Discretion is discrimination
The debate about homosexuality and homophobia in schools is quite heated over at Troppo Armadillo. Mark Bahnisch is (rightly) outraged that a female student teacher was sacked for answering students’ questions about the woman who picked her up after school. The difficulty appears to be that the two women were in a lesbian relationship, and some parents would prefer their kids did not know that lesbians exist, or at least that they don’t do things like give each other lifts home from work.
Some commenters agree with the parents. For instance, Kevin Donnelly thinks that student teachers innocently answering pupils’ questions must be “PC cultural warriors … undermining heterosexuality.” He points to an op-ed he wrote for The Australian, in which he trotted out the familiar lines — post-modernism is evil, homosexuals are a minority and therefore disordered, and everything can be pinned on the Australian Education Union which is “a strong advocate of a politically correct approach to gender”. Unfortunately for Donnelly’s paint-by-numbers respones, the AEU has backed the principal against the woman.
Sophie Masson attempted to change tack and move the debate to the panic about sexual abuse of students. Unfortunately, her choice of words made it very difficult to move on. Suddenly the student teacher concerned was “swagger[ing] about sexual rights” by mentioning that the person who picked her up after school was her partner. Though Sophie insists that both queer and straight teachers should be “discreet,” it is not clear whether the same ludicrous leap would have been made in the case of a heterosexual. The word “discreet” set off alarm bells when I read it.
For many years, a requirement of sexual “discretion” was used by the Australian courts to reject the claims of homosexual asylum seekers who fled from horrific persecution. In my view, that requirement made Australia complicit in the hate crimes these men and women sought to escape. For example, in the case of a Sri Lankan man who was ostracised by his friends, family and community due to his homosexuality, the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that his fear of persecution was genuine. However, it also considered that “provided that he does not openly proclaim himself to be a homosexual or parade his sexual expression in public” he could “function as a normal [!] member of society” and rejected his claim. That decision was upheld by the Full Court of the Federal Court.
The problem is that the burden falls more heavily on queer people; while a straight man caught “proclaiming or flaunting his sexual preferences” might be frowned upon, he would not face systematic persecution (and in fact “macho” displays of sexuality might be rewarded). In fact, the burden is so great that the RRT has even suggested that it would not be unreasonable to expect Nepalese homosexuals to enter sham marriages to hide their true sexual orientation!
Thankfully, in the Bangladeshi Couple case, the High Court recently rejected the “discretion” requirement (albeit by a slim majority) as illogical and offensive because it effectively endorses the wishes of the persecutors. McHugh and Kirby JJ put the objection succinctly at 40:
persecution does not cease to be persecution for the purpose of the Convention because those persecuted can eliminate the harm by taking avoiding action within the country of nationality. The Convention would give no protection from persecution for reasons of religion or political opinion if it was a condition of protection that the person affected must take steps — reasonable or otherwise — to avoid offending the wishes of the persecutors. Nor would it give protection to membership of many a “particular social group” if it were a condition of protection that its members hide their membership or modify some attribute or characteristic of the group to avoid persecution. Similarly, it would often fail to give protection to people who are persecuted for reasons of race or nationality if it was a condition of protection that they should take steps to conceal their race or nationality.
Now, the student teacher’s sacking is certainly not on the same scale as that, but the principle is the same. A heterosexual teacher who answered the same questions in the same terms would be guilty of indiscretion, but I doubt any of the parents would have batted an eyelid, and she certainly wouldn’t have been sacked.
Having said that, I think there is something to Sophie’s argument that the sacking was the result of the principal’s fears “about [parents and students] branding teachers as child molesters, ruining lives and dragging people through the mud, conducting horrible witchunts”, but I reckon there’s an unhealthy dose of homophobia involved, too. If the woman had said, “Oh, that was my husband,” there would be no suggestion that her discussion with the class was in any way sexual. Cohabitation only becomes sexual when there’s a lesbian involved. Homosexuals are considered to be an inherent sexual threat to the children in their care, for no reason but bigotry.
This is where I’m most disappointed by the principal’s behaviour. Instead of telling the parents that there is no reason to fear the student teacher, he acquiesced to the mob’s demands and sacked her. In doing so, he reinforced the view that homosexuality can be linked to paedophilia, and he fed the community’s panic about these issues. As the woman’s university supervisor told The Age,
the damage was done. Not just to the student, but the kind of message that was being given to the kids at the school is just appalling, that they think they actually have this kind of power over a teacher who comes out as lesbian or gay.
This is where I’m confused by Sophie’s position. She outlines a number of very serious negative results of the irrational fears of parents about the sexual safety of their children, yet when a school principal effectively endorses those fears by joining in, Sophie backs the principal!
Trackback replacement:
http://52nd.blogspot.com/2005/03/fence-around-blackboard.html
Very interesting angle to bring in the immigration example, I wasnt aware of that. It seems its becoming accpetable to be homosexual these days, so long as you dont tell anyone about it and just lead a double life. All this does is compound the problem and encourage the “whatever, just dont talk about it in front of me” attitude. I might find it weird and uncomfortable talking to my ex about kissing girls, its a completely different ball game apprently, but this she shouldnt be open about it, epecially when it was a relevant point in the conversation.
Jesus, did I actually say that out loud?
The Victorian AEU’s email address is melbourne@aeuvic.asn.au for those who would like to make their point of view known.
. Cohabitation only becomes sexual when there’s a lesbian involved. Homosexuals are considered to be an inherent sexual threat to the children in their care, for no reason but bigotry.
That’s the crux of the matter, plain and simple. Us heterosexuals are are allowed to live our lives, have “partners”, live with someone and it can all be regarded as completely asexual and inoffensive. Childrens cartoons can feature married couples with children – clearly sex has been going on but because it’s heterosexual, it’s considered “safe” for kids. The minute anyone admits that gay people also (shock, horror!) live with their partners and are even picked up from work by them, it’s cause for alarm. Because, of course, we know that all those evil homosexuals do all day is perform vile, despicable, ungodly sexual acts on each other, even when at work teaching kids.
Christ. What ever happened to being honest with kids about sex?
Homosexuals can escape persecution if they don’t let there feelings be known? Next thing you know people facing persecution for political views will told not to let those feelings be known.
Speaking as the parent of two fantastic little girls I worry about the standard of education rather than if a teacher is a muff diver. It never crossed my mind until this “story” broke. For fuck sake the whole thing is ridiculous. “Yes I see that your class is doing well, it’s the references to your partner we’re not happy about.” Well fuck off and join some happy clappy onclave and teach your kids shite like creationism. Cunts.
Right on, Rob!
Beautifully put. It’s offensive to teach children that being gay is something you should be ashamed of, something that should be hidden from view, and that lying is okay as long as it’s to hide some hideous problem like, I don’t know, falling in love with someone from the same sex.
As I was saying to Fop on email earlier today, you can’t teach a child that being homosexual is something wrong, something that can’t be disclosed without humiliation and reprisal and something offensive and then wonder what went wrong when that same child commits a hate crime in adulthood due to their belief that gays are somehow lesser than “normal” people.
End preachy mode.
But fuck, seriously – homophobia gets me riled up.
My 6 year old son’s godmother is gay…so what? When he goes to visit her and her partner is there with her he finds it perfectly normal..as it is.
When he asks me about it I just say that some people like to have people of the same gender as their husbands or wifes. And that’s perfectly normal as it is.
My son’s teacher may be gay but we don’t know and it’s none of our business. The only thing I am worried about though is that he plays Kylie Minogue on the portable CD player before class and now my son wants a Kylie CD…now that IS worrisome!
The most important question here, Guido, is which Kylie CD? Some are obviously better than others…
My mum tells this story about one of her CWA meetings quite a few years ago, where the discussion of homosexuals came up, and one old dear goes “oh, they’ve always been about. What about those two teachers that lived together in such-and-such”.
The only reason people rake up this kind of shit is that it improves trade for the wowser industry. Think about it; it hasn’t been PC cultural warriors making the action; in recent times it’s been reactionary conservatives setting straw men on fire and then blaming some mythical lefty agitator for the blaze, in the hope of moving the status quo to the “right”. See also: the abortion debate.
The most curious gambit by right-wing commentators is insist that there’s nothing wrong with society as it is, really, but gosh, we really need to something about Social Evils X, Y and Z, which are obviously the fault of whining lefty rotters.
I think the biggest misconception that some of these idiots peddle is that all gays carry on like, well, the Only Gay In The Village from Little Britain; obviously that’s taking the piss, but the truth is “they” walk amongst us everyday, and no-one mature enough to be secure in their own skin could be buggered worrying about it until stupid incidents like this flare up, providing grist for the mill for commentators of all ideological stripes.
Off the top of my head, anyway, the most recent publicised cases of sexual predation by teachers seem to have been of a heterosexual nature.
Graham, you’re touching on dodgy radical ground there old son. I always find the whole kiddy-fiddler-poofter link befuddling and based on no fact at all, as by a long way far most sexual abuse cases both affecting underage and overage people are by heterosexuals. And dare I say it, most offences are committed by men! Does that mean that all heterosexual men are child abusers? No, and it sure as dammit also means that all homosexual women and men aren’t either. On the other hand, religious organisations have actively covered up paedophilia for years and no on says close the churches.
The whole paedophilia argument does not stand up to any test whatsoever, it is just discrimination at its lowest, and has fuck all to do with sexual orientation.
I know. But people keep bringing it up to confuse the issue, and I was trying to dismiss it…
I know
That’s ludicrous, that a teacher could be fired simply for having a same-sex partner. I can only imagine what kind of school it must have been.
At my high-school, the Music Co-ordinator is the queeniest guy ever and he talks about cute guys a fair bit. You’d have to be unconscious not to know he was gay. But our school is bohemian, the kind of school John H would like to see razed.
When I went to school, one of my teachers was allegedly gay and her partner who also taught at my school was sacked. Some five years later, long after I left, she was apparently miraculously reinstated.
Even an absolute moron should know that people do not choose their sexual orientation and everyone should learn to tolerate, no, that is the wrong word, accept and embrace the reality of those 5-10% that differ from the remainder. Their brain chemistry adds an element of diversity to the pool – like a shining thread in the tapestry of life. The world would be a somewhat more boring place without the existence of queers.
Great post, Rob. These things need saying!
excellent stuff, Rob. you, Mark and Nic are this lesbian’s new pin up boys :)
And maybe if my grade 7 teacher had been able to come out (which she was unable to do despite the fact that, somehow or other, everyone knew she was gay), she wouldn’t have found it necessary to take out her resentment on her class. It can’t be healthy having to live a lie every day of your life. In her case, it turned her into the biggest bitch I’ve ever had the misfortune to be uneducated by.
I’d never known that homosexual refugee’s were refused entry for whatever reason. Great post (I hope we’re not turning into back slappers, like on Tim Blair’s site)
Anyway I’ve done a post pointing to this one, so this is another trackback replacement (I’m asuming you got rid of trackback because of spam, I’ve had to do the same thing)
http://www.chrisfryer.com/blog/archives/2005/03/the_scourge_of.php
I think there are two issues here.
The first is if the teachers’ version of events is accurate. To me, that the principal was so quick to get rid of her, and that theAEU backed the principal, suggests there’s more than meets the eye in this case (she may, for example, have been a really lousy teacher and the principal was itching for a pretext. Or she may even have been dismissed on grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with her sexuality.)
The second is what to think if the teacher’s version is true. If it is, then I agree that this is a case of bigotry accomodated by weakness on the principal’s part – and he or she deserves all the obloquy they’re getting.
DD, she’s now given her version of events at Troppo:
http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/008746.html