In a June 2002 release, former National Education Association president Bob Chase offered NEA’s official opposition to tuition school vouchers. He characterized them as “divisive and counterproductive proposals to divert energy, attention, and resources to private school.” NEA argues that vouchers “encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations.” 

‘Stratification’ is the key word here, the opposite being homogeneity - or, ironically diversity. The homogeneity that NEA desires is one of values, perspective and/or outlook. A diversity of viewpoints is what is opposed here. Giving parents the ability to choose schools for their children that actually promote their truly diverse values would undermine NEA’s agenda. 

What agenda would that be? While serving as NEA President, Bob Chase was then and still is a board member of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. “GLSEN seeks to develop school climates where difference is valued for the positive contribution it makes in creating a more vibrant and diverse community. We welcome as members any and all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression or occupation, who are committed to seeing this philosophy realized in K-12 schools.”

The ties between homosexual activist groups and NEA are not incidental, nor have they been severed with Chase’s departure. The sexual orientation advocacy community is intimately connected to nation’s largest teachers union. Little known, but significant in its influence is the NEA Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. In its September 2002 newsletter, NEA-GLBTC lamented Chase’s departure at NEA, noting that he was a “very strong asset for this Caucus and for GLBT issues in NEA.” GLBTC’s mission is to “protect the rights and interests” of GLBT faculty, to promote recognition of the “special needs and rights” of GLBT students and to promote “understanding and acceptance” of GLBT “people in all arenas of society.”

One method to promote ‘understanding and acceptance’ is to inject ‘sexual orientation’ as a protected group category in schools. GLSEN was pleased to announce that Maryland’s school board has joined eight other states in including ‘sexual orientation’ as an equal category to race, sex and religion requiring protection from discrimination and/or harassment. Carroll County school board President Susan G. Holt explained that current state regulations concerning harassment already prohibit all students being victimized for whatever reason. That is not good enough for the activists, however. 

High school student Allen Wolff is pressuring his Baldwin New York school board to add sexual orientation to the list of those categories deemed off-limits to harassment. Doing so, he explained, would facilitate staff training under ‘existing guidelines’ at the state and federal level. That would enable teachers and administrators to better handle situations such as he encountered when he brought a same-sex partner to the prom. He was also forced to graduate later because harassment forced him to drop a required physical education class. 

Some religious groups are listed among the protected, but Christians are not. Indeed, foster parents and teachers in California are required to attend ‘gay sensitivity training’ regardless if it contravenes their religious beliefs. GLSEN argued that objecting teachers are not welcome in public schools and thus “should pursue their careers elsewhere,” such as in private schools. As was already noted, the NEA is vehemently opposed to school tuition vouchers being used for such private schools. Thus low-income families are to continue being trapped in schools imparting values that they may not share. 

FACT CARDS 
· There are many famous gay people in Western history 
· In some countries gay people are put in prison or put to death for being gay 
· Gay and lesbian people contribute as much to society as non-gay people 
· Gay and lesbian people can be good parents 
· Gay people face a great deal of discrimination 
· Non-gay people have no fear of acceptance because of their sexual orientation 
· A gay person in most countries cannot see his/her partner in the hospital in cases of emergency 
· The majority of people with HIV worldwide are heterosexual 
· A gay person in most countries cannot inherit property from his/her partner even if they have been together for many years

MYTH CARDS 
· There are no gay women (lesbians) in [your country] 
· There are no famous gay people in [your country’s] history 
· All gay men like to wear women's clothes 
· Gay people have the same legal rights as non-gay people 
· Gay people think about sex more than non-gay people 
· It's easy to see if someone is gay or lesbian 
· Gay people don't have regular jobs 
· Most people with HIV are gay 
· A non-gay person cannot talk freely about their husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend 
· Gay people's behavior is the reason why AIDS is a problem

How is this type of education going to help a student develop the necessary skills to become a productive member of society? As we have seen, if such a workshop is approved for your local school, NEA doesn’t want children to escape it by their parents using a voucher. There is no provision offered for parents who would reserve for themselves to choose what age is appropriate to discuss any type of sexuality and how the issue should be framed. 

Children are to be disabused of the notion that ‘Gay people’s behavior’ has caused the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but no substantiation is offered. There is no discussion of the dangers of promiscuity [a behavior] - homosexual or heterosexual. Male homosexuals are proportionally the greatest affected group in America [comprising 42 percent of all cases in the U.S. in 2001 according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control], because they are the most likely to engage in intimate contact with multiple partners. Then follows intravenous drug users [16 percent] and heterosexuals [9 percent]. 

Instead of counseling against random sex, condoms are routinely touted as sufficiently effective life shields for sexually active minors. In an answer to why a young person’s health teacher told the class that HIV can be be transmitted during condom use, Stanford University Medical Center’s Robert Frascino, M.D. responded thus: “I can't imagine why she would tell you something like that, unless it's a misguided attempt to scare you away from having sex. [How terribly ‘misguided’ is it to discourage sex for minors?] Or she's a complete idiot? Maybe both?” 

This is odd language for a physician to be using when addressing a medical question, especially with a minor child involved. Dr. Frascino went on to assure the youth that condom failure rates are [only] in the 0.1 to 0.2 percent per ‘episode’ range. What about the CDC’s 2 percent failure rate cited in the same website? Which is correct? 

Even at the lowest rate cited, a high school with a 1,000-member student body [with about one-third reportedly being sexually active] and each couple having one ‘episode’ per week would statistically result in nine condom failures in a year. At the 2 percent failure rate, the figure jumps to 180. Are either failure rates acceptable? Are minors encouraged to consider whether exercising their freedom of ‘sexual expression’ is worth even a 0.1 percent failure rate while flirting with a fatal incurable disease?

There are then two possible interpretations of the good doctor’s advice:

1. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is unable to see that a ‘small chance’ does not equal ‘no chance.’  
2. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is willing to mislead a minor child into thinking that there is a circumstance wherein it is possible to have ‘safe sex’ with someone who is HIV-positive when the doctor himself knows full well that it is not.