• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Editor’s warning: Some readers may take offense to graphic content in this column.

About eight years ago, while researching the astonishing rise of homosexual-positive programs and curricula in schools, I came across a book called “Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling” by William J. Letts IV and James T. Sears.

It’s a collection of essays by radicals in the teaching profession, who believe adults and small children must be taught to “think queerly.” The book’s foreword was written by Kevin Jennings, then president of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, whose core mission is to convince as many troubled kids as possible to declare themselves homosexual and start “gay” clubs in their schools, assisted by activist on-site teachers and the ACLU, and unopposed by clueless school boards.

What jumped off the back cover of this book was the name of one of its endorsers: William Ayers of the University of Illinois at Chicago. I remembered Bill Ayers’ name from the 60s bomb-throwing group, the Weathermen. At the time, that was all his name meant to me.

But as this election drama unfolds, the Ayers connection with this despicable movement to sexualize our kids needs to be examined closely. Spellbound people are drawn to Barack Obama and are choosing to ignore key elements of his ideological pedigree. We need to bring this aspect of Ayers/Obama radicalism into the foreground. Ayers is not just a terrorist who attacked government buildings. He’s an advocate of revolution in America by indoctrinating and sexually corrupting the next generation.

Remember his comments about smashing monogamy? Remember his confession in the New York Times article on 9/11 about the Weathermen’s sexual experimentation, including his own sex with his male best friend? Ayers is a recognized authority on “social justice” education. It’s time we uncovered what that really means.

Ayers’ blurb is the first one listed on the back cover. It says:

Queering Elementary Education is an important contribution to nourishing the ethical heart of teaching, reminding us how anemic and cold and partial our embrace of our students has too often been. For some readers this collection will be an affirmation, for others a surprise and challenge. But it is a book for all teachers and parents, indeed for anyone concerned with the healthy development of children and schools. And, yes, it has an agenda: it stands straight and strong for fairness, for respect, for humanity, for simple decency. …

What constitutes “simple decency” in this book is quite a stretch from what Joe and Helen Average American might call decency. Obama was the first chairman of Ayers’ Chicago Annenberg Challenge, so one can safely assume they share quite a few ideas about children and educating about “social justice.”

“Queering” includes essays about the need to affirm “sissy boys” in middle school, re-educating parents who object to teaching grade-schoolers about homosexual-headed families, in spite of the fact that some critics are the “rabid and self-appointed moral police” and the benefit of classrooms that don’t observe Mother’s Day or Father’s Day. Another author, discussing “queer theory,” tells us that “presumed heterosexuality … is an artifact of oppression.” Thus, we get down to some specifics about so-called social justice education.

Other authors illustrate the need to use songs about homosexuality in grade schools (“Mama, What’s a Dyke?”), and the need to incorporate literature into the curriculum that affirms comfortable friendships between young boys and adult homosexual men.

One of the most revealing essays in “Queering Elementary Education” tells us about a young girl named Steph. Her mom writes the essay describing the benefits of 8-year-old Steph’s world of “mobility and ambiguity.” Steph “attends queer events with her parents’ friends,” and “her father is now primary caregiver supported by a network of multicultural and multisexual friends.”

Steph’s mom relates a conversation with Steph about what’s missing from her sex education classes at school: “… the clitoris!” For by the time she was 7, Steph was “taught that it is the clitoris that gives her pleasure when she masturbates.” Of course, this isn’t surprising, since in another passage, Steph and her mother agree that, while watching a group of young girls, they are both attracted to the same 12-year-old. Steph has a teen girlfriend who regularly stays at their house for sleepovers who has confided she’s a lesbian.

Children need to challenge any environment that is too “heteronormative, Anglocentric and phallocentric,” according to Steph’s mom, who sees that “‘queerly raised’ children are agents” using “strategies of adaptation, negotiation, resistance and subversion.”

This book isn’t the only involvement Ayers has with the pro-homosexual school agenda. He’s an advocate within the profession of standards to force “LGBTQ” priorities on schools – that’s ” lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning.” Again, this often falls under the umbrella of “social justice.”

In 2007, a group from the American Educational Research Association, or AERA, including Ayers, demanded major accrediting organization for schools, colleges, and departments of education include categories of “social justice, sexual orientation and gender identity” in its standards. Ayers and colleagues called their effort “Call to Action: A RED Campaign for Social Justice and Queer Lives.” Ayers, formerly vice president for curriculum of the AERA, was the spokesman on behalf of the effort, calling on the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, or NCATE, to include these categories.

What would an Obama administration do? The record shows that Obama supported Illinois Senate Bill 99 in 2003, which, despite denials by Obama and false claims by the mainstream media, was not a bill to protect children from sexual predators. It was a sweeping, comprehensive sex-education bill that lowered the age of instruction from sixth grade to kindergarten, gutted an abstinence emphasis and prohibited “bias” based on “sexual orientation.” The term “sexual predator” is nowhere in the bill, with inappropriate touching by peers included in a laundry list of the many aspects of explicit sex ed.

Would all schools in the U.S., under the muscle of an Obama administration, be forced to drill youth in the talking points of “gay” sex and gender–switching, calling it “justice”? Would Ayers’ idea that America is an oppressive regime with way too much heterosexuality become a core tenet of your child’s value system?

Someone needs to ask Obama how he defines social justice teaching to children. What will be the specifics of the next version of “No Child Left Behind”?

And let’s hope he will tell us the truth before Election Day.


  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.