Resolved: Missouri should pass its "Don't Say Gay" Bill.

The Principles of Democracy and Public EducationMy opponent does not understand how the "principles of democracy" are linked to the "functioning of public education." To clarify the issue, when students are exposed to substantive content in the context of public education, it necessarily reflects or condemns someone's set of beliefs or values. But according to the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, public schools are not supposed to do that.For example, consider the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Weisman, where Justice Kennedy states: "As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools" [1]. Therefore, to preserve the "freedom of conscience" of students in public schools, teachers are prohibited from discussing any moral, theological, philosophical or political views that are not established and reflected by the government itself.Discussing high-school graduation ceremonies, Kennedy continues: "What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy" [1]. Herein lies the difference between the context of public education and the context of academia or other public forums: students in public schools are subject to "peer pressure" and "indirect coercion."Building support for his argument, Kennedy cites the Supreme Court's decisions in Abington School District v. Schempp, Edward v. Aguillard, Westside Community Bd. of Ed v. Mergens, Engel v. Vitale, Abington School District, and Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU. As such, the "principles of democracy" are clearly tied up with the "functioning of public education," and there is clearly an important distinction made by government between public education and academic education.It is for these reasons that, in the context of public schools, teachers are not only prohibited fom discussing religious beliefs with students, but teachers are not even allowed to permit students time for "prayer" or "meditation," as doing so might be interpreted by other students as a government establishment of religion.Why Prohibit Discussion of LGBT Issues in Public Schools?My opponent admits there will be "disparities on what exactly teachers will say when discussing LGBT topics," and that is precisely why allowing discussion of homosexuality violates the aforementioned "principles of democracy," student's right to "freedom of conscience" in public schools.The reason "slavery, the civil rights movement, the dropping of atomic bombs, [and] prohibition" are not "excluded from the curriculum," as my opponent argues would happen if discussion of contested moral, theological and philosophical issues is excluded from public schools, is because slavery, the civil rights movement, the dropping of atomic bombs, and prohibition are issues that government has established a position on.At the moment, the Supreme Court has not established a clear position on whether homosexuality is moral or immoral (Justice Scalia, for example, vehemently insists that it is immoral), and therefore, neither government nor public education is currently in a position to establish or reflect a substantive view concerning LGBT issues. Public schools must prohibit discussion of LGBT issues, because if they don't, it would implicate government in the establishment of a position on LGBT issues.Students would be directly and indirectly coerced, through public pressure (from teachers) and peer pressure (from other studets), to adhere to a view of homosexuality contrary to their own. Students would be forced to reflect someone's view and condemn someone's view, even if that view was contested by the students' parents and/or religion.My opponent argues that discussion of LGBT issues is necessary for students to acquire an "an understanding of the natural world," but this statement only shows that my opponent has misunderstood HB 2051. The bill states that discussion of LGBT issues is allowed when they intersect with the interests of science, which is to say, with an "understanding of the natural world."What is not allowed is discussion of LGBT issues in any context that is not intended to further understanding of the natural world. In other words, LGBT issues discussed in a non-scientific context are prohibited.My opponent falsely claims that, in my understanding (which is the same understanding as the U.S Supreme Court's understanding) of public education, mathematics, science, and English courses would be excluded. On the contrary, mathematics and science are allowed as they are generally and politically reflected and established by the United States government (for example, see the Supreme Court's decisions on creationism and Intelligence Design). In other words, a significant number of people do not contest the beliefs established by math or science, so they are established as general knowledge.As for the study of English, the curriculum (for example, as seen in AP English and AP Literature curriculums and exams) centers around formal interpretations of the English language and literature, including New Critical readings of texts which removes texts from their social, cultural, and historical context.Returning to a discussion of LGBT issues, the problem with allowing discussion of sexual orientation can be summarized as follows: because it has not been politically or generally established whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, whether same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal, and so on, teachers are not qualified or in a position to make judgments about substantive content regarding LGBT issues. Discussion in the context of science is permitted by the bill, which is intended to further students' understanding of the natural world. Discussion of LGBT issues outside the context of science, accordingly, is best left to the private sphere, to discussions between students and their parents and personal communities. At this point, I believe I have fully addressed my opponent's arguments, and my case in support of HB 2051, the "Don't Say Gay" bill, has been made and affirmed.[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...