Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, consider Black History Month. You learn about Carver and peanuts, some guy and the traffic light, MLK and civil rights, etc...

I'd imagine a gay history unit could touch on perceptions of homosexuality at various points in history. You're a little off on your concept of Gay Greeks, incidentally.

In literature, Oscar Wilde comes to mind. Our English program in Ultra-Liberal Hippieland South Carolina had us reading The Importance of Being Earnest, and we didn't talk about the author at all. Joseph Conrad, Shakespeare, Toni Morrison, etc, etc all had at least a brief "about the author" blurb, but Oscar Wilde's life is apparently unworthy of discussion (despite being pretty interesting). I bet if you looked around, you might even find there were other gay artists at various points in time </sarcasm>
-----------

I could go subject by subject and point out some significant figures that happened to be gay, but the main point here is really:

Should someone's sexual orientation be highlighted in an educational setting?

This closely parallels the same question from 30-50 years ago:

Should someone's race be highlighted in an educational setting?

I'm willing to bet that most people's answers to both of those questions is the same, and probably falls along political lines.

Schools are, and always have been, social engineering tools.

Student achievement in the US is hampered by American beliefs in "all men are created equal." We insist on equal educational opportunities for all students, which results in smart/advanced students being held back in a learning environment by classmates who (by dint of family background or personal preference) are not interested in learning, or, despite our claims to the contrary, are not equal to the task at hand.

A German-style system that divides students up into different scholastic goals (vocational training, college prep, etc...) would better suit a nation of our size and diversity.

But, since we're unwilling to "leave a child behind," we're stuck with trying to force "one-size-fits-all" educational standards on a diverse student population.

If we're not going to create excellent/informed students, can we at least generate students that are less hateful/misinformed on social issues?

Tell that to the Down Syndrome child, the crack baby, the child born with a limb reduction defect, etc...

The Founders weren't insisting that people are born with an equality of stature, intelligence, etc... but that they should all have equal rights (well, except for Blacks, Women, Native Americans, non-property owners, etc...). Our modern take on that, though, is all people are equal, and we should treat all people as though they are equally capable of a standard level of achievement/education. This is patently false.