BOE Response to Council Member’s Testimony re Muslim Faith and White Supremacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Not wanting your kids to be taught about the existence of gravity at a young age is also a viewpoint.

It sure is! Good job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually thought Mink’s testimony was, for the most part, powerful and thoughtful. She (more than some BOE members) actually took the time to speak with and listen to the POV of those requesting to reinstate the opt-out. While she ultimately felt their position was not tenable because opting out, in her view, was not neutral but actually causes harm to the LGBTQ community, her testimony was mostly intended to build a bridge rather than divide.

+1 Mink is not always my favorite board member, but she does have a nuanced understanding of intersectionality. I know that the Moms for Liberty folks thought they had a trump card by involving CAIR (because libs love brown folks, amiright?) but Mink seems to understand that religion and acceptance are not opposing, and that an intersectional approach demands consideration of people marginalized on multiple axis, including LGBTQ+ Muslim American youth.

DP. Or, to put it in plain language for him people unfamiliar with terms like "marginalized" or "intersectional":

Some Muslim-Americans are LGBTQ+.
Some LGBTQ+ people are Muslim-Americans.
The Moms for Liberty folks don't want LGBTQ+ people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) in public life AND ALSO don't want Muslim-American people (whether LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+) in public life.

Thank you.

Seemed to me that the only group that didn’t want Muslims to have a place in public life was the group of largely white, middle-aged women staging the counter protest and labeling their counterparts’ religion as bigoted and consistent with white supremacy.

If that's how it seems to you, I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually thought Mink’s testimony was, for the most part, powerful and thoughtful. She (more than some BOE members) actually took the time to speak with and listen to the POV of those requesting to reinstate the opt-out. While she ultimately felt their position was not tenable because opting out, in her view, was not neutral but actually causes harm to the LGBTQ community, her testimony was mostly intended to build a bridge rather than divide.

+1 Mink is not always my favorite board member, but she does have a nuanced understanding of intersectionality. I know that the Moms for Liberty folks thought they had a trump card by involving CAIR (because libs love brown folks, amiright?) but Mink seems to understand that religion and acceptance are not opposing, and that an intersectional approach demands consideration of people marginalized on multiple axis, including LGBTQ+ Muslim American youth.

DP. Or, to put it in plain language for him people unfamiliar with terms like "marginalized" or "intersectional":

Some Muslim-Americans are LGBTQ+.
Some LGBTQ+ people are Muslim-Americans.
The Moms for Liberty folks don't want LGBTQ+ people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) in public life AND ALSO don't want Muslim-American people (whether LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+) in public life.

Thank you.

Seemed to me that the only group that didn’t want Muslims to have a place in public life was the group of largely white, middle-aged women staging the counter protest and labeling their counterparts’ religion as bigoted and consistent with white supremacy.

If that's how it seems to you, I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, because we all know that the best way to invite a marginalized group into the public discourse is to label them as bigots, describe their children’s testimony as dogma and make clear that they’re on the same side of an issue as white supremacists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any members of the BOE commented on the testimony that the county council member gave regarding Muslim protestors that appeared at last week’s meeting?

Link to video or transcript?

Mink's testimony begins at 1:18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually thought Mink’s testimony was, for the most part, powerful and thoughtful. She (more than some BOE members) actually took the time to speak with and listen to the POV of those requesting to reinstate the opt-out. While she ultimately felt their position was not tenable because opting out, in her view, was not neutral but actually causes harm to the LGBTQ community, her testimony was mostly intended to build a bridge rather than divide.

+1 Mink is not always my favorite board member, but she does have a nuanced understanding of intersectionality. I know that the Moms for Liberty folks thought they had a trump card by involving CAIR (because libs love brown folks, amiright?) but Mink seems to understand that religion and acceptance are not opposing, and that an intersectional approach demands consideration of people marginalized on multiple axis, including LGBTQ+ Muslim American youth.

DP. Or, to put it in plain language for him people unfamiliar with terms like "marginalized" or "intersectional":

Some Muslim-Americans are LGBTQ+.
Some LGBTQ+ people are Muslim-Americans.
The Moms for Liberty folks don't want LGBTQ+ people (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) in public life AND ALSO don't want Muslim-American people (whether LGBTQ+ or non-LGBTQ+) in public life.

Thank you.

Seemed to me that the only group that didn’t want Muslims to have a place in public life was the group of largely white, middle-aged women staging the counter protest and labeling their counterparts’ religion as bigoted and consistent with white supremacy.

If that's how it seems to you, I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.

Yes, because we all know that the best way to invite a marginalized group into the public discourse is to label them as bigots, describe their children’s testimony as dogma and make clear that they’re on the same side of an issue as white supremacists.

This particular group of parents was literally on the same side, that very morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

You need a better understanding of the BOE's view. It isn't bigotry. What they're trying to do is create a shared space of mutual respect within the ELA curriculum - one where there is the opportunity for exposure to LGBTQA+ characters and relationships just as there is for straight characters and relationships. The opt-out not only attempts to dismantle that shared space, it's simply not tenable to provide within the general curriculum. Remember, this isn't about sex ed, and this isn't about "teaching students about gay sex" or "grooming" or anything like that. It's simply allowing the ELA curriculum to reflect the reality that LGBTQA+ people - and their relationships - exist.

This is a controversial topic and I fully support parents who choose to share this information with their kids vs. a teacher. I think it is very presumptuous of MCPS to think it is their job to discuss family life esp. when there are several other non controversial books to choose from. Not to mention the system is falling apart, kids are being pushed though to graduate without learning, but this is the hill they choose to die on.
I also want to know how a teacher will handle any questions a child could potentially bring up? How do 2 men make a baby? Why does that boy want to be a girl? You think kids won’t ask these questions?

[Anonymous]

What some of the Mink apologists perhaps don't understand is that it is:

1. Bizarre for her to have focused her comments on Muslims specifically when unfortunately people of all faiths have opposed these books

2. There is a historical trauma in the Muslim community with being equated with violent terrorist groups. This is really sensitive. If you want to call out ties to White supremacy don't fixate only on the Muslims. JFC.

[Anonymous]

Diversity isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

You need a better understanding of the BOE's view. It isn't bigotry. What they're trying to do is create a shared space of mutual respect within the ELA curriculum - one where there is the opportunity for exposure to LGBTQA+ characters and relationships just as there is for straight characters and relationships. The opt-out not only attempts to dismantle that shared space, it's simply not tenable to provide within the general curriculum. Remember, this isn't about sex ed, and this isn't about "teaching students about gay sex" or "grooming" or anything like that. It's simply allowing the ELA curriculum to reflect the reality that LGBTQA+ people - and their relationships - exist.

This is a controversial topic and I fully support parents who choose to share this information with their kids vs. a teacher. I think it is very presumptuous of MCPS to think it is their job to discuss family life esp. when there are several other non controversial books to choose from. Not to mention the system is falling apart, kids are being pushed though to graduate without learning, but this is the hill they choose to die on.
I also want to know how a teacher will handle any questions a child could potentially bring up? How do 2 men make a baby? Why does that boy want to be a girl? You think kids won’t ask these questions?

This is not family life. It is just....LGBTQ+ people existing. By that token, kids could ask a teacher how babies get made in general. They could ask why Sameera in that book covers her hair. They could ask why Ari's mom is lighting candles in that other book.

Kids ask questions. That's normal. If MCPS teachers need support in answering any of the above questions, I'm sure they can receive it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What some of the Mink apologists perhaps don't understand is that it is:

1. Bizarre for her to have focused her comments on Muslims specifically when unfortunately people of all faiths have opposed these books

2. There is a historical trauma in the Muslim community with being equated with violent terrorist groups. This is really sensitive. If you want to call out ties to White supremacy don't fixate only on the Muslims. JFC.

It was not bizarre in the context of the public comments which came immediately before her, since nearly all of the pro-opt-out commenters were referencing their Muslim faith as a reason to opt out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What some of the Mink apologists perhaps don't understand is that it is:

1. Bizarre for her to have focused her comments on Muslims specifically when unfortunately people of all faiths have opposed these books

2. There is a historical trauma in the Muslim community with being equated with violent terrorist groups. This is really sensitive. If you want to call out ties to White supremacy don't fixate only on the Muslims. JFC.

It was not bizarre in the context of the public comments which came immediately before her, since nearly all of the pro-opt-out commenters were referencing their Muslim faith as a reason to opt out.

I'm sorry, I thought she was specifically referencing the protesters who were multi-faith? Oh she wasn't? It was about the commenters? Okay, so the whole "white supremacist" thing is even more bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

This. It's pathetic and discouraging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

You need a better understanding of the BOE's view. It isn't bigotry. What they're trying to do is create a shared space of mutual respect within the ELA curriculum - one where there is the opportunity for exposure to LGBTQA+ characters and relationships just as there is for straight characters and relationships. The opt-out not only attempts to dismantle that shared space, it's simply not tenable to provide within the general curriculum. Remember, this isn't about sex ed, and this isn't about "teaching students about gay sex" or "grooming" or anything like that. It's simply allowing the ELA curriculum to reflect the reality that LGBTQA+ people - and their relationships - exist.

This is a controversial topic and I fully support parents who choose to share this information with their kids vs. a teacher. I think it is very presumptuous of MCPS to think it is their job to discuss family life esp. when there are several other non controversial books to choose from. Not to mention the system is falling apart, kids are being pushed though to graduate without learning, but this is the hill they choose to die on.
I also want to know how a teacher will handle any questions a child could potentially bring up? How do 2 men make a baby? Why does that boy want to be a girl? You think kids won’t ask these questions?

So there shouldn't be any books with families in them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

You need a better understanding of the BOE's view. It isn't bigotry. What they're trying to do is create a shared space of mutual respect within the ELA curriculum - one where there is the opportunity for exposure to LGBTQA+ characters and relationships just as there is for straight characters and relationships. The opt-out not only attempts to dismantle that shared space, it's simply not tenable to provide within the general curriculum. Remember, this isn't about sex ed, and this isn't about "teaching students about gay sex" or "grooming" or anything like that. It's simply allowing the ELA curriculum to reflect the reality that LGBTQA+ people - and their relationships - exist.

This is a controversial topic and I fully support parents who choose to share this information with their kids vs. a teacher. I think it is very presumptuous of MCPS to think it is their job to discuss family life esp. when there are several other non controversial books to choose from. Not to mention the system is falling apart, kids are being pushed though to graduate without learning, but this is the hill they choose to die on.
I also want to know how a teacher will handle any questions a child could potentially bring up? How do 2 men make a baby? Why does that boy want to be a girl? You think kids won’t ask these questions?

I imagine they will handle those kinds of questions they same way they do if a kid asks how a man and a woman make a baby. Kids ask those kinds of questions all the time, and if you're not worried about how teachers answer those questions when it comes to a straight couple, I'm not sure why it's an issue now (just kidding, I totally know why). And they're not "discussing family life" here any more than they are "discussing family life" of families with straight parents. It's just that books with LGBTQA+ characters and families are going to be a part of the overall curriculum.

I haven't seen anyone argue that this ELA curriculum references LGBTQA+ families or characters in any way that is different than the way straight families or characters are referenced, except for the fact that it's LGBTQA+ people who are involved. So, if your problem is that you can't keep your kids from knowing that LGBTQA+ families exist, then what other word would apply besides "bigot?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision to remove the opt-out option was made by Dr. McKnight, not the board. A few members of the BOE have voiced their strong support, but there hasn't been a vote or official statement on the issue.

Testimony during public comments around the opt-out option has been going on for months. After every round of public comments, the BOE members remark and they either ignore the negative comments or voice support for dismantling the opt-out option in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion.

If there was a contingent within the BOE who felt differently from what has been expressed, I think they would have expressed it by now.

That's great! I'm so glad they aren't caving to the bigotry.

It’s kind of ironic that you are using bigotry to fight what you also claim is bigotry.

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked by this myopic view. The goal no longer seems to be mutual respect and shared spaces. It seems to be “give me my way and screw you.”

I say this as a fairly moderate person, who is perfectly happy to support the LGBTQA+ community AND religious communities. I’ve quickly realized, however, that there is no room for voices like mine.

The video of the protest was appalling to me. Such rude behaviors from the counter protesters: the glaring music drowning out voices, the middle finger, the rude comments. This is what Montgomery County has become?

Same here. Diversity is OK in MoCo as long as it's not viewpoint diversity. Then you must be shunned for not agreeing with them.

The fact that gay people exist in real life and therefore in some books is not a "viewpoint."

No, but not wanting your kids to be taught about it at a young age is.

Taught about what, exactly? That gay people exist? That's what you're upset about?