Marcus, your family is a "dirty word."

[Thorn]

Why should parents be prevented from opting their child out if they feel the sex education is of very poor quality, inappropriate for the age, or directly contradictory to religious beliefs?

Again, I would argue that schools are poor venues because the teachers are not properly trained in the medical aspects of sex education.

Well a lot of parents feel this way about public education, if you had your way parents would be responsible for children's entire education in general... does that really seem to be a good idea?

"The school doesn't teach history well, so it shouldn't teach it at all. Leave it up to Maw and Paw to teach Billy about that darn war we faught back then."

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep. If it can be shown, or that you believe they are doing a poor job then you ought to find an acceptable alternative, even if it means homeschooling.

On the whole, I do think schools do a reasonable job with history, and other subjects unlike the case of sex education.

Even so, where is in in the mandate for a school to teach sex education on par with reading and writing and arithematic? Why should they waste precious classtime on frivolities?

[GePap]

I have to give propr to BK for so carefully and non-hysterically making such a baseless and incorrect arguement about what transpired. Though those props can go only so far, for hiw method also shows how rational people can rationalize their way into anything.

[Ned]

Can a public school force a teacher to say their is nothing wrong with gay couples if her religion says otherwise? If she refuses to approve of gay couples because of her religion, can she be fired?

[Ben Kenobi]

And Ned reads between the lines very well.

This case has been on the back of my mind throught the thread.

Now, to be charitable I will cite the opposing arguement.

CHRIS KEMPLING CASE:

http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/03kempling.html

Civil Libertarians to Argue that Teachers Have No Right to Express Intention to Discriminate

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association will intervene on Monday July 28, 2003 in the appeal by Quesnel high school teacher and counselor Chris Kempling against the B.C. College of Teachers. The BCCLA will argue that some of Mr. Kempling's statements expressed an intention to discriminate against gay and lesbian students or against those who are questioning their sexual orientation. Such statements do not enjoy the protection normally afforded to speech because they express a commitment to act in an intolerant and discriminatory way and are a violation of Mr. Kempling's professional duties as a teacher and student counselor.

In 2002, the B.C. College of Teachers found that anti-homosexual statements made by Mr. Kempling in letters to the editor that were published in the local newspaper constituted "conduct unbecoming" a member of the teaching profession. Earlier this year, the College imposed a one month suspension as a penalty for his misconduct. Mr. Kempling has appealed these decisions to the B.C. Supreme Court. The BCCLA has been granted intervenor status in the case.

In almost any other context, the BCCLA would defend Mr. Kempling's right to express anti-homosexual opinions. But here, Mr. Kempling's statements clearly cross the line by indicating an intention to use his role as a public school counselor to discriminate against homosexual students.

BCCLA Vice President, John Russell said, "Mr. Kempling can no more use his position to persuade homosexual students of the immorality of their behaviour than he could use his position to persuade students of immorality of inter-racial dating or marriage." Russell added that, "The Supreme Court has held that public schools must reflect and uphold standards of tolerance, respect and equality where homosexuals are concerned. By publicly refusing to be a false teacher about the supposed perversity and immorality of homosexuality, Mr Kempling has clearly promised to violate those legally mandated requirements. Clearly, this is unacceptable."

Mr. Kempling's statements that cross the line include: "Sexual orientations can be changed... My hope is that students who are confused over their sexual orientation will come to see me... It could save their lives." In another letter, Mr. Kempling states: "I refuse to be a false teacher saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply 'cultural' diversity of which we should be proud. Section 95(2) of the School Act states that teachers must 'inculcate the highest moral standards'. To all my critics I say, 2 Peter 2:4-19. Read it and weep."

[Ben Kenobi]

So yes, a teacher can be fired for expressing an opinion IN A NEWSPAPER let alone for expressing an opinion in class.

I could be arrested for making the same statements in a church, if I were a teacher.

Mr. Kempling never had any complaints about his counselling or teaching in all the years that he teaches, even from other gay students. He may believe that these children can be changed, but that it is not proper for his role as a teacher to fulfill these beliefs in the school. His conduct speaks for itself.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, I would have no problem with the child saying that he has two moms, and that they like each other, just as I would allow for a child to say that he has a mom and a dad and they both like each other.

Where I disagree is having to explain the term gay, and what it means to be gay, an explanation provoked by the use fo the word gay, in the example, " I have two gay moms."

So a kid can say he has two moms, that they like or even love each other--which of course leads to the obvious conclusions--but should he utter g-a-y, it suddenly becomes wrong?

Since when did "gay" become a dirty word? Gee, all this time, I've been referring to myself with an expletive, apparently!

I disagree with how the teacher handled that situation, which is why I posted my own response rather than merely criticising.

Yes, and I pointed out where your method was also inappropriate.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Can a public school force a teacher to say their is nothing wrong with gay couples if her religion says otherwise? If she refuses to approve of gay couples because of her religion, can she be fired?

When she's acting as a school official? You bet it can. When the teacher disciplined Marcus, she acted in her official capacity as a representative of the school. She has no right to inject her personal beliefs into official school business. She can be what she wants on her own time, but when on the job she can and should be expected to adhere to a level of decorum that includes not prostelyzing.

[Boris Godunov]

Typical. The thread is about a case in which a boy was scolded for talking about his mommies, not a teacher who was suppressed in her views. Looks like in this case the teacher's views were given full reign.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since when did "gay" become a dirty word? Gee, all this time, I've been referring to myself with an expletive, apparently!

When man can be fired as a teacher for expressing his beliefs on homosexuality, I would prefer to avoid the issue as much as possible.

Should true freedom exist, not only for the students, but also for the teacher, than I would agree that the word gay holds no bogeymen.

[Boris Godunov]

Nope, BK--a guy getting fired in British Columbia doesn't have diddly-squat to do with a kid getting scolded in Louisiana. How you contort yourself into these ludicrous associations, I have no idea.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Can a public school force a teacher to say their is nothing wrong with gay couples if her religion says otherwise? If she refuses to approve of gay couples because of her religion, can she be fired?

NO, she can't. If she treat people differently, hands out different punishments or rewards or grades becuase of someone being gay, or being the child of gays, then they can be tossed out in their ear, which is why BK's little post remains facicious: the man was fired for stating he would discriminate in HIS JOB against gays..so, he would be moving from the realm of his own beliefs into taking action based on these beliefs that were detrimental and discriminatory.

If you believe homosexuality is wrong, and plan to act in discriminatory ways against gays, then stay away form public sector work, cause in doing so you are violating your offices, and thus have every right to loose your job.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope, BK--a guy getting fired in British Columbia doesn't have diddly-squat to do with a kid getting scolded in Louisiana. How you contort yourself into these ludicrous associations, I have no idea.

Then you fail to see the whole point of my post.

GePap understands.

There is a moral difference between expressing a belief and acting upon your beliefs. It would be wrong for Kempling to act in this way as a counsellor in the school, which he has not done.

Now, conversely it is not wrong for a teacher to speak out against homosexuality in the class. It is only if the teacher treats this child differently from the others, that it would be wrong for her to do so.

Now, which would you prefer, my approach in the letter or a more activist one?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. I would hope that his dad likes his mom. Both senses should apply. Bringing this back to the point at hand, Boris and Azazel both understand that the child does not fully understand, nor should he ought to fully understand what it means to be gay.

Now, I would have no problem with the child saying that he has two moms, and that they like each other, just as I would allow for a child to say that he has a mom and a dad and they both like each other.

Where I disagree is having to explain the term gay, and what it means to be gay, an explanation provoked by the use fo the word gay, in the example, " I have two gay moms."

What was wrong with him explaining the term gay? Should the other child be protected from the knowledge that *gasp* some women like other women? If so, he should be EQUALLY protected from the knowledge that some men like women (and vice-versa).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, conversely it is not wrong for a teacher to speak out against homosexuality in the class. It is only if the teacher treats this child differently from the others, that it would be wrong for her to do so.

This is the crux of why your argument fails, because it IS wrong for a teacher to speak out against homosexuality in the class. This is your double standard - seven-year-old can't say the word "gay," but teacher can spout off about homosexuality to the class? Absolutely not.

Public school is not a vehicle for teachers to espouse their personal beliefs, and where you get the idea that teachers are allowed to say such things, I have no idea. You're being disingenuous to the extreme if you think that a teacher's saying such things can have just as much effect as the counselor's.

Now, which would you prefer, my approach in the letter or a more activist one?

False dichotomy. The correct answer is neither: The teacher does nothing until the kid actually does something wrong.