Washington Post Writer Aaron Blake released an interesting piece claiming that conservatives are going too far when covering New Jersey’s new guidelines for instructing gender. The piece attempts to dismiss the dangers of potential New Jersey gender ideology and sexual identity curriculum and points a finger at right-leaning news outlets for blowing it out of proportion.
The proposed curriculum in question is dubbed “Pink, Blue, and Purple” and seeks to instruct children on gender identity and sexuality education. The materials promoted by the district specify that teachers are to discuss with first graders “the range of ways people express their gender and how gender-role stereotypes may limit behavior.”
The group responsible for writing the curriculum, Advocates for Youth, uses the slogan “fostering responsibility by respecting young peoples’ rights to honest sexuality in education.” It is unclear why any state would even propose an organization that promotes sexual education to first graders, other than to groom the future of the nation to be subservient to their agenda by instilling woke ideologies into them at a young age.
Blake makes the argument that “these lesson plans are actual school curriculums when those involved have emphasized they’re not.” Blake is correct in saying that these plans are not actual curricula, but the fact that the proposed curriculum is available to teachers in the school district is bad enough to warrant concern from parents.
The district Superintendent Raymond Gonzalez added no consolation to parents whatsoever in a statement:
“The cited sample plans were part of a website that was included as a link to illustrate the type of possible resources for school districts shared by the N.J. Department of Education. We have said repeatedly that these are resources only and that they are not state-mandated.”
Again, why are resources like this available to teachers in the school district? It is not a school’s job to educate children on gender and sexual theory. No curriculum of that nature should ever cross the desk of a district superintendent, much less that of a teacher.
While Gonzalez and Blake are correct that it is not a standard curriculum, that argument is moot because the resource remains available and will likely be used – state-mandated or not. It is almost a guarantee that Leftists are going to project their gender and sexual ideals upon their classes.
Gonzalez again provided no consolation in another statement.
“As with any revision to the curriculum at any time, our focus remains on ensuring that the revisions are age-appropriate.”
Whether the curriculum in question is age-appropriate or not is irrelevant. Age has very little to do with the issue and an appropriate curriculum would not mention gender ideology or sexuality at any level.
Blake and Gonzalez should be encouraged to evaluate the responses of the teachers in Florida who critiqued the anti-grooming bill and then release public statements stating whether they honestly believe that the aforementioned curriculum will not be used by teachers.
Unless they are dishonest, they will come to the conclusion that just because the curriculum is not state-mandated, that does not mean that it will not be utilized. Then again, neither Blake nor Gonzalez appear to have any issue with the content of the curriculum and likely support the extreme leftist measures. They cannot simultaneously maintain that the Right blows the situation out of proportion yet continue to support the material as a resource.