This. There aren’t laws about every tiny detail of life. The broad rule is going to be that the school can dictate policy and require teachers to comply. The whole reason the teacher is going for the “it’s my religion” angle is because it’s the only way she can shoehorn her personal pet hate into a category which gives her legal protection.
When my daughter was in grade school, she delighted in informing me about the trials and tribulations of ChickenWing. A troubled classmate had “changed her name” to ChickenWing and refused to answer to any other name.
When the teacher called her “Stephanie” (or whatever), ChickenWing would stand up and leave school, walking home. Meetings with her parents, after school suspension, attempts at reasoning with her, etc all failed.
Eventually ChickenWing stopped coming to school. Her parents were fined, but they couldn’t control their child and eventually moved her to a school for problematic students.
Legally you are incorrect. Teachers have their freedom of speech limited but not eliminated.
This past August, I was busy registering new students to our district, and I had this experience.
Me: “The child’s last name?”
Her: “Love”
Me: “The child’s first name?”
Her: “Tough”
Me: [laughing] “I’m sorry ma’am, I can’t use nicknames in Powerschool. State law requires I use the name on the child’s birth certificate.”
Her: [really annoyed] “That is his name on his birth certificate!”
Me: [snickering under my breath] “I see, ma’am, is that t-o-u-g-h?”
Teachers and names aside, this whole legal concept of “religious freedom” has been effectively weaponized by some on the right. It is used as a magic phrase for any opportunity to treat those that have been deemed “others” poorly. Deeply unfortunately, some on our SCOTUS are at the forefront of this movement.
I would love to see creative sorts on the left find countervailing areas to use the same legal arguments. But, it seems that it is a particular trait of those on the right to want to be a dick to others, and those of the left do not inherit that gene.
I’m torn on this issue. On the one hand, a teacher should respect a student’s preferences, whether that means “Tom” instead of “Thomas”, or “Frank” instead of “Anthony”*, or “Mario” instead of “Mary”. And the “freedom of religion” angle here is frankly ludicrous. On the other hand, I do see a First Amendment issue here, not of freedom of religion, but of freedom of speech (especially so since most teachers are government employees). I imagine that any teacher who revels in exercising their right to call students whatever they want is probably a bad teacher in many other ways, and those other ways might be actionable.
Hm, how about this: Let the teachers call the students whatever they want. But also inform the students that they can call the teacher whatever they want. “Excuse me, Ms. Shithead, is the answer y=-12?” And then, when the teacher starts giving out detentions for disrespect, explain to the teacher that the students have a right to free speech, and discipline the teacher for giving out frivolous detentions.
*I do have three students this year who refuse to answer to the name on their birth certificate and in the official records, and who instead go by a different name of the same gender. I don’t know why, and I don’t need to know why: I just need to know to call them the name they answer to.
Pamela Ricard (I think it important to name bigoted assholes), the teacher in the OP’s case, is not the first teacher to file such a suit. Nicholas K. Meriwether, a kindred bigoted asshole spirit at a small university in Ohio, won his lawsuit against the university after he mis-gendered a student and was afraid he would get fired if he continued to do so.
The gist of the Court’s analysis (putting aside the clear rhetorical assertions that paint the student as aggressive, the school as un-accomodating, and the professor as a reasonable and saintly martyr. Seriously, the opinion is that bad), was that professors have a free-exercise/free speech right even while teaching. This extends to include how they teach, including the use of pronouns they use in their class. And that professor’s interest outweighs the school’s interest in “stopping discrimination against transgendered students”, because that’s not really a thing, and because the student was strong enough to succeed despite the professor’s actions.
As you can obviously surmise, I disagree with the ruling. From the heightening of “my religion requires me to be an asshole to students” to the downplaying of the need to protect transgendered students, the opinion reads more like screed than a legal opinion. But it does lay out the general framework for analysis.
As to our current bigot, so much will depend on the way the school district presents the rationale for the preferred pronouns policy. If they outline the experts’ opinions on the deleterious effects of discrimination against transgendered students (depression, lack of focus in school, suicide) and the need for safe, welcoming school for all students, there is a chance the judicial system will eventually wake up to the harms of discrimination and hate, like they did when finding “separate but equal” was inherently unequal. I really hope this education of the judiciary (and the public) will happen sooner rather than later.
If she wins I wonder how long before pronouncing Muslim names goes against her religion.
I’d be inclined to have a religious epiphany that all teachers must be referred to as “Mr. Asshole”, and then try to convert the rest of the student body.
Let’s see how long “religious freedom” lasts then.
I don’t have terribly strong opinions about this. I’m not at all concerned with just about any claims of “religious freedom.” I also think there is a heck of a lot of news/discussion about a pretty minuscule portion of the school population which is purportedly differently gendered minors. But I’d come down on the side of calling the kid whatever they wanted.
But I’m wondering whether this is a decision to be made in the classroom? Is it inappropriate for the teacher to call the kid by the name the kid is registered under? If the teacher has a roster saying “John”, that impresses me as somewhat of a reason not to call that kid “Jane.” If the parents and/or school admin feel strongly that the kid should be called Jane, couldn’t they change the kid’s registration records to reflect that?
Seriously do not get this. How is this any more a matter of religious freedom than any other matter of school policy such as wearing (or not wearing) uniforms or not bringing in peanuts. Can a school not make a teacher follow their policy on those either?
What exactly do you mean by that? Is it that you discount the claims of “religious freedom”? Or is it that you discount the concerns of others decrying the claims of “religious freedom”?
The Church of Satan have been at the forefront of this sort of thing, although I don’t think they’ve got any court cases going on names per se.
Aside from the bigoted case that brought this on, there should not be the expectation that a teacher refer to a student by a name that changes frequently. A teacher dealing with 100+ students has enough to do without having to remember that Hunter is going by Westly and Quinn is going by Sawyer until next week when they pick different names. Most mature people won’t pick different names every week, but some students will just because they think it’s funny or they want to cause trouble. If a student knows that a teacher can be disciplined for not using their name-of-the-day, some students will use different names expressly for the purpose of getting the teacher in trouble for not using it. If a student wants to be referred to as a different name there should be some official process, such as a parent making that change, rather than just a casual request.
I have a student who goes by a female name instead of her deadname. In the class we of course call her by her chosen name. Does the lady at the front desk, even though she sees the kid every day when she comes in? No. Is it a lot of skin off her back even though their records and such still list the new name (they’re in the process of being changed)? No. Especially if it’s noted on their IUP and will stop them from getting escalated. Obviously nicknames and non-serious requests can be ignored.
Sorry, I guess I needed to vent a bit.
I firmly reject the belief in anything supernatural, I am personally not a fan of any religion, and I don’t respect much of anything anyone does based on religious beliefs. But I think my personal antipathy towards religion is somewhat beyond this particular thread.
Many religious people - such as this teacher - rely on their beliefs as an acceptable reason to discriminate. My personal opinion is that one reason religion is so popular in parts of the US is because it is one of the few remaining areas of life in which one can freely discriminate.
That sounds reasonable, but remember that sometimes the assholes are the parents. If a student is trans and their parents refuse to recognize that, the school shouldn’t be obligated to help the parents bully the kid.
About 10% of my students this year have requested to be called by pronouns different from those they were assigned at birth (in most cases, “they”). A minority, to be sure, but I don’t think I’d call 10% “minuscule”, and it’s a lot larger than the number who’d do things like changing names every week just to be a nuisance.
And I know this because, in the first week of school, I gave the students a “getting to know you” questionnaire, which included (among other questions) “What name do you prefer to go by?”, and “What pronouns do you prefer to be used for you?”.
I think it’s generally accepted that, under the current law, a school would be required to make accommodations to its dress code for religious garb or grooming practices.
Other than among the “the only accommodation is resignation” crowd, I don’t think that’s been particularly controversial.
A ban on peanuts (at least, for allergy reasons) would almost certainly pass the undue hardship test, although, I suppose, I could imagine a reasonable accommodation.
Not on names, per se, but on the use of the claim of “religious freedom” as cover for all sorts of nonsense. “MY RELIGION TEACHES ME THAT PEOPLE UNDER 5’ 3” ARE MADE OF EDIBLE BROWNIES AND I MUST EAT THEM WITH STRAWBERRY SAUCE!"
Thank you for clarifying.