can the state tell the teacher they cannot call the student by any name they want?
And as the title alludes to a court case that this is a legal and not ethical question dealing with
limits to teacher freedom of speech
is there a safe harbor to using the student’s legal name
what limit or proof should there be to “I claim religious freedom.”
As for the last one, I think there should be some standard that the person needs to show how the policy interferes with their practice of their religious belief. I know of at least three people that claimed “religious exemption” that was in reality “I don’t want to be vaccinated”
As for the claim that the district can enforce a policy like this, Little Nemo claims yes but the district as an arm of the government it may be different for them than a private company. I also cannot help thinking that the Epperson decision enters into this although I’m not sure how.
Let’s throw one more variable in the ethics. Should it make a difference if it a high school student, especially junior or senior, developing awareness of their gender-identity as opposed to a primary (grades 1 - 3) student?
I came across an article a few years back about a boy who decided he wanted to become a female and wanted the school to change his name. The boy can be whatever they wants but I feel like they’re bullying the school system by demanding they change his record.
I’ve long thought that it should, but in talking about it with gay and trans adults, almost all of them knew that they were gay or trans from early childhood, and nothing really changed in that self-perception through puberty.
Do a lot of gay people/children wish to be called names other than their birth names? I’m neither gay nor trans/non-binary, but I thought the terms described quite different situations.
I’m not able to recall any of my gay friends/acquaintances using names that are different from their biological sex.
I readily admit to being FAR from an expert. I have a very close friend who is the faculty sponsor for a HS PRISM group. She is only one person (and heterosexual at that). But her impression is that very few of the nonbinary/transgendered/fluid students she has encountered over the years are truly demonstrating mindsets/behaviors that will be lifelong.
That isn’t to say we oughtn’t tolerate/encourage considerable exploration among youth, and show compassion to those who do not conform. But I also think it is appropriate to have some boundaries, and let the kids realize that they are free to not conform to societal norms, but shouldn’t expect the bulk of society to celebrate your nonconformity - or to conform themselves to make you happy/comfortable.
Hell, my kids are at least as hardcore non theists as I am. But from a very early age, we taught them that they have to decide when/where to express their lack of belief, and to not be surprised at the reactions they receive. So long as they have places in which their unconventional beliefs/behaviors are tolerated and celebrated, part of growing up is realizing the world really doesn’t give a damn about what a special flower you are.
Yes, they’re different situations. The point is that many people who are not typical know it from early childhood.
It’s just an extra data point. If people can accept that gay folk know that they’re gay early on, then people ought to be able to accept that transpeople know that they’re trans even as children.
People should be called what they want to be called. Official records are one thing, but in day-to-day personal interactions, you really can’t go wrong following that rule.
(Pause for Dopers to come up with ridiculous hypotheticals… “What if someone insists that you call him “Get on the floor, I have a gun!” and it must be pronounced at the top of your lungs?”)
It amazes me that there are people who think that recognizing this simple principle will lead to abuses like teachers being fired for forgetting that one of their 200 students changed their pronouns last weekend.
Why does it matter that it’s the teacher? The teacher is claiming that the school policy (which regulates the teacher’s behavior) violates her religious freedoms. She’s not arguing (at least per the article the OP) that the school’s toleration of student’s gender identity/expression violates her freedoms, but that the requiring her to address them in a certain way does.
Without commenting on the merits of any claim, the proper analogy is a teacher suing a school, that has a “no headwear for staff” policy, because he wants to wear a dastar or a colander. Win or lose, comparable or not, these are not unfamiliar issues.
If I’m a married lady and I want people to now call me Mrs. Jones instead of Ms. Smith as I was before, why is it a bigger problem to call me Janice instead of Jerome? (Obviously getting married is quite different than transitioning, but the amount of “disruption” for other people would seem to be the same.)
As far as most courts are concerned “because I said so” is about all the plaintiff needs to say to get free exercise protection. Using the case I cited above, Mr. Meriwether’s “religious belief” was stated thusly:
"And, like many people of faith, his religious convictions influence how he thinks about “human nature, marriage, gender, sexuality, morality, politics, and social issues.” Meriwether 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’s feelings or desires.” Id. He also believes that he cannot “affirm as true ideas and concepts that are not true.” The Court found no reason to go further onto it at this time. Somehow, using a requested pronoun that you disagree with is forcing you to “endorse” something you don’t believe in and thus you’re rights are violated.
With this standard, there is almost nothing that can’t be held to be a violation of a “sincerely held religious belief”. Whether it is baking a cake or using a kids preferred pronoun, there is literally nothing that a court won’t accept as a sincerely held religious belief. Unless, of course, it’s non-Christian. Then, it gets trickier
I think the name issue is really a red herring. The issue is whether a teacher should be respectful to their students. A teacher refusing to call a student Boaty McBoatface on his request is not being disrespectful they are simply maintaining discipline. However if a PE teacher started calling one of his students, fatty, or a English Lit. iteacher started calling a student of south Asian ancestry Gunga Din, or a coach purposely misgendered a Cis-male member of his team to open him to ridicule, then that teacher should be censored, for taking actions that are harmful to their students.
If there are complaints from the student they should be heard and conveyed to the teacher, if the harmful behavior continues that teacher should be disciplined just like any other harmful unprofessional behavior.
Transpeople are not merely non-conforming. That’s who they are. They shouldn’t have to hide from bigots or have to conform to keep some bigot happy/comfortable.
Way back in the 60s when I was in high school, the English teacher was going through our names on the first day of class. When she got to one of the kids he said the “rey” was silent. He was Jeff(rey).
He wasn’t the brightest bulb in the lamp, but I thought that was clever.
No, I don’t want any kid to be unnecessarily harmed, threatened, or ostracized. But it seems we are placing evermore tasks on our educators these days. When populations get well under 1%, it doesn’t break my heart to suggest that public schools need to little or nothing to afford special treatment to those kids.
I think the more proper analogy is that the school has a policy that says kids can wear what they want on their heads, and the teacher suing because her religion requires her to tell the student their hat is stupid.
Because its not their religious beliefs that are being infringed upon. Saying how a teacher refers to a child infringes on the teachers religious beliefs is ridiculous, its just a matter of school policy. If the school policy says children should be referred to as “The Honorable little sir/madam X” that might be a dumb policy in your opinion, but it does not infringe on your religious beliefs.
No, because that is a policy about the religious garb of the teacher Which, is of course, is a reasonable thing to claim infringement of religious belief about. Unlike the thing in the OP.
Their preference/behavior/whatever does not conform with the norms of the vast majority of society - including the vast majority of LBG people.
I don’t care enough about this subject to overly parse my every word choice to avoid troubling your sensitivity. Sorry.
Personally, I am perfectly happy with adults doing pretty much whatever they want to themselves and with any other consenting adult. Hell, I’m a hell of a lot more accepting of any nonbinary person that I am of your garden variety Trumpist or non-vaxxer.
That is sort of my point. Concentrating specifically on the name aspect and what to do about a student who wants to be called a joke name, is missing the broader picture of respect.