'Judge sides with teachers who say their religion requires them to out trans kids'
The judge's decision, support it or not, is hopefully based on a thoroughly different reasoning than was brought by these two teachers in their lawsuit.
Judge sides with teachers who say their religion requires them to out trans kids
The judge's decision, support it or not, is hopefully based on a thoroughly different reasoning than was brought by these two teachers in their lawsuit. The judge's decision may (or may not) hold, but it must not be connected to the lawsuit in which the two teachers inappropriately claim that not outing students to their parents inhibits their ‘free exercise of religion.’ The article only identifies that the judge ‘sided’ with the teachers but doesn't identify details of his decision or his full reasoning. It also doesn't say if the judge specifically agreed with the arguments made by the teachers.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom to worship as one pleases without the imposition of a state religion. This is nowhere close to the idea that religious freedom or the ability to ‘freely exercise one's religion’ gives the right to impose one's religious beliefs over existing professional rules, ethics, guidelines, and/or laws. Or to forcibly out, shame, or break the confidence of students
The First Amendment also does not give individuals the right to ignore, deny, or modify existing medical science in the name of the ‘free exercise of religion.’
‘Gender dysphoria’ is a legitimate and well accepted medical diagnosis. ‘Gender confused children,’ as claimed by the teachers in their lawsuit, is irrelevant. It also is hurtful as well as dangerous. I very much hope the judge made this point somewhere in his decision. And just the judge did not, I sure as hell hope it comes up on appeal.
I will say that I find myself a little conflicted on the issue of not identifying such a life impacting event to parents. At the same time, children can have sincere and very legitimate reasons not to out themselves to their immediate families. Some students may not be prepared for the potential backlash. Other students may be all too aware of exactly what that backlash will be. Students also have rights to which this judge seemed blissfully indifferent
Schools should be a place of safety and, so long as a child is not in immediate danger of harming him/herself or others, confidentiality and trust.
(Disclaimer: I have been a licensed teacher, school consultant, and previously spent a number of years training teachers at the university level.)
So while I come down on the side of trusting kids, I also think this is a discussion that can be taken further. But the reason to argue whether a teacher should share information with parents regardless of the student’s stated wishes absolutely and unconditionally must not be related to the teacher’s ability to ‘freely exercise their religion.’
This is nonsense, it's dangerous and it's time for that to be put to bed constitutionally.
Like the rest of us, teachers are free to believe as they wish fully unimpeded by the state. Outside of school, that is. But in the position of a public school teacher, they do in fact represent the local government and, even, the state. That should negate any claim that following state, local, and/or school guidelines and professional ethics codes violates their ‘freedom of religion.’
Teachers are always free not to take a position they believe may conflict with their personal beliefs. They are not free, however, to force their beliefs in on the employer. But that has increasingly happened with an activist, fundamentalist Right, branch of our American judiciary
If conflicts with their personal belief troubles teachers to an extreme degree, those same teachers are free to find a teaching job in a private religious school which holds the same prejudices, biases and disrespect for children as do they.
Teachers and schools should never be free to ‘exercise’ religion over the welfare, safety, or trust of children