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: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.

Well, when the shoe fits it's kind of hard to pretend it doesn't.

[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?

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?

Agree, it isn't controversial at all unless you are a crazed bigot.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know what specifically in the MCPS-approved LGBTQ book list these groups are objecting to before making a determination as to whether they have a point.

Theoe groups seem to be saying that they don't want an agenda they don't agree with to be pushed onto their kids.

From what I understand, the ES books are about acceptance of diversity (along the lines of 'all are welcome': Muslims, Jews, gays, etc). If they consider this "grooming" then they can opt out of MCPS and keep to their insular communities.

Trans rights is a different explosive topic and should not be part of the curriculum.

So before jumping to any conclusion, more information is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know what specifically in the MCPS-approved LGBTQ book list these groups are objecting to before making a determination as to whether they have a point.

Theoe groups seem to be saying that they don't want an agenda they don't agree with to be pushed onto their kids.

From what I understand, the ES books are about acceptance of diversity (along the lines of 'all are welcome': Muslims, Jews, gays, etc). If they consider this "grooming" then they can opt out of MCPS and keep to their insular communities.

Trans rights is a different explosive topic and should not be part of the curriculum.

So before jumping to any conclusion, more information is needed.

What do you mean by "trans rights"? Do you mean, for example, the right to access to gender affirming health care for adults/minors? Or the mere fact that trans people exist -- that there are people who are assigned one gender at birth, but who live and experience life as another gender?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]I'd like to know what specifically in the MCPS-approved LGBTQ book list[/b] these groups are objecting to before making a determination as to whether they have a point.

Theoe groups seem to be saying that they don't want an agenda they don't agree with to be pushed onto their kids.

From what I understand, the ES books are about acceptance of diversity (along the lines of 'all are welcome': Muslims, Jews, gays, etc). If they consider this "grooming" then they can opt out of MCPS and keep to their insular communities.

Trans rights is a different explosive topic and should not be part of the curriculum.

So before jumping to any conclusion, more information is needed.

If you're interested, you can look at the books on the list. I have looked at the books on the list. The books are:

-a family goes to a parade
-a child has a crush on a classmate
-a mother makes a wig for her child
-a knight goes on a quest and finds true love
-a mother and child figure out why the child is misbehaving
-a child's uncle gets married

[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.

Bigotery and nothing else is going on here.

[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.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

[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 is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

How dumb are you? No… seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

Lol, kids aren’t idiots. They see things, they hear things, and they understand things. Thankfully they are much more tolerant and accepting than people like you.

So you don’t agree with the concept of age appropriate topics?

But everything discussed here was age appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

How dumb are you? No… seriously.

So you feel people who are not in a marginalized group, can't have an opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And guess what... they don't teach kids about gravity at a young age because it's hard to understand, just like understanding why some adults think that putting on a dress and make-up changes their sex. So, I think we can all agree to wait until they are a little older to learn about both.

But gravity simply is, and people wear what they wear. We can talk about both without getting into th weeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 is off-topic, but why would we consider people who actively chose to move to a majority Christian nation as "marginalized?" If I move to Saudi Arabia, am I automatically marginalized?

How dumb are you? No… seriously.

So you feel people who are not in a marginalized group, can't have an opinion?

Dealing with uneducated people is like dealing with kindergartners...you have no comprehension skills or critical thinking skills...it's exhausting.