Commentary
Anoka-Hennepin's neutrality policy on sexuality makes sense
by Jeremy Tedesco"Over the top" only begins to describe a June 27 commentary piece authored by Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Kate Kendall of the National Center for Lesbian Rights regarding the Anoka-Hennepin School District's sexual orientation curriculum policy.
In their piece, the authors inaccurately describe the policy as a "gag policy" that completely bans even the mention of issues related to persons who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered in the Anoka-Hennepin schools. The plain language of the policy does no such thing. Rather, it says the following: "Anoka-Hennepin staff, in the course of their professional duties, shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student led discussions. If and when staff address sexual orientation, it is important that staff do so in a respectful manner that is age-appropriate, factual, and pertinent to the relevant curriculum."
Neutrality, which is what the policy requires, does not equal silence. The groups' misrepresentation of the policy in a manner directly contradicted by its terms appears to be nothing other than a calculated move to advance their political agenda.
The groups claim that the policy applies only to "LGBT issues" and thus "sends a message to the school community that LGBT students are less than other students, that there is something inherently shameful about their identity." This also is plainly wrong. The policy does not even use the words lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Rather, it requires neutrality on "matters regarding sexual orientation." The term "sexual orientation" encompasses all sexual orientations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual. The policy does not single out any group, but applies to all.
The groups also claim that the policy makes it impossible for teachers to stop or respond effectively to bullying aimed at students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. The policy does no such thing. The neutrality it requires during classroom discussions certainly does not authorize teachers to stand idly by while students are bullied and harassed. Further, the district has separate anti-bullying policies in place. These policies make clear a teacher's duty to stop or prevent bullying. The sexual orientation curriculum policy does not alter this duty at all.
To the extent the groups are correct that there is rampant bullying in Anoka-Hennepin schools, the district can rectify this through better enforcement of its already existing anti-bullying policies. These policies rightly prohibit all bullying, regardless of the underlying reason for it. As many of us know from personal experience, bullies are equal opportunists who will pick on any student for any reason. The district's policy recognizes this by applying its bullying protections equally to all students.
The groups' use of a quote from Elie Wiesel, author of the book "Night," which tells the story of the horrors he experienced as a Jew in Nazi concentration camps, pushes their piece even further over the edge. The quote -- "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented"-- is from Wiesel's 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Wiesel was condemning the world for remaining silent and doing nothing even while it knew that the Nazis were systematically persecuting, torturing and murdering Jews.
It goes without saying that the situation in Anoka-Hennepin cannot be compared to the experiences of Jews in Nazi Germany. Nazi allusions are typically the last resort of those who know they have no legitimate grounds upon which to win an argument.
Sadly, in addition to Nazi allusions, the groups also continue to evoke the suicides of students within the district as a reason to revoke the sexual orientation curriculum policy. There is no link at all between the deaths of these students and the policy. It is difficult to imagine the depth of pain and confusion these tragic deaths have caused the students' families, friends and community, and will continue to cause them for years to come. The parents and friends of these students, and the community as a whole, need time to heal from their deaths. This healing process is hindered, not helped, by homosexual advocacy groups drawing national attention to these deaths to advance their political aims.
Many school districts adopt policies requiring neutrality on hot-button topics. This does not mean they are the product of animus toward a certain group of people. Anoka-Hennepin's policy reflects the sensible judgment that public schools should steer clear of taking official positions on such matters. It also reflects the sensible belief of parents that schools are places for education, not indoctrination.
----
Jeremy Tedesco is legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as "a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family."
Comments (16)
The Boy Scouts of America have said for decades that gay men aren't "moral enough" to be Scoutmasters, and blatantly discriminate against them by refusing to hire gays, but you won't find a word about the BSA on the SPLC's web site.
Even though the BSA accepts public funding, and its core business is molding the characters of millions of American boys, their policies somehow fall short of the SPLC's scrupulous "hate group" criteria.
That's because many of the SPLC's mostly elderly donors were scouts, or the parents/grandparents of scouts, and linking the almighty donors to a "hate group" is bad for business.
Anti-gay indignation is all well and good until it cuts into the bottom line.
The SPLC isn't interested in neutrality or fairness. The SPLC is interested in one thing: generating publicity that can be converted into cold, hard cash from the donors.
After all, the SPLC is down to its last $216 MILLION tax-free dollars.
http://wp.me/pCLYZ-82
While hyperbole is rampant, I think it is entirely appropriate to learn lessons from the Holocaust, and to apply them in other situations. Personally, I think Elie Wiesel's quote was really pertinent. The severity of the situation may not even approach that of the Holocaust, but the underlying principle Wiesel espouses is the same: Neutrality supports oppression, by allowing it to continue unabated. If a teacher is not free to address the root of the bullying problem (the sense that there is something about sexuality worth bullying), then that teacher is forced to support the status quo through inaction.
The president of the teachers union herself said the policy keeps teachers from responding to bullying. Who are you to come in and say otherwise? Do you even care about the kids in this district beyond your own PR stunt?
Mr. Tedesco writes: "There is no link at all between the deaths of these students and the policy."
That's incredibly myopic.
Six suicides in 15 months in one district is staggering. People who knew the victims have linked the deaths to bullying at school. To ignore that is to invite further deaths.
If that's correct that school bullies were a major factor, it indicates that at Anoka-Hennepin, the bullies are much more of a problem than at other schools. That suggests a problem with the school's attitude toward gay students, bullies, or both.
In such an environment the school can't just declare neutrality. They were neutral for the fifteen months when the children killed themselves, so we see how that works out.
Neutrality means that students who are verbally bullying gay kids can continue. You can't rip on a classmate for being Jewish or black because the teacher will stop you. But if you tell the effeminate boy he's a "sick pervert who's going to get AIDS, die, and go to hell", the school's neutrality policy prohibits the teacher from disagreeing.
Mr. Tedesco writes:
"The policy does not even use the words lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Rather, it requires neutrality on "matters regarding sexual orientation." (...) The policy does not single out any group, but applies to all. "
He's right, of course. The policy applies equally to heterosexuals. Let's imagine how that will play out.
Forget about having a homecoming "King and Queen", that's heterosexusm. Students will be allowed to elect "Co-Rulers" of homecoming, and they might be two boys or two girls.
Sex ed will only discuss heterosexual topics one day in five, to give equal time for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender topics.
Obviously the prom must welcome couples of any orientation.
The drama department will need to increase the number of gay-themed plays it performs to avoid preferential treatment toward straights.
We all know that's not going to happen. The school will maintain every bias in favor of heterosexuality, while this policy is invoked to prevent any decent treatment of gay students.
One more question for Mr. Tedesco. He writes in defense of the district's "neutrality" policy:
"The term "sexual orientation" encompasses all sexual orientations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual. The policy does not single out any group, but applies to all. "
Absolutely correct.
So why did ADF oppose including "sexual orientation" in federal Hate Crimes statutes?
In a legal analysis ADF submitted to Congress, counsels Erik Stanley and Kevin Theriot wrote, "... laws in this country that elevate "sexual orientation" and/or "gender identity" to a protected status are being used to silence and punish those who oppose homosexual behavior on legitimate moral and religious grounds."
(http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/HR1913Letter.pdf )
It's ironic that ADF counsels argue that "sexual orientation" is a neutral term when the policy ignores the lethal bullying of gay students, but the same term only protects homosexuals when it's used to *outlaw* bullying.
No wait, not "ironic". What's that other word? Ah... "disingenuous".
Neutral means what? What other neutral policies does this school district have? Only the quote was used by LGBT rights groups, no made an analogy to Nazi's except for you. The criticism regarding the use of terms LGBT vs. sexual orientation is nitpicky. Students who have an sexual orientation or gender identity that are different from the norm are often bullied, especially in this school district. You can split hairs all you want but reading the comments tells me that your words just gave people permission to make the false claim that being homosexual is a choice, a sin, against God and deviant. Let me help you. I'll say it. Being neutral in the face of oppression is always siding with the oppressor. Period.
The neutrality order is, in effect a gag order. Neutrality is, by definition, subjective. There is no clear definition of what topics are safe, and what language is safe. Since "neutral" has not clear definition, saying anything about homosexuality opens the teacher up for accusations that the statement is non-neutral. No thinking teacher is going to risk their job and their career by saying something about homosexuality. No matter what they say, someone will construe it as non-neutral. The neutrality policy effectively gags teachers from saying anything about homosexuality.
Read the article.....read the comments....still asking myself: who is gagging who? Teachers can't express personal view point on social issues (i.e. God, LGBT, politics) District policy mandates neutrality on sexuaal orientation (i.e. choices). LGBT community levels accusations of culpability and negligence......hmmm....is there a voice of truth, justice and the American way in there somewhere?
I think it interesting that when we started "labeling" fairness and equality, we have more problems than we did before. What about bringing back some manners and respect training into the schools. You know teaching respect and human dignity for ALL!! And not categorizing who is special and who should be protected. This is what has caused our downfall. Bullying has been around since the dawn of time. It is about power over insecurity (bully) and not necessarily about WHO to bully. When we GIVE them a target by "special interest" speak we only make it easier for them to choose who to pick on. When we teach simply that ALL are equal and ALL deserve respect, no matter what, without singling any group out, we don't have to worry about authority being "silenced" or afraid to take a stand against ANY form of bad behavior. When we characterize it in any special group terms, that is the main cause of the targeting. The Golden Rule - not such a bad thing in its simplicity, whether you believe it has religious conotations or not, Do unto others as you would have done to you, is simply what we are talking about! PERIOD. Let's quit letting the special interests supercede common sense and true equality for ALL. And let's give a little authority back to the parents for teaching our kids about sex, right and wrong, etc. That is NOT what our schools are for! School is hard for ALL kids, white, black, religious, non-religious, hetero, gay, etc.... Let's quit adding to the pressure!
The author is legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, a group that pushes its own far right, conservative, political agenda. There's nothing wrong with that. What I cannot fathom is that he can sit there and criticize other groups for doing the same thing. All hope for credibility goes out the window as soon as his employer is considered.
Ah, if only utopian education existed. Goal neither censoring nor indoctrinating, but "how to think competently about a difficult topic."And not combat for victory but communicating toward comprehension, validity. All "co-learners" (=teachers, students) would seek to hear the other side truly and fairly, and know and even disclose their own biases. Would learn what is good thinking, valid ways of knowing, why we believe as we do. And learn how to make competent stands via all the issues to consider in doing so...
Then, homosexuality as social issue could be great grist for the mill (only one of many such issues). And truly a "teachable-learnable" moment and skill transferable to other real-world issues after graduation!
...but, as I say, that's probably utopian. Still it's good to know the Ideal...
Look, gays/lesbians will be integrated in coming decades (barring social collapse...) And who will be the next minority etc. unjustly mistreated? Sure problems exist in the world, and not all change is good, and not everyone is equal in ability etc., but if not harmful should be equal in humanity. Another idealism...
This is total bull. The policy is completely biased. I think it's obvious that our district doesn't give a shit about the glbt crowd.
@DJH -- God is not a social issue. God is a religion. Our constitution has specific language regarding government funding of religious education, which is why there are restrictions for talking about God in public schools. If you don't like it, blame our constitution; don't blame the schools.
@KA -- Yes, teaching respect and human dignity for all is essential. But if trend develops within a school to single out left-handing kids for particular disrespect, shouldn't staff have the liberty to talk about left-handedness directly, in order to stop the growing disrespect targeted at a specific group?
I was one of those kids bullied for being gay even before I really knew I was gay. While some argue that the policy is 'neutral' and not the problem, I would disagree. These policies reinforce the shame that LGBT kids often experience, not only at school, but at home, for being gay or even perceived as gay. That was me. I felt so ashamed about being gay that the thought of even talking about the bullying I experienced on a daily basis, verbal and physical, was terrifying. It was tantamount to admitting I was gay and so I endured it in silence and alone for fear of really being found out. I never heard anyone say affirmatively that being gay was OK. Changing these policies is crucial for that to change so these kids fare better than I did 25 years ago! It's time.
One only has to look a few years back and observe the same kind of false belief that southern school teachers should remain neutral regarding race. If something is wrong who better to educate our children? Is a teacher actually suppose to teach creationism? How about Santa claus????
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.
