Teachers won't put up posters on gay rights- 5 instructors balk at direct

[pinniped]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/25/GAYFLAP.TMP

Teachers won't put up posters on gay rights
5 instructors balk at directive, apparently over religious beliefs

Simone Sebastian, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride. In December the school board approved a policy requiring all district teachers to hang the posters in their classrooms.

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment. They say that too often teachers do not reprimand students who use derogatory slurs or refer to homosexuality in a negative way.

"This is not about religion, sex, or a belief system,'' said district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the poster policy. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation."
----
more:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/25/GAYFLAP.TMP

[Scooter24]

1. Ok fine then...

Don't have them put the posters up. Find another individual who will be willing to do it for them instead.

They have a right not to put it up themselves, but they don't own the classroom nor the school. They of course are free to resign and find a nice evangelical private school who would be more receptive to their "freedoms."

[Sub Atomic]

34. Yesterday at work, I had engineers bitching at me

because of four new required fields in our test software that their technicians didn't want to do.

I asked the engineers if they had accepted the technicians' resignations then, as they were plainly saying they were not going to do their job.

The engineers stopped bitching at me after that.

[TankLV]

60. At least they'll all know who these horrible people are, and won't be

fooled into thinking that they could count on them to protect them!

I can think of a few choice signs I'd like to hang in these assholes classrooms or put in their desks, that's for sure!

[Charlie Brown]

2. Waaaah. We're persecuted. Waaaahhhhhh! n/t

[jayctravis]

33. Triangles makes us feel dirty!

and less heterosexual!

[Betty]

43. the war on heterosexuality

begins at this school. Hope that asshole O'Reilly is paying attention.

[Erika]

3. Theocracy being shoved down our throats via W

What's new. It's about time all gay/lesbian and their supporters tell this fascist government that they will keep their tax $ to themselves until they are represented properly.

[AndyTiedye]

4. What Kind Of Teachers Would Want an UNSafe Place for their Students?

[MountainLaurel]

41. The same ones

Who would tell a first grader that she's going to hell because her parents don't take her to the right church. Or sit by and watch while their students taunt a Wiccan student (who later killed herself). Or tell a Jewish high school student to stop complaining when his peers write "Hitler was right" on his locker.

[CanuckAmok]

5. Simple: teachers who break Board policy should be suspended/fired.

Problem solved.

Let their religious institutions employ them.

[Vidar]

23. This approach will allow every homophobic, republican board

fire teachers who are gay-friendly. And there are many more of those boards. Good teachers who stand up for any kind of principals are an endangered species--threatened by corrupt administrators and Bushco's war on education. I have no problem with the posters personally, neither do I have a problem with a teacher who chooses not to hang then,

A former teacher who fought too many boards

[TrogL]

39. Which kind of principal?

Good teachers who stand up for any kind of principals are an endangered species

My principal hated me because I had principles.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Personally, I am OK with this.

I think it is better that they don't hang the posters. G-d forbid a young gay person go one of those religious bigots, get talked down to, and kill themselves because they feel "evil" and "less than human." Only supportive teachers should hang them, and only after training on issues, to make sure no mole "fundies" slip through.

[wickerwoman]

11. The poster is more for the benefit of the students than the teachers.

One poster isn't going to change the hard-core bigots, but it shows students who are routinely picked on that the people in charge are going to support them. And for many students that makes all the difference in the world in how they approach the classroom and how much they learn.

These "teachers" should be fired- not for being homophobic assholes (although they're that too), but for being shitty teachers. The single most important thing a teacher does is create a safe environment where all the students feel valued. If they can't manage that because of their "religious beliefs", standing in front of people and talking isn't going to accomplish shit. They're just wasting everybody's time.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. I understand what you are saying, but disagree.

The poster says: "This is a safe place to be who you are." It is obvious that those 5 classrooms, it is not a safe place and should not be labeled as such. I'd rather know up front if it was a "safe space" or not. Making the posting mandatory can cause confusion and a false sense of security. As someone who is gay, we should never let our guard down, but seeing a poster that says we are safe can make us breathe a little easier.

As for firing the teachers, I would agree because their religious beliefs should not trump a public schools policy. If everyone starts asserting their religious beliefs into the public fora, then anarchy will start to take place. However, I still don't think the posters should be mandatory, not for the sake of the teachers, but for the sake of the students.

[wickerwoman]

21. I guess my point

(and this is through a fog of jet lag and Sudafed so sorry if it doesn't make sense) is that every classroom in every school in America should be a safe space and if it isn't it's the teacher that needs to go and not the sign.

You should be able to let your guard down. It's your school/university as much as anybody else's. And the whole point of the poster is so that students can let their guard down. I think most students are pretty savvy about figuring out who the nutjob teachers are and avoiding them. And I think any student in the 21st century who killed themselves because a teacher told them they were going to hell, had a lot bigger problems than that particular teacher.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. I agree.

We both agree that every class should be a safe space for all students. However, that is not the reality. We should not pretend it is. Until attitudes change, I'd rather allow the bigots to be "out." Let the posters be a 'badge of honor' for those teachers who have respect for all of their students and let the absence of said poster signify those teachers' absence of respect for all students.

On edit: Get some rest. I hope you feel better. I must say, for being in a fog, your writing was quite lucid. :)

[crispini]

70. You know, you have a great point.

The ones who WANT to hang it, will. The ones who don't, won't. And it'll surely tell every student in those classrooms something important about both teachers.

[progdonkey]

12. yes and no...

I understand you're point: it's better for students to know which ones are the actually supportive teachers and which ones aren't so they can better seek out supportive teachers.

This is where a supportive school administration comes in, though. The school must force the bigoted teachers to hang the posters as well in order to say to the gay student, "You are absolutely welcome here; those who don't treat you with respect are not." Those bigots need to know that they are in the minority and their hatred will not be tolerated.

When the overall atmosphere of the school (and when the official position of the administration) is positive towards gays, the gay student who finds out his/her teacher is one of the bigots will feel safer telling the school administration about that teacher's treatment of gays in the classroom.

I don't mean to say your point is unfounded, but I do believe the other results of a school-wide mandatory order and official position in favor of gays will compensate for any "mole fundies" (I like that phrase, by the way. ;) ). Indeed, by specifically forcing the bigots to hide their true feelings and put up mandatory anti-hate posters, the school is specifically telling them that it's they who should be ashamed and live in ostracism, not the gay students.

The bigots are the ones who must be made uncomfortable and put-upon, not the gay students.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. I understand what you are saying.

When I worked for universities, I was responsible for creating "safe zones." In order to get a safe zone sticker, the person had to attend several workshops about homosexuality and issues around that topic. As the 'administrator' of the program, I got to decide if someone didn't get the sticker. The classes were not mandatory, nor did I want them to be. I actually did have a few "good souls" who wanted to help the poor wretched homosexual by being a safe zone person. I would not allow it.

With the poster situation, how are you going to know who the bigots are if everyone has to hang them? If it is by choice, then you know that the person who proudly displays that poster is an ally. If you don't see one, proceed with caution! I feel it is better for students to know that a classroom is safe because the teacher chose to hang the poster, than think they are safe, because everyone hangs the poster.

[theHandpuppet]

27. Good point

Have been following the discussion and you make a valid point.

[ismnotwasm]

58. I agree

I don't know the social dynamics of students, but my guess is that these teachers would stick out like a sore thumb. It would also give a certain ralling point for students involved in a gay-straight alliance. My daughter was involved with that in school, and I was very impressed with these young men and women.

On the other hand, these teachers making what has to be a religious or bigoted viewpoint at a public school is henious.

[progdonkey]

57. good response...

While I'm not entirely convinced that I'm mistaken, your argument is certainly valid and well-reasoned. It seems to me like we mainly differ on the general attitude towards what kind of climate is preferred.

In my argument, the gay student is left open to experiencing some emotional pain from being denigrated by the bigoted teacher when the student seeks help, but the bigoted teacher will have been forced to acknowledge that he/she is in the minority and that such denigrating will not be tolerated, and the admin will come down swiftly on any teacher that treats any gay students with anything less than the greatest care. The message to the other students is that anti-gay rhetoric and beliefs are not welcome at the school.

In your argument, the gay student is saved that emotional pain, but the bigot is also able to feel welcome at the school. The message to other students is that anti-gay hatred isn't a big deal, it's just a different opinion and is just as valid as accepting gay rights.

So, I guess it comes down to whether it's better to leave gay students open to bigotry by the hidden teachers but with a school atmosphere where those bigoted teachers are completely unwelcome at the school; or it's better to save the gay students from that emotional pain, while having the atmosphere of the school being that anti-gay bigotry is just another acceptable viewpoint (or at least nothing to be ashamed of)--some teachers are accepting, some aren't, but they're all equal. It's either both experience direct pain, but the bigot hopefully experiences more, socially and professionally, or neither experiences direct pain, but there's the chance the the gay student might suffer more indirect pain from a lax official attitude towards anti-gay bigotry.

The unavoidable Achilles heel of my argument, however, is admittedly that the administration needs to be willing to act swiftly in coming down on the bigoted teachers, and that's probably being much too presumptive: if the administration forces the bigoted teachers to hang the posters but is unwilling to take further action when a gay student complains about one of the teachers after coming to him for guidance, everything goes to hell, and the gay student will have experienced bigotry both directly from the teacher and indirectly via the lax official attitude.

Anyway, since you apparently have real experience in school administration, I'll happily defer to your real-world experience (while not admitting defeat! ;-)). :pals:

[Behind the Aegis]

67. good response on your part, as well.

I don't know that I would say you are mistaken. You certainly have a different take than I do. The one thing that I would 'correct,' as it were, is that my scenario doesn't make the bigot feel welcome at the school. If anything, it exposes him/her for what he/she really is. It goes back to that adage, "know thine enemy." However, if the enemy is made to 'dress' the same as everyone else, they fade into the background, and, IMO, are much more dangerous.

I feel our arguments are of two worlds, one is the way the world should be (your argument), and the way the world is (my stance).

I am not trying to talk down to you or invalidate your argument (or trying to claim victory :)), because I feel you sincerely believe all people deserve equal rights and all students should be able to get an education without harassment. However, I am going to make an analogy and see what you feel about it.

The US passes a law that requires all police stations to recruit at least one gay person to their ranks (if they have a force over 20). Do you think this new law will change the attitudes of the police stations? If anything, it could make it much worse for the gay person who takes the job because it will be seen as being forced upon them. Now, what about gay citizens? The law has been passed and the non-gay officer answers my 911 call. Does this law some how make him/her (the responding officer) more tolerant? Might there be a false sense of security on the part of gay people calling 911 thinking, with this new law, things will be OK?

Conversely, Congress passes a measure suggesting police stations hire at least one gay person. If I heard my local station did this (not likely, as I live in a small town in Oklahoma), I would feel they made a choice to be inclusive and that the responding officer would be more likely to be sympathetic. I would still be on-guard, but I wouldn't feel because it was an obligation, that the station was just doing its job, instead of what's right.

The flaw in my argument is that by allowing 'choice,' a false sense of security can also be built. Refer back to my post about the 'good souls' wanting to save the poor wretched homosexuals. Had I not been the one in charge, think of the damage that could be wielded if that "safe zone" sticker fell into the wrong hands! The students at my former school knew if they saw that pink triangle in an office window, it was really a "safe zone." If I had failed my job, and just handed them out, willy-nilly, many a student could have fallen into a false sense of security. The risk is always there. I always tell my gay students what to look for, but I don't get to see every gay student.

I didn't' come off like an ass, did I?! :) I hope not. :toast: :pals:

[progdonkey]

69. well said

(I must say, this is probably the nicest "argument" I've ever had--to the point that I feel the word belongs in quotes!--though I'm sure that's because our goal is the same.)

I think you're perfectly correct about the difference between our takes. I'm not sure if I said it explicitly (and I'm too lazy to click back and check) but the general thrust behind my argument has certainly been a certain idealism: gay students should feel welcome everywhere and bigoted teachers should feel welcome nowhere. Unfortunately, that's rarely, if ever, able to become reality (which is why I said I'd defer to your real-world experience in my previous post), without potentially opening up a huge powder keg.

I certainly understand your analogies. While I focus in my argument more on making the bigots feel unwelcome at the school, the downside to such heavyhanded tactics towards them is that it could make them even more hateful towards gays while hiding that increased hatred even more (sort of like kids apologizing to each other because their parents told them to and not because they're actually sorry); even those "good souls" might become full on gay-baiters, if they feel under assault by the admin. (I think my visceral dislike of bigots and bullies favors more heavy-handed tactics towards them, but realistically speaking, official "suggestion" rather than diktat will probably, as you say, result in fairer treatment overall.) This is also perhaps analogous to a certain extent with striking the right balance in integrating workplaces: you want to make sure you foster diversity in the managerial pool, for instance, but you also need to guard against their juniors (who may have been up for the positions the minorities filled) feeling like they were cheated out of a job because they aren't a minority.

So, the bottom line I guess is basically I have a more idealistic argument that has a major Achilles heel (the need for an Admin willing to act), whereas you have a more realistic argument that also has a major Achilles heel (possible too-lax designation of "safe zones"). Why couldn't things just be simpler? ;-)

(And no, you didn't come off like an ass in the slightest. :headbang:)

[AndyTiedye]

45. The Teachers Who Refuse To Post It Need Counseling

The most important part of the teacher's job to provide a safe environment for his or her students.

Having identified those teachers who refuse to do so, they must be made to understand their responsibilities
if they are to continue to teach there. Failing to address the issue is likely to result in it becoming
"open season" on gay students in those teachers' classrooms (if it is not already), as those teachers have
so publicly taken the side of the homophobes. The bullies are certain to feel emboldened in such an environment.

[progdonkey]

7. like with the fucking pharmacists...

You're hired to do a job. If that job includes things that supposedly insult your warped religious beliefs FIND ANOTHER FUCKING JOB!

Christ, I hate these Fundie fucks. :banghead:

[EFerrari]

8. No surprise. San Leando was once also determined to be

the most racist community in CA or in the country, I don't remember which.

Brian Copeland's one man show chronicles growing up black there.

[KurtNYC]

46. That would mean they beat out Anaheim and San Diego

Anaheim had all-Klan fire and police departments. San Diego elected a Grand Wizard (Pete Wilson) mayor. No easy (or noble) feat there.

In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan, at the height of its influence and popularity, decided to make Anaheim a model Klan city. In 1924, the Klan secretly managed to get four of its members elected to the five-member Board of Trustees. Nine of the ten members of the police force were also Klansmen. The four Klan trustees served for...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaheim,_California

[EFerrari]

50. The premise of my buddy's show is that his family moved

to San Leandro on the same day this rating was announced.

Welcome to our fair city. :(

[The Magistrate]

9. A Better Headline, Sir

Would read: Five teachers endorse bullying and ostracization of gay teens. Claim their religious belief requires this.

That is, after all, the essence of the position these bits of detritus have taken here....

[Erika]

10. I emailed their principal at their web site

We need to show theocracy is not the will of the people.

[f-bush]

14. Fire their fucking asses quick!!!

[rucky]

19. If they're not willing to ensure the safety of their students...

then they should be fired.

[f-bush]

37. Absolutely

[TankLV]

61. Absolutely. No ifs, ands or buts.

[Xithras]

72. It would be almost impossible to fire a teacher over this.

The teacher would simply need to point to their contract and ask which job duty requires them to perform building maintenance. Since it's extremely unlikely that any such duty exists in their contract, the board has little power to discipline, and the teachers union would have to stand with the employees.

The proper response is simply to have the buildings custodians hang the posters. If the teachers pull them down, THAT would be a punishable offense...destroying or defacing school property.

[LynnTheDem]

16. Prejudice violates Jesus' religious beliefs.

And mine.

Would the REAL Christians please stand up.

[TheBaldyMan]

17. Whatever happened to 'Condemn the Sin, Love the Sinner'

or is this a case of selective bible quotation

[Zhade]

64. Since when was being gay a sin?

I mean, aside from the misinterpretation of a mistranslated myth the real meaning of which escapes fundie idiots?

[TheBaldyMan]

65. I mean in the sense that the fundies say it's a sin

then use that as an excuse to persecute others, in an opposite way to Jesus' own sayings.

Let me make this clear, certain elements, hereafter referred to as Fundies, selectively quote scripture as 'unassailable' proof that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. There is another quote they could have used that contradicts their message of intolerance and bigotry and that is most probably attributed to Jesus himself. If Fundies spent a little more time reading the beatitudes and a little less time on Leviticus we would all be spared a lot of earache.

[Zhade]

66. OK, gotcha.

NT!

[Zhade]

18. So their religion is 'gays should expect to be harmed'.

At least they're up front about it!

[The Magistrate]

20. That Would Seem To Be It In A Nutshell, Sir

As you say, it is good to have these things openly declared....

[Zhade]

62. I've always thought a knife in the heart is better than one in the back.

Lets us know exactly how bigoted these idiots are.

That's almost a public service, when you think about it.

[Montauk6]

24. Cue "This Is Not America" by Bowie & Metheny

[dddem]

25. Teachers like this should not be in a public school.

They (as all Americans) have the right to their beliefs, but they are teaching in a public school system, which means that they are responsible for the education of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, straight, and gay students. You can't impose your beliefs in a situation like that. you are responsible;e to teach the curriculum. That's all. If you can't do that because of personal beliefs, then you should not be there. As a parent and a taxpayer, I would protest the decision of these teachers.

[dddem]

26. Teachers like this should not be in a public school.

They (as all Americans) have the right to their beliefs, but they are teaching in a public school system, which means that they are responsible for the education of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, straight, and gay students. You can't impose your beliefs in a situation like that. you are responsible;e to teach the curriculum. That's all. If you can't do that because of personal beliefs, then you should not be there. As a parent and a taxpayer, I would protest the decision of these teachers.

[xchrom]

28. we all pay taxes that go to schools, pay the teachers salary.

the classroom should absolutely be a place of safety for all students -- all students.

if teachers want a paycheck froma public school then they must be obliged to make sure that each of their students feel safe and welcomed.

nothing forces these teachers to take a paycheck froma public school.

buh-bye.

[happyslug]

40. That was William Jennings Bryan Argument at the Scope Monkey Trial

Bryan opposed TEACHING evolution in Public Schools for it harmed some people's deeply held beliefs. His rationale was a School should be SAFE for anyone who is required to be in School and NOT be subject to any attacks on themselves or their beliefs. Since a sizable part of the population of Tennessee opposed the Theory of Evolution as an attack on their Beliefs, evolution could be baned by the State from being taught in the Public Schools, just like here the School Board could REQUIRE that Teachers provide Safe Areas for Gay Children (Notice the School Board did NOT say the Teachers have to teach that Homosexuality is good, but that they will protect Gay Children from attacks).

The School board wants the Children to be "Free and Welcomed" into the Public Schools, but the only way to do that is to show toleration of the Gay Children's gayness. Thus the rule does NOT require approval of a Student being Gay, but to protect such children from attacks. In Bryan's day the dispute was over attacks on people's belief through teaching evolution of Humans in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Bryan's Solution was just to forbid the teaching evolution (and he Opposed teaching religion in Public School for that would violate the separation of Church and State, thus the only way to protect people's beliefs was to ban attacks on those beliefs which what Bryan was arguing in the Scoops Monkey Trial).

Thus Bryan's position was that the Public Schools MUST make the Schools "Free and welcomed" to ALL OF ITS STUDENTS. The problem is how to do so when you have two groups in opposition to each other (Toleration of Homosexuality and the View Homosexuality is a Sin today and in Bryan's Day the Conflict between the Concept that God made Man and Darwin theory that man evolved from lower primates). Bryan s's solution to such a problem was to take the conflict out of the Public Schools by effectively BANNING any arguments for and against evolution being taught in the Public Schools (Even Bryan accept Creationism was religion and THUS NOT TO BE TAUGHT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS). Bryan had no problem with Evolution and Creationism being taught outside the Public Schools, in fact he had not only read the Bible but had also read Darwin's books on Evolution 20 years before the Scopes Monkey Trial and had had correspondence with both advocates and proponents of Evolution over that 20 year period (in fact in appears at the trial he was the only participate, including Scoops, who had READ Darwin's books at the time of the Trail, Scoop later went on to complete his College degree and may have read Darwin after the trial, but as of the Trial had not).

Thus in this case Bryan would have said it was improper of the Teacher to refuse to put up the sign, but also improper for the teacher to attack any student who was "Gay". The issue is to disruptive to be in the Public Schools and best kept out of the Schools. In the case of attacks on the Students, the School has a positive duty to protect the Student, any student, and that is all the School is doing here. Given the School is only protecting the Student NOT saying being a Homosexual is good, the teacher has NO grounds to refuse to follow the policy of the School Board.

One last Comment on Bryan, if your impression of him is from the movie and play "Inherit the Wind" that is wrong, if he had been alive when the play was written he could have sued for liable given ALL OF THE LIBERTIES THE AUTHORS DID WITH HIS CHARACTER IN THE PLAY (And even the Authors accepted this by changing all of the parties names). In the play Scoops is arrested and jailed (He had AGREED to be arrested a part of a plot to raise revenue for the town by having the trial in the town thus never spent a day in Jail). At the end of the trial in the play the Bryan Charater goes on a rage about the $100 fine instead of Jail time (In the actual Trial Bryan actually offered to pay the fine himself, but Scoops told him the town had already agreed to pay for it as part of the plot, furthermore under the Stature only permitted a fine, which Bryan had Lobbied AGAINST when the law was pass saying the law should carry NO FINE thus being upset about a $100 fine makes no sense given the History of Bryan, the Act and Bryan' offer to pay the fine). In the Play Bryan is shown refusing to even touch Darwin's Book when in the actual trial he had read it 20 years before AND INTRODUCED IT INTO THE RECORD HIMSELF (Darrow had tried to read it but admitted he stopped reading it after about 100 pages into the book). At the time the play was written everyone who saw the play knew it was NOT from the Monkey Trial but from McCarthy's attack in the Senate (McCarthy not Bryan was the person the play was aimed at).

As to the Cross-examination of Bryan by Darrow most people who have read the actual Transcripts calls it as best a draw (and maybe even a Bryan victory for Bryan gave as much as he took and given he was the one being QUESTIONED that is hard to do). Just some comments on Bryan and people's preception of his position in the Monkey Trial.

[xchrom]

47. teaching a particular subject matter is a far cry from insuring the safety

of any individual or individuals.

i MIGHT agree with bryan on teaching something that was not a fact -- i will disagree with bryan that the teacher cannot teach 1 + 1 or that any student is entitled to a safe place to go to school and making sure that each and every student understands that no one regardles of gender, race, orientation or creed is to subjected to any kind of harrassment.

in fact in this case the teacher isn't teaching -- but communicating policy -- there's no wiggle room here.

as to your other point, bryan was in fact wrong because evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory -- to know basic science -- one must know evolution.

if conservative christians want to be taught something other than scientific fact -- they too are welcome to find their way to the door and go to a private school that teaches the moon is made of green cheese.

[happyslug]

53. What About Majority Rule?

People forget it was SCOOPS who wanted to disobey his School Board and Bryan who wanted Scoops to follow what the policy of the School Board. Here the teacher wants to DISOBEY the School Board.

Remember the issue in Bryan's day was that MOST people opposed the teaching of Evolution in the Public School. Given than most people wanted no teaching of evolution, the policy of the state of Tennessee and the School Board was NOT to teach evolution. If you wanted to learn about it you could do so on your own time (and dime). The same today with Intelligence Design, most people do NOT want ID taught to their children, thus it is NOT taught in most School Districts. If you want to learn ID, you have to do so on your own time (and dime). That was Bryan's position, if you do NOT like want the majority of people want you can still do so on your own time and dime but do NOT expect the Majority of the taxpayers to pay for something THEY OPPOSE.

The same with this School teacher, the teacher has to follow the policy set by the School Board who are elected by the Majority of the people (at least in theory). If she does NOT like homosexuals is unimportant when it comes following School board policy. The only exception would be if such a policy violates one of the dual concepts of Freedom of Religion.

People tend to forget the First Amendment protects TWO types of Religious freedom, first is that any one religion will NOT have the power of the State behind the religion (i.e. No Government supported Religion). The Second part of the Freedom of Religion is the personal freedom to worship as one wants (i.e. NO Government restrictions on Religion).

The problem is the Public Schools often have to balance between these two freedoms of Religion. The Schools can NOT Force a set of Beliefs onto its Students while at the same time the School must leave the Students express their own personnel beliefs. In Scoops the two problems came to a head, the Majority of People did NOT want their students being taught Evolution while Scoops demanded his religious freedom to teach evolution (and in the alternative argued that by forbidding the teaching of evolution the School Board was IMPOSING its religious doctrine on the Students). Bryan position was clear, go with Majority rule unless doing so is imposing a religious belief on a Minority (Thus he favored just banning the teaching of Evolution in Public Schools as opposed to teaching religion, or banning Evolution completely).

In this case, the teacher is expressing her Belief that she objects to Homosexuals. The School Board has adopted a Different Policy, i.e. providing a "safe area" for Gay Students. The teacher is NOT imposing the teacher's religious belief onto the students. On the other hand the School Board is imposing ITS BELIEFS onto the Teacher. Thus the issue in this case is the same as in the Scoops Trial, personnel beliefs of a teacher coming in Conflict with the beliefs of the majority as expressed by the School Board. As I Said Bryan would say go with the School Board unless it violate the First Amendment and since this requirements does NOT really impose any belief onto the teacher, the Teacher has to follow School Board policy or resign.

[xchrom]

55. what about it?

publicly displaying and setting out what the schools policy is about the safety of it's students doesn't have anything to do with anybody's set of beliefs.

the teachers can be against gay folk according to their religous beliefs all they want.
they cannot drag those beliefs into the classroom.

the calssroom IS a safe place and it is the policy decision -- because of physical violence or the threat therein -- to let all the students know that.

you keep landing on evolution -- i don't get it -- evolution is a fact -- not a religous belief -- anything contrary to that is a religous belief and if supported by the state is said state sponsoring religion.
you can't butter your bread on both sides.

and again evolution is not a child and guranteeing that child knows that each and every classroom said child sits in is a safe place.
whether the teacher likes it or not -- whether it offends the teachers religous beliefs or not -- there are children who identify as gay -- those children are often the victims of violence and harrassment.
there have to be rules and everyone has to know what the rules are.

a gay child will always be in the minority and just because the majority may be uncomfortable with the fact doesn't make it right to give the majority the right to harrass in any way said child.

a teacher may be against the ''homosexual lifestyle'' but will have -- i repeat: have to -- set aside those beliefs to let each and every child know that intolerance cannot be accepted and that he or she WILL act to uphold stated policy.

[baby_mouse]

29. YOU'RE FIRED

We do not pay you to be religious, bitch.

[Catt03]

30. i am so sick of these victims

The right.....on religion, abortion, gay rights ....all victims of those who have different beliefs.

Stop your damn whining for God's sake. The world, as you believe it should, does not revolve around you and your religion.....whatever that is to in that you continually persecute people who do not believe in your punishing God.

Damn.....these people drive me crazy!

on edit: forgot..women too

[RelativelyJones]

31. High school is the whole enchilada

Good, bad or ugly, your high school experience has an enormous influence on the the first half of your life. Absolutely every possible effort should be made to prevent barriers from being put up as young people enter society. By blocking these posters, these teachers are erecting barriers. I would say the same of teachers who tried to block an after-school Bible study group. These teachers don't seem to understand that this is not about them. They are already know who they are (they just don't recognize that they are assholes). Its about the 14, 15, 16 year olds who might be facing the fact that they are gay, and whether they know it or not, have a mountain of shit to go through before they reach the age of their teachers.

[Obamarama]

32. Bet they'd put up an Intelligent Design poster, though, wouldn't they?

Fucking contemptible Christofascist asswipes.

[superconnected]

35. bet they won't have any problem putting up the anti-gay

and phone number to turn gays in, posters, that may be the next posters coming if the gov they voted in gets its way.

How can "it's safe to be who you are" offend anyone but a facist.

[WindRavenX]

36. If they don't want to put up the posters, students should have the right..

...to request a new teacher who DOES provide a Safe Zone.

Fuck these teachers. They are proclaiming they are bigots and will tollerate hatred.

[wicket]

38. Which gays would Jesus hate?

:grr:

[donheld]

42. With those teachers there is no "safe place to be who you are"

Unless your a bible beater that is.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Honestly. If their religious beliefs dictated some other sort of

harm to the children, just how long would you expect them to be allowed to teach?

So because their beliefs lead them to be harmful bigots, we're all supposed to support that?

[tomg]

48. As a teacher, I find the issue a little bit

tricky. On the one hand, it is absolutely essential that all kids have a safe ( physically and psychologically) environment. Any teacher who has objections to that poster or who wants anything that offers less than a completely supportive environment, in my view, belongs in another field. After reading the article, it is pretty clear that that school had pretty serious problems in the past and the school district is making serious efforts to change them. Actually, the poster itself seems pretty tame and "apolitical" ( although political doesn't seem the right word here). And now for the "on the other hand." Like one of the teachers there, "I think it's outstanding. Any hate language is not permissible," he said. But he added, "I have a problem with the district mandating anything that could be political." It is not exactly a case of "academic freedom," which is more appropriate to college and more wide-ranging ( where I teach now), but it is still a variant on it.

Try flipping it for a second. Would we still be demanding that teachers be fired ( even though it seems to us that they no more belong in a classroom than Bush belongs in the White House) if they refused to put up some bullshit propaganda about, say, abstinence being the only way to deal with HIV or as the best means of birth control? If a school district can dictate such things ( and I do realize in one sense they can) as to what one must do, they can just as easily go in the other direction as to what one can't do. Tell a history teacher Nope - you can't show Mattewan in the class, and turn off the Almanac Singers doing Which Side Are You on. My wife currently teaches 7th grade, and her room is a safe environment ( and she lets her colleagues know it - in fact, she is a union rep and was instrumental in outting a homphobic Freeper on the school board). If they can dictate what one position is, they can just as easily go the other way. Sorry, but that rainbow has to come down Ms. G. I know her response already "The hell it does."

In a sense, I believe that making the posters available and strongly urging teachers ( through the union, among other groups) to put them up is a better way to go than mandating it, and could lead to a pretty self-reflective teaching moment. Most teachers ( at least most I know and I know a hell of a lot) would welcome such a chance to say "my class is safe and it's great that you are who you are." Most of us love kids and do this job because we think things can be better. Kids are pretty sharp, and when, say 70% of the classes have them voluntarily, they will ask questions. You know, "So Mr. BlaBlah are you a homophobic asshole, or is it that you don't know how to put a poster up?"

Again, it is a tough issue because such directives can cut both ways. One last point - if the teachers are objecting to it on religious grounds, screw them. That's why we have separation of Church and State.

[rpannier]

68. Agreed.

If this had been a teacher (or teachers) not willing to put up a poster that we disagreed with, we'd be lauding their independence and their right to free speech.

[earth mom]

49. Hey Teach! You are SO FIRED!

Are these teachers even smart enough to be teaching?! :crazy:

[DrunkenMaster]

51. so their classes aren't safe for GLBT kids?

The law mandates that every classroom be free from a "hostile learning environment" and teachers who do not enforce that law can be fired. This sounds pretty clearcut to me.

[slackmaster]

52. Memories of San Leanro - flashback to 1974...

Symbionese Liberation Army...

Cinque...

Patty "Tanya" Hearst...

Hibernia Bank robbery...

[Initech]

54. Holy crap, another example of how fundies fear they're being persecuted.

They're not! Put up the fucking posters and dispense birth control pills already! You guys arent being discriminated against, you're the majority! Get that through your heads! :argh:

[dsc]

56. This really does cut both ways

This is really compelling speech and I think that is giving the school system more power than they should have. I could easily see a less gay friendly district requiring teachers to put up abstinence only posters or requiring Intelligent Design in biology classes. While I certainly I have problems with a teacher who would find the poster offensive, I can understand objecting to being told to put up specific posters in ones room.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. I guess the question is

who's room is it?

I would think a public school classroom is public space, not personal space. And that decisions about what posters will be put up would be, ultimately, the people's via the BOE.

If ID is required in bio classes, it's a problem far beyond posters, you know?

I do see your point, but it's a tricky spot.

[dsc]

71. It is public to a certain extent

clearly they could forbid the posting of certain posters. I have a problem with requiring certain posters. I think that is more than they should be able to do.

[Occulus]

63. If I were a gay kind in one of these teachers' classes...

...I would beat up the teacher. Seriously.

Because if I can't be safe in their classroom, NEITHER CAN THEY.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

74. Really poor satire.

Animals can't consent. People can.

I've already hit alert.

on edit: awww shit, I forgot to say "Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay!"

[Occulus]

75. While you're whining about special rights,

consider the special rights marrieds get compared to people who haven't made that LIFESTYLE CHOICE.

By the way... being proud of being a bigot makes you look like the asshole you are.

[Dark]

77. Idiot. Don't you have anything better to do? n/t

[Dark]

76. I'd think that it would be best if the teachers didn't have to hang up the

posters if they didn't want to, because a gay student might misconstrue what the poster is talking about and tell the bigoted teacher. Then, boom, he or she might be torn apart.

It's a very difficult time, and a gay person who's confused and alone doesn't need that kind of abuse.