Dr. Stan Wasbin's Diagnosis for Schools: You're "Re-education Camps" for the "LGBT Agenda"
Wasbin is scheduled to go before the Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees Monday to state a position he telegraphed in an April 7, 2012, Register letter about the then-recent enactment of Senate Bill 48, which requires "instruction in social sciences to also include a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans . . . to the development of California and the United States."
In his letter, the Boston-raised doctor called SB 48 "intrusive" and "unnecessary" and stated it "ought to be ignored." He's going before the school board, whose meeting begins at 7 p.m. at district headquarters, to find out how the law has been implemented. The superintendent has essentially recommended the board hear Wasbin out without taking any action, according to the meeting agenda.
By the time the chairman opens the meeting, trustees will know Wasbin fears Capo Valley's K-12 campuses, which his kids attend, have turned into "re-education camps" for the "LGBT agenda," as he writes in a three-page letter to the board. (Hat tip to San Clemente Patch.)
"Let's not further burden our teachers by forcing them to teach LGBT material, a subject that so readily lends itself to propaganda and which can engender sexual confusion," states Wasbin, who later clarifies, "If someone has made an important contribution--and that person happens to be classified as LGBT--then by all means, let's teach our children about that person--but not BECAUSE OF that person's sexual identity group."
Though the state government is firmly in the grips of the Democratic Party, the physician reasons the LGBT textbook law will have set a precedent once California inevitably swings back to the right, "and then our children may be forced to learn about the role and contributions of other groups, such as gun owners, death-penalty proponents and anti-abortion advocates. Do we really want to politicize public education like this?"
It's actually a fair point. Of course, it's coming from a guy who once wrote nutrition programs for needy children are unnecessary because there is an over-abundance of cheap food.
Follow OC Weekly on Twitter @ocweekly or on Facebook!