In 2018, Peter Vlaming, a French teacher at West Point High School, which is part of a publicly-funded school district, was fired from his position after misgendering a student.
The student had transitioned during the summer prior to the 2018-2019 school year and requested that masculine pronouns be used by teachers when referring to him, but Vlaming refused to comply, despite school officials saying it was essential he respect the wishes of the student in order to keep his job. Instead, he claimed he would just avoid using pronouns to refer to the student when he was present, but the student’s peers reported that Vlaming used feminine pronouns for the student when he was not in the classroom. This decision was rooted in Vlaming’s religious beliefs that he said made him unable to refer to the student with masculine pronouns, but was also told by the school that he would be subject to disciplinary action if incorrect pronouns were used.
Vlaming ultimately ended up misgendering the student when he was about to run into a wall while using virtual-reality goggles in class, leading Vlaming to yell “Don’t let her hit the wall” to another student. Following the incident, the student removed himself from the class roster after confronting Vlaming, and Vlaming was suspended the next day for failing to comply with the school officials’ orders. He was fired a week later.
Vlaming took his loss of employment as a violation of his First Amendment rights, specifically that of freedom of speech and the freedom to exercise religion. While his lawsuit against the school did not condemn the transgender community outright, it did say that his religion prohibits Vlaming from “intentionally lying,” and he saw referring to the student by masculine pronouns as a lie. Vlaming’s consistent dismissal of the student’s gender identity placed a burden on the student and gave many peers an excuse to create an unsafe environment for the student in the school setting.
In this case, I ultimately have to side with the decision of the West Point High School of firing Vlaming for his discrimination against the student. From Vlaming’s point-of-view, his right to exercise his religion is being infringed upon by not allowing him to misgender the student, but as we know, there is no constitutional right that is absolute. As a public-school employee, meaning his salary is paid for by the State, Vlaming’s exercise of his religion cannot be fully protected in this scenario because his doing so discriminates against a minor taking part in a mandatory public program.
When Vlaming was on the clock as a teacher, his religious views should not play a role in how he interacts with or treats students as he is acting as a public figure. If the West Point School District had allowed Vlaming to act on his religious beliefs that clearly discriminate against the student during school hours, that would be constituted as an establishment of religion as it would have placed religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs.
This case can be compared to that of Engel v. Vitale in which the New York State Board of Regents allowed public schools in New York to begin the school day with a prayer. The practice was eventually deemed unconstitutional due to its violation of the establishment clause because children felt pressured to take part in the practice and teachers were being paid to conduct religious practices. Likewise, Vlaming cited religious beliefs in order to justify his refusal to refer to the student by his preferred pronouns even after the school had told Vlaming it was necessary. Because Vlaming admitted his behavior was motivated by his religious beliefs, he is not protected under the Constitution to act on those beliefs when he is working for the State.
Vlaming’s behavior was also mirrored by peers of the transgender student. Following the firing of Vlaming, several students participated in a walkout in order to protest his removal. This included signs targeting the transgender community, conveying messages like “Men are men. Women are women.” Vlaming’s actions clearly acted as a catalyst for this type of behavior, and as an influential and public figure in the school setting, his actions place a pressure to conform, whether it is directly recognized or not, on those over whom he has authority.
Agreement or lack thereof surrounding Vlaming’s stance on how to treat transgender people is irrelevant in this case. He is ultimately using his position of power as an employee of the State to wield religious influence by discriminating against a transgender student and causing others to follow suit as a byproduct. The refusal by the West Point School District to allow actions by a faculty member that would ultimately place religious beliefs above secular beliefs, and therefore creating an establishment of religion, rightfully supersedes the need to allow an individual’s freedom to exercise their religion within a State institution.
8 comments:
I think the ability for school districts to stifle Vlaming's First Amendment Rights in this case are substantially similar to those that mandate the education of evolution. A public school can require a teacher to lecture on human evolution without addressing religious concerns or conflicts of belief concerning creationism. In this same way a school should be allowed to enforce the treatment of a student by a teacher, even if it conflicts with the employees religious convictions.
I agree with the decision of the school district to fire Peter Vlaming, as his actions demonstrate what would be considered an establishment of religion within the classroom. As Liz discussed, Vlaming is an employee of the public school, being paid by the state, meaning his personal religious beliefs are prohibited within the classroom, and should not determine mistreatment or preferential treatment to any students. This case reminds me of the case with the football coach who would pray on the field after games. Similarly in this case, the football coach was on school property, performing a job in which his salary was paid for by the state. It was decided here that personal religious beliefs or actions was a private matter, and should not interfere with or be brought into a public school system. The fact that other students followed Vlaming in discriminating against the transgender student, and protested his firing, is similar to how some football players on the team would join their coach in prayer after the game. So in this case, misgendering a student in a public school setting based on personal religious beliefs is not protected by the constitution, rather it actually constitutes an establishment of religion in a state funded school.
I am in agreement with the decision of the West Point High School’s decision to fire Vlaming for his intentional misgendering of a student for similar reasons. I think one important thing to remember is that because Vlaming is a public school teacher, and his salary is paid for by the State, his free exercise of religion is not completely protected because in this case, his act discriminated against a minor in a mandatory public school program. It’s also imperative to note how this behavior of Vlaming influences the rest of the students in this school. As a professor, Vlaming served as a dominant, influential figure to students, who are likely to mirror his behavior. His behavior could result in a slippery slope of effects, as his students conform and copy his behavior.
I agree with the author of the post, because Vlaming was being paid with public money, he needs to respect the school rules of calling a student by their correct pro-nouns. When in a public teaching position, there are more restrictions on the teacher's free exercise of religion, they aren't a private citizen when at work. It is also concerning that other students followed the teacher's behavior because the teacher is in a position of authority, he has more power of coercion and influence over the student's behavior. I think it is extremely important that public school teachers do not impose their religion in any way.
I personally struggled with this case, as I hold the constitution and the first amendment especially close to my heart. In this case, as it was with the case regarding the football coach in Washington (I believe), Vlaming cannot possibly bring his religion and his personal beliefs into the school, as doing this can sway students to following his actions and words. He is a teacher and most importantly a public employee of the state on the tax payer's dime, thus his inability to bring his religion into the matter to justify his actions.
I also side with West Point High Schools decision to terminate Vlaming's employment. It is the teachers right to believe what he wants to about the student and the transgender community, but as soon as he brought his opinions into a state funded school, it needed to be kept to himself. His actions have caused direct harm to the student as he disrespected his gender publicly in front of the students peers. His job is to teach students French and make sure they feel safe at school, not decide whether a students pronouns are correct. The moment any student feels unsafe around a teacher, it is grounds for suspension until a proper investigation can occur. In this case, since the teacher was obviously unwilling to change, removal from the school was the only option. If you cannot correctly do your job, then you should not have it.
It is simply impossible to expect a person to set aside his beliefs regarding the nature of reality. How else would this person operate in the world? From Vlaming's standpoint, to gender someone as they would prefer as opposed to what they are would be like asking a scientist to label all furry, four-legged critters under the same family of animals. It is an unreasonable request. What even is an establishment of religion? A single part of a system is hardly representative of its whole. You wouldn't say that a carburetor is entirely representative of the whole of a car. So why, in this instance is a single view of a single teacher now representative of the entirety of the public school? The notion that this behavior is dangerous because there is pressure to conform is also vague. There is pressure of all kinds to push people in every direction possible, whether intentional or unintentional. It is impossible to create an environment, so padded, that every person will grow up without any undesirable influence. All I see here is secular thought being treated as a superior religion and discriminating against Mr. Vlaming.
I agree with your interpretation. While it could be argued Vlaming was exercising his free exercise of religion, when that free exercise actively harms a student, it falls within the state's right to restrict his free exercise. His religious exercise negatively impacted a student and got in the way of his duties as an employee of the state, therefore it was within the school's rights to terminate him.
Post a Comment