Day of Silence Returns

Sacramento, Ca.~

Every year pro-homosexual students around the nation hijack public schools for the day by remaining silent, refusing to participate in class. The purpose of Day of Silence is to show solidarity for homosexual and transgender students who have allegedly been silenced and marginalized by society. Day of Silence disrupts education and forces an anti-family political agenda on all students.

This year Day of Silence is scheduled for Wednesday, April 18.

In order to counter the misinformation of Day of Silence, some pro-family students organize a Day of Truth for the following day. Day of Truth simply gives students the facts, helping them to understand the other side of the debate. Unfortunately many students seeking to hold a Day of Truth event are stopped by school administrators. This is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The Alliance Defense Fund has offered free legal help to students who are wrongfully barred from holding a Day of Truth event.

“It’s not the tactics these schools are worried about, it’s the message. Students who support homosexual behavior deserve a platform; students who oppose such behavior do not. Sex education classes and safe-sex assemblies are required; expressions of conscience against abortion are forbidden. That flagrant double-standard is the main reason courts nationwide are upholding the rights of students who participate in Day of Truth and [the pro-life] Day of Silent Solidarity events,” said attorney Michael Johnson with Alliance Defense Fund.

Meanwhile(ed.),In 1999, Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl’s AB 537 was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis. This legislation, titled the “California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000”, added sexual orientation (including actual or perceived) to all discrimination prohibitions applying to public schools.

Since the passage and implementation of AB 537, radical lawmakers have continued to chip away at other “discriminatory” behavior (i.e. religious beliefs or expressions). Apparently these lawmakers believe that the laws they have passed are not being implemented as they had planned. AB 394 would now require the State Department of Education to “monitor adherence” to the requirements of AB 537. In other words, lawmakers are passing a law to ensure the law is enforced.

CRI questions the motives behind this bill because if AB 537 dealt with discrimination in schools, why is it necessary to pass a seemingly redundant law?

According to sponsors of the bill, pro-homosexual rights group Equality California, “since [AB 537] was enacted, unlawful bias-motivated discrimination and harassment continue to be pervasive in California schools and many school districts are not in compliance with the law.” This begs the question, if the first law didn’t make a difference, how will another redundant law? In their explanation for the necessity of more law, Equality California continually uses language such as “reaffirm”, “strengthen”, “reinforce”, and “clarify.” These euphemisms belie the true intent of AB 394. History has shown us that such legislation is actually used to coerce schools into complying with a radical social agenda.

AB 394 will be heard in the Assembly Education Committee next Wednesday!

Karen England is the executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute.