Should misgendering lead to termination?

Only one year ago in the summer of 2018, a transgender student had undergone transitioning from a woman to a man (For privacy purposes, the student’s name has not been disclosed). Because of this transition, the student asked all of his teachers to refer to him with masculine pronouns including: he, him, his. Peter Vlaming, his French teacher did not agree to call him by his changed pronouns, deeply upsetting the student. Mr. Vlaming cited his religious beliefs and stated that they did not allow him to call the student by his pronouns. Mr. Vlaming is a devout Christian. To avoid discipline, Mr. Vlaming promised to only use the student’s name and avoid pronouns entirely. Although Mr. Vlaming promised to do this, the school administrators of West Point High School (in West Point VA) gave him a final warning that he must use the student’s preferred pronouns or face disciplinary action.

Following this warning on Halloween of 2018, he held an activity for his sophomore class in which they all walked around the classroom using virtual reality goggles. The student was about to crash into a wall when the teacher yelled out to the other students, “Don’t let her hit the wall!” Following this incident, the student withdrew from Mr. Vlaming’s class because he felt disrespected after being called by the incorrect pronouns. The school officials proceeded to suspend the teacher because of the multiple warnings he had faced and failed to follow. The school board then decided to fire him altogether for ignoring the administrators orders.

Mr. Vlaming is suing the school district for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and ability to exercise his religion. Vlaming’s lawsuit states, “and he sincerely believes that referring to a female as a male by an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie,” therefore Vlaming believes that if he were to address the student by his preferred pronouns, he would be telling a lie because his faith does not condone this behavior.

Cases regarding sex and gender are not new in the state of Virginia. In the case of Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, Gavin Grimm, a transgender male student, was denied access to the men’s restrooms in his school because of parent and resident complaints. Although by the time he graduated he was not allowed to use the same restrooms as his peers, on August 9th, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the school violated Gavin’s rights under Title IX and the 14th Amendment.

There is a lot to be considered in this case because it is a public school. When looking at Title IX, the U.S. Department states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” In this particular case the student was discriminated against because their preferred pronouns were not being acknowledged after several warnings were given from the school administrators. Because West Point High School is a public school, it is receiving federal financial assistance, which means that the transgender student is directly benefiting from Title IX protection. Although the student himself is not filing a lawsuit, it is important to recognize the rights the student has a public student.

This case has not been settled yet but it was filed in the Circuit Court for the County of King William. Vlaming is suing the school board for violating his rights and for breach of contract. He is claiming that his freedom of speech rights were violated. This case is also similar to other cases we have read that look at beliefs versus actions. While Vlaming’s beliefs may prevent him from agreeing with the student’s pronouns, do his freedom of speech rights protect him from acting on this belief and misgendering a student? This case raises the issue of the relationship that exists between hate speech and freedom of speech. In the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), teenagers burned a cross on a family's lawn. This action fell under a local bias-motivated ordinance that prohibited the display of a symbol that "arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender." The question the courts answered was whether or not this ordinance was a violation of he First Amendment free speech clause. The courts found that the ordinance prohibited speech because of the subjects the speech addressed. Although dissimilar in actions, this case resembles that of Vlaming because they are both claiming that freedom of speech is being violated. However, when answering this question I think a discussion must be raised of how far freedom of speech can go until these protections are enabling cruelty.

I believe that the school board was right in firing Mr. Vlaming because of the many warnings that he received. In using freedom of speech as a protection for misgendering someone, he is justifying the maltreatment of members of the LGBTQ community. Had he not been fired, this could have left room for hate speech from other outlets on campus. One example of this is when Mr. Vlaming had been fired, many students protested by walking out with signs saying, "Men are men. Women are women." Examples of this are forms of hate speech to students that do not identify as such. Because of this and the outcomes that could have come from lack of disciplinary action, I believe he was rightfully fired and that his freedom of speech rights were not violated.