Are the scholarships specifically for LGBT students? For if they are I can only see that as promoting discrimination.
I also see it as a waste of time to spend time teaching sexual diversity specifically ,because I think students could be tought something more beneficial.
That's a version of the fallacy of bringing up another issue when an issue is brought up. "We can't work on x when there's the problem of y going on!"
We can teach more than one thing at a time, and this would be in already existing sexual education. Plus, I would argue that sexual education is very beneficial.
I'm not black, therefore black achievement scholarships are promoting discrimination. Some of my friends didn't have a high enough GPA to get an achievement scholarship, therefore, the organization is discriminating against not-as-smart people.
I also see it as a waste of time to spend time teaching sexual diversity specifically ,because I think students could be tought something more beneficial.
Why stop there? Lets just ditch the entire Civil Rights movement, students today can be tought something more beneficial then the power of mass actions to change public opinion.
I'm not black, therefore black achievement scholarships are promoting discrimination. Some of my friends didn't have a high enough GPA to get an achievement scholarship, therefore, the organization is discriminating against not-as-smart people.
Scholarships are supposed to be for intelligent people, hence the scholar part. I also think that scholarships should be open to anybody that can earn them.
Why stop there? Lets just ditch the entire Civil Rights movement, students today can be tought something more beneficial [than]the power of mass actions to change public opinion.
I fail to see how the teaching of sexual diversity is as important as the Civil Rights movement. Maybe it has something to do with the country being almost entirely segregated before the Civil Rights movement?
I fail to see how the teaching of sexual diversity is as important as the Civil Rights movement. Maybe it has something to do with the country being almost entirely segregated before the Civil Rights movement?
Integrate the Gay Rights movement in with the Civil Rights movement. Spend ten minutes mentioning Stonewall, Harvey Milk, and the movement to repeal DADT.
Scholarships are supposed to be for intelligent people, hence the scholar part. I also think that scholarships should be open to anybody that can earn them.
No, as those are specifically stated as athletic scholarships; however, I will revise my previous comment as a it would be more accurate to say that a scholar is a person skilled in a specific field.
No, as those are specifically stated as athletic scholarships; however, I will revise my previous comment as a it would be more accurate to say that a scholar is a person skilled in a specific field.
Integrate the Gay Rights movement in with the Civil Rights movement. Spend ten minutes mentioning Stonewall, Harvey Milk, and the movement to repeal DADT.
No, as those are specifically stated as athletic scholarships; however, I will revise my previous comment as a it would be more accurate to say that a scholar is a person skilled in a specific field.
By that same logic teaching about the struggle to unionize for migrant workers would be bad unless it is lumped into the Civil Rights movement? What makes teaching about the struggle for gay rights bad if it is done as a stand-alone unit yet good when lumped into the overall 'civil rights' unit?
They should absolutely be taught in sexual education classes. It's sort of like the argument for teaching safe sex: People are going to be LGBT whether or not others discourage such behaviors or mindsets, so we might as well provide useful information. Plus, its always good to have LGBT treated on the same level as "straight" people.
What about sex ed needs to acknowledge gays? Sex ed is learning how the human reproductive system works, STDs and contraception. It doesn't go any farther than that, and doesn't need to. Those are all-inclusive topics.
Why do we have to go deeper in these classes now? Do they already go deeper now? We never discussed actual sex in my sex ed classes, or anything beyond the big three topics I mentioned.
By that same logic teaching about the struggle to unionize for migrant workers would be bad unless it is lumped into the Civil Rights movement? What makes teaching about the struggle for gay rights bad if it is done as a stand-alone unit yet good when lumped into the overall 'civil rights' unit?
So that isn't discriminatory, but offering a scholarship for Irish-Americans exclusively is discriminatory?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
