A Parent’s Bill of Rights – What Every Parent is Entitled To

by Diane Rufino, March 29, 2022

We cannot and must not forget that the brains of school-age children have not finished developing. They can’t process, analyze, appreciate, or comprehend the consequences of the adult topics that are being forced on them through progressive policies, doctrines, and teachings. The mere suggestion of socially progressive issues, especially regarding racism and transgenderism, to a child or teen can cause them confusion and send them questioning their biological identity and their role in society. Not only does such material cause confusion, but it certainly serves to stereotype individuals by their skin color and associated character traits, as well as to make certain children feel they are perpetual victims of society and others feel that their race has been and continues to be the cause of their oppression. Why do we need to cause a young child to question his or her gender or sexuality? Why even talk about sexuality in the classroom at all?  In education, we hear about education standards and how they must align with a child’s brain development. That’s because we want our children to be able to absorb the particular lesson, process it, and learn it. Lessons must make sense to them when they are taught so that the learning process is effective. How does the teaching of racism, transgenderism, gender fluidity, alternative sex education, panoramic surveys, social emotional learning align with a young child’s brain development and ability to process?

Children are supposed to receive their grounding, their foundation, during their formative, school-age years, from their parents, their families, their church, and yes, from the permanent and unchanging laws of science, in particular Biology.

It’s not enough to think of liberal/progressive indoctrination in our public school systems as only Critical Race Theory. Yet that is what most parents are concerned with. In fact, there are so many different forms, so many distinct ways to get the same progressive teaching to our children. For example, there are inappropriate panoramic surveys, identity surveys, data-mining surveys, equity indoctrination, social emotional learning lessons (SEL), health classes on alternative life styles and alternative sex education, diversity education (diversity lessons), lessons on such progressive social issues as transgenderism, gender fluidity, pronoun choice, and the list goes on. In many ways, all of these progressive doctrines and policies are interconnected. They serve one ultimate goal: to further a progressive and liberal social agenda. To learn more about these progressive doctrines and polices, I recommend going to the Education First Alliance website –  https://www.edfirstnc.org/.

“Whoever controls the education of our children controls the future.” Nazi Germany understood this; Communist China understands this. And the progressive element in the United States most clearly understands this. These elements are in political strongholds all over the country – in the state boards of election and in local governments, including the local school boards.

A gross over-reach by education bureaucrats has teachers and school systems focused on social engineering and counseling rather than providing a sound, basic education. They want to steer our future in a progressive direction. Teachers debate “preferred pronouns” in discussing gender identity while our children don’t even know how to construct a proper sentence. Education has suffered greatly. Students aren’t even situated with the proper skills to enter college. North Carolina has an abysmal record on public education

It is unconscionable that our young children are being exposed to such vile and disgusting, inappropriate, potentially harmful (emotionally and psychologically), uber-liberal, and non-value-added material. It is bad enough that they are exposed to it on the internet, on TV, in almost every movie, in the news, in music videos and song lyrics, but to normalize such views and such conduct in the public school system, a place where our youth is supposed to be EDUCATED and not indoctrinated. They are supposed to be EDUCATED and not counseled.

In North Carolina, its Constitution, in Section IX (“Education”), reads: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education, SHALL FOREVER BE ENCOURAGED.” (emphasis added)

Again, the foundations for religion and morality (ie, virtue) must come from the family and the church and NOT from the public school system and the rabid liberals that teach our children. (I acknowledge that not all teachers are liberal, but the conservative ones feel helpless). A solid foundation in science is also necessary, I believe, for a child to be able to properly and honestly address the issues of our decaying society. The laws of science are immutable and permanent.

And so, as I began to delve into the mess that has become our public education system, I became fixated on that provision in Section IX. Back in the day (and I’m not that old), it was always assumed that religion, morality, and knowledge were the legs to a solid public school education. It was always assumed that those in charge of the education of our children were in line with the rightful expectations of parents. And we, as parents, used to believe that we could go into the schools, into our child’s classroom, and see what they are learning and how they are being taught. This was so back in the 70’s when I was a child in the public school system in New Jersey and up until several years ago in North Carolina. What changed?  When did we lose the time-honored notion of a “sound, basic education?” When did we as parents lose our rights to know how our children are being educated? When did we lose control over our children?  When did the school system take control of them and disrupt the parent-child relationship?  When did the school system usurp our parental rights?

And so, I’d like to address a different topic with regard with the education of our children in this article –  a PARENT’S BILL OF RIGHTS.

As I mentioned to the Pitt County Board of Education in my remarks to them this month: “Parents are responsible for every detail of their young children’s lives, from potty training to eating healthy, to keeping them healthy and happy, to helping them to socialize well.  We used to think that that our responsibilities were lightened when our kids got on the school bus and went off to school. We trusted that they were in good and responsible hands and getting the best education the district could provide. But that’s no longer true. As we’ve learned over the past years, that responsibility continues, perhaps even moreseo, WHEN THEY GO OFF to SCHOOL.”

As displayed and reported all across the country, parents are frustrated, they feel they are being ignored and unheard, and most importantly, they honestly believe that their child’s basic educational needs are not met. 

The fact that education bureaucrats have chosen to focus on divisive issues while an entire generation of students aren’t reaching proficiency in the essential areas of math and reading is abhorrent. It shows an indifference toward our children’s futures. They debate preferred pronouns, while our children don’t even know how to construct a proper sentence. North Carolina students are in a crisis, and parents are labeled domestic terrorists for simply expressing their outrage at school board meetings. 

Parents have a voice and that voice needs to be heard. They have rights and they need to be respected and not ignored. Parents have every right to be involved in the classroom. After I heard Ms. Kelly Mann, the Outreach Director for the John Locke Foundation (Raleigh, NC) mention an article she had written on A Parent’s Bill of Rights for its website, I became energized to help promote it. I wrote to every single North Carolina house member and every single state senator asking them to consider a bill officially recognizing parents’ rights in the education of their children.

A Parent’s Bill of Rights should, at least, include all of the following. I’m sure parents can come up with additional “rights” and I hope they do. The first 10 rights come from Ms. Mann (I want to make sure she gets the credit, which she absolutely deserves) and the rest are ones that I’ve come up with:

1. Education funds must follow students, not systems.
2. Parents have the right to engage in the selection and approval of academic standards.
3. Parents have the right to access educational materials, resources, and syllabi taught to their children in the classroom.
4. Parents have the right to make medical care decisions on behalf of their children.
5. Parents will receive timely notification of information related to the health, well-being, and education of their children.
6. In-person education is a right that should always be available as a choice.
7. Parents have the right to transparent access to school and school district academic performance.
8. Parents have the right to access detailed and up-to-date district financial records.
9. Parents have the right to opt their children out of the classroom for delivery of content listed in the syllabus with which they disagree.
10. Parents have the right to know about situations affecting their minor child’s safety in school (individually or school-wide).. Parents shall be notified in a timely manner of all reported incidents pertaining to student safety, including all crimes or misdemeanors committed by teachers or other school employees.
11. Parents should never have to “co-parent” with government. “Basic and sound education” is the sole province of government; parenting is the sole province of parents.
12. The right to know what their minor child is being taught in school, including, but not limited to, curricula, books, and other instructional materials.
13. Parents have the right to determine and choose which education environment will best serve their child’s education needs, without judgement from others or resistance by the school system, even if that environment is at home (home-schooling).
14. Parents have the fundamental right to make decisions regarding their child’s education, well-being, and access to public school progressive indoctrination. Religion, morality, family and social values are matters to be directed and respected as belonging to parents.
15. Parents shall not be required to sign non-disclosure agreements or similar forms for parental review of curricula, and shall be allowed to make copies of curriculum documents.
16. Parents have the right to visit their child during school hours and to be able to sit-in on their child’s class, upon making a request to do so.
17. Parents have the right to be provided with information, data, and statistics as to the shortcomings or failures (as well as successes) of each school system their child can potentially attend.
18. Parents have the right to information on who is teaching their minor child, including guest lecturers and outside presenters.
19. Parents have the right to information on individuals and organizations receiving school contracts and funding.
20. Parents have the right to all school records, medical or otherwise, concerning their (minor) child.
21. Parents have the right The right to information about the collection and transmission of their minor child’s data. Schools and school districts shall obtain parental consent prior to collecting any biometric data or other sensitive personal information on the minor child.
22. Parents have the right to be notified should the school feel the need to have a counselor speak to their child, and to have the right to refuse to have their child “counseled” by the school.
23. Parents have the absolute right to be notified of and to be involved in the filling out of ANY questionnaire or survey that the school assigns to their child. Likewise, parents have the absolute right to refuse to have their child answer such questionnaires or surveys. Parents have the right to control what information is shared with the school system (ie, government).
24. For parents of exceptional children: Parents have the right to have their child’s exceptionalism diagnosed and served by the education system.
25. Parents shall be able to remove their child temporarily from a class or activity that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
26. Parents have the right to be heard regarding complaints about their child’s education, their child’s teacher/teachers, and how their child is being instructed. School boards must establish a way to consider and respond to complaints from parents.
27. Parents have the right to make suggestions to their child’s school regarding education and to be taken seriously. Parents have a stake in their child’s education and a duty to over-see how it is being delivered.
28. Parents shall be empowered to sue schools for injunctive relief that do not protect these rights. A pattern of such violations in a particular jurisdiction will trigger major reductions in education funding.

The proposed Parent’s Bill of Rights for North Carolina by Ms. Mann is actually nothing new. Several states already have such a Bill of Rights in place.  Florida, Missouri, and Indiana are just three such states. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas just recently proposed a Parent’s Bill of Rights for his state (January 25). And Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) recently introduced one in the US Senate on November 16, 2021.

Will Estrada, president of the Parental Rights Foundation has been working for years to pass a parental rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps its day will come. In the meantime, the Parental Rights Foundation has managed to pass such an amendment in twelve states. These amendments affirm that “the liberty interest of the parent, and the nurture, education, care, custody, and control of the parent’s child is a fundamental right.”

Parents are stepping up and exerting their parental rights and I, for one, am so happy to see this. They are attempting to bring common sense and the inalienable rights of parents back to education. As Estada says: “Parents know they have the right to be in charge of their child’s education, upbringing, and care. This is not just a Republican issue or even a Christian issue. This is something parents all across the board want. They may have different views on how to raise their children, but we respect that and we advance it and we protect it legally here in our country.”

I strongly support a Parent’s Bill of Rights. The Coalition for Public Education group (C.O.P.E.) strongly supports a Parent’s Bill of Rights. The fact that parents are getting out of the kitchen, out of the house, and out to local school boards meetings all across the country because of their outrage and frustration over what is happening in the public school system, to the detriment of students, to the dismantling of the child-parent relationship, and to the integrity of education in general should impress upon boards of education the seriousness of the matter. Parents matter. Their rights matter. Children matter. The education of our next generation matters. Boards of Education, state legislators, and even our legislators in DC need to recognize and support a Parent’s Bill of Rights.

A Parent’s Bill of Rights is not only a good-faith gesture that signals and promises to parents that the system is on their side and that it will value their input and their views on how their children should be educated, but it is the RIGHT thing to do.

Resources:

Kelly Mann, “It’s Time for a Parent’s Bill of Rights,” John Locke Foundation.  https://www.johnlocke.org/its-time-for-a-parents-bill-of-rights/

Josh  Hawley, “Josh Hawley Introduces a Parents’ Bill of Rights to Defend Parents’ Role in Education.”   https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-introduces-parents-bill-rights-defend-parents-role-education#:~:text=The%20Parents’%20Bill%20of%20Rights%20Act%20will%20empower%20parents%20to,books%2C%20and%20other%20instructional%20materials.

Highlight on Gerrymandering and the Right of the People to Vote Fairly and Equally

by Diane Rufino, March 17, 2022

The term “Gerrymandering” refers to the act of manipulating the boundaries of voting districts to achieve some political advantage. The term was coined during Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry’s tenure, who, in 1812, redrew the voting districts for the Massachusetts State Senate to favor his own party. One district caught the attention of the Boston Gazette, who published a political cartoon likening the district’s shape to that of a salamander and labeling the phenomenon “The Gerry-mander” – after the Governor.

Judicial Watch made headlines when it sued the state of Maryland over its “extreme gerrymandering” of congressional districts and got a favorable ruling by the U.S. Circuit of Anne Arundel County last week.

Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, made an excellent point in the case his group brought against the state of Maryland on behalf of 12 voters in each of Maryland’s congressional districts representing each of its congressional districts, challenging the state’s recent re-districting maps. Plaintiffs claim that the new maps are the product of extreme gerrymandering and violate and diminish their right to vote and their ability to have their vote fairly recognized (and their “voice” fairly heard). Fitton emphasized that the right at stake is (always is) the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO VOTE AND TO BE HEARD EQUALLY and NOT the right of ambitious politicians and political parties to scheme and be successful at using their authority to attain political power and control.

The lawsuit originally filed by Judicial Watch against Maryland’s state administrator of elections and the chair of the state board of elections, Linda Limone (case name: Parrott et al. v. Lamone) in U.S. District Court for Maryland alleged that the controversial redistricting plan is unconstitutional because it transferred “the power to select congressional representatives from Maryland’s voters to legislators.” Judicial Watch also alleged that “to obtain an electoral advantage, mapmakers need to arrange both their own partisans and those of their electoral opponents in particular district configurations…. But voters do not choose where to live so as to suit the purposes of legislators trying to draw gerrymandered districts…. This is why legislators must distort district boundaries to create districts that contain the mix of voters that best achieves partisan goals.”

That complaint also alleged that the Maryland’s congressional district maps are “the most distorted and confused” in the country and were drawn in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution, especially the provision that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…” (Article 1, Section 2) as well as Article 1, Section 2 and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which addresses the remedy for a violation of an individual right).

Judicial Watch argued that “the gerrymandering of Maryland’s congressional districts allows Maryland legislators to steal for themselves a significant portion of power to select congresspersons, which power should only be exercised ‘by the People’,” and that “gerrymandering is not something that Democrats and Republicans do to each other. Gerrymandering is something that legislators and other state actors do TO voters.”

According to the lawsuit, the 2011 redistricting plan unfairly, and in an intentionally-partisan fashion, uprooted millions of Marylanders from their previous congressional districts. In fact, the congressional districting plan greatly and confusingly reconfigured Maryland’s congressional districts.  Specifically, the new plan removed approximately 1.6 million Marylanders from their previous congressional district and placed them in a different district. In total, 27 percent of all Marylanders were removed from their previous congressional district and placed in a different congressional district. As the complaint alleged: “Maryland’s gerrymander produces split counties, county fragments, and split precincts,” resulting in the arbitrary political fragmentation of the state.”  The lawsuit argues that the new plan harms not only Republicans, but also Democrats and Independent voters.

Maryland’s recent history of partisan gerrymandering is no secret. It’s 2011 congressional district map, for example, remains one of the most notorious intentional partisan gerrymanders in U.S. history. A federal district judge even openly doubted that it could provide “fair and effective representation for all citizens.” 

The lawsuit relates that a bipartisan commission recommended a map to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan on November 5 that he approved, but the legislature passed a different proposal in a straight party-line vote. On December 9, 2021, Hogan vetoed this proposal, and on the same day, the state legislature overrode his veto again along a party line vote.

As Fitton explains: “Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional district map treats voters like cattle, herding them into districts that defy sense. Traditionally, it has been accepted that the people select their elected representatives.  But currently in Maryland, it’s the legislators who are selecting their constituents. The Supreme Court should address the unconstitutional corruption of gerrymandering, beginning with Maryland.”

Consequently, the plaintiffs asked the district court, among other forms of relief, to declare the Maryland maps unlawful and require Maryland to redraw the maps.

Unfortunately, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled for the state in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.

Judicial Watch appealed the ruling. (Fitton has already filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court). The appeal is unique in that it presented a “judicially manageable remedy” necessary to resolve clear cases of political gerrymandering, specifically the Polsby-Popper scale, which is one of the most widely used measures of electoral district compactness. Robert Popper, co-creator of the Polsby-Popper scale, is the lead Judicial Watch attorney in this lawsuit and directs the organization’s Election Integrity Project.

Compactness measures have been widely used to assess geographic gerrymandering. Although it is generally accepted that legislative districts should be “compact,” as is often the case, that definition has become something malleable in the hands of ambitious politicians. Numerous, sometimes conflicting, measures of compactness across a number of theoretical dimensions have been proposed in the academic literature, and Judicial Watch prefers the use of the Polsby-Popper scale.

The Polsby-Popper (PP) scale (measurement) is a straightforward application of a mathematically-derived compactness measure which looks at the ratio of the area of the district (A_D) to the area of a circle whose circumference is equal to the perimeter of the district (P_D). A district’s Polsby-Popper score closest to 1 indicates a more compact district. This scale can be used as a judicially manageable, discernable, and non-arbitrary standard with which to measure, and deter, excessive partisan gerrymandering.     

The formula is  PP = 4 x A_D / P_D

Maryland’s congressional districts have an average Polsby-Popper compactness score of 11.3.  This is the lowest (ie, the worst) average compactness score for congressional districts of any state in the nation. Outside experts agreed that the plan was flawed, with the nonpartisan Princeton Gerrymandering Project giving it a grade of “F” for fairness and geographic compactness. In 2020, Republicans accounted for approximately 35% of Maryland’s congressional votes, but they’re unlikely to win even a single seat under this plan. This outcome wouldn’t and couldn’t be possible without political gerrymandering.

The congressional map drawn by Democrats would have most likely guaranteed them at least seven of Maryland’s eight House seats, or 87 percent of the state’s seats.

Luckily, and wisely, the appellate court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, agreed with the Plaintiffs and Judicial Watch.

On March 25, senior Maryland judge Lynne A. Battaglia of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ruled that Democrats in the state had drawn an “extreme gerrymander” and finally threw out the state’s new congressional map, drawn up by its Democrat-majority legislature. The judge’s ruling found that the map drawn by Democrats had “constitutional failings” and ignored requirements of focusing on “compactness” and keeping similar communities together. In her opinion, she wrote: “All of the testimony in this case supports the notions that the voice of Republican voters was diluted and their right to vote and be heard with the efficacy of a Democratic voter was diminished.”

“With regard to Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Judge Battaglia continued, “the Plaintiffs, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, proved that the 2021 Plan was drawn with partisanship as predominant intent, to the exclusion of traditional redistricting criteria, by the party in power, to suppress the voice of Republican voters. The right for all political participation in Congressional elections … was violated by the 2021 Plan.”

Concluding, Judge Battaglia ordered the gerrymandered district plan to be permanently enjoined (ie, unenforceable) and ordered the Maryland General Assembly to redraw the map by March 30. A hearing for the new map has been set for April 1.

Judicial Watch president Fitton was happy that the appellate court has ordered Maryland to go back and re-draw district maps that respect Maryland voters and don’t make a mockery of common sense and the rule of law. In a public statement, he said: “This key court victory against abusive partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in Maryland could set a national precedent.”

What can all states do in light of this ruling?

First, let’s acknowledge what is going on in the scheming dens of Democratic politicians. Democrats across the country have taken a much more aggressive tack this redistricting cycle than they have in the past, seeking to counteract what they have long denounced as extreme Republican gerrymanders from the 2010 cycle. Democratic state legislatures in New York, Illinois and Oregon drew new maps this year that would have given them a significant advantage over Republicans — and congressional delegations at odds with the overall partisan tilt of each state.

Voters do not choose where to live so as to suit the intentions and purposes of legislators and ambitious (desperate) political parties. They should not have to be used as pawns in political gamesmanship.

The right to vote and for each citizen to be heard equally and fairly is the foundation of this country. It supports the founding notion that it is the people’s country and the people’s government, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and organized under the social compact, the US Constitution.

There should never be a conscious and intentional effort to re-draw (that is, “gerrymander”) for partisan gain. As Fitton explains, such gerrymandering dilutes and diminishes a voter’s right to cast a fair and equal ballot. Every voter has the rightful expectation that his or her vote will count equally and has not been co-opted and manipulated.

So….  What is the solution? 

Again, extreme gerrymandering violates and diminishes the right of the PEOPLE to vote on an equal basis with all other voters and to be able to be fairly heard through their vote. In the lawsuit he filed on behalf of disgruntled Maryland voters who believed they have been manipulated solely for political purposes, Fitton emphasized that the right at stake is (always is) the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO VOTE AND TO BE HEARD EQUALLY and NOT the right of ambitious politicians and political parties to scheme and be successful at using their authority to attain political power and control.

In 2019, in the case Rucho v. Common Cause, the US Supreme Court opined that the states (North Carolina and Maryland named specifically) are allowed to gerrymander, explaining that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that states and Congress could pass laws to prevent politically oriented districts but asking the courts to do so would be “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”  In other words, the case restates a simple principle based on the separation of powers. Of course, there is also the notion of federalism which (as the Tenth Amendment and Federalist No. 45 clearly explain) which leaves the administration and regulation of elections to the states.

Re-districting always involves some partisan benefit. It can’t be helped. It’s the nature of politics. But what about “extreme gerrymandering”?

The solution I believe is for the state legislature to draft amendments to our NC State Constitution, to be adopted by voters in a ballot initiative. There MUST be an amendment or amendments outlining a precise formula (such as the Polsby-Popper measurement) or procedure that protects and preserves the PEOPLE’S right to vote fairly and with transparency and forever prevents and forbids the ability for intentional partisan re-districting (intention to be inferred from the re-districting plans). There must never be extreme gerrymandering in redistricting maps.

State leaders have to stop playing politics with the people and do what is right. We must always remember that the first priority of government is always to protect, respect, and secure the rights of the people, including the right to vote.

Resources:

Miller v. Johnson  515 U.S. 900 (1995)   [Supreme Court prohibits gerrymandering]

“Judicial Watch Files Voter Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Maryland Gerrymandering Plan,” Judicial Watch, March 24, 2022

“Judicial Watch Victory: Court Rules against Democratic Partisan Gerrymander in Maryland.” Judicial Watch. March 25, 2022

Judicial Watch Continues Fight against Maryland Gerrymandering in US Supreme Court, Judicial Watch, January 5, 2017.  https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-continues-fight-maryland-gerrymandering-us-supreme-court/

Pete Williams, “Supreme Court Upholds Gerrymandering in North Carolina, Maryland, NBC News, June 27, 2019.  Referenced at: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supre me-court/supreme-court-allows-gerrymandering-north-carolina-maryland-n1014656    [The case – Rucho v. Common Cause]

Polsby Popper scale – https://fisherzachary.github.io/public/r-output.html

Polsbey Popper Scale, analysis for district mapping (presentation) – https://uirc.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/Map-Grading-Presentation.pdf Ruling, Rucho v. Common Cause – https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

The Danger in Stereotyping Individuals

by Diane Rufino, March 26, 2022

Human beings come in all shapes, sizes, forms, and appearances, and with the passing of time, we are seeing an even greater diversity, mostly of a progressive nature. The so-called “window-dressing” is becoming more audacious and alarming. But one thing is clear – a person’s gender identity is stamped at birth by his or her sex chromosomes. The chromosomes (XX for female and XY for male) are in almost every single cell of the body and are unchanging. Gender, therefore, is biologically defined. Aside from surgery and hormone treatments (including psychology sessions), a person’s physicality, or physical features, are also set by his or her DNA, the blueprint for life.

It is true that we are not all alike, and in fact, many of us are not alike. But we nonetheless treat each other with kindness and compassion, as we are supposed to. We are all God’s children. We respect their choices but we, as being created and endowed with a free conscience, do not necessarily have to accept or support those choices. We tend to accept them, out of respect, civility, and a desire to life in a peaceful community.

The problem is that along the line of history, people have decided to divide individuals according to their God-given, genetically-acquired features in order to claim superiority in one way or another. This is where stereotyping comes in. In particular, I want to address “invidious stereotyping,” which means to be characterized in an objectionable manner, based on an unpleasant or offensive trait.

When individuals are stereotyped, they are demeaned, marginalized, and diminished in society, relegated to a second-class status. When this happens, it is easy to discriminate against them, segregate them, phase them out of society (eugenics; ethnic cleansing), and even murder and annihilate them. We’ve seen all this throughout history and it has disturbed us greatly.

Take the unborn, for example. They are marginalized because they are not seen by many as “persons.” Yet they are. Every pregnancy, especially into the second trimester, involves two distinct lives, defined again by their DNA. Each life should be protected and in a compassionate and rational world, they would be. An unborn child may not be wanted by its natural mother, but there are plenty of people who would love the chance to give that child a home and plenty of love. This blatant disregard for the unborn and the greater weight by the courts to the mother has led to the abomination that has been abortion.

Take African-Americans as another example. Africans were seen as an inferior, backwards and barbaric people back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thus justifying slavery in the 18th century. We can’t but conjure up images of Sambo, Jim Crow, the Savage as representative of black men, and Mammy, Aunt Jemimah, Sapphire, and Jezebelle as representative of black women, and the characterization they helped institutionalize – the stereotype of a simple-minded, lazy, happy black person who was happy to serve and to be taken care of (“a happy slave”). Black women, in particular, were characterized as dominant, controlling, nurturing caretakers, except for Jezebelle, which is the only caricature that hints to the sexual nature of black women.

The ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1884, stated authoritatively that “…the African race occupied the lowest position of the evolutionary scale, thus affording the best material for the comparative study of the highest anthropoids and the human species.” This invidious characterization of African-Americans as apelike savages was exceptionally pervasive. For example, in 1906, the New York Zoological Park featured an exhibit with an African-American man and a chimpanzee. And then several years later, the Ringling Brothers Circus exhibited “the monkey man,” a black man was caged with a female chimpanzee that had been trained to wash clothes and hang them on a line.  

Racial stereotypes that portray blacks as “mentally inferior, physically and culturally unevolved, and apelike in appearance” were supported by prominent white figures like Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. Theodore Roosevelt publicly stated that “As a race and in the mass, the Negroes are altogether inferior to whites.”

In the infamous 1856 Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford,Chief Justice Roger Taney, the court members acknowledged such stereotypes and concluded that persons of African origin were an inferior race and suited only to serve the more advanced and civilized races. Taney wrote:

      “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument…They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit

     A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. He cannot become a citizen of the United States, nor will he be entitled to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

      When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.  

      Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property. The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property and pledges the federal government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. The act of Congress (ie, the Missouri Compromise), therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom.”  {Note: The Dred Scott ruling declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional and unenforceable].

The stereotypes of blacks in our American history has been a severe blight and stain on our nation’s image and continues to infect race relations. Slavery sent the message that blacks were an inferior race of people, uncivilized and barbaric, suited only to serve the more advanced races. And Jim Crow institutionalized the notion that blacks were nothing more than second-class citizens. Race seems to always be an issue and a sore spot for discussion. Sadly, it continues to fuel the allegations of racial intolerance and racial tension.

Who can forget the horrendous plight of the European Jews under the crushing and ambitious political agenda of Adolf Hitler and the German Nazi regime? Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, created a masterful propaganda scheme to convince the German people that Jews were a despicable, conniving, and genetically-inferior race for the ultimate goal to segregate them out of all aspects of German society and ultimately engineer a genetically-superior “master German race.”

In Nazi caricatures, Jews were usually depicted as having large hook-noses, and dark beady eyes with drooping eyelids. Exaggerated or grotesque Jewish facial features were a staple theme in Nazi propaganda and, less frequently, in Soviet propaganda. The idea of the large and crooked (hooked) “Jewish nose” remains one of the most prevalent and defining features to characterize someone as a Jew. This widespread stereotype can be traced back to the 13th century. In Nazi propaganda, Jews were drawn to look like hideous, hairy, demented-looking creatures with large noses. They were also compared to rats, as if they were vermin.

Jews tend to be portrayed as scheming individuals, greedy and miserly. Lastly, they are characterized as having a distinctive way of speaking.

Demonizing and demeaning Jews made it easy for the Nazi leaders and the German people to look the other way at the systemic genocide of over 6 million German and European Jews in ghettos and concentration camps, all for the ethnic cleansing and purification of the German race.

Again, the demeaning of persons of African ancestry has been a huge stain on our country’s history. But another case of stereotyping has also had a stain on our more recent history, and that form of stereotyping took the form of characterizing gay men as “freaks” and generally ignoring them, their charades, and their devasting epidemic. In his magnificent book “And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic” author Randy Stilts explains in great detail how the demonization and stereotyping and intolerance of “distinct classes of outcasts and social pariahs” led to the AIDS epidemic of the 1980’s and the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

In his prologue, Stilts wrote:

       “By October 2, 1985, the morning Rock Hudson died, the word was familiar to almost every household in the Western world…..  AIDS.

      Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome had seemed a comfortably distant threat to most of those who had heard of it before, the misfortune of people who fit into rather distinct classes of outcasts and social pariahs. But suddenly, in the summer of 1985, when a movie star was diagnosed with the disease and the newspapers couldn’t stop talking about it, the AIDS epidemic became palpable and the threat loomed everywhere.

     Suddenly, there were children with AIDS who wanted to go to school, laborers with AIDS who wanted to work, and researchers who wanted funding, and there was a threat to the nation’s public health that could no longer be ignored. Most significantly, there were the first glimmers of awareness that the future would always contain this strange new word. AIDS would become a part of American culture and indelibly change the course of our lives.

     The implications would not be fleshed out for another few years, but on that October day in 1985, the first awareness existed just the same. Rock Hudson riveted America’s attention upon this deadly new threat for the first time, and his diagnosis became a demarcation that would separate the history of America before AIDS from the history that came after.

     The timing of this awareness, however, reflected the unalterable tragedy at the heart of the AIDS epidemic. By the time America paid attention to the disease, it was too late to do anything about it. The virus was already pandemic in the nation, having spread to every corner of the North American continent. The tide of death that would later sweep America could, perhaps, be slowed, but it could not be stopped.

     The AIDS epidemic, of course, did not arise full-grown from the biological landscape; the problem had been festering throughout the decade. The death tolls of the late 1980’s are not startling new developments but an unfolding of events predicted for many years. There had been a time when much of this suffering could have been prevented, but by 1985 that time had passed. Indeed, on the day the world learned that Rock Hudson was stricken, some 12,000 Americans were already dead or dying of AIDS and hundreds of thousands more were infected with the virus that caused the disease. But few had paid any attention to this; nobody, it seemed, had cared about them.

     The bitter truth was that AIDS did not just happen to America; it was allowed to happen by an array of institutions, all of which failed to perform their appropriate tasks to safeguard the public health. This failure of the system leaves a legacy of unnecessary suffering that will haunt the Western world for decades to come.

      There was no excuse, in this country and in this time, for the spread of a deadly new epidemic. For this was a time in which the United States boasted the world’s most sophisticated medicine and the world’s most extensive public health system, geared to eliminate such pestilence from our national life. When the virus appeared, the world’s richest nation housed the most lavishly-financed scientific research establishments – both inside the vast governmental health bureaucracy and in other institutions – to investigate new diseases and quickly bring them under control. And making sure that government researchers and public health agencies did their jobs were the world’s most unfettered and aggressive media, the public’s watchdogs. Beyond that, the group most affected by the epidemic, the gay community, had by then built a substantial political infrastructure, particularly in cities where the disease struck first and most virulently. Leaders were in place to monitor the gay community’s health and survival interests.

      But from 1980, when the first isolated gay men began falling ill from strange and exotic ailments, nearly five years passed before all these institutions – medicine, public health, the federal and private scientific research establishments, the mass media, and the gay community’s leadership – mobilized the way they should in a time of threat. The story of these first five years of AIDS in America is a drama of national failure, played out against a backdrop of needless death.

     People died while Reagan administration officials ignored pleas from government scientists and did not allocate adequate funding for AIDS research until the epidemic had already spread throughout the country. People died while scientists did not at first devote appropriate attention to the epidemic because they perceived little prestige to be gained in studying a homosexual affliction. Even after this denial faded, people died while some scientists, most notably those in the employ of the United States government, competed rather than collaborated in international research efforts, and so diverted attention and energy away from the central struggle against the disease itself. People died while public health authorities and the political leaders who guided them refused to take the tough measures necessary to curb the epidemic’s spread, opting for political expediency over the public health. And people died while gay community leaders played politics with the disease, putting political dogma ahead of the preservation of human life.

      People died and nobody paid attention because the mass media did not like covering stories about homosexuals and was especially skittish about stories that involved gay sexuality. Newspapers and television largely avoided discussion of the disease until the death toll was too high to ignore and the casualties were no longer just the outcasts. Without the media to fulfill its role as public guardian, everyone else was left to deal – and not deal – with AIDS as they saw fit.

      In those years, the federal government viewed AIDS as a budget problem, local public health officials saw it as a political problem, gay leaders considered AIDS a public relations problem, and the news media regarded it as a homosexual problem that wouldn’t interest anybody else. Consequently, few confronted AIDS for what it was – a profoundly threatening medical crisis.

     Fighting against this institutional indifference were a handful of heroes from disparate callings. Isolated teams of scientists in research centers in America and Europe risked their reputations and often their jobs to pioneer early research on AIDS. There were doctors and nurses who went far beyond the call of duty to care for its victims. Some public health officials struggled valiantly to have the epidemic addressed in earnest. A handful of gay leaders withstood vilification to argue forcefully for a sane community response to the epidemic and to lobby for the funds that provided the first breakthroughs in research. And there were many victims of the epidemic who fought rejection, fear, isolation, and their own deadly prognoses to make people understand and to make people care.

      Because of their efforts, the story of politics, people, and the AIDS epidemic is, ultimately, a tale of courage as well as cowardice, compassion as well as bigotry, inspiration as well as venality, and redemption as well as despair.  It is a tale that bears telling so that it will never happen again, to any people anywhere.”

Randy Stilts, pictured above, was the first openly-gay reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. In 1985, he found out that he had was HIV-positive, and in 1992, he contracted pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. He passed away on February 17, 1994.

References:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)   –  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/

Randy Stilts, AND THE BAND PLAYED ON: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic, St. Martin’s Griffin, New York, 1987.

Laura Green, “Negative Racial Stereotypes and Their Effect on Attitudes Toward African-Americans,” Virginia Commonwealth University.  Referenced at:  https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.htm