What should the textbooks teach us?

Re “For Teachers, Much Gray if Curriculum Adds Gays,” May 13

Although the Bias-Free Curriculum Act, with its resolution to break down the discrimination barrier, sounds desirable, I long for the day when the issue of whether a person is male, female, black, white, yellow, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender becomes moot. Calling attention to a person’s sexual proclivities is a type of discrimination in itself. One’s sexual orientation isn’t anyone else’s concern.

Recognition of achievement has no business being based on gender, race or religion, and it most definitely should not be based on one’s sexual orientation; those particular parameters of identification should be incidental at best. If we teach anything in our schools, it should be tolerance. But highlighting sexuality simply puts the focus where it doesn’t belong, and that is when the issue can rightly be called discrimination.

REBECCA S. HERTSGAARD

Palm Desert

*

Am I the only one who finds state Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s response to The Times’ May 9 editorial on her bill a bit odd (letter, May 13)?

She gives us many reasons why information about the sexual orientation or transgender status of historical figures should be part of the school curriculum, but she leaves out any such information about herself. Her name gives away her gender and leads me to make an educated guess about her race. Why not include the other information -- the information she deems so important about others? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

JOHN HORNE

Redondo Beach