Schools for bigotry

[Gob]

Schools defend right to expel gays


A bid to overturn controversial laws allowing private schools to expel students simply because they are gay has been rejected by some faith-based schools as a threat to their religious freedom.

Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich will soon introduce a private member's bill to State Parliament to abolish the law, which he says could be used against highly vulnerable teenagers.

''It is already so hard to come to grips with your sexuality,'' said Mr Greenwich, who is gay.

''If students do reach out to a teacher they believe is supportive or a headmaster or counsellor or school chaplain, they could risk expulsion from a school.''

Under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, it is unlawful for education authorities to refuse admission to, or expel, a student for being gay, lesbian or transgender.

Private schools and colleges are explicitly exempt from this law.

The bid to remove those exemptions is expected to be opposed by most religious school authorities, who told The Sun-Herald that, while there are few, if any, examples of students being expelled on the basis of their sexuality, it was important to retain the exemption to preserve their religious freedom.

The exemption is similar to many that exist in federal anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations, including schools.

Ian Baker, acting executive director of the NSW Catholic Education Commission, said the fact that so few, if any, cases of students being expelled were widely known was testament to the fact schools tended to treat such students with sensitivity.

''It speaks for itself,'' he said. ''It's exercised with great caution and consideration. The objective is not to punish, but to protect the rights of those families who send their child to a school based on a religious faith.

''We couldn't agree to the exemptions being removed unless we could be assured that there's an alternative way of guaranteeing freedom of religion, which is an internationally recognised human right.''

Laurie Scandrett, chief executive of the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, agreed: ''Most private schools have a religious ethos, they stand for something, and if these exemptions were removed that would break down the ability of these schools to maintain whatever their particular ethos is.''

But Justin Koonin, from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said he questioned why schools wanted the laws if they did not use them. ''It's not just that the student can be expelled, they can be discriminated against within the school environment, and the school doesn't have to do anything about it.''

In a submission to the recent Senate inquiry into federal anti-discrimination laws, the Human Rights Council of Australia argued that organisations that are wholly or partially funded with public funds, including religious schools, should not be granted exemptions on religious grounds. ''It is reasonable for the state to require public funds to be expended and applied wholly in accordance with principles of nondiscrimination,'' it said.

The most recent national report on same-sex-attracted young people found school was the most common place they experienced abuse.

While in opposition in 2011, Greg Smith, now NSW Attorney-General, was open to reviewing the law.

''I personally think it is something that should be reviewed, looked at with a view to perhaps changing it. Times have changed,'' he said.

Mr Smith is on leave but a spokesman for the acting Minister for Justice, Brad Hazzard, said the ''government will consider Mr Greenwich's bill following its introduction as it does with all private member's bills".

Not all religious education authorities were opposed to removing the exemptions, though.

''While Jewish schools jealously guard against any incursion into our ability to teach the Jewish religion in a manner consistent with its tenets, and consider those tenets and that ability fundamental to our existence,'' said Len Hain, executive director of the Australian Council of Jewish Schools, ''we do not see any practical limitation, or the imposition of any practical burden on that ability from the amendments deleting the specific exclusions to the Anti-Discrimination Act.''


'I wish I could be more open about it'When Ben* told the principal at his independent high school that he was gay, the principal said he could stay at the school provided he was not public about his sexuality.

''It's sort of similar to don't ask, don't tell - don't bring it up, don't come out to the entire school.''

Ben's life, by his own admission, is ''sheltered''. His lives and goes to school in Sydney's western suburbs and comes from a religious family. Some of his peers have ''rejected'' him because they felt gay people were ''weird and wrong''. Homophobic gibes in the playground are ubiquitous, as they are at many schools. ''You hear 'faggot', 'homo', 'queer'; that's just commonplace,'' he said.

He knew he was risking his position at the school by confiding in the principal but decided to anyway.

During the discussion, he was told the rules that applied to students of the opposite sex, preventing boys and girls from being too physically close in the playground, now applied to him in relation to other boys. He described the encounter as ''bitter-sweet''.

''It's bitter in the sense that he could be more supportive but at the same time it's sweet because at least he's not expelling me; on the bright side, he's not giving me a harsh punishment for being me.''

Nevertheless, Ben said he hoped to transfer to a public school soon. ''I wish I could be more open with everyone around me because it's something I'm excited about; being open and living a life I know is right.''

[rubato]

Religious schools have the right to enforce whatever idiot bigotries their ideology demands.

And the rest of us have the right to point fingers and say "what nasty little assholes you are.".



yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

So long as they are funded exclusively by the religious institutions and/or other private funds, I agree. But if they receive public funds, as these institutions apparently have, I agree with the statement of the Human Rights Council of Australia, which said ''It is reasonable for the state to require public funds to be expended and applied wholly in accordance with principles of nondiscrimination,'' . Here, it seems like these schools receive public funds (correct Gob?) so in addition to pointing fingers and engaging in name calling, the public can also demand that they change their behavior or lose that funding.

[dgs49]

Hmmm...lemme think about this. Expelling students, "...simply because they are gay."

I seriously doubt that this is the case, nor is it the argument to have.

If a student is "gay," one presumes that they are attracted to people of the same gender. How would anyone know this without some overt conduct or declaration? Are "gay" students powerless to deny their sexual feelings? As a card-carrying heterosexual, I frequently had to be silent about my sexual urges. And I apparently survived.

Are students being expelled for their private feelings? Are they being quizzed as to their sexual preferences? It doesn't look like it.

I went to an all-boys high school with about 1200 students total enrolled. If we were statistically typical, that means that there were a half dozen or so boys in each grade who were "homosexual." And yet, SOMEHOW they managed to make it through the entire four years without that information coming to light. One can only assume that they KNEW the sponsor of the school (the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh) considered homosexual behavior to be sinful, and they kept their private feelings private.

It's a wonder, isn't it, that we didn't have multiple suicides every year.

The idiocy of the Left is astounding.

[Big RR]

Idiocy of what left. I think almost everyone here has said religiously funded schools can discriminate (or not) as they see fit; but most maintain that publicly funded schools cannot. A church has no right to impose its standards of morality on the student population if they accept public funds anymore than the principal of a public school does.

As for how the student's sexual orientation is found out--why is that material at all? Forcing gays into the closet is not the way to teach them to live. If you choose to sit in judgment, go right ahead--just don't use public money to give your views anymore visibility.

And as for suicides, who's to say how may suicides there were--like intentional car accidents or accidental overdoses of prescription meds? But if they're hushed up as well, all the better, right?

[dgs49]

The "idiocy" is pretending that this is a problem. There is no reason in the world why a gay kid can't go to a religious school, UNLESS THE KID FOOLISHLY AND OVERTLY MAKES AN ISSUE OUT OF HIS SEXUAL PREFERENCES.

There is nothing oppressive about expecting people to be discrete about private matters. Most kids have at least one issue in their personal and private backgrounds that could be a source of bother if it came to light (a brother who has been in trouble with the law, separated parents, an alcoholic parent, a "special" sibling), and yet we manage to be discrete and we all survive.

And using expressions like, "...forcing them into the closet..." is idiocy.

[Big RR]

Idiocy? The phrase "foolishly and overtly makes an issue of his sexual preferences" would qualify far more than "forcing them into the closet". Again, we are not dealing with a religious school here, we are dealing with a publicly funded school run by a religious institution. Now Australian law may be quite different from that of the US, but applying US law principles public money cannot be used to promote religious principles--which is why I think the school in NSW would be at fault if it were in the US. If someone wants to research Australian law, perhaps they can opine on it, but the OP at least strongly suggests the law here is not settled.

As for being open about one's "sexual preference", exactly what behavior would make the overt statement you think should/could warrant expulsion by the school. Saying one is attracted to persons of one's own gender? Saying one has a same sex boyfriend/girlfriend? Going into details about sexual practices with one's same sex partner. Distributing photos of the same? How about just saying "I don't see anything wrong with people in a same sex relationship"? Should thoughts be punished as well as deeds?

Adolescence is a tough enough time without being forced lie about one's identity and thoughts merely to get the publicly funded education to which they're entitled by law. Generally, I have no legal problem with a church imposing its religious views on its own flock in schools that are funded by that flock (although I remain free to disagree with them and publicly comment as I see fit), but one ought not be forced to pay lip service to these same views just to obtain an education that the public pays for, and not one penny of public money should be devoted to help disseminate them or grant them any recognition.

in our daily lives. And for "the closet", how would you term having to keep any and all details of your life in the dark; none of us(or maybe few of us) go out of the way to detail our sex lives to our friends and coworkers, but we do talk about our wives, significant others, friends, etc. ; facing a punishment for doing so leaves of out of a significant part of social interaction. A good example would be a person married to someone of another race; (s)he need not make a big deal of it, but having a picture of one's spouse on one's desk would make the race of the spouse apparent (just as gender would be apparent from the same thing). It's ridiculous to expect people to hide merely because some might feel uncomfortable with the relationship. And that forced hiding, that forced lying, is exactly what being forced into the closet is; I can think of no better word to call it than idiocy.