spot on. Sometimes he tries, but most of it is just trolling.

Quantcast