Printer-friendly versionLast weekend, the Southern Poverty Law Center and two partners struck a legal agreement with the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota. Amid revolution in Egypt and fears of a monster snowstorm in the Midwest, this was hardly top-shelf news.
But the agreement really was a big deal for LGBT students. First off, it made life easier for two young women, Sarah Lindstrom and Desiree "Dez" Shelton at Champlin Park High School. Sarah and Dez were voted in as “royalty” for the school’s Snow Days winter event. That meant they would walk together in the event’s procession. School officials objected. With SPLC’s help, the deal struck over the weekend removed that objection. Sarah and Dez went to Snow Days earlier this week as originally planned.
That sounds like simple justice, and it is. But it’s the kind of justice that’s been denied many gay and lesbian teenagers. Had the school district been less agreeable, Sarah and Dez might well have shared the fate of Constance McMillen. Last year, Constance tried to take her female date to prom only to be met with unyielding opposition by her school in Fulton, Miss.
Remember, too, that Anoka-Hennepin is not just another school district. It is the largest in Minnesota and one with a poor track record lately on LGBT issues. Two years ago, two district teachers were disciplined for harassing a student over his "perceived sexual orientation." And since then, at least four LGBT students from the district have committed suicide after reporting harassment and bullying.
In the wake of those suicides, Anoka-Hennepin adopted an anti-bullying policy that specifically protects students from harassment based on sexual orientation. However, the district has refused to alter a controversial policy that hamstrings teachers, often called the “neutrality policy.” It states that staff members “shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation including but not limited to student led discussions.”
As Elie Weisel reminds us, “Neutrality always helps the oppressor, never the victim.” The neutrality policy places a huge obstacle in the way of the anti-bullying policy by creating confusion and making teachers hesitant to advocate for LGBT students. LGBT students cannot be bullied, but they are robbed of the teacher allies they badly need.
Last weekend’s agreement did not resolve all these issues. But it injected some hope into a previously contentious situation. The agreement’s a start that both the school district and LGBT students can build on. Teenagers at Champlin Park voted for Sarah and Dez knowing full well they were lesbians. That indicates a strong level of acceptance. Perhaps their attitudes are finally filtering upward to those who run the schools.
Price is managing editor of Teaching Tolerance.
Comments
Correction to your post: The
Correction to your post: The Anoka-Hennepin policy does allow teachers to talk about sexual orientation. A classroom conversation or lesson about sexual orientation must be age-appropriate, fact-based and connected to the district. Read the policy for yourself: http://www.anoka.k12.mn.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=223568&fileitem=48585&catfilter=15049
Actually the implication of
Actually the implication of the referenced policy is that unscientific, ill-supported beliefs about sexual orientation must be respected. I wonder if the district applies a similar standard to evolution. Do social studies teachers in the district maintain a "neutral" stance on communism in order to respect the views of families that may have communist ideas? Must teachers maintain a "neutral stance" on white supremacy and anti-semitism? Why are religious fanatics accorded "special rights?"
Brett you know darned well
Brett you know darned well the 'training' teachers received on the SOCP caused more confusion and was inadequate at best. If the policy is so clear and understandable, why does it take a four page document to explain it, and STILL have teachers confused. The bullying training they received was basically a power point presentation that was not mandatory for teachers to view. Don't even try to bring up the *training video* which was designed for students not staff, AND had less than 5 minutes on screen relating to LGBT bullying. On top of ALL OF THAT, the SOCP says that discussion of sexual orientation can only be taught within the approved curriculum. But the approved curriculum excludes any topics related to sexual orientation. So kind of a catch 22 there isn't it. The curriculum committee is comprised of some community members that have been on that *committee* for years and are not reflective of Anoka Hennepin's now diverse community and values. Maybe the district should think about changing how they select curriculum and how they can diversify the curriculum committee and get some fresh faces in there that bring a variety of viewpoints about diversity - and having one african-american person on the committee still does not make it a diverse committee.
Correction to your post Brett
Correction to your post Brett - the policy DOES NOT ALLOW TEACHERS TO TALK ABOUT GLBT ANYTHING - especially if it is related to curriculum...because the POLICY ITSELF states that Sexual Orientation is not part of the adopted curriculum of the district. It is a circular arguement. The policy itself prevents curriculum from including anything about sexual orientation, therefore how could teachers talk about it relating to curriculum, if there is no curriculum to relate it to?
Also, this statement is a
Also, this statement is a fabrication on the part of the author: "even as it might pertain to bullying." Anoka-Hennepin teachers have been provided explicit direction from the superintendent that they have a responsibility to intervene and call out any anti-GLBT harassment.
Brett, you are correct that
Brett, you are correct that one sentence in the original post overstated the problems in Anoka-Hennepin. It read:
"Meanwhile, officials refuse to change the district’s policies that prohibit teachers from talking about sexual orientation, even as it might pertain to bullying."
This has been removed and replaced with more accurate statements. Having said that, we stand by our assertion that Anoka-Hennepin has been slow to understand that the best way to defend LGBT students is to value them openly.