But Rabbi Rackman was not just about rhetoric. He was deeply concerned that other Orthodox leaders understand the stakes of American civil rights. Consequently, Rabbi Rackman took full advance of his station when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education sixty years ago, on May 17, 1954. The court’s unanimous ruling declared de jure racial segregation illegal. At that time, Rabbi Rackman was chairman of the RCA’s Convention Committee and slated to become the organization’s president at the upcoming gathering. The July convention in Detroit was to take place just two months after the landmark court case and Rabbi Rackman sought to sensitize the 600 Orthodox rabbis and leaders to the burgeoning Civil Rights Movement. A year earlier, the RCA had resolved to back school desegregation, but that was not enough for Rabbi Rackman. So he invited Maxwell M. Rabb, associate counsel to President Eisenhower, to keynote the forthcoming conference.
The Brown Foundation succeeds because of your support. We use the support from individuals, businesses, and foundations to help ensure a sustained investment in children and youth and to foster programs that educate the public about Brown v. Board of Education in the context of the civil rights movement and to advance civic engagement.
The time to act is now to help stop the proposed pro-homosexuality programs. Here are some things you can do. Would you do one or two of them at least? 1. Write to: The Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B. C., objecting to the provincial government’s allowing such programs. Send copies of your letter to the Minister of Education at the same address, to your MLA, and to the BCTF, your local school board, and the local teachers’ association. Also send copies to the leaders of other provincial parties. 2. Write a letter to your local newspaper. 3. If you are a parent, bring the matter up at the Parent Advisory Council meeting for your school, if your child attends public school. 4. Form an ad-hoc committee of like-minded people. Speak together with a firm (but not shrill) voice. (BC Parents and Teachers for Life will gladly give what information we can to help you.) Get your school board to act to prevent schools being used to propagandize for controversial, unhealthy behaviour. 4. You could phone the Ministry of Education, Public Affairs Branch at 387-4611, ask for the Curriculum branch, and leave your message, asking that you receive a reply. 5. If you are a high-school student, you and like-minded friends could make a respectful representation to the educational authorities. In all your communications, stress that you are for the protection of all students from violence, but oppose the indoctrination of students for the homosexual life-style. We must be accurate about our facts, show concern for others, and stand up for the rights of parents and the welfare of students.
Tactic 1: Broaden the debate
Lamont's audience that day included gay and lesbian teachers, as well as an"adjustment counselor" and a school librarian.
Lamont gave them an "umbrella" talking point he said was developedwith the help of the National Education Association: "Addressing anti-LGBTharassment in schools creates safer and better schools for students."
Teachers were advised how to use that talking point to justify things such aspro-gay curricula and GLSEN's student clubs.
But one gay activist in the audience objected: Why do we have to give in to the"other side's" argument by putting the emphasis on "all"students? Why can't we just be up front about wanting to focus on gays andlesbian kids?
Lamont's response was revealing: Most students in GLSEN's 3,000 clubs areactually heterosexual, he said. And the majority of complaints regardinghomosexual-related harassment come from "straight" kids.
So, "use this tactic of broadening" to "every child," hesaid.
It's a smart strategy: Not only does it mask the fact that there aren't enoughgay students to warrant the immersion of entire student bodies in pro-gaypropaganda, but it also gives GLSEN convenient heterosexual student"allies" who put themselves in the role of defending perceived gay"victims."
How to respond:
As good as this tactic is, it's still possible for parents to counteract itby exposing it as a Trojan horse, said Caleb Price, a research analyst for Focuson the Family.
"Make it a fairness issue," he advised. "While it's true thatevery child needs a safe school, there's no need to create a special class ofcitizens who get more protection than others. Parents can point out thatapproximately 80 percent of school kids experience some form of bullying atschool -- so why not give attention to all children who need protection --including those who are overweight, wear glasses, etc."
. . . .
Even Brenda High, whose son committed suicide after being bullied, has opposedsafe-school policies that create special categories for homosexuals.
"The efforts to include definitions of classes of victims, also excludesother victims, making it more difficult to protect kids," shesaid.
Parents can also expose GLSEN's true agenda -- one of its student manuals, forexample, mentions getting homosexual themes "fully integrated intocurricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels."
Tactic 2: Make it personal
Lamont also revealed that GLSEN put together focus groups of kids todetermine which messages resonated most powerfully.
The conclusion? Moms and dads have the most influence. After that, "themost effective tactic proved to be personalization" -- i.e., stories kidshear from their peers or other people who are personally affected byhomosexuality.
To illustrate the point, Lamont related what happened when researchers showedthe group a video featuring Judy Shepard, whose son, Matthew, was murdered in1998 in Wyoming.
"I'm glad I was behind glass, because I almost fell out of my chair,"Lamont said.
The very first comment from a focus group kid was, "How much did that[profanity referring to Judy Shepard] get paid?" Lamont remembered."Because to them it looked like a paid celebrity preaching to them."
But when researchers replaced the video with the "personalization"method, he said, "one of the kids even came out in the focus group."
"Wow, that's powerful," one teacher commented.
Which is why GLSEN is working tirelessly to get gay speakers into publicschools.
How to respond:
If your school invites a homosexual speaker, challenge the school to openthe forum to other perspectives, including ex-gays.
To find local ex-gay speakers, contact Exodus International.
There is solid legal backing for this approach: At least one federal court hasruled that school districts are illegally engaging in "viewpointdiscrimination" by excluding ex-gay and conservative perspectives whenaddressing homosexuality.
Tactic 3: Threaten lawsuits
"This is almost our trump card," Lamont told his audience."Make it a money issue."
When all else fails, he said, threaten a lawsuit. Warn schools they're"legally liable for not protecting young people."
"In all the cases brought, to date, the student either prevailed aftertrial or achieved a settlement," read a handout distributed at theworkshop.
How to respond:
But what GLSEN doesn't tell schools is that, rather than deflectinglawsuits, they may actually become more vulnerable to them by adopting policiesand curricula that single out gay and lesbian individuals, said Mike Johnson,senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group based inArizona.
"Schools are better off using blanket-protection policies," he said,"that shield all students from bullying or harassment."
The dark side of sexual-orientation policies advocated by GLSEN, Johnson said,is that they often trample on the free-speech rights of students with opposingviewpoints.
"Organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund have won hundreds of freespeech cases nationwide and are willing to stand in the gap for parents,students and school officials," he said.
The American Family Association (AFA) isalerting parents about a "Day of Silence" - sponsored by the Gay,Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) -- to take place in manyschools across the country on Wednesday, April 18. The AFA is encouragingparents with children in those schools participating in the "Day ofSilence" to keep their students at home on that day. GLSEN says theypromote this "Day of Silence" to protest alleged oppression ofhomosexuals. In 2006, over 4,000 junior highs, high schools, and collegesparticipated in DOS, according to GLSEN."
Many school district superintendents, principals, and faculty members alsoendorse, promote or allow DOS -- subjecting traditional students topro-"gay" activism that violates their religious beliefs and right toa non-politicized education.
"Students in our public schools should not be subjected to indoctrinationand pressure from administrators, teachers, students, and especially homosexualactivists," says AFA chairman Donald Wildmon. "These schoolsanctioned activities promote intolerance and bigotry toward any student whoholds a Biblical view of the dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle."
According to GLSEN, on last year's Day of Silence, over 500,000 studentsnationwide were confronted with mute homosexual peers and "allies"wearing stickers and passing out cards, which stated (in part):
"... My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused byharassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence isthe first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you arenot hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?"
For a complete list of the schools planning to participate in DOS, visit .
In January 1954, Linda Brown and her younger sister walked to a segregated school instead of a neighborhood school. Their father challenged the doctrine of separate but equal that forced his children to attend an all-black school by filing suit against the School Board of Topeka, Kansas. His case, joined with four others from nearby states, was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 17, 1954, the Court unanimously held in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.
•Read Brown v. Board of Education located in your Cheeseman textbook on page 5-7..
•Read the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution..
•Respond to the three Case Questions found in Cheeseman’s textbook on page 7..
•Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as noted in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and Contemporary Business questions. Argue both sides of all issues..