[ABANDONED] Promoting Education on Sexual Minorities

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: I still don't understand why universities are included. How would you teach e.g. LGBT+ history during a physics course? Public administration? Rhetoric? Engineering? Odontology? There are fields where you could possibly or easily shoehorn it in (Journalism, linguistics comes to mind) and fields where it fits nicely, either as historical reference, as potential course work or directly (Sociology, psychology, literature, history, medicine), but right now you're mandating all of them break off from their scheduled curricula to teach something that these adults should have learnt during primary and secondary school, and which is possibly entirely unrelated to the very specific, non-general education that universities are. Or, to be blunt: I guess I could mangle a course on state development and comparative politics to lecture on LGBT+ history. I have absolutely no qualifications, and it would take away time from actually relevant material, but it's not impossible. I have literally no idea of how to do it in a corruption course.

Edit: Especially since you removed it last time I protested, and I didn't see why it came back suddenly.

[Great Robertia]

OOC: I still don't understand why universities are included. How would you teach e.g. LGBT+ history during a physics course? Public administration? Rhetoric? Engineering? Odontology? There are fields where you could possibly or easily shoehorn it in (Journalism, linguistics comes to mind) and fields where it fits nicely, either as historical reference, as potential course work or directly (Sociology, psychology, literature, history, medicine), but right now you're mandating all of them break off from their scheduled curricula to teach something that these adults should have learnt during primary and secondary school, and which is possibly entirely unrelated to the very specific, non-general education that universities are. Or, to be blunt: I guess I could mangle a course on state development and comparative politics to lecture on LGBT+ history. I have absolutely no qualifications, and it would take away time from actually relevant material, but it's not impossible. I have literally no idea of how to do it in a corruption course.

Edit: Especially since you removed it last time I protested, and I didn't see why it came back suddenly.

OOC: I have edited it back in, because I was going over feedback I had received in the Discord server of the WA, where I was told that if this was to go forward, it should be universal in all educational settings, and that no exemptions should be made. I took that to mean that it should be included in primary, secondary, tertiary and anything similar to those educational settings. Which makes sense to me, because at the time of implementation, it needs to educate those who have not had a course on this subject as well, minors or adults.

And don't misrepresent what has been written: the educational material is to be included, and not to come at the expense of other things. There are many natural ways to include some history on the development of of the rights of sexual minorities in all those branches you have mentioned, because in all those branches there must/could have been famous LGBTQ people. Famous gay engineers could be spoken of, and how their sexuality affected them in becoming who they were, especially regarding their field of expertise. The same for Rhetoric, Public Administration, Physics, etc. etc. That would be a way that is fitting to the educational establishment, as well as the respective age group. It doesn't need to be the entire history of the development of the rights of sexual minorities, as 3a specifies they need to be relevant and useful to the respective establishment, but it can be related to the area of study. There is no need to shoehorn anything in, because it can be made to fit naturally. Sexual minorities appear in all layers of society, after all.

If there is a better way to phrase this, namely to have this be universal for all educational settings without exemption, and make sense for each educational setting respectively, then of course I am all ears! Or eyes in this case...

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: I still don't understand why universities are included. How would you teach e.g. LGBT+ history during a physics course? Public administration? Rhetoric? Engineering? Odontology? There are fields where you could possibly or easily shoehorn it in (Journalism, linguistics comes to mind) and fields where it fits nicely, either as historical reference, as potential course work or directly (Sociology, psychology, literature, history, medicine), but right now you're mandating all of them break off from their scheduled curricula to teach something that these adults should have learnt during primary and secondary school, and which is possibly entirely unrelated to the very specific, non-general education that universities are. Or, to be blunt: I guess I could mangle a course on state development and comparative politics to lecture on LGBT+ history. I have absolutely no qualifications, and it would take away time from actually relevant material, but it's not impossible. I have literally no idea of how to do it in a corruption course.

Edit: Especially since you removed it last time I protested, and I didn't see why it came back suddenly.

OOC: I have edited it back in, because I was going over feedback I had received in the Discord server of the WA, where I was told that if this was to go forward, it should be universal in all educational settings, and that no exemptions should be made. I took that to mean that it should be included in primary, secondary, tertiary and anything similar to those educational settings. Which makes sense to me, because at the time of implementation, it needs to educate those who have not had a course on this subject as well, minors or adults.

And don't misrepresent what has been written: the educational material is to be included, and not to come at the expense of other things. There are many natural ways to include some history on the development of of the rights of sexual minorities in all those branches you have mentioned, because in all those branches there must/could have been famous LGBTQ people. Famous gay engineers could be spoken of, and how their sexuality affected them in becoming who they were, especially regarding their field of expertise. The same for Rhetoric, Public Administration, Physics, etc. etc. That would be a way that is fitting to the educational establishment, as well as the respective age group. It doesn't need to be the entire history of the development of the rights of sexual minorities, as 3a specifies they need to be relevant and useful to the respective establishment, but it can be related to the area of study. There is no need to shoehorn anything in, because it can be made to fit naturally. Sexual minorities appear in all layers of society, after all.

But that is exactly the kind of inane "inclusion" that I am opposing. Does it further LGBT+ rights to mention the sexuality of some researcher? No (And most often I also have no idea). So I don't. If it also has to be useful, then you're undermining your own resolution because I could (IN GOOD FAITH!) exclude LGBT+ as completely irrelevant to all academic fields where it's not naturally included -- and then see the stream of homophobes follow along and use the same logic in some bad-faith argument for general sexuality education. You're also ignoring time constraints, which means any inclusion of irrelevant pubquiz trivia will take away actual relevant content.
Again. To take a real world example. How am I supposed to include LGBT+ education in a course on corruption? Unless I take time out of my class to make up shit about the sexual or gender proclivities of researchers, what on Earth am I supposed to say, even if forced? How would a physics professor include it (And not just waste time on pubquiz trivia) it in their courses? I'm guessing even a well-known example like Alan Turings sexuality wouldn't come up in computerscience outside of CS history. I can ask next time I drink a beer with people from the CS department.

[Great Robertia]

OOC: I have edited it back in, because I was going over feedback I had received in the Discord server of the WA, where I was told that if this was to go forward, it should be universal in all educational settings, and that no exemptions should be made. I took that to mean that it should be included in primary, secondary, tertiary and anything similar to those educational settings. Which makes sense to me, because at the time of implementation, it needs to educate those who have not had a course on this subject as well, minors or adults.

And don't misrepresent what has been written: the educational material is to be included, and not to come at the expense of other things. There are many natural ways to include some history on the development of of the rights of sexual minorities in all those branches you have mentioned, because in all those branches there must/could have been famous LGBTQ people. Famous gay engineers could be spoken of, and how their sexuality affected them in becoming who they were, especially regarding their field of expertise. The same for Rhetoric, Public Administration, Physics, etc. etc. That would be a way that is fitting to the educational establishment, as well as the respective age group. It doesn't need to be the entire history of the development of the rights of sexual minorities, as 3a specifies they need to be relevant and useful to the respective establishment, but it can be related to the area of study. There is no need to shoehorn anything in, because it can be made to fit naturally. Sexual minorities appear in all layers of society, after all.

But that is exactly the kind of inane "inclusion" that I am opposing. Does it further LGBT+ rights to mention the sexuality of some researcher? No (And most often I also have no idea). So I don't. If it also has to be useful, then you're undermining your own resolution because I could (IN GOOD FAITH!) exclude LGBT+ as completely irrelevant to all academic fields where it's not naturally included -- and then see the stream of homophobes follow along and use the same logic in some bad-faith argument for general sexuality education. You're also ignoring time constraints, which means any inclusion of irrelevant pubquiz trivia will take away actual relevant content.
Again. To take a real world example. How am I supposed to include LGBT+ education in a course on corruption? Unless I take time out of my class to make up shit about the sexual or gender proclivities of researchers, what on Earth am I supposed to say, even if forced? How would a physics professor include it (And not just waste time on pubquiz trivia) it in their courses? I'm guessing even a well-known example like Alan Turings sexuality wouldn't come up in computerscience outside of CS history. I can ask next time I drink a beer with people from the CS department.

OOC: Then you haven't read the preamble of the resolution draft. The resolution is not meant to further LGBTQ+ rights, it's meant to "improve the understanding of individuals that identify as being part of a sexual minority, and the struggles they face as a result of belonging to a sexual minority". It's not so much about furthering of rights, because that is what existing WA legislation is already doing. It is meant to target the prejudices behind, for example, homophobia. That way there is a double working, namely that you have WA legislation pressing from above, and education from below.

And note that it speaks of primary, secondary and tertiary education as a whole. It is not meant to appear in every single course of a Bachelor of English Language and Literature, for example. It can be added in alongside as a brief informational course or trajectory of the university as a whole, or integrated into courses where possible.

And no, I am not undermining this resolution, because the mandate that it has to be included is still there. The resolution mandates that it has to be included, yet it has to be included in a way that is useful to each respective educational establishment. For example, it could be a number of short informational afternoons/evenings at the university. Would that be intrusive? No, I don't think it would be. And if the current resolution draft isn't specifying that it could be organised in this form, then I will seek to find a way to rephrase it so that this intent is conveyed properly.

Because answer this: how will adults presently attending university be educated on this? Because they have already passed primary and secondary education, they are already adults. How can their prejudices be targeted by education, if they have them, if it is not included in some way in tertiary education?

EDIT: I have made some changes to article 3, to hopefully better reflect the intent I spoke of earlier.

[Tinhampton]

'educational establishments' [are] all public and private educational institutions providing general or academic education to minors as well as adults

If an educational establishment is really an educational establishment which receives funding from any source and caters to anybody, why do you need to define what an educational establishment is? As far as I can tell, you're not attempting a Defwa-style "debris means debris" poke in the eye to some would-be repealer

[Great Robertia]

'educational establishments' [are] all public and private educational institutions providing general or academic education to minors as well as adults

If an educational establishment is really an educational establishment which receives funding from any source and caters to anybody, why do you need to define what an educational establishment is? As far as I can tell, you're not attempting a Defwa-style "debris means debris" poke in the eye to some would-be repealer

OOC: it's not meant as a poke in the eye, no, but it's to ensure we're all on the same page as to its meaning. I admit the relevance of the definition was higher in previous drafts, where there was a specific inclusion under that definition. Still, I don't think it would hurt to have a clarification of what this resolution understands under "educational establishments", so as to avoid any potential confusion in the future or the accidental creation of a loophole, for that matter.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: I'll preface this, because I realise I sound hostile. I am, but only to the idea of including tertiary education in the mandate. I have fought my student and adult life to keep political and ideological mandates out of my classrooms, and right now this liberal wave of "just don't misuse pronouns" tries to make some small sign of respect the end-all of millennia of repression, rather than actual political and material changes in the world. Students of today should be out in the streets working for the revolution, not sharing dank memes or politely asking people to use proper pronouns.
So despite my tone, I am supportive of the general idea, especially an inclusion in general sex education or (What my fellow continentals know as) Bildung.

But that is exactly the kind of inane "inclusion" that I am opposing. Does it further LGBT+ rights to mention the sexuality of some researcher? No (And most often I also have no idea). So I don't. If it also has to be useful, then you're undermining your own resolution because I could (IN GOOD FAITH!) exclude LGBT+ as completely irrelevant to all academic fields where it's not naturally included -- and then see the stream of homophobes follow along and use the same logic in some bad-faith argument for general sexuality education. You're also ignoring time constraints, which means any inclusion of irrelevant pubquiz trivia will take away actual relevant content.
Again. To take a real world example. How am I supposed to include LGBT+ education in a course on corruption? Unless I take time out of my class to make up shit about the sexual or gender proclivities of researchers, what on Earth am I supposed to say, even if forced? How would a physics professor include it (And not just waste time on pubquiz trivia) it in their courses? I'm guessing even a well-known example like Alan Turings sexuality wouldn't come up in computerscience outside of CS history. I can ask next time I drink a beer with people from the CS department.

OOC: Then you haven't read the preamble of the resolution draft. The resolution is not meant to further LGBTQ+ rights, it's meant to "improve the understanding of individuals that identify as being part of a sexual minority, and the struggles they face as a result of belonging to a sexual minority". It's not so much about furthering of rights, because that is what existing WA legislation is already doing. It is meant to target the prejudices behind, for example, homophobia. That way there is a double working, namely that you have WA legislation pressing from above, and education from below.

And note that it speaks of primary, secondary and tertiary education as a whole. It is not meant to appear in every single course of a Bachelor of English Language and Literature, for example. It can be added in alongside as a brief informational course or trajectory of the university as a whole, or integrated into courses where possible.

And no, I am not undermining this resolution, because the mandate that it has to be included is still there. The resolution mandates that it has to be included, yet it has to be included in a way that is useful to each respective educational establishment. For example, it could be a number of short informational afternoons/evenings at the university. Would that be intrusive? No, I don't think it would be. And if the current resolution draft isn't specifying that it could be organised in this form, then I will seek to find a way to rephrase it so that this intent is conveyed properly.

Because answer this: how will adults presently attending university be educated on this? Because they have already passed primary and secondary education, they are already adults. How can their prejudices be targeted by education, if they have them, if it is not included in some way in tertiary education?

EDIT: I have made some changes to article 3, to hopefully better reflect the intent I spoke of earlier.

Okay, that was too hastily written. Replace with the following: Does mentioning the sexuality of some researcher "improve the understanding of individuals that identify as being part of a sexual minority, and the struggles they face as a result of belonging to a sexual minority"? The answer is the same. My objection stands.

If it is not meant to appear in the curricula of all courses (Or all available educations), why do you write:

Mandates that member states include the history of the domestic and international development of the rights of sexual minorities and related civil rights movements into the curricula of all educational establishments within their jurisdiction; so as to promote awareness and understanding of the subject, and thwart the development or propagation of prejudices through ignorance;

The only way I know of to insert LGBT+ issues into the curricula is to insert it into the readings, lectures or course work materials. My university has made rooms available for LGBT+ groups, and has assisted them economically. That's not part of my curriculum, or the curriculum of any course I know of. Referring students to an LGBT+ group isn't timeconsuming, but it's still in principle a reduction in time spent on relevant stuff.

If it's meant to be included (As in really included, in the curricula, and not dodged) in a way that is relevant, please answer my question:

Again. To take a real world example. How am I supposed to include LGBT+ education in a course on corruption? Unless I take time out of my class to make up shit about the sexual or gender proclivities of researchers, what on Earth am I supposed to say, even if forced? How would a physics professor include it (And not just waste time on pubquiz trivia) it in their courses? I'm guessing even a well-known example like Alan Turings sexuality wouldn't come up in computerscience outside of CS history. I can ask next time I drink a beer with people from the CS department.

As for how adults will unlearn their prejudices, I don't think mentioning LGBT+ history or famous LGBT+ people during a course on corruption will do it either, so I genuinely don't see the effect it would have.

[Great Robertia]

OOC: I'll preface this, because I realise I sound hostile. I am, but only to the idea of including tertiary education in the mandate. I have fought my student and adult life to keep political and ideological mandates out of my classrooms, and right now this liberal wave of "just don't misuse pronouns" tries to make some small sign of respect the end-all of millennia of repression, rather than actual political and material changes in the world. Students of today should be out in the streets working for the revolution, not sharing dank memes or politely asking people to use proper pronouns.
So despite my tone, I am supportive of the general idea, especially an inclusion in general sex education or (What my fellow continentals know as) Bildung.

OOC: Ah, so your opposition to the idea of including this to tertiary education is primarily fuelled by IRL ideological beliefs. That's fine of course, you're entitled to your beliefs, but it clarifies a lot for me. As it happens, I have a very different view on the matter, as I truly believe that education can work complementary with legislation to enact social change. Because laying down laws is one thing, educating people on why those laws are there is another.

Okay, that was too hastily written. Replace with the following: Does mentioning the sexuality of some researcher "improve the understanding of individuals that identify as being part of a sexual minority, and the struggles they face as a result of belonging to a sexual minority"? The answer is the same. My objection stands.

Yes, I actually believe it can help. Because you bring the topic much closer, you create a similarity between the student learning of a gay researcher, namely that they both had the same passion (science for example). And I believe likeness breeds understanding of one another, or at least, creates a bridge between something seemingly unknown and scary and yourself. So learning of the achievements of for example scientists that identified as a sexual minority, especially how their sexuality affected them in their environment or expertise and the struggles they faced as a result, can aid in creating understanding within the student learning of it. Sexual minorities don't exist in a vacuum, and will always be affected by their direct environment.

And kinship can be a great tool to forge understanding between two people. When you have a student of engineering learn about influential engineers that were part of a sexual minority, you'll create that kinship between the two through their mutual field of study. Then in relation to that engineer for example, it will be easier to teach about the struggles sexual minorities had to deal with in their fight for equal rights.

If it is not meant to appear in the curricula of all courses (Or all available educations), why do you write:

Mandates that member states include the history of the domestic and international development of the rights of sexual minorities and related civil rights movements into the curricula of all educational establishments within their jurisdiction; so as to promote awareness and understanding of the subject, and thwart the development or propagation of prejudices through ignorance;

The only way I know of to insert LGBT+ issues into the curricula is to insert it into the readings, lectures or course work materials. My university has made rooms available for LGBT+ groups, and has assisted them economically. That's not part of my curriculum, or the curriculum of any course I know of. Referring students to an LGBT+ group isn't timeconsuming, but it's still in principle a reduction in time spent on relevant stuff.

Indeed, it says "into the curricula of all educational establishments" not "into all the curricula of educational establishments". How to implement them is specified in article 3, where educational establishments will be able to include it as a separate course or program, or include the material into existing courses or programs. Either one of those approaches will fulfill the requirement of article 2. So, if an educational establishment feels passionate enough about the subject to create a separate course, they can do so. If they wish to instead integrate it with existing courses and programs, they can do so as well. As such, a Bachelor of English Language and Culture could create a course of gay writers and poets and how the history of the struggle for equal rights for sexual minorities is reflected in that work. An engineering study can instead include it in historical context of the area of expertise as a whole, a computer science study idem dito.

If it's meant to be included (As in really included, in the curricula, and not dodged) in a way that is relevant, please answer my question:

Again. To take a real world example. How am I supposed to include LGBT+ education in a course on corruption? Unless I take time out of my class to make up shit about the sexual or gender proclivities of researchers, what on Earth am I supposed to say, even if forced? How would a physics professor include it (And not just waste time on pubquiz trivia) it in their courses? I'm guessing even a well-known example like Alan Turings sexuality wouldn't come up in computerscience outside of CS history. I can ask next time I drink a beer with people from the CS department.

A course on corruption doesn’t need to have it included. Because it's a course, it's not a study in itself like law school is or philosophy or linguistics. If you're a student of politics, then the resolution demands that the topic be included in one of the courses of that study where it would be relevant and fitting or be given as a separate course within that study. It doesn’t demand that every single course within that study will deal with the topic of article 2. Do you see what I mean and what this resolution intends to do? It speaks of curricula as a whole, not each individual course of a curriculum.

As for how adults will unlearn their prejudices, I don't think mentioning LGBT+ history or famous LGBT+ people during a course on corruption will do it either, so I genuinely don't see the effect it would have.

As I said before, you misunderstand what this resolution asks of member states. A course on corruption doesn’t need to have the subject of article 2 included. The resolution asks the Bachelor Political Science, for example, to have a course or brief program/trajectory on the subject, or have the subject appear in one of the existing courses and/or programs of Political Science.

EDIT: After several tries, I don't think resolution drafting is something for me. It has reached the point where it is more tiring than fun, so I don't think I am cut out for this sort of writing. I think it's best if I stick to issue writing/drafting nonetheless, thank you for the feedback!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ah, so your opposition to the idea of including this to tertiary education is primarily fuelled by IRL ideological beliefs. That's fine of course, you're entitled to your beliefs, but it clarifies a lot for me. As it happens, I have a very different view on the matter, as I truly believe that education can work complementary with legislation to enact social change.

OOC: I think you're still misunderstanding him, but as this is now marked [ABANDONED], I'm guessing there's no point to continue the argument?

[Great Robertia]

OOC: Ah, so your opposition to the idea of including this to tertiary education is primarily fuelled by IRL ideological beliefs. That's fine of course, you're entitled to your beliefs, but it clarifies a lot for me. As it happens, I have a very different view on the matter, as I truly believe that education can work complementary with legislation to enact social change.

OOC: I think you're still misunderstanding him, but as this is now marked [ABANDONED], I'm guessing there's no point to continue the argument?

OOC: You are correct. Still, the comments and feedback from before are appreciated, and will remain a learning experience

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I think you're still misunderstanding him, but as this is now marked [ABANDONED], I'm guessing there's no point to continue the argument?

OOC: You are correct. Still, the comments and feedback from before are appreciated, and will remain a learning experience

OOC: I Do hope you pick the topic back up some day. For what it's worth, I would have voted for this one.