Editor:

It’s never a good idea to begin what is intended to be a persuasive essay by pitting one side against “every Wyomingite who cares about what our children are being taught and how they are being encouraged.” To suggest that only his side cares about children’s education and health, as Jonathan Lange does in his latest column (“Riverton educator should answer radio host’s question,” May 15), does not bode well for the soundness of the rest of his argument.

Of concern are two paintings hanging at Riverton High School which, according to various reports, express positive perceptions of homosexuality. This led to a controversial radio interview of the local school superintendent in which the host asked if it was appropriate for a high school to be promoting homosexuality, and if it was wise for a school to encourage a “risky” lifestyle.

The superintendent responded that they “can’t discriminate against those classes,” and that the radio host was expressing a “personal opinion.”

I do agree with Lange that the superintendent missed the boat with his responses, though I disagree with his reasoning. Here’s how I would have answered those questions:

“We are talking about art, a subject which is an essential element of the curriculum. Students need to experience a variety of artistic styles and expressions appropriate to their maturity level. These two paintings were appropriate and fulfilled one of art’s most important roles — raising different viewpoints.

“Furthermore, neither the school nor any artwork we display encourages any particular lifestyle. Our responsibility is to encourage and support all students as individuals and as members of society, giving them all the information and tools we can to help them make the best choices as they begin their lives.”

The rest of Lange’s article is another attempt to “prove” the wrongness of homosexuality while claiming it has nothing to do with homosexuals, but with behavior. Watch especially for the places where he uses the term “behavior” as if it means the same as “risky behavior.”

Note also the places where he acknowledges that many health risks have nothing to do with one’s sexuality. Then look at the way he criticizes the superintendent for being “unable to tell the difference between a question of behavior and a question of identity.”

Confused yet?

Echoing anti-gay groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition and the Family Research Council, Lange cites Centers for Disease Control data showing that lesbian, gay and bisexual youth experience higher rates of health risk behaviors. However, the actual CDC report (you can read it here: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/disparities/smy.htm) explains that these “risky behaviors” involve being violently victimized and bullied, feeling sad and hopeless, missing school due to safety concerns and illegal drug use.

Contrary to Lange’s outdated claims, there is solid research showing that societal pressures — such as family disapproval — significantly increase the rates of depression, suicide, drug abuse, and sexually transmitted disease among LGBTQ youth (for example, https://nccc.georgetown.edu/documents/LGBT_Brief.pdf).

The CDC is clear that the best response to these dangers is to positively support LGBTQ students, not further victimize them by disapproval and marginalization. Positive support includes educating all students about the whole gamut of health risks — something schools are already doing, although Lange does not seem to know this.

It must also include making schools safe places for LGBTQ students, not places where they are bullied either by classmates or by an attitude that the “behaviors” that characterize their identity should be discouraged, as Lange seems to favor.

These are difficult issues, and parents and the community do need to be part of any discussion about how schools address them. But this discussion needs to be an enlightened one, not one that depends on misguided opinions and prejudices.

Julie Woestehoff

Evanston