Pamala Richard was suspended for three days on the account of 11 different policy violations in the School's Diversity and Inclusion rules. Richard claims in the literature of her lawsuit that her improper use of children's names and pronouns does not harm the students in anyway or inhibit their ability to learn. Despite this assertion, many LGBTQ+ organizations throughout the world have stated that this does actually harm students in an irreversible way. Stating that misgendering students can effect their mental health and their own self confidence. It is also important to note that the Fort Riley Middle School - School District had recently made changes to their own Diversity and Inclusion policies. These changes required teachers, faculty and staff to refer to students by their preferred name and pronouns. Richard had attempted to call for religious exemptions from this rule but her requests were denied, leading her to file this lawsuit.
This case deals with the key issue of freedom religion in Public School's. It deals with the direct problem of the Sherbert Test and as if a religious based exemption should be allocated from an otherwise valid law. This can be viewed when looking at the perspective of if there is a substantial burden or if there is compelling interest by the state. I am of the opinion that there is definitely a compelling state interest for them to uphold the laws that were created in the Diversity and Inclusion rules. When students are misgendered or their incorrect name and pronouns are used, there is severe damage being done. Children are having their self esteems hurt and their identity put into question. This can affect their mental health and in turn hurt their education. Additionally, I think that there is not a substantial burden on Richard to just call students by their preferred names and pronouns. She does not explicitly state what her religion is, nor does she specifically site any reason as to why this would be detrimental to her religion. I also tend to take an Accommodationist point of view, and I believe that this is not discriminatory explicitly to one religion and that this can be a neutral law against all religions.
For these reasons I think that I would not side with Richard and I would make her either find a new job or make sure she complies with all of the Diversity and Inclusion laws that the School District has in place. Despite this being a public school, I still think that there is compelling state interest to not inflict harm to the mental health of middle school students and that there is a no substantial burden to Richard.
10 comments:
This is a very interesting case to see rights conflicting. When using the Sherbert Test, as stated in the post, it is clear Richard's actions violate a valid law currently in place. However, I agree with you that there is a substantial state interest in protecting preferred names and pronouns in schools. Firstly, to not do so would be to discriminate against the individuals who are being called improper names. Similarly, they are young and impressionable children, and it should not be up to an adult's religion to dictate how children should be treated. Finally, the mental health aspect is extremely important. It has been proven how a cause for mental health can be detrimental to learning, and should be avoided when possible.
By no means should this teacher have been reprimanded, and this is certainly a breach of their freedom of religion because to recognize this new post-modern concept of gender identity would be to deny the teachings of most religions, that God has created only man and woman. There is no state interest in "protecting" pronouns. To do so would be to promote the delusions of mental illness. One person's delusions should never be forced upon anyone else nor should they be forced to be another's reality. Therefore the teacher isn't by any means disrespecting the student, but trying to uphold a societal norm and standard which has been true for all of human history until about 5 years ago. The school's policy is discriminatory to those of traditional faiths and should not compel educators to do anything which goes against their faith/religious doctrine.
Wow - this is a tough one, but I must agree with Molly. Considering many different aspects that we have discussed in class, like compelling state interest and effect on children, I believe the healthiest way to uphold wellbeing while also considering successfully defending freedom of religion would be to hold the teacher accountable in this situation. I think about what you have brought up regarding mental health implications, especially for young children. Here we have an adult and a child, and we know that the child involved is much more impressionable than the adult. I believe that the teacher could use the preferred pronouns, while not actually believing that is correct. The teacher could follow through with the action of using the pronouns while at the same time thinking to herself that it doesn't follow her religion. Even though using the preferred pronouns may not align with the teacher's religion she can still complete that action to follow the guidelines at her school district. Additionally, I wonder if it makes a difference that this is a public school district. If this is extremely important to the teacher, I wonder if she could find a job at a private, religious school district that doesn't enforce these guidelines.
I agree with Molly in saying that there is a strong and compelling state interest in calling children by their preferred pronoun and gender. With this, in our current day and age, I believe that it would cause sufficient harm to children that may just be discovering who they are. I can respect that fact that Richard has a particular belief, but this policy creates more of a burden on the children than it does on her, and therefore, she should look for a new job.
I think this all comes down to when the School's Diversity and Inclusion rules were created. If this was part of the employment contract maybe she would have chosen to work at a different school knowing this clash would be present between the state's interest and her personal religious values. I think it is quite an exaggeration to assume that using the unpreferred pronouns on a, may I remind us Middle School student, would directly cause any serious or lasting harm on the students. Pamela Richard is not disrespecting or being intentionally confrontational in any manner, rather expressing her own religious right in the proposition that God created only man and woman. For this, it would be unjustifiable for the school to suspend her for upholding her own religious right in a setting where her primary objective is to teach the students, while the students is to academically succeed.
I agree with Lena that it would not be justified for the school to suspend Richard for upholding her religious rights. She was not intentionally harming anyone, but was practicing her religion freely. I also think Lena's point about Richard potentially teaching at a different school if she knew that this would be an issue is extremely relevant. The use of wrong pronouns by Richard was not meant to be intentionally discriminatory or harmful. The policy does mean that in theory, the correct pronouns should be utilized, however I understand Richard's religious perspective. I think that if this policy existed when she originally got the job, she probably would not have worked at the school. I also agree with Paul that the school reprimanding Richard also creates a substantial burden on Richard's religious practices, and that is important as well.
I believe that the court should not suspend the teacher for trying to stand up for her religious convictions. There is something to be said about the fact that she tried to not use pronouns of the student and rather tried to use their preferred name to ease the situation. I also think that Lena makes an interesting point brining up the teachers contract and if that the rules were laid out in the contract she could have chosen to work at a different school or there would have been grounds to suspend her for a violation of the contract. The school putting this burden on Richards religious practice is unconstitutional and wrong. If there were different circumstances like these rules were put in place before like sam states, but that isn't the case so suspending the teacher is not right in my opinion.
This case reminds me of another case where teacher refused to call a student by their preferred pronouns. Although this is slightly different, because the teacher in this case was calling the student by their indirect pronouns rather than their preferred name like the teacher in the other case chose to do. Although the teacher should be forced to refer to the student by their preferred pronouns if they use them, the teacher should not be forced to use these pronouns. The teacher can abide by what they say is their religious obligations by calling the student by their preferred name, like the teacher in the other case did. This would be a less restrictive means on impeding on the rights of both parties.
I understand that the stance I have is making it so someone has to justify their religion, but no where in Christian faith (if she is even Christin) does it state that you can't use people's preferred pronouns. School is supposed to be a setting where children can be comfortable, and the teacher not calling this child what they prefer to be called, is ABSOLUTELY going to affect their learning. In no way is the school asking this teacher to anything beyond say a word; they are not asking them to preform gender reassignment surgery. In fact, they are not asking them to say they support LGBTQIA+ rights. All the school board wanted was for the teachers to call a person what they want to be called. A student cannot choose who their teacher is, so these students' mental health is even more likely to be damaged. LGBTQIA+ individuals are already so discriminated against, and this should not take place in the classroom. I believe it is reasonable that this teacher got suspended. I have seen first hand the affect bigoted people can have on gender-questioning individuals. The student's mental health is, in my opinion, than the teacher's comfortability. Schools are for the students.
Post a Comment