Talk:Peter and Murray Corren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Input from the Correns

One or both the Correns (User:Corren), has provided significant more detail regarding the article here. I have reverted for now, but the information needs to be considered in full so the article can be improved, or corrected if necessary. I will post a notice on the Canadian Wikipedian notice board to involve other editors to assist. I have notified User Talk:Corren of Wikipedia's policy re autobiographies. Of major significance, I think, they have provided the actual settlement agreement Image:Settlement Agreement.pdf, which I do not think was public and is central to the article. Deet 00:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Correns' input here will undoubtedly be helpful, though we have to keep in mind WP:AUTO. I think we need first to agree on and impose an encyclopedic 'shape' to the article. (1) Start with a one-sentence description of who they are and why they are important ("P. & M. Corren are LGBT-activists who x and y"); (2) a little back-ground to their case, including limited biographical data; (3) the case itself and its implications; (4) reactions.

[edit] What needs to be done still

I'm done for the night. I think that the details of the agreement need clarifying. Much of what is now in 'reaction' and 'religious freedom' should be pruned: this is, strictly speaking, an article about the Correns. The decision is obviously relevant to them, but reactions to the decision and musings about religious implications are less so. Also, the POV here is pretty clear and needs to be neutralized. Bucketsofg✐ 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken an NPOV crack at this. Obviously we need to strike a balance here between the LGBT implications and the religious freedom implications; NPOV demands that we don't tilt too far in either direction. And yeah, that certainly includes toning down User:Corren's own version of the "Potential religious freedom issue" section, but it also includes not enclosing phrases like "healthy lifestyles" and "healthy relationships" in ironic quotation marks that imply some kind of inherent falsity to these characterizations of LGBT life (or doing the same to "social justice" as if to imply that it's a meaningless concept), and not characterizing the "alternative delivery" issue as being the Correns' doing — as it stands, the inability to opt out of these curriculum changes is a straightforward matter of provincial law, which has nothing to do with whether the Correns choose to "permit" it or not. It's always inappropriate for Wikipedia articles to express value judgements or take sides in a controversial matter; we need to stick as closely as possible to objective and verifiable facts.
What I'd request at this point is that if either side of this disagreement still has an issue with the NPOV-ness or non-NPOV-ness of my most recent changes, could we please bring them up for discussion here first, so we can hammer out a workable solution instead of getting into another revert war? Thanks. Bearcat 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bear, you've softened it too far now. The current article suggests that Health issues is the main story. It's the curricula. Also, I don't see what was wrong with highlighting the secretive nature of the way the BC government had handled this. Also, I don't see what was wrong with explaining to non-Canadians the political background (no social conversatives in either the government or opposition) that could have resulted in this fact pattern. A fact pattern that could likely never occur in the U.S., for example. I think the newspapers referred to how unique in the world this is, so why aren't we also acknowledging that? They have been identified as activitists. They have been granted key social engineering authorities. It's unprecented. The way the current article reads you would think that's normal governmental practice. That's absolutely not the case. You've reduced the main story to a side-comment, "The province also committed itself to review the inclusivity of school curricula". And if you read the agreement, that greatly understates the scope of this agreement. The scope and strength of the agreement is very wide. Deet 11:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of concerns: for one, to all available evidence the agreement was to give them some input, which would still be subject to the final authority of the Ministry of Education; the article as it stood yesterday made it sound like they'd been given total veto rights over curriculum changes, which they haven't. Nor have they been granted authority to impose conditions such as whether changes resulting from their consultations qualify for alternative delivery rights or not; that's straight out of provincial law and has nothing to do with their decisions about it. And it really isn't all that unprecedented for curriculum designers to consult outside groups; the only thing that's really all that unusual about this particular case is the granting of outside consultation rights to the specific individuals involved in an active human rights complaint as part of the complaint's settlement.
Regarding the existence or absence of social conservatives in the BC government, I don't think this article should be stating anybody's personal opinion about what should or shouldn't be the ideological composition of a government; as written, that section was carrying a loaded assumption that the ideological balance of the government was inappropriate. I really have to urge that we keep this article on the level of the specific matter at hand, rather than introducing emotionally loaded political concepts like social liberalism vs. social conservatism and debating which ideology should or shouldn't have the upper hand in government. Bearcat 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further edits

I do think it's relevant to mention that they have an adopted son; it clarifies to a significant extent why they got involved in an education-related complaint in the first place. Without the mention, it can be surmised by the reader that they did it from some abstract principle with no bearing on their own lives, rather than because it actually had a direct impact on their own son's education. Bearcat 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, especially since they were at the forefront of the issue of fosterage/adoption by same-sex couples. I'm digging around for some references. I think it should probably be moved from the first sentence ('they are a same-sex couple') to the second ('among the first couples to adopt') but will wait until we hear some more. Bucketsofg✐ 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what settlement says

Deetdeet brings up the settlement in his last post. It might be useful if we here on the talk-page can clarify what this says and means. Here is my stab at what it says:

  • §1 Alternative delivery policy. This is the policy by which parents have the rights to pull their children out of (e.g.) sex-ed classes. As I understand the agreement, parents' right to do this are now limited to specific courses (where sex-ed. is done).
  • §2A Internal curriculum review process. As part of its curriculum review process, the government ('respondent') will issue guidelines to the ministry to help inclusivity and respect for diversity; the government will consult with the Correns and provide them with a draft; the Correns have one month to comment on the guidelines; the final implementation will come a month after that.
  • §2B Amplification. The Correns will provide a list of relevant authorities from which feedback will be soliticited.
  • §2C Schedule. The government will inform the Correns of their schedule for curriculum reform; the Correns can request that changes be made to that schedule; the government will provide an answer as to why scheduling has been changed or not.
  • 3 Social Justice IRP. This provides for the creation of the Social Justice option in grade 12. The government will provide the Correns with a draft of the LBGT-portion and consider their revisions.
  • 4 Guidelines. The government will create a diversity guide to help teachers. The Correns will be consulted.
  • 5 Public statement. If the government and Correns can agreed on a joint statement they will issue one; otherwise, either can say what they want.
  • 6 Meetings. The Correns will meet twice (?) at six-month intervals with Deputy minster to discuss progress.
  • 7-11. Legalitities

Bucketsofg✐ 14:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what the settlement means

My view of the settlement is that BC government did little but agree to hear the Correns' views; they've committed themselves to no specific changes and have the final word in any exchange with the Correns. They have to tell the Correns of their planned schedule, give the Correns the chance to say they'd rather curriculum x be revised before curriculum y, but get to decide about how they proceed and what changes get implemented. I've therefore down-graded the introductory statement about 'appointment'. On a broader note, I think it is important that we recognize that both the Correns and the social-conservatives have motives here to overstate how great a role the Correns will have. It seems to me more likely that the Ministry will have to do nothing that they didn't already want to do. Bucketsofg✐ 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Delivery

This paragraph strikes me as much longer and more detailed than it needs be

Finally, the settlement means the Ministry will clarify for all education partners its policy of "Alternative Delivery" of specific parts of the curriculum. This means that students or their parents may access "alternative delivery" in only very specific parts of the curriculum (i.e., the "Health" sections of "Health and Career Education" Kindergarten to Grade Ten). The policy applies to no other curricula and, therefore, if a lesson in Social Studies deals with LGBT topics, there will not be an opportunity for students to have those lessons learned outside of the regular classroom. As a result, students would not be able to opt out of any curriculum changes; they would still be required to demonstrate a knowledge of the material being taught.

I suggest it be shortened to something like this:

One controversial feature of the agreement is that the provision of "Alternative Delivery", which allows parents to opt their children out of parts of the curriculum, will be limited to specific courses. This means that students will be unable to avoid LGBT topics in all classes.
Bucketsofg✐ 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I could be wrong, but my understanding is that these limitations to alternative delivery already existed, and the Corren agreement didn't change them, but simply called for a clarification of the policy as it already stood. If I understand this correctly, then we need to ensure that we clearly present it as an already-extant feature of BC education policy rather than some newfangled result of the Corren agreement. Though if I am wrong, please clarify. Bearcat 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd guess that you're more or less right, but the larger context is changing. When I was young, all school textbooks presented police as male and nurses as female, and part of what happened in the 70s and 80s was police women and male nurses began appearing in a variety of contexts. Part of what the BC-Corren deal involves is doing that with gays. Up until now, everyone has assumed that the only classes where material might be controversial enough that parents might need an opt-out were health and sex-ed. In order to prevent chaos, the opt-out is being limited to these old cases. (This is all speculation on my part.) Bucketsofg✐ 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)