There are as many ways of looking at SOGI education protests as there are people. Mine, for what it’s worth:
The pendulum swings back and forth – progressive to conservative; conservative to progressive; progressive to conservative. Sometimes there’s a good deal of alignment between society at large and its institutions. Sometimes there’s not. In the 1960s, society was quite progressive and its institutions – including schools – were relatively conservative…lagging behind, to many. This gap caused unrest and this unrest caused protest, esp. on the progressive left. Today, as evidenced by the localisms and protectionisms of Brexit and Trump, society’s in a fairly conservative mood and its institutions – including schools – are in a relatively progressive mood…jumping ahead, to many. This gap has caused unrest and this unrest has caused protest, this time on the conservative right. We’ll find a new normal, as we always do. The pendulum will swing again, as it always does. And no matter what the new normal is or in which direction the pendulum points, misalignment between where society’s at and where its institutions are at (socially; economically; culturally; politically) will cause unrest and protest. It’s a healthy thing, protest – it stops us going too far or not far enough in one direction or another; it stops us going too quickly or not quickly enough for one sensibility or another. It gets society bloody talking to itself!
That said…
I’m a teacher, and a teacher isn’t an activist. Mine’s a classroom, and a classroom isn’t a pulpit. To the best of my ability, I teach ideas, competencies, and content that draws upon and is relevant to everybody in the room. I’m happy to bring in SOGI-123 to represent a progressive perspective. I’m also happy to bring in a faith-based advocacy organization to represent a conservative perspective. I’m happy to use and genuinely explore a text centered on an LGBTQ2+ story. I’m also happy to use and genuinely explore a text centered on an evangelical Christian story. The world’s full of everything, so my curriculum needs to be full of everything. No progressive censorship; no conservative censorship – I present options and I teach students to navigate them themselves. To the best of my ability, I set a classroom climate that’s safe, supportive, and inspiring for everybody in the room. I’ll defend to the teeth the kid who’s out. I’ll also defend to the teeth the kid who believes that homosexuality is a path to eternal damnation. I’ll give an A+ to a well-argued, well-written progressive position. I’ll also give an A+ to a well-argued, well-written conservative position. The world’s full of perspectives and voices, so my classroom needs to be full of perspectives and voices. As long as there’s love and acceptance, of our ohana and of each other.
If I deviate from this – if I’m willing to bring in SOGI-123 and not its conservative counterpart; if I’m willing to build a safe, supportive, inspiring space for an LGBTQ2+ student and not for their flat-earther classmate – then conservative parents would be quite right to protest me. Every bit as much as progressive parents would be quite right to protest me if the situation were reversed. I’m in loco parentis for all students…not just the ones who happen to share my values and worldview.
If I don’t, then I think the pendulum will swing past their protests.
I disagree with this, I’m sorry.
You say “as long as there’s love and acceptance, of our ohana and of each other” while saying that you’d defend someone who believes I’m going to burn in hell. Where is the love there? My inherent identity is devalued and demonized by someone and there is no interruption of that from the power structure? The damage that is done to marginalised communities by moderates who think that we should hear both sides is immeasurable. In highschool, my history teacher told my class that AIDS was God’s punishment for fags. Some well-written papers probably came out of that lesson, however, since I never went back to that class, almost dropped out of school and had a complete mental health breakdown, I wouldn’t know.
Would you extend this lenience to Nazi ideology like the horrific glorification of the Holocaust? That Jews should burn in hell? The view that everyone gets to have an opinion, I believe, is what’s led to Nazi’s yelling about how we should listen to their horrendous, hateful views.
If your opinion invalidates someone’s humanity or human rights you should not feel safe or supported to share it in schools.
I would respectfully like to disagree with this as well.
If someone is defending the kid who’s out, but also the kid who believes that “homosexuality is a path to eternal damnation,” I wonder what is really being defended at all. It extends far beyond a disagreement of opinions between which ice cream flavour is best, or which author writes a more convincing argument. To say that someone’s identity is deserving of hell isn’t something that I could ever see being justified under a love and acceptance of all opinions. To me, a teacher IS an activist—for our students and their well-being in a safe space of support and recognition; the humanity and respect that comes with advocacy and learning about critical issues in our society should be relevant to everyone in the classroom. I recognize that viewing all opinions as valid seems to promote equality and acceptance, but it is important to show how and why certain opinions can be extremely harmful and dehumanizing.
This position of presenting “both” or “all” sides is one that I have considered deeply in my practice. As a freelance journalist, even within LGBT community media, I have had to come to promote that area of “moderate presentation of all sides” myself. Most of my community journalist friends take an advocacy position, maintaining, correctly, that the oppressed person’s side is often, or has been historically, ignored by mainstream media; so objectivity is inappropriate for a community journalist – a community journalist, or activist teacher, must take an advocacy stance to counter the dominant prejudicial view. Others will simply say that “Freedom of Speech is NOT Freedom to Hate”.
I have always been uncomfortable with journalists or teachers being “one-sided” advocates. (when I was in Queer Nation as a young man I gave away endings to movies that I had not seen that were considered homophobic and I felt should be boycotted – as a musician and writer I could not comfortably do this type of activism for long)
I feel that both professions, journalists and teachers, have the tough job of having to explain all positions, including hateful or harmful ones. I have come to believe that if students and readers aren’t aware of the hate, bias, normativity that exits; then one cannot fight it properly. You cannot fight hate if it is underground or subtle. Yet, this position has a very adult “real world” harshness that does not address triggers or disenfranchisement of vulnerable / oppressed people in our society. So it is a delicate balance.
The important aspect is that when you present someone’s position that can harm vulnerable students, queer youth in this case, you have an obligation to provide the rational deconstruction of a any hateful, harmful, or ignorant stance. The teacher and journalist has to be informed of the deconstructive arguments and defences to biased viewpoints. The vulnerable students are already well aware of what the hate and bashing sound like. (However, those who are in the “mainstream” and not oppressed may not understand or be aware when they need to be of how the hate/bias hurts.) Therefore, I would also present about why such Conservative groups would believe these stances – the history and the origin as you understand it of where these opinions and attitudes come from.
You also have the right as a teacher to venture commentary: and explain why you agree (or disagree) with conservative positions. As long as you don’t do this as an exercise of power (short of shutting down violence or a spew of irrational hatred that is only intended to harm). Also be open to be challenged by students. However, I don’t think commentary can come until after the presentation of the arguments and facts.
Deconstruction is a valuable survival technique that even vulnerable students need.
A law school professor explained it to me this way: If two sides disagree, even if one side’s argument is much, much stronger than the other’s, you’ve got two choices. Stop it before it goes to trial, in which case all that’s accomplished is one side walking away aggrieved and alienated. Or let it go to trial, in which case a) there’s an opportunity for growth and change in the process and b) the strength of the stronger augment will prevail in the end. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” – that’s the quote I was trying to remember in class earlier.
I agree, though – the trick is finding the line where belief becomes intolerance…I think we’ll all have to reflect on where this line is at some point in our careers. Past this line, no sunshine allowed…
We seem to understand the need to address racism in the classroom with a sense of urgency, but why not homophobia? Hate – in its truest form – is not bred of complexity, and has the power to rewrite death into the lived narratives of others.
My hope is that we learn to respond to all forms of hate in our classroom with a sense of urgency, while understanding the differences between one’s opinions and beliefs, and another’s living history. I can only hope that the trick to finding the line of intolerance is not at the expense of our students’ lives.