Peter Vlaming was a French teacher at West Point High School for six years. When one of his students decided to identify as male, Vlaming began to use the student’s name as opposed to pronouns all around. However, he did not feel comfortable using male pronouns like he/him because it went against his Christian beliefs. Instead, he made an effort to avoid using pronouns. After this attempt to find a middle ground, when school officials got wind of this, he was told to use the preferred pronouns or face consequences. When Vlaming ultimately refused to comply, he was fired.
Vlaming retaliated with a strong argument: that he wasn’t fired for anything he said or did, but rather for something he couldn’t say due to religious beliefs. It is clear that he wasn’t being disrespectful toward the student, he was simply trying to stay true to his beliefs while still treating the student with respect. Additionally, sincerity should not be in question here. Vlaming was not attempting to harm a student or create a hostile environment. Yet, he was punished for his refusal to say something that he fundamentally did not believe.
Recently, in December, the Virginia Supreme Court acknowledged that the case deserved a closer look. They reopened his lawsuit, stating that Virginia’s Constitution provides individuals protection for both free speech and religious freedom. One justice argued a key idea, that the government can’t force people to say things that go against their deeply held religious beliefs, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This is central to this case, raising the question of whether the government can truly force a teacher to say something they do not believe in.
This situation shares similarities to previous free speech cases. A famous 1943 decision, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, ruled that students may not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they did not choose to. The Court argued that no government official has the right to force people to embrace any official opinion. This principle should still be upheld today.
Many argue that Vlaming’s actions were discriminatory and made the student feel unsafe. However, we must examine the actual facts of what occurred. Vlaming did not call the student by the wrong name or use incorrect pronouns in an unmannerly fashion. Instead, he tried to avoid using pronouns altogether so he wouldn’t violate his beliefs. This was not any form of hate or bigotry, it was simply a compromise.
On top of this, the case creates a slippery slope matter beyond just one school in Virginia. If teachers can be fired for not using state approved language about gender, what could happen next? Could they be fired for not supporting other controversial beliefs? In a country where freedom is not just valued but also the backbone of our existence, the idea that teachers must comply with whatever the school says even if it opposes personal convictions, and not an action that poses any harm, is extremely dangerous.
Later, in 2023, Governor Glenn Youngkin’s administration updated the state’s policies to allow teachers to refer to students based on their biological sex if it aligns with their beliefs. These policy changes have led to numerous protests, but they also show that there’s more than one reasonable perspective on this issue.
With this, this argument is not stating that transgender students shouldn’t be treated with respect, as every student should undoubtedly feel safe and valued in school. However, respect has to go both ways. Teachers should also be respected when they act out of conscience and make a genuine effort to treat students fairly without putting their faith on the line.
The case at hand reminds us that First Amendment rights like freedom of speech and religion are not just in theory, they should be applicable in real life scenarios. They protect those like Vlaming, who try to balance their job with their values. In choosing not to speak certain words, Vlaming demonstrated bravery, as he stood by beliefs, even when it cost him.
In the end, this case is not political. It’s about a teacher who tried to do his job with integrity and was ultimately punished for it. The Court should make a careful decision regarding what kind of message that sends, and what kind of freedoms we’re willing to give up when we silence someone for what they believe.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-school-board-settlement-teacher-refusal-trans-student-pronoun/
10 comments:
I think this is a very controversial issue for a reason, because people have such strong beliefs both ways, and it is each decision sets new precedents since this is a relatively new issue. Freedom of speech and religion are important, but teachers in public schools also have to create a safe and supportive environment for all students, including transgender students. By refusing to use the student’s preferred pronouns, even while trying to avoid pronouns altogether, Vlaming still made the student feel singled out and disrespected. The issue is not about Vlaming’s intentions or if the teacher meant to cause harm but about how his actions affected the student. Schools are responsible for protecting students from discrimination, and recognizing a student’s gender identity is part of that. Respect should go both ways, but teachers hold more power in the classroom, so it is their job to ensure students feel accepted, even if it conflicts with personal beliefs. In this case, the student’s right to feel respected and not singled out is more important than Vlaming’s decision not to acknowledge the student’s identity.
I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand, teachers refusal to use the students preferred pronouns could make the student feel singled out. However, I do not think that the teachers should be required to say anything especially if it conflicts with his values. The teacher in this case used the students name, rather than incorrect pronouns, which I think shows an effort to show respect and inclusion. Therefore, he should not be punished for what he did not say.
I also see both sides of this issue. I see how the teacher choosing inaction about a preferred pronoun situation would lean his way in terms of the free exercise of religion. He is choosing peace and good order since he is not deliberately calling the student by the wrong pronoun or name but simply avoiding this issue. However, I also see how this student could feel targeted by the teacher purposefully dancing around his pronouns. In this case, it would affect peace and good order in this classroom. But, since he is choosing inaction and making an effort to call the student by their preferred name with respect, I believe that the teacher should not have been fired. He is asking not to say the pronouns, not the student's name. He is not misgendering the student but rather using more general pronouns I assume.
I too see both sides and think freedom of speech needs to be considered in this case. However, I think protecting children is important, and as Alyssa said the teachers are the ones who hold the power in the classroom. With this in mind, I think the teacher has a responsibility to make sure the student feels safe. By refusing to use pronouns even if the teacher will call the student by their name can still be seen as an attack on their identity.
There is a reason this case is challenging to decide on. It presents a difficult balance between protecting a teacher's rights to free speech and religion and respecting a student’s identity. While using the preferred pronouns for students is essential for inclusion, the teacher having to say something that conflicts with their values and beliefs raises concerns regarding the First Amendment. Vlaming’s approach to the situation was using the student's name, which showed respect toward the student while not conflicting with his values. I think an accommodation was shown, and punishing the teacher for what he didn’t say seems excessive.
As aforementioned in the comments, this is a controversial case with reasonable agreements from both sides. With that being said, the basic facts of this case reveal that Vlaming was fired for refusing to use pronouns altogether, not for misgendering or outwardly disrespecting a student. Allowing the government to control what must be said or not said, especially when it entangles religious beliefs, like Vlaming, can create a dangerously close line between church and state. Vlaming created what he believed to be a fair compromise to respect both the student and his personal religious beliefs. Due to Vlaming’s true effort in accommodating the student, while also respecting his own convictions, I believe firing him was unnecessary. I believe that firing Vlaming sets a dangerous precedent for when schools, and other government funded institutions, are able to terminate the employment of their employees given their lack of compliance to certain rules for religious purposes.
I'd like to introduce a different approach to this case. This case is very similar to a case in which I posted about a few weeks ago where a physicians assistant was fired because she refused to administer gender affirming care and admit that their is more than two genders. She was an employee at a private hospital and also agreed to compromise by referring these patients to another doctor. I believe this was a valid compromise in this setting. The difference in this case is the teacher is an employee at a public school, not a private hospital, which is supposed to be religiously neutral during school hours. If a public servant is refusing to call a student by the correct pronouns due to their religious beliefs, then they are expressing their religious beliefs on a student who disagrees with them, and therefore this violates the Establishment Clause. The expression of religious beliefs from a public school teacher should not be allowed because of a possible excessive entanglement of the church and state. I firmly believe that the compromise is a valid idea that could easily be accepted, but in terms of constitutionality, I believe it's in violation.
I believe that firing Vlaming sets a dangerous precedent that teachers and public officials can be punished for refusing to act upon things that violate their religious beliefs or personal inhibitions. Vlaming was acting within his right and with reasonable responsibility as both a role model for his students and someone of christian faith, who resorted to a tertiary method to circumvent the usage of pronouns, which was unnecessarily acted upon by the school administration. This calls into question what a professional can be forced to say and do under the guise of fairness and equality.
I do not believe that Vlaming should be fired from the school for refusing to refer to a student using their preferred pronouns. While discriminating against a student for their gender identity is unconstitutional, I do not believe it can be considered discriminatory to refer to a student by their name rather than their pronouns if it is against one's religion. If Vlaming were personally attacking the student for his choice to identify as male, ridiculing his identity, this would be considered a different issue; the conscious choice to avoid pronoun usage to avoid making a student uncomfortable while remaining true to one's own religious beliefs is the only way to coexist with the student without completely compromising one of their lifestyles.
Vlaming should not have been fired from the school. He did not discriminate against his student by referring to them by their biological pronouns. If his religious beliefs are that one must be and will always be the gender/sex that they were born as, than the school cannot impede on his right to freely exercise his ideology and force him to use certain language. However, if Vlaming was being directly discriminatory towards said student by making fun of their decisions or treating them differently, then there would be grounds to further investigate his actions.
Post a Comment