Posts by Prema Polit

Intolerance of gays divides Episcopal Church
Posted by Prema Polit on February 21, 2007 at 5:14 PM.

On the eve of Lent, leaders of the Anglican Church issued a stern edict to the Episcopal branch of the church: stop blessing same-sex unions and ordaining homosexual bishops or face the consequences. Now the Episcopal Church must decide whether the unity of the Anglican Communion or the rights of gays and lesbians is more important.

To me this would be a no-brainer, but I'm not an Episcopalian. I do empathize with the need to preserve the family ties, so to speak -- to do something that you don't want to do because in order to maintain some sort of artificial peace, you must. It's a bit like staying silent over a holiday dinner when your bigoted uncle says something incredibly sexist because your mother is giving you the look that says, "I want to punch him, too, but for the sake of our sanity, please ..."

But this isn't an offhand remark by the Anglican Communion about the evils of homosexuality. The Anglican Church's communiqué ranks at about the point in the holiday dinner when you've ignored your mother's warning glance, challenged your uncle's views, and, unless you admit that you are wrong and promise to amend your ways, he is about to kick you and your immediate family out of his house. Oh, and disinherit you and never speak to you again, naturally.

When is standing up for what you believe in worth the price? Episcopalians must ask themselves this question and think hard and deeply about it. Although, according to the communiqué, the decision is up to the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, the way that the Episcopal Church works gives more say to the smaller segments of the Church. So this becomes a much more individual process and choice.

Whatever decision the House of Bishops submits to the Anglican Communion will likely result in further fractures within the Episcopal Church, because they are by no means unified in their beliefs on homosexuality. Congregations in the U.S. have already tried splitting off because of disagreement. Church members are facing the conflict and having to make their own choices.

This struggle probably won't have a happy ending, whatever the Episcopal Church decides. But if the church truly supports gay rights, then they will pay the price.

Science fights back
Posted by Prema Polit on February 20, 2007 at 1:38 PM.

During this long weekend, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the world, held their annual conference in San Francisco. Although the focus of this conference was on climate change, they couldn't ignore the unfortunate setback in a much more established arena of science: evolution.

In a presentation at the AAAS conference, Michigan State professor Jon Miller stated that only 40 percent of people in the United States believe in evolution. God save us. No, really. We could use some divine intervention in this one. The U.S. numbers contrast to the 80 percent of people in Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden who accept evolution.

Also featured in the conference was a workshop in how to run for school board, which seems a bit odd for a science gathering, but may be key to injecting some sense into the educational system. It's one of those times where facts do need to battle with blind faith.

Now, I'm all for debate and discussion in the classroom and life in general, for challenging norms and looking at things from a different perspective. But suffice to say, what belongs in a science classroom is debate based upon scientific evidence, not faith. Creationists and proponents of "intelligent design" try to fit evidence around a belief, rather than build a theory from evidence. And that's in their most scientific moments.

But somehow evolution, so widely accepted in the scientific realm, ends up battling with faith-based ideas for space in a science curriculum. This leaves the teachers on the front lines. Nine teachers and an activist were honored with the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award at the AAAS conference for their fight to keep the teaching of "intelligent design" out of the classroom.

I wish that so much political force was not necessary for science to hold its ground in the realm of education. Scientists should be free to pursue new frontiers in research rather than having to scramble through political muck. In the meanwhile, however, there can't be enough scientists on school boards around this nation, so take those papers out of the lab and onto the podium for a little while at least.

A (pro)creative initiative
Posted by Prema Polit on February 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM.

So marriage is about procreation? That's what Washington state's Defense of Marriage Act suggests, and the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance means to make them follow through on it. Enter Initiative 957, which would require a couple to prove that they can have children before they are allowed to marry, and make them have a child within the first three years of marriage or face annulment.

This initiative is ridiculous, absurd, offensive, and most of the other words people are using to describe it. But this approach is not simply for attention, a good laugh, or the satisfaction of making opponents of same-sex marriage swallow some of their own bitter medicine (though I admit to quite a bit of glee at the latter). Initiative 957 may actually weaken Washington's DOMA, maybe even force the court to reconsider it.

At least this initiative may teach opponents of same-sex marriage a little lesson: If you use an empty excuse to justify discrimination, be sure you can live with having it enforced.

Washington's DOMA is one of a plethora of acts barring people of the same sex from marrying. The Andersen ruling last summer upheld the legislature's prerogative, stating that "DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation."

Coming from this ruling, Initiative 957 isn't very far-fetched. After all, the inability for a woman to bear children can still be grounds for a divorce for some people, and certainly was much more common in the past. That's pretty traditional, right? So if people are fighting to preserve traditional marriage, why not stir that into their brew as well?

The Andersen ruling is a classic example of what is going on in many states. The Washington Supreme Court furthered a ridiculous reason for banning same-sex marriage under the guise of letting the legislature, the representatives of the people, decide such things. Of course, at the same time, the legislature points its finger at the court.

As long as both branches of government keep shirking on this human rights responsibility, as long as homophobia dominates in this country, I guess we need strategies like those of WDOM Alliance's to twist people's arms. Maybe, eventually, people will run out of excuses to not allow same-sex marriage.

American education: Children Left Behind
Posted by Prema Polit on February 5, 2007 at 2:06 PM.

Long ago, as a third-grader at an Oakland public school, I was unhappily plodding through a state standardized test when I came upon a question that left me puzzling: "Where does honey come from?" Included in the answer choices were "Bees" and "Flowers." I felt desperately frustrated. Which one was it? I read the question over and over again, trying to detect some nuance that I had missed before. I even began to doubt my knowledge of honey (which at least was comprehensive enough to know that bees make honey from stuff they get from flowers). And that was when my trusting third-grade heart lost faith in standardized tests.

Apparently Bush and Co. never thought that deeply about the production of honey, or they wouldn't be banking on the power of standardized tests to cure the United States' educational ills. As usual in the Bush administration, No Child Left Behind is more a marketing ploy than a substantive attempt to solve the problem at hand. It sounds very nice with all those noble, strong words: accountability, achievement, success. But embedded deep in NCLB's flawed foundation is the assumption that standardized tests are a sound way to measure understanding and mastery of material, in spite of much evidence to the contrary.

Let's get something clear: Doing well on a standardized test really only means that you're good at taking standardized tests. Sure, there is a correlation between those who do well on standardized tests and those who know the subjects and understand the concepts, but such a heavy emphasis on these tests will only bring about a nation of good standardized test takers. Just imagine: A new generation emerges into college and the work-world with only a dim ability to tackle unheard-of problems, come up with innovative solutions, and generally think for themselves. ("What'dya mean this isn't a multiple choice test? I thought that was the only kind.")

The substantial flaws in standardized testing are obnoxious on their own but poisonous as a part of NCLB. If teachers "teach to the test," as many are apt to do out of fear of sanctions, children will learn that there is only one right answer. They will imbibe the message that only the result is important, not the process of how you get there. They will value a perfectly filled-in circle over contemplating a question for hours and scribbled thoughts on notebook paper.

If a child is consistently struggling with the material, what he or she needs is follow-up, individual attention, a different teaching approach, even something as simple as the right classroom materials. A teacher would know better than the rest of us would, which is why we should support teachers and help them do their job instead of scaring them out of doing it and punishing them for results that are not their fault.

Maybe instead of taking standardized tests, classes can analyze what's wrong with them ("What do you think -- bees or flowers?"). That's what will really teach children to think. And maybe that's what the Bush administration is most afraid of.

Important care options for disabled being ignored
Posted by Prema Polit on January 30, 2007 at 3:54 PM.

Recently the Oakland Tribune ran an article by Michele Marcucci that rehashes the squabble about closing state institutions for people with developmental disabilities and wrongly implies that these large, outdated institutions can offer the essentials of care that only community services can give. Both community homes and large institutions are capable of caring for the medical and physical needs of residents, but only in the community setting can people with disabilities experience all that life has to offer.

"It's a battle that has been brewing for decades: community care versus institutional care," Marcucci writes.

True enough. But it's the wrong battle. The more energy, time and money that both sides of this fight expend on trying to win it, the less is devoted to the real needs of people with developmental disabilities.

My older brother is severely mentally retarded and has behavioral problems. When he was thirteen and becoming increasingly unmanageable, my parents despaired over how they would continue to care for him. Their case manager told them that if they could not continue to care for him at home, their only choice was a developmental center, a large state institution. But they had heard of an after-school program that he could attend, which would give them some precious hours for work and taking care of their two young daughters. They decided that they could keep him at home. Many families did not have that choice in the eighties.

Though growing up with my brother was not easy, I am grateful that my parents managed to keep him out of an institution. When I visited the Sonoma Developmental Center eight years ago and imagined him confined within those walls, I finally understood the great contrast between institution life and the life that my brother has been able to have.

He now attends a day program for adults with developmental disabilities. He is in a small group that travels around in a van and does activities ranging from exploring a park to learning work skills. My brother meets all sorts of people, he discovers new places and he indulges his love of music and airplanes.

Institutions in their basic nature limit the life experiences and choices of people with disabilities. Often, even very medically fragile and/or profoundly mentally retarded people can live fully, make personal connections to other human beings, and benefit from the diverse experiences that living in the community offers.

Now, providing services in the community is the general rule, and these services have been growing and improving. Yet some family members of people with developmental disabilities and workers in the developmental centers are clinging to a system that has no future -- nor should it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »