Commentary
Anoka-Hennepin policy aims to respect all families and students
Editor's note: The Anoka-Hennepin school district has been threatened with a lawsuit unless it changes a policy that requires staff to be neutral in dealing with sexual orientation. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights allege that the policy discourages staff from protecting LGBT students who are being harassed. We asked Dennis L. Carlson, superintendent of the district, to address the question.
By Dennis L. Carlson
Will a change in policy end bullying or harassment? Will it decrease student depression? Will it prevent students from self-destructive behavior or from committing suicide?
If it were that simple, we would make a policy change instantly. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers or quick fixes because human behavior, especially that of adolescents going through tremendous physical and emotional change, is complex, and it is complicated by the stresses many families in our communities are now feeling.
For the past year, the Anoka-Hennepin school district has been repeatedly asked by members of the public and special interest groups to eliminate our sexual orientation curriculum policy, which requires staff in the course of their professional duties to "remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation." They believe the policy has prevented staff from intervening when LGBT students are bullied or harassed and prevented staff from helping students who are struggling with their sexual orientation.
Equally as passionate are people with the opposite view. For nearly 20 years, individuals have asked the district to refrain from addressing sexual orientation in the classroom. They believe that discussion of sexual orientation issues is most appropriate within the home or church.
Therein lies the problem. The opinions of our community members vary widely; the opinions of our staff vary as well.
Public schools belong to the community; elected school boards serve at the will of the community. Providing policies and programs that reflect a divided community is difficult. It's easy to agree on teaching reading and writing, but not as easy on subjects that have long been considered sensitive or even taboo - religion, politics and, yes, human sexuality, and especially sexual orientation.
Wishing to respect all families and all students, the school board believes neutrality is the best option. The board adopted a religious activities policy years ago requiring "neutrality in matters of religion." The sexual orientation policy is similar. When speaking with students during class time, teachers do not advocate homosexuality, nor do they condemn it.
The religious activities policy does not mean teachers are prohibited from discussing religious symbolism in literature or the role of religion in history. It does not mean they are to stand idly by if a student is being bullied or harassed because of his or her religion.
Likewise, the sexual orientation curriculum policy does not mean teachers are prevented from discussing how an author's sexual orientation might affect his or her writings, or how the gay rights movement uses strategies developed by the civil rights movement. It does not mean they cannot intervene if a student is being bullied or harassed because of sexual orientation. Teachers must confront bullying and harassment, and are encouraged to offer help to LGBT students or to students who may be struggling with sexual orientation issues.
While not everyone agrees on the sexual orientation curriculum policy, they do agree on the need for schools to do the best job they can of protecting every single student.
We know that students cannot focus their attention on learning unless they feel safe. This is the reason we started an anti-bullying awareness campaign in 2003, prior to state legislation requiring districts to adopt anti-bullying policies. We have provided training for students and staff, emphasizing that students must report incidents of bullying or harassment and that staff must take immediate action when they receive a report or witness bullying or harassment. We have surveyed our students about bullying to learn how we can make our anti-bullying practices more effective. And, when a student committed suicide in the fall of 2009, we immediately redoubled our efforts to provide depression and suicide awareness training for students and staff.
What we are doing is working. More students are reporting bullying, and students are coming to us in record numbers with mental health concerns. We are connecting hundreds of them and their families with life-saving resources.
We are not naive enough to believe that our efforts alone will end bullying and harassment in our communities, or that we can protect every student from self-destructive thoughts or actions. Just as we know we cannot protect our students from the stress caused by unemployment, foreclosure, homelessness, family instability and other stressors many of our families face. But we do know that well-trained, caring professionals can make, and do make, a tremendous difference when young people come to them with concerns.
Students need to speak out when they are bullied or hurting or know someone who is. They need to tell an adult, and the adult needs to take action. That's where we can be most effective. We implore our lawmakers to provide the necessary resources, and ask our community members to partner with us in this most critical effort.
----
Dennis L. Carlson is superintendent of the Anoka-Hennepin school district.
Comments (9)
I am so tried of the play on words on this subject. There is nothing neutral about refusing to even acknowledge an entire group of students because of the religious beliefs of their folks. I would further argue that the "neutrality policy" itself violates the districts own policy on religion. It is no secret that there is long and tightly bound relationship between our school board and the Minnesota Family Council ( a religious organization) and I appreciate the superintendent finally admitting that policy is being dictated by a few "parents based on their religious beliefs" and that is wrong and if that's really the position their going to hold to not only are they going to lose their lawsuit it could begin to affect federal funding and I don't know about others but knowing that my property taxes are going up because of the unwillingness of our school diostrict to treat "ALL" students with the same constitionally afforded respect is infuriating. This is a "religious argument", and it's dictating policy in a "public school district" and it's likely to get very expensive for alot of us but none have paid a higher price than those kids who every day are told you are less than anyone else, or the price paid by the families who's children were hurting so badly they took their own lives to try to escape it. Policy should be dictated, written and implemented to serve the kids not parents. This is a dark stain on our entire community and will be if we don't right things soon
**Correction.... "refusing to acknowledge an entire group of students because of the religious beliefs of other students parents."
The analogy between neutrality toward religion and neutrality toward sexual orientation is a false one. Religion is a choice -- one can choose to be a Lutheran or an atheist. But a person does not choose their sexual orientation, any more than one chooses their race or gender. The fact that a community may be divided on an issue does not excuse ignoring the facts, or justify treating certain students as second-class citizens. If the Anoka-Hennepin community was divided on the issue of whether blacks were inferior to whites, would the school district feel compelled to remain neutral? Is the district neutral on whether a "woman's place is in the home" or does it dare to believe that female students should have the same opportunities as male students -- even if some in the community might think otherwise, and cite religious dogma as justification? No, Mr. Carlson, your "sexual orientation policy" is not similar to your "religious activities policy," because religion and sexual orientation are not similar, and sexual orientation -- like race or gender -- is not an "activity. " It is part of who we are, and to deny that is to deny our humanity. That is not neutrality.
What the school board and the superintendent continue to fail to understand is that there is a difference between remaining morally neutral regarding a person's actions--whether they be sexual or not--and being silent.
There is absolutely NO reason not to discuss the important historical and cultural contributions the individual LGBT communities have made in our city, state, country, and world. There is absolutely NO reason not to read fiction by and/or about LGBT authors.
Most importantly, ALL students need to learn to live in a community where some of their neighbors and coworkers will be members of the LGBT communities (as well as neighbors and coworkers who have socially conservative religious beliefs and those who have socially liberal religious beliefs).
For goodness sake, we're still working on the district and its teachers to not assume each student lives in a home with one mom and one dad! What about children in blended families, kinship families, two-home families, single-parent families, foster-parent families, and, yes, same-sex-parent families as well?
Mom to two children in the A-H District. Beth
What the school board and the superintendent continue to fail to understand is that there is a difference between remaining morally neutral regarding a person's actions--whether they be sexual or not--and being silent.
There is absolutely NO reason not to discuss the important historical and cultural contributions the individual LGBT communities have made in our city, state, country, and world. There is absolutely NO reason not to read fiction by and/or about LGBT authors.
Most importantly, ALL students need to learn to live in a community where some of their neighbors and coworkers will be members of the LGBT communities (as well as neighbors and coworkers who have socially conservative religious beliefs and those who have socially liberal religious beliefs).
For goodness sake, we're still working on the district and its teachers to not assume each student lives in a home with one mom and one dad! What about children in blended families, kinship families, two-home families, single-parent families, foster-parent families, and, yes, same-sex-parent families as well?
Mom to two children in the A-H District. Beth
Mr. Carlson,
The truth is that A-H curricula, both the explicit one and the implicit one, are NOT neutral, and are NOT being implemented in a neutral way.
As I have testified many times to you at school board meetings, even simple things like forms teachers use to gather information about a student's parent(s) and/or caregiver(s) and/or guardian(s) still often assume the student lives with one mom and one dad, and that only the dad has a work phone number!
Many, many parents and teachers have been trying to tell you that this policy is NOT being implemented in a neutral way and that much more training for school faculty and staff is needed, but you simply deny it. You say training was provided. Teachers I have talked to say that there was very little or no training given.
When I and other parents in the district tell you that there are teachers who have not had training and/or are afraid for their jobs if they speak up when they hear a heterosexist or homophobic comment, you tell us that no teacher has come to you about a lack of training or being afraid to speak up. Well, of course not! They are AFRAID for their jobs.
Yes, A-H should be respectful of every family's religion, including mine by the way, but school is about reason and facts, not about faith.
Beth
There is a substantial difference between the district's expectations that staff remain neutral on religion and on sexual orientation. Religious neutrality is not an idea that AH designed - it's the establishment clause of the first amendment. In fact, that clause suggests that public policy does not get made based on religious beliefs, but Mr. Carlson seems to suggest that the district is doing just that.
Conversely, other than religion, there is no other group that is singled out in policy. There are some racist parents in the district. Does the board ask that teachers remain neutral on race in deference to them? No, the idea is as offensive as it is absurd. Why anyone would craft a policy in deference to those who seek to marginalize and discriminate is puzzling me.
And Mr. Carlson also knows well that the community numbers are against this idea. There are very few people who back the policy - in fact, almost all staff in the district, and many in the district office don't. It's a noisy few, who have also said they'd favor eliminating all GSAs, having the district fund reparative therapy, and other illegal moves. It's bad policy to defer to the few who deny students equality. No other group gets called out for "neutrality."
As for how the policy is used - Mr. Carlson's characterizations of it are inaccurate. The district has not provided training to staff, and it has been used to edit gay inclusion from curricula. His comments are inaccurate.
There is another aspect to this policy that gets overlooked, yet it's very troubling. The policy requires that staff refer students who come out to counselors, social workers, or psychologists. The implication is that students who are gay need help. The policy language is not such that if a student who is struggling, or has expressed need for help get referred...it simply says that upon mention of being gay that the referral is needed.
This pathologizes being gay. It says there is something inherently wrong with it. In a conversation with board chair Tom Heidemann, he said that the characterization is unfair, that it is only meant to prevent teachers from acting outside their scope by trying to be counselors.
The problem with this is two-fold. First, the expectation that teachers don't attempt counseling, and refer students who are in need of professional mental health assistance is a blanket expectation for all students in all situation. This is the only instance where a particular situation is enumerated in policy as needing a referral. I don't understand why a specific policy is needed for this one situation. Second, while Heidemann says it's meant for only gay kids in trouble, the policy language doesn't say that and it's not used like that in practice. I know of at least one instance where staff got reprimanded for not making a referral after public outcry over this policy, and Heidemann's assurances that the policy wouldn't be used that way.
The superintendent himself contradicts policy and isn't being honest when he said, "Likewise, the sexual orientation curriculum policy does not mean teachers are prevented from discussing how an author's sexual orientation might affect his or her writings, or how the gay rights movement uses strategies developed by the civil rights movement. " The sexual orientation policy is very clear and I quote "Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties remain neutral on matters of sexual oritentation, including, but not limited to student led discussions. Teachers MAY talk about sexual orientation in their class as it relates to board approved curriculum." Well that's all well and good until you actually ask (which I did in a phone conversation with Dr Langenfelon 5/24/11) "Where can I find "borad approved curriculum that speaks on sexual orientation" after much hesitation and diversion she admitted...she said there is none. So you see while it all sounds very nice, the reality is because of this "discrimninatory" policy there would be NO situation that would actually authorize a teacher to speak of, on or about sexual orientation. This district has made a career out of "wording things very carefully" but they never expected people to actually read them. I suggest everyone spend a little time reading for themselves and then decide if they are ok with our district discriminating against kids.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
