Kevin Jennings is Safe School Czar not by some vetting breakdown. He was an official in the Obama Campaign as its Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual fund-raising co-chair. For twenty years until 2008, Jennings succeeded on a massive scale at pro-homosexual propagandizing of school children. His adeptness and accomplishment at semantic deception are extraordinary.
In a 1990 "report" for the Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, it was Jennings himself who re-coined the very term "safe school" to mean a pro-homosexual school. Just as the word "gay" is forever tainted and can now rarely be used in its original sense without prompting the snickers or confusion of the listener, so the term "safe school" is now a post-op product of Jennings that bears no similarity to its original meaning.
This fairly recent change is lost on most of the public, to the severe detriment of millions of American children in public school whose curriculum is controlled by edu-crats who use the Jennings definition. The term "safe school" in the fraudulent sense used by Jennings, et al, must not be confused with the original sense of the term, which was quite literal. The term in this original sense dates at least to the Reagan-era Department of Education "safe school" initiative to curb drug and alcohol use in schools. Remember the "Just say no" campaign of that era? Today, however, the term in the speciously redefined sense is now used on the Department of Education web site, where incidentally it states that Jennings and his partner, Jeff Davis "are the proud parents of three dogs", including a "grand dog". The cultural notion of what constitutes absurdity has slackened a bit, has it not? Were Ronald Reagan to have read such a line, he would most assuredly have thought it a spoof!
Jennings boasted in a 1995 speech entitled "Winning the Culture War" that he "tilted" the 1990 Massachusetts report with use of the term "safe" in order to put opponents of pro-homosexual curriculum in that state "on the defensive". His national template, used over and over in hundreds of districts and thousands of schools across the country, is to fabricate an epidemic of bullying and violence to homosexuals in schools, in part by citing bogus census or other statistics where classes of people are conflated to come-up with artificially high numbers of incidents of sexual-orientation-based "bullying", "harassment" or violence.
The next step is to contend that the only solution is to make "allies" out of 100% of the straight students in the school or district. "Allies" are made by implementing a usually district-wide "safe-schools" or "anti-bullying" curriculum that force-feeds homosexual propaganda to kindergarten through 12th grade. Prominent psychologists and psychiatrists who oppose them notwithstanding, these towering intellects that run school districts reject all research that will contradict their foregone conclusions.
While there is much controversy even among secular mental health professionals as to whether or not homosexuality is disordered, there is no such controversy as to heterosexuality. This is an additional, secular reason that all lifestyles should therefore not enjoy parity in school curricula. Why do the Jennings types fear the presentation of research data from all sides, rather than just their own? If indeed Jennings and company valued academic freedom and fearless intellectual inquiry, they would also present the findings of these prominent doctors, who have a lot of studies to back up their positions.
The term "ally", a play on Jennings' Gay-Straight Alliance, is another buzzword which denotes a straight student who worships LGBT's and unequivocally endorses their lifestyle, and who reports on any student who so much as voices an opposition to homosexuality. Such voiced opposition is punished as the "bullying" of a "hater". "Ally of the month" awards are then handed-out at monthly school assemblies. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there were an epidemic of bullying and violence at schools against homosexuals, the contention of parents who oppose the pro-homosexual curricula is that what the schools are doing is unconstitutional. The purported end does not justify the means here. Those pushing this pro-homosexual curricula, who omit from the equation the Constitutional rights of the parents and children who oppose them, ought to be able to understand this concept.
In his revelatory 1995 speech, Jennings accurately stated that in order for his side to win, it was essential to keep control of the terminology, especially the term "safety". He admittedly seized on the pre-existence of this popular Reagan theme and nomenclature of "safe schools." The tactic worked well for him; he got his pro-homosexual curriculum in Massachusetts. And if it worked in Massachusetts, Jennings realized that it could work nationwide -- and it has.
Jennings founded the Gay Straight Alliance GSA and the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) which have imparted and logistically supported his original propaganda model to thousands of GSA staff presently indoctrinating children in grades K-12 in every state. A couple of other important examples of his ability to lie semantically are his use of the terms "Straight" and "Alliance" in the GSA and GLSEN names in order to falsely imply that the GSA and GLSEN are some dialoguing roundtable. He thus nicely disguises the insidious propaganda machines that these organizations truly are. Parents should check their school or district curriculum for seemingly innocuous terms as "safe school", "anti-bullying", "safe space", "hate-free", "tolerance", "respect differences", "be an ally", "no name calling day", "be who you are", "free to be fully me", "day of silence", and so forth. If these terms are present, they are defined by Jennings, not Webster, and the accompanying curricular material will probably be objectionable.
Jennings' jargon and the mythical bullying epidemic even showed-up in the recent Presidential address to school children: (emphasis added):
Maybe you'll decide to stand up (referring to "allies") for kids who are being teased or bullied (disagreed with) because of who they are or how they look (homosexual or transvestite), because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe (pro-homosexual) environment to study and learn.
The Jennings terminology in this line of the controversial speech was no doubt unrecognized by the average adult reader as anything but generic. Unlike the adult audience who watched the speech voluntarily if at all, children across the country in public schools, at whom the speech was directed and who were its captive audience, hear these identical psychobabble terms day in and day out in the very precise context of the nationwide pro-homosexual curriculum designed by Jennings. These children knew exactly what was meant by these terms as used in the Presidential speech.
For the students who may have previously debated or voiced any opposition to their school's pro-homosexual curriculum content, there was now the President on television taking the side of their school administration and its curriculum content. It's ironic that the Presidential bully pulpit was used in support of the fraudulently-named "anti-bullying" regimen of so many hundreds of school districts. Had the speech line been referring to race, handicap or gender, there would have been no need to disguise terms. Nor would the trademark Jennings jargon have been used.
The influence of the Jennings ilk on the speech is quite obvious to those of us who are sensitized to the jargon used nationwide by the homosexual-indoctrination movement. In echoing the jargon of the pro-homosexual curricula, the President mightily validated the profound distrust voiced by so many Americans when his intention to give the school speech was announced.
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh recently covered the scandal of some 250 California public schools ordering the pro-homosexual "Boy in a Bikini" cartoon indoctrination video. I am the father who was interviewed recently on Fox and Friends with my attorney, Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute.
The topics were the video and the force-fed pro-homosexual curriculum in my school district and others. Although until now the Jennings and school-video scandals have been covered separately, there is a substantial connecting line to draw between Kevin Jennings and "Boy in a Bikini." Kevin Jennings founded the GSA in 1988. Youth in Motion, the video producer comprised of a partnership between Jennings' GSA and the company Frameline, actually produced "Boy in a Bikini", and also distributes this indoctrination video to hundreds of schools -- including our local elementary school. So the reprehensible "Boy in a Bikini" video and many other vile propaganda videos were co-produced by the very GSA founded by Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings!
Expect more of this, funded with your federal tax dollars.