The Homo Risk Audit Project
“The overwhelming majority of Christian parents who even have gone out of their way to become involved and to try to determine what’s going on in their local schools will be surprised at how extensive the pro-homosexual agenda is in every government school in the nation.”
— Steve Crampton, chief counsel at the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, on what the Risk Audit will uncover
A cornucopia of the usual Christofascist suspects have banded together to root The Homosexual AgendaTM out of the school system with a new effort, the Risk Audit Project, developed by our friend Linda Harvey of Mission[ary Position] America.
On board with Linda are the old stand bys — the Family Research Council [Tony Perkins!], Concerned Women for America [Bob Knight!], the Illinois Family Institute [Peter LaBarbera!], and the American Family Association [Don and Tim Wildmon!].
An AgapePress article explains the Project:
The Risk Audit Project measures the extent to which public school districts are collaborating with homosexual activists by determining, among other things, whether schools have adopted pro-homosexual policies or curricula, and whether the school district is sponsoring pro-homosexual clubs, events, or activities. Crampton feels the risk audit is not a luxury for schools but a necessity.
“We believe that since schools are called upon and required to protect children while they’re at school, by that same token they have an absolute obligation to do no harm to the children that are under their care,” the AFA Law Center spokesman says. “And so this risk audit is an effort to first ascertain the extent of the activities in our schools and, second, to let the American public know what’s really going on.”
I went over to check out the Homo Risk Audit Project site at Mission[ary Position] America (so you don’t have to). This stuff is the height of sleaze, repeating bogus science and tired, outrageous winger talking points. Read and try not to get ill.
Homosexual behavior presents many serious risks, and those risks are well-documented.
With homosexual behavior comes a whole host of very significant health and lifestyle risks. Whether high-risk conduct is a result of homosexual desires, or contributes to developing them, or some of both, is anyone’s guess. The fact remains that teens engaging in homosexual behavior are participating in a lifestyle that:
• reduces life expectancy at age twenty by at least 8 to 20 years
• increases by at least 500% the risk of contracting AIDS
• increases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by nearly 900%
• increases by 4,000% the risk of developing anal cancer
• substantially increases the likelihood of smoking, having mental health disorders (other than same-sex attraction), being the victim of “domestic” violence, and being involved in alcohol and drug abuse.
• substantially increases the likelihood of contracting hepatitis and other gastrointestinal infections
• substantially increases the risk of contracting bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer
• has high levels of participation in sadomasochism, coprophilia, sadomasochism, fisting, and other dangerous, deviant sex practices
• involves extraordinarily high levels of promiscuity
As it now stands, each child enrolled in a public school is likely to receive numerous direct and implicit messages at school that homosexual behavior should be accepted as normal. The underlying (and erroneous) assumptions of these messages are:
• That homosexuality is inborn and inevitable for some students and teachers and therefore a matter of “rights”. There is no body of scientific research that establishes this proposition.
• That homosexual behaviors are no higher risk than current trends in heterosexual behavior. This is not supported by public health data or common sense.
• That homosexuality is a viewpoint and should be protected by “free speech” constitutional protections. Like smoking, it is actually a high risk behavior. Schools should no more permit homosexual behavior to be presented to children as “normal” and “acceptable” than smoking or drug use should be presented to children as “normal” and “acceptable”.
• That objections to homosexuality are a threat to the welfare of students who are assumed to be “born gay.” As is so often the case with politically correct “conventional wisdom,” exactly the reverse is true. Objections to homosexual behavior actually save lives and improve mental and physical health.
The effort to uncover and prevent homosexual indoctrination going on in the school systems involves deep questions that get to the core of the deviance. Some examples of the questions in the Risk Audit from the site:
* Does the district have an anti-harassment or anti-bullying policy specifying sexual orientation? ___ yes __no If yes, is gender identity also included? ___ yes ___no
* Does the district have a non-discrimination policy that specifies sexual orientation?
___ yes __no If yes, is gender identity also included? ___ yes ___no
* Are there requirements for teacher/ staff training on “diversity,” “tolerance,” “sensitivity”? Please provide as much information as possible, including frequency of such training, when last workshops were conducted, and whether elementary and/or secondary teachers attended?
* Does the school have an ongoing relationship with a “gay” activist group, such as GLSEN, PFLAG, or a local community group? Is this in the form of a consulting contract, or a referral relationship?
* Are there lessons/books/programs as part of the school curriculum urging tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality, and implying that objections are unacceptable?
* Are there classroom lessons on different types of families that include endorsement of homosexual partners as heads of families?
* Are there pro-homosexual stories/novels featured or suggested in reading and literature classes? Note: This should be only those books required or on classroom lists of recommended reading, not books simply available in the library. Attach a separate sheet if needed.
* Are there HIV/AIDS and “safe sex” education programs which teach acceptance of homosexual behavior?
* Are there political science or current issues classes teaching that acceptance of homosexuality, same sex marriage, and “gay rights” is the most desirable position?
* Is there a homosexual club at any schools in your district?
* Has the school held an event specifically advocating homosexuality, such as a “Diversity day,” Day of silence,” “gay” pride celebration day (or week), “coming out” day, etc.?
* Does any school have a “pink triangle” or “rainbow” or similar program designating pro-homosexual classes or zones of the school?
At the end of the Audit, you get to “score” the level of homosexual infiltration, and then, Linda warns those doing the audits about what needs to be done, based on an assessment of the “findings.”
Photo enhancement by Mike Tidmus.
Each research group will arrive at its own conclusions regarding the importance of what it finds. Nevertheless, because of the health and life- threatening consequences to children of school district collaboration
with homosexual activists, we recommend the following:
1. Any district with a homosexual club, any program or curriculum that would tend to influence children to regard homosexual behavior as in any sense normal or acceptable, should be identified as a clear and present danger to children and society and should receive a failing grade. Please bear in mind, too, that it does not matter that in some instances school districts are collaborating with homosexual activists because of state or local law. The dangers to children and society are the same whether the collaboration is required or discretionary.
2. In other cases – as, for example, where a school library might have contain books that attempt to influence children to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal – it might be more appropriate to identify the school district as one that poses a risk to the welfare of children that requires immediate correction.
3. In all cases where a Risk Audit finds collaboration with homosexual activists, parents, churches, and state and local family-oriented organizations should be alerted and asked to demand immediate corrective action from the school board. The response of the school board to such demands should be communicated clearly to the public, and if a school board promises corrective action, it is important to determine whether the school district actually follows through in good faith. Even if the school district follows through, continued vigilance is important because there are always pressures from within the education establishment to encourage acceptance of homosexual behavior.