Ricard requested she have a religious exemption from having to follow the policies the school had in place for respecting students' preferred names and pronouns. She requested this exemption because she “holds sincere religious beliefs consistent with the traditional Christian and biblican understand of the human person and biological sex” (Cohen, 2022). The complaint filed further went on to state, “Ms. Ricard believes that God created human beings as either male or female, that this sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of an individual person's feelings, desires, or preferences” (Cohen, 2022). She felt using a student's preferred name or pronouns was a direct violation of her expression of the religious beliefs she holds. Ricard was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and senior counsel member Tyson Langhofer further went on to comment that “teachers should not be forced by school districts to willfully deceive parents or engage in speech that violates their deeply held religious beliefs” (Cohen, 2022).
The question at hand is whether or not the schools policies enforcing teachers to respect students pronoun and name choices is unconstitutional and prohibits Ricard from freely exercising her religion? This past May the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled that Ricard’s case was to proceed based on the basis of her First Amendment rights to freely exercise her religion. A judge decided Ricard could stop adhering to the particular aspect of the school’s policy that required her to use students’ preferred pronouns, but she was not exempt from addressing them by their preferred names. This case was voluntarily dismissed in late August of this year when school officials agreed to settle by writing a statement that resolved any disciplinary charges that were made against Ricard, along with $95,000. The school board also stopped enforcing the policy that teachers couldn’t communicate with their students' parents if a student was requesting to be referred to by different names or pronouns than what was listed in school documentation.
While ultimately there was no huge deciding factor made by the court, I disagree with the court's decision to allow Ricard to be exempt from the schools policy for referring to students by their preferred pronouns. Ricard believes the policies the school implemented infringes on her ability to freely exercise her religion because it forces her to engage in speech that violates the religious beliefs she holds. The school was not prohibiting Ricard from believing in her religious beliefs. There is a huge distinction between belief and action, and in this scenario she was not being forced to not express her beliefs. By respecting students' wishes she was not being prohibited from acting on and expressing her religious beliefs. She was not being asked to go against her beliefs and change her own name or pronouns. What her students chose to be called does not infringe upon her own beliefs, and calling them a certain name or pronoun doesn't prohibit her exercise of religion.
By not respecting students' wishes to be referred to by their preferred names and pronouns, Ricard was also indirectly pushing her beliefs onto the students. Within her classroom this makes it seem as though students are respected in a Christian manner in accordance with her religion. This does not keep the classroom setting neutral. By respecting their wishes she wasn’t being forced by the school not to believe in what she does. Being exempt from the policy is also in a sense favoring religion and makes it seem like the school is endorsing the establishment of her religious beliefs in the classroom. It shows that teachers can be exempt from things they feel violate their personal religious beliefs, which in a sense establishes religious favoring within schools. Ultimately on this basis, the school's policy does not infringe upon Ricard’s ability to express her religion, and being exempt from the policy is the school establishing her religious beliefs in her classroom.
Cohen, L. (2022, September 2). Kansas middle school teacher who was suspended for repeatedly misgendering student gets $95,000 from district in lawsuit settlement. CBS News. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pamela-ricard-kansas-fort-riley-middle-school-teacher-disciplined-misgendering-student-95k-settlement/
Heipel, E. (2022, September 27). Teacher who refused to use students' preferred pronouns settles lawsuit against School District. Catholic News Agency. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252187/adf-settles-case-for-teacher-who-refused-to-use-students-preferred-pronouns
I agree with you that the court should not have ruled in favor of Ricard. By allowing Ricard to not use the student's pronouns, the courts are saying that Ricard's religious views are more important than the students rights to not be discriminated against based on their gender identity. A school should be a place where a student should not face any discrimination, especially not by their teacher. A teacher is an authority figure for them and should be required to treat all students equally and fairly, and Ricard's religion should not allow her to discriminate against certain students. If Ricard wants to follow her religious beliefs and not respect student's pronouns, she should go teach at a parochial school that shares her views, not at a public school.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and found this to be an extremely interesting case. Calling students by their preferred names or pronouns does not prevent Ricard’s ability to practice her religion. In addition to this, even though Ricard is entitled to her beliefs, she should not force these beliefs upon the children in her classroom, especially in a public school. The court’s decision indicates that Ricard’s religious beliefs are more important than the student’s rights. Students should always feel safe at school, especially when they are with their teachers, but having a teacher calling students by the wrong name or the wrong pronouns might make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe while at school which is a serious issue.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Anna. The ruling in this case is opening up a slippery slope in relation to allowing the teacher to only respect things which are within their religious beliefs. Does this mean that if the science teacher believes that Adam and Eve were the creators of all life they will not teach evolution? There is most definitely a compelling state interest in making sure teachers do not keep their religious beliefs from being imposed onto students, and not respecting a child's pronouns and preferred name seems like it could create a hostile environment where children could not feel safe.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic. I completely agree with you and I do not think this is at all a violation of the teachers first amendment rights. There is not a substantial burden on Ricard by calling her students their preferred names, and it is a substantial burden on the student. This is a neutral policy that is not discriminating against religion in any way. Furthermore, I agree with your point where you said that her beliefs are not infringed upon by following this policy. She may still believe that the bible says you cannot change your gender, but that should not stop her from following the schools rules.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you from a personal and moral standpoint; I believe that each student deserves to feel safe and respected within a classroom environment. However, based on the Constitution alone, religious beliefs are protected strongly and explicitly by the Constitution, while the right to be referred to by preferred pronouns is not. Whether or not that is moral or outdated in the context of modern society may be up for discussion, but by strictly looking at the rights protected by the Constitution, the law does value religious freedom over the feelings of individuals. Regardless of whether or not we agree, Ricard made the case that being forced to refer to a student in a certain way impeded her free exercise of religion. As S. Weaver stated in another blog post this week, “Our Constitution does not highlight discrimination policies, it highlights and favors religion.” Whether or not that is morally right is debatable, but as far as the Constitution goes, the law tends to side with religious rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the court's decision. Although I believe it is morally and ethically wrong for her not to respect the student's individual identification, morality is not something that matters in law. The fact is she is forced to do something that is against her religion. The court is not picking her faith over another. It is choosing religion over an individual, something that is said in the constitution. It is upsetting that this could not have been resolved in another way, but the school is not acknowledging the teacher's religion. It makes her express things that go against her beliefs, making this unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in disagreeing with the court’s decision to allow Ricard an exemption from referring to students by their preferred pronouns. By allowing this exemption, it can be argued that the school is favoring Ricard’s religious beliefs. Furthermore the detrimental effect on children that occurs when adults in leadership positions disrespect their wishes of referring to them by their preferred pronouns is huge. The students that wished to change their pronouns from the pronouns they had at birth probably didn’t feel comfortable or safe in her classroom because they knew she wasn’t fostering an inclusive, neutral environment in her classroom.
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job with your blog post. I agree with you that the student was offended, and, with our modern-day norms, the school wants to provide a safe learning environment for their students, and if a teacher does not abide by what the student wants then they can feel unsafe. Constitutionally, though, I agree with that the teacher was protected under the First Amendment and Fourteenth religious rights. Lea makes an interesting point in one of the comments above that a person's pronouns are not protected under the Constitution, but a person's religious freedoms are, and I agree with this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! The issue at stake here is very intriguing. I am at a cross roads of where I stand here, however I lean more with agreeing with your decision. The school made a rule for everyone to follow. The rule was simply made as a way of respect to all children. Ricard is not being asked to not practice her religion, bur rather she is being asked to follow the rules when she is at school and her job. This case reminds me of another blog post for this week that was posted regarding Casey the practitioner. In both instances there is a question of belief or action, and in both cases neither Casey or Ricard is being asked to not practice their religion or hold their beliefs. However both of them are being asked to follow the rules that are placed by the school, and clinic. They both have an obligation to their students and their patients as a teacher and a practitioner and are meant to follow them. The rules placed by the school are facially neutral to everyone at the school, and giving Ricard an exemption is not fair or neutral.
ReplyDeleteThis case was really interesting to read! I agree that her rights were not infringed upon and that a public school classroom has to be neutral. There is a big distinction between action and belief and I feel she is acting upon her beliefs in an unconstitutional way because she is enforcing christian values within the classroom by not accepting others religious views. Moreover, no one is asking her to change her values and beliefs just to be neutral and accepting of others since she does work for the state.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting case! I agree with the outcome in this case, as it reminds me of the case we did in class, Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where students were required to salute the flag. Similarly, I believe that requiring Ricard to recite the preferred names or pronouns of students that wish to display a gender or biological sex that is different than the one assigned to them at birth requires her to engage in speech that violates her religious-held beliefs. Thereby, it violates her ability to freely exercise her religion. Unlike religion, there is no constitutional right to recognize one’s decision to subscribe to another gender or biological sex than the one provided by them at birth. Although it is disheartening to see the teacher refrain from doing so, the Constitution protects her right to freely exercise religion, allowing her to refrain from calling the student by their preferred name/pronouns. However, I would like to note that I do recognize a potential argument regarding the substantial burden placed on the student as a result (i.e. feelings of hostility or unsafety in the classroom, mental health related issues, etc.).
ReplyDeleteThis case is a super interesting, great choice! I agree that no student should feel unsafe at school and understand how allowing a teacher to not abide by the pronoun rule the school had could make students feel unsafe but I am at a crossroads. From a constitutional point of view the government should make no law preventing the freedom of exercise of one's religious beliefs. While I agree there are two aspects to exercising that right, freedom to believe and freedom to act. Isn't being forced to say something you don’t agree with a violation of your right to act within a manner that aligns with one's religious beliefs? True, that nothing here is preventing her from being able to physically practice her beliefs but isn’t speech an extension of that? Just like how public schools can’t force teachers and kids to pray if they don’t want to because it violates their right to exercise or not exercise religion? This case is incredibly complicated because the constitution doesn’t provide protections against being offended but it does provide protection surrounding the ability to freely exercise one's religion. That being said one could argue there is a compelling state interest that school is an environment where students are expected to learn and become active participants in our society and an environment where a student feels unsafe will hinder their ability to learn.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, morally I completely agree with Ricard’s point of view, however it is important to realize that she is working with children and just like she wants to be respected for being a Christian she needs to respect those who do not. In a school it is the duty of teachers to provide a safe, healthy, and inclusive environment for everyone. I have had this issue before too where my religious beliefs tell me otherwise regarding people’s pronouns but I just go confess and ask God to forgive my sins. With that being said, I think she is making a big deal about something she can just ignore; the fact here is that no one is forcing her to subscribe to any religion, she is just being asked to treat people with respect. The school is not forcing anyone to go against their religious beliefs, the school is simply asking all faculty to create an inclusive space for everyone, not just Christians or those who believe in a conservative way of life.
ReplyDelete