If you prefer PDF format, go to Risk Audit PDF
Many Americans are aware of the growing visibility of homosexuality as an issue in our culture. Where it concerns our children, this visibility causes increased interest and possibly acceptance by them at a vulnerable age. Many people are frustrated, wondering: What can I do? How do parents get a firm fix on what their children are seeing and hearing?
What the Risk Audit Plan below offers local communities is knowledge. This plan provides a handy tool for measuring the promotion of homosexuality at any local public school district. Once the extent of the 'homosexual agenda' directed to children is discovered, local parents, grandparents and citizens can alert the community, the media and notify the schools themselves. Parents will then clearly understand their responsibility: hold schools accountable for removing pro-homosexual material; and if this is not done, then move children to a different educational environment.
Won’t you please help in your community?
Why Homosexual Activism in Schools Endangers Students
Every school district in the U.S. has an absolute responsibility to the community to protect children while they are at school. This also means that school districts have an absolute obligation to do no harm to the children entrusted to their care.
These minimal expectations are being violated routinely at an alarming number of public schools in this country because of the unthinking and irresponsible embrace of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for students and teachers.1
This is a simple issue: there is no legitimate rationale for giving or implying endorsement of homosexual, bisexual or gender variant behaviors among children of any age. It is not a viewpoint, but a high-risk, and often lethal, behavior. The issue is not one of rights, or opinions, but of health and social stability.
Unfortunately, advocates of homosexuality, including teachers, students, administrators, teachers’ union delegates, and school board members, are now permitted to promote homosexuality in a variety of ways in many school districts. Curricular materials and extra-curricular programs implying or proclaiming acceptance of homosexual behavior are becoming more and more common. These are frequently initiated through school alliances with influential homosexual pressure groups such as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) and PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). Local resistance is suppressed as advocates receive pro bono legal support from the ACLU, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the National Education Association’s legal defense for homosexual teachers, and other groups.
Most of this is flying under the radar of parents and communities, yet this betrayal of trust has become a public health and social stability issue for virtually every community, as the majority of students educated in public or secular schools, even if raised in Christian homes, are now being successfully indoctrinated with the belief that engaging in homosexual behavior is a right and is relatively harmless. The truth is otherwise. 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.
Hijacking the Language of Civil Rights
By posing as a part of the civil rights movement, homosexual activists have succeeded in attaching their message to the message of “human rights” and “tolerance” already incorporated into countless lessons in a typical curriculum, e.g., in social studies and literature classes. Homosexual advocacy takes the idea of being kind and civil and perverts it. Homosexuals, bisexuals and cross-gender practitioners are falsely alleged to be illegitimately discriminated against, even “oppressed” by the majority.
A “safe school” becomes one that doesn’t threaten the “homosexual” student with disapproval--so all students and staff are forced to stifle any objections to homosexual behavior or be villified as “homophobes” and potential threats.
Propagandistic claims that “GLBT” students are at higher risk of suicide and are often the targets of bullies cow school boards into accepting homosexual clubs, “anti-harassment” policies and tolerance programs. The truth is that many students are targets of bullies and not all of them demand a totalitarian regime of mental re-programming of their classmates to stop this. The reality is that the behaviors involved in homosexuality are the real risk to these children.
1. In this document,"homosexuality" is often used as a short-hand way to refer to all so-called "sexual minorities," i.e.,those who call themselves "gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgendered."
Overview: The Risk Audit Project
In May and June 2005, over 50 state pro-family groups formed an alliance to encourage the Southern Baptist Convention to use its influence to protect children from school districts that are promoting acceptance of homosexual behavior. As a result, a resolution was passed that encouraged local SBC churches to investigate, among other things, whether their school district is betraying parents, children, and the community by collaborating with homosexual activists. In cases where the school district was found to be collaborating, the resolution also urged parents to hold the school districts accountable and demand discontinuation of such morally offensive programs and materials.
As a result, to assist this investigative effort, we are offering this survey instrument to implement what we call the “Risk Audit Project.” The objectives of the Project are to:
1. Gather information about school districts throughout the U.S. regarding whether and how the districts promote acceptance of homosexual behavior to students;
2. Summarize this information through use of a uniform research instrument;
3. Communicate the results to the public through various media.
4. Hold the identified schools accountable to make needed changes in curricula; school programs and policies; and teaching.
How and where Risk Audit will be implemented
A detailed, uniform research instrument/questionnaire will be used for the Risk Audit Project. The next Section outlines the type of information needed.
The research instrument (audit questionnaire) will be completed by local volunteers after they gather the needed information. Completed audits will be forwarded to the pro-family group(s) and/or churches leading that particular team of volunteer researchers, in most cases at the state level. Then, the leaders of that team will report to the media and the public the audit results for the school system(s) selected.
As a critical support for these efforts, prayer partners should be recruited to pray regularly and fervently for the Risk Audit Project to succeed in revealing information needed to protect our children. Prayers should ask that officials and teachers be convicted about the dangers involved and do their part. Each state team should make this a priority from the beginning of the project.
Background on Questionnaire
This section provides background researchers will need for using the Risk Audit Questionnaire. The actual Questionnaire, without much detail but with simply space for data, follows this Section. You may want to put this section next to the actual Questionnaire and go through them side by side.
Background on School Policies ( Section 1 of questionnaire)
The first section of the questionnaire asks for information about current school policies that pertain to “sexual orientation.” The goal is to find out which of the following types of policies the school district has adopted. Here are the types of polices that need to be researched:
1. An anti-harassment, anti-bullying or “safe schools” policy that includes the category “sexual orientation”
The term “sexual orientation” may be included in a laundry list of other classifications, e.g., “...on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, nationality, sexual orientation...”
2. Non-discrimination policy based on “sexual orientation” (may also cover “gender identity”) for students and/or teachers, staff
Such a policy may be spelled out just for staff/teachers, and may be phrased as a “non-discrimination” policy (again, with a laundry list of classifications, as in #1) or it may be a section of the staff hiring procedures. Sometimes, even if “sexual orientation” is not explicit, there may be a provision for “minority” hiring, and it will be necessary to get in writing assurance that this is racial and ethnic minorities only, not “sexual” minorities (another term used for homosexuality, etc.).
3. Requirements for teacher/ staff training on “diversity,” “tolerance,” “sensitivity”
What training (indoctrination) about homosexuality does the school require of its staff? Some have accepted the idea that unlearning attitudes that object to homosexuality is necessary, because such attitudes are thought to be bigoted and lead to illegitimate “discrimination” and mistreatment of homosexual students or other staff members. Some districts have instituted a Pink triangle or rainbow program for what they call “safety” measures. Cardboard pink triangles or rainbows, both used as symbols of “gay rights,” are affixed to the office or classroom doors of some teachers or staff. The idea is that these are designated as “safe” areas for students to come if they want to privately ask questions about homosexual feelings, where they will receive sympathy and secret tips and advice instead of warnings.
4. Objectionable material in library and parent-resistant selection input
Some novels and books for children have become very explicit on this topic, and some award-winning selections openly advocate homosexuality. Many librarians now assume there is no harm in children reading books with misleading information on this topic, and that sexually explicit material is simply a part of some literature and social science books that should be made available for students. Parent input is sometimes unwelcome.
5. School district has formal relationship with “gay” activist groups.
In some districts, schools have gone to the extreme of accepting formal consulting contracts with “gay” activist groups, the most prominent being GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; and PFLAG, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. The contract can cover teacher training workshops or direct student activities, such as speakers, workshops, etc. A standing district committee may also retain a consulting relationship with such a group.
Background on Government Regulations and Grants (Section 2 of questionnaire)
1 .Local or state laws: There may be local or state laws that determine or influence what is taught at the school level. Some states have public school “non-discrimination” laws that include “sexual orientation” and also in some cases, “gender identity.” At present, those we know about are: California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin.
In addition, many of the cities/counties in those and other states also have their own sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. And, in some university towns throughout the U.S., such laws also exist.
Anti-harassment or anti-bullying laws for schools now exist in many states as well. Of those that include “sexual orientation” (and some also include “gender identity”) are Washington, Maine, California, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont.
2. Federal funds: Federal grants for “safe sex,” “safe schools,” “tolerance,” or “anti-bias” programs may be the funding sources of pro-homosexual lessons in your school district. The agencies most likely to give money to your school for objectionable programs are:
a. Centers for Disease Control, Adolescent Health for health education or HIV education. This often translates into instruction in homosexual sex practices in the classroom.
b. U.S. Department of Education, under the “Safe and Drug Free Schools” program, grants to “prevent hate crimes” are given to schools. This can include education to prevent crimes centering around sexual orientation. These funds have been used for a variety of “tolerance” and “anti-bias” curricula. Some funding under this program may be given as a block grant to a “Safe and Drug Free Schools” department of your state Department of Education, which then makes grants to local schools in your state.
c. U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice office-- This agency often teams up with the USDOE to fund “Safe Schools” programs. One of these is called “Civil Rights Actions Teams.” It’s a “peer mediation” project, where kids monitor their classmates at the middle school level, including watchdogging and then reporting on overheard “homophobic slurs.”
d. National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and its agency SAMSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration) sometimes make grants to states and local schools. This may or may not pertain to the area of sexual orientation or counseling.
3. State funds. As mentioned above, state agencies are often “pass through” mechanisms for federal “safe sex” and HIV education grants, which almost always include details about homosexuality and imply acceptance of and “safe” management of high risk-behaviors. Your state’s Department of Health may be the agency through which health education grants come like this. Sometimes, they come through the state Department of Education. Occasionally, a county health department may be the source of a program on HIV/AIDS education at a local school.
4. Private Grants. Some public schools now solicit or accept private grants to fund a variety of projects. This varies too widely to provide any guidance except to watch for this as a source of possible funding for HIV/AIDS education, “violence, anti-bias or anti-bullying” prevention, which may include lessons to accept homosexuality. Even some “character” education programs may include acceptance of homosexuality.
Background on Curricular Content (Section 3 of questionnaire)
The term “curriculum” relates to actual lessons taught to students in their classrooms. Schools have subject matter departments, committees and many other oversight areas through which curricula are determined. Schools choose both from materials prepared outside the school (textbooks, workbooks, videos, lesson plans) but often, develop and adapt to their own school district’s priorities.
1. Programs on tolerance, diversity, “hate” or “bias”
These are usually taught beginning at the late elementary school or at the middle /high school level, as a part of social studies. In middle or high school, it may be a social studies/language/literature combination.
The titles vary: “Tolerance,” “Diversity,” Anti-Bias, Anti-Bullying or “Multi-Culturalism.” Sometimes it’s as part of a study on “differences.”
2. Lessons on different types of families
This is the most common method for the early elementary grades to receive pro-homosexual instruction. “Love Makes a Family” is one video which combines worthy messages of accepting families headed by grandparents, single moms, or multi-racial families, with the unacceptable message of accepting two lesbians or two men as heads of families. Sometimes outside speakers--two homosexuals who live with children--- address the class. Units sometimes center around a book on this subject.
3. Pro-homosexual stories/novels on suggested reading lists in literature classes
These stories involving homosexuality, often sexually graphic in nature, are assumed to provide necessary “support” for students who “are” homosexual, and indoctrinate all students to accept this lifestyle. Some well-known titles are:
Elementary grades: My Two Uncles; The Duke Who Outlawed Jellybeans; Daddy’s Roommate; Heather Has Two Mommies; One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dad; Asha’s Mums; King & King; Who’s in a Family?; Oliver Button is a Sissy; Belinda’s Bouquet, Molly's Family.
Middle school and high school: Am I Blue?; Annie on My Mind; Athletic Shorts; Who Framed Lorenzo Garcia?; Keeping You a Secret; Kissing Kate; Tommy Stands Alone; Two Teenagers in Twenty; Invisible Life; Just As I Am; Deliver Us From Evie; My Father’s Scar; Rainbow Boys; Rainbow High; So Hard to Say; Entries from A Hot Pink Notebook; Boy Meets Boy; The Perks of Being a Wallflower.
4. HIV/AIDS and “safe sex” education programs. These lessons assume all students are at risk of AIDS; that all students need to be taught about use of condoms for “safe sex.” Acceptance of acts common to homosexuals, such as anal sex, is implicit in these so-called “neutral” programs.
5. Political Science/ History/Civics classes on current issues. At the senior high level, most high schools offer courses that explore current social and political issues. Even as electives, if they teach the “tolerance” message about homosexuality, these courses send a message to every student implying school endorsement. History courses and textbooks have also been used to promote the “mainstreaming” of homosexual behavior. Houghton Mifflin’s A History of Western Society, for example, is used in some high school Advanced Placement courses and instructs children that homosexual behavior was acceptable to early Christians.
Background on Extracurricular Activities, Section 4 of questionnaire
1. A homosexual student club. The names of such clubs vary. The most common term is “gay/straight alliance” or GSA. It may also be called a GLBT club (for “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered”), a human rights club, a rainbow club, an anti-bias club, a pride club, or an anti-violence club. An easy way to begin research on whether a school district is betraying the community’s trust by allowing homosexual clubs is to go to the GLSEN website (www.glsen.org ) and click on the “resources” for students. There you will see a locator that identifies homosexual clubs in middle schools and high schools on a state by state basis. Bear in mind, though, that many clubs are probably not listed.
2. Special school speakers /assemblies/films/health fairs. Speakers or films may be brought into the school for one time special programs that deal with homosexuality, or HIV/”safe sex” education. Some schools also routinely hold a “health fair” where pro-homosexual material is made available to students.
3. Diversity day, day of silence, “gay” pride celebration day (or week), “coming out” day, etc. Any special day or week set aside to “celebrate” or honor (even through silence) the idea that homosexual behavior is acceptable, communicates this to all students, even those not directly involved.
Implementation Tips, Tools
More tips on information gathering and tools for the media strategy, are available in our longer Risk Audit Plan. Contact Linda Harvey at Mission America, firstname.lastname@example.org, for a copy of that Plan.
Risk Audit Questionnaire and Rating Table
To be completed for each school district
Please write legibly in black ink.
1. Name of school district:______________________________________________
2. Street address of district offices:______________________________________
4. Phone: (_____)_____________________
5. Web site address of school district_____________________________________
6. List of schools in district to be sampled:
High school (s)_______________________________________________________
Special schools (describe):_____________________________________________
8. School board members______________________________________________
Section 1: School Policy
1. 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
If YES, please specify which, and provide policy number from official school manual:
2. Does the district have a non-discrimination policy that specifies sexual orientation?
___ yes __no If yes, is gender identity also included? ___ yes ___no
If YES, please specify which, and provide policy number from official school manual:
3. 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, if a "pink triangle safe zone" program is part of this,and whether elementary and/or secondary teachers are required to participate.
4. Objectionable material in library, and parent-resistant selection input
Please list (use an attachment if needed) of seriously objectionable material available to students on the issue of homosexuality in the library. Please list by elementary, middle or high school and please indicate which school libraries you visited. Also please detail any input you have regarding how responsive they are to parental book/media concerns.
5. 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? Please detail.__________________________________
Section 2: Local/State/Federal regulations /grants and private grants
1. Are there local or state laws that apply?
a. School anti-harassment or anti-bullying specifying sexual orientation:
____ yes ___no If yes, please give code number(s) __________________________
If YES, is gender identity also included? ___yes ___no
b. Non-discrimination for school or public employment specifying sexual orientation:
____ yes ___no If yes, please give code number (s)__________________________
If YES, is gender identity also included? ___yes ___no
2. Are there any federal, state or local government grants that use material with implied or explicit endorsement of homosexuality? Please give as much information as you have, including the name of the staff or teacher grant contact:
3. Are there any private foundation or business grants that contain implied or explicit endorsement of homosexuality? Please give as much information, including the name of the staff or teacher grant contact:
Section 3: School Curricular Content
1. Are there lessons/books/programs as part of the school curriculum urging tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality, and implying that objections are unacceptable?
Note: These are materials actually used in a class setting with groups of students, not books simply available in the library. It may be an entire class offered at the senior high level.
Please list as much detail as you can:
Name of curriculum Grade(s) levels At which school(s)?
Class, or book used
2. Are there classroom lessons on different types of families that include endorsement of homosexual partners as heads of families?
Name of curriculum Grade(s) levels At which school(s)?
Class, or book used
3. 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.
Name of book Grade(s) levels At which school(s)?
4. Are there HIV/AIDS and “safe sex” education programs which teach acceptance of homosexual behavior?
Name of curriculum Grade(s) levels At which school(s)?
5. Are there political science or current issues classes teaching that acceptance of homosexuality, same sex marriage, and “gay rights” is the most desirable position?
Name of class Grade(s) levels At which school (s)?
Section 4: Extracurricular Activities
1. Is there a homosexual club at any schools in your district? ___ yes ___no
If YES, please list as indicated:
Name of club School(s) located Name of faculty advisor
(e.g., Gay-straight alliance)
2. Has the school held a special school assembly, outside speaker(s) or a health fair, where homosexuality was advocated?
Describe assembly, fair, etc. Grades levels Date At what school (s)?
3. 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.?
___ yes __no If YES, please list the type of event, dates, etc. below.
Name of event Date held Grade levels At what school(s)?
4. Does any school have a “pink triangle” or “rainbow” or similar program designating pro-homosexual classes or zones of the school? ___ yes __no
If YES, please give specifics.
Describe program About how many areas or At what school (s)?
Other Include here information not covered above, including relevant incidents/ anecdotes below. Attach extra sheets if needed.
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.
4. We have provided a Rating Table below that you may wish to use.
Rating /Scoring Table
Section 1: School Policies Point Value This school
1. Anti-harassment or anti-bullying 5 ________
--if gender identity also 2 ________
2. Non-discrimination 5 ________
---if gender identity also 2 ________
3. Required “sensitivity training” 7 - 9 ________
(Use judgment, depending on
frequency of training, i.e., just once,
for 5 years, etc.)
4. Objectionable books in
library 1 pt. per book _______
5. School contracts or linkages 10 pts. for contract,
with “gay” activist groups 6 pts for referrals ________
Section 2: Local/state/federal policies, grants
1. Local or state laws
a. Anti-harassment or anti-bullying 5 for each _______
--if gender identity also 2 for each _______
b. Non-discrimination 5 for each _______
-- if gender identity also 2 for each _______
2. Government grants
a. Federal 3 for each _______
b. State 3 for each _______
c. Local 3 for each _______
3. Private grants 3 for each _______
Section 3: School curricular content
1. Tolerance programs, lessons 8 for each _______
2. Stories on families headed by homosexuals 8 for each _______
3. Pro- homosexual novels, books in class 5 for each ______
4. HIV/safe sex curricula 10 for each ______
5 Political science, issue classes 8 for each ______
Section 4: Extracurricular Activities
1. Homosexual club 10 for each ______
2. Special assembly, film, fair, etc. 5- 8 ______
(Use your judgment based on number,
frequency, how many students attended, etc.)
3. Diversity Day, Day of Silence, Gay Pride,
etc. (Use judgment based on 5 - 8 _______
number, level of school support)
4. Pink triangle, rainbow safety program 5 - 8 ______
( Use judgment based on extent of program)
Repeat Exposure Risk Factor:
Add 12 additional points if this district has pro-homosexual programs
at elementary, middle school and high school levels. _______
Add 8 points if programs at two of the three levels. ______
Total school risk points: ______
Subtract from 100:
minus school points: ______
FINAL SCORE: ______
(Note: the final school score in extreme cases will be expressed as a
negative number, for instance, -25.)
Here are several valuable resources.
The first resources outline the health risks of homosexuality. These would be useful in preparing your reports to the schools, your press materials, and in meetings with the schools.
Several web -based articles documenting homosexuality’s health risks:
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality at
The Health Risks of Gay Sex by John R. Diggs, M.D. at
Publicity goals/ ideas and sample press release
Publicity tips, resources
Leaders of the pro-family groups will have their own experience with press relations and their own local and state relationships with reporters. We won’t attempt to duplicate this here. These should be put to maximum use as part of the press effort.
States may want to include national media. At some point, a planned national press effort may be advisable, and that is something to consider as we begin this effort.
For an accurate list of media by states and national networks, go to
You may also want to consider using a press release distribution service such as
In addition, conservative/religious media are key to this effort. Here is a list of sources. Please consult the Internet for the latest contact information on each.
World Net Daily
Janet Parshall show
Family News in Focus (Focus on the Family)
Salem Communications Network (SRN News)
Dr. Laura show
Laura Ingram Show
Glenn Beck Show
Michael Reagan show
Ken Hamblin show
Roger Hedgecock show
Sean Hannity show
Bill O’Reilly radio show
Rush Limbaugh show
Hugh Hewitt show
Chuck Baldwin show
Michael Medved show
Washington Times daily newspaper
Human Events (weekly newspaper)
American Spectator (news magazine)
Weekly Standard (weekly news magazine)
FOX network talk shows--O’ Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, etc.
MSNBC-- Scarborough Country
Insight (news magazine)
National Review (news magazine)
The Wanderer (national Catholic news weekly)
Christian Wire Service (www.christianwireservice.com )
Sample Press Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 2006
Contact: Alice A. Christian, American Family Association of (State)
Phone / Cell/ E-mail
Family Groups Announces Results of Risk Audit of
Great American and Anytown School Districts
(Anytown) At a press conference later today, leaders of four state family groups will announce their findings regarding the level of promotion of homosexual behavior at two prominent local school districts.
Great American and Anytown School Districts, noted for their records of high student achievement, will nonetheless receive failing marks for incorporating promotion of homosexual behavior to students at every level.
“Both of these schools districts have adopted widespread programs, curricula, and activities that endorse homosexuality,” said Alice A. Christian, state director of the American Family Association. “Students are at greater risk as a result.”
Christian’s group joined with Every State Family Policy Council and the state chapters of Concerned Women for America and Eagle Forum to assess these two school districts in areas such as teaching “tolerance” of homosexuality, allowing school homosexual clubs for students, and mandatory teacher training programs that endorse homosexual conduct among students and teachers. Both school districts were found to have adopted all of these activities and more.
Fred Greatguy, director of the Family Policy Council, said, “While such messages are sometimes popular in educational circles, most parents are greatly disturbed when they find out their children are being deliberately taught to accept what is termed ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered’ behaviors.”
The coalition recruited local volunteers who gathered data on the schools’ curricula, policies, teacher training requirements, and extra-curricular activities. In addition, they looked at offerings in the school library, and the districts’ adoption of so-called “safety” or “anti-harassment” plans.
“We found numerous examples at both schools where students were given the impression that homosexual behavior would be the equivalent to heterosexual behavior, even in families and in marriage,” said Frances Noblewoman, director of the state chapter of Concerned Women for America. “For instance, elementary classes feature stories where different types of families are described. In both schools, we found these lessons positively portrayed households headed by two women or two men. This is manipulative and dangerously misleading, and gives impressionable children the false sense that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.”
Great American High School allowed students to form a homosexual club two years ago, and Anytown has a club called an “anti-bias” club that is essentially a homosexual club also, volunteers found. “This sends an insidious message to all students that homosexual behavior is a viable option,” said Mary Strongfaith, president of the state chapter of Eagle Forum. “Even though only a few students participate, when the school allows it, every student has a false sense of security about these activities.”
A numeric rating scale is being used to assess schools, and both school districts’ results were poor, said Christian. The specific results will be announced at the press conference.
“While both districts did poorly there are schools in other parts of the state whose results show they are even more high-risk,” Christian noted. “There have also been districts whose results were far better.” During the press conference, comparative results will be reported.
The message that homosexuality is acceptable was noted throughout both districts, with virtually no information for students about the well-documented risks associated with homosexuality, including much higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, higher rates of promiscuity, shorter relationships, and higher rates of substance abuse.
“This is like giving kids the message that running out in traffic is acceptable, “said Greatguy. “Our children deserve better than this.”
PRESS CONFERENCE: Thursday, March 10, 2006
Anytown Christian Church
1776 Founders Road
At the press conference, the specific results will be announced and volunteers who gathered the information will speak. Some of the objectionable books and teaching materials used will be available for press inspection/ visuals.
Some Suggested School Districts:
Initial targeted school districts
This list is suggested because of geographic distribution as well as in some cases, specific knowledge of the school districts activities in the past. Also in many cases there are known knowledgeable grass roots volunteers who could kick-start the research process.
We have also clustered some school districts around a major metropolitan area, so that the local media can be more effective.
Tucson Unified School District
Sunnyside Unified School District
Scottsdale Unified School District
Garden Grove Unified School District
Saddleback Valley Unified School District
Grossmont Union High School District
Lakeside Union School District
Cajon Valley Union School District
Poway Unified School District
Marin County Schools
Fresno Unified School District
Denver Public Schools
Colorado Springs School District 11
Newtown Public Schools
Darien Public Schools
Windsor Public Schools
Pinellas County Schools
Lake County School District
Orange County Public Schools
Palm Beach County School District
Gwinnett County Public Schools
Cobb County School District
Deerfield Public Schools
Township High School District 214
New Trier Township High School District 203
Franklin Township Community School Corporation
Monroe County Community School Corporation
Indianapolis Public Schools
Des Moines Public Schools
Marshalltown Community School District
Shawnee Mission School District
Blue Valley Schools
Fayette County Public Schools
Covington Independent Public Schools
Jefferson County Public Schools
Portland Public Schools
Bangor School System
Montgomery County Schools
Prince Georges County Schools
Lexington Public Schools
Newton School District
Cambridge Public Schools
Ann Arbor Schools
Royal Oak Neighborhood Schools
Howell Public Schools
South Washington County Schools
Eden Prairie Schools
Kansas City MO School District
St.Louis Public Schools
South Orange and Maplewood Public Schools
Old Bridge Township Schools
Toms River School District
South Huntington Schools
Three Village Central School District
Rochester City School District
Alamance-Burlington School District
Guilford County Schools
Columbus Public Schools
Upper Arlington City Schools
Princeton School District
Cincinnati Public Schools
Cleveland Heights - University Heights School District
Lakewood City Schools
Erie School District
Philadelphia School District
Harrisburg School District
Katy Independent School District
Klein Independent School District
Garland Independent School District
Northwest Independent School District
Burlington School District
Rutland City School District
Fairfax County Public Schools
Falls Church City Public Schools
Chesterfield County Public Schools
Everett Public Schools
Bellevue School District
Madison Metropolitan School District
Viroqua Area School District