Tucker Carlson is all ablaze with a neon-green tie and red-hot fury over the California Senate's passage of a bill requiring California curriculum to include instruction regarding gays and Muslims. In fact, he's so outraged over it that he calls it "propaganda", with some strange reasoning attached.
The purpose of the bill is to raise awareness of the place gays and Muslims take in history in an effort to raise awareness and hopefully, tolerance. This isn't a bad thing, despite Tucker's worrying over it. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that a 15-year old with access to a gun shot another student at point-blank range just up the street from where I live because the other student was struggling with his sexual identity. This is the state where Harvey Milk was assassinated, after all. Should teachers teach that lesson in California history while failing to mention why Harvey Milk was assassinated? This is the state that just passed the odious Proposition 8 after an even more odious ad campaign. Should teachers simply ignore the reasons why our state constitution now actually defines marriage?
To Fox Talkers, the answer to all of those questions is yes. Led by Tucker Carlson, they want California schoolchildren to learn about the Catholic priests who came and built missions, and about the gold in them thar hills, but gays and Muslims? Strictly off-limits.
And just to pile on a little more, Carlson completely dodges the question of what age group will have this instruction in their curriculum, so of course he makes it sound like all the little kindergartners are going to have a lesson and coloring worksheet on Jane and Judy in the mosque.
Here's Carlson's reasoning behind why he believes it to be propaganda:
Second, it's propaganda. It's lying. Whenever a school system is mandated by law to teach happy news, non-controversial, complimentary facts about a group of people they are by definition excluding the unhappy facts. And they are therefore, lying. That's propaganda.
His reference to "happy news" stems from this:
The measure further would prohibit the adoption of any materials that "reflect adversely" on gays or particular religions. School districts would have flexibility in deciding what to include in the lessons and at what grades students would receive them.
Gretchen Carlson tries to get him to specify the age group to receive this instruction, to which he replies:
Look, it doesn't matter, because at any age teaching propaganda is wrong. No one is suggesting -- and as far as I know has ever suggested -- that people who are gay not be included in history.
While that may be true, it's also true that kids are not informed as to whether they were gay or not. Earlier in his diatribe, Carlson goes on about how Trotsky is a historical figure, but not because he's gay. Perhaps not. But should that be ignored?
The central question here is whether or not we teach all of history or just the parts some people like. It would be nice not to have a law mandating curriculum that teaches these sorts of facts, but they have for too long been buried and swept under the rug. Yes, it does matter, because homosexuality isn't something that just burst onto the scene 3 years ago. It should be taught as a fact and historical figures should not have relevant facts omitted simply because they make the Tucker Carlsons of the world squirm.